if Microsoft prevented people from doing said things then:
1. Nobody would use Windows. 2. Windows Longhorn would not be able to access shares and resources on Windows 2000/NT/XP hosts.
Consider, in a network with nothing but Longhorn, suppose performance was much faster for file transfers. In a mixed network with older machines, the "compatibility layer" would be a little slower, so performance is an issue. Sure, you can still access the other stuff, but you won't get the performance, or you won't get some "must have" feature.
Same thing they've done before, and I believe people and companies will mostly still be apathetic enough not to care and buy into the party line.
And, nothing prevents Microsoft from releasing, as part of security patches or OS updates, patches to XP (and maybe 2k?) with the ability to talk "natively" to Longhorn. So, when Longhorn is released, it "appears" to just seamlessly work, yet non-patched (i.e. non Microsoft) systems have problems. Those problems then become the justification to "upgrade" those machines to Longhorn as well.
As long as this will take to play out, there are plenty of things Microsoft can do to accomplish the goals of disrupting interoperability with non-Microsoft systems while minimizing the impact to those using their products.
Or, rather than profit motive or monopoly propagation, it could be option #3: Microsoft may just not want a repeat of the Eolas debacle where they get sued for something seemingly public domain 5 years down the road. Many companies (IBM comes to mind) maintain huge patent stables for precisely this purpose. There are many reasons companies patent things, ranging from the defensive to the offensive. Unfortunately it's hard to tell a priori what the actual reasons are.
Unfortunately Microsoft has already told us exactly what they plan to do. I forget which one of the "Haloween" documents it was, but in one of them they clearly made the point that the most effective tool to combat against Open Source software, including Linux, was through intellectual property, and specifically patents. In that light, the article makes perfect sense, including the reasons why Microsoft is patenting everything they can. It's just part of the war plan they have to battle Linux and Open Source software. What better way than to "innovate" in such a way that is incompatible with previous releases, and then patent the methodology so that it becomes difficult to impossible to create a competing method without violating a patent of some kind or another.
Odd, I thought it was because BillG only knew how to write in Basic, so the company had to keep a basic product alive so he could do some programming too.
The problem is not the cameras. The problem is the automated scanning and "investigation" of every person driving through there.
It would be different, at least in my opinion, if the information was recorded and stored for a week or so (three months seems excessive, though if the area has homes that are vacant for extended periods for people on long vacations, then it might make sense). Then, when a crime is reported in a certain area, the authorities could review the tapes of the activities that happened during that time frame and have a list of suspects to investigate.
The point is, the investigation occurs AFTER an event has happened, and is localized to cameras that were likely to capture something of value.
Would I like to be recorded? No, not really. However, I believe recording without investigation would be legal. I don't believe their proposed system is.
Seems like this takes the approach that everyone is guilty until they are proved, by a police scan of the license plates, to be innocent.
When they started doing random seatbelt and sobriety tests, they skirted the issue by making it "random", i.e. every 10th car or something, instead of based on "perception" by the officers. Since they were not checking everyone, it wasn't guilt until proven innocent, and since it was random, it wasn't targetting any specific group based on outside appearances.
Of course, in our post-9-11 loss of sensibility, I doubt anyone will seriously challenge this.
Benjamin Franklin has a couple of appropriate quotes:
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
And most appropriate of all:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
I am assuming (this is/., why would I actually READ the patent) the patent will be for "software" buttons on screens, and not the physical buttons. After all, how long has Palm used the power button to work as a light switch? And, I forget when the first cell-phones started using the End key as a power button. Not to mention the power button on modern PCs, push and hold for 4 seconds to turn off. The closest software only implementation I can think of are some of the palette options in graphic arts program. Seems like holding the mouse button down while clicking on a tool would pop up an option dialog for that tool.
True to a point, but the point in the article was that the sensor size overall is just as important, if not more so, than the MP count.
The 6 MP Canon Digital Rebel has a sensor about the size of an APS negative, whereas the new 8MP cams use a 2/3" sensor area. The end result, the 6 MP larger sensor area delivers a better quality image.
After seeing what that Canon sensor can do, I have to say I am finally ready to overlap digital and film. Especially with some of the high quality glass you can use with it.
MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, MSSQL, etc....
on
Why MySQL Grew So Fast
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Over the years I have been a user on PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle, and MSSQL, and an admin on PostgreSQL and MySQL.
Having said that, I prefer MySQL and PostgreSQL to both Oracle and MSSQL, in most situations. However, given my experience with MySQL and PostgreSQL, I am glad that I have returned to PostgreSQL.
Why PostgreSQL? Simple. I am able to use referential integrity, triggers, and foreign keys in my databases. I can use subqueries, and more. There are certain databases where the data integrity is the important part. Having the database enforce that integrity is cheap insurance. Having transaction support, including rollbacks, are great for operations that affect multiple tables. I also like the way Postgres strives for SQL compliance.
MySQL is improving. Everytime I check they are getting more and more support of things I consider critical. Especially in the last 9 months to a year. But not yet enough for me.
I was involved in a fairly large scale production system that used MySQL as its heart. Unfortunately, at the time, PostgreSQL just did not have the performance that was needed. And, the main DBA was a mysql zealot. With MySQL, we seemed to constantly have to figure out creative work arounds for what MySQL lacked. Table level locking was a headache. No referential integrity and lack of transactions were a nightmare.
I still see MySQL as the better solution when you need to serve text files via SQL really really fast. But, when you need to provide a specific level of accountability and traceability, PostgreSQL is still my choice.
This does nothing to legitimize the hack or the idea behind it. Rather, it does just the opposite: it makes it clear to all interested parties that the person or persons behind this are more interested in finding ways to subvert the system than working within it to improve it.
Not that I agree with what they are doing (for the record, I don't -- Apple appears to have made allowances for measured fair play), how is subverting the system instead of working within it different than any other kind of activism.
To take an extreme example, during the Civil Rights Movement time of the US, especially the South, there were laws that were bent on controlling one group of people. To fight against those laws, several people tried a variety of approaches. Even the peaceful marches were against those laws. They were clearly violating those laws in an effort to subvert the system of the time.
When the concept of fair use was created, it did not have any limits. So, some could argue that even measured fair use is not enough. Kind of like measured freedom, you can walk the street based on the schedule we dictate, but during that time your free to do as you wish as long as you don't violate any laws. I can see why some would be against this.
As I said, Apple has clearly stepped up to the plate and is providing a carefully thought out service to walk a fine line between those that want downloadable music and those that seek to squash it. For that effort, Apple should be commended and supported.
As I understand it, even Apple's DRM has the ability to be burned to CD. That means the CD can then be played anywhere, and that people can create their MP3s from that CD, as they would with any other CD. So, why is this needed again?
About the _ONLY_ thing I see this being useful for, is the case of someone buying music in the US, moving outside of the license area, and having their paid for music stop working. There was a story similar to that before on slashdot, though I believe the details, when they fully came out, came out in Apple's favor. That doesn't mean they always will. So, in an effort to stop paid for music from no longer working, yes, I suppose I can see value in removing the DRM for backups. But I also believe Apple addressed this issue, to some degree, back when that previous story came out.
The only thing I see here is that this is a slap in the face to Apple.
One of the biggest reasons is the sort function combined with [l]user error.
If a spreadsheet has more columns that fit on the screen, and is used by more than one person, at some point you can almost count on someone highlighting some, not all, of the columns and then sorting the highlighted columns, and saving the file. When that happens, the highlighted columns are sorted, the rest are left as is. Worst, the next person to use the file doesn't always realize the corruption has occurred.
This was a problem in Office 97 and earlier. I think it was a problem in Office 2k, but I don't remember. I have not tested this on Office XP or 2003.
I know VB provides a toolbox to develop applications with very little actual coding. And there are others. Of course, the article's reference reminded me more of NeXTstep's Objective C palette than VB's method for some reason.
Either way, more of the same "innovation" from M$ -- other people's ideas.
One thing I will give M$ -- by the third try, they usually have something pretty usable. On a fairly steady basis, by the third version of a new "idea" or product, they get it enough right that it becomes pretty usable. Must be nice to have all that monopoly money to support that model of product development.
Please explain how pocket, portable computing would have been possible even ten years ago.
Someone else already mentioned the Newton. Anyone remember the AT&T EO (I think that's what it was). They had 3 models. It was in effect a 5x7 or and 8.5x11 (rough dimensions, it's been a while) tablet. The "high end" model had a built in analog cell phone and I believe limited data capabilities.
Yes, it was held back by the processors available a the time, and it had software issues. But, so do most first generation products. The early adopters suffer, their feedback helps improve it, etc.
And, don't forget, it was early-to-mid 90s when USR came out with the first PalmPilot.
The point is, imagine where we would really be today with portable computing had Microsoft *NOT* held back innovation back then. Sure, we are just starting (last 3 years or so) to see some serious portable platforms, but most still complain about the software. I think it is pretty telling that M$ dropped their pen based initiative after Go disappeared. Shows what they (M$) were really after.
I only hope the judge in the US case is paying attention. Too bad the scope of the US trial was fairly tightly wound around just a single issue or two. That might prevent the judge from being able to do anything with this.
Hopefully more states will pick this up and use it for a new round of suits against M$. Imagine, all the money M$ has, a few serious settlements to the state coffers could help budget shortfalls, and if the settlements are large enough, lower taxes.:>
Anyone remember the humorous text file from the early 90s about Microsoft Food for Windows? I think I first found this around 92 to 93. About when M$ announced they were leaving OS/2 and then announce NT. Their attack on Go reminded me of this.
From the Newsgorge article: This will allow SCO to repurchase its shares from time to time in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the open market, in block trades and in privately negotiated transactions, depending on market conditions and other factors, the company said.
Does this mean SCO can buy the stock options from McBride and others without having to go through the publicly traded market? Would this be a way for the execs and other higher-ups to hide their dumping of stock? In a private trade, couldn't SCO pay *more* than market value if they wanted to?
I'm curious about some of the numbers in the article. It said 240 kg (109 lb) of fossil fuels (~18 gallons assuming gasoline), 22 kg of chemicals (10 lb), and 1,500 kg (680 lb) of water (~395 gallons I think) are used to make a single PC and 17" monitor.
OK, how do they arrive at those numbers? It seems like a staggering waste PER PC/MONITOR.
Can anyone sufficiently explain (or debunk) these numbers? Do these numbers include all the fossil fuels used to heat/cool the work environment? Include the admin part of the work? Include water used in toilets and for drinking?
If yes, what would the consumption rate be if no PCs were built? If no, does that mean these numbers are not as thorough as they'd have us believe, and the actual number is higher? Of course, if these are not that accurate already, what basis is there to believe the numbers they have now?
I'd really like to see more details on how these numbers were determined.
Here's a couple of questions for all you armchair lawyers (and real lawyers).
The carrier is contracted to provide a certain service to the customer, now they are saying if the customer does not want the service to get worse or become unusuable they have to change their phones. If they are making changes to the network that make phones that customers paid for no longer work, isn't that breach of contract? And, if they are forcing the upgrade, wouldn't they have to provide comparable phones instead of lesser models? And, aren't they breaking some kind of law or something forcing customers to sign a new (two year?) contract just to get equipment to be able to use the service that the carrier is already contracted to provide?
EB used to be OK. I bought several applications and other software tools from there years ago. Then they started turning into a game store. Slowly more and more shelf space was devoted to games. Seems like a new console was a new reason to clear more even more space for games only. I stopped going in there about 5 years ago. I still wander through about every year just to see if it has changed -- NOPE.
And now things like this.. Hmm. You know, this is one time where I kind of hope a lawyer out to make a name for himself just reams this company. Especially if it is proven that she really contacted the corporate level and was totally ignored.
At the very least, that store needs an ENTIRE staff change.
I couldn't find it with a quick Google, but this is almost just like something I read about several years ago.
It was a special "phone booth" that was targetted for bars and other places. Had special sounds like "Office chatter", "traffic", etc. I don't remember if it was a full booth (and soundproof) or not. I think it had like 4 or 6 sounds you could choose from. Of course, you had to pay for it, I think a $1 or $2 for the call. Never did get to see one in person.
I think I read about this about 10 years ago. Anyone else remember hearing (or better yet, see in person) one of these phone booths?
Just like this software it was meant to fool the people your talking to into thinking your somewhere else.
I was all set to get a server from Ev1servers, until I did more research.
I found many problem reports about them and decided against using them. This makes me even more glad I decided to bail from the order form.
Until there is a ruling from a judge, upheld by appeals, saying infringement has occurred, I am not willing to have ANY of my $$$ go to SCO for a "license" to use Linux, even indirectly though someone I do business with.
It's on the agenda for my next mailserver deployment. Hopefully others will implement it as well. Seems like a really good, vendor and ISP neutral idea that could really help make a difference. And it has (or had when I last read it) a good deployment plan that allowed for phased deployments and letting each receiving site determine the strictness of the implementation for receiving email from other sources.
If that's what Yahoo is rolling out, even better. If a critical mass can just get behind a single solution such as SPF, then it has a chance to make a difference. It we keep deploying vendor-based solutions, we don't make any progress.
It looks like the patents apply to what they did to allow long file names on top of the old FAT system, and appear dated in 1998 and 1999.
That would seem to imply that the FAT16 8.3 format could still be free to use. Long filenames, and possibly FAT32, might be targetted with this.
But, has M$ enforced this with anyone? What's the statute of limitations on failnig to enforce a patent before it becomes unenforceable? It would certainly seem to apply in this case -- after all, they "allow" their IP to be used on a variety of devices to the point it becomes a "standard" and THEN they claim IP licensing fees? Seems if they failed to enforce it until now, they gave indirect approval to use this particular IP without license fees.
If, on the other hand, they did take even minor efforts to protect their IP in this type of scenario, probably with "confidential" license agreements with a couple of companies, then the situation is totally different.
I know it is an unpopular view to maintain, but VonAge IS a phone company, they market themselves as a phone company, they provide the same services as a phone company, so they should pay the same fees and treated like other phone companies.
Just because they are use a different pipe into the home than a traditional telco should not exclude them from complying with the same rules and regulations a telco has to abide by.
If you don't like the rules VonAge has to live with, then attack the regulations themselves that apply to all phone companies.
VonAge is decidedly different than "voice" features in IM programs, or even outbound only low priced LD services. VonAge provides full featured, two way phone service. You get a phone number, people can call you if they are not on the Internet, and you can call people not on the Internet.
They've gotten a free ride long enough.
Other services are quite different. IM programs communicate between computers, or in some cases the computer user contacts a phone # somewhere. Other servicse provide out-bound only network to phone features. And so on. Each of these provides _some_ functionality of phone service, but not the full package. Thus, they should not get hit with telco regs or fees.
It could be argued that out-bound network to phone long distance services could be considered a long distance carrier and should comply with those regulations -- but that would all depend on the details of the service provided. A blanket generalized statement would cause more harm than good.
One thing further, if these services are considered telcos, then they should also be given common carrier status. If not, then they should not be considered a common carrier. If they are not a common carrier, then it opens them up to all kinds of legal nightmares, responsibility for content/control, possible liability, and more. You'd think they'd want to be a common carrier. They should not be allowed to claim "common carrier" and be excluded from phone company regulations.
First, I suggest notifying your customers that "a monitoring services company" is using poor standard practices that resulted in what mimicked a denial of service attack on the servers that hosted their domain(s). Once identified, the offending IP addresses were blocked by firewalls to prevent similar attacks in the future. That your company contacted this service provider and advised them of their poor practices and you offered suggestions on improving their practices, which they summarily refused to even listen to. Third, if your customers are on a measured bandwidth plan, did this cause any of them to go over their alotted bandwidth? If so, advise your customers that this company's actions and poor practices will now cost them $X on their current bandwidth bill. If necessary, project it out for a full month, then tell them it _would have_ cost them $X on their current bill. If anyone gets a bill for exceeding their bandwidth, ask them if they'd like to join you if you take civil action against the "services" company. [Hmm, you might ask all customers that suffered due to the outage, not just the customers of the service company, if they'd be interested in a class action suit too.]
Now, since you notified this "services" company that their actions caused problems that worked just like a denial of service attack, and they refused to alter their behavior, then treat them like they are attacking your systems. Call the authorities. Charge them with whatever criminal counts you can. Take them to civil court, charge them for the damages the outage you suffered due to their actions caused you. Invite your customers to join your action for any bandwidth charges that resulted, if any.
You'll really need to consult an attorney about these ideas. Plus, you'll need to have very good documentation. Such as who you spoke with at the services company, date, and time, and notes on what they said.
Also, in any communication, do like you did with this posting and do not name the company. Once you file a court case, then you may name the company since then the court case will be a public document. At least, you'll be able to say your taking legal action against XYZ.
Slashdot Mirror
if Microsoft prevented people from doing said things then:
1. Nobody would use Windows.
2. Windows Longhorn would not be able to access shares and resources on Windows 2000/NT/XP hosts.
Consider, in a network with nothing but Longhorn, suppose performance was much faster for file transfers. In a mixed network with older machines, the "compatibility layer" would be a little slower, so performance is an issue. Sure, you can still access the other stuff, but you won't get the performance, or you won't get some "must have" feature.
Same thing they've done before, and I believe people and companies will mostly still be apathetic enough not to care and buy into the party line.
And, nothing prevents Microsoft from releasing, as part of security patches or OS updates, patches to XP (and maybe 2k?) with the ability to talk "natively" to Longhorn. So, when Longhorn is released, it "appears" to just seamlessly work, yet non-patched (i.e. non Microsoft) systems have problems. Those problems then become the justification to "upgrade" those machines to Longhorn as well.
As long as this will take to play out, there are plenty of things Microsoft can do to accomplish the goals of disrupting interoperability with non-Microsoft systems while minimizing the impact to those using their products.
Or, rather than profit motive or monopoly propagation, it could be option #3: Microsoft may just not want a repeat of the Eolas debacle where they get sued for something seemingly public domain 5 years down the road. Many companies (IBM comes to mind) maintain huge patent stables for precisely this purpose.
There are many reasons companies patent things, ranging from the defensive to the offensive. Unfortunately it's hard to tell a priori what the actual reasons are.
Unfortunately Microsoft has already told us exactly what they plan to do. I forget which one of the "Haloween" documents it was, but in one of them they clearly made the point that the most effective tool to combat against Open Source software, including Linux, was through intellectual property, and specifically patents.
In that light, the article makes perfect sense, including the reasons why Microsoft is patenting everything they can. It's just part of the war plan they have to battle Linux and Open Source software. What better way than to "innovate" in such a way that is incompatible with previous releases, and then patent the methodology so that it becomes difficult to impossible to create a competing method without violating a patent of some kind or another.
Odd, I thought it was because BillG only knew how to write in Basic, so the company had to keep a basic product alive so he could do some programming too.
The problem is not the cameras. The problem is the automated scanning and "investigation" of every person driving through there.
It would be different, at least in my opinion, if the information was recorded and stored for a week or so (three months seems excessive, though if the area has homes that are vacant for extended periods for people on long vacations, then it might make sense). Then, when a crime is reported in a certain area, the authorities could review the tapes of the activities that happened during that time frame and have a list of suspects to investigate.
The point is, the investigation occurs AFTER an event has happened, and is localized to cameras that were likely to capture something of value.
Would I like to be recorded? No, not really. However, I believe recording without investigation would be legal. I don't believe their proposed system is.
Seems like this takes the approach that everyone is guilty until they are proved, by a police scan of the license plates, to be innocent.
When they started doing random seatbelt and sobriety tests, they skirted the issue by making it "random", i.e. every 10th car or something, instead of based on "perception" by the officers. Since they were not checking everyone, it wasn't guilt until proven innocent, and since it was random, it wasn't targetting any specific group based on outside appearances.
Of course, in our post-9-11 loss of sensibility, I doubt anyone will seriously challenge this.
Benjamin Franklin has a couple of appropriate quotes:
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
And most appropriate of all:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
I am assuming (this is /., why would I actually READ the patent) the patent will be for "software" buttons on screens, and not the physical buttons. After all, how long has Palm used the power button to work as a light switch? And, I forget when the first cell-phones started using the End key as a power button. Not to mention the power button on modern PCs, push and hold for 4 seconds to turn off. The closest software only implementation I can think of are some of the palette options in graphic arts program. Seems like holding the mouse button down while clicking on a tool would pop up an option dialog for that tool.
True to a point, but the point in the article was that the sensor size overall is just as important, if not more so, than the MP count.
The 6 MP Canon Digital Rebel has a sensor about the size of an APS negative, whereas the new 8MP cams use a 2/3" sensor area. The end result, the 6 MP larger sensor area delivers a better quality image.
After seeing what that Canon sensor can do, I have to say I am finally ready to overlap digital and film. Especially with some of the high quality glass you can use with it.
Over the years I have been a user on PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle, and MSSQL, and an admin on PostgreSQL and MySQL.
Having said that, I prefer MySQL and PostgreSQL to both Oracle and MSSQL, in most situations. However, given my experience with MySQL and PostgreSQL, I am glad that I have returned to PostgreSQL.
Why PostgreSQL? Simple. I am able to use referential integrity, triggers, and foreign keys in my databases. I can use subqueries, and more. There are certain databases where the data integrity is the important part. Having the database enforce that integrity is cheap insurance. Having transaction support, including rollbacks, are great for operations that affect multiple tables. I also like the way Postgres strives for SQL compliance.
MySQL is improving. Everytime I check they are getting more and more support of things I consider critical. Especially in the last 9 months to a year. But not yet enough for me.
I was involved in a fairly large scale production system that used MySQL as its heart. Unfortunately, at the time, PostgreSQL just did not have the performance that was needed. And, the main DBA was a mysql zealot. With MySQL, we seemed to constantly have to figure out creative work arounds for what MySQL lacked. Table level locking was a headache. No referential integrity and lack of transactions were a nightmare.
I still see MySQL as the better solution when you need to serve text files via SQL really really fast. But, when you need to provide a specific level of accountability and traceability, PostgreSQL is still my choice.
This does nothing to legitimize the hack or the idea behind it. Rather, it does just the opposite: it makes it clear to all interested parties that the person or persons behind this are more interested in finding ways to subvert the system than working within it to improve it.
Not that I agree with what they are doing (for the record, I don't -- Apple appears to have made allowances for measured fair play), how is subverting the system instead of working within it different than any other kind of activism.
To take an extreme example, during the Civil Rights Movement time of the US, especially the South, there were laws that were bent on controlling one group of people. To fight against those laws, several people tried a variety of approaches. Even the peaceful marches were against those laws. They were clearly violating those laws in an effort to subvert the system of the time.
When the concept of fair use was created, it did not have any limits. So, some could argue that even measured fair use is not enough. Kind of like measured freedom, you can walk the street based on the schedule we dictate, but during that time your free to do as you wish as long as you don't violate any laws. I can see why some would be against this.
As I said, Apple has clearly stepped up to the plate and is providing a carefully thought out service to walk a fine line between those that want downloadable music and those that seek to squash it. For that effort, Apple should be commended and supported.
As I understand it, even Apple's DRM has the ability to be burned to CD. That means the CD can then be played anywhere, and that people can create their MP3s from that CD, as they would with any other CD. So, why is this needed again?
About the _ONLY_ thing I see this being useful for, is the case of someone buying music in the US, moving outside of the license area, and having their paid for music stop working. There was a story similar to that before on slashdot, though I believe the details, when they fully came out, came out in Apple's favor. That doesn't mean they always will. So, in an effort to stop paid for music from no longer working, yes, I suppose I can see value in removing the DRM for backups. But I also believe Apple addressed this issue, to some degree, back when that previous story came out.
The only thing I see here is that this is a slap in the face to Apple.
One of the biggest reasons is the sort function combined with [l]user error.
If a spreadsheet has more columns that fit on the screen, and is used by more than one person, at some point you can almost count on someone highlighting some, not all, of the columns and then sorting the highlighted columns, and saving the file. When that happens, the highlighted columns are sorted, the rest are left as is. Worst, the next person to use the file doesn't always realize the corruption has occurred.
This was a problem in Office 97 and earlier. I think it was a problem in Office 2k, but I don't remember. I have not tested this on Office XP or 2003.
I know VB provides a toolbox to develop applications with very little actual coding. And there are others. Of course, the article's reference reminded me more of NeXTstep's Objective C palette than VB's method for some reason.
Either way, more of the same "innovation" from M$ -- other people's ideas.
One thing I will give M$ -- by the third try, they usually have something pretty usable. On a fairly steady basis, by the third version of a new "idea" or product, they get it enough right that it becomes pretty usable. Must be nice to have all that monopoly money to support that model of product development.
So if I want _MY_ server to be "legitimate" I have to cough up two grand and pay them?
I don't think so!
Typical AC crap.
:>
Please explain how pocket, portable computing would have been possible even ten years ago.
Someone else already mentioned the Newton. Anyone remember the AT&T EO (I think that's what it was). They had 3 models. It was in effect a 5x7 or and 8.5x11 (rough dimensions, it's been a while) tablet. The "high end" model had a built in analog cell phone and I believe limited data capabilities.
Yes, it was held back by the processors available a the time, and it had software issues. But, so do most first generation products. The early adopters suffer, their feedback helps improve it, etc.
And, don't forget, it was early-to-mid 90s when USR came out with the first PalmPilot.
The point is, imagine where we would really be today with portable computing had Microsoft *NOT* held back innovation back then. Sure, we are just starting (last 3 years or so) to see some serious portable platforms, but most still complain about the software. I think it is pretty telling that M$ dropped their pen based initiative after Go disappeared. Shows what they (M$) were really after.
I only hope the judge in the US case is paying attention. Too bad the scope of the US trial was fairly tightly wound around just a single issue or two. That might prevent the judge from being able to do anything with this.
Hopefully more states will pick this up and use it for a new round of suits against M$. Imagine, all the money M$ has, a few serious settlements to the state coffers could help budget shortfalls, and if the settlements are large enough, lower taxes.
Anyone remember the humorous text file from the early 90s about Microsoft Food for Windows? I think I first found this around 92 to 93. About when M$ announced they were leaving OS/2 and then announce NT. Their attack on Go reminded me of this.
From the Newsgorge article:
This will allow SCO to repurchase its shares from time to time in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the open market, in block trades and in privately negotiated transactions, depending on market conditions and other factors, the company said.
Does this mean SCO can buy the stock options from McBride and others without having to go through the publicly traded market? Would this be a way for the execs and other higher-ups to hide their dumping of stock? In a private trade, couldn't SCO pay *more* than market value if they wanted to?
That's what I get for doing all that without any sleep. Grr. Thanks for correcting me.
I'm curious about some of the numbers in the article. It said 240 kg (109 lb) of fossil fuels (~18 gallons assuming gasoline), 22 kg of chemicals (10 lb), and 1,500 kg (680 lb) of water (~395 gallons I think) are used to make a single PC and 17" monitor.
OK, how do they arrive at those numbers? It seems like a staggering waste PER PC/MONITOR.
Can anyone sufficiently explain (or debunk) these numbers? Do these numbers include all the fossil fuels used to heat/cool the work environment? Include the admin part of the work? Include water used in toilets and for drinking?
If yes, what would the consumption rate be if no PCs were built? If no, does that mean these numbers are not as thorough as they'd have us believe, and the actual number is higher? Of course, if these are not that accurate already, what basis is there to believe the numbers they have now?
I'd really like to see more details on how these numbers were determined.
Here's a couple of questions for all you armchair lawyers (and real lawyers).
The carrier is contracted to provide a certain service to the customer, now they are saying if the customer does not want the service to get worse or become unusuable they have to change their phones. If they are making changes to the network that make phones that customers paid for no longer work, isn't that breach of contract? And, if they are forcing the upgrade, wouldn't they have to provide comparable phones instead of lesser models? And, aren't they breaking some kind of law or something forcing customers to sign a new (two year?) contract just to get equipment to be able to use the service that the carrier is already contracted to provide?
This just seems wrong in so MANY ways.
EB used to be OK. I bought several applications and other software tools from there years ago. Then they started turning into a game store. Slowly more and more shelf space was devoted to games. Seems like a new console was a new reason to clear more even more space for games only. I stopped going in there about 5 years ago. I still wander through about every year just to see if it has changed -- NOPE.
And now things like this.. Hmm. You know, this is one time where I kind of hope a lawyer out to make a name for himself just reams this company. Especially if it is proven that she really contacted the corporate level and was totally ignored.
At the very least, that store needs an ENTIRE staff change.
I couldn't find it with a quick Google, but this is almost just like something I read about several years ago.
It was a special "phone booth" that was targetted for bars and other places. Had special sounds like "Office chatter", "traffic", etc. I don't remember if it was a full booth (and soundproof) or not. I think it had like 4 or 6 sounds you could choose from. Of course, you had to pay for it, I think a $1 or $2 for the call. Never did get to see one in person.
I think I read about this about 10 years ago. Anyone else remember hearing (or better yet, see in person) one of these phone booths?
Just like this software it was meant to fool the people your talking to into thinking your somewhere else.
People that use the search engines appreciate NOT having paid placements confused with real placements.
Yahoo isn't even really out of the gate and they already miss the point that brings people to the search engine to begin with.
Probably the best news Google had today.
I was all set to get a server from Ev1servers, until I did more research.
I found many problem reports about them and decided against using them. This makes me even more glad I decided to bail from the order form.
Until there is a ruling from a judge, upheld by appeals, saying infringement has occurred, I am not willing to have ANY of my $$$ go to SCO for a "license" to use Linux, even indirectly though someone I do business with.
One of the best solutions I've seen has been the SPF (Sender Permitted From) idea previously mentioned here and here.
It's on the agenda for my next mailserver deployment. Hopefully others will implement it as well. Seems like a really good, vendor and ISP neutral idea that could really help make a difference. And it has (or had when I last read it) a good deployment plan that allowed for phased deployments and letting each receiving site determine the strictness of the implementation for receiving email from other sources.
If that's what Yahoo is rolling out, even better. If a critical mass can just get behind a single solution such as SPF, then it has a chance to make a difference. It we keep deploying vendor-based solutions, we don't make any progress.
It looks like the patents apply to what they did to allow long file names on top of the old FAT system, and appear dated in 1998 and 1999.
That would seem to imply that the FAT16 8.3 format could still be free to use. Long filenames, and possibly FAT32, might be targetted with this.
But, has M$ enforced this with anyone? What's the statute of limitations on failnig to enforce a patent before it becomes unenforceable? It would certainly seem to apply in this case -- after all, they "allow" their IP to be used on a variety of devices to the point it becomes a "standard" and THEN they claim IP licensing fees? Seems if they failed to enforce it until now, they gave indirect approval to use this particular IP without license fees.
If, on the other hand, they did take even minor efforts to protect their IP in this type of scenario, probably with "confidential" license agreements with a couple of companies, then the situation is totally different.
Any one know what the real status of this is?
I know it is an unpopular view to maintain, but VonAge IS a phone company, they market themselves as a phone company, they provide the same services as a phone company, so they should pay the same fees and treated like other phone companies.
Just because they are use a different pipe into the home than a traditional telco should not exclude them from complying with the same rules and regulations a telco has to abide by.
If you don't like the rules VonAge has to live with, then attack the regulations themselves that apply to all phone companies.
VonAge is decidedly different than "voice" features in IM programs, or even outbound only low priced LD services. VonAge provides full featured, two way phone service. You get a phone number, people can call you if they are not on the Internet, and you can call people not on the Internet.
They've gotten a free ride long enough.
Other services are quite different. IM programs communicate between computers, or in some cases the computer user contacts a phone # somewhere. Other servicse provide out-bound only network to phone features. And so on. Each of these provides _some_ functionality of phone service, but not the full package. Thus, they should not get hit with telco regs or fees.
It could be argued that out-bound network to phone long distance services could be considered a long distance carrier and should comply with those regulations -- but that would all depend on the details of the service provided. A blanket generalized statement would cause more harm than good.
One thing further, if these services are considered telcos, then they should also be given common carrier status. If not, then they should not be considered a common carrier. If they are not a common carrier, then it opens them up to all kinds of legal nightmares, responsibility for content/control, possible liability, and more. You'd think they'd want to be a common carrier. They should not be allowed to claim "common carrier" and be excluded from phone company regulations.
First, I suggest notifying your customers that "a monitoring services company" is using poor standard practices that resulted in what mimicked a denial of service attack on the servers that hosted their domain(s). Once identified, the offending IP addresses were blocked by firewalls to prevent similar attacks in the future. That your company contacted this service provider and advised them of their poor practices and you offered suggestions on improving their practices, which they summarily refused to even listen to. Third, if your customers are on a measured bandwidth plan, did this cause any of them to go over their alotted bandwidth? If so, advise your customers that this company's actions and poor practices will now cost them $X on their current bandwidth bill. If necessary, project it out for a full month, then tell them it _would have_ cost them $X on their current bill. If anyone gets a bill for exceeding their bandwidth, ask them if they'd like to join you if you take civil action against the "services" company. [Hmm, you might ask all customers that suffered due to the outage, not just the customers of the service company, if they'd be interested in a class action suit too.]
Now, since you notified this "services" company that their actions caused problems that worked just like a denial of service attack, and they refused to alter their behavior, then treat them like they are attacking your systems. Call the authorities. Charge them with whatever criminal counts you can. Take them to civil court, charge them for the damages the outage you suffered due to their actions caused you. Invite your customers to join your action for any bandwidth charges that resulted, if any.
You'll really need to consult an attorney about these ideas. Plus, you'll need to have very good documentation. Such as who you spoke with at the services company, date, and time, and notes on what they said.
Also, in any communication, do like you did with this posting and do not name the company. Once you file a court case, then you may name the company since then the court case will be a public document. At least, you'll be able to say your taking legal action against XYZ.