I haven't seen that behavior, the only incompatibility I see is when someone sends me a file that is newer than my version. This is easily resolved by downloading the viewer from Microsoft if I can't get the document any other way.
If you ask me Microsoft is playing fast and loose and needs to smacked down hard, because they are doing the same exact monopoly actions that got them convicted by the US and EU.
No they're not, paying a university to use their products is not the same as bundling a browser and media player with their operating system.
M$ is trying to get away with marketing unscriptable office apps once again (Office 365 doesn't support VBA macros).
Don't worry, it's online, there are way better options for scripting than VBA. There is always a better option than VBA. Javascript shines like a Grail-Shaped Beacon next to VBA.
Things only get interesting when users have access to automation and an easy-to-use programming language like VBA.
The explosion of things like Wordpress shows that not only would people rather download something pre-made than make it themselves, but there's also a commercial market for programmers willing to do the work and compete.
Actually, the 250K is a payment. The actual article states that it is to be used to pay for consulting services,etc. Sounds like if Microsoft is making funds available, that it isn't a discount, but a payment.
If you're going to put it that way, then I'll point out that Microsoft is only paying them to help convert them from Lotus to Office, they aren't paying them to actually use Office. They're paying to get them off of Lotus, which I'm pretty sure qualifies as a charitable contribution.
On thing about commercial software, they can't tolerate these bugs because they get sued class action style.
Have you seriously never read any EULA? Just about the first thing they say is that you can't sue them for damages caused by their product, that they don't warranty anything.
I suspected as much when the phrase "a pre-infected state" was used, but it still raises an interesting point that there's not a reliable disinfection procedure. I've worked on some pretty horrendous machines for "friends" (friendly when they need computer help) where I've often wanted to just reinstall and be done with it. I've always managed to track down a disinfection procedure online for the specific things the machines were infected with (often with help from people like the folks at the dlsreports.com security fora). I can't say that I remember being faced with an infection where the only solution is to nuke it, so that's new.
"Monkeys have been shown in previous studies to really love photographs of alpha males and shots of genitals, and we think this will drive their purchasing habits."
I have a small request. In the summary, your company is referred to as a "voice 2.0" company. Could you guys please refrain from using terms like that? It comes across as a little "douchey". Thanks.
Well, many people might be double counted. If you use google at home and at work, you were probably double counted.
For every guy in the US who uses 3 or 4 computers every day, there's an internet cafe in some poorer area in another country serving hundreds or thousands of customers, all on the same set of computers.
They actually paid the extortion (told authorities after). The authorities said the company could be charged with supporting Terrorists.
So "the authorities" can prove that the criminals are in fact terrorists, and that the money made it to them, right? But they can't catch them, is that also right?
Once you've made the browser so big that it encompasses all possible generic operating system needs, it is too bloated and someone else makes a smaller faster better browser.
Now there's a thought.. Mozilla can wait until everyone else gets all bloated, then they can launch a new project to create a fast, lightweight standalone browser without all the bloat of their current offering.
Thanks. Would the GPU have a single, multi-stage pipeline (with apparently a lot more stages than a CPU), or does it actually have multple pipelines? Or maybe just a ton of small cores? I'm confused about where the parallelity (technical term) actually gets implemented in the hardware.
Even though it's a dupe, why are GPUs so much faster than CPUs at this? It doesn't seem like they have any more power, is the architecture that different from CPUs? Is it an issue where you can basically dedicate all resources (GPUs plus VRAM) to the one task?
No, but it's a huge fucking stretch to assume it's even remotely likely.
For certain values of "huge", apparently. Eye of the beholder, and all that. I personally don't see it as that much of a stretch. Nothing that improves Apple's bottom line is ever a stretch.
[citation needed]
Really? Are you willfully ignorant, or is it not by choice? Explain how the iPhone exclusivity deal with AT&T, whereby iPhone customers are not free to choose their own carrier, is good for the customers. This is the same argument that Sony and other companies gave with regard to DRM, that DRM was there to "help consumers manage their rights", instead of screwing legitimate customers for the benefit of the content industry. The exclusivity deal does not help Apple customers, the customers are screwed for the benefit of Apple and AT&T.
Apple makes the agreements it needs to in order to gain access to important third party goods and services.
Hey man, you can justify it all you want. If Apple requires user agent strings to be accurate, I'm sure you'll be saying that they needed to do that in order to "gain access to important third-party goods and services." Namely, the money of third-parties going into Apple's account. Apple didn't need to make an agreement with AT&T, they could have opened up the iPhone to all carriers and all of them, every single one, would have been scrambling for it. I would love to quote a number for you about how much AT&T paid Apple for that privilege, but the contract between them that affects you as their customer is not public. You seem pretty OK about that, though. You're trying to get people to come up with actual scenarios whereby Apple would make a change like this, but those agreements are not, and never have been, public.
And your lumping together of "attacks and defenses" is unreasonable.
It's not "unreasonable" to call fanboys fanboys. The Apple-bashing fanboys pile on, and the Apple-defending fanboys are right behind them.
Um... There's no reason to attack them. The attacks are the reason to defend them.
And why do you feel the need to defend them? If the attacks are not based on fact, why not just ignore them? Why is it worth your time to defend Apple? If no one bothered to defend them, the attacks would stop.
There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
C'mon, that's not difficult. The only reason Apple needs is some sort of agreement, probably involving money changing hands, with any content publishing industry. The only rule they need to add to the software requirements is that any web browser needs to state the correct device and OS version in the user agent string. It's not exactly a stretch to assume that's possible. Apple likes its agreements with third parties, even if they screw the customers.
That being said, this entire thread is a joke. This is an article about a web site doing browser sniffing, and it devolves into attacks and defenses on Apple has a company. This has nothing to do with Apple, this is a story about the New York Post doing browser sniffing. They are trying out a business model where they target users on specific devices and try to force them to use a native application to access the content instead. If people start spoofing the user agent to get around the content then that just shows the business model isn't perfect. If Apple introduces regulations that favor the business model after people show they don't like it, THEN (and only then) will Apple be an ass about this. They've been an ass in the past, and they probably will continue to be in the future, but they haven't done anything wrong with regard to this specific issue and there's no reason to either attack them over it OR defend them over it.
Windows doesn't ship with GCC, due to the fact that roughly 99.99% of computer users don't know what it is. But don't worry, because anyone who knows what GCC even is in the first place also knows how to get it. Or one of the other compilers for Windows, for that matter.
But I can say with a decent level of certainty that Windows will never require you to install applications only from "trusted sources", such as a store run by Microsoft, where all applications get approved by Microsoft. I can't say the same for OS X with any certainty.
You're also allowed to buy a copy of Windows and install it on any machine you damn well please. Not the case with OS X, sorry, you're not free to do that with your largely open-source OS that comes with GCC. That's OK though, because "most" of it is open source, and it comes with GCC. Right? Or, wait: you wouldn't install it on any non-Apple hardware anyway, would you? Yeah, that's the ticket. You don't need freedom, because you wouldn't use it anyway. Good argument.
Slashdot Mirror
No; in her house at CNN, dead Nancy Grace waits dreaming.
I haven't seen that behavior, the only incompatibility I see is when someone sends me a file that is newer than my version. This is easily resolved by downloading the viewer from Microsoft if I can't get the document any other way.
If you ask me Microsoft is playing fast and loose and needs to smacked down hard, because they are doing the same exact monopoly actions that got them convicted by the US and EU.
No they're not, paying a university to use their products is not the same as bundling a browser and media player with their operating system.
Why software is allowed to be so different than anything else the average consumer buys I will never understand.
Easy. They started doing it that way, and no one has really challenged it.
M$ is trying to get away with marketing unscriptable office apps once again (Office 365 doesn't support VBA macros).
Don't worry, it's online, there are way better options for scripting than VBA. There is always a better option than VBA. Javascript shines like a Grail-Shaped Beacon next to VBA.
Things only get interesting when users have access to automation and an easy-to-use programming language like VBA.
The explosion of things like Wordpress shows that not only would people rather download something pre-made than make it themselves, but there's also a commercial market for programmers willing to do the work and compete.
Actually, the 250K is a payment. The actual article states that it is to be used to pay for consulting services,etc. Sounds like if Microsoft is making funds available, that it isn't a discount, but a payment.
If you're going to put it that way, then I'll point out that Microsoft is only paying them to help convert them from Lotus to Office, they aren't paying them to actually use Office. They're paying to get them off of Lotus, which I'm pretty sure qualifies as a charitable contribution.
On thing about commercial software, they can't tolerate these bugs because they get sued class action style.
Have you seriously never read any EULA? Just about the first thing they say is that you can't sue them for damages caused by their product, that they don't warranty anything.
And how many court filings have been missed because Microsoft Word ate the pleading?
And how many times has Microsoft been sued for it?
That's not how debating works, you don't just get to ask questions. So, what are the answers? How many times has Microsoft been sued for Word bugs?
Is there a reason they couldn't transition to openoffice instead?
I'm sure there is. Maybe you should contact them and ask, and let us know what they say.
I suspected as much when the phrase "a pre-infected state" was used, but it still raises an interesting point that there's not a reliable disinfection procedure. I've worked on some pretty horrendous machines for "friends" (friendly when they need computer help) where I've often wanted to just reinstall and be done with it. I've always managed to track down a disinfection procedure online for the specific things the machines were infected with (often with help from people like the folks at the dlsreports.com security fora). I can't say that I remember being faced with an infection where the only solution is to nuke it, so that's new.
"Monkeys have been shown in previous studies to really love photographs of alpha males and shots of genitals, and we think this will drive their purchasing habits."
Huh.. so we're really not that different.
So, where's NYCL been?
No clue, I haven't seen him around in a while. The last entry on his blog is from the middle of May.
I have a small request. In the summary, your company is referred to as a "voice 2.0" company. Could you guys please refrain from using terms like that? It comes across as a little "douchey". Thanks.
Well, many people might be double counted. If you use google at home and at work, you were probably double counted.
For every guy in the US who uses 3 or 4 computers every day, there's an internet cafe in some poorer area in another country serving hundreds or thousands of customers, all on the same set of computers.
A huge waste of time and bandwidth.
Not necessarily. Those 250 billion minutes on Facebook might have saved 100 billion minutes or so of phone calls.
No, submarines are boats
All modern US hull classifications for submarines include "SS", which stands for "submersible ship".
They actually paid the extortion (told authorities after). The authorities said the company could be charged with supporting Terrorists.
So "the authorities" can prove that the criminals are in fact terrorists, and that the money made it to them, right? But they can't catch them, is that also right?
Yeah, it sounds a little fishy.
a Radeon HD 6990 has, if my data is correct, 3072 cores running at 830mHz
That is re-goddamn-diculous. Thanks, I guess that answers my question.
Once you've made the browser so big that it encompasses all possible generic operating system needs, it is too bloated and someone else makes a smaller faster better browser.
Now there's a thought.. Mozilla can wait until everyone else gets all bloated, then they can launch a new project to create a fast, lightweight standalone browser without all the bloat of their current offering.
Thanks. Would the GPU have a single, multi-stage pipeline (with apparently a lot more stages than a CPU), or does it actually have multple pipelines? Or maybe just a ton of small cores? I'm confused about where the parallelity (technical term) actually gets implemented in the hardware.
Even though it's a dupe, why are GPUs so much faster than CPUs at this? It doesn't seem like they have any more power, is the architecture that different from CPUs? Is it an issue where you can basically dedicate all resources (GPUs plus VRAM) to the one task?
No, but it's a huge fucking stretch to assume it's even remotely likely.
For certain values of "huge", apparently. Eye of the beholder, and all that. I personally don't see it as that much of a stretch. Nothing that improves Apple's bottom line is ever a stretch.
[citation needed]
Really? Are you willfully ignorant, or is it not by choice? Explain how the iPhone exclusivity deal with AT&T, whereby iPhone customers are not free to choose their own carrier, is good for the customers. This is the same argument that Sony and other companies gave with regard to DRM, that DRM was there to "help consumers manage their rights", instead of screwing legitimate customers for the benefit of the content industry. The exclusivity deal does not help Apple customers, the customers are screwed for the benefit of Apple and AT&T.
Apple makes the agreements it needs to in order to gain access to important third party goods and services.
Hey man, you can justify it all you want. If Apple requires user agent strings to be accurate, I'm sure you'll be saying that they needed to do that in order to "gain access to important third-party goods and services." Namely, the money of third-parties going into Apple's account. Apple didn't need to make an agreement with AT&T, they could have opened up the iPhone to all carriers and all of them, every single one, would have been scrambling for it. I would love to quote a number for you about how much AT&T paid Apple for that privilege, but the contract between them that affects you as their customer is not public. You seem pretty OK about that, though. You're trying to get people to come up with actual scenarios whereby Apple would make a change like this, but those agreements are not, and never have been, public.
And your lumping together of "attacks and defenses" is unreasonable.
It's not "unreasonable" to call fanboys fanboys. The Apple-bashing fanboys pile on, and the Apple-defending fanboys are right behind them.
Um... There's no reason to attack them. The attacks are the reason to defend them.
And why do you feel the need to defend them? If the attacks are not based on fact, why not just ignore them? Why is it worth your time to defend Apple? If no one bothered to defend them, the attacks would stop.
There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
C'mon, that's not difficult. The only reason Apple needs is some sort of agreement, probably involving money changing hands, with any content publishing industry. The only rule they need to add to the software requirements is that any web browser needs to state the correct device and OS version in the user agent string. It's not exactly a stretch to assume that's possible. Apple likes its agreements with third parties, even if they screw the customers.
That being said, this entire thread is a joke. This is an article about a web site doing browser sniffing, and it devolves into attacks and defenses on Apple has a company. This has nothing to do with Apple, this is a story about the New York Post doing browser sniffing. They are trying out a business model where they target users on specific devices and try to force them to use a native application to access the content instead. If people start spoofing the user agent to get around the content then that just shows the business model isn't perfect. If Apple introduces regulations that favor the business model after people show they don't like it, THEN (and only then) will Apple be an ass about this. They've been an ass in the past, and they probably will continue to be in the future, but they haven't done anything wrong with regard to this specific issue and there's no reason to either attack them over it OR defend them over it.
Windows doesn't ship with GCC, due to the fact that roughly 99.99% of computer users don't know what it is. But don't worry, because anyone who knows what GCC even is in the first place also knows how to get it. Or one of the other compilers for Windows, for that matter.
But I can say with a decent level of certainty that Windows will never require you to install applications only from "trusted sources", such as a store run by Microsoft, where all applications get approved by Microsoft. I can't say the same for OS X with any certainty.
You're also allowed to buy a copy of Windows and install it on any machine you damn well please. Not the case with OS X, sorry, you're not free to do that with your largely open-source OS that comes with GCC. That's OK though, because "most" of it is open source, and it comes with GCC. Right? Or, wait: you wouldn't install it on any non-Apple hardware anyway, would you? Yeah, that's the ticket. You don't need freedom, because you wouldn't use it anyway. Good argument.
There's an article that includes the video here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/flor-j11.shtml
I've also seen a top-down video online somewhere taken from one the tall buildings around the intersection.