the problems of stuff not working would be pushed down onto Consumers
I think we are already in that situation. That is where the problem has been pushed down to already.
It's not exactly clear to me how you can be dishonest about that since it is a value judgement, loosely based on opinion.
I think this is a fallacy, and a common one. The fact that it's a value judgement doesn't mean you can't be dishonest about it. Dishonesty would be saying "I think it's impossible" when you really think it is possible. Saying, "It's unworkable" when you know it is workable. My expeience with Microsoft shows that they know, like the rest of the industry, that modular building blocks are the way to make code more efficient, easier to change, more flexible. I hold that Windows is ALREADY modular, and they already cannot test all possible configurations of Windows+Applications. In fact, I believe that MS has made Windows modular underneath to REDUCE it's own costs... and it's the REDUCTIONS in cost and trouble that they do not want to export.
But if you disagree with all that fine: but please realize it's not difficult to understand how one could be dishonest about a matter of opinion, it's by lying about what you really think. I don't believe that Bill Gates thinks that Windows would be more expensive to produce in a modular fashion.
Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove. In reality reducing it to a demo of someones hack to put XP embedded on a PC only risks making it look bad. In reality, I think it's better this way.
Remember: Everything Bill Gates et al said on the stand would lead the judge to think it can be done... and if she thinks that a demo cannot do anything more...
I was happy to see the judge allow the demo in the first place, but not so much so she would see it, but because it shows she's open to evidence that Microsoft is culpable and not particularly honest in what it claims to the court.
who know why... but it's a matter of history. Stallman evangalized, and proded, and pushed, and if he hadn't, yes there would be free software, but it would be public domain and poached to the advantage of corporations only. He said, "keep your copyright on your free software" and it made a difference you can see looking around... at least, if you are old enough to compare it with 1980.
Surely that's impossible. A modular operating system would skew time space and make all insides outside and all rights left. Why, there would be thousands of versions of Windows if they did that! Everyone knows that what millions of people want is just exactly the same thing. It defies reason... a modular operating system... why I never!
I think Michelson-Morley is a good candidate... I don't remember it being to hard when we did it for undergrad physics... It's mostly playing with aiming lasers through prisms such that you look for diffraction patterns (iirc).
Well, I like java, but it's still special purpose to me. It excels in ecommerce and dynamic web stuff. It may someday excel at distributed systems since it will be easy to move code around various devices on a network.
It's not a general purpose platform or language, imho, however. But there is one thing that would make it that way... hardware VMs... which would be JavaMs, of course, since they wouldn't be virtual.
Where are the processors that run the java code on the chip directly?
MS stuff is modular underneath. The issue... they need to publish enough information to replace those components. No one wants to ship an OS with no HTML or HTTP capabilities, they want to put whatever implementation in that role they prefer.
Of course, I'm wrong in that, SOME DO want an OS with no HTML and HTTP, but it's still the same point.
Yes, if I remove X many of my programs will no longer function. But MS makes it so that you cannot replace X. They are focussing on the idea they are asked to remove components when what they are being asked is to allow components to be replaced!
They are still lying to those that lack knowledge of how computer work. But time is running out, people are getting used to computers and they are losing their status as voodoo. When people are comfortable with computes, their argumenst will be revealed. So 50 years from now... they better watch out.
I think the astounding part of this is that Gates has come to the point of arguing that modular software is bad, and not only that, impossible. When in fact Microsoft fully understands the value of modularity and is really in the mainstream of software engineering on the issue of modular == good.
What they really think is that exposing modularity in a fair way will hurt MS, but what they are arguing goes so much further... it's a little worrisome if I thought anyone would believe him at his word.
Odd Thought: I wonder if they really want to stop shipping windows but can only do this if they blame the Government. MSUnix without losing face ("they made us"). (Note: I didn't say MSLinux)
One idea is tools people behind an totalitarian firewall can use to get through to the outside. However, what about rooting the firewall machines themselves and reconfiguring them appropriately.
My real question is: would this even be illegal? Is there a US or European or International law that makes that illegal?
the programmers at an early interactive game site (pre-commercialization of the internet, it used SprintNet) called TSN made a bot for their adult area purely for their own amusement (management never knew). It took lude things from a few files are more or less through them together at random. Lude is probably an understatement.
Some men would talk to her for hours without showing any signs of realizing she was not real, quite the opposite, they seemed to go out of their way to think she was real. Very revealing.
I don't know what I was thinking! I'm not against AOL users, I like newbies and everyone to be on the net... including ROADRUNNER customers, et al. I was trying to be funny about BT from reading the Reg too much (um, I mean, reading it "just right").
"There is no way to get cross-platform behavior without installing a virtual machine."
totally false! as you must know. You can have cross platform class or function libraries. Oh, you mean without recompiling? But what's the big deal about compiling once for every supported platform? The unknown platforms? Which would also be the ones without a VM?
"he problem with C++ was that exactly zero of code was reused"
I can only imagine what you mean by this. As a C++ programmer I can tell you that I reuse a great deal of code. And further, the "industry" is providing libraries for all the functionality that the Java API gives... with more options and better performance.
programs should avoid using resources they don't need to use! Especially network.
I didn't get why ...
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
they were so forgiving! It's sounded bad to me... but maybe I'm getting out of touch with what it's really doing.
If it contacts the interent on a local file search, then that's bad. If it contacts microsoft when I search the net, that's bad.
This "we can't identify you" stuff is a lie that should be well known by now. What they mean is "they don't have your name in the file, we would have to look that up".
Maybe someone can explain why half the article is about mentioning this doesn't matter?
I've seen this a couple times in the comments. They delivered? No, they collected. I don't find Microsofts internet offerings very compelling at all. They did not get on the internet.
At the time they were building the old MSN, where you browsed MSN through folders that just appeared to be an extension of your file system. What they did was not get the internet. What they did was say, "well, lets throw away this MSN and start a new one using the internet...". Big Difference, imnsho.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the whole thing and I still don't know if she won the sweepstakes and then the poor dear didn't even hear about it or get her oodles of cash.
the problems of stuff not working would be pushed down onto Consumers
I think we are already in that situation. That is where the problem has been pushed down to already.
It's not exactly clear to me how you can be dishonest about that since it is a value judgement, loosely based on opinion.
I think this is a fallacy, and a common one. The fact that it's a value judgement doesn't mean you can't be dishonest about it. Dishonesty would be saying "I think it's impossible" when you really think it is possible. Saying, "It's unworkable" when you know it is workable. My expeience with Microsoft shows that they know, like the rest of the industry, that modular building blocks are the way to make code more efficient, easier to change, more flexible. I hold that Windows is ALREADY modular, and they already cannot test all possible configurations of Windows+Applications. In fact, I believe that MS has made Windows modular underneath to REDUCE it's own costs... and it's the REDUCTIONS in cost and trouble that they do not want to export.
But if you disagree with all that fine: but please realize it's not difficult to understand how one could be dishonest about a matter of opinion, it's by lying about what you really think. I don't believe that Bill Gates thinks that Windows would be more expensive to produce in a modular fashion.
Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove. In reality reducing it to a demo of someones hack to put XP embedded on a PC only risks making it look bad. In reality, I think it's better this way.
Remember: Everything Bill Gates et al said on the stand would lead the judge to think it can be done... and if she thinks that a demo cannot do anything more...
I was happy to see the judge allow the demo in the first place, but not so much so she would see it, but because it shows she's open to evidence that Microsoft is culpable and not particularly honest in what it claims to the court.
who know why... but it's a matter of history. Stallman evangalized, and proded, and pushed, and if he hadn't, yes there would be free software, but it would be public domain and poached to the advantage of corporations only. He said, "keep your copyright on your free software" and it made a difference you can see looking around... at least, if you are old enough to compare it with 1980.
>That's one reason why we we're here and the Neanderthal's aren't.
that... and we killed em!
Surely that's impossible. A modular operating system would skew time space and make all insides outside and all rights left. Why, there would be thousands of versions of Windows if they did that! Everyone knows that what millions of people want is just exactly the same thing. It defies reason... a modular operating system... why I never!
At least, that's what Microsoft told me.
I think Michelson-Morley is a good candidate... I don't remember it being to hard when we did it for undergrad physics... It's mostly playing with aiming lasers through prisms such that you look for diffraction patterns (iirc).
Well, I like java, but it's still special purpose to me. It excels in ecommerce and dynamic web stuff. It may someday excel at distributed systems since it will be easy to move code around various devices on a network.
It's not a general purpose platform or language, imho, however. But there is one thing that would make it that way... hardware VMs... which would be JavaMs, of course, since they wouldn't be virtual.
Where are the processors that run the java code on the chip directly?
That feature in the description is not text mining, just filtering.
MS stuff is modular underneath. The issue... they need to publish enough information to replace those components. No one wants to ship an OS with no HTML or HTTP capabilities, they want to put whatever implementation in that role they prefer.
Of course, I'm wrong in that, SOME DO want an OS with no HTML and HTTP, but it's still the same point.
Yes, if I remove X many of my programs will no longer function. But MS makes it so that you cannot replace X. They are focussing on the idea they are asked to remove components when what they are being asked is to allow components to be replaced!
They are still lying to those that lack knowledge of how computer work. But time is running out, people are getting used to computers and they are losing their status as voodoo. When people are comfortable with computes, their argumenst will be revealed. So 50 years from now... they better watch out.
I think the astounding part of this is that Gates has come to the point of arguing that modular software is bad, and not only that, impossible. When in fact Microsoft fully understands the value of modularity and is really in the mainstream of software engineering on the issue of modular == good.
What they really think is that exposing modularity in a fair way will hurt MS, but what they are arguing goes so much further... it's a little worrisome if I thought anyone would believe him at his word.
Odd Thought: I wonder if they really want to stop shipping windows but can only do this if they blame the Government. MSUnix without losing face ("they made us"). (Note: I didn't say MSLinux)
One idea is tools people behind an totalitarian firewall can use to get through to the outside. However, what about rooting the firewall machines themselves and reconfiguring them appropriately.
My real question is: would this even be illegal? Is there a US or European or International law that makes that illegal?
the programmers at an early interactive game site (pre-commercialization of the internet, it used SprintNet) called TSN made a bot for their adult area purely for their own amusement (management never knew). It took lude things from a few files are more or less through them together at random. Lude is probably an understatement.
Some men would talk to her for hours without showing any signs of realizing she was not real, quite the opposite, they seemed to go out of their way to think she was real. Very revealing.
be nice to them, they are where the managers come from.
Oh, you mean the hardcopy of a web page?
just a bad joke! don't bother to flame me my submodernpostcomslashdotantireactionary freinds... I read bound printouts all the time.
I don't know what I was thinking! I'm not against AOL users, I like newbies and everyone to be on the net... including ROADRUNNER customers, et al. I was trying to be funny about BT from reading the Reg too much (um, I mean, reading it "just right").
AOL paid 4 billion dollars for Netscape and then GAVE millions of dollars of development time to Mozilla...
this can't be as bad as when AOL came online.
this reminds me of the Ghandi quote when asked "What do you think of Western Civilizaiton", Ghandi said, "Sounds like a good idea to me."
"There is no way to get cross-platform behavior without installing a virtual machine."
totally false! as you must know. You can have cross platform class or function libraries. Oh, you mean without recompiling? But what's the big deal about compiling once for every supported platform? The unknown platforms? Which would also be the ones without a VM?
"he problem with C++ was that exactly zero of code was reused"
I can only imagine what you mean by this. As a C++ programmer I can tell you that I reuse a great deal of code. And further, the "industry" is providing libraries for all the functionality that the Java API gives... with more options and better performance.
I do like Java for servlets, I must say.
programs should avoid using resources they don't need to use! Especially network.
they were so forgiving! It's sounded bad to me... but maybe I'm getting out of touch with what it's really doing.
If it contacts the interent on a local file search, then that's bad. If it contacts microsoft when I search the net, that's bad.
This "we can't identify you" stuff is a lie that should be well known by now. What they mean is "they don't have your name in the file, we would have to look that up".
Maybe someone can explain why half the article is about mentioning this doesn't matter?
does posting a comment mean your interested. Just Curious.
I've seen this a couple times in the comments. They delivered? No, they collected. I don't find Microsofts internet offerings very compelling at all. They did not get on the internet.
At the time they were building the old MSN, where you browsed MSN through folders that just appeared to be an extension of your file system. What they did was not get the internet. What they did was say, "well, lets throw away this MSN and start a new one using the internet...". Big Difference, imnsho.