i've used the betas, i've seen it work. it's not a proprietary binary stream wrapped in xml headers - it's a fully ascii, 100% fidelity xml represented word document. with schema.
the binary formats always change every major version. it's doubtfully due simply to malice, it's more likely due to increased business pressure to cram more features in.
but all that aside, compatibility is the primary reason to upgrade to 2003.
who says they aren't here yet?
on
What's Always Next?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
food in pill form - well any moron could have told you that was pure science fiction - it's all a matter of density and quantity. we -could- do it, but you'd need a plate-full of pills.
jetpacks - just like flying cars, it's primarily a safety issue. we have the tech - but no-one wants the cast of Friends crashing their hover-porsche into people's homes. on the ground there are trees, and curbs and bushes to slow them down when they leave the road. not so above.
cars that drive themselves - well honda's already park themselves. darpa is holding an unmanned vehicle race through the desert - i can't imagine commercial applications will take too much longer.
videophones - are already here. videoconference much? just because the consumers have decided that thus-far, the cost outweighs the benefit doesn't mean science is holding anything back. it's simply a matter of consumer adoption.
moving sidewalks - already here - in malls, in airports. why aren't they in manhatten? because who pays for that? who benefits from a moving sidewalk downtown? when there's a business case for them, they exist. when it's left to the public sector, and there's no tangible benefit to outweigh the cost - the just don't exist. once again, a problem of business, not of science.
plague - hello, HIV/AIDS, cancer ?
now how about the things we have that we never thought to ask for?
the internet, gps, multivitamins, the ISS, remote surgery, the genome map, cellphones, tazers, velcro, stain resistant dockers, nano-tube-spun ropes, teflon, sunscreen, moores law, p2p networks, etc?
it -supports- drm, which per usual, is optional and being demanded by their customers.
you can hate them all you want for that - but seeing as how the DRM is optional, and how office 2003 is the first version of office to support an open xml format for saving/loading documents - it's hard to not recommend the move to 2003.
if you dont like the drm, don't use it - but the xml support will make it easier than ever to slowly migrate the office workers to OpenOffice.
Doyle has already decided that free and open protocols and software (html via the 'object' tag is free, open, and standard) can -NOT- use his patents royalty free via his lawsuit. currently, the 'object' tag implimentation of his patent -is- cross-platform standard, and -that- is why even the w3c is angry at this decision.
Internet Explorer is just as guilty as Safari, as Mozilla, as Opera, as the rest. anyone who supports plugins is guilty of infrigement. and selective prosecution is -not- available if he wnats to keep his patent. if he does not procede to demand compliance from all browser makers, then he will find his patent uneforceable, and nothing will change.
active X, and plugins in general are not within the scope of this patent. only those 'embedded' in hypermedia. he's not suing MS for creating activeX. they wouldn't have to turn it off in all its applications on their OS - only in hypermedia.
also, he cannot release a patent 'for free' and then dictate who can and cannot use it. if he releases his patented information to anyone who produces code that impliments it under the GPL - then microsoft is free to use that GPL'd code to be compliant. and then what do you have? you have a patented, GPL'd standard to 'embed' objects in hypermedia. which in your best case leaves us precisely where we are right now, but with an unenforceable patent over that 'object' tag.
he will either force MS to abandon html and make something new and proprietary (and take 95% of the desktop market with it) - or nothing will change.
there is no upside to software patents. regardless of which corporations are involved.
large publishers emerge, just like movies or books
on
Razor Blade Games?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
consoles publishing is very similar to that of mainstream movies, print, and pc gaming. (independent pc gaming is fairly healthy now, but is about as 'popular' as art-house movie theatres)
a console has a barrier for entry - just like getting your film into a loews cineplex, getting your PC game into CompUSA, or getting your book into Barnes and Nobles.
-developers- can remain small - but small publishers evaporate.
this is not a new twist in gaming, it's an emergent trend from the last 10 years. certainly, it's a market that costs money to break into. you either have it independently, or you pitch for it.
what does it mean for the industry?
well it nearly guarantees that games will continue to be as derivative as hollywood, and the ny times fiction list.
Anything remotely 'new' will get beaten into the ground in long-running strings of sequels (gta, doom, die hard, and Tom Clancy novels are not so different)
Innumerable 'knockoffs' will get published to try to ride the wake of what is 'new', and maybe once every 4 years something really cool and different from the norm comes out.
but it will quickly be emulated, immitated, and desecrated.
will it go the razor blade sales model?
no. that's ridiculous. the razor-blade sales model relies on producing inexpensive pieces, and packaging them as an expensive whole. (even with 4 blades in a refill, gilette is making money hand over fist - even on the cute handle)
Nintendo has shown that using your console as a loss-leader is not necessary (they make money on each console as well as each game) their lack of market share in the US and Europe is more directly due to nintendo's tight control over game developers, and their resultant small selection of games. microsoft and sony resorted to dumping, to try to capture large chunks of the market. with the new consoles becoming more and more complex, and incorporating more and more general functions - they most certainly will -not- be 'given' away. (xbox2 and ps3 almost certainly will carry pvr functionality)
they may be sold at a marginal loss, so long as there is healthy competition in the market, but it would never come down to handing someone a console. primarily because there would then be no 'attachment' to the title. everyone would own every console in short order. What xbox/ps2 owner would pass up wind waker or sunshine if they didn't have to pay for the GC? likewise with ps2 owners buying halo, and xbox owners buying gta:vice city. and if there's no brand loyalty - well then who's to say that MS will -ever- get their money back from game sales to support eating the cost of the console? particularly from the 'casual' gaming market - who would buy maybe a half dozen games. (and most likely, the 2 best from each main system). 2 games does not cover MS loss on the xbox, or Sony's on the ps2.
so what -does- this mean?
it does mean the end of originality on the store shelf - but that's been not-so-slowly happening since the early 90s.
perhaps if electronic distribution catches on, then this trend can be avoided - but i'm not holding my breath.
you -cant- "embed" anything in w3c standard hypermedia. you place an tag and let the browser do the requested work. the object isn't 'embedded' in the hypermedia document, it's referenced by the markup tag.
there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters.
beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language.
if i have a 'frameset' that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used 'object'.
is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins.
does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents?
(one would think that if i submit with 'plain old text' slashcode could go ahead and change < to < for me, instead of assuming those mean i really wanted html.)
Mike Doyle clearly is seeking not a simple settlement. he is either on an anti-MS crusade, or looking for a more lucrative licensing deal for his patent.
He could license the ability to run plugins to browser developers. guess where that most likely leaves the small market boxes? Linux, Unix, and Mac. behind and under-attended to. the developer couldn't release the code under the GPL, so the community wouldn't be able to fill the void.
Alternatively, if this guy is on a little quest to knock down MS, and withhold the tech from them, or any developer with plans to release their browser to them, i think he is insane.
Microsoft does not lose.
would MS -really- lose if it isn't -their- browser on the desktop, but, for example, Netscape's? did the emergence of the web before MS had dominance lead do a decline in MS desktop sales? history tells us that they'd perservere, and find some way around it, to provide the same functionality with their own proprietary code.
what happens when mr doyle flips his switch and 95% of the browser market (IE) can no longer watch flash videos in a web page, chat through a web page, watch a movie clip on ifilms, or use simple scriptlets or custom applets (potentially not even take advantage of mime typing or any function which invokes a dll)?
why, microsoft would simply -stop- using hypermedia. it's not like they've been shy about breaking from standards in the past.
They'd create a proprietary tangential protocol, that allows them to create a proprietary application that continues to offer full media control. if there is no hypermedia, there is no patent infringement.
no longer will a page be an open collection of tags. rather it would be, potentially and probably, a DRM'd stream of data from provider to consumer, invoked and displayed according to user request, but never using hypermedia, or an industry standard.
every URL becomes a 'msnet' network stream request - probably with simple XML still, but not in the 'hypermedia' sense. simply put - there is no longer an open standard.
we are left at MS whim on whether they want to provide access to their new network on competing operating systems. (mac would be almost guaranteed, linux/unix and abandonware OSs would be in limbo).
businesses -must- deal with the realities of MS corporate market share, and the web would fade into the mainstream background like IRC and Usenet, as underutilized text-only forums from a simpler time.
you can accuse MS of many things, but losing, or rolling over to someone else's proprietary 'standard' that threatens their dominance (*cough*java*cough*) has -never- been one of them.
you -cant- "embed" anything in w3c standard hypermedia. you place an tag and let the browser do the requested work. the object isn't 'embedded' in the hypermedia document, it's referenced by the markup tag.
there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters.
beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language.
if i have a that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used.
is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins.
does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents?
one cannot assert that without viruses, we'd have a weaker technical ecosystem. because, without viruses - 'security' wouldn't be a fitness test for ecosystem strength.
this statement is only valid if one assumes that a virus -will- eventually exist. and then, it is suggesting that the quantity of past viruses survived, should imply higher probability of survival in the face of this 'new' virus.
but it is fairly plain to see that each successive measure to defend ourselves is only a successful defense against the -last- virus. and in fact, that is all anti-virus companies do: they write code to check for the presence of virii they know to exist.
but does this make us any safer against the next virus? were we any safer from MSBlaster than we were from Nimda? (as an ecosystem as a whole)
the only -preventative- measures that give our ecosystem 'strength', is more attention to patches, more attention to system resources, diversity (not putting everything on a single mission-critical box), and redundancy.
these strengths, are lent to the ecosystem moreso from dealing with hardware failure, software bugs, system interoperability, natural disaster, and maximizing resources for free market competitive fitness; rather than solely from dealing with malicious code.
did a statistically significant portion of the workforce on vacation this week?
that seems like a pretty weak overall premise for an expected resurgence.
now if he said that he expects a steady stream of continued activity into early next month, due to all the people who take vacations throughout august - he might have a point.
but to suggest that these 'vacationers' will unleash the same spam deluge monday that the rest of the unwashed have given us this past week, is a bit shaky.
privacy is the expectation that certain details about your identity that are not publicly shared, are not publicly known.
anonymity is the expectation that your given identity is not connectable to your 'official' meatspace identity (the hydrocarbon aggregate who pays taxes)
microsoft is supposedly tracking the value of a given internet -identity-.
your 'anonymity' isn't going to be affected unless you happen to drop information about who you really are - and they happen to be looking for it, and are making an effort to piece it together (not their stated aim, and entirely under your control to avoid).
your 'privacy' is -not- even remotely affected:
1: all usenet posts are made in a -public- forum.
2: your anonymity is maintainable.
this may lead to the paranoid no longer posting on usenet directly under their real identities - but as usenet conversations hold no illusions of being private, there is no 'invasion' or 'privacy loss' occurring.
publicly shared data is being aggregated about an identity that can be anonymous.
IFF (if and only if)...
they stuck to -security- patches
and those patches didn't break common configurations (anti msblaster didn't work on 2k sp2)
and there was user consent 'no, i dont want this particular patch for whatever reason'
and an opt-out a la 'never ask me again'.
then
i wouldn't see it as a bad thing, being on by default. maybe not turned on, on 'Server' installations, but certainly reasonable (given the above assumptions) for home installations
face it - automatic updates is how antivirus software works by default, more often than not.
users just can't be bothered to proactively look after their own gear. and no matter how well you test - eventually you -will- have bugs, potential security issues, etc. these patches need to be distributed, and right now that isn't happening.
full-on autoupdate of drivers, service packs, compatibility patches, extensions, etc should remain very seperate.
but of course, we all have a good idea how likely the 'If's are.
yeah, i'm sure the 'huge' xbox was hurt by its size./sarcasm
so it isn't as cute as a ps2? so what? it has ethernet, a harddrive, hdtv support, and 5.1 dolby sound. included. for free. how big is your ps2 with the harddrive plugin and the ethernet adapter? and how much more did it cost to catch up? and how much did you spend on memory carts? and how many games even support the adapter and HD? and hows that online play against modem users going? and hows that stereo sound, and no interlaced or hdtv support?
and well, we can skip the games - because games are either: proprietary, or, out on all consoles.
proprietary for ps2: gta proprietary for xbox: halo, mechassault, ghost recon, crimson skies, kotor
(not counting in dev: cstrike, fable, halo2, etc) i'll grant you gta, everyone talks it up - but it is only 1 game.
and we've all read every review about which system has better features/graphics/more content in the platform-non-specific games.
the only thing i would have preferred from MS in the design department, is a sleeker look that blends more with the rest of my AV components.
why would i ever need a little tiny box for my game system? it's just gonna sit there on my av shelves like everything else, and they're 2'x1'.
i've yet to witness a change in ATI's driver situation. and quite frankly - it's the -only- thing left keeping me on the nvidia side of the fence.
as a gamer, i have no brand-loyalty. i want the fastest, cheapest, quitest card i can get - cuz we get pressured to upgrade often. but for all the compat probs my mates with ati have, i just can't stomach it. i'll cough up some frames for peace of mind thanks.
unlike sony/ms, nintendo makes money on every game and on every piece of hardware. they have no loss-leader to get in the door. they aren't losing -any- money on the endeavor. plus, the tie-ins -do- help push gameboys.
sure, they might go software-only in the future, but japanese pride being what it is - i'd expect that, -only-, if leadership changed hands and the new exec was under extreme pressure to maximize profit.
myself? i'd have had them give up on the base nintendo platform years ago. but i have more american stubborn greed than japanese stubborn pride. (could you imagine zelda/metroid prime sales on the ps2? *boggle*)
access the hardware directly? where would you get such an idea?
developers are using dx8 and at most are hand-coding vertex and shader routines; which if you hadn't noticed, may have been proprietary to nvidia 2 years ago, but are directx 9 canon now.
there is no reason to expect that xbox2 will not have backwards compatibility. there is every reason to assume that it will. heck, nintendo might even cave and have backwards compatibility.
if anyone has learned anything from the ps2 run - it's that backwards compatibility guarantees solid sales out of the gate. you can accuse microsoft of many things - but being bad businesspeople is not one of them. they know where the money goes.
abortion is still widely under debate. the horrors of the nazi concentration camps are not. while i appreciate the point you are trying to make - i think the example is extreme.
yes, if abortion was illegal and a violation of the mother's rights - then using it for gain would also be wrong - as a society we will have deemed it wrong; and yes, we should not use stem cells from those sources. but that is not our present legal situation.
and as for a mother's rights, really, that's the rub isn't it? is it the mother's rights, or the fetus' rights? is the organism growing inside a woman's body 'hers'?
is it a violation of the fetus' rights to abort it, or is it a violation of the mother's rights to force her to carry it to term (even in the face of social,economic, and medical hardships for both)?
which really is not the argument that i want to step into. (because it will not end. not until a solid legal decision is put down, and a generation has lived with the results)
my point was simply that, abortions are currently legal. next of kin/guardians currently hold the right to donate the remains of a loved one to science to help save lives/ease suffering/further research. shouldn't these mother's be allowed their rights as well?
US research restrictions create a demand within the US research community.
China, ever the astute student of the free market has responded by finding a supply for the demand.
at the very least, without the restrictions on the US research community - this would not be as big a news story, nor would it be even remotely controversial.
if the US wasn't strictly trying to control embryonic stem cells for research, then there wouldn't be a demand to make a hybrid source for embryonic stem cells.
america (currently) leads because we (usually) have the foresight to keep barriers out of the way of technological progress. we have slowly overcome nearly every 'religious' boundary by slowly letting people become accustomed to the way this medical technology -improves- life. each time they are accused of wanting to 'play god'. scientists grit and bear the well-intentioned but factually ignorant viewpoint until slowly the advances are accepted.
i'm not saying that we throw our morals to the wind and race to immortality and superhuman hybrids - just that we redirect our skepticism. are we really trying to play god? or are we just trying to preserve and extend life, to ease pain and suffering, and to advance as much of our species as we can, without hurting anyone? instead of just levelling opposition to every potential breakthrough because we're 'playing god' - can't we just look for a second at what the facts are?
embryonic stem cells are being harvested from aborted fetuses. fetuses that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.
if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that? religious opposition in the 19th and early 20th century maintained that if we allowed study of cadavers or donation of organs that people would be killed and abducted and harvested by notorious individuals in the name of 'science'. but that did not happen. nor will people go out of their way to abort fetuses just so they can get stem cells. scientists are not growing fetuses to harvest stem cells.
this unfortunately ignites the whole abortion debate, which i doubt will ever be resolved. but legally, if I, as next of kin, have the right to determine whether the body of a loved one is to be donated to science; why shouldn't these mothers who exercised their legal right to terminate their pregnancies, also have that same legal right to donate?
Slashdot Mirror
why wouldn't you upgrade? office 2003 will let you save and load xml formatted documents. they're even publishing their schema.
whitepaper
i've used the betas, i've seen it work. it's not a proprietary binary stream wrapped in xml headers - it's a fully ascii, 100% fidelity xml represented word document. with schema.
the binary formats always change every major version. it's doubtfully due simply to malice, it's more likely due to increased business pressure to cram more features in.
but all that aside, compatibility is the primary reason to upgrade to 2003.
food in pill form - well any moron could have told you that was pure science fiction - it's all a matter of density and quantity. we -could- do it, but you'd need a plate-full of pills.
jetpacks - just like flying cars, it's primarily a safety issue. we have the tech - but no-one wants the cast of Friends crashing their hover-porsche into people's homes. on the ground there are trees, and curbs and bushes to slow them down when they leave the road. not so above.
cars that drive themselves - well honda's already park themselves. darpa is holding an unmanned vehicle race through the desert - i can't imagine commercial applications will take too much longer.
videophones - are already here. videoconference much? just because the consumers have decided that thus-far, the cost outweighs the benefit doesn't mean science is holding anything back.
it's simply a matter of consumer adoption.
moving sidewalks - already here - in malls, in airports. why aren't they in manhatten? because who pays for that? who benefits from a moving sidewalk downtown? when there's a business case for them, they exist. when it's left to the public sector, and there's no tangible benefit to outweigh the cost - the just don't exist.
once again, a problem of business, not of science.
plague - hello, HIV/AIDS, cancer ?
now how about the things we have that we never thought to ask for?
the internet, gps, multivitamins, the ISS, remote surgery, the genome map, cellphones, tazers, velcro, stain resistant dockers, nano-tube-spun ropes, teflon, sunscreen, moores law, p2p networks, etc?
if you read the white paper, or work with the beta releases, you can plainly see that it is not a proprietary binary stream.
they are indeed making a forward step toward embracing xml as a transparent document formatting method.
it -supports- drm, which per usual, is optional and being demanded by their customers.
you can hate them all you want for that - but seeing as how the DRM is optional, and how office 2003 is the first version of office to support an open xml format for saving/loading documents - it's hard to not recommend the move to 2003.
if you dont like the drm, don't use it - but the xml support will make it easier than ever to slowly migrate the office workers to OpenOffice.
MS sponsored white paper at ftponline
(I am not a troll, i'm just a realist who has to live with the requirements the suits give me.)
Doyle has already decided that free and open protocols and software (html via the 'object' tag is free, open, and standard) can -NOT- use his patents royalty free via his lawsuit. currently, the 'object' tag implimentation of his patent -is- cross-platform standard, and -that- is why even the w3c is angry at this decision.
Internet Explorer is just as guilty as Safari, as Mozilla, as Opera, as the rest. anyone who supports plugins is guilty of infrigement. and selective prosecution is -not- available if he wnats to keep his patent. if he does not procede to demand compliance from all browser makers, then he will find his patent uneforceable, and nothing will change.
active X, and plugins in general are not within the scope of this patent. only those 'embedded' in hypermedia. he's not suing MS for creating activeX. they wouldn't have to turn it off in all its applications on their OS - only in hypermedia.
also, he cannot release a patent 'for free' and then dictate who can and cannot use it. if he releases his patented information to anyone who produces code that impliments it under the GPL - then microsoft is free to use that GPL'd code to be compliant. and then what do you have? you have a patented, GPL'd standard to 'embed' objects in hypermedia. which in your best case leaves us precisely where we are right now, but with an unenforceable patent over that 'object' tag.
he will either force MS to abandon html and make something new and proprietary (and take 95% of the desktop market with it) - or nothing will change.
there is no upside to software patents. regardless of which corporations are involved.
consoles publishing is very similar to that of mainstream movies, print, and pc gaming. (independent pc gaming is fairly healthy now, but is about as 'popular' as art-house movie theatres)
a console has a barrier for entry - just like getting your film into a loews cineplex, getting your PC game into CompUSA, or getting your book into Barnes and Nobles.
-developers- can remain small - but small publishers evaporate.
this is not a new twist in gaming, it's an emergent trend from the last 10 years. certainly, it's a market that costs money to break into. you either have it independently, or you pitch for it.
what does it mean for the industry?
well it nearly guarantees that games will continue to be as derivative as hollywood, and the ny times fiction list.
Anything remotely 'new' will get beaten into the ground in long-running strings of sequels (gta, doom, die hard, and Tom Clancy novels are not so different)
Innumerable 'knockoffs' will get published to try to ride the wake of what is 'new', and maybe once every 4 years something really cool and different from the norm comes out.
but it will quickly be emulated, immitated, and desecrated.
will it go the razor blade sales model?
no. that's ridiculous. the razor-blade sales model relies on producing inexpensive pieces, and packaging them as an expensive whole. (even with 4 blades in a refill, gilette is making money hand over fist - even on the cute handle)
Nintendo has shown that using your console as a loss-leader is not necessary (they make money on each console as well as each game) their lack of market share in the US and Europe is more directly due to nintendo's tight control over game developers, and their resultant small selection of games. microsoft and sony resorted to dumping, to try to capture large chunks of the market. with the new consoles becoming more and more complex, and incorporating more and more general functions - they most certainly will -not- be 'given' away. (xbox2 and ps3 almost certainly will carry pvr functionality)
they may be sold at a marginal loss, so long as there is healthy competition in the market, but it would never come down to handing someone a console. primarily because there would then be no 'attachment' to the title. everyone would own every console in short order. What xbox/ps2 owner would pass up wind waker or sunshine if they didn't have to pay for the GC? likewise with ps2 owners buying halo, and xbox owners buying gta:vice city. and if there's no brand loyalty - well then who's to say that MS will -ever- get their money back from game sales to support eating the cost of the console? particularly from the 'casual' gaming market - who would buy maybe a half dozen games. (and most likely, the 2 best from each main system). 2 games does not cover MS loss on the xbox, or Sony's on the ps2.
so what -does- this mean?
it does mean the end of originality on the store shelf - but that's been not-so-slowly happening since the early 90s.
perhaps if electronic distribution catches on, then this trend can be avoided - but i'm not holding my breath.
you -cant- "embed" anything in w3c standard hypermedia. you place an tag and let the browser do the requested work. the object isn't 'embedded' in the hypermedia document, it's referenced by the markup tag. there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters. beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language. if i have a 'frameset' that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used 'object'. is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins. does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents? (one would think that if i submit with 'plain old text' slashcode could go ahead and change < to < for me, instead of assuming those mean i really wanted html.)
Mike Doyle clearly is seeking not a simple settlement. he is either on an anti-MS crusade, or looking for a more lucrative licensing deal for his patent.
He could license the ability to run plugins to browser developers. guess where that most likely leaves the small market boxes? Linux, Unix, and Mac. behind and under-attended to. the developer couldn't release the code under the GPL, so the community wouldn't be able to fill the void.
Alternatively, if this guy is on a little quest to knock down MS, and withhold the tech from them, or any developer with plans to release their browser to them, i think he is insane.
Microsoft does not lose.
would MS -really- lose if it isn't -their- browser on the desktop, but, for example, Netscape's? did the emergence of the web before MS had dominance lead do a decline in MS desktop sales? history tells us that they'd perservere, and find some way around it, to provide the same functionality with their own proprietary code.
what happens when mr doyle flips his switch and 95% of the browser market (IE) can no longer watch flash videos in a web page, chat through a web page, watch a movie clip on ifilms, or use simple scriptlets or custom applets (potentially not even take advantage of mime typing or any function which invokes a dll)?
why, microsoft would simply -stop- using hypermedia. it's not like they've been shy about breaking from standards in the past.
They'd create a proprietary tangential protocol, that allows them to create a proprietary application that continues to offer full media control. if there is no hypermedia, there is no patent infringement.
no longer will a page be an open collection of tags. rather it would be, potentially and probably, a DRM'd stream of data from provider to consumer, invoked and displayed according to user request, but never using hypermedia, or an industry standard.
every URL becomes a 'msnet' network stream request - probably with simple XML still, but not in the 'hypermedia' sense. simply put - there is no longer an open standard.
we are left at MS whim on whether they want to provide access to their new network on competing operating systems. (mac would be almost guaranteed, linux/unix and abandonware OSs would be in limbo).
businesses -must- deal with the realities of MS corporate market share, and the web would fade into the mainstream background like IRC and Usenet, as underutilized text-only forums from a simpler time.
you can accuse MS of many things, but losing, or rolling over to someone else's proprietary 'standard' that threatens their dominance (*cough*java*cough*) has -never- been one of them.
you -cant- "embed" anything in w3c standard hypermedia. you place an tag and let the browser do the requested work. the object isn't 'embedded' in the hypermedia document, it's referenced by the markup tag.
.
there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters.
beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language.
if i have a that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used
is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins.
does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents?
then i can match my distate for de beers with my distate for the RIAA - and get a nearly scratch-proof optical storage disc for all my mp3s!
one cannot assert that without viruses, we'd have a weaker technical ecosystem. because, without viruses - 'security' wouldn't be a fitness test for ecosystem strength.
this statement is only valid if one assumes that a virus -will- eventually exist. and then, it is suggesting that the quantity of past viruses survived, should imply higher probability of survival in the face of this 'new' virus.
but it is fairly plain to see that each successive measure to defend ourselves is only a successful defense against the -last- virus. and in fact, that is all anti-virus companies do: they write code to check for the presence of virii they know to exist.
but does this make us any safer against the next virus? were we any safer from MSBlaster than we were from Nimda? (as an ecosystem as a whole)
the only -preventative- measures that give our ecosystem 'strength', is more attention to patches, more attention to system resources, diversity (not putting everything on a single mission-critical box), and redundancy.
these strengths, are lent to the ecosystem moreso from dealing with hardware failure, software bugs, system interoperability, natural disaster, and maximizing resources for free market competitive fitness; rather than solely from dealing with malicious code.
did a statistically significant portion of the workforce on vacation this week?
that seems like a pretty weak overall premise for an expected resurgence.
now if he said that he expects a steady stream of continued activity into early next month, due to all the people who take vacations throughout august - he might have a point.
but to suggest that these 'vacationers' will unleash the same spam deluge monday that the rest of the unwashed have given us this past week, is a bit shaky.
identity is the 'you', put forward in a forum.
privacy is the expectation that certain details about your identity that are not publicly shared, are not publicly known.
anonymity is the expectation that your given identity is not connectable to your 'official' meatspace identity (the hydrocarbon aggregate who pays taxes)
microsoft is supposedly tracking the value of a given internet -identity-.
your 'anonymity' isn't going to be affected unless you happen to drop information about who you really are - and they happen to be looking for it, and are making an effort to piece it together (not their stated aim, and entirely under your control to avoid).
your 'privacy' is -not- even remotely affected:
1: all usenet posts are made in a -public- forum.
2: your anonymity is maintainable.
this may lead to the paranoid no longer posting on usenet directly under their real identities - but as usenet conversations hold no illusions of being private, there is no 'invasion' or 'privacy loss' occurring.
publicly shared data is being aggregated about an identity that can be anonymous.
IFF (if and only if)...
they stuck to -security- patches
and those patches didn't break common configurations (anti msblaster didn't work on 2k sp2)
and there was user consent 'no, i dont want this particular patch for whatever reason'
and an opt-out a la 'never ask me again'.
then
i wouldn't see it as a bad thing, being on by default. maybe not turned on, on 'Server' installations, but certainly reasonable (given the above assumptions) for home installations
face it - automatic updates is how antivirus software works by default, more often than not.
users just can't be bothered to proactively look after their own gear.
and no matter how well you test - eventually you -will- have bugs, potential security issues, etc. these patches need to be distributed, and right now that isn't happening.
full-on autoupdate of drivers, service packs, compatibility patches, extensions, etc should remain very seperate.
but of course, we all have a good idea how likely the 'If's are.
... cuz if it can, then i'll be impressed with its computing power.
... i thought the blackout was confined to new york, detroit and cleveland?
if the gpl is -legal- then they have no legal legs to stand on.
-of-course- they'll 'declare it' illegal.
thank goodness their lawyer's opinions matter only slightly more than my cat's.
yeah, lemme worry about an AC trolling by ignoring every point except the ones he can skew by switching the argument to fit his needs.
i'm a fanboy cuz i like the hardware i bought? that's fine.
enjoy your trolling.
yeah, i'm sure the 'huge' xbox was hurt by its size. /sarcasm
so it isn't as cute as a ps2? so what?
it has ethernet, a harddrive, hdtv support, and 5.1 dolby sound. included. for free.
how big is your ps2 with the harddrive plugin and the ethernet adapter?
and how much more did it cost to catch up?
and how much did you spend on memory carts?
and how many games even support the adapter and HD?
and hows that online play against modem users going?
and hows that stereo sound, and no interlaced or hdtv support?
and well, we can skip the games - because games are either: proprietary, or, out on all consoles.
proprietary for ps2: gta
proprietary for xbox: halo, mechassault, ghost recon, crimson skies, kotor
(not counting in dev: cstrike, fable, halo2, etc)
i'll grant you gta, everyone talks it up - but it is only 1 game.
and we've all read every review about which system has better features/graphics/more content in the platform-non-specific games.
the only thing i would have preferred from MS in the design department, is a sleeker look that blends more with the rest of my AV components.
why would i ever need a little tiny box for my game system?
it's just gonna sit there on my av shelves like everything else, and they're 2'x1'.
...between-keyboard-and-chair.... ah well.
i've yet to witness a change in ATI's driver situation. and quite frankly - it's the -only- thing left keeping me on the nvidia side of the fence.
as a gamer, i have no brand-loyalty. i want the fastest, cheapest, quitest card i can get - cuz we get pressured to upgrade often. but for all the compat probs my mates with ati have, i just can't stomach it. i'll cough up some frames for peace of mind thanks.
unlike sony/ms, nintendo makes money on every game and on every piece of hardware. they have no loss-leader to get in the door. they aren't losing -any- money on the endeavor. plus, the tie-ins -do- help push gameboys.
sure, they might go software-only in the future, but japanese pride being what it is - i'd expect that, -only-, if leadership changed hands and the new exec was under extreme pressure to maximize profit.
myself? i'd have had them give up on the base nintendo platform years ago. but i have more american stubborn greed than japanese stubborn pride. (could you imagine zelda/metroid prime sales on the ps2? *boggle*)
access the hardware directly? where would you get such an idea?
developers are using dx8 and at most are hand-coding vertex and shader routines; which if you hadn't noticed, may have been proprietary to nvidia 2 years ago, but are directx 9 canon now.
there is no reason to expect that xbox2 will not have backwards compatibility. there is every reason to assume that it will. heck, nintendo might even cave and have backwards compatibility.
if anyone has learned anything from the ps2 run - it's that backwards compatibility guarantees solid sales out of the gate. you can accuse microsoft of many things - but being bad businesspeople is not one of them. they know where the money goes.
abortion is still widely under debate.
the horrors of the nazi concentration camps are not. while i appreciate the point you are trying to make - i think the example is extreme.
yes, if abortion was illegal and a violation of the mother's rights - then using it for gain would also be wrong - as a society we will have deemed it wrong; and yes, we should not use stem cells from those sources. but that is not our present legal situation.
and as for a mother's rights, really, that's the rub isn't it? is it the mother's rights, or the fetus' rights? is the organism growing inside a woman's body 'hers'?
is it a violation of the fetus' rights to abort it, or is it a violation of the mother's rights to force her to carry it to term (even in the face of social,economic, and medical hardships for both)?
which really is not the argument that i want to step into. (because it will not end. not until a solid legal decision is put down, and a generation has lived with the results)
my point was simply that, abortions are currently legal. next of kin/guardians currently hold the right to donate the remains of a loved one to science to help save lives/ease suffering/further research. shouldn't these mother's be allowed their rights as well?
US research restrictions create a demand within the US research community.
China, ever the astute student of the free market has responded by finding a supply for the demand.
at the very least, without the restrictions on the US research community - this would not be as big a news story, nor would it be even remotely controversial.
if the US wasn't strictly trying to control embryonic stem cells for research, then there wouldn't be a demand to make a hybrid source for embryonic stem cells.
america (currently) leads because we (usually) have the foresight to keep barriers out of the way of technological progress. we have slowly overcome nearly every 'religious' boundary by slowly letting people become accustomed to the way this medical technology -improves- life. each time they are accused of wanting to 'play god'. scientists grit and bear the well-intentioned but factually ignorant viewpoint until slowly the advances are accepted.
i'm not saying that we throw our morals to the wind and race to immortality and superhuman hybrids - just that we redirect our skepticism. are we really trying to play god? or are we just trying to preserve and extend life, to ease pain and suffering, and to advance as much of our species as we can, without hurting anyone? instead of just levelling opposition to every potential breakthrough because we're 'playing god' - can't we just look for a second at what the facts are?
embryonic stem cells are being harvested from aborted fetuses. fetuses that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.
if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that? religious opposition in the 19th and early 20th century maintained that if we allowed study of cadavers or donation of organs that people would be killed and abducted and harvested by notorious individuals in the name of 'science'. but that did not happen. nor will people go out of their way to abort fetuses just so they can get stem cells. scientists are not growing fetuses to harvest stem cells.
this unfortunately ignites the whole abortion debate, which i doubt will ever be resolved. but legally, if I, as next of kin, have the right to determine whether the body of a loved one is to be donated to science; why shouldn't these mothers who exercised their legal right to terminate their pregnancies, also have that same legal right to donate?