Who's talking about "standards"? I'm talking about using a common format that works across players.
Nobody's stopping you from transcoding the MP4 you get from iTMS into an MP3. Your MP3 from Amazon is 256k, the MP4 from iTMS is 256k, and if you have a golden ear you'll probably prefer the MP4 to the MP3. Transcoding the MP4 to MP3 will probably not produce as good an MP3 as you'd get from Amazon, but unless you have a golden ear you won't be able to tell... and even if you do it's unlikely to be noticable on an MP3 player through an earbud.
Once you have the music in a standard unencumbered format nobody's ever going to stop you from transcoding it into another format.
What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.
At first, they kicked us out. But we kept going back again and again. The first record company to really understand this stuff was Warner. They have some smart people there, and they said: We agree with you. And next was Universal. Then we started making headway. And the reason we did, I think, is because we made predictions.
We said: These [music subscription] services that are out there now are going to fail. Music Net's gonna fail, Press Play's gonna fail. Here's why: People don't want to buy their music as a subscription. They bought 45's; then they bought LP's; then they bought cassettes; then they bought 8-tracks; then they bought CD's. They're going to want to buy downloads. People want to own their music. You don't want to rent your music -- and then, one day, if you stop paying, all your music goes away.
And, you know, at 10 bucks a month, that's $120 a year. That's $1,200 a decade. That's a lot of money for me to listen to the songs I love. It's cheaper to buy, and that's what they're gonna want to do.
They didn't see it that way. There were people running around -- business-development people -- who kept pointing out AOL as the great model for this and saying: No, we want that -- we want a subscription business. We said: It ain't gonna work.
Slowly but surely, as these things didn't pan out, we started to gain some credibility with these folks. And they started to say: You know, you're right on these things -- tell us more.
AAC is just the MPEG 4 audio codec, it's a publicly defined standard, and somewhat better quality than MP3 for equivalent file sizes. There are a few other media players that support it... but most only support MP3 and Microsoft's proprietary WMA. It's ironic, too, when some company whines about Apple's "non-standard" formats when it's *their* decision, not Apple's, not to support MP4.
One wonders if Microsoft cuts them a deal on the license for WMA if they leave out MP4/AAC, OGG, etcetera...
You can transcode to MP3 if you need to, if you must buy a media player from a company that kowtows to Redmond.
You don't need an iPod. These are completely unprotected files.
The files are 256kbps MP4 files, somewhat better quality than comparable sized MP3s.
You will need to transcode them to MP3 for most media players, because pretty much all music players only support MP3 and WMA... things like MP4 (AAC - Advanced Audio Codec), OGG, etc are pretty rare.
What's Apple's excuse for locking up the iPod Touch...?
They didn't want to maintain two different software inventories. They also don't want unrestricted iPod software development because they don't want iPod users using other company's DRM. There's actually a good reason for that, and there's a "social good" argument for it as well... unless you're on the side of the RIAA in the DRM debate.
First, the "social good" reason. If people can run arbitrary software on the iPod, they can run software using anyone's DRM scheme. This makes the use of DRM more convenient, and decreases the social opposition to DRM. Apple has been opposed to DRM from the start... Jobs is on record from the very opening of the iTunes music store as saying that this kind of DRM doesn't work, and that everyone (including the artists) would be better off without it.
Second, the "private good" reason. Apple's use of DRM the way the music industry uses it is almost entirely defensive... and it's defending against *Windows*. If people can run arbitrary software on the iPod, it means that iPod users running Windows will have an advantage over iPod users running OSX, since the music stores that work with these third party DRM schemes don't work on OSX. This has the potential of significantly hurting their market share. To complicate this, Microsoft uses the "secure audio path" and the related DRM technologies that have been part of Windows Media Player since WMP9 as a marketing tool to promote their proprietary DRM over Apple's proprietary DRM (don't bring up non-proprietary DRM... non-proprietary DRM can not be used for what the RIAA and the labels want). Apple is not going to be able to get support for the music stores using Microsoft's formats on OSX without making the same kind of restrictions in the OSX kernel that Microsoft has made in the Vista kernel... even if Microsoft is willing to license the technology to them at all.
Which brings things back to a "social good" issue again.
So... the question is not why they locked up the iPod Touch, it's what they do now.
Over the short term, the inventory issues are likely to make them simply treat the two devices as versions of the same device, with the same software and restrictions.
Over the long term, if they manage to wean enough labels off DRM, they won't have anything more than inventory control keeping the iPod locked, and they're unlikely to care about that any more than they care about the AppleTV being cracked. And weaning the labels off DRM is one for the good guys.
So I gotta say, I've got mixed feelings over the whole thing.
This pretty much guarantees an imminent mass migration of gamers which will push up demand for Vista applications
How do you figure it'll push up demand for Vista applications? It's not like ordinary Windows applications won't run perfectly well on Vista, so why do you think there would be a selective demand for applications that depend on Vista over ones that run on any version of Windows?
If you mean that this will increase the demand for games that support DX10, well, yes, but why would a developer who isn't using DX-anything (that is, most applications) or is only using 2D and basic 3D (pretty much everything, including most games) lock themselves out of most of the market?
Even if hardcore gamers were 50% of the market, the other 50% wouldn't need to care.
It's counter evidence for the next time they get called in over monopolistic practices, and reduces the chances of more fines from the EU.
How so? Servers are a completely separate market, and one that Windows has never been particularly well suited for. They used to have a decent server OS, Xenix, but after they dumped it SCO managed to completely trash it for them.
I suffer from Ulnar Nerve Syndrome, and after making a few changes in the way a use my computer about a decade ago when it was diagnosed the symptoms rapidly improved, and improvement continued over the following few months, I have not had ANY incidents of severe pain, nor has there been any progression.
My doctor at the time told me that many cases described as CTS are not in fact CTS but are some other kind of damage. BUT... the changes in behavior intended to alleviate CTS are effective at resolving superficially similar problems, and avoiding pain and loss of motion whatever the cause.
So... if you are suffering from pain that may be alleviated by changing your work habits, DO IT. And you should be talking to your doctor about it anyway.
That's my take too. I've had dozens of projects out there at various times, some get a lot of use, some don't, but even one patch is worth more than the effort of putting it up. And don't worry about someone "leeching" it... what have you lost if they do? Nothing you would have had if you'd just kept quiet about the code.
And what's wrong with a little lechery, anyway? And what does sexual excitement have to do with OSS? You didn't that that "Sex, Drugs, and UNIX" line seriously, did you?
As for the frame you're referring to that could easily be made of local materials like wood or recycled plastic or almost anything that will put tension on the material.
Build it vertically, put the generator at the top, hang a weight on the bottom, trim it to the desired wind speed by adjusting the weight.
It might even be possible to come up with a mechanism to adjust the tension to the wind speed using a couple of levers and a vane attached to the counterweight and the frame.
Sure, DX10, >4gb of ram, etc are things that COULD be backported to work in XP. They haven't been.
When I need things like DX10 I suppose I'll have to put up with the disadvantages of Vista to get them.
Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb.
But right now, they're not. Right now, someone who's bought a computer that comes with Vista installed, who doesn't need DX10, is getting no real advantage from Vista. We're not talking about what people are going to be buying in 2009, we're talking about computers people are buying in 2007.
within 18 months you'll need several of the features
I think you meant to say that in 18 months YOU will need several of those features. You've got a quad-core box now, so you're considerably ahead of the mainstream. The mainstream doesn't need 4GB now, and probably won't need 4GB in 2009.
Based on my experience with XP and 2000, I don't expect to miss having Vista before 2010, and I don't expect to need it until 2012.
Microsoft's "Windows 7" may be out by then. Why should someone put up with Vista for 4-5 years when they can skip a whole release cycle?
we more likely to see a g33 / g35 system from apple to replace the mini with on board video and x16 and x4 pci-e slots.
I think you're dreaming. Apple wants people to use minis for home entertainment centers, not to use them for anything that requires oomph. I'd love them to do something like that as well, but once bitten...
Now, as to the kernel issues.... i have noticed no perceptible difference in performance between XP and vista apart from disk i/o. [...] I've got an extra 2 cores to run with. [...]
Ah, you have a faster computer with more cores, therefore Vista isn't slower than XP. Except in disk I/O, where you haven't got an automatic performance boost from the improved hardware.
In many situations the slowest component of the system is between the keyboard and the chair. For many purposes a PIII running Windows 2000 or NT is fast enough that there is no perceived delay in the system. That doesn't mean that if a new OS made your system that slow YOU wouldn't notice, but it does mean that your anecdotal evidence is more or less irrelevant.
There are people who definitely have noticed.
system restore: it's now been upgraded to snapshot anything you want
That's neither an OS capability nor is it something that Microsoft needs to be involved in. There's plenty of applications that provide the same functionality on just about every OS out there, many of them free and/or open source.
more than 4gigs of RAM. yes, XP64 can do it, but it's a stillborn product [...] directX10. yes, this could probably be ported to XP or 2k. but it hasn't been. suck it up
I can pretty much guarantee that Microsoft has DX10 working on XP internally, since that's what they had to develop on while they were developing it. In fact, odds are DX10 would work in XP if it didn't deliberately check... I've found that a lot of applications, drivers, and so on that claim to require XP or even 2000 run just fine in earlier systems if you bypass the version check on install.
As for "more than 4G of RAM"... Windows 2000 Server could do that, in 32-bit mode, on hardware that could address more RAM. It could even give applications access to more than 4G of address space through address windows.
For most people, though, this stuff is irrelevant, their typical new computer is likely to come with 1G RAM at most, and not have DX10 support in its on-board integrated video, so... what do they get from Vista?
Per application volume control, for the 3 apps in the whole world that need it and don't have their own volume settings.
And a snapshot application, vintage 1985 quality, that also happens to be useful for viruses to hide from antivirus software in.
In exchange, unless they got a quad core firebreather like you, their new computer may well be slower than their old one.
I can't find anything on the site about the actual technique for turning silicon microspheres into cells. How are they prepared, mounted, and connected?
And yet, you can store more mail on your Yahoo and Hotmail account than on Gmail. What's your point?
The point is that hardly anyone bothers to take advantage of the available storage on Yahoo and Hotmail, so it's easier for them to set their quotas higher than it is for Google, so the implication that somehow this implied Google was doing an inferior job is churlish.
Vista is a pretty good operating system. The worst things about it are that: 1) it's new.
2) It provides little or no functionality that consumers actually want over XP. 3) It's more complex than XP, due to the "secure-path" code in the kernel. 4) It's less reliable than XP, due to the additional copy protection and secure-path code in the kernel. 5) It has higher kernel overhead than XP, due to the secure-path code in the kernel.
The reason that people go on about the "horrible DRM" is not because the DRM itself is the problem. It's because the changes that were made to support that DRM are most of the real kernel level differences between XP and Vista.
In addition, the new user-visible security features (UAC and the sandbox for IE) are bandaids. They have not made any attempt to address the real problems in the network services, Win32 APIs, and user-level applications that provide such a large surface area to attackers.
Microsoft's real problem is that they did too good a job, for the desktop at least, with Windows 2000. The only shortcomings to Windows 2000 are features that should have been shipped in feature packs... most of them were originally developed on 2000... and everything they've done since then have been attempts to artificially create the appearance of "newness". There were no fundamental changes in XP, and the only fundamental changes in Vista are things that provide no real benefit to the consumer (and actually hurt them).
They got a pass with XP because they presented it as the upgrade path from Windows 9x. They could have done that with Windows 2000... my "Wintendo" (my Windows gaming box) runs Windows 2000, and the first program I found that wouldn't run on 2000... that actually required XP... was a couple of months ago. Something like 8 years after release and 5 years after XP came out. I don't know why they bothered with Windows Me and didn't just push EVERYONE to Windows 2000 as the upgrade path, but I guess they wanted the income from another upgrade cycle. Anyway, XP gave people something new. Vista can't do that.
With Windows 2000 Microsoft has put themselves out of the "operating system company" job. They've reacted by trying to force people to upgrade, and people don't like that. Unbundling Windows and selling the bundled components as separate packages would get them out of this trap, but after fighting so hard to keep that from happening against their will I don't figure they'll do it.
In the meantime everyone who depends on a stable Windows ecosystem is the loser.
The "capacities" Microsoft and Yahoo and Google are providing are not comparable values. That's because they're all overcommitted quotas, calculated by assuming that the majority of users aren't going to take advantage of them and only turning up actual hardware to back them up when the window between the actually used and actually available storage gets too low.
When you don't have that many of your users taking advantage of a facility, it's easy to provide big quotas.
So all you're doing when you compare Hotmail and Yahoo to GMail here is pointing out that Yahoo and Hotmail have a smaller percentage of their users taking advantage of their quota, for whatever reason.
Is it just me or is it kind of creepy that Xerox patents, which include most of the prior art for just about anything to do with GUIs, are in the hands of patent trolls?
What happened to the scheme by which Antigua would get a $BIGNUM exception to US copyrights to serve as payment... that is, they'd be able to sell $BIGNUM legal copies of movies or music or software until they hit the penalty target.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's talking about "standards"? I'm talking about using a common format that works across players.
Nobody's stopping you from transcoding the MP4 you get from iTMS into an MP3. Your MP3 from Amazon is 256k, the MP4 from iTMS is 256k, and if you have a golden ear you'll probably prefer the MP4 to the MP3. Transcoding the MP4 to MP3 will probably not produce as good an MP3 as you'd get from Amazon, but unless you have a golden ear you won't be able to tell... and even if you do it's unlikely to be noticable on an MP3 player through an earbud.
Once you have the music in a standard unencumbered format nobody's ever going to stop you from transcoding it into another format.
That they won't offer anything other than AAC.
AAC is just the MPEG 4 audio codec, it's a publicly defined standard, and somewhat better quality than MP3 for equivalent file sizes. There are a few other media players that support it... but most only support MP3 and Microsoft's proprietary WMA. It's ironic, too, when some company whines about Apple's "non-standard" formats when it's *their* decision, not Apple's, not to support MP4.
One wonders if Microsoft cuts them a deal on the license for WMA if they leave out MP4/AAC, OGG, etcetera...
You can transcode to MP3 if you need to, if you must buy a media player from a company that kowtows to Redmond.
You don't need an iPod. These are completely unprotected files.
The files are 256kbps MP4 files, somewhat better quality than comparable sized MP3s.
You will need to transcode them to MP3 for most media players, because pretty much all music players only support MP3 and WMA... things like MP4 (AAC - Advanced Audio Codec), OGG, etc are pretty rare.
What's Apple's excuse for locking up the iPod Touch...?
They didn't want to maintain two different software inventories. They also don't want unrestricted iPod software development because they don't want iPod users using other company's DRM. There's actually a good reason for that, and there's a "social good" argument for it as well... unless you're on the side of the RIAA in the DRM debate.
First, the "social good" reason. If people can run arbitrary software on the iPod, they can run software using anyone's DRM scheme. This makes the use of DRM more convenient, and decreases the social opposition to DRM. Apple has been opposed to DRM from the start... Jobs is on record from the very opening of the iTunes music store as saying that this kind of DRM doesn't work, and that everyone (including the artists) would be better off without it.
Second, the "private good" reason. Apple's use of DRM the way the music industry uses it is almost entirely defensive... and it's defending against *Windows*. If people can run arbitrary software on the iPod, it means that iPod users running Windows will have an advantage over iPod users running OSX, since the music stores that work with these third party DRM schemes don't work on OSX. This has the potential of significantly hurting their market share. To complicate this, Microsoft uses the "secure audio path" and the related DRM technologies that have been part of Windows Media Player since WMP9 as a marketing tool to promote their proprietary DRM over Apple's proprietary DRM (don't bring up non-proprietary DRM... non-proprietary DRM can not be used for what the RIAA and the labels want). Apple is not going to be able to get support for the music stores using Microsoft's formats on OSX without making the same kind of restrictions in the OSX kernel that Microsoft has made in the Vista kernel... even if Microsoft is willing to license the technology to them at all.
Which brings things back to a "social good" issue again.
So... the question is not why they locked up the iPod Touch, it's what they do now.
Over the short term, the inventory issues are likely to make them simply treat the two devices as versions of the same device, with the same software and restrictions.
Over the long term, if they manage to wean enough labels off DRM, they won't have anything more than inventory control keeping the iPod locked, and they're unlikely to care about that any more than they care about the AppleTV being cracked. And weaning the labels off DRM is one for the good guys.
So I gotta say, I've got mixed feelings over the whole thing.
This pretty much guarantees an imminent mass migration of gamers which will push up demand for Vista applications
How do you figure it'll push up demand for Vista applications? It's not like ordinary Windows applications won't run perfectly well on Vista, so why do you think there would be a selective demand for applications that depend on Vista over ones that run on any version of Windows?
If you mean that this will increase the demand for games that support DX10, well, yes, but why would a developer who isn't using DX-anything (that is, most applications) or is only using 2D and basic 3D (pretty much everything, including most games) lock themselves out of most of the market?
Even if hardcore gamers were 50% of the market, the other 50% wouldn't need to care.
It's counter evidence for the next time they get called in over monopolistic practices, and reduces the chances of more fines from the EU.
How so? Servers are a completely separate market, and one that Windows has never been particularly well suited for. They used to have a decent server OS, Xenix, but after they dumped it SCO managed to completely trash it for them.
I suffer from Ulnar Nerve Syndrome, and after making a few changes in the way a use my computer about a decade ago when it was diagnosed the symptoms rapidly improved, and improvement continued over the following few months, I have not had ANY incidents of severe pain, nor has there been any progression.
My doctor at the time told me that many cases described as CTS are not in fact CTS but are some other kind of damage. BUT... the changes in behavior intended to alleviate CTS are effective at resolving superficially similar problems, and avoiding pain and loss of motion whatever the cause.
So... if you are suffering from pain that may be alleviated by changing your work habits, DO IT. And you should be talking to your doctor about it anyway.
That's my take too. I've had dozens of projects out there at various times, some get a lot of use, some don't, but even one patch is worth more than the effort of putting it up. And don't worry about someone "leeching" it... what have you lost if they do? Nothing you would have had if you'd just kept quiet about the code.
And what's wrong with a little lechery, anyway? And what does sexual excitement have to do with OSS? You didn't that that "Sex, Drugs, and UNIX" line seriously, did you?
As for the frame you're referring to that could easily be made of local materials like wood or recycled plastic or almost anything that will put tension on the material.
Build it vertically, put the generator at the top, hang a weight on the bottom, trim it to the desired wind speed by adjusting the weight.
It might even be possible to come up with a mechanism to adjust the tension to the wind speed using a couple of levers and a vane attached to the counterweight and the frame.
Sure, DX10, >4gb of ram, etc are things that COULD be backported to work in XP. They haven't been.
When I need things like DX10 I suppose I'll have to put up with the disadvantages of Vista to get them.
Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb.
But right now, they're not. Right now, someone who's bought a computer that comes with Vista installed, who doesn't need DX10, is getting no real advantage from Vista. We're not talking about what people are going to be buying in 2009, we're talking about computers people are buying in 2007.
within 18 months you'll need several of the features
I think you meant to say that in 18 months YOU will need several of those features. You've got a quad-core box now, so you're considerably ahead of the mainstream. The mainstream doesn't need 4GB now, and probably won't need 4GB in 2009.
Based on my experience with XP and 2000, I don't expect to miss having Vista before 2010, and I don't expect to need it until 2012.
Microsoft's "Windows 7" may be out by then. Why should someone put up with Vista for 4-5 years when they can skip a whole release cycle?
we more likely to see a g33 / g35 system from apple to replace the mini with on board video and x16 and x4 pci-e slots.
I think you're dreaming. Apple wants people to use minis for home entertainment centers, not to use them for anything that requires oomph. I'd love them to do something like that as well, but once bitten...
Now, as to the kernel issues.... i have noticed no perceptible difference in performance between XP and vista apart from disk i/o. [...] I've got an extra 2 cores to run with. [...]
Ah, you have a faster computer with more cores, therefore Vista isn't slower than XP. Except in disk I/O, where you haven't got an automatic performance boost from the improved hardware.
In many situations the slowest component of the system is between the keyboard and the chair. For many purposes a PIII running Windows 2000 or NT is fast enough that there is no perceived delay in the system. That doesn't mean that if a new OS made your system that slow YOU wouldn't notice, but it does mean that your anecdotal evidence is more or less irrelevant.
There are people who definitely have noticed.
system restore: it's now been upgraded to snapshot anything you want
That's neither an OS capability nor is it something that Microsoft needs to be involved in. There's plenty of applications that provide the same functionality on just about every OS out there, many of them free and/or open source.
more than 4gigs of RAM. yes, XP64 can do it, but it's a stillborn product [...] directX10. yes, this could probably be ported to XP or 2k. but it hasn't been. suck it up
I can pretty much guarantee that Microsoft has DX10 working on XP internally, since that's what they had to develop on while they were developing it. In fact, odds are DX10 would work in XP if it didn't deliberately check... I've found that a lot of applications, drivers, and so on that claim to require XP or even 2000 run just fine in earlier systems if you bypass the version check on install.
As for "more than 4G of RAM"... Windows 2000 Server could do that, in 32-bit mode, on hardware that could address more RAM. It could even give applications access to more than 4G of address space through address windows.
For most people, though, this stuff is irrelevant, their typical new computer is likely to come with 1G RAM at most, and not have DX10 support in its on-board integrated video, so... what do they get from Vista?
Per application volume control, for the 3 apps in the whole world that need it and don't have their own volume settings.
And a snapshot application, vintage 1985 quality, that also happens to be useful for viruses to hide from antivirus software in.
In exchange, unless they got a quad core firebreather like you, their new computer may well be slower than their old one.
So is it any wonder they want an escape clause?
I can't find anything on the site about the actual technique for turning silicon microspheres into cells. How are they prepared, mounted, and connected?
The only downside I can think of is that people are unable to deface a ballot as a protest vote
On the backside?
And yet, you can store more mail on your Yahoo and Hotmail account than on Gmail. What's your point?
The point is that hardly anyone bothers to take advantage of the available storage on Yahoo and Hotmail, so it's easier for them to set their quotas higher than it is for Google, so the implication that somehow this implied Google was doing an inferior job is churlish.
Vista is a pretty good operating system. The worst things about it are that: 1) it's new.
2) It provides little or no functionality that consumers actually want over XP.
3) It's more complex than XP, due to the "secure-path" code in the kernel.
4) It's less reliable than XP, due to the additional copy protection and secure-path code in the kernel.
5) It has higher kernel overhead than XP, due to the secure-path code in the kernel.
The reason that people go on about the "horrible DRM" is not because the DRM itself is the problem. It's because the changes that were made to support that DRM are most of the real kernel level differences between XP and Vista.
In addition, the new user-visible security features (UAC and the sandbox for IE) are bandaids. They have not made any attempt to address the real problems in the network services, Win32 APIs, and user-level applications that provide such a large surface area to attackers.
Microsoft's real problem is that they did too good a job, for the desktop at least, with Windows 2000. The only shortcomings to Windows 2000 are features that should have been shipped in feature packs... most of them were originally developed on 2000... and everything they've done since then have been attempts to artificially create the appearance of "newness". There were no fundamental changes in XP, and the only fundamental changes in Vista are things that provide no real benefit to the consumer (and actually hurt them).
They got a pass with XP because they presented it as the upgrade path from Windows 9x. They could have done that with Windows 2000... my "Wintendo" (my Windows gaming box) runs Windows 2000, and the first program I found that wouldn't run on 2000... that actually required XP... was a couple of months ago. Something like 8 years after release and 5 years after XP came out. I don't know why they bothered with Windows Me and didn't just push EVERYONE to Windows 2000 as the upgrade path, but I guess they wanted the income from another upgrade cycle. Anyway, XP gave people something new. Vista can't do that.
With Windows 2000 Microsoft has put themselves out of the "operating system company" job. They've reacted by trying to force people to upgrade, and people don't like that. Unbundling Windows and selling the bundled components as separate packages would get them out of this trap, but after fighting so hard to keep that from happening against their will I don't figure they'll do it.
In the meantime everyone who depends on a stable Windows ecosystem is the loser.
The "capacities" Microsoft and Yahoo and Google are providing are not comparable values. That's because they're all overcommitted quotas, calculated by assuming that the majority of users aren't going to take advantage of them and only turning up actual hardware to back them up when the window between the actually used and actually available storage gets too low.
When you don't have that many of your users taking advantage of a facility, it's easy to provide big quotas.
So all you're doing when you compare Hotmail and Yahoo to GMail here is pointing out that Yahoo and Hotmail have a smaller percentage of their users taking advantage of their quota, for whatever reason.
Why yes, I am, but I'm also benefitting from this patent since I have hard drives in my computers, so I have to do penance somehow.
Is it just me or is it kind of creepy that Xerox patents, which include most of the prior art for just about anything to do with GUIs, are in the hands of patent trolls?
If you use A to make B, and A doesn't belong to you, why should you be able to benefit from B?
I'll stop using public roads immediately, sir!
I've had a laptop that provides access to the hard drive without Windows since 1997.
And booting to UNIX single user mode so I can copy a file to a floppy or flash stick takes no time at all.
Ah, the advantages of being literate and not needing to look at pictures to do things on my computer...
What happened to the scheme by which Antigua would get a $BIGNUM exception to US copyrights to serve as payment... that is, they'd be able to sell $BIGNUM legal copies of movies or music or software until they hit the penalty target.
They seem to be more interested in Mono, and the OpenSIM project is in .NET. :(