This is how Windows Update v2 and 3 worked, but what happened (or started to happen) was that the data sent to the client was very large.
Not a very good excuse. Client should not send much (if anything) to MS. Client should only access the service (e.g. through a particular URL, or host) that was designed for that version of OS. Depending on the version of the OS, client then should receive the metadata of all updates available for that OS. This transmission is not very large, even less so if it is properly compressed. Client, then, should decide what updates to consider and offer the choice to the user.
There is no need for MS to have much (if any) information about client OS system, much less third party applications. Going down the faulty logic of MS needing this info, they may in the future want to "inspect" all your private Office documents, encoded music files, etc. just to "confirm" that the necessary components will be updated and all your applications will stay compatible with your existing files.
So if Microsoft's google is ok, then Google is wrong. But if you don't want Microsoft to have the ability to rebrand MSN Search as Microsoft's Google, then Google needs to do this.
You are right that they risk losing their trademark. Aspirin, nylon, cellophane, thermos, and many others have lost their trademark protection because of this. Xerox, Post-it, Scotch tape, Kleenex, etc. are actively fighting against any such trends by differentiating between thier brand names and common term usage.
However, most of the actions that Google needs to take are related to educating public and not "amazoning" (from an earlier post) a small-traffic website. Their own website seems like a perfect place to start educating their users.
Office 97 was the first package with reasonable HTML built-in.
As you mentioned yourself, that HTML output was utter crap. Nobody was or is expected to use that feature for any meaningful data storage or presentation purposes. Did anyone?
Office 2000 introduced a whole heck of new features--most notably for most of us, those auto-hiding menus
Very annoying hiding menus - many have pointed out that when menu options that are not used are hidden, user is likely to never find out about those options, thus sticking to what they did know - Office 97 functionality.
multiple windows in the taskbar
At first, I thought it was for some technical reasons; taskbar is unreasonably congested with open windows. Try opening Outlook, few documents in Word, and browse a little in IE; after a few pop-ups you won't recognize what apps you are running unless you increase the taskbar size or place it vertically.
built-in clipboard that can hold twelve "cuts."
Everyone seems to be saying this was an improvement in Office 2000, but if I recall correctly, I remember using this in Office 97 w/service pack update.
etc., etc.
Anyway, these features are hardly worth few hundred bucks per pop for upgrade, or $500 or so for full release. Especially when most of the new actual useful features never get used. Combine that with MS' one product fits all strategy, and it looks even less valuable.
There is no possible way NASA could fend off such criticism by just pretending mistake C happened instead of mistake G.
Oh yes, there is.
On one hand they have a very public evidence - foam or possibly ice - hitting and damaging shuttle's left wing. NASA says they and Boeing analyzed the incident and determined to be not of significant concern that would break up the orbiter. Now these articles, if you read them, bring out more evidence that these analysis were done by mostly inexperienced engineers. Moreover, as one article mentioned, they ignored several of the "worst case scenarios" brought out by the software they used for analysis. All this data is becoming public and directly blames NASA and Boeing for not being careful/accurate/[insert your adjective].
On the other hand, NASA could conclude that the crash was a result of a long-standing defect (structural, mechanical, etc.) that nobody knew about until now.
Now, in the former case, blame directly goes to NASA and Boeing for basically "screwing up". In the latter case, they could market the idea that "look, space travel is dangerous business, you can't see everything coming" and then shift attention to astronauts being heroes and so on. There is a big difference between saving the face, keeping the job and public perception, program funding, etc. not only on NASA's local level, but consider financial, political, and international stage; and on the other hand being directly blamed for the disaster. Also consider public opinion difference between these two scenarios.
The difference between the examples you site, and the case at hand is who violates the patent. In all of the cases you site, the manufacturer of the hardware violated the patent, so they are liable. In this case, Microsoft simply provided a tool that allowed end-users to violate the patent. MS had the appropriate liecnses, so they are not guilty of anything.
Well, not in all cases. Patent holder can charge you if you simply use patented technology, you don't have to exactly engage in selling or otherwise distributing it. E.g. if I have a patent on swinging on a swing, I can charge you every time you try to swing on the damn thing. I can have a separate contracts with manufacturers of the swing though, but that in itself will not prohibit me from charging for the *use*.
IANAL, but that's as far as I understand. Copyright is about distributing, patents are not solely for that purpose; they protect *use* also, if patent holder so chooses.
Because none of us are using Microsoft products or file formats... right?
Right. But check the CNet article - the name of this feature is Rights Management Service - RMS! I wouldn't want to be Microsoft right now; that's crossing the line.
God help OSS developers if Microsoft is responsible.
God help consumers if Microsoft's customers are responsible. From then on, everyone would be required to take their lawyer to Circuit City, Wal-Mart, Ford dealer, supermarkets, etc. to purchase any consumer goods and/or service. The lawyer would have to request copies of private agreements between all possibly involved coroporations, patent records, existing patent applications, copyrights, etc. and determine who owes what to whom, and who is likely to prevail in court in case of possible litigation.
Microsoft misrepresented their product by failing to include a very significant condition to using their software at the time of purchase, and failed to inform their customers of additional liabilities resulting from such acts. Customers, on the other hand, were acting in good faith and had no reason to doubt and distrust Microsoft. There is no fair way that customers should be responsible. There is no fair way that customers be required to know about all Microsoft's private dealings and agreements, and have to inspect every single one.
Herein lies the stupidity of the patent system. The patent owner deserves to be compensated for use. Seller doesn't have to disclose the patent at the time of sale. Why? Because all patents are public? Is everyone supposed to have memorized the patent database to avoid being sued out of existence?
When will it be when they drop the system and stop accepting new applications?
That is absolutely correct. Timeline can go after the end users.
How is this fair?
You go into a store and buy a PC that contains a video card with an ATI chipset. nVidia later sues ATI for some obscure patent infringement not covered under their contract and wins. Can nVidia go after every customer who bought and are using the affected ATI cards? Are you, the customer, legally required to check every component in your computer at the time of purchase for any patent infringement? Are you also required to request a copy of an agreement between nVidia and ATI to make sure that their (private) agreement covers your use? Between AMD and Intel? Are you required to do so with every hardware and software component in your system?
Are you also, after going through these required materials with your lawyer, required to guess possible reasons for litigation and who is going to prevail in that case? How much responsibility should a buyer bear when a seller is deliberately misrepresenting the product? Can I lift my finger without consulting with the lawyer (ironically, immunized from everything) first?
IANAL, but as far as I understand buyer is only required to be reasonable. E.g., if a car looks like it's been stolen, and you've seen the seller's picture on the "wanted" list at your police station or on TV, and he doesn't have some vehicle documentation which is registered in someone else's name, that car is probably stolen and you shouldn't buy it. And, if you did, you will need to return it to the owner. But, if a seller, such as Microsoft, is misleading their customers about their private agreement with a patent holder, is it reasonable for all their customers to require Microsoft to provide copies of all their private agreements that they have made? Then go through those agreements, and be a judge and a jury deciding who's right and wrong? Microsoft would probably tell them to "#*@% off!" right away; Of course, that's not reasonable. As much as some people want it on/., it would be grossly unfair if Timeline is allowed to go after Microsoft's customers.
That's why patents suck anyway, especially on software. They are out there, nobody knows about them, like traps and land mines for new technology and real innovation.
Well, the article points to "German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October 23,1995, pages 206-212)". If anyone has access to this could easily look it up to confirm or invalidate.
Having said that, who cares what Bill Gates said over 7 years ago? I don't see any point of this other than for some historical footnote. Did editors check the date 10/23/95 before rushing this to the front page?
please, show me the software on linux that will do this and not require a month to cobble together.
You are right, as what I pointed out also, that currently no such easy solutions exist, since most of the "Linux PVR" projects require certain hardware, modding PC boxes, software packages, compiling, going through some trouble, etc. XBox with a simple ISO on a CD or a DVD would solve most of those problems.
As far as I understand, given the popularity of XBox platform, anyone could easily create an ISO image with all the required software that installed upon loading the disc into the tray.
Now that's not to say that MS will allow this. What's in it for them?
there was an article linked here recently where someone set up a cluster of xboxes and a cluster of cheap pc's and concluded that cheap walmart pc's were faster and more cost effective than the xboxes. so who's going to buy all these machines to run just linux? poorly?
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
I could use it to watch DVDs, play games online, e-mail, listen to music, webcasts, PVR, all in the living room, and do all that with a controller and a remote. And I wouldn't have to build, or attempt a Linux PVR install from a discarded desktop computer either trying to get compatible hardware and compiling software from source.
It does serve, as MS intended, a good base for an entertainment center rather than just a gaming console.
And, the box will actually fit in with the rest of the room too.
This is possibly the most ignorant comment in this whole discussion.
No. Copyright trumps the First Amendment every time. Application of copyright law leaves space for freedom of the press, but it does not allow wholesale dismissal of copyright.
How does this apply to screenshots? Screenshots are not reproduction of the whole work. Can you make a photocopy of few pages from a book? Can you write a review from the book and quote the author? Can you reference and quote other authors?
The screenshots from the two towers bootleg are illegal for two reasons:
a) They are not authorized pictures from the movie and could possibly spoil the movie for someone who hasn't seen it and that can result in lost sales
I guess I have to see a piece of legislation that bans movie spoilers, descriptions, opinions, etc. That piece of legislation doesn't exist in the U.S., nor do I think it exists in Norway. In fact, using parts of copyrighted work for fair use, including speech, opinions, caricatures is perfectly legal and done daily almost everywhere around the world.
b) Showing pictures of a "bootleg" of a movie could potentially promote the art of bootlegging (which already is responsible for millions in lost/stolen sales)
What a ridiculous statement! Also, showing murders, mass killings, drug use, rape, etc. in many AOL/Time Warner movies could potentially promote the art (?) of such actions. So, those movies should be censored and deemed illegal too. Censor everything?
Aol/Time Warner is within their rights and has a duty to protect their copywritten work. Sorry folks.
Sorry man, everyone else is also within their full rights to use copyrighted works within the fair use guidelines. Seems like AOL/Time Warner should go after people who copy and sell their work, rather than consumers.
Sure it has. I'll give you an unsolvable game right now. [snip] Thus, for a computer to win at this game, it would actually have to show intelligence, and not raw computational skill.
As has been pointed out already you are right about unsolvable games. Not so about how machines can interact. As with chess, a solvable game in itself, computer is given a set of prior "knowledge" about the game, the allowed moves, conditions, rules, winning conditions, etc. Based on this knowledge sets of computations can be performed that will allow the machine to derive the next best move and/or arrive at the best possible scenario.
Thus, what you refer to "intelligence" in this case is entirely dependent on (1) quality and quantity of initial knowledge and (2) computational power and logic. In fact, the chess programs today are not written to play it as a solvable game.
What I and many others would refer to intelligence has to involve interactive learning ultimately resulting in the ability to modify, add to, or correct both (1) and (2) above. In a lot of cases where AI or intelligence is mentioned does not really refer to this, but rather either none or at best partial learning abilities.
It seems to me that in most unsolvable game scenarios sufficient (1) and (2) can be applied to arrive at a calculated best guess. Intelligence would actually involve, among other things, the ability to modify (1) and (2) through interaction.
Instead of simply running more rapidly, says Intel, its new laptop chip will result in better overall performance in real-world applications.
Joe: But this laptop runs faster and is cheaper! Salesguy: Yeah, but this one performs better. Joe: So faster is not better? Salesguy: No... I mean yes! Ahh, screw you... next customer!
I think Joe Sixpacks will be very wary of shelling out more money for a lower clocked processors even if the latter ones perform better; and Intel has no one to blame for this but themselves.
Maybe software vendors should provide copies of the EULA on paper to the stores and indicate, on the packaging, that the purchaser has the right to request a copy for their review.
This "optional review" still doesn't qualify for acceptance of the agreement at the time of purchase. Everyone wishing to engage into this type of complex contract, such as the EULA, should read, understand, and actively engage in accepting the agreement by signing it after understanding its nature and terms.
As various people have pointed out, as it stands, it is just as legal for you to create your own EULA, send a hard copy via mail to software makers, and ask that if they don't agree to your terms, they feel free to send you the full reimbursement for the software package you purchased and you would gladly return and stop using that software. Most will probably ignore your letter and you can then use your software per your license terms. Of course, you get to have your own "return policies" as well.
The Russian approach also means that you have a heavy lift vehicle which can launch other kinds of payloads.
Which was done with Energiya; I believe it put a heavy Soviet military satellite into orbit. Russians proposed using Energiya for ISS but NASA scratched the idea. Maybe that was a mistake.
The Russians were able to keep a space station in orbit for years, while only using 'capsule' technology. Until we get a new generation of reusable spaceship going, let's go back to that. It was good enough to get us to the moon and back 30+ years ago. Imagine what they could do now. Safer, cheaper, etc.
You actually hit on a very interesting point. As far as the reusable Shuttle Program was designed to make space travel more common and more efficient, I don't know (1) what was the end purpose of this, and (2) how well it achieved this efficiency.
Some would argue that during 60s when Apollo program was being developed, it had a clear purpose of putting manned mission on the Moon. That mission was achieved, and very successfully at that, U.S. seemed to slam the Soviets back with "Aha! Take that!" answer to Soviets' first man in orbit.
After that, it is my opinion, that NASA had a general lack of guidance towards such a specific goal as before. The Shuttle Program was being developed during 70s. Since the U.S. didn't at that time have or plan to operate a space station, why was there such a need to take extensive cargo and operate regularly in the orbit? Some would argue that, this happening during the heat of cold war, it was going to be used to easily lift heavier cargo into space, possibly with defense and military implications. Hence, Soviet response to the Shuttle Program was the development of their own reusable vehicles in the same period.
A very interesting website describing this program, its achievements and failures is located here. Buran was the name of the first of several vehicles Soviets planned to make and operate. It was designed to take more cargo, more people into space, and operate in conjunction with the Mir space station, and future Mir2. They did manage to make and test Buran with the test flight in the orbit in 1988 before the cash-strapped program was cancelled in 1993; in addition, of course, to the break-up of the USSR and other major political events at that time.
The interesting part are the differences between the U.S. Shuttles and Buran:
- Buran is taken to space by the heavy lift system "Energyia", able to lift more weight into orbit than any existing system; - Buran does not have the main engine, like Shuttles. The main engine is part of Energyia system; this provides for a safer design while allowing the vehicle to lift more into space; - Energyia uses 4 (I believe) liquid rocket boosters, rather than NASA's solid rocket boosters, also providing for a safer method; - Most of Energyia system, other than the main tank (I believe), is reusable; - Buran is totally automatic, including re-entry and landing are controlled from the ground.
In fact, Buran's only test flight in 1988, even in NASA's words, demonstrated much promise. The unmanned orbit flight, return and landing were a success. They say there were 5 tiles missing, but there were actually 6 missing on Buran. Russia can not operate Buran after its funding problems. They have stuck with Soyuz capsules.
This raises some questions as well as opportunities. First questions:
- Since both Shuttle Program and Buran(s) were designed during cold war for (at least) partly military purposes, are they still the best way to operate orbital flights and research? - Many argue Shuttles have an undefined purpose within the space program. What are space program's mid and long term goals? - Does ISS, or any such multi-national alliance provide NASA the tools with which it can achieve its goals?
Depending on the answers above, I am wondering if it could be a possibility, at least in the short to mid-term to revive the Buran program and/or to use the heavy lift system like Energyia as a transition to a newer, safer, more efficient, and more reliable spacecraft like NASA has planned for future.
This dude must be from some PR department, eh? Didn't know PR was ever "insightful." Let's break it down.
Simpler setup with very few questions Smaller more focused set of default applications Simpler, centralised, graphical configuration tools
Let's see, what's the marketing term for - we offer less and charge more, our competition offers more and charges less? - Ahh... I know - we are simple... and... focused! Since when having less options, applications, tools, etc. and charging more count as an advantage?
Convenient, standardised help system with excellent searching and troubleshooting options
Most of the time that system you refer to fails to provide any real help of any practical application. If you want documentation from MS, you have to shell out money in books and other media, and still may end up disappointed. Besides, most tools in Linux (and Unixes) have an entry in an easily searchable man database. MS doesn't provide anything near that level of documentation or help.
In built support, from time of consumer device launch, for peripherals and card types (PCMCIA, USB etc. - Linux got late to market here).
How many years ago are you talking exactly? 5? 7?
Advanced tools are hidden from basic users.
It looks more like "advanced tools" are non-existent by default. You need to empty your pocket if you want to feel a little "advanced."
System files are protected from inadvertent change.
This is laughable at best. At worst, it makes you look like a troll, obviously, completely invalidating rest of your claims. I think you got this the wrong way around. It is Windows that doesn't protect any files from next skript kiddie that happens to learn couple of commands in VBScript. It is Linux (and other Unixes) that provide proper user/group ownership and protection. was this supposed to have improved with XP? Then why is the default startup user also the administrator?
System rescue tools provided on disk (while Linux may die less frequently, when it does there's NO WAY for Joe User to recover).
What does "system rescue" mean? Is the system drowning? To me, it sounds like a corrupted registry file which prevents Windows from booting. Reinstall Windows and recreate the registry? See, that's not the approach with Linux. There is no central registry for everything. Usually, when system boots once, it will boot the second and rest of the times. Journalling file systems prevent any data inconsistencies. Barring some hardware issues, and kernel and/or driver hacking this will not be a problem.
Moreover, a lot of distros do provide a way to "rescue" an installed system; boot from CD, floppy, even an option to boot the system with the least amount of modules to fix the problem just in case.
No confusing messages on startup.
Messages give information; true they can be intimidating the first time to someone who doesn't understand; but so can the unending popups in Windows about this driver is not signed, create a passport account, send that error report to MS, you gotta have a passport account, etc. In fact, that's much more confusing and annoying.
Who Owns Your Digital Media? Obviously the artists who make it.
I find it disturbing that you find this "obvious". I don't. The creators do own their works at the time they create it, until they decide to distribute it to public. Once the work is distributed in public, then everyone who received the said work or creation, owns it too!
However, in most countries, there is this notion and law called copyright. This grants the original creator of the work to the monopoly over distribution of his/her work for a limited period of time. In other words, for such given period of time, public, who also owns the said work, does not have the right to reproduce and redistribute the work without the original creator's permission. This by no means implies that public does not own the work, just that the creator is given a limited monopoly over distribution.
Big media corporations that want you to believe that they own everything you see and hear, and that they are lending and/or licensing some content to you, are, in most cases (especially recently), lying to you. In fact, that's what they want public to perceive, so then they can call people they don't like such names as pirates and thieves, and, as a result bribe Congress to enact more laws in their favor.
I was thinking of the article which appeared on Slashdot a couple of days ago, which talked about govts sending representatives to Redmond to view source code. I admit I didn't read the current article because, frankly, it doesn't strike me as being worth my time.
OT, but What's the point of discussion then?
I was replying to the implied suggestion that Russia with all its "huge political power" might possibly try to subvert the democratic world by releasing the source code.
OK. Next time, RTFP then. I don't know where this "subvert the democratic world" came from. I never made such a claim. If you actually do read my original post, it is asking about the impact to Microsoft if
1 - Russia decided to ignore the agreement and release parts or full source; 2 - There was a change in political power in Russia, and new government invalidated the agreement; 3 - The source is leaked.
I am asking the question - what can MS do to enforce their agreement considering the political power that Russia has?
In any case, Windows source is a constantly evolving thing. Even if Russia decided, for some unfathomable reason, to dump the source into the wild, in six months' time it would be so outdated as to be relatively useless.
Are you suggesting MS releases new version of Windows every 6 months? Some recent stats say most of the computers still run Win9x which was released more like 5 or more years ago.
You don't read the article, don't read the post, your comments are OT.
In any case, IIRC, MS is only making portions of the source available
I read from the article:
"Russia's chief demand was to get access to Microsoft's full code, with no omissions," said Yevgeny Karavayeshnikov, head of the FAPSI state intelligence and surveillance agency, which had authorized the agreement on behalf of the Russian government.
it must be viewed onsite in Redmond. What? Some ex-KGB type is going to covertly copy down 30 million lines of code onto a legal pad under his desk?
Again, I read from the article:
Russia, long considered one of the world's most secretive countries itself, in February will receive the first portions of the code--a sequence of letters and numbers roughly 30 million lines long.
Looks like they will "receive" the source code. Where does it say they will review it in Redmond?
Slashdot Mirror
This is how Windows Update v2 and 3 worked, but what happened (or started to happen) was that the data sent to the client was very large.
Not a very good excuse. Client should not send much (if anything) to MS. Client should only access the service (e.g. through a particular URL, or host) that was designed for that version of OS. Depending on the version of the OS, client then should receive the metadata of all updates available for that OS. This transmission is not very large, even less so if it is properly compressed. Client, then, should decide what updates to consider and offer the choice to the user.
There is no need for MS to have much (if any) information about client OS system, much less third party applications. Going down the faulty logic of MS needing this info, they may in the future want to "inspect" all your private Office documents, encoded music files, etc. just to "confirm" that the necessary components will be updated and all your applications will stay compatible with your existing files.
What a bad idea!
So if Microsoft's google is ok, then Google is wrong. But if you don't want Microsoft to have the ability to rebrand MSN Search as Microsoft's Google, then Google needs to do this.
You are right that they risk losing their trademark. Aspirin, nylon, cellophane, thermos, and many others have lost their trademark protection because of this. Xerox, Post-it, Scotch tape, Kleenex, etc. are actively fighting against any such trends by differentiating between thier brand names and common term usage.
However, most of the actions that Google needs to take are related to educating public and not "amazoning" (from an earlier post) a small-traffic website. Their own website seems like a perfect place to start educating their users.
Office 97 was the first package with reasonable HTML built-in.
As you mentioned yourself, that HTML output was utter crap. Nobody was or is expected to use that feature for any meaningful data storage or presentation purposes. Did anyone?
Office 2000 introduced a whole heck of new features--most notably for most of us, those auto-hiding menus
Very annoying hiding menus - many have pointed out that when menu options that are not used are hidden, user is likely to never find out about those options, thus sticking to what they did know - Office 97 functionality.
multiple windows in the taskbar
At first, I thought it was for some technical reasons; taskbar is unreasonably congested with open windows. Try opening Outlook, few documents in Word, and browse a little in IE; after a few pop-ups you won't recognize what apps you are running unless you increase the taskbar size or place it vertically.
built-in clipboard that can hold twelve "cuts."
Everyone seems to be saying this was an improvement in Office 2000, but if I recall correctly, I remember using this in Office 97 w/service pack update.
etc., etc.
Anyway, these features are hardly worth few hundred bucks per pop for upgrade, or $500 or so for full release. Especially when most of the new actual useful features never get used. Combine that with MS' one product fits all strategy, and it looks even less valuable.
There is no possible way NASA could fend off such criticism by just pretending mistake C happened instead of mistake G.
Oh yes, there is.
On one hand they have a very public evidence - foam or possibly ice - hitting and damaging shuttle's left wing. NASA says they and Boeing analyzed the incident and determined to be not of significant concern that would break up the orbiter. Now these articles, if you read them, bring out more evidence that these analysis were done by mostly inexperienced engineers. Moreover, as one article mentioned, they ignored several of the "worst case scenarios" brought out by the software they used for analysis. All this data is becoming public and directly blames NASA and Boeing for not being careful/accurate/[insert your adjective].
On the other hand, NASA could conclude that the crash was a result of a long-standing defect (structural, mechanical, etc.) that nobody knew about until now.
Now, in the former case, blame directly goes to NASA and Boeing for basically "screwing up". In the latter case, they could market the idea that "look, space travel is dangerous business, you can't see everything coming" and then shift attention to astronauts being heroes and so on. There is a big difference between saving the face, keeping the job and public perception, program funding, etc. not only on NASA's local level, but consider financial, political, and international stage; and on the other hand being directly blamed for the disaster. Also consider public opinion difference between these two scenarios.
The difference between the examples you site, and the case at hand is who violates the patent. In all of the cases you site, the manufacturer of the hardware violated the patent, so they are liable. In this case, Microsoft simply provided a tool that allowed end-users to violate the patent. MS had the appropriate liecnses, so they are not guilty of anything.
Well, not in all cases. Patent holder can charge you if you simply use patented technology, you don't have to exactly engage in selling or otherwise distributing it. E.g. if I have a patent on swinging on a swing, I can charge you every time you try to swing on the damn thing. I can have a separate contracts with manufacturers of the swing though, but that in itself will not prohibit me from charging for the *use*.
IANAL, but that's as far as I understand. Copyright is about distributing, patents are not solely for that purpose; they protect *use* also, if patent holder so chooses.
The CNet article has more info - they will use this thing called XrMS (Extensible Rights Markup Language), and it will or can be cross-platform.
Because none of us are using Microsoft products or file formats... right?
Right. But check the CNet article - the name of this feature is Rights Management Service - RMS! I wouldn't want to be Microsoft right now; that's crossing the line.
God help OSS developers if Microsoft is responsible.
God help consumers if Microsoft's customers are responsible. From then on, everyone would be required to take their lawyer to Circuit City, Wal-Mart, Ford dealer, supermarkets, etc. to purchase any consumer goods and/or service. The lawyer would have to request copies of private agreements between all possibly involved coroporations, patent records, existing patent applications, copyrights, etc. and determine who owes what to whom, and who is likely to prevail in court in case of possible litigation.
Microsoft misrepresented their product by failing to include a very significant condition to using their software at the time of purchase, and failed to inform their customers of additional liabilities resulting from such acts. Customers, on the other hand, were acting in good faith and had no reason to doubt and distrust Microsoft. There is no fair way that customers should be responsible. There is no fair way that customers be required to know about all Microsoft's private dealings and agreements, and have to inspect every single one.
Herein lies the stupidity of the patent system. The patent owner deserves to be compensated for use. Seller doesn't have to disclose the patent at the time of sale. Why? Because all patents are public? Is everyone supposed to have memorized the patent database to avoid being sued out of existence?
When will it be when they drop the system and stop accepting new applications?
That is absolutely correct. Timeline can go after the end users.
/., it would be grossly unfair if Timeline is allowed to go after Microsoft's customers.
How is this fair?
You go into a store and buy a PC that contains a video card with an ATI chipset. nVidia later sues ATI for some obscure patent infringement not covered under their contract and wins. Can nVidia go after every customer who bought and are using the affected ATI cards? Are you, the customer, legally required to check every component in your computer at the time of purchase for any patent infringement? Are you also required to request a copy of an agreement between nVidia and ATI to make sure that their (private) agreement covers your use? Between AMD and Intel? Are you required to do so with every hardware and software component in your system?
Are you also, after going through these required materials with your lawyer, required to guess possible reasons for litigation and who is going to prevail in that case? How much responsibility should a buyer bear when a seller is deliberately misrepresenting the product? Can I lift my finger without consulting with the lawyer (ironically, immunized from everything) first?
IANAL, but as far as I understand buyer is only required to be reasonable. E.g., if a car looks like it's been stolen, and you've seen the seller's picture on the "wanted" list at your police station or on TV, and he doesn't have some vehicle documentation which is registered in someone else's name, that car is probably stolen and you shouldn't buy it. And, if you did, you will need to return it to the owner. But, if a seller, such as Microsoft, is misleading their customers about their private agreement with a patent holder, is it reasonable for all their customers to require Microsoft to provide copies of all their private agreements that they have made? Then go through those agreements, and be a judge and a jury deciding who's right and wrong? Microsoft would probably tell them to "#*@% off!" right away; Of course, that's not reasonable. As much as some people want it on
That's why patents suck anyway, especially on software. They are out there, nobody knows about them, like traps and land mines for new technology and real innovation.
How did this even get posted?
We must be seeing some pretty old submissions go through. Funny part is even then it would be too old though since Slashdot started in '97 I believe.
Nobody demanding to see the original transcript?
Well, the article points to "German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October 23,1995, pages 206-212)". If anyone has access to this could easily look it up to confirm or invalidate.
Having said that, who cares what Bill Gates said over 7 years ago? I don't see any point of this other than for some historical footnote. Did editors check the date 10/23/95 before rushing this to the front page?
please, show me the software on linux that will do this and not require a month to cobble together.
You are right, as what I pointed out also, that currently no such easy solutions exist, since most of the "Linux PVR" projects require certain hardware, modding PC boxes, software packages, compiling, going through some trouble, etc. XBox with a simple ISO on a CD or a DVD would solve most of those problems.
As far as I understand, given the popularity of XBox platform, anyone could easily create an ISO image with all the required software that installed upon loading the disc into the tray.
Now that's not to say that MS will allow this. What's in it for them?
there was an article linked here recently where someone set up a cluster of xboxes and a cluster of cheap pc's and concluded that cheap walmart pc's were faster and more cost effective than the xboxes. so who's going to buy all these machines to run just linux? poorly?
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
I could use it to watch DVDs, play games online, e-mail, listen to music, webcasts, PVR, all in the living room, and do all that with a controller and a remote. And I wouldn't have to build, or attempt a Linux PVR install from a discarded desktop computer either trying to get compatible hardware and compiling software from source.
It does serve, as MS intended, a good base for an entertainment center rather than just a gaming console.
And, the box will actually fit in with the rest of the room too.
This is possibly the most ignorant comment in this whole discussion.
No. Copyright trumps the First Amendment every time. Application of copyright law leaves space for freedom of the press, but it does not allow wholesale dismissal of copyright.
How does this apply to screenshots? Screenshots are not reproduction of the whole work. Can you make a photocopy of few pages from a book? Can you write a review from the book and quote the author? Can you reference and quote other authors?
The screenshots from the two towers bootleg are illegal for two reasons:
a) They are not authorized pictures from the movie and could possibly spoil the movie for someone who hasn't seen it and that can result in lost sales
I guess I have to see a piece of legislation that bans movie spoilers, descriptions, opinions, etc. That piece of legislation doesn't exist in the U.S., nor do I think it exists in Norway. In fact, using parts of copyrighted work for fair use, including speech, opinions, caricatures is perfectly legal and done daily almost everywhere around the world.
b) Showing pictures of a "bootleg" of a movie could potentially promote the art of bootlegging (which already is responsible for millions in lost/stolen sales)
What a ridiculous statement! Also, showing murders, mass killings, drug use, rape, etc. in many AOL/Time Warner movies could potentially promote the art (?) of such actions. So, those movies should be censored and deemed illegal too. Censor everything?
Aol/Time Warner is within their rights and has a duty to protect their copywritten work. Sorry folks.
Sorry man, everyone else is also within their full rights to use copyrighted works within the fair use guidelines. Seems like AOL/Time Warner should go after people who copy and sell their work, rather than consumers.
Sure it has. I'll give you an unsolvable game right now.
[snip]
Thus, for a computer to win at this game, it would actually have to show intelligence, and not raw computational skill.
As has been pointed out already you are right about unsolvable games. Not so about how machines can interact. As with chess, a solvable game in itself, computer is given a set of prior "knowledge" about the game, the allowed moves, conditions, rules, winning conditions, etc. Based on this knowledge sets of computations can be performed that will allow the machine to derive the next best move and/or arrive at the best possible scenario.
Thus, what you refer to "intelligence" in this case is entirely dependent on (1) quality and quantity of initial knowledge and (2) computational power and logic. In fact, the chess programs today are not written to play it as a solvable game.
What I and many others would refer to intelligence has to involve interactive learning ultimately resulting in the ability to modify, add to, or correct both (1) and (2) above. In a lot of cases where AI or intelligence is mentioned does not really refer to this, but rather either none or at best partial learning abilities.
It seems to me that in most unsolvable game scenarios sufficient (1) and (2) can be applied to arrive at a calculated best guess. Intelligence would actually involve, among other things, the ability to modify (1) and (2) through interaction.
But what do I know, these are only my thoughts.
Instead of simply running more rapidly, says Intel, its new laptop chip will result in better overall performance in real-world applications.
Joe: But this laptop runs faster and is cheaper!
Salesguy: Yeah, but this one performs better.
Joe: So faster is not better?
Salesguy: No... I mean yes! Ahh, screw you... next customer!
I think Joe Sixpacks will be very wary of shelling out more money for a lower clocked processors even if the latter ones perform better; and Intel has no one to blame for this but themselves.
Maybe software vendors should provide copies of the EULA on paper to the stores and indicate, on the packaging, that the purchaser has the right to request a copy for their review.
This "optional review" still doesn't qualify for acceptance of the agreement at the time of purchase. Everyone wishing to engage into this type of complex contract, such as the EULA, should read, understand, and actively engage in accepting the agreement by signing it after understanding its nature and terms.
As various people have pointed out, as it stands, it is just as legal for you to create your own EULA, send a hard copy via mail to software makers, and ask that if they don't agree to your terms, they feel free to send you the full reimbursement for the software package you purchased and you would gladly return and stop using that software. Most will probably ignore your letter and you can then use your software per your license terms. Of course, you get to have your own "return policies" as well.
Have fun!
The Russian approach also means that you have a heavy lift vehicle which can launch other kinds of payloads.
Which was done with Energiya; I believe it put a heavy Soviet military satellite into orbit. Russians proposed using Energiya for ISS but NASA scratched the idea. Maybe that was a mistake.
The Russians were able to keep a space station in orbit for years, while only using 'capsule' technology. Until we get a new generation of reusable spaceship going, let's go back to that. It was good enough to get us to the moon and back 30+ years ago. Imagine what they could do now. Safer, cheaper, etc.
You actually hit on a very interesting point. As far as the reusable Shuttle Program was designed to make space travel more common and more efficient, I don't know (1) what was the end purpose of this, and (2) how well it achieved this efficiency.
Some would argue that during 60s when Apollo program was being developed, it had a clear purpose of putting manned mission on the Moon. That mission was achieved, and very successfully at that, U.S. seemed to slam the Soviets back with "Aha! Take that!" answer to Soviets' first man in orbit.
After that, it is my opinion, that NASA had a general lack of guidance towards such a specific goal as before. The Shuttle Program was being developed during 70s. Since the U.S. didn't at that time have or plan to operate a space station, why was there such a need to take extensive cargo and operate regularly in the orbit? Some would argue that, this happening during the heat of cold war, it was going to be used to easily lift heavier cargo into space, possibly with defense and military implications. Hence, Soviet response to the Shuttle Program was the development of their own reusable vehicles in the same period.
A very interesting website describing this program, its achievements and failures is located here. Buran was the name of the first of several vehicles Soviets planned to make and operate. It was designed to take more cargo, more people into space, and operate in conjunction with the Mir space station, and future Mir2. They did manage to make and test Buran with the test flight in the orbit in 1988 before the cash-strapped program was cancelled in 1993; in addition, of course, to the break-up of the USSR and other major political events at that time.
The interesting part are the differences between the U.S. Shuttles and Buran:
- Buran is taken to space by the heavy lift system "Energyia", able to lift more weight into orbit than any existing system;
- Buran does not have the main engine, like Shuttles. The main engine is part of Energyia system; this provides for a safer design while allowing the vehicle to lift more into space;
- Energyia uses 4 (I believe) liquid rocket boosters, rather than NASA's solid rocket boosters, also providing for a safer method;
- Most of Energyia system, other than the main tank (I believe), is reusable;
- Buran is totally automatic, including re-entry and landing are controlled from the ground.
In fact, Buran's only test flight in 1988, even in NASA's words, demonstrated much promise. The unmanned orbit flight, return and landing were a success. They say there were 5 tiles missing, but there were actually 6 missing on Buran. Russia can not operate Buran after its funding problems. They have stuck with Soyuz capsules.
This raises some questions as well as opportunities. First questions:
- Since both Shuttle Program and Buran(s) were designed during cold war for (at least) partly military purposes, are they still the best way to operate orbital flights and research?
- Many argue Shuttles have an undefined purpose within the space program. What are space program's mid and long term goals?
- Does ISS, or any such multi-national alliance provide NASA the tools with which it can achieve its goals?
Depending on the answers above, I am wondering if it could be a possibility, at least in the short to mid-term to revive the Buran program and/or to use the heavy lift system like Energyia as a transition to a newer, safer, more efficient, and more reliable spacecraft like NASA has planned for future.
This dude must be from some PR department, eh? Didn't know PR was ever "insightful." Let's break it down.
... focused! Since when having less options, applications, tools, etc. and charging more count as an advantage?
Simpler setup with very few questions
Smaller more focused set of default applications
Simpler, centralised, graphical configuration tools
Let's see, what's the marketing term for - we offer less and charge more, our competition offers more and charges less? - Ahh... I know - we are simple... and
Convenient, standardised help system with excellent searching and troubleshooting options
Most of the time that system you refer to fails to provide any real help of any practical application. If you want documentation from MS, you have to shell out money in books and other media, and still may end up disappointed. Besides, most tools in Linux (and Unixes) have an entry in an easily searchable man database. MS doesn't provide anything near that level of documentation or help.
In built support, from time of consumer device launch, for peripherals and card types (PCMCIA, USB etc. - Linux got late to market here).
How many years ago are you talking exactly? 5? 7?
Advanced tools are hidden from basic users.
It looks more like "advanced tools" are non-existent by default. You need to empty your pocket if you want to feel a little "advanced."
System files are protected from inadvertent change.
This is laughable at best. At worst, it makes you look like a troll, obviously, completely invalidating rest of your claims. I think you got this the wrong way around. It is Windows that doesn't protect any files from next skript kiddie that happens to learn couple of commands in VBScript. It is Linux (and other Unixes) that provide proper user/group ownership and protection. was this supposed to have improved with XP? Then why is the default startup user also the administrator?
System rescue tools provided on disk (while Linux may die less frequently, when it does there's NO WAY for Joe User to recover).
What does "system rescue" mean? Is the system drowning? To me, it sounds like a corrupted registry file which prevents Windows from booting. Reinstall Windows and recreate the registry? See, that's not the approach with Linux. There is no central registry for everything. Usually, when system boots once, it will boot the second and rest of the times. Journalling file systems prevent any data inconsistencies. Barring some hardware issues, and kernel and/or driver hacking this will not be a problem.
Moreover, a lot of distros do provide a way to "rescue" an installed system; boot from CD, floppy, even an option to boot the system with the least amount of modules to fix the problem just in case.
No confusing messages on startup.
Messages give information; true they can be intimidating the first time to someone who doesn't understand; but so can the unending popups in Windows about this driver is not signed, create a passport account, send that error report to MS, you gotta have a passport account, etc. In fact, that's much more confusing and annoying.
Who Owns Your Digital Media?
Obviously the artists who make it.
I find it disturbing that you find this "obvious". I don't. The creators do own their works at the time they create it, until they decide to distribute it to public. Once the work is distributed in public, then everyone who received the said work or creation, owns it too!
However, in most countries, there is this notion and law called copyright. This grants the original creator of the work to the monopoly over distribution of his/her work for a limited period of time. In other words, for such given period of time, public, who also owns the said work, does not have the right to reproduce and redistribute the work without the original creator's permission. This by no means implies that public does not own the work, just that the creator is given a limited monopoly over distribution.
Big media corporations that want you to believe that they own everything you see and hear, and that they are lending and/or licensing some content to you, are, in most cases (especially recently), lying to you. In fact, that's what they want public to perceive, so then they can call people they don't like such names as pirates and thieves, and, as a result bribe Congress to enact more laws in their favor.
Now all we need is Duke Nukem Forever and some flying cars.
I think flying cars will come first (Google cache - LATimes archived the article, and they want money for it).
I was thinking of the article which appeared on Slashdot a couple of days ago, which talked about govts sending representatives to Redmond to view source code. I admit I didn't read the current article because, frankly, it doesn't strike me as being worth my time.
OT, but What's the point of discussion then?
I was replying to the implied suggestion that Russia with all its "huge political power" might possibly try to subvert the democratic world by releasing the source code.
OK. Next time, RTFP then. I don't know where this "subvert the democratic world" came from. I never made such a claim. If you actually do read my original post, it is asking about the impact to Microsoft if
1 - Russia decided to ignore the agreement and release parts or full source;
2 - There was a change in political power in Russia, and new government invalidated the agreement;
3 - The source is leaked.
I am asking the question - what can MS do to enforce their agreement considering the political power that Russia has?
In any case, Windows source is a constantly evolving thing. Even if Russia decided, for some unfathomable reason, to dump the source into the wild, in six months' time it would be so outdated as to be relatively useless.
Are you suggesting MS releases new version of Windows every 6 months? Some recent stats say most of the computers still run Win9x which was released more like 5 or more years ago.
You don't read the article, don't read the post, your comments are OT.
Next time, RTFA:
In any case, IIRC, MS is only making portions of the source available
I read from the article:
"Russia's chief demand was to get access to Microsoft's full code, with no omissions," said Yevgeny Karavayeshnikov, head of the FAPSI state intelligence and surveillance agency, which had authorized the agreement on behalf of the Russian government.
it must be viewed onsite in Redmond. What? Some ex-KGB type is going to covertly copy down 30 million lines of code onto a legal pad under his desk?
Again, I read from the article:
Russia, long considered one of the world's most secretive countries itself, in February will receive the first portions of the code--a sequence of letters and numbers roughly 30 million lines long.
Looks like they will "receive" the source code. Where does it say they will review it in Redmond?