Sure, it's DIFFERENT. And it might not work and then again it might and if you corner the market with it.. that makes you a GOOD businessman, which is not generally of the "me too" variety.
Penny Arcade is NOT in anyway shape or form harassing him.
It is LEGAL to make donations in another's name. (IE you can make a donation to the NAACP in David Duke's name...)
Is it LEGAL (at least in the USA) to correspond with another and say "ha ha you're a fool"
Is Penny Arcade directing attention to this guy? Yes. And it's LEGAL to do so (in the USA).
They're not threatening him. They're not telling people to threaten him. They are trying to get people's attention on him so that they'll realize that this campaign to sue video game companies is one man's personal vendetta and not necessarily a generalized public response.
He wasn't "hit out of the blue" He's been harassing video game websites for months now and has been publically bashing the entire video game industry. He publically made an offer of donating money to charity if they'd build a game to his specification which he renegged on. He's a public figure, waging a public vendetta.
That's NOT illegal (in the USA). That's called FREE SPEECH.
Both. Even though there are many logical connections and voip going on over the internet in a virtual world manner, it still all communicates in physical reality. Either through cable companies, phone companies, local wireless routers (on their way to the cable and phone companies) or through some wireless service (like a cable company/phone company) and all of that has to be moderated (heh) to make sure that equipment AND companies play fair.
The better question to ask is whether or not the FCC needs to be regulating virtual communications. (like VOIP) The answer to that is probably yes. Not because I'm all for government intrusion. But the first time a Vonage competitor cuts a better deal for exclusive access to physical phone line routing, the loser will scream like a baby for restitution and fairplay and the government will step in.
So if you're only running one instance of Windows (but sharing processors among threads) you're still only need one license. It's when you try to run 2 distinct copies of windows simultaneously on the same PC that you have to pay twice.
Although this is loosely equivalent to having to pay for your TV twice if you use it once for primary viewing and again for picture in picture...
They want to keep sales of PCs going by allowing you to transfer contents back and forth between your server.
Next you'll be telling me that they're standing up for my rights by including mandatory DRM management at the hardware level and putting a serial# on each chip to uniquely identify a PC.
Just add my name to the chorus that says O'Reilly's books rule. (Just in case he's reading this)
They're one of the few tech book companies (the rest are long defunct) that I'll happily buy the book for without even skimming it to make sure it's not a BS "tech book" (you other "codeheads" out there know what I mean).
Even when the book turns out not to have exactly what I need. I'm always learning something else about the subject that comes in handy later.
I seem to recall that 3 incarnations of Windows PC (Windows Pocket Computer) worked perfectly well with Windows and flopped big time. Then when Palm came out, Microsoft "innovated" again and "invented" the PalmPC which everybody knows was far superior to the Palm Pilot except that it required 10 times as much memory.
Palm got into Cellular phones BEFORE PalmPC did too.
Palm didn't flop so much as its purpose was absorbed into cellphones and laptops with instant wireless connections.
It was an calender/address book with some note taking capabilities. No one really uses snail mail anymore for "quick communication" so the phone directory in a cell phone is more than enough and if you need more than that, most people are carrying around their laptops or can access GMail or Yahoo where their address books are stored online.
That leaves the calendar function which these days is stored centrally on company servers. So it's just easier to access it via the laptop everyone has then carry around yet another electronic device.
That plus its confusion as Handspring/Palm/Trio its hardware missteps over the last few years, lack of a clearcut development vision of what a PalmPC should do (it's been almost 10 years and its main functions are still... calender/address book/notes) and the perception of not being a multimedia device.
But it died because it didn't hook up to Windows properly? Nah... I still use mine and it hooks up to Windows just fine.
""Microsoft is second to none in terms of developing tools that fill a gap," he said. An example of the company's ability to redefine a market is the original Outlook software introduced in the mid-1990s. At the time, there was a hodgepodge of contact management and e-mail software, said Wilcox, but no one had combined the two.
Microsoft perceived a problem and an opportunity. "And you can't truly say that Outlook is an e-mail program. They actually redefined the market."
There is a difference between not publicizing the vulnerability and having your PR-droid say "We have not publicized the details of the vulnerability are not public so there is no fear of attack".
One is questionable prudence, the other is just downright lying. If one white hat security firm can figure it out, how hard can it be for hundreds of black hat exploiters and spammers to figure it out?
To wit, I wouldn't have bothered posting if Microsoft had just said, "We are aware of the problems and are working on a fix and won't tell you the details". That's SOP by practically all software vendors these days.
Certainly I was not trying to imply a zealot war between browser makers and which one is more secure.
A Microsoft representative confirmed that the company had received the report from eEye and said it will be investigating the issue. Because the details of the vulnerabilities have not been made public, users are not at risk of an exploit being developed to take advantage of the flaw, the representative said.
What kind of STUPID commentary is that? I mean, geez, why doesn't Microsoft just come out and say that the "peekaboo" method of virus security is a valid defense! "nyah, nyah, my hands are covering my eyes so the exploit can't harm you!"
Slashdot Mirror
Right?
Steering controllers? Gimmick.
Analog thumbsticks? Gimmick.
Sure, it's DIFFERENT. And it might not work and then again it might and if you corner the market with it.. that makes you a GOOD businessman, which is not generally of the "me too" variety.
Better to sue him than to sue legit Bittorrent users.
That is, if you don't start charging a license fee to plug into the 360... Then we'll see how many other companies produce products for it.
He's not even trying to shove morality down the throats of gamers... He's in it for the money and that's all the morality he needs.
Penny Arcade is NOT in anyway shape or form harassing him.
It is LEGAL to make donations in another's name. (IE you can make a donation to the NAACP in David Duke's name...)
Is it LEGAL (at least in the USA) to correspond with another and say "ha ha you're a fool"
Is Penny Arcade directing attention to this guy? Yes. And it's LEGAL to do so (in the USA).
They're not threatening him. They're not telling people to threaten him. They are trying to get people's attention on him so that they'll realize that this campaign to sue video game companies is one man's personal vendetta and not necessarily a generalized public response.
He wasn't "hit out of the blue" He's been harassing video game websites for months now and has been publically bashing the entire video game industry. He publically made an offer of donating money to charity if they'd build a game to his specification which he renegged on. He's a public figure, waging a public vendetta.
That's NOT illegal (in the USA). That's called FREE SPEECH.
It'll be interesting to see what the ultimate culprit is. (overpriced IBM/Accenture contractors, Indian outsourcing, Windows, Linux, etc)
But I'm 99% sure it'll have something to do along the lines of:
"Mate, we need a new Customs software system."
"No prob. We'll do it in [whiz bang technoterm du jour]"
"That's it?"
"That's it. [whiz bang technoterm du jour] using [whizbang development process du jour]"
"But what about things like useability? Proof of concept? Customer Support if the design proves unwieldy?"
"Top. Men."
Both. Even though there are many logical connections and voip going on over the internet in a virtual world manner, it still all communicates in physical reality. Either through cable companies, phone companies, local wireless routers (on their way to the cable and phone companies) or through some wireless service (like a cable company/phone company) and all of that has to be moderated (heh) to make sure that equipment AND companies play fair.
The better question to ask is whether or not the FCC needs to be regulating virtual communications. (like VOIP) The answer to that is probably yes. Not because I'm all for government intrusion. But the first time a Vonage competitor cuts a better deal for exclusive access to physical phone line routing, the loser will scream like a baby for restitution and fairplay and the government will step in.
What do you think all your internet connections are running on? Wireless radio spectrums and cable lines.
Will it include a copy of CP/M?
Essentially the ruling states that ANY process regardless of whether or not it's performed using a device or results IN a device.
IE, I can now patent my process for making hamburgers into meat balls.
Or to dial a phone.
Or the methodology behind replying to a slashdot post. (NOT the code for doing so, the *idea* behind a posting forum.)
They count as flight de-evolution! (and possibly chickens...)
Yeah, but do you have a link for "Origin, we create worlds... at other companies" flyer?
...)
(or perhaps scscscfy.mp3
So if you're only running one instance of Windows (but sharing processors among threads) you're still only need one license. It's when you try to run 2 distinct copies of windows simultaneously on the same PC that you have to pay twice.
Although this is loosely equivalent to having to pay for your TV twice if you use it once for primary viewing and again for picture in picture...
What next, is NASA going to get Woody Woodpecker to explain their concept of going to the moon?!
Oh... wait...
They want to keep sales of PCs going by allowing you to transfer contents back and forth between your server.
Next you'll be telling me that they're standing up for my rights by including mandatory DRM management at the hardware level and putting a serial# on each chip to uniquely identify a PC.
Are you insinutating that Master Chief is a.... a... girl underneath that armor?!
Just add my name to the chorus that says O'Reilly's books rule. (Just in case he's reading this)
They're one of the few tech book companies (the rest are long defunct) that I'll happily buy the book for without even skimming it to make sure it's not a BS "tech book" (you other "codeheads" out there know what I mean).
Even when the book turns out not to have exactly what I need. I'm always learning something else about the subject that comes in handy later.
So, again, SALUTE!
The Interaction Design of Microsoft Windows CE
Evolution of Design
Handheld PC (H/PC)
Palm PC (P/PC)
Auto PC (A/PC)
I seem to recall that 3 incarnations of Windows PC (Windows Pocket Computer) worked perfectly well with Windows and flopped big time. Then when Palm came out, Microsoft "innovated" again and "invented" the PalmPC which everybody knows was far superior to the Palm Pilot except that it required 10 times as much memory.
Palm got into Cellular phones BEFORE PalmPC did too.
Palm didn't flop so much as its purpose was absorbed into cellphones and laptops with instant wireless connections.
It was an calender/address book with some note taking capabilities. No one really uses snail mail anymore for "quick communication" so the phone directory in a cell phone is more than enough and if you need more than that, most people are carrying around their laptops or can access GMail or Yahoo where their address books are stored online.
That leaves the calendar function which these days is stored centrally on company servers. So it's just easier to access it via the laptop everyone has then carry around yet another electronic device.
That plus its confusion as Handspring/Palm/Trio its hardware missteps over the last few years, lack of a clearcut development vision of what a PalmPC should do (it's been almost 10 years and its main functions are still... calender/address book/notes) and the perception of not being a multimedia device.
But it died because it didn't hook up to Windows properly? Nah... I still use mine and it hooks up to Windows just fine.
Runs the Leftorium.
How about Blackbird?
""Microsoft is second to none in terms of developing tools that fill a gap," he said. An example of the company's ability to redefine a market is the original Outlook software introduced in the mid-1990s. At the time, there was a hodgepodge of contact management and e-mail software, said Wilcox, but no one had combined the two.
Microsoft perceived a problem and an opportunity. "And you can't truly say that Outlook is an e-mail program. They actually redefined the market."
Lotus Notes?
Credibility? Aw, c'mon...
There is a difference between not publicizing the vulnerability and having your PR-droid say "We have not publicized the details of the vulnerability are not public so there is no fear of attack".
One is questionable prudence, the other is just downright lying. If one white hat security firm can figure it out, how hard can it be for hundreds of black hat exploiters and spammers to figure it out?
To wit, I wouldn't have bothered posting if Microsoft had just said, "We are aware of the problems and are working on a fix and won't tell you the details". That's SOP by practically all software vendors these days.
Certainly I was not trying to imply a zealot war between browser makers and which one is more secure.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for... Move along... move along..."
A Microsoft representative confirmed that the company had received the report from eEye and said it will be investigating the issue. Because the details of the vulnerabilities have not been made public, users are not at risk of an exploit being developed to take advantage of the flaw, the representative said.
What kind of STUPID commentary is that? I mean, geez, why doesn't Microsoft just come out and say that the "peekaboo" method of virus security is a valid defense! "nyah, nyah, my hands are covering my eyes so the exploit can't harm you!"
for membrane keyboards!