The difference here is that an extended sandbox is disabled by default, and must be explicitly enabled via group policy, and even then can only run in the confines of a trusted security zone. WebGL's dangerous features are part of the default mode of operation.
ActiveX is rarely used as a malware vector. Almost all malware is delivered these days from Flash, Java, PDF, and through user allowed trojans.
The fact is, ActiveX holds no more additional threat than do Trojans, as both require end users to agree to install them. In the distant past that was not the case, but now it is and virus makers don't even bother with it anymore as it's too limiting and with IE Protected mode, it's very hard to exploit anymore.
Gold has value because you can make shiny and pretty things with it that other people want. You can't do that with dollars or bitcoins, but dollars have the advantage of being valuable to the government. Bitcoins do not.
Why gold? Because it's shiny and pretty, and you can make things out of it that people want. You can't do that with a bitcoin. The bitcoin itself represents CPU cycles that are spent already with no inherent value or purpose for any other purpose.
Dollars have value because you are required to pay your tax in them, which means they have value to the government, which means if you don't want to be locked up, you HAVE to have dollars.
That's a ridiculous argument. MS replaced VB6 with VB.NET. HTML5 is not a replacement for VB.NET or C# or any of the 95% of other technologies in.NET that have no comparison to HTML5 and javascript.
It's a ridiculous concept. It would be like replacing Windows with a graphing calculator.
I'm not entirely sure if those numbers are *JUST* the xbox. Microsoft has typically mixed the xbox in with other losing products like the webtv, and other crap so the division that xbox has been in has been unprofitable. Those numbers are also a year old, and xbox has been doing QUITE well in the last year.
Well, actually.. the Kin is a totally different story, it was killed because the Windows Phone people whined that it was shitting on their lawn.
Indeed, the Windows tablet has been a failure for a long time, but a lot of that was because there were no apps for it, and regular windows apps just don't work well on a tablet. A Windows 8 tablet, with a tablet marketplace, might be successful if apps are written specifically for it.
I doubt Microsoft will actually sell their own though, they may be working on a hardware baseline, much like the Google Nexus was (yes, you could buy one, but they weren't really in the business to sell them). Microsoft did something similar with Origami many years ago.
You contradict yourself. First you say it has no viable value, then you say "people would just trade in them the minimal amount necessary to pay taxes". But that's just it, they would HAVE to trade in them to pay their taxes. And since taxes are based on US Dollar value of things, by definition everything has to have a US Dollar equivelent.
Bitcoin has no viable value. I dont understand why anyone, esecially drug dealers, would take bitcoin. Why not just draw on some paper with crayons and say it's money?
Bitcoin is not backed by any government, nor is it backed by anything of value. CPU cycles are not valuable after they are expended, and the work involved is not useful for anything else. So I really can't understand why anyone would give goods that ARE worth something in exchange for them.
Just because it takes a lot of effort to make them doesn't mean they're worth anything. Has anyone here *REALLY*, and I mean *REALLY* used bitcoin to trade anything valuable? Ever?
So you're suggesting that people should use software they don't like, and are not comfortable with use, and possibly doesn't even meet their needs.. just because you say so.
They certainly could sue. The argument is that, if you want to sell the product in the US, then you can't sell it without paying for a license outside the US. Otherwise, withdraw it from the US and only sell it elsewhere.
That's just it, it probably "appeared" to be ok, because KDE was doing a well enough job of constraining your window sizes to fit within, but when doing things like Compiz, or anything that crosses monitors, then the system assumes your desktop is the same size on both monitors as your largest monitor (or rather, it assumes the desktop os a union of the area that both desktops fit within.
This is particularly bad with full screen apps, like when using rdp clients that go full screen (they take over both monitors, because full screen apps aren't controlled by the window manager).
No, no.. I'm not talking about specific Microsoft compatibility. I'm asking why nobody has created an enterprise computer management system for Mac or Linux that accomplishes the same things as AD does on Windows? Sure, there's LDAP on Mac and Windows, but the directory is only a part of it. few apps *USE* directory services on a mac or Linux.
My point was regarding your "it's not that innovative". If it wasn't, then why hasn't anyone else copied it? Especially when it is so important and valuable?
The stock market is not a zero sum game. Money does, simply evaporate into thin air. When prices drop into the toilet, nobody but those that sell short make any money. You *might* make money by buying a stock that will rebound, by buying low.. but if the stock doesn't rebound, then that money is just gone. It didn't go in anyone elses pocket.
It's like, if you buy a property for $100,000, and then the real-estate market goes in the tank, and then you sell it for $50,000. $50k just disappeared.
Microsoft doesn't see the value in building a product from scratch. They'd rather jump into the market right away when they decide to enter that market. Buying a product gets them in the market immediately, then they can transform the purchased product into their vision of what it should be.
Still, they have created products from scratch, and some of them have been successful. The XBOX, for instance. Windows NT they built from scratch (albeit by hiring someone who had the skills to do it, but the same could have been said about Netscape, NeXT, Apple, etc..). They built Windows from scratch before it (yes, inspired by MacOS for sure, but they did not buy it). They built OS/2 from scratch. They may have bought IE, but IE today is nothing like the original and contains no code from the original project (according to Eric Sink).
By the way, regarding MS-BASIC being a "rewrite", it was nothing of the sort. Even the guys that invented BASIC were amazed that they could do so much in a small amount of memory, and leave room for running programs. What was innovative about MS-BASIC was not that it was basic, but basic that could be run on a micro computer, something that had never been done before.
The reason MS has been lagging on innovation is that they are still the dominant player in office apps and in consumer operating systems.
Wait. So you're saying that Microsoft's competitors in the Office and Desktop OS market are innovating more then?
So, which non-MS Office suite has any substantial innovation in the last 10 years? About the only thing innovative I can think of is ODF, but that seems less like an innovation than necessary transformation (ODF is largely designed to break the MS lock on file formats, and allow mobs of competitors to try and compete with Microsoft. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say).
So if your theory were correct, then all the underdogs would be innovating the hell out of things... I just don't see that. Computer software has been stagnant for years.. sort of like everything major has been invented already.
That's a stupid argument. No, most people don't "choose" windows per se, largely because they don't know there is anything else that could be chosen. That doesn't mean that, given the choice, they would choose the alternative.
I guarantee you that if you "secretly replaced their OS with Folgers Coffee.. er I mean Linux" that nearly everry one of those people would return it when they figured out they couldn't install the programs they want (games, Office, things they download off the internet..). Few people buy a computer and never put any software on it.
It wold be like buying a PAL TV in the US (I know PAL vs NTSC is no longer an issue in the digital age, but i'll still go with the analogy). PAL may be technically better than NTSC, but if you can't watch your shows on it, does it matter? Likewise, most people didn't know there was different signal standards, so they didn't know they had a choice in the kind of TV they could buy. That doesn't mean they would have bought anything different.
What the hell? That's all Microsoft has ever done. Copied DOS, copied Apple's copy of Xerox's work, copied Java, copied WordPerfect, copied that spreadsheet app...
Microsoft may have initially copied those ideas, but they tended to expand on them and create much different tools further down the line. Windows is no longer anything like DOS or the Mac. C# has now diverted from Java so much that Java is now copying it. Word is now sufficiently past all of its competitors that again, they're starting to copy it. And Excel is nothing like Lotus anymore.
Actually, it seems when it comes to dual monitors, they seem to think people only have monitors of the same dimensions. It's a pain in the ass to use two different dimensioned monitors together efficiently.
Styluses also have their use. I have one for my iPad because i like to write, not finger paint.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference here is that an extended sandbox is disabled by default, and must be explicitly enabled via group policy, and even then can only run in the confines of a trusted security zone. WebGL's dangerous features are part of the default mode of operation.
ActiveX is rarely used as a malware vector. Almost all malware is delivered these days from Flash, Java, PDF, and through user allowed trojans.
The fact is, ActiveX holds no more additional threat than do Trojans, as both require end users to agree to install them. In the distant past that was not the case, but now it is and virus makers don't even bother with it anymore as it's too limiting and with IE Protected mode, it's very hard to exploit anymore.
Gold has value because you can make shiny and pretty things with it that other people want. You can't do that with dollars or bitcoins, but dollars have the advantage of being valuable to the government. Bitcoins do not.
Why gold? Because it's shiny and pretty, and you can make things out of it that people want. You can't do that with a bitcoin. The bitcoin itself represents CPU cycles that are spent already with no inherent value or purpose for any other purpose.
Dollars have value because you are required to pay your tax in them, which means they have value to the government, which means if you don't want to be locked up, you HAVE to have dollars.
That's a ridiculous argument. MS replaced VB6 with VB.NET. HTML5 is not a replacement for VB.NET or C# or any of the 95% of other technologies in .NET that have no comparison to HTML5 and javascript.
It's a ridiculous concept. It would be like replacing Windows with a graphing calculator.
VB6 wasn't "killed off", it was just migrated. Microsoft continued to produce new versions of Foxpro for 10 years after acquiring it.
Bob was never born, hard to kill something that died before it was even a product.
Xenix was sold to a little company called the Santa Cruz Operation.
two low-power cores will use a lot less power than 1 high-power core.
I'm not entirely sure if those numbers are *JUST* the xbox. Microsoft has typically mixed the xbox in with other losing products like the webtv, and other crap so the division that xbox has been in has been unprofitable. Those numbers are also a year old, and xbox has been doing QUITE well in the last year.
Well, actually.. the Kin is a totally different story, it was killed because the Windows Phone people whined that it was shitting on their lawn.
Indeed, the Windows tablet has been a failure for a long time, but a lot of that was because there were no apps for it, and regular windows apps just don't work well on a tablet. A Windows 8 tablet, with a tablet marketplace, might be successful if apps are written specifically for it.
I doubt Microsoft will actually sell their own though, they may be working on a hardware baseline, much like the Google Nexus was (yes, you could buy one, but they weren't really in the business to sell them). Microsoft did something similar with Origami many years ago.
You contradict yourself. First you say it has no viable value, then you say "people would just trade in them the minimal amount necessary to pay taxes". But that's just it, they would HAVE to trade in them to pay their taxes. And since taxes are based on US Dollar value of things, by definition everything has to have a US Dollar equivelent.
You see on the dollar where it says "Legal Tender", "Legal" means that the law makes it so, and thus backed by the government.
Bitcoin has no viable value. I dont understand why anyone, esecially drug dealers, would take bitcoin. Why not just draw on some paper with crayons and say it's money?
Bitcoin is not backed by any government, nor is it backed by anything of value. CPU cycles are not valuable after they are expended, and the work involved is not useful for anything else. So I really can't understand why anyone would give goods that ARE worth something in exchange for them.
Just because it takes a lot of effort to make them doesn't mean they're worth anything. Has anyone here *REALLY*, and I mean *REALLY* used bitcoin to trade anything valuable? Ever?
So you're suggesting that people should use software they don't like, and are not comfortable with use, and possibly doesn't even meet their needs.. just because you say so.
Yeah.... Good luck with that.
They certainly could sue. The argument is that, if you want to sell the product in the US, then you can't sell it without paying for a license outside the US. Otherwise, withdraw it from the US and only sell it elsewhere.
Seriously? You want a citation to prove something doesn't exist?
That's just it, it probably "appeared" to be ok, because KDE was doing a well enough job of constraining your window sizes to fit within, but when doing things like Compiz, or anything that crosses monitors, then the system assumes your desktop is the same size on both monitors as your largest monitor (or rather, it assumes the desktop os a union of the area that both desktops fit within.
This is particularly bad with full screen apps, like when using rdp clients that go full screen (they take over both monitors, because full screen apps aren't controlled by the window manager).
No, no.. I'm not talking about specific Microsoft compatibility. I'm asking why nobody has created an enterprise computer management system for Mac or Linux that accomplishes the same things as AD does on Windows? Sure, there's LDAP on Mac and Windows, but the directory is only a part of it. few apps *USE* directory services on a mac or Linux.
My point was regarding your "it's not that innovative". If it wasn't, then why hasn't anyone else copied it? Especially when it is so important and valuable?
The stock market is not a zero sum game. Money does, simply evaporate into thin air. When prices drop into the toilet, nobody but those that sell short make any money. You *might* make money by buying a stock that will rebound, by buying low.. but if the stock doesn't rebound, then that money is just gone. It didn't go in anyone elses pocket.
It's like, if you buy a property for $100,000, and then the real-estate market goes in the tank, and then you sell it for $50,000. $50k just disappeared.
Umm.. Microsoft already pays regular dividends.. what century are you living again?
Microsoft doesn't see the value in building a product from scratch. They'd rather jump into the market right away when they decide to enter that market. Buying a product gets them in the market immediately, then they can transform the purchased product into their vision of what it should be.
Still, they have created products from scratch, and some of them have been successful. The XBOX, for instance. Windows NT they built from scratch (albeit by hiring someone who had the skills to do it, but the same could have been said about Netscape, NeXT, Apple, etc..). They built Windows from scratch before it (yes, inspired by MacOS for sure, but they did not buy it). They built OS/2 from scratch. They may have bought IE, but IE today is nothing like the original and contains no code from the original project (according to Eric Sink).
By the way, regarding MS-BASIC being a "rewrite", it was nothing of the sort. Even the guys that invented BASIC were amazed that they could do so much in a small amount of memory, and leave room for running programs. What was innovative about MS-BASIC was not that it was basic, but basic that could be run on a micro computer, something that had never been done before.
Wait. So you're saying that Microsoft's competitors in the Office and Desktop OS market are innovating more then?
So, which non-MS Office suite has any substantial innovation in the last 10 years? About the only thing innovative I can think of is ODF, but that seems less like an innovation than necessary transformation (ODF is largely designed to break the MS lock on file formats, and allow mobs of competitors to try and compete with Microsoft. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say).
So if your theory were correct, then all the underdogs would be innovating the hell out of things... I just don't see that. Computer software has been stagnant for years.. sort of like everything major has been invented already.
That's a stupid argument. No, most people don't "choose" windows per se, largely because they don't know there is anything else that could be chosen. That doesn't mean that, given the choice, they would choose the alternative.
I guarantee you that if you "secretly replaced their OS with Folgers Coffee.. er I mean Linux" that nearly everry one of those people would return it when they figured out they couldn't install the programs they want (games, Office, things they download off the internet..). Few people buy a computer and never put any software on it.
It wold be like buying a PAL TV in the US (I know PAL vs NTSC is no longer an issue in the digital age, but i'll still go with the analogy). PAL may be technically better than NTSC, but if you can't watch your shows on it, does it matter? Likewise, most people didn't know there was different signal standards, so they didn't know they had a choice in the kind of TV they could buy. That doesn't mean they would have bought anything different.
Microsoft may have initially copied those ideas, but they tended to expand on them and create much different tools further down the line. Windows is no longer anything like DOS or the Mac. C# has now diverted from Java so much that Java is now copying it. Word is now sufficiently past all of its competitors that again, they're starting to copy it. And Excel is nothing like Lotus anymore.
Actually, it seems when it comes to dual monitors, they seem to think people only have monitors of the same dimensions. It's a pain in the ass to use two different dimensioned monitors together efficiently.
Styluses also have their use. I have one for my iPad because i like to write, not finger paint.