I'm not able to read the story because it's slashdotted, but did it actually say "software" patents? or just patents? Microsoft owns a number of hardware patents that relate to smart phones. Is everyone just assuming they're software patents?
I wouldn't say they have nothing in common. The API is quite similar (it's a subset of the windows API and has various API's that only make sense on a mobile device). It was designed to be largely source code compatible
Don't confuse product with division. The divisions that xbox has been in have lost money, but the xbox product itself has been a moneymaker for quite some time, and has been proping up those divisions to some extent.
Remember, they lumped xbox in with such stinkers as webtv, and embedded, and windows ce divisions.
They had a methodology that included various fingerprinting techniques. It was designed to isolate physical servers used that had multiple domain names running on them.
This technique did not account for multiple servers running the same domain name, but did take into account a single domain name running multiple servers.
And, this makes sense. The idea is to not count the same server multiple times.
Unfortunately, with the increase in server virtualization it's getting even harder to count physical servers as 200 virtual machines could be running on the same server.
I'm not sure which benchmark really makes sense, but none of the current ones do. Counting hostnames doesn't really mean anything.
Microsoft does very well in the server market. I haven't read any recent figures, but the vast majority of company internal servers are Windows based. Internet facing servers is a slightly different story, but don't confuse surveys like Netcraft's hostname survey as a survey of market share. Netcraft shows Apache dominance in hostnames, but that does not translate to number of servers.
Netcraft did a physical server survey a number of years ago that showed Windows had about 50% of the physical web servers, despite only having 2x% of the hostname survey.
No. A verification is done for an attested person that they exist, so that they cannot just say they're someone at some address. They have to a) get someone to risk jailtime to fraudulently vouche for them, and b) have an address to receive mail.
Could someone do this? Sure. Is it likely? Not really. Could that person be a felon or an illegal alien? Sure, but again it's not just risking jailtime for the voter, but also the attester and an attestor can only attest for one person, they can't do a whole vanload of people they picked up at the 7-11.
What you see as a flaw in my logic is nothing of the sort, it's me making a point that nobody needs to go through this process because there is no voter *eligibility* verification process in any state i'm aware of. Nobody is going through the records and comparing the list valid citizens or known felons.
Why do states allow people to register day of? Because most people are lazy and don't bother. I myself have registered to vote day of, *EVERY* single election I have ever voted in (10 or so elections). Every person I know is the same. If it required pre-registration, i simply would not bother to vote.
States that have a mandated pre-registration to vote have a *MUCH* lower voter turnout than states that have same day registration. And you see no good reason for it.. wow.
You are also confusing US elections with local elections. Many states have ruled that anyone living in their community can vote in local elections, including illegals. The laws preventing asking for identification only apply to local elections and cannot apply to federal ones.
It's perfectly legal for a state to allow anyone they choose to vote in local elections, although they cannot deny people based on race or other such qualifications.
Stop trying to imply that rules designed for local elections apply to federal ones. They don't.
Very few states have any kind of verification of legal right to vote.
In virtually all states, all you need is a drivers license with a current address to register to vote. Immigrants and felons can have those, and nobody is checking to see if someone is a citizen or a felon.
If you're so determined to vote, you can get fake id's that will also work.
So what you're saying is that If i'm a felon, or an illegal immigrant, i have to a) find someone willing to risk going to prison to "attest" me, and b) make sure they can find me so *I* can go to prison by giving them my real mail address...
Yeah, right. It's a lot easier to get a fake id, and a lot less risky.
And why, exactly, are all these illegal aliens and felons trying so desperately to vote, risking years in prison in the process?
"After the election, all voters who register to vote on Election Day will be sent a notice by mail. The first notice will not be forwarded to another address. If this notice is returned as undeliverable, a second notice that is forwardable will be mailed to the voter. The voter must return the second notice to the county auditor within 14 days. If the second notice is not returned, the county attorney and Secretary of State's Office will be given the voter's information for investigation and prosecution."
You're ignoring the verification part. The Secretary of State will mail a verificaiton letter to your stated address, and you have to return it for your day of the election vote to be counted.
Is it possible to cheat the system, perhaps.. but fake id's could also be used, as could any number of other mechanisms, if you really wanted to go to all that trouble.
Do you understand what a provisional ballot is? If you don't prove your identity and eligability within a certain time period, it won't be counted. That's how they "check out your registration"
The reason for this process is so that people can vote, even if their situation currently does not allow them to prove things (maybe their house was destroyed by a tornado, or fire.. or they just moved and can't find all the necesary information on the day of the election).
You must prove your identity and residence. Further, anyone who registers on the day of election will have to go through a verification process outlined in the link.
Iowa does allow for people to vote by being "attested" by another registered voter, but the consequences of doing so fraudulently are very severe and there are still verification processes.
Lastly, you can vote a provisional balot without proving who you are on the day of election, but you must present proof of eligibility within 14 days after the election or your vote will not be counted.
Moral of the story: Don't listen to the right wing extremists. They lie to you, or don't tell you the complete truth.
Many do, although there are a number of compatibility issues.. many of them implement the standard poorly or incompletely. I have successfully used Polycom phones (IP-501 or greater.. the lower end models don't have enough horsepower), but Cisco and Aastra also support it.
As I said to the other guy, I'm glad to be wrong on this. I've been using FreeSwitch for years now because it support SRTP and Asterisk didn't, despite it's immaturity.
Yeah, I may be wrong, but I think Asterisk *Still* does not support SRTP after all these years.
This leads me to wonder why so many protocols are unencrypted on the internet. most IM's, SIP, H.323, etc.. it's just ridiculous how much information people are giving away across unencrypted connections.
I've got a simple solution. Make IPv4 IP's $500 a piece and make IPv6 IP's $.01 a piece.
In the short term, ISP's will NAT everyone and there will be a huge cost incentive to get everyone up on IPv6 over the long term. Plus it will generate income to help with the conversion.
I don't understand. This problem was solved by Stargate Command, they simply unlocked the 9th chevron and increased their adress space exponentially.;)
How does this happen? Every year it seems I read about how this problem has been fixed in the latest kernel, and then it's like those fixes mysterious vanish?
Doesn't matter who requested it. It was deliberately kept secret for over a week. This happens *a lot* in open source, and sometimes the time frame is months.
My point is this:
1) Everyone embargoes vulnerabilities, including open source developers. Complaining because closed source vendors do it is the pot calling the kettle black.
2) Too many people believe the myth that bugs in Linux are fixed and distributed "overnight", because few people know that #1 is true.
Bush was anything but an idealogue. He was certainly very pro-religion, but an idealogue? No way. He did not pretend to be a religious leader, nor did he attempt to assert his religious beliefs on everyone in the country. Perhaps, if he were presented with a bill (such as an anti-abortion bill) he might have signed it.. but that's about the worst you could say.
Slashdot Mirror
And most of those inhabitants can't afford a smart phone.
I'm not able to read the story because it's slashdotted, but did it actually say "software" patents? or just patents? Microsoft owns a number of hardware patents that relate to smart phones. Is everyone just assuming they're software patents?
I wouldn't say they have nothing in common. The API is quite similar (it's a subset of the windows API and has various API's that only make sense on a mobile device). It was designed to be largely source code compatible
Don't confuse product with division. The divisions that xbox has been in have lost money, but the xbox product itself has been a moneymaker for quite some time, and has been proping up those divisions to some extent.
Remember, they lumped xbox in with such stinkers as webtv, and embedded, and windows ce divisions.
They had a methodology that included various fingerprinting techniques. It was designed to isolate physical servers used that had multiple domain names running on them.
This technique did not account for multiple servers running the same domain name, but did take into account a single domain name running multiple servers.
And, this makes sense. The idea is to not count the same server multiple times.
Unfortunately, with the increase in server virtualization it's getting even harder to count physical servers as 200 virtual machines could be running on the same server.
I'm not sure which benchmark really makes sense, but none of the current ones do. Counting hostnames doesn't really mean anything.
Right, so the point is.. No, Microsoft's server marketshare is not poor like the person I was responding to suggested.
All too often people look only at netcraft as their only source of market statistics.
Microsoft does very well in the server market. I haven't read any recent figures, but the vast majority of company internal servers are Windows based. Internet facing servers is a slightly different story, but don't confuse surveys like Netcraft's hostname survey as a survey of market share. Netcraft shows Apache dominance in hostnames, but that does not translate to number of servers.
Netcraft did a physical server survey a number of years ago that showed Windows had about 50% of the physical web servers, despite only having 2x% of the hostname survey.
No. A verification is done for an attested person that they exist, so that they cannot just say they're someone at some address. They have to a) get someone to risk jailtime to fraudulently vouche for them, and b) have an address to receive mail.
Could someone do this? Sure. Is it likely? Not really. Could that person be a felon or an illegal alien? Sure, but again it's not just risking jailtime for the voter, but also the attester and an attestor can only attest for one person, they can't do a whole vanload of people they picked up at the 7-11.
What you see as a flaw in my logic is nothing of the sort, it's me making a point that nobody needs to go through this process because there is no voter *eligibility* verification process in any state i'm aware of. Nobody is going through the records and comparing the list valid citizens or known felons.
Why do states allow people to register day of? Because most people are lazy and don't bother. I myself have registered to vote day of, *EVERY* single election I have ever voted in (10 or so elections). Every person I know is the same. If it required pre-registration, i simply would not bother to vote.
States that have a mandated pre-registration to vote have a *MUCH* lower voter turnout than states that have same day registration. And you see no good reason for it.. wow.
You are also confusing US elections with local elections. Many states have ruled that anyone living in their community can vote in local elections, including illegals. The laws preventing asking for identification only apply to local elections and cannot apply to federal ones.
It's perfectly legal for a state to allow anyone they choose to vote in local elections, although they cannot deny people based on race or other such qualifications.
Stop trying to imply that rules designed for local elections apply to federal ones. They don't.
Very few states have any kind of verification of legal right to vote.
In virtually all states, all you need is a drivers license with a current address to register to vote. Immigrants and felons can have those, and nobody is checking to see if someone is a citizen or a felon.
If you're so determined to vote, you can get fake id's that will also work.
So what you're saying is that If i'm a felon, or an illegal immigrant, i have to a) find someone willing to risk going to prison to "attest" me, and b) make sure they can find me so *I* can go to prison by giving them my real mail address...
Yeah, right. It's a lot easier to get a fake id, and a lot less risky.
And why, exactly, are all these illegal aliens and felons trying so desperately to vote, risking years in prison in the process?
Give me a break.
From the link:
"After the election, all voters who register to vote on Election Day will be sent a notice by mail. The first notice will not be forwarded to another address. If this notice is returned as undeliverable, a second notice that is forwardable will be mailed to the voter. The voter must return the second notice to the county auditor within 14 days. If the second notice is not returned, the county attorney and Secretary of State's Office will be given the voter's information for investigation and prosecution."
You're ignoring the verification part. The Secretary of State will mail a verificaiton letter to your stated address, and you have to return it for your day of the election vote to be counted.
Is it possible to cheat the system, perhaps.. but fake id's could also be used, as could any number of other mechanisms, if you really wanted to go to all that trouble.
In Iowa, he was talking about California.
In Iowa, you still have to go through the verification process if you register day of the election, regardless of whether you are attested or not.
Do you understand what a provisional ballot is? If you don't prove your identity and eligability within a certain time period, it won't be counted. That's how they "check out your registration"
The reason for this process is so that people can vote, even if their situation currently does not allow them to prove things (maybe their house was destroyed by a tornado, or fire.. or they just moved and can't find all the necesary information on the day of the election).
It's not quite so easy as you suggest. Here are the Iowa requirements.
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/voterinformation/voterregistration.html#2
You must prove your identity and residence. Further, anyone who registers on the day of election will have to go through a verification process outlined in the link.
Iowa does allow for people to vote by being "attested" by another registered voter, but the consequences of doing so fraudulently are very severe and there are still verification processes.
Lastly, you can vote a provisional balot without proving who you are on the day of election, but you must present proof of eligibility within 14 days after the election or your vote will not be counted.
Moral of the story: Don't listen to the right wing extremists. They lie to you, or don't tell you the complete truth.
Many do, although there are a number of compatibility issues.. many of them implement the standard poorly or incompletely. I have successfully used Polycom phones (IP-501 or greater.. the lower end models don't have enough horsepower), but Cisco and Aastra also support it.
As I said to the other guy, I'm glad to be wrong on this. I've been using FreeSwitch for years now because it support SRTP and Asterisk didn't, despite it's immaturity.
I'm glad I was wrong. Still, it's about time.. This is something that's been sorely needed for ages.
Yeah, I may be wrong, but I think Asterisk *Still* does not support SRTP after all these years.
This leads me to wonder why so many protocols are unencrypted on the internet. most IM's, SIP, H.323, etc.. it's just ridiculous how much information people are giving away across unencrypted connections.
I've got a simple solution. Make IPv4 IP's $500 a piece and make IPv6 IP's $.01 a piece.
In the short term, ISP's will NAT everyone and there will be a huge cost incentive to get everyone up on IPv6 over the long term. Plus it will generate income to help with the conversion.
I don't understand. This problem was solved by Stargate Command, they simply unlocked the 9th chevron and increased their adress space exponentially. ;)
How does this happen? Every year it seems I read about how this problem has been fixed in the latest kernel, and then it's like those fixes mysterious vanish?
Yes, that would have been great, had people known about the vulnerability when it was discovered. Instead, it was kept secret for nearly 2 weeks.
Doesn't matter who requested it. It was deliberately kept secret for over a week. This happens *a lot* in open source, and sometimes the time frame is months.
My point is this:
1) Everyone embargoes vulnerabilities, including open source developers. Complaining because closed source vendors do it is the pot calling the kettle black.
2) Too many people believe the myth that bugs in Linux are fixed and distributed "overnight", because few people know that #1 is true.
Bush was anything but an idealogue. He was certainly very pro-religion, but an idealogue? No way. He did not pretend to be a religious leader, nor did he attempt to assert his religious beliefs on everyone in the country. Perhaps, if he were presented with a bill (such as an anti-abortion bill) he might have signed it.. but that's about the worst you could say.
While Israel may be highly agressive in protecting their border, even overly agressive.. even extremely overly agressive....
Their leaders are aware of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon. Other leaders do not care about those consequences.