And then absolutely nobody anywhere in QC noticed it all the way through mastering the install disk and cranking out a million copies?
Sure. If there were automated tests for that they would have been checked in with (or after) the product code. So if the product code missed a merge, the test code certainly would have.
There is virtually ZERO chance/probability that this was a Microsoft bug.
Really? Given that the browser box was added to Windows 7 RTM, and then wasn't there in SP1, you don't think that the issue would have been that somebody checked it into the RTM branch, but then didn't know they were responsible for merging it into the SP1 branch? Different teams will have different merging policies, and given how one off the browser box is/was, I suspect it may not have been done by a main Windows developer.
I really need to do this to my in-laws, but then that means they don't "own" the computer that they paid for. They're not happy with that idea.
One issue with having the admin not be living in house, is how does the normal computer user then build up requests? If there's a program they want installed there's no way they'll be able to wrap their mind around saving the installer to a well known location and then sharing that out with the admin. It just doesn't work.
Windows has a feature called Windows Remote Assistance where they send you a token, and then you log into their machine and fix whatever the issue is (unless the issue is network connectivity).
It works as long as there isn't an overzealous A/V that blocks it.
The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service.
They might care. What they don't want you to do is to load software that they haven't validated and then your device magically starts taking down cell towers.
but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you?
Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network. But you say, "Shouldn't they have defense in depth strategies for dealing with a rogue client?" Yes, they should; but apparently they don't, which is why they're so worried about (and have extensive tests around) every software update that could possibly be pushed out to existing phones.
Cyclists also pay for roads via sales and property taxes in Washington
In the recent debate about raising the gas tax by 10 cents, it was discussed that one reason why is because in Washington all of the money that's used for road construction/maintenance, comes from the gas tax, and none of it comes from other sources.
Maybe if they stopped "innovating" their UIs and overall UE, they'd find more eager and rapid corporate adoption.
If the UI didn't change the vast majority of users wouldn't upgrade because they would look at the new version and say "Why would I pay for this? Nothing has changed." To sell, there must be visible changes.
never opened up an API for Windows Update so there could be a single update system instead of every OEM and software company piling on their own update systems.
If an update comes from Windows Update and it does negative things to the box, people blame Microsoft. Why would they increase the probability of this happening? They want Windows Update to only deliver safe and advisable updates.
My Dad sends an email to his kids every Sunday morning with what he's done that week. He looks at the calendar, uses the appointments written down there to jog his memory, and then punches out about a pages worth and sends it to us. This is possibly the best way to go about remembering your life. If you don't have the resolve to accomplish this about 48 weeks of the year I doubt you'd be able to accomplish your goals.
Exactly. Which is my most people will never touch cell phones, let along smart phone, and will keep happily using their landlines. They also hate change so much that they know that a computer will certainly never replace their typewriter. And ARM based tablets are so much change from everything they previously knew they, that not a single person would ever want one.
I would be shocked if some sort of monitoring didn't fire. The problem would be that it would have gotten lost in the noise of all of the other monitors firing for other issues.
Wait, this could be good. What would arcade game manufacturers have to do to work around this? The only thing I can think of would be some sort Kinect-esque system where the child just needs to hold their hand up to the game in a gun like fashion and go "bang, bang" like they do anyway. Or perhaps have one hand as the gun and one hand on a fire button. It could work. This could be a great catalyst for some innovation.
Some. People. Don't. Understand. Technology. AT ALL.
That's kind of the point of a lot of technology. It's a solution to fix a problem. The end user doesn't care how it gets done, it only matters that it gets done. I'm sure there's technology that you use, and yet you don't understand all of details of every functioning piece in the process.
At what point is Ballmer going to be held responsible any of the "mistakes" that Microsoft has been making? The guy is bulletproof beyond all logic for a publicly traded company.
Maybe once Microsoft looses money for a couple of consecutive quarters. For a publicly traded company, they have a history of increased profits quarter after quarter.
Considering the lead Microsoft had in the mobile phone market, they were there in 2002 (before Blackberry, I believe), but somehow they never made it work. I'm not sure exactly why.
The reason is because Microsoft fears breaking backwards compatibility. Once the first third party app was written for Windows Mobile it guaranteed lock in to a certain paradigm. So even though a lot of technology advanced, MS was still unwilling to make any breaking changes for fear that they might loose a customer, because one app wouldn't work anymore. It took getting wiped by Apple, and a change in leadership team to tell the existing Windows Mobile team that what they've been working on is wrong and they needed to start from a clean slate.
I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?
Yes, mostly. I haven't signed up for HTML5 experience, but I do run with Flash enabled on a site per site basis. I don't have it enabled for YouTube. I've ran into a few videos that didn't play without Flash, but the vast majority of them do.
Slashdot Mirror
UTC with NTP... that's the way to go. Goodbye local time forever!
While I can live with (and understand the reasoning's behind) this; the vast majority of the people would be in revolt.
And then absolutely nobody anywhere in QC noticed it all the way through mastering the install disk and cranking out a million copies?
Sure. If there were automated tests for that they would have been checked in with (or after) the product code. So if the product code missed a merge, the test code certainly would have.
the gravity and duration of the infringement
Given that the choice to use multiple free pieces of software is such a grave situation I'd expect the fine to be 0.
There is virtually ZERO chance/probability that this was a Microsoft bug.
Really? Given that the browser box was added to Windows 7 RTM, and then wasn't there in SP1, you don't think that the issue would have been that somebody checked it into the RTM branch, but then didn't know they were responsible for merging it into the SP1 branch? Different teams will have different merging policies, and given how one off the browser box is/was, I suspect it may not have been done by a main Windows developer.
I'd take away her administrator privileges, too.
I really need to do this to my in-laws, but then that means they don't "own" the computer that they paid for. They're not happy with that idea.
One issue with having the admin not be living in house, is how does the normal computer user then build up requests? If there's a program they want installed there's no way they'll be able to wrap their mind around saving the installer to a well known location and then sharing that out with the admin. It just doesn't work.
Windows has a feature called Windows Remote Assistance where they send you a token, and then you log into their machine and fix whatever the issue is (unless the issue is network connectivity). It works as long as there isn't an overzealous A/V that blocks it.
The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service.
They might care. What they don't want you to do is to load software that they haven't validated and then your device magically starts taking down cell towers.
but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you?
Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network. But you say, "Shouldn't they have defense in depth strategies for dealing with a rogue client?" Yes, they should; but apparently they don't, which is why they're so worried about (and have extensive tests around) every software update that could possibly be pushed out to existing phones.
Cyclists also pay for roads via sales and property taxes in Washington
In the recent debate about raising the gas tax by 10 cents, it was discussed that one reason why is because in Washington all of the money that's used for road construction/maintenance, comes from the gas tax, and none of it comes from other sources.
Maybe if they stopped "innovating" their UIs and overall UE, they'd find more eager and rapid corporate adoption.
If the UI didn't change the vast majority of users wouldn't upgrade because they would look at the new version and say "Why would I pay for this? Nothing has changed." To sell, there must be visible changes.
If you want "big data" you think IBM, you don't think Microsoft.
But mentioning a company to rail against, besides Microsoft, won't get you on /..
What about the Nokia ClearBlack display? It seems to not have the brightness cranked up and has nearly no glare.
never opened up an API for Windows Update so there could be a single update system instead of every OEM and software company piling on their own update systems.
If an update comes from Windows Update and it does negative things to the box, people blame Microsoft. Why would they increase the probability of this happening? They want Windows Update to only deliver safe and advisable updates.
My Dad sends an email to his kids every Sunday morning with what he's done that week. He looks at the calendar, uses the appointments written down there to jog his memory, and then punches out about a pages worth and sends it to us. This is possibly the best way to go about remembering your life. If you don't have the resolve to accomplish this about 48 weeks of the year I doubt you'd be able to accomplish your goals.
People don't want change.
Exactly. Which is my most people will never touch cell phones, let along smart phone, and will keep happily using their landlines. They also hate change so much that they know that a computer will certainly never replace their typewriter. And ARM based tablets are so much change from everything they previously knew they, that not a single person would ever want one.
To be fair Apple took the same stance pre-Appstore, and they managed to build a healthy ecosystem.
The healthy ecosystem was built after they abandoned that stance.
I would be shocked if some sort of monitoring didn't fire. The problem would be that it would have gotten lost in the noise of all of the other monitors firing for other issues.
Wait, this could be good. What would arcade game manufacturers have to do to work around this? The only thing I can think of would be some sort Kinect-esque system where the child just needs to hold their hand up to the game in a gun like fashion and go "bang, bang" like they do anyway. Or perhaps have one hand as the gun and one hand on a fire button. It could work. This could be a great catalyst for some innovation.
Some. People. Don't. Understand. Technology. AT ALL.
That's kind of the point of a lot of technology. It's a solution to fix a problem. The end user doesn't care how it gets done, it only matters that it gets done. I'm sure there's technology that you use, and yet you don't understand all of details of every functioning piece in the process.
breaking backwards compatibility is a bad thing, not a feature.
Most of the time I agree; but sometimes it gets you stuck in a rut that you can't escape.
At what point is Ballmer going to be held responsible any of the "mistakes" that Microsoft has been making? The guy is bulletproof beyond all logic for a publicly traded company.
Maybe once Microsoft looses money for a couple of consecutive quarters. For a publicly traded company, they have a history of increased profits quarter after quarter.
Considering the lead Microsoft had in the mobile phone market, they were there in 2002 (before Blackberry, I believe), but somehow they never made it work. I'm not sure exactly why.
The reason is because Microsoft fears breaking backwards compatibility. Once the first third party app was written for Windows Mobile it guaranteed lock in to a certain paradigm. So even though a lot of technology advanced, MS was still unwilling to make any breaking changes for fear that they might loose a customer, because one app wouldn't work anymore. It took getting wiped by Apple, and a change in leadership team to tell the existing Windows Mobile team that what they've been working on is wrong and they needed to start from a clean slate.
We should ask Han Solo if it works as well with human memory too.
But also: MSNBC
For MSNBC change your user agent string to the IPad's user agent string and they'll server up Flash free video.
I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?
Yes, mostly. I haven't signed up for HTML5 experience, but I do run with Flash enabled on a site per site basis. I don't have it enabled for YouTube. I've ran into a few videos that didn't play without Flash, but the vast majority of them do.