Agreeing with the other guy, and being fairly proficient with VB and macro viruses (I read and sometimes unobfuscate the code), I quickly got to work...
Working with Word 2000, they pretty much allow anything to be scripted, including MOST of the options. There's actually an Options object, which is accessable from the Application object. It consists of 160 some odd properties which can turn on a number of options, but I CANNOT change the default Save option. Oh yes, it's there in the Diaglog box, and I can change the default Open format to RTF from the Options object, but I CANNOT change the default Save option.
There are 20 some options dedicated alone to "Format As You Type", how often auto save kicks in, Grid Distance, Hebrew Mode, INS Key For Paste, RTF in Clipboard, etc.
But there is no option for changing the default save to RTF.
Seems to me Microsoft doesn't want an easy way to give IT administrators an easy way to change the default save option for hundreds of machines.
I was paying attention, and I understood well enough that they invented the mouse.
The question is somewhat legitimate: Who inspired them? Science fiction? Was there a XY pointing device prior to the mouse? (I can envision some clunky ideas) Who inspired them?
In the context of Star Wars, you have my attention. Why should the rest of us or someone else profit off of George Lucas' investment? I know that limited copyrights were concieved to protect society, but how does allowing everybody to pirate George Lucas benefit society?
I doubt it would...
However, There are MANY other copyrighted works which truely benefit society. Did you bother to think to include school books, academic journals, trade journals and magazines, encyclopedias, instructional video, and other reference material in your example??? (We're just to scratching the surface)
I'm going to create a scenerio where we release this type of information to the public. For our example: We'll release everything prior to 1975. Now, keep in mind where technology, art, literature, education, and science was in 1975. Keep this in mind: Information in the public domain is no longer READ-ONLY.
Out of that HUGE spectrum of information copyright up to 1975, we're going to take a small spectrum of that (education) and we're going to figure out HOW this information would be useful. Teachers from all over are now free to annotate, organize, use snippets, rewrite, and do whatever they want to the all of the curriculum of 1975. Some would mix the contents of 3-5 books to adapt to thier individual teaching styles, while others may use the best diagrams and problems from each book. Heck, with the Internet, teachers may even use the collaboration tools to share each others works and best ideas.
Some teachers might want to spend thier time teaching other teachers to teach better. Now, I'm pretty sure there were a number of good child-psychology books, elementary education theory, yada yada yada, available at the time. I'm pretty sure there are a number of people who would love to compile a Best Techniques from each one of those books.
Do you understand that this would create a new type of content industry where people create content based on existing content? The possibilities are endless in just the small spectrum of education. Why don't you consider the impact it would have on many other spectrums?
That's only the beginning. A lot of us programmers aren't great content creators, but we know how to process content digitally. With a little imagination, there are endless possibilities when one can freely blend software with content.
By allowing anyone to merge, annotate, index, simplify, mix and integrate thousands upon thousand of works, you'll end up with compound works that are increasingly more useful then the individual pieces themselves...
OK, I completely understand the need to figure out what you can get up and do to fight something. However, I still have to point out the slight flaw in your idea. I have trouble teaching non-techies I know how to use Outlook sometimes. You really thing anyone that doesn't already agree with you will understand what your doing and why you're trying to do it with "street VB programming"?
I thought it was kind of rediculous too, but that's the best idea I could think up to educate how software patents inhibit software developers.
Apparently, there are atleast 1/2 million software developers in the US alone. How can we atleast galvinize that?
That really bothers me. As a software developer, I've always aspired to make some really cool killer application, but I wonder how many infringments of obvious patents I would encounter if I attempted to do so.
So what am I going to do? Drive down to DC and hold up posters and distribute leaflets in front of the USPTO while the people who are taking advantage of the patent office laugh at me as they work on receiving thier government sanctioned monopoly on an IDEA???
Wait a minute... I thought we were capitalists. What's this crap about the government sanctioning monopolies? On ideas non-the-less.
I don't know about you guys, but I feel helpless in this situation. I grew up actually believing that this civilization was about real prosperiety and the creation of wealth.
I had one idea. I figured that with 20,000 some patents a year, we could assemble them and demonstrate how easy it is to infringe on obvious patents.
The way I would probably demonstrate this would be by writing a VB program in front of a group of people, much like the seminars. As I add features, I would tally the number of patents I infringed on.
Hell, you don't even have to show any code, just the natural evolution of ideas. Maybe as you're improving the software you could poll the audience for the next improvement and to thier surprise, they would discover thier obvious solution had been patented.
That's one idea, but it's fill with a ton of flaws. Ex: Who wants to watch me improve on a software program? Where am I going to do that? How am I even going to get people there?
I don't know about you guys, but I want to stop bitching about this and do something. The question is: What can I honestly do?
Re:Was that so complicated?
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 2
Funny... My first draft was...
It's a language-neutral (Or an attempt at being language-neutral) Java knock-off.
How about, "It's a multi-language Java knock-off?
It works well with "managed" languages that are very similar to C# (things like Java), but it fails to support a lot of ingrained things in languages that make them unique and usefull (like multiple inheritence in C/C++). Without this language dependent things, they are just so much foder. You might as well develop in C#.
As per previous discussions on slashdot regarding this, you *CAN* implement features like multiple inheritance for a.NET language, and you really are free to implement whatever crazy scheme for your language.
What's limited is how components in the different languages can talk to each other. For example: VB does not support operator overloading, but C# support operator overloading. So, in order for VB and C# to talk to each other, they must use a lowest-common demoninator interface scheme. (In this case, C# may expose the operator+ method as operator_plus (I'm making this up to simplify things))
Languages are free to implement whatever crazy scheme or ontology they choose. The only condition is that if it wants to interoperate with C# or VB, it needs to know how to marshall between.NET's common language interface.
So, It's a yes/no thing. You can really create any language in.NET (as you can with Java if you want to write a parser/bytecode-compiler), but if you want VB to understand your languages' extented overloaded operators, you're going to have to find a lowest-common denominator way of doing that.
Was that so complicated?
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
.NET is a "software platform". It's a language-neutral environment for writing programs that can easily and securely interoperate. Rather than targetting a particular hardware/OS combination, programs will instead target ".NET", and will run wherever.NET is implemented.
When your friends ask, just tell them "It's a language-neutral Java knock-off..."
Why do people try to make it more complicated? Ok,.NET never interprets bytecode, rather it does JIT compiling. Big deal. Ok,.NET uses SOAP as it's RPC conduit. Yawn..NET offers Passport for developers who don't want to write thier own user authentication and may want to offer thier users the convienence of not having to enter thier condo's address. *snore* (wipe drool from mouth in a dazed stupor)
Others like to confuse the application that can be written by.NET (You can write them in most other languages too) like Web Services and equate.NET with Web Services, when Web Services are just one type of program you can make in.NET
Without an EULA, the user would be able to do as he pleases with the software, including making copies to his co-workers to his heart's content.
The EULA MAY futher protect copyright infringment (PROTECT BY COPYRIGHT LAW, NOT EULA's) by restricting certain types of uses, but that's all it does.
If you want to license software to me and restrict my use, have me sign a contract BEFORE I purchase your software CD. That's what every other industry has to resort to.
I think those aspects are great about Lisp. For those reasons, I think Lisp is a great language, however there is that one fundamental flaw that I fear most of us dread.
(defun factorial (n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(* (factorial (- n 1)) n)))
Why can't that simply be?
function factorial(n)
if(n = 1)
factorial(n - 1) * n
I'm not going to lie, I don't really know Lisp, I kinda of understand the basics of the syntax and that's about it. I'm assuming it's based on reverse polish notation or something. Is there a reason for this?
It sounds like Lisp is a really great language, but it also seems that the reverse polish notation alienates a lot of people from enjoying it like you do.
Come to think of it, I can recall a recent conference of well known language developers where they asked the same question. As a matter of fact, thier conference could have been called, "What makes a powerful language?"
Unlike the "What's the best language?", this question has the potential for a lot of interesting answers and opinions. It allows people to think creatively to solve problems with the status-quo in the language world.
These question also goes beyond, "What's the best language?", because it challenges a people to solve the problems with our existing languages rather than defend the stupid quirks and idiosyncratic features of an existing language.
Personally, I think there is a lot of room for improvement for existing languages and development environments.
One feature I think lacks in many good languages is the Interpreter feature. It bugs me all to hell that C++ and Java don't come standard with an Interpreter. Why can't I have strong typing and a dynamic typing together?
I'd love to have the option to choose whether I'm going to use determanistic finalization or garbage collection. What about support for units of measurements?
var x = 6 feet / 3 seconds
print x; '2 feet/second
There are so many ways one could improve languages. I think asking Slashdot is just one way we can tap into the resources of many brains to find some good ideas.
My first reaction was: Do you honestly expect anybody to accept those terms?
Then, I thought about it and realized you just weren't presenting your conditions properly.
FROM: Listen to us, not to the consultants
TO: Be skeptical of consultants selling snake-oil. Trust us: We're just trying to do a good job.
FROM: Decide on the plan, stand back, and let us implement
TO: Stick with the plan if it takes a little longer, persistance is more inportant than time to market. If you're manager is a programmer, then he should be tracking the code you check into the CVS system and keeping everybody on the same page with standards.
SIDE NOTE: It's best if your manager doesn't "stand back", but is rather involved in the process (given he's competitant enough to know what he wants).
FROM: Act as a filter for the politics
TO: Help us focus on our work by isolating us from beaurocracy.
Fallacy 10: Open Source is the Answer
- Economic model is doubtful
- Source code is useless
- Motivation for Open Source is inappropriate for most software
- Nerd culture is counter-productive
It seems like he's trying to make the point that many open source developer's motivation is in the wrong place (making technically interesting, but not useful software), but he does a pretty horrible job conveying that with these bullets.
While there are *some* (I'm not going to make up statistics) who do a pretty horrible job at making useful softwarebecause of poor motivation, there are also plenty of Open Source developers who's contributions to core technologies are VERY underappreciated because they were able to make the technology transparent.
Unfortunately, he begins to make some good points about these issues.
1. He right insofar as source code isn't everything and won't solve everything, but that hardly makes it useless.
2. Yes the economic model is pretty doubtful at this point. Some have made it worked, others haven't. Some do it for profit, others as philanthropists, and others do it to set standards that will benefit a consortium.
Personally, I think he's just beginning to hit the iceberg by pointing out these fallicies that many of us need to address, but he doesn't follow through with supporting arguments. Instead, it's as if he expects us to just "get it" because he "gets it".
Maybe we can expand on his work and fill in some of the holes.
There's also (in theory) a special security privilege to run "potentially harmful" ActiveX scripts or Outlook macros; yet they seem to slip through on a regular basis. I have little faith in Microsoft's ability to successfully implement a decent security model, based on their track history alone.
I think we can all agree that if there was any attempt to secure IE and Outlook from threats, it was either ignored or done half-assed.
Just to be careful, I wouldn't compare a half-assed attempt at security to thier upcoming crusade (last crusade it was the Internet).
I'd place a bet that there are ways around C# security.
We'll have to wait and see. From what I understand, MS hasn't implemented a sandbox for executing applet like applications. When they do, I'm pretty sure it will be as restrictive and secure as the JVM (obviously pointer manipulation wouldn't be allowed). Why wouldn't they? It's not like they don't have experience making virtual machines.
Furthermore, using code that handles memory directly is a lousy way to implement platform independent software; why do you think there are so many little-to-big-to-little endian conversion functions in C?
It's not for building cross-platform code. It's for developing system code when you need to write system code.
In my opinion, Miguel was just avoiding answering the real issue:.NET is and always will be a Microsoft initiative and property.
This is a valid question followed by his opinion, so why is it modded down to -1?
I for one (and I'm sure there are many more) would like him to explain how he resolves many of the arguments from those who voice against.NET
I always thought Insightful moderations from some offering Insight. This guy just said that his opinion changed after reading the article. Why? Give us an overview.
Probably people downloading full-length movies on P2P networks like Morpheous. (My brother has about 100 some full-length movies at 600 megs a pop)
Have companies overestimated network capacity?
I think they didn't expect P2P and downloading full-length movies would become a normal use for thier service. When they were making estimates some 5 years ago, they probably anticipated streaming audio and video, downloading a game here and there, maybe the occasional warez trader.
I'm pretty sure they didn't expect the average customer to use bandwidth like a warez trader.
* Police, Fire, EMT services (Forms, MAPS, real-time info)
* Order entry/tracking for roaming salesforces
* Inexpensive Logistics Tracking System using Commodity Technology (Combine w GPS and map system)
WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS!!!
Doesn't wireless Internet Access say it well enough?
Maybe you don't have enough imagination or you don't understand that the existing CDMA standard doesn't offer anything close to 144kbs (even if that's just a theoritical limit), let alone 56K. Try more like 9600 bps if you're lucky.
This is a DATA service primarily aimed at laptops and PDAs and the users who want to connect to the Internet from anywhere.
2 years ago, I wrote a small order-entry application for a automotive parts company. Salesmen would download the update for catalog in the morning (about 400K) and send thier orders when they needed to later.
If such a wireless system has existed, this would have enabled me to expand the application to provide realtime inventory updates and order status updates without having to hook up to the customers phone line.
I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of killer uses for wireless Internet access than just watching Jenna Jameson porn on thier cell phone.
Comcast is a big company. They should be able to monitor bandwidth usage and charge by the average percentage of bandwidth used per month.
I would probably price it between $50 and $150 a month. $150 would be for those extreme examples where the user used between 80% and 100% of thier bandwidth ALL the time (on average), where as $50 would be for the lighter users. (Make up your own pricing scale, but keep it simple)
Not many people will use 80%-100% of thier bandwidth all the time, and those who do would have to pay a premium.
This sounds a lot more fair than telling me I can't use NAT for my many computers.
Sorry, this is Slashdot. Free markets are bad. Antitrust laws are good. The federal government should give everyone broadband and make the Big Evil Corporations pay for it.
As long as we're exagerating...
1. Capitalism's benefits just happen to be creating wealth and increasing the standard of living, but it's really all about winning!!!
2. Antitrust laws aren't fair, because they punish the winners despite the fact antitrust laws only punish monopolies that conspire to exclude competitiors from distrubution entirely! Anti-trust laws are only around to punishes winners!!! Boo!!!
3. We shouldn't have a federal government, so we can let the states battle it out to become the winner!!!
4. Public institutions shouldn't coddle weak people by providing education and other services when they've been found to be INCOMPETANT!!! They're losers, therefore they should lose!!!
Look at me!!! I'm a winner!!!
Ok... Maybe my email was a bit rediculous on your views, but you started it!!!:P
I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreeing with the other guy, and being fairly proficient with VB and macro viruses (I read and sometimes unobfuscate the code), I quickly got to work...
Working with Word 2000, they pretty much allow anything to be scripted, including MOST of the options. There's actually an Options object, which is accessable from the Application object. It consists of 160 some odd properties which can turn on a number of options, but I CANNOT change the default Save option. Oh yes, it's there in the Diaglog box, and I can change the default Open format to RTF from the Options object, but I CANNOT change the default Save option.
There are 20 some options dedicated alone to "Format As You Type", how often auto save kicks in, Grid Distance, Hebrew Mode, INS Key For Paste, RTF in Clipboard, etc.
But there is no option for changing the default save to RTF.
Seems to me Microsoft doesn't want an easy way to give IT administrators an easy way to change the default save option for hundreds of machines.
Steve
I was paying attention, and I understood well enough that they invented the mouse.
The question is somewhat legitimate: Who inspired them? Science fiction? Was there a XY pointing device prior to the mouse? (I can envision some clunky ideas) Who inspired them?
* Microsoft rips off Apple
* Apple rips off Xerox
* Xerox rips off Stanford's Augmentation Research Center
Who did Stanford's Augmentation Research Center rip off?
In the context of Star Wars, you have my attention. Why should the rest of us or someone else profit off of George Lucas' investment? I know that limited copyrights were concieved to protect society, but how does allowing everybody to pirate George Lucas benefit society?
I doubt it would...
However, There are MANY other copyrighted works which truely benefit society. Did you bother to think to include school books, academic journals, trade journals and magazines, encyclopedias, instructional video, and other reference material in your example??? (We're just to scratching the surface)
I'm going to create a scenerio where we release this type of information to the public. For our example: We'll release everything prior to 1975. Now, keep in mind where technology, art, literature, education, and science was in 1975.
Keep this in mind: Information in the public domain is no longer READ-ONLY.
Out of that HUGE spectrum of information copyright up to 1975, we're going to take a small spectrum of that (education) and we're going to figure out HOW this information would be useful. Teachers from all over are now free to annotate, organize, use snippets, rewrite, and do whatever they want to the all of the curriculum of 1975. Some would mix the contents of 3-5 books to adapt to thier individual teaching styles, while others may use the best diagrams and problems from each book. Heck, with the Internet, teachers may even use the collaboration tools to share each others works and best ideas.
Some teachers might want to spend thier time teaching other teachers to teach better. Now, I'm pretty sure there were a number of good child-psychology books, elementary education theory, yada yada yada, available at the time. I'm pretty sure there are a number of people who would love to compile a Best Techniques from each one of those books.
Do you understand that this would create a new type of content industry where people create content based on existing content? The possibilities are endless in just the small spectrum of education. Why don't you consider the impact it would have on many other spectrums?
That's only the beginning. A lot of us programmers aren't great content creators, but we know how to process content digitally. With a little imagination, there are endless possibilities when one can freely blend software with content.
By allowing anyone to merge, annotate, index, simplify, mix and integrate thousands upon thousand of works, you'll end up with compound works that are increasingly more useful then the individual pieces themselves...
OK, I completely understand the need to figure out what you can get up and do to fight something. However, I still have to point out the slight flaw in your idea. I have trouble teaching non-techies I know how to use Outlook sometimes. You really thing anyone that doesn't already agree with you will understand what your doing and why you're trying to do it with "street VB programming"?
I thought it was kind of rediculous too, but that's the best idea I could think up to educate how software patents inhibit software developers.
Apparently, there are atleast 1/2 million software developers in the US alone. How can we atleast galvinize that?
I certainly wouldn't show my code if I were writing programs in VB, in fact I'd carry that secret to my grave.
My thinking went along the lines of:
If people knew that you could even infringe of software patents with VB, then they could be certain they have no chance with thier own language.
20,000 software patents a year...
That really bothers me. As a software developer, I've always aspired to make some really cool killer application, but I wonder how many infringments of obvious patents I would encounter if I attempted to do so.
So what am I going to do? Drive down to DC and hold up posters and distribute leaflets in front of the USPTO while the people who are taking advantage of the patent office laugh at me as they work on receiving thier government sanctioned monopoly on an IDEA???
Wait a minute... I thought we were capitalists. What's this crap about the government sanctioning monopolies? On ideas non-the-less.
I don't know about you guys, but I feel helpless in this situation. I grew up actually believing that this civilization was about real prosperiety and the creation of wealth.
I had one idea. I figured that with 20,000 some patents a year, we could assemble them and demonstrate how easy it is to infringe on obvious patents.
The way I would probably demonstrate this would be by writing a VB program in front of a group of people, much like the seminars. As I add features, I would tally the number of patents I infringed on.
Hell, you don't even have to show any code, just the natural evolution of ideas. Maybe as you're improving the software you could poll the audience for the next improvement and to thier surprise, they would discover thier obvious solution had been patented.
That's one idea, but it's fill with a ton of flaws. Ex: Who wants to watch me improve on a software program? Where am I going to do that? How am I even going to get people there?
I don't know about you guys, but I want to stop bitching about this and do something. The question is: What can I honestly do?
Funny... My first draft was...
.NET language, and you really are free to implement whatever crazy scheme for your language.
.NET's common language interface.
.NET (as you can with Java if you want to write a parser/bytecode-compiler), but if you want VB to understand your languages' extented overloaded operators, you're going to have to find a lowest-common denominator way of doing that.
It's a language-neutral (Or an attempt at being language-neutral) Java knock-off.
How about, "It's a multi-language Java knock-off?
It works well with "managed" languages that are very similar to C# (things like Java), but it fails to support a lot of ingrained things in languages that make them unique and usefull (like multiple inheritence in C/C++). Without this language dependent things, they are just so much foder. You might as well develop in C#.
As per previous discussions on slashdot regarding this, you *CAN* implement features like multiple inheritance for a
What's limited is how components in the different languages can talk to each other. For example: VB does not support operator overloading, but C# support operator overloading. So, in order for VB and C# to talk to each other, they must use a lowest-common demoninator interface scheme. (In this case, C# may expose the operator+ method as operator_plus (I'm making this up to simplify things))
Languages are free to implement whatever crazy scheme or ontology they choose. The only condition is that if it wants to interoperate with C# or VB, it needs to know how to marshall between
So, It's a yes/no thing. You can really create any language in
When your friends ask, just tell them "It's a language-neutral Java knock-off..."
Why do people try to make it more complicated? Ok,
Others like to confuse the application that can be written by
The Platform != It's Applications
It's Simple: It's a Java rip off!
Without an EULA, the user would be able to do as he pleases with the software, including making copies to his co-workers to his heart's content.
The EULA MAY futher protect copyright infringment (PROTECT BY COPYRIGHT LAW, NOT EULA's) by restricting certain types of uses, but that's all it does.
If you want to license software to me and restrict my use, have me sign a contract BEFORE I purchase your software CD. That's what every other industry has to resort to.
I think those aspects are great about Lisp. For those reasons, I think Lisp is a great language, however there is that one fundamental flaw that I fear most of us dread.
(defun factorial (n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(* (factorial (- n 1)) n)))
Why can't that simply be?
function factorial(n)
if(n = 1)
factorial(n - 1) * n
I'm not going to lie, I don't really know Lisp, I kinda of understand the basics of the syntax and that's about it. I'm assuming it's based on reverse polish notation or something. Is there a reason for this?
It sounds like Lisp is a really great language, but it also seems that the reverse polish notation alienates a lot of people from enjoying it like you do.
What Makes a Powerful Programming Language?
Come to think of it, I can recall a recent conference of well known language developers where they asked the same question. As a matter of fact, thier conference could have been called, "What makes a powerful language?"
Unlike the "What's the best language?", this question has the potential for a lot of interesting answers and opinions. It allows people to think creatively to solve problems with the status-quo in the language world.
These question also goes beyond, "What's the best language?", because it challenges a people to solve the problems with our existing languages rather than defend the stupid quirks and idiosyncratic features of an existing language.
Personally, I think there is a lot of room for improvement for existing languages and development environments.
One feature I think lacks in many good languages is the Interpreter feature. It bugs me all to hell that C++ and Java don't come standard with an Interpreter. Why can't I have strong typing and a dynamic typing together?
I'd love to have the option to choose whether I'm going to use determanistic finalization or garbage collection. What about support for units of measurements?
var x = 6 feet / 3 seconds
print x; '2 feet/second
There are so many ways one could improve languages. I think asking Slashdot is just one way we can tap into the resources of many brains to find some good ideas.
My first reaction was: Do you honestly expect anybody to accept those terms?
Then, I thought about it and realized you just weren't presenting your conditions properly.
FROM: Listen to us, not to the consultants
TO: Be skeptical of consultants selling snake-oil. Trust us: We're just trying to do a good job.
FROM: Decide on the plan, stand back, and let us implement
TO: Stick with the plan if it takes a little longer, persistance is more inportant than time to market. If you're manager is a programmer, then he should be tracking the code you check into the CVS system and keeping everybody on the same page with standards.
SIDE NOTE: It's best if your manager doesn't "stand back", but is rather involved in the process (given he's competitant enough to know what he wants).
FROM: Act as a filter for the politics
TO: Help us focus on our work by isolating us from beaurocracy.
Most of all, try to do everything within reason
I have to agree somewhat with Fallacy 10
Fallacy 10: Open Source is the Answer
- Economic model is doubtful
- Source code is useless
- Motivation for Open Source is inappropriate for most software
- Nerd culture is counter-productive
It seems like he's trying to make the point that many open source developer's motivation is in the wrong place (making technically interesting, but not useful software), but he does a pretty horrible job conveying that with these bullets.
While there are *some* (I'm not going to make up statistics) who do a pretty horrible job at making useful softwarebecause of poor motivation, there are also plenty of Open Source developers who's contributions to core technologies are VERY underappreciated because they were able to make the technology transparent.
Unfortunately, he begins to make some good points about these issues.
1. He right insofar as source code isn't everything and won't solve everything, but that hardly makes it useless.
2. Yes the economic model is pretty doubtful at this point. Some have made it worked, others haven't. Some do it for profit, others as philanthropists, and others do it to set standards that will benefit a consortium.
Personally, I think he's just beginning to hit the iceberg by pointing out these fallicies that many of us need to address, but he doesn't follow through with supporting arguments. Instead, it's as if he expects us to just "get it" because he "gets it".
Maybe we can expand on his work and fill in some of the holes.
There's also (in theory) a special security privilege to run "potentially harmful" ActiveX scripts or Outlook macros; yet they seem to slip through on a regular basis. I have little faith in Microsoft's ability to successfully implement a decent security model, based on their track history alone.
I think we can all agree that if there was any attempt to secure IE and Outlook from threats, it was either ignored or done half-assed.
Just to be careful, I wouldn't compare a half-assed attempt at security to thier upcoming crusade (last crusade it was the Internet).
I'd place a bet that there are ways around C# security.
We'll have to wait and see. From what I understand, MS hasn't implemented a sandbox for executing applet like applications. When they do, I'm pretty sure it will be as restrictive and secure as the JVM (obviously pointer manipulation wouldn't be allowed). Why wouldn't they? It's not like they don't have experience making virtual machines.
Furthermore, using code that handles memory directly is a lousy way to implement platform independent software; why do you think there are so many little-to-big-to-little endian conversion functions in C?
It's not for building cross-platform code. It's for developing system code when you need to write system code.
October_30th wrote:
.NET is and always will be a Microsoft initiative and property.
.NET
Uh... what exactly made you change your mind?
In my opinion, Miguel was just avoiding answering the real issue:
This is a valid question followed by his opinion, so why is it modded down to -1?
I for one (and I'm sure there are many more) would like him to explain how he resolves many of the arguments from those who voice against
I always thought Insightful moderations from some offering Insight. This guy just said that his opinion changed after reading the article. Why? Give us an overview.
What exactly has caused this?
Probably people downloading full-length movies on P2P networks like Morpheous. (My brother has about 100 some full-length movies at 600 megs a pop)
Have companies overestimated network capacity?
I think they didn't expect P2P and downloading full-length movies would become a normal use for thier service. When they were making estimates some 5 years ago, they probably anticipated streaming audio and video, downloading a game here and there, maybe the occasional warez trader.
I'm pretty sure they didn't expect the average customer to use bandwidth like a warez trader.
I thought Active Directory was just the API that one implements thier FS under?
I misunderstood the original post just like you misunderstood me.
I *BELIEVE* 1XRTT works. I was pointing out that before 1XRTT, you really couldn't dream of 100k.
Unfortunately, the original poster wasn't saying "this is useless", he was saying, "this is useless for a cell phone". (I didn't catch that)
We're both dopes for responding to each others respective parent threads.
95 included a plugin fs...
but M$ forgot to release the API.
Are you talking about Active Directory???
* Police, Fire, EMT services (Forms, MAPS, real-time info)
* Order entry/tracking for roaming salesforces
* Inexpensive Logistics Tracking System using Commodity Technology (Combine w GPS and map system)
WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS!!!
Doesn't wireless Internet Access say it well enough?
Maybe you don't have enough imagination or you don't understand that the existing CDMA standard doesn't offer anything close to 144kbs (even if that's just a theoritical limit), let alone 56K. Try more like 9600 bps if you're lucky.
This is a DATA service primarily aimed at laptops and PDAs and the users who want to connect to the Internet from anywhere.
2 years ago, I wrote a small order-entry application for a automotive parts company. Salesmen would download the update for catalog in the morning (about 400K) and send thier orders when they needed to later.
If such a wireless system has existed, this would have enabled me to expand the application to provide realtime inventory updates and order status updates without having to hook up to the customers phone line.
I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of killer uses for wireless Internet access than just watching Jenna Jameson porn on thier cell phone.
Comcast is a big company. They should be able to monitor bandwidth usage and charge by the average percentage of bandwidth used per month.
I would probably price it between $50 and $150 a month. $150 would be for those extreme examples where the user used between 80% and 100% of thier bandwidth ALL the time (on average), where as $50 would be for the lighter users. (Make up your own pricing scale, but keep it simple)
Not many people will use 80%-100% of thier bandwidth all the time, and those who do would have to pay a premium.
This sounds a lot more fair than telling me I can't use NAT for my many computers.
Sorry, this is Slashdot. Free markets are bad. Antitrust laws are good. The federal government should give everyone broadband and make the Big Evil Corporations pay for it.
:P
As long as we're exagerating...
1. Capitalism's benefits just happen to be creating wealth and increasing the standard of living, but it's really all about winning!!!
2. Antitrust laws aren't fair, because they punish the winners despite the fact antitrust laws only punish monopolies that conspire to exclude competitiors from distrubution entirely! Anti-trust laws are only around to punishes winners!!! Boo!!!
3. We shouldn't have a federal government, so we can let the states battle it out to become the winner!!!
4. Public institutions shouldn't coddle weak people by providing education and other services when they've been found to be INCOMPETANT!!! They're losers, therefore they should lose!!!
Look at me!!! I'm a winner!!!
Ok... Maybe my email was a bit rediculous on your views, but you started it!!!
Click Here and Copy + Paste the Text Below
I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
You Name
Your Address