"He, however, added that India's 'No' vote will become a 'Yes' if Microsoft is able to resolve all technical issues with OOXML before the ballot resolution committee of ISO. "
Translation: "Vote 'yes' or the cow gets it."
I'd be willing to wager, knowing Microsoft's history, that political machinations will have more to do with India's final vote than technical issue resolution.
Shell has begun the thoroughly annoying practice of placing a video monitor above its pumps that blare commercials at its customers (except for an all-too-brief Conan clip) while they refuel their cars. You're a captive audience. Where are you going to go? They've got you.
Meanwhile, does watching that commercial subsidize the cost of your fuel? None at all.
I realize that what holds true for Shell may not necessarily hold true for Microsoft. But I somehow find it perfectly reasonable to think so.
When I first heard the name "Windows Genuine Advantage," I thought, "hey, great; I've finally got an advantage over those smug Mac OS X and LInux users!" Then, of course, came the awful truth.
When I first heard the name "Trusted Computing," I thought, "hey, great; does this, like, mean I can make clicky-clicky on links in the sketchiest of web pages without gasping in shock at the horrors of pathological proctology?" Then, of course, came the awful truth.
This evening, upon reading the name "Advertising Services Architecture," I thought, "hey, great; is this a cool new enabling technology that will this help me sell more stuff and make more money on eBay?" Then, yet again, came the awful truth, as pointed out in the link to this article.
As far as I know, these are but three of the 100 reasons I'll be speechless for Microsoft Vista. Or saying "Wow!" But: Is there some context in the English language in which "Wow!" means "I've got an axe buried in my head?" (Being speechless does, after all, seem to be an appropriate response to such trauma, and so I was trying to make the connection between the two.) Because after all the all the aforementioned truths, after finding out that this vast infrastructure for which I'm paying has nothing to do whatsoever with that for which I want to use a computer, well, that's kind of what I imagine it feels like.
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation
on
Sony Sues Rootkit Maker
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
If I may digress for a moment: I think you should call yourself TapeCutterAndPaster instead. Your post is a tired Slashdot cliché.
But to give you the benefit of a doubt, I'll answer: My celebrated newsletter does explain WTF it means, but you're obviously too dim to comprehend it.
Re:I bet they knew but didn't understand
on
Sony Sues Rootkit Maker
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Though I like your link, I like this one more, just because Hesse's infamous remark is now enshrined in a fitting place (bottom of page).
Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation
on
Sony Sues Rootkit Maker
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The rootkit software was developed by First 4 Internet (now called Fortium Technologies). I suppose that an inability to sue straight can now be added to Sony BMG's portfolio of stupidity and arrogance. I hope SunnComm (now called The Amergence Group), as despicable as its own efforts were, totally owns Sony BMG.
With all these name changes, I wonder when Macrovision is going to change theirs?
When I read the summary of this story, I couldn't help but wrinkle my nose a bit. "Fact rich?"
Having observed Microsoft for years, I keep encountering that word. Bill Gates seemingly cannot participate in an interview without using it (that may be a subconscious thing, perhaps, given his wealth).
On a whim, I visited microsoft.com and entered 'rich' as a search term:
Rich Client Rich Edit Control Rich Internet Applications Rich List Rich Media Collaboration Services Rich Media Rich, Secure and Manageable E-mail Rich TextBox Control Rich Text Format Rich User Experience Rich Web Experiences
To name a few. And now:
fact rich
I find Microsoft's overuse of the word 'rich' to be, well, rich.
Play with shit, and sooner or later, you're bound to get it on you.
My father used that as a cautionary metaphor when it came to hanging out with bad company, and I think it pretty much sums up what happens whenever anyone gets into bed with Microsoft.
Thing is, that implies being a victim. Novell's a victim, all right, but I'd say it's a situation more of their own making. Years ago, with NetWare, they were the only game in town. In these days, they're struggling for relevancy, and it appears they're willing to follow whichever way the wind blows.
"He wasn't talking as some kind of all knowing Oracle, he was talking as a powerful businessman with a definite agenda. Why do people keep dragging this up?"
I think it's because he positioned himself exactly as an "all knowing Oracle" when he produced the book The Road Ahead.
That's what people do when they've got an inflated sense of self. We keep bringing it up because we enjoy wielding the pin.
"For us this is just a sewa (selfless act) that we are offering to our customers."
Reminds me of a bartender giving free drinks to his friends. "No big deal to be generous with someone else's booze," his ex-boss said. (Paraphrased from an old Law & Order episode.)
I'm certainly no MS fanboy, but I hope those retailers get nailed for this.
"Indeed. I happens a lot for me for some applications - aMule and Mplayer mostly."
Then that has absolutely nothing to do with the window manager, but an application spending too much time in one part of its execution before it can reach its main event loop again. It sounds as if something that blocks belongs in its own thread of execution. That you can name only two applications that exhibit this behavior is hardly an indictment of OS X's window manager.
I'm not certain if you think a window manager should be some sort of omnipresent overlord over applications that use its services, but in OS X, it's just one of many tools available to an application.
"On SGI IRIX's 4Dwm, for example, if I use the window manager to minimise a window (by clicking on the minimise button, for example), it damn well minimises, no matter what state the window's application is in."
So does OS X. The yellow button minimizes. Clicking it works for me, regardless of whether the application is active or not. Hold down the shift key while clicking, and you can see that cool genie effect from the desktop to the Dock in slow motion.
I'll entertain the possibility that what you're really talking about is zooming (i.e., clicking the green button), because zooming behavior truly is inconsistent and annoying in Mac OS X. If that really is what you mean, it still doesn't make the OS X window manager a 'wimp.' If anything, it means it's not a micro-manager.
Developers have the responsibility to ensure that, when a window is zoomed out (the "standard state"), the window displays as much of the content in an ideally sized window (given the constraints of screen size and the placement of the Dock). The window manager provides all the tools a developer needs to effect this. Conversely, when the window is zoomed in (the "user state"), the window locates and sizes itself the way the user last moved and sized it. Did the user make it the size of a postage stamp before zooming out? Or did the user size it far larger than the content? Whatever they did last, that's what they get when they zoom "in."
"If there's nothing wrong with what Verizon has done why would the current administration need to cover Verizon's ass with this legislation? Smell's fishy to me..."
Can I imply from this, that regardless of the outcome, you somehow stand to gain the fishy of someone named Smell?
It so happens that Apple released Mac OS X 10.4.9 today, and the updater didn't make a single sound while it was installing it. (Though the hard disk was making all kinds of thrashy sounds, but I don't think they count.)
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."
But of course, Viacom would never, ever go after the fans, would they?
"It's not some effort to protect some high-paid Hollywood star or studio."
Really? Further along in TFA, it says quite plainly (with emphasis mine):
"The film and music industry lobby asked Schwab to add Canada to a "priority watch list" of countries that have failed to stem piracy."
Of course it's to protect "some high-paid Hollywood star or studio."
To my Canadian friends: Resist, resist, resist. Feinstein's the biggest MPAA/RIAA whore in our Congress. I've written (okay, typed for e-mail; maybe that's the problem) this idiot more times than I can possibly remember to protest her backing of various obnoxious things (broadcast flag, PERFORM Act, etc.) to no avail.
"We are concerned that this decision opens the door for Alcatel-Lucent to pursue action against hundreds of other companies who purchased the rights to use MP3 technology from Fraunhofer, the industry-recognized rightful licensor," Tom Burt, Microsoft's deputy general counsel, said in a statement.
Oh! I see! Microsoft is now The Company That Cares!
Please. Since when has the welfare of another company been of any interest whatsoever to this utterly ruthless behemoth?
"I would love to see the letters they have received that convinced them that this was an issue that needed their attention over all these other issues. I doubt they can produce even one that came from a private voting citizen."
Here's one she did receive from " a private voting citizen." And no, she didn't reply to this:
Dear Senator Feinstein,
On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:31 AM, senator@feinstein.senate.gov wrote:
Thank you for writing to me about the digital broadcast flag. I appreciate hearing from you.
I feel strongly that we must prevent the theft of copyrighted works, and that includes digital television (DTV) programming. As we move forward in the digital age, it is increasingly easy for unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to be made and illegally distributed. Over-the-air digital content is the easiest to pirate.
I respectfully submit to you, Senator: So what? It's always been 'easy.' Pirates coiuld continue to do this with analogue video tape recorders if they must. They're not going to worry about whether their masters of copyrighted material they propose to illegally distribute are digital or not.
The problem is that the equation you've been pondering leaves out those like myself, who stand to lose the rights they have always been afforded, and have been affirmed by the Betamax case almost twenty-five years ago. Archiving, editing and time-shifting for my personal use is not 'theft.' I haven't stolen anything. I haven't deprived another of his or her property. Why does this become 'theft?' Because an industry association, the MPAA, says so?
All this talk about 'theft' is a smokescreen I feel the motion picture and television industries have presented in order to obscure the real reason for the broadcast flag, which is to force their customers (not 'consumers,' please?) to pay over and over again for the content for which they already have paid, and have the right to archive, edit and time-shift for their personal use. Sadly, I feel you have bought entirely into their argument, which will be to the detriment of us all. You'll forgive me if I sometimes feel my lawmakers don't necessarily "swim in the same water" as does our society as a whole. If you do, I think you'll realize the damage you have done, provided this bill becomes law, once it occurs to you that you can no longer enjoy the right to do what you can legally do today.
As we contemplate the use of new technologies to protect copyrighted works, we must pay careful attention to ensure that a balance is struck between competitive protections and individual consumer interests. It is important to allow for the continued fair use of copyrighted material, even while we seek to stop unauthorized reproductions from being illegally distributed outside the home and over the Internet.
I've heard plenty about these "new technologies." "Digital Restrictions Management," I think, is a much more suitable term. Where is the 'balance' of which you speak? I want to know (and this is not a rhetorical question, Senator) what rights will customers be afforded, given all these new restrictions? What do customers stand to gain from this legislation? There are already laws which provide for severe penalties for the unlawful distribution (again, not 'theft') of copyrighted works. Why aren't the current laws being enforced?
I'd like to provide you with a bit of insight you may not have considered.
If this bill becomes law, I won't break the new law. I'll simply not buy any longer. No more DVDs (or HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray discs). No expensive new hardware, including wide-screen televisions and digital video recorders. No more subscriptions to cable (or satellite) services. The motion picture and television industries think they have got me, but t
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm really hoping my next laptop has no moving parts..."
So in other words, you want a laptop that also has a capacitance keyboard, no DVD drive, and no hinges?
(no, no; I know what you mean...)
"He, however, added that India's 'No' vote will become a 'Yes' if Microsoft is able to resolve all technical issues with OOXML before the ballot resolution committee of ISO. "
Translation: "Vote 'yes' or the cow gets it."
I'd be willing to wager, knowing Microsoft's history, that political machinations will have more to do with India's final vote than technical issue resolution.
"...when someone installed bonzai buddy."
Having an anthropomorphic miniature Japanese tree on his screen would have been at least bizarre, if not funny.
Shell has begun the thoroughly annoying practice of placing a video monitor above its pumps that blare commercials at its customers (except for an all-too-brief Conan clip) while they refuel their cars. You're a captive audience. Where are you going to go? They've got you.
Meanwhile, does watching that commercial subsidize the cost of your fuel? None at all.
I realize that what holds true for Shell may not necessarily hold true for Microsoft. But I somehow find it perfectly reasonable to think so.
When I first heard the name "Windows Genuine Advantage," I thought, "hey, great; I've finally got an advantage over those smug Mac OS X and LInux users!" Then, of course, came the awful truth.
When I first heard the name "Trusted Computing," I thought, "hey, great; does this, like, mean I can make clicky-clicky on links in the sketchiest of web pages without gasping in shock at the horrors of pathological proctology?" Then, of course, came the awful truth.
This evening, upon reading the name "Advertising Services Architecture," I thought, "hey, great; is this a cool new enabling technology that will this help me sell more stuff and make more money on eBay?" Then, yet again, came the awful truth, as pointed out in the link to this article.
As far as I know, these are but three of the 100 reasons I'll be speechless for Microsoft Vista. Or saying "Wow!" But: Is there some context in the English language in which "Wow!" means "I've got an axe buried in my head?" (Being speechless does, after all, seem to be an appropriate response to such trauma, and so I was trying to make the connection between the two.) Because after all the all the aforementioned truths, after finding out that this vast infrastructure for which I'm paying has nothing to do whatsoever with that for which I want to use a computer, well, that's kind of what I imagine it feels like.
If I may digress for a moment: I think you should call yourself TapeCutterAndPaster instead. Your post is a tired Slashdot cliché.
But to give you the benefit of a doubt, I'll answer: My celebrated newsletter does explain WTF it means, but you're obviously too dim to comprehend it.
Though I like your link, I like this one more, just because Hesse's infamous remark is now enshrined in a fitting place (bottom of page).
The rootkit software was developed by First 4 Internet (now called Fortium Technologies). I suppose that an inability to sue straight can now be added to Sony BMG's portfolio of stupidity and arrogance. I hope SunnComm (now called The Amergence Group), as despicable as its own efforts were, totally owns Sony BMG.
With all these name changes, I wonder when Macrovision is going to change theirs?
When I read the summary of this story, I couldn't help but wrinkle my nose a bit. "Fact rich?"
Having observed Microsoft for years, I keep encountering that word. Bill Gates seemingly cannot participate in an interview without using it (that may be a subconscious thing, perhaps, given his wealth).
On a whim, I visited microsoft.com and entered 'rich' as a search term:
Rich Client
Rich Edit Control
Rich Internet Applications
Rich List
Rich Media Collaboration Services
Rich Media
Rich, Secure and Manageable E-mail
Rich TextBox Control
Rich Text Format
Rich User Experience
Rich Web Experiences
To name a few. And now:
fact rich
I find Microsoft's overuse of the word 'rich' to be, well, rich.
...when I first glanced at it, that the article headline said, "Gates and Jobs to Share A Grudge?"
Play with shit, and sooner or later, you're bound to get it on you.
My father used that as a cautionary metaphor when it came to hanging out with bad company, and I think it pretty much sums up what happens whenever anyone gets into bed with Microsoft.
Thing is, that implies being a victim. Novell's a victim, all right, but I'd say it's a situation more of their own making. Years ago, with NetWare, they were the only game in town. In these days, they're struggling for relevancy, and it appears they're willing to follow whichever way the wind blows.
"He wasn't talking as some kind of all knowing Oracle, he was talking as a powerful businessman with a definite agenda. Why do people keep dragging this up?"
I think it's because he positioned himself exactly as an "all knowing Oracle" when he produced the book The Road Ahead.
That's what people do when they've got an inflated sense of self. We keep bringing it up because we enjoy wielding the pin.
"For us this is just a sewa (selfless act) that we are offering to our customers."
Reminds me of a bartender giving free drinks to his friends. "No big deal to be generous with someone else's booze," his ex-boss said. (Paraphrased from an old Law & Order episode.)
I'm certainly no MS fanboy, but I hope those retailers get nailed for this.
"Indeed. I happens a lot for me for some applications - aMule and Mplayer mostly."
Then that has absolutely nothing to do with the window manager, but an application spending too much time in one part of its execution before it can reach its main event loop again. It sounds as if something that blocks belongs in its own thread of execution. That you can name only two applications that exhibit this behavior is hardly an indictment of OS X's window manager.
I'm not certain if you think a window manager should be some sort of omnipresent overlord over applications that use its services, but in OS X, it's just one of many tools available to an application.
"On SGI IRIX's 4Dwm, for example, if I use the window manager to minimise a window (by clicking on the minimise button, for example), it damn well minimises, no matter what state the window's application is in."
So does OS X. The yellow button minimizes. Clicking it works for me, regardless of whether the application is active or not. Hold down the shift key while clicking, and you can see that cool genie effect from the desktop to the Dock in slow motion.
I'll entertain the possibility that what you're really talking about is zooming (i.e., clicking the green button), because zooming behavior truly is inconsistent and annoying in Mac OS X. If that really is what you mean, it still doesn't make the OS X window manager a 'wimp.' If anything, it means it's not a micro-manager.
Developers have the responsibility to ensure that, when a window is zoomed out (the "standard state"), the window displays as much of the content in an ideally sized window (given the constraints of screen size and the placement of the Dock). The window manager provides all the tools a developer needs to effect this. Conversely, when the window is zoomed in (the "user state"), the window locates and sizes itself the way the user last moved and sized it. Did the user make it the size of a postage stamp before zooming out? Or did the user size it far larger than the content? Whatever they did last, that's what they get when they zoom "in."
"...but look at the bugger picture."
I don't want to. Seeing goatse.cx once was quite enough, thank you.
"If there's nothing wrong with what Verizon has done why would the current administration need to cover Verizon's ass with this legislation? Smell's fishy to me ..."
Can I imply from this, that regardless of the outcome, you somehow stand to gain the fishy of someone named Smell?
I'll let this guy explain it to you.
...to recreate historical events, I think Ballmer ought to be the one to go, rather than Gates.
...but: Releasing an operating system quietly?
Uh uh.
It so happens that Apple released Mac OS X 10.4.9 today, and the updater didn't make a single sound while it was installing it. (Though the hard disk was making all kinds of thrashy sounds, but I don't think they count.)
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."
But of course, Viacom would never, ever go after the fans, would they?
...I had to be certain I was not reading the subject of the previous Slashdot story, "The Coevolution of Lice & Their Hosts."
From TFA:
"It's not some effort to protect some high-paid Hollywood star or studio."
Really? Further along in TFA, it says quite plainly (with emphasis mine):
"The film and music industry lobby asked Schwab to add Canada to a "priority watch list" of countries that have failed to stem piracy."
Of course it's to protect "some high-paid Hollywood star or studio."
To my Canadian friends: Resist, resist, resist. Feinstein's the biggest MPAA/RIAA whore in our Congress. I've written (okay, typed for e-mail; maybe that's the problem) this idiot more times than I can possibly remember to protest her backing of various obnoxious things (broadcast flag, PERFORM Act, etc.) to no avail.
"We are concerned that this decision opens the door for Alcatel-Lucent to pursue action against hundreds of other companies who purchased the rights to use MP3 technology from Fraunhofer, the industry-recognized rightful licensor," Tom Burt, Microsoft's deputy general counsel, said in a statement.
Oh! I see! Microsoft is now The Company That Cares!
Please. Since when has the welfare of another company been of any interest whatsoever to this utterly ruthless behemoth?
"Its more insidious then any terrorist group, or rouge nation."
Even the mauve, taupe, and paisley ones?
Here's one she did receive from " a private voting citizen." And no, she didn't reply to this: