MS is haemorrhaging cash like there is no tomorrow, their share has tanked relative to 5 or 6 years ago, regulators are scrutinizing them with microscope and most importantly the only way they know to make business is to alienate their clients and business partners.
It may take some time for them to fade away given their sheer size, but I think people are starting to get that is not a good idea to deal with a company that is so easy with legal compliance.
Constantly claiming that the government is useless and unable to affect the economy, unless it is a government you don't like in which case a natural financial bubble can be blamed on them, even if the politician in question did all what he could to have a sane economy (balancing the budget).
There is always somebody deriding a poster that dares to ask a question in/. , like if we were all a bunch of idiots with no idea what we are talking about.
I have seen several replays on this thread and I think the original poster is getting invaluable advice he would have not got otherwise.
I think it is one of the wisest think to do to ask your peers who surely have faced similar experiences, and maybe, just maybe, the poster may not be looking only for the legal aspects of the choices available to him.
At the end companies have to trust somebody to run the show.
That somebody can do pretty much as he pleases.
I think the only way this will be addressed is by creating supervisory accounts which require the mutual acknowledgement of several people to run a script or command.
The bloody point of these machines is to require as little infrastructure as possible.
Where they failed is:
- Never trying to harness economies of scale. - Internal political squabbling (mostly brought by Negroponte and his silly decision to use Windows, thus becoming a collaborator with the expansion of the Windows monopoly).
- The failure to harness the impetus of the FOSS community in order to obviate many of the production costs related to software. The bare minimum to achieve this would be to ensure a free OS is at the core of the project.
Sort out these issues and you will have many takers, even in the poorest countries there are children with access to some infrastructure that would benefit enormously with such a device.
If you think anybody can do what they do and that they don't injure themselves while jumping, spinning and being thrown all around the place, then your sense of logic may need some checking.
There was only one country that may have been capable of using space for nuclear strikes, the USSR, so SDI was not conceived to act as a deterrent for crackpots as you put it.
Most importantly the idea was flawed since there was no way to guarantee the system would work.
Any approach to security different from stopping nuclear proliferation is snake oil.
The US deficit spiralled out of control during his mandate, mostly by feeding the makers of military equipment.
You guys in the US have a monumental moral problem: you are making a living out of the misery of other people. Many of you take a pay cheque after helping build some of the most detestable weapons humankind has known, and your economy is heavily reliant on that kind of industry.
The importance of the web browser is self evident, to argue with such idiotic examples is most disingenuous.
You shoot down your own "argument" by mentioning the Media Player. The EU already provided provisions to try to unbundle the media player in Windows, provisions that were half assed and unsuccessful...
You demand from each entity something commensurable with their means and claimed capacity.
MS is constantly making outlandish claims about how great they are about computing and technology, when they demonstrably aren't (otherwise they would not feel compeled to brake the law in order to compete).
So to make a rubbish toy, to be wasting money on that, when there are demonstrably more important issues they should be dealing with is strange to say the very least.
There are technical matters that any musician can spot immediately as the markers of good music.
The problem is that the major labels, by means of marketing mostly, have convinced most people that what passes for popular is good and in order to revive part of their backlog catalogue they contend that bad music from the past is in reality full of invaluable classics.
Good popular music for has normally its roots firmly established in knowledge about previous musical styles, knowledge about modern techniques and perhaps, more importantly, a certain degree of social awareness (this is not to say that music should be political, but socially sensitive: Elvis was socially sensitive, as perhaps was Frank Sinatra up to a point, but Brittney Spears music isn't).
Lets put it this way: in the middle ages a troubadour that did not sing about the matters of the day would have starved to death, he would have also needed to know what fellow troubadours were doing and he would have got brownie points if he would have used popular lyrics from tunes heard in a religious service, all this would have been combined with technical competence to demonstrate dominion of the craft...
The toughs now in jail were not even bright enough to harass employees of the company doing the animal testing. They were not even bright enough to harass employees of companies doing business with them.
They would find names of big conglomerates doing business (in ways that often were extremely derivative, like messaging companies), choose a company from the group (that had nothing to do with animal testing) and then start harassing lets say the janitor.
Anything the police does to put those individuals in jail should be applauded, freedom of speech has nothing to do with this,
Slashdot Mirror
MS is haemorrhaging cash like there is no tomorrow, their share has tanked relative to 5 or 6 years ago, regulators are scrutinizing them with microscope and most importantly the only way they know to make business is to alienate their clients and business partners.
It may take some time for them to fade away given their sheer size, but I think people are starting to get that is not a good idea to deal with a company that is so easy with legal compliance.
I am tired of hearing these nonsensical arguments about geeks being some kind of rudimentary humans with no social skills.
Geeks are some of the most commited people I know, help anybody that asks and go way out of their way to help people.
And so tell me people I know that are less technically inclined.
This myth of the inadequate nerd should be put to rest frankly.
Constantly claiming that the government is useless and unable to affect the economy, unless it is a government you don't like in which case a natural financial bubble can be blamed on them, even if the politician in question did all what he could to have a sane economy (balancing the budget).
But hey, revisionism is fun, so keep enjoying it.
,,, is for you to find uses for them.
That would have been part of the educational experience...
It is really simple and it can be done.
You don't let an application in your shop unless:
a) They are commited to open standards.
b) They show you a road map of upgrades for the next 5 years.
In any case, if you are really screwed, launch a virtual machine that has a different browser and get on with things.
That way you need to support only three (IE, Firefox, Safari).
There are people out there that pretty much can call their price, even more so in the current conditions.
One important skill one should have is to know if you are one of those people or not and then act accordingly.
There is always somebody deriding a poster that dares to ask a question in /. , like if we were all a bunch of idiots with no idea what we are talking about.
I have seen several replays on this thread and I think the original poster is getting invaluable advice he would have not got otherwise.
I think it is one of the wisest think to do to ask your peers who surely have faced similar experiences, and maybe, just maybe, the poster may not be looking only for the legal aspects of the choices available to him.
At the end companies have to trust somebody to run the show.
That somebody can do pretty much as he pleases.
I think the only way this will be addressed is by creating supervisory accounts which require the mutual acknowledgement of several people to run a script or command.
Silly of me to ask, I know.
They have collocated 1 million machines.
The bloody point of these machines is to require as little infrastructure as possible.
Where they failed is:
- Never trying to harness economies of scale.
- Internal political squabbling (mostly brought by Negroponte and his silly decision to use Windows, thus becoming a collaborator with the expansion of the Windows monopoly).
- The failure to harness the impetus of the FOSS community in order to obviate many of the production costs related to software. The bare minimum to achieve this would be to ensure a free OS is at the core of the project.
Sort out these issues and you will have many takers, even in the poorest countries there are children with access to some infrastructure that would benefit enormously with such a device.
Read about where the bottlenecks are before suggesting nonsense.
People and companies release their work any way they see fit.
Once it has been released it is a perfectly legitimate question to check if other licensing schemes can be used with derivative work.
You may not like the GPL or its proponents, what it is clear to me is that you understand neither.
Goodfather 2
Enough said.
But they are performers also.
If you think anybody can do what they do and that they don't injure themselves while jumping, spinning and being thrown all around the place, then your sense of logic may need some checking.
Football (you have to use your head very occasionaly to hit the ball), tennis, athletics, gymnastics just to name a few.
Backtrack on this thread to find scientific proof of this.
My brother's liver was invaded by cancer, no amount of positive thinking would have changed the final outcome.
Until there aren't any proven therapies developed you would be wasting your money.
Right now we have a vague promise at best that therapies for certain diseases could be found, but nothing else.
SDI was pork barrel for the military industry.
There was only one country that may have been capable of using space for nuclear strikes, the USSR, so SDI was not conceived to act as a deterrent for crackpots as you put it.
Most importantly the idea was flawed since there was no way to guarantee the system would work.
Any approach to security different from stopping nuclear proliferation is snake oil.
The US deficit spiralled out of control during his mandate, mostly by feeding the makers of military equipment.
You guys in the US have a monumental moral problem: you are making a living out of the misery of other people. Many of you take a pay cheque after helping build some of the most detestable weapons humankind has known, and your economy is heavily reliant on that kind of industry.
The importance of the web browser is self evident, to argue with such idiotic examples is most disingenuous.
You shoot down your own "argument" by mentioning the Media Player. The EU already provided provisions to try to unbundle the media player in Windows, provisions that were half assed and unsuccessful...
You demand from each entity something commensurable with their means and claimed capacity.
MS is constantly making outlandish claims about how great they are about computing and technology, when they demonstrably aren't (otherwise they would not feel compeled to brake the law in order to compete).
So to make a rubbish toy, to be wasting money on that, when there are demonstrably more important issues they should be dealing with is strange to say the very least.
There are technical matters that any musician can spot immediately as the markers of good music.
The problem is that the major labels, by means of marketing mostly, have convinced most people that what passes for popular is good and in order to revive part of their backlog catalogue they contend that bad music from the past is in reality full of invaluable classics.
Good popular music for has normally its roots firmly established in knowledge about previous musical styles, knowledge about modern techniques and perhaps, more importantly, a certain degree of social awareness (this is not to say that music should be political, but socially sensitive: Elvis was socially sensitive, as perhaps was Frank Sinatra up to a point, but Brittney Spears music isn't).
Lets put it this way: in the middle ages a troubadour that did not sing about the matters of the day would have starved to death, he would have also needed to know what fellow troubadours were doing and he would have got brownie points if he would have used popular lyrics from tunes heard in a religious service, all this would have been combined with technical competence to demonstrate dominion of the craft...
The toughs now in jail were not even bright enough to harass employees of the company doing the animal testing. They were not even bright enough to harass employees of companies doing business with them.
They would find names of big conglomerates doing business (in ways that often were extremely derivative, like messaging companies), choose a company from the group (that had nothing to do with animal testing) and then start harassing lets say the janitor.
Anything the police does to put those individuals in jail should be applauded, freedom of speech has nothing to do with this,
Most workers just want open labour markets.