Microsoft stopped RICO violations because they were caught. They still have an obligation to shareholders to increase growth. They just have to do it more sneakily than in the past.
I'm not sure what the new CEO will bring to the table other than many years of experience in doing exactly the same thing. Given that, the discussion is indeed bogus.
Microsoft will be judged as it has acted. The monopoly verdict was a long time ago, and even under Ballmer it continued to be anti-customer. Until it *actually* changes direction, it will be judged to be going the same direction it has been. Which is, right up the customers' asses.
No, and you're an idiot. Win95 was bad, but it was a long time ago, and most people who hate Microsoft consider that simply among the many sins committed.
Did you get IE11? Did you notice how the "Developer Tools" are now "Tablet user semi-tools"?
Have you upgraded to VS2012? Did you notice how your workflow is now *harder* unless you use a touch device?
Have you tried to change the color of bullets when you paste something in Word? Fuck me, the Word editor is probably the definition of torture. If you use your keyboard at all, it will fuck your eyeballs with a cactus.
Do you have something after Windows 7? Did you notice how Windows is designed around touch users, despite the fact that business desktops are a huge part of both Microsoft's current user base as well as future upgrades due to subscriptions? Server 2013 using the same touch-optimized interface?
Now we get the "Spring" update for Windows 8.1, which supposedly addresses the 90+% of the market still using desktops but that they completely forgot about during design, and it's named for a season which, while correct for most of the inhabited world, still disregards anything outside of their immediate vision.
Microsoft does not see existing customers. It sees future markets. Bundling IE and lying about it was certainly about future markets.Claiming IE was part of the system, and forcing Active Desktop on users, was about future markets.
90% of the user base that uses a desktop is not in their scope until it threatens the sales numbers. We get a token "start button" that does not do what we obviously wanted. Later, we get promises of a "start button". The timing of this pretty much says it all. The customer is paid for, the future customer is not. The current customer sometimes has to be appeased, but they will be shat upon if the future consumer base demands it.
I have used Windows all of my life. I am stupid in that way, apparently. My reasons were based around popularity and market share, and my understanding of its internals was so precipitated. I suffered through having a half-assed 32-bit OS thunked to the Windows 95 and 98 kernel. I used Windows 2000 at home because XP used unnecessary eye candy. I upgraded to a faster computer, and XP3 phoned home even as a paid customer.
I suffered through unpaid license fees to Dinkumware, meaning my code broke until I traced it to broken STL includes that would never be included in a service pack update. That was 1999. Yet I built a good career on Microsoft technologies, precisely because my knowledge and experience make me more valuable than the average Microsoft worker.
I have seen my rapist many times. Do I love him now, and forget him now? While I see the same tricks played over and over? Do I forgive the company for its past wrongs even though I see the exact same behavior? Do I forgive the alcoholic who reaches for another drink? The crack addict with a burning pipe to its lips?
No, I fucking well don't. And all of this went well beyond Windows 95.
My electronics are covered in DNA, so a simple UV flashlight is claim of ownership. Especially when they are touching it.
I also changed the logon screen, or equivalent, to use a photo of the device under a UV flashlight. Remarkably effective, and I didn't have to change my behavior at all. And, CSI could solve the case in about 7 minutes if it ever got that far.
One time, I found some cheap ass microphone at this thing, and it had a label on it. The label said "Stolen from this idiot at this thing" or so. So I tore off the label and engraved it "Property of my nutsack".
If anyone steals it from me, no one can pretend to be me by name just by reading the label on it. Property of Jim Smith? Well I'm Jim Smith, yeah. I just have to admit that I'm stupid enough to engrave the fact that a microphone is property of my nutsack, and I get it back.
The mic works real well. When I buy something that stores audio, the first thing I do is record a sound file to store on it: "This device is property of my NUTSACK." I got a notebook back this way.
"I don't have billions of dollars from you yet, so I can't just spend forever here, and I don't mind walking away. This plane ticket thing gives me an excuse to walk away, but if I let you buy me a ticket, I've given you a HUGE headwound with a cluebat that I'm desperate and will sell for way less than I'm asking. Signaling my intent to leave, and ask for more later, I'm taking a gamble that you will blink first."
Who blinked first? FaceBook, because if you study the financials of the companies involved, FaceBook did not have a choice. And WhatTheFuckSapp pretty much knew it. Not a guarantee, but considering the price range they agreed on, FaceBook was willing to shiv its own grandmother for the users.
He did not have a deal. Agreeing to take free tickets from the person across the negotiating table from you would take a deal. Not the same deal, but reaching some sort of deal.
Facebook: Here, have some free tickets so we can continue talking you into the gutter. WhateverTheFuck: No, thanks, that just means you want to find new ways to undercut me. If you're not making a deal, I'm not sitting around. FaceBook: No, really, if we're going to buy you for $10B we don't mind funding your later tickets WhateverTheFuck: If you're not going to do a deal now, you're going to do either a shittier deal later, or no deal later. I'm flying and taking my 450 million u$er$ with me FaceBook: Okay, no tickets. How about half off for a handy? WhateverTheFuck: I took matters into my own hands earlier today, so I'm good until my plane takes off. Fuck yourself, and gimme billions.
It appears that you used estimates for efficiency that are earth-based, behind a fairly protective atmosphere. Would the moon be more efficient? Having a broader spectrum, and no filtering?
That seems like it would at least counteract the inefficiency of transmission. Given that the surface temperature is ~ +/-250F outside of craters, it seems that adding heat reclamation would boost efficiency.
Round up to 10%, and that's pretty good for an entire planet, no? I would not be surprised to find a few optimisations may get it to 20%.
Are you saying Toyota did not follow the Motor Industry Software Reliability Association C rules? Because that would be interesting. Or are you just thinking into your keyboard without knowing?
And how are people supposed to demand better software? There is not a demonstrable problem, given that we don't know what the problem is, or the cause. I don't see how you could demand, or legislate, better software without at least something specific.
You are dangerously close to +5 despite having conveyed no actual information. And the people who do have information have not solved this yet.
Fuck you, It's FREE pizza. Get that shit. Nothing to eat? Eat free pizza! It's free, and its pizza!
And they might give you water instead of soda, so your needs are covered. Shut your piehole, except for the part where you shove pizza pie in it. Like the good lord intended.
In that case, I don't understand why Visual Studio is also moving to a tabletized interface. Most of the design decisions, starting with color choice, only make sense for either the newer, smaller LCD screens on tablets, or the type of swipe or touch gestures on mobile devices.
Is it also designed for casual users who only want to check facebook, view some photos, and maybe post a selfie to instagram? Is it also designed for my computer illiterate little sister, for grandpas who don't know how to use that computer dofangle thingy, and for mom who just wants to look up apple pie recipes? Is Visual Studio simple, clear, and does one thing (and only one thing) relatively easily?
What about Server 2012?
Because, sure, you developed Windows 8 for tablets. But that design decision is cascading where it doesn't belong, making me think it was not really well thought through. Or if it was at one time, that time is long past. Poorly designed, poorly implemented, and not considering the actual people who have to use these things every day, at work, to accomplish things. You got the business market pretty locked up now, so fuck 'em while we go after the home users to stop them from going to Android and iOS?
Just a bookmark for me regarding conclusions and the jumping thereto, especially in light of the ars technica article and gabes reddit topic. Fear not, you will serve humanity as well as you thought you were when posting.
Re:Define virtual reality
on
The Road To VR
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Don't be intentionally obtuse. In the middle. Real enough to be called reality but virtual enough that it is not direct nerve stimulation. The stuff like lawnmower man that has been promised for 20 years. Everyone knows the definition.
I would be quite happy with 3d video and audio, and head tracking, and all the other crap superfluous. Quite happy without the social side, as I don't expect people to watch me. Treadmill would get very tiring unless you really want to run towards and away from zombies or machine gunners for hours. Wii sports is tiring enough and you don't actually go anywhere, so extrapolate.
Vr is basically here when 1080 hits, but it's not the vr everyone is looking for. I would bet the full, true vr will make a big splash like laser tag and die quickly, with a long tail.
If the 1080 oculus hits, it will be just good enough to capture marketshare, if they just stop promising the next generation for a while. Few will buy into an obsolete technology, so announce it is mature and has developer backing, or it will not arrive until it is overly mature.
I remember mall demos with 30 people in headsets throwing dodgeball or something, and it was decent then. Put it on today's internet and today's processors, and you just need a compelling environment. Call of duty VR is just laser tag without walking, and flight sim VR is just what every sim player ever wanted. And it will be good enough.
Skyrim in true VR would be awesome, but tiring with all the walking and fighting. Nearly unplayable. Any FPS would be too taxing. Sneakers might work. Any unrealistic game like super monkey ball is unfit for true VR. You need entire New genres for true VR, like maybe travelogues. Controlling sim city or DotA might be super awesome in true VR, with swipe gestures. But I don't see the market in the current core gamer population.
The half VR available in 2 years will be good enough for a generation, or they are making a risky bet.
Why must you point out the obvious? Yes, they aren't rational, and that's the problem! That's exactly what people are criticizing.
What can be done beyond criticizing? Assuming "education", and further assuming that ineffective, does it make sense to work within the limits of operation? Or strive for the ideal you will never achieve?
I prefer to accept the limits until they can be changed, which means no stat based arguments.
cold fjord had a good rebuttal to a terrible argument, including pointing out obvious internal inconsistencies. I did not see an argument for a particular side, and if you read it again you might see the same.
If I were to argue your point, but at the same time point out where your argument fell short, you may see it as an attack, and misunderstand which side I am on. Because an attack has to come from the opposition, never friendly fire, right?
So now cold fjord has a mentality and spews propaganda. Homework assignment: In what way did cold fjord take a pro NSA side? Specifics, not overall nor generally.
"Many homeless" do so voluntarily, and considering they would have been in a sanitarium, they are better off. Many have access to shelters and technology like phones, and food banks. Many are evicted middle class who have everything but the house.
Many is not most, and you sound too emotionally invested to take at face value, so your comments are rejected.
I guarantee, based on statistics, that the house is very different. I could not find a house older than 40 years for sale around here, or many places I know. And technologies improve. I have environmental control and food storage they would have considered impossible, certainly 200 years ago. Or do we just get to say 100 years is the cutoff? Because that's arbitrary, since 200 years was mentioned.
You are a statistical outlier. This is not about you. Sit back and learn about the majority of people, who are different from you. Yes, such people exist, and make up the vast sea of humanity.
They aren't on Facebook? Non sequitur, they would be if they chose poorly between an internet connection vs. a pot to shit in.
To have an unbiased opinion, you really should have your search plugin randomized. Organically, you will notice one is better. Or maybe they have different strengths depending on subject.
I don't know anyone who can speak to that honestly, and usually people who say one search is better are just better trained to use it vs. others.
I know how to modify a Google search with "wrong" words to make it find what I'm after, so it works better. Bing is at least slightly different, so if my search didn't work I'm stuck. That means I'm better at Google, not that Google is better at me.
And the more they tweak, the less of an edge I have. Some day I expect it will be a tie, especially when they track which results get clicked to determine which results to show. People don't know if it is worth clicking until after, not before the click.
Did you read the details of the settlement? I didn't. But if they had good evidence to win, they probably would not have settled. A bought politician would not have brought the case at all.
So, without further details, I can only assume they settled for what they could get, instead of losing completely. Your math does not account for the probability of not having the evidence needed to win. No win, no repayment, no damages.
Fraud went down, regardless of how secure it is. Fraud moved to USA. If it is good enough to lower fraud levels to a point that is tolerable, they can use existing hardware designs instead of inventing new hardware. The goal is not eliminating fraud, but choosing the least expensive path. Allowing fraud has, until recently, been less costly. Ars probably still has its article on the front page, the explanations were better there IMO but similar. This is all from those articles and others over the years.
The human brain does not calculate statistics to decide what it is afraid of. Even in the face of statistics, fear is not based on what is likely to kill us.
In fact, especially in the face of statistics, because we know how likely lightning is, as an example. But terrorists could be literally anywhere, and that's scary.
For the record, you are correct. But, since that's not how people work, you are also wrong.
I believe it's not satire, and although you might have traveled the world, you didn't go where bstarrfield did.
I can guarantee that, because peoples' opinions are colored by where they have been and what they have seen. A church missionary might say they saw all walks of life and they were kind, generous, and beautiful people. A soldier may see a few of these people, but have their opinions made from a line of people who would, if possible, behead them and their children. A CEO's wife may see foreigners as subservient, since they are rarely seen outside the role of hotel or wait staff.
They visit the same places, possibly see the same people, but spend more time with certain members of society. Depending where I live in New York City, I could form an infinite number of opinions about the geography and people, just by selecting the right square mile.
Your opinion of what "facts" are is highly biased by your experience. If bstarrfield was not sincere, there are enough people who do believe exactly that so we can assume it is sincere. And that opinion is just as much biased as yours, and for the same reasons. And it remains "fact", just not to you.
That is for.NET, which wasn't part of the discussion. Also, since we are talking about 10 year old software being supported, 10 year old packages along with their licenses should be considered.
In the past decade, Wine has come a long way, and ReactOS has undoubtedly been directed to Microsoft's attention. Why would they say you cannot run it on a non-Windows system if there were no viable ways of doing so? Investigating that question comes to an answer that involves alternative operating systems that run Windows, which did not exist in the past. The EULA would not have included the text you claim it would have.
Specifically it would not affect installers for 10 year old software which include the libraries as part of the installer. Unless the installer has Microsoft's EULA to click through, the user doesn't have to agree. And if it includes the redistributable package as of that date, it includes the license text of that date. Not what's on Microsoft.com right now.
Oh, I'm an old man, I've been around a while. MDAC_26.exe contains this agreement, copied from the installer. Slashfuck might have altered the unicode content and links:
MICROSOFT CORPORATION END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Microsoft Data Access Components 2.6
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and "online" or electronic documentation ("Product"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:
a. Installation and Use.
You may install and use an unlimited number of copies of the Product only for your internal use on your premises. You may make an unlimited number of copies (either in hard copy or electronic form) of any electronic documents included with the Product only for your internal use on your premises.
b. Storage/Network Use.
You may also store or install a copy of the Product on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the Product on your other computers over an internal network.
c. Performance or Benchmark Testing.
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test using the Product to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
d. Application Development; Redistribution Rights.
You may use the Product to design, develop, and test your software application products that will add significant and primary functionality to the Product ("Application"). You have a royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the Product, provided that you comply with the following:
(i) General Redistribution Requirements.
You will (a) redistribute, or have third parties redistribute, the Product in its entirety, in object code only, in a single executable file as provided by Microsoft (MDAC_typ.exe), and only in conjunction with and as a part of an Application; (b) not use Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks to market your Application without the prior written consent of Microsoft; (c) include a valid copyright notice with your Application; (d) include all copyright and trademark notices contained in the Product; (e) include a copy of this EULA with any Product you distribute; (f) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of your Application, and (g) not permit further distribution of the Product by en
It is still part of open source. It is still the face of the free software movement. Don't compromise on principal, but use something that barely works.
Open source operating systems that come to mind - Linux, "it works, it's free, people use it". Otherwise, Haiku copying BeOS, ReactOS copying Windows but not as well. And the running joke, GNU Hurd.
And your crap github account also is part of open source. If I look for whatever you have, and your account pops up in the list, am I supposed to know somehow to discard or discount your code? Is there some marker somewhere that says, "Sorry, this code should not be used or indexed, or considered part of the open source community"?
I'm guessing it doesn't. I'm guessing it's there because someone, somewhere, might be able to use it. To the billions of people who cannot use it, is it worth anything? Is Linux worth anything to those same people?
I would say that we can calculate a direct and indirect benefit from Linux, and it reflects positively on open source as a success. Equally, we can calculate little or no benefit to open source. To the few people who use it as a hobby/research project, it may be invaluable. But you are talking about Open Source in general, to people in general. It looks like a failure. Maybe not to you, but you don't get to determine how other people view open source.
I disagree that it should be stopped. That doesn't mean it is a good example of how open source works. Every other project from GNU seems to be successful, and reflect well on both open source in general and free software specifically. That does not exempt Hurd.
"where it's legal" and "thorium" were important parts of my response, which you ignored. The legality of EULA and how restrictive they can be is rather up in the air. Some things have been clearly rejected, some things clearly okayed, and things in the middle are still a grey area. Not clearly illegal, and probably perfectly fine.
I know of no test where an installer, containing redistributables, somehow is responsible to ensure that no one downloads or copies the installer package with the intent of running on a non-windows system.
The intent of the redistributable is to allow the program to run. If you download from Microsoft, you may be subject to their EULA depending on your legal system. If you install as part of the package, and do not have to agree to any part of the Microsoft EULA, as a user you have not breached any agreement.
Law is hard, and even this is a simplification. "No, EULA" is just not an adequate response.
And even if we say EULA is the law, the point is that ReactOS is not as good as it will get just because these libraries do not exist. Reverse engineering for the purposes of compatibility is legal enough where it matters. That too is an oversimplification. But EULA is not the law. Which is also an oversimplification.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft stopped RICO violations because they were caught. They still have an obligation to shareholders to increase growth. They just have to do it more sneakily than in the past.
I'm not sure what the new CEO will bring to the table other than many years of experience in doing exactly the same thing. Given that, the discussion is indeed bogus.
Microsoft will be judged as it has acted. The monopoly verdict was a long time ago, and even under Ballmer it continued to be anti-customer. Until it *actually* changes direction, it will be judged to be going the same direction it has been. Which is, right up the customers' asses.
No, and you're an idiot. Win95 was bad, but it was a long time ago, and most people who hate Microsoft consider that simply among the many sins committed.
Did you get IE11? Did you notice how the "Developer Tools" are now "Tablet user semi-tools"?
Have you upgraded to VS2012? Did you notice how your workflow is now *harder* unless you use a touch device?
Have you tried to change the color of bullets when you paste something in Word? Fuck me, the Word editor is probably the definition of torture. If you use your keyboard at all, it will fuck your eyeballs with a cactus.
Do you have something after Windows 7? Did you notice how Windows is designed around touch users, despite the fact that business desktops are a huge part of both Microsoft's current user base as well as future upgrades due to subscriptions? Server 2013 using the same touch-optimized interface?
Now we get the "Spring" update for Windows 8.1, which supposedly addresses the 90+% of the market still using desktops but that they completely forgot about during design, and it's named for a season which, while correct for most of the inhabited world, still disregards anything outside of their immediate vision.
Microsoft does not see existing customers. It sees future markets. Bundling IE and lying about it was certainly about future markets.Claiming IE was part of the system, and forcing Active Desktop on users, was about future markets.
90% of the user base that uses a desktop is not in their scope until it threatens the sales numbers. We get a token "start button" that does not do what we obviously wanted. Later, we get promises of a "start button". The timing of this pretty much says it all. The customer is paid for, the future customer is not. The current customer sometimes has to be appeased, but they will be shat upon if the future consumer base demands it.
I have used Windows all of my life. I am stupid in that way, apparently. My reasons were based around popularity and market share, and my understanding of its internals was so precipitated. I suffered through having a half-assed 32-bit OS thunked to the Windows 95 and 98 kernel. I used Windows 2000 at home because XP used unnecessary eye candy. I upgraded to a faster computer, and XP3 phoned home even as a paid customer.
I suffered through unpaid license fees to Dinkumware, meaning my code broke until I traced it to broken STL includes that would never be included in a service pack update. That was 1999. Yet I built a good career on Microsoft technologies, precisely because my knowledge and experience make me more valuable than the average Microsoft worker.
I have seen my rapist many times. Do I love him now, and forget him now? While I see the same tricks played over and over? Do I forgive the company for its past wrongs even though I see the exact same behavior? Do I forgive the alcoholic who reaches for another drink? The crack addict with a burning pipe to its lips?
No, I fucking well don't. And all of this went well beyond Windows 95.
My electronics are covered in DNA, so a simple UV flashlight is claim of ownership. Especially when they are touching it.
I also changed the logon screen, or equivalent, to use a photo of the device under a UV flashlight. Remarkably effective, and I didn't have to change my behavior at all. And, CSI could solve the case in about 7 minutes if it ever got that far.
One time, I found some cheap ass microphone at this thing, and it had a label on it. The label said "Stolen from this idiot at this thing" or so. So I tore off the label and engraved it "Property of my nutsack".
If anyone steals it from me, no one can pretend to be me by name just by reading the label on it. Property of Jim Smith? Well I'm Jim Smith, yeah. I just have to admit that I'm stupid enough to engrave the fact that a microphone is property of my nutsack, and I get it back.
The mic works real well. When I buy something that stores audio, the first thing I do is record a sound file to store on it: "This device is property of my NUTSACK." I got a notebook back this way.
Let me re-phrase the threat.
"I don't have billions of dollars from you yet, so I can't just spend forever here, and I don't mind walking away. This plane ticket thing gives me an excuse to walk away, but if I let you buy me a ticket, I've given you a HUGE headwound with a cluebat that I'm desperate and will sell for way less than I'm asking. Signaling my intent to leave, and ask for more later, I'm taking a gamble that you will blink first."
Who blinked first? FaceBook, because if you study the financials of the companies involved, FaceBook did not have a choice. And WhatTheFuckSapp pretty much knew it. Not a guarantee, but considering the price range they agreed on, FaceBook was willing to shiv its own grandmother for the users.
He did not have a deal. Agreeing to take free tickets from the person across the negotiating table from you would take a deal. Not the same deal, but reaching some sort of deal.
Facebook: Here, have some free tickets so we can continue talking you into the gutter.
WhateverTheFuck: No, thanks, that just means you want to find new ways to undercut me. If you're not making a deal, I'm not sitting around.
FaceBook: No, really, if we're going to buy you for $10B we don't mind funding your later tickets
WhateverTheFuck: If you're not going to do a deal now, you're going to do either a shittier deal later, or no deal later. I'm flying and taking my 450 million u$er$ with me
FaceBook: Okay, no tickets. How about half off for a handy?
WhateverTheFuck: I took matters into my own hands earlier today, so I'm good until my plane takes off. Fuck yourself, and gimme billions.
It appears that you used estimates for efficiency that are earth-based, behind a fairly protective atmosphere. Would the moon be more efficient? Having a broader spectrum, and no filtering?
That seems like it would at least counteract the inefficiency of transmission. Given that the surface temperature is ~ +/-250F outside of craters, it seems that adding heat reclamation would boost efficiency.
Round up to 10%, and that's pretty good for an entire planet, no? I would not be surprised to find a few optimisations may get it to 20%.
Well, here's proof that a new generation of coders has arrived. It's +5, meaning at least 3 representative members found it worthy of mod points.
Monday morning, the boss will hear a recommendation to not hire anyone under 30 for safety reasons.
Are you saying Toyota did not follow the Motor Industry Software Reliability Association C rules? Because that would be interesting. Or are you just thinking into your keyboard without knowing?
And how are people supposed to demand better software? There is not a demonstrable problem, given that we don't know what the problem is, or the cause. I don't see how you could demand, or legislate, better software without at least something specific.
You are dangerously close to +5 despite having conveyed no actual information. And the people who do have information have not solved this yet.
Fuck you, It's FREE pizza. Get that shit. Nothing to eat? Eat free pizza! It's free, and its pizza!
And they might give you water instead of soda, so your needs are covered. Shut your piehole, except for the part where you shove pizza pie in it. Like the good lord intended.
In that case, I don't understand why Visual Studio is also moving to a tabletized interface. Most of the design decisions, starting with color choice, only make sense for either the newer, smaller LCD screens on tablets, or the type of swipe or touch gestures on mobile devices.
Is it also designed for casual users who only want to check facebook, view some photos, and maybe post a selfie to instagram? Is it also designed for my computer illiterate little sister, for grandpas who don't know how to use that computer dofangle thingy, and for mom who just wants to look up apple pie recipes? Is Visual Studio simple, clear, and does one thing (and only one thing) relatively easily?
What about Server 2012?
Because, sure, you developed Windows 8 for tablets. But that design decision is cascading where it doesn't belong, making me think it was not really well thought through. Or if it was at one time, that time is long past. Poorly designed, poorly implemented, and not considering the actual people who have to use these things every day, at work, to accomplish things. You got the business market pretty locked up now, so fuck 'em while we go after the home users to stop them from going to Android and iOS?
Just a bookmark for me regarding conclusions and the jumping thereto, especially in light of the ars technica article and gabes reddit topic. Fear not, you will serve humanity as well as you thought you were when posting.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. In the middle. Real enough to be called reality but virtual enough that it is not direct nerve stimulation. The stuff like lawnmower man that has been promised for 20 years. Everyone knows the definition.
I would be quite happy with 3d video and audio, and head tracking, and all the other crap superfluous. Quite happy without the social side, as I don't expect people to watch me. Treadmill would get very tiring unless you really want to run towards and away from zombies or machine gunners for hours. Wii sports is tiring enough and you don't actually go anywhere, so extrapolate.
Vr is basically here when 1080 hits, but it's not the vr everyone is looking for. I would bet the full, true vr will make a big splash like laser tag and die quickly, with a long tail.
If the 1080 oculus hits, it will be just good enough to capture marketshare, if they just stop promising the next generation for a while. Few will buy into an obsolete technology, so announce it is mature and has developer backing, or it will not arrive until it is overly mature.
I remember mall demos with 30 people in headsets throwing dodgeball or something, and it was decent then. Put it on today's internet and today's processors, and you just need a compelling environment. Call of duty VR is just laser tag without walking, and flight sim VR is just what every sim player ever wanted. And it will be good enough.
Skyrim in true VR would be awesome, but tiring with all the walking and fighting. Nearly unplayable. Any FPS would be too taxing. Sneakers might work. Any unrealistic game like super monkey ball is unfit for true VR. You need entire New genres for true VR, like maybe travelogues. Controlling sim city or DotA might be super awesome in true VR, with swipe gestures. But I don't see the market in the current core gamer population.
The half VR available in 2 years will be good enough for a generation, or they are making a risky bet.
What can be done beyond criticizing? Assuming "education", and further assuming that ineffective, does it make sense to work within the limits of operation? Or strive for the ideal you will never achieve?
I prefer to accept the limits until they can be changed, which means no stat based arguments.
cold fjord had a good rebuttal to a terrible argument, including pointing out obvious internal inconsistencies. I did not see an argument for a particular side, and if you read it again you might see the same.
If I were to argue your point, but at the same time point out where your argument fell short, you may see it as an attack, and misunderstand which side I am on. Because an attack has to come from the opposition, never friendly fire, right?
So now cold fjord has a mentality and spews propaganda. Homework assignment: In what way did cold fjord take a pro NSA side? Specifics, not overall nor generally.
And now we have two sides of the story to distrust, instead of just two.
(not a typo)
"Many homeless" do so voluntarily, and considering they would have been in a sanitarium, they are better off. Many have access to shelters and technology like phones, and food banks. Many are evicted middle class who have everything but the house.
Many is not most, and you sound too emotionally invested to take at face value, so your comments are rejected.
I guarantee, based on statistics, that the house is very different. I could not find a house older than 40 years for sale around here, or many places I know. And technologies improve. I have environmental control and food storage they would have considered impossible, certainly 200 years ago. Or do we just get to say 100 years is the cutoff? Because that's arbitrary, since 200 years was mentioned.
You are a statistical outlier. This is not about you. Sit back and learn about the majority of people, who are different from you. Yes, such people exist, and make up the vast sea of humanity.
They aren't on Facebook? Non sequitur, they would be if they chose poorly between an internet connection vs. a pot to shit in.
To have an unbiased opinion, you really should have your search plugin randomized. Organically, you will notice one is better. Or maybe they have different strengths depending on subject.
I don't know anyone who can speak to that honestly, and usually people who say one search is better are just better trained to use it vs. others.
I know how to modify a Google search with "wrong" words to make it find what I'm after, so it works better. Bing is at least slightly different, so if my search didn't work I'm stuck. That means I'm better at Google, not that Google is better at me.
And the more they tweak, the less of an edge I have. Some day I expect it will be a tie, especially when they track which results get clicked to determine which results to show. People don't know if it is worth clicking until after, not before the click.
Did you read the details of the settlement? I didn't. But if they had good evidence to win, they probably would not have settled. A bought politician would not have brought the case at all.
So, without further details, I can only assume they settled for what they could get, instead of losing completely. Your math does not account for the probability of not having the evidence needed to win. No win, no repayment, no damages.
Fraud went down, regardless of how secure it is. Fraud moved to USA. If it is good enough to lower fraud levels to a point that is tolerable, they can use existing hardware designs instead of inventing new hardware.
The goal is not eliminating fraud, but choosing the least expensive path. Allowing fraud has, until recently, been less costly.
Ars probably still has its article on the front page, the explanations were better there IMO but similar. This is all from those articles and others over the years.
The human brain does not calculate statistics to decide what it is afraid of. Even in the face of statistics, fear is not based on what is likely to kill us.
In fact, especially in the face of statistics, because we know how likely lightning is, as an example. But terrorists could be literally anywhere, and that's scary.
For the record, you are correct. But, since that's not how people work, you are also wrong.
I believe it's not satire, and although you might have traveled the world, you didn't go where bstarrfield did.
I can guarantee that, because peoples' opinions are colored by where they have been and what they have seen. A church missionary might say they saw all walks of life and they were kind, generous, and beautiful people. A soldier may see a few of these people, but have their opinions made from a line of people who would, if possible, behead them and their children. A CEO's wife may see foreigners as subservient, since they are rarely seen outside the role of hotel or wait staff.
They visit the same places, possibly see the same people, but spend more time with certain members of society. Depending where I live in New York City, I could form an infinite number of opinions about the geography and people, just by selecting the right square mile.
Your opinion of what "facts" are is highly biased by your experience. If bstarrfield was not sincere, there are enough people who do believe exactly that so we can assume it is sincere. And that opinion is just as much biased as yours, and for the same reasons. And it remains "fact", just not to you.
That is for .NET, which wasn't part of the discussion. Also, since we are talking about 10 year old software being supported, 10 year old packages along with their licenses should be considered.
In the past decade, Wine has come a long way, and ReactOS has undoubtedly been directed to Microsoft's attention. Why would they say you cannot run it on a non-Windows system if there were no viable ways of doing so? Investigating that question comes to an answer that involves alternative operating systems that run Windows, which did not exist in the past. The EULA would not have included the text you claim it would have.
Specifically it would not affect installers for 10 year old software which include the libraries as part of the installer. Unless the installer has Microsoft's EULA to click through, the user doesn't have to agree. And if it includes the redistributable package as of that date, it includes the license text of that date. Not what's on Microsoft.com right now.
Oh, I'm an old man, I've been around a while. MDAC_26.exe contains this agreement, copied from the installer. Slashfuck might have altered the unicode content and links:
It is still part of open source. It is still the face of the free software movement. Don't compromise on principal, but use something that barely works.
Open source operating systems that come to mind - Linux, "it works, it's free, people use it". Otherwise, Haiku copying BeOS, ReactOS copying Windows but not as well. And the running joke, GNU Hurd.
And your crap github account also is part of open source. If I look for whatever you have, and your account pops up in the list, am I supposed to know somehow to discard or discount your code? Is there some marker somewhere that says, "Sorry, this code should not be used or indexed, or considered part of the open source community"?
I'm guessing it doesn't. I'm guessing it's there because someone, somewhere, might be able to use it. To the billions of people who cannot use it, is it worth anything? Is Linux worth anything to those same people?
I would say that we can calculate a direct and indirect benefit from Linux, and it reflects positively on open source as a success. Equally, we can calculate little or no benefit to open source. To the few people who use it as a hobby/research project, it may be invaluable. But you are talking about Open Source in general, to people in general. It looks like a failure. Maybe not to you, but you don't get to determine how other people view open source.
I disagree that it should be stopped. That doesn't mean it is a good example of how open source works. Every other project from GNU seems to be successful, and reflect well on both open source in general and free software specifically. That does not exempt Hurd.
"where it's legal" and "thorium" were important parts of my response, which you ignored. The legality of EULA and how restrictive they can be is rather up in the air. Some things have been clearly rejected, some things clearly okayed, and things in the middle are still a grey area. Not clearly illegal, and probably perfectly fine.
I know of no test where an installer, containing redistributables, somehow is responsible to ensure that no one downloads or copies the installer package with the intent of running on a non-windows system.
The intent of the redistributable is to allow the program to run. If you download from Microsoft, you may be subject to their EULA depending on your legal system. If you install as part of the package, and do not have to agree to any part of the Microsoft EULA, as a user you have not breached any agreement.
Law is hard, and even this is a simplification. "No, EULA" is just not an adequate response.
And even if we say EULA is the law, the point is that ReactOS is not as good as it will get just because these libraries do not exist. Reverse engineering for the purposes of compatibility is legal enough where it matters. That too is an oversimplification. But EULA is not the law. Which is also an oversimplification.