I'm not posting an entire copyrighted article from a subscription site. Here's a link to it. And here's a larger quote that should dispel any issues about context:
The dispute with Adobe is whether users of Microsoft's Office software, which include the Word, Excel and PowerPoint applications, will be allowed to save files in Adobe's PDF format. If Microsoft included PDF in its widely used Office programs, it could potentially crimp distribution of Adobe's Acrobat software, which is one of several programs that can be used to create PDF documents.
Adobe declined to clarify its exact objections to Microsoft's use of the specifications.
Adobe offers technical specifications for PDF free, allowing other software makers to build applications that can read or write PDF files. Software from Apple Computer Inc. and open-source software called OpenOffice use the PDF technology.
Microsoft has offered the feature in test versions of the next version of Office, called Office 2007 and expected to be available by early next year. It will now have to remove the feature, Microsoft officials said.
>>Why do you say that? All I could see in the article was: Representatives of Microsoft and Adobe were not immediately reachable for comment. - that's not refusing to comment.
From the WSJ story on it:
An Adobe spokeswoman said that Adobe wouldn't comment on specific talks with Microsoft, but in general said that Adobe Chief Executive Bruce Chizen has publicly expressed concern about the possibility that Microsoft might abuse its monopoly in personal-computer software.
"We've discussed our concerns openly, both with Microsoft as well as with a number of regulatory agencies around the world," said Holly Campbell, the spokeswoman. She declined to comment on whether Adobe plans to file an antitrust suit against Microsoft.
OK, I'm stumped. Why would Microsoft leak this story unless Adobe were threatening legal action? Why is Adobe refusing to comment on it?
There's no reasonable reading of the story that doesn't include an Adobe threat of legal action. And do you really find it hard to believe that another software company would threaten Microsoft with an antirust suit?
I know in several elections he's posted exit poll numbers and predicted results (I remember this was the case with the Schwarzenegger landslide). He had scoops on CBS using faked memos to support the Bush National Guard story. I don't read it regularly but I know I've seen it happen many times. It's true that most of the time his scoops appear to come from people at other news outlets leaking to him; presumably they are unhappy with their own editors' reluctance and know his standards are much lower.
Even so, he's a useful news source and has the best list of news/opinion links out there.
I don't think I've ever seen the Drudge Report in Google News, and he actually does get scoops now and then. True he's a bit out there, but he's way down the nutso scale compared to some of the other sites that Google News gives presence to.
Most new computers come bundled with a free antivirus solution, but sooner or later you have to start paying to get the latest virus-definition updates. When the subscription lapses, your protection evaporates. Don't let that happen! If you don't have the funds or inclination to maintain a subscription, try a free antivirus utility. We looked at three that provide full system scanning and also scan all files on access. (Two others, BitDefender 8 Free Edition and ClamWin Free Antivirus 0.86.2, were omitted, because they lack real-time scanning.)
Took my kid to see Ice Age (only the squirrel scenes are good) and we saw the trailer, which said the movie would hit (I think) on July 27, 2007. That's almost 16 months! What possible value is there in advertising a movie this far in advance?
...one thing we all agreed on was that Bonded Sender sucks. But has the marketplace punished Hotmail for using it? Have people left in droves because non-Bonded-Sender e-mail gets blocked? No, because if they never see it getting blocked they don't know what happens... But people don't abandon their provider over wrongly blocked e-mail if they don't even know it's happening. And thus pay-per-mail could become a de facto standard because it's invisible to customers.
Of course they find out about these things. There are people who check their spam folders and you might also not get a message you were expecting, like a confirmation for a purchase you make. If the quality of AOL's spam protection declines overall it's A BAD THING FOR AOL.
Hotmail subjects anyone to random blocking who doesn't pay the $2,000 Bonded Sender fee, and there's no evidence that it has caused them to lose customers.
The author claims seems to think that Bonded Sender sucks because Hotmail's filters are no good. He never actually says anything going wrong with Bonded Sender, just Hotmail. Seems his analysis is misplaced.
The government should be taking every opportunity to show that attacks like this will be handled sternly. Stick him in a dungeon and give him the Abu Ghraib treatment
I think he and Madden make a pretty decent football announcing team
Ehh, they're OK, but Buck and Aikman are the best now. Everyone's trying to catch up to Fox these days on football. And the ESPN teams really are awful.
If Michaels is worth Oswald then I'd think that Buck is worth at least an Elmer Fudd, and Aikman is Daffy Duck-class, maybe even Roger Rabbit.
Complete horse crap. The counter was an ad banner counter for an unscrupulous ad network on a lot of porn sites that served the graphic. The counter ticks even if the client is not vulnerable.
Obviously #1 (Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit) is true and #2 (To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis) is irrelevant to the decision whether to include it with Vista. Even if you got the software, and perhaps a short-term subscription, with Vista they would still have the option of selling the service thereafter.
But like I said, includng it with Vista would be a slam-dunk violation of their agreement with DOJ.
And leave it to/. to comdemn them either way they went about it.
Funny, the way I remember it after Netscape released their source and everyone had some time to look at it they determined it was a pile of shit, threw it out and rewrote essentially from scratch, although borrowing some basic design.
No, not true. Disabling ActiveX in IE would disable all actual ActiveX controls implemented through the OBJECT tag, but not built-in controls like XMLHTTPRequest
Slashdot Mirror
>> the actual harm done is less concrete...
No shit, there's no harm done at all.
I'm sure it's still not enough for you, but Microsoft is now on-record saying "they (Adobe) are threatening legal action".
Adobe declined to clarify its exact objections to Microsoft's use of the specifications.
Adobe offers technical specifications for PDF free, allowing other software makers to build applications that can read or write PDF files. Software from Apple Computer Inc. and open-source software called OpenOffice use the PDF technology.
Microsoft has offered the feature in test versions of the next version of Office, called Office 2007 and expected to be available by early next year. It will now have to remove the feature, Microsoft officials said.
Office 2007 has been in beta for a long time, there's no Metro in it. It makes PDFs.
From the WSJ story on it:
"We've discussed our concerns openly, both with Microsoft as well as with a number of regulatory agencies around the world," said Holly Campbell, the spokeswoman. She declined to comment on whether Adobe plans to file an antitrust suit against Microsoft.
OK, I'm stumped. Why would Microsoft leak this story unless Adobe were threatening legal action? Why is Adobe refusing to comment on it?
There's no reasonable reading of the story that doesn't include an Adobe threat of legal action. And do you really find it hard to believe that another software company would threaten Microsoft with an antirust suit?
It's in her Wikipedia entry. There are other links in there on the subject.
I know in several elections he's posted exit poll numbers and predicted results (I remember this was the case with the Schwarzenegger landslide). He had scoops on CBS using faked memos to support the Bush National Guard story. I don't read it regularly but I know I've seen it happen many times. It's true that most of the time his scoops appear to come from people at other news outlets leaking to him; presumably they are unhappy with their own editors' reluctance and know his standards are much lower.
Even so, he's a useful news source and has the best list of news/opinion links out there.
I don't think I've ever seen the Drudge Report in Google News, and he actually does get scoops now and then. True he's a bit out there, but he's way down the nutso scale compared to some of the other sites that Google News gives presence to.
Anyone who has time to do this has too much time on their hands.
Took my kid to see Ice Age (only the squirrel scenes are good) and we saw the trailer, which said the movie would hit (I think) on July 27, 2007. That's almost 16 months! What possible value is there in advertising a movie this far in advance?
Of course they find out about these things. There are people who check their spam folders and you might also not get a message you were expecting, like a confirmation for a purchase you make. If the quality of AOL's spam protection declines overall it's A BAD THING FOR AOL.
The author claims seems to think that Bonded Sender sucks because Hotmail's filters are no good. He never actually says anything going wrong with Bonded Sender, just Hotmail. Seems his analysis is misplaced.
The government should be taking every opportunity to show that attacks like this will be handled sternly. Stick him in a dungeon and give him the Abu Ghraib treatment
I think he and Madden make a pretty decent football announcing team
Ehh, they're OK, but Buck and Aikman are the best now. Everyone's trying to catch up to Fox these days on football. And the ESPN teams really are awful.
If Michaels is worth Oswald then I'd think that Buck is worth at least an Elmer Fudd, and Aikman is Daffy Duck-class, maybe even Roger Rabbit.
Complete horse crap. The counter was an ad banner counter for an unscrupulous ad network on a lot of porn sites that served the graphic. The counter ticks even if the client is not vulnerable.
It worked, but it was supposed to be the tool of a major outbreak that never materialized, and is now unlikely to.
Oooh! My first first post!
The exploit is a flop. The guy should get his money back.
Obviously #1 (Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit) is true and #2 (To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis) is irrelevant to the decision whether to include it with Vista. Even if you got the software, and perhaps a short-term subscription, with Vista they would still have the option of selling the service thereafter.
/. to comdemn them either way they went about it.
But like I said, includng it with Vista would be a slam-dunk violation of their agreement with DOJ.
And leave it to
Funny, the way I remember it after Netscape released their source and everyone had some time to look at it they determined it was a pile of shit, threw it out and rewrote essentially from scratch, although borrowing some basic design.
No, not true. Disabling ActiveX in IE would disable all actual ActiveX controls implemented through the OBJECT tag, but not built-in controls like XMLHTTPRequest
>>in practical terms its perfectly meaningless
Not true. The point of it is that a user or company can disable ActiveX completely and still use AJAX.
In a way they don't even have to use a back door to deliver secret code to Windows users. Just deliver it over Windows Update.
The new Uhura's hot and obviously the new Nurse Chapel can give me a sponge bath anytime, but I liked the old Yeoman Rand better.