It wouldn't surprise me if he's right about this. I have a lot of friends who work for Microsoft in various divisions and I can say without a doubt that the rank and file of Microsoft considers Windows Mobile to be an embarrassment. They've done a piss-poor job with the platform for years now and everyone knows it.
I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC. Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm.
"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions."
If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.
And
"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive."
As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.
Those who have pointed out that many companies still use earlier versions of IE and will resist change should know that Microsoft has stated that the Office 2010 Web bits, SharePoint, and the browser enabled client applications like Word, will support FireFox.
Office 2010 will not support the older versions of IE. I'm not sure if older includes IE 7, but it does include IE 6.
It doesn't look like Microsoft cares very much about trying to maintain IE's market share, and there is lots of speculation that IE 8 is the end of the line for the current rendering engine. This makes sense as it is clearly as unwieldy for them as it is for everyone else. That's why the competition gets features out so much more quickly. The IE code base is almost 15 years old.
If he is talking about existing PC's then I agree. My gut tells me that most regular people never upgrade their operating system anyway.
If he is talking about businesses making the move when they replace equipment then I suspect he is quite wrong. Most businesses have avoided Vista not because they love XP, but because Vista has issues and requires beefy hardware. Windows 7 has two things going for it in this regard.
The first is that it does seem to be quite an improvement over Vista. I've used it continuously for the past three weeks and I quite like it. I do not like Vista. The Vista shell pisses me off for many different reasons that I won't go into here. Windows 7 fixes all of my little pet peeves and I really like the new window manager.
The second is that what was beefy expensive hardware when Vista shipped is now standard kit and quite inexpensive. Businesses in the U.S. can depreciate computers over five years. Any businesses PC purchased before 2005 will have fully depreciated by the time Windows 7 is an option and companies will be upgrading to new machines. A high-end computer purchased in 2005 or earlier probably did a terrible job running Vista. Most entry-level computers purchased in 2007-2008 to replace PCs purchased in 2002-2003 will run Windows 7 just fine.
Windows 7 will see significant uptake in businesses compared to Vista.
What you fail to grasp is that the 7th dimension works like quantum sticky tape to hold you in place relative to the things around you as you travel through time. So, you don't really need a space ship because of the relativistic affects of the items around you relative to each other pulling you along. Plus there's the whole inertia thing which requires you to go 88 miles an hour exactly so you always wind up where you started whether you go forward or backward. Try it yourself by drawing two 8's. On is for space space and the other one is for time space.
Also, don't forget that the velocity has to be in miles per hour, because the metric system is gay.
Many people enjoy virtual machines for this sort of thing, and you can get Virtual PC for free. Admittedly, not the same as a live CD, but hardly difficult.
The $/hour numbers and the homework example in the patent application are both simply illustrations. What the application is about is a method of creating, provisioning, and metering, and charging for a bundled unit of specific functionality within a cloud infrastructure. As I said in a previous post, I think they are too similar to EC2.
On the other hand, this sort of thing is a key enabler to any sort of broad SaaS infrastructure and people will use these services if the price is right. I just move several sites onto EC2 at a rate of ~$0.13/hr. For around $1100 a year I get a good infrastructure for less than what the server with no software and no connectivity would cost and I can make it bigger or turn it off whenever I want. Near as I can tell, the difference here is that instead of buying the power as a configured server instance, you are buying a configured service instance. This is a subtle, but important, difference. (But to my mind not a novel one).
So assuming they have some implementation to back up the patent application, I'm glad Microsoft is working on this because it's a necessary part of the infrastructure.
The historical stupidity of the USPTO not withstanding, I'd guess that this application as written is DOA.
I'm sure there is other prior art out there, but having just read the application, it sounds almost exactly like Amazon EC2. You buy different computing configurations (hardware and software) from a menu of choices and then get charged a metered rate based on your choice. The only difference I see here is that this application has you pay up front and then draw down the time instead of paying as you go. That isn't a novel difference.
On the first day, figure out which one the others follow and then pick a fight. He'll probably be surprised by this behavior and try to back down, but don't let him. Deliberately misconstrue anything he says and then beat him soundly with his own keyboard.
The rest will have no choice but to bow down before you!!!
You probably got the current offer as a result of your work in the community. If you continue to build that network through good work, you will probably reach a point where you have far more opportunities than you do now if what you are working on is seen to be worthwhile.
Or, you can trade your reputation in to work for the people making you the offer. Do you plan on staying with them long enough to build a new network and for people to forget what you did? It sounds like you know it won't go over well and will burn some bridges.
In my experience, it's a small world and karma is a bitch. So, unless you are talking about a set-for-life kind of deal, it's probably a bad idea.
On the other hand, I don't think you have an ethical conflict here. If you are talking about the chance of a lifetime, you should do it. After all, it is your work and you should benefit from it even if your associates will hate you for it (your friends will understand, set for life is a big deal). You just have to decide if the opportunity is worth the price you know you will have to pay...
Now, first off, I have no opinion on whether or not Landis actually is guilty. However, considering the ramifications for him or anyone else of a positive test the proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Landis' case, he didn't just lose a race, he was banned for a significant period of time. He is a professional athlete and they took away his livelihood and destroyed his reputation.
The arbitration panel ruled 2-1 that the proof was sufficient. I think 2-1 shows that there is good reason to doubt the test.
Too funny, not on is this article blog spam, it's plagiarised blog spam!
This comment is at the bottom of their board.
Guys: I couldn't find the editor contact info, but you've basically reposted our story from SearchSecurity.com without authorization:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/...1324395,00.html
We'd like the excerpt removed immediately so we don't have to get the lawyers involved.
Thank you.
Eric Parizo
Editor - SearchSecurity.com
eparizo@techtarget.com
"This stuff just takes a knife to a large part of the security mesh Microsoft built into Vista," said Dai Zovi. "If you think about the fact that.NET loads DLLs into the browser itself and then Microsoft assumes they're safe because they're.NET objects, you see that Microsoft didn't think about the idea that these could be used as stepping stones for other attacks. This is a real tour de force."
Internet Explorer (or any Common Language Runtime host) is subject to.NET's Code Access Security model. Assemblies from untrusted locations, like the Internet Zone get a very restricted set of permissions unless there is an explicit CAS policy in place to give said assemblies more permission via some form of evidence (usually a strong name or x.509 certificate).
Security is applied based on the caller, so you can't load an untrusted assembly and elevate its priviledges by simply calling a method on a trusted component on the local machine. This is not enforced by IE (or any other host) but by the runtime itself. In order to get full trust you have to get a policy in place or somehow trick the host into thinking the source is a trusted location.
Given his completely false assertion that "Microsoft assumes they're safe because they're.NET objects", you should discount everything else he has to say because he clearly has no reservations about making strong assertions about things he doesn't understand.
I bought a Lenovo with Suse on it because I have an MSDN subscription and didn't want to pay for a license I already have. I imagine that more than a few of the Linux installs are just to avoid duplicate Windows licenses.
There are lots of great replies to my original post and several pointed to my use of 'marginal production costs per unit' and/or that localization can't be the whole picture.
Both points are valid. What I should have said is 'cost of goods sold.' The way COGS is calculated depends on the accounting rules the companies use, but generally its all the costs associated with sales. For localized versions of a product, some of the inputs to this number are the development, test, support, and packaging of the localized version.
Let's say that the version is exactly the same. The COGS can still vary substantially by region.
Taxes Regional general and administrative expense Regional distribution Legal services and regulatory compliance Etc.
All of the income statement items are usually done on a regional basis unless there is a good reason (usually tax avoidance) to do otherwise and rolled-up to give big picture. You might like it if they spread their costs around more evenly, but that would just be asking the people who live in areas where the COGS is lower for a particular product to subsidize everyone in the more expensive areas.
The cost of localizing everything is not inconsequential. You can't just run it through a translator and go and you still have to do acceptance testing on the localized version. The number of German or Itallian consumers is small compared to those who use English and the price reflects the marginal production costs per unit.
They should have extended the BOGO (buy one get one) promotion or made it possible for people in the developed world to buy one. As it is, noone can develop software for it, because, near as I can tell, you can't buy one.
So, of course, TFA is based on a video. The OLPC is resigned to a third world ghetto and will eventually fade into obscurity, which is a shame.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't surprise me if he's right about this. I have a lot of friends who work for Microsoft in various divisions and I can say without a doubt that the rank and file of Microsoft considers Windows Mobile to be an embarrassment. They've done a piss-poor job with the platform for years now and everyone knows it.
I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.
Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm.
"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions."
If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.
And
"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive."
As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.
It doesn't render correctly with Chrome either.
Those who have pointed out that many companies still use earlier versions of IE and will resist change should know that Microsoft has stated that the Office 2010 Web bits, SharePoint, and the browser enabled client applications like Word, will support FireFox.
Office 2010 will not support the older versions of IE. I'm not sure if older includes IE 7, but it does include IE 6.
It doesn't look like Microsoft cares very much about trying to maintain IE's market share, and there is lots of speculation that IE 8 is the end of the line for the current rendering engine. This makes sense as it is clearly as unwieldy for them as it is for everyone else. That's why the competition gets features out so much more quickly. The IE code base is almost 15 years old.
Installed it to have a look and it made itself my default browser without asking. Unforgivable. Banished.
I wish I had points to mod you up. That is terrific.
Harlan Ellison is a douche bag. I'd have paid to see that.
If he is talking about existing PC's then I agree. My gut tells me that most regular people never upgrade their operating system anyway.
If he is talking about businesses making the move when they replace equipment then I suspect he is quite wrong. Most businesses have avoided Vista not because they love XP, but because Vista has issues and requires beefy hardware. Windows 7 has two things going for it in this regard.
The first is that it does seem to be quite an improvement over Vista. I've used it continuously for the past three weeks and I quite like it. I do not like Vista. The Vista shell pisses me off for many different reasons that I won't go into here. Windows 7 fixes all of my little pet peeves and I really like the new window manager.
The second is that what was beefy expensive hardware when Vista shipped is now standard kit and quite inexpensive. Businesses in the U.S. can depreciate computers over five years. Any businesses PC purchased before 2005 will have fully depreciated by the time Windows 7 is an option and companies will be upgrading to new machines. A high-end computer purchased in 2005 or earlier probably did a terrible job running Vista. Most entry-level computers purchased in 2007-2008 to replace PCs purchased in 2002-2003 will run Windows 7 just fine.
Windows 7 will see significant uptake in businesses compared to Vista.
What you fail to grasp is that the 7th dimension works like quantum sticky tape to hold you in place relative to the things around you as you travel through time. So, you don't really need a space ship because of the relativistic affects of the items around you relative to each other pulling you along. Plus there's the whole inertia thing which requires you to go 88 miles an hour exactly so you always wind up where you started whether you go forward or backward. Try it yourself by drawing two 8's. On is for space space and the other one is for time space.
Also, don't forget that the velocity has to be in miles per hour, because the metric system is gay.
DUH!
Then again, you aren't running Windows. So Xen, VMWare, etc...
Many people enjoy virtual machines for this sort of thing, and you can get Virtual PC for free. Admittedly, not the same as a live CD, but hardly difficult.
What an awful summary!
The $/hour numbers and the homework example in the patent application are both simply illustrations. What the application is about is a method of creating, provisioning, and metering, and charging for a bundled unit of specific functionality within a cloud infrastructure. As I said in a previous post, I think they are too similar to EC2.
On the other hand, this sort of thing is a key enabler to any sort of broad SaaS infrastructure and people will use these services if the price is right. I just move several sites onto EC2 at a rate of ~$0.13/hr. For around $1100 a year I get a good infrastructure for less than what the server with no software and no connectivity would cost and I can make it bigger or turn it off whenever I want. Near as I can tell, the difference here is that instead of buying the power as a configured server instance, you are buying a configured service instance. This is a subtle, but important, difference. (But to my mind not a novel one).
So assuming they have some implementation to back up the patent application, I'm glad Microsoft is working on this because it's a necessary part of the infrastructure.
The historical stupidity of the USPTO not withstanding, I'd guess that this application as written is DOA.
I'm sure there is other prior art out there, but having just read the application, it sounds almost exactly like Amazon EC2. You buy different computing configurations (hardware and software) from a menu of choices and then get charged a metered rate based on your choice. The only difference I see here is that this application has you pay up front and then draw down the time instead of paying as you go. That isn't a novel difference.
On the first day, figure out which one the others follow and then pick a fight. He'll probably be surprised by this behavior and try to back down, but don't let him. Deliberately misconstrue anything he says and then beat him soundly with his own keyboard.
The rest will have no choice but to bow down before you!!!
You probably got the current offer as a result of your work in the community. If you continue to build that network through good work, you will probably reach a point where you have far more opportunities than you do now if what you are working on is seen to be worthwhile.
Or, you can trade your reputation in to work for the people making you the offer. Do you plan on staying with them long enough to build a new network and for people to forget what you did? It sounds like you know it won't go over well and will burn some bridges.
In my experience, it's a small world and karma is a bitch. So, unless you are talking about a set-for-life kind of deal, it's probably a bad idea.
On the other hand, I don't think you have an ethical conflict here. If you are talking about the chance of a lifetime, you should do it. After all, it is your work and you should benefit from it even if your associates will hate you for it (your friends will understand, set for life is a big deal). You just have to decide if the opportunity is worth the price you know you will have to pay...
My guess is: probably not.
We're happy to help you solve this mystery.
What is your email address?
Now, first off, I have no opinion on whether or not Landis actually is guilty. However, considering the ramifications for him or anyone else of a positive test the proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Landis' case, he didn't just lose a race, he was banned for a significant period of time. He is a professional athlete and they took away his livelihood and destroyed his reputation.
The arbitration panel ruled 2-1 that the proof was sufficient. I think 2-1 shows that there is good reason to doubt the test.
That could be, but that sort of defect is certainly a very far cry from "Microsoft trusts it because it's .NET".
It's a good thing I'm a software developer then, isn't it!
Too funny, not on is this article blog spam, it's plagiarised blog spam!
This comment is at the bottom of their board.
nice
.NET apps are already sandboxed. The guy who said "Microsoft trusting the objects because they are .NET" is full of crap.
Internet Explorer (or any Common Language Runtime host) is subject to .NET's Code Access Security model. Assemblies from untrusted locations, like the Internet Zone get a very restricted set of permissions unless there is an explicit CAS policy in place to give said assemblies more permission via some form of evidence (usually a strong name or x.509 certificate).
Security is applied based on the caller, so you can't load an untrusted assembly and elevate its priviledges by simply calling a method on a trusted component on the local machine. This is not enforced by IE (or any other host) but by the runtime itself. In order to get full trust you have to get a policy in place or somehow trick the host into thinking the source is a trusted location.
Given his completely false assertion that "Microsoft assumes they're safe because they're .NET objects", you should discount everything else he has to say because he clearly has no reservations about making strong assertions about things he doesn't understand.
I bought a Lenovo with Suse on it because I have an MSDN subscription and didn't want to pay for a license I already have. I imagine that more than a few of the Linux installs are just to avoid duplicate Windows licenses.
There are lots of great replies to my original post and several pointed to my use of 'marginal production costs per unit' and/or that localization can't be the whole picture.
Both points are valid. What I should have said is 'cost of goods sold.' The way COGS is calculated depends on the accounting rules the companies use, but generally its all the costs associated with sales. For localized versions of a product, some of the inputs to this number are the development, test, support, and packaging of the localized version.
Let's say that the version is exactly the same. The COGS can still vary substantially by region.
Taxes
Regional general and administrative expense
Regional distribution
Legal services and regulatory compliance
Etc.
All of the income statement items are usually done on a regional basis unless there is a good reason (usually tax avoidance) to do otherwise and rolled-up to give big picture. You might like it if they spread their costs around more evenly, but that would just be asking the people who live in areas where the COGS is lower for a particular product to subsidize everyone in the more expensive areas.
The cost of localizing everything is not inconsequential. You can't just run it through a translator and go and you still have to do acceptance testing on the localized version. The number of German or Itallian consumers is small compared to those who use English and the price reflects the marginal production costs per unit.
They should have extended the BOGO (buy one get one) promotion or made it possible for people in the developed world to buy one. As it is, noone can develop software for it, because, near as I can tell, you can't buy one.
So, of course, TFA is based on a video. The OLPC is resigned to a third world ghetto and will eventually fade into obscurity, which is a shame.