Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.
Do you really expect the Chrome team to be paying the Search team to put adverts for Chrome on Google.com? Do you really think that any other company wouldn't (doesn't) do the same thing? Now, if they refused to advertise other browsers, or tacked on a "But Chrome is better" tagline under each one, then I'd agree that they're being evil.
That said, I do agree that they shouldn't things as products that are only available as a subset of functionality of another product.
Presumably on a matter of principle you refuse to drive on public roads, send your kids to a public school, make use of Police or Fire services, will never claim any medicare benefits or in any way allow yourself to benefit from any of the publicly funded services that you so deride?
If so, then fine, you're at least acting consistently with your claims, otherwise, not so fine. People always bemoan having to pay *their* money for public services for a bunch of lazy, no-good wasters, right up to the point that *they* suddenly need to make use of them.
Every GP in the NHS already has their patient records stored electronically on local clinical systems (EMIS, INPS, iSoft & SystmOne are the key players); a lot of them still use paper records as well but they're all duplicated.
Most of the providers are pretty good at data conversion these days because it's hard to sell doctors on migrating to your system if you tell them they'll lose half their patient data when they do it.
Clinical software providers have been pushing this style of system for months now, it's hardly a "cutting edge pilot scheme"; EMIS & SystmOne are probably the furthest ahead with a lot of GP practices already using their hosted solutions for their patient records (in the case of EMIS with a caching server locally in case their link goes down).
Doctors get R/W access over N3 (The NHS "private" network, similar to JANET) and doctors & patients can get read access over the internet if they want to.
It's not "in the cloud" or "let's upload all our patient records to Rapidshare", it's a fucking hosted software solution, running out of a datacentre (in Leeds, in EMIS' case) on some servers, just like any other.
If Mozilla hadn't randomly re-versioned Gecko to match the Firefox version with 5.0 then this would be more apt, but Firefox 4.0 was using Gecko 2.0 so it still kind of applies.
I think most people are just pissed that Mozilla appear to be rather pathetically trying to mimic Chrome of late rather than focusing on improving Firefox where it actually needs improving.
At least Chrome has been consistent about it, Mozilla just seem to have lost it completely when it comes to Firefox, jumping all over the place chasing every new "feature" that one of the other browsers comes up with.
Seriously, stop trying to be Chrome, Chrome is already doing that pretty well.
It's pretty much an essential addon these days, which is sad, though in my case I run the latest Seamonkey nightlies so its use is at least justified there.
Why wouldn't they? I mean, IE isn't my cup of tea and standards support is still a little behind the curve (though improving) but IE8 and certainly IE9 are solid browsers for your average corporate user.
I often get the impression that some people are rather stuck in the IE6/XP era when it comes to any product that Microsoft puts out; they're not *all* shit you know:)
Hardly surprising; businesses like some stability in their apps. You don't want stagnation, but you don't want to have to test and deploy entirely new releases every 3 months just to maintain a supported environment either.
I'm not sure Microsoft need to be worried about that particular market anyway because, as much as I hate to say it, IE is really the only browser that's suitable for use in a large Windows environment. It has ludicrously granular control available via Group Policy and updates can be deployed via WSUS without needing any user interaction or elevated rights. Firefox doesn't even offer an MSI installer, let alone any practical way to manage settings or control updates across multiple machines (but then Chrome, Opera and Safari are similarly lacking so they're hardly alone in that regard).
Will it be AMD, the plucky underdog who always does what's best by the consumer vs Intel, the evil conglomerate who will stop at nothing to screw you over for profit?
Or will it be Intel, who are trying their best in the face of constant criticism simply for being number one vs AMD, who are just bitter about the fact that they've been playing catch-up ever since the Core2s were released?
True 5 years ago, but now with Skype, Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, thousands of streaming video sites (often in HD), online gaming, digital distribution of games as well as all the "traditional" internet uses, caps need to grow pretty quickly to keep up with demand.
However, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, you either oversell your capacity to a stupid degree *OR* you advertise "Unlimited, 24/7, amazingly awesome, blazingly fast internet, without any limits, limitless!*"
I prefer to say "NO" when someone comes to me and asks for 4 high spec servers, several shelves of disks and a bucketful of licenses, tells me they've budgeted for £7,000 and that the business case has already been signed off so they're not going to be able to get any more money for it, oh and it needs to be in and working by the end of next week and they have no idea if the software will actually work with our existing infrastructure.
I'm a "can do" person; I've gone waaaay out of my way to help people with projects and systems they've wanted to implement, but there comes a point when you just have to turn around to tell people "NO". Go away, budget properly, verify compatibility, check hardware lead times - all of which I will help you to do if you ask - *then* come to me and ask me to implement it.
Slashdot Mirror
Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.
Do you really expect the Chrome team to be paying the Search team to put adverts for Chrome on Google.com? Do you really think that any other company wouldn't (doesn't) do the same thing? Now, if they refused to advertise other browsers, or tacked on a "But Chrome is better" tagline under each one, then I'd agree that they're being evil.
That said, I do agree that they shouldn't things as products that are only available as a subset of functionality of another product.
Looks like it's about time for FuckedCompany to make its return.
A genuine geek who understands that a 40 GB operating system is wasteful and unnecessary...
You're only supposed to install one copy of it you know...
Nothing, but that won't stop people from potentially flocking to Google+ from Facebook just like they did from MySpace.
Presumably on a matter of principle you refuse to drive on public roads, send your kids to a public school, make use of Police or Fire services, will never claim any medicare benefits or in any way allow yourself to benefit from any of the publicly funded services that you so deride?
If so, then fine, you're at least acting consistently with your claims, otherwise, not so fine. People always bemoan having to pay *their* money for public services for a bunch of lazy, no-good wasters, right up to the point that *they* suddenly need to make use of them.
MPA != MPAA
Every GP in the NHS already has their patient records stored electronically on local clinical systems (EMIS, INPS, iSoft & SystmOne are the key players); a lot of them still use paper records as well but they're all duplicated.
Most of the providers are pretty good at data conversion these days because it's hard to sell doctors on migrating to your system if you tell them they'll lose half their patient data when they do it.
Clinical software providers have been pushing this style of system for months now, it's hardly a "cutting edge pilot scheme"; EMIS & SystmOne are probably the furthest ahead with a lot of GP practices already using their hosted solutions for their patient records (in the case of EMIS with a caching server locally in case their link goes down).
Doctors get R/W access over N3 (The NHS "private" network, similar to JANET) and doctors & patients can get read access over the internet if they want to.
It's not "in the cloud" or "let's upload all our patient records to Rapidshare", it's a fucking hosted software solution, running out of a datacentre (in Leeds, in EMIS' case) on some servers, just like any other.
I stand corrected.
Well Windows 7 is NT Kernel version 6.1.
If Mozilla hadn't randomly re-versioned Gecko to match the Firefox version with 5.0 then this would be more apt, but Firefox 4.0 was using Gecko 2.0 so it still kind of applies.
I think most people are just pissed that Mozilla appear to be rather pathetically trying to mimic Chrome of late rather than focusing on improving Firefox where it actually needs improving.
Oh I agree entirely, but it's still an extremely useful tool to have until they do.
At least Chrome has been consistent about it, Mozilla just seem to have lost it completely when it comes to Firefox, jumping all over the place chasing every new "feature" that one of the other browsers comes up with.
Seriously, stop trying to be Chrome, Chrome is already doing that pretty well.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nightly-tester-tools/ will get around that problem.
It's pretty much an essential addon these days, which is sad, though in my case I run the latest Seamonkey nightlies so its use is at least justified there.
Why wouldn't they? I mean, IE isn't my cup of tea and standards support is still a little behind the curve (though improving) but IE8 and certainly IE9 are solid browsers for your average corporate user.
I often get the impression that some people are rather stuck in the IE6/XP era when it comes to any product that Microsoft puts out; they're not *all* shit you know :)
Hardly surprising; businesses like some stability in their apps. You don't want stagnation, but you don't want to have to test and deploy entirely new releases every 3 months just to maintain a supported environment either.
I'm not sure Microsoft need to be worried about that particular market anyway because, as much as I hate to say it, IE is really the only browser that's suitable for use in a large Windows environment. It has ludicrously granular control available via Group Policy and updates can be deployed via WSUS without needing any user interaction or elevated rights. Firefox doesn't even offer an MSI installer, let alone any practical way to manage settings or control updates across multiple machines (but then Chrome, Opera and Safari are similarly lacking so they're hardly alone in that regard).
The 2Gb Access Database limit is nature's way of telling you that you should never have used Access for anything in the first place.
Fanboy fight!
Will it be AMD, the plucky underdog who always does what's best by the consumer vs Intel, the evil conglomerate who will stop at nothing to screw you over for profit?
Or will it be Intel, who are trying their best in the face of constant criticism simply for being number one vs AMD, who are just bitter about the fact that they've been playing catch-up ever since the Core2s were released?
Let's watch!
Exploitable in theory is not the same as exploitable against a "live" target. It's still a vulnerability either way.
Groklaw commentary
Time to setup KarmEx and make a fortune!
True 5 years ago, but now with Skype, Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, thousands of streaming video sites (often in HD), online gaming, digital distribution of games as well as all the "traditional" internet uses, caps need to grow pretty quickly to keep up with demand.
We know.
However, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, you either oversell your capacity to a stupid degree *OR* you advertise "Unlimited, 24/7, amazingly awesome, blazingly fast internet, without any limits, limitless!*"
*Limits may actually apply
I prefer to say "NO" when someone comes to me and asks for 4 high spec servers, several shelves of disks and a bucketful of licenses, tells me they've budgeted for £7,000 and that the business case has already been signed off so they're not going to be able to get any more money for it, oh and it needs to be in and working by the end of next week and they have no idea if the software will actually work with our existing infrastructure.
I'm a "can do" person; I've gone waaaay out of my way to help people with projects and systems they've wanted to implement, but there comes a point when you just have to turn around to tell people "NO". Go away, budget properly, verify compatibility, check hardware lead times - all of which I will help you to do if you ask - *then* come to me and ask me to implement it.
'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir
Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...