Of course, by that logic, any patent what-so-ever is potentially "problematic". So all you're saying is that if Microsoft wants to sue you then you're in a mess of trouble and frankly, that's not very insightful.
Instead of a corporation being required by law to be beholden to the shareholders interests, let's have that law changed to make corporations beholden to the interests of the people in their community.
Also, let's make it a law that everyone who asks for one gets a pony!
Yet, on The Berlin Wall came down and the Russian government revoked this law, there were people on the street corner selling clothes and food within hours of the announcement. 70+ years of suppression wasn't enough to crush the entrepreneurial instinct.
This attitude that business is being charitable to open source when they push changes upstream is just, well, ignorant.
They push their changes upstream because they don't want to have to keep merging them in every time a new version comes out. If they didn't push them upstream they'd either have to weigh down their development team with annoying merging duties or they'd have to stick with outdated versions of the software.
The fact that they can push stuff that possibly is completely useless to everyone else upstream and have it accepted as part of the build is one of the wonders of open source.. and, if anything, it's the upstream developers who are being charitable.
Bahahaha.. ya kidding right? Maybe that's what is "usual" in academia but everyone else in the world gets down to the business of tinkering and seeing what the discovery is worth long before they even think about telling the world, let alone writing a non-opaque scientific paper about it.
Heh, that's exactly how it's done. You recognize that the research has commercial application, ask for spin-off rights, found a startup company, build a prototype, then get investors. The result is a whole lot of secrecy, and, eventually, an actual product.
On the other hand, if all you're trying to do is create buzz and get more government grant money, you make press releases.
Are we talking about the same thing? Vista start menu. XP start menu. See all those little changes? Every single one of them pisses users off. They've made it different for the sake of being different. It's supposed to make users feel that they are getting "something new". It's the same with the control panel.
As for the networking stuff.. you have to dig about 10 layers to get to a list of network connections, then another 10 layers to get to IP settings. Yes, it was already bad in XP, but now they've made it worse in Vista. As for saying that it's "just as good", well that's just not true. Familiarity is worth something. And Vista isn't familiar.
Ok. They unnecessarily rearranged things that users have learned over the last 5 years. Like the start menu, and the control panel. The network setup stuff is completely broken, and they've made it even harder to get to "advanced" setup options.
1. can't be monitored 2. can't be blocked 3. are not limited by bandwidth 4. can be sped up by throwing more hardware at them
This is basically why salting was added to the unix password file. And that failed.. so/etc/shadow was introduced. Revealing hashes is just unnecessary, so don't do it.
Yes. You failed to control your product. Too bad for you.
I like your concert analogy, although it's more like hitting up people in the car park for money because they can hear the band play. Or hitting up a fan's friends for money because they listen to the recording the fan made at the concert.
Ahh Huh. The people who sing on the street corner do it to make money too. That doesn't mean I'm required to pay them for hearing their song.
The lack of consent in copyright-based transactions is what is so morally repugnant and why so many people refuse to be bullied into paying. You want to be paid for your services? Don't relinquish your control over them.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, by that logic, any patent what-so-ever is potentially "problematic". So all you're saying is that if Microsoft wants to sue you then you're in a mess of trouble and frankly, that's not very insightful.
Instead of a corporation being required by law to be beholden to the shareholders interests, let's have that law changed to make corporations beholden to the interests of the people in their community.
Also, let's make it a law that everyone who asks for one gets a pony!
Then why has there not been a riot in Seattle when those other windows were broken?
Because although everyone knew what it meant they still chose not to riot.
Argue that point if you want to. But it's a fact.
I know what you mean by a fact, but I disagree.
Looks like you lose.
Looks like you can't make an argument.
No. A symbol is something for which everyone knows the meaning.
Everyone knows that throwing bottles and breaking windows is a signal to escalate a protest to a riot.
Everyone but you that is.
It's called "inciting a crowd to riot".. it's a symbol.
Yes.. that's what "suppression" means.
Also, private trade for profit is a crime.
Yet, on The Berlin Wall came down and the Russian government revoked this law, there were people on the street corner selling clothes and food within hours of the announcement. 70+ years of suppression wasn't enough to crush the entrepreneurial instinct.
This attitude that business is being charitable to open source when they push changes upstream is just, well, ignorant.
They push their changes upstream because they don't want to have to keep merging them in every time a new version comes out. If they didn't push them upstream they'd either have to weigh down their development team with annoying merging duties or they'd have to stick with outdated versions of the software.
The fact that they can push stuff that possibly is completely useless to everyone else upstream and have it accepted as part of the build is one of the wonders of open source.. and, if anything, it's the upstream developers who are being charitable.
I didn't care if he was guilty or innocent, I just didn't want to see anyone convicted on such flimsy evidence.
The next person who comes along will be judged to the same standard and they could be innocent.
Angel investment. Friends and family investment. Like every other startup.
Seriously, if you don't know this stuff then why are you being so indignant?
"Prototypes" mean something specific to us too.. and it isn't "2 out of 3 critical components, not even integrated yet".
Bahahaha.. ya kidding right? Maybe that's what is "usual" in academia but everyone else in the world gets down to the business of tinkering and seeing what the discovery is worth long before they even think about telling the world, let alone writing a non-opaque scientific paper about it.
Heh, that's exactly how it's done. You recognize that the research has commercial application, ask for spin-off rights, found a startup company, build a prototype, then get investors. The result is a whole lot of secrecy, and, eventually, an actual product.
On the other hand, if all you're trying to do is create buzz and get more government grant money, you make press releases.
Bring product to market.
Stop blabbering on and do it already.
Are we talking about the same thing? Vista start menu. XP start menu. See all those little changes? Every single one of them pisses users off. They've made it different for the sake of being different. It's supposed to make users feel that they are getting "something new". It's the same with the control panel.
As for the networking stuff.. you have to dig about 10 layers to get to a list of network connections, then another 10 layers to get to IP settings. Yes, it was already bad in XP, but now they've made it worse in Vista. As for saying that it's "just as good", well that's just not true. Familiarity is worth something. And Vista isn't familiar.
Ok. They unnecessarily rearranged things that users have learned over the last 5 years. Like the start menu, and the control panel. The network setup stuff is completely broken, and they've made it even harder to get to "advanced" setup options.
Offline attacks are better because they:
1. can't be monitored
2. can't be blocked
3. are not limited by bandwidth
4. can be sped up by throwing more hardware at them
This is basically why salting was added to the unix password file. And that failed.. so /etc/shadow was introduced. Revealing hashes is just unnecessary, so don't do it.
He really needs to learn that Vista doesn't actually suck, Bob.
The vast majority of people disagree.
What better measure do you need that he is right and you are wrong? Mathematical proof of suckness?
Ahh.. I've never had problems with screen real-estate.. but then I use most apps maximized anyway.
Yes. You failed to control your product. Too bad for you.
I like your concert analogy, although it's more like hitting up people in the car park for money because they can hear the band play. Or hitting up a fan's friends for money because they listen to the recording the fan made at the concert.
Ahh Huh. The people who sing on the street corner do it to make money too. That doesn't mean I'm required to pay them for hearing their song.
The lack of consent in copyright-based transactions is what is so morally repugnant and why so many people refuse to be bullied into paying. You want to be paid for your services? Don't relinquish your control over them.
P L E A S E R E G I S T E R
Huh? Did you read my post? I bought XP Home Edition.. I just can't find the jewel case and Microsoft is too cheap to print the serial on the CD.
You're not actually going to make me spell this out for you are ya?
It's not stealing because no-one is being deprived of anything.
I've heard that some people steal the serials off cars parked in public too.
Bastards.