No the OEM agreements were NOT disallowed. That, to me, was such an easy thing to do to curb their monopoly that didn't happen. Goto Dell and order an OS-less PC. I'll wait...
I think that this type of attack is still, to a large degree, depending on TCP vulnerabilities. This type of malware is going to be highly dependent upon other things to initiate such attacks. Granted, in the case of Skype or other PC-based applications this will be far easier to accomplish. I'm not sure it's a VoIP issue so much as an issue of we need to be aware of yet another medium for the transport of exploits. VoIP is UDP based. Protection of such voice streams, should malware over VoIP become pervasive, is going to require pattern recognition at the packet level, heretofore a difficult task. The only means of identification of such things is to sniff the segment. Yet, I'm not sure that that is the type of exploit this article is eluding to.
For mail that's simple and is done now. Even some webmail accounts will let you check multiple accounts. But you make a good point. A place that would allow you to consolidate your data is a good idea. Some personal portals let you do some of this now.
"very few people are going to actually have many different accounts."
I disagree with this "mondo site" philosophy. Young people drive a lot of what's hip and not hip. Yes, technology can build and gain momentum but social aspects are popularity driven, not technology driven. The tech is not always obvious. MySpace arguably has some of the worse tech and a hideous interface yet it's popular. I believe there will be more fragmentation and popularity will shift from site to site as it always has.
First of all, the article takes a lot for granted that I personally do not. Basically, it rips the taglines from the media and comments on them as fact. The U.S. media hardly exposes the facts, at least not all of them.
As for "these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me"...
Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?
Eric is right. If we keep pissing and moaning the window will pass us by and we'll all be pissing and moaning about that. Look at the disparity of this entire thread and prepare to become even more discouraged.
Microsoft is just not an ethical company. I'm always shocked when people call what Microsoft does "just good business." I'm a capitalist and conservative but I don't consider calling up your competitors and threatening them "good business." Microsoft continually refuses to truly compete in the market. The only time they do is when they are forced to (read: are unable to successfully gain any leverage on the competition). I recall during the early does of the DOJ case when a small startup's CEO noted a call he got from a Microsoft executive. He said the guy got on the phone and asked about the product they were developing. Then said something like, "Well you need stop development because we already have something in the works and you'll never get this to market." I don't remember the whole quote but I remember how chilling it was. The man had a co-worker in his office and when he got off the phone the guy asked "Who was that?" and he replied, "The neighborhood bully."
You're right, to a large extent. It's easy to paint either side with a broad stroke and misrepresent. I think virtually no one discounts that the Earth is warming. Where there's disagreement is what the cause or causes are. Both sides have their pundants and partisans. The 'Net community tends to pick a side and become vehement to the point of being rabid. The fact is, however, that there is a truth out there and it is not wavering to the fantasies of either side. Personally, the only thing I am convinced of is that the world is warming. Beyond that, there's evidence on both sides and sadly it is our limitation of time that works against us. We simply have no concept of climate on a global scale in relation to time. Therefore we react, as mortals will, within the confines of our understanding and so some see the sky is falling why others see something different.
"If such an investigation finds no hidden counter-claims, then we will know for a fact that the claims of stifling are overblown."
This is illogical. For one, it presumes that this investigation will have all body of evidence to reach this conclusion. That, in turn, is dependent upon everyone who has such evidence to respond to the call. Someone else could just as feasibly say that finding no counter-claims is indicative of just how well the stifling works. This position would also be rather impossible.
Here's a test even Microsoft can do:
Take IE and just browse some WordPress themes and see how many it butchers trying to render. Nuff said, back to the drawing board.
When the richest man in the world says he'll pay you $300+million to cut his grass it's tempting to leave even a self-perceived prestigious job, go cut the grass, and retire. Yeah, you'll be scorned as someone who sold-out but you'll sooth your conscience on the stack of $100's you've used to form a make-shift couch!
For one the Democrats control Congress now, so if they do go after Microsoft it will be paid for by tax payer money, and second they have the authority to investigate Microsoft in Congresional commity which would be a bad thing for Bill Gates and company.
Actually, probably not. That makes the assumption that the Dems hold Congress more than 2 years. Remember how long the last case took? Basically, there would be no relief for 5 years or more so the question is moot.
I don't think things like "funding for WINE" and such would ever happen. That would take such a shift in philosophy and it would be wrong anyway. Where Microsoft might be in trouble is with shutting out anti-virus companies. This directly parallels the "browser wars." Another area might be the OEM agreements. Frankly, once they were found to be a monopoly, these agreements should have been nullified. A huge source of their power would have been leveled and to a large extent so would the playing field.
I think it's important to realize that all of this is Bush's fault. See shit didn't start melting until Bush became President. Sorry, but as soon as you brought Bush into the equation you lost credibility with me. As for the title: "Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences" yeah, no shit! Thanks Capt. Obvious.
Probably a lot. And the good thing is we probably wouldn't figure that out until it was deployed. Then we'd have to dismantle it. Folks, this is funny stuff. I mean like "somewhere we're paying an idiot to think of this shit" funny.
I have no probably with people who CAN drive and talk. It's those who definitely cannot. These are the clowns who sit at a light after it changes talking on the phone, or slow to a friggin' crawl so they can make their point on the phone. If you can do the speed limit or better, stay in your lane, and talk on a phone I'm with ya.
"Notable features include ringing, handset with built-in speaker and mic, and two-way communication. Sources who didn't want to be named wondered if there would even be a market for such a thing in this day and age but marveled at it's simplicity. That is until someone walked into the meeting with a similar device circa 1955!"
I think it's funny that people will put so much into Al Gore's movie when the science, like anyone else's here, is picked to support the premises he holds. Everyone on Slashdot finds their scientists, puts the gloves on him, and comes out propping him up for a fight. The truth is there is credible science on both sides. Drastic changes are simply not justified. We're finding that the vats majority of human causes are from under-developed nations yet the developed nations are where the money is so that's who these scientists run to for a solution. And it's always money. Take a hard look. You don't see Gore driving a hybrid. You don't see these guys flying less, consuming less, or any of that. But that sure as hell expect you and me to cut back and give them the savings and for what? Paying their salaries and justifying their existence.
Human breath is hot. How much cooler would the Earth be if these a$$holes would STFU until they have something meaningful to say?
Slashdot Mirror
No the OEM agreements were NOT disallowed. That, to me, was such an easy thing to do to curb their monopoly that didn't happen. Goto Dell and order an OS-less PC. I'll wait...
I think that this type of attack is still, to a large degree, depending on TCP vulnerabilities. This type of malware is going to be highly dependent upon other things to initiate such attacks. Granted, in the case of Skype or other PC-based applications this will be far easier to accomplish. I'm not sure it's a VoIP issue so much as an issue of we need to be aware of yet another medium for the transport of exploits. VoIP is UDP based. Protection of such voice streams, should malware over VoIP become pervasive, is going to require pattern recognition at the packet level, heretofore a difficult task. The only means of identification of such things is to sniff the segment. Yet, I'm not sure that that is the type of exploit this article is eluding to.
For mail that's simple and is done now. Even some webmail accounts will let you check multiple accounts.
But you make a good point. A place that would allow you to consolidate your data is a good idea. Some personal portals let you do some of this now.
"very few people are going to actually have many different accounts."
I disagree with this "mondo site" philosophy. Young people drive a lot of what's hip and not hip. Yes, technology can build and gain momentum but social aspects are popularity driven, not technology driven. The tech is not always obvious. MySpace arguably has some of the worse tech and a hideous interface yet it's popular. I believe there will be more fragmentation and popularity will shift from site to site as it always has.
That's generally true for all state income taxes. They know if they doubled your taxes you'd get pissed. Start small. Water torture anyone?
First of all, the article takes a lot for granted that I personally do not. Basically, it rips the taglines from the media and comments on them as fact. The U.S. media hardly exposes the facts, at least not all of them.
As for "these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me"...
Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?
I don't care who you are, dat's funny 'ight there!
Eric is right. If we keep pissing and moaning the window will pass us by and we'll all be pissing and moaning about that. Look at the disparity of this entire thread and prepare to become even more discouraged.
Microsoft is just not an ethical company. I'm always shocked when people call what Microsoft does "just good business." I'm a capitalist and conservative but I don't consider calling up your competitors and threatening them "good business." Microsoft continually refuses to truly compete in the market. The only time they do is when they are forced to (read: are unable to successfully gain any leverage on the competition). I recall during the early does of the DOJ case when a small startup's CEO noted a call he got from a Microsoft executive. He said the guy got on the phone and asked about the product they were developing. Then said something like, "Well you need stop development because we already have something in the works and you'll never get this to market." I don't remember the whole quote but I remember how chilling it was. The man had a co-worker in his office and when he got off the phone the guy asked "Who was that?" and he replied, "The neighborhood bully."
You're right, to a large extent. It's easy to paint either side with a broad stroke and misrepresent. I think virtually no one discounts that the Earth is warming. Where there's disagreement is what the cause or causes are. Both sides have their pundants and partisans. The 'Net community tends to pick a side and become vehement to the point of being rabid. The fact is, however, that there is a truth out there and it is not wavering to the fantasies of either side. Personally, the only thing I am convinced of is that the world is warming. Beyond that, there's evidence on both sides and sadly it is our limitation of time that works against us. We simply have no concept of climate on a global scale in relation to time. Therefore we react, as mortals will, within the confines of our understanding and so some see the sky is falling why others see something different.
"If such an investigation finds no hidden counter-claims, then we will know for a fact that the claims of stifling are overblown."
This is illogical. For one, it presumes that this investigation will have all body of evidence to reach this conclusion. That, in turn, is dependent upon everyone who has such evidence to respond to the call. Someone else could just as feasibly say that finding no counter-claims is indicative of just how well the stifling works. This position would also be rather impossible.
Shit like this is why I cringe when Microsoft talks about competition and innovation. Two things they are quite unwilling to do.
Here's a test even Microsoft can do:
Take IE and just browse some WordPress themes and see how many it butchers trying to render. Nuff said, back to the drawing board.
Does this case have any relevance anymore? I would hope we're nearing the end of the judge's patience on this whole case.
When the richest man in the world says he'll pay you $300+million to cut his grass it's tempting to leave even a self-perceived prestigious job, go cut the grass, and retire. Yeah, you'll be scorned as someone who sold-out but you'll sooth your conscience on the stack of $100's you've used to form a make-shift couch!
For one the Democrats control Congress now, so if they do go after Microsoft it will be paid for by tax payer money, and second they have the authority to investigate Microsoft in Congresional commity which would be a bad thing for Bill Gates and company.
Actually, probably not. That makes the assumption that the Dems hold Congress more than 2 years. Remember how long the last case took? Basically, there would be no relief for 5 years or more so the question is moot.
I don't think things like "funding for WINE" and such would ever happen. That would take such a shift in philosophy and it would be wrong anyway. Where Microsoft might be in trouble is with shutting out anti-virus companies. This directly parallels the "browser wars." Another area might be the OEM agreements. Frankly, once they were found to be a monopoly, these agreements should have been nullified. A huge source of their power would have been leveled and to a large extent so would the playing field.
Balmer: "We've already established that some of them can be bought off. We're just haggling over the amount."
"If you're in the U.S., and you haven't voted already, go do it!"
Unless you're stupid. Stupid people really shouldn't vote.
I think it's important to realize that all of this is Bush's fault. See shit didn't start melting until Bush became President. Sorry, but as soon as you brought Bush into the equation you lost credibility with me. As for the title: "Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences" yeah, no shit! Thanks Capt. Obvious.
Probably a lot. And the good thing is we probably wouldn't figure that out until it was deployed. Then we'd have to dismantle it. Folks, this is funny stuff. I mean like "somewhere we're paying an idiot to think of this shit" funny.
How convenient. Okay, folks, if you RTFA you'll find these are extra fins that "may" be left over legs.
U.N. fair? Oh you're funny...really...if you were serious, this wouldn't be funny but thank goodness you're not.
I have no probably with people who CAN drive and talk. It's those who definitely cannot. These are the clowns who sit at a light after it changes talking on the phone, or slow to a friggin' crawl so they can make their point on the phone. If you can do the speed limit or better, stay in your lane, and talk on a phone I'm with ya.
"Notable features include ringing, handset with built-in speaker and mic, and two-way communication. Sources who didn't want to be named wondered if there would even be a market for such a thing in this day and age but marveled at it's simplicity. That is until someone walked into the meeting with a similar device circa 1955!"
I think it's funny that people will put so much into Al Gore's movie when the science, like anyone else's here, is picked to support the premises he holds. Everyone on Slashdot finds their scientists, puts the gloves on him, and comes out propping him up for a fight. The truth is there is credible science on both sides. Drastic changes are simply not justified. We're finding that the vats majority of human causes are from under-developed nations yet the developed nations are where the money is so that's who these scientists run to for a solution. And it's always money. Take a hard look. You don't see Gore driving a hybrid. You don't see these guys flying less, consuming less, or any of that. But that sure as hell expect you and me to cut back and give them the savings and for what? Paying their salaries and justifying their existence.
Human breath is hot. How much cooler would the Earth be if these a$$holes would STFU until they have something meaningful to say?