Nope, becasue the AOL client embeds IE and as such the problem is at the root in IE - not AOL. The AOL client itself doesn't have any 'browser' plugins.
Great! Now the next virus/work will attack the BIOS and Windows users across the world won't even be able to start their machines to apply patches to fix the problem. Maybe then the world will stop accepting this idiocy.
umm actually, booting into mac os 9 is still a desirable thing..why? troubleshooting...say you can't read a dvd in mac os x...try another dvd, but it still won't play in mac os x...answer? boot into mac os 9
Hmmm.... personally I would have just put it in a DVD player, but that's just me.
Does OS9 even have support for the hardware that you're saying won't boot to OS9? Seems about as stupid as people way back in the day saying linux was crap because it only ran on hardware config x. If the OS doesn't support the hardware, how is that Apple's issue?
But then again, maybe Apple is purposefully blocking Amiga OS from running on the G5 too...
You don't have to break up a company for that. Just look at the balance sheet and start shutting down divisions that done and have never made profit - while show no evidence that they will generate profit in the future.
Yeah yeah, as if nations don't break or leave these treaties all the time. Just because it exists today (when there is no viable means to build such facilities) doesn't mean that when the capability is there that people won't leave the treaty framework... much like the US said 'hmmm I think we can build a national missle defense - why have a treaty that prevents it!'.
Dude, industrialized nations can't even reliably land ballistic missles in the right place - a far simpler problem. Getting into space isn't simply a matter of 'point this end at sky and light fuse':)
Like the profs in college used to say - they don't HAVE to in order to fulfill the requirements, but if you really want to ensure you chances of coming out on top it is strongly recommended:)
I am all for the revolution that merges all of these devices into one useful device that I just carry around with me.
I enjoy carrying around my 3650 and being able to snap pictures all the time. They aren't super high 5 megapixel pictures, but I also don't carry my super high 5 megapixel camera with me all the time. It would be nice if the image quality for these babies reached 1 megapixel.
This phone however suffers from some flaws that make it a bit unfriendly. The dialing interface is worse than that of the 3650. If you're going to go through all that trouble (and have an expensive phone to boot) - you might as well go touchscreen and put the keys on the interface.
The phone simply doesn't have enough memory to truly be useful in its stock configuration. Hopefully information floating around about lack of memory upgradability are false as its somewhat pointless to have an integrated device going around with such a trivially small amount of memory.
Its about time that a good Nokia phone gets voice dialing though:)
Uh, no. WinXP is not written in C#. The framework for XP existed long before C# was even in a condition to be made available. Longhorn may end up being C# based (and would explain all of the delays), but C# would have been too young to form the framework for XP.
You call this guy a moron and you have business logic sitting it stored procedures which are more than likely not portable between databases at best and require architecture changes when the schema changes at worst?
This is true, however from a legal perspective - some businesses may see it as a way to ensure that there work doesn't come under SCO scrutiny in some future legal entanglement ('well these people were working on X and you made something similar to X therefore you stole it from us').
In all of these sorts of things, the CEOs and other high level line managers are immune to the consequences of their actions whereas it is the lowly grunt programmer who gets fired or blacklisted for the idiocy of their employer. Happens all the time.
"The Shuttle does not seem to be a very cost-efficient vehicle today."
Therein is the rub. Hindsight is 20-20. You can't look at something today and say 'oh well you were stupid for doing that 30 years ago'
Noone really wants to download a PDF and page through it at their desk and I don't know too many people taking laptops to the toilet, bathtub, or park in order to read. The problem isn't really with eBooks per-say, its that there really isn't a convenient way to view the content.
Some of the new OLED technology may make eBooks more practical for consumers, but right not they just aren't convenient enough and the eBook readers only add insult to injury as many consumers (myself included) just don't see the point in buying a device to read a book as opposed to just buying the paper book and not having to worry about charging it up before making a coast-to-coast flight.
Clearly the most informed and intelligent post this far and deserves to be modded up. That IS the entire issue that many of the armchair aerospace engineers here seem to be missing. There was a MISSION REQUIREMENT to build something reusable and something that could with more assurance could be brought to very specific landing fields. There was also a requirement to be able to payload thing into space and BRING THEM BACK. This mandates pretty much everything that's in the shuttle right now.
But as with most things, people aren't looking at how to design a different craft to meet those requirements, they are instead saying that the requirements arn't what they'd have done. Well see - that's why they're called requirements. If you have a mission that requires something, you have to build a vehicle that does that. To do otherwise would be like saying 'well helicopters are too slow so they get shot a lot so instead of making a helicopter we made a jet'.
If you're going to debate things, at least debate within the parameters of the original requirements - not just your own desire to orbit the moon. While I would certainly argue that the shuttle and the saturn/titan programs should have been pursued in parallel, to suggest that only one of them makes sense defies reason.
I can't wait to hear someone try to use THAT one in court:)
'Your honor - I wouldn't have purchased those jeans normally, but since I could walk out of the store with them I shouldn't be held accountable'
Just because its convenient to steal doesn't make it okay. That has never been and never will be a valid defense in the United States so if you do end up on trial, do yourself a favor and never try to use such an idiotic defense.
After reading through much of what is out there I have some interesting comments to make. In some respects, SCO boy is correct. The Linux community should do some due diligence to ensure that code committed to the kernel is IP free to avoid these issues in the future.
The mountains of code which SCO speaks of as being theres however are somewhat ambiguous so outside of anything that SCO can prove as being genuinely 'SCO IP', they should be countersued by both Linux vendors and users as is appropriate and allowable under the law. I do not doubt that SCO has some evidence which supports their case - and no Linux supporter should blanketly dismiss what they have said because they haven't seen any evidence. Whether or not that evidence is as compelling as the SCO Group thinks - well that's up to the judges and justices of the judicial system.
Unfortunately Mr. SCO, some of the other things you've said are slanderous and border on libel. Unless you can prove that the person who performed a DDoS on you was an Open Source supporter that was a representative of the Open Source community - then I suggest you offer an apology to the Linux community for accusing them of something you cannot prove. In addition, even if it was someone who supports open source - your gripe is with them, not the remaining hundreds of thousands who took no action against you. You cannot argue from the specific to the general - to even suggest that is a high level of ignorance on your part.
Finally it is insulting the way you want people to respect a contract with SCO yet you want to shrug off the GPL license which you used to distribute Caldera for many years. As an owner of several copies of Caldera Linux I have clearly seen that you have distributed software under this license. If your legal counsel was stupid enough to let you attach a contractual agreement to software which you sold and distributed with your express consent - then you need to find a new legal group as you have been misled. You agreed to the terms of the GPL by attaching your software into a codebase which you clearly knew was GPL, which you sold knowing it was GPL, and which removed a great many of the rights (though not all) that you had to the IP you associated with UNIX, Linux, whatever. This is just like chess, this is a move that you cannot take back and you will have to live with it.
While I certainly understand that you want to protect your IP, the Linux community and Open Source communities have a right to protect theirs. Anything you've comitted to theirs is now open and that is the nature of the contractual agreement you accepted when you started putting Linux on the shelf. Now you have several choices - to work with the Linux community to get this resolved or take this to court at which time you may find yourself sued through your own admission of contract violation with respect to the GPL and shipping copies of Caldera.
All you have done is awaken a powerful enemy - and fill it with terrible resolve. If Microsoft fears the Linux community and Open Source and its several thousand times your size - perhaps you should reevaluate who your friends and enemies are as without a doubt even if Linux has to be totally engineered to not use anything resembling any of your IP - no self respecting user, administrator, or evaluator will consider using anything associated with your brand as you have threatened them in the past and acted in bad faith. Your brand is now dead - and 'geeks' are reknown for having long memories and vendettas.
The cube was anything but cheap. Personally I think they should revive the cube line because its more in line with what I'm looking for in my next system - something headless because its going to be acting as a server, deco enough to sit in the living room, quiet enough to go unnoticed, and with a cheap price.
The last Linux box I built to serve this purpose was just too loud. All of the Intel and Athlon processors are too hot. If Apple doesn't come out with something I may just try something with a VIA C3 in it.
Nah - while Safari will be the default browser on OSX, there are no plans to remove IE from the system entirely - at least not at this time. 10.3 by all reports will continue to ship IE.
Yes. The race of ancients who made the original stargates were sued out of existence by SCO long ago, leaving Apophus and the rest of the Goauld to run the universe with the help of Microsoft.
Having written a fair number of applications for cell phone J2ME and Symbian let me just say that all of the folks out there trying to blame Java for the woes of their cell phone being slow are barking up the wrong tree. The problem with speed is a function of the trivial amount of CPU that's available in the phone at this point. That is something that's getting better over time - as is the issue with RAM in the phone.
Wireless applications need better CPUs, better input devices, and a better data network infrastructure (in the case of cellular networks) before they need scripting. That's not to belittle the position or to say that it isn't something that's important to someone out there - but the current condition of the phone from a technology standpoint is not well suited to to imposing a scripting engine that requires scarce resources.
One has to look at the reality of the market as it exists and the devices within it before trying to add more stuff to it. Today as the devices stand - the vast majority of them just don't have the resources necessary to handle scripting. The situation is improving and one day we'll be at that point (12-18 months from now) - but today adding scripting to the resource starved devices is just not a good move... especially given that someone would in many instances have to download 150k of scripting framework onto the phone - a size larger than many wireless applications. When you consider that wireless users pay for this by the meg (or in some cases by the K), it becomes pretty clear that the market isn't yet ready for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, becasue the AOL client embeds IE and as such the problem is at the root in IE - not AOL. The AOL client itself doesn't have any 'browser' plugins.
Great! Now the next virus/work will attack the BIOS and Windows users across the world won't even be able to start their machines to apply patches to fix the problem. Maybe then the world will stop accepting this idiocy.
umm actually, booting into mac os 9 is still a desirable thing..why? troubleshooting...say you can't read a dvd in mac os x...try another dvd, but it still won't play in mac os x...answer? boot into mac os 9
Hmmm.... personally I would have just put it in a DVD player, but that's just me.
Does OS9 even have support for the hardware that you're saying won't boot to OS9? Seems about as stupid as people way back in the day saying linux was crap because it only ran on hardware config x. If the OS doesn't support the hardware, how is that Apple's issue?
But then again, maybe Apple is purposefully blocking Amiga OS from running on the G5 too...
It would only be a violation if you didn't have permission.
You don't have to break up a company for that. Just look at the balance sheet and start shutting down divisions that done and have never made profit - while show no evidence that they will generate profit in the future.
Yeah yeah, as if nations don't break or leave these treaties all the time. Just because it exists today (when there is no viable means to build such facilities) doesn't mean that when the capability is there that people won't leave the treaty framework... much like the US said 'hmmm I think we can build a national missle defense - why have a treaty that prevents it!'.
Dude, industrialized nations can't even reliably land ballistic missles in the right place - a far simpler problem. Getting into space isn't simply a matter of 'point this end at sky and light fuse' :)
Like the profs in college used to say - they don't HAVE to in order to fulfill the requirements, but if you really want to ensure you chances of coming out on top it is strongly recommended :)
I am all for the revolution that merges all of these devices into one useful device that I just carry around with me.
:)
I enjoy carrying around my 3650 and being able to snap pictures all the time. They aren't super high 5 megapixel pictures, but I also don't carry my super high 5 megapixel camera with me all the time. It would be nice if the image quality for these babies reached 1 megapixel.
This phone however suffers from some flaws that make it a bit unfriendly. The dialing interface is worse than that of the 3650. If you're going to go through all that trouble (and have an expensive phone to boot) - you might as well go touchscreen and put the keys on the interface.
The phone simply doesn't have enough memory to truly be useful in its stock configuration. Hopefully information floating around about lack of memory upgradability are false as its somewhat pointless to have an integrated device going around with such a trivially small amount of memory.
Its about time that a good Nokia phone gets voice dialing though
Uh, no. WinXP is not written in C#. The framework for XP existed long before C# was even in a condition to be made available. Longhorn may end up being C# based (and would explain all of the delays), but C# would have been too young to form the framework for XP.
You call this guy a moron and you have business logic sitting it stored procedures which are more than likely not portable between databases at best and require architecture changes when the schema changes at worst?
Hmmm....
Yes, moving business logic into the database is always the way to go ? Hmmm.....
This is true, however from a legal perspective - some businesses may see it as a way to ensure that there work doesn't come under SCO scrutiny in some future legal entanglement ('well these people were working on X and you made something similar to X therefore you stole it from us').
In all of these sorts of things, the CEOs and other high level line managers are immune to the consequences of their actions whereas it is the lowly grunt programmer who gets fired or blacklisted for the idiocy of their employer. Happens all the time.
"The Shuttle does not seem to be a very cost-efficient vehicle today." Therein is the rub. Hindsight is 20-20. You can't look at something today and say 'oh well you were stupid for doing that 30 years ago'
Noone really wants to download a PDF and page through it at their desk and I don't know too many people taking laptops to the toilet, bathtub, or park in order to read. The problem isn't really with eBooks per-say, its that there really isn't a convenient way to view the content.
Some of the new OLED technology may make eBooks more practical for consumers, but right not they just aren't convenient enough and the eBook readers only add insult to injury as many consumers (myself included) just don't see the point in buying a device to read a book as opposed to just buying the paper book and not having to worry about charging it up before making a coast-to-coast flight.
Clearly the most informed and intelligent post this far and deserves to be modded up. That IS the entire issue that many of the armchair aerospace engineers here seem to be missing. There was a MISSION REQUIREMENT to build something reusable and something that could with more assurance could be brought to very specific landing fields. There was also a requirement to be able to payload thing into space and BRING THEM BACK. This mandates pretty much everything that's in the shuttle right now.
But as with most things, people aren't looking at how to design a different craft to meet those requirements, they are instead saying that the requirements arn't what they'd have done. Well see - that's why they're called requirements. If you have a mission that requires something, you have to build a vehicle that does that. To do otherwise would be like saying 'well helicopters are too slow so they get shot a lot so instead of making a helicopter we made a jet'.
If you're going to debate things, at least debate within the parameters of the original requirements - not just your own desire to orbit the moon. While I would certainly argue that the shuttle and the saturn/titan programs should have been pursued in parallel, to suggest that only one of them makes sense defies reason.
I can't wait to hear someone try to use THAT one in court :)
'Your honor - I wouldn't have purchased those jeans normally, but since I could walk out of the store with them I shouldn't be held accountable'
Just because its convenient to steal doesn't make it okay. That has never been and never will be a valid defense in the United States so if you do end up on trial, do yourself a favor and never try to use such an idiotic defense.
After reading through much of what is out there I have some interesting comments to make. In some respects, SCO boy is correct. The Linux community should do some due diligence to ensure that code committed to the kernel is IP free to avoid these issues in the future.
The mountains of code which SCO speaks of as being theres however are somewhat ambiguous so outside of anything that SCO can prove as being genuinely 'SCO IP', they should be countersued by both Linux vendors and users as is appropriate and allowable under the law. I do not doubt that SCO has some evidence which supports their case - and no Linux supporter should blanketly dismiss what they have said because they haven't seen any evidence. Whether or not that evidence is as compelling as the SCO Group thinks - well that's up to the judges and justices of the judicial system.
Unfortunately Mr. SCO, some of the other things you've said are slanderous and border on libel. Unless you can prove that the person who performed a DDoS on you was an Open Source supporter that was a representative of the Open Source community - then I suggest you offer an apology to the Linux community for accusing them of something you cannot prove. In addition, even if it was someone who supports open source - your gripe is with them, not the remaining hundreds of thousands who took no action against you. You cannot argue from the specific to the general - to even suggest that is a high level of ignorance on your part.
Finally it is insulting the way you want people to respect a contract with SCO yet you want to shrug off the GPL license which you used to distribute Caldera for many years. As an owner of several copies of Caldera Linux I have clearly seen that you have distributed software under this license. If your legal counsel was stupid enough to let you attach a contractual agreement to software which you sold and distributed with your express consent - then you need to find a new legal group as you have been misled. You agreed to the terms of the GPL by attaching your software into a codebase which you clearly knew was GPL, which you sold knowing it was GPL, and which removed a great many of the rights (though not all) that you had to the IP you associated with UNIX, Linux, whatever. This is just like chess, this is a move that you cannot take back and you will have to live with it.
While I certainly understand that you want to protect your IP, the Linux community and Open Source communities have a right to protect theirs. Anything you've comitted to theirs is now open and that is the nature of the contractual agreement you accepted when you started putting Linux on the shelf. Now you have several choices - to work with the Linux community to get this resolved or take this to court at which time you may find yourself sued through your own admission of contract violation with respect to the GPL and shipping copies of Caldera.
All you have done is awaken a powerful enemy - and fill it with terrible resolve. If Microsoft fears the Linux community and Open Source and its several thousand times your size - perhaps you should reevaluate who your friends and enemies are as without a doubt even if Linux has to be totally engineered to not use anything resembling any of your IP - no self respecting user, administrator, or evaluator will consider using anything associated with your brand as you have threatened them in the past and acted in bad faith. Your brand is now dead - and 'geeks' are reknown for having long memories and vendettas.
The cube was anything but cheap. Personally I think they should revive the cube line because its more in line with what I'm looking for in my next system - something headless because its going to be acting as a server, deco enough to sit in the living room, quiet enough to go unnoticed, and with a cheap price. The last Linux box I built to serve this purpose was just too loud. All of the Intel and Athlon processors are too hot. If Apple doesn't come out with something I may just try something with a VIA C3 in it.
Nah - while Safari will be the default browser on OSX, there are no plans to remove IE from the system entirely - at least not at this time. 10.3 by all reports will continue to ship IE.
Yes. The race of ancients who made the original stargates were sued out of existence by SCO long ago, leaving Apophus and the rest of the Goauld to run the universe with the help of Microsoft.
Having written a fair number of applications for cell phone J2ME and Symbian let me just say that all of the folks out there trying to blame Java for the woes of their cell phone being slow are barking up the wrong tree. The problem with speed is a function of the trivial amount of CPU that's available in the phone at this point. That is something that's getting better over time - as is the issue with RAM in the phone. Wireless applications need better CPUs, better input devices, and a better data network infrastructure (in the case of cellular networks) before they need scripting. That's not to belittle the position or to say that it isn't something that's important to someone out there - but the current condition of the phone from a technology standpoint is not well suited to to imposing a scripting engine that requires scarce resources. One has to look at the reality of the market as it exists and the devices within it before trying to add more stuff to it. Today as the devices stand - the vast majority of them just don't have the resources necessary to handle scripting. The situation is improving and one day we'll be at that point (12-18 months from now) - but today adding scripting to the resource starved devices is just not a good move... especially given that someone would in many instances have to download 150k of scripting framework onto the phone - a size larger than many wireless applications. When you consider that wireless users pay for this by the meg (or in some cases by the K), it becomes pretty clear that the market isn't yet ready for that.
No, they settled with AOL for that amount. They were not awarded that amount. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.
He was probably unfortunate enough to sign a contract with them.