Amen. One of the major flaws of this country is that you can wriggle out of anything if you have the money (most recent election, anyone?). I don't necessarily think that forcing them to bundle Sun's JVM is a good idea, but something needs to be done.
I think it is time to jerk Microsoft up short - but they may have too much momentum.
Nothing, if you're an immoral and unethical sonofabitch. Let's play the analogy game:
Microsoft makes cars. Sun comes up with an innovative new cross-manufacturer braking system. Microsoft says "ok, we'll use your new braking system." Microsoft removes key parts to system. People using Microsoft cars with Sun brakes don't live very long. People stop using Sun brakes. People start using Microsoft's new cross-manufacturer brakes.
Maybe a bit over the top, but I think you get the picture.
This is where we get into the wonderful world of legal precedents.
the original ruling was meant to prevent Microsoft from deliberately breaking its JVM, defeating the cross-platform goal of Java and preventing large-scale Java development on Windows.
From the article...
"Jim Desler, a Microsoft spokesman, says the move relates to its January 2001 legal settlement with Sun, which Microsoft says bars it from making any changes to Sun's underlying Java programming code after next Jan. 2, 2004."
which makes the original ruling sort of redundant. Microsoft can't touch the code any more (unless Sun gives them permission, I suppose), so they can't break it.
I also enjoyed this:
"As a result, Mr. Desler said, Microsoft can't provide security updates to its virtual machine, leading to its decision to stop supporting the software, though it plans to help customers migrate to alternate solutions."
Since when has MS been overly concerned with security updates? Oh, and the "alternate solutions" -.Net.
"I can't wait to see what happens when a congressman or senator's child is sued," he said. "They've taken leave of their senses. They lost their [Los Angeles] lawsuit against us and they're pissed about it, so their answer is to sue their customers...." - Wayne Rosso
*sarcasm* This is a sure way to get consumers back on the RIAA's good side. Once they sue a few of us, we'll all stop, and we'll buy lots of CDs from the people who sued us.*end sarcasm*
No really. I cannot think of a single idea that could possibly drive a bigger wedge between the RIAA and its consumers.
I disagree. Entering into a partnership with Kazaa could only benefit the RIAA. They will have an in-place, widespread distribution network (though the number of subscribers will drop precipitously) and it will remove Kazaa from the list of p2p network software that facilitates piracy. The RIAA won't have to deal with any more legislation with Kazaa. The RIAA doesn't want control over their content, they want the money that piracy denies them - which is what this deal would give them.
Unless I read the article wrong, these clusters will not be operating on the same level as Windows and OSX. This is designed for research and heavy-duty number crunching, something that XP and OSX aren't. I agree, talented programmers are spending too much time on worthless projects, but this isn't one of them.
Yes, we are that paranoid. Americans have an obsession about their own privacy, and will usually cry havoc to the (immensely flawed) legal system when something even remotely looks like it could infringe on that.
I suppose there is some justification for this - I personally do not trust the US government or most US corporations, and I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. RFID tags could be interpreted as microminiaturized radio collars, by the (vast majority of) Americans who are not too techno-savvy, and most people fear what they don't understand. You don't put a radio collar on something unless you want to watch where it goes and what it does.
See earlier posts. They make their money off of selling domains in the.nu TLD and put that back into the networks. They're "a US-incorporated, private charitable foundation locally managed in Niue", so if anyone involuntarily pays for it at all, I suppose we do.
Only 18% of physical channel capacity, they probably wanted to take advantage of the in-place broadband network.
Re:If there really is free broadband for every one
on
Niue Gets Island-Wide WiFi
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don't think they will have enough serious users to pose a problem. Most of the people are plantation farmers (or so says the CIA) so I can't imagine they have much time to go bandwidth-crazy.
Also, the purchasing power isn't too terribly large ($7.6 mil, or $3600 per person per year) so they probably can't buy too many computers.
for ships out at sea for extended periods of time (or just passing by), they can take a quick run to Niue and drop off/pick up their email without having to dock..
It'll be interesting to see how well Apple dealt with the 32-bit backwards compatability issue. Intel/HP tried to do this, but took an amazing performance hit.
Way back in the early 1900s, we didn't have an infrastructure or any form of service station for gas-powered cars. There was no market for that. We have one now, we've had one for the past 50 years.
The problem is that no market for fuel cells exists. No matter what greens say the fact is the public thinks cleaner cars are nice but they will not pay for them. If they did then they would not buy SUV's. Replacing gas stations with stations for fuel cells will be good in a fantasy world filled with faries and sprites however in the real world that most of us live in none cares enough to buy them.
There was no market for gas-powered cars, either. We seem to have quite a few around for something that there was no market for. There's no market because it's still in development. And, as for people paying for things, there are a number of things that people pay for that they shouldn't. The American public is none too bright, but they do have a lot of purchasing power.
Having the government create a market would be nice but the problem with that is the government cannot create a market. It just does not work. The government can make it costly for oil based cars to be on the road thru tighter emission standards and higher costs for oil but that will never happen because compaired to fuel cells and other supplies of "renewable sources" oil is dirt cheap and cleaner oil based cars are still cheaper then fuel cells.
That's what development is for, making the cars more efficient and more cost-effective. With hydrogen, we also won't be at the mercy of OPEC, since you can electrolyze it out of water.
Fifteen to twenty years is my guess for fuel cells, given the rate at which technology seems to advance these days. GM is planning on a fuel-cell car in 2006.
Your link discusses recharging electric-powered cars, which would (obviously) lead to an increased electricity output from various power stations, which would boost carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions from the power stations.
"However, if fuel cells were used to recharge the batteries, there would be significant reductions in emissions from the power-generation and transport industries."
Either way, it doesn't talk about using fuel cells to drive the engine, which is what the real article talks about.
MPEG-4 is not a player, it's a standard that many video compression codecs (AVI, ASF) are based off of. These things have "[the] latest Microsoft Windows Media Player...", which is 9, I would guess.
In addition, they use JVC's AV player, with AVI and ASF (which was developed by MS, btw) MPEG-4 support. Looks like JVC's got the MSconception straight, if they're using a non-MS media player and at least one non-MS MPEG-4 codec.
It's probably more along the lines of a deterrent, much like the criminal justice system. They can't catch everyone, and they know it. So, they choose a few of the more obvious "lawbreakers" to make an example of, in hopes of getting everyone else to think "uh oh, they could come after me next, time to get rid of my MP3s/ROMs/etc."
Aside from the glaring flaws in our legal system, the deterrent idea doesn't seem to work too terribly well, and I doubt it will work very well in the digital arena, either. I certainly know I'm not close to halting some of my illicit practices.
Probably because Dell doesn't want Microsoft to squash them, so this is their way of placating them. Another good question is, "Does it really matter what 1-floppy OS it comes with?" No.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. One of the major flaws of this country is that you can wriggle out of anything if you have the money (most recent election, anyone?). I don't necessarily think that forcing them to bundle Sun's JVM is a good idea, but something needs to be done.
I think it is time to jerk Microsoft up short - but they may have too much momentum.
Nothing, if you're an immoral and unethical sonofabitch. Let's play the analogy game:
Microsoft makes cars. Sun comes up with an innovative new cross-manufacturer braking system. Microsoft says "ok, we'll use your new braking system." Microsoft removes key parts to system. People using Microsoft cars with Sun brakes don't live very long. People stop using Sun brakes. People start using Microsoft's new cross-manufacturer brakes.
Maybe a bit over the top, but I think you get the picture. This is where we get into the wonderful world of legal precedents.
From the article... which makes the original ruling sort of redundant. Microsoft can't touch the code any more (unless Sun gives them permission, I suppose), so they can't break it.
I also enjoyed this: Since when has MS been overly concerned with security updates? Oh, and the "alternate solutions" -
No. Since they're a charity, they're tax exempt. Therefore, the remainder of the US taxpayers must make up that difference.
"I can't wait to see what happens when a congressman or senator's child is sued," he said. "They've taken leave of their senses. They lost their [Los Angeles] lawsuit against us and they're pissed about it, so their answer is to sue their customers. ..." - Wayne Rosso
*sarcasm* This is a sure way to get consumers back on the RIAA's good side. Once they sue a few of us, we'll all stop, and we'll buy lots of CDs from the people who sued us.*end sarcasm*
No really. I cannot think of a single idea that could possibly drive a bigger wedge between the RIAA and its consumers.
The RIAA doesn't care about the artists. They want the money that comes from the royalties. And, they'll do whatever it takes to get that.
I disagree. Entering into a partnership with Kazaa could only benefit the RIAA. They will have an in-place, widespread distribution network (though the number of subscribers will drop precipitously) and it will remove Kazaa from the list of p2p network software that facilitates piracy. The RIAA won't have to deal with any more legislation with Kazaa. The RIAA doesn't want control over their content, they want the money that piracy denies them - which is what this deal would give them.
Unless I read the article wrong, these clusters will not be operating on the same level as Windows and OSX. This is designed for research and heavy-duty number crunching, something that XP and OSX aren't. I agree, talented programmers are spending too much time on worthless projects, but this isn't one of them.
Yes, we are that paranoid. Americans have an obsession about their own privacy, and will usually cry havoc to the (immensely flawed) legal system when something even remotely looks like it could infringe on that.
I suppose there is some justification for this - I personally do not trust the US government or most US corporations, and I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. RFID tags could be interpreted as microminiaturized radio collars, by the (vast majority of) Americans who are not too techno-savvy, and most people fear what they don't understand. You don't put a radio collar on something unless you want to watch where it goes and what it does.
GNU regex
I'd give up free WiFi for some well-paved roads, especially after this past winter (in the Northeast at least)
See earlier posts. They make their money off of selling domains in the .nu TLD and put that back into the networks. They're "a US-incorporated, private charitable foundation locally managed in Niue", so if anyone involuntarily pays for it at all, I suppose we do.
Yes! Nationalize internet access in the States! Make the DMCA as enforceable as it can be!
Not.
Only 18% of physical channel capacity, they probably wanted to take advantage of the in-place broadband network.
I don't think they will have enough serious users to pose a problem. Most of the people are plantation farmers (or so says the CIA) so I can't imagine they have much time to go bandwidth-crazy.
Also, the purchasing power isn't too terribly large ($7.6 mil, or $3600 per person per year) so they probably can't buy too many computers.
for ships out at sea for extended periods of time (or just passing by), they can take a quick run to Niue and drop off/pick up their email without having to dock..
They could access the internet, they just didn't get it for free. They DO have a telephone system.
It'll be interesting to see how well Apple dealt with the 32-bit backwards compatability issue. Intel/HP tried to do this, but took an amazing performance hit.
I imagine it'd work the same way as registration stickers. Yes, the problem still exists, but I don't think anyone really cares.
Way back in the early 1900s, we didn't have an infrastructure or any form of service station for gas-powered cars. There was no market for that. We have one now, we've had one for the past 50 years.
The problem is that no market for fuel cells exists. No matter what greens say the fact is the public thinks cleaner cars are nice but they will not pay for them. If they did then they would not buy SUV's. Replacing gas stations with stations for fuel cells will be good in a fantasy world filled with faries and sprites however in the real world that most of us live in none cares enough to buy them.
There was no market for gas-powered cars, either. We seem to have quite a few around for something that there was no market for. There's no market because it's still in development. And, as for people paying for things, there are a number of things that people pay for that they shouldn't. The American public is none too bright, but they do have a lot of purchasing power.
Having the government create a market would be nice but the problem with that is the government cannot create a market. It just does not work. The government can make it costly for oil based cars to be on the road thru tighter emission standards and higher costs for oil but that will never happen because compaired to fuel cells and other supplies of "renewable sources" oil is dirt cheap and cleaner oil based cars are still cheaper then fuel cells.
That's what development is for, making the cars more efficient and more cost-effective. With hydrogen, we also won't be at the mercy of OPEC, since you can electrolyze it out of water.
Fifteen to twenty years is my guess for fuel cells, given the rate at which technology seems to advance these days. GM is planning on a fuel-cell car in 2006.
Your link discusses recharging electric-powered cars, which would (obviously) lead to an increased electricity output from various power stations, which would boost carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions from the power stations.
"However, if fuel cells were used to recharge the batteries, there would be significant reductions in emissions from the power-generation and transport industries."
Either way, it doesn't talk about using fuel cells to drive the engine, which is what the real article talks about.
MPEG-4 is not a player, it's a standard that many video compression codecs (AVI, ASF) are based off of. These things have "[the] latest Microsoft Windows Media Player...", which is 9, I would guess.
In addition, they use JVC's AV player, with AVI and ASF (which was developed by MS, btw) MPEG-4 support. Looks like JVC's got the MSconception straight, if they're using a non-MS media player and at least one non-MS MPEG-4 codec.
It's probably more along the lines of a deterrent, much like the criminal justice system. They can't catch everyone, and they know it. So, they choose a few of the more obvious "lawbreakers" to make an example of, in hopes of getting everyone else to think "uh oh, they could come after me next, time to get rid of my MP3s/ROMs/etc."
Aside from the glaring flaws in our legal system, the deterrent idea doesn't seem to work too terribly well, and I doubt it will work very well in the digital arena, either. I certainly know I'm not close to halting some of my illicit practices.
Another time NASA thought that a malfunction wasn't dangerous enough to warrant a rehaul, the Challenger exploded. Glad to see that they're learning.
Probably because Dell doesn't want Microsoft to squash them, so this is their way of placating them. Another good question is, "Does it really matter what 1-floppy OS it comes with?" No.