One other generic set of documentation is any Software Developer's Kit for both/either MS-DOS and/or Windows. In just about EVERY SDK, Microsoft carefully presents certain low-level functions as having "become obsolete and no longer supported" (my paraphrase). Do remember that each SDK concerns the LATEST version of MS-DOS or Windows. That means that ANY PROGRAM THAT HAD CALLED ONE OF THOSE OBSOLETE FUNCTIONS IN AN OLDER VERSION OF DOS/WINDOWS IS NOW INCOMPATIBLE.
So remember that (A) Microsoft deliberately made functions obsolete, and (B) Microsoft didnt let any competitor know about the changes until it was too late for that competitor to update its competitive product for the latest version of DOS or Windows, and get that competitive product out the door to stay competitive with any given Microsoft application. WordPerfect was far from the only program to suffer from this ploy.
Do note that this ploy is quite simple to implement, so long as you have the source code to the Operating System. Your simply keep handy a special debug version of the OS that reports on every function call used by any application. Then you run some app like WordPerfect to find the most minor system function that it uses. Then you create a "new and improved version of that system function, with a different name or parameters or return-value, and do a global search-and-replace throughout your Operating System to replace any calls to the old function with calls to the new. Then you remove the old function altogether from the OS, and document it as obsolete. Presto! the application is now incompatible with the "new and improved" OS.
Note I am not saying that Microsoft did it this way; but certainly this way (among others) is quite reasonable and possible, expecially given all the many KNOWN anti-competitor actions it has done.
So, if you really want to know for sure if WordPerfect suffered from the above, just ask them whether or not they had to modify their program because of oboslete Operating System functions.
Finally, in reply to someone else who said that Microsoft was not a monopoly back in those early days of Windows, just remember that it wasn't a RECOGNIZED monopoly back then. Just think of the prevalance of MS-DOS on the desktop back then, and see if you can convince yourself that it wasn't.
If he didn't mention the fact that every time Microsoft released a new version of Windows, competitor products like WordPerfect suddenly became incompatible while practically-simultaneously-released new versions of Word were compatible, then he is failing to mention a major reason why all the anti-Microsoft folks are certain the company is guilty of cheating. Those competitors, after all, were not told of changes to Windows early enough to be able to release new versions compatible with the newest Windows. That does qualify as Monopoly Abuse In Action.
Any electronic device that uses such a trickle of current that batteries can last for months -- is an electronic device that should be powered by built-in solar cells. Indeed, this particular gadget appears to be frugal enough that if you have enough light to READ its text, then you probably have enough light to power it.
Magneto-optical storage uses a trick borrowed from Nature, in which geologists are able to detect the wanderings of the Earth's magnetic poles. This magnetic data has been unaffected for millions of years! A recent review of the technology can be found here, at Tom's Hardware site.
As you may have read in a prior Slashdot article, no ordinary fine is going to stop Microsoft from changing its anticompetitive ways. But suppose the next time Microsoft was fined, the fine was this: "All your patents are hereby revoked, and you will never be granted another! Furthermore, the next time your actions are brought before this Court and found to be illegal, all your copyrights will be revoked!"
While I do understand that modchips can allow many unanticipated things to be done with a game console, it was my impression that a major purpose of modding a console was to "free" its extremely cheap computing power for other purposes than games. That is, we know the consoles are sold at a loss, but that is the manufacturer's choice. Sometimes I think that their claims of modding to mis-use consoles (for piracy) is just a "cover story" to keep people from realizing that they can get a powerful computer CHEAP, just by replacing the chips that restrict it to console-only use.
I see some commentary about the difficulty of installing Linux. If this book is for the average Windows user, then it needs to include some Linux distro that is practically guaranteed to install with no hassle (or at least no hassles not described in the book!).
If THAT can be accomplished, then Microsoft can start kissing itself goodbye.
I think that this disputed paragraph is the foundation upon which SCO is basing 99% of its claims. What I most seriously wonder is, "OK, suppose the judge gives SCO full rights to Unix. But most of the Unix contracts out there are based on an AT&T contract, and AT&T has provided a specific interpretation of a critical paragraph.
Can SCO change the interpretation of this particular paragraph, JUST because they now own Unix?"
What I think is that those who obtained those AT&T-type contracts will argue that they are operating under the AT&T interpretation, which they were contractually allowed to do when they signed those contracts!
I do not think that the judge will grant SCO the right to arbitrarily alter the interpretation of the disputed paragraph in those contracts without some sort of advance notice -- and no such notice was given (just lawsuits). The net result is that, for example, IBM may have to STOP moving AIX
and Dynamix code into Linux, but that all previously-moved code will be "grandfathered".
For Linux, that net result means that SCO can be ignored, and no indemnification nor insurance need be paid to anyone.
Maybe the bank uses Linux on their computers...and instead of wanting to pay the SCO tax, they decided to try to be on the collecting end of all the SCO taxes. Except that now they are finding out it's not going to work that way, heh heh heh!
The answer is to design the Mars transit vehicle to carry its own magnetic field. Superconductors allow us to create fields of such strength that just about any cosmic ray will be bent to miss the spacecraft. Also, we can inject some local ions into that magnetic field, trapping them, and they in turn act as a partial shield against electromagnetic radiation (charged particles and photons have a nice high interaction probability). For more, and on even using such magnetic fields as a modest propulsion mechanism (interacting with Solar Wind), see this.
I should mention that it has been my understanding (perhaps mistaken) that OLEDs are not actually diodes, but "devices", based on electroluminescent phenomena.
I confess I posted the Question mostly out of curiosity: the technology SEEMS so obvious....
I personally agree that reflective-light display technology is potentially inherently superior. My personal favorite (so far) can be found here.
Hey folks, how tough can it be to write some software to gather votes and put them in a database? AND print TWO identical receipts, one for the voter, and one for a backup ballot box, in case of recount?
I know of local bowling alleys that use touch-screen Point-of-Sale systems, so you know the hardware can't be all that expensive, either.
So, considering how expensive those "Certified" voting machines are, AND how cheap ordinary personal computers are, AND how secure BSD or other free Operating Systems are, AND how simple it should be to write some Open Source voting software, with some semi-standard.DLL to handle a touch screen, it seems to me that there is plenty of room to put Diebold and the others, cheaters or not, out of the voting-machine business!
The Hubbell was placed in just about as high an orbit as the Space Shuttle could reach. If left alone, its orbit will take quite a long time to decay. So, the Question really is, "Do we need to have this telescope up and running 100% of the time?"
If we can't afford $600million now, maybe we can afford to set aside $100million per year for a while. Various people have suggested various schemes, such as selling lottery tickets for viewing time. Meanwhile, let the Hubbell hibernate until we're completely ready to send a mission. Then go get it. First grab it an put it into the Cargo Bay, to carry it back up to higher orbit. Then fix and let loose.
It seems to me that since this is merely an application for a patent, and since supposedly those who will pass judgement on its patentability are also those who are supposed to seek prior art, then why don't we just send the Patent Office some emails specifying IBM's application, and providing them with evidence of prior art?
Perhaps we should pay attention to other equally annoying Patent-Applied-For notions, and thereby stop a whole slew of stupid patents.
Ah, but the goal here is to get the modified browser software out there before digital certificates are required for everything, and then this trick will be grandfathered.
Quoted from the article:
"The typical home user never notices NAT; it just works. But that user is no longer a peer of all other Internet users as the original architecture of the network intended. In particular, the home user behind a NAT box has been relegated to the role of a consumer of Internet services. Such a user cannot create a Web site on their broadband connection, since the NAT box will not permit inbound connections from external sites. Nor can the user set up true peer to peer connections with other users behind NAT boxes, as there's an insuperable chicken and egg problem creating a bidirectional connection between them."
Ok, Here is my suggestion: Somebody sets up an Intermediary Site where two isolated users can connect, and indicate that they want to Go Private. A modification to the users' browsers is also required. The software at that site analyzes the packets coming from the two users, and sends special packets to each of the two browsers, so that they can simultaneously switch to communcations with each other, automatically cutting the Intermediary Site out of the connection.
Can this be made to work, or am I dreaming? Thanks!
A quote from the 2nd page of the article:
"In a further effort to compromise new systems and add them to their arsenal, Tubul's group appears to be using its "spamvertised" sites to infect visitors with a malicious program. Recent reports in online antispam discussion groups indicate that an invisibly hosted site called miracleformen.com was attempting to install a suspicious executable file on visitors' computers using a vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser."
The articles strongly imply that the disk drive must be functional. There is nothing about what you have to do if (as happened to me) the computer's power supply dies, and, in dying, fries the circuit board on the drive. So far, no luck in finding an exact duplicate circuit board....
Might it be simpler to bug the SciFi Channel to make a time slot available for Dr. Who, than to bug all those different cable companies to add a whole channel?
Slashdot Mirror
One other generic set of documentation is any Software Developer's Kit for both/either MS-DOS and/or Windows. In just about EVERY SDK, Microsoft carefully presents certain low-level functions as having "become obsolete and no longer supported" (my paraphrase). Do remember that each SDK concerns the LATEST version of MS-DOS or Windows. That means that ANY PROGRAM THAT HAD CALLED ONE OF THOSE OBSOLETE FUNCTIONS IN AN OLDER VERSION OF DOS/WINDOWS IS NOW INCOMPATIBLE.
So remember that (A) Microsoft deliberately made functions obsolete, and (B) Microsoft didnt let any competitor know about the changes until it was too late for that competitor to update its competitive product for the latest version of DOS or Windows, and get that competitive product out the door to stay competitive with any given Microsoft application. WordPerfect was far from the only program to suffer from this ploy.
Do note that this ploy is quite simple to implement, so long as you have the source code to the Operating System. Your simply keep handy a special debug version of the OS that reports on every function call used by any application. Then you run some app like WordPerfect to find the most minor system function that it uses. Then you create a "new and improved version of that system function, with a different name or parameters or return-value, and do a global search-and-replace throughout your Operating System to replace any calls to the old function with calls to the new. Then you remove the old function altogether from the OS, and document it as obsolete. Presto! the application is now incompatible with the "new and improved" OS.
Note I am not saying that Microsoft did it this way; but certainly this way (among others) is quite reasonable and possible, expecially given all the many KNOWN anti-competitor actions it has done.
So, if you really want to know for sure if WordPerfect suffered from the above, just ask them whether or not they had to modify their program because of oboslete Operating System functions.
Finally, in reply to someone else who said that Microsoft was not a monopoly back in those early days of Windows, just remember that it wasn't a RECOGNIZED monopoly back then. Just think of the prevalance of MS-DOS on the desktop back then, and see if you can convince yourself that it wasn't.
If he didn't mention the fact that every time Microsoft released a new version of Windows, competitor products like WordPerfect suddenly became incompatible while practically-simultaneously-released new versions of Word were compatible, then he is failing to mention a major reason why all the anti-Microsoft folks are certain the company is guilty of cheating. Those competitors, after all, were not told of changes to Windows early enough to be able to release new versions compatible with the newest Windows. That does qualify as Monopoly Abuse In Action.
Any electronic device that uses such a trickle of current that batteries can last for months -- is an electronic device that should be powered by built-in solar cells. Indeed, this particular gadget appears to be frugal enough that if you have enough light to READ its text, then you probably have enough light to power it.
Magneto-optical storage uses a trick borrowed from Nature, in which geologists are able to detect the wanderings of the Earth's magnetic poles. This magnetic data has been unaffected for millions of years! A recent review of the technology can be found here, at Tom's Hardware site.
As you may have read in a prior Slashdot article, no ordinary fine is going to stop Microsoft from changing its anticompetitive ways. But suppose the next time Microsoft was fined, the fine was this: "All your patents are hereby revoked, and you will never be granted another! Furthermore, the next time your actions are brought before this Court and found to be illegal, all your copyrights will be revoked!"
I bet THAT would get Microsoft's attention!
While I do understand that modchips can allow many unanticipated things to be done with a game console, it was my impression that a major purpose of modding a console was to "free" its extremely cheap computing power for other purposes than games. That is, we know the consoles are sold at a loss, but that is the manufacturer's choice. Sometimes I think that their claims of modding to mis-use consoles (for piracy) is just a "cover story" to keep people from realizing that they can get a powerful computer CHEAP, just by replacing the chips that restrict it to console-only use.
See earlier posting
To me, this sounds like an OK idea, because I bet this will be the ONLY way that many users FIND OUT that their computers have become zombie spambots.
I see some commentary about the difficulty of installing Linux. If this book is for the average Windows user, then it needs to include some Linux distro that is practically guaranteed to install with no hassle (or at least no hassles not described in the book!).
If THAT can be accomplished, then Microsoft can start kissing itself goodbye.
I note something that didn't seem to get mentioned it in the article about indemnification. That is, Novell has dredged up an official AT&T interpretation of a particular paragraph-in-the-contract.
I think that this disputed paragraph is the foundation upon which SCO is basing 99% of its claims. What I most seriously wonder is, "OK, suppose the judge gives SCO full rights to Unix. But most of the Unix contracts out there are based on an AT&T contract, and AT&T has provided a specific interpretation of a critical paragraph. Can SCO change the interpretation of this particular paragraph, JUST because they now own Unix?"
What I think is that those who obtained those AT&T-type contracts will argue that they are operating under the AT&T interpretation, which they were contractually allowed to do when they signed those contracts!
I do not think that the judge will grant SCO the right to arbitrarily alter the interpretation of the disputed paragraph in those contracts without some sort of advance notice -- and no such notice was given (just lawsuits). The net result is that, for example, IBM may have to STOP moving AIX and Dynamix code into Linux, but that all previously-moved code will be "grandfathered".
For Linux, that net result means that SCO can be ignored, and no indemnification nor insurance need be paid to anyone.
Go here and seek "900 jars"
Maybe the bank uses Linux on their computers...and instead of wanting to pay the SCO tax, they decided to try to be on the collecting end of all the SCO taxes. Except that now they are finding out it's not going to work that way, heh heh heh!
The answer is to design the Mars transit vehicle to carry its own magnetic field. Superconductors allow us to create fields of such strength that just about any cosmic ray will be bent to miss the spacecraft. Also, we can inject some local ions into that magnetic field, trapping them, and they in turn act as a partial shield against electromagnetic radiation (charged particles and photons have a nice high interaction probability). For more, and on even using such magnetic fields as a modest propulsion mechanism (interacting with Solar Wind), see this.
Thanks for all the responses!
I should mention that it has been my understanding (perhaps mistaken) that OLEDs are not actually diodes, but "devices", based on electroluminescent phenomena.
I confess I posted the Question mostly out of curiosity: the technology SEEMS so obvious....
I personally agree that reflective-light display technology is potentially inherently superior. My personal favorite (so far) can be found here.
Folks, "Boxen" could be just a simple typo for "Boxes", PROVIDED that the typist was using a Dvorak keyboard layout (where N is adjacent to S).
Perhaps for Interview questions, the moderation system might be modified to remove the limit of +5?
Hey folks, how tough can it be to write some software to gather votes and put them in a database? AND print TWO identical receipts, one for the voter, and one for a backup ballot box, in case of recount?
.DLL to handle a touch screen, it seems to me that there is plenty of room to put Diebold and the others, cheaters or not, out of the voting-machine business!
I know of local bowling alleys that use touch-screen Point-of-Sale systems, so you know the hardware can't be all that expensive, either.
So, considering how expensive those "Certified" voting machines are, AND how cheap ordinary personal computers are, AND how secure BSD or other free Operating Systems are, AND how simple it should be to write some Open Source voting software, with some semi-standard
The Hubbell was placed in just about as high an orbit as the Space Shuttle could reach. If left alone, its orbit will take quite a long time to decay. So, the Question really is, "Do we need to have this telescope up and running 100% of the time?"
If we can't afford $600million now, maybe we can afford to set aside $100million per year for a while. Various people have suggested various schemes, such as selling lottery tickets for viewing time. Meanwhile, let the Hubbell hibernate until we're completely ready to send a mission. Then go get it. First grab it an put it into the Cargo Bay, to carry it back up to higher orbit. Then fix and let loose.
It seems to me that since this is merely an application for a patent, and since supposedly those who will pass judgement on its patentability are also those who are supposed to seek prior art, then why don't we just send the Patent Office some emails specifying IBM's application, and providing them with evidence of prior art?
Perhaps we should pay attention to other equally annoying Patent-Applied-For notions, and thereby stop a whole slew of stupid patents.
Ah, but the goal here is to get the modified browser software out there before digital certificates are required for everything, and then this trick will be grandfathered.
Quoted from the article:
"The typical home user never notices NAT; it just works. But that user is no longer a peer of all other Internet users as the original architecture of the network intended. In particular, the home user behind a NAT box has been relegated to the role of a consumer of Internet services. Such a user cannot create a Web site on their broadband connection, since the NAT box will not permit inbound connections from external sites. Nor can the user set up true peer to peer connections with other users behind NAT boxes, as there's an insuperable chicken and egg problem creating a bidirectional connection between them."
Ok, Here is my suggestion: Somebody sets up an Intermediary Site where two isolated users can connect, and indicate that they want to Go Private. A modification to the users' browsers is also required. The software at that site analyzes the packets coming from the two users, and sends special packets to each of the two browsers, so that they can simultaneously switch to communcations with each other, automatically cutting the Intermediary Site out of the connection.
Can this be made to work, or am I dreaming? Thanks!
A quote from the 2nd page of the article:
/. article
"In a further effort to compromise new systems and add them to their arsenal, Tubul's group appears to be using its "spamvertised" sites to infect visitors with a malicious program. Recent reports in online antispam discussion groups indicate that an invisibly hosted site called miracleformen.com was attempting to install a suspicious executable file on visitors' computers using a vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser."
Re: very recent
The articles strongly imply that the disk drive must be functional. There is nothing about what you have to do if (as happened to me) the computer's power supply dies, and, in dying, fries the circuit board on the drive. So far, no luck in finding an exact duplicate circuit board....
Might it be simpler to bug the SciFi Channel to make a time slot available for Dr. Who, than to bug all those different cable companies to add a whole channel?
Old Slashdot articles:
one guy
How-To
OpenBeOS