Well, I fully expected BR to win because of Sony's PS3 strategy. Sell lots of PS3s, which just happen to be BR players, and you instantly have a huge BR user base. And it worked to some extent, as since PS3 started shipping, BR discs have outsold HD-DVD discs 2-1. But PS3 hasn't sold nearly as well as had been predicted, and a 2-1 selling advantage isn't that big, not nearly enough to kill off HD-DVD. Now, HD-DVD players are being sold for $200 and less (even $99), and BestBuy/Walmart sold 100k HD-DVD players just last weekend. Meaning that HD-DVD players are beginning to sell faster than PS3s, and all of those players are going to be used to play HD-DVD discs, while only a fraction (could be big, could be small) of PS3s are used to play BR discs. Meanwhile, the standalone BR player market (i.e. the BR players that aren't PS3s) is pretty much dead, with very few units being sold.
So, even though BR has had the "lead" due to the PS3, things are beginning to trend the other way now. Sony was ready to declare victory a few months ago. That they are now declaring "stalemate" is an admission of defeat.
You're correct, but there is a warped way of looking at things where "I could care less" would be proper. "I couldn't care less" typically means that it's impossible for me to care less because my care level about the issue in question is zero. But "I couldn't care less" could also mean that the issue in question is so important to me that there's no way I could care less about it. The corallary of this would be that the issue doesn't mean much to me, so while I might care a bit about it, I wouldn't have any problem caring less either, so "I could care less" would mean that the issue in question isn't important.:p
"How can an operating system be considered "secure" if it has proprietary software installed? It can't. Proprietary software security is unverifiable by anyone you can trust and therefore unworthy of being considered secure."
huh, I didn't know that software verification had been perfected such that FLOSS was "verifieable" as "secure". The fact is, FLOSS "security is unverifiable by anyone I can trust and therefore unworthy of being considered secure." I don't know who is "verifying" the security of FLOSS. Linus? He's just one guy, who can't verify the security of every distro out there. Red Hat? Don't make me laugh. Why would I trust them over any "proprietary" software maker to "verify" that their code is "secure"? Ubuntu? The same group that released an OS update that wiped user's home directories? Are they the ones that I should "trust" to "verify" the "security" of their distro? The "million eyes" thing is a kanard. FLOSS is no more secure than proprietary, and the security update stats for Linux, windows, and Mac over the last two years show this. Hell, the increasing frequency of Firefox security updates shows it as well.
Only on slashdot would two blogs be considered "Redmond's Heavy Guns". Microsoft has literally *thousands* of bloggers. Two of those stating their own opinions on something (and explicitly say, "This is my own opinion, not necessarily my employers") doesn't constitute "Heavy Guns".
Um, you do realize that Silverlight 1.0 runs on and RELIES on Javascript, don't you? And Silverlight 1.1 will do the same (just add support for.NET languages as well).
Oh, and you do realize that it was MICROSOFT that standardized Javascript in the first place, don't you? Netscape wanted to keep it as their own proprietary invention, adding features at will while other browsers had to keep chasing whatever Netscape did. It was MICROSOFT that submitted their implementation (JScript) to ECMA for standardization, which resulted in ECMAScript (the formal name of the Javascript standard).
"I got a kernel panic which wiped out my home directory after about a day of use. Might have been a hardware issue (CPU failed to respond to IPI was the error). Made me very glad I keep regular backups..."
I laughed at the way you reported this. You "buried the lead" (as news broadcasters would say).;)
" When referring to RAM sizes and file sizes, it traditionally has a binary definition, of 1024 bytes. For every other use, it means exactly 1000 bytes. In order to address this confusion, currently all relevant standards bodies promote the use of the term "gibibyte" for the binary definition."
Seems to me that since hard drives' primary function is storing files, that hard drive capacity should use the same unit of measurment that file size does, no? Doesn't that make simple sense? So if file sizes use 1024 rather than 1000, then hard drive capacity should as well.
"With Windows, the trojans scan the hard drive for email addresses and send out links to every address it can find. That depends upon unpatched exploits in IE or you having friends who are as dumb as you."
You're showing your ignorance. It's incredibly easy to scan AddressBook.app's contacts list and send emails via Mail.app as both apps provide an AppleScript api for that very purpose!
Similar can be used to propagate malware via iChat.
So once a user installs this trojan, it can easily propagate itself. And no "exploit" holes are even required. BTW, this is the same as for the overwhelming majority of Windows malware. They generally don't rely on "unpatched exploits in IE" or anywhere else, not anymore.
Um, the crap that you're spreading was about *Paramount* dumping Blu-Ray, not "Panasonic". (Panasonic still supports BR (foolishly IMO, since 95% of BR players sold are Sony PS3s, while Panasonic and the others are left to fight for the remaining 5%).)
I skimmed your link but didn't find any reference the NYT story that you say "the NY Times is sticking to". Rather, I saw a bunch of BR fanboys in tears, blaming Microsoft for their troubles. The NYT story to which you refer is Two Studios to Support HD-DVD Over Rival The story cites two unnamed Viacom execs as saying that Paramount received 150 million dollars in financial incentives to dump BR for HD-DVD, but they don't say who the source of the financial incentives is. The same story goes on to *quote* *named* Microsoft VP Amir Majidimehr as denying speculation that Microsoft was the source of any such financial incentives (he said that while it may be that someone paid off Paramount, it wasn't Microsoft). The NYT "sticking to its story" doesn't say much, since the NYT didn't accuse Microsoft of anything. One could just as easily say that the NYT is sticking to its story that Microsoft didn't pay off Paramount, since their story has nobody accusing Microsoft of such and has Microsoft denying speculation of such.
Besides Microsoft VP Amir Majidimehr, Microsoft's Kevin Collins also went on the record saying that Microsoft made no payments to get Paramount to dump BR. Microsoft Responds to Bill Hunts claims of a buyout
The idea that Microsoft paid Paramount to dump BR was something that BR fanboys grasped onto (glossing over the fact that Sony did pay off Target to cease stocking HD-DVD players on the shelves).
I know I'll be ripped to shreds for saying this, but my guess is that well over 90% of those that would hack a PC to run OS X would be more likely to get OS X via bittorrent or usenet or whatever rather than thru legal "sales".
Doesn't Safari still lock users into using Google whenever they use Safari's search box (not even allowing secondary search engines, let alone changing the default)? If so, I doubt there'll be any suits.;)
Wait... So posts that are nothing more than foul-mouthed personal attacks (and a suggestion of violence against the attackee) are modded as "3, Insightful" now? Oh, I forgot, such posts are just dandy as long as they are in line with the slashdot group-think.
LOL Yeah, but it's Windows 95's BSOD. Back in Windows 95's day, Apple was running the horrible System 7-9. Maybe Microsoft should show Apple computers with black bombs with lit fuses to mock System 7-9, or spinning beachballs to mock OS X. Nahh, Microsoft isn't anywhere near as immature as Jobs is.
"Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!"
Could you clarify what you mean by "reduce the price proportionally"? Do you mean that it should be reduced "proportionally" according to the size of WMP in bytes compared to the size of XP in bytes? If so, then the price of XP N would be reduced by something like 0.00001 cents. Also, WMP is free on Microsoft's web site, so reducing XP N's price by the price of WMP would reduce the price by zero. Hell, one could even argue that XP N should cost *more* than XP since it takes extra resources to create, maintain, and distribute it.
There was no way to determine a non-zero price for WMP which would be used to reduce the price of XP N; not a way that wouldn't have been very easily appealed anyway. The EC knew that.
"Yet again, the EU forces a meaningless concession from MS that actually strengthens the company instead of punishing it."
The "punishment" was the fine. The rest is supposed to be "remedy" not "punishment". As it is, the EU is forcing Microsoft to hand over Active Directory to its competitors for next-to-nothing. I don't see how patents involving technology that doesn't involve network protocols should be involved in this case at all. Anyway, Microsoft already pledged not to sue non-commercial software projects (be they OSS projects or not), months ago. This EU provision merely codifies what Microsoft already said regarding non-commercial software projects. Has Red Hat, IBM, or anyone in the OIN made a similar pledge regarding non-commercial software projects?
You assume IBM wouldn't use this patent for itself? IBM may be an ally of yours today, but who knows what the future will hold. You guys (i.e. rebel-geeks) used to hate IBM with a passion, remember? You'll hate them again, be sure of that. As far as I can see, the OIN is already using its own patent portfolio to put fear into those that might have a legitimate beef with OIN member's violating patents of others. So IBM is already using the power of its patent portfolio against others.
Anyway, I don't see how one can "patent" this business mechanism. What's next, patenting the concept of incentive stock options? Patenting the concept of sub-contracting? Patenting the concept of retail sales as to how they differ from wholesale sales? This is stupid.
It can also DRIVE a company to screw itself over, as Sony has done. Sony, in attempt to compete, threw in everything but the kitchen sink, which caused them to price themselves out of the market.
I don't quite believe the BBC is serious. If the Linux / Mac player has fewer features than the Windows player, then maybe BBC will let people with only Mac / Linux computers at home to pay a lower license fee? Unless the versions are equal in terms of quality I will consider refusing to pay the fee in full. A bit of civil disobedience might be in order.
Are you claiming that the collective BBC taxes collected from Mac/Linux users is equal to the collective BBC taxes collected from Windows users? No? Then your post makes zero sense mathematically. BBC is already spending a lot more on a cost per user basis on the Mac/Linux users than the Windows users. Amiga users are getting no support at all, yet each Amiga user pays the same tax as everyone else.
Maybe making a Windows-specific version that would serve 95% of the public was cheaper than a cross-platform version to get that extra 3% (I don't say 5% because there are still those that use neither Windows nor Mac nor Linux). Ever think of that, Einstein?
BBC said that Windows provides functionality that the other platforms don't, and they wanted to make use of that functionality as it would lower costs and would enhance the experience for there 95% Windows user base.
Mac and Linux users do pay BBC taxes, but the Windows users pay a collective 20 times as much. On a cost per user basis based on the taxes that are collected, the Windows client costs much less than does the Mac/Linux client. What BBC should do is charge on a per user basis, the cost it takes to create a client for a specific platform. Each Mac user would end up paying 20 times as much as a Windows user, and each Linux user would pay 10 times as much as a Mac user, but that would only be fair. As it is, Windows users taxes are going to pay for Mac/Linux client to a much greater extent than the reverse.
"From all reports, the Microsoft based client is buggy, difficult to set up, and is a bandwidth hog." Bullshit. *All* reports say that, or only the ones you are predisposed to believe?
IronPython, IronRuby,.NET's Dynamic Runtime Library (DLR) (used by.NET and Silverlight) are among the code that Microsoft has already released under Ms-PL.
A company can use all GPL software it wants to create a web-app, distribute that app for use by the public, but not have to release their own code. But another company uses GPL code to make a similar app, but distributes it as a local binary rather than a web-app, and they *must* release their own code. Yeah, that's fair.
Why should creators of web-apps for use by the public be able to use GPL code without releasing their own code but not creators of compiled binaries?
I bet if Microsoft created an online version of Word/Excel using GPL code, you'd change your tune fast. But because it's Google that's stomping all over the spirit (if not the letter) of GPL, then it's just fine and dandy. After all, Google's not "evil". How do I know? Because Google told me so!!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I fully expected BR to win because of Sony's PS3 strategy. Sell lots of PS3s, which just happen to be BR players, and you instantly have a huge BR user base. And it worked to some extent, as since PS3 started shipping, BR discs have outsold HD-DVD discs 2-1. But PS3 hasn't sold nearly as well as had been predicted, and a 2-1 selling advantage isn't that big, not nearly enough to kill off HD-DVD. Now, HD-DVD players are being sold for $200 and less (even $99), and BestBuy/Walmart sold 100k HD-DVD players just last weekend. Meaning that HD-DVD players are beginning to sell faster than PS3s, and all of those players are going to be used to play HD-DVD discs, while only a fraction (could be big, could be small) of PS3s are used to play BR discs. Meanwhile, the standalone BR player market (i.e. the BR players that aren't PS3s) is pretty much dead, with very few units being sold.
So, even though BR has had the "lead" due to the PS3, things are beginning to trend the other way now. Sony was ready to declare victory a few months ago. That they are now declaring "stalemate" is an admission of defeat.
You're correct, but there is a warped way of looking at things where "I could care less" would be proper. :p
"I couldn't care less" typically means that it's impossible for me to care less because my care level about the issue in question is zero.
But "I couldn't care less" could also mean that the issue in question is so important to me that there's no way I could care less about it. The corallary of this would be that the issue doesn't mean much to me, so while I might care a bit about it, I wouldn't have any problem caring less either, so "I could care less" would mean that the issue in question isn't important.
"How can an operating system be considered "secure" if it has proprietary software installed? It can't. Proprietary software security is unverifiable by anyone you can trust and therefore unworthy of being considered secure."
huh, I didn't know that software verification had been perfected such that FLOSS was "verifieable" as "secure".
The fact is, FLOSS "security is unverifiable by anyone I can trust and therefore unworthy of being considered secure."
I don't know who is "verifying" the security of FLOSS. Linus? He's just one guy, who can't verify the security of every distro out there.
Red Hat? Don't make me laugh. Why would I trust them over any "proprietary" software maker to "verify" that their code is "secure"?
Ubuntu? The same group that released an OS update that wiped user's home directories? Are they the ones that I should "trust" to "verify" the "security" of their distro?
The "million eyes" thing is a kanard. FLOSS is no more secure than proprietary, and the security update stats for Linux, windows, and Mac over the last two years show this. Hell, the increasing frequency of Firefox security updates shows it as well.
Slashdotters aren't exactly the most mature people in the world.
Only on slashdot would two blogs be considered "Redmond's Heavy Guns".
Microsoft has literally *thousands* of bloggers. Two of those stating their own opinions on something (and explicitly say, "This is my own opinion, not necessarily my employers") doesn't constitute "Heavy Guns".
Um, you do realize that Silverlight 1.0 runs on and RELIES on Javascript, don't you? .NET languages as well).
And Silverlight 1.1 will do the same (just add support for
Oh, and you do realize that it was MICROSOFT that standardized Javascript in the first place, don't you? Netscape wanted to keep it as their own proprietary invention, adding features at will while other browsers had to keep chasing whatever Netscape did. It was MICROSOFT that submitted their implementation (JScript) to ECMA for standardization, which resulted in ECMAScript (the formal name of the Javascript standard).
"I got a kernel panic which wiped out my home directory after about a day of use. Might have been a hardware issue (CPU failed to respond to IPI was the error). Made me very glad I keep regular backups..."
;)
I laughed at the way you reported this. You "buried the lead" (as news broadcasters would say).
" When referring to RAM sizes and file sizes, it traditionally has a binary definition, of 1024 bytes. For every other use, it means exactly 1000 bytes. In order to address this confusion, currently all relevant standards bodies promote the use of the term "gibibyte" for the binary definition."
Seems to me that since hard drives' primary function is storing files, that hard drive capacity should use the same unit of measurment that file size does, no? Doesn't that make simple sense? So if file sizes use 1024 rather than 1000, then hard drive capacity should as well.
"With Windows, the trojans scan the hard drive for email addresses and send out links to every address it can find. That depends upon unpatched exploits in IE or you having friends who are as dumb as you."
You're showing your ignorance. It's incredibly easy to scan AddressBook.app's contacts list and send emails via Mail.app as both apps provide an AppleScript api for that very purpose!
Similar can be used to propagate malware via iChat.
So once a user installs this trojan, it can easily propagate itself. And no "exploit" holes are even required. BTW, this is the same as for the overwhelming majority of Windows malware. They generally don't rely on "unpatched exploits in IE" or anywhere else, not anymore.
Um, the crap that you're spreading was about *Paramount* dumping Blu-Ray, not "Panasonic". (Panasonic still supports BR (foolishly IMO, since 95% of BR players sold are Sony PS3s, while Panasonic and the others are left to fight for the remaining 5%).)
I skimmed your link but didn't find any reference the NYT story that you say "the NY Times is sticking to". Rather, I saw a bunch of BR fanboys in tears, blaming Microsoft for their troubles. The NYT story to which you refer is Two Studios to Support HD-DVD Over Rival
The story cites two unnamed Viacom execs as saying that Paramount received 150 million dollars in financial incentives to dump BR for HD-DVD, but they don't say who the source of the financial incentives is. The same story goes on to *quote* *named* Microsoft VP Amir Majidimehr as denying speculation that Microsoft was the source of any such financial incentives (he said that while it may be that someone paid off Paramount, it wasn't Microsoft). The NYT "sticking to its story" doesn't say much, since the NYT didn't accuse Microsoft of anything. One could just as easily say that the NYT is sticking to its story that Microsoft didn't pay off Paramount, since their story has nobody accusing Microsoft of such and has Microsoft denying speculation of such.
Besides Microsoft VP Amir Majidimehr, Microsoft's Kevin Collins also went on the record saying that Microsoft made no payments to get Paramount to dump BR.
Microsoft Responds to Bill Hunts claims of a buyout
Microsoft's version of the story has since been proven correct.
Blu-Ray fanboy Bill Hunt, the primary spreader of the "Microsoft paid off Paramount" story, admitted that he was in the wrong:
Oopsie! Bill Hunt does a mea culpa. Now can the conspiracy theories stop?
The idea that Microsoft paid Paramount to dump BR was something that BR fanboys grasped onto (glossing over the fact that Sony did pay off Target to cease stocking HD-DVD players on the shelves).
"they'll a) get more OS sales "
I know I'll be ripped to shreds for saying this, but my guess is that well over 90% of those that would hack a PC to run OS X would be more likely to get OS X via bittorrent or usenet or whatever rather than thru legal "sales".
Doesn't Safari still lock users into using Google whenever they use Safari's search box (not even allowing secondary search engines, let alone changing the default)? If so, I doubt there'll be any suits. ;)
"It's real easy to have a 27% growth on near-zero. I hate statistics."
:p
Yeah. Similar thoughts occur to me whenever someone touts the growth of Linux.
Wait...
So posts that are nothing more than foul-mouthed personal attacks (and a suggestion of violence against the attackee) are modded as "3, Insightful" now?
Oh, I forgot, such posts are just dandy as long as they are in line with the slashdot group-think.
LOL
Yeah, but it's Windows 95's BSOD. Back in Windows 95's day, Apple was running the horrible System 7-9. Maybe Microsoft should show Apple computers with black bombs with lit fuses to mock System 7-9, or spinning beachballs to mock OS X. Nahh, Microsoft isn't anywhere near as immature as Jobs is.
So what?
It still shows that Apple's maturity level is that of a 12-year old. Sad, that.
"Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!"
Could you clarify what you mean by "reduce the price proportionally"? Do you mean that it should be reduced "proportionally" according to the size of WMP in bytes compared to the size of XP in bytes? If so, then the price of XP N would be reduced by something like 0.00001 cents. Also, WMP is free on Microsoft's web site, so reducing XP N's price by the price of WMP would reduce the price by zero. Hell, one could even argue that XP N should cost *more* than XP since it takes extra resources to create, maintain, and distribute it.
There was no way to determine a non-zero price for WMP which would be used to reduce the price of XP N; not a way that wouldn't have been very easily appealed anyway. The EC knew that.
"Yet again, the EU forces a meaningless concession from MS that actually strengthens the company instead of punishing it."
The "punishment" was the fine. The rest is supposed to be "remedy" not "punishment". As it is, the EU is forcing Microsoft to hand over Active Directory to its competitors for next-to-nothing. I don't see how patents involving technology that doesn't involve network protocols should be involved in this case at all. Anyway, Microsoft already pledged not to sue non-commercial software projects (be they OSS projects or not), months ago. This EU provision merely codifies what Microsoft already said regarding non-commercial software projects. Has Red Hat, IBM, or anyone in the OIN made a similar pledge regarding non-commercial software projects?
You assume IBM wouldn't use this patent for itself?
IBM may be an ally of yours today, but who knows what the future will hold. You guys (i.e. rebel-geeks) used to hate IBM with a passion, remember? You'll hate them again, be sure of that. As far as I can see, the OIN is already using its own patent portfolio to put fear into those that might have a legitimate beef with OIN member's violating patents of others. So IBM is already using the power of its patent portfolio against others.
Anyway, I don't see how one can "patent" this business mechanism. What's next, patenting the concept of incentive stock options? Patenting the concept of sub-contracting? Patenting the concept of retail sales as to how they differ from wholesale sales? This is stupid.
It can also DRIVE a company to screw itself over, as Sony has done. Sony, in attempt to compete, threw in everything but the kitchen sink, which caused them to price themselves out of the market.
"Anyways, I didn't pirate it because my friend put it on my USB stick for me (fair use)."
No it's not "fair use", it's "casual piracy".
People (such as yourself) that claim such activity is "fair use" give "fair use" a bad name.
Are you claiming that the collective BBC taxes collected from Mac/Linux users is equal to the collective BBC taxes collected from Windows users? No? Then your post makes zero sense mathematically. BBC is already spending a lot more on a cost per user basis on the Mac/Linux users than the Windows users.
Amiga users are getting no support at all, yet each Amiga user pays the same tax as everyone else.
Maybe making a Windows-specific version that would serve 95% of the public was cheaper than a cross-platform version to get that extra 3% (I don't say 5% because there are still those that use neither Windows nor Mac nor Linux). Ever think of that, Einstein?
BBC said that Windows provides functionality that the other platforms don't, and they wanted to make use of that functionality as it would lower costs and would enhance the experience for there 95% Windows user base.
Mac and Linux users do pay BBC taxes, but the Windows users pay a collective 20 times as much. On a cost per user basis based on the taxes that are collected, the Windows client costs much less than does the Mac/Linux client. What BBC should do is charge on a per user basis, the cost it takes to create a client for a specific platform. Each Mac user would end up paying 20 times as much as a Windows user, and each Linux user would pay 10 times as much as a Mac user, but that would only be fair. As it is, Windows users taxes are going to pay for Mac/Linux client to a much greater extent than the reverse.
"From all reports, the Microsoft based client is buggy, difficult to set up, and is a bandwidth hog."
Bullshit. *All* reports say that, or only the ones you are predisposed to believe?
Why should we Amiga users be left out in the cold? We, the both of us, pay taxes that go to the BBC too!
IronPython, IronRuby, .NET's Dynamic Runtime Library (DLR) (used by .NET and Silverlight) are among the code that Microsoft has already released under Ms-PL.
Ahhh, the web-app loophole.
A company can use all GPL software it wants to create a web-app, distribute that app for use by the public, but not have to release their own code. But another company uses GPL code to make a similar app, but distributes it as a local binary rather than a web-app, and they *must* release their own code. Yeah, that's fair.
Why should creators of web-apps for use by the public be able to use GPL code without releasing their own code but not creators of compiled binaries?
I bet if Microsoft created an online version of Word/Excel using GPL code, you'd change your tune fast. But because it's Google that's stomping all over the spirit (if not the letter) of GPL, then it's just fine and dandy. After all, Google's not "evil". How do I know? Because Google told me so!!
Pathetic!