make sure that spam only gets sent to the country of origin somehow. That would eliminate 90% of my spam, which is from the US.
Is it sent from servers located outside the U.S. by companies based in the U.S.? If so, I would say it doesn't come from the U.S. any more than Nike shoes, Old Navy shirts, or (recently) Levi's jeans. Maybe it's sent by Russian companies who maintain a network of open relays by cracking home computers. Feel free to poke holes in my examples, but I think the point I'm making is valid enough.
Rubbish. There is not a single WMP-specific function that is present in any of the 'core' OS files, e.g. kernel32.dll, user32.dll, advapi32.dll...
WMP can be removed entirely from Windows, libraries and all, without any ill effects to the other Windows components.
Seems I should have looked up contend before using it. What I meant was that it is my personal belief, with no supporting facts. We know that this tactic was used for Internet Explorer. I have no facts to back it up, but I'm quite certain that some update to WMP 7.x, and all versions beyond it included updates to core OS libs to add new functionality, mostly relating to DRM. To me that means that OS DLLs have WMP functions in them, and can't be removed from the OS.
I said "WMP has access to a better API." You asked me to provide a reference to which API. I said that I can't because it's undocumented, and that the lack of documentation is the reason for my complaint. Then you clarified your request and misquoted me. I did not state that "wmp uses special api's" but rather that WMP has access to them. Yes, I implied WMP uses undocumented APIs, but I did not state it as fact as you claim by using quotations. I can't prove that WMP uses undocumented APIs without the full source code any more than you can disprove it without the source code. So what I did was provide examples of past behavior accepted as fact by U.S. federal court judges and source code which, I have been led to believe, demonstrates Microsoft continued the practice no less than 1.5 years ago.
There is no public proof either way without complete source code. There is only a demonstration that this is how Microsoft designed applications in the past, even after they were convicted of illegal monopoly abuse over it (and other things).
Feel free to "try this again" but please refrain from misquoting me to suit your arguments.
I would think that it proves that despite twice telling U.S. Federal courts it wouldn't do so, Microsoft has recently used undocumented APIs in their applications. Kindly notice that in this thread I never actually stated as fact that they do use undocumented APIs, I've stated that they have access to them. With reference to the leaked code, I didn't say it proves as fact, I said it was my impression that it demonstrates. I seem to be taking a fair amount of flack for believing that Microsoft doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt on this issue, and that's fine. Because I can't prove my belief to be true without access to the code, and neither can you prove your belief to be true without the same. I just think the preponderance of past evidence is in my favor.
But until then, quit blabbing on about stuff that happened 8 years ago and has been addressed.
I was under the impression that the 1.5 year old Windows 2000 code recently leaked on the internet demonstrated that Microsoft applications were making use of undocumented OS APIs.
Care to provide a reference to which "better" API you are talking about?
It's well known that Windows has undocumented APIs which are used by Microsoft applications. This was borne out in the U.S. anti-trust trial and again in the recent code leak. And if they were documented such that I could reference them, then I wouldn't be here complaining that Microsoft applications have access to a different platform than what competing applications have access to.
Or are you just making things up and assuming that since it sounds anti-msft, people will assume it's true? Because I can play that game too: linux can't compete with windows on the desktop, because windows has access to super-secret extra registers on intel chips that are hidden from linux. Wow, that was easy.
Wow, you really are dense. How about Intel's mobile graphics chipsets which use a chunk of main memory (yes I know they are supported now, but with each new chipset, there is a lag)? How about winmodems? How about Broadcom WiFi chipsets? How about I stop feeding the troll?
iPod, iTunes, and iTMS all work natively on Windows. I'd be surprised to see enough people choose a service that doesn't let you burn to CD or play on another computer beat Apple's service.Perhaps if Mirosoft builds a purchasing/delivery system into WMP they have a chance. But even then I think people would be sufficiently disappointed with the restrictions. Any time I talk to people about the different services, they either like Apple because of it's minimal DRM or don't like any because they're still too expensive.
You do bring up a good point, but the contrast is you have the choice of environments to run, and a Gnome app has equal access to all the KDE APIs that a KDE app has, and vice versa.
Microsoft hasn't been able to unseat Apple in the online Music distribution, and I doubt they ever will. This is an example of customers deciding which offering will win. The customers are saying, in no uncertain terms, the restrictions on usage imposed by Windows DRM are unacceptable. The restrictions imposed by Apple DRM are a fair trade for the product. Microsoft already has licensing dealswith several large music services, and Apple beats them all combined. Because the customers say so. I believe that if Microsofts involves itself in online movie distribution in the same manner as it has for music, Apple will have no trouble beating them in that market by doing the movie equivalent of iTunes+iTMS.
The unfortunate reality of all this, however, is that Microsoft will still have an unfair advantage,when it comes to the number of installations of competing products, due to the collaboration between the OS and Apps.
Bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP (and having it installed as the default media app.) removes any need the typical consumer might have to investigate other options
I think including Windows Media Player has this effect. I think for the pruposes of these trials, bundling means to make the app a part of the OS. It means WMP can't be removed, you will always have it on your system, even if you expressly don't want it. And also that WMP has more access to the system than competing products, so it appears to work better. So even the people who do look at alternatives get the impression that the Microsoft tools are just better anyways.
I don't really think it matters which products they include. It's a stupid settlement because it doesn't address the problem: Microsoft applications have access to a different platform than similar applications by published by competitors. As long as that is true, than Microsoft is guilty of abusing their monopoly position.
Well, the inclusion of competitors products was Microsoft's idea for settlement. The government should be trying to force Microsoft to competitors in the application space the same access to OS-level APIs as their own developers receive. I think the licensing is important too, but until there is a level playing field to develop products to the same platform (I believe having access to a restriced API means it's not the same platform) it won't change much to let OEMs install competing products. There still won't be room to compete on technical merit, letting the customers decide.
surf the web from anywhere for either free or cheap then it will be a very great day and society will change a great deal.
Yeah, I mean just imagine all the new places we can look at pr0n, and the new kinds of pr0n to accomodate them. I wonder what web technologies the rest of the world will get out of all this newly mobilized pr0n.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Is it sent from servers located outside the U.S. by companies based in the U.S.? If so, I would say it doesn't come from the U.S. any more than Nike shoes, Old Navy shirts, or (recently) Levi's jeans. Maybe it's sent by Russian companies who maintain a network of open relays by cracking home computers. Feel free to poke holes in my examples, but I think the point I'm making is valid enough.
There is no public proof either way without complete source code. There is only a demonstration that this is how Microsoft designed applications in the past, even after they were convicted of illegal monopoly abuse over it (and other things).
Feel free to "try this again" but please refrain from misquoting me to suit your arguments.
I would think that it proves that despite twice telling U.S. Federal courts it wouldn't do so, Microsoft has recently used undocumented APIs in their applications. Kindly notice that in this thread I never actually stated as fact that they do use undocumented APIs, I've stated that they have access to them. With reference to the leaked code, I didn't say it proves as fact, I said it was my impression that it demonstrates. I seem to be taking a fair amount of flack for believing that Microsoft doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt on this issue, and that's fine. Because I can't prove my belief to be true without access to the code, and neither can you prove your belief to be true without the same. I just think the preponderance of past evidence is in my favor.
Is that pronounced lin-woes? I'd like to reserve that for any future release of a Microsoft Linux distribution.
It certainly has that night-time look to it.
I was under the impression that the 1.5 year old Windows 2000 code recently leaked on the internet demonstrated that Microsoft applications were making use of undocumented OS APIs.
It's well known that Windows has undocumented APIs which are used by Microsoft applications. This was borne out in the U.S. anti-trust trial and again in the recent code leak. And if they were documented such that I could reference them, then I wouldn't be here complaining that Microsoft applications have access to a different platform than what competing applications have access to.
Or are you just making things up and assuming that since it sounds anti-msft, people will assume it's true? Because I can play that game too: linux can't compete with windows on the desktop, because windows has access to super-secret extra registers on intel chips that are hidden from linux. Wow, that was easy.
Wow, you really are dense. How about Intel's mobile graphics chipsets which use a chunk of main memory (yes I know they are supported now, but with each new chipset, there is a lag)? How about winmodems? How about Broadcom WiFi chipsets? How about I stop feeding the troll?
iPod, iTunes, and iTMS all work natively on Windows. I'd be surprised to see enough people choose a service that doesn't let you burn to CD or play on another computer beat Apple's service.Perhaps if Mirosoft builds a purchasing/delivery system into WMP they have a chance. But even then I think people would be sufficiently disappointed with the restrictions. Any time I talk to people about the different services, they either like Apple because of it's minimal DRM or don't like any because they're still too expensive.
I would contend that some WMP libraries are included in OS DLLs, which means that as long as you have the OS running, WMP is partially loaded.
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
I don't actually have anything to contribue here, I just don't like to pass up such opportunities.
You do bring up a good point, but the contrast is you have the choice of environments to run, and a Gnome app has equal access to all the KDE APIs that a KDE app has, and vice versa.
Even then it still can't compete because WMP has access to a better API. The file associations can already be set with the tool on the start menu.
The unfortunate reality of all this, however, is that Microsoft will still have an unfair advantage ,when it comes to the number of installations of competing products, due to the collaboration between the OS and Apps.
I think including Windows Media Player has this effect. I think for the pruposes of these trials, bundling means to make the app a part of the OS. It means WMP can't be removed, you will always have it on your system, even if you expressly don't want it. And also that WMP has more access to the system than competing products, so it appears to work better. So even the people who do look at alternatives get the impression that the Microsoft tools are just better anyways.
Sure, they can encode some forming information as binary data as the value of a tag, and not document how it is encoded.
I don't really think it matters which products they include. It's a stupid settlement because it doesn't address the problem: Microsoft applications have access to a different platform than similar applications by published by competitors. As long as that is true, than Microsoft is guilty of abusing their monopoly position.
I have to give you props for what is, in my opinion, the nerdiest sig I've ever seen.
Well, the inclusion of competitors products was Microsoft's idea for settlement. The government should be trying to force Microsoft to competitors in the application space the same access to OS-level APIs as their own developers receive. I think the licensing is important too, but until there is a level playing field to develop products to the same platform (I believe having access to a restriced API means it's not the same platform) it won't change much to let OEMs install competing products. There still won't be room to compete on technical merit, letting the customers decide.
Regulated monopolies are fine. It's just unchecked monopolies which abuse their position that suck.
Not any more, we finally have number portability in the U.S..
Faith Plus One rules, don't you think? I mean, who wouldn't want to take a nice walk on the beach with Jesus and feel Jesus's love on their face?
Yeah, I mean just imagine all the new places we can look at pr0n, and the new kinds of pr0n to accomodate them. I wonder what web technologies the rest of the world will get out of all this newly mobilized pr0n. ;)
Southwestern Bell
Uh, Southwestern Bell. They're pretty freakin big.
NTFS and MP3 are encumbered by patent issues which make them incompatible with the GPL, which means Red Hat doesn't ship them. ;)