No, they're thumbing their nose at the same standards body over the same specification. Which is stupid for a company trying to garner votes for said standards body.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if the shills have been booted from the committee yet? I seem to recall seeing a bylaw that lets the committee chair remove inactive members, such as those who gained P status to vote for Microsoft, then never voted again.
Of course, w3schools is a site for web designers, rather than people who blindly use whichever browser is on their system.
My own site's statistics show the following browser numbers for November, spread across 19,983,489 hits: (numbers are rounded to the nearest percent) 56% Internet Explorer (5, 6, and 7) 27% Firefox (1, 1.5, and 2.0) 3% Safari 1% Generic Mozilla/4 browser (possibly a search engine) 1% Opera (9.2) 1% Netscape 4.8 (I'm guessing this is a spoof, but I can't really say)
The remaining 11% are made up of a number of other browsers, downloaders, spiders, and media players (it's a media site) that each have less than.4%.
All statistics like this are prone not only to errors, but to user agent spoofs, including those from search engines.
Except in the US they weren't convicted because the DOJ doesn't have a spine.
Microsoft agreed to a bunch of provisions in order to avoid being convicted of illegally leveraging their monopoly power.
Provisions that have time limits that will be coming up shortly... if they haven't already. I seem to recall November 2007 being mentioned as a cutoff date for some of them.
I beleive they have no problem in people implementing readers and writers usually. Microsoft were wanting to make it part of their saleable product without paying royalties. Microsot aren't your usual player.
That's the problem. Adobe was already publishing the PDF specification prior to it being ISO approved and telling people that it was OK to implement it. Except for Microsoft.
The big issue was, I think, that if they had PDF in MSOffice, they could artificially deprectate it by having a 'This format may not save all the features of this document, use ours instead'. That was the groklaw suspicion I recall. Everyone else says 'use this, use ours, whatever you want', which does not harm Adobe.
Except that, by all reports, Adobe would let them include it if Adobe were paid money. Heck, you pointed that out yourself.
Adobe lost the high ground as soon as it was revealed that they would let Microsoft include it if they were paid money when they were letting everyone else implement it for free. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft themselves point this out now that PDF is an ISO standard.
P.S. As a side note, it was Adobe Europe v Microsoft Europe because Microsoft is not a convicted monopolist in the US, thus Adobe has no leverage to sue them over it in the US.
Let me adjust those scores for you: +1 for Apple 0 for Adobe -3 for Microsoft -10 for Amazon (sorry Kindle, you're fucked)
Changes I made: Adobe lost 5 points for threatening to sue Microsoft the last time Microsoft tried implementing PDF in one of their products. Microsoft gained 2 points for the same thing, but since they're an evil company, I'm not willing to give them more points.
PDF can be implemented right up until Adobe threatens to sue you if you implement it. Although they're perfectly fine with you offering it as a free download instead.
I don't know about the grandparent, but the last time I posted a legal interpretation (based on reading relevant documents) and forgot to say I was not a lawyer, the first and only reply was about whether or not it was legal advice.
This is precisely why we have international Trademark categories in modern times: So companies in different businesses can have similarly named products, because there's no possible way the two could be confused.
Somehow, I doubt Hormel has a trademark on Spam for the computer software category.
In effect you are actually including parts of the GPL code into your own program, and therefore this is viral. (And no, viral isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is the best way to describe it)
That definition fails for dynamically linked executables. They don't have the library code compiled into their executable. Instead, they run the library code from a copy already installed on the computer.
This is why the GPL specifically uses phrases like "works based on it" which prevents you from weaseling out of it through dynamic linking.
Because Apple provide Java on Mac OS, not Sun. Remember how Microsoft provided the Windows version of Java, before Sun got pissed off with what they were doing with it and demanded it back? Same thing here, only Sun haven't got pissed off yet (hopefully soon!).
As far as I'm aware, Apple hasn't added a bunch of new commands to Java, then encouraged developers to use those commands as to make programs not work on Sun Java.
A fix implies a problem. I would challenge the notion that it's up to any one app to manage another's buffers, unless that is the application's specific and express intent.
Further, a fix to FF will NOT fix the problem (the exploit will still exist in QT), it will only fix it if FF acts as a container for plugins, something that's caused no end of pain from IE.
I agree. Lets just hope that Apple doesn't turn around and blame Mozilla like Mozilla Corp. did to Microsoft when they had a similar problem.
Now here's the key point that has come up time and time and time and time again. APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY!!! Software is an afterthought to them. They do a damned good job with software, but still, it's not their primary concern. Their primary concern is selling Macs. So keeping that in mind, the fact that they still support half a decade old hardware is saying something. Claim they're evil, say they need to support Linux, they need to sell cheaper computers, etc.
"And so the big secret about Apple, of course--not-so-big secret maybe--is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren't very many software companies left..." -- Steve Jobs, 2007 at D5
"You know, were really happy when our market share goes up a point and we love that and we work real hard at it, but Apple's fundamentally a software company..." -- Steve Jobs, 2007 at D5
The problem is, Apple started advertising that Macs could also run Windows back in mid 2006, over a year before Leopard launched.
One important note is this commercial started airing shortly after Boot Camp was announced. A later version of the same commercial changes the part that says "Purchase of Windows XP required." to "Purchase of Windows and Parallels software required." implying in the initial version that no extra software other than Windows was required.
If archive.org would actually pull up apple.com (Right now, it's returning "We're sorry. Your request failed to connect to our servers. We may be experiencing technical difficulties and suggest that you try again later." so I can't tell if apple.com is indexed or not), I would go check what it has to say on the getamac and getamac/windows pages say for May/June 2006.
I promise I'd only give the offender a hard time until they released a fix. For Apple, the next 10.x.y is about a month away. For Microsoft, the next SP is 6-12 months away. I don't see anything wrong with trashing Microsoft for that long, if that's how fast they can release a service pack.
Microsoft releases updates once a month, to the point where the second Tuesday every month is now nicknamed Patch Tuesday in Microsoft shops.
Or did you seriously think that Windows XP hasn't been updated since Service Pack 2 came out in 2004?
Hey, this particular problem was their own fault. They allowed an already fixed bug ("the bug was fixed on more recent Vista builds than the one they were using for the demo") to affect a public demonstration of a new feature; they deserve to take all the flak they got for it.
There used to be a site similar to NexGen Wars that split console sales by region.
However, even without those charts, since it's well known that the XBox 360 is doing worse in Japan than the Wii and PS3, by a considerable margin.
The corollary is that the XBox 360 is outselling the other two consoles in Europe and North America. If it wasn't, its numbers would have fallen much farther behind the Wiis than 500,000.
You don't buy software for your computer? You must be one of them communist open-source fags am I right? You people make me sick. I fought in Vietnam for people like you.
So, wait, which corporation sponsored Vietnam again?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't get the memo, but they proved that through their actions.
No, they're thumbing their nose at the same standards body over the same specification. Which is stupid for a company trying to garner votes for said standards body.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if the shills have been booted from the committee yet? I seem to recall seeing a bylaw that lets the committee chair remove inactive members, such as those who gained P status to vote for Microsoft, then never voted again.
Of course, w3schools is a site for web designers, rather than people who blindly use whichever browser is on their system.
.4%.
My own site's statistics show the following browser numbers for November, spread across 19,983,489 hits:
(numbers are rounded to the nearest percent)
56% Internet Explorer (5, 6, and 7)
27% Firefox (1, 1.5, and 2.0)
3% Safari
1% Generic Mozilla/4 browser (possibly a search engine)
1% Opera (9.2)
1% Netscape 4.8 (I'm guessing this is a spoof, but I can't really say)
The remaining 11% are made up of a number of other browsers, downloaders, spiders, and media players (it's a media site) that each have less than
All statistics like this are prone not only to errors, but to user agent spoofs, including those from search engines.
Except in the US they weren't convicted because the DOJ doesn't have a spine.
Microsoft agreed to a bunch of provisions in order to avoid being convicted of illegally leveraging their monopoly power.
Provisions that have time limits that will be coming up shortly... if they haven't already. I seem to recall November 2007 being mentioned as a cutoff date for some of them.
That's the problem. Adobe was already publishing the PDF specification prior to it being ISO approved and telling people that it was OK to implement it. Except for Microsoft.
Except that, by all reports, Adobe would let them include it if Adobe were paid money. Heck, you pointed that out yourself.
Adobe lost the high ground as soon as it was revealed that they would let Microsoft include it if they were paid money when they were letting everyone else implement it for free. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft themselves point this out now that PDF is an ISO standard.
P.S. As a side note, it was Adobe Europe v Microsoft Europe because Microsoft is not a convicted monopolist in the US, thus Adobe has no leverage to sue them over it in the US.
Let me adjust those scores for you:
+1 for Apple
0 for Adobe
-3 for Microsoft
-10 for Amazon (sorry Kindle, you're fucked)
Changes I made:
Adobe lost 5 points for threatening to sue Microsoft the last time Microsoft tried implementing PDF in one of their products.
Microsoft gained 2 points for the same thing, but since they're an evil company, I'm not willing to give them more points.
PDF can be implemented right up until Adobe threatens to sue you if you implement it. Although they're perfectly fine with you offering it as a free download instead.
"Go away you paperclip! No one likes you!" -- Stewie Griffin
I don't know about the grandparent, but the last time I posted a legal interpretation (based on reading relevant documents) and forgot to say I was not a lawyer, the first and only reply was about whether or not it was legal advice.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Zimmerman? Was he the one that said "Privacy? Google?! Pssh!"?
This is precisely why we have international Trademark categories in modern times: So companies in different businesses can have similarly named products, because there's no possible way the two could be confused.
Somehow, I doubt Hormel has a trademark on Spam for the computer software category.
I have to agree with nuzak. I still use my original PS2 which I think I bought in early 2002. I've never had to have it repaired either.
That definition fails for dynamically linked executables. They don't have the library code compiled into their executable. Instead, they run the library code from a copy already installed on the computer.
This is why the GPL specifically uses phrases like "works based on it" which prevents you from weaseling out of it through dynamic linking.
It's a good thing they aren't a nation, or we'd need them to declare war on themselves.
As far as I'm aware, Apple hasn't added a bunch of new commands to Java, then encouraged developers to use those commands as to make programs not work on Sun Java.
I agree. Lets just hope that Apple doesn't turn around and blame Mozilla like Mozilla Corp. did to Microsoft when they had a similar problem.
"And so the big secret about Apple, of course--not-so-big secret maybe--is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren't very many software companies left..." -- Steve Jobs, 2007 at D5
"You know, were really happy when our market share goes up a point and we love that and we work real hard at it, but Apple's fundamentally a software company..." -- Steve Jobs, 2007 at D5
Mac: Hello, I'm a Mac.
PC: and I'm a PC.
Mac: So, PC, I heard you had to reinstall the other day?
PC: Yeah, my last update made me have a system error and not boot. I had to reinstall my operating system. Well, you know how it is.
Mac: Actually... I don't, macs don't have that problem. Everything just works.
Or something along those lines.
The problem is, Apple started advertising that Macs could also run Windows back in mid 2006, over a year before Leopard launched.
One important note is this commercial started airing shortly after Boot Camp was announced. A later version of the same commercial changes the part that says "Purchase of Windows XP required." to "Purchase of Windows and Parallels software required." implying in the initial version that no extra software other than Windows was required.
If archive.org would actually pull up apple.com (Right now, it's returning "We're sorry. Your request failed to connect to our servers. We may be experiencing technical difficulties and suggest that you try again later." so I can't tell if apple.com is indexed or not), I would go check what it has to say on the getamac and getamac/windows pages say for May/June 2006.
Microsoft releases updates once a month, to the point where the second Tuesday every month is now nicknamed Patch Tuesday in Microsoft shops.
Or did you seriously think that Windows XP hasn't been updated since Service Pack 2 came out in 2004?
An FM tuner costs, what, $0.10 USD these days?
Hey, this particular problem was their own fault. They allowed an already fixed bug ("the bug was fixed on more recent Vista builds than the one they were using for the demo") to affect a public demonstration of a new feature; they deserve to take all the flak they got for it.
Voice-activated technology from Microsoft? Uh oh!
There used to be a site similar to NexGen Wars that split console sales by region.
However, even without those charts, since it's well known that the XBox 360 is doing worse in Japan than the Wii and PS3, by a considerable margin.
The corollary is that the XBox 360 is outselling the other two consoles in Europe and North America. If it wasn't, its numbers would have fallen much farther behind the Wiis than 500,000.
So, wait, which corporation sponsored Vietnam again?
I know Halliburton sponsored Iraq...