Because most of us have been smart enough to steer clear of Mono, therefore pulling the plug now would do little to no damage, therefore Microsoft has not done it yet. Duh.
So you are saying that Microsoft's final aim is to piss off developers, and that they would only pull the plug when there are enough people who would be inconvenienced by their actions.
That does not make sense. If Microsoft did not want anybody to use Mono then they would stop them before they chose that option. Pissing people off does not make for happy users being converted to Microsoft's own software.
If they didn't want people to use their language and their CLR on other operating systems then they would not have made it into an ECMA standard - they would have just made the whole thing copyrighted and guarded it jealously to ensure that theirs was the only option for this language.
There is no evidence to back up this claim of an elaborate deception by Microsoft. They have done absolutely nothing to dissuade people from using Mono - in fact they have encouraged it. There has been no public or leaked private statements about the future of the standard to suggest what you are saying. There is no precedent of Microsoft performing such a huge bait and switch scam on their end users.
Toolbar? I don't see any backwards-P on the 'ribbon'.
It is on the Home tab, in the paragraph block of commands. I don't use a new enough version of Office that has a ribbon, but 3 seconds on Google found how to do it.
If they can get everybody over to.Net/Mono, then the extinguish part is easy.
But why would Microsoft then extinguish Mono after getting the developers to use it? What possible benefit could there be? That is the problem. Everyone is saying that they will clamp down on Mono, but nobody has a satisfactory explanation to why they would do it (after being encouraged to make the development environment). It would not encourage developers to move to any future Microsoft platform.
I may actually be reading you wrong though. In your quote, you may mean that Microsoft will extinguish Java instead. In that case, what is the downside to using Mono if it is Java that would disappear? Not that I think that Java would disappear.
We don't need to know much more about Mono than that people like you support it.
People like me? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Do you mean the people who support Mono? If so your quote would actually read:
We don't need to know much more about Mono than that people who support Mono support it.
That is a stupidly circular argument, so that can't be what you mean. I suppose you mean the people who can look at the facts of the situation, as opposed to a person like you, who stick their fingers in their ears and yells "Nya Nya Nya Microsoft is evil" as if that is enough of an argument.
You haven't said a thing about the points that I have raised in this matter. Why hasn't Microsoft pulled the plug on Mono already, if that is what they want to do? What is the benefit for them to promote the project to their developers, and then piss everyone off by extinguishing the development platform after people have started using it? This would cause an exodus away from all Microsoft technologies in the developer community.
What about the Microsoft Community Promise? How do YOU think a judge would react if Microsoft tore up that promise and started suing people? I can tell you that they do not take too kindly to those bait and switch techniques. Microsoft would lose any lawsuit because of this, and they know it.
How do you think the EU would react to such anti-competitive behaviour if Microsoft starts suing the very people it encouraged to use their IP? They would come down hard on them with fines and sanctions and Microsoft knows it. They would not risk this happening.
How do you think the mainstream press would react to such a juicy story. Nothing makes people angrier than a huge corporation going after the little underdog. Once again, Microsoft would know this. They would not risk offending the developers or users at such a time when there is more and more diversity of viable non-Microsoft operating systems and development environments.
So that is the kind of person that I am. Someone who raises these questions, and hopes to get a sensible response to them. Unfortunately, all I am getting is "I know Microsoft", "I met Miguel" and now the rather perplexing "We don't need to know much more about Mono than that people like you support it". None of these are logical arguments. You are not addressing the issues, just pouring scorn on the people and company involved.
But they can't "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" something that Microsoft invented themselves. The phrase refers to Microsoft adopting a standard and then adding their own extensions to it thereby diluting the interoperability. In this case Microsoft developed the language and CLR, made them as standards but didn't standardize some of the class libraries that they use on Windows (the most prominent being the Windows Presentation Foundation). But guess what? The C language has survived for years with people writing their own proprietary libraries.
If anything, it is the Mono Project that embraced Microsoft's standard. They extended the system with their own libraries. Obviously there is no extinguish part.
Both Mono and.NET have classes that are specific to their own implementation. If you want to support both then you just have to limit yourself to the base classes. If you want to just target Mono then use their extensions. For example, there are numerous GUI Toolkits for Mono that you can use instead of WPF.
(Sigh) Except they have never done anything that people are saying they will do this time. What you call experience, I call bias. That is not to say that Microsoft has not done bad things in the past. It is just that none of those things are comparable to what is happening now.
They are not stupid enough to start breaking their written promises to the public, and the courts would not allow them to do so even if they did.
plus, if they were serious and truthful about it, they would have opened it and relinquished absoluted control via some kind of overseeing foundation / steering committee. which they most assuredly didn't.
Like Sun relinquished Java when they invented it? Oh wait, they didn't. On the other hand languages like C++ are completely standardized, but look how slowly that changes compared to Java and C#. The benefit of maintaining control is that you don't get stuck in endless committees having mass debates about every tiny detail in the language.
Once again you have managed to post a message with no actual content. Your argument thus far has been that you know Microsoft and you once met Miguel de Icaza. Wow, how insightful. You can't give any reason for avoiding Mono because there is no real reason. Anything will have to be based on some vague fear of the future.
Nobody cares whether Microsoft buries Mono with patents, you say? You obviously have not been reading all the posts here saying not to use it because of the risk of Microsoft's patents.
Finally you claim that I don't belong to this community because I am not as paranoid as you. Why would you want to go to a site where everyone has to agree with what you say? Unlike you, I am happy to read other opinions. If someone can make a logical argument then it challenges my own and this can either change my mind or force me to justify my opinions.
But if someone just resorts to straight out contradiction, or can only back up an idea with "I know the company" then it does not add anything to a useful discussion.
Seriously? After what I said, that is the response that is supposed to put me in my place? I suppose I will have to just concede to your superior argument and wit (or lack thereof).
Yeah it's as though a thirty-year history of duplicitous business practices and hostility to standards makes people unwilling to trust them. Go fig.
But nobody is asking you to use any Microsoft software that doesn't follow the standards. This is about using open source software that follows an ECMA standard. It doesn't matter if.NET moves away from that standard if you are targeting the Mono CLR. If you are really paranoid then write your software using the Gtk# classes and you can be completely free of Microsoft's influence.
The patents covering the EMCA standards are part of the Microsoft Community Promise. If Microsoft decided to reneg on that promise and start suing people, do you think a judge would look favourably on that? No, they would be laughed out of court.
nope, they're saying that the copyright/patent situation is not clear at all, and that MS pushing c# so hard right now, including via mono, in no way guarantees that they won't have a change of mind 5 months - 6 years from now, and close everything up again.
They could also send out death squads to kill anyone who writes buggy software in C#. Or not.
It is one thing to have doubts about whether Microsoft are lying about making an open standard, but it is another to then take every opportunity to convince the world that they are doing exactly that - even if it is completely contrary to every action that Microsoft has taken since it created.NET.
All you are saying is that you fear that they may eventually turn against the developer community, that you can't be certain what their ultimate goal is, and that you have grave doubts about their motivations.
But that is not facts, just classic FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Thanks for that. I will remember your message if I ever get in a discussion about changing people's names. Doesn't quite seem the same as taking naked pictures of someone without their knowledge or consent to transmit to an unknown person in the Internet.
If it is part of the rental agreement, then it is most certainly not surreptitious.
And was it part of the rental agreement? I don't recall seeing that in TFA. I am sure that if it was part of the agreement then it would have been hidden away in lots of legal gobble-de-goop.
It certainly seems that the customers in this case were not aware that they would be photographed by their own computer. The boy in question would definitely have had no idea. I think that I will stand by my description of "surreptitiously taken", thanks all the same.
That is a 2/10 on the original COPINE Scale, and it does not appear at all on the SAP scale at all (note, I am not talking about posed pictures).
Surely it would have to be 3/10 since the photos were "surreptitiously taken" (especially as they were in a place where there was an expectation of privacy).
However, I agree that this is bad enough as an invasion of privacy that we don't need to start applying kiddie porn tags to make this seem worse. I can't legally give permission to film my wife in my home without her permission or knowledge, so it seems reasonable that I can't do it on behalf of my kids either.
regardless of whether its FUD or not, its been going on too long now to put the fire out.
And in the open source world, as soon as something is despised or rejected by the community at large, its days are numbered.
I don't know about that. The Mono Project has had to wear these accusations since it began and yet it still grows better all the time. Just because a few vocal people are against it does not mean that it will go away. I think that their branching out into the mobile phone arena will keep their profile up and ensure the project doesn't die.
Let's face it, Windows is despised in the open source community too and yet there is still quite a lot of support for the operating system in open source software. Sure it will reduce the number of developers using it, but there is still plenty of software being written using Mono - both open and closed source. Now I think about it, it is probably the private companies writing using Mono as familiar way of moving their in-house software to Linux that will ensure the future of the platform - and be a reason that even Microsoft haters should support the programming platform.
Sometimes fear, uncertainty, and doubt are warranted. IMO any time you're dealing with MS you should be fearful, uncertain, and doubtful. MS does have a history, you know.
No, Microsoft does not have a history of breaking their Microsoft Community Promise. They have never created a standard and then sued everybody for using that standard. (No, FAT32 was always a proprietary file system)
Mono is not going to be killed by Microsoft's patents, just like OpenOffice was not targetted for using Microsoft's file formats (despite being rumoured for years that MS was just about to sue). You are correct that Microsoft do have a history, but it appears to be a history of letting others use their IP if it is not something that they actively licence.
So why doesn't Microsoft sue? Because it would be a public relations nightmare - just as it was for SCO. That is the nail in the coffin for this FUD for me. Microsoft are just not stupid enough to put themselves in the position of such a David and Goliath lawsuit by going after the open source community.
Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
So on one hand we have people stating that we should avoid Mono because Microsoft does not like the competition and will eventually crush it with their patents, while on the other hand we should avoid Mono because Microsoft likes it and showcases it as evidence of the.NET CLR cross platform status.
It seems Microsoft can't do anything right!
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
It is quite damning of Miguel that he has lost the support of the paranoid set. So what has he actually done? He has created a programming platform that works, has withstood the test of time, and that has not been crushed under the legal might if Microsoft. He proved the naysayers wrong.
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
This is the very definition of FUD. You have some assumptions made up of complete guesswork, and from that you try to scare the development community from using this language/platform. You have absolutely no facts to back up your assertions, and yet year after year people keep spreading this FUD and year after year it does not come true.
The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
So what is the answer? To avoid applications written in C#? If you do that, then you have already lost the applications without any lawsuits being filed. The paranoia wins.
In years to come, when Microsoft moves on to its next programming system that supplants.NET, I am sure you will pat yourself on the back saying how you saved the open source world from an attack that only existed in your imagination. It is like Donald Trump fanning the flames of a nutjob conspiracy, and then claiming a victory because the unlikely accusations proved to be untrue.
If you did you would have called the judge an "incompetent, two-bit corporate shill" instead.
It seems to me that the judge is quite a competent two-bit corporate shill.
What was that saying about not attributing to malice what could be attributed to stupidity? Well, attributing an action to both malice AND stupidity is really just hedging your bets.
A convertible isn't a tablet. It is a notebook with a touch screen. All convertibles only have 2-3 applications which use the touch interface the rest you need the keyboard/mouse for.
I have a convertible on which I loaded standard Windows 7. It works fine in every program. You certainly don't need custom applications. The OS comes with support for system wide gestures, on screen keyboard (a choice of two actually) and handwriting recognition. It does more than duplicate the mouse.
Have you the the emails? If so, which back-handed deals were revealed? Did money change hands? Or does this idea stem from a general, out-of-context comment?
No, this is an announcement of academic research. It is quite usual for there to be many years between development of a technique at a university and a real-world product launch by commercial companies. This is not some company trying to prevent the sales of a competitor that beat them to the punch. It is just the standard development process in action that happened to pretty much all the technology that you use right now.
For academic institutions, the idea IS the product. That is why it is perfectly acceptable to discuss things like the efficiency of this technique. If everyone waited until some company had created a product before talking about it then it would be a waste of time if it turned out that the idea resulted in something that was worse than what we had before.
What a time for me not to have mod points. This is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.
People always underestimate what children are capable of understanding. Children are naive and do not have fully developed decision making skills, but they do understand their limitations if you are honest with them. By attempting to hide everything from a child that you deem inappropriate, you lose valuable education opportunities for them.
For example, with sex you can say that their bodies will grow faster than their ability to handle the dangers of sexual relationships. If you tell them this too late (when they are teenagers) they will take offense at it - nobody teen likes to be told that they are not ready for some things. If you want to know how to deal with a rebellious teenager, just teach them how to be a teenager before it happens. Preparation is the key.
They were the same thing, or at least belonged to the same family of libraries.
That is an implementation issue. It is like saying that a picture of a naked woman is the same as a picture of a fire truck because they both are made with pixels. If my wife didn't fall for that, then I don't see why we should do so now.
The real difference between the two animated characters is in how they are used. One actively intrudes over the user's work, while the other is just a bit of decoration. The proof of the difference is that Clippy is much hated and ridiculed, while the other is pretty much ignored (with a few hysterical exceptions).
Slashdot Mirror
Because most of us have been smart enough to steer clear of Mono, therefore pulling the plug now would do little to no damage, therefore Microsoft has not done it yet. Duh.
So you are saying that Microsoft's final aim is to piss off developers, and that they would only pull the plug when there are enough people who would be inconvenienced by their actions.
That does not make sense. If Microsoft did not want anybody to use Mono then they would stop them before they chose that option. Pissing people off does not make for happy users being converted to Microsoft's own software.
If they didn't want people to use their language and their CLR on other operating systems then they would not have made it into an ECMA standard - they would have just made the whole thing copyrighted and guarded it jealously to ensure that theirs was the only option for this language.
There is no evidence to back up this claim of an elaborate deception by Microsoft. They have done absolutely nothing to dissuade people from using Mono - in fact they have encouraged it. There has been no public or leaked private statements about the future of the standard to suggest what you are saying. There is no precedent of Microsoft performing such a huge bait and switch scam on their end users.
Toolbar? I don't see any backwards-P on the 'ribbon'.
It is on the Home tab, in the paragraph block of commands. I don't use a new enough version of Office that has a ribbon, but 3 seconds on Google found how to do it.
If they can get everybody over to .Net/Mono, then the extinguish part is easy.
But why would Microsoft then extinguish Mono after getting the developers to use it? What possible benefit could there be? That is the problem. Everyone is saying that they will clamp down on Mono, but nobody has a satisfactory explanation to why they would do it (after being encouraged to make the development environment). It would not encourage developers to move to any future Microsoft platform.
I may actually be reading you wrong though. In your quote, you may mean that Microsoft will extinguish Java instead. In that case, what is the downside to using Mono if it is Java that would disappear? Not that I think that Java would disappear.
We don't need to know much more about Mono than that people like you support it.
People like me? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Do you mean the people who support Mono? If so your quote would actually read:
We don't need to know much more about Mono than that people who support Mono support it.
That is a stupidly circular argument, so that can't be what you mean. I suppose you mean the people who can look at the facts of the situation, as opposed to a person like you, who stick their fingers in their ears and yells "Nya Nya Nya Microsoft is evil" as if that is enough of an argument.
You haven't said a thing about the points that I have raised in this matter. Why hasn't Microsoft pulled the plug on Mono already, if that is what they want to do? What is the benefit for them to promote the project to their developers, and then piss everyone off by extinguishing the development platform after people have started using it? This would cause an exodus away from all Microsoft technologies in the developer community.
What about the Microsoft Community Promise? How do YOU think a judge would react if Microsoft tore up that promise and started suing people? I can tell you that they do not take too kindly to those bait and switch techniques. Microsoft would lose any lawsuit because of this, and they know it.
How do you think the EU would react to such anti-competitive behaviour if Microsoft starts suing the very people it encouraged to use their IP? They would come down hard on them with fines and sanctions and Microsoft knows it. They would not risk this happening.
How do you think the mainstream press would react to such a juicy story. Nothing makes people angrier than a huge corporation going after the little underdog. Once again, Microsoft would know this. They would not risk offending the developers or users at such a time when there is more and more diversity of viable non-Microsoft operating systems and development environments.
So that is the kind of person that I am. Someone who raises these questions, and hopes to get a sensible response to them. Unfortunately, all I am getting is "I know Microsoft", "I met Miguel" and now the rather perplexing "We don't need to know much more about Mono than that people like you support it". None of these are logical arguments. You are not addressing the issues, just pouring scorn on the people and company involved.
But they can't "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" something that Microsoft invented themselves. The phrase refers to Microsoft adopting a standard and then adding their own extensions to it thereby diluting the interoperability. In this case Microsoft developed the language and CLR, made them as standards but didn't standardize some of the class libraries that they use on Windows (the most prominent being the Windows Presentation Foundation). But guess what? The C language has survived for years with people writing their own proprietary libraries.
If anything, it is the Mono Project that embraced Microsoft's standard. They extended the system with their own libraries. Obviously there is no extinguish part.
Both Mono and .NET have classes that are specific to their own implementation. If you want to support both then you just have to limit yourself to the base classes. If you want to just target Mono then use their extensions. For example, there are numerous GUI Toolkits for Mono that you can use instead of WPF.
this is MS. It's not FUD, it's experience !
(Sigh) Except they have never done anything that people are saying they will do this time. What you call experience, I call bias. That is not to say that Microsoft has not done bad things in the past. It is just that none of those things are comparable to what is happening now.
They are not stupid enough to start breaking their written promises to the public, and the courts would not allow them to do so even if they did.
plus, if they were serious and truthful about it, they would have opened it and relinquished absoluted control via some kind of overseeing foundation / steering committee. which they most assuredly didn't.
Like Sun relinquished Java when they invented it? Oh wait, they didn't. On the other hand languages like C++ are completely standardized, but look how slowly that changes compared to Java and C#. The benefit of maintaining control is that you don't get stuck in endless committees having mass debates about every tiny detail in the language.
Once again you have managed to post a message with no actual content. Your argument thus far has been that you know Microsoft and you once met Miguel de Icaza. Wow, how insightful. You can't give any reason for avoiding Mono because there is no real reason. Anything will have to be based on some vague fear of the future.
Nobody cares whether Microsoft buries Mono with patents, you say? You obviously have not been reading all the posts here saying not to use it because of the risk of Microsoft's patents.
Finally you claim that I don't belong to this community because I am not as paranoid as you. Why would you want to go to a site where everyone has to agree with what you say? Unlike you, I am happy to read other opinions. If someone can make a logical argument then it challenges my own and this can either change my mind or force me to justify my opinions.
But if someone just resorts to straight out contradiction, or can only back up an idea with "I know the company" then it does not add anything to a useful discussion.
He proved the naysayers wrong.
No he didn't.
Seriously? After what I said, that is the response that is supposed to put me in my place? I suppose I will have to just concede to your superior argument and wit (or lack thereof).
Yeah it's as though a thirty-year history of duplicitous business practices and hostility to standards makes people unwilling to trust them. Go fig.
But nobody is asking you to use any Microsoft software that doesn't follow the standards. This is about using open source software that follows an ECMA standard. It doesn't matter if .NET moves away from that standard if you are targeting the Mono CLR. If you are really paranoid then write your software using the Gtk# classes and you can be completely free of Microsoft's influence.
The patents covering the EMCA standards are part of the Microsoft Community Promise. If Microsoft decided to reneg on that promise and start suing people, do you think a judge would look favourably on that? No, they would be laughed out of court.
nope, they're saying that the copyright/patent situation is not clear at all, and that MS pushing c# so hard right now, including via mono, in no way guarantees that they won't have a change of mind 5 months - 6 years from now, and close everything up again.
They could also send out death squads to kill anyone who writes buggy software in C#. Or not.
It is one thing to have doubts about whether Microsoft are lying about making an open standard, but it is another to then take every opportunity to convince the world that they are doing exactly that - even if it is completely contrary to every action that Microsoft has taken since it created .NET.
All you are saying is that you fear that they may eventually turn against the developer community, that you can't be certain what their ultimate goal is, and that you have grave doubts about their motivations.
But that is not facts, just classic FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Thanks for that. I will remember your message if I ever get in a discussion about changing people's names. Doesn't quite seem the same as taking naked pictures of someone without their knowledge or consent to transmit to an unknown person in the Internet.
If it is part of the rental agreement, then it is most certainly not surreptitious.
And was it part of the rental agreement? I don't recall seeing that in TFA. I am sure that if it was part of the agreement then it would have been hidden away in lots of legal gobble-de-goop.
It certainly seems that the customers in this case were not aware that they would be photographed by their own computer. The boy in question would definitely have had no idea. I think that I will stand by my description of "surreptitiously taken", thanks all the same.
That is a 2/10 on the original COPINE Scale, and it does not appear at all on the SAP scale at all (note, I am not talking about posed pictures).
Surely it would have to be 3/10 since the photos were "surreptitiously taken" (especially as they were in a place where there was an expectation of privacy).
However, I agree that this is bad enough as an invasion of privacy that we don't need to start applying kiddie porn tags to make this seem worse. I can't legally give permission to film my wife in my home without her permission or knowledge, so it seems reasonable that I can't do it on behalf of my kids either.
regardless of whether its FUD or not, its been going on too long now to put the fire out.
And in the open source world, as soon as something is despised or rejected by the community at large, its days are numbered.
I don't know about that. The Mono Project has had to wear these accusations since it began and yet it still grows better all the time. Just because a few vocal people are against it does not mean that it will go away. I think that their branching out into the mobile phone arena will keep their profile up and ensure the project doesn't die.
Let's face it, Windows is despised in the open source community too and yet there is still quite a lot of support for the operating system in open source software. Sure it will reduce the number of developers using it, but there is still plenty of software being written using Mono - both open and closed source. Now I think about it, it is probably the private companies writing using Mono as familiar way of moving their in-house software to Linux that will ensure the future of the platform - and be a reason that even Microsoft haters should support the programming platform.
Sometimes fear, uncertainty, and doubt are warranted. IMO any time you're dealing with MS you should be fearful, uncertain, and doubtful. MS does have a history, you know.
No, Microsoft does not have a history of breaking their Microsoft Community Promise. They have never created a standard and then sued everybody for using that standard. (No, FAT32 was always a proprietary file system)
Mono is not going to be killed by Microsoft's patents, just like OpenOffice was not targetted for using Microsoft's file formats (despite being rumoured for years that MS was just about to sue). You are correct that Microsoft do have a history, but it appears to be a history of letting others use their IP if it is not something that they actively licence.
So why doesn't Microsoft sue? Because it would be a public relations nightmare - just as it was for SCO. That is the nail in the coffin for this FUD for me. Microsoft are just not stupid enough to put themselves in the position of such a David and Goliath lawsuit by going after the open source community.
Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
So on one hand we have people stating that we should avoid Mono because Microsoft does not like the competition and will eventually crush it with their patents, while on the other hand we should avoid Mono because Microsoft likes it and showcases it as evidence of the .NET CLR cross platform status.
It seems Microsoft can't do anything right!
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
It is quite damning of Miguel that he has lost the support of the paranoid set. So what has he actually done? He has created a programming platform that works, has withstood the test of time, and that has not been crushed under the legal might if Microsoft. He proved the naysayers wrong.
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
This is the very definition of FUD. You have some assumptions made up of complete guesswork, and from that you try to scare the development community from using this language/platform. You have absolutely no facts to back up your assertions, and yet year after year people keep spreading this FUD and year after year it does not come true.
The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
So what is the answer? To avoid applications written in C#? If you do that, then you have already lost the applications without any lawsuits being filed. The paranoia wins.
In years to come, when Microsoft moves on to its next programming system that supplants .NET, I am sure you will pat yourself on the back saying how you saved the open source world from an attack that only existed in your imagination. It is like Donald Trump fanning the flames of a nutjob conspiracy, and then claiming a victory because the unlikely accusations proved to be untrue.
If you did you would have called the judge an "incompetent, two-bit corporate shill" instead.
It seems to me that the judge is quite a competent two-bit corporate shill.
What was that saying about not attributing to malice what could be attributed to stupidity? Well, attributing an action to both malice AND stupidity is really just hedging your bets.
A convertible isn't a tablet. It is a notebook with a touch screen. All convertibles only have 2-3 applications which use the touch interface the rest you need the keyboard/mouse for.
I have a convertible on which I loaded standard Windows 7. It works fine in every program. You certainly don't need custom applications. The OS comes with support for system wide gestures, on screen keyboard (a choice of two actually) and handwriting recognition. It does more than duplicate the mouse.
Have you the the emails? If so, which back-handed deals were revealed? Did money change hands? Or does this idea stem from a general, out-of-context comment?
Be accurate.
Some media claimed model says global warming will stop tornados.
Who in the media has claimed this, and to which model did they refer? This is the first time I have heard anyone make this suggestion.
...you can grab an HD MP4 of it from a Torrent site the day after it airs?
I fixed that for you. You have got to be more careful about following the rules.
Sounds like vapor anyway.
No, this is an announcement of academic research. It is quite usual for there to be many years between development of a technique at a university and a real-world product launch by commercial companies. This is not some company trying to prevent the sales of a competitor that beat them to the punch. It is just the standard development process in action that happened to pretty much all the technology that you use right now.
For academic institutions, the idea IS the product. That is why it is perfectly acceptable to discuss things like the efficiency of this technique. If everyone waited until some company had created a product before talking about it then it would be a waste of time if it turned out that the idea resulted in something that was worse than what we had before.
What a time for me not to have mod points. This is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.
People always underestimate what children are capable of understanding. Children are naive and do not have fully developed decision making skills, but they do understand their limitations if you are honest with them. By attempting to hide everything from a child that you deem inappropriate, you lose valuable education opportunities for them.
For example, with sex you can say that their bodies will grow faster than their ability to handle the dangers of sexual relationships. If you tell them this too late (when they are teenagers) they will take offense at it - nobody teen likes to be told that they are not ready for some things. If you want to know how to deal with a rebellious teenager, just teach them how to be a teenager before it happens. Preparation is the key.
They were the same thing, or at least belonged to the same family of libraries.
That is an implementation issue. It is like saying that a picture of a naked woman is the same as a picture of a fire truck because they both are made with pixels. If my wife didn't fall for that, then I don't see why we should do so now.
The real difference between the two animated characters is in how they are used. One actively intrudes over the user's work, while the other is just a bit of decoration. The proof of the difference is that Clippy is much hated and ridiculed, while the other is pretty much ignored (with a few hysterical exceptions).