What a crock the Japanese are. Here is someone not on social welfare, hardly taking a job away from someone else in violation of his visa terms, and they deport him for being successful instead of broke.
While I'm sure the bank may have felt he was a criminal getting money in some nefarious way, once they found out what he was really doing they should have just left him alone.
The good news is that he should be able to continue to pursue his profession just as well from China. Well, that is minus the 20Mbs typical broadband in Japan -- USA DSL and Cable modem users eat your heart out.
1: Anything involving lawyers is Evil.
2: Anything holding back Open Source is Evil.
3: Anything involving big corporations against the little guy just trying to make the world a better place is Evil.
Excuse me, but if Microsoft never reveals or hands over their source code, how can you infringe on it?
You may develop the idea independently, and if it's an obvious idea MS may lose out to prior art, however, this article gives the impression that MS code was stolen and incorporated into Linux, which is exceptionally unlikely.
If they were already two weeks into the actual shooting then this movie was well along the way to happening somehow. I can't believe someone would throw up their hands and say, "Okay, you don't want us. We quit! End of movie. Pack it up and everybody just go home."
I'd expect alternative locations to be actively scouted within an hour of the announcement, if they hadn't already been before selecting this one in the first place. They should have been back on track within a week -- two at the outside. There's just too much money already committed to this project to end it at this point. Makes me question the entire premise of this article.
When the site was closed in October last year, it contained more than 9 million pornographic images and articles, the police said.
And someone got to count them all. They'll probably throw him in jail next for obviously being corrupted by what he saw.
Obviously they couldn't have edited, even viewed, that much material individually with the number of people involved. I have to question that number at all. Sounds like an estimate of losses due to filesharing by the RIAA. Overall a good reason not to be living in the People's Republic of China.
Not to me. Filesharing doesn't impact me personally, nor likely the poor starving recording artists who aren't going to get their money whether or not the RIAA and the record companies actually collect it.
Pishing crimes are far worse on my personal scale of the sewer that the Internet has become, and anything that makes those criminals suffer is a Good Thing.
I guess those silver coins we once had through 1964 were a pretty good idea after all. Couldn't pass infections through the money supply very easily that way.
Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM.
Just how dumb does Microsoft think we are to give us a line like that. Stuff that's this easily proven wrong in a sentence or two shouldn't be uttered by one of the world's biggest companies.
Wrong how? How many of those home consumers who would want to run VM's in the first place have likely just come home from the very enterprises who are the only people smart enough to run Vista on a VM? Likely most of them. They see it at work, know how it works, have the ability to talk to the people who make it work -- or are the people who make it work -- and want to have the same safe, secure computing at home.
Truth is: THIS IS MICROSOFT BEING ANTI-SECURITY FOR THE LIKELY MAJORITY OF THEIR USERS! Yes I intended to shout this to the hills and beyond. This is a huge number of their consumers they obviously don't care about at all -- unless you're willing to pay lots more money to them to prove your competency (and I'm obviously not talking about common sense mental competency here).
I guess they intend to cede the home VM market to Apple, once Apple can figure out how to make VM plug-and-play for the masses. Apple isn't there yet, either, but at least the field is now wide open to them.
I hope Google gives me a viable, affordable, OS choice sooner rather than later. Especially sooner than Vista. Given the outrageous Vista EULA terms being enforced one-way by a monopoly bully, I'd like an alternative with a big enough company behind it to ensure stability and developer support.
Microsoft seems to believe that we're forced to swallow whatever terms they offer, and in large part they've been right up to this point. I'd like that to change, and see this as the best alternative out there for many of us.
And much as I like follow-ups to my posts, don't bother telling me to change to Linux. It least not without specifying distributions and locations for computers ranging from early Pentium-II's through current systems. If Linux had been a compelling choice (I run Photoshop, among other applications and still struggle with GIMP on the occasions where I have to use it - I develop under Visual Studio 6/SQL Server for a living), I would have already switched.
I know very few people who need more than Office 95 had to offer.
The change from MSO95 to MSO97 was very significant. Much more so than any that has since followed. The MSO97.DOC file format, VBA macros, and COM integration are all major things to have. Beyond that point, however, I've seen nothing else nearly as significant as any one of those changes in the later versions.
Many consumers will choose what is familiar over what is better, even given a clear-cut advantage.
While I find your article very insightful, and well worth the +5 it has earned (and I've saved it because I like your arguments), you miss a point. You don't discuss an analysis of needs verses true cost of the upgrade.
The only reason I moved from MSO97 to MSO2000 is that I needed to make that move to do VB6 software development for customers. I've stayed with MSO2000 since because it offers everything I need.
Why pay for features I don't need; need to learn the ins and outs of the new system; my time to upgrade; plus dealing with a whole new round of bugs and issues. That's a high price to me, and only benefits MS.
You discuss not upgrading when there is no apparent cost and compelling advantages. For many of us, neither of those conditions are true if we already own MSO97 or later.
60% of businesses were still running Win 2K and had NO plans to switch to XP. This is an ongoing problem for M$. More and more businesses are taking the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" approach to software.
This is not about the stuck-in-mud, it-ain't-broke mentality that prevents businesses from moving from 2K to XP. It's that fact that for nearly all businesses uses, XP is inferior to 2K!
XP costs money and time to upgrade; has Activation and WGA hassles; has more bloat requiring more hardware and memory to run as well; offers unneeded, and even unwanted, features in a business environment; seems to have the bulk of security issues; doesn't run programs that won't run equally well under 2K; and gives no foreseeable advantages in return. Why would any sane business want to take on that?
The only reason we started upgrading to XP was when necessary drivers for the newest notebook computers were literally unavailable under 2K.
Persuading consists of breaking backward compatibility by setting all the defaults to save in formats that earlier versions cannot read as a convenience to the user. Then pop-up big warning boxes that some features may not be preserved if you insist on saving in an older format.
While I haven't run MSO2007 myself yet, I've seen this in so many previous MSO updates that I would actually be surprised if this is not the case yet again.
I think Microsoft is in the same position as the RIAA. They have to win every time.
The RIAA has to win every every court case because, by the legal principal of non-mutual estoppal, if they lose once they cannot use the same legal arguments in any future case they might wish to bring (i.e. if P2P music sharing occurs through an IP address you pay for, you're automatically responsible, guilty, and owe them lots of money regardless of what you actually did, or didn't, do).
Microsoft has to win every desktop every time because, if a large-scale commercial Linux deployment succeeds as a viable alternative to Windows, it will be considered seriously as a candidate in every future large-scale deployment of PC's. Microsoft will have to fight for every future desktop contract, instead of being the de facto only option for 99% of them.
And both groups are willing to do whatever it takes to win at all costs!
Maybe just maybe they figured that Wii purchasers have learned superior fighting skills from their past consoles than PS3 players. Not so safe to attack and rob.
And no one forces you to run for the exit when someone yells "fire" in a crowded building...
Especially not if the first person there is crushed to death by the crowd stampeding after them. I'll make the rational decision of which exit can I escape from before the fire gets me. Panic kills more than fires.
If any of these companies really wanted to make a difference for the consumer, they'd be helping the communities roll out broadband fiber to the curb and bypass the greedy monopolist telcos/cablecos. Now that would bring some real improvement to a lot of bypassed neighborhoods and communities. And they wouldn't really have to do it all themselves nearly as much as just help the communities get that going for themselves. Heck, even just providing legal support from their vast pool of lawyers would be a boon for many groups wishing to attempt this.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that at MS Vista, NIH has become NIH Either.
While I'm sure the bank may have felt he was a criminal getting money in some nefarious way, once they found out what he was really doing they should have just left him alone.
The good news is that he should be able to continue to pursue his profession just as well from China. Well, that is minus the 20Mbs typical broadband in Japan -- USA DSL and Cable modem users eat your heart out.
Sounds like only one step away from a Variable Sword.
2: Anything holding back Open Source is Evil.
3: Anything involving big corporations against the little guy just trying to make the world a better place is Evil.
That's Three Strikes, Google.
You may develop the idea independently, and if it's an obvious idea MS may lose out to prior art, however, this article gives the impression that MS code was stolen and incorporated into Linux, which is exceptionally unlikely.
I'd expect alternative locations to be actively scouted within an hour of the announcement, if they hadn't already been before selecting this one in the first place. They should have been back on track within a week -- two at the outside. There's just too much money already committed to this project to end it at this point. Makes me question the entire premise of this article.
I feel if you don't know your particular field as a manager then you're just a PHB, and probably buy everything Microsoft and Dell tell you to.
And someone got to count them all. They'll probably throw him in jail next for obviously being corrupted by what he saw.
Obviously they couldn't have edited, even viewed, that much material individually with the number of people involved. I have to question that number at all. Sounds like an estimate of losses due to filesharing by the RIAA. Overall a good reason not to be living in the People's Republic of China.
Since when has Microsoft developed and sold anything that "Just Works"? Now if we were talking about Apple...
Not to me. Filesharing doesn't impact me personally, nor likely the poor starving recording artists who aren't going to get their money whether or not the RIAA and the record companies actually collect it.
Pishing crimes are far worse on my personal scale of the sewer that the Internet has become, and anything that makes those criminals suffer is a Good Thing.
I guess those silver coins we once had through 1964 were a pretty good idea after all. Couldn't pass infections through the money supply very easily that way.
Just how dumb does Microsoft think we are to give us a line like that. Stuff that's this easily proven wrong in a sentence or two shouldn't be uttered by one of the world's biggest companies.
Wrong how? How many of those home consumers who would want to run VM's in the first place have likely just come home from the very enterprises who are the only people smart enough to run Vista on a VM? Likely most of them. They see it at work, know how it works, have the ability to talk to the people who make it work -- or are the people who make it work -- and want to have the same safe, secure computing at home.
Truth is: THIS IS MICROSOFT BEING ANTI-SECURITY FOR THE LIKELY MAJORITY OF THEIR USERS! Yes I intended to shout this to the hills and beyond. This is a huge number of their consumers they obviously don't care about at all -- unless you're willing to pay lots more money to them to prove your competency (and I'm obviously not talking about common sense mental competency here).
I guess they intend to cede the home VM market to Apple, once Apple can figure out how to make VM plug-and-play for the masses. Apple isn't there yet, either, but at least the field is now wide open to them.
So does this mean that two millennia from now that humans, or the robots that take over from them, will spend a century figuring out CALC.EXE?
Any list that doesn't include Violet from Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events isn't worth wasting my time on.
The parent may, or may not, be funny/satire, but it's definitely not Flamebait-1.
Microsoft seems to believe that we're forced to swallow whatever terms they offer, and in large part they've been right up to this point. I'd like that to change, and see this as the best alternative out there for many of us.
And much as I like follow-ups to my posts, don't bother telling me to change to Linux. It least not without specifying distributions and locations for computers ranging from early Pentium-II's through current systems. If Linux had been a compelling choice (I run Photoshop, among other applications and still struggle with GIMP on the occasions where I have to use it - I develop under Visual Studio 6/SQL Server for a living), I would have already switched.
Uh, that's already slid. It's now Office 2013, but will be even better still when it arrives.
The change from MSO95 to MSO97 was very significant. Much more so than any that has since followed. The MSO97 .DOC file format, VBA macros, and COM integration are all major things to have. Beyond that point, however, I've seen nothing else nearly as significant as any one of those changes in the later versions.
While I find your article very insightful, and well worth the +5 it has earned (and I've saved it because I like your arguments), you miss a point. You don't discuss an analysis of needs verses true cost of the upgrade.
The only reason I moved from MSO97 to MSO2000 is that I needed to make that move to do VB6 software development for customers. I've stayed with MSO2000 since because it offers everything I need.
Why pay for features I don't need; need to learn the ins and outs of the new system; my time to upgrade; plus dealing with a whole new round of bugs and issues. That's a high price to me, and only benefits MS.
You discuss not upgrading when there is no apparent cost and compelling advantages. For many of us, neither of those conditions are true if we already own MSO97 or later.
This is not about the stuck-in-mud, it-ain't-broke mentality that prevents businesses from moving from 2K to XP. It's that fact that for nearly all businesses uses, XP is inferior to 2K!
XP costs money and time to upgrade; has Activation and WGA hassles; has more bloat requiring more hardware and memory to run as well; offers unneeded, and even unwanted, features in a business environment; seems to have the bulk of security issues; doesn't run programs that won't run equally well under 2K; and gives no foreseeable advantages in return. Why would any sane business want to take on that?
The only reason we started upgrading to XP was when necessary drivers for the newest notebook computers were literally unavailable under 2K.
While I haven't run MSO2007 myself yet, I've seen this in so many previous MSO updates that I would actually be surprised if this is not the case yet again.
The RIAA has to win every every court case because, by the legal principal of non-mutual estoppal, if they lose once they cannot use the same legal arguments in any future case they might wish to bring (i.e. if P2P music sharing occurs through an IP address you pay for, you're automatically responsible, guilty, and owe them lots of money regardless of what you actually did, or didn't, do).
Microsoft has to win every desktop every time because, if a large-scale commercial Linux deployment succeeds as a viable alternative to Windows, it will be considered seriously as a candidate in every future large-scale deployment of PC's. Microsoft will have to fight for every future desktop contract, instead of being the de facto only option for 99% of them.
And both groups are willing to do whatever it takes to win at all costs!
Maybe just maybe they figured that Wii purchasers have learned superior fighting skills from their past consoles than PS3 players. Not so safe to attack and rob.
Especially not if the first person there is crushed to death by the crowd stampeding after them. I'll make the rational decision of which exit can I escape from before the fire gets me. Panic kills more than fires.
If any of these companies really wanted to make a difference for the consumer, they'd be helping the communities roll out broadband fiber to the curb and bypass the greedy monopolist telcos/cablecos. Now that would bring some real improvement to a lot of bypassed neighborhoods and communities. And they wouldn't really have to do it all themselves nearly as much as just help the communities get that going for themselves. Heck, even just providing legal support from their vast pool of lawyers would be a boon for many groups wishing to attempt this.