That would go further than the steps Microsoft had to take when it settled an antitrust case in the United States in late 2001.
Not exactly difficult. The so called "sanctions" taken against MS in the U.S. were meaningless to the extent that most observers believe there was a secret backroom deal. Frankly, I cannot see what the Europeans propose having much effect on MS's monopolistic practices either.
Animal studies do not always give an accurate indication of what will happen in humans. The article seems to have nothing proven relavant to humans.
Further, a typical human diet already includes choline. Assuming this is important to human brain development, how much do we really need? I can understand that rats (who typically probably do not eat fresh eggs very often) might need a choline supplement to enhance brain development. Perhaps humans already get enough anyway.
Might it be possible to identify the amount of choline different populations receive from their diet and correlate this with intelligence? This would give a better basis for discussion.
... it creates no liability for CA. In a worst case situation, the licenses mean nothing.
Sounds reasonable, but recent events have shown that it is dangerous to have any kind of legal agreement with SCO. SCO's legal actions have all been against companies with which it has a formal contract or license agreement. At this stage, I would want SCO to give me money to compensate for the risk involved in doing business with them.
As the article notes, fabrication of IC's is very resource intensive. So, even if I can replace my graphics card, CPU and RAM without upgrading the rest of my machine, the environmental savings may not be as great as the article suggests.
I am emotionally in favour of the notion that games do not influence real life behaviour. The article, however, is mostly fluff. There is no concrete backup for any of the statements made. I remain unsure as to whether (and if so to what degree) games role playing can bring out violent behaviour.
Comprison of various Linux distros (and of the 2.4 versus 2.6 kernel) is interesting. However, what is really lacking is an objective comparison of MS Windows Server 2003 versus Linux. I know Microsoft tries to prevent such benchmarking, but can they really enforce such a ban? It ought to be possible to find a team of Windows experts to tune Windows so the comparison is fair. Why not?
Was I the only one to get a chuckle from the name of Microsoft's lawyers going after Mike Rowe? "Smart and Biggar" is so appropriate, though they lacked commonsense in this case.
I did not notice much support from Microsoft for Linux on the Xbox, but that did not seem to be an insuperable obstacle. Some people will see Linux on the Centrino as an interesting challenge and there it will be.
A timely warning indeed! We need a different word than "unamericain" though. Remember, we are now globalising our concept. The term "unpatriotic" comes to mind as an alternative. Also, we need to point out the anti religious nature of reading without a license, not to mention the terrible example it sets our children.
For now, this is the right thing to do. However, Americans never seem to remember that money to pay lawyers must come from somewhere. Why do Americans pay astronomical sums for health care? Easy, to pay the legal costs and damages from all the loony malpractice actions. Well, at the end of the day, corporations supporting open source software solutions will also need to pay for the weaknesses of the US legal system -- and the only place they can get that money is from their customers.
Looking back at the old Dr Who episodes that were enjoyable at the time, the Daleks certainly look wimpy compared to this guy.
Re:Something looks... odd...
on
Your Own Mecha
·
· Score: 1
...does this thing come with a snow-plow?
Well, maybe that would be appropriate in a rescue robot anyway. However, I guess it is a more general device for breaking through whatever is blocking it.
The executives at Google include geeks. These guys would not give SCO the time of day. I reckon the "low level talks" means Darl was talking to their janitor or phoned their lawyer and was told their communication would be given the consideration it deserved (i.e. none).
Correct me if I am wrong. Your point is that action to stop lots of people dying is only appropriate if the deaths make dramatic newspaper headlines and appeal to the average Joe's emotions?
If I did not misunderstand you, then I have almost diametrically opposed views. I think to spend enormous sums as a result of a single aberrant event (that killed scarcely more people than died the same day from heart disease) shows a lack of objectivity. Except, I do not think the spending is a result of 9/11 anyway: 9/11 is the excuse used to justify the spending priorities they would have wanted anyway.
Even if SCO wins on all counts and IBM loses all appeals, IBM will just _buy_ them. They'll only be worth three billion. IBM has more cash on hand than that.
OK... we are in fantasyland here (SCO has no credible case) but let's just follow up on the "what if". IF some even more than usually insane series of US court rulings found all of SCO's claims to be proven, SCO could end up worth more than Microsoft. The three billion from this license dispute would be chickenfeed compared to what they would hope to make from followup actions.
I doubt whether a realistic expectation that SCO could win enters into the calculations of those that have bought SCO stock. I think, initially, some thought IBM might buy SCO out just to avoid the aggravation this case is causing. Now, there is a combination of factors stopping the price from collapsing. Much of what was market float is now tied up by those who borrowed it to sell short. The short sellers are reluctant to cut their losses (after all, the price will drop eventually). Those who bought stock at something like current prices (hoping for buyout) probably feel that they can afford to hold for a while (because of the short squeeze) on the off chance that something good happens. Anyone for a game of high-low stud poker?
Thank goodness for at least one sensible court decision in this area.
One indication of the impropriety of WhenU's actions is that even Microsoft does not do it. IE does, by default, collect a lot of marketing related material. For instance, anytime Microsoft can claim a search was needed (as when a url is typed in the address bar) it sends the data home. But they do stop short of actually modifying valid links to send users somewhere else.
Windows 2003 server...fair enough, perhaps not the best in the world, but on a laptop
If one must use MS Windows, this is the best option. It is more resource efficient than Windows 2000 or Windows XP (yes, reversing a trend, Microsoft actually produced a new version that needs less hardware than the previous version). Further, its support will last longer.
Win98 vulnerabilities will still be patched ..NOT!
on
Windows 98 Phased Out
·
· Score: 4, Informative
For information straight from the horse's mouth, see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/desktop/consumer/default.mspx
Microsoft will offer paid incident support on Windows 98/98 SE through January 16, 2004. Windows 98/98 SE downloads for existing security issues will continue to be obtainable through normal assisted support channels at no charge during this time. Customers can request Windows 98/98 SE fixes for new security issues and these requests will be reviewed. Fixes for any new security issues can be specifically requested through normal assisted support channels. Web-based self-help support will be available for at least one year after assisted support has concluded. Mainstream support for Windows 98/98 SE ended on June 30, 2002, and no-charge incident support and extended hotfix support ends on June 30, 2003.
Translation: until January 16 2004, fixes to new security issues can be requested and will be considered (no guarantees); after January 16 2004, you can download the old fixes for a while.
Anyone still using win9x really ought to upgrade to windows 2k/XP.
There are several issues with that:
* First, as others have mentioned, this may imply buying a new computer. Yes, US$200 can buy a computer well capable of running Windows XP. That is not much for a typical US household. A poor student in a third world country may have more of a problem.
* Some software, that runs on Windows 98, does not run successfully on Windows XP (and especially on Windows 2000). Sure, such software is usually woefully written but, if users rely on it, so what?
* Windows 98 SE came out in various language versions. In many cases, equivalent comfort levels for non English speakers are not readily available in Windows 2000 or XP. While the NT based systems allow input and output of the appropriate characters, this is not the same as having menus and error messages in ones native language. With 2000 and XP, multilingual user interface packs exist for many of the languages with specific language Windows 98 versions. These packs are only available to corporate customers.
* There is the cost of buying the new Windows version.
Obviously, Microsoft's priority is to make the maximum amount of money. Fair enough. But, the users need to consider how to get the functionality they need at minimum long term cost. If they need to change their operating system and some of their other software, perhaps they should consider an operating system that allows them to keep their existing hardware and that is less likely to require disruptive changes in the future.
I think that security updates for ANY OS or application, irregardless of the status of its source code, should be free and available for everyone.
I am not disagreeing, but there is an implied assumption in your post: that fixes are always available. A serious security issue will rapidly be fixed in any widely used open source product. With closed source products, provision of a fix is at the whim of the vendor, and serious security exposures can sometimes go months without a fix.
The employees have a right to be employed in the current tough job market. None of their business what management does. Just happy this is not their year to get cut to pay the bosses' bonus
The management are just doing the best for their shareholders. That is what they are paid for: to play the system as best they can to boost the stock price. It is not their fault that the system sucks.
The politicians who could fix the system are just doing what it takes to get elected. Taking actions that would upset the businesses that pay for the election campaigns would just be stupid. America likes winners, not wimps who accept defeat just because winning requires a few distasteful decisions.
The electorate that elects these politicians is doing nothing wrong. Hell, if they can keep taxes low and not cut programs that directly affect me, why shouldn't I elect them?
Sure there is a solution: major reform of the US legal system, preferably on similar lines to the German system. As long as the legal system is designed for lawyers to make money rather than to dispense quick justice, a rapid solution is in clear conflict with the objectives of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly difficult. The so called "sanctions" taken against MS in the U.S. were meaningless to the extent that most observers believe there was a secret backroom deal. Frankly, I cannot see what the Europeans propose having much effect on MS's monopolistic practices either.
Further, a typical human diet already includes choline. Assuming this is important to human brain development, how much do we really need? I can understand that rats (who typically probably do not eat fresh eggs very often) might need a choline supplement to enhance brain development. Perhaps humans already get enough anyway.
Might it be possible to identify the amount of choline different populations receive from their diet and correlate this with intelligence? This would give a better basis for discussion.
Sounds reasonable, but recent events have shown that it is dangerous to have any kind of legal agreement with SCO. SCO's legal actions have all been against companies with which it has a formal contract or license agreement. At this stage, I would want SCO to give me money to compensate for the risk involved in doing business with them.
As the article notes, fabrication of IC's is very resource intensive. So, even if I can replace my graphics card, CPU and RAM without upgrading the rest of my machine, the environmental savings may not be as great as the article suggests.
I am emotionally in favour of the notion that games do not influence real life behaviour. The article, however, is mostly fluff. There is no concrete backup for any of the statements made. I remain unsure as to whether (and if so to what degree) games role playing can bring out violent behaviour.
Comprison of various Linux distros (and of the 2.4 versus 2.6 kernel) is interesting. However, what is really lacking is an objective comparison of MS Windows Server 2003 versus Linux. I know Microsoft tries to prevent such benchmarking, but can they really enforce such a ban? It ought to be possible to find a team of Windows experts to tune Windows so the comparison is fair. Why not?
Was I the only one to get a chuckle from the name of Microsoft's lawyers going after Mike Rowe? "Smart and Biggar" is so appropriate, though they lacked commonsense in this case.
I did not notice much support from Microsoft for Linux on the Xbox, but that did not seem to be an insuperable obstacle. Some people will see Linux on the Centrino as an interesting challenge and there it will be.
A timely warning indeed! We need a different word than "unamericain" though. Remember, we are now globalising our concept. The term "unpatriotic" comes to mind as an alternative. Also, we need to point out the anti religious nature of reading without a license, not to mention the terrible example it sets our children.
Actually 61" diagonal. Nice anyway. This would be great for presentations: beats a projector hands down.
For now, this is the right thing to do. However, Americans never seem to remember that money to pay lawyers must come from somewhere. Why do Americans pay astronomical sums for health care? Easy, to pay the legal costs and damages from all the loony malpractice actions. Well, at the end of the day, corporations supporting open source software solutions will also need to pay for the weaknesses of the US legal system -- and the only place they can get that money is from their customers.
Looking back at the old Dr Who episodes that were enjoyable at the time, the Daleks certainly look wimpy compared to this guy.
Well, maybe that would be appropriate in a rescue robot anyway. However, I guess it is a more general device for breaking through whatever is blocking it.
The executives at Google include geeks. These guys would not give SCO the time of day. I reckon the "low level talks" means Darl was talking to their janitor or phoned their lawyer and was told their communication would be given the consideration it deserved (i.e. none).
If I did not misunderstand you, then I have almost diametrically opposed views. I think to spend enormous sums as a result of a single aberrant event (that killed scarcely more people than died the same day from heart disease) shows a lack of objectivity. Except, I do not think the spending is a result of 9/11 anyway: 9/11 is the excuse used to justify the spending priorities they would have wanted anyway.
Darl and Canopy suing their lawyers for incompetent legal advice amounting to negligence. Best thing is: I really think it might happen!
OK ... we are in fantasyland here (SCO has no credible case) but let's just follow up on the "what if". IF some even more than usually insane series of US court rulings found all of SCO's claims to be proven, SCO could end up worth more than Microsoft. The three billion from this license dispute would be chickenfeed compared to what they would hope to make from followup actions.
I doubt whether a realistic expectation that SCO could win enters into the calculations of those that have bought SCO stock. I think, initially, some thought IBM might buy SCO out just to avoid the aggravation this case is causing. Now, there is a combination of factors stopping the price from collapsing. Much of what was market float is now tied up by those who borrowed it to sell short. The short sellers are reluctant to cut their losses (after all, the price will drop eventually). Those who bought stock at something like current prices (hoping for buyout) probably feel that they can afford to hold for a while (because of the short squeeze) on the off chance that something good happens. Anyone for a game of high-low stud poker?
One indication of the impropriety of WhenU's actions is that even Microsoft does not do it. IE does, by default, collect a lot of marketing related material. For instance, anytime Microsoft can claim a search was needed (as when a url is typed in the address bar) it sends the data home. But they do stop short of actually modifying valid links to send users somewhere else.
If one must use MS Windows, this is the best option. It is more resource efficient than Windows 2000 or Windows XP (yes, reversing a trend, Microsoft actually produced a new version that needs less hardware than the previous version). Further, its support will last longer.
There are several issues with that:
* First, as others have mentioned, this may imply buying a new computer. Yes, US$200 can buy a computer well capable of running Windows XP. That is not much for a typical US household. A poor student in a third world country may have more of a problem.
* Some software, that runs on Windows 98, does not run successfully on Windows XP (and especially on Windows 2000). Sure, such software is usually woefully written but, if users rely on it, so what?
* Windows 98 SE came out in various language versions. In many cases, equivalent comfort levels for non English speakers are not readily available in Windows 2000 or XP. While the NT based systems allow input and output of the appropriate characters, this is not the same as having menus and error messages in ones native language. With 2000 and XP, multilingual user interface packs exist for many of the languages with specific language Windows 98 versions. These packs are only available to corporate customers.
* There is the cost of buying the new Windows version.
Obviously, Microsoft's priority is to make the maximum amount of money. Fair enough. But, the users need to consider how to get the functionality they need at minimum long term cost. If they need to change their operating system and some of their other software, perhaps they should consider an operating system that allows them to keep their existing hardware and that is less likely to require disruptive changes in the future.
I am not disagreeing, but there is an implied assumption in your post: that fixes are always available. A serious security issue will rapidly be fixed in any widely used open source product. With closed source products, provision of a fix is at the whim of the vendor, and serious security exposures can sometimes go months without a fix.
The management are just doing the best for their shareholders. That is what they are paid for: to play the system as best they can to boost the stock price. It is not their fault that the system sucks.
The politicians who could fix the system are just doing what it takes to get elected. Taking actions that would upset the businesses that pay for the election campaigns would just be stupid. America likes winners, not wimps who accept defeat just because winning requires a few distasteful decisions.
The electorate that elects these politicians is doing nothing wrong. Hell, if they can keep taxes low and not cut programs that directly affect me, why shouldn't I elect them?
Let everyone fend for themselves.
Sure there is a solution: major reform of the US legal system, preferably on similar lines to the German system. As long as the legal system is designed for lawyers to make money rather than to dispense quick justice, a rapid solution is in clear conflict with the objectives of the system.