Sure, all you have to do is position a decaying isotope precisely (and I mean *precisely*) in the middle of the two communicating parties, run lines between them composed of an unknown material that conducts the decay products, set up machines that can read the spin of particles whizzing past at the speed of light, and secure the cables so that replaces them with fakes.
I'm not sure that I would not want to trust my judgement to a VB app... couldn't they have at least written it something more robust... like Perl?
What is with the VB bigotry? In your review of competing products, do you dismiss out of hand the fact that VB is easily maintainable and readable, whereas Perl resembles abstract art drawn from the inner, inarticulate recesses of the mind that coded it?
I like VB, and I'm not alone in liking it. Lay off.
Does anyone else here use Windows Media Player for the sole reason that it doesn't inundate you with banner ads, SPAM opt-outs, clutter, millions of buttons, and useless flash?
Now they're going for the Macromedia angle too. God.
RealNetworks has a gigantic slice of the market pie in streaming media. Yet more evidence that the average consumer does not share the tastes of the average geek.
Ask yourself. If you were a corporation with a business model based upon proprietary secrets, would you:
A) release the secret to an intimate group of 30,000 beaurocrats in order to secure the French account
B) say "screw France" and refuse to comply
France has historically been a hassle to computer companies. First their bizarre (read: non-conformant with European norms) encryption laws, now this. Just how much clout do they think they have here, exactly?
Greydmiyu, for the record I own a Handspring Visor and neither want nor can afford a Pocket PC. However, your post (which by now certainly has reached Score:5) dips pretty deeply into the realm of self deception.
Just listen to yourself:
PocketPC has better email than Palm, but that doesn't count because you don't think retrieving email on the go is important.
PocketPC has better color than Palm, but since you spend all your time outside, you don't care.
PocketPC has more memory than Palm, but "something tells you" that it doesn't matter.
PocketPC is about 10x faster than Palm, but you have a feeling that this is irrelevant. Anyway, 20MHz is enough for anyone.
PocketPC doesn't require extra attention to sync, but that doesn't count because the buzzname they're using resembles a technology you don't like.
PocketPC has more sophisticated handwriting recognition than Palm, but that doesn't count because it's completely reasonable for people to learn how to write twice simply in order to use a PDA.
PocketPC allows voicerecording at no extra charge, but that doesn't count because you can't imagine anyone will ever want to record sound in a meeting.
PocketPC has superior and more intuitive mapping technology, but that doesn't count because real men use astrolabes.
PocketPC has better music support, but that doesn't count because everyone should have at least two wallet-sized silicon devices on them at all times.
PocketPC incorporates ClearType to a better eBook experience, but that doesn't count because, hell, it's all just text.
PocketPC supports more sophisticated games (I've seen a cutesy little DOOM) but that doesn't count because you've got pong when you need it.
In the Wired article somebody cites below, I found this quote that I feel is fairly similar to the opinions being voiced on slashdot:
"I think it's going to be more of the same," said Michael Mace, Palm's vice president of product strategy. "They are trying to cram a whole PC in your pocket and that's not the way to do it. It makes for a limited PC and an overstuffed handheld. If you want to make a successful handheld you have to figure out what matters most and only put that in."
That certainly is one way of looking at things - what you might call the developer's outlook on software. Keep it simple, flush out the flaws, and eschew unneeded complexity. If that means forsaking some flashy end-user features, so be it.
I couldn't disagree more. Come on people, what is the ultimate goal for handhelds in your world? In 10 years, do you want us al to be using Palm MCXXIII's with 24-bit color and wireless internet but still running minimalist PIM software?
Or, do you want a device that is a gameboy, cellphone, MP3 player, memo pad, PDA, camcorder, phaser:), etc. all in one slim form factor?
The problem with Microsoft's offering in the handheld market is emphatically *not* that they give the consumer too much. The problem is that they aren't delivering stable lean software. Microsoft incorporates into the Pocket PC's many of the things that ultimately I dream of using in my PDA. They are *far* ahead of the game technologically speaking. But their implementation sucks (at least it did in WinCE, and the C|Net review suggests it still suffers from those problems).
Palm by contrast, is, yes indeed, very stable. And also is not likely to enrich our lives with fantastic new consumer technologies. Contacts are contacts. Appointments are appointments. They are useful, but are they really what you crave when you think about embedded palm-held technologies? If the sluggish rate of Palm's software innovation is any judge, this form of competition from Microsoft is precisely what the industry needs.
Hi Mr. Stallman. I don't use Linux for various reasons of personal preference, but I am excited about the GNU HURD OS and I would like to participate.
The thing is, I work for Microsoft. I am in a bind that I'm sure is shared by many developers who work in large corporations. I want to help out with certain free software projects, but when I was hired at my company, I signed all the various "you own my brain" forms that big companies typically require.
I want to know, would you let a person in a legal situation like mine work on software that is meant to be GPL'd and free? Or would you decline my help based upon the fact that the ownership of my code is disputable?
At present (2000), copyrights granted prior to 1925 should be expiring. But because of the illegal copyright extension, all works after 1923 are granted an extension, in violation of Ex Post Facto.
I agree with you in principle, but that is not true. Ex Post Facto is a prohibition on laws enacted retroactively to the harm of a directly affected party. Extending copyrights issued in the past is in fact a benefit to the holders of the copyright, and thus is not barred under Ex Post Facto.
Of course, it hurts consumers indirectly and it also hurts people who transgress against the retroactively extended copyright, but it does not technically fall within the bounds of Ex Post Facto.
I own a Handspring Visor Pro (one of those wicked icy blue ones) and although I'm sure investors are going to go mad over this, I don't know whether I would buy into the company.
What are the benefits of a visor that Palm computing can't replicate? I'm not sure they number above three or four.
1) sane pricing for once (this was my big incentive) 2) cool expansible port 3) the PalmOS rep and the notion that this is what a "pure" Palm should be like
You can bet that (2) will be mimicked soon universally, especially in the beefier WinCE's. I believe Palm Computing is already working on this?
The pricing issue is not a very effective barrier to Palm Computing, since they can easily offer a stripped down version that eats into Handspring's share. Even had the Visor been considerably less powerful, I would still have purchased it due to the pricing. I have just enough clutter in my life to justify a palmtop, but not enough to make the difference between 4mb RAM and 8mb significant.
Finally, I suppose OS is a matter of preference, but there are some functionality problems I've encountered with the version that runs on the Visor. And unlike the hardware extensibility, the OS cannot be upgraded, at least in the current models.
Unless Palm Computing is brainless and doesn't offer a lower end model for entry-level newbies like myself, I don't see how Handspring is ultimately going to differentiate itself. The simple fact is that it is too similar to a Palm to survive.
That all said, I wish I had $500 bucks for a wicked cool WinCE device.... Ooooh! Heresy!:)
This is a clear signal from the judge to Microsoft: settle now, or else. He's tried to get Microsoft to settle, even bringing in another Federal judge to mediate, which is very unusual. But Microsoft hasn't been willing to make any changes that would end their monopoly power
I don't know any more than you do what was included in the settlement proposal MS faxed to the DOJ last Thursday/Friday, but rumored inclusions were opening the Windows (version?) source and dis-integrating IE from the OS. These are not concessions that would terminate their monopoly power probably, but a monopoly is not intrinsically illegal. The offer is nonetheless very substantial and would certainly give our competitors a vast advantage over us if it were accepted and drafted into practice.
You appear to take the stance of the DOJ - you won't consider any offer from MS an acceptable "compromise" unless it makes provision for legal oversight of future business decisions or a breakup. However, that is not a compromise - it is an utter rout for MS. Such a bargain does not differ from the DOJ's hardline stance one iota, and no reasonable person could suggest that it would be anything other than capitulation.
Furthermore, the judge has delayed the ruling at the request of the DOJ lawyers, clearly indicating that the DOJ believes there is life yet in the settlement process. Or, more cynically, they desire to portray themselves as the wounded party if settlement talks fail (sigh, we tried your honor, but bad old Microsoft...) Either way, the judge is expressing no clear opinion with this latest delay.
Microsoft has had their day in court, and soon the judge will decide their fate. Only the Supreme Court can override him, (there's a provision in antitrust law that fast-tracks big cases to the Supreme Court, bypassing the circuit courts of appeal)
Again, incorrect. There is a provision stating that the DOJ could petition the Supreme Court for direct review, but it is by no means certain. A district court judge could very well overrule Jackson.
Legal opinion is generally that Judge Jackson has done an excellent job on a difficult case.
That doesn't necessarily mean a superior court will rule with him. Remember that MS and the DOJ have confined themselves largely to arguments on the evidence of the case and a smattering of theory. In a higher court, the debate turns to matters of constitutionality, which Jackson doesn't even have under consideration.
This is Microsoft's last chanced
With this judge. They are many more to come should this process be protracted. The story is most certainly not concluded, unless a settlement is reached.
The W.I.G effect has been understood for a long time; this is a clever application of that effect across disciplines.
This proves an interesting reminder of the fact that "innovation" - an overused term - is so much more than the ability to spawn new ideas fully formed from your brain. Some of the most brilliant advances we have seen and will see are the fortuitous combination of two seemingly unrelated facts or areas of study. That's real genius: the ability to see patterns where a less perceptive person might see none.
I hope someone points to initiatives like this one the next time funding for pure science research is on the block. The quest for knowledge is almost never totally without payoffs.
Consider what would happen if an open-source encryption/decryption algorithm was created (like CSS, the strength of the algorithm is not important), with a license that explicitly forbade both commercial and governmental use.
I sympathize with your goals here, but really, dream on. One thing I've come to realize over the years is that "schemes" that aim to turn law or finance to the benefit of the little guy generally are ill-conceived.
Essentially, what "would happen" is that the megacorp threatened by the warez distribution would convince a judge that there was reason to believe you were pirating their works. The judge would allow discovery, and you would be forced to decrypt the materials yourself.
Remember, big companies do not stomp on little people by winning court cases. They operate by threatening you with the inevitable bankruptcy that any form of legal action would necessarily entail for a person of average means. They realize you can't afford trial costs, and they know from experience that ther mere threat of a lawsuit is generally enough to have you eating out of their hands.
This law is tailored to harm us. It would be bettr to eliminate it, and failing that to protest it. Attempting to "use it to our advantage" will only work to our detriment as we turn our energies away from defeating an unjust law. Bottom line: I don't want to learn how to live with the DMCA. I want it dead.
I find that a arrogant posture to take on this issue. I can't fault your reasoning, but I do disagree with your underlying assumption: that average people do not deserve access to the true power of computers to form and disseminate information. They have on their desks a machine capable of tranforming their home into a clearing house for their ideas and opinions, but you discount that because you don't feel they, in the end, have anything meaningful to contribute to the dialog.
This is the mentality that allows many technical people to grin vaguely when Sun talks about replacing our desktop powerhouses with brainless terminals that place the power of public speech back in the hands of a rich few. It's also an understandable reaction of people fed up with trying to make their passions and motivations clear to lay people, the majority of whom are 5 or 10 years behind the people here. But ultimately your viewpoint is short sighted, because, in the very tradition of open source itself, you can never tell who will have the next brillian idea. There is no guarantee that it will be a techie, and frankly in certain fields of human endeavor such as painting and literature, it's a good bet that it won't be.
Humanity is on the verge of an explosion of creative thought and expression. We are the only people in the world who can make it happen. Please, I know you are an intelligent individual: don't turn your back on what is probably the greatest service your could render humanity in your lifetime: bringing the power of computers to average people.
This is slightly tangential, but something I think bears pointing out. Have you noticed that whenever OSS enthusiasts talk about bringing Linux/GNOME/Pick your favorite project to the "average user" they always discuss it in terms of making the product mentally accessible to some elderly female relation? I won't stress this so far as to suggest it's sexist that we never talk about "software your dad could use" but, to co-opt a phrase from a Dilbert cartoon: "My mom earned a PhD in Molecular Botany. What does your mom do?" (to which the PHB responded "leave my mom out of this":-)
The person you're trying to reach isn't necessarily female, and not necessarily a fool. Everyone can benefit from good UI design, otherwise this would all be wasted effort. Remember the theory from college "make the common case fast"? Well, this is fairly similar: "make the common case obvious". Advanced bells, hooks, and whistles are wonderful, but their prominence in your design should befit the frequency of their use. That's one thing I think we generally do pretty well at Microsoft, although it sometimes requires a lot of bitching and moaning before the natural instincts of our devs for obfuscation and tech talk can be overcome:)
As much as it jarrs me to say it, you all asked for it folks.
Of late i've posted less and less to slashdot because I've become disenchanted with the quality of person I meet here. People who, as a result of their mild annoyance at F1R$7 P0$7ers and other trolls, endorse eliminating Anonymous Cowards. People who make ponderous distinctions between "privacy" and "anonymity", stating that while they cherish the first the second should be put down like a rabid dog.
Folks, privacy without anonymity cannot exist without a strongly legal barrier and vigilant law enforcement. But, as any sensible citizen shoudl have puzzled out by now, the people who influence or even fabricate those laws and the people who want to abuse your private profiles are generally about two shakes of a fleas leg apart from one another. Anonymity is crucial, because only you yourself can truly be trusted to protect your private information to a degree commensurate with its worth to you. Without anonymity, and only with legally enforced "privacy", the laxity of others in guarding their personal information can also affect the security of my own information. That is clearly a losing scenario for those who care whether their every quirk is ground down mathematically in a relational grid.
Of course sentiments like that aren't confined to slashdot, in fact I once had thought/. was a sort of refuge from that mentality. Just the other day Clinton's "Internet Security" team was expounding complete traceability on the net. But if slashdotters, who every day are bombarded with privacy propaganda from CmdrTaco & Co, if we still fail to cherish our anonymity and reject the thin blanket of "privacy", then there isn't much hope left.
So don't come bitching about losses of privacy. When you turned your backs on anonymity, you asked for it.
In a way you've illustrated what is wrong with strict adherence to standards.
Since you agree we don't violate the RFC for mail, I can't see anyone around here being convinced that making life a little easier for parser developers is worth confusing our many international customers. To look at it another way, a truly global standards body would have included support for internationalization rather than merely leaving the issue open. You should be angry at the RFC for being wishy-washy, not at Microsoft for doing what its customers want while still adhering to that standard. I'm sorry it makes life harder for you, but it also makes life easier for people in, for example, singapore.
As for the Usenet posting issue, Outlook currently isn't used for posting to usenet. For that we use Outlook Express. However, at some point Outlook will probably be used for this function. I can enter a bug tomorrow and see what happens. However, as in the case above, this is really a bug in the standard, not a bug in OE. Standards are fallible too, just like product specs.
Oh, well, I suppose since you've already made up your minds there's really no point in actually shipping Windows2000 after all. Slashdot's fact-hungry editors have already proven to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that:
1) Win2k is buggy 2) Win2k is unstable 3) Win2k is outrageously licensed 4) Win2k is bloated 5) Win2k is anti-Linux vaporware 6) Win2k can't live in a heterogeneous lan
I admire this prescient ability to review Win2k without even possessing a trial copy. What a lot of money Roblimo has saved all of us by supplying us with pre-shrink-wrapped opinions which require no critical thought on our part. Truly, this is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
In fairness, keep in mind that "defect", or even "bug" for that matter is a very broad term.
I myself am a QA tester, although not in the Windows group. I've entered many, many bugs that were Postponed or Won't Fixed that, honestly, probably didn't deserve to be fixed. Things like "such and such a static is too long for this control" or "we should notify the user if x, y, or z happens". Little niggly things in other words.
Keep in mind that a "bug" is anything a tester doesn't like, including personal design preferences. It isn't necessarily a flaw that would interfere with use of the product. If a bug is of that kind, then it's smart for a time-starved group to Postpone or Won't Fix the issue.
-matthew Priestley mpriest@microsoft.com -konstant Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
You know your market perspective is skewed when...
Roblimo calls a guy with a three computers at home running over a lan he installed himself, and who waxes nostalgic for his old HTML editor a "typical desktop user".
Wake up people! The typical desktop user doesn't understand the difference between "netscape" and their operating system! If you unplug their keyboards in the night they will call tech support in the morning! They run their monitors in 640x480x256 because they don't realize there are any other settings!
If you're planning on marketing Linux to the masses, at least get the character sketch straight. This guy is at least what you could call a "power user". Hell, I'm sure some of the people on this board who call themselves "geeks" couldn't do have of what he's apparently done.
For the benefit of those who prefer to think on a more graspable scale, IBM is exploiting an interesting property of closed ellipses. Namely, that a disturbance at once of the focii will create a miraged disturbance at the other focus. If, for example, a swimmer dives into an elliptical pool and strikes a focus, a splash will actually appear at both that focus and the one on the other side of the pool. Similarly, IBM sticks a cobalt atom at one focus of an elliptical ring of cobalt atoms. A miraged cobalt atom appears at the other focus, I'm guessing this is because atoms can be expressed as probability waves - which look a bit like the splash from a diver - and the overlap of all these waves causes an elliptical reflection. If somebody understand particle physics fairly well, I'd appreciate a clarification on that point.
Anyway, what interest me far more is how IBM plans to read the state of this "circuit" without causing a sever disruption, per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You can turn the device on or off by pushing the odd cobalt atom around, but surely attempting a read operation on the device would cause its state to alter? Does anyone have ideas as to how they would avoid this?
So we end up with less funding for them and more funding for useless liberal fedbloat. I pray for the day when the Average Joe will be aware of the technical sophistication and sheer American Ingenuity(tm) that goes into NASA projects, and exactly how beneficial these have been to the United States, nay, the World as a whole. You are a victim of the media; or your own foolishness; or both
I smiled when I read this. Naturally many grandiose arguments can be made about the relative importance of discovering new planets circling distant suns (that is to say, confirming something we all more of less knew anyway) versus keeping, for example, several million impoverished families in warm clothes, food, and medicine for a year (that would be the 'useless liberal fedbloat' I suppose).
The fact is, that neither of these projects can go begging in a society that has long term hopes for itself. I'd agree with your general sentiments that these projects are important and deserve funding, but that's relative to our lifestyles. Personally I'm guessing my priorities might shift a little if my own physical survival were on the budget table for negotiation. The vague hope that someday humans will set foot upon the soil of a foreign planet seems rather unimportant when the insane guy in the next cardbox box keeps trying to steal your blanket.
Was it Dostoevsky who said "Boots are better than novels"? I always liked that quote.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, all you have to do is position a decaying isotope precisely (and I mean *precisely*) in the middle of the two communicating parties, run lines between them composed of an unknown material that conducts the decay products, set up machines that can read the spin of particles whizzing past at the speed of light, and secure the cables so that replaces them with fakes.
Easy.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I'm not sure that I would not want to trust my judgement to a VB app ... couldn't they have at least written it something more robust ... like Perl?
What is with the VB bigotry? In your review of competing products, do you dismiss out of hand the fact that VB is easily maintainable and readable, whereas Perl resembles abstract art drawn from the inner, inarticulate recesses of the mind that coded it?
I like VB, and I'm not alone in liking it. Lay off.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Does anyone else here use Windows Media Player for the sole reason that it doesn't inundate you with banner ads, SPAM opt-outs, clutter, millions of buttons, and useless flash?
Now they're going for the Macromedia angle too. God.
RealNetworks has a gigantic slice of the market pie in streaming media. Yet more evidence that the average consumer does not share the tastes of the average geek.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Ask yourself. If you were a corporation with a business model based upon proprietary secrets, would you:
A) release the secret to an intimate group of 30,000 beaurocrats in order to secure the French account
B) say "screw France" and refuse to comply
France has historically been a hassle to computer companies. First their bizarre (read: non-conformant with European norms) encryption laws, now this. Just how much clout do they think they have here, exactly?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Greydmiyu, for the record I own a Handspring Visor and neither want nor can afford a Pocket PC. However, your post (which by now certainly has reached Score:5) dips pretty deeply into the realm of self deception.
Just listen to yourself:
PocketPC has better email than Palm, but that doesn't count because you don't think retrieving email on the go is important.
PocketPC has better color than Palm, but since you spend all your time outside, you don't care.
PocketPC has more memory than Palm, but "something tells you" that it doesn't matter.
PocketPC is about 10x faster than Palm, but you have a feeling that this is irrelevant. Anyway, 20MHz is enough for anyone.
PocketPC doesn't require extra attention to sync, but that doesn't count because the buzzname they're using resembles a technology you don't like.
PocketPC has more sophisticated handwriting recognition than Palm, but that doesn't count because it's completely reasonable for people to learn how to write twice simply in order to use a PDA.
PocketPC allows voicerecording at no extra charge, but that doesn't count because you can't imagine anyone will ever want to record sound in a meeting.
PocketPC has superior and more intuitive mapping technology, but that doesn't count because real men use astrolabes.
PocketPC has better music support, but that doesn't count because everyone should have at least two wallet-sized silicon devices on them at all times.
PocketPC incorporates ClearType to a better eBook experience, but that doesn't count because, hell, it's all just text.
PocketPC supports more sophisticated games (I've seen a cutesy little DOOM) but that doesn't count because you've got pong when you need it.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
In the Wired article somebody cites below, I found this quote that I feel is fairly similar to the opinions being voiced on slashdot:
:), etc. all in one slim form factor?
"I think it's going to be more of the same," said Michael Mace, Palm's vice president of product strategy. "They are trying to cram a whole PC in your pocket and that's not the way to do it. It makes for a limited PC and an overstuffed handheld. If you want to make a successful handheld you have to figure out what matters most and only put that in."
That certainly is one way of looking at things - what you might call the developer's outlook on software. Keep it simple, flush out the flaws, and eschew unneeded complexity. If that means forsaking some flashy end-user features, so be it.
I couldn't disagree more. Come on people, what is the ultimate goal for handhelds in your world? In 10 years, do you want us al to be using Palm MCXXIII's with 24-bit color and wireless internet but still running minimalist PIM software?
Or, do you want a device that is a gameboy, cellphone, MP3 player, memo pad, PDA, camcorder, phaser
The problem with Microsoft's offering in the handheld market is emphatically *not* that they give the consumer too much. The problem is that they aren't delivering stable lean software. Microsoft incorporates into the Pocket PC's many of the things that ultimately I dream of using in my PDA. They are *far* ahead of the game technologically speaking. But their implementation sucks (at least it did in WinCE, and the C|Net review suggests it still suffers from those problems).
Palm by contrast, is, yes indeed, very stable. And also is not likely to enrich our lives with fantastic new consumer technologies. Contacts are contacts. Appointments are appointments. They are useful, but are they really what you crave when you think about embedded palm-held technologies? If the sluggish rate of Palm's software innovation is any judge, this form of competition from Microsoft is precisely what the industry needs.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Hi Mr. Stallman. I don't use Linux for various reasons of personal preference, but I am excited about the GNU HURD OS and I would like to participate.
The thing is, I work for Microsoft. I am in a bind that I'm sure is shared by many developers who work in large corporations. I want to help out with certain free software projects, but when I was hired at my company, I signed all the various "you own my brain" forms that big companies typically require.
I want to know, would you let a person in a legal situation like mine work on software that is meant to be GPL'd and free? Or would you decline my help based upon the fact that the ownership of my code is disputable?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
At present (2000), copyrights granted prior to 1925 should be expiring. But because of the illegal copyright extension, all works after 1923 are granted an extension, in violation of Ex Post Facto.
I agree with you in principle, but that is not true. Ex Post Facto is a prohibition on laws enacted retroactively to the harm of a directly affected party. Extending copyrights issued in the past is in fact a benefit to the holders of the copyright, and thus is not barred under Ex Post Facto.
Of course, it hurts consumers indirectly and it also hurts people who transgress against the retroactively extended copyright, but it does not technically fall within the bounds of Ex Post Facto.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I own a Handspring Visor Pro (one of those wicked icy blue ones) and although I'm sure investors are going to go mad over this, I don't know whether I would buy into the company.
:)
What are the benefits of a visor that Palm computing can't replicate? I'm not sure they number above three or four.
1) sane pricing for once (this was my big incentive)
2) cool expansible port
3) the PalmOS rep and the notion that this is what a "pure" Palm should be like
You can bet that (2) will be mimicked soon universally, especially in the beefier WinCE's. I believe Palm Computing is already working on this?
The pricing issue is not a very effective barrier to Palm Computing, since they can easily offer a stripped down version that eats into Handspring's share. Even had the Visor been considerably less powerful, I would still have purchased it due to the pricing. I have just enough clutter in my life to justify a palmtop, but not enough to make the difference between 4mb RAM and 8mb significant.
Finally, I suppose OS is a matter of preference, but there are some functionality problems I've encountered with the version that runs on the Visor. And unlike the hardware extensibility, the OS cannot be upgraded, at least in the current models.
Unless Palm Computing is brainless and doesn't offer a lower end model for entry-level newbies like myself, I don't see how Handspring is ultimately going to differentiate itself. The simple fact is that it is too similar to a Palm to survive.
That all said, I wish I had $500 bucks for a wicked cool WinCE device.... Ooooh! Heresy!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
You are very mistaken.
This is a clear signal from the judge to Microsoft: settle now, or else. He's tried to get Microsoft to settle, even bringing in another Federal judge to mediate, which is very unusual. But Microsoft hasn't been willing to make any changes that would end their monopoly power
I don't know any more than you do what was included in the settlement proposal MS faxed to the DOJ last Thursday/Friday, but rumored inclusions were opening the Windows (version?) source and dis-integrating IE from the OS. These are not concessions that would terminate their monopoly power probably, but a monopoly is not intrinsically illegal. The offer is nonetheless very substantial and would certainly give our competitors a vast advantage over us if it were accepted and drafted into practice.
You appear to take the stance of the DOJ - you won't consider any offer from MS an acceptable "compromise" unless it makes provision for legal oversight of future business decisions or a breakup. However, that is not a compromise - it is an utter rout for MS. Such a bargain does not differ from the DOJ's hardline stance one iota, and no reasonable person could suggest that it would be anything other than capitulation.
Furthermore, the judge has delayed the ruling at the request of the DOJ lawyers, clearly indicating that the DOJ believes there is life yet in the settlement process. Or, more cynically, they desire to portray themselves as the wounded party if settlement talks fail (sigh, we tried your honor, but bad old Microsoft...) Either way, the judge is expressing no clear opinion with this latest delay.
Microsoft has had their day in court, and soon the judge will decide their fate. Only the Supreme Court can override him, (there's a provision in antitrust law that fast-tracks big cases to the Supreme Court, bypassing the circuit courts of appeal)
Again, incorrect. There is a provision stating that the DOJ could petition the Supreme Court for direct review, but it is by no means certain. A district court judge could very well overrule Jackson.
Legal opinion is generally that Judge Jackson has done an excellent job on a difficult case.
That doesn't necessarily mean a superior court will rule with him. Remember that MS and the DOJ have confined themselves largely to arguments on the evidence of the case and a smattering of theory. In a higher court, the debate turns to matters of constitutionality, which Jackson doesn't even have under consideration.
This is Microsoft's last chanced
With this judge. They are many more to come should this process be protracted. The story is most certainly not concluded, unless a settlement is reached.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
The W.I.G effect has been understood for a long time; this is a clever application of that effect across disciplines.
This proves an interesting reminder of the fact that "innovation" - an overused term - is so much more than the ability to spawn new ideas fully formed from your brain. Some of the most brilliant advances we have seen and will see are the fortuitous combination of two seemingly unrelated facts or areas of study. That's real genius: the ability to see patterns where a less perceptive person might see none.
I hope someone points to initiatives like this one the next time funding for pure science research is on the block. The quest for knowledge is almost never totally without payoffs.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Consider what would happen if an open-source encryption/decryption algorithm was created (like CSS, the strength of the algorithm is not important), with a license that explicitly forbade both commercial and governmental use.
I sympathize with your goals here, but really, dream on. One thing I've come to realize over the years is that "schemes" that aim to turn law or finance to the benefit of the little guy generally are ill-conceived.
Essentially, what "would happen" is that the megacorp threatened by the warez distribution would convince a judge that there was reason to believe you were pirating their works. The judge would allow discovery, and you would be forced to decrypt the materials yourself.
Remember, big companies do not stomp on little people by winning court cases. They operate by threatening you with the inevitable bankruptcy that any form of legal action would necessarily entail for a person of average means. They realize you can't afford trial costs, and they know from experience that ther mere threat of a lawsuit is generally enough to have you eating out of their hands.
This law is tailored to harm us. It would be bettr to eliminate it, and failing that to protest it. Attempting to "use it to our advantage" will only work to our detriment as we turn our energies away from defeating an unjust law. Bottom line: I don't want to learn how to live with the DMCA. I want it dead.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I find that a arrogant posture to take on this issue. I can't fault your reasoning, but I do disagree with your underlying assumption: that average people do not deserve access to the true power of computers to form and disseminate information. They have on their desks a machine capable of tranforming their home into a clearing house for their ideas and opinions, but you discount that because you don't feel they, in the end, have anything meaningful to contribute to the dialog.
This is the mentality that allows many technical people to grin vaguely when Sun talks about replacing our desktop powerhouses with brainless terminals that place the power of public speech back in the hands of a rich few. It's also an understandable reaction of people fed up with trying to make their passions and motivations clear to lay people, the majority of whom are 5 or 10 years behind the people here. But ultimately your viewpoint is short sighted, because, in the very tradition of open source itself, you can never tell who will have the next brillian idea. There is no guarantee that it will be a techie, and frankly in certain fields of human endeavor such as painting and literature, it's a good bet that it won't be.
Humanity is on the verge of an explosion of creative thought and expression. We are the only people in the world who can make it happen. Please, I know you are an intelligent individual: don't turn your back on what is probably the greatest service your could render humanity in your lifetime: bringing the power of computers to average people.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
This is slightly tangential, but something I think bears pointing out. Have you noticed that whenever OSS enthusiasts talk about bringing Linux/GNOME/Pick your favorite project to the "average user" they always discuss it in terms of making the product mentally accessible to some elderly female relation? I won't stress this so far as to suggest it's sexist that we never talk about "software your dad could use" but, to co-opt a phrase from a Dilbert cartoon: "My mom earned a PhD in Molecular Botany. What does your mom do?" (to which the PHB responded "leave my mom out of this" :-)
:)
The person you're trying to reach isn't necessarily female, and not necessarily a fool. Everyone can benefit from good UI design, otherwise this would all be wasted effort. Remember the theory from college "make the common case fast"? Well, this is fairly similar: "make the common case obvious". Advanced bells, hooks, and whistles are wonderful, but their prominence in your design should befit the frequency of their use. That's one thing I think we generally do pretty well at Microsoft, although it sometimes requires a lot of bitching and moaning before the natural instincts of our devs for obfuscation and tech talk can be overcome
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
As much as it jarrs me to say it, you all asked for it folks.
/. was a sort of refuge from that mentality. Just the other day Clinton's "Internet Security" team was expounding complete traceability on the net. But if slashdotters, who every day are bombarded with privacy propaganda from CmdrTaco & Co, if we still fail to cherish our anonymity and reject the thin blanket of "privacy", then there isn't much hope left.
Of late i've posted less and less to slashdot because I've become disenchanted with the quality of person I meet here. People who, as a result of their mild annoyance at F1R$7 P0$7ers and other trolls, endorse eliminating Anonymous Cowards. People who make ponderous distinctions between "privacy" and "anonymity", stating that while they cherish the first the second should be put down like a rabid dog.
Folks, privacy without anonymity cannot exist without a strongly legal barrier and vigilant law enforcement. But, as any sensible citizen shoudl have puzzled out by now, the people who influence or even fabricate those laws and the people who want to abuse your private profiles are generally about two shakes of a fleas leg apart from one another. Anonymity is crucial, because only you yourself can truly be trusted to protect your private information to a degree commensurate with its worth to you. Without anonymity, and only with legally enforced "privacy", the laxity of others in guarding their personal information can also affect the security of my own information. That is clearly a losing scenario for those who care whether their every quirk is ground down mathematically in a relational grid.
Of course sentiments like that aren't confined to slashdot, in fact I once had thought
So don't come bitching about losses of privacy. When you turned your backs on anonymity, you asked for it.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
The original and best treatment of this subject matter is William Golding's Lord of the Flies.
Read the book:
Lord of the Flies at Barnes and Nobles
Or watch the movie:
Lord of the Flies (1963) at IMDB.COM
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
In a way you've illustrated what is wrong with strict adherence to standards.
Since you agree we don't violate the RFC for mail, I can't see anyone around here being convinced that making life a little easier for parser developers is worth confusing our many international customers. To look at it another way, a truly global standards body would have included support for internationalization rather than merely leaving the issue open. You should be angry at the RFC for being wishy-washy, not at Microsoft for doing what its customers want while still adhering to that standard. I'm sorry it makes life harder for you, but it also makes life easier for people in, for example, singapore.
As for the Usenet posting issue, Outlook currently isn't used for posting to usenet. For that we use Outlook Express. However, at some point Outlook will probably be used for this function. I can enter a bug tomorrow and see what happens. However, as in the case above, this is really a bug in the standard, not a bug in OE. Standards are fallible too, just like product specs.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
OK, I'll bite. In what way do we not comply with RFC822?
I'm a tester after all. I'd be happy to enter a bug in the database.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Oh, well, I suppose since you've already made up your minds there's really no point in actually shipping Windows2000 after all. Slashdot's fact-hungry editors have already proven to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that:
1) Win2k is buggy
2) Win2k is unstable
3) Win2k is outrageously licensed
4) Win2k is bloated
5) Win2k is anti-Linux vaporware
6) Win2k can't live in a heterogeneous lan
I admire this prescient ability to review Win2k without even possessing a trial copy. What a lot of money Roblimo has saved all of us by supplying us with pre-shrink-wrapped opinions which require no critical thought on our part. Truly, this is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
In fairness, keep in mind that "defect", or even "bug" for that matter is a very broad term.
I myself am a QA tester, although not in the Windows group. I've entered many, many bugs that were Postponed or Won't Fixed that, honestly, probably didn't deserve to be fixed. Things like "such and such a static is too long for this control" or "we should notify the user if x, y, or z happens". Little niggly things in other words.
Keep in mind that a "bug" is anything a tester doesn't like, including personal design preferences. It isn't necessarily a flaw that would interfere with use of the product. If a bug is of that kind, then it's smart for a time-starved group to Postpone or Won't Fix the issue.
-matthew Priestley
mpriest@microsoft.com
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Anybody else notice that the comment by the VA Linux guy above is scored to 4 without an "sum of moderation" remarks attached to the post?
Is it possible that "Kit Cosper", a VA employee, has the ability to score himself up to 4 without moderation?
Or, is my browser somehow dropping the information?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
You know your market perspective is skewed when...
Roblimo calls a guy with a three computers at home running over a lan he installed himself, and who waxes nostalgic for his old HTML editor a "typical desktop user".
Wake up people! The typical desktop user doesn't understand the difference between "netscape" and their operating system! If you unplug their keyboards in the night they will call tech support in the morning! They run their monitors in 640x480x256 because they don't realize there are any other settings!
If you're planning on marketing Linux to the masses, at least get the character sketch straight. This guy is at least what you could call a "power user". Hell, I'm sure some of the people on this board who call themselves "geeks" couldn't do have of what he's apparently done.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
For the benefit of those who prefer to think on a more graspable scale, IBM is exploiting an interesting property of closed ellipses. Namely, that a disturbance at once of the focii will create a miraged disturbance at the other focus. If, for example, a swimmer dives into an elliptical pool and strikes a focus, a splash will actually appear at both that focus and the one on the other side of the pool. Similarly, IBM sticks a cobalt atom at one focus of an elliptical ring of cobalt atoms. A miraged cobalt atom appears at the other focus, I'm guessing this is because atoms can be expressed as probability waves - which look a bit like the splash from a diver - and the overlap of all these waves causes an elliptical reflection. If somebody understand particle physics fairly well, I'd appreciate a clarification on that point.
Anyway, what interest me far more is how IBM plans to read the state of this "circuit" without causing a sever disruption, per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You can turn the device on or off by pushing the odd cobalt atom around, but surely attempting a read operation on the device would cause its state to alter? Does anyone have ideas as to how they would avoid this?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
So we end up with less funding for them and more funding for useless liberal fedbloat. I pray for the day when the Average Joe will be aware of the technical sophistication and sheer American Ingenuity(tm) that goes into NASA projects, and exactly how beneficial these have been to the United States, nay, the World as a whole. You are a victim of the media; or your own foolishness; or both
I smiled when I read this. Naturally many grandiose arguments can be made about the relative importance of discovering new planets circling distant suns (that is to say, confirming something we all more of less knew anyway) versus keeping, for example, several million impoverished families in warm clothes, food, and medicine for a year (that would be the 'useless liberal fedbloat' I suppose).
The fact is, that neither of these projects can go begging in a society that has long term hopes for itself. I'd agree with your general sentiments that these projects are important and deserve funding, but that's relative to our lifestyles. Personally I'm guessing my priorities might shift a little if my own physical survival were on the budget table for negotiation. The vague hope that someday humans will set foot upon the soil of a foreign planet seems rather unimportant when the insane guy in the next cardbox box keeps trying to steal your blanket.
Was it Dostoevsky who said "Boots are better than novels"? I always liked that quote.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Draw what conclusions you like from this episode, but I'm looking at the facts of particular case:
1) security hole found prior to ship
2) security hole reported to MS on Jan 17th
3) tested patch issued and publicized Jan 28th
That sounds pretty decent to me.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!