"The company is dealing with both technical and marketing challenges presented by the new software security system. For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use."
he went on to explain:
"What I mean is that we cannot have our customers using deductive reasoning to come to an obvious conclusion which might jeopardize our market share (control). Could you imagine the implications? We would rather them just trust us - and relax - big broth.. uhhh... I mean Microsoft has it all taken care of"
Re:Do americans really work 'harder' ?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
I have worked in europe, and I would most defiantly have to say, yes - we do work harder. How do you think we have become arguably the greatest superpower the world has ever seen - luck? I will admit though, that I was generally a happier, more peaceful person while working overseas.
Patenting software would effectively eliminate someone from building a similar application - much like the business method patents.
"This is a well-known USian problem. But not a European one. Europe centers on the French system where the creation of new laws is dominated by legislation. Europe doesn't center around the UK/USian one where courts directly or indirectly create laws by interpreting the constitution. Remember that the patentability of business methods in the US came primarily from a court ruling. Europe simply doesn't have this problem."
First - the U.S. constitution had nothing to do with the mentioned judicial interpretation/ruling. Those go to the Supreme Court.
Second - The origin of the patentability is irrelevant to the argument. Legislative, Judicial... Pick your poison. Software patents would have a negative impact on the industry regardless of which branch of government is responsible for their existence. Ha - talk about slamming the euro courts with patent disputes! Better pull out the law books and take a few rhetoric courses... after you pass logic 101. Think.
REDMOND, WA--In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
A number of major Silicon Valley players, including Apple Computer, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, said they will challenge the Microsoft patent as monopolistic and anti-competitive, claiming that the 10-cent-per-digit licensing fee would bankrupt them instantly.
"While, technically, Java is a complex system of algorithms used to create a platform-independent programming environment, it is, at its core, just a string of trillions of ones and zeroes," said Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, whose company created the Java programming environment used in many Internet applications. "The licensing fees we'd have to pay Microsoft every day would be approximately 327,000 times the total net worth of this company."
"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."
As a result of the Microsoft patent, many other companies have begun radically revising their product lines: Database manufacturer Oracle has embarked on a crash program to develop "an abacus for the next millennium." Novell, whose communications and networking systems are also subject to Microsoft licensing fees, is working with top animal trainers on a chimpanzee-based message-transmission system. Hewlett-Packard is developing a revolutionary new steam-powered printer.
Despite the swarm of protest, Gates is standing his ground, maintaining that ones and zeroes are the undisputed property of Microsoft.
"We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."
Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."
According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized.
"Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything."
It will be intersting to see this one play out. I installed RH 9 on a machine I use as a LAN server and I have to say that I am pretty impressed. Gnome/KDE blow windows out of the water IMO. I think that you will see a large shift in market share as the common man becomes more computer literate.
One example - I went to visit my family a few months ago - was talking to my 15 year old sister and noticed that her desktop looked odd. Took a closer look and realized she was running KDE. She explained that she was sick of her system getting virri and being generally unstalbe, always having to reboot - so she googled for an alternative to Windows and ended up installing Suse herself. My sister is not knowledable about computers - she just uses her machine for email, webbrowsing, mp3s, and IM.
This made an impression on me - I think that the days of the 'computer impared' are numberd. Her generation is not going to put up with Palladium - ha.
I think Palladium will cause a good amout of market share to change hands. Will it go to apple or linux? I think it will be about even when it comes to the home user - but if linux starts eating into apple's share I am certain they will just release OS X for X86.
"See, our model indicates that when you first start debugging your code there is more bugs than when you are almost finished. At which point the bugs the remaining bugs tend to be more difficult to find (less obvious), due to the fact that you have not found them yet. Furthermore, our models suggest that when working with a larger more diverse group of people, testing/debugging is accelerated.
One has to kinda feel bad for the recording industry, poisoned by the P2P, we watch this dinosaur breath it's last few breaths. Sympathy aside; do we need record labels? What need or demand do they fulfill? They take artists, produce their albums, then distribute the album (radio/CDs.TV) - their revenue is generated from record sales of which 1-2 percent ends up going to the artist. Artists make money by touring and endorsements.
Recording equipment used to be extremely expensive - thus making bands dependent on record labels to front the money needed to make an album. This is not the case anymore. One can make a professional recording studio for under 30,000 dollars, and this number keeps shrinking every year. Bands can produce/fund their own albums. Technology has brought 'Recording' to the individual - eliminating the 'Industry'.
What about distribution? Well, it is evident the Internet is a pretty effective medium for distributing music. No longer are people limited to being exposed to new music solely by what they hear on the radio or see on tv; rather millions of people can be exposed to your music via the internet. Radio and TV were easy for the RIAA to control/influence - but the internet is to decentralized.
No more mass marketed music? Sounds like a good idea to me. No more boy bands, brittany spears, lincon park, etc. What does marketing have to do with art?
History will explain the recording industry as merely a phenomina fueled (and destroyed) by the development of digital technology. IMHO.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,323833,00.asp
I attacked the truth and validity of his argument:
Argument:
The reason that MS pulled IE is because mac is:
"1)Apple has been notorious about giving little or no access to the OS to develop software.... 2) This has been a major reason for most companies not porting software to the Mac platform. Thats fact not opinion."
Rebutal:
Statement number 1 is not representative of the truth being that a majority of os x is comprised of open source.
&
Your reasoning is invalid because it implies that developers prefer MS because they are more lienient when it comes to allowing developers more access to the OS. (don't think I have to argue that truth of my assumption - remember that whole anti-trust mess?)
"Hate to break it to you, but only the part that is open source, is what they stole from open source community...and if you knew anything about programming, you would know that it takes more than just source from the UNIX portion to write software."
Oh, I see... You know little or nothing about OS X... Please take some time to learn what you are talking about as to not seem like a jackass in the future. Darwin was not stolen... It is still open source with concurrent x86 builds. Cocoa is an amazing API. Project Builder is pretty nice as well. Does Microsoft provide developers with this? Sure they do, right? Is Microsoft's Windows Media Server open source; and will it run on Linux, Solaris and Windows NT/2000 - hmmm...
MSDN.com just gives you the info you need when you need it right? "Cut and Dry - it is not bloated at all.;-)
"I work in the radio field, and the only decent application that runs on Mac is Protools. Everything else we use is PC only"
Ah, Radio... what a cutting edge field... I hear that is where things are headed - FM. Ha. Developers are all over it.
Protools is nice, but I am sure you have heard of Logicand Cubase right? BTW, no more Logic for pc - mac bought Emagic.
Radio Automation software - you mean a digital media player with an integrated database? (a few open source apps that cover this)
News Delivery Software.... You mean a newswire?
Satellite Control Software - well - you sure that WIN32 is the only platform supported?
All these apps that you claim are not being written for mac - where are they? You use WIN32 applications at the 'radio station' - woohoo. Your point?
Why isn't Microsoft getting any of these or these? When is the last time that Microsoft invented something as influential as Firewire? Where are these apps you speak of?
Ya, go ahead, call him up... Explain to him how Apple's new browser is is based on WebCore, which is open source (as is a majority of the OS X). Be sure to explain that this has nothing to do with Microsoft's decision to stop development of standalone versions versions of IE for its own OS. If he asks... This decision had nothing to do with this either.
"Apple has been notorious about giving little or no access to the OS to develop software."
Hate to break it to you, but a majority of OS X is open source.
"This has been a major reason for most companies not porting software to the Mac platform."
So, what you are saying is that developers are/will not port software to OSX because Apple does not provide enough source... I guess that is why all the developers flock to Microsoft - Microsoft loves to provide Windows source.
Ha. You are a moron. Name me one significant application that is not avalible on OS X...
Microsoft brought IE to mac to gain leverage during the browser wars - also helped them with a few of their antitruse issues.
This being said - I think that Microsoft put good amount of development into IE for mac - still a piece of crap - but they tried. They knew that mac users would not put up with mickey mouse BS like IE for windows. They should add some of the features from their mac browser to IE on windows.
Omniweb (Webcore), Camino, Mozilla, and Firebird are, and have been for some time, the most competitive mac browsers. (left IE in the dust a long time ago) To imply that Safari is the undisputed king is nieve. I actually think that Omniweb 5.0 is going to shake things up a good amount when it arives ( Omnigroup has a lot of former neXtstep people).
Microsoft is pulling IE because it does not fit into their Palladium/DRM strategy. I am sure there will be no tears shed over this one - they can have both Pallidium and IE - need to keep those 'features' for the Windows users.;-)
Microsoft brought IE to mac to gain leverage during the browser wars - also helped them with a few of their antitruse issues.
This being said - I think that Microsoft put good amount of development into IE for mac - still a piece of crap - but they tried. They knew that mac users would not put up with mickey mouse BS like IE for windows. They should add some of the features from their mac browser to IE on windows.
"And perhaps now they realize that their garbage code is to difficult and time consuming to fix to compete in an arena that never had competition before (before safari came)."
No competition before safari? Ever hear of Omniweb, Camino, iCab, Mozilla, Opera? These browsers (espically Camino and Mozilla Firebird) are pretty much neck and neck with safari.
Microsoft is pulling IE because it does not fit into their Palladium/DRM schema. I am sure there will be no tears shed over this one - they can take both pallidium and IE - they need to keep those 'features' for the Windows users.;-)
First - The Open Group was created in order to manage Microsoft's " open systems activities"(ActiveX) .
"The Open Group, created this year to act as the holding company for The Open Software Foundation (OSF) and X/Open Company Ltd., provides a worldwide forum for collaborative development and other open systems activities.
The Active Group, to be formed under the auspices of The Open Group, will manage the evolution of ActiveX technologies. It will take advantage of The Open Group services in the areas of development, branding, testing and licensing. The Active Group also will provide a forum for discussion and input on the direction of ActiveX."
Microsoft will provide specifications, source code, reference implementations and validation tests for ActiveX technologies to The Open Group.
They claim to support "standards", but their standards are not W3C type stadards. The Open Group's standards involves "Boundaryless Information Flow":
Any full solution to the Boundaryless Information Flow problem needs to have a chain of technology components, preferably based on open standards, that:
- Integrate data
- Securely deliver data
- Register data
- Enable the flow of data
- Develop systems that enable this flow of data
- Manage systems that deliver this flow of data
- Adhere to policies that govern the flow of data
They want to standardize open source to the point of defining process and architecture. Sounds to me like a ploy to curb/control the innovation that is charteristic of the open source community and at the same time distract attention from standards like W3C. Interopablity has nothing to do with the flow, but rather the format of data (apple).
This lawsuit and their copyright is nothing but mickey mouse BS - much like SCO. Is Microsoft be behind both? If they are not - they should be - because the likes of Unix and Apple could sink their boat pretty quickly once they slap palladium in their product.
No. We invade when our national security is at risk OR when an Ally cannot defend itself. Here is a better question, what is wrong with you? Have not the French learned anything? The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag. You do realize you owe your freedom to the thousands of Americans who died defending your nation when you yourself could not/would not.
Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day - the description was, 'Never shot. Dropped once.
Who would be speaking German right now, wondering what happend to all his jewish friends, if it was not for the US? There would be no British Military if it was not for America.
The US took massive casualties in WWII. More than the Brittish and French combined (the french had very litte casualties - maybe cause they did not fight). Name me one successfull french military campaign - Napolean? Ha.
Britan has a well trained military, which has proven its courage and tenacity. This being said, it is outrageous for you to question American's willingness to stand up to opposition, when the exsistence of your own freedom proves the opposite. D-Day, Battle of the Buldge, Iwo Jima.
The article says nothing about the United States or Europe being threatend, rather references how the project has been held back by "sqabbles" over influence between the ESA states, and how Britian, The Netherlands, and Germany argued the project's irrelavence given the existing US GPS infastructure. Which I might add will no longer be "degraded" 2 years before Galileo will supposedaly be operational.
What is the economic advantage of this project? Why not leverage what already exists? This could be likend to creating your own Internet (another DARPA project). It seems that this is just going to generate more goverment funded jobs sending europe even deeper into the economic grave that is socialism (sweden's GNP). Even if the motivation is rooted in paranoia - there is no gain in security - the US could drop those satillies in a heartbeat.
Basically, the US could care less if Europe has their own GPS spinoff over a decade after it was cutting edge technology - just all work together nicely and end the "sqabbles". I get nervous when sqabbling and Europe are used in the same sentence. I have my Selective Services number... Maybe get the UN involved - I mean that is why the UN was created - to prevent another European sparked
Most definantly not "begging the question". Begging the question is an informal logical falacy in which one assumes what one claims to be proving. Not the case here - being that the statement is a question itself.
Guardians of World Peace - maybe - I can recall two times when the US had to play this role in your neck of the woods.
The article says nothing about the United States being threatend, rather references how the project has been held back by "sqabbles" over influence between the ESA states, and how Britian, The Netherlands, and Germany argued the project's irrelavence given the existing US GPS infastructure. Which I might add will no longer be "degraded" 2 years before Galileo will supposedaly be operational.
What is the economic advantage of this project? It seems that it is just going to generate more goverment funded jobs sending europe even deeper into the economic grave that is socialism (sweden's GNP). Even if the motivation is rooted in paranoia - there is no gain in security - the US could drop those satillies in a heartbeat.
Basically, the US could care less if Europe has their own GPS spinoff over a decade after it was cutting edge technology - just all work together nicely and end the "sqabbles". I get nervous when sqabbling and Europe are used in the same sentence. I have my Selective Services number... Maybe get the UN involved - I mean that is why the UN was created - to prevent another European sparked World War.
First, embedded systems are no longer thought of, or designed from the perspective of being, "closed". A very simple digital watch is the an example of a "closed" embedded system, being that it does not have to communicate with or rely on another device's logic/input to function (closed loop). On the other hand, the embedded systems found in cars/routers/switches/cellphones/servers etc. are not, and cannot be described as "closed systems" - they rely on input from other digital devices such as sensors or other embedded logic in order to function. By definition, there is NO communication/input in a closed system. Learn.Learn more.
"In order to be flexible enough to do everythign a computer can do, computer languages have to be allowed to crash the computer. Otherwise you are severly limiting what they can do and slowing thigns down."
Yes, as we have learned, if you want to create a system that is based on any type of varibles/input, it has to be open. You do not seem to understand that an embedded system is called "embedded" because the OS instructions are contained in the chip architecture. Instead writing code which uses a defined chip architecture (x86,PPC,Alpha), the code/logic is "embedded" in the chip. You can write software for imbedded devices - my cell phone runs java apps. There are many devices which utilize embedded linux, I have a webcam that runs its own apache webserver. So, no, embedded devices are not "severly" limited, and they most defiantly not slow! They instantly boot when turned on! Ha.
"1) accept a restricted operating system that will never be able to compete with a commercial system like Windows."
Your assumption of being restricted is wrong, check out Transmeta - and what does windows being "commercial" have to do with anything? How is an embedded system not commercial? Why can't a "non-commercial" system compete with a "commercial" system? Is my cellphone not commercial? Do you know the definition of commercial?
"2) Never install a program that was not A) created by the same company/group that wrote your operating sytem, B) specifically designed for your particular computer, and C) designed to be used with and thoroughly tested against all the other software that is currently installed on your PC."
How does something being created by "the same company/group" have anything to do with embedded systems, and/or system stability? (proprietary/opensorce) Not designed for my PC? I thought we were talking about embedded devices... What does your misinformed/erronous ideas about embedded devices have to do with a PC?
Your argument is based on numerous false assumptions which makes it untrue, and your misuse of words and their definitions makes your reasoning/correlations invalid. Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about.
We're sorry, but... We don't support this browser.
To use Gator Corporation software, you must be using one of the following browsers:
* Internet Explorer 4.x and above
* MSN 6.x and above
* Netscape 4.x
* AOL 5.x and above
Click here to download a compatible IE browser. Click here to download a compatible MSN browser. Click here to download a compatible Netscape browser. Click here to download a compatible AOL browser.
TRANSLATION
Sorry... You are too knowledgable for our liking.
But if we are mistaken:
Click here to download a compatible IE browser. Click here to download a compatible MSN browser. Click here to download a compatible Netscape browser. Click here to download a compatible AOL browser.
"But having a setting available that can crash the app if not properly configured is often a sign of good design, not bad design."
What? Allowing for settings which if configured incorrectly could render the application useless is not a sign of good design. Maybe it is charteristic of applications that allow a good amount of flexibity, but not good design. Well written code should never crash - rather generate error messages that tell the user/developer what went wrong.
" Although I certainly have no problems with apple or macs in general, I do have a problem with their user interfaces. Personally I don't think not giving the user the option of defining any settings which could cause malfunction to be the answer. The reason? Well it's pretty simple, when set properly those same settings give flexibility, added functionality, and performance (at least one, sometimes two, often all three of the above"
I think you are missing the point made concerning OS X. It provides a very impressive GUI with no loss in functionality/flexiblity. Remember... It is Unix.. The best of both worlds - or I guess you could say all worlds... I currently have Windows XP and KDE running inside OS X. Settings Galore! Ha.
I agree - much like retaliating against a guy whom you find has been nailing your girlfriend/wife. He didn't necessarily do anything wrong by letting your significant other polish his knob - blame falls on the slut.
The Igbo had tribal councils - good for them - espically impressive in contrast to their surrounding cultures which are more represenative of overall African culture. http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/peopl e/Igbo.htm l
America is a republic not a democracy. That being said, whom do you propose Americans look too for guidence? Africa? Europe? U.N.? Ha.
Pragmatically, the American goverment is the best example of "democracy"/capitalism to date. Not to mention that the U.S. is the oldest national "democracy" in exsistence. Maybe these the reasons why the US constitution (federalism) has been the model by which the majority of exsisting free nations based their goverments (france, germany, canada, tiawan, spain, russia,...)
Slashdot Mirror
"The company is dealing with both technical and marketing challenges presented by the new software security system. For example, Mr. Juarez, the Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure side to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion that its current software is not as safe to use. "
he went on to explain:
"What I mean is that we cannot have our customers using deductive reasoning to come to an obvious conclusion which might jeopardize our market share (control). Could you imagine the implications? We would rather them just trust us - and relax - big broth.. uhhh... I mean Microsoft has it all taken care of"
I have worked in europe, and I would most defiantly have to say, yes - we do work harder. How do you think we have become arguably the greatest superpower the world has ever seen - luck? I will admit though, that I was generally a happier, more peaceful person while working overseas.
Patenting software would effectively eliminate someone from building a similar application - much like the business method patents.
"This is a well-known USian problem. But not a European one. Europe centers on the French system where the creation of new laws is dominated by legislation. Europe doesn't center around the UK/USian one where courts directly or indirectly create laws by interpreting the constitution. Remember that the patentability of business methods in the US came primarily from a court ruling. Europe simply doesn't have this problem."
First - the U.S. constitution had nothing to do with the mentioned judicial interpretation/ruling. Those go to the Supreme Court.
Second - The origin of the patentability is irrelevant to the argument. Legislative, Judicial... Pick your poison. Software patents would have a negative impact on the industry regardless of which branch of government is responsible for their existence. Ha - talk about slamming the euro courts with patent disputes! Better pull out the law books and take a few rhetoric courses... after you pass logic 101. Think.
REDMOND, WA--In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
A number of major Silicon Valley players, including Apple Computer, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, said they will challenge the Microsoft patent as monopolistic and anti-competitive, claiming that the 10-cent-per-digit licensing fee would bankrupt them instantly.
"While, technically, Java is a complex system of algorithms used to create a platform-independent programming environment, it is, at its core, just a string of trillions of ones and zeroes," said Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, whose company created the Java programming environment used in many Internet applications. "The licensing fees we'd have to pay Microsoft every day would be approximately 327,000 times the total net worth of this company."
"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."
As a result of the Microsoft patent, many other companies have begun radically revising their product lines: Database manufacturer Oracle has embarked on a crash program to develop "an abacus for the next millennium." Novell, whose communications and networking systems are also subject to Microsoft licensing fees, is working with top animal trainers on a chimpanzee-based message-transmission system. Hewlett-Packard is developing a revolutionary new steam-powered printer.
Despite the swarm of protest, Gates is standing his ground, maintaining that ones and zeroes are the undisputed property of Microsoft.
"We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."
Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."
According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized.
"Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything."
Lattimore said that the only mat
It will be intersting to see this one play out. I installed RH 9 on a machine I use as a LAN server and I have to say that I am pretty impressed. Gnome/KDE blow windows out of the water IMO. I think that you will see a large shift in market share as the common man becomes more computer literate.
One example - I went to visit my family a few months ago - was talking to my 15 year old sister and noticed that her desktop looked odd. Took a closer look and realized she was running KDE. She explained that she was sick of her system getting virri and being generally unstalbe, always having to reboot - so she googled for an alternative to Windows and ended up installing Suse herself. My sister is not knowledable about computers - she just uses her machine for email, webbrowsing, mp3s, and IM.
This made an impression on me - I think that the days of the 'computer impared' are numberd. Her generation is not going to put up with Palladium - ha.
I think Palladium will cause a good amout of market share to change hands. Will it go to apple or linux? I think it will be about even when it comes to the home user - but if linux starts eating into apple's share I am certain they will just release OS X for X86.
"See, our model indicates that when you first start debugging your code there is more bugs than when you are almost finished. At which point the bugs the remaining bugs tend to be more difficult to find (less obvious), due to the fact that you have not found them yet. Furthermore, our models suggest that when working with a larger more diverse group of people, testing/debugging is accelerated.
;-)
Nah....
One has to kinda feel bad for the recording industry, poisoned by the P2P, we watch this dinosaur breath it's last few breaths. Sympathy aside; do we need record labels? What need or demand do they fulfill? They take artists, produce their albums, then distribute the album (radio/CDs.TV) - their revenue is generated from record sales of which 1-2 percent ends up going to the artist. Artists make money by touring and endorsements.
Recording equipment used to be extremely expensive - thus making bands dependent on record labels to front the money needed to make an album. This is not the case anymore. One can make a professional recording studio for under 30,000 dollars, and this number keeps shrinking every year. Bands can produce/fund their own albums. Technology has brought 'Recording' to the individual - eliminating the 'Industry'.
What about distribution? Well, it is evident the Internet is a pretty effective medium for distributing music. No longer are people limited to being exposed to new music solely by what they hear on the radio or see on tv; rather millions of people can be exposed to your music via the internet. Radio and TV were easy for the RIAA to control/influence - but the internet is to decentralized.
No more mass marketed music? Sounds like a good idea to me. No more boy bands, brittany spears, lincon park, etc. What does marketing have to do with art?
History will explain the recording industry as merely a phenomina fueled (and destroyed) by the development of digital technology. IMHO.
a pack of nicotine free cigarettes with every purchase.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,323833,00.asp
I attacked the truth and validity of his argument:
Argument:
The reason that MS pulled IE is because mac is:
"1)Apple has been notorious about giving little or no access to the OS to develop software. ... 2) This has been a major reason for most companies not porting software to the Mac platform. Thats fact not opinion."
Rebutal:
Statement number 1 is not representative of the truth being that a majority of os x is comprised of open source.
&
Your reasoning is invalid because it implies that developers prefer MS because they are more lienient when it comes to allowing developers more access to the OS. (don't think I have to argue that truth of my assumption - remember that whole anti-trust mess?)
"Hate to break it to you, but only the part that is open source, is what they stole from open source community...and if you knew anything about programming, you would know that it takes more than just source from the UNIX portion to write software."
;-)
Oh, I see... You know little or nothing about OS X... Please take some time to learn what you are talking about as to not seem like a jackass in the future. Darwin was not stolen... It is still open source with concurrent x86 builds. Cocoa is an amazing API. Project Builder is pretty nice as well. Does Microsoft provide developers with this? Sure they do, right? Is Microsoft's Windows Media Server open source; and will it run on Linux, Solaris and Windows NT/2000 - hmmm...
MSDN.com just gives you the info you need when you need it right? "Cut and Dry - it is not bloated at all.
"I work in the radio field, and the only decent application that runs on Mac is Protools. Everything else we use is PC only"
Ah, Radio... what a cutting edge field... I hear that is where things are headed - FM. Ha. Developers are all over it.
Protools is nice, but I am sure you have heard of Logicand Cubase right? BTW, no more Logic for pc - mac bought Emagic.
Radio Automation software - you mean a digital media player with an integrated database? (a few open source apps that cover this)
News Delivery Software.... You mean a newswire?
Satellite Control Software - well - you sure that WIN32 is the only platform supported?
All these apps that you claim are not being written for mac - where are they? You use WIN32 applications at the 'radio station' - woohoo. Your point?
Why isn't Microsoft getting any of these or these? When is the last time that Microsoft invented something as influential as Firewire? Where are these apps you speak of?
Yes, please go on - moron.
Ya, go ahead, call him up... Explain to him how Apple's new browser is is based on WebCore, which is open source (as is a majority of the OS X). Be sure to explain that this has nothing to do with Microsoft's decision to stop development of standalone versions versions of IE for its own OS. If he asks... This decision had nothing to do with this either.
Go get em' moron!
"Apple has been notorious about giving little or no access to the OS to develop software."
Hate to break it to you, but a majority of OS X is open source.
"This has been a major reason for most companies not porting software to the Mac platform."
So, what you are saying is that developers are/will not port software to OSX because Apple does not provide enough source... I guess that is why all the developers flock to Microsoft - Microsoft loves to provide Windows source.
Ha. You are a moron. Name me one significant application that is not avalible on OS X...
Keep clicking on that Start button!
Microsoft brought IE to mac to gain leverage during the browser wars - also helped them with a few of their antitruse issues.
;-)
This being said - I think that Microsoft put good amount of development into IE for mac - still a piece of crap - but they tried. They knew that mac users would not put up with mickey mouse BS like IE for windows. They should add some of the features from their mac browser to IE on windows.
Omniweb (Webcore), Camino, Mozilla, and Firebird are, and have been for some time, the most competitive mac browsers. (left IE in the dust a long time ago) To imply that Safari is the undisputed king is nieve. I actually think that Omniweb 5.0 is going to shake things up a good amount when it arives ( Omnigroup has a lot of former neXtstep people).
Microsoft is pulling IE because it does not fit into their Palladium/DRM strategy. I am sure there will be no tears shed over this one - they can have both Pallidium and IE - need to keep those 'features' for the Windows users.
Microsoft brought IE to mac to gain leverage during the browser wars - also helped them with a few of their antitruse issues.
;-)
This being said - I think that Microsoft put good amount of development into IE for mac - still a piece of crap - but they tried. They knew that mac users would not put up with mickey mouse BS like IE for windows. They should add some of the features from their mac browser to IE on windows.
"And perhaps now they realize that their garbage code is to difficult and time consuming to fix to compete in an arena that never had competition before (before safari came)."
No competition before safari? Ever hear of Omniweb, Camino, iCab, Mozilla, Opera? These browsers (espically Camino and Mozilla Firebird) are pretty much neck and neck with safari.
Microsoft is pulling IE because it does not fit into their Palladium/DRM schema. I am sure there will be no tears shed over this one - they can take both pallidium and IE - they need to keep those 'features' for the Windows users.
First - The Open Group was created in order to manage Microsoft's " open systems activities"(ActiveX) .
"The Open Group, created this year to act as the holding company for The Open Software Foundation (OSF) and X/Open Company Ltd., provides a worldwide forum for collaborative development and other open systems activities.
The Active Group, to be formed under the auspices of The Open Group, will manage the evolution of ActiveX technologies. It will take advantage of The Open Group services in the areas of development, branding, testing and licensing. The Active Group also will provide a forum for discussion and input on the direction of ActiveX."
Microsoft will provide specifications, source code, reference implementations and validation tests for ActiveX technologies to The Open Group.
They claim to support "standards", but their standards are not W3C type stadards. The Open Group's standards involves "Boundaryless Information Flow":
Any full solution to the Boundaryless Information Flow problem needs to have a chain of technology components, preferably based on open standards, that: - Integrate data - Securely deliver data - Register data - Enable the flow of data - Develop systems that enable this flow of data - Manage systems that deliver this flow of data - Adhere to policies that govern the flow of data
They want to standardize open source to the point of defining process and architecture. Sounds to me like a ploy to curb/control the innovation that is charteristic of the open source community and at the same time distract attention from standards like W3C. Interopablity has nothing to do with the flow, but rather the format of data (apple).
This lawsuit and their copyright is nothing but mickey mouse BS - much like SCO. Is Microsoft be behind both? If they are not - they should be - because the likes of Unix and Apple could sink their boat pretty quickly once they slap palladium in their product.
No. We invade when our national security is at risk OR when an Ally cannot defend itself. Here is a better question, what is wrong with you? Have not the French learned anything? The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag. You do realize you owe your freedom to the thousands of Americans who died defending your nation when you yourself could not/would not.
Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day - the description was, 'Never shot. Dropped once.
Pop-Question:
Who would be speaking German right now, wondering what happend to all his jewish friends, if it was not for the US? There would be no British Military if it was not for America.
The US took massive casualties in WWII. More than the Brittish and French combined (the french had very litte casualties - maybe cause they did not fight). Name me one successfull french military campaign - Napolean? Ha.
Britan has a well trained military, which has proven its courage and tenacity. This being said, it is outrageous for you to question American's willingness to stand up to opposition, when the exsistence of your own freedom proves the opposite. D-Day, Battle of the Buldge, Iwo Jima.
World War I and World War II
The article says nothing about the United States or Europe being threatend, rather references how the project has been held back by "sqabbles" over influence between the ESA states, and how Britian, The Netherlands, and Germany argued the project's irrelavence given the existing US GPS infastructure. Which I might add will no longer be "degraded" 2 years before Galileo will supposedaly be operational.
What is the economic advantage of this project? Why not leverage what already exists? This could be likend to creating your own Internet (another DARPA project). It seems that this is just going to generate more goverment funded jobs sending europe even deeper into the economic grave that is socialism (sweden's GNP). Even if the motivation is rooted in paranoia - there is no gain in security - the US could drop those satillies in a heartbeat.
Basically, the US could care less if Europe has their own GPS spinoff over a decade after it was cutting edge technology - just all work together nicely and end the "sqabbles". I get nervous when sqabbling and Europe are used in the same sentence. I have my Selective Services number... Maybe get the UN involved - I mean that is why the UN was created - to prevent another European sparked
Most definantly not "begging the question". Begging the question is an informal logical falacy in which one assumes what one claims to be proving. Not the case here - being that the statement is a question itself.
Guardians of World Peace - maybe - I can recall two times when the US had to play this role in your neck of the woods.
The article says nothing about the United States being threatend, rather references how the project has been held back by "sqabbles" over influence between the ESA states, and how Britian, The Netherlands, and Germany argued the project's irrelavence given the existing US GPS infastructure. Which I might add will no longer be "degraded" 2 years before Galileo will supposedaly be operational.
What is the economic advantage of this project? It seems that it is just going to generate more goverment funded jobs sending europe even deeper into the economic grave that is socialism (sweden's GNP). Even if the motivation is rooted in paranoia - there is no gain in security - the US could drop those satillies in a heartbeat.
Basically, the US could care less if Europe has their own GPS spinoff over a decade after it was cutting edge technology - just all work together nicely and end the "sqabbles". I get nervous when sqabbling and Europe are used in the same sentence. I have my Selective Services number... Maybe get the UN involved - I mean that is why the UN was created - to prevent another European sparked World War.
First, embedded systems are no longer thought of, or designed from the perspective of being, "closed". A very simple digital watch is the an example of a "closed" embedded system, being that it does not have to communicate with or rely on another device's logic/input to function (closed loop). On the other hand, the embedded systems found in cars/routers/switches/cellphones/servers etc. are not, and cannot be described as "closed systems" - they rely on input from other digital devices such as sensors or other embedded logic in order to function. By definition, there is NO communication/input in a closed system. Learn. Learn more.
"In order to be flexible enough to do everythign a computer can do, computer languages have to be allowed to crash the computer. Otherwise you are severly limiting what they can do and slowing thigns down."
Yes, as we have learned, if you want to create a system that is based on any type of varibles/input, it has to be open. You do not seem to understand that an embedded system is called "embedded" because the OS instructions are contained in the chip architecture. Instead writing code which uses a defined chip architecture (x86,PPC,Alpha), the code/logic is "embedded" in the chip. You can write software for imbedded devices - my cell phone runs java apps. There are many devices which utilize embedded linux, I have a webcam that runs its own apache webserver. So, no, embedded devices are not "severly" limited, and they most defiantly not slow! They instantly boot when turned on! Ha.
"1) accept a restricted operating system that will never be able to compete with a commercial system like Windows."
Your assumption of being restricted is wrong, check out Transmeta - and what does windows being "commercial" have to do with anything? How is an embedded system not commercial? Why can't a "non-commercial" system compete with a "commercial" system? Is my cellphone not commercial? Do you know the definition of commercial?
"2) Never install a program that was not A) created by the same company/group that wrote your operating sytem, B) specifically designed for your particular computer, and C) designed to be used with and thoroughly tested against all the other software that is currently installed on your PC."
How does something being created by "the same company/group" have anything to do with embedded systems, and/or system stability? (proprietary/opensorce) Not designed for my PC? I thought we were talking about embedded devices... What does your misinformed/erronous ideas about embedded devices have to do with a PC?
Your argument is based on numerous false assumptions which makes it untrue, and your misuse of words and their definitions makes your reasoning/correlations invalid. Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about.
We're sorry, but... We don't support this browser.
o rt ed.html
To use Gator Corporation software, you must be using one of the following browsers:
* Internet Explorer 4.x and above
* MSN 6.x and above
* Netscape 4.x
* AOL 5.x and above
Click here to download a compatible IE browser.
Click here to download a compatible MSN browser.
Click here to download a compatible Netscape browser.
Click here to download a compatible AOL browser.
TRANSLATION
Sorry... You are too knowledgable for our liking.
But if we are mistaken:
Click here to download a compatible IE browser.
Click here to download a compatible MSN browser.
Click here to download a compatible Netscape browser.
Click here to download a compatible AOL browser.
http://www.gatorcorporation.com/download/unsupp
"But having a setting available that can crash the app if not properly configured is often a sign of good design, not bad design."
What? Allowing for settings which if configured incorrectly could render the application useless is not a sign of good design. Maybe it is charteristic of applications that allow a good amount of flexibity, but not good design. Well written code should never crash - rather generate error messages that tell the user/developer what went wrong.
" Although I certainly have no problems with apple or macs in general, I do have a problem with their user interfaces. Personally I don't think not giving the user the option of defining any settings which could cause malfunction to be the answer. The reason? Well it's pretty simple, when set properly those same settings give flexibility, added functionality, and performance (at least one, sometimes two, often all three of the above"
I think you are missing the point made concerning OS X. It provides a very impressive GUI with no loss in functionality/flexiblity. Remember... It is Unix.. The best of both worlds - or I guess you could say all worlds... I currently have Windows XP and KDE running inside OS X. Settings Galore! Ha.
Check this out - for better explination.
I agree - much like retaliating against a guy whom you find has been nailing your girlfriend/wife. He didn't necessarily do anything wrong by letting your significant other polish his knob - blame falls on the slut.
The Igbo had tribal councils - good for them - espically impressive in contrast to their surrounding cultures which are more represenative of overall African culture.l e/Igbo.htm l
...)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/peop
America is a republic not a democracy. That being said, whom do you propose Americans look too for guidence? Africa? Europe? U.N.? Ha.
Pragmatically, the American goverment is the best example of "democracy"/capitalism to date. Not to mention that the U.S. is the oldest national "democracy" in exsistence. Maybe these the reasons why the US constitution (federalism) has been the model by which the majority of exsisting free nations based their goverments (france, germany, canada, tiawan, spain, russia,
Kinda interesting link:
http://www.freedevelopers.net/