Microsoft only set its sights on Netscape after Netscape claimed that it was working on a shell replacement for Windows. In other words, once Netscape threatened to directly compete with Microsoft, it got squashed like a bug.
Way back in April McBride admitted there were no "line-by-line, exact copies" of code taken from Unix and placed in Linux. He stated that it was a merely a "nonliteral" copy.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1561611,00. as p
I just don't get why USB hard drives are such a security risk. Any employee who wanted to steal a bunch of data is not going to be stopped by this. All he would have to do is open up his computer and borrow the HD for a weekend.
Heck, he could just email the data to himself at home!
And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!
When I first heard about this alleged security problem I immediately thought, what's Microsoft's real purpose? Cringely might be on the right track.
You're possibly right about it being 85%. And you're also right about the quote "able to obtain." The thing to remember is that "able to obtain" does not mean a possiblity to obtain, but an actual ability to obtain. And that means 85% of homes must actually have HDTV recievers.
I agree that NTSC will not live forever. But it is at least a decade away. Consdering that computers have a three year life, any TV card you buy now for your computer will get plenty of life out of it before we switch over to ATSC.
Broadcasters are only obligated to switch to ATSC when 80% of the local population are actually able to obtain ATSC signals. That means, that 80% of the local population will actually need HDTV tuners and monitors in place.
Originally Tim Roberts intended to bilk a bunch of investors by pretending to create a gaming console, spending the money, then getting out of dodge. As HardOCP has pointed out, he's done that before.
However, the online gaming community took notice and started asking real questions, e.g., where is an actual product? What companies will actually be writing games? Etc.
Suddenly Roberts had to prove to the investors, and to future investors that the console was real, so he was forced to hire Kevin Bachus, former Microsoft Xbox employee. And worse of all for Roberts, he was actually forced to create a real product.
Now that the online gaming community has put Roberts in a spotlight, he is no longer free to lurk in the dark. Now he's forced to either admit it was a scam or to go forward and fail with an asinine business plan. Mmmm... I wonder what he'll do?!
I agree with you, I'm not sure how Microsoft could accomplish this. But on the other hand, what is the point of including a copy protection system in Longhorn if it could simply be bypassed by using a different OS?!
Such a system could not help either the music industry or Microsoft as people would simply use alternative OSes to make their copies.
The only way it makes sense is if the CDs can only be played on Longhorn. And assuming that the music industry doesn't want to piss off all of its customers, those CDs will also have to be able to be played on regular CD players too.
I'm obviously speculating, if anyone has real facts, fill us in!
Regarding your second point, I think Microsoft's goal is to create a CD that will only play in CD players and in computers where Longhorn is installed.
Thus, if you buy a new music CD and want to play it on your Linux or Apple computer, you'd be out of luck.
I deal with those in the welfare culture everyday. I have yet to see ANY benefit from it for them or for me. After three generations of being on welfare, the children see working and education as something to avoid. While I have to work extra to support a culture that refuses to work. Can you point out the benefit to that?
But I'm not here to debate welfare. Let's face facts, you are NOT voting left because science tells you to. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that welfare will eliminate poverty. You are solely voting left because you happen to agree with the left's agenda. And that's my point exactly.
You're absolutely right that both parties are willing to pay for science that supports their agendas, but that's exactly what I said. But science where the result is determined before the research begins is NOT science.
It's a simple truth that neither party will ever change an agenda based on valid scientific research.
Each political party has agendas. Each party will use science to support their agendas. However, when there is no real science to support their agenda, or when real science contradicts the agendas, bad science will be created or the importance of science will be lessened.
Both political parties are guilty of the above. Merely because the right believes in invisible beings who control our destiny, doesn't make it worse than the left, who believes that creating a permanent welfare culture will end poverty.
We know that Sun cannot be sued by Microsoft for patent violations. We know that Sun is looking at buying SUSE Linux.
When and if Microsoft unleashes its patent war against open source in general, against Linux and OpenOffice in particular, Sun and all customers of Sun will be immune.
Thus, Sun will be the only company allowed to sell Linux and OpenOffice, aka, StarOffice and will be Linux's sole distributor.
What does Microsoft get out of the deal? First, Microsoft does NOT want Linux destroyed. It needs to have at least the appearance of competition to keep government regulators off its back. That competition will come from Sun.
Second, Linux will be greatly hobbled because instead of the entire world working on Linux, there will be only one source with which to compete.
Basically, Microsoft will destroy Linux but keep the appearance of healthy competition in the marketplace.
Dvorak also thinks Firefox
is showing a good increase in usage.
His numbers show that Microsoft only has a 50 percent of the market from
visits to his sites. He then goes on to explain
how it's almost certainly much lower. Check it out.
No, I'm old, ugly, but intelligent. First, I don't ever remember a time when the Beatle's catalog was out of print. In the 60s and 70s they sold LPs and since the 80s they sold CDs.
Second, even if there was a time when Apple stopped selling music prior to the advent of CDs, it is irrelevant in relation to the settlement signed in the 80s. The current case is a breach of contract case, NOT a trademark case. And even if Apple Computer could have used abandonment of trademark as a defense, it has since thrown such a defense away when it signed the settlement.
First, your argument does not matter because there is no question that Apple breached the settlement. This new case is NOT a trademark case it is a breach of contract case. If you truly were an attorney, you'd know the difference.
Secondly, the Beatles HAS released new music. Check out allmusic.com and you'll find that the Beatles has released MANY new CDs since their breakup.
Thirdly, it does not matter if the Beatles released new music or not. Since Apple is still selling the OLD CDs they are still in business.
This is NOT an instance where Apple music has abandoned its trademark, it is still being used every day to generate millions of dollars.
First, this current case isn't really a trademark case. It's a breach of contract case.
A long long time ago Apple Music sued Apple Computers when Apple Computers included sound cards in its computers. The case never went to trial and the parties entered into a settlement. Apple Computers agreed not to enter into the music business.
Now Apple is in the music business, which means that the settlement has been breached.
Secondly, I decided to check out iTunes to see how prominate the word "Apple" is used. First, the url for the store is http://www.APPLE.com/itunes/ and secondly, the name on the top left of the browser is "APPLE - iTunes." Emphasis added.
If Apple Computers were smart it would have spun off an entirely separate corporate entity for the iPod and iTunes store.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this "feature" for users who are too stupid to save Favorites or Bookmarks in their browsers?!
Microsoft only set its sights on Netscape after Netscape claimed that it was working on a shell replacement for Windows. In other words, once Netscape threatened to directly compete with Microsoft, it got squashed like a bug.
I don't see how Google will fair any differently.
It'd continue to run even after it died! But I hope it'd run as fast as those zombies in 28 Days Later and not slow like in Night of the Living Dead.
Way back in April McBride admitted there were no "line-by-line, exact copies" of code taken from Unix and placed in Linux. He stated that it was a merely a "nonliteral" copy.
. as p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1561611,00
I just don't get why USB hard drives are such a security risk. Any employee who wanted to steal a bunch of data is not going to be stopped by this. All he would have to do is open up his computer and borrow the HD for a weekend.
Heck, he could just email the data to himself at home!
And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!
When I first heard about this alleged security problem I immediately thought, what's Microsoft's real purpose? Cringely might be on the right track.
You're possibly right about it being 85%. And you're also right about the quote "able to obtain." The thing to remember is that "able to obtain" does not mean a possiblity to obtain, but an actual ability to obtain. And that means 85% of homes must actually have HDTV recievers.
I agree that NTSC will not live forever. But it is at least a decade away. Consdering that computers have a three year life, any TV card you buy now for your computer will get plenty of life out of it before we switch over to ATSC.
Broadcasters are only obligated to switch to ATSC when 80% of the local population are actually able to obtain ATSC signals. That means, that 80% of the local population will actually need HDTV tuners and monitors in place.
That is a LONG way off for most of the US.
Step one, ignore Linux.
Step two, bad mouth Linux.
Step three, file patent suits against anyone who uses Linux.
BTW, we're at step two now.
A system where you could talk to anyone else in the world, in real-time, by simply entering the person's ID into a device. I'd definitely use that!
Originally Tim Roberts intended to bilk a bunch of investors by pretending to create a gaming console, spending the money, then getting out of dodge. As HardOCP has pointed out, he's done that before.
However, the online gaming community took notice and started asking real questions, e.g., where is an actual product? What companies will actually be writing games? Etc.
Suddenly Roberts had to prove to the investors, and to future investors that the console was real, so he was forced to hire Kevin Bachus, former Microsoft Xbox employee. And worse of all for Roberts, he was actually forced to create a real product.
Now that the online gaming community has put Roberts in a spotlight, he is no longer free to lurk in the dark. Now he's forced to either admit it was a scam or to go forward and fail with an asinine business plan. Mmmm... I wonder what he'll do?!
I agree with you, I'm not sure how Microsoft could accomplish this. But on the other hand, what is the point of including a copy protection system in Longhorn if it could simply be bypassed by using a different OS?!
Such a system could not help either the music industry or Microsoft as people would simply use alternative OSes to make their copies.
The only way it makes sense is if the CDs can only be played on Longhorn. And assuming that the music industry doesn't want to piss off all of its customers, those CDs will also have to be able to be played on regular CD players too.
I'm obviously speculating, if anyone has real facts, fill us in!
Regarding your second point, I think Microsoft's goal is to create a CD that will only play in CD players and in computers where Longhorn is installed.
Thus, if you buy a new music CD and want to play it on your Linux or Apple computer, you'd be out of luck.
I deal with those in the welfare culture everyday. I have yet to see ANY benefit from it for them or for me. After three generations of being on welfare, the children see working and education as something to avoid. While I have to work extra to support a culture that refuses to work. Can you point out the benefit to that?
But I'm not here to debate welfare. Let's face facts, you are NOT voting left because science tells you to. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that welfare will eliminate poverty. You are solely voting left because you happen to agree with the left's agenda. And that's my point exactly.
You're absolutely right that both parties are willing to pay for science that supports their agendas, but that's exactly what I said. But science where the result is determined before the research begins is NOT science.
It's a simple truth that neither party will ever change an agenda based on valid scientific research.
Each political party has agendas. Each party will use science to support their agendas. However, when there is no real science to support their agenda, or when real science contradicts the agendas, bad science will be created or the importance of science will be lessened.
Both political parties are guilty of the above. Merely because the right believes in invisible beings who control our destiny, doesn't make it worse than the left, who believes that creating a permanent welfare culture will end poverty.
It's common knowledge that Sun is interested in buying Novell. Do a google search and you'll get plenty of hits.
We know that Sun cannot be sued by Microsoft for patent violations. We know that Sun is looking at buying SUSE Linux.
When and if Microsoft unleashes its patent war against open source in general, against Linux and OpenOffice in particular, Sun and all customers of Sun will be immune.
Thus, Sun will be the only company allowed to sell Linux and OpenOffice, aka, StarOffice and will be Linux's sole distributor.
What does Microsoft get out of the deal? First, Microsoft does NOT want Linux destroyed. It needs to have at least the appearance of competition to keep government regulators off its back. That competition will come from Sun.
Second, Linux will be greatly hobbled because instead of the entire world working on Linux, there will be only one source with which to compete.
Basically, Microsoft will destroy Linux but keep the appearance of healthy competition in the marketplace.
Dvorak also thinks Firefox is showing a good increase in usage. His numbers show that Microsoft only has a 50 percent of the market from visits to his sites. He then goes on to explain how it's almost certainly much lower. Check it out.
Damn, I knew I should have actually read the article!!!
If everyone bought one of these and ran them in peer-to-peer mode, we could all dump our ISPs!
No wait, we don't live in a virutal world! Damn!
That's it's been on the top of fadetoblack.com for months. And we all know how often THAT site is updated!
No, I'm old, ugly, but intelligent. First, I don't ever remember a time when the Beatle's catalog was out of print. In the 60s and 70s they sold LPs and since the 80s they sold CDs.
Second, even if there was a time when Apple stopped selling music prior to the advent of CDs, it is irrelevant in relation to the settlement signed in the 80s. The current case is a breach of contract case, NOT a trademark case. And even if Apple Computer could have used abandonment of trademark as a defense, it has since thrown such a defense away when it signed the settlement.
First, your argument does not matter because there is no question that Apple breached the settlement. This new case is NOT a trademark case it is a breach of contract case. If you truly were an attorney, you'd know the difference.
Secondly, the Beatles HAS released new music. Check out allmusic.com and you'll find that the Beatles has released MANY new CDs since their breakup.
Thirdly, it does not matter if the Beatles released new music or not. Since Apple is still selling the OLD CDs they are still in business.
This is NOT an instance where Apple music has abandoned its trademark, it is still being used every day to generate millions of dollars.
First, this current case isn't really a trademark case. It's a breach of contract case.
A long long time ago Apple Music sued Apple Computers when Apple Computers included sound cards in its computers. The case never went to trial and the parties entered into a settlement. Apple Computers agreed not to enter into the music business.
Now Apple is in the music business, which means that the settlement has been breached.
Secondly, I decided to check out iTunes to see how prominate the word "Apple" is used. First, the url for the store is http://www.APPLE.com/itunes/ and secondly, the name on the top left of the browser is "APPLE - iTunes." Emphasis added.
If Apple Computers were smart it would have spun off an entirely separate corporate entity for the iPod and iTunes store.