Come on... stop treating 'the public' like complete morons.
Did you say you work tech support?;)
Everyone I know, even the ones who know next to nothing about computers know whether they are using windows media player or real player.
Doesn't matter if they do, if MS can use their monopoly to kill Real, they'll use what they have. See "Netscape." Monopolies are a "damage already done" kind of thing. The public is ultimately hurt by monopolization, but once it occurs each individual is best served by using the monopoly, or has no choice. That's why they're dangerous, and why it requires legislation. In this case,the EU didn't fix it because they made it so that only the free market would fix the problem, when the free market broke in the first place.
Microsoft will tell you they did not price IE. It is part of the OS, and as such it is paid for when you buy the OS.
Not originally, as I recall. They made it a standalone program and only bolted it to the OS to make that claim. Still, if that's all they did, it would have been OK - it's the anticompetitive behavior, ie strongarming the OEMs not to include Netscape - that was problematic for their case.
The same can be said for Internet Explorer, 1995-present. Free, and no installation required! Or is Microsoft evaluated differently.
Big difference. Google is taking its core technology to a field where it makes sense to use it. This is smart business. Yes, the Scholar is free, but so are their other search tools, Also, there's no reason to believe they're trying to undercut anyone with pricing, as their revenue is ad driven. They also haven't engaged in anything approaching anticompetitive behavior. For example, they don't just blacklist any site indexed with Web of Science.
On the other hand, MS invented a product specifically to go after the competitor it perceived as its biggest threat, a product it had no experience with (browser). It did this solely to kill that competitor. It priced Explorer at $0 when its main products are for-pay, and made no money from it, making it clear that they were pricing Explorer in a predatory manner. They also refused to allow OEMs to bundle computers with Netscape.
In short, MS's decision was driven by the need to take out Netscape, and Google's decision is a natural extension of their business. That's not to say MS couldn't have come out with a browser in a proper manner, or Google couldn't go into Academic searching in a predatory manner. Ultimately it's the way they go about competing that makes them different companies.
WinXP is laid out all screwy too, makes it really hard to configure or use. I don't think it's any more stable either. Also, the "eye candy" you refer to is absolutely garish - it's like they got a retarded monkey to try to imitate Mac OSX. First thing I did on my work computer (which is XP unfortunately) was switch the style to classic to save my eyes and some of my sanity.
Interstate commerce commission and related laws prevent any state from regulating interstate commerce. It's an old and important law - one that some would say has reached its useful end, but suggesting it should be tossed gets States' Rights people upset.
SETI is a lot more than just the SETI@home software you're thinking about. And this has implications for all radio astronomy, not just SETI. The solution is clear - don't let consumer-level technology get in the way of truly ground-breaking discoveries.
What ground-breaking discoveries? It's a losing battle trying to explain to the entire world why they should deal with a pretty major inconvenience (for a lot of people) for some arcane science like radio astronomy which by definition isn't going to benefit them.
Personally I don't want cell phones on planes because it's inevitable that I'll end up beating the shit out of someone using one. It's bad enough when you touch down and half the plane has to commemorate that event by calling everyone they know.
I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit, but the fanboy twist is totally unnecessary.
It's very necessary. Consider:
Things google could have done: 1) sued. 2) threatened to sue until you settled for $3000 (yeah, I'm talking to you DirecTV!). 3) Claimed rights they don't actually have 4) contacted his ISP and gotten him shut down.
Things google actually did: 1) asked him respectfully and nicely to stop. 2) provided a legitimate reason for the same.
I've never seen a C&D that friendly. Style makes a big difference in things like that, and shows that google "gets it" and isn't throwing their weight around needlessly.
Wait you guys; it's *not* about their religion or where they come from, it's about them being inbred that matters. Ashkenazis originate from the middle-east and have been related by recent DNA studies to the current inhabitants of the levant in Syria and Lebanon, so much so that the studies revealed that had little, if any, interbreeding with the Europeans.
Nope, their research specifically talked about their being Jewish having a significant impact. Why? Because there has to be a selective pressure that significantly favored intelligence more in that community than in the surrounding Christian community. Theory is that 1) Jews were more likely to do things involving money, since the Catholic church forbid many of these practices, 2) being good at banking and such is helped by brains, 3) good bankers climb the socioeconomic ladder, 4) people higher up the socioeconomic ladder had more progeny reach adulthood in the middle ages, 5) being a Christian aristocrat was less likely to require brains than banking, and 6) these traits got condensed through inbreeding.
Points 2) and 4) are fairly established, I think we'd take 3) on face, 5) is a bit of an assumption, but it's fair to say that living off the backs of tenant farmers took less brains than banking. 6) is biology. 1) is known historically in general, and clearly depends specifically on the group being Jewish.
The connection to Tay-Sachs is fuzzy as author admits, but is at least intuitive - TS causes overbranching of neurons in the brain, and he's hypothesizing that having one copy of that gene might just be a cause of the elevated intelligence found in this group.
Why is everyone so quick to pit this as an OS battle? I think the more likely scenerio is that Apple will end up taking market share away from HP and Dell. I know a lot of PC users that have salivated over Powerbooks (please note that laptops are now outselling desktops) but very few who would risk an OS change. If Apple makes a product you can load WinXP on, even if it comes with OSX out of the box, expect to see significant sales of Macs to Windows users.
Well, I think both will happen. First, since you'll be able to dual-boot, people might dual-boot Mac and Windows now, and since that'll only be possible on a Mac, that means people might leave Dell for Apple.
However, I also think people are leaving Linux for Mac, but that has NOTHING to do with the chipset. It's been happening for a while since Apple switched to OSX. I'm living proof, buying a powerbook I never thought I'd own. But in a way, this will help linux too - I, as an Apple owner, can now put on whatever linux distro I want. Hell, talk about Nirvana - I can *triple* boot Mac, Linux, and Windows. Gives me dirty thoughts just thinking about it.
If there's on linux distro that's probably hurt by this, it's obviously Yellow Dog. Still, great effort all those years, guys.
Oh come on, the guy was joking. The tip-off might have been his suggestion to buy a Ringo record. Have you *heard* a Ringo record? Good God, do we have to start teaching sarcasm in schools?
See the USB ports on the side and back? Plug mouse in there.
Yeah, that basically defeats the purpose of the laptop, namely to eradicate all the damned wires. Laptops come with trackpads for a reason, it'd be nice if the thing was a little more usable.
Honestly, most mac users seem not to be confused by 5 fingers on each hand, why does 2 buttons seem to tax their brains?
All licence agreements must be available for perusal at the point of sail for them to be legally binding
No. They don't. There is existing case law on this subject, look it up. The only stipulation is that you have to be able to return it if you don't like the EULA.
Besides microsoft specifically excludes the operating system as being free of viruses when the sell it to you. So did you active it or did the virus because if microsoft can not tell whether the operating system is free of viruses or not, then any thing that occurs on your computer could be as a result viruses inherent with in the operating system.
So your plan is the "A virus upgraded my XP" tactic? Damn, that's lame. Let me know how it goes, I don't see a judge, jury, or your own attorney buying it.
Automated tests are not intended to catch everything or test strange permutations of pre-conditions. There purpose is to provide a mechanism for verifying that a build satisfies the basic requirements of the project.
The biggest assumptions it makes would be that macs break down at the same rate PCs do and that mac users require the same amount of technical support PC users do.
You're right. This is a group of people who find more than one mouse button intellectually vexing.
The EULA has no legal validity. As long as you don't violate the copyright (which you aren't, since the copy is transitory and for personal use only) or breaking any other laws, you can do what you like with the CD you own.
Please don't dispense legal advice if you aren't a lawyer. That's blatantly incorrect based on existing case law, and I'm not even a damned lawyer. In a great many cases - if not most - EULAs are enforceable.
Now, tell me, where in that text did I make *any* mention of the rate at which bugs are *found*? Oh, wait, I *didn't*.
Then you're misinterpreting what Raymond said in the first place, which really stretches your credibility. See, the finding is what the "eyes" are for.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you say you work tech support? ;)
Everyone I know, even the ones who know next to nothing about computers know whether they are using windows media player or real player.
Doesn't matter if they do, if MS can use their monopoly to kill Real, they'll use what they have. See "Netscape." Monopolies are a "damage already done" kind of thing. The public is ultimately hurt by monopolization, but once it occurs each individual is best served by using the monopoly, or has no choice. That's why they're dangerous, and why it requires legislation. In this case,the EU didn't fix it because they made it so that only the free market would fix the problem, when the free market broke in the first place.
Not originally, as I recall. They made it a standalone program and only bolted it to the OS to make that claim. Still, if that's all they did, it would have been OK - it's the anticompetitive behavior, ie strongarming the OEMs not to include Netscape - that was problematic for their case.
Big difference. Google is taking its core technology to a field where it makes sense to use it. This is smart business. Yes, the Scholar is free, but so are their other search tools, Also, there's no reason to believe they're trying to undercut anyone with pricing, as their revenue is ad driven. They also haven't engaged in anything approaching anticompetitive behavior. For example, they don't just blacklist any site indexed with Web of Science.
On the other hand, MS invented a product specifically to go after the competitor it perceived as its biggest threat, a product it had no experience with (browser). It did this solely to kill that competitor. It priced Explorer at $0 when its main products are for-pay, and made no money from it, making it clear that they were pricing Explorer in a predatory manner. They also refused to allow OEMs to bundle computers with Netscape.
In short, MS's decision was driven by the need to take out Netscape, and Google's decision is a natural extension of their business. That's not to say MS couldn't have come out with a browser in a proper manner, or Google couldn't go into Academic searching in a predatory manner. Ultimately it's the way they go about competing that makes them different companies.
WinXP is laid out all screwy too, makes it really hard to configure or use. I don't think it's any more stable either. Also, the "eye candy" you refer to is absolutely garish - it's like they got a retarded monkey to try to imitate Mac OSX. First thing I did on my work computer (which is XP unfortunately) was switch the style to classic to save my eyes and some of my sanity.
Interstate commerce commission and related laws prevent any state from regulating interstate commerce. It's an old and important law - one that some would say has reached its useful end, but suggesting it should be tossed gets States' Rights people upset.
You listen to cassette tapes too?
*brought to you by the Fists of Righteous Harmony*
You'll note that the "Show pony" title was the title of the original article. Editorializing, perhaps, but not Apple.
What ground-breaking discoveries? It's a losing battle trying to explain to the entire world why they should deal with a pretty major inconvenience (for a lot of people) for some arcane science like radio astronomy which by definition isn't going to benefit them.
Personally I don't want cell phones on planes because it's inevitable that I'll end up beating the shit out of someone using one. It's bad enough when you touch down and half the plane has to commemorate that event by calling everyone they know.
It's very necessary. Consider:
Things google could have done: 1) sued. 2) threatened to sue until you settled for $3000 (yeah, I'm talking to you DirecTV!). 3) Claimed rights they don't actually have 4) contacted his ISP and gotten him shut down.
Things google actually did: 1) asked him respectfully and nicely to stop. 2) provided a legitimate reason for the same.
I've never seen a C&D that friendly. Style makes a big difference in things like that, and shows that google "gets it" and isn't throwing their weight around needlessly.
Nope, their research specifically talked about their being Jewish having a significant impact. Why? Because there has to be a selective pressure that significantly favored intelligence more in that community than in the surrounding Christian community. Theory is that 1) Jews were more likely to do things involving money, since the Catholic church forbid many of these practices, 2) being good at banking and such is helped by brains, 3) good bankers climb the socioeconomic ladder, 4) people higher up the socioeconomic ladder had more progeny reach adulthood in the middle ages, 5) being a Christian aristocrat was less likely to require brains than banking, and 6) these traits got condensed through inbreeding.
Points 2) and 4) are fairly established, I think we'd take 3) on face, 5) is a bit of an assumption, but it's fair to say that living off the backs of tenant farmers took less brains than banking. 6) is biology. 1) is known historically in general, and clearly depends specifically on the group being Jewish.
The connection to Tay-Sachs is fuzzy as author admits, but is at least intuitive - TS causes overbranching of neurons in the brain, and he's hypothesizing that having one copy of that gene might just be a cause of the elevated intelligence found in this group.
RIght, but that puts it square into phaseout territory. Still, they deserve to be congratulated.
Well, I think both will happen. First, since you'll be able to dual-boot, people might dual-boot Mac and Windows now, and since that'll only be possible on a Mac, that means people might leave Dell for Apple.
However, I also think people are leaving Linux for Mac, but that has NOTHING to do with the chipset. It's been happening for a while since Apple switched to OSX. I'm living proof, buying a powerbook I never thought I'd own. But in a way, this will help linux too - I, as an Apple owner, can now put on whatever linux distro I want. Hell, talk about Nirvana - I can *triple* boot Mac, Linux, and Windows. Gives me dirty thoughts just thinking about it.
If there's on linux distro that's probably hurt by this, it's obviously Yellow Dog. Still, great effort all those years, guys.
Oh come on, the guy was joking. The tip-off might have been his suggestion to buy a Ringo record. Have you *heard* a Ringo record? Good God, do we have to start teaching sarcasm in schools?
Congratulations on being the fourth person to respond with that exact comment. You witty bastard.
Yeah, that basically defeats the purpose of the laptop, namely to eradicate all the damned wires. Laptops come with trackpads for a reason, it'd be nice if the thing was a little more usable.
Honestly, most mac users seem not to be confused by 5 fingers on each hand, why does 2 buttons seem to tax their brains?
Meshach, meet joke. Joke, Meshach.
I wouldn't recommend practicing law without a license.
May the day never come when no one but a lawyer can understand this stuff.
It's pretty much here. If you think you know as much law as a lawyer, you're a damned fool (and have one for a client).
No. They don't. There is existing case law on this subject, look it up. The only stipulation is that you have to be able to return it if you don't like the EULA.
Besides microsoft specifically excludes the operating system as being free of viruses when the sell it to you. So did you active it or did the virus because if microsoft can not tell whether the operating system is free of viruses or not, then any thing that occurs on your computer could be as a result viruses inherent with in the operating system.
So your plan is the "A virus upgraded my XP" tactic? Damn, that's lame. Let me know how it goes, I don't see a judge, jury, or your own attorney buying it.
You figure out a way to easily replace my Powerbook's trackpad, I'm all ears.
Isn't that what a compiler is for? ;)
You're right. This is a group of people who find more than one mouse button intellectually vexing.
Please don't dispense legal advice if you aren't a lawyer. That's blatantly incorrect based on existing case law, and I'm not even a damned lawyer. In a great many cases - if not most - EULAs are enforceable.
Damn, you Democrats sure are witty.
Then you're misinterpreting what Raymond said in the first place, which really stretches your credibility. See, the finding is what the "eyes" are for.