But there's still a "gotcha" with Studio MX -- it's ineligible for the upgrade pricing. So, you might be able to get use out of it while you're in college, but they don't cut you any break at all for customer loyalty later down the road.
I think that the key issue that Microsoft may be working towards is a move away from a single product (i.e. a "basic" collection of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint) into an actual service -- a complete solution of services that not only let you do the basic job, but also to complete the various tasks that go along with it, to help businesses manage the entire workflow.
The only problem (as I see it) is that MS is still charging such huge prices for consumers seeking home solutions -- when people are looking to write letters and other basic stuff at home, Word is seriously overpowered for most people's general needs. As bad as it sounds, I wonder if some sort of divergence with a more basic "home" and "pro" editions of Office would be in order (even though the same thing is such a bad solution for Windows itself).
I'm probably being way too optimistic and naive here, but what if at least some people at Microsoft are starting to realize the same thing that businesses like IBM realized years ago -- that selling a powerful batch of tools to enhance the capabilities of the original applications is so much better than charging an arm and a leg for the original apps themselves. That way, people can still use any tool they want for their basic needs, but when they get to the heavy stuff, they know who to turn to to get the best tools for the job -- Microsoft. (?)
I know, that's not very likely to happen, is it? Oh well.
Woah, wait -- does that mean what I think it does? As in something like "You can read the language, but you're not allowed to understand it without paying us royalties"?
I'm not referring to the languages, but more to the fact that at least according to that treaty, the USA, Canada, and everything else west of that line of longitude should still belong to Spain (seeing as how the settlements at Jamestown, Montreal, et cetera were technically illegal).
Don't forget, though, that there was also the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which divided the entire world into spheres of influence solely for the exploitation of Spain and Portugal.
>> I think MS was hoping to bundle ie7 with longhorn, causing massive corporate forced upgrades, but delay after delay nixed that idea.
I'm realizing more and more that this is turning into a win-win situation for the consumer. Hopefully. Look at it this way: By reversing their decision to un-link IE7 from Longhorn, Microsoft has essentially admitted that their XP-SP2 fixes didn't go far enough, and there are still gaping holes in their security that will need to be fixed by making the next full version of the browser available to users who don't upgrade to Longhorn. So Microsoft has just removed one more important feature from Longhorn, making it a bit less likely that some customers will pay for the OS upgrade.
Now, if IE7 is actually a quality product and adds all of the capabilities that users (and developers) have been pleading for (tabbed browsing, XML/XHTML support, full CSS support, full PNG support...), then it's a win for consumers even if Firefox's market share gains slow down. But if IE7 turns out to be "more of the same" (that is, "yet another overhyped MS product that can still be compared to swiss cheese"), then users will still have the option to continue the mass migration to Firefox.
Even if the energy released in 2004-MN4's impact were roughly equal to the energy released in the recent earthquake, I seriously doubt that the effects could be considered comparable. For one thing, ALL of the asteroid's energy will be released in one gigantic explosion when it enters the atmosphere and hits the surface (either land or sea), concentrated in a relatively small area. But the earthquake's energy was released along a huge (700 miles long) segment of the undersea fault, which almost certainly dampened the effects of the quake. Not to mention that quakes typically take place at least several kilometers underground...
(IANAGOP -- I Am Not A Geologist Or Physicist. But I am using what I think to be logical deductions based on what little I know.)
>> Anyone who makes a decision on where to seek employment based on a free iPod is a complete fucking idiot and that is probably the reason why they are unemployed to begin with.
Actually, I agree with that. Whether you realize it or not, my original post was made partly in jest. It was merely intended to be informative and slightly humorous at the same time.
You may want to look into upgrading your sense of humor...:-P
...is to get hired to work in one of Apple's retail stores! All permanent (i.e. not seasonal) employees get their very own iPod for "business" uses -- ostensibly, this is to help familiarize the Mac Specialists with the product, and also to give you a "reference" to look up data (stored as notes in the iPod). But you're completely free to store your own music on there and use it for your own purposes, too.
(I suppose this might be too much "work" for some people, though, plus it doesn't have the fun of selling out your friends to spammers...)
That's not a fair comparison by any means. The Xserve (or any server) is not a consumer product for use in a home or office (cubicle-type) environment. It's loud because servers are generally stored in an area where it's okay to be loud.
Apple's desktops and towers, on the other hand, are much quieter than any x86 machine I've ever seen. (Certain models like the Mirrored Drive Doors tower -- aka "Wind Tunnel" -- G4s are the rare exception to that rule.)
>> The amount of analysis Groklaw reviews SCO's claims with is like taking a jackhammer to a microbe.
I disagree. In the legal world, the playing field is leveled, because both sides must be given the opportunity to prove their case (regardless of how nonsensical it may seem outside the courtroom, and assuming of course that the argument has legal grounds to be made) -- you absolutely cannot leave anything to chance or assume anything. If you leave something implied or overlooked, there's a good chance that your opponents can exploit that omission to their own advantage, at the very least by using logic to prove their case given the missing information.
Yes, it's incredibly tedious, but that's a lawyer's job. They have to be as completely accurate and as thorough as humanly possible. There's never (or rarely) any concept of "just enough" in a legal argument. You always go for the slam dunk, if for nothing other than making sure that your case is settled once and for all.
It seems to me that the basic act of having a free beta testing period for new software, after which fee is charged, is an acceptable, though not entirely aboveboard practice. (After all, you get free use of their software for a time, and they get lots of extra beta testers. Of course, it also could be considered as getting lots of free QA work...)
Of course, in Microsoft's case, the extortion would be forcing customers to buy into their Windows monopoly, and then charging those customers extra money so that their system isn't a buggy piece of sh*t any longer.
And that doesn't even consider the fact that Microsoft distributing an anti-software program will likely put an enormous hurt on every other anti-spyware company out there right now...
My bad. I was thinking of the partial support, and forgot that they do actually support part of CSS2, even though they still don't have full support for CSS1.
Bah! IE 5.2 doesn't even support XHTML 1.0 or CSS2 as it is! It's got nothing more than a tag soup parser. Heck, it hardly even supports the full CSS1 standard!
>> At this point, Microsoft needs to pay for market share and mindshare. IE can't compete at its current price (free/bundled), so they'll lower it.
That is simultaneously one of the funniest and scariest things I've ever read about IE. Very insightful. Microsoft made their bed (that is, giving away the browser for free), and now they have to sleep in it.
I see a major problem with this, at least in some circumstances. If businesses start issuing too many warnings about vulnerabilities, at least some users might become "desensitized" to the urgent need to upgrade. Heck, already too many users don't bother upgrading until there's a big bad virus or worm out there threatening everyone.
Of course, by the same token, if businesses start issuing more warnings (cough*MICROSOFT*cough*) then maybe more people will realize that their software of choice is a piece of sh*t and start looking for a replacement.
I think that so far, the general effect of an increased emphasis on security has been the latter (people reconsidering options). But will it always stay that way? I don't know.
Yes, the Taiwanese are not currently occupied by China. But let me ask you something -- would you want to loudly declare independence if it was guaranteed to bring an invasion, when the status quo gives you all the rights and privileges that you currently need? For the Taiwanese, they'd rather have de facto independence than face an invasion.
The flaw in your analogy is that the Lithuanians and the East Timorese were trying to gain international recognition and assistance in order to kick out their oppressors. The Taiwanese don't have any oppressors to kick out at the moment -- they merely need to hold them at bay.
Funny how everyone who claims that "the (American) Civil War was about more than just slavery" seems to forget that the only reason that the Southern states were interested in protecting States' Rights so zealously was because they were trying to protect the institution of slavery.
Back in the 1780's, the slave and "free" states were roughly evenly divided. But by the 1850's, the slave states were significantly outnumbered by the states that had banned slavery. The southern states were demanding a limited federal government to prevent the growing anti-slavery movement from enforcing a ban on slavery anywhere in the country (both in the slave states themselves and in the non-state territories).
The immediate cause of the American Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln, who ran on a platform of (among other things) banning slavery in all non-state territories and preventing any new states from permitting slavery. At the time, he did not advocate abolishing slavery in the southern states where it already existed.
And so, once the fighting broke out, the immediate goals of the war were focusing on the issue of States' Rights versus federal authority. It was only after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued two and a half years later that the issue of slavery was once again brought to the fore.
Please note that I do recognize that many people who fly the Confederate battle flag (which is not the same as Confederate national flag that was known as the "Stars and Bars") today are not necessarily advocating slavery or racism, but rather some nebulous ideal of the Southern way of life. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, save for two points: (1) the Southern way of life at the time of the Civil War was largely supported by slavery and relied on forced labor, and (2) the vast majority of people today view the Confederate battle flag as a symbol representing a government which fought for the continuance of slavery. (For another good example of a symbol where a modern interpretation has completely overwhelmed previous meanings, read an article about the swastika.) Therefore, although I realize that the Confederate battle flag represents more than slavery and racism for some people, I generally disapprove of its use because of the much more common interpretation of today's society.
>> From the Taiwanese point of view, the Beijing government is illegitimate.
That's the official view of the Taiwanese government. However, there's a reason for that. According to the old status quo positions, the Taiwanese government is the successor of the KMT, which claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China. But that was thirty years ago. Today, pretty much everyone on Taiwan has given up hope of "retaking" the mainland. However, because of the extreme paranoia in Beijing, if Taiwan were to officially renounce any claim to the mainland, they would treat that as a de facto declaration of independence and declare war. Therefore, the Taiwan government is still technically claiming to be the sole legitimate government of mainland China!
There have been times that I've downloaded a movie from the Internet, enjoyed it, and purchased that movie from a local store so that I could watch it in higher quality and benefit from the additional DVD features (Southpark Movie). Other times, I've realized that the time spent downloading a particular movie (Blair Witch Project) could've been better spent playing solitaire.
While common sense would suggest that the MPAA should be grateful for file sharing in the specific case cited above (in that the act of file sharing generated a sale), I think that they'd be more upset and claim that file sharing actually prevented a sale (of "The Blair Witch Project") instead.
Slashdot Mirror
No no no, it was stolen from the guts of a crashed timeship that came from the 29th century!
Does that also mean that it was always the Professor who was secretly sabotaging all their attempts to escape the island? :-D
But there's still a "gotcha" with Studio MX -- it's ineligible for the upgrade pricing. So, you might be able to get use out of it while you're in college, but they don't cut you any break at all for customer loyalty later down the road.
I think that the key issue that Microsoft may be working towards is a move away from a single product (i.e. a "basic" collection of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint) into an actual service -- a complete solution of services that not only let you do the basic job, but also to complete the various tasks that go along with it, to help businesses manage the entire workflow.
The only problem (as I see it) is that MS is still charging such huge prices for consumers seeking home solutions -- when people are looking to write letters and other basic stuff at home, Word is seriously overpowered for most people's general needs. As bad as it sounds, I wonder if some sort of divergence with a more basic "home" and "pro" editions of Office would be in order (even though the same thing is such a bad solution for Windows itself).
I'm probably being way too optimistic and naive here, but what if at least some people at Microsoft are starting to realize the same thing that businesses like IBM realized years ago -- that selling a powerful batch of tools to enhance the capabilities of the original applications is so much better than charging an arm and a leg for the original apps themselves. That way, people can still use any tool they want for their basic needs, but when they get to the heavy stuff, they know who to turn to to get the best tools for the job -- Microsoft. (?)
I know, that's not very likely to happen, is it? Oh well.
Woah, wait -- does that mean what I think it does? As in something like "You can read the language, but you're not allowed to understand it without paying us royalties"?
I'm not referring to the languages, but more to the fact that at least according to that treaty, the USA, Canada, and everything else west of that line of longitude should still belong to Spain (seeing as how the settlements at Jamestown, Montreal, et cetera were technically illegal).
Don't forget, though, that there was also the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which divided the entire world into spheres of influence solely for the exploitation of Spain and Portugal.
We all know how well THAT turned out!
>> I think MS was hoping to bundle ie7 with longhorn, causing massive corporate forced upgrades, but delay after delay nixed that idea.
I'm realizing more and more that this is turning into a win-win situation for the consumer. Hopefully. Look at it this way: By reversing their decision to un-link IE7 from Longhorn, Microsoft has essentially admitted that their XP-SP2 fixes didn't go far enough, and there are still gaping holes in their security that will need to be fixed by making the next full version of the browser available to users who don't upgrade to Longhorn. So Microsoft has just removed one more important feature from Longhorn, making it a bit less likely that some customers will pay for the OS upgrade.
Now, if IE7 is actually a quality product and adds all of the capabilities that users (and developers) have been pleading for (tabbed browsing, XML/XHTML support, full CSS support, full PNG support...), then it's a win for consumers even if Firefox's market share gains slow down. But if IE7 turns out to be "more of the same" (that is, "yet another overhyped MS product that can still be compared to swiss cheese"), then users will still have the option to continue the mass migration to Firefox.
Y'know, this whole scenario reminds me a lot of the setup for that wretched computer game "Outpost" from about a decade ago. ;-)
Even if the energy released in 2004-MN4's impact were roughly equal to the energy released in the recent earthquake, I seriously doubt that the effects could be considered comparable. For one thing, ALL of the asteroid's energy will be released in one gigantic explosion when it enters the atmosphere and hits the surface (either land or sea), concentrated in a relatively small area. But the earthquake's energy was released along a huge (700 miles long) segment of the undersea fault, which almost certainly dampened the effects of the quake. Not to mention that quakes typically take place at least several kilometers underground...
(IANAGOP -- I Am Not A Geologist Or Physicist. But I am using what I think to be logical deductions based on what little I know.)
>> Anyone who makes a decision on where to seek employment based on a free iPod is a complete fucking idiot and that is probably the reason why they are unemployed to begin with.
:-P
Actually, I agree with that. Whether you realize it or not, my original post was made partly in jest. It was merely intended to be informative and slightly humorous at the same time.
You may want to look into upgrading your sense of humor...
...is to get hired to work in one of Apple's retail stores! All permanent (i.e. not seasonal) employees get their very own iPod for "business" uses -- ostensibly, this is to help familiarize the Mac Specialists with the product, and also to give you a "reference" to look up data (stored as notes in the iPod). But you're completely free to store your own music on there and use it for your own purposes, too.
(I suppose this might be too much "work" for some people, though, plus it doesn't have the fun of selling out your friends to spammers...)
That's not a fair comparison by any means. The Xserve (or any server) is not a consumer product for use in a home or office (cubicle-type) environment. It's loud because servers are generally stored in an area where it's okay to be loud.
Apple's desktops and towers, on the other hand, are much quieter than any x86 machine I've ever seen. (Certain models like the Mirrored Drive Doors tower -- aka "Wind Tunnel" -- G4s are the rare exception to that rule.)
>> The amount of analysis Groklaw reviews SCO's claims with is like taking a jackhammer to a microbe.
I disagree. In the legal world, the playing field is leveled, because both sides must be given the opportunity to prove their case (regardless of how nonsensical it may seem outside the courtroom, and assuming of course that the argument has legal grounds to be made) -- you absolutely cannot leave anything to chance or assume anything. If you leave something implied or overlooked, there's a good chance that your opponents can exploit that omission to their own advantage, at the very least by using logic to prove their case given the missing information.
Yes, it's incredibly tedious, but that's a lawyer's job. They have to be as completely accurate and as thorough as humanly possible. There's never (or rarely) any concept of "just enough" in a legal argument. You always go for the slam dunk, if for nothing other than making sure that your case is settled once and for all.
It seems to me that the basic act of having a free beta testing period for new software, after which fee is charged, is an acceptable, though not entirely aboveboard practice. (After all, you get free use of their software for a time, and they get lots of extra beta testers. Of course, it also could be considered as getting lots of free QA work...)
Of course, in Microsoft's case, the extortion would be forcing customers to buy into their Windows monopoly, and then charging those customers extra money so that their system isn't a buggy piece of sh*t any longer.
And that doesn't even consider the fact that Microsoft distributing an anti-software program will likely put an enormous hurt on every other anti-spyware company out there right now...
My bad. I was thinking of the partial support, and forgot that they do actually support part of CSS2, even though they still don't have full support for CSS1.
Bah! IE 5.2 doesn't even support XHTML 1.0 or CSS2 as it is! It's got nothing more than a tag soup parser. Heck, it hardly even supports the full CSS1 standard!
>> At this point, Microsoft needs to pay for market share and mindshare. IE can't compete at its current price (free/bundled), so they'll lower it.
That is simultaneously one of the funniest and scariest things I've ever read about IE. Very insightful. Microsoft made their bed (that is, giving away the browser for free), and now they have to sleep in it.
I see a major problem with this, at least in some circumstances. If businesses start issuing too many warnings about vulnerabilities, at least some users might become "desensitized" to the urgent need to upgrade. Heck, already too many users don't bother upgrading until there's a big bad virus or worm out there threatening everyone.
Of course, by the same token, if businesses start issuing more warnings (cough*MICROSOFT*cough*) then maybe more people will realize that their software of choice is a piece of sh*t and start looking for a replacement.
I think that so far, the general effect of an increased emphasis on security has been the latter (people reconsidering options). But will it always stay that way? I don't know.
Yes, the Taiwanese are not currently occupied by China. But let me ask you something -- would you want to loudly declare independence if it was guaranteed to bring an invasion, when the status quo gives you all the rights and privileges that you currently need? For the Taiwanese, they'd rather have de facto independence than face an invasion.
The flaw in your analogy is that the Lithuanians and the East Timorese were trying to gain international recognition and assistance in order to kick out their oppressors. The Taiwanese don't have any oppressors to kick out at the moment -- they merely need to hold them at bay.
Funny how everyone who claims that "the (American) Civil War was about more than just slavery" seems to forget that the only reason that the Southern states were interested in protecting States' Rights so zealously was because they were trying to protect the institution of slavery.
Back in the 1780's, the slave and "free" states were roughly evenly divided. But by the 1850's, the slave states were significantly outnumbered by the states that had banned slavery. The southern states were demanding a limited federal government to prevent the growing anti-slavery movement from enforcing a ban on slavery anywhere in the country (both in the slave states themselves and in the non-state territories).
The immediate cause of the American Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln, who ran on a platform of (among other things) banning slavery in all non-state territories and preventing any new states from permitting slavery. At the time, he did not advocate abolishing slavery in the southern states where it already existed.
And so, once the fighting broke out, the immediate goals of the war were focusing on the issue of States' Rights versus federal authority. It was only after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued two and a half years later that the issue of slavery was once again brought to the fore.
Please note that I do recognize that many people who fly the Confederate battle flag (which is not the same as Confederate national flag that was known as the "Stars and Bars") today are not necessarily advocating slavery or racism, but rather some nebulous ideal of the Southern way of life. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, save for two points: (1) the Southern way of life at the time of the Civil War was largely supported by slavery and relied on forced labor, and (2) the vast majority of people today view the Confederate battle flag as a symbol representing a government which fought for the continuance of slavery. (For another good example of a symbol where a modern interpretation has completely overwhelmed previous meanings, read an article about the swastika.) Therefore, although I realize that the Confederate battle flag represents more than slavery and racism for some people, I generally disapprove of its use because of the much more common interpretation of today's society.
>> From the Taiwanese point of view, the Beijing government is illegitimate.
That's the official view of the Taiwanese government. However, there's a reason for that. According to the old status quo positions, the Taiwanese government is the successor of the KMT, which claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China. But that was thirty years ago. Today, pretty much everyone on Taiwan has given up hope of "retaking" the mainland. However, because of the extreme paranoia in Beijing, if Taiwan were to officially renounce any claim to the mainland, they would treat that as a de facto declaration of independence and declare war. Therefore, the Taiwan government is still technically claiming to be the sole legitimate government of mainland China!
While common sense would suggest that the MPAA should be grateful for file sharing in the specific case cited above (in that the act of file sharing generated a sale), I think that they'd be more upset and claim that file sharing actually prevented a sale (of "The Blair Witch Project") instead.
After all, their conspiracy to produce low-quality movies was recently exposed...
That's funny, 'cuz I've got a 12" iBook with 1024x768 resolution, and I don't have a problem with the OmniWeb tabs whatsoever... :-P
And what happens when you've got multiple tabs open from the same site? When you happen to have similar page names? Duh.