So exactly which version of Word are they mandating people use if they are still running Windows 98? Word 95? Word 97? That's the problem with proprietary formats, they change and force everybody to change too. If they truly are running Windows 98, which I do not doubt, then they must be mandating that people submit grant applications in one of the older Word formats, because they can't be running the latest version of Word.
As such, it sounds like this grant office would be a prime candidate for something like this plugin as it would allow them to continue to use their old software of whatever version of Word regardless of what the rest of the world moves on to. It would also mean that they wouldn't have to convert their old documents, but could start accepting documents in odf formats.
We should expect the following from Microsoft. Microsft are going to prepare a patch that will eventually disrupt the working of the plugin in all Office versions."
Of course, if MA passed a statute stating that government agencies had to use open document formats, then if Microsoft to action to prohibit the plugin from functioning as you suggest, they would be eliminating Office from being suitable for use by state agencies. As such, it would not be in their best interest to take action to disable or hinder the plugin from working now that it is available.
A much more likely scenario is that they will need to do everything possible to keep it working and others will also start to adopt the the plugin and the proprietary Microsoft format, while maybe the default in the software, will no longer be the default used by the people.
Once that occurs, it will be much simpler for competing products to come to market (commercial or open source) and challenge Office. The competition might not be good for Microsoft, but will be for the consumer.
Not quite. The parent said that companies would pay a fee to use the patents to tie up their competitors in the courts. I think the company itself would say pay me the protection money or I'll tie you up in the courts.
With the sheer volume of patents they hold, the smart move would be to avoid garnering too much attention from Congress and instead sell advantage to competing companies. In other words, their primary source of income wouldn't come from pure patent protection litigation, it would come from companies paying them to tie up their competitors' product lines with injunctions and patent violation suits. The 800 lbs. gorilla would get richer as a hitman than as a tyrant.
Or maybe they would get their income from a protection money scheme "Pay us a fee and we won't come after you." I seem to recall SCO trying that with Linux users, so it's not too far fetched. Just because they weren't successful at it (mainly because they didn't have legal grounds to enforce anything), doesn't mean this company wouldn't succeed.
Can there truly be a flawless operating system? Yes, my HP 25 had one. So do many other embeded devices.
Is it possible to design and easy to use, accessible, and reliable application that has no security holes?Again, the answer is "Yes." Minesweeper is such an application in Windows.
However, I believe you were meaning an operating system. To which, again, I would answer "Yes." What you cannot do, however, is to keep adding layers to an existing operating system that was never designed to be accessible, reliable and secure, and expect it become so. Windows is relatively easy to use (some may argue that), but the ease of use has come at the expense of reliability and security.
It is possible, however, to go the otherway. You can take an operating system that is designed to be reliable and secure and add features to make it easier to use. Mainframe operating systems are an example of this. I am not saying they are easy to use, by any means, but from the user perspective, they are easier today than they were in 1960. And yet, they are just as secure and reliable.
When focus is on reliability and security first, then ease of use features need to be evaluated in terms of that. For instance, wireless networking is great. It's great to be able to just turn on the a wireless router and turn on the computer and anywhere in the house you can be on the network. From an ease of use perspective, that shines. However, from a reliability/security perspective, it sucks, because not only, but your neighbor and anyone else can be on that connection. Wireless router manufactures realize this and most now longer ship with wireless enabled anymore.
So, back to your original question whether it is possible to design an easy to use accessible and reliable [operating system] that has no security holes? The answer is yes, if one sets that as their priority and has the willpower to follow through.
I agree 100% that IBM didn't come up with the personal computer, however, if it weren't for them and the IBM PC and the compatables it spawned we wouldn't have the pc computer industry we have today. Sure, there were others before them, but it was IBM that made the PC mainstream.
Unfortunately, as you point out, they didn't realize what they had and they tried to "manage" it to fit their model of computing and they lost their hold on the technology. That is why today, IBM isn't in the PC business (and you don't see their nameplate on any PCs you buy).
Microsoft is doing the same thing. They are relying on marketing and perception that they are the technology leader and can therefore steer the people to where they want them to go (even though they ask "Where do you want to go..."). However, just like IBM, they have gotten too large and have become fat and lazy. That's not a slam against Microsoft. It tends to happen to the leader in any large business structure, whether computers, automotive, or whatever. Once they rise to the top of the heap and concerns shift to protecting the bottom line instead of continuing the path that got them there, they stagnate.
IBM has totally changed its business model around. Sure, they still produce mainframes and mini computers and make good money from doing so, but they are predominately a service provider now. Hardware sales are used to guarantee service revenue streams.
Microsoft is still stuck with trying to protect the old instead of embracing the new. Its a common problem with big business. But until they change, they are going to be stuck where they are at and will spend more and more on marketing trying to convince people that they have something new to offer.
Apple releases a poor port of their QuickTime player for Windows and assumes that's enough. Their goal is to keep users frustrated enough to jump ship and switch to OS X so QuickTime "simply works better". Guess what? Switching platforms is not an easy proposition if you have a lot of investments in Windows software, even cross-platform apps like Photoshop or Flash.
Ummm, wasn't it pointed out in the earlier trial that the poor port of Quicktime was because Apple ported it to the then published Microsoft media specs, whereas Microsoft's own media player used undocumented APIs? Wouldn't that qualify as the abuse you are looking for? Well, at least the courts thought so.
Where's the abuse from Microsoft? Have they made these players perform poorly on Windows? Have they made it difficult to install these apps? Does Windows Media Player hijack file formats without asking the user first? The answer to all of these is no. Microsoft's media player meet the needs of media distributors and this is why it's used widely on the internet, not because it's installed with Windows (you can actually uninstall it by the way, it's not linked to the OS in the same way IE is).
Has Microsoft made it difficult to install third party media players? Yes. You can't even fully uninstall Microsoft's media player, only make it so it's not the default, but the guts are still there. Does it hijack file formats without asking? Only after doing an update.
As for Microsof't media player meeting the needs of media distributors, thankyou, you just proved the monopoly case. The only reason it became popular is because prior to that there were several options. It was only after Microsoft bundled media player with their OS that it became widespread (prior to that, you could download it seperately). The only "need" it met was that media distributors new it was now installed on every windows pc and didn't have to worry about any other format. The fact that Microsoft controlled the OS is what allowed this to occur at the expense of other media formats and vendors. If Microsoft had bundled Quicktime with Windows, then it would have been the default. The difference being, that they didn't license Quicktime (or Real), the came out with their own product and by using their monopoly power took over the media market.
That is why, with the exception of DRM, there hasn't been any real innovation with Windows Media Player. There is no competition, so there is no reason innovate. And for the record, you cannot fully unninstall Windows Media Player. The core DLLs and hooks are still there.
Face it, there are better players than media player. There are better encoders and formats than media player. There are better interfaces than media player. The only thing that makes it the standard on windows is not that it meets media distributors or users needs, but that it is bundled with Windows.
Remember, long before the EU got involved, the US courts declared Microsoft an illegal monopoly. The remedies to the findings were challenged and later changed, but not the original ruling. The fact that the EU has come to the same conclusion shouldn't be a suprise. It's not "slashbots" or the courts who are destroying Microsoft. It's Microsoft collapsing under it's own weight.
Does Dvorak just not get the point? People buy Macs to run OS X. Sure, it will be nice to be able to boot into Windows if you have that app or two that you just cannot do without and has no equivalent on the Mac. Does he really think people will start buying Macs, then buying a full copy of XP just to run Windows?
Bootcamp gives the user considering a Mac but holding back because of some app that is only available on Windows the opportunity to still use a Mac. Maybe it's the home user who has his telescope or midi software connected to her PC and doesn't care for the Mac offerings or can't afford to purchase them. Maybe it's the guy or gal who just wants to come home and be able to play all of those PC games they accumulated. Maybe it's the business user or student who has the specialized piece of software that really does require Windows and it isn't an option to use anything else. It really doesn't matter who it is or why. Bootcamp doesn't signify that OS X is in trouble, it recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why some people don't consider a Mac and attempts to rectify it.
If Dvorak were open sourced, maybe he wouldn't be so closed minded about Apple.
I'm not sure I agree with the future being web apps. If you look at what still drives business, it's hard core data and web apps, at least in their current incarnation, just don't seem robust enough for hard core data entry. I'm not talking about data entry for a small business but hard core heads down keyentry.
What is holding things back, is that the current state of web app thin clients is too thin. Businesses tend to need richer, more robust clients than what can be provided through a browser. Vendors pushed web apps to further their business models, not solve the customer's problems. First there was Java, which was not originally created for web apps, but found it's place there. Sun pushed it that way, though, not because businesses were calling for it, but because the notion of software as a service was taking off and Java as the platform was seen as Sun's foot in the door.
However, it was really Microsoft who embraced software as a service, running through the web. Why, well, who has the market share of the browser? Web apps, locked into.Net and Internet Explorer lock the desktop into Microsoft Windows technology.
In both cases, these were ploys for the vendor, not the customer. Customers wanted simpler deployment and maintenance models and I doubt that anybody would argue that Java/.Net/Web Apps actually deliver on that (for real world applications).
However, using the technology to preserve market share instead of expanding into new areas (which can only be done by meeting customer's real needs), only prolongs the downward spiral, it doesn't keep it from happening.
You could roll the clock back 40 years and change Microsoft to IBM and have the same article. Face it, IBM was THE technology company of the 1960s and Microsoft is now. However, PC industry that gave rise to Microsoft is now a mature industry, just as the mainframe industry was in 1965.
That is why Microsoft is so desperately trying to define what the next great computer frontier will be - whether computerized games consoles, entertainment systems, kitchens or whole houses. However, while these are all interesting, none of these will be "it."
"It" will have to come from outside Microsoft, just as the PC came from outside IBM. Oh, sure, IBM spawned the PC age, but they never grasped it's potential, because it was too outside the box. Likewise, Microsoft, is looking at what's new and trying to fit it "in" with their plans. As long as it is being forced to fit "in," it won't be the next technological revolution, or if it is, Microsoft won't be the one to capitalize on it.
Why not? The fact that the next technological revolution will dictate out with the old and in with the new would require Microsoft to abandon their flagship, dare I say "legacy" systems. That's hard for a company to do.
What will the next technological revolution be? I don't know. I do know what it won't be, though. It won't be found in something that is restrictive as to how it can be used or with what it can be used with. Those attributes are signs of protection for "legacy" systems.
Protection of legacy systems doesn't lead to innovation or revolution, only stagnation (and a lot of marketing expenses to convince the public that things really are new and improved).
Since, your free speech is being restricted for the public safety, such as not being allowed to yell fire in a theater, how would the first ammendment apply? Also, since you are paying for a service with the cell phone company, you actually have already agreed to restrictions to your freedom of speech in terms of when and how you can use the company's network. This would be just one more (albeit dumb) restriction.
Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cell phones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces. Restrictions vary across other states.
Because we all know that it's having our hand on the cell phone that causes the distraction versus concetrating on the discussion being conducted on the phone (usually work related) instead of the road.
If they really want to make is safer, since people will continue to use cell phones, hands free or not, they should lower the speed limits. That way, there is more time to react for the cell phone user and for the rest of us to get out of their way.
Your post implies that the problem with those in power is one of ignorance of how the real world works. I would propose it isn't ignorance at all. It apathy. They simply don't care. Instead, they are influenced by the special interest groups, not because these groups bring knowledge that is lacking, but instead bring money. And money, at least in the US, is power. The DMCA and similar laws weren't to protect the "people's rights." They were enacted because high paid lobbyist promised and delivered high dollar contributions to re-election campaigns or threatened to have said funds diverted.
Sorry, prediction involves probabilities. To say that evolution predicts that a creature such as ambulocetus existed would imply that there is a probability that it did not exist. If a there is a possibility that such a transitional sea to land creature did not exist, no matter how remote that possibility, then evolution is just a hypothetical and there could be any number of other competing theories as to how we got here. That plays directly into the ID people's hands.
However, evolution didn't predict anything. Evolution required ambulocetus or some other transitional creature(s) to exist to get from the sea to land. There is no room for probability or anything else. Now, some scientists may have predicted where to find a fossil of said creature based on extrapolating data backwards, but the theory of evolution itself has nothing to do with that. The probability of the scientist actually finding the fossil where they looked was extremely small, for a large number of reasons (none of which preclude the existance of ambulocetus, only the fossilization of ambulocetus and preservation of ambulocetus).
We have to be careful about language we use. If the theory of evolution is a fact and not just any old theory as creationists and IDs want us to believe, then we have to use fact based language (nobody says driving 60mph predicts you will cover 100 miles in 100 minutes -- driving 60mph means that you will cover 100 miles in 100 minutes). The theory of evolution requires that a transitional creature existed and now scientists have found proof of such creature is much more accurate than stating it predicted such a creature (which implies that we are still testing the hypothesis of evolution).
Actually, that is the point I was trying to make. Because evolution is an observed science (much like the expanding universe), by working backwards, we ultimately have to get from land creatures to earlier sea creatures, which requires, at some point a transitional creature (several of them, actually). That is what I meant when I said that evolution requires it.
The fact that this fossil was found where it was expected to be and looked like it was hypothesized to look are very interesting, but not predictions in the sense the word was being used in the original post. Predictions imply probability and the possiblity for error. Those existed in the sense that the fossil might not have been found in the layer they thought or might not have had the features expected, but to say that evolution predicted such a creature is not true. Evolution, at least as we know it, required such a creature to exist, there is no room for chance. If it is possible that such a creature never existed, then there is just as much possibility that there is another explanation as to how creatures ended up on land (and the ID people might just be right).
Whether we would ever find the fossil was in the realm of probability, whether such a creature ever existed wasn't.
Evolution doesn't predict this. Saying it does is a common mistake. Prediction involves things that haven't happened. The fact that creatures are on dry land and the assumption that life began in the sea (which I am not arguing against) requires some transition to get from water to land. Working backwards from what is observed today, creatures on dry land to what is believed about the past is what requires this required transitional creature (or missing link). Evolution doesn't predict it, it requires it.
A creationist, which I am not, having a different origination belief, would not need to have the ambulocetus exist. The fact that abulocetus did exist is just one more creature that existed and is now extinct.
Again, to restate my point, evolution doesn't predict a creature like ambulocetus, it requires it.
"Supposedly only suitable for the single desktop..."
Doesn't that then mean they are saying that Microsoft Office is no longer suitable for the single desktop? If so, then what about all of those SOHO computers out there?
Dvorak is in the business of selling magazines. He makes statements and writes columns like this just to cause controversy so that people buy the magazine. If people would let PC Mag know how much they dislike his "opinion" pieces, maybe they'd do something about it.
This is Good News! The iPod (and other music players) are very popular with the public. This stance of the RIAA telling people that they can't copy their CDs to it will only bring to the public light how crazy their position on digital rights truly is.
I'd love to see the first law suit filed against somebody because they copied their legally purchased CD collection to their iPod. There would be such a backlash against the music industry that congress would very likely be pushed to overturn the DMCA.
In another news story today, Bush announced he will cut the deficit by cutting domestic programs. Is it safe to assume that, after this story aired, PBS will be one of the programs cut?
I agree with what you say, however, the IRS requires taxes to be filed by April 15. The USPS is written into the statute that it constitutes filing based on the postmark date. A receipt from FedEx doesn't qualify. I agree that Corporations simply need to amend their bylaws, however, that's like having a constitutional amendment. Shareholders can add all kinds of things in the open forum, if they choose.
That is assuming that the bylaws for the corporation have been amended to allow for FedEx. Priority Mail through the USPS would qualify as almost all include mail. Prior to 10 years ago, most included telegrams. Technically speaking, FedEx would not qualify (unless the bylaws said so). As another example, the IRS recognizes mail, but not FedEx or UPS. If your return is postmarked by April 15, it is considered "filed" April 15. FedEx and UPS don't get that luxury.
Slashdot Mirror
So exactly which version of Word are they mandating people use if they are still running Windows 98? Word 95? Word 97? That's the problem with proprietary formats, they change and force everybody to change too. If they truly are running Windows 98, which I do not doubt, then they must be mandating that people submit grant applications in one of the older Word formats, because they can't be running the latest version of Word.
As such, it sounds like this grant office would be a prime candidate for something like this plugin as it would allow them to continue to use their old software of whatever version of Word regardless of what the rest of the world moves on to. It would also mean that they wouldn't have to convert their old documents, but could start accepting documents in odf formats.
We should expect the following from Microsoft. Microsft are going to prepare a patch that will eventually disrupt the working of the plugin in all Office versions."
Of course, if MA passed a statute stating that government agencies had to use open document formats, then if Microsoft to action to prohibit the plugin from functioning as you suggest, they would be eliminating Office from being suitable for use by state agencies. As such, it would not be in their best interest to take action to disable or hinder the plugin from working now that it is available.
A much more likely scenario is that they will need to do everything possible to keep it working and others will also start to adopt the the plugin and the proprietary Microsoft format, while maybe the default in the software, will no longer be the default used by the people.
Once that occurs, it will be much simpler for competing products to come to market (commercial or open source) and challenge Office. The competition might not be good for Microsoft, but will be for the consumer.
U.S. movie studios are losing about $6.1 billion annually in global wholesale revenue to piracy,
Or, put another way, US movie studios saved $2.5B annually in income taxes from the losses claimed due to the global wholesale revenue loss to piracy.
Not quite. The parent said that companies would pay a fee to use the patents to tie up their competitors in the courts. I think the company itself would say pay me the protection money or I'll tie you up in the courts.
With the sheer volume of patents they hold, the smart move would be to avoid garnering too much attention from Congress and instead sell advantage to competing companies. In other words, their primary source of income wouldn't come from pure patent protection litigation, it would come from companies paying them to tie up their competitors' product lines with injunctions and patent violation suits. The 800 lbs. gorilla would get richer as a hitman than as a tyrant.
Or maybe they would get their income from a protection money scheme "Pay us a fee and we won't come after you." I seem to recall SCO trying that with Linux users, so it's not too far fetched. Just because they weren't successful at it (mainly because they didn't have legal grounds to enforce anything), doesn't mean this company wouldn't succeed.
But didn't I read someplace that Microsoft were coming out with their own anti-virus/anti-whatever suite with a monthly service charge?
With that in mind - why would they tell other, competing, anti-virus companies what flaws to protect against?
Can you say Sherman Antitrust Act?
Can there truly be a flawless operating system? Yes, my HP 25 had one. So do many other embeded devices.
Is it possible to design and easy to use, accessible, and reliable application that has no security holes?Again, the answer is "Yes." Minesweeper is such an application in Windows.
However, I believe you were meaning an operating system. To which, again, I would answer "Yes." What you cannot do, however, is to keep adding layers to an existing operating system that was never designed to be accessible, reliable and secure, and expect it become so. Windows is relatively easy to use (some may argue that), but the ease of use has come at the expense of reliability and security.
It is possible, however, to go the otherway. You can take an operating system that is designed to be reliable and secure and add features to make it easier to use. Mainframe operating systems are an example of this. I am not saying they are easy to use, by any means, but from the user perspective, they are easier today than they were in 1960. And yet, they are just as secure and reliable.
When focus is on reliability and security first, then ease of use features need to be evaluated in terms of that. For instance, wireless networking is great. It's great to be able to just turn on the a wireless router and turn on the computer and anywhere in the house you can be on the network. From an ease of use perspective, that shines. However, from a reliability/security perspective, it sucks, because not only, but your neighbor and anyone else can be on that connection. Wireless router manufactures realize this and most now longer ship with wireless enabled anymore.
So, back to your original question whether it is possible to design an easy to use accessible and reliable [operating system] that has no security holes? The answer is yes, if one sets that as their priority and has the willpower to follow through.
I agree 100% that IBM didn't come up with the personal computer, however, if it weren't for them and the IBM PC and the compatables it spawned we wouldn't have the pc computer industry we have today. Sure, there were others before them, but it was IBM that made the PC mainstream.
Unfortunately, as you point out, they didn't realize what they had and they tried to "manage" it to fit their model of computing and they lost their hold on the technology. That is why today, IBM isn't in the PC business (and you don't see their nameplate on any PCs you buy).
Microsoft is doing the same thing. They are relying on marketing and perception that they are the technology leader and can therefore steer the people to where they want them to go (even though they ask "Where do you want to go..."). However, just like IBM, they have gotten too large and have become fat and lazy. That's not a slam against Microsoft. It tends to happen to the leader in any large business structure, whether computers, automotive, or whatever. Once they rise to the top of the heap and concerns shift to protecting the bottom line instead of continuing the path that got them there, they stagnate.
IBM has totally changed its business model around. Sure, they still produce mainframes and mini computers and make good money from doing so, but they are predominately a service provider now. Hardware sales are used to guarantee service revenue streams.
Microsoft is still stuck with trying to protect the old instead of embracing the new. Its a common problem with big business. But until they change, they are going to be stuck where they are at and will spend more and more on marketing trying to convince people that they have something new to offer.
Apple releases a poor port of their QuickTime player for Windows and assumes that's enough. Their goal is to keep users frustrated enough to jump ship and switch to OS X so QuickTime "simply works better". Guess what? Switching platforms is not an easy proposition if you have a lot of investments in Windows software, even cross-platform apps like Photoshop or Flash.
Ummm, wasn't it pointed out in the earlier trial that the poor port of Quicktime was because Apple ported it to the then published Microsoft media specs, whereas Microsoft's own media player used undocumented APIs? Wouldn't that qualify as the abuse you are looking for? Well, at least the courts thought so.
Where's the abuse from Microsoft? Have they made these players perform poorly on Windows? Have they made it difficult to install these apps? Does Windows Media Player hijack file formats without asking the user first? The answer to all of these is no. Microsoft's media player meet the needs of media distributors and this is why it's used widely on the internet, not because it's installed with Windows (you can actually uninstall it by the way, it's not linked to the OS in the same way IE is).
Has Microsoft made it difficult to install third party media players? Yes. You can't even fully uninstall Microsoft's media player, only make it so it's not the default, but the guts are still there. Does it hijack file formats without asking? Only after doing an update.
As for Microsof't media player meeting the needs of media distributors, thankyou, you just proved the monopoly case. The only reason it became popular is because prior to that there were several options. It was only after Microsoft bundled media player with their OS that it became widespread (prior to that, you could download it seperately). The only "need" it met was that media distributors new it was now installed on every windows pc and didn't have to worry about any other format. The fact that Microsoft controlled the OS is what allowed this to occur at the expense of other media formats and vendors. If Microsoft had bundled Quicktime with Windows, then it would have been the default. The difference being, that they didn't license Quicktime (or Real), the came out with their own product and by using their monopoly power took over the media market.
That is why, with the exception of DRM, there hasn't been any real innovation with Windows Media Player. There is no competition, so there is no reason innovate. And for the record, you cannot fully unninstall Windows Media Player. The core DLLs and hooks are still there.
Face it, there are better players than media player. There are better encoders and formats than media player. There are better interfaces than media player. The only thing that makes it the standard on windows is not that it meets media distributors or users needs, but that it is bundled with Windows.
Remember, long before the EU got involved, the US courts declared Microsoft an illegal monopoly. The remedies to the findings were challenged and later changed, but not the original ruling. The fact that the EU has come to the same conclusion shouldn't be a suprise. It's not "slashbots" or the courts who are destroying Microsoft. It's Microsoft collapsing under it's own weight.
Does Dvorak just not get the point? People buy Macs to run OS X. Sure, it will be nice to be able to boot into Windows if you have that app or two that you just cannot do without and has no equivalent on the Mac. Does he really think people will start buying Macs, then buying a full copy of XP just to run Windows?
Bootcamp gives the user considering a Mac but holding back because of some app that is only available on Windows the opportunity to still use a Mac. Maybe it's the home user who has his telescope or midi software connected to her PC and doesn't care for the Mac offerings or can't afford to purchase them. Maybe it's the guy or gal who just wants to come home and be able to play all of those PC games they accumulated. Maybe it's the business user or student who has the specialized piece of software that really does require Windows and it isn't an option to use anything else. It really doesn't matter who it is or why. Bootcamp doesn't signify that OS X is in trouble, it recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why some people don't consider a Mac and attempts to rectify it.
If Dvorak were open sourced, maybe he wouldn't be so closed minded about Apple.
I'm not sure I agree with the future being web apps. If you look at what still drives business, it's hard core data and web apps, at least in their current incarnation, just don't seem robust enough for hard core data entry. I'm not talking about data entry for a small business but hard core heads down keyentry.
.Net and Internet Explorer lock the desktop into Microsoft Windows technology.
What is holding things back, is that the current state of web app thin clients is too thin. Businesses tend to need richer, more robust clients than what can be provided through a browser. Vendors pushed web apps to further their business models, not solve the customer's problems. First there was Java, which was not originally created for web apps, but found it's place there. Sun pushed it that way, though, not because businesses were calling for it, but because the notion of software as a service was taking off and Java as the platform was seen as Sun's foot in the door.
However, it was really Microsoft who embraced software as a service, running through the web. Why, well, who has the market share of the browser? Web apps, locked into
In both cases, these were ploys for the vendor, not the customer. Customers wanted simpler deployment and maintenance models and I doubt that anybody would argue that Java/.Net/Web Apps actually deliver on that (for real world applications).
However, using the technology to preserve market share instead of expanding into new areas (which can only be done by meeting customer's real needs), only prolongs the downward spiral, it doesn't keep it from happening.
You could roll the clock back 40 years and change Microsoft to IBM and have the same article. Face it, IBM was THE technology company of the 1960s and Microsoft is now. However, PC industry that gave rise to Microsoft is now a mature industry, just as the mainframe industry was in 1965.
That is why Microsoft is so desperately trying to define what the next great computer frontier will be - whether computerized games consoles, entertainment systems, kitchens or whole houses. However, while these are all interesting, none of these will be "it."
"It" will have to come from outside Microsoft, just as the PC came from outside IBM. Oh, sure, IBM spawned the PC age, but they never grasped it's potential, because it was too outside the box. Likewise, Microsoft, is looking at what's new and trying to fit it "in" with their plans. As long as it is being forced to fit "in," it won't be the next technological revolution, or if it is, Microsoft won't be the one to capitalize on it.
Why not? The fact that the next technological revolution will dictate out with the old and in with the new would require Microsoft to abandon their flagship, dare I say "legacy" systems. That's hard for a company to do.
What will the next technological revolution be? I don't know. I do know what it won't be, though. It won't be found in something that is restrictive as to how it can be used or with what it can be used with. Those attributes are signs of protection for "legacy" systems.
Protection of legacy systems doesn't lead to innovation or revolution, only stagnation (and a lot of marketing expenses to convince the public that things really are new and improved).
Since, your free speech is being restricted for the public safety, such as not being allowed to yell fire in a theater, how would the first ammendment apply? Also, since you are paying for a service with the cell phone company, you actually have already agreed to restrictions to your freedom of speech in terms of when and how you can use the company's network. This would be just one more (albeit dumb) restriction.
Instead of muting the call, it should drop it. Oh, wait, my cell phone already seems to have that feature.
Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cell phones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces. Restrictions vary across other states.
Because we all know that it's having our hand on the cell phone that causes the distraction versus concetrating on the discussion being conducted on the phone (usually work related) instead of the road.
If they really want to make is safer, since people will continue to use cell phones, hands free or not, they should lower the speed limits. That way, there is more time to react for the cell phone user and for the rest of us to get out of their way.
Your post implies that the problem with those in power is one of ignorance of how the real world works. I would propose it isn't ignorance at all. It apathy. They simply don't care. Instead, they are influenced by the special interest groups, not because these groups bring knowledge that is lacking, but instead bring money. And money, at least in the US, is power. The DMCA and similar laws weren't to protect the "people's rights." They were enacted because high paid lobbyist promised and delivered high dollar contributions to re-election campaigns or threatened to have said funds diverted.
Sorry, prediction involves probabilities. To say that evolution predicts that a creature such as ambulocetus existed would imply that there is a probability that it did not exist. If a there is a possibility that such a transitional sea to land creature did not exist, no matter how remote that possibility, then evolution is just a hypothetical and there could be any number of other competing theories as to how we got here. That plays directly into the ID people's hands.
However, evolution didn't predict anything. Evolution required ambulocetus or some other transitional creature(s) to exist to get from the sea to land. There is no room for probability or anything else. Now, some scientists may have predicted where to find a fossil of said creature based on extrapolating data backwards, but the theory of evolution itself has nothing to do with that. The probability of the scientist actually finding the fossil where they looked was extremely small, for a large number of reasons (none of which preclude the existance of ambulocetus, only the fossilization of ambulocetus and preservation of ambulocetus).
We have to be careful about language we use. If the theory of evolution is a fact and not just any old theory as creationists and IDs want us to believe, then we have to use fact based language (nobody says driving 60mph predicts you will cover 100 miles in 100 minutes -- driving 60mph means that you will cover 100 miles in 100 minutes). The theory of evolution requires that a transitional creature existed and now scientists have found proof of such creature is much more accurate than stating it predicted such a creature (which implies that we are still testing the hypothesis of evolution).
Actually, that is the point I was trying to make. Because evolution is an observed science (much like the expanding universe), by working backwards, we ultimately have to get from land creatures to earlier sea creatures, which requires, at some point a transitional creature (several of them, actually). That is what I meant when I said that evolution requires it.
The fact that this fossil was found where it was expected to be and looked like it was hypothesized to look are very interesting, but not predictions in the sense the word was being used in the original post. Predictions imply probability and the possiblity for error. Those existed in the sense that the fossil might not have been found in the layer they thought or might not have had the features expected, but to say that evolution predicted such a creature is not true. Evolution, at least as we know it, required such a creature to exist, there is no room for chance. If it is possible that such a creature never existed, then there is just as much possibility that there is another explanation as to how creatures ended up on land (and the ID people might just be right).
Whether we would ever find the fossil was in the realm of probability, whether such a creature ever existed wasn't.
Ambulocetus was predicted by evolution
Evolution doesn't predict this. Saying it does is a common mistake. Prediction involves things that haven't happened. The fact that creatures are on dry land and the assumption that life began in the sea (which I am not arguing against) requires some transition to get from water to land. Working backwards from what is observed today, creatures on dry land to what is believed about the past is what requires this required transitional creature (or missing link). Evolution doesn't predict it, it requires it.
A creationist, which I am not, having a different origination belief, would not need to have the ambulocetus exist. The fact that abulocetus did exist is just one more creature that existed and is now extinct.
Again, to restate my point, evolution doesn't predict a creature like ambulocetus, it requires it.
"Supposedly only suitable for the single desktop..."
Doesn't that then mean they are saying that Microsoft Office is no longer suitable for the single desktop? If so, then what about all of those SOHO computers out there?
Dvorak is in the business of selling magazines. He makes statements and writes columns like this just to cause controversy so that people buy the magazine. If people would let PC Mag know how much they dislike his "opinion" pieces, maybe they'd do something about it.
This is Good News! The iPod (and other music players) are very popular with the public. This stance of the RIAA telling people that they can't copy their CDs to it will only bring to the public light how crazy their position on digital rights truly is.
I'd love to see the first law suit filed against somebody because they copied their legally purchased CD collection to their iPod. There would be such a backlash against the music industry that congress would very likely be pushed to overturn the DMCA.
In another news story today, Bush announced he will cut the deficit by cutting domestic programs. Is it safe to assume that, after this story aired, PBS will be one of the programs cut?
I agree with what you say, however, the IRS requires taxes to be filed by April 15. The USPS is written into the statute that it constitutes filing based on the postmark date. A receipt from FedEx doesn't qualify. I agree that Corporations simply need to amend their bylaws, however, that's like having a constitutional amendment. Shareholders can add all kinds of things in the open forum, if they choose.
That is assuming that the bylaws for the corporation have been amended to allow for FedEx. Priority Mail through the USPS would qualify as almost all include mail. Prior to 10 years ago, most included telegrams. Technically speaking, FedEx would not qualify (unless the bylaws said so). As another example, the IRS recognizes mail, but not FedEx or UPS. If your return is postmarked by April 15, it is considered "filed" April 15. FedEx and UPS don't get that luxury.