Obviously, they can blame it on whatever they want, but it sounds like it's a simple matter of economics. They aren't making enough money from subscription services to pay for expenses (servers, etc.), so they are cutting back. They are still selling their personal firewall software.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity (or in this case, money).
This is because it would mean a major hole in their lock-in strategy for their customer base. I happen to think that the number one reason for the success of Windows is the success of MS Office. Take away the iron fisted grip they have on that audience and you spell a quick end to the Microsoft Monopoly.
It is perfectly legal to have a monopoly. However, once you have one, the rules you have to play by are very different from the rules everyone else has to follow.
In other words, it's perfectly legal to give away a product in order to gain market share. However, once you've created a monopoly, it is no longer legal to give away, or more properly, to bundle that same product for "free" in order to leverage that monopoly into another market area
In other words, YES, there is a double standard, and yes, it still makes sense.
No one 'deserves' to survive. It's capitalism, sell your product, make money, or go bankrupt.
True enough. No one "deserves" to survive, but there have been plenty of companies in the past couple of years that "deserved" a quick and painless death...
Good to see that some Linux firms are still managing to get new money after all the paranoia that's hounding the Tech industry these days. Sure, we've seen a lot of "We Can Do Linux Too!" chaff getting swept away lately (with a few really good companies getting taken out with them). Now it's time for the real companies to start delivering on the "Linux Rules" promises we all heard the last couple of years.
I'm sorry, but while I don't object to "Soft porn" shots like once in a while, in the context of the show here, it was LAME, LAME, LAME! It did nothing to advance either the plot or characters, and in fact, I think it simply blurred the Vulcan characteristics. It was a simple ratings ploy, and just plain stank!
(If it'd been Seven of Nine in Voyager, it might have even been appropriate, since she was supposed to be struggling with her human/sensual nature.)
Other than that, it was passable for a first episode.
There's one slight variation in the Vulcan vs. Human thing...
Remember how it was supposedly the Vulcans that made First Contact with Earth after the first warp drive test? From the bit I saw (missed the first 1/2 hour:-/), it's the primitive race (Humans) chaifing under to tutalige of the advanced race (Vulcans). Not sure how much they'l be able to stretch out of that one, but it might make for some fresh material.
Second, didn't anyone else hear them say, "Polarize the hull plates!"? It's not the steel that's offline, but the polarization (early shield technology?) that was breaking down.
I know I sent in a letter to the Roadrunner support address suggesting that they start shutting off the connections on infected systems, and even sent them a list of the IP addresses out of my logs. I haven't received any reply to my email, but I have noticed a sudden drop today in the number of hits my server has been logging!
(It's clear that they haven't completely shut down the ports, since I'm still able to connect to my server, but I've only got errors from a few unique IP addresses today. There's no way that many people could have cleaned up their own systems since yesterday...)
> But I agree too, helping these people out would be nice.
Well DUH! Helping people is really nice, but if you'd read the article, the point is that the ISP's haven't been able to get in touch with people! The intent here is NOT to slap people around for being stupid, but to get their attention!! This sh-t has been going on for months now. I say it's about time the ISP's get proactive and start forcing people to wake up and clean up their systems!!!
Have you ever tried opening a frontpage-generated HTML file in a text editor? Bleedin' Christ, it's a damned mess.
'Tis the Microsoft Way!
Actually, it's not all that different from using any other GUI editor. The whole point of using a WYSIWYG editor is that you don't need to see the ugly underlying formatting code! Fer chrissakes, if we all wanted to deal with format codes, we'd still be using nroff/troff and dot commands. The point of using Frontpage, or any other GUI based editor, is that it makes it easier to maintain the page, in a way that sort-of looks like it did when you edited it. Of course, this points out the sillyness of the original suggestion. Once you've doinked with the underlying HTML, you can't use (legally) FP to update or maintain the pages.
In this case, it was NIKE putting the letters/words on the sneekers, even though it was at the request of the customer. As such, they were to some extent legally responsible for them. Hence, I'm sure they wouldn't have put in words like F--K YOU or FREE S-X or whatever.
Granted, putting NIKE SUX on their own shoes isn't in quite the same category as the examples above, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to refuse.
On the other hand, if I create a MS.SUX website, I am responsible for the content regardless of what tool I use to create it. I don't see how MS can legitimately bitch about it. On the other hand, I can see how it would be legal to create such restrictions (not that much different from the "no published benchmarks" clause in other EUL's), but it sure sounds sleezy...
I am not a database designer by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't program Access much, but what little I have had to do there I've found I can do just as well with "pgaccess", a Tcl/Tk front end to PostgreSQL.
The question is not, who do you trust, but who do other people trust.
The whole point of a central repository for this sort of information is for the benefit the the site you are trying to access, so that they can verify from some trusted source that you are who you say you are. Anyone can set up their own repository and say that they are someone else. However, if the site can go to some trusted source (either Microsoft, or a large bank, or whatever), then they can be certain that you are who they think you are, and have permission to use credit card numbers or access confidential information or perform transactions, etc...
The benefit to the customer is not trust, but the "convenience" of a single login, and not having to remember a fistful of different username/password pairs for all the sites they deal with.
...then you should've turned them off months ago...
Ugh... I wish it were that simple. I'm still getting loads of CR hits on my servers. It'd be nice if Time Warner (Roadrunner) would start shutting down connections on servers that have been infected, and never cleaned up. There are a lot of people who still aren't aware that their machines are infected and still flooding the Internet with their nonsense.
It's the only way people are going to wake up and get around to fixing their d*mn "Easy to Administer" Windows boxes.
Interesting... This is definitely one massive test of just how far you can push the Internet. Remember that some of the original design of the Internet was to handle National Emergencies just like this.
One side-effect of the Gulf War was that it gave the US Military a chance to try out all their neat new hardware under real wartime conditions. I wonder if we'll get a chance to see if you really can land a military jet on a US Interstate highway...
No, the government wouldn't want to black this out. It's a simple test of the Internet under massive stress.
No. I think the US government believes that it is in its best interest for as MANY people as possible to see this live. Whatever they end up doing, they want the support of the population. Better to have a nation forged together by fire, like it was in WWII, than fragmented, weak and apathetic like it was during Viet Nam.
MS-Word is the standard that everyone has, and everyone can use.
True enough, but it doesn't answer the original question. Can MS-Word (or even StarOffice, if you want a non-MS option) output XML? I know it will output HTML, but it's such a bastardized mass of proprietary and font/format specific crap that it's essentially useless unless you extensive filter it first.
The whole point here is not to create pretty formatted documents, but to leverage the power of XML to add context and meaning to the content of the documents in order to create a rich and interlinked heirarchy of information. Conventional word processors just create blobs of information -- pretty formatted blobs, but blobs nonetheless...
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. It's like saying that, "90% of the traffic on the roads today is for commercial purposes" (which, if you include commuter traffic, is probably a low estimate).
So what? The volme of commercial traffic probably funds most of the development of road infrastructure (including gas stations, insurance companies, snow removal, etc., etc....).
As long as that "commercial" traffic doesn't prevent me from making use of the roads for whatever purpose I see fit (like going for a drive on the country, or going out for a spin on my bicycle), then I can't see how that hurts me.
(True, the Internet isn't what it used to be, but I don't see that the original ideals of free, global communication have gone away... if you take the time to look for them. The "unwashed masses" may still be duped by the forces of commercialism, but that will always be true. The Internet isn't going to "Save the World" any more than any other technology is.)
Actually, if MS and Real Player and Quicktime could open up and agree on a file format for the actual media files, then it wouldn't matter which player you had, and they really could compete on the basis of the quality of the player. The problem is, if a Web site has RealPlayer files, they you can only play them with RealPlayer. If they use the MS server, they the users are forced to use the Windows media player.
My gripe is that you end up with a dozen or more "player" plugins, all required for different file formats provided by different servers on different sites. Ugh!
It's a user installed plugin for the browser, not unlike Java or RealPlayer. The plugin then detects keywords and renders them as special links to the provider's pages (either directly to a third party page, or to another page with lists of "related" links).
The user installs the plugin, so in a sense, it's their own fault. Problem is that they are promised one thing, but now they're getting something very different from what they expected.
Of course, this is just my opinion, but since the whole point of Linux is that it's "Free" (i.e., open to the world), then I'd say it was "born" on the first day it was available for download -- i.e., released. Obviously, it wasn't finished then, but what software product is ever really "finished" on its first release?
You know how people distort statistics. Actually, what's more significant than the raw numbers they're throwing around is the set of questions. What exactly do they mean by "Trust"? How do you measure it? Do you trust the people who run the site, or the members who contribute to the site?
For example, if I have a MS application, and I need a patch, I have a fairly high level of trust that I can go there, download updates and patches, and they will fix the problems they say they will fix. On the other hand, I have absolutely ZERO trust in their marketing and PR machines and the opinions they express.
So, depending on the underlying agenda of the people funding the "survey", you could interpret (i.e., "twist") my response any way you want.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be absolute DEATH for Microsoft
This is because it would mean a major hole in their lock-in strategy for their customer base. I happen to think that the number one reason for the success of Windows is the success of MS Office. Take away the iron fisted grip they have on that audience and you spell a quick end to the Microsoft Monopoly.
In other words, YES, there is a double standard, and yes, it still makes sense.
Good to see that some Linux firms are still managing to get new money after all the paranoia that's hounding the Tech industry these days. Sure, we've seen a lot of "We Can Do Linux Too!" chaff getting swept away lately (with a few really good companies getting taken out with them). Now it's time for the real companies to start delivering on the "Linux Rules" promises we all heard the last couple of years.
(If it'd been Seven of Nine in Voyager, it might have even been appropriate, since she was supposed to be struggling with her human/sensual nature.)
Other than that, it was passable for a first episode.
(Ugh.....)
Remember how it was supposedly the Vulcans that made First Contact with Earth after the first warp drive test? From the bit I saw (missed the first 1/2 hour :-/), it's the primitive race (Humans) chaifing under to tutalige of the advanced race (Vulcans). Not sure how much they'l be able to stretch out of that one, but it might make for some fresh material.
Second, didn't anyone else hear them say, "Polarize the hull plates!"? It's not the steel that's offline, but the polarization (early shield technology?) that was breaking down.
(It's clear that they haven't completely shut down the ports, since I'm still able to connect to my server, but I've only got errors from a few unique IP addresses today. There's no way that many people could have cleaned up their own systems since yesterday...)
Well DUH! Helping people is really nice, but if you'd read the article, the point is that the ISP's haven't been able to get in touch with people! The intent here is NOT to slap people around for being stupid, but to get their attention!! This sh-t has been going on for months now. I say it's about time the ISP's get proactive and start forcing people to wake up and clean up their systems!!!
Actually, it's not all that different from using any other GUI editor. The whole point of using a WYSIWYG editor is that you don't need to see the ugly underlying formatting code! Fer chrissakes, if we all wanted to deal with format codes, we'd still be using nroff/troff and dot commands. The point of using Frontpage, or any other GUI based editor, is that it makes it easier to maintain the page, in a way that sort-of looks like it did when you edited it. Of course, this points out the sillyness of the original suggestion. Once you've doinked with the underlying HTML, you can't use (legally) FP to update or maintain the pages.
Granted, putting NIKE SUX on their own shoes isn't in quite the same category as the examples above, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to refuse.
On the other hand, if I create a MS.SUX website, I am responsible for the content regardless of what tool I use to create it. I don't see how MS can legitimately bitch about it. On the other hand, I can see how it would be legal to create such restrictions (not that much different from the "no published benchmarks" clause in other EUL's), but it sure sounds sleezy...
I am not a database designer by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't program Access much, but what little I have had to do there I've found I can do just as well with "pgaccess", a Tcl/Tk front end to PostgreSQL.
ugh...
The whole point of a central repository for this sort of information is for the benefit the the site you are trying to access, so that they can verify from some trusted source that you are who you say you are. Anyone can set up their own repository and say that they are someone else. However, if the site can go to some trusted source (either Microsoft, or a large bank, or whatever), then they can be certain that you are who they think you are, and have permission to use credit card numbers or access confidential information or perform transactions, etc...
The benefit to the customer is not trust, but the "convenience" of a single login, and not having to remember a fistful of different username/password pairs for all the sites they deal with.
Ugh... I wish it were that simple. I'm still getting loads of CR hits on my servers. It'd be nice if Time Warner (Roadrunner) would start shutting down connections on servers that have been infected, and never cleaned up. There are a lot of people who still aren't aware that their machines are infected and still flooding the Internet with their nonsense. It's the only way people are going to wake up and get around to fixing their d*mn "Easy to Administer" Windows boxes.
(*sigh*)
One side-effect of the Gulf War was that it gave the US Military a chance to try out all their neat new hardware under real wartime conditions. I wonder if we'll get a chance to see if you really can land a military jet on a US Interstate highway...
No. I think the US government believes that it is in its best interest for as MANY people as possible to see this live. Whatever they end up doing, they want the support of the population. Better to have a nation forged together by fire, like it was in WWII, than fragmented, weak and apathetic like it was during Viet Nam.
True enough, but it doesn't answer the original question. Can MS-Word (or even StarOffice, if you want a non-MS option) output XML? I know it will output HTML, but it's such a bastardized mass of proprietary and font/format specific crap that it's essentially useless unless you extensive filter it first.
The whole point here is not to create pretty formatted documents, but to leverage the power of XML to add context and meaning to the content of the documents in order to create a rich and interlinked heirarchy of information. Conventional word processors just create blobs of information -- pretty formatted blobs, but blobs nonetheless...
It's always impressive when you go to a site recently mentioned on /., and they can still saturate a Cable modem connection at close to 250K/s... ;-)
So what? The volme of commercial traffic probably funds most of the development of road infrastructure (including gas stations, insurance companies, snow removal, etc., etc....).
As long as that "commercial" traffic doesn't prevent me from making use of the roads for whatever purpose I see fit (like going for a drive on the country, or going out for a spin on my bicycle), then I can't see how that hurts me.
(True, the Internet isn't what it used to be, but I don't see that the original ideals of free, global communication have gone away... if you take the time to look for them. The "unwashed masses" may still be duped by the forces of commercialism, but that will always be true. The Internet isn't going to "Save the World" any more than any other technology is.)
My gripe is that you end up with a dozen or more "player" plugins, all required for different file formats provided by different servers on different sites. Ugh!
The user installs the plugin, so in a sense, it's their own fault. Problem is that they are promised one thing, but now they're getting something very different from what they expected.
Of course, this is just my opinion, but since the whole point of Linux is that it's "Free" (i.e., open to the world), then I'd say it was "born" on the first day it was available for download -- i.e., released. Obviously, it wasn't finished then, but what software product is ever really "finished" on its first release?
You know how people distort statistics. Actually, what's more significant than the raw numbers they're throwing around is the set of questions. What exactly do they mean by "Trust"? How do you measure it? Do you trust the people who run the site, or the members who contribute to the site?
For example, if I have a MS application, and I need a patch, I have a fairly high level of trust that I can go there, download updates and patches, and they will fix the problems they say they will fix. On the other hand, I have absolutely ZERO trust in their marketing and PR machines and the opinions they express.
So, depending on the underlying agenda of the people funding the "survey", you could interpret (i.e., "twist") my response any way you want.