It would be incredibly stupid of SCO to lie and just make up parallel code that they know wasn't really copied. It was incredibly stupid of MS to fake that demonstration in open court. Companies do incredibly stupid things sometimes.
Until things come out in discovery and it's all vetted and checked, there are no actionable facts available because SCO is playing things that way with its restrictive NDA regime.
Actually, the US was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US seven days later. When a nation declares war on you, it's customary to return the favor.
It was actually one of the wierder incidents of WW II as Germany was not obligated by treaty to declare war on the US. It just decided to do so.
I've refused to break into e-mail accounts when ordered to do so by a VP because the policy was written so badly that it wasn't clear at all whether this was legal.
It wasn't a pleasant experience but I'm glad I made the choice I did.
You might not have noticed but all of europe is in an uproar because the political class finally had to break the news that their own retirement benefits are unsustainable. France, Germany, they're both in crisis over the issue and they're not alone. Every bad demographic trend in the US on this question is worse in the EU states.
Currently, the dollar has been coming off a nice price spike from a few years ago. When the euro was introduced, it was at about this level but the monetary authorities explicitly were shooting for dollar parity. It looks like they missed.
The solution is just as painfully obvious as corporate corruption. We now have a 21st century worldwide information infrastructure but shareholder control is still exercised using 19th century means. An ASP that allowed shareholders to execute meaningful control over the managers who are supposed to act in their name is the solution. The legal hurdles were met when Clinton and the Republican Congress legalized electronic signatures and elevated them to be equivalent to hand signed documents.
All that's left is the application of some venture capital and boom! You have a structure that shareholders can use to take back the corporations who are supposed to be doing their will.
The assertion was that MS doesn't force anybody to upgrade. The assertion was demonstrated false. Whether or not Apple is doing the same thing is irrelevant to the truth of MS doing it.
Apple's situation is a bit different. They're putting out new.x releases on a much faster schedule than MS is and are visibly improving their OS over the course of months, not years. They're charging for updates about once a year and are introducing significantly different plumbing on the back end of the OS. Check out printing from 10.0 and 10.2 for a clear difference. Safari needs the plumbing for 10.2 to run so that's where we stand.
Microsoft is not in the same boat at all. They have decided that the browser must die and be integrated into a web service component of the OS. Since they don't make Mac OS, they could either suffer the slings and arrows of a million windows whiners asking them why the Mac people got to keep the separate executable or they could kill ie on the mac. They decided the latter.
It's just that, a red herring. I can't believe that shareholders stand for their money being spent on technology solutions that shrink their customer base even by 1-2% when differences of that magnitude in profitability can lead to major changes in the value of their shares come earnings announcement season.
First, future Mac usage is a bigger unknown than usual right now with the release of new hardware (PPC 970/980 systems) and easier co-existance with Windows than ever before.
Secondly, MS is struggling very hard to get people to upgrade so the browser market will not stay completely stagnant even with continued MS dominance. If MS resumes it 'new OS every two years' and combines it with forced upgrades a la volume licensing 6.0 then enough people will upgrade that it's not going to be 85% staying with old browsers.
Also, it's quite likely that MS will upgrade the browser portion of their OS code in service releases coupled with security fixes so even quite a few home users will be snared in the upgrade nets.
It's a real problem you're pointing out but don't overdo it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. MS does things that other companies do not. They are in a business who fundamentally depends on the size and quality of their developer community. What did they do? They offered a better deal on APIs than everybody else was offering. They promised equal access to the entire API and a chinese wall between the app dev side of MS and the OS dev side of MS. So what happened? People flocked to the platform in some measure because of those promises.
Those promises have now been revealed as a lie, a fraud, a common deceit that was of such a scale that tens of thousands of career paths were altered by it and billions in MS profits hung in the balance. It was a criminal conspiracy to commit corporate fraud *AND NOBODY PROSECUTED*. The Democrats fell down on the job because when MS admitted a few years ago that the chinese wall was a myth and 100% access to the Win32 API was a myth the Dems were in charge of the executive and they wanted a poster boy defendent for an anti-trust revival. This was viewed as a good way to rally the troops and improve their electoral chances.
Republicans didn't cover themselves in glory either, concentrating on defending MS in order to minimize the electoral gain of a revitalized anti-trust national mood. There's a very good case of doing an Arthur Anderson to MS and indicting the company. Depending on the statute of limitations limits for the particular crimes, MS officers could end up in club Fed for what they've pulled over the years.
I don't particularly like monopolies but there are problems with MS that are not monopoly related in the least.
Actually, MS licensing *is* contractually forcing some customers to upgrade with licensing 6.0. Also, the cessation of support after 5 years forces people to upgrade anything of theirs that has an unfixed security hole which will never get fixed because MS dropped support.
It makes little sense to paint MS worse than it is. It makes even less sense to paint a rosy picture of them that is just as false.
The problem is that switching costs are not zero. Mozilla has to beat the incumbent not by a little, but by enough that joe average user wants the advantage mozilla gives him more than he wants to avoid the suffering of switching.
The only two things to do to fix this are to get so far ahead that people switch anyway and to reduce the pain of switching by creating easy methods of doing so that anybody can use.
When IE goes away as a standalone product, I think that this will create some discomfort in the average user and they might be interested in getting Mozilla (or Konqueror, etc) as they might perceive it as their *first* browser and not their 2nd.
It doesn't make sense from a technical perspective but the mass of people who use browsers aren't technical.
First of all current polling puts a Clinton (B) v Bush (GW) match at a Bush landslide. To be as charitable as possible, Bill Clinton hasn't covered himself in glory since 9/11.
Second, Bill Clinton wouldn't be eligible, neither would either Bush. Reagan, poor man, is no longer physically qualified to do the job and Carter and Ford could run again even without the 22nd being repealed as they were both 1 term presidents but neither would get the nomination as walking reminders of sadder days and political defeat.
Generally, any amendment would start applying to the President/Vice President that was elected *after* such a rule change was passed. There are Clinton fans who would like to see the 22nd die the death of Prohibition. It's a bipartisan movement.
Yes but the principle of the 27th is actually fairly basic, don't improve your own material benefit by changing the law until the people can judge if you're right or wrong via the results of an election. Expansively interpreted, it could really restore a lot of sanity to the govt. spending process.
One thing bothers me, doesn't having access to the underlying KHTML library give them access to all that is necessary for them to put out a browser? It's not like they've ever put out identically behaved Mac and Windows browsers in the past...
Let's say you're right. Bill Clinton didn't start flailing about with cruise missiles until strategically placed moments when they would do some good in distracting attention, ie on testimony days. Whatever the legal status of the Bush cabinet there's been no major investigation and no need for a distraction because you're either full of it or people just don't care. Thus the idea falls upon the problem of practicality. There was no investigation, there was no need to distract, firing off the military option too early ruins it for later when you might need it more.
Um, war on drugs has been a constant of US policy on a bipartisan basis for decades. It's foolish to describe lont-term bipartisan policy as a political distraction to legal troubles. It just doesn't fit.
As for the War on Terror being a distraction, I was on the observation deck of the WTC a few days before they collapsed. I'll always regret passing on those cheesy tourist photos. A few days slippage on my family vacation schedule or a speedup on Al Queda's and I would have been dead, along with my wife, two kids, and a cousin. That's no distraction, that was an act of war as clear as the Barbary pirates.
Unless you've got some grotesque view that Al Queda is a Republican plot (proof please) STFU.
As for Bush/Republicans, the people fighting against Microsoft decided to hype the anti-trust angle (Democrat friendly) and play down the fraud angle. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake. Compare Arthur Anderson to MS. Who is in a better position today, the company that got nailed on Republican friendly grounds (corporate fraud, Anderson) or Democrat friendly grounds (anti-trust, Microsoft)?
It depends on what kind of mac you would get. They have some interface work they still need to tweak on UI responsiveness. Each version gets a bit better and they're on a 6 month release schedule (much better than Windows) for point releases. Some people swear it's a problem that's fixed already, others say they still need to work on it.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, we must cover up our genetics before interviews for technical positions that have no job related need for looks. NOT!
When did vanity become a requirement for a tech job? I'd rather open up my own firm.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be incredibly stupid of SCO to lie and just make up parallel code that they know wasn't really copied. It was incredibly stupid of MS to fake that demonstration in open court. Companies do incredibly stupid things sometimes.
Until things come out in discovery and it's all vetted and checked, there are no actionable facts available because SCO is playing things that way with its restrictive NDA regime.
Actually, the US was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US seven days later. When a nation declares war on you, it's customary to return the favor.
It was actually one of the wierder incidents of WW II as Germany was not obligated by treaty to declare war on the US. It just decided to do so.
I've refused to break into e-mail accounts when ordered to do so by a VP because the policy was written so badly that it wasn't clear at all whether this was legal.
It wasn't a pleasant experience but I'm glad I made the choice I did.
Nah, the euro will likely hit a deflationary depression instead.
You might not have noticed but all of europe is in an uproar because the political class finally had to break the news that their own retirement benefits are unsustainable. France, Germany, they're both in crisis over the issue and they're not alone. Every bad demographic trend in the US on this question is worse in the EU states.
Currently, the dollar has been coming off a nice price spike from a few years ago. When the euro was introduced, it was at about this level but the monetary authorities explicitly were shooting for dollar parity. It looks like they missed.
You obviously missed the joke. Both Robert Reich and Donna Shalala are short people, unusually short for Cabinet secretaries.
The solution is just as painfully obvious as corporate corruption. We now have a 21st century worldwide information infrastructure but shareholder control is still exercised using 19th century means. An ASP that allowed shareholders to execute meaningful control over the managers who are supposed to act in their name is the solution. The legal hurdles were met when Clinton and the Republican Congress legalized electronic signatures and elevated them to be equivalent to hand signed documents.
All that's left is the application of some venture capital and boom! You have a structure that shareholders can use to take back the corporations who are supposed to be doing their will.
The assertion was that MS doesn't force anybody to upgrade. The assertion was demonstrated false. Whether or not Apple is doing the same thing is irrelevant to the truth of MS doing it.
.x releases on a much faster schedule than MS is and are visibly improving their OS over the course of months, not years. They're charging for updates about once a year and are introducing significantly different plumbing on the back end of the OS. Check out printing from 10.0 and 10.2 for a clear difference. Safari needs the plumbing for 10.2 to run so that's where we stand.
Apple's situation is a bit different. They're putting out new
Microsoft is not in the same boat at all. They have decided that the browser must die and be integrated into a web service component of the OS. Since they don't make Mac OS, they could either suffer the slings and arrows of a million windows whiners asking them why the Mac people got to keep the separate executable or they could kill ie on the mac. They decided the latter.
It's just that, a red herring. I can't believe that shareholders stand for their money being spent on technology solutions that shrink their customer base even by 1-2% when differences of that magnitude in profitability can lead to major changes in the value of their shares come earnings announcement season.
This provides very short hope for Democrat honesty.
(quick duck and cover)
B-)
First, future Mac usage is a bigger unknown than usual right now with the release of new hardware (PPC 970/980 systems) and easier co-existance with Windows than ever before.
Secondly, MS is struggling very hard to get people to upgrade so the browser market will not stay completely stagnant even with continued MS dominance. If MS resumes it 'new OS every two years' and combines it with forced upgrades a la volume licensing 6.0 then enough people will upgrade that it's not going to be 85% staying with old browsers.
Also, it's quite likely that MS will upgrade the browser portion of their OS code in service releases coupled with security fixes so even quite a few home users will be snared in the upgrade nets.
It's a real problem you're pointing out but don't overdo it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. MS does things that other companies do not. They are in a business who fundamentally depends on the size and quality of their developer community. What did they do? They offered a better deal on APIs than everybody else was offering. They promised equal access to the entire API and a chinese wall between the app dev side of MS and the OS dev side of MS. So what happened? People flocked to the platform in some measure because of those promises.
Those promises have now been revealed as a lie, a fraud, a common deceit that was of such a scale that tens of thousands of career paths were altered by it and billions in MS profits hung in the balance. It was a criminal conspiracy to commit corporate fraud *AND NOBODY PROSECUTED*. The Democrats fell down on the job because when MS admitted a few years ago that the chinese wall was a myth and 100% access to the Win32 API was a myth the Dems were in charge of the executive and they wanted a poster boy defendent for an anti-trust revival. This was viewed as a good way to rally the troops and improve their electoral chances.
Republicans didn't cover themselves in glory either, concentrating on defending MS in order to minimize the electoral gain of a revitalized anti-trust national mood. There's a very good case of doing an Arthur Anderson to MS and indicting the company. Depending on the statute of limitations limits for the particular crimes, MS officers could end up in club Fed for what they've pulled over the years.
I don't particularly like monopolies but there are problems with MS that are not monopoly related in the least.
Actually, MS licensing *is* contractually forcing some customers to upgrade with licensing 6.0. Also, the cessation of support after 5 years forces people to upgrade anything of theirs that has an unfixed security hole which will never get fixed because MS dropped support.
It makes little sense to paint MS worse than it is. It makes even less sense to paint a rosy picture of them that is just as false.
The problem is that switching costs are not zero. Mozilla has to beat the incumbent not by a little, but by enough that joe average user wants the advantage mozilla gives him more than he wants to avoid the suffering of switching.
The only two things to do to fix this are to get so far ahead that people switch anyway and to reduce the pain of switching by creating easy methods of doing so that anybody can use.
When IE goes away as a standalone product, I think that this will create some discomfort in the average user and they might be interested in getting Mozilla (or Konqueror, etc) as they might perceive it as their *first* browser and not their 2nd.
It doesn't make sense from a technical perspective but the mass of people who use browsers aren't technical.
There's recent polling on a Clinton v Bush matchup. Bush outpolls Bill Clinton 2:1. Sorry Democrats, move on, would you?
First of all current polling puts a Clinton (B) v Bush (GW) match at a Bush landslide. To be as charitable as possible, Bill Clinton hasn't covered himself in glory since 9/11.
Second, Bill Clinton wouldn't be eligible, neither would either Bush. Reagan, poor man, is no longer physically qualified to do the job and Carter and Ford could run again even without the 22nd being repealed as they were both 1 term presidents but neither would get the nomination as walking reminders of sadder days and political defeat.
Since KHTML is both the foundation for Konqueror and for Apple's Safari you can't really say that it's just for Linux, can you?
Generally, any amendment would start applying to the President/Vice President that was elected *after* such a rule change was passed. There are Clinton fans who would like to see the 22nd die the death of Prohibition. It's a bipartisan movement.
Yes but the principle of the 27th is actually fairly basic, don't improve your own material benefit by changing the law until the people can judge if you're right or wrong via the results of an election. Expansively interpreted, it could really restore a lot of sanity to the govt. spending process.
One thing bothers me, doesn't having access to the underlying KHTML library give them access to all that is necessary for them to put out a browser? It's not like they've ever put out identically behaved Mac and Windows browsers in the past...
Let's say you're right. Bill Clinton didn't start flailing about with cruise missiles until strategically placed moments when they would do some good in distracting attention, ie on testimony days. Whatever the legal status of the Bush cabinet there's been no major investigation and no need for a distraction because you're either full of it or people just don't care. Thus the idea falls upon the problem of practicality. There was no investigation, there was no need to distract, firing off the military option too early ruins it for later when you might need it more.
This idea is just idiotic.
Um, war on drugs has been a constant of US policy on a bipartisan basis for decades. It's foolish to describe lont-term bipartisan policy as a political distraction to legal troubles. It just doesn't fit.
As for the War on Terror being a distraction, I was on the observation deck of the WTC a few days before they collapsed. I'll always regret passing on those cheesy tourist photos. A few days slippage on my family vacation schedule or a speedup on Al Queda's and I would have been dead, along with my wife, two kids, and a cousin. That's no distraction, that was an act of war as clear as the Barbary pirates.
Unless you've got some grotesque view that Al Queda is a Republican plot (proof please) STFU.
As for Bush/Republicans, the people fighting against Microsoft decided to hype the anti-trust angle (Democrat friendly) and play down the fraud angle. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake. Compare Arthur Anderson to MS. Who is in a better position today, the company that got nailed on Republican friendly grounds (corporate fraud, Anderson) or Democrat friendly grounds (anti-trust, Microsoft)?
Generally Apple has worked hard to make buying a new mac an attractive option over upgrading one over the years.
It depends on what kind of mac you would get. They have some interface work they still need to tweak on UI responsiveness. Each version gets a bit better and they're on a 6 month release schedule (much better than Windows) for point releases. Some people swear it's a problem that's fixed already, others say they still need to work on it.
Yes, we must cover up our genetics before interviews for technical positions that have no job related need for looks. NOT!
When did vanity become a requirement for a tech job? I'd rather open up my own firm.