Entourage, Outlook Express, and Outlook all exist on the Mac platform. What's really weird is that Outlook (the Exchange client) is not made by the Mac BU but is made by the Exchange client group. It's a horrid little client but it gets the job done.
Actually, he's not a zealot, he's a troll (look at his username) who is counting on the zealots to mod him up and allow him to avoid or escape limited post per day hell.
The zealots are wrong but you're aiming at a poor troll who's just trying to make good (before karma diving once more in a blaze of trollishness).
Re:Keeping .su as an area?
on
See Ya .su
·
· Score: 2
Actually, no. Commonwealth.int is an international site (thus the.int) and not a TLD. I'm not against international organizations having sites and if cis.int wants to have a go at it that's fine with me. It's not the same as.su though.
Is there a renewal fee or is it permanent? If permanent, couldn't ICANN be sued for violating property rights?
Re:Sad news ... Berlin Wall dead at 55
on
See Ya .su
·
· Score: 2
mod parent up!
Funny and tragically relevant to the story.
Re:Keeping .su as an area?
on
See Ya .su
·
· Score: 2
Actually, here's one relevant difference, ownership. In essence most domains are leased, reverting back to the issuing authority after a year or two..ro is one exception. You register once, you own it forever. They.ro administrators (Romania) essentially have inititated private property in the dns system.
Re:Keeping .su as an area?
on
See Ya .su
·
· Score: 2
Well, aside from there being a river of political bloodshed behind the name, it also has distinct colonial overtones for many in the now independent countries. The reason for having a european union domain or other organization is there are shared traits that people want to highlight. Who wants to highlight a history of political oppression and colonialism? Should India and the UK and the rest of the commonwealth states share a geographical.BE (british empire) domain? Would the US be included or not?
It would become workable if the SC itself or individual justices gave advisory constitutional opinions. Every major piece of legislation would have the lawyeringg out ahead of the law's passage so the obvious bad ideas (ex post facto, bill of attainder) get shot down right away.
Would you like to take the chance that Larry Ellison wouldn't actually use the patent positively? It would certainly cement Oracle as *the* database of Hollywood.
Lots of people already want to switch away from MS. The problem is that OSS doesn't fulfill their technology needs so as long as they don't have their needs met by other vendors they'll stick with MS, hating every second of it.
There are two problems for the open source collective to break through the MS monopoly.
1. Technically their software has to be comparable or better at a lower or equivalent price 2. People need to want to get away from MS.
Right now we know that somewhere between 30-40% of businesses want to exit the Microsoft software ecosystem. They've bought into item 2. But they are stuck with item 1.
Item 1 is where the OSS people do their best work and it's the ground on which OSS wants to fight the battle.
What this patent would do if it were fought by MS would marginally increase the number of people who have bought into item 2 by an unknown %, that is that they want to exit Microsoft land and go elsewhere. That is practical discrediting and it truly hurts MS where it counts, the ROI for MS investors.
If this patent fight plays out badly for MS, it's quite possible that the only thing holding back OSS from triumphing is the skill of its coders and the speed at which they put out useful MS replacements.
It would be like the DR-DOS case but without any attempt to settle. They'd push and prod until they won outright and then not only would MS be a monopolist but its practices would include enough illegal activities to justify a subsequent private criminal RICO suit.
It only takes three instances of corrupt practices to trigger RICO.
Such a trick would eviscerate the limited times Constitutional wording. It's one of the issues in Eldred v. Ashcroft so maybe we'll get some guidance on your parallel trick.
If Palladium is a psychological manipulation to get us used to DRM and eventual RIAA/MPAA/whoever control over our computers use as music/movies/text storage devices then filing a defensive patent does seem fair play to expose the fraud before any major damage is done. What is being patented is essentially abusive code. If you could patent virii, trojan horses, and other malware in order to stunt innovation in the arena, would this be similar to the 1 click patent or a legitimately different case that needs a new rule? Would a defensive secret spyware patent have been a boon or a bane to the technology world?
Actually, you're wrong. The patent system is there to promote the progress of the arts and sciences. It says so in black and white in the US Constitution. See Eldred v. Ashcroft for the most recent relevant case. If a patent filing of this nature (defensive patent filing) promotes the arts and sciences, it is fullfilling the stated purpose of the entire system.
The real question is whether this patent filing promotes the arts and sciences or not. If MS bites on this one, Larry Lessig may want to cut short his post SC vacation.
Actually, you could say the exact same thing about GM or, even better, 3M, neither of which are technology companies. Heck, throw in NASA which is also not a technology company but fits your statement.
More to the point, Apple, contrary to the many fools who continue to bray about porting Mac OS X to x86 hardware, does not do it because it is not a software company even though it publishes many software titles including the fastest growing and largest desktop unix entry out there. It is a hardware company and uses all the rest to increase its hardware sales.
The question of what is Microsoft's actual core product can't just be dismissed out of hand. You have to actually answer it thoughtfully. If Microsoft needed to sacrifice its money extracting licensing methods *or* its platform of technologies which would it choose?
When put that way, is the question really such an easy slam dunk?
In a way, it makes sense. Social manipulation has always played a big part in the cracker ethos and hackers in general seem to have been fascinated by it. Here its being played out in a very white hat fashion completely unthreatened by any anti-hacking laws. It's certainly elegant, whether it is ultimately effective or not.
Leaving you current school/employer field blank, saying you're married but not providing the name of your spouse, not marking down any ties to home country that would overcome the standard presumption of immigration, these are all pretty bad. Beyond that, not all schools are permitted to accept foreign students. They have to be accredited study programs and thus the schools should have been listed better.
In any E. European country, all these applications would have been bounced immediately and you'd have to go to the back of the line and start over. Stating you want to stay 3 years on a visa whose max stay is 24 months is also a huge red flag. The 2nd time around, there should have been a full investigation on that one. There doesn't seem to have been.
Actually, what is most likely to occur is the lawyers, judge, and a court reporter are destined to go to Moscow to take his testimony if the US govt. doesn't change its mind. It might be interesting though if the judge ordered the issuance of a visa...
Regarding your 1st fact. Actually most of the 3rd world pirates Windows and now that they are losing the ability to do that they're starting to look at Linux. Linux is for people who are either tinkerers or have a seriously crazy time:money ratio.
Macs have always had a target market and it generally is for people whose time:money ratio means that they value it working right straight away the vast majority of the time. As people in the 3rd world get themselves decent govts. who stop robbing them so much they'll grow into the mac target demographic. But don't kid yourself that it's anything but bad that the average person can't afford one.
We're talking about a vapor chip. We can't have real numbers except on real chips. The parent I was responding too had a bunch of purposeful hooey and all I wanted to do was retire it to the jumk opinion pile it deserves to be in.
If we're going to speculate on comparative Ghz numbers, the G5 is supposed to come out sometime next year. That could be June for all we know. Also, Intel might or might not make it to 4Ghz by next December.
It's all a speculative probabalistic cloud with some speculations generating wins for both chips. We'll see in a year but it's very definitely an improvement for the current state of the mac.
Seriously, if you're going to go through life whining about how its everybody else's fault that your country can't get its act together you're never going to get anywhere.
I would not be too surprised if Intergraph kept a running count of how much Intel's legal obstinacy is costing them and tacking it onto the license fees.
Only in the US. This would likely have been settled some time ago if there were a sensible loser pays rule (i.e. the loser pays the lawyers fees of the winner).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, here's a bit of pseudo code contribution for PDA sync on Mac OS X
include isync.h
There, done.
Entourage, Outlook Express, and Outlook all exist on the Mac platform. What's really weird is that Outlook (the Exchange client) is not made by the Mac BU but is made by the Exchange client group. It's a horrid little client but it gets the job done.
Actually, he's not a zealot, he's a troll (look at his username) who is counting on the zealots to mod him up and allow him to avoid or escape limited post per day hell.
The zealots are wrong but you're aiming at a poor troll who's just trying to make good (before karma diving once more in a blaze of trollishness).
Actually, no. Commonwealth.int is an international site (thus the .int) and not a TLD. I'm not against international organizations having sites and if cis.int wants to have a go at it that's fine with me. It's not the same as .su though.
Is there a renewal fee or is it permanent? If permanent, couldn't ICANN be sued for violating property rights?
mod parent up!
Funny and tragically relevant to the story.
Actually, here's one relevant difference, ownership. In essence most domains are leased, reverting back to the issuing authority after a year or two. .ro is one exception. You register once, you own it forever. They .ro administrators (Romania) essentially have inititated private property in the dns system.
Well, aside from there being a river of political bloodshed behind the name, it also has distinct colonial overtones for many in the now independent countries. The reason for having a european union domain or other organization is there are shared traits that people want to highlight. Who wants to highlight a history of political oppression and colonialism? Should India and the UK and the rest of the commonwealth states share a geographical .BE (british empire) domain? Would the US be included or not?
It would become workable if the SC itself or individual justices gave advisory constitutional opinions. Every major piece of legislation would have the lawyeringg out ahead of the law's passage so the obvious bad ideas (ex post facto, bill of attainder) get shot down right away.
Would you like to take the chance that Larry Ellison wouldn't actually use the patent positively? It would certainly cement Oracle as *the* database of Hollywood.
Lots of people already want to switch away from MS. The problem is that OSS doesn't fulfill their technology needs so as long as they don't have their needs met by other vendors they'll stick with MS, hating every second of it.
There are two problems for the open source collective to break through the MS monopoly.
1. Technically their software has to be comparable or better at a lower or equivalent price
2. People need to want to get away from MS.
Right now we know that somewhere between 30-40% of businesses want to exit the Microsoft software ecosystem. They've bought into item 2. But they are stuck with item 1.
Item 1 is where the OSS people do their best work and it's the ground on which OSS wants to fight the battle.
What this patent would do if it were fought by MS would marginally increase the number of people who have bought into item 2 by an unknown %, that is that they want to exit Microsoft land and go elsewhere. That is practical discrediting and it truly hurts MS where it counts, the ROI for MS investors.
If this patent fight plays out badly for MS, it's quite possible that the only thing holding back OSS from triumphing is the skill of its coders and the speed at which they put out useful MS replacements.
It would be like the DR-DOS case but without any attempt to settle. They'd push and prod until they won outright and then not only would MS be a monopolist but its practices would include enough illegal activities to justify a subsequent private criminal RICO suit.
It only takes three instances of corrupt practices to trigger RICO.
Such a trick would eviscerate the limited times Constitutional wording. It's one of the issues in Eldred v. Ashcroft so maybe we'll get some guidance on your parallel trick.
If Palladium is a psychological manipulation to get us used to DRM and eventual RIAA/MPAA/whoever control over our computers use as music/movies/text storage devices then filing a defensive patent does seem fair play to expose the fraud before any major damage is done. What is being patented is essentially abusive code. If you could patent virii, trojan horses, and other malware in order to stunt innovation in the arena, would this be similar to the 1 click patent or a legitimately different case that needs a new rule? Would a defensive secret spyware patent have been a boon or a bane to the technology world?
Actually, you're wrong. The patent system is there to promote the progress of the arts and sciences. It says so in black and white in the US Constitution. See Eldred v. Ashcroft for the most recent relevant case. If a patent filing of this nature (defensive patent filing) promotes the arts and sciences, it is fullfilling the stated purpose of the entire system.
The real question is whether this patent filing promotes the arts and sciences or not. If MS bites on this one, Larry Lessig may want to cut short his post SC vacation.
Actually, you could say the exact same thing about GM or, even better, 3M, neither of which are technology companies. Heck, throw in NASA which is also not a technology company but fits your statement.
More to the point, Apple, contrary to the many fools who continue to bray about porting Mac OS X to x86 hardware, does not do it because it is not a software company even though it publishes many software titles including the fastest growing and largest desktop unix entry out there. It is a hardware company and uses all the rest to increase its hardware sales.
The question of what is Microsoft's actual core product can't just be dismissed out of hand. You have to actually answer it thoughtfully. If Microsoft needed to sacrifice its money extracting licensing methods *or* its platform of technologies which would it choose?
When put that way, is the question really such an easy slam dunk?
In a way, it makes sense. Social manipulation has always played a big part in the cracker ethos and hackers in general seem to have been fascinated by it. Here its being played out in a very white hat fashion completely unthreatened by any anti-hacking laws. It's certainly elegant, whether it is ultimately effective or not.
Leaving you current school/employer field blank, saying you're married but not providing the name of your spouse, not marking down any ties to home country that would overcome the standard presumption of immigration, these are all pretty bad. Beyond that, not all schools are permitted to accept foreign students. They have to be accredited study programs and thus the schools should have been listed better.
In any E. European country, all these applications would have been bounced immediately and you'd have to go to the back of the line and start over. Stating you want to stay 3 years on a visa whose max stay is 24 months is also a huge red flag. The 2nd time around, there should have been a full investigation on that one. There doesn't seem to have been.
Actually, what is most likely to occur is the lawyers, judge, and a court reporter are destined to go to Moscow to take his testimony if the US govt. doesn't change its mind. It might be interesting though if the judge ordered the issuance of a visa...
Just for fun, you can see a few of the 9/11 terrorist's visa applications. Judging by these, you'd *really* have to screw up your filing to be denied.
Regarding your 1st fact. Actually most of the 3rd world pirates Windows and now that they are losing the ability to do that they're starting to look at Linux. Linux is for people who are either tinkerers or have a seriously crazy time:money ratio.
Macs have always had a target market and it generally is for people whose time:money ratio means that they value it working right straight away the vast majority of the time. As people in the 3rd world get themselves decent govts. who stop robbing them so much they'll grow into the mac target demographic. But don't kid yourself that it's anything but bad that the average person can't afford one.
As for my political knowledge and skills... visit StrategyTalk and I'll be glad to discuss the issue in whatever forum you chose.
We're talking about a vapor chip. We can't have real numbers except on real chips. The parent I was responding too had a bunch of purposeful hooey and all I wanted to do was retire it to the jumk opinion pile it deserves to be in.
If we're going to speculate on comparative Ghz numbers, the G5 is supposed to come out sometime next year. That could be June for all we know. Also, Intel might or might not make it to 4Ghz by next December.
It's all a speculative probabalistic cloud with some speculations generating wins for both chips. We'll see in a year but it's very definitely an improvement for the current state of the mac.
Now that
Seriously, if you're going to go through life whining about how its everybody else's fault that your country can't get its act together you're never going to get anywhere.
I would not be too surprised if Intergraph kept a running count of how much Intel's legal obstinacy is costing them and tacking it onto the license fees.
Only in the US. This would likely have been settled some time ago if there were a sensible loser pays rule (i.e. the loser pays the lawyers fees of the winner).