FWIW, you can also play all the older Nintendo games (and Sega, and Atari, and Coleco, and arcade, and a kickass media frontend) on a softmodded Xbox, which you can probably pick up used for less than $100.
Are there any differences? If there are, then we can start to try to find reasons
That's not how you do good science. You don't go around looking for correlations, then try to come up with some post hoc explanations to fit your data. You start with a theoretical causal relationship. Then you test it, isolating all but the tested causality.
And if it's open, you don't need to "promise not to sue" now would you? It has strings attached with no future guarantee it will be "open".
You misunderstand. It is Microsoft who is making the covenant not to sue. I don't see any strings attached, just worries about what might happen with an essentially unregulated standard (in the sense that MS will not stop people from creating supersets or subsets) - but to me, this is more freedom, and therefore good.
I don't know, it looks like it might - might - be the real deal this time. The Office 12 format has been submitted to the ECMA, and the revised licensing terms are actually very favorable. There is a decent example of the new Word XML here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/02/ 02/523469.aspx
Additionally, it appears that they have adopted a covenant not to sue:
Here are a few more specific and detailed questions and answers about Microsoft's 'Covenant Not to Sue' approach:
There is no longer really a license that people need to sign up for in any way--No one needs to sign anything or even reference anything. Anyone is free to use the formats as they wish and do not need to make any mention or reference to Microsoft. Anyone can use or implement these formats to both read and write the formats with their technology, code, solution, etc.
Patents--We eliminated the license to patents language and are instead providing an irrevocable commitment to not sue anyone based on the patents we have in the formats. If any parties prefer, we will make available the existing open and royalty free license as an alternative.
Why does Microsoft have patents in this case at all?--We pursue patents early in our development process (as required by law) to protect our innovations and protect ourselves at the same time. Having patents gives us the ability to fend off patent lawsuits that are the inevitable result of being a big company and delivering new technology. In this case we are deciding not to enforce our patents in connection with these formats.
Transferability of solutions and "GPL Compatibility"--If someone wants to build a solution that works with our formats, they are free to do so without worrying about patents or licenses associated with our formats. The concerns raised with our previous license about attribution and sub-licensing are now eliminated. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can't give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but we believe we have removed the principal objections that people found with our prior license in a very simple and clear way.
Subsets, supersets, and 'conformance'--Anyone is free to work with a subset of the specifications, and anyone is free to create extensions to the specifications. A 'conformant' use is simply one that does not modify the specification. Of course subsets and supersets may create incompatibilities with other uses of the specifications and we want to provide some guidance on this topic in the future, but this will be guidance and not a mandate. The key is that this is an assurance that no one will be sued for using intellectual property in the specifications as they are written.
In fact, IAAL, and I have conducted criminal trials in court. I've been in chambers. And to the best of my recollection, there was never testimony given (expert or otherwise), nor even statements made by non-attorneys without a court reporter being present.
What a ridiculous comeback. That's like saying that we should abolish the fourth and fifth amendments because, well, if the court is required to be transparent and responsive, then by analogy, there's no reason for defendants not to be transparent and responsive!
I know most PDA's are sensitive to any touch, by stylus or finger. I don't actually like that as much as I like the Wacom digitizers, which respond only to the tip of the stylus, are much more accurate, are pressure sensitive, and use plain glass as the touch surface. That's why I hope they would use that kind of input device, and NOT simply a touch-sensitive (like a PDA) screen.
The meetings should still be documented. They should still be open. This is akin to the use of "secret" evidence or witnesses, which I doubt most slashdotters would support (especially if the "evil" U.S. does it). It's the tactics of a kangaroo court.
A PC is not a "desktop Xbox" but it still plays games. It's at least possible that the device CAN play games, it's not intended to be a "gaming device."
In the video, they show the screen being used with a stylus, like a Tablet PC. That would suggest a Wacom-style digitizer, which is NOT the same as being "touch sensitive".
Well...to be fair, I certainly haven't noticed any improvement in Google's search result over the past 6 months. If anything, they've continually gotten worse over the years. Google has done a lot of other nifty stuff, sure. But it seems like improvements to the web search function have been minimal.
As I already said, by convention the only one that is "required" is C:\. As a convention, it is neither right nor wrong, it just is. All additional volumes can be mounted as subdirectories under C:\, even removable volumes, which I believe will automount based on either device ID or volume label (I haven't tested this rigorously.) When you remove the device, the mount point becomes a simple directory, and when you re-attach the device, it automounts to that same directory. If you are connecting many hard drives, you can simply mount them as C:\mnt\hda1, C:\mnt\hdb1, C:\mnt\hdc1, etc., so it scales just fine.
I don't know if you can change the "root" from C:\ to / - perhaps you can't. But as I said, it's just a convention. What does it matter? Can you change the linux root from "/" to "\"? Or to "C:\"? But I know for certain that you can indeed mount removable drives to mount points and not drive letters. I do it all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, you can also play all the older Nintendo games (and Sega, and Atari, and Coleco, and arcade, and a kickass media frontend) on a softmodded Xbox, which you can probably pick up used for less than $100.
OKAY. We GET it. You have Microsoft stock. You can stop mentioning it in practically every thread you post in.
That's not how you do good science. You don't go around looking for correlations, then try to come up with some post hoc explanations to fit your data. You start with a theoretical causal relationship. Then you test it, isolating all but the tested causality.
Two words: Psycho. Somatic.
You misunderstand. It is Microsoft who is making the covenant not to sue. I don't see any strings attached, just worries about what might happen with an essentially unregulated standard (in the sense that MS will not stop people from creating supersets or subsets) - but to me, this is more freedom, and therefore good.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/02
Additionally, it appears that they have adopted a covenant not to sue:
Source: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers /ecmafaq.mspx#EXB
In fact, IAAL, and I have conducted criminal trials in court. I've been in chambers. And to the best of my recollection, there was never testimony given (expert or otherwise), nor even statements made by non-attorneys without a court reporter being present.
What a ridiculous comeback. That's like saying that we should abolish the fourth and fifth amendments because, well, if the court is required to be transparent and responsive, then by analogy, there's no reason for defendants not to be transparent and responsive!
I know most PDA's are sensitive to any touch, by stylus or finger. I don't actually like that as much as I like the Wacom digitizers, which respond only to the tip of the stylus, are much more accurate, are pressure sensitive, and use plain glass as the touch surface. That's why I hope they would use that kind of input device, and NOT simply a touch-sensitive (like a PDA) screen.
The meetings should still be documented. They should still be open. This is akin to the use of "secret" evidence or witnesses, which I doubt most slashdotters would support (especially if the "evil" U.S. does it). It's the tactics of a kangaroo court.
Yes, but there is no reason for some of those meetings to be (a) undocumented or (b) secret, which is what MS is apparently alledging.
But Microsoft did indeed provide some 2700 pages of documentation, which the EU rejected for various ambiguous reasons.
How about 99% of the globe? I doubt that America has a monopoly on stupid idiots.
A PC is not a "desktop Xbox" but it still plays games. It's at least possible that the device CAN play games, it's not intended to be a "gaming device."
In the video, they show the screen being used with a stylus, like a Tablet PC. That would suggest a Wacom-style digitizer, which is NOT the same as being "touch sensitive".
I have no major complaints about Windows Files and Settings Transfer Wizard.
MSN Search
Yahoo! search.
Well...to be fair, I certainly haven't noticed any improvement in Google's search result over the past 6 months. If anything, they've continually gotten worse over the years. Google has done a lot of other nifty stuff, sure. But it seems like improvements to the web search function have been minimal.
Will they be effective against Yuri's boomer subs?
As I already said, by convention the only one that is "required" is C:\. As a convention, it is neither right nor wrong, it just is. All additional volumes can be mounted as subdirectories under C:\, even removable volumes, which I believe will automount based on either device ID or volume label (I haven't tested this rigorously.) When you remove the device, the mount point becomes a simple directory, and when you re-attach the device, it automounts to that same directory. If you are connecting many hard drives, you can simply mount them as C:\mnt\hda1, C:\mnt\hdb1, C:\mnt\hdc1, etc., so it scales just fine.
I don't know if you can change the "root" from C:\ to / - perhaps you can't. But as I said, it's just a convention. What does it matter? Can you change the linux root from "/" to "\"? Or to "C:\"? But I know for certain that you can indeed mount removable drives to mount points and not drive letters. I do it all the time.
Be fair. There is also an "execute" security permission.
It's just a convention. You can easily use mount points if you really want to.
Irrelevant, because you won't be able to play it under XP either.
So, rather than configure the AV not to scan that subdirectory, or that filetype, he trashes the whole solution?