Only $3B? Like most government programs, it will run horribly over-budget, so maybe $7B by the time they are done.
Of course, it will also work properly around 50% of the time. For the 50% wrong side, you should prepare (mentally at least) to be nabbed for something you had nothing to do with. Yes, you, that wheelchair-bound old white guy in Florida, will be mobbed by the SWAT teams from 17 ThreeLetterAgencies at 4AM, and arrested at gunpoint if you aren't executed.... er...... mistakenly shot 84 times. It doesn't matter that they are looking for Juan Valdez for a bank robbery in Oregon.
After public outcry over the "little whoopsie", congress will authorize another $5B to over-haul the system, as well as extend the invasive measures to ensure those mistakes don't happen again.
Don't forget, this system is not meant to harass normal upstanding citizens, only to help catch bad guys. Kinda like how DHS is just protecting us, and the PATRIOT Act is just for our own protection.
And whether or not it works has nothing to do with it's continued use. It's a huge payday for so many people it will never go away. After being such a huge money-sucker, it will be too embarrassing to kill it and admit to wasting so much cash.
There are many other OSs that my computer could be running, but I know how to make it run something other than Windows. I know many people who think they are "computer savvy" but they think even trying a LiveCD of Ubuntu is too hard and scary.
For the 1% of people who are comfortable installing and running the OS of their choice, installing the OS is fine. Otherwise, it had better come from the manufacturer, preloaded.
Now the horrible car analogy... Even though you can replace the engine and transmission in your car, choosing from a wide array of options, how many people will really do so? Even if the labor aspect was not there, most people will never do so. It came with the car, and it will stay there forever. If it breaks, it will be replaced with a new version of what was there in the first place.
Same with the OS.
[snip]On a more serious note, it would be fascinating if they could bring back a few recently extinct species.
[/snip] I think a modern-day Jurassic Park idea is workable. It may not be politically correct because of the cloning aspect, but it would be kind of cool to see.
Many animals that have gone extinct no longer have their native habitat, so they would be destined to live their entire lives in zoos, and they would exist almost solely for scientific and amusement purposes. Is it worthwhile (or humane) to even attempt this?
Maybe with bringing back a species, we could have them adapt to counter-balance the effect of non-native species invasions... Like the Zebra Mussel.
The one thing I don't recall seeing in either the TFA or all the pages of comments here, is the contents of this content restriction list.
Yes, you have to make a conscious choice to opt-out of the filtering (censoring). Yes, there will be some type of redirection that's involved when you try to access a "naughty" page. So who decides what that content is? Who decides if something is mis-categorized? How about adding pages to the list of naughtiness? Is this list of banned sites available for anyone to see?
OK, so let's say this is put into place, and the ISPs all lock down traffic. Let's say I think that those people who do 'opt-out' of this filtering will make a special list of people to monitor. But how is anyone to know if the sites that the government says are bad really are? Do you have to 'opt-out' just to see for yourself if it really is something you (or your kids) shouldn't be seeing?
I think the process of 'filtering' would be best served if the general population had some type of controls over it's contents. If this is just something that the government is doing on it's own with no real oversight, it is then censorship, and is only one step removed from copying China's horrid system of mis-information management.
Try to imagine a city of the future? A century from now, or a few years from now - either way it doesn't really matter, we won't be here to see it. According to the all-knowing Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar, etc, the world is going to end by Dec 21, 2012.
People are doing their best to make sure that we ruin whatever natural resources we set our grubby little hands on. So even if the world doesn't implode in 2012, there won't be much left to enjoy. Think of the Matrix-esque "Desert of the Real."
Hopefully, Microsoft are doing this simply to prevent anyone else from doing so, and are not planning to implement the patent themselves.
Absolutely not... I'm sure they are patenting this to use as a money-maker. Both for themselves as well as for licensing the technology to other advertising agencies. Anything they can do to make a few bucks they will. It's obvious from many other ventures that they don't really care about using YOUR personal information for their monetary gain. Try reading the EULA again when you sign up for a passport account...
The next thing I see happening is for anti-spyware and anti-adware scanners to use their API to break this functionality.
How about we constantly bash a law for being unfair, unnecessary, and convoluted, and then turn around and expect a corporation to follow it to the letter! Yes, we bash the DMCA for being stupid regarding us mere mortals, but yes, we will expect that these big companies follow it to the letter. It's not written for us, it's written to protect the "property" of big companies. It's written so that the NFL can make a copyright notice stating the allowed usage of it's property, then take legal action when they believe it's being abused. The law is supposed to protect them and their property, and they had better follow it properly, or the law becomes useless.
This law, when properly used, can be a "good thing" for the parties it protects. The problem comes in when these 800-lb gorillas want to make up their own rules and expect everyone to follow their beliefs, ignoring other laws (fair use) that those pesky comsumers want to follow. In this case, the NFL is doing it's best to make sure that they are the only ones think/say/see anything relating to footbal. I'm sure if they could get away with it, they would sue anyone who says "Monday Night" without paying them a $1 license fee...
Thank you Wendy for showing the world (and your law class) how absurd these big companies are...
Seconded!
This is one reason that I both love and hate OSS. The developers are doing what they can to make sure they produce a stable product. When it's ready, it gets released. Although I'd rather not generalize, most closed-source products are pushed to release by manangement, based on a release date - and it usually doesn't matter if it's ready to play out in userland. Most OSS releases can be held back until it's ready to go - good for them.
However, continuous waiting for the "X" release can make it seem like vapor-ware and lead to much frustration when it gets delayed for so long.
OK, I'll wait. It's free! It does what I want. If it needs to cook for a while, let it - I'd rather have it cooked all the way through instead of having to chew on half-done guk that I'll complain about...
Well, TFA says the MS-Y! messengers would compete with AOL. I don't think so! MS is in the process of trying to buy AOL, and they generally get what they want. I think this is an early truce between two companies (in at least one area) to take on Google.
The IM protocols/clients are the first integrated, and I'm guessing they may soon include AOL in that mix. They're thinking that Google won't stand a chance as the only little IM client in a world by itself.
I don't think this will happen soon, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see MS and Y! merging and/or sharing some search capabilities and technologies, in the name of google-bashing. They both want to kill those f**kers, and the only way they see to do it is to gang up on them. This will hurt Yahoo in the long run, but I'm sure it will help them out a little in the 'now'
Have they actually fooled themselves into believing that one of their toolbars is helping people?
Um, nope! Do spammers really think that the V14GR@ ads are going to appeal to someone? NOPE! There is one reason that they let this type of stuff happen - money
Most the the spyware crap that's installed has an almost interesting feature, but it's main purpose is to gather information. The most ethical of these just wants to see what websites you visit as well as a number of other metrics; less ethical will change system settings (home pages, etc) and possibly collect personal info and keystrokes. All of this info is sent 'home' so they can use the info in their advertising, or sell the info to advertising peoples.
It's not about helping people, it's about gathering info from the masses, and using it to make a buck.
OK boys and girls, make sure your tinfoil hats are on tight. The next step is where they partner with Microsoft, AdAware, and SpyBot. Once they've said they don't bundle spyware, they will fight to get on the automatic exclusion lists, thus not having their data deleted. They won't really stop all spyware installations, they'll just have fewer higher-paying spyware inclusions...
Which of Cuthbert's rights were violated when he broke the law and was convicted of doing so, again? I missed that part.
Being convicted for the act of breaking the law is the way it's supposed to work. However, there's a difference - he was convicted because he lied to the cops.
zdnetJudge Purdy accepted that Cuthbert had not intended to cause any damage, and also pointed out there was almost no case law in this area.
District judge Mr Q. Purdy, who heard the case, told Cuthbert it was "with deep regret that he was finding him guilty"
It looks to me that if he hadn't changed his story, nothing serious would have happened. If he had not talked to the cops without a lawyer, I think there's a good chance he would have gotten away with maybe a slap on the wrist. Since he lied to the cops to confuse the issue, the judge got mad and used a guilty verdict as a punishment for a lie. That's just wrong, and it sets a horrible precedence for future cases that are pursued based on a horrible law.
I guess it's not just the US who has a fuggered up legal system that bases legal decision on petty "get even" routines... It's just sad.
Ummm, the story says he was using lynx, and a paragraph further down, it says he clicked on a banner ad in order to get to the site.
WTF? Is it just me, or does it seem really strange that he "clicked on a banner ad" while using lynx? He subsequently made a donation to them, and didn't see a confirmation page. Maybe I'm not up-to-date enough on lynx, but last time I used lynx, it didn't want to play very nice with a number of asp/js pages. And what kind of self-respecting geek (and a security expert no less) pays attention to banner ads, much less follows them?
I full-heartedly agree with the end of the article though. Even though he should get a slap on the wrist for misleading (lying) to the cops, that should NEVER be an excuse for a guilty verdict! That's just asking for less cooperation. Why should his peers have any reason to help out the police more? Seems to me, tactics like that are bound to hurt them, not help instill a sense of cooperation...
OK, so I get HBO (or any other channel, premium or not) on-demand. Most of the time, there are just a few *specific* episodes they offer. If and when I can find the one show I want (or all of them), I can then record it on my Tivo/PVR, right? I can use my PVR to put it on a DVD, right? If I'm running a home-brew PC-based PVR, I can copy it to disk. Or, I can just record it when I watch it at it's regularly scheduled time. The point is, I already pay the particular media company for the right to watch their channel, because I want to *WATCH* the programming on that channel.
Anyway, there are several ways that I can get this show onto a device that will allow me to play it back whenever I want, on whatever device I want. Are you saying that because it's downloaded instead of recorded from TV that it's illegal?
I hope whatever tards at HBO came up with this idea get knocked over the head with the clue stick!!!!! If they want to stop/reduce the downloads that they think is a bad idea, then USE THE TECH that will enable them to make a buck off of it. People are still gonna download it, but if the make it easy to _legally_ obtain this show ($$ for non-subscribers, 1/2$ or free for customers), they can have a huge array of options for how to present this, and the method of delivery. Of course, putting some stupid DRM in there is gonna hurt their cause...
What the hell is it gonna take for these old media companies (MPAA, RIAA, TV, Cable, etc) to realize that the internet and online users could be helping their bottom line instead of making them look like idiots, and them treating their customers like theives. There is a market opportunity here, and they are completely ignoring it.
Oh gimme a break! For those of you who haven't been in marathon coding sessions that went on for unknown days of coffee (or cases of redbull for the young'uns), all you're interested in is pounding out sable-ish code for your app. Code, build, test, fail, try again. Who really wants to take another day (or hour) away from coding just to do some webpage? Make it goofy, make it kind of appeal to their target audience (ignore 9883244 rabid/. posts), and get back to work. Good grief, they're not even live yet, and you're complaining about the font size on their "we're not done yet" web page?
ya no whut - if you hate being the grammar nazi or teh spelling nazi, then DON'T DO IT! Except the fakt that not everyone is used to righting thesis papers, we're writing comments to a story or an off-topic thread.
Hey, I'm all for getting rid of DRM, like in audio and video files - but taxing my internet connection to pay for it? Whether or not I view or download it, or if I even know it exists, I still have to pay for it? Are you kidding me?
I'm definately not in favor of software patents, but I think this is a step too far. If I read this right, TFA says if I patent software, then I can't use any free software. WTF? I see an odd case here and there where it may help, but overall I think it will hinder innovation. Example: Let's say XYZ Widget Co puts out some awesome software that's totally free - maybe a diet version of their $$$ software. However, since it's hard(er) to make money on a free product, their bread-and-butter income is from a patented piece of software - monies come in based on seat licenses and support. Since they have a non free/OSS line of products, they can no longer use the free apps. Goodbye free/OSS product lines. Where's the business logic now?
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think this is a bit overboard.
Well, maybe if I had so much money that I couldn't possibly spend it all myself, then I'd give a bunch of it away. Then again, I don't have a lot of money, but I still give to charities.
OK, so he donates cash money. So what? Does the act of donating or the amount of said donations change in any way what kind of person he is? I'm not trying to troll or start a flamewar, but just because he gives away some money doesn't make him any better or worse...
Wow, a global company is hiring globally? The only thing that makes this interesting is the fact that it apparently came to light when it was found out that google was hiring there too. So now they should be called a copycat too?
Microsoft ships jobs outside the US, and they follow someone else's business model. Remind me again how this is news please?
Ya know, this is really a good thing! I was really wondering how I was gonna hide all that stuff I didn't want the cops/feds to find out about me. Now, I don't have to worry about it - the all-knowing all-powerful Google Purge service will make sure my computer is clean!
OTOH, I sent this page to some friends, and they actually believed it for a few minutes... I need new friends...
I think that they're not intentionally blocking laptops, but rather trying to exclude anything other than "the living room PC", and work PCs.
Personally, I think this is stupid, and it's gonna give them bad press. When more developers see that fewer devices support the web pages they put so much time into, they're gonna stop using their products.
Come on! They should know that PDAs, cell phones, and game consoles are getting online in higher percentages - why can't they use the flash viewer? Only reason I can think of is that they're trying to come out with a $$$ client for those devices... ouch.
well, everyone may be suited to be a hacker in training, but only those people with the desire to make the most of their "computing experience", the desire to know more and do more with it will actually follow through with it...
For a while, I would leave the boob tube on TechTV all day, and still find something good to watch. Slowly but surely everything good went away so they could broadcast more dumb BS. It didn't take too long before I even forgot what channel it was on. By the time the TechTV/G4 merger came along, I was so utterly disappointed in them I didn't even care.
It looks like they're finally realizing how bad they suck, and the want to get some cred back and actually attract viewers other than the 12-14 yr old males that only wanna watch stupid games they don't have on their XBox yet. Too f'ing late! I've got better things to do than to give them yet another chance. Yes, I'd like to see a thought-provoking show on tech, or see new gear I'll never be able to afford, but I seriously doubt it's gonna happen. Maybe if I'm lucky, the new shows will tell me how to fix my AOL email problems... I couldn't care less...
OK, so for one year of CPU time, maybe it is initially cheaper to buy a whitebox and install linux than it is to use this Sun solution.
However, if you got a linux whitebox to run this, not only would you have to worry about power costs, but also every other detail that comes with making sure your machine is running. What about patches, upgrades, network, bad hardware, runaway processes, general administration, backups, storage, etc? Most of the people here would be able to do the standard stuff that's needed, but I'm sure a business that needs "xyz" computed would gladly pay the 2x price. Not only would it do away with all the minor details, but they'd also have their results back in a significantly shorter amount of time! I'm too lazy to do math right now, but I'd say a year of cpu time could easily be done in less than month. That alone could be _the_ deciding factor and the justification for the expense.
Slashdot Mirror
it will either work poorly, or will be scrapped.
Only $3B? Like most government programs, it will run horribly over-budget, so maybe $7B by the time they are done.
Of course, it will also work properly around 50% of the time. For the 50% wrong side, you should prepare (mentally at least) to be nabbed for something you had nothing to do with.
Yes, you, that wheelchair-bound old white guy in Florida, will be mobbed by the SWAT teams from 17 ThreeLetterAgencies at 4AM, and arrested at gunpoint if you aren't executed.... er...... mistakenly shot 84 times. It doesn't matter that they are looking for Juan Valdez for a bank robbery in Oregon.
After public outcry over the "little whoopsie", congress will authorize another $5B to over-haul the system, as well as extend the invasive measures to ensure those mistakes don't happen again.
Don't forget, this system is not meant to harass normal upstanding citizens, only to help catch bad guys. Kinda like how DHS is just protecting us, and the PATRIOT Act is just for our own protection.
And whether or not it works has nothing to do with it's continued use. It's a huge payday for so many people it will never go away. After being such a huge money-sucker, it will be too embarrassing to kill it and admit to wasting so much cash.
I couldn't agree more with this.
There are many other OSs that my computer could be running, but I know how to make it run something other than Windows. I know many people who think they are "computer savvy" but they think even trying a LiveCD of Ubuntu is too hard and scary.
For the 1% of people who are comfortable installing and running the OS of their choice, installing the OS is fine. Otherwise, it had better come from the manufacturer, preloaded.
Now the horrible car analogy... Even though you can replace the engine and transmission in your car, choosing from a wide array of options, how many people will really do so? Even if the labor aspect was not there, most people will never do so. It came with the car, and it will stay there forever. If it breaks, it will be replaced with a new version of what was there in the first place.
Same with the OS.
Many animals that have gone extinct no longer have their native habitat, so they would be destined to live their entire lives in zoos, and they would exist almost solely for scientific and amusement purposes. Is it worthwhile (or humane) to even attempt this?
Maybe with bringing back a species, we could have them adapt to counter-balance the effect of non-native species invasions... Like the Zebra Mussel.
The one thing I don't recall seeing in either the TFA or all the pages of comments here, is the contents of this content restriction list.
Yes, you have to make a conscious choice to opt-out of the filtering (censoring). Yes, there will be some type of redirection that's involved when you try to access a "naughty" page. So who decides what that content is? Who decides if something is mis-categorized? How about adding pages to the list of naughtiness? Is this list of banned sites available for anyone to see?
OK, so let's say this is put into place, and the ISPs all lock down traffic. Let's say I think that those people who do 'opt-out' of this filtering will make a special list of people to monitor. But how is anyone to know if the sites that the government says are bad really are? Do you have to 'opt-out' just to see for yourself if it really is something you (or your kids) shouldn't be seeing?
I think the process of 'filtering' would be best served if the general population had some type of controls over it's contents. If this is just something that the government is doing on it's own with no real oversight, it is then censorship, and is only one step removed from copying China's horrid system of mis-information management.
Try to imagine a city of the future? A century from now, or a few years from now - either way it doesn't really matter, we won't be here to see it. According to the all-knowing Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar, etc, the world is going to end by Dec 21, 2012.
See http://www.2012endofdays.org/general/Predictions-for-2012.php
People are doing their best to make sure that we ruin whatever natural resources we set our grubby little hands on. So even if the world doesn't implode in 2012, there won't be much left to enjoy. Think of the Matrix-esque "Desert of the Real."
Absolutely not... I'm sure they are patenting this to use as a money-maker. Both for themselves as well as for licensing the technology to other advertising agencies. Anything they can do to make a few bucks they will. It's obvious from many other ventures that they don't really care about using YOUR personal information for their monetary gain. Try reading the EULA again when you sign up for a passport account...
The next thing I see happening is for anti-spyware and anti-adware scanners to use their API to break this functionality.
This law, when properly used, can be a "good thing" for the parties it protects. The problem comes in when these 800-lb gorillas want to make up their own rules and expect everyone to follow their beliefs, ignoring other laws (fair use) that those pesky comsumers want to follow. In this case, the NFL is doing it's best to make sure that they are the only ones think/say/see anything relating to footbal. I'm sure if they could get away with it, they would sue anyone who says "Monday Night" without paying them a $1 license fee...
Thank you Wendy for showing the world (and your law class) how absurd these big companies are...
Once you get on the Microsoft treadmill, it's very hard to get off.
The sure do have a lot of control over you, don't they....
However, continuous waiting for the "X" release can make it seem like vapor-ware and lead to much frustration when it gets delayed for so long.
OK, I'll wait. It's free! It does what I want. If it needs to cook for a while, let it - I'd rather have it cooked all the way through instead of having to chew on half-done guk that I'll complain about...
Well, TFA says the MS-Y! messengers would compete with AOL. I don't think so! MS is in the process of trying to buy AOL, and they generally get what they want. I think this is an early truce between two companies (in at least one area) to take on Google. The IM protocols/clients are the first integrated, and I'm guessing they may soon include AOL in that mix. They're thinking that Google won't stand a chance as the only little IM client in a world by itself. I don't think this will happen soon, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see MS and Y! merging and/or sharing some search capabilities and technologies, in the name of google-bashing. They both want to kill those f**kers, and the only way they see to do it is to gang up on them. This will hurt Yahoo in the long run, but I'm sure it will help them out a little in the 'now'
Um, nope! Do spammers really think that the V14GR@ ads are going to appeal to someone? NOPE! There is one reason that they let this type of stuff happen - money
Most the the spyware crap that's installed has an almost interesting feature, but it's main purpose is to gather information. The most ethical of these just wants to see what websites you visit as well as a number of other metrics; less ethical will change system settings (home pages, etc) and possibly collect personal info and keystrokes. All of this info is sent 'home' so they can use the info in their advertising, or sell the info to advertising peoples.
It's not about helping people, it's about gathering info from the masses, and using it to make a buck.
OK boys and girls, make sure your tinfoil hats are on tight. The next step is where they partner with Microsoft, AdAware, and SpyBot. Once they've said they don't bundle spyware, they will fight to get on the automatic exclusion lists, thus not having their data deleted. They won't really stop all spyware installations, they'll just have fewer higher-paying spyware inclusions...
Being convicted for the act of breaking the law is the way it's supposed to work. However, there's a difference - he was convicted because he lied to the cops.
zdnet Judge Purdy accepted that Cuthbert had not intended to cause any damage, and also pointed out there was almost no case law in this area.
District judge Mr Q. Purdy, who heard the case, told Cuthbert it was "with deep regret that he was finding him guilty"
It looks to me that if he hadn't changed his story, nothing serious would have happened. If he had not talked to the cops without a lawyer, I think there's a good chance he would have gotten away with maybe a slap on the wrist. Since he lied to the cops to confuse the issue, the judge got mad and used a guilty verdict as a punishment for a lie. That's just wrong, and it sets a horrible precedence for future cases that are pursued based on a horrible law.
I guess it's not just the US who has a fuggered up legal system that bases legal decision on petty "get even" routines... It's just sad.
WTF? Is it just me, or does it seem really strange that he "clicked on a banner ad" while using lynx? He subsequently made a donation to them, and didn't see a confirmation page. Maybe I'm not up-to-date enough on lynx, but last time I used lynx, it didn't want to play very nice with a number of asp/js pages. And what kind of self-respecting geek (and a security expert no less) pays attention to banner ads, much less follows them?
I full-heartedly agree with the end of the article though. Even though he should get a slap on the wrist for misleading (lying) to the cops, that should NEVER be an excuse for a guilty verdict! That's just asking for less cooperation. Why should his peers have any reason to help out the police more? Seems to me, tactics like that are bound to hurt them, not help instill a sense of cooperation...
Actually, in today's society, it is a fairly uncommon thing for a (supposed) non geek to apply common sense in an internet/computer related case...
OK, so I get HBO (or any other channel, premium or not) on-demand. Most of the time, there are just a few *specific* episodes they offer. If and when I can find the one show I want (or all of them), I can then record it on my Tivo/PVR, right? I can use my PVR to put it on a DVD, right? If I'm running a home-brew PC-based PVR, I can copy it to disk. Or, I can just record it when I watch it at it's regularly scheduled time. The point is, I already pay the particular media company for the right to watch their channel, because I want to *WATCH* the programming on that channel. Anyway, there are several ways that I can get this show onto a device that will allow me to play it back whenever I want, on whatever device I want. Are you saying that because it's downloaded instead of recorded from TV that it's illegal? I hope whatever tards at HBO came up with this idea get knocked over the head with the clue stick!!!!! If they want to stop/reduce the downloads that they think is a bad idea, then USE THE TECH that will enable them to make a buck off of it. People are still gonna download it, but if the make it easy to _legally_ obtain this show ($$ for non-subscribers, 1/2$ or free for customers), they can have a huge array of options for how to present this, and the method of delivery. Of course, putting some stupid DRM in there is gonna hurt their cause... What the hell is it gonna take for these old media companies (MPAA, RIAA, TV, Cable, etc) to realize that the internet and online users could be helping their bottom line instead of making them look like idiots, and them treating their customers like theives. There is a market opportunity here, and they are completely ignoring it.
Oh gimme a break! For those of you who haven't been in marathon coding sessions that went on for unknown days of coffee (or cases of redbull for the young'uns), all you're interested in is pounding out sable-ish code for your app. Code, build, test, fail, try again. Who really wants to take another day (or hour) away from coding just to do some webpage? Make it goofy, make it kind of appeal to their target audience (ignore 9883244 rabid /. posts), and get back to work. Good grief, they're not even live yet, and you're complaining about the font size on their "we're not done yet" web page?
ya no whut - if you hate being the grammar nazi or teh spelling nazi, then DON'T DO IT! Except the fakt that not everyone is used to righting thesis papers, we're writing comments to a story or an off-topic thread.
GET OVER IT.
Hey, I'm all for getting rid of DRM, like in audio and video files - but taxing my internet connection to pay for it? Whether or not I view or download it, or if I even know it exists, I still have to pay for it? Are you kidding me?
I'm definately not in favor of software patents, but I think this is a step too far. If I read this right, TFA says if I patent software, then I can't use any free software. WTF? I see an odd case here and there where it may help, but overall I think it will hinder innovation.
Example: Let's say XYZ Widget Co puts out some awesome software that's totally free - maybe a diet version of their $$$ software. However, since it's hard(er) to make money on a free product, their bread-and-butter income is from a patented piece of software - monies come in based on seat licenses and support. Since they have a non free/OSS line of products, they can no longer use the free apps. Goodbye free/OSS product lines. Where's the business logic now?
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think this is a bit overboard.
Well, maybe if I had so much money that I couldn't possibly spend it all myself, then I'd give a bunch of it away. Then again, I don't have a lot of money, but I still give to charities.
OK, so he donates cash money. So what? Does the act of donating or the amount of said donations change in any way what kind of person he is? I'm not trying to troll or start a flamewar, but just because he gives away some money doesn't make him any better or worse...
Wow, a global company is hiring globally? The only thing that makes this interesting is the fact that it apparently came to light when it was found out that google was hiring there too. So now they should be called a copycat too?
Microsoft ships jobs outside the US, and they follow someone else's business model.
Remind me again how this is news please?
Ya know, this is really a good thing! I was really wondering how I was gonna hide all that stuff I didn't want the cops/feds to find out about me. Now, I don't have to worry about it - the all-knowing all-powerful Google Purge service will make sure my computer is clean!
OTOH, I sent this page to some friends, and they actually believed it for a few minutes... I need new friends...
I think that they're not intentionally blocking laptops, but rather trying to exclude anything other than "the living room PC", and work PCs. Personally, I think this is stupid, and it's gonna give them bad press. When more developers see that fewer devices support the web pages they put so much time into, they're gonna stop using their products.
Come on! They should know that PDAs, cell phones, and game consoles are getting online in higher percentages - why can't they use the flash viewer? Only reason I can think of is that they're trying to come out with a $$$ client for those devices... ouch.
well, everyone may be suited to be a hacker in training, but only those people with the desire to make the most of their "computing experience", the desire to know more and do more with it will actually follow through with it...
For a while, I would leave the boob tube on TechTV all day, and still find something good to watch. Slowly but surely everything good went away so they could broadcast more dumb BS. It didn't take too long before I even forgot what channel it was on. By the time the TechTV/G4 merger came along, I was so utterly disappointed in them I didn't even care.
It looks like they're finally realizing how bad they suck, and the want to get some cred back and actually attract viewers other than the 12-14 yr old males that only wanna watch stupid games they don't have on their XBox yet. Too f'ing late! I've got better things to do than to give them yet another chance. Yes, I'd like to see a thought-provoking show on tech, or see new gear I'll never be able to afford, but I seriously doubt it's gonna happen. Maybe if I'm lucky, the new shows will tell me how to fix my AOL email problems... I couldn't care less...
OK, so for one year of CPU time, maybe it is initially cheaper to buy a whitebox and install linux than it is to use this Sun solution.
However, if you got a linux whitebox to run this, not only would you have to worry about power costs, but also every other detail that comes with making sure your machine is running. What about patches, upgrades, network, bad hardware, runaway processes, general administration, backups, storage, etc? Most of the people here would be able to do the standard stuff that's needed, but I'm sure a business that needs "xyz" computed would gladly pay the 2x price. Not only would it do away with all the minor details, but they'd also have their results back in a significantly shorter amount of time! I'm too lazy to do math right now, but I'd say a year of cpu time could easily be done in less than month. That alone could be _the_ deciding factor and the justification for the expense.