Not just asylum seekers, anyone here on a settlement visa. My wife's got to have a card now, even though she's here fully legitimately and I'm a full-fledged British citizen andsubject of HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second. And students are next in line, which as a PhD researcher means yours truly. If you refuse? Well, you lose your visa or your student status as appropriate. They're targetting those that are least able to object in order to build up an "installed base".
Sufficiently advanced bungling is indistinguishable from malice anyway. Whether it's malevolent orders from above or the apalling false positive rate on the biometrics, randomly detaining 10% of Britons attempting to use aircraft is an evil act.
Chancellor Gorkon's pushing through a mining operation on Praxis that's going to reduce our dependence on foreign dilithium. If those Federation liberals would just shut up about the environment we'll have prices back down to 2285 levels in no time.
Although I have no problem with the versions, I think it does MS no good to announce all six versions like this. Of the versions, one is only available in a handful of countries, one of them is only available on a volume licence, one of them is a token version only available to system manufacturers, and one of them is going to be in over-priced limited supply to gormless tech-nerds. That leaves only the two versions anyone actually gives a crap about.
They should've announced those, then quietly unveiled the remainder to their target markets. Windows XP came in umpteen versions (Home, Pro, Tablet, ULCPC, Media Center, Starter), but MS managed the marketing such that Joe Average thinks his netbook, tablet, and regular PC all use the same OS.
It's implied that the studies are as valueless as his example, though. While nonintervention studies are not as valuable as newspaper articles would suggest, they are still important in determining which areas merit causation-demonstrating, intervention-based studies. The problem is the reporting, not the research itself.
My understanding is that it's not for 3D gaming. The GMA500 performs poorly on that front but it supports a lot of video decode features that are AWOL in the GMA945 etc.
Red Dwarf's traditional picture of earth in 1M BC (from the novels) is a giant trash ball ruled by mutant shapeshifting horrors. Quite how that reduces the budget I'm not sure.
I think this article's argument is being extended beyond its bounds. While 1 in 10,000 physics papers may be wrong, this does not suggest that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that gravity is a repulsive force, or that carbon has eighty seven electrons. If one in 10,000 papers in pure mathematics was wrong, would be able to fairly argue that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that non-commutative operators do not exist?
I mean to say, the LHC safety argument is based on the conclusions of a lot of research. If we reasonably suppose that it is only one thousand papers, and that at least half of those have to be wrong, then that's 1 in 10,000 to the power 500, or 1 in 10 to the power 2000. For comparison the number of protons in the observable universe is on the order of, what, ten to the one hundred?
Seriously, if you give someone a glass of shit water every time they see a red jersey in a game, or hear a C chord in a piece of music, or read the world "salubrious", they're going to build up a negative response to that. It doesn't say anything about how games, music, or text condition people.
Managing to come up with an OS with radical changes designed to support novel new features (Win7's multicore support is apparently a big improvement) and do so without increased overhead, and actually improving performance, is quite an achievement. New OS releases aren't normally intended to improve performance on a particular system. As an example Ubuntu's a couple of decades of development ahead of Amiga Workbench, but I don't grude that it has system requirements approximately one hundred times higher.
Of course, the article's a long way from saying that Windows 7 is the same or faster than Vista or XP, but that doesn't make your complaint any less dubious.
Bundling software (1) isn't the issue at stake. Bundling software as a monopoly (2) isn't even the issue. Bundling software as a monopoly in a manner which has demonstrably harmed the market (3) is what is being claimed here. There is no law against 1 or 2, there are laws against 3.
Important points that I had forgotten. That does make me wonder whether MS could offer up an API to let any HTML rendering engine run at the heart of Windows, but that's probably getting a bit wacky.
"I think the EU needs to go back to determine if Microsoft still has a monopoly. Every indication is that it does not."
They have between eighty-five and ninety-five percent overall market share in operating systems, depending on whose estimates you look at and how timely they are. In businesses and government, it's likely higher. It was considered utterly remarkable in December when they dipped below 90%. Their share in overall office software is higher. Their share in Windows office software is probably about 100%.
Companies are free to support their own products however they like, usually. The issue with MS is that their product is essentially a requirement for the vast majority of hardware and software used and owned by persons, businesses, and government agencies, and therefore the decisions have a uniquely powerful effect on their competitors and the marketplace as a whole. If Apple forced OSX users to use iWork, it'd be controlling maybe an eighth of the computing world's word processor choice. If MS forced Windows users to use MS Office, it'd be controlling about seven eighths. Some estimates put it closer to 90%. If you consider how saturated business and government work is with Windows, then their actions are even more significant.
One thing that irked me about XP was that updates were shacked to a web browser and an ActiveX control, which was inelegant (why was a critical OS function not "baked in" to the OS?). If MS aren't allowed to bundle IE, it would mean that they can't assume the existence of a web browser on the system, and might avoid decisions like that in future. I mean, if IE is essential to basic OS functions, it probably shouldn't be, and if it isn't, then there's no real problem with unbundling it. Except I just realised it would leave you with no way of accessing a web site to download a new browser, and including some sort of comprehensive "browser chooser/fetcher" app (or expecting MS to do so) would be equally absurd.
It's often been argued that Windows' sheer, crushing ubiquity means that it has an undue and unique influence on the rest of the software field, and therefore must be regulated in a similarly unique manner. If a product expands to the stage where it's as important to your day-to-day life as the power supply, you can bet it's going to be subject to the same sort of oversight.
Windows ships with few "productivity tools", beyond the occasional Microsoft Works install which in my experience is unable to compete with Notepad, never mind enforce a monopoly. So that's not an issue. The browser's the big, obvious target.
Let's not jump on the guy. He didn't write the/. article. He wrote a single-page blog post about something interesting he spotted. Maybe he's out swapping the RAM right now. Blame the Slashdot submitter and editors.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I normally use the Royal Etiquitte Add-On for Firefox. Stupid work PC.
Not just asylum seekers, anyone here on a settlement visa. My wife's got to have a card now, even though she's here fully legitimately and I'm a full-fledged British citizen andsubject of HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second. And students are next in line, which as a PhD researcher means yours truly. If you refuse? Well, you lose your visa or your student status as appropriate. They're targetting those that are least able to object in order to build up an "installed base".
Sufficiently advanced bungling is indistinguishable from malice anyway. Whether it's malevolent orders from above or the apalling false positive rate on the biometrics, randomly detaining 10% of Britons attempting to use aircraft is an evil act.
Chancellor Gorkon's pushing through a mining operation on Praxis that's going to reduce our dependence on foreign dilithium. If those Federation liberals would just shut up about the environment we'll have prices back down to 2285 levels in no time.
Although I have no problem with the versions, I think it does MS no good to announce all six versions like this. Of the versions, one is only available in a handful of countries, one of them is only available on a volume licence, one of them is a token version only available to system manufacturers, and one of them is going to be in over-priced limited supply to gormless tech-nerds. That leaves only the two versions anyone actually gives a crap about.
They should've announced those, then quietly unveiled the remainder to their target markets. Windows XP came in umpteen versions (Home, Pro, Tablet, ULCPC, Media Center, Starter), but MS managed the marketing such that Joe Average thinks his netbook, tablet, and regular PC all use the same OS.
It's implied that the studies are as valueless as his example, though. While nonintervention studies are not as valuable as newspaper articles would suggest, they are still important in determining which areas merit causation-demonstrating, intervention-based studies. The problem is the reporting, not the research itself.
The "hi-res camera" thing is a much-repeated misunderstanding. Both cameras are VGA CCDs apparently.
My understanding is that it's not for 3D gaming. The GMA500 performs poorly on that front but it supports a lot of video decode features that are AWOL in the GMA945 etc.
If I'm paying £20 for downloading music illegally, you better believe I'm going to get my money's worth.
Red Dwarf's traditional picture of earth in 1M BC (from the novels) is a giant trash ball ruled by mutant shapeshifting horrors. Quite how that reduces the budget I'm not sure.
Red Dwarf can hardly get any worse than it had become, for one thing.
I think this article's argument is being extended beyond its bounds. While 1 in 10,000 physics papers may be wrong, this does not suggest that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that gravity is a repulsive force, or that carbon has eighty seven electrons. If one in 10,000 papers in pure mathematics was wrong, would be able to fairly argue that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that non-commutative operators do not exist?
I mean to say, the LHC safety argument is based on the conclusions of a lot of research. If we reasonably suppose that it is only one thousand papers, and that at least half of those have to be wrong, then that's 1 in 10,000 to the power 500, or 1 in 10 to the power 2000. For comparison the number of protons in the observable universe is on the order of, what, ten to the one hundred?
Seriously, if you give someone a glass of shit water every time they see a red jersey in a game, or hear a C chord in a piece of music, or read the world "salubrious", they're going to build up a negative response to that. It doesn't say anything about how games, music, or text condition people.
Managing to come up with an OS with radical changes designed to support novel new features (Win7's multicore support is apparently a big improvement) and do so without increased overhead, and actually improving performance, is quite an achievement. New OS releases aren't normally intended to improve performance on a particular system. As an example Ubuntu's a couple of decades of development ahead of Amiga Workbench, but I don't grude that it has system requirements approximately one hundred times higher.
Of course, the article's a long way from saying that Windows 7 is the same or faster than Vista or XP, but that doesn't make your complaint any less dubious.
Bundling software (1) isn't the issue at stake. Bundling software as a monopoly (2) isn't even the issue. Bundling software as a monopoly in a manner which has demonstrably harmed the market (3) is what is being claimed here. There is no law against 1 or 2, there are laws against 3.
Important points that I had forgotten. That does make me wonder whether MS could offer up an API to let any HTML rendering engine run at the heart of Windows, but that's probably getting a bit wacky.
"I think the EU needs to go back to determine if Microsoft still has a monopoly. Every indication is that it does not."
They have between eighty-five and ninety-five percent overall market share in operating systems, depending on whose estimates you look at and how timely they are. In businesses and government, it's likely higher. It was considered utterly remarkable in December when they dipped below 90%. Their share in overall office software is higher. Their share in Windows office software is probably about 100%.
If it was 2007BCE, I'm thinking eras? Ages? Civlisations?
Companies are free to support their own products however they like, usually. The issue with MS is that their product is essentially a requirement for the vast majority of hardware and software used and owned by persons, businesses, and government agencies, and therefore the decisions have a uniquely powerful effect on their competitors and the marketplace as a whole. If Apple forced OSX users to use iWork, it'd be controlling maybe an eighth of the computing world's word processor choice. If MS forced Windows users to use MS Office, it'd be controlling about seven eighths. Some estimates put it closer to 90%. If you consider how saturated business and government work is with Windows, then their actions are even more significant.
For the curious, the beta actually expires in August of this year.
I think "crushing vendor lock-in by monopoly" is the key defining trait of Windows, and it's hard to imagine Linux inheriting that.
One thing that irked me about XP was that updates were shacked to a web browser and an ActiveX control, which was inelegant (why was a critical OS function not "baked in" to the OS?). If MS aren't allowed to bundle IE, it would mean that they can't assume the existence of a web browser on the system, and might avoid decisions like that in future. I mean, if IE is essential to basic OS functions, it probably shouldn't be, and if it isn't, then there's no real problem with unbundling it. Except I just realised it would leave you with no way of accessing a web site to download a new browser, and including some sort of comprehensive "browser chooser/fetcher" app (or expecting MS to do so) would be equally absurd.
It's often been argued that Windows' sheer, crushing ubiquity means that it has an undue and unique influence on the rest of the software field, and therefore must be regulated in a similarly unique manner. If a product expands to the stage where it's as important to your day-to-day life as the power supply, you can bet it's going to be subject to the same sort of oversight.
Windows ships with few "productivity tools", beyond the occasional Microsoft Works install which in my experience is unable to compete with Notepad, never mind enforce a monopoly. So that's not an issue. The browser's the big, obvious target.
Let's not jump on the guy. He didn't write the /. article. He wrote a single-page blog post about something interesting he spotted. Maybe he's out swapping the RAM right now. Blame the Slashdot submitter and editors.