Patents were supposed to encourage disclosure of innovation so that others can build on it.
Ummm... to build on something, you first need to use said something. But using it means infringing on the patent... which means building on it is either a losing proposition, or an impossibility... at least for 20 years.
Anyone who wants to can take Micrix and distribute it themselves, of course, and Microsoft does accept submissions for the code base from the community and looks carefully at what is happening back in Linux world, although it prefers to make its own fixes rather than just take code from the old world.
First of all, there is the possibility that MS can decouple the Windows interface from the operating system; this would hark back to the days of Windows 3.11, except that the underlying operating system would be far more advanced, making a lot of the things that Windows interface depends on available.
As such, the Windows interface software could conceivably remain under Microsoft's tight-fisted control, while still advertising Linux support.
When someone spots Richard Stallman running it on his laptop, the game is over, and the old Linux community gathered around Linus Torvalds falls apart as third party developers move to Micrix as a preferred platform.
Somehow, I don't think Stallman would have the absolute influence over the "GNU/Linux" community as one might think. Hell, he's still trying to convince people to tack on the GNU/. Never mind the bad blood these people still have with MS.
More importantly, I seriously doubt Stallman would use an operating system that DIDN'T use his precious GNU. He's invested WAY too much time and effort into that system to just toss it off.
And I'd bet that if "Micrix" DID, in fact, use GNU tools, he would probably avoid it until Microsoft broke down and name it GNU/Micrix. And I SERIOUSLY doubt Microsoft would willingly allow another organization to share it's mindshare like that... that would be like advertising their competition in their very product name.
Does your being an educator automatically imply that nobody who posted here outside yourself knows what they're talking about?
Education is the ability to make one who does not know into one who knows. Thus, the output directly correlates with the input... knowledge and someone who doesn't know becomes someone who knows.
It is with this simple fact that the question is raised: What end purpose is an education for? It is obviously to know enough to live in society.
However, the number of people leaving schools woefully unprepared for the world is a strong indicator that SOMETHING is wrong in the system, because those people are not people who know. They are people who think they know, up until the moment they realize they do not know.
This, in turn, implies that something failed within the school system, that structure in which they were supposed to receive an education; where they were supposed to be trained to handle the world in which they live in.
More importantly, who the hell do you think you are to claim that the rest of us are too ignorant or stupid to know how our children should be educated? I bet you have your Masters... or perhaps a Doctorate. Am I right?
I have news for you. If you're in a public school, then you are employed by those same idiots who line up here and look for ways to improve the value of their investment into the public school system.
What about senior citizens on a limited budget, with limited mobility?
Well, there are still libraries. No budget required, and the kind of entertainment you find there can only improve your ability to read.
I grew up without a television, and am still without one. I am not harmed by this fact. In fact, I am quite thankful for the fact that I am not tied to the pale, shallow little world of celebrity/fiction worship.
And I was without a television longer than I was with a computer.
Internet Explorer is a core part of Windows. It works at the same security level as the user. It does not require Administrative Access.
I know this because I have a Windows box set up using a normal account. If I want to run something as an administrator, I simply hold down [SHIFT] while right-clicking, and selecting "Run as..."
However, you cannot run Windows Update as a normal user, obviously.
Actually, the difference is in the targets; freedom fighters fight against military targets. Terrorists, however, target third parties, most often civilians.
Intel will recall the damn things faster than I can type "damn."
Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.
Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller.
This alone speaks volumes. People pressured Intel to abandon its serial number nonsense, and that was just a privacy issue. This little monster gives remote abusers the ability to circumvent software security measures and install all kinds of nasty stuff beneath the operating system layer.
And how does intel plan to keep the technology up-to-date? Might they also include some kind of flash memory that could store the DRM programming? Is it possible that such could be just as easily used to create the next-generation rootkit?
Does the rootkit even need to run locally?
Pshht! I don't think this initiative will last once the initial round of DRM-virii come around.
The main reason people don't like to admit they are wrong is because those concepts that they vocalize had to have spent some time filtering through their cognitive process.
As such, by the time it becomes vocalized, it has probably sustained a number of other concepts as well in their understanding. If it was wrong alone, then there's little concern, and less willingness to let it go.
However, when something you've used to verify countless other pieces of information has proven to be wrong, then there's a whole segment of your understanding that needs to be recalculated; with a deeply-held belief, this can be a really disconcerting experience, which, despite being a cliche, the saying "whole life is a lie" can feel frighteningly true.
Simply put, the longer you believe yourself to be right about something, the more associations you make between this assumption and other conclusions, the harder it becomes to let it go.
In academia, this is especially important, since a person learns so many facts over such a short period, that they have a vast interconnected web of "knowledge" that, if one of those facts were to have been disrupted, it might cause a catastrophic collapse of the whole framework of reason they have constructed, depending on how central that concept was to their thinking.
If some fact is holding all of your knowledge up, then you'll have a difficult time adapting to the realization it's wrong. You'll have to take all the time it took you to create those conclusions that were effected, and recreate a new set. The longer it's been, the longer it takes.
This is why the RIAA and MPAA are fighting so hard; why Microsoft sneers at Linux every chance it gets, and why SCO is on this foolish crusade. A concept they held dear is proving wrong, and they cannot accept it, because, as a previous poster very accurately described, without that central concept they held so dear, they really are nothing.*shrug* Just my $.02
Nikon is one of a number of companies that makes cameras for professionals.
Adobe, however, makes the standard in photo manipulation software.
As far as I can tell, Nikon needs Adobe far more than Adobe needs Nikon, at least in it's camera business, primarily because while the majority of Nikon cameras DO work with Photoshop, they aren't the only cameras that do.
On the other hand, by having a couple models of camera that do not work with Photoshop, Nikon's nearly guaranteed poor profits from those models, and a slight tarnish to their brand... thankfully, this tarnish would still be easy to clean up.
Uh huh. And if someone steals your credit card, and goes on a shopping spree, there is absolutely no recourse available to you, right? It's not like the bank in question will chargeback and then hunt down the thief.
Actually, REAL Professionals use the tools that do what needs doing. I have a multimeter, just in case I have to measure rails. However, with two exceptions in the last 6 years, it's done nothing but collect dust.
That point aside, the only real uses of IE I can figure are Windows Update and browsing the HDD.
I dunno... I remember one time where I had to replace a HDD, which at the time, had started failing. It was split in a number of partitions.
For some reason, when I restored the backed up data to a new drive (the pagegfile was on another drive entirely), Windows tried to start up, only to blue-screen with a complaint of not finding the pagefile.
Needless to say, I ended up having to reinstall anyways...
Enron was caught trying to do just that, and failed miserably.
Microsoft... well, lying's an everyday thing for them, yammer on about how this monopolizing feature or that predatory feature is merely another example of their innovation, and how they are still just being competitive... so they don't qualify.
SCO... Heh... They're just not operating in reality, pure and simple.
I'm referring to companies who would *willingly* take their lumps without spewing a long list of excuses.
And how many companies who are "caught" would actually take their lumps, rather than justify their actions through some obscure terminology (aka lying)?
I commend Google for at least learning their lesson.
Slight correction. To Microsoft, end-users are not customers, they are consumers.Slight correction. To Microsoft, end-users are not customers, they are consumers.
Slight addendum: Not only are they Microsoft consumers, they are potential criminals.
I've done it twice last year; The first time it was after waiting for three months for a change (the general manager just kept putting me off, asking me to wait...) until finally I had enough. Something had to change, and if he wasn't going to make it happen, I would.
I left.
The job after that, I just didn't have what it took to do the job. After a month, I was going to be fired anyways, so I just decided to leave.
My previous job was good, but once again, it was in a position that I just couldn't manage to do well in. I was let go this time, but will be going back in, but this time as technical support... a much closer fit to me, I can assure you.
If you feel something needs to change, then change something. If you get help, accept it. If not, do it yourself. If it means you need to quit, then do so, as long as you have a contingency in place.
The actual problem with schools are that they are not focusing enough on the core needs upon which all education rests.
Personally, I think that schools should teach only three things; Language, Mathematics, and Discipline.
With language, all knowledge is merely a library away, and communication will be a lot easier than it is for a good number of people.
With mathematics, just about anything can be quantified.
With discipline, a person can successfully organize the above two skills into a weapon with which to attack their future.
Once the schools finish with those three very important skills, the student can then begin the process of building the rest of their own education. Higher learning can still be available, but they should be optional and specialized based on what the student is interested in learning, rather than forcing the student to learn their way.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents were supposed to encourage disclosure of innovation so that others can build on it.
Ummm... to build on something, you first need to use said something. But using it means infringing on the patent... which means building on it is either a losing proposition, or an impossibility... at least for 20 years.
Mind explaining what I'm missing here, please?
Oh, Lord, I used to have so much fun with that game.
Now tell me, seriously, what's a football game if you can't bribe or kill the referee?
Wow... the advantage of the current administration's religious leanings!
Anyone who wants to can take Micrix and distribute it themselves, of course, and Microsoft does accept submissions for the code base from the community and looks carefully at what is happening back in Linux world, although it prefers to make its own fixes rather than just take code from the old world.
First of all, there is the possibility that MS can decouple the Windows interface from the operating system; this would hark back to the days of Windows 3.11, except that the underlying operating system would be far more advanced, making a lot of the things that Windows interface depends on available.
As such, the Windows interface software could conceivably remain under Microsoft's tight-fisted control, while still advertising Linux support.
When someone spots Richard Stallman running it on his laptop, the game is over, and the old Linux community gathered around Linus Torvalds falls apart as third party developers move to Micrix as a preferred platform.
Somehow, I don't think Stallman would have the absolute influence over the "GNU/Linux" community as one might think. Hell, he's still trying to convince people to tack on the GNU/. Never mind the bad blood these people still have with MS.
More importantly, I seriously doubt Stallman would use an operating system that DIDN'T use his precious GNU. He's invested WAY too much time and effort into that system to just toss it off.
And I'd bet that if "Micrix" DID, in fact, use GNU tools, he would probably avoid it until Microsoft broke down and name it GNU/Micrix. And I SERIOUSLY doubt Microsoft would willingly allow another organization to share it's mindshare like that... that would be like advertising their competition in their very product name.
It's part of a contract. Lee agreed not to take a job with a competitor one year after leaving his job with Microsoft.
Speaking of arrogance...
Does your being an educator automatically imply that nobody who posted here outside yourself knows what they're talking about?
Education is the ability to make one who does not know into one who knows. Thus, the output directly correlates with the input... knowledge and someone who doesn't know becomes someone who knows.
It is with this simple fact that the question is raised: What end purpose is an education for? It is obviously to know enough to live in society.
However, the number of people leaving schools woefully unprepared for the world is a strong indicator that SOMETHING is wrong in the system, because those people are not people who know. They are people who think they know, up until the moment they realize they do not know.
This, in turn, implies that something failed within the school system, that structure in which they were supposed to receive an education; where they were supposed to be trained to handle the world in which they live in.
More importantly, who the hell do you think you are to claim that the rest of us are too ignorant or stupid to know how our children should be educated? I bet you have your Masters... or perhaps a Doctorate. Am I right?
I have news for you. If you're in a public school, then you are employed by those same idiots who line up here and look for ways to improve the value of their investment into the public school system.
Including this one.
What about senior citizens on a limited budget, with limited mobility?
Well, there are still libraries. No budget required, and the kind of entertainment you find there can only improve your ability to read.
I grew up without a television, and am still without one. I am not harmed by this fact. In fact, I am quite thankful for the fact that I am not tied to the pale, shallow little world of celebrity/fiction worship.
And I was without a television longer than I was with a computer.
Internet Explorer is a core part of Windows. It works at the same security level as the user. It does not require Administrative Access.
I know this because I have a Windows box set up using a normal account. If I want to run something as an administrator, I simply hold down [SHIFT] while right-clicking, and selecting "Run as..."
However, you cannot run Windows Update as a normal user, obviously.
Actually, the difference is in the targets; freedom fighters fight against military targets. Terrorists, however, target third parties, most often civilians.
Intel will recall the damn things faster than I can type "damn."
Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.
Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller.
This alone speaks volumes. People pressured Intel to abandon its serial number nonsense, and that was just a privacy issue. This little monster gives remote abusers the ability to circumvent software security measures and install all kinds of nasty stuff beneath the operating system layer.
And how does intel plan to keep the technology up-to-date? Might they also include some kind of flash memory that could store the DRM programming? Is it possible that such could be just as easily used to create the next-generation rootkit?
Does the rootkit even need to run locally?
Pshht! I don't think this initiative will last once the initial round of DRM-virii come around.
A good bit of reading to help clarify some of the concepts here would be the "Programmer's Stone."
http://www.reciprocality.org/Reciprocality/r0
The main reason people don't like to admit they are wrong is because those concepts that they vocalize had to have spent some time filtering through their cognitive process.
As such, by the time it becomes vocalized, it has probably sustained a number of other concepts as well in their understanding. If it was wrong alone, then there's little concern, and less willingness to let it go.
However, when something you've used to verify countless other pieces of information has proven to be wrong, then there's a whole segment of your understanding that needs to be recalculated; with a deeply-held belief, this can be a really disconcerting experience, which, despite being a cliche, the saying "whole life is a lie" can feel frighteningly true.
Simply put, the longer you believe yourself to be right about something, the more associations you make between this assumption and other conclusions, the harder it becomes to let it go.
In academia, this is especially important, since a person learns so many facts over such a short period, that they have a vast interconnected web of "knowledge" that, if one of those facts were to have been disrupted, it might cause a catastrophic collapse of the whole framework of reason they have constructed, depending on how central that concept was to their thinking.
If some fact is holding all of your knowledge up, then you'll have a difficult time adapting to the realization it's wrong. You'll have to take all the time it took you to create those conclusions that were effected, and recreate a new set. The longer it's been, the longer it takes.
This is why the RIAA and MPAA are fighting so hard; why Microsoft sneers at Linux every chance it gets, and why SCO is on this foolish crusade. A concept they held dear is proving wrong, and they cannot accept it, because, as a previous poster very accurately described, without that central concept they held so dear, they really are nothing.*shrug* Just my $.02
So, by using the right virus, and a bluetooth rifle, you can shoot these planes down?
Nikon is one of a number of companies that makes cameras for professionals.
Adobe, however, makes the standard in photo manipulation software.
As far as I can tell, Nikon needs Adobe far more than Adobe needs Nikon, at least in it's camera business, primarily because while the majority of Nikon cameras DO work with Photoshop, they aren't the only cameras that do.
On the other hand, by having a couple models of camera that do not work with Photoshop, Nikon's nearly guaranteed poor profits from those models, and a slight tarnish to their brand... thankfully, this tarnish would still be easy to clean up.
Who do you think has the bargaining chip here?
Uh huh. And if someone steals your credit card, and goes on a shopping spree, there is absolutely no recourse available to you, right? It's not like the bank in question will chargeback and then hunt down the thief.
Actually, REAL Professionals use the tools that do what needs doing. I have a multimeter, just in case I have to measure rails. However, with two exceptions in the last 6 years, it's done nothing but collect dust.
That point aside, the only real uses of IE I can figure are Windows Update and browsing the HDD.
I dunno... I remember one time where I had to replace a HDD, which at the time, had started failing. It was split in a number of partitions.
For some reason, when I restored the backed up data to a new drive (the pagegfile was on another drive entirely), Windows tried to start up, only to blue-screen with a complaint of not finding the pagefile.
Needless to say, I ended up having to reinstall anyways...
No, no no... WITHOUT lying.
Enron was caught trying to do just that, and failed miserably.
Microsoft... well, lying's an everyday thing for them, yammer on about how this monopolizing feature or that predatory feature is merely another example of their innovation, and how they are still just being competitive... so they don't qualify.
SCO... Heh... They're just not operating in reality, pure and simple.
I'm referring to companies who would *willingly* take their lumps without spewing a long list of excuses.
And how many companies who are "caught" would actually take their lumps, rather than justify their actions through some obscure terminology (aka lying)?
I commend Google for at least learning their lesson.
Irish Summer Time.
Slight correction. To Microsoft, end-users are not customers, they are consumers.Slight correction. To Microsoft, end-users are not customers, they are consumers.
Slight addendum: Not only are they Microsoft consumers, they are potential criminals.
And the difference between con artist and social engineer would be?
Yeah, so you can enjoy it the ten seconds before you're arrested for writing one. ;)
I've done it twice last year; The first time it was after waiting for three months for a change (the general manager just kept putting me off, asking me to wait...) until finally I had enough. Something had to change, and if he wasn't going to make it happen, I would.
I left.
The job after that, I just didn't have what it took to do the job. After a month, I was going to be fired anyways, so I just decided to leave.
My previous job was good, but once again, it was in a position that I just couldn't manage to do well in. I was let go this time, but will be going back in, but this time as technical support... a much closer fit to me, I can assure you.
If you feel something needs to change, then change something. If you get help, accept it. If not, do it yourself. If it means you need to quit, then do so, as long as you have a contingency in place.
The actual problem with schools are that they are not focusing enough on the core needs upon which all education rests.
Personally, I think that schools should teach only three things; Language, Mathematics, and Discipline.
With language, all knowledge is merely a library away, and communication will be a lot easier than it is for a good number of people.
With mathematics, just about anything can be quantified.
With discipline, a person can successfully organize the above two skills into a weapon with which to attack their future.
Once the schools finish with those three very important skills, the student can then begin the process of building the rest of their own education. Higher learning can still be available, but they should be optional and specialized based on what the student is interested in learning, rather than forcing the student to learn their way.