somewhat OT but at my work the IT department received a newsletter from the national helpdesk that includes some tickets and the resulting fixes. A user stated that "Google search" was installed on their machine and it overrode their "XP search". The tech had them reset their browser settings and that fixed their problem. Kind of funny, but sad too. I can foresee a future where many people think that their browser home page is part of their OS and not on the web. And by future I think I mean present.
You are right about the Wintel press bias (at least in my opinion) but it is wrong to think that somehow validates Apple's actions.
Basically Apple tied iTunes to the ipod resulting in many people ripping CDs to their much less common aac format. This adds to their vendor lockin on customers. Now they are loosely tying upgrades to itunes with a browser install and calling it an update. WTF. You didn't clear anything up, except pointing out bias in the press. You didn't add any valid criticisms of the article. The article starts, "Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from Apple whether you want it or not, and Mozilla CEO John Lilly is not happy about it. After his daughter was offered Safari as a 'bonus update' with a recent update to her iTunes software..." the phrase "whether you want it or not" refers to the install being misleading, not mandatory. The third sentence clears up any confusion that exists in the second sentence.
I hope this actually clears the issue up.
I also hope lots of people try out Safari because when I talk about Linux I like being able to explain that Safari and Apple's widgets are based on Linux code. I also think that people who install Safari this way would be less likely to be Firefox users and thus it will probably take market share from IE more significantly than from Firefox. I just wish Apple did this more transparently/honestly.
In many ways (TFA is an obvious example) the US is better. I am disgusted by the attempts (and often successes) of politicians to erode our constitutional rights but much that goes on in England would NOT fly here. It's a shame what does though.
Absolutely correct, I work in the IT department of a large corporation and am responsible for retaining data under these situations. We are constantly under legal fire and have well established policies. While OP is largely correct, the parent is right that IM is very much preferred. The sheer amount of data that gets retained when you email a coworker about where to get lunch is ridiculous and policy is to make workers aware of this and to IM instead. (Cynics may doubt that the policy is solely to do with the data involved.)
I was on their mailinglist and they mostly complained about companies, but there were some references to people using multiple machines with the same key I think. It probably would've helped if users had voluntarily limited the number of updates they requested. I miss the service, but am thankful they were as accommodating as they were for so long. I still use zap2it.com for web based tv listings, but I don't scrape their site for the data.
It's pretty clear that the reason the FISA court doesn't work and is "out-dated" is because they want to dragnet all communications and then search the results for terrorism. Clearly that is unconstitutional and they would never get said warrant. Also, who, even in secret, would write a warrant to allow searching of themselves? (Assuming the "secret" court is in the US)
Difficulty in competing is different then having bad products. Linux, *BSD are free OS that are Unix or Unix like enough to have minimal learning curve. SCO main business was Unix for the x86 Platform. SCO Unix could actually be better then Linux and *BSD but because you have free alternatives potential customers are willing to make the tradeoff they figure the benefit of free outdoes the benefit of paying for some feature, or benefit. Sun, IBM, HP and Even Apple (successful Unix venders) provide hardware lock in as a competitive advantage. The OS Will run smooth because the hardware will run smooth, Because people still need to pay for hardware anyways they may consider going with a Unix vender. But if you are on commodity hardware then you have a huge uphill battle just to try to sell your OS. Red Hat cooperates with CentOS, a free beer clone of Red Hat. CentOS, by your argument, would have a huge advantage over Red Hat in terms of Linux marketshare. Puzzlingly, that turns out not to be the case. In corporate use, Red Hat is the market leader, even though their support costs are some of the highest in the industry. Additionally Sun, HP, and IBM all sell hardware with a Linux install optionally available. And BTW, Apple is not, strictly speaking, a Unix vendor. Their OS is Unix-based, though. And you do not generally see Apple servers replacing or competing with Unix and Linux servers. Apple competes firmly in the Desktop, in a market where SCO does not.
I would've read and watched their propoganda for a chance to win but silverlight is required and I have no interest in ruining the internet. Yes, I could've turned on my Ubuntu PC instead which even has IE7 (as a joke really, I hope my sites break on IE7) and then installed the Novell version of silverlight (is it finished?) but that's also not going to happen. FU MS and Miguel
I don't mean to in any way compare hotmail to yahoo, but Hotmail used to be a popular, valuable product. Now that it is in MS' grips it sucks. MSN accounts are not particularly popular with techies (except for MS fanboys and people like me whose tech jobs allow only windows messenger at work). Assuming people bought YH00 stock because they wanted it, they would probably support Yahoo outsourcing their ad/search to google instead of getting engulfed by MS. If I owned YH00 stock I would prefer that over cash/MS stock especially since MS is not likely to gain any benefit from this acquisition. What exactly does Yahoo do that doesn't compete with something MS already does/is starting to do?
Tivo received the GPL'ed code under GPLv2. It's doubtful they'll be able to use any of the updated GPLv3 software, but I guess they'll be able to get by without updated code from projects that go v3 only.
As I just wrote, there was a dual deck dual tuner VCR from Govideo that recorded while it played back recordings. You could also look at thousands of security devices that did this
The dual deck, dual tuner Govideo VCR predated Tivo by MANY years. Two tuners allowed recording of one program while you either recorded or watched another. I worked in the industry throughout. I believe ReplayTV predated them as well.
I love it.
Now that we know that liberals are hacking the election we need to train our own anti-hackers to secretly undo the damage liberals are doing and restore a Republican balance to the 2008 election. We should simply re-program the machines to give Republican candidates a head-start and thus directly foil the sinister liberal hacker plans We all know it should read anti-anti-hacker
So basically none of his future improvements would be able to be applied, and the project would have to fork? Sounds fair enough, if it's worth it others would take up the slack. I am curious as to whether I was right previously when I said he could keep an oss project from using the name.
"It's a whole complicated insurance thing. They just bury the whole thing. Pretend it never happened. The insurance business is completely screwy now. You know they've reintroduced the death penalty for insurance company directors?"
"Really?" said Arthur. "No, I didn't. For what offense?"
"Trillian frowned, 'What do you mean, 'offense'?' "
"I see." replied Arthur seems to be where you were going...
TFA has a link to a Business Week article from 1996 that discusses smart phones.
Not surprisingly, Nokia, Motorola, Philips Electronics, and other phonemakers are well aware of the device's potential as an information appliance. The Nokia Communicator was introduced in 1996, although apparently it wasn't until the next model, the 9110 at the same link, that they included removable storage. The camera also was not included in either, but I don't believe that combining a smart phone with a digital camera or camera phone is patentable. (In so much as there is a difference in receiving a patent and receiving a valid patent.)
Clearly one of the biggest reasons so many people growing up with tech hate or ignore IP is that Congress and the USPTO refuse to meaningfully fix the problems that allow these abuses.
As to better prior art than this, digital cameras didn't exist in 1996 to my knowledge and only an idiot would combine a phone and a film camera(not saying I wouldn't buy one)
True, in my haste to admit that Ford didn't "invent" the automobile I overlooked some deeper points. While taking "inventor" literally your statement, "And in that sence, i think that the assumption of Ford as the "inventor" is preetty acurate."[sic] is in error, there's clearly a connotation to the word inventor that implies something more than putting two of the most important inventions of all time together in a blatantly obvious way. (The wheel is generally considered the greatest invention, and a cart that can carry people is obviously crucial to society. The engine is obviously far more important than most inventions that predated it. Granting exception to the wheel, shelter, medicine. Wheels have been included in nearly all engines, most people see little value in applying engines to homes, and even people from the mid-west of the US would likely balk at applying engines to medicine (barring production which is less an engine than a robot).) Ford had the first practical, valuable, useful implementaion of a device which I believe to be to obvious to invent.
He needs to either get the permission of any other contibutors or re-write their contributions in a non-infringing way. This may be easy if not many others have contributed but could be a real bear if they have or if someone else made a fairly critical contribution. Any other contributors still hold the copyright to their contribution and may not like the idea of someone taking their code private. I heard somewhere that he claims to be the sole author. (I wouldn't want you to think that I'd read TFA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon 'The use of digital electronics (largely invented by Claude Shannon in 1937) and more flexible programmability were vitally important steps, but defining one point along this road as "the first digital electronic computer" is difficult (Shannon 1940).' Shannon was an American whose work predated the non-electronic Z3 from Zuse. Neither of them built what I would consider a Computer though.
>>motor car (well, us and the Brits)"
>Gottlieb Daimler?
Sure, but if something can be considered a computer that isn't electronic was't the first automobile steam-powered? This starts to seem somewhat arbritary. However, many Americans think Ford invented the automobile. Not sure why.
>>and the telephone
>Philip Reis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone "The early history of the telephone is a confusing morass of claim and counterclaim, which was not clarified by the huge mass of lawsuits which hoped to resolve the patent claims of individuals. The Bell and Edison patents, however, were forensically victorious and commercially decisive."
Slashdot Mirror
somewhat OT but at my work the IT department received a newsletter from the national helpdesk that includes some tickets and the resulting fixes. A user stated that "Google search" was installed on their machine and it overrode their "XP search". The tech had them reset their browser settings and that fixed their problem. Kind of funny, but sad too. I can foresee a future where many people think that their browser home page is part of their OS and not on the web. And by future I think I mean present.
You are right about the Wintel press bias (at least in my opinion) but it is wrong to think that somehow validates Apple's actions.
Basically Apple tied iTunes to the ipod resulting in many people ripping CDs to their much less common aac format. This adds to their vendor lockin on customers. Now they are loosely tying upgrades to itunes with a browser install and calling it an update. WTF. You didn't clear anything up, except pointing out bias in the press. You didn't add any valid criticisms of the article. The article starts,
"Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from Apple whether you want it or not, and Mozilla CEO John Lilly is not happy about it. After his daughter was offered Safari as a 'bonus update' with a recent update to her iTunes software..."
the phrase "whether you want it or not" refers to the install being misleading, not mandatory. The third sentence clears up any confusion that exists in the second sentence.
I hope this actually clears the issue up.
I also hope lots of people try out Safari because when I talk about Linux I like being able to explain that Safari and Apple's widgets are based on Linux code. I also think that people who install Safari this way would be less likely to be Firefox users and thus it will probably take market share from IE more significantly than from Firefox. I just wish Apple did this more transparently/honestly.
In many ways (TFA is an obvious example) the US is better. I am disgusted by the attempts (and often successes) of politicians to erode our constitutional rights but much that goes on in England would NOT fly here. It's a shame what does though.
mod this UP!
I want to see this form anytime anyone has a simple answer for a complex problem such as SPAM
Absolutely correct, I work in the IT department of a large corporation and am responsible for retaining data under these situations. We are constantly under legal fire and have well established policies. While OP is largely correct, the parent is right that IM is very much preferred. The sheer amount of data that gets retained when you email a coworker about where to get lunch is ridiculous and policy is to make workers aware of this and to IM instead. (Cynics may doubt that the policy is solely to do with the data involved.)
I think you meant kaffeine
I was on their mailinglist and they mostly complained about companies, but there were some references to people using multiple machines with the same key I think. It probably would've helped if users had voluntarily limited the number of updates they requested. I miss the service, but am thankful they were as accommodating as they were for so long. I still use zap2it.com for web based tv listings, but I don't scrape their site for the data.
is that you mr. hildegard?
It's pretty clear that the reason the FISA court doesn't work and is "out-dated" is because they want to dragnet all communications and then search the results for terrorism. Clearly that is unconstitutional and they would never get said warrant. Also, who, even in secret, would write a warrant to allow searching of themselves? (Assuming the "secret" court is in the US)
I think we're calling it a side-grade these days
I would've read and watched their propoganda for a chance to win but silverlight is required and I have no interest in ruining the internet. Yes, I could've turned on my Ubuntu PC instead which even has IE7 (as a joke really, I hope my sites break on IE7) and then installed the Novell version of silverlight (is it finished?) but that's also not going to happen. FU MS and Miguel
I don't mean to in any way compare hotmail to yahoo, but Hotmail used to be a popular, valuable product. Now that it is in MS' grips it sucks. MSN accounts are not particularly popular with techies (except for MS fanboys and people like me whose tech jobs allow only windows messenger at work). Assuming people bought YH00 stock because they wanted it, they would probably support Yahoo outsourcing their ad/search to google instead of getting engulfed by MS. If I owned YH00 stock I would prefer that over cash/MS stock especially since MS is not likely to gain any benefit from this acquisition. What exactly does Yahoo do that doesn't compete with something MS already does/is starting to do?
Tivo received the GPL'ed code under GPLv2. It's doubtful they'll be able to use any of the updated GPLv3 software, but I guess they'll be able to get by without updated code from projects that go v3 only.
As I just wrote, there was a dual deck dual tuner VCR from Govideo that recorded while it played back recordings. You could also look at thousands of security devices that did this
The dual deck, dual tuner Govideo VCR predated Tivo by MANY years. Two tuners allowed recording of one program while you either recorded or watched another. I worked in the industry throughout. I believe ReplayTV predated them as well.
So basically none of his future improvements would be able to be applied, and the project would have to fork? Sounds fair enough, if it's worth it others would take up the slack. I am curious as to whether I was right previously when I said he could keep an oss project from using the name.
"Really?" said Arthur. "No, I didn't. For what offense?"
"Trillian frowned, 'What do you mean, 'offense'?' "
"I see." replied Arthur seems to be where you were going...
Does not. have Wan't?! that is any?!?!?
Wa does not? want is not? WAN is not?
Not nearly as good as "Do not want."
Well I have a phone for my removable storage.
(Places cordless in cellphone pocket of laptop backpack)
Clearly one of the biggest reasons so many people growing up with tech hate or ignore IP is that Congress and the USPTO refuse to meaningfully fix the problems that allow these abuses.
As to better prior art than this, digital cameras didn't exist in 1996 to my knowledge and only an idiot would combine a phone and a film camera(not saying I wouldn't buy one)
True, in my haste to admit that Ford didn't "invent" the automobile I overlooked some deeper points.
While taking "inventor" literally your statement,
"And in that sence, i think that the assumption of Ford as the "inventor" is preetty acurate."[sic]
is in error, there's clearly a connotation to the word inventor that implies something more than putting two of the most important inventions of all time together in a blatantly obvious way.
(The wheel is generally considered the greatest invention, and a cart that can carry people is obviously crucial to society. The engine is obviously far more important than most inventions that predated it. Granting exception to the wheel, shelter, medicine. Wheels have been included in nearly all engines, most people see little value in applying engines to homes, and even people from the mid-west of the US would likely balk at applying engines to medicine (barring production which is less an engine than a robot).)
Ford had the first practical, valuable, useful implementaion of a device which I believe to be to obvious to invent.
>>computer (well, us and the Brits),
>Konrad Zuse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon
'The use of digital electronics (largely invented by Claude Shannon in 1937) and more flexible programmability were vitally important steps, but defining one point along this road as "the first digital electronic computer" is difficult (Shannon 1940).'
Shannon was an American whose work predated the non-electronic Z3 from Zuse. Neither of them built what I would consider a Computer though.
>>motor car (well, us and the Brits)"
>Gottlieb Daimler?
Sure, but if something can be considered a computer that isn't electronic was't the first automobile steam-powered? This starts to seem somewhat arbritary.
However, many Americans think Ford invented the automobile. Not sure why.
>>and the telephone
>Philip Reis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone
"The early history of the telephone is a confusing morass of claim and counterclaim, which was not clarified by the huge mass of lawsuits which hoped to resolve the patent claims of individuals. The Bell and Edison patents, however, were forensically victorious and commercially decisive."