I don't know if it is in Microsoft's interest to wait that long if that's their intent. It looks like Microsoft would want their IP, and their search business, so assets such as hardware and real estate probably don't mean much to Microsoft (the kind of things that get sold off during or right before a bankruptcy). But if Microsoft wants either their portal or advertising business, it's likely in their interest to get it before customers and investors start to bail on fears of Yahoo going under. Customer base and confidence definitely have street value.
I doubt the DoJ will touch a Yahoo-MS deal. Such a deal wouldn't advance any MS monopoly that exists so long as MS didn't try to leverage this into an OS. And it wouldn't create any new monopolies (think Google's advertising business). Anti-trust isn't necessarily about keeping companies from being big. Microsoft can perfectly well grow new business in different markets to make itself bigger and not get into anti-trust trouble. They care about one company entirely owning or dominating a section of the market.
I think Yahoo is a dead brand to you. You'd be amazed by the number of people who have Yahoo as their homepage and use several of Yahoo's built in services such as gaming, weather, etc. You have a list of sites to get all the services you need, and if you find a site that does one or another service better, you are perfectly happy changing it (I'm guessing). But there are a lot of people, as someone else mentioned, that came from the AOL world and like having one portal with the the "interweb" stuff in one portal. They go to one place and get their news, weather, horoscope for the day, and they like that.
I think a government wide CIO might look at more things or rather different things than the DoD CIO, but information sharing, system standardization, etc are all goals that would go a long way to make the government more efficient and keep things and people from getting lost. The end result may look different, but the new CIO should definitely start off by talking to this guy, and people like him.
Also remember that he has relatively little experience in Washington, and to get things done in Washington he is going to need people with contacts and context in that environment. Most good presidents are really good presidents because they know everything and know how to do everything, it's because they surrounded themselves with people who collectively knew all the things they needed to know. One of those things they need to know is how to get things done in Washington.
That's something that may be of particular importance depending on how the Democrats in Congress want to try and use him. They may be under the impression that he is their new young puppet. It will be interesting to see.
First, the workers do make similar wages, before taxes. It looks like their system transfers the burden of paying for health care from the auto company, to the individual, but in such a way that the individual doesn't really see it (taxes).
Plus, it looks like there is generally between 10% and 15% sales tax as there are both federal and provincial taxes.
Now, Canadians do pay less overall per capita for health care than Americans. But to be sure, the costs didn't simply vanish from the country, they simply shifted from the employers.
Just because we don't always like the results of due process and the application of the Constitution doesn't nullify the idea that it is indeed good to see it (although infrequently) upheld.
I'm pretty sure that suddenoutbreakofcommonsense wasn't in reference to letting pedophiles free, but was rather in reference to defense of the Constitution.
Please don't take the above as an opinion on the judgement indicated on the article. I'm not making one, but rather as an explanation in contrast of the above comment.
That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.
Why is it that every story evaluating open source as a replacement for proprietary software starts with, "We want something cheaper." It's encouraging that people are comfortable with the reliability and features of OSS that they are comfortable putting businesses on it. But I would be concerned as an employee at these shops that management had fully evaluated the the needs of the company with respect to these packages. I've seen it a few times already at places where I've worked where a manager says, "This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.
Part of being the person who wrote the program is being allowed to set the price. If the person is smart, they'll set the price at a level that people will buy. But they can set it at something completely absurd and sell none. It doesn't appear that the GP was implying that he had a right to anyone's money because of effort. He doesn't. He does have a right to the money of people who use his software, and that price can be whatever he wants. If you don't like the price, you have a right to not use his software.
I'm not an OS programmer, so someone in that capacity will have to chime in with a definitive answer. But I'll throw out a guess that in general a keyboard would send the same signal based on position of the key and would let the OS handle the translation of that location to a specific letter/function.
20m isn't too bad in an office environment for the corporate espionage that someone mentioned earlier. I also wonder if there might not be some very minor frequency shifts between different brands of keyboards and at different ranges that may allow someone to tune in on one and stay there...
It shouldn't keep them busy for long. I haven't been able to get to the description yet, but I assume a Dvorak layout, or any other layout for that matter would look like a simple replacement cipher and wouldn't take long to crack.
Acknowledged, but I wonder if there is a question of who will be training/helping these people. i.e. people who traditionally use Windows. And not necessarily at a community computer lab or library, but family/friends who try to help from their experience at work or school. And when they get these machines are they going to be frustrated because they don't have that "Start Menu" thing that the program they downloaded off the internet told them they need to click.
I think this requires more than just a clean UI and broad range of available programs. There needs to be easy to get information for non-technical users about the difference between a linux computer and a windows computer, and likely there needs to be an acknowledgment from distributors of software that their application does/doesn't work on Linux/Windows/Mac etc.
AFAIK it isn't trivial for publishers to put out a Linux binary. A great many games are still made using DirectX. Something Microsoft has been very smart in hording on their OS.
I also think you'd be surprised by the number of people who own legitimate software. TurboTax, quicken, their kids jump start type games, etc.
But that's it. People are resistant to change. Not because change is scary. But because change is difficult. They don't want to put effort into relearning how to use their computer. Much the same way that they don't want to put effort into using their TV or their toaster. The computer is an appliance and they want it to just work, and they don't want to think about it. Really, there isn't anything wrong with that either.
Yes that is a perfect analogy. If the standard user hopped into an F1 car as opposed to their normal sedan, they'd have a hell of a time even figuring out how to put on their steering wheel, much less learning how to shift and how to drive around without killing himself.
Linux has made really huge strides with regards to a cleaner easier to navigate UI that is consistent (as long as you stick with just one). And driver support has been getting better all the time. But there are two issues that I've seen personally that will hold this up.
1) Driver support for new hardware. This isn't eally the fault of the people working on Linux drivers, people are still getting hardware from manufacturers for which there aren't, or aren't yet Linux drivers that just work. We're talking about average users here, so buying open hardware isn't an issue. They don't care. They want the really good deal that was advertised last month, and they're going to buy that one.
2) People are still trying to downplay software support and point to Linux alternatives. Again, people don't care. They have their favorite copy of game/finance/whatever software sitting around and they want to be able to install that.
I think we can hope that people in this community are a little more open to buying hardware that is OSS friendly, and likewise figure out how to use alternative software or get things working under Wine, etc. But there really is nothing wrong with people expecting to use their computer as an appliance. Right now, aside from people who want to use it simply as a web/email machine, or even have someone set it up with several apps and then never change anything, I don't think it's there yet. And it's definitely a catch 22 of whether user adoption brings more manufacturers/developers in line or manufacturers/devs bring users in line.
I saw an interesting interview with Bob Lutz within the last several weeks in which he was discussing the Volt. He mentioned the major initiatives of the last few years including Ethanol only, Hydrogen fuel cells, and now EV's. He mentioned that, with the newest venture, the Volt, the problem is the cost of making a system that is feasible in terms of size of the vehicle and range, and balancing that with cost.
They may be using the credit crunch as an excuse. But, right now, there are issues with getting credit. Even solid companies like GE were having issues getting credit to continue operation. Those loans are about as sure as anything, but banks are trying to shore up cash right now, and money is hard to get.
And by "pirate", they mean "go to a third party to get a working version of the game I've rightfully purchased".
I'd like to have a non-industry source do a good in-depth study of this. But the poster to whom I was responding sounded far more like he was going to a third party to get a working version of the game that he had no intent on purchasing. I didn't mention it in this thread, but I don't have a problem with people who torrented say, Spore, after they bought the game. I think we'd all be better off if they simply boycotted it, but they paid for it and I'm fine with that.
I have a problem with the people who didn't buy the game and give DRM as the reason and then act as if their justified in pirating it because the game company did or didn't do X.
Slashdot Mirror
Edit: Most good presidents AREN'T good presidents because they know everything...
Please kids, don't post on Slashdot before coffee.
I don't know if it is in Microsoft's interest to wait that long if that's their intent. It looks like Microsoft would want their IP, and their search business, so assets such as hardware and real estate probably don't mean much to Microsoft (the kind of things that get sold off during or right before a bankruptcy). But if Microsoft wants either their portal or advertising business, it's likely in their interest to get it before customers and investors start to bail on fears of Yahoo going under. Customer base and confidence definitely have street value.
I doubt the DoJ will touch a Yahoo-MS deal. Such a deal wouldn't advance any MS monopoly that exists so long as MS didn't try to leverage this into an OS. And it wouldn't create any new monopolies (think Google's advertising business). Anti-trust isn't necessarily about keeping companies from being big. Microsoft can perfectly well grow new business in different markets to make itself bigger and not get into anti-trust trouble. They care about one company entirely owning or dominating a section of the market.
I think Yahoo is a dead brand to you. You'd be amazed by the number of people who have Yahoo as their homepage and use several of Yahoo's built in services such as gaming, weather, etc. You have a list of sites to get all the services you need, and if you find a site that does one or another service better, you are perfectly happy changing it (I'm guessing). But there are a lot of people, as someone else mentioned, that came from the AOL world and like having one portal with the the "interweb" stuff in one portal. They go to one place and get their news, weather, horoscope for the day, and they like that.
I think a government wide CIO might look at more things or rather different things than the DoD CIO, but information sharing, system standardization, etc are all goals that would go a long way to make the government more efficient and keep things and people from getting lost. The end result may look different, but the new CIO should definitely start off by talking to this guy, and people like him.
Also remember that he has relatively little experience in Washington, and to get things done in Washington he is going to need people with contacts and context in that environment. Most good presidents are really good presidents because they know everything and know how to do everything, it's because they surrounded themselves with people who collectively knew all the things they needed to know. One of those things they need to know is how to get things done in Washington.
That's something that may be of particular importance depending on how the Democrats in Congress want to try and use him. They may be under the impression that he is their new young puppet. It will be interesting to see.
Why would you steal from people making such small amounts when you could steal from the rich? I don't get why anyone would do that.
Can you do me a favor and ask the person who broke into my car, or the guy who stole my motorcycle?
Seriously, do you think theft doesn't happen to people who aren't rich. I'd bet it happens more often to people who aren't rich.
First, the workers do make similar wages, before taxes. It looks like their system transfers the burden of paying for health care from the auto company, to the individual, but in such a way that the individual doesn't really see it (taxes).
Per Wikipedia - Personal Income taxes:
Canada 31.6% 21.5%
United States 29.1% 11.9%
Plus, it looks like there is generally between 10% and 15% sales tax as there are both federal and provincial taxes.
Now, Canadians do pay less overall per capita for health care than Americans. But to be sure, the costs didn't simply vanish from the country, they simply shifted from the employers.
"Jet's suck, Nicks suck, Rangers Suck...Krypton sucks." - Family Guy
I'd ask what the moron who is coming up with these threads is thinking, but I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what is going to happen...
Just because we don't always like the results of due process and the application of the Constitution doesn't nullify the idea that it is indeed good to see it (although infrequently) upheld.
I'm pretty sure that suddenoutbreakofcommonsense wasn't in reference to letting pedophiles free, but was rather in reference to defense of the Constitution.
Please don't take the above as an opinion on the judgement indicated on the article. I'm not making one, but rather as an explanation in contrast of the above comment.
Thanks, now I have images of Steve Ballmer on the roof of MS HQ with a chair in one hand screaming, "Bring it on!" at Larry and Sergey strafing.
That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.
Why is it that every story evaluating open source as a replacement for proprietary software starts with, "We want something cheaper." It's encouraging that people are comfortable with the reliability and features of OSS that they are comfortable putting businesses on it. But I would be concerned as an employee at these shops that management had fully evaluated the the needs of the company with respect to these packages. I've seen it a few times already at places where I've worked where a manager says, "This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.
Part of being the person who wrote the program is being allowed to set the price. If the person is smart, they'll set the price at a level that people will buy. But they can set it at something completely absurd and sell none. It doesn't appear that the GP was implying that he had a right to anyone's money because of effort. He doesn't. He does have a right to the money of people who use his software, and that price can be whatever he wants. If you don't like the price, you have a right to not use his software.
I'm not an OS programmer, so someone in that capacity will have to chime in with a definitive answer. But I'll throw out a guess that in general a keyboard would send the same signal based on position of the key and would let the OS handle the translation of that location to a specific letter/function.
20m isn't too bad in an office environment for the corporate espionage that someone mentioned earlier. I also wonder if there might not be some very minor frequency shifts between different brands of keyboards and at different ranges that may allow someone to tune in on one and stay there...
It shouldn't keep them busy for long. I haven't been able to get to the description yet, but I assume a Dvorak layout, or any other layout for that matter would look like a simple replacement cipher and wouldn't take long to crack.
Acknowledged, but I wonder if there is a question of who will be training/helping these people. i.e. people who traditionally use Windows. And not necessarily at a community computer lab or library, but family/friends who try to help from their experience at work or school. And when they get these machines are they going to be frustrated because they don't have that "Start Menu" thing that the program they downloaded off the internet told them they need to click.
I think this requires more than just a clean UI and broad range of available programs. There needs to be easy to get information for non-technical users about the difference between a linux computer and a windows computer, and likely there needs to be an acknowledgment from distributors of software that their application does/doesn't work on Linux/Windows/Mac etc.
AFAIK it isn't trivial for publishers to put out a Linux binary. A great many games are still made using DirectX. Something Microsoft has been very smart in hording on their OS.
I also think you'd be surprised by the number of people who own legitimate software. TurboTax, quicken, their kids jump start type games, etc.
But that's it. People are resistant to change. Not because change is scary. But because change is difficult. They don't want to put effort into relearning how to use their computer. Much the same way that they don't want to put effort into using their TV or their toaster. The computer is an appliance and they want it to just work, and they don't want to think about it. Really, there isn't anything wrong with that either.
Yes that is a perfect analogy. If the standard user hopped into an F1 car as opposed to their normal sedan, they'd have a hell of a time even figuring out how to put on their steering wheel, much less learning how to shift and how to drive around without killing himself.
Linux has made really huge strides with regards to a cleaner easier to navigate UI that is consistent (as long as you stick with just one). And driver support has been getting better all the time. But there are two issues that I've seen personally that will hold this up.
1) Driver support for new hardware. This isn't eally the fault of the people working on Linux drivers, people are still getting hardware from manufacturers for which there aren't, or aren't yet Linux drivers that just work. We're talking about average users here, so buying open hardware isn't an issue. They don't care. They want the really good deal that was advertised last month, and they're going to buy that one.
2) People are still trying to downplay software support and point to Linux alternatives. Again, people don't care. They have their favorite copy of game/finance/whatever software sitting around and they want to be able to install that.
I think we can hope that people in this community are a little more open to buying hardware that is OSS friendly, and likewise figure out how to use alternative software or get things working under Wine, etc. But there really is nothing wrong with people expecting to use their computer as an appliance. Right now, aside from people who want to use it simply as a web/email machine, or even have someone set it up with several apps and then never change anything, I don't think it's there yet. And it's definitely a catch 22 of whether user adoption brings more manufacturers/developers in line or manufacturers/devs bring users in line.
And in doing so, he isn't paying for the product.
I saw an interesting interview with Bob Lutz within the last several weeks in which he was discussing the Volt. He mentioned the major initiatives of the last few years including Ethanol only, Hydrogen fuel cells, and now EV's. He mentioned that, with the newest venture, the Volt, the problem is the cost of making a system that is feasible in terms of size of the vehicle and range, and balancing that with cost.
They may be using the credit crunch as an excuse. But, right now, there are issues with getting credit. Even solid companies like GE were having issues getting credit to continue operation. Those loans are about as sure as anything, but banks are trying to shore up cash right now, and money is hard to get.
And by "pirate", they mean "go to a third party to get a working version of the game I've rightfully purchased".
I'd like to have a non-industry source do a good in-depth study of this. But the poster to whom I was responding sounded far more like he was going to a third party to get a working version of the game that he had no intent on purchasing. I didn't mention it in this thread, but I don't have a problem with people who torrented say, Spore, after they bought the game. I think we'd all be better off if they simply boycotted it, but they paid for it and I'm fine with that.
I have a problem with the people who didn't buy the game and give DRM as the reason and then act as if their justified in pirating it because the game company did or didn't do X.