...There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
Here's a good lesson in how your own innovation can easily help you shoot yourself in the foot later. Apple could possibly innovate around this, but sadly since they didn't this might make the product hurt their bottom line and not improve it since they don't want to innovate around their own imaginary product boundaries.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation...It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
It's sad how true the article is. This is exactly why you don't any company function as a monopoly over any particular technology regardless of who it is (yes, not just MS). Companies release new products in what they think won't clash with their other products and would benefit themselves primarily and not the benefit of the consumer. You can't really blame the companies -- we'd all do the same thing, but we shouldn't let them choose imaginary limitations just because it might hurt their bottom line. This is a lesson that all companies should learn and as consumers and we, as consumers, would be good to be aware of this in our technology choices!
You think that's bad. Try applying for a job at Google. You get the same email.
Come to think of it, I remember applying for one of the of their moderator positions and the email I got consisted of this:
We received your resume and would like to thank you for your interest in
Google. After carefully reviewing your experience and qualifications, we
have determined that we do not have a position available which is a strong
match at this time.
Thanks again for considering Google. We wish you well in your endeavors
and hope you might consider us again in the future.
Sincerely,
Google Staffing
Funny, it didn't address names or anything... couldn't get much more generic indeed. At least the Google Summer of Code email said my name back!
Yeah, I applied following all application form rules and then two weeks later I recieved a notice saying "thanks for applying, but you have not been selected" with no other unique content and that's all I got all summer. That 'summer' lasted around 4 weeks total for most (oh, 7590+ out of 8000+ applications -- not sure people-wise). Short indeed, yes I understand there were 8000+ apps but the short response back from Google in 1 email could have at least said something as to why, they obviously thought about it...wouldn't it have been a simple cut-and-paste? Obviously this isn't going to be easy for students who have at least 1 school semester in the summer as part of their program, assuming this happens again next summer.
An anonymous reader wrote to mention a BBC story about a UK research group that has been given permission to create a human embryo with genetic material from two women..."The groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies."
Then some "genius" will say let's mix the sperm of two men so that they can, "prevent fathers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies." Whether this works or not, the conclusion will be 4 people to raise one kid, or at least cause the bith?! I don't know about you but that sounds kind sick to me. Fact is, women aren't the only ones that pass on such diseases so that alone would only solve half the equation -- if any.
The original source was the original source was APCStart as noted in the article. From the article:
"Amusingly, Page admits that there are no monitors out there that will do HDCP, and that this is a problem. Frankly, it's the consumer's problem, however, according to him. "It's up to you [the users] to say, 'Where's my HDCP?'"
I'm more inclined to say to Hollywood 'Hey, STFU' to be honest.
One of the major problems is that Hollywood knows that Microsoft dominates the operating system sphere, and so it can arm-wrestle MS into working with it. If there was more competition, Hollywood would have to be a little more cautious about what it tries to get away with."
No Page, it's up to me, as a consumer, to say if I want that to be a requirement and not simply something optional, not the all-knowing all-seeing industry. This is a classic example of industry telling the consumer to play by their rules with a requirement of using their technology for their benefit...not for the consumer. This also shows the industry's arrogance in tabbing on needless requirements for their personal gain. Not all consumers can afford buying a brand new monitor just to see HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content on their PC because the software maker says so. I have a hard time seeing how this requirement only hurts pirates. For example, WPA in Windows XP affects pirate and consumer alike.
This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Yay.
Finally something we can't blame MS for:(... Come to think of it, this kinda reminds of the NGSCB (aka 'Palladium') attempt...oh wait it wasn't cancelled completely?!
NGSCB Update Someone smell a conspiracy?!
The obvious answer is of course : Send all those thousand employees an Gmail invite !
So, you have 1,000 invites in your Gmail?! I have a Gmail but that's really amazing! I only got 100 invites even though the number was increased it's still 10x less then you suggest. Or did you mean invite 100 people expecting they'd invite 1 of the other people in the company?...Swell idea, but how are you going to keep track of who was invited and who wasn't?! After all that I think your best doing the solution yourself:)
I'm trying to figure out why the China Internet Network Information Center choose CNNIC as their acronym;)
Yes, what a confusing acronym, that could easily be confused with:
CNN International China
CNN International Center
CNN Information Center
You'd almost wonder if China was breaking some international copyright law...but if they don't care about RIAA I think that'd be the least of their worries anyways:) Considering the size of their army (biggest in the world?!) I would go with the statement, "Don't mess with China!" even if I was some copyright dude that felt I deserved "compensation".
On another note, they probably didn't want to confuse CINIC (forwards) with CINIC (backwards).
I agree, but let's not forget about Cormack and the Doom series that uses OpenGL!
Q: Is the Doom 3 engine OpenGL or DirectX?
A: The Doom 3 engine is Open GL.
Source
I'm not a "mac-head" but here's a flash from the past. The poorer the support in Windows for OpenGL the more likely Microsoft will lose out to Doom Legacy and equivalent ports of OpenGL software. Does Microsoft want to be a victim today, in future or never? (that might make a good slogan for anti-MS company).
quit downloading crap off of kazaa/grokster/morpheous/etc
Use a P2P program that actually includes some 'anti-junk" features. I typically use Shareaza (probably not the best, and I'm sure someone will state a better P2P but the points still remains, Shareaza does offer some features these clients do not -- including a rating/comment system that goes with the file whenever anyone finds a search result for it). Usually I know if the file is a fake before I download because I use some obvious signs:
How many sources have this file? (more can be just as suspicious as legitimate
Is the file size relatively the same to one fake file I already downloaded? (yes, sometimes they are just copies with different names)?
What kind of comments/ratings does the file have when I select it in the search list? (of course this could be a little flaky if the 'junk spreader' decided to positively review the file)
I prefer the client program including these features, especially when it's available to connect to several networks at the same time. Nothing worse then getting a 100MB+ file and realizing you wasted the bandwidth for not, or the program you downloaded wasn't the same as the file name (more legit, but not what you were looking for).
Do be careful because some files that are really a virus can be detected by AV as 'ok'. Thankfully I found the virus before it did much damage and by reading the Symantec AV report I was able to make sure I removed it completely. Just because one 'setup.exe' claims to be a setup program don't trust it unless you trust the name of the setup program -- "Program Setup Wizard" does not cut it!
Since Shareaza also supports torrents I usually go through torrent sites and have rarely had any 'junk' files from the torrents. The more junk the RIAA (and other companies!) try to spread the better we get at ignoring and working around it!
In fact, I think I'll take it a step further and boycott Windows as well.
You could do that, but why? Windows supports standards (unlike IE)! Obviously it's gotta be a 'standard' if it's used by so many people/organizations/companies. So yes Windows is a standard -- unlike MSIE.
I don't trust old people with driving none-the-less built in computer suit.
I think there other issues such as what happens if they have a medical condition (or otherwise) that could lead them to strike out at others? Arm then you give them a warrant to do anything -- provided you don't stop them as soon as they start doing things they shouldn't.
Obviously this could happen regardless of age but can be more common as our bodies break down (i.e. where being elderly comes in). The theory seems sound until you realize the implications of putting such a system in place in practice.
Now that I think about it, the "armor" could also be controlled by someone else should certain unfavourable conditions be met. This could actually be a very good idea, just don't let control get into the wrong hands.
The issue has come to the fore in part because of comments made this month by internal Microsoft recruiter Gretchen Ledgard, who blasted some of her company's managers as "entitled, spoiled whiners" who assume that everyone wants to work for Microsoft.
Unfortunately typical of a company that is and/or thinks like a monopoly. There isn't very good business practice in just being arrogant (in the midst of well-known bugs in your own software especially!) and I don't think I know anyone who would want to work for a company that behaved in such a way -- not a professional image I'd want to be associated with!
Among the charges leveled at Gates, Ballmer and crew: Job candidates have been turned off by Microsoft arrogance...But he is one of many observers within and outside of Redmond who's raising questions about the way the company recruits and retains its work force
Reading the article reminded me of what I've heard about Google employees. I can't see Google leaving much room to be arrogant when they allow their employees to spend part of their work time on their own personal projects. I certainly don't hear this about Google and I think they are very good reasons why.
Of course, Microsoft, which is seeking to defend its turf in operating systems while expanding into newer areas such as desktop search, isn't alone in facing a tougher climate when it comes to competing for employees.
When you've got Desktop Search really being pioneered by Google in addition to their excellent search engine I'm sure if I was choosing a company to develop for I'd be choosing the one that was doing well from the get-go regardless of who was around longer. I'd rather go on with company that does real innovation and I'm sure that's why all these other individuals aren't signing on board.
...just try implementing it with no-bugs and no round-about way in.
The solution will alleviate network bottlenecks caused by illegal music downloads will enable colleges to use Dell blade servers on campus to store music from Napster's library locally. This will allow network processing speed to remain fast while hundreds of students simultaneously download digital music.
Hmmm? Looks like the schools will be paying to maintain the hard drives themselves (since it doesn't clearly specify who's paying for the servers) and are only really offered the service to host Napster's collection. The solution looks good for Dell and Napster, they can profit off of the school hosting the files for them just using internal network bandwidth. How exactly does this save bandwidth (maybe on the internet but internally bandwidth is still used)?!
A download is still a download, it's just that in this case the download comes from within the network instead of outside the network -- bandwidth is still used.
He says schools want a way to minimize the impact of music downloads on their networks and encourage students to shift toward legal downloads.
Until some student hacks into the system and spreads the leak to their friends and instead of downloading through the internet they'd get it from the internal network -- internal P2P! I suppose in this case the students could claim the downloads were 'legal' even if they used a hack to access them.
Dell and Napster are signing themselves up for a lot of work here, seems very similar to gambling to me, because they have their reputation on the line but on the other side of the coin...profit!
It's a nice idea but it suffers from a common implementation flaw (like attempts at forcing the CD to be inserted to run an application), if there's a legitimate way in someone will sniff it enough to make their own way in to the data.
On top of that, the executive's warnings are completely unfounded. IE still takes up most of the browser market, and how many average users who happen to have tried Firefox would even know that it supports extensions, much less even know that Adblock exists?
Dude I don't know how much you know about MSIE but it sounds like you know nothing about !path to windows!\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file. MSIE checks through this file everytime IE runs (incidently this works for all other web browsers on Windows systems, even Firefox) because it occurs on the network level. Here's an entry that you can use as a test.
127.0.0.1 www.microsoft.com
This entry redirects calls that would normally go www.microsoft.com to instead look on the 127.0.0.1 (which corresponds to localhost -- the computer you are currently using to web browse). Assuming you don't run a webserver on the same computer, you will see a "This page can not be displayed" 100% of the time. To block ads you would just re-route any site that you know displays ads by adding an entry to this file: using 127.0.0.1 as the IP and after pushing tab once enter the domain name that you want to block, and enter to add another entry. Now isn't that easy! You can have your cake and still eat it with MSIE!
Now you can safely say that your blog is helping someone else get rich with no requirement to remember you in the credits! I would definitely say this is a rights issue.
Imagine some company reverse engineer a number of different software programs (word processors for example) to find similarities between codebases -- how is that any different? What I write in my web blog is my IP just as that code is the company that packaged their code into a product. I think we can honestly say this service doesn't care where they pull the information from (although it would be hard to keep track of it all of it, but that's only a side issue). Isn't this the basis of copyright -- credits and permission?!
Well at least recieving spam can inflate your popularity like nothing else can. You don't have to cool or in the lastest fashions you can just simply advertise how much email you get in a day. All you need to do is let the world see your email address or the domain name that your email address runs on and then you can compete with others for web popularity.
Maybe we all look at this the wrong way? Maybe the SPAM is meant to help us increase our self-esteem? I know it sounds crazy but you know advertising people always have our best interests at heart.
Hey you got spare time?! Why not spend it cleaning out your 1000 email inbox daily?! At least you don't have to visit websites to get this information they feed it directly to your inbox! Who ever said being popular would be easy...
"Hey Bob I got 10,000 emails today."
"Geez Eric that's not fair I only got 1,000 I must be doing something wrong."
Why separate when your doing well in Canada?! This would definitely quench the separatist spirit (with a few/dozen games for the record[s])! More games from Canada, sounds like a plan to me!
I've played the Matrix game and if the online version improves on the gameplay I wouldn't doubt it being a great sell. Personally I think the MMORPG would live up to its promise. The game was awesome so this would probably be the one I'd be most interested in hearing about features and map size.
http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/ through http://validator.w3.org/ and got at least 1 error with the conclusion being, "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!" Certainly not valid HTML Strict.
CSS
Ran the URL through the CSS validator and got an error returned:
Errors
URI : http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/
Line: 7
Uncaught error java.lang.NullPointerException
Additionally, I don't see any mention of the service being in beta, like Google tends to do with all their service offerings. MSN Search should either say they are beta or they lie (not like this wasn't the first time they lied).
This is indeed good news! Security that is solely-based on software is far easier to compromise than hardware-based (provided that the hardware can't be tampered with by malicious software). Far better to have the security co-ordinated between both. I'd be interested to see how widely accepted this open specification will be.
I think you're on crack that you would even guess Longhorn is that expensive
LOL so you gonna tell me that XP Pro costs $330 retail (even that is generous)? So you smoke crack and figure I do...wow your very lame all your comments are based on put-downs saying I'm right and your wrong -- just like a 4 year old kid. I fail to see how anyone can carry a decent conversation on with you, you must live under a rock -- social skills of 0. You even fail to understand that $800 was a ballpark guess making the assumption that it was fact when it isn't even out yet (ignorance on your part)!!!
Carry on your little "competition" but I will no longer respond to your ignorance of a 4 year old, either grow up or find a website tailored to your little "competitions" and "selective" reading of people's statements so that you can talk them down. You certainly don't advance society you would rather drag it down to the gutter -- and I hate to say it but it's true from all your previous posts. You must be a high-up in MS to defend them so strongly -- their pricey scheme is entirely retarded but you don't want to see it with your "selective" view. Thanks for dragging my 3 statements of truth into a useless argument because you want to be right and everyone else wrong! I've had my fill of your ignorance and learn to grow up.
Ok fine, even if I accepted everything you say here at face value (which I don't) MICROSOFT IS GIVING THINGS AWAY. That is all I was saying after you said they never gave anything away.
Misinterpretation, I didn't say they didn't give anyway anything, I said they didn't give anything that wasn't somehow directly related to one of their products (i.e. IE inreversibly built-in to Windows 98 and up) and their control over what must be present on a Windows box. Look at DRM, how about WMP? If I was a monopoly and wanted to control the user I'd give stuff like this too then I'd mix in some Palladium to ensure only stuff I support can run on my OS -- paradise for a monopoly!
I still don't understand your points--WHAT commercial selling of patches? MS makes every patch available for free! That's my point!
I am referring to the new Longhorn network and graphics (Avalon) interfaces as patches, we don't even know if they are free yet, and if Longhorn will cost $800 (Assuming from the rising prices of new MS OSes -- a continual rise) how can we assume those patches (network and graphics) will be free for XP and 2003, MS wants to make more money yearly and free upgrades to new OS has never been in their past so how can it be in their future? Perhaps it will be like Windows XP Upgrade -- a reduced amount but I am certain they will charge something to convince people to buy Longhorn instead of a simple upgrade.
So you don't get confused, Avalon and the network interface for Longhorn that will be available for Windows XP and 2003 will not be "absolutely free" just like Windows XP Upgrade isn't.
Again, this just doesn't make sense. Microsoft has repeatedly given things away to advance their products--every service pack ever as I showed in my last email. Internet Explorer!
Wow, they give it away so freely -- built right into the OS so you can never fully remove it. I think you mean maintain control over your computer -- not giving full control to the user (The whole point of a PC, but not according to MS). You certainly don't have your facts there and/or are ignorant of the truth. Why do you think the EU is trying to sue MS? Maybe you never heard about it...
Well as I said, I've upgraded about 20 XP boxes to SP1 and SP2 (and those are of course legit--I don't pirate), and haven't had a single application or box break
Did you try it on every PC in the world? Guess not, so in essence, your saying if I polled 200 people about their views on a particular subject then I can automatically assume that the majority among them is true among everyone in the world?! Ignorance...
I hope that satisfies your dick measuring competition.
Actually I was stating fact, you were the one that made it into a competition. I hope you enjoyed making a fool out of yourself by turning it into a "competition". Unlike you, I'd rather stick with the facts. My whole statement has to do with commercial selling of the patches not XP SP breaks this -- that's a side point but you'd rather use that to satisfy your desire for "competition".
Moridineas, perhaps I offended you in a previous life, why else would you try to tell me I was making something into a competition when it was secretly you?
I have no idea how you missed what I was saying; however, care to let me explain. I am not saying anything about SP1 for XP costing money, I'm simply making a comparison where XP SP1 broke machines which also makes it likely for these upgrades that allow XP to function like Longhorn.
As I said in the first sentence, MS is not a company that gives things away for free -- unless it profits their products (i.e. "free" developer tools for overpriced dev products -- wow so "free"). Why would they willing allow XP to be upgraded to Avalon, etc. without cost to consumer? They want to sell Longhorn not simply allow people to upgrade for free (i.e. Is Office 2000 free to Office '97 users?!). Think it through man -- I did. MS has a whole history it's not like they didn't burn people with this stuff before...
You haven't heard of SP1 break machines? I have -- legit copies too, you probably don't deal with as many XP users as I do and those who have broken their Windows machines probably moved to Linux so you don't hear their compliants -- or they just live without SP1 after a rebuild (that's what you do, MS won't reimburse you so complaining doesn't fix anything)...
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
...There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
Here's a good lesson in how your own innovation can easily help you shoot yourself in the foot later. Apple could possibly innovate around this, but sadly since they didn't this might make the product hurt their bottom line and not improve it since they don't want to innovate around their own imaginary product boundaries.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation...It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
It's sad how true the article is. This is exactly why you don't any company function as a monopoly over any particular technology regardless of who it is (yes, not just MS). Companies release new products in what they think won't clash with their other products and would benefit themselves primarily and not the benefit of the consumer. You can't really blame the companies -- we'd all do the same thing, but we shouldn't let them choose imaginary limitations just because it might hurt their bottom line. This is a lesson that all companies should learn and as consumers and we, as consumers, would be good to be aware of this in our technology choices!
You think that's bad. Try applying for a job at Google. You get the same email.
... couldn't get much more generic indeed. At least the Google Summer of Code email said my name back!
Come to think of it, I remember applying for one of the of their moderator positions and the email I got consisted of this:
We received your resume and would like to thank you for your interest in Google. After carefully reviewing your experience and qualifications, we have determined that we do not have a position available which is a strong match at this time.
Thanks again for considering Google. We wish you well in your endeavors and hope you might consider us again in the future.
Sincerely,
Google Staffing
Funny, it didn't address names or anything
Yeah, I applied following all application form rules and then two weeks later I recieved a notice saying "thanks for applying, but you have not been selected" with no other unique content and that's all I got all summer. That 'summer' lasted around 4 weeks total for most (oh, 7590+ out of 8000+ applications -- not sure people-wise). Short indeed, yes I understand there were 8000+ apps but the short response back from Google in 1 email could have at least said something as to why, they obviously thought about it...wouldn't it have been a simple cut-and-paste? Obviously this isn't going to be easy for students who have at least 1 school semester in the summer as part of their program, assuming this happens again next summer.
An anonymous reader wrote to mention a BBC story about a UK research group that has been given permission to create a human embryo with genetic material from two women..."The groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies."
Then some "genius" will say let's mix the sperm of two men so that they can, "prevent fathers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies." Whether this works or not, the conclusion will be 4 people to raise one kid, or at least cause the bith?! I don't know about you but that sounds kind sick to me. Fact is, women aren't the only ones that pass on such diseases so that alone would only solve half the equation -- if any.
The original source was the original source was APCStart as noted in the article. From the article:
:( ... Come to think of it, this kinda reminds of the NGSCB (aka 'Palladium') attempt...oh wait it wasn't cancelled completely?!
NGSCB Update Someone smell a conspiracy?!
"Amusingly, Page admits that there are no monitors out there that will do HDCP, and that this is a problem. Frankly, it's the consumer's problem, however, according to him. "It's up to you [the users] to say, 'Where's my HDCP?'"
I'm more inclined to say to Hollywood 'Hey, STFU' to be honest.
One of the major problems is that Hollywood knows that Microsoft dominates the operating system sphere, and so it can arm-wrestle MS into working with it. If there was more competition, Hollywood would have to be a little more cautious about what it tries to get away with."
No Page, it's up to me, as a consumer, to say if I want that to be a requirement and not simply something optional, not the all-knowing all-seeing industry. This is a classic example of industry telling the consumer to play by their rules with a requirement of using their technology for their benefit...not for the consumer. This also shows the industry's arrogance in tabbing on needless requirements for their personal gain. Not all consumers can afford buying a brand new monitor just to see HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content on their PC because the software maker says so. I have a hard time seeing how this requirement only hurts pirates. For example, WPA in Windows XP affects pirate and consumer alike.
This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Yay.
Finally something we can't blame MS for
The obvious answer is of course : Send all those thousand employees an Gmail invite !
:)
So, you have 1,000 invites in your Gmail?! I have a Gmail but that's really amazing! I only got 100 invites even though the number was increased it's still 10x less then you suggest. Or did you mean invite 100 people expecting they'd invite 1 of the other people in the company?...Swell idea, but how are you going to keep track of who was invited and who wasn't?! After all that I think your best doing the solution yourself
Yes, what a confusing acronym, that could easily be confused with:
- CNN International China
- CNN International Center
- CNN Information Center
You'd almost wonder if China was breaking some international copyright law...but if they don't care about RIAA I think that'd be the least of their worries anywaysOn another note, they probably didn't want to confuse CINIC (forwards) with CINIC (backwards).
I agree, but let's not forget about Cormack and the Doom series that uses OpenGL!
Q: Is the Doom 3 engine OpenGL or DirectX?A: The Doom 3 engine is Open GL.
Source
I'm not a "mac-head" but here's a flash from the past. The poorer the support in Windows for OpenGL the more likely Microsoft will lose out to Doom Legacy and equivalent ports of OpenGL software. Does Microsoft want to be a victim today, in future or never? (that might make a good slogan for anti-MS company).
Use a P2P program that actually includes some 'anti-junk" features. I typically use Shareaza (probably not the best, and I'm sure someone will state a better P2P but the points still remains, Shareaza does offer some features these clients do not -- including a rating/comment system that goes with the file whenever anyone finds a search result for it). Usually I know if the file is a fake before I download because I use some obvious signs:
I prefer the client program including these features, especially when it's available to connect to several networks at the same time. Nothing worse then getting a 100MB+ file and realizing you wasted the bandwidth for not, or the program you downloaded wasn't the same as the file name (more legit, but not what you were looking for).
Do be careful because some files that are really a virus can be detected by AV as 'ok'. Thankfully I found the virus before it did much damage and by reading the Symantec AV report I was able to make sure I removed it completely. Just because one 'setup.exe' claims to be a setup program don't trust it unless you trust the name of the setup program -- "Program Setup Wizard" does not cut it!
Since Shareaza also supports torrents I usually go through torrent sites and have rarely had any 'junk' files from the torrents. The more junk the RIAA (and other companies!) try to spread the better we get at ignoring and working around it!
You could do that, but why? Windows supports standards (unlike IE)! Obviously it's gotta be a 'standard' if it's used by so many people/organizations/companies. So yes Windows is a standard -- unlike MSIE.
I don't trust old people with driving none-the-less built in computer suit.
I think there other issues such as what happens if they have a medical condition (or otherwise) that could lead them to strike out at others? Arm then you give them a warrant to do anything -- provided you don't stop them as soon as they start doing things they shouldn't.
Obviously this could happen regardless of age but can be more common as our bodies break down (i.e. where being elderly comes in). The theory seems sound until you realize the implications of putting such a system in place in practice.
Now that I think about it, the "armor" could also be controlled by someone else should certain unfavourable conditions be met. This could actually be a very good idea, just don't let control get into the wrong hands.
The issue has come to the fore in part because of comments made this month by internal Microsoft recruiter Gretchen Ledgard, who blasted some of her company's managers as "entitled, spoiled whiners" who assume that everyone wants to work for Microsoft.
Unfortunately typical of a company that is and/or thinks like a monopoly. There isn't very good business practice in just being arrogant (in the midst of well-known bugs in your own software especially!) and I don't think I know anyone who would want to work for a company that behaved in such a way -- not a professional image I'd want to be associated with!
Among the charges leveled at Gates, Ballmer and crew: Job candidates have been turned off by Microsoft arrogance...But he is one of many observers within and outside of Redmond who's raising questions about the way the company recruits and retains its work force
Reading the article reminded me of what I've heard about Google employees. I can't see Google leaving much room to be arrogant when they allow their employees to spend part of their work time on their own personal projects. I certainly don't hear this about Google and I think they are very good reasons why.
Of course, Microsoft, which is seeking to defend its turf in operating systems while expanding into newer areas such as desktop search, isn't alone in facing a tougher climate when it comes to competing for employees.
When you've got Desktop Search really being pioneered by Google in addition to their excellent search engine I'm sure if I was choosing a company to develop for I'd be choosing the one that was doing well from the get-go regardless of who was around longer. I'd rather go on with company that does real innovation and I'm sure that's why all these other individuals aren't signing on board.
...just try implementing it with no-bugs and no round-about way in. The solution will alleviate network bottlenecks caused by illegal music downloads will enable colleges to use Dell blade servers on campus to store music from Napster's library locally. This will allow network processing speed to remain fast while hundreds of students simultaneously download digital music.
Hmmm? Looks like the schools will be paying to maintain the hard drives themselves (since it doesn't clearly specify who's paying for the servers) and are only really offered the service to host Napster's collection. The solution looks good for Dell and Napster, they can profit off of the school hosting the files for them just using internal network bandwidth. How exactly does this save bandwidth (maybe on the internet but internally bandwidth is still used)?!
A download is still a download, it's just that in this case the download comes from within the network instead of outside the network -- bandwidth is still used.
He says schools want a way to minimize the impact of music downloads on their networks and encourage students to shift toward legal downloads.
Until some student hacks into the system and spreads the leak to their friends and instead of downloading through the internet they'd get it from the internal network -- internal P2P! I suppose in this case the students could claim the downloads were 'legal' even if they used a hack to access them.
Dell and Napster are signing themselves up for a lot of work here, seems very similar to gambling to me, because they have their reputation on the line but on the other side of the coin...profit!
It's a nice idea but it suffers from a common implementation flaw (like attempts at forcing the CD to be inserted to run an application), if there's a legitimate way in someone will sniff it enough to make their own way in to the data.
On top of that, the executive's warnings are completely unfounded. IE still takes up most of the browser market, and how many average users who happen to have tried Firefox would even know that it supports extensions, much less even know that Adblock exists?
Dude I don't know how much you know about MSIE but it sounds like you know nothing about !path to windows!\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file. MSIE checks through this file everytime IE runs (incidently this works for all other web browsers on Windows systems, even Firefox) because it occurs on the network level. Here's an entry that you can use as a test.
127.0.0.1 www.microsoft.com
This entry redirects calls that would normally go www.microsoft.com to instead look on the 127.0.0.1 (which corresponds to localhost -- the computer you are currently using to web browse). Assuming you don't run a webserver on the same computer, you will see a "This page can not be displayed" 100% of the time. To block ads you would just re-route any site that you know displays ads by adding an entry to this file: using 127.0.0.1 as the IP and after pushing tab once enter the domain name that you want to block, and enter to add another entry. Now isn't that easy! You can have your cake and still eat it with MSIE!
Now you can safely say that your blog is helping someone else get rich with no requirement to remember you in the credits! I would definitely say this is a rights issue.
Imagine some company reverse engineer a number of different software programs (word processors for example) to find similarities between codebases -- how is that any different? What I write in my web blog is my IP just as that code is the company that packaged their code into a product. I think we can honestly say this service doesn't care where they pull the information from (although it would be hard to keep track of it all of it, but that's only a side issue). Isn't this the basis of copyright -- credits and permission?!
I think the obsolution of C++ and the NULL pointer should be added to this list -- we wouldn't get any work done without both of them!
Well at least recieving spam can inflate your popularity like nothing else can. You don't have to cool or in the lastest fashions you can just simply advertise how much email you get in a day. All you need to do is let the world see your email address or the domain name that your email address runs on and then you can compete with others for web popularity.
Maybe we all look at this the wrong way? Maybe the SPAM is meant to help us increase our self-esteem? I know it sounds crazy but you know advertising people always have our best interests at heart.
Hey you got spare time?! Why not spend it cleaning out your 1000 email inbox daily?! At least you don't have to visit websites to get this information they feed it directly to your inbox! Who ever said being popular would be easy...
"Hey Bob I got 10,000 emails today."
"Geez Eric that's not fair I only got 1,000 I must be doing something wrong."
Why separate when your doing well in Canada?! This would definitely quench the separatist spirit (with a few/dozen games for the record[s])! More games from Canada, sounds like a plan to me!
I've played the Matrix game and if the online version improves on the gameplay I wouldn't doubt it being a great sell. Personally I think the MMORPG would live up to its promise. The game was awesome so this would probably be the one I'd be most interested in hearing about features and map size.
XHTML Strict? Don't think so I ran:
HTML Stricthttp://search.sympatico.msn.ca/ through http://validator.w3.org/ and got at least 1 error with the conclusion being, "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!" Certainly not valid HTML Strict.
CSSRan the URL through the CSS validator and got an error returned:
Errors URI : http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/ Line: 7 Uncaught error java.lang.NullPointerExceptionAdditionally, I don't see any mention of the service being in beta, like Google tends to do with all their service offerings. MSN Search should either say they are beta or they lie (not like this wasn't the first time they lied).
This is indeed good news! Security that is solely-based on software is far easier to compromise than hardware-based (provided that the hardware can't be tampered with by malicious software). Far better to have the security co-ordinated between both. I'd be interested to see how widely accepted this open specification will be.
Start MoridineasChat
I think you're on crack that you would even guess Longhorn is that expensive
LOL so you gonna tell me that XP Pro costs $330 retail (even that is generous)? So you smoke crack and figure I do...wow your very lame all your comments are based on put-downs saying I'm right and your wrong -- just like a 4 year old kid. I fail to see how anyone can carry a decent conversation on with you, you must live under a rock -- social skills of 0. You even fail to understand that $800 was a ballpark guess making the assumption that it was fact when it isn't even out yet (ignorance on your part)!!!
Carry on your little "competition" but I will no longer respond to your ignorance of a 4 year old, either grow up or find a website tailored to your little "competitions" and "selective" reading of people's statements so that you can talk them down. You certainly don't advance society you would rather drag it down to the gutter -- and I hate to say it but it's true from all your previous posts. You must be a high-up in MS to defend them so strongly -- their pricey scheme is entirely retarded but you don't want to see it with your "selective" view. Thanks for dragging my 3 statements of truth into a useless argument because you want to be right and everyone else wrong! I've had my fill of your ignorance and learn to grow up.
END MoridineasChat
Ok fine, even if I accepted everything you say here at face value (which I don't) MICROSOFT IS GIVING THINGS AWAY. That is all I was saying after you said they never gave anything away.
Misinterpretation, I didn't say they didn't give anyway anything, I said they didn't give anything that wasn't somehow directly related to one of their products (i.e. IE inreversibly built-in to Windows 98 and up) and their control over what must be present on a Windows box. Look at DRM, how about WMP? If I was a monopoly and wanted to control the user I'd give stuff like this too then I'd mix in some Palladium to ensure only stuff I support can run on my OS -- paradise for a monopoly!
I still don't understand your points--WHAT commercial selling of patches? MS makes every patch available for free! That's my point!
I am referring to the new Longhorn network and graphics (Avalon) interfaces as patches, we don't even know if they are free yet, and if Longhorn will cost $800 (Assuming from the rising prices of new MS OSes -- a continual rise) how can we assume those patches (network and graphics) will be free for XP and 2003, MS wants to make more money yearly and free upgrades to new OS has never been in their past so how can it be in their future? Perhaps it will be like Windows XP Upgrade -- a reduced amount but I am certain they will charge something to convince people to buy Longhorn instead of a simple upgrade.
So you don't get confused, Avalon and the network interface for Longhorn that will be available for Windows XP and 2003 will not be "absolutely free" just like Windows XP Upgrade isn't.
Again, this just doesn't make sense. Microsoft has repeatedly given things away to advance their products--every service pack ever as I showed in my last email. Internet Explorer!
Wow, they give it away so freely -- built right into the OS so you can never fully remove it. I think you mean maintain control over your computer -- not giving full control to the user (The whole point of a PC, but not according to MS). You certainly don't have your facts there and/or are ignorant of the truth. Why do you think the EU is trying to sue MS? Maybe you never heard about it...
Well as I said, I've upgraded about 20 XP boxes to SP1 and SP2 (and those are of course legit--I don't pirate), and haven't had a single application or box break
Did you try it on every PC in the world? Guess not, so in essence, your saying if I polled 200 people about their views on a particular subject then I can automatically assume that the majority among them is true among everyone in the world?! Ignorance...
I hope that satisfies your dick measuring competition.
Actually I was stating fact, you were the one that made it into a competition. I hope you enjoyed making a fool out of yourself by turning it into a "competition". Unlike you, I'd rather stick with the facts. My whole statement has to do with commercial selling of the patches not XP SP breaks this -- that's a side point but you'd rather use that to satisfy your desire for "competition".
Moridineas, perhaps I offended you in a previous life, why else would you try to tell me I was making something into a competition when it was secretly you?
I have no idea how you missed what I was saying; however, care to let me explain. I am not saying anything about SP1 for XP costing money, I'm simply making a comparison where XP SP1 broke machines which also makes it likely for these upgrades that allow XP to function like Longhorn.
As I said in the first sentence, MS is not a company that gives things away for free -- unless it profits their products (i.e. "free" developer tools for overpriced dev products -- wow so "free"). Why would they willing allow XP to be upgraded to Avalon, etc. without cost to consumer? They want to sell Longhorn not simply allow people to upgrade for free (i.e. Is Office 2000 free to Office '97 users?!). Think it through man -- I did. MS has a whole history it's not like they didn't burn people with this stuff before...
You haven't heard of SP1 break machines? I have -- legit copies too, you probably don't deal with as many XP users as I do and those who have broken their Windows machines probably moved to Linux so you don't hear their compliants -- or they just live without SP1 after a rebuild (that's what you do, MS won't reimburse you so complaining doesn't fix anything)...