It's quite funny actually. They talk about technology eroding canadian culture but where do prominent canadian artists go to tour/work? In the United States, where we create laws that favor the US and disfavor Canada on culture and copyright, etc. Yet Canada has bent over backwards to the US when a dollar sign carrot was put in front of them in order to kill their own culture. In fact, signing DMCA-like laws in Canada has worked faster to kill culture than even the consumers could do themselves. So much for protecting your own country's integrity, huh.
I agree with you, this is substantial. The ability to have no megabytes of "cache" but instead gigabytes, depending on how it's used, could be very very substantial.
I could see this going many ways, including basically the equivalent of having a "Socket type" for the ram - drop in and upgrade as necessary. Even with the significant latency differences versus various levels of on-die cache this can be very significant.
how about that on a basic level, you don't try to have a consistent interface between portable devices and desktops/laptops. That's just a no, and a bad idea.
Granted you can turn off metro, but even approaching this idea in 2011-2012 when it clearly has been demonstrated by the market to be an unconditionally horrible idea and to go ahead with it anyway? Is this really a hard thing to figure out?
Even for "android on laptops" via chromebooks, you don't have them setting it up as the exact same interface all around. That and nobody fn cares about windows 8. They can use android dollars to continually revise the project but if the starting point is the metro UI then they've already got one foot in the grave.
Dont' think for a second the internet won't outrage if SOPA/PIPA is attached to *Anything*. In fact, I suspect them doing this as soon as the media stops trying to stifle the issue (as Time Warner owns CNN for example - see the article with Lamar smith that says "Editor's note: Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is among the industry supporters of the legislation.").
It means that Microsoft has provided the government (not just NSA) for their perusal all of their encryption (and decryption) keys for windows - so information can be readily decoded at the OS level even if you use bitlocker or other full-disk encryption solutions, and that this has been going on since Windows XP.
they didn't provide a crack to the encryption for the entire operating system.
So yeah, I'd consider that a security feature.
Do we have to go through this every time someone mistakenly believes that windows somehow has more features and capabilities than every other enterprise solution?
There is tons wrong with anti-piracy efforts, starting with "how congress defines antipiracy is flat out dishonest".
If I call antipiracy "you making more money than me", then no matter how you try to explain it away, the entire situation is both intellectually and factually dishonest. Considering that's not a stretch from what the RIAA is doing (they see it as their $$ streams are simply not going to them which they feel entitled to).
There should not be an attempt to "hinder piracy" in any way, because doing so will contradict your very second sentence:
Those efforts, however, shouldn't undermine technological infrastructure
. There is no way around that, and thus your entire point is not only misleading and contradictory, but entirely moot. In fact, acting like piracy is something you can fight, treating piracy like a zero sum game is the exact definition of not understanding anything technology, piracy, copyright, or freedom of speech. Please go away.
Windows is only vaguely secure when you keep it entirely, 100% stock. This is not a realistic situation for any company and thus, doesn't exist.
The second you add anything third party which is out of their control, security goes out the window.
On other operating systems, adding third party programs don't compromise the entire setup like that. So in reality, windows is no more secure than ever since it still gives users the ability to compromise security. Not to say that anyone else is better off, but to act like windows is more secure than it used to be is to be blatantly dishonest to compare to things like the NSA loophole, FIPS loophole, and other government backdoors (such as the ones Microsoft gave themselves) which continue to exist as ways for people to crack into a windows system.
The worst part is trying to tell people they're secure.
First off, we know you're a shill. Second off, microsoft owns zero of the technology they have patented, nor have they even developed it. A patent does not correlate to either a: having researched the technology or b: having developed it. The real good stuff they do isn't patented at all, and they keep it private and confidential for a reason. It's not like they dont' do research, it's just that it isn't tied to the patents.
It only correlates to c: the USPTO provided them monopoly privilege over alleged technology which probably has already been implemented and patented elsewhere (even by microsoft themselves).
Oh and it does correlate to d: they're using the patent exortion to further their R&D, thus making the DOJ ever closer to being ready to throw even more antitrust claims at Microsoft.
do you understand the difference between botnets and *botnet owners?* I didn't say botnets.
The one I mention actually matters, the other (having botnet data by itself) doesn't mean much unless you have a script kiddie maintaining the botnet who doesn't know what they're doing.
Not to sideline the reality of this being very questionable, or how this has nothing to do with botnet owners right? Please stop the shillposts and work for someone other than MS. even having you on enemy isn't enough.
Of course. This is the "marketing" and hype part of the process: announcing the product months before it's even available.
Intel really really hopes they can enter this strongly, the reality is that the atom processors are not going to compete well with android as they aren't even going to be compatible with apps out the door (as apps aren't all programmed for x86).
Had Intel actually used the arm license they themselves purchased, that would have been a wiser decision.
Why is it part of any political spectrum? what kind of a US centric shitpost is that? I'd say the doomsday clock is significant at doing what it does for the reasons it does, which are not at all political.
How about the fact that the world is generally on a decline? Economies falling due to greed and corruption, change being stifled, advancing our society via positive means being directly subverted by greed. That isn't part of $political-stance and is a part of that is that being on a decline long enough does equal significant military outcomes of negative effect.
While it is labeled as doomsday, it is a honest enough indicator of "how's the world doing overall?".
Yep, I've noticed the slant. All you gotta do is mark him enemy, watch the FUD spew, ignore and move on. Hell, his post history matches what you say and it's relatively new.
I guess MS must be a bit bored with the last astroturfer.
If they did badly, let it shine on them in court. If they didn't, let it shine on them in court.
Why are you trying to make it sound like we demonize Microsoft when we have facts that prove (as opposed to a fake claim in an antitrust case from someone convicted of antitrust) that microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust?
Also, how is google a monopoly over anything? How hard is it to go to www.bing.com instead of www.google.com? What prevents you?
People would certainly like that to be the case, but that is not reality.
Just because laws have not been clearly defined (aka the internet as a whole), doesn't mean you have no rights - it simply means they are not defined.
Overall, many nations including the US are finding that you have quite a lot of rights on the internet - in fact, SOPA is an attack on them. It doesn't mean you don't have them, and if you think so, it just proves you don't know what rights you have.
since when does selling out security not fall under "lack of ethics"?
There's already a government backdoor in every version of windows going back about 10 years anyway, so I don't see why people would think Microsoft hasnt' already done that. They weren't even paid for it, they willingly provided it - because it was a requirement to sell software to government.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite funny actually. They talk about technology eroding canadian culture but where do prominent canadian artists go to tour/work? In the United States, where we create laws that favor the US and disfavor Canada on culture and copyright, etc. Yet Canada has bent over backwards to the US when a dollar sign carrot was put in front of them in order to kill their own culture. In fact, signing DMCA-like laws in Canada has worked faster to kill culture than even the consumers could do themselves.
So much for protecting your own country's integrity, huh.
"we detained you during campaign season. whoops."
yeah, this should be fun.
I agree with you, this is substantial. The ability to have no megabytes of "cache" but instead gigabytes, depending on how it's used, could be very very substantial.
I could see this going many ways, including basically the equivalent of having a "Socket type" for the ram - drop in and upgrade as necessary. Even with the significant latency differences versus various levels of on-die cache this can be very significant.
how about that on a basic level, you don't try to have a consistent interface between portable devices and desktops/laptops. That's just a no, and a bad idea.
Granted you can turn off metro, but even approaching this idea in 2011-2012 when it clearly has been demonstrated by the market to be an unconditionally horrible idea and to go ahead with it anyway? Is this really a hard thing to figure out?
Even for "android on laptops" via chromebooks, you don't have them setting it up as the exact same interface all around. That and nobody fn cares about windows 8. They can use android dollars to continually revise the project but if the starting point is the metro UI then they've already got one foot in the grave.
Dont' think for a second the internet won't outrage if SOPA/PIPA is attached to *Anything*. In fact, I suspect them doing this as soon as the media stops trying to stifle the issue (as Time Warner owns CNN for example - see the article with Lamar smith that says "Editor's note: Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is among the industry supporters of the legislation.").
However, people will absolutely mobilize again.
Yeah, let me give you a hint: it wasn't apple.
It means that Microsoft has provided the government (not just NSA) for their perusal all of their encryption (and decryption) keys for windows - so information can be readily decoded at the OS level even if you use bitlocker or other full-disk encryption solutions, and that this has been going on since Windows XP.
Uh, apple is in the exact same panic - have you not seen their lawsuit attempts against android?
hint: it isn't stopping the competition.
names don't change the game. We know a troll when we see it and will call you out every time for it.
Shills, begone!
After your initial tests, I'd say you're full of crap because it hasn't even been implemented yet.
How about the basic security issues:
they didn't provide a crack to the encryption for the entire operating system.
So yeah, I'd consider that a security feature.
Do we have to go through this every time someone mistakenly believes that windows somehow has more features and capabilities than every other enterprise solution?
There is tons wrong with anti-piracy efforts, starting with "how congress defines antipiracy is flat out dishonest".
If I call antipiracy "you making more money than me", then no matter how you try to explain it away, the entire situation is both intellectually and factually dishonest. Considering that's not a stretch from what the RIAA is doing (they see it as their $$ streams are simply not going to them which they feel entitled to).
The RIAA and MPAA have been proven to be the cancer of our society's success - numerous studies by their own sources prove this. They can't even make sure they don't break the laws they push for, and instead
There should not be an attempt to "hinder piracy" in any way, because doing so will contradict your very second sentence:
.
There is no way around that, and thus your entire point is not only misleading and contradictory, but entirely moot. In fact, acting like piracy is something you can fight, treating piracy like a zero sum game is the exact definition of not understanding anything technology, piracy, copyright, or freedom of speech. Please go away.
Windows is only vaguely secure when you keep it entirely, 100% stock. This is not a realistic situation for any company and thus, doesn't exist.
The second you add anything third party which is out of their control, security goes out the window.
On other operating systems, adding third party programs don't compromise the entire setup like that. So in reality, windows is no more secure than ever since it still gives users the ability to compromise security. Not to say that anyone else is better off, but to act like windows is more secure than it used to be is to be blatantly dishonest to compare to things like the NSA loophole, FIPS loophole, and other government backdoors (such as the ones Microsoft gave themselves) which continue to exist as ways for people to crack into a windows system.
The worst part is trying to tell people they're secure.
Wha?
You're absolutely correct. The IP in this case is worth absolutely zero, because the patents in this lawsuit are questionable at best.
The FAT patent has been worked around 2 years ago. there are no royalties to be paid for it today.
That was a poor attempt at a shakedown. Patents and any form of open source don't mix, and can't be reasonably enforced on it either.
Hahahahaha. oh look, it's that guy who posts BS. Let's debunk you again. I will call you out every fucking time you do this.
First off, we know you're a shill. Second off, microsoft owns zero of the technology they have patented, nor have they even developed it. A patent does not correlate to either a: having researched the technology or b: having developed it. The real good stuff they do isn't patented at all, and they keep it private and confidential for a reason. It's not like they dont' do research, it's just that it isn't tied to the patents.
It only correlates to c: the USPTO provided them monopoly privilege over alleged technology which probably has already been implemented and patented elsewhere (even by microsoft themselves).
Oh and it does correlate to d: they're using the patent exortion to further their R&D, thus making the DOJ ever closer to being ready to throw even more antitrust claims at Microsoft.
nothing. the regulators are already investigating, and microsoft's making their own case much, much worse.
do you understand the difference between botnets and *botnet owners?* I didn't say botnets.
The one I mention actually matters, the other (having botnet data by itself) doesn't mean much unless you have a script kiddie maintaining the botnet who doesn't know what they're doing.
wow, you sure posted a positive comment about microsoft as a first post again, huh! We know about you and will call you out every time you shit up a thread.
Not to sideline the reality of this being very questionable, or how this has nothing to do with botnet owners right? Please stop the shillposts and work for someone other than MS. even having you on enemy isn't enough.
Of course. This is the "marketing" and hype part of the process: announcing the product months before it's even available.
Intel really really hopes they can enter this strongly, the reality is that the atom processors are not going to compete well with android as they aren't even going to be compatible with apps out the door (as apps aren't all programmed for x86).
Had Intel actually used the arm license they themselves purchased, that would have been a wiser decision.
Why is it part of any political spectrum? what kind of a US centric shitpost is that? I'd say the doomsday clock is significant at doing what it does for the reasons it does, which are not at all political.
How about the fact that the world is generally on a decline? Economies falling due to greed and corruption, change being stifled, advancing our society via positive means being directly subverted by greed. That isn't part of $political-stance and is a part of that is that being on a decline long enough does equal significant military outcomes of negative effect.
While it is labeled as doomsday, it is a honest enough indicator of "how's the world doing overall?".
Yep, I've noticed the slant. All you gotta do is mark him enemy, watch the FUD spew, ignore and move on. Hell, his post history matches what you say and it's relatively new.
I guess MS must be a bit bored with the last astroturfer.
100% agreed.
As long as I have a choice, I don't mind this - also, as long as it's not on by default. the latter would be the facebook way (aka horrible).
Why are we comparing google to Microsoft?
If they did badly, let it shine on them in court. If they didn't, let it shine on them in court.
Why are you trying to make it sound like we demonize Microsoft when we have facts that prove (as opposed to a fake claim in an antitrust case from someone convicted of antitrust) that microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust?
Also, how is google a monopoly over anything? How hard is it to go to www.bing.com instead of www.google.com? What prevents you?
People would certainly like that to be the case, but that is not reality.
Just because laws have not been clearly defined (aka the internet as a whole), doesn't mean you have no rights - it simply means they are not defined.
Overall, many nations including the US are finding that you have quite a lot of rights on the internet - in fact, SOPA is an attack on them. It doesn't mean you don't have them, and if you think so, it just proves you don't know what rights you have.
lack of ethics proves a lack of ethics.
since when does selling out security not fall under "lack of ethics"?
There's already a government backdoor in every version of windows going back about 10 years anyway, so I don't see why people would think Microsoft hasnt' already done that. They weren't even paid for it, they willingly provided it - because it was a requirement to sell software to government.