Nowadays we're using Flash for the win/osx cross platform development. Big things are starting to come in that front.
Glad you like to alienate your users that require 508 compliance (US - don't know what it would be referred to for other countries). Flash may give you a little bit of cross-platform, but it requires one to use the mouse, and basically forbids use of (i) keyboard navigation, and things like (ii) screen readers, which are very important for certain groups. Any company that wants to do a good, capable product - web or otherwise - would be concerned with 508 compliance, and Flash does not provide that.
I've heard that the folks behind Flash are looking at 508 compliance, but I do not see that any time soon. And that is more or less rumor mill, so who knows if they actually are.
Me - I'll still to using Qt and like technologies as I can get my 508 compliance easily enough.
Actually, Microsoft's plan is even stupider than that. Microsoft wants to charge a per seat license for Linux users, but they aren't really offering enhanced interoperability. Novell and Red Hat are both going to include the same software. It's not like Novell is going to have its own version of Samba, for instance. The primary difference is that Novell customers are going to be able to "sleep easy" because Novell is paying Microsoft so that Microsoft won't sue Novell's Linux customers.
Microsoft isn't going to sue Red Hat's customers either, but that's only because suing Red Hat customers would be ridiculously foolish. At its heart the real issue is that Microsoft has such a poor relationship with its customers that many customers are worried that Microsoft will drag them into patent court. These customers are willing to pay money, not for any sort of patent license, but for a short term commitment from Microsoft that they won't be sued.
Next thing you know Microsoft execs will be brutalizing school kids for their lunch money.
The truly ironic bit is that Microsoft is not going to sue anyone over patents. Microsoft execs know that if they did this the various organizations that have a stake in the success of Linux (which is essentially everyone but Microsoft) would pay for a well-funded defense. Millions of dollars would be spent, and in the end the patents in question would either be shot down or removed from the Free Software product in question. Depending on who Microsoft chose to attack it could even trigger retaliation from other large players with huge patent repositories. What's more, Microsoft's patent aggression would start a wholesale migration away from Microsoft's technologies.
If Microsoft started suing folks using its technology then its technology would become much less popular virtually overnight.
This is why Microsoft has wisely chosen a middle road. Instead of actually taking people to court, it is simply going to threaten to take people to court and hope that they'll throw money Microsoft's way.
The really ironic part is that Microsoft may lose the Windows platform either way. They have to do this to keep people using their technology and Windows as otherwise people would migrate to linux/unix/etc as their service agreements (which many vowed not to renew) come up. Microsoft put themselves in this position with their service contracts - people started looking at the alternatives b/c otherwise they were bound for 3 years at a time to Microsoft, and look the first time no one got what they were promised.
So it's really funny as Microsoft put themselves in this position, they have to b/c otherwise they lose the platform, and they may lose the platform any way. It's their last hope to get corporations to renew their service contracts and stick with Microsoft...
However, Microsoft getting behind Mono or dotGNU would enable them to at least survive with Office and their other applications, should they lose Windows.
I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange.
I think this is largely the Gates & Balmer legacy. Much has seemed to be changing at Microsoft in the last few months, especially with Ray Ozzie taking over.
Microsoft has been nicer since Bill Gates left the CEO position to Steve Balmer but Microsoft must have an incentive. Why would Microsoft help a competitor? Especially one that is very entrenched in the server market which MS wished it owned like the desktop market. I wonder if there are clauses in that agreement for MS to pull a SCO if they feel to threatened? This is the same microsoft that screwed IBM twice with DOS and OS/2 and Netscape so I am skeptical.
Frankly, I won't be surprised if this was at least partly Ozzie's doing. It makes sense - they need to redefine Microsoft, and redefine the platform Microsoft's products run on. They have been pushing.NET, but getting a lot of resistance as people see it as MS lock-in, and as others have said.NET has issues on other platforms - Mono & dotGNU are decent, but they are no where near complete. This will let Microsoft help make Mono complete, giving them a foothold in the Linux market - something they desperately need if they are going to survive the next 10 years.
From what I've read and heard, Microsoft is getting ready to dump their backwards compatibility with the version of Windows that is coming after Vista. This may also be setting them up to survive that if they lose the entire OS market there too - though, that might actually be beneficial for the company to lose it.
One can only hope that Office gets ported to Linux as well, or at least access to the protocols/etc is opened up to the F/OSS community through this. One thing that has kept Linux back as far as growth is the lack of complete, and supported, compatibility with Office. If they ported Office over - even if it was a.NET/Mono port - this would really bolster Linux, and set up Microsoft to be a post-Windows company.
Personally, they should get rid of Windows, and focus on making a desktop OS that is based on Linux - fund a distro and put all their applications into the Linux environment. They could get rid of the headaches of being (however rightfully) accused of an insecure OS, and get on to making good products - something they can do, though they don't do it very often.
Ever notice how in the last 5 years or so Microsoft has become a deluge of products - no longer just Office and Windows. If they drop Windows (or make Windows an overlay API by supporting WINE) they could pull it off.
Of course, this is more or less a pipe-dream, but it is possible and perhaps Ray Ozzie is the guy to get them to do it. Balmer might go along just to keep his job; but he's not going to be too far away from retirement either, so there is a good chance that this might just turn around the company and actually happen.
Yet another reason not to stay logged into websites all the time. From the vulnerability tester (which also deems IE6 vulerable):
This actually means that if you were logged into your bank account, any web site you are visiting would be able to retrieve confidential data from your bank. This could also be used to retrieve personal settings entered on sites like eBay or Paypal.
Slashdot is perhaps the only site I keep a constant login to, but I also don't store any personal information on Slashdot either. I do shop on Amazon.com and do a few other things, but always make sure I logout (which is a pain on Amazon.com since you have to go through the site until you find a 'not ? Go here' type of hyperlink).
Stay logged in and let your data be vulnerable...
Or, better yet, login only when you need to and keep your data relatively safe.
If the company is a software developer, and his job is writing drivers, why would the company lock it up to make doing so impossible? And if not, why doesn't he have a machine that he has control over, like at home, to do so??
One would think yes - but corporations don't think. There are too many beaurocratic levels in place, and the right hand often doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
Take for instance a corporation that is split into four groups. Group A is the corporation itself, and groups B, C, and D are sectors of the corporation. Group A is in charge, and as the corporate head has implements all policies and groups B, C, and D have no choice but to follow them. Part of Group D supports all of the groups in providing IT and related services, including managing the corporate network. However, all three groups (B,C, and D) have their own product lines and may not necessarily communicate about those product lines. Now group C has a product that requires a device driver be written for it, and they have the employees to do so, but group A set the policy which group D is now enforcing via the domain policy in the corporate ADS, which overrides any local computer policy btw, and the policy states that all computers must only use signed device drivers.
If the corporate structure made it easy to sign the driver, then perhaps it would be good to go. But then - why would they sign a driver under development? You wouldn't want it released to a customer? So you wouldn't sign a driver until it was completed, tested, signed, and tested again. However, it is more likely that the company would have a structure in place that would make it hard to get something signed - or to get ahold of the key needed for signing - which then makes it near impossible for the project the employee is working on to be completed.
Or, for instance, suppose the project has limited funding, money resources are hard to come by, and the company policy makes each project buy their own software, tools, etc. If the project has enough funding for a lot, but then runs into an unanticipated turn (e.g. the driver needs signing - something that may not have been known until the project was underway, or new as part of a system upgrade to meet new requirements) then the project could be doomed to.
And if you think developing on a system off the corporate network would be an option - it wouldn't be as network access of different kinds would likely be needed - e.g. access to corporate resources, internet resources, etc. And working on two systems (one on and one off) may not necessarily work either - and wouldn't really add any security.
And if you think the above isn't likely - take a loop at any large corporate company. It's the basic structure followed. Some are better than others, but the majority are just terrible.
In the end, there is more than one path to the scenerio I pointed out.
Trademarks fade if you do not agressively pursue violators (like how you search google for something, not "google for something").
Patents last the term and do not fade in that way. They are full effect for 20 years.
Copyrights fade 70+ years after you die (and getting longer...).
While IANAL, if you do not fight to protect your patent than at least in the US you will lose it (or at least the right to enforce it) - and it goes to the public domain and you don't get a dime more. Same goes with Copyright and Trademarks. I think you have a 5 year window to file in though.
again, disclaimer - IANAL
Vista allows you to turn this protection off. The guy making his own hardware can turn it off while he's developing and then buy a license later if he wants to distribute it to others.
As I said in another post, that may not always be an option - and won't be one for many in corporate, domain run environments especially if the ability to disable it could be controlled via domain policies, which I can see as very likely happening.
The end-user should always be in full control of the system. That doesn't mean that the system should let the end-user easily do stupid things, but if the end user wants to do it then they should be allowed to do it. This goes even more so for developers. And while one could easily argue that end-user's should have some limits - such as not being allowed to load unsigned drivers - that does not mean those same limits should be put in place in such a way that could potentially be to the detriment of developers.
Saying "oh you can turn this of by doing X" is not sufficient as that could still cut out a large number of small companies or start ups that are simply getting underway. How can they judge their true market if no one could run their drivers/software/etc? They can't. Putting in a "feature" <cough>bug</cough> like this is hurting developers. More over, what about a project - like OpenVPN, for example - that requires interaction in a certain level of the system but is not allowed to operate in that portion of the system because (a) the writer is not a "commercial entity" or (b) the writer is otherwise unable to get the appropriate key?
Moreover, what happens if someone breaks the system and manages to put malicious code into a signed driver without having actually gotten the key to sign with? Crackers will be all over it, and the system will still install it without telling the user. This only creates a false sense of security - that is all that Microsoft has ever done with Windows for security.
Fight a battle you have a chance to win, and stop dreaming that unsigned platforms have a future. Without someone certifying that a platform is secure, businesses are going to stop using them. Eventually client nodes that aren't certified won't be able to do much useful, either.
Unsigned platforms only have the kind of future you say if WE permit them to have that future. I, for one, will not allow that in my own house-hold, nor any company that I start. There are better ways to dealing with security and issues of such a nature.
Why would such a hacker go through the pain of Win32 driver development instead of Linux drivers anyhow?
Because the target systems - even if in minority - only run Windows. For example, a small company writing drivers for an in-house server set. If they were concerned with security and cared about driver signing and such, then (a) they may not be able to afford getting the stuff from MS, and (b) they may not be able to turn off driver signing for the systems that will actually be using the drivers.
I wouldn't be surprised if domain policies were added to disable individual users from turning off driver signing - if that did happen, then there goes a lot of corporate R&D developers to the pot with not being able to develop drivers even for proof of concept stuff.
And yes, a lot of corporate companies won't buy something like this without first having some kind of proof of concept that what they are trying to accomplish with it works first. If their corporate governance decides they can't turn off driver signing - perhaps they are in the wrong division/etc but still need to do it - then they could be screwed. And the project won't happen.
Like it or not, there are valid reasons for removing this kind of DRM. It does cut out parties that could otherwise develop for you, and it can hurt pretty badly. This is undercutting a lot of the potential developers for MS. Now that might mean a greater groundswelling towards Linux, Mac, or something else, but it does hurt 3rd party developers and it does use their monopoly power in a wrong way that will disadvantage the industry.
It's interesting to see what people are saying here, especially when people go on to talk about "sales of HD will outpace SD for the first time this year".
For starters, remember that the various companies are generally counting the "ready" sets in their "HD" sales - so HDTV Ready, EDTV Ready, DTV Ready, etc - or at least they use to be. Any where that they are kind of invalidates those figures as those sets do not actually have a tuner - they just have a display capable of showing what they are rated for. Big whup.
There really is no advantage to HDTV/EDTV/DTV/etc over SDTV other than that the Nascar/NFS/NBA/RIAA/MPAA/etc can now control what you can record to your DVR, VCR, DVDRecorder, Computer, etc. Oh - and that stuff won't be going out to all those "ready" boxes should the "broadcast flag" get implemented because they would constitute an 'analog hole'.
Most will not be able to see any difference in color, resolution, etc. (And by most I am talking about the 99% of people in the world that really can't!) I know very few people (perhaps 1 or 2) that can actually see a difference at all - but they also claim to be able to see each individual frame of a 24fps system.
So yeah - Nintendo made the right choice. And they'll reap lots of $$ for it. And they are set up to succeed should HD completely flop - which is highly likely once people realize what is going on with the stuff and older sets. (No, not everyone will be able to afford to upgrade, and even of those who can, not everyone will.)
You give them money now, they give you the product later.
Not quite. You might given them a small fee (e.g. $5), but you don't normally pay full price up front. Online retailers (e.g. Amazon.com) don't charge anything. In both cases you usually get a discount from the price when it does come available. So the retailers don't usually win out other than that they can say to the vendor that they can guarantee X number of sales. This also usually means that they will get at least X units of the product to provide to their pre-ordered customers. Unless, of course, the vendors messes up as much as MS has with the Xbox launches - then they only get a percentage of what they said they could guarantee, and people have to wait as enough product comes in to fulfill the preorders.
However, you are right - people are not likely to cancel sales when they have pre-ordered.
Historically we have relied on our research and development to keep this country on top technologically, but over the last five years or so, we have been reducing the amount of funding we spend on research and development, particularly in the biosciences.
Of course - corporate america is too focused on the short term, and as a result, is killing itself in the long term. This is easily reflected by (i) R&D funding, and (ii) asset management.
For example, most companies right now don't want to own assets, but want to lease them instead. Why? Because they can often raise their 'billable' charges by doing so, which in turn passes the charges on to the customer and theoretically the company then does not have to pay for it and (also theoretically) possibily turns a profit on it by charging more than they are paying. However, in the long term this does not work and ends up costing the company money and damaging the company. (Also, as think of the shareholder perspective in bankruptcy - what assets are there to give to the shareholders, or sell off to pay off debts? None other than cash, which as they are in bankruptcy is likely to be little to none.)
This is also shown (as others have pointed out) in R&D expenditures. By not funding R&D properly you minimize investment into the future of the company and any products that may come out. Additionally, by requiring all R&D to map to a product/saleable item, you limit the possibilities of what could be done. For instance, would the telephone, gram-o-phone/phonograph, incondescent lightbulb, or printing press have been invented if this was the case? Well, the printing press likely, but the others? No.
In order to define the company in the long term, the company must fund R&D in successful, but business focused methods. Yes, R&D should not run too long - I've seen that where a R&D project's goals were overtaken by the industry as the industry solved the problem it was trying to solve before it solved it - but sometimes companies can find themselves reinvented by an incidental discovery found or proven by R&D.
That does not mean that the short-term must be ignored, but that the two must be carefully balanced. Today, however, most are ignoring the long term in favor of the short term. Sad, but true; and it is only further driven by the market economy we are in today, perhaps a side-effect of the burst tech bubble of the late 1990's where money was easily tossed around and made through "long term projects" with "short term" funding and sales. (Saling companies while they were still in R&D - that needed long term investment - to make quick, short term gains.)
You can also see this in politics with Iraq. Iraq will stabilize given long term - 20 or 30 years minimum - efforts. However, too many have politicized the short term losses (and yes - every human life is precious) and have urged a pull out as soon as possible. (It took the US at least 20 to 30 years to rebuild Japan after WWII and they were friendly and willing!) Thus, the US is likely to pull out of Iraq, and lose what could have been won over via a long term stragety; but too many are too short-sighted to see it and stick to it; and too many have convinced a large number of Americans about it as well.
Because of course we all want to be using Outlook right??!!
When it comes to a webmail interface, yeah - I don't want Outlook. It's just to heavy and bulky and no use. Yahoo! keeps offering to move me to their beta webmail, but I keep refusing. I don't want a beta product for my primary e-mail, or at least I don't want to be paying to use a beta product. (I pay for my yahoo account so I can get POP3 access, primarily, and it takes me to 2GB space - I've used at most 18% of it thus far, and have now pared it down to roughly 10%. I usually keep all the e-mails I get.) However, I do want an Outlook like program for downloading my e-mails to off-line. I don't want them online 100% of the time - I don't want that data online for others. It's MY data. That said...
"labels are better than folder"
I get a lot of e-mail, mostly lists - over 100 lists at one point. At one point I was around 1200/day, and then fell down to about 700/day. Labels are not in any way good for handling that amount of data. Sure they are great for picking out specific conversations, or such, but they are not terribly good for organizing large amounts of e-mail. I use folders quite extensively, with filtering rules to move the emails to the folders, typically based on to/from/subject headers. Sure, I could probably get gmail configured to do labels similarly, but that would still not leave me with the functionality I require. So while I do have a gmail account that I use from time to time, I do almost all of my e-mail through Yahoo!'s webmail specifically because of having folders and won't transfer them over to gmail.
What I would really like to see is a service offering both labels AND folders. I could see that as being very useful as I could then mark conversations and be able to sort within the folders by something other than subject/to/from/sent/received. Oh and POP3 access too. (Yes, I am aware that gmail has Pop3/IMAP access, but they also make no guarantee of its availability.)
I had a Sony colour LCD TV with a 2" screen back in 1991. My experience with that device proved that watching just about anything except talking heads was a waste of time. To make it work they need a projector with keystone correction, so you beam a 10" picture onto a desk or the wall, or a screen that can be rolled up and slid back into the device when not in use. Neither are likely with current tech, but if you guys keep buying these gadgets the manufacturers will have more money to invest in research.
So, TV on mobiles is a great idea. Go buy three of them.
Or how about something like the HelioDisplay? Forget about projecting against something - it won't catch on with that either. It needs to be a self-sufficient aerial display, or some kind of HUD (perhaps with a contact lense or something) to work and catch on.
Honestly, until it can be a normal size screen with decent audio it's not going to be of much use to anyone. Not only is the battery power going to severely limit its use (at present, as others have pointed out), but the montly fees are going to too - it's bad enough to have a large cell phone bill - but this would just make it tremendous. (How much air time would be used at even just $0.03/minute for a show? sports? news? whatever?)
Yes, consumer electronics, kids, and parents are killing childhood for kids. (i) Parents are all too often just sitting their kids in front of the computer/dvd/vcr/game console/tv/etc and not doing their job as parents, evidenced by article and other sources. (ii) Kids are also not getting out enough, not getting enough exercise, etc - evidenced by obesity among kids, and the willingness of parents and schools to too quickly classify kids that just need to get out and run around more as ADHD or ADD. (Some parents and schools have taken to putting kids on drugs for ADD/ADHD simply to keep the kid still when all the kid really needs is to get off the tv/dvd/computer/etc and run around outside. Sad, but true.) (iii) Parents are not spending enough time at home with kids, and being the example they should be - this is partially caused by the divorces occurring, but also caused by jobs and the long commutes sometimes demanded by jobs (e.g. the WDC, NYC, and LA areas).
Now, I am not saying that all parents are doing this, or that all schools are doing this. Just a lot more than should be, and parents/schools/doctors/etc are letting them get away with it. The result, however, will be that the kids lives will be ruined in the long run. For example, most kids (and I've had friends go through this) that have been labeled ADD or ADHD will find it very difficult to get a job just because the ADD and ADHD was on their record. (Now, I am not saying that employers are right in that, but they find a way to disqualify a lot of people legally with that being the true reason. As I said, I've had friends go through it - and they don't get work until they find someone willing to work with someone that had ADD or ADHD.)
As to the poster(s) that suggests it safer in urban areas - I grew up just outside Paterson, NJ. We didn't have a game console, were not allowed to watch much TV, didn't have a VCR player or computer. We were outside quite a bit, and all the better for it. Parents have to do their job in raising kids - part of that is teaching them how to live in the world, how to survive in that urban area (however safe or dangerous it may be), etc. If you don't do your job as a parent, and don't get them off the TV/etc, then you will only be hurting the future by denying the potential in the kids.
To draw a very good example of what the article is speaking of, a few years ago Lego produced a few movies - Bionicles - and started releasing sets based on the characters in the movie. Why? They were seeing a slump in sales related to a lack of imagination in kids. Kids had been so spoon fed ideas that they were losing the ability to be creative and think of ideas on how to create stuff with Legos, Lincoln Logs, etc. As a result, sales of such toys were dropping, and Lego produced a movie and Lego sets based on it to help gain kids interests back - hoping kids would grab on enough to be able to transfer to the other, more expensive sets. (I don't know if it worked, but it did pick up their bottom line so far as I am aware.)
So - stop spoon feeding kids entertainment. Let them innovate with their own minds and be creative just like generations of kids in the past have been.
I know that I, for one, will not let my kids have a computer/tv/dvd/vcr/etc in their room, and will limit my own household to two TVs - actually projects hidden in the walls if I do what I really want to do. I know they'll be over at friends and TV will be like "all the rage", but I can minimize its use in my own home and guide them towards other activities - riding bikes, swimming, fishing, reading, etc - that stimulate their own minds and let them be kids, not technology junkies.
From his article, it's pretty clear MS is shipping a DVD maker, and from just one screen it appears to be a video/other type of application. Is this now considered de rigeur intrinsic Operating System? I know the definition of OS has blurred and been trickier to pin down, and I would expect an OS to have the appropriate drivers to allow burning of a DVD (it is after all, a component of the OS, or at least drivers for a DVD burner are).
It's really just Windows Movie Maker, which has been available (and possibly even shipping with) Windows since Windows ME. So, it's nothing new. And it's features in Vista aren't that great, so it's not really anything for competition at the moment - almost anyone else's will do a better, easier job.
Per upgrading, Aero/Glass is a ton better than anything WinXP had. My use of Beta2/pre-RC1 puts Vista on the upgrade level of Win3.11 to Win95, almost. But it is a good overhaul. It still has a ton of issues that are generally specific to the Windows platform (security, etc.), but it's a good first step in the right direction for a lot of stuff. I still won't buy it - the only version that Microsoft is releasing that will be close to the stuff in Beta2/pre-RC1/RC1 will be the Vista Ultimate version, which looks (at least from the Canada pricing a while back on/.) like it was going to be around $500 - and it's not worth that. (I'd probably be willing to pay the $90 for it that I paid for the WinME upgrade, but that also came with a Zip drive. I still like Linux better.)
I've been randomly selected once or twice - and I believe it was random. That's me though.
However, a friend of mine who use to work as a screener for the TSA told me that TSA has a lot of rules that are not suppose to be told to the public. For example, it's optional to take your shoes off to go through the metal detectors, though they advise that you do; but if you do not, then you are "randomly" selected because their rule is that if you do not, then you must be screened. There's others too, though that is the only one which I am familiar with off-hand. (I have not tested it, though I do trust my source on it.)
So, the question really is - were they truly "randomly" selected? Or did they break one of these rules and select themselves by doing so?
The company is sitting on a large cash pile. Why? What are they planning to do with it? When companies keep cash piles they are usually doing one of preparing for bad times, planning a huge amount of (probably risky) expansion or big (again risky) acquisitions?
From MS's history - BillyG has never let the company have negative cash - no debt. MS has always had enough money to employ itself for at least a period of 2 years without a single sale. Now-a-days that does require the billions in cash that they have. It's a smart strategy, but investors don't necessarily like it as they don't get the cash; however, the company will be able to produce in a way investors will like for a long time and be quite stable overall.
That doesn't mean that MS does not need to change its business stragety - they do.
This is why Nintendo will make a killing in the market when they release the Wii - they're not marketing to the 'traditional' gamers - but rather to everyone else.
Now I'm not sure if I would fully agree with only 6 types, but regardless the idea presented here is exactly why Nintendo will be huge, and take the lead with Microsoft and Sony sitting in second and third (which order I don't know, likely Microsoft will take second due to price; though I don't like the XBox series).
Any how...just food for thought. November will be a teller.
Perhaps, instead, you refer to a situation where a woman commits a crime by claiming that she was raped when in fact she was not. Personally, I feel the number of times this happens is vanishing small. However, reagardless, I am not certain I would be happy in this situation whether I was sent to jail for 10 years or life. In both cases the crimal has gotten away with a crime.
What you are suggesting is the same as what the gp suggested, only different wording. The GP (so far as I can tell) is suggesting that two people have sex consentually, and then later (say the next day) one goes and says - "you know what, I really didn't want to . I did it consentually, but I didn't want to; therefore I was 'raped'." Technically, that's not rape. But if they make the allegation, it still ruins the persons life - even if they did not commit the crime; just the allegation is enough to do it. The real criminal, as you pointed out, is the person who is claiming the "consentual sex" was rape. As to the statistics, I don't know what they are - could be large, could be small.
Secondly, given that they are asking you to disclose all of your prior inventions/etc, I would say that it would only be fair if they were to do the same for you. If you are required to disclose your works, which they could potentially after the designated period exploit and profit from, it is only fair that you be afforded the same opportunity. (This alone will likely make them drop the clause.)
If they still insist on having the clause in there, then insist on the time period being indefinite or until the originating party does perform public disclosure - this in addition to the above.
These two should (and remember IANAL, but it seems reasonablely so) protect your works from being stolen by them. It also gives you information that you could use as recompse if they do try to exploit your works.
Granted, you may not have the legal backing that they do, and may thus not be able to fight it as easily or for as long, but its one step closer to giving you a better legal footing.
Also, from what I understand, you are free to strike anything you desire (initialling them to denote that you did the striking) from such contracts before you sign. They would then have to either sign after you or initial such strikes with you (i.e. you both initial the strikes, thus denoting both parties accept the changes).
And remember, IANAL so take this with a grain of salt. This seems reasonable and is likely what I myself would do if faced with such a situation.
To be most accurate...Microsoft did not enable certain modes of loading drivers, software, etc. under 32-bit Windows for compatibility reasons. One of these is requiring 'signed' drivers only. However, Microsoft declared that with the move to 64-bit, Windows will now require this.
Microsoft's customers will see this as Windows Vista x32 (the 32-bit version) won't do those additional tests before loading the drivers; however, Windows Vista x64 (the 64-bit version) will. The 64-bit processors, such as AMD's AMD64 series, also have an NX-bit that is not available in the 32-bit modes and 32-bit processors. (Intel's EMT64e variations of the Pentium line, and the CoreDuo lines are mere reflections of AMD's AMD64 architecture.)
Have you seen SS1? It's not possible to do what you are saying. The vessel was built for carrying only one person. From what I have come across (and I believe there are links in slash dot archives on this) they are looking at taking what they learned from SS1 and building SS2 with the capacity to hold 6 people (2 pilots and 4 passengers) or something like that.
Until they vessel can hold more than 1 person it is impossible to do as you say. And no company will for any cost or indemnification allow a pilot that is not one of their own (or certified by them) to fly their planes. If the person crashes, the company would be liable, and as others have stated, if the person could afford it then their estate would be rich enough to sue and take the company to court and essentially either put the out of business or lose large sums of money, likely leading to them going out of business.
Ever see "Hudsucker Proxy"? Think of the CEO deciding to get that license, fly the plane, and purposely crash it, but not telling anyone before hand, and then leaving it to the estate to pick up the pieces. The estate would quite quickly sue, and the company would lose unless the company had their own pilots flying. Why? Because the company did not take enough precautions to provide a satisfactory responsibility for safety.
The Anime people use "piracy" to their advantage - you do not seem a lot of marketting for Anime, with the exception of a few places, but those few places are based solely around anime (e.g. Anime Network, Cartoon Network, etc.).
The Anime people rely on customers to do grown-swell marketing for their products, and they respond to the customers. More and more I find myself disliking the movies from Hollywood - okay, they've had a couple good ones lately, but that's out of a ton of bad ones over the last few years - and more in tune with Anime. And guess what I'm generally buying when it comes to DVD's? Anime; entire series introduced by friends and content that Hollywood would likely have deemed "piracy".
And the fans generally respect the companies and get rid of the "piracy" as content becomes available in their own languages and regions. It's a win-win situation.
If you have PS2 games, that means that you have a PS2 machine...so why...
I, for one, do not own a PS2; however, I do own 1 8MB PS2 Memory Card, and 2 PS2 games that I use a friend's houses. I was considering getting a PS3 (that is until they announced the price and I deemed it to be way too much) to play those games and the PS3 games (if I got any) and to play DVD and BD-DVD movies. I had no intention of buying a PS2, but I might have gotten a PS3.
Now, however, I may either trade away my PS2 stuff - to get GameCube or Wii equivalents, for what I care about (really only one of the two games, I could junk the rest or give it away) - or if the PS2 becomes cheap enough, then I might buy a PS2 instead of the PS3 - however, at present I am leaning towards trading away the PS2 stuff. (I haven't decided yet.)
In summary, it would give them a larger market. Why has Microsoft made such a killing with Windows? Because every version of Windows is basically backwards compatible to most of their previous offerings (including DOS). So people see purchasing software for Windows as more of an investment that they would be able to continue using into the future, even as Windows changes. (Compared to Unix/Mac/etc where most software has to be replaced for major, and sometimes minor, upgrades of the OS. Even Linux has that occassionally, though the Linux guys have been good at keeping it to major version; however, the major versions go a lot longer than Microsoft does with Windows.)
Really? Have you ever used windows 98 or 95? I recall them crashing... a lot. I recall a lot of bugs.
Yes I have used Win95 - I used it since January after it was released until September of 2001 on my primary desktops. And yes, I have generally found it to be far more stable than Win2k/XP. That is not to say it was without fault - it did crash, but not often. I still have Win95 on a system - my only Windows system at home. My desktop made its way from Win95 OSR2.1 to WinME so that it could use newer hardware (the only reason I really did the upgrade) and some newer software (was not a big deal - I was using WMP7 on Win95, which supposedly required Win98). My desktop has since gone to Linux.
What does that even mean? If the machine never crashes, it is stable by definition. It isn't just "hiding" instability.
WinXP hides its crashes by automatic reboots of itself and various pieces of software so that it does not appear to be crashing as much as it really is to the user. That kind of behaviour does not qualify for stability.
4% of what? what are you taking a percentage of?
percentage of time running. 4% of the time NT4 crashes. 8% of the time 2k crashes. 12% of the time XP crashes.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard that the folks behind Flash are looking at 508 compliance, but I do not see that any time soon. And that is more or less rumor mill, so who knows if they actually are.
Me - I'll still to using Qt and like technologies as I can get my 508 compliance easily enough.
So it's really funny as Microsoft put themselves in this position, they have to b/c otherwise they lose the platform, and they may lose the platform any way. It's their last hope to get corporations to renew their service contracts and stick with Microsoft...
However, Microsoft getting behind Mono or dotGNU would enable them to at least survive with Office and their other applications, should they lose Windows.
Frankly, I won't be surprised if this was at least partly Ozzie's doing. It makes sense - they need to redefine Microsoft, and redefine the platform Microsoft's products run on. They have been pushing
From what I've read and heard, Microsoft is getting ready to dump their backwards compatibility with the version of Windows that is coming after Vista. This may also be setting them up to survive that if they lose the entire OS market there too - though, that might actually be beneficial for the company to lose it.
One can only hope that Office gets ported to Linux as well, or at least access to the protocols/etc is opened up to the F/OSS community through this. One thing that has kept Linux back as far as growth is the lack of complete, and supported, compatibility with Office. If they ported Office over - even if it was a
Personally, they should get rid of Windows, and focus on making a desktop OS that is based on Linux - fund a distro and put all their applications into the Linux environment. They could get rid of the headaches of being (however rightfully) accused of an insecure OS, and get on to making good products - something they can do, though they don't do it very often.
Ever notice how in the last 5 years or so Microsoft has become a deluge of products - no longer just Office and Windows. If they drop Windows (or make Windows an overlay API by supporting WINE) they could pull it off.
Of course, this is more or less a pipe-dream, but it is possible and perhaps Ray Ozzie is the guy to get them to do it. Balmer might go along just to keep his job; but he's not going to be too far away from retirement either, so there is a good chance that this might just turn around the company and actually happen.
Slashdot is perhaps the only site I keep a constant login to, but I also don't store any personal information on Slashdot either. I do shop on Amazon.com and do a few other things, but always make sure I logout (which is a pain on Amazon.com since you have to go through the site until you find a 'not ? Go here' type of hyperlink).
Stay logged in and let your data be vulnerable...
Or, better yet, login only when you need to and keep your data relatively safe.
Take for instance a corporation that is split into four groups. Group A is the corporation itself, and groups B, C, and D are sectors of the corporation. Group A is in charge, and as the corporate head has implements all policies and groups B, C, and D have no choice but to follow them. Part of Group D supports all of the groups in providing IT and related services, including managing the corporate network. However, all three groups (B,C, and D) have their own product lines and may not necessarily communicate about those product lines. Now group C has a product that requires a device driver be written for it, and they have the employees to do so, but group A set the policy which group D is now enforcing via the domain policy in the corporate ADS, which overrides any local computer policy btw, and the policy states that all computers must only use signed device drivers.
If the corporate structure made it easy to sign the driver, then perhaps it would be good to go. But then - why would they sign a driver under development? You wouldn't want it released to a customer? So you wouldn't sign a driver until it was completed, tested, signed, and tested again. However, it is more likely that the company would have a structure in place that would make it hard to get something signed - or to get ahold of the key needed for signing - which then makes it near impossible for the project the employee is working on to be completed.
Or, for instance, suppose the project has limited funding, money resources are hard to come by, and the company policy makes each project buy their own software, tools, etc. If the project has enough funding for a lot, but then runs into an unanticipated turn (e.g. the driver needs signing - something that may not have been known until the project was underway, or new as part of a system upgrade to meet new requirements) then the project could be doomed to.
And if you think developing on a system off the corporate network would be an option - it wouldn't be as network access of different kinds would likely be needed - e.g. access to corporate resources, internet resources, etc. And working on two systems (one on and one off) may not necessarily work either - and wouldn't really add any security.
And if you think the above isn't likely - take a loop at any large corporate company. It's the basic structure followed. Some are better than others, but the majority are just terrible.
In the end, there is more than one path to the scenerio I pointed out.
again, disclaimer - IANAL
The end-user should always be in full control of the system. That doesn't mean that the system should let the end-user easily do stupid things, but if the end user wants to do it then they should be allowed to do it. This goes even more so for developers. And while one could easily argue that end-user's should have some limits - such as not being allowed to load unsigned drivers - that does not mean those same limits should be put in place in such a way that could potentially be to the detriment of developers.
Saying "oh you can turn this of by doing X" is not sufficient as that could still cut out a large number of small companies or start ups that are simply getting underway. How can they judge their true market if no one could run their drivers/software/etc? They can't. Putting in a "feature" <cough>bug</cough> like this is hurting developers. More over, what about a project - like OpenVPN, for example - that requires interaction in a certain level of the system but is not allowed to operate in that portion of the system because (a) the writer is not a "commercial entity" or (b) the writer is otherwise unable to get the appropriate key?
Moreover, what happens if someone breaks the system and manages to put malicious code into a signed driver without having actually gotten the key to sign with? Crackers will be all over it, and the system will still install it without telling the user. This only creates a false sense of security - that is all that Microsoft has ever done with Windows for security.
Because the target systems - even if in minority - only run Windows. For example, a small company writing drivers for an in-house server set. If they were concerned with security and cared about driver signing and such, then (a) they may not be able to afford getting the stuff from MS, and (b) they may not be able to turn off driver signing for the systems that will actually be using the drivers.
I wouldn't be surprised if domain policies were added to disable individual users from turning off driver signing - if that did happen, then there goes a lot of corporate R&D developers to the pot with not being able to develop drivers even for proof of concept stuff.
And yes, a lot of corporate companies won't buy something like this without first having some kind of proof of concept that what they are trying to accomplish with it works first. If their corporate governance decides they can't turn off driver signing - perhaps they are in the wrong division/etc but still need to do it - then they could be screwed. And the project won't happen.
Like it or not, there are valid reasons for removing this kind of DRM. It does cut out parties that could otherwise develop for you, and it can hurt pretty badly. This is undercutting a lot of the potential developers for MS. Now that might mean a greater groundswelling towards Linux, Mac, or something else, but it does hurt 3rd party developers and it does use their monopoly power in a wrong way that will disadvantage the industry.
It's interesting to see what people are saying here, especially when people go on to talk about "sales of HD will outpace SD for the first time this year".
For starters, remember that the various companies are generally counting the "ready" sets in their "HD" sales - so HDTV Ready, EDTV Ready, DTV Ready, etc - or at least they use to be. Any where that they are kind of invalidates those figures as those sets do not actually have a tuner - they just have a display capable of showing what they are rated for. Big whup.
There really is no advantage to HDTV/EDTV/DTV/etc over SDTV other than that the Nascar/NFS/NBA/RIAA/MPAA/etc can now control what you can record to your DVR, VCR, DVDRecorder, Computer, etc. Oh - and that stuff won't be going out to all those "ready" boxes should the "broadcast flag" get implemented because they would constitute an 'analog hole'.
Most will not be able to see any difference in color, resolution, etc. (And by most I am talking about the 99% of people in the world that really can't!) I know very few people (perhaps 1 or 2) that can actually see a difference at all - but they also claim to be able to see each individual frame of a 24fps system.
So yeah - Nintendo made the right choice. And they'll reap lots of $$ for it. And they are set up to succeed should HD completely flop - which is highly likely once people realize what is going on with the stuff and older sets. (No, not everyone will be able to afford to upgrade, and even of those who can, not everyone will.)
However, you are right - people are not likely to cancel sales when they have pre-ordered.
For example, most companies right now don't want to own assets, but want to lease them instead. Why? Because they can often raise their 'billable' charges by doing so, which in turn passes the charges on to the customer and theoretically the company then does not have to pay for it and (also theoretically) possibily turns a profit on it by charging more than they are paying. However, in the long term this does not work and ends up costing the company money and damaging the company. (Also, as think of the shareholder perspective in bankruptcy - what assets are there to give to the shareholders, or sell off to pay off debts? None other than cash, which as they are in bankruptcy is likely to be little to none.)
This is also shown (as others have pointed out) in R&D expenditures. By not funding R&D properly you minimize investment into the future of the company and any products that may come out. Additionally, by requiring all R&D to map to a product/saleable item, you limit the possibilities of what could be done. For instance, would the telephone, gram-o-phone/phonograph, incondescent lightbulb, or printing press have been invented if this was the case? Well, the printing press likely, but the others? No.
In order to define the company in the long term, the company must fund R&D in successful, but business focused methods. Yes, R&D should not run too long - I've seen that where a R&D project's goals were overtaken by the industry as the industry solved the problem it was trying to solve before it solved it - but sometimes companies can find themselves reinvented by an incidental discovery found or proven by R&D.
That does not mean that the short-term must be ignored, but that the two must be carefully balanced. Today, however, most are ignoring the long term in favor of the short term. Sad, but true; and it is only further driven by the market economy we are in today, perhaps a side-effect of the burst tech bubble of the late 1990's where money was easily tossed around and made through "long term projects" with "short term" funding and sales. (Saling companies while they were still in R&D - that needed long term investment - to make quick, short term gains.)
You can also see this in politics with Iraq. Iraq will stabilize given long term - 20 or 30 years minimum - efforts. However, too many have politicized the short term losses (and yes - every human life is precious) and have urged a pull out as soon as possible. (It took the US at least 20 to 30 years to rebuild Japan after WWII and they were friendly and willing!) Thus, the US is likely to pull out of Iraq, and lose what could have been won over via a long term stragety; but too many are too short-sighted to see it and stick to it; and too many have convinced a large number of Americans about it as well.
I get a lot of e-mail, mostly lists - over 100 lists at one point. At one point I was around 1200/day, and then fell down to about 700/day. Labels are not in any way good for handling that amount of data. Sure they are great for picking out specific conversations, or such, but they are not terribly good for organizing large amounts of e-mail. I use folders quite extensively, with filtering rules to move the emails to the folders, typically based on to/from/subject headers. Sure, I could probably get gmail configured to do labels similarly, but that would still not leave me with the functionality I require. So while I do have a gmail account that I use from time to time, I do almost all of my e-mail through Yahoo!'s webmail specifically because of having folders and won't transfer them over to gmail.
What I would really like to see is a service offering both labels AND folders. I could see that as being very useful as I could then mark conversations and be able to sort within the folders by something other than subject/to/from/sent/received. Oh and POP3 access too. (Yes, I am aware that gmail has Pop3/IMAP access, but they also make no guarantee of its availability.)
Honestly, until it can be a normal size screen with decent audio it's not going to be of much use to anyone. Not only is the battery power going to severely limit its use (at present, as others have pointed out), but the montly fees are going to too - it's bad enough to have a large cell phone bill - but this would just make it tremendous. (How much air time would be used at even just $0.03/minute for a show? sports? news? whatever?)
Yes, consumer electronics, kids, and parents are killing childhood for kids. (i) Parents are all too often just sitting their kids in front of the computer/dvd/vcr/game console/tv/etc and not doing their job as parents, evidenced by article and other sources. (ii) Kids are also not getting out enough, not getting enough exercise, etc - evidenced by obesity among kids, and the willingness of parents and schools to too quickly classify kids that just need to get out and run around more as ADHD or ADD. (Some parents and schools have taken to putting kids on drugs for ADD/ADHD simply to keep the kid still when all the kid really needs is to get off the tv/dvd/computer/etc and run around outside. Sad, but true.) (iii) Parents are not spending enough time at home with kids, and being the example they should be - this is partially caused by the divorces occurring, but also caused by jobs and the long commutes sometimes demanded by jobs (e.g. the WDC, NYC, and LA areas).
Now, I am not saying that all parents are doing this, or that all schools are doing this. Just a lot more than should be, and parents/schools/doctors/etc are letting them get away with it. The result, however, will be that the kids lives will be ruined in the long run. For example, most kids (and I've had friends go through this) that have been labeled ADD or ADHD will find it very difficult to get a job just because the ADD and ADHD was on their record. (Now, I am not saying that employers are right in that, but they find a way to disqualify a lot of people legally with that being the true reason. As I said, I've had friends go through it - and they don't get work until they find someone willing to work with someone that had ADD or ADHD.)
As to the poster(s) that suggests it safer in urban areas - I grew up just outside Paterson, NJ. We didn't have a game console, were not allowed to watch much TV, didn't have a VCR player or computer. We were outside quite a bit, and all the better for it. Parents have to do their job in raising kids - part of that is teaching them how to live in the world, how to survive in that urban area (however safe or dangerous it may be), etc. If you don't do your job as a parent, and don't get them off the TV/etc, then you will only be hurting the future by denying the potential in the kids.
To draw a very good example of what the article is speaking of, a few years ago Lego produced a few movies - Bionicles - and started releasing sets based on the characters in the movie. Why? They were seeing a slump in sales related to a lack of imagination in kids. Kids had been so spoon fed ideas that they were losing the ability to be creative and think of ideas on how to create stuff with Legos, Lincoln Logs, etc. As a result, sales of such toys were dropping, and Lego produced a movie and Lego sets based on it to help gain kids interests back - hoping kids would grab on enough to be able to transfer to the other, more expensive sets. (I don't know if it worked, but it did pick up their bottom line so far as I am aware.)
So - stop spoon feeding kids entertainment. Let them innovate with their own minds and be creative just like generations of kids in the past have been.
I know that I, for one, will not let my kids have a computer/tv/dvd/vcr/etc in their room, and will limit my own household to two TVs - actually projects hidden in the walls if I do what I really want to do. I know they'll be over at friends and TV will be like "all the rage", but I can minimize its use in my own home and guide them towards other activities - riding bikes, swimming, fishing, reading, etc - that stimulate their own minds and let them be kids, not technology junkies.
Per upgrading, Aero/Glass is a ton better than anything WinXP had. My use of Beta2/pre-RC1 puts Vista on the upgrade level of Win3.11 to Win95, almost. But it is a good overhaul. It still has a ton of issues that are generally specific to the Windows platform (security, etc.), but it's a good first step in the right direction for a lot of stuff. I still won't buy it - the only version that Microsoft is releasing that will be close to the stuff in Beta2/pre-RC1/RC1 will be the Vista Ultimate version, which looks (at least from the Canada pricing a while back on
I've been randomly selected once or twice - and I believe it was random. That's me though.
However, a friend of mine who use to work as a screener for the TSA told me that TSA has a lot of rules that are not suppose to be told to the public. For example, it's optional to take your shoes off to go through the metal detectors, though they advise that you do; but if you do not, then you are "randomly" selected because their rule is that if you do not, then you must be screened. There's others too, though that is the only one which I am familiar with off-hand. (I have not tested it, though I do trust my source on it.)
So, the question really is - were they truly "randomly" selected? Or did they break one of these rules and select themselves by doing so?
That doesn't mean that MS does not need to change its business stragety - they do.
This is why Nintendo will make a killing in the market when they release the Wii - they're not marketing to the 'traditional' gamers - but rather to everyone else.
Now I'm not sure if I would fully agree with only 6 types, but regardless the idea presented here is exactly why Nintendo will be huge, and take the lead with Microsoft and Sony sitting in second and third (which order I don't know, likely Microsoft will take second due to price; though I don't like the XBox series).
Any how...just food for thought. November will be a teller.
First of all - standard disclaimer - IANAL, etc.
Secondly, given that they are asking you to disclose all of your prior inventions/etc, I would say that it would only be fair if they were to do the same for you. If you are required to disclose your works, which they could potentially after the designated period exploit and profit from, it is only fair that you be afforded the same opportunity. (This alone will likely make them drop the clause.)
If they still insist on having the clause in there, then insist on the time period being indefinite or until the originating party does perform public disclosure - this in addition to the above.
These two should (and remember IANAL, but it seems reasonablely so) protect your works from being stolen by them. It also gives you information that you could use as recompse if they do try to exploit your works.
Granted, you may not have the legal backing that they do, and may thus not be able to fight it as easily or for as long, but its one step closer to giving you a better legal footing.
Also, from what I understand, you are free to strike anything you desire (initialling them to denote that you did the striking) from such contracts before you sign. They would then have to either sign after you or initial such strikes with you (i.e. you both initial the strikes, thus denoting both parties accept the changes).
And remember, IANAL so take this with a grain of salt. This seems reasonable and is likely what I myself would do if faced with such a situation.
To be most accurate...Microsoft did not enable certain modes of loading drivers, software, etc. under 32-bit Windows for compatibility reasons. One of these is requiring 'signed' drivers only. However, Microsoft declared that with the move to 64-bit, Windows will now require this.
i t/kmsigning.mspx.
Microsoft's customers will see this as Windows Vista x32 (the 32-bit version) won't do those additional tests before loading the drivers; however, Windows Vista x64 (the 64-bit version) will. The 64-bit processors, such as AMD's AMD64 series, also have an NX-bit that is not available in the 32-bit modes and 32-bit processors. (Intel's EMT64e variations of the Pentium line, and the CoreDuo lines are mere reflections of AMD's AMD64 architecture.)
Any how...for more info, search Microsoft's website on the issue, such as http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64b
Until they vessel can hold more than 1 person it is impossible to do as you say. And no company will for any cost or indemnification allow a pilot that is not one of their own (or certified by them) to fly their planes. If the person crashes, the company would be liable, and as others have stated, if the person could afford it then their estate would be rich enough to sue and take the company to court and essentially either put the out of business or lose large sums of money, likely leading to them going out of business.
Ever see "Hudsucker Proxy"? Think of the CEO deciding to get that license, fly the plane, and purposely crash it, but not telling anyone before hand, and then leaving it to the estate to pick up the pieces. The estate would quite quickly sue, and the company would lose unless the company had their own pilots flying. Why? Because the company did not take enough precautions to provide a satisfactory responsibility for safety.
...the Anime industry...duh...
The Anime people use "piracy" to their advantage - you do not seem a lot of marketting for Anime, with the exception of a few places, but those few places are based solely around anime (e.g. Anime Network, Cartoon Network, etc.).
The Anime people rely on customers to do grown-swell marketing for their products, and they respond to the customers. More and more I find myself disliking the movies from Hollywood - okay, they've had a couple good ones lately, but that's out of a ton of bad ones over the last few years - and more in tune with Anime. And guess what I'm generally buying when it comes to DVD's? Anime; entire series introduced by friends and content that Hollywood would likely have deemed "piracy".
And the fans generally respect the companies and get rid of the "piracy" as content becomes available in their own languages and regions. It's a win-win situation.
Now if only Hollywood would learn...
I, for one, do not own a PS2; however, I do own 1 8MB PS2 Memory Card, and 2 PS2 games that I use a friend's houses. I was considering getting a PS3 (that is until they announced the price and I deemed it to be way too much) to play those games and the PS3 games (if I got any) and to play DVD and BD-DVD movies. I had no intention of buying a PS2, but I might have gotten a PS3.
Now, however, I may either trade away my PS2 stuff - to get GameCube or Wii equivalents, for what I care about (really only one of the two games, I could junk the rest or give it away) - or if the PS2 becomes cheap enough, then I might buy a PS2 instead of the PS3 - however, at present I am leaning towards trading away the PS2 stuff. (I haven't decided yet.)
In summary, it would give them a larger market. Why has Microsoft made such a killing with Windows? Because every version of Windows is basically backwards compatible to most of their previous offerings (including DOS). So people see purchasing software for Windows as more of an investment that they would be able to continue using into the future, even as Windows changes. (Compared to Unix/Mac/etc where most software has to be replaced for major, and sometimes minor, upgrades of the OS. Even Linux has that occassionally, though the Linux guys have been good at keeping it to major version; however, the major versions go a lot longer than Microsoft does with Windows.)