I do think they care about hardware OEM's shipping old versions of their OS.
That seems to be one area where Microsoft have actually been successful so far. I know a handful of friends and family who have bought new desktop/laptop PCs since Windows 8 was released. The ones actually running Windows 8 are those who didn't have a reasonable alternative, because what they bought came with version 8 preinstalled by the manufacturer and for one reason or another upgrading to Windows 7 wasn't a practical option. Several of them have been extremely vocal about their views on Windows 8, which are typically not things you would repeat in polite company, but buying a good laptop that even has the option of Windows 7 preinstalled instead of 8 now seems very difficult, at least here in the UK.
GP is probably referring to things like HP ditching Win8 for Win7 in what they send to their customers and Microsoft worried that others will (or are) following HP's lead.
NT4 may have been a slight improvement over Windows 95 stability-wise, but made up for it in lousy performance.
Windows 2000 was the only version of Windows that could consistently be made to blue-screen by running PING. And the only version that needed six service packs before it got stable.
Well, Win95 would crash if it received two identical TCP packets since it didn't know what to do with the second copy.
Of course, starting with Vista they hide the Blue Screen by just automatically rebooting most of the time so there's only a few instances where it will just Blue Screen and die, but they are getting rarer because of that. They didn't fix the stability issue that way, just hid it.
XP (SP2 possibly required) was the first Windows that didn't suck big time.
You mean XP SP3 - which had a lot of performance improvements, a good firewall, etc. Of course, you had to disable the native interface and revert it to the Windows Classic look (which also increased performance), but that was a general XP thing.
I think the judges are applying a little-known standard called "do you have any wires"
The legislation that causes cable companies to need to pay broadcasters to re-distribute their broadcasts should apply equally to businesses that "don't have any wires" connecting them directly to their customers.
Just because you don't have any wires that belong to you and connect you directly with some customers ("the last mile"),
even if you can't pull a Comcast and charge Netflix for the privilege of reaching your customers who pay to receive "The Internet" which Netflix is a part of,
doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for bearing some of the cost of funding broadcast activities that you derive your business from. Sure they are broadcast signals, and "anyone" can get them for free, but if you take them away, you don't have a business... then the court says you have to pay for them.
So anything transmitted over the air (OTA) is considered public information. This is one reason why you can legally have a police scanner and listen in - though you are not allowed to necessarily transmit on the same bands you can listen on. OTA transmission is heavily regulated by the FCC, but OTA receipt is not.
Further, if the OTA information is "in the clear", as it is with TV signals (even the digital TV signals), then you can pretty much do what you want with it - record it, replay it, etc. This is allowed since you are within the receiving range for the signal.
The problem for Aero is that they were not simply enabling their customers to view their own TV stations remotely, but they were using what their customers recorded to provided that same content to other customers, who were not necessarily in the receiving range for the signal. This transforms the business into something more; and while I have not read the opinion (yet) and IANAL, this is likely why the judges went the way they did. Aero for all intents and purposes operated like a cable company, which does license the content, while trying to avoid paying for the content.
According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.
You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "
Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.
Here's the link. Working in a movie theatre would fall under "Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments".
You are lumping Common Law into Statuatory Law. The two are not the same. Statuatory Law is the sum of the bills passed by the Legislative Branch. Common Law is what is common observed by the people.
And what you state about Regulation in no way negates what I said - they are simply a derivative of the Statuatory Law by which they are bound. And as I said, Regulations can only be enforced so long as they are within those bounds; challenging whether they are within bounds or not is a good way to get rid of the regulation - and is done often by interested parties.
If you want to make a case otherwise, please provide evidence/examples for it.
Legislative makes the law, and judicial merely determines if actions are legal or not legal? Quaint, no?
Each branch of the government makes certain types of laws. The Legislative branch makes statues, the Executive branch makes regulations and the Judiciary makes case law. All three are necessary and proper to the functioning of civil society. All three are laws in every sense that matters. If any branch of the government was unable to make laws then that branch of government would be powerless against the other branches. Checks and balances only work if you can make laws.
The Legislative branch does make statuatory laws; regulations are not really law but the how the law is applied. Likewise Case Law is merely the judicial precedence set by the interpretation of the statuatory laws and their regulatory applications. Both Case Law and Regulations can be changed by even minor detail changes in Statuatory Law. In the end, Regulations and Case Law are not really law, simply treated as such as they are derivatives of law.
For example, FCC sets the regulations for its field; those regulations must be within the bounds of the statuatory law set by Congress that outlines what the FCC is allowed to do. That is why, for example, a judge said the FCC did not have the authority to implement Net Neutrality as a regulation since they did not have the authority under statuatory law to regulate information systems (under which they classified the Internet) while pointing out they could if the FCC reclassified ISPs as common carrier utilities that they did have statuatory authority to regulate.
SImilarly the is also why SCOTUS will sometimes issue recommendations to Congress with respect to its rulings telling Congress how they can change the Statuatory law to achieve what the State was trying to do. Other times they simply rule that the Constitution does not give the government the authority to do what is being sought - a clue that they have to amend the Constitution to achieve it (as with the Prohibition Amendment and its later repeal).
No, he's basically saying that they issued a very limited ruling that really applies to Aero and extremely similar cases and not ruling the general case that affects everyone. The wording is making that clear to lower courts.
That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.
My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.
You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.
Minimum wage does not typically apply to salaried workers who are generally "professionals" which are exempt from minimum wage. There are also a host of positions (such as working at a movie theater) that are also exempt. (See http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co... for details.)
Now, if you are hourly and in a position that qualitifes, then you are generally good. Restaurant workers that receive tips are guaranteed by law at least minimum wage - that is, they get the greater of minimum wage or their base of $1.20/hr plus tips for the pay period. Beware - not every position qualifies.
With Android and iOS I think we are slowly seeing that dynamic changing; especially with T-mobile making it more apparent what phones cost. The upgrade cycle for phones is probably going to start elongating from that 2 year contract-renewal style to when people actually break them or network differences become significant enough.
FYI - my own personal phone is a Nexus One, over 3 years old. Still works. Only complaint is the 512MB Flash. Only thinking about getting a new phone because I'm thinking changing carriers and even then, might keep it if it transfers well enough (AT&T to T-mobile). My wife (non-techie, CPA) doesn't want to spend a lot of money oh phones that often either; she'd like an iPhone if we switch carriers but won't be doing the 2 year upgrade cycle either. My sister (non-techie), OTOH, has an older iPhone that she's reluctant to give up because they want to drop her grandfathered unlimited data plan if she switches it out. So no, I'm not alone in that long upgrade cycle.
Actually it just shows me MS might be growing out of their shell. In the past they would have avoided doing this by any means but now they have acquired a company and decided that it is somewhat neutral to it's own objectives. This is the best way to move forward as a business.
At best they build a name for themselves in a market they have had a very hard time penetrating.
At worse, they get to point a finger and say that Windows 8 is not failing due to the merits of Windows 8 (and WIndows Phone 8) but to available applications for it, or something like that.
So it's a good way to gauge the markets acceptance of Microsoft actually being in the game.
Well Microsoft has a pretty good history of offering long term support, which is something severely lacking from many Android offerings. I bought a computer 8 years ago with Windows XP, and they only recently stopped putting out updates for that. And if I bought a copy of Windows 7 or 8, I could continue using the same hardware with updates for quite a few years to come. I wish the same could be done with a phone. With high end phones priced at over $500, is it too much to ask that we get software updates for a few years? The last laptop I bought cost less than that, and came with Windows 7, so I'm expecting quite a few years of software updates on top of the 2.5 I've already got.
Microsoft is all over the map with support. For products that catch on, then yes - they continue to support it for a long time. For products that don't, or that they have problems with then no, they don't.
One poster already mentioned Windows Phone 7. It did have a few updates, but most of the phones didn't get them WIndows Phone 7.5 was the last version, and the entire series had zero upgrade path to Windows Phone 8. However, this was typically of the Windows CE line. WInCE 5 didn't really upgrade to WinCE 6; it was mostly up to manufacturers to provide that path, and they typically did not - it was burned into the ROMs on the devices at the time.
And don't forget the Kin (Microsoft's first forary into building phones themselves), which got dropped pretty quickly.
And let's not forget Outlook '97 which had enough issues that MS dropped support for it after releasing a free upgrade from it to Outlook '98.
It all comes down to what keeps their profits going, and does it make good business sense to continue supporting it. In the case of WinXP it made sense to keep supporting it for years beyond when they really wanted to because the user-base was so large; however, it became an issue with getting people to buy newer versions so from the business perspective it had to get dropped even though it still commanded a very large user base.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides?
As others have said, there's peering agreements worked out to cover all of this - things worked out by the free market.
Nonetheless, let's get to the heart of the issue - the ISPs are not provisioning the bandwidth that their customers are purchasing; so they want to charge the other side for doing so when its their own damn fault for not providing the kind of business their customers really want; and their customers generally have little choice because of all the other legal stuff those same ISPs have done - preventing munipalities from setting up their own providers, region locking cable service to one company by contracts with various regions, etc.
So in effect, the free market does have a very good answer here - and one that would require the existing players to make substantial investments into their infrastructure now, and more than do now going forward to maintain it, simply because they've chosen to hoard the money instead of maintain the infrastructure.
FYI -- they discuss the issue of "applying it on a computer" quite a bit throughout the entire opinion, so for all intents and purposes they are discussing a software patent. IANAL; however, previously discussing this with several friends that are, they viewed it as a software patent case too.
Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F. 3d, at 1286
(Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer imple
-
mentation is not generally the so
rt of “additional featur[e]”
that provides any “practical a
ssurance that the process is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea] itself.”
Mayo
, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at
8–9).
Android runs on java code. It seemed incredibly strange to run an emulator to run a JVM to run code.
1. As another said, Android does not provide a JVM. They provide the DalvikVM which is different in many ways from the JVM including the bytecode instructions used, as well as many classes that are present the JVM but not in the DalvikVM and vice versa. Using the JVM with an additional set of classes works out well for development more by-chance and the nature of the Java Language than anything else.
2. Many Android Apps uses native libraries to speed up the application - e.g there is a lot of code in Android that is C/C++ and not Java code because Java is too slow for the tasks being achieved. Hence, the code is built for the ARM platform and not the x86 platform.
Remember that liberal PAC groups were equally tied up in this and
that 501c3 tax exempt groups are explicitly denied the ability
to make political endorsements.
There are more types of non profits than 501(c)3 non-profits.
IRS provides a list, but not as helpful as the one on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5....
PACs better fit under 501(c)4 non-profits, which are allowed to influence politics and legislation.
Simple Fairness, however, dictates that things provided by the state be equal for all groups; but everything else is available if you want it and can afford it because you (in fairness) worked hard enough to earn it.
But is it fairness when you didn't work hard enough to earn it, but were lucky enough to have parents who did? If someone else can't afford school or healthcare because they were less lucky in the draw of parents, what I hear from the right isn't "that's unfair, let's make it right", but "tough shit, but not my shit".
My family would have been considered quite poor when I was growing up. Yet my parents figured out how to get us a good education and send us to college - each of their children progressively having better circumstances. My sister has an undergrad and a law degree; I have an undergrad; and my brother chose not to complete college.
Ultimately it doesn't fully matter. It comes down to how hard the student (child) works to better themselves. You have rich kids that squander away every opportunity and by age 30 you'd think they grew up in the slums, when they grew up with multimillionair parents; and you have kids that had nothing going to college and becoming multimillionairs themselve; and of course everyone in between.
Fairness is not whether or not the initial opportunities provided to you are on equal ground - that's impossible. Fairness is that you have the ability to choose whether to take advantage of the opportunities before you and make the most of it to better yourself or squander it. You want to be in high society? Okay, do the hard work and get there - it's achievable. You want to live off food stamps and welfare? Okay, but don't expect pity from me.
Now contrast that with countries like India where no matter what you do the caste you are born into dictates how high you can go. Oh, you want to be a CEO? Sorry, you are part of group X and they can't do that. You want to go to college? Sorry, but group Y can't do that and you're one of them.
So stop bullshitting about what you think is unfair and realize the opportunities before you and take them, and encourage those around you to take them because no matter what socio-economic group you belong to in the US and Canada (and in most cases in Europe) you have more opportunties available to you than 90+% of the world, with far more fairness available to you in the ability to do better in life.
The Republican bill that would remove ISPs from FCC regulation would allow states to regulate. It would make rent seeking a lot more difficult for ISPs.
This bill would do the obvious thing that the Fourth Branch has failed to do. It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing.
This wouldn't address the paid prioritization problem, but seems like it would give consumers more rights against ISPs in re traffic shaping, etc.
So the problem here isn't that the FCC hasn't already tried to do Net Neutrality - they have. The problem is that the Judicial branch told the FCC they don't have the authority to do so, which probably stems from them classifying internet infrastructure and ISPs not as Telcos but as "information" providers.
If you have an electric power train, then you don't have a hybrid. You have an electric car, and optionally a generator. Somewhere along the line a decade or so ago, someone got the stupid idea that hybrids were the future, and we've been stuck with them ever since, rather than getting a proper mass market electric.
If you have a gas power train, then you don't have a hybrid....
no...a hybrid simply means that you have multiple power sources. It says nothing about the drive/power train. Early hybrids (f.e prius) had a dual power train - both electric and gas - which mean they carried a lot of extra weight that wasn't necessary.
I've always argued that a true hybrid would only have an electric power train and relegate the gas engine to simply recharging the batteries with the option to plug-in to recharge - preferably able to do so while the vehicle is in use, at speed, and with 1 gallon of fuel (diesel, gas, ethanol, etc, etc.). They still have multiple power sources (gas, battery storage, plug-in recharge), but gain the efficiency of a single drive/power train, and going further by allowing the generator gas engine run at its peak efficiency points.
For all their mouth-breathing bullshit, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that the GOP is stupid. This is a lose-lose for the President on its face: if the NSA doesn't come back with the data that it's asserted they have, then they're in cahoots with Obama; if they somehow do come back with it, then it proves the GOP right. Either way, they win. It's a slimy, empty, political victory, but a victory all the same.
So you're also completely ignoring the fact that the White House is by law required to keep those e-mails for a number of years, so the White House by not providing them is showing that they are breaking the law as the required period has not yet passed.
As others have said, the only reason Obama has not been brought up on Impeachment charges is because he is the first black president and no one wants make it seem like a race thing. So instead, he's being allowed to break the law, deface the country, and more...
Editing
"The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete work."
I've not got access to the contract terms or job descriptions at/. HQ, but I'm pretty sure at least one of those words will be included in the details for an "Editor" position.
News Editors haven't been doing that for a long time. Just look at the farse news on ABC, CBS, NYTimes, NBC, and all the other big media outlets.
Motorola? And that was purely for its patent portfolio (the rest was just icing). $4.5B would have been a pittance to Google if it thought any of the Nortel patents were worth more than the potential litigation fees. Of course, they may also have something in the Motorola portfolio that they can use to smack MS down with, so maybe it's actually a case of Mutually Assured Destruction via patent lawsuits.
The Motorola purchase by Google was not simply for its Patent Portfolio. There's a lot of pundits out there that want to write it up as such, but it wasn't. There was a lot of value Google got from buying Motorola that was beyond the patents issue. Having said that, some of the things they sold off/spun out of Motorola have covered a good chunk of that purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
feed it to Excel, it'll round up to 9
Sure, if you FLOOR() it; on the other hand, if you CEILING() it it may round down to 7.
I do think they care about hardware OEM's shipping old versions of their OS.
That seems to be one area where Microsoft have actually been successful so far. I know a handful of friends and family who have bought new desktop/laptop PCs since Windows 8 was released. The ones actually running Windows 8 are those who didn't have a reasonable alternative, because what they bought came with version 8 preinstalled by the manufacturer and for one reason or another upgrading to Windows 7 wasn't a practical option. Several of them have been extremely vocal about their views on Windows 8, which are typically not things you would repeat in polite company, but buying a good laptop that even has the option of Windows 7 preinstalled instead of 8 now seems very difficult, at least here in the UK.
GP is probably referring to things like HP ditching Win8 for Win7 in what they send to their customers and Microsoft worried that others will (or are) following HP's lead.
NT4 may have been a slight improvement over Windows 95 stability-wise, but made up for it in lousy performance.
Windows 2000 was the only version of Windows that could consistently be made to blue-screen by running PING. And the only version that needed six service packs before it got stable.
Well, Win95 would crash if it received two identical TCP packets since it didn't know what to do with the second copy.
Of course, starting with Vista they hide the Blue Screen by just automatically rebooting most of the time so there's only a few instances where it will just Blue Screen and die, but they are getting rarer because of that. They didn't fix the stability issue that way, just hid it.
XP (SP2 possibly required) was the first Windows that didn't suck big time.
You mean XP SP3 - which had a lot of performance improvements, a good firewall, etc. Of course, you had to disable the native interface and revert it to the Windows Classic look (which also increased performance), but that was a general XP thing.
I think the judges are applying a little-known standard called "do you have any wires"
The legislation that causes cable companies to need to pay broadcasters to re-distribute their broadcasts should apply equally to businesses that "don't have any wires" connecting them directly to their customers.
Just because you don't have any wires that belong to you and connect you directly with some customers ("the last mile"),
even if you can't pull a Comcast and charge Netflix for the privilege of reaching your customers who pay to receive "The Internet" which Netflix is a part of,
doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for bearing some of the cost of funding broadcast activities that you derive your business from. Sure they are broadcast signals, and "anyone" can get them for free, but if you take them away, you don't have a business... then the court says you have to pay for them.
So anything transmitted over the air (OTA) is considered public information. This is one reason why you can legally have a police scanner and listen in - though you are not allowed to necessarily transmit on the same bands you can listen on. OTA transmission is heavily regulated by the FCC, but OTA receipt is not.
Further, if the OTA information is "in the clear", as it is with TV signals (even the digital TV signals), then you can pretty much do what you want with it - record it, replay it, etc. This is allowed since you are within the receiving range for the signal.
The problem for Aero is that they were not simply enabling their customers to view their own TV stations remotely, but they were using what their customers recorded to provided that same content to other customers, who were not necessarily in the receiving range for the signal. This transforms the business into something more; and while I have not read the opinion (yet) and IANAL, this is likely why the judges went the way they did. Aero for all intents and purposes operated like a cable company, which does license the content, while trying to avoid paying for the content.
According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.
You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "
Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.
Here's the link. Working in a movie theatre would fall under "Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments".
You are lumping Common Law into Statuatory Law. The two are not the same. Statuatory Law is the sum of the bills passed by the Legislative Branch. Common Law is what is common observed by the people.
And what you state about Regulation in no way negates what I said - they are simply a derivative of the Statuatory Law by which they are bound. And as I said, Regulations can only be enforced so long as they are within those bounds; challenging whether they are within bounds or not is a good way to get rid of the regulation - and is done often by interested parties.
If you want to make a case otherwise, please provide evidence/examples for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
You mean this. Sorry, but no comparison. That didn't even make it out of the state legislature.
Legislative makes the law, and judicial merely determines if actions are legal or not legal? Quaint, no?
Each branch of the government makes certain types of laws. The Legislative branch makes statues, the Executive branch makes regulations and the Judiciary makes case law. All three are necessary and proper to the functioning of civil society. All three are laws in every sense that matters. If any branch of the government was unable to make laws then that branch of government would be powerless against the other branches. Checks and balances only work if you can make laws.
The Legislative branch does make statuatory laws; regulations are not really law but the how the law is applied. Likewise Case Law is merely the judicial precedence set by the interpretation of the statuatory laws and their regulatory applications. Both Case Law and Regulations can be changed by even minor detail changes in Statuatory Law. In the end, Regulations and Case Law are not really law, simply treated as such as they are derivatives of law.
For example, FCC sets the regulations for its field; those regulations must be within the bounds of the statuatory law set by Congress that outlines what the FCC is allowed to do. That is why, for example, a judge said the FCC did not have the authority to implement Net Neutrality as a regulation since they did not have the authority under statuatory law to regulate information systems (under which they classified the Internet) while pointing out they could if the FCC reclassified ISPs as common carrier utilities that they did have statuatory authority to regulate.
SImilarly the is also why SCOTUS will sometimes issue recommendations to Congress with respect to its rulings telling Congress how they can change the Statuatory law to achieve what the State was trying to do. Other times they simply rule that the Constitution does not give the government the authority to do what is being sought - a clue that they have to amend the Constitution to achieve it (as with the Prohibition Amendment and its later repeal).
No, he's basically saying that they issued a very limited ruling that really applies to Aero and extremely similar cases and not ruling the general case that affects everyone. The wording is making that clear to lower courts.
You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.
Minimum wage does not typically apply to salaried workers who are generally "professionals" which are exempt from minimum wage. There are also a host of positions (such as working at a movie theater) that are also exempt. (See http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co... for details.)
Now, if you are hourly and in a position that qualitifes, then you are generally good. Restaurant workers that receive tips are guaranteed by law at least minimum wage - that is, they get the greater of minimum wage or their base of $1.20/hr plus tips for the pay period. Beware - not every position qualifies.
But who is going to bribe the politicians to pass employment laws?
Not the unions. They get around the law with the union contracts the companies are forced to take.
With Android and iOS I think we are slowly seeing that dynamic changing; especially with T-mobile making it more apparent what phones cost. The upgrade cycle for phones is probably going to start elongating from that 2 year contract-renewal style to when people actually break them or network differences become significant enough.
FYI - my own personal phone is a Nexus One, over 3 years old. Still works. Only complaint is the 512MB Flash. Only thinking about getting a new phone because I'm thinking changing carriers and even then, might keep it if it transfers well enough (AT&T to T-mobile). My wife (non-techie, CPA) doesn't want to spend a lot of money oh phones that often either; she'd like an iPhone if we switch carriers but won't be doing the 2 year upgrade cycle either. My sister (non-techie), OTOH, has an older iPhone that she's reluctant to give up because they want to drop her grandfathered unlimited data plan if she switches it out. So no, I'm not alone in that long upgrade cycle.
Actually it just shows me MS might be growing out of their shell. In the past they would have avoided doing this by any means but now they have acquired a company and decided that it is somewhat neutral to it's own objectives. This is the best way to move forward as a business.
At best they build a name for themselves in a market they have had a very hard time penetrating.
At worse, they get to point a finger and say that Windows 8 is not failing due to the merits of Windows 8 (and WIndows Phone 8) but to available applications for it, or something like that.
So it's a good way to gauge the markets acceptance of Microsoft actually being in the game.
Well Microsoft has a pretty good history of offering long term support, which is something severely lacking from many Android offerings. I bought a computer 8 years ago with Windows XP, and they only recently stopped putting out updates for that. And if I bought a copy of Windows 7 or 8, I could continue using the same hardware with updates for quite a few years to come. I wish the same could be done with a phone. With high end phones priced at over $500, is it too much to ask that we get software updates for a few years? The last laptop I bought cost less than that, and came with Windows 7, so I'm expecting quite a few years of software updates on top of the 2.5 I've already got.
Microsoft is all over the map with support. For products that catch on, then yes - they continue to support it for a long time. For products that don't, or that they have problems with then no, they don't.
One poster already mentioned Windows Phone 7. It did have a few updates, but most of the phones didn't get them WIndows Phone 7.5 was the last version, and the entire series had zero upgrade path to Windows Phone 8. However, this was typically of the Windows CE line. WInCE 5 didn't really upgrade to WinCE 6; it was mostly up to manufacturers to provide that path, and they typically did not - it was burned into the ROMs on the devices at the time.
And don't forget the Kin (Microsoft's first forary into building phones themselves), which got dropped pretty quickly.
And let's not forget Outlook '97 which had enough issues that MS dropped support for it after releasing a free upgrade from it to Outlook '98.
It all comes down to what keeps their profits going, and does it make good business sense to continue supporting it. In the case of WinXP it made sense to keep supporting it for years beyond when they really wanted to because the user-base was so large; however, it became an issue with getting people to buy newer versions so from the business perspective it had to get dropped even though it still commanded a very large user base.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides?
As others have said, there's peering agreements worked out to cover all of this - things worked out by the free market.
Nonetheless, let's get to the heart of the issue - the ISPs are not provisioning the bandwidth that their customers are purchasing; so they want to charge the other side for doing so when its their own damn fault for not providing the kind of business their customers really want; and their customers generally have little choice because of all the other legal stuff those same ISPs have done - preventing munipalities from setting up their own providers, region locking cable service to one company by contracts with various regions, etc.
So in effect, the free market does have a very good answer here - and one that would require the existing players to make substantial investments into their infrastructure now, and more than do now going forward to maintain it, simply because they've chosen to hoard the money instead of maintain the infrastructure.
FYI -- they discuss the issue of "applying it on a computer" quite a bit throughout the entire opinion, so for all intents and purposes they are discussing a software patent. IANAL; however, previously discussing this with several friends that are, they viewed it as a software patent case too.
Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F. 3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer imple - mentation is not generally the so rt of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical a ssurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo , 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8–9).
Android runs on java code. It seemed incredibly strange to run an emulator to run a JVM to run code.
1. As another said, Android does not provide a JVM. They provide the DalvikVM which is different in many ways from the JVM including the bytecode instructions used, as well as many classes that are present the JVM but not in the DalvikVM and vice versa. Using the JVM with an additional set of classes works out well for development more by-chance and the nature of the Java Language than anything else.
2. Many Android Apps uses native libraries to speed up the application - e.g there is a lot of code in Android that is C/C++ and not Java code because Java is too slow for the tasks being achieved. Hence, the code is built for the ARM platform and not the x86 platform.
Remember that liberal PAC groups were equally tied up in this and that 501c3 tax exempt groups are explicitly denied the ability to make political endorsements.
There are more types of non profits than 501(c)3 non-profits.
IRS provides a list, but not as helpful as the one on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5....
PACs better fit under 501(c)4 non-profits, which are allowed to influence politics and legislation.
Simple Fairness, however, dictates that things provided by the state be equal for all groups; but everything else is available if you want it and can afford it because you (in fairness) worked hard enough to earn it.
But is it fairness when you didn't work hard enough to earn it, but were lucky enough to have parents who did? If someone else can't afford school or healthcare because they were less lucky in the draw of parents, what I hear from the right isn't "that's unfair, let's make it right", but "tough shit, but not my shit".
My family would have been considered quite poor when I was growing up. Yet my parents figured out how to get us a good education and send us to college - each of their children progressively having better circumstances. My sister has an undergrad and a law degree; I have an undergrad; and my brother chose not to complete college.
Ultimately it doesn't fully matter. It comes down to how hard the student (child) works to better themselves. You have rich kids that squander away every opportunity and by age 30 you'd think they grew up in the slums, when they grew up with multimillionair parents; and you have kids that had nothing going to college and becoming multimillionairs themselve; and of course everyone in between.
Fairness is not whether or not the initial opportunities provided to you are on equal ground - that's impossible. Fairness is that you have the ability to choose whether to take advantage of the opportunities before you and make the most of it to better yourself or squander it. You want to be in high society? Okay, do the hard work and get there - it's achievable. You want to live off food stamps and welfare? Okay, but don't expect pity from me.
Now contrast that with countries like India where no matter what you do the caste you are born into dictates how high you can go. Oh, you want to be a CEO? Sorry, you are part of group X and they can't do that. You want to go to college? Sorry, but group Y can't do that and you're one of them.
So stop bullshitting about what you think is unfair and realize the opportunities before you and take them, and encourage those around you to take them because no matter what socio-economic group you belong to in the US and Canada (and in most cases in Europe) you have more opportunties available to you than 90+% of the world, with far more fairness available to you in the ability to do better in life.
The Republican bill that would remove ISPs from FCC regulation would allow states to regulate. It would make rent seeking a lot more difficult for ISPs. This bill would do the obvious thing that the Fourth Branch has failed to do. It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing. This wouldn't address the paid prioritization problem, but seems like it would give consumers more rights against ISPs in re traffic shaping, etc.
So the problem here isn't that the FCC hasn't already tried to do Net Neutrality - they have. The problem is that the Judicial branch told the FCC they don't have the authority to do so, which probably stems from them classifying internet infrastructure and ISPs not as Telcos but as "information" providers.
If you have an electric power train, then you don't have a hybrid. You have an electric car, and optionally a generator. Somewhere along the line a decade or so ago, someone got the stupid idea that hybrids were the future, and we've been stuck with them ever since, rather than getting a proper mass market electric.
If you have a gas power train, then you don't have a hybrid....
no...a hybrid simply means that you have multiple power sources. It says nothing about the drive/power train. Early hybrids (f.e prius) had a dual power train - both electric and gas - which mean they carried a lot of extra weight that wasn't necessary.
I've always argued that a true hybrid would only have an electric power train and relegate the gas engine to simply recharging the batteries with the option to plug-in to recharge - preferably able to do so while the vehicle is in use, at speed, and with 1 gallon of fuel (diesel, gas, ethanol, etc, etc.). They still have multiple power sources (gas, battery storage, plug-in recharge), but gain the efficiency of a single drive/power train, and going further by allowing the generator gas engine run at its peak efficiency points.
For all their mouth-breathing bullshit, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that the GOP is stupid. This is a lose-lose for the President on its face: if the NSA doesn't come back with the data that it's asserted they have, then they're in cahoots with Obama; if they somehow do come back with it, then it proves the GOP right. Either way, they win. It's a slimy, empty, political victory, but a victory all the same.
So you're also completely ignoring the fact that the White House is by law required to keep those e-mails for a number of years, so the White House by not providing them is showing that they are breaking the law as the required period has not yet passed.
As others have said, the only reason Obama has not been brought up on Impeachment charges is because he is the first black president and no one wants make it seem like a race thing. So instead, he's being allowed to break the law, deface the country, and more...
Editing "The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete work." I've not got access to the contract terms or job descriptions at /. HQ, but I'm pretty sure at least one of those words will be included in the details for an "Editor" position.
News Editors haven't been doing that for a long time. Just look at the farse news on ABC, CBS, NYTimes, NBC, and all the other big media outlets.
Motorola? And that was purely for its patent portfolio (the rest was just icing). $4.5B would have been a pittance to Google if it thought any of the Nortel patents were worth more than the potential litigation fees. Of course, they may also have something in the Motorola portfolio that they can use to smack MS down with, so maybe it's actually a case of Mutually Assured Destruction via patent lawsuits.
The Motorola purchase by Google was not simply for its Patent Portfolio. There's a lot of pundits out there that want to write it up as such, but it wasn't. There was a lot of value Google got from buying Motorola that was beyond the patents issue. Having said that, some of the things they sold off/spun out of Motorola have covered a good chunk of that purchase.