... to the insecurity of the United States. The "features over security" aspect of the products (Windows) he forced via his monopoly upon computer buyers in the United States has caused the computers of this country to be vulnerable to a wide range of attacks.
The Department of Homeland Security should be investigating Bill Gates, not doing his bidding.
Let's see, just exactly WHO should be responsible for the banks' security?
Your initial premise is incorrect.
You need to ask who is responsibility for the credentials (e.g., passwords) that the customers hold to their account. The bank's security is usually (emphasis on usually) fine. It is the customers who do not understand security of electronic finance.
In other words, people, who know that leaving the car keys in the ignition is insecure, are willing to click on an email attachment from someone they do not know. Why is this the bank's fault?
All this has shown is that the hackers want the Macbook Air with OS-X instead of a notebook with Windows Vista Ultimate.
Why would the hackers waste time trying to hack into a Vista notebook if the prize were to win that notebook? Now, if the prize had been a Macbook Air, even if the hackers owned the Vista notebook, then the outcome would surely be different.
Bottom line: no one wants Vista, not even hackers.
Two watts of power usage is at conflict with the form factor. That amount of power usage will prevent the device from being used in items which need the tiny form factor.
So, if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid.
Wouldn't that require Microsoft to innovate? With all the problems of Microsoft combining the two very different cultures, asking Microsoft to innovate at the same time (and some may say, for the first time) may be too much for Microsoft to handle.
While I was looking around for into on PowerBoost, I ran into these comments:
A Comcast official said the company is not boosting speeds for particular applications or content, a situation that would likely get Comcast into hot water with Net neutrality proponents, who want network operators to provide the same level of service to all content providers on the Net. Instead it's supercharging speeds for all customers downloading any content--whether it's music, e-mail, pictures or movies--when the network is not being used at maximum capacity.
"The Comcast network is really content-agnostic," said company spokeswoman Jeanne Russo.
[/quote]
So long as the cable companies also apply the high-traffic fees to the movies downloaded via their video on demand services, I see no problem for paying for the capacity you use.
However, if these fees are being used to prevent competitors from having equal access to the cable marketplace, then there is a significant problem here. Then the question becomes, why can't Time Warner and Comcast compete without a favorable bias in the marketplace?
... accumulated through the illegal leveraging of their desktop monopoly. Ever wonder where all the money from the over-priced MS Windows and MS Office franchises goes?
Microsoft is looking to put google out of business.
Get the corporate geeks to load it on their systems by writing a comic strip about them, a comic strip that just happens to require Silverlight to view.
Well, to be more accurate, what the patent system is supposed to do in a case like this is lower the net costs of security, and then reward the inventor by diverting some of the savings to him.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a fundamental flaw in any business plan that requires a vendor to believe its customers are thieves.
The Department of Homeland Security should be investigating Bill Gates, not doing his bidding.
Your initial premise is incorrect. You need to ask who is responsibility for the credentials (e.g., passwords) that the customers hold to their account. The bank's security is usually (emphasis on usually) fine. It is the customers who do not understand security of electronic finance.
In other words, people, who know that leaving the car keys in the ignition is insecure, are willing to click on an email attachment from someone they do not know. Why is this the bank's fault?
Why create the semblance of a fight where one did not exist? All google really wanted was open air-waves.
Verizon didn't beat google, Verizon played right into google's hand.
Approval was not won, approval was purchased.
Is Microsoft completely unable to play fairly and with integrity in anything they do?
Ho-hum....
FF v3 is not even released yet. Mozilla is becoming worse than Microsoft, both in vaporware and security-challenged browsers.
Why would the hackers waste time trying to hack into a Vista notebook if the prize were to win that notebook? Now, if the prize had been a Macbook Air, even if the hackers owned the Vista notebook, then the outcome would surely be different.
Bottom line: no one wants Vista, not even hackers.
It's obvious - Microsoft gets more practice.
Did Walmart really want to sell the Linux PCs in the first place? If they did, then why were the Linux PCs so hard to find at Walmarts?
a slow news day.
I wonder why?
A CIO with a liberal arts degree who thinks he knows all about Engineering and Technology.
Two watts of power usage is at conflict with the form factor. That amount of power usage will prevent the device from being used in items which need the tiny form factor.
Wouldn't that require Microsoft to innovate? With all the problems of Microsoft combining the two very different cultures, asking Microsoft to innovate at the same time (and some may say, for the first time) may be too much for Microsoft to handle.
"The Comcast network is really content-agnostic," said company spokeswoman Jeanne Russo. [/quote]
Comcast wants to kill off P2P because it is competition for VoD. Follow the money.
What they really need is a life.
More like, people with too much time on their hands.
So long as the cable companies also apply the high-traffic fees to the movies downloaded via their video on demand services, I see no problem for paying for the capacity you use. However, if these fees are being used to prevent competitors from having equal access to the cable marketplace, then there is a significant problem here. Then the question becomes, why can't Time Warner and Comcast compete without a favorable bias in the marketplace?
Why does anyone expect the truth from Microsoft anymore?
Microsoft is looking to put google out of business.
Get the corporate geeks to load it on their systems by writing a comic strip about them, a comic strip that just happens to require Silverlight to view.
Where does it say that in the patent laws?