Microsoft does seem to be making an effort to change their image.
Yes, they do seem to be making that effort, and it does appear to be working on the surface. However, beneath the surface, the same Microsoft is still in business.
Unless Gates and Ballmer relinquish the throne, the real Microsoft (not the Microsoft that the image-makers paint for us) will not, and can not, change.
To wit: Additionally, if you accidentally store your encrypted files amongst files containing random noise you run the risk of generating new data during decryption. Didn't anyone read this post before they moderated it?
About 70 percent of the world's e-mail messages continue to be spam. But the number is leveling off, which federal officials on Tuesday cited as evidence that a law enacted two years ago is working.
I still get messages that I call SPAM. However, those messages have removal links, so the FTC does not consider them to be SPAM. That is why the FTC thinks SPAM is leveling off. In reality, I am receiving more SPAM than I ever did.
The FTC is a political organization, naturally they are going to declare their work to be a success. What governmental agency has ever delcared, "the rules we proposed didn't work, and never will work."
does anyone know why some websites are locking out safari users?
This is part of the reason why Microsoft is dropping support for IE on the Mac. Many sites are IE-specific, now all those Mac users will be unable to surf those websites, making OS-X a little less enticing to those who would switch from Windows. Just when OS-X is starting to gain some legs. What a coincidence.
Relative to his vast wealth, he actually does not give a lot of money to charity, others contribute a far higher percentage than he does.
All that this latest "honor" shows is that when you obtain money illegally, it is OK so long as you give small portions of it to charity.
What most people do not know, is that there is extensive lobbying of Time magazine by the representatives of the person who wants to become Person of the Year. It is as much an influence-peddling award as anything else. Ditto for being knighted.
Have you noticed that Gates is getting a lot of honors recently, just as Microsoft seems to be having a lot of internal problems, and just before a year of significant product launches? Do you think it all might be related?
The second is meaningless; it uses big words, but ultimately doesn't use them to say anything.
The second is quite meaningful and, I might add, insightful. WikiPedia is an example of how distributed intellect works and how it can fail.
That you apparently disagree with the statement does not mean it is meaningless, it just means you disagree with it. I suspect that if the statement had been worded as "WikiPedia is an example of how distributed intellect works and how it can succeed" you would not have an objection to it.
And? You don't have to babysit anything. You make your changes, and if they're worth having then there's a good chance that other people, who do have the free time (or choose to give up some other hobby, to make the time), will babysit them for you.
If others would babysit them for me, I wouldn't have had to babysit them in the first place.
As I've said before, I think WikiPedia is a great concept. It still has, however, the rough edges of all nascent developments, rough edges like real accountability (not PR accountability) of its authors and reponsibility to its readers.
There may be too much copy-left remaining in the license for gecko:
How 'viral' is the MPL?
If I use MPLed code in my proprietary application, will I have to give all the source code away?
The MPL has a limited amount of 'copyleft' - more copyleft than the BSD family of licenses, which have no copyleft at all, but less than the LGPL or the GPL. It is based around the definition of a 'Modification' in the license
The implication is that the additional people who join the community will be better than those that are already in it. What if those who make the community larger are more error-prone than those who are already in the community?
people can write about whatever they want.
Even things they think they know something about.
Re:Interpreted Versus Compiled
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
I find it's nicer to write a chunk of code and then get all the bugs out of it.
Whatever works best for you. However, I am amazed that you can develop bug-free code. Very, very few people are capable of such a feat.
Re:Interpreted Versus Compiled
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
Java doesn't make you do two debug cycles, debugging while developing a program is a continuous process, from the design stages right on through to the release of the program. Java allows you to catch some types of bugs earlier in the development process.
The earlier you catch a bug, any bug, the better.
Re:Interpreted Versus Compiled
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The big issue here is speed of development and ease of use. Java is a bitch to learn, it requires a compiler,...
Requiring a complier can be a feature in applications that are anything but simple. If you have a syntax error in an interpreted language, and that syntax error is in a branch that does not get executed frequently, you won't know about that error until later, much later, probably early on a Sunday morning. On the other hand, a compiled language will flag the error at compile time.
Interpreted languages are good for quick development, less complicated projects where run-time errors don't cost lots of dollars.
I am waiting for the industry to force us all to buy new cd players so they can create some super secure format.
Sony tried that with SACD (no digital outputs on SACD players). The success of SACD can be measured by their inability to sell more copies this year than were sold of vinyl records.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they do seem to be making that effort, and it does appear to be working on the surface. However, beneath the surface, the same Microsoft is still in business.
Unless Gates and Ballmer relinquish the throne, the real Microsoft (not the Microsoft that the image-makers paint for us) will not, and can not, change.
Microsoft is still a monopoly in desktop OS's. The rest of the markets mentioned are beside the point, and irrelevant.
If nothing else, Opera is getting noticed in a lot more places these days. I wonder how the downloads are going?
I agree. Yet when I said that from a different angle, it was flamebait. :(
(yet not unexpected) twist of events.... Opera does not appear to render properly the webpage containing Dvorak's column.
To wit: Additionally, if you accidentally store your encrypted files amongst files containing random noise you run the risk of generating new data during decryption. Didn't anyone read this post before they moderated it?
I still get messages that I call SPAM. However, those messages have removal links, so the FTC does not consider them to be SPAM. That is why the FTC thinks SPAM is leveling off. In reality, I am receiving more SPAM than I ever did.
The FTC is a political organization, naturally they are going to declare their work to be a success. What governmental agency has ever delcared, "the rules we proposed didn't work, and never will work."
Looks like a couple of moderators don't understand competitive tactics of monoploistic market leaders.
This is part of the reason why Microsoft is dropping support for IE on the Mac. Many sites are IE-specific, now all those Mac users will be unable to surf those websites, making OS-X a little less enticing to those who would switch from Windows. Just when OS-X is starting to gain some legs. What a coincidence.
Relative to his vast wealth, he actually does not give a lot of money to charity, others contribute a far higher percentage than he does.
All that this latest "honor" shows is that when you obtain money illegally, it is OK so long as you give small portions of it to charity.
What most people do not know, is that there is extensive lobbying of Time magazine by the representatives of the person who wants to become Person of the Year. It is as much an influence-peddling award as anything else. Ditto for being knighted.
Have you noticed that Gates is getting a lot of honors recently, just as Microsoft seems to be having a lot of internal problems, and just before a year of significant product launches? Do you think it all might be related?
The second is quite meaningful and, I might add, insightful. WikiPedia is an example of how distributed intellect works and how it can fail.
That you apparently disagree with the statement does not mean it is meaningless, it just means you disagree with it. I suspect that if the statement had been worded as "WikiPedia is an example of how distributed intellect works and how it can succeed" you would not have an objection to it.
And? You don't have to babysit anything. You make your changes, and if they're worth having then there's a good chance that other people, who do have the free time (or choose to give up some other hobby, to make the time), will babysit them for you.
If others would babysit them for me, I wouldn't have had to babysit them in the first place.
As I've said before, I think WikiPedia is a great concept. It still has, however, the rough edges of all nascent developments, rough edges like real accountability (not PR accountability) of its authors and reponsibility to its readers.
In reality, it is a minor change with major PR. The protection of a page is temporary.
RFA, specifically the template that is used on a semi-protected page. This page is temporarily protected from being edited...
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.
Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions.
If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet.
I think parent should be read several times by those who are so quick to throw around the Wikipedia-basher label.
There may be too much copy-left remaining in the license for gecko:
Maybe to fix the bugs in Opera? Maybe to bring Opera's cookie management up to date?
The implication is that the additional people who join the community will be better than those that are already in it. What if those who make the community larger are more error-prone than those who are already in the community?
people can write about whatever they want.
Even things they think they know something about.
Whatever works best for you. However, I am amazed that you can develop bug-free code. Very, very few people are capable of such a feat.
The earlier you catch a bug, any bug, the better.
Requiring a complier can be a feature in applications that are anything but simple. If you have a syntax error in an interpreted language, and that syntax error is in a branch that does not get executed frequently, you won't know about that error until later, much later, probably early on a Sunday morning. On the other hand, a compiled language will flag the error at compile time.
Interpreted languages are good for quick development, less complicated projects where run-time errors don't cost lots of dollars.
not to make the transition?
Not an inherently poor design, but an inherently poor architecture. If AJAX needs to be browser-specific, it is doomed in the long term.
Think: flash in the pan.
Sure, but when something useful that is called a fad comes along, everyone thinks it will solve all the problems they face? Even those it doesn't?
Like this?
There are no problems with electronic voting machince, except maybe for this minor glitch.
Sony tried that with SACD (no digital outputs on SACD players). The success of SACD can be measured by their inability to sell more copies this year than were sold of vinyl records.