That is faulty logic, it assumes people are only capable of doing good because they believe some mythical being is looking over their shoulder. Personally I believe most people are good and do not require the threat of constant supervision to perform good deeds and any that do require it I try to avoid like the plague. Their are plenty of non-religious organisations around the world devoted to helping others.
He praised their actions not their beliefs, I also praise the actions of church groups that help the needy and homeless. But I still don't believe in the mythology they try and push.
A low end PC for email/calendarig/word processing is massively cheaper than a tablet or even a smartphone. if they are concerned about money then PC's will be the first choice.
While I am sure it is universally hated, taking the fact there was 19,000 against and 0 for as proof of that is just idiotic. People generally only respond to these requests for public comment when it is something they are against. The conclusion based on this is as dumb as the bill itself
No, they are making more money now than they ever have with consistent steady growth in income. That may change in future but right now they are certainly still increasing not decreasing.
Of course the official line is everything is ok, while I think onLive is a moronic idea that is trying to appeal to a niche that doesn't really exist (too expensive for casuals, not good enough for hardcore) You can't start announcing, "at current rate we will be bankrupt in 6 months or 3 months", this would instantly terminate any hope of recovery as investors or more importantly potential investors will run a mile. This isn't something unique to OnLive, a company is always a going concern until they run out of time to find new money/investors or a way to turn the business around. OnLive is a lame duck concept, if execs were bought of with shares in a new company they will lose that too.
The mainframe isn't decreasing in popularity and being marginalised at all. Just today's mainframes run on highend intel/AMD/Power based architectures. If you had said z/OS is becoming marginalised then yes, but the hardware side has merely transformed. Have you seen the number of virtual servers and size of some of the systems in place today? those are mainframes, managed in a similar fashion with just a different label. PC's will be the same, they may transform somewhat, perhaps they will be docking stations where you plug a phone size device into, but they will still be PC's in everything but name.
Why bring up first to file in the summary? it is completely irrelevant, first to file doesn't mean prior art is ignored or that you can just go patent someone else's ideas. It merely means if 2 people/organisations are working in secret on their invention then it is whoever patents it first that gets the patent not whoever can spend huge amounts of lawyers and paperwork to try and show they had the idea 5 minutes before the other person.
If only Google didn't have the temerity to create a competing OS and decimate iOS's market share, this wouldn't have happened.
Um... Pretty sure Android has more than 1/10th the market share of iOS.
Not sure what that post even means, of course Android has more than 1/10th, they have the majority share now, hence the previous posters statement that they have decimated the iOS market share and continue to do so.
I am just over 6 foot 3 and 225lbs, most small cars are undrivable for me as there simply isn't enough leg room, especially if they are manual, without jamming my knees against the wheel. A couple of inchs can make a huge difference and most smaller cars seem to be designed with a max height of just over 6 foot in mind, however there are plenty of medium sized cars I can happily drive though I do find I need to carefully check both legroom and headroom before rental or purchase.
In Australia the Jury does not get to hear the criminal record of the individuals on trial. I was on jury last year and it wasn't until we had given a verdict that we got to hear about the endless criminal history of the person.
It may have been banned before the media got a hold of it but it was certainly a problem long before then. We had a whole team of federal agents swarm our farm back in the 80's because my idiot younger brother decided he would play spot the landing plane. luckily for him it was well before it was sensationalised in the media so he got off with a warning and thrashing from parents.
We used to have the same problem in Australia. They took the outright ban approach here, it has massively reduced the incidents, not sure if I am in favour of that approach or not, but can't deny it has worked.
If the only way for it to work is if people have to opt in to privacy then it is a standard that DOESN'T need saving. Either MS's approach here gets the right result and everyone gets more privacy or the standard dies and people can look at implementing something not written to give all the power to the advertisers instead of the users where it belongs. Either way is win win, DNT in its current form is a joke.
Why the hell should anyone have to make a fully informed choice to have the right to privacy. Should you have to make a fully informed choice not to be murdered and have that be recorded too? how about not to be robbed? or not to have someone peering into your window to see what you don't own so they can try and sell you something? how about not to be stalked?.... oh wait this is what advertisers are doing and you are quite happy with unconsentual stalking.
The problem is this parallel track derails the other track. This completely puts all power into the hands of advertisers, puts no legal responsibility on them to protect a users privacy and no consequences for ignoring it while at the same time gives them Political PR to say "look what wonderful people we are, we protect the users privacy" and I will happily bet a large sum that the next government that suggests privacy laws on tracking they will come out with "hey guys ease up there, look at these wonderful voluntary self regulatory initiatives we have taken, give us a few years to show you how well it is working", then in a few more years "well it isn't our fault people didn't know they could opt out of being tracked, give us a few more years and we will work on ways to better inform the public". on and on the circus will go, the only losers are the uses and as always the winners will be the advertisers.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.", those technically savy already have the capability to handle much of what the advertisers throw at us, including blocking it altogether. What is needed is advocacy on behalf of those that can't do this for themselves.
What I truly don't understand is the communities viewpoint that advertisers have all the power here, They don't, the power can be put in the hands of the users and we "should" have all the bargaining power. If the advertisers don't want to honor a DNT that is turned on by default then we should be Browsers should be looking at incorporating Full Ad Block functionality by default, watch the advertisers come screaming to the bargaining table then. This whole thing has been arse backwards from start, sell outs like Roy Fielding need to be ostracised, we need people pushing for privacy, not pushing for the privileged few.
I can see that point of view but completely disagree with it. A half arsed standard is worse than none at all, with a such a poorly thought out standard that advertising know the vast majority of users aren't informed enough to take advantage of they will be able to safely continue to track the majority while at the same time be able to crow about how wonderfully self regulated they are and how they don't need anyone looking into their privacy practises. It is about time this industry was cleaned up. Tracking is an unecessary evil, it should be the responsibility of the advertiser to convince the user of the value of being tracked.
What's truly disgusting here is all these companies arguing that users should have to opt in to privacy. Hopefully privacy groups and laws around privacy will come down hard on companies that try to ignore the DNT. If tracking is so critical then companies should be making their case to users why they should turn them on, if they manage to convince people well and good, but this bullshit of we will only obey the DNT if only a small group of tech savy people use it is just pathetic. It is almost understandable that companies are complaining by the apache group should be castrated for their anti privacy approach.
It can both be a good thing and a very bad thing. A companies long term goal is success and profitability, quite often that requires someone motivated to make the hard decisions and those decisions can make a lot of enemies and create a lot of hate which someone that doesn't have their own future riding on it can often be more likely to avoid or simply walk away when the going gets tough. I hope she is someone that simply likes a challenge regardless of pain or HP could be in for many more years of stumbling in the dark.
That is true for some, but the Asus Zenbook's if anything have both superior specs and superior build quality to the airs. As with anything though not everything is better on them, the trackpad is worse and battery life is a little less, but the performance, screen resolution and build quality on the Asus is better.
Slashdot Mirror
That is faulty logic, it assumes people are only capable of doing good because they believe some mythical being is looking over their shoulder. Personally I believe most people are good and do not require the threat of constant supervision to perform good deeds and any that do require it I try to avoid like the plague. Their are plenty of non-religious organisations around the world devoted to helping others.
He praised their actions not their beliefs, I also praise the actions of church groups that help the needy and homeless. But I still don't believe in the mythology they try and push.
A low end PC for email/calendarig/word processing is massively cheaper than a tablet or even a smartphone. if they are concerned about money then PC's will be the first choice.
While I am sure it is universally hated, taking the fact there was 19,000 against and 0 for as proof of that is just idiotic. People generally only respond to these requests for public comment when it is something they are against. The conclusion based on this is as dumb as the bill itself
A single quarter does not make a trend, especially when they follow it up with record profits.
> Microsoft is making money.
Although, less now.
No, they are making more money now than they ever have with consistent steady growth in income. That may change in future but right now they are certainly still increasing not decreasing.
Of course the official line is everything is ok, while I think onLive is a moronic idea that is trying to appeal to a niche that doesn't really exist (too expensive for casuals, not good enough for hardcore) You can't start announcing, "at current rate we will be bankrupt in 6 months or 3 months", this would instantly terminate any hope of recovery as investors or more importantly potential investors will run a mile. This isn't something unique to OnLive, a company is always a going concern until they run out of time to find new money/investors or a way to turn the business around. OnLive is a lame duck concept, if execs were bought of with shares in a new company they will lose that too.
The mainframe isn't decreasing in popularity and being marginalised at all. Just today's mainframes run on highend intel/AMD/Power based architectures. If you had said z/OS is becoming marginalised then yes, but the hardware side has merely transformed. Have you seen the number of virtual servers and size of some of the systems in place today? those are mainframes, managed in a similar fashion with just a different label. PC's will be the same, they may transform somewhat, perhaps they will be docking stations where you plug a phone size device into, but they will still be PC's in everything but name.
Why bring up first to file in the summary? it is completely irrelevant, first to file doesn't mean prior art is ignored or that you can just go patent someone else's ideas. It merely means if 2 people/organisations are working in secret on their invention then it is whoever patents it first that gets the patent not whoever can spend huge amounts of lawyers and paperwork to try and show they had the idea 5 minutes before the other person.
If only Google didn't have the temerity to create a competing OS and decimate iOS's market share, this wouldn't have happened.
Um... Pretty sure Android has more than 1/10th the market share of iOS.
Not sure what that post even means, of course Android has more than 1/10th, they have the majority share now, hence the previous posters statement that they have decimated the iOS market share and continue to do so.
It is a shame that creative sucked so badly at marketing, I still think the Creative Zen devices are superior to ipods, I still use one to this day.
I am just over 6 foot 3 and 225lbs, most small cars are undrivable for me as there simply isn't enough leg room, especially if they are manual, without jamming my knees against the wheel. A couple of inchs can make a huge difference and most smaller cars seem to be designed with a max height of just over 6 foot in mind, however there are plenty of medium sized cars I can happily drive though I do find I need to carefully check both legroom and headroom before rental or purchase.
Who is the candidate for option 1? I thought you only had Romney and Obama to pick form at this stage?
In Australia the Jury does not get to hear the criminal record of the individuals on trial. I was on jury last year and it wasn't until we had given a verdict that we got to hear about the endless criminal history of the person.
It may have been banned before the media got a hold of it but it was certainly a problem long before then. We had a whole team of federal agents swarm our farm back in the 80's because my idiot younger brother decided he would play spot the landing plane. luckily for him it was well before it was sensationalised in the media so he got off with a warning and thrashing from parents.
We used to have the same problem in Australia. They took the outright ban approach here, it has massively reduced the incidents, not sure if I am in favour of that approach or not, but can't deny it has worked.
If the only way for it to work is if people have to opt in to privacy then it is a standard that DOESN'T need saving. Either MS's approach here gets the right result and everyone gets more privacy or the standard dies and people can look at implementing something not written to give all the power to the advertisers instead of the users where it belongs. Either way is win win, DNT in its current form is a joke.
Why the hell should anyone have to make a fully informed choice to have the right to privacy. Should you have to make a fully informed choice not to be murdered and have that be recorded too? how about not to be robbed? or not to have someone peering into your window to see what you don't own so they can try and sell you something? how about not to be stalked?.... oh wait this is what advertisers are doing and you are quite happy with unconsentual stalking.
The problem is this parallel track derails the other track. This completely puts all power into the hands of advertisers, puts no legal responsibility on them to protect a users privacy and no consequences for ignoring it while at the same time gives them Political PR to say "look what wonderful people we are, we protect the users privacy" and I will happily bet a large sum that the next government that suggests privacy laws on tracking they will come out with "hey guys ease up there, look at these wonderful voluntary self regulatory initiatives we have taken, give us a few years to show you how well it is working", then in a few more years "well it isn't our fault people didn't know they could opt out of being tracked, give us a few more years and we will work on ways to better inform the public". on and on the circus will go, the only losers are the uses and as always the winners will be the advertisers.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.", those technically savy already have the capability to handle much of what the advertisers throw at us, including blocking it altogether. What is needed is advocacy on behalf of those that can't do this for themselves.
What I truly don't understand is the communities viewpoint that advertisers have all the power here, They don't, the power can be put in the hands of the users and we "should" have all the bargaining power. If the advertisers don't want to honor a DNT that is turned on by default then we should be Browsers should be looking at incorporating Full Ad Block functionality by default, watch the advertisers come screaming to the bargaining table then. This whole thing has been arse backwards from start, sell outs like Roy Fielding need to be ostracised, we need people pushing for privacy, not pushing for the privileged few.
I can see that point of view but completely disagree with it. A half arsed standard is worse than none at all, with a such a poorly thought out standard that advertising know the vast majority of users aren't informed enough to take advantage of they will be able to safely continue to track the majority while at the same time be able to crow about how wonderfully self regulated they are and how they don't need anyone looking into their privacy practises. It is about time this industry was cleaned up. Tracking is an unecessary evil, it should be the responsibility of the advertiser to convince the user of the value of being tracked.
What's truly disgusting here is all these companies arguing that users should have to opt in to privacy. Hopefully privacy groups and laws around privacy will come down hard on companies that try to ignore the DNT. If tracking is so critical then companies should be making their case to users why they should turn them on, if they manage to convince people well and good, but this bullshit of we will only obey the DNT if only a small group of tech savy people use it is just pathetic. It is almost understandable that companies are complaining by the apache group should be castrated for their anti privacy approach.
It can both be a good thing and a very bad thing. A companies long term goal is success and profitability, quite often that requires someone motivated to make the hard decisions and those decisions can make a lot of enemies and create a lot of hate which someone that doesn't have their own future riding on it can often be more likely to avoid or simply walk away when the going gets tough. I hope she is someone that simply likes a challenge regardless of pain or HP could be in for many more years of stumbling in the dark.
geez ipad's must completely suck for you then.
That is true for some, but the Asus Zenbook's if anything have both superior specs and superior build quality to the airs. As with anything though not everything is better on them, the trackpad is worse and battery life is a little less, but the performance, screen resolution and build quality on the Asus is better.