Sounds like Microsoft really can't win whatever they do.
Crimes like piracy of Windows ?. Patent policing ?. More SCO like allegations on newer projects that imitate or duplicate Microsoft products ?.
That's pretty baseless speculation, it could just as easily be stopping financial fraud or breaking online paedophile rings. I doubt the law enforcement agencies are going to be complaining about getting this extra money from Microsoft, I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being.
I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity - it's often just building a new market for themselves, locking in an expanding market or blatant tax evasionary steps . They sent 250 XP Cds to a school and mark the cost as donations.
Dubious tax policies aside, I agree that giving away the CD's is more marketing than charity but is it really that bad a thing? It's not being forced upon them and is just an extra choice, surely that's a good thing?
Would you apply the same criticism if it was guys from Mozilla Corp coming around giving away Firefox and teaching XUL?
I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity... they are trying for Maximum ROI
So I suppose Bill Gates putting billions of his own $$$ into AIDS research in the developing world is just looking for ROI too?
Sadly, unlike Adsense, it looks like the Yahoo Publisher program is only for US residents (at least for the time being).
If you're interested in being considered for the Yahoo! Publisher Network beta program, please enter your information below. Participants of the program must be a resident of the U.S., with valid U.S. Social Security number or Tax ID.
So does this show there's been little further progress since then ? They used to say they were aiming for 10% by the end of 2004, so it certainly looks like growth is slowing down somewhat.
This will probably lose me major karma for going against groupthink, but the statement that "The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable." does seem ridiculously biased.
While it may be technically true, it's like suggesting Firefox is susceptible to IE's infamous ActiveX vulnerabilities, just because there's an ActiveX plugin for Firefox too. Everyone is quick to jump on MS when there's new IE exploits, but we've got to accept that this seems to be one they got right. Making excuses about plugins doesn't really change that.
The Washington Post also has a very interesting article on the likes of PublishAmerica at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25187-20 05Jan20?language=printer
If the WEF can afford professional translators and costly computers, in Porto Alegre, translators are volunteers, and the software to distribute the translations is open-source.
I think we need an open-source translation of the summary into English.
So if a simple link to another site puts you in trouble, that effectively mean you can now be liable for material on other people's sites does it no ? All those disclaimers that read "$siteName is not responsible for the content of external sites" would seem to be no longer valid or at least legally questionable, if the external site in question is hosting illegal material. And what if the site wasn't hosting illegal material at the time, but subsequently was ? If widely applied, this could really change the net as we know it.
It'd be a sad day indeed if webmasters had to think long and hard before linking to other sites for fear of lawsuits.
I won't believe it until Apple sues The Register;)
Why I still use IE...
on
Firefox In Print
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Much though I'd like to use Firefox all the time, I often seem to find myself having to resort back to IE. This is partly due to online banking requirements etc, but also due to a surprisingly large (IMO) number of sites that don't fully function in Firefox particulary those involving DHTML menus. See, say, this site for an example where the DHTML left hand menu appears in IE but not Firefox (version 1.0 on XP, at least).
Now I'm sure someone will check the source and blame it on badly written javascript, but all the same if it works in IE and not in Firefox then I think the public at large is likely to perceive that as Firefox flaw.
What can be done to improve this ? I'd love to make the final break with IE but at the moment just end up having to resort to using it more often than I'd like. Perhaps this situation will improve as Firefox gains market share - I can but hope.
Re:Sounds like a piracy crackdown, not a ban.
on
China Bans 50 Games
·
· Score: 1
So, uhm, does that mean that it is legal to pirate all games BUT those 26? I must move to China immediately for the free gaming goodness!
Well there's all sorts of pirated software easily available in China. Perhaps those 26 are the ones they are really serious about not allowing, while turning a blind eye to other less high profile software ? I'm in Thailand, and a very similar situation to this exists here too
Re:Sounds like a piracy crackdown, not a ban.
on
China Bans 50 Games
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Among the 50 illegal games, 26 are pirated game software including Age of Mythology: the Titans, The Sims 2, Manhunt, FIFA 2005, Battlefield Vietnam and Painkiller: Battle out of Hell. The remaining are illegally distributed foreign games including Conflict Vietnam, Vietcong: Fist Alpha and Devastation.
If I read this right, it seems to be saying that pirate copies of 26 of the 50, such as FIFA 2005, are being banned as part of a piracy crackdown, and the other 24 are being deemed 'unsuitable'.
I guess this would mean that legal copies of games such as FIFA 2005 will still be available.
For those who don't RTFA, XP SP2 doesn't appear to be vulnerable.
"Users who have installed Windows XP Service Pack 2 are immune to the programs that use the vulnerability, including the two new variants of the MyDoom virus."
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like Microsoft really can't win whatever they do.
Crimes like piracy of Windows ?. Patent policing ?. More SCO like allegations on newer projects that imitate or duplicate Microsoft products ?.
That's pretty baseless speculation, it could just as easily be stopping financial fraud or breaking online paedophile rings. I doubt the law enforcement agencies are going to be complaining about getting this extra money from Microsoft, I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being.
I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity - it's often just building a new market for themselves, locking in an expanding market or blatant tax evasionary steps . They sent 250 XP Cds to a school and mark the cost as donations.
Dubious tax policies aside, I agree that giving away the CD's is more marketing than charity but is it really that bad a thing? It's not being forced upon them and is just an extra choice, surely that's a good thing?
Would you apply the same criticism if it was guys from Mozilla Corp coming around giving away Firefox and teaching XUL?
I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity... they are trying for Maximum ROI
So I suppose Bill Gates putting billions of his own $$$ into AIDS research in the developing world is just looking for ROI too?
Feels weird writing that on slashdot...
From here
...at least according to this Slashdot article from last November - Dutch Survey Shows IE Web Share Below 90%
So does this show there's been little further progress since then ? They used to say they were aiming for 10% by the end of 2004, so it certainly looks like growth is slowing down somewhat.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/print/0,21553,1017201 ,00.html
The printer-friendly version of the article, with all the text on one page instead of spread out over 5.
This will probably lose me major karma for going against groupthink, but the statement that "The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable." does seem ridiculously biased.
While it may be technically true, it's like suggesting Firefox is susceptible to IE's infamous ActiveX vulnerabilities, just because there's an ActiveX plugin for Firefox too. Everyone is quick to jump on MS when there's new IE exploits, but we've got to accept that this seems to be one they got right. Making excuses about plugins doesn't really change that.
The Washington Post also has a very interesting article on the likes of PublishAmerica at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25187-20 05Jan20?language=printer
Maybe the editor who accepted the book for publication could fill michael's position at slashdot - sounds like he'd fit right in !
I thought we could get everything we needed to know just from analysing his doodles!
I think we need an open-source translation of the summary into English.
"As it so happens, I'm in the market for some kind of bespoke enterprise scalable solution. Don't suppose you'd be able to recommend anything ?"
Another article on the BBC today is about Gates and the amount he gives away - He may yet be able to CTRL-ALT-DEL some of the world's biggest killers.
So if a simple link to another site puts you in trouble, that effectively mean you can now be liable for material on other people's sites does it no ? All those disclaimers that read "$siteName is not responsible for the content of external sites" would seem to be no longer valid or at least legally questionable, if the external site in question is hosting illegal material. And what if the site wasn't hosting illegal material at the time, but subsequently was ? If widely applied, this could really change the net as we know it.
It'd be a sad day indeed if webmasters had to think long and hard before linking to other sites for fear of lawsuits.
I won't believe it until Apple sues The Register ;)
Much though I'd like to use Firefox all the time, I often seem to find myself having to resort back to IE. This is partly due to online banking requirements etc, but also due to a surprisingly large (IMO) number of sites that don't fully function in Firefox particulary those involving DHTML menus. See, say, this site for an example where the DHTML left hand menu appears in IE but not Firefox (version 1.0 on XP, at least).
Now I'm sure someone will check the source and blame it on badly written javascript, but all the same if it works in IE and not in Firefox then I think the public at large is likely to perceive that as Firefox flaw.
What can be done to improve this ? I'd love to make the final break with IE but at the moment just end up having to resort to using it more often than I'd like. Perhaps this situation will improve as Firefox gains market share - I can but hope.
So, uhm, does that mean that it is legal to pirate all games BUT those 26? I must move to China immediately for the free gaming goodness!
Well there's all sorts of pirated software easily available in China. Perhaps those 26 are the ones they are really serious about not allowing, while turning a blind eye to other less high profile software ? I'm in Thailand, and a very similar situation to this exists here too
Among the 50 illegal games, 26 are pirated game software including Age of Mythology: the Titans, The Sims 2, Manhunt, FIFA 2005, Battlefield Vietnam and Painkiller: Battle out of Hell. The remaining are illegally distributed foreign games including Conflict Vietnam, Vietcong: Fist Alpha and Devastation.
If I read this right, it seems to be saying that pirate copies of 26 of the 50, such as FIFA 2005, are being banned as part of a piracy crackdown, and the other 24 are being deemed 'unsuitable'.
I guess this would mean that legal copies of games such as FIFA 2005 will still be available.
For those who don't RTFA, XP SP2 doesn't appear to be vulnerable.
"Users who have installed Windows XP Service Pack 2 are immune to the programs that use the vulnerability, including the two new variants of the MyDoom virus."