Why can't people be satisfied with a nice new but still economical honda or something when they make it big? Why always blow it out on frivolous shit? Because money has to be visibly spent in order to count (J.P. Carse). In other words: If you want to use your money to improve your social status, you have to spend it so that other people see that you have money. Contrary to popular believe, money isn't an end in itself for the rich, it's ammo in a game called "society".
It is when basically the only thing your OS does "in the default install" is allow SSH logins. Which is more remote access than a default install of Windos contains.;-)
No, we just see the usual split between engineering ("get it working") and science ("how does it work?").
And to be honest, the engineering aspect has a long way to travel. Software quality is horrible and worse yet: Random. Very few development groups even have a process for the development itself, much less quality control. Writing a spec and starting to code isn't a process. UML isn't a process. Pseudo-code specification isn't a process. Throwing fancy buzzwords around to cover your lack of process isn't, either.
The difference between Wolfenstein and Doom was mostly that Doom was the first 3D game. Yes, I know the engine was 2.5D, but it created the impression of 3D gameplay, while Wolfenstein was flat and didn't really add anything we hadn't seen on the C64 years before, except more impressive graphics.
how much did Lisa get paid for her efforts? Was it cash or "perks"?
Yeah, mod me flamebait. I'd prefer having that checked anyways, even if just to be sure there was no foul play. With MS, the safe assumption is that someone involved didn't play by the rules.
Not the room, but there are videos of Lee from Tai Chi tournaments, where during "push hands" he does throw opponents back several meters, without moving backwards himself. Contact with the ground, solid stance, etc. - you probably know the drill.
A well-written article always has a place. Most Bloggers are not journalists nor can they write. Anything beyond a two-paragraph "I stumbled on this thing and it's cool" reads like a secondary school writing assignement. There are examples, yes. But they don't replace actual journalism and articles written by people who know how to write.
Make iWork a competent and interoperable competitor to MS Office, For crying out loud, no! please no!.
iWork is great the way it is. I don't want another overblown, feature-creeping, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink gargantuan application suite when all I need to do is write a letter or make a few slides.
There's a place for multiple sulutions on the market. I have NeoOffice for when I need all the crap, and the more I use iWork the more I realize that I don't, most of the time.
Glad to see it's a first for both parties - first time the EU meets someone who ignores the anti-trust ruling and first time MS meets someone who actually enforces a decision against them.
You Sir, need to acquire the very useful skill of comprehension.
The actual press release would be a very useful start to find out what all this is really about.
Among other things, it explains very early on what the fines are for: The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft for failing to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (see IP/04/382)
Now if you could remove your head from that orifice of yours so that you can put your eyes on the article, you'll soon find your point entirely demolished.
Actually, I support grandparent. Developing a new technology is almost always more expensive than reverse-engineering it.
If competitors could license the technology for a reasonable price and still operate more efficiently, then I'd agree with you, grandparent's company needs to shape up. As it stands, with the little information we're given we have no reason to assume that they're working inefficiently.
Why do you argue as if the US had anything at all to do with this?
MS is a european company, too. They have assets in several european countries, they have employees, everything. Those companies just happen to be 100% owned by some company in Redmond.
If you want to play in the EU, you better follow EU laws. If you don't like it, because it means giving up some "trade secrets" or whatever else - well, as you americans so often say: "like it or leave it".
Of course MS can't afford to do that, the EU market is bigger than the US market. So they'd better play by the rules. The EU anti-trust commission is not a push-over, mostly because it's made up of bureaucrats, not politicians.
One, that's only true for english. Other languages have two different words for freedom and free beer. French "libre", for example is very clear.
Two, it doesn't matter. We don't see subversion by Joe Doe. We see subversion by corporations. They know the difference very well, no matter the wording.
Which is why "Free Software" is the important concept, and shouldn't have been abandoned. "open source" was only ever a marketing term, and many people (myself including) had warned from its invention that corporations with no interest in freedom would find ways to abuse and ultimately destroy it.
You can not be "somewhat free". You might not like the GPL, but it is ten times more resilient to abuse than most of the open-source-but-not-free-software licenses.
But when you look at what a country does and why it is concerned with what another country does, you need to look at it in their perspective. That is after all what this discussion was about. Only 50% of it. The "we're just defending ourselves against eviiil terrorists" bit. If you look at it from their perspective, Iran is just as "right" as USA. _That_ is the point. You'll both be "right" and feeling righteous right until nuclear armageddon, if necessary. You know, because being "right" is more important than stuff like not destroying another few million lives.
It isn't hard to know that we have an interest in Israel and Iran is working though terrorist to hurt them. I claim it is, if we can agree that "know" does not include "I read it in the papers". Which reliable information do you have that Iran is supporting terrorists? Define "support" and define "terrorist". Does it include Hamas? If so, why? From Iran's perspective (see above!), Hamas is not a terrorist group, but freedom fighters. Just like from the US perspective, certain parties in Afghanistan were freedom fighters back when you supplied them with weapons and ammunition to fight against the Soviets.
other countries media I did not say that other countries media tell the truth, did I? I don't claim to know the truth, either. I claim that there is no truth. One countries terrorists are another countries freedom fighters. Both are simultaneously right and full of shit.
And Iran could do several things. They could, yes. But here's the main point:
It only happens when they do stuff against our interest or our allies interest. Pot, meet kettle. Again.
The US is currently and in the past acting very much "against [their, Irans] interest or [their] allies interest".
Why should they stop? How about you stop first? After all, they're at home over there and you aren't. It would be courteous of the visitor to behave.
The US makes demands towards Iran. Demands that are not in the best interest of Iran. As these demands are not met, the US claims that they are acting only in their best interest and increase the pressure.
Again, look from Iran's perspective. Everything you say to justify US actions can be said just the same from Iran's perspective. Iran supports terrorism (US says), US supports Israel (which Iran considers little better than terrorists).
I don't think anyone has talked about invading Iran. Errr. What? The writing's on the wall, and has been for weeks. "Other country media" is already speculating over the date, not the if.
It seems to be the bush bashers who think invasion or military action is necessary and that bush is the guy to do it. He's done it before, you know? It isn't that far-fetched, is it? The rhetorics are almost identical, in fact, except that "Saddam" was easier to pronounce and thus a better target for a personal evil, while Iran remains mostly faceless.
One of them believe this and it isn't Bush. I wouldn't bet my life on that. Bush has a lot of the usual messiah "I came to save the world" attitude.
As long as the PHB has a windos machine at home, and doesn't understand anything else, nothing else will exist in the corporate domain. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Linux or *BSD.
10. Intuitive installation and deinstallation - drag&drop an app into the "Application" folder and it installs. Everything in one place, no DLL-hell. Drag&drop from Application folder to trash to uninstall.
Oh, I get it now. The best interest of the US is what matters, and anyone concerned about anything else is missing the entire point?
Is Iran really working against your interests? Or is your government and media spinning things so that it appears they do, no matter what they actually do? Try to think of one thing that Iran could do that Bush wouldn't spin into an alarming, escalating, evil action.
And quite frankly, if invading yet another country - the third within less than five years! - is in your best interest, then the best interest of the rest of the world is that you go to hell. Last time someone invaded that many countries in such a short period, we got a World War out of it.
We could argue all day long whether or not Iran is an evil power bent on destroying Israel - or an arab nation going the only route open to it to avoid being invaded by the US within the year. Both positions have a long string of arguments.
However, here's one thing about rockets you might want to consider: Launching a rocket upwards is a little different from launching ot in a ballistic trajectory towards a specific target. Launching a rocket is the easy part. Having it hit the intended target is where it gets tricky.
So, is Iran working on a guidance system? Because without that, their nuclear strike capabilities equal the sharpshooting skills of a shotgun.
True, the US did support the Moujahadin in the 80's, or at least we helped them knock down a few Russian helicoptors, Good candidate for understatement of the year.
"The CIA helped supply nearly 500 Stingers (some sources claim 1500-2000) to the mujahideen guerrillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s, where they have been used quite succesfully." (source)
Because Iran has publicly threatened allied countries. While the US have actually invaded some.
Iran has a mixxed bag on human rights Guatanamo. Abi-Gharib.
Because Iran has attempted to make the bomb While the US has thrown it. Twice. Being the only nation on this planet to ever actually do so.
Becuase Iran has supported terrorist groups currently in conflict with the US How fitting that I'd mention the Contras here, if you think about the Iran-Contra scandal... Not to mention that conclusive evidence is still out on the claim.
Because Iran has performed terrorist acts itself. Does the bombing of a medical plant in Sudan count? Otherwise I'd be stressed to find an example here, the US has usually invaded full-scale or bombed places back to the stone age instead of relying on terrorism.
Because Iran is a threat to many countries at the moment. Pot, meet kettle. You'll two get along splendidly.
I know this is slashdot so anti-US trolling is par for the course, Have you ever thought that if so many people do it, you know, there just might be a reason? Like, the US defending even their most obvious evil as either necessary or part of their war on whatever-this-weeks-random-threat-is?
Yes, it can get worse. In fact, it's been getting worse ever since you messed it up. Iran considering nukes necessary in order to avoid being invaded next is an immediate result of you invading Iraq. If I were Iran, I'd take a lesson from North Korea, too - if you have nukes, you won't be invaded.
It only went 90 miles high, and didn't have the ability to go into orbit. You mean, it would've qualified for the X-Prize, but it doesn't count as an initial space program?
100 km (62 miles) is the international boundary of space, whether you like it or not.
The only people who believe in "responsible disclosure" are the fools who think that the blackhats really need the exploits posted on bugtraq et al.
The real blackhats (not the script kiddies) most likely already found those holes themselves. Any delay added by responsible disclosure will give them more time to exploit them.
0-days are regularily discovered not by looking at the code, but by finding them being exploited in the wild. Stop telling people that it's "security researchers" who discover bugs first. They report them, but in many, many cases they weren't the ones or not the first ones to find them.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, make that "more intentional remote access"...
No, we just see the usual split between engineering ("get it working") and science ("how does it work?").
And to be honest, the engineering aspect has a long way to travel. Software quality is horrible and worse yet: Random. Very few development groups even have a process for the development itself, much less quality control. Writing a spec and starting to code isn't a process. UML isn't a process. Pseudo-code specification isn't a process. Throwing fancy buzzwords around to cover your lack of process isn't, either.
Zero-Defect Software Developmentor NASA's shuttle software group are beginnings. What they do is try to understand and improve the actual development process.
The difference between Wolfenstein and Doom was mostly that Doom was the first 3D game. Yes, I know the engine was 2.5D, but it created the impression of 3D gameplay, while Wolfenstein was flat and didn't really add anything we hadn't seen on the C64 years before, except more impressive graphics.
how much did Lisa get paid for her efforts? Was it cash or "perks"?
Yeah, mod me flamebait. I'd prefer having that checked anyways, even if just to be sure there was no foul play. With MS, the safe assumption is that someone involved didn't play by the rules.
Not the room, but there are videos of Lee from Tai Chi tournaments, where during "push hands" he does throw opponents back several meters, without moving backwards himself. Contact with the ground, solid stance, etc. - you probably know the drill.
A well-written article always has a place. Most Bloggers are not journalists nor can they write. Anything beyond a two-paragraph "I stumbled on this thing and it's cool" reads like a secondary school writing assignement. There are examples, yes. But they don't replace actual journalism and articles written by people who know how to write.
iWork is great the way it is. I don't want another overblown, feature-creeping, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink gargantuan application suite when all I need to do is write a letter or make a few slides.
There's a place for multiple sulutions on the market. I have NeoOffice for when I need all the crap, and the more I use iWork the more I realize that I don't, most of the time.
Glad to see it's a first for both parties - first time the EU meets someone who ignores the anti-trust ruling and first time MS meets someone who actually enforces a decision against them.
You Sir, need to acquire the very useful skill of comprehension.
The actual press release would be a very useful start to find out what all this is really about.
Among other things, it explains very early on what the fines are for:
The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft for failing to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (see IP/04/382)
Now if you could remove your head from that orifice of yours so that you can put your eyes on the article, you'll soon find your point entirely demolished.
Interesting point.
Care to cite any evidence, proof, backup?
Actually, I support grandparent. Developing a new technology is almost always more expensive than reverse-engineering it.
If competitors could license the technology for a reasonable price and still operate more efficiently, then I'd agree with you, grandparent's company needs to shape up. As it stands, with the little information we're given we have no reason to assume that they're working inefficiently.
Why do you argue as if the US had anything at all to do with this?
MS is a european company, too. They have assets in several european countries, they have employees, everything. Those companies just happen to be 100% owned by some company in Redmond.
If you want to play in the EU, you better follow EU laws. If you don't like it, because it means giving up some "trade secrets" or whatever else - well, as you americans so often say: "like it or leave it".
Of course MS can't afford to do that, the EU market is bigger than the US market. So they'd better play by the rules. The EU anti-trust commission is not a push-over, mostly because it's made up of bureaucrats, not politicians.
One, that's only true for english. Other languages have two different words for freedom and free beer. French "libre", for example is very clear.
Two, it doesn't matter. We don't see subversion by Joe Doe. We see subversion by corporations. They know the difference very well, no matter the wording.
Which is why "Free Software" is the important concept, and shouldn't have been abandoned. "open source" was only ever a marketing term, and many people (myself including) had warned from its invention that corporations with no interest in freedom would find ways to abuse and ultimately destroy it.
You can not be "somewhat free". You might not like the GPL, but it is ten times more resilient to abuse than most of the open-source-but-not-free-software licenses.
The US is currently and in the past acting very much "against [their, Irans] interest or [their] allies interest".
Why should they stop? How about you stop first? After all, they're at home over there and you aren't. It would be courteous of the visitor to behave.
The US makes demands towards Iran. Demands that are not in the best interest of Iran. As these demands are not met, the US claims that they are acting only in their best interest and increase the pressure.
Again, look from Iran's perspective. Everything you say to justify US actions can be said just the same from Iran's perspective. Iran supports terrorism (US says), US supports Israel (which Iran considers little better than terrorists). I don't think anyone has talked about invading Iran. Errr. What? The writing's on the wall, and has been for weeks. "Other country media" is already speculating over the date, not the if. It seems to be the bush bashers who think invasion or military action is necessary and that bush is the guy to do it. He's done it before, you know? It isn't that far-fetched, is it? The rhetorics are almost identical, in fact, except that "Saddam" was easier to pronounce and thus a better target for a personal evil, while Iran remains mostly faceless. One of them believe this and it isn't Bush. I wouldn't bet my life on that. Bush has a lot of the usual messiah "I came to save the world" attitude.
As long as the PHB has a windos machine at home, and doesn't understand anything else, nothing else will exist in the corporate domain. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Linux or *BSD.
Your missing 10:
10. Intuitive installation and deinstallation - drag&drop an app into the "Application" folder and it installs. Everything in one place, no DLL-hell. Drag&drop from Application folder to trash to uninstall.
Oh, I get it now. The best interest of the US is what matters, and anyone concerned about anything else is missing the entire point?
Is Iran really working against your interests? Or is your government and media spinning things so that it appears they do, no matter what they actually do? Try to think of one thing that Iran could do that Bush wouldn't spin into an alarming, escalating, evil action.
And quite frankly, if invading yet another country - the third within less than five years! - is in your best interest, then the best interest of the rest of the world is that you go to hell. Last time someone invaded that many countries in such a short period, we got a World War out of it.
We could argue all day long whether or not Iran is an evil power bent on destroying Israel - or an arab nation going the only route open to it to avoid being invaded by the US within the year. Both positions have a long string of arguments.
However, here's one thing about rockets you might want to consider: Launching a rocket upwards is a little different from launching ot in a ballistic trajectory towards a specific target. Launching a rocket is the easy part. Having it hit the intended target is where it gets tricky.
So, is Iran working on a guidance system? Because without that, their nuclear strike capabilities equal the sharpshooting skills of a shotgun.
"The CIA helped supply nearly 500 Stingers (some sources claim 1500-2000) to the mujahideen guerrillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s, where they have been used quite succesfully." (source)
Not to mention that conclusive evidence is still out on the claim. Because Iran has performed terrorist acts itself. Does the bombing of a medical plant in Sudan count? Otherwise I'd be stressed to find an example here, the US has usually invaded full-scale or bombed places back to the stone age instead of relying on terrorism. Because Iran is a threat to many countries at the moment. Pot, meet kettle. You'll two get along splendidly.
Yes, it can get worse. In fact, it's been getting worse ever since you messed it up. Iran considering nukes necessary in order to avoid being invaded next is an immediate result of you invading Iraq. If I were Iran, I'd take a lesson from North Korea, too - if you have nukes, you won't be invaded.
100 km (62 miles) is the international boundary of space, whether you like it or not.
The only people who believe in "responsible disclosure" are the fools who think that the blackhats really need the exploits posted on bugtraq et al.
The real blackhats (not the script kiddies) most likely already found those holes themselves. Any delay added by responsible disclosure will give them more time to exploit them.
0-days are regularily discovered not by looking at the code, but by finding them being exploited in the wild. Stop telling people that it's "security researchers" who discover bugs first. They report them, but in many, many cases they weren't the ones or not the first ones to find them.