I think cable companies only care about selling content. Anything that allows them to do that more efficiently is going to be adopted by the entire market. Will they care that MS is marketing a PVR? Only if it becomes a selling point that compels consumers to switch from their cable co. to the other one
I think that Microsoft's goal is as it has been since they started with the x-box....It's not just 'a computer on every desk' now....it's 'a computer on everything that has a flat surface - running Windows xxxx of course'.
Remember kids - this is really just about building another licensing stream of revenue, by pushing a standard until they become the default provider, which means they can sell licenses for XPMCE (or whatever the cutdown blackbox version is) to every single TV component manufacturer (sony, LG, Panasonic, Teac, Sharp,/etc/etc/etc.
Ok...Given that the article talks about using open source as a model to galvanise the 'grassroots' supporters, I don't see this as a model that can be applied so easily to politics.
Open Source as a paradigm relies pretty much on two things, a desire to participate, and the belief that well reasoned argument based on merit will ensure the implementation of the best solution.
In Politics, I think both things are lacking from the general populace (as opposed to the, for the want of a better word, intelligentsia(sp?)).
Joe Everyman doesn't vote based on a rational discussion of ideas and policies - he votes along pretty much strict party lines. And that's when he bothers to vote at all.
Open Source is about informed intelligent participation, and I think that sounds too much like hard work for Joe Everyman.
As examples, I don't think anyone could argue that between Kerry and Bush, or Latham and Howard, that either of them won or lost on their MERITS
English speaking? Proximity to water? Same timezone as the burgeoning Asian markets, yet Anglo-friendly for multinationals wanting to build their presence in Asia.
If you consult some studies from people who have actually the phenomenon of the 'Global City', you'll find that Sydney meets the criteria, whereas, for example Singapore (trotted out as the 'real' Global City in the region) is better described as a 'city state'.
Is it possible that HP used the earlier iteration of the device to push home it's economies of scale message with Microsoft?
There has been a few stories recently where local governments, schools and SMBs have used Linux as leverage to get MS to drop their prices.
HP is just as much a customer of MS in the OEM market as anybody else...They would have to negotiate what they pay for their OEM licenses that they include with their consumer PCs. Any drop in what they pay MS for the OEM licenses translates into pure profit for HP without changing the sticker price.
Granted that these media centre devices have a reasonable chance of providing market penetration where PCs will not go (I'm thinking the poorer end of the socioeconomic demographic), and the aforementioned "linux as leverage" strategy, MS may have been prepared to give up some percentage on their OEM license fees for ALL of HPs product range to get MS MCE onto these devices.
If they are yours, why are you concerned about the legality of giving them away?
If you had a thousand dollars in $1 bills, you could ask people to queue in a line to get some, or you could throw the $s from the top of your temple - it is still yours to give away, only the method employed has changed.
Unless Buddhist temples are giving 'sermons' entitled "Dawn of the Dead (Karma and YOU!)" I think you should be safe from accidental takedown notices.
One of the first things you learn about properly securing any network is that a demarcation of responsibilities is critical.
I may be a gun security expert, who can design a bulletproof Firewall\IDS\Mandatory ACL schema\Managed virus control architecture for you, but AS A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE I am the last person you want deploying it and administering it.
Why?
Cos if I designed it and hold the keys to it, you know I am gonna eventually open up port 22 so I can futz about with my home machines. And then I might decide I really need to get the latest distro real quick and open up a few BT ports.
I can see how outsourcing security would help enforce that demarcation. Part of the outsourcing process would include determining who can authorise changes to the filters etc, and that means the organisation at least has to think about those issues.
And at the end of the day, around 80% of all data integrity\theft\leakage\etc issues originate from internal employess, not the black-hat external hackers everyone jumps up and down about.
Sure - use someone internal, with knowledge of your environment and needs to design the security posture, but let someone else deploy it and administer it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because one woman can have a baby in nine months, doesn't mean nine women can have a baby in one month.
I think cable companies only care about selling content. Anything that allows them to do that more efficiently is going to be adopted by the entire market. Will they care that MS is marketing a PVR? Only if it becomes a selling point that compels consumers to switch from their cable co. to the other one
I think that Microsoft's goal is as it has been since they started with the x-box....It's not just 'a computer on every desk' now....it's 'a computer on everything that has a flat surface - running Windows xxxx of course'.
Remember kids - this is really just about building another licensing stream of revenue, by pushing a standard until they become the default provider, which means they can sell licenses for XPMCE (or whatever the cutdown blackbox version is) to every single TV component manufacturer (sony, LG, Panasonic, Teac, Sharp,
Windows - it's not just for iPaqs anymore!
Ok...Given that the article talks about using open source as a model to galvanise the 'grassroots' supporters, I don't see this as a model that can be applied so easily to politics.
Open Source as a paradigm relies pretty much on two things, a desire to participate, and the belief that well reasoned argument based on merit will ensure the implementation of the best solution.
In Politics, I think both things are lacking from the general populace (as opposed to the, for the want of a better word, intelligentsia(sp?)).
Joe Everyman doesn't vote based on a rational discussion of ideas and policies - he votes along pretty much strict party lines. And that's when he bothers to vote at all.
Open Source is about informed intelligent participation, and I think that sounds too much like hard work for Joe Everyman.
As examples, I don't think anyone could argue that between Kerry and Bush, or Latham and Howard, that either of them won or lost on their MERITS
...or maybe I'm just cynical...
Why indeed?
English speaking? Proximity to water? Same timezone as the burgeoning Asian markets, yet Anglo-friendly for multinationals wanting to build their presence in Asia.
If you consult some studies from people who have actually the phenomenon of the 'Global City', you'll find that Sydney meets the criteria, whereas, for example Singapore (trotted out as the 'real' Global City in the region) is better described as a 'city state'.
Sydney has established itself as the leading Australian city in world city terms (Baum,1997; Stimson, 1995). It is the major international air hub, is the most important financial centre and, during the growth in Asian economies, extended its role tobecome a location for many transnational corporations wanting to service south eastAsia.
With your final comment - you come off sounding like you have "Tall Poppy Syndrome". Your city not on the list hey?
Is it possible that HP used the earlier iteration of the device to push home it's economies of scale message with Microsoft?
There has been a few stories recently where local governments, schools and SMBs have used Linux as leverage to get MS to drop their prices.
HP is just as much a customer of MS in the OEM market as anybody else...They would have to negotiate what they pay for their OEM licenses that they include with their consumer PCs. Any drop in what they pay MS for the OEM licenses translates into pure profit for HP without changing the sticker price.
Granted that these media centre devices have a reasonable chance of providing market penetration where PCs will not go (I'm thinking the poorer end of the socioeconomic demographic), and the aforementioned "linux as leverage" strategy, MS may have been prepared to give up some percentage on their OEM license fees for ALL of HPs product range to get MS MCE onto these devices.
You specified in your post "our teachings".
If they are yours, why are you concerned about the legality of giving them away?
If you had a thousand dollars in $1 bills, you could ask people to queue in a line to get some, or you could throw the $s from the top of your temple - it is still yours to give away, only the method employed has changed.
Unless Buddhist temples are giving 'sermons' entitled "Dawn of the Dead (Karma and YOU!)" I think you should be safe from accidental takedown notices.
One of the first things you learn about properly securing any network is that a demarcation of responsibilities is critical.
I may be a gun security expert, who can design a bulletproof Firewall\IDS\Mandatory ACL schema\Managed virus control architecture for you, but AS A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE I am the last person you want deploying it and administering it.
Why?
Cos if I designed it and hold the keys to it, you know I am gonna eventually open up port 22 so I can futz about with my home machines. And then I might decide I really need to get the latest distro real quick and open up a few BT ports.
I can see how outsourcing security would help enforce that demarcation. Part of the outsourcing process would include determining who can authorise changes to the filters etc, and that means the organisation at least has to think about those issues.
And at the end of the day, around 80% of all data integrity\theft\leakage\etc issues originate from internal employess, not the black-hat external hackers everyone jumps up and down about.
Sure - use someone internal, with knowledge of your environment and needs to design the security posture, but let someone else deploy it and administer it.