They're not piping objects to Excel. If you read the article you'd have read the part where they noted that interfacing with programs like IE and Excel will have to be done via ActiveX. Won't that be fun?
Everything is a.NET object, everything inherits from another object
Between that line and the information that MSH will interface with other programs through ActiveX I can see a whole new world of exploits.
What this means is they CAN make drastic changes down the road by simply changing a few objects
And so can all the malware, spyware, crippleware, middleware, trojans, worms, viruses, and anyone with even a mild desire to make life difficult for people around them. I bet it'll be even easier to hide shadow processes on the system from the unwary user thus increasing Microsoft's ability to sell the world's desktop out to corporate marketing departments. Imagine banner ads, not in your browser, but legally (via click through EULAs) on your desktop. There's nothing you'll be able to do about it.
Registry + ActiveX + a functional shell (finally) +.NET == cataclysmic user-base catastrophe waiting to happen
Windows admins are screwed. Get out of IT now if you're still sane, get out even if you're long past sane. Life will become hell very soon.
I don't see myself learning yet another object oriented syntax to justify paying MS for the privelege of using an OS which doesn't cooperate with me and, in many cases, works to protect someone else's profit margin more than it works to protect my personal security.
I'm reading the article and, you know, I'm just not seeing anything in here but a horribly tortured object oriented syntax and a reexpression of MS' nightmarish implementation of the common "--help". I did, however, find this admonishment:
One of the major frustrations of MSH is the lack of support for piped input in other Windows applications. I can't pipe my HTML content into a new instance of Internet Explorer and I can't pipe my CSV content directly into a new instance of Excel.
Considering the decades of command line functionality which sh type shells have, apparently MSH is only dreaming of what BASH can do.
Followed closely by:
I sincerely hope that the final release of MSH features an entire collection of convert and export commands for a broader variety of formats. Sources inside Microsoft tell us that MSH users will probably use COM and ActiveX to interface with major Windows applications.
It's a security nightmare waiting to happen. If people think BASH viruses are a potential problem then imagine the full horrors of ActiveX with access to a system shell. At least Mozilla exploits don't lead to "rm -rf/" or malware stuffed all over the system.
I personally always get any NDAs or NCAs modified or not signed
I suspected that you were preaching from a priveleged position. The rest of your post was little more than the same old corporate browbeating. I expect to hear it from managers who are working their subordinates over for their own promotion. I didn't expect to hear it from you. Maybe you are one of those managers who's practicing at browbeating his subordinates. That'd be disappointing.
These snippets are grand:
Because if you're valuable to the company then they will want to keep you You have to continuosly improve yourself or prove that you add value to the company Maybe people should just stop accepting those conditions companies compete to keep you
That last one is nearly as bad as a Soviet Russia joke. And the grand-daddy of them all:
My view of the world is different. Everyone has a natural right to redistribute derived works. Unless we start gouging out eyes and cutting off hands they will always have this natural right.
The GPL outlines little more than what is asked to be GPL compliant. The GPL doesn't even threaten the user with legal action. It states very clearly that choosing to not follow the rules will be a violation of the GPL and little more.
EULAs usually include verbage which implies pain of death.
The GPL places no limitations on your ability to derive code from. Proprietary licenses typically explicitly forbid this.
The GPL asks that, if you do derive works from, that you distribute the source code for the result to your customers on demand. Proprietary licenses typically do everything they can to obscure source code.
If your customers never ask for source code you are not required to spam them with it. Should you approach this situation as a bluff, however, you must be prepared for someone to call your bluff.
Then: The slavery class was the class that didn't have a bank record of their income Now: Slavery has been redefined such that a company owns everything you could possibly ever use to better yourself and, in return, they are required to give you nothing but a paycheck. That paycheck has been, in many cases, carefully calculated to allow you enough money to pay rent and bills and very little else.
Then: It was called the slave market Now: It's called hotjobs, headhunter, monster, etc.
we have had over 200 years to tweek, implement, and fine tune the patent system
You're assume that the people writing the laws are working in the best interest of the public.
We've had 200 years to obfuscate, subvert, and bypass the patent system. The original concept was great: to secure the rights to the original author or inventor. The day the law allowed those rights to be sold or signed to a "copyright holder", the whole concept of securing anything to the original author or inventor went right out the window.
Not surprisingly the ruling class has been a big advocate of the ability to sign away supposedly secured rights almost since the day rights were codified in law.
In countried without IP protection, they are too busy stealing each other's ideas
Unlike our country with IP protection where the company makes theft of all ideas a mandatory term for employment. In exchange for allowing this blatant butt-ganking the company agrees to provide you with a salary which has been carefully calculated to just barely pay your rent.
most notably being able to fire someone for any reason you deem necessary
After you have hatched the billion dollar idea for the company they are free to fire you and thus negate even your paltry subsistence salary.
Copyright law grants copyright holders a monopoly on a set of very specific rights. EULAs are the copyright holder's
Constitutionally the "copyright holder" has about as many rights as a steaming turd. Constitutionally all of those rights are secured (as in locked down) to the author or inventor.
Just how many times are you allowed to sell the Brooklyn Bridge? If you're the author or inventor--as many times as you want.
some people subscribe to this fallacy that anything you put in a contract is binding as long as it's signed. That's just not the case. You can't agree to something that's illegal, you can't sign away most rights given to you under the law
This point just can't be emphasized enough. I wish someone would inform our federal politicians of this.
Under a libertarian market, it's absolutely OK to sell drugs that will kill you
No different than now. You give the FDA far too much credit. What about McDonald's food? Perfectly legal. It will kill you. The answer is less regulation, not more.
To a libertarian, the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts is not a legitimate task for the government.
Wrong. It's in the Constitution. Libertarians are all about "play by the rules". The Constitution sets the rules. The issue at hand is that Congress doesn't seem to understand what the 9th and 10th Amendments mean.
As a libertarian, by what moral right do you claim allows you to take George Lucas' property from him?
Is it any different than the IP agreements we sign with our companies before we're allowed to make a salary which allows us to pay rent? They claim ownership of things not even invented yet. Additionally, no Libertarian is going to take your IP away from you. But if you give it out don't start whining and complaining that the people you gave it to aren't using it as you see fit.
It is impossible to have a society without placing some limits on personal liberty.
Libertarians are not anarchists. You're quite attached to that particular lie. The vast majority of your argument depends on it.
they promote a system which cannot work
The length of your ignorance is truly truly truly amazing. Libertarians promote a system which adheres to the Constitution. It can work and it would work if the American public weren't completely blind to political corruption, graft, and greed.
Under libertarianism, you allow slavery conditions.
This is so ridiculous. What do you think minimum wages are? They're slavery conditions in a modern society. In a Libertarian society we wouldn't be so hopelessly attached to the paycheck that we have to submit to such conditions because, in a Libertarian society, the government wouldn't be sucking communities dry.
But sometimes society is better when laws limit individual freedom
If you read the Constitution there are some limitations on individual freedom and those are perfectly acceptable because they're in the rules. Libertarians have a problem with the changes that Congress has made to the rules when they haven't really had the legal authority to do so.
I think you just have a problem with Libertarians. Maybe one of them beat you at tiddlywinks or something. On and on and on you go about how Libertarians allow the rich and the wealthy to hamstring the rest of society. Open your eyes for just one moment to see that's what's happening now, because of the government, because of the current system of neverending oversight.
True, my pot-addict friend owns a business, and he's pretty much run it into the ground because he's not willing to put the hours into it that he should
I've seen self-absorbed managers run their employees into the ground because they're too busy playing golf.
What's the difference? Completely completely nonspecific attacks. There is no case against marijuana.
The first tactic used by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about is to begin misspelling even the most remotely arguable term as if in an effort to assert their own authority.
Yes, please do. I'm interested to see how many opinion pieces you're going to offer up as clinical proof. And "Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Lymphocyte Transformation in Humans Receiving..."? That's no more conclusive about marijuana use than the topic article which works on rat brains.
Please. Tout the FUD in a forum where there isn't a pharmaceutical scientist available to tell you you're full of horse-pooey.
I'm willing to bet you couldn't even read that article about lymphocytes, much less note where the researchers are lacking in their data analysis.
And, honestly, a correlation of 0.52 is certainly significant!
Um. No. It's not. It's like saying "according to our statistical model, there's a 50% chance that a nuclear bomb could drop on your home NOW. Okay, NOW. Okay, NOW. Okay, NOW. Okay, NOW." I hope you get the point.
Give that 0.8 figure to any statistician and he will laugh you out of the building.
Any good statistician will demand at least 0.9. The ones who are laughing at 0.8 are laughing because you're actually believing it.
Heh. I was also wondering about the behavior of the test rats. Were they happily getting fatter and chatting over tea or were they running around rabid biting each other to shreds?
Slashdot Mirror
They're not piping objects to Excel. If you read the article you'd have read the part where they noted that interfacing with programs like IE and Excel will have to be done via ActiveX. Won't that be fun?
And so can all the malware, spyware, crippleware, middleware, trojans, worms, viruses, and anyone with even a mild desire to make life difficult for people around them. I bet it'll be even easier to hide shadow processes on the system from the unwary user thus increasing Microsoft's ability to sell the world's desktop out to corporate marketing departments. Imagine banner ads, not in your browser, but legally (via click through EULAs) on your desktop. There's nothing you'll be able to do about it.
Registry + ActiveX + a functional shell (finally) +
Windows admins are screwed. Get out of IT now if you're still sane, get out even if you're long past sane. Life will become hell very soon.
I don't see myself learning yet another object oriented syntax to justify paying MS for the privelege of using an OS which doesn't cooperate with me and, in many cases, works to protect someone else's profit margin more than it works to protect my personal security.
Followed closely by: It's a security nightmare waiting to happen. If people think BASH viruses are a potential problem then imagine the full horrors of ActiveX with access to a system shell. At least Mozilla exploits don't lead to "rm -rf
These snippets are grand: That last one is nearly as bad as a Soviet Russia joke. And the grand-daddy of them all:
Regards,
Steven
I'm not particularly surprised that you don't understand. I advise you to spend several years contemplating the meaning of cooperation.
My view of the world is different. Everyone has a natural right to redistribute derived works. Unless we start gouging out eyes and cutting off hands they will always have this natural right.
The GPL outlines little more than what is asked to be GPL compliant. The GPL doesn't even threaten the user with legal action. It states very clearly that choosing to not follow the rules will be a violation of the GPL and little more.
EULAs usually include verbage which implies pain of death.
The distinction is still very clear.
The GPL places no limitations on your ability to derive code from. Proprietary licenses typically explicitly forbid this.
The GPL asks that, if you do derive works from, that you distribute the source code for the result to your customers on demand. Proprietary licenses typically do everything they can to obscure source code.
If your customers never ask for source code you are not required to spam them with it. Should you approach this situation as a bluff, however, you must be prepared for someone to call your bluff.
It's all very obvious.
A few philosophical ones.
Then: The slavery class was the class that didn't have a bank record of their income
Now: Slavery has been redefined such that a company owns everything you could possibly ever use to better yourself and, in return, they are required to give you nothing but a paycheck. That paycheck has been, in many cases, carefully calculated to allow you enough money to pay rent and bills and very little else.
Then: It was called the slave market
Now: It's called hotjobs, headhunter, monster, etc.
We've had 200 years to obfuscate, subvert, and bypass the patent system. The original concept was great: to secure the rights to the original author or inventor. The day the law allowed those rights to be sold or signed to a "copyright holder", the whole concept of securing anything to the original author or inventor went right out the window.
Not surprisingly the ruling class has been a big advocate of the ability to sign away supposedly secured rights almost since the day rights were codified in law.
After you have hatched the billion dollar idea for the company they are free to fire you and thus negate even your paltry subsistence salary.
I can see how this is a perfect system.
Just how many times are you allowed to sell the Brooklyn Bridge? If you're the author or inventor--as many times as you want.
*clap* 100% spot on.
The day that the producers of the software begin accepting liability for the software is the day they can tell me what I can and can't do with it.
No liability == no responsibility == no authority
Wrong. It's in the Constitution. Libertarians are all about "play by the rules". The Constitution sets the rules. The issue at hand is that Congress doesn't seem to understand what the 9th and 10th Amendments mean.
Is it any different than the IP agreements we sign with our companies before we're allowed to make a salary which allows us to pay rent? They claim ownership of things not even invented yet. Additionally, no Libertarian is going to take your IP away from you. But if you give it out don't start whining and complaining that the people you gave it to aren't using it as you see fit.
Libertarians are not anarchists. You're quite attached to that particular lie. The vast majority of your argument depends on it.
The length of your ignorance is truly truly truly amazing. Libertarians promote a system which adheres to the Constitution. It can work and it would work if the American public weren't completely blind to political corruption, graft, and greed.
This is so ridiculous. What do you think minimum wages are? They're slavery conditions in a modern society. In a Libertarian society we wouldn't be so hopelessly attached to the paycheck that we have to submit to such conditions because, in a Libertarian society, the government wouldn't be sucking communities dry.
If you read the Constitution there are some limitations on individual freedom and those are perfectly acceptable because they're in the rules. Libertarians have a problem with the changes that Congress has made to the rules when they haven't really had the legal authority to do so.
I think you just have a problem with Libertarians. Maybe one of them beat you at tiddlywinks or something. On and on and on you go about how Libertarians allow the rich and the wealthy to hamstring the rest of society. Open your eyes for just one moment to see that's what's happening now, because of the government, because of the current system of neverending oversight.
What's the difference? Completely completely nonspecific attacks. There is no case against marijuana.
Now you can accuse me of arrogance but I hope the point is clear that you made no point.
This is English. It's "marijuana". Cope.
Please. Tout the FUD in a forum where there isn't a pharmaceutical scientist available to tell you you're full of horse-pooey.
I'm willing to bet you couldn't even read that article about lymphocytes, much less note where the researchers are lacking in their data analysis.
Men ingested plants long before they learned fermentation...
I'm just sayin'. Ask Sid Meier. I bet he agrees.
Any good statistician will demand at least 0.9. The ones who are laughing at 0.8 are laughing because you're actually believing it.
Heh. I was also wondering about the behavior of the test rats. Were they happily getting fatter and chatting over tea or were they running around rabid biting each other to shreds?