No, to Microsoft a production release is for you to test new things. To Google, a beta is to avoid having to support it. To Apple, a beta is to test whether anyone notices gaping holes in the license agreement... yeah, you get the idea.
The moral of the story is, when building hardware, open-ness matters. The more your hardware is open, the more people can connect to it, having partners making clones speeds the adoption of your technology, and it places you much more firmly in the driver's seat. Sure, Apple might look good by making IPhones as closed appliances, but you can bet that when Microsoft finally gets its act together, and rallies around a dozen hardware vendors along a common platform, then Apple is going to get smoked, just as it was when, well, PCs slaughtered Apple the first time around. Microsoft already rallies behind dozens of vendors, and that common platform is called Windows Mobile.
That's not informative, that's wrong! If you're seeing urchin.js on a site (NOT from google-analytics.com) then you're actually seeing a site who uses the Urchin software (which is not a service, it's a program on the server) for their analytics, not Google - so they have no access to your browsing history other than what they can get from their own logfiles, and Google has nothing. There is also absolutely no local javascript file for Google Analytics, the whole thing needs to run from Google's server.
It was W.R.O.N.G. to add another standard when the ISO already approved ODF. No. That would be wrong. It's not a standards organisation's job to be telling you "this is the only thing you are allowed to do". It's their job to say "this is designed in such a way that anyone can implement it and it can be interoperated with".
Now, in this case OOXML doesn't actually meet that critera. So it should have been kicked back to the dog slow process which involves working groups and what not to bring it up to a reasonable standard (no pun intended).
Don't let your unyielding hatred of Microsoft blind you to what is meant to happen.
If that was the case, OOXML would never have made it, because there's not even one (Office 2007 OOXML is not a full implementation of OOXML). Heh. True, but nor would ODF. You're definitely on to something there though. But for the love of god, THINK OF THE PATENTS!!
I agree. However, only if ODF is kicked back for the same thing. Both standards are clearly difficult to impossible to implement (hence no perfect implementations of EITHER exist).
It could be an interesting experiment. And while they're at it, they can do something about that bollocks RAND licensing thing.
The reason that Google has been able to make so much out of AJAX and previous companies have not is not because nobody saw the potential before, its because the JavaScript implementations could not possibly have supported modern apps without crashing. Try connecting to GMail with an early version of Netscape and you will either see it turn off the JavaScript or crash. Companies were using AJaX long before Google was. Other than that, your statement still stands - just subtract a few years from your statement and it's all gravy. You might also want to turn a blind eye to who created the XMLHttpRequest in the first place - the Microsoft Exchange team.
Why work on OOXML, though, when a standard like ODF already exists? IMO there's no need for additional baggage like OOXML for those few extra features that ODF lacks, when ODF could be (carefully) amended instead. Do you really think Sun will tolerate that though? Really? I mean, they've (allegedly) refused before (and I could believe it from Sun).
Actually some screws actually have one or both of the crevices in the top go right to the edge so that the flathead screwdrivers can unscrew the Philips screws.
Now TORQUE screws, fuck 'em. Hate those things because you can never get a screwdriver just right for them, and that makes it hard to open Seagate hard drives (before you ask, opening them is for the sole purpose of destroying them, as part of our asset deprecation policy we're required to by law)
And hey, that's absolutely fine. Why should they support something they haven't tested on and didn't build for. But I still don't think they should have the right to sue paying customers because they don't want to pay $3000 for a $1200 machine (non-US prices folks, shut up about the prices - Apple still hasn't caught up with 2002 in their pricing outside the US of A).
So... if Microsoft uses their OS to sell a crappy Media Player it's bad, but if Apple uses their OS to sell an overpriced PC it's good? Face it, it's bullshit from both parties. What applies to one applies to the other.
And do not whip out that fucking monotonous response "Apple is not a convicted monopolist" because they fucking should be, and we're all (except the Apple fanbois) sick of hearing it
Any corporation where you need to go that far just to evade their network security will fire you for the usage of unauthorised software at this point, because I can guarantee it's in a massive "computer use policy" somewhere.
Why not? Those emails are transferred over company networks, to company servers, via company domains, stored on company disks, and are related to your employment with that company (and all employers specify in their policies that they provide the emails for work reasons). For all intents and purposes, the company owns those emails.
Oh I think I know now... when creating folders in protected locations, you'd get a message from Windows telling you that you'll need to confirm the operation, a UAC prompt to create the folder, a third from Windows telling you you'll need to confirm the rename operation, and a UAC prompt for the rename. There was only the "You'll need to confirm" and the UAC for renaming one.
Slightly offtopic, but 3drealms is saying that Duke Nukem Forever is (finally) "just around the corner". They even demoed something recently (and no, not on April 1 - in December 2007)
Given that copyright is a legal right granted by legislation, it could certainly be revoked by legislation as well, which would be both legal Actually, it wouldn't be legal. Have you heard of the Berne Convention? Well, they're signatories to that, and technically a treaty signed into law by a government is the same as a local law. Violating the Berne Convention would wreak absolute havoc on their economic relations.
* Not encumbered by patents in anyway (all involved patents must be released into the public domain immediately) Or just finally make a call and say "fuck it. No more software patents". This problem is immediately mooted.
XAML is aimed to compete with HTML. Flash, Shockwave, and Air are kind of in their own niche in the minds of most. The kinds of technology that Dumbass. XAML is designed to obsolete one of Microsoft's own development platforms - WinForms. Granted, WinForms is less than 5 years old, and replacing it already is stupid enough anyway, but it's nothing to do with replacing HTML (which Microsoft is a member of the Working Group for and contributes to, along with others like Google and Apple).
Slashdot Mirror
No, to Microsoft a production release is for you to test new things. To Google, a beta is to avoid having to support it. To Apple, a beta is to test whether anyone notices gaping holes in the license agreement... yeah, you get the idea.
Fuck off with your "nimp.org" links you bloody cock.
DO NOT CLICK PROVIDED LINK.
I'm amazed at how these pieces of shit have so rapidly established a way to ensure their comment is so relevant to every discussion.
That's not informative, that's wrong! If you're seeing urchin.js on a site (NOT from google-analytics.com) then you're actually seeing a site who uses the Urchin software (which is not a service, it's a program on the server) for their analytics, not Google - so they have no access to your browsing history other than what they can get from their own logfiles, and Google has nothing. There is also absolutely no local javascript file for Google Analytics, the whole thing needs to run from Google's server.
And get fired for improper use of company equipment. You can brag about how much of a genius you are at the unemployment office.
Now, in this case OOXML doesn't actually meet that critera. So it should have been kicked back to the dog slow process which involves working groups and what not to bring it up to a reasonable standard (no pun intended).
Don't let your unyielding hatred of Microsoft blind you to what is meant to happen.
I agree. However, only if ODF is kicked back for the same thing. Both standards are clearly difficult to impossible to implement (hence no perfect implementations of EITHER exist).
It could be an interesting experiment. And while they're at it, they can do something about that bollocks RAND licensing thing.
That could result in some interesting documents:
<xml>
<document>
<binary type="word">
w34ogte35yghtw3tgt
</binary>
<unsupportedText>
Sucker.
</unsupportedText>
</document>
</xml>
C# is an ECMA spec, not ISO. Principle still applies though.
Aaaactually, those patents shouldn't have been valid in the first place. Software patents, remember?
Actually some screws actually have one or both of the crevices in the top go right to the edge so that the flathead screwdrivers can unscrew the Philips screws.
Now TORQUE screws, fuck 'em. Hate those things because you can never get a screwdriver just right for them, and that makes it hard to open Seagate hard drives (before you ask, opening them is for the sole purpose of destroying them, as part of our asset deprecation policy we're required to by law)
Ah, but don't iPods come with an Apple sticker?
Can you see what I'm getting at?
And hey, that's absolutely fine. Why should they support something they haven't tested on and didn't build for. But I still don't think they should have the right to sue paying customers because they don't want to pay $3000 for a $1200 machine (non-US prices folks, shut up about the prices - Apple still hasn't caught up with 2002 in their pricing outside the US of A).
So... if Microsoft uses their OS to sell a crappy Media Player it's bad, but if Apple uses their OS to sell an overpriced PC it's good? Face it, it's bullshit from both parties. What applies to one applies to the other.
And do not whip out that fucking monotonous response "Apple is not a convicted monopolist" because they fucking should be, and we're all (except the Apple fanbois) sick of hearing it
Since when has $1,300 been a couple of hundred?
Any corporation where you need to go that far just to evade their network security will fire you for the usage of unauthorised software at this point, because I can guarantee it's in a massive "computer use policy" somewhere.
Why not? Those emails are transferred over company networks, to company servers, via company domains, stored on company disks, and are related to your employment with that company (and all employers specify in their policies that they provide the emails for work reasons). For all intents and purposes, the company owns those emails.
Oh I think I know now... when creating folders in protected locations, you'd get a message from Windows telling you that you'll need to confirm the operation, a UAC prompt to create the folder, a third from Windows telling you you'll need to confirm the rename operation, and a UAC prompt for the rename. There was only the "You'll need to confirm" and the UAC for renaming one.
Slightly offtopic, but 3drealms is saying that Duke Nukem Forever is (finally) "just around the corner". They even demoed something recently (and no, not on April 1 - in December 2007)