There's evidence in the comments of this story alone that it's not Microsoft here - but rather an organisation that makes Microsoft look like a puppy in comparison. (Follow the "who's who" trail listed elsewhere in the comments - it's rather interesting)
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did you get this mythical evidence that Microsoft is behind this? In fact, I do believe that... shock!... Microsoft has nothing to do with this. Run out of positive karma accounts, twitter?
Retirement isn't the only form of social security. In fact, if I recall correctly, part of your social security scheme is the unemployment benefit - a minimal payout to keep you alive and looking for work while unemployed. It's not the best chance, but it's better than no chance.
Holy crap! Someone actually still uses TDMA?!? Our own monopoly carrier recently eliminated their TDMA network (with near 100% coverage) because their CDMA network (with near 100% coverage) beats the crap off it (and besides, EVDO Rev A is much MUCH better than any supported data transmission functionality offered by TDMA). Of course, now they're planning on dumping that too in favour of a GSM and HSDPA network. Yay, another phone upgrade.
Hey, at least you don't have ONE provider using multiple signalling technologies, just to re-lock you in every few years.
Well, actually, the iPhone is not already available in all those regions, and is still absent in many more regions. And Apple absolutely doesn't do simultaneous releases (the iPhone itself proves it, as does the iPod Touch).
Basically, either "simultaneous release" is not Apple's goal here, or they've botched the release bigtime. I'd like to see whether this iPhone is really all it's cracked up to be - but Apple's too lazy/greedy to release here (pick one).
Never, EVER use W3Schools as a definitive source for browser stats. It even says right on that very page that their results are from their own logs and not representative of the internet at large.
You invalidate your entire argument when you quote W3Schools as a source.
This isn't insightful in the slightest. It's just another rich get richer, poor get poorer argument. Without those "social programs", poor people have exactly zero chance of ever getting back on their feet, and rich people get more money. And education? Well, we can see how affordable that is when left to the private sector. No, leaving everything to the private sector is a very bad idea.
And that's fine, but at least that way you're actually giving your reader a choice on whether they hate Microsoft enough to discard their choice in favour of yours.
Seriously, folks need to stop spouting the "choice" party line if this is the sort of "choice" they mean.
If your employer can join an organization (say, the RIAA, the MPAA, the whatever trade organization Sun and Microsoft are members of) why can't their workers? FYI, Microsoft is a member of both the Business Software Alliance and the Entertainment Software Alliance.
I dug up the licensing FAQ, and you are right. The only products you can use for production/private use are Office, Project, and Visio (and even then only with MSDN Premium).
Nobody is really competing against QT on Mac OS X, and even Microsoft delivers its competing WMA/WMV codecs as QT components rather than a QT replacement. Wow. And yet Apple anti-competitively requires you to install Quicktime on Windows to play MOVs, rather than just writing a DirectShow codec like everyone else (which would be like awesome, because DirectShow is used by more than just WMP).
Of course, you'd never possibly admit Apple could be anti-competitive too, so you'll likely just formulate some bullshit to ineffectually attack my statement of fact (hell, it's not even an opinion) and then attack me rather than allowing your opinion to compete on it's merits. Which is pretty much your modus operandi anyway, so it's no surprise.
While you can draw a parallel in abstractions, it's really not the same thing at all.
IE is a program that relies upon a rendering engine Microsoft tightly integrated into the OS in order to make it difficult for competitors to offer a rival browser, and as a way to force development that required IE instead of any browser. In addition, Windows also has graphics capabilities that are tied to its proprietary DirectX software rather than using cross platform standards such as OpenGL. Hmm, obvious bias, but let's keep reading...
Apple has a browser, Safari, and provides system wide rendering functions using the WebKit engine. While you can't really tear WebKit out of the OS, it doesn't matter because it poses no real threat to competitive browsers. Apple also has a graphics subsystem, initially QuickDraw and then Quartz, which both served as the models for Microsoft's GDI and its new compositing engine in Vista. Parts of Quartz support the functions of QuickTime, so while you can remove QuickTime on an application level, eviscerating all support for anything connected to QuickTime would also bork the system What... the... fuck? You just described the exact same situation twice with the only difference being names and bias!
However, it really makes no sense to associate QuickTime with IE, in large part because there is no anti-competitive basis for QT being integrated into the OS, and no real downside. If you don't use QT, you can stop updating it and there's no problem. If you don't use IE, you're still in danger of security problems Microsoft built into the design, and applications can invoke the IE plumbing to do things you are not aware of and don't want to happen. QT has none of those problems if you don't choose to use it.
Tom Krazit of CNET and Eric Savitz of Barrons Deny the Jesus Phone Wow, yet more uninformed bullshit! Wasn't there a recent security issue which was pinned on Firefox because there was a vulnerability in Quicktime? Oh wait, there was! Because applications absolutely positively can't invoke Quicktime!
Why? It's the least ugly form of copy protection - they do nothing to stop you from putting it on any device you want, but they mark it so that if you're only in it to distribute content that isn't yours, they can find you and put a stop to it.
The only reason you could actually be against it is if you intended to pirate and are just looking for the easiest way and the best exc
What you're describing is highly illegal - it's not like the basic "downloads a couple of songs illegally", we're talking the whole commercial infringement fine AND jail term type thing. As soon as you make money from piracy, you're a target, and essentially dead meat. And to be honest I can't blame them at all for it.
Protective curtain? Microsoft's website is behind the Akamai Content Distribution Network, which is nothing to do with security - it's all about protecting the network from being crushed by the millions of users who hit it every day (the average specs on a Microsoft.com server are: Age: 4 years, Home: Seattle, Washington -- Home of the Seahawks!, Processor Cores: Quad, MultiProcessor: 4, Memory: 16 GB, Internal Drives: 8, Height: 4U - source: http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/pages/about-lone-server.aspx)
That would be the case, except that I do not have a BusyBox based router (neither 3Com nor Sonicwall use open source in the higher grade routers to my knowledge). I also don't use PPPoE (our country uses PPPoA)
So you're suggesting that the other browsers should lie about the standards compliance of a web page? Because last I checked, you could set a name value combo of "foo/fuckyou" to a META tag, and it would still comply with every standard there is. Your idea sucks balls.
Perhaps, but has it occurred to you that this is exactly what DOCTYPEs are for? So that when XHTML 6.0 comes out, browsers will still be able to deal with XHTML 5?
Slight problem with that: the W3C has deprecated DOCTYPEs in HTML5/XHTML5, so when HTML6/XHTML6 comes out, the browser will have no bloody idea what version it is.
Slashdot Mirror
There's evidence in the comments of this story alone that it's not Microsoft here - but rather an organisation that makes Microsoft look like a puppy in comparison. (Follow the "who's who" trail listed elsewhere in the comments - it's rather interesting)
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did you get this mythical evidence that Microsoft is behind this? In fact, I do believe that... shock!... Microsoft has nothing to do with this. Run out of positive karma accounts, twitter?
Not really, they still have the option of not selling it to you at all, and terminating the sale - which they did.
Retirement isn't the only form of social security. In fact, if I recall correctly, part of your social security scheme is the unemployment benefit - a minimal payout to keep you alive and looking for work while unemployed. It's not the best chance, but it's better than no chance.
Holy crap! Someone actually still uses TDMA?!? Our own monopoly carrier recently eliminated their TDMA network (with near 100% coverage) because their CDMA network (with near 100% coverage) beats the crap off it (and besides, EVDO Rev A is much MUCH better than any supported data transmission functionality offered by TDMA). Of course, now they're planning on dumping that too in favour of a GSM and HSDPA network. Yay, another phone upgrade.
Hey, at least you don't have ONE provider using multiple signalling technologies, just to re-lock you in every few years.
Well, actually, the iPhone is not already available in all those regions, and is still absent in many more regions. And Apple absolutely doesn't do simultaneous releases (the iPhone itself proves it, as does the iPod Touch).
Basically, either "simultaneous release" is not Apple's goal here, or they've botched the release bigtime. I'd like to see whether this iPhone is really all it's cracked up to be - but Apple's too lazy/greedy to release here (pick one).
Never, EVER use W3Schools as a definitive source for browser stats. It even says right on that very page that their results are from their own logs and not representative of the internet at large.
You invalidate your entire argument when you quote W3Schools as a source.
This isn't insightful in the slightest. It's just another rich get richer, poor get poorer argument. Without those "social programs", poor people have exactly zero chance of ever getting back on their feet, and rich people get more money. And education? Well, we can see how affordable that is when left to the private sector. No, leaving everything to the private sector is a very bad idea.
There's still Starcraft Ghost (which Blizzard still insists they didn't cancel - in fact they claim to have pretty much finished it)
And that's fine, but at least that way you're actually giving your reader a choice on whether they hate Microsoft enough to discard their choice in favour of yours.
Seriously, folks need to stop spouting the "choice" party line if this is the sort of "choice" they mean.
It probably will, but it'll just prove you're an immature moron. Adobe doesn't need your help, they're keeping up fine on their own.
Nice. You just did EXACTLY what I said you would.
No further comment.
Joke ----------------->
/\
You --------> O
-|-
Seriously, the GGP said "copy paste isn't that easy" to which GP responded they must be on an iPhone, which doesn't have copy/paste.
C:\Windows\Assembly isn't backward compatibility, it's the .NET Framework Global Assembly Cache
I dug up the licensing FAQ, and you are right. The only products you can use for production/private use are Office, Project, and Visio (and even then only with MSDN Premium).
Of course, you'd never possibly admit Apple could be anti-competitive too, so you'll likely just formulate some bullshit to ineffectually attack my statement of fact (hell, it's not even an opinion) and then attack me rather than allowing your opinion to compete on it's merits. Which is pretty much your modus operandi anyway, so it's no surprise.
IE is a program that relies upon a rendering engine Microsoft tightly integrated into the OS in order to make it difficult for competitors to offer a rival browser, and as a way to force development that required IE instead of any browser. In addition, Windows also has graphics capabilities that are tied to its proprietary DirectX software rather than using cross platform standards such as OpenGL. Hmm, obvious bias, but let's keep reading... Apple has a browser, Safari, and provides system wide rendering functions using the WebKit engine. While you can't really tear WebKit out of the OS, it doesn't matter because it poses no real threat to competitive browsers. Apple also has a graphics subsystem, initially QuickDraw and then Quartz, which both served as the models for Microsoft's GDI and its new compositing engine in Vista. Parts of Quartz support the functions of QuickTime, so while you can remove QuickTime on an application level, eviscerating all support for anything connected to QuickTime would also bork the system What... the... fuck? You just described the exact same situation twice with the only difference being names and bias! However, it really makes no sense to associate QuickTime with IE, in large part because there is no anti-competitive basis for QT being integrated into the OS, and no real downside. If you don't use QT, you can stop updating it and there's no problem. If you don't use IE, you're still in danger of security problems Microsoft built into the design, and applications can invoke the IE plumbing to do things you are not aware of and don't want to happen. QT has none of those problems if you don't choose to use it.
Tom Krazit of CNET and Eric Savitz of Barrons Deny the Jesus Phone Wow, yet more uninformed bullshit! Wasn't there a recent security issue which was pinned on Firefox because there was a vulnerability in Quicktime? Oh wait, there was! Because applications absolutely positively can't invoke Quicktime!
How the hell did that get modded up?
Why? It's the least ugly form of copy protection - they do nothing to stop you from putting it on any device you want, but they mark it so that if you're only in it to distribute content that isn't yours, they can find you and put a stop to it.
The only reason you could actually be against it is if you intended to pirate and are just looking for the easiest way and the best exc
What you're describing is highly illegal - it's not like the basic "downloads a couple of songs illegally", we're talking the whole commercial infringement fine AND jail term type thing. As soon as you make money from piracy, you're a target, and essentially dead meat. And to be honest I can't blame them at all for it.
Protective curtain? Microsoft's website is behind the Akamai Content Distribution Network, which is nothing to do with security - it's all about protecting the network from being crushed by the millions of users who hit it every day (the average specs on a Microsoft.com server are: Age: 4 years, Home: Seattle, Washington -- Home of the Seahawks!, Processor Cores: Quad, MultiProcessor: 4, Memory: 16 GB, Internal Drives: 8, Height: 4U - source: http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/pages/about-lone-server.aspx)
Isn't the whole point of this the lack of step 5 in there?
That would be the case, except that I do not have a BusyBox based router (neither 3Com nor Sonicwall use open source in the higher grade routers to my knowledge). I also don't use PPPoE (our country uses PPPoA)
So you're suggesting that the other browsers should lie about the standards compliance of a web page? Because last I checked, you could set a name value combo of "foo/fuckyou" to a META tag, and it would still comply with every standard there is. Your idea sucks balls.
Perhaps, but has it occurred to you that this is exactly what DOCTYPEs are for? So that when XHTML 6.0 comes out, browsers will still be able to deal with XHTML 5?
Slight problem with that: the W3C has deprecated DOCTYPEs in HTML5/XHTML5, so when HTML6/XHTML6 comes out, the browser will have no bloody idea what version it is.