This is just an electronic form of the I-W94 Visa waiver form (or something like that) that you have to submit each time. Having this would actually be better than filling that paper thing.
Silly part is that now there are three "entry notifications": this, the paper form, and the notification you either do at the checkin/gate or is done by the travel agent. I guess they'll eventually be unified...
Currently the system consist of "known associates" of the police. In practice you can get included if you are accused of a crime with potential punishment over six months in jail. And in Finland you can't get that from minor stuff like stealing a tv or downloading mp3's.
You're technically correct, but comparing a current Ubuntu release to the 7 year old XP installation process is a bit pointless. Ubuntu Live installation is brilliant and innovative when it works (I've had to resort to alternate on several occasions), but it would be more relevant to compare it to the XP GUI install or even Vista install. Or then compare normal XP and Ubuntu alternate as they don't depend on being able to boot to working system (i.e. kernel , drivers and GUI working).
Taking your thought a bit further and turning it around: What if Apple releases an update that intentionally breaks compatibility? If Open Tech would gain ground then the temptation would certainly be there, and it's plausible you could prove that through reverse engineering. Would that be in their right (it's their OS and they don't have any "controlling marketshare" issues), or could they be found liable?
...Or they thought it would be bad for business. Think about it, what's implied here is that Sun has only the publicly available information on feasibility of a JVM in iPhone. I.e. they've not had serious discussions about the JVM implementation (with or without the public SDK). Either Apple has not recognized the value of JVM in iPhone, or they see it as threat to them and are not pursuing it in purpose.
The whole point of the iPhone business model for Apple is to offer it exclusively so they can get part of the revenue. The idea is that iPhone as single product is so desirable that it will get people to switch from competitors (which is very expensive to achieve by traditional campaigns). And the real revolution of Iphone is that Apple managed to get this from the carriers. If there's no exclusivity, there's no revenue sharing.
This idea of Apple being "forced to exclusivity" is ludicrous; they've worked very hard to achieve the exact opposite!
Well, not that an English article would give much more information. It only states that the person fired was on his "probation" (i.e. could be instantly fired) and the reason was lack of trust from the employers. Whether it's related to the MS/OOXML voting is not commented.
This could create an interesting legal situation in countries where modding the equipment is a protected consumer right. On the other hand, if you hack the iPhone you pretty much void the warranty and can't expect the official updates to work. But with "FUDdish" threats like this Apple makes it sound like their intentionally breaking the phones. And I wonder how Apple plans to prevent returning the bricked phones for warranty. If they can detect that afterwards, they probably could have detected it as part of the bricking update.
It's interesting to see what the response to this will be and how long it will take to for Apple to to release and deploy a patch. Mobile phones don't typically the "fast background patching"-systems like PC's (mobile data typically costs so you can't keep checking for updates). And everyone remembers from "pre sp2"-XP what it means if it's up to the user to check and deploy patches (e.g. iTunes).
The important difference in this is that the data stored by ISP's is for law enforcement purposes and requires a court order for access. There are also very strict regulations about who/why/when can access and how to log that access. Google and other companies store and use data to make profit with very little regulation.
I think the point of the post is more or less that "in situations where you don't know how to recover from errors, the best policy is to crash the application". In a situation where your object refererence is null even though it can never-ever be that, there is often no recovery. It's at least a much bigger bug to crash from accesing the object than from the exception you threw.
The problem with OMA DRM is that it suffers from patent dispute (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/mobile_dr m_levy/) with MPEG LA (Sony, Matsumita, Intertrust, etc). OMA is an open specification/"industry standardization" organization that creates service and technology specifications that are normally license free for everyone.
What MPEG LA did, was that they waited until OMA DRM 1.0 was finalized and deployed in millions of phones before announcing that they have patent claims. They're now trying to get the operators to pay about $1 for each user for something they're already using.
Now GSMA (an operator organization) doesn't like this and would like to have a license fee solution, or at least use the "MS card" to get a better deal. The thing is that the business of MPEG LA is to get money from patent licensing, while MS would like get marketshare in mobile DRM (possibly giving away licenses).
Which foot would you like to shoot yourself, Sir?;)
Yeah, Google Desktop is great. First thing the default installation did was to display my porn pics in the sidebar. I wonder if it does the same with SO's account...
And even if it would be the case that George Ou is "anti-OpenOffice/Firefox or pro-MS", it doesn't make his arguments or point any less valid. He might be subjective, but he has argumented his case relatively well and backed it with data.
PS. Anyone here who thinks is not guilty of this, start throwing rocks.
Any company that does research and development should have policies about cameras. Some military jobs probably have similar restrictions.
When it comes to R&D, military or industrial espionage in general, camera phones are actually quite irrelevant. There are plenty of much smaller and better quality "spy cameras" available. So, banning camera phones in work places is mainly an inconvenience of the employees, who suddenly need a separate phone for work (as most consumer phones come with cameras). But device manufacturers are happy to sell the corporations the same phones again, just without a camera.
When it comes to invation of privacy, question of camera phones becomes more relevant. If everyone has a camera with them at all times, chances of someoney taking pictures they shouldn't be taking increases.
The question is not whether Office 12 is "good enough" (to upgrade), but whether it's "new enough" to keep annual license subscribers happy. Getting people to actively upgrade their office version is basically a lost cause. They'll do it when purchasing the next new computer. And getting "the average user" to switch to OO will probably be just as difficult as getting them to upgrade (regardless of price).
You don't need a new monitor for desktop use, only for high def digital movie output (HDMI with HD DVD/Blueray whenever those are available). VGA and DVI work just fine.
And just to be clear, that's because the content owners require it. So don't try to pin this one MS.
I've never understood the HD-DVD-issue with Xbox360. You don't really need 20-30Gb for games. Most current generation titles fit in 2-3Gb with demos and other extras, and increasing polygons and textures is not going to make a big difference. Also, the standard DVD-rom drive is dirt cheap compared to HD/Blueray that's not even in mass production yet. And we're not going to see large scale HD-DVD movie adaptation any time soon. Why pay extra for something you don't need?
I agree with you that image-wise it would've probably been a good thing. But would probably be too big a risk to let somebody else establish themselves as the de-facto "trusted digital content delivery platform" that they want to be in the first train.
It's a shame really, that the situation is what it is. Industry will spend billions (that they could use making a better content and service) to a technology that won't probably significantly reduce piracy. Most likely it will just make piracy more professional and more profitable.
But to get back to your point, I guess you can see why the content owners are more or less panicked about this "evil internet thing and the evil customers doing rampant piracy". And the alternatives of the "more DRM"-mantra are too radical for them to make unless/before they have to. So in order to be a player in the digital content business, Apple needs the DRM. And it's always easier to get the market share in the first round of the fight.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I wish I had a penny each time a slashdotter predicts Microsofts demise ;)
This is just an electronic form of the I-W94 Visa waiver form (or something like that) that you have to submit each time. Having this would actually be better than filling that paper thing.
Silly part is that now there are three "entry notifications": this, the paper form, and the notification you either do at the checkin/gate or is done by the travel agent. I guess they'll eventually be unified...
Currently the system consist of "known associates" of the police. In practice you can get included if you are accused of a crime with potential punishment over six months in jail. And in Finland you can't get that from minor stuff like stealing a tv or downloading mp3's.
Well, for Cogent this seems to be a standard practise, so I'd say not enough...
You're technically correct, but comparing a current Ubuntu release to the 7 year old XP installation process is a bit pointless. Ubuntu Live installation is brilliant and innovative when it works (I've had to resort to alternate on several occasions), but it would be more relevant to compare it to the XP GUI install or even Vista install. Or then compare normal XP and Ubuntu alternate as they don't depend on being able to boot to working system (i.e. kernel , drivers and GUI working).
Taking your thought a bit further and turning it around: What if Apple releases an update that intentionally breaks compatibility? If Open Tech would gain ground then the temptation would certainly be there, and it's plausible you could prove that through reverse engineering. Would that be in their right (it's their OS and they don't have any "controlling marketshare" issues), or could they be found liable?
...Or they thought it would be bad for business. Think about it, what's implied here is that Sun has only the publicly available information on feasibility of a JVM in iPhone. I.e. they've not had serious discussions about the JVM implementation (with or without the public SDK). Either Apple has not recognized the value of JVM in iPhone, or they see it as threat to them and are not pursuing it in purpose.
..because it's there?
The whole point of the iPhone business model for Apple is to offer it exclusively so they can get part of the revenue. The idea is that iPhone as single product is so desirable that it will get people to switch from competitors (which is very expensive to achieve by traditional campaigns). And the real revolution of Iphone is that Apple managed to get this from the carriers. If there's no exclusivity, there's no revenue sharing.
This idea of Apple being "forced to exclusivity" is ludicrous; they've worked very hard to achieve the exact opposite!
As a Finnish citizen, I feel so lucky that all my internet communications will be monitored by a country I can not influence through voting!
Well, not that an English article would give much more information. It only states that the person fired was on his "probation" (i.e. could be instantly fired) and the reason was lack of trust from the employers. Whether it's related to the MS/OOXML voting is not commented.
This could create an interesting legal situation in countries where modding the equipment is a protected consumer right. On the other hand, if you hack the iPhone you pretty much void the warranty and can't expect the official updates to work. But with "FUDdish" threats like this Apple makes it sound like their intentionally breaking the phones. And I wonder how Apple plans to prevent returning the bricked phones for warranty. If they can detect that afterwards, they probably could have detected it as part of the bricking update.
It's interesting to see what the response to this will be and how long it will take to for Apple to to release and deploy a patch. Mobile phones don't typically the "fast background patching"-systems like PC's (mobile data typically costs so you can't keep checking for updates). And everyone remembers from "pre sp2"-XP what it means if it's up to the user to check and deploy patches (e.g. iTunes).
The important difference in this is that the data stored by ISP's is for law enforcement purposes and requires a court order for access. There are also very strict regulations about who/why/when can access and how to log that access. Google and other companies store and use data to make profit with very little regulation.
I think the point of the post is more or less that "in situations where you don't know how to recover from errors, the best policy is to crash the application". In a situation where your object refererence is null even though it can never-ever be that, there is often no recovery. It's at least a much bigger bug to crash from accesing the object than from the exception you threw.
I guess it's a normal Slashdot day when this kind of thing makes news. The half page "article" mentions that
a) there's a trojan that claims to be a free activation utility to Vista
b) you can slipstream malware into pirate Vista images (also possible in XP)
I.e. using pirated software could get you malware, which is news because of...?
The problem with OMA DRM is that it suffers from patent dispute (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/mobile_dr m_levy/) with MPEG LA (Sony, Matsumita, Intertrust, etc). OMA is an open specification/"industry standardization" organization that creates service and technology specifications that are normally license free for everyone.
What MPEG LA did, was that they waited until OMA DRM 1.0 was finalized and deployed in millions of phones before announcing that they have patent claims. They're now trying to get the operators to pay about $1 for each user for something they're already using.
Now GSMA (an operator organization) doesn't like this and would like to have a license fee solution, or at least use the "MS card" to get a better deal. The thing is that the business of MPEG LA is to get money from patent licensing, while MS would like get marketshare in mobile DRM (possibly giving away licenses).
Which foot would you like to shoot yourself, Sir? ;)
Yeah, Google Desktop is great. First thing the default installation did was to display my porn pics in the sidebar. I wonder if it does the same with SO's account...
And even if it would be the case that George Ou is "anti-OpenOffice/Firefox or pro-MS", it doesn't make his arguments or point any less valid. He might be subjective, but he has argumented his case relatively well and backed it with data.
PS. Anyone here who thinks is not guilty of this, start throwing rocks.
Any company that does research and development should have policies about cameras. Some military jobs probably have similar restrictions.
When it comes to R&D, military or industrial espionage in general, camera phones are actually quite irrelevant. There are plenty of much smaller and better quality "spy cameras" available. So, banning camera phones in work places is mainly an inconvenience of the employees, who suddenly need a separate phone for work (as most consumer phones come with cameras). But device manufacturers are happy to sell the corporations the same phones again, just without a camera.
When it comes to invation of privacy, question of camera phones becomes more relevant. If everyone has a camera with them at all times, chances of someoney taking pictures they shouldn't be taking increases.
Yes, but does it run on Lin^H^H^HExchange?
The question is not whether Office 12 is "good enough" (to upgrade), but whether it's "new enough" to keep annual license subscribers happy. Getting people to actively upgrade their office version is basically a lost cause. They'll do it when purchasing the next new computer. And getting "the average user" to switch to OO will probably be just as difficult as getting them to upgrade (regardless of price).
You don't need a new monitor for desktop use, only for high def digital movie output (HDMI with HD DVD/Blueray whenever those are available). VGA and DVI work just fine.
And just to be clear, that's because the content owners require it. So don't try to pin this one MS.
I've never understood the HD-DVD-issue with Xbox360. You don't really need 20-30Gb for games. Most current generation titles fit in 2-3Gb with demos and other extras, and increasing polygons and textures is not going to make a big difference. Also, the standard DVD-rom drive is dirt cheap compared to HD/Blueray that's not even in mass production yet. And we're not going to see large scale HD-DVD movie adaptation any time soon. Why pay extra for something you don't need?
I agree with you that image-wise it would've probably been a good thing. But would probably be too big a risk to let somebody else establish themselves as the de-facto "trusted digital content delivery platform" that they want to be in the first train.
It's a shame really, that the situation is what it is. Industry will spend billions (that they could use making a better content and service) to a technology that won't probably significantly reduce piracy. Most likely it will just make piracy more professional and more profitable.
But to get back to your point, I guess you can see why the content owners are more or less panicked about this "evil internet thing and the evil customers doing rampant piracy". And the alternatives of the "more DRM"-mantra are too radical for them to make unless/before they have to. So in order to be a player in the digital content business, Apple needs the DRM. And it's always easier to get the market share in the first round of the fight.