First of all, you CAN remove messenger and wmp completely from your system (Add/Remove Programs -> Windows Components). The only item in question you can't remove is Internet Explorer. But imagine the fact that you can indeed uninstall IE (if it wasn't so tightly integrated with the file system), do you think these government decisions would change? Does the ability of uninstalling IE even help Microsoft's case and what they're being charged for?
As for you comment regarding updates. Does Apple have "other" options for you to use to detect and download new updates and patches? All I know is they have their own software to do that. I can't go and replace it with something else. Same thing for Suse. They come with YAST and that's what detects and downloads new updates for me. I can't go and find a different software to replace YAST either.
What? You can manually download these updates and install it yourself? Well, guess what, same thing for Windows updates. You can download each individual update from their website, which NOW supports other browsers other than IE.
None of you complaints have any merit besides the fact you can't uninstall IE, but that itself wouldn't help in their Anti-Trust case anyway for the reasons I've mentioned above.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package. Would anyone even bother buying an OS that doesn't come with a media player, a internet browser, or internet messenger in nowadays?
I understand that because of Microsoft's monopoly, it's gives then an unfair advantage of deploying any software they want, but browser, IM, media player are such core software in today's society, I dare you find a modern OS that doesn't have all of them in it. It's not like they're PREVENTING you from installing another software to replace it. By restricting one company from putting these software in, but allowing everyone else to do it, in my opinion, is what's unfair. If they forced every OS to not include a browser, media player, and IM client, I can be more content with that decision.
Why can't the National Archives provide this service? I would like to see public property in the hand of the public.
because if it was in the hand of the public, they'll either be reimbursed through taxes (higher taxes for everyone) or charge a service fee if you want to use it.
I'm not exactly sure how your comment rebutts mine. You claim Microsoft can use their OS monopoly to leverage their windows mobile market.
But isn't that like saying Apple can use their mp3 market to leverage their OS/System market? and by that analogy, they SHOULD NOT be able to "bundle" extras on their OS. Which was exactly my point to begin with. But obviously, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop market, so them bundling Safari and Quicktime FOR FREE is FINE AND DANDY.
But wait... Microsoft wants to bundle a software on their mobile phone which they DON'T have a monopoly in and that shouldn't be allowed? Tell me exactly how they can use their desktop monopoly for this in a way that Apple can't use their mp3 player monopoly for Quicktime?
Or can I sue Sony for bundling Blu-Ray with their PS3, because as you know, PS2 has the most market share and PS3 will be able to play PS2 games and once again, forcing HD-DVD outta the picture. Oh, it's not free? But they are re going to be losing couple hundred dollars per system they're selling. That's different? HOW!?!?!
why not add video on top of that? most cell phones are already camera phones and newer ones have capability of recording video. have it set in your chest pocket and record where ever you are and what you're doing.
That would only be true if they had a monopoly on mobile phones OS, which I doubt. A perfectly good comparison would be seeing Apple bundle Safari and QuickTime w/ their OS. It's not anti-competitive if they don't have a monopoly which in my opinion is quite stupid.
There's several key reasons I can think of why a mini lockerbuster won't work.
1. if you plan to deploy nation wide, that's a very hefty intial investinvestment on trying to secure the box and digital equipment. it's not like your local rent-a-dvd box where the mechanisms are similar to a vending machine. I would have to say the security on these boxes would need to be almost on par with ATM machines.
2. updating the server would mean it'll need an online connection. once again, something general vending machines don't have to account for. unless you plan to deploy people every x days to update the movies, it'll require an online connection.
3. troubleshooting - when the machine breaks down, it's a lot easier to have someone at blockbuster reboot the machien than actually having to send someone out to take a loot at the problem.
4. blockbuster already has a customer base that wants to rent/buy vidoes. by putting advertisments all over blockbuster, would help spread it.
The response of the movie industry was NOT "gee, we'd better stop making movies that even brain damaged 11 year-olds regard as intellectually insulting", but instead "is there any way we can make it illegal to badmouth our movies by text message? Libel law, maybe?" Fortunately, they concluded that was a non-starter.
There are some caveats. Only your 1st 10 searches per day qualify for a win. For someone like me, that makes those 10 searches within the hour it strucks past midnight, it doesn't really give me any advantage to continue using Blingo after my initial 10 searches. Also, as more people join, the # of prizes and the frequency of the prizes given out doesn't increase, so the chances of winning decreases everytime someone new joins (unless they join under you).
That said, they don't exactly have the same results as Googles, even though it's powered by Google. Often times the results are the same, but sometimes when I can't find stuff through Blingo, I can still use Google to find it. I wonder if that's a thing with Google, where search engines using them get 2 week old results, while searches on Google get the newest ones.
Tell that to the game companies. Every 6 months, they seem to be telling me to get a new video card so I can run the games they sell in the highest resolution, enable all the sfx, and not have my system lag to a halt.
What did you say? Don't enable all the perks? Well, guess what! You can do that in Vista too!
Well, normal users don't switch to FireFox either. But I can totally see if you're willing to give FireFox a try, then you would've been downloading IE patches already.
But the process also tends to make chips run hotter, and engineers have been trying to figure out how to keep shrinking chips down while avoiding having them fry their own circuitry.
I can't believe it's going to be running even hotter... Reminds me of the days of the Cyrix.
Got this article from/. : Intelligence: Behold the All-Seeing, Self-Parking, Safety-Enforcing, Networked Automobile. This is quite interesting because we (several people in my project team) were just discussing this during lunch. Well, it started out with vacations and where people were going, then it somehow got to how long it takes to drive from seattle to sf and la. It became what was the longest drive you took alone. Then it got into the subject of cruise control which lead to automated driving. I believe this issue has been discussed prior on this site, but several new interesting points came up. As I mentioned before, the number of car accidents will probably drop dramatically. Even though cars don't have human instincts, they also dont have human faults such as not paying attention, talking on the cell phone, falling asleep, drinking alcohol, etc. and also mentioned before was who is actually responsible for car accidents? Car manufacturers or the person that purchases/riding in the car? One of the stories brought up on how messed up our judicial system can be is someone enabled cruise control in his trailer and then went back to make himself some coffee. This car of course continued going straight and eventually hit a shoulder. He sued the manufactuerer that cruise control didn't state that it wasn't automatic steering and he actually won. My god! Common sense tells me there's no such thing as automatic steering! [This was proven to be just a rumor later on] But another valid point brought up was would insurance rates go up or down? One of my colleagues then said, "It depends on who." I mean there probably won't be any insurance required for passengers anymore (since there's technically no more drivers, unless you plan on overriding to manual driving). However manufactuers will probably need to purchase high premium insurance in case any accidents that do occur and any potential lawsuits they may receive, which in turn will reflect on the price tag of the car.
I believe if automatic driving did come into existance, insurance companies would need to change their model. With little accidents occuring, the driver's premium should drop significantly. There are 2 solutions that may fix this problem.
1. Have car manufacturers buy insurance that would take care of the accidents that occur which in turn would add cost to the car. 2. Do not bother lowering the insurance rates for end-users, but the additional funding will be used for such cases and the car manufacturers will be off the hook.
Yet another example on how our judicial system can only try to catch up to technology.
Along the same note, what a publisher needs to do is verify that the information is from a reliable source. If it was an advertisement for Store A, make sure it's not store D who is purchasing the ad. If it was a biography, make sure the person the biography is on states that it is his biography.
Another responsibility of the publisher is if indeed later verified that the item they published is falsified or incorrect, they should just pull it off the shelves and stop distributing it.
I'm just curious how this is different from advertisments. Do publishers (such as TV and newspapers) have to verify the authenticity of an ad they published, especially the classified ads? I mean all the publisher's job is suppose to do, is publish it the way the author wants it. If Store A advertises Item B for Cost C on my local newspaper and they don't honor the price, is it my local newspaper publisher's fault? No.
I don't see why this responsibility is pushed onto the publisher.
Another interesting example regarding another post modded "funny" is the tax. If I take my taxes and let H&R block do them for me and submit it. Is it their fault that I somehow falsified some information? Come on guys. Responsibility has always been the creator's job to tell the truth, not some 3rd party who is involved, unless that was what they were hired to do, such as ESRB and MPAA ratings.
That's assuming he's paying $1/song. What if the seller was from Russia and legally purchased music from AllOfMp3.com where songs are like a nickel to a dime each. He'd have 4000-8000 songs for the extra $400. I'm pretty sure the seller in this case is illegit, but doesn't make this scenario impossible.
I remember one of my classmates was too cheap to buy the reader and the reader was available in pdf format. I believe 600-800 pages and he printed the entire thing one weekend. Our professor found out and said to the entire class, "The book's only $20. It's worth the paper's price."
The $13 card you purchased is software Raid. Promise cards are mostly hardware RAID. I recently purchased a Promise FastTrack S150 SX4-M for less than $100 hardware RAID5 card compared to the $30-50 software RAID5 cards. I'm pretty satisified with the purchase but unfortunately there isn't room for much upgrade. I currently have 4x160GB in a RAID5 configuration giving me 480GB of space and 1 disc of redundnacy.
Some useful links to tell you the difference between software raid and hardware raid are:
There was a case over a bargain site awhile ago where they got into a lawsuit with Staples or OfficeMax where they claimed people were scanning and posting their ads online. Of course in the case they argued that their ads and weekly inserts are copyrighted to them, but the real case is by publishing these weekly ads earlier than they wanted, competitors would be able to respond.
So people stopped scanning the ads and started listing the items and prices and they also claimed that was copyrighted. So this case went on and the basic outcome of the case was that the stores on the copyrights to the images and ads and placement, but the item names and prices are facts which are not copyrightable.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, you CAN remove messenger and wmp completely from your system (Add/Remove Programs -> Windows Components). The only item in question you can't remove is Internet Explorer. But imagine the fact that you can indeed uninstall IE (if it wasn't so tightly integrated with the file system), do you think these government decisions would change? Does the ability of uninstalling IE even help Microsoft's case and what they're being charged for?
As for you comment regarding updates. Does Apple have "other" options for you to use to detect and download new updates and patches? All I know is they have their own software to do that. I can't go and replace it with something else. Same thing for Suse. They come with YAST and that's what detects and downloads new updates for me. I can't go and find a different software to replace YAST either.
What? You can manually download these updates and install it yourself? Well, guess what, same thing for Windows updates. You can download each individual update from their website, which NOW supports other browsers other than IE.
None of you complaints have any merit besides the fact you can't uninstall IE, but that itself wouldn't help in their Anti-Trust case anyway for the reasons I've mentioned above.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package. Would anyone even bother buying an OS that doesn't come with a media player, a internet browser, or internet messenger in nowadays?
I understand that because of Microsoft's monopoly, it's gives then an unfair advantage of deploying any software they want, but browser, IM, media player are such core software in today's society, I dare you find a modern OS that doesn't have all of them in it. It's not like they're PREVENTING you from installing another software to replace it. By restricting one company from putting these software in, but allowing everyone else to do it, in my opinion, is what's unfair. If they forced every OS to not include a browser, media player, and IM client, I can be more content with that decision.
Just my rant and 2 cents.
because if it was in the hand of the public, they'll either be reimbursed through taxes (higher taxes for everyone) or charge a service fee if you want to use it.
Informative?
I'm not exactly sure how your comment rebutts mine. You claim Microsoft can use their OS monopoly to leverage their windows mobile market.
But isn't that like saying Apple can use their mp3 market to leverage their OS/System market? and by that analogy, they SHOULD NOT be able to "bundle" extras on their OS. Which was exactly my point to begin with. But obviously, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop market, so them bundling Safari and Quicktime FOR FREE is FINE AND DANDY.
But wait... Microsoft wants to bundle a software on their mobile phone which they DON'T have a monopoly in and that shouldn't be allowed? Tell me exactly how they can use their desktop monopoly for this in a way that Apple can't use their mp3 player monopoly for Quicktime?
Or can I sue Sony for bundling Blu-Ray with their PS3, because as you know, PS2 has the most market share and PS3 will be able to play PS2 games and once again, forcing HD-DVD outta the picture. Oh, it's not free? But they are re going to be losing couple hundred dollars per system they're selling. That's different? HOW!?!?!
Once again, INFORMATIVE?
why not add video on top of that? most cell phones are already camera phones and newer ones have capability of recording video. have it set in your chest pocket and record where ever you are and what you're doing.
That would only be true if they had a monopoly on mobile phones OS, which I doubt. A perfectly good comparison would be seeing Apple bundle Safari and QuickTime w/ their OS. It's not anti-competitive if they don't have a monopoly which in my opinion is quite stupid.
i don't seem to comprehend why you think redbox is a viable option, given that they only service 8 cities: http://go.mappoint.net/redbox/PrxInput.aspx
There's several key reasons I can think of why a mini lockerbuster won't work.
1. if you plan to deploy nation wide, that's a very hefty intial investinvestment on trying to secure the box and digital equipment. it's not like your local rent-a-dvd box where the mechanisms are similar to a vending machine. I would have to say the security on these boxes would need to be almost on par with ATM machines.
2. updating the server would mean it'll need an online connection. once again, something general vending machines don't have to account for. unless you plan to deploy people every x days to update the movies, it'll require an online connection.
3. troubleshooting - when the machine breaks down, it's a lot easier to have someone at blockbuster reboot the machien than actually having to send someone out to take a loot at the problem.
4. blockbuster already has a customer base that wants to rent/buy vidoes. by putting advertisments all over blockbuster, would help spread it.
Here's the old
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08
Video's being hosted at YouTube:x Ciakg
http://www.youtube.com/w/Real-Transformer?v=dut6j
Since they're a dedicated video server, I'm pretty sure their servers can take a beating.
Yep, I've been using Blingo since last November. Have already won 3 $10 iTunes Gift Certificates (though one of them I won through my referral).
http://www.krunk4ever.com/blog/?p=5
There are some caveats. Only your 1st 10 searches per day qualify for a win. For someone like me, that makes those 10 searches within the hour it strucks past midnight, it doesn't really give me any advantage to continue using Blingo after my initial 10 searches. Also, as more people join, the # of prizes and the frequency of the prizes given out doesn't increase, so the chances of winning decreases everytime someone new joins (unless they join under you).
They do have a toolbar for IE and a search bar engine for Firefox:
http://www.blingo.com/howto
That said, they don't exactly have the same results as Googles, even though it's powered by Google. Often times the results are the same, but sometimes when I can't find stuff through Blingo, I can still use Google to find it. I wonder if that's a thing with Google, where search engines using them get 2 week old results, while searches on Google get the newest ones.
Tell that to the game companies. Every 6 months, they seem to be telling me to get a new video card so I can run the games they sell in the highest resolution, enable all the sfx, and not have my system lag to a halt.
What did you say? Don't enable all the perks? Well, guess what! You can do that in Vista too!
Well, normal users don't switch to FireFox either. But I can totally see if you're willing to give FireFox a try, then you would've been downloading IE patches already.
I can't believe it's going to be running even hotter... Reminds me of the days of the Cyrix.
I believe if automatic driving did come into existance, insurance companies would need to change their model. With little accidents occuring, the driver's premium should drop significantly. There are 2 solutions that may fix this problem.
1. Have car manufacturers buy insurance that would take care of the accidents that occur which in turn would add cost to the car.
2. Do not bother lowering the insurance rates for end-users, but the additional funding will be used for such cases and the car manufacturers will be off the hook.
Yet another example on how our judicial system can only try to catch up to technology.
Along the same note, what a publisher needs to do is verify that the information is from a reliable source. If it was an advertisement for Store A, make sure it's not store D who is purchasing the ad. If it was a biography, make sure the person the biography is on states that it is his biography.
Another responsibility of the publisher is if indeed later verified that the item they published is falsified or incorrect, they should just pull it off the shelves and stop distributing it.
I'm just curious how this is different from advertisments. Do publishers (such as TV and newspapers) have to verify the authenticity of an ad they published, especially the classified ads? I mean all the publisher's job is suppose to do, is publish it the way the author wants it. If Store A advertises Item B for Cost C on my local newspaper and they don't honor the price, is it my local newspaper publisher's fault? No.
I don't see why this responsibility is pushed onto the publisher.
Another interesting example regarding another post modded "funny" is the tax. If I take my taxes and let H&R block do them for me and submit it. Is it their fault that I somehow falsified some information? Come on guys. Responsibility has always been the creator's job to tell the truth, not some 3rd party who is involved, unless that was what they were hired to do, such as ESRB and MPAA ratings.
I always believed that printing 9s instead of 0s would produce a bigger number.
That's assuming he's paying $1/song. What if the seller was from Russia and legally purchased music from AllOfMp3.com where songs are like a nickel to a dime each. He'd have 4000-8000 songs for the extra $400. I'm pretty sure the seller in this case is illegit, but doesn't make this scenario impossible.
To be fair, why don't you also tell how many SP Win95, Win98, and WinME had?
Not too sure why you're post was rated insightful...
I remember one of my classmates was too cheap to buy the reader and the reader was available in pdf format. I believe 600-800 pages and he printed the entire thing one weekend. Our professor found out and said to the entire class, "The book's only $20. It's worth the paper's price."
Hardware VS Software Raid
l Hardware-c.htmln ual/custom-guide/s1-raid-approaches.html. html4 349/2/
The $13 card you purchased is software Raid. Promise cards are mostly hardware RAID. I recently purchased a Promise FastTrack S150 SX4-M for less than $100 hardware RAID5 card compared to the $30-50 software RAID5 cards. I'm pretty satisified with the purchase but unfortunately there isn't room for much upgrade. I currently have 4x160GB in a RAID5 configuration giving me 480GB of space and 1 disc of redundnacy.
Some useful links to tell you the difference between software raid and hardware raid are:
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/conf/ctr
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Ma
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-10880_11-5715216
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/
There was a case over a bargain site awhile ago where they got into a lawsuit with Staples or OfficeMax where they claimed people were scanning and posting their ads online. Of course in the case they argued that their ads and weekly inserts are copyrighted to them, but the real case is by publishing these weekly ads earlier than they wanted, competitors would be able to respond.
So people stopped scanning the ads and started listing the items and prices and they also claimed that was copyrighted. So this case went on and the basic outcome of the case was that the stores on the copyrights to the images and ads and placement, but the item names and prices are facts which are not copyrightable.