Well, I take it you weren't one of the few people to dish out the $200 (or however many hundreds of dollars it costs) for a licensed copy of XP. I'm not saying that I did.
What I am saying is that Microsoft shouldn't simply ignore it's XP consumer base. I feel this is a mistake.
Vista's biggest competitor will be XP (assuming Vista is released in the next 15 years). What better way to "encourage" users to the new platform by designing an API (which will undoubtedly be adopted by countless game publishers) that only works on Vista?
But like you said: it's not a stability or security update, so no big deal. It'll just end up being the most expensive DirectX upgrade of all time.
Your thought process is familiar... Oh, it sounds like Microsoft's marketing strategy.
Microsoft's obligation is as an ethical business. Perhaps there is no legal binding which requires them to backport all their software, but they've been so legacy happy in the past! Why not now? Because they know that Vista is essentially worthless. Sure, it may have a better privilege system (Thanks UNIX!) and, well... honestly, I don't think anyone really knows for sure anymore.
Microsoft users are going to wonder: Why do I need Vista? Microsoft's answer will be: So you can play Half-Life 4.
Microsoft still has an obligation to (legal) users of XP. These users supposedly paid for a product. Basically Microsoft is giving the finger to it's XP consumer base. Although, no surprises there.
The Linux kernel can be freely downloaded at http://kernel.org/ I don't think upgrading to Vista will be a zero-cost venture, especially since the hardware requirements are excessive.
Yeah I noticed that too, but you need to realize that some of the percentages overlap. The article page shows two separate graphs. Unfortunately, the/. editor decided to include percentages from both...
The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively "put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.
In other words: None of these devices were actually connected to the Internet.
How would this be any different than Firefox's default support for HTTP or FTP? BitTorrent is a protocol. Supporting it is neither illegal nor infringing on anyone's right.
Although offering few details, the company said it has worked closely with Microsoft to build a service called Urge that will let listeners experiment with new music, as well as offer "original, hand-crafted content" from MTV and its other cable channels.
Mmmm. Hand-crafted. I can see it now.
The Cyber World
A story about seven strangers who are chosen to live in a random data center. Their lives are recorded, e-mails are logged, and IMs are monitored. See what happens when people lose their Internet connection, and start getting REAL^H^H^H^HCYBER.
Comments Armstrong, "The bottom line is that even a mediocre hacker could take advantage of a Skype vulnerability. If you are going to use Skype within enterprise, manage it as you would any other IT service: with policy and diligence."
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
Perhaps. But even so, the end user remains free to make changes. Even if the license (oddly) prohibited redistribution, supplying the source code to software with the software itself will always be better that not. Closed source is a dead end. End users have no choice, they must rely on the vendor to issue security patches and fix software.
This is not to say that every user will be tempted to change his/her software. The majority of users will be content with what is, and may not even be aware that the source is available. The freedom still exists, however.
You'd think they'd at least come up with a better name for this 'drink,' instead of concatenating the two ingredients.
Anyone who wants to see the patent application, the it's here [pdf].
I think I'll pass on the taste-test.
Digital downloads could be much more profitable than CDs.
Really? More profitable? This wouldn't have to do with the fact that digitally distributed music being more expensive than tranditional optical media. With individual songs at $0.99 and rising, you'd have to be an RIAA executive to think that it wasn't protifable enough as it is.
Firefox + Adblock + Adblock Filterset.G Updater
on
Why Do You Block Ads?
·
· Score: 1
I recommend to all of my friends who use Firefox (and, for those that don't use Firefox, I continue to recommend Firefox) to also use the AdBlock extension. Adblock allows you to filter out page elements based on pattern matched URLs.
With Adblock, comes Adblock Filterset.G Updater. From the info page of the updater: "This extension automatically downloads the latest version of Filterset.G every 4-7 days. Filterset.G is an excellent set of filters maintained by G for Adblock that blocks most ads on the internet."
With these two extensions, I rarely ever see any advertisements on any site.
To combat the annoying Flash-verts, I use Flashblock. This replaces Flash movies with a button that you can click on to view it.
Three wonderful extensions, things you don't have in Internet Explorer, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I take it you weren't one of the few people to dish out the $200 (or however many hundreds of dollars it costs) for a licensed copy of XP. I'm not saying that I did.
What I am saying is that Microsoft shouldn't simply ignore it's XP consumer base. I feel this is a mistake.
Vista's biggest competitor will be XP (assuming Vista is released in the next 15 years). What better way to "encourage" users to the new platform by designing an API (which will undoubtedly be adopted by countless game publishers) that only works on Vista?
But like you said: it's not a stability or security update, so no big deal. It'll just end up being the most expensive DirectX upgrade of all time.
Your thought process is familiar... Oh, it sounds like Microsoft's marketing strategy.
Microsoft's obligation is as an ethical business. Perhaps there is no legal binding which requires them to backport all their software, but they've been so legacy happy in the past! Why not now? Because they know that Vista is essentially worthless. Sure, it may have a better privilege system (Thanks UNIX!) and, well... honestly, I don't think anyone really knows for sure anymore.
Microsoft users are going to wonder: Why do I need Vista?
Microsoft's answer will be: So you can play Half-Life 4.
Microsoft still has an obligation to (legal) users of XP. These users supposedly paid for a product. Basically Microsoft is giving the finger to it's XP consumer base. Although, no surprises there.
The Linux kernel can be freely downloaded at http://kernel.org/ I don't think upgrading to Vista will be a zero-cost venture, especially since the hardware requirements are excessive.
John Bardeen.
Finally, a name that I can curse at in about... 2 hours.
and 0.0000001% actually do it.
Yeah I noticed that too, but you need to realize that some of the percentages overlap. The article page shows two separate graphs. Unfortunately, the /. editor decided to include percentages from both...
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
TCP seems to be querying things that haven't even happened yet!
The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively "put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.
In other words: None of these devices were actually connected to the Internet.
How would this be any different than Firefox's default support for HTTP or FTP? BitTorrent is a protocol. Supporting it is neither illegal nor infringing on anyone's right.
$ unmount
bash: unmount: command not found
Bad if they only make one.
Although offering few details, the company said it has worked closely with Microsoft to build a service called Urge that will let listeners experiment with new music, as well as offer "original, hand-crafted content" from MTV and its other cable channels.
Mmmm. Hand-crafted. I can see it now.
The Cyber World
A story about seven strangers who are chosen to live in a random data center. Their lives are recorded, e-mails are logged, and IMs are monitored. See what happens when people lose their Internet connection, and start getting REAL^H^H^H^HCYBER.
Don't forget, next fall:
The second season of DDoS'd.
The 'exploit' seems only capable of a Denial of Service. There's no proof to indicate that malicious code could be executed.
Plus, read this (from the article):
"We have gotten no independent verification that it crashes (Firefox), but there have been a lot of attempts to try," Schroepfer said.
So, this is all very hypothetical then?
Comments Armstrong, "The bottom line is that even a mediocre hacker could take advantage of a Skype vulnerability. If you are going to use Skype within enterprise, manage it as you would any other IT service: with policy and diligence."
Armstrong, you misspelled Windows.
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
Perhaps. But even so, the end user remains free to make changes. Even if the license (oddly) prohibited redistribution, supplying the source code to software with the software itself will always be better that not. Closed source is a dead end. End users have no choice, they must rely on the vendor to issue security patches and fix software.
This is not to say that every user will be tempted to change his/her software. The majority of users will be content with what is, and may not even be aware that the source is available. The freedom still exists, however.
You'd think they'd at least come up with a better name for this 'drink,' instead of concatenating the two ingredients. Anyone who wants to see the patent application, the it's here [pdf]. I think I'll pass on the taste-test.
LFTW
Digital downloads could be much more profitable than CDs.
Really? More profitable? This wouldn't have to do with the fact that digitally distributed music being more expensive than tranditional optical media. With individual songs at $0.99 and rising, you'd have to be an RIAA executive to think that it wasn't protifable enough as it is.
About 22 million Web sites employ it
Well, of course. PHP works for free.
Wondering where the '22 million web sites' comes from? http://www.php.net/usage.php.
2 - 10 would be -8 years. So this already happened, 8 years ago.
Welcome to Slashdot.
That's what subm^H^H^H^Hpreview is for...
I recommend to all of my friends who use Firefox (and, for those that don't use Firefox, I continue to recommend Firefox) to also use the AdBlock extension. Adblock allows you to filter out page elements based on pattern matched URLs.
With Adblock, comes Adblock Filterset.G Updater. From the info page of the updater: "This extension automatically downloads the latest version of Filterset.G every 4-7 days. Filterset.G is an excellent set of filters maintained by G for Adblock that blocks most ads on the internet."
With these two extensions, I rarely ever see any advertisements on any site.
To combat the annoying Flash-verts, I use Flashblock. This replaces Flash movies with a button that you can click on to view it.
Three wonderful extensions, things you don't have in Internet Explorer, that's for sure.
6.8GHz should be enough.
Even so, no advancement in hardware will allow for infinite recursion in a finite amount of time.
But this case lies in a gray area, he notes, because until the idea is reduced to practice, it's not an invention and you can't patent it.
OMG! You can't???
Bah, it was a joke.