We are just now demoing these for just that issue and they are AWSOME! Basically just plug it into a USB port on any computer anywhere in the world and you get a completely secure work connection that leaves no files locally. Very cool!
2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law. Ok, show me case law against this interpretation, I showed case law for it. OTHER than the one in this article by a lower court. 3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable) Right, and as the case law shows, there is ample evidence that the President can wiretap international calls for foriegn intellegence.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Maybe I didn't put it the best way. What I'm tring to say is that its the responsibility of the judical branch to give permission or not to these "searches" in the form of warrents. The police cannot just decide on thier own if its reasonable or not, they must make the arguement to a judge (or other office of the judical branch) and have it approved or denied. On point, this is what the FISA court was designed to do. The goverment certainly has more leaway in these cases and a lower burden of proof, but the law still says in the end a judge still has oversight and ability to approve/deny requests. Unless I've missed some huge sections of law, I don't know of any case where the US government can legally just wiretap US citizens without warrents (even if the call goes over seas) Of course the president or any law enforcement office can wiretap anyone. The question is are they bypassing the judical oversight?
Also, its not so simple as just saying he is wiretaping for foriegn intelligence if it also includes a US based side of the call. Here in my opinion is one of the better examples of the Supreme Court defining limits on wiretaps. Its (amoung other things) about the person on the end of the other line (not the person the warrent was applied for) does matter and must be considered and should be included in the warrent application if you can reasonably know who it will be.
I don't know what my full opinion on this topic is because at this point it a lot of rumors about what is happening without much fact. However, at least from what you hear it seems they have completely bypassed the judical oversight which is worrisome.
You make it sound like all of this is settled law while its not. Now I don't think this will be settled anytime soon, but here are things to consider.
1) Since there have been electronic communications the courts have held intercepting them does constitute "search and sezure" 2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law. 3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable) 4) To use the war powers act we need to be at war which only the Congress can declare. This is the sticky part as the congresses approval to go after terrorists wasn't an offical declaration of war, it may by reasonable people certainly be viewed as much the same.
The real question in my mind (and the problem I have with this) is that a "war on terror" isn't a war. You cannot have a war on an idea and have it be anything like the framers meant with the war powers act. The "war on terror" will never end. There ALWAYS have been and always will be people who use terrorism to push thier ideas. If we accept that the president can use the war powers act during this "war on terror" then we in effect give him the power to perminately by-pass all checks-and-balances and thus destroy the constitution which Article 2 swears him to protect and defend. If you want to take a very literal reading of the constitution (and not apply settled case law) by questioning if the 4th amendment really covers wire-tapping because "is it really a search or sezure?" then litteral reading of Article 2 really doesn't give him any additional powers it simply states he is commander and chief, etc, etc. I certainly doesn't say that in times of war he can override either the constitution or the other branches of government. In fact upon swearing in, he swears to protect, uphold, etc the constitution. Not do whatever it takes to protect the people. Maybe this is cold, but the framers were smart enough to know the constition is the important thing not the people. People will always be in danger and may be killed. If you use that to destroy the ideals of America you lose, thus he is sworn to protect, defend the constitution in a literal reading not the people.
Unless that second display is driven by a second motherboard
If I remember correctly when these were first discussed years ago, that is in fact exactly the case. If memory serves its almost like an onboard PDA included with the laptop. When the laptop is on data is synched between the harddrive and the "pda" boards solidstate memory. I think there are some shared components like networking, etc but for the most part the PC is completely off and the "PDA" type functionalty runs almost completely seperately. Its been awhile so I could be remembering this incorrectly, but thats the basics of what I recall.
But for many people (Linus included) those "loopholes" are features not bugs. Those holding views can argue those features are what caused GPL 2 to be so widely adopted and that the "fixes" in v3 will cause v3 to "crumble" (ie nobody using it).
Any bets on how long till the underpaid helpdesk personal that are always having to run around and fix all their computers "which never fail" posts the helpdesk logs on the internet?
Why shouldn't law enforcement organisations have the ability to look in potential criminal action?
They should and they do. If they wish to go deeper and spy on people they suspect, they only need to present thier reasons for suspecting the person.
This law if I understand it correctly removes the need to suspect someone of anything before spying on them. With this law, in theory every person in America could be put on a rotation of 89 days under survailance and 1 day off. Then after that 1 day they go back to being spied on for another 89 days, etc, etc, etc. No reason for the spying is required. This isn't how the US is supposed to work.
Well argued! I agree and will alter my view accordingly (not being sarcastic here).
You are I'm sure correct about Win98. I know I won't let our remote users connect via VPN unless they are running XP SP2 (no sense chancing a rooted 98 box being able to compromise the network). I assume that is pretty common and agree. My points in this reguard are more general to windows and I think the "custom apps" arguement is one that is often overlooked when discussion issues with transitioning to Linux. Not entirely on topic because this is specifically about Win98, where you are correct I'm sure it would only be an issue for a VERY low percentage of people. 1 point for you;-)
As far as VB, I realize my arguement is more about the volume of people it effected than the languge itself. After some additional thought and considering your points, I'll certainly agree "watershed" was a bit over the top;-) I certainly think it was a very important language in timeline of langauges but watershed is a bit over-hyped. You points about thier always being other langauges are well taken. My view on VB I guess comes down to volume. And that is probably more to do with WHEN it held its position as a popular langange than what it was. The period from Win 3 to up to Win 98 (or even 2000) saw such an explosion of computer ownership that whatever was the popular/easy langauge at the time would have created huge volumes of software. The huge volumes of software it produced and I saw in small businesses certainly steer me toward seeing it as a very important language in that reguard. But as you point out watershead propobly isn't the best word to use.
Thanks for your insight, its always nice to look at things from a new perspective!
i'm all for stripped down servers, but take away the 'easy management' of a windows server and i don't see much worth keeping
The point of this that MS is trying to push is that you get both. "Server Core" with just the minimum services required will improve performance, minimize the attack angles, will be less security updates required to push, etc. However, the management interface doesn't really change its just that you cannot run thost tools locally. Running the MMC snap-ins on a seperate server though gives you the same tools your used to to manage the remote "stripped down" server.
Of course you can do some mangement if you'd want via the command line, but the goal is to just manage it remotely via the MMC snap-ins.
You seem to have totally missed the points I tried to make. Let me try again to state the two reasons why internal apps effect home adaptation.
1) "home users" are not some discreet unit. The vast majority also use computers at work. Most want thier home computer as similar to thier work computer as possible (don't want to relearn a new OS just for home).
2) More and more "home users" are also doing work from home. Be it telecommuting or just doing some work in the evenings. There are now a large number of "home users" doing work from home. Any internal apps they have for work can effect what OS they run at home. Besides internal apps, comercial apps running in the office also effect this.
As far as VB's place in hitory again perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say or maybe you've just had very different experiences. Here is what I'm trying to say perhaps more clearly.
Since the first computer, large organizations have produced thier own internal custom applications. What VB changed is that these custom applications were no longer just for large organizations. Now perhaps some small mom-and-pop stores would find someone to create some custom "batch file" application for them, but it certainly wasn't common. For the most part small operations would run on spreadsheets at best. I used to deal with LOTS of small outfits like this. Once VB came out, I would just see more and more and more little custom apps being used to run thier business. Now not all were VB, but the vast majority were. They had asked thier nephew at college or a small developer in town, etc if he could write them an application to track inventory at thier small vet clinic, etc. The vast majority of these were VB/Access applications.
I've been out of that scene for awhile now so not sure how common that still is. I'd guess this is probably not as common now since there is just such a huge volume of different types of comercial software available today that it isn't as needed. Back then it was the only way to get the apps they needed because there just weren't as many options.
That is where I think VB (not alone as I said others like Delphi were also out there) stands out in history. For the first time, it was VERY easy and cheap to create custom software specific for small business that had a nice GUI that those small businesses could understand. It brought the power of custom software to the small business really for the first time.
Interestingly enough with the upcoming Longhorn server and future versions this will become more of an option. With Longhorn server there is an install option being refered to as "Server Core" where it just installs the most basic stuff required for a specific set of options (DHCP, DNS, file server, or domain controller roles). This type of install won't even include a GUI.
This seems to point to MS finally taking modularity seriously at least.
Completely agree! The fact that if you get Windows, no matter what you want you can get it is a HUGE advantage to users. OSS, closed source MS stuff, it doesn't matter. It just works. That is a very big deal!Sorry to use a response to get an additional point in but I must;-)
I tried to avoid the name of any specific app in my original post because everybody has thier own app that is important to them. But here is the biggest issue in my mind: "internal apps".
Everybody always tosses out Office, Photoshop, etc as apps missing. Here is my theory. It doesn't matter! Those apps are relatively easy to replace if need be. The issue is everyone basically now uses computers at work and there are just a ridiculous number of MS based internal apps out there. From the sort of new.NET apps to the huge number of scary old VB6 apps out there. There are just a crazy number of speicalized, specific business apps out there. This effects adaptation in two ways. 1) They have to use Windows at work so why bother learning something else at home. 2) Many people now work from home at least part time or in the evenings so need Windows to run those customs apps from home.
For all the bad things you can say about VB (I have a history with it and have many bad things to say) it really was a watershead. It made it SOO easy to develop the custom apps you need in your own business. Now I don't want to sanctify VB. Personally Delphi to me offered many of the amazing benefits (RAD, etc) and was a much nicer langauage but the fact is VB really launched an era where even the smallest business can get the speicalized software specific for thier business. I really do view VB as an amazing point in computing history for this reason.
Anyway, as much the big software gets blamed for causing people not to switch. Speicalized software at everyones workplace I think could be even a bigger reason.
Well sure. They may not know the name but again, that doesn't matter. They can call thier entire computer "my CPU" (GOD I HATE THAT!!!!). It doesn't matter what they call IT. The fact is they are comfortable with IT and want IT. If IT doesn't run on Linux, its a complete non-issue. If there is an alternitive which is a 100% clone of IT maybe; but there aren't 100% clones (functionality maybe presentation, no).
Agreed. For the most part the OS is and should be a non-issue. To paraphrase what my long post could be, the answer is "Its the apps stupid!". And before I get a ton of replies about there are apps that can do much of what they need for Linux. The issue is most people don't care. They know an app, they are comfortable with it, and it doesn't matter what other apps can do. Until THAT app is available, Linux is a non-issue.
Of course these numbers and not at all scientfic. The change is also completely insignificant. I agree on all of that. However, I have a feeling many who will denounce these statistics would be singing thier praises if they showed a significant gain;-)
If you have access to your enemy's communications, the absolute last thing you would ever want to do is tell your enemy that you know what they're saying.
Sure, but thats not the real stupidity. It sounds like Hezbollah just admitted to a DMCA violation!!! So I'm a bit skeptical of this information. I think it could just be the beggining of a brillant new offensive against Hezbollah. Next we'll see stories of Hezbollah leading massive piracy operations. Then its on, bitch! Dealing with Bush may not be a big deal, but sending the legions of Disney, Sony, WB, etc lawyers after them is another thing all together!
Thats REAL terrorisim! If this comes to pass I may actually feel sorry for them.
Thx, I was just going to say the same thing. The footnote lists unprotected formats which can be imported. Protected WMA and WMV are the devices native formats! To read this and take away that the device won't support its own native formats is quite a stretch!;-)
Its like reading some whare that IPods and import MP3 and since protected AACs are listed assuming IPods won't be able to play its own format. STUPID article!
definition: "Should" - a work that should never be allowed in describing a patent.
So they really haven't figured out how to do it? So what they file the patent hope they can figure it out and if not hope someone else does so they can sue them?
Thats a really good point;-) I'm really not thinking this is probably all that unusual (sadly). However, if you do stuff like this to the press.... boy look out! I guess thats probably a good thing. I guess it helps protect freedom of the press when you see all the crap you'll get if you mess with them;-)
No, I cannot imagine customers will care. And since customers won't care its unlikely investors will care too much. Some investors could be a bit shaken by news and shakeup but I don't see institutional investors (they really drive the market) getting to worked up over this. Longterm its hard to see this having any real effect on the company. Probably the biggest danger would be the SEC finding bigger corporate goverancne issues related to this (not filing 100% accurate documents, etc). I haven't seen anything yet that is too likely to get them in enough trouble with the SEC to cause any real problems, but with the congress getting involved etc there could be some pressure to make an example (don't really see that happening to HP though). The SEC coming down harshly could be enough to get the large investors to pull back a bit. All in all I'd guess your correct. Probably the fallout will mainly be limited to those individuals involved.
Yeah, I wasn't really meaning end-user skinnable. If fact I'd agree that being end user skinnable just adds confusion in many cases. What I really mean is it should be designer skinnable (and then of course it depends on your products audiance). What I really am trying to say is the seperated your applications function from its presentation the better. If you have code specifically saying this control should use this font and this color, etc when the next version comes out and the PHBs decide they want a more modern look/feel its going to mean a lot of code changes for something completely irrelevant to you as a developer. There are many tools out there which make if very easy to make these types of properties completely independent from code so when look and feel needs to change for whatever reason it takes next to zero of your time. Its just the designers how can "reskin" the app without needing to touch any code. Here is a suite of controls for.NET and Java which at least do the basics of this for you with really zero code on the part of the developer. Now depending on the flexibility you want this may not be enough but it certainly gives you a great starting point VERY easily. Now there are other tools offering similar stuff (these just happen to be my favorite).
Sorry for that remark. I was typing faster than I was thinking;-) I have no idea what your post history is (too lazy as I'm watching a football game as I type this). You may well normally have great posts and I shouldn't judge you on this single post. However, these posts certainly don't give me a good first impression.
Gotta get back to the game, so I'll wish you well and be gone (good one about grammer school though);-)
I do not know any Mac users, so I really don't know whether they are as dumb as Windows users.
Oh, sure! I'm certain you were expecting a bunch of well thought out replys discussing if Mac users and/or Windows users are stupid and really get to the bottom of this deep question. Its a textbook flame, deal with it. You were just tossing out insults in some sad attempt to make yourself feel superior.
Here's the thing, many of us/.ers still come here to see the latest tech news and participate in or see in-depth discussion of these issues to enrich ourselves and others. The problem is there are too many smug people like yourself here not acutally lending anything to the actual discussions but instead just toss pointless insults around and generally trying spread to show how smug you are. It kind of lends itself to a Beavis and Butthead mentality where the lowest common denominator (you) end up distracting people from the actual discussion taking place. Now do I think this is a real issue? Not really and certainly not specifically for Apple (see my other post) but it is worth an educated discussion about the pros and cons and look at the options. Posts like yours just distract from the issues at hand I guess in some hope to get some cheap karma points by pointlessly slamming people when its completely irrelevant to the discussion while actually adding nothing.
Here is how I see it. This could happen on most systems. If you are running as admin an installer will running under your profile may well add a user. I don't see this as an Apple only issue. However, with all the security concerns today it probably is worth a discussion. Should an installer be allowed to automatically create users? Genereally many apps may well require user accounts so I'd say they certainly should be allowed to automatically create users but perhaps require users to reenter admin password. Then its really a question of is this more of an annoyance then it helps. I really don't know, but its probably at least worth the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
We are just now demoing these for just that issue and they are AWSOME! Basically just plug it into a USB port on any computer anywhere in the world and you get a completely secure work connection that leaves no files locally. Very cool!
2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.
Ok, show me case law against this interpretation, I showed case law for it. OTHER than the one in this article by a lower court.
3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)
Right, and as the case law shows, there is ample evidence that the President can wiretap international calls for foriegn intellegence.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Maybe I didn't put it the best way. What I'm tring to say is that its the responsibility of the judical branch to give permission or not to these "searches" in the form of warrents. The police cannot just decide on thier own if its reasonable or not, they must make the arguement to a judge (or other office of the judical branch) and have it approved or denied. On point, this is what the FISA court was designed to do. The goverment certainly has more leaway in these cases and a lower burden of proof, but the law still says in the end a judge still has oversight and ability to approve/deny requests. Unless I've missed some huge sections of law, I don't know of any case where the US government can legally just wiretap US citizens without warrents (even if the call goes over seas) Of course the president or any law enforcement office can wiretap anyone. The question is are they bypassing the judical oversight?
Also, its not so simple as just saying he is wiretaping for foriegn intelligence if it also includes a US based side of the call.
Here in my opinion is one of the better examples of the Supreme Court defining limits on wiretaps. Its (amoung other things) about the person on the end of the other line (not the person the warrent was applied for) does matter and must be considered and should be included in the warrent application if you can reasonably know who it will be.
I don't know what my full opinion on this topic is because at this point it a lot of rumors about what is happening without much fact. However, at least from what you hear it seems they have completely bypassed the judical oversight which is worrisome.
You make it sound like all of this is settled law while its not. Now I don't think this will be settled anytime soon, but here are things to consider.
1) Since there have been electronic communications the courts have held intercepting them does constitute "search and sezure"
2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.
3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)
4) To use the war powers act we need to be at war which only the Congress can declare. This is the sticky part as the congresses approval to go after terrorists wasn't an offical declaration of war, it may by reasonable people certainly be viewed as much the same.
The real question in my mind (and the problem I have with this) is that a "war on terror" isn't a war. You cannot have a war on an idea and have it be anything like the framers meant with the war powers act. The "war on terror" will never end. There ALWAYS have been and always will be people who use terrorism to push thier ideas. If we accept that the president can use the war powers act during this "war on terror" then we in effect give him the power to perminately by-pass all checks-and-balances and thus destroy the constitution which Article 2 swears him to protect and defend. If you want to take a very literal reading of the constitution (and not apply settled case law) by questioning if the 4th amendment really covers wire-tapping because "is it really a search or sezure?" then litteral reading of Article 2 really doesn't give him any additional powers it simply states he is commander and chief, etc, etc. I certainly doesn't say that in times of war he can override either the constitution or the other branches of government. In fact upon swearing in, he swears to protect, uphold, etc the constitution. Not do whatever it takes to protect the people. Maybe this is cold, but the framers were smart enough to know the constition is the important thing not the people. People will always be in danger and may be killed. If you use that to destroy the ideals of America you lose, thus he is sworn to protect, defend the constitution in a literal reading not the people.
Unless that second display is driven by a second motherboard
If I remember correctly when these were first discussed years ago, that is in fact exactly the case. If memory serves its almost like an onboard PDA included with the laptop. When the laptop is on data is synched between the harddrive and the "pda" boards solidstate memory. I think there are some shared components like networking, etc but for the most part the PC is completely off and the "PDA" type functionalty runs almost completely seperately. Its been awhile so I could be remembering this incorrectly, but thats the basics of what I recall.
But for many people (Linus included) those "loopholes" are features not bugs. Those holding views can argue those features are what caused GPL 2 to be so widely adopted and that the "fixes" in v3 will cause v3 to "crumble" (ie nobody using it).
Any bets on how long till the underpaid helpdesk personal that are always having to run around and fix all their computers "which never fail" posts the helpdesk logs on the internet?
Why shouldn't law enforcement organisations have the ability to look in potential criminal action?
They should and they do. If they wish to go deeper and spy on people they suspect, they only need to present thier reasons for suspecting the person.
This law if I understand it correctly removes the need to suspect someone of anything before spying on them. With this law, in theory every person in America could be put on a rotation of 89 days under survailance and 1 day off. Then after that 1 day they go back to being spied on for another 89 days, etc, etc, etc. No reason for the spying is required. This isn't how the US is supposed to work.
Well argued! I agree and will alter my view accordingly (not being sarcastic here).
;-)
;-) I certainly think it was a very important language in timeline of langauges but watershed is a bit over-hyped. You points about thier always being other langauges are well taken. My view on VB I guess comes down to volume. And that is probably more to do with WHEN it held its position as a popular langange than what it was. The period from Win 3 to up to Win 98 (or even 2000) saw such an explosion of computer ownership that whatever was the popular/easy langauge at the time would have created huge volumes of software. The huge volumes of software it produced and I saw in small businesses certainly steer me toward seeing it as a very important language in that reguard. But as you point out watershead propobly isn't the best word to use.
You are I'm sure correct about Win98. I know I won't let our remote users connect via VPN unless they are running XP SP2 (no sense chancing a rooted 98 box being able to compromise the network). I assume that is pretty common and agree. My points in this reguard are more general to windows and I think the "custom apps" arguement is one that is often overlooked when discussion issues with transitioning to Linux. Not entirely on topic because this is specifically about Win98, where you are correct I'm sure it would only be an issue for a VERY low percentage of people. 1 point for you
As far as VB, I realize my arguement is more about the volume of people it effected than the languge itself. After some additional thought and considering your points, I'll certainly agree "watershed" was a bit over the top
Thanks for your insight, its always nice to look at things from a new perspective!
i'm all for stripped down servers, but take away the 'easy management' of a windows server and i don't see much worth keeping
The point of this that MS is trying to push is that you get both. "Server Core" with just the minimum services required will improve performance, minimize the attack angles, will be less security updates required to push, etc. However, the management interface doesn't really change its just that you cannot run thost tools locally. Running the MMC snap-ins on a seperate server though gives you the same tools your used to to manage the remote "stripped down" server.
Of course you can do some mangement if you'd want via the command line, but the goal is to just manage it remotely via the MMC snap-ins.
You seem to have totally missed the points I tried to make. Let me try again to state the two reasons why internal apps effect home adaptation.
1) "home users" are not some discreet unit. The vast majority also use computers at work. Most want thier home computer as similar to thier work computer as possible (don't want to relearn a new OS just for home).
2) More and more "home users" are also doing work from home. Be it telecommuting or just doing some work in the evenings. There are now a large number of "home users" doing work from home. Any internal apps they have for work can effect what OS they run at home. Besides internal apps, comercial apps running in the office also effect this.
As far as VB's place in hitory again perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say or maybe you've just had very different experiences. Here is what I'm trying to say perhaps more clearly.
Since the first computer, large organizations have produced thier own internal custom applications. What VB changed is that these custom applications were no longer just for large organizations. Now perhaps some small mom-and-pop stores would find someone to create some custom "batch file" application for them, but it certainly wasn't common. For the most part small operations would run on spreadsheets at best. I used to deal with LOTS of small outfits like this. Once VB came out, I would just see more and more and more little custom apps being used to run thier business. Now not all were VB, but the vast majority were. They had asked thier nephew at college or a small developer in town, etc if he could write them an application to track inventory at thier small vet clinic, etc. The vast majority of these were VB/Access applications.
I've been out of that scene for awhile now so not sure how common that still is. I'd guess this is probably not as common now since there is just such a huge volume of different types of comercial software available today that it isn't as needed. Back then it was the only way to get the apps they needed because there just weren't as many options.
That is where I think VB (not alone as I said others like Delphi were also out there) stands out in history. For the first time, it was VERY easy and cheap to create custom software specific for small business that had a nice GUI that those small businesses could understand. It brought the power of custom software to the small business really for the first time.
Interestingly enough with the upcoming Longhorn server and future versions this will become more of an option. With Longhorn server there is an install option being refered to as "Server Core" where it just installs the most basic stuff required for a specific set of options (DHCP, DNS, file server, or domain controller roles). This type of install won't even include a GUI.
This seems to point to MS finally taking modularity seriously at least.
What is the make and model? It wasn't all THAT long ago I was looking for 1080p plasmas but couldn't find any. Glad to hear there now are some.
Completely agree! The fact that if you get Windows, no matter what you want you can get it is a HUGE advantage to users. OSS, closed source MS stuff, it doesn't matter. It just works. That is a very big deal!Sorry to use a response to get an additional point in but I must ;-)
.NET apps to the huge number of scary old VB6 apps out there. There are just a crazy number of speicalized, specific business apps out there. This effects adaptation in two ways. 1) They have to use Windows at work so why bother learning something else at home. 2) Many people now work from home at least part time or in the evenings so need Windows to run those customs apps from home.
I tried to avoid the name of any specific app in my original post because everybody has thier own app that is important to them. But here is the biggest issue in my mind: "internal apps".
Everybody always tosses out Office, Photoshop, etc as apps missing. Here is my theory. It doesn't matter! Those apps are relatively easy to replace if need be. The issue is everyone basically now uses computers at work and there are just a ridiculous number of MS based internal apps out there. From the sort of new
For all the bad things you can say about VB (I have a history with it and have many bad things to say) it really was a watershead. It made it SOO easy to develop the custom apps you need in your own business. Now I don't want to sanctify VB. Personally Delphi to me offered many of the amazing benefits (RAD, etc) and was a much nicer langauage but the fact is VB really launched an era where even the smallest business can get the speicalized software specific for thier business. I really do view VB as an amazing point in computing history for this reason.
Anyway, as much the big software gets blamed for causing people not to switch. Speicalized software at everyones workplace I think could be even a bigger reason.
Well sure. They may not know the name but again, that doesn't matter. They can call thier entire computer "my CPU" (GOD I HATE THAT!!!!). It doesn't matter what they call IT. The fact is they are comfortable with IT and want IT. If IT doesn't run on Linux, its a complete non-issue. If there is an alternitive which is a 100% clone of IT maybe; but there aren't 100% clones (functionality maybe presentation, no).
Agreed. For the most part the OS is and should be a non-issue. To paraphrase what my long post could be, the answer is "Its the apps stupid!". And before I get a ton of replies about there are apps that can do much of what they need for Linux. The issue is most people don't care. They know an app, they are comfortable with it, and it doesn't matter what other apps can do. Until THAT app is available, Linux is a non-issue.
Of course these numbers and not at all scientfic. The change is also completely insignificant. I agree on all of that. However, I have a feeling many who will denounce these statistics would be singing thier praises if they showed a significant gain ;-)
If you have access to your enemy's communications, the absolute last thing you would ever want to do is tell your enemy that you know what they're saying.
:-)
Sure, but thats not the real stupidity. It sounds like Hezbollah just admitted to a DMCA violation!!! So I'm a bit skeptical of this information. I think it could just be the beggining of a brillant new offensive against Hezbollah. Next we'll see stories of Hezbollah leading massive piracy operations. Then its on, bitch! Dealing with Bush may not be a big deal, but sending the legions of Disney, Sony, WB, etc lawyers after them is another thing all together!
Thats REAL terrorisim! If this comes to pass I may actually feel sorry for them.
Sorry probably a bad attempt at a joke
Thx, I was just going to say the same thing. The footnote lists unprotected formats which can be imported. Protected WMA and WMV are the devices native formats! To read this and take away that the device won't support its own native formats is quite a stretch! ;-)
Its like reading some whare that IPods and import MP3 and since protected AACs are listed assuming IPods won't be able to play its own format. STUPID article!
definition: "Should" - a work that should never be allowed in describing a patent.
So they really haven't figured out how to do it? So what they file the patent hope they can figure it out and if not hope someone else does so they can sue them?
Thats a really good point ;-) I'm really not thinking this is probably all that unusual (sadly). However, if you do stuff like this to the press.... boy look out! I guess thats probably a good thing. I guess it helps protect freedom of the press when you see all the crap you'll get if you mess with them ;-)
No, I cannot imagine customers will care. And since customers won't care its unlikely investors will care too much. Some investors could be a bit shaken by news and shakeup but I don't see institutional investors (they really drive the market) getting to worked up over this. Longterm its hard to see this having any real effect on the company. Probably the biggest danger would be the SEC finding bigger corporate goverancne issues related to this (not filing 100% accurate documents, etc). I haven't seen anything yet that is too likely to get them in enough trouble with the SEC to cause any real problems, but with the congress getting involved etc there could be some pressure to make an example (don't really see that happening to HP though). The SEC coming down harshly could be enough to get the large investors to pull back a bit. All in all I'd guess your correct. Probably the fallout will mainly be limited to those individuals involved.
Yeah, I wasn't really meaning end-user skinnable. If fact I'd agree that being end user skinnable just adds confusion in many cases. What I really mean is it should be designer skinnable (and then of course it depends on your products audiance). What I really am trying to say is the seperated your applications function from its presentation the better. If you have code specifically saying this control should use this font and this color, etc when the next version comes out and the PHBs decide they want a more modern look/feel its going to mean a lot of code changes for something completely irrelevant to you as a developer. There are many tools out there which make if very easy to make these types of properties completely independent from code so when look and feel needs to change for whatever reason it takes next to zero of your time. Its just the designers how can "reskin" the app without needing to touch any code. Here is a suite of controls for .NET and Java which at least do the basics of this for you with really zero code on the part of the developer. Now depending on the flexibility you want this may not be enough but it certainly gives you a great starting point VERY easily. Now there are other tools offering similar stuff (these just happen to be my favorite).
lowest common denominator (you)
;-) I have no idea what your post history is (too lazy as I'm watching a football game as I type this). You may well normally have great posts and I shouldn't judge you on this single post. However, these posts certainly don't give me a good first impression.
;-)
Sorry for that remark. I was typing faster than I was thinking
Gotta get back to the game, so I'll wish you well and be gone (good one about grammer school though)
I do not know any Mac users, so I really don't know whether they are as dumb as Windows users.
/.ers still come here to see the latest tech news and participate in or see in-depth discussion of these issues to enrich ourselves and others. The problem is there are too many smug people like yourself here not acutally lending anything to the actual discussions but instead just toss pointless insults around and generally trying spread to show how smug you are. It kind of lends itself to a Beavis and Butthead mentality where the lowest common denominator (you) end up distracting people from the actual discussion taking place. Now do I think this is a real issue? Not really and certainly not specifically for Apple (see my other post) but it is worth an educated discussion about the pros and cons and look at the options. Posts like yours just distract from the issues at hand I guess in some hope to get some cheap karma points by pointlessly slamming people when its completely irrelevant to the discussion while actually adding nothing.
Oh, sure! I'm certain you were expecting a bunch of well thought out replys discussing if Mac users and/or Windows users are stupid and really get to the bottom of this deep question. Its a textbook flame, deal with it. You were just tossing out insults in some sad attempt to make yourself feel superior.
Here's the thing, many of us
Here is how I see it. This could happen on most systems. If you are running as admin an installer will running under your profile may well add a user. I don't see this as an Apple only issue. However, with all the security concerns today it probably is worth a discussion. Should an installer be allowed to automatically create users? Genereally many apps may well require user accounts so I'd say they certainly should be allowed to automatically create users but perhaps require users to reenter admin password. Then its really a question of is this more of an annoyance then it helps. I really don't know, but its probably at least worth the discussion.