I imagine that one of their complaints about the Xbox was that it couldn't be tied into Windows or Office either, but it ended up being a big money-maker. And even that has stagnated since Allard left the project. He was one of the very few "outside the box" guys that MS ever had. He was the one who warned Gates in the mid-90's that the internet was coming on big and that they needed to adapt Windows to the online world. He was the one who encouraged them to think more like Apple back when MS was still thinking "Apple?!? Ha, those guys will never amount to anything." The Zune was about his only misstep, and in fairness he was being tasked with an almost impossible thing there (catch up with the iPod after the iPod had already become the killer app).
Ballmer has been a shit leader at MS. And Gates isn't helping by still backing him. Losing Allard is just another symptom of the disease over there.
Sadly, the lesson that many Jews (particularly the hardcore Zionists) learned from the Holocaust wasn't a lesson of tolerance, it was a lesson of "Next time, WE'LL be the ones putting OUR enemies in ghettos."
You think they can't block IP addresses? With active monitoring, they can not only do that, they can also keep track of when those addresses change and block proxy sites too.
The bad news is that it needs 66% of the vote (2/3, not half)
Perhaps you've been eating the wrong feed yourself. I'm pretty sure it's just a regular bill, not a fucking Constitutional Amendment. So not sure where you're getting the 66% nonsense from.
It's just a political stunt to make it look like the Obama administration gives a shit. Obama has belatedly realized that he might actually need his base to come out and vote for him next year, so he's been putting on a big show of late. It's the same with the "Jobs Bill." He knows it stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the House (hell, he couldn't even get it through the Democrats in the Senate). But it makes it *look* like he's doing something.
You need to read the paper (I know it's sacrilegious to say that on/.). They *start off* by talking about file systems, but by the end it moves very much into the cloud and the internet and advocates for a thinly-veiled DRM system for all files, under the guise of "this will allow users to delete and control their files anywhere, even in the cloud or on the internet."
There's nothing wrong with DRM when it's used to protect my ownership of my files.
Yeah? And who do you think is going to run the central system that administers all this DRM? You, or MS? And if MS is running it (and it's on your system too), what makes you so sure it's still *your* data? Is there something stopping them from deleting it anytime they want on your system too?
Yep, sounds like a very elaborate way to justify DRM, while denying that it's DRM. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck--but MS is issuing a paper to let us know it's *not* a duck. It's a new *file paradigm*, see.
No, they're talking about DRM. They try to deny it a few sentences later, but how else would you implement a system where any given file downloaded off the web could be deleted by a central authority at any time?
A boundary object needs to be developed that can bridge the abstraction of the user and the one of the engineer, who needs to worry about where this thing that keeps growing and changing, and where the locale of storage changes too, such that when a user says ‘delete’, the thing whatever it is and wherever the entities constitutive of it are, are indeed, done away with.
I'm sorry, but that sounds a *lot* like DRMing every file to me, with a central service controlling every file (how else could you implement such a system?). The authors even admit as much a few sentences later:
At first reading one might think they are alluding to digital rights management.
Of course, they seem to deny that this is DRM. But that's sure what it sounds like to me. And DRM needs some sort of central service to work, which I'm sure MS will be happy to provide of course.
I'm sorry, but MS issuing a paper on the "issues of file ownership" and the cloud sends a little chill up my spine. Makes me think that engineering may not be the only impetus behind their paper. It also makes me wonder if someone isn't looking to take a little more "ownership" of what has traditionally been considered *my* data.
It's bad enough I'm already forced into "buying" software and media that I can never resell. Now they want my fucking Word files too I guess.
In theory that should be true. In actual practice, contractors cost WAY more and deliver much shoddier work (if they deliver at all). If you don't stay on top of a contractors, and be VERY careful with your upfront agreements, you'll likely end up with something like the "Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System," where the costs of a project keep growing and growing until finally the you just say "fuck it" and cancel it. Usually you'll find one of a handful of politically well-connected companies behind these sorts of boondoggles (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, etc.). Lockheed Martin was behind the Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System, for example, as well as the recent F-35 fiasco. Yet generous campaign contributions and cleverly spreading out their manufacturing facilities across many states means that, no matter what how poorly they perform, they're still going to keep getting contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that one of their complaints about the Xbox was that it couldn't be tied into Windows or Office either, but it ended up being a big money-maker. And even that has stagnated since Allard left the project. He was one of the very few "outside the box" guys that MS ever had. He was the one who warned Gates in the mid-90's that the internet was coming on big and that they needed to adapt Windows to the online world. He was the one who encouraged them to think more like Apple back when MS was still thinking "Apple?!? Ha, those guys will never amount to anything." The Zune was about his only misstep, and in fairness he was being tasked with an almost impossible thing there (catch up with the iPod after the iPod had already become the killer app).
Ballmer has been a shit leader at MS. And Gates isn't helping by still backing him. Losing Allard is just another symptom of the disease over there.
Sadly, the lesson that many Jews (particularly the hardcore Zionists) learned from the Holocaust wasn't a lesson of tolerance, it was a lesson of "Next time, WE'LL be the ones putting OUR enemies in ghettos."
Canada just announced they decided to defund UNESCO as well
Yes they did, yes they did...and they're going to get a treat for it too...good boy, good boy! Now sit...sit....
Canada is looking to defund from it as well, and with good cause.
Cause they are the U.S.'s lapdog?
Once again the U.S. gets a "Does not play well with others" on its report card.
You think they can't block IP addresses? With active monitoring, they can not only do that, they can also keep track of when those addresses change and block proxy sites too.
The bad news is that it needs 66% of the vote (2/3, not half)
Perhaps you've been eating the wrong feed yourself. I'm pretty sure it's just a regular bill, not a fucking Constitutional Amendment. So not sure where you're getting the 66% nonsense from.
If excuses were accomplishments, the Democratic Party would be as successful as the Republicans.
Yes, Republicans control the House and will block anything he does.
So what was his excuse for his first two years in office?
I think you're psychic, sir.
It's just a political stunt to make it look like the Obama administration gives a shit. Obama has belatedly realized that he might actually need his base to come out and vote for him next year, so he's been putting on a big show of late. It's the same with the "Jobs Bill." He knows it stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the House (hell, he couldn't even get it through the Democrats in the Senate). But it makes it *look* like he's doing something.
That's the most politely-worded and voluminous "Fuck you, you're on your own" I've ever read.
Well, he does fight for the users.
Looks like someone needs a hug.
Either way, you're an immature piece of shit for assuming that because MS is associated with the idea that it must be wrong, bad and/or evil.
Quite funny, considering that I'm frequently accused of being an MS apologist.
I am nominating your post for the Irony Awards. I think you're a shoe-in this year.
You need to read the paper (I know it's sacrilegious to say that on /.). They *start off* by talking about file systems, but by the end it moves very much into the cloud and the internet and advocates for a thinly-veiled DRM system for all files, under the guise of "this will allow users to delete and control their files anywhere, even in the cloud or on the internet."
DRM is only evil when it gives a third party control
Who do you think is going to be running the central service that administers all this DRM?
I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Picrosoft.
There's nothing wrong with DRM when it's used to protect my ownership of my files.
Yeah? And who do you think is going to run the central system that administers all this DRM? You, or MS? And if MS is running it (and it's on your system too), what makes you so sure it's still *your* data? Is there something stopping them from deleting it anytime they want on your system too?
Yep, sounds like a very elaborate way to justify DRM, while denying that it's DRM. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck--but MS is issuing a paper to let us know it's *not* a duck. It's a new *file paradigm*, see.
No, they're talking about DRM. They try to deny it a few sentences later, but how else would you implement a system where any given file downloaded off the web could be deleted by a central authority at any time?
A quote from the conclusion of the article:
A boundary object needs to be developed that can bridge the abstraction of the user and the one of the engineer, who needs to worry about where this thing that keeps growing and changing, and where the locale of storage changes too, such that when a user says ‘delete’, the thing whatever it is and wherever the entities constitutive of it are, are indeed, done away with.
I'm sorry, but that sounds a *lot* like DRMing every file to me, with a central service controlling every file (how else could you implement such a system?). The authors even admit as much a few sentences later:
At first reading one might think they are alluding to digital rights management.
Of course, they seem to deny that this is DRM. But that's sure what it sounds like to me. And DRM needs some sort of central service to work, which I'm sure MS will be happy to provide of course.
I'm sorry, but MS issuing a paper on the "issues of file ownership" and the cloud sends a little chill up my spine. Makes me think that engineering may not be the only impetus behind their paper. It also makes me wonder if someone isn't looking to take a little more "ownership" of what has traditionally been considered *my* data.
It's bad enough I'm already forced into "buying" software and media that I can never resell. Now they want my fucking Word files too I guess.
Administration is way easier with contractors
In theory that should be true. In actual practice, contractors cost WAY more and deliver much shoddier work (if they deliver at all). If you don't stay on top of a contractors, and be VERY careful with your upfront agreements, you'll likely end up with something like the "Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System," where the costs of a project keep growing and growing until finally the you just say "fuck it" and cancel it. Usually you'll find one of a handful of politically well-connected companies behind these sorts of boondoggles (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, etc.). Lockheed Martin was behind the Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System, for example, as well as the recent F-35 fiasco. Yet generous campaign contributions and cleverly spreading out their manufacturing facilities across many states means that, no matter what how poorly they perform, they're still going to keep getting contracts.
*Knowing* it and getting a Congress that's absolutely owned by said contractors to do jackshit about it are two very different things.