Just curious, you mentioned a PhD in Informatics and there aren't many schools that offer that (University of Washington is where I went) -- what school did you study Informatics?
That is completely untrue. There are no undocumented APIs. Please prove it. The most that anyone could argue is that there has been a history of the OS team keeping bugs in old APIs because of other apps (including non-Microsoft apps) utilizing the "incorrect" behavior, and fixing that behavior would break those old apps. This is a huge root of Microsoft's dilema with their challenge to keep legacy software working. There are absolutely no "secret" APIs that have been added, used, or manipulated for the Office or any other team.
Oh please, if you're running old IE then yes. But Internet Explorer since SP2 will prevent ActiveX from automatically installing. You have to click and explicitly give permission (with multiple warnings) to allow ActiveX to install.
Well that'd a ridiculous reason, as you can disable the XP firewall. The security center will give you a warning, saying that you're not running a firewall. However, if you install a 3rd-party firewall (i.e. Zone Alarm, etc.) the warning will go away.
Their "BETA" reminds me of the early 90's where you came across sites with the damn "Under Construction" animated GIFs everywhere. All these new web-app betas are nothing more than the new "under construction" signs.
Actually, they said they won't have a classic office UI. They said with the increase in functionality, it would be impossible (or at least not worth their efforts) to try to keep two UIs. People think this is just a new shell, it's more than that. The UI is integrated in how you work. For instance, you start creating a table in Word and your bar changes to show you what you can do with that. It's about a new experience. Are they taking a UI risk? Yes. But just because it's been a very similar UI (with slight changes in 2003 with the improved styles), an overhaul is needed every now and then. Think Windows 95 UI vs Windows 3.xx.
In software engineering, the programming paradigm of aspect-oriented programming (AOP), also called aspect-oriented software development (AOSD), attempts to aid programmers in the separation of concerns, or the breaking down of a program into distinct parts that overlap in functionality as little as possible. In particular, AOP focuses on the modularization and encapsulation of cross-cutting concerns.
I hope you're not suggesting to wear two condoms at once. That's very bad advice and actually increases the risk for tearing. But yes, you could wear a thicker condom.
What's really sad is that doctor's are more likely to prescribe you those drugs that you request... because they know that if they don't, you'll get pissed and leave (no income for them!) and find another doctor that will prescribe it to you.
I don't know about you, but have bought two Dells in the last year and they didn't have any of that crap on it. Most of the time you can specify that when you customize your system... maybe it's because I was getting a higher-end system, who knows. But the only thing they had on it "extra" was the Dell Media Experience (at my request). (And of course all the system drivers for my hardware)
I don't think anyone is saying "OMG AJAX 4 LIFE!" I think they're saying that this is a great way to make more responsive web apps. Why? I'm fine with visiting a website and using their system, but if every site that wanted to share data with me required me to download a software to install? I'd be very reluctant to install it.
If you give the novice user a website to install a program, they get very nervous. They know that downloading programs is risky, they have to download it, go through an install process, worry that there is spyware, etc. A website is on demand, anywhere they go.
Of course you could write Google Maps as a software app (um, can we say Google Earth?!) - it's freaking a web version of Google Earth which they acquired when they bought out Keyhole.
The point is, how many people have downloaded Google Earth vs using Google Maps? Well, I don't know -- but I'm sure many less! You just have to choose your distribution appropriately.
Because your recommended solution is a patch for the problem. So what if you don't want it, maybe I do want a public IP address for a fridge that I want everyone to have access to. Having IPv6 doesn't destroy NATs - you can still do it.
It's a matter of people saying "but I don't want to change!"
I'm excited that I could have a chance to reserve a person IP range for myself. I'm excited that the cost of IP addresses would fall because they are no longer a commodity. Why can't we realize that this gives us more options, it doesn't destroy the old ones.
Who mentioned a client-side firewall? I know I used to run a network with a Gibraltar firewall protecting all my Windows boxes. It was great, I allowed specific ports to be public (i.e Remote Desktop). Private IP space on our LAN with one-to-one public translation. With IPv6 this would be possible for everyone to do. It empowers you to have options, not be locked with saying "I have one public IP address for these 50 devices."
http://www.allofmp3.com/ lets you buy DRM-free music and instead of paying per song, you pay per bandwidth... you choose your format that you want and you choose the compression rate. It's pretty sweet. It's based out of Russia and is legal to buy from.
They say you have to copy it verbatim. They don't say "in whole or in part." So that means it would violate copyright if I took sections of the GPL (verbatim) and made my own GPL.
I believe the GPL allows you to copy it only in whole, not sections. So technically, GPL doesn't allow you to take it and modify it for your own use... even if you rename it.
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
DVDs are sold, but the ability to watch the movie is licensed. Same thing with a book. A book is sold, but it's content is license (under copyright) - you can't go on TV and read the book to everyone.
This is fine.. But what Google is doing is different. First, they do not own the original works, so fair-use of "backing up their own book" can't be used. If you go into a library and make a photocopy of a book, it is illegal. You are allowed to check that book out and read it, etc. This is because you are using that copy. However, you can't make a copy of that book and allow two people to read the book at the same time.
You are allowed to destroy the original book and replace it with a photocopy of the original. This is common in libraries when a print is old and cannot be replaced (out of print, for instance). If Google archived these books and destroyed the original and also had a system where only one person at a time could access the book - then it may be legal.
Anyone know the rule on indexing? You aren't exactly copying the book, as you are taking each word and indexing where it is located in the original book. This might even fall under the area where it is not longer classified as the ability to copyright, as they are facts. (You can't copyright facts) The fact, for instance, is that the word "X" is "word #2" located on page "8", of book "XYZ."
Slashdot Mirror
XP Pro: 2011, XP Home: at least 2008r ticle/ArticleID/49056/windowspaulthurrott_49056.ht ml
http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/A
Just curious, you mentioned a PhD in Informatics and there aren't many schools that offer that (University of Washington is where I went) -- what school did you study Informatics?
That is completely untrue. There are no undocumented APIs. Please prove it. The most that anyone could argue is that there has been a history of the OS team keeping bugs in old APIs because of other apps (including non-Microsoft apps) utilizing the "incorrect" behavior, and fixing that behavior would break those old apps. This is a huge root of Microsoft's dilema with their challenge to keep legacy software working. There are absolutely no "secret" APIs that have been added, used, or manipulated for the Office or any other team.
Oh please, if you're running old IE then yes. But Internet Explorer since SP2 will prevent ActiveX from automatically installing. You have to click and explicitly give permission (with multiple warnings) to allow ActiveX to install.
Well that'd a ridiculous reason, as you can disable the XP firewall. The security center will give you a warning, saying that you're not running a firewall. However, if you install a 3rd-party firewall (i.e. Zone Alarm, etc.) the warning will go away.
Their "BETA" reminds me of the early 90's where you came across sites with the damn "Under Construction" animated GIFs everywhere. All these new web-app betas are nothing more than the new "under construction" signs.
Microsoft's fiscal year ends June 30... so this would actually be the "beginning" of 2006.
Actually, they said they won't have a classic office UI. They said with the increase in functionality, it would be impossible (or at least not worth their efforts) to try to keep two UIs. People think this is just a new shell, it's more than that. The UI is integrated in how you work. For instance, you start creating a table in Word and your bar changes to show you what you can do with that. It's about a new experience. Are they taking a UI risk? Yes. But just because it's been a very similar UI (with slight changes in 2003 with the improved styles), an overhaul is needed every now and then. Think Windows 95 UI vs Windows 3.xx.
From Wikipedia:
In software engineering, the programming paradigm of aspect-oriented programming (AOP), also called aspect-oriented software development (AOSD), attempts to aid programmers in the separation of concerns, or the breaking down of a program into distinct parts that overlap in functionality as little as possible. In particular, AOP focuses on the modularization and encapsulation of cross-cutting concerns.
I hope you're not suggesting to wear two condoms at once. That's very bad advice and actually increases the risk for tearing. But yes, you could wear a thicker condom.
What's really sad is that doctor's are more likely to prescribe you those drugs that you request... because they know that if they don't, you'll get pissed and leave (no income for them!) and find another doctor that will prescribe it to you.
Ah yes. I think I either bought it through my Premium account -- so they give you a lot more options on exactly what's on the system.
I don't know about you, but have bought two Dells in the last year and they didn't have any of that crap on it. Most of the time you can specify that when you customize your system... maybe it's because I was getting a higher-end system, who knows. But the only thing they had on it "extra" was the Dell Media Experience (at my request). (And of course all the system drivers for my hardware)
I don't think anyone is saying "OMG AJAX 4 LIFE!" I think they're saying that this is a great way to make more responsive web apps. Why? I'm fine with visiting a website and using their system, but if every site that wanted to share data with me required me to download a software to install? I'd be very reluctant to install it.
If you give the novice user a website to install a program, they get very nervous. They know that downloading programs is risky, they have to download it, go through an install process, worry that there is spyware, etc. A website is on demand, anywhere they go.
Of course you could write Google Maps as a software app (um, can we say Google Earth?!) - it's freaking a web version of Google Earth which they acquired when they bought out Keyhole.
The point is, how many people have downloaded Google Earth vs using Google Maps? Well, I don't know -- but I'm sure many less! You just have to choose your distribution appropriately.
Basic principle of supply and demand.
Because your recommended solution is a patch for the problem. So what if you don't want it, maybe I do want a public IP address for a fridge that I want everyone to have access to. Having IPv6 doesn't destroy NATs - you can still do it.
It's a matter of people saying "but I don't want to change!"
I'm excited that I could have a chance to reserve a person IP range for myself. I'm excited that the cost of IP addresses would fall because they are no longer a commodity. Why can't we realize that this gives us more options, it doesn't destroy the old ones.
Who mentioned a client-side firewall? I know I used to run a network with a Gibraltar firewall protecting all my Windows boxes. It was great, I allowed specific ports to be public (i.e Remote Desktop). Private IP space on our LAN with one-to-one public translation. With IPv6 this would be possible for everyone to do. It empowers you to have options, not be locked with saying "I have one public IP address for these 50 devices."
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=576996&p_search _no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=11&p_ rec_all=76 shows that they do in fact have a trademark for Windows.
http://www.allofmp3.com/ lets you buy DRM-free music and instead of paying per song, you pay per bandwidth... you choose your format that you want and you choose the compression rate. It's pretty sweet. It's based out of Russia and is legal to buy from.
They're talking about the UK.. Don't worry, in the US with the Patriot Act, they don't need probably cause.
They say you have to copy it verbatim. They don't say "in whole or in part." So that means it would violate copyright if I took sections of the GPL (verbatim) and made my own GPL.
DVDs are sold, but the ability to watch the movie is licensed. Same thing with a book. A book is sold, but it's content is license (under copyright) - you can't go on TV and read the book to everyone.
This is fine.. But what Google is doing is different. First, they do not own the original works, so fair-use of "backing up their own book" can't be used. If you go into a library and make a photocopy of a book, it is illegal. You are allowed to check that book out and read it, etc. This is because you are using that copy. However, you can't make a copy of that book and allow two people to read the book at the same time.
You are allowed to destroy the original book and replace it with a photocopy of the original. This is common in libraries when a print is old and cannot be replaced (out of print, for instance). If Google archived these books and destroyed the original and also had a system where only one person at a time could access the book - then it may be legal.
Anyone know the rule on indexing? You aren't exactly copying the book, as you are taking each word and indexing where it is located in the original book. This might even fall under the area where it is not longer classified as the ability to copyright, as they are facts. (You can't copyright facts) The fact, for instance, is that the word "X" is "word #2" located on page "8", of book "XYZ."
Nice catch!