I wonder what under certain circumstances, means because I couldn't gather it from the article. Also, they simply looked at some systems pre-configured by Intel. Not great.
The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.
So why does your company steadfastly refuse to develop a lot of software for platforms other than Windows, and refuse to get involved in their development?
Yeah, because murder, being illegal, isn't accepted by society, and we know how seldom that happens.
You can make it less likely to happen by not giving people ridiculously easy access to absolutely lethal weapons.
The logic is simple and irrefutable. Making guns illegal only affects people unwilling to break the law.
Sorry, but the umpteen countries that do have gun controls prove you wrong. There is no logic going on there my dear.
It's already illegal to murder someone, yet people are still murdered.
It's quite a bit easier to murder someone when you can buy a lethal weapon from a corner store as you would buy some sweets.
In particular, places that have complete (or effectively complete) bans on guns (like Washington, D.C.) often have the highest murder rates in the country (like Washington, or New York up till a decade or so ago)...
You just go out of state, buy your guns, and then walk back in.
Banning guns won't work, at best you are preventing a few accidents. In America, it has never worked, it will never work, and ultimately it's unconstitutional.
Banning, or at least controlling, unrestricted carrying of lethal killing weapons is unconstitutional? And you lot are worried about terrorism?! Goodness me.
You are the moron who imagines that like when god commands "let the sea part", and the sea parts, that the government will command "guns disapear", and all the economic and social cercumstances for gun ownership will magicly fade away and guns will disappear.
No, but you can make it far less likely, as countries with gun controls have proved time and again. This non-existant argument is just very tired now.
Why buy a hunting rifle for $1000+, that you will have to register with the government, wait 3 days for, fill out a bunch of forms for, and pay taxes on, when for half the price you can get a black market full-auto Tec-9 perfect for shooting up a classrooom and you can get it in 1/2 an hour delivered to your home?
That's not happening in countries with gun controls, so maybe you should get out more? What has happened is that concentrating on black market guns has enabled police forces to concentrate their resources on what they know to be illegal, rather than having both hands tied behind their backs and having to deal with killings with guns involved that you can by anywhere at any time.
Gun control wouldn't have any more effect on gun violence than the War on Drugs stops people from doing drugs.
Again, there's no evidence for this in countries that do have gun control.
People against guns act like every single person with a gun is exactly the same, crazy killer or well-trained mother of four.
And yet, incidents like this happen far more regularly in America, and gun related deaths and crime in America is an absolute every day occurance. Go figure. The only difference here is the number of dead, which means other just go unreported in the national and international consciousness.
Your arguement is moot. Guns are easier to get on the black market than they are legally.
What a really stupid non-argument. Since guns in the US are legal to get hold of, if someone wants to blow away a class full of students what's the point of that person skulking around on the black market for a weapon? Does it make any difference to the victims whether a gun is legal, or sold on the black market?
A) Make guns more available and easier to get by pushing gun sales from regulated and taxed gun dealers into the black market.
No. It makes them less accepted in society and all the easier to identify who has firearms illegally.
B) Making sure that if someone is carrying a gun, they aren't going to bother trying to stop the rampaging gunman
Give that gun controls would make such an incident far less likely, then there is no reason for point B and no reason to carry a gun.
The *outcome* - in this case - might actually have been worse if everybody had guns (although I seriously doubt it).
Imagine everyone opening fire in self-defence and no one knowing who the gunman actually was (sounds like the US Army in Iraq today!). Where you've got a lot of people carrying guns, it's been known to happen.
But regardless of that, it's still wrong to deprive people of the means to defend themselves; it's a principle issue.
There's a difference between defending yourself and carrying around a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill.
You are, of course, free to disagree, but I for one simply do not acknowledge that anybody has any intrinsic authority to disarm me, whatever the supposed justification.
I'm sure that if you carried around Anthrax, or had some fertiliser packed into your car then some serious questions would be asked as to what on Earth you were doing. However, you've got a far greater chance of killing with a lethal weapon like a gun.
Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns. I personally think that's a load of bollocks.
That argument is really specious. Most people aren't competent to own a very lethal weapon (that's what a gun is), and given ease of access to said lethal weapon, there will always be one person who is willing to do what happened today. If people carried Anthrax around then there'd be a terrorist uproar, but you've got far more chance of killing someone with a gun.
But even if you're right, the underlying point is still this: there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands.
You can't guarantee anything - but you can dramatically decrease the chances of it happening, as countries with gun controls have proved with their comparitive lack of incidents like this.
And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves.
You can dramatically decrease the chances of the bad guys getting guns, thereby decreasing everybody elses' bogus need to carry guns - and decreasing the chances of everyone blowing everyone else away, which is what happens when guns are carried by everyone. There is no such thing as a 'good guy' here. There is simply no reason to carry guns just because you think that there are some bad guys around who are carrying guns anyway........that doesn't make it OK.
By the way, the "Good" Main Feature in 'ZOOM' is only 2.97GB in size, so think about it for a New York Second: the DVD is 7.95GB in volume, or so the Finder's Get Info tells us, so we're paying for 5GB of CRAPOLA/GARBAGE from the nice engineers at Sony's DVD mastering house. Isn't that an amazing thought? 3GB of movie, and 5GB of CRAPOLA in 'ZOOM'! That's what you get from our favorite masters of the DVD, and we here at the MTR Project are happy to say this: It still isn't good enough to prevent backup by R-14!
I solved this very problem. I rented Casino Royale and discovered that the thing just screwed my DVD player when I tried to play it. Since I'd payed for renting, I ripped it with Ripit4me and got into a DVD format that wasn't crippled as hell. It seems that this is Sony's never ending, and fruitless, quest to try and prevent file on the DVD being recognised, faffing about with the chapters (it takes a long time to play, if at all) and filling it with garbage IFOs. It's a very badly mastered DVD basically.
Since I don't want to buy a totally crippled DVD with piss-poor explanations of why, and an easy fix, I'm now not going to buy it. Nice one Sony!
There's obviously quite a bit of prior art to Cleartype, but Novell as an open source company does not want to stand up and defend itself and its software from it (as well as Red Hat actually). I rather suspect both Red Hat and especially Novell are using the non-issue of patents to try and give their so called enterprise distributions an actual selling point.
The question really is, why was it deemed OK to enable it before, and suddenly it has become a big deal where it is disabled?
Additionally, there seems to be some confusion of the Microsoft/Novell deal. The patent agreement would not be legal with the terms of the GPL, rather Microsoft gave a covenant not to sue to Novell's customers and promised to be nice to OpenSuse's users. Whether that would cover this, I don't know.
This is no surprise really. Sadly, Britain has become another state of the US and a bitch that bends over at every available opportunity when the US government asks, and people like Blair and John Reid have been happy to go along with it. The favours are not returned, needless to say (witness the current Iran hostage problem).
The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) have even stated that there is insufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution, but as soon as the US steps in (using some very murky agreement related to terrorism the last I looked) the seas (or should I say, the legs) part. If there are grounds for deportation then fine, but sadly, if this guy had sneezed he would have been on the next plane if the US asked.
As a British person I find all this humiliating to see, and quite frankly, treacherous now. I'm not having a go at the US or Americans here. This is a British problem, and one related to standing up for itself, self respect and knowing what its own self interests are. The US are merely looking out for theirs.
Whenever a Microsoft employee talks about using open standards you can bet it's because no one is using the particular bit of software he's talking about. As soon as a critical mass of people are using it, see the open standards mantra melt away.
"I'm not sure the bazaar analogy works," Abrams said. "Neither cathedral nor bazaar are the same in the AJAX Web space; rather there is a continuum that reaches across space."
Anyone have any idea what this claptrap means?
"In the open source world you can talk to people and get answers," Abrams said. "But we're offering guaranteed support."
Oh right, this is what it's about. You're trying to stop people from using all the open source AJAX implementations out there, and you believe one way to do this is to claim that open source software has no support? As everyone who uses this kind of stuff should know, it's far faster and more responsive to discuss things like this with like-minded people (and/or employees) on a mailing list or forum than wait for a meaningless answer from some dumb witted twit who doesn't understand the software he's been cajoled into providing support for. You're going to fail there, so no, you don't understand how people are using AJAX at all.
"The other reality is that you have work on other platform and can't afford to turn away users that are using Mac or Linux as well."
Yes, because most of the servers on the web aren't Windows, damn it! Oh sorry, that quote was taken out of context.
Forgive me for being just a tad sceptical, and wondering why this was good enough to make it as a Slashdot news story.
Windows doesn't have a monolithic kernel like Linux.
Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.
You wouldn't be right anyway, since there are tons of library dependencies in Linux apps where updating a component could cause a chain reaction affecting all libs that use it, the libs that use the libs
Having read TFA and the PDF of the ECMA responses to the complaints, i can see why they decided to fast-track it, many of the complaints by countries are thoroughly debunked as misunderstandings of the specification.
The document you've linked to there simply repeats all of the lies and half-truths that Groklaw and elsewhere have pointed out. For example:
Open and XML-conformant independence from proprietary formats and features
There is certainly no evidence for independence from proprietary formats and features, because it is modelling a previous format and an application that are proprietary!
In contrast with OpenXML's design goals, according to http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/charte r.php, ODF was designed to be "suitable for office documents containing text, spreadsheets, charts, and graphical documents," and while it mandates "compatibility with the W3C XML", and suggests that it "should 'borrow' from similar, existing standards wherever possible and permitted." the charter does not list as a requirement, compatibility with the majority of existing documents.
I really would love to know how a completely new format is backwards compatible with the old one, apart from every element of the old format being dumped into a new and incompatible one. Again, Microsoft seeks to confuse the format with the application, Microsoft Office, here. It is not the responsibility of the format to be backwards compatible, because that would just be useless. It is the job of the applications to convert the old format effectively and accurately into the new, and it is up to the applications to be backwards compatible. It has absolutely nothing to do with the format, as Microsoft claims, but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't separate the format from the application in their minds either.
In short, we're back to square one with the same questions, problems and no answers.
As for TFA, they started out talking about fast-tracking the standard, then went on about totally unrelated and unsubstantiated stories about intimidation.
The Computerworld interview with MA's former CIO had him specifically state that he had to continually kick Microsoft's government affairs person out of his office. I take that seriously to be perfectly honest.
The Netfilter guys have a very weird and high and mighty attitude. I can remember Linus giving them some stick for Netfilter being needlessly incompatible with 2.6.20.
I live in the UK, and we are the surveillance capital of the world. The fact that phones have been tapped for years in other countries as well doesn't surprise me at all.
With the internet I now have the option of securing my communications if I so wish, which isn't really a problem for surveillance at all for legitimate purposes, but this quite clearly scares the security services here and elsewhere because they want to feel like they're in control. Crucially, the security services in many countries now have to give themselves a reason for being, wasting taxpayers money and continuing the old boy's network - which is where the exagerrated levels of terrorism and foreign threats come from. We've had a ton of these arguments in the UK, and none of them stand up to scrutiny or evidence. Apparently, we're facing threats that are even graver than anything seen in World War 2, and yes there are terrorist groups out there in the world, but this is quite obviously ludicrous to any sane person.
However, I don't think that telling citizens that their phones have been unknowingly tapped for decades anyway, so there's nothing to worry about, is exactly the wisest of moves. These security services organisations are so out of their depth now it isn't even funny, especially regarding internet communications. If they wanted to keep themselves in a job then they should have worked harder to keep Communism and the Soviet Union intact;-). The fall of the Soviet Union, as it once was, has always puzzled me in that I wonder whether many security services organisations could actually see what was coming.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what under certain circumstances, means because I couldn't gather it from the article. Also, they simply looked at some systems pre-configured by Intel. Not great.
I used Ripit4me.
Sorry, but the umpteen countries that do have gun controls prove you wrong. There is no logic going on there my dear.
It's quite a bit easier to murder someone when you can buy a lethal weapon from a corner store as you would buy some sweets.
You just go out of state, buy your guns, and then walk back in.
Banning, or at least controlling, unrestricted carrying of lethal killing weapons is unconstitutional? And you lot are worried about terrorism?! Goodness me.
That's not happening in countries with gun controls, so maybe you should get out more? What has happened is that concentrating on black market guns has enabled police forces to concentrate their resources on what they know to be illegal, rather than having both hands tied behind their backs and having to deal with killings with guns involved that you can by anywhere at any time.
Again, there's no evidence for this in countries that do have gun control.
No. It makes them less accepted in society and all the easier to identify who has firearms illegally.
Give that gun controls would make such an incident far less likely, then there is no reason for point B and no reason to carry a gun.
There's a difference between defending yourself and carrying around a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill.
I'm sure that if you carried around Anthrax, or had some fertiliser packed into your car then some serious questions would be asked as to what on Earth you were doing. However, you've got a far greater chance of killing with a lethal weapon like a gun.
You can't guarantee anything - but you can dramatically decrease the chances of it happening, as countries with gun controls have proved with their comparitive lack of incidents like this.
You can dramatically decrease the chances of the bad guys getting guns, thereby decreasing everybody elses' bogus need to carry guns - and decreasing the chances of everyone blowing everyone else away, which is what happens when guns are carried by everyone. There is no such thing as a 'good guy' here. There is simply no reason to carry guns just because you think that there are some bad guys around who are carrying guns anyway........that doesn't make it OK.
black, kettle, pot, calling, The, the.
http://handbrake.m0k.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38
I solved this very problem. I rented Casino Royale and discovered that the thing just screwed my DVD player when I tried to play it. Since I'd payed for renting, I ripped it with Ripit4me and got into a DVD format that wasn't crippled as hell. It seems that this is Sony's never ending, and fruitless, quest to try and prevent file on the DVD being recognised, faffing about with the chapters (it takes a long time to play, if at all) and filling it with garbage IFOs. It's a very badly mastered DVD basically.
Since I don't want to buy a totally crippled DVD with piss-poor explanations of why, and an easy fix, I'm now not going to buy it. Nice one Sony!
I, and many others, are not getting the top end version of Vista just to encrypt some contents on a hard drive.
That doesn't answer why it was OK to have this enabled before, and has then somehow become a big no-no.
There's obviously quite a bit of prior art to Cleartype, but Novell as an open source company does not want to stand up and defend itself and its software from it (as well as Red Hat actually). I rather suspect both Red Hat and especially Novell are using the non-issue of patents to try and give their so called enterprise distributions an actual selling point.
The question really is, why was it deemed OK to enable it before, and suddenly it has become a big deal where it is disabled?
Additionally, there seems to be some confusion of the Microsoft/Novell deal. The patent agreement would not be legal with the terms of the GPL, rather Microsoft gave a covenant not to sue to Novell's customers and promised to be nice to OpenSuse's users. Whether that would cover this, I don't know.
This is no surprise really. Sadly, Britain has become another state of the US and a bitch that bends over at every available opportunity when the US government asks, and people like Blair and John Reid have been happy to go along with it. The favours are not returned, needless to say (witness the current Iran hostage problem).
The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) have even stated that there is insufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution, but as soon as the US steps in (using some very murky agreement related to terrorism the last I looked) the seas (or should I say, the legs) part. If there are grounds for deportation then fine, but sadly, if this guy had sneezed he would have been on the next plane if the US asked.
As a British person I find all this humiliating to see, and quite frankly, treacherous now. I'm not having a go at the US or Americans here. This is a British problem, and one related to standing up for itself, self respect and knowing what its own self interests are. The US are merely looking out for theirs.
So I take it today is a total right-off then?
Terrorism performed on who, exactly?
Gordon doesn't need to know any of that.
Anyone have any idea what this claptrap means?
Oh right, this is what it's about. You're trying to stop people from using all the open source AJAX implementations out there, and you believe one way to do this is to claim that open source software has no support? As everyone who uses this kind of stuff should know, it's far faster and more responsive to discuss things like this with like-minded people (and/or employees) on a mailing list or forum than wait for a meaningless answer from some dumb witted twit who doesn't understand the software he's been cajoled into providing support for. You're going to fail there, so no, you don't understand how people are using AJAX at all.
Yes, because most of the servers on the web aren't Windows, damn it! Oh sorry, that quote was taken out of context.
Forgive me for being just a tad sceptical, and wondering why this was good enough to make it as a Slashdot news story.
No, certainly not in the way Windows is.
There is certainly no evidence for independence from proprietary formats and features, because it is modelling a previous format and an application that are proprietary!
I really would love to know how a completely new format is backwards compatible with the old one, apart from every element of the old format being dumped into a new and incompatible one. Again, Microsoft seeks to confuse the format with the application, Microsoft Office, here. It is not the responsibility of the format to be backwards compatible, because that would just be useless. It is the job of the applications to convert the old format effectively and accurately into the new, and it is up to the applications to be backwards compatible. It has absolutely nothing to do with the format, as Microsoft claims, but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't separate the format from the application in their minds either.
In short, we're back to square one with the same questions, problems and no answers.
The Computerworld interview with MA's former CIO had him specifically state that he had to continually kick Microsoft's government affairs person out of his office. I take that seriously to be perfectly honest.
The Netfilter guys have a very weird and high and mighty attitude. I can remember Linus giving them some stick for Netfilter being needlessly incompatible with 2.6.20.
I live in the UK, and we are the surveillance capital of the world. The fact that phones have been tapped for years in other countries as well doesn't surprise me at all.
;-). The fall of the Soviet Union, as it once was, has always puzzled me in that I wonder whether many security services organisations could actually see what was coming.
With the internet I now have the option of securing my communications if I so wish, which isn't really a problem for surveillance at all for legitimate purposes, but this quite clearly scares the security services here and elsewhere because they want to feel like they're in control. Crucially, the security services in many countries now have to give themselves a reason for being, wasting taxpayers money and continuing the old boy's network - which is where the exagerrated levels of terrorism and foreign threats come from. We've had a ton of these arguments in the UK, and none of them stand up to scrutiny or evidence. Apparently, we're facing threats that are even graver than anything seen in World War 2, and yes there are terrorist groups out there in the world, but this is quite obviously ludicrous to any sane person.
However, I don't think that telling citizens that their phones have been unknowingly tapped for decades anyway, so there's nothing to worry about, is exactly the wisest of moves. These security services organisations are so out of their depth now it isn't even funny, especially regarding internet communications. If they wanted to keep themselves in a job then they should have worked harder to keep Communism and the Soviet Union intact