The Windows API - embodied in Win32 - simply has troubles if you "remote" it.
I hate to voice an unpopular opinion on Slashdot but my personal experience has been very different.
I have a desktop machine, a laptop and a home computer. I have been using Remote Desktop (Microsoft Terminal Services Client) very regularly for about 8-10 months now. I use it to connect to my desktop when I'm at meetings (for demos, to start off or check on the status of a job, use software I don't have on my laptop, etc) as well as from home (after VPNing in to the Corporate network). I've also used it to connect to my home computer from work (when I've left it VPNed in)
Maybe I'm not hitting the corner cases or demanding enough of it but I have yet to experience a single problem with Terminal Services. I can't think of a single task for which Terminal Services has not sufficed and in several instances the performance (window rendering, etc.) was a lot better than I had experienced over similar bandwidth connections with X11.
Of course, I've not had to worry about EULAs licensing issues, etc. since my company has a site license for all the software I use.
Microsoft was not able to demo the XBOX, much to the disappointment of people who wanted to play with it because of the CeBit rules. There's no reason why they should be the only ones having to play by them.
Sony packed up and left. Sure, they were violating the rules, whatever those were. Since nobody other than a competitior ever complained about it probably indicated it was one of those rules that are on the books but we don't want to waste the time taking off, but we'll happily look the other way if its broken.
Just like antitrust law which no one bue Sun and AOL and Oracle and Digital and Be complained about Microsoft breaking? Oh they are competitors so we should just ignore the stupid law because no one but competitors complain.
Very little money was actually "made" on the net. The money that was made on the net was made because investors were fooled into believing that the stock they were buying would go up in value - and for a while they were right because there were other people fooled into bidding it higher. It was a big pyramid scheme and it collapsed.
That crap about having the net under the control of one company is just bullshit. Companies with no business model were being valued at several billion dollars.
While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.
I was suprised when I read this. It's not often an attitude shown on slashdot, but it is true. When it takes a completely free OS, with tons of completely free Applications, and free access to the source code of all these Applications, to get a tiny 1% market share, the market has failed miserably
Or it could mean that Linux applications are a pile of horse-shit where the developers are too stupid to even go out and see what their users actually want in terms of usability...
Just a suggestion.
Take Lego for example. A lot of other companies have come up with their own block-like toys but to my experience they just do not approach the quality of Lego blocks. I, and several others, willingly pay more for Lego bricks than we do for the imitations. Is that a sign that the market has failed? I think not.
All languages, as they evolve have certain functions and classes deprecated over time. Go look at the history of Java - there are tons of deprecated classes and interfaces.
Any senator representing Washington will naturally defend Microsoft - after all a large section of their constituents depend on the company for their livelihood. Maria is probably less pro-Microsoft than anyone else who would have been elected, though.
(Why the pregnant woman warning before the drunk driving warning? Surely there are more drivers than pregnant people!).
Yes, but arguably fewer people don't know about the birth defects than about the not being able to drive part. How many people do you think really need to be told that drinking impairs their ability to drive? Show me one and I will show you an ideal candidate for the Darwin awards.
Efforts to include warnings on cigarette packaging seem targeted more at trying to be a pain in the ass for the manufacturers than towards serving any useful purpose.
The harmful effects of cigarettes are well known. This is not the 1960s. People who choose to smoke cigarettes today know what they are getting into.
That's right, folks, a college radio station with just over a hundred listeners could reasonably pay over $500 per day just for the privilege of putting their broadcast on the web
Or they could *gasp* play something original instead of the same unadulterated crap that is licensed by the RIAA. I think it's a sad day when people proclaim that a radio station can't exist that can play something original and different.
Also, as another poster pointed out, the fee is 0.02 cents per performance - bringing the grand total to about $5.18/day.
"Here, we've sent you a bunch of preprinted address labels with your name and address on them which you never asked for and can use while sending out snail mail. We ask that you donate $10 for some poor kids because we need to make up for the costs of sending out these mailers."
Idiot. The people who died for civil liberties died for basic human rights. The right to vote. The right to be born a free person. The right for all people to be treated equally.
It makes me sick to the stomach to hear a pimple faced teenager compare that to the right to copy someone elses works or creations.
Yes, research is allowed. You are free to research any of your own creations. Feel free to investigate the laws of nature. Feel free to experiment to come up with different ways to travel. Feel free to write software, create art in original ways. None of that is illegal.
Patents have a limited lifetime. Feel free to improve on the methodology employed in the patent or to invent a totally new thing.
Trying to break into and reverse engineer someone elses invention is not research. Being able to copy and record songs someone else composed and performed is not art or creation.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the article is about or whether the serial cable does indeed have a valid legal use or not. I just get annoyed by all the whiners on Slashdot who bitch and moan about their "rights" to other peoples creations.
Enron is the posterchild for campaign reform only because most people lack any ability for logical reasoning.
1. Enron donated a lot of money to politicians.
2. Enron also lied about their financial position.
3. Enron forced employees to have most of their 401(k) assets in company stock.
4. Enron went bust because of #2.
5. Employees lost their retirement savings because of 3 and 4.
There is no connection between anything that ailed Enron and their campaign contributions. NO ONE has alleged any connection and in all the reading I have done of the case, they seem to be completely independent: The politicians did not lie about Enrons finances. The politicians did not cover up the lies (Arthur Anderson did). The politicians did not encourage Enron employees to invest most of their 401(k) funds in company stock. The politicians did not cause the company stock to tank - in fact afaik some politicians actually lost the money they had invested in the companys stock.
I have heard no evidence to give me any reason to suspect that the politicians had any knowledge of the fudging of numbers and fraud that was committed. Regardless, it's not the politicians job to stop that - it's the SECs.
Sheesh. A bunch of clueless articles about under the title Campaign Reform do not make a valid argument.
This world would be a much better place if it were not so filled with paranoid loonie. When faced with ambiguity, I usually assume incompetence rather than malice.
This clearly sounds like a case of some lawyer getting lazy and writing a too-restrictive EULA just in case. As the article states, they needed some language in the EULA to allow for automatic update when the user chose to turn it on in order to protect MS from someone turning it on and then getting pissed off that it was happening.
thought it was even worse than that - more along the lines of "if you sell any computer with some OS that's not Windows, we won't sell you Windows at all"?
Nope. You're wrong. Manufacturers were always able to buy Windows at retail price to install on the computers they wanted. But that was not what they (IBM) wanted. They wanted Windows before it became available publicly. They wanted it at a cheaper price. You really should read some of the depositions in the case so that you don't sound so clueless. The problem, of course, is that the issues get exaggerated with every telling.
You are making the (false) assumption that people are somehow obliged to pay according to how much they have.
If you were roommates living in the same apartment, would you pay more of the utility bills based on how much money you made or based on how much you actually used the phone, etc? (note that I'm not talking about it being in proprotion to how big their room was, etc - that is already taken care of by property taxes, etc.) what I'm talking about is if you said your rich roommate should pay for most of the dishwasher detergent and most of the cable bill just because he makes more than you - that's what the government does when it taxes the rich more _per person_ than it does others to pay for things like roads, defence, etc.
It is always popular to propose measures that "screw the rich" - that is the reason why the Communist party succeeded in Russia in the first place - their manifesto was to screw the rich and take their wealth and distribute it amongst the majority.
The richest 1% are consistently screwed over by tax law - as evidenced by the fact that they pay 61% of all income taxes. This won't change. However, it's the richest 0.01% which is the one that's consistently making out like bandits because they can afford to lobby for special privileges and exemptions - like when they don't cash out their options but borrow against them and then deduct the interest from their income.
A communist is someone who reads Marx & Lenin.
An anti-communist is someone who actually understands Marx & Lenin.
except when some yahoo employ installs something he has at home
It's established precedent that companies are liable for the actions of their employees that were performed while they were on the job.
So if a Ford manager maliciously makes sure that every tire is damaged, the customers can always sue Ford for damages, not just the manager.
Ditto if a developer (or group of developers) at Microsoft intentionally put in code that makes Netscape not run on Windows, then Microsoft is liable, not just the individual employees.
That is why companies send out memos to their employees saying "don't install unauthorized software" and that's why they fire employees when they learn that they have.
Slashdot Mirror
read: pr0n.
No, I connect to my home computer to do that. I'm too smart to be caught with pr0n on my work computer.
The Windows API - embodied in Win32 - simply has troubles if you "remote" it.
I hate to voice an unpopular opinion on Slashdot but my personal experience has been very different.
I have a desktop machine, a laptop and a home computer. I have been using Remote Desktop (Microsoft Terminal Services Client) very regularly for about 8-10 months now. I use it to connect to my desktop when I'm at meetings (for demos, to start off or check on the status of a job, use software I don't have on my laptop, etc) as well as from home (after VPNing in to the Corporate network). I've also used it to connect to my home computer from work (when I've left it VPNed in)
Maybe I'm not hitting the corner cases or demanding enough of it but I have yet to experience a single problem with Terminal Services. I can't think of a single task for which Terminal Services has not sufficed and in several instances the performance (window rendering, etc.) was a lot better than I had experienced over similar bandwidth connections with X11.
Of course, I've not had to worry about EULAs licensing issues, etc. since my company has a site license for all the software I use.
YMMV.
How else can you explain all the "Turn on CNN" scenes in all those Government TV shows and movies.
With Dubya in the Whitehouse, that will probably change to "Turn on Fox News"
Microsoft was not able to demo the XBOX, much to the disappointment of people who wanted to play with it because of the CeBit rules. There's no reason why they should be the only ones having to play by them.
In case it wasn't obvious, the above was sarcasm.
A rule is a rule. You either change the rule or decide not to play the game - you can't decide to play the game by your own rules.
Sony packed up and left. Sure, they were violating the rules, whatever those were. Since nobody other than a competitior ever complained about it probably indicated it was one of those rules that are on the books but we don't want to waste the time taking off, but we'll happily look the other way if its broken.
Just like antitrust law which no one bue Sun and AOL and Oracle and Digital and Be complained about Microsoft breaking? Oh they are competitors so we should just ignore the stupid law because no one but competitors complain.
Very little money was actually "made" on the net. The money that was made on the net was made because investors were fooled into believing that the stock they were buying would go up in value - and for a while they were right because there were other people fooled into bidding it higher. It was a big pyramid scheme and it collapsed.
That crap about having the net under the control of one company is just bullshit. Companies with no business model were being valued at several billion dollars.
IIRC AOL was under contractual obligation to use IE on its clients. That contract expired around January 2002.
God, is that an ignorant comment. Do you people even bother checking your facts before spewing crap on the boards here?
Go to Microsoft's java site. I'll quote a relevant statement:
While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.
OEMs are free to ship the JVM with PCs.
I was suprised when I read this. It's not often an attitude shown on slashdot, but it is true. When it takes a completely free OS, with tons of completely free Applications, and free access to the source code of all these Applications, to get a tiny 1% market share, the market has failed miserably
Or it could mean that Linux applications are a pile of horse-shit where the developers are too stupid to even go out and see what their users actually want in terms of usability...
Just a suggestion.
Take Lego for example. A lot of other companies have come up with their own block-like toys but to my experience they just do not approach the quality of Lego blocks. I, and several others, willingly pay more for Lego bricks than we do for the imitations. Is that a sign that the market has failed? I think not.
How does this crap get modded up?
All languages, as they evolve have certain functions and classes deprecated over time. Go look at the history of Java - there are tons of deprecated classes and interfaces.
RTFM, idiot.
Real is a competitor to Microsoft.
Any senator representing Washington will naturally defend Microsoft - after all a large section of their constituents depend on the company for their livelihood. Maria is probably less pro-Microsoft than anyone else who would have been elected, though.
I'd bet they're selling the info too.
Yeah, I'm sure they really need the thousands of dollars in revenue that that would generate.
(Why the pregnant woman warning before the drunk driving warning? Surely there are more drivers than pregnant people!).
Yes, but arguably fewer people don't know about the birth defects than about the not being able to drive part. How many people do you think really need to be told that drinking impairs their ability to drive? Show me one and I will show you an ideal candidate for the Darwin awards.
Efforts to include warnings on cigarette packaging seem targeted more at trying to be a pain in the ass for the manufacturers than towards serving any useful purpose.
The harmful effects of cigarettes are well known. This is not the 1960s. People who choose to smoke cigarettes today know what they are getting into.
I hate when idiots who have never ever designed a relational database get on slashdot to post crap about unique IDs.
Hint: Creating a unique ID is easy. Creating a relational database without one is a bitch to porgram.
That's right, folks, a college radio station with just over a hundred listeners could reasonably pay over $500 per day just for the privilege of putting their broadcast on the web
Or they could *gasp* play something original instead of the same unadulterated crap that is licensed by the RIAA. I think it's a sad day when people proclaim that a radio station can't exist that can play something original and different.
Also, as another poster pointed out, the fee is 0.02 cents per performance - bringing the grand total to about $5.18/day.
Reminds me of those mailers I get in the mail.
"Here, we've sent you a bunch of preprinted address labels with your name and address on them which you never asked for and can use while sending out snail mail. We ask that you donate $10 for some poor kids because we need to make up for the costs of sending out these mailers."
No, I'm not making this up!
Do you have to pay a fine if you return the film unrewound?
Idiot. The people who died for civil liberties died for basic human rights. The right to vote. The right to be born a free person. The right for all people to be treated equally.
It makes me sick to the stomach to hear a pimple faced teenager compare that to the right to copy someone elses works or creations.
I'll bite.
Yes, research is allowed. You are free to research any of your own creations. Feel free to investigate the laws of nature. Feel free to experiment to come up with different ways to travel. Feel free to write software, create art in original ways. None of that is illegal.
Patents have a limited lifetime. Feel free to improve on the methodology employed in the patent or to invent a totally new thing.
Trying to break into and reverse engineer someone elses invention is not research. Being able to copy and record songs someone else composed and performed is not art or creation.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the article is about or whether the serial cable does indeed have a valid legal use or not. I just get annoyed by all the whiners on Slashdot who bitch and moan about their "rights" to other peoples creations.
Enron is the posterchild for campaign reform only because most people lack any ability for logical reasoning.
1. Enron donated a lot of money to politicians.
2. Enron also lied about their financial position.
3. Enron forced employees to have most of their 401(k) assets in company stock.
4. Enron went bust because of #2.
5. Employees lost their retirement savings because of 3 and 4.
There is no connection between anything that ailed Enron and their campaign contributions. NO ONE has alleged any connection and in all the reading I have done of the case, they seem to be completely independent: The politicians did not lie about Enrons finances. The politicians did not cover up the lies (Arthur Anderson did). The politicians did not encourage Enron employees to invest most of their 401(k) funds in company stock. The politicians did not cause the company stock to tank - in fact afaik some politicians actually lost the money they had invested in the companys stock.
I have heard no evidence to give me any reason to suspect that the politicians had any knowledge of the fudging of numbers and fraud that was committed. Regardless, it's not the politicians job to stop that - it's the SECs.
Sheesh. A bunch of clueless articles about under the title Campaign Reform do not make a valid argument.
This world would be a much better place if it were not so filled with paranoid loonie. When faced with ambiguity, I usually assume incompetence rather than malice.
This clearly sounds like a case of some lawyer getting lazy and writing a too-restrictive EULA just in case. As the article states, they needed some language in the EULA to allow for automatic update when the user chose to turn it on in order to protect MS from someone turning it on and then getting pissed off that it was happening.
thought it was even worse than that - more along the lines of "if you sell any computer with some OS that's not Windows, we won't sell you Windows at all"?
Nope. You're wrong. Manufacturers were always able to buy Windows at retail price to install on the computers they wanted. But that was not what they (IBM) wanted. They wanted Windows before it became available publicly. They wanted it at a cheaper price. You really should read some of the depositions in the case so that you don't sound so clueless. The problem, of course, is that the issues get exaggerated with every telling.
You are making the (false) assumption that people are somehow obliged to pay according to how much they have.
If you were roommates living in the same apartment, would you pay more of the utility bills based on how much money you made or based on how much you actually used the phone, etc? (note that I'm not talking about it being in proprotion to how big their room was, etc - that is already taken care of by property taxes, etc.) what I'm talking about is if you said your rich roommate should pay for most of the dishwasher detergent and most of the cable bill just because he makes more than you - that's what the government does when it taxes the rich more _per person_ than it does others to pay for things like roads, defence, etc.
It is always popular to propose measures that "screw the rich" - that is the reason why the Communist party succeeded in Russia in the first place - their manifesto was to screw the rich and take their wealth and distribute it amongst the majority.
The richest 1% are consistently screwed over by tax law - as evidenced by the fact that they pay 61% of all income taxes. This won't change. However, it's the richest 0.01% which is the one that's consistently making out like bandits because they can afford to lobby for special privileges and exemptions - like when they don't cash out their options but borrow against them and then deduct the interest from their income.
A communist is someone who reads Marx & Lenin.
An anti-communist is someone who actually understands Marx & Lenin.
except when some yahoo employ installs something he has at home
It's established precedent that companies are liable for the actions of their employees that were performed while they were on the job.
So if a Ford manager maliciously makes sure that every tire is damaged, the customers can always sue Ford for damages, not just the manager.
Ditto if a developer (or group of developers) at Microsoft intentionally put in code that makes Netscape not run on Windows, then Microsoft is liable, not just the individual employees.
That is why companies send out memos to their employees saying "don't install unauthorized software" and that's why they fire employees when they learn that they have.