Funny, I don't ever recall reading that Microsoft was responsible for the development and evolution of RSS. And now they want to set their own development standards? Seems to me that we had this same problem with HTML circa 1998/9.
What about the struggling indie artists who are trying to both make their music accessible and simultaneously make an honest wage with it? Offering their songs for $.25 isn't doing them any favors.
Rather, if you're going to offer a pricing structure (for indie artists who submit their music through sources like CDBaby), leave it up to the artists to decide what the selling price should be. In that regard, if an indie artist's priority is just to get their mp3's into the hands of other people, then sure they'd opt to sell for $.25. But if the artist is trying to make a living, a quarter per song sure doesn't go that far.
Somehow I think you'd be subject to a lot of loading screens -- like switching from a fantasy theme to say a WWII shoot-em-up setting. I can see how some things might be used centrally, like the engine itself; but other visual and audio resources?
Somehow I find it hard to imagine how they could provide enough universal resources to accommodate many possible different themes and gaming environments -- unless you don't mind using a "thud" sound for your AK-47 as you storm the beaches of Normandy on your shimmering unicorn.
And we all know the next logical step to Microsoft's venture... in addition to creating leaky software, a patchy OS, and software to supposedly patch said vulnerabilities and protect you from incoming threats, they'd go off and form a new company that actually builds their OS and software packages the right way.
For a company with so many security issues in their OS and software, it's pretty outlandish to suggest the idea that they'll actually do a better job of protecting us -- especially if said company hasn't fixed bugs and vulnerabilities that have been around for MONTHS.
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if the virus definition files are updated on a semi-annual basis.;-)
OH? We've a vulnerability here? We'll get right on that...
[six months later]Uh... we should have a patch for that patch shortly...
Why yes, I'm insensitive. Mr. Bush is my role model - imposing personal opinions and agendas upon the world at large. Can you hear that glory train a comin'? Freedom is marching trampling on.
*wink wink*
Nah, I love crumpets-n-tea and our friends across the pond.
I don't understand why he's making such a big deal about it. I'm sure he's got connections with the CIA that can make the allegations "disappear" from WikiPedia.
Oh wait. I suppose he could just make the edits himself:
John Seigenthaler Sr, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, is a really noble and honest politician, one who has never done anything wrong in his life. He has led a spotless life and is a pillar of hope to his community and a shining example to all little boys and girls...
...also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage. [Washington Post]
Economic espionage... sounds like an excuse the RIAA would use in their quest of a anti-consumer rights campaign.
The reality is - at least in our massive conglomerate - we have no real choice in the matter. A committee essentially deems what is and isn't secure and/or worth investing in and leaves the end-user out of the equation altogether. Getting a giant to just even go beyond exploring to adopting is easier said than done. Essentially you have to convince that group of Micro$oft-dependent personnel that there really are other viable, secure and stable alternatives. I don't think a book is going to do it either.
Believe me, if we could have the option to ditch the MS Office suite altogether, I'd be the first one to do so. But trying to consider things from the perspective of "big business", the fact remains is that most people in the company have a basic understanding of how to use the Microsoft suite of products - and switching to another alternative suite costs human capital hours for orientation and training. If the argument of the book is for saving a corporation money, it has to throw in orientation and training dollars into the mix. With that in mind, I don't think there would be much of a savings to justify switching to another application suite. That's just my two cents.
As one who works in the "big business" environment, I have seen first-hand that corporations are willing to pay for what works for them -- and that could mean anything from stability issues to security to compatibility. I'm not saying I like Microsoft or that I'm against the viable open source options available to the consumer. But getting giant corporations to switch could be a logistical nightmare that IT execs may not look highly upon, especially if their business processes have become dependent upon the function or feature of a given platform or program.
Sure, if a company is really serious about cutting costs and open-minded enough to explore open source it'd be a logical road to take. But getting big business to shift is another story. Change doesn't happen easily and the cost to change (in terms of human capital hours) may exceed the cost incurred by just buying software/OS that can be updated on an enterprise level with relative ease.
Slashdot Mirror
"...a new vulnerability in Internet Explorer..."
Nothing new to see here...move along now.
...why all the spanish radio stations in the deep south interject english randomly in the middle of their spanish sensibility.
... what's not broken?
... the BFG???
...i choose organic foods over processed crap.
...move along now.
... as long as you don't have to suspend the power supply with a string.
What fun would that be? Think about it. Go from some WWII setting, step into your TARDIS and ward off an evil group of Daleks.
;-)
Get bored with one genre, hop over to another seemlessly.
Funny, I don't ever recall reading that Microsoft was responsible for the development and evolution of RSS. And now they want to set their own development standards? Seems to me that we had this same problem with HTML circa 1998/9.
What about the struggling indie artists who are trying to both make their music accessible and simultaneously make an honest wage with it? Offering their songs for $.25 isn't doing them any favors.
Rather, if you're going to offer a pricing structure (for indie artists who submit their music through sources like CDBaby), leave it up to the artists to decide what the selling price should be. In that regard, if an indie artist's priority is just to get their mp3's into the hands of other people, then sure they'd opt to sell for $.25. But if the artist is trying to make a living, a quarter per song sure doesn't go that far.
Somehow I think you'd be subject to a lot of loading screens -- like switching from a fantasy theme to say a WWII shoot-em-up setting. I can see how some things might be used centrally, like the engine itself; but other visual and audio resources?
Somehow I find it hard to imagine how they could provide enough universal resources to accommodate many possible different themes and gaming environments -- unless you don't mind using a "thud" sound for your AK-47 as you storm the beaches of Normandy on your shimmering unicorn.
It was MOST DEFINITELY Al Gore's fault... He's the one that invented the internet in the first place.
...hackers found writing down sensitive information on paper and putting it in their pocket.
And we all know the next logical step to Microsoft's venture... in addition to creating leaky software, a patchy OS, and software to supposedly patch said vulnerabilities and protect you from incoming threats, they'd go off and form a new company that actually builds their OS and software packages the right way.
Oh wait... someone's already doing that.
;-)
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if the virus definition files are updated on a semi-annual basis.
Why yes, I'm insensitive. Mr. Bush is my role model - imposing personal opinions and agendas upon the world at large. Can you hear that glory train a comin'? Freedom is marching trampling on.
*wink wink*
Nah, I love crumpets-n-tea and our friends across the pond.
crumpetts and tea are compiled with the GB version ;-)
Oh wait. I suppose he could just make the edits himself:
Sweet! Now I can drink my beer, eat some jambalaya, get flashed by hot chicks, and blog about it wherever I go!
...also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage. [Washington Post]
Economic espionage... sounds like an excuse the RIAA would use in their quest of a anti-consumer rights campaign.
The reality is - at least in our massive conglomerate - we have no real choice in the matter. A committee essentially deems what is and isn't secure and/or worth investing in and leaves the end-user out of the equation altogether. Getting a giant to just even go beyond exploring to adopting is easier said than done. Essentially you have to convince that group of Micro$oft-dependent personnel that there really are other viable, secure and stable alternatives. I don't think a book is going to do it either.
Believe me, if we could have the option to ditch the MS Office suite altogether, I'd be the first one to do so. But trying to consider things from the perspective of "big business", the fact remains is that most people in the company have a basic understanding of how to use the Microsoft suite of products - and switching to another alternative suite costs human capital hours for orientation and training. If the argument of the book is for saving a corporation money, it has to throw in orientation and training dollars into the mix. With that in mind, I don't think there would be much of a savings to justify switching to another application suite. That's just my two cents.
As one who works in the "big business" environment, I have seen first-hand that corporations are willing to pay for what works for them -- and that could mean anything from stability issues to security to compatibility. I'm not saying I like Microsoft or that I'm against the viable open source options available to the consumer. But getting giant corporations to switch could be a logistical nightmare that IT execs may not look highly upon, especially if their business processes have become dependent upon the function or feature of a given platform or program. Sure, if a company is really serious about cutting costs and open-minded enough to explore open source it'd be a logical road to take. But getting big business to shift is another story. Change doesn't happen easily and the cost to change (in terms of human capital hours) may exceed the cost incurred by just buying software/OS that can be updated on an enterprise level with relative ease.
If ET can hack a speak-n-spell, who's to say he couldn't hack a data the SETI server or data stream. ;-)