This seems incredibly fishy, as if it were a marketing ploy.
Fishy? It is absolutely impossible that he could swim across the Atlantic, a stop in Iceland or not. This is so over the top that it's amazing that anyone doesn't get the joke. Quite apart from the cold, and the giant waves, there's the little problem of the massive distance.
Obviously it's a marketing ploy (albeit all he managed to do was jack up their bandwidth bill - most of those Slashdot downloads went to/dev/null). He'll sit in a pool on a luxury yacht while it crosses the Atlantic or something.
The interesting thing here is that Forgent is willing to sell the patent.
Note that Forgent has already racked up $100 million in extortion, err licensing, fees relating to this patent, and they believe that they're just getting started. I doubt they plan on selling the patent for less than a billion dollars.
Forgent is a classic patent enforcer - they have another patent related to PVRs, and they plan on using their JPEG warchest to finance that tax on consumer products.
Sorry it appears that you were actually correct. You must be one of, well one, people that actually used managed-C++ outside of Microsoft. I was just automatically presuming that you would be talking about C#.
However, if you're trying to cover ignorance by pretending that it's inconsequential, that's a pretty weak technique. Gee, I hope Linoose releases a new version of Winux soon, so I can run it on my AMB x62.
This is virtually non-sensical to me. Can anybody explain this to me in English?
With more powerful server hardware, even in the "WinTel" arena, it's possible to coalesce a number of previously disparate servers onto one box, reducing the total cost of ownership. This is especially true for fragile we-have-no-clue-how-to-migrate-it legacy apps running on old hardware and software - there are migration tools that will virtualize the server, exactly as it is, so it's running as a process on a spanky new box.
Of course this is much ado about nothing - Virtual Server and Virtual PC both support Linux just fine. They just don't officially support Linux (so instead of picking Linux as the OS, I have to pick "other").
Shrek 2 has several previews, including a long and terrible one for Madagascar featuring that horrendous "actor" Ben Stiller. I know this well because I watch this movie probably once every two weeks (young toddler daughter that loves Shrek).
Here's the fun part, though - as if stuffing a flash-in-the-pan preview at the front of a timeless movie wasn't bad enough, and then having the outright morally criminal audacity to disable to skip button (I'm just as outraged that my DVD player obeys the command, and when replacing it I'm going out of my way to find one that has an override mode. Fuck hollywood), for whatever reason when high-speed fast-forwarding it crashes both my real DVD player, and PowerDVD on the PC, probably 50% of the time. I'm not sure how it does that - whether bizarre coincidental quirk or a intentional feature of engineering - however it is infuriating.
They innovated, in a very simple way (to the end user). Google maps is awesome, but up until Google did it, Mapquest was "good enough". That is why they are important, because they seem to do the things they do VERY well
Google is not a technical powerhouse - Google is a business powerhouse. A service like Google Maps is amazing not because of the maps, or because of the satellite data, it's amazing because of the amount of computing resources and data Google manages to allocate to anonymous members of the computing public - Google manages to monetize high cost services in a profitable way.
This is similar to how Google's search interface is minimalist, with few, very low resource usage ads (compared to something like Excite! that is, or at least was, a monstrosity) - somehow Google makes money without sponsored links, billboard ads and popups.
THAT is what has made Google a force to be reckoned with. It's amazing that Google is releasing all of these services, but these are not technically innovating, and could have been done many years ago...it's just that no one could figure out how to make money from them.
It's amazing to think that 8 years ago some of the greatest minds in the world were saying
What a delusional revisionist world you live in. Amazingly I remember the pre-Google days, when search engines like AltaVista and Excite! provided great results. While much is made of Google's oft referenced PageRank, the other search engines had their own algorithms to give good results, and they were quite effective as well...that is until the search engine spammers started gaming the system. Sort of like what's happening with Google these days.
Organizing and delivering a whole world's information/thoughts/opinions is a HUGE responsibility
You can't be for real. Responsibility? Come on.
How many other companies could do what google does and resist the temptation to abuse their audience or subject them to slanted views/opinions or worse.
Google hasn't "abused" their position because they were very late to the party, basically making a clone of Excite!. So if you're late to the party, how do you differentiate yourself?
In Google's case they went the minimalist route, and it is exactly that minimalist, non-ad interface that got them noticed in geek circles, and the rest is history. This isn't because they were benevolent givers, but rather that otherwise they would have been a footnote in history (there have been dozens upon dozens of search engines that have come and gone). In return they made themselves a couple of billion dollars. Such selfless people they are.
This Google love-in stuff is ridiculous, and embarrassing. Google did not invent search, but actually came to the party quite late, and the only thing magical about Google's technology is...their business plan.
Grep type constructs are difficult to use with an index, and of course these modern tools are all about indexes (which is why they're actually usable).
In options/index update there is a boolean option "Suspend indexing when computer resources are heavily used", which by default is on. This likely was the reason it never indexed.
Indeed there are two other options - one to tell it not to index when you use your computer, and another telling it to do any indexing at a low priority. All of these are to help it exist as a friendly neighbour, which in my experience has worked pretty well - I seldom even notice it's there, but when I want to look for something it has the answers. Some of the other indexing tools I used made their presence very much known.
Indeed, mouse gestures are addictive. However you don't need to be limited to just your browser (whether Opera or Firefox with the mouse gesture support) - I use the unfortunately named StrokeIt (I presume originally named so someone could have one hand...busy...while navigating with the other), giving me OS-wide mouse gesture support. I love it.
You're arguing with someone who sees the world as a zero sum game - a critical and deadly mistake in their understanding of world economics. When someone has such a flawed foundation, it's inevitable that they perceive the US' wealth as being at the cost of others.
The difference is that Google isn't selling license of it's beta products.
Where, exactly, is Microsoft selling licenses?
This sort of story should have been declined by the editors because it is exactly what makes Slashdot bad- It's a bunch of inflammatory pseudo-facts taken out of context and incorrectly presented to get the anti-M$ minions riles up so they can spread the FUD far and wide.
In reality Microsoft heavily discourages use of the beta software for production, but they realize that that...
A lot of customers really like the new features, and for that internal site they're will to take the stability hit if it lets them use master pages and some of the other new features. For many firms the stability and API insecurity is worth the risk. We're all professionals, right?
Those customers were going to do it anyway
Due to this, they make you agree to a Go Live License that makes very sure that you realize that you're working with a beta, and presumably that you've tested your product thoroughly to ensure it meets the stability and security requirements for your product - it's your responsibility.
One other note - I realize I'm not going to convince anyone in this crowd, however Microsoft's beta 2 products have been of remarkably high quality over the past several years. I'm sure I'll get the standard don't-threaten-my-illusion troll mods, however VS.Net 2005 beta 2 has a stability and quality level equalling or surpassing most or all of its competitors, on any platform.
It takes a village. That is, a group of people who live in close proximity, have known each other for years, and implicitly trust each other because their lives are so interconnected.
Perhaps in your cult, however in my world my village is comprised of far more people than simply my close family and friends. The village is people who will keep an eye on a shady character, or refuse to sell kids cigarettes, or call the police if they think there is danger. This "you're all in it for yourself" idea is pretty sad.
Do you sue 7-Eleven because the same kid picked her up at the Slurpee machine? The movie theater? The Mall? The county because the beach lifeguard tried to get into her pants?
What terrible analogies - a kid-safe AOL chat room...or a 7-eleven slurpee. Genius.
Let's think up some better ones (and these include physical proximity and thus the standard is dramatically higher) - Your child's school? Their church? The after school program?
All of these are packed full of people which you may not know in any detail, if at all (anyone who claims to know everyone within proximity of their children at their school is a supreme bullshitter). All of them you expect some organizational and personal standards that regulate if they're going to try to hook up with your daughter.
How about the fucking Ikea ball room where you can leave your most valuable possession - your toddler. In your world is this a place where it's a free for all for pedophiles because the parent should have their kid nestled inside a gated box? If a toddler got molested in the ikea ball-room, in your world this is the parent's fault.
As one of your examples that it was unfair that people complained "WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?". Note I didn't have to twist words or anything, you flat out said censored. Not "content labeling" censored. So yes, you did support censorship in your original post.
Uh, do you know the difference between an example and an endorsement. I realize the zealotry runs deep here, but the inability of people to read or write a word without polarizing is absolutely remarkable.
In 1998, there were 30708 deaths from firearms in the US. OMG, does that make me pro-gun? Does it make me anti-gun? No way could it possibly be a simple factual statement implying no bias. No siree.
I guess not when you're trolling. Sorry I fed the trolls, I occasionally mistake someone for trying to make a valid argument when they aren't. The fact you were a foe of a friend should have tipped me off. I'll make sure not to bother next time.
Lamest...debating...technique....ever. It's well documented, yet every half-wit pulls it out and thinks it's a clever, powerful retort. Oh, please don't put me in your killfile!
Wow. Looks like I really touched a sore spot, though this was hardly unexpected.
It's especially humorous because in no way did I endorse censorship (though I do believe in content labeling, so parents that care can know what they're buying), but rather pointed out the classic Slashbot response to anything involving children: If parents asked for web content to be coded with special tags indicating the content (e.g. sexual intercourse), the slashbots again will start on their tirade about how parents should be sitting beside their child every moment of every day instead of asking for something draconian like content labeling (because, of course, every parent should know everything about every piece of media ever made, and should be with their child, overseeing their every action, 24 hours a day).
All of them aren't relying one bit on government-imposed censoring or other things to keep their kids safe. They take responsibility for them themselves and seem to be doing a great job.
I'm going to extrapolate a bit regarding your vague "or other things", and presume you mean that these parents take their kids safety and wellbeing completely in their hands. If this is your claim, then they must not live in North America then, or likely any other first world nation, because if they do then you're claim is completely full of shit.
You see here in North America every piece of child furniture is built to extremely strict regulations - I don't have to do engineering studies on the crib I buy to guarantee that it won't splinter into a bunch of giant shards if touched the wrong way.
Every food product is made to extremely specific safety standards, so that when I buy a bottle of baby food I know that it isn't packed full of botulism (you know, given that I don't have a home food safety lab).
When I put my children in the car, I'm putting them into a vehicle that was built to strict safety regulations, in car seats that were made the same, attaching them to a government mandated LATCH system, all of it legally required, and then driving on a tightly controlled roadway system.
Every toy is made to tight regulations. I know the crayon doesn't have in it, and the infant toy doesn't have a pop-out nail.
Then I bring them to a very tightly controlled daycare that has a list of regulations books long, where I know they have X teachers per Y kids, that they will be fed meals conforming to nutrition guidelines, and that the government safety inspected playground will be used for at least x minutes per week. I know that the teachers will all have a mandated level of training.
In other words I implicitly rely heavily upon the government to keep my children safe. Of course this is why the likelihood of a child making it to adulthood is vastly higher in my country than a less restrictive country, but I suppose those countries just don't have good enough parents.
Bullshit. My parents couldn't watch me 24/7, yet as a teen I managed to not smoke, drink or do any drugs.
Interesting given that my whole point was that parents can't and shouldn't watch their children 24 hours a day.
Thank you for taking the time to reveal your inability to read or discuss a topic without instantly polarizing to a ridiculous extreme.
Your solution is apparently the nanny state(implied not stated explicitly)
I suppose it was implied if you're a zealot prone to jumping to conclusions.
You see, the remarkable thing was that I wasn't endorsing or applauding the actions of said parens, but was simply pointing out the paradox that Slashdotters, many of which are 16 year olds fighting for their own rights (which they'll then start trying to suppress when they're adults, as the cycle continues forever), blame parents even when parents are trying their hardest - for instance asking for ratings on video games so they can make informed decisions, or sending their child into a child friendly chat room.
So why don't you get off your high horse and put the blame where it belongs.
Thanks for the [sic] there. Given that I was quoting the cliched, ignorant response, your assurance of the grammatical correctness of it really was valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey look - one of my psycho stalkers got mod points. Oh how I love those delightful little kids.
This seems incredibly fishy, as if it were a marketing ploy.
/dev/null). He'll sit in a pool on a luxury yacht while it crosses the Atlantic or something.
Fishy? It is absolutely impossible that he could swim across the Atlantic, a stop in Iceland or not. This is so over the top that it's amazing that anyone doesn't get the joke. Quite apart from the cold, and the giant waves, there's the little problem of the massive distance.
Obviously it's a marketing ploy (albeit all he managed to do was jack up their bandwidth bill - most of those Slashdot downloads went to
Probably because the "patent on patents" joke appears in every single patent discussion. Redundancy isn't limited to submission.
I also expect to see lots of "I patent using patents to get licensing fees". Always funny.
The interesting thing here is that Forgent is willing to sell the patent.
2 100-1047-5659298.html
Note that Forgent has already racked up $100 million in extortion, err licensing, fees relating to this patent, and they believe that they're just getting started. I doubt they plan on selling the patent for less than a billion dollars.
Forgent is a classic patent enforcer - they have another patent related to PVRs, and they plan on using their JPEG warchest to finance that tax on consumer products.
http://news.com.com/Patent+litigants+target+DVRs/
Am I the only one with 2,000 MB?
Yes! You won it! Congratulations soloport!
Sorry it appears that you were actually correct. You must be one of, well one, people that actually used managed-C++ outside of Microsoft. I was just automatically presuming that you would be talking about C#.
As an aside, I ignored the original post because it was factless - the same limits applied then as apply now.
Click the post anonymously next time.
However, if you're trying to cover ignorance by pretending that it's inconsequential, that's a pretty weak technique. Gee, I hope Linoose releases a new version of Winux soon, so I can run it on my AMB x62.
Right...and it still isn't Visual Studio.NET 2005 - It's Visual Studio 2005. Microsoft dumped .NET from their naming system.
Nice troll.
However note (this is for the grandparent to) - it isn't Visual Studio.NET - It's Visual Studio 2005.
This is virtually non-sensical to me. Can anybody explain this to me in English?
With more powerful server hardware, even in the "WinTel" arena, it's possible to coalesce a number of previously disparate servers onto one box, reducing the total cost of ownership. This is especially true for fragile we-have-no-clue-how-to-migrate-it legacy apps running on old hardware and software - there are migration tools that will virtualize the server, exactly as it is, so it's running as a process on a spanky new box.
Of course this is much ado about nothing - Virtual Server and Virtual PC both support Linux just fine. They just don't officially support Linux (so instead of picking Linux as the OS, I have to pick "other").
Shrek 2 has several previews, including a long and terrible one for Madagascar featuring that horrendous "actor" Ben Stiller. I know this well because I watch this movie probably once every two weeks (young toddler daughter that loves Shrek).
Here's the fun part, though - as if stuffing a flash-in-the-pan preview at the front of a timeless movie wasn't bad enough, and then having the outright morally criminal audacity to disable to skip button (I'm just as outraged that my DVD player obeys the command, and when replacing it I'm going out of my way to find one that has an override mode. Fuck hollywood), for whatever reason when high-speed fast-forwarding it crashes both my real DVD player, and PowerDVD on the PC, probably 50% of the time. I'm not sure how it does that - whether bizarre coincidental quirk or a intentional feature of engineering - however it is infuriating.
They innovated, in a very simple way (to the end user). Google maps is awesome, but up until Google did it, Mapquest was "good enough". That is why they are important, because they seem to do the things they do VERY well
Google is not a technical powerhouse - Google is a business powerhouse. A service like Google Maps is amazing not because of the maps, or because of the satellite data, it's amazing because of the amount of computing resources and data Google manages to allocate to anonymous members of the computing public - Google manages to monetize high cost services in a profitable way.
This is similar to how Google's search interface is minimalist, with few, very low resource usage ads (compared to something like Excite! that is, or at least was, a monstrosity) - somehow Google makes money without sponsored links, billboard ads and popups.
THAT is what has made Google a force to be reckoned with. It's amazing that Google is releasing all of these services, but these are not technically innovating, and could have been done many years ago...it's just that no one could figure out how to make money from them.
It's amazing to think that 8 years ago some of the greatest minds in the world were saying
What a delusional revisionist world you live in. Amazingly I remember the pre-Google days, when search engines like AltaVista and Excite! provided great results. While much is made of Google's oft referenced PageRank, the other search engines had their own algorithms to give good results, and they were quite effective as well...that is until the search engine spammers started gaming the system. Sort of like what's happening with Google these days.
Organizing and delivering a whole world's information/thoughts/opinions is a HUGE responsibility
You can't be for real. Responsibility? Come on.
How many other companies could do what google does and resist the temptation to abuse their audience or subject them to slanted views/opinions or worse.
Google hasn't "abused" their position because they were very late to the party, basically making a clone of Excite!. So if you're late to the party, how do you differentiate yourself?
In Google's case they went the minimalist route, and it is exactly that minimalist, non-ad interface that got them noticed in geek circles, and the rest is history. This isn't because they were benevolent givers, but rather that otherwise they would have been a footnote in history (there have been dozens upon dozens of search engines that have come and gone). In return they made themselves a couple of billion dollars. Such selfless people they are.
This Google love-in stuff is ridiculous, and embarrassing. Google did not invent search, but actually came to the party quite late, and the only thing magical about Google's technology is...their business plan.
Grep type constructs are difficult to use with an index, and of course these modern tools are all about indexes (which is why they're actually usable).
In options/index update there is a boolean option "Suspend indexing when computer resources are heavily used", which by default is on. This likely was the reason it never indexed.
Indeed there are two other options - one to tell it not to index when you use your computer, and another telling it to do any indexing at a low priority. All of these are to help it exist as a friendly neighbour, which in my experience has worked pretty well - I seldom even notice it's there, but when I want to look for something it has the answers. Some of the other indexing tools I used made their presence very much known.
It's offtopic, but I used Google Desktop Search for a while and found it terrible. I switched to Copernic and have never looked back.
(Oh I tried the MSN search tool as well, but found Copernic superior to that as well)
Indeed, mouse gestures are addictive. However you don't need to be limited to just your browser (whether Opera or Firefox with the mouse gesture support) - I use the unfortunately named StrokeIt (I presume originally named so someone could have one hand...busy...while navigating with the other), giving me OS-wide mouse gesture support. I love it.
You're arguing with someone who sees the world as a zero sum game - a critical and deadly mistake in their understanding of world economics. When someone has such a flawed foundation, it's inevitable that they perceive the US' wealth as being at the cost of others.
Where, exactly, is Microsoft selling licenses?
This sort of story should have been declined by the editors because it is exactly what makes Slashdot bad- It's a bunch of inflammatory pseudo-facts taken out of context and incorrectly presented to get the anti-M$ minions riles up so they can spread the FUD far and wide.
In reality Microsoft heavily discourages use of the beta software for production, but they realize that that...
Due to this, they make you agree to a Go Live License that makes very sure that you realize that you're working with a beta, and presumably that you've tested your product thoroughly to ensure it meets the stability and security requirements for your product - it's your responsibility.
One other note - I realize I'm not going to convince anyone in this crowd, however Microsoft's beta 2 products have been of remarkably high quality over the past several years. I'm sure I'll get the standard don't-threaten-my-illusion troll mods, however VS.Net 2005 beta 2 has a stability and quality level equalling or surpassing most or all of its competitors, on any platform.
It takes a village. That is, a group of people who live in close proximity, have known each other for years, and implicitly trust each other because their lives are so interconnected.
Perhaps in your cult, however in my world my village is comprised of far more people than simply my close family and friends. The village is people who will keep an eye on a shady character, or refuse to sell kids cigarettes, or call the police if they think there is danger. This "you're all in it for yourself" idea is pretty sad.
Do you sue 7-Eleven because the same kid picked her up at the Slurpee machine? The movie theater? The Mall? The county because the beach lifeguard tried to get into her pants?
What terrible analogies - a kid-safe AOL chat room...or a 7-eleven slurpee. Genius.
Let's think up some better ones (and these include physical proximity and thus the standard is dramatically higher) - Your child's school? Their church? The after school program?
All of these are packed full of people which you may not know in any detail, if at all (anyone who claims to know everyone within proximity of their children at their school is a supreme bullshitter). All of them you expect some organizational and personal standards that regulate if they're going to try to hook up with your daughter.
How about the fucking Ikea ball room where you can leave your most valuable possession - your toddler. In your world is this a place where it's a free for all for pedophiles because the parent should have their kid nestled inside a gated box? If a toddler got molested in the ikea ball-room, in your world this is the parent's fault.
As one of your examples that it was unfair that people complained "WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?". Note I didn't have to twist words or anything, you flat out said censored. Not "content labeling" censored. So yes, you did support censorship in your original post.
Uh, do you know the difference between an example and an endorsement. I realize the zealotry runs deep here, but the inability of people to read or write a word without polarizing is absolutely remarkable.
In 1998, there were 30708 deaths from firearms in the US. OMG, does that make me pro-gun? Does it make me anti-gun? No way could it possibly be a simple factual statement implying no bias. No siree.
I guess not when you're trolling. Sorry I fed the trolls, I occasionally mistake someone for trying to make a valid argument when they aren't. The fact you were a foe of a friend should have tipped me off. I'll make sure not to bother next time.
Lamest...debating...technique....ever. It's well documented, yet every half-wit pulls it out and thinks it's a clever, powerful retort. Oh, please don't put me in your killfile!
No, you're a troll! Nah nah!
Wow. Looks like I really touched a sore spot, though this was hardly unexpected.
It's especially humorous because in no way did I endorse censorship (though I do believe in content labeling, so parents that care can know what they're buying), but rather pointed out the classic Slashbot response to anything involving children: If parents asked for web content to be coded with special tags indicating the content (e.g. sexual intercourse), the slashbots again will start on their tirade about how parents should be sitting beside their child every moment of every day instead of asking for something draconian like content labeling (because, of course, every parent should know everything about every piece of media ever made, and should be with their child, overseeing their every action, 24 hours a day).
All of them aren't relying one bit on government-imposed censoring or other things to keep their kids safe. They take responsibility for them themselves and seem to be doing a great job.
I'm going to extrapolate a bit regarding your vague "or other things", and presume you mean that these parents take their kids safety and wellbeing completely in their hands. If this is your claim, then they must not live in North America then, or likely any other first world nation, because if they do then you're claim is completely full of shit.
You see here in North America every piece of child furniture is built to extremely strict regulations - I don't have to do engineering studies on the crib I buy to guarantee that it won't splinter into a bunch of giant shards if touched the wrong way.
Every food product is made to extremely specific safety standards, so that when I buy a bottle of baby food I know that it isn't packed full of botulism (you know, given that I don't have a home food safety lab).
When I put my children in the car, I'm putting them into a vehicle that was built to strict safety regulations, in car seats that were made the same, attaching them to a government mandated LATCH system, all of it legally required, and then driving on a tightly controlled roadway system.
Every toy is made to tight regulations. I know the crayon doesn't have in it, and the infant toy doesn't have a pop-out nail.
Then I bring them to a very tightly controlled daycare that has a list of regulations books long, where I know they have X teachers per Y kids, that they will be fed meals conforming to nutrition guidelines, and that the government safety inspected playground will be used for at least x minutes per week. I know that the teachers will all have a mandated level of training.
In other words I implicitly rely heavily upon the government to keep my children safe. Of course this is why the likelihood of a child making it to adulthood is vastly higher in my country than a less restrictive country, but I suppose those countries just don't have good enough parents.
Bullshit. My parents couldn't watch me 24/7, yet as a teen I managed to not smoke, drink or do any drugs.
Interesting given that my whole point was that parents can't and shouldn't watch their children 24 hours a day.
Thank you for taking the time to reveal your inability to read or discuss a topic without instantly polarizing to a ridiculous extreme.
Your solution is apparently the nanny state(implied not stated explicitly)
I suppose it was implied if you're a zealot prone to jumping to conclusions.
You see, the remarkable thing was that I wasn't endorsing or applauding the actions of said parens, but was simply pointing out the paradox that Slashdotters, many of which are 16 year olds fighting for their own rights (which they'll then start trying to suppress when they're adults, as the cycle continues forever), blame parents even when parents are trying their hardest - for instance asking for ratings on video games so they can make informed decisions, or sending their child into a child friendly chat room.
So why don't you get off your high horse and put the blame where it belongs.
Take a look in the mirror.
Instead of "where's [sic] the parents?",
Thanks for the [sic] there. Given that I was quoting the cliched, ignorant response, your assurance of the grammatical correctness of it really was valuable.