No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology
I guess you'll just say anything you can to make your point -- truth be damned.
By the way, care to explain how Microsoft could have claimed that Windows 95 was the first 32 bit PC operating system when Microsoft themselves had created Windows NT (a 32 bit PC operating system) several years earlier?
I think you're still making things up, and attributing them to Microsoft to "prove" your point.
I might stop believing marketing hype if the hype you claim i'm believing actually existed.
Very simple. Windows NT wasnt going anywhere. Microsoft had been touting a new 32bit OS for everyone for a while, and NT wasnt cutting it in that marketplace. So, they tried pushing Windows 95 onto the masses as that OS, full well knowing that 99% of the computer users out there would not know better. They also mis-stated the memory requirements on the original box. They also had press releases out stating (either through implication or directly) it's non-reliance on DOS. Besides the fact that much of this is in the DOJ docs from the antitrust case against them, I was there, working for CompUSA, and tasked by Microsoft themselves to be their support representative in our store. If anyone was a CompUSA technician at that time, and on our video teleconfernce (it was one way video from MS to all the stores, with live call ins from the stores) with Microsoft before Win95 release, they will remember one particular tech that called into the call to call Microsoft's marketing bullshit on those matters. Those of you who were on that call (if there are any of you here), that technician, was me. When they blocked our number after the first call, I called back from my GM's line. Any of you remember that little tech teleconference call? It was quite humorous... they asked for my GM on my second call - not knowing he's the one who gave me his phone (knowing it would not be blocked) so I could call back with the rest of our concerns... and one of the idiots (one very famous for his assinity) asked for my GMs name, and was quite upset when I told him I was calling from the GMs phone, at his behest and was more than willing to put him on the phone.
Ah... fun times.
But, anyway, since you, oh probable Microsoft employee and/or zealot, probably wont believe me, TO THIS DAY Microsoft STILL has documents on their site that state as much:
Windows 95 is a 32-bit operating system with built-in connectivity support
In their defense, they have since added this disclaimer which basically states "we know we lied our asses off with many of these claims, so dont believe what this document says" - here it is in it's original form without my more accurate paraphrase:
Archived content. No warranty is made as to technical accuracy. Content may contain URLs that were valid when originally published, but now link to sites or pages that no longer exist.
You can keep on living in your own little world, but Reality doesnt care. And Reality isnt what you seem to believe it is.
Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?
The innovation part is "mangling an idea others already had". That's what innovation is.
They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project
Yep....your point?
Are you really that dense? Buying something isnt innovation. The gang at UW innovated. Microsoft bought.
Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first...
It does work, Chrome's is not better and definitely came later (why do you think it's better, btw?), and I'm really curious about what Zone Alarm did, but I'm pretty confident that it's different from something built into the browser and you're doing EXACTLY what the GP complained about by pointing to something with some vague similarities and claiming therefore that it's not innovative at all. What technologies, btw, do you think they licensed?
What technology didnt they? Citrix stuff in partiality for this. And no, they didnt license it, they bought it. Then wrote the rest. ZoneLabs has a utility that effectively sandboxes the browser. Microsoft did NOT make a browser that operated in it's own protected space. What they did was revise the operating system to allow such functionality works - this is why protected mode only works in Windows Vista and up.
Anyway, fine. Multiprocess tabbed browser. IE8's beta was the first, beating Chrome's beta by about half a year.
BINGO! Finally! And from an AC (or the same poster as before sockpuppeting). Yes, that is an innovation, and AFAIK, Microsoft was first.
Or IE8's tab groups. Every time I mention that people point out some extension in Firefox that isn't remotely similar (often they'll pick the one that randomly colours every tab).
There actually is one. MultiTab I think. But I am hazy on that one (I know I used to use it though).
Or continuous spellcheck.
Covered earlier... Spellbound, 1987, by Sector Software (and others that escape me).
Or the taskbar from Windows 1.0.
Huh? What task bar? Not saying there isnt one. I do not know what component of Windows 1.0 you are referring to (that wasnt patterned off earlier designs from Xerox, Amiga, Mac and others).
Or Powershell.
Nice tool... but not first. OS/2 and REXX beat it by 14 years (1992 compared to 2006) - with full access to the OS, Workplace Shell and virtually every aspect of networking, scripted installations (of programs, or of the entire operating system) and on and on and on. And OS/2 and REXX were not the first REXX based implementation. REXX on other IBM systems, and other non-REXX implementations.
You see, you cannot innovate something after it's already been innovated by someone else fourteen years earlier.
The tablet computer. The market may not be roaring, and the iPad has the buzz, but Microsoft was there long ago and in this case it's clearly Apple that's taking that idea and putting an Apple spin on it.
IBM... OS/2 and AIX... Thinkpad 730/750 in 1993. Yes, Microsoft (and Apple and others) will make it popular, but they were far from first. And this (1993) was in a day when an IBM tablet, when running OS/2, could connect to the Internet and surf the web, use a contact based screen interface, speak back to you (ScreenReader/2) and probably even work via dictation - along with running OS/2 and Windows app. And when IBM already had wireless offerings (for those who could afford it).
Xbox Live. No service compared to it at the time and it's arguably still the best.
Best isnt innovative. How is it innovative? How was it
done better by others before. Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?
Saying it does not prove it. Show me the prior art. Bear in mind that merely being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it the same thing. The Ribbon's functionality is what makes it innovative, not the fact that it has tabs.
Corel used a similar method, various word processors I use on OS/2 did. They were tabbed toolbars that were dockable and undockable, and hid or displayed different tools depending on task... toolbars - not "the ribbon" - the only "innovative" difference.
Regarding Photosynth, All new ideas are based on research of others. Newton said something about standing on the shoulders of giants, doesn't make his work any less innovative. Photosynth, as a product, was highly innovative.
They WROTE it for Microsoft. And yes, it IS innovative - I already said that. It wasnt Microsoft's innovation though. It was the university's innovation that Microsoft procured and perfected. An innovator is the one who comes up with the novel way of doing something - not the person who buys/funds/procures/packages it. Unless the packaging happens to be really novel too I guess.
it was to catch up with IBM and OS/2
Are you fucking kidding me? OS/2 was created by Microsoft and IBM together. Microosft wrote nearly all of OS/2 up until OS/2 1.3, and COM and OLE goes back to 1987, the same year OS/2 was released *WITHOUT A GUI OF ANY KIND*.
Wow, you are ignorant of history. Wow, that's just plain stupid.
No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology, decided to go it on their own and came up with COM - and still havent managed to make something as versatile as SOM/DSOM. Something, to this day, I notice whenever I am managing a Windows server or using multiple true OS/2 apps in comparison to their Windows equivalents... or when I use the WPS. COM still sucks in comparison.
But again, as you pointed out earlier (the only accurate thing in your post - even though it didnt apply), my likes are irrelevant. So, back to the fact. SOM/DSOM was in testing 3 years before COM was released. And SOM/DSOM was released a year before COM.
And Xeros Star had nothing like COM or OLE. It's object embedding technolgy was entirely different.
Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first
Now you're just being stupid. Of course it works. Just because it can't protect from every possible exploit doesn't make it useless or "non working". By that argument, just because someone can root a unix box, that means all of it's security doesn't work.
Wow, I just can't believe what passes for logic these days.
No... it does none of what is promised. various ZoneLabs and other products do what it claims to do. It simply put, does not work. Not "works most of the time" but "barely works at all, while Zone Labs and others figured it out in a method that works with more than one browser instead of just IE7+"
(wow, that's innovation... someone else's idea - with a piece of clipart)
You show a fundamental lack of knowledge of what you're actually talking about. Assistants weren't simply animated ways to access help text, they could actually analyze what you're doing and supply recommendations. That was innovative. Annoying, but innovative.
You glossed over the "not the first to do it, just the first to use a piece of clipart" part (paraphased)
Which still confuses users of older versions of Office to this day
What part of "Whether you like the idea or not" don't you understand? You or anyone else liking the idea has no bearing on its novelty.
You don't do your argument any justice by making fallacial comments like this.
You skipped the (again paraphrased) "others did it ages before that by selectively hiding toolbars that did or did not apply to the task at hand" part.
which was an idea long since in existence in the Xerox Star systems
The star had document embedding, but it wasn't live document embedding. You couldn't edit documents in place, and you couldn't update the document elsewhere and have it be updated in the embedded document.
Don't confuse "Someone once did something kind of like that" with lack of novelty. It's not just the base concept, it's the entire concept.
Hmmm... sites that seem to have put far more research into the Xerox Star systems disagree.
8 years after Spellbound came out
That's interesting, sicne I can find no reference to any word processor called Spellbound...
Hmmm... have you tried Google? If so, you just didnt dig far enough. It was released by Sector Software in 1987.
And the only reference to a spell checker is the firefox extension, which certainly did not come out 8 years before Word 95.
I'm also suspect of your IBM reference, given that you seem to conflate way too many concepts to believe your arguments. Do you have a reference?
I could just drop a lot of references, but as you've apparently intentionally skipped the important parts of points I have made (as in the first two), why should I bother? Nonetheless, I did give you a few more hints above.
Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.
I proved you wrong on a bunch of these above... but let's go at it again.
The Ribbon
Already covered in my last post - done better by others before. Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?
Photosynth
They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project. Their other related "innovations" were acquired by a company called SeaDragon and various others. So, even the ones that are innovative werent innovated by Microsoft.
COM (originally OLE)
Covered above... Xerox Star (and others) and for COM implementation (ie: more than just OLE), it was to catch up with IBM and OS/2, the Mac and numerous other non-PC based implementations.
Internet Explorer Protected Mode
Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first. And there are already exploits that can bypass IE in protected mode on operating systems (Vista onwards) that support it. That aside, various programs did this far better than Microsoft's implementation before Microsoft licensed various technologies for it and wrote the rest. One such is a package from a big software firewall company (I'll give you a hint...ZA). That aside, Chrome manages it better than IE and Vista/Win7 - even without all the added work that Microsoft did to Windows itself to enable this feature in IE.
So... where were we? Oh yeah... I remember. Microsoft MAY have innovated something, but you cant think of anything. Well, here's one. Edlin.
Laugh all you want, but office has had a number of innovative ideas, whether you like them or not. Assistants (ie. the universally despised clippy),
in a word processor which they were not the original authors for, which was the first use of a piece of clipart for a function other word processors already had in help panes, status bars, tool tips or pop-ups... (wow, that's innovation... someone else's idea - with a piece of clipart)
The Ribbon
Which still confuses users of older versions of Office to this day by the way it can take what was a simple, easy to use interface and mangle it - and which other word processors did a long time ago in a better fashion by simply hiding and showing the appropriate toolbars for the task at hand...
OLE integration of different kinds of docuemnts within a single document
...which was an idea long since in existence in the Xerox Star systems...
OLE Automation control (Yes, we all know about ARexx capable word processors on the Amiga, but that was really only a tiny fraction of the capabilities that OLE automation exposes)
While on the other hand, REXX enabled word processors had even greater capabilities than OLE automation, as did various competitor products in the Windows and non-Windows marketplace marketplace... and even in the areas where OLE Automation shone, it also caused a bunch of security issues due to it's poor implementation with no thoughts of the consequences caused by it's design (but thats a topic for a different discussion).
.. hell, Word was the first word processor to provide live spell-checking with the red squigglies..
As long as you discount various TSRs for word processors as old as the DOS (non-Windows) age version of word processors, a variety of other implementations on non-PC systems, and the fact that Microsoft introduced it in Word 95, almost 20 years after a team for IBM came up with the concept and 8 years after Spellbound came out with that functionality you tout as having been a Microsoft innovation.
Other than those points, I guess you are right! Either that, or you bought into Microsoft's propaganda (errr... marketing, I mean).
Taking the code is infringement. Using it would also violate the patent.
But, Microsoft sued them for patent infringement. If they had taken the code and used it in their products, then Microsoft would have sued them for copyright infringement as the fines can be exhorbitant. Heck, look how much a few infringed 99 cent songs can be?
"Microsoft has been a leader and innovator in the software industry for decades and continues to invest billions of dollars each year in bringing great software products and services to market," deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement.
I wonder, if like many other companies do, they included that statement in the court documents? While they have been a leader in various software segments, there isnt a single one they've been an innovator in. Would that obvious bit of perjury in such a document get them in trouble?;-)
One angle I could see on this: Sure, everyone might want to make their webpages look this way. But if you rip off the exact code MS is using, change some variables, and get caught, well hey, looky here, we patented that beyotch.
where were they up until google did it ? they realized to do this just now ? all they are doing is 'me too' for a long while now.
I dunno where they've been... but what's to say that sending emails in doc format wont somehow become standard for Hotmail users? It'll look and work just like regular email when using Hotmail and such, but to those who dont (gMail users, Yahoo, etc), the email will have to be opened with provided or installed Word readers.
That'd be interesting. I seem to remember something similar happening in the early days of Hotmail with non-standard text markup being used.
I'm not suggesting this is their eventual motive, or even that it's a good method to boost either (a) use of Hotmail or (b) purchases of Office or (c) use of their upcoming Online Office or (d) a method to try to get more people back to IE (for either email viewing purposes or for the "advanced" features in Hotmail that only work correctly under IE)... but it would be interesting if that's the direction they decided to go... I wonder if it would be one more nail in their Hotmail/Office/IE coffin, or actually to their benefit.
Homeopathy has been proven countless, countless times to do absolutely jack-fucking-shit. About five seconds of wiki-ing found this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/?tool=pmcentrez
There is nothing ignorant or arrogant about disregarding some ancient bullshit when every single piece of legitimate scientific evidence shows that it's just ancient bullshit.
True (on the homeopathy part), though he is correct on the natural and herbal part.
Three quarters of plants that provide active ingredients for prescription drugs came to the attention of researchers because of their use in traditional medicine.
Many of the pharmaceuticals currently available to physicians have a long history of use as herbal remedies, including opium, aspirin, digitalis, and quinine.
Among the 120 active compounds currently isolated from the higher plants and widely used in modern medicine today, 80 percent show a positive correlation between their modern therapeutic use and the traditional use of the plants from which they are derived.
More than two thirds of the world's plant species - at least 35,000 of which are estimated to have medicinal value - come from the developing countries.
At least 7,000 medical compounds in the modern pharmacopoeia are derived from plants.
An interesting side question... I wonder if the ideas behind homeopathy (In the 16th century the pioneer of chemical medicine Paracelsus declared that small doses of “what makes a man ill also cures him", anticipating homeopathy) are in any way related to current vaccines and their purpose and use in the human body - though a slightly different idea, and very different implementation (in doses or lack thereof) there is a noticeable corollary.
The fact that we soon may not be able to board an airplane without a government bureaucrat looking at our cocks is ample proof that the terrorists won. Fucking FUD -- all that we needed after 9/11 was a locked cockpit door.
...while at the same time potentially causing/triggering, or worsening certain medical conditions for those prone to it (such as melanoma - where the wrong type of radiation can "trigger" it), something my sister in law - who has had relatives of hers die from it - is predisposed to).
I agree... we lost this round... and slowly more and more battles on this front.
As made up words go, google-itis is particularly stupid, since it literally means "inflammation or irritation of the google."
What's worse is, people coming to their own medical conclusions from such research is made worse by the numerous pharma companies in the US advertising to them daily for made up and not-so-made-up diseases. This is probably how much of the searches for such stuff actually are generated.
While Google may be a tool that people use to fuel (or create) their own hypochondria, these pharmaceutical ads are a method to create such in people who otherwise would not travel that road.
Those of you who are technologically savvy will probably mod this insightful... those who are not, will probably mod it humorous... those who simply dont like the truth of the post will probably mod it overrated or troll.;-)
-1 Offtopic/don't-tell-me-how-to-mod-you
IN YOUR FACE! ha!
LoL! Though I forgot "-1 Off topic" you just proved my point! Which is some morons should never be given mod points. Fact is, there is nothing off topic about my post. Many a tech shop (CompUSA where I used to work, the current place I work) find that over 50% of their "repairs" are virus and spyware removal. A very large portion of that are infections obtained via running Limewire. Limewire being shut down will cause that number to at least temporarily drop while those unfamiliar with alternatives have nothing (from their perspective) to use as a replacement. Thus affecting the tech community.
The "leak" is spewing over 210 million gallons a day...
At 42 gallons/barrel, that would be 5 million barrels per day.
TTBOMK, no oil well in history has ever come within an order of magnitude of that sort of flow rate.
BP's estimate is 5,000 bbl/day,
often converted to 210,000 gal/day by the media.
Even the nightmarish estimates some academics are putting out are on the order of 80,000 bbl/day, or 3.4 million gallons/day.
You appear to be off by a factor of anywhere from 60 to 1,000.
Using BP's estimate of the flow is rate,
and your estimate of tanker capacity,
it's about one tanker every 300 days.
Seems there are others who feel it's more than the 4.2 million gallon claim.
Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used a computer analysis (particle image velocimetry) yielding a rate of 700,000 barrels (29,000,000 US gal) per day
Or a tanker every other day... ah well. Either way, it's an evironmental disaster with no real solution yet in planning.
The "leak" is spewing over 210 million gallons a day...
At 42 gallons/barrel, that would be 5 million barrels per day.
TTBOMK, no oil well in history has ever come within an order of magnitude of that sort of flow rate.
BP's estimate is 5,000 bbl/day,
often converted to 210,000 gal/day by the media.
Even the nightmarish estimates some academics are putting out are on the order of 80,000 bbl/day, or 3.4 million gallons/day.
You appear to be off by a factor of anywhere from 60 to 1,000.
Using BP's estimate of the flow is rate,
and your estimate of tanker capacity,
it's about one tanker every 300 days.
You are correct... somehow I misplaced a decimal point. Though, more recent surveys are estimating up to 4.2 million gallons a day...
Still not nearly the range I mis-quoted above - apologies for my screwup.
The sooner we get these people off Limewire and onto Bittorrent, the sooner I can stop having to clean trojans off my friends PCs every few weeks.
This really sucks... there goes a chunk of the revenue stream in our tech shop...:-(
Those of you who are technologically savvy will probably mod this insightful... those who are not, will probably mod it humorous... those who simply dont like the truth of the post will probably mod it overrated or troll.;-)
First, the judge found Gorton, who is also LimeWire's sole director, personally liable for infringement, observing in her ruling that "an individual, including a corporate officer, who has the ability to supervise infringing activity and has a financial interest in that activity, or who personally participates in that activity is personally liable for infringement."
That will likely strike fear in the hearts of would-be P2P moguls who may have been clinging to the belief that they could hide behind corporate shells, insulating their own assets if the law ever caught up with them.
The one good thing that may come of this is that if it is upheld, perhaps it will set some sort of precedence for dealing with other corporate "bigwigs" who violate numerous laws with the expectation of hiding behind the "corporate shield" - betcha more companies would be straightforward with their dealings, prevent riskier actions and be less likely to knowingly break the law.
Regardless, every time I skim the article (dont worry... I didnt actually read the whole thing... I do know this is slashdot I'm on) and see the mention of Gorton, I suddenly want to go buy some fish sticks. Cant figure out why.;-)
For MP3s, it's actually perfectly fine. I've never gotten anything troublesome from LimeWire.
While your luck (either actually due to luck, or because you are technologically savvy) has held out, many of my tech customers' luck has not. I recently (within the last 2 months) had a customer's machine in the where about 5% of their (Limewired) music was infected. A large portion of their jpegs were infected as well.
Now, while 5% isn't a large percentage, in her case, it was a large number (about 100 viruses/spyware/trojans) - and of course, if you get the "wrong" one, it only takes one to truly hose a Windows machine. I suspect the percentage would have been higher if it werent for the fact that a large portion of her music library was actually legally obtained via iTunes.
Though I never asked her, it does bring up an interesting question: Is she one of those "try before you buy" sorts who downloads off Limewire and then buys it on iTunes if she likes it?
There is a possibility, but the current oil collecting ships like this one from the German Navy collect water by opening a wide 'mouth' on the ship from the top of the water, I wonder if they could install a pump and a long hose to do what you are proposing.
While possibly a valid idea, there are the economics to consider. The "leak" is spewing over 210 million gallons a day, while an average to large oil tanker can store about 62 million gallons (assuming my math guesstimate is correct). That means (at 100% efficiency, inotherwords, 100% oil collection 0% water/sediment/etc collection) it would take almost four tankers a day to collect the spewing oil to prevent an increase in the amount of uncontained oil from increasing.
It would also take an equivalent amount (of gallons) worth of storage and/or processing facilities to deal with the "dirty oil" that was collected. None of this takes into account whatever percentage of the liquid they collect is not oil (ie: say, using such a collection method results in a 60/40% oil/water ratio) - which increases the cost (number of tankers, size of storage/processing facilities, etc).
While I think that BP and those other companies involved should be put on the hook for whatever it takes to prevent this catastrophe from growing any further, the simple fact is that no one at BP is going to even consider or "think up" a method of dealing with this situation in a manner that so adversely affects their bottom line. I also seriously doubt that the government, who is dependent on BP's revenue for taxation, is going to think up such a scenario as well. That is where the economics involved come into play.
Sometimes (often maybe?) the economics of such a situation prevent the better methods of dealing with the environmental aspects from even being considered. Sadly, the reality of human greed of those in power usually trumps environmental needs or the needs of the "not so rich" who get adversely affected by situations such as these. It's far cheaper for them do to nothing, or spend lotsa time "analyzing" the situation to come up with lame-brained but cheap solutions than to actually do something to fix it if the economics are not favorable to the "powers that be" involved in the crisis.
the Berkeley researchers have demonstrated that entanglement can exist and persist in the chaotic chemical complexity of a biological system.'"
There are those who argue that there is nothing inherently chaotic about such systems in the natural world - especially in plant life. I think they are called biologists. I think part of the stuff they do is, complexity aside (or lack thereof depending on what aspect of the biological system they are analyzing), they map out these repeatable, oft-times duplicatable (scientifically) processes to show that there actually isnt anything chaotic about it, but that instead they are rather "organized" chemical interactions and processes - hence the reason a tree grows a certain way, and the tree next to it, if exposed to the same environmental conditions grows within those same chemical parameters.
I wonder if the quantum entanglement aspect (or lack of understanding of certain processes) is the reason for them claiming anything is chaotic in the systems they are analyzing? Or perhaps they dont understand the meaning of the words "chaos" and "chaotic" - or are using a different, non-mainstream definition... complex is not necessary equal to chaotic even though appearances (or understanding) of such may be deceiving.
Of course, I have not taken a biology class in many years... so it is quite possible my understanding is lacking, and these complex biological systems do indeed act in a chaotic manner that so wonderfully coincidentally still comes to the same chemical and biological conclusions.
Google could make progress on this by buying twenty or so really good body fonts outright from a major font foundry, and setting them up for download on demand for Google Docs.
Or, they could go the way of Arial and just make up their own set of fonts that are close enough to the popular Microsoft ones. It would be kind of playing dirty, but who knows if Google's typeface creators could come up with some stuff that's better than what Microsoft has.
Slashdot Mirror
No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology
I guess you'll just say anything you can to make your point -- truth be damned.
Really? Which portion?
By the way, care to explain how Microsoft could have claimed that Windows 95 was the first 32 bit PC operating system when Microsoft themselves had created Windows NT (a 32 bit PC operating system) several years earlier?
I think you're still making things up, and attributing them to Microsoft to "prove" your point.
I might stop believing marketing hype if the hype you claim i'm believing actually existed.
Very simple. Windows NT wasnt going anywhere. Microsoft had been touting a new 32bit OS for everyone for a while, and NT wasnt cutting it in that marketplace. So, they tried pushing Windows 95 onto the masses as that OS, full well knowing that 99% of the computer users out there would not know better. They also mis-stated the memory requirements on the original box. They also had press releases out stating (either through implication or directly) it's non-reliance on DOS. Besides the fact that much of this is in the DOJ docs from the antitrust case against them, I was there, working for CompUSA, and tasked by Microsoft themselves to be their support representative in our store. If anyone was a CompUSA technician at that time, and on our video teleconfernce (it was one way video from MS to all the stores, with live call ins from the stores) with Microsoft before Win95 release, they will remember one particular tech that called into the call to call Microsoft's marketing bullshit on those matters. Those of you who were on that call (if there are any of you here), that technician, was me. When they blocked our number after the first call, I called back from my GM's line. Any of you remember that little tech teleconference call? It was quite humorous... they asked for my GM on my second call - not knowing he's the one who gave me his phone (knowing it would not be blocked) so I could call back with the rest of our concerns... and one of the idiots (one very famous for his assinity) asked for my GMs name, and was quite upset when I told him I was calling from the GMs phone, at his behest and was more than willing to put him on the phone.
Ah... fun times.
But, anyway, since you, oh probable Microsoft employee and/or zealot, probably wont believe me, TO THIS DAY Microsoft STILL has documents on their site that state as much:
Windows 95 is a 32-bit operating system with built-in connectivity support
Microsoft TechNet
In their defense, they have since added this disclaimer which basically states "we know we lied our asses off with many of these claims, so dont believe what this document says" - here it is in it's original form without my more accurate paraphrase:
Archived content. No warranty is made as to technical accuracy. Content may contain URLs that were valid when originally published, but now link to sites or pages that no longer exist.
You can keep on living in your own little world, but Reality doesnt care. And Reality isnt what you seem to believe it is.
Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?
The innovation part is "mangling an idea others already had". That's what innovation is.
They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project
Yep. ...your point?
Are you really that dense? Buying something isnt innovation. The gang at UW innovated. Microsoft bought.
Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first...
It does work, Chrome's is not better and definitely came later (why do you think it's better, btw?), and I'm really curious about what Zone Alarm did, but I'm pretty confident that it's different from something built into the browser and you're doing EXACTLY what the GP complained about by pointing to something with some vague similarities and claiming therefore that it's not innovative at all. What technologies, btw, do you think they licensed?
What technology didnt they? Citrix stuff in partiality for this. And no, they didnt license it, they bought it. Then wrote the rest. ZoneLabs has a utility that effectively sandboxes the browser. Microsoft did NOT make a browser that operated in it's own protected space. What they did was revise the operating system to allow such functionality works - this is why protected mode only works in Windows Vista and up.
Anyway, fine. Multiprocess tabbed browser. IE8's beta was the first, beating Chrome's beta by about half a year.
BINGO! Finally! And from an AC (or the same poster as before sockpuppeting). Yes, that is an innovation, and AFAIK, Microsoft was first.
Or IE8's tab groups. Every time I mention that people point out some extension in Firefox that isn't remotely similar (often they'll pick the one that randomly colours every tab).
There actually is one. MultiTab I think. But I am hazy on that one (I know I used to use it though).
Or continuous spellcheck.
Covered earlier... Spellbound, 1987, by Sector Software (and others that escape me).
Or the taskbar from Windows 1.0.
Huh? What task bar? Not saying there isnt one. I do not know what component of Windows 1.0 you are referring to (that wasnt patterned off earlier designs from Xerox, Amiga, Mac and others).
Or Powershell.
Nice tool... but not first. OS/2 and REXX beat it by 14 years (1992 compared to 2006) - with full access to the OS, Workplace Shell and virtually every aspect of networking, scripted installations (of programs, or of the entire operating system) and on and on and on. And OS/2 and REXX were not the first REXX based implementation. REXX on other IBM systems, and other non-REXX implementations.
You see, you cannot innovate something after it's already been innovated by someone else fourteen years earlier.
The tablet computer. The market may not be roaring, and the iPad has the buzz, but Microsoft was there long ago and in this case it's clearly Apple that's taking that idea and putting an Apple spin on it.
IBM... OS/2 and AIX... Thinkpad 730/750 in 1993. Yes, Microsoft (and Apple and others) will make it popular, but they were far from first. And this (1993) was in a day when an IBM tablet, when running OS/2, could connect to the Internet and surf the web, use a contact based screen interface, speak back to you (ScreenReader/2) and probably even work via dictation - along with running OS/2 and Windows app. And when IBM already had wireless offerings (for those who could afford it).
Xbox Live. No service compared to it at the time and it's arguably still the best.
Best isnt innovative. How is it innovative? How was it
Saying it does not prove it. Show me the prior art. Bear in mind that merely being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it the same thing. The Ribbon's functionality is what makes it innovative, not the fact that it has tabs.
Corel used a similar method, various word processors I use on OS/2 did. They were tabbed toolbars that were dockable and undockable, and hid or displayed different tools depending on task... toolbars - not "the ribbon" - the only "innovative" difference.
Regarding Photosynth, All new ideas are based on research of others. Newton said something about standing on the shoulders of giants, doesn't make his work any less innovative. Photosynth, as a product, was highly innovative.
They WROTE it for Microsoft. And yes, it IS innovative - I already said that. It wasnt Microsoft's innovation though. It was the university's innovation that Microsoft procured and perfected. An innovator is the one who comes up with the novel way of doing something - not the person who buys/funds/procures/packages it. Unless the packaging happens to be really novel too I guess.
Are you fucking kidding me? OS/2 was created by Microsoft and IBM together. Microosft wrote nearly all of OS/2 up until OS/2 1.3, and COM and OLE goes back to 1987, the same year OS/2 was released *WITHOUT A GUI OF ANY KIND*.
Wow, you are ignorant of history. Wow, that's just plain stupid.
No, YOU are ignorant of history, OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... it was in beta in 1990, already had SOM/DSOM. COM came out in 1993. Microsoft, who had a cross license agreement to the SOM/DSOM (and other OS/2) technology, decided to go it on their own and came up with COM - and still havent managed to make something as versatile as SOM/DSOM. Something, to this day, I notice whenever I am managing a Windows server or using multiple true OS/2 apps in comparison to their Windows equivalents... or when I use the WPS. COM still sucks in comparison.
But again, as you pointed out earlier (the only accurate thing in your post - even though it didnt apply), my likes are irrelevant. So, back to the fact. SOM/DSOM was in testing 3 years before COM was released. And SOM/DSOM was released a year before COM.
And Xeros Star had nothing like COM or OLE. It's object embedding technolgy was entirely different.
Now you're just being stupid. Of course it works. Just because it can't protect from every possible exploit doesn't make it useless or "non working". By that argument, just because someone can root a unix box, that means all of it's security doesn't work.
Wow, I just can't believe what passes for logic these days.
No... it does none of what is promised. various ZoneLabs and other products do what it claims to do. It simply put, does not work. Not "works most of the time" but "barely works at all, while Zone Labs and others figured it out in a method that works with more than one browser instead of just IE7+"
You show a fundamental lack of knowledge of what you're actually talking about. Assistants weren't simply animated ways to access help text, they could actually analyze what you're doing and supply recommendations. That was innovative. Annoying, but innovative.
You glossed over the "not the first to do it, just the first to use a piece of clipart" part (paraphased)
What part of "Whether you like the idea or not" don't you understand? You or anyone else liking the idea has no bearing on its novelty.
You don't do your argument any justice by making fallacial comments like this.
You skipped the (again paraphrased) "others did it ages before that by selectively hiding toolbars that did or did not apply to the task at hand" part.
The star had document embedding, but it wasn't live document embedding. You couldn't edit documents in place, and you couldn't update the document elsewhere and have it be updated in the embedded document.
Don't confuse "Someone once did something kind of like that" with lack of novelty. It's not just the base concept, it's the entire concept.
Hmmm... sites that seem to have put far more research into the Xerox Star systems disagree.
That's interesting, sicne I can find no reference to any word processor called Spellbound...
Hmmm... have you tried Google? If so, you just didnt dig far enough. It was released by Sector Software in 1987.
And the only reference to a spell checker is the firefox extension, which certainly did not come out 8 years before Word 95.
I'm also suspect of your IBM reference, given that you seem to conflate way too many concepts to believe your arguments. Do you have a reference?
I could just drop a lot of references, but as you've apparently intentionally skipped the important parts of points I have made (as in the first two), why should I bother? Nonetheless, I did give you a few more hints above.
Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.
I proved you wrong on a bunch of these above... but let's go at it again.
The Ribbon
Already covered in my last post - done better by others before. Or do you think the fact that they call it "The Ribbon" is the innovation part of mangling an idea others already had?
Photosynth
They funded a University of Washington project which became a MS Live Labs project. Their other related "innovations" were acquired by a company called SeaDragon and various others. So, even the ones that are innovative werent innovated by Microsoft.
COM (originally OLE)
Covered above... Xerox Star (and others) and for COM implementation (ie: more than just OLE), it was to catch up with IBM and OS/2, the Mac and numerous other non-PC based implementations.
Internet Explorer Protected Mode
Even if they were first, it doesnt count because it would actually have to work first. And there are already exploits that can bypass IE in protected mode on operating systems (Vista onwards) that support it. That aside, various programs did this far better than Microsoft's implementation before Microsoft licensed various technologies for it and wrote the rest. One such is a package from a big software firewall company (I'll give you a hint...ZA). That aside, Chrome manages it better than IE and Vista/Win7 - even without all the added work that Microsoft did to Windows itself to enable this feature in IE.
So... where were we? Oh yeah... I remember. Microsoft MAY have innovated something, but you cant think of anything. Well, here's one. Edlin.
Laugh all you want, but office has had a number of innovative ideas, whether you like them or not. Assistants (ie. the universally despised clippy),
in a word processor which they were not the original authors for, which was the first use of a piece of clipart for a function other word processors already had in help panes, status bars, tool tips or pop-ups... (wow, that's innovation... someone else's idea - with a piece of clipart)
The Ribbon
Which still confuses users of older versions of Office to this day by the way it can take what was a simple, easy to use interface and mangle it - and which other word processors did a long time ago in a better fashion by simply hiding and showing the appropriate toolbars for the task at hand...
OLE integration of different kinds of docuemnts within a single document
...which was an idea long since in existence in the Xerox Star systems...
OLE Automation control (Yes, we all know about ARexx capable word processors on the Amiga, but that was really only a tiny fraction of the capabilities that OLE automation exposes)
While on the other hand, REXX enabled word processors had even greater capabilities than OLE automation, as did various competitor products in the Windows and non-Windows marketplace marketplace... and even in the areas where OLE Automation shone, it also caused a bunch of security issues due to it's poor implementation with no thoughts of the consequences caused by it's design (but thats a topic for a different discussion).
.. hell, Word was the first word processor to provide live spell-checking with the red squigglies..
As long as you discount various TSRs for word processors as old as the DOS (non-Windows) age version of word processors, a variety of other implementations on non-PC systems, and the fact that Microsoft introduced it in Word 95, almost 20 years after a team for IBM came up with the concept and 8 years after Spellbound came out with that functionality you tout as having been a Microsoft innovation.
Other than those points, I guess you are right! Either that, or you bought into Microsoft's propaganda (errr... marketing, I mean).
Taking the code is infringement. Using it would also violate the patent.
But, Microsoft sued them for patent infringement. If they had taken the code and used it in their products, then Microsoft would have sued them for copyright infringement as the fines can be exhorbitant. Heck, look how much a few infringed 99 cent songs can be?
Yup... they went that far...
Microsoft has a long history of technical innovation in the software and hardware products it develops and distributes.
"Microsoft has been a leader and innovator in the software industry for decades and continues to invest billions of dollars each year in bringing great software products and services to market," deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement.
I wonder, if like many other companies do, they included that statement in the court documents? While they have been a leader in various software segments, there isnt a single one they've been an innovator in. Would that obvious bit of perjury in such a document get them in trouble? ;-)
One angle I could see on this: Sure, everyone might want to make their webpages look this way. But if you rip off the exact code MS is using, change some variables, and get caught, well hey, looky here, we patented that beyotch.
Just a vague idea though.
Nah, that would be copyright infringement.
where were they up until google did it ? they realized to do this just now ? all they are doing is 'me too' for a long while now.
I dunno where they've been... but what's to say that sending emails in doc format wont somehow become standard for Hotmail users? It'll look and work just like regular email when using Hotmail and such, but to those who dont (gMail users, Yahoo, etc), the email will have to be opened with provided or installed Word readers.
That'd be interesting. I seem to remember something similar happening in the early days of Hotmail with non-standard text markup being used.
I'm not suggesting this is their eventual motive, or even that it's a good method to boost either (a) use of Hotmail or (b) purchases of Office or (c) use of their upcoming Online Office or (d) a method to try to get more people back to IE (for either email viewing purposes or for the "advanced" features in Hotmail that only work correctly under IE) ... but it would be interesting if that's the direction they decided to go... I wonder if it would be one more nail in their Hotmail/Office/IE coffin, or actually to their benefit.
Homeopathy has been proven countless, countless times to do absolutely jack-fucking-shit. About five seconds of wiki-ing found this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/?tool=pmcentrez There is nothing ignorant or arrogant about disregarding some ancient bullshit when every single piece of legitimate scientific evidence shows that it's just ancient bullshit.
True (on the homeopathy part), though he is correct on the natural and herbal part.
Three quarters of plants that provide active ingredients for prescription drugs came to the attention of researchers because of their use in traditional medicine.
Many of the pharmaceuticals currently available to physicians have a long history of use as herbal remedies, including opium, aspirin, digitalis, and quinine.
Among the 120 active compounds currently isolated from the higher plants and widely used in modern medicine today, 80 percent show a positive correlation between their modern therapeutic use and the traditional use of the plants from which they are derived.
More than two thirds of the world's plant species - at least 35,000 of which are estimated to have medicinal value - come from the developing countries.
At least 7,000 medical compounds in the modern pharmacopoeia are derived from plants.
An interesting side question... I wonder if the ideas behind homeopathy (In the 16th century the pioneer of chemical medicine Paracelsus declared that small doses of “what makes a man ill also cures him", anticipating homeopathy) are in any way related to current vaccines and their purpose and use in the human body - though a slightly different idea, and very different implementation (in doses or lack thereof) there is a noticeable corollary.
The fact that we soon may not be able to board an airplane without a government bureaucrat looking at our cocks is ample proof that the terrorists won. Fucking FUD -- all that we needed after 9/11 was a locked cockpit door.
...while at the same time potentially causing/triggering, or worsening certain medical conditions for those prone to it (such as melanoma - where the wrong type of radiation can "trigger" it), something my sister in law - who has had relatives of hers die from it - is predisposed to).
I agree... we lost this round... and slowly more and more battles on this front.
As made up words go, google-itis is particularly stupid, since it literally means "inflammation or irritation of the google."
What's worse is, people coming to their own medical conclusions from such research is made worse by the numerous pharma companies in the US advertising to them daily for made up and not-so-made-up diseases. This is probably how much of the searches for such stuff actually are generated.
While Google may be a tool that people use to fuel (or create) their own hypochondria, these pharmaceutical ads are a method to create such in people who otherwise would not travel that road.
Those of you who are technologically savvy will probably mod this insightful... those who are not, will probably mod it humorous... those who simply dont like the truth of the post will probably mod it overrated or troll. ;-)
-1 Offtopic/don't-tell-me-how-to-mod-you
IN YOUR FACE! ha!
LoL! Though I forgot "-1 Off topic" you just proved my point! Which is some morons should never be given mod points. Fact is, there is nothing off topic about my post. Many a tech shop (CompUSA where I used to work, the current place I work) find that over 50% of their "repairs" are virus and spyware removal. A very large portion of that are infections obtained via running Limewire. Limewire being shut down will cause that number to at least temporarily drop while those unfamiliar with alternatives have nothing (from their perspective) to use as a replacement. Thus affecting the tech community.
Thanks for playing - you lose!!! :-)
At 42 gallons/barrel, that would be 5 million barrels per day. TTBOMK, no oil well in history has ever come within an order of magnitude of that sort of flow rate. BP's estimate is 5,000 bbl/day, often converted to 210,000 gal/day by the media. Even the nightmarish estimates some academics are putting out are on the order of 80,000 bbl/day, or 3.4 million gallons/day. You appear to be off by a factor of anywhere from 60 to 1,000. Using BP's estimate of the flow is rate, and your estimate of tanker capacity, it's about one tanker every 300 days.
Seems there are others who feel it's more than the 4.2 million gallon claim.
Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used a computer analysis (particle image velocimetry) yielding a rate of 700,000 barrels (29,000,000 US gal) per day
Or a tanker every other day... ah well. Either way, it's an evironmental disaster with no real solution yet in planning.
At 42 gallons/barrel, that would be 5 million barrels per day. TTBOMK, no oil well in history has ever come within an order of magnitude of that sort of flow rate. BP's estimate is 5,000 bbl/day, often converted to 210,000 gal/day by the media. Even the nightmarish estimates some academics are putting out are on the order of 80,000 bbl/day, or 3.4 million gallons/day. You appear to be off by a factor of anywhere from 60 to 1,000. Using BP's estimate of the flow is rate, and your estimate of tanker capacity, it's about one tanker every 300 days.
You are correct... somehow I misplaced a decimal point. Though, more recent surveys are estimating up to 4.2 million gallons a day...
Still not nearly the range I mis-quoted above - apologies for my screwup.
The sooner we get these people off Limewire and onto Bittorrent, the sooner I can stop having to clean trojans off my friends PCs every few weeks.
This really sucks... there goes a chunk of the revenue stream in our tech shop... :-(
Those of you who are technologically savvy will probably mod this insightful... those who are not, will probably mod it humorous... those who simply dont like the truth of the post will probably mod it overrated or troll. ;-)
From Reuters:
First, the judge found Gorton, who is also LimeWire's sole director, personally liable for infringement, observing in her ruling that "an individual, including a corporate officer, who has the ability to supervise infringing activity and has a financial interest in that activity, or who personally participates in that activity is personally liable for infringement."
That will likely strike fear in the hearts of would-be P2P moguls who may have been clinging to the belief that they could hide behind corporate shells, insulating their own assets if the law ever caught up with them.
Ruling could have chilling effect on P2P services
The one good thing that may come of this is that if it is upheld, perhaps it will set some sort of precedence for dealing with other corporate "bigwigs" who violate numerous laws with the expectation of hiding behind the "corporate shield" - betcha more companies would be straightforward with their dealings, prevent riskier actions and be less likely to knowingly break the law.
Regardless, every time I skim the article (dont worry... I didnt actually read the whole thing... I do know this is slashdot I'm on) and see the mention of Gorton, I suddenly want to go buy some fish sticks. Cant figure out why. ;-)
For MP3s, it's actually perfectly fine. I've never gotten anything troublesome from LimeWire.
While your luck (either actually due to luck, or because you are technologically savvy) has held out, many of my tech customers' luck has not. I recently (within the last 2 months) had a customer's machine in the where about 5% of their (Limewired) music was infected. A large portion of their jpegs were infected as well.
Now, while 5% isn't a large percentage, in her case, it was a large number (about 100 viruses/spyware/trojans) - and of course, if you get the "wrong" one, it only takes one to truly hose a Windows machine. I suspect the percentage would have been higher if it werent for the fact that a large portion of her music library was actually legally obtained via iTunes.
Though I never asked her, it does bring up an interesting question: Is she one of those "try before you buy" sorts who downloads off Limewire and then buys it on iTunes if she likes it?
BP, through their US subsidiary, pays no taxes to operate in the US? Weird... never knew. Nor do I believe it.
There is a possibility, but the current oil collecting ships like this one from the German Navy collect water by opening a wide 'mouth' on the ship from the top of the water, I wonder if they could install a pump and a long hose to do what you are proposing.
While possibly a valid idea, there are the economics to consider. The "leak" is spewing over 210 million gallons a day, while an average to large oil tanker can store about 62 million gallons (assuming my math guesstimate is correct). That means (at 100% efficiency, inotherwords, 100% oil collection 0% water/sediment/etc collection) it would take almost four tankers a day to collect the spewing oil to prevent an increase in the amount of uncontained oil from increasing.
It would also take an equivalent amount (of gallons) worth of storage and/or processing facilities to deal with the "dirty oil" that was collected. None of this takes into account whatever percentage of the liquid they collect is not oil (ie: say, using such a collection method results in a 60/40% oil/water ratio) - which increases the cost (number of tankers, size of storage/processing facilities, etc).
While I think that BP and those other companies involved should be put on the hook for whatever it takes to prevent this catastrophe from growing any further, the simple fact is that no one at BP is going to even consider or "think up" a method of dealing with this situation in a manner that so adversely affects their bottom line. I also seriously doubt that the government, who is dependent on BP's revenue for taxation, is going to think up such a scenario as well. That is where the economics involved come into play.
Sometimes (often maybe?) the economics of such a situation prevent the better methods of dealing with the environmental aspects from even being considered. Sadly, the reality of human greed of those in power usually trumps environmental needs or the needs of the "not so rich" who get adversely affected by situations such as these. It's far cheaper for them do to nothing, or spend lotsa time "analyzing" the situation to come up with lame-brained but cheap solutions than to actually do something to fix it if the economics are not favorable to the "powers that be" involved in the crisis.
the Berkeley researchers have demonstrated that entanglement can exist and persist in the chaotic chemical complexity of a biological system.'"
There are those who argue that there is nothing inherently chaotic about such systems in the natural world - especially in plant life. I think they are called biologists. I think part of the stuff they do is, complexity aside (or lack thereof depending on what aspect of the biological system they are analyzing), they map out these repeatable, oft-times duplicatable (scientifically) processes to show that there actually isnt anything chaotic about it, but that instead they are rather "organized" chemical interactions and processes - hence the reason a tree grows a certain way, and the tree next to it, if exposed to the same environmental conditions grows within those same chemical parameters.
I wonder if the quantum entanglement aspect (or lack of understanding of certain processes) is the reason for them claiming anything is chaotic in the systems they are analyzing? Or perhaps they dont understand the meaning of the words "chaos" and "chaotic" - or are using a different, non-mainstream definition... complex is not necessary equal to chaotic even though appearances (or understanding) of such may be deceiving.
Of course, I have not taken a biology class in many years... so it is quite possible my understanding is lacking, and these complex biological systems do indeed act in a chaotic manner that so wonderfully coincidentally still comes to the same chemical and biological conclusions.
Google could make progress on this by buying twenty or so really good body fonts outright from a major font foundry, and setting them up for download on demand for Google Docs.
Or, they could go the way of Arial and just make up their own set of fonts that are close enough to the popular Microsoft ones. It would be kind of playing dirty, but who knows if Google's typeface creators could come up with some stuff that's better than what Microsoft has.
Better than Comic Sans? You're insane!!! ;-)