Time and again, the competition has proven Microsoft wrong by being versatile, nimble, and accelerated in their own right in how they implement technologies that Microsoft finds difficult.
Most tech businesses had created a prototype tablet long before the iPad was released, long before the iPhone was released, long before Jobs retook the reigns of Apple. The tablet device wasn't new. There were existing tablets on the market, one of which made Palm a success.
It took years to create the technology and for parts/prices to drop to the point where the average consumer could afford them, and for connectivity to progress to the point that people could benefit from them in a way other than to use them as a todo list or calendar.
The point is that tablets didn't become truly viable till their cost and functionality could be afforded by the average person and that the utility was significant enough to be more than address book, notepad, etc.
There were lots of tablet type designs being developed a decade or more ago. Palm had a tablet device, you just used a pointing device. Pen computing had a similar device years before.
Apple's prototype was most certainly a primitive device,
What these people are saying is that Jobs is using a bit of revisionist history here. By looking at the sequence of events for the technology implemented into each of these devices (such as copy and paste) one can see that the order prescribed by Jobs is revisionist. Likely they created a tablet like device intended to be used as a communications device and it hit Jobs that it could be used as a phone. Then with all the hype about tablets he told them to take the prototype to see if they could make a competing device before anyone else.
There were a ton of tablet devices that were in prototype back then, and some were probably vastly superior to Apple's prototype. But Jobs was able to take action and create the product from the prototype before anyone else, and he used what he learned from the phone to make the iPad.
Most drivers under Ubuntu/Linux don't need to be installed. It just works. It isn't like Windows.
To address your question, I would reply that you do it the same way you do it in Windows. Connect up the wired port or use a second machine.
In the case that the drivers aren't there you often, in the case of Ubuntu, are prompted telling you that you have proprietary drivers available. At that point you can just click a few buttons and have them installed. They will automatically be downloaded and installed.
If there are none, which is exceptionally rare, then you can get the windows driver, extract them, and use the tool provided with ndiswrapper to install them by pointing to the folder where the drivers are located, select your driver, and go from there. The tool has a graphical UI and is exceptionally easy.
But, that's only useful about 1/2 the time. When you consider the vast number of installs already covered the failed percentage isn't bad. Under Windows I have had the same issue where drivers weren't available. In fact, on a current unit I'm working on there are no SiS drivers for video for Win7. To get the wired drivers working I had to use XP drivers to start, which isn't always a good idea.
In the past when there was a large number of people that wanted to go from Vista to XP the computer manufacturer often wouldn't provide XP drivers. That meant that you had to have some pretty expansive knowledge of computers to know to go looking for models, even from other manufacturers that provided XP drivers for the chip-sets governing the device you wanted drivers for and to download those from them. Often you had to look far and wide, and you had to have the knowledge to identify the chip-sets because you weren't given this information by XP. To help you could always boot from an Ubuntu live CD, open a terminal prompt and type "lspci" (without the quotes). Then write down the components and look for the appropriate driver as described above.
If an American company hires a foreign company to commit a crime in the US then the American company will still have committed a criminal act and can be prosecuted in the US.
That's not the point with Google's system. Google's TV gives any disparate source the opportunity register with them and advertise their content without the centralized walled garden approach. And, at the time when iPods were gaining in popularity there was no "integration" offered by the competition. Apple provided that. What we know now is that it can be accomplished in other ways, that's the purpose behind Google TV.
It will provide the benefits of the ipod/itunes integration without the lock in that goes with it.
Think this: Google gets their OS installed in TV sets. Those sets have their own storage, wifi, etc. Then Google defines the structure of the data. If a user points his TV to your site the content is presentable and well formatted for the TV (meaning the menus, the structure, the video and sound formats, etc). Google benefits if that same website decides to list itself with Google in which case Google gets to advertise or partner in advertisement through ad sense.
In the long history of iPods and iTunes Apple hasn't significantly purposed itself in the sales part of it. They just haven't had the insight to bring it together. Music on the other hand has traditionally been purchased by individuals and the download/storage of such a device made that process a great synergy. Video on the other hand is much different. The codecs could be different depending on the source of the media, the aspect ratio could be different due to various devices (and Apple has no control over that).
The model that Apple used is well known and anyone entering this market such as Google with Google TV knows that model well. Google is due to release a music store soon that integrates with Android thus providing the same model. But everyone can produce video content, and in fact we see that everywhere on the web. Video on the web is huge. It will be delivered first and best by the most open system.
The Apple TV is nothing more than an iPod without the screen and other features. Their store is going to be set up as rentals. People weren't renting their music with the iTunes/iPod integration. TV doesn't normally comprise you renting the TV series episodes. Google's retains much of the old model while providing functionality that can still rent/sell if necessary. Apple likely will only release their content in the h.264. Google's will likely support every type of codec available.
Wireless, for the most part, works very well under Linux. If you were unable to get the linux version to work you could always use the windows version via ndiswrapper.
In the past year alone I have seen a significantly reduced instance of wireless driver issues as the open source community has worked out so many of the problems. Though, you had to install them after you installed the distribution--you were told there were proprietary hardware drivers available (automatically). You needed only a couple clicks and a reboot to make them work.
This provides a way to have wireless work without the need to be prompted for proprietary drivers and the reboot.
If there was a reason to complain, and there was about 2 year ago, wireless is where it was at. Linux didn't bring joy all the time, especially in certain HP laptops. Even so, it seems every week I have to deal with issues with a customer's wireless device under Windows XP, Vista, or Win7 (though not as often under Win7). It isn't a joy to work with them under Windows either.
They aren't talking about providing you downloadable content. Streamed content can be done via whatever OS is installed IN THE TV. Netflix and hulu both have demonstrated that DRM streamed content can be done, even if the real technical guys can still get past it. DRM really targets the average user, those that would be tempted otherwise, not the guys that know how to break out of it already.
Surely it does. Apple looses because of the walled garden. Not until you understand Google's model do you understand how it will be implemented in the TV set and how that content can and will be organized and presented on the TV. That walled garden will be the one thing that keeps it from growing but yet it will still be that one thing that keeps it alive.
That's not the point. Content can be pulled in from anywhere. There are even web sites that list (like tv guide) what content is there and where. Google's TV will be regular TVs with Android installed, with a processor, with wifi, etc. That's not likely to happen with Apple. Apple's not going to partner with companies to have them add their Apple TV OS installed within. Besides, Android is free and easily customizable. I don't think Apple can compete with a TV with Android with storage, with massive partnerships. It just can't happen.
I'd only get a new Apple TV if it will play my stored content, and allow me to tie into many other systems that is unfettered by purchases. Let's say a show comes out weekly for 1/2 the year. If I rent each show at a $1.00 a pop, that could be $4 to $5 a month, just for one series. If I like to watch 3-5 series each week then you are talking $15.00 to $25.00 a month. This doesn't include any other TV programming I might want to visit. Renting those shows would be too costly for me. On top of that DVD rentals are also far too much through Apple. If I get a DVD I want to own the platter. Many people are the same. They don't want to pay to rent a DVD near the cost of owning the DVD.
With Google TV the sites themselves can offer content specifically for a TV designed with Android. They technically wouldn't have to even be in partnership. They could pick and choose the content they want aired in that fashion. If they want to be integrated into a system like the Android store then sure, that's where Google earns income or they do so by creating an ad system that can be overlayed on anyone's content, just like with their ad sense.
Copyright infringement is a civil violation and not considered criminal, as nothing is actually stolen from the owner. And, most of the laws regarding copyright infringement govern distribution (and for a profit). DDoS is a criminal act. A person downloading a movie while not distributing it to anyone else is simply violating copyright laws the way you would be if you were to make copies of something on a copier machine years ago. And yes, those same people were pursuing copier machine copies as pirates.
They are illegal. Those behind the attacks will be arrested. All that has to be proven is that the denial of service attack is occurring. The police authorities will have to pursue. If the denial of service attack is done outside the US then the US companies that hired them will have the responsible employees arrested. Not to mention that they'll be unmasked and the general public will understand their criminal activities.
Denial of service attacks can work both ways. Say Disney partnered to have this done. Once unmasked the alleged pirates would most certainly take down and keep down servers under the control of Disney & ABC.
The fly in Apple's pie is that they can't get all the content brought together in a cohesive manner which allows the phobe to just watch what they want. Apple's walled garden is to blame. Apple would have to sign with everyone, and that's just not possible. As it stands it has two. ABC includes Disney, but two isn't enough to make a success.
Google on the other hand can partner with anyone without forcing them behind a walled garden. Google is about open access to all web video. Apple is about closed walled garden content that they can sell. In the long run Google wins. Google's TV and Apple TV are correlate directly to the Android's open nature vs. Apple's iOS which is closed and will never be opened.
The information that's lacking is the actual accusation. I don't believe most people understand what is really being accused? The one accusing him of rape admitted to consensual sex. So, what are the specifics? What is actually being accused? We can make better judgements if we know the details.
I've heard that he refused the use a condom. That she agreed. That afterwards she wanted to compel him to undergo an STD test. Since he refused she changed her mind indicating that it wasn't consensual unless he work a condom, even though she had already consented.
That means she changed her mind after sex and is accusing him of rape because he didn't wear a condom.
Would that be equal for a man. If he insisted on a condom, the woman convinced him otherwise, and after sex he changed his mind--could he then claim rape?
It's consensual whether she wanted him to wear a condom or not if she willing spread her legs and let him in. So, he somehow became a rapist because he convinced her to have sex without a condom and after sex she changed her mind. If a woman asks a man to have sex without a condom then in turn can he allege rape if he changes his mind afterwards?
The tax bracket for that is quite high unless he's got some pretty creative tax accountants or can somehow loop hole out of it. If you make close to $100,000 a year you probably pay close to 35% yourself, if not higher.
Hurd did not write those documents. His President, VPs, and managers did. He reviewed, modified, shepherded, and gave approval. Hurd, again, did NOT "write" the marketing plan for 2010 or 2011. Firms such as HP have their own marketing departments that write this stuff and it is then sent up through the chain of command to the VPs and then to the higher level executives. Firms have managers, VPs, a President (or sometimes more than one), CTO, CFO, COO, and the CEO.
Oracle's relational database isn't a competitor to any relational database that HP creates, because they don't create relational database server software.
Marketing is insightful. It is a creative process. Those people that are in marketing study marketing principles and practices. Nothing HP has done is different than say Pepsi's marketing over Coke's. Whomever is more creative and communicating with their target audience wins. I've taken marketing classes and what you do while employed in marketing is what everyone else is doing. That's why marketing is so competitive.
Squeezing better margins out of HP doesn't involve trade secrets. Just because you understand how a company works and makes decisions doesn't make your knowledge of that a trade secret. If he knew of specialized technologies and was able to shepherd the workers to build that product (or to better it) then he would have trade secrets, but I highly doubt he's written a single line of code. Hurd's knowledge isn't specific enough to be considered trade secrets (in those areas). Now, if he knew the formula to their "ink" (say, as maybe Pepsi knew the formula to coke) and he was able to give that out to his new employer, then it would be specific knowledge of trade secrets.
Oracle recently entered the server market, only after buying Sun. Did they turnkey servers with their product? Most likely. Oracle does relational database software that runs on those servers. They may even partner to sell the hardware (maybe even with HP), but that relationship could hardly be an issue worthy of the moniker of trade secret. If anything, it would simply allow Oracle to ensure they aren't being taken. Anyone working at HP in marketing or say as the manager of the department, etc could have that specific knowledge.
Again, Oracle's *main* products are not servers nor even the OS upon which they run. They are a services company that develops software.
$40 million before taxes. Anyone making salaries at that level also have bills to match. No, I feel little empathy for him, I'm just pointing out how much of a fallacy there is in asserting that $40 million severance means he'll never have to work again.
Slashdot Mirror
Time and again, the competition has proven Microsoft wrong by being versatile, nimble, and accelerated in their own right in how they implement technologies that Microsoft finds difficult.
Most tech businesses had created a prototype tablet long before the iPad was released, long before the iPhone was released, long before Jobs retook the reigns of Apple. The tablet device wasn't new. There were existing tablets on the market, one of which made Palm a success.
It took years to create the technology and for parts/prices to drop to the point where the average consumer could afford them, and for connectivity to progress to the point that people could benefit from them in a way other than to use them as a todo list or calendar.
The point is that tablets didn't become truly viable till their cost and functionality could be afforded by the average person and that the utility was significant enough to be more than address book, notepad, etc.
There were lots of tablet type designs being developed a decade or more ago. Palm had a tablet device, you just used a pointing device. Pen computing had a similar device years before.
Apple's prototype was most certainly a primitive device,
What these people are saying is that Jobs is using a bit of revisionist history here. By looking at the sequence of events for the technology implemented into each of these devices (such as copy and paste) one can see that the order prescribed by Jobs is revisionist. Likely they created a tablet like device intended to be used as a communications device and it hit Jobs that it could be used as a phone. Then with all the hype about tablets he told them to take the prototype to see if they could make a competing device before anyone else.
There were a ton of tablet devices that were in prototype back then, and some were probably vastly superior to Apple's prototype. But Jobs was able to take action and create the product from the prototype before anyone else, and he used what he learned from the phone to make the iPad.
Most drivers under Ubuntu/Linux don't need to be installed. It just works. It isn't like Windows.
To address your question, I would reply that you do it the same way you do it in Windows. Connect up the wired port or use a second machine.
In the case that the drivers aren't there you often, in the case of Ubuntu, are prompted telling you that you have proprietary drivers available. At that point you can just click a few buttons and have them installed. They will automatically be downloaded and installed.
If there are none, which is exceptionally rare, then you can get the windows driver, extract them, and use the tool provided with ndiswrapper to install them by pointing to the folder where the drivers are located, select your driver, and go from there. The tool has a graphical UI and is exceptionally easy.
But, that's only useful about 1/2 the time. When you consider the vast number of installs already covered the failed percentage isn't bad. Under Windows I have had the same issue where drivers weren't available. In fact, on a current unit I'm working on there are no SiS drivers for video for Win7. To get the wired drivers working I had to use XP drivers to start, which isn't always a good idea.
In the past when there was a large number of people that wanted to go from Vista to XP the computer manufacturer often wouldn't provide XP drivers. That meant that you had to have some pretty expansive knowledge of computers to know to go looking for models, even from other manufacturers that provided XP drivers for the chip-sets governing the device you wanted drivers for and to download those from them. Often you had to look far and wide, and you had to have the knowledge to identify the chip-sets because you weren't given this information by XP. To help you could always boot from an Ubuntu live CD, open a terminal prompt and type "lspci" (without the quotes). Then write down the components and look for the appropriate driver as described above.
If an American company hires a foreign company to commit a crime in the US then the American company will still have committed a criminal act and can be prosecuted in the US.
Ndiswrapper is just like any other GUI based app. You download the drivers extract them, and then the rest is point and click.
I'm really getting tired of hearing things like this from people that have no idea what they are talking about.
That's not the point with Google's system. Google's TV gives any disparate source the opportunity register with them and advertise their content without the centralized walled garden approach. And, at the time when iPods were gaining in popularity there was no "integration" offered by the competition. Apple provided that. What we know now is that it can be accomplished in other ways, that's the purpose behind Google TV.
It will provide the benefits of the ipod/itunes integration without the lock in that goes with it.
Think this: Google gets their OS installed in TV sets. Those sets have their own storage, wifi, etc. Then Google defines the structure of the data. If a user points his TV to your site the content is presentable and well formatted for the TV (meaning the menus, the structure, the video and sound formats, etc). Google benefits if that same website decides to list itself with Google in which case Google gets to advertise or partner in advertisement through ad sense.
In the long history of iPods and iTunes Apple hasn't significantly purposed itself in the sales part of it. They just haven't had the insight to bring it together. Music on the other hand has traditionally been purchased by individuals and the download/storage of such a device made that process a great synergy. Video on the other hand is much different. The codecs could be different depending on the source of the media, the aspect ratio could be different due to various devices (and Apple has no control over that).
The model that Apple used is well known and anyone entering this market such as Google with Google TV knows that model well. Google is due to release a music store soon that integrates with Android thus providing the same model. But everyone can produce video content, and in fact we see that everywhere on the web. Video on the web is huge. It will be delivered first and best by the most open system.
The Apple TV is nothing more than an iPod without the screen and other features. Their store is going to be set up as rentals. People weren't renting their music with the iTunes/iPod integration. TV doesn't normally comprise you renting the TV series episodes. Google's retains much of the old model while providing functionality that can still rent/sell if necessary. Apple likely will only release their content in the h.264. Google's will likely support every type of codec available.
Wireless, for the most part, works very well under Linux. If you were unable to get the linux version to work you could always use the windows version via ndiswrapper.
In the past year alone I have seen a significantly reduced instance of wireless driver issues as the open source community has worked out so many of the problems. Though, you had to install them after you installed the distribution--you were told there were proprietary hardware drivers available (automatically). You needed only a couple clicks and a reboot to make them work.
This provides a way to have wireless work without the need to be prompted for proprietary drivers and the reboot.
If there was a reason to complain, and there was about 2 year ago, wireless is where it was at. Linux didn't bring joy all the time, especially in certain HP laptops. Even so, it seems every week I have to deal with issues with a customer's wireless device under Windows XP, Vista, or Win7 (though not as often under Win7). It isn't a joy to work with them under Windows either.
They aren't talking about providing you downloadable content. Streamed content can be done via whatever OS is installed IN THE TV. Netflix and hulu both have demonstrated that DRM streamed content can be done, even if the real technical guys can still get past it. DRM really targets the average user, those that would be tempted otherwise, not the guys that know how to break out of it already.
Surely it does. Apple looses because of the walled garden. Not until you understand Google's model do you understand how it will be implemented in the TV set and how that content can and will be organized and presented on the TV. That walled garden will be the one thing that keeps it from growing but yet it will still be that one thing that keeps it alive.
That's not the point. Content can be pulled in from anywhere. There are even web sites that list (like tv guide) what content is there and where. Google's TV will be regular TVs with Android installed, with a processor, with wifi, etc. That's not likely to happen with Apple. Apple's not going to partner with companies to have them add their Apple TV OS installed within. Besides, Android is free and easily customizable. I don't think Apple can compete with a TV with Android with storage, with massive partnerships. It just can't happen.
I'd only get a new Apple TV if it will play my stored content, and allow me to tie into many other systems that is unfettered by purchases. Let's say a show comes out weekly for 1/2 the year. If I rent each show at a $1.00 a pop, that could be $4 to $5 a month, just for one series. If I like to watch 3-5 series each week then you are talking $15.00 to $25.00 a month. This doesn't include any other TV programming I might want to visit. Renting those shows would be too costly for me. On top of that DVD rentals are also far too much through Apple. If I get a DVD I want to own the platter. Many people are the same. They don't want to pay to rent a DVD near the cost of owning the DVD.
With Google TV the sites themselves can offer content specifically for a TV designed with Android. They technically wouldn't have to even be in partnership. They could pick and choose the content they want aired in that fashion. If they want to be integrated into a system like the Android store then sure, that's where Google earns income or they do so by creating an ad system that can be overlayed on anyone's content, just like with their ad sense.
Google's model just wins.
Copyright infringement is a civil violation and not considered criminal, as nothing is actually stolen from the owner. And, most of the laws regarding copyright infringement govern distribution (and for a profit). DDoS is a criminal act. A person downloading a movie while not distributing it to anyone else is simply violating copyright laws the way you would be if you were to make copies of something on a copier machine years ago. And yes, those same people were pursuing copier machine copies as pirates.
They are illegal. Those behind the attacks will be arrested. All that has to be proven is that the denial of service attack is occurring. The police authorities will have to pursue. If the denial of service attack is done outside the US then the US companies that hired them will have the responsible employees arrested. Not to mention that they'll be unmasked and the general public will understand their criminal activities.
Denial of service attacks can work both ways. Say Disney partnered to have this done. Once unmasked the alleged pirates would most certainly take down and keep down servers under the control of Disney & ABC.
The fly in Apple's pie is that they can't get all the content brought together in a cohesive manner which allows the phobe to just watch what they want. Apple's walled garden is to blame. Apple would have to sign with everyone, and that's just not possible. As it stands it has two. ABC includes Disney, but two isn't enough to make a success.
Google on the other hand can partner with anyone without forcing them behind a walled garden. Google is about open access to all web video. Apple is about closed walled garden content that they can sell. In the long run Google wins. Google's TV and Apple TV are correlate directly to the Android's open nature vs. Apple's iOS which is closed and will never be opened.
The information that's lacking is the actual accusation. I don't believe most people understand what is really being accused? The one accusing him of rape admitted to consensual sex. So, what are the specifics? What is actually being accused? We can make better judgements if we know the details.
I've heard that he refused the use a condom. That she agreed. That afterwards she wanted to compel him to undergo an STD test. Since he refused she changed her mind indicating that it wasn't consensual unless he work a condom, even though she had already consented.
That means she changed her mind after sex and is accusing him of rape because he didn't wear a condom.
Would that be equal for a man. If he insisted on a condom, the woman convinced him otherwise, and after sex he changed his mind--could he then claim rape?
It's consensual whether she wanted him to wear a condom or not if she willing spread her legs and let him in. So, he somehow became a rapist because he convinced her to have sex without a condom and after sex she changed her mind. If a woman asks a man to have sex without a condom then in turn can he allege rape if he changes his mind afterwards?
I don't think I would have the courage to quote Aljazeera.
If you have ever been falsely accused of something that involved the courts you know how devastating that is.
With a margin of error plus or minus 3%?
And their wives or girlfriends.
This vacuum you imply doesn't exist.
And some use the law to get revenge, including destroying their sex lives.
She admitted it was consensual sex. What she was trying to do was compel him to have an STD test because they had sex without a condom.
The tax bracket for that is quite high unless he's got some pretty creative tax accountants or can somehow loop hole out of it. If you make close to $100,000 a year you probably pay close to 35% yourself, if not higher.
Hurd did not write those documents. His President, VPs, and managers did. He reviewed, modified, shepherded, and gave approval. Hurd, again, did NOT "write" the marketing plan for 2010 or 2011. Firms such as HP have their own marketing departments that write this stuff and it is then sent up through the chain of command to the VPs and then to the higher level executives. Firms have managers, VPs, a President (or sometimes more than one), CTO, CFO, COO, and the CEO.
Oracle's relational database isn't a competitor to any relational database that HP creates, because they don't create relational database server software.
Marketing is insightful. It is a creative process. Those people that are in marketing study marketing principles and practices. Nothing HP has done is different than say Pepsi's marketing over Coke's. Whomever is more creative and communicating with their target audience wins. I've taken marketing classes and what you do while employed in marketing is what everyone else is doing. That's why marketing is so competitive.
Squeezing better margins out of HP doesn't involve trade secrets. Just because you understand how a company works and makes decisions doesn't make your knowledge of that a trade secret. If he knew of specialized technologies and was able to shepherd the workers to build that product (or to better it) then he would have trade secrets, but I highly doubt he's written a single line of code. Hurd's knowledge isn't specific enough to be considered trade secrets (in those areas). Now, if he knew the formula to their "ink" (say, as maybe Pepsi knew the formula to coke) and he was able to give that out to his new employer, then it would be specific knowledge of trade secrets.
Oracle recently entered the server market, only after buying Sun. Did they turnkey servers with their product? Most likely. Oracle does relational database software that runs on those servers. They may even partner to sell the hardware (maybe even with HP), but that relationship could hardly be an issue worthy of the moniker of trade secret. If anything, it would simply allow Oracle to ensure they aren't being taken. Anyone working at HP in marketing or say as the manager of the department, etc could have that specific knowledge.
Again, Oracle's *main* products are not servers nor even the OS upon which they run. They are a services company that develops software.
$40 million before taxes. Anyone making salaries at that level also have bills to match. No, I feel little empathy for him, I'm just pointing out how much of a fallacy there is in asserting that $40 million severance means he'll never have to work again.