Honestly, most of my printing is printing expense reports and airline ticket receipts; I do much "personal" printing. Why do people need to print that much? I gotta say that most of what people print is a waste. I've used maybe 3 printer cartridges in about 6 years. Now, I did spend a bundle to replace my print heads, but that is what you get when you buy a printer for US$50 on ebay when it retails for 200. But seriously, who in consumer world needs to print so much that they go through a significant number of ink cartridges in a year?
I am glad that it isn't just management types that stuck on faddy subjects. this reminds me of all of the sales meetings, training courses, emails, and presentations that I've had to attend/read/view about the latest "breakthrtough" in business philosophy. It seems like every year I have to sit through some presentation about some repackaged, unoriginal bollocks that some arse came up with. Meanwhile, the guy with the real idea is on the phone arranging for some venture capital.
Glad to hear the academics are stuck with the same problem.
If there is a subscription option for the NYT site, then it makes sense that there would be some minimal system requirements. I would think that they do this so as to avoid having to refund money when people can't play video or see content. So now they do a short circuit and decide for you that the video won't play. In some weird way, it is understandable.
That said, does it make sense that they do the check in one place but not the other? I mean, why do what a lot of other people do and certify against a specific flavor of Linux. Should roblimo stop bellyaching and use a Mac? probably. Are Mac and Linus users totally immune from viruses and spyware? 100%, now and forever.
My PowerBook runs pretty hot as well. I've always figured that it was the form factor. Unlike my Latitude, my PowerBook is minimal in dimension, making it necssaary to cram all the pieces parts in there. I've never really thought that much air actually gets into the PowerBook, but it is nice on a cold day.
The damage is probably pretty accurate. It might seem to you that if nothing were changed, then no harm done. I'd urge you to make that your corporate policy when any sort of break in, be it physical or electronic occurs. The fact is that any breach needs to be investigated, and every system auditted to ensure that nothing was put in place. I'd imagine that some systems were restored from a backup. All of that costs man power, down time, and lost data.
Spare me the "hacking i OK if I ain't trying to break shit" bullshit.
Every hacker that has every been arrested has always claimed that he was only curious and looking around. Let me tell you something, if you walk into my front door, locked or not, that is still trespass, I don't care if you just wanted to get a look at my collection of potato chips resembling presidents.
This isn't a witch hunt. If you even use a phrase like "I broke in", then you know what side of the law that you are on. These guys are just angry because they know they are criminals, they got caught, and now they are facing the full force of the law. When are all of the Mitnick humpers going to get a clue and maybe not do things tha are illegal?
It isn't incumbent upon every provider in the world to tell you that your PC has connected to a network. The fact that a person is ignorant of how something works doesn't make them any less responsible for its use. That's like saying that since I never had to pay an electric bill before, I just assumed that the lights were free.
A user is responsible for knowing how his equipment works. Just because the status quo may be ignorance, doesn't make it acceptable. Whether or not I know that the speed limit is 65 in a particular area, I am still guilty of speeding if I am doing 75. I am not saying the piggybacking issue is a legal one, but ignorance is still no reason for a defense.
Furthermore, as far as the concept of "proxy action" is concerned, as the computer is configured to do so by microsoft, then this would be a proxy action of Microsoft, not of the average user who probably has no idea that their laptop will connect to whatever is available, much less how to stop it from doing this.
That is stretching things. The user buys the machine as configured, and the machine is connecting on the user's behalf. Because the average user doesn't know how to manage their machine is no reason to stop expecting people to be able to do so.
Based on your logic, as long as I never investigate how something works, I should never be responsible for its effects or costs.
OK, Here's the problem that you all have. It is not that it is illegal, it is just not cool. The coffeee shop is providing a value added service with the sort of implicit understanding that people, being cool and decent, won't just abuse it.
This sort of thing constantly boils down into a "you scratch my back, and then I'll ignore yours" situation. It's a matter of being a part of the community that we all share. It is amazing that some many devotes of open source/free software will jump on a company for violating the GPL, but won't recognize the kind of abuse that this article is discussing.
1) You have a choice as to whether or not to use a wireless connection. This isn't just about RECEIVING a signal - it's about configuring your computer to receive it, and transmitting signals back as well. This is nothing at all like walking by and "seeing" a picture.
Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.
OK, you are putting the cart before the horse, the computer only performs a task that you designate for it. It is unreasonable to assume that a user would be unaware that his machine automatically connects. The automatic connection is merely a proxy action for the user performing the steps manually. Either way, you are knowingly connecting to a network. It is impossible to argue that you are not knowingly doing so.
I am not trying to bash communists, I just like to use some strong metaphors, slightly tongue in cheek, to make a point. But you did pick up my point nicely, being free and open also means respeccting some common decency. There is a line past which you aren't using the service, but abusing it.
That's just the kind of attitude that this generation of Stallman/Lessig influenced, wannabe hippee-communists has developed. So many people think that everything ought to be free and open that they forget to actually be free and open themselves. Look at it like this, am I free to just walk into your house just because you left the door unlocked? No, that's tresspass.
Similarly, though several magnitudes less, using a coffeee shop's open wireless network, or anyone's for that matter, just isn't right. We live in a world where things work best when we all scratch one another's back. The idea of providing an open AP is to encourage you to scratch the back of the coffee shop, not just abuse the service that they provide. When a business provides free access to some service there is an IMPLICIT understanding that one ought to throw some cheddar to th business for providing the service. This shouldn't be a question of law, it ought to be a question of common decency and respect for the world that we all live in. I doubt that many of the people that read and post on/. have ever maintained an open AP so that any slouch can access it.
Sure, simple protections would prevent you from using some one else's network, but simple decency ough to as well. I own a parking spot that I generally do not use, does that make it OK for someone to just park there? No, that is my property. Maybe if they'd say "hey, I need an extra spot this weekend, here's a couple bottles of Biddendens" then maybe I'd not be so put out. Too often in our society, people take first rather than give first, and many of the free information/software/love people are the worst about the taking without giving.
I'd doubt many professional photographers are drooling over this. The market, at least in terms of commercial photograpgy, is about at its limit of need, in terms of the 32+ megapixel cameras. Manufacturers are now pushing the envelope for satelite and other advanced imaging. In most commercial applications, the current state of the art in terms of cameras combined with transfer and storage requirements is more than sufficient.
The 2 data points aren't informing the size or shape, but are observations related to a theory.
The theoretical belief is that it should be relatively uniform, but it does not appear to be. Are 2 observations sufficient? No, but a difference in 9 AU in the 2 observations is significant in that it is far off the scall were it less than 1, or maybe only slightly different, that would better confirm the theory. If the physics say that it ought to be uniform, and observations shows that it isn't, th theory needs to be adjusted.
Given that I can register any.org,.com, or.net name I want, there really is no point anymore. It used to be that a.org indicated some kind of non-commercial organizationg, but there is nothing to stop a company from branding its web presence as widget.org as opposed to widget.com.
For that matter, why do we even use a "www" in the hostname. In general use, people refer to websites using as the domain name as in "I got it at thinkgeek.com" or "it's at digg.com". Even more frequently, the common parlance these days is to omit even the ".com" as it is assumed as in "I found it on ebay" or "go to jibjab". Most decent browsers will assume the.com, and most webservers will redirect you to the proper canonical name.
Aside from legacy issues, a relatively simple change to the DNS structure could do away with TLDs, having a response to indicate that the given "domain" is not unique for legacy names. Of course, what happens when I want to register a name that is already taken? In the past, if I didn't care, I could take the.org or.net version, but that is trivial.
Their are a few localities where scalping is illegal, and yet Ticketmaster is the monopoly ticket agent. How does this service apply in places with these laws? I wonder if Ticketmaster will be able to work around these laws by not assigning a "real value" to the seat. That may be interesting.
That's a good point. In the "precedent" cited by the author, the defendant demonstrated a security flaw to the owner of the system, not to a third party. In this case, the defendant discovered the flaw, and rather than notify his employer and work towards fixing the problem, he went straight to a third party.
The guy was basicaly looking for an ego boost. he figured he could get his name in the paper and look like a hero. In the end, he essentially gave away personal information on applicants without ever notifying his employer.
The intent of the patent process was to provide a quid pro quo for invention. That is, if you created something new, you would be given a temporary monopoly on the invention.
That's my point. I also referred to inventions that were non obvious. Someone that has an invention worthy of a patent, ought to be ably to achieve a temporary monopoly on the invention. Many inventions are hardly unique, there are too many people attempting to find solutions to the same problem. I don't think that only one person came up with the idea for intermittent wipers, a technique for construct a 5-blade razor, or a method to create a color LCD display. What is important is that these inventions have a degree of novelty that warrants a patent.
Having a public database that would essentially limit the ability to patent an invention just because somebody else was too lazy to seek patent protection is mere punitive. To the victor go the spoils and the first one to the patent officce wins, that is the economic realty.
My agrument is based on inventions that carry a significant novelty, not just any old patent. Certainly, I believe that the On-click patent is ridiculous, as should any patent based on browser cookies. Last I heard, the point of cookies was to enable one-click. I just don't see why first mover advantage should be taken away from someone willing to seek a patent on a worthy invention.
1) Provide an open database for public disclosure. This database would be a repository for prior art claims. So what you would do is, if you had a good idea, you'd drop it into the database and it would be kept there. Then when a patent came up, it would be readily searchable and if your idea was relevant and prior to their invention, it'd prevent them from getting the patent.
Yeah, but no, but...
That makes the ASSUMPTION that said idea was unoriginal. If 2 people come up with very similar, yet not obvious inventions, if one person wants to patent, he should be able to. Not all inventions are "unique", especially for common problems. Prior art isn't just about whether or not the invention or analog was previously around, it is about whether or not the invention or an analog had already been in use.
I am sure that a lot of people had the idea for a portable, solid state MP3 player, but that doesn't make it any less patentable. The entity that decided that it was a good enough idea to warrant a patent and did that. Based on your idea, I can come up with an idea, put it in this database, and prevent someone else for patenting it. Now, when you come along with this great invention, you can't get a patent, and then InoTech can take your idea and make it for themselves.
Or, you would be able to patent it and be able to license or sell the invetion to InoTech and make use of your invention. Just because some people abuse the patent system doesn't invalidate them, and just because somebody else had the idea at the same time doesn't make any less patentable.
The idea that a journalist can and should protect his sources really only makes sense in the case of criminal actions and serving the public interest. A free press is crucial to protecting the public's interest when Government or Industry knowling acts in a manner that is against the law or runs counter to the public interest.
This is the reason for the protection, so that when a whistelblower i.e. "Deep Throat" has information on government wrongdoings, that person can get the word out without being a target of his now enemies. It is essential that the People be made aware of instances when Government has sold out the public, or Industry has knowlingly misled the People and sold a dangerous product.
In Apple's case, Apple is attempting to protect its privelege to privacy. Note I say privelege, because corporations really ought not be granted "rights" per se, but that is a different argument. Maintaining the secrecy of future products is a key to a corporations success not only to maintain, gain, or increase market share, but also to help sales. When runors or confidential information is leaked regarding a product, it can result in the corporation losing its advantage, and thus negatively impact the corporation in economic terms.
The question should then be asked, is did the leaked information have value significant to the public interest in uncovering illegal or criminal activity or did it merely serve to bring hithereto confidential information into the public domain? In the former case, the protection ought be granted to the "journalist", whether professional or not, as the disclosure had significant value. In the latter case, the disclosure serves only to advance one or more parties agenda to the detriment of the corporation, an action with no value to the common good. In this case, I would argue that the information was either illegal or ubjustly obtained or leaked and therefore the protection ought not be granted.
As long as Microsoft are selling software, they could probably care less where it goes. Sales figures are sales figures.
If there is a virtualization layer in Mac OS that allows seemles integration with Windows, somebody, somewhere is going to need to hand MS some cash for the Windows license.
Ok, so my reaction to Dvorak was "yeah, but no, but".
Apple's real gambit in regards to Windows is almost too transparent. Boot Camp is the second step towards a true virtualization layer for OSX that will blend Windows and OSX. The move to Intel was the first.
Given that virtualization is becoming so cruicial in so many areas with VM Ware, Solaris zones, and whatever HP call it, Apple's Boot Camp only makes sense. Multi-core processors make virtualization even more attractive to those craving processore density. With the Intel-Mac's lack of BIOS, Boot Camp provides the bridge between OS X and Windows for now, requiring reboots to toggle between operating system.
The abstraction of the BIOS is a key idea to take away from Boot Camp. The abstraction at least proves that Windows will run at that layer. The next step is likely to be a greater abstraction that will allow a Windows "session" to run inside of OSX without requiring a reboot, possibly similar to Virtual PC but with better performance. At this point, users would be able to access all features of both operating systems, albeit with some difficulty.
Eventually, the logical move would be to a complete virtualization layer in which multiple operating systems can simultaneously share the system and interact with one another. I wouldn't be surprised to see a virtualization system that allows easy "drag and drop" from OS X into Windows and vice versa.
This is probably a more realistic view than Dvorak, as it gets people onto OS X without the worry of not being able to use Windows. Could we see some kind of "WinOS/2"-like bundling in the future? Probably not to that extent, but with similar functionality.
Here is OSX, need to run Windows? Insert CD and click here, now your windows appas run inside what appear to be OSX windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, most of my printing is printing expense reports and airline ticket receipts; I do much "personal" printing. Why do people need to print that much? I gotta say that most of what people print is a waste. I've used maybe 3 printer cartridges in about 6 years. Now, I did spend a bundle to replace my print heads, but that is what you get when you buy a printer for US$50 on ebay when it retails for 200. But seriously, who in consumer world needs to print so much that they go through a significant number of ink cartridges in a year?
Stop wasting paper and stop printing people.
Wow,
I am glad that it isn't just management types that stuck on faddy subjects. this reminds me of all of the sales meetings, training courses, emails, and presentations that I've had to attend/read/view about the latest "breakthrtough" in business philosophy. It seems like every year I have to sit through some presentation about some repackaged, unoriginal bollocks that some arse came up with. Meanwhile, the guy with the real idea is on the phone arranging for some venture capital.
Glad to hear the academics are stuck with the same problem.
If there is a subscription option for the NYT site, then it makes sense that there would be some minimal system requirements. I would think that they do this so as to avoid having to refund money when people can't play video or see content. So now they do a short circuit and decide for you that the video won't play. In some weird way, it is understandable.
That said, does it make sense that they do the check in one place but not the other? I mean, why do what a lot of other people do and certify against a specific flavor of Linux.
Should roblimo stop bellyaching and use a Mac? probably.
Are Mac and Linus users totally immune from viruses and spyware? 100%, now and forever.
Conclusion : complain to the NYT.
Bean crock.
What the RIAA is doing is pathetic, it's there own fault people pirate music, because of overpriced cd's and drm's,
That is no execuse for piracy. Look, if you disagree with their business model or pricing, don't use the product. At all.
Piracy is not a valid form of protest, boycott is.
My PowerBook runs pretty hot as well. I've always figured that it was the form factor. Unlike my Latitude, my PowerBook is minimal in dimension, making it necssaary to cram all the pieces parts in there. I've never really thought that much air actually gets into the PowerBook, but it is nice on a cold day.
The damage is probably pretty accurate. It might seem to you that if nothing were changed, then no harm done. I'd urge you to make that your corporate policy when any sort of break in, be it physical or electronic occurs. The fact is that any breach needs to be investigated, and every system auditted to ensure that nothing was put in place. I'd imagine that some systems were restored from a backup. All of that costs man power, down time, and lost data.
Spare me the "hacking i OK if I ain't trying to break shit" bullshit.
Every hacker that has every been arrested has always claimed that he was only curious and looking around. Let me tell you something, if you walk into my front door, locked or not, that is still trespass, I don't care if you just wanted to get a look at my collection of potato chips resembling presidents.
This isn't a witch hunt. If you even use a phrase like "I broke in", then you know what side of the law that you are on. These guys are just angry because they know they are criminals, they got caught, and now they are facing the full force of the law. When are all of the Mitnick humpers going to get a clue and maybe not do things tha are illegal?
Stores in my area have been doing that for a while now. It is good to see that /. is up to speed on technology.
But can I be arrested if every day for three months I use the window squeegee at a gas station on my Jetta TDI?
Note, that in my post, I indicated that I did not consider this a question of law "
This shouldn't be a question of law, it ought to be a question of common decency and respect for the world that we all live in.
So, no, you shouldn't be arrested, you are just cheap.
It isn't incumbent upon every provider in the world to tell you that your PC has connected to a network. The fact that a person is ignorant of how something works doesn't make them any less responsible for its use. That's like saying that since I never had to pay an electric bill before, I just assumed that the lights were free.
A user is responsible for knowing how his equipment works. Just because the status quo may be ignorance, doesn't make it acceptable. Whether or not I know that the speed limit is 65 in a particular area, I am still guilty of speeding if I am doing 75. I am not saying the piggybacking issue is a legal one, but ignorance is still no reason for a defense.
Furthermore, as far as the concept of "proxy action" is concerned, as the computer is configured to do so by microsoft, then this would be a proxy action of Microsoft, not of the average user who probably has no idea that their laptop will connect to whatever is available, much less how to stop it from doing this.
That is stretching things. The user buys the machine as configured, and the machine is connecting on the user's behalf. Because the average user doesn't know how to manage their machine is no reason to stop expecting people to be able to do so.
Based on your logic, as long as I never investigate how something works, I should never be responsible for its effects or costs.
OK, Here's the problem that you all have. It is not that it is illegal, it is just not cool. The coffeee shop is providing a value added service with the sort of implicit understanding that people, being cool and decent, won't just abuse it.
This sort of thing constantly boils down into a "you scratch my back, and then I'll ignore yours" situation. It's a matter of being a part of the community that we all share. It is amazing that some many devotes of open source/free software will jump on a company for violating the GPL, but won't recognize the kind of abuse that this article is discussing.
1) You have a choice as to whether or not to use a wireless connection. This isn't just about RECEIVING a signal - it's about configuring your computer to receive it, and transmitting signals back as well. This is nothing at all like walking by and "seeing" a picture.
Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.
OK, you are putting the cart before the horse, the computer only performs a task that you designate for it. It is unreasonable to assume that a user would be unaware that his machine automatically connects. The automatic connection is merely a proxy action for the user performing the steps manually. Either way, you are knowingly connecting to a network. It is impossible to argue that you are not knowingly doing so.
Ignorance is no excuse.
I am not trying to bash communists, I just like to use some strong metaphors, slightly tongue in cheek, to make a point. But you did pick up my point nicely, being free and open also means respeccting some common decency. There is a line past which you aren't using the service, but abusing it.
That's just the kind of attitude that this generation of Stallman/Lessig influenced, wannabe hippee-communists has developed. So many people think that everything ought to be free and open that they forget to actually be free and open themselves. Look at it like this, am I free to just walk into your house just because you left the door unlocked? No, that's tresspass.
/. have ever maintained an open AP so that any slouch can access it.
Similarly, though several magnitudes less, using a coffeee shop's open wireless network, or anyone's for that matter, just isn't right. We live in a world where things work best when we all scratch one another's back. The idea of providing an open AP is to encourage you to scratch the back of the coffee shop, not just abuse the service that they provide. When a business provides free access to some service there is an IMPLICIT understanding that one ought to throw some cheddar to th business for providing the service. This shouldn't be a question of law, it ought to be a question of common decency and respect for the world that we all live in. I doubt that many of the people that read and post on
Sure, simple protections would prevent you from using some one else's network, but simple decency ough to as well. I own a parking spot that I generally do not use, does that make it OK for someone to just park there? No, that is my property. Maybe if they'd say "hey, I need an extra spot this weekend, here's a couple bottles of Biddendens" then maybe I'd not be so put out. Too often in our society, people take first rather than give first, and many of the free information/software/love people are the worst about the taking without giving.
I'd doubt many professional photographers are drooling over this. The market, at least in terms of commercial photograpgy, is about at its limit of need, in terms of the 32+ megapixel cameras. Manufacturers are now pushing the envelope for satelite and other advanced imaging. In most commercial applications, the current state of the art in terms of cameras combined with transfer and storage requirements is more than sufficient.
The 2 data points aren't informing the size or shape, but are observations related to a theory.
The theoretical belief is that it should be relatively uniform, but it does not appear to be. Are 2 observations sufficient? No, but a difference in 9 AU in the 2 observations is significant in that it is far off the scall were it less than 1, or maybe only slightly different, that would better confirm the theory. If the physics say that it ought to be uniform, and observations shows that it isn't, th theory needs to be adjusted.
Given that I can register any .org, .com, or .net name I want, there really is no point anymore. It used to be that a .org indicated some kind of non-commercial organizationg, but there is nothing to stop a company from branding its web presence as widget.org as opposed to widget.com.
.com, and most webservers will redirect you to the proper canonical name.
.org or .net version, but that is trivial.
For that matter, why do we even use a "www" in the hostname. In general use, people refer to websites using as the domain name as in "I got it at thinkgeek.com" or "it's at digg.com". Even more frequently, the common parlance these days is to omit even the ".com" as it is assumed as in "I found it on ebay" or "go to jibjab". Most decent browsers will assume the
Aside from legacy issues, a relatively simple change to the DNS structure could do away with TLDs, having a response to indicate that the given "domain" is not unique for legacy names. Of course, what happens when I want to register a name that is already taken? In the past, if I didn't care, I could take the
Their are a few localities where scalping is illegal, and yet Ticketmaster is the monopoly ticket agent. How does this service apply in places with these laws? I wonder if Ticketmaster will be able to work around these laws by not assigning a "real value" to the seat. That may be interesting.
That's a good point. In the "precedent" cited by the author, the defendant demonstrated a security flaw to the owner of the system, not to a third party. In this case, the defendant discovered the flaw, and rather than notify his employer and work towards fixing the problem, he went straight to a third party.
The guy was basicaly looking for an ego boost. he figured he could get his name in the paper and look like a hero. In the end, he essentially gave away personal information on applicants without ever notifying his employer.
The intent of the patent process was to provide a quid pro quo for invention. That is, if you created something new, you would be given a temporary monopoly on the invention.
That's my point. I also referred to inventions that were non obvious. Someone that has an invention worthy of a patent, ought to be ably to achieve a temporary monopoly on the invention. Many inventions are hardly unique, there are too many people attempting to find solutions to the same problem. I don't think that only one person came up with the idea for intermittent wipers, a technique for construct a 5-blade razor, or a method to create a color LCD display. What is important is that these inventions have a degree of novelty that warrants a patent.
Having a public database that would essentially limit the ability to patent an invention just because somebody else was too lazy to seek patent protection is mere punitive. To the victor go the spoils and the first one to the patent officce wins, that is the economic realty.
My agrument is based on inventions that carry a significant novelty, not just any old patent. Certainly, I believe that the On-click patent is ridiculous, as should any patent based on browser cookies. Last I heard, the point of cookies was to enable one-click. I just don't see why first mover advantage should be taken away from someone willing to seek a patent on a worthy invention.
1) Provide an open database for public disclosure. This database would be a repository for prior art claims. So what you would do is, if you had a good idea, you'd drop it into the database and it would be kept there. Then when a patent came up, it would be readily searchable and if your idea was relevant and prior to their invention, it'd prevent them from getting the patent.
Yeah, but no, but...
That makes the ASSUMPTION that said idea was unoriginal. If 2 people come up with very similar, yet not obvious inventions, if one person wants to patent, he should be able to. Not all inventions are "unique", especially for common problems. Prior art isn't just about whether or not the invention or analog was previously around, it is about whether or not the invention or an analog had already been in use.
I am sure that a lot of people had the idea for a portable, solid state MP3 player, but that doesn't make it any less patentable. The entity that decided that it was a good enough idea to warrant a patent and did that. Based on your idea, I can come up with an idea, put it in this database, and prevent someone else for patenting it. Now, when you come along with this great invention, you can't get a patent, and then InoTech can take your idea and make it for themselves.
Or, you would be able to patent it and be able to license or sell the invetion to InoTech and make use of your invention. Just because some people abuse the patent system doesn't invalidate them, and just because somebody else had the idea at the same time doesn't make any less patentable.
The idea that a journalist can and should protect his sources really only makes sense in the case of criminal actions and serving the public interest. A free press is crucial to protecting the public's interest when Government or Industry knowling acts in a manner that is against the law or runs counter to the public interest.
This is the reason for the protection, so that when a whistelblower i.e. "Deep Throat" has information on government wrongdoings, that person can get the word out without being a target of his now enemies. It is essential that the People be made aware of instances when Government has sold out the public, or Industry has knowlingly misled the People and sold a dangerous product.
In Apple's case, Apple is attempting to protect its privelege to privacy. Note I say privelege, because corporations really ought not be granted "rights" per se, but that is a different argument. Maintaining the secrecy of future products is a key to a corporations success not only to maintain, gain, or increase market share, but also to help sales. When runors or confidential information is leaked regarding a product, it can result in the corporation losing its advantage, and thus negatively impact the corporation in economic terms.
The question should then be asked, is did the leaked information have value significant to the public interest in uncovering illegal or criminal activity or did it merely serve to bring hithereto confidential information into the public domain? In the former case, the protection ought be granted to the "journalist", whether professional or not, as the disclosure had significant value. In the latter case, the disclosure serves only to advance one or more parties agenda to the detriment of the corporation, an action with no value to the common good. In this case, I would argue that the information was either illegal or ubjustly obtained or leaked and therefore the protection ought not be granted.
As long as Microsoft are selling software, they could probably care less where it goes. Sales figures are sales figures.
If there is a virtualization layer in Mac OS that allows seemles integration with Windows, somebody, somewhere is going to need to hand MS some cash for the Windows license.
Ok, so my reaction to Dvorak was "yeah, but no, but".
Apple's real gambit in regards to Windows is almost too transparent. Boot Camp is the second step towards a true virtualization layer for OSX that will blend Windows and OSX. The move to Intel was the first.
Given that virtualization is becoming so cruicial in so many areas with VM Ware, Solaris zones, and whatever HP call it, Apple's Boot Camp only makes sense. Multi-core processors make virtualization even more attractive to those craving processore density. With the Intel-Mac's lack of BIOS, Boot Camp provides the bridge between OS X and Windows for now, requiring reboots to toggle between operating system.
The abstraction of the BIOS is a key idea to take away from Boot Camp. The abstraction at least proves that Windows will run at that layer. The next step is likely to be a greater abstraction that will allow a Windows "session" to run inside of OSX without requiring a reboot, possibly similar to Virtual PC but with better performance. At this point, users would be able to access all features of both operating systems, albeit with some difficulty.
Eventually, the logical move would be to a complete virtualization layer in which multiple operating systems can simultaneously share the system and interact with one another. I wouldn't be surprised to see a virtualization system that allows easy "drag and drop" from OS X into Windows and vice versa.
This is probably a more realistic view than Dvorak, as it gets people onto OS X without the worry of not being able to use Windows. Could we see some kind of "WinOS/2"-like bundling in the future? Probably not to that extent, but with similar functionality.
Here is OSX, need to run Windows? Insert CD and click here, now your windows appas run inside what appear to be OSX windows.
The Italians used some of the worst cipher systems during the war, and were pretty easy to break.
Oh, if only he could have gotten his hands on a 4-rotor steckered Enigma. At least that would have stood up for a day or 2.