I know. Due to the obvious nature of the word play, it's more of a counter-play to make a statement that's less ambiguous but just as arrogant by invoking the same connotation without the uncertainty.
It's along the same lines as how there's no "Right or Wrong" when discussing directions in a vehicle, there's simply "correct," and "incorrect" or "wrong." Otherwise you may never know whether or not it's right to make that left.;)
because I'm running the x64 linux flash plug-in right now.
I understand that, but it's not a full release, and speaking of, where's the one for my Vista x64 system?
IMNSHO, competition is what drives companies to fill demands. If you know no one else is going to step up to a demand and fill it, then what's the point of doing so yourself when you know it won't affect your bottom line?
Adobe hopped on Flash for the iPhone because they believed it would result in higher profits, not because it was better for consumers (or perhaps the CEO wanted it to work on his iPhone... you can never rule that one out:-P).
Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it evil. What's truly evil is being forced to rely on something like Flash to bring you content--no matter what.
Am I the only person dismayed by the fact that flash video is *so* horrible, you can't full screen youtube's HD stuff on a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine?
I mean, FFS, Adobe had Flash ready for the iPhone in months.... But we can't even get a native x64 version of it on ANY OS. If Microsoft can force some swift kicks in Adobe's ass (which they should for forcing me to download a damned plugin to save to PDF in Office 2007 anyway) and vice-versa, I see nothing but good things on the road ahead.
Indeed. When I first started using Windows Server Update Services, I didn't really understand what the deal was with constantly needing to approve updates, but I realize that some applications just don't work the way they should.:P
The reason they didn't wanted ASAP patches is simply because *they broke things*
While it might have been this way at some point, I have systems that have been patched automatically for years without software breaking. Maybe with the XP SP1 -> SP2 switch something broke, but that was so long ago that I think I was still in school.
You could argue that it would be nice if this could be achieved by moving people to Linux.
Ironically, I would probably move to Linux for my mobile use if I could get it on a device that promises my Laptop's form factor with *huge* battery increases.
I've always seen Linux or OS X only support as a limitation to what I can do... I just prefer Windows. But when it comes to niche devices, specifically ones that fit in your hand for doing network surveys or whatever, Linux would be one *hell* of an upgrade compared to what they normally ship with. I'd kinda like to [be able to] run it on my phone...
This might seem like an odd question, but if I were to write an application and license it under GPL2 or 3, I recognize that my licensing of that work under GPL holds anyone who makes derivative works to contribute back and open source as well. However, who becomes responsible for the perpetuation of child source code? And, can any third parties take my code and maintain it for me without needing my consent?
Basically, is it possible to create something and license it under GPL to preserve the spirit of free software, but not be responsible for that software's freedom? I suppose that's what forking is all about... but it wasn't until recently that I considered other people might want to use my scripts too.
At least you recognize that. I'm not quite as into Apple's entire line of Kool-aid as everyone else is (I hate the iPhone and iPods), but their laptops have no equivalent in the market.
I love Windows, but in the end, there is no more seamless product or truly mobile computing experience than the one provided by an Apple laptop running OS X... It hurts my pride a little to say "it just works."
On the bright side, I finally had a reason to get used to a bash console:P
One of the things I think is interesting is that while people are opposed to this (and for good reason) it *would* be nice to pay a content "broker" for access to multiple sets of premium content in a subscription fashion. Imagine broker A signs deals with NBC/Universal, Disney, and the MAFIAA. Suddenly, you have a package that you can subscribe to and access all the paid-for, advertising laden or free content (at different rates, of course) at a flat rate... AND the content providers can be paid a [rather large] portion of the affiliated broker's subscription earnings based on market share (a very precise statistic given the use of IP) for a given day or month.
You wouldn't have to stop there either, Valve could do this now with Steam. Would you pay $50 a month to play any game that ever came out on their network for the duration of your subscription?
The part about TFA that is so utterly objectionable is that the choice of who provides connectivity should NOT be the same as the choice of services you're capable of receiving. That's what it's currently like in an end-to-end fashion with cell phones, and it sucks. ISP's need to do what they [should] do best, and deliver traffic solicited to my IP address from anyone else on the net with no discrimination.. not charging me for services I don't use, or ones they make up (e.g. see "DVR Service").
When this kind of market option comes around, drop me a line, and I'll end my subscription with my NNTP provider.
his move would make me angry if I were a Vista user
As a happy Vista user, this does anger me. Granted, I got Vista from an MS handout, but still...
If you want to know who to blame for it, look no further than your own house. The backlash from IT professionals who have almost zero experience with the OS but trashed it--endlessly, for years--are the ones responsible for Microsoft moving their development from Vista to 7.
I personally can't wait for 7 to RTM, but honestly, I would have rather seen the improvements to come to Vista instead.
If glossy displays are so great, how come this traditionally stubborn company made this concession?
Because the idiots who buy Macbooks and Macbook Pros for reasons that lie wholly outside of the machines' performance/capability in the professional and enthusiast sectors think, "WOW that GLOSSY one is SO CLEAR! It'll work GREAT ALL THE TIME,"...and then proceed to [figuratively] bolt it to a desk, never realizing, as those of us who've bought laptops for their designed purpose--portability--that a glossy LCD on a laptop was the brainchild of an asshole out to further promote the idiotic notion that everyone needs a laptop, rather than a desktop computer.
Further, it doesn't help that the dicks in the marketing department at Apple can't seem to figure out how to market a proper desktop computer for under $2000, driving those that require a desktop to instead buy a laptop... which means they'll want a glossy display. Apple deserves no apology.
I own the previous gen Macbook Pro, and I got a matte display because I don't hate myself.
I've gotten robocalls on my cell, too, saying my car warranty was going to expire.
Alas, that's not solicitation, so the legality of it doesn't fall into the scope of what I understand about actual telemarketing. If my company was contracted to do robocalling, it would never get to me since I'm a Windows site/systems admin. Our programmers deal with all the nitty gritty dialing stuff.:P
My company runs at least two dialing campaigns that go to cell phones. In order for the call to be legal, you probably need a prior business relationship (though I'm not certain) and you do need to do what's called "preview dialing," where someone is actually on the line the entire time, from the moment the line starts ringing and until the customer hangs up.
You may not like it, but should you ever get solicited on your cell phone, chances are good it was legal.
...don't think the telemarketers didn't factor fines like this in the price they charged clients.
When you solicit someone over the telephone who knows they're on the DNC, before they can even start to complain, you've already announced your intentions, and more importantly, the company you're calling on behalf of. If a telemarketer calls a customer on the DNC on behalf of a client, and word gets back to them, that client's business is gone instantly.
DNC violations are taken very seriously by professional telemarketing firms. Furthermore, in the telemarketing business, the costs associated with dialing illegally are usually so high that, when it happens intentionally or through some type of technical failure, people often get fired. And yes, there's plenty of ways to get fined or sued aside from calling DNC numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
I know! I feel so... robbed. By myself.
Of course, that contact info or form would only be accessible after you've logged in, thereby triggering the acceptance of the new TOS.
Shrinkwrapped EULA, anyone?
I know. Due to the obvious nature of the word play, it's more of a counter-play to make a statement that's less ambiguous but just as arrogant by invoking the same connotation without the uncertainty.
;)
It's along the same lines as how there's no "Right or Wrong" when discussing directions in a vehicle, there's simply "correct," and "incorrect" or "wrong." Otherwise you may never know whether or not it's right to make that left.
Sorry, we Americas drive on the right side of the road. There is no driving on the left side, only the WRONG side.
The ambiguity is killing me.
Americans drive on the correct side of the road... Along with everyone Napoleon had the opportunity to walk on.
because I'm running the x64 linux flash plug-in right now.
I understand that, but it's not a full release, and speaking of, where's the one for my Vista x64 system?
:-P).
IMNSHO, competition is what drives companies to fill demands. If you know no one else is going to step up to a demand and fill it, then what's the point of doing so yourself when you know it won't affect your bottom line?
Adobe hopped on Flash for the iPhone because they believed it would result in higher profits, not because it was better for consumers (or perhaps the CEO wanted it to work on his iPhone... you can never rule that one out
Any other reasons why you'd want Silverlight?
Say it with me, "Monopolies are bad."
Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it evil. What's truly evil is being forced to rely on something like Flash to bring you content--no matter what.
Am I the only person dismayed by the fact that flash video is *so* horrible, you can't full screen youtube's HD stuff on a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine?
I mean, FFS, Adobe had Flash ready for the iPhone in months.... But we can't even get a native x64 version of it on ANY OS. If Microsoft can force some swift kicks in Adobe's ass (which they should for forcing me to download a damned plugin to save to PDF in Office 2007 anyway) and vice-versa, I see nothing but good things on the road ahead.
I don't know exactly how it works, but COA/OEM licenses of Windows may not be allowed to be installed in a VM.
VLK licenses of XP, for example, can only be installed on computers that came with an XP OEM license.
Indeed. When I first started using Windows Server Update Services, I didn't really understand what the deal was with constantly needing to approve updates, but I realize that some applications just don't work the way they should. :P
The reason they didn't wanted ASAP patches is simply because *they broke things*
While it might have been this way at some point, I have systems that have been patched automatically for years without software breaking. Maybe with the XP SP1 -> SP2 switch something broke, but that was so long ago that I think I was still in school.
You could argue that it would be nice if this could be achieved by moving people to Linux.
Ironically, I would probably move to Linux for my mobile use if I could get it on a device that promises my Laptop's form factor with *huge* battery increases.
I've always seen Linux or OS X only support as a limitation to what I can do... I just prefer Windows. But when it comes to niche devices, specifically ones that fit in your hand for doing network surveys or whatever, Linux would be one *hell* of an upgrade compared to what they normally ship with. I'd kinda like to [be able to] run it on my phone...
This might seem like an odd question, but if I were to write an application and license it under GPL2 or 3, I recognize that my licensing of that work under GPL holds anyone who makes derivative works to contribute back and open source as well. However, who becomes responsible for the perpetuation of child source code? And, can any third parties take my code and maintain it for me without needing my consent?
Basically, is it possible to create something and license it under GPL to preserve the spirit of free software, but not be responsible for that software's freedom? I suppose that's what forking is all about... but it wasn't until recently that I considered other people might want to use my scripts too.
At least you recognize that. I'm not quite as into Apple's entire line of Kool-aid as everyone else is (I hate the iPhone and iPods), but their laptops have no equivalent in the market.
:P
I love Windows, but in the end, there is no more seamless product or truly mobile computing experience than the one provided by an Apple laptop running OS X... It hurts my pride a little to say "it just works."
On the bright side, I finally had a reason to get used to a bash console
Write a script and then drag/drop the file onto it?
It lacks the features that Exchange had when it still ran on NT 4.
Of course! I'm sure hosted Gmail has waaay more features than Exchange did when it was in beta! ;)
One of the things I think is interesting is that while people are opposed to this (and for good reason) it *would* be nice to pay a content "broker" for access to multiple sets of premium content in a subscription fashion. Imagine broker A signs deals with NBC/Universal, Disney, and the MAFIAA. Suddenly, you have a package that you can subscribe to and access all the paid-for, advertising laden or free content (at different rates, of course) at a flat rate... AND the content providers can be paid a [rather large] portion of the affiliated broker's subscription earnings based on market share (a very precise statistic given the use of IP) for a given day or month.
You wouldn't have to stop there either, Valve could do this now with Steam. Would you pay $50 a month to play any game that ever came out on their network for the duration of your subscription?
The part about TFA that is so utterly objectionable is that the choice of who provides connectivity should NOT be the same as the choice of services you're capable of receiving. That's what it's currently like in an end-to-end fashion with cell phones, and it sucks. ISP's need to do what they [should] do best, and deliver traffic solicited to my IP address from anyone else on the net with no discrimination.. not charging me for services I don't use, or ones they make up (e.g. see "DVR Service").
When this kind of market option comes around, drop me a line, and I'll end my subscription with my NNTP provider.
Not only are you correct, but the OP is an idiot, and further, Microsoft's employees are simply not that stupid.
I submit that we tag this article as "Troll" and force the submitter to hand over both his geek card and his right to flame Microsoft.
his move would make me angry if I were a Vista user
As a happy Vista user, this does anger me. Granted, I got Vista from an MS handout, but still...
If you want to know who to blame for it, look no further than your own house. The backlash from IT professionals who have almost zero experience with the OS but trashed it--endlessly, for years--are the ones responsible for Microsoft moving their development from Vista to 7.
I personally can't wait for 7 to RTM, but honestly, I would have rather seen the improvements to come to Vista instead.
No no,
Costs A Lot
You'd need CALs too. CALs come with every copy of Windows.
It's the same licensing, only at a different point.
If glossy displays are so great, how come this traditionally stubborn company made this concession?
Because the idiots who buy Macbooks and Macbook Pros for reasons that lie wholly outside of the machines' performance/capability in the professional and enthusiast sectors think, "WOW that GLOSSY one is SO CLEAR! It'll work GREAT ALL THE TIME," ...and then proceed to [figuratively] bolt it to a desk, never realizing, as those of us who've bought laptops for their designed purpose--portability--that a glossy LCD on a laptop was the brainchild of an asshole out to further promote the idiotic notion that everyone needs a laptop, rather than a desktop computer.
/rant.
Further, it doesn't help that the dicks in the marketing department at Apple can't seem to figure out how to market a proper desktop computer for under $2000, driving those that require a desktop to instead buy a laptop... which means they'll want a glossy display. Apple deserves no apology.
I own the previous gen Macbook Pro, and I got a matte display because I don't hate myself.
Lastly,
there's no reason for XYZ Marketing to be calling my cellphone
Alas, if Sears hired XYZ Marketing to call on their behalf, then yes, they would.
I've gotten robocalls on my cell, too, saying my car warranty was going to expire.
Alas, that's not solicitation, so the legality of it doesn't fall into the scope of what I understand about actual telemarketing. If my company was contracted to do robocalling, it would never get to me since I'm a Windows site/systems admin. Our programmers deal with all the nitty gritty dialing stuff. :P
It's illegal for telemarketers to call cellphones
No it's not.
My company runs at least two dialing campaigns that go to cell phones. In order for the call to be legal, you probably need a prior business relationship (though I'm not certain) and you do need to do what's called "preview dialing," where someone is actually on the line the entire time, from the moment the line starts ringing and until the customer hangs up.
You may not like it, but should you ever get solicited on your cell phone, chances are good it was legal.
...don't think the telemarketers didn't factor fines like this in the price they charged clients.
When you solicit someone over the telephone who knows they're on the DNC, before they can even start to complain, you've already announced your intentions, and more importantly, the company you're calling on behalf of. If a telemarketer calls a customer on the DNC on behalf of a client, and word gets back to them, that client's business is gone instantly.
DNC violations are taken very seriously by professional telemarketing firms. Furthermore, in the telemarketing business, the costs associated with dialing illegally are usually so high that, when it happens intentionally or through some type of technical failure, people often get fired. And yes, there's plenty of ways to get fined or sued aside from calling DNC numbers.
XP SP2 switched x86 XP to the Server 2003 kernel, IIRC.