...haven't we seen our fair share of articles and such things mentioning the Turk and Antikythera mechanism already? I propose that this article wins in the dull department--or perhaps it is merely an unidentified form of blog spam disguised as a popular tech magazine!
Not everything comes in herbs, you silly man. (But I bet we could engineer one!) Also, if this article is showing up, hasn't it been tested already? At least to an extent? And more after the FDA (hopefully) goes through it? (Maybe?)
Hooray! Windows vulnerabilities are so commonplace now that there are public educational documentaries about their life-cycles and internals, so that the people can stay informed. Brilliant!
Free Software should be assumed to mean "free as in speech." Y'know, as in the Free Software Foundation. As in Richard Stallman's going to kick your ass. With a katana. (Now, where is that xkcd strip...)
Er... it comes from NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP is the Mach microkernel overlain onto BSD. Surely you realise that BSD constitutes UNIX? You may want to do some more research on that particular topic.
Admittedly, though, no, Linux is a clone of a clone of UNIX, and shame on them for it.
Whoever said this has something rather highly important to say. Said post has a visible tendency to bypass everything said so far. Give it your points!
This is actually an advertisement for Stardock disguised as Apple fanboyism. The only paid product really indicated is the miserable dock application of the same company, which has much better and completely free alternatives. With the exception of Expose and Spaces, I'm pretty sure the author's entire range of features can be delivered by Stardock software.
I also like how they avoid mentioning that you could just crack uxtheme.dll yourself, which is what FlyAKiteOS does, and theme to your heart's content, instead opting to plug WindowBlinds, which is again inferior due to sluggishness. (The author doesn't even mention WB's one user-attracting point, which is that it themes every control, even the stuff that XP themes don't touch.)
Yes, it seems that's the only way a scheme can avoid being cracked: by being too unpopular to be cared about. I suppose, then, that the solution to making DRM feasible is to make so *many* kinds of intricate and complex DRM, one for every company, that it isn't worth it to crack a single one...
Well, no, I would say that's a simplification. OOXML is an attempt at vendor lock-in, whilst appearing to be friendly. Seriously, the point of a standard is to make it easy to implement and to make sure everyone follows it. But no one can implement all six thousand "AramaiacSmallCapsLikeWord6.2ForTheMacWhenRunningU nderSystem7.2.5" features, so only Microsoft gets to claim complete compatibility. Realistically, like PL/I was in the sixties, no one will implement it. However, it'll still be a "standard," and Microsoft will use that to force things down people's throats.
Also, if you are under the impression that this is equatable to some sort of religious or vi-vs-emacs holy war, you're quite mistaken. Look into these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
See, Billy G. and Stevie B. really, genuinely are corrupt, horrible monopolist pigs who eat babies. Why do you think that antitrust suit exists?
Read these. Then decide if you really, really believe that making this specification a standard will do anything good for the environment. The spec is simply too big and poorly-defined for anyone else to come close to implementing. If it was worth the paper it was printed on (and if you see the last link, that can be quite a lot) Microsoft wouldn't be trying to fast-track it--specifications should speak for themselves in terms of quality. Anything reasonable would have no trouble getting written into an ISO-accepted standard, no matter what company it came from.
Pop quiz: Why the hell is fast tracking with this kind of system possible? Emergency economic situations?
Well, telecom companies have the unique property of being unreasonably bloated bureaucratic beasts with a very naughty agenda that make the 3v1l [MP|RI]AA gang look like really angry little kids throwing a temper tantrum. Indeed, pretty much all American phone companies spend their free time trying to figure out how they can squeeze out more profit--does the name "Ma Bell" and what happened to it ring any, er, bells? I think this is less "omg! liberal media bias!" and more "Yes, corporate interests really are that malicious, and they've probably got lobbyists changing the definition of common carrier status to make this all legal."
Embrace, extend, extinguish!
Or something. Only they're extinguishing and embracing at the same time--possibly 'extending' at the same time too, thanks to the EU. Maybe Gates' official Fürher status was like a timing signal... now they've gotten everything all mixed up.
Well, that's entirely different. The whole "mickey mouse gloves" thing is because the books are getting really old and delicate. I imagine photocopying some of the stuff in there could destroy it.
Yes; I have to say I was wondering if the OP and Taco had never taken basic history courses in high school. As I recall it, in WWI, normally one's commanding offer would read the letters to ensure they contained nothing naughty, but an alternate colour of envelope was provided for those who preferred their news not be seen by anyone they knew on the battlefield (I.e., mushy love letters) and would be shunted straight to the normal censors at the other end of the mail system. TBH, I always thought that *not* doing this sort of thing would be rather assymetrical and negligent.
Something says it would be more polite if Google were to close the Performics division outright and then reverse-engineer its tactics to stomp out SEO-spam companies.
At first glance of the summary, I'd hoped that was their secret do-good motive for buying DoubleClick in the first place. Alas.
What this article so nobly doesn't mention is that it's Microsoft who's stirring up all of these lobbyist groups. Snatching a link off of Google (ahem), we find:
So, um, don't panic. The community hasn't decided Google is the antichrist; this is all astroturfing, and Yahoo and Microsoft were trying to buy DoubleClick too.;)
He touch-typed when he sat down, and pecked when he stood up, and didn't know his password as well as his fingers did. (I.e., his memorisation of touch-typing was flawed, or his keys were offset.)
Well, er, Google's been in the hardware market for ages, at least through integrated data servers. That's how they made money before the advertising took off: http://www.google.com/enterprise/
Slashdot Mirror
...haven't we seen our fair share of articles and such things mentioning the Turk and Antikythera mechanism already? I propose that this article wins in the dull department--or perhaps it is merely an unidentified form of blog spam disguised as a popular tech magazine!
Not everything comes in herbs, you silly man. (But I bet we could engineer one!) Also, if this article is showing up, hasn't it been tested already? At least to an extent? And more after the FDA (hopefully) goes through it? (Maybe?)
Hooray! Windows vulnerabilities are so commonplace now that there are public educational documentaries about their life-cycles and internals, so that the people can stay informed. Brilliant!
What, like this Iceweasel? I say good chum, you may have been beaten to the finishing line.
Free Software should be assumed to mean "free as in speech." Y'know, as in the Free Software Foundation. As in Richard Stallman's going to kick your ass. With a katana. (Now, where is that xkcd strip...)
Sorry, "shame on the article author for calling it UNIX."
Er... it comes from NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP is the Mach microkernel overlain onto BSD. Surely you realise that BSD constitutes UNIX? You may want to do some more research on that particular topic.
Admittedly, though, no, Linux is a clone of a clone of UNIX, and shame on them for it.
Whoever said this has something rather highly important to say. Said post has a visible tendency to bypass everything said so far. Give it your points!
Screw that, we need Rails on Rails. Then we can port it to itself!
This is actually an advertisement for Stardock disguised as Apple fanboyism. The only paid product really indicated is the miserable dock application of the same company, which has much better and completely free alternatives. With the exception of Expose and Spaces, I'm pretty sure the author's entire range of features can be delivered by Stardock software.
I also like how they avoid mentioning that you could just crack uxtheme.dll yourself, which is what FlyAKiteOS does, and theme to your heart's content, instead opting to plug WindowBlinds, which is again inferior due to sluggishness. (The author doesn't even mention WB's one user-attracting point, which is that it themes every control, even the stuff that XP themes don't touch.)
Yes, it seems that's the only way a scheme can avoid being cracked: by being too unpopular to be cared about. I suppose, then, that the solution to making DRM feasible is to make so *many* kinds of intricate and complex DRM, one for every company, that it isn't worth it to crack a single one...
Well, no, I would say that's a simplification. OOXML is an attempt at vendor lock-in, whilst appearing to be friendly. Seriously, the point of a standard is to make it easy to implement and to make sure everyone follows it. But no one can implement all six thousand "AramaiacSmallCapsLikeWord6.2ForTheMacWhenRunningU nderSystem7.2.5" features, so only Microsoft gets to claim complete compatibility. Realistically, like PL/I was in the sixties, no one will implement it. However, it'll still be a "standard," and Microsoft will use that to force things down people's throats.
Also, if you are under the impression that this is equatable to some sort of religious or vi-vs-emacs holy war, you're quite mistaken. Look into these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
See, Billy G. and Stevie B. really, genuinely are corrupt, horrible monopolist pigs who eat babies. Why do you think that antitrust suit exists?
Maybe you should read about the actual OOXML specification before saying that kinda thing.
a ilure.htmlc ally-.html4 /
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-f
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/07/mathemati
http://www.noooxml.org/
http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/
http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_5
Read these. Then decide if you really, really believe that making this specification a standard will do anything good for the environment. The spec is simply too big and poorly-defined for anyone else to come close to implementing. If it was worth the paper it was printed on (and if you see the last link, that can be quite a lot) Microsoft wouldn't be trying to fast-track it--specifications should speak for themselves in terms of quality. Anything reasonable would have no trouble getting written into an ISO-accepted standard, no matter what company it came from.
Pop quiz: Why the hell is fast tracking with this kind of system possible? Emergency economic situations?
What percentage of you is Dan Brown, and how can we extract the other parts? o_O
I do believe Godwin disagrees with you, good sir.
Proxy, sir. Proxy.
(Preferably an anonymous one.)
Well, telecom companies have the unique property of being unreasonably bloated bureaucratic beasts with a very naughty agenda that make the 3v1l [MP|RI]AA gang look like really angry little kids throwing a temper tantrum. Indeed, pretty much all American phone companies spend their free time trying to figure out how they can squeeze out more profit--does the name "Ma Bell" and what happened to it ring any, er, bells? I think this is less "omg! liberal media bias!" and more "Yes, corporate interests really are that malicious, and they've probably got lobbyists changing the definition of common carrier status to make this all legal."
Ah, but Romero wants you to remember Daikatana. Really. http://rome.ro/games_daikatana.htm
Embrace, extend, extinguish! Or something. Only they're extinguishing and embracing at the same time--possibly 'extending' at the same time too, thanks to the EU. Maybe Gates' official Fürher status was like a timing signal... now they've gotten everything all mixed up.
Well, that's entirely different. The whole "mickey mouse gloves" thing is because the books are getting really old and delicate. I imagine photocopying some of the stuff in there could destroy it.
Yes; I have to say I was wondering if the OP and Taco had never taken basic history courses in high school. As I recall it, in WWI, normally one's commanding offer would read the letters to ensure they contained nothing naughty, but an alternate colour of envelope was provided for those who preferred their news not be seen by anyone they knew on the battlefield (I.e., mushy love letters) and would be shunted straight to the normal censors at the other end of the mail system. TBH, I always thought that *not* doing this sort of thing would be rather assymetrical and negligent.
Something says it would be more polite if Google were to close the Performics division outright and then reverse-engineer its tactics to stomp out SEO-spam companies.
At first glance of the summary, I'd hoped that was their secret do-good motive for buying DoubleClick in the first place. Alas.
What this article so nobly doesn't mention is that it's Microsoft who's stirring up all of these lobbyist groups. Snatching a link off of Google (ahem), we find:
DoubleClick: Microsoft Loses, Then Whines - http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/doubleclick_mic.h tml
Google buys DoubleClick, Microsoft protests - http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12270
Google rivals urge scrutiny of DoubleClick deal - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132983/
So, um, don't panic. The community hasn't decided Google is the antichrist; this is all astroturfing, and Yahoo and Microsoft were trying to buy DoubleClick too. ;)
He touch-typed when he sat down, and pecked when he stood up, and didn't know his password as well as his fingers did. (I.e., his memorisation of touch-typing was flawed, or his keys were offset.)
Well, er, Google's been in the hardware market for ages, at least through integrated data servers. That's how they made money before the advertising took off: http://www.google.com/enterprise/