Posts by Ian Michael Gumby 4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
When was the control link not encrypted?
Oh wait. You must be confused by the fact that someone left the video link unencrypted.
(Not that they could see the crosshairs or telemetry ...)
I can imagine it now...
"Hey Achmed, this is Abu. You know that Predator Drone thing we hacked in to? ... Well its coming down your street. You may want to get out of your house ...."
"This new Sun sales force isn’t just going to be bigger by 2,000 folks; it will be more specialized, with dedicated server reps, tape reps, and storage reps. When it comes to servers, most multi-line channel partners are happy to install whatever box makes for the easiest sale to the customer. They typically won’t make a stand on a particular brand unless they don’t have a choice… like when another partner is selling against them with the same hardware, for example."
I wonder if Oracle has thought this out.
Hardware is a commodity product with low margins.
You don't need an army to sell it, it will only force higher prices to cover the rep's salaries.
In perspective, 2,000 isn't a large number for a WW sales force.
But still, creating specialized reps may not be the best fit. Just ask IBM...
"18) WHAT IS YOUR STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE?"
That doesn't make sense. Its like asking 'what's your stance on oxygen?' or having an opinion on the color red.
Sorry, but climate change *is* a fact of life and there's historical evidence which shows that it constantly occurs.
I mean you could have answered #18 in the following manner:
A) I hate it.
B) Change is good.
C) I agree with change, but only if its for the better.
I'm sorry but if you ask a stupid open ended question, you should expect equally stupid and open ended responses.
If they had asked 'What do you think about the cause of the climate's change' then they might get a better handle on things.
I mean you could blame it on the fact that the moon is slowly moving out of orbit which is causing a slight change in the tides. Or the moon could also have an influence on the earth's magnetic sphere. This could have a greater significance on the change in climate than man made pollution. Not that I'm saying that cleaning up our environment isn't a good thing, but that jumping to conclusions based on fudged data? Not a smart thing, no?
-G
The passenger's weight didn't force the toilet to explode, it was when she flushed, the toilet exploded.
Living in Chicago, I am amazed that anyone had the guts to go in to use the toilet in the first place.
Not the most sanitary places to take a dump
I choose Paris because well, maybe it was a fetish thing gone wrong?
IBM has a lot of merit to their arguments.
Using their analogy, This is like having a technician say, 'you buy basic cable' and I'll get you the premium channels for free.
Its actually a good analogy. The whole purpose of their software is to take software applications which run using more expensive mips to run on less expensive mips.
I was surprised by their DMCA claim, but even that, on the surface, has merit.
I'm not a fan of the mainframe, and IBM does have a monopoly on the big iron. But thats like saying Terradata has a monopoly on their platforms ... ;-)
If you don't like IBM's pricing strategy, then move your jobs off the mainframe.
Either way someone is going to get paid. (Either IBM for the current solution, or the consultant(s) who migrate and rewrite your app).
Interestingly enough, for most of these legacy apps, a 2 socket 8 core Intel box has more horsepower than the machines that the apps were originally written to run.
Look,
The response Drummond should have said was 'Go take the train.' or Go buy a plane.
Its starting to slowly sink in that Google has a monopoly on searches and ad revenue.
Their business model and prices work for Google because they own the market. They can make money, lots of money off slim margins because they have such a large volume. No one can compete. They can also switch the number of ads on a page while still charging the same rate to the advertisers.
(And if you complain, what can you do?)
Google's mantra is 'do no harm', but if you're a psychopath, who doesn't know or can't distinguish 'right from wrong', at what point does your mantra and your mental state of mind clash?
The truth is that Google doesn't own the highway. Or rather they just own one of the highways.
There are others and while its incredibly expensive to build a highway which people want for free, there are other options.
I'm not saying we should all bow down and pray to the Chocolate Factory 'ghods', but that unless you (the collective governments of the Western worlds) are willing to legislate google or sue them for anti-competitive/anti-trust actions, your alternative is to build out your own super highway and cut them off.
Of course the Google el33t know this and are programatically selling off some of their stock, all in the name of portfolio diversification. Don't cry for them, they're smart and if they invest it right, they'll still be bizillionaires .
BSD == Berkeley.
Mach == CMU
Big difference.
Mach was more focused on a microkernel.
Unless of course you're going to say BSD because Mach was initially based on BSD vs ATT?
C'mon, get real.
Mach -> NeXTStep -> Mac OSX.
If you want to get down to it, all of the flavors of Unix/Linux are either BSD based or AT&T based.
Some are a bastardization of both.
And I forget the name of the OS out of MIT which was the basis for both flavors of Unix. (Multics??) Go ask Stallman, he'd know.
But to your point, Yes its not fair to criticize Apple for not contributing to Linux.
Google? If they modded an OS, it would be to their advantage to keep mum about it.
Apple, re NeXT modified the GCC compiler to grok objective-c. (Think smallTalk wrappers around C.)
Of course they put the code changes out and anyone who has a gcc compiler, has an objective-c compiler. But they don't have the class libraries which are the secret sauce. ;-)
So Apple, actually NeXT gave back because they had to.
"It would be an incredibly cynical person who would suggest that Google's sudden qualms about working in China and subsequent seeking of Hillary Clinton's protection had anything to do with a suddenly more hostile regulatory environment in Europe. ®"
It would be daft to suggest such a correlation.
The issues in Europe have long been brewing before the China fiasco.
The truth is that Google has been smug and taken a belief that they were beyond the law and that if it was good for them, then it was good for the general public. Nothing could be further than the truth.
The pineapple is for the pig whose name is google.
I'm not bashing google for the sake of being a google hater, but that Google has some serious legal and ethics problems to deal with.
"Under the laws of my country, that would be a felony: breach of the right to privacy. But no, the US step things up a notch: by now, you have to pay a fee to be processed into the country."
Actually no. This is not a felony in any country nor a breach of the right to privacy.
If you can't figure that out, then you're missing more than a few cards in your deck.
IBM is no longer run by technologists but by bean counters. (Ok, its been this way for a long time.)
The point is that the bean counters see you as your IBM Serial number and not as a person. You're not a skilled worker, but someone who can always be replaced by cheaper labor and if it make sense, they will do so.
Only when the output from the company effects their bottom line will they do something. Again, I mean that if/when the quality of service effects their overall customer satisfaction, will they do something.
At one eBU (yes I did escape the borg...) one IBMer said that things were better in the 90's and that when things get better, IBM will treat their employees better. This was ~2003. 7 years later? I guess things aren't better at IBM. (Just don't tell the bean counters who are congratulating themselves on record profits.)
Oh there are so many stories I could tell about the internals of IBM...
-G
Look at it this way, Oracle is in business to make money. They are an aggressive company with an aggressive sales force.
Having several friends who passed through the Oracle doors, at Oracle, if you don't perform, you're out. And for the most part, performance is measured by how much revenue did you generate.
Of the major software vendors, Oracle does less innovation than others. Its more of a reactive development shop or it acquires its products.
So if you're a Sun developer type and the bulk of your work is as an Open Source Contributor? Well you can expect to hear something.
If you're in sales management? Well, Oracle has sales managers...
The bottom line, anytime there's any acquisition, its an excuse to cull the herd. So any analyst which bets on job cuts, there's a good chance he's right.
Not really newsworthy and an easy prediction.
The pirate flag because its best to be a privateer. At least you know that when you work for yourself, you can always call your boss an a$$hole and not get canned for it. :-P
First, you have the issue of character/image recognition in a photo already exists.
Then you have the concept of using a camera or video device capturing an image and then having the data overlay the image.
Having said that, there's the issue of underlaying an image or blending data in to an image.
Professional Baseball does this with a Green billboard that allows networks to place their own ads, and then in American Football, statistics and line of scrimmage are embedded on the field.
With respect to the concept, see 'Virtual Light; by William Gibson, and then Japanese Anime 'Eden of the East'.
If this isn't enough to invalidate the patent, then we have a major issue with the USPTO .
Patents are both bargaining chips and are also used to protect IP (Intellectual Property).
In this case, Nokia was ahead of the curve. Sure Symbian based products are long in the tooth and not as nice as alternatives. But that's besides the point. Nokia created a lot of the tech we see today. Regardless of how well they implemented these ideas, they were implemented and they work. (Read function).
IMHO the case has merit.
Is this about suing Apple to stop Apple? More than likely not. Its a way to bring them to the table and to actually license the technology. Does Apple have technology that Nokia may want to cross license? More than likely. Frankly I don't know but its a safe bet..
With respect to Nokia, they are revamping their products. Looking at Motorola, they went how many years since Razor to actually building the Droid phone? Nokia isn't dead yet...
Clearly a lot of people shoot from the hip without understanding the facts...
You write: "6,895,256: 2003, All refers to the single-chip camera assembly, which apple purchases from what they could assume is a licensed distributor of such technology."
Uhm its a bit more than that..
From: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6895256.html
"US Patent 6895256 - Optimized camera sensor architecture for a mobile telephone" (title)
Abstract: "A mobile terminal includes a lens/filter combination, a single-chip camera module and an integrated mobile terminal processor. The lens/filter combination responds to an image, for providing an optical image signal. The single-chip camera module responds to the optical image signal, and to an integrated mobile terminal processor control signal, for performing analog image processing functions (such as correlated double sampling (CDS) and automatic gain control (AGC)) before an analog-to-digital conversion (ADC), basic sensor driving and adjustment functions (such as pixel access, timing and basic automatic exposure control), and digital input/output (I/O) functions, and providing a sensor data output signal and a single-chip camera module control bus signal. The integrated mobile terminal processor responds to the sensor data output signal, and to the single-chip camera module control bus signal, for performing camera control and data conversion functions, for providing the integrated mobile terminal processor control signal."
Apple puts a digital camera on their phone, Apple is infringing on the patent.
To make it really simple for you... Nokia patents a digital camera on a phone. They get the patent. Apple puts a camera in their iPhone. They are in violation of the patent.
You also went on to write: "6,262,735: 2001, again, Newton as prior art, let alone every touch display released prior for POS systems and more."
Had you read the patent, you'd understand that this has nothing to do with a Newton.
Here's the abstract...
"The scope of the present invention is a device and a method for the utilizing of information contained in a character-based message in a device having several different applications. In the method a character-based message is received, and the message is displayed to the user. The user is allowed to point out a position in the message, whereby a certain character combination is searched for in the message in the proximity of the position pointed out by the user. Upon finding the character combination, the usability, in one of the applications of said applications, of the character combination found in the message is recognized, and based upon the recognition a command is generated for activating said application and for using the information contained in said character combination found in the message in said application. "
This means that if you get a message like an e-mail or a sms text where someone sent you a phone number, you can scroll over and click on the phone number, then the phone automatically dials that number.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
The WTF? is for the poster who clearly doesn't understand what he reads.
Doc Spock has gotten it right so far.
The fact that if you follow the links, read the abstracts rather than rely on the Reg's reporter's comments, you'll understand why Nokia has more than enough to move forward and can probably win this. IMHO not all are going to go Nokia's way, but enough to really put the hurt on Apple.
And to that point, Android is probably next unless they've already licensed them from Nokia.
You may not like Nokia's products and thats fine. But the law is clearly on their side because they were there first.
Since this is a flame against the author... the tombstone for el Reg....
I think you have to actually go and read the patents to see why they were granted the patent. It will be very telling.... ;-)
But here's the problem that you and other apple fanbois seem to forget.
Invalidating the patent doesn't stop or solve the issue of willful infringement.
From a matter of law, the courts have to judge if/when/how Apple infringed on the patent. Not the validity.
Dude! Wake up and smell the coffee. Since when have you ever had a company turn away your order because somewhere there's a part on back order?
The fact is that Dell keeps their costs down (cause) and the quality of their service fails to meet expectations. (effect).
There's nothing new here or anything that is not to be expected.
Sorry but I've been in this industry for too many fscking years and I've seen it all from all manufacturers. One company halted shipping systems because of a defect in the hardware and new components were on back order for 4 weeks. (Ooops!)
If I were Dell and I told you I couldn't deliver and sent you away, would you call me for your next pc?
Somehow I doubt that.
Fail because you're view on the world is a tad too simplistic.
I just stated the obvious facts.
If you don't take this approach when it comes to hardware sales, you're going to go out of business anyway. The margins are thin.
The truth is that JIT does work if your suppliers hold the stock you need, and you're good at forecasting demand.
If I were Michael Dell, I'd have erred on the side of having extra hardware. The downside is that the extra hardware could have been either sold off or used for RMA/repair replacement.
I really don't understand how people can be-itch at Dell about their inability to build/deliver 'custom' boxes in time for the holidays if you don't order well in advance.
Look, here's the realities of the business.
First, margins are getting slimmer and slimmer. When you get your new machine, how many 'freebies' ie 'demo applications' are included to entice you to try and then purchase the actual program? (Dell gets paid to put these little gems on your PC by the software manufacturer.)
Dell doesn't build a standard box and then put it away in inventory for someone to buy. Dell builds each machine to order. What this does is keeps their parts inventory down and their built pc inventory down. This means that their 'holding costs' are lower.
Dell like other companies frequently use 'JIT' (Just In Time) for inventory management. That is that they track their inventory and they don't order new inventory before they need it. This also helps them keep their costs down. Besides holding costs, there are new and improved products out there. So they don't want to get caught holding stock that they don't need. Based on their past sales history and projected sales, they determine how much inventory to hold and when to order.
But here's the rub. When you have a year where the economy is in the crapper and you want to cut costs, you tend to hold off on ordering and you adjust your sales forecast lower. This means you order less parts. Unfortunately, there's always a lag time between when the order is placed and when the products are shipped and delivered. So if Dell needs more DDR3's, they need to order it 4 weeks in advance and they tend to order in large quantities. But what happens when their DDR3 supplier also uses JIT, and they also forecast lower sales? So then they reduce their inventory on hand and they delay the shipments. If the supplier is the manufacturer, then they have to make more. And that takes time. So they have a delay.
So, when there are delays, they can cascade and your pc isn't going to be built and delivered on time. And lets not forget that Dell wants your business, so they'll take the order.
There's more, but what I've posted is pretty much common sense. Yet people feel betrayed and shocked. You want the most bang for the buck and you want to spend less. Computer manufacturers have to make money so something has to give. Honestly, I'd be shocked if Dell didn't have any problems during the holidays. It would mean that either they're going to lose money or someone guessed right.
Its the same thing when people gripe that there aren't any real deals during x-mas. It means that the markets are operating efficiently so there's no surplus to sell off.
“I genuinely felt proud and excited when I was finally handed my card. I loved seeing my name, face and the words British citizen on this tiny piece of plastic. That’s who I am, and why shouldn’t anyone know?”
If El Reg reporters had any decent sense of humor, they would have equated the 'eager beaver' reporter as portraying the same character Steve Martin plays in the movie 'The Jerk'. Ok so maybe its a 'classic' because it was probably filmed before the El Reg reporter was born and I'm showing my age... :-P
The point is that there's a scene where Steve Martin jumps around in Joy because '... the new phone books are here!, the new phone books are here! ...' (Yes, before there was the internet, people relied on either calling a live operator for directory assistance, or opening up an annual publication called 'a phone book'. The character was excited because his name was in print and he was now a 'somebody' and no longer a 'nobody'.
Sure El Reg can mock the joy some people take because they now have something that establishes themselves as a 'somebody' but please at least attribute this mockery back to the comedian who first pointed this out...
Yeah I know. Mine's the winter coat as I go out for my cup of coffee. :-P
(Now ducking out before the oil cans start springing leaks.)
The point is that you may have a 'game changer' technology that doesn't yet make money. But by adding other companies that also don't make money, you can increase the value of your core product to a point which you may be able to monetize it.
Twitter has reached a critical mass where they have an established brand and mindshare. That in and of itself has value.
The implications of the purchase goes beyond what the reporter has written. ;-)
Ok, so its a 'Forrest Gumpian' statement. The point is that only in hind sight can you judge the actions of a company in terms of 'good' or 'evil'. Companies will always attempt to act in what they believe as their 'best interest'. (And that in of itself is a complex gray issue...)
The interesting thing is this comment:
"Jonathan Rosenberg acknowledges that Google's view of open is profitable. But he fails to mention this wouldn't be the case without the closed. The way he sees it, the profits come because Google is smarter than everyone else. "Open systems are chaotic and profitable," he says, "but only for those who understand them well and move faster than everyone else."
"
You have to remember that TANSTAAFL applies. Open Systems are in essence a 'free lunch' for Google because by releasing code in to the 'open' they are able to create enough of a critical mass that they can get support and development for 'free'. (Ok so they 'seed' the market so its not truly 'free'.) Google is capable of reducing their costs by 'openness' of non-essential systems which can be repurposed by other organizations/companies thus doing 'good'.
If Google sees a competitive advantage in keeping code 'in house', ie closed, they will do so. Keeping proprietary code in house is neither bad nor 'evil', so they are still true to their motto.
If you want to consider the motives of google in terms of 'good' or 'evil' then consider this comment... ' The greatest trick of the devil is to convince people that he didn't exist.' ;-)
If you believe that Google is trying to convince people that they are not always acting in their own self serving best interest, then you can say that Google is indeed acting 'evil'.
But hey! What do I know?
I'm just some guy... ;-)
Under HIPAA, if a doctor sees you in the hospital, and then you have a follow up exam in his private office, you have to fill out a permission form so that he can access his records he made while at the hospital.
That is, your medical information is segmented in to silos.
Google and Microsoft see value in creating a cloud of your and presumably everybody's information. Secure? Hardly.
Add to this Google's comments about not being concerned about HIPAA since they are not a medical company. That is, HIPAA will not apply to them.
Of course since they are asking you to provide your information.... if you're dumb enough... you waive your HIPAA rights automatically.
Any hospital or doctor's office which utilizes Google or any external database with my medical information is asking for an automatic lawsuit.
Not that I have anything to hide, just that I believe in my own personal privacy.
But hey! What do I know?
I post with an alias. ;-)
-G
The angels don't necessarily exist only in our space/time plain, but also within a different plain so that the laws of physics don't necessarily apply.
When you are a multi-dimensional being, you can do all sorts of things. The wings are there only for our viewing pleasure. ;-)
"He does not point out that Gmail and Google Apps are also a means of collecting your data."
Wow, I guess it is important to state the obvious. Google is a capitalist company. TANSTAAFL so if they offer a "free" service, then they are getting something from it.
Your e-mails are theirs to use as they like. ;-)
"Do no evil" is starting to sound like Bill Clinton when he was under oath...
IMHO they fail on the TM side because for Trademark infringement you have to show that the products are similar enough to be confused. Bing the search engine vs Bing the consulting company? Not close.
Lindows the OS vs Windows the OS? possibly.
Nexus vs Lexus as car brands? possible.
McDonalds vs McDougals for Cheeseburger Joints? Sure.
Nexus 1 vs Nexus-6? Not likely to succeed.
IMHO, but then again, IANAL so who knows...
The whole mySQL is a smoke screen.
The EU should force Oracle to spin off or divest themselves of their end user application business.
That is, they should create a completely separate company that is not controlled by Oracle or their board for their combined PeopleSoft, JDE, Oracle Financials, etc ... solutions.
Then they will be on even footing with HP and IBM.
Or they could scrub the deal and then have Cisco pick up Sun at a fire sale price. Then everyone would be happy.
With respect to MySQL, the damage is done.
Oracle doesn't need to do anything with MySQL and could drop internal support for the product.
The real danger is that Oracle now hold a complete stack from hardware to end user application.
Outside of SAP, there is no real competition when it comes to ERP packages.
So essentially you're being locked in to an Oracle based solution. Because they can now offer the entire stack, they essentially lock out the competition. SInce IBM is a major reseller of Oracle, they can make margins off the services, however even that will be short lived.
If the deal goes through, either IBM and/or HP start buying up app vendors, or you will see things get worse. Granted we're talking 10 years time before we will again have to revisit this problem when people start to realize that there is already a lack of competition.
Were Oracle stop the deal, Sun will get some money and will find another suitor.
Massive fail on all parties. No offense, but MySQL isn't the real issue. The problems go beyond that.
Moffat may be correct, yet still be guilty of passing along insider information.
To give you an example... If Moffat had drinks with someone and talked about the Sun IBM merger, he could have said ... "Its not going to happen because my division would be on the hook for X and I don't like it. ..."
If Moffat was in a position to kill the deal, and what he said was a deal breaker... He's toast.
If Moffat said ... " We looked at their server sales numbers and I don't think their hardware would be a good fit ..." Then he would have a stronger argument that he didn't provide material information and violated rule FD ... etc ...
The point is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that material information was passed. (Moffat will ask for a jury trial if he's smart...)
The simple truth that conversations took place, based on the conversations, the traders placed trades and made money. Traders were then recorded boasting about their 'insider' information.
While its easy to connect the dots, and draw a conclusion, proving it in a court of law is a bit more difficult.
Think of BIll Clinton saying "I didn't lie, its how you define the meaning of the word 'is' ..."
;-) [Bad paraphrasing but you get the idea.]
The problem is that IBM is a huge company. Did Moffat provide 'material' information or just information.
Suppose I told you that IBM's Software Group's Information Management will do xxx in the next quarter. (And I mean I gave you the specific numbers and percentages) Does that mean that I gave you 'material' information? Most likely not. IBM Software group has 5 pillars (Tivoli, Websphere, Rational, Information Mangement, and Lotus) Then there's the hardware division and Global Services (IGS/BCS whatever they're calling themselves these days.)
Information Management could have had a 'killer' quarter, yet if IGS's revenues fell off the cliff, then knowing what Information Management did doesn't have an impact on IBM's overall numbers and report to the street.
So you would have confidential access to information, yet it was not enough to meet the standard of 'material information'.
Having said that. Moffat ran 1 division and had access to the other division's numbers. He knows material information. He has a defense, but only a jury could tell you if its good enough.
We don't know what was said or what evidence will be presented.
Only time will tell.
Evil Balmer because frankly anyone who reaches Moffat or Mills' level within IBM had to have screwed some people over and sold their soul. (Gee does it sound like I worked for IBM? ;-)
But hey! What do I know?
-G
Oh shut up about hating taxes. Sure no one likes to pay them, but they just like the services provided using these funds.
This is actually a good thing because its not like BT is going to pay a tax (which gets passed on to the consumer) but also broadband and cellular too. All of telco is taking a hit which means its a smaller increment on you.
While I agree that the US is getting pushed on by their lobbyists and shouldn't get involved in the EU thing, I take offense to your 'barriers' comment.
How about the EU drop their barriers to letting US contractors work in the UK?
I mean the rules for consideration are UK , EU, then the rest of the world. Meaning that I must possess some specific skill that you can't find in the UK or the EU.
Unlike the US where anyone with a sponsor can get an H1B visa, regardless of their skill set....
The point is, the world isn't perfect and you need to see things from the other person's point of view.
BTW, we a Nuclear Super Power, have to contract with the French on how to build equipment for nuclear power plants. So where's the trade barrier in that?
Look, the guy is really smart. I mean really smart. At the same level Stallman is. However both are a bit kooky in that they don't really live in the real world.
Eric probably doesn't care if you knew his surfing habits. I mean he doesn't hit porn sites, or even Page 3. To him, the internet is still a place where he surfs more technical stuff and maybe some online shopping for gadgets.
Of course, on the flip side, he realizes the amount of money he and his company can make from sheep.
You're the sheep.
He may not mind the ads, now 'web 2.0ified' where they flash and jump around, sucking more bandwidth as they transfer, more cpu as they automatically play.
He's fallen in to the trap that everything else is crap except what *I* want to sell you. I mean it interests me, therefore it should interest you.
Or more to the point.... Sure you find those flash ads annoying. But you'd find them less annoying if they were for something that you actually wanted. Of course he's failing to consider that you really don't want those porn site ads flashing up on your work screen in the middle of the day.
The fact is that Eric has both an agenda and is naive about real people. So please be more polite when you tell the wanker to piss off!
But hey! What do I know?
I tend to post shite with an alias...
-G
Big Brother black copter because they are watching you.
You think the F3 is tough, had an F1 fall from a table ~42" land on its head.
Had a dent in it, but other than the cosmetic dent, it still works like a charm.
Now try that with any of the newer cameras.
A hand grenade because thats how tough Nikon products are.
BTW, while you could modify your old bayonet mounts, not worth the price.
"This, combined with the magnesium alloy chassis, makes the D300s reminiscent of some of those tanks like the F3, from a bygone film age."
Actually I used to shoot with an F1 and then the EL and ELW.
Considering what it will cost to actually process film, I'll gladly take the digital cameras any day.
As to the other poster talking about using your old lenses. More than likely not.
It depends on how old your lenses are.
"The changes are designed to ensure Microsoft complies with competitive laws in the European Union and - having been found to have flouted them - avoid further, hefty fines. Microsoft has so-far been find $2.5bn (1.68 billion euros) for breaking European antitrust law."
How much will anyone bet that Microsoft will argue, beg, plead to reduce the fines. The lower the fines, the more likely that Microsoft would have come out ahead by flaunting the laws as they made money.
Looks like a phone to me...
http://www.nokiausa.com/find-products/phones/nokia-n900/specifications
"Operating Frequency
* Optimized for WCDMA 900/1700/2100
* Quad-band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
* Optimized for 3G networks on WCDMA 900/1700/2100 Quad-band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
"
H8tr
I have the E90 now and while the article said that there were some differences in some of the tools, one thing I found missing was the voice active command.
I think that this would be an important feature if you you wanted to pair this with a blue tooth head set.
Nokia makes one that has caller id, so you can see who's calling you without having to search for the phone.
The idea is that you carry the ear piece with you in an accessible place, or in your ear if you enjoy having something stuck in your ear all day... Then when the phone rings, you can see who it is and answer. If you want to make a call you can just speak your command and it will dial the number.
Also what about the video phone calling? Did they also allow the smaller camera to be used with some form of Wi-fi IM tools?
Thx
A black hole isn't the absence of particles but the incredible density of particles that they cause a warp in the fabric of time/space.
So if your theory holds true, then it would be the rush of all the particles in the known universe flocking towards it which causes the massive black hole with the Earth in the center.
In order to save the earth, we need to find a really good tailor who can repair the rip in fabric of space time.
The point is that if you take all the web based watanabe one hit wonder companies that base their start ups using MySQL, then some grow, Oracle would be able to give them a path to Oracle's products.
Again, the EU missed the point. Oracle represents a dominant force by becoming a company able to deliver the *entire* stack from hardware through to the actual end application.
IBM and HP both stopped short of that.
If the goal is to really allow and promote competition, then Oracle would be better controlled by splitting off their end user applications , meaning their ERP solutions. Oracle Financials, PeopleSoft, JDEdwards, etc all in a separate company. Then Oracle would be limited to hardware, software (infrastructure) and services and would be on the same playing field as IBM and HP, thus competition is preserved.
The whole MySQL is nothing more than a show of power and a fatal mistake on the part of the EU.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
