×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Former iTunes Engineer Tells Court He Worked To Block Competitors

UnknowingFool Re:Wait, what? (161 comments)

Obviously, since those two terms are exactly the same, but this did not circumvent DRM. Perhaps you need to explain what you think that term means because all of the digital rights management was preserved, not circumvented.

I don't think you know what ,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management">DRM means.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a class of technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale; there are, however, many competing definitions. With first-generation DRM software, the intent is to control copying; with second-generation DRM, the intent is to control executing, viewing, copying, printing, and altering of works or devices. The term is also sometimes referred to as copy protection, copy prevention, and copy control, although the correctness of apply DRM is in dispute.

How can DRM be preserved if the there was loss of control?

Oh right yes and if you dont like Microsoft having proprietary APIs in Windows you should just build your own operating system. It is the same anti-competitive behavior and the same dirty tactics, but they may be able to get away with it if they can prove they didnt have market power.

Now it is not. You are aware that everyone including MS did exactly as Apple did; build their own system. And how many different OS did Dell sell on their PCs? Only Windows. Apple to oranges. Having market power != monopoly.

It makes perfect sense to any person but an Apple apologist! The formats were fine, it was Apple's DRM layer that was the problem. Real allowed users to play music and maintained the DRM required by the publishers, Apple just didn't like that there was another competitor.

The standard for music still is MP3 and AAC, not Harmony, not FairPlay. Apple does not have to support another company's DRM. In cars there are standards for oil; although some cars and models use specialized blends. If Ford accepts 5W30 and their own blend for their cars, your point is that Ford must also accept GM's blend. That is ludicrous.

Wrong, there is no "standard" but Apple controlled the digital music market with iTunes+iPod so whatever they used was the defacto standard and they prevented any other companies from inter-operating. This is anti-competitive.

Assertion without fact or evidence. The vast majority of music was MP3. Even now most players default to this although AAC is starting to become more accepted. The fact that you could put any MP3 or AAC song onto an Apple device and play it defeats your silly anti-competitive argument.

3 days ago
top

How Birds Lost Their Teeth

UnknowingFool Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (138 comments)

Teeth or Beaks are binary in nature, we don't see any creatures with both. Your rant about binary nature is flawed, because while nature isn't binary, sometimes the results are.

You are aware that chicks have teeth right? It's how they break out of their eggs. They lose their tooth quickly after being hatched but they do have teeth for a short period. As for them not having teeth generally, this evidence shows they lost their teeth over millions and millions of years. I'm not sure where you get the idea of "temporary."

As for rants, keep stating that A must become B. That's not nature. A can still remain as A while a population of A becomes C. That's how most species evolve. You never did answer the question: Are whales half fish? Aren't they AB in your book? What about dogs? They are subspecies of wolves yet you never seen a wolf the size of a chihuahua. Yet dogs and wolves can still mate. This doesn't even encompass the many transitional forms found in fossils.

3 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:Deals? (191 comments)

For the most part Apple does what they always do: they work to make things easy for the consumer. Before Apple, you could buy music online. The sites were terrible to navigate and sometimes it wasn't even easy to pay. Pricing was ludicrous. Then you had to get your music software to authorize and then sync it to your device. PlaysForSure was almost an ironic name back then.

So here comes Apple: Consumers use iTunes for everything. payment, navigation, downloading are all integrated. All songs are the same price. Syncing your iPod was seamless. It's no small wonder that people were throwing their money at Apple as Apple made it ridiculously easy to buy music.

4 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:Huh? (191 comments)

So Apple can automagically remove all DRM from music you owned? What thinks Apple has the right to do so? As for existing DRM music they will continue to work; you could strip them manually if you want if you want to transcode from one lossy format to another. Or you could pay the music companies an additional fee to strip it and upgrade your music to a higher bit rate. I personally avoided DRM as much as possible so my upgrade price was a few dollars when the time came to remove it.

4 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:I'm shocked. (191 comments)

Microsoft's software stack is proprietary yet they got pinged for private APIs (which Apple does) and for bundling a web browser (which Apple does). It is the same anti-competitive behavior but Apple gets away with those dirty tactics because they dont technically have a monopoly.

You seem to miss some relevant details. First of all, Apple's browser can be removed. MS argued that they couldn't remove IE or it would break Windows. Second, the core components of Apple's browser was built on open source. Chrome is built on these components. How anti-competitive is it to not only choose open source for their browser but release additional parts beyond what was mandated by the license (JavaScriptCore and WebCore)? And you call those tactics "dirty"?

4 days ago
top

NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower

UnknowingFool Re:Quoted from TFA (200 comments)

Yes it was. People who didn't know about are OUTRAGED! They are outraged at NASA two years later for a problem that was fully disclosed and really was not their fault.

4 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:Good for consumers? (191 comments)

Then every device is bad for customers by your logic

4 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:Good for consumers? (191 comments)

When bypassing the DRM involved breaking the security of a device, that's bad for consumers.

4 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:Yes this is Terrible. (191 comments)

And when Apple removed DRM from their music in 2009, you were cheering, no?

4 days ago
top

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

UnknowingFool Re:Huh? (191 comments)

Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?

Waned in popularity != never use. Today music streaming is more normal for teens and young adults.

4 days ago
top

NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower

UnknowingFool Re:Quoted from TFA (200 comments)

And you 100% they didn't?

Since then, it’s spent an additional $57 million to keep building it, according to a February 2013 report by the agency’s inspector general, Paul Martin. Testifying before the House space subcommittee in September, Martin highlighted the A-3 as an example of how lawmakers, looking to keep federal dollars flowing to their states, can block efforts to cut unnecessary spending. “The political context in which NASA operates often impedes its efforts to reduce infrastructure,” he said."

This was reported by BusinessWeek almost a year ago.

4 days ago
top

How Birds Lost Their Teeth

UnknowingFool Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (138 comments)

Animals have A or B, but AB is not evolutionary advantageous to survive.

Your binary thinking is a major flaw in your thinking. Nature is not necessarily binary and you asserting AB is not advantageous without evidence. There are many examples of gradients like the fact that humans have remnants of a third eyelid. Transitional forms are not AB entirely.

This is not goal, it is a simple statement of what exists. The explanation is that A moves to B along an evolutionary line, where none of the AB survive long term.

Again, what? You are stating as a fact that none of AB survive long term. You don't know that. The fossil record clearly shows that transitional forms have existed and do exist like the giant panda..

This is a result, not a goal. Further evidenced by lack of any animals that progressed from B back to A (result, not goal).

Again stating something as fact when the fossil record says otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between goal and result?

Do you? All your arguments are about A marching towards B. That is not how evolution works.

Evolution is all about results of traits towards viability.

Again this is flawed understanding of evolution. You keep stating using the term "results" when you mean goals. There are no goals in evolution. There are no results in viability. A species is viable if it lives.

Viability is the "goal" ;)

You just contradicted yourself

In my sentance, I clearly show that A progress towards B in such a way that AB doesn't remain behind.

Again evolution is not a ladder from A to B with AB in the middle. There could be C, D, E, F, and G which all are in between and become their own species.

That is a result, not a goal.

You contradicted yourself above.

The viability of AB is what I am questioning, since there is no such thing long term. Viability of half stages is in question.

Again your binary thinking is frustrating. Everything is not 1/2 steps. Again dolphins and whales are not half fish.

A mutates and starts progressing towards B, it either stops and reverts at some point, staying A or it continues to B. However, the AB stage is temporary, thus indicating long term viability of AB is limited if it exists

What? Your understanding of evolution is highly flawed. A is not mutating towards B as some sort of goal. A will mutate. B may eventually come out of it. Any steps in between isn't temporary if it lasts millions of years. C, D, and E could result. That is what is in the fossil record. See cats. See dolphins.

The Term Superiority is one of resultant progression. As far as I know, B never revered back to A

AGAIN, B is not the end goal. "Superiority" is a judgement. There is no such thing as reverting back because evolution always takes place. Take for example the cheetah. By your logic, the cheetah must be faster to keep evolving. That is not understanding of evolution. They cheetah could evolve to become a longer distance runner or ambush by stealth like jaguars. You cannot say that either method of killing is better.

Dogs and wolves are both Canines, and not enough differences exist to support your hypothesis.

No, dogs descended from wolves. The DNA proves it. Unless you are serious denial of facts (which at this point I don't doubt). And my hypothesis is not a hypothesis; it is a fact that wolves had advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs.

I've seen tamed wolves and wild dogs, to the point where the wild dogs were more dangerous to humans than tamed wolves.

If you want to keep a tame wolf around your family, then you are an idiot. As for dogs being tamed by humans, please don't conflate the subject. Wild dogs are not tamed and you know it.

5 days ago
top

How Birds Lost Their Teeth

UnknowingFool Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (138 comments)

The problem I see with many people is that they see evolution as binary. Everything must be an advantage to be passed on and that mutations are bad. No, mutations are normal with some providing advantages and some are disadvantages. And as you pointed out, some traits have no effect whatsoever. Other traits appear to be a disadvantage or an advantage given the right environment. Fair skin, for example, is advantage in places like Norway where more vitamin D is produced with less light. It is a terrible disadvantage in places of high sunlight like the Sahara, American Southwest, etc.

And some traits are both an advantage and disadvantage like sickle cell anemia. It cuts the lifespan by years and is painful to deal with. However genetically it provides those with the genes an advantage when it comes to malaria which can cause death.

5 days ago
top

How Birds Lost Their Teeth

UnknowingFool Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (138 comments)

Evolution is results driven, not goal driven that is true. Now figure out how the results of two partial stages has an advantage over surviving that doesn't last for any length of time.

Again, evolution is not goal driven. Your second sentence contradicts your first admission. A trait survives when it provides or benefit or is neutral. You keep forgetting a trait that provides no advantage can be passed. The issue is really if a trait that proves to be a disadvantage affects a species ability to procreate.

No animals have A and B, but somehow we are supposed to believe that animals having A/B existed and had enough advantage to beat out those having A, on their way to having B, but the A/B didn't beat out those who ended up B only.

I can take from your long-winded and illogical sentence that you're never seen a dolphin or whale in your life? ,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea">Cetaceans are water animals yet they breathe air. Again, you keep insisting goal driven results of advantages.

This would indicate that B is evolutionary superior(advantageous) to A, such that many animals starting at A, and developing B, ended up at B, while completely replacing the A/B combinations.

Again, evolution is not goal driven. You keep insisting that B must be "superior" to A will surely mean that all As dies. In many ways dogs are "superior" to wolves but yet wolves still exist. They exist because "superior" is a judgement not science. Wolves have advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs. One of the main disadvantages is that dogs can live with humans whereas wolves cannot; however, wolves are much better suited to living in the wild than dogs.

5 days ago
top

Apple and Samsung Already Working On A9 Processor

UnknowingFool Re:Reminds me of my brother/sister in law (114 comments)

Well that would be true if Apple decided to be exclusive with Samsung. Apple has contracted TMSC for other chips. Right now Samsung is one of the few companies that can make the chips Apple wants. Apple is treating Samsung more like a supplier than a partner. As such they are less dependent on them than in the past.

5 days ago
top

Apple and Samsung Already Working On A9 Processor

UnknowingFool Re:Really.. (114 comments)

Because counterfeiting something as complicated as a chip like the A9 will not be easy. Yes a Chinese company can get a sample of one and analyze all the structures. Making a chip will be harder as chip foundries are not easy to build. It would have been far easier if Apple contracted out a Chinese company to make their chips and then that company sold "defective" ones to counterfeiters.

5 days ago
top

How Birds Lost Their Teeth

UnknowingFool Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (138 comments)

The problem with macro evolution is the inherent issues with the "in between" stages that are mostly useless, being neither good for one thing they are coming from or good for the thing they are changing into.

That seems like eerily familiar with the creationist concept of irreducibility which is considered to be a flawed concept. Two things to remember is that evolution is not goal driven and exaptation has been demonstrated countless times.

5 days ago
top

Former iTunes Engineer Tells Court He Worked To Block Competitors

UnknowingFool Re:Wait, what? (161 comments)

Because it enabled you to play Helix DRM files on the iPod. The DRM was still there.

Er what? Circumventing DRM is still circumventing DRM. I think you assume that removing DRM is the only violation of the DMCA; it is not.

But the music industry didnt want Real selling non-DRM mp3s just like they didnt want Apple doing it so Real had to sell DRM ones but make them compatible with iPods

Which makes it then Real Player's issue to either build their own player then not hack Apple's system. To be fair the music industry wanted everyone to have incompatible ones so that everyone has to buy multiple copies.

Which is play music from which Apple didn't get a cut of the purchase price. But from the user's perspective it is to PLAY MUSIC and from the perspective of the music industry that that music is copy-protected. Real accomplished the latter 2 but Apple didnt want to have to compete with Real so they worked to block Real music from working on iPods

This makes no sense at all. From the user's perspective any device has to play music formats and not all formats are compatible. But the standard at the time is not Harmony, not Fairplay but MP3.

5 days ago
top

Former iTunes Engineer Tells Court He Worked To Block Competitors

UnknowingFool Re:Wait, what? (161 comments)

By default OS X groups windows by application, so if I have 5 terminals open (quite common) it's a pain to find the one I want. Similarly the lack of multiple desktops is a pain. I'm sure there's a way to change both these things (I've installed stuff for multiple desktops before) but it's not as easy as I've found in Linux.

Er, what? So you don't know how to use Expose and Spaces is Apple's fault.

Plus the application management systems like ports and fink have fewer packages and aren't as well integrated into the system.

And that is a problem with all Linux and Unix. Not every package is integrated.

Then go to the store, but a Toshiba laptop, and install OS X on it.

http://www.tonymacx86.com/laptop-compatibility/106791-laptop-compatibility.html

about a week ago

Submissions

top

Apple DRM lawsuit loses last plaintiff; judge rules against dismissal

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about two weeks ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "In the Apple DRM lawsuit, the last plaintiff in the case has been disqualified but due to the number of potential consumers affected, the judge has denied Apple's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs' lawyers will have to find a qualified plaintiff. To recap, the suit lost both plaintiffs in the last week when Apple reported to the judge that their iPods were not eligible (iPods must be purchased between Sept 2006 and May 2009). The first plaintiff withdrew when all her iPods were found to be outside the time period. The second plaintiff produced one iPod that was not eligible but two others that were eligible; however, Apple challenged the two eligible ones as the plaintiff could not prove she purchased them. They were purchased by her ex-husband's law firm. With one of the main claims of suit being that the price of the iPod was raised due to Apple's actions it was important to establish that she purchased them.

At the heart of the case is that Apple's use of DRM harmed customers by raising the price of the iPod and that Apple removed other competitor's music from the iPod namely RealPlayer's Harmony music files. Apple does not dispute that it removed RealPlayer's files but contends it was done for security reasons as RealPlayer was able to get the music files onto the iPod by posing as Apple FairPlay files. In testimony, Steve Jobs called RealPlayer's move "a hack" and there was considerable discussion at the time."

Link to Original Source
top

iPod DRM lawsuit might be dismissed: Plaintiffs didn't own affected iPods

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about two weeks ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "The lawsuit involving Apple and iTunes DRM may be thrown out because the plaintiffs did not own the iPods for which they are suing. The lawsuit covers iPods for the time period between September of 2006 and March of 2009. When Apple checked the serial numbers of the iPods of the plaintiffs, it appears they were not manufactured during this time. One plaintiff did purchase an iPod in 2005 and in 2010 and has withdrawn from the suit. The second plaintiff's iPod was manufactured in July 2009 but claims purchasing another iPod in 2008. Since the two plaintiffs were the only ones in the suit, the case may be dismissed for lack of standing."
Link to Original Source
top

Microsoft shows off Windows 10

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about 3 months ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Today Microsoft unveiled the next version of their OS but it will be called Windows 10 instead of 9. No reason on the skip in version numbers but Microsoft hasn't been known for their consistent naming conventions before. Windows 10 will be "mobile-first, cloud-first world" and operate both tablets and desktops. Some considerations however have been given for desktop users with Windows 7 type features. Also a feature called Continuum will change the UI depending if the user is in desktop mode or tablet mode. It is due to be released in spring 2015"
Link to Original Source
top

Supreme Court rules for and against EPA on greenhouse gases

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about 6 months ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court also ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact the most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA."
Link to Original Source
top

MS to sell Xbox One without Kinect and separate Apps from Live Gold

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about 7 months ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Starting June 9, MS will offer a $399 Xbox One that will not be come with a Kinect peripheral. Many fans wanted the Kinect optional as they did not feel the need for it. Additionally streaming apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus, YouTube and HBO Go will no longer require a Live Gold subscription. There are some apps like Game DVR that will require Live Gold."
Link to Original Source
top

Supreme Court makes it easier to get lawyers fees in patent cases

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about 8 months ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "In a pair of unanimous rulings yesterday, the Supreme Court made it easier for defendants in patent cases to collect attorneys fees if the litigation was frivolous. In the first case, Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness , the court ruled that a standard used by lower courts to award attorney's fees was impossible to meet. The original standard under Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc. had ruled that a claim had to be both “objectively baseless” and “brought in subjective bad faith” before fees could be awarded. The high court ruled that fees should be awarded merely when the case is “exceptional” and not when the defendant must prove there was zero merit.

In the second case, Highmark v. Allcare Health Management , the Supreme Court also noted the “exceptional” standard in reversing the appellate court's decision but specifically ruled that appellate courts should give more deference to the lower courts on rulings of fact. In Highmark, the district court found that Allcare had engaged in a pattern of “vexatious” and “deceitful” conduct throughout the litigation and awarded fees. The appellate court while agreeing with the lower court about part of the case reversed the fees in their de novo review of the case. In de novo reviews, the court case is essentially retried with the higher court. The Supreme Court iterated that de novo reviews should be done typically for “questions of law” and reviews on “questions of fact” are done if there are clear errors with decisions on matters of discretion “reviewable for ‘abuse of discretion.’” In other words, the appellate courts can review a case if a lower court has not correctly interpreted law; however, they should not retry a lower case on facts unless the lower court made a clear error. Also unless the lower court abused their power in some way, the appellate court should not review their final decisions.

For example, if a person is tried for murder, an appellate court could rule that a district court misinterpreted a statute about sentencing if the person if found guilty. The appellate court should not retry the facts of the case unless the lower court had made a clear error like ruling that there was a DNA match when there was not. Also an appellate court should not reverse the lower court if they sentenced the person to a reasonable time. Now if the district court sentenced the person to 400 years for one murder, then the appellate court should intervene.

In effect the two rulings make it easier for companies to recover money should they be sued in frivolous patent lawsuits. This would make the risks greater for those who sue."

Link to Original Source
top

GM announces first female CEO Mary Barra

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  1 year,10 days

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Right after the US Treasury Department sold off its last stake in GM, two surprises followed . First, CEO Dan Akerson announced his retirement, and the board chose long-time employee Mary Barra as his replacement as GM's first female CEO. While there will be comparisons to Carly Fiorina because of gender, there are major differences between the two situations. Barra has been with GM for 33 years and started working as a university co-op student while Fiorina was hired from Lucent. Barra started out as a plant engineer before completing her MBA and rising through the ranks to varied positions like plant manager, head of HR, and senior vice president of global product development while Fiorina was always in management."
Link to Original Source
top

SCOTUS agrees to hear case to clarify software patents

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  1 year,14 days

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "The Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International to help establish clearer guidelines on what may be patented in software. The case involves Alice Corporation who holds four patents originating in the 1990s of which was for "a computerized system for creating and exchanging financial instruments such as derivatives." These patents were challenged by CLS Bank International in 2007. The district court ruled summarily for CLS in that none of patents were valid. The Federal Circuit initially reversed the lower court; however, the full panel (en banc) voted (7 out of 10) to affirm the district court but also issued 5 separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

This confusion was noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its amicus brief:

" . . . the Federal Circuit has failed to implement a workable standard—or, frankly, any standard at all—as to what computer- and Internet-implemented inventions are patentable. The resulting legal instability has driven up the already-ballooning costs of patent litigation . . ."

In my opinion, it appears that main patent simply added "on the computer" to an existing process, namely in an business transaction between two parties, there is a third party that ensures that payment is made and is facilitated. The computer made the transaction faster and more automated as noted by Judge Lourie in his opinion.

“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.

"

Link to Original Source
top

US FDA moves to ban trans fat

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Citing growing health concerns about trans fat, the FDA today proposed measures to eliminate it from the US food supply. While trans fat can still be used, the new measures now place the burden on food processors to justify the inclusion of it in a food product as experts have maintained that there is no safe level of consumption and no health benefits. Since 2006, the amount of trans far eaten by the average American has declined from 4.5g per serving to less than 1g as restaurants and the food industry have reduced their use of it. There will be a 60 day public comment period for the new proposal."
Link to Original Source
top

Blockbuster to close remaining US locations

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Blockbuster announced that it will close its remaining 300 US locations by January and discontinue the DVD by mail service. Before being bought out by Dish, the chain was slowly closing locations. From an all time high of 9,000 locations in 2004, the chain has fallen on hard times and had emerged from bankruptcy in 2011."
Link to Original Source
top

Blackberry ends attempts to sell itself, will replace CEO

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Blackberry has announced it will no longer sell itself and will attempt to raise $1B from investors and shareholders. Also CEO Thorston Heins will leave in two weeks, replaced by John Chen, former CEO of Sybase. This is the second change in leadership in the last two years as Blackerry's finances have struggled against the rise of Apple and Android smartphones."
Link to Original Source
top

Windows 8.1 for RT update pulled from Windows store

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "After reports of update problems including bricking of some devices, Microsoft has pulled the 8.1 update for RT from their store while they investigate.



"Microsoft is investigating a situation affecting a limited number of users updating their Windows RT devices to Windows RT 8.1. As a result, we have temporarily removed the Windows RT 8.1 update from the Windows Store. We are working to resolve the situation as quickly as possible and apologize for any inconvenience. We will provide updates as they become available"

While update problems are not new to software, could this be a consequence of MS not releasing 8.1 RTM to developers? Developers may have experienced problems earlier and alerted MS before it went live."
Link to Original Source

top

Yale "Freakonomics" professor: Bing is not preferred 2:1 as Microsoft claims

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "In 2009, Microsoft launched a national TV and print advertising campaign for Bing claiming that their study showed that it was preferred 2 to 1 over Google in search results in a head-to-head challenge reminiscent of the Pepsi challenges from the 1980s. MS then invited consumers to take their own test at www.bingiton.com.

Yale law professor Ian Ayres (of Freakonomics fame) and his law students published a paper On their study that found that Google was preferred over Bing 53% to 41% with 6% ties. This was far from the 2:1 ratio MS claimed. Professor Ayres matched the small sample size (1000 people). Although the commercials gives the impression that the results of the MS was a head-to-head street challenge, the results came from a online study MS commissioned through Answer Research.

Noted differences between the two studies was that the Yale study randomly assigned the user one of three different sets of searches: 1) Bing supplied searches, 2) top 25 web searches, or 3) user defined searches. One Bing searches the results were almost the same but users preferred Google in the other two sets. Another main difference is that MS has not published the methodology used or tracked individual user responses.

Legally, one conclusion of the study was that Google might have a deceptive advertising suit against Microsoft."

Link to Original Source
top

Surface Pro 2 and Surface 2: With new kickstand!

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "For consumers who had hoped that Microsoft would greatly upgrade their recent entries into the tablet market, leaks and rumors have said that both machines will receive modest hardware changes. Surface Pro 2 will sport new Haswell processors which will increase battery life to 7 hours. RAM is expected to increase from 4GB to 8GB. Surface (formerly RT) will get Tegra 4 processors. The only other confirmed change will be new kickstands that have 2 positions instead of one."
Link to Original Source
top

Parallels for iPad: Game Changer for Productivity?

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "While the iPad has been a tranformative tool for consumers and businesses, it suffers in productivity due to the focus of the device more on the consumption side than the productivity side. This gap may be bridged with a new app by virtualization software maker Parallels, Inc. called Parallels for iPad. Unlike Parallels for Mac, this program does not simply add hardware virtualization to run other OSs like Windows, Linux, etc. Instead this software installed on a desktop and iPad will act a server/client to an iPad so that the iPad can run "applified" versions of desktop software like Word, Excel, etc.

What this means is that users can now run productivity software from their desktops on their iPads. While the effectiveness using a touch GUI with applications not designed for touch has not been demonstrated, Parallels says that Parallels with translate the touch UI interactions into desktop ones. Some writers say this spells bad news for Microsoft and others. Users will not need to buy mobile app versions of their software. These are downsides to the app. First the $79.99/yr price tag. Second it requires a constant Internet connection so airplane mode is not likely possible."

Link to Original Source
top

Xbox One launch delayed in 8 countries

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "At E3, Microsoft announced plans to launch the Xbox One in 21 countries in November. Now MS has announced that launch in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland will be delayed to 2014. Countries that are still scheduled for November release are Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Spain, United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand. MS has not announced a new launch date only that it would be available "as soon as possible". It seems to me that consumers in Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, and Switzerland can just cross the border into a neighboring country and get the Xbox One if they wanted."
Link to Original Source
top

Microsoft: Xbox One will no longer require Kinect to function

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Microsoft has reversed course on another aspect of the Xbox One. Though the console will come bundled with a Kinect sensor, the console will work without it. Critics were had suggested that an always-on video and audio sensor could be used to spy on users. This is the latest reversal from Microsoft since the E3 unveil."
Link to Original Source
top

Windows 8.1 To Be Relased Mid-October

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "According to sources, Microsoft will release 8.1 to the public in mid-October. For those that don't know 8.1 will attempt to correct many of the issues with Windows 8. Some issues like the Start button have not been really addressed in the minds of many here on Slashdot. The release puts Windows 8.1 in time for the holiday season."
Link to Original Source
top

Latest SCO Claim: Novell decision "has no bearing" on remaining case

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "In June 2013, Judge David Nuffer allowed SCO v IBM to continue after a long delay due to SCO's bankruptcy proceedings. He asked that SCO to file a brief on which claims were closed by the Novell judgement where Novell was found to be the owner of UNIX and UNIX copyrights. SCO filed its brief titled: "Proposed Judgment Dismissing SCO's Claims Mooted by the Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell" where they listed three claims where the Novell decision "has no bearing":
  • VI: Unfair Competition where IBM is accused to undermining and destroying UNIX and harming SCO in Project Monterrey by giving to Linux "SCO’s valuable [UNIX] source code"
  • VII: Interference with Contract where IBM supposedly encouraged others to develop Linux by reverse engineering, modifying, and creating derivative works of UNIX
  • IX: Interference with Business Relationships where IBM discouraged others from doing business with SCO. (I believe SCO suing everyone did that).

IBM not only responded that there were no claims left, they objected to the term "mooted" as IBM points out: "The claims are not moot; they are barred under principles of issue preclusion (or collateral estoppel)." From my understanding, "moot" means unsettled but unimportant which IBM points out that the claims were decided and SCO cannot re-litigate them again. IBM also points out in that Project Monterrey in VI was not a "joint venture" as SCO describes it."
Link to Original Source

top

NVidia CEO: We are working on next generation Surface

UnknowingFool UnknowingFool writes  |  about a year ago

UnknowingFool (672806) writes "CEO Jen-Hsun Huang has told CNET that NVidia is working with Microsoft on the next generation of Surface tablets. While sales of the first generation have been poor, Huang believes the second generation will be more successful with the inclusion of Outlook."
Link to Original Source

Journals

UnknowingFool has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?