104 posts • joined Thursday 17th June 2010 20:18 GMT
Re: Just a little point.
Unfortunately many people fail to see a very simple point: ad networks will never support any kind of agreement that prevents them from tracking/exploiting/monetizing the majority of the Internet users, at least unless state legislations (those of the US and the EU in particular) force them to do otherwise, and that's unlikely to happen in the near future. Thus, DNT being "on" by default in any major browser doomed the standard immediately.
It's always been about the inexperienced, the uninformed or the plain ignorant. Why do you think, when submitting a registration to a forum or site, the checkbox that allows people to spam you with their useless newsletter is always, ALWAYS checked by default? Most people currently either don't know or don't care about tracking, and this is the major reason why you even have the possibility to opt-out from services such as Google Now at all.
We are allowed to make a choice because most users do not bother. No, that's not a good thing at all, but a lot more fundamental change would be needed in the financial model of Internet companies today to allow things to be done differently. A simple request header will not do much.
DNT is already dead, sadly
Since IE has it on by default, no ad provider can or will take it seriously. Well done Microsoft, something tells me this was your intention from the start. :(
What happened to the brave new plugin-less HTML5 world? Does this mean that Apple and Microsoft will do a 180 degrees turn on their current mobile/TIFKAM browser policies? And let's not get started on the potential problems caused by the numerous platforms one can use to access web content today... Will DRM plugins be ported to all platforms? Android? iOS? Linux...? I highly doubt it.
Either I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something here, or this DRM proposal goes against each and every trend on the web today, a fact that becomes even more baffling when one looks at the companies pushing for it.
I simply cannot fathom why they enforce this ridiculous restriction. A full upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 should be no more difficult than an upgrade from Window 7 to Windows 8. The system did not change all that much.
I guess I'll be able to get around it the same way I upgraded my XP machine to Win7 (by first upgrading to Vista as an intermediate step), but knowing this I'm even less eager to do so than before.
It gets even better:
Apparently, MS is forcing manufacturers to include TPM 2.0 into their products if they want to be "Windows 8.1 certified", starting from 2015. Good luck finding a new PC without a working TPM afterwards.
I usually regard myself as a conservative IT guy who still likes doing most things on a good old PC, but if this really is the future of X86/X64, I will seriously consider switching to some different architecture when my current machine breaks down. Damn the inconveniences.
How about Start8? Stardock would jump at the opportunity and license it to Lenovo for a fraction of the cost. Or if you don't want to pay a penny, who not Classic Shell? Why does even a sensible move like this end up as just another piece of crapware to uninstall? Why, why, WHY?
Is this still going on?
I thought/hoped they might have finally given up on the whole gTLD thing after one blunder too many...
Such old-fashioned thinking
No gloves? That's what force fields are for, my good friend. You have to think big! Mars Explorer Barbie will be for women's spacewear what Minority Report was for user interaction! We are given a glimpse to a most glorious future! (And that future is pink!)
How sad it is to see El Reg stuck behind the times to such an extent.
Desktop wallpaper on Start Screen ->
50% less jarring transition back and forth. Who would have thought? </sarcasm>
It still feels like something of a second desktop, but it's a definite if small improvement. Maybe for Windows 8.321 they will actually be able to integrate the two together, which will probably the time when I will consider upgrading.
I figured Metro wasn't doing very well, but these figures are still no less than shocking. If this isn't a proper wake-up call for Microsoft, then nothing is.
Re: Windows 8.1
More like "Windows for Work"
Re: Frameworks make life more complicated without any real advantage - IMHO
Sorry, but I believe it's you.
Spring (and Hibernate) is not "reinventing the wheel", in most cases it's perfectly capable of using whatever previous invention you feel comfortable with. You don't like annotations? Use XML configuration instead. Or create a simple POJO that sets up your beans with plain Java code. You hate HQL? Most queries can be nicely done with the Criteria API as well, and there's no shame in using JdbcTemplate if everything else fails. (For some tasks, such as mass inserts, using Hibernate itself may be unnecessary.) You hate Hibernate altogether? Spring works with all major ORM frameworks.
Some training can help, yes. Although I have to say, there were only a handful of cases when I couldn't find an answer to my question with a couple of Google searches, so even those (insanely expensive) Spring courses aren't 100% necessary to properly work with the framework.
How does this "audit" even work...?
The Microsoft guys kick down your door and demand your licenses, or else? (Obviously not, but I also can't imagine the companies inviting them willingly.) How is that legally possible? Isn't anyone else unnerved that such a thing even exists...?
I see potential in something like this
There exist sites today like CNET which have their own collection of desktop software downloads from various developers, reviewed by the owners of the site. If you get your stuff from there, you can also be (somewhat) sure that you're not installing some malware-ridden mess.
The same thing could be done to "private Play stores": in return for some ad revenue, CNET could publish its own collection of Android apps, all taken from the main store with the developers' consent of course, and if people are looking for safe, quality programs, they could look there instead of the more "lawless" main Play store. This way, people can have their strict "curated app store" if they really want, but it's forced upon anyone, and most importantly for Google, they don't have to do any of the work.
It doesn't even walk, it rolls. Call me back when they have actual legs, and then I may be tempted.
Re: Why isn't this an add-on??
It's called "Expire history by days", and it does just that. Way back in the Stone Age, err I mean Firefox 2 or maybe 3, this was actually part of the core functionality. Then they got a "better" idea.... *sigh*
Why isn't this an add-on??
I still have to install a separate add-on to make Firefox's history handling at least moderately sane. They can't add a few more options to Firefox regarding that, but Facebook Messenger is a must have? Are they completely off their meds now?
Re: Seems pretty straightforward to me....
As sad as the fact is, I have to agree.
It's easy to blame Sinofsky for TIFKAM, but if anyone read that leaked Powerpoint presentation around half a year ago about the Microsoft products of the immediate future, from that it's glaringly obvious how TIFKAM was promoted to be part of the global company strategy of unified interfaces (and Ballmer is to blame for that, if I had to guess). TIFKAM in Windows 8, at least in the form that it was ultimately included, was a decision Sinofsky likely had little influence in.
Thus, with his departure, I'm afraid things will only get worse at Microsoft.
Too bad ACs can't pick their icon...
You could then choose "troll" and preserve my faith in humanity.
This is what a review should look like
As much as I don't see eye to eye with Mr. Orlowski on copyright-related matters, I find myself wishing he'd review the fruity firm's newest offering as well next time.
(Disclaimer: I don't own, nor do I intend to own a WP8 device.)
" Instead, they should work to build systems that are secure, easy to manage, integrate well with existing network services, upgrade smoothly, and require little retraining(...)"
What on earth happened to requiring little retraining in Gnome 3 then?
Re: Not this "pin everything to the taskbar" argument again
I am using an ordinary laptop with full HD resolution. At this pixel size, using the "small icons" option makes the icons too tiny to be useful for me.
Not this "pin everything to the taskbar" argument again
I have no more than one or two applications pinned on my 16:9 monitor, because I need the rest of the taskbar to, you know, display my running tasks. I have 13 such windows active right now and would avoid grouping them if possible.
Actual features I care about in a new Office version?
With PDF editing even? Color me shocked.
Although, my cynical side can already see those small deviations Office 2013 will make when reading or writing the open format... "by mistake", of course, what else.
Waiting for the next announcement...
...where they will regret to inform us that Project Lambda did not make it either. Maybe for Java 123.
But do not fear, Java 8 will still bring new revolutionary changes to the table, such as... err... a new Date/Time API! Yay!
When almost all important features were dropped from Java 7, I considered it to be sad news. This, however, is now bordering on ridiculous.
Paypal is pretty much a monopoly internationally
And that needs to stop.
It has come to the point that Paypal can effectively put people out of business by freezing their accounts and refusing further transactions for whatever reason. Some competition is desperately needed here.
I'm glad ACTA is dead
While it's possible that some of its parts might have been beneficial, the way the trade agreement was negotiated is simply not something that can be allowed to become the norm. Hopefully this will send a message.
...a traditional HDD with RRAM cache? Sure, it'll have greater power consumption, but it could still benefit from the speed increase, not to mention it's way cheaper and bigger than Flash, which can offset the cost of RRAM.
The ARM version looks nice
Hopefully someone will port Android to it.
“What is the reason you would pick Firefox over Chrome?”
I don't need much, aside of Firefox not freezing for several seconds after startup. (Not to mention the other freezes that occur occasionally.) A startup time after OS boot that is less than the current ~12 seconds on my i7 CPU would be nice too.
I'm still using Firefox as my main browser, but if I quickly need to check something, I sadly turn to Chrome now. Chrome has its flaws, but it's fast and responsive, at least.
I was prepared for a statement way up on the idiocy scale, but the council still managed to impress me.
They should really call off the whole thing
gTLDs were a bad idea to begin with, but ICANN's unnumbered embarrassments show that they're simply not capable of handling it. Better to stop now than to wait until this mess goes live and the REALLY bad issues crop up. (Because there's no doubt in my mind that they will.)
Re: Just because they can
I don't agree. One of my main gripes with touchscreens is that my finger is obscuring the general area that I am trying to touch, and without any tacile feedback, the accuracy of my "clicks" decreases substantially. If I could see my own finger BEHIND the screen instead of in front of it, this would not be an issue. It's like one of those behind-the-screen trackpads, only more usable.
Internet Explorer is likely calling the very same APIs that developers (including Mozilla) should not use. But IE is made by Microsoft, and they know what they're doing, right? Right...?
Talk about hypocrisy...
Re: Surely they need to have a monopoly?
I might be misinterpreting things, but according to what I've read Microsoft made a deal after similar past accusations that it will always allow third-party developers to access all of its APIs. There seems to be some room for interpretation whether that deal only applied to the x86 platform, or Microsoft's APIs in general - so the main issue here is that Microsoft is not living up to its promises, not that it has a monopoly.
Not much of a loss for Mozilla
Since I'm willing to bet money on Windows RT going nowhere fast.
The EU might be interested to hear about this though, since they forced M$ into including the "choose your browser" popup, which Windows RT obviously will not have.
I never used Media Player
But I would still be interested just how much DVD licensing money are we talking about here. Considering the amount of Windows licenses sold, I can't help but feel that it's pretty minimal. I wonder if such a tiny price reduction is really worth another round of negative PR for Microsoft.
Yes, yes, YES!
Finally, an innovative Android smartphone! I'm not sure how good the eye-tracking or the "mind-reading" will be during actual use, and I would prefer it having a keyboard, but this is nonetheless the first phone in a while which has me truly interested. Even if it'll prove a complete disaster for some reason, I have to applaud Samsung for the effort in itself.
I think that video was spot-on on the problems faced today, actually.
Oooh, time travel!
I think I've read this article already, around ten years ago!
The relatively small timeframe between the consumer preview and this "release preview" makes that pretty unlikely, I'm afraid. :(
"With Enterprise it’ll be possible to boot from a USB with Windows to Go"
Meaning, no other edition will have this feature? Seriously, WHY? Why limit this to an edition that most people cannot even get, when there are so few features which are not Metro/WinRT (read: pointless) in Windows 8 already?
One of the best articles I've read on El Reg since a while
The parallel between content creators and IT was surprising, but at the same time shockingly accurate. Thank you for this intriguing perspective; more stuff like this please.
"The notion is that all your content - not just what you will buy but also what you've already bought - will be permanently available to you on the internet."
No, damn it, NO. That's simply NOT TRUE.
As it was already explained several times in forum threads here regarding UV, Internet stream rights are only ensured for a LIMITED TIME after purchase, after which you'll likely have to pay for it again.
Please, El Reg, you guys know better than this. Look up the facts, don't fall to PR statements.
The problem is that if some P2P site DID try the business model outlined here, they would never get the licenses necessary from all the music companies... and even if they DID get the licenses, those would be valid only to a very limited section of the world (likely the USA).
Worse yet, they would probably be forced by the terms of said licenses to employ IP blocking ala Hulu to keep people from other countries off their site.
Long story short: the current licensing landscape makes it impossible for ANY kind of legal content service to keep up with illegal P2P in terms of reach, even if it could somehow keep up in terms of available content (which is in itself doubtful).