Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Developers destroyed the start menu (Score 1) 862

by dizzysoul (#37605552) Attached to: Microsoft Killed the Start Menu Because No One Uses It
This. I can't mod this up enough. This needs to be printed printed on a giant billboard and placed on every road and highway that leads in and out of Redmond. And this shouldn't be something 'left to the developers', this is something that should be strictly enforced by Microsoft. One of the things Apple got right, is they have strict design requirements for all application written for OSX. Your application can't make stupid choices that break the flow of the OSX interface. This is one of the main reasons why OSX is considered easier to use than Windows.

Comment: President of OnLive responds to this bill, against (Score 5, Informative) 368

by dizzysoul (#37349402) Attached to: Patent Reform Bill Passes Senate
Steve Perlman, President & CEO, Rearden, OnLive and MOVA wrote a detailed letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, voicing his extreme disapproval of this bill. It's a good read: (PDF) http://www.rearden.com/public/110301-Steve_Perlman_S.23_Letter_to_Senator_Feinstein.pdf

Comment: This is how 'I think' it works: (Score 4, Interesting) 368

by dizzysoul (#37348616) Attached to: Patent Reform Bill Passes Senate
I remember the idea of "first to file" (FTF) being explained to me in the past, although I don't rember where or whom. Basically, FTF doesn't trump prior art. If someone invents something before you patent it, the patent is invalid. This doesn't change. One of the big litigation problems with "first to invent" (FTI) over FTF is that, when two companies claim the rights to have invented something first, it take a HUGE amount of digging, research, and legal discovery to figure out. Especially when companies keep secrets and have long R&D periods; it's a tangled mess to figure out the exact timeline that grants patent ownership to one company or another. With FTF, you don't have this problem, because its blatantly obvious who filed first, and prior art is easier to prove in court. IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong!

Comment: Re:A bigger question - WHY was this redacted? (Score 1) 199

by dizzysoul (#37298004) Attached to: Canada Encouraged US To Place It On Piracy List
"This is just further evidence that a third party has no businesses redacting anything. Any leaks group should act only as a conduit, not as a arbitrator who decides what stays secret." - - - AFAIK, that's exactly what Wikileaks was trying to do. They would categorize the leaks, sometimes by country or industry, and then give those leaks to the relevant media watchdogs so that they can do the redacting and releasing. Except now that Wikileaks has been stabbed in the back so violently by The Guardian, who knows what their current policy is going to be.

Comment: The above article is nothing but FUD (Score 3, Informative) 74

by dizzysoul (#36954654) Attached to: Android Trojan Records Phone Calls
Android has strict permissions enforcement for every application. It's even built into the marketplace! You cannot install an application without first being told WHAT the application wants access to. If the application wants to record your phone calls, the installer will specifically tell you the application is requesting access to your microphone. The installer forces you to scroll down to hit next, and there is literally NO WAY you can miss reading it. If you install applications from an untrusted source, Android will specifically WARN YOU that you could be installing something dangerous. The above article is nothing but FUD. If you read the source article, it says you have to install from an untrusted source, go through the warnings, and still go through the installation process.

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...