If you paid money to Microsoft for their software it's not unreasonable to expect them make sure it actually works and to fix it if they screwed something up.
Actually it is quite unreasonable to expect them to support a piece of software indefinitely or they have to involuntarily give away their source code for free.
We need some new thinking. Not rehashes of dead TV shows and old comic books.
So your solution to the rehashing of dead TV shows and old comic books is to rehash novels?
There should most certainly be obligations of some sort, otherwise consumers face being totally screwed when a company ceases support...
This is amusing in light of the fact that most open source advocates are constantly telling people about how they have no obligation at all to support the software. If this is the case, why should Microsoft, or any proprietary vendor, have any obligation themselves?
Those "features" that you're talking about can be e.g. IPv6 support
Welcome to 6.5 years ago.
No new service pack updates for office and similar programs?
Where did you get that from? This is only about the OS itself, it has nothing to do with end of life on support for Office or any other separate product.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
Exactly. Due process has no place in getting in the way of a prosecutor winning a case by lying, manipulating evidence and harassing witnesses.
Why is this YRO?
Because kdawson is a moron? I'm also still trying to figure out what relevance this has to "news for nerds" other than the "series of tubes" link since this is about Ted Stevens.
PC gamers who are used to the relatively complex and in-depth menu and control systems facilitated by the mouse don't always react well to the simplified systems necessitated by controller use.
So you're too dumb to use a controller setup that even children can use and yet you claim to be superior? HAHAHAHA.
First of all, I'm not entirely sold on the source of this story, since it does come from Opera's website.
Then don't believe opera and go straight to the W3C page that is the third link the summary: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/widgets-pag-charter
The Widgets Updates Patent Advisory Group is a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) as defined by the W3C Patent Policy (PP).
The mission of this Patent Advisory Group is to study issues and propose solutions related to a patent disclosure from Apple, Inc., concerning the Widgets 1.0: Updates Working Draft.
This PAG is triggered by Section 7.1 (PAG Formation) of the Patent Policy, which states that a PAG is triggered in the event "a patent has been disclosed that may be essential, but is not available under W3C Royalty-Free licensing requirements". The specific patent is 5,764,992 (U.S.), held by Apple, Inc. Apple Inc. has excluded all claims of patent 5,764,992 (U.S.)
I know this summary is a whopping 2 sentences long but you could have made yourself look like less of a dumbass by reading it.
I'm not sold on their evidence. I don't see a huge jump [google.com] since February of '08 in search popularity.
You don't? It went from around
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.