Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses

Submission + - The Epic Battle between Microsoft and Google 1

Hugh Pickens writes: "There is a long article in the NYTimes well worth reading called "Google Gets Ready to Rumble With Microsoft" about the business strategies both companies are pursuing and about the future of applications and where they will reside — on the web or on the desktop. Google President Eric Schmidt thinks that 90 percent of computing will eventually reside in the Web-based cloud and about 2,000 companies are signing up every day for Google Apps, simpler versions of the pricey programs that make up Microsoft's lucrative Office business. Microsoft faces a business quandary as they to try to link the Web to its desktop business — "software plus Internet services," in its formulation. Microsoft will embrace the Web, while striving to maintain the revenue and profits from its desktop software businesses, the corporate gold mine, a smart strategy for now that may not be sustainable. Google faces competition from Microsoft and from other Web-based productivity software being offered by start-ups but it is "unclear at this point whether Google will be able to capitalize on the trends that it's accelerating." David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School, says the Google model is to try to change all the rules. If Google succeeds, "a lot of the value that Microsoft provides today is potentially obsolete.""
Math

Submission + - Should Wikipedia Allow Mathematical Proofs? (wikipedia.org) 4

Beetle B. writes: "An argument has arisen over whether Wikipedia should allow pages that provide proofs for mathematical theorems (such as this one).

On the one hand, Wikipedia is a useful source of information and people can benefit from these proofs. On the other hand, how does one choose which proofs to include and which not to? Should Wikipedia just become a textbook that teaches mathematics? Should it just state the bare results of theorems and not provide proofs (except as external links)? Or should they take an intermediate approach and formulate a criterion for which proofs to include and which to exclude?"

The Internet

Submission + - AMF specifications get public (arstechnica.com)

neutrino38 writes: "Adobe released the specification of the AMF format. This was the format used by Flash Remoting, the equivalent of AJAX for the Flash world.

The article did not refer to the AMFPHP project and the fact that some German and Canadian guys already reverse engineered the format a long time ago. This disclosure will also remove a long standing legal uncertainty that prevented to use AMFPHP for commercial projects too openly.

Secondly, we need to note that Adobe does not document its RTMP protocol used to contact Flash Media server. This later protocol is more iteresting in terms of possibilities as it provides:
  • Sessionful operation
  • Media streaming
  • Remote procedure call both client side and server side using AMF format
  • Shared objects between several sessions and server side events


Fortunately, this protocol has partially been reverse engineered by people of the red5 project. I would suggest that the W3C should take a look at the whole Flash ecosystem if they think about upgrading the HTTP protocol."

Google

Submission + - Google going down the drain in China (commiepod.org)

gaz_hayes writes: "Want to know why US web companies never seem to make it in China? Successful US websites are targeted by Chinese government backed companies who copy the site, deploy it on a .cn domain, and then DNS poison or forcefully lower the bandwidth the US site. Just a few weeks ago google.com and google.cn were DNS poisoned accross the entire Chinese internet and were being redirected to their Chinese competitor Baidu. This probably explains Google's 3rd quarter market share in China."
Privacy

Submission + - Mixed news on Wiretapping from 9th Circuit USCoA

abb3w writes: The bad news: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the Al-Haramain lawyers may not submit into evidence their recollections of the top secret document handed to them detailing the warrantless electronic scrutiny they received. "Once properly invoked and judicially blessed, the state secrets privilege is not a half-way proposition." The good news: they have declined to answer and directed the lower court to consider whether "FISA preempts the common law state secrets privilege" with respect to the underlying nature of the program itself... which also keeps alive hopes for the EFF and ACLU to make those responsible answer for their actions.

Coverage at CNET, the NYTimes, and elsewhere; PDF of ruling here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.

Working...