Activity for November 12

Review - Go-OO
2.4.1.5 (Jun 16, 2008)

A definite improvement over OO.org. Load times are only slightly faster, so don't get your hopes up too much, but the added format support (particularly .wps, still an all-too-common format) is great and seems to work well. The promised improved form controls seem to be present, but are still not fully compatible with MS Office equivalents (at least not from Office 2000). The look has also been improved with more modern-looking icons. The only downside is that it's based on OO.org 2.4 so you can't easily have it installed alongside standard 2.4 (the current main branch release), nor does it gain the (potentially significant) benefits of the upcoming (and now in beta) OO.org 3.0. I'm very much hoping these guys roll their changes into a 3.0 branch. If so I'd switch over to this version full-time, enterprise-wide.
Review - Kaspersky Rescue Disk
20080611 Test (Jun 16, 2008)

Kaspersky's effective antivirus in a bootable rescue disk? And free to boot? Sounds like a deal!
Comment - Breakthrough: AMD and Intel settle antitrust dispute, reach new cross-license agreement
20080611 Test (Nov 12, 2009 - 1:22 PM)

And the unspoken question that we're all thinking iiiiis... *drumroll* Why would Intel be paying AMD *1.25 BILLION* if there was no fault? If they could win this in court without a fine, surely they would. They must think paying over a billion dollars to their direct competitor is somehow a better end than they would have met in court. Interesting.
Comment - Bing vs. Google rematch on video search
20080611 Test (Nov 11, 2009 - 8:09 PM)

Maybe I'm reading that first page wrong, but it sounds like it's saying Google returned more relevant results to the *intention* of the query - real footage of D-Day. If that's true I would think it would automatically tip things in favor of Google Video. It seems like things remain pretty much the same here: Google has a better back-end search engine (despite Bing's "decision engine" claims to the contrary), while Bing presents things a bit better. For me spiffier, even handier presentation doesn't make up for mediocre search results though. Google FTW! ;-)
Comment - Broadcast radio one step closer to paying performers' royalties
20080611 Test (Oct 19, 2009 - 1:51 PM)

If we assume that the current approach is unfair, in that radio stations are playing music without paying for it, and we take the acknowledgment of the promotional value of radio as stated by Sen. Leahy above, then surely it would be no more fair for radio stations to be the only ones paying. Sure, maybe they should pay for playing music, but the music industry should also pay the radio stations to have their music played. Now which is easier: have the radio stations pay to play, and have the industry pay to play, resulting in the money crossing in the air and *maybe* one party coming out a bit ahead OR just ignoring the royalties for performance entirely since they are of a promotional nature? That, as I understood it, was the logic behind the original rules.

But maybe there's room for improvement here. Maybe, since it is of promotional value, the music industry really should directly pay for what it wants played. And if a radio station wants to play something *other* than that, they pay the royalties. Hm....
Comment - Wi-Fi Direct aims to be the 'Bluetooth Killer'
20080611 Test (Oct 14, 2009 - 4:42 PM)

Like SignalFire, or WaveStorm, or AngryAir? "Just connect your headset to any AngryAir compatible device and you're ready to go!" Yep, I think you're right, need a catchier name. ;-)

I'm sure it would end up being abbreviated to just "Wifi" eventually, there's no major reason for a distinction for most people. Or at least "WFD".

My big question here is how does this compare in power usage to Bluetooth. I thought part of the reason for the speed limitations was trying to limit power needs...
Comment - Having purchased its competition, Google joins Flash video group
20080611 Test (Oct 6, 2009 - 6:07 PM)

Or maybe they just wanted to buy them out of the web video race to avoid that particular battle altogether. I'm not a Google hater or alarmist by any means, but with them now joining an Adobe Flash *promoting* group (not just a standards body or something, but a group apparently designed to promote and "push" Flash install), it does look suspicious.