To be even nit-pickier, it's valid beyond just for x > 4. It's valid for all x != 4. It just turns out that (IsPrime(x-1) && IsPrime(x+1)) is false for all x 4, so the theorem is irrelevant across that domain.
Or alternatively, the theorem could be amended that x is divisible by six or x is exactly four.
I don't blame people for not reading the claims section, because it's necessarily an obtuse fusion of legalese and jargon.
But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this. Patents cover implementations, and not ideas. Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents, but it hasn't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.
Frankly, I can't be bothered to look at the claims either. But the idea itself certainly lends itself to ideas that are patentable (whether they should be patentable or will be rendered retroactively invalid is another question). For instance, I'm curious how they identify which words should be replaced, and the system by which they choose a synonym that hopefully doesn't destroy rhyming patterns, metrical rhythm, puns, shades of meaning, and ambiguity in words with multiple meanings that don't completely intersect the candidate synonym's meaning.
Also, whatever they are they doing to prevent the trivial case of three copies being compared to recover the original. Maybe they have a bunch of sets of synonyms that are commonly replaced so you need more to get the original, but even then, do they arrange it in some way so that the source of the leaks can be traced down despite the alteration? Or maybe they just assume that book pirates are morons.
They might do nothing for any of those cases, mind you. Once again, I can't be bothered to read these damned things. Which is part of why I don't submit articles about ones that I've decided I think are actually stupid.
They would affect each other, but their relative distance would not close. In the example you posit, the whole system would continually accelerate in the direction connection the centre of mass of the two bodies, at a rate of g, where g is the gravitational acceleration exerted by the positive mass body.
Thus, if we could make a structure of positive and negative masses, we could create a continuous acceleration vehicle. Unless my intuition is wrong here.
My understanding is that you lose the legal backward-compatibility of licenses with "GPLv2 or higher" by forking the GPL unless you are the FSF and therefore have the power to make an official fork which is officially "higher".
There's a bit of irony there, where the FSF is breaking backward compatibility and nobody has a good recourse to pick up where it left off.
Your argument is still skipping the step where something of incredibly high sentimental value is even remotely like those other situations where it's peoples' (plural, in each case) lives on the line.
You simply cannot replace the word computer with bridge/airplane/car brakes, unless the computer is actually in a system where multiple lives depend upon it, which, it wasn't (although there actually ARE computer components to airplane, traffic lights, many car brakes, and drawbridges).
You can maybe replace it by a lock that gets picked, or a photocopier whose autofeeder that mangles the original document. Both of which happen.
What the fuck. You caught the insanity of the GP in the first paragraph, and then commit the very same error in the next paragraph by bringing up religion like it had anything to do with what he said.
I can only assume you believe that people who cite Occam's Razor in any capacity must be atheists. Which is not true (although naturally sometimes an atheist will cite Occam's Razor).
Using more computer systems doesn't make you more computer literate, in the same way that speaking different human languages doesn't make you a better science-fiction author, even if it were shown that great biographical authors benefit greatly from knowing more human languages.
Even if your post was true, it's 900% more revenue. Which means more than 900% more profit, except that you have to remember that their CURRENT profits reflect having this cap, which means that not having the cap means 10% of the revenue and thus a lot less profit and possibly loss (possibly huge losses). But it's worse than that.
Comcast isn't stealing from you, they are failing to sell their product as cheaply as you would like. I don't know why you think you paid for a monthly bandwidth of 2.59 TB / mo.
Also, it doesn't actually work out that they can sell to 900 000 more customers by doing that. That would only be true if all 1 million customers were saturating their bandwidth continuously. It turns out it's more like they have the bandwidth for 1000 people under your model, and by selling it this way, they can sell to 1 000 000. How many people you can sell to without unduly* affecting them all is a statistical problem: what is the probability that the demand for bandwidth at time t is > X where X is an amount that will substantially impact the experience for everybody else, given an array of people p[i] where p[i] is an upper-bound constraint on their bandwidth. So it turns out the revenue multiplier by doing it this way is more like 1000x. I got the figure 1000x in a graduate-level Internetworking class, it's a rough figure; the point is, it comes out to more than 10 because this isn't like a pie being shared by 10 people, it's more like a road. It would only be a 10x multiplier if all 10 people used their bandwidth 24/7; or alternatively, if they all used 100% of available bandwidth at exactly the same times and 0% the rest of the time with no exceptions. This is the baked-in assumption that allows the pricing model as it is today to work now. There's not one consumer ISP that's making anything close to that profit margin, and therefore none that can exist with a purely reserved-bandwidth model without SUBSTANTIALLY hiking their rates for everyone.
An analogy: how many lanes do they put on a toll road? Do they put in one lane for every car that might move across it in full traffic? After all, they paid for 60 mph road access, and that's the only way to guarantee it (I've never encountered a toll road that was cheaper in high traffic, though they may exist.). How dare they resell your highway bandwidth after selling it to you!
Except that's patently absurd. That's NOT what they sold you. If their advertising suggested that's what they sold you, then there's a problem with either you or possibly their advertising. But you don't get to decide what somebody else sells, or for what price they sell it (except in the extremely indirect manner of just not buying it).
And if they did the toll would have to be ENORMOUS to recoup the cost, which would drive people away from using it, which would mean less lanes to pay for but also fewer payesr to pay for it (thus likely increasing the cost because of reduced bulk), leading to another round of people driven away.
Comcast has a lot of things wrong with it and maybe the advertising should change. Purely reserved bandwidth, however, is a thing that will send us back to the dark ages.
*you do not get to define what unduly means by yourself; Comcast directly, and the customers as a gestalt indirectly, do.
I'm always kind of confused by the argument, which continually crops up, that cursive writing is resistant to technological failure. Printing, as in non-cursive writing, is exactly as resistant to blackouts, viruses, malware, and spyware; and additionally it is more closely related to the skill of reading machine-text. It is also open to some individuality. Also, you need a light source to read even during a blackout:).
Cursive writing may well be an artform, but there are a lot of arts that don't get nearly the attention as cursive writing, and it's unclear to me that it deserves such special treatment. I think I had 5 days where we touched on calligraphy for about 40 minutes each day, in my entire childhood. Meanwhile, cursive was a repeated theme. I think even a non-philistine can argue for something other than slavishly fighting the tide of history to maintain cursive as a national lingua franca. It's not like we're saying we'd rather the time be spent making fart jokes.
And I do, in fact, use cursive writing from time to time. It's a matter of encoding specificity -- if I'm writing long-form paragraphs, I naturally go to cursive, because in elementary and high school you'd fail if you print on an essay or paragraph answer; if I'm scribbling single words or interjections in mathematical sequences, or generally if I'm writing on a whiteboard, I print.
What are you talking about? It's very easy to distinguish between such a remote kill switch and other types of malware, by comparing what the remote kill switch does and what the malware does.
You could just as easily be arguing that it's difficult to distinguish between a firewall and a denial-of-service attack.
What I don't understand is how you don't understand the fundamental concept of medical insurance.
There's no "free" involved here. If they need an iPhone they have to pay insurance premiums plus 11x the cost for the iPhone, and they get 10x the cost of an iPhone back plus some other device that's less useful than an iPhone and accounts for 10/11 of what you just paid for.
Look, allow me to present you with a shitty analogy:
I buy sandwich insurance, and now I have a legitimate claim of 1 sandwich. They want to spend $100 to buy me a shit sandwich. I suggest that they INSTEAD pay $10 so I can have a ham sandwich. I'd much prefer a ham sandwich anyway, it's better for me, and it decreases the chances that I'll vomit and therefore need another sandwich claim, and the insurance company saves $90. This is a huge win for the insurance company and win for the sandwich-eater, and a lose for nobody except you.
Except I CAN'T because of a chain of bureaucratic rules. And your argument is essentially that you should pay sandwich insurance for no reason whatsoever and then buy a ham sandwich, because the intended purpose of ham is life support for pigs and anyway it can also be used for pork chops, whereas a shit sandwich provides only sandwich-ness without any other ham-related activities being possible.
And noone has given any argument against it, except
Oh, stop bullshitting with your strawman. The argument for DRM is that content producers should be able to do what they want with their content, including hiding it behind DRM if they believe it will protect their profits, regardless of whether it will actually protect their profits, and that you don't have the moral authority to tell them that they can't produce content under their own terms -- that you'll outright change the terms to your favour after they produce it.
When you express the opposing argument in the way you did, it's as ridiculous as when the other side says that all people that aren't in favour of DRM just want to steal and literally want people to starve, and oh, destroy art itself, or some damn thing.
Me, I think I don't like DRM but my goal is to find a new solution that satisfied all parties rather than to be so facile as to just yell "NO DRM" repeatedly. I have not yet come up with such a solution. Maybe in the interim we need to push back against DRM. How about we not be childish about the backlash? It actually makes your side look better, so long as you aren't preaching to a choir.
Your Nature/God very rarely deals in absolutes, especially with regard to biology. Right-handed amino acid chirality in life is one of those rare absolutes. Sexuality and gender is not. People are born intersex. People are gay. Animals are sometimes gay too. People are asexual. People are bisexual.
There is nothing simple about male and female. For all you know, YOU could have been born intersex and had your phenotype decided by a coin flip in a doctor's office. So could have I.
As for your anti-choice rant, it's not about whether a fetus (which is NOT a baby yet, don't go trying to exempt it from Nature/God's laws by conflating issues) is human, it's about whether it has a right to life which overrides the mother's right to self-determination.
By the way, in the stage where the vast majority of fetuses are aborted, they are not yet either male or female.
Whether it's human is a semantic argument of no real value. If it's about genetics, then of course it is -- and so is a corpse in a cemetery. If it's genetics + still has cells which self-replicate, then so is an adult stem-cell culture. And if you keep going until it includes every human living and every fetus from conception and nothing else, then it's not a useful definition but a circular one. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of fetuses don't live to term or even to the point where the would-be mothers become aware of their existence.
When you ignore ambiguity that exists before your very eyes you deny Nature/God's law and assert your own made up pigeonholes as supreme. The confounding arrogance allows you to rationalize that everybody who actually seeks to understand the whole of the world is immoral or amoral, and therefore reinforce your own arbitrary views, safe from re-examination.
This being slashdot, I have to take pedantic issue with that common statistical argument without doubting its conclusions.
For one, it oversimplifies the influence of homosexuals because of, for example, bisexuals. Anybody who swings both ways is going to skew the ratios in a non-linear fashion. For another, using the mean average isn't necessarily useful compared to other averages which do not need to hold constant. You could have large numbers of unsuccessful men and very few sexually unsuccessful women, or, you could have females who have a LOT of sex to make up for the undersexed gender. Even with the mean average, women could also have a tendency to die after periods of higher sexually activity, removing themselves from the statistical pool. Or virgin men could die young while sexually active men live long.
~~~~~
With all that said I agree that in reality, women and men, probably have the same amount of sex partners on "average", using whatever average you feel is necessary. I do feel that aside from lies caused by ego inflation and culture, there's also differing definitions of "sex" between the male and female subcultures.
Same answer: you can't. Best you can do are heuristics, which are inherently unfair.
You really have to re-examine the discriminant if your goal is fairness.
It's already an arbitrary distinction. There are sports where, even if I had trained my whole life and made it my only focus in life, I couldn't ever have competed with others of my sex (men) and age. There are other sports where I could have. In many sports we do men & women to increase the number of people who can realistically compete; in wrestling there are also weight divisions.
You could say "has xx chromosomes". You'll still get people who were born with testicles and have a hormonal balance conducive to stronger muscles and thicker bones. And you'll exclude people who were born and grew up phenotypically female, with no testosterone advantage. It looks like we had been using "has vagina" and "doesn't have penis" and some are considering that inadequate to what they are imagining.
GDI locks shouldn't have anything to do with blue-screening. If they do it would have to be a subtle effect where the root cause is masked by better behaviour rather than fixed.
It could hypothetically speed up AutoCAD, but I don't know.
That's interesting, but isn't that a hole in the license? Couldn't a company set something up similar to Hollywood Accounting, except instead of laundering the profits away from the obligations it launders FOSS binaries away from the source obligations?
Not quite. What happens is IE usage drops on weekends, and Firefox usage drops a little less on weekends. The net effect is that graphs of usage *share* behave as you described.
Hey, but it's nothing like that. Using all of your RAM to check a disk for damage and repair it in response to a user's specific request is not like having Outlook open in the background.
Slashdot Mirror
To be even nit-pickier, it's valid beyond just for x > 4. It's valid for all x != 4. It just turns out that (IsPrime(x-1) && IsPrime(x+1)) is false for all x 4, so the theorem is irrelevant across that domain.
Or alternatively, the theorem could be amended that x is divisible by six or x is exactly four.
I don't blame people for not reading the claims section, because it's necessarily an obtuse fusion of legalese and jargon.
But no, they did not patent *doing* this, they patented the *way* that they do this. Patents cover implementations, and not ideas. Some have argued that the line has been blurred with certain classes of patents, but it hasn't blurred so far that the concept in the slashdot summary is actually locked up as IP.
Frankly, I can't be bothered to look at the claims either. But the idea itself certainly lends itself to ideas that are patentable (whether they should be patentable or will be rendered retroactively invalid is another question). For instance, I'm curious how they identify which words should be replaced, and the system by which they choose a synonym that hopefully doesn't destroy rhyming patterns, metrical rhythm, puns, shades of meaning, and ambiguity in words with multiple meanings that don't completely intersect the candidate synonym's meaning.
Also, whatever they are they doing to prevent the trivial case of three copies being compared to recover the original. Maybe they have a bunch of sets of synonyms that are commonly replaced so you need more to get the original, but even then, do they arrange it in some way so that the source of the leaks can be traced down despite the alteration? Or maybe they just assume that book pirates are morons.
They might do nothing for any of those cases, mind you. Once again, I can't be bothered to read these damned things. Which is part of why I don't submit articles about ones that I've decided I think are actually stupid.
They would affect each other, but their relative distance would not close. In the example you posit, the whole system would continually accelerate in the direction connection the centre of mass of the two bodies, at a rate of g, where g is the gravitational acceleration exerted by the positive mass body.
Thus, if we could make a structure of positive and negative masses, we could create a continuous acceleration vehicle. Unless my intuition is wrong here.
My understanding is that you lose the legal backward-compatibility of licenses with "GPLv2 or higher" by forking the GPL unless you are the FSF and therefore have the power to make an official fork which is officially "higher".
There's a bit of irony there, where the FSF is breaking backward compatibility and nobody has a good recourse to pick up where it left off.
Your argument is still skipping the step where something of incredibly high sentimental value is even remotely like those other situations where it's peoples' (plural, in each case) lives on the line.
You simply cannot replace the word computer with bridge/airplane/car brakes, unless the computer is actually in a system where multiple lives depend upon it, which, it wasn't (although there actually ARE computer components to airplane, traffic lights, many car brakes, and drawbridges).
You can maybe replace it by a lock that gets picked, or a photocopier whose autofeeder that mangles the original document. Both of which happen.
What the fuck. You caught the insanity of the GP in the first paragraph, and then commit the very same error in the next paragraph by bringing up religion like it had anything to do with what he said.
I can only assume you believe that people who cite Occam's Razor in any capacity must be atheists. Which is not true (although naturally sometimes an atheist will cite Occam's Razor).
Using more computer systems doesn't make you more computer literate, in the same way that speaking different human languages doesn't make you a better science-fiction author, even if it were shown that great biographical authors benefit greatly from knowing more human languages.
Awesome just seems to be a matter of exaggeration diluting the word. The threshold for awesome has become awfully low.
Literally, however, is often used in a manner that is literally opposite to its definition.
Let's start with this:
Comcast effectively is making 900% more profit
Even if your post was true, it's 900% more revenue. Which means more than 900% more profit, except that you have to remember that their CURRENT profits reflect having this cap, which means that not having the cap means 10% of the revenue and thus a lot less profit and possibly loss (possibly huge losses). But it's worse than that.
Comcast isn't stealing from you, they are failing to sell their product as cheaply as you would like. I don't know why you think you paid for a monthly bandwidth of 2.59 TB / mo.
Also, it doesn't actually work out that they can sell to 900 000 more customers by doing that. That would only be true if all 1 million customers were saturating their bandwidth continuously. It turns out it's more like they have the bandwidth for 1000 people under your model, and by selling it this way, they can sell to 1 000 000. How many people you can sell to without unduly* affecting them all is a statistical problem: what is the probability that the demand for bandwidth at time t is > X where X is an amount that will substantially impact the experience for everybody else, given an array of people p[i] where p[i] is an upper-bound constraint on their bandwidth. So it turns out the revenue multiplier by doing it this way is more like 1000x. I got the figure 1000x in a graduate-level Internetworking class, it's a rough figure; the point is, it comes out to more than 10 because this isn't like a pie being shared by 10 people, it's more like a road. It would only be a 10x multiplier if all 10 people used their bandwidth 24/7; or alternatively, if they all used 100% of available bandwidth at exactly the same times and 0% the rest of the time with no exceptions. This is the baked-in assumption that allows the pricing model as it is today to work now. There's not one consumer ISP that's making anything close to that profit margin, and therefore none that can exist with a purely reserved-bandwidth model without SUBSTANTIALLY hiking their rates for everyone.
An analogy: how many lanes do they put on a toll road? Do they put in one lane for every car that might move across it in full traffic? After all, they paid for 60 mph road access, and that's the only way to guarantee it (I've never encountered a toll road that was cheaper in high traffic, though they may exist.). How dare they resell your highway bandwidth after selling it to you!
Except that's patently absurd. That's NOT what they sold you. If their advertising suggested that's what they sold you, then there's a problem with either you or possibly their advertising. But you don't get to decide what somebody else sells, or for what price they sell it (except in the extremely indirect manner of just not buying it).
And if they did the toll would have to be ENORMOUS to recoup the cost, which would drive people away from using it, which would mean less lanes to pay for but also fewer payesr to pay for it (thus likely increasing the cost because of reduced bulk), leading to another round of people driven away.
Comcast has a lot of things wrong with it and maybe the advertising should change. Purely reserved bandwidth, however, is a thing that will send us back to the dark ages.
*you do not get to define what unduly means by yourself; Comcast directly, and the customers as a gestalt indirectly, do.
I'm always kind of confused by the argument, which continually crops up, that cursive writing is resistant to technological failure. Printing, as in non-cursive writing, is exactly as resistant to blackouts, viruses, malware, and spyware; and additionally it is more closely related to the skill of reading machine-text. It is also open to some individuality. Also, you need a light source to read even during a blackout :).
Cursive writing may well be an artform, but there are a lot of arts that don't get nearly the attention as cursive writing, and it's unclear to me that it deserves such special treatment. I think I had 5 days where we touched on calligraphy for about 40 minutes each day, in my entire childhood. Meanwhile, cursive was a repeated theme. I think even a non-philistine can argue for something other than slavishly fighting the tide of history to maintain cursive as a national lingua franca. It's not like we're saying we'd rather the time be spent making fart jokes.
And I do, in fact, use cursive writing from time to time. It's a matter of encoding specificity -- if I'm writing long-form paragraphs, I naturally go to cursive, because in elementary and high school you'd fail if you print on an essay or paragraph answer; if I'm scribbling single words or interjections in mathematical sequences, or generally if I'm writing on a whiteboard, I print.
What about something like: " is bad. [Remove it!] [Do Nothing]" with a big frown image on "Do Nothing", and a big smile image on "Remove it!"?
I think you'd find that users would *still* randomly click. At best it might alter the distribution of random clicks slightly. Of course, ProgramName will turn out to be "Indiciso679transit.yonkeys--é" and ruin the friendliness.
What are you talking about? It's very easy to distinguish between such a remote kill switch and other types of malware, by comparing what the remote kill switch does and what the malware does.
You could just as easily be arguing that it's difficult to distinguish between a firewall and a denial-of-service attack.
That's an unfortunate analogy, since 2 condoms is far worse "security" than 1 condom.
What I don't understand is how you don't understand the fundamental concept of medical insurance.
There's no "free" involved here. If they need an iPhone they have to pay insurance premiums plus 11x the cost for the iPhone, and they get 10x the cost of an iPhone back plus some other device that's less useful than an iPhone and accounts for 10/11 of what you just paid for.
Look, allow me to present you with a shitty analogy:
I buy sandwich insurance, and now I have a legitimate claim of 1 sandwich. They want to spend $100 to buy me a shit sandwich. I suggest that they INSTEAD pay $10 so I can have a ham sandwich. I'd much prefer a ham sandwich anyway, it's better for me, and it decreases the chances that I'll vomit and therefore need another sandwich claim, and the insurance company saves $90. This is a huge win for the insurance company and win for the sandwich-eater, and a lose for nobody except you.
Except I CAN'T because of a chain of bureaucratic rules. And your argument is essentially that you should pay sandwich insurance for no reason whatsoever and then buy a ham sandwich, because the intended purpose of ham is life support for pigs and anyway it can also be used for pork chops, whereas a shit sandwich provides only sandwich-ness without any other ham-related activities being possible.
And noone has given any argument against it, except
Oh, stop bullshitting with your strawman. The argument for DRM is that content producers should be able to do what they want with their content, including hiding it behind DRM if they believe it will protect their profits, regardless of whether it will actually protect their profits, and that you don't have the moral authority to tell them that they can't produce content under their own terms -- that you'll outright change the terms to your favour after they produce it.
When you express the opposing argument in the way you did, it's as ridiculous as when the other side says that all people that aren't in favour of DRM just want to steal and literally want people to starve, and oh, destroy art itself, or some damn thing.
Me, I think I don't like DRM but my goal is to find a new solution that satisfied all parties rather than to be so facile as to just yell "NO DRM" repeatedly. I have not yet come up with such a solution. Maybe in the interim we need to push back against DRM. How about we not be childish about the backlash? It actually makes your side look better, so long as you aren't preaching to a choir.
Why would they be exposed to the unfiltered Internet just because they had a globally unique address? Those are different concepts.
Your Nature/God very rarely deals in absolutes, especially with regard to biology. Right-handed amino acid chirality in life is one of those rare absolutes. Sexuality and gender is not. People are born intersex. People are gay. Animals are sometimes gay too. People are asexual. People are bisexual.
There is nothing simple about male and female. For all you know, YOU could have been born intersex and had your phenotype decided by a coin flip in a doctor's office. So could have I.
As for your anti-choice rant, it's not about whether a fetus (which is NOT a baby yet, don't go trying to exempt it from Nature/God's laws by conflating issues) is human, it's about whether it has a right to life which overrides the mother's right to self-determination.
By the way, in the stage where the vast majority of fetuses are aborted, they are not yet either male or female.
Whether it's human is a semantic argument of no real value. If it's about genetics, then of course it is -- and so is a corpse in a cemetery. If it's genetics + still has cells which self-replicate, then so is an adult stem-cell culture. And if you keep going until it includes every human living and every fetus from conception and nothing else, then it's not a useful definition but a circular one. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of fetuses don't live to term or even to the point where the would-be mothers become aware of their existence.
When you ignore ambiguity that exists before your very eyes you deny Nature/God's law and assert your own made up pigeonholes as supreme. The confounding arrogance allows you to rationalize that everybody who actually seeks to understand the whole of the world is immoral or amoral, and therefore reinforce your own arbitrary views, safe from re-examination.
This being slashdot, I have to take pedantic issue with that common statistical argument without doubting its conclusions.
For one, it oversimplifies the influence of homosexuals because of, for example, bisexuals. Anybody who swings both ways is going to skew the ratios in a non-linear fashion.
For another, using the mean average isn't necessarily useful compared to other averages which do not need to hold constant. You could have large numbers of unsuccessful men and very few sexually unsuccessful women, or, you could have females who have a LOT of sex to make up for the undersexed gender.
Even with the mean average, women could also have a tendency to die after periods of higher sexually activity, removing themselves from the statistical pool. Or virgin men could die young while sexually active men live long.
~~~~~
With all that said I agree that in reality, women and men, probably have the same amount of sex partners on "average", using whatever average you feel is necessary. I do feel that aside from lies caused by ego inflation and culture, there's also differing definitions of "sex" between the male and female subcultures.
Same answer: you can't. Best you can do are heuristics, which are inherently unfair.
You really have to re-examine the discriminant if your goal is fairness.
It's already an arbitrary distinction. There are sports where, even if I had trained my whole life and made it my only focus in life, I couldn't ever have competed with others of my sex (men) and age. There are other sports where I could have. In many sports we do men & women to increase the number of people who can realistically compete; in wrestling there are also weight divisions.
You could say "has xx chromosomes". You'll still get people who were born with testicles and have a hormonal balance conducive to stronger muscles and thicker bones. And you'll exclude people who were born and grew up phenotypically female, with no testosterone advantage. It looks like we had been using "has vagina" and "doesn't have penis" and some are considering that inadequate to what they are imagining.
GDI locks shouldn't have anything to do with blue-screening. If they do it would have to be a subtle effect where the root cause is masked by better behaviour rather than fixed.
It could hypothetically speed up AutoCAD, but I don't know.
That's interesting, but isn't that a hole in the license? Couldn't a company set something up similar to Hollywood Accounting, except instead of laundering the profits away from the obligations it launders FOSS binaries away from the source obligations?
This *is* the process for this. The HTML 5 spec is not even remotely close to being done. "Too late" does not apply.
Not quite. What happens is IE usage drops on weekends, and Firefox usage drops a little less on weekends. The net effect is that graphs of usage *share* behave as you described.
Hey, but it's nothing like that. Using all of your RAM to check a disk for damage and repair it in response to a user's specific request is not like having Outlook open in the background.
Not only that, but in Bing, "Why is Linux so expensive?" also shows Macs at the top.
This is pretty much what you get with unquoted searches.