There is (Westlaw too). The problem is what to search for, considering the complexity of trials. Also, electronic filing is available in most jurisdictions these days, but is not mandatory, nor should it be. Really, this just looks like a case of the defense not doing their homework and the prosecution being dishonest.
Like, I said, it's HIGHLY configurable. Multiple glossiness levels going from none to way too damn much. The dependencies it needed were probably QT/GTK themselves. If you install the theme before any QT programs, for example, it'll pull in QT as well as all of ITS dependencies, but that's the same for really any theme.
Specifically, everyone assumed Mammals came before birds ontil the fossil record showed otherwise.
[citation needed]? Who, precisely, is the "everybody" who assumed this? Especially considering that before there was a fossil record, much of this sort of information would have been assumed from the bible, which would seem to contradict what you're saying... Can you name a prominent work wherein such a claim was made with any character of certainty? I'll admit, I wouldn't know one way or the other, so please enlighten me.
UC Berkeley respectfully disagrees with you. Or are you trying to pawn off the whole micro/macroevolution distinction that has no real scientific basis? I'm sorry, but adaptation can be precisely what evolution is. More generally, evolution is merely a change over time (not necessarily of an adaptive nature), nothing more, nothing less. Adaptations, I think we will all agree, are definitely changes over time. "Long term evolution" as you put it (again, there is no scientific basis for this kind of distinction) is merely the accumulation of many such individual adaptations. Or are you going to now claim that individual adaptations can occur, but prohibit their combination? Please.
If you still insist on believing that nonsense, you might want to look into something called transfinite induction, and consider how it might be applied to properties such as adaptation. I think you may be (unpleasantly) surprised by its logical inevitability.
In the face of a free 17-year-old OS that WILL install on exactly the same hardware with little to no problem? Every Linux distro has an updated installation image you can use, you want to try to find one of those for Windows? An OS that's still WIDELY used in both personal and business environments and should be EXPECTED to still run, are you saying saying that after the moment of an OS's release it should no longer even be counted on to install properly? What about drivers that won't physically FIT on a floppy? Ooops, just out of luck I guess? Ever tried to install Windows on an nForce motherboard system (very common boards) without the driver CD (maybe your CD drive needs its own drivers)? Hint: no network connection because the motherboard ethernet port won't work without installing drivers.
Because Microsoft do not write drivers, do not take any responsibility for them and only redistribute the ones they build onto the distribution CD
That's something of a non sequitur. Ubuntu, Fedora, and all the rest also do not write the drivers. They do not take any responsibility for them. Yet the fact remains that their installations have much more complete driver support without all the hunting and fishing around. But still, their installation CDs aren't really different in nature from any Windows installation CD.
the repositories contain everything because they have to - they are theoretically the only place you can install from...
That's not even remotely true. You can install software (including drivers) downloaded off the internet under Linux just like you can in any other OS. The repositories just make it easier and more centralized. If you want the very latest nVidia beta driver though (for example), you can get it right off their web site just like the Windows counterpart.
I guess I'll continue pimping my favorite theme here even though I posted it in another thread too (since you seem to genuinely want something like it). It's attractive and available uniformly for both major versions of both toolkits. Give it a try.
Probably hasn't happened because there are perfectly good options for a unified look already. For example, the most attractive widget theme I've found for ANY toolkit is available uniformly for them all:
Highly configurable and very attractive and professional looking. Install GTK1+2 and QT3+4 versions and everything looks the same regardless of what you're doing.
I'd really rather see projects like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, X, etc., get released on a "when it's ready basis" than seeing them all bending to the collective will of the major Linux distributions. Once Ubuntu et al. all decide they want October release dates or whatever, I imagine major projects will start getting pressured to conform as well, regardless or whether or not it makes any SENSE for them to have their releases at that point.
For a Linux distro (assuming you don't use a rolling release system which I personally prefer), it makes sense to have regular dates where you update your system to all the latest. The only "benefit" I could see coming out of a synchronized release cycle is to pressure projects to conform to that cycle too--otherwise what's the point--and for projects like OpenOffice that sort of thing just doesn't make any damn sense. Add to that the additional bureaucratic layers and inefficiency introduced by having to coordinate even more stuff...
Joseph Smith was widely accused of bank fraud and had several lawsuits and indictments leveled against him. A warrant was issued for his arrest. He spent time in jail. When Alpha830RulZ's questionable activity becomes a matter of legal and historical record, then maybe you can come back and make a worthwhile comparison, eh?
I think the general consensus is that any religion badass enough to require the carrying of a sword should be excused for also mandating magic chastity underwear.
I don't think that follows. You seem to be operating on the mistaken assumption that in this case non-genuine equates to pirated, which is just not the case. What we are ostensibly talking about here are legitimate Apple "clones" (and yes I think the EULA is worth a little less than the paper it's printed on), on which one should very well expect to legitimately use Photoshop.
Do pre-built (Dell and such) computers usually lack a firewire port? I admit I only build my own and don't pay attention to manufacturer computer, so I wouldn't know, but I find that odd considering it's been years since I've seen a motherboard without a standard firewire port right there on the back. I know my last two had them (not to mention multiple pin sets on the actual motherboard for adding more firewire ports as needed).
I'm curious actually. For fun, I'm going to do a little basic math, it's not something I've really seriously considered before:
SEGS, the world's largest solar installation, provides 354 MW of capacity and covers roughly 6.4 sq km of space.
The united states uses an average of 3.3 TW of power.
Doing a little math [3,300,000 MW / 354 MW * 6.4 sq km] we get roughly 60,000 sq km of land needed to accommodate 100% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.
The Mojave Desert, where the SEGS are located, has an area of roughly 57,000 sq km.
So, I'm going to do a little generous handwaving and say that entirely covering the Mojave desert in solar panels would effectively provide the U.S.'s annual energy needs (although clearly we would want to decentralize the infrastructure to a degree). Now comes the point where I'm not really able to continue the reasoning while at work. What is the actual cost/km of building a plant such as the SEGS? Is there anywhere where this sort of calculation can be found in a more scientific study? What would particularly interest me is, assuming such a massive solar farm were to be built, is how long it would take for the greatly reduced operating cost compared fossil fuels to offset the initial construction cost? Specifically, since solar "fuel" is effectively free, how long would it take for such a solar array to return in fuel savings the extra expense it required in initial construction?
Now I'm going to assert some of my liberal tendencies. How much of our national energy consumption could have been satisfied effectively permanently (remember, solar "fuel" is free, so the only associated cost is a moderate mechanical upkeep), by having spent all the money we've spent on the Iraq war on solar energy construction efforts instead? Because let's not fool ourselves, when it comes down to it, that money was spent on securing U.S. energy supplies one way or the other. I have a horrible sinking gut feeling that the percentage we're looking at (especially if you consider the worst case estimate I've seen of the Iraq war eventually having a cost in the trillions), would in fact be a very substantial percentage of American energy consumption.
I personally agree with you, even though Greenpeace sees the funding as a zero sum game.
While I agree that this problem needs to be attacked from both ends for the solution to be practical, I think it's fairly indisputable that the funding effectively is a zero sum game. That is, for increased funding to go to one place, it needs to come from another place. So, unless we do something like raising taxes (did you just hear a million conservatives screaming out in anguish?), the government funding game is effectively zero sum.
Ethics is, fundamentally, the concern with how one may act as an agent for "the good."* If you are going to dispute that "ethics is unconcerned with the actions of others," the only way you can sensibly go about doing so is on the grounds of ethical relativism. Which is to say, the definition of "the good" changes depending on the particular beliefs and customs of the individuals or groups involved. Specifically, you would have to argue that providing humanitarian aid in this case would not be for "the good," whether because we do not see it as such, or another involved party does not.
That being said, I think the general consensus of human civilization is that humanitarian aid is not a relative good, but a universal good, and as such ethical decisions regarding its application absolutely are totally unconcerned with the actions of others. To wit, if I have provided humanitarian aid, I have acted as an agent for the good, regardless of what any others have done. In short, your claim seems to fly in the face of the common philosophical understanding of ethics.
* I have put "the good" in quotes because, while its specific content is definitely something up for debate, its relation to ethics generally isn't.
No, this sounds to me like Mr. Bioshock Rep also thinks this is a stupid idea and is trying to pass the subtle hint that if enough people call in and bitch about it when they do it (as people should) then the Corporate Overlords at EA will probably think twice about doing it again. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
This will be even easier to hack around than kludgey DRM garbage like Starforce (or whatever) is. That's not to mention the fact that I still like to play games that are 10+ years old. Will they still be maintaining the verification servers for Spore and Mass Effect in ten years? I sure as hell doubt it. Bad. Fucking. Idea. On so many levels.
Maybe I'm missing something in all this, but let's go back to your original claim:
Sould searching time for yahoo investors. They are going to demand profits, not get them and in a year the company will run out of cash. The engineers MS covets will still be there, the company MS did not need will be cored out and bought for a song.
First off, they are getting profits. No, the company will not run out of cash as long as it's operating at a net profit. It can lose value, it can start operating at a loss, but as long as more money is coming in than going out, there will still be money. Unless you are aware of something which I am not, I see no evidence whatsoever to give credence to the claim that Yahoo is soon to be cored out and its engineers bought out for a song. It just doesn't correspond with reality the way I see it.
They won't last long if they cannot raise new capital.
Getting new capital doesn't directly equate to raising revenue, or profit, or anything like that. It can help, certainly, but as the big bust at the beginning of this century clearly showed, you can have all the damn capital in the world and still not be a worthwhile company. And, for that matter, you can operate a successful company perfectly well without any new injections of capital if your business plan is sound and properly executed. No, what Yahoo needs to worry about is not raising new capital, but actually developing and marketing useful and desired products and services--same as any other company really--which I would say they are moderately (but not surpassingly) successful at. That's what will ultimately determine their fate. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Yahoo the #2 player (behind Google) in the market space we're concerned with here?
I, too, prefer an IDE that takes up half my available memory on a system with 2 gigs of ram! In all seriousness though, I've found that the only reason I had trouble using something other than Visual Studio was because I'd been so indoctrinated into the MS way of doing things. Now that I've gotten used to using KDevelop, CMake, GDB, Valgrind, etc... I've found that, for me at least, it's just so much more elegant. Now Visual Studio just seems inexcusably "bulky," although I'd have trouble explaining exactly what I mean by that. Not to say it isn't powerful of course, because it certainly is.
So yeah, if you really like the Visual Studio way of doing things, it's great. But then you'd better hope you have a very beefy system just for your IDE, that you never have to do anything for any other platforms, that you're okay with using the languages it comes with and only those languages...
Disclaimer: The preceding was 100% personal opinion.
I think it's a fair assumption to make that the implicit comparison here is against Windows. We're talking about desktop OSes after all, and moreover talking about gaining market share, so Windows is about the only real place for that to come from. OSX is great, and this is one of its distinct advantages, but it is by no means yet a market leader.
Anyway, my point was absolutely NOT "well Windows has the same problem!" As I think is fairly clear in my post, I'm pointing out the fact that Windows is substantially WORSE than Linux on this front. In fact, it has always been my experience that, for an operating system designed to work on arbitrary hardware, Linux is really as good as you're going to get straight "out of the box," and certainly much more so than Windows. So my original point was essentially, "Bullshit, Linux is actually superior in this respect."
That's why this is a ridiculous argument, because people are talking about Linux as if it has atrocious hardware support, whereas the fact as far as I can see it is that Linux has much BETTER hardware support than any available alternative. It's sure as hell more "plug and play" in terms of hardware support than Windows (its main competitor at this point).
To make the point short: Windows XP with SP2 slipstreamed in is INCAPABLE of connecting to the INTERNET when installed on my desktop computer. Neither onboard LAN (standard nForce setup), nor wireless card (obscure brand) has any driver support without downloading it off the INTERNET. See the problem there? No such problem in Linux.
It looks like Yahoo's net income for 2007 was $660 million, or $0.47 per share. Where the hell do you get the idea that they're going to run OUT of cash when they're clearly operating at a profit? Care to explain why your analysis isn't utter nonsense? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me.
This is one of those things that you don't really NEED to test scientifically, at least in my opinion. Maybe looking at a zebra striped table is only marginally, if at all faster or more accurate, but I find it sure as hell is a lot more pleasant. Picking out data on a large unstriped table (small font for extra suckage points) just takes more concentration, regardless of whether it's slower. My opinion at least.
Slashdot Mirror
There is (Westlaw too). The problem is what to search for, considering the complexity of trials. Also, electronic filing is available in most jurisdictions these days, but is not mandatory, nor should it be. Really, this just looks like a case of the defense not doing their homework and the prosecution being dishonest.
Like, I said, it's HIGHLY configurable. Multiple glossiness levels going from none to way too damn much. The dependencies it needed were probably QT/GTK themselves. If you install the theme before any QT programs, for example, it'll pull in QT as well as all of ITS dependencies, but that's the same for really any theme.
Shh, they get mad when you point out the fact that they have two mutually exclusive creation stories in the same book...
UC Berkeley respectfully disagrees with you. Or are you trying to pawn off the whole micro/macroevolution distinction that has no real scientific basis? I'm sorry, but adaptation can be precisely what evolution is. More generally, evolution is merely a change over time (not necessarily of an adaptive nature), nothing more, nothing less. Adaptations, I think we will all agree, are definitely changes over time. "Long term evolution" as you put it (again, there is no scientific basis for this kind of distinction) is merely the accumulation of many such individual adaptations. Or are you going to now claim that individual adaptations can occur, but prohibit their combination? Please.
If you still insist on believing that nonsense, you might want to look into something called transfinite induction, and consider how it might be applied to properties such as adaptation. I think you may be (unpleasantly) surprised by its logical inevitability.
In the face of a free 17-year-old OS that WILL install on exactly the same hardware with little to no problem? Every Linux distro has an updated installation image you can use, you want to try to find one of those for Windows? An OS that's still WIDELY used in both personal and business environments and should be EXPECTED to still run, are you saying saying that after the moment of an OS's release it should no longer even be counted on to install properly? What about drivers that won't physically FIT on a floppy? Ooops, just out of luck I guess? Ever tried to install Windows on an nForce motherboard system (very common boards) without the driver CD (maybe your CD drive needs its own drivers)? Hint: no network connection because the motherboard ethernet port won't work without installing drivers.
That's something of a non sequitur. Ubuntu, Fedora, and all the rest also do not write the drivers. They do not take any responsibility for them. Yet the fact remains that their installations have much more complete driver support without all the hunting and fishing around. But still, their installation CDs aren't really different in nature from any Windows installation CD.
That's not even remotely true. You can install software (including drivers) downloaded off the internet under Linux just like you can in any other OS. The repositories just make it easier and more centralized. If you want the very latest nVidia beta driver though (for example), you can get it right off their web site just like the Windows counterpart.I guess I'll continue pimping my favorite theme here even though I posted it in another thread too (since you seem to genuinely want something like it). It's attractive and available uniformly for both major versions of both toolkits. Give it a try.
Probably hasn't happened because there are perfectly good options for a unified look already. For example, the most attractive widget theme I've found for ANY toolkit is available uniformly for them all:
QtCurve
Highly configurable and very attractive and professional looking. Install GTK1+2 and QT3+4 versions and everything looks the same regardless of what you're doing.
I'd really rather see projects like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, X, etc., get released on a "when it's ready basis" than seeing them all bending to the collective will of the major Linux distributions. Once Ubuntu et al. all decide they want October release dates or whatever, I imagine major projects will start getting pressured to conform as well, regardless or whether or not it makes any SENSE for them to have their releases at that point.
For a Linux distro (assuming you don't use a rolling release system which I personally prefer), it makes sense to have regular dates where you update your system to all the latest. The only "benefit" I could see coming out of a synchronized release cycle is to pressure projects to conform to that cycle too--otherwise what's the point--and for projects like OpenOffice that sort of thing just doesn't make any damn sense. Add to that the additional bureaucratic layers and inefficiency introduced by having to coordinate even more stuff...
I for one hope this falls flat.
Joseph Smith was widely accused of bank fraud and had several lawsuits and indictments leveled against him. A warrant was issued for his arrest. He spent time in jail. When Alpha830RulZ's questionable activity becomes a matter of legal and historical record, then maybe you can come back and make a worthwhile comparison, eh?
I think the general consensus is that any religion badass enough to require the carrying of a sword should be excused for also mandating magic chastity underwear.
I don't think that follows. You seem to be operating on the mistaken assumption that in this case non-genuine equates to pirated, which is just not the case. What we are ostensibly talking about here are legitimate Apple "clones" (and yes I think the EULA is worth a little less than the paper it's printed on), on which one should very well expect to legitimately use Photoshop.
Do pre-built (Dell and such) computers usually lack a firewire port? I admit I only build my own and don't pay attention to manufacturer computer, so I wouldn't know, but I find that odd considering it's been years since I've seen a motherboard without a standard firewire port right there on the back. I know my last two had them (not to mention multiple pin sets on the actual motherboard for adding more firewire ports as needed).
I'm curious actually. For fun, I'm going to do a little basic math, it's not something I've really seriously considered before:
SEGS, the world's largest solar installation, provides 354 MW of capacity and covers roughly 6.4 sq km of space.
The united states uses an average of 3.3 TW of power.
Doing a little math [3,300,000 MW / 354 MW * 6.4 sq km] we get roughly 60,000 sq km of land needed to accommodate 100% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.
The Mojave Desert, where the SEGS are located, has an area of roughly 57,000 sq km.
So, I'm going to do a little generous handwaving and say that entirely covering the Mojave desert in solar panels would effectively provide the U.S.'s annual energy needs (although clearly we would want to decentralize the infrastructure to a degree). Now comes the point where I'm not really able to continue the reasoning while at work. What is the actual cost/km of building a plant such as the SEGS? Is there anywhere where this sort of calculation can be found in a more scientific study? What would particularly interest me is, assuming such a massive solar farm were to be built, is how long it would take for the greatly reduced operating cost compared fossil fuels to offset the initial construction cost? Specifically, since solar "fuel" is effectively free, how long would it take for such a solar array to return in fuel savings the extra expense it required in initial construction?
Now I'm going to assert some of my liberal tendencies. How much of our national energy consumption could have been satisfied effectively permanently (remember, solar "fuel" is free, so the only associated cost is a moderate mechanical upkeep), by having spent all the money we've spent on the Iraq war on solar energy construction efforts instead? Because let's not fool ourselves, when it comes down to it, that money was spent on securing U.S. energy supplies one way or the other. I have a horrible sinking gut feeling that the percentage we're looking at (especially if you consider the worst case estimate I've seen of the Iraq war eventually having a cost in the trillions), would in fact be a very substantial percentage of American energy consumption.
Ethics is, fundamentally, the concern with how one may act as an agent for "the good."* If you are going to dispute that "ethics is unconcerned with the actions of others," the only way you can sensibly go about doing so is on the grounds of ethical relativism. Which is to say, the definition of "the good" changes depending on the particular beliefs and customs of the individuals or groups involved. Specifically, you would have to argue that providing humanitarian aid in this case would not be for "the good," whether because we do not see it as such, or another involved party does not.
That being said, I think the general consensus of human civilization is that humanitarian aid is not a relative good, but a universal good, and as such ethical decisions regarding its application absolutely are totally unconcerned with the actions of others. To wit, if I have provided humanitarian aid, I have acted as an agent for the good, regardless of what any others have done. In short, your claim seems to fly in the face of the common philosophical understanding of ethics.
* I have put "the good" in quotes because, while its specific content is definitely something up for debate, its relation to ethics generally isn't.
No, this sounds to me like Mr. Bioshock Rep also thinks this is a stupid idea and is trying to pass the subtle hint that if enough people call in and bitch about it when they do it (as people should) then the Corporate Overlords at EA will probably think twice about doing it again. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
This will be even easier to hack around than kludgey DRM garbage like Starforce (or whatever) is. That's not to mention the fact that I still like to play games that are 10+ years old. Will they still be maintaining the verification servers for Spore and Mass Effect in ten years? I sure as hell doubt it. Bad. Fucking. Idea. On so many levels.
Getting new capital doesn't directly equate to raising revenue, or profit, or anything like that. It can help, certainly, but as the big bust at the beginning of this century clearly showed, you can have all the damn capital in the world and still not be a worthwhile company. And, for that matter, you can operate a successful company perfectly well without any new injections of capital if your business plan is sound and properly executed. No, what Yahoo needs to worry about is not raising new capital, but actually developing and marketing useful and desired products and services--same as any other company really--which I would say they are moderately (but not surpassingly) successful at. That's what will ultimately determine their fate. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Yahoo the #2 player (behind Google) in the market space we're concerned with here?
I, too, prefer an IDE that takes up half my available memory on a system with 2 gigs of ram! In all seriousness though, I've found that the only reason I had trouble using something other than Visual Studio was because I'd been so indoctrinated into the MS way of doing things. Now that I've gotten used to using KDevelop, CMake, GDB, Valgrind, etc... I've found that, for me at least, it's just so much more elegant. Now Visual Studio just seems inexcusably "bulky," although I'd have trouble explaining exactly what I mean by that. Not to say it isn't powerful of course, because it certainly is.
So yeah, if you really like the Visual Studio way of doing things, it's great. But then you'd better hope you have a very beefy system just for your IDE, that you never have to do anything for any other platforms, that you're okay with using the languages it comes with and only those languages...
Disclaimer: The preceding was 100% personal opinion.
I think it's a fair assumption to make that the implicit comparison here is against Windows. We're talking about desktop OSes after all, and moreover talking about gaining market share, so Windows is about the only real place for that to come from. OSX is great, and this is one of its distinct advantages, but it is by no means yet a market leader.
Anyway, my point was absolutely NOT "well Windows has the same problem!" As I think is fairly clear in my post, I'm pointing out the fact that Windows is substantially WORSE than Linux on this front. In fact, it has always been my experience that, for an operating system designed to work on arbitrary hardware, Linux is really as good as you're going to get straight "out of the box," and certainly much more so than Windows. So my original point was essentially, "Bullshit, Linux is actually superior in this respect."
That's why this is a ridiculous argument, because people are talking about Linux as if it has atrocious hardware support, whereas the fact as far as I can see it is that Linux has much BETTER hardware support than any available alternative. It's sure as hell more "plug and play" in terms of hardware support than Windows (its main competitor at this point).
To make the point short: Windows XP with SP2 slipstreamed in is INCAPABLE of connecting to the INTERNET when installed on my desktop computer. Neither onboard LAN (standard nForce setup), nor wireless card (obscure brand) has any driver support without downloading it off the INTERNET. See the problem there? No such problem in Linux.
Good GOD! Clearly Ballmer is responsible not just for Microsoft's downfall, but for a slump in the ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY! Burn him! BURN HIM!
It looks like Yahoo's net income for 2007 was $660 million, or $0.47 per share. Where the hell do you get the idea that they're going to run OUT of cash when they're clearly operating at a profit? Care to explain why your analysis isn't utter nonsense? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me.
Yahoo's 2007 earnings report in case you're actually interested in, you know, evidence.
This is one of those things that you don't really NEED to test scientifically, at least in my opinion. Maybe looking at a zebra striped table is only marginally, if at all faster or more accurate, but I find it sure as hell is a lot more pleasant. Picking out data on a large unstriped table (small font for extra suckage points) just takes more concentration, regardless of whether it's slower. My opinion at least.