While no fan of Microsoft or their products, in recent years Microsoft has enjoyed record profits and I don't think "Windows 7 and Office 2010 did nothing to excite tech user" from the article is exactly true either.
What makes Linux development work so well is the involvement of many companies and not just one. Making the code open source is a first step in getting more companies involved.
Property rights and "intellectual property" rights aren't the same thing. That's why they have different names. It seems like you are confusing the two.
I don't think these anecdotes actually apply to most people. In my department most PhD students I know meet their supervisors for several hours a week (including me).
They are only addressed to someone who would want to do something that is otherwise restricted by copyright (such as redistributing, or making a derived work).
That doesn't make sense, just because they don't look at the flaws (even for themselves) doesn't mean they don't exist. (I'd imagine windows malware writers use windows for the most part)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say do it, but just not in the USA.
While no fan of Microsoft or their products, in recent years Microsoft has enjoyed record profits and I don't think "Windows 7 and Office 2010 did nothing to excite tech user" from the article is exactly true either.
He already admitted to being paid by Microsoft.
You haven't quantified what "suggest" means either. Is that not a gut feeling too?
I don't see what you are referring to, Google hasn't used it's patents for anything except defensive reasons.
Mentioning Brian David Josephson, with his belief in telepathy and parapsychology, hardly makes it sound credible.
What makes Linux development work so well is the involvement of many companies and not just one. Making the code open source is a first step in getting more companies involved.
The article says an even greater amount of carbon offsets, not a "little extra".
If you don't attend the course you can not pass.
Very few are actually religious
Property rights and "intellectual property" rights aren't the same thing. That's why they have different names. It seems like you are confusing the two.
So what happens when someone arguing a popular view debates a charismatic person!
Microsoft has a near total monopoly (90%+) on the desktop and can leverage this to increase its browser usage.
I don't think these anecdotes actually apply to most people. In my department most PhD students I know meet their supervisors for several hours a week (including me).
Microsoft uses its patents against others offensively, Google doesn't.
They never claimed it was compatible, microsoft did.
then use OpenCL
just because they are not infected does not mean they are functional.
They are only addressed to someone who would want to do something that is otherwise restricted by copyright (such as redistributing, or making a derived work).
And the end user may be that person.
Since God is meant to be all powerful he must, presumably, choose for Satan to exist.
all unpatched the Linux vulnerabilities you show are marked non-critical by the adversaries where as some of those from windows are marked critical.
With TCP one write does not correspond to one read on the other end.
are you using the proprietary drivers available from ATI?
That doesn't make sense, just because they don't look at the flaws (even for themselves) doesn't mean they don't exist. (I'd imagine windows malware writers use windows for the most part)
The problem is distinguishing a large globular cluster apart from a galaxy.