>In the case of Sun, openoffice.org was a small part of a solution for the desktop.
It wasn't even *selling* staroffice/openoffice that was part of Sun desktop solution.
Rather, it was the *existence* of such a product that matters to Sun on the desktop.
Sun's vision is a central server running programs, with slimmer smart terminals rendering them. This requires a program compatible with the existing word processing and spreadsheet files already in use, and those that continue to be generated.
An openoffice *existing* gives them what they need.
There are similar explanations for IBM needing Apache and Apple with Darwin.
If OpenOffice can thrive without Sun/Oracle/Adobe/whoever-they-are-this-week supporting/controlling it, Sun's needs are met.
I published a paper on this a few years ago in Netnomics. I don't know if you can download the final paper, but there still seem to be plenty of draft versions floating around.
>if it where not for the fact that he got up and left on his >own, I would have had to call Security to escort him out
ooh, security, we're scared!
let's see, Scotty on the one hand, and a couple of red-shirts on the other . . . yeah, they could take care of it--right until they got transported somewhere interesting.
I don't recall for sure, but isn't he the only one ever to still be both wearing a read shirt *and* breathing at the end of a Star Trek episode?
During a web search on the early web (pre-google search, iirc), I came upon a left-wing paper's television listing for the wizard of oz, to the effect of, "A young girl travels to a foreign land, kills the first person she meets, and sets out to kill again" . . .
Unless he was up against a fully decent lawyer, who would explain that telling a story from another perspective is a well-known literary device, but not parody . . .
Yes. The stuff he co-authored with Niven wawas actually better than either of their individual works. The general tone/theme was far more Pournelle than Niven, but you could often tell who wrote which section.
And his introductions to the short stories in the anthologies he edited (There Will Be War, The Stars at War) were more compelling than the well chosen stories . . .
>Hell, I remember when Slashdot was pretty much an All Linux, All The Time forum frequented only by hard-core techies.
Never mind that, I recall Slashdot breaking tech news before the Wall Street Journal (before it became "WSJ Today"). I paid a lot less attention when my morning WSJ reported tech news that would come later in the day here. Now fox & cnn seem to report most things hours or days ahead . . . occasionally I peek, out of some misdirected bit of nostalgia (and occasionally hit a nugget such as Byte).
>(Anyone even realize that CRC means chemical rubber company-- yet the main product is integral tables)
Of course.
But how few of those who do recognize that know that many (most?) of those tables came from the WPA. While others built bridges and libraries, unemployed academics cranked out tables . . .
>I couldn't care less about the BYTE brand, but I loved the BYTE content.
Exactly.
It's not Pournelle & Ciarca that you need, but the type of content they wrote.
My first encounter with Byte was reading an article on adding an external stack to your 8008, giving it "most" of the difference between the 8008 and the 8080, for a mere 20 (30?) chips . . .
[for the kids, the 8008 was an 8 bit, but with only a 14 bit address space, and a 7(?) layer internal stack (two bytes each). The 8080 instead had a pointer to a stack in memory, with no fixed depth limit].
No, we weren't much likelier to build most of the things than we were to build a 100mpg car from the article from a Spitfire chassis, small tractor engine, and fiberglass molds as described in a Popular Mechanics article, but they took us through what it *would* take to do it.
Under federal and most state rules, if Google had offered judgment (against itself) in the amount of $2 or more, it would not only be the prevailing party (allowing it to recover its costs--filing fees, photocopying, court reporters, etc.), but also its attorney fees from that point on . . .
For those old enough to remember, the USFL did indeed win its antitrust suit agaiinst the NFL. While it one $1, which was tripoled, the significant effect of the win was the payment of several million dollars in attorney fees.
In the present case, assuming that google *didn't* offer judgment, it's likely on the hook flr several hundred or a few thousand dollars in court costs.
In 80's/early 90's, there was an option to have a "random" driver's license number instead of your social security number.
One day, a couple of folks who had a few beers noticed a couple of their licenses, and scratched their heads, and figured out the "encryption" algorithm. Social security number was doubled, and the last digit of the year of birth appended.
Also, In what would become the Dawson building, now the East India Building (or some such), Howard Hughes did indeed have a bottom floor office. And, yes, there was indeed a secret underground tunnel to the "house" across the street, which had an underground complex significantly larger than the house (thus the surprising number of air vents in a town where basements are rare due to geology).
Add in, at least according to Hardy Boys books, (very weak) checksums included included in the serial numbers of US currency, such that one digit can be determined from the rest on a real bill.
Mix these together, and it sure sounds like this technologically impossible rumored system.
In 1980, the mob still ran this town, and no such secret cooperation would have occurred.
By 1990, the mob was shattered, and it's remnants were comic relief (70 year old men on canes shooting other 70 year olds in their driveways [yes, seriously!]).
Doesn't get you very far; the estimation algorithm is trivial.
Changing the starting number only changes the effective sample size by one.
I'm too tired by now, but your estimator is roughly along the lines of,
n=1: E[pop]=2*X1, where X1 = serial # of observed unit. n=2: E[pop]=X1+X2
and the weights change from there. Converges blindingly fast.
When the numbers started at some large value as suggested, you really only burn one observation, the smallest, subtract it from the rest, and use the same algorithms.
Slashdot Mirror
Was that StarOffice 4.0 or 5.0 that pulled that nonsense, and nearly killed it off before it ever became openoffice?
hawk
>In the case of Sun, openoffice.org was a small part of a solution for the desktop.
It wasn't even *selling* staroffice/openoffice that was part of Sun desktop solution.
Rather, it was the *existence* of such a product that matters to Sun on the desktop.
Sun's vision is a central server running programs, with slimmer smart terminals rendering them. This requires a program compatible with the existing word processing and spreadsheet files already in use, and those that continue to be generated.
An openoffice *existing* gives them what they need.
There are similar explanations for IBM needing Apache and Apple with Darwin.
If OpenOffice can thrive without Sun/Oracle/Adobe/whoever-they-are-this-week supporting/controlling it, Sun's needs are met.
I published a paper on this a few years ago in Netnomics. I don't know if you can download the final paper, but there still seem to be plenty of draft versions floating around.
Actually, it runs both ways, even in the same club.
It's the only example economists have of a positive and negative wage for the same work.
The higher-end the club, the more the girl pays for stage time.
Also, she pays more for peak time/days/holidays.
For off-peak, she may get paid in the same club that she would pay during peak.
>if you need to carry a (probably rather icky) towel around with you?
No, Ford, I don't want a towel.
Hmm, unless Trillian goes along with this new outfit . . .
>if it where not for the fact that he got up and left on his
>own, I would have had to call Security to escort him out
ooh, security, we're scared!
let's see, Scotty on the one hand, and a couple of red-shirts on the other . . . yeah, they could take care of it--right until they got transported somewhere interesting.
I don't recall for sure, but isn't he the only one ever to still be both wearing a read shirt *and* breathing at the end of a Star Trek episode?
hawk
Err, is snapping electronics over your knee something you do regularly???
>What exactly does it have to do with thunder or bolts?
It's as new convenient way to zap your ram. :)
hawk
During a web search on the early web (pre-google search, iirc), I came upon a left-wing paper's television listing for the wizard of oz, to the effect of, "A young girl travels to a foreign land, kills the first person she meets, and sets out to kill again" . . .
It's not much different that current attempts to re-write history. But I digress. I find a Russian re-write interesting.
Might I, then, direct you to Pravda's back issues. Surely available online, unless western conspiracy has hidden . . . :)
hawk
She's mostly known for steamy fantasy/romance novels (the Kushiel series),
*that* explains why I only got a couple of dozen pages, if that, into that book before reaching for the space opera at the top of the pile . . . :)
Unless he was up against a fully decent lawyer, who would explain that telling a story from another perspective is a well-known literary device, but not parody . . .
hawk, esq., not giving legal advice on the matter
Yes. The stuff he co-authored with Niven wawas actually better than either of their individual works. The general tone/theme was far more Pournelle than Niven, but you could often tell who wrote which section.
>but the personal computing industry has changed massively since then;
More people will probably read this thread than owned a computer (or read Byte) in Byte's heyday . . .
!
hawk
ack.
And his introductions to the short stories in the anthologies he edited (There Will Be War, The Stars at War) were more compelling than the well chosen stories . . .
hawk
>I didn't read him much in the '80s, only in the mid to late '70s.
He wrote his best SF in the '70s. I don't think he had a peer for the dystopian writing he did back then . . .
hawk
>Hell, I remember when Slashdot was pretty much an All Linux, All The Time forum frequented only by hard-core techies.
Never mind that, I recall Slashdot breaking tech news before the Wall Street Journal (before it became "WSJ Today"). I paid a lot less attention when my morning WSJ reported tech news that would come later in the day here. Now fox & cnn seem to report most things hours or days ahead . . . occasionally I peek, out of some misdirected bit of nostalgia (and occasionally hit a nugget such as Byte).
hawk
>(Anyone even realize that CRC means chemical rubber company-- yet the main product is integral tables)
Of course.
But how few of those who do recognize that know that many (most?) of those tables came from the WPA. While others built bridges and libraries, unemployed academics cranked out tables . . .
hawk
>I don't think BYTE would have interested me since I never owned an IBM PC at the time,
>and from what I remember that was it's main focus
That was very late BYTE.
Byte made it's mark in the 8 bit days, when the 4 bits were still worth discussing at times.
hawk
>While this may well be true, you're next sentence.
Now *that* is a mishomophonia we don't see very often; it's almost universally the other direction . . . :)
bawm
>I couldn't care less about the BYTE brand, but I loved the BYTE content.
Exactly.
It's not Pournelle & Ciarca that you need, but the type of content they wrote.
My first encounter with Byte was reading an article on adding an external stack to your 8008, giving it "most" of the difference between the 8008 and the 8080, for a mere 20 (30?) chips . . .
[for the kids, the 8008 was an 8 bit, but with only a 14 bit address space, and a 7(?) layer internal stack (two bytes each). The 8080 instead had a pointer to a stack in memory, with no fixed depth limit].
No, we weren't much likelier to build most of the things than we were to build a 100mpg car from the article from a Spitfire chassis, small tractor engine, and fiberglass molds as described in a Popular Mechanics article, but they took us through what it *would* take to do it.
hawk
Under federal and most state rules, if Google had offered judgment (against itself) in the amount of $2 or more, it would not only be the prevailing party (allowing it to recover its costs--filing fees, photocopying, court reporters, etc.), but also its attorney fees from that point on . . .
For those old enough to remember, the USFL did indeed win its antitrust suit agaiinst the NFL. While it one $1, which was tripoled, the significant effect of the win was the payment of several million dollars in attorney fees.
In the present case, assuming that google *didn't* offer judgment, it's likely on the hook flr several hundred or a few thousand dollars in court costs.
hawk, esq.
Given the reaction to the offered draw, it seems to be quite familiar with the Wookie Gambit . . .
Oh, for heaven's sake.
In 80's/early 90's, there was an option to have a "random" driver's license number instead of your social security number.
One day, a couple of folks who had a few beers noticed a couple of their licenses, and scratched their heads, and figured out the "encryption" algorithm. Social security number was doubled, and the last digit of the year of birth appended.
Also, In what would become the Dawson building, now the East India Building (or some such), Howard Hughes did indeed have a bottom floor office. And, yes, there was indeed a secret underground tunnel to the "house" across the street, which had an underground complex significantly larger than the house (thus the surprising number of air vents in a town where basements are rare due to geology).
Add in, at least according to Hardy Boys books, (very weak) checksums included included in the serial numbers of US currency, such that one digit can be determined from the rest on a real bill.
Mix these together, and it sure sounds like this technologically impossible rumored system.
In 1980, the mob still ran this town, and no such secret cooperation would have occurred.
By 1990, the mob was shattered, and it's remnants were comic relief (70 year old men on canes shooting other 70 year olds in their driveways [yes, seriously!]).
Doesn't get you very far; the estimation algorithm is trivial.
Changing the starting number only changes the effective sample size by one.
I'm too tired by now, but your estimator is roughly along the lines of,
n=1: E[pop]=2*X1, where X1 = serial # of observed unit.
n=2: E[pop]=X1+X2
and the weights change from there. Converges blindingly fast.
When the numbers started at some large value as suggested, you really only burn one observation, the smallest, subtract it from the rest, and use the same algorithms.
s/online discussion about// :)
s/grows/grew/
s/approaches/approached/