I used XP for a couple of months on a machine I bought that came with it. It was crap, so I just upgraded it to Windows 2000. I think the problem is that they tried to put in a bunch of backward compatibility that wasn't there with 2000. I wouldn't even put XP in the same class as 2000. It's more like 98 on steroids.
They should have just stuck with the 2000 strategy of "screw your old programs. We're gonna make an OS this time." It's too bad really. 2000 was so promising in many ways. Now they're just back to the same old crap they've always had.
I guess some people have lots of time to just sit around and think. What I was really asking, of course, is whether the other poster subscribed to a particular WTC conspiracy theory, as I hadn't heard any about WTC 7. I'm sure that's the one. In any case, I happen to know for a fact that Sept. 11 was perpetrated by commie martians, and those twin probes were heavily armed.
Fair enough. It's good policy not to just believe what other people say just 'cause they said so. But you missed the other important point. Yes, you should look closely at either side's experts, because they are indeed paid (though I don't think Dr. Davis is so strapped for cash he'd be willing to outright lie for a few thousand dollars), and Groklaw and Slashdot have indeed had a lot of discussion about this testimony, including some small nitpicks. However, both sides will usually have expert witnesses supporting their side of the story, meaning the judge/jury will have to decide which expert is more credible and had the better testimony.
The telling thing here is that, while IBM was able to convince a world-renowned, leading expert on Computer Science to back up their story, SCO was not. Like I said, it's not because they don't have the money. They have $30 million to throw at sub-par lawyers. They could have paid Dr. Davis $550/hr to testify for them, only he wouldn't have done so because they are wrong. They could have paid Brian Kernighan to testify, but he testified for IBM instead. They could afford any of the experts IBM has paid, and with the future of the company riding on this litigation, they should have. The only reasonable explanation for them not having a real expert is that no real expert would set foot in Lindon for all the money in the world. The reason these statements from Dr. Davis are so important is that from a legal standpoint, they are basically uncontested. In the court, it's up to SCO to contest that testimony, which they haven't done in any meaningful way (except to call it "irrelevant" without backing that up, and to offer the inadmissible testimony of two of their own employees posing as experts), which means the judge can pretty much accept them as fact, and be on solid legal ground.
In a court case like this, the two sides are expected to retain and pay expert witnesses to advise the court. The experts are expected to be honest because their reputation, which is worth quite a lot (in this case $550/hr) is riding on their testimony. In fact, at Wednesday's hearing, Judge Kimball basically asked SCO why they hadn't retained any experts to counter IBM's numerous real experts. SCO lamely responded that it was still too early (15 months into the case). What they didn't (and couldn't) say is that they haven't retained any experts because no expert is going to sign his reputable name to their idiot theories. The only testimony that SCO has offered is that of Chris Sontag and Sandeep Gupta, two SCO employees. They were paid too. The difference is, Dr. Davis is able to submit a formidable resume that qualifies him to offer expert testimony. Sontag actually tries to sound qualified by saying that he has an MIS degree and took some computer classes in college. Gupta has an engineering degree. The problem is, SCO can't even decide what kind of testimony these guys are giving. It was supposed to be personal knowledge (which anyone can give regarding what they have seen directly), but they then went on to give what amounted to expert testimony (which is supposed to be based on deep, extensive knowledge in the field, like Dr. Davis'). Then SCO's lawyers went on to tell the court that, althogh Sontag and Gupta gave personal experience testiomny, they qualified as experts, and their testimony was relevant, but Dr. Davis' wasn't.
The point is, this is not IBM paying some front man to do their dirty FUD work and dress it up as an "independent" study. Everybody in the court knows that IBM is paying Dr. Davis as they are expected to. What is telling is that SCO has been unable to offer any counter-testimony from any real experts. They've still got $50 million in the bank. It's not because they can't afford it.
Maybe he knows that because he just knows who Randall Davis is. He is rather well known in computing circles. I'd say it's totally fair to post facts, even ones that are true, as long as they're only based on hearsay.
Rarely do I laugh out loud at a post. Thank you. The site is even funnier. I love the quote: "It's very funny. In an odd sort of way I'm quite flattered."
Funny you should bring that up. Last year, I bought a car from a guy who told me repeatedly that he was the best and msot honest in the business. I took the car, but when he failed to meet the terms of the purchase contract, I dropped it back in his parking lot. The moron had already sold my trade-in. I called his general manager, explained the situation, and went to a different store. They treated me pretty fairly without having to tell me that they were doing so, and got me another vehicle that has been quite satisfactory. 30 days later, I passed by the first guy's lot. They had shut him down. Now, I'm not an MBA or anything, but I'm thinking you don't get shut down over one botched deal.
I'm definitely not saying he's a ball of fluff or anything. I'm talking more about the general phenomenon of people who feel the need to point out to everybody that they're celebrities, because it's generally a guarantee that they're not. If they were real celebrities, they wouldn't have to tell you. Like I was saying, Stephen Hawking doesn't have to tell you that he's famous, because you already know (at least if you are even remotely involved in anything technical). However, your point is well taken that a little boastful exaggeration in advertising is neither uncommon nor unexpected.
As for the spammers, if I thought that dude were after me, I'd sure think twice before hitting the Send button.
You know you're a wannabe when you have to say at the top of your webpage that you're "world-famous." You're not going to see "world-famous physicist" at the top of Stephen Hawking's webpage (and yes, I checked. It's not there).
As many have said, just load all of your pages without the leading [section] on [section].slashdot.org, and you'll get Slashdot green. Its not that hard. When you look at t page, go to the location bar, remove the section and reload.
Am I the only one reminded of Back to the Future II, where they have this exact thing in the house (except its broken, 'cause Michael J. Fox's character is poor).
A fun side project: Hook these up to a high-end SGI machine, install a digital camcorder to film the real view out your window, and replace your ugly neighbors with attractive digital characters in real time.
I know it's not strictly kosher to open a serious discussion in a story about a muppet being named most popular scientist, but...
IEEE's Spectrum this month has a really interesting article on cold fusion, which talks about why the results are so hard to replicate, and the number of researchers who have managed to do so nonetheless. There is some debate about whether the effect being observed is actually fusion or not (although there are numerous indicaters that it might be), but the whole thing is rather vindicating to Pons and Fleischmann. There may indeed be a viable energy source here, and the DOE, which has blackballed anything cold-fusion related since the original fiasco, is even granting some researchers an audience to beg for some funding.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled fantasizing about Dana Scully, Major Carter and Natalie Portman.
The part that bugged me the most was the fact that a ballistic rocket took about 15 seconds to hit the sun from the planet's surface. Then, Captain James T. Kirk, the man who has "cheated death" a thousand times, dies by falling off of a cliff? That's the best the writers could come up with? My three year old daughter could have written a better script, and it would be more scientifically plausible.
I am a Mormon, and I unfortunately live in Utah (had to follow the work, but I'm leaving in Feb), so I feel like I am qualified to say that SCOX, Darl McBride, Orrin Hatch and Hatch's idiot son are all, in Slashdot terminology, "teh suck." I think that the view on SCOX is shared by most tech-aware Mormons, though I'm not sure what these people are thinking in continuing to elect that troll Hatch. I know everybody wants to vote Republican, but that's what primaries are for -- you can get a candidate who is both Republican and human. [NOTE: I am already anticipating your Republican/Human jokes, so please don't think they make you clever]
The decision you link to clearly finds for the other guy, and denies the singer's attempt to hijack the domain name. Every once in a while, the guy with the money does lose.
Now...admittedly, there are systems that will play a full DVD on a single charge, but if this is a priority for you, then you should own two batteries anyway.
I know what you mean. I've frequently heard that Linus uses FreeBSD for developing and hosting the kernel, and I thouhgt, "why would he downgrade to Linux?"
Slashdot Mirror
They should have just stuck with the 2000 strategy of "screw your old programs. We're gonna make an OS this time." It's too bad really. 2000 was so promising in many ways. Now they're just back to the same old crap they've always had.
I guess some people have lots of time to just sit around and think. What I was really asking, of course, is whether the other poster subscribed to a particular WTC conspiracy theory, as I hadn't heard any about WTC 7. I'm sure that's the one. In any case, I happen to know for a fact that Sept. 11 was perpetrated by commie martians, and those twin probes were heavily armed.
The telling thing here is that, while IBM was able to convince a world-renowned, leading expert on Computer Science to back up their story, SCO was not. Like I said, it's not because they don't have the money. They have $30 million to throw at sub-par lawyers. They could have paid Dr. Davis $550/hr to testify for them, only he wouldn't have done so because they are wrong. They could have paid Brian Kernighan to testify, but he testified for IBM instead. They could afford any of the experts IBM has paid, and with the future of the company riding on this litigation, they should have. The only reasonable explanation for them not having a real expert is that no real expert would set foot in Lindon for all the money in the world. The reason these statements from Dr. Davis are so important is that from a legal standpoint, they are basically uncontested. In the court, it's up to SCO to contest that testimony, which they haven't done in any meaningful way (except to call it "irrelevant" without backing that up, and to offer the inadmissible testimony of two of their own employees posing as experts), which means the judge can pretty much accept them as fact, and be on solid legal ground.
The point is, this is not IBM paying some front man to do their dirty FUD work and dress it up as an "independent" study. Everybody in the court knows that IBM is paying Dr. Davis as they are expected to. What is telling is that SCO has been unable to offer any counter-testimony from any real experts. They've still got $50 million in the bank. It's not because they can't afford it.
Maybe he knows that because he just knows who Randall Davis is. He is rather well known in computing circles. I'd say it's totally fair to post facts, even ones that are true, as long as they're only based on hearsay.
Rarely do I laugh out loud at a post. Thank you. The site is even funnier. I love the quote: "It's very funny. In an odd sort of way I'm quite flattered."
Funny you should bring that up. Last year, I bought a car from a guy who told me repeatedly that he was the best and msot honest in the business. I took the car, but when he failed to meet the terms of the purchase contract, I dropped it back in his parking lot. The moron had already sold my trade-in. I called his general manager, explained the situation, and went to a different store. They treated me pretty fairly without having to tell me that they were doing so, and got me another vehicle that has been quite satisfactory. 30 days later, I passed by the first guy's lot. They had shut him down. Now, I'm not an MBA or anything, but I'm thinking you don't get shut down over one botched deal.
As for the spammers, if I thought that dude were after me, I'd sure think twice before hitting the Send button.
You know you're a wannabe when you have to say at the top of your webpage that you're "world-famous." You're not going to see "world-famous physicist" at the top of Stephen Hawking's webpage (and yes, I checked. It's not there).
As many have said, just load all of your pages without the leading [section] on [section].slashdot.org, and you'll get Slashdot green. Its not that hard. When you look at t page, go to the location bar, remove the section and reload.
Wish I had mod points.
Just from WWII, you get penicillin, radar, nuclear power and jeeps.
A fun side project: Hook these up to a high-end SGI machine, install a digital camcorder to film the real view out your window, and replace your ugly neighbors with attractive digital characters in real time.
IEEE's Spectrum this month has a really interesting article on cold fusion, which talks about why the results are so hard to replicate, and the number of researchers who have managed to do so nonetheless. There is some debate about whether the effect being observed is actually fusion or not (although there are numerous indicaters that it might be), but the whole thing is rather vindicating to Pons and Fleischmann. There may indeed be a viable energy source here, and the DOE, which has blackballed anything cold-fusion related since the original fiasco, is even granting some researchers an audience to beg for some funding.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled fantasizing about Dana Scully, Major Carter and Natalie Portman.
The part that bugged me the most was the fact that a ballistic rocket took about 15 seconds to hit the sun from the planet's surface. Then, Captain James T. Kirk, the man who has "cheated death" a thousand times, dies by falling off of a cliff? That's the best the writers could come up with? My three year old daughter could have written a better script, and it would be more scientifically plausible.
42
I am a Mormon, and I unfortunately live in Utah (had to follow the work, but I'm leaving in Feb), so I feel like I am qualified to say that SCOX, Darl McBride, Orrin Hatch and Hatch's idiot son are all, in Slashdot terminology, "teh suck." I think that the view on SCOX is shared by most tech-aware Mormons, though I'm not sure what these people are thinking in continuing to elect that troll Hatch. I know everybody wants to vote Republican, but that's what primaries are for -- you can get a candidate who is both Republican and human. [NOTE: I am already anticipating your Republican/Human jokes, so please don't think they make you clever]
The decision you link to clearly finds for the other guy, and denies the singer's attempt to hijack the domain name. Every once in a while, the guy with the money does lose.
Tell that to Lindows
I know what you mean. I've frequently heard that Linus uses FreeBSD for developing and hosting the kernel, and I thouhgt, "why would he downgrade to Linux?"