And it's the implementation in IE5. Why? Because the Microsoft Exchange team wrote the original implementation of XmlHttpRequest to support OWA in Exchange 2000.
So, in this case, the first implementation of the idea, used for the purpose that others have adopted later is Microsoft's. Usually, that's considered enough to claim priority in defining a standard. That other browsers aren't conformant to the standard is hardly Microsoft's fault.
And that's one of the problems with antitrust law. In most legal situations, an action either is or is not illegal, and a motive can make an already-illegal act either better or worse. The classic example of this is homicide, where these are cases where a homicide can be either justifiable or aggeavated depending on the reason for the killing.
In antitrust law, an action which is legal suddenly becomes illegal, based on the motive of the actor. Intel, for instance, would be perfectly justified in not supporting AMD's implementation of MMX and the like if the goal was merely to support the Intel implementations of these standards, and AMD's implementations were just collateral damage of the design Intel used. It could be in a legally questionable situation if it were a monopoly and if the decision was to actively support the Intel implementation of these standards, and to actively not support AMD's implementation.
The professors can do what they want if they choose to control their IT infrastructure, but if their equipment causes problems on the backbone, it is automatically shutdown. Most people do not have a problem with the policy at all.
But what you're describing is exactly what the GP was rejecting. Back when I was an academic, I assure you that I would have up and left any school which dared to tell me what I could or could not run, or what I could or could not expose. However, I would have been perfectly willing to live under the "If you cause trouble, we'll turn your taps off."
They're different. One is saying "I run the infrastructure, and I don't care if I get in the way of you doing your job." (To which the answer is "Hell, director of computer services? Please reprimand or fire." Hey, presto, instant ExBOFH.) The other is saying "Do your job as you like, but don't get in the way of other people doing their jobs." Big difference in attitude.
A modern American university is only nominally the "employer" of the professors who work there. It's often a better model to view the professors as customers who rent space in the University's facilities, in return for access to students and post docs. Most of the research computers are actually only titulary university property, having been bought with grant funds for research purposes. If the professor whose grant provided them left, the professord leave, too. If your administrative rules become the reason said professor leaves (along with his grant, machines, and overhead payments), then...well, let's just say that you'll be leaving soon thereafter.
Although I agree with you about the stupidity of smart ethernet controllers, the interesting thing about this one is that it claims to not need to transition to kernel space to set up a packet for sending. In principle, that might actually make a difference in throughput...it it's true.
Now, I don't think it's true, or, at least, I can't figure out how it could be done. Maybe I just suffer from a lack of imagination.
Each reflected photon's wavelength will be slightly longer than the original photon's wavelength was. That's the source of the energy difference in the sail.
And while cookies might be used to 'serve up targeted ads', it seems to me that if you're going to be served ads *anyhow* then you might as well see things that might be of interest to you...
Well, actually, no, I don't.
You see, the value of my eyeballs is propoertional to the number of clicks you can get from me. Essentially, by tracking my click stream, you're raising the value of my eyeballs -- that is, you're charging me more for your site, without telling me about that. I don't trust someone who raises his prices silently, and so, no, I don't want "interesting" ads. I don't trust you -- why should I trust your ads?
I'd be even more disturbed if a robort were to come into my room while I was being examined. Since I don't know what a robort is, I wouldn't know what it was.
The author of the rubric "carefully" lists examples of things that ought to be seen -- and then carefully extracts two graphs from a long analysis in order to "prove" his claim. Never mind that the things he argues one should look for would be embedded in the materials and metods or results section, not the conclusion or the paper summary. Never mind, either, that his objections are bogus (red versus black ink? Uh, wait -- if the winning system had been shown in red, it would have conveyed how burningly fast the system was.)
Oh, wait -- it's somewhich which shows that samba 3.0 is slower than w2k3. Never mind. This is slashdot, so the ditors have gotta troll for ad views.
Actually, if you read TF spec sheet, you'd see that doesn't work -- you can only put them side-by-side, resulting in 75 ppm. Still freeking fast, but not, by any means, 150 ppm.
The problem is inter-head calibration. Each stepper-motor/head complex has to behave exactly like all the others, even though there's resonant coupling among the various read/write heads.
I'm not sure that it's an intractable problem, but I sure wouldn't want to be the one who got stuck trying to figure out how to fix it...
And as for the retraction strawman--that at some point you may get a reversal and demand that the code be removed--the exact same logic appiles to F/OSS-licenced software: code has been removed from F/OSS in exactly this sort of situation in the past, and there's no reason to believe it won't be in the future.
The release of the code itself is an irrevocable step. Once it is out there and copied, there's no tracking its spread -- the algorithms behind the behavior become available without restriction. As a result, the release of such source makes the value of the license zero.
Think of it in the context of the GPL. No matter how "viral" the General Public License is, it's universally acknowledged that if I take a body of GPL code, describe its behavior in human-readable terms, and hand those terms off to a third party who's never seen the code, then the third party is unrestricted by the original license. Even if the original code were pulled back, that information would not be lost.
Sorry, Markus, I know you're drooling over this, but this is simply stupid.
And as for [Microsoft] deserving compensation, this is supposed to be a punishment
No. The fine was punishment. The rest of the order is an attempt to create competition going forward. The EC is going to try to get zero-cost licensing for "non innovative" (their words) features, but I'm really dubious about that.
What kind of bizarro world is this? One where the EV wants a bird in the hand. If they ask for too much from MS...well, look at what happened to the USDOJ. The Appellate court trimmed their original proposal down to less that Microsoft had offered during negotiations prior to Judge J's original decision -- they wound up worse off than they would have ahd they "caved".
The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm
How, exactly, do you conclude this?
If you have a license to write code based on a certain protocol and to distribute compiled code based on that knowledge, then someone seeking to implement the protocol still needs to reverse engineer the communication between client and server. If the source to that application is distributed, however, then it can be used as a template by those who want to implement the protocol without paying the license fee, which, at least in principle, compensates Microsoft for the use of the protocol.
Not really. MS and the EC have agreed to let the Court of the First Instance decide whether mandating that open source implementations be possible is permissible, or if that would constitute an impermissible taking. In fact, that's basically the Commission caving to reality; if they'd mandated that, Microsoft would have gone back to the Court and asked that the whole package be set aside pending the Court's decision, and, this time, they'd have won the delay. This way, at least, the Commission gets something now.
I think that this is actually the beginning of the end for the EC/MS case. The original decision from the Court said that the reason the remedy wasn't put on hold to begin with was that if it was held to be too extreme later, then Microsoft could simply terminate all the licenses, and no irrevocable harm would have been done. The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm -- and the Court would have thrashed the Commission soundly if they'd insisted on that now. The Court signaled that it wouldn't be sympathetic to the Commission's core demands in its original decision, and so when Microsoft started a genuine stare-down which left the Commission a way to leave gracefully, the Commission took it.
Everything up to the last paragraph made perfect sense...but the last paragraph blew it.
Guy, Hubble is a dead scope walking. We won't be fixing it, ever. The rovers are doing interesting science, and they've captured the nation's interest...without taking pretty picture along the way. Let's figure out how to get things out of that.
Except that the GP is right about the embedded space and the author of TFA is wrong.
I'm agnostic on the question of minority architectures, actually. As a Microsoft employee, I don't really care whether Linux development is choked off on cell phones or other small devices; really, less competition for Symbian doesn't interest me at all. More than that, I don't really care if OSS types arrange themselves into circular firing squads, oh no, not me.
"SHOULD NOT" means jsut that "should not"...ie. we would rather you didn't, but you may. It's usually better translated into "although we couldn't find a compelling reason that this was wrong, we don't like it." What you're looking for is "MUST NOT", which means "if you do this, you are in violation of the RFC."
Ummm...I was talking about xhtml+xml, and there the relevant document is not some third party jerk's article, but the W3C RFC. Guess where I got that text? Yup...the w3c.
It is well documented that IE6 doesn't support xhtml+xml. It's even better documented that it does not need to do so.
If you're running a rendering farm, then the Cell is a great tool. (And, if you think about it, a game console is essentially a low end rendering farm.) If you're running a word processor, however, SIMD instructions are useless. If you're performing a standard query against a database, SIMD instructions are useless. If you're sending an electronic mail, hey, guess what? SIMD instructions are useless.
I think that IBM Microelectronics is trying to Cell their new processor in the hopes of Celling their bosses on the (dubious) proposition that they can recoup the losses they've seen on their contract with Sony. They've packaged up the right buzzwords, and they're creating a lot of fog. I sort of doubt that it will work.
Why go with lead foil? There is really only one truly effective anti-radiation foils available: Uranium Foil.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we here at Rick's Radiation Resistance Resort have just gotten a shipment of our special Spent Uranium Foil. It's perfect for keeping other people's radiation out -- why bother with theirs when you can have YOUR OWN?
So don't DeLay, Call ToDay -- wrap your house (or just your cranium) in Uranium.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's the implementation in IE5. Why? Because the Microsoft Exchange team wrote the original implementation of XmlHttpRequest to support OWA in Exchange 2000.
So, in this case, the first implementation of the idea, used for the purpose that others have adopted later is Microsoft's. Usually, that's considered enough to claim priority in defining a standard. That other browsers aren't conformant to the standard is hardly Microsoft's fault.
And that's one of the problems with antitrust law. In most legal situations, an action either is or is not illegal, and a motive can make an already-illegal act either better or worse. The classic example of this is homicide, where these are cases where a homicide can be either justifiable or aggeavated depending on the reason for the killing.
In antitrust law, an action which is legal suddenly becomes illegal, based on the motive of the actor. Intel, for instance, would be perfectly justified in not supporting AMD's implementation of MMX and the like if the goal was merely to support the Intel implementations of these standards, and AMD's implementations were just collateral damage of the design Intel used. It could be in a legally questionable situation if it were a monopoly and if the decision was to actively support the Intel implementation of these standards, and to actively not support AMD's implementation.
They're different. One is saying "I run the infrastructure, and I don't care if I get in the way of you doing your job." (To which the answer is "Hell, director of computer services? Please reprimand or fire
A modern American university is only nominally the "employer" of the professors who work there. It's often a better model to view the professors as customers who rent space in the University's facilities, in return for access to students and post docs. Most of the research computers are actually only titulary university property, having been bought with grant funds for research purposes. If the professor whose grant provided them left, the professord leave, too. If your administrative rules become the reason said professor leaves (along with his grant, machines, and overhead payments), then...well, let's just say that you'll be leaving soon thereafter.
The patent wars between the Wright brothers and the Douglas Aircraft company are legendary.
Oh, and the Wrights won. Douglas was a con man, nothing more.
Although I agree with you about the stupidity of smart ethernet controllers, the interesting thing about this one is that it claims to not need to transition to kernel space to set up a packet for sending. In principle, that might actually make a difference in throughput...it it's true.
Now, I don't think it's true, or, at least, I can't figure out how it could be done. Maybe I just suffer from a lack of imagination.
Each reflected photon's wavelength will be slightly longer than the original photon's wavelength was. That's the source of the energy difference in the sail.
You see, the value of my eyeballs is propoertional to the number of clicks you can get from me. Essentially, by tracking my click stream, you're raising the value of my eyeballs -- that is, you're charging me more for your site, without telling me about that. I don't trust someone who raises his prices silently, and so, no, I don't want "interesting" ads. I don't trust you -- why should I trust your ads?
I'd be even more disturbed if a robort were to come into my room while I was being examined. Since I don't know what a robort is, I wouldn't know what it was.
The author of the rubric "carefully" lists examples of things that ought to be seen -- and then carefully extracts two graphs from a long analysis in order to "prove" his claim. Never mind that the things he argues one should look for would be embedded in the materials and metods or results section, not the conclusion or the paper summary. Never mind, either, that his objections are bogus (red versus black ink? Uh, wait -- if the winning system had been shown in red, it would have conveyed how burningly fast the system was.)
Oh, wait -- it's somewhich which shows that samba 3.0 is slower than w2k3. Never mind. This is slashdot, so the ditors have gotta troll for ad views.
Actually, if you read TF spec sheet, you'd see that doesn't work -- you can only put them side-by-side, resulting in 75 ppm. Still freeking fast, but not, by any means, 150 ppm.
The problem is inter-head calibration. Each stepper-motor/head complex has to behave exactly like all the others, even though there's resonant coupling among the various read/write heads.
I'm not sure that it's an intractable problem, but I sure wouldn't want to be the one who got stuck trying to figure out how to fix it...
Think of it in the context of the GPL. No matter how "viral" the General Public License is, it's universally acknowledged that if I take a body of GPL code, describe its behavior in human-readable terms, and hand those terms off to a third party who's never seen the code, then the third party is unrestricted by the original license. Even if the original code were pulled back, that information would not be lost.
What kind of bizarro world is this? One where the EV wants a bird in the hand. If they ask for too much from MS...well, look at what happened to the USDOJ. The Appellate court trimmed their original proposal down to less that Microsoft had offered during negotiations prior to Judge J's original decision -- they wound up worse off than they would have ahd they "caved".
Not really. MS and the EC have agreed to let the Court of the First Instance decide whether mandating that open source implementations be possible is permissible, or if that would constitute an impermissible taking. In fact, that's basically the Commission caving to reality; if they'd mandated that, Microsoft would have gone back to the Court and asked that the whole package be set aside pending the Court's decision, and, this time, they'd have won the delay. This way, at least, the Commission gets something now.
I think that this is actually the beginning of the end for the EC/MS case. The original decision from the Court said that the reason the remedy wasn't put on hold to begin with was that if it was held to be too extreme later, then Microsoft could simply terminate all the licenses, and no irrevocable harm would have been done. The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm -- and the Court would have thrashed the Commission soundly if they'd insisted on that now. The Court signaled that it wouldn't be sympathetic to the Commission's core demands in its original decision, and so when Microsoft started a genuine stare-down which left the Commission a way to leave gracefully, the Commission took it.
Everything up to the last paragraph made perfect sense...but the last paragraph blew it.
Guy, Hubble is a dead scope walking. We won't be fixing it, ever. The rovers are doing interesting science, and they've captured the nation's interest...without taking pretty picture along the way. Let's figure out how to get things out of that.
The report discusses server OS sales. Unix-based servers generally cost vastly more than Microsoft servers, with or without an operating system.
Except that the GP is right about the embedded space and the author of TFA is wrong.
I'm agnostic on the question of minority architectures, actually. As a Microsoft employee, I don't really care whether Linux development is choked off on cell phones or other small devices; really, less competition for Symbian doesn't interest me at all. More than that, I don't really care if OSS types arrange themselves into circular firing squads, oh no, not me.
You know...TFA is about why smart people defend stupid ideas. I suggest that you should reread your posting in the light of TFA.
(You know, we need a +1 case-in-point moderation...)
"SHOULD NOT" means jsut that "should not"...ie. we would rather you didn't, but you may. It's usually better translated into "although we couldn't find a compelling reason that this was wrong, we don't like it." What you're looking for is "MUST NOT", which means "if you do this, you are in violation of the RFC."
Ummm...I was talking about xhtml+xml, and there the relevant document is not some third party jerk's article, but the W3C RFC. Guess where I got that text? Yup...the w3c.
It is well documented that IE6 doesn't support xhtml+xml. It's even better documented that it does not need to do so.
IE's behavior is fully standards compliant. From the article you referenced:
Media types summary for serving XHTML documents
Media type
HTML4
XHTML1.0 (HTML compatible)
XHTML1.0 (other)
XHTML Basic / 1.1
XHTML+MathML
text/html
SHOULD
MAY
SHOULD NOT
SHOULD NOT
SHOULD NOT
Sorry, but it really wouldn't. Think about it.
If you're running a rendering farm, then the Cell is a great tool. (And, if you think about it, a game console is essentially a low end rendering farm.) If you're running a word processor, however, SIMD instructions are useless. If you're performing a standard query against a database, SIMD instructions are useless. If you're sending an electronic mail, hey, guess what? SIMD instructions are useless.
I think that IBM Microelectronics is trying to Cell their new processor in the hopes of Celling their bosses on the (dubious) proposition that they can recoup the losses they've seen on their contract with Sony. They've packaged up the right buzzwords, and they're creating a lot of fog. I sort of doubt that it will work.
Why go with lead foil? There is really only one truly effective anti-radiation foils available: Uranium Foil.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we here at Rick's Radiation Resistance Resort have just gotten a shipment of our special Spent Uranium Foil. It's perfect for keeping other people's radiation out -- why bother with theirs when you can have YOUR OWN?
So don't DeLay, Call ToDay -- wrap your house (or just your cranium) in Uranium.