You mean that YOU usually perform that act with the lights off. Maybe you should start dating more attractive people. Then, you might want to keep the lights on! New years is less than half a year away now. Consider making a resolution, "I'll not do any more two-baggers!"
I dunno. I think that I'd use Mozilla a lot less if Mozilla and Microsoft were having conjugal relations. Just how much market share MIGHT Mozilla lose in the deal?
Microsoft has changed? Maybe I'm just going blind, but I don't see it. Had you claimed that they had toned things down, and acted less like a blood crazed shark in chum waters than they used to, I might agree. But real change? No - they are still predators. Get into their sights, and they're still coming after you, albeit, without the berserk feeding frenzy.
Open source is distributed for free, as-is, with no warranty, and plenty of disclaimers that the product may not be suitable for your purposes, or any other purposes.
Unlike the other side of the road, where the code is a closely held secret, you pay for the privilege of using it, and there are generally at least implied warranties that the product is fit for consumer use.
In short - if the company is willing to rape the consumer for huge profits, while supplying shoddy products, then they DESERVE to be sued. Open source, not so much. "Yeah, you can mess with my code, if you like, but be warned, it's a mishmash of ideas that may or may not work, so you're on your own. Call me if you have problems, and MAYBE we can work things out!"
I share the road with unpredictable humans every day. Sharing the road with a predictable computer should be no challenge. Some people worry to much. Computers never worry. I think I prefer the computer over you.
You're an idiot. The violence was committed by swine who immigrated, then turned on the people who took them in. Hognoxious says you're stupid, or a liar. I suspect that you're both, as well as an idiot.
So, are you a self hating white guy of European descent, or are you a brown invader?
Part of the problem here is, many of you who are proclaiming the presence of "neonazis" here, there, and everywhere, aren't freaking COMPETENT to count neonazis.
How about this:
I'd be perfectly happy to shoot a few brown-skinned invaders at the border. But, I'd be just as happy to shoot a few white-skinned neonazis just because they are foaming at the mouth, shouting hatred at the brown skins for being brown.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism. Nothing. There is nothing right with hating another race, religion, nationality or whatever. Nationalism is good. But, some of those other races, religions, and nationalities should stay at home, and practice a little nationalism in their homelands. They can't ALL move here, and take our children's heritage away form them!
If you think of Manning when you think of whistleblowers, then you don't know much about whistle blowing, or about Manning.
A whistle blower steps outside the chain of command, and informs various superiors of bad things - like writing a congress critter or twelve, or going to the courts, or the justice department, or in rare cases, going to the media.
Manning, however, did none of that. He stole data, and sent it outside the country, making it accessible to friend and foe alike. Manning is a low life, who ranks somewhere below most traitors. Manning did what he did out of spitefulness. All you fools who think of Manning as "whistle blower" and a "patriot" make me nauseous.
A whistle blower hopes to make improvements to society, and in many cases, actually does. A Manning hopes to hurt people. The mere fact that Manning hoped to hurt people that you apparently despise does not mean that Manning had any hopes of improving anything.
It isn't JUST that our budget isn't balanced - our debt is growing by leaps and bounds. The numbers are astronomical! If we were to start laying dollar bills end to end, which planet could we reach? Remember, it's only 90 million miles to the sun!
Alright, I did a quick Google, just to make sure of my number. It's actually 92,955,807.3 mi to the sun - depending, of course, where we are in our orbit when you measure! (how in hell did they measure that last.3 mile?!?!?!)
The problem is, we still accept a deficit as "normal". Deficit. You simply can't spend more than you have to spend. It's time we all grew up, and spent a little less than we have, and start paying the principal on all those outstanding debts.
S&P's rationale may or may not have some holes in it - but their decision is valid. We suck. We don't deserve credit.
Like tepples observes - we might find some common ground between our views. 28 years seems somewhat excessive to me, 15 years being my "favorite" number when discussing copyright. I'm smart enough to know that I'll never get my magic number accepted by congress, or any other authoritative body.
But, I will never accept things like "in perpetuity", like RIAA and so many others seem to be demanding. Nor do I really accept "life plus 75 years" or any derivative.
The best scheme I've ever seen suggested, are renewable copyright licenses. Let's say that your license was established in 2000, if you wish to renew it, then it costs you a thousand dollars or so in 2015. Come 2030, a renewal is going to cost around ten thousand. 2045, renewal costs a hundred thousand. As you can see, it's a matter of diminishing returns. By 2060, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to pay a million dollars for that copyright renewal! Only a very rare, very valuable, very very persistent work will be renewed yet again in 2075!
It reflects reality, of course. If you haven't made your millions in the first 15 years, you'll probably never make millions. By the end of 30 years, it's probably close to worthless, in a business sense. If you really want to keep your work out of the public domain, you may do so - as long as you can afford it.
I'll give you 15 years, free. I'll give you your 28, or even 30 years, cheap. Beyond that - pay through the nose, and we can all be happy.
Income protection? Just WHAT THE FUCK is that? Income protection. FFS, when do I get some kind of income protection?
Newsflash: When copyright was originally dreamed up, it only said that IF anyone is to make money off an idea, then the author should get SOME of that income. If there is no money to be made, the the author gets shit.
Further - I know that some people here have attempted to explain why an author, a songwriter, or scriptwriter should be guaranteed an income for life, after having done something that appeals to many people. I'm a bit stupid though. Do you think you could explain that concept again?
See, I'm one of the unwashed masses. After having built a house, and sold it, I no longer get an income from that house. Likewise, having repaired a car, I no longer get any income. In order for me to get a regular income, I must GO TO WORK every week.
Income protection. Want income protection? Apply for fucking WELFARE!
It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright infringement at become in our society. I'm all for ISPs cracking down on such illicit and nefarious activitity.
As a fucking, whining, douchebag with an entitlement syndrome, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all. It's time ISPs do something about this.
You seem to be making an assumption, that the "authorities" have released this information. If I were to research that possibility, I may very well find that your apparent assumption is correct. However, when I read TFS and TFA, I see no such indications. Unless you are familiar with the author, and/or the website(s) involved, I can't see that your assumption is warranted.
What I believe has happened is, some pretty sharp people have read that manifesto, and some random people noticed what looks like an encryption scheme. Some of those people may or may not be acting in some "official" capacity - or not. It's quite possible that the governments and/or authorities failed to notice any encryption scheme used in the manifesto.
I'll confess that I read over the manifesto, and I tried to use the "links". It never occurred to my feeble mind that those links might represent anything other than outdated links. And, of course, I'm a bit lazy - I never searched for alternative routes to those links, or searched the wayback machine, or anything else to resolve what those dead links might represent.
Based on my own limited, personal experience - they don't even LOOK like encryption, so I would NEVER have started looking for ideas, without prompting from someone else. Of course, I'm no cryptographer. Codes tend to kick my ass, no matter how simple.
Believe me, I understand perfectly well that a lot of people have utility vehicles that are utilized for heavy use. F-350 and larger trucks. I've used many of them. Today - I don't own a truck. My oldest son owns an F-150 that meets all his needs, and when I actually NEED a truck, I can go get it. Most of the time, I just drive one of my little cars, and enjoy 24mpg, or 27mpg, or even 29.9 mpg in the smallest of them.
But, you should have realized I wasn't picking at people who actually USE those trucks. Roughly 80 percent of the trucks sold in America are almost never USED as a truck. To be honest, my son's truck only gets used three or four times a year, until Dad needs it. The kid's afraid to scratch up the paint INSIDE THE FREAKING BED! Can you believe that? Hell, my trucks never HAD paint inside the bed. Every truck I ever owned was scraped clean, down to shiny metal!
All that aside - I was complaining about bumper heights, more than anything. If some young fool just absolutely MUST have his truck jacked three feet in the air, then he should be willing to affix some kind of bumper system that will protect others from being run over. I've seen, and I'm sure that you've seen, a small car like my MX6 sitting beside a pickup, the bumper above the roof of the MX6. That's plumb ridiculous!
The federal DOT has requirements on Class 8 vehicles, detailing how high the bumpers can be. Personally, I believe the requirements are a little to lenient. Few tractor trailer bumpers, front or rear, are actually going to prevent a car from driving UNDER the truck, or the trailer. Those bumpers need to come down about 8 inches in the front, and about 12 inches on the trailers. THEN they will help to prevent cars driving under the truck!
Agreed. I remember several years ago, some studies were done, regarding bumper heights. In these videos of crash tests, the bumpers always seem to match, or nearly match. Passenger vehicles seem to have been standardized, ages ago, regarding bumper height. But, pickups, SUV's, and other vehicles such as delivery trucks all have higher bumpers. Meaning, their bumpers ride up over your bumper, at the least slamming into your radiator and engine, or at the worst, coming directly at you, through the windshield.
I've not actually witnessed crashes of this type, but I have seen the results. It's ugly. If safety is the primary issue, then all vehicles on the road would have a standard bumper height. Your energy absorption technology is pretty well meaningless in a situation where that absorption never comes into play. Even class 8 trucks - those big 18 wheelers - could have improved bumpers on the trailers. It's a no-brainer that those big F-350 pickups with lift kits should be outlawed.
As has been pointed out many times, the vast majority of trucks like an F-350 are almost never used for their designed purpose. They are status symbols, and phallic symbols. That is even more true when those trucks have over sized tires, and lift kits. People who actually WORK a truck don't need, or want, lift kits. Instead, they need and demand stability. The lower the center of gravity, the more stable that truck will be.
It only makes sense that pickup bumper heights are required by law to match the vast majority of small, fuel efficient passenger vehicles.
UNLESS, of course, you are ever arrested, or decide to join the military, or apply for a government job, or become a cop, or a firefighter. I'm sure there are more, but those pretty much cover it.
Ahhhh, a bit of common sense. It's like a breath of cool, fresh air, in the middle of this hot muggy summer!
"Copyright" law was never meant to enrich anyone. It was only meant to ensure that IF anyone made money off of a story, idea, or whatever, then the guy who thought of it FIRST should get a cut.
Piracy for private use, I'm cool with. Industrial piracy? Burn the bastard.
Now, if he could demonstrate that he had reached an agreement with the authors, and was submitting a percentage of his sales to the authors, THEN he would be cool. And, of course, the cops wouldn't be involved at all!
ACLU? I watch them. They do some good things - but overall, the ACLU is anti-church, anti-family, anti-white, and anti-establishment. It's good that they are there, sometimes, but I really detest them. Having the ACLU around is like having an unpredictable watch dog in your home. You just never know when the damned dog will turn around and bite YOU!
Linus' decision to dump Gnome3 helps to justify my own decision. I'm dumping Gnome 3 as well. Not today, but in the real near future.
I've been multibooting for the past few weeks, so my comparisons are on identical hardware. Sabayon 6 with Gnome 3 uses ALL of my memory, and eats well into my virtual memory. Ubuntu 10.04 with Gnome 2 doesn't use more than about 50% of my memory, with very similar tasks running, and it just doesn't touch virtual memory.
Alright, to be fair, my testing isn't scientific, nor is it conclusive. Running a different kernel, for starters, might explain all that memory usage. Or, any number of little things in setup might consume a lot of memory. But, aside from the kernel, the BIGGEST difference that I see, is the Gnome desktop.
Oh yeah - since Linus actually created Linux - it's probably not a bad example to use his example for reference, at the least. Of course, that doesn't mean doing everything as he does it. Just check on him now and then for reference. If Linus says something is a piece of shit, he probably knows what he's talking about!
I'll soon be installing Sabayon 6 with the Enlightenment desktop, to make comparisons. I expect that memory usage to drop dramatically.
I'm old and senile, and I have CRS, but if I happen to remember, I'll come back here to post my results. Just don't expect screenshots and indepth comparisons, alright?
Financially speaking, how much pain has IE6/ActiveX caused for corporations around the world? Has anyone tried to add it all up or even produce an estimate? How much less would average customers be paying for various products and services if that cost never happened?
Such a question will never be asked by MS fanbois, and MS corporation would do all in their power to discourage such a study. If the study were ever done, and the results released, they would be "spun" into some tale about the Total Cost of Ownership. Except, of course, you never actually own a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has strange ways of manipulating the numbers.
I think the sentence in TFS, "best challenge to Java", sums things up nicely. Microsoft's JVM was pure crap, not to mention being a ripoff of Sun's work. When MS couldn't use their JVM anymore, the just slapped something together, and put it out there. The fanbois lapped it up, the IT people made it work as well as it could work, and all the chump consumers were left to pay the bills.
Since I'm not a Google basher, I read that to mean, "Hey, we've been looking at technology ever since we started this business. There are hundred of alternatives to Java - but they all SUCK!" I don't see a "smoking gun" showing that Google was avoiding licensing Java. In fact - that blog posting by Sun's CEO, congratulating Google for using Java seems to imply that no license was needed.
There are far more politicians in the world than any of us want to believe . . . and I'm still trying to figure out how many politicians are child molesters.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean that YOU usually perform that act with the lights off. Maybe you should start dating more attractive people. Then, you might want to keep the lights on! New years is less than half a year away now. Consider making a resolution, "I'll not do any more two-baggers!"
I dunno. I think that I'd use Mozilla a lot less if Mozilla and Microsoft were having conjugal relations. Just how much market share MIGHT Mozilla lose in the deal?
Microsoft has changed? Maybe I'm just going blind, but I don't see it. Had you claimed that they had toned things down, and acted less like a blood crazed shark in chum waters than they used to, I might agree. But real change? No - they are still predators. Get into their sights, and they're still coming after you, albeit, without the berserk feeding frenzy.
Open source is distributed for free, as-is, with no warranty, and plenty of disclaimers that the product may not be suitable for your purposes, or any other purposes.
Unlike the other side of the road, where the code is a closely held secret, you pay for the privilege of using it, and there are generally at least implied warranties that the product is fit for consumer use.
In short - if the company is willing to rape the consumer for huge profits, while supplying shoddy products, then they DESERVE to be sued. Open source, not so much. "Yeah, you can mess with my code, if you like, but be warned, it's a mishmash of ideas that may or may not work, so you're on your own. Call me if you have problems, and MAYBE we can work things out!"
I share the road with unpredictable humans every day. Sharing the road with a predictable computer should be no challenge. Some people worry to much. Computers never worry. I think I prefer the computer over you.
You're an idiot. The violence was committed by swine who immigrated, then turned on the people who took them in. Hognoxious says you're stupid, or a liar. I suspect that you're both, as well as an idiot.
So, are you a self hating white guy of European descent, or are you a brown invader?
Part of the problem here is, many of you who are proclaiming the presence of "neonazis" here, there, and everywhere, aren't freaking COMPETENT to count neonazis.
How about this:
I'd be perfectly happy to shoot a few brown-skinned invaders at the border. But, I'd be just as happy to shoot a few white-skinned neonazis just because they are foaming at the mouth, shouting hatred at the brown skins for being brown.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism. Nothing. There is nothing right with hating another race, religion, nationality or whatever. Nationalism is good. But, some of those other races, religions, and nationalities should stay at home, and practice a little nationalism in their homelands. They can't ALL move here, and take our children's heritage away form them!
If you think of Manning when you think of whistleblowers, then you don't know much about whistle blowing, or about Manning.
A whistle blower steps outside the chain of command, and informs various superiors of bad things - like writing a congress critter or twelve, or going to the courts, or the justice department, or in rare cases, going to the media.
Manning, however, did none of that. He stole data, and sent it outside the country, making it accessible to friend and foe alike. Manning is a low life, who ranks somewhere below most traitors. Manning did what he did out of spitefulness. All you fools who think of Manning as "whistle blower" and a "patriot" make me nauseous.
A whistle blower hopes to make improvements to society, and in many cases, actually does. A Manning hopes to hurt people. The mere fact that Manning hoped to hurt people that you apparently despise does not mean that Manning had any hopes of improving anything.
It isn't JUST that our budget isn't balanced - our debt is growing by leaps and bounds. The numbers are astronomical! If we were to start laying dollar bills end to end, which planet could we reach? Remember, it's only 90 million miles to the sun!
Alright, I did a quick Google, just to make sure of my number. It's actually 92,955,807.3 mi to the sun - depending, of course, where we are in our orbit when you measure! (how in hell did they measure that last .3 mile?!?!?!)
The problem is, we still accept a deficit as "normal". Deficit. You simply can't spend more than you have to spend. It's time we all grew up, and spent a little less than we have, and start paying the principal on all those outstanding debts.
S&P's rationale may or may not have some holes in it - but their decision is valid. We suck. We don't deserve credit.
Like tepples observes - we might find some common ground between our views. 28 years seems somewhat excessive to me, 15 years being my "favorite" number when discussing copyright. I'm smart enough to know that I'll never get my magic number accepted by congress, or any other authoritative body.
But, I will never accept things like "in perpetuity", like RIAA and so many others seem to be demanding. Nor do I really accept "life plus 75 years" or any derivative.
The best scheme I've ever seen suggested, are renewable copyright licenses. Let's say that your license was established in 2000, if you wish to renew it, then it costs you a thousand dollars or so in 2015. Come 2030, a renewal is going to cost around ten thousand. 2045, renewal costs a hundred thousand. As you can see, it's a matter of diminishing returns. By 2060, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to pay a million dollars for that copyright renewal! Only a very rare, very valuable, very very persistent work will be renewed yet again in 2075!
It reflects reality, of course. If you haven't made your millions in the first 15 years, you'll probably never make millions. By the end of 30 years, it's probably close to worthless, in a business sense. If you really want to keep your work out of the public domain, you may do so - as long as you can afford it.
I'll give you 15 years, free. I'll give you your 28, or even 30 years, cheap. Beyond that - pay through the nose, and we can all be happy.
Income protection? Just WHAT THE FUCK is that? Income protection. FFS, when do I get some kind of income protection?
Newsflash: When copyright was originally dreamed up, it only said that IF anyone is to make money off an idea, then the author should get SOME of that income. If there is no money to be made, the the author gets shit.
Further - I know that some people here have attempted to explain why an author, a songwriter, or scriptwriter should be guaranteed an income for life, after having done something that appeals to many people. I'm a bit stupid though. Do you think you could explain that concept again?
See, I'm one of the unwashed masses. After having built a house, and sold it, I no longer get an income from that house. Likewise, having repaired a car, I no longer get any income. In order for me to get a regular income, I must GO TO WORK every week.
Income protection. Want income protection? Apply for fucking WELFARE!
It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright infringement at become in our society. I'm all for ISPs cracking down on such illicit and nefarious activitity.
As a fucking, whining, douchebag with an entitlement syndrome, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all. It's time ISPs do something about this.
FTFY
You seem to be making an assumption, that the "authorities" have released this information. If I were to research that possibility, I may very well find that your apparent assumption is correct. However, when I read TFS and TFA, I see no such indications. Unless you are familiar with the author, and/or the website(s) involved, I can't see that your assumption is warranted.
What I believe has happened is, some pretty sharp people have read that manifesto, and some random people noticed what looks like an encryption scheme. Some of those people may or may not be acting in some "official" capacity - or not. It's quite possible that the governments and/or authorities failed to notice any encryption scheme used in the manifesto.
I'll confess that I read over the manifesto, and I tried to use the "links". It never occurred to my feeble mind that those links might represent anything other than outdated links. And, of course, I'm a bit lazy - I never searched for alternative routes to those links, or searched the wayback machine, or anything else to resolve what those dead links might represent.
Based on my own limited, personal experience - they don't even LOOK like encryption, so I would NEVER have started looking for ideas, without prompting from someone else. Of course, I'm no cryptographer. Codes tend to kick my ass, no matter how simple.
Believe me, I understand perfectly well that a lot of people have utility vehicles that are utilized for heavy use. F-350 and larger trucks. I've used many of them. Today - I don't own a truck. My oldest son owns an F-150 that meets all his needs, and when I actually NEED a truck, I can go get it. Most of the time, I just drive one of my little cars, and enjoy 24mpg, or 27mpg, or even 29.9 mpg in the smallest of them.
But, you should have realized I wasn't picking at people who actually USE those trucks. Roughly 80 percent of the trucks sold in America are almost never USED as a truck. To be honest, my son's truck only gets used three or four times a year, until Dad needs it. The kid's afraid to scratch up the paint INSIDE THE FREAKING BED! Can you believe that? Hell, my trucks never HAD paint inside the bed. Every truck I ever owned was scraped clean, down to shiny metal!
All that aside - I was complaining about bumper heights, more than anything. If some young fool just absolutely MUST have his truck jacked three feet in the air, then he should be willing to affix some kind of bumper system that will protect others from being run over. I've seen, and I'm sure that you've seen, a small car like my MX6 sitting beside a pickup, the bumper above the roof of the MX6. That's plumb ridiculous!
The federal DOT has requirements on Class 8 vehicles, detailing how high the bumpers can be. Personally, I believe the requirements are a little to lenient. Few tractor trailer bumpers, front or rear, are actually going to prevent a car from driving UNDER the truck, or the trailer. Those bumpers need to come down about 8 inches in the front, and about 12 inches on the trailers. THEN they will help to prevent cars driving under the truck!
Agreed. I remember several years ago, some studies were done, regarding bumper heights. In these videos of crash tests, the bumpers always seem to match, or nearly match. Passenger vehicles seem to have been standardized, ages ago, regarding bumper height. But, pickups, SUV's, and other vehicles such as delivery trucks all have higher bumpers. Meaning, their bumpers ride up over your bumper, at the least slamming into your radiator and engine, or at the worst, coming directly at you, through the windshield.
I've not actually witnessed crashes of this type, but I have seen the results. It's ugly. If safety is the primary issue, then all vehicles on the road would have a standard bumper height. Your energy absorption technology is pretty well meaningless in a situation where that absorption never comes into play. Even class 8 trucks - those big 18 wheelers - could have improved bumpers on the trailers. It's a no-brainer that those big F-350 pickups with lift kits should be outlawed.
As has been pointed out many times, the vast majority of trucks like an F-350 are almost never used for their designed purpose. They are status symbols, and phallic symbols. That is even more true when those trucks have over sized tires, and lift kits. People who actually WORK a truck don't need, or want, lift kits. Instead, they need and demand stability. The lower the center of gravity, the more stable that truck will be.
It only makes sense that pickup bumper heights are required by law to match the vast majority of small, fuel efficient passenger vehicles.
What, your ISP didn't give you a setup CD that they wanted you to install?
WTF? Are you STILL on AOL? They're the only people who ever gave me a "setup CD" - despite the fact that I've never been a customer!
UNLESS, of course, you are ever arrested, or decide to join the military, or apply for a government job, or become a cop, or a firefighter. I'm sure there are more, but those pretty much cover it.
Ahhhh, a bit of common sense. It's like a breath of cool, fresh air, in the middle of this hot muggy summer!
"Copyright" law was never meant to enrich anyone. It was only meant to ensure that IF anyone made money off of a story, idea, or whatever, then the guy who thought of it FIRST should get a cut.
Piracy for private use, I'm cool with. Industrial piracy? Burn the bastard.
Now, if he could demonstrate that he had reached an agreement with the authors, and was submitting a percentage of his sales to the authors, THEN he would be cool. And, of course, the cops wouldn't be involved at all!
ACLU? I watch them. They do some good things - but overall, the ACLU is anti-church, anti-family, anti-white, and anti-establishment. It's good that they are there, sometimes, but I really detest them. Having the ACLU around is like having an unpredictable watch dog in your home. You just never know when the damned dog will turn around and bite YOU!
Linus' decision to dump Gnome3 helps to justify my own decision. I'm dumping Gnome 3 as well. Not today, but in the real near future.
I've been multibooting for the past few weeks, so my comparisons are on identical hardware. Sabayon 6 with Gnome 3 uses ALL of my memory, and eats well into my virtual memory. Ubuntu 10.04 with Gnome 2 doesn't use more than about 50% of my memory, with very similar tasks running, and it just doesn't touch virtual memory.
Alright, to be fair, my testing isn't scientific, nor is it conclusive. Running a different kernel, for starters, might explain all that memory usage. Or, any number of little things in setup might consume a lot of memory. But, aside from the kernel, the BIGGEST difference that I see, is the Gnome desktop.
Oh yeah - since Linus actually created Linux - it's probably not a bad example to use his example for reference, at the least. Of course, that doesn't mean doing everything as he does it. Just check on him now and then for reference. If Linus says something is a piece of shit, he probably knows what he's talking about!
I'll soon be installing Sabayon 6 with the Enlightenment desktop, to make comparisons. I expect that memory usage to drop dramatically.
I'm old and senile, and I have CRS, but if I happen to remember, I'll come back here to post my results. Just don't expect screenshots and indepth comparisons, alright?
Financially speaking, how much pain has IE6/ActiveX caused for corporations around the world? Has anyone tried to add it all up or even produce an estimate? How much less would average customers be paying for various products and services if that cost never happened?
Such a question will never be asked by MS fanbois, and MS corporation would do all in their power to discourage such a study. If the study were ever done, and the results released, they would be "spun" into some tale about the Total Cost of Ownership. Except, of course, you never actually own a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has strange ways of manipulating the numbers.
I think the sentence in TFS, "best challenge to Java", sums things up nicely. Microsoft's JVM was pure crap, not to mention being a ripoff of Sun's work. When MS couldn't use their JVM anymore, the just slapped something together, and put it out there. The fanbois lapped it up, the IT people made it work as well as it could work, and all the chump consumers were left to pay the bills.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3125034
Yes, it's jstor, complete with the idiotic paywall. But, the summary gets right to the point.
You may well ask, "What's that got to do with Ben?" Well - hit this link next: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html
Yes, I really believe that old Ben would qualify anonymity as an "Essential Liberty".
Since I'm not a Google basher, I read that to mean, "Hey, we've been looking at technology ever since we started this business. There are hundred of alternatives to Java - but they all SUCK!" I don't see a "smoking gun" showing that Google was avoiding licensing Java. In fact - that blog posting by Sun's CEO, congratulating Google for using Java seems to imply that no license was needed.
There are far more politicians in the world than any of us want to believe . . . and I'm still trying to figure out how many politicians are child molesters.