Oh man, I accidently modded this Offtopic, what the hell, why isn't there a confirmation or something. Thankfully my actions aren't overpowering to this system.
Anyway, I never saw that White Noise movie with Michael Keaton, but if licensing the White Spaces would have prevented it, then I'm all for it.
Oh, I can undo the moderation by posting this very comment. Awesome.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, the numbers the author used only relate to every 12TB of data read, and have absolutely nothing to do with RAID. Therefore, for every 12TB of data read, there will be a un-recoverable error. That means 50% of al 6TB RAID rebuilds fail. 25% of all 3TB RAID rebuilds, etc... At these rates, RAID was never a viable option.
I don't know how much data is transferred over the internet every second, but I have to imagine this results in hundreds of thousands of files lost every day (due to URE). In fact, I conjecture that the rate of files being lost is outpacing the rate of files being created, soon we will have a total information blackout due to more people reading data then creating data.
That, or the author's numbers are bullshit and he's misinterpreting the results.
Yeah, except if you read the other thread you would know the MacBook will have neither CardBus nor ExpressCard slots, so you can't really add FireWire even if you wanted to. Apple isn't simply not including it, they are making it impossible to use on their new macbooks, which I believe is what's causing all the complaints.
Not only that, but Apple created FireWire and tried to shove it down everyone's throats. Now they say you don't need it, that's just bullshit. Apple does what they want with hardware, and all the Mac fanbois just bend over and take it. If you don't need it, then no problem. If you do need it, you're S.O.L. unless you want the more expensive MacBook Pro.
No wait, that's not communism, but still, you're a communist.
I think his point was that Apple's main method of dealing with problems is to lawyer up, because they feel they are invincible in court. Maybe a couple losses will break that philosophy, and Apple might actually start to think before they act. Apple's main problem is that they think that until Microsoft dissapears, no one can touch them (i.e. see their response to Psystar's anti-competative lawsuit). Apple needs to realize that just cause they aren't the top player (except for the iPod and iTunes) doesn't mean they can get away with anything they want to.
You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? What is this assinine belief people have that everything should be open and free. You know what, if you don't like copyright, don't purchase copyrighted material. Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.
Do I think the DMCA is broken? Yes. Do I think we should revert copyright law back 200 years? Hell no. I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right. They shouldn't be denied the benefits of their hard work and creativety just cause some talentless moron doesn't like the fact that they can't download music for free or because that old video game they liked to play was abandoned. Unlike patents, copyright covers ephemeral works that don't sway the course of human evolution directly (yes, powerful art can impress, but not alter). Therefore, a company should only get to keep a life-saving drug to themselves for so long, before it's in the best interest of mankind that the drug be distributed en-masse. However, I don't think the world is hurting any just cause you can't download your favorite episode of The Office off YouTube.
Besides, the 200 year old law you quote was mainly used to protect the massive investments made by charting companies in the creation of maps and other charts. Remember, that original copyright law was enacted in the face of no copyright law, and only extended to books, maps, and charts. How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point. 15-year old movies, though, can still generate revenue. Revenue off protected works surely reduces with time, but it's not your money so why should you get to decide when it's no longer worth it to the original creator? I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?
Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.
This brings up an interesting idea. I'm not saying anyone should setup kiddie porn servers, but we know there must be some out there (why else would the US ISPs shutdown Usenet?). The MPAA is known to seed anonymous torrent servers, and I assume the RIAA does the same. Since they do this in-descriminately, they surely have seeded (even if falsely) a kidde porn server or two over the years. Even though they are disseminating incorrect information, couldn't their participation in these illegal servers still constitute breaking the law? I would love to see the government bring down a kiddie-porn server, and show logs of numerous MPAA or RIAA seed-bots participating in the distribution of kiddie porn. They wouldn't look too righteous then. A single "Record Industry Distributes Kiddie Porn" headline would effectively destroy the major labels.
The policies of the company do not equal willful and unlawful intent on behalf of the customer. Just cause the technician might have perceived a threat based on her off-color remark doesn't mean she actually attempted to kidnap him. I can't believe they arrested this woman solely based on the account of the technician, especially since he wasn't kidnapped and they found no weapons in her house. IANAL, but I imagine she would have to have made some serious threats to his safety (not just saying "I don't mean to kidnap you but could you stay longer"), or done something physical (such as brandish a weapon or impede his escape) to even consider it kidnapping. I mean, is saying "please don't go" grounds to prosecute kidnappers in Canada? In America, you can say "I'm so angry I could kill Joe-Bob," without breaking any laws (as long as Joe-Bob isn't the president). You just have to cross your fingers that Joe-Bob isn't killed in the near future.
I guess we just won't know if all we have is both of their stories to go by. I think her response should have been "Please disconnect my service and cease all future billing if it won't work" rather than "fix it or I'll kidnap you". Oh but wait, I'm sure Aliant as with all other ISPs/Telecoms has a total monopoly in her area, leaving her with no other option to connect to the internet. Now who's doing the hostage taking?
I think an extra 5 minutes on the phone explaining to someone they need a virus scanner is a lot better than losing that person as a customer because all your stupid IT personel would do is tell the person the problem isn't on the company's end. Do you think someone who knows nothing about computers gives a shit that your cable lines are running if they can't connect to the internet? Doubtful. They'll drop your sevice in a heartbeat. One lost customer just because you have some arbitrary rule that all tech calls should be 4 minutes or less. I used to work directory assistance (411) for a cellular company when I was in highschool. We would track down numbers anywhere we could, provide people assistance in tracking down a business even if they didn't know the name, and we even provided movie listings and times. Other companies had a 2-minute limit. Needless to say, we got more thank-yous than thanks-for-nothings. Unfortunately Comcast bought the company (for some reason) and shut it down once they bled it dry.
As for the first guy: What company do you work for? I feel like getting some free equipment when the tech leaves it on my private property. Good luck proving I threatened him or anything. You wanna see threatening, watch what I'll do if you trespass trying to get your equipment back.
But seriously, I've never waved a loaded weapon at a tech support guy before.
Considering it costs millions and millions of dollars to develop and launch an orbital satellite, there is no way GeoEye could make money by only exclusively licensing the use of its imagery to Google. I am guessing that Google fronted much/most of the development and launch costs for the satellite. Basically I would assume that Google owns the satellite and GeoEye is simply managing the logistics of orbiting, photgraphing, and maintenance.
If Google did front most of the costs, then it's not anti-competative to ask GeoEye to agree to only allow Google use of the photos. If GeoEye fronted all of the costs themselves, then how do they plan to make money off a multi-million dollar investement by simply licensing use of the photographs to a single entity?
Satellites are not vital infrastructure like telephone lines. As such, I doubt there is any legal standing to say what GeoEye can and can't do with their own satellite (especially if Google DID provide some initial funding).
Oh, I just RTFA, and apparently Google is the only "online mapping company" allowed to use the photographs. I guess Google just paid a lot for those rights. Kinda like how Pepsi is the official soft drink of the International League of Woman Voters (though no one considers this to be legally anti-competative to Coke or Royal Crown Cola).
How do they make their browser IE6 compliant? Do they run a IE6 binary in the background? I mean, it's not like they actually wrote down a specification for the shitty webpages IE6 served up.
I also don't see a problem with compatability mode for intranet sites, especially if those sites were created with FrontPage, or even worse, converted to HTML with Word. They probably wouldn't display in any other mode except for IE6- mode.
By programming language, I think of the language actually running the program. Languages like Java and C# are scripting langauges because they tell the environment what they want to do, and the environment (JVM,.NET, etc..) actually does the work. You could do the same in C, by using third-party libraries and only calling into those libraries, but the libraries themselves are usually written in C as well. JVM and.NET are both written in C/C++. In my opinion this makes C/C++ the programming language, and Java and C# are scripting into the environments. By that same logic, something like SmallTalk might also not be a programming language but a scripting language, since it runs inside an VM. However, Squeek, a SmallTalk VM, is also written in SmallTalk, so I really don't know where to go with that one.
The issue with Java and C# is that they are entrenched inside of these environments. Java is basically managed C with a whole bunch of modules/library's that make it much friendlier to program. Since those modules are standardized in the JVM, it's much more portable than a raw C progam, assuming someone writes a JVM for your platform.
Here's the way I look at it, is the language compiled down to assembly/machine code, then assembled and linked into a running program? Or, is the language interpreted into a second high-level language, then executed through pre-compiled/assembled modules (i.e. Java -> C++ modules -> assembly)?
Please note that I consider the OS a platform, not environment, so arguing that Windows or Linux is actually doing the executing doesn't make C a scripting language. Also, I remember hearing in college about them developing a physical machine that would run Java (i.e. JVM on silicon), did they ever make on of those?
Anyone ever play Vampire the Masquerade (PC version, not table-top) back in 2000? Remember what language it used to script game-sequences? That's right, Java. -QED
I would think a program created in a language would have to run on it's own to NOT be considered a scripting language, but that's just my opinion. Personally I don't consider Java a programming language because you have to use a JVM to run it in (instead of running natively within the environment). But don't listen to me, I still program professionally in crazy languages like Ada.
Do you get hundreds or thousands of rejected emails a day too? I wish I could remember sending out all those advertisements for V1@GR4, or wishing people happiness in lyrical, non-sensical prose without actually trying to sell them anything.
On a serious note, how many of those rejected emails are really from email servers with admins too stupid to not respond to spam, and how many are made to look like responses in the odd hope I really did forget I sent that email, and proceed to click on all the links contained therein?
Does Comcast pay for internet traffic by the gigabyte? No. Comcast, like everyone else, buys dedicated bandwidth from the major providers. What has happened here is that Comcast has severely over-sold their portion of the data lines. Their systems simply can't put up with people using the full bandwidth of their previously unlimited plans.
What doesn't make sense is how a company that pays by bandwidth hopes to alleviate its problem by controlling traffic. I may only download 1 movie a month, but if I do it during the same hour as every other house in my neighborhood, Comcast still doesn't have the bandwidth. Comcast is using the excuse of low-bandwidth to restrict traffic, purely for profit. They won't upgrade their network to provide more bandwidth, but they'll try to charge people more to use it (I am making the obvious assumption that they will soon offer 250+ GB plans for a premium price).
Comcasts approach to controlling bandwidth issues would be like a local government saying too many people drive too fast on the roads during rush-hour, so they decided to raise the tax on gasoline. That won't slow people down, it just means they can afford less gas, and run out 75% of the way to their destination. Those who can continue to pay the price of gas will continue to drive their Corvettes, while the rest of us take the city bus to the local library to check our email after our children downloaded too many freakin movies off our netflix account.
Who has a full-resolution version of a screen shot? I feel like setting a new background image for my desktop and TFA only has a reduced-resolution image.
Anyone have any examples where the NVIDIA drivers detect your chipset, and if it's not an NVIDIA chipset your card underperforms? Sounds like that's what they'd be doing in this instance as well. IANAL, but that doesn't sound legal. They can't force you to use their chipset to run their graphics card. Admitting that their software will look for approved keys and hinder performance if they are not found definately sounds anti-competative. Isn't licensing the technology enough?
Can I remove IE8 without reverting to IE7 on Vista or IE6 on XP? If not, than IE is still tied to the OS (not the kernel, sorry), and the problem isn't solved. I just remember upgrading to IE7, and when I uninstalled it, it went back to IE6.
Obviously you are unaware of the amazing trade deficit suffered by the American economy. When a government or society sends more money out of its borders then it takes in, the country is essentially hemorrhaging money (with the war, America is now 9.6 TRILLION in debt). I haven't seen Saudi Arabia give back any of the billions of dollars of oil money it receives, and I don't forsee MS ever giving Canada or anyone else back any of the money spent on MS software. If Quebec sends money to a Canadian company, that company employs Canadian citizens, who then pay Canadian taxes, and the cycle is complete. You buy a Vista license, and that goes into the $9 billion in cash MS will make this year, and stays there (and MS doesn't even pay state taxes because they "sell" their licenses through a company in Nevada). Trickle down doesn't work across borders (if at all).
Like it or not, many governments (especially those in the EU) REQUIRE a certain percentage of contracts to go to in-house companies. I worked at a US company on a program for the Belgian government and we were forced to use specific components in the system because those components were built by a Belgian company.
As for where to find open source, Quebec did NOT go directly to MS and buy a bunch of Vista licenses. They most likely leased a bunch of machines from a retailer (such as Dell or HP), and either part of the cost of those leases includes the Vista license, or they went through a licensing wholesaler. Therefore, Quebec might instead lease Linux PCs from Dell (and thus avoid MS licensing fees). Now Dell is just an example here, Quebec may already be using a Canadian alternative to Dell, but a significant amount of money ($25mil in 5 months) is also going to MS. The lawsuit here is simply stating that the government should have considered local, preferably open sources (i.e. an IT house specializing in Linux/Open Source).
I understand that there is no "free" software. However, I also won't just take Microsoft's word on whether or not managing a Windows system is cheaper than managing a Linux or similar system. The $25mil spent would probably go to IT instead of MS licensing fees, but as long as those IT individuals are Canadian and not Indian, the Canadian economy doesn't take the hit. The lawsuit isn't saying the government shouldn't spend the money, it's just saying it shouldn't blindly be giving the money to a US company IF a suitable Canadian alternative exists. Buying Canadian lumber in Rhode Island may be a necessity, but buying Canadian lumber in Alaska is stupid.
The problem with your statement is that you assume that there are no local alternatives with the same reliability *COUGH*yeahright*COUGH* as Microsoft Windows and Office. The problem is that the Queec government made the exact same assumption, and apparently didn't even investigate other possibilities. This is anti-competetive, and the point of the lawsuit. When the government needs goods or services, it should open a contract to allow fair competition. Let MS (or a retailer) try to bid a system of 1000 Vista computers with 1000 Office licenses. Maybe a local company can offer a competetive system running Ubuntu and OpenOffice (and provide IT support) for the same cost or less. Maybe MS wins, maybe it doesn't. In this case it just sounds like Quebec went with MS cause they didn't know any better. That's why the public must re-enforce the fact that it is in charge and that the government is utlimately responsible to the people it governs.
Implementing a feature Opera has had for years, now that's what I call innovation.
I'll be pleased with IE crash recovery if IE crashing doesn't bring down Exporer with it. If my window manager still has to restart just because my internet browser crashes, then MS can keep IE8. Does anyone know if IE is getting more and less tied-up into the windows kernel? I would hope with Vista's kernel security IE8 is nearly a stand-alone product now days.
Does it maintain proper order of operations? What if I want to "translate my selected text from english to spanish from english to spanish"? I guess I'm just confused, not being a FireFox user, but what is the point of being able to type-in "email". If you set gmail to one of your speed-dials (FireFox has speed-dial, right?) can't you just do Ctrl+1 a lot easier? Do people really have more than 9 or whatnot websites they visit with such regularity that selecting your bookmark with the mouse is wasting too much of your day? I guess if you twitter it might be easier, but twitter adds 0 value to society, so I won't give Ubiquity any bonus points for twitter functionality. I guess this is a nice tool, but as others have said, how is this relevant to anything?
There's a false argument that goes if you have a task to complete that will take 100 years on today's computers, wait. Since transistor density doubles every 18-months (allowing more transitors, more cores, more processing power), the computer you buy today will be unable to outperform a computer you buy 18 months from now. I.e. computer A will compute for 18 months. If you buy computer B, it can do in 9 months what the first computer did in 18. Then in can double that work in the next 9 months, completely replicating the first computers work in 18 months what computer A took 36. But after the second 18 months, another, faster computer comes out and does all the work over again in another 18 months. Basically, don't bother buying today because you'll get the same amount of work done in the same amount of time simply by waiting for a faster computer.
It's simple binary division. 100 years now = 50 years 18 months from now, etc.... 100/2^6 = 1.56 ~ 18 months. So basically 6*18 months from now (9 years) is when you want to buy that new PC of yours, or whatever the hell you were talking about.
Long story short, if you plan to live to 100, wait 9 years and buy a new computer. You'll only live till 11, but you'll get all the same work done. Or something like that, I don't know, math is confusing.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like it worked. Oh wait... no it didn't.
p.s. I don't use FireFox, so I can't verify the link torrent is anything useful.
We're America bitch! That's since when!
Oh man, I accidently modded this Offtopic, what the hell, why isn't there a confirmation or something. Thankfully my actions aren't overpowering to this system.
Anyway, I never saw that White Noise movie with Michael Keaton, but if licensing the White Spaces would have prevented it, then I'm all for it.
Oh, I can undo the moderation by posting this very comment. Awesome.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, the numbers the author used only relate to every 12TB of data read, and have absolutely nothing to do with RAID. Therefore, for every 12TB of data read, there will be a un-recoverable error. That means 50% of al 6TB RAID rebuilds fail. 25% of all 3TB RAID rebuilds, etc... At these rates, RAID was never a viable option.
I don't know how much data is transferred over the internet every second, but I have to imagine this results in hundreds of thousands of files lost every day (due to URE). In fact, I conjecture that the rate of files being lost is outpacing the rate of files being created, soon we will have a total information blackout due to more people reading data then creating data.
That, or the author's numbers are bullshit and he's misinterpreting the results.
Yeah, except if you read the other thread you would know the MacBook will have neither CardBus nor ExpressCard slots, so you can't really add FireWire even if you wanted to. Apple isn't simply not including it, they are making it impossible to use on their new macbooks, which I believe is what's causing all the complaints.
Not only that, but Apple created FireWire and tried to shove it down everyone's throats. Now they say you don't need it, that's just bullshit. Apple does what they want with hardware, and all the Mac fanbois just bend over and take it. If you don't need it, then no problem. If you do need it, you're S.O.L. unless you want the more expensive MacBook Pro.
Communist.
No wait, that's not communism, but still, you're a communist.
I think his point was that Apple's main method of dealing with problems is to lawyer up, because they feel they are invincible in court. Maybe a couple losses will break that philosophy, and Apple might actually start to think before they act. Apple's main problem is that they think that until Microsoft dissapears, no one can touch them (i.e. see their response to Psystar's anti-competative lawsuit). Apple needs to realize that just cause they aren't the top player (except for the iPod and iTunes) doesn't mean they can get away with anything they want to.
You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? What is this assinine belief people have that everything should be open and free. You know what, if you don't like copyright, don't purchase copyrighted material. Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.
Do I think the DMCA is broken? Yes. Do I think we should revert copyright law back 200 years? Hell no. I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right. They shouldn't be denied the benefits of their hard work and creativety just cause some talentless moron doesn't like the fact that they can't download music for free or because that old video game they liked to play was abandoned. Unlike patents, copyright covers ephemeral works that don't sway the course of human evolution directly (yes, powerful art can impress, but not alter). Therefore, a company should only get to keep a life-saving drug to themselves for so long, before it's in the best interest of mankind that the drug be distributed en-masse. However, I don't think the world is hurting any just cause you can't download your favorite episode of The Office off YouTube.
Besides, the 200 year old law you quote was mainly used to protect the massive investments made by charting companies in the creation of maps and other charts. Remember, that original copyright law was enacted in the face of no copyright law, and only extended to books, maps, and charts. How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point. 15-year old movies, though, can still generate revenue. Revenue off protected works surely reduces with time, but it's not your money so why should you get to decide when it's no longer worth it to the original creator? I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?
Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.
This brings up an interesting idea. I'm not saying anyone should setup kiddie porn servers, but we know there must be some out there (why else would the US ISPs shutdown Usenet?). The MPAA is known to seed anonymous torrent servers, and I assume the RIAA does the same. Since they do this in-descriminately, they surely have seeded (even if falsely) a kidde porn server or two over the years. Even though they are disseminating incorrect information, couldn't their participation in these illegal servers still constitute breaking the law? I would love to see the government bring down a kiddie-porn server, and show logs of numerous MPAA or RIAA seed-bots participating in the distribution of kiddie porn. They wouldn't look too righteous then. A single "Record Industry Distributes Kiddie Porn" headline would effectively destroy the major labels.
The policies of the company do not equal willful and unlawful intent on behalf of the customer. Just cause the technician might have perceived a threat based on her off-color remark doesn't mean she actually attempted to kidnap him. I can't believe they arrested this woman solely based on the account of the technician, especially since he wasn't kidnapped and they found no weapons in her house. IANAL, but I imagine she would have to have made some serious threats to his safety (not just saying "I don't mean to kidnap you but could you stay longer"), or done something physical (such as brandish a weapon or impede his escape) to even consider it kidnapping. I mean, is saying "please don't go" grounds to prosecute kidnappers in Canada? In America, you can say "I'm so angry I could kill Joe-Bob," without breaking any laws (as long as Joe-Bob isn't the president). You just have to cross your fingers that Joe-Bob isn't killed in the near future.
I guess we just won't know if all we have is both of their stories to go by. I think her response should have been "Please disconnect my service and cease all future billing if it won't work" rather than "fix it or I'll kidnap you". Oh but wait, I'm sure Aliant as with all other ISPs/Telecoms has a total monopoly in her area, leaving her with no other option to connect to the internet. Now who's doing the hostage taking?
I think an extra 5 minutes on the phone explaining to someone they need a virus scanner is a lot better than losing that person as a customer because all your stupid IT personel would do is tell the person the problem isn't on the company's end. Do you think someone who knows nothing about computers gives a shit that your cable lines are running if they can't connect to the internet? Doubtful. They'll drop your sevice in a heartbeat. One lost customer just because you have some arbitrary rule that all tech calls should be 4 minutes or less. I used to work directory assistance (411) for a cellular company when I was in highschool. We would track down numbers anywhere we could, provide people assistance in tracking down a business even if they didn't know the name, and we even provided movie listings and times. Other companies had a 2-minute limit. Needless to say, we got more thank-yous than thanks-for-nothings. Unfortunately Comcast bought the company (for some reason) and shut it down once they bled it dry.
As for the first guy: What company do you work for? I feel like getting some free equipment when the tech leaves it on my private property. Good luck proving I threatened him or anything. You wanna see threatening, watch what I'll do if you trespass trying to get your equipment back.
But seriously, I've never waved a loaded weapon at a tech support guy before.
Considering it costs millions and millions of dollars to develop and launch an orbital satellite, there is no way GeoEye could make money by only exclusively licensing the use of its imagery to Google. I am guessing that Google fronted much/most of the development and launch costs for the satellite. Basically I would assume that Google owns the satellite and GeoEye is simply managing the logistics of orbiting, photgraphing, and maintenance.
If Google did front most of the costs, then it's not anti-competative to ask GeoEye to agree to only allow Google use of the photos. If GeoEye fronted all of the costs themselves, then how do they plan to make money off a multi-million dollar investement by simply licensing use of the photographs to a single entity?
Satellites are not vital infrastructure like telephone lines. As such, I doubt there is any legal standing to say what GeoEye can and can't do with their own satellite (especially if Google DID provide some initial funding).
Oh, I just RTFA, and apparently Google is the only "online mapping company" allowed to use the photographs. I guess Google just paid a lot for those rights. Kinda like how Pepsi is the official soft drink of the International League of Woman Voters (though no one considers this to be legally anti-competative to Coke or Royal Crown Cola).
How do they make their browser IE6 compliant? Do they run a IE6 binary in the background? I mean, it's not like they actually wrote down a specification for the shitty webpages IE6 served up.
I also don't see a problem with compatability mode for intranet sites, especially if those sites were created with FrontPage, or even worse, converted to HTML with Word. They probably wouldn't display in any other mode except for IE6- mode.
That's why I use the Innernette. Over 100 pages preloaded onto a tiny CD. No connection necessary.
By programming language, I think of the language actually running the program. Languages like Java and C# are scripting langauges because they tell the environment what they want to do, and the environment (JVM, .NET, etc..) actually does the work. You could do the same in C, by using third-party libraries and only calling into those libraries, but the libraries themselves are usually written in C as well. JVM and .NET are both written in C/C++. In my opinion this makes C/C++ the programming language, and Java and C# are scripting into the environments. By that same logic, something like SmallTalk might also not be a programming language but a scripting language, since it runs inside an VM. However, Squeek, a SmallTalk VM, is also written in SmallTalk, so I really don't know where to go with that one.
The issue with Java and C# is that they are entrenched inside of these environments. Java is basically managed C with a whole bunch of modules/library's that make it much friendlier to program. Since those modules are standardized in the JVM, it's much more portable than a raw C progam, assuming someone writes a JVM for your platform.
Here's the way I look at it, is the language compiled down to assembly/machine code, then assembled and linked into a running program? Or, is the language interpreted into a second high-level language, then executed through pre-compiled/assembled modules (i.e. Java -> C++ modules -> assembly)?
Please note that I consider the OS a platform, not environment, so arguing that Windows or Linux is actually doing the executing doesn't make C a scripting language. Also, I remember hearing in college about them developing a physical machine that would run Java (i.e. JVM on silicon), did they ever make on of those?
...yet no one calls Java a scripting language
Shit, I'll say it: Java IS a scripting language.
Anyone ever play Vampire the Masquerade (PC version, not table-top) back in 2000? Remember what language it used to script game-sequences? That's right, Java. -QED
I would think a program created in a language would have to run on it's own to NOT be considered a scripting language, but that's just my opinion. Personally I don't consider Java a programming language because you have to use a JVM to run it in (instead of running natively within the environment). But don't listen to me, I still program professionally in crazy languages like Ada.
Do you get hundreds or thousands of rejected emails a day too? I wish I could remember sending out all those advertisements for V1@GR4, or wishing people happiness in lyrical, non-sensical prose without actually trying to sell them anything.
On a serious note, how many of those rejected emails are really from email servers with admins too stupid to not respond to spam, and how many are made to look like responses in the odd hope I really did forget I sent that email, and proceed to click on all the links contained therein?
Does Comcast pay for internet traffic by the gigabyte? No. Comcast, like everyone else, buys dedicated bandwidth from the major providers. What has happened here is that Comcast has severely over-sold their portion of the data lines. Their systems simply can't put up with people using the full bandwidth of their previously unlimited plans.
What doesn't make sense is how a company that pays by bandwidth hopes to alleviate its problem by controlling traffic. I may only download 1 movie a month, but if I do it during the same hour as every other house in my neighborhood, Comcast still doesn't have the bandwidth. Comcast is using the excuse of low-bandwidth to restrict traffic, purely for profit. They won't upgrade their network to provide more bandwidth, but they'll try to charge people more to use it (I am making the obvious assumption that they will soon offer 250+ GB plans for a premium price).
Comcasts approach to controlling bandwidth issues would be like a local government saying too many people drive too fast on the roads during rush-hour, so they decided to raise the tax on gasoline. That won't slow people down, it just means they can afford less gas, and run out 75% of the way to their destination. Those who can continue to pay the price of gas will continue to drive their Corvettes, while the rest of us take the city bus to the local library to check our email after our children downloaded too many freakin movies off our netflix account.
Who has a full-resolution version of a screen shot? I feel like setting a new background image for my desktop and TFA only has a reduced-resolution image.
Anyone have any examples where the NVIDIA drivers detect your chipset, and if it's not an NVIDIA chipset your card underperforms? Sounds like that's what they'd be doing in this instance as well. IANAL, but that doesn't sound legal. They can't force you to use their chipset to run their graphics card. Admitting that their software will look for approved keys and hinder performance if they are not found definately sounds anti-competative. Isn't licensing the technology enough?
Can I remove IE8 without reverting to IE7 on Vista or IE6 on XP? If not, than IE is still tied to the OS (not the kernel, sorry), and the problem isn't solved. I just remember upgrading to IE7, and when I uninstalled it, it went back to IE6.
Obviously you are unaware of the amazing trade deficit suffered by the American economy. When a government or society sends more money out of its borders then it takes in, the country is essentially hemorrhaging money (with the war, America is now 9.6 TRILLION in debt). I haven't seen Saudi Arabia give back any of the billions of dollars of oil money it receives, and I don't forsee MS ever giving Canada or anyone else back any of the money spent on MS software. If Quebec sends money to a Canadian company, that company employs Canadian citizens, who then pay Canadian taxes, and the cycle is complete. You buy a Vista license, and that goes into the $9 billion in cash MS will make this year, and stays there (and MS doesn't even pay state taxes because they "sell" their licenses through a company in Nevada). Trickle down doesn't work across borders (if at all).
Like it or not, many governments (especially those in the EU) REQUIRE a certain percentage of contracts to go to in-house companies. I worked at a US company on a program for the Belgian government and we were forced to use specific components in the system because those components were built by a Belgian company.
As for where to find open source, Quebec did NOT go directly to MS and buy a bunch of Vista licenses. They most likely leased a bunch of machines from a retailer (such as Dell or HP), and either part of the cost of those leases includes the Vista license, or they went through a licensing wholesaler. Therefore, Quebec might instead lease Linux PCs from Dell (and thus avoid MS licensing fees). Now Dell is just an example here, Quebec may already be using a Canadian alternative to Dell, but a significant amount of money ($25mil in 5 months) is also going to MS. The lawsuit here is simply stating that the government should have considered local, preferably open sources (i.e. an IT house specializing in Linux/Open Source).
I understand that there is no "free" software. However, I also won't just take Microsoft's word on whether or not managing a Windows system is cheaper than managing a Linux or similar system. The $25mil spent would probably go to IT instead of MS licensing fees, but as long as those IT individuals are Canadian and not Indian, the Canadian economy doesn't take the hit. The lawsuit isn't saying the government shouldn't spend the money, it's just saying it shouldn't blindly be giving the money to a US company IF a suitable Canadian alternative exists. Buying Canadian lumber in Rhode Island may be a necessity, but buying Canadian lumber in Alaska is stupid.
Sorry for the novel.
The problem with your statement is that you assume that there are no local alternatives with the same reliability *COUGH*yeahright*COUGH* as Microsoft Windows and Office. The problem is that the Queec government made the exact same assumption, and apparently didn't even investigate other possibilities. This is anti-competetive, and the point of the lawsuit. When the government needs goods or services, it should open a contract to allow fair competition. Let MS (or a retailer) try to bid a system of 1000 Vista computers with 1000 Office licenses. Maybe a local company can offer a competetive system running Ubuntu and OpenOffice (and provide IT support) for the same cost or less. Maybe MS wins, maybe it doesn't. In this case it just sounds like Quebec went with MS cause they didn't know any better. That's why the public must re-enforce the fact that it is in charge and that the government is utlimately responsible to the people it governs.
Implementing a feature Opera has had for years, now that's what I call innovation.
I'll be pleased with IE crash recovery if IE crashing doesn't bring down Exporer with it. If my window manager still has to restart just because my internet browser crashes, then MS can keep IE8. Does anyone know if IE is getting more and less tied-up into the windows kernel? I would hope with Vista's kernel security IE8 is nearly a stand-alone product now days.
Does it maintain proper order of operations? What if I want to "translate my selected text from english to spanish from english to spanish"? I guess I'm just confused, not being a FireFox user, but what is the point of being able to type-in "email". If you set gmail to one of your speed-dials (FireFox has speed-dial, right?) can't you just do Ctrl+1 a lot easier? Do people really have more than 9 or whatnot websites they visit with such regularity that selecting your bookmark with the mouse is wasting too much of your day? I guess if you twitter it might be easier, but twitter adds 0 value to society, so I won't give Ubiquity any bonus points for twitter functionality. I guess this is a nice tool, but as others have said, how is this relevant to anything?
There's a false argument that goes if you have a task to complete that will take 100 years on today's computers, wait. Since transistor density doubles every 18-months (allowing more transitors, more cores, more processing power), the computer you buy today will be unable to outperform a computer you buy 18 months from now. I.e. computer A will compute for 18 months. If you buy computer B, it can do in 9 months what the first computer did in 18. Then in can double that work in the next 9 months, completely replicating the first computers work in 18 months what computer A took 36. But after the second 18 months, another, faster computer comes out and does all the work over again in another 18 months. Basically, don't bother buying today because you'll get the same amount of work done in the same amount of time simply by waiting for a faster computer.
It's simple binary division. 100 years now = 50 years 18 months from now, etc.... 100/2^6 = 1.56 ~ 18 months. So basically 6*18 months from now (9 years) is when you want to buy that new PC of yours, or whatever the hell you were talking about.
Long story short, if you plan to live to 100, wait 9 years and buy a new computer. You'll only live till 11, but you'll get all the same work done. Or something like that, I don't know, math is confusing.