Not really. If the product ran fine on ms-dos, but bombed on dr-dos, most people would assume that dr-dos wasn't up to par when as an operating system. Then again i'm probally wrong. win9x runs like crap on MS-DOS and no one blames microsoft.
I don't think that's quite the same argument. DOS is not a compatible product with windows. The program cannot run under DOS because it doesn't support the features it requires. MS-DOS and DR-DOS were compatible, however. DR-DOS supported everything MS-DOS did and then some. Not to mention, the windows message is clear and precise. "This program requires Microsoft Windows." From what I understand the DR-DOS "bug"/feature said nothing of the sort.
Now if microsoft added 32bit code to dos or something along those lines and made windows require that code to be inplace, that would have been fine, provided that if dr-dos could get that code inplace then dr-dos could run windows too.
What amazes me most is that corel bought dr-dos for virtually nothing, and got the ability to sue for lost revenue that was never its to begin with. But hey, it's legal, and it might help stop microsoft from doing this sort of thing in the future. And maybe fuzzy bunnies will serve me breakfast in bed every morning.
Actually irregardless is not a word. If it were a word it would mean the same as "regardful" if that is a word (I don't think it is). And inflamable means combustable, flamable does not. Flamable actually means something like a conflict important to one's life, or something along those lines (I really can't remember). Flamable started being used as a synonym for inflamable on trucks that were carying combustable materials, people thought inflamable meant that the material was NOT combustable, so rather than have some un-informed trucker blow up his rig, they just put "flamable" on the back of the truck instead. I guess it's better to be safe than gramatically correct.
My step dad was called in for jury duty, as soon as they saw that he had a PhD he didn't last very long. pretty much anything beyond a high school diploma and you are gone.
Displaying the original version of a document, then displaying the modified version next to each other is technology? Come on, what's next? The complete stupidity of the US patent system makes me want to wretch. I think all software patents should be thrown out, unless it's an algorithm that took considerable time to make. Ie, companyX puts 10 years of research into figuring out how to store an entire song in 1 byte of data, they get a patent. companyY puts 30 seconds of thought into a new feature for a program, they get no patent. I really hope this goes before a judge who has at least one ounce of sence and realizes that it's some tiny little company trying to make a buck off of another company.
I really don't see how they have any right to say who can and cannot link to their site. imho by putting a site on the www you are granting people the right to link to it, whether you like it or not.
i disagree with the framing issue. mostly because there are very simple ways to prevent that exact type of situation. you can configure a web server to restrict certain content only if the referer is your own page. if it comes from some other page put up something like "you can't access this material blah blah blah"
Not if the content was illegal. Then it could be considered censorship, but justified censorship. I really can't picture harvard taking a stand on protecting content that it doesn't believe in. Had the actual security content been called into question then yes i would expect harvard to stand up and say something (it's not like they are in short supply of lawyers).
I think the content that is in question should never have been posted in the first place. If harvard had gone ahead and destroyed everything without giving kevin a chance to recover his data that would have been wrong, but since they are giving him his data back, he really isn't at any personal loss. I doubt he'd have any trouble finding a new place to host the site, most likely w/o the JP content. Most importantly he has his school work back. I don't know if harvard actually was going to delete everything in the first place, or if the publicity around the event made them change their mind, but the important thing is they are doing the right thing now. The only thing I can see them doing that would be even better would be allowing him to open the site up again on harvard's network w/o the jp content, but I doubt that would happen.
Uhm...minor nitpick, but didn't the English invent the english system of weights and measurements (which i thought was the "imperial system" anyway, but i'm probally wrong). I still think america is dumb for using it. but i also think it's the least of our problems at the moment.
Some of you should actually read the first ammendment. It starts out, "Congress shall make no law..." the key word being "Congress." It applies only to the government, more specifically congress. I cannot violate someone else's first ammendment rights. Harvard cannot violate someone's first ammendment rights. Only the government can. I just get sick of people touting "first ammendment rights" in areas where they are not in the slightest bit relevant.
Actually he has a 33.6 acording to one of his posts, so it would have taken a really long time. I do think not keeping his school stuff at home was a bad idea though.
What I found interesting was the part where he unplugged that guy's computer in the middle of the night. From what i understand it's essentially true, except i think the circumstances were a bit different. I think he pulled the plug on someone's computer who was working on the Liza (or is it lisa?) after he came up with the idea for the mac, killing hours of work, all because he had just come up with the next insanely great thing. IMHO the man is a complete and total nut, who gets a lot of credit for being a revolutionary which he really doesn't deserve. I think the only reason people like jobs and hate gates is because gates won and jobs lost. If things had turned out the other way i'm sure we'd have steve jobus of borg, and the revolutionary bill gates who got cheated out of his work by that big bad apple company. As far as I can tell, woz is one of the few people who actually did anything of importance regarding the technical details, and he gets virtually no credit for his accomplishments.
As for cringely, i think he's just mad that triumph gets no recognition beyond geeks, where pirates was aparently popular among those "normal people." He's just jealous, that's all. And with regards to the historical inacuracies, it's a movie, not a documentary, you know "base on a true story," those types of things are never perfectly accurate. Real life seldom makes a good story, or atleast a good story that can be compressed into a 2 hour (probally more like 1 when you factor out the commercials) period.
The problem with mozilla was that a bunch of source code that was never meant for public consumption was released. From what I understand it was pretty much a developement version of netscape 5.0 that had certain sections of code ripped out that netscape could not release to the public. On top of all of this it didn't compile into a useable product. It still is barely functional. IMHO netscape would have done better by starting a new project from scratch that was open from the start. If they put some of their own serious coders into it (especially those who had worked on prior versions) they probally could have churned out an amazing product by this point.
I think the biggest problem was that it didn't work from the start. When they first released the source I grabbed a copy, and was very frustrated at the dificulty in compiling and then realising that it didn't work. I'm sure the same was true of other coders as well. I would hate to see the mozilla project die, but i can understand why aol would kill it. At this point it's probally a huge revenue drain that is providing little return. Remeber, that AOL is a bussiness and their primary responsibility is to make money, not keep the free software community happy.
I actually can't think of anything "Darth Maul's clone" gives away. Darth Maul did not have a clone in TPM, atleast none that the audience was told about. The clone bit is just a bunch of speculation because most people don't want to admit to the fact that one of the few truely cool characters in the movie might not be returning. I'm still waiting for Samuel Jackson to say "use the force mother fucker."
Jar Jar was a CGI alien put in the movie for comic relief for 12 year olds. With such stunning lines as "exscweeze-me" and "meesa name is jar jar binks," he was supposed to take over the role as the annoying goofball that was C3PO. Only problem was he was 1000x more annoying. C3PO was funny, Jar Jar made me want to hunt down the Gungans (Jar Jar's race) and murder them all. Many people have also complained that Jar Jar has a Jamacan accent is a complete screw up and therefor is a racist statement by Lucas. Maybe no one else noticed but Palpatine sounded almost British, and he goes on to be the dark rule of the galaxy.
I sincerely hope Lucas decides not to include Jar Jar in the next movie because he was annoying and provided no real substance for the movie. Not to mention listening to all of the Gungans speak gave me a head-ache. They should have had subtitles or something.
I thought he was awful in romeo and juliet. I thought claire daines(sp) was too and I loved her in my so called life. I could only stomach about 15 minutes of the movie before I wanted to vomit. They both might be good actors, but neither are shakespearean actors. That and I really don't want dicaprio in epII simply because he will draw hordes of 12 year old girls who just want to see the movie because "leo's so hot!!!" and will ruin the experience for the rest of us.
I'm not certain I'm reading that right, but it means that microsoft compared NT using dlls to essentially extend the web server itself to produce the output to linux using cgi scripts? Maybe it's just me but it's kinda obvious that NT is gonna win in that test. CGIs require a fork()/exec() which is a lot slower than just pumping out the output. Now NT ISAPI vs. mod_perl or mod_php might have been just a bit more accurate.
Also, you must take into account stability. From what I understand the NT tweaks made the system very unstable. There are plenty of things you could do to linux (since you have the source) to acheive the same tradeoff. Also, there are already patches to fix some of the problems found in the original mindcraft test. They have been around for along time. Just the linux team wasn't allowed to use any patches after apr 15 (or some date close to that). I would like to see how linux does compared to nt w/ the new patches. I think this is the true power of linux. The ability to say "yah work does need to be done in that area" and being able to get the patches in a few weeks, not months, or just writing them yourself.
The point is speed. Sure mp3encoder or bladeenc or whatever work. An FPGA could (in theory) work much faster. Just "rewire" the FPGA into a mode that will work at encoding mp3s and you essentially have a hardware encoder, that the next second could be a hardware quake3 engine (not a 3d card but a chip designed soley for playing quake3).
With regard to the psuedo-C2 certification. C2 requires that the computer have no network access of any kind, be it network card, modem, or what have you. So this wouldn't really have any impact.
First, IANAL, but i think it's pattents which expire if not enforced. Trademarks don't matter. Second, I hope microsoft or some other evil empire gets its hands on "Open Source" so people will stop using the damned phrase. I'm personally sick and tired of open source this and open source that. Hell we even have microsoft and al gore claiming shit is open source. It's gotten obscene. I remember the days when GNU, etc. were nothing more than software and religion. When did this all become so political?
Now onto your two points: 1) Who cares? "Open Source" is two commonly used english words. First off the trademark would never be granted. Second, it wouldn't hold up in court. Third, who cares? People will still keep using the phrase no matter what the backwards US legal system says.
2) People already are abusing the term. Al Gore described his damned website as "open source." Microsoft claimed that licensing the winNT source code to universities was "open source." Hey, my mouse is "open source" (it's just as legitimate in this sentence as it is in the others).
Re: BSOD crap is getting old
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
Really? Only time I ever got a panic from something that wasn't defective hardware (ram to be exact) was in a devel kernel, and then i've only gotten maybe 2. I've had windows bsod numerous occasions when doing stuff as simple as using netscape or mickeysoft word. My personal experience has been that linux is far more stable than windows ever will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. If the product ran fine on ms-dos, but bombed on dr-dos, most people would assume that dr-dos wasn't up to par when as an operating system. Then again i'm probally wrong. win9x runs like crap on MS-DOS and no one blames microsoft.
I don't think that's quite the same argument. DOS is not a compatible product with windows. The program cannot run under DOS because it doesn't support the features it requires. MS-DOS and DR-DOS were compatible, however. DR-DOS supported everything MS-DOS did and then some. Not to mention, the windows message is clear and precise. "This program requires Microsoft Windows." From what I understand the DR-DOS "bug"/feature said nothing of the sort.
Now if microsoft added 32bit code to dos or something along those lines and made windows require that code to be inplace, that would have been fine, provided that if dr-dos could get that code inplace then dr-dos could run windows too.
What amazes me most is that corel bought dr-dos for virtually nothing, and got the ability to sue for lost revenue that was never its to begin with. But hey, it's legal, and it might help stop microsoft from doing this sort of thing in the future. And maybe fuzzy bunnies will serve me breakfast in bed every morning.
Actually irregardless is not a word. If it were a word it would mean the same as "regardful" if that is a word (I don't think it is). And inflamable means combustable, flamable does not. Flamable actually means something like a conflict important to one's life, or something along those lines (I really can't remember). Flamable started being used as a synonym for inflamable on trucks that were carying combustable materials, people thought inflamable meant that the material was NOT combustable, so rather than have some un-informed trucker blow up his rig, they just put "flamable" on the back of the truck instead. I guess it's better to be safe than gramatically correct.
My step dad was called in for jury duty, as soon as they saw that he had a PhD he didn't last very long. pretty much anything beyond a high school diploma and you are gone.
Displaying the original version of a document, then displaying the modified version next to each other is technology? Come on, what's next? The complete stupidity of the US patent system makes me want to wretch. I think all software patents should be thrown out, unless it's an algorithm that took considerable time to make. Ie, companyX puts 10 years of research into figuring out how to store an entire song in 1 byte of data, they get a patent. companyY puts 30 seconds of thought into a new feature for a program, they get no patent. I really hope this goes before a judge who has at least one ounce of sence and realizes that it's some tiny little company trying to make a buck off of another company.
I really don't see how they have any right to say who can and cannot link to their site. imho by putting a site on the www you are granting people the right to link to it, whether you like it or not.
i disagree with the framing issue. mostly because there are very simple ways to prevent that exact type of situation. you can configure a web server to restrict certain content only if the referer is your own page. if it comes from some other page put up something like "you can't access this material blah blah blah"
for an example click here http://www.antionline.com (asuming the site even works at this point)
Not if the content was illegal. Then it could be considered censorship, but justified censorship. I really can't picture harvard taking a stand on protecting content that it doesn't believe in. Had the actual security content been called into question then yes i would expect harvard to stand up and say something (it's not like they are in short supply of lawyers).
I think the content that is in question should never have been posted in the first place. If harvard had gone ahead and destroyed everything without giving kevin a chance to recover his data that would have been wrong, but since they are giving him his data back, he really isn't at any personal loss. I doubt he'd have any trouble finding a new place to host the site, most likely w/o the JP content. Most importantly he has his school work back. I don't know if harvard actually was going to delete everything in the first place, or if the publicity around the event made them change their mind, but the important thing is they are doing the right thing now. The only thing I can see them doing that would be even better would be allowing him to open the site up again on harvard's network w/o the jp content, but I doubt that would happen.
Uhm...minor nitpick, but didn't the English invent the english system of weights and measurements (which i thought was the "imperial system" anyway, but i'm probally wrong). I still think america is dumb for using it. but i also think it's the least of our problems at the moment.
Some of you should actually read the first ammendment. It starts out, "Congress shall make no law..." the key word being "Congress." It applies only to the government, more specifically congress. I cannot violate someone else's first ammendment rights. Harvard cannot violate someone's first ammendment rights. Only the government can. I just get sick of people touting "first ammendment rights" in areas where they are not in the slightest bit relevant.
Actually he has a 33.6 acording to one of his posts, so it would have taken a really long time. I do think not keeping his school stuff at home was a bad idea though.
What I found interesting was the part where he unplugged that guy's computer in the middle of the night. From what i understand it's essentially true, except i think the circumstances were a bit different. I think he pulled the plug on someone's computer who was working on the Liza (or is it lisa?) after he came up with the idea for the mac, killing hours of work, all because he had just come up with the next insanely great thing. IMHO the man is a complete and total nut, who gets a lot of credit for being a revolutionary which he really doesn't deserve. I think the only reason people like jobs and hate gates is because gates won and jobs lost. If things had turned out the other way i'm sure we'd have steve jobus of borg, and the revolutionary bill gates who got cheated out of his work by that big bad apple company. As far as I can tell, woz is one of the few people who actually did anything of importance regarding the technical details, and he gets virtually no credit for his accomplishments.
As for cringely, i think he's just mad that triumph gets no recognition beyond geeks, where pirates was aparently popular among those "normal people." He's just jealous, that's all. And with regards to the historical inacuracies, it's a movie, not a documentary, you know "base on a true story," those types of things are never perfectly accurate. Real life seldom makes a good story, or atleast a good story that can be compressed into a 2 hour (probally more like 1 when you factor out the commercials) period.
The problem with mozilla was that a bunch of source code that was never meant for public consumption was released. From what I understand it was pretty much a developement version of netscape 5.0 that had certain sections of code ripped out that netscape could not release to the public. On top of all of this it didn't compile into a useable product. It still is barely functional. IMHO netscape would have done better by starting a new project from scratch that was open from the start. If they put some of their own serious coders into it (especially those who had worked on prior versions) they probally could have churned out an amazing product by this point.
I think the biggest problem was that it didn't work from the start. When they first released the source I grabbed a copy, and was very frustrated at the dificulty in compiling and then realising that it didn't work. I'm sure the same was true of other coders as well. I would hate to see the mozilla project die, but i can understand why aol would kill it. At this point it's probally a huge revenue drain that is providing little return. Remeber, that AOL is a bussiness and their primary responsibility is to make money, not keep the free software community happy.
I actually can't think of anything "Darth Maul's clone" gives away. Darth Maul did not have a clone in TPM, atleast none that the audience was told about. The clone bit is just a bunch of speculation because most people don't want to admit to the fact that one of the few truely cool characters in the movie might not be returning. I'm still waiting for Samuel Jackson to say "use the force mother fucker."
Jar Jar was a CGI alien put in the movie for comic relief for 12 year olds. With such stunning lines as "exscweeze-me" and "meesa name is jar jar binks," he was supposed to take over the role as the annoying goofball that was C3PO. Only problem was he was 1000x more annoying. C3PO was funny, Jar Jar made me want to hunt down the Gungans (Jar Jar's race) and murder them all. Many people have also complained that Jar Jar has a Jamacan accent is a complete screw up and therefor is a racist statement by Lucas. Maybe no one else noticed but Palpatine sounded almost British, and he goes on to be the dark rule of the galaxy.
I sincerely hope Lucas decides not to include Jar Jar in the next movie because he was annoying and provided no real substance for the movie. Not to mention listening to all of the Gungans speak gave me a head-ache. They should have had subtitles or something.
In short: die Jar Jar, die!
I thought he was awful in romeo and juliet. I thought claire daines(sp) was too and I loved her in my so called life. I could only stomach about 15 minutes of the movie before I wanted to vomit. They both might be good actors, but neither are shakespearean actors. That and I really don't want dicaprio in epII simply because he will draw hordes of 12 year old girls who just want to see the movie because "leo's so hot!!!" and will ruin the experience for the rest of us.
I'm not certain I'm reading that right, but it means that microsoft compared NT using dlls to essentially extend the web server itself to produce the output to linux using cgi scripts? Maybe it's just me but it's kinda obvious that NT is gonna win in that test. CGIs require a fork()/exec() which is a lot slower than just pumping out the output. Now NT ISAPI vs. mod_perl or mod_php might have been just a bit more accurate.
Isn't that supposed to be impossible? I thought all windows machines were supposed to die after 47 days.
Also, you must take into account stability. From what I understand the NT tweaks made the system very unstable. There are plenty of things you could do to linux (since you have the source) to acheive the same tradeoff. Also, there are already patches to fix some of the problems found in the original mindcraft test. They have been around for along time. Just the linux team wasn't allowed to use any patches after apr 15 (or some date close to that). I would like to see how linux does compared to nt w/ the new patches. I think this is the true power of linux. The ability to say "yah work does need to be done in that area" and being able to get the patches in a few weeks, not months, or just writing them yourself.
Actually w/ some cards (at least the 3dfx banshee) the controll registers get included too. So you see a minimum of 48megs of ram.
The point is speed. Sure mp3encoder or bladeenc or whatever work. An FPGA could (in theory) work much faster. Just "rewire" the FPGA into a mode that will work at encoding mp3s and you essentially have a hardware encoder, that the next second could be a hardware quake3 engine (not a 3d card but a chip designed soley for playing quake3).
With regard to the psuedo-C2 certification. C2 requires that the computer have no network access of any kind, be it network card, modem, or what have you. So this wouldn't really have any impact.
First, IANAL, but i think it's pattents which expire if not enforced. Trademarks don't matter. Second, I hope microsoft or some other evil empire gets its hands on "Open Source" so people will stop using the damned phrase. I'm personally sick and tired of open source this and open source that. Hell we even have microsoft and al gore claiming shit is open source. It's gotten obscene. I remember the days when GNU, etc. were nothing more than software and religion. When did this all become so political?
Now onto your two points:
1) Who cares? "Open Source" is two commonly used english words. First off the trademark would never be granted. Second, it wouldn't hold up in court. Third, who cares? People will still keep using the phrase no matter what the backwards US legal system says.
2) People already are abusing the term. Al Gore described his damned website as "open source." Microsoft claimed that licensing the winNT source code to universities was "open source." Hey, my mouse is "open source" (it's just as legitimate in this sentence as it is in the others).
Really? Only time I ever got a panic from something that wasn't defective hardware (ram to be exact) was in a devel kernel, and then i've only gotten maybe 2. I've had windows bsod numerous occasions when doing stuff as simple as using netscape or mickeysoft word. My personal experience has been that linux is far more stable than windows ever will be.