Can we try the reverse of the Apple/Windows malware for the OS X desktop market share idea?
O/t, but something I've never got my head round with that argument... Mac OS9 had plenty more exploits than OSX has and yet the user base was significantly smaller.
If I had mod points I'd mod you right up - I'd not realised.
Personally, I make a point of calling our SQL Server boxes 'Microsoft SQL Server servers', but I'm twisted like that. (their appropriation of 'SQL' is just one of the ways I can't stand that company...)
The full name for SQL Server (MSSQL) is Microsoft® SQL Server. It's just shortened by most of the tech community both internally and externally of Microsoft.
Hate to be picky but I'm seeing two trademark symbols on that page: Microsoft® SQL Server®
Besides, if you check out Microsoft's own list of trademarks you'll see 'SQL Server' in there all on it's own:
96,000 'windows' posts before 1985 suggest that many people did associate 'windows' with computers (but not necessarily Microsoft) before the release of MS Windows.
I don't see Microsoft suing anybody because they say they are using Ubuntu with a windows GUI.
I can see Apple suing people to stop saying "app" or "app store"
That's personal opinion, of course. I, on the other hand, think that they wouldn't. You do need to realise that the only reason why Apple are doing this is because Microsoft are being such utter douchebags in the first place.
Point being? Ford using Yamaha engines is a strategic decision. They're not using Yamaha engines because they have to due to some monopoly ruling.
The posters point is correct: you don't need to buy an iPhone. In fact, it's easier to/not/ buy an iPhone than it is to buy one (which is more than can be said for laptops with Windows on them).
Yep, I'll be doing a presentation shortly, and for this I'll use my iPad. I'll just hook my projector up to-- oh, guess I'll be using my laptop after all.
Turns out: "better" is your opinion, and your idea of "presenting" is incredibly narrow.
Turns out: you're wrong. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to be clueless.
I was using my iPad outside the other day, lazing around in the bright sun reading an ebook. It was ok to read off once I'd got used to the reflection from the screen.
The main issue was that the iPad got too hot and went into temperature shutdown mode - and I'm in Britain, summer isn't/that/ hot!
Either the US healthcare system is overly-expensive or US GDP is deeply sucky. Given that the US system has an extra layer of bookmakers - sorry, insurance salesmen - which do you suppose it is?
However, it would be unsuitable for use by Wikimedia as the resolution is below 150,000x100,000 as - obviously - it's not the same unless you can view it at 1:1 and have your entire monitor displaying the Mona Lisa's nosehair.
Then it's just as well he took them from a server hosted in the US.
Oh, wait...
Ok, copying a couple of high-res images down from the NPG site to use as PC wallpaper is one thing but pulling 3000+ images...? If he downloaded them with the intent to push them up to the Wikimedia servers (pulling the works from a UK server in the process) then I'd say they were copied in the UK - UK law applies.
That said, what I'd like to see is some sort of compromise, 3,000+ photos is a lot, and potentially damaging to a museum that has few revenue streams besides government funding.
I think the NPG were willing to compromise with access to the collection at medium resolution. But, seemingly, that wasn't good enough and Wikimedia (or one of it's henchmen) saw fit to grab the high-res versions.
How big a monitor would you have in order to view these paintings at what you believe to be a 'decent resolution'?
How would a higher resolution image help? Sure, you can get really close in on an image but, surely, on a 20" screen it tends to lose impact...?
Or are you thinking that they might print it out? A4? Really, given that the NPG allow people access to the medium-res images, why on Earth do you believe you need to have the high-res images? How are you going to view the high-res image?
At my place of work there was a requirement for a fairly simple call-logging application - nothing too complex, few screens, bit of reporting, but needed to be done in three weeks.
The plan was to develop this in.NET using a team out in India. As a safety net the project manager had a word with me and asked about parallel-developing the application in Oracle Application Express. Not a problem I said, and had an app which could go into production a week before required. (I'm a DBA who does bits of Apex stuff on the side, so it wasn't a straight two weeks).
Well, that was back in September. Four months later and the scheduled delivery date for the.NET application is March. Oh, and the.NET version is missing all the charting I'd put in there (which is a breeze to do in Apex).
Quite why it's taken so long to do the.NET development of such a trivial application is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we try the reverse of the Apple/Windows malware for the OS X desktop market share idea?
O/t, but something I've never got my head round with that argument... Mac OS9 had plenty more exploits than OSX has and yet the user base was significantly smaller.
If I had mod points I'd mod you right up - I'd not realised.
Personally, I make a point of calling our SQL Server boxes 'Microsoft SQL Server servers', but I'm twisted like that. (their appropriation of 'SQL' is just one of the ways I can't stand that company...)
Also, a lot of people (me excluded) shorten it to 'SQL' (something MSFT must've known would happen).
The full name for SQL Server (MSSQL) is Microsoft® SQL Server. It's just shortened by most of the tech community both internally and externally of Microsoft.
Hate to be picky but I'm seeing two trademark symbols on that page: Microsoft® SQL Server®
Besides, if you check out Microsoft's own list of trademarks you'll see 'SQL Server' in there all on it's own:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=windows&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=1985&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&safe=off
96,000 'windows' posts before 1985 suggest that many people did associate 'windows' with computers (but not necessarily Microsoft) before the release of MS Windows.
I don't see Microsoft suing anybody because they say they are using Ubuntu with a windows GUI.
I can see Apple suing people to stop saying "app" or "app store"
That's personal opinion, of course. I, on the other hand, think that they wouldn't. You do need to realise that the only reason why Apple are doing this is because Microsoft are being such utter douchebags in the first place.
Point being? Ford using Yamaha engines is a strategic decision. They're not using Yamaha engines because they have to due to some monopoly ruling.
The posters point is correct: you don't need to buy an iPhone. In fact, it's easier to /not/ buy an iPhone than it is to buy one (which is more than can be said for laptops with Windows on them).
Yeah, no shit that's my opinion, who else's would it be?
Seems like it's not just your opinion. In fact, judging by the replies it seems like the only person who doesn't share your opinion is Mr VC...
Yep, I'll be doing a presentation shortly, and for this I'll use my iPad.
I'll just hook my projector up to-- oh, guess I'll be using my laptop after all.
Turns out: "better" is your opinion, and your idea of "presenting" is incredibly narrow.
Turns out: you're wrong. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to be clueless.
What you need:
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC552ZM/A
How it works in practice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GysMfb4_79A
MS can invent what they like, if they don't ship I don't care. My point is valid, your point is a sideshow.
Say what you like about Apple, if they announce it you can buy it shortly after.
I was using my iPad outside the other day, lazing around in the bright sun reading an ebook. It was ok to read off once I'd got used to the reflection from the screen.
The main issue was that the iPad got too hot and went into temperature shutdown mode - and I'm in Britain, summer isn't /that/ hot!
...to say nothing of things like Oracle that cost ca. $40k per CPU socket.
Oracle is available at a number of price points, starting with free.
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html
And in the UK, he would have paid higher taxes and received inferior care.
US healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP is 16%. The same for the UK is below 9%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
Either the US healthcare system is overly-expensive or US GDP is deeply sucky. Given that the US system has an extra layer of bookmakers - sorry, insurance salesmen - which do you suppose it is?
Yep - was definitely there last night. Checked the Polish site this morning and... ...whoosh, all gone. ('cept for the shoddy orange bar).
That's a very nice post.
However, it would be unsuitable for use by Wikimedia as the resolution is below 150,000x100,000 as - obviously - it's not the same unless you can view it at 1:1 and have your entire monitor displaying the Mona Lisa's nosehair.
Then it's just as well he took them from a server hosted in the US.
Oh, wait...
Ok, copying a couple of high-res images down from the NPG site to use as PC wallpaper is one thing but pulling 3000+ images...? If he downloaded them with the intent to push them up to the Wikimedia servers (pulling the works from a UK server in the process) then I'd say they were copied in the UK - UK law applies.
That said, what I'd like to see is some sort of compromise, 3,000+ photos is a lot, and potentially damaging to a museum that has few revenue streams besides government funding.
I think the NPG were willing to compromise with access to the collection at medium resolution. But, seemingly, that wasn't good enough and Wikimedia (or one of it's henchmen) saw fit to grab the high-res versions.
'...a decent resolution...'?
How big a monitor would you have in order to view these paintings at what you believe to be a 'decent resolution'?
How would a higher resolution image help? Sure, you can get really close in on an image but, surely, on a 20" screen it tends to lose impact...?
Or are you thinking that they might print it out? A4? Really, given that the NPG allow people access to the medium-res images, why on Earth do you believe you need to have the high-res images? How are you going to view the high-res image?
How about a good-quality medium-resolution version? Y'know, a bit like the one the NPG would've let Wikimedia have for free...?
S'funny - the Smithsonian'll charge you to obtain their collection, too:
http://americanart.si.edu/collections/rights/index.cfm
You don't suspect there's a degree of hypocrisy in the Wikimedia stance, do you?
Yep - totally agree with that.
At my place of work there was a requirement for a fairly simple call-logging application - nothing too complex, few screens, bit of reporting, but needed to be done in three weeks.
The plan was to develop this in .NET using a team out in India. As a safety net the project manager had a word with me and asked about parallel-developing the application in Oracle Application Express. Not a problem I said, and had an app which could go into production a week before required. (I'm a DBA who does bits of Apex stuff on the side, so it wasn't a straight two weeks).
Well, that was back in September. Four months later and the scheduled delivery date for the .NET application is March. Oh, and the .NET version is missing all the charting I'd put in there (which is a breeze to do in Apex).
Quite why it's taken so long to do the .NET development of such a trivial application is beyond me.