From an article in the Washington post this morning, the Florida attorney general was cited as thinking that two companies is not enough. He thinks three is necessary.
The point is about about MSN, WebTV, MSNBC, etc... Are these going to be operating systems or software? It seems the company that gets these (and cable TV and AT&T shares...) will still have the ability and motivation to abuse its power.
Interestingly, all other states agreed that two would be enough. Florida was alone in dissent (well, Ohio didn't support any kind of breakup.)
I read (in real paper) this front page story in the Post. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Interestingly, the attorney representing Florida wanted to break MS into three competetive companies instead of two (preferred by almost all other states) or leaving MS as one (preferred by only Ohio). I thought his point was very strong: What will happen to MSN, MSNBC, etc...? Are they operating systems or office suites?
There was no mention of interim conditions, but I imagine there must be some. Otherwise, MS could tie things up in appeal for half a decade making the whole point moot. This is, after all, what happened with DR DOS.
A couple other thoughts: Apparently some of the state attorneys feel "slapped" by the microsoft response. MS reports to employees and shareholders that a breakup will never occur.
The proposal to split the company would require Gates and other top execs to choose either the OS or the app company to put their stock in. That I hadn't heard before. Common shareholders get stock in both.
But as far as I could tell, all this must be regarded with a grain of salt. The article was littered with journalistic reservation. "Sources close to the matter say..." and "people who have seen the proposal indicate..." The whole thing was written as if the journalist from the post really had no first hand information. Pretty queer for a front page story in a supposedly first rate rag.
Just because Taco loves the who...
on
UNIX.com On eBay?
·
· Score: 1
It has structure in place for producing web documents in several languages. It's slow, but if you don't have much dynamic content, or you just want to know how it's implimented and maybe adopt for your PHP needs...
If you cannot say it in 10 pages, you are not focused on the right thing
in reference to the old 100 page corporate assessments of a decade ago. Somehow, the idea of trimming corporate fat keenly aligns with the linux idea, too. The 10 page versus 100 page assessment reminds me of streamlining the OS so that workstations-to-servers-to-mainframes use the same, efficient one.
Remember those Netwinders, with those cool little ARM processors. Why not make a deal with CorelHardware/AOL/Corel instead? Am I just uninformed? Do these things even exist anymore?
Here's another question. Can anyone shed light on the cryptic last line of the article, the line after Deal Update:
I own Mathematica v3 for Linux and I use it for many things. But for most of these, (except possibly computing integrals) there are free and better licensed alternatives.
For example, Singular and Macaulay are super alternatives if you need Groebner bases type computations done. They are better, faster too.
This reminds me that Jakob Nielsen once said that Internet Explorer v8 would be the first web browser that helps the user. I wondered what he meant and wonder now. Why not ie7, ie9, why not another browser?
One thing to distinguish the Playstation 2 and a beowulf cluster is that the playstation 2 is hardware and beowulf is, more or less, an idea. The analogy that I've read in earlier posts that seems right to me is to compare restriction of beowulf clusters to encryption. The way I see it:
It's hard to control export on software source code unless one controls export of totally available ideas. This point makes export controls difficult.
Much of the beowulf technology, like much encryption technology, is developed outside the US. This point makes export controls worthless.
But there used to be the pretense of unbiased reporting. It is slipping away, though. Slashdot probably gets better ratings when it's viewed as biased hacker anti-establishment spout. Not that I care, because I know that slashdot is biased hacker anti-establishment spout.
Here's a question, though. Does "full length CD dollar value grew 12.3 percent" really mean that CD prices rose 12.3 percent, or just that there was a 12.3 percent increase in profits per disc, maybe from reduced costs or lower royalties or something other than higher price? Any ideas.
Changing the subject a little bit, I never understood why for serious documents, available electronically, DVI hasn't become more popular. I see plenty of PDF documents, but they're big and the viewers are very slow.
I don't know much about PDF, so forgive my ignorance, but it seems impossible to compose PDF documents in an editor. So, for web documents, the markup style of TeX/LaTeX fits with the markup style of HTML/XML. In fact, add hyperlinks and DVI seems so natural to put in the browser window. I understand Professor Knuth's remarks about browser sizes and so on, but let TeX adjust things for onscreen viewing. It certainly would be faster/smarter/better than current implimentations of redraws and table layout in current HTML browsers.
Am I not understanding something? Why do we even need HTML, MathML, or stuff like that? Why not add hyperlinks to TeX? Ok, maybe it's too late, but why wasn't it a good idea five years ago?
IE5 cannot handle 100% html compliant gzipped postscript files. See this page from xxx.lanl.gov, which is the premier repository for preprints in mathematics and physics.
ie5 isn't available for enough operating systems.
Yes, for browsing web pages in any of the Windows operating systems, ie5 is much better than Netscape 4.x. You'd be crazy to say otherwise. But, the way it is now, I have to close ie5 and open Netscape in order to view research papers. I know I can use ftp and gzip and a postscript viewer to do it, but it's easier with a browser, now that the preprint servers have nice front ends.
I know people say Mozilla is open source and therefore better. I agree, abstractly, but most people ain't gonna read it anyway. It does give a kind of confidence that nothing sneaky is going on (like personal information being tranmitted to web sites) and that is important to me. But when it comes to performance, the inability to handle gzipped postscript is absolutely unacceptable. I have heard of workarounds, but haven't been able to carry them out.
when you graduate from college you'll inevitably have more rights
I'm sure you meant, once you turn 21. Lots of people don't go to college...
Anyway, so far, pretty much each move by the court seems appropriate to me. Preliminary injunction? It's probably the right thing to do. Now, I'm not sure what MP3s have to do with it, but I think I know why you say the biggest argument is about individual freedom. It seems to me the case is about the following:
The DVD-CCA filed a suit based on the fact that the CSS was stolen. Was it? That's for the court to decide, apparently. The DVD-CCA says they are the sole licenser of the CSS, but does that give them certain rights/controls over individuals who have not entered into license agreements with them? If the case sets the precedent that I don't have the freedom to not enter a license agreement that I've never seen with a party I want no business with and maybe have never heard of; then, yes, I'd certainly say this is about individual freedom.
What I find repugnant, on both sides, is the heated way the point is obscured. The DVD-CCA in their original filing give three disrespectful/.-style quotes in the very introduction of the application! It's as if the court is expected to find someone guilty of a crime because they are impolite! "Here's the kind of thing the defendants say. Don't you just want to stick it to them, superior court of California?" Furthermore, their paper is littered with discussion of piracy (no evidence of such was even submitted, as far as I can tell) of the hypothetically underlying intellectual property (the MPA's business.)
On this side of the issue, it seems that the DVD-CCA should be screwed because of one of the following reasons:
It is a big, rich orginization and therefore symbolizes ENEMY, who naturally should be fucked. We are at war, no?
They encoded something that is crackable (and therefore ought to be cracked) What the hell did they expect?
They havn't convinced a Linux vendor to buy a CSS license so we can watch Matrix on our little computer screen. Goddamn Microsoft! They're in league with the devil.
Now, the point is obscured (do you even remember it, or have the above three bullets gotten your blood so hot, that you're already off linking another "mirror."?)
It's hopeless that the press can get it right. I hope the court can be more clear-headed.
If not outlaw visitation by members of the opposite sex? As an RA, you'll have to encourage and show your residents how to get started having fun with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
From an article in the Washington post this morning, the Florida attorney general was cited as thinking that two companies is not enough. He thinks three is necessary.
The point is about about MSN, WebTV, MSNBC, etc... Are these going to be operating systems or software? It seems the company that gets these (and cable TV and AT&T shares...) will still have the ability and motivation to abuse its power.
Interestingly, all other states agreed that two would be enough. Florida was alone in dissent (well, Ohio didn't support any kind of breakup.)
I read (in real paper) this front page story in the Post. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Interestingly, the attorney representing Florida wanted to break MS into three competetive companies instead of two (preferred by almost all other states) or leaving MS as one (preferred by only Ohio). I thought his point was very strong: What will happen to MSN, MSNBC, etc...? Are they operating systems or office suites?
There was no mention of interim conditions, but I imagine there must be some. Otherwise, MS could tie things up in appeal for half a decade making the whole point moot. This is, after all, what happened with DR DOS.
A couple other thoughts: Apparently some of the state attorneys feel "slapped" by the microsoft response. MS reports to employees and shareholders that a breakup will never occur.
The proposal to split the company would require Gates and other top execs to choose either the OS or the app company to put their stock in. That I hadn't heard before. Common shareholders get stock in both.
But as far as I could tell, all this must be regarded with a grain of salt. The article was littered with journalistic reservation. "Sources close to the matter say..." and "people who have seen the proposal indicate..." The whole thing was written as if the journalist from the post really had no first hand information. Pretty queer for a front page story in a supposedly first rate rag.
Or were you thinking of the Elton John version?
It has structure in place for producing web documents in several languages. It's slow, but if you don't have much dynamic content, or you just want to know how it's implimented and maybe adopt for your PHP needs...
http://www.engelschall.com/sw/wml/
I like the remark
in reference to the old 100 page corporate assessments of a decade ago. Somehow, the idea of trimming corporate fat keenly aligns with the linux idea, too. The 10 page versus 100 page assessment reminds me of streamlining the OS so that workstations-to-servers-to-mainframes use the same, efficient one.Remember those Netwinders, with those cool little ARM processors. Why not make a deal with CorelHardware/AOL/Corel instead? Am I just uninformed? Do these things even exist anymore?
Here's another question. Can anyone shed light on the cryptic last line of the article, the line after Deal Update:
What is Inprise? What's the merger mentioned?I own Mathematica v3 for Linux and I use it for many things. But for most of these, (except possibly computing integrals) there are free and better licensed alternatives.
For example, Singular and Macaulay are super alternatives if you need Groebner bases type computations done. They are better, faster too.
This reminds me that Jakob Nielsen once said that Internet Explorer v8 would be the first web browser that helps the user. I wondered what he meant and wonder now. Why not ie7, ie9, why not another browser?
One thing to distinguish the Playstation 2 and a beowulf cluster is that the playstation 2 is hardware and beowulf is, more or less, an idea. The analogy that I've read in earlier posts that seems right to me is to compare restriction of beowulf clusters to encryption. The way I see it:
Or, does the tour itself generate income from ticket sales; generate interest in the music and so generate CD sales?
But there used to be the pretense of unbiased reporting. It is slipping away, though. Slashdot probably gets better ratings when it's viewed as biased hacker anti-establishment spout. Not that I care, because I know that slashdot is biased hacker anti-establishment spout.
Here's a question, though. Does "full length CD dollar value grew 12.3 percent" really mean that CD prices rose 12.3 percent, or just that there was a 12.3 percent increase in profits per disc, maybe from reduced costs or lower royalties or something other than higher price? Any ideas.
Changing the subject a little bit, I never understood why for serious documents, available electronically, DVI hasn't become more popular. I see plenty of PDF documents, but they're big and the viewers are very slow.
I don't know much about PDF, so forgive my ignorance, but it seems impossible to compose PDF documents in an editor. So, for web documents, the markup style of TeX/LaTeX fits with the markup style of HTML/XML. In fact, add hyperlinks and DVI seems so natural to put in the browser window. I understand Professor Knuth's remarks about browser sizes and so on, but let TeX adjust things for onscreen viewing. It certainly would be faster/smarter/better than current implimentations of redraws and table layout in current HTML browsers.
Am I not understanding something? Why do we even need HTML, MathML, or stuff like that? Why not add hyperlinks to TeX? Ok, maybe it's too late, but why wasn't it a good idea five years ago?
Just wondering if anyone in the Triangle knows of a bar where the ABC news is shown? I'm interested and I'd like to watch this story.
Two simple reasons.
Yes, for browsing web pages in any of the Windows operating systems, ie5 is much better than Netscape 4.x. You'd be crazy to say otherwise. But, the way it is now, I have to close ie5 and open Netscape in order to view research papers. I know I can use ftp and gzip and a postscript viewer to do it, but it's easier with a browser, now that the preprint servers have nice front ends.
I know people say Mozilla is open source and therefore better. I agree, abstractly, but most people ain't gonna read it anyway. It does give a kind of confidence that nothing sneaky is going on (like personal information being tranmitted to web sites) and that is important to me. But when it comes to performance, the inability to handle gzipped postscript is absolutely unacceptable. I have heard of workarounds, but haven't been able to carry them out.
That's my honest opinion.
Anyway, so far, pretty much each move by the court seems appropriate to me. Preliminary injunction? It's probably the right thing to do. Now, I'm not sure what MP3s have to do with it, but I think I know why you say the biggest argument is about individual freedom. It seems to me the case is about the following:
The DVD-CCA filed a suit based on the fact that the CSS was stolen. Was it? That's for the court to decide, apparently. The DVD-CCA says they are the sole licenser of the CSS, but does that give them certain rights/controls over individuals who have not entered into license agreements with them? If the case sets the precedent that I don't have the freedom to not enter a license agreement that I've never seen with a party I want no business with and maybe have never heard of; then, yes, I'd certainly say this is about individual freedom.
What I find repugnant, on both sides, is the heated way the point is obscured. The DVD-CCA in their original filing give three disrespectful /.-style quotes in the very introduction of the application! It's as if the court is expected to find someone guilty of a crime because they are impolite! "Here's the kind of thing the defendants say. Don't you just want to stick it to them, superior court of California?" Furthermore, their paper is littered with discussion of piracy (no evidence of such was even submitted, as far as I can tell) of the hypothetically underlying intellectual property (the MPA's business.)
On this side of the issue, it seems that the DVD-CCA should be screwed because of one of the following reasons:
- It is a big, rich orginization and therefore symbolizes ENEMY, who naturally should be fucked. We are at war, no?
- They encoded something that is crackable (and therefore ought to be cracked) What the hell did they expect?
- They havn't convinced a Linux vendor to buy a CSS license so we can watch Matrix on our little computer screen. Goddamn Microsoft! They're in league with the devil.
Now, the point is obscured (do you even remember it, or have the above three bullets gotten your blood so hot, that you're already off linking another "mirror."?)It's hopeless that the press can get it right. I hope the court can be more clear-headed.
If not outlaw visitation by members of the opposite sex? As an RA, you'll have to encourage and show your residents how to get started having fun with each other.