Doesn't that give Sun an opportunity that would be unavailable to its competitors? Mandating that the monopoly-holder must include a product in its own product stifles competition even more. well, maybe not more, but just as much. they might as well be required to include everyone's programming language into Windows. I think we should tread lightly when we deal with this monopoly. Just because something might hurt microsoft or help one of its competitors, it is not guaranteed to be beneficial to the industry.
Where does this guy get off? Everybody knows that technical people always read every piece of pertinent information available to them! Case in point: Slashdot's readership reads every article before they think about posting. I think I've proven my point.
*removing tongue from cheek*... I hope everyone got that.
Are the linux versions of these browsers really "ports?" I thought Mozilla was written natively for linux and natively for Windows (or ported to Windows). Maybe there is just some code built into Windows that allows that version to be smaller than linux's. Anyway, I thought the mozilla project was/is native to linux, not windows.
I never complained about a $500 wrench. I very much understand the $500 wrench, and the $400 hammer. What I don't understand is why the US needs an army that is bigger than all the other armies in the world combined, and needs to do in 24 hours. Especially when most of the top ten militaries are allied to us.
If we're going to pay out the ass for a light army that can go anywhere in 24 hours, why must we also pay out the ass for the masses of troops sitting around just in case World War 2 starts again? Shouldn't we just pick the more cost-effective one? Obviously, being cost-effective does not mean not spending money, it means spending money well. You seem to understand that, but you also seem to think nobody who disagrees with your "all-military-spending-is-good-by-default" attitude is able to understand it.
Some of the best generals are little more than genius logisticians. Logistics is obviously very important, and I did not discount that when I said we needed generals. I consider it much more important to have an intelligent army than a bigass army. Is it possible to have a reasonably sized fast-response force without spending several hundred billion dollars per year on everything imaginable that can kill something? I am not advocating banning the standing military. I am advocating getting a good one and spending less money in the process.
The first two things you said were both excellent points.
Before World War 2, our economy had been in the tank and thus we were largely unable to develop new weapons over the course of peace. Many of our good new weapons were developed right as the war started, or while we were fighting the war. If we had a strong economy, and spent our money not on building weapons of war, but on designing weapons of war, our forces would be considerably more technologically superior. It is a waste to build a 50 year old tank. It is a waste to build a 20 year old tank. It is a waste to build a tank that you won't use for 10 years. It is not a waste to design a new tank that would be cheap to build in 10 years. It is not a waste to innovate.
I saw the Gulf Conflict. It was a bloodless war because of superior leadership. Our generals were excellent in that conflict, and we won largely on account of that. Look at the Vietnam Conflict. We had the technologically superior force then, too, yet we did not win. Having a large army is not as important as having a good army. Good armies require good generals.
We can't? What about that one war? You know, that whole "World War Two" event? We had a very small military until we needed it, and we armed very nicely, thanks. Not to mention the fact that it stimulated the economy to an unprecedented degree. The economy will not be helped by another war, because we cannot feasibly spend more money on the military. The military should have been cut back down after WW2. It should have been cut down after Korea. It should have been cut down after Vietnam. It should have been cut down after decades of peace. It should jump up when we need it and cut back when we don't. A strong economy should not have to rely on military spending, because then it cannot be jumpstarted by said military spending.
Our military wasn't ready in 1941, but we still ended up doing fine. The biggest problem a winner has is that is prepares for the last war. After WW1, the French dug a huge trench so that they would win another Great War. But Germany, the losers, were not interested in that kind of war. They got tanks. They got generals. They fought a new kind of war. We won it. And now we're spending all our money ensuring our victory not in the next world war, but in the next World War Two.
If we had a small standing military, we could mobilize and re-arm upon necessity. In this way, our armies would be assured to be state of the art for the day, rather than decades out of date. Do not fight the last war, because you'll lose the current one.
On that note, I would much rather that $40B was wasted on a space station than wasted on several dozen fighter jets, or several dozen nuclear missiles. Burning the money would be better than giving it to the army. Arrest me, dammit.
Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales too, but they didn't open the source to (the important parts of) their operating system. Granted, for Apple the important parts of the OS (GUI/look&feel) can easily be transplanted to another OS, but if it did happen, people would have less incentive to buy Apple's OS, which in turn would give them less incentive to buy Apple hardware. Sun does not want to open their source because if they did, the best parts of the OS could be transplanted to another OS, such as Linux, which would not only make Linux the obviously superior choice on x86, but would also allow it to legitimately compete on Sun's hardware. Sun should not, and will not, open their code, because if they did they would marginalize the desire for their own products, including their hardware.
First of all, wow. You need to calm down a little bit. Second, it seems rather immoral to me that they would be allowed to do that. I wouldn't do that.
Then again, since it'll be a Windows game, I don't think 'all' the Slashdot community will take it up.
Yeah, just 90%. You know, that 90% of the Slashdot community that raves about how great Linux is and how much Microsoft from the saftey of Internet Explorer on Windows? Slashdot: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and hypocrisy.
Um... wouldn't looking at the code for something that isn't released under the BSD license taint any developer who plans to release code under the BSDL? I mean, once they look at the code, they wouldn't be allowed to include it in OpenBSD. Unless, of course, they had one team of people reading the code and writing documentation for it, and another team taking that documentation and coding on their own. If I recall correctly, that's how Compaq had to do it to reproduce IBM's BIOS.
I can see it being against a lot of rules to just look at the source to other projects and then writing your own. Especially if you plan to use a different license.
So that's why the guys at the top of the web browser are so excited to change the name! They obviously don't want people mistaking the browser for the BIOS, lest they think it is two generations behind, feature-poor, and buggy as hell...
The author said she talks about physics like it's cooking, and then elaborated with a quote, in which the young physicist talks about different parts of physics as ingredients. The young lady in question used her own words, and the author of this article made a connection to cooking (which was pretty obvious and gives the author an easy way to tie the article's beginning to its end).
Don't be so quick to judge someone as sexist against women, especially when she is a woman herself. Other posters are right: if the article had been about a man, the cooking analogies might not have been there. On the other hand, a man might not have used "ingredients" to describe science. On a similar note, 90% of women probably wouldn't have done that either. Maybe it's just that one woman! Not women as a whole, what? How?
Why are we even talking about this, who cares? What she has to say is so much more important than cooking.
Opening the code does not force people to download it, it allows them to download it. It only takes 20 more minutes if the person wants to download 20 minutes of source.
Dude, 24 fps kills. When they pan the screen across a lot of small things, my eyes pop out of my head, look me in the sockets, and ask "Why the hell couldn't they have chosen 30? It couldn't have been that much harder, and it's ever so much closer to the necessary 100 that keep us in there." I hate it when they do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that give Sun an opportunity that would be unavailable to its competitors? Mandating that the monopoly-holder must include a product in its own product stifles competition even more. well, maybe not more, but just as much. they might as well be required to include everyone's programming language into Windows. I think we should tread lightly when we deal with this monopoly. Just because something might hurt microsoft or help one of its competitors, it is not guaranteed to be beneficial to the industry.
fundamentalism is not an acceptable basis for a government in the democratic west. that is the root of his frustration
Interestingly enough, that is also the root of George W. Bush's frustration.
Well yeah, TV turns your eyes square, remember? Obviously, that's on account of the missing parts of the spectrum...
Uhhh... 64x?
Where does this guy get off? Everybody knows that technical people always read every piece of pertinent information available to them! Case in point: Slashdot's readership reads every article before they think about posting. I think I've proven my point.
*removing tongue from cheek*... I hope everyone got that.
The University of Waterloo, eh? Well, knowing them, the versions of OpenBSD with SMP support will require a Windows XP activation key...
Or maybe they figured out a way to port OpenBSd to Windows. Or something. Waterloo?
Are the linux versions of these browsers really "ports?" I thought Mozilla was written natively for linux and natively for Windows (or ported to Windows). Maybe there is just some code built into Windows that allows that version to be smaller than linux's. Anyway, I thought the mozilla project was/is native to linux, not windows.
I never complained about a $500 wrench. I very much understand the $500 wrench, and the $400 hammer. What I don't understand is why the US needs an army that is bigger than all the other armies in the world combined, and needs to do in 24 hours. Especially when most of the top ten militaries are allied to us.
If we're going to pay out the ass for a light army that can go anywhere in 24 hours, why must we also pay out the ass for the masses of troops sitting around just in case World War 2 starts again? Shouldn't we just pick the more cost-effective one? Obviously, being cost-effective does not mean not spending money, it means spending money well. You seem to understand that, but you also seem to think nobody who disagrees with your "all-military-spending-is-good-by-default" attitude is able to understand it.
Some of the best generals are little more than genius logisticians. Logistics is obviously very important, and I did not discount that when I said we needed generals. I consider it much more important to have an intelligent army than a bigass army. Is it possible to have a reasonably sized fast-response force without spending several hundred billion dollars per year on everything imaginable that can kill something? I am not advocating banning the standing military. I am advocating getting a good one and spending less money in the process.
The first two things you said were both excellent points.
Plus going on Gnutella and seeing several thousand .exe's of the game but 0-2 .sit's, none of which are a reasonable size and/or work.
Before World War 2, our economy had been in the tank and thus we were largely unable to develop new weapons over the course of peace. Many of our good new weapons were developed right as the war started, or while we were fighting the war. If we had a strong economy, and spent our money not on building weapons of war, but on designing weapons of war, our forces would be considerably more technologically superior. It is a waste to build a 50 year old tank. It is a waste to build a 20 year old tank. It is a waste to build a tank that you won't use for 10 years. It is not a waste to design a new tank that would be cheap to build in 10 years. It is not a waste to innovate.
I saw the Gulf Conflict. It was a bloodless war because of superior leadership. Our generals were excellent in that conflict, and we won largely on account of that. Look at the Vietnam Conflict. We had the technologically superior force then, too, yet we did not win. Having a large army is not as important as having a good army. Good armies require good generals.
We can't? What about that one war? You know, that whole "World War Two" event? We had a very small military until we needed it, and we armed very nicely, thanks. Not to mention the fact that it stimulated the economy to an unprecedented degree. The economy will not be helped by another war, because we cannot feasibly spend more money on the military. The military should have been cut back down after WW2. It should have been cut down after Korea. It should have been cut down after Vietnam. It should have been cut down after decades of peace. It should jump up when we need it and cut back when we don't. A strong economy should not have to rely on military spending, because then it cannot be jumpstarted by said military spending.
Our military wasn't ready in 1941, but we still ended up doing fine. The biggest problem a winner has is that is prepares for the last war. After WW1, the French dug a huge trench so that they would win another Great War. But Germany, the losers, were not interested in that kind of war. They got tanks. They got generals. They fought a new kind of war. We won it. And now we're spending all our money ensuring our victory not in the next world war, but in the next World War Two.
If we had a small standing military, we could mobilize and re-arm upon necessity. In this way, our armies would be assured to be state of the art for the day, rather than decades out of date. Do not fight the last war, because you'll lose the current one.
On that note, I would much rather that $40B was wasted on a space station than wasted on several dozen fighter jets, or several dozen nuclear missiles. Burning the money would be better than giving it to the army. Arrest me, dammit.
Yes, the astronauts of yesteryear probably would agree with you... now that they are retired. :)
Actually, I agree with you. Beam me up, Scotty. To the winds with risk!
Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales too, but they didn't open the source to (the important parts of) their operating system. Granted, for Apple the important parts of the OS (GUI/look&feel) can easily be transplanted to another OS, but if it did happen, people would have less incentive to buy Apple's OS, which in turn would give them less incentive to buy Apple hardware. Sun does not want to open their source because if they did, the best parts of the OS could be transplanted to another OS, such as Linux, which would not only make Linux the obviously superior choice on x86, but would also allow it to legitimately compete on Sun's hardware. Sun should not, and will not, open their code, because if they did they would marginalize the desire for their own products, including their hardware.
At least that's how I see it.
First of all, wow. You need to calm down a little bit. Second, it seems rather immoral to me that they would be allowed to do that. I wouldn't do that.
Then again, since it'll be a Windows game, I don't think 'all' the Slashdot community will take it up.
Yeah, just 90%. You know, that 90% of the Slashdot community that raves about how great Linux is and how much Microsoft from the saftey of Internet Explorer on Windows? Slashdot: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and hypocrisy.
Actually no, it's all pretty much the same. At least it might as well be, from the discussions...
Um... wouldn't looking at the code for something that isn't released under the BSD license taint any developer who plans to release code under the BSDL? I mean, once they look at the code, they wouldn't be allowed to include it in OpenBSD. Unless, of course, they had one team of people reading the code and writing documentation for it, and another team taking that documentation and coding on their own. If I recall correctly, that's how Compaq had to do it to reproduce IBM's BIOS.
I can see it being against a lot of rules to just look at the source to other projects and then writing your own. Especially if you plan to use a different license.
I think what he means is that there's nothing worse than a Linux kernel developer. Whether or not he is scorned is largely unimportant...
So that's why the guys at the top of the web browser are so excited to change the name! They obviously don't want people mistaking the browser for the BIOS, lest they think it is two generations behind, feature-poor, and buggy as hell...
Don't you mean:
"Slashdotters barely notice, as the jpegs of said women remain in place." ?
After all, most of you wouldn't ever notice if all the hot women in the world actually didn't exist. As a matter of fact, to them, you don't...
Joking.
The author said she talks about physics like it's cooking, and then elaborated with a quote, in which the young physicist talks about different parts of physics as ingredients. The young lady in question used her own words, and the author of this article made a connection to cooking (which was pretty obvious and gives the author an easy way to tie the article's beginning to its end).
Don't be so quick to judge someone as sexist against women, especially when she is a woman herself. Other posters are right: if the article had been about a man, the cooking analogies might not have been there. On the other hand, a man might not have used "ingredients" to describe science. On a similar note, 90% of women probably wouldn't have done that either. Maybe it's just that one woman! Not women as a whole, what? How?
Why are we even talking about this, who cares? What she has to say is so much more important than cooking.
Opening the code does not force people to download it, it allows them to download it. It only takes 20 more minutes if the person wants to download 20 minutes of source.
Dude, 24 fps kills. When they pan the screen across a lot of small things, my eyes pop out of my head, look me in the sockets, and ask "Why the hell couldn't they have chosen 30? It couldn't have been that much harder, and it's ever so much closer to the necessary 100 that keep us in there." I hate it when they do that.