So what you're saying is that Microsoft should surrender to their blood enemy to increase competition and innovation, and said increase in competition will force every other company to collapse and join into megacorporations that are even more stagnant than we blame Microsoft for? I find this highly unlikely. The only thing that would come of Microsoft surrendering Windows would be the collapse of Microsoft and the Windows platform, as supported by any specific company. Linux and BSD would rule supreme on a suddenly much smaller market, but the companies would not join together, they would compete more viciously.
You better be careful there, by capitalizing the word "Word" in the context of a word processor, you risk infringing on Microsoft's patent on the technology of Word and the concept of Word Processing. The BSA will contact you shortly, licensing fees for the use of capitalized "Word" are expected to approach US$3200.
Hmmm, advertisements mixed in with the stories and disguised as stories? Perhaps/. has become a testing grounds for some kind of newspeak? This could be Orwellian in scope! Head to high ground, everyone!
I think this will be taken up by the Slashdot crowd, if only for one reason. A simple search for the word "Microsoft." On Google, the first link is to Microsoft's corporate website, the second is to the Internet Explorer Home Page, the third is to Microsoft Help and Support, etc. Teoma yields the same first result, www.microsoft.com, but the second result says Boycott Microsoft and the third is a link to information about the US vs. Microsoft court case.
Now which one of these is more geek friendly? (By the way, I used this Google.)
I've actually used one of these, and it was in America. I was attending the Macworld conference in NYC a couple of years ago, and Apple was paying for my room at the RIHGA Royal Hotel, which, by the way, is a really classy place (on a bit of a side note, it was the only hotel not detailed in my New York City Book of Hotels, because the author could not afford to spend a night there), so thank you Apple. But anyway, the toilet in the hotel room had a rather imposing control panel built into it and an array of squirt guns near water level. I immediately went straight for the Unidentified Shitholding Object, and gave it a whirl. Let me just say, that this thing is amazing. Mine seemed to adjust its water guns to the shape of my ass without any help from me (or else the cleaning women were clairvoyant), and the control panel consisted of orders on whether or not to stop or go or toast my buns to a nice golden brown. Of course I used that option.
It might be a bad idea to put these in an office building: people wouldn't want to go back to their cubicles, preferring to chill in the stalls.
You know, he isn't asking for medical advice, he's asking for advice on what kind of monitor would be better for him. Obviously, he wouldn'y ask us for a prescription for new eyeglasses, he'd leave that to his doctor, but can he trust his doctor to know anything about computer monitors? No, he can't. So, logically, he gets his doctor to help him with whatever falls under the doctor's personal expertise, and comes to the Slashdot readership for questions relating to technology.
By the way, I use a Compaq V720 17" monitor, and it works pretty well. Nice flat screen, good performance.
I was in school when I first heard of the attacks, and I heard quite soon, before the second plane hit the tower. Immediately after hearing that an airplane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers, the first word out of my mouth was: "Terrorism." Later on, I got to see the flaming towers on TV, and in the middle of a conversation about repairing the towers, I pointed out that at least one, and probably both, would topple. Actually, I thought that one would knock the other over, but I was wrong about that.
I just point this out because I'm trying to make the point that anything is predictable.
Microsoft could have it all by realizing that practically all its major competitors have a UNIX base in their OS, even Apple. Instead of fighting the UNIX family, they could cash in simply and easily by moving the Windows NT/XP base to a true UNIX base, and create (the usual closed-source) apps in UNIX versions that can be compiled for virtually every UNIX family OS.
How would that be having it all? That's exactly what they're afraid of. They are doing everything they can to make Windows noninteroperable with UNIX so that people will not switch over to a UNIX system. If they built a UNIX core into Windows, and ported Office to the Unices, do you think the vast majority of users would stick with Windows? If they could still put Office on a computer, why would they bother paying that extra couple hundred for Windows? As long as Microsoft has what they currently have, they have everything. They would gain nothing by giving that up.
(a) the platform was still too flakey to use reliably on enterprise work (b) Micro$haft was trying to force me prematurely into Win2K
So the platform isn't mature enough for you, but you refuse to upgrade to the latest version? You know, most people who had used NT and then moved on to 2k are happier for it now. 2000 offers all the power of NT, only more easily and with more stability.
If NT isn't good enough for you, and you're not ready for 2000, where does that place you?
Hmmm, a recent systems check suggests no problems along those lines. I am detecting no errors in either my sarcasmometer or my sarcasmgenerator, as of 16:19:03 03/27/2002. I suggest you perform standard diagnostic checks, before your malfunctioning units infect your mission-critical systems.
But the MS coders would rather think about adding new features that the consumers want than about cutting an extra few lines off their code so that the next guy to look at the code is impressed. Impressing people is important to the people of Open Source, but what impresses other coders usually doesn't impress shareholders. Microsoft impresses shareholders.
And by majority, I really mean majority, don't get confused and put yourself in that category, before remembering which side of the 95% barrier you are on.
You must have missed that sentence. It would have saved you the trouble.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't think Microsoft is exactly a flash-in-the-pan, flavor-of-the-day, fad kind of beast. Judging by their actions and perseverance over the past decades, they appear to be as strong as ever, and as strong as anyone could expect to be. Seeing as people going to college are probably planning to apply for a job in the industry corresponding to their major, they should learn the operating system used by the majority of companies. And by majority, I really mean majority, don't get confused and put yourself in that category, before remembering which side of the 95% barrier you are on.
No, the difference is that the pirates use the latest in technology to dupe consumers into buying a wholly inferior product, whereas Hollywood just uses fame and fortune... to dupe consumers into buying a wholly inferior product.
Isn't that what everyone wants? Microsoft came in as the underdog and the outsider in the console arena, and they wanted to be able to compete, so they set about creating a machine that was better than either of its competitors. Mayber they're setting an example for anyone wishing to compete with them: start by creating a better product, then complain about being the underdog.
When was the last time the number of transistors managed to double without a corresponding speed increase? Since the speed of the processor is directly proportional to the number of transistors on it, it is a good assumption that speed will increase with the number of transistors. Obviously. And ever since he made that statement, it has been true not only about transistors, but about speed, because they are so close to (but not exactly) the same thing.
And another thing, ass, I didn't say that competition was bad. Just because you feel superior doesn't make it so. It only seems that everyone misquotes Moore's Law, because they make a simplification based on a truth. If they wanted to be exactly correct, they could say: "Every 18 months, the number of transistors will double; the number of transistors is proportional to the speed." Then again, not every person on the planet knows what "transistor" and "proportional" mean, but everyone knows what "speed" means, so it is thus simplified.
Can we use this to find out new information about the human race? Obviously the technology can only operate on bacteria right now, but can it be adapted to work on organisms? We could see how long it would take for monkeys or dolphins to gain sentience; we could see how long it takes for pigs to be able to fly:) ; we could see how long it takes for humans to be able to fly, or have some kind of telepathic powers. That could really bring some ethics questions into the equation...
So they've replaced the SSSCA with the CBDTPA? Well, it'll convince the Senate...
Senator 2: I see there's a major public outcry concerning the SSSCA. Senator 1: So what's this new CBD- uh... deal... about? Senator 2: I don't know, but anything with that many letters must be a good thing. Senator 1: And it doesn't hurt that it's more difficult to say... Senator 2: Well, it has my vote, whatever it is.
Take the date of the Pentium III 450, add 50mhz for every 6 months since it came out, and tell me if you've reached 2.0 gHz yet
That's linear advancement. Seeing as you're obviously very involved in the processor arena, you must have heard of a little thing called "Moore's Law," which states that processor speed will increase by a factor of 2 every 18 months. This is certainly not "50MHz every 6 months." Intel had been able to do it for X years before AMD was around, and there was really no evidence suggesting their inability to continue that trend.
AMD did not force processors to the speed at which they currently are, they forced the price. Competition is good, especially for the consumer. AMD has not forced Intel to improve performance at a faster rate than it would have, but it has forced Intel to improve their performance/price ratio.
Moore's Law will be broken, but not because of any monopoly, and not because of any individual company's complacence. It will be because of the physical constraints on transistor technology, and even that obstacle will probably be overtaken.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that Microsoft should surrender to their blood enemy to increase competition and innovation, and said increase in competition will force every other company to collapse and join into megacorporations that are even more stagnant than we blame Microsoft for? I find this highly unlikely. The only thing that would come of Microsoft surrendering Windows would be the collapse of Microsoft and the Windows platform, as supported by any specific company. Linux and BSD would rule supreme on a suddenly much smaller market, but the companies would not join together, they would compete more viciously.
It's simple really, without open source, other people can't sell your software.
Please explain.
if I'm using a Word processor
You better be careful there, by capitalizing the word "Word" in the context of a word processor, you risk infringing on Microsoft's patent on the technology of Word and the concept of Word Processing. The BSA will contact you shortly, licensing fees for the use of capitalized "Word" are expected to approach US$3200.
:)
Hmmm, advertisements mixed in with the stories and disguised as stories? Perhaps /. has become a testing grounds for some kind of newspeak? This could be Orwellian in scope! Head to high ground, everyone!
Happy pagan new year... I mean April Fool's Day.
I think this will be taken up by the Slashdot crowd, if only for one reason. A simple search for the word "Microsoft." On Google, the first link is to Microsoft's corporate website, the second is to the Internet Explorer Home Page, the third is to Microsoft Help and Support, etc. Teoma yields the same first result, www.microsoft.com, but the second result says Boycott Microsoft and the third is a link to information about the US vs. Microsoft court case.
Now which one of these is more geek friendly? (By the way, I used this Google.)
I've actually used one of these, and it was in America. I was attending the Macworld conference in NYC a couple of years ago, and Apple was paying for my room at the RIHGA Royal Hotel, which, by the way, is a really classy place (on a bit of a side note, it was the only hotel not detailed in my New York City Book of Hotels, because the author could not afford to spend a night there), so thank you Apple. But anyway, the toilet in the hotel room had a rather imposing control panel built into it and an array of squirt guns near water level. I immediately went straight for the Unidentified Shitholding Object, and gave it a whirl. Let me just say, that this thing is amazing. Mine seemed to adjust its water guns to the shape of my ass without any help from me (or else the cleaning women were clairvoyant), and the control panel consisted of orders on whether or not to stop or go or toast my buns to a nice golden brown. Of course I used that option.
It might be a bad idea to put these in an office building: people wouldn't want to go back to their cubicles, preferring to chill in the stalls.
You know, he isn't asking for medical advice, he's asking for advice on what kind of monitor would be better for him. Obviously, he wouldn'y ask us for a prescription for new eyeglasses, he'd leave that to his doctor, but can he trust his doctor to know anything about computer monitors? No, he can't. So, logically, he gets his doctor to help him with whatever falls under the doctor's personal expertise, and comes to the Slashdot readership for questions relating to technology.
By the way, I use a Compaq V720 17" monitor, and it works pretty well. Nice flat screen, good performance.
I was in school when I first heard of the attacks, and I heard quite soon, before the second plane hit the tower. Immediately after hearing that an airplane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers, the first word out of my mouth was: "Terrorism." Later on, I got to see the flaming towers on TV, and in the middle of a conversation about repairing the towers, I pointed out that at least one, and probably both, would topple. Actually, I thought that one would knock the other over, but I was wrong about that.
I just point this out because I'm trying to make the point that anything is predictable.
Microsoft could have it all by realizing that practically all its major competitors have a UNIX base in their OS, even Apple. Instead of fighting the UNIX family, they could cash in simply and easily by moving the Windows NT/XP base to a true UNIX base, and create (the usual closed-source) apps in UNIX versions that can be compiled for virtually every UNIX family OS.
How would that be having it all? That's exactly what they're afraid of. They are doing everything they can to make Windows noninteroperable with UNIX so that people will not switch over to a UNIX system. If they built a UNIX core into Windows, and ported Office to the Unices, do you think the vast majority of users would stick with Windows? If they could still put Office on a computer, why would they bother paying that extra couple hundred for Windows? As long as Microsoft has what they currently have, they have everything. They would gain nothing by giving that up.
You'd be surprised how many good things you can say about Windows, when Bill Gates shoves a gun up you ass.
;)
It must be difficult to speak with a gun up your ass. OT, I know, but someone had to say it.
(a) the platform was still too flakey to use reliably on enterprise work (b) Micro$haft was trying to force me prematurely into Win2K
So the platform isn't mature enough for you, but you refuse to upgrade to the latest version? You know, most people who had used NT and then moved on to 2k are happier for it now. 2000 offers all the power of NT, only more easily and with more stability.
If NT isn't good enough for you, and you're not ready for 2000, where does that place you?
Hmmm, a recent systems check suggests no problems along those lines. I am detecting no errors in either my sarcasmometer or my sarcasmgenerator, as of 16:19:03 03/27/2002. I suggest you perform standard diagnostic checks, before your malfunctioning units infect your mission-critical systems.
But the MS coders would rather think about adding new features that the consumers want than about cutting an extra few lines off their code so that the next guy to look at the code is impressed. Impressing people is important to the people of Open Source, but what impresses other coders usually doesn't impress shareholders. Microsoft impresses shareholders.
And by majority, I really mean majority, don't get confused and put yourself in that category, before remembering which side of the 95% barrier you are on.
You must have missed that sentence. It would have saved you the trouble.
Obviously. That was the point of the comment. Is your sarcasmometer malfunctioning or something?
flavor of the day propritary platform
I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't think Microsoft is exactly a flash-in-the-pan, flavor-of-the-day, fad kind of beast. Judging by their actions and perseverance over the past decades, they appear to be as strong as ever, and as strong as anyone could expect to be. Seeing as people going to college are probably planning to apply for a job in the industry corresponding to their major, they should learn the operating system used by the majority of companies. And by majority, I really mean majority, don't get confused and put yourself in that category, before remembering which side of the 95% barrier you are on.
Yeah... because the "coders" at Microsoft have absolutely no experience with this strange thing we call "the source." .
No, the difference is that the pirates use the latest in technology to dupe consumers into buying a wholly inferior product, whereas Hollywood just uses fame and fortune... to dupe consumers into buying a wholly inferior product.
:)
Isn't that what everyone wants? Microsoft came in as the underdog and the outsider in the console arena, and they wanted to be able to compete, so they set about creating a machine that was better than either of its competitors. Mayber they're setting an example for anyone wishing to compete with them: start by creating a better product, then complain about being the underdog.
When was the last time the number of transistors managed to double without a corresponding speed increase? Since the speed of the processor is directly proportional to the number of transistors on it, it is a good assumption that speed will increase with the number of transistors. Obviously. And ever since he made that statement, it has been true not only about transistors, but about speed, because they are so close to (but not exactly) the same thing.
And another thing, ass, I didn't say that competition was bad. Just because you feel superior doesn't make it so. It only seems that everyone misquotes Moore's Law, because they make a simplification based on a truth. If they wanted to be exactly correct, they could say: "Every 18 months, the number of transistors will double; the number of transistors is proportional to the speed." Then again, not every person on the planet knows what "transistor" and "proportional" mean, but everyone knows what "speed" means, so it is thus simplified.
Just seems a little obvious, is all I'm saying. (I was not, by any means, contradicting you.)
I've never seen it, when did it come out?
Can we use this to find out new information about the human race? Obviously the technology can only operate on bacteria right now, but can it be adapted to work on organisms? We could see how long it would take for monkeys or dolphins to gain sentience; we could see how long it takes for pigs to be able to fly :) ; we could see how long it takes for humans to be able to fly, or have some kind of telepathic powers. That could really bring some ethics questions into the equation...
So they've replaced the SSSCA with the CBDTPA? Well, it'll convince the Senate...
;)
Senator 2: I see there's a major public outcry concerning the SSSCA.
Senator 1: So what's this new CBD- uh... deal... about?
Senator 2: I don't know, but anything with that many letters must be a good thing.
Senator 1: And it doesn't hurt that it's more difficult to say...
Senator 2: Well, it has my vote, whatever it is.
Uh-oh.
Take the date of the Pentium III 450, add 50mhz for every 6 months since it came out, and tell me if you've reached 2.0 gHz yet
That's linear advancement. Seeing as you're obviously very involved in the processor arena, you must have heard of a little thing called "Moore's Law," which states that processor speed will increase by a factor of 2 every 18 months. This is certainly not "50MHz every 6 months." Intel had been able to do it for X years before AMD was around, and there was really no evidence suggesting their inability to continue that trend.
AMD did not force processors to the speed at which they currently are, they forced the price. Competition is good, especially for the consumer. AMD has not forced Intel to improve performance at a faster rate than it would have, but it has forced Intel to improve their performance/price ratio.
Moore's Law will be broken, but not because of any monopoly, and not because of any individual company's complacence. It will be because of the physical constraints on transistor technology, and even that obstacle will probably be overtaken.