Almost everyone plays Monopoly with unofficial rules, like putting fines underneath one of the card stacks, and giving the stash to whoever draws the last card. Of course, these changes make the game more about luck and less about strategy. But who plays Monopoly, anyway? Not strategy geeks, or at least not mostly. It's small kids and other people looking for harmless fun that doesn't require a lot of brain power.
It's actually the purists who will like the new debit cards, because they'll be able to play a strict game without the hassle of counting all those stupid pieces of paper. But the non-purists — and that's probably 90% of the people who buy Monopoly sets — will totally reject this. Not because it's high tech, but because it leaves less room for invention.
Let's say you're right. (I'm not absolutely sure you are, but I'm too lazy to argue the point, which isn't really important.) The fact remains that Sun's implementation is still not a "de facto standard". The standard is the written specification, which includes not just a language specification, but also a VM spec (included in the document I pointed to — the title is misleading) and also the API Specification. When any Java provider violates these specs, they get in trouble. Not just from Sun's lawyers, but from their customers.
Actually, even Sun has been known to get in trouble that way. No, they don't sue themselves, but when their developers fail to follow the spec (as they have been known to do), their customer make a lot of noise.
The software is not the spec. The spec is the spec.
You're missing the point. We all know that the bubble bomb will never work. But if we play our cards right, we can get a fat pentagon contract for "exploratory research"!
As with any OS project owner, Sun has the option of not using submitted changes. And I have no doubt they will reject many.
The big danger to this Java implementation is that Sun is losing money hand over fist. If they can't afford to pay people to work on the JDK, that project is dead, whether its OS or not. No doubt Sun is hoping that they'll get some free development effort in exchange for opening up the JDK. But if the JDK dies for lack of work, it will be because Sun doesn't have the money to hire programmers, not because they're under the illusion that they don't need them.
It is fair to say that down the line even when they do opensource it, Sun's version will be the defacto standard.
You're somewhat misinformed. Sun's implementation has never been a basis for determining what's "standard". That's because Sun's implementation, like every other Java implementation (and there are quite a few) is required to adhere to a written specification.
People (including everybody at Sun) often say "Java" when they mean "Sun's Java implementation". That can be misleading. When you talk about "open sourcing Java" you're really talking about open sourcing a particular implementation of Java.
Which is exactly what Sun already does with the Java Compatibility Kit. There are, in fact, a fair number of third-party Java implementations that are released on this basis. And one famous lawsuit was filed agains a certain company that released an incompatible version of Java.
However, there have always been issues with the JCK, with claims that it is too complicated and inconsistent. Also, once everybody has access to the Java Development Kit source, you can expect to see a lot of forks. Enforcing compatibility will be a lot harder than it is now, with only a few Sun licensees doing Java implementations. And it is not easy now!
Well, you know the saying, a system is only 100% secure as long nobody has access to it. So just put your abacus in a room and seal up all the doors and windows. Problem solved!
That's a good, simple, clear, and concise explanation. But it leaves a couple of important questions unanswered. How is a fancy camera like a high-performance car? And how is brand-name memory like high-octane gas? Comparing a digital camera to a Ferrari is bullshit.
That's all sound advice, to which I would add, "Be very careful about what you install". But your attitude sucks. When you say "Just follow a few basic steps..." you imply "... and you don't need to worry." No anti-malware strategy is absolutely guaranteed to protect you. You can miminize your risks, that's all.
Gaa! Is my mind going, or did Slashdot eat a whole sentence That second sentence should read, "Aside from having a slow CPU, that old system probably has between 64 and 128 MB of RAM. That's not enough to run any version of Office without a lot of virtual memory swapping."
Your comparison is based on system that ten years old. When I said "less powerful" I didn't mean "anemic". Aside from having any version of Office without a lot of virtual memory swapping. Hence your slowdown.
My comparison of Linux and Windows was not theoretical. I used to be a tech writer at Borland, and we were developing a Linux version of our Windows IDE, so I had two machines on my desk. I named them "Calvin" and "Hobbes". Calin was a 350 mhz Pentium III with 256 MB of RAM (wimpy by today's standards, but top of the line then), that I used for writing (standard authoring tool was Word) and for running our Windows IDEs. Hobbes was a 200 mhz Pentium II with 128 MB machine that I used to run the Linux IDE and a lot of other stuff. I used Hobbes to fiddle with all the different Linux desktops, play graphic-intensive games, and run some pretty powerful software. It actually performed better most of the time than its more powerful deskmate, which was always thrashing and crashing (hence the name).
I wouldn't even dare to run GNOME or your old Pentium I. You need more than that. But you don't need as much as you need for Windows XP, never mind Vista.
Pretty much where they are now. They'd have less cool technology that they copied from Apple, but they'd still lack any real competition, and totally own the market.
The battery life seemed pretty normal, with a full charge running about 2 to 2.5 hours.
What's the point of creating yet another laptop with an overpowered CPU and no battery life? It would make more sense to use a less powerful CPU that doesn't suck up power. Especially when the system is designed to run Gnome on Linux — that's a configuration that would run happily on a system with 1/3 the hz.
Linux people have to stop producing technology whose only advantage over standard Wintel platforms is that there's no OS tithe to Redmond. Go with the Penguin's strengths: less resource hungry, so you can produce cheaper systems that use less power; open source, so you can fix all the usability bugs that Microsoft (and, alas, most Linux app designers) can't seem to deal with.
Lots of devices use Microsoft software, including thin clients, cash registers, copying machines, and those horrible self-service checkout machines most libraries use nowadays. None of them are considered "from Microsoft" because Microsoft didn't make them. Indeed Microsoft probably didn't even "do the software" for the Gigabeat. More likely they just licensed Windows CE to Toshiba, whose own engineers wrote the application code. That's usually how it works with embedded: you license an embeddable OS, then write an application on top of it.
The Apollo capsules were designed for a meaningless, stupid stunt. Put a man on the moon, bring him back, and do it before the Russians. Spend $30 billion ($180 billion in today's money), and don't create any space travel infrastructure while you're at it.
Heard an interview with Chris Kraft recently. He didn't directly criticize the Apollo project (he did run the damn thing), but he made it pretty clear he thought it was a mistake. He thought if we'd stopped to develop the basic technology first — resuable spacecraft, a serious orbital platform, etc., we'd be on Mars by now.
And that's what the shuttle was supposed to be: the beginning of serious reusable space transportation. We've been hearing a lot of crap about the basic design being flawed, but that was never the problem. The problem was always that they didn't want to spend enough money to make it work. There was no prestige or political karma in funding the first space truck, so they just went through the motions. The result was a nasty kludge that should have been abandoned years ago.
And we're doing same thing all over again with this bullshit about the "tried and true" Apollo designs. They didn't stick with them for one simple reason: there were ungodly expensive and wasteful. Each launch vehicle was a 360 foot monstrosity that cost something like $100 million to put together, and was used precisely once. Except that this time, they're never actually build the stupid thing, they'll just waste tons of money on "planning" so that Bush can pretend he's another JFK. By the time everybody realizes the money just ain't there, he'll be long gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Letting it slide, in this context, would mean not mentioning it at all.
Sure, lots of people have nothing to do but read Stallman's weird ethical ramblings.
But then somebody would realize that the quota system was stupid. That would defeat the whole purpose.
No, the purpose is not to defeat terrorism. The purpose is to look like you're defeating terrorism.
Almost everyone plays Monopoly with unofficial rules, like putting fines underneath one of the card stacks, and giving the stash to whoever draws the last card. Of course, these changes make the game more about luck and less about strategy. But who plays Monopoly, anyway? Not strategy geeks, or at least not mostly. It's small kids and other people looking for harmless fun that doesn't require a lot of brain power.
It's actually the purists who will like the new debit cards, because they'll be able to play a strict game without the hassle of counting all those stupid pieces of paper. But the non-purists — and that's probably 90% of the people who buy Monopoly sets — will totally reject this. Not because it's high tech, but because it leaves less room for invention.
Actually, even Sun has been known to get in trouble that way. No, they don't sue themselves, but when their developers fail to follow the spec (as they have been known to do), their customer make a lot of noise.
The software is not the spec. The spec is the spec.
You're missing the point. We all know that the bubble bomb will never work. But if we play our cards right, we can get a fat pentagon contract for "exploratory research"!
You've discovered the Plastic Neutron Bomb! Contact the Pentagon immediately!
As with any OS project owner, Sun has the option of not using submitted changes. And I have no doubt they will reject many.
The big danger to this Java implementation is that Sun is losing money hand over fist. If they can't afford to pay people to work on the JDK, that project is dead, whether its OS or not. No doubt Sun is hoping that they'll get some free development effort in exchange for opening up the JDK. But if the JDK dies for lack of work, it will be because Sun doesn't have the money to hire programmers, not because they're under the illusion that they don't need them.
Excuse me? Where does the interview mention WORA? It doesn't, because WORA has been dead for years. And it was never more than an advertising slogan.
The word you want is "compatibility", which is an issue with Java, as it is with every other language or platform.
You're somewhat misinformed. Sun's implementation has never been a basis for determining what's "standard". That's because Sun's implementation, like every other Java implementation (and there are quite a few) is required to adhere to a written specification.
People (including everybody at Sun) often say "Java" when they mean "Sun's Java implementation". That can be misleading. When you talk about "open sourcing Java" you're really talking about open sourcing a particular implementation of Java.
Which is exactly what Sun already does with the Java Compatibility Kit. There are, in fact, a fair number of third-party Java implementations that are released on this basis. And one famous lawsuit was filed agains a certain company that released an incompatible version of Java.
However, there have always been issues with the JCK, with claims that it is too complicated and inconsistent. Also, once everybody has access to the Java Development Kit source, you can expect to see a lot of forks. Enforcing compatibility will be a lot harder than it is now, with only a few Sun licensees doing Java implementations. And it is not easy now!
Well, you know the saying, a system is only 100% secure as long nobody has access to it. So just put your abacus in a room and seal up all the doors and windows. Problem solved!
You're obviously part of the conspiracy!
Probably, but spyware is possible. If you're going to go the retro route, here's a platform that is guaranteed to be 100% spyware proof.
That's a good, simple, clear, and concise explanation. But it leaves a couple of important questions unanswered. How is a fancy camera like a high-performance car? And how is brand-name memory like high-octane gas? Comparing a digital camera to a Ferrari is bullshit.
That's all sound advice, to which I would add, "Be very careful about what you install". But your attitude sucks. When you say "Just follow a few basic steps..." you imply "... and you don't need to worry." No anti-malware strategy is absolutely guaranteed to protect you. You can miminize your risks, that's all.
Gaa! Is my mind going, or did Slashdot eat a whole sentence That second sentence should read, "Aside from having a slow CPU, that old system probably has between 64 and 128 MB of RAM. That's not enough to run any version of Office without a lot of virtual memory swapping."
Your comparison is based on system that ten years old. When I said "less powerful" I didn't mean "anemic". Aside from having any version of Office without a lot of virtual memory swapping. Hence your slowdown.
My comparison of Linux and Windows was not theoretical. I used to be a tech writer at Borland, and we were developing a Linux version of our Windows IDE, so I had two machines on my desk. I named them "Calvin" and "Hobbes". Calin was a 350 mhz Pentium III with 256 MB of RAM (wimpy by today's standards, but top of the line then), that I used for writing (standard authoring tool was Word) and for running our Windows IDEs. Hobbes was a 200 mhz Pentium II with 128 MB machine that I used to run the Linux IDE and a lot of other stuff. I used Hobbes to fiddle with all the different Linux desktops, play graphic-intensive games, and run some pretty powerful software. It actually performed better most of the time than its more powerful deskmate, which was always thrashing and crashing (hence the name).
I wouldn't even dare to run GNOME or your old Pentium I. You need more than that. But you don't need as much as you need for Windows XP, never mind Vista.
Pretty much where they are now. They'd have less cool technology that they copied from Apple, but they'd still lack any real competition, and totally own the market.
What's the point of creating yet another laptop with an overpowered CPU and no battery life? It would make more sense to use a less powerful CPU that doesn't suck up power. Especially when the system is designed to run Gnome on Linux — that's a configuration that would run happily on a system with 1/3 the hz.
Linux people have to stop producing technology whose only advantage over standard Wintel platforms is that there's no OS tithe to Redmond. Go with the Penguin's strengths: less resource hungry, so you can produce cheaper systems that use less power; open source, so you can fix all the usability bugs that Microsoft (and, alas, most Linux app designers) can't seem to deal with.
Lots of devices use Microsoft software, including thin clients, cash registers, copying machines, and those horrible self-service checkout machines most libraries use nowadays. None of them are considered "from Microsoft" because Microsoft didn't make them. Indeed Microsoft probably didn't even "do the software" for the Gigabeat. More likely they just licensed Windows CE to Toshiba, whose own engineers wrote the application code. That's usually how it works with embedded: you license an embeddable OS, then write an application on top of it.
You're telling me to settle down? You're the one that's turning a missing adjective into a flame war.
The Apollo capsules were designed for a meaningless, stupid stunt. Put a man on the moon, bring him back, and do it before the Russians. Spend $30 billion ($180 billion in today's money), and don't create any space travel infrastructure while you're at it.
Heard an interview with Chris Kraft recently. He didn't directly criticize the Apollo project (he did run the damn thing), but he made it pretty clear he thought it was a mistake. He thought if we'd stopped to develop the basic technology first — resuable spacecraft, a serious orbital platform, etc., we'd be on Mars by now.
And that's what the shuttle was supposed to be: the beginning of serious reusable space transportation. We've been hearing a lot of crap about the basic design being flawed, but that was never the problem. The problem was always that they didn't want to spend enough money to make it work. There was no prestige or political karma in funding the first space truck, so they just went through the motions. The result was a nasty kludge that should have been abandoned years ago.
And we're doing same thing all over again with this bullshit about the "tried and true" Apollo designs. They didn't stick with them for one simple reason: there were ungodly expensive and wasteful. Each launch vehicle was a 360 foot monstrosity that cost something like $100 million to put together, and was used precisely once. Except that this time, they're never actually build the stupid thing, they'll just waste tons of money on "planning" so that Bush can pretend he's another JFK. By the time everybody realizes the money just ain't there, he'll be long gone.
I guess that's why Kinko's now uses smart cards.