The robber barons were always self-serving. Difference is that in the days of yore they were in fear of God, or even society sanctions, so they invested without any self interest. Nowadays Gates will invest in education -- if you buy his software.
make it a felony to use spyware or keyloggers to damage 10 or more computers
Why so lenient? It should be a crime to put spyware into any computer unless it is your own or under your responsibility, and other users know about it; and keyloggers in any computers at all unless you have a court order to do so.
Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world. If the scientific method is trashed
Non sequitur. Miracles happen, revelation does provide authentic knowledge of the physical world, and this in no way barrens the soil for science -- unleß your religion is illogical, as Islam is. And the Pope got thrashed for pointing it out.
Convivence of science and religion is impoßible if any one side is demonised.
Fact is, ðere is no real competitor yet in the OEM market -- meaning preintalled boxes.
Mac OS X is not available yet outide of Apple hardare. GNU/Linux till doen't have the rit tuff for ðis market: ne drivers, a dominant ditro (Ubuntu may yet become it, alo pulling drivers in), ISV oftare uch as codecs, Adobe tuff and o on (but tuff bundled in the ditros is fatly catching up).
So, MS indos Vita won't be ðe donfall of Microoft. But MS indos NT 7 may yet be.
I've never run Debian, because as far as I'm concerned, the whole and only point of a distribution is to make it easy to install (so that I can then get to the part I care about, namely the kernel), so Debian or one of the "compile everything by hand" ones simply weren't interesting to me.
Thanks God he's not into distribution creation. His complaint simply makes no sense nowadays, nor has it made sense for quite some years now.
And by the way, it is kind of contradictory with his stance on Gnome.
So what? Applications on VMs are isolated, MS's selling point was always integration.
you seem to have forgotten about.NET as a migration path
No, I haven't -- but MS.Net is only important for custom software. There are very few off-the-shelf applications on MS.Net, most are still W32 or else went Java. And it is off-the-shelf software that keeps MS going with its proprietary lock-in.
The issue here is proprietary lock-in. If MS would fix all the architectural problems of MS Windows, it would basically be a new OS. It could keep parts of the kernel, but the userland interfaces would change so much that only VMs could keep compatibility -- and with them comes a huge resources consumption boost on an already heavy architecture. But resources are not the main issue: it is that the new applications would be so different from old ones that vendors would most likely do something cross platform and MS would loose proprietary lock-in.
Also, it would take so long that GNU/Linux would have a huge window of opportunity, with the added benefit of low resources usage and true backwards compatibility.
Finally, it would be so different from MS Windows and so much like GNU/Linux or the Hurd that people would see the king is naked.
I wonder... people get so hooked on Intel vs. AMD comparision... but what about thinking the total architecture?
Like, you start with software. They used Apache, Linux and MySQL -- what about, say, lighttpd, BSD and PotgreSQL? Each is reputedly more efficient than its counterpart. And what about comparing to a sytem with a different architectural decision, like business rules in the DBMS à la Alphora Dataphor (partly doable in PotgreSQL or IBM DB2) or like Lisp?
Moreover, one should compare to RISC too: Niagara and POWER6 come to mind, but here x86's economies of scale won't allow a level playing field.
Right now the page linked is but a MySQL error. Incredible, every other time I get an error message instead of a page, it is a MySQL or MS SQL Server DB error. Rarely it is an application error, or from some other SGBD.
4/3rds just isn't an especially lovable standard. It pushes the sensor size a bit smaller than a lot of DSLR people would really like to see.
So you are sacrificing the future for the past -- for noise problems at fringe conditions that are mostly a past issue now.
the 4/3rds cameras are (unless I've missed something) staying relatively clunky/large
Not. The E-410 is a thing of beauty, and so is the E-510. The E-330 with its live preview is also nice. The Leica and Panaonic are bigger, but quite robut.
Who's arguing that? I am arguing that this is the only standard in the area, yet these cameras (not only Olympus) were ignored. Canon and Nikon win only because of proprietary lock-in, and the magazine should help prospective buyers discern that.
Indeed, they totally ignored the excellent 4/3 "standard" in use by Olympus, Panasonic and Leica, to choose totally proprietary, unexceptional Nikon and Canon cameras. I bet Nikon and Canon have far bigger digicam ad budgets.
Most often than not, when I see such glitches they come from the DB side. More often MySQL, sometimes RAID -- 5 where 10 should be used, or even 0 where 5 could be used.
Granted Google shouldn't be using MySQL over RAID for its personalised pages, perhaps BigTables over GoogleFS. But does anyone know for sure?
Not only poßible, ðere are several current examples, mostly as prototypes or wi some adaptation to market realities: Alphora Dataphor, MightyD, Rel, Opus, Duro.
I thought the number of pointers approached infinity as relationships increased
There are no silver bullets. But from what I see, better (more exigent) schools, truly RDBMSs (*not* SQL), functional programming, formal methods, open systems would go a long way of making people more productive, not to mention the free market perspective: just open the borders.
I am sure each one will have his own list. I would put Unicode, well-formed SGML and TeX everywhere in the list too, but I feel they wouldn't be such a huge boost to productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
The robber barons were always self-serving. Difference is that in the days of yore they were in fear of God, or even society sanctions, so they invested without any self interest. Nowadays Gates will invest in education -- if you buy his software.
Why so lenient? It should be a crime to put spyware into any computer unless it is your own or under your responsibility, and other users know about it; and keyloggers in any computers at all unless you have a court order to do so.
Non sequitur. Miracles happen, revelation does provide authentic knowledge of the physical world, and this in no way barrens the soil for science -- unleß your religion is illogical, as Islam is. And the Pope got thrashed for pointing it out.
Convivence of science and religion is impoßible if any one side is demonised.
Fact is, ðere is no real competitor yet in the OEM market -- meaning preintalled boxes.
Mac OS X is not available yet outide of Apple hardare. GNU/Linux till doen't have the rit tuff for ðis market: ne drivers, a dominant ditro (Ubuntu may yet become it, alo pulling drivers in), ISV oftare uch as codecs, Adobe tuff and o on (but tuff bundled in the ditros is fatly catching up).
So, MS indos Vita won't be ðe donfall of Microoft. But MS indos NT 7 may yet be.
Let IBM and Sun and Red Hat and whomever else do the same at the next countries' votes.
Thanks God he's not into distribution creation. His complaint simply makes no sense nowadays, nor has it made sense for quite some years now.
And by the way, it is kind of contradictory with his stance on Gnome.
By relying on the IP minsiformation, you miss a very important distinction.
There is no argument against trademarks, unless they are abused in principle they guide people to products with expected quality levels.
The argument is against software patents, and against the continuous expansion of copy rights both in scope and in time.
The article says Meizu bases miniOne on GNU/Linux, you say MS Windows Mobile... references anyone?
So what? Applications on VMs are isolated, MS's selling point was always integration.
No, I haven't -- but MS.Net is only important for custom software. There are very few off-the-shelf applications on MS.Net, most are still W32 or else went Java. And it is off-the-shelf software that keeps MS going with its proprietary lock-in.
The issue here is proprietary lock-in. If MS would fix all the architectural problems of MS Windows, it would basically be a new OS. It could keep parts of the kernel, but the userland interfaces would change so much that only VMs could keep compatibility -- and with them comes a huge resources consumption boost on an already heavy architecture. But resources are not the main issue: it is that the new applications would be so different from old ones that vendors would most likely do something cross platform and MS would loose proprietary lock-in.
Also, it would take so long that GNU/Linux would have a huge window of opportunity, with the added benefit of low resources usage and true backwards compatibility.
Finally, it would be so different from MS Windows and so much like GNU/Linux or the Hurd that people would see the king is naked.
Not at all. And even if perchance that's the case, what I tried to say is that there are far more gains to be had elsewhere than in AMD vs Intel.
I wonder... people get so hooked on Intel vs. AMD comparision... but what about thinking the total architecture?
Like, you start with software. They used Apache, Linux and MySQL -- what about, say, lighttpd, BSD and PotgreSQL? Each is reputedly more efficient than its counterpart. And what about comparing to a sytem with a different architectural decision, like business rules in the DBMS à la Alphora Dataphor (partly doable in PotgreSQL or IBM DB2) or like Lisp?
Moreover, one should compare to RISC too: Niagara and POWER6 come to mind, but here x86's economies of scale won't allow a level playing field.
Right now the page linked is but a MySQL error. Incredible, every other time I get an error message instead of a page, it is a MySQL or MS SQL Server DB error. Rarely it is an application error, or from some other SGBD.
Granted MySQL is more popular, but still...
So you are sacrificing the future for the past -- for noise problems at fringe conditions that are mostly a past issue now.
Not. The E-410 is a thing of beauty, and so is the E-510. The E-330 with its live preview is also nice. The Leica and Panaonic are bigger, but quite robut.
Who's arguing that? I am arguing that this is the only standard in the area, yet these cameras (not only Olympus) were ignored. Canon and Nikon win only because of proprietary lock-in, and the magazine should help prospective buyers discern that.
Indeed, they totally ignored the excellent 4/3 "standard" in use by Olympus, Panasonic and Leica, to choose totally proprietary, unexceptional Nikon and Canon cameras. I bet Nikon and Canon have far bigger digicam ad budgets.
Most often than not, when I see such glitches they come from the DB side. More often MySQL, sometimes RAID -- 5 where 10 should be used, or even 0 where 5 could be used.
Granted Google shouldn't be using MySQL over RAID for its personalised pages, perhaps BigTables over GoogleFS. But does anyone know for sure?
Does iPod GNU/Linux induces the user to run as superuser?
Sure indeed, but you don't store ðe pointers. Ðey are used only in memory data structures, not on disk.
I am not so naïve; I suspect ðe inverse may be true.
You don't, and at's the beauty of the relational model. All you need are relational operators and the query optimiser.
Again, you don't need pointers at all to represent foreign keys.
One doesn't. That's what relational operators are for. In this case, the existence ones. The relational model is logical, not physical.
Not only poßible, ðere are several current examples, mostly as prototypes or wi some adaptation to market realities: Alphora Dataphor, MightyD, Rel, Opus, Duro.
Ðere are no pointers in the relational model.
There are no silver bullets. But from what I see, better (more exigent) schools, truly RDBMSs (*not* SQL), functional programming, formal methods, open systems would go a long way of making people more productive, not to mention the free market perspective: just open the borders.
I am sure each one will have his own list. I would put Unicode, well-formed SGML and TeX everywhere in the list too, but I feel they wouldn't be such a huge boost to productivity.