this is not in MS interest to have a mighty Apple.
Strangely, it's never much seemed to be in Apple's interest either, otherwise they might not have been so happy that their marketing department hasn't managed to actually sell much product until the iPod. Meanwhile, their computing side continues to slidedown the toilet with no sign that anyone at Apple cares.
I don't think there's anything MS could do that would give Apple a larger share of the market; that would require Apple to want a larger share of the market.
For 3D Rendering all you need to do *is* just turn up the clock speed.
Or increase the number of processors. Turning th clock speed up is turning the heat up; I think that's probably the reason behind this announcement. One hyper-fast processor is not better than 4 medium-speed ones, especially if it draws 2kW and meltsdown everytime the water-cooling pump drops below 95% speed.
I fail to see how having a better speaker make lines for you to speak during a presidential debate is cheating.
Then you must be an idiot! The debate is an examination of the men, not the aids. We see how they do with help all the time. The question the debates are supposed to answer is: how good is the brain leading all these advisors?
We saw how unable Bush is to cope with a crisis on 11/9/01 when he sat in front of those kids obviously and totally confused about the WTC attack. I'm sure that he's been wired since then. It's not a huge leap to say that someone incapable of thinking for themselves is not the right person for the job he is applying for.
Not initially. They just hired the chief designer and told him to duplicate his work from Xerox. Then someone had some sort of a stroke and told him it had to work with a single button.
I've seen a number of comments here about what the real motivations were for going to war, be they oil, control of the middle east, liberating Iraq, bring democracy to the middle east, furthering an agenda in wake of the 9/11 attacks. etc.
The comments that count are from Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others in their 1998 letter to Clinton about why Iraq needs to be invaded to capture its oil supply for the West. Read it online at
The Project for the New American Century, the far-right website for all things Pax Americana. It's worth noting that ten of the people that signed this letter have now served in the Bush administration.
It really scares me that apparently some Europeans are better informed about the US foreign policy than US state citizens.
That's because the European governments are not expending huge efforts to keep the information out of their news. Probably works the other way around too: I'm sure there are things reported in the US that never get mentioned in Belgium or The United Kingdom.
It's always easier to speak out when you're far away from the big stick.
According to a recent poll, most Americans think there was an Iraq/911 link. THAT's the power of controlling the media.
Well by your flawed logic, if you didn't buy Garfield from every single person offering to sell the product, you were, "depriving the seller of payment for their goods."
You are ignoring the fact that by downloading it I have made an active statement that I want to have the goods for some reason. If I neither download nor buy then I have not made that statement and it's a totally - and obviously - different situation.
Making a copy of a copyrighted work and distributing it is not theft. It is a copyright violation. These are two different things.
Only legally. Morally, there's no difference. Financially speaking is another thing again.
If I download "Garfield" and watch it then I have morally stolen something because I clearly wanted to see it enough to bother with the download time but I refused to pay for it, so I have something for nothing while depriving the seller of payment for their goods. On the other hand, if I could not download Garfield then there's every chance that I would not have paid to see such a pile of shit at any price the studio was willing to charge, so financially the studio has lost nothing. Legally, I have done something that the government says I'm not allowed to do and am therefore in trouble regardless of the effect it has on anyone else or my moral code.
Personally, my tip is that if it's good enough to watch/listen to then you should make an effort to pay the people that made it. If you can do that while avoiding the fuckers at the MPAA/RIAA then good, but don't screw the writers/artists just to spite them; they're already being done over by the studios and recording companies as it is.
Can you imagine the fan backlash if all the stuff the novels created was then just made into "fan-fiction?" Get real.
The "fans" that are interested in non-cannon novel cash-ins whether Star Wars or Star Trek number about 400 (total weight: 200000lbs). The fact that they go to conventions and write anal newsletters doesn't change the fact that no one outside of their tiny circle gives a shit what they think. If there's money in it the studio will do it; they only licenced the books to make cash - no one in charge will even have read them. Losing those 400 tickets won't make the difference.
BTW, I'd rather not have another three movies if they're going to be at the current level of quality.
glass itself is technically not a solid but a slow-moving liquid
A common misconception caused by the old "spun" method of making glass which makes sheets which are thicker at the bottom than the top. People have often assumed that old glass has "flowed" into that shape. It hasn't: it was made that way. Glass does not in fact flow, not even slowly.
Search on Google for "glass flow" for lots and lots of stuff about this.
"The company has now launched geography classes for its staff to avoid further bloomers which have caused embarrassment..." -- perhaps they mean bloopers?
On this one the writer is correct, "bloomers" is a rather old-fashioned British term for a mistake. It's still used in the title of a BBC programme "Auntie's Bloomers" which shows what Americans would call bloopers from BBC programmes.
The other two examples were just typos rather than "junk grammar".
TWW
Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
So you're saying there's nothing wrong with Linux, or any other OSS out there?
No, I'm saying that/. reports flaws in Bind, Sendmail, Mozilla etc., so why should it not report flaws in Windows? Just because they're more common? What sort of sense does that make?
TWW
Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
So, you're saying that there's nothing wrong with SP2? Or are you saying that everyone, including those that do know better, should carry on giving MS a free pass on their shit products for another 20 years? What does that achieve?
I just installed XP on a friend's 18month-old Dell laptop and it failed to recognise the modem. Fortunately she was able to dig out the driver CD that came with it. She had no idea what to do on her own so for her at least installing XP was as difficult as many people claim Linux to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Strangely, it's never much seemed to be in Apple's interest either, otherwise they might not have been so happy that their marketing department hasn't managed to actually sell much product until the iPod. Meanwhile, their computing side continues to slidedown the toilet with no sign that anyone at Apple cares.
I don't think there's anything MS could do that would give Apple a larger share of the market; that would require Apple to want a larger share of the market.
TWW
Or increase the number of processors. Turning th clock speed up is turning the heat up; I think that's probably the reason behind this announcement. One hyper-fast processor is not better than 4 medium-speed ones, especially if it draws 2kW and meltsdown everytime the water-cooling pump drops below 95% speed.
TWW
Then you must be an idiot! The debate is an examination of the men, not the aids. We see how they do with help all the time. The question the debates are supposed to answer is: how good is the brain leading all these advisors?
We saw how unable Bush is to cope with a crisis on 11/9/01 when he sat in front of those kids obviously and totally confused about the WTC attack. I'm sure that he's been wired since then. It's not a huge leap to say that someone incapable of thinking for themselves is not the right person for the job he is applying for.
TWW
TWW
Not initially. They just hired the chief designer and told him to duplicate his work from Xerox. Then someone had some sort of a stroke and told him it had to work with a single button.
TWW
No, that was Apple. MS then copied Apple in that innovative way they have of never being first to market with anything.
TWW
The comments that count are from Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others in their 1998 letter to Clinton about why Iraq needs to be invaded to capture its oil supply for the West. Read it online at The Project for the New American Century, the far-right website for all things Pax Americana. It's worth noting that ten of the people that signed this letter have now served in the Bush administration.
It was always about oil, even before Bush got in.
TWW
That's because the European governments are not expending huge efforts to keep the information out of their news. Probably works the other way around too: I'm sure there are things reported in the US that never get mentioned in Belgium or The United Kingdom.
It's always easier to speak out when you're far away from the big stick.
According to a recent poll, most Americans think there was an Iraq/911 link. THAT's the power of controlling the media.
TWW
And Verisign get paid again. I think you've hit on a business plan, there.
TWW
I don't know. Let's ask Peter Jackson.
Me: Peter, how many ways have you found to sell your LotR films to the public?
PJ: I can't count that high, it make ma hed hurt.
TWW
No, he's just a fascist.
TWW
Well, duh! Like 20+ years of third-rate software wasn't a clue?
TWW
You are ignoring the fact that by downloading it I have made an active statement that I want to have the goods for some reason. If I neither download nor buy then I have not made that statement and it's a totally - and obviously - different situation.
TWW
Only legally. Morally, there's no difference. Financially speaking is another thing again.
If I download "Garfield" and watch it then I have morally stolen something because I clearly wanted to see it enough to bother with the download time but I refused to pay for it, so I have something for nothing while depriving the seller of payment for their goods. On the other hand, if I could not download Garfield then there's every chance that I would not have paid to see such a pile of shit at any price the studio was willing to charge, so financially the studio has lost nothing. Legally, I have done something that the government says I'm not allowed to do and am therefore in trouble regardless of the effect it has on anyone else or my moral code.
Personally, my tip is that if it's good enough to watch/listen to then you should make an effort to pay the people that made it. If you can do that while avoiding the fuckers at the MPAA/RIAA then good, but don't screw the writers/artists just to spite them; they're already being done over by the studios and recording companies as it is.
TWW
The "fans" that are interested in non-cannon novel cash-ins whether Star Wars or Star Trek number about 400 (total weight: 200000lbs). The fact that they go to conventions and write anal newsletters doesn't change the fact that no one outside of their tiny circle gives a shit what they think. If there's money in it the studio will do it; they only licenced the books to make cash - no one in charge will even have read them. Losing those 400 tickets won't make the difference.
BTW, I'd rather not have another three movies if they're going to be at the current level of quality.
TWW
A common misconception caused by the old "spun" method of making glass which makes sheets which are thicker at the bottom than the top. People have often assumed that old glass has "flowed" into that shape. It hasn't: it was made that way. Glass does not in fact flow, not even slowly.
Search on Google for "glass flow" for lots and lots of stuff about this.
TWW
TWW
On this one the writer is correct, "bloomers" is a rather old-fashioned British term for a mistake. It's still used in the title of a BBC programme "Auntie's Bloomers" which shows what Americans would call bloopers from BBC programmes.
The other two examples were just typos rather than "junk grammar".
TWW
No, I'm saying that /. reports flaws in Bind, Sendmail, Mozilla etc., so why should it not report flaws in Windows? Just because they're more common? What sort of sense does that make?
TWW
TWW
TWW
A really cool one?
TWW
TWW
Libel perhaps? I'm assuming that like all the rest of SCO's claims this is baloney.
TWW
A trait it is about to regret <sound of skull-saw starting up>
TWW