Are you trying to claim that Microsoft Dynamics isn't software written by Damgaard Data (who in turn were selling software written by Navision) and Great Plains Software (who in turn were selling sofware written by Solomon)?
Oh, and you do realise that SQL Server was originally written by Sybase, I hope?
Quality "products", yes, in the sense that they were something that Microsoft *bought*.
And have you also forgotten that Office was dominant because of proven anti-competitive practices? It was the best solution only because they pissed on the Sherman Act.
> Nobody gives a rat's ass if Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber have 12 views or 12 billion.
Youtube don't view it that way at all. They even describe views as "currency", they are so valuable. I have no idea what their universe is like, as apparently I don't live in the same one, but clearly many do.
MS don't need to know how to do security. ARM have done the security, MS have just run a few handle-turning scripts to enable that security. (Having said that, it is possible to do even simple things wrong.)
Total bollocks. I've worked for companies that design and manufacture processors, and those processors have explicitly designed to support, and marketted as supporting, linux.
> I write for El Reg [theregister.co.uk], except when I'm on/.
This is probably why I don't read El Reg any more, the quality of the journalism is quite frankly awful.
> Even if you go to the pet shop and buy a gold fish and it's yours it still won't fly. I'm telling you, it won't be possible.
What a brilliant argument! It even holds up under disection. It is a vertibrate, right, and it's got a brain and spine with the central nervous system running down it, yeah? And its industrial design is also the same - it's got those flappy things down the side and it's been designed to be lightweight, has it not?
Nope, it's like buying a book and finding out that it contains their story, and you can't put your story in it. Waah, waah, waah.
I'm as pro-linux and anti-DRM as anyone I know, but we already have the mechanism for not supporting such hardware - namely by not buying it.
If Matthew Garrett is trying to work around the DRM, then he thinks that only a small proportion of DRM actually restricts your rights, and that makes him a DRM apologist and a Microsoft apologist.
The funny thing about the US is that there's a spelling error in the name of one of the metric units mentioned in that bill! They were clearly never going to get it right.
> It's kind of hard to keep a job as a kernel developer if you can't get your patches accepted,
Nope. That's only true in companies who care about upstreaming. (And obviously these are a self-selecting sample when it comes to whether you know they use and modify linux.) Ones who don't simply perform their GPL obligations and don't give a shit after that.
Linus *can't* say "[you] are in danger of getting kicked out of the team", as Linux doesn't pull the strings at RedHat, where Mauro works.
That's why he has to go over the top, he has no concrete pressure to apply, he can only do "shame", which the people ultimately have to apply to themselves in a watered down form. He must make sure that watered down form still causes Mauro to do a more thorough review of stuff that he signs off. (Mauro didn't write the patch that introduced the error, Laurent did.) "Signed-off-by:" does not mean "yeahyeah".
So *you* can call someone you *don't* know an arsehole?
How long have you been winning friends and influencing people? How many people have you influenced? Written any major operating systems which have had tens of thousands of contributors, and millions of users, for example?
Having said that, if you rewind the clock a century and you're Turkish, then kidnapping the young children, brainwashing them into believing the enemy until they're fighting age, and then sending them, unbeknownst to them, back into their homeland in order to kill their own kin is a viable alternative. (a) you don't have to do all that messy and life-risking child-birthing phase; and (b) who gives a fuck if they die in battle, they were Greek anyway.
There was something not quite right about the (post-processed-to-48) trailer too for me. But I think it was due to the depth of focus used in various scenes, it just didn't seem right, not what I would experience were I actually in the scene (typically because the depth was too great, rather than the other way round).
And no, definitely not drunk. Just relaxed, nothing more.
(And gack - I've just come back from a 24 fps film-stock movie, my first cinema film since Hobbit @48 last week, and it was so horrifically ugly I could almost hear the 'tick-tick-tick' flapping of the end of the spools in my head every 15 minutes. No immersion at all.)
Presumably that MAP is a US-specific thing? In the UK there was historically what seems to be a similar concept - "Resale Price Maintenance" - which was outlawed in the '60s.
I know that if I don't see a price, then I just click the back button, and I think a lot are that way, at least in Northern Europe.
>... they just started letting people take whatever they wanted into the cabin and now they're forced to deal with it...
Au contaire. Ryan Air has turned brutal. One bag means one bag. Your handbag? That's a second bag - not allowed. Your duty free? That's a third bag - not allowed. Go re-pack, and get to the back of the queue. And if it doesn't fit into the template - you're paying. Idiots will quickly learn that Ryan Air are serious, as it will cost them up to 63e when they make a mistake that can't be resolved by re-packing.
> if you cannot personally lift it over your head, by yourself, then it's too damned big and should be checked
That's explicitly in the T&Cs of all the cheap-arse airlines that I fly with. (And yes, as they're cheap-arse, they are looking for any opportunity to charge you, non-compliant carry-on luggage being a classic case.)
I can't name a single stereo record from the 50s at all. So either all of them, or none of them did the annoying panning thing, depending on how you wish to divide by zero.
> thirty years after the development of stereo LPs... "Whole Lotta Love"
Whole lotta love was released in 1969, and according to wikipedia "In 1958, the first group of mass-produced stereo two-channel vinyl records was issued". So you appear to be confusing 11 years with 30 years.
I can't name any examples of such repeated panning, but I think your 1969 can be pushed back a few years by looking in the direction of Hashbury. Or even before that. What do you make about the very first note and the subsequent ringing of The Beatles/I Feel Fine/ - dong (left) wooo (right), standing out all on its own before anything else starts - if that's not saying "hey - we've got stereo - listen to the width of our soundstage", I don't know what is. That's 1964.
I know most of the vinyl I have from the 60s has either "also available in mono" or "also available in stereo" (I even have something with "also available in quadraphonic", IIRC) printed on it, so, in the absense of sales figures, I feel it's not too great a leap to say that stereo was still establishing itself at that point. Notice how I said above becoming *popular* rather than merely becoming *available*. You appear to have conflated becoming popular with not just becoming available, but with its development. You're creating a bit of a straw man with such leaps.
However, perhaps the message from the audio world is that such gimicks will last for the best part of a decade before people grow out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you trying to claim that Microsoft Dynamics isn't software written by Damgaard Data (who in turn were selling software written by Navision) and Great Plains Software (who in turn were selling sofware written by Solomon)?
Oh, and you do realise that SQL Server was originally written by Sybase, I hope?
Quality "products", yes, in the sense that they were something that Microsoft *bought*.
And have you also forgotten that Office was dominant because of proven anti-competitive practices? It was the best solution only because they pissed on the Sherman Act.
-1? *snigger*.
And strcmp compares strings. NULL does not point to a string, therefore you shouldn't expect string functions to work.
C expects the programmer to know what he's doing, that's all.
You're overlooking the Public Domain. Some of the most worthwhile videos on youtube are in the Public Domain (such as some NASA ones).
> Nobody gives a rat's ass if Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber have 12 views or 12 billion.
Youtube don't view it that way at all. They even describe views as "currency", they are so valuable. I have no idea what their universe is like, as apparently I don't live in the same one, but clearly many do.
MS don't need to know how to do security. ARM have done the security, MS have just run a few handle-turning scripts to enable that security. (Having said that, it is possible to do even simple things wrong.)
> No processor has ever supported Linux.
/.
Total bollocks. I've worked for companies that design and manufacture processors, and those processors have explicitly designed to support, and marketted as supporting, linux.
> I write for El Reg [theregister.co.uk], except when I'm on
This is probably why I don't read El Reg any more, the quality of the journalism is quite frankly awful.
> Even if you go to the pet shop and buy a gold fish and it's yours it still won't fly. I'm telling you, it won't be possible.
What a brilliant argument! It even holds up under disection. It is a vertibrate, right, and it's got a brain and spine with the central nervous system running down it, yeah? And its industrial design is also the same - it's got those flappy things down the side and it's been designed to be lightweight, has it not?
Nope, it's like buying a book and finding out that it contains their story, and you can't put your story in it. Waah, waah, waah.
I'm as pro-linux and anti-DRM as anyone I know, but we already have the mechanism for not supporting such hardware - namely by not buying it.
If Matthew Garrett is trying to work around the DRM, then he thinks that only a small proportion of DRM actually restricts your rights, and that makes him a DRM apologist and a Microsoft apologist.
The funny thing about the US is that there's a spelling error in the name of one of the metric units mentioned in that bill! They were clearly never going to get it right.
> It's kind of hard to keep a job as a kernel developer if you can't get your patches accepted,
Nope. That's only true in companies who care about upstreaming. (And obviously these are a self-selecting sample when it comes to whether you know they use and modify linux.) Ones who don't simply perform their GPL obligations and don't give a shit after that.
Linus *can't* say "[you] are in danger of getting kicked out of the team", as Linux doesn't pull the strings at RedHat, where Mauro works.
That's why he has to go over the top, he has no concrete pressure to apply, he can only do "shame", which the people ultimately have to apply to themselves in a watered down form. He must make sure that watered down form still causes Mauro to do a more thorough review of stuff that he signs off. (Mauro didn't write the patch that introduced the error, Laurent did.) "Signed-off-by:" does not mean "yeahyeah".
I know I shouldn't waste time correcting idiot ACs, but alas some mods have wasted mod-points bubbling your drivel to a level where it's readable.
He didn't say that the developers don't get paid, he said that they are not paid by Linus. Please read for comprehension next time.
So *you* can call someone you *don't* know an arsehole?
How long have you been winning friends and influencing people? How many people have you influenced? Written any major operating systems which have had tens of thousands of contributors, and millions of users, for example?
Congratulations - you may now stop contributing to the linux kernel with a clear conscience.
Oh, I'm mistaken, you've never contributed to the linux kernel, and you're just a blowhard.
All part of a good rape and pillage.
Having said that, if you rewind the clock a century and you're Turkish, then kidnapping the young children, brainwashing them into believing the enemy until they're fighting age, and then sending them, unbeknownst to them, back into their homeland in order to kill their own kin is a viable alternative. (a) you don't have to do all that messy and life-risking child-birthing phase; and (b) who gives a fuck if they die in battle, they were Greek anyway.
Want remote control? Tada - wedding rings.
I for one religiously avoid ejaculating up my girlfriend's nose, and we've avoided pregnancy, or even scares. So there must be some truth to it!
I see someone's already addressed (1), so on to (2):
Pretending to be McAfee? Erm, you've posted to the wrong story!
I might need to re-jig it a bit, but I think I can make good use of that line - thanks!
I think I'll try a naively-voiced 'How about we use the "clever algorithm" design pattern?' on my nerdier mates tomorrow.
There was something not quite right about the (post-processed-to-48) trailer too for me. But I think it was due to the depth of focus used in various scenes, it just didn't seem right, not what I would experience were I actually in the scene (typically because the depth was too great, rather than the other way round).
And no, definitely not drunk. Just relaxed, nothing more.
(And gack - I've just come back from a 24 fps film-stock movie, my first cinema film since Hobbit @48 last week, and it was so horrifically ugly I could almost hear the 'tick-tick-tick' flapping of the end of the spools in my head every 15 minutes. No immersion at all.)
Nice straw man, I never said they were synonymous.
And if it's time for insults, your inability to tell the difference between "your" and "you're" makes you clearly the moronic one.
Presumably that MAP is a US-specific thing? In the UK there was historically what seems to be a similar concept - "Resale Price Maintenance" - which was outlawed in the '60s.
I know that if I don't see a price, then I just click the back button, and I think a lot are that way, at least in Northern Europe.
> ... they just started letting people take whatever they wanted into the cabin and now they're forced to deal with it ...
Au contaire. Ryan Air has turned brutal. One bag means one bag. Your handbag? That's a second bag - not allowed. Your duty free? That's a third bag - not allowed. Go re-pack, and get to the back of the queue. And if it doesn't fit into the template - you're paying. Idiots will quickly learn that Ryan Air are serious, as it will cost them up to 63e when they make a mistake that can't be resolved by re-packing.
> if you cannot personally lift it over your head, by yourself, then it's too damned big and should be checked
That's explicitly in the T&Cs of all the cheap-arse airlines that I fly with. (And yes, as they're cheap-arse, they are looking for any opportunity to charge you, non-compliant carry-on luggage being a classic case.)
> Not even Ryan Air.
You know that Our Lady Air has reached the pinnacle (I'm not saying of what) when they can appear an a sentence like that!
I can't name a single stereo record from the 50s at all. So either all of them, or none of them did the annoying panning thing, depending on how you wish to divide by zero.
... "Whole Lotta Love"
/I Feel Fine/ - dong (left) wooo (right), standing out all on its own before anything else starts - if that's not saying "hey - we've got stereo - listen to the width of our soundstage", I don't know what is. That's 1964.
> thirty years after the development of stereo LPs
Whole lotta love was released in 1969, and according to wikipedia "In 1958, the first group of mass-produced stereo two-channel vinyl records was issued". So you appear to be confusing 11 years with 30 years.
I can't name any examples of such repeated panning, but I think your 1969 can be pushed back a few years by looking in the direction of Hashbury. Or even before that. What do you make about the very first note and the subsequent ringing of The Beatles
I know most of the vinyl I have from the 60s has either "also available in mono" or "also available in stereo" (I even have something with "also available in quadraphonic", IIRC) printed on it, so, in the absense of sales figures, I feel it's not too great a leap to say that stereo was still establishing itself at that point. Notice how I said above becoming *popular* rather than merely becoming *available*. You appear to have conflated becoming popular with not just becoming available, but with its development. You're creating a bit of a straw man with such leaps.
However, perhaps the message from the audio world is that such gimicks will last for the best part of a decade before people grow out of them.