Exactly. Bottom line is that open architecture is superior to closed architecture. x86 is actually a shitty architecture when you get right down to it, but at least it is open.
Err... The x86 chip architecture is NOT open. If you want to produce a clone of the chip, you have to license the technology from Intel. For example, AMD has a license which allows it to produce microprocessors that are compatible with the Intel x86 CPUs.
Re:An Example of a Short Sited Administration
on
New NASA Budget Woes
·
· Score: 1
AND the Bush administration has increased the budget for the sciences. Doesn't sound like bible thumping fundies to me.
The Leader's administration is increasing science funding for the single reason that without that funding, the USA loses its chance to retain any semblance of high-tech leadership (and resulting economic benefits).
This in no way reflects the Leader's stance on evolution versus creation. The Leader's beliefs are pragmatic; to lead his economic crusade against the "educated" infidels in Eastern Europe, Russia, India, and China, the Leader's people must adopt some of their tactics (e.g. studying "science"). The Leader will beat the infidels using science, if that is what it takes. (For the infidels who are not a competitive threat, "science" isn't necessary. The Leader will simply put collars and leashes on them, and beat them with whips.)
His "speech" was held on private grounds (the cafeteria) and against the wishes of the university.
No, his lecture was held on the grounds of a public university, according to this page describing the university.
Of course, I don't know what the conditions of free speech are in Spain, but the argument that it was on private grounds and therefore freedom of speech does not apply appears to be spurious.
Personally, I'd like to see the man tarred and feathered and then boiled in oil. I get so bloody tired of hearing his rants about "it may be free, but it's not Free"
This incitement to torture and murder someone is modded "Insightful"? That's an interesting statement about the sadistic inclinations of not only the poster, but also some of the moderators.
I think it's also fairly repellent to think Gandhi's methods of resistance somehow apply to conniving machievellian corporate machinations as well.
This "thought theft" initiative would hardly be the first time, but here's a well publicized recent example: Remember the scuffle around the infinitely extending duration of copyright in the US? Appears to me that the same progression occurred there.
Oh, I would argue it ends the usefulness of the discussion thread. Or at least diminishes it greatly. But I'll invoke it here too -- the Nazi comparison is ludicrous. The 1984 comparisons are spot-on though, so let's run with it. I propose from now on, that we make a portamentau of Microsoft's new term: thoughttheft.
While I disagree about the alleged inapplicability of the comparison to Nazi-style propaganda, the discussion is not really necessary.
I do thoroughly agree that the 1984 comparisons are very applicable. You are also correct that this "thought theft" will most likely be generally considered laughable by young people as it is by adults, that is, until this concept is encoded in law.
Consider for a moment the Ghandi quotation, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Note that the would-be Thought Police are at stage 2 of this progression.
The great grandparent made a comparison involving Nazis, and therefore, has lost the thread. There's nothing in Godwin's law about who's making the comparison, all you have to do to invoke Godwin's law is to make "a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler".
So what you're saying is that you feel "Godwin's law" is demonstrably (by your own continuation of the thread) neither a law nor accurate.
The post from which this thread (disproving Godwin's so-called law) followed expressed concern that the propaganda tactics used by Microsoft in the UK are indiscernably different from propaganda tactics used by the government of Germany during the 1930's and early 1940's (when the Nazi party was in control).
Saying "blah, blah, blah Godwin's Law blah blah blah" does not invalidate that view or end the useful discussion thread. The question should be whether that is an accurate comparison. Any experts on 20th century propaganda want to weigh in on this?
Sure he was. Hitler became a German citizen in 1932.
Right, so for US Americans who need a way to relate to this, Hitler was German (not Austrian) in the same sense the George W. Bush is a Texan (not a Connecticut Yankee).
I wonder if Google's shareholders feel the same way or if they understand that they do owe their customers? They're a business; they owe me whatever it is I feel like asking for or I'll go elsewhere.
Are you an advertiser on Google? If not, it sounds as if you are confusing what Google owes shareholders (return on investment) and their customers (advertisers) with what Google owes the user, (technically, nothing).
It is true that Google tries to provide a good experience for users, and that helps provide value to the advertisers and return on investment the shareholders are owed.
If, on the other hand, you are an advertiser, you should realize that Google's first obligation is to its shareholders, not its customers or its users.
(Okay, I realize that Google has other customers than advertisers, e.g. those who purchase Google's search services, users of Google Answers, etc., but my impression is that advertising generates the bulk of Google's revenue.)
I wish our (US) consumerist society felt that way. The maybe we wouldn't be spending so much money on shit at Walmart and buying cars we really can't afford, but hey, we are what we drive.
That's a cheap shot. You're saying that we Americans are nothing more than oversized mobile tanks of gas that can usually be found in the parking lots of buffet restaurants.... oh, right....
Because you are no longer free to take the company in the direction you want. Wait until a startup figures out a better way to search than Google has, and Google starts losing ad revenue big time. That's when they start cashing in on all the other uses for the data they have.
GWA, GMail, google toolbar, search history - these are not good deeds. They are investments.
First of all, somebody better give Larry Ellison, Scott McNeally, and Bill Gates wake-up calls to tell them they can no longer take their companies in the directions they want because they are publicly traded. Oh, wait, right, they still do control their companies. Becoming publicly traded does not equate to losing control over a company, as long as you control the majority of voting shares.
Second, some of these neato keen features which are arguably a sign of Google's turn to evil, these "investments" in GWA, GMail, Google toolbar, etc. (which admittedly is a fair description from a business standpoint), were released quite a while before Google's IPO. These features arguably may be bordering on evil, but they have absolutely no relation to any loss of control Google might experience as a result of going public.
All this implies is that Google was always on its current track. If that track is evil, then they were always on the track to evil; their IPO has not changed that in any case. This is, of course, what you should expect; the company is still controlled by the founders, not by the common stockholders.
Well, I'm really not comfortable with encouraging corporations to develop and launch what are, in essence ICBMs, outside of the strict regulation of the government.
I'm not comfortable with development of ICBMs under the auspices of governments either, but that is, to me, preferable to the "grassroots" weapons development that is being marketed as "private space exploration".
In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.
I won't spoil the movie for you, but suffice to say that if there are ANY space battles in the movie, more people die than both of those movies. Of course, you won't see most of the PEOPLE who die thusly....
Well, let's see.... in Star Wars Ep. IV, A New Hope, there was a planet full of people killed, plus a Death Star full of people (a.k.a. Stormtroopers) killed. Plus a large number of incidental killing of Storm troopers. Plus the dude whose arm was severed in the cantina by Obi-Wan.
That film was rated PG, and was not generally described as bloody.
I infer that the ratings aren't based on body count, but on the manner in which violence is depicted.
It is very unlikely that the new Star Wars movie will depict its violence in as brutal or literally bloody a manner as did Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction.
He gathers information and posts it to slashdot who in turn accepts it. He makes money, slashdot makes money and the readership gets amused for a little while. This guys not doing anything morally or ethically wrong.
True enough; Roland is certainly not doing anything wrong (seriously).
Nor is Slashdot doing anything wrong by transparently funding Roland's work-free lifestyle through it's immediate publication of anything Roland submits.
I've come around on this. It's not as is anyone seriously considers Slashdot a "news medium"; it's just a manual content aggregator with a popular comment system. The last things we expect from Slashdot are "editorial control" and "journalistic integrity". Think about it: How many duplicate articles can you think of just in the past month? Come on, you can think of more than that.... In any case, you get the point. Slashdot is not even remotely about Fair and Balanced (ahem) reporting.
Heck, I don't mind advertisers funding a lazy blogger's lifestyle; I wish I had a deal like that....
Hmmm, note to self: 1.Change name to Roland Piquepaille 2. Create advertising-supported blog based recycled news 3. Submit to Slashdot 4. Profit!
Sun is #1 in UNIX. Your IDC report is saying "worldwide server systems market". Huge difference.
Also, I should have clarified that Sun is #1 in Linux units shipped and not revenue.
For 64-bit servers, Itanium is MIA, and POWER's market share is smaller than SPARC. Also, HP and IBM do not exclusively ship 64-bit (e.g., Xeon).
Look, I understand from your handle, "SunFan" that you are fond of Sun. I appreciate that; there are good reasons to admire some of Sun's products. However, you would do well to actually check some of your facts before making statements about the industry. It's okay to be a fan, but you don't do Sun any favors if you are unaware of the facts.
So, take this not as a personal attack, but an attempt to provide a solid foundation for your interest in Sun:
First of all, this IDC report is just a periodic report on many aspects of the IT industry.
Second, both my post and the article to which I referred state that Sun is number 3 in the worldwide Unix server market. Perhaps the phrasing in my post was less than perfectly clear, but the IDC report is unambiguous.
Third, IBM and HP both ship Unix exlcusively on 64-bit platforms. Your assertion otherwise is false. IBM ships AIX (their Unix) exclusively on 64-bit POWER-based systems. You can verify this yourself on ibm.com. Similarly, HP ships their Unix products exclusively on 64-bit, non-x86 hardware, including Itanium 2, as you can find on their web site. Neither IBM nor HP has a Unix product that runs on 32-bit x86 hardware, as you suggest. In fact, this may be an advantage Sun has in this market, as Sun is the only significant Unix vendor that has a Unix product that runs on x86 (e.g. Xeon, Opteron, etc) hardware.
Finally, "Linux units shipped" is a bogus measurement (that's why IDC doesn't use it); most systems (server and otherwise) upon which Linux is installed, or part of the sales deal, are not shipped with Linux preinstalled. It is a fact that Sun ships a lot of Linux on Opteron-based hardware (not on Sparc), but if, as you say, they are shipping the largest number of Linux units but they are not even in the top 3 for Linux revenue, this is an indication that they may indeed have a problem; this is not the kind of fact that impresses people that Sun has a viable business model.
I only know enough to defend Sun (I won't stand up for Carly or Bill, sorry). Sun are #1 now in lots of sectors: UNIX (Solaris), Linux (SE Asia), HPC units shipped (Opteron), 64-bit (SPARC and Opteron), price (JDS, JES, Solaris/Linux), and others.
As an Anonymous Coward in this thread pointed out, this is factually inaccurate in at least some respects, and irrelevant in others. For example, Sun is not #1 in Unix, at least as measured by their share of the worldwide server market. This report from February of this year, says they are number 3, behind IBM and HP. Also, according to the same report, HP, IBM, and Dell were numbers 1, 2, and 3 in Linux server revenue. Furthermore, Since IBM and HP both ship (exclusively) 64-bit Unix servers, Sun is, by definition, #3 in 64-bit.
Factual errors aside, Java still appears to be a long-lasting strong play for Sun. Financially, their current stock valuation appears reasonable, at something like 1/15th of what it was in 2000; a much more sustainable position, and one that reflects much less crack smoking by the investment community. I'd say they have some legs left in them.
Or you could be a middle aged, Bush-voting, ex-military, pickup truck owning redstater, basically your uber anti-hippie, and still ride a bicycle to work.
True enough. There are people who do the "right thing" because they find it expedient, rather than because they are aware of or interested in the consequences of not doing the "right thing".
In any case, if you ride your bike to work, you are a de facto environmentalist. You are helping, in a small way, to keep the world a cleaner place for yourself and your family. So, go on, you crazy treehugger, you!
I doubt implementing the filtering would save any money, actually. It would probably cost money.
No, no, no; you don't understand. Sure, it might appear that it will cost taxpayers money, but that's not true. It will only cost Texas taxpayers money. Besides, the fact that Texans will pay money for this service will be offset by the fact that the makers of internet filtering software will receive money.
So you see? This is a valuable "service", provided to the public for "free".
Good points. Makes you wonder not about Info-Tech, but about the author of the eWeek article. From the article:
"Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux, according to a recent study by Info-Tech Research Group.... A tiny 10 percent of mid-sized enterprises plan to evaluate Linux within the next three years and only a portion of these will actually adopt it."
Actually, 10 percent of this group is not a small number. Neither is the 27 percent already running Linux. This research was certainly not funded by Linux. Info-Tech is not calling this tiny; the author of the article is.
On the other hand, against the backdrop of what he believes to be more than one quarter of medium-sized businesses found to be using Linux, he concludes:
"Koelsch's study and my own observations suggest that Linux has two major markets: the large Unix consolidators and smaller, cash-strapped companies. Both groups save money thanks to Linux. For everyone else, Linux is barely on the radar.
My conclusion: In most of American business, the supposed competition between Microsoft and Linux just doesn't exist. And with good reason."
The eWeek article author's translation of Linux being used by 27% (and growing) of medium-sized businesses into "Linux is barely on the radar" and "In most American businesses, competition between Microsoft and Linux just doesn't exist" is exactly what Microsoft surely didn't pay for. (Or did they?)
If you're fishing around in your pocket, it's not easy to distinguish them.
Consider that, fishing around in your pocket, a $1 bill bears a striking resemblance to a $50 bill, $20 bill, $10 bill, $5 bill, and $2 bill. Does this make the $1 bill difficult to use or identify?
Numerous people, including myself, use $1 coins on a not regular basis without the "Three Stooges"-esque difficulty you describe. I have never in my life had someone question the validity of a $1 coin that I have used (including the Eisenhower, Susan B Anthony, and Sacagawea coins).
How is this possible? The $1 coins are all easily distinguishable from the quarter. Vending machines that will not take $1 coins, well, won't take them, so no problem there. The only potential problems are with recipients who are ignorant and therefore doesn't realize that there is such a thing as a $1 coin, and people who are too lazy to actually look at the coins they are using as payment.
I agree the educational systems may have some impact; probably more than many people realize. But, does this reflect the educational system of the countries, or the universities?
Consider this:
China has a population of 1,298,847,624 (July 2004 est.), and produced the team in 1st place.
Russia has a population of 143,782,338 (July 2004 est.) and produced the teams in 2nd and 3rd place.
Canada has a population of 32,507,874 (July 2004 est.) and produced the team in 4th place.
I would expect China could take one of the top prizes, as it has the largest potential pool of contestants. Russia's showing is impressive by comparison; with 1/9 as many potential contestants as China, Russia took two top honors. However, with less than 1/4 the population pool of Russia (1/40 that of China) Canada took fourth place, beating out everyone else.
Are Canadians just smarter? Is the Canadian educational system that far superiour to all the other countries on earth, with the possible exception of Russia?
I, for one, welcome our new poutine-eating overlords.
Well, okay, the likely answer is that the universities that took top prizes are, in fact (as others have speculated), focused on the programming contest. For example, this is the 13th consecutive time the team from University of Waterloo has competed in the finals, which they have won twice. This is clearly an ongoing showcase for the computer science program at University of Waterloo (their achievement is announced on the top-level web page for the university).
Keep in mind also that the other teams who competed in the finals represent many of the finest computer science programs in the world. To make the point, the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kyoto University, the University of Alberta, and 8 other extraordinary schools tied for a rank of 29 with 4 problems solved. Are they just relatively inferiour programmers? Extremely unlikely.
Of course, there's another possible answer: The air conditioning at the contest was extremely cold, and only the students from that University who trained for that environment and those from super-cold climates (Russia and Canada) were able to work unimpeded. Sounds crazy, I know, but think about it....
The 1984 references are getting very, very tired. Not every bleak occurance is an appropriate occasion to invoke Orwell (or Huxley, or whoever else). Having read a classic book does not make you clever. Lamenting over our tragically totalitarian Amerikan state is not political activism, it's melodramatic whinging. Don't get me wrong; this kind of news gets me as mad as any of you, if not more so. I'm quite a rabid, volatile little libertarian. But please, your radical ideas about life imitating art have already occured to others. Get over yourselves.
I feel compelled to suggest that, in the examples you mention, art was representing life, in which case, it is strange to say that in our current circumstance, life is imitating art. Rather, life is becoming similar to former life.
The current situation is simply a case of well known political tactics being used again as they have at times in the past. However, more people are familiar with the literary works representing those tactics than with the history of their use. Thus, the references to the literature are not really inappropriate.
IBM also has a legion of lawyers to help them distinguish how to work in a GPL'd environment and yet keep as much of their IP close to home as possible. Firms in developing countries for the most part are denied this luxury. What happens if an company in Uganda develops a product / service that has real value to the world at large, and the IBMs or SCOs of the world note that it has included GPL'd code and sue "on behalf of the GPL".
The following is not legal advice:
I infer this is intended to present a rhetorical argument, but it is not coherent. Certainly, if a company in Uganda wants to develop a GPL application, they are free to do so as long as they comply with the rules outlined in the GPL. If this is meant to suggest that a company in Uganda would be, due to their ignorance, more likely to violate the GPL by using GPL code in their own non-GPL product, it would be no different than if they used non-GPL source code taken without permission from software copyrighted by another company. Either way, it is a simple violation of the author's copyright.
I don't concur with the condescending view that the presumed ignorance or inability to understand the license exists more in undeveloped countries than developed ones.
Furthermore, IBM or SCO have no standing to sue "on behalf of the GPL." The GPL is a license, not an entity requiring legal assistance. However, IBM or SCO could sue if they owned copyrights for the GPL code in question, just as if the code were not under the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Bottom line is that open architecture is superior to closed architecture. x86 is actually a shitty architecture when you get right down to it, but at least it is open.
Err... The x86 chip architecture is NOT open. If you want to produce a clone of the chip, you have to license the technology from Intel. For example, AMD has a license which allows it to produce microprocessors that are compatible with the Intel x86 CPUs.
PPC chips are at least as "open" as Intel's:
Apple, IBM, and Motorola collaborated in creating the PowerPC architecture. Apple was buying all its PowerPC parts from Motorola until they started having yield problems that prevented them from producing the high-performance parts that Apple required. freescale semiconductor/a?, Motorola's former chip division, was spun off from Motorola and is currently selling PowerPC processors for embedded applications.
AND the Bush administration has increased the budget for the sciences. Doesn't sound like bible thumping fundies to me.
The Leader's administration is increasing science funding for the single reason that without that funding, the USA loses its chance to retain any semblance of high-tech leadership (and resulting economic benefits).
This in no way reflects the Leader's stance on evolution versus creation. The Leader's beliefs are pragmatic; to lead his economic crusade against the "educated" infidels in Eastern Europe, Russia, India, and China, the Leader's people must adopt some of their tactics (e.g. studying "science"). The Leader will beat the infidels using science, if that is what it takes. (For the infidels who are not a competitive threat, "science" isn't necessary. The Leader will simply put collars and leashes on them, and beat them with whips.)
His "speech" was held on private grounds (the cafeteria) and against the wishes of the university.
No, his lecture was held on the grounds of a public university, according to this page describing the university.
Of course, I don't know what the conditions of free speech are in Spain, but the argument that it was on private grounds and therefore freedom of speech does not apply appears to be spurious.
Personally, I'd like to see the man tarred and feathered and then boiled in oil. I get so bloody tired of hearing his rants about "it may be free, but it's not Free"
This incitement to torture and murder someone is modded "Insightful"? That's an interesting statement about the sadistic inclinations of not only the poster, but also some of the moderators.
the name is "Gandhi", not "Ghandi"
Oops. Thank you.
I think it's also fairly repellent to think Gandhi's methods of resistance somehow apply to conniving machievellian corporate machinations as well.
This "thought theft" initiative would hardly be the first time, but here's a well publicized recent example: Remember the scuffle around the infinitely extending duration of copyright in the US? Appears to me that the same progression occurred there.
Oh, I would argue it ends the usefulness of the discussion thread. Or at least diminishes it greatly. But I'll invoke it here too -- the Nazi comparison is ludicrous. The 1984 comparisons are spot-on though, so let's run with it. I propose from now on, that we make a portamentau of Microsoft's new term: thoughttheft.
While I disagree about the alleged inapplicability of the comparison to Nazi-style propaganda, the discussion is not really necessary.
I do thoroughly agree that the 1984 comparisons are very applicable. You are also correct that this "thought theft" will most likely be generally considered laughable by young people as it is by adults, that is, until this concept is encoded in law.
Consider for a moment the Ghandi quotation, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Note that the would-be Thought Police are at stage 2 of this progression.
The great grandparent made a comparison involving Nazis, and therefore, has lost the thread. There's nothing in Godwin's law about who's making the comparison, all you have to do to invoke Godwin's law is to make "a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler".
So what you're saying is that you feel "Godwin's law" is demonstrably (by your own continuation of the thread)
neither a law nor accurate.
The post from which this thread (disproving Godwin's so-called law) followed expressed concern that the propaganda tactics used by Microsoft in the UK are indiscernably different from propaganda tactics used by the government of Germany during the 1930's and early 1940's (when the Nazi party was in control).
Saying "blah, blah, blah Godwin's Law blah blah blah" does not invalidate that view or end the useful discussion thread. The question should be whether that is an accurate comparison. Any experts on 20th century propaganda want to weigh in on this?
Getting more for less, how horrible. We should really put an end to nasty things like that. How dreadfully "inefficient"
Preach on, brother. When I eat more than I should at McDonald's, I'm not being wasteful; I'm taking advantage of a great value.
Time to buy a new pair of pants.
You know, there was a little more to that story than the proper use of the word viruses, right?
Hmmm... I read the story, and no, there wasn't.
Sure he was. Hitler became a German citizen in 1932.
Right, so for US Americans who need a way to relate to this, Hitler was German (not Austrian) in the same sense the George W. Bush is a Texan (not a Connecticut Yankee).
I wonder if Google's shareholders feel the same way or if they understand that they do owe their customers? They're a business; they owe me whatever it is I feel like asking for or I'll go elsewhere.
Are you an advertiser on Google? If not, it sounds as if you are confusing what Google owes shareholders (return on investment) and their customers (advertisers) with what Google owes the user, (technically, nothing).
It is true that Google tries to provide a good experience for users, and that helps provide value to the advertisers and return on investment the shareholders are owed.
If, on the other hand, you are an advertiser, you should realize that Google's first obligation is to its shareholders, not its customers or its users.
(Okay, I realize that Google has other customers than advertisers, e.g. those who purchase Google's search services, users of Google Answers, etc., but my impression is that advertising generates the bulk of Google's revenue.)
I wish our (US) consumerist society felt that way. The maybe we wouldn't be spending so much money on shit at Walmart and buying cars we really can't afford, but hey, we are what we drive.
That's a cheap shot. You're saying that we Americans are nothing more than oversized mobile tanks of gas that can usually be found in the parking lots of buffet restaurants.... oh, right....
Because you are no longer free to take the company in the direction you want. Wait until a startup figures out a better way to search than Google has, and Google starts losing ad revenue big time. That's when they start cashing in on all the other uses for the data they have.
GWA, GMail, google toolbar, search history - these are not good deeds. They are investments.
First of all, somebody better give Larry Ellison, Scott McNeally, and Bill Gates wake-up calls to tell them they can no longer take their companies in the directions they want because they are publicly traded. Oh, wait, right, they still do control their companies. Becoming publicly traded does not equate to losing control over a company, as long as you control the majority of voting shares.
Second, some of these neato keen features which are arguably a sign of Google's turn to evil, these "investments" in GWA, GMail, Google toolbar, etc. (which admittedly is a fair description from a business standpoint), were released quite a while before Google's IPO. These features arguably may be bordering on evil, but they have absolutely no relation to any loss of control Google might experience as a result of going public.
All this implies is that Google was always on its current track. If that track is evil, then they were always on the track to evil; their IPO has not changed that in any case. This is, of course, what you should expect; the company is still controlled by the founders, not by the common stockholders.
Well, I'm really not comfortable with encouraging corporations to develop and launch what are, in essence ICBMs, outside of the strict regulation of the government.
I'm not comfortable with development of ICBMs under the auspices of governments either, but that is, to me, preferable to the "grassroots" weapons development that is being marketed as "private space exploration".
In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.
I won't spoil the movie for you, but suffice to say that if there are ANY space battles in the movie, more people die than both of those movies. Of course, you won't see most of the PEOPLE who die thusly....
Well, let's see.... in Star Wars Ep. IV, A New Hope, there was a planet full of people killed, plus a Death Star full of people (a.k.a. Stormtroopers) killed. Plus a large number of incidental killing of Storm troopers. Plus the dude whose arm was severed in the cantina by Obi-Wan.
That film was rated PG, and was not generally described as bloody.
I infer that the ratings aren't based on body count, but on the manner in which violence is depicted.
It is very unlikely that the new Star Wars movie will depict its violence in as brutal or literally bloody a manner as did Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction.
He gathers information and posts it to slashdot who in turn accepts it. He makes money, slashdot makes money and the readership gets amused for a little while. This guys not doing anything morally or ethically wrong.
True enough; Roland is certainly not doing anything wrong (seriously).
Nor is Slashdot doing anything wrong by transparently funding Roland's work-free lifestyle through it's immediate publication of anything Roland submits.
I've come around on this. It's not as is anyone seriously considers Slashdot a "news medium"; it's just a manual content aggregator with a popular comment system. The last things we expect from Slashdot are "editorial control" and "journalistic integrity". Think about it: How many duplicate articles can you think of just in the past month? Come on, you can think of more than that.... In any case, you get the point. Slashdot is not even remotely about Fair and Balanced (ahem) reporting.
Heck, I don't mind advertisers funding a lazy blogger's lifestyle; I wish I had a deal like that....
Hmmm, note to self:
1.Change name to Roland Piquepaille
2. Create advertising-supported blog based recycled news
3. Submit to Slashdot
4. Profit!
Sun is #1 in UNIX. Your IDC report is saying "worldwide server systems market". Huge difference.
Also, I should have clarified that Sun is #1 in Linux units shipped and not revenue.
For 64-bit servers, Itanium is MIA, and POWER's market share is smaller than SPARC. Also, HP and IBM do not exclusively ship 64-bit (e.g., Xeon).
Look, I understand from your handle, "SunFan" that you are fond of Sun. I appreciate that; there are good reasons to admire some of Sun's products. However, you would do well to actually check some of your facts before making statements about the industry. It's okay to be a fan, but you don't do Sun any favors if you are unaware of the facts.
So, take this not as a personal attack, but an attempt to provide a solid foundation for your interest in Sun:
First of all, this IDC report is just a periodic report on many aspects of the IT industry.
Second, both my post and the article to which I referred state that Sun is number 3 in the worldwide Unix server market. Perhaps the phrasing in my post was less than perfectly clear, but the IDC report is unambiguous.
Third, IBM and HP both ship Unix exlcusively on 64-bit platforms. Your assertion otherwise is false. IBM ships AIX (their Unix) exclusively on 64-bit POWER-based systems. You can verify this yourself on ibm.com. Similarly, HP ships their Unix products exclusively on 64-bit, non-x86 hardware, including Itanium 2, as you can find on their web site. Neither IBM nor HP has a Unix product that runs on 32-bit x86 hardware, as you suggest. In fact, this may be an advantage Sun has in this market, as Sun is the only significant Unix vendor that has a Unix product that runs on x86 (e.g. Xeon, Opteron, etc) hardware.
Finally, "Linux units shipped" is a bogus measurement (that's why IDC doesn't use it); most systems (server and otherwise) upon which Linux is installed, or part of the sales deal, are not shipped with Linux preinstalled. It is a fact that Sun ships a lot of Linux on Opteron-based hardware (not on Sparc), but if, as you say, they are shipping the largest number of Linux units but they are not even in the top 3 for Linux revenue, this is an indication that they may indeed have a problem; this is not the kind of fact that impresses people that Sun has a viable business model.
I only know enough to defend Sun (I won't stand up for Carly or Bill, sorry). Sun are #1 now in lots of sectors: UNIX (Solaris), Linux (SE Asia), HPC units shipped (Opteron), 64-bit (SPARC and Opteron), price (JDS, JES, Solaris/Linux), and others.
As an Anonymous Coward in this thread pointed out, this is factually inaccurate in at least some respects, and irrelevant in others. For example, Sun is not #1 in Unix, at least as measured by their share of the worldwide server market. This report from February of this year, says they are number 3, behind IBM and HP. Also, according to the same report, HP, IBM, and Dell were numbers 1, 2, and 3 in Linux server revenue. Furthermore, Since IBM and HP both ship (exclusively) 64-bit Unix servers, Sun is, by definition, #3 in 64-bit.
Factual errors aside, Java still appears to be a long-lasting strong play for Sun. Financially, their current stock valuation appears reasonable, at something like 1/15th of what it was in 2000; a much more sustainable position, and one that reflects much less crack smoking by the investment community. I'd say they have some legs left in them.
Or you could be a middle aged, Bush-voting, ex-military, pickup truck owning redstater, basically your uber anti-hippie, and still ride a bicycle to work.
True enough. There are people who do the "right thing" because they find it expedient, rather than because they are aware of or interested in the consequences of not doing the "right thing".
In any case, if you ride your bike to work, you are a de facto environmentalist. You are helping, in a small way, to keep the world a cleaner place for yourself and your family. So, go on, you crazy treehugger, you!
I doubt implementing the filtering would save any money, actually. It would probably cost money.
No, no, no; you don't understand. Sure, it might appear that it will cost taxpayers money, but that's not true. It will only cost Texas taxpayers money. Besides, the fact that Texans will pay money for this service will be offset by the fact that the makers of internet filtering software will receive money.
So you see? This is a valuable "service", provided to the public for "free".
From the article:
Actually, 10 percent of this group is not a small number. Neither is the 27 percent already running Linux. This research was certainly not funded by Linux. Info-Tech is not calling this tiny; the author of the article is.
On the other hand, against the backdrop of what he believes to be more than one quarter of medium-sized businesses found to be using Linux, he concludes:
The eWeek article author's translation of Linux being used by 27% (and growing) of medium-sized businesses into "Linux is barely on the radar" and "In most American businesses, competition between Microsoft and Linux just doesn't exist" is exactly what Microsoft surely didn't pay for. (Or did they?)
If you're fishing around in your pocket, it's not easy to distinguish them.
Consider that, fishing around in your pocket, a $1 bill bears a striking resemblance to a $50 bill, $20 bill, $10 bill, $5 bill, and $2 bill. Does this make the $1 bill difficult to use or identify?
Numerous people, including myself, use $1 coins on a not regular basis without the "Three Stooges"-esque difficulty you describe. I have never in my life had someone question the validity of a $1 coin that I have used (including the Eisenhower, Susan B Anthony, and Sacagawea coins).
How is this possible? The $1 coins are all easily distinguishable from the quarter. Vending machines that will not take $1 coins, well, won't take them, so no problem there. The only potential problems are with recipients who are ignorant and therefore doesn't realize that there is such a thing as a $1 coin, and people who are too lazy to actually look at the coins they are using as payment.
I agree the educational systems may have some impact; probably more than many people realize. But, does this reflect the educational system of the countries, or the universities?
Consider this:
China has a population of 1,298,847,624 (July 2004 est.), and produced the team in 1st place.
Russia has a population of 143,782,338 (July 2004 est.) and produced the teams in 2nd and 3rd place.
Canada has a population of 32,507,874 (July 2004 est.) and produced the team in 4th place.
I would expect China could take one of the top prizes, as it has the largest potential pool of contestants. Russia's showing is impressive by comparison; with 1/9 as many potential contestants as China, Russia took two top honors. However, with less than 1/4 the population pool of Russia (1/40 that of China) Canada took fourth place, beating out everyone else.
Are Canadians just smarter? Is the Canadian educational system that far superiour to all the other countries on earth, with the possible exception of Russia?
I, for one, welcome our new poutine-eating overlords.
Well, okay, the likely answer is that the universities that took top prizes are, in fact (as others have speculated), focused on the programming contest. For example, this is the 13th consecutive time the team from University of Waterloo has competed in the finals, which they have won twice. This is clearly an ongoing showcase for the computer science program at University of Waterloo (their achievement is announced on the top-level web page for the university).
Keep in mind also that the other teams who competed in the finals represent many of the finest computer science programs in the world. To make the point, the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kyoto University, the University of Alberta, and 8 other extraordinary schools tied for a rank of 29 with 4 problems solved. Are they just relatively inferiour programmers? Extremely unlikely.
Of course, there's another possible answer:
The air conditioning at the contest was extremely cold, and only the students from that University who trained for that environment and those from super-cold climates (Russia and Canada) were able to work unimpeded. Sounds crazy, I know, but think about it....
The 1984 references are getting very, very tired. Not every bleak occurance is an appropriate occasion to invoke Orwell (or Huxley, or whoever else). Having read a classic book does not make you clever. Lamenting over our tragically totalitarian Amerikan state is not political activism, it's melodramatic whinging. Don't get me wrong; this kind of news gets me as mad as any of you, if not more so. I'm quite a rabid, volatile little libertarian. But please, your radical ideas about life imitating art have already occured to others. Get over yourselves.
I feel compelled to suggest that, in the examples you mention, art was representing life, in which case, it is strange to say that in our current circumstance, life is imitating art. Rather, life is becoming similar to former life.
The current situation is simply a case of well known political tactics being used again as they have at times in the past. However, more people are familiar with the literary works representing those tactics than with the history of their use. Thus, the references to the literature are not really inappropriate.
IBM also has a legion of lawyers to help them distinguish how to work in a GPL'd environment and yet keep as much of their IP close to home as possible. Firms in developing countries for the most part are denied this luxury. What happens if an company in Uganda develops a product / service that has real value to the world at large, and the IBMs or SCOs of the world note that it has included GPL'd code and sue "on behalf of the GPL".
The following is not legal advice:
I infer this is intended to present a rhetorical argument, but it is not coherent. Certainly, if a company in Uganda wants to develop a GPL application, they are free to do so as long as they comply with the rules outlined in the GPL. If this is meant to suggest that a company in Uganda would be, due to their ignorance, more likely to violate the GPL by using GPL code in their own non-GPL product, it would be no different than if they used non-GPL source code taken without permission from software copyrighted by another company. Either way, it is a simple violation of the author's copyright.
I don't concur with the condescending view that the presumed ignorance or inability to understand the license exists more in undeveloped countries than developed ones.
Furthermore, IBM or SCO have no standing to sue "on behalf of the GPL." The GPL is a license, not an entity requiring legal assistance. However, IBM or SCO could sue if they owned copyrights for the GPL code in question, just as if the code were not under the GPL.