I agree with you. The graphs seem perfectly all right to me. Rescaling the y-axis seems like a very sensible thing to do, because you would otherwise get a large white space on the second graph - just because the second computer is roughly two times faster than the first.
It would be a terrible abuse of graphs if the point was to compare the two computers, but I don't believe it was.
Yeah, that, and the 1024 computer limit to SMB workgroups (at least at that time). I remember many strange hacks on The Gathering to let us browse shares even if there were well above 5000 computers there, and the LAN consisted of pretty isolated LANs on each switch. But they made it. Incredible program, really.
The difference is that OSX is in no monopoly position, while Windows is. It is not illegal to bundle non-related products normally. When you're in a monopoly situation, it is.
Perhaps funny, but not insightful. It is nothing socialist about intrusion of privacy. Socialism is an economic model. Communism, on the other hand, would be relevant.
Neoliberal is European for neoconservative. In Europe, the liberals are traditionally the most market-oriented. In the US, it has been the conservatives (ie. the Republicans). Quite confusing.
This is probably more of a result of the way the media works. When do Slashdot publish writeups on Stallman? When he complains about something. Almost everyone who get attention are either complaining or some kind of entertainment superstar.
For all we know, Richard Stallman might be sitting on a chair enjoying life ninety-nine out of a hundred days.
On a more serious note: There is a rather grave difference between being pleased personally, and being pleased professionally. Stallman is professionally known to be a man of great demands and little compromise. It's probably because the wrong questions are asked that we never hear about him being pleased. Personally, I think he's quite a pleased guy.
This does NOT, however, mean that he can stand up and basically spout off that the world needs to be "free" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is actually in business.
Has it ever occurred to you that he might not be aiming to persuade those "in business"?
Your ideas aren't particularly new or revolutionizing, stating that everything should be owned by those who make it and nothing can be free. Maybe that's why nobody listens to you, while a lot of us listen to Stallman for an interesting opinion. While his system is unlikely to be the next world order, his predictions on the advance of FOSS seems to be quite spot-on.
You do know they don't have to keep the same price and margin in Europe as in other countries? Rise prices by 20%, and the loss is gone. Assuming they really are a monopoly, it wouldn't hurt sales more than 5-10% either.
Oh, Jesus Christ, please. What I was saying was thayt it was the Red Hat business model - ie. how RedHat makes money - that Microsoft might seem fit. I did not imply RedHat is evil, RedHat is Microsoft, Linux is Windows or anything like it. I said Microsoft might want to earn money by subscription, just like RedHat earns money by subscription. That's the similarity, period.
Obviously, MS can't earn anything similar to their current cash flow if they gave away their OS for free.
The point of this security focus article - if you actually read it - is that MS might be going for a subscription-based licensing in the long run. See, you don't pay for Windows, MS Anti-Spyware and MS Anti-Virus, you pay to subscribe to all these, software upgrades and security patches.
That means MS could: a) make people more aware that they are paying for patches, making it more probable that they will use them; b) be able to roll out new OS upgrades instantly, and avoid having to support WinXP far into the 2020-ies; c) hunt pirates more effectively; and d) make shitloads of cash also on people who don't need cutting-edge updates.
It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows, and I think there are compelling reasons for Microsoft to make it this way. After all, MS can't live with the fact that many home users still use Win98 (think of all the lost revenue!)
A _slight_ difference between someone being fined $10k and you being paid $10k. OTOH, if you live in Australia, the money goes to the State - and you are the State! So, you do get the money.
Well, a voting scheme which encourages multiple similar candidates can't be made in a single election round. If you have candidates A, B and C, and all who votes for A would choose B instead of C, but voters who vote for B would be more split between C or A if B would be eradicated (this is made to be similar to a Nader - Democrat - Republican setup), your system with only a single round an the electoral college makes it really stupid to vote for A. A system which uses several rounds if no candidate gets 50% of non-blank votes would make it possible to vote for your primary candidate first, no tactics involved. Then, candidate A or B gets eradicated because he has the fewest votes, and A-fans can vote their secondary B.
Of course, no voting system is perfect, and every voting system is in some way or another "unfair". The american presidential system, however, strikes me as more than usual unfair, especially towards third- and fourth-party candidates. With this system the reasonable thing A should do in a single election, if you prefer B instead of C, is to not run. In the long run, that might make it impossible for any candidate other than B and C to run.
I did not imply that Linux was bullet proof. I'm just astonished that you can get privilege escalation through just a userland application run by an unprivileged user! Almost all privilege escalation loopholes I've seen come from exploiting holes in processes running as some kind of privileged user.
Well, I'm Norwegian, and we have seven parties in parliament, and even three others who are close to getting a seat. This undoubtedly presents the voter with a choice much more fine-grained than a two-party elevtion does.
The problem - as I see it - is that with the electoral system etc. the two parties get this deadlock situation for free: I, as a voter, wouldn't vaste my vote on a party that wouldn't win, before everyone else did as well.
That is taken care of by a representational vote. For the president of the United States, it seems reasonable. In presidential elections, you demand more than 50% of non-blank votes for one candidate, and make several rounds until such majority is gained. The same - or at least similar - structure can be used in other elections. Let the distribution of seats by proportionate to the share of votes the parties got country-wide.
. If you're running Linux and have gcc installed, and some remote site gets arbitrary code to run under the browser's account, it'll be able to download a script/binary that compiles a program which allows privilege elevation.
What? In what way does that program work, and how on earth is it used? Are you sitting there - on your own - knowing about severe security flaws in Linux?
The real problem, from my point of view, is the fact that we have a country divided enough that we have 51/49 elections. There's just no way to win with any sort of majority-rules system.
That could be due to the fact that the candidates and parties of power are so similar that they have a genuine interest in keeping themselves as the only two real alternatives? Ever thought of that, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you. The graphs seem perfectly all right to me. Rescaling the y-axis seems like a very sensible thing to do, because you would otherwise get a large white space on the second graph - just because the second computer is roughly two times faster than the first.
It would be a terrible abuse of graphs if the point was to compare the two computers, but I don't believe it was.
There are many to register: Apptel, InApple (uhm), AI, InAp, aPint, iApp, InApt etc.
It sounds like nipple. It is Intel with the only friendly user interface.
Yeah, that, and the 1024 computer limit to SMB workgroups (at least at that time). I remember many strange hacks on The Gathering to let us browse shares even if there were well above 5000 computers there, and the LAN consisted of pretty isolated LANs on each switch. But they made it. Incredible program, really.
The difference is that OSX is in no monopoly position, while Windows is. It is not illegal to bundle non-related products normally. When you're in a monopoly situation, it is.
There is almost a direct one-to-one correlation between doing homework and excelling in classes.
I have lots of anecdotal evidence that this is bullshit. I have better grades than many, many of those who did homework in upper secondary.Perhaps funny, but not insightful. It is nothing socialist about intrusion of privacy. Socialism is an economic model. Communism, on the other hand, would be relevant.
Neoliberal is European for neoconservative. In Europe, the liberals are traditionally the most market-oriented. In the US, it has been the conservatives (ie. the Republicans). Quite confusing.
This is probably more of a result of the way the media works. When do Slashdot publish writeups on Stallman? When he complains about something. Almost everyone who get attention are either complaining or some kind of entertainment superstar.
For all we know, Richard Stallman might be sitting on a chair enjoying life ninety-nine out of a hundred days.
On a more serious note: There is a rather grave difference between being pleased personally, and being pleased professionally. Stallman is professionally known to be a man of great demands and little compromise. It's probably because the wrong questions are asked that we never hear about him being pleased. Personally, I think he's quite a pleased guy.
This does NOT, however, mean that he can stand up and basically spout off that the world needs to be "free" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is actually in business.
Has it ever occurred to you that he might not be aiming to persuade those "in business"?
Your ideas aren't particularly new or revolutionizing, stating that everything should be owned by those who make it and nothing can be free. Maybe that's why nobody listens to you, while a lot of us listen to Stallman for an interesting opinion. While his system is unlikely to be the next world order, his predictions on the advance of FOSS seems to be quite spot-on.
Yeah, deprecated as in "60% of Windows users use it".
Haven't downloaded a single time (just from the ubuntu servers), so it's 15 million and one.
Good idea! Especially when these police officers fall asleep, and someone steal their gun.
You do know they don't have to keep the same price and margin in Europe as in other countries? Rise prices by 20%, and the loss is gone. Assuming they really are a monopoly, it wouldn't hurt sales more than 5-10% either.
Oh, Jesus Christ, please. What I was saying was thayt it was the Red Hat business model - ie. how RedHat makes money - that Microsoft might seem fit. I did not imply RedHat is evil, RedHat is Microsoft, Linux is Windows or anything like it. I said Microsoft might want to earn money by subscription, just like RedHat earns money by subscription. That's the similarity, period.
Obviously, MS can't earn anything similar to their current cash flow if they gave away their OS for free.
The point of this security focus article - if you actually read it - is that MS might be going for a subscription-based licensing in the long run. See, you don't pay for Windows, MS Anti-Spyware and MS Anti-Virus, you pay to subscribe to all these, software upgrades and security patches.
That means MS could: a) make people more aware that they are paying for patches, making it more probable that they will use them; b) be able to roll out new OS upgrades instantly, and avoid having to support WinXP far into the 2020-ies; c) hunt pirates more effectively; and d) make shitloads of cash also on people who don't need cutting-edge updates.
It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows, and I think there are compelling reasons for Microsoft to make it this way. After all, MS can't live with the fact that many home users still use Win98 (think of all the lost revenue!)
And you probably wonder why they break up?
So, I take it you're against this "regulation" imposed by the w3c to enclose paragraphs in <p> tags?
A _slight_ difference between someone being fined $10k and you being paid $10k. OTOH, if you live in Australia, the money goes to the State - and you are the State! So, you do get the money.
Because normal software updates are initiated by software, which is installed sometime, and therefore can inform the user. Not difficult at all.
Well, a voting scheme which encourages multiple similar candidates can't be made in a single election round. If you have candidates A, B and C, and all who votes for A would choose B instead of C, but voters who vote for B would be more split between C or A if B would be eradicated (this is made to be similar to a Nader - Democrat - Republican setup), your system with only a single round an the electoral college makes it really stupid to vote for A. A system which uses several rounds if no candidate gets 50% of non-blank votes would make it possible to vote for your primary candidate first, no tactics involved. Then, candidate A or B gets eradicated because he has the fewest votes, and A-fans can vote their secondary B.
Of course, no voting system is perfect, and every voting system is in some way or another "unfair". The american presidential system, however, strikes me as more than usual unfair, especially towards third- and fourth-party candidates. With this system the reasonable thing A should do in a single election, if you prefer B instead of C, is to not run. In the long run, that might make it impossible for any candidate other than B and C to run.
I did not imply that Linux was bullet proof. I'm just astonished that you can get privilege escalation through just a userland application run by an unprivileged user! Almost all privilege escalation loopholes I've seen come from exploiting holes in processes running as some kind of privileged user.
Well, I'm Norwegian, and we have seven parties in parliament, and even three others who are close to getting a seat. This undoubtedly presents the voter with a choice much more fine-grained than a two-party elevtion does. The problem - as I see it - is that with the electoral system etc. the two parties get this deadlock situation for free: I, as a voter, wouldn't vaste my vote on a party that wouldn't win, before everyone else did as well. That is taken care of by a representational vote. For the president of the United States, it seems reasonable. In presidential elections, you demand more than 50% of non-blank votes for one candidate, and make several rounds until such majority is gained. The same - or at least similar - structure can be used in other elections. Let the distribution of seats by proportionate to the share of votes the parties got country-wide.
. If you're running Linux and have gcc installed, and some remote site gets arbitrary code to run under the browser's account, it'll be able to download a script/binary that compiles a program which allows privilege elevation.
What? In what way does that program work, and how on earth is it used? Are you sitting there - on your own - knowing about severe security flaws in Linux?
The real problem, from my point of view, is the fact that we have a country divided enough that we have 51/49 elections. There's just no way to win with any sort of majority-rules system.
That could be due to the fact that the candidates and parties of power are so similar that they have a genuine interest in keeping themselves as the only two real alternatives? Ever thought of that, huh?