If I had said Neisseria Meningitidis most people whould have been at a loss.
You could have said "... I'd grown the bacteria that causes meningitis" and been both accurate and clear. Don't sacrifice accuracy in some ill-conceived attempt to improve clarity. It doesn't work and it makes you look either careless or incompetent.
You failed to define documentation, which is the key point. Documentation:
The act or an instance of the supplying of documents or supporting references or records.
The documents or references so supplied.
Additionally documentation usually refers to material that is considered factual and true, rather than fictional, particularly when used to refer to film. The argument that some people make against Moore's works (and I haven't seen any of them so I have no opinion) is that he consciously presents evidence that is not true. That would disqualify those works from being documentaries.
Seiko Epson's 40" is a prototype, with commercialization (ie production) expected in 2007. Seiko have not said what the actual production size or resolution will be. Samsung's 17" is also a prototype, but is much closer to production. Size, resolution, and other specifications are already determined and you will be able to buy it next year. the Seiko product is much more vapourous so I give this round to Samsung.
The question is, will Google make money to stay afloat?
Google make plenty of money now. They made about $100M profit last year on revenue of nearly $1B. There is no reason to expect that to drop after the IPO. The real question is will Google's profits match the expectations generated by their share price?
Fraud: a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
If you don't think that losing the fair use rights you've had in the past is unfair, then fine. If they knowingly deceive congresscritters to get the laws "adjusted" in their favour it's fraud. It may not be possible to prosecute them for it, but it's certainly not their right to commit it.
What is the alternative to doing this?...
So if you stole it, it should be considered a lost sale, as you obviously wanted the music but chose to steal it instead of buying it.
Bullshit. I want a Lamborghini Murciélago. If I go out and steal one from a dealer that is not a lost sale because even though I wanted it I was never going to buy it. Same thing with music. A pirated CD is not automatically a lost sale, it is only a lost potential sale. There is a vast chasm between a reasonable and realistic estimate of lost sales due to piracy and assuming that every pirated CD worth of music is $20 of lost revenue for the publishers. That the RIAA persist is pushing their obvious false view of the piracy situation underscores their own dishonesty and deceit.
There are some people for whom freedom is what it's all about; a mediocre but free tool is better than a more powerful non-free tool. It is from that faction that the controversy over bitkeeper comes.
It's funny that that particular faction seems to want to impose their views on Linus, rather than respecting his freedom to use whatever tools he likes.
You've missed a pivotal nuance. It doesn't say you can't use bitkeeper to work on such a system; it says that if you use bitkeeper, you're not allowed to work on such a system AT ALL. That is, it prevents you from doing so even when you're not using BK.
You're right that my wording was sloppy. The license says "we'll give you BK for free, unless you are a competitor to our business". Specifically:
Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this License is not available to You if You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reasonable opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper Software.
Note that this is the other way round from what you stated - it doesn't say that if you use BK you can't work on competing systesm, it says that you can't use BK under the free license if you work on competing systems.
That clause is really aimed at making sure any free software replacement isn't just a straight ripoff of BK. A commercial competitor will just pay for a commercial license. McVoy feels they have a right to protect themselves from a free software replacement specifically because they support the community via their free license, and their support for projects such as the kernel and MySQL. I don't think that is at all unreasonable. IMHO this is one of those situations where the open source community appears to believe that they are entitled to a free lunch.
I think that what bothers me is that the Kernel developers agreed to use BK, putting some others in this uncomfortable situation.
Why? It didn't stop anyone contributing. Linus will always accept email patches. It's just a tool that some kernel developers are able to use and a very small minority are not (and that's not even true as they could buy a license). Even those that don't use it gain some benefit from it via Linus' increased productivity, and can use the web and CVS interfaces to it.
Don't forget that at the time there was no viable alternative. Now Arch or Subversion may be reasonable alternatives that would provide most or all of the advantages of BK, but they weren't ready for the mainstream 2 years ago. It was BK or nothing. As it was it took a lot of convincing to get Linus to try it as he was pretty sceptical that any version control system could be unobtrusive enough to be worth using.
IIRC, the "not for BK competitor" is for the free version, the paid version has no such restrictions.
Which is the one used for Kernel development, if I'm not mistaken...
It's irrelevant what license other kernel developers are using. If you want to contribute to a BK competitor and the kernel you need to either pay for BK, not use BK, or ask Larry nicely for an exception (which he has said he's willing to consider in individual cases). I can't see anything wrong with that policy.
I usually don't, butif you read the BK license, you will notice that it disallows you to work on competitors (including CVS and subversion) if you are a BK user.
The BK restriction only applies if you are using the free license. You can do whatever you like if you pay for it. Basically: "we'll give you BK for free, but you're not to use it to undermine our business". Seems fair to me.
Surely C++ must rate as the least well understand language of all time.... There are only two areas where I fear C++ for program correctness....
The four languages I use regularly are C, C++, PHP, and Perl.
I wonder if you'd be so forgiving of C++'s flaws if you used an alternative, well designed OO language as much. I didn't used to mind C++ at all, but then I learnt Java and Sather, and now I avoid C++ wherever possible.
You're forgetting about a little project called "Apollo".
You're forgetting about the two week stipulation. The Apollo mission launch dates:
Apollo 7: October 11, 1968
Apollo 8: December 21, 1968
Apollo 9: March 3, 1969
Apollo 10: May 18, 1969
Apollo 11: July 16, 1969
Apollo 12: November 14, 1969
Apollo 13: April 11, 1970
Apollo 14: January 31, 1971
Apollo 15: July 26, 1971
Apollo 16: April 16, 1972
Apollo 17: December 7, 1972
The Apollo program only once managed two launches of different vehicles in two months, let alone two launches of the same vehicle in two weeks. Still they did a bit more than a 100km up and down so we can't complain.
I think the major entrants have all spent more than $10,000.000
Some of them certainly. The Scaled Composites project has a budget several times that from what I've heard. John Carmack and Armadillo were planning on a budget of less than $2M, though.
Hmmm... Lemme guess you forgot to install the last 200 securtiy patches. looks like an average install.
Ha! No, I do keep up with the patches. But of course they replace existing files rather than adding new ones so they wouldn't change much. One thing the helps the size of XP and 2000 is that the profile directories have been moved out of the system directory.
I said most compact flash cards can't transfer above USB 1.1 speeds. CF cards over 16x are quite pricey (double the price) and generally considered to be 'Professional'.
Take a look at 64MB cards. Transcend's 45x card is $22, $6 more expensive than the cheapest card they sell. Check out pricewatch.com for more of the same. Can you can back up your statement that most CF cards are slower than 16x with real data? Because everything I've come across says that cards that slow are rare. Transcend don't even manufacture anything slower than 30x.
You are way out of date. I use a Transcend 256MB 30x CF card with my camera and it transfers several times quicker over a USB2 connection than a USB1 connection. I bought it 9 months ago, today Transcend's cards are 45x. Kingston's Elite Pro range transfer at 5.2MB per second, well over 3 times USB1.1's 12Mbps. SanDisk's Ultra II CF cards claim a minimum sustained write speed of 9MBps. That's megabytes not megabits.
That's great if you bought Intel shares in 1986. I didn't though, and I don't have a DeLorean, so recent performance is far more meaningful than historic performance.
Can you provide references that these are accurate average installation sizes? I'm running XP here and the Windows folder is 1.5GB, which happens to be the Microsoft suggested system requirement. And where are WinNT and 2000? XP didn't follow 98 so the alleged 5x increase between them doesn't mean anything.
According to microsoft.com (KB 304297) the requirements I've found are:
Win95: 50MB
Win98SE: 195MB
WinME: 320MB
Also interesting that WETA Digital is listed as #44 on the list too, huh? They only listed a Xeon cluster though with 1080 processors. (prolly not be the same machine, but...).
Did you notice that they are also listed at #48? Adding another 1000 processors to those two clusters might well result in top 10 performance.
Slashdot Mirror
- The act or an instance of the supplying of documents or supporting references or records.
- The documents or references so supplied.
Additionally documentation usually refers to material that is considered factual and true, rather than fictional, particularly when used to refer to film. The argument that some people make against Moore's works (and I haven't seen any of them so I have no opinion) is that he consciously presents evidence that is not true. That would disqualify those works from being documentaries.No.
If you don't think that losing the fair use rights you've had in the past is unfair, then fine. If they knowingly deceive congresscritters to get the laws "adjusted" in their favour it's fraud. It may not be possible to prosecute them for it, but it's certainly not their right to commit it.
That clause is really aimed at making sure any free software replacement isn't just a straight ripoff of BK. A commercial competitor will just pay for a commercial license. McVoy feels they have a right to protect themselves from a free software replacement specifically because they support the community via their free license, and their support for projects such as the kernel and MySQL. I don't think that is at all unreasonable. IMHO this is one of those situations where the open source community appears to believe that they are entitled to a free lunch.
Don't forget that at the time there was no viable alternative. Now Arch or Subversion may be reasonable alternatives that would provide most or all of the advantages of BK, but they weren't ready for the mainstream 2 years ago. It was BK or nothing. As it was it took a lot of convincing to get Linus to try it as he was pretty sceptical that any version control system could be unobtrusive enough to be worth using.
- Apollo 7: October 11, 1968
- Apollo 8: December 21, 1968
- Apollo 9: March 3, 1969
- Apollo 10: May 18, 1969
- Apollo 11: July 16, 1969
- Apollo 12: November 14, 1969
- Apollo 13: April 11, 1970
- Apollo 14: January 31, 1971
- Apollo 15: July 26, 1971
- Apollo 16: April 16, 1972
- Apollo 17: December 7, 1972
The Apollo program only once managed two launches of different vehicles in two months, let alone two launches of the same vehicle in two weeks. Still they did a bit more than a 100km up and down so we can't complain.You are way out of date. I use a Transcend 256MB 30x CF card with my camera and it transfers several times quicker over a USB2 connection than a USB1 connection. I bought it 9 months ago, today Transcend's cards are 45x. Kingston's Elite Pro range transfer at 5.2MB per second, well over 3 times USB1.1's 12Mbps. SanDisk's Ultra II CF cards claim a minimum sustained write speed of 9MBps. That's megabytes not megabits.
Perhaps the face reflected in the mirror is someone standing beside the holder of the mirror?
That's great if you bought Intel shares in 1986. I didn't though, and I don't have a DeLorean, so recent performance is far more meaningful than historic performance.
According to microsoft.com (KB 304297) the requirements I've found are:
Win95: 50MB
Win98SE: 195MB
WinME: 320MB
WinNT Workstation: 110MB
Win2K Workstation: 650MB
WinXP Pro: 1.5GB
Clearly there is an upward trend but your 4-500% increase is bullshit.
And yet over the last five years you'd have made more money in AMD than in Intel (graph).