Well, remember one thing: The clock speed IS significant in the speed of a computer. A 1Ghz processor is generally faster than a 100Mhz processor. We are talking about 20-30% differences here, so the consumers are not THAT misled.
Considering that P4s are competitive with Athlons running about 2/3 rds their speed (see benchmarks on any web site, such as Anandtech's review of the P4 2Ghz), people who believe that megahertz are the only indicator of processor speed are in fact misled. You don't account for a 33% difference in Mhz (or 50% from AMD's perspective) by saying "oops". Architecture as much (or more?) than clock speed. See the UltraSPARC's SpecFP numbers for an example of this.
Of course, the biggest lie is the hardware marketers who try to convince everyone that they need 2.0 Ghz. To even try to sell the average joe a 1+ Ghz box has to involve some kind of misleading by the salesman:) None of the speeds in which a P4 is available should matter to more than 1% or so of the population, so I have to wonder why it's such a big deal.
I get the feeling that the people who will be playing this game might need something more valuable...soap!
Historically, that's probably true of the actual pirates too. Or maybe the way they smelled was part of their game plan, i.e. "Full speed ahead mateys! They'll be killed by our stench before we're in range of their cannons!"
Although I agree that money isn't the only problem with America's schools, this statement just isn't logical. Just because one terrible school spends lots of money and still sucks doesn't mean that it doesn't need to spend lots of money. Perhaps you need to both spend money and do other things to improve schools, which they haven't done in Washington D.C.. Have they wasted that money on unproven teaching techniques (like buying lots of computers) and not on hiring better-educated teachers and reducing class sizes, for example?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Remember "neccesary" and "sufficient" from your Philosophy and/or Logic classes? Money may not be "sufficient" for improving education in America's schools, but it may still be "necessary". In other words, just because money alone isn't enough to improve our schools doesn't mean that it's not a required part of the improvement process. So please don't rule out the benefits of giving more money to schools until you can prove that money isn't a necessary part of improving American schools.
I'm a bit surprised by that comment about the sales of all Linux games ever. It's probably true, but also misleading. Given that id releases binaries for non-Windows platforms (which we do appreciate, by the way!), but no boxed sets for those platforms, how can anyone possibly know how many Linux users are (legally) using those games by downloading the binary? By saying "Linux game sales", I expect Mr. Carmack very strictly meant sales of boxed sets. But I expect that this clarification takes the edge off that "it isn't an economic motivator" comment, though. Does anyone really know how many Linux users bought Quake III because someone at id developed a Linux binary? This is why such a comment may be misleading.
By itself I'm sure my quibble is just a minor point, yet I've seen this point made so many times on LinuxGames, SlashDot, and other sites and newsgroups. Sometimes I just get the feeling that the people at the game development houses just aren't paying attention to us:) What's really surprising, though, is the occasional evidence that some of these people may not realize this themselves! For example, Loki should know that you can't sell Quake III for $50 when it's just $20 in the stores...
Since DirectX is really a set of APIs (DirectDraw, DirectInput, etc.) I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. When we talk about OpenGL, of course we're only talking about a graphics API. Haven't you heard of OpenAL? It's a complementary open audio API. There's even an input API called OpenIL, and more? My point is, if you aren't going to compare MS's set of APIs to another complete set of APIs, like SDL, then at least compare it to the entire set of Open*L APIs. As new as some of them are, they do exist!
Let's see. Everybody who feels guilty buys 3 games. That means Loki might make a little extra dough to stay around for a little longer. But what's the difference? As harsh as it may seem, Loki is a business and as such they have to make money. [more arguments deleted...]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your argument basically assume that the market for Linux games is never going to get better? Yes, if Loki is losing money now, and things never get better, then saving them once by buying a lot of games won't help much. But if they manage to stick around a bit longer, and the market improves, then they might just make money and not die.
Unless you're capable of predicting how the Linux game market will change, you can't assume that Loki won't start making money tomorrow (or in six months, etc). The economy is getting worse, but high-end hardware (especially memory) is getting cheaper too. So who knows, really?
I not only second this motion, but want to add something. The posting on The Linux Review says they owe $430,000. That's more money than I have, but we're not talking about millions here, people. How many games is that, really? If all the Linux users on SlashDot bought one game, I bet that'd make them break even. So I say, go out there and directly help a company which has directly helped the Linux community.
Well first of all, if you have the flu, the measles and the chicken pox all at once, you don't say "Hey, who cares if I catch pneumonia!" Just because you have lots of problems doesn't mean that it;s okay to have more.
If anything, the establishment of mining and factories will add stability to the region, since the companies want to protect their money and investment.
Secondly, did you actually read the article? There are no companies. There are no factories. And those mines are holes in the ground dug by people (roughly organized into "camps"). It's still anarchy, not good financial planning.
Besides, you only get to mine your natural resources once, then they're gone. The article says that the money from coltan mining is not going into infrastructure like schools and roads. So what happens when the coltan is gone? Evenyone's actually worse off than they started, because there's no more money to be made by mining, and you've gained nothing that can increase the country's wealth in the long run (like schools!) in return.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Congo been mined for diamonds for 100+ years now? Has it done any good? Why do you think the coltan situation will be different?
Re:Yet another uninformative top-level post.
on
Rhythms Flatlines
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps he was a Rhythyms customer and had to post it quickly?
I suspect the point of using ASN.1 is not to "speed up the Internet" per se, but rather to deal with certain specific bottlenecks. Example, cell phones can transmit data at, what, 28.8Kbaud? Wireless links in general tend to be a bit slow nowadays. Anyway, the point is, if you have a bunch of devices (say, Bluetooth based) which need to send XML data to one another and have limited bandwidth, then using that limited bandwidth as efficiently as possible might just be a good idea. I bet that's the sort of thing that ASN.1 would be useful for.
Interesting post you've pointed to at isp-lists, if it is accurate. However, you do realize that the post is talking about costs related to DSL in Canada, right? Also, where are the references for the claims made in the post in question? Speculation based on a speculation doesn't count for much.
Aw, c'mon, the hunting accident theory isn't so ridiculous.
As a side note, would all the pre-historic weaponry experts on SlashDot please stand up? Any Anthropologists here? No? Yeah, that's what I thought. We're all giving uninformed opinions pal - you, me and everyone else.
Exactly! They'd never release the source code for an OS which has 90% of its market, but an OS which is clearly non-dominant in its market, no problem. Perhaps they saw how so many companies were using starting to use Linux in embedded devices, exactly because they had access to the source and could customize the hell out of it, and decided to try something similar in a market where they had little to lose?
Aw, c'mon moderators. If this isn't the most perfect example of a Troll I've ever seen. Zero facts, lots of insults, and it's not really even on topic (as Dmitry isn't American, the constitution probably has nothing to do with this situation - arresting a foreigner is a matter of international law!) So please, someone tell me, why does this have a score of 5?! (as of 2:46pm PST on Saturday)
I think you missed the point. The irony is that I wanted to view a presentation on decoding a file format, and couldn't because I didn't have the software to decode the file format the presentation is in.
Why is it so hard to understand that this is a useful feature and helpful to establishing this OS as a useable alternative?
In a word, OS/2. Windows support probably seemed like a good idea to IBM in 1995, but OS/2 died anyway, and some people say that supporting the Windows API was part of the problem - why write software for OS/2 when you can write it for Windows and everyone can use it? So could the same thing happen with ActiveX support on Linux? Could this support hurt other open technologies like Java?
Okay, the KDE/ActiveX situation may be different. Maybe supporting an MS technology isn't so bad in this case. But then again, supporting.NET would pretty obviously be bad for Linux, right? Perhaps support for ActiveX would be as bad as that. Who knows?
So basically, no it's not "obvious" that supporting this particular MS technology is a good thing! And I suspect that this is why people are still arguing about it.
You don't know much about guns. But that's OK; I'll clue you in.
The first statement is true:) The second is as well.
A.22 is a very low-powered weapon. Unless your shot placement is very precise, you are unlikely to quickly incapacitate someone by shooting them with a.22. (Just to clear things up, by "shot placement" I mean being able to hit them in a vital area -- head or heart.)
Funny, that was exactly my point - a.22 will scare or hurt a person without doing too much harm. Incidentally, does "incapacitate" mean "kill"? You're not talking about pepper-spray style "incapacitate", are you?
A firearm that imparts more kinetic energy to the target is more likely to stop the target quickly. If someone is attacking you and you need to stop them, it's important to do so quickly. You don't want them to get off a few more shots, or a few more swings, or a few more slashes. Shoot them with a.22 and that's likely to happen.
Does "stop" mean "kill" too?
Also, why is it that pro-gun descriptions of how a fight could go always sound like video games? Do you think the average criminal really wants a fight to the death, or are they more likely to run the second they see that you're armed?
If your life is on the line, and you actually need to shoot someone else -- you may as well do a good job of it. Unpleasant to think about but it's the truth.
I also notice that not one of the people who replied to my comment even mentioned stun guns, pepper spray, or other non-lethal weapons. "Self Defense" basically just means "shoot 'em dead" to you guys, doesn't it?
You guys know what the best way to deal with a burglar is? Get outside and get to a nearby house and call the police. The best self defense is generally "running fast", or at least avoiding conflict however you can. Assuming you actually want to defend yourself, that is. Maybe some people want to get into a fight with an armed opponent?
Perhaps we as a nation can't aim very well?
That's a ridiculous statement. Let's see how steady your hands are when your life is in danger from an attack of some kind. Sheesh.
It seems unlikely that you even know what a semiautomatic *is*. One pull, one shot, next round chambered. That's all.
You're right, I'm no expert. Still, it's not a stun gun, right? It's a gun designed to make firing multiple shots easier?
The British *do* shoot each other, incidentally.
You can tell that nobody believes I have half a brain when they take the time to point out things like this. I know that! But the crime rate in the U.S. is still higher than in the UK. That's all I claimed. Please don't read anything too ridiculous into what I wrote - I'm not a complete idiot.
You can place whatever value on your life that you choose. There is nothing that I have that is more valueable than my life. I will use whatever means available to me to preserve it.
I suspect you'll be in jail very soon, at least if you actually believe that every threatening person deserves to be killed. In the meantime, I do recommend you put more value on human life. Just because someone is threatening you doesn't mean that they deserve to die.
You seem to be ignoring the ethnic riots that have happened in Europe this week. Let us also not forget the Japanese man who killed 8 school children last month.
Rate = Events/Time. A "rate" refers to the number events that occur over a period of time, not just single events. Yes, I know that people in other countries commit violent acts. It would be stupid of me to deny that. But the violent crime rate in the U.S. is still the highest.
i remember after one of those school shootings somone on cnn was interviewing a person from britan. the lady said she couldnt understand why americans think we need guns.
Apparently, we need them to shoot each other, and the Brits don't. This realization seems to have taken flight from most Americans' minds. They seem to forget that burglars are human (and rarely armed) and that your gun can be used to blow other people (like you!) away too. Also, we seem to need huge guns (some people even argue for semi-automatics!) to shoot each other, not just simple.22's, or for that matter, stun guns or other non-fatal weapons. Perhaps we as a nation can't aim very well? And why is the violent crime rate lower everywhere in Europe (and Japan, and Australia, and basically every other first-world country)? Why don't the Brits need guns to shoot each other?
In general, I'd have to say that "Illustrator" is a lot more generic than "Vector Drawing Program". It could refer to a larger class of software, i.e. any old drawing program.
However, I suspect that it's not the "genericness" of a word which makes it an apropriate label. Proper names for humans are innately meaningless. The fact that a guy is named "John" tells me nothing. So I don't think that names are really supposed to describe the thing they refer to.
Of course, names can be descriptive to some degree (e.g. "Spot" for a dog with spots, like a Dalmation). For advertising purposes, having a vague relationship between product name and function probably helps - the name acts as a mnemonic! (But you don't have to go this route, e.g. "Freehand" for software to create an innately computer-based type of graphics.) Of course, using mnemonics then leads to exactly this sort of problem: "Word" is generic, "The GIMP" is not, and where does "Illustrator" fall again?
Do you know how companies deal with this problem? Put their company name in the product name, like a family name. It's "Corel Draw", "Microsoft Word", and "Adobe Illustrator".
If you don't issue any warning and come down on anybody who "infringes" like a ton of bricks, the number of repeat offenders is likely to be low.
I don't necessarily AGREE that this is anykind of infringement, but I can see how that might be their strategy.
This strategy also reduces competition, in that anyone who does infringe, or might infringe, or is afraid they might infringe, on an Adobe trademark (or who is paranoid or just cautious) will get scared and won't release their product.
So, anyone think that Adobe does, or might someday, trademark the concept of vector graphics and/or teh concept of vector graphics drawing software and/or the name of any vector graphics software or sub-component or feature of any vector graphics software and/or the "look and feel" of any vector graphics software or the above regarding any other aspect of any other Adobe product... etc. etc. etc.
As a community it would be best to let the matter drop. I'm sure if you were in Anne's position you'd be severely pissed. A little perspective and some empathy would be appropriate.
Would you care to defend that statement? Unless you have some inside knowledge as to Ms. Tomlinson's state of mind, I don't think that you're in a position to claim that "she would be severely pissed". It's not at all clear that not talking about the issue is the "empathic" thing to do. If Ms. Tomlinson was mistreated or something, then I suspect that exactly the opposite is the case.
Furthermore, sometimes events are worth talking about even if they are painful to discuss for those involved. If I found out that my employer had mistreated one of my co-workers, that's a problem that can affect all of us. Thus, the events are worth talking about (and in fact would be damn important to talk about!)
The problem here is that the people who know the most aren't talking. Rumors survive because nobody knows the truth. And since there's just enough information out there to make it look like something happened, the rumor is not going to die.
Perhaps nothing happened - we just don't know. However, if we stopped talking about problems just because someone withheld information, then people would start getting away with all sorts of nasty stuff. So, while we may not have the "right to know" (unless we're VA stockholders?), we still ought to know, and we're still right to ask about what's going on. If OSDN can't give all the details due to fear of lawsuits, then at least say that. But pretending that nothing has happened is wrong - at the very least, this rumor has happened, so someone might want to address it! (And yes, there are at least a few facts backing up the rumor, e.g. changes to the article, so it's not a pure crap rumor that can be ignored).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, remember one thing: The clock speed IS significant in the speed of a computer. A 1Ghz processor is generally faster than a 100Mhz processor. We are talking about 20-30% differences here, so the consumers are not THAT misled.
:) None of the speeds in which a P4 is available should matter to more than 1% or so of the population, so I have to wonder why it's such a big deal.
Considering that P4s are competitive with Athlons running about 2/3 rds their speed (see benchmarks on any web site, such as Anandtech's review of the P4 2Ghz), people who believe that megahertz are the only indicator of processor speed are in fact misled. You don't account for a 33% difference in Mhz (or 50% from AMD's perspective) by saying "oops". Architecture as much (or more?) than clock speed. See the UltraSPARC's SpecFP numbers for an example of this.
Of course, the biggest lie is the hardware marketers who try to convince everyone that they need 2.0 Ghz. To even try to sell the average joe a 1+ Ghz box has to involve some kind of misleading by the salesman
I get the feeling that the people who will be playing this game might need something more valuable...soap!
Historically, that's probably true of the actual pirates too. Or maybe the way they smelled was part of their game plan, i.e. "Full speed ahead mateys! They'll be killed by our stench before we're in range of their cannons!"
There are many problems; money isn't one of them.
Although I agree that money isn't the only problem with America's schools, this statement just isn't logical. Just because one terrible school spends lots of money and still sucks doesn't mean that it doesn't need to spend lots of money. Perhaps you need to both spend money and do other things to improve schools, which they haven't done in Washington D.C.. Have they wasted that money on unproven teaching techniques (like buying lots of computers) and not on hiring better-educated teachers and reducing class sizes, for example?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Remember "neccesary" and "sufficient" from your Philosophy and/or Logic classes? Money may not be "sufficient" for improving education in America's schools, but it may still be "necessary". In other words, just because money alone isn't enough to improve our schools doesn't mean that it's not a required part of the improvement process. So please don't rule out the benefits of giving more money to schools until you can prove that money isn't a necessary part of improving American schools.
I'm a bit surprised by that comment about the sales of all Linux games ever. It's probably true, but also misleading. Given that id releases binaries for non-Windows platforms (which we do appreciate, by the way!), but no boxed sets for those platforms, how can anyone possibly know how many Linux users are (legally) using those games by downloading the binary? By saying "Linux game sales", I expect Mr. Carmack very strictly meant sales of boxed sets. But I expect that this clarification takes the edge off that "it isn't an economic motivator" comment, though. Does anyone really know how many Linux users bought Quake III because someone at id developed a Linux binary? This is why such a comment may be misleading.
:) What's really surprising, though, is the occasional evidence that some of these people may not realize this themselves! For example, Loki should know that you can't sell Quake III for $50 when it's just $20 in the stores...
By itself I'm sure my quibble is just a minor point, yet I've seen this point made so many times on LinuxGames, SlashDot, and other sites and newsgroups. Sometimes I just get the feeling that the people at the game development houses just aren't paying attention to us
Oops, I thrashed some of those links. The OpenAL homepage is www.openal.org . The OpenIL homepage is openil.sourceforge.net .
OpenGL only offers graphics, dx offers: graphics, joystick, sound, forcefeedback, mousecapturing.
Since DirectX is really a set of APIs (DirectDraw, DirectInput, etc.) I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. When we talk about OpenGL, of course we're only talking about a graphics API. Haven't you heard of OpenAL? It's a complementary open audio API. There's even an input API called OpenIL, and more? My point is, if you aren't going to compare MS's set of APIs to another complete set of APIs, like SDL, then at least compare it to the entire set of Open*L APIs. As new as some of them are, they do exist!
Let's see. Everybody who feels guilty buys 3 games. That means Loki might make a little extra dough to stay around for a little longer. But what's the difference? As harsh as it may seem, Loki is a business and as such they have to make money. [more arguments deleted...]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your argument basically assume that the market for Linux games is never going to get better? Yes, if Loki is losing money now, and things never get better, then saving them once by buying a lot of games won't help much. But if they manage to stick around a bit longer, and the market improves, then they might just make money and not die.
Unless you're capable of predicting how the Linux game market will change, you can't assume that Loki won't start making money tomorrow (or in six months, etc). The economy is getting worse, but high-end hardware (especially memory) is getting cheaper too. So who knows, really?
I not only second this motion, but want to add something. The posting on The Linux Review says they owe $430,000. That's more money than I have, but we're not talking about millions here, people. How many games is that, really? If all the Linux users on SlashDot bought one game, I bet that'd make them break even. So I say, go out there and directly help a company which has directly helped the Linux community.
Well first of all, if you have the flu, the measles and the chicken pox all at once, you don't say "Hey, who cares if I catch pneumonia!" Just because you have lots of problems doesn't mean that it;s okay to have more.
If anything, the establishment of mining and factories will add stability to the region, since the companies want to protect their money and investment.
Secondly, did you actually read the article? There are no companies. There are no factories. And those mines are holes in the ground dug by people (roughly organized into "camps"). It's still anarchy, not good financial planning.
Besides, you only get to mine your natural resources once, then they're gone. The article says that the money from coltan mining is not going into infrastructure like schools and roads. So what happens when the coltan is gone? Evenyone's actually worse off than they started, because there's no more money to be made by mining, and you've gained nothing that can increase the country's wealth in the long run (like schools!) in return.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Congo been mined for diamonds for 100+ years now? Has it done any good? Why do you think the coltan situation will be different?
Perhaps he was a Rhythyms customer and had to post it quickly?
I suspect the point of using ASN.1 is not to "speed up the Internet" per se, but rather to deal with certain specific bottlenecks. Example, cell phones can transmit data at, what, 28.8Kbaud? Wireless links in general tend to be a bit slow nowadays. Anyway, the point is, if you have a bunch of devices (say, Bluetooth based) which need to send XML data to one another and have limited bandwidth, then using that limited bandwidth as efficiently as possible might just be a good idea. I bet that's the sort of thing that ASN.1 would be useful for.
Interesting post you've pointed to at isp-lists, if it is accurate. However, you do realize that the post is talking about costs related to DSL in Canada, right? Also, where are the references for the claims made in the post in question? Speculation based on a speculation doesn't count for much.
Aw, c'mon, the hunting accident theory isn't so ridiculous.
As a side note, would all the pre-historic weaponry experts on SlashDot please stand up? Any Anthropologists here? No? Yeah, that's what I thought. We're all giving uninformed opinions pal - you, me and everyone else.
Exactly! They'd never release the source code for an OS which has 90% of its market, but an OS which is clearly non-dominant in its market, no problem. Perhaps they saw how so many companies were using starting to use Linux in embedded devices, exactly because they had access to the source and could customize the hell out of it, and decided to try something similar in a market where they had little to lose?
Aw, c'mon moderators. If this isn't the most perfect example of a Troll I've ever seen. Zero facts, lots of insults, and it's not really even on topic (as Dmitry isn't American, the constitution probably has nothing to do with this situation - arresting a foreigner is a matter of international law!) So please, someone tell me, why does this have a score of 5?! (as of 2:46pm PST on Saturday)
I think you missed the point. The irony is that I wanted to view a presentation on decoding a file format, and couldn't because I didn't have the software to decode the file format the presentation is in.
Okay, I use Linux. Who knows how to view PowerPoint presentations on Linux? (and does anyone see the irony here?)
Why is it so hard to understand that this is a useful feature and helpful to establishing this OS as a useable alternative?
.NET would pretty obviously be bad for Linux, right? Perhaps support for ActiveX would be as bad as that. Who knows?
In a word, OS/2. Windows support probably seemed like a good idea to IBM in 1995, but OS/2 died anyway, and some people say that supporting the Windows API was part of the problem - why write software for OS/2 when you can write it for Windows and everyone can use it? So could the same thing happen with ActiveX support on Linux? Could this support hurt other open technologies like Java?
Okay, the KDE/ActiveX situation may be different. Maybe supporting an MS technology isn't so bad in this case. But then again, supporting
So basically, no it's not "obvious" that supporting this particular MS technology is a good thing! And I suspect that this is why people are still arguing about it.
You don't know much about guns. But that's OK; I'll clue you in.
:) The second is as well.
.22 is a very low-powered weapon. Unless your shot placement is very precise, you are unlikely to quickly incapacitate someone by shooting them with a .22. (Just to clear things up, by "shot placement" I mean being able to hit them in a vital area -- head or heart.)
.22 will scare or hurt a person without doing too much harm. Incidentally, does "incapacitate" mean "kill"? You're not talking about pepper-spray style "incapacitate", are you?
.22 and that's likely to happen.
The first statement is true
A
Funny, that was exactly my point - a
A firearm that imparts more kinetic energy to the target is more likely to stop the target quickly. If someone is attacking you and you need to stop them, it's important to do so quickly. You don't want them to get off a few more shots, or a few more swings, or a few more slashes. Shoot them with a
Does "stop" mean "kill" too?
Also, why is it that pro-gun descriptions of how a fight could go always sound like video games? Do you think the average criminal really wants a fight to the death, or are they more likely to run the second they see that you're armed?
If your life is on the line, and you actually need to shoot someone else -- you may as well do a good job of it. Unpleasant to think about but it's the truth.
I also notice that not one of the people who replied to my comment even mentioned stun guns, pepper spray, or other non-lethal weapons. "Self Defense" basically just means "shoot 'em dead" to you guys, doesn't it?
You guys know what the best way to deal with a burglar is? Get outside and get to a nearby house and call the police. The best self defense is generally "running fast", or at least avoiding conflict however you can. Assuming you actually want to defend yourself, that is. Maybe some people want to get into a fight with an armed opponent?
Perhaps we as a nation can't aim very well?
That's a ridiculous statement. Let's see how steady your hands are when your life is in danger from an attack of some kind. Sheesh.
That was a joke. Sheesh.
It seems unlikely that you even know what a semiautomatic *is*. One pull, one shot, next round chambered. That's all.
You're right, I'm no expert. Still, it's not a stun gun, right? It's a gun designed to make firing multiple shots easier?
The British *do* shoot each other, incidentally.
You can tell that nobody believes I have half a brain when they take the time to point out things like this. I know that! But the crime rate in the U.S. is still higher than in the UK. That's all I claimed. Please don't read anything too ridiculous into what I wrote - I'm not a complete idiot.
You can place whatever value on your life that you choose. There is nothing that I have that is more valueable than my life. I will use whatever means available to me to preserve it.
I suspect you'll be in jail very soon, at least if you actually believe that every threatening person deserves to be killed. In the meantime, I do recommend you put more value on human life. Just because someone is threatening you doesn't mean that they deserve to die.
You seem to be ignoring the ethnic riots that have happened in Europe this week. Let us also not forget the Japanese man who killed 8 school children last month.
Rate = Events/Time. A "rate" refers to the number events that occur over a period of time, not just single events. Yes, I know that people in other countries commit violent acts. It would be stupid of me to deny that. But the violent crime rate in the U.S. is still the highest.
i remember after one of those school shootings somone on cnn was interviewing a person from britan. the lady said she couldnt understand why americans think we need guns.
.22's, or for that matter, stun guns or other non-fatal weapons. Perhaps we as a nation can't aim very well? And why is the violent crime rate lower everywhere in Europe (and Japan, and Australia, and basically every other first-world country)? Why don't the Brits need guns to shoot each other?
Apparently, we need them to shoot each other, and the Brits don't. This realization seems to have taken flight from most Americans' minds. They seem to forget that burglars are human (and rarely armed) and that your gun can be used to blow other people (like you!) away too. Also, we seem to need huge guns (some people even argue for semi-automatics!) to shoot each other, not just simple
In general, I'd have to say that "Illustrator" is a lot more generic than "Vector Drawing Program". It could refer to a larger class of software, i.e. any old drawing program.
However, I suspect that it's not the "genericness" of a word which makes it an apropriate label. Proper names for humans are innately meaningless. The fact that a guy is named "John" tells me nothing. So I don't think that names are really supposed to describe the thing they refer to.
Of course, names can be descriptive to some degree (e.g. "Spot" for a dog with spots, like a Dalmation). For advertising purposes, having a vague relationship between product name and function probably helps - the name acts as a mnemonic! (But you don't have to go this route, e.g. "Freehand" for software to create an innately computer-based type of graphics.) Of course, using mnemonics then leads to exactly this sort of problem: "Word" is generic, "The GIMP" is not, and where does "Illustrator" fall again?
Do you know how companies deal with this problem? Put their company name in the product name, like a family name. It's "Corel Draw", "Microsoft Word", and "Adobe Illustrator".
If you don't issue any warning and come down on anybody who "infringes" like a ton of bricks, the number of repeat offenders is likely to be low.
I don't necessarily AGREE that this is anykind of infringement, but I can see how that might be their strategy.
This strategy also reduces competition, in that anyone who does infringe, or might infringe, or is afraid they might infringe, on an Adobe trademark (or who is paranoid or just cautious) will get scared and won't release their product.
So, anyone think that Adobe does, or might someday, trademark the concept of vector graphics and/or teh concept of vector graphics drawing software and/or the name of any vector graphics software or sub-component or feature of any vector graphics software and/or the "look and feel" of any vector graphics software or the above regarding any other aspect of any other Adobe product... etc. etc. etc.
Gawd, I sure hope that's not their strategy.
As a community it would be best to let the matter drop. I'm sure if you were in Anne's position you'd be severely pissed. A little perspective and some empathy would be appropriate.
Would you care to defend that statement? Unless you have some inside knowledge as to Ms. Tomlinson's state of mind, I don't think that you're in a position to claim that "she would be severely pissed". It's not at all clear that not talking about the issue is the "empathic" thing to do. If Ms. Tomlinson was mistreated or something, then I suspect that exactly the opposite is the case.
Furthermore, sometimes events are worth talking about even if they are painful to discuss for those involved. If I found out that my employer had mistreated one of my co-workers, that's a problem that can affect all of us. Thus, the events are worth talking about (and in fact would be damn important to talk about!)
The problem here is that the people who know the most aren't talking. Rumors survive because nobody knows the truth. And since there's just enough information out there to make it look like something happened, the rumor is not going to die.
Perhaps nothing happened - we just don't know. However, if we stopped talking about problems just because someone withheld information, then people would start getting away with all sorts of nasty stuff. So, while we may not have the "right to know" (unless we're VA stockholders?), we still ought to know, and we're still right to ask about what's going on. If OSDN can't give all the details due to fear of lawsuits, then at least say that. But pretending that nothing has happened is wrong - at the very least, this rumor has happened, so someone might want to address it! (And yes, there are at least a few facts backing up the rumor, e.g. changes to the article, so it's not a pure crap rumor that can be ignored).