If this is ever going to be done, it would have to be a unanimous vote from every country, holding majority elections in the country to decide the nation vote.
Nah, whomever can afford it will just do it anyway and everyone else can go screw themselves. That's how the world has worked up until now . . .
"There really isn't much value in free," said Miller.
I'll attempt to interpret what he actually meant by that, since it was most likely taken out of context. I believe he was referring to the "free" (as in beer) price tag of the OS itself representing only a tiny fraction of info tech expenditures for a company. When you include support, development, administration/operation, etc. of a system, the OS price (free or not) is nearly insignificant.
To a home user, OS price is a big factor, but to a business, it's pennies.
That's MS's typical FUD machine in action. They've decided that Linux is a serious threat, so now they're trying to undermine it with vague fears. This is typical Microsoft in action.
"Microsoft thinks Linux, FreeBSD, RISC OS, Solaris, BeOS, Mac OS, NetBSD, MINIX and many other OSs are doomed, and predicts that many Linux, FreeBSD, RISC OS, Solaris, BeOS, Mac OS, NetBSD, MINIX and many other OS businesses will falter and fail before the end of the year" just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
The AltaVista patent is a good example. Given a problem (i.e. how to search the web) AltaVista claims to have patented a solution. But, as has been mentioned before, it is also the "obvious" solution to any Software Engineer faced with the problem.
I wouldn't jump to blame the Patent Office itself on this. It's true that they let a lot of garbage get through, but the Patent Office simply cannot allocate resources to hire a software engineer to analyze each software-related patent to determine whether or not it would be considered too "obvious".
The Patent Office's job is to research old patents, and determine whether an application is unique. The tests for prior art and/or obviousness are left to the general public.
Yes, the rules are purposely vague. You have to remember
this is a brand new industry
this industry is growing at a phenomenal rate, both in customers and in content bandwidth
The ISP has no idea what the landscape is going to be like 3 months from now, and they'd rather install some vague rules than do a complete revision four times a year.
A lot of people seem to think the ISP's are making an effort to rip off consumers by limiting their "right" to bandwidth. The ISP's are just trying to make a decent profit, while providing a realistic level of service. Here's a thought experiment for you: start a non-profit broadband ISP, and just see how long you can provide 1.5Mbps peak bandwidth to each home for $40/month.
A friend of mine just had her tubes tied. She's 20. Maybe she'll regret it later, but she says if she wants a kid THAT bad, she can always adopt.
In all likelihood, your friend will regret it later. 20 is far too young to be making serious irreversible decisions (and getting tatoos and trying LSD don't count). I just hope when she falls in love with someone she would like to have a kid with, science can help her.
For crying out loud, you're going to be dead in fifty years. Do something now to make a difference in this world by adopting and caring for an exisitng human being.
By your logic, that human being is just going to be dead in 125 years anyway. So fuck 'em.
The phones, 300 million of which should be produced in the US in the first year, are due to be unleashed on the US market in the third quarter of 2001.
That's more that one phone for each citizen of the U.S. Pretty big first run of a new product, wouldn't you say? And where's the battery? And what wireless network are they going to unleash these 300 million phones on, exactly?
I think that it will be used as a very unsubtle smackdown for anything that threattens to use all the bandwidth I pay for.
I just have to comment on this remark. Consumer-level connections are not designed to accomodate continuous load at the maximum bandwidth level. They are designed for high peaks with a low average load, because most consumers are interested in pages that load quickly, not sustained performance.
You're not paying for "all the bandwidth" you can consume; you're paying very low prices for bandwidth, based on the consumer usage profile. If you really want sustained bandwidth at a specific level, bite the bullet and cough up some serious cash for a commercial connection. Otherwise, quit yer whining and accept the ISP's rules.
Does anyone know anything about the random text strings that show up in clients' search monitors? If you haven't noticed, alongside 'britnie', 'xxx', and 'quake', there are many long strings of random letters, numbers, and other characters.
I seem to recall someone on Slashdot a while back theorizing that this is a vast attempt by MegaCorp to sabotage the Gnutella network. Anyone have any comments/info on this?
Computers are not neccessary to getting an education.
That is a true statement. That's also not the point of the story.
The point is that children who have access to computers have an advantage over those that do not. No, Linus Torvalds may not have had access to any computers in grade school, but neither did the vast majority of his peers.
Kids that have access to computers are more likely to spend time on computers. Kids that spend more time on computers are more likely to learn a thing or two about computers. Kids that know a thing or two about computers are more likely to realize that they should learn/apply computer knowledge to their career path, and therefore are more likely to do well as the world becomes increasingly dependent on computers.
It is possible, yes, to overcome economic disparity and excel. It is also very difficult. The affluent kids have an advantage with regard to technology access, as with many other aspects of life.
Wow, this is brilliant. Thank you, DirecTV, for resolving this through technical means rather than attempting to use our legal system.
This is probably the cleanest, cheapest, and most effective way to resolve the issue. I now have great respect for DirecTV's engineers for doing it, and management for allocating resources to it.
The Matrix wasn't the first application of panned frozen images. This technique has been around quite a while, where an array of cameras take still shots together.
The Matrix pioneered the use of panned, slow-motion shots, where the cameras take the shot one-after-another, in precisely synchronized order. That's why Keanu's coat was flapping as he rose up in the air, etc.
Either way, it's badass for football. If they can eventually do this with full-motion cameras, and software that can make little slo-mo pans on the fly, it will be a very impressive feat.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that you, Comic Book Guy? I guess you're feeling better after last night's heart attack.
Nah, whomever can afford it will just do it anyway and everyone else can go screw themselves. That's how the world has worked up until now . . .
pr0n!
Jeez, can't the DoE afford a power source that doesn't come from Wal-Mart?
When Britnie Spears and *NSync's new albums are only available in this format, people will buy them.
In this article, Microsoft is using the word free (as in beer).
They don't give a rat's ass about free (as in speech).
I'll attempt to interpret what he actually meant by that, since it was most likely taken out of context. I believe he was referring to the "free" (as in beer) price tag of the OS itself representing only a tiny fraction of info tech expenditures for a company. When you include support, development, administration/operation, etc. of a system, the OS price (free or not) is nearly insignificant.
To a home user, OS price is a big factor, but to a business, it's pennies.
...And this is typical Slashdot FUD in action.
"Microsoft thinks Linux, FreeBSD, RISC OS, Solaris, BeOS, Mac OS, NetBSD, MINIX and many other OSs are doomed, and predicts that many Linux, FreeBSD, RISC OS, Solaris, BeOS, Mac OS, NetBSD, MINIX and many other OS businesses will falter and fail before the end of the year" just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
I wouldn't jump to blame the Patent Office itself on this. It's true that they let a lot of garbage get through, but the Patent Office simply cannot allocate resources to hire a software engineer to analyze each software-related patent to determine whether or not it would be considered too "obvious".
The Patent Office's job is to research old patents, and determine whether an application is unique. The tests for prior art and/or obviousness are left to the general public.
So which is it, existentialist or determinist? They're pretty mutually exclusive points of view.
I agree. This is kind of like Jaguar deciding to start selling an economy sub-compact.
- this is a brand new industry
- this industry is growing at a phenomenal rate, both in customers and in content bandwidth
The ISP has no idea what the landscape is going to be like 3 months from now, and they'd rather install some vague rules than do a complete revision four times a year.A lot of people seem to think the ISP's are making an effort to rip off consumers by limiting their "right" to bandwidth. The ISP's are just trying to make a decent profit, while providing a realistic level of service. Here's a thought experiment for you: start a non-profit broadband ISP, and just see how long you can provide 1.5Mbps peak bandwidth to each home for $40/month.
In all likelihood, your friend will regret it later. 20 is far too young to be making serious irreversible decisions (and getting tatoos and trying LSD don't count). I just hope when she falls in love with someone she would like to have a kid with, science can help her.
By your logic, that human being is just going to be dead in 125 years anyway. So fuck 'em.
The phones, 300 million of which should be produced in the US in the first year, are due to be unleashed on the US market in the third quarter of 2001.
That's more that one phone for each citizen of the U.S. Pretty big first run of a new product, wouldn't you say? And where's the battery? And what wireless network are they going to unleash these 300 million phones on, exactly?
I just have to comment on this remark. Consumer-level connections are not designed to accomodate continuous load at the maximum bandwidth level. They are designed for high peaks with a low average load, because most consumers are interested in pages that load quickly, not sustained performance.
You're not paying for "all the bandwidth" you can consume; you're paying very low prices for bandwidth, based on the consumer usage profile. If you really want sustained bandwidth at a specific level, bite the bullet and cough up some serious cash for a commercial connection. Otherwise, quit yer whining and accept the ISP's rules.
I seem to recall someone on Slashdot a while back theorizing that this is a vast attempt by MegaCorp to sabotage the Gnutella network. Anyone have any comments/info on this?
OK, so the HTML sample shots are real ASCII. And they look way cooler.
Yes, it is.
Maybe ANSI cam. Seiously, this reminds me a little of BBS ANSI art of the 80s/early 90s. Anybody remember THEDraw?
That is a true statement. That's also not the point of the story.
The point is that children who have access to computers have an advantage over those that do not. No, Linus Torvalds may not have had access to any computers in grade school, but neither did the vast majority of his peers.
Kids that have access to computers are more likely to spend time on computers. Kids that spend more time on computers are more likely to learn a thing or two about computers. Kids that know a thing or two about computers are more likely to realize that they should learn/apply computer knowledge to their career path, and therefore are more likely to do well as the world becomes increasingly dependent on computers.
It is possible, yes, to overcome economic disparity and excel. It is also very difficult. The affluent kids have an advantage with regard to technology access, as with many other aspects of life.
This is probably the cleanest, cheapest, and most effective way to resolve the issue. I now have great respect for DirecTV's engineers for doing it, and management for allocating resources to it.
The Matrix pioneered the use of panned, slow-motion shots, where the cameras take the shot one-after-another, in precisely synchronized order. That's why Keanu's coat was flapping as he rose up in the air, etc.
Either way, it's badass for football. If they can eventually do this with full-motion cameras, and software that can make little slo-mo pans on the fly, it will be a very impressive feat.
Next time you see "1.0 GPF" on a public toilet, just mutter to yourself "Man, this shitter's got a better crash rate than my Win98 box!!"