There are plenty of ways to get legitimate, low cost versions of MS products.
For instance, the Microsoft Home License pack gives you 3 copies of Windows 7 for $150. That's the retail price, you can get it cheaper. That's less than $50 per computer.
You can get an OEM copy of Windows 7 Ultimate from Newegg for $179 (home is $106).
There are also tons of other ways to get very cheap copies of Office and just about anything else. Full versions, not upgrades.
Vista does *NOT* use 2GB after a fresh boot. The most i've seen it use is, on a 64 bit system with 4GB or more of ram, it uses about 1.2GB, much of which is buffers and caches of various types. If you have 2GB of memory, the 64 bit version will use about 800MB and the 32 bit version will use about 600MB. If you have 1GB then it uses about 600/400 respectively. I've never run the 64 bit version with less than 1GB, but the 32 bit version uses about 200MB on a 512MB machine.
Of course it's really stupid to run Vista with less than 2GB anyways when 2GB of memory costs less than a meal at a decent restaurant.
No. There is no HTML5 standard. It's a draft standard, subject to change at any time. Anything that can change at any time, and have the rug pulled out from under you is *NOT* a standard.
In fact, HTML5 isn't likely to be a ratified standard for several more years.
Really? Which standard does HTML5 correspond to? There is no HTML5 standard. Right now, it's just browser makers doing their own proprietary things hoping to make it standard when things are finalized.
I'm sick of people claiming Video tags, or various other HTML5 things are standard. They're not. Not until the standard is ratified, everything is subject to change.
What it did NOT say, which nobody realized until about a week later, is that patients were not required to show any ID. The bill as written allowed people to simply walk into a hospital and demand healthcare, whether they were american, illegal residents, or foreign tourists just dropping-in for a visit.
So.. you're saying that people should be refused healthcare if they don't have ID?
So you're really saying that if you are in a bus accident and your wallet gets lost, and you're bleeding like a stuck pig, the hospital should just tell you to go away? Seriously?
The point is, Google *has* in fact shown a willingness to lock in proprietary stuff. Google is just starting to get into the client-side app distribution and so far it's not looking very positive for their openness.
No. In civil jury trials, the jury is only allowed to decide based on legal rules set forth to them.
If, for example, it's a copyright case, and the plaintiffs don't prove that the defendant infringed their copyright, the jury is not allowed to rule for the plaintiff, regardless of whether or not they personally believe the defendant committed the infringement or not.
The appleas judge has to look at the case presented by the plaintiff and decide if the jury could have legally ruled the way they did. In this case, the entire jury trial was about indirect patent infringement, but when it came time to close the case, the plaintiffs dropped the indirect infringment claims, but they failed to prove direct infringement. The jury ruled based on indirect infringement even though those claims had been dropped... Thus, the overturned jury.
Not really. The problem was that the plaintiffs totally screwed up their case in Jury trial, and as such, legally, deserved to lose. But, they managed to convince the jury anyways, but the jury did not rule based on correct law, so the appeals judge was forced to rule for the defendants. What the judge was looking for was for the plaintiffs to be able to present their case to a jury, but that doesn't guarantee the plaintiffs won't screw it up, which they did.
Nit pick... there's no such thing as a "conviction" in a cival trial. People get this wrong all the time regarding the anti-trust lawsuit (again, civil).
My point was, Google isn't likely to lock things in, because they haven't done so in the past. They have, indeed, been about interoperability -- open standards, and often open source. The things they've kept proprietary often operate via open standards -- even Google Earth uses KML, which is supported by things like KDE Marble.
Have you forgotten about Google C&D'ing android modders? How open is that?
Actually, no. It's not Apples to oranges. You're right that distros install more stuff, but we're talking about an upgrade here.
The reason that Windows takes so long is that it basically copies all applications and data to a temporary location and then "migrates" each application, including installed office suites and other applications, so in effect an upgrade to a system with a lot of apps is erasing the "but linux installs more" argument.
Personally, I think both sides had decided to file suit at the same time. Microsoft was just more efficient and got it filed first.
When suits are filed within a few weeks of each other, given the amount of time it takes to prepare such suits, they're basically "at the same time" regardless of which side manages to get there first.
You can bet that most open source versions of closed source programs are more efficient and less resource hungry, because they typically don't implement all the features of the closed source version. Samba is on different, with whole swaths of functionality not implemented. Also, SMB2 tests have shown to be significantly faster than Samba as well. If you want to read up on why, check this:
Keep in mind that you don't know what you're talking about.
You *ASSUME* they took BSD code. That is, in fact, incorrect. The *LICENSED* BSD code, paying a good penny for it too, from Spider Software who, in turn, had licensed the code (again paying a pretty penny) from the Regents of UCB. And no, they did not use the code up until XP. It was used in the original 3.1 version of NT, and replaced fairly quickly with their own stack for NT 3.5 and Windows 95. They did continue to include the BSD userland utils like ftp.exe and telnet.exe, but again, these were licensed versions, not open source.
While the story only grazes over the licensing aspects of it, one need only look at the copyrights of the code in question:
"Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California"
This copyright predates the first open source version of BSD by almost 6 years. The first open source version was BSD Networking Release 1, and it was release in 1989. The only way Microsoft could legally use this 1983 code was by specific license.
Don't believe everything you read on Groklaw. They're almost as bad as BoycottNovell at trying to find an evil angle on anything.
Just because OIN wasn't invited to the auction doesn't mean they tried to keep it secret. In fact, the word "secret" doesn't even appear in the article you reference. Not even in the comments.
I wasn't invited to the auction either, nor (I imagine) were you. Oh my god.. we are being excluded from a secret auction!
Perhaps you should reread the post your responded to. He did not say TomTom sued first. He said they threatened to sue first. This is believable since TomTom has been shaking down mapmakers and GPS companies for years. They sued Toyota a few years ago, and have had several back and forth suits with Garmin. All patent related.
Both Microsoft and TomTom have said they were in patent negpotiations for more than a year before the lawsuit. You can be certain that Microsoft sued because they believe TomTom was going to sue, and the fact that TomTom countersued them only a couple weeks later is evidence that they had the suit prepared and ready to fire, since it takes many months to prepare for a patent lawsuit.
The use of the FAT patent was not an attack on Linux, it was an attack on TomTom... basically, when you are involved in a patent lawsuit, you bring every patent to bear that could possibly be relevant. It had little to do with Linux.
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but the reason Linux doesn't obsolete old hardware is that they typically don't support the hardware until it's obsolete on other platforms (or close to it). That's changing, but it's still at least 6 months usually before new hardware is supported on Linux (unless it's a generic driver interface of some kind).
All software, on any platform, has problems in specific situations. Sometimes that's user error, sometimes bad hardware, sometimes viruses or malware, or even data corruption from a power outage.
If you search through any Linux support forum, you will find tons of people who can't get things to work, have stability problems, etc.. The same is true of Windows and I would guess OSX forums. Because a minority of users will fall into a non-tested scenario where things break.
Now, when 90% of the computers run one OS, 90% of the edge cases are going to seem like a lot, and that you hear all the time about them.
My point is, there is a difference between a product that is supported, but has an edge case where there is a problem, and where the main case requires jumping through a lot of hoops (a la ndiswrappers, etc..) or isn't supported at all.
Sounds like this "solution" is only a benefit because Apple chose to standardize on a language that generates very slow executables by default. Thus, the problem (and solution) are of their own making.
Primarily because sometimes sites take a long time to load. Sometimes you want to stop the site from loading, sometimes you want to refresh because the request seems to get lost. You would have to stop first then refresh (two clicks) versus a single refresh click.
All i'm saying is that some people are vehemently against combining them. I really couldn't care less myself.
Actually, IE7 was originally designed with the combo stop/refresh/go button, but they recieved a ot of feedback from users that stop and start/refresh are distinct functions and should not be combined. Eventually, Microsoft relented and made stop seperate.
Contrary to popular belief, most bookmakers don't set their line based on who will win or lose. Instead, they set their line in such a way as to attract equal action on both sides of the game. Then, they make their money on "the juice", the difference between the favorite and the dog. The bookmaker then acts as an agent moving money between the two sides, taking his cut. If he's done his job right, then he's at no risk of losing any money.
There are some risks though. Some people may not pay (that's why many books are "postup" which means you give them the money first, others are "credit" stores).
Sometimes a bookie "gambles" though, and sets his line in such a way that will attract business to the other side of what he thinks will win. Or maybe he just won't get enough action on one side or another, and he will try to "lay it off" with another bookie.
In any event, any bookie that goes out of business is either gambling or robbed.
There are systems, you're right. But they are all losers. None of them work, because you can't beat the math.
One common system is to double your bet every time. Eventually, the theory goes, you will win and double your money (except you wouldn't, because it would only give you a small extra amount of money back when you factor in all the lost money). The problem with this system is table limits. if you're exponentially raising your stake, you will hit the cap pretty quickly and then you're REALLY stuck.
The problem with most systems is that they seem to work at first glance, but if you keep track of your winnings and losings over time, you will always come out a loser.
Sports betting is legal in Nevada, but it specfically illegal to accept bets from outside of nevada via phone, and i't specifically not legal to place bets outside of Nevada when In Nevada.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of ways to get legitimate, low cost versions of MS products.
For instance, the Microsoft Home License pack gives you 3 copies of Windows 7 for $150. That's the retail price, you can get it cheaper. That's less than $50 per computer.
You can get an OEM copy of Windows 7 Ultimate from Newegg for $179 (home is $106).
There are also tons of other ways to get very cheap copies of Office and just about anything else. Full versions, not upgrades.
Exagerating doesn't really help your case.
Vista does *NOT* use 2GB after a fresh boot. The most i've seen it use is, on a 64 bit system with 4GB or more of ram, it uses about 1.2GB, much of which is buffers and caches of various types. If you have 2GB of memory, the 64 bit version will use about 800MB and the 32 bit version will use about 600MB. If you have 1GB then it uses about 600/400 respectively. I've never run the 64 bit version with less than 1GB, but the 32 bit version uses about 200MB on a 512MB machine.
Of course it's really stupid to run Vista with less than 2GB anyways when 2GB of memory costs less than a meal at a decent restaurant.
No. There is no HTML5 standard. It's a draft standard, subject to change at any time. Anything that can change at any time, and have the rug pulled out from under you is *NOT* a standard.
In fact, HTML5 isn't likely to be a ratified standard for several more years.
Really? Which standard does HTML5 correspond to? There is no HTML5 standard. Right now, it's just browser makers doing their own proprietary things hoping to make it standard when things are finalized.
I'm sick of people claiming Video tags, or various other HTML5 things are standard. They're not. Not until the standard is ratified, everything is subject to change.
It's not a strawman at all. Your message said that the problem was that they were not required to show ID and should not get healthcare if they don't.
What you're saying here contradicts what you said earlier, and is much more reasonable than your original statement.
What it did NOT say, which nobody realized until about a week later, is that patients were not required to show any ID. The bill as written allowed people to simply walk into a hospital and demand healthcare, whether they were american, illegal residents, or foreign tourists just dropping-in for a visit.
So.. you're saying that people should be refused healthcare if they don't have ID?
So you're really saying that if you are in a bus accident and your wallet gets lost, and you're bleeding like a stuck pig, the hospital should just tell you to go away? Seriously?
The point is, Google *has* in fact shown a willingness to lock in proprietary stuff. Google is just starting to get into the client-side app distribution and so far it's not looking very positive for their openness.
No. In civil jury trials, the jury is only allowed to decide based on legal rules set forth to them.
If, for example, it's a copyright case, and the plaintiffs don't prove that the defendant infringed their copyright, the jury is not allowed to rule for the plaintiff, regardless of whether or not they personally believe the defendant committed the infringement or not.
The appleas judge has to look at the case presented by the plaintiff and decide if the jury could have legally ruled the way they did. In this case, the entire jury trial was about indirect patent infringement, but when it came time to close the case, the plaintiffs dropped the indirect infringment claims, but they failed to prove direct infringement. The jury ruled based on indirect infringement even though those claims had been dropped... Thus, the overturned jury.
Not really. The problem was that the plaintiffs totally screwed up their case in Jury trial, and as such, legally, deserved to lose. But, they managed to convince the jury anyways, but the jury did not rule based on correct law, so the appeals judge was forced to rule for the defendants. What the judge was looking for was for the plaintiffs to be able to present their case to a jury, but that doesn't guarantee the plaintiffs won't screw it up, which they did.
Nit pick... there's no such thing as a "conviction" in a cival trial. People get this wrong all the time regarding the anti-trust lawsuit (again, civil).
My point was, Google isn't likely to lock things in, because they haven't done so in the past. They have, indeed, been about interoperability -- open standards, and often open source. The things they've kept proprietary often operate via open standards -- even Google Earth uses KML, which is supported by things like KDE Marble.
Have you forgotten about Google C&D'ing android modders? How open is that?
Actually, no. It's not Apples to oranges. You're right that distros install more stuff, but we're talking about an upgrade here.
The reason that Windows takes so long is that it basically copies all applications and data to a temporary location and then "migrates" each application, including installed office suites and other applications, so in effect an upgrade to a system with a lot of apps is erasing the "but linux installs more" argument.
Personally, I think both sides had decided to file suit at the same time. Microsoft was just more efficient and got it filed first.
When suits are filed within a few weeks of each other, given the amount of time it takes to prepare such suits, they're basically "at the same time" regardless of which side manages to get there first.
I have to laugh at comments like this.
You can bet that most open source versions of closed source programs are more efficient and less resource hungry, because they typically don't implement all the features of the closed source version. Samba is on different, with whole swaths of functionality not implemented. Also, SMB2 tests have shown to be significantly faster than Samba as well. If you want to read up on why, check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#SMB2
Hell, I have a Linux based NAS which uses Samba 3.1 and it's slow as molasses.
Keep in mind that you don't know what you're talking about.
You *ASSUME* they took BSD code. That is, in fact, incorrect. The *LICENSED* BSD code, paying a good penny for it too, from Spider Software who, in turn, had licensed the code (again paying a pretty penny) from the Regents of UCB. And no, they did not use the code up until XP. It was used in the original 3.1 version of NT, and replaced fairly quickly with their own stack for NT 3.5 and Windows 95. They did continue to include the BSD userland utils like ftp.exe and telnet.exe, but again, these were licensed versions, not open source.
You can educate yourself here:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357
While the story only grazes over the licensing aspects of it, one need only look at the copyrights of the code in question:
"Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California"
This copyright predates the first open source version of BSD by almost 6 years. The first open source version was BSD Networking Release 1, and it was release in 1989. The only way Microsoft could legally use this 1983 code was by specific license.
Don't believe everything you read on Groklaw. They're almost as bad as BoycottNovell at trying to find an evil angle on anything.
Just because OIN wasn't invited to the auction doesn't mean they tried to keep it secret. In fact, the word "secret" doesn't even appear in the article you reference. Not even in the comments.
I wasn't invited to the auction either, nor (I imagine) were you. Oh my god.. we are being excluded from a secret auction!
Perhaps you should reread the post your responded to. He did not say TomTom sued first. He said they threatened to sue first. This is believable since TomTom has been shaking down mapmakers and GPS companies for years. They sued Toyota a few years ago, and have had several back and forth suits with Garmin. All patent related.
Both Microsoft and TomTom have said they were in patent negpotiations for more than a year before the lawsuit. You can be certain that Microsoft sued because they believe TomTom was going to sue, and the fact that TomTom countersued them only a couple weeks later is evidence that they had the suit prepared and ready to fire, since it takes many months to prepare for a patent lawsuit.
The use of the FAT patent was not an attack on Linux, it was an attack on TomTom... basically, when you are involved in a patent lawsuit, you bring every patent to bear that could possibly be relevant. It had little to do with Linux.
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but the reason Linux doesn't obsolete old hardware is that they typically don't support the hardware until it's obsolete on other platforms (or close to it). That's changing, but it's still at least 6 months usually before new hardware is supported on Linux (unless it's a generic driver interface of some kind).
All software, on any platform, has problems in specific situations. Sometimes that's user error, sometimes bad hardware, sometimes viruses or malware, or even data corruption from a power outage.
If you search through any Linux support forum, you will find tons of people who can't get things to work, have stability problems, etc.. The same is true of Windows and I would guess OSX forums. Because a minority of users will fall into a non-tested scenario where things break.
Now, when 90% of the computers run one OS, 90% of the edge cases are going to seem like a lot, and that you hear all the time about them.
My point is, there is a difference between a product that is supported, but has an edge case where there is a problem, and where the main case requires jumping through a lot of hoops (a la ndiswrappers, etc..) or isn't supported at all.
Sounds like this "solution" is only a benefit because Apple chose to standardize on a language that generates very slow executables by default. Thus, the problem (and solution) are of their own making.
Primarily because sometimes sites take a long time to load. Sometimes you want to stop the site from loading, sometimes you want to refresh because the request seems to get lost. You would have to stop first then refresh (two clicks) versus a single refresh click.
All i'm saying is that some people are vehemently against combining them. I really couldn't care less myself.
Actually, IE7 was originally designed with the combo stop/refresh/go button, but they recieved a ot of feedback from users that stop and start/refresh are distinct functions and should not be combined. Eventually, Microsoft relented and made stop seperate.
Contrary to popular belief, most bookmakers don't set their line based on who will win or lose. Instead, they set their line in such a way as to attract equal action on both sides of the game. Then, they make their money on "the juice", the difference between the favorite and the dog. The bookmaker then acts as an agent moving money between the two sides, taking his cut. If he's done his job right, then he's at no risk of losing any money.
There are some risks though. Some people may not pay (that's why many books are "postup" which means you give them the money first, others are "credit" stores).
Sometimes a bookie "gambles" though, and sets his line in such a way that will attract business to the other side of what he thinks will win. Or maybe he just won't get enough action on one side or another, and he will try to "lay it off" with another bookie.
In any event, any bookie that goes out of business is either gambling or robbed.
There are systems, you're right. But they are all losers. None of them work, because you can't beat the math.
One common system is to double your bet every time. Eventually, the theory goes, you will win and double your money (except you wouldn't, because it would only give you a small extra amount of money back when you factor in all the lost money). The problem with this system is table limits. if you're exponentially raising your stake, you will hit the cap pretty quickly and then you're REALLY stuck.
The problem with most systems is that they seem to work at first glance, but if you keep track of your winnings and losings over time, you will always come out a loser.
Sports betting is legal in Nevada, but it specfically illegal to accept bets from outside of nevada via phone, and i't specifically not legal to place bets outside of Nevada when In Nevada.