That goes against everything taught at MBA school. It should be obvious to the most simple minded simpleton that the best course of action is to have a word with the EDITORS and get them to IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESS all stories about that. That will prevent the reporting of their humiliations. Problem solved. Everyone happy.
Those who are very observant might be able to detect a pattern to these URLs. Advanced leet sooper skilled hax4rs may be able to develop a way to predict or deduce what the next items in the sequence might be.
Are you talking about the same Mac OS 6 and Mac OS 7 that I remember?
Mac OS 6 was good, as you say. But 'System 7' as they called it, was a huge improvement.
* MultiFinder only (no more single-finder)
* Aliases (eg, file system links to folders or files like symlink)
* Organized subfolders within System Folder to fix the clutter. Seperate subfolders for Startup Items, Desk Accessories, Fonts, etc.
* The Apple Menu folder. You could now customize the Apple menu. What items appeared in the Apple menu was dictated by the Apple Menu folder within the System folder. You could now put more than DA's in the Apple menu. You could put apps there. Or aliases to apps or other folders or frequently opened files. Oh, and nevermind that putting a real folders in the Apple Menu made it into a hierarchical menu. This added tremendous flexibility, customizability and convenience to the Mac.
* Fonts as separate files instead of resources within the System file. No more Font/DA Mover.
* DAs as separate files within the Apple menu. No more Font/DA Mover.
* An invisible temp folder where applications could create active temp files. If the app crashed, these moved into the trash can as recoverable files. The most notable example was Microsoft Word (on Mac). If it crashed, of if the entire system crashed, your unsaved changed file could be found in the trash can and simply dragged out.
I'm sure I'm leaving out some things. But those are the ones I remember best from twenty plus years ago.
System 7 was a gigantic step forward for the classic Mac OS. System 8 and 9 not so much. System 8 had a few improvements, like dockable folders that could appear as tabs at the bottom of the screen. System 9 had no visible improvements. Then by that time classic Mac OS was beginning to stagnate by the late 1990's, Apple was fumbling with their new OS, and it was beginning to be obvious.
One is a positive pole, and the other is used to return the current.
Current flows from the negative pole to the positive pole. It's just an accident of history how the two poles got named. It wasn't discovered until later that the particle (electron) is negative.
> If police don't want people to print guns they should just fill Youtube with videos of plastic guns exploding.
That would probably work as effectively as filling YouTube with teenage boys hitting each other in the balls in order to prevent such behavior. Monkey see, monkey do. Hey, cool! That looks like fun!
> What's to keep a resourceful person from rewiring their current oven to a spare phone in order to accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the price?
> When android 4.0 is completely obsolete, and so is the hardware in the oven, what are you going to do?
You mean like an iMac that integrates a quickly obsolete computer with an expensive monitor that would normally have economic value over multiple generations of computer? That kind of obsolete? Or did you mean something different?
Now that I have finally managed to stop laughing, let me see if I understood this correctly.
SCO had such a strong case and so much evidence of "millions of lines of code", and "truckloads" of code from their "deep dive" proving that "the DNA of Linux is comming from UNIX", etc. that they were "ready for trial" in 2003 and they "don't need any discovery".
SCO needs all versions of AIX. Not only that, but they also need every unreleased internal iteration of code from CMVC, all programmer's notes, etc., at great expense.
SCO could not disclose specific code for M&C because they couldn't know what code was in the minds of IBM engineers when IBM disclosed the M&C.
IBM destroyed the evidence. So SCO cannot show what code, or M&C was copied. This, even though SCO has access to ALL of the code, and Linux code is publicly available.
No doubt, it must somehow be IBM's doing that SCO is unable to answer IBM's interrogatory asking for SCO to identify lines of Linux code that SCO claims to own rights in.
So in the end...
Linux code is out in the open
SCO cannot point to _anything_ specific in Linux
Some vague nebulous blob of M&C was disclosed
Of the vague nebulous blob of M&C...
It must be in Linux...somewhere (trust us on this)
It must be IBM that disclosed it (because they have deep pockets)
The disclosure (by whoever, however) must have been improper, somehow (otherwise how will we make a profit?)
Because of IBM's unfair, unethical and illegal actions, SCO is unable to...
describe exactly what the M&C is
point to where it is
identify where it came from
show that it has been disclosed
show how (or who) disclosed it
prove ownership of it
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this fine Utah jury, IBM is guilty. They did it. Trust us. Now do the right thing. Award Billions in damages to the plaintiff please.
Other technical words have become common in English.
Lightbulb
Radio
Radar
Sonar
Sonic
Radiation
Electromagnetic
Radiator
Dishwasher
Dryer
Microwave
Television
Telephone
Software
Spreadsheet
Photoshop (as verb)
Internet
Modem
Because brand names that describe a unique concept tend to become generic words, that is why we see Google used as a verb. Common trademarks used as generic words: Aspirin, Kleenex, BandAid, etc. Therefore, you can expect to see new words like...
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I had one more example of illegal bundling.
Suppose I have two products InDemandProduct and SuckoProduct.
Now a competitor makes a product that does what SuckoProduct does, but only better.
If I only sell InDemandProduct as a bundle with SuckoProduct, especially if I don't raise the price of InDemandProduct, then I've just acted to hurt the business of a competitor whose only product competes with SuckoProduct.
Since everyone buys InDemandProduct, they also already have something like SuckoProduct and don't need the competitor's web browser or media player or e-mail client.
Microsoft owns the rights to both MS Office and Outlook and should be able to bundle these two programs together if they choose.
I'm going to leave Microsoft completely out of it, and use generic examples.
There is such a thing as illegal bundling and tieing.
Suppose I have two products. InDemandProduct and SuckoProduct.
Everyone wants InDemandProduct. Nobody seems to want SuckoProduct, for some strange reason.
Ah ha! I can sell InDemandProduct only as a bundle with SuckoProduct, for a higher bundle price than the price of InDemandProduct alone.
I've just forced you to buy a product you didn't want. You paid me for SuckoProduct.
It is a different thing if I bundle SuckoProduct with InDemandProduct as an extra value incentive to buy it, but without raising the price. You know, Cap'n Crunch cerial: Free Inside Box... 2600 Hz blue wistle!
I'm speaking in general here. Whether any of this applies to Microsoft Outlook, I simply do not know.
Legal issues can arise if I have two products which are both in demand for different things: ProductA and ProductB. There is a market that wants A, and a market that wants B. Some people want both. But if I sell them only as a bundle of A+B, then I've just forced people who only wanted A or B to buy the other piece they did not want. (Example: A=Excel, B=Word; or A=MacPaint, B=MacWrite; I'm not trying to pick on Microsoft here.)
All kinds of debates can be had about what constitutes a bundle. Why can't I buy just the trunk of my car?
It's my understanding that those laws were origionally written for government granted monoplies, such as Phone, Electric, Garbage, Water, Sewer, and Gravity providers.
A law that made illegal anti-competitive acts to maintain a monopoly would make no sense for government granted monopolies. Therefore, the law obviously was NOT written for government granted monopolies. Why would my local electricity supplier need to engage in anti-competitive acts in order to maintain their monopoly? They have the force of law to maintain it. They can stop an upstart competitor instantly through the legal system.
In Microsoft's case, I have never heard of a government agency requiring ordinary citizens (not contractors/vendors to the agency) to use Windows.
You seem to think that a monoploy can only be granted by the government. See: Standard Oil, IBM in the 50's thru 70's. Entire books have been written on this subject. (See: Big Blue: IBM's use and abuse of power)
Monopoly is not defined as something the government grants.
The government can grant a monopoly on certain things. This does not mean that all monopolies are government granted.
You can legally or illegally end up having a monopoly without the government's help.
If you did nothing illegal to acquire your monopoly, it is not illegal to merely have a monopoly. (I'll skip the debate about how Microsoft illegally built their monopoly.)
You cannot use anti-competitive acts to maintain or extend your monopoly.
Are the servers without an OS any cheaper? Does Dell make it easier to order them, or more difficult? Is the additional difficulty in ordering the Windows-free servers worth the price of the Windows? Maybe you save more time (i.e. money) by just buying the Windows box and discarding the unwanted CD's? I don't know, I'm speculating and asking.
It is sales of servers with the OS on them. Not sales of the OS. So more servers were sold that run Windows than those sold that run Unix.
This would then suggest that Microsoft's should arrange things such that you need as many servers as possible, at greatest hardware cost possible, in order to win the sales numbers game.
"Oh, Mr. Customer, it would be best practice to run that Exchange server on its own isolated box. And run that IIS server on a different box. And, um, you should run that SQL Server on yet a different box, um, for stability and robustness."
Slashdot Mirror
> Soylent green is rocket fuel, too!
When comparison shopping, please remember that Soylent Green is made from all natural ingredients.
That goes against everything taught at MBA school. It should be obvious to the most simple minded simpleton that the best course of action is to have a word with the EDITORS and get them to IMMEDIATELY SUPPRESS all stories about that. That will prevent the reporting of their humiliations. Problem solved. Everyone happy.
Those who are very observant might be able to detect a pattern to these URLs. Advanced leet sooper skilled hax4rs may be able to develop a way to predict or deduce what the next items in the sequence might be.
I would pin my hopes on the wisdom of someone who once said:
Meesa think a weesa should give the chancellor emergency powers.
If 'drone' is such a big scary word, then why are meetings over represented with both marketing drones and management drones?
Are you talking about the same Mac OS 6 and Mac OS 7 that I remember?
Mac OS 6 was good, as you say. But 'System 7' as they called it, was a huge improvement.
* MultiFinder only (no more single-finder)
* Aliases (eg, file system links to folders or files like symlink)
* Organized subfolders within System Folder to fix the clutter. Seperate subfolders for Startup Items, Desk Accessories, Fonts, etc.
* The Apple Menu folder. You could now customize the Apple menu. What items appeared in the Apple menu was dictated by the Apple Menu folder within the System folder. You could now put more than DA's in the Apple menu. You could put apps there. Or aliases to apps or other folders or frequently opened files. Oh, and nevermind that putting a real folders in the Apple Menu made it into a hierarchical menu. This added tremendous flexibility, customizability and convenience to the Mac.
* Fonts as separate files instead of resources within the System file. No more Font/DA Mover.
* DAs as separate files within the Apple menu. No more Font/DA Mover.
* An invisible temp folder where applications could create active temp files. If the app crashed, these moved into the trash can as recoverable files. The most notable example was Microsoft Word (on Mac). If it crashed, of if the entire system crashed, your unsaved changed file could be found in the trash can and simply dragged out.
I'm sure I'm leaving out some things. But those are the ones I remember best from twenty plus years ago.
System 7 was a gigantic step forward for the classic Mac OS. System 8 and 9 not so much. System 8 had a few improvements, like dockable folders that could appear as tabs at the bottom of the screen. System 9 had no visible improvements. Then by that time classic Mac OS was beginning to stagnate by the late 1990's, Apple was fumbling with their new OS, and it was beginning to be obvious.
Current flows from the negative pole to the positive pole. It's just an accident of history how the two poles got named. It wasn't discovered until later that the particle (electron) is negative.
> If police don't want people to print guns they should just fill Youtube with videos of plastic guns exploding.
That would probably work as effectively as filling YouTube with teenage boys hitting each other in the balls in order to prevent such behavior. Monkey see, monkey do. Hey, cool! That looks like fun!
Ninety percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
> Moral turpitude requires "willful" and "intentional" acts that are counter to public good or standards (rape, assault, lying to a judge, etc...).
You left out marriage.
Duh, duh, duh, duh, Darl . . . is that you?
Or could it be Ke, Ke, Ke, Ke, Kevin?
Which of the moron twins?
> What's to keep a resourceful person from rewiring their current oven to a spare phone in order to accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the price?
Your insurance company.
> When android 4.0 is completely obsolete, and so is the hardware in the oven, what are you going to do?
You mean like an iMac that integrates a quickly obsolete computer with an expensive monitor that would normally have economic value over multiple generations of computer? That kind of obsolete? Or did you mean something different?
Brain Damage causes Football.
Correlation is causation.
Now that I have finally managed to stop laughing, let me see if I understood this correctly.
SCO had such a strong case and so much evidence of "millions of lines of code", and "truckloads" of code from their "deep dive" proving that "the DNA of Linux is comming from UNIX", etc. that they were "ready for trial" in 2003 and they "don't need any discovery".
SCO needs all versions of AIX. Not only that, but they also need every unreleased internal iteration of code from CMVC, all programmer's notes, etc., at great expense.
SCO could not disclose specific code for M&C because they couldn't know what code was in the minds of IBM engineers when IBM disclosed the M&C.
IBM destroyed the evidence. So SCO cannot show what code, or M&C was copied. This, even though SCO has access to ALL of the code, and Linux code is publicly available.
No doubt, it must somehow be IBM's doing that SCO is unable to answer IBM's interrogatory asking for SCO to identify lines of Linux code that SCO claims to own rights in.
So in the end...
Of the vague nebulous blob of M&C...
Because of IBM's unfair, unethical and illegal actions, SCO is unable to...
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this fine Utah jury, IBM is guilty. They did it. Trust us. Now do the right thing. Award Billions in damages to the plaintiff please.
Thank you.
Other technical words have become common in English.
Lightbulb
Radio
Radar
Sonar
Sonic
Radiation
Electromagnetic
Radiator
Dishwasher
Dryer
Microwave
Television
Telephone
Software
Spreadsheet
Photoshop (as verb)
Internet
Modem
Because brand names that describe a unique concept tend to become generic words, that is why we see Google used as a verb. Common trademarks used as generic words: Aspirin, Kleenex, BandAid, etc. Therefore, you can expect to see new words like...
TiVo
In other words, I basically pay the full price of a new DVD, minus the measly amount that would go to the artists.
Why isn't Ralsky not in jail?
...to the other inmates who don't want spam all day, all night, etc.
Because it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I had one more example of illegal bundling.
Suppose I have two products InDemandProduct and SuckoProduct.
Now a competitor makes a product that does what SuckoProduct does, but only better.
If I only sell InDemandProduct as a bundle with SuckoProduct, especially if I don't raise the price of InDemandProduct, then I've just acted to hurt the business of a competitor whose only product competes with SuckoProduct.
Since everyone buys InDemandProduct, they also already have something like SuckoProduct and don't need the competitor's web browser or media player or e-mail client.
There is such a thing as illegal bundling and tieing.
Suppose I have two products. InDemandProduct and SuckoProduct.
Everyone wants InDemandProduct. Nobody seems to want SuckoProduct, for some strange reason.
Ah ha! I can sell InDemandProduct only as a bundle with SuckoProduct, for a higher bundle price than the price of InDemandProduct alone.
I've just forced you to buy a product you didn't want. You paid me for SuckoProduct.
It is a different thing if I bundle SuckoProduct with InDemandProduct as an extra value incentive to buy it, but without raising the price. You know, Cap'n Crunch cerial: Free Inside Box... 2600 Hz blue wistle!
I'm speaking in general here. Whether any of this applies to Microsoft Outlook, I simply do not know.
Legal issues can arise if I have two products which are both in demand for different things: ProductA and ProductB. There is a market that wants A, and a market that wants B. Some people want both. But if I sell them only as a bundle of A+B, then I've just forced people who only wanted A or B to buy the other piece they did not want. (Example: A=Excel, B=Word; or A=MacPaint, B=MacWrite; I'm not trying to pick on Microsoft here.)
All kinds of debates can be had about what constitutes a bundle. Why can't I buy just the trunk of my car?
You seem to think that a monoploy can only be granted by the government. See: Standard Oil, IBM in the 50's thru 70's. Entire books have been written on this subject. (See: Big Blue: IBM's use and abuse of power)
Monopoly is not defined as something the government grants.
The government can grant a monopoly on certain things. This does not mean that all monopolies are government granted.
You can legally or illegally end up having a monopoly without the government's help.
If you did nothing illegal to acquire your monopoly, it is not illegal to merely have a monopoly. (I'll skip the debate about how Microsoft illegally built their monopoly.)
You cannot use anti-competitive acts to maintain or extend your monopoly.
It is illegal to use anti-competitive acts to maintain or extend a monopoly. Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly.
Are the servers without an OS any cheaper? Does Dell make it easier to order them, or more difficult? Is the additional difficulty in ordering the Windows-free servers worth the price of the Windows? Maybe you save more time (i.e. money) by just buying the Windows box and discarding the unwanted CD's? I don't know, I'm speculating and asking.
"Oh, Mr. Customer, it would be best practice to run that Exchange server on its own isolated box. And run that IIS server on a different box. And, um, you should run that SQL Server on yet a different box, um, for stability and robustness."