The fact that you consider CNN "Pravda" is disconcerting. I suspect there's a bit of indoctrination going on in the Army. How many of those who enlist had actually heard of Pravda until they joined the military?
Besides, CNN was quite the cheerleader when the Iraq war started and didn't do their job of keeping the government honest.
Of course, the sacrifices that men and women like you made are real and we appreciate it. We just hate to see your valor wasted on an unnecessary war.
"The chip vendor should be paying the licensing, not the company that uses the chips."
So in your alternate scenario Apple would pay more for their chips than they do now. At the end of the day does Apple care whether they pay for licensing directly vs indirectly?
You said "never" which includes a lot of history before Vista. Despite the fact that most people got Vista by buying PCs it didn't stop the courts from allowing them to sue Microsoft as customers.
Well, all the negative moderation can be translated into "I didn't like what you said". The positive moderation can be translated into "I liked what you said". The only honest mod is "Funny" so naturally it doesn't count.
The inventors of a new technologies always have a monopoly at first by definition even if the market size is tiny.
The claim was that monopolies didn't benefit anyone else. I don't see any relevance to whether an invention by a monopoly is directly related to the core business or not.
I suspect the reason why these major monopolies were able to create so much was because they had money to burn due to their monopoly status. Smart companies do research to the extent they can afford it. You never know what you will discover or invent that might help your business.
I think it's safe to say that if C and UNIX had not been created it's doubtful that languages and OS's filling the same needs would bear much of a resemblance to them. Both C and UNIX are pretty idiosyncratic.
I was answering the claim that monopolies haven't benefited anyone else and I showed evidence to the contrary. There's always luck involved in invention.
"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place."
Perhaps Oracle thinks they can come up with another private antitrust case against MS that's worth more than a billion. Wasn't that why AOL bought Netscape?
"For the economy to recover, those people will end up having to find something else (productive) to do."
It finally dawned on me why some conservatives refer to the rich as "the most productive individuals". Being productive is all about consuming resources and expending energy and who does that better than the wealthy?
As usual "common sense" depends on your point of view. So far the only thing that has happened in the Microsoft case was a big transfer of wealth from MS to the EC and forcing MS to create a new version of Windows nobody buys.
All this because of fear that MS might someday be a big player in the server market.
"Not to mention that it is known that Microsoft leveraged their situation, and growing economic capacity, to convince manufactures that adopting their OS was a good idea."
IBM has always been bigger than MS and it still is. They just didn't care enough to fight.
No it was a public university. The housing department was threatened by something (I don't remember what) and wanted us all to write to the college board or the President of the University. I'd remember the details better if had actually written the letter.
I was once asked by my college to write a letter like that, but I refused. Since the dorm wing with the largest number of letters were supposed to get free pizza, you can imagine I was even more popular in my wing that I am around here.
Well, assuming the embedded processors have deterministic timing and the Linux kernel is also deterministic with respect to timing, it should be OK. On the other hand, if somebody uses dedicated hardware for a real-time function, it probably does at least some of the real-time in hardware rather than software.
The best real-time OS's are usually designed from the ground up to be real-time. Adding real-time functionality to an existing kernel is sub-optimal.
That's a valid approach as long as the timing intervals aren't too close together and the OS doesn't interrupt the process at the wrong time.
For example your approach was used in Atari 2600 games to get the timing of the vertical blanking right. Of course on the 2600 there were no interrupts (and no OS) so you just had to make sure all code paths in your display routine didn't exceed the vertical blanking time and then sit in a tight loop reading the timer until it reaches 0.
If you've ever seen the screen jump in the middle of an Atari 2600 game, it's because you triggered a code path that took too much time and messed up vertical blanking.
On the other hand, this approach wouldn't work while you were writing to the screen because you didn't have any time to waste (unless you had a very simple display).
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you consider CNN "Pravda" is disconcerting. I suspect there's a bit of indoctrination going on in the Army. How many of those who enlist had actually heard of Pravda until they joined the military?
Besides, CNN was quite the cheerleader when the Iraq war started and didn't do their job of keeping the government honest.
Of course, the sacrifices that men and women like you made are real and we appreciate it. We just hate to see your valor wasted on an unnecessary war.
"The chip vendor should be paying the licensing, not the company that uses the chips."
So in your alternate scenario Apple would pay more for their chips than they do now. At the end of the day does Apple care whether they pay for licensing directly vs indirectly?
You said "never" which includes a lot of history before Vista. Despite the fact that most people got Vista by buying PCs it didn't stop the courts from allowing them to sue Microsoft as customers.
Well, all the negative moderation can be translated into "I didn't like what you said". The positive moderation can be translated into "I liked what you said". The only honest mod is "Funny" so naturally it doesn't count.
"Remember MS has never concerned themselves with consumers; for the most part consumers are not their customers."
Then for the most part, consumers must not own computers.
The inventors of a new technologies always have a monopoly at first by definition even if the market size is tiny.
The claim was that monopolies didn't benefit anyone else. I don't see any relevance to whether an invention by a monopoly is directly related to the core business or not.
I suspect the reason why these major monopolies were able to create so much was because they had money to burn due to their monopoly status. Smart companies do research to the extent they can afford it. You never know what you will discover or invent that might help your business.
I think it's safe to say that if C and UNIX had not been created it's doubtful that languages and OS's filling the same needs would bear much of a resemblance to them. Both C and UNIX are pretty idiosyncratic.
I was answering the claim that monopolies haven't benefited anyone else and I showed evidence to the contrary. There's always luck involved in invention.
I believe it would mean instant discommendation for any mac user who installs Zune software on his mac.
"Microsoft should have accepted a split into OS and applications companies a few years back."
Cause we all need more OS and application incompatibilities.
"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place."
Perhaps Oracle thinks they can come up with another private antitrust case against MS that's worth more than a billion. Wasn't that why AOL bought Netscape?
"For the economy to recover, those people will end up having to find something else (productive) to do."
It finally dawned on me why some conservatives refer to the rich as "the most productive individuals". Being productive is all about consuming resources and expending energy and who does that better than the wealthy?
"Yes, the problem is that the rank-and-file know exactly which half could be cut."
Sure, the other half.
As usual "common sense" depends on your point of view. So far the only thing that has happened in the Microsoft case was a big transfer of wealth from MS to the EC and forcing MS to create a new version of Windows nobody buys.
All this because of fear that MS might someday be a big player in the server market.
"Monopolies only benefit themselves (the companies that create them) and not consumers"
Well, we can debate if the fruit of monopolies has benefited consumers:
Xerox:
Ethernet
Press->Interpress leading to Postcript at Adobe
Laser Printers
Graphical User Interface
AT&T:
C and C++
UNIX
Laser
Transistor
IBM:
FORTRAN
DES
Fractal Science
Magnetic Disks
DRAM
It means Lenovo is in the PC business and IBM is not.
I don't know about yours but my university didn't teach grammar.
the question was "Do you believe insider trading is rampant within IBM?"
"Not to mention that it is known that Microsoft leveraged their situation, and growing economic capacity, to convince manufactures that adopting their OS was a good idea."
IBM has always been bigger than MS and it still is. They just didn't care enough to fight.
No it was a public university. The housing department was threatened by something (I don't remember what) and wanted us all to write to the college board or the President of the University. I'd remember the details better if had actually written the letter.
I was once asked by my college to write a letter like that, but I refused. Since the dorm wing with the largest number of letters were supposed to get free pizza, you can imagine I was even more popular in my wing that I am around here.
"Will be trying to switch job soon."
Perhaps the FCC will assist you changing careers.
You'll never hear me apologize for people whose beliefs are in opposition to my own!
Well, assuming the embedded processors have deterministic timing and the Linux kernel is also deterministic with respect to timing, it should be OK. On the other hand, if somebody uses dedicated hardware for a real-time function, it probably does at least some of the real-time in hardware rather than software.
The best real-time OS's are usually designed from the ground up to be real-time. Adding real-time functionality to an existing kernel is sub-optimal.
That's a valid approach as long as the timing intervals aren't too close together and the OS doesn't interrupt the process at the wrong time.
For example your approach was used in Atari 2600 games to get the timing of the vertical blanking right. Of course on the 2600 there were no interrupts (and no OS) so you just had to make sure all code paths in your display routine didn't exceed the vertical blanking time and then sit in a tight loop reading the timer until it reaches 0.
If you've ever seen the screen jump in the middle of an Atari 2600 game, it's because you triggered a code path that took too much time and messed up vertical blanking.
On the other hand, this approach wouldn't work while you were writing to the screen because you didn't have any time to waste (unless you had a very simple display).
One little detail ...