if Amazon is making pennies of profit on a $10 book, then how come I can go down to borders [...] and buy a book for 7 bucks?
Because the comparison GP posted is dishonest. It compares a low-volume, high-margin product (a hardcover) with a high-volume, low-margin (aka bulk) product (an ebook). I would be surprised if the ratio is as skewed for paperbacks. I would be very much surprised indeed.
As a former C-64 hacker, let me tell you one thing: the fact that it could but display 40 columns of text was a common complaint about its suitability as a business computer. In those same eighties, people who had to deal with large amounts of text used 80-column displays, as on Commodore's CBM range of business computers, or on the CP/M machines.
So, why don't you stop digging any further? The RDF is not going to change history for you, no matter how much you wish it would.
None grasped the implications? That's a bit strong. I think John Brunner did a very good job in 'The Shockwave Rider'. Heck, he was a acknowledged influence of Robert T. Morris. How is that for grasping the implications?
Meh. Friday is from 1982. How about 'The Shockwave Rider' by John Brunner? Written in 1975, with a global communications network as a central plot point, and the first literary description of the concept of a computer worm.
Really, here on Slashdot I'd expect people to know their classics.
No. The screen is too small. Thirty years of human-computer interaction knowledge has taught us that the minimum resolution for 80-column text is 640 pixels wide. You can try to argue that the Jesusphone is too brilliant to throw away something that was obvious by the 1980s, but it just makes you look like a stupid fanboi.
It's not an assumption. Vehicle analogy warning: a little 12HP engine is great for a commuter bike like the Honda CBF125, but it is impossible to win the MotoGP with it.
Parent is right. I have seen the Jesusphone in action, and for casual browsing it is OK, but the screen is too small to present readable text for long periods. For that, you need something that can at least display 80 characters in decent resolution on a single line.
Eh? Why would that be a problem? Just use the supplied backup & restore tools (pg_dump and pg_restore), they work just fine. If you really can't back up a database without a pointy-clicky GUI, you have no business being a DBA.
Microsoft implies very heavily that there are patent problems, and that they at least will license them RAND, given their official statement with ECMA-334. The Mono fanbois assert there is no patent problem because Microsoft will license the patents royalty-free.
You assert, you prove. No amount of trying to twist around from under your burden of proof is going to save you. It's just going to make you look like a Microsoft shill.
It doesn't work that way. Microsoft, the Mono developers, and the fanbois, keep asserting that Microsoft provides royalty-free licensing for any patents in C#/CLI. It is up to you to prove that assertion. Until you do, the opposition is fully in their rights to assume there is a patent problem.
So, where is the official royalty-free license to any patents that may apply to C#/CLI?
What decision to go royalty-free? Where is the official statement that Microsoft will license any applicable patents in C# royalty free? Because the only thing I have been able to find were informal statements on mailing lists and in interviews.
There is no royalty-free license for C#/CLI. If I am mistaken, please provide me with a link to one.
My mistake on the 37mm. I mixed it up with the 37mm Anti-Tank gun, which was in common use at the time. The gun calibers on the planes were, as you mention, smaller. Although the Bf109E already carried the 30mm.
Psst: here in Europe some countries are already on target to meet 90% of their Kyoto treaty obligations by next year. But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your petulant defense of your profligate lifestyle.
"The Sheep Look Up". John Brunner had your national character dead to rights, didn't he?
Sheer weight of fire. The problem with dogfighting is shooting from a moving platform at a moving target. Bullets just don't do enough damage.
There were two solutions found:
The British went for multiple machineguns, four to a wing, with converging fire, in order to get more hits. Even though the bullets themselves didn't do much damage, there were a whole lot of them, so the accumulated damage from multiple hits was enough to down an enemy plane. The USAAF took the idea and just increased the caliber. Downside was wasting enormous amounts of ammo.
More powerful shells. This was the route the Germans took, arming their fighter planes with 37mm cannon from the beginning of the war. Few hits were needed to down an enemy, but low accuracy made the relative low rate of fire a liability to even get those shells on target.
Note that the Pacific is different. The Japanese believed in cannon fire, and their cannon had sufficient rate of fire and weight of shot to be deadly. The US fighters were rugged, which was a decent counter to the fearsome Japanese cannon, but in terms of armament they were definitely lighter armed. The fact that Japanese planes had lousy or no armour helped, as they could easily be downed by salvos much smaller than needed in the ETO.
Yes, even against P-51s. 4 out of 5 downed planes never saw their assailant (source: Mike Spick, Fighter Pilot Tactics). The best plane in the world won't help you much if you're bounced from above.
And by the time Merlin-engined P-51s entered service in telling numbers, the Luftwaffe was already staggering due to unfavourable tactical conditions and a destroyed logistics net. The P-51 was merely the final straw.
Erm. The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190, the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 (although that one was too late to make a difference). Also, the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.
In terms of performance, the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944. After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell, and after losing much of their basing capacity, the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany. Which, aside from the numerical inferiority, also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage, as they had to climb up to the fight. The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the comparison GP posted is dishonest. It compares a low-volume, high-margin product (a hardcover) with a high-volume, low-margin (aka bulk) product (an ebook). I would be surprised if the ratio is as skewed for paperbacks. I would be very much surprised indeed.
Mart
As a former C-64 hacker, let me tell you one thing: the fact that it could but display 40 columns of text was a common complaint about its suitability as a business computer. In those same eighties, people who had to deal with large amounts of text used 80-column displays, as on Commodore's CBM range of business computers, or on the CP/M machines.
So, why don't you stop digging any further? The RDF is not going to change history for you, no matter how much you wish it would.
Mart
None grasped the implications? That's a bit strong. I think John Brunner did a very good job in 'The Shockwave Rider'. Heck, he was a acknowledged influence of Robert T. Morris. How is that for grasping the implications?
Mart
Meh. Friday is from 1982. How about 'The Shockwave Rider' by John Brunner? Written in 1975, with a global communications network as a central plot point, and the first literary description of the concept of a computer worm.
Really, here on Slashdot I'd expect people to know their classics.
Mart
No. The screen is too small. Thirty years of human-computer interaction knowledge has taught us that the minimum resolution for 80-column text is 640 pixels wide. You can try to argue that the Jesusphone is too brilliant to throw away something that was obvious by the 1980s, but it just makes you look like a stupid fanboi.
Mart
Which is still better than 0fps.
Fanbois! Sheesh.
Mart
It's not an assumption. Vehicle analogy warning: a little 12HP engine is great for a commuter bike like the Honda CBF125, but it is impossible to win the MotoGP with it.
Parent is right. I have seen the Jesusphone in action, and for casual browsing it is OK, but the screen is too small to present readable text for long periods. For that, you need something that can at least display 80 characters in decent resolution on a single line.
Mart
And this makes what Microsoft does any better how?
Insightful my arse.
Mart
Eh? Why would that be a problem? Just use the supplied backup & restore tools (pg_dump and pg_restore), they work just fine. If you really can't back up a database without a pointy-clicky GUI, you have no business being a DBA.
Mart
What typical OSS fashion? Middle-clicking on things to make something happen dates back to at least Netscape Navigator.
Mart
Actually, I am not claiming it is untrue. So you are not a shill. You're just stupid.
Mart
Yes, that worked so well for Maggie Thatcher...Oh wait.
Well, maybe for Israel? Oh no, Fatah and the PLO stopped using terrorism after Israel started negotiating.
History is not on the side of your assertion, it appears.
Mart
A mailing list post. Right. And that is a patent license in your eyes? Go pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Mart
Actually, I've given a source. You, so far, haven't. So if we're going to apply the same standard, why don't you put up or shut up, Mr. Shill?
Mart
Microsoft implies very heavily that there are patent problems, and that they at least will license them RAND, given their official statement with ECMA-334. The Mono fanbois assert there is no patent problem because Microsoft will license the patents royalty-free.
You assert, you prove. No amount of trying to twist around from under your burden of proof is going to save you. It's just going to make you look like a Microsoft shill.
Mart
It doesn't work that way. Microsoft, the Mono developers, and the fanbois, keep asserting that Microsoft provides royalty-free licensing for any patents in C#/CLI. It is up to you to prove that assertion. Until you do, the opposition is fully in their rights to assume there is a patent problem.
So, where is the official royalty-free license to any patents that may apply to C#/CLI?
Mart
Key words: 'will be'. So where is that royalty-free RAND license now, 5 years later?
Mart
What decision to go royalty-free? Where is the official statement that Microsoft will license any applicable patents in C# royalty free? Because the only thing I have been able to find were informal statements on mailing lists and in interviews.
There is no royalty-free license for C#/CLI. If I am mistaken, please provide me with a link to one.
Mart
In the world war II timeframe? My guess would be the 'TseTse', the anti-shipping Mosquito, carrying a 6-pounder AT gun (57mm).
Mart
My mistake on the 37mm. I mixed it up with the 37mm Anti-Tank gun, which was in common use at the time. The gun calibers on the planes were, as you mention, smaller. Although the Bf109E already carried the 30mm.
Mart
Psst: here in Europe some countries are already on target to meet 90% of their Kyoto treaty obligations by next year. But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your petulant defense of your profligate lifestyle.
"The Sheep Look Up". John Brunner had your national character dead to rights, didn't he?
Mart
Sheer weight of fire. The problem with dogfighting is shooting from a moving platform at a moving target. Bullets just don't do enough damage.
There were two solutions found:
Note that the Pacific is different. The Japanese believed in cannon fire, and their cannon had sufficient rate of fire and weight of shot to be deadly. The US fighters were rugged, which was a decent counter to the fearsome Japanese cannon, but in terms of armament they were definitely lighter armed. The fact that Japanese planes had lousy or no armour helped, as they could easily be downed by salvos much smaller than needed in the ETO.
Mart
Who says we're missing legitimate e-mail? I handle rejections from legitimate relations as I should: by prompt and immediate white-listing.
Sorry, but that you don't know how to run a mail server is not my problem.
Mart
Yes, even against P-51s. 4 out of 5 downed planes never saw their assailant (source: Mike Spick, Fighter Pilot Tactics). The best plane in the world won't help you much if you're bounced from above.
And by the time Merlin-engined P-51s entered service in telling numbers, the Luftwaffe was already staggering due to unfavourable tactical conditions and a destroyed logistics net. The P-51 was merely the final straw.
Mart
Erm. The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190, the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 (although that one was too late to make a difference). Also, the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.
In terms of performance, the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944. After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell, and after losing much of their basing capacity, the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany. Which, aside from the numerical inferiority, also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage, as they had to climb up to the fight. The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard.
Mart