The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration.
Since when? Is this a new leaf turned over in Slashdot history? Did it originate after the posting of articles from sources that require paid registration?
I see no problem with posting registration-required links. Just make sure there are others (as there are in this case).
Hey, if we increase fuel efficiency, people will just drive more! (actual argument heard somewhere)
Your implication seems to be that this argument is bogus. I personally know several people that limit their driving due to the cost of fuel and/or the environmental impact.
People that drive less because the fuel is expensive would drive more if their cars used less fuel. It seems logical to me.
As to your second argument, it's quite logical that tanks are safer than SUVs. I'm sure people would drive tanks if they weren't prohibitively expensive and/or illegal. Look at all the folks that drive (gasp!) Hummers.
My comments above do not endorse the driving of SUVs, tanks, pickup trucks, moon rovers, or Hummers. I drive a Cavalier, which still isn't great, but it's better.
You are correct, there absolutely is nothing that says you can't trademark an English word. In fact, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was implying that. However, there is a difference between Intel and Phoenix, and that is what I'm driving at.
It's a lot easier argument to convince a jury that when you go out and make a new product or company called "Intel" that you are infringing on trademark. By virtue of being a made up word, Intel pretty much gets ownership of it, regardless of the industry/product (it also helps that Intel is huge). For Phoenix, it's not necessarily as clear. The reason is because Intel is not a "real word".
It's a pitty to see Intel's name as one of the companies opposing OSS. Strangely they reach out at one side and then at the other side they slap you in the face. It is not that Intel should choose sides.
It's called hedging your bets. Intel really has no interest in what operating system you buy, as long as it runs on their hardware. Since both Microsoft and Linux run on Intel hardware (a fact which is not going to change), why shouldn't Intel support both sides? As long as one of them wins, Intel wins.
"The reason is that the BIOS manufacturer Phoenix Technologies dislikes the trademark infrigment[sic]."
That should say that Phoenix Technologies dislikes the perceived trademark infringement. Whether or not there is actual trademark infringement in this case is very disputable.
Then why don't these sites just make effective banner ads?
Annoying banner ads are bad enough. Pop-up ads are just annoying. I don't even bother to look at ads which open windows in undesirable ways. At least I might take a look at an average banner ad.
First of all, most of the topics you mentioned are being implemented as part of the.NET Framework class libraries. ADO.NET is in System.Data XML is in System.Xml LDAP is an open standard that Microsoft does not own.
Developing these class libraries is part of the Mono project.
The language (C#) is not dependent on these vendor-specific libraries. It is quite easy to write code that will run on both Windows and Linux that does not involve any of them. Of course, it may not do what you want, but that's why Portable.NET/Mono/whoever is building the things they are.
It's not so much "why a developer would want to write a.net program in Linux" as "how does a developer make a.net program written in Windows run on Linux".
This site has a 2002 Club Car for $5990 (I assume in C$, which would be about $4000 US). It even includes a canopy and sweater basket. Can't tell if it's new or not...but the bottom of the page says "All our golf cars are reconditioned, and carry a one year warranty". Also doesn't say if it includes a charger, etc.
Actually, the batteries they used had slip-on connectors.
From the story: "The batteries have slip-on connectors, which have bothered me for quite a while, but screw terminal batteries are not available until much larger sizes. We are going to drill our own screw terminals in the lugs of future batteries, and possibly solder them as well."
I never could figure out why they think it will succeed at a speed half of what you can bicycle at comfortably. (Yes, I know bicycles are banned from sidewalks in most places but that is rarely enforced - and bicycles are generally allowed on running paths.)
You must be one of the people that nearly runs over me daily in the process of riding your bicycle down the sidewalk. I wish that the laws in this regard would be enforced a bit more often.
I also wish that there were more bicycle-only lanes on streets so that cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the sidewalk to be safe from traffic. Actually, this would solve the first problem quite nicely.
Maybe not replacing golf carts in large buildings, but what about an enhanced Segway to replace golf carts on golf courses? I think that would be pretty sweet.
I'm amazed. Last week, Microsoft demonstrates a tablet PC running Windows. Slashdot was unimpressed, and the only things that were mentioned were how the demonstration didn't go off without a hitch.
Now, these guys are making a tablet PC which will run with Windows or (of all things) Lindows. And people on Slashdot start doing things like celebrating, and talking about how great tablet PCs are.
I still think that tablets are a waste of money. Too big to be a handheld, too underpowered to be a PC, and too expensive for either market.
Slashdot Mirror
The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration.
Since when? Is this a new leaf turned over in Slashdot history? Did it originate after the posting of articles from sources that require paid registration?
I see no problem with posting registration-required links. Just make sure there are others (as there are in this case).
Not if you turn off signature display in your preferences. Right now I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Are you thinking of the Red Sea or the Dead Sea?
The Red Sea may have salt, but so do the other seas
and the oceans.
Quiet, you insensitive clod!
Some of us haven't seen the movie yet.
Hey, if we increase fuel efficiency, people will just drive more! (actual argument heard somewhere)
Your implication seems to be that this argument is bogus. I personally know several people that limit their driving due to the cost of fuel and/or the environmental impact.
People that drive less because the fuel is expensive would drive more if their cars used less fuel. It seems logical to me.
As to your second argument, it's quite logical that tanks are safer than SUVs. I'm sure people would drive tanks if they weren't prohibitively expensive and/or illegal. Look at all the folks that drive (gasp!) Hummers.
My comments above do not endorse the driving of SUVs, tanks, pickup trucks, moon rovers, or Hummers. I drive a Cavalier, which still isn't great, but it's better.
IANAL.
You are correct, there absolutely is nothing that says you can't trademark an English word. In fact, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was implying that. However, there is a difference between Intel and Phoenix, and that is what I'm driving at.
It's a lot easier argument to convince a jury that when you go out and make a new product or company called "Intel" that you are infringing on trademark. By virtue of being a made up word, Intel pretty much gets ownership of it, regardless of the industry/product (it also helps that Intel is huge). For Phoenix, it's not necessarily as clear. The reason is because Intel is not a "real word".
Does that make my point any clearer?
The problem with that argument is that Intel is not a word in the English language outside of Intel Corp.
Phoenix is.
It's a pitty to see Intel's name as one of the companies opposing OSS. Strangely they reach out at one side and then at the other side they slap you in the face. It is not that Intel should choose sides.
It's called hedging your bets. Intel really has no interest in what operating system you buy, as long as it runs on their hardware. Since both Microsoft and Linux run on Intel hardware (a fact which is not going to change), why shouldn't Intel support both sides? As long as one of them wins, Intel wins.
"The reason is that the BIOS manufacturer Phoenix Technologies dislikes the trademark infrigment[sic]."
That should say that Phoenix Technologies dislikes the perceived trademark infringement. Whether or not there is actual trademark infringement in this case is very disputable.
How about this one?
"Hibbert: Hmmmm. Through the midst of all the killing and skin-eating, somehow we forgot the looovvve."
Clearly, sir, you have been trolled. Quite well, I might add.
This line kind of gives it away:
"Hopefully, geeks on Slashdot will continue to support Disney so that we can get more of this!"
Since when does Disney get any support from the geeks on Slashdot?
Then why don't these sites just make effective banner ads?
Annoying banner ads are bad enough. Pop-up ads are just annoying. I don't even bother to look at ads which open windows in undesirable ways. At least I might take a look at an average banner ad.
First of all, most of the topics you mentioned are being implemented as part of the
ADO.NET is in System.Data
XML is in System.Xml
LDAP is an open standard that Microsoft does not own.
Developing these class libraries is part of the Mono project.
The language (C#) is not dependent on these vendor-specific libraries. It is quite easy to write code that will run on both Windows and Linux that does not involve any of them. Of course, it may not do what you want, but that's why Portable.NET/Mono/whoever is building the things they are.
It's not so much "why a developer would want to write a
Just my 2 cents.
Sorry, the link should go here.
Gotta preview next time.
Work is being pursued on the topic of System.Windows.Forms using WineLib on non-Win32 architectures.
Please read the Mono System.Windows.Forms page for more information.
It doesn't look good...
This site has a 2002 Club Car for $5990 (I assume in C$, which would be about $4000 US). It even includes a canopy and sweater basket. Can't tell if it's new or not...but the bottom of the page says "All our golf cars are reconditioned, and carry a one year warranty". Also doesn't say if it includes a charger, etc.
Actually, the batteries they used had slip-on connectors.
From the story:
"The batteries have slip-on connectors, which have bothered me for quite a while, but screw terminal batteries are not available until much larger sizes. We are going to drill our own screw terminals in the lugs of future batteries, and possibly solder them as well."
I never could figure out why they think it will succeed at a speed half of what you can bicycle at comfortably. (Yes, I know bicycles are banned from sidewalks in most places but that is rarely enforced - and bicycles are generally allowed on running paths.)
You must be one of the people that nearly runs over me daily in the process of riding your bicycle down the sidewalk. I wish that the laws in this regard would be enforced a bit more often.
I also wish that there were more bicycle-only lanes on streets so that cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the sidewalk to be safe from traffic. Actually, this would solve the first problem quite nicely.
Maybe not replacing golf carts in large buildings, but what about an enhanced Segway to replace golf carts on golf courses? I think that would be pretty sweet.
Why did you post it then?
Two words: Paid advertising.
Yeah, GPL isn't free as in beer; it's free as in prostitutes.
I'm amazed. Last week, Microsoft demonstrates a tablet PC running Windows. Slashdot was unimpressed, and the only things that were mentioned were how the demonstration didn't go off without a hitch.
Now, these guys are making a tablet PC which will run with Windows or (of all things) Lindows. And people on Slashdot start doing things like celebrating, and talking about how great tablet PCs are.
I still think that tablets are a waste of money. Too big to be a handheld, too underpowered to be a PC, and too expensive for either market.
Ahem. I assume that is the scientific division of Barnes and Noble?
Hmm...I guess you miss out then. It's a shame, really.
That's completely untrue. There's no way an Amiga could simulate all of this.