They need to tax paper, because that's used in photocopiers. They need to tax food, because that's used in copyrighted recipes. They need to tax scanners and digital cameras, because they can be used to capture images of copyrighted works. They need to tax chairs, because the person doing the copying of copyrighted works usually sits in one. They need to tax wood, because that's used in furniture upon which the equipment used to copy copyrighted works usually sits. They need to tax magnets, because they can be used in speakers that a person can use to listen to copyrighted works. They need to tax monitors, because they can be used to view.
They did the processor for the 360, and the Wii, and the PS3. It's probably fairer to say this doesn't look good for the IBM guys that did the Cell architecture.
This is the poorest excuse for an article I've seen on Slashdot in a while. Not only is it a rehash of an argument that's been going on for years, it doesn't even get its facts straight regarding the ACID2 test.
Opera9 isn't the only browser to pass the ACID2 test. Hell, it's not even the first.
It's a big, bad issue and Congress must act...before the corrupt party gets thrown out of office and we have to start all over bribing a new set of lawmakers.
I think you're not being honest here. You should replace "bribing a new set of lawmakers" with "bribing the other corrupt party".
They seem to be forgetting who initiates the connection. Their customers are paying their ISPs for the right to access sites. Google is paying their ISP for the right to be available on the Internet.
For a cable company to come along and say they should be able to charge everyone whose traffic passes through their pipes goes against the fundamental nature of the internet. The only result is that more money from consumers will work its way into the hands of ISPs. The costs of the infrastructure will be spread out to those that don't even use the infrastructure these charges are supposedly funding.
...what's "lacking" in Java. PHP targetting Java bytecodes would be yet still another way to skin the cat. That being said, IBM would probably chip in to help Zend on that project. It probably would love nothing better than to see PHP running on top of WebSphere Express or Community Edition talking to Java apps.
Next up, broadcasters will get with La-Z-Boy for a chair with built in restraints that automatically activate during commercials, forcing the user to sit and watch commercials.
Saying that the U.S. refuses to cut greenhouse emissions is ignorant. Presumably it's based on the U.S.'s refusal to join the Kyoto Protocols over fears of competitive imbalance (e.g., several fast-growing economies wouldn't be party to the protocol as "developing nations"). That's not the same.
I don't necessarily agree with the U.S. position, but I think any discussion about policy should require a fundamental sense of honesty that is missing from statements like the "U.S. refuses to cut greenhouse emissions."
Linux runs in a virtual partition, and is managed by a hypervisor. It won't actually run ON i5/OS. It used to be that i5/OS was the hypervisor in the system, but that hasn't been true for a number of years.
Your selective logic is puzzling. Turning each point around:
A Mac should be more of a success than Windows because it is more friendly for non-geeks than Windows, particularly when it comes to ease of installing devices.
B Linux should be more of a success than Windows because computer makers can gain more profit when they sell a Linux box than they can for a Windows box. Less money going to the OS vendor means more money in the computer maker's pocket.
(This is setting aside that your point B is invalid because Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to manufacture Mac clones).
Most of what the FCC chief is backing is the concept of offering consumers different levels of bandwidth based on how much THEY pay. Web connections to the internet are the same deal.
The big objection, which I don't see clearly addressed in this article, is the _consumer's_ ISP charging websites for bandwidth.
I remember reading that one of NT's big features was going to be the Windows, OS/2, and POSIX subsystems on top of a lightweight kernel. (Sounds similar to MVS and OS/400, two extremely powerful virtualized operating systems).
The action to invalidate NTP's patents continues, so NTP won't be able to do this to other vendors. The flawed legal & patent systems led to this resolution. RIM basically had two choices: 1) risk the injunction (which would have been a death sentence for the Blackberry business, no matter what workarounds they had) or 2) pay them to shut up, and rest easy knowing the customers won't be left high and dry because of an injunction.
Huh? Show me any PPC that competes with Yonah on performance/watt.
I can't say whether there is or isn't one. However, the question of current PPC and current Intel chips is irrelevent. The decision was stated by Jobs to be based on the roadmaps for the product lines. Only future chips are relevent in that discussion.
"This" is a server chip due in 2007...
You can't see the forest for the trees. The point isn't about this server chip. The point is that the fabrication process used for this chip would be applicable to other chip designs as well, with power-saving benefits.
Well, yeah. Why should Apple keep bribing...
I didn't say they should. I said that the decision wasn't based on power consumption, as advertised by Apple. I'm not addressing whether moving to Intel was the right thing for Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
They need to tax paper, because that's used in photocopiers.
They need to tax food, because that's used in copyrighted recipes.
They need to tax scanners and digital cameras, because they can be used to capture images of copyrighted works.
They need to tax chairs, because the person doing the copying of copyrighted works usually sits in one.
They need to tax wood, because that's used in furniture upon which the equipment used to copy copyrighted works usually sits.
They need to tax magnets, because they can be used in speakers that a person can use to listen to copyrighted works.
They need to tax monitors, because they can be used to view.
If they used content from the other servers. It's probably imminent anyway.
Big Media only has to win once to get their onerous scheme enacted.
In a world where z/OS, i5/OS, and OpenBSD exist, Vista cannot be considered the most secure OS ever.
They did the processor for the 360, and the Wii, and the PS3. It's probably fairer to say this doesn't look good for the IBM guys that did the Cell architecture.
This is the poorest excuse for an article I've seen on Slashdot in a while. Not only is it a rehash of an argument that's been going on for years, it doesn't even get its facts straight regarding the ACID2 test.
5 _04.html#008042
e ror-pass-acid2/
o rted-in-opera-one-year-later/
o x-acid2-compliance-on-its-way/
Opera9 isn't the only browser to pass the ACID2 test. Hell, it's not even the first.
Safari passed on April 27, 2005:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/200
iCab passed in June, 2005, followed closely by Konqueror:
http://www.webstandards.org/2005/06/07/icab-konqu
Beta builds of Opera were next on March 28, 2006:
http://www.webstandards.org/2006/03/28/acid2-supp
A development branch of Firefox showed compliance on April 13, 2006:
http://www.thinklemon.com/weblog/2006/04/13/firef
The funniest one is that someone cheated and got Firefox to pass last May:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/05/greasemonkey
It's a big, bad issue and Congress must act...before the corrupt party gets thrown out of office and we have to start all over bribing a new set of lawmakers.
I think you're not being honest here. You should replace "bribing a new set of lawmakers" with "bribing the other corrupt party".
They seem to be forgetting who initiates the connection. Their customers are paying their ISPs for the right to access sites. Google is paying their ISP for the right to be available on the Internet.
For a cable company to come along and say they should be able to charge everyone whose traffic passes through their pipes goes against the fundamental nature of the internet. The only result is that more money from consumers will work its way into the hands of ISPs. The costs of the infrastructure will be spread out to those that don't even use the infrastructure these charges are supposedly funding.
they're not just sniffing glue.
This guy is a nimrod. I say use what you want to use, and far be it from me or any holier-than-thou idiot publisher to tell them what's best for them.
...what's "lacking" in Java. PHP targetting Java bytecodes would be yet still another way to skin the cat. That being said, IBM would probably chip in to help Zend on that project. It probably would love nothing better than to see PHP running on top of WebSphere Express or Community Edition talking to Java apps.
I'm with you. ARS clearly has no concept of "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
They may consider it an illegitimate knock-off, but they need to get their heads out of their posteriors so they can smell what's really going on.
Next up, broadcasters will get with La-Z-Boy for a chair with built in restraints that automatically activate during commercials, forcing the user to sit and watch commercials.
If the user is supposed to have freedom to do what they want with the software, then they should have the freedom to use proprietary drivers. PERIOD.
Saying that the U.S. refuses to cut greenhouse emissions is ignorant. Presumably it's based on the U.S.'s refusal to join the Kyoto Protocols over fears of competitive imbalance (e.g., several fast-growing economies wouldn't be party to the protocol as "developing nations"). That's not the same.
I don't necessarily agree with the U.S. position, but I think any discussion about policy should require a fundamental sense of honesty that is missing from statements like the "U.S. refuses to cut greenhouse emissions."
Beg to differ. It is open source (as in the source of JDK is available). It's just not free software.
Linux runs in a virtual partition, and is managed by a hypervisor. It won't actually run ON i5/OS. It used to be that i5/OS was the hypervisor in the system, but that hasn't been true for a number of years.
My comment was more about Information Week's claim that the Linux stuff was being ported to the i5/OS.
Never mind. Source article came straight from IBM press release. Information Week read between the lines and came up with something not even there.
Read the Information Week article. The system already runs on Linux. It's being ported to i5/OS.
Your selective logic is puzzling. Turning each point around:
A Mac should be more of a success than Windows because it is more friendly for non-geeks than Windows, particularly when it comes to ease of installing devices.
B Linux should be more of a success than Windows because computer makers can gain more profit when they sell a Linux box than they can for a Windows box. Less money going to the OS vendor means more money in the computer maker's pocket.
(This is setting aside that your point B is invalid because Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to manufacture Mac clones).
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554
Most of what the FCC chief is backing is the concept of offering consumers different levels of bandwidth based on how much THEY pay. Web connections to the internet are the same deal.
The big objection, which I don't see clearly addressed in this article, is the _consumer's_ ISP charging websites for bandwidth.
I remember reading that one of NT's big features was going to be the Windows, OS/2, and POSIX subsystems on top of a lightweight kernel. (Sounds similar to MVS and OS/400, two extremely powerful virtualized operating systems).
The action to invalidate NTP's patents continues, so NTP won't be able to do this to other vendors. The flawed legal & patent systems led to this resolution. RIM basically had two choices: 1) risk the injunction (which would have been a death sentence for the Blackberry business, no matter what workarounds they had) or 2) pay them to shut up, and rest easy knowing the customers won't be left high and dry because of an injunction.
The gaming console cores suck.
No argument. That's why I termed it a starting point.
Huh? Show me any PPC that competes with Yonah on performance/watt.
I can't say whether there is or isn't one. However, the question of current PPC and current Intel chips is irrelevent. The decision was stated by Jobs to be based on the roadmaps for the product lines. Only future chips are relevent in that discussion.
"This" is a server chip due in 2007...
You can't see the forest for the trees. The point isn't about this server chip. The point is that the fabrication process used for this chip would be applicable to other chip designs as well, with power-saving benefits.
Well, yeah. Why should Apple keep bribing...
I didn't say they should. I said that the decision wasn't based on power consumption, as advertised by Apple. I'm not addressing whether moving to Intel was the right thing for Apple.