ENIAC was nowhere near complete, not even finalized in the design stage when the ABC went to work. ENIAC was in development at the time but the designers could'nt figure out some issues until after seeing how Atanasoff dealt with them in the ABC. Also, Berry did most of the work, like all grad students before and since...
If you want code monkeys hire a UI grad. If you want R&D guys hire from ISU. CompSci at ISU is really just Electrical Engineering Lite. CompSci at UI is great if you want to become a Microserf. As for Engineering at both Universities ISU is better hands down for the simple reason that more corporate money comes through ISU (an engineering research I inst.) than does UI who are again better at turning out tech drones so in demand by corporations.
Quantum mechanics does not rule out determinism. In fact, due to the exist of a finite set of constants and physical laws it is obvious that the universe is, at base deterministic. Quantum uncertainty only makes it harder for us to determine the base state of the universe. Obviously we are playing a game without having been told the rules. Not only that but the umpires won't let us watch the whole game so we can't even make a good guess at the rules. Whoever started this whole thing up really didn't want us to be able to see how it's going to turn out...
Hold on- UnitedLinux can, or at least should be able to, put any license they want on their own code. While my understanding may be flawed only the GPL'd code used (and derivatives thereof) must be released freely, source and binary. To be completely honest, I don't think there'd be any problem with UnitedLinux putting a link on their webpage pointing to Debian.org with a message that in order to take advantage of the GPL requirements for freely available source that it can be found there. They could still restrict their own code to a seat-license then.
It wouldn't make sense to name these systems "DE" babel whatever. The system in no way reunifies the languages (assuming a biblical sundering of language from a unified root). In fact in all likelihood the success of a system such as this would result in even greater differences in language, especially if the system could learn. Imagine a translator that could render a foreign language understandable and maintain a slang similar to what you used. Self-reinforcing deviations from "proper" grammar could become a serious problem.
Nothing exists before it exists however one thing can exist before another or before a point in time. I pre-exist my younger sister, and obviously my intellect meta-exists yours...
You can go fairly puny on the tires as long as you have a good soft suspension. The harder the suspension the sturdier the tires and everything else needs to be to handle the rough terrain.
Yes there is an alternative business model. The support-centered model used by Red Hat and others is an example. The current model used by (and I believe pioneered by) Microsoft has just become dominant because that's the way people see billions of dollars getting made in one place. If you look around you'll see IT Consultants around convincing clients to go with Linux/Open Source products and then making their money on support services. Just as much money gets made in this model as in the M$ model, just not all in one place. The success of a business model is less about fundamentally sound economics and more about charismatic/rich/powerful champions of the model.
And don't bash Caldera. It's been said before and it'll be said again. Free Software is free as in Speech, not free as in Beer. Regardless of what you think you can do with all that Open Source code you just downloaded none of the standard licenses allow you to just plug it through gcc and use it. You can modify it, redistribute it, etc...
Just remember TANSTAAFL, it might look free, and you might be able to use it without paying up front, but you will pay somehow.
Come on now, according to M$'s own recent propaganda all Open Source and similar licenses are viral.
The big question is, given that this license requires (seems to require?) the use of.NET servers doesn't that make this EULA a potentially viral program?
Damn he's good. That last line about stinking up the room is one of the harshest direct responses I've seen in a couple of years. I just hope M$ doesn't sick the lawyers on him for libel against Mundie.
Illegal we do immediately. Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Le Mars? You poor bastard
ENIAC was nowhere near complete, not even finalized in the design stage when the ABC went to work. ENIAC was in development at the time but the designers could'nt figure out some issues until after seeing how Atanasoff dealt with them in the ABC. Also, Berry did most of the work, like all grad students before and since...
quite right, and it was invented for calculating ballistic trajectories, not tornado research as a previous poster thought
If you want code monkeys hire a UI grad. If you want R&D guys hire from ISU. CompSci at ISU is really just Electrical Engineering Lite. CompSci at UI is great if you want to become a Microserf. As for Engineering at both Universities ISU is better hands down for the simple reason that more corporate money comes through ISU (an engineering research I inst.) than does UI who are again better at turning out tech drones so in demand by corporations.
Now it's not that bad here...as long as you've got nothing else to compare it to.
Quantum mechanics does not rule out determinism. In fact, due to the exist of a finite set of constants and physical laws it is obvious that the universe is, at base deterministic. Quantum uncertainty only makes it harder for us to determine the base state of the universe. Obviously we are playing a game without having been told the rules. Not only that but the umpires won't let us watch the whole game so we can't even make a good guess at the rules. Whoever started this whole thing up really didn't want us to be able to see how it's going to turn out...
Hold on- UnitedLinux can, or at least should be able to, put any license they want on their own code. While my understanding may be flawed only the GPL'd code used (and derivatives thereof) must be released freely, source and binary. To be completely honest, I don't think there'd be any problem with UnitedLinux putting a link on their webpage pointing to Debian.org with a message that in order to take advantage of the GPL requirements for freely available source that it can be found there. They could still restrict their own code to a seat-license then.
It wouldn't make sense to name these systems "DE" babel whatever. The system in no way reunifies the languages (assuming a biblical sundering of language from a unified root). In fact in all likelihood the success of a system such as this would result in even greater differences in language, especially if the system could learn. Imagine a translator that could render a foreign language understandable and maintain a slang similar to what you used. Self-reinforcing deviations from "proper" grammar could become a serious problem.
Nothing exists before it exists however one thing can exist before another or before a point in time. I pre-exist my younger sister, and obviously my intellect meta-exists yours...
Puny tires are ok as long as the suspension is real soft. Harder suspensions require sturdier components.
You can go fairly puny on the tires as long as you have a good soft suspension. The harder the suspension the sturdier the tires and everything else needs to be to handle the rough terrain.
Yes there is an alternative business model. The support-centered model used by Red Hat and others is an example. The current model used by (and I believe pioneered by) Microsoft has just become dominant because that's the way people see billions of dollars getting made in one place. If you look around you'll see IT Consultants around convincing clients to go with Linux/Open Source products and then making their money on support services. Just as much money gets made in this model as in the M$ model, just not all in one place. The success of a business model is less about fundamentally sound economics and more about charismatic/rich/powerful champions of the model.
And don't bash Caldera. It's been said before and it'll be said again. Free Software is free as in Speech, not free as in Beer. Regardless of what you think you can do with all that Open Source code you just downloaded none of the standard licenses allow you to just plug it through gcc and use it. You can modify it, redistribute it, etc...
Just remember TANSTAAFL, it might look free, and you might be able to use it without paying up front, but you will pay somehow.
Come on now, according to M$'s own recent propaganda all Open Source and similar licenses are viral.
.NET servers doesn't that make this EULA a potentially viral program?
The big question is, given that this license requires (seems to require?) the use of
In the Beginning was Beer, and it was Good...
Come on, at least clog their user db with offensive names and such. Every time a NYTimes link gets posted here I get to make a new one...
Furlong/Firkle/Fortnight...what a great system...
Damn he's good. That last line about stinking up the room is one of the harshest direct responses I've seen in a couple of years. I just hope M$ doesn't sick the lawyers on him for libel against Mundie. Illegal we do immediately. Unconstitutional takes a little longer.