and like the other guy whoever he was. 52@72 = 13@18
My 15" @ 1280*768 looks great by comparison.
Hardware in a closed economic system... $...
WHAT Linux FORKS? Are car dealers's forks of MAZDA
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, what forks. Do you call a car dealership a fork of the company or a fucking distributor!
GPL=CONTROL of OPPORTUNITY! GPL Not= STARVATION!
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 0
READ the fucking license before posting.
and check out Buying from FSF at www.gnu.org/orrder/order.html
Re:Think again - I did You forget exposure!
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Windows NT Server 4.0 Networking Guide, p.781: "Windows Sockets is a programming interface based on the familiar 'socket' interface from the University of California at Berkeley.
Compared to what? The GPL shows everyone where the code comes from. How many people using NT ever read that particular book? I have Win NT Enterprise Networking... No word of Berkeley.
The reality is that the entire point of Berkeley TCP/IP was to assist companies like Microsoft, Sun, and Apple to build a standard networking infrastructure. Which they did.
Are you suggesting that people like myself are incapable of building such an infrastructure? The whole industry would love to have you believe that only MS, Apple, SUN can do the work.
Money problems? Really why do you think that is?
Personal opinion for example: Hardware takes time to set up. And I'd have it taken out to introduce a robust system that doesn't cost billions of dollars in order to upgrade every five years.
Dump the Phone companies, setup an open satellite based network with no spying, no regionalism, no centralization, and no restrictions. Companies would never let you do that. It isn't impossible nor a pipe dream.
However, anything produced under the BSD lends its weight to assholes. We have enough of them.
Now I don't know about you, but as far as I see it BSD allows companies to make prpoducts proprietary meaning that if there's code from the BSD source in your program they'll sue your ass. C'mon they've sued for much less. Look n feel lawsuits remember.
Ms took BSD code! We do live in a GPL world!
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
GPL is good where... GPL rules.
Hello, it's a very commonly used license and the world itself is a GPL world. We live in a world where information matched with education and skill equals production. Why do you companies try to take code away? Why do you think that the computer market took off when companies gave out schematics and programming books with their products. > >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative > >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use > > > >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under > >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code > >directly to Microsoft. > > And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
The FSF sells their CD's for quite a bit of money, take a look. They're not starving! And they're probably pretty comfortable. Granted they would rather spend $1000 on a good amplifier, mixer, and axe than a damn Rolex!
Read: http://www.gnu.org/order/order.html
I should then demand the freedom to lock someone up. All I'd have to do to get a bunch of idiot emotionalists on my side is tell them some bullshit fairytale of a battle that was won when the opposition was locked up. When people work 40 hrs a week, feed 3 children, pay $100's in bills, they tend to forget history and you'll be able to tell them anything.
I understand the BSD license, and I know they're doing the same thing GPL'ers. It's just that they depend purely on vague values, ignore the legal and patent minefield were actually living in, and they never consider the principles and conditions that allow the freedoms they're fighting for to exist in the first place. Beyond that they're ok people.
Then there's the BSD pundits (there's a few just like our GPL pundits which are worse than Stallman, Raymond, and Perens all together could ever be on a bad day) you know the wanna-be philosophers who give both their fellow BSDers and GPLers a bad name.
They're the only ones accusing GPL'ers of Communism. I've seen some pretty calm posts from real BSDers.
Here's a message to the wannabe's: Communism was a theory called Karl Marx's Marxist Socialism.
First, that never happened! Second, he was completely wrong! He rejected rationalism (get this) because people around him were not behaving rationally, so he said reason doesn't exist. What did happen was the Communists took the powers of production from the rest of the people. Guess what? Historical Communism as I've just defined it is precisely what "capitalism" is today. Gates is a bastard commie. Capitalism did exist in its intended form back when people worked their asses off to get an invention produced. These days American capitalism is just like the earlier Russian capitalism. They beat us at the capitalist race too. They had a harder time holding on to true healthy capitalism because they tried to sklp the industrial revolution. They ended up with technology that the mass populace was unable conceive practical uses for. When America's industrial revolution took place most people knew about it. What we call capitalism is a load of shit marketting, scamming, spamming, and perpetual litigation. None of that is hard to do if you have the stomach for all the doublethink it involves.
Software is not hardware. It may take time. There's code to write. And sure it takes to compile and debug (do proprietary companies still do that?). But realise this you're comparing a state-of-the-art pail to carry water in to the well. Sure it takes time to build a machine to carry water to your customers. The does not mean you can stop someone from taking their own time and going to get the water themselves. Proprietary companies do this with bullshit NDA's.
There is little water without the the pipes and machinery getting it from the well. There is no software without the PC. Where would you be had IBM won its suit against Pheonix over blackbox blind-engineering their BIOS. The IBM would come in fruity colors by now.
There is no market for water is people have to pay extreme prices to get water and aren't allowed to get information to get it themselves. The market lies dormant limited to pure survival purposes.
There is no market for software if the means of production (information, gcc, libraries, source) are taken away. The market lies dormant as purely Visual Basic interface design. No kernel, no document and information management, no personal video editing, no open gaming development. (TRY UNREAL! Four years open development!)
But right now the biggest problem is the legal patent minefield.
Seriously this is the proof of the GPL:
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative > >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use > > > >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under > >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code > >directly to Microsoft. > > And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
Why previous civilizations have gone to space...
on
The Factoid
·
· Score: 1
Now it all makes sense.
Hardware hackers any ideas?
How to Crash a factoid!
on
The Factoid
·
· Score: 1
Crashing
1. Waste the processor Start scripting things like: Enhance model of the model of the world in terms of all facts collected and apply to all other facts known to mankind. Report findings. Repeat.
Enhance intelligibility of speech in crowds: Take it to Woodstock which will probably start to happen every year soon. Tell it keep track of sound and relate it to every other sound and then relate that to the complete history of sounds recorded and tell it to try to understand what everyone is saying. 2. Waste the space Point the camera at the PreVue channel while shaking it to record as much information from every angle possible. Then tell it to review that information while reviewing the reviewing of its reviewing.
A case of hyper self-conscious introversion will reduce the thing to catatonia.
Pardon me if I'm crossposting. But I think this is a PR issue.
There's nothing more confusing than the year and title naming scheme Microsoft and Intel use.
I know the auto industry does it with cars. It works because it's a short phrase for anyone who's out buying cars to recognize.
I'm concerned that it adds an unneeded context for hardware OEMs and Do-It-Yourselfers to think about. They're the only ones putting the system together. HP Pavilion makes sense. It's like a car. Complete system with features. AMD Athlon doesn't. The processor is not a car. The processor is a feature of the machine. It's the hardware side of the engine. (Can't ignore Linux) If my car's feature list didn't say x horsepower engine and y cylinders, but just said it has the Mitsubishi Twin Turbo F-22 engine, I'd move on. I don't have a catalog of Mitsubishi engines mailed to my house every month that I might memorize so I know what that name means when I'm out shopping for cars.
And if I were fixing a car I'd be looking in the catalog for the car itself by year to find detailed specs for the engine.
New customers will jump at it of course. It sounds cool. We're talking about people who have never bought a system and used it for a while. Customers looking for the next sytem to buy, however, will be confused if the processor speed, cache, 3DNow! isn't available on the feature list. And if all that is available, then it's redundant.
It just like giving a particular screw on the PC it's own special name.
See these for more info:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/22/1528 210&mode=thread (the french connection is there some place) www.austin360.com/technology/stories/1999/06/21k 7name.html
Yeah so news stations can ignore bonehead PSN shit. Not one fucking news station ever told anyone about it. AND not one fucking Intel ad advertises it. So guess what trhey're not in it for the good guy.
You're not an advertising graduate looking for a job, are you?
What do we do with all these handy potentially useful stuff. With nano-madness and nano-great-inventions and fears nano-nazis, I get the feeling we have all the parts to build I don't know a starship, but no idea where we're going to get the negative mass to get the warpdrive up and running. Yes, they've got it down to almost manageable scale. It's like there's all this stuff we could build if we could just stop killing each other for just one week.
The ultimate humiliation: humanity knows everything except that one thing.
Keep searching for them gravitons. If there's a negative graviton charge we're ready to go.
Do you realize that your post is incomprehensible and you come off like a typical fuzzy headed communist?
Hey, listen. I learned the damned English language from a TRS-80 BASIC programming book. BTW that's the first encounter I ever had with Microsoft. Apparently for undefined error messages the message would be the company's name. I don't know, were they trying to build up the public's tolerance of bugs?
I tend to place facts first then discuss them. I don't think in sentences. I think in terms of models. I sound like a fuzzy headed commie because I have to put up with untangling a ton of doublethink that I pick up from watching how everyone I'm in contact with behaves, pass that through my conceptions of the world, then write it. Clarity sometimes takes a back seat. The difference is commies depend totally on emotion like I said before, and any reason they do have they put it to the service of their emtions. I know how powerful rhetoric can be, so I try to be careful resulting in said fuzzy head commie syndrome.
Do you realize that your statements about classical mechanics and Calculus are wrong? (or truisms. What does it mean to be "no new discoveries" but "only a sharper picture" Any new proofs or theorems will be discoveries)
I'm talking about systems of knowledge. What was the purpose of classical mechanics? To study motion and interaction between objects. Soon several concepts were developed. Force for example as something to explain and describe change. That doesn't count as a discovery. That's simply naming concepts that explain the observed results. The electromagnetic force is a discovery. The gravitational force is a discovery. I see a discovery not as something that is just new but something that cannot be deduced from talking simply about forces. Newton's laws again were discoveries. What I mean when I say no new discoveries is that the framework for studying pure mechanics and the framework for studying calculus are complete. New dicoveries for making approximations will not reveal anything new about the framework it will just make it easier to use.
You can't explain special relativity in terms of forces. It's something totally different from classical mechanics. Relativistic mechanics will always be a combination of the two theories.
model. It's just that money isn't a value. It's just a medium of exchange. The competition is for quality. and you can't get quality without information.
You are so wrong and Communism is so wrong. That's not to say you're a Communist. But, as long as people called it a democracy YOU wouldn't realize your country was a becoming communist state. See what you think of this:
Mind you, I haven't cared much for popularized theory ever since I was a freshman in high school back when I stopped being an idiot thinking that if you knew the position and velocity of every particle you'd know the complete future of the universe. Quantum mechanics had little to do with it. QM was just the last straw to a bunch of other revelations. There are two parallels here: One is that we repeat the same developmental processes as our ancestors in knowledge as well as in physical featutes. There was a time when pure determinism was dominant. Look at how fetuses develop. They follow the steps of evolution from one to the next.
The other parallel is a lack of complete self awareness. Position and velocity are analogous to awareness provided by the sensory organs and awareness provided by emotions. In the old days the world was position and velocity. Calculus was still a baby even after it was published. Heck, it still is in the sense that most people never hear of it. Calculus is the maturation of knowledge started in the Renaissance. It encompasses everything, position, velocity, physical laws, relationships, and models. The same way there can be no new dicovery in Classical Mechanics, there can be no new discovery in Calculus. All developments only make it a sharper picture.
What's it all mean? The exclusion of reason from Communism is the same as the childhood of reason in the old days. I don't care how long a speech Marx could write or how accurate he was about how people behave. He made a fatal mistake in flouting reason just because most of the citizens could not reason as well as they could feel or sense.
Capitalist Russia had become a protectionist state and was strangling its citizens so that they could not learn, make a decent living, and so on (sound familiar) and thus could not reason well enough.
Of course, there was a revolution. Problem is the wrong side called a truce, then called the shots out to people too starved of any education to see past their emotions.
Marxist Socialism = theoretical Communism Maoist Communism = real world proof of what actually happens (Mao was not a Communist, just a phony power monger in disguise. This really says it all.)
Well guess what? America is primed for self-destruction. America is not strong. Unless you only consider stock brokers and shareholders citizens. In this country the poor are given no opportunity at all. Show me a communist soup kitchen that encourages poor people to head to the library.
Show me a mission that would rather have you all books not just the Hymnal (obviously if you're poor you have no business expecting to read the "complex" dialogue of the Bible. Just wait for your pastor to explain it to you in poor people's dialect of English.)
Patents are being abused in a society that is no longer industrialist because it has discovered the roots of everything.
For example, Moog invented the synthesizer, which followed the concept that originally gave birth to the pipe organ which would not exist without the development of polyphony, which would not have existed if some one had not decided to change the "holy" notes.
We need only follow the work represented in all our resources to solve problems. The time for secrets is over. There's nothing to guard but the gate. Instead of a revolution we just need to ask questions, research, experiment for the sake of understanding principles since discovery is over, and publish our findings back into system. The Internet makes this possible, without a lot of bloodshed.
We can't have the Internet polluted by the likes of Gates who don't work hard at all. They just travel around giving the same speeches.
Americans aren't selfish. If only they were, they'd really know what they want and would go on peacefully on their own. You are right however that they are greedy. Greed represents the need to fill a void. It is a disease. Selfishness is healthy. It represents self-knowledge and self respect.
As for the technology, believe me science raged on in Communist Russia, they beat us in the space race remember. Sure public information technology like slashdot would not be available but that doesn't mean they didn't have it. Wake up, please.
message. Use the word "I". It's a very important word. We're all a bunch of no good censorship haters here, and anything that looks like some sort of collectivist leanings or tendencies or behaviour scares us.
Note: collectivist means collectivist as in group-ist or lynch mob-ist or mindless zombie-ist not cooperative.
Geez. Every time I see a frustrated hypersensitive consumer in a PC store I run. It's not really fair to either consumers or PC technicians. And I said PC techs not PC enthusiasts. We have P -techs because the 30 year old stale designs of systems we work with are the result of Luddite refusing to read. If more people would read we'd be vacationing on the moon by now.
For those of you who'll probably flame me about untested theories, I've seen you people before. Let me just say this, I don't need to step in a pile of shit to know it's a pile of shit, and I certainly don't need run lab tests on how people think to get an idea of how they think. I see people every day, and believe me some of the things they put themselves through scare the shit out of me. I really feel sorry for Luddites sometimes as much as they piss me off.
The world isn't complicated. It's complex meaning all the difficulty arises from having billions of participants who behave according to quite simple rules of sociology.
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative > >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use > > > >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under > >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code > >directly to Microsoft. > > And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
This does not bode well.
and like the other guy whoever he was. 52@72 = 13@18
My 15" @ 1280*768 looks great by comparison.
Hardware in a closed economic system... $...
Seriously, what forks. Do you call a car dealership a fork of the company or a fucking distributor!
READ the fucking license before posting.
and check out Buying from FSF at www.gnu.org/orrder/order.html
Windows NT Server 4.0 Networking Guide, p.781: "Windows Sockets is a programming interface based on the familiar 'socket' interface from the University of
California at Berkeley.
Compared to what? The GPL shows everyone where the code comes from. How many people using NT ever read that particular book? I have Win NT Enterprise Networking... No word of Berkeley.
The reality is that the entire point of
Berkeley TCP/IP was to assist companies like Microsoft, Sun, and Apple to build a standard networking infrastructure. Which they did.
Are you suggesting that people like myself are incapable of building such an infrastructure? The whole industry would love to have you believe that only MS, Apple, SUN can do the work.
Money problems? Really why do you think that is?
Personal opinion for example: Hardware takes time to set up. And I'd have it taken out to introduce a robust system that doesn't cost billions of dollars in order to upgrade every five years.
Dump the Phone companies, setup an open satellite based network with no spying, no regionalism, no centralization, and no restrictions. Companies would never let you do that. It isn't impossible nor a pipe dream.
However, anything produced under the BSD lends its weight to assholes. We have enough of them.
Now I don't know about you, but as far as I see it BSD allows companies to make prpoducts proprietary meaning that if there's code from the BSD source in your program they'll sue your ass. C'mon they've sued for much less. Look n feel lawsuits remember.
By the way GPL'ers aren't starving either.
I'll try that in my next life thanks
GPL is good where ... GPL rules.
Hello, it's a very commonly used license and the world itself is a GPL world. We live in a world where information matched with education and skill equals production. Why do you companies try to take code away? Why do you think that the computer market took off when companies gave out schematics and programming books with their products.
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative
> >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use
> >
> >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under
> >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code
> >directly to Microsoft.
>
> And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing
Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they
see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's
unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains
developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and
develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project
as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD
license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point
this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
The FSF sells their CD's for quite a bit of money, take a look. They're not starving! And they're probably pretty comfortable. Granted they would rather spend $1000 on a good amplifier, mixer, and axe than a damn Rolex!
Read: http://www.gnu.org/order/order.html
I should then demand the freedom to lock someone up. All I'd have to do to get a bunch of idiot emotionalists on my side is tell them some bullshit fairytale of a battle that was won when the opposition was locked up. When people work 40 hrs a week, feed 3 children, pay $100's in bills, they tend to forget history and you'll be able to tell them anything.
I understand the BSD license, and I know they're doing the same thing GPL'ers. It's just that they depend purely on vague values, ignore the legal and patent minefield were actually living in, and they never consider the principles and conditions that allow the freedoms they're fighting for to exist in the first place. Beyond that they're ok people.
Then there's the BSD pundits (there's a few just like our GPL pundits which are worse than Stallman, Raymond, and Perens all together could ever be on a bad day) you know the wanna-be philosophers who give both their fellow BSDers and GPLers a bad name.
They're the only ones accusing GPL'ers of Communism. I've seen some pretty calm posts from
real BSDers.
Here's a message to the wannabe's:
Communism was a theory called Karl Marx's Marxist Socialism.
First, that never happened! Second, he was completely wrong! He rejected rationalism (get this) because people around him were not behaving rationally, so he said reason doesn't exist.
What did happen was the Communists took the powers of production from the rest of the people. Guess what? Historical Communism as I've just defined it is precisely what "capitalism" is today. Gates is a bastard commie. Capitalism did exist in its intended form back when people worked their asses off to get an invention produced. These days American capitalism is just like the earlier Russian capitalism. They beat us at the capitalist race too. They had a harder time holding on to true healthy capitalism because they tried to sklp the industrial revolution. They ended up with technology that the mass populace was unable conceive practical uses for. When America's industrial revolution took place most people knew about it. What we call capitalism is a load of shit marketting, scamming, spamming, and perpetual litigation. None of that is hard to do if you have the stomach for all the doublethink it involves.
Software is not hardware. It may take time. There's code to write. And sure it takes to compile and debug (do proprietary companies still do that?). But realise this you're comparing a state-of-the-art pail to carry water in to the well. Sure it takes time to build a machine to carry water to your customers. The does not mean you can stop someone from taking their own time and going to get the water themselves. Proprietary companies do this with bullshit NDA's.
There is little water without the the pipes and machinery getting it from the well. There is no software without the PC. Where would you be had IBM won its suit against Pheonix over blackbox blind-engineering their BIOS. The IBM would come in fruity colors by now.
There is no market for water is people have to pay extreme prices to get water and aren't allowed to get information to get it themselves. The market lies dormant limited to pure survival purposes.
There is no market for software if the means of production (information, gcc, libraries, source) are taken away. The market lies dormant as purely Visual Basic interface design. No kernel, no document and information management, no personal video editing, no open gaming development. (TRY UNREAL! Four years open development!)
But right now the biggest problem is the legal patent minefield.
Seriously this is the proof of the GPL:
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative
> >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use
> >
> >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under
> >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code
> >directly to Microsoft.
>
> And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing
Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they
see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's
unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains
developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and
develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project
as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD
license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point
this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
Now it all makes sense.
Hardware hackers any ideas?
Crashing
1. Waste the processor
Start scripting things like:
Enhance model of the model of the world in terms of all facts collected and apply to all other facts known to mankind. Report findings. Repeat.
Enhance intelligibility of speech in crowds:
Take it to Woodstock which will probably start to happen every year soon. Tell it keep track of sound and relate it to every other sound and then relate that to the complete history of sounds recorded and tell it to try to understand what everyone is saying.
2. Waste the space
Point the camera at the PreVue channel while shaking it to record as much information from every angle possible. Then tell it to review that information while reviewing the reviewing of its reviewing.
A case of hyper self-conscious introversion will reduce the thing to catatonia.
Afterwards you can throw it out.
Pardon me if I'm crossposting. But I think this is a PR issue.
8 210&mode=thread (the french connection is there some place) k 7name.html
There's nothing more confusing than the year and title naming scheme Microsoft and Intel use.
I know the auto industry does it with cars. It works because it's a short phrase for anyone who's out buying
cars to recognize.
I'm concerned that it adds an unneeded context for hardware OEMs and Do-It-Yourselfers to think about.
They're the only ones putting the system together. HP Pavilion makes sense. It's like a car. Complete system
with features. AMD Athlon doesn't. The processor is not a car. The processor is a feature of the machine. It's
the hardware side of the engine. (Can't ignore Linux) If my car's feature list didn't say x horsepower engine and
y cylinders, but just said it has the Mitsubishi Twin Turbo F-22 engine, I'd move on. I don't have a catalog of
Mitsubishi engines mailed to my house every month that I might memorize so I know what that name means
when I'm out shopping for cars.
And if I were fixing a car I'd be looking in the catalog for the car itself by year to find detailed specs for the
engine.
New customers will jump at it of course. It sounds cool. We're talking about people who have never bought a
system and used it for a while. Customers looking for the next sytem to buy, however, will be confused if the
processor speed, cache, 3DNow! isn't available on the feature list. And if all that is available, then it's redundant.
It just like giving a particular screw on the PC it's own special name.
See these for more info:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/22/152
www.austin360.com/technology/stories/1999/06/21
Yeah so news stations can ignore bonehead PSN shit. Not one fucking news station ever told anyone about it. AND not one fucking Intel ad advertises it. So guess what trhey're not in it for the good guy.
You're not an advertising graduate looking for a job, are you?
What do we do with all these handy potentially useful stuff. With nano-madness and nano-great-inventions and fears nano-nazis, I get the feeling we have all the parts to build I don't know a starship, but no idea where we're going to get the negative mass to get the warpdrive up and running. Yes, they've got it down to almost manageable scale. It's like there's all this stuff we could build if we could just stop killing each other for just one week.
The ultimate humiliation: humanity knows everything except that one thing.
Keep searching for them gravitons. If there's a negative graviton charge we're ready to go.
Microsoft will win (get this!) A YEAR AFTER the asteroid hits
What a maroon!
Do you realize that your post is incomprehensible and you come off like a typical fuzzy headed communist?
Hey, listen. I learned the damned English language from a TRS-80 BASIC programming book. BTW that's the first encounter I ever had with Microsoft. Apparently for undefined error messages the message would be the company's name. I don't know, were they trying to build up the public's tolerance of bugs?
I tend to place facts first then discuss them. I don't think in sentences. I think in terms of models. I sound like a fuzzy headed commie because I have to put up with untangling a ton of doublethink that I pick up from watching how everyone I'm in contact with behaves, pass that through my conceptions of the world, then write it. Clarity sometimes takes a back seat. The difference is commies depend totally on emotion like I said before, and any reason they do have they put it to the service of their emtions. I know how powerful rhetoric can be, so I try to be careful resulting in said fuzzy head commie syndrome.
Do you realize that your statements about classical mechanics and Calculus are wrong?
(or truisms. What does it mean to be "no new discoveries" but "only a sharper picture" Any new proofs or theorems will be discoveries)
I'm talking about systems of knowledge. What was the purpose of classical mechanics? To study motion and interaction between objects. Soon several concepts were developed. Force for example as something to explain and describe change. That doesn't count as a discovery. That's simply naming concepts that explain the observed results. The electromagnetic force is a discovery. The gravitational force is a discovery. I see a discovery not as something that is just new but something that cannot be deduced from talking simply about forces. Newton's laws again were discoveries.
What I mean when I say no new discoveries is that the framework for studying pure mechanics and the framework for studying calculus are complete. New dicoveries for making approximations will not reveal anything new about the framework it will just make it easier to use.
You can't explain special relativity in terms of forces. It's something totally different from classical mechanics. Relativistic mechanics will always be a combination of the two theories.
model. It's just that money isn't a value. It's just a medium of exchange. The competition is for quality. and you can't get quality without information.
It's all in an earlier post on this thread.
You are so wrong and Communism is so wrong. That's not to say you're a Communist. But, as long as people called it a democracy YOU wouldn't realize your country was a becoming communist state. See what you think of this:
Mind you, I haven't cared much for popularized theory ever since I was a freshman in high school back when I stopped being an idiot thinking that if you knew the position and velocity of every particle you'd know the complete future of the universe. Quantum mechanics had little to do with it. QM was just the last straw to a bunch of other revelations. There are two parallels here: One is that we repeat the same developmental processes as our ancestors in knowledge as well as in physical featutes. There was a time when pure determinism was dominant. Look at how fetuses develop. They follow the steps of evolution from one to the next.
The other parallel is a lack of complete self awareness. Position and velocity are analogous to awareness provided by the sensory organs and awareness provided by emotions. In the old days the world was position and velocity. Calculus was still a baby even after it was published. Heck, it still is in the sense that most people never hear of it. Calculus is the maturation of knowledge started in the Renaissance. It encompasses everything, position, velocity, physical laws, relationships, and models. The same way there can be no new dicovery in Classical Mechanics, there can be no new discovery in Calculus. All developments only make it a sharper picture.
What's it all mean? The exclusion of reason from Communism is the same as the childhood of reason in the old days. I don't care how long a speech Marx could write or how accurate he was about how people behave. He made a fatal mistake in flouting reason just because most of the citizens could not reason as well as they could feel or sense.
Capitalist Russia had become a protectionist state and was strangling its citizens so that they could not learn, make a decent living, and so on (sound familiar) and thus could not reason well enough.
Of course, there was a revolution. Problem is the wrong side called a truce, then called the shots out to people too starved of any education to see past their emotions.
Marxist Socialism = theoretical Communism
Maoist Communism = real world proof of what actually happens (Mao was not a Communist, just a phony power monger in disguise. This really says it all.)
Well guess what? America is primed for self-destruction. America is not strong. Unless you only consider stock brokers and shareholders citizens. In this country the poor are given no opportunity at all. Show me a communist soup kitchen that encourages poor people to head to the library.
Show me a mission that would rather have you all books not just the Hymnal (obviously if you're poor you have no business expecting to read the "complex" dialogue of the Bible. Just wait for your pastor to explain it to you in poor people's dialect of English.)
Patents are being abused in a society that is no longer industrialist because it has discovered the roots of everything.
For example, Moog invented the synthesizer, which followed the concept that originally gave birth to the pipe organ which would not exist without the development of polyphony, which would not have existed if some one had not decided to change the "holy" notes.
We need only follow the work represented in all our resources to solve problems. The time for secrets is over. There's nothing to guard but the gate. Instead of a revolution we just need to ask questions, research, experiment for the sake of understanding principles since discovery is over, and publish our findings back into system. The Internet makes this possible, without a lot of bloodshed.
We can't have the Internet polluted by the likes of Gates who don't work hard at all. They just travel around giving the same speeches.
Americans aren't selfish. If only they were, they'd really know what they want and would go on peacefully on their own. You are right however that they are greedy. Greed represents the need to fill a void. It is a disease. Selfishness is healthy. It represents self-knowledge and self respect.
As for the technology, believe me science raged on in Communist Russia, they beat us in the space race remember. Sure public information technology like slashdot would not be available but that doesn't mean they didn't have it. Wake up, please.
message. Use the word "I". It's a very important word. We're all a bunch of no good censorship haters here, and anything that looks like some sort of collectivist leanings or tendencies or behaviour scares us.
Note: collectivist means collectivist as in group-ist or lynch mob-ist or mindless zombie-ist not cooperative.
I know what you mean.
Geez. Every time I see a frustrated hypersensitive consumer in a PC store I run. It's not really fair to either consumers or PC technicians. And I said PC techs not PC enthusiasts. We have P -techs because the 30 year old stale designs of systems we work with are the result of Luddite refusing to read. If more people would read we'd be vacationing on the moon by now.
For those of you who'll probably flame me about untested theories, I've seen you people before. Let me just say this, I don't need to step in a pile of shit to know it's a pile of shit, and I certainly don't need run lab tests on how people think to get an idea of how they think. I see people every day, and believe me some of the things they put themselves through scare the shit out of me. I really feel sorry for Luddites sometimes as much as they piss me off.
The world isn't complicated. It's complex meaning all the difficulty arises from having billions of participants who behave according to quite simple rules of sociology.
that's why on almost the first try a beta project like WINE ran it almost flawlessly.
One note:
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative
> >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use
> >
> >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under
> >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code
> >directly to Microsoft.
>
> And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing
Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they
see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's
unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains
developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and
develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project
as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD
license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point
this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
Go represents what I think of intelligence the fewer rules you need to maintain a feedback loop the more intelligent and power the entity is.
No text
I'm in hell. Bellboy get my luggage.
It said Netscape 4.07 is 16-bit!