I see this along the same lines as the lookign down on not dressing up for an interview: an excellent early warning sign that the company and I are not going to be a good match for one another.
As to whether this could be considered a form of discrimination, it certainly seems to flirt with it. Makes you wonder whether simply letting them be stupid isn't punishment enough.
Were there not a Google (or internet equivalent), I wouldn't sit back in my rocking chair, exclaim "Oh, well," and have a cup or two of tea. Instead, I'd get in my car and drive to the library to look whatever it was up in a reference book, or search the catalog for a book I could borrow on the topic.
In that way, Google (or equivalent) saves energy.
Now that said, I expect Google to do their best to minimize energy consumption. Given that their electricity costs directly hit their cost of doing business, I suspect they agree with this goal.
I'm inclined to agree. It's impossible to determine whether using Google results in a net savings or loss of energy/carbon/etc. when compared to the actions that would replace using Google.
The article does go on to state that a relative comparison is more important than absolute values, but does so after a lot of rather accusatory language that sets the tone. Unfortunate.
I've also been dual-booting Vista64 and Ubuntu amd64 on my laptop for some time. Both OSs have a few stability issues, but both have continued to grow more stable over time.
My issue with Vista is not its stability, but rather its performance and sheer size. I hope Win7 will provide more disclosure to the end user as to what the subsystems of the OS are, what they do, and whether or not they are needed and can be done without. A good OS should be able to cater to different user levels by offering progressively advanced methods of configuration and customization, and Microsoft seems to have been moving away from that.
This really sums the whole thing up rather nicely. I think ultimately that this case is a lose-lose scenario because of the precedent that will be set with either ruling. I feel that JKR is in the right as an author to pursue this, especially given the bad faith in which the defendent has acted in before the trial. However, a victory will probably give publishers more ammo to go after perceived derivative works. On the other hand, if she loses, it sets a nasty precedent for just how little an author's work is protected. Honestly, I think I prefer the former.
Maybe if JKR loses the suit I'll release a critique of Ender's Game that has some footnotes and the odd paragraph at the end of a chapter. Or better yet, just change everyone's names and release it under a new title. CmdrTaco's Game has a nice ring to it.
The issue isn't that someone's deriving a work from Rowling's ideas. The issue is that the derived work in question is comprised of over 91% of her writing, word-for-word.
Concur. TFA is ultimately nothing more than an illustration of how exploitable the trust model for USB device usage is. Though it pains me to say it, Linux is just as culpable on that front as Windows is.
As others have said, it's not a bad idea. The problem is that Microsoft has a reputation of poor behavior when it comes to standards work, so naturally one questions their motives.
Agreed that Office 2007 not conforming to OOXML is not an issue in and of itself.
However, what is an issue for many people is that OOXML was fast-tracked for ISO approval without a working reference implementation. This is contrary to what the ISO fast track is supposed to be used for. It is supposed to be a means of getting a standard that is already working internally for an organization out for approval and general adoption. It is a fair argument that this isn't the case for OOXML if there are no working reference implementations.
Exactly. No standard is complete at its inception. If Microsoft were truly interested in office software interoperability, it would have worked towards helping improve ODF rather than introducing a competing standard.
I respect the fact that Microsoft is a for-profit organization and that its first responsibility is to its shareholders. However, they are doing everyone, including those shareholders, harm in the long run by their actions.
This is a really interesting spread of comments on this matter. We have on the one hand the Linux advocates (which I will happily count myself a member of). Opposite us are the NT advocates. Both groups make good (and bad) points, reflecting a range of reasons from excellent and well-spoken, to extremely close-minded. In short, it doesn't matter _why_ NT beat Linux so much as what it means to have this kind of attention. Yes, the hardware was more conducive to NT than Linux. Is this unfair to Linux? Nope. Does it mean that NT is better than Linux? Nope. It only means that NT outperforms Linux within the limited parameters of the test. Additionally, some limitations within Linux were uncovered that can be improved on. This is excellent news! All of this states quite firmly (to those who choose to look at the big picture instead of a few numbers, however captivating) that Linux and NT can be seen on a comparable scale. Not bad for an OS that scales well on a 386 or higher. Keep in mind just how flexible Linux can be, as well as how committed its development and support is. It's never shameful to be beaten in a contest. It's only shameful to refuse to improve yourself for the next contest. Peace.
Thanks! I was wondering where (or if) this important piece of data was in their paper. I do, however, notice several discrepancies in the data: . The pagefile for NT was set to 1024MB, but no mention is made to the Linux swapfile. . The claim was that Samba 2.0.3 was used, but the config spec indicates the version to be 2.0.1 . No mention was made regarding compiler optimizations made to Samba during compile. Furthermore, (and this may be a personal bias, but what the heck) this article is completely subjective. For example, there is a section titled "Observations" that attempts to make statements about issues encountered during the testing. Where, then, is the section for NT and IIS? Surely there were some issues there. Instead, we see the same Microsoft anti-Linux pitch all over again (codebase in flux, chaotic documentation and support, etc). This is hardly objective.
-- "Modern cryptography is nothing more than a mathematical framework for debating the implications of various paranoid delusions".
Unfortunately, tests like WebBench and NetBench hava a _lot_ of subjectivity built in. For example, the WebBench homepage WebBench states "WebBench also has dynamic test suites where we've re-written the CGI application as:"..."a Windows NT Microsoft Internet Server API dynamic link library". With that in mind, MindCraft could have easily run the native API dynamic tests on NT, versus the "regular" tests on Linux, greatly biasing the results. Yet their "white paper" never becomes specific on exactly which tests were performed, only the overall results. Hardly conclusive.
-- "Modern cryptography is nothing more than a mathematical framework for debating the implications of various paranoid delusions".
Slashdot Mirror
I see this along the same lines as the lookign down on not dressing up for an interview: an excellent early warning sign that the company and I are not going to be a good match for one another. As to whether this could be considered a form of discrimination, it certainly seems to flirt with it. Makes you wonder whether simply letting them be stupid isn't punishment enough.
Were there not a Google (or internet equivalent), I wouldn't sit back in my rocking chair, exclaim "Oh, well," and have a cup or two of tea. Instead, I'd get in my car and drive to the library to look whatever it was up in a reference book, or search the catalog for a book I could borrow on the topic.
In that way, Google (or equivalent) saves energy.
Now that said, I expect Google to do their best to minimize energy consumption. Given that their electricity costs directly hit their cost of doing business, I suspect they agree with this goal.
I'm inclined to agree. It's impossible to determine whether using Google results in a net savings or loss of energy/carbon/etc. when compared to the actions that would replace using Google. The article does go on to state that a relative comparison is more important than absolute values, but does so after a lot of rather accusatory language that sets the tone. Unfortunate.
I've also been dual-booting Vista64 and Ubuntu amd64 on my laptop for some time. Both OSs have a few stability issues, but both have continued to grow more stable over time.
My issue with Vista is not its stability, but rather its performance and sheer size. I hope Win7 will provide more disclosure to the end user as to what the subsystems of the OS are, what they do, and whether or not they are needed and can be done without. A good OS should be able to cater to different user levels by offering progressively advanced methods of configuration and customization, and Microsoft seems to have been moving away from that.
Maybe if JKR loses the suit I'll release a critique of Ender's Game that has some footnotes and the odd paragraph at the end of a chapter. Or better yet, just change everyone's names and release it under a new title. CmdrTaco's Game has a nice ring to it.
The issue isn't that someone's deriving a work from Rowling's ideas. The issue is that the derived work in question is comprised of over 91% of her writing, word-for-word.
Concur. TFA is ultimately nothing more than an illustration of how exploitable the trust model for USB device usage is. Though it pains me to say it, Linux is just as culpable on that front as Windows is.
As others have said, it's not a bad idea. The problem is that Microsoft has a reputation of poor behavior when it comes to standards work, so naturally one questions their motives.
Agreed that Office 2007 not conforming to OOXML is not an issue in and of itself. However, what is an issue for many people is that OOXML was fast-tracked for ISO approval without a working reference implementation. This is contrary to what the ISO fast track is supposed to be used for. It is supposed to be a means of getting a standard that is already working internally for an organization out for approval and general adoption. It is a fair argument that this isn't the case for OOXML if there are no working reference implementations.
Exactly. No standard is complete at its inception. If Microsoft were truly interested in office software interoperability, it would have worked towards helping improve ODF rather than introducing a competing standard. I respect the fact that Microsoft is a for-profit organization and that its first responsibility is to its shareholders. However, they are doing everyone, including those shareholders, harm in the long run by their actions.
This is a really interesting spread of comments on this matter. We have on the one hand the Linux advocates (which I will happily count myself a member of). Opposite us are the NT advocates. Both groups make good (and bad) points, reflecting a range of reasons from excellent and well-spoken, to extremely close-minded. In short, it doesn't matter _why_ NT beat Linux so much as what it means to have this kind of attention. Yes, the hardware was more conducive to NT than Linux. Is this unfair to Linux? Nope. Does it mean that NT is better than Linux? Nope. It only means that NT outperforms Linux within the limited parameters of the test. Additionally, some limitations within Linux were uncovered that can be improved on. This is excellent news! All of this states quite firmly (to those who choose to look at the big picture instead of a few numbers, however captivating) that Linux and NT can be seen on a comparable scale. Not bad for an OS that scales well on a 386 or higher. Keep in mind just how flexible Linux can be, as well as how committed its development and support is. It's never shameful to be beaten in a contest. It's only shameful to refuse to improve yourself for the next contest. Peace.
--
Thanks! I was wondering where (or if) this important piece of data was in their paper. I do, however, notice several discrepancies in the data: . The pagefile for NT was set to 1024MB, but no mention is made to the Linux swapfile. . The claim was that Samba 2.0.3 was used, but the config spec indicates the version to be 2.0.1 . No mention was made regarding compiler optimizations made to Samba during compile. Furthermore, (and this may be a personal bias, but what the heck) this article is completely subjective. For example, there is a section titled "Observations" that attempts to make statements about issues encountered during the testing. Where, then, is the section for NT and IIS? Surely there were some issues there. Instead, we see the same Microsoft anti-Linux pitch all over again (codebase in flux, chaotic documentation and support, etc). This is hardly objective.
--
"Modern cryptography is nothing more than a mathematical framework
for debating the implications of various paranoid delusions".
Unfortunately, tests like WebBench and NetBench hava a _lot_ of subjectivity built in. For example, the WebBench homepage WebBench states "WebBench also has dynamic test suites where we've re-written the CGI application as:"..."a Windows NT Microsoft Internet Server API dynamic link library". With that in mind, MindCraft could have easily run the native API dynamic tests on NT, versus the "regular" tests on Linux, greatly biasing the results. Yet their "white paper" never becomes specific on exactly which tests were performed, only the overall results. Hardly conclusive.
--
"Modern cryptography is nothing more than a mathematical framework
for debating the implications of various paranoid delusions".
With Microsoft, it doesn't have to be the first of April to be a day for fools :)
--
"Modern cryptography is nothing more than a mathematical framework
for debating the implications of various paranoid delusions".