The first documented use of "communitarian" is 1841 according to the Oxford English Dictionary. While it is probable that the word was in use well before being documented, I don't believe that the there is any good reason to conjecture that it has been around for a few centuries.
In addition, by-wire technology may make it feasible to provide remote-control operation, which could facilitate parallel parking or even let an owner back the car out of the garage in the morning when getting ready to leave for work.
I wonder who is doing the security work on this. This feature has interesting implications. Call me a luddite if you will, but I don't know that I'd be willing to drive a car with this type of capability.
Since the 1950s, the amount of fat consumed by North Americans has decreased significantly. Since the 1950s, the rate of obesesity in North Americans has skyrocked.
One of the most common suppositions about why this is the case is that most people tend to eat larger quantities (and hence more calories) if fat is removed from the diet.
As Alton opined, there is no such thing as a "bad" food. There is, however, such a thing as eating certain foods in unhealthy quantities.
Others have raised good points concerning the way the chicken actually cooks in the lava. I'd like to make one other point. Cooking a chicken "until it's done" is not necessarily the same thing as cooking a chicken until it first reaches a uniform internal temperature at which it can be consumed.
Consider roasting a chicken in a slow cooker. The chicken isn't done until many hours after it first reaches a uniform internal temperature at which it can be consumed.
My point being that the chicken cooked in lava could very well be ready to eat well before 45 minutes are up, but it may also taste better after cooking a full 45 minutes.
The opportunity GNOME and KDE have with this agreement is huge: write a unified GUI API equivalent to Windows Forms, with both Gtk and Qt backends.
Is not the requirement for such a plan to have both robust Qt# and Gtk# implementations? Saying that KDE and Gnome are duplicating their existing riff because both are working on interfaces for their respective toolkits for mono is jumping to conclusions.
In fact, if you read the Winform plans document at the mono website, you will see that the plan is to support multiple back ends for System.Windows.Forms.
Half the promise of OpenDoc was its proposed cross-platform functionality. When Novell failed to deliver on OpenDoc for the Windows platform and IBM deprecated OpenDoc for OS/2 (IBM deprecating OS/2 didn't help either), Apple was left as the only platform for OpenDoc.
Given a choice between OLE and COM on Windows (95% of the desktop market) and OpenDoc on MacOS (5% of the desktop market), most developers chose OLE and COM for their components.
IIRC, eBay started offering image hosting right about late 2000 or early 2001. Perhaps eBay wanted to buy out this patent in order to avoid what they thought might evolve into a lawsuit in the future.
If this is the case, they may have stopped negotiations once it became apparent that buying or licensing the patent would cost more than their best guestimates on defending against a possible lawsuit.
It also makes libel cases against them hard to prosecute: (oh yeah, *prove* that we wrote/published that...)
I'm trying to think how a libel suit over a web site would be qualitatively different in kind from a libel suit over a printed publication. In both cases, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the plaintif. What would make a screen capture,.htm from the browser cache, saved web page, etc., different in kind from a printed publication?
In both cases, it is the burden of the plaintif to preserve the evidence.
And, IMO, this is a good thing. The alternative would effectively require that no web page ever be modified without a revision log. It seems to me to be far more fair for the plaintif in a libel suit to have to prove that the defendant published libelous remarks.
For the past several days, I've been wondering if a lawsuit against Microsoft over the EULA for W2K Service Pack 3 might not be viable. If I were more motivated, I might even talk to a lawyer about it.
It seems to me that unacceptable changes to the EULA for a service pack might void the implied warranty usability of Windows 2000. By releasing the service pack, they are admitting that Windows 2000 has problems. If I cannot get access to fixes for those problems without agreeing to a contract substantially different from that which governed my license for Windows 2000, I think that I might have a good basis for a lawsuit to get a court order that Microsoft supply fixes to their software under the terms of the original EULA.
Assuming that Linux is otherwise made functional on the X-Box, perhaps the cost of licensing the X-Box SDK and having a "game" signed would be entirely recouped through the reward for getting Linux to boot on an unmodded X-Box.
I wonder if a lawsuit could force Microsoft to sign Linux for the X-Box in the case of their refusing to do such.
In this case marketing doesn't matter
on
LinuXbox Boots
·
· Score: 3, Informative
We're talking about winning development companies, not consumers. Gaming companies keep an eye out for how many titles sell per console. They will notice if fewer X-box owners buy games than other consoles.
It isn't a hardware game, its a gaming game. Platforms that sell fewer games, lose.
There business plan calls to build at least one other unit for every unit sold. Therefore, buying an X-Box causes Microsoft to build at least two units.
If we lived in a world where X-box building was a one time event, then your reasoning would be sound. But we don't live in such a world. Microsoft will continue to build X-boxes to meet demand.
Not to mention that the more X-boxes are bought to run Linux and not play prepackaged X-box games (realizing that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive), the fewer game titles per X-box are sold and the less game developers are interested in the platform.
Did you see Plug's comment? He quotes from the technology page at iD.
Not just anyone can license the Q3 engine. Currently there are around 3 major Q3 engine licensees (Ritual, Activision and EA). "QUAKE III Arena engine licensees are part of an exclusive club that will remain exclusive because we are capping the total number of licensee companies." ( http://www.idsoftware.com/business/home/technology/)
Licensing the quake engine is not the normal run-of-the-mill license contract. It is far more akin to vertical software than to off-the-shelf software.
My apologies, my former example wasn't particularly well though out. But the principle underlying it remains the same. Unless you are asserting that an application should never pop up an unrequested window, then there are valid circumstances under which a web page might do so.
Perhaps better example would be a calendar web page that creates a popup when visited on days with scheduled tasks marked as urgent. Or a GUI popup about a security violation for scanning software. I can think of many situation were unsolicited pop-up would be beneficial to many different types of users.
Quite frankly, I can't think of a single beneficial use of them (beneficial to the non-advertisers, that is)
Consider a web application that controls multiple windows. Unless one considers a single window apps to be inherently superior to apps that allow multiple windows, there are good reasons for pop-ups.
As an example, my bank uses a pop-up window for its find the closest branch functionality. The layout is IMO superior to what would be achieved using frames or rewriting the document.
Perhaps it does, but I've never heard of any such thing
How many contracts for business deals concerning hundreds of thousands of dollars have you seen?
I'd disagree with anything that just assumes the license has such a provision.
So would I. I was asking whether or not you were privy to the contract and hence be in a position to know if the contract contained such language.
Unless of course, that's standard practice. So, if it is, tell me, otherwise, I don't really believe it.
Both price protection and limited availability frequently play an important role in the licensing of vertical software. I'd be surprised to find out that such is not the case for 3d engines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Admittedly, these clauses are much more important for software costing millions of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder who is doing the security work on this. This feature has interesting implications. Call me a luddite if you will, but I don't know that I'd be willing to drive a car with this type of capability.
-l
Only in the same sense that a US government purchase order for n thousands of Microsoft licenses is an unfair subsidy to the US software industry.
One of the most common suppositions about why this is the case is that most people tend to eat larger quantities (and hence more calories) if fat is removed from the diet.
As Alton opined, there is no such thing as a "bad" food. There is, however, such a thing as eating certain foods in unhealthy quantities.
Consider roasting a chicken in a slow cooker. The chicken isn't done until many hours after it first reaches a uniform internal temperature at which it can be consumed.
My point being that the chicken cooked in lava could very well be ready to eat well before 45 minutes are up, but it may also taste better after cooking a full 45 minutes.
Your comments are quite excellent.
Is not the requirement for such a plan to have both robust Qt# and Gtk# implementations? Saying that KDE and Gnome are duplicating their existing riff because both are working on interfaces for their respective toolkits for mono is jumping to conclusions.
In fact, if you read the Winform plans document at the mono website, you will see that the plan is to support multiple back ends for System.Windows.Forms.
Given a choice between OLE and COM on Windows (95% of the desktop market) and OpenDoc on MacOS (5% of the desktop market), most developers chose OLE and COM for their components.
Correct grammer + incorrect spelling == 1 link to wetmachine on all of Google
If this is the case, they may have stopped negotiations once it became apparent that buying or licensing the patent would cost more than their best guestimates on defending against a possible lawsuit.
I'm trying to think how a libel suit over a web site would be qualitatively different in kind from a libel suit over a printed publication. In both cases, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the plaintif. What would make a screen capture,
In both cases, it is the burden of the plaintif to preserve the evidence.
And, IMO, this is a good thing. The alternative would effectively require that no web page ever be modified without a revision log. It seems to me to be far more fair for the plaintif in a libel suit to have to prove that the defendant published libelous remarks.
Of course, I could be wrong.
It seems to me that unacceptable changes to the EULA for a service pack might void the implied warranty usability of Windows 2000. By releasing the service pack, they are admitting that Windows 2000 has problems. If I cannot get access to fixes for those problems without agreeing to a contract substantially different from that which governed my license for Windows 2000, I think that I might have a good basis for a lawsuit to get a court order that Microsoft supply fixes to their software under the terms of the original EULA.
(2) The GPL requires release of the source, not release of the compiler used to compile the source.
I wonder if a lawsuit could force Microsoft to sign Linux for the X-Box in the case of their refusing to do such.
It isn't a hardware game, its a gaming game. Platforms that sell fewer games, lose.
If we lived in a world where X-box building was a one time event, then your reasoning would be sound. But we don't live in such a world. Microsoft will continue to build X-boxes to meet demand.
Not to mention that the more X-boxes are bought to run Linux and not play prepackaged X-box games (realizing that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive), the fewer game titles per X-box are sold and the less game developers are interested in the platform.
Licensing the quake engine is not the normal run-of-the-mill license contract. It is far more akin to vertical software than to off-the-shelf software.
Perhaps better example would be a calendar web page that creates a popup when visited on days with scheduled tasks marked as urgent. Or a GUI popup about a security violation for scanning software. I can think of many situation were unsolicited pop-up would be beneficial to many different types of users.
Consider a web application that controls multiple windows. Unless one considers a single window apps to be inherently superior to apps that allow multiple windows, there are good reasons for pop-ups.
As an example, my bank uses a pop-up window for its find the closest branch functionality. The layout is IMO superior to what would be achieved using frames or rewriting the document.
How many contracts for business deals concerning hundreds of thousands of dollars have you seen?
So would I. I was asking whether or not you were privy to the contract and hence be in a position to know if the contract contained such language.
Both price protection and limited availability frequently play an important role in the licensing of vertical software. I'd be surprised to find out that such is not the case for 3d engines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Admittedly, these clauses are much more important for software costing millions of dollars.
Are you privy to the license contract? If not, how do you know that lowering the price would not violate the terms?
My apologies, I misremembered. It is possible I was thinking of the 0.x series that preceded the release of Toy Story.