IANAL, and clearly neither are you. Here's what a bunch of lawyers have to say about it. Some relevant bits:
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
Sounds a bit different than the dictionary definition, doesn't it? Could it be that the legal definition of a word is not always identical to what you see in the dictionary?
I wasn't trying to imply that because some incidents in the bible are historically correct, the whole bible is correct. Just correcting the original poster's assumption that none of the incidents in the bible occured. Maybe I'm taking what he said too literally, but it sounds to me like he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible.
IIRC quiet a few incidents described in the bible have been confirmed by other historical sources. I'm not talking about walking on water or plagues of locust, but wars, conquests, the names of rulers etc. By automatically dismissing everything in the bible as false, you show that you haven't critically evaluated it, which puts you in the same boat as those who assume everything in it is true.
So I guess a person who shoplifts 10 times worse than a person who commits murder twice? Not sure where you're going with this, but the difference in scale makes the comparison silly. As for blame, well I tend to blame Bush for what Bush did, I blame Clinton for what Clinton did, and I blame the founders of the country for creating an electoral system that fascilitates these sorts of people getting elected. Now who do I blame for people being so easily lead?
nobody uses java (not just the linux crowd) because java is broken
You're premise is incorrect, so there's no point in arguing with your conclusion. Just because you don't see it a lot on your desktop does not mean that Java is not widely used. And a yes, portability is one of the reasons it is used so widely.
I've seen too many horror scenarios with developers tinkering for weeks getting a java application to work, only to find out that it runs out of the box on another platform..
They spent weeks looking at a problem before checking to see if its JVM dependent? Hopefully that didn't happen twice to the same team, because thats a pretty dumb mistake. Java doesn't completely solve all platform problems but it solves almost all of them. And dealing with the remainder is a hell of a lot easier than keeping c/c++ code running on multiple platforms.
Re:Too bad he's running the site off on 28.8 Kbps
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I read that. I'm not saying the other guy is a perfect neighbor. But does that somehow make the neighbor less of a snake? Not in my book.
So he didn't know how to get rid of the basketball hoop. He clearly doesn't have a lot of common sense. If I lived next to the guy I'd have suggested he put a note on it letting the garbage men know it was trash. How hard would that have been? But then why should you when its so much fun to make fun of him instead?
Re:Too bad he's running the site off on 28.8 Kbps
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
He may have some legitimate gripes, but he also has stuff like this:
We wake up early on a Saturday morning to the sounds of a bouncing basketball. He's put a basketball goal about 15 feet from our bedroom window.
Go look at the pictures. You can see that the place he put the basketball net is in his driveway where people usually put such things. The horror! So his neighbor isn't supposed to play basketball in his driveway on a saturday morning? Maybe he should just stay in his house and take pictures of the neighbors through his blinds instead. I know which one of these guys I'd prefer living next to...and its not the little weasel with the camera.
Re:Too bad he's running the site off on 28.8 Kbps
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
I went with the other option. I live in the city, where people know how to mind their own damn business. People in the suburbs just don't seem to know how to get along with people who are different than themselves.
NONE of this is interpreted to mean that any viewpoint is just as valid as any other. If that were true, why would we bother with criticism?
Why indeed? What you didn't seem to get out of that lecture was that the point of this theory is to justify why people should listen to the opinions of the theorist.
Go ahead and tell me that the "Pound Puppies" cartoons from the 1980s were the pinnacle of human literary achievement. Then try to tell me again that "different opinions can all be valid." One of two things will happen:
1) You will understand sui generis why what you said makes no sense, OR
2) You will be swallowed in a paradox, or something like that.
Or...nothing will happen. I'll go on believing that Pound Puppies (whatever that is) is really great. If critics attempt to sway me by coming up with elaborate explanations as to why I'm wrong, I will reply "your literary theory has been proven incorrect by the fact that it doesn't account for the greatness of Pound Puppies!" Likely most people would think I was an idiot, but eventually I'd meet a group of like-minded individuals and we'd start our own discourse on this great art. And short of the discovery of the aestheton - the particle conveying artistic value - no one will ever be able to prove that we are wrong.
not-certain != frivolous. There's a lot of room for uncertainty in the law, not to mention the human factor (disposition of the judge, quality of the lawyers etc).
until the US legal system starts making those who sue and lose, pay for the defendant's legal costs, corporations and others with lots of funding, will continue to use the legal system as a business tool, used for intimidation and career advancement.
A corporation can easily afford to pay the legal bills of their opponent if they loose. How many individuals can say the same? Individuals would be even less likely to face off against corporations if the consequences of loosing was a mamoth corporate legal bill. You'd only attempt it if you were certain to win - and how often in legal disputes is victory certain?
no doubt it might, the point is that the example in the article is pretty meaningless/ does not prove anything...
Its a shame you weren't able to read the article. He's well aware that the fact that this is a second implementation makes comparisons problematic. He thinks theres more to it though.
Regardless, that difference comes out to show the Rails app at ~30% faster than the Java version when caching isn't taken into account. If I am generous and say that half of the difference is due to optimizations in the model, that still leaves us a 15% better performance in Rails.
I think its pretty clear from the article that he's not out to prove anything. He's giving his impressions of how they compare.
This is bitter economic medicine, though mostly necessary in the long run
Not necessarly. When Argentina defaulted on its loans and refused the IMFs auterity measures, economists predicted impending disaster. Instead Argintina's economy underwent an immediate recovery. It seems that by taking the money it had been putting towards paying off interest and investing it in infrastructure, they were more than able to compensate for the loss of foreign capital. Just one case, but very interesting.
Maybe not...unless those projects use a different tool instead. If large widely used open source projects started integerating with something like Mono, I think Sun would feel that. Mindshare is important, and I think open source projects have a disproportionately large affect on mindshare.
By contrast, Red Hat and Fedora prefer to build OpenOffice.org with the GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ), which is not only a compiler, but also a free JRE. This was Red Hat's strategy with earlier versions of OpenOffice.org, and Red Hat engineers are attempting to continue it. Caolan Macnamara, a programmer at Red Hat, has reported limited success compiling earlier developer builds of version 2.0. However, GCJ is not yet a complete replacement for official releases of Java, and adding patches makes the strategy painstaking and laborious at best.
Have any of these purists thought about what a BIG step it is that Sun is even considering open sourcing Java? It's a big step. It's not perfect, but it is a big move in the right direction. It won't get there overnight
Or it might not get there at all. Declining to integrate Java in opensource projects because it is not free enough seems to me like a good way to motivate Sun to make it more free. To blithely accept depenceny on it in opensource projects on the other hand sends the message that there is no problem with the current situation.
Slashdot can change its content just for you...or... you could create an account and disable topics you are not interested in. For me not clicking on stories I don't care about works just as well;)
Solzhenitsyn describes such an incident in The Gulag Archipelago. In his account, its a prison work gang who finds the mamoth and immediately begin digging it out of the ice and eating it. He used the story to illustrate the desperate condition of the gulags. No idea whether there's any truth to it.
Lol, thanks! It looks like I've spent a little too much time programming, and not enough time playing pool. I'd completely forgotten there was another way to spell it.
If you read the wired article in the first link, there's an explanation about the benefits of this. The idea is that finding information in physical books is hard. If you could have digitally search through every book you own, thats worth something.
The stereo effect of two retinas is only part of our perception of depth. Learned queues based on things like shadow and size are also important and are integerated into our perception of depth. Which is why when you close one eye the world does not look like a picture.
The sea cucumber vomits out its intestines at predators as a defence mechanism. The predator stops to eat the intestines and the sea cucumber escapes with its more vital organs. Not that different really;)
I mean, there's gullable, and there's never-left-the-freaking monestary-and-plus-dumb-to-boot gullable!
You have to put yourself in their shoes. They had absolutely no concrete information about how the world is beyond the confines of their immediate area. They had very little way of judging what was possible, or even what was probable. They had to go by hearsay, and that was full of stories of improbable beasts. Some of those improbable beasts turned out to be real, some did not. Expecting them to be able to predict what creatures were possible and which were not is like expecting you to be able to say what alien life forms are likely to exist and which are not. Even that is not quiet fair. You have concepts like evolution and a basic knowledge of physics to guide you. A medieval thinker could not rule out magic or the will of God as mechanisms for making unlikely sounding things a reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds a bit different than the dictionary definition, doesn't it? Could it be that the legal definition of a word is not always identical to what you see in the dictionary?
I wasn't trying to imply that because some incidents in the bible are historically correct, the whole bible is correct. Just correcting the original poster's assumption that none of the incidents in the bible occured. Maybe I'm taking what he said too literally, but it sounds to me like he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible.
IIRC quiet a few incidents described in the bible have been confirmed by other historical sources. I'm not talking about walking on water or plagues of locust, but wars, conquests, the names of rulers etc. By automatically dismissing everything in the bible as false, you show that you haven't critically evaluated it, which puts you in the same boat as those who assume everything in it is true.
So I guess a person who shoplifts 10 times worse than a person who commits murder twice? Not sure where you're going with this, but the difference in scale makes the comparison silly. As for blame, well I tend to blame Bush for what Bush did, I blame Clinton for what Clinton did, and I blame the founders of the country for creating an electoral system that fascilitates these sorts of people getting elected. Now who do I blame for people being so easily lead?
nobody uses java (not just the linux crowd) because java is broken
You're premise is incorrect, so there's no point in arguing with your conclusion. Just because you don't see it a lot on your desktop does not mean that Java is not widely used. And a yes, portability is one of the reasons it is used so widely.
I've seen too many horror scenarios with developers tinkering for weeks getting a java application to work, only to find out that it runs out of the box on another platform..
They spent weeks looking at a problem before checking to see if its JVM dependent? Hopefully that didn't happen twice to the same team, because thats a pretty dumb mistake. Java doesn't completely solve all platform problems but it solves almost all of them. And dealing with the remainder is a hell of a lot easier than keeping c/c++ code running on multiple platforms.
Yes, I read that. I'm not saying the other guy is a perfect neighbor. But does that somehow make the neighbor less of a snake? Not in my book.
So he didn't know how to get rid of the basketball hoop. He clearly doesn't have a lot of common sense. If I lived next to the guy I'd have suggested he put a note on it letting the garbage men know it was trash. How hard would that have been? But then why should you when its so much fun to make fun of him instead?
He may have some legitimate gripes, but he also has stuff like this:
We wake up early on a Saturday morning to the sounds of a bouncing basketball. He's put a basketball goal about 15 feet from our bedroom window.
Go look at the pictures. You can see that the place he put the basketball net is in his driveway where people usually put such things. The horror! So his neighbor isn't supposed to play basketball in his driveway on a saturday morning? Maybe he should just stay in his house and take pictures of the neighbors through his blinds instead. I know which one of these guys I'd prefer living next to...and its not the little weasel with the camera.
I went with the other option. I live in the city, where people know how to mind their own damn business. People in the suburbs just don't seem to know how to get along with people who are different than themselves.
NONE of this is interpreted to mean that any viewpoint is just as valid as any other. If that were true, why would we bother with criticism?
Why indeed? What you didn't seem to get out of that lecture was that the point of this theory is to justify why people should listen to the opinions of the theorist.
Go ahead and tell me that the "Pound Puppies" cartoons from the 1980s were the pinnacle of human literary achievement. Then try to tell me again that "different opinions can all be valid." One of two things will happen:
1) You will understand sui generis why what you said makes no sense, OR
2) You will be swallowed in a paradox, or something like that.
Or...nothing will happen. I'll go on believing that Pound Puppies (whatever that is) is really great. If critics attempt to sway me by coming up with elaborate explanations as to why I'm wrong, I will reply "your literary theory has been proven incorrect by the fact that it doesn't account for the greatness of Pound Puppies!" Likely most people would think I was an idiot, but eventually I'd meet a group of like-minded individuals and we'd start our own discourse on this great art. And short of the discovery of the aestheton - the particle conveying artistic value - no one will ever be able to prove that we are wrong.
not-certain != frivolous. There's a lot of room for uncertainty in the law, not to mention the human factor (disposition of the judge, quality of the lawyers etc).
until the US legal system starts making those who sue and lose, pay for the defendant's legal costs, corporations and others with lots of funding, will continue to use the legal system as a business tool, used for intimidation and career advancement.
A corporation can easily afford to pay the legal bills of their opponent if they loose. How many individuals can say the same? Individuals would be even less likely to face off against corporations if the consequences of loosing was a mamoth corporate legal bill. You'd only attempt it if you were certain to win - and how often in legal disputes is victory certain?
You might be thinking of this. This is from the book "An Anthropologist On Mars". Very interesting book.
no doubt it might, the point is that the example in the article is pretty meaningless/ does not prove anything...
Its a shame you weren't able to read the article. He's well aware that the fact that this is a second implementation makes comparisons problematic. He thinks theres more to it though.
Regardless, that difference comes out to show the Rails app at ~30% faster than the Java version when caching isn't taken into account. If I am generous and say that half of the difference is due to optimizations in the model, that still leaves us a 15% better performance in Rails.
I think its pretty clear from the article that he's not out to prove anything. He's giving his impressions of how they compare.
This is bitter economic medicine, though mostly necessary in the long run
Not necessarly. When Argentina defaulted on its loans and refused the IMFs auterity measures, economists predicted impending disaster. Instead Argintina's economy underwent an immediate recovery. It seems that by taking the money it had been putting towards paying off interest and investing it in infrastructure, they were more than able to compensate for the loss of foreign capital. Just one case, but very interesting.
Maybe not...unless those projects use a different tool instead. If large widely used open source projects started integerating with something like Mono, I think Sun would feel that. Mindshare is important, and I think open source projects have a disproportionately large affect on mindshare.
From the article:
By contrast, Red Hat and Fedora prefer to build OpenOffice.org with the GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ), which is not only a compiler, but also a free JRE. This was Red Hat's strategy with earlier versions of OpenOffice.org, and Red Hat engineers are attempting to continue it. Caolan Macnamara, a programmer at Red Hat, has reported limited success compiling earlier developer builds of version 2.0. However, GCJ is not yet a complete replacement for official releases of Java, and adding patches makes the strategy painstaking and laborious at best.
Have any of these purists thought about what a BIG step it is that Sun is even considering open sourcing Java? It's a big step. It's not perfect, but it is a big move in the right direction. It won't get there overnight
Or it might not get there at all. Declining to integrate Java in opensource projects because it is not free enough seems to me like a good way to motivate Sun to make it more free. To blithely accept depenceny on it in opensource projects on the other hand sends the message that there is no problem with the current situation.
Slashdot can change its content just for you ...or... you could create an account and disable topics you are not interested in. For me not clicking on stories I don't care about works just as well ;)
Solzhenitsyn describes such an incident in The Gulag Archipelago. In his account, its a prison work gang who finds the mamoth and immediately begin digging it out of the ice and eating it. He used the story to illustrate the desperate condition of the gulags. No idea whether there's any truth to it.
You missed the joke.
Lol, thanks! It looks like I've spent a little too much time programming, and not enough time playing pool. I'd completely forgotten there was another way to spell it.
If you read the wired article in the first link, there's an explanation about the benefits of this. The idea is that finding information in physical books is hard. If you could have digitally search through every book you own, thats worth something.
The stereo effect of two retinas is only part of our perception of depth. Learned queues based on things like shadow and size are also important and are integerated into our perception of depth. Which is why when you close one eye the world does not look like a picture.
The sea cucumber vomits out its intestines at predators as a defence mechanism. The predator stops to eat the intestines and the sea cucumber escapes with its more vital organs. Not that different really ;)
I mean, there's gullable, and there's never-left-the-freaking monestary-and-plus-dumb-to-boot gullable!
You have to put yourself in their shoes. They had absolutely no concrete information about how the world is beyond the confines of their immediate area. They had very little way of judging what was possible, or even what was probable. They had to go by hearsay, and that was full of stories of improbable beasts. Some of those improbable beasts turned out to be real, some did not. Expecting them to be able to predict what creatures were possible and which were not is like expecting you to be able to say what alien life forms are likely to exist and which are not. Even that is not quiet fair. You have concepts like evolution and a basic knowledge of physics to guide you. A medieval thinker could not rule out magic or the will of God as mechanisms for making unlikely sounding things a reality.