I can pull out a method and look at that. In Eclipse, everything is file-based; to work with a method, the IDE just scrolls to the right place in the text file
You can fix that behavior. In the later versions of Eclipse you can browse classes and methods from the Package Explorer, just like in the VAJ Workbench. In the menu (icon) bar, there's a setting that reads "Show Source of Selected Element Only" that will give you a more VAJ type experience.
There's also a new perspective called the Java Browsing Perspective, that looks just like the VAJ "Project" and "Package" views.
It is very obvious that the IBM people who made Eclipse modelled a lot of what they did from VAJ as more and more VAJ-type features find their way into the software.
I could not agree with you more. I was absolutely appalled to see this headline and "article".
Furthermore, this article could potentially open Slashdot up for a very nasty libel suit. Since the headline "despicable conduct by Disney Lawyer" was written/editted by a Slashdot staff member representing Slashdot itself, it can't easily hide behind "common carrier" protection. (But, IANAL, of course.)
If it turns out that Mr. Lelyveld didn't write the comment to the FCC at all (which is actually very possible), Slashdot might very well find itself in some very hot legal water when Mr. Lelyveld wakes up to read his email in the morning.
I have to agree. I also have to question the motiviation behind the study.
It was "Windows 2000 vs. Linux".
Not "Windows 2000 vs. Unix-like Operating Systems." Not "Windows 2000 vs. Solaris vs. AIX vs. Linux." Just "vs. Linux". Why? Surely there are more choices than Windows 2000 and Linux for all your server needs.
I would think that a research company would want to compare TCOs from a wide range of options to increase the total value of the study. However, this reeks of a targeted result based on an agenda to me.
When I knew what the words were, I could easily tell what was being said.
Go figure. When you knew what was being said, you could easily tell what was being said. *boggle*
The main problem is that this thing that the vast majority of the deaf community can not lip read. Those that can would probably have a very hard time with this since this would only be (at best) an approximation of the mouth movements and be completely without the subtle "non-verbal" cues that lip reading relies so heavily on (such as facial expressions, head motions, eye movements and other such things).
On average, each uncapper allegedly stole bandwidth equaling $11K.
Well, that's really the crux of it, isn't it.
1. Come up with some value of the theft ($250,000 is claimed) 2. Distribute that amount equally amoung all guilty parties (who were NOT working as a team and probably had no knowledge each other) 3. Then get the FBI involved to dragnet them all at once.
So therefore, person who stole $250 worth of bandwidth was to be raided just as like the person who stole $50,000 worth.
If the ISP went to FBI for each one individually, the FBI would not have looked at this at all -- Too petty for their interest.
That is just ridiculous. If I owned a big department store, I might possibly have over $250,000 worth of shoplifting losses per year. However, if I went to the FBI and said, "A bunch of people stole from me this year, and cost me a quarter mil and I happen to know who they all are! Get them all!" How hard do you think they'd laugh at me?
You can't determine the severity of a crime by averaging it out with OTHER people's crimes.
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of tabloids; especially : featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner
That's the exact definition of the adjective as printed in the Marriam-Websters Collegiate. I assume that's the dictionary you used.
Yours isn't even in my dictionary.
WRONG-O! If you had looked up the defintion of "tabloid n." that "tabloid adj." newspapers are "relating to or characteristic of", you'd have seen:
2: a newspaper that is about half the page size of an ordinary newspaper and that contains news in condensed form and much photographic matter
An ordinary newspaper is printed on broadsheet. Therefore a tabloid is a newspaper printed on paper stock half the size of broadsheet. Just like the guy (who was making a very funny joke, btw) said.
but to my mind the answer would be to amend the DMCA, not to introduce a second bill
In the United States, a law is amended by introducing another bill. The bill in question serves to amend the DMCA law.
IOW, bill HR12345 might put Law X on the books. Bill HR54321 might amend Law X with additional clarification, removed segments, and/or added text. The same bill might amend several laws at once and enact brand new ones -- all in one shot.
Getting a bit off topic, the Patriot Act bill is a great example of this. Not only did this bill put the Patriot Act on the books, it also enacted more than a dozen other things, including authorizing expenditures for highway construction and additional scientific funding on insect research.
Firstly, dry ice is certainly NOT expensive. Prices usually fall in the $0.50 to $1.00 / lb range
25lb load will only last about 10 minutes
That sounds pretty expensive to me. At $0.50 to $1.00 per pound, the hourly cost to fog an area is $75 to $150. Using your figures, a basic 4-hour halloween evening of fog effects could run upwards of $600!
It might be that a pound of dry ice is inexpensive, but if its used up in only 25 seconds, it adds up quick.
Revealing mistakes:...but more likely "incorrectly regarded as goof". On the film's first theatrical release, a story circulated (reported here) that when Sam tells Frodo that he is now the farthest he has ever been from home, a car is visible driving by in the background (top-right corner of the screen). Arguments ensued. Some said it was smoke from a chimney, others said they saw the glint of sunlight reflected from the windscreen of a fast moving vehicle. In the version of the film released on DVD there is definitely *no* car, only chimney smoke and a one-frame flash of light which *could* conceivably be a car, but not in any sense that could be considered a goof. The original spotting remains unconfirmed, and seems thoroughly unlikely, but we nevertheless report it here because of the enormous interest it sparked at the time.
Ummm I'm just reading this and my head begins to hurt. I use linux and I believe it has always been a professional OS.
And rightly so. However, being professional and giving the feel of professional are two very different things. I could make a distrubution of Linux that had only sh and ed for a shell and editting support. Same very powerful (and professional) operating system under the covers, but does it give the feeling of professional? No. It gives the feeling of a college classroom project... maybe high school.
Also, you have to keep in mind the audience that the author was writing for. For him and his readers, a professional OS is not one that you can recompile a kernel on, its one that you can do professional work on. In this arena, professional work is using various Internet tools and writing stories in a somewhat robust word processor. To prove my point, read the article again to see what the author found to be his most valuable applications (Outlook, Office 2000, and IE).
Why does everyone try to compare desktop managers with Windows?
Given that the product name is LINDOWS, a comparsion to Windows doesn't seem too outlandish, does it? But in either case, look at the audience again. Windows is the de-facto standard for windowed environments. Everyone (even Mac users), knows the Windows look-and-feel. Its a natural base of comparsion.
is the Windows desktop the most creative and easy to use interface we can come up with?
Say what you will about Microsoft and Windows, but their usability research and development is world-class. There is certainly room for improvement, of course, but Microsoft is very good at making intuitive interfaces.
Why shouldn't Linux developers use those same techniques (and possibly improve upon them) rather than reinvent the wheel? Linux developers would quite likely come up with a lesser interface since most don't have the time and money to do it right (Windows took years of usability testing, analysis, and research costing many millions of dollars.)
Isn't the whole point of installing Linux to get away from Microsoft?
I certainly hope not. If Linux can't stand on its own (rather than being "its not Microsoft"), then it has serious problems. Fortunately, this is not the case.
One of the things that jumped out at me at this article was that Jones's (IBM's) statement was very obviously a direct answer to very pointed, and very unpublished, question.
Jones did not wake up one morning and say to himself, "I'm going to call up InfoWorld and just rag on MySQL because I think its a threat to DB2!". No. InfoWorld called him, asked him a series of questions, kept what would make the best reading, and threw the rest away.
So, was Jones really being "negative" and "dissing" MySQL? We really don't know. If the questions he was answering were:
"What in your opinion is the main reason why MySQL is not beating DB2 and Oracle in the enterprise?"
and/or
"What would you consider MySQL's greatest flaws to be?"...then Jones response couldn't possibly be considered "bashing MySQL". He was just answering a question to the best of knowledge.
Read the quote again to see my point: Open-source databases "don't support as many users, they don't support as much data, and you don't have as many connectivity options," said Jeff Jones, director of strategy for data management solutions at IBM. "They lack some key functionality and lack the scalability and performance, which keeps them out of the enterprise," Jones said.
The whole article stinks of coaxing negative-sounding comments from people from "big bad companies", pasting them out of context, and calling it "Big Companies Once Again Stomp On Open Source!" Its also quite possible that he also said many wonderful things about MySQL, but that makes for boring reading and would be discarded.
I have to disagree with this statement. What does it take to become a software comapany?
In 1994 (earliest information quickly available), IBM sold $11.3 billion in software. In the same year, Microsoft sold less than half of that with $4.6 billion. IBM sold more software units and a wider variety of software than Microsoft did in that year, and had more software developers than Microsoft. In 1991, this gap was even wider. However, IBM was not a software company, while Microsoft was?
It should be further noted that software sales accounted for more than 30% of the company's tangible product sales revenue (as opposed to services). That's a hefty chuck of the company's revenue stream, especially when you consider the other 70% (hardware) is much more expensive on average per unit than software. (In other words, IBM most likely sold more software than hardware, in units, even though the revenues for hardware was higher.)
I think it is safe to say that IBM was a software company in 1991 in addition to being a hardware company.
Now we know that the byterate of a 56k modem is 56000 / 8, or 7000 bytes/sec
This isn't entirely accurate. You are forgetting about the carrier signal overhead that is required to keep the connection. In a typical modern modem connection, 10 baud is used to transfer 8 real bits (ie. a byte). The other two are used as parity and stop bits.
Therefore, the "byterate" of 56000 baud is 5,600 bytes/sec.
Slashdot Mirror
I can pull out a method and look at that. In Eclipse, everything is file-based; to work with a method, the IDE just scrolls to the right place in the text file
You can fix that behavior. In the later versions of Eclipse you can browse classes and methods from the Package Explorer, just like in the VAJ Workbench. In the menu (icon) bar, there's a setting that reads "Show Source of Selected Element Only" that will give you a more VAJ type experience.
There's also a new perspective called the Java Browsing Perspective, that looks just like the VAJ "Project" and "Package" views.
It is very obvious that the IBM people who made Eclipse modelled a lot of what they did from VAJ as more and more VAJ-type features find their way into the software.
I could not agree with you more. I was absolutely appalled to see this headline and "article".
Furthermore, this article could potentially open Slashdot up for a very nasty libel suit. Since the headline "despicable conduct by Disney Lawyer" was written/editted by a Slashdot staff member representing Slashdot itself, it can't easily hide behind "common carrier" protection. (But, IANAL, of course.)
If it turns out that Mr. Lelyveld didn't write the comment to the FCC at all (which is actually very possible), Slashdot might very well find itself in some very hot legal water when Mr. Lelyveld wakes up to read his email in the morning.
I have to agree. I also have to question the motiviation behind the study.
It was "Windows 2000 vs. Linux".
Not "Windows 2000 vs. Unix-like Operating Systems." Not "Windows 2000 vs. Solaris vs. AIX vs. Linux." Just "vs. Linux". Why? Surely there are more choices than Windows 2000 and Linux for all your server needs.
I would think that a research company would want to compare TCOs from a wide range of options to increase the total value of the study. However, this reeks of a targeted result based on an agenda to me.
Mike
When I knew what the words were, I could easily tell what was being said.
Go figure. When you knew what was being said, you could easily tell what was being said. *boggle*
The main problem is that this thing that the vast majority of the deaf community can not lip read. Those that can would probably have a very hard time with this since this would only be (at best) an approximation of the mouth movements and be completely without the subtle "non-verbal" cues that lip reading relies so heavily on (such as facial expressions, head motions, eye movements and other such things).
On average, each uncapper allegedly stole bandwidth equaling $11K.
Well, that's really the crux of it, isn't it.
1. Come up with some value of the theft ($250,000 is claimed)
2. Distribute that amount equally amoung all guilty parties (who were NOT working as a team and probably had no knowledge each other)
3. Then get the FBI involved to dragnet them all at once.
So therefore, person who stole $250 worth of bandwidth was to be raided just as like the person who stole $50,000 worth.
If the ISP went to FBI for each one individually, the FBI would not have looked at this at all -- Too petty for their interest.
That is just ridiculous. If I owned a big department store, I might possibly have over $250,000 worth of shoplifting losses per year. However, if I went to the FBI and said, "A bunch of people stole from me this year, and cost me a quarter mil and I happen to know who they all are! Get them all!" How hard do you think they'd laugh at me?
You can't determine the severity of a crime by averaging it out with OTHER people's crimes.
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of tabloids; especially : featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner
That's the exact definition of the adjective as printed in the Marriam-Websters Collegiate. I assume that's the dictionary you used.
Yours isn't even in my dictionary.
WRONG-O! If you had looked up the defintion of "tabloid n." that "tabloid adj." newspapers are "relating to or characteristic of", you'd have seen:
2: a newspaper that is about half the page size of an ordinary newspaper and that contains news in condensed form and much photographic matter
An ordinary newspaper is printed on broadsheet. Therefore a tabloid is a newspaper printed on paper stock half the size of broadsheet. Just like the guy (who was making a very funny joke, btw) said.
but to my mind the answer would be to amend the DMCA, not to introduce a second bill
In the United States, a law is amended by introducing another bill. The bill in question serves to amend the DMCA law.
IOW, bill HR12345 might put Law X on the books. Bill HR54321 might amend Law X with additional clarification, removed segments, and/or added text. The same bill might amend several laws at once and enact brand new ones -- all in one shot.
Getting a bit off topic, the Patriot Act bill is a great example of this. Not only did this bill put the Patriot Act on the books, it also enacted more than a dozen other things, including authorizing expenditures for highway construction and additional scientific funding on insect research.
That sounds pretty expensive to me. At $0.50 to $1.00 per pound, the hourly cost to fog an area is $75 to $150. Using your figures, a basic 4-hour halloween evening of fog effects could run upwards of $600!
It might be that a pound of dry ice is inexpensive, but if its used up in only 25 seconds, it adds up quick.
Ummm I'm just reading this and my head begins to hurt. I use linux and I believe it has always been a professional OS.
And rightly so. However, being professional and giving the feel of professional are two very different things. I could make a distrubution of Linux that had only sh and ed for a shell and editting support. Same very powerful (and professional) operating system under the covers, but does it give the feeling of professional? No. It gives the feeling of a college classroom project... maybe high school.
Also, you have to keep in mind the audience that the author was writing for. For him and his readers, a professional OS is not one that you can recompile a kernel on, its one that you can do professional work on. In this arena, professional work is using various Internet tools and writing stories in a somewhat robust word processor. To prove my point, read the article again to see what the author found to be his most valuable applications (Outlook, Office 2000, and IE).
Why does everyone try to compare desktop managers with Windows?
Given that the product name is LINDOWS, a comparsion to Windows doesn't seem too outlandish, does it? But in either case, look at the audience again. Windows is the de-facto standard for windowed environments. Everyone (even Mac users), knows the Windows look-and-feel. Its a natural base of comparsion.
is the Windows desktop the most creative and easy to use interface we can come up with?
Say what you will about Microsoft and Windows, but their usability research and development is world-class. There is certainly room for improvement, of course, but Microsoft is very good at making intuitive interfaces.
Why shouldn't Linux developers use those same techniques (and possibly improve upon them) rather than reinvent the wheel? Linux developers would quite likely come up with a lesser interface since most don't have the time and money to do it right (Windows took years of usability testing, analysis, and research costing many millions of dollars.)
Isn't the whole point of installing Linux to get away from Microsoft?
I certainly hope not. If Linux can't stand on its own (rather than being "its not Microsoft"), then it has serious problems. Fortunately, this is not the case.
One of the things that jumped out at me at this article was that Jones's (IBM's) statement was very obviously a direct answer to very pointed, and very unpublished, question.
...then Jones response couldn't possibly be considered "bashing MySQL". He was just answering a question to the best of knowledge.
Jones did not wake up one morning and say to himself, "I'm going to call up InfoWorld and just rag on MySQL because I think its a threat to DB2!". No. InfoWorld called him, asked him a series of questions, kept what would make the best reading, and threw the rest away.
So, was Jones really being "negative" and "dissing" MySQL? We really don't know. If the questions he was answering were:
"What in your opinion is the main reason why MySQL is not beating DB2 and Oracle in the enterprise?"
and/or
"What would you consider MySQL's greatest flaws to be?"
Read the quote again to see my point:
Open-source databases "don't support as many users, they don't support as much data, and you don't have as many connectivity options," said Jeff Jones, director of strategy for data management solutions at IBM. "They lack some key functionality and lack the scalability and performance, which keeps them out of the enterprise," Jones said.
The whole article stinks of coaxing negative-sounding comments from people from "big bad companies", pasting them out of context, and calling it "Big Companies Once Again Stomp On Open Source!" Its also quite possible that he also said many wonderful things about MySQL, but that makes for boring reading and would be discarded.
It happens all the time, folx.
Same for IBM
I have to disagree with this statement. What does it take to become a software comapany?
In 1994 (earliest information quickly available), IBM sold $11.3 billion in software. In the same year, Microsoft sold less than half of that with $4.6 billion. IBM sold more software units and a wider variety of software than Microsoft did in that year, and had more software developers than Microsoft. In 1991, this gap was even wider. However, IBM was not a software company, while Microsoft was?
It should be further noted that software sales accounted for more than 30% of the company's tangible product sales revenue (as opposed to services). That's a hefty chuck of the company's revenue stream, especially when you consider the other 70% (hardware) is much more expensive on average per unit than software. (In other words, IBM most likely sold more software than hardware, in units, even though the revenues for hardware was higher.)
I think it is safe to say that IBM was a software company in 1991 in addition to being a hardware company.
Now we know that the byterate of a 56k modem is 56000 / 8, or 7000 bytes/sec
This isn't entirely accurate. You are forgetting about the carrier signal overhead that is required to keep the connection. In a typical modern modem connection, 10 baud is used to transfer 8 real bits (ie. a byte). The other two are used as parity and stop bits. Therefore, the "byterate" of 56000 baud is 5,600 bytes/sec.