I'm looking at the Symbian phones, particularly from Nokia, myself. I still have just a Razr for now. I used to have a Psion Series 5mx and I still miss it.
I'm no fan of Windows Mobile. I don't see why Microsoft is missing this opportunity even if they have to stretch the truth a bit. Apple certainly did in their ads, and Microsoft's been known to do much worse than what Apple did for their ads.
It's a smart thing to do, even if Microsoft's phones aren't all that. Leopard isn't all that either, although it is pretty nice. The perception that the new iPhone is shit is out there, and it should be used to someone's advantage. Maybe Nokia will if Microsoft doesn't, and the Symbian smartphones really do just work. Nokia's not known for dirty tricks, though, which is why I suggested Microsoft do it.
I'm quite certain the US could have bought their fill of oil illegally from Saddam Hussein like the French and Russians did. An invasion for oil would have been a stupid move. Saddam would have sold it nice and cheap. There probably were ulterior motives, but this one is not sensible. Things like showing military might in the region, having bases near Iran, or even laundering money for their friends in the contracting fields at Halliburton and Computer Sciences Corporation make far more sense.
China cheating is cheating, whether they are the host country or not. Whether it's something intrinsic in younger girls performing better or just as a way to widen their talent pool from the girls above the proper age, doing what other countries are not allowed to do is cheating. There is no cheating allowed in sport. That's why it's different from war.
Microsoft is upset over the Mac v. PC, Leopard v. Vista commercials. They want to play dirty themselves, obviously, since they're showing idealized videotaped demos of their OS to gullible people under a fake name and saying "That's Vista, ain't it great?". So where are all the Microsoft-purchased ads slamming the iPhone's inability to even be a phone, while Windows Mobile phones get shit done?
If you're eating Chinese food in a Chinese-owned restaurant outside of China, you're almost certainly not supporting the Chinese government. You're supporting local business owners who got the hell out of an authoritarian regime. That's a good thing. Go eat Chinese food without guilt.
Compare the girls in other sports to the gymnasts. Sure, the gymnasts will be smaller, lighter, and more flexible. Is there any other country whose gymnasts just look so damn young in the face compared to their swimmers, fencers, volleyball players, and every other sport at around the "same age"?
The only people who ever had a say were the members of the PLA and the Communist Party. Support Chinese Nationalism. Buy stuff from Taiwan. Support your government's recognition and protection of the only free Chinese in the world -- the Taiwanese and those who have emigrated from China.
Also, Michael Phelps happens to be a male swimmer and not a female gymnast. FINA is for swimmers and FIG is for gymnasts. Go figure that different governing bodies may have different rules for different sports. The IOC is far from the only organization involved in the Olympics.
Considering there are websites out there that can own a Windows PC just by having someone visit a page with IE, I'd say this is a pretty good attack vector. You might not get many, but you'll get some who copy and paste a URL or accidentally paste it into an email instead of the string they meant and not notice until they've hit enter or clicked send.
You're probably not running an Athlon 2500+ for your CPU. Supreme Commander is more CPU heavy than GPU heavy. It's seriously limited by pretty much any single-core CPU out there.
It might be 240 volt, but if it's 50 amps at the wall socket you might just be doing it wrong. I very seriously doubt your computer needs 12,000 VA of power.
Let's use your analogy. If you develop your mass-marketable flying car prototype, you shop the prototype around to people in the car or aviation industries who might produce it (like Ferrari). You don't accept big changes to its design from high school kids you didn't ask for advice. The reason you trusted Ferrari is that they have some provable experience. The reason they trust you is that you have a working prototype.
The reason you don't trust Anonymous Cowherd to send you a new blueprint for your entire fuel distribution system is that you have no idea who the fuck he is, what he knows about building flying cars, or what his real interest in your flying car is. If he sends you a small tweak that works out, then you might trust a bigger design change later and may even solicit his input.
Well, the reasoning in my post is a bit simplistic, but it's a simple issue at its core. People trust those they know they can trust. They want everyone else to prove they can be trusted with responsibility before they grant them too much authority.
That you're a super genius nerd with a talent and affinity for writing systems-level C code doesn't mean much to kernel maintainers. All of them are super genius nerds with a talent and affinity for writing system-level C code, too. What's more is that they've proven themselves in front of the community. Being good at something difficult is wonderful. Those people reviewing and vouching for your patches can't take your word for that, though. They don't have time to review large unsolicited patches to see your awesome skills and be moved by them. Once they trust your skills from reviewing good work you've submitted in manageable chunks, they'll be more likely to look over something that takes more time to review. Being good at writing the code is just a prerequisite to getting it accepted. Proving you're willing to fix bugs, explain the changes to others on the team, and stick to the standards they team has found to be useful to the team a whole are necessary steps, too. Hit-and-run patching is fun but in the end it's not very productive when someone else has to become the maintainer on a large chunk of your code.
That's an interesting observation. Unfortunately, there are two major parties which reinforce their duopoly and have for decades. Both are largely corrupt, so the system would seem to have failed.
The discouraging of banning together for sinister purposes is indeed listed as one of many reasons for rotating Senate classes on the Senate's own history page. Other included less popularist views, a longer view of issues, more stability, and more continuity. By having a group that served longer than the terms of presidents or members of the House, a turnover in the governing bodies would not leave the federal government completely fresh and inexperienced.
One additional point: don't try to take over a whole subsystem in one rewrite. Contribute small patches that are easily reviewed to get your feet wet and get noticed. Then, as you're better known and respected within the community, start scaling up your contributions.
It works the same way in any open source community. The new guy who rewrites half the code all at once isn't going to get a review of his code. Show that you can do the small changes right first.
Actually, it works this way in almost any cooperative group. You don't show up to your first meeting at Kiwanis, the Jaycees, or the Lions and start making resolutions. You don't sit in on drums once for a band and start telling them how to write songs. The US Senate even has a rotating term cycle so that there are always Senators with more experience to get the junior Senators acquainted with how things work.
People who think they should suddenly be in charge of a large portion of an established organization they've just joined are showing signs of detachment from society or megalomania. If you've never contributed anything worthwhile, you're nobody special compared to the people who have been doing the work. Don't expect to be a big part of a group without being a small part first. Some people move up the ranks faster than others through skill and hard work, but everyone pays some dues.
I agree. I think that's exactly the question PsyStar is hoping to raise in court. If PsyStar wins that point in court, it will change the software industry.
PsyStar might be able to argue that, but it'd be a technicality. It might work for the copies PsyStar has already bought, but Apple would overcome it by issuing all new retail upgrades with "Upgrade Only" all over the box, disks, and manuals.
The "to be installed on Apple-branded computers only" line means it really is just an upgrade license, because those Apple-branded computers already have some earlier versions of the OS licensed. The PsyStar boxes don't.
Now, there's also the illegal tying route that PsyStar might argue, and a few other things probably as well.
I kind of hope Apple loses this one, but I wouldn't at all put money on that outcome.
The issue is the software. PsyStar is buying copies of Leopard that are labeled "to be used on Apple-branded computers only". Since the Apple-branded computers already come with an OS license, the retail copies of the OS are effectively upgrades to the version already on a Mac. However, PsyStar is selling those copies preinstalled on machines that do not have licenses from Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking at the Symbian phones, particularly from Nokia, myself. I still have just a Razr for now. I used to have a Psion Series 5mx and I still miss it.
I'm no fan of Windows Mobile. I don't see why Microsoft is missing this opportunity even if they have to stretch the truth a bit. Apple certainly did in their ads, and Microsoft's been known to do much worse than what Apple did for their ads.
It's a smart thing to do, even if Microsoft's phones aren't all that. Leopard isn't all that either, although it is pretty nice. The perception that the new iPhone is shit is out there, and it should be used to someone's advantage. Maybe Nokia will if Microsoft doesn't, and the Symbian smartphones really do just work. Nokia's not known for dirty tricks, though, which is why I suggested Microsoft do it.
I'm quite certain the US could have bought their fill of oil illegally from Saddam Hussein like the French and Russians did. An invasion for oil would have been a stupid move. Saddam would have sold it nice and cheap. There probably were ulterior motives, but this one is not sensible. Things like showing military might in the region, having bases near Iran, or even laundering money for their friends in the contracting fields at Halliburton and Computer Sciences Corporation make far more sense.
China cheating is cheating, whether they are the host country or not. Whether it's something intrinsic in younger girls performing better or just as a way to widen their talent pool from the girls above the proper age, doing what other countries are not allowed to do is cheating. There is no cheating allowed in sport. That's why it's different from war.
Bware muh mad skillz, yo! I can cliq on de link most ppl don't.
Microsoft is upset over the Mac v. PC, Leopard v. Vista commercials. They want to play dirty themselves, obviously, since they're showing idealized videotaped demos of their OS to gullible people under a fake name and saying "That's Vista, ain't it great?". So where are all the Microsoft-purchased ads slamming the iPhone's inability to even be a phone, while Windows Mobile phones get shit done?
If you're eating Chinese food in a Chinese-owned restaurant outside of China, you're almost certainly not supporting the Chinese government. You're supporting local business owners who got the hell out of an authoritarian regime. That's a good thing. Go eat Chinese food without guilt.
Compare the girls in other sports to the gymnasts. Sure, the gymnasts will be smaller, lighter, and more flexible. Is there any other country whose gymnasts just look so damn young in the face compared to their swimmers, fencers, volleyball players, and every other sport at around the "same age"?
The only people who ever had a say were the members of the PLA and the Communist Party. Support Chinese Nationalism. Buy stuff from Taiwan. Support your government's recognition and protection of the only free Chinese in the world -- the Taiwanese and those who have emigrated from China.
Also, Michael Phelps happens to be a male swimmer and not a female gymnast. FINA is for swimmers and FIG is for gymnasts. Go figure that different governing bodies may have different rules for different sports. The IOC is far from the only organization involved in the Olympics.
You fail Hanlon's razor. This is clearly incompetence.
Considering there are websites out there that can own a Windows PC just by having someone visit a page with IE, I'd say this is a pretty good attack vector. You might not get many, but you'll get some who copy and paste a URL or accidentally paste it into an email instead of the string they meant and not notice until they've hit enter or clicked send.
You can disable Firebug or just certain Firebug panels for particular web sites if you're using one of the more recent versions.
Closing just the tab worked for me on these browsers on Mandriva:
Firefox 3.0.1 (from Mozilla's site)
Firefox 2.0.0.16 (from the repository).
Opera 9.50 (from Opera's site)
Too lazy right now to fire up Windows or Mac.
You're probably not running an Athlon 2500+ for your CPU. Supreme Commander is more CPU heavy than GPU heavy. It's seriously limited by pretty much any single-core CPU out there.
It might be 240 volt, but if it's 50 amps at the wall socket you might just be doing it wrong. I very seriously doubt your computer needs 12,000 VA of power.
What about my clock potentiometer?
Watch the forecasts. Tropical storms they're talking about potentially becoming hurricanes tend to dump a bunch of rain.
I agree with your opinion on EULAs, but we're not lawyers (at least I'm not), let alone the judges who are going to hear this case.
INo, it's not political at all. It's pragmatic.
Let's use your analogy. If you develop your mass-marketable flying car prototype, you shop the prototype around to people in the car or aviation industries who might produce it (like Ferrari). You don't accept big changes to its design from high school kids you didn't ask for advice. The reason you trusted Ferrari is that they have some provable experience. The reason they trust you is that you have a working prototype.
The reason you don't trust Anonymous Cowherd to send you a new blueprint for your entire fuel distribution system is that you have no idea who the fuck he is, what he knows about building flying cars, or what his real interest in your flying car is. If he sends you a small tweak that works out, then you might trust a bigger design change later and may even solicit his input.
If only there was some way to disseminate information to a technical audience across long distances electronically...
Well, the reasoning in my post is a bit simplistic, but it's a simple issue at its core. People trust those they know they can trust. They want everyone else to prove they can be trusted with responsibility before they grant them too much authority.
That you're a super genius nerd with a talent and affinity for writing systems-level C code doesn't mean much to kernel maintainers. All of them are super genius nerds with a talent and affinity for writing system-level C code, too. What's more is that they've proven themselves in front of the community. Being good at something difficult is wonderful. Those people reviewing and vouching for your patches can't take your word for that, though. They don't have time to review large unsolicited patches to see your awesome skills and be moved by them. Once they trust your skills from reviewing good work you've submitted in manageable chunks, they'll be more likely to look over something that takes more time to review. Being good at writing the code is just a prerequisite to getting it accepted. Proving you're willing to fix bugs, explain the changes to others on the team, and stick to the standards they team has found to be useful to the team a whole are necessary steps, too. Hit-and-run patching is fun but in the end it's not very productive when someone else has to become the maintainer on a large chunk of your code.
That's an interesting observation. Unfortunately, there are two major parties which reinforce their duopoly and have for decades. Both are largely corrupt, so the system would seem to have failed.
The discouraging of banning together for sinister purposes is indeed listed as one of many reasons for rotating Senate classes on the Senate's own history page. Other included less popularist views, a longer view of issues, more stability, and more continuity. By having a group that served longer than the terms of presidents or members of the House, a turnover in the governing bodies would not leave the federal government completely fresh and inexperienced.
One additional point: don't try to take over a whole subsystem in one rewrite. Contribute small patches that are easily reviewed to get your feet wet and get noticed. Then, as you're better known and respected within the community, start scaling up your contributions.
It works the same way in any open source community. The new guy who rewrites half the code all at once isn't going to get a review of his code. Show that you can do the small changes right first.
Actually, it works this way in almost any cooperative group. You don't show up to your first meeting at Kiwanis, the Jaycees, or the Lions and start making resolutions. You don't sit in on drums once for a band and start telling them how to write songs. The US Senate even has a rotating term cycle so that there are always Senators with more experience to get the junior Senators acquainted with how things work.
People who think they should suddenly be in charge of a large portion of an established organization they've just joined are showing signs of detachment from society or megalomania. If you've never contributed anything worthwhile, you're nobody special compared to the people who have been doing the work. Don't expect to be a big part of a group without being a small part first. Some people move up the ranks faster than others through skill and hard work, but everyone pays some dues.
I agree. I think that's exactly the question PsyStar is hoping to raise in court. If PsyStar wins that point in court, it will change the software industry.
PsyStar might be able to argue that, but it'd be a technicality. It might work for the copies PsyStar has already bought, but Apple would overcome it by issuing all new retail upgrades with "Upgrade Only" all over the box, disks, and manuals.
The "to be installed on Apple-branded computers only" line means it really is just an upgrade license, because those Apple-branded computers already have some earlier versions of the OS licensed. The PsyStar boxes don't.
Now, there's also the illegal tying route that PsyStar might argue, and a few other things probably as well.
I kind of hope Apple loses this one, but I wouldn't at all put money on that outcome.
The issue is the software. PsyStar is buying copies of Leopard that are labeled "to be used on Apple-branded computers only". Since the Apple-branded computers already come with an OS license, the retail copies of the OS are effectively upgrades to the version already on a Mac. However, PsyStar is selling those copies preinstalled on machines that do not have licenses from Apple.