If you get the developers, you'll get the preloads. Microsoft reducing their price in response to low or zero cost Linux preloads only works because Microsoft already has the developers. If Linux had the same apps and XP cost $1 then Linux would still be $1 cheaper and have the same apps.
Hence "network effects". A "large enough market" is made, not born. It is "large enough" for different developers at different points, and those points often depend on which type of application they write to fill which niche.
Learn to fucking read, will you? Quit injecting straw men. I have said twice that commercial-grade power happens to fucking be more likely to be installed in commercial zones already and that the requirements for zoning have to do with the fucking land use zoning.
Competing with Windows for customers ranges somewhere between silly and stupid. If you want more Linux on the desktop, you need to court developers and software vendors.
Linux works great as an OS. It has penetrated servers well because the server software (both new and inherited from other Unixes) is great. It has penetrated the embedded market largely because new apps were written for it and the new devices. It has penetrated embedded markets because they write everything they need anyway, except the kernel and maybe the C libraries give them a head start.
What you need to break into the desktop market with established applications from established application providers is applications as good or better. If you give gamers the chance to install games from EA, Valve, Blizzard, Bioware, and id on launch day, they will come. If you get Photoshop or some absolutely full-featured replacement for it on Linux, you'll get many of those users from Windows or Mac. If you get a true replacement for Peachtree and Quickbooks, you'll get more small businesses using Linux as their accounting desktops.
People who seem to understand network effects when it comes to social networking sites, instant messengers, P2P, etc. seem to forget all about them when it comes to desktop platforms. The more classes of application in which your platform is the leading installation target for the best apps, the more valuable your platform is. Linux has this for servers, embedded devices, and to some degree mobiles. If you want it to be a major desktop player, it needs this for desktops, too.
Personally, I use Linux on the desktop far more than Windows and I have for years. I still need some Windows or Mac systems around for the applications I just can't run well on Linux. I say "Windows or Mac" because most of the applications I can't run on Linux properly have versions for both of those platforms.
Linux doesn't even need to take developers from Windows to become much bigger on the desktop. It could become a third platform for companies supporting Win and OS X. It could become a second platform for companies doing Win or Mac. It could even replace OS X as the second platform for some software companies that do windows and Mac now. Adobe comes to mind, as they are practically at war with Apple right now anyway.
They let them use those easements without compensating the landowners, too, considering the utilities would be providing their services to the people at much lower cost if they didn't need to buy or rent the easements. It's actually cheaper in some cases now to provide your own last mile if you can find someone to peer you to the Internet. So much for big monopolies giving you better network effects and lower costs than standardization and open access.
In good, human-readable languages the sources are "just text files". Some languages use binary source files that only a specific IDE can make useful. Others are "just text files" with significant white space which you need a good editor or an IDE to use reliably, but you can muddle through with a lesser editor.
Consistently incomplete doesn't necessarily mean consistently incorrect. Maybe you'd really rather certain portions of the DNA are reliably not transcribed to matching RNA.
If it is done using URL handlers, it requires some apps that is registered as a URL handler. Skype calls would require Skype or something that registers its protocol instead, yeah. But other URL schemes would still launch the applications registered to handle those.
BTW, unless it was a Windows 95 locked down with third-party software, all you really needed to do was reboot and get into safe mode or item-by-item interactive boot with the F8 key. Back in the early 1990s, we used to use the DOS Shell menu item in MS Works on our school network to break out of the "security" the main lab had in place. We used to play Scorched Earth and Stunts rather than write papers we could just as easily type up at home. Keep your porn to yourself, perv.;-)
There's no limit to what electricity they can use other than their breaker, but there is certainly a limit on the use of the property for commercial use in most jurisdictions. They need to be in a commercial zone or have a commercial zoning variance. If they need more than their breaker can handle or need additional service built in from the distribution network, they'll have to pay for it. If they're selling flowers, vegetables, or trees in commercial quantities from their residential home, they'll need a zoning change or variance. It's convenient that the commercially zoned property will already have sufficient electrical service in most cases.
You mean that privately owned fiber built out by tax-backed grants and government-enforced monopolies? That's what you think means the private companies deserve to continually screw the public? How about at least forcing these companies to advertise exactly what they offer rather than an "unlimited up to 20 Mbps connection" which turns out to be a 90 kbps connection with 6 Mbps bursts and a cap which means you can actually only use 40 kbps over the course of the month?
So we could have the Internet which is free, open, and indiscriminate about the data it carries, and then we could have... say... cable and Internet TV that doesn't carry Internet traffic and doesn't interfere with it, either? Great idea! Now, if only we had companies that specialized in providing Internet access that didn't have conflicting interests like delivering their own brand of VOIP and TV... We could even call them Internet Service Providers or ISPS for short. They could focus on providing Internet service and be protected from predation by VOIP and TV peddlers.
If he's using commercial amounts of electricity for commercial purposes in a residential zone then he should move or pay fines for zoning violations. He can get his higher-power connection in an area which is already built out for higher-level electricity usage because it's properly zoned for parties with those needs.
Do we really need AIM, ICQ, Yahoo messenger, AOL mail, Netscape mail, Compuserve mail, Yahoo mail, AOL portal, Yahoo portal, and Yahoo search all under one roof? Hasn't AOL bought up and gutted enough companies just to keep the domain emails alive and nothing else?
How about making AOL and Yahoo messengers speak XMPP and making the server interoperate? How about working on making a decent search technology as a limited partnership to compete with Microsoft and Google? They don't need to merge, but they could be useful to one another without merging.
An embryo that's never been in a uterus has never been a viable embryo. In fact, many people I know (of course not all, since there are absolutists all over both sides of the issue) would be just fine with aborting an embryo in the uterus, as with the day-after pill. There's a difference between an embryo and a fetus. There are several, in fact.
There are many people who only oppose such practices as late-term abortions, when the child is actually formed and functional enough that it would be safely delivered. Others oppose it only after the embryo has implanted or after the placenta has formed. Some oppose any after-the-fact controls at all. Some people don't even believe in condoms or the pill.
This is not a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue. Those are just labels people have applied to it as black and white fodder for the press and the two-party political system. Life is not a series of dichotomies.
The problem is that most people in the US don't choose who tries to speak for them in the media. The loudest and most extreme in any direction get the airtime, and the middle ground is left to pick from the libertards on one side and the conservatards on the other, neither of which will admit to having actually thought about a complex issue.
That's what is called statutory rape. The real dilemma in your scenario has less to do with whether or not the abortion would be legal, though, than the fact that the girl is the ward of her parents. They'll decide whether she can get the medical procedure unless she goes to court to win the right to her own body.
I didn't say anything about anyone being absolutely responsive and trusted. I specifically said "more responsive to customer demands are, in my experience, more trusted by customers".
Which sociological study from which university backs up your claims? As you parrot below, the plural of anecdote is not data. Provide a citation and start using your own wit to be witty.
I didn't call myself a pro-lifer. I said I thought it should be legal, safe, and rare. I'm not trying to legislate your decisions. I'm against it personally, and I have a right to make my own personal decisions. If my wife decided to get an abortion (which she wouldn't, because she feels the same way as I), then I think your opinion about our decision is pretty much unwelcome and meaningless.
A fetus forced upon a woman or young girl was not formed by her choice and should not be her responsibility. Even a normal pregnancy and birth has some amount of danger to it. If a woman is already a victim, why force her to undergo more victimization by forcing her to carry her attacker's child to term?
I said I oppose abortion personally except for exceptional cases, but that I think it should be legal. You're telling me I can't make my own decision against it just like the hard-core pro-lifers are trying to tell women they can't make a decision in favor of abortion. Who is the hypocrite here? It's not me. It's you.
Just think: the raving madness and blatant inaccuracies of Bloglines now brought to you by the folks who bring you the raving madness and blatant inaccuracies at MerchantCircle!
Slashdot Mirror
If you get the developers, you'll get the preloads. Microsoft reducing their price in response to low or zero cost Linux preloads only works because Microsoft already has the developers. If Linux had the same apps and XP cost $1 then Linux would still be $1 cheaper and have the same apps.
Hence "network effects". A "large enough market" is made, not born. It is "large enough" for different developers at different points, and those points often depend on which type of application they write to fill which niche.
They don't sell an "up to" voltage, but you can be damn sure the amperage is "up to". That's what causes brownouts.
Learn to fucking read, will you? Quit injecting straw men. I have said twice that commercial-grade power happens to fucking be more likely to be installed in commercial zones already and that the requirements for zoning have to do with the fucking land use zoning.
Competing with Windows for customers ranges somewhere between silly and stupid. If you want more Linux on the desktop, you need to court developers and software vendors.
Linux works great as an OS. It has penetrated servers well because the server software (both new and inherited from other Unixes) is great. It has penetrated the embedded market largely because new apps were written for it and the new devices. It has penetrated embedded markets because they write everything they need anyway, except the kernel and maybe the C libraries give them a head start.
What you need to break into the desktop market with established applications from established application providers is applications as good or better. If you give gamers the chance to install games from EA, Valve, Blizzard, Bioware, and id on launch day, they will come. If you get Photoshop or some absolutely full-featured replacement for it on Linux, you'll get many of those users from Windows or Mac. If you get a true replacement for Peachtree and Quickbooks, you'll get more small businesses using Linux as their accounting desktops.
People who seem to understand network effects when it comes to social networking sites, instant messengers, P2P, etc. seem to forget all about them when it comes to desktop platforms. The more classes of application in which your platform is the leading installation target for the best apps, the more valuable your platform is. Linux has this for servers, embedded devices, and to some degree mobiles. If you want it to be a major desktop player, it needs this for desktops, too.
Personally, I use Linux on the desktop far more than Windows and I have for years. I still need some Windows or Mac systems around for the applications I just can't run well on Linux. I say "Windows or Mac" because most of the applications I can't run on Linux properly have versions for both of those platforms.
Linux doesn't even need to take developers from Windows to become much bigger on the desktop. It could become a third platform for companies supporting Win and OS X. It could become a second platform for companies doing Win or Mac. It could even replace OS X as the second platform for some software companies that do windows and Mac now. Adobe comes to mind, as they are practically at war with Apple right now anyway.
They let them use those easements without compensating the landowners, too, considering the utilities would be providing their services to the people at much lower cost if they didn't need to buy or rent the easements. It's actually cheaper in some cases now to provide your own last mile if you can find someone to peer you to the Internet. So much for big monopolies giving you better network effects and lower costs than standardization and open access.
No, that would explain why the same structures are defined different ways in the parser for Perl. ;-)
urpmi
yum
yast
*ducks*
In good, human-readable languages the sources are "just text files". Some languages use binary source files that only a specific IDE can make useful. Others are "just text files" with significant white space which you need a good editor or an IDE to use reliably, but you can muddle through with a lesser editor.
Consistently incomplete doesn't necessarily mean consistently incorrect. Maybe you'd really rather certain portions of the DNA are reliably not transcribed to matching RNA.
If it is done using URL handlers, it requires some apps that is registered as a URL handler. Skype calls would require Skype or something that registers its protocol instead, yeah. But other URL schemes would still launch the applications registered to handle those.
BTW, unless it was a Windows 95 locked down with third-party software, all you really needed to do was reboot and get into safe mode or item-by-item interactive boot with the F8 key. Back in the early 1990s, we used to use the DOS Shell menu item in MS Works on our school network to break out of the "security" the main lab had in place. We used to play Scorched Earth and Stunts rather than write papers we could just as easily type up at home. Keep your porn to yourself, perv. ;-)
There's no limit to what electricity they can use other than their breaker, but there is certainly a limit on the use of the property for commercial use in most jurisdictions. They need to be in a commercial zone or have a commercial zoning variance. If they need more than their breaker can handle or need additional service built in from the distribution network, they'll have to pay for it. If they're selling flowers, vegetables, or trees in commercial quantities from their residential home, they'll need a zoning change or variance. It's convenient that the commercially zoned property will already have sufficient electrical service in most cases.
You mean that privately owned fiber built out by tax-backed grants and government-enforced monopolies? That's what you think means the private companies deserve to continually screw the public? How about at least forcing these companies to advertise exactly what they offer rather than an "unlimited up to 20 Mbps connection" which turns out to be a 90 kbps connection with 6 Mbps bursts and a cap which means you can actually only use 40 kbps over the course of the month?
Actually, didn't Telex exist years before AOL? And then Compuserv and Prodigy before AOL, too?
So we could have the Internet which is free, open, and indiscriminate about the data it carries, and then we could have... say... cable and Internet TV that doesn't carry Internet traffic and doesn't interfere with it, either? Great idea! Now, if only we had companies that specialized in providing Internet access that didn't have conflicting interests like delivering their own brand of VOIP and TV... We could even call them Internet Service Providers or ISPS for short. They could focus on providing Internet service and be protected from predation by VOIP and TV peddlers.
If he's using commercial amounts of electricity for commercial purposes in a residential zone then he should move or pay fines for zoning violations. He can get his higher-power connection in an area which is already built out for higher-level electricity usage because it's properly zoned for parties with those needs.
Do we really need AIM, ICQ, Yahoo messenger, AOL mail, Netscape mail, Compuserve mail, Yahoo mail, AOL portal, Yahoo portal, and Yahoo search all under one roof? Hasn't AOL bought up and gutted enough companies just to keep the domain emails alive and nothing else?
How about making AOL and Yahoo messengers speak XMPP and making the server interoperate? How about working on making a decent search technology as a limited partnership to compete with Microsoft and Google? They don't need to merge, but they could be useful to one another without merging.
An embryo that's never been in a uterus has never been a viable embryo. In fact, many people I know (of course not all, since there are absolutists all over both sides of the issue) would be just fine with aborting an embryo in the uterus, as with the day-after pill. There's a difference between an embryo and a fetus. There are several, in fact.
There are many people who only oppose such practices as late-term abortions, when the child is actually formed and functional enough that it would be safely delivered. Others oppose it only after the embryo has implanted or after the placenta has formed. Some oppose any after-the-fact controls at all. Some people don't even believe in condoms or the pill.
This is not a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue. Those are just labels people have applied to it as black and white fodder for the press and the two-party political system. Life is not a series of dichotomies.
The problem is that most people in the US don't choose who tries to speak for them in the media. The loudest and most extreme in any direction get the airtime, and the middle ground is left to pick from the libertards on one side and the conservatards on the other, neither of which will admit to having actually thought about a complex issue.
That's what is called statutory rape. The real dilemma in your scenario has less to do with whether or not the abortion would be legal, though, than the fact that the girl is the ward of her parents. They'll decide whether she can get the medical procedure unless she goes to court to win the right to her own body.
Um, why would I throw that in when I already said it should be legal and safe?
Do you read entire posts before you comment? How did you miss that? It's in the same four-sentence paragraph as what you quoted.
I didn't say anything about anyone being absolutely responsive and trusted. I specifically said "more responsive to customer demands are, in my experience, more trusted by customers".
Notice the utter lack of superlatives.
Which sociological study from which university backs up your claims? As you parrot below, the plural of anecdote is not data. Provide a citation and start using your own wit to be witty.
I didn't call myself a pro-lifer. I said I thought it should be legal, safe, and rare. I'm not trying to legislate your decisions. I'm against it personally, and I have a right to make my own personal decisions. If my wife decided to get an abortion (which she wouldn't, because she feels the same way as I), then I think your opinion about our decision is pretty much unwelcome and meaningless.
A fetus forced upon a woman or young girl was not formed by her choice and should not be her responsibility. Even a normal pregnancy and birth has some amount of danger to it. If a woman is already a victim, why force her to undergo more victimization by forcing her to carry her attacker's child to term?
I said I oppose abortion personally except for exceptional cases, but that I think it should be legal. You're telling me I can't make my own decision against it just like the hard-core pro-lifers are trying to tell women they can't make a decision in favor of abortion. Who is the hypocrite here? It's not me. It's you.
Just think: the raving madness and blatant inaccuracies of Bloglines now brought to you by the folks who bring you the raving madness and blatant inaccuracies at MerchantCircle!