Unlike the PalmOS emulators it doesn't really pretend to be a device
This is because there is no standard wince ROM, so it would be extremely difficult for MS to provide the emulator themselves. Perhaps what they could do is provide the framework for the emultaor to the vendors (ie Compaq) and allow them to create ROM emulators for their systems.
That being said, I have not had any serious troubles with the wince "emulator" as of yet for the purposes of development, though of course there are documented bugs.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that checked, though I strongly suspected that it was a joke.
I also checked references for "Sun" , "Linux", "BSD", "AOL", "suck" with no commented results.
It does makes sense that MS went through it with a fine-tooth comb first, plus I betcha there was a lot of internal pressure after the "Netscape Engineers suck" comment a while back.
From the article: Miguel de Icaza, Mono's founder, said, "The consensus is that [Microsoft] could stop someone from implementing the specs by using patents. [But] nothing in dot-Net is really innovative, so it would be simple to use alternative non-patented approaches."
Sounds okay to me... it just means you can't infringe on their implementation. How could you get "unimplementable" from "simple to use"??
Who ELSE should correct the errors? Taco, et al, are paid living wages for their work on this site. That means it's a professional job, and maybe it's high time it should be.
I think that it's a good think that posts are not edited before posting (except occasionally for brevity). I suppose the one thing they could do is do all of the editing of the submissions and put a little "[sic]" where the poster made a misspelling.
But this is not the New York Times, and it is not supposed to be, you're reading Slashdot. A collection of links submitted by readers. They usually do a good job of editing the features they write, and that's enough for me. I'm fed up with the focus on the occasional misspelling.
OSDN: home of illiterates.
If by "illiterates" you mean people who occasionally make spellings or grammatical errors, then you are describing much of the readership of/. (myself included). So maybe you are right... this is a decent home.
I try to be very specific when I say monopoly. I don't like to just throw it around.
Same here... but I didn't say monopoly did I?
Care to explain, a bit more?
I said monopolistic because it is the way Intel behaves. Intel may not fit the established definition of a Monopoly, but then neither does Microsoft. They do however behave in a monopolistic fashion, attempting to create massive barriers to entry and crushing competitors out of existance (worse than MS).
Intel increased the barriers to entry into the x86 market, and controlled 95% of it for years through intense legal pressure. Read up on it, the story is fascinating. AMD is lucky to have survived, and are now thriving since they got their foot in the door. But the K5 processor should have been their breakout -- but Intel pushed frivolous lawsuits on them until the PII came out and the K5 was outdated, then they dropped the lawsuits.
However, since the USDOJ started hounding them they have been much better (still not saying much) at allowing competitors to exist. And since then the monopoly power they held has diminished. And thus, "Moore's Law" was also thrown out the window.
I've heard enough already about misspellings that weren't the fault of the editors. They just post the damn submissions people. If Andy Tai makes a spelling mistake but it's the best submission for this issue, kudos to Michael for printing it.
On what grounds could ad blocking possibly be declared unlawful?
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that it could potentially violate the TOS of the website. But still, the nature of the web leaves the display format up to the user agent. So I doubt that they could win, even with that argument.
I know you were probably joking, but I'll correct you anyhow.
Moore's law is dead, if it ever was alive. Increased competition from AMD and Transmeta forced Intel off their 18-month schedule and kicked their asses until Intel finally got back into gear (hence the problems Intel faced for about a 1 1/2 years). Moore's law should actually be considered a side effect of the Intel monopolistic stranglehold on the PC market, instead of an actual Law.
Has anyone else reproduced the bug? Please post if you have
No, and I administered a SQL Server 6.5 installation for nearly a year, and never noticed the problem. That doesn't mean it wasn't happening, of course, but it was never severe enough to actually do any damage (to my non-nuclear tracking program).
Still, I doubt that the problem is with all select queries, probably something very specific to what they were doing. If I'm wrong, and 1/1000 queries were wrong........ sh&t.
I don't know what the differences are, but with my iPaq and my 128MB Sandisk CF card, I can play 64bit MP3s for at least 2 hours using the headphones. I know that without the headphones the thing drains in a hurry, so try attaching it to headphones or computer speakers.
...and as such, cnanot tell the difference between a flat sound, a vibrant sound, or a few hertz missing here and there.
OK, well I tell you this: a partially deaf monkey could tell you that.WMA is massively superior to.MP3 at 64bit compression. And it does matter to me, considering that I only have 128Meg of storage on my iPaq so I don't really have the option of higher bit rates.
Of course you are right, at higher bitrates the difference becomes much more negligable... but don't tell me there is no advantage to.WMA
... I remember back in the day the www.slashdot.com was held by some random guy, and there was a minor controversy because he pointed it back at www.slashdot.org but framed it under an ad window. Sorry, couldn't find a link, I doubt there was ever a full story on it.
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
I think that is partly the point. If every MS application (including those attached to windows such as WMP and Windows Explorer) requires MSHTML.DLL -- giving the "option" to remove it is akin to giving people the "option" to shoot themselves in the foot.
So its not "required" by the OS anymore because the damage was done -- most every corporate Windows-based PC requires IE to run for some application or another. I know my in-house applications require IE5 to run, we took advantage of it because it was fast and free. But now that the apps rely on it, MS can drop the OEM requirement as the software vendors will continue their requirement in their place.
Microsoft is so damn smart at times it's scary. You can almost look back at the last few years as if they planned it this way.
I know your post got modded up as funny, but I think it's not such a bad idea really. My old man bought a Compaq w/Win2k awhile ago, and the thing shipped with so much useless software and clutter on the desktop, it was unbelievable. I have yet to see OEM software for desktop PCs that didn't make me scramble to get rid of it.
So I would actually like that idea... don't laugh too hard!
Slashdot Mirror
This is because there is no standard wince ROM, so it would be extremely difficult for MS to provide the emulator themselves. Perhaps what they could do is provide the framework for the emultaor to the vendors (ie Compaq) and allow them to create ROM emulators for their systems.
That being said, I have not had any serious troubles with the wince "emulator" as of yet for the purposes of development, though of course there are documented bugs.
I also checked references for "Sun" , "Linux", "BSD", "AOL", "suck" with no commented results.
It does makes sense that MS went through it with a fine-tooth comb first, plus I betcha there was a lot of internal pressure after the "Netscape Engineers suck" comment a while back.
Sounds okay to me... it just means you can't infringe on their implementation. How could you get "unimplementable" from "simple to use"??
I think that it's a good think that posts are not edited before posting (except occasionally for brevity). I suppose the one thing they could do is do all of the editing of the submissions and put a little "[sic]" where the poster made a misspelling.
But this is not the New York Times, and it is not supposed to be, you're reading Slashdot. A collection of links submitted by readers. They usually do a good job of editing the features they write, and that's enough for me. I'm fed up with the focus on the occasional misspelling.
OSDN: home of illiterates.
If by "illiterates" you mean people who occasionally make spellings or grammatical errors, then you are describing much of the readership of /. (myself included). So maybe you are right... this is a decent home.
Same here... but I didn't say monopoly did I?
Care to explain, a bit more?
I said monopolistic because it is the way Intel behaves. Intel may not fit the established definition of a Monopoly, but then neither does Microsoft. They do however behave in a monopolistic fashion, attempting to create massive barriers to entry and crushing competitors out of existance (worse than MS).
Intel increased the barriers to entry into the x86 market, and controlled 95% of it for years through intense legal pressure. Read up on it, the story is fascinating. AMD is lucky to have survived, and are now thriving since they got their foot in the door. But the K5 processor should have been their breakout -- but Intel pushed frivolous lawsuits on them until the PII came out and the K5 was outdated, then they dropped the lawsuits.
However, since the USDOJ started hounding them they have been much better (still not saying much) at allowing competitors to exist. And since then the monopoly power they held has diminished. And thus, "Moore's Law" was also thrown out the window.
Clearer?
I've heard enough already about misspellings that weren't the fault of the editors. They just post the damn submissions people. If Andy Tai makes a spelling mistake but it's the best submission for this issue, kudos to Michael for printing it.
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that it could potentially violate the TOS of the website. But still, the nature of the web leaves the display format up to the user agent. So I doubt that they could win, even with that argument.
Moore's law is dead, if it ever was alive. Increased competition from AMD and Transmeta forced Intel off their 18-month schedule and kicked their asses until Intel finally got back into gear (hence the problems Intel faced for about a 1 1/2 years). Moore's law should actually be considered a side effect of the Intel monopolistic stranglehold on the PC market, instead of an actual Law.
No, and I administered a SQL Server 6.5 installation for nearly a year, and never noticed the problem. That doesn't mean it wasn't happening, of course, but it was never severe enough to actually do any damage (to my non-nuclear tracking program).
Still, I doubt that the problem is with all select queries, probably something very specific to what they were doing. If I'm wrong, and 1/1000 queries were wrong........ sh&t.
I don't know what the differences are, but with my iPaq and my 128MB Sandisk CF card, I can play 64bit MP3s for at least 2 hours using the headphones. I know that without the headphones the thing drains in a hurry, so try attaching it to headphones or computer speakers.
...and as such, cnanot tell the difference between a flat sound, a vibrant sound, or a few hertz missing here and there.
.WMA is massively superior to .MP3 at 64bit compression. And it does matter to me, considering that I only have 128Meg of storage on my iPaq so I don't really have the option of higher bit rates.
.WMA
OK, well I tell you this: a partially deaf monkey could tell you that
Of course you are right, at higher bitrates the difference becomes much more negligable... but don't tell me there is no advantage to
yes, that's what I was thinking of, and that explains why I couldn't find the story reference!
... I remember back in the day the www.slashdot.com was held by some random guy, and there was a minor controversy because he pointed it back at www.slashdot.org but framed it under an ad window. Sorry, couldn't find a link, I doubt there was ever a full story on it.
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
I think that is partly the point. If every MS application (including those attached to windows such as WMP and Windows Explorer) requires MSHTML.DLL -- giving the "option" to remove it is akin to giving people the "option" to shoot themselves in the foot.
So its not "required" by the OS anymore because the damage was done -- most every corporate Windows-based PC requires IE to run for some application or another. I know my in-house applications require IE5 to run, we took advantage of it because it was fast and free. But now that the apps rely on it, MS can drop the OEM requirement as the software vendors will continue their requirement in their place.
Microsoft is so damn smart at times it's scary. You can almost look back at the last few years as if they planned it this way.
I know your post got modded up as funny, but I think it's not such a bad idea really. My old man bought a Compaq w/Win2k awhile ago, and the thing shipped with so much useless software and clutter on the desktop, it was unbelievable. I have yet to see OEM software for desktop PCs that didn't make me scramble to get rid of it.
So I would actually like that idea... don't laugh too hard!
Anne T was the highly-trained Cisco tech who...
No, she wasn't
I have no reason to doubt roblimo here... Damn folklore will live on forever though...
heh... I love how d.net is so on-the-ball that they have already blocked access to the linked CGI. They know their bandwidth! =)