On a Lenove Z580 Core i7 laptop, Windows 10 was taking over three times as long just to reach the login prompt as it takes me to boot, log in, and have my Ubuntu 15.04 installation ready to use.
Why in the world would I want to use that crapfest on underpowered hardware?
I used to work on a project like that, where the bean counters ran amok and tried to create accounting codes for the minutest detail of the job. I pissed them off by entering all my time under "Development" or "Debugging."
I knock Apple because of their rabid fan base and exhorbitant pricing, but they do have good engineers and produce some pretty damned solid hardware. Fair is fair -- they're better than HP was in their heyday!
If you want to go with a grocery store example, I think a better example of what Google is doing is a "loss leader" product that is sold at a loss or given away in order to bring in business for the marked up products. At least in Canada and the US, that is not illegal.
You also have to remember that there were commercial browser products being sold for Windows at the time IE came out. Not only did Microsoft bundle IE with Windows, they did so for free, taking away the sales for those for-purchase products.
For Google to be guilty of the same thing, they would have to give away some product for iOS, WinPhone, Blackberry, Ubuntu, et. al. that steals existing market share for their stores and products in favour of some free or cheaper Google version.
Not only won't she be held accountable, people are still willing to vote for a proven fraud and liar. Good Lord -- Nixon got the boot from office for less than this woman has done, and yet there are millions of American Idiots willing to vote for her!
'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.
Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.
Sanders is really looking like the best bet the US has for an honest President, but I think he's a pretty long shot, unfortunately. He's not flashy enough and "out there" enough to win enough votes.:(
I'm betting that if Windows had come bundled with IE right from it's initial release as Android did with it's tie-in products, there wouldn't have been an issue. The problem is Microsoft added IE and then tied it in to the OS so tightly you couldn't get rid of it.
Android succeeded despite (because of?) the bundled apps. But it has been a level playing fields since it's initial release, so no one can complain that some competing vendor had an unfair advantage over the others.
Face it: success breeds investigations and lawsuits. There will always be the jealous and greedy who think they "deserve" a slice of the successful's pie, despite not having done a damned thing to earn that slice.
The simple bottom line is that no one is "forced" to use Android. Apple wrote iOS. Blackberry used QNX. Microsoft wrote WinPhone. There are Mozilla's efforts, Ubuntu's, and another Linux-based project whose name I forget at the moment.
Unless and until you are "forced" to use Android for your phone's OS, you can't claim Google has a monopoly and therefore you have no right to complain about them having licensing terms of their choice for their products.
This whole situation is just a bunch of greedy bastards who want everything for free so they can leech profit off the work of others.
... just problem solving in all its pure elegance and source code in all its unhindered, non-process, non-styleguide'd glory.
There are rarely such isolated problems in the real world, though. Real programs are far larger and more complex than those produced by these coding competitions. The fact that you can win a coding competition doesn't really say much of anything about your ability to integrate systems, deal with incompatibilities, or to work with other team members.
In short, winning a coding competition doesn't say bugger all about your skill as an employable programmer.
Trust an American editor to label anything and everything the Russians develop as "spy" equipment. Heaven forbid they should actually care about saving lives.:(
Jurisdiction of the head office does not affect the need to follow local regulations. Go ahead and try to sell a Japanese car in the US that doesn't meet US safety regulations or emissions requirements...
There is no "right" for US corporations to participate in foreign markets. If they don't want to abide by the terms of a foreign nation's laws, they're free not to do business there.
They are not free to impose US law on those nations.
No one is making claims under the agreement. What they are saying is that the US does not abide by the terms of the agreement, so the agreement should be nullified.
This isn't a decision being made by courts; it's a decision being made by the government. Totally different ballgame.
The US does not get to dictate law to foreign nations, no matter how much they'd like to.
Slashdot Mirror
Was I modded down by an Apple hater or an HP fan?
Inquiring minds want to know... :P
Oh, gee, well excuse me for thinking that if someone says they're on display at a fucking museum that they're on display at a fucking museum!!!
The evolution of systems is far more important than their initial design.
I challenge anyone to show me a system that didn't change during even a six month development cycle, never mind over the course of a decade.
Actually, this project *did*! "Preparing Supporting Documentation" *LOL*
On a Lenove Z580 Core i7 laptop, Windows 10 was taking over three times as long just to reach the login prompt as it takes me to boot, log in, and have my Ubuntu 15.04 installation ready to use.
Why in the world would I want to use that crapfest on underpowered hardware?
He didn't just design them. He built them. An earlier post mentions the museum where they're displayed.
Oh. And "Meetings". There were always meetings... with free doughnuts at least. *burp*
I used to work on a project like that, where the bean counters ran amok and tried to create accounting codes for the minutest detail of the job. I pissed them off by entering all my time under "Development" or "Debugging."
I knock Apple because of their rabid fan base and exhorbitant pricing, but they do have good engineers and produce some pretty damned solid hardware. Fair is fair -- they're better than HP was in their heyday!
Pronounced "N00ber", of course. :P
Static linking also plays hell with the LGPL libraries that Android is built on.
If you want to go with a grocery store example, I think a better example of what Google is doing is a "loss leader" product that is sold at a loss or given away in order to bring in business for the marked up products. At least in Canada and the US, that is not illegal.
You also have to remember that there were commercial browser products being sold for Windows at the time IE came out. Not only did Microsoft bundle IE with Windows, they did so for free, taking away the sales for those for-purchase products.
For Google to be guilty of the same thing, they would have to give away some product for iOS, WinPhone, Blackberry, Ubuntu, et. al. that steals existing market share for their stores and products in favour of some free or cheaper Google version.
^^^ This is the sad truth.
Not only won't she be held accountable, people are still willing to vote for a proven fraud and liar. Good Lord -- Nixon got the boot from office for less than this woman has done, and yet there are millions of American Idiots willing to vote for her!
'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.
Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.
Sanders is really looking like the best bet the US has for an honest President, but I think he's a pretty long shot, unfortunately. He's not flashy enough and "out there" enough to win enough votes. :(
I'm betting that if Windows had come bundled with IE right from it's initial release as Android did with it's tie-in products, there wouldn't have been an issue. The problem is Microsoft added IE and then tied it in to the OS so tightly you couldn't get rid of it.
Android succeeded despite (because of?) the bundled apps. But it has been a level playing fields since it's initial release, so no one can complain that some competing vendor had an unfair advantage over the others.
Face it: success breeds investigations and lawsuits. There will always be the jealous and greedy who think they "deserve" a slice of the successful's pie, despite not having done a damned thing to earn that slice.
Going after Google alone for doing the same kind of thing the other vendors do is "selectively enforced justice", bud.
The simple bottom line is that no one is "forced" to use Android. Apple wrote iOS. Blackberry used QNX. Microsoft wrote WinPhone. There are Mozilla's efforts, Ubuntu's, and another Linux-based project whose name I forget at the moment.
Unless and until you are "forced" to use Android for your phone's OS, you can't claim Google has a monopoly and therefore you have no right to complain about them having licensing terms of their choice for their products.
This whole situation is just a bunch of greedy bastards who want everything for free so they can leech profit off the work of others.
Fuck them.
A fanboi who doesn't own a smell phone of any kind? *LMAO*
And iOS and WinPhone don't have any non-removable components, right?
There are rarely such isolated problems in the real world, though. Real programs are far larger and more complex than those produced by these coding competitions. The fact that you can win a coding competition doesn't really say much of anything about your ability to integrate systems, deal with incompatibilities, or to work with other team members.
In short, winning a coding competition doesn't say bugger all about your skill as an employable programmer.
Trust an American editor to label anything and everything the Russians develop as "spy" equipment. Heaven forbid they should actually care about saving lives. :(
Jurisdiction of the head office does not affect the need to follow local regulations. Go ahead and try to sell a Japanese car in the US that doesn't meet US safety regulations or emissions requirements...
Awww. No more "Boner" jokes... :P
So they're not supposed to make a claim under their own legal system because the fucking Jackboot States of America dictates otherwise?
Fuck you and your whole country.
This.
There is no "right" for US corporations to participate in foreign markets. If they don't want to abide by the terms of a foreign nation's laws, they're free not to do business there.
They are not free to impose US law on those nations.
No one is making claims under the agreement. What they are saying is that the US does not abide by the terms of the agreement, so the agreement should be nullified.
This isn't a decision being made by courts; it's a decision being made by the government. Totally different ballgame.
The US does not get to dictate law to foreign nations, no matter how much they'd like to.