The 3.5GB limit oringinates from Intel - the early CoreDuo and Core2Duo chipsets were physically limited to that memory limit. This has been removed in the newest chipsets from Intel.
And yes, the initial CoreDuo and Core2Duo Macs were restricted in this way as well.
In that case why not add a 'semantic' attribute to tags and allow users to add whatever semantics they wish? I personally liked the way HTML has been going - minimalistic.
Again you demonstrate absolutely no understanding of the subject at hand - Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0 (WSS 3.0) is a standalone product, Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007 (MOSS 2007) is again a standalone product.
WSS 3.0 is a reduced feature version of MOSS2007 , so there are benefits to buying MOSS 2007 but you certainly are under no requirement to do so.
You can merrily install WSS 3.0 without ever having to even consider buying MOSS 2007, WSS will give you a functional intranet site collection for the cost of a download (and if you want to be pedantic, the machine you will run it on).
The Airforce Thunderbirds pilots should never be at the edge or pushing any boundaries - they are airshow display pilots with specific artificial boundaries that protect the crowds, and they are nowhere near the performance envelopes of the aircraft.
and omits how useless it is without having already purchased a decidedly non-open and very expensive SharePoint product.
Ok, this is my second 'non-anti-MS' comment today, and my karma will almost certainly suffer for it, but here goes anyway.
The PDF linked to talks about Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0, which is actually zero cost and downloadable from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads - you seem to be making the assumption that its talking about Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007. Its not.
Team Foundation Server and the Team Edition tools are actually pretty good, certainly worth a look (if you aren't adverse to spending money). Its leaps and bounds ahead of the shitty Visual Source Safe crap.
I don't think its a huge concession at all - one of the licensing options we (the company I work for) were presented with involved licensing a 'typical workstation' top to bottom at a fixed price, with home use rights for all the software included in that license collection, and thats a standard Microsoft licensing method.
The vouchers do not specify what version of Suse Linux, so Microsoft could quite easily either distribute an old version with no GPLv3 or a special edition of the new version with the GPLv3 parts replaced. Microsoft aren't as fucked as those that are partying seem to believe.
When you see scenes like this during a moment that was far from funny, I wondered where they were taking this movie. That scene includes (in the movie) a fantastic long shot of a gunship firing and circling on the robot, but to mix it with camp comedy is a tragic mistake for American cinema.
I get the impression that that scene is actually not meant to be as comedy value as it would seem - that actually happened during the US Invasion of Grenada in 1984 - ground forces were pinned down in the Governor-Generals mansion on the island, unable to contact the fire support aircraft overhead nor other units to request support. In the end, one of the soldiers placed a credit card call to Fort Bragg in the US in order to request a fire support mission and he got the same run around by the operator.
What exactly does *taking* photos have to do with speech of any kind, free or not? If this were about publishing, then I would see your point, but *taking* them?
No - the BBC does not necessarily own the content it broadcasts since the majority of content is not actually produced by the BBC itself in totality. In most cases, the copyright is held by a third party in whole or in part, and royalties would still be payable.
The BBC is no different to any other broadcaster when it comes to actual content - it just doesnt rely on adverts in order to be able to broadcast said content.
The European Council consists of heads of state and government of the EU. The members therefor are, by default, elected by each countries populace. The European Council also has no legislative powers.
The European Parliament consists of ministers elected by the populace of member states every five years, last elections held in 2004. The parliament has legislative powers.
The Council of the European Union consists of ministers from each member state, and is transitory in that which minister attending depends on the matter at hand. By default, these ministers are elected as they are a member of their elected government. The council has legislative powers.
Thats because there is a serious requirement to restrict the flow of information - its not a free for all, and users should *not* be able to dump corporate data on to whatever they want.
Seriously, an IT department should support a set list of systems, not everything a user brings to work and wants to use - thats how costs spiral out of control (as noted in the FA) and also how IT eventually gets blamed for the cost overruns et al.
Everything is a product of culture - I live in the southwest of England, one of the richest parts of the world when it comes to history and historical places. I cant travel 5 miles in any direction from where I'm sitting now without hitting a place thats hundreds of years old, steeped in history.
There are stately homes, places that time practically forgot (within walking distance is the village of Lacock, within a 10 minute car ride is the city of Bath, both places where the vast majority of historical drama is filmed), stone circles, barrows, chalk horses cut in the side of hills, tithe barns, railways (the GWR Bristol to Paddington London line, including Box tunnel).
When am I getting full access to any of these places? When can I walk around whichever house in Lacock I want? When can I visit that tithe barn that is now someones home? When can I visit that stone circle thats in the middle of a farmers land? When can I see the inside of the Bath Roman Spas without having to pay extortionate prices? When can I get to see the architectural wonders that is the Royal Crescent?
Its all part of my cultural history, why should it be treated any differently?
I'm all for time based restrictions on copyright, but please leave the 'cultural argument' out of any discussion because its not a valid one when you start looking around you.
The A350 has yet to receive any launch investment from any EU government, and the A380s investment was done under an agreement signed by both the EU and the US in 1992.
Can the indexer be turned off programatically (EG, during the Google Desktop install process)? Yes, manipulating the Windows Service list, including registering, unregistering, starting, stopping or modifying the default action for the service (Automatic, Manual, Disabled) is a trivial task in a competent installer package, and it requires no input from the end user to do.
Ive seen many installers do it to date, why is it so hard for Google to do?
Buggy whip manufacturers did not have their business threatened by their *own* product being distributed in a manner that essentially places no financial burden on those distributors.
You could reword that "...make a living by being paid the licensing fees required by their government mandated monopolies." Thats the price of having them produce it - oh and by the way, all property law is an artificial government mandated monopoly, so next time you leave your car in a car park and walk away from it, consider that (and no, Im not comparing copyright infringement to theft, so attack my argument, not a tangent you want to in order to make you feel good).
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clear something up...
The 3.5GB limit oringinates from Intel - the early CoreDuo and Core2Duo chipsets were physically limited to that memory limit. This has been removed in the newest chipsets from Intel.
And yes, the initial CoreDuo and Core2Duo Macs were restricted in this way as well.
In that case why not add a 'semantic' attribute to tags and allow users to add whatever semantics they wish? I personally liked the way HTML has been going - minimalistic.
Difference between personal use and intent to supply.
Again you demonstrate absolutely no understanding of the subject at hand - Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0 (WSS 3.0) is a standalone product, Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007 (MOSS 2007) is again a standalone product.
WSS 3.0 is a reduced feature version of MOSS2007 , so there are benefits to buying MOSS 2007 but you certainly are under no requirement to do so.
You can merrily install WSS 3.0 without ever having to even consider buying MOSS 2007, WSS will give you a functional intranet site collection for the cost of a download (and if you want to be pedantic, the machine you will run it on).
The Airforce Thunderbirds pilots should never be at the edge or pushing any boundaries - they are airshow display pilots with specific artificial boundaries that protect the crowds, and they are nowhere near the performance envelopes of the aircraft.
Ok, this is my second 'non-anti-MS' comment today, and my karma will almost certainly suffer for it, but here goes anyway.
The PDF linked to talks about Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0, which is actually zero cost and downloadable from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads - you seem to be making the assumption that its talking about Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007. Its not.
Team Foundation Server and the Team Edition tools are actually pretty good, certainly worth a look (if you aren't adverse to spending money). Its leaps and bounds ahead of the shitty Visual Source Safe crap.
I don't think its a huge concession at all - one of the licensing options we (the company I work for) were presented with involved licensing a 'typical workstation' top to bottom at a fixed price, with home use rights for all the software included in that license collection, and thats a standard Microsoft licensing method.
The vouchers do not specify what version of Suse Linux, so Microsoft could quite easily either distribute an old version with no GPLv3 or a special edition of the new version with the GPLv3 parts replaced. Microsoft aren't as fucked as those that are partying seem to believe.
I get the impression that that scene is actually not meant to be as comedy value as it would seem - that actually happened during the US Invasion of Grenada in 1984 - ground forces were pinned down in the Governor-Generals mansion on the island, unable to contact the fire support aircraft overhead nor other units to request support. In the end, one of the soldiers placed a credit card call to Fort Bragg in the US in order to request a fire support mission and he got the same run around by the operator.
Where does it say that in the LGPL? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html)
What exactly does *taking* photos have to do with speech of any kind, free or not? If this were about publishing, then I would see your point, but *taking* them?
No - the BBC does not necessarily own the content it broadcasts since the majority of content is not actually produced by the BBC itself in totality. In most cases, the copyright is held by a third party in whole or in part, and royalties would still be payable.
The BBC is no different to any other broadcaster when it comes to actual content - it just doesnt rely on adverts in order to be able to broadcast said content.
The European Council consists of heads of state and government of the EU. The members therefor are, by default, elected by each countries populace. The European Council also has no legislative powers.
The European Parliament consists of ministers elected by the populace of member states every five years, last elections held in 2004. The parliament has legislative powers.
The Council of the European Union consists of ministers from each member state, and is transitory in that which minister attending depends on the matter at hand. By default, these ministers are elected as they are a member of their elected government. The council has legislative powers.
Which unelected council are you referring to?
Task for parent: calculate the energy released when a 1KG lump of lead strikes an object at mach 6.
Thats because there is a serious requirement to restrict the flow of information - its not a free for all, and users should *not* be able to dump corporate data on to whatever they want.
Seriously, an IT department should support a set list of systems, not everything a user brings to work and wants to use - thats how costs spiral out of control (as noted in the FA) and also how IT eventually gets blamed for the cost overruns et al.
Everything is a product of culture - I live in the southwest of England, one of the richest parts of the world when it comes to history and historical places. I cant travel 5 miles in any direction from where I'm sitting now without hitting a place thats hundreds of years old, steeped in history.
There are stately homes, places that time practically forgot (within walking distance is the village of Lacock, within a 10 minute car ride is the city of Bath, both places where the vast majority of historical drama is filmed), stone circles, barrows, chalk horses cut in the side of hills, tithe barns, railways (the GWR Bristol to Paddington London line, including Box tunnel).
When am I getting full access to any of these places? When can I walk around whichever house in Lacock I want? When can I visit that tithe barn that is now someones home? When can I visit that stone circle thats in the middle of a farmers land? When can I see the inside of the Bath Roman Spas without having to pay extortionate prices? When can I get to see the architectural wonders that is the Royal Crescent?
Its all part of my cultural history, why should it be treated any differently?
I'm all for time based restrictions on copyright, but please leave the 'cultural argument' out of any discussion because its not a valid one when you start looking around you.
The A350 has yet to receive any launch investment from any EU government, and the A380s investment was done under an agreement signed by both the EU and the US in 1992.
Ive seen many installers do it to date, why is it so hard for Google to do?
Buggy whip manufacturers did not have their business threatened by their *own* product being distributed in a manner that essentially places no financial burden on those distributors.
If someone expects to make money from whistling someone else's song (either through direct sales or advertising space), then sure, go after them.
Microsoft Windows already supports multiple cores in the same sense that OSX does on the Macbook Pro.
Ive seen a fair number of processes getting stuck in state 'E' on OS X, which is very annoying.