Microsoft hasn't learned that lesson. They would happily drive all third-party software off their platform. They are notorious for working with their "partners" in the same manner that preying mantises mate. And Microsoft is totally on the rocks because they do that. Right?
So what is it that Apple has to learn, to avoid disaster?
How about, "If you use Windows, you deserve what you get." Except that doesn't really sound fair. It sounds like punishing innocent people; people who didn't know any better.
The outside rendering is massive. Reducing the line of sight helps. Interestingly, my 1GHz Powerbook now gets better framerates than my Athlon XP 2400+. Hopefully the next WoW patch will improve things further, as well as take care of the bug that causes framerate drops when the "dashboard" is visible.
I installed it on my 17" 1GHz powerbook, and it noticeably improved the performance of WoW. Inside, I get framerates as high as 75 fps. Outside, I get at least 12. If I turn off the "dashboard", it goes up to 18 or so.
I've used IIS. I've written ISAPI filters for IIS. We currently use IIS at work. And let me tell you right here and now -- IIS sucks. Voice of experience.
Welcome to America, Land of the Free (Void where prohibited. Some restrictions apply, see DMCA/USAPA.)
Interestingly, the French government has more power over French citizens than the U.S. Federal Government has over American citizens. The Patriot Act hasn't changed that.
Right-to-profit is now becoming the next big thing. No more skipping commercials. No more fast forwarding through trailers. No more choices. Corporations have a right to profit, and they will lie/cheat/steal/sue to protect that.
We have to protect the companies in order to protect the workers' jobs! In socialist america, anyway. Think "recycling program" -- 12,000 jobs in my state!
No, but it is 5.7 years ($14/year) of continuous light, or 17 years $4.7/year) of eight-hours-a-day light.
You can buy about 32 regular flood lamps for $80. They will last about 2,000 hours each. That's 64,000 hours total -- an additional $14,000 hours.
So for home use, don't bother. For commercial or industrial settings, though, there can be lots of lights, and here is a labor cost associated with changing them. Some organizations change every light at once, to avoid the higher cost of replacing bulbs individually as they burn out. For those types of applications, the longer-lasting LED lights will lower the cost of changing bulbs.
As you can see from the graphs, Novell's SLES9 pretty much more than doubles the performance of Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server on the exact same hardware in both categories. This is very, very impressive, and shows the strengths of both Samba and the Linux kernel, as well as the attention to detail Novell/Suse employees had when implementing the default settings.
With this hardware Windows 2003 Server seems to max out on performance at approximately 30 Clients with a throughput of about 135Mbps, where SLES seems to max out on performance at approximately 60 Clients with a throughput of about 255Mbps. The response time is also about twice as fast on SLES9 than on Win2k3 on the same hardware. So, in theory, you can handle twice as many clients on the same hardware using SLES9 compared to using Windows 2003 Server.
Linux+Samba still beat Windows Server on its home turf (file/print services), on the same hardware, by a lot. And Linux can do a whole lot more than just serve files and share printers.
So, what's your point? That we should just lay off Microsoft and accept the situation? That they're no worse that that purely hypothetical other ruthless monopolist in the software market, and therefore there's no problem?
"Microsoft" means "bad software from bad people", and assertions along the lines of "company X would have done the same" don't change that.
"The worst Democrat is better at jobs and growth than the best Republican"
I'm not sure I buy your analysis. I think the current president generally inherits the economic situation from the previous one, because change happens slowly. There's a fair amount of lag between policy change and upward or downward trends in the economy.
Shifting your chart to attribute growth or loss to the previous administration, it comes out like this:
... which shows that it's not all "Republicans bad, Democrats good" although I'm sure that was the point of the 'analysis'.
Because the economy is largely out of the control of any President, the revised chart is also more realistic. Congress, the Fed, business cycles, foreign issues (including wars), technological advances, scientific discoveries, etc. all factor into the economic situation. Blaming it all on a single man who does not evne have the power to make law strikes me as absurd.
If I were President, on September 12, 2001 I would have announced two new programs:
An "Apollo Program" to end our dependance on foreign energy; in particular oil from unfriendly groups, and more specifically oil from the Middle East, within 10 years. We obviously don't want our affairs too entangled with psychotic theocrats.
A "Neutralization Program" to locate and incapacitate those involved in the attack. Taking out the Taliban was, in fact, a good start. I'm unclear on how to draw a straight line to Iraq from there, other than with a ruler.
To my mind, the best way to lower the threat level of the Middle East is to stop giving it our money. Let Europe buy their oil and become entangled in their affairs. We don't need it.
Of course, I have a libertarian view of foreign policy: Peaceful co-existance without any of the turn-the-other-cheek stuff. Don't fight unless you have to, but be sure that when you do fight, you minimize the probability of your adversary attacking you again.
Popular vote is ok and all, but I'd like to have an instant runoff system if the U.S. ever converts to directly electing Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Doing so will require changing the Constitution, and trashing a portion of the federalism it embodies.
The Federal government was created to provide for a common defense for the states, and to standardize a few other things -- like bankruptcy law. The Federal government was never meant to have so much power as it does now. If the federal government's power were to be once again limited, it would matter less who was President.
I think that's the right way to go -- not to popularly elect the 'king', but instead to remove the king's power and retore power to those institutions closer to and more accountable to the people -- state and local governments.
Then the Federal government will go back to being the represtentative of the states in foreign policy, and running the Navy on the State's behalf.... "sheep fucker/slave master circles" -- nice. I'll assume you mean the Kennedys, their associates, and hangers-on.
Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton were both minority presidents (did not carry majority of popular vote). George Washington was elected unopposed.
People think things like that are funny. They also think that they are voting directly for a particular pair of candidates, when in fact they are merely recording their preference for President and Vice President. The U.S. has never had a directly elected president. The Federal government is a creature of the states, and the state governments elect the chief executive of the federal government that they created together.
Currently, many states apportion their votes in a winner-take-all manner. A few apportion them according to the popular vote. States can, however, apprtion their votes pretty much however they want. Don't like it? Talk to your state legislature.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft hasn't learned that lesson. They would happily drive all third-party software off their platform. They are notorious for working with their "partners" in the same manner that preying mantises mate. And Microsoft is totally on the rocks because they do that. Right?
So what is it that Apple has to learn, to avoid disaster?
I loved those Japanese contestants.
How about, "If you use Windows, you deserve what you get." Except that doesn't really sound fair. It sounds like punishing innocent people; people who didn't know any better.
The outside rendering is massive. Reducing the line of sight helps. Interestingly, my 1GHz Powerbook now gets better framerates than my Athlon XP 2400+. Hopefully the next WoW patch will improve things further, as well as take care of the bug that causes framerate drops when the "dashboard" is visible.
I installed it on my 17" 1GHz powerbook, and it noticeably improved the performance of WoW. Inside, I get framerates as high as 75 fps. Outside, I get at least 12. If I turn off the "dashboard", it goes up to 18 or so.
I've used IIS. I've written ISAPI filters for IIS. We currently use IIS at work. And let me tell you right here and now -- IIS sucks. Voice of experience.
We thought you stayed to make snide comments.
Factor in DirectX and GDI as well, since they are, since NT4, part of the kernels's native API.
Not living, so much as Teriyaki style, but yes.
Welcome to America, Land of the Free (Void where prohibited. Some restrictions apply, see DMCA/USAPA.)
Interestingly, the French government has more power over French citizens than the U.S. Federal Government has over American citizens. The Patriot Act hasn't changed that.
Right-to-profit is now becoming the next big thing. No more skipping commercials. No more fast forwarding through trailers. No more choices. Corporations have a right to profit, and they will lie/cheat/steal/sue to protect that.
We have to protect the companies in order to protect the workers' jobs! In socialist america, anyway. Think "recycling program" -- 12,000 jobs in my state!
50,000 hours isn't forever...
No, but it is 5.7 years ($14/year) of continuous light, or 17 years $4.7/year) of eight-hours-a-day light.
You can buy about 32 regular flood lamps for $80. They will last about 2,000 hours each. That's 64,000 hours total -- an additional $14,000 hours.
So for home use, don't bother. For commercial or industrial settings, though, there can be lots of lights, and here is a labor cost associated with changing them. Some organizations change every light at once, to avoid the higher cost of replacing bulbs individually as they burn out. For those types of applications, the longer-lasting LED lights will lower the cost of changing bulbs.
"Never actually having a functioning economy" is different than "figuring out we don't need that stuff anyway".
So, what's your point? That we should just lay off Microsoft and accept the situation? That they're no worse that that purely hypothetical other ruthless monopolist in the software market, and therefore there's no problem?
"Microsoft" means "bad software from bad people", and assertions along the lines of "company X would have done the same" don't change that.
I'm not sure I buy your analysis. I think the current president generally inherits the economic situation from the previous one, because change happens slowly. There's a fair amount of lag between policy change and upward or downward trends in the economy.
Shifting your chart to attribute growth or loss to the previous administration, it comes out like this:
Because the economy is largely out of the control of any President, the revised chart is also more realistic. Congress, the Fed, business cycles, foreign issues (including wars), technological advances, scientific discoveries, etc. all factor into the economic situation. Blaming it all on a single man who does not evne have the power to make law strikes me as absurd.
Do the PHP flaws require re-writing your application to work around them?
If I were President, on September 12, 2001 I would have announced two new programs:
To my mind, the best way to lower the threat level of the Middle East is to stop giving it our money. Let Europe buy their oil and become entangled in their affairs. We don't need it.
Of course, I have a libertarian view of foreign policy: Peaceful co-existance without any of the turn-the-other-cheek stuff. Don't fight unless you have to, but be sure that when you do fight, you minimize the probability of your adversary attacking you again.
It's excellent for what it does, and it beats the pants off Word .doc format as a distribution format.
Popular vote is ok and all, but I'd like to have an instant runoff system if the U.S. ever converts to directly electing Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Doing so will require changing the Constitution, and trashing a portion of the federalism it embodies.
The Federal government was created to provide for a common defense for the states, and to standardize a few other things -- like bankruptcy law. The Federal government was never meant to have so much power as it does now. If the federal government's power were to be once again limited, it would matter less who was President.
I think that's the right way to go -- not to popularly elect the 'king', but instead to remove the king's power and retore power to those institutions closer to and more accountable to the people -- state and local governments.
Then the Federal government will go back to being the represtentative of the states in foreign policy, and running the Navy on the State's behalf.
Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton were both minority presidents (did not carry majority of popular vote). George Washington was elected unopposed.
People think things like that are funny. They also think that they are voting directly for a particular pair of candidates, when in fact they are merely recording their preference for President and Vice President. The U.S. has never had a directly elected president. The Federal government is a creature of the states, and the state governments elect the chief executive of the federal government that they created together.
Currently, many states apportion their votes in a winner-take-all manner. A few apportion them according to the popular vote. States can, however, apprtion their votes pretty much however they want. Don't like it? Talk to your state legislature.
What kind of busted website requires and activex control to just browse it? Retarded!
Yuck!
Unsandboxed Windows-only binary executables run via your web browser -- that's not how the web's supposed to work.
I realize that publically owned companies are beholden to their stockholders.
I am also not in favor of ownership in companies being publically traded as shares.