i don't think the mono project plans on providing real support for non 100%.net code. i believe the emulation of win32 is in relation to the implementation of Windows.Forms, not providing support for COM. i could be wrong, but this is what i've gathered from reading about the project.
from the faq: Will you support COM? The runtime will support XPCOM on Unix systems and COM on Windows. Most of the code for dynamic trampolines exists already.
before everyone burns mono for having ties to microsoft, keep in mind that the framework part of.net isn't proprietary. the cli is an open standard, free for anyone to implement. plus, what mono is doing with recreating the class libraries will provide more competition to microsoft, not less.
the other parts of.net such as passport, application services and MS web services are the troubling part. mono has nothing to do with these.
from the nyt article: ...provide on-the-go professionals and other Web surfers a unified way to reach the Internet from a wide range of "hot spots" like airports and other public places. It is not intended to supply broadband connections to customers' homes, an executive involved in the discussions said.
pretty much answers your question. did you read the article?
good post, genres are hard to explain with out examples. as such i would recommend checking out satellite records. in the listening booth section they have their collection split up into the main genres, with each record having a real audio sample. for each track thay also give a more specific genre. for example in the drum 'n' bass section they say if its classic jungle, techstep, intelligent, etc. the samples would be a great resource for figuring out what the different genres sound like.
those disposable camera caps do pack a punch- i remember discovering them back in jr. high. my hand went numb on a partial charge and my friend got knocked on his ass, but we did rig up an effective stun gun...
Staplers, people. It's a frickin' story on a STAPLER.
slashdot is a forum for discussion. the story is about a stapler, but it was posted because it gives people a chance to talk about a great movie and corporate culture.
reading through the comments, i don't see many that are just about staplers, but many many funny and insightful comments about the workplace.
i played with the demo for a while and was surprised at how easy it was to learn. i see this having success in a few niche areas, but it will never catch on for general use for one main reason: it demands your visual attention. people won't want to stare at the screen while they're entering text. once you've practiced with a keyboard, character input on a PDA, or buttons on a cell phone you don't need to watch the input device or the sceen while you enter text. this leaves you free to watch the presenter, look at the paper you're transcribing, watch the road, etc...
Expect to see a resurgence of Xbox sales and much confusion in MS as to whether or not this is a good thing.
i'd be happy to clear up the confusion right now: MS won't think its a good thing. they lose money on every box they sell. if people are buying them so they can chip the box to play divx movies, msft isn't making money on game sales. plus, if the box has a chip, the games people actually play will probably be burned copies anyway.
That said, isn't Time Warner one of the companies that wants to sell us all this new-fangled digital multi-media content? They'll have to analyze their pricing structure in that context. If it costs more to acquire a movie-on-demand via their link than it does to rent it at Blockbuster, they're on-demand service aint going to go far...
actually if this pricing structure becomes the norm for broadband it will be very advantageous for their movie-on-demand strategy. they can simply turn off the clock when you order a legit movie. if you're faced with paying a $3.00 rental fee with free transmission or downloading a free divx with a $4.00 transmission fee, it becomes cheaper not to "pirate" movies. of course this says nothing about being able to watch the same movie over and over.
What is unfortunate is that we have an expensive, tax-payer funded processor farm that is dedicated to the useless pursuit of studying weapons of mass destruction.
ascii white has important political implications too. but as far as supercomputers for warm and fuzzy uses, ibm is currently working on an even more powerful computer for folding proteins.
I can just see physicists getting calling people into the lab, turning out the lights and commanding, "Let There Be LIGHT!!!" at every available opportunity
i can already do that trick in my office. with the lightswitch.
not a hoax. my friend built one of these in elementary school for a 4h project. it was pretty impressive, but not too effective. the rubber bands that you have to use are so big they don't hurt much when they hit you.
... especially when foreign software developers take off like everyone is predicting. then domestic developers (if they haven't already left) will want protection because we will be importing cheaper software that doesn't have a tax tacked on to the price. they will probably get the protection, either in the form off a tariff or tax break (that would be especially ironic). either way the foreign countries will cry afoul to the wto, and it will be a big mess.
The "dimming and brightening" you speak of may well be occuring, but certainly not noticible to the human eye
exactly, and that was the point i was trying to make. it happens, but its so fast and small you don't notice it. making this relevant to the article, you can't see the fluxuations, but there exist instuments that can detect the change. thats why you can't stare at a piece of hardware with an led linked to the data stream and read cleartext telnet logins. you need equipment to help.
i guess i should have been more clear in my original post. if its incadescant and runs on a dc current it is in fact on. if it runs on an ac current (as almost all do) it is oscillating between on and off very fast. the fillament never actually gets dark but it does dim and brighten with each oscillation.
if you read the article, they implemented this at speeds up to 56k and said the physics should hold up until 10mb. look up at the light in your bedroom. you would probably say that its on. but its really flashing on and off faster than you can see. same thing with that led on your modem. when you see one blink it is most likely a lot of blinks faster than your eye can see, but not faster than optical equipment can see.
first of all, i thought it was generally accepted that bill gates never actually said that memory quote. but the legend lives on just as a reminder of how easy it is to be shortsighted in this industry. now as far as your quotes from encarta:
1) isn't the reason that everyone here hates microsoft is that they are a fiercely competitive company? that they remain in a cometitive stance even though they have a monopoly?
2) bill gates actually is a contributor to several charitable causes. i'm sure he isn't the most generous as a percentage of his net wealth, but a quick browse through the gates foundation should give you an idea of his giving.
now don't get me wrong, i'm not a microsoft lover, and i do think that they are an unethical company, but this slander against gates is pathetic.
There's an inherent part of human nature that just makes you bristle at having to suddenly pay for something that you didn't have to pay for before.
i agree with his observation about people not wanting to pay for something that was once free, and this does help explain the failures of.coms. the strategy of "charging for what was once free" especially hurt the.coms because they applied it to resources that were non rivalrous and had close substitutes.
when one person sends an ecard, it doesn't make it any harder for another person to do the same. people don't have to compete for the privelege to send a card as the ecards don't run out. its hard to shell out money for something that you know is abundant.
second, because of the low cost of entry to the internet, there are close substitues to almost any site or service offered on the web. if all the sites in a once free category turn to a pay model, someone will start up another free version because they know they will get the users that the other sites abandoned.
this business model can work, but as we have all seen, it doesn't work on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
nowhere in my comment did i say that the framework was the cli.
the c# specification has been standardized so i wouldn't worry too much. i suppose ms could stray from the spec, but i really don't see it happening.
from the faq:
Will you support COM?
The runtime will support XPCOM on Unix systems and COM on Windows. Most of the code for dynamic trampolines exists already.
the other parts of .net such as passport, application services and MS web services are the troubling part. mono has nothing to do with these.
pretty much answers your question. did you read the article?
good post, genres are hard to explain with out examples. as such i would recommend checking out satellite records. in the listening booth section they have their collection split up into the main genres, with each record having a real audio sample. for each track thay also give a more specific genre. for example in the drum 'n' bass section they say if its classic jungle, techstep, intelligent, etc. the samples would be a great resource for figuring out what the different genres sound like.
those disposable camera caps do pack a punch- i remember discovering them back in jr. high. my hand went numb on a partial charge and my friend got knocked on his ass, but we did rig up an effective stun gun...
slashdot is a forum for discussion. the story is about a stapler, but it was posted because it gives people a chance to talk about a great movie and corporate culture.
reading through the comments, i don't see many that are just about staplers, but many many funny and insightful comments about the workplace.
he didn't predict prime numbers, he predicted the distribution of prime numbers.
i played with the demo for a while and was surprised at how easy it was to learn. i see this having success in a few niche areas, but it will never catch on for general use for one main reason: it demands your visual attention. people won't want to stare at the screen while they're entering text. once you've practiced with a keyboard, character input on a PDA, or buttons on a cell phone you don't need to watch the input device or the sceen while you enter text. this leaves you free to watch the presenter, look at the paper you're transcribing, watch the road, etc...
Let go, it's over, nobody listens to techno"
moby hasn't put out a techno album in ten years.
this from the site that reports on every windows virus?
i'd be happy to clear up the confusion right now: MS won't think its a good thing. they lose money on every box they sell. if people are buying them so they can chip the box to play divx movies, msft isn't making money on game sales. plus, if the box has a chip, the games people actually play will probably be burned copies anyway.
not to mention pressure from the mpaa...
with the tech job market the way it is, whoever made the desicion was obviously following the saying "nobody gets fired for buying ibm."
actually if this pricing structure becomes the norm for broadband it will be very advantageous for their movie-on-demand strategy. they can simply turn off the clock when you order a legit movie. if you're faced with paying a $3.00 rental fee with free transmission or downloading a free divx with a $4.00 transmission fee, it becomes cheaper not to "pirate" movies. of course this says nothing about being able to watch the same movie over and over.
ascii white has important political implications too. but as far as supercomputers for warm and fuzzy uses, ibm is currently working on an even more powerful computer for folding proteins.
i can already do that trick in my office. with the lightswitch.
not a hoax. my friend built one of these in elementary school for a 4h project. it was pretty impressive, but not too effective. the rubber bands that you have to use are so big they don't hurt much when they hit you.
or we could just not tax it in the first place.
exactly, and that was the point i was trying to make. it happens, but its so fast and small you don't notice it. making this relevant to the article, you can't see the fluxuations, but there exist instuments that can detect the change. thats why you can't stare at a piece of hardware with an led linked to the data stream and read cleartext telnet logins. you need equipment to help.
i guess i should have been more clear in my original post. if its incadescant and runs on a dc current it is in fact on. if it runs on an ac current (as almost all do) it is oscillating between on and off very fast. the fillament never actually gets dark but it does dim and brighten with each oscillation.
if you read the article, they implemented this at speeds up to 56k and said the physics should hold up until 10mb. look up at the light in your bedroom. you would probably say that its on. but its really flashing on and off faster than you can see. same thing with that led on your modem. when you see one blink it is most likely a lot of blinks faster than your eye can see, but not faster than optical equipment can see.
1) isn't the reason that everyone here hates microsoft is that they are a fiercely competitive company? that they remain in a cometitive stance even though they have a monopoly?
2) bill gates actually is a contributor to several charitable causes. i'm sure he isn't the most generous as a percentage of his net wealth, but a quick browse through the gates foundation should give you an idea of his giving.
now don't get me wrong, i'm not a microsoft lover, and i do think that they are an unethical company, but this slander against gates is pathetic.
i agree with his observation about people not wanting to pay for something that was once free, and this does help explain the failures of .coms. the strategy of "charging for what was once free" especially hurt the .coms because they applied it to resources that were non rivalrous and had close substitutes.
when one person sends an ecard, it doesn't make it any harder for another person to do the same. people don't have to compete for the privelege to send a card as the ecards don't run out. its hard to shell out money for something that you know is abundant.
second, because of the low cost of entry to the internet, there are close substitues to almost any site or service offered on the web. if all the sites in a once free category turn to a pay model, someone will start up another free version because they know they will get the users that the other sites abandoned.
this business model can work, but as we have all seen, it doesn't work on the internet.
great, i can't wait for a whole new era of road rage where there's no locked door between me and the 300 lb. guy that i just cut off.