that sounds silly, you can't possibly need 125 fps, most monitors only update the picture with a frequency of 80Hz or so, so 1/3 of your frames will just never be drawn. Anything above 80fps is just useless.
It seems to me the only entity that will benefit from all of that is Microsoft. SCO is definitely not going to benefit from this suit - hell, why would IBM buy them, there is no strong case here to be afraid of. I more and more suspect that a few key people at SCO were simply bribed to bring about this scandal. No matter whether this goes to court or not, it has already hurt Linux and will probably hurt it even more.
a lot of people seem to think that SCO is only doing this so that IBM would buy them.
I am actually wondering if someone is paying (okay I am thinking a few bribed persons here) them to do this, with the ultimate goal of spreading FUD about Linux. We all know things like that happen all the time, if politicians can be bought, why can't the company executives.
I mean if this really does go to court and has at least some public attention drawn to it, this will surely alienate a lot of business customers who would be thinking it's not quite safe to use Linux.
I don't know, this is all idle speculation of course, but this scenario seems to me more likely than that everyone in SCO just gone nuts and is trying to drive the company into the grave sooner...
what irks me is that Opera guys publish their accusations, we fume here and it all ends at that.
MS has done a lot of "mischief" like that in the past to a lot of folks, but noone can go after them, maybe it's the fat laywer bill, or maybe because it's hard to beat fat team of MS lawyers.
But things like these really undermine people's belief in that in this country everyone is equal before the law...
I mean, it's not uncommon for large companies to play dirty because they know noone can possibly go after them unless they do something really, REALLY bad and cause MAJOR difficulties. Breaking the law a bit here and a bit there is okay though, you are safe.
Sounds like a real problem with the legislation system.
easy, the system has been successfully tried before. Each candidate is alloted equal amount of time on the television and they use it to promote their cause. Similar things with other media etc.
The basic idea is, the government ensures that all candidates are given equal exposure.
In USA, if someone's program appeals to more people but the candidate doesn't have enough money to tell everyone about it, then the jerk with a big purse wins because people will think there is no alternative.
the word democracy originates in greek language, and means "rule of the people". What you have in America you can't really call democracy. While the corporations are allowed to pay money to the politicians who will promote their cause, the politicians will not represent the people, but the corporations. The american system would better be called "corpocracy".
when the last USA elections were held, didn't all of america complain about having to choose between two candidates they didn't like? How can you call a democracy a system where you are not even presented with the candidates you would like to vote for? Why do you guys tolerate this? Choosing between two evils is _not_ how democracy is supposed to work. Why don't you guys just vote against everyone and demand the system to be fixed?
Oh well it's your country after all I suppose and I shouldn't tell you how to run it...
this is hilarious! these guys made my day:) besides, it's about time someone taught us a lesson about clicking 'accept' on EULAs of everything and anything we use. Hopefully this will do people some good, the whole story just needs to get decent exposure in the media.
isn't that the point..there's a whole continent that's basically uninhabited..
almost nothing lives there... nothing grows.
why count it?
if we destroy the remaining 5 continents, antarctica won't matter, the earth will be dead. it won't make any difference that one continent is untouched.
and is surrounded by nations like Mozambique, DR of Congo, Zambia, Uganda, and Kenya. Only one of those nations has any significant industry to speak of (Kenya). So where are all of these greenhouse gases coming from to melt Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice cap?
have you ever heard of a natural phenomena called "wind"?
you geeks should really leave your houses sometimes and get some fresh air... yes I mean outside!
And how is that ice 11,000 years old when the earth is only ~6000?
scientists also say that humanity is 40,000 years old. Makes one wonder!
**quote** Michael Bolton: "damn, I dunno... must have missed a decimal point somewhere..." **/quote**
Re:The climate before the industrial revolution
on
Mountain Moisture Melting
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Even if the world is 'warming up', the fact is that it's done this in the past and it will do it again in the future. I'm personally more concerned about a switch in the earth's magnetic poles, that's really going to upset my monitors!
it would do us well to remember that when it's done this in the past, such mild effects took place as species extinctions... but even a series of famines will be bad enough.
So yes, it has happened in the past, and it was so devastating that you should be duly scared now
I am a young developer too (5). This Linux toy is just so cool and I want to get involved!
I already took apart my moms computer to find where the window manager lives, and it was much fun!
Now me and my buddies will be doing the theme for RedHat called Toddler Galore.
yes Maxwell equations were known long before Einstein, but the way the scientists looked at them those days was something like "electric field can generate magnetic field, and magnetic field can generate electric field"
which is fundamentally different from what Einstein said - electric field _is_ magnetic field.
Maxwell answered the question of 'how', Einstein answered the question of 'why'.
first was Michelson-Morley experiment (Michelson 1881, Morley 1887) with the goal of measuring the drift speed of the ether with respect to the Earth.
The result, if I remember correctly, could not really be explained by either moving or immobile ether (ether was believed to be a light carrying medium).
That was when Lorentz came up with his famous Lorentz transformations to explain the results (1892) - I don't know why so many people believe Einstein developed everything in relativity theory alone and from scratch. It was Lorentz of course who came up with the Lorentz transformations, as the name suggests, i.e. he was the first to suggest that the time and the dimensions contract/expand for the moving objects.
What Einstein essentially did was to take all the largely empirical formulae, and tie them up in one beautiful theory which explained them all. He said that the Lorentz transformations are themselves only a direct result of the fact that the space is not Galilean, it is in fact not space, but space-time, one and unseparable.
Einstein abolished the idea of ether, postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is constant (natural explanation for M-M experiment). Basicly Einstein managed to explain all the weirdness seen in the experimental results with a beautiful theory that not only answered the questions of 'how' (Lorentz almost did it) but most importantly the question of 'why'.
Einstein was also the first to trash the electric and magnetic fields and say that they too were one single entity, an electromagnetic field.
so yes, Einstein based his theory on experimental evidence - most notably, M-M experiment and the fact that the Maxwell laws (confirmed experimentally) didn't want to obey the usual Galilean transformations.
> Might as well throw in a link to their homepage as well.
that's plain cruel! is this car really so bad?
Re:may god forgive him for what he has unleashed
on
The First Smiley :-)
·
· Score: 1
nah, wrong. The purpose of the smiley is not to tell me to accept something as funny, it's to let me know the reader perceives it as funny.
it's a useful piece of information.
anyway, i think the poster of the parent intended the quote as a joke, but forgot to add the smiley
Slashdot Mirror
that sounds silly, you can't possibly need 125 fps, most
monitors only update the picture with a frequency
of 80Hz or so, so 1/3 of your frames will just never be drawn.
Anything above 80fps is just useless.
It seems to me the only entity that will benefit from all of that is Microsoft. SCO is definitely not going to benefit from this suit - hell, why would IBM buy them, there is no strong case here to be afraid of.
I more and more suspect that a few key people at SCO were simply bribed to bring about this scandal. No matter whether this goes to court or not, it has already hurt Linux and will probably hurt it even more.
a lot of people seem to think that SCO is only doing this so that IBM would buy them.
I am actually wondering if someone is paying (okay I am thinking a few bribed persons here) them to do this, with the ultimate goal of spreading FUD about Linux. We all know things like that happen all the time, if politicians can be bought, why can't the company executives.
I mean if this really does go to court and has at least some public attention drawn to it, this will surely alienate a lot of business customers who would be thinking it's not quite safe to use Linux.
I don't know, this is all idle speculation of course, but this scenario seems to me more likely than that everyone in SCO just gone nuts and is trying to drive the company into the grave sooner...
This source is fake, you can tell because the real one would never end with return 0;
I mean, it's not uncommon for large companies to play dirty because they know noone can possibly go after them unless they do something really, REALLY bad and cause MAJOR difficulties. Breaking the law a bit here and a bit there is okay though, you are safe.
Sounds like a real problem with the legislation system.
easy, the system has been successfully tried before.
Each candidate is alloted equal amount of time on the television and they use it to promote their cause. Similar things with other media etc.
The basic idea is, the government ensures that all candidates are given equal exposure.
In USA, if someone's program appeals to more people but the candidate doesn't have enough money to tell everyone about it, then the jerk with a big purse wins because people will think there is no alternative.
the word democracy originates in greek language, and means "rule of the people".
What you have in America you can't really call democracy. While the corporations are allowed to pay money to the politicians who will promote their cause, the politicians will not represent the people, but the corporations. The american system would better be called "corpocracy".
when the last USA elections were held, didn't all of america complain about having to choose between two candidates they didn't like? How can you call a democracy a system where you are not even presented with the candidates you would like to vote for? Why do you guys tolerate this? Choosing between two evils is _not_ how democracy is supposed to work. Why don't you guys just vote against everyone and demand the system to be fixed?
Oh well it's your country after all I suppose and I shouldn't tell you how to run it...
this is hilarious! these guys made my day :)
besides, it's about time someone taught us a lesson about clicking 'accept' on EULAs of everything and anything we use.
Hopefully this will do people some good, the whole story just needs to get decent exposure in the media.
isn't that the point..there's a whole continent that's basically uninhabited..
almost nothing lives there... nothing grows.
why count it?
if we destroy the remaining 5 continents, antarctica won't matter, the earth will be dead. it won't make any difference that one continent is untouched.
Who are they?
these guys got two-digit Slashdot user ids!
and is surrounded by nations like Mozambique, DR of Congo, Zambia, Uganda, and Kenya. Only one of those nations has any significant industry to speak of (Kenya). So where are all of these greenhouse gases coming from to melt Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice cap?
have you ever heard of a natural phenomena called "wind"?
you geeks should really leave your houses sometimes and get some fresh air... yes I mean outside!
And how is that ice 11,000 years old when the earth is only ~6000?
scientists also say that humanity is 40,000 years old. Makes one wonder!
**quote**
Michael Bolton: "damn, I dunno... must have missed a decimal point somewhere..."
**/quote**
it would do us well to remember that when it's done this in the past, such mild effects took place as species extinctions... but even a series of famines will be bad enough.
So yes, it has happened in the past, and it was so devastating that you should be duly scared now
M$ is paying Slashdot money so that we can continue to bash M$ here on Slashdot
Developers Developers Developers!
I already took apart my moms computer to find where the window manager lives, and it was much fun!
Now me and my buddies will be doing the theme for RedHat called Toddler Galore.
can I have your stuff?
which is fundamentally different from what Einstein said - electric field _is_ magnetic field.
Maxwell answered the question of 'how', Einstein answered the question of 'why'.
first was Michelson-Morley experiment (Michelson 1881, Morley 1887) with the goal of measuring the drift speed of the ether with respect to the Earth.
The result, if I remember correctly, could not really be explained by either moving or immobile ether (ether was believed to be a light carrying medium).
That was when Lorentz came up with his famous Lorentz transformations to explain the results (1892) - I don't know why so many people believe Einstein developed everything in relativity theory alone and from scratch. It was Lorentz of course who came up with the Lorentz transformations, as the name suggests, i.e. he was the first to suggest that the time and the dimensions contract/expand for the moving objects.
What Einstein essentially did was to take all the largely empirical formulae, and tie them up in one beautiful theory which explained them all. He said that the Lorentz transformations are themselves only a direct result of the fact that the space is not Galilean, it is in fact not space, but space-time, one and unseparable.
Einstein abolished the idea of ether, postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is constant (natural explanation for M-M experiment). Basicly Einstein managed to explain all the weirdness seen in the experimental results with a beautiful theory that not only answered the questions of 'how' (Lorentz almost did it) but most importantly the question of 'why'.
Einstein was also the first to trash the electric and magnetic fields and say that they too were one single entity, an electromagnetic field.
so yes, Einstein based his theory on experimental evidence - most notably, M-M experiment and the fact that the Maxwell laws (confirmed experimentally) didn't want to obey the usual Galilean transformations.
> Might as well throw in a link to their homepage as well. that's plain cruel! is this car really so bad?
nah, wrong. The purpose of the smiley is not to tell me to accept something as funny, it's to let me know the reader perceives it as funny. it's a useful piece of information. anyway, i think the poster of the parent intended the quote as a joke, but forgot to add the smiley