You can't really see this from a static picture, but I think I have figured out the true nature of this object. Subsequent pictures should show the lower half (the part that looks like an open mouth) is actually a pair of huge legs in a seemingly closed position. These legs actually open and close in a predictable rhythm. Also not shown in the picture is the turret moving around attempting to track this thing as it rapidly zips back and forth across the cosmos, getting ever closer to the turret below.
If we had captured this picture millions of years ago, we would have seen a tight formation of these objects moving across the galaxy in perfect unison. Alas, the turret has eliminated all but one of these things, so we missed out on a great spectacle.
"Isn't Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly the same bonehead that overturned the Microsoft ruling?"
She didn't overturn the Microsoft antitrust ruling; Microsoft's guilty verdict was upheld at all levels (a few of the minor counts were overturned, but all the major ones stuck). She is the bonehead that legalized their illegal monopoly as a result of being convicted.
Seemingly innocent code...that mysteriously and undetectably fails up to 1% of the time. What's the big deal? This sounds like any given day at work for me.
"We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope."
Speak for yourself. I'm good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
"...if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins"
There's a third option in your false dichotomy:
If you assumed Reiser's innocence, then you were adhering to the principles set in the U.S. Constitution: the pre-trial, publicly disclosed evidence was too minute to support a finding of guilt, so the defendant was automatically assumed to be not guilty.
The evidence presented at trial, however, painted a more compelling picture of guilt. Those of you who jumped to a conclusion of guilty before seeing the evidence (regardless of the outcome of the trial) should be ashamed of yourselves. The willingness to send someone to prison on a gut instinct, or from a cursory glance at a small fragment of evidence (which is all we had until the trial was over), is repugnant.
The ability to withhold judgment until all the evidence is considered is an exercise in unbiased intelligence.
"...i don't think many designers would keep that job very long."
If the vast majority of designers would have coded to standards to begin with, the 80 percent of users with broken browsers would have picked a different one; or maybe Microsoft would have fixed theirs so it worked.
With that said, I don't believe for a second that Microsoft won't try its best to produce some half-assed monstrosity that still doesn't work right, but that convinces a lot of gullible people to not leave IE just yet. After all, they promise that this time they'll get it right; and Microsoft would never try something deceptive.
KDE 4.0 was never intended for mainstream use, but rather as the first implementation of the new KDE libraries that allowed developers to begin porting their KDE 3.x applications to KDE 4. As such, KDE 4.0 was largely unusable. However, its goals (the main porting effort) were achieved, so it was considered a success.
KDE 4.1 is supposed to be the first KDE 4 version usable by real people. There was a lot of space between 4.0 and actual usability; but the developers have been making rapid progress, and KDE 4.1 seems good in the article, so I'm allowing myself a bit of optimism that it might have enough of 3.5's functionality to be useful -- especially if I can uninstall Dolphin without trashing the rest of the desktop.
The dancing was terrible, the singing was atrocious, and the song was totally butchered.
In other words, it was great for its intent: a good laugh. And, having never taken Calculus in college, I finally learned which long vowel to use when pronouncing Leibniz's name. That's gotta be good for something.
"I think that Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they are giving out free blow jobs to anyone who uses Linux. As soon as the first blowjob was given out, someone would find something negative about it."
I know people here sometimes say that Ballmer can suck their dicks, but they don't mean it literally. If you noticed him unzipping your pants and puckering up, wouldn't you have a few terrified comments too?
"It seems - as usual - lawyers think they can beat down the "amateur made" gpl... until they take a few minutes to understand it."...and they realize that it wasn't made by an amateur, but by a very experienced and smart lawyer.
"The terms of the GPL prohibit charging for GPL code ever, so real predatory pricing is precluded."
No, it does not. You can charge a million dollars per character of GPL code if you can find someone stupid enough to pay it. The GPL says that you may not charge more than distribution costs for redistributing the source code, but it doesn't say that you can't negotiate a support agreement on a per-[whatever] basis.
"Either Microsoft would turn over a new leaf and actually make the combo work well. Or it would be the death of Microsoft."
You left out the third option, which is the only one that was not only likely, but inevitable if the Microsoft takeover succeeded: "...or it would be the death of Yahoo!"
According to http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html, commercial speech is protected by the 1st amendment, but to a lesser degree than non-commercial speech:
"In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court set out the important four-part test for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech:
'[First] . . . [the commercial speech] at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.'"
Almost all spammers will fail the first test, including the waste of skin from the article. There is no such thing as a legitimate spammer.
"The jury heard more evidence in more detail then I did, and more than any of you did."
On the whole, that's probably true. However, in some ways we heard more evidence than the jury. For example, the jury was never told that Hans' former best friend, who was having an affair with Hans' wife, confessed to killing eight people. I'm at a total loss to how this could have been withheld from the jury. This certainly doesn't automatically exonerate Hans, but its value to the defense is incredible. I would love to know how the prosecution managed to get this suppressed.
"IBM Denmark just went down this week for a whole day, pretty sure their big clients are a bit unimpressed in their failure to bring multimillion installations back online."
That has nothing to do with Open Source in general or PostgreSQL (or even MySQL) in specific. IBM suffered a complete network meltdown, something that no database in the world could have survived. All the many extra thousands of dollars a year paid to big database vendors for automatic failover would have been wasted in this case.
While PostgreSQL needs more built-in scalability features, it is suitable as-is for the vast majority of jobs for which a solid, highly dependable database is needed. I'd estimate that it is suitable for 97-99% of all database jobs, with the aforementioned sites needing subsecond failover being the remaining 1-3% for which PostgreSQL would not be suitable as the primary database.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't really see this from a static picture, but I think I have figured out the true nature of this object. Subsequent pictures should show the lower half (the part that looks like an open mouth) is actually a pair of huge legs in a seemingly closed position. These legs actually open and close in a predictable rhythm. Also not shown in the picture is the turret moving around attempting to track this thing as it rapidly zips back and forth across the cosmos, getting ever closer to the turret below.
If we had captured this picture millions of years ago, we would have seen a tight formation of these objects moving across the galaxy in perfect unison. Alas, the turret has eliminated all but one of these things, so we missed out on a great spectacle.
"...a butt phone with monitor mode."
You must have had a shitty job listening to all of those crappy conversations.
"Isn't Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly the same bonehead that overturned the Microsoft ruling?"
She didn't overturn the Microsoft antitrust ruling; Microsoft's guilty verdict was upheld at all levels (a few of the minor counts were overturned, but all the major ones stuck). She is the bonehead that legalized their illegal monopoly as a result of being convicted.
Seemingly innocent code...that mysteriously and undetectably fails up to 1% of the time. What's the big deal? This sounds like any given day at work for me.
"...by lowering ourselves to the level of 5-year-old "ha ha told you so ha ha ha!" nonsense."
Because when you're dealing with a belief system that hasn't progressed beyond that of a 5 year-old, you have to tailor your message accordingly.
"We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope."
Speak for yourself. I'm good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
"...if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins"
There's a third option in your false dichotomy:
If you assumed Reiser's innocence, then you were adhering to the principles set in the U.S. Constitution: the pre-trial, publicly disclosed evidence was too minute to support a finding of guilt, so the defendant was automatically assumed to be not guilty.
The evidence presented at trial, however, painted a more compelling picture of guilt. Those of you who jumped to a conclusion of guilty before seeing the evidence (regardless of the outcome of the trial) should be ashamed of yourselves. The willingness to send someone to prison on a gut instinct, or from a cursory glance at a small fragment of evidence (which is all we had until the trial was over), is repugnant.
The ability to withhold judgment until all the evidence is considered is an exercise in unbiased intelligence.
"They were a terrible rap group"
Thank you for helping to stamp out and eliminate redundancy.
"No. Bill Gates did not say that."
If you said something so totally retarded, wouldn't you deny it too?
"...the district is forcing them to dumb down the tests..."
We in the U.S. did the same thing to the Presidency eight years ago, and have gotten similar results.
"...i don't think many designers would keep that job very long."
If the vast majority of designers would have coded to standards to begin with, the 80 percent of users with broken browsers would have picked a different one; or maybe Microsoft would have fixed theirs so it worked.
With that said, I don't believe for a second that Microsoft won't try its best to produce some half-assed monstrosity that still doesn't work right, but that convinces a lot of gullible people to not leave IE just yet. After all, they promise that this time they'll get it right; and Microsoft would never try something deceptive.
KDE 4.0 was never intended for mainstream use, but rather as the first implementation of the new KDE libraries that allowed developers to begin porting their KDE 3.x applications to KDE 4. As such, KDE 4.0 was largely unusable. However, its goals (the main porting effort) were achieved, so it was considered a success.
KDE 4.1 is supposed to be the first KDE 4 version usable by real people. There was a lot of space between 4.0 and actual usability; but the developers have been making rapid progress, and KDE 4.1 seems good in the article, so I'm allowing myself a bit of optimism that it might have enough of 3.5's functionality to be useful -- especially if I can uninstall Dolphin without trashing the rest of the desktop.
"(It's curretly number 2 behind ScienceBlogs.com.)"
Now it's number 16. I'm Glad I could help.
The dancing was terrible, the singing was atrocious, and the song was totally butchered.
In other words, it was great for its intent: a good laugh. And, having never taken Calculus in college, I finally learned which long vowel to use when pronouncing Leibniz's name. That's gotta be good for something.
"I think that Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they are giving out free blow jobs to anyone who uses Linux. As soon as the first blowjob was given out, someone would find something negative about it."
I know people here sometimes say that Ballmer can suck their dicks, but they don't mean it literally. If you noticed him unzipping your pants and puckering up, wouldn't you have a few terrified comments too?
"The Phantom Menace was pretty poor, but it's largely to do with the excessive expectations of people and their over-hyped ideals."
No, The Phantom Menace sucked on it's own merits (yes, that's a double, maybe triple, entendre).
"It seems - as usual - lawyers think they can beat down the "amateur made" gpl ... until they take a few minutes to understand it." ...and they realize that it wasn't made by an amateur, but by a very experienced and smart lawyer.
"The terms of the GPL prohibit charging for GPL code ever, so real predatory pricing is precluded."
No, it does not. You can charge a million dollars per character of GPL code if you can find someone stupid enough to pay it. The GPL says that you may not charge more than distribution costs for redistributing the source code, but it doesn't say that you can't negotiate a support agreement on a per-[whatever] basis.
"Either Microsoft would turn over a new leaf and actually make the combo work well. Or it would be the death of Microsoft."
You left out the third option, which is the only one that was not only likely, but inevitable if the Microsoft takeover succeeded: "...or it would be the death of Yahoo!"
According to http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html, commercial speech is protected by the 1st amendment, but to a lesser degree than non-commercial speech:
"In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court set out the important four-part test for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech:
'[First] . . . [the commercial speech] at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.'"
Almost all spammers will fail the first test, including the waste of skin from the article. There is no such thing as a legitimate spammer.
"... mugging, shooting, armed robbery, theft, running from the cops, etc is all a game - but DUI is not. glad we got that one sorted."
Don't worry, there are plenty of other crackpot organizations to pick up those torches and run with them.
"The jury heard more evidence in more detail then I did, and more than any of you did."
On the whole, that's probably true. However, in some ways we heard more evidence than the jury. For example, the jury was never told that Hans' former best friend, who was having an affair with Hans' wife, confessed to killing eight people. I'm at a total loss to how this could have been withheld from the jury. This certainly doesn't automatically exonerate Hans, but its value to the defense is incredible. I would love to know how the prosecution managed to get this suppressed.
"What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before?"
Patent it and continue the destruction of humanity.
The alternative title which says the same thing is: "Free Open Source Software Is Saving Companies $60 Billion A Year".
"IBM Denmark just went down this week for a whole day, pretty sure their big clients are a bit unimpressed in their failure to bring multimillion installations back online."
That has nothing to do with Open Source in general or PostgreSQL (or even MySQL) in specific. IBM suffered a complete network meltdown, something that no database in the world could have survived. All the many extra thousands of dollars a year paid to big database vendors for automatic failover would have been wasted in this case.
While PostgreSQL needs more built-in scalability features, it is suitable as-is for the vast majority of jobs for which a solid, highly dependable database is needed. I'd estimate that it is suitable for 97-99% of all database jobs, with the aforementioned sites needing subsecond failover being the remaining 1-3% for which PostgreSQL would not be suitable as the primary database.