You couldn't be more wrong. The money might seem alot to you and me, but to M$ it's just a bit of an annoyance.
The punishment does not equal the crime beacuse it probably isn't enough money. Punishment is only any good if it hurts! This won't hurt M$.
It's not that the Microsoft guys are bad people. They're just doing what comes naturally to businessmen: they're trying to beat the competitors however they can and make the most money they can. The fact of being so amazingly successful is bound to be somewhat corrupting. Remember: power corrupts, and in the computing world, M$ are very powerful!
This is why it is necessary to correct the tendencies of the likes of M$. They must not be allowed to bully the smaller guys out of the market. This is not good for the consumer.
So, don't take it as an insult to America. Just take it that our justice is not afraid of big business.
8% faster start up time. So if it takes 30 seconds to start up 1.6, it'll take 27.5 seconds or so to start up 1.7.
If you think that's dramatic, you need to get out more!
The Chinese aren't democratic. There's only one major political party and there aren't free and open elections as we know them in the West.
Anyway, that fact that they are communist doesn't necessarily make them a threat. China expands only into what it considers traditional Chinese lands (which, unfortunately, includes Tibet and Taiwan). Most of their militarism is there to dissuade invasions. Remember how they suffered by the hands of the Japanese. Also, of course, the USA's absurd, paranoid crusade against communism was bound to make them feel uneasy.
What's really disgusting is that China is spending money on space programmes when they have so much poverty. In China you have to pay to go to school. You have to pay for healthcare. Why do they need to go to space? I'd say they have more important problems to solve.
Moreover, a satellite is far more of a sitting duck. You only have to knock it off course a little to really screw it up: you wouldn't necessarily even need to destroy it. You could even claim it was an accident!!
So, if anything, spy satelites and weapons in space are initially far more likely to be targets from the ground.
Actually I don't think Eddie Izzard is gay. He's a straight transvestite.
I'm a huge fan of Eddie Izzard too - my girlfriend and I are going to see him doing a gig December. But I'm not sure he's right for Dr Who. I thought they were going to go back to the roots, and I know his roots are camp, but I wonder if Eddie isn't just a little bit too camp?
I think Alan Davies probably has the right level of campness to pull it off, or Richard E Grant - I like both of them.
But hopefully it'll be someone who's willing to commit to a few series, not just six episodes.
The counter claim seems to prove quite conclusively that it is not a universal rule that the ordering of the middle letters of a word is immaterial.
Yes, there are some cool examples. However, if a person jumbles up the letters of a word, knowing what the original word is, they may be subconscieously keeping a pattern which denotes the original word. This pattern is how we read. Changing the letters' order in a more mechanical way (as was done by the researchers at British Columbia) seems to produce less readable text.
What the research by Cambridge Uni may show is that it is not the exact ordering of letters that we recognise.
Anyone who is dyslexic would be able to tell them that for nothing!
You are joking! Efficient? That's absurd!
A network aware GUI system is great, but efficient it is not. I suggest you read the documentation on Y if you want to be better informed.
Well, I see your point. Delphi, if you compile into a stand-alone exe, will only pull in those items it needs. Libraries are usually shared, so an OS may only load that library once, no matter how many applications use it.
In theory, if you had, for example, an OO OS and a single dev environment for that OS, you could keep app memory low because there would be a high amount of object/library re-use.
Have recently been thinking a Java based OS could be quite cool, where only Java apps would run. The VM would be available all the time, so startup times would be relatively quick, and maybe it could cache compiled code somehow and promote object pooling between applications. Commonly used packages would essentially be pre-compiled before an app started. The kernel the VM ran on could be relatively simple, so long as the VM was really stable. It could even suport the.net platform too, or compile.net apps to Java.
Surprised I have to say this, but Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Standardising the GUI for a kernel would be like an engine designer specifying a car's shell shape.
The problem is precisely in trying to market 'Linux' as an OS rather than as an OS component.
However, I think the biggest problem has more to do with the suitability of Linux (as a kernel) for desktop machines. I read somewhere that changes have been made for 2.6 for providing better UI response - only time will tell whether this improves the user-perceived performance, which is what users (including myself) are interested in.
Excellence on the desktop means performance as much as it means usability.
When I start Mozilla or Firebird, I want it to appear immediately, not have to count to 10 first. Where are the latencies? In the app? the GNOME environment? X itself? Is X really a good model for fast performance? These are the questions we should be asking.
I don't understand why it matters.
Apache 1.x is being used by people who are happy with it. Good. They're happy, ASF must be happy they're happy.
Apache 2.x is being used by people who are happy to upgrade to it. They're happy, ASF must be happy they're happy.
So, where's the problem? Does it matter to ASF that people aren't flocking to use Apache 2?
People will migrate as and when they see a need to. This is a good thing, not a bad one. This is why free software is free. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything, but there is more choice.
So, who isn't happy?
Third party modules will be patched/re-written when there is sufficient need, not just for the sake of it.
This is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You could say that about any deomcracy in the world!
The punishment does not equal the crime beacuse it probably isn't enough money. Punishment is only any good if it hurts! This won't hurt M$.
It's not that the Microsoft guys are bad people. They're just doing what comes naturally to businessmen: they're trying to beat the competitors however they can and make the most money they can. The fact of being so amazingly successful is bound to be somewhat corrupting. Remember: power corrupts, and in the computing world, M$ are very powerful!
This is why it is necessary to correct the tendencies of the likes of M$. They must not be allowed to bully the smaller guys out of the market. This is not good for the consumer.
So, don't take it as an insult to America. Just take it that our justice is not afraid of big business.
8% faster start up time. So if it takes 30 seconds to start up 1.6, it'll take 27.5 seconds or so to start up 1.7. If you think that's dramatic, you need to get out more!
Wow! You really are brainwashed!!!
You're confusing paranoia with historical fact.
Anyway, that fact that they are communist doesn't necessarily make them a threat. China expands only into what it considers traditional Chinese lands (which, unfortunately, includes Tibet and Taiwan). Most of their militarism is there to dissuade invasions. Remember how they suffered by the hands of the Japanese. Also, of course, the USA's absurd, paranoid crusade against communism was bound to make them feel uneasy.
What's really disgusting is that China is spending money on space programmes when they have so much poverty. In China you have to pay to go to school. You have to pay for healthcare. Why do they need to go to space? I'd say they have more important problems to solve.
Moreover, a satellite is far more of a sitting duck. You only have to knock it off course a little to really screw it up: you wouldn't necessarily even need to destroy it. You could even claim it was an accident!!
So, if anything, spy satelites and weapons in space are initially far more likely to be targets from the ground.
Idiot.
I'm a huge fan of Eddie Izzard too - my girlfriend and I are going to see him doing a gig December. But I'm not sure he's right for Dr Who. I thought they were going to go back to the roots, and I know his roots are camp, but I wonder if Eddie isn't just a little bit too camp?
I think Alan Davies probably has the right level of campness to pull it off, or Richard E Grant - I like both of them.
But hopefully it'll be someone who's willing to commit to a few series, not just six episodes.
Yes, there are some cool examples. However, if a person jumbles up the letters of a word, knowing what the original word is, they may be subconscieously keeping a pattern which denotes the original word. This pattern is how we read. Changing the letters' order in a more mechanical way (as was done by the researchers at British Columbia) seems to produce less readable text.
What the research by Cambridge Uni may show is that it is not the exact ordering of letters that we recognise.
Anyone who is dyslexic would be able to tell them that for nothing!
He has some of the right ideas. Many of the people who have replied so far don't even think there's a problem with X! How badly informed are they?!
You are joking! Efficient? That's absurd! A network aware GUI system is great, but efficient it is not. I suggest you read the documentation on Y if you want to be better informed.
I slammed a revolving door. Right into my girlfriend's foot. ...actually, ex-girlfriend :(
And a good thing too! Spam is annoying - and I get my fair share of it - but the idea of putting someone away for it is absurd.
It would make much more sense to make spammers give something back to the community in a positive way, such as helping educate the under-privileged.
Well, I see your point. Delphi, if you compile into a stand-alone exe, will only pull in those items it needs. Libraries are usually shared, so an OS may only load that library once, no matter how many applications use it. In theory, if you had, for example, an OO OS and a single dev environment for that OS, you could keep app memory low because there would be a high amount of object/library re-use. Have recently been thinking a Java based OS could be quite cool, where only Java apps would run. The VM would be available all the time, so startup times would be relatively quick, and maybe it could cache compiled code somehow and promote object pooling between applications. Commonly used packages would essentially be pre-compiled before an app started. The kernel the VM ran on could be relatively simple, so long as the VM was really stable. It could even suport the .net platform too, or compile .net apps to Java.
Surprised I have to say this, but Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Standardising the GUI for a kernel would be like an engine designer specifying a car's shell shape. The problem is precisely in trying to market 'Linux' as an OS rather than as an OS component. However, I think the biggest problem has more to do with the suitability of Linux (as a kernel) for desktop machines. I read somewhere that changes have been made for 2.6 for providing better UI response - only time will tell whether this improves the user-perceived performance, which is what users (including myself) are interested in. Excellence on the desktop means performance as much as it means usability. When I start Mozilla or Firebird, I want it to appear immediately, not have to count to 10 first. Where are the latencies? In the app? the GNOME environment? X itself? Is X really a good model for fast performance? These are the questions we should be asking.
I don't understand why it matters. Apache 1.x is being used by people who are happy with it. Good. They're happy, ASF must be happy they're happy. Apache 2.x is being used by people who are happy to upgrade to it. They're happy, ASF must be happy they're happy. So, where's the problem? Does it matter to ASF that people aren't flocking to use Apache 2? People will migrate as and when they see a need to. This is a good thing, not a bad one. This is why free software is free. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything, but there is more choice. So, who isn't happy? Third party modules will be patched/re-written when there is sufficient need, not just for the sake of it. This is a good thing.