Microsoft has a slightly worse case than most, in my opinion. Competing on the merits of their product always seems to be their last choice, given all options. They'd rather drive you from the market, spread FUD, undercut your prices, anything they can to avoid actually doing anything on their product.
And they have the habit of not doing anything without competition, where there are many companies who operate without meaningful competition while continually trying to improve their products. (Not always doing a great job, of course, but trying.)
But yes, Microsoft isn't doing anything unique to them in this. I mainly wanted to point out they are capable of turning out good products, and always have been. It's just their last choice in any market scenario.
When presented with a competitor who they can't defeat in some other fashion, Microspft is capable of putting out some very good products. This has always been the case.
Unfortunately, Mircrosoft will only do this if they have a real competitor who they cannot defeat in some other fashion.
If GNOME isn't easy to understand then I suggest you fix your design issues. it is a GUI not a rocket ship.
if GNOME isn't easy to understand how can anyone including mark shuttle worth understand it?
GNOME is two things: It is an set of code, and it is the organization and group that writes and maintains that code. It is the latter that the article is referring to. It's not easy to understand how the community of GNOME operates. And trying to get something done without understanding the community is likely to mean you'll not get anywhere, because you haven't convinced the community that it needs to be done.
So an individual who sues a corporation over a defective product, then the corporation spends $XX million on lawyers to find a loophole, and the individual now has to pay the lawyer bill of the corporation...
All policies are open to abuse. One that allows decision on a case-by-case basis probably has the best chance of limiting that abuse.
Nope, it's not a guide to trolling. It's a clever 'help the trolls' article: Against a real troll, that advice just prolongs the argument and helps the troll sound reasonable and intelligent, thereby keeping them from looking like a troll. Which means they don't get blocked or ignored by others, and can continue trolling.
So what he's really trying to do is encourage trolling, by changing the behavior of those who fight trolls.
He said he worked with a sample of both sections of code, supplied by SCO. Presumably SCO thought there was copying between the two, but unless the 'sample' he worked on was the entire code base all it shows is that one test didn't see copied code in that small subset.
So, his test may or may not have been convincing, even in that small sample, and certainly doesn't prove anything over the whole codeset.
It's just that everyone who isn't such a paranoid nerd that they've saved it to their hosts file can't find it.
(And, depending on your setup, it is possible to break a website by removing it's DNS: A virtual host may fail to respond correctly if it can't resolve itself, or if you request a page from it using the IP address directly.)
Better yet, from that same page: The triple point. All you need is pure H20 and you have a reference point for temperature and pressure. You could work backwards from there to the definition of mass.
Right: The whole point is clarity when communicating with other human beings, not anything directly related to the laws of the universe. So that I know that when I say 'green' it is the same color as when you say 'green'. (Because 'reflects a wavelength of about 510nm' is awkward to say.)
Creation vs evolution is a discussion of theories and facts, and facts aren't really subject to public opinion.
However, this is just definitions. All we really need is some coherent way to draw the line between the two, and it doesn't really matter what the line is. The comparison to Pluto is apt: it didn't really matter whether Pluto was a planet or not, except that science works best with consistent definitions, and either we could use a definition that included Pluto and a couple dozen (at least) other objects in our solar system, or we could use the definition that excluded all of them, including Pluto. Basically the decision was that there would be less public outcry this way, and it made more 'sense'.
But it'd have been better to have the discussion earlier, which is what these people are trying to do: Hold the discussion early enough that the results will get used before the public at large get emotionally attached to the one or two border cases.
Europe is not a country.;) (Though I do acknowledge that might make a difference in my parentical comment. Though the USA's is still bigger than the next 3 countries economies combined.)
For the human race in general's progress, that is true. It doesn't matter who has the ideas, who works out the new ways of doing things, everyone will learn it and everyone will benefit, in the long run.
However, the short-term gains are going to be for those closest to the new ideas, as they can learn the improved ways of doing things before others, and thereby get an advantage. From a Humanity standpoint, it doesn't matter. From a USA standpoint, it does, as the USA will find itself lagging behind in productivity gains and other improvements.
At the moment there is also a political component that needs to be considered: The USA has the largest economy and armed forces of the world. (In each case, larger than most of the rest of the world combined.) It's also currently fairly agressive in exporting it's values (in the form of popular culture) and legal system. As such, a USA that is distinctly lagging in innovative fields will drag down the rest of the world's economy, and frustrate efforts at dealing with the ramifications, both social and legal, of those innovations.
Long term of course that will just lead to the USA taking a smaller and smaller place on the word stage, as other countries learn how to ignore and work around the increasingly backward policies being pushed out by the USA, but in the short term damage will be done. 'Short term' here is likely to be most of my lifetime, so it worries me, because it will affect me.
Seriously. Call the Fire Marshal, tell them this is what Qwest did as electrical/phone work, and ask if it meets safety standards. Try to control your laughter as you ask.
And that's what's probably the better long-term goal here: Convert atmospheric CO2 into some gasoline-like fuel, and use that as fuel in more mobile or space-constrained applications, where it generates CO2. You are back to a closed loop again, and humanity can be sustainable on our current resources. (With the external energy input of the Sun.)
Of course, you'd be limited by the amount of energy you can harvest from sunlight, but that's really a problem no matter what you do, in the longer term...
These kids did advance our collective knowledge. They did an experiment that no one else had done, because they were interested in the results. From those results they learned something.
I see no reason a good science fair project couldn't do the same. If a elementary school kids in Egypt or a high school kid in Tanzania (see: 'The Mpemba effect') can do it, why not others?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has a slightly worse case than most, in my opinion. Competing on the merits of their product always seems to be their last choice, given all options. They'd rather drive you from the market, spread FUD, undercut your prices, anything they can to avoid actually doing anything on their product.
And they have the habit of not doing anything without competition, where there are many companies who operate without meaningful competition while continually trying to improve their products. (Not always doing a great job, of course, but trying.)
But yes, Microsoft isn't doing anything unique to them in this. I mainly wanted to point out they are capable of turning out good products, and always have been. It's just their last choice in any market scenario.
When presented with a competitor who they can't defeat in some other fashion, Microspft is capable of putting out some very good products. This has always been the case.
Unfortunately, Mircrosoft will only do this if they have a real competitor who they cannot defeat in some other fashion.
This is why I watch trailers.
They are cheaper than the movie, and waste less of my time.
If GNOME isn't easy to understand then I suggest you fix your design issues. it is a GUI not a rocket ship.
if GNOME isn't easy to understand how can anyone including mark shuttle worth understand it?
GNOME is two things: It is an set of code, and it is the organization and group that writes and maintains that code. It is the latter that the article is referring to. It's not easy to understand how the community of GNOME operates. And trying to get something done without understanding the community is likely to mean you'll not get anywhere, because you haven't convinced the community that it needs to be done.
So an individual who sues a corporation over a defective product, then the corporation spends $XX million on lawyers to find a loophole, and the individual now has to pay the lawyer bill of the corporation...
All policies are open to abuse. One that allows decision on a case-by-case basis probably has the best chance of limiting that abuse.
Nope, it's not a guide to trolling. It's a clever 'help the trolls' article: Against a real troll, that advice just prolongs the argument and helps the troll sound reasonable and intelligent, thereby keeping them from looking like a troll. Which means they don't get blocked or ignored by others, and can continue trolling.
So what he's really trying to do is encourage trolling, by changing the behavior of those who fight trolls.
No one is requiring you to get the popcorn or pop.
Admittedly, no one is requiring you to get the ticket either, but even if you did, you wouldn't be required to get the rest.
(Me, even if they paid me $20 they couldn't get me to go the movie.)
He said he worked with a sample of both sections of code, supplied by SCO. Presumably SCO thought there was copying between the two, but unless the 'sample' he worked on was the entire code base all it shows is that one test didn't see copied code in that small subset.
So, his test may or may not have been convincing, even in that small sample, and certainly doesn't prove anything over the whole codeset.
You assume all developers are paid developers working on a salary.
For large portions of the iApp ecosystem, this is not true. RIM has basically told the hobbyist developer to go away with that up-front fee.
True, the site is still up.
It's just that everyone who isn't such a paranoid nerd that they've saved it to their hosts file can't find it.
(And, depending on your setup, it is possible to break a website by removing it's DNS: A virtual host may fail to respond correctly if it can't resolve itself, or if you request a page from it using the IP address directly.)
Better yet, from that same page: The triple point. All you need is pure H20 and you have a reference point for temperature and pressure. You could work backwards from there to the definition of mass.
Right: The whole point is clarity when communicating with other human beings, not anything directly related to the laws of the universe. So that I know that when I say 'green' it is the same color as when you say 'green'. (Because 'reflects a wavelength of about 510nm' is awkward to say.)
No. All the more reason to change it now, before it becomes subject to the Pluto effect. ;)
Creation vs evolution is a discussion of theories and facts, and facts aren't really subject to public opinion.
However, this is just definitions. All we really need is some coherent way to draw the line between the two, and it doesn't really matter what the line is. The comparison to Pluto is apt: it didn't really matter whether Pluto was a planet or not, except that science works best with consistent definitions, and either we could use a definition that included Pluto and a couple dozen (at least) other objects in our solar system, or we could use the definition that excluded all of them, including Pluto. Basically the decision was that there would be less public outcry this way, and it made more 'sense'.
But it'd have been better to have the discussion earlier, which is what these people are trying to do: Hold the discussion early enough that the results will get used before the public at large get emotionally attached to the one or two border cases.
Europe is not a country. ;) (Though I do acknowledge that might make a difference in my parentical comment. Though the USA's is still bigger than the next 3 countries economies combined.)
For the human race in general's progress, that is true. It doesn't matter who has the ideas, who works out the new ways of doing things, everyone will learn it and everyone will benefit, in the long run.
However, the short-term gains are going to be for those closest to the new ideas, as they can learn the improved ways of doing things before others, and thereby get an advantage. From a Humanity standpoint, it doesn't matter. From a USA standpoint, it does, as the USA will find itself lagging behind in productivity gains and other improvements.
At the moment there is also a political component that needs to be considered: The USA has the largest economy and armed forces of the world. (In each case, larger than most of the rest of the world combined.) It's also currently fairly agressive in exporting it's values (in the form of popular culture) and legal system. As such, a USA that is distinctly lagging in innovative fields will drag down the rest of the world's economy, and frustrate efforts at dealing with the ramifications, both social and legal, of those innovations.
Long term of course that will just lead to the USA taking a smaller and smaller place on the word stage, as other countries learn how to ignore and work around the increasingly backward policies being pushed out by the USA, but in the short term damage will be done. 'Short term' here is likely to be most of my lifetime, so it worries me, because it will affect me.
Seriously. Call the Fire Marshal, tell them this is what Qwest did as electrical/phone work, and ask if it meets safety standards. Try to control your laughter as you ask.
That's just delaying things. ;) Even after we build a Dyson sphere/cloud, that's still a limited source of energy.
True, but you can release the energy later, at a different location, or in more concentrated bursts. All of which could make the energy more useful.
And that's what's probably the better long-term goal here: Convert atmospheric CO2 into some gasoline-like fuel, and use that as fuel in more mobile or space-constrained applications, where it generates CO2. You are back to a closed loop again, and humanity can be sustainable on our current resources. (With the external energy input of the Sun.)
Of course, you'd be limited by the amount of energy you can harvest from sunlight, but that's really a problem no matter what you do, in the longer term...
Because Facebook still provides a useful service with no real competitor.
I expect people to start leaving, once there is a viable alternative. But I don't expect people to give up the service.
...So their child will be Zaphod Beeblebrox?!?
And if there is no Monsters from the moon?
Obviously the anti-moon-monster box is working!
These kids did advance our collective knowledge. They did an experiment that no one else had done, because they were interested in the results. From those results they learned something.
I see no reason a good science fair project couldn't do the same. If a elementary school kids in Egypt or a high school kid in Tanzania (see: 'The Mpemba effect') can do it, why not others?
If the backdoor has survived the 10 years of maintenance to the code.
If it was found and fixed in the next audit, that's a credit to the audits.
I wish I knew enough about crypto to examine the code diffs and see if I could find it.