Microsoft, even with it's thousands of programmers, has no hope of "outsmarting" the millions of Linux programmers. I'll bet you that some Microsoft programmers support Open Source and even work on it for kicks in their spare time. Just another spouting off by Steve.
This is an obvious attempt by IBM, Microsoft, and Sun to discredit open source while promoting closed source products. I find this very disturbing, especially in light of the fact that IBM and Sun are supposed to be open soure allies.
My personal feeling about this: The U.S. government should sponsor a 802.11a nationwide network, so we can all have cell phone and data access anywhere, and a provider can 'buy' an area from the government to charge wireless rates for. Kind of like the current system we have in place for land-line phones.
Everyone comes out happy: the cell phone company has a local monopoly the customer has access to wireless data and phone everywhere the government
's pocket gets fatter.
Looking it up on Google, the only other recorded instance of a virgin shark birth happened in a Omaha zoo. I wasn't able to find the species of shark in Detroit, but the one in Omaha was a bonnethead. Makes for some very odd news...
I really enjoy how invariably the posts in each slashdot article about cellphones are split 50/50 between:
a) "I HATE CELLPHONES THEY ARE THE BANE OF ALL THINGS GOOD AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED, GREAT THIS JUST MEANS THAT EVEN MORE PEOPLE WILL BE YAPPING IN PUBLIC AND AT MOVIES" (seen here)
and
b) "FINALLY CRAPPY OLD AMERICA IS CATCHING UP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, FINALLY, WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG, WE'RE STILL BETTER, TAKE THAT AMERICAN CAPITALISM, CELL PHONES FOREVER!!" (seen here)
Although broadcasters will be broadcasting HDTV by 2006, there is a catch. HDTV can be broken up in to several different, lower quality channels. Its much cheaper for networks to do it this way, so what do you think will happen?
The other big problem is that by 2006, the majority of us will still have plain old nonHD-TVs. What incentive will there be for the networks to provide a high-quality signal?
I don't think its realistic to expect networks to broadcast high-quality TV for free when they can split the signal and make more money, especially when the consumer demand is not there. The only hope is to have pay channels like HBO - I think thats the only real HDTV you will see.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, even with it's thousands of programmers, has no hope of "outsmarting" the millions of Linux programmers. I'll bet you that some Microsoft programmers support Open Source and even work on it for kicks in their spare time. Just another spouting off by Steve.
Let's all not use Macs. Not that anyone uses them anyways...
This is an obvious attempt by IBM, Microsoft, and Sun to discredit open source while promoting closed source products. I find this very disturbing, especially in light of the fact that IBM and Sun are supposed to be open soure allies.
Here is a nice comparison of B and A on 80211 planet. Also, a whitepaper for A is available at Proxim Communications. Also, don't forget the FAQ!
My personal feeling about this: The U.S. government should sponsor a 802.11a nationwide network, so we can all have cell phone and data access anywhere, and a provider can 'buy' an area from the government to charge wireless rates for. Kind of like the current system we have in place for land-line phones.
Everyone comes out happy:
the cell phone company has a local monopoly
the customer has access to wireless data and phone everywhere
the government 's pocket gets fatter.
Looking it up on Google, the only other recorded instance of a virgin shark birth happened in a Omaha zoo.
I wasn't able to find the species of shark in Detroit, but the one in Omaha was a bonnethead.
Makes for some very odd news...
I really enjoy how invariably the posts in each slashdot article about cellphones are split 50/50 between:
a) "I HATE CELLPHONES THEY ARE THE BANE OF ALL THINGS GOOD AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED, GREAT THIS JUST MEANS THAT EVEN MORE PEOPLE WILL BE YAPPING IN PUBLIC AND AT MOVIES" (seen here)
and
b) "FINALLY CRAPPY OLD AMERICA IS CATCHING UP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, FINALLY, WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG, WE'RE STILL BETTER, TAKE THAT AMERICAN CAPITALISM, CELL PHONES FOREVER!!" (seen here)
Although broadcasters will be broadcasting HDTV by 2006, there is a catch. HDTV can be broken up in to several different, lower quality channels. Its much cheaper for networks to do it this way, so what do you think will happen? The other big problem is that by 2006, the majority of us will still have plain old nonHD-TVs. What incentive will there be for the networks to provide a high-quality signal? I don't think its realistic to expect networks to broadcast high-quality TV for free when they can split the signal and make more money, especially when the consumer demand is not there. The only hope is to have pay channels like HBO - I think thats the only real HDTV you will see.