What a tipical response... You ARE having a rational conversation, it is just that it is a SLOW one. Say it, and keep repeating; with time she'll think about it and come with a rational answer. Then, after she repeates her answer a few times, enough for you to actualy listen, continue the conversation.
That is why I thanked Microsoft for helping the music industry. People wouldn't fear virus if it wasn't for them.
There is a long time I've tried to use MusicBrainz to tag something. Maybe I should try that again. But anyway, it can't beat having all your music classified and organized from the moment you buy it.
The patents that apply to current versions of Linux (or any software distributed with SUSE) can't be used in a court case against this software. If it applies to a GPLed software it also can't be used against any derivative software.
Now, Microsoft had lost a case against Novell based on a few patents that weren't disclosed*. I bet this move is mainly** protective, as MS would not like those patents to get into the hands of anybody else.
* That was what caused that cross licensing when Microsoft started spreading that SUSE had licenses to use their patents. It looks like MS lost a case, and signed a cross licensing deal while paying Novell to use its patents. Of course, the details are secret, but the money flow is not.
** It is probably being made with the intention of being protective. But in the future, MS may find itself with some patents it can use...
"How much further down would they be if everyone knew for a fact that there would be no consequences to taking all the music they want for free?"
Even if there is no legal consequence, you'll still have to organize all that music, and be sure to not get any virus (yeah for Microsoft helpping the music industry), know where to search for it, and go throught lots of other small problems.
Now, of course, legit music can also get your computer infected, is hard to organize, and has a miriad of other small problems. But it is the labels fault that they invest money into making their products inferior to piracy. They could very well sell a superior product.
If EMI goes under, their assets (including copyrights) will be divided by their credors and assigned for a sale supervised by the credors and a judge. That is how banckrupcy works.
Now, whoever buys the copyrights will probably be interested on some revenue, instead of making music scarce so they can sell their latest trash. That is probable because the buyer probably won't be a studio (all of them are underwater) who has any latest trash to sell. Consequently, whoever buys the copyrights will probably work hard to distribute the music (and yes, that includes lowering the price and putting them on the web) making the whole situation so much better than what we have now.
There is a problem with the original strategy as anounced, if they release the documents, they only create trouble for themselves. Consequently, they can't make a credible threat to release the information, since that would only hurt them.
If they were smart, they cutted all that information on chuncks, to release if the US government tries something (like character assassination, for example). That way, after they release the first chunk they'd have a credible threat against the US government, and then, they would be protected.
Well, from my experience, IIS sucks more if you use.NET, ASP, VB components or direct integration with MS-SQL. It sucks way less if you just use it as an Apache replacement, running PHP or another well written interpreter or VM.
Of course, most people don't use IIS as an Apache replacement, and don't ask about how disfunctional a place needs to be to do that.
Yes, as did SCO. There are now 7 years that some companies are fighting SCO on the tribunal to stablish that simple fact (or any other of several simple facts that make SCO's case flawed).
Well, one casn easily arguee that Einstein's work on the photoeletric effect was way more relevant than relativity, it leaded the way to Quantum Mechanics, if nothing else. Also, the Nobel comitee was always a bit biased against purely theoretical physics. Special Relativity, being a different mathematical description of Lorentz's theory had little chance, and General Relativy was just too late to the game to get the award.
Now, I have my disagreements with their decisions. It is just that in this specific case, they make sense.
First, confirmation of life elsewhere at the Solar System isn't confirmation that life is prevalent throught the universe. Second, that (life being prevalent on the universe) could be pretty bad in view of the Fermi Paradox.
"Probabilistically, there are other Earth like planets with similar benevolent condition."
Unless you have a secret telescope technology that is way over what any other human can currently do, you can not affirm that.
"It is almost a certainty that simple lifeforms exists in outer space."
No, there is nothing certain about that either. I'm a big fan of the hypotesis of panspermy, but you are just lying to yourself. We know nothing about that yet (neither in the positive nor the negative sense).
"For example there is an hypothesis that if the asteroid didn't strike the Earth, we would have reptilian senients evolved from the Troodon which had semi prensil opposed claws, stereoscopic vision and more importantly a constant encephalic development before its extinction."
And that is the crasyest part of your comment. We do know that technology opens a ninche for a species, but we have no idea on the requirements (nor the odds) on the evolution of an inteligent species. What remained from the dinossaus is a bunch of pretty dumb animals (and not very repitilian, by the way), and there is no evidence that any of them was evolving into an inteligent being.
The advantage is that, contrary to the arguments of TFA, the test is very representative of scientific and engeneering problems. That way, if you want to be at the top at the available computing power, you'll very probably want to be at the top 500 list.
"All either approach does is put each process in its own group so that the resources allocated to one process don't take up a disproportionate amount of the overall resources."
They way it was ever done (including the BeOS way) is way simpler tough, every time a process doesn't use all it's CPU, you give it a boost by placing it near the begining of the execution line. That is enough to make interactive processes (the ones that don't use all of its CPU) responsive. That, by the way would kill the performance of a server, and that is why Linux doesn't work that way. Of course, that is also why the pluggable scheduling was proposed, so we could have responsive desktops and fast servers, but it was rejected for some reason.
But the above doesn't work for media, so (by the time media started to spread to computers, that means, by the 90's) people solved the media problem in another way. You just have to mark the media processes somehow, and give them all the CPU they want. Linux did that by the 90's, but dropped the feature for some reason.
At 2.4 kernels there were a fake "real time" priority that didn't let your music flicker (by the time, on lots of cases 100% of CPU just wasnt eough for video). I don't really know why it was taken out of 2.6.
"their programs won't display meaningful messages because "nobody ever reads them anyways", even if it is a program intended for Linux."
I doubt that will be the case. The value of error messages become evident as soon as you need to remotely debug your project, what happens as soon as it becomes sucessfull. So, we may have uncessfull projects with bad messages, or programmers that learn how to write good messages with sucess. None of the options are that bad.
Also, it is not because of the contents of the error messages that users don't read them. It is because on Windows there are so many messages.(And, by the way, that is changing, mainly because Windows userland is getting dominated by FOSS.) People were quite fast to learn to read DOS messages at the time, and ask for help everytime they didn't understand one of them (because they were badly written). That happened because DOS software had the habit of only displaying messages before actions that could be very damaging. Linux display even less messages on a CLI, but GUI software isn't that stringent.
Better yet if they include a "Desktop-configs" package that sets that behaviour (and whatever else they think is better for a desktop), so they can let the servers untouched. Doing something like that on the kernel would be the definition of non-clean.
Windows way is not clear, but is more efficient. Anyway, you use a Debian based Linux, doesn't you? Most distros that don't package the entire world did already come with a replacement that works form them and is at least as efficient as the Windows way.
It is just that you can't have the biggest software repository of any distro available to you and use a not flexible startup routine. Or, to correct myself, you can, but you'll have to choose the routine that works for you, like you can do on Debian. It is just that you can't have the repository and a not flexible startup routine installed by default.
Slashdot Mirror
What a tipical response... You ARE having a rational conversation, it is just that it is a SLOW one. Say it, and keep repeating; with time she'll think about it and come with a rational answer. Then, after she repeates her answer a few times, enough for you to actualy listen, continue the conversation.
Remember, it is all rational, but very noisy.
That is why I thanked Microsoft for helping the music industry. People wouldn't fear virus if it wasn't for them.
There is a long time I've tried to use MusicBrainz to tag something. Maybe I should try that again. But anyway, it can't beat having all your music classified and organized from the moment you buy it.
By the number of patents, Microsoft is probably getting all of them and some stuff that aren't disclosed yet.
The patents that apply to current versions of Linux (or any software distributed with SUSE) can't be used in a court case against this software. If it applies to a GPLed software it also can't be used against any derivative software.
Now, Microsoft had lost a case against Novell based on a few patents that weren't disclosed*. I bet this move is mainly** protective, as MS would not like those patents to get into the hands of anybody else.
* That was what caused that cross licensing when Microsoft started spreading that SUSE had licenses to use their patents. It looks like MS lost a case, and signed a cross licensing deal while paying Novell to use its patents. Of course, the details are secret, but the money flow is not.
** It is probably being made with the intention of being protective. But in the future, MS may find itself with some patents it can use...
That is the nice thing about capitalism. Also, they aready tried blamming Google, but US justice system isn't that much biased yet.
Even if there is no legal consequence, you'll still have to organize all that music, and be sure to not get any virus (yeah for Microsoft helpping the music industry), know where to search for it, and go throught lots of other small problems.
Now, of course, legit music can also get your computer infected, is hard to organize, and has a miriad of other small problems. But it is the labels fault that they invest money into making their products inferior to piracy. They could very well sell a superior product.
If EMI goes under, their assets (including copyrights) will be divided by their credors and assigned for a sale supervised by the credors and a judge. That is how banckrupcy works.
Now, whoever buys the copyrights will probably be interested on some revenue, instead of making music scarce so they can sell their latest trash. That is probable because the buyer probably won't be a studio (all of them are underwater) who has any latest trash to sell. Consequently, whoever buys the copyrights will probably work hard to distribute the music (and yes, that includes lowering the price and putting them on the web) making the whole situation so much better than what we have now.
That should have been "Error Correction Code", and it is probably the meaning the GP was using.
Yes.
Not more than they are already.
There is a problem with the original strategy as anounced, if they release the documents, they only create trouble for themselves. Consequently, they can't make a credible threat to release the information, since that would only hurt them.
If they were smart, they cutted all that information on chuncks, to release if the US government tries something (like character assassination, for example). That way, after they release the first chunk they'd have a credible threat against the US government, and then, they would be protected.
Well, from my experience, IIS sucks more if you use .NET, ASP, VB components or direct integration with MS-SQL. It sucks way less if you just use it as an Apache replacement, running PHP or another well written interpreter or VM.
Of course, most people don't use IIS as an Apache replacement, and don't ask about how disfunctional a place needs to be to do that.
Yes, as did SCO. There are now 7 years that some companies are fighting SCO on the tribunal to stablish that simple fact (or any other of several simple facts that make SCO's case flawed).
Just imagine some 32 or so ARM cores in a chip. With x86, that thing would probably melt, but ARM power requirements are way lower.
Be carefull there, Einstein's explanation for the photoeletric effect challenged most of the physics of the time.
Well, one casn easily arguee that Einstein's work on the photoeletric effect was way more relevant than relativity, it leaded the way to Quantum Mechanics, if nothing else. Also, the Nobel comitee was always a bit biased against purely theoretical physics. Special Relativity, being a different mathematical description of Lorentz's theory had little chance, and General Relativy was just too late to the game to get the award.
Now, I have my disagreements with their decisions. It is just that in this specific case, they make sense.
First, confirmation of life elsewhere at the Solar System isn't confirmation that life is prevalent throught the universe. Second, that (life being prevalent on the universe) could be pretty bad in view of the Fermi Paradox.
Not so, those are bacteria, so it suggest life only got there (relatively) recently, after it was a little more complex.
Unless you have a secret telescope technology that is way over what any other human can currently do, you can not affirm that.
No, there is nothing certain about that either. I'm a big fan of the hypotesis of panspermy, but you are just lying to yourself. We know nothing about that yet (neither in the positive nor the negative sense).
And that is the crasyest part of your comment. We do know that technology opens a ninche for a species, but we have no idea on the requirements (nor the odds) on the evolution of an inteligent species. What remained from the dinossaus is a bunch of pretty dumb animals (and not very repitilian, by the way), and there is no evidence that any of them was evolving into an inteligent being.
The advantage is that, contrary to the arguments of TFA, the test is very representative of scientific and engeneering problems. That way, if you want to be at the top at the available computing power, you'll very probably want to be at the top 500 list.
They way it was ever done (including the BeOS way) is way simpler tough, every time a process doesn't use all it's CPU, you give it a boost by placing it near the begining of the execution line. That is enough to make interactive processes (the ones that don't use all of its CPU) responsive. That, by the way would kill the performance of a server, and that is why Linux doesn't work that way. Of course, that is also why the pluggable scheduling was proposed, so we could have responsive desktops and fast servers, but it was rejected for some reason.
But the above doesn't work for media, so (by the time media started to spread to computers, that means, by the 90's) people solved the media problem in another way. You just have to mark the media processes somehow, and give them all the CPU they want. Linux did that by the 90's, but dropped the feature for some reason.
At 2.4 kernels there were a fake "real time" priority that didn't let your music flicker (by the time, on lots of cases 100% of CPU just wasnt eough for video). I don't really know why it was taken out of 2.6.
I doubt that will be the case. The value of error messages become evident as soon as you need to remotely debug your project, what happens as soon as it becomes sucessfull. So, we may have uncessfull projects with bad messages, or programmers that learn how to write good messages with sucess. None of the options are that bad.
Also, it is not because of the contents of the error messages that users don't read them. It is because on Windows there are so many messages.(And, by the way, that is changing, mainly because Windows userland is getting dominated by FOSS.) People were quite fast to learn to read DOS messages at the time, and ask for help everytime they didn't understand one of them (because they were badly written). That happened because DOS software had the habit of only displaying messages before actions that could be very damaging. Linux display even less messages on a CLI, but GUI software isn't that stringent.
Better yet if they include a "Desktop-configs" package that sets that behaviour (and whatever else they think is better for a desktop), so they can let the servers untouched. Doing something like that on the kernel would be the definition of non-clean.
Windows way is not clear, but is more efficient. Anyway, you use a Debian based Linux, doesn't you? Most distros that don't package the entire world did already come with a replacement that works form them and is at least as efficient as the Windows way.
It is just that you can't have the biggest software repository of any distro available to you and use a not flexible startup routine. Or, to correct myself, you can, but you'll have to choose the routine that works for you, like you can do on Debian. It is just that you can't have the repository and a not flexible startup routine installed by default.