"there is very little merit to the physical textbook"
...it is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this read-only ebook will not permit me to record.
If you're operating a high-value stealth strike aircraft, the last thing you want to do is strap on a high-powered radio emitter. Kind of defeats the purpose.
This is why we operate strike packages, complete with slightly-more-expendable aircraft to do the jamming.
Self-containment is why the F-15 is the Cadillac of all the air-superiority fighters.
I don't know where you come from, but it's been a long time in my neck of the woods since "Cadillac" was considered a positive metonym. If they can't see you, in theory, they can't shoot you. However, even the best low-observability technology won't protect you if you operate the mission stupidly. (Didn't we learn this lesson in 'Nam?)
"The first taste is free" is the classic recruitment inducement of many scuzzy lowlife pushers. And also drug dealers.
This is probably related to the tacit semi-approval by software companies of software piracy in third-world companies: market-building until the technology improves to the point that you can actively enforce your extortionate pricing structure, at which point you already have a captive market ready for slaughter.
Apparently, you haven't looked lately. Even ATI's current bleeding edge gaming card supports DVI analog. (Yeah, it's a PDF. It's the manual. DVI-to-analog is noted on page 13.)
It'd be aggressively stupid to do it (huge waste of expensive GPU), but it is supported.
We're not arguing the inherent functional superiority of HDMI over DVI. We're discussing why DVI is being phased out. And that "why" is DVI-A. DVI, incorporating the fully-sanctioned and properly-specified analog portion of the standard, includes provisions for the analog hole. If you take that away, you're left with a bulky and arguably inferior implementation of digital video; something completely redundant with HDMI.
If you're blocking DVI-A and DVI-D is obsoleted by HDMI, there's no reason to support DVI at all.
As to the reliability issues with HDMI, yeah, I've noticed that too with a few combinations of gear (and individual ports). However, I don't think the media pigopolists care. As long as you've paid for their crap, they don't care that you don't have a reliable way to connect the hardware to view it, as long as you absolutely can't violate their precious intellectual property rights.
I'm skeptical of this claim. You didn't call me an "eeeediot".
Yeah, "overkill" isn't strictly the right word. The *AA takes an Orkish perspective on overkill.
I'm just saying that burning down a house may imperil the ability of other well-tamed media consumers in that household to properly and subserviently pay for and consume media. So the slave collar is a more nuanced and somewhat less damaging approach. The only thing it lacks is the unthinking terror that accompanies indiscriminate mass reprisals, which is valuable in of itself.
So both approaches may be called for, depending on whim, time of day, phase of moon, output of random number generator, or extensive cost/benefit analysis.
It might be fraud is all companies involved were boasting, in writing, about how open and competitive their hiring and pay practices were. But there's no indication that is the case.
And one man's collusion is another man's cost-reduction practice. Anti-trust is a regulatory check on capitalism because, in the short term, collusion and price fixing work. And in modern capitalism, there is no other term than "short term".
Because DVI is also an analog interface? Or are you forgetting the VGA-compatible (analog) C1-C5 signals? Which are, amazingly not at all present in a HDMI connection.
The digital portion of DVI is HDMI-equivalent. The analog portion of DVI is VGA-equivalent. The intent is to demolish VGA, including its equivalents. Hence, DVI has to be banished too.
Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.
That's pretty overkill, and probably only represents *AA's starting position in the bargaining. I'm sure they'd be happy with just detonating the explosive slave collar, if they can get the mandate for that piece of content-protection hardware added in the next round of copyright protection legislation.
As your other anonymous responder said, OPEC has lasted because it's a very soft cartel. Members cheat on OPEC-set price and production levels constantly. I suspect OPEC's decisions would only be meaningful if driven by a powerful and temporary external stimulus, as was witnessed in the '73 embargo following the Yom Kippur War.
Also seriously diminishing its effectiveness is the fact that many producers are not members (Russia, the US, etc.). A cartel works best if there's no meaningful competition to its membership.
Good point. You could be viciously pro-Palestinian and as a consequence be quite pro-Semitic.
That's the sick irony of the turmoil there. Ethnically, Palestinians and Israelis are cousins. Literally, if the accounts from the predominant Holy Books of the region have any basis in fact. (Which I believe they do. YMMV.)
So the fletcher invents the gun and licenses the technology out to the nascent gunsmithing industry, because they're afraid to undercut their brisk trade in arrows. Then the bowmaker starves to death because no one buys arrows for their new guns.
I can't think of any obvious historical precedent, but it seems like I've heard this story before. The market giant invents its own demise and refuses to make the leap. The dinosaur gets nibbled to death by the teeny tiny agile and hungry little mammals.
There is something vaguely Buddhist about this cycle of invention and destruction.
"Reason" includes elements that are actually different in this case from the last. For instance, different products (tablets v. smartphones).
I'm not saying "rounded corners" is a great basis for lawsuits, whether one or a dozen; I'm just saying that this lawsuit is distinguishable from the previous by the specific "infringing" products identified in each.
So, yes, this suit is no less, and no more, valid than the prior one.
I suspect your observation about the enterprise space is valid (and somewhat agrees with my observations in government/military enterprise deployments). However, the shift in percentages probably isn't based in migrations in existing deployments, enterprise or otherwise. Instead, I suspect that the overall space is becoming dominated by mobile devices, driving up the use numbers of the languages in that arena while other endeavors hold mostly stagnant. Hence, the shift in percentages.
Oracle is responsible for delays which is jeopardizing its own case. If you read through the Groklaw articles about this case, it's pretty clear that Oracle's patents are being disintegrated by the Patent and Trademark Office's reexaminations.. They've already lost about half of their asserted claims in the case, and they run the risk of further invalidation of the patents they're asserting here if they delay any further.
It would be hilariously ironic if they finally come up with a credible damages assessment just about the same time all of their patents completely evaporate.
Spoken by someone who's apparently never seen a virus restored from backup.
Besides, your approach to fire prevention is apparently prefab modular construction techniques to rebuild destroyed structures on the ashes of their previous incarnation. That's OK, but not really solving the real problem, and frankly, it can be hard to get a good lawn to grow on the ashes of successive "generations" of not-quite-fire-prevented houses.
Slashdot Mirror
I was waiting for "Touch my monkey." But it never happened.
and double ROT13 whooosh !
FTFY.
"there is very little merit to the physical textbook"
--Pierre de Fermat
Is this the part where someone posts a lolcat macro'd with something ending with "UR DOIN IT RONG!"?
If you're operating a high-value stealth strike aircraft, the last thing you want to do is strap on a high-powered radio emitter. Kind of defeats the purpose.
This is why we operate strike packages, complete with slightly-more-expendable aircraft to do the jamming.
Self-containment is why the F-15 is the Cadillac of all the air-superiority fighters.
I don't know where you come from, but it's been a long time in my neck of the woods since "Cadillac" was considered a positive metonym. If they can't see you, in theory, they can't shoot you. However, even the best low-observability technology won't protect you if you operate the mission stupidly. (Didn't we learn this lesson in 'Nam?)
Heh. It's the same phenomenon as "There's no more zealous crusader than a reformed sinner."
"The first taste is free" is the classic recruitment inducement of many scuzzy lowlife pushers. And also drug dealers.
This is probably related to the tacit semi-approval by software companies of software piracy in third-world companies: market-building until the technology improves to the point that you can actively enforce your extortionate pricing structure, at which point you already have a captive market ready for slaughter.
Apparently, you haven't looked lately. Even ATI's current bleeding edge gaming card supports DVI analog. (Yeah, it's a PDF. It's the manual. DVI-to-analog is noted on page 13.)
It'd be aggressively stupid to do it (huge waste of expensive GPU), but it is supported.
We're not arguing the inherent functional superiority of HDMI over DVI. We're discussing why DVI is being phased out. And that "why" is DVI-A. DVI, incorporating the fully-sanctioned and properly-specified analog portion of the standard, includes provisions for the analog hole. If you take that away, you're left with a bulky and arguably inferior implementation of digital video; something completely redundant with HDMI.
If you're blocking DVI-A and DVI-D is obsoleted by HDMI, there's no reason to support DVI at all.
As to the reliability issues with HDMI, yeah, I've noticed that too with a few combinations of gear (and individual ports). However, I don't think the media pigopolists care. As long as you've paid for their crap, they don't care that you don't have a reliable way to connect the hardware to view it, as long as you absolutely can't violate their precious intellectual property rights.
And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.
I'm skeptical of this claim. You didn't call me an "eeeediot".
Yeah, "overkill" isn't strictly the right word. The *AA takes an Orkish perspective on overkill.
I'm just saying that burning down a house may imperil the ability of other well-tamed media consumers in that household to properly and subserviently pay for and consume media. So the slave collar is a more nuanced and somewhat less damaging approach. The only thing it lacks is the unthinking terror that accompanies indiscriminate mass reprisals, which is valuable in of itself.
So both approaches may be called for, depending on whim, time of day, phase of moon, output of random number generator, or extensive cost/benefit analysis.
It's technically collusion.
It might be fraud is all companies involved were boasting, in writing, about how open and competitive their hiring and pay practices were. But there's no indication that is the case.
And one man's collusion is another man's cost-reduction practice. Anti-trust is a regulatory check on capitalism because, in the short term, collusion and price fixing work. And in modern capitalism, there is no other term than "short term".
Because DVI is also an analog interface? Or are you forgetting the VGA-compatible (analog) C1-C5 signals? Which are, amazingly not at all present in a HDMI connection.
The digital portion of DVI is HDMI-equivalent. The analog portion of DVI is VGA-equivalent. The intent is to demolish VGA, including its equivalents. Hence, DVI has to be banished too.
QED.
Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.
That's pretty overkill, and probably only represents *AA's starting position in the bargaining. I'm sure they'd be happy with just detonating the explosive slave collar, if they can get the mandate for that piece of content-protection hardware added in the next round of copyright protection legislation.
As your other anonymous responder said, OPEC has lasted because it's a very soft cartel. Members cheat on OPEC-set price and production levels constantly. I suspect OPEC's decisions would only be meaningful if driven by a powerful and temporary external stimulus, as was witnessed in the '73 embargo following the Yom Kippur War.
Also seriously diminishing its effectiveness is the fact that many producers are not members (Russia, the US, etc.). A cartel works best if there's no meaningful competition to its membership.
This represents a non-free job market.
Nonsense. In the current scheme, the employers have the perfect freedom to shape their employment policies to drive labor costs down.
When someone starts shouting context-free stuff about freedom, you need to ask yourself "whose freedom?"
This is the "my freedom to swing my fist v. your freedom to not have your nose broken" argument.
Indeed, quite the opposite.
-- Salman Rushdie
Good point. You could be viciously pro-Palestinian and as a consequence be quite pro-Semitic.
That's the sick irony of the turmoil there. Ethnically, Palestinians and Israelis are cousins. Literally, if the accounts from the predominant Holy Books of the region have any basis in fact. (Which I believe they do. YMMV.)
So the fletcher invents the gun and licenses the technology out to the nascent gunsmithing industry, because they're afraid to undercut their brisk trade in arrows. Then the bowmaker starves to death because no one buys arrows for their new guns.
I can't think of any obvious historical precedent, but it seems like I've heard this story before. The market giant invents its own demise and refuses to make the leap. The dinosaur gets nibbled to death by the teeny tiny agile and hungry little mammals.
There is something vaguely Buddhist about this cycle of invention and destruction.
"Reason" includes elements that are actually different in this case from the last. For instance, different products (tablets v. smartphones).
I'm not saying "rounded corners" is a great basis for lawsuits, whether one or a dozen; I'm just saying that this lawsuit is distinguishable from the previous by the specific "infringing" products identified in each.
So, yes, this suit is no less, and no more, valid than the prior one.
What would POSSIBLY be the purpose of messing up street map data?
4 teh lulz?
Douchebaggery is usually its own reward.
No, this was very much an interdenominational bill.
No, I'm pretty sure the bills involved were very denominational. Probably $100s.
I suspect your observation about the enterprise space is valid (and somewhat agrees with my observations in government/military enterprise deployments). However, the shift in percentages probably isn't based in migrations in existing deployments, enterprise or otherwise. Instead, I suspect that the overall space is becoming dominated by mobile devices, driving up the use numbers of the languages in that arena while other endeavors hold mostly stagnant. Hence, the shift in percentages.
Just a theory.
It's better than that, too.
Oracle is responsible for delays which is jeopardizing its own case. If you read through the Groklaw articles about this case, it's pretty clear that Oracle's patents are being disintegrated by the Patent and Trademark Office's reexaminations.. They've already lost about half of their asserted claims in the case, and they run the risk of further invalidation of the patents they're asserting here if they delay any further.
It would be hilariously ironic if they finally come up with a credible damages assessment just about the same time all of their patents completely evaporate.
But the opposite problem also exists: Orders phrased with enough subtlety that they can be shielded with plausible deniability.
Ask Thomas Becket about how that works.
Spoken by someone who's apparently never seen a virus restored from backup.
Besides, your approach to fire prevention is apparently prefab modular construction techniques to rebuild destroyed structures on the ashes of their previous incarnation. That's OK, but not really solving the real problem, and frankly, it can be hard to get a good lawn to grow on the ashes of successive "generations" of not-quite-fire-prevented houses.