What people are missing is that no small chunk of that spending is really DARPA research spending. DARPA research spending constitutes MOST of all spending on advanced research in all areas of science. Although it's slotted to the military, the money isn't just being used for guns, it's being used to help perfect fusion technologies that could provide the world with plentiful cheap energy for example.
Yes the military has a combat use in mind or believes all the research could potentially benefit them, but the fact is that a VERY significant piece of all technologies being worked on and developed in the US for other areas like use in homes started with some of that military cash that no corporate entity would give.
The military looks for a return in technology, and they aren't concerned if they have to basically entirely fund the establishment of an entire branch of new science all the way through it's infancy before that science could potentially give them some new weapon or a way to keep soldiers alive longer or healthier. Corporate sponsorship just plain isn't interested unless it will give them a product in the near future and only interested if it's profitable.
Portable free plentiful energy makes sense for military investment, they want that shit for their soldiers. Big buisness doesn't see a benefit in much of anything becoming cheap or free.
Well at least goodbye to set top box timeshifting. All vcr's and set top dvd recorders will recognize the flag as well. That doesn't mean a linux pc turned PVR will.
That's all fine and dandy in theory, and it's the hype that gets these laws pushed through.
Reality of course is different, as with any piece of legislation that actually gets passed there is a darker underhanded side to things. Any protections in these laws DO NOT extend to trained medical professionals, they only apply to those who aren't competent but try to help anyway... in fact they go further than that, anyone trained medical professional or NOT is REQUIRED by these laws to help.
If you see someone beside the road dying from an accident, under these laws it's illegal to keep on driving by, EVEN if you have no medical knowledge and would likely kill the person you were required to try to help!
Good samaritan laws would be a great thing if they really were as simple and plain as what you've said above. But they aren't and with our legal system probably never will be.
Nonesense, the real answer is to either have them not include windows media player with the OS, or openly withdraw ALL their rights to the windows media audio formats, openly publish COMPLETE specs, meaning everything MICROSOFT knows about the format as well as all future additions, adjustments and improvements, and open the source code.
This of course applies to not just WMA, but EVERY microsoft format which exists and windows player is able to play and every format they ever create.
tsk tsk shame on me, you truely are a troll. I'm amazed you managed to write that entire reply without a single sentence that any relevance or content which in any way counters my argument.
But you want strong opinions without any sort of factual backing or making any actual legitimate points or logical debate. Ok wth, I'm bored.
No, you cannot critize something you percieve as a deficientcy without being categorized as something other than genuine. To do that you have to get off your ass, stop whining and bitching about the best some of the most intelligent minds of our time can produce with the aid of literally millions of proofreaders, show us the perfect bug free software you've written... of course it has to remain so after being scrutinized by millions of programmers who enjoy nothing more than beating your creation with a stick trying to figure out if they can come up with a single point in which you fucked up.
I saw someone try your argument once, he was asked to show some bugfree code. He wrote the most basic and trimmed down "Hello, World!" routine you could imagine, within an hour he had more than 6 replies with bugs and security holes the casual programmers on slashdot happened to notice just glancing at it. Let's see you do better.
Opps sorry, tried to stick the baseless emotional outbursts crying for justice but someone logic creeped in. Lets hope you can at least keep your rant on the subject of programming and software this time instead of whining about a piece of grammar which is incapable of actually causing confusion or misunderstanding.
I really don't see what's expected is relevant. Who expects it persay? The ones making the laws, each and every one of them infamous, strong leaders and forerunners in the latest trends of corruption and greed. No thanks buddy.
I'm not sure what country you live in, but I'm posting from the United States. What is legal and what is right are two completely unrelated issues. I would debate the issue of whether the law is good, moral, ethical, and right (all of which are different things) but I don't feel the laws themselves need further scrutiny after considering that as yet nobody has been involved in making them who has been any of those things.
I can at least understand how someone can look upon that without knowing any more information and believe it an honorable act.
Of course when you factor in other things, for instance that support was not extended voluntary, it was extended at dollarpoint by ALOT of pissed off big money customers.
And when you consider why those customers were pissed off, Microsoft has locked them more and more tightly into it's proprietary technology, ensuring that it controls their data, only it can provide updates or the most knowledgable support.
The true dishonorable act wasn't extending support. It was the tatics which made them ending support so devistating, and the fact that they have yet to provide significantly improved technology to replace it.
What big business considers honorable and what everyone else considers honorable are two completely different things. For instance in the eyes of business Microsoft has performed honorable acts in the past two years. I've yet to single honorable act official or otherwise from microsoft in 2yrs time. Everything is shady and underhanded.
unethical and illegal are two entirely different subjects. Not everything that is illegal is unethical, and most things which are unethical are perfectly legal.
Personally I wouldn't consider it that big of a deal. Statistically it's virtually impossible that there NOT be life elsewhere. It's even virtually impossible statistically that there NOT be life as far along in development as on our planet.
Statistics are hardly a perfect science but I've never heard of a casino that wasn't happy with trusting in odds, and odds this staggering are rarely found... your odds of throwing a ball up in the air and not having it come back to the ground are infinately greater than the odds of there NOT being INTELLIGENT life at an equivelent or greater age to our own elsewhere in the universe.
My question is, why are we wasting time pretending we need to verify something with statistical backing stronger than the theories on which any higher mathmathics is founded?
They were once thought to be composed entirely of frozen co2, later it was shown they were a mix, mostly co2 and a little water ice. At present day there is mounting evidence that they are mostly water ice with some co2 ice.
I mean really, how many companies still have SCO Unix licenses running anywhere? I'm willing to bet you'll find it's about two that still have a couple servers they haven't bothered to move to linux yet.
Check the last few years for sco unix sales and you'll find the companies getting sued, you'll find it's BOTH purchasers of SCO licenses!
While your probably right that nobody but a programmer would release something with the understanding it will inevitably have some kind of problem that needs fixed down the road. What you seem to be missing (probably because your not a programmer?) Is that there aren't really many other things out there that are as complex, have as many potential failure points, and that is as individually unique everytime inventing a completely new and previously untested invention, as the code which creates a text editor.
Let alone anything more serious like an operating system or rover control software;) People like you are the same one's who don't understand why programmers make as much as they do. Computer programming is easy, what's hard is doing it right, and there is very little in higher physics or rocket science that could begin to complete with writting a complex program the right way;) Why do you think the best programmers in the world collaborating to produce the best software they can and with literally millions of programmers reviewing the code for bugs STILL have an occasional glitch that makes it out the door?
Do you really think that when the best talent in the world with millions of debugging programmers can't produce a bug free program it's something you can simply throw money at and fix? The US government itself couldn't afford or find as many programmers to hire that work on a single popular open source project.
Only one problem with what you said there, it almost sounds as if your saying VB, Java, and C++ are the best equiptment and C is not;) He'll you'd at least be able to get away with it if you took VB out of the list;)
Have you considered what cybersex in that day will be like and feel like? Your right it would suck, on every chat line, every minute of every day that little... nm, you get the point;)
This would be shady even if the customer added memory. But it's twice as shady when the customer requested additional memory and drives and apple installed and configured them!
The reason for the policy is simple, they are cutting out some returns for starters and the overhead those machines would bring since they would need to either track those systems seperately or remove the memory/drives before putting them back in stock. This of course only makes sense if apple is in turn selling these systems as new again.
Some people still don't seem to get it. There is no operating system called windows, no product called windows, and certainly no trademark on the word windows for ANY use including operating systems or graphical windowing systems.
There is a series of operating systems put out by a company called Microsoft. It's called "Microsoft Windows", and people have nicknamed it due to it's monopoly err prevailance to simply "windows".
People think Lindows is similar to the nickname "Windows" and is a product line of the same type and therefore infringes. That's fine and dandy but you cannot infringe on a NICKNAME that isn't trademarked and furthermore is actually in the public domain and untrademarkable regardless.
If Microsoft had a trademark on windows, and the name lindows could confuse customers, then they'd have a case. But since they nor any other company can trademark the term, and the term is merely a nickname to begin with, lindows and windows can be confused all day long and there is STILL no valid case for Microsoft.
Oh without a doubt on the linux side the majority of installs aren't being counted. That's because of certain factors like the licensing. It is perfectly legal to pay for a copy of a distribution and install it on 200 workstations for instance (assuming its without proprietary components and it's understood support applies to one only yada yada yada). So even if downloads were tracked and considered and everyone who downloaded only did so once in life so as not to be double counted, it still wouldn't show te majority of linux installs.
All the users who fall into this category won't be counted at all and it's the majority of linux users at the moment.
What I meant was that people buying low cost linux based pc's then formatting and installing windows is a small portion. 99.999% of the windows user base cannot install the operating system. 80% of those are working in tech shops that sell their own pc's and thus aren't doing the windows install for them. And most of the rest know these cheapy pc's suck anyway and thus build their own. And then you further chop down the remainder to those who are even aware there are cheap linux based pc's to be had and know where to get them. Next they also have to be able to pirate the software... which in the case of xp on up is more difficult to accomplish (assuming you want updates) than it was back in the 98 days.
My point was that all this makes the possibility of people buying linux based pc's and installing pirated copies of windows on them a nonissue when adding up the totals.
While your general point is true. It's worth noting that linux is an operating system, ie a kernel. RH doesn't add anything to linux in it's Enterprise edition. It adds applications, which are not part of the operating system, rather they are part of the distribution. The kernel is under the gpl, the gpl does not extend to applications that are bundled with it.
hunh? Exactly how would those numbers be relevant in the only light these numbers have EVER been relevant? Perhaps those numbers would be of greater interest to yourself but your interest isn't what they are for. These numbers are about application and driver ports.
Alot of companies support the #1 and #2 desktop OS, it has nothing to do with architecture, it's 10,000 vs 5,000 because 10,000 is twice as large a market for your stuff. These numbers are to tell people what the largest potential buyer pools are. And there are a number of companies that will continue to make their software available on the two most popular choices only... linux and windows.
Slashdot Mirror
What people are missing is that no small chunk of that spending is really DARPA research spending. DARPA research spending constitutes MOST of all spending on advanced research in all areas of science. Although it's slotted to the military, the money isn't just being used for guns, it's being used to help perfect fusion technologies that could provide the world with plentiful cheap energy for example.
Yes the military has a combat use in mind or believes all the research could potentially benefit them, but the fact is that a VERY significant piece of all technologies being worked on and developed in the US for other areas like use in homes started with some of that military cash that no corporate entity would give.
The military looks for a return in technology, and they aren't concerned if they have to basically entirely fund the establishment of an entire branch of new science all the way through it's infancy before that science could potentially give them some new weapon or a way to keep soldiers alive longer or healthier. Corporate sponsorship just plain isn't interested unless it will give them a product in the near future and only interested if it's profitable.
Portable free plentiful energy makes sense for military investment, they want that shit for their soldiers. Big buisness doesn't see a benefit in much of anything becoming cheap or free.
Well at least goodbye to set top box timeshifting. All vcr's and set top dvd recorders will recognize the flag as well. That doesn't mean a linux pc turned PVR will.
That's all fine and dandy in theory, and it's the hype that gets these laws pushed through.
Reality of course is different, as with any piece of legislation that actually gets passed there is a darker underhanded side to things. Any protections in these laws DO NOT extend to trained medical professionals, they only apply to those who aren't competent but try to help anyway... in fact they go further than that, anyone trained medical professional or NOT is REQUIRED by these laws to help.
If you see someone beside the road dying from an accident, under these laws it's illegal to keep on driving by, EVEN if you have no medical knowledge and would likely kill the person you were required to try to help!
Good samaritan laws would be a great thing if they really were as simple and plain as what you've said above. But they aren't and with our legal system probably never will be.
Nonesense, the real answer is to either have them not include windows media player with the OS, or openly withdraw ALL their rights to the windows media audio formats, openly publish COMPLETE specs, meaning everything MICROSOFT knows about the format as well as all future additions, adjustments and improvements, and open the source code.
This of course applies to not just WMA, but EVERY microsoft format which exists and windows player is able to play and every format they ever create.
tsk tsk shame on me, you truely are a troll. I'm amazed you managed to write that entire reply without a single sentence that any relevance or content which in any way counters my argument.
But you want strong opinions without any sort of factual backing or making any actual legitimate points or logical debate. Ok wth, I'm bored.
No, you cannot critize something you percieve as a deficientcy without being categorized as something other than genuine. To do that you have to get off your ass, stop whining and bitching about the best some of the most intelligent minds of our time can produce with the aid of literally millions of proofreaders, show us the perfect bug free software you've written... of course it has to remain so after being scrutinized by millions of programmers who enjoy nothing more than beating your creation with a stick trying to figure out if they can come up with a single point in which you fucked up.
I saw someone try your argument once, he was asked to show some bugfree code. He wrote the most basic and trimmed down "Hello, World!" routine you could imagine, within an hour he had more than 6 replies with bugs and security holes the casual programmers on slashdot happened to notice just glancing at it. Let's see you do better.
Opps sorry, tried to stick the baseless emotional outbursts crying for justice but someone logic creeped in. Lets hope you can at least keep your rant on the subject of programming and software this time instead of whining about a piece of grammar which is incapable of actually causing confusion or misunderstanding.
I really don't see what's expected is relevant. Who expects it persay? The ones making the laws, each and every one of them infamous, strong leaders and forerunners in the latest trends of corruption and greed. No thanks buddy.
I'm not sure what country you live in, but I'm posting from the United States. What is legal and what is right are two completely unrelated issues. I would debate the issue of whether the law is good, moral, ethical, and right (all of which are different things) but I don't feel the laws themselves need further scrutiny after considering that as yet nobody has been involved in making them who has been any of those things.
I can at least understand how someone can look upon that without knowing any more information and believe it an honorable act.
Of course when you factor in other things, for instance that support was not extended voluntary, it was extended at dollarpoint by ALOT of pissed off big money customers.
And when you consider why those customers were pissed off, Microsoft has locked them more and more tightly into it's proprietary technology, ensuring that it controls their data, only it can provide updates or the most knowledgable support.
The true dishonorable act wasn't extending support. It was the tatics which made them ending support so devistating, and the fact that they have yet to provide significantly improved technology to replace it.
I think what the parent was getting at was that the parent before him had claimed he was getting a MBA not for money but to advance his career.
If his reason for advancing his career was to make more money it makes the claim that getting the MBA wasn't about money a lie.
Whether or not seeking money is wrong is another subject entirely.
rofl
What big business considers honorable and what everyone else considers honorable are two completely different things. For instance in the eyes of business Microsoft has performed honorable acts in the past two years. I've yet to single honorable act official or otherwise from microsoft in 2yrs time. Everything is shady and underhanded.
unethical and illegal are two entirely different subjects. Not everything that is illegal is unethical, and most things which are unethical are perfectly legal.
"none of the "Halloween memos" have ever been confirmed as being real"
False, most of them have been verified as real. By Microsoft themselves. They have not however confirmed this one yet.
Personally I wouldn't consider it that big of a deal. Statistically it's virtually impossible that there NOT be life elsewhere. It's even virtually impossible statistically that there NOT be life as far along in development as on our planet.
Statistics are hardly a perfect science but I've never heard of a casino that wasn't happy with trusting in odds, and odds this staggering are rarely found... your odds of throwing a ball up in the air and not having it come back to the ground are infinately greater than the odds of there NOT being INTELLIGENT life at an equivelent or greater age to our own elsewhere in the universe.
My question is, why are we wasting time pretending we need to verify something with statistical backing stronger than the theories on which any higher mathmathics is founded?
They were once thought to be composed entirely of frozen co2, later it was shown they were a mix, mostly co2 and a little water ice. At present day there is mounting evidence that they are mostly water ice with some co2 ice.
multiple wives mandated to gang up on me and spend all the time in the bedroom I want by god? I'm so there.
I mean really, how many companies still have SCO Unix licenses running anywhere? I'm willing to bet you'll find it's about two that still have a couple servers they haven't bothered to move to linux yet.
Check the last few years for sco unix sales and you'll find the companies getting sued, you'll find it's BOTH purchasers of SCO licenses!
While your probably right that nobody but a programmer would release something with the understanding it will inevitably have some kind of problem that needs fixed down the road. What you seem to be missing (probably because your not a programmer?) Is that there aren't really many other things out there that are as complex, have as many potential failure points, and that is as individually unique everytime inventing a completely new and previously untested invention, as the code which creates a text editor.
;) People like you are the same one's who don't understand why programmers make as much as they do. Computer programming is easy, what's hard is doing it right, and there is very little in higher physics or rocket science that could begin to complete with writting a complex program the right way ;) Why do you think the best programmers in the world collaborating to produce the best software they can and with literally millions of programmers reviewing the code for bugs STILL have an occasional glitch that makes it out the door?
Let alone anything more serious like an operating system or rover control software
Do you really think that when the best talent in the world with millions of debugging programmers can't produce a bug free program it's something you can simply throw money at and fix? The US government itself couldn't afford or find as many programmers to hire that work on a single popular open source project.
Only one problem with what you said there, it almost sounds as if your saying VB, Java, and C++ are the best equiptment and C is not ;) He'll you'd at least be able to get away with it if you took VB out of the list ;)
Have you considered what cybersex in that day will be like and feel like? Your right it would suck, on every chat line, every minute of every day that little... nm, you get the point ;)
Well it's a rought job, but somebody has gotta do it. Count me in for the assembly line ;)
This would be shady even if the customer added memory. But it's twice as shady when the customer requested additional memory and drives and apple installed and configured them!
The reason for the policy is simple, they are cutting out some returns for starters and the overhead those machines would bring since they would need to either track those systems seperately or remove the memory/drives before putting them back in stock. This of course only makes sense if apple is in turn selling these systems as new again.
Some people still don't seem to get it. There is no operating system called windows, no product called windows, and certainly no trademark on the word windows for ANY use including operating systems or graphical windowing systems.
There is a series of operating systems put out by a company called Microsoft. It's called "Microsoft Windows", and people have nicknamed it due to it's monopoly err prevailance to simply "windows".
People think Lindows is similar to the nickname "Windows" and is a product line of the same type and therefore infringes. That's fine and dandy but you cannot infringe on a NICKNAME that isn't trademarked and furthermore is actually in the public domain and untrademarkable regardless.
If Microsoft had a trademark on windows, and the name lindows could confuse customers, then they'd have a case. But since they nor any other company can trademark the term, and the term is merely a nickname to begin with, lindows and windows can be confused all day long and there is STILL no valid case for Microsoft.
Normal consumers globally are fscking idiots. Let's not confuse the issue.
win98 EOL was extended 2yrs.
Oh without a doubt on the linux side the majority of installs aren't being counted. That's because of certain factors like the licensing. It is perfectly legal to pay for a copy of a distribution and install it on 200 workstations for instance (assuming its without proprietary components and it's understood support applies to one only yada yada yada). So even if downloads were tracked and considered and everyone who downloaded only did so once in life so as not to be double counted, it still wouldn't show te majority of linux installs.
All the users who fall into this category won't be counted at all and it's the majority of linux users at the moment.
What I meant was that people buying low cost linux based pc's then formatting and installing windows is a small portion. 99.999% of the windows user base cannot install the operating system. 80% of those are working in tech shops that sell their own pc's and thus aren't doing the windows install for them. And most of the rest know these cheapy pc's suck anyway and thus build their own. And then you further chop down the remainder to those who are even aware there are cheap linux based pc's to be had and know where to get them. Next they also have to be able to pirate the software... which in the case of xp on up is more difficult to accomplish (assuming you want updates) than it was back in the 98 days.
My point was that all this makes the possibility of people buying linux based pc's and installing pirated copies of windows on them a nonissue when adding up the totals.
While your general point is true. It's worth noting that linux is an operating system, ie a kernel. RH doesn't add anything to linux in it's Enterprise edition. It adds applications, which are not part of the operating system, rather they are part of the distribution. The kernel is under the gpl, the gpl does not extend to applications that are bundled with it.
hunh? Exactly how would those numbers be relevant in the only light these numbers have EVER been relevant? Perhaps those numbers would be of greater interest to yourself but your interest isn't what they are for. These numbers are about application and driver ports.
Alot of companies support the #1 and #2 desktop OS, it has nothing to do with architecture, it's 10,000 vs 5,000 because 10,000 is twice as large a market for your stuff. These numbers are to tell people what the largest potential buyer pools are. And there are a number of companies that will continue to make their software available on the two most popular choices only... linux and windows.