How is this insightful? Can you imagine the trial?
IBM: "Your honor, I know it's only been a month and we haven't even gotten through the discovery process of gathering evidence, but how about just cut the whole thing short because it's *clearly* a waste of time."
Judge: "Do you have any evidence to present that proves this conclusively?"
IBM: "Um, no. But SCO has had a whole 20 business days already! That's an entire month in regular people terms! Sure, we're still fulfilling requests for evidence, but we're *sure* they won't find anything."
Judge: "Well your certainty is not the law. Perhaps if this case were the only one before the courts and we spent 8 hours a day studying its merits, we could move on that kind of timetable. As it stands, this case sees a couple of hours here and there, so how is that sufficient time to warrant a summary judgment?"
IBM: "But... but... Linux r0x0rs! We are teh best! Free software... SCO is teh sux0r... patents are evil... FRIST PROST! No? Hello? Anyone? Information wants to be free..."
Judge: "Motion denied!!"
[The judge then goes into a long rant about the judicial process and how it's there to protect all parties, and how IBM's lawyers should go back to law school and take Law 101 to learn why it's done this way.]
1. being able to filter out the bulk of incoming spam saves bandwidth, which costs money 2. potentially, they could offer this as a paid service 3. less abuse emails to wade through, meaning less support costs 4. Exchange Server upgrades to support this
etc. etc. The list goes on. Spam costs *everybody* money. Filtering it costs money. The ones that slip through cost money. Any way to reduce the amount of spam will directly add to Microsoft's bottom line even if you remove all revenue-generating aspects.
One of the reasons I love XML is that the configuration can later be extended without impacting on any parsers that only read version 1.0. Perhaps this *is* a good reason. Or perhaps it's a way of getting a standard out there that's easy to 'embrace and extend'. Paranoia? Perhaps.
XML is great for extending *structured* data. I think you're right as far as DNS goes though... after all, coding for backwards compatibility in the current DNS format is as trivial as setting the server to ignore any unrecognized tags. Hey, just like XML!
In gaming, its all or nothing, you are either 'teh big winnah' or you are jack shit.
I think the problem is in the sponsorship. Normally in tournaments you have only a handful of companies forking over money... Intel, AMD, NVidia, ATI, um... I'm sure there's others. The point being that the companies offering sponsorship are really only doing it because the products they sell are relevant to gamers.
With sports, you have all kinds of companies. Everybody wears clothing, so Nike forks over huge amounts. People like to drink liquids, so Gatorade hopes you'll drink theirs. The point here is that all these companies sell products that the people *watching* would buy. After all, when was the last time you saw an ad for great shoulder pads during an NFL game? Or when watching an NHL game, have you ever seen an ad for a super-great hockey stick? The only exception to this that comes to mind is golf, where you will see golfing equipment marketed. I think that's likely because first: a set of clubs is a high-ticket item, and second: a lot of people *do* play golf enough that it makes financial sense.
Find some clever promoter who can pitch this successfully to companies and, at the same time, overcome the stigma of a good gamer as "that nerd in his mother's basement" and it'll be successful. But it is an up-hill battle. The only good athletes are generally the ones who are in physically good shape. So the average athlete is *better looking* than the average person. The average gamer, on the other hand...:)
Standardizing the plumbing doesn't necessarily mean giving everybody the exact same 3D engine with the same effects, etc. This could be more like giving everybody a set of fully formed OpenGL libraries which have been customized to take advantage of certain hardware features. You can't say that every OpenGL game out there looks identical and has the same feel. They're all calling OpenGL routines to shift polygons around, but how they do so is still up to the developer and there's so many permutations involved in manipulating graphics that each game can have a unique look & feel. However, by not requiring developers to go and write their own 3D libraries from the ground up gives them a huge head start.
You don't need a full-fledged OS in order to compile one. Any half-baked operating system which is functional enough and has a compiler worth its salt can compile Linux for example. All you're doing is taking source code and outputting machine code. That's not hard to do. [Not to say it's trivial, only that it's a well-understood and thoroughly solved problem.]
This isn't really about self-sufficiency, I don't think. You can have a G5 running OS X and have a really awesome user interface but lack the software needed to recreate the interface. For example, if Photoshop or other graphics editing programs weren't available for the Mac, that doesn't detract in any way from the usability of the Mac interface. Yes, it's *better* if your operating system had the tools needed to recreate it... but usability isn't a function of self-sufficiency.
Plus, this article is only one perspective on the matter. For people who live and breathe Photoshop, they're going to be disappointed with the native Linux experience as it won't meet their needs. Who cares about an operating system that can achieve an infinite uptime and has efficient multiprocessor thread pooling when they can't do their work? On the other hand, I've seen some truly amazing work done in GIMP, so it's a personal thing.
Sure, but the domain name nanobiotics.com is already almost two years old (and apparently for sale!). So I wouldn't be too confident on the 'inventing a new word' bit.:)
Almost all workers in the US have the right to quit their job if they don't like the conditions. Unions were formed by people saying "Unless you start collective barganing with this here union we formed, we all quit." You decided that you'd rather deal with the union than to find all new workers. All contracts you signed say you will continue to work with the union rather than replace all your workers at one time. In other words, you signed a contact. Capitalitic enough for you?
It goes beyond that though. It's unlawful to hire someone who does the work that a striking worker isn't willing to do. I agree that if there is a contract in place, then the terms of that contract must be followed as agreed upon by both parties. That's entirely capitalistic and common sense.
Implicit in capitalism is the right to choose with whom you want to do business. If a bunch of employees get together and form a union, the company can't say "we don't want to deal with a union, so we won't even consider a contract". They're *forced* to enter into a contract against their will. If they refuse to sign the contract in the first place, they face fines and jail time. How is that capitalistic?
Shut up and get back to work for $0.02/hr you fucking non-unionized peon! No washroom break for you!
Hey boss! Take this job and shove it. We're tired of working for you, so the best of us in the company are raising some money from friends and family and we're opening up our own business. Let's see you stay in business when all your best and brightest employees are no longer around. Our business will treat workers fairly, give them good wages, safe conditions, and reasonable hours. It's proven that a happy worker is more productive, so we're going to out-produce anything you can do.
Not only that, but we'll advertise our new business and expose the shameful practices of your company. How will you stay in business if you have no good employees, poor quality control, lots of accidents, and all your former customers no longer do business with you because they know friends and family who have been screwed over by you?
We believe in giving workers fair wages and that, by doing so, the best workers in the country will flock to us and we'll be able to choose from the smartest and most capable people there are. These people are so good they wouldn't even consider working for scum like you. Within 18 months, we'll have out-innovated, out-produced, and out-smarted your company. Our products will be much more innovative, better-designed, and of higher quality than anything you could hope to produce. Within two years, you will have to sell your car, your house, and your wife will need to cut off her hair and sell that to a wigmaker just to afford food.
Just you wait, former boss. You will see what an awesome force well-paid and respected workers can be.
Where in the definition of capitalism does it say that if workers aren't satisfied with their wages, they have the right to hold my business hostage and I'm powerless to do anything (such as find other workers) unless I meet their demands or they reduce their demands?
The definition of capitalism would more likely say that if workers aren't satisfied with their wages and think they're being shafted by management, they can all go and start up their own competing business and offer better service and pay their workers higher wages.
Not at all, as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client.
The problem then becomes on of bandwidth and server resources. The ultimate "do not trust the client" is then serving up each rendered frame across the network in order to avoid client-side rendering cheats like semi-transparent walls. Practically speaking, a certain amount of trust is required. The trick then becomes how to balance the game so that the advantages of misplaced trust are mitigated.
Something doesn't compute here. As far as I know, the ancients did not have either vacuum pumps to create the vacuums, or hydraulic compressors to compress the huge vacuums they would need to lift big rocks. Or did they use some clever tricks to solve both of these problems?
I think this is where the aliens come into the picture. A strong, flexible tube running from Egypt into orbit would allow them to suck the air out of anything.
You're probably not all that far off. Ultimately, has their standard of living improved through technology? If so, what is the cause? This is the question that should be asked, and see what answer results. Asking "did Linux improve the quality of life?" is extremely biased and reeks of those paid "studies" Microsoft puts out. Scientific method, anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
How is this insightful? Can you imagine the trial?
IBM: "Your honor, I know it's only been a month and we haven't even gotten through the discovery process of gathering evidence, but how about just cut the whole thing short because it's *clearly* a waste of time."
Judge: "Do you have any evidence to present that proves this conclusively?"
IBM: "Um, no. But SCO has had a whole 20 business days already! That's an entire month in regular people terms! Sure, we're still fulfilling requests for evidence, but we're *sure* they won't find anything."
Judge: "Well your certainty is not the law. Perhaps if this case were the only one before the courts and we spent 8 hours a day studying its merits, we could move on that kind of timetable. As it stands, this case sees a couple of hours here and there, so how is that sufficient time to warrant a summary judgment?"
IBM: "But... but... Linux r0x0rs! We are teh best! Free software... SCO is teh sux0r... patents are evil... FRIST PROST! No? Hello? Anyone? Information wants to be free..."
Judge: "Motion denied!!"
[The judge then goes into a long rant about the judicial process and how it's there to protect all parties, and how IBM's lawyers should go back to law school and take Law 101 to learn why it's done this way.]
1. being able to filter out the bulk of incoming spam saves bandwidth, which costs money
2. potentially, they could offer this as a paid service
3. less abuse emails to wade through, meaning less support costs
4. Exchange Server upgrades to support this
etc. etc. The list goes on. Spam costs *everybody* money. Filtering it costs money. The ones that slip through cost money. Any way to reduce the amount of spam will directly add to Microsoft's bottom line even if you remove all revenue-generating aspects.
One of the reasons I love XML is that the configuration can later be extended without impacting on any parsers that only read version 1.0. Perhaps this *is* a good reason. Or perhaps it's a way of getting a standard out there that's easy to 'embrace and extend'. Paranoia? Perhaps.
XML is great for extending *structured* data. I think you're right as far as DNS goes though... after all, coding for backwards compatibility in the current DNS format is as trivial as setting the server to ignore any unrecognized tags. Hey, just like XML!
In gaming, its all or nothing, you are either 'teh big winnah' or you are jack shit.
:)
I think the problem is in the sponsorship. Normally in tournaments you have only a handful of companies forking over money... Intel, AMD, NVidia, ATI, um... I'm sure there's others. The point being that the companies offering sponsorship are really only doing it because the products they sell are relevant to gamers.
With sports, you have all kinds of companies. Everybody wears clothing, so Nike forks over huge amounts. People like to drink liquids, so Gatorade hopes you'll drink theirs. The point here is that all these companies sell products that the people *watching* would buy. After all, when was the last time you saw an ad for great shoulder pads during an NFL game? Or when watching an NHL game, have you ever seen an ad for a super-great hockey stick? The only exception to this that comes to mind is golf, where you will see golfing equipment marketed. I think that's likely because first: a set of clubs is a high-ticket item, and second: a lot of people *do* play golf enough that it makes financial sense.
Find some clever promoter who can pitch this successfully to companies and, at the same time, overcome the stigma of a good gamer as "that nerd in his mother's basement" and it'll be successful. But it is an up-hill battle. The only good athletes are generally the ones who are in physically good shape. So the average athlete is *better looking* than the average person. The average gamer, on the other hand...
Standardizing the plumbing doesn't necessarily mean giving everybody the exact same 3D engine with the same effects, etc. This could be more like giving everybody a set of fully formed OpenGL libraries which have been customized to take advantage of certain hardware features. You can't say that every OpenGL game out there looks identical and has the same feel. They're all calling OpenGL routines to shift polygons around, but how they do so is still up to the developer and there's so many permutations involved in manipulating graphics that each game can have a unique look & feel. However, by not requiring developers to go and write their own 3D libraries from the ground up gives them a huge head start.
You don't need a full-fledged OS in order to compile one. Any half-baked operating system which is functional enough and has a compiler worth its salt can compile Linux for example. All you're doing is taking source code and outputting machine code. That's not hard to do. [Not to say it's trivial, only that it's a well-understood and thoroughly solved problem.]
This isn't really about self-sufficiency, I don't think. You can have a G5 running OS X and have a really awesome user interface but lack the software needed to recreate the interface. For example, if Photoshop or other graphics editing programs weren't available for the Mac, that doesn't detract in any way from the usability of the Mac interface. Yes, it's *better* if your operating system had the tools needed to recreate it... but usability isn't a function of self-sufficiency.
Plus, this article is only one perspective on the matter. For people who live and breathe Photoshop, they're going to be disappointed with the native Linux experience as it won't meet their needs. Who cares about an operating system that can achieve an infinite uptime and has efficient multiprocessor thread pooling when they can't do their work? On the other hand, I've seen some truly amazing work done in GIMP, so it's a personal thing.
...Time Berners-Lee? I thought he got knighted.
He may have, but I wasn't aware he got acquired by Time Warner.
Shouldn't that be WOL, and not OWL?
It was supposed to be called the Advanced Web Ontology Language, but the specs for it went missing.
You forgot to say "Sir!" :)
Sure, but the domain name nanobiotics.com is already almost two years old (and apparently for sale!). So I wouldn't be too confident on the 'inventing a new word' bit. :)
Yes, exactly. Unless we have a link, how are we going to *not* click it so we don't have to RTFA?
Thanks for the clarification.
If they don't fix it in time, does this mean they'll be changing their name to Sourceforget?
According to previous reports, you can download Office 2004 from LimeWire.
Almost all workers in the US have the right to quit their job if they don't like the conditions. Unions were formed by people saying "Unless you start collective barganing with this here union we formed, we all quit." You decided that you'd rather deal with the union than to find all new workers. All contracts you signed say you will continue to work with the union rather than replace all your workers at one time. In other words, you signed a contact. Capitalitic enough for you?
It goes beyond that though. It's unlawful to hire someone who does the work that a striking worker isn't willing to do. I agree that if there is a contract in place, then the terms of that contract must be followed as agreed upon by both parties. That's entirely capitalistic and common sense.
Implicit in capitalism is the right to choose with whom you want to do business. If a bunch of employees get together and form a union, the company can't say "we don't want to deal with a union, so we won't even consider a contract". They're *forced* to enter into a contract against their will. If they refuse to sign the contract in the first place, they face fines and jail time. How is that capitalistic?
I think that movie was all about getting an entire day's worth of C17H21NO4.
Shut up and get back to work for $0.02/hr you fucking non-unionized peon! No washroom break for you!
Hey boss! Take this job and shove it. We're tired of working for you, so the best of us in the company are raising some money from friends and family and we're opening up our own business. Let's see you stay in business when all your best and brightest employees are no longer around. Our business will treat workers fairly, give them good wages, safe conditions, and reasonable hours. It's proven that a happy worker is more productive, so we're going to out-produce anything you can do.
Not only that, but we'll advertise our new business and expose the shameful practices of your company. How will you stay in business if you have no good employees, poor quality control, lots of accidents, and all your former customers no longer do business with you because they know friends and family who have been screwed over by you?
We believe in giving workers fair wages and that, by doing so, the best workers in the country will flock to us and we'll be able to choose from the smartest and most capable people there are. These people are so good they wouldn't even consider working for scum like you. Within 18 months, we'll have out-innovated, out-produced, and out-smarted your company. Our products will be much more innovative, better-designed, and of higher quality than anything you could hope to produce. Within two years, you will have to sell your car, your house, and your wife will need to cut off her hair and sell that to a wigmaker just to afford food.
Just you wait, former boss. You will see what an awesome force well-paid and respected workers can be.
go read the definition of capitalism.
Where in the definition of capitalism does it say that if workers aren't satisfied with their wages, they have the right to hold my business hostage and I'm powerless to do anything (such as find other workers) unless I meet their demands or they reduce their demands?
The definition of capitalism would more likely say that if workers aren't satisfied with their wages and think they're being shafted by management, they can all go and start up their own competing business and offer better service and pay their workers higher wages.
Not at all, as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client.
The problem then becomes on of bandwidth and server resources. The ultimate "do not trust the client" is then serving up each rendered frame across the network in order to avoid client-side rendering cheats like semi-transparent walls. Practically speaking, a certain amount of trust is required. The trick then becomes how to balance the game so that the advantages of misplaced trust are mitigated.
Not being satisfied with this insecure method, I make sure that I ROT13 encrypt my emails twice just in case.
Get away from that Gameboy, you bitch!
Yeah, I realized this after he pointed it out. Me failed reading comprehension. See other AC thread.
Something doesn't compute here. As far as I know, the ancients did not have either vacuum pumps to create the vacuums, or hydraulic compressors to compress the huge vacuums they would need to lift big rocks. Or did they use some clever tricks to solve both of these problems?
I think this is where the aliens come into the picture. A strong, flexible tube running from Egypt into orbit would allow them to suck the air out of anything.
You're probably not all that far off. Ultimately, has their standard of living improved through technology? If so, what is the cause? This is the question that should be asked, and see what answer results. Asking "did Linux improve the quality of life?" is extremely biased and reeks of those paid "studies" Microsoft puts out. Scientific method, anyone?