Inside Ballmer's brain, you'll only find a series of much smaller chairs. But instead of Aerons, they're called Neurons.
Re:Jobs role in Apple is overrated
on
Inside Steve's Brain
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Apple's early success really isn't attributable to Jobs.
Never underestimate the role that Jobs had in marketing the product. Some of the greatest technical achievements have never seen the general light of day because they weren't properly marketed. Overall, Jobs has had an incredible streak of wins. As you point out, it hasn't been without failures. But on the whole Apple has been wildly successful with him at the helm.
There was an article on [url="http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/"]this[/url] not too long ago right here on Slashdot, and it could quite possibly be the biggest innovation to file sharing and distribution since BitTorrent.
You probably shouldn't take technology advice from a person who uses BBCode on Slashdot.
Then get to coding. Intel is based in the US so they HAVE TO obey US law.
Intel was founded in the US, but has a legal presence in over 50 countries. Saying they have to obey US law is meaningless -- they have to obey the laws of other countries as well.
In the US, it's the FCC that determines what frequencies such items can use and the wattage of the output. Sometimes these specifications are different than they are in places like Europe or Asia. Cards need to be able to change the way they modulate their transmissions. If this were freely open, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the hardware.
And those who travel between continents, how do they comply with the FCC regulations? If their card's software/firmware doesn't allow them to modify their wifi characteristics, then they wouldn't be able to travel with their laptops. Seems like that's a perfect case where open source would be preferable.
Agreed. I picked up a D-Link DI-524 several years ago on sale for dirt cheap and it has never needed restarting, save for the obligatory changing of some needs-a-reboot feature.
On what grounds, exactly, do you purport to forbid users from choosing what software runs in their kernel?
I think people ought to be able to run whatever they like... let someone pipe/dev/urandom into a driver and see what happens if they like. There's a difference between "should" and "must" and I claimed that the kernel should have source code. Your assertion that I'm purporting to forbid users is incorrect.
Anything that sits in the kernel and has the possibility of crashing your system should have source code. Anything in userland is fair game for closed source software.
I'd like to meet one of these sysadmins. I've written system stuff in C and other stuff in Pascal, C++ and Perl over the years but the guy that can write direct to binary must really know his stuff. Just think, his keyboard only needs two keys!
Pfft... my keyboard only needs a single key, the "1" key. The lack of me pressing it constitutes a zero.
These are my systems, and you're going to tell me precisely what's going on before any of your code gets to run.
So don't trust it. You're already running their code and you seemed quite happy to do so without them telling you precisely what potential bugs could exist. Why get so demanding now?
I've tried to come up with the most inflammatory analogy I could and here's the best I could do. My apologies that I was unable to invoke Godwin's law, but perhaps someone can do better.
BSD is like Jesus: give, but don't expect back and turn the other cheek if someone takes advantage of it. If someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic too.
GPL is like an Indian giver: give, and expect back and if someone doesn't comply, hit them over the head with copyright law.
To your picture analogy, the BSD license is more like your signature in the bottom right hand corner, and you tell the person you gave the picture to that they can't crop it out, but if they want to use it in a collage and sell it, it's fine with you, so long as your signature stays on it.
The problem with the frame portion of the analogy is that "changing the frame" doesn't substantively change the character of the work, but using code from a BSD project often (usually?) does.
Continuing the BadAnalogyGuy-inspired analogy, the BSD picture says you can't remove the photographer's signature when you display it in your house. The GPL picture says that if you display it in your house, you have to let anybody walk through your house and look at anything they want anytime they please.
Why, what does that do? Do you want it to pound Google's servers, bump up grisoft's search rank, or anything else I am not seing?
The other replies have somewhat addressed this, but I think the part you're still missing is that the GP is probably (or should be) suggesting that this particular iframe code would only be served up to users identified by the subset of user agent strings to be suspected of running AVG. Google would never see the iframe code when crawling your site, nor would the vast majority of non-AVG users, thus their pagerank is unaffected.
And as you'd only be targeting AVG users it will have negligible effect on Google itself -- unless CNN, Yahoo, MSN, etc. do it -- but it will cause AVG to hammer its own site as the scanner works its way through all 100 links checking the site content.
You probably run into some Samba wierdness, I had a 100Mbit switch and it worked fine, got a gigabit switch instead with same installation and speed dropped to 100kbit/s while raw speed tests showed 3-400Mbit/s.
I normally see that exact behavior with improper link speed negotiation. Get a switch that you can force the port speed to 1Gbps Full Duplex and then set your network interface to 1Gbps Full Duplex as well. Autonegotiate often just doesn't.
Can we get a pole up, so we can get numbers to prove to the US television industry that evil bitches are not attractive, and shouldn't be given/star in TV shows?
Sadly, I think they are hired because for many guys it does get their pole up. I suppose we could have a poll on that though.
[1] Having an axe to grind: a task you want performed, but don't fancy doing yourself. Persuade, deceive or con some other person into doing it for you.
If you meant this ironically (and my irony-o-meter is off) then you can stop reading now. Otherwise, I think you have the definition incorrect.
The library is your friend. It's often better than Google and Wikipedia combined. That sounds *amazing*! So what's the URL for this "library" site? Just start downloading torrents. Eventually, you'll have downloaded an entire Library of Congress worth, and then you can start reading.
Slashdot Mirror
Should that not be "The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more psystar systems will slip through your fingers!" :D
Yes, it should be... assuming you're a fan of explaining the joke within the joke itself, thereby rendering it unfunny.
Inside Ballmer's brain, you'll only find a series of much smaller chairs. But instead of Aerons, they're called Neurons.
Apple's early success really isn't attributable to Jobs.
Never underestimate the role that Jobs had in marketing the product. Some of the greatest technical achievements have never seen the general light of day because they weren't properly marketed. Overall, Jobs has had an incredible streak of wins. As you point out, it hasn't been without failures. But on the whole Apple has been wildly successful with him at the helm.
If you're that concerned about privacy, you can edit your profile options to turn this off (http://www.youtube.com/my_profile_personal) or simply just delete your account entirely (http://www.youtube.com/my_account -- click "Delete Account" at the bottom).
There was an article on [url="http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/"]this[/url] not too long ago right here on Slashdot, and it could quite possibly be the biggest innovation to file sharing and distribution since BitTorrent.
You probably shouldn't take technology advice from a person who uses BBCode on Slashdot.
Then get to coding. Intel is based in the US so they HAVE TO obey US law.
Intel was founded in the US, but has a legal presence in over 50 countries. Saying they have to obey US law is meaningless -- they have to obey the laws of other countries as well.
In the US, it's the FCC that determines what frequencies such items can use and the wattage of the output. Sometimes these specifications are different than they are in places like Europe or Asia. Cards need to be able to change the way they modulate their transmissions. If this were freely open, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the hardware.
And those who travel between continents, how do they comply with the FCC regulations? If their card's software/firmware doesn't allow them to modify their wifi characteristics, then they wouldn't be able to travel with their laptops. Seems like that's a perfect case where open source would be preferable.
Agreed. I picked up a D-Link DI-524 several years ago on sale for dirt cheap and it has never needed restarting, save for the obligatory changing of some needs-a-reboot feature.
How do the inflation-adjusted costs of previous missions compare to current mission costs?
On what grounds, exactly, do you purport to forbid users from choosing what software runs in their kernel?
I think people ought to be able to run whatever they like... let someone pipe /dev/urandom into a driver and see what happens if they like. There's a difference between "should" and "must" and I claimed that the kernel should have source code. Your assertion that I'm purporting to forbid users is incorrect.
http://www.ioccc.org/2004/anonymous.c
http://www.ioccc.org/2004/anonymous.hint
Anything that sits in the kernel and has the possibility of crashing your system should have source code. Anything in userland is fair game for closed source software.
I'd like to meet one of these sysadmins. I've written system stuff in C and other stuff in Pascal, C++ and Perl over the years but the guy that can write direct to binary must really know his stuff. Just think, his keyboard only needs two keys!
Pfft... my keyboard only needs a single key, the "1" key. The lack of me pressing it constitutes a zero.
These are my systems, and you're going to tell me precisely what's going on before any of your code gets to run.
So don't trust it. You're already running their code and you seemed quite happy to do so without them telling you precisely what potential bugs could exist. Why get so demanding now?
I've tried to come up with the most inflammatory analogy I could and here's the best I could do. My apologies that I was unable to invoke Godwin's law, but perhaps someone can do better.
BSD is like Jesus: give, but don't expect back and turn the other cheek if someone takes advantage of it. If someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic too.
GPL is like an Indian giver: give, and expect back and if someone doesn't comply, hit them over the head with copyright law.
To your picture analogy, the BSD license is more like your signature in the bottom right hand corner, and you tell the person you gave the picture to that they can't crop it out, but if they want to use it in a collage and sell it, it's fine with you, so long as your signature stays on it.
The problem with the frame portion of the analogy is that "changing the frame" doesn't substantively change the character of the work, but using code from a BSD project often (usually?) does.
Continuing the BadAnalogyGuy-inspired analogy, the BSD picture says you can't remove the photographer's signature when you display it in your house. The GPL picture says that if you display it in your house, you have to let anybody walk through your house and look at anything they want anytime they please.
no your not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure your not smart enough to be one either.
Eliza is smarter than you are:
"What about 'my not a lawyer, but you're pretty sure my not smart enough to be one either' did you mean?"
Why, what does that do?
Do you want it to pound Google's servers, bump up grisoft's search rank, or anything else I am not seing?
The other replies have somewhat addressed this, but I think the part you're still missing is that the GP is probably (or should be) suggesting that this particular iframe code would only be served up to users identified by the subset of user agent strings to be suspected of running AVG. Google would never see the iframe code when crawling your site, nor would the vast majority of non-AVG users, thus their pagerank is unaffected.
And as you'd only be targeting AVG users it will have negligible effect on Google itself -- unless CNN, Yahoo, MSN, etc. do it -- but it will cause AVG to hammer its own site as the scanner works its way through all 100 links checking the site content.
You probably run into some Samba wierdness, I had a 100Mbit switch and it worked fine, got a gigabit switch instead with same installation and speed dropped to 100kbit/s while raw speed tests showed 3-400Mbit/s.
I normally see that exact behavior with improper link speed negotiation. Get a switch that you can force the port speed to 1Gbps Full Duplex and then set your network interface to 1Gbps Full Duplex as well. Autonegotiate often just doesn't.
Can we get a pole up, so we can get numbers to prove to the US television industry that evil bitches are not attractive, and shouldn't be given/star in TV shows?
Sadly, I think they are hired because for many guys it does get their pole up. I suppose we could have a poll on that though.
[1] Having an axe to grind: a task you want performed, but don't fancy doing yourself. Persuade, deceive or con some other person into doing it for you.
If you meant this ironically (and my irony-o-meter is off) then you can stop reading now. Otherwise, I think you have the definition incorrect.
From: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/174000.html
"Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive/ to have private ends to serve."
I think this article sums it up the best:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell
How about 2004? The Penny Arcade series were pretty popular:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/17/188258