Funny... Laugh while you can. There are already many kinds of aircraft,
and soon there will be ter^H^H^H
robots too. Let's just hope there's no Skynet brewing in the 'net;-)
...Actually this is kinda scary stuff to think about, especially right after watching T3...
So Apple has what, 5% of global desktop & low-end server market? That means MS could go to Apple, just laugh at them and go away without saying a word.
Currently Linux run on ~100% of all desktop & server PCs. Now if Microsoft is in a market position to reduce Linux platforms from ~100% to ~5%, I'd say that's a monopoly position...
Sure they have a monopoly, ie so dominant market share that they could do just about what ever they wish if there weren't anti-monopoly laws.
Like, if MS required every big computer maker to actively hamper using linux on their machines or they wouldn't give them OEM Windows license, how many of the computer makers could affort to decline without going out of business very fast? Or if they wouldn't approve (XP style) any drivers or give DirectX support for any graphcis card maker that didn't keep it's specs secret and release drivers for Win only.
So I'd say it's definitely a monopoly, because only anti-monopoly laws are preventing them from doing stuff like above.
It's all part of the same OS community, working under GPL. Any (GPL) code developed by Red Hat is available to Debian and Slackware users / developers as well. I mean, that's (part of) the idea behind OS software. For example, I believe Debian package format was developed after RPM. I bet having first version of RPM to look at and seeing how it worked in practice made developing new package formats much easier, and made them better.
In closed source, a competitor not developing software often helps you. In open source it usually hurts you too.
So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.
"What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007"
This thing is here to stay. We really do need a separate slashdot category for SCO stuff...
Oh, wait, you are! Either directly if you buy Red Hat (or Suse now too) products, or indirectly if you just like to use OS software, since that "lawyer money" could have been better spent on software development.
Hmm mm. I'm sure there's an easy way to increase blood sugar level... Let me think... "e-a-t-i-n-g"... Yes, that's it, Eating!
Seriously, if extra blood sugar consumpiton is a problem for some reason (digestion problems? diabetes? what?), then just letting glucose tablets (just special candy really!) to melt in your mouth and the glucose to get absorbed starting from mouth should fix that easily.
Low blood sugar level doesn't make you tired, it makes you hungry. Glucose using machines would not put extra strain in the body, they would just reduce blood sugar level. If you do something to offset that (like eat more), then I don't see how your body would even notice that extra glucose consumption.
I suppose you're much more of an expert than I am then. But I don't think you'd feel anything like after working out. Then your muscles have just worked hard, probably hormone levels changed and all that, and you actually feel good, not just tired.
No, I think the feeling would be more like the feeling you get around 4pm if you skipped lunch and drank only low-energy drinks (be it black coffee or plain water) during the day. I know *that* feeling, and it's nothing like the feeling after working out. And even excercising after that doesn't necessarily result in extra tiredness (as long as your body has enough energy reserves I suppose), just feeling extra hungry. I can do decent excercise (like cycling home 30 minutes) after that kind of day without becoming any more tired than if I had had proper lunch. Of course that's only one day at a time, with "extra hungry" size dinner, not quite same than having permanently reduced blood sugar level...
Then again, I'm sure body would easily and quickly adopt to extra glucose comsumption by nanobots, and would put more glucose in the blood. Where does it come from anyway? Some comes from digested food directly. Where and when does stored energy get turned into blood sugar?
Hmm... One thing that comes into mind, my understanding is that protein (eg muscle) is easier to turn into glucose than turning fat into glucose. So I think that getting no excercise, just reduced blood sugar level (be it because of glucose eating nanobots or because of just eating less) might reduce muscle mass rather than that flapping beer belly... Quite a bummer;)
On the bright side, I suppose that protein loss can be offset by proper protein-rich diet...
Article quote: "International Business Machines Corp. and Linux distributor SuSE said on Tuesday that they received the highest level of security evaluation used by governments when deciding to use software in their organizations."
So does that mean that a specific version of Suse is certified, and nothing else? So what about Red Hat etc? Or future Suse versions? I presume they'd have to get another certification (probably easier after Suse got the 1st one, but anyway).
No, excercising means you have to *do* something to get your body use more energy, and your muscles will have to work harder to spend that energy. This is all good of course, you both lose weight *and* get into better shape.
This invention just increases the energy consumption of your body without you needing to do anything or feel discomfort (except mild hunger perhaps, if actually want to lose weight and get your body to convert fat into glucose instead of just eating more).
(And for you few excercise freaks out here: being exhausted or having sore muscles counts as "discomfort" for most fat slobs, not to mention possible injuries;)
Red Hat must seriously think they have a case, and they have the size and money to win it. I hope they are right.
Every time I read something like this, I get a creepy feeling that before long nobody even bothers to write the "have a case" part, but instead just write "X has more money than Y and will win"...
"Either they like the product better or the like the price better.".
You forgot a few options:
...or Starbucks can throw more money into marketing than the independent shop makes in a year, so they can make people think they are cool, and get higher price for inferior product (or at least for inferior coffee, if you consider the 'cool' factor as part of the product).
...or they can work at loss longer than the small shop. Say, there's enough customers for 2 coffee shops in a town. In comes Starbucks, and all 3 now make a loss. At least one of them is forced to close because they run out of money. They don't need to be better or anything, they just need to grab like 20% of the marketshare in the town, and soon they get 50%. In comes other big coffee shop chain, and the last of the original shops goes. Now you Have Starbucks and Robert's (or whatever). Hooray the free market, hooray the choice!
So to sum these two together: ...or they have more money...
"Better product" doesn't need to have anything to do with it. Capitalism doesn't mean that, it means that big capital has really huge advantage over small capital. Maybe 100 or 50 years ago capitalism and free market were about the same thing, but not any more, the big are just too big in almost any area. Price dumping, frivolous lawsuits, hostile takeovers, you name it, it's all too easy when you have enough money and lawyers.
Back to topic:
Then again, better support your local independent coffee shop by *going there* and taking your friends with you, instead of hampering Starbuck's WLAN. Unless of course they've already driven the small one out of business, then go ahead. It may not drive them out of business, but it can make you feel better;)
The music you grew up with is the music you'll probably like the rest of your life.
But I don't know if "old" style that era (whatever it was) can be imitated by modern bands. It's the whole cultural background of each age that is behind most music, and as culture changes, nobody can really catch the same spirit. Not to mention that most talented new musicians don't want to make make "old music", any more than the great music of '60s and '70s wasn't made by people who wanted to imitate old. So how is an "imitator" going to catch the spirit of their music?
That's one of the dark sides of capitalism... It's hard (not impossible, but hard) to have both good independent coffee shops and unchecked raw competition. In restaurants it seems work mostly (you have McDonalds and you have real restaurants), but small independent coffee shops often seem to fall just below the threshold of profitability when Starbucks et co arrive into town. I guess it might be because there's much more variety in foods than in coffees.
What I'd find interesting is, who the hell are idiot enough to buy SCO stock...? Or gambling, "ok, there's 0.1% chance SCO will win, and then their stock price will really go up"?
Or, is it maybe some pension fund or something like that with corrupt management "investing" in the SCO stock, helping their PHB pals at SCO?
Conspiracy! (Well, that would make more sense than most other explanations...)
I wouldn't say a law that forbids interfering with radio stations is wrong. Perhaps incomplete, ie there should be a slot in the standard FM radio frequency range which would allow using this kind of devices without interfering with normal radio stations (just with other devices like this).
Anyway, unless you'll be transmitting with more power than these devices normally do, or intentionally trying to mess with other people, you have about nil chance of getting caught, or even actually bothering somebody. So I wouldn't feel too bad about breaking this law, just like I don't feel bad about jaywalking when there's not a car in sight, even though I think it's quite ok that jaywalking is not legal.
How to get game patches and driver updates after buying a new game. How to rip CDs, and make MP3 CDs/DVDs. How and when to re-install Windows. How to use Openoffice. How to keep computer secure: using virus scanners and personal firewalls, and not being stupid.
Well, the gcc I used was trusty old 2.95 something. Maybe your gcc installation is botched, or maybe that particular 3.1 prerelease is just buggy... Or doesn't implement -O;)
Well, I didn't read the article either, but I don't think this has anything to do with GSM, other than that also GSM uses SIM-based authentication, and any SIM-based mobile authentication will be somewhat similar.
Also, GSM authentication is already there, in use by hundreds of millions of people every day, something I'd call a proven technology. It makes sense to learn from that experience.
And then a GSM-type SIM is cheap and common, because they're made in millions already for GSM phones, and it's suitable size too. So using the same kind of SIM (which, I believe, is actually a standard smart card type, not just GSM specific) is good idea.
Eh? Even -O is enough to get that warning about j (see below). And I don't see how Linux not giving a bus error (which, btw, is specific to non-intel processors, so if you're running it on intel machine you won't get one for badly aligned pointer) or segmentation fault. Contents of stack, where j is, is rather undefined, it could very well end up pointing to some positon where the program has write permission by luck...
$ gcc -Wall -O c.c c.c:3: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' c.c: In function `main': c.c:4: warning: `j' might be used uninitialized in this function
Gets is a function which you can never use in a real program, because you can never use it safely, and you call it minor snafu?
And then you say that C allowing stupid syntax is worse than a function like that?
And besides, that's not a bad syntax... Try this one:
int* bar,foo;
And, like with everything like that, you don't do it. Unless you want to be mean to anybody who'll be looking at your code later, when you know you won't be. And if you want to be mean, you can certainly do a lot more obscure things to your code...
1. He says the graphical interfaces for running java are more responsive on Windows than X, not that everything is. You take that out of context, and in the process invite flame war Win vs X...
3. You are inviting a flame war Lisp vs C. They are very different languages to start with, and both have "loyal followers", one of the best recipes for flame war.
That's why your first post comes through as flamebait, and 2nd post comes through as a troll trying to draw more attention to your first flamebait.
(And btw, I didn't moderate it, this is just my impression.)
Uh, you mean, putting the charger into the phone? Because sure you can charge from ever power outlet, all you need is the charger and the phone... And notice how a charger often is heavier than the phone...
There's only so much you can do to reduce weight when you want to convert from power outlet 110/240V AC to the 4V DC that the battery wants for charging... I don't think there's ever going to be a day when you can just plug your mobile phone into a power outlet without separate charger. By the time we can have that, we prolly have wireless power transfer already and the point is moot;)
Slashdot Mirror
Linux should run pretty well on that too, even with X if you have enough memory.
Currently Linux run on ~100% of all desktop & server PCs. Now if Microsoft is in a market position to reduce Linux platforms from ~100% to ~5%, I'd say that's a monopoly position...
Sure they have a monopoly, ie so dominant market share that they could do just about what ever they wish if there weren't anti-monopoly laws.
Like, if MS required every big computer maker to actively hamper using linux on their machines or they wouldn't give them OEM Windows license, how many of the computer makers could affort to decline without going out of business very fast? Or if they wouldn't approve (XP style) any drivers or give DirectX support for any graphcis card maker that didn't keep it's specs secret and release drivers for Win only.
So I'd say it's definitely a monopoly, because only anti-monopoly laws are preventing them from doing stuff like above.
In closed source, a competitor not developing software often helps you. In open source it usually hurts you too.
So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.
This thing is here to stay. We really do need a separate slashdot category for SCO stuff...
Oh, wait, you are! Either directly if you buy Red Hat (or Suse now too) products, or indirectly if you just like to use OS software, since that "lawyer money" could have been better spent on software development.
Seriously, if extra blood sugar consumpiton is a problem for some reason (digestion problems? diabetes? what?), then just letting glucose tablets (just special candy really!) to melt in your mouth and the glucose to get absorbed starting from mouth should fix that easily.
Low blood sugar level doesn't make you tired, it makes you hungry. Glucose using machines would not put extra strain in the body, they would just reduce blood sugar level. If you do something to offset that (like eat more), then I don't see how your body would even notice that extra glucose consumption.
No, I think the feeling would be more like the feeling you get around 4pm if you skipped lunch and drank only low-energy drinks (be it black coffee or plain water) during the day. I know *that* feeling, and it's nothing like the feeling after working out. And even excercising after that doesn't necessarily result in extra tiredness (as long as your body has enough energy reserves I suppose), just feeling extra hungry. I can do decent excercise (like cycling home 30 minutes) after that kind of day without becoming any more tired than if I had had proper lunch. Of course that's only one day at a time, with "extra hungry" size dinner, not quite same than having permanently reduced blood sugar level...
Then again, I'm sure body would easily and quickly adopt to extra glucose comsumption by nanobots, and would put more glucose in the blood. Where does it come from anyway? Some comes from digested food directly. Where and when does stored energy get turned into blood sugar?
Hmm... One thing that comes into mind, my understanding is that protein (eg muscle) is easier to turn into glucose than turning fat into glucose. So I think that getting no excercise, just reduced blood sugar level (be it because of glucose eating nanobots or because of just eating less) might reduce muscle mass rather than that flapping beer belly... Quite a bummer ;)
On the bright side, I suppose that protein loss can be offset by proper protein-rich diet...
So does that mean that a specific version of Suse is certified, and nothing else? So what about Red Hat etc? Or future Suse versions? I presume they'd have to get another certification (probably easier after Suse got the 1st one, but anyway).
This invention just increases the energy consumption of your body without you needing to do anything or feel discomfort (except mild hunger perhaps, if actually want to lose weight and get your body to convert fat into glucose instead of just eating more).
(And for you few excercise freaks out here: being exhausted or having sore muscles counts as "discomfort" for most fat slobs, not to mention possible injuries ;)
Every time I read something like this, I get a creepy feeling that before long nobody even bothers to write the "have a case" part, but instead just write "X has more money than Y and will win"...
You forgot a few options:
So to sum these two together:
...or they have more money...
"Better product" doesn't need to have anything to do with it. Capitalism doesn't mean that, it means that big capital has really huge advantage over small capital. Maybe 100 or 50 years ago capitalism and free market were about the same thing, but not any more, the big are just too big in almost any area. Price dumping, frivolous lawsuits, hostile takeovers, you name it, it's all too easy when you have enough money and lawyers.
Back to topic: Then again, better support your local independent coffee shop by *going there* and taking your friends with you, instead of hampering Starbuck's WLAN. Unless of course they've already driven the small one out of business, then go ahead. It may not drive them out of business, but it can make you feel better ;)
But I don't know if "old" style that era (whatever it was) can be imitated by modern bands. It's the whole cultural background of each age that is behind most music, and as culture changes, nobody can really catch the same spirit. Not to mention that most talented new musicians don't want to make make "old music", any more than the great music of '60s and '70s wasn't made by people who wanted to imitate old. So how is an "imitator" going to catch the spirit of their music?
That's one of the dark sides of capitalism... It's hard (not impossible, but hard) to have both good independent coffee shops and unchecked raw competition. In restaurants it seems work mostly (you have McDonalds and you have real restaurants), but small independent coffee shops often seem to fall just below the threshold of profitability when Starbucks et co arrive into town. I guess it might be because there's much more variety in foods than in coffees.
Or, is it maybe some pension fund or something like that with corrupt management "investing" in the SCO stock, helping their PHB pals at SCO?
Conspiracy!
(Well, that would make more sense than most other explanations...)
Anyway, unless you'll be transmitting with more power than these devices normally do, or intentionally trying to mess with other people, you have about nil chance of getting caught, or even actually bothering somebody. So I wouldn't feel too bad about breaking this law, just like I don't feel bad about jaywalking when there's not a car in sight, even though I think it's quite ok that jaywalking is not legal.
How to get game patches and driver updates after buying a new game.
How to rip CDs, and make MP3 CDs/DVDs.
How and when to re-install Windows.
How to use Openoffice.
How to keep computer secure: using virus scanners and personal firewalls, and not being stupid.
Well, the gcc I used was trusty old 2.95 something. Maybe your gcc installation is botched, or maybe that particular 3.1 prerelease is just buggy... Or doesn't implement -O ;)
Also, GSM authentication is already there, in use by hundreds of millions of people every day, something I'd call a proven technology. It makes sense to learn from that experience.
And then a GSM-type SIM is cheap and common, because they're made in millions already for GSM phones, and it's suitable size too. So using the same kind of SIM (which, I believe, is actually a standard smart card type, not just GSM specific) is good idea.
Eh? Even -O is enough to get that warning about j (see below). And I don't see how Linux not giving a bus error (which, btw, is specific to non-intel processors, so if you're running it on intel machine you won't get one for badly aligned pointer) or segmentation fault. Contents of stack, where j is, is rather undefined, it could very well end up pointing to some positon where the program has write permission by luck...
$ gcc -Wall -O c.c
c.c:3: warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
c.c: In function `main':
c.c:4: warning: `j' might be used uninitialized in this function
And then you say that C allowing stupid syntax is worse than a function like that?
And besides, that's not a bad syntax... Try this one:
int* bar,foo;
And, like with everything like that, you don't do it. Unless you want to be mean to anybody who'll be looking at your code later, when you know you won't be. And if you want to be mean, you can certainly do a lot more obscure things to your code...
What happened to "funny"? :)
1. He says the graphical interfaces for running java are more responsive on Windows than X, not that everything is. You take that out of context, and in the process invite flame war Win vs X...
3. You are inviting a flame war Lisp vs C. They are very different languages to start with, and both have "loyal followers", one of the best recipes for flame war.
That's why your first post comes through as flamebait, and 2nd post comes through as a troll trying to draw more attention to your first flamebait.
(And btw, I didn't moderate it, this is just my impression.)
There's only so much you can do to reduce weight when you want to convert from power outlet 110/240V AC to the 4V DC that the battery wants for charging... I don't think there's ever going to be a day when you can just plug your mobile phone into a power outlet without separate charger. By the time we can have that, we prolly have wireless power transfer already and the point is moot ;)