The answer to that is that we squeeze all of the slashdotters and slashdaughters that attempt "first post" until the soy leaks out.
There are about 50 gallons in each firstposter ( I read it on slashdot, so it must be true ), and it works great in cars. ( doesnt work for food, the smell is aweful ).
I think we can get prices down to about $1.29, even with us exposting half what we make.
Soy-lent green. It's people*
*well, OK, first posters, they kinda *look* like people.
Apparently, slashdot will also tell you to recompile, and that it all works. Funny, that.
And that does not match my experience so far. One web project, was in 2003, another dev in my group opened the project ( as part of our "when do we move" ) up in 2005, and had many problems. The conversion process doubled up some of the namespace names ( what was A.B became A.B.A.B ). Which was funny, because my experience in the past on conversion was that they mostly worked.
And does the liberality of the paper mean that they will be an automatic dupe of this "socialist" system, and endorse it without thought? Or could it possibly be that they made up their own minds on a reasonable ( to them ) principal ( that you dont happen to agree with )?
The sopwith camel used an engine that was roughly similar to a radial engine, the differences being that the whole engine turned, and the crankshaft was held fixed. That engine being called a rotary. Different from the Wankel rotary engine.
The radial had many many advantages, and that is why it "won". But it was a harder technical problem to solve.
And what throttle? IIRC, those engines where "on" with a "cut" switch. Hence the characteristic noise they made.
Wasnt arguing any superiourity for the design, just that is what they were using in those days. And yes, the torque was a big issue. IIRC turns to the right were easy and quick. Left was a bit more work. Tactically, that meant that you could predict which direction an enemy plane would "break" to.
But why would a two stroke radial have to have an even number of cylinders?
No, the sopwith camel, and many other airplanes of the WWI era used an engine called a rotary engine. It is not the same as the rotary used in this car, nor is it quite the same as a radial aircraft engine, although the differences where not all that large. The aircraft rotary fastened the crankshaft to the aircraft, and the propeller directly to the engine ( the propeller spun with the engine ). In the radial, the cylinders stayed still and the crankshaft rotated within, with the propeller attached to it.
Why, you ask? With the engine in constant motion, cooling was not as large a problem. Might have been some manufacturing issues as well.
It is not OK because they are creating a barrier to the competition that has nothing to do with the market's selection process.
Competitively, I have a problem with it because of all the claims of superiourity of Microsoft's products. They might be and they might not be, but the market cannot truely chose fairly when Microsoft gets a cut per machine sold regardless of OS on the machine. That means that I am paying for ( but not getting ) a Microsoft product, then having to turn around and pay again for the competing product. Yes, competition is a rough and tumble thing. But there are rules, and they should be obeyed.
How about if you explain how this is ethical or moral?
Note, as I have stated before, I have no problem with bulk/bundle deals in general. If Microsoft wants to write one that involves only the product sold by Microsoft to the OEM, then you would not hear a peep out of me about it. But it doesnt.
B: Microsoft was and is free to change their bundling agreements
such that paying per computer shipped regardless of OS on the
machine is not the case. I agree that the OEM's are complicit
in this, but that does not absolve Microsoft of their share of
the blame, nor does it answer the question of who set things
up the way things are ( i.e., it was Microsoft decision to make
the deal read the way it reads. It takes advantage of the
desire on profit seeking companies to reduce their costs, in
a way that reduces competition ).
If Microsoft wants to give volume discounts, I say let them. But they should not do so in a way to make the economic hurdle to competing products higher. And that is exactly what they have done.
Paying exactly the same to Microsoft regardless of whether there is a Microsoft product involved or not does not fit my definition of a free market.
It does fit my definition of a distortion of the market.
And in what way is anti trust arbitrary? Do you feel, really, that the anti trust actions taken against Microsoft were unfair, and if so, why? Or are you trying to say something else?
If nobody wants it, then why does Microsoft do the OEM "keep others out" deal anymore?
If you have to pay for the Microsoft OS, then additional for the Linux OS ( yes, Linux is a separate product, yes, that will cost the OEM something to make it available ), then, yes, people will not chose it. If the pricing on the Linux variant is close to the same as the Microsoft, then people will most often chose Microsoft's product.
But as long as Microsoft has the "you will pay for a Microsoft OS on every computer you sell, or you will pay an uncompetitive price" pricing structure, then it is reasonable to argue the point. I would have no problem with Microsoft being the champion seller of OS's, if the market were truely free to decide the point.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer to that is that we squeeze all of the
slashdotters and slashdaughters that attempt
"first post" until the soy leaks out.
There are about 50 gallons in each firstposter
( I read it on slashdot, so it must be true ),
and it works great in cars. ( doesnt work for
food, the smell is aweful ).
I think we can get prices down to about $1.29,
even with us exposting half what we make.
Soy-lent green. It's people*
*well, OK, first posters, they kinda *look*
like people.
Easy as falling off a train!
PERFORM RefreshSlashdotReadTopArticleAndPost UNTIL FirstPost
When they said that Cobol was so like English that
just anyone would be able to code in it.
body or the subject.
So does my secretary. And she has a rounded bottom.
Normally, I discount most conspiracy theories....
But here I am talking one.
The timing seems a bit suspicious.
Excellent plan.
I would add holding off until more bleeding edge types
have figured out where the really sharp edges are.
Papers, please?
Apparently, slashdot will also tell you to recompile,
and that it all works. Funny, that.
And that does not match my experience so far. One web
project, was in 2003, another dev in my group opened
the project ( as part of our "when do we move" ) up
in 2005, and had many problems. The conversion process
doubled up some of the namespace names
( what was A.B became A.B.A.B ). Which was funny,
because my experience in the past on conversion was that
they mostly worked.
Network neutrality is socialist?
And does the liberality of the paper mean that
they will be an automatic dupe of this "socialist"
system, and endorse it without thought? Or could
it possibly be that they made up their own minds
on a reasonable ( to them ) principal ( that you
dont happen to agree with )?
But with whole documents missing, it would not be the same as redacting,
unless you knew what was in the documents that were missing.
First, thanks for making them all female.
;-)
Second, they are great! Cooking, cleaning,
they know where the local Walmart is already.
We wont talk about the other attributes here
in an open forum.
Send a couple dozen over, I will sample them
extensively, and let you know how they are.
Clickity click click...
Not any more.
BOFH ( comcast )
The sopwith camel used an engine that was roughly similar to a
radial engine, the differences being that the whole engine turned,
and the crankshaft was held fixed. That engine being called a
rotary. Different from the Wankel rotary engine.
A link
is worth a thousand words.
Apologies if you already knew this, but I cant
infer this from your post.
The radial had many many advantages, and that is why it "won".
But it was a harder technical problem to solve.
And what throttle? IIRC, those engines where "on" with a "cut"
switch. Hence the characteristic noise they made.
Wasnt arguing any superiourity for the design,
just that is what they were using in those days. And yes, the
torque was a big issue. IIRC turns to the right were easy
and quick. Left was a bit more work. Tactically, that meant
that you could predict which direction an enemy plane would
"break" to.
But why would a two stroke radial have to have an even number
of cylinders?
Aircraft rotary != aircraft radial != Wankel rotary.
See other posts ( one by me, in fact ) explaining.
No, the sopwith camel, and many other airplanes of the
WWI era used an engine called a rotary engine. It is
not the same as the rotary used in this car, nor is it
quite the same as a radial aircraft engine, although
the differences where not all that large. The aircraft
rotary fastened the crankshaft to the aircraft, and the
propeller directly to the engine ( the propeller spun
with the engine ). In the radial, the cylinders stayed
still and the crankshaft rotated within, with the propeller
attached to it.
Why, you ask? With the engine in constant motion, cooling
was not as large a problem. Might have been some manufacturing
issues as well.
Hey! You stop that.
Making rational statements.
Imagine someone saying that one size doesnt nessesarily fit
all. That maybe you should look at the problem and thinking
before choosing tools.
It is not OK because they are creating a barrier to the
competition that has nothing to do with the market's
selection process.
Competitively, I have a problem with it because of all
the claims of superiourity of Microsoft's products.
They might be and they might not be, but the market
cannot truely chose fairly when Microsoft gets a cut
per machine sold regardless of OS on the machine.
That means that I am paying for ( but not getting )
a Microsoft product, then having to turn around and
pay again for the competing product. Yes, competition
is a rough and tumble thing. But there are rules,
and they should be obeyed.
How about if you explain how this is ethical or moral?
Note, as I have stated before, I have no problem with
bulk/bundle deals in general. If Microsoft wants to
write one that involves only the product sold by
Microsoft to the OEM, then you would not hear a peep
out of me about it. But it doesnt.
A: Everyone does it != OK.
B: Microsoft was and is free to change their bundling agreements
such that paying per computer shipped regardless of OS on the
machine is not the case. I agree that the OEM's are complicit
in this, but that does not absolve Microsoft of their share of
the blame, nor does it answer the question of who set things
up the way things are ( i.e., it was Microsoft decision to make
the deal read the way it reads. It takes advantage of the
desire on profit seeking companies to reduce their costs, in
a way that reduces competition ).
If Microsoft wants to give volume discounts, I say let them.
But they should not do so in a way to make the economic
hurdle to competing products higher. And that is exactly
what they have done.
Paying exactly the same to Microsoft regardless of whether
there is a Microsoft product involved or not does not fit
my definition of a free market.
It does fit my definition of a distortion of the market.
And in what way is anti trust arbitrary? Do you feel,
really, that the anti trust actions taken against
Microsoft were unfair, and if so, why? Or are you trying
to say something else?
If nobody wants it, then why does Microsoft do the OEM
"keep others out" deal anymore?
If you have to pay for the Microsoft OS, then additional
for the Linux OS ( yes, Linux is a separate product, yes,
that will cost the OEM something to make it available ),
then, yes, people will not chose it. If the pricing on
the Linux variant is close to the same as the Microsoft,
then people will most often chose Microsoft's product.
But as long as Microsoft has the "you will pay for a
Microsoft OS on every computer you sell, or you will
pay an uncompetitive price" pricing structure, then it
is reasonable to argue the point. I would have no problem
with Microsoft being the champion seller of OS's, if the
market were truely free to decide the point.
You forgot about the "guy that owns this company knows the guy at the RFID tracking system company"
angle entirely.
Not to mention the anti-trust angle on this....