The difference here is that Lucent is PROFITING from IP they stole from the inventors. There's nothing they can do while Lucent will continue to commit theft in (likely) an ongoing sole-source contract to provide connectors.
Let's look at this article again. First, it's written by a Wash Post staff writer. What's the chance that the reporter is technically literate? This is the Post, so the answer is "virtually none". I live in the DC area and read the paper.
Technology is not an area where one should expect the Post to get the facts straight. An administrator is allowed to second guess the IT system, unchallenged. "[Tut, tut,] in MY experience... UNIX hardware...". Really? Pray tell, what is UNIX hardware? (Given that it's an OS and runs on most everything.) But does the reporter pin them down? NO.
Relying on an incomplete and inaccurate source (the Post article) means that all the chest thumping here on Slashdot is pointless. We don't really KNOW what the facts are. We don't know the actual situation.
Can you run Apache on Windows? Of course you can! But there isn't enough proper information in this article to know where the problem lies. It might just be that whoever setup this system, or the administrators of it, don't have it properly configured.
Then again, this is the DC Public School system. This could very well be as big a CF as the article implies. Possibly worse.
Right. You won't *have* to buy new hardware for Vista either, provided you don't intend to use many of Vista's features. This has been documentedseveraltimesalready.
The last time I looked, textbooks did not have the same reliability problems as a PocketPC. Drop a book, scratch the cover, or step on it. It's still readable. And you can't beat it for power consumption or battery life.
How does a PDA compare?
Using a PocketPC does not make sense in the referenced environment. I don't think people really have a feel for the support system required. It's just taken for granted.
For Apple (and derivatives such as NeXTSTEP), the scolling file chooser interface can traced back at least as far as 1985 or so. Andy Hertzfeld developed an alternate version of Finder for the Macintosh called Servant. Apple purchased the rights from Andy.
I don't recall Virtual PC needing to be built into Windows to work well.
You obviously don't understand Microsoft innovation [see: marketing spin] very well. Else you would realize that there has never been anything like this. Oh, the unfettered and anticipatory rapture of the user community. Only as a symbiotic component of the operating system can such a marvelous capability be offered to the millions of Windows users. And it can be yours! Yours for the small additional sum of $129 over and above the price of the OS.
Apparently, previous legal proceedings involving such things as IE and Windows Media Player have no resonance with anyone in Redmond.
I'm looking at the hardware. The software is an entirely different thing. Yes, the decisions are separate, because I don't buy my software and hardware in a bundle any more. Haven't for many moons now.
And why exactly do you care about the hardware? Is it because of the capacity to run your software of choice (starting with the OS)? If not, then what you want is called a brick. You can find that at your local hardware store.
In reality, the hardware is only half the equation. So for those folks who prefer a small box running OS X there are limited solutions. If they want to run other operating systems there are a great deal more options at various price points.
The main point of the article was an Intel chop-shop making a knock-off Mac Mini for the purpose of loading Windows XP (the primary scenario). In that combo, they fall short. Period. (Primarily because of the OS mind you).
Other arrangements might well be better solutions, but the focal point here was the package. I'll take a *nix/BSD solution over anything that starts Win*. It just happens that I find OS X to be preferrable for my needs.
How about, "Apple bought some ideas from Xerox for millions in cash and stock?"
Bzzt. Still wrong.
The accurate statement would be that some things started at Xerox, some at Apple, and some occured simultaneously. One common thread is the late Jef Raskin. Raskin's Computer Science thesis (in 1967) took the position that computer interfaces should be graphical. Note that would be some 17 YEARS before the Mac appeared and some time before much of the work at Palo Alto.
As a professor at UCSD, Raskin was a visiting scholar at PARC where one would expect there was a bit of a mutual admiration society. Raskin and the folks at PARC were on the same wavelength. To be fair, one might wonder if the work at PARC may have owed something both to Raskin's thesis, and also to his occasional presence in the labs.
Following his move to Apple, Raskin apparently curtailed his visits to PARC. But it was Raskin who got Jobs interested in things UI and the work at PARC. For more on this, check out this article by Raskin.
You can't pick the stats that support your contention and ignore any other (rather than dealing with it). Okay, you don't like an item count. When the items are human beings, I'd say that was a pretty damned important statistic.
You might also want to consider one of the main points of any manned mission: return the crew safely. There has never been a mission where the science part of the mission outweighed that.
Try measuring the TOTAL number of astronauts that have gone into space vs. the number that have died (including instances such as Apollo 1). To be fair, consider the Russian missions as well. It's a little harder to track them because the Russian/Soviet government has not always been forthcoming about their own losses. Now as China works on their own manned missions, one hopes that they learn from American and Russian mishaps.
Please show me the trade study where you compared the benefits, risk factors and costs associated with a complex system that you know nothing about. You provide absolutely no data or reference to back up any of a number of claims.
Just for the sake of curiosity, what is the value of several human lives in comparison to a robotic system? I'm sure the astronauts would like to know what monetary value you've affixed to them.
You're thinking that one of the many fine Creative players, recommended by our Microsoft overlords, IS just a fine example of high-end circuitry? Low on THD, and high on frequency response. Certain to get a sterling review in the next installment of one of the frontline AV mags or EETimes?
Me, I think that all Microsoft cares about is that they can claim it has an FM. Even IF it turn[s] to shit in a hostile RF environment like found in many urban areas.
But in no instance is anything sold by Apple the right answer for anyone. Right?
Keep in mind that this is the Tax Dept of the State of North Carolina, not the Federal IRS. That said, it IS basically a union. It takes an intervention from a higher power to get someone fired for mere sloth. Perhaps you would find it more appalling instead to see the conditions under which folks work in the basement of the Revenue building. They don't get paid much, it's hotter than blazes in the summer in Raleigh (and humid). The employees are packed in there cheek by jowl. Oh, and the job is mind-numbing for most. Other than that, it's a regular picnic. Occassionally someone plays solitaire on their antiquated PC. And you all wonder why they're not more motivated.
As they said in the article: If someone is so bored that playing solitaire is stimulating, then the problem is not with the game, it's with the job.
So, you're in the market for an empty piece of plastic? If you want something small and functional that's not a mac, think about a capuccino or shuttle.
Intel's mockup is just another empty PC knockoff to echo Apple's work.
I was also trying to illustrate how idiotic this is. While travelling through the Loire region of France, Kurt experiences a flat in both front tires of his Citroen. He uses some online search service to look for "Pirelli sport tires".
Zut alors! Were it not for some Claude on the bench in Paris, the online search service might have been able to list a shop selling Michelins (a French brand of tires). Too bad. The result is equally damaging to French commerce.
[another poster wrote] I don't see whats unethical about this practice.
Unfortunately that is an American bias. Apparently it is illegal in some contries to compare yourself against a competitor. For example: Ford cannot compare itself to Chevy for towing capacity, milege, etc.
Unfortunately, the bias is yours. The fact that the poster failed to understand the logic in this ruling is not evidence of bias. It's more indication that this ruling by a French court against an American company operating in an international venue makes little sense. Neither does your basis in argument. Merely posting the name and URL of supposedly similar companies does NOT draw comparison on any qualitative or quantitative level. If the question is formed as who are competitors of company A, do the local authorities expect a respondant to say "I have no idea, for I have stuck my head in the sand"?
Google's action is more akin to a telephone directory. Are we to assume that the countries to which you allude have outlawed the production of directories because listing the other doctors, masons, lawyers or Andersens implies benchmarking? That's absurd.
What is the scope of this judgement rendered by a French court against an American company? What is the impact outside of France? What constitutes a French company?
1) Does this only apply if one is using www.google.fr?
2) What if you are a German citizen using www.google.com from Italy looking for local solutions? If the company you seek has an office in France, does that mean Google is barred from showing you Italian competitors?
If righthand drive were presented as an open standard, would you also castigate GM, Ford and Chrysler for continuing to sell lefthand drive vehicles?
How much should Microsoft expend to make the supporters of open source happy about such a minor format? And what is the real prospect that adding support for transparent PNGs would result in some bon mots from the denizens of slashdot?
If you want to highlight Microsoft's abuse of standards choose better examples.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference here is that Lucent is PROFITING from IP they stole from the inventors. There's nothing they can do while Lucent will continue to commit theft in (likely) an ongoing sole-source contract to provide connectors.
Perhaps the inventors should talk to someone from the Global Intellectual Property Rights Academy?
either the Post...
Considering this is the Post and DCPS, it's equally likely a combination of those possibilities.
Let's look at this article again. First, it's written by a Wash Post staff writer. What's the chance that the reporter is technically literate? This is the Post, so the answer is "virtually none". I live in the DC area and read the paper.
... UNIX hardware ...". Really? Pray tell, what is UNIX hardware? (Given that it's an OS and runs on most everything.) But does the reporter pin them down? NO.
Technology is not an area where one should expect the Post to get the facts straight. An administrator is allowed to second guess the IT system, unchallenged. "[Tut, tut,] in MY experience
Relying on an incomplete and inaccurate source (the Post article) means that all the chest thumping here on Slashdot is pointless. We don't really KNOW what the facts are. We don't know the actual situation.
Can you run Apache on Windows? Of course you can! But there isn't enough proper information in this article to know where the problem lies. It might just be that whoever setup this system, or the administrators of it, don't have it properly configured.
Then again, this is the DC Public School system. This could very well be as big a CF as the article implies. Possibly worse.
Right. You won't *have* to buy new hardware for Vista either, provided you don't intend to use many of Vista's features. This has been documented several times already.
The last time I looked, textbooks did not have the same reliability problems as a PocketPC. Drop a book, scratch the cover, or step on it. It's still readable. And you can't beat it for power consumption or battery life.
How does a PDA compare?
Using a PocketPC does not make sense in the referenced environment. I don't think people really have a feel for the support system required. It's just taken for granted.
For Apple (and derivatives such as NeXTSTEP), the scolling file chooser interface can traced back at least as far as 1985 or so. Andy Hertzfeld developed an alternate version of Finder for the Macintosh called Servant. Apple purchased the rights from Andy.
One wonders... a snip and paste, et voila!
Dell is no longer a hardware company. You're living in the past, like they have been for the last 5 years.
Think about it. They don't make their own processors, graphics cards, memory, hard drives, fans, cords, peripherals, etc.
They get companies to make this stuff for them, they package it up, and sell it for a decent profit.
Since Dell has no software development, where does your definition leave them? Either your definition has problems, or Dell does (or both).
I don't recall Virtual PC needing to be built into Windows to work well.
You obviously don't understand Microsoft innovation [see: marketing spin] very well. Else you would realize that there has never been anything like this. Oh, the unfettered and anticipatory rapture of the user community. Only as a symbiotic component of the operating system can such a marvelous capability be offered to the millions of Windows users. And it can be yours! Yours for the small additional sum of $129 over and above the price of the OS.
Apparently, previous legal proceedings involving such things as IE and Windows Media Player have no resonance with anyone in Redmond.
Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.
Translation: They will become bloody expensive.
I'm looking at the hardware. The software is an entirely different thing. Yes, the decisions are separate, because I don't buy my software and hardware in a bundle any more. Haven't for many moons now.
And why exactly do you care about the hardware? Is it because of the capacity to run your software of choice (starting with the OS)? If not, then what you want is called a brick. You can find that at your local hardware store.
In reality, the hardware is only half the equation. So for those folks who prefer a small box running OS X there are limited solutions. If they want to run other operating systems there are a great deal more options at various price points.
The main point of the article was an Intel chop-shop making a knock-off Mac Mini for the purpose of loading Windows XP (the primary scenario). In that combo, they fall short. Period. (Primarily because of the OS mind you).
Other arrangements might well be better solutions, but the focal point here was the package. I'll take a *nix/BSD solution over anything that starts Win*. It just happens that I find OS X to be preferrable for my needs.
Ah Slashdot...
Never let the facts get in the way of righteous indignation.
Can I get an "Amen" from Brother William?
How about, "Apple bought some ideas from Xerox for millions in cash and stock?"
Bzzt. Still wrong.
The accurate statement would be that some things started at Xerox, some at Apple, and some occured simultaneously. One common thread is the late Jef Raskin. Raskin's Computer Science thesis (in 1967) took the position that computer interfaces should be graphical. Note that would be some 17 YEARS before the Mac appeared and some time before much of the work at Palo Alto.
As a professor at UCSD, Raskin was a visiting scholar at PARC where one would expect there was a bit of a mutual admiration society. Raskin and the folks at PARC were on the same wavelength. To be fair, one might wonder if the work at PARC may have owed something both to Raskin's thesis, and also to his occasional presence in the labs.
Following his move to Apple, Raskin apparently curtailed his visits to PARC. But it was Raskin who got Jobs interested in things UI and the work at PARC. For more on this, check out this article by Raskin.
You can't pick the stats that support your contention and ignore any other (rather than dealing with it). Okay, you don't like an item count. When the items are human beings, I'd say that was a pretty damned important statistic.
You might also want to consider one of the main points of any manned mission: return the crew safely. There has never been a mission where the science part of the mission outweighed that.
And that would be safety.
Hopefully, they will make a decision.
Spell checker? We don't need no stinkin' spell checker!
Try measuring the TOTAL number of astronauts that have gone into space vs. the number that have died (including instances such as Apollo 1). To be fair, consider the Russian missions as well. It's a little harder to track them because the Russian/Soviet government has not always been forthcoming about their own losses. Now as China works on their own manned missions, one hopes that they learn from American and Russian mishaps.
Please show me the trade study where you compared the benefits, risk factors and costs associated with a complex system that you know nothing about. You provide absolutely no data or reference to back up any of a number of claims.
Just for the sake of curiosity, what is the value of several human lives in comparison to a robotic system? I'm sure the astronauts would like to know what monetary value you've affixed to them.
You're thinking that one of the many fine Creative players, recommended by our Microsoft overlords, IS just a fine example of high-end circuitry? Low on THD, and high on frequency response. Certain to get a sterling review in the next installment of one of the frontline AV mags or EETimes?
Me, I think that all Microsoft cares about is that they can claim it has an FM. Even IF it turn[s] to shit in a hostile RF environment like found in many urban areas.
But in no instance is anything sold by Apple the right answer for anyone. Right?
Keep in mind that this is the Tax Dept of the State of North Carolina, not the Federal IRS. That said, it IS basically a union. It takes an intervention from a higher power to get someone fired for mere sloth. Perhaps you would find it more appalling instead to see the conditions under which folks work in the basement of the Revenue building. They don't get paid much, it's hotter than blazes in the summer in Raleigh (and humid). The employees are packed in there cheek by jowl. Oh, and the job is mind-numbing for most. Other than that, it's a regular picnic. Occassionally someone plays solitaire on their antiquated PC. And you all wonder why they're not more motivated.
As they said in the article:
If someone is so bored that playing solitaire is stimulating, then the problem is not with the game, it's with the job.
So, you're in the market for an empty piece of plastic? If you want something small and functional that's not a mac, think about a capuccino or shuttle.
Intel's mockup is just another empty PC knockoff to echo Apple's work.
Firefox could use a little competition
I thought the current IE was little competition for Firefox.
I was also trying to illustrate how idiotic this is. While travelling through the Loire region of France, Kurt experiences a flat in both front tires of his Citroen. He uses some online search service to look for "Pirelli sport tires".
Zut alors! Were it not for some Claude on the bench in Paris, the online search service might have been able to list a shop selling Michelins (a French brand of tires). Too bad. The result is equally damaging to French commerce.
[another poster wrote] I don't see whats unethical about this practice.
Unfortunately that is an American bias. Apparently it is illegal in some contries to compare yourself against a competitor. For example: Ford cannot compare itself to Chevy for towing capacity, milege, etc.
Unfortunately, the bias is yours. The fact that the poster failed to understand the logic in this ruling is not evidence of bias. It's more indication that this ruling by a French court against an American company operating in an international venue makes little sense. Neither does your basis in argument. Merely posting the name and URL of supposedly similar companies does NOT draw comparison on any qualitative or quantitative level. If the question is formed as who are competitors of company A, do the local authorities expect a respondant to say "I have no idea, for I have stuck my head in the sand"?
Google's action is more akin to a telephone directory. Are we to assume that the countries to which you allude have outlawed the production of directories because listing the other doctors, masons, lawyers or Andersens implies benchmarking? That's absurd.
What is the scope of this judgement rendered by a French court against an American company? What is the impact outside of France? What constitutes a French company?
1) Does this only apply if one is using www.google.fr?
2) What if you are a German citizen using www.google.com from Italy looking for local solutions? If the company you seek has an office in France, does that mean Google is barred from showing you Italian competitors?
If righthand drive were presented as an open standard, would you also castigate GM, Ford and Chrysler for continuing to sell lefthand drive vehicles?
How much should Microsoft expend to make the supporters of open source happy about such a minor format? And what is the real prospect that adding support for transparent PNGs would result in some bon mots from the denizens of slashdot?
If you want to highlight Microsoft's abuse of standards choose better examples.
(P.S. - note that the link they used for "here" doesn't even work. /.ed maybe?)
www.atsc-army.org/...
I'm thinking that it's more likely that the Army doesn't use ".org". ".mil" works well, but ".org" isn't going to get you diddly.