You are right, of course, that a T1 is more reliable than an ADSL line, though your characterization is a bit harsh IMO. Never-the-less, my 3Mbit ADSL line is more than adequate to supply the needs of a personal SMTP server, which was my point to begin with.
any dynamic IP must belong to a spammer, as there's obviously no use for someone to be running his/her own SMTP server on a lowly dialup or cable connection.
Not directed at PygmySurfer who seems about right, but the underlying idea and that particular phrasing kind of rub me wrong.
Plenty of folks would benefit by running their own servers so that they can protect their own privacy, or at least have that much more control over their own communications. (compare: whereas once $30 telephone answering machines were popular, people now pay $5++ a month for the "service" version of the same bloody thing. Except it is not the same: their messages are stored by a third-party instead of privately.)
It wasn't too long ago ('93) that I worked in an office of over 200 people whose email (and other net needs) were supplied by dual 64k lines. My "lowly" dialup is an ADSL connection that does better than T1 speeds.
"Some prefer subsidized open source, whereby they work corporate jobs and contribute/moonlight on the side. Many others, including us at JBoss, prefer the 'Professional Open Source' model, whereby it is our job to work on open source and free software all day long, all the time"
How many people does he think he needs to insult to be successful? Those of us who do "moonlight"--are we less professional because we DONATE our time to free software projects? With any luck, guys like this will be ignored, as they deserve to be and the thinly veiled corporate enterprise they try to stick on us will be openly shown to the whole world. Then again, who can believe he has any credibility now?
Is it any surprise that he is a Java guy? He's following in Gosling's footsteps, after all and we all know that RMS wrote the GPL just because Gosling was an ass who wouldn't share back patches on software he got for free.
JBoss--what a bunch of useless cruft. Hey, Marc, enjoy your 15 minutes dude, it seems to mean a lot to you.
Hopefully, you will be modded down as a troll because you insult someone while using Anonymous Coward as your shield. Please, no more pulpit speeches from unknown persons. By-the-way, the public record of AST's comments are more insightful, thoughtful, generous and humble than your little cowardly barrage.
No, the bush thing is my tagline, the thoughtcrime comment was the post... and i've got karma to burn:)
So lessee, you put your tagline before your comment; your entire comment is only related to your so-called tagline; you complain about your moderation of your strange post; you top it off by claiming that you have 'karma' to burn after-all.
Your original post wasn't funny, but your Kramer-esque process is hilarious!! I wouldn't reply except for the fact that you took your own self so seriously. Well, seriously then, your joke wasn't funny, and I'm not commenting on its content but rather judging it only on comedic value. It just plain had nothing humourous going for it. Like Orwell references have ever bust anyone's gut...
Asides from you indicating (at least) a 50% increase in price, there is the economies of scale to consider. That Atari 2600 cartidge you refer to did not have 100 million+ potential customers. Further, the available technology was far more expensive at the time those older games were made. The marginal cost of game production has likely gone DOWN since those early years, even though overall budgets are staggeringly higher.
The potential payoffs today are far higher than in the past and that is what helps mitigates the risk. Unfortunately, like Hollywood, this means that the money lenders will back 9 dogs for every classic because on average, at least 1 of those 9 dogs will have a decent return. Have you noticed how front-loaded box-office receipts are? The make or break for movies is now the first 2-3 weeks after release. This is staggeringly different than what was prevalant even 10 years ago. The cost of creating games is not the issue: it is the cost of marketing games and spending money on many games knowing that only a few will be successful (the others big money losers) that most affect the price of games. The price of a game you buy (at least from a large producer) includes the cost of their failed projects as well as the cost to create the game.
Does anyone find the underlying argument of the article as amusing as I do? It seems to suggest that higher prices for consumer games is a benefit to game buyers. For shame. There are well known economic principles that help explain the aggregation of capital interests. This is not something unique to game producers or software developers. The idea that "piracy" is the driving force behind this phenomena is simply a layman reaction. Commentors like the one in that article ought do at least some preliminary study on the topics they pontificate on, lest they prove that outside of their domain of study, they are blabering idiots.
>> BeOS proved that generally speaking, Windows users aren't interested in switching to another OS, even if it's far superior to what they have
That takes me back:) With all due respect, BeOS was *never* superior to windows. The post you replied to suggested an OS experience geared towards users, not gear-heads. BeOS had a nice (but incomplete) object-oriented design. Other than that it missed the target pretty much all-around. Asides from its complete lack of user software, it was buggy (crashed when the wind blew), had virtually no drivers for even popular hardware, limited network and security, and even Cygwin boasts better Posix compliance. In an attempt to be different for difference sake, the UI was almost completely unusable and made simple tasks far harder than they needed to be while introducing strange new concepts that did not add anything to the experience. On top of it all, it was nearly as expensive as Windows and was equally closed-sourced.
From day one, BeOS was basically an OS for hobbyist programmers and I seriously doubt that any other type of user ever considered it for personal use. I completely agree that it was a fun toy to have (I bought every PC version shipped) and hack on, but really, it was not better than the mainstream alternatives--particularly for the average user.
Don't allow BeOS's mistakes to insinuate the idea that Windows users can not be migrated to a FREE operating system.
Just read the your reply that you posted as an Anonymous Coward (as if we didn't already know that about you). Nice of you to prove my point--you are an outcast and so shall you stay. At least be decent enough to not stoop to AC bullshit. Coward.
I never implied that I follow dumb links or can't tell the difference between legit and illegitimate mail--you obviously think yourself a bit better than everyone else, despite the fact that you put your own words into other's mouths.
I continue to contest your made-up assumption that I and every other "individual" (as you say) who uses email has should have to deal with spam simply because you think it is trivial to do so.
By-the-way, your name calling doesn't particularly bother me -- you have to understand that just because YOU say something, that does not make it true. That goes for your original post and certainly for your remarks towards me.
Anyways, no need to aplogize as no offence is taken--I actually feel sympathy for you. Life is hard for those who are not mannered enough to act with civility towards others. You may not realize it, but the people online are as real as the people in your everyday life. I can only hope that offline you are not as egregious.
>> Is it too damn hard to hit the check box and hit delete? Leave it to slashdotters to find needlessly complicated solutions to idiotically simple problems
Actually, it is too hard. Particularly when spammers flasify subjects, senders, reply-to's, etc. Who are you to decide how hard it is?
>> Keeping in mind I am referring to an individual user, and not a company, which may otherwise spend lots of money on bandwidth, lost work, et cetera.
Oh, so its not okay for companies to deal with spam, but its okay for individuals? You are not nice. Not nice at all. And your patronizing tone is very unwelcome.
The benefit of something like Access is that it has basic visual tools for diagramming and modelling while still supporting a robust SQL syntax. The downside is obvious: it is just another means to tie people to proprietary and otherwise non-free software systems.
Perhaps you can explain to your uppers that something like SQLite will do the job just as easily, for less money and more portably. Also, free tools already exist for SQLite that mimic several of visual features of Access.
FWIW, this is how we were taught the fundamentals of databases in university.
1) learn the history of data management starting with file management 2) learn how data structures can be encoded 3) learn techniques for accessing encoded data 4) learn efficient means to encode data structures in files 5) learn additional methods for management of said data 6) implement our own database manager
That was a 2nd year course from about 10 or so years ago. The only db software used in that course, we had to develop ourselves. I learnt a lot in that course.
Sure, you can start right at the modelling stage but then it doesn't matter as much which tools you use. Entity diagrams, normalization, indexing, sql -- these are all general. What does it matter what tools you use? For me that question all comes down to this: particularly in educational settings, the software used should be free--in every way.
>> it recognizes the IP of objects created in its virtual world.
Funny. Considering how poorly and how contentious "IP" concerns are in the real-world, can anyone really expect a game company to do a better job? Doesn't this just sound like yet another reason for kids to get hold of credit cards, legally or not?
> With not much SCO news today, it seemed that this story was needed
Why exactly do we need another SCO story? Best thing is to let them die of inexposure. Slashdot has already overcovered them and any publicity for them, good or bad, shouldn't come from our hands at this point.
Its fun to play the numbers game, particularly when facts are hard to come by. Hey, aren't all PC on the internet now?:)
AFAIK, the only Windows OS that had significant commercial numbers (as a % compared to OEM sales) is 98, mainly because of pent up demand from unsatisfied 95 users. It should be noted that sales of newer OS versions typically mean the consequential "retiring" of an older version of the OS, so the advent of 98 drove 95 users to near zero. The same trend continues, so adding total historical sales numbers has little do with the current makeup of OS usage.
MS's bread and butter has long been OEM sales -- indeed, at least the first anti-trust suit highlighted this fact. I do think you underestimate the number of W2K installations, though -- even if "only" used in business (perhaps MS's best customers, recall) which is not true as all of the big vendors offered W2K on their desktops and notebooks and obviously not all of those were going to be for corporate.
Anyhow, its been nice trading comments with you:) Greetings!
majority of PCs out there ARE running Windows 95 or Windows 98/98SE.
Naw. Its XP now, at least according to this assessment based on web stats. But there sure are a lot of 98 installations still out there, I must admit.
There never was a Linux 1.4
Yup. Typo, sorry. I meant 1.3, which was the last one I installed on my veritable (but *ahem* retired) 386, way back when.
But I agree with everything else you posted.
>> Last time I checked a mojority of PeeeCeees still ran 98 or even 95
So when did you last check? In 1999? You are wrong, mistaken and misrepresent the facts.
>> Windows 98 won't work on newer hardware with a clock speed that's too high
Well, funny thing, my version of linux 1.4 doesn't work that well with my new hardware--oh but wait, I'm supported with a new version. Of course windows 98 doesn't work on the new machines--its 20 year old technology.
It is HILARIOUS that you rebuff the previous poster with "You don't really question the reason this is happening" yet you don't even spend a SINGLE WORD to clue anyone in. I think the original poster probably knew what was beneath this and you simply took it out of context.
Your ultimate solution (install linux) is good, but you take an egregious path to get there, friend.
The big news is not 98 being retired, but instead SQL7 and Office 2K. Once again MS is shooting their customers and a big thanks to those aholes at that other evil company, Sun, for giving them the bullets to do it. It is dirty and underhanded, no matter how you look at it.
It has to do with the GPL. As part of their defense, IBM claims that SCO's claims are rubbish from the get-go because SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. If the GPL holds up in court, SCO will have a very hard time blaming IBM for distributing the same code that SCO has been distributing.
So what? In what way does that implicate RMS? Recall, it is SCO that issued those subpeanas, not IBM. What are they going to ask him, if he wrote the GPL? What else could they ask? The fact is that either the GPL stands the test of a legal challenge or not--but that has nothing to do with the person who brought the GPL into existence.
SCO is once again playing the FUD card while trying to actively sabotage the free-software movement. Asides from disrupting the movement, their intention is obviously to try to color the perception of those in the jury (and perhaps press) by calling people whom, to "normal society" look rather anti-establishment--particularly RMS who really has no stake in this whatsoever. I'm sure they are thinking, "wait'll they get a load of THIS guy".
And shame on the folks bad-mouthing RMS. He's EARNED the respect of all of you mopes even if he doesn't fit the usual mold of a sociable character. If we all contributed as much as RMS has, we'd be living in paradise. The only one who comes close to being able to criticize RMS is Linus--and even he doesn't get that pass. Its no surprise though. The ones who fight for our liberation are usually the first against the wall.
It is different. Apple sells the hardware, too. Microsoft is trying to shift the rest of the industry by locking up the current "open" hardware that is currently available.
Sorry, perhaps my tone was off. Still, is my "sound legal" any different than a post that starts with IANAL? I guess its just me as I don't see much point in IANAL disclaimers. I simply assume that unless stated otherwise.
There's a reason not every search engine is considered the same. Try a simple search for a popular item. I searched for "PHP" on the three sites you mentioned. The top returned results are as follows:
Google:
- top result: php.net
- 2nd place was php.net/downloads
AllTheWeb:
- top result: Hands-On PHP Training - 4 days $1695 (also ranked #10 on Turbo10, but not ranked in the top 20 at Google) -- oops, that is a sponsored link, but in AllTheWeb's default view, it looks like a normal link. php.net is actually ranked #1, but it appears 4th in the list of available links.
Turbo10:
- will not provide ANY results without Javascript turned on (BOO!)
- top result: GBF Masonry Cleaning Services..Stone Cleaning
- php.net ranked 5
Draw your own conclusions, but meta-search engines existed prior to Google yet even at its launch it excelled over them in terms of provision of relevant links. It appears that it still does. At least for a first pass:)
I suspect that one of the reasons that Google can bring higher quality links to the forefront is that being #1, they have a wider and more generous revenue base and therefore don't have to be as generous to "paying patrons" *cough cough*.
Another problem is that meta engines have to mix "high-quality" results (say from Google) with lower quality results (say from some dippy paid for advertising search engine).
ii) a bunch of lawyers finally wiggle some money out of microsoft
iii) Lindows (oh, THOSE guys) try to extract the settlement money by allowing it to be exchanged for their product--ostensibly, the free Debian OS with thier proprietary packaging.
iv) microsoft cries foul and, trying to take the good guy approach, says that not only is Lindows playing dirty ball, they are taking money out of the school system with their tactics
SO:
1) microsoft SCREWS YOU (they disagree--no one forced you to BUY that product from them)
2) microsoft is ordered to pay you back (they actually cast this as a magnanimous gesture on their part to fund schools)
3) if you agree to get paid back, then accroding to microsoft you are TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM KIDS
4) Lindows tries to look the good guy by giving you a FREE COMPUTER (but wait, the settlement amount couldn't cover THAT cost)
They didn't seem to comment on resolution, but the suggestion seems to be that it is at least as good as traditional print. It seems fair to assume that optical mixing will come with their method just as it does in traditional print. Optical mixing may also explain the claims in regard to intensity and brightness.
awesome--nearly 200 posts in and I'm the first to mention that AIR is a complete parady and send-up, even if it accidently contains truths here and there. Quoting or picking up a story from AIR is like picking up a story from the Onion. sheesh.
The originial poster probably knew that and is just having us on, it being monday and all.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, of course, that a T1 is more reliable than an ADSL line, though your characterization is a bit harsh IMO. Never-the-less, my 3Mbit ADSL line is more than adequate to supply the needs of a personal SMTP server, which was my point to begin with.
Cheers!
Not directed at PygmySurfer who seems about right, but the underlying idea and that particular phrasing kind of rub me wrong.
Plenty of folks would benefit by running their own servers so that they can protect their own privacy, or at least have that much more control over their own communications. (compare: whereas once $30 telephone answering machines were popular, people now pay $5++ a month for the "service" version of the same bloody thing. Except it is not the same: their messages are stored by a third-party instead of privately.)
It wasn't too long ago ('93) that I worked in an office of over 200 people whose email (and other net needs) were supplied by dual 64k lines. My "lowly" dialup is an ADSL connection that does better than T1 speeds.
cheers
Can you believe this guy? He says things like:
"Some prefer subsidized open source, whereby they work corporate jobs and contribute/moonlight on the side. Many others, including us at JBoss, prefer the 'Professional Open Source' model, whereby it is our job to work on open source and free software all day long, all the time"
How many people does he think he needs to insult to be successful? Those of us who do "moonlight"--are we less professional because we DONATE our time to free software projects? With any luck, guys like this will be ignored, as they deserve to be and the thinly veiled corporate enterprise they try to stick on us will be openly shown to the whole world. Then again, who can believe he has any credibility now?
Is it any surprise that he is a Java guy? He's following in Gosling's footsteps, after all and we all know that RMS wrote the GPL just because Gosling was an ass who wouldn't share back patches on software he got for free.
JBoss--what a bunch of useless cruft. Hey, Marc, enjoy your 15 minutes dude, it seems to mean a lot to you.
Hopefully, you will be modded down as a troll because you insult someone while using Anonymous Coward as your shield. Please, no more pulpit speeches from unknown persons. By-the-way, the public record of AST's comments are more insightful, thoughtful, generous and humble than your little cowardly barrage.
So lessee, you put your tagline before your comment; your entire comment is only related to your so-called tagline; you complain about your moderation of your strange post; you top it off by claiming that you have 'karma' to burn after-all.
Your original post wasn't funny, but your Kramer-esque process is hilarious!! I wouldn't reply except for the fact that you took your own self so seriously. Well, seriously then, your joke wasn't funny, and I'm not commenting on its content but rather judging it only on comedic value. It just plain had nothing humourous going for it. Like Orwell references have ever bust anyone's gut...
Greets!
Explain the movie industry, then ;)
Asides from you indicating (at least) a 50% increase in price, there is the economies of scale to consider. That Atari 2600 cartidge you refer to did not have 100 million+ potential customers. Further, the available technology was far more expensive at the time those older games were made. The marginal cost of game production has likely gone DOWN since those early years, even though overall budgets are staggeringly higher.
The potential payoffs today are far higher than in the past and that is what helps mitigates the risk. Unfortunately, like Hollywood, this means that the money lenders will back 9 dogs for every classic because on average, at least 1 of those 9 dogs will have a decent return. Have you noticed how front-loaded box-office receipts are? The make or break for movies is now the first 2-3 weeks after release. This is staggeringly different than what was prevalant even 10 years ago. The cost of creating games is not the issue: it is the cost of marketing games and spending money on many games knowing that only a few will be successful (the others big money losers) that most affect the price of games. The price of a game you buy (at least from a large producer) includes the cost of their failed projects as well as the cost to create the game.
Does anyone find the underlying argument of the article as amusing as I do? It seems to suggest that higher prices for consumer games is a benefit to game buyers. For shame. There are well known economic principles that help explain the aggregation of capital interests. This is not something unique to game producers or software developers. The idea that "piracy" is the driving force behind this phenomena is simply a layman reaction. Commentors like the one in that article ought do at least some preliminary study on the topics they pontificate on, lest they prove that outside of their domain of study, they are blabering idiots.
>> BeOS proved that generally speaking, Windows users aren't interested in switching to another OS, even if it's far superior to what they have
:) With all due respect, BeOS was *never* superior to windows. The post you replied to suggested an OS experience geared towards users, not gear-heads. BeOS had a nice (but incomplete) object-oriented design. Other than that it missed the target pretty much all-around. Asides from its complete lack of user software, it was buggy (crashed when the wind blew), had virtually no drivers for even popular hardware, limited network and security, and even Cygwin boasts better Posix compliance. In an attempt to be different for difference sake, the UI was almost completely unusable and made simple tasks far harder than they needed to be while introducing strange new concepts that did not add anything to the experience. On top of it all, it was nearly as expensive as Windows and was equally closed-sourced.
That takes me back
From day one, BeOS was basically an OS for hobbyist programmers and I seriously doubt that any other type of user ever considered it for personal use. I completely agree that it was a fun toy to have (I bought every PC version shipped) and hack on, but really, it was not better than the mainstream alternatives--particularly for the average user.
Don't allow BeOS's mistakes to insinuate the idea that Windows users can not be migrated to a FREE operating system.
Best regards.
Just read the your reply that you posted as an Anonymous Coward (as if we didn't already know that about you). Nice of you to prove my point--you are an outcast and so shall you stay. At least be decent enough to not stoop to AC bullshit. Coward.
Thanks for your reply, as insulting as it is.
I never implied that I follow dumb links or can't tell the difference between legit and illegitimate mail--you obviously think yourself a bit better than everyone else, despite the fact that you put your own words into other's mouths.
I continue to contest your made-up assumption that I and every other "individual" (as you say) who uses email has should have to deal with spam simply because you think it is trivial to do so.
By-the-way, your name calling doesn't particularly bother me -- you have to understand that just because YOU say something, that does not make it true. That goes for your original post and certainly for your remarks towards me.
Anyways, no need to aplogize as no offence is taken--I actually feel sympathy for you. Life is hard for those who are not mannered enough to act with civility towards others. You may not realize it, but the people online are as real as the people in your everyday life. I can only hope that offline you are not as egregious.
>> Is it too damn hard to hit the check box and hit delete? Leave it to slashdotters to find needlessly complicated solutions to idiotically simple problems
Actually, it is too hard. Particularly when spammers flasify subjects, senders, reply-to's, etc. Who are you to decide how hard it is?
>> Keeping in mind I am referring to an individual user, and not a company, which may otherwise spend lots of money on bandwidth, lost work, et cetera.
Oh, so its not okay for companies to deal with spam, but its okay for individuals? You are not nice. Not nice at all. And your patronizing tone is very unwelcome.
The benefit of something like Access is that it has basic visual tools for diagramming and modelling while still supporting a robust SQL syntax. The downside is obvious: it is just another means to tie people to proprietary and otherwise non-free software systems.
Perhaps you can explain to your uppers that something like SQLite will do the job just as easily, for less money and more portably. Also, free tools already exist for SQLite that mimic several of visual features of Access.
FWIW, this is how we were taught the fundamentals of databases in university.
1) learn the history of data management starting with file management
2) learn how data structures can be encoded
3) learn techniques for accessing encoded data
4) learn efficient means to encode data structures in files
5) learn additional methods for management of said data
6) implement our own database manager
That was a 2nd year course from about 10 or so years ago. The only db software used in that course, we had to develop ourselves. I learnt a lot in that course.
Sure, you can start right at the modelling stage but then it doesn't matter as much which tools you use. Entity diagrams, normalization, indexing, sql -- these are all general. What does it matter what tools you use? For me that question all comes down to this: particularly in educational settings, the software used should be free--in every way.
>> it recognizes the IP of objects created in its virtual world.
Funny. Considering how poorly and how contentious "IP" concerns are in the real-world, can anyone really expect a game company to do a better job? Doesn't this just sound like yet another reason for kids to get hold of credit cards, legally or not?
Will be interesting to see how this evolves.
> With not much SCO news today, it seemed that this story was needed
Why exactly do we need another SCO story? Best thing is to let them die of inexposure. Slashdot has already overcovered them and any publicity for them, good or bad, shouldn't come from our hands at this point.
Its fun to play the numbers game, particularly when facts are hard to come by. Hey, aren't all PC on the internet now? :)
:) Greetings!
AFAIK, the only Windows OS that had significant commercial numbers (as a % compared to OEM sales) is 98, mainly because of pent up demand from unsatisfied 95 users. It should be noted that sales of newer OS versions typically mean the consequential "retiring" of an older version of the OS, so the advent of 98 drove 95 users to near zero. The same trend continues, so adding total historical sales numbers has little do with the current makeup of OS usage.
MS's bread and butter has long been OEM sales -- indeed, at least the first anti-trust suit highlighted this fact. I do think you underestimate the number of W2K installations, though -- even if "only" used in business (perhaps MS's best customers, recall) which is not true as all of the big vendors offered W2K on their desktops and notebooks and obviously not all of those were going to be for corporate.
Anyhow, its been nice trading comments with you
Naw. Its XP now, at least according to this assessment based on web stats. But there sure are a lot of 98 installations still out there, I must admit.
There never was a Linux 1.4
Yup. Typo, sorry. I meant 1.3, which was the last one I installed on my veritable (but *ahem* retired) 386, way back when. But I agree with everything else you posted.
>> Last time I checked a mojority of PeeeCeees still ran 98 or even 95
So when did you last check? In 1999? You are wrong, mistaken and misrepresent the facts.
>> Windows 98 won't work on newer hardware with a clock speed that's too high
Well, funny thing, my version of linux 1.4 doesn't work that well with my new hardware--oh but wait, I'm supported with a new version. Of course windows 98 doesn't work on the new machines--its 20 year old technology.
It is HILARIOUS that you rebuff the previous poster with "You don't really question the reason this is happening" yet you don't even spend a SINGLE WORD to clue anyone in. I think the original poster probably knew what was beneath this and you simply took it out of context.
Your ultimate solution (install linux) is good, but you take an egregious path to get there, friend.
The big news is not 98 being retired, but instead SQL7 and Office 2K. Once again MS is shooting their customers and a big thanks to those aholes at that other evil company, Sun, for giving them the bullets to do it. It is dirty and underhanded, no matter how you look at it.
So what? In what way does that implicate RMS? Recall, it is SCO that issued those subpeanas, not IBM. What are they going to ask him, if he wrote the GPL? What else could they ask? The fact is that either the GPL stands the test of a legal challenge or not--but that has nothing to do with the person who brought the GPL into existence.
SCO is once again playing the FUD card while trying to actively sabotage the free-software movement. Asides from disrupting the movement, their intention is obviously to try to color the perception of those in the jury (and perhaps press) by calling people whom, to "normal society" look rather anti-establishment--particularly RMS who really has no stake in this whatsoever. I'm sure they are thinking, "wait'll they get a load of THIS guy".
And shame on the folks bad-mouthing RMS. He's EARNED the respect of all of you mopes even if he doesn't fit the usual mold of a sociable character. If we all contributed as much as RMS has, we'd be living in paradise. The only one who comes close to being able to criticize RMS is Linus--and even he doesn't get that pass. Its no surprise though. The ones who fight for our liberation are usually the first against the wall.
Peace.
It is different. Apple sells the hardware, too. Microsoft is trying to shift the rest of the industry by locking up the current "open" hardware that is currently available.
Sorry, perhaps my tone was off. Still, is my "sound legal" any different than a post that starts with IANAL? I guess its just me as I don't see much point in IANAL disclaimers. I simply assume that unless stated otherwise.
Cheers, though!
Are you a lawyer or not? That doesn't sound legal at all, despite the wording.
There's a reason not every search engine is considered the same. Try a simple search for a popular item. I searched for "PHP" on the three sites you mentioned. The top returned results are as follows:
:)
Google:
- top result: php.net
- 2nd place was php.net/downloads
AllTheWeb:
- top result: Hands-On PHP Training - 4 days $1695 (also ranked #10 on Turbo10, but not ranked in the top 20 at Google) -- oops, that is a sponsored link, but in AllTheWeb's default view, it looks like a normal link. php.net is actually ranked #1, but it appears 4th in the list of available links.
Turbo10:
- will not provide ANY results without Javascript turned on (BOO!)
- top result: GBF Masonry Cleaning Services..Stone Cleaning
- php.net ranked 5
Draw your own conclusions, but meta-search engines existed prior to Google yet even at its launch it excelled over them in terms of provision of relevant links. It appears that it still does. At least for a first pass
I suspect that one of the reasons that Google can bring higher quality links to the forefront is that being #1, they have a wider and more generous revenue base and therefore don't have to be as generous to "paying patrons" *cough cough*.
Another problem is that meta engines have to mix "high-quality" results (say from Google) with lower quality results (say from some dippy paid for advertising search engine).
i) microsoft screws a bunch of people
ii) a bunch of lawyers finally wiggle some money out of microsoft
iii) Lindows (oh, THOSE guys) try to extract the settlement money by allowing it to be exchanged for their product--ostensibly, the free Debian OS with thier proprietary packaging.
iv) microsoft cries foul and, trying to take the good guy approach, says that not only is Lindows playing dirty ball, they are taking money out of the school system with their tactics
SO:
1) microsoft SCREWS YOU (they disagree--no one forced you to BUY that product from them)
2) microsoft is ordered to pay you back (they actually cast this as a magnanimous gesture on their part to fund schools)
3) if you agree to get paid back, then accroding to microsoft you are TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM KIDS
4) Lindows tries to look the good guy by giving you a FREE COMPUTER (but wait, the settlement amount couldn't cover THAT cost)
Who says we ever left the Jungle, people?
They didn't seem to comment on resolution, but the suggestion seems to be that it is at least as good as traditional print. It seems fair to assume that optical mixing will come with their method just as it does in traditional print. Optical mixing may also explain the claims in regard to intensity and brightness.
awesome--nearly 200 posts in and I'm the first to mention that AIR is a complete parady and send-up, even if it accidently contains truths here and there. Quoting or picking up a story from AIR is like picking up a story from the Onion. sheesh.
The originial poster probably knew that and is just having us on, it being monday and all.