"There is no way that you can get there with Apple. The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next-generation video device," he said."
Hell man, it took M$ about 30 years of development, just to re-invent a TV set, that was invented... surprisingly, over 60 years ago... nuff more said.
Ok, so the taiwanesian engeneers do not fiddle around with all that, just to crack some keys... they just build a legacy computer right from the scratch, without hardware support for TC.
It might be illeagl to buy such a computer in the US, but who cares... hey, it's just the US and not the entire world.
Regarding MSSQL client tools... Do you think, that there are more client tools out there, for less databases? I would rather expect the number of clienttools per databaseserver is more or less constant and independent from the database vendor.
"Indeed. How are people supposed to take Linux seriously when a very large (and very vocal) linux-friendly community uses such childish imagery to describe their competitors. If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker."
Well, it looks like microsofts "the grown up" is FUD...
"Which wouldn't be an issue if the pilot had an H&K MP5 under the steering wheel. You want to take this plane, fine, try getting through my 9mm rounds, 3 at a time.
People without weapons are no match for two people trained in the use of a high-powered sub machine gun, especially along a narrow point of entry (cockpit door)."
LOL, yes 4 sure, all we need are just bigger weapons, than any terrorist could have...
Can you explain me, what happens if the pilot turns away from his cockpit to shoot a terrorist with his 9mm rounds 3 @ a time?
I'll tell you, the pilot will make one direct and deadly hit, his second round will go straigt through the terrorists leg hitting either a stewardess or passenger deadly and his third round will entirely miss everyone, but hit straight through the planes hull. Oh, maybe the second or first bullet will go through the hull, doen't really matter.
Now can you moron explain me at least, what happens @ 10k feet height if you shoot through the hull?... yes of course, our superman hero pilot will have no troubles he'll just blow the smoke from his gun, puts it back into his holster and turns back to his cockpit, sees that the plain has lost pressure and the plain is stalling... no problem, he'll regain control of his machine withing a few seconds...
HARHARHAR... I'll suppose that suicide terrorism will never be more easy then ever before... just enter a plan, knock down the stewardess with your fists, no need for the terrorist to take weapons on board, just try to enter the cockpit, the captain will do the rest for the terrorists!
If you don't have to care about your environment, you save time!
If your app just works as it is on another environment, more users are able to use it.
Of course you can reach the same goal with./configure, but it does not realy matter how to reach that goal... except perhaps, that a generalized soulution is preferable over an solution for an individual app.
#IFDEF SOLARIS is nice, but not a general solution,./configure is nicer since it is more generalized, but come on compliance with another systems specification is the smoothest way to reach the goal of plattform-independency!
There is no better solution than this, to guarantee, that an application programmer can fully concentrate on his task and not fidle around with differences between different systems at any time!./configure is more a workaround than a solution, but compliance to system-standards is a solution!
"There's prior art on that joke, it's come up in every patent story for the last 3 years on slashdot. It's really worn out."
Ah, really?
Perhaps "the joke I made" is not the original joke. You'll find "my joke" between the grandparent post, and _both_ of my sentences.
And really, you continue that joke... the joke is, that the crowd on/. and the OSS can't come up with something clever enough, worth being patented, they can't even come up with something new.
"Yes it makes it stiffles the market for open source software but it gives the person that came up with the idea a fair shot of making money out of it. "
Err... didn't you read that other story on/. this day?
You mean, it gives the employer of the man that came up with an idea a shot to make money out of it!
"Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return."
Yes, that's what happens with US IP laws, just read the other story...
"... let me assure you that a reasonable proprietary rights agreement signed by all the developers at the company is essential..."
The question is just what is "reasonable"?
The US IP laws are everything else than resonable!
"The company is paying cash money to the employee to do 'work-for-hire'. Unless otherwise arranged, the company should own the resulting work."
You're of course right with that, however an employer that defines "creating ideas" as the work is just a fool, because there is no way, to find out what ideas an employee has had, until he will tell about them. Additionally noone realy can work on "ideas", ideas come to someones mind on occasion... or they do not.
Are you as an employer sure, that you know what you are paying for? You are actually paying for something, you can never ever control and aou will never have any means to claim what you have paid for, unless your employee is willing to cooperate with you. (As in this case Brown did for a while)
The author of the article just didn't get the difference between free as in beer and free as in freedom. That's why the whole article from the first line to the last one is just rubbish!
"we all know that the UN had the best interests at stake with their corruption in the oil for food program"
We all know should mean, all we US citizens?/sarcasm... and we, all the people from the rest of the world know, that the US had the bests interessts in their "oil for the US programm"/sarcasm off
"This should have happened a long time ago, though. Somehow, they just keep spinning themselves a halfway decent rep."
Not realy, because a "long time ago" there was not realy an alternative, that was even halfway on par with MS. (To be fair even today alterntives (namely GNU/Linux) are not on par in all aspects, mainly usability, "feature richness" and drivers.)
One can't expect anything to harm their reputation, if there is nothing, that could offer something close to their products. Everything that "should" have harmed their reputation could easily be talked away with an: "So what, can you even imagine someone doing as good as we (MS) do(es)?"
That's how they were able to keep up their reputation. Somehow the basis for keeping up their reputation, that "doing best of all", is missing. They have a much harder time recently to defend their reputation, because their realy is software for a couple of things, that does not have to hide behind their MS counterparts.
"How is killing military personnel of an (at that time) peaceful country somehow morally more acceptable than killing civilians?"
I did not say one or the other is morally more acceptable, what I have said is, that I consider the later one as a crime of war and massmurder!
But you asked about something "morally acceptable" in both actions. Really, neither is morally acceptable, but one is even worse than the other.
Besides the importance of reasons to attack other people, there is a "morale difference" in attacking military personel and civilians. One can (and should be prepared) to defend and the other can not (and is not prepared to) defend.
You might consider this "not so important", but it realy is of immense importance, because:
Attacking civilians is what I and most people call terrorism, no ifs and buts!
Is your definition of terrorism, that different from mine?
Besides that, I do not think that, you realy want to "morally equal" 2395 death (54 of them civilians) in Pearl Harbour and hundrets of thousands of death in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"You mean the nauseating and tired "Just another reason to use Mozilla" comments that brew from them?"
No, that's actually not what I mean.
If you look up my first post in this thread, I think that nothing realy would help, because most people will not upgrade/change their software, once it is installed on their computer.
Regardless how well or appealing any comercial for a browser would be, it won't catch many people, if at all. Most likely money spent on comercials is wasted.
It is nearly impossible to pursuade people to throw away something the already own and replace it something else. That holds true for _any_ product in _any_ market. Not only the new product would need to be way ahead of the old one, there also needs to be a common perception, that the new one is ahead!
You are right, there is the common perception, that Mozilla (or any other browser) is behind IE. There is little chance that one can change that perception with comercials, that praise how well Mozilla is. (The first question arising from such comercials would be, is that realy true?!) However undeniable "facts" in news like the ones about viruses/exploits show, that IE is probably not ahead of other browsers!
A marketing campaign to chance common perceptions is nearly impossible (try to change common perceptions about a Mercedes-Benz;) but such news might change this over some time.
Currently news about exploits/viruses in IE are realy the most efficent "commercials", IMHO... although I might have missed a change in common perceptions.;)
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no way that you can get there with Apple. The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next-generation video device," he said."
... surprisingly, over 60 years ago ... nuff more said.
Hell man, it took M$ about 30 years of development, just to re-invent a TV set, that was invented
Ok, so the taiwanesian engeneers do not fiddle around with all that, just to crack some keys
It might be illeagl to buy such a computer in the US, but who cares
Regarding MSSQL client tools
Do you think, that there are more client tools out there, for less databases? I would rather expect the number of clienttools per databaseserver is more or less constant and independent from the database vendor.
Ok, I was serious, now it's time for jioking
Ah, I just forgot, MS-ware needs more admins
Hm
Recent news on
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/13/224
Harhar, nice idea
We take some of these spam viruses and modify them, to spam mp3 in attachments, whatever mp3 they find on an infected computer they spam.
Oh, they don't want us to buy 2 players, they just want us to buy a new player every 2 or 3 years.
"Indeed. How are people supposed to take Linux seriously when a very large (and very vocal) linux-friendly community uses such childish imagery to describe their competitors. If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker."
Well, it looks like microsofts "the grown up" is FUD...
"Which wouldn't be an issue if the pilot had an H&K MP5 under the steering wheel. You want to take this plane, fine, try getting through my 9mm rounds, 3 at a time.
...
... yes of course, our superman hero pilot will have no troubles he'll just blow the smoke from his gun, puts it back into his holster and turns back to his cockpit, sees that the plain has lost pressure and the plain is stalling ... no problem, he'll regain control of his machine withing a few seconds ...
... I'll suppose that suicide terrorism will never be more easy then ever before ... just enter a plan, knock down the stewardess with your fists, no need for the terrorist to take weapons on board, just try to enter the cockpit, the captain will do the rest for the terrorists!
People without weapons are no match for two people trained in the use of a high-powered sub machine gun, especially along a narrow point of entry (cockpit door)."
LOL, yes 4 sure, all we need are just bigger weapons, than any terrorist could have
Can you explain me, what happens if the pilot turns away from his cockpit to shoot a terrorist with his 9mm rounds 3 @ a time?
I'll tell you, the pilot will make one direct and deadly hit, his second round will go straigt through the terrorists leg hitting either a stewardess or passenger deadly and his third round will entirely miss everyone, but hit straight through the planes hull. Oh, maybe the second or first bullet will go through the hull, doen't really matter.
Now can you moron explain me at least, what happens @ 10k feet height if you shoot through the hull?
HARHARHAR
If you don't have to care about your environment, you save time!
If your app just works as it is on another environment, more users are able to use it.
Of course you can reach the same goal with
#IFDEF SOLARIS is nice, but not a general solution,
There is no better solution than this, to guarantee, that an application programmer can fully concentrate on his task and not fidle around with differences between different systems at any time!
"There's prior art on that joke, it's come up in every patent story for the last 3 years on slashdot. It's really worn out."
... the joke is, that the crowd on /. and the OSS can't come up with something clever enough, worth being patented, they can't even come up with something new.
Ah, really?
Perhaps "the joke I made" is not the original joke.
You'll find "my joke" between the grandparent post, and _both_ of my sentences.
And really, you continue that joke
"Yes it makes it stiffles the market for open source software but it gives the person that came up with the idea a fair shot of making money out of it. "
... didn't you read that other story on /. this day?
...
Err
You mean, it gives the employer of the man that came up with an idea a shot to make money out of it!
"Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return."
Yes, that's what happens with US IP laws, just read the other story
"... let me assure you that a reasonable proprietary rights agreement signed by all the developers at the company is essential ..."
... or they do not.
The question is just what is "reasonable"?
The US IP laws are everything else than resonable!
"The company is paying cash money to the employee to do 'work-for-hire'. Unless otherwise arranged, the company should own the resulting work."
You're of course right with that, however an employer that defines "creating ideas" as the work is just a fool, because there is no way, to find out what ideas an employee has had, until he will tell about them. Additionally noone realy can work on "ideas", ideas come to someones mind on occasion
Are you as an employer sure, that you know what you are paying for?
You are actually paying for something, you can never ever control and aou will never have any means to claim what you have paid for, unless your employee is willing to cooperate with you. (As in this case Brown did for a while)
"Will we be scanned at work to see if we are thinking anything worth owning?"
Yes, that's what all employers want, p0rn@work !!
Hm
Funding patents is not the problem
I have an idea
Looks like there is no big difference in the way these computers are installed.
The author of the article just didn't get the difference between free as in beer and free as in freedom.
That's why the whole article from the first line to the last one is just rubbish!
"we all know that the UN had the best interests at stake with their corruption in the oil for food program"
/sarcasm ... and we, all the people from the rest of the world know, that the US had the bests interessts in their "oil for the US programm" /sarcasm off
We all know should mean, all we US citizens?
It think M$ has done much to make Mozilla sucessful
Yes chummer, for sure
Oh, after the Apple one, 2 or 3 M$ dying Articles will follow
Help, we all will die !!!!
What about asking other nations or private organisations for money to service it?
What about selling Hubble?
What about giving it as a gift to anyone who wants it?
"This should have happened a long time ago, though. Somehow, they just keep spinning themselves a halfway decent rep."
Not realy, because a "long time ago" there was not realy an alternative, that was even halfway on par with MS.
(To be fair even today alterntives (namely GNU/Linux) are not on par in all aspects, mainly usability, "feature richness" and drivers.)
One can't expect anything to harm their reputation, if there is nothing, that could offer something close to their products. Everything that "should" have harmed their reputation could easily be talked away with an: "So what, can you even imagine someone doing as good as we (MS) do(es)?"
That's how they were able to keep up their reputation. Somehow the basis for keeping up their reputation, that "doing best of all", is missing. They have a much harder time recently to defend their reputation, because their realy is software for a couple of things, that does not have to hide behind their MS counterparts.
"How is killing military personnel of an (at that time) peaceful country somehow morally more acceptable than killing civilians?"
I did not say one or the other is morally more acceptable, what I have said is, that I consider the later one as a crime of war and massmurder!
But you asked about something "morally acceptable" in both actions. Really, neither is morally acceptable, but one is even worse than the other.
Besides the importance of reasons to attack other people, there is a "morale difference" in attacking military personel and civilians. One can (and should be prepared) to defend and the other can not (and is not prepared to) defend.
You might consider this "not so important", but it realy is of immense importance, because:
Attacking civilians is what I and most people call terrorism, no ifs and buts!
Is your definition of terrorism, that different from mine?
Besides that, I do not think that, you realy want to "morally equal" 2395 death (54 of them civilians) in Pearl Harbour and hundrets of thousands of death in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"You mean the nauseating and tired "Just another reason to use Mozilla" comments that brew from them?"
;) but such news might change this over some time.
... although I might have missed a change in common perceptions. ;)
No, that's actually not what I mean.
If you look up my first post in this thread, I think that nothing realy would help, because most people will not upgrade/change their software, once it is installed on their computer.
Regardless how well or appealing any comercial for a browser would be, it won't catch many people, if at all. Most likely money spent on comercials is wasted.
It is nearly impossible to pursuade people to throw away something the already own and replace it something else. That holds true for _any_ product in _any_ market. Not only the new product would need to be way ahead of the old one, there also needs to be a common perception, that the new one is ahead!
You are right, there is the common perception, that Mozilla (or any other browser) is behind IE. There is little chance that one can change that perception with comercials, that praise how well Mozilla is.
(The first question arising from such comercials would be, is that realy true?!)
However undeniable "facts" in news like the ones about viruses/exploits show, that IE is probably not ahead of other browsers!
A marketing campaign to chance common perceptions is nearly impossible (try to change common perceptions about a Mercedes-Benz
Currently news about exploits/viruses in IE are realy the most efficent "commercials", IMHO