I agree with what you are saying, but just to add to that, "jitter" was also reffered to when a CD drive would not return audio samples on the correct sector boundary.
Basically, an audio CD does not have sectors. However, when software reads data from a CD, be it audio or other data, it requests this in sectors.
Data CDs do use sectors, I believe of 2352 bytes in size, where only 2048 bytes are used for data and the rest for error detection and recovery.
For some reason a lot of CD drives do not return the data for audio CDs on the exact same boundary when a certain sector is requested. So if you look at the CD as a large stream of data and you request the second sector then some CD drives will one time return the bytes at offset 2350 through 4702 and a subsequent call may return 2354 through 4706.
Hence jitter.
Most CD ripper software compensated for this (usually through some setting or command line option). They'd read overlapping sectors to check for jitter.
I always used Plextor drives because they were known to not have this problem (plus they could sustain at high datarates). If, or rather When, I'm going to digitize my CD collection I will absolutely use a Plextor drive.
I'm writing this mostly in the past-tense because it has been a few years ago that I messed with this. I would imagine that most CD/DVD drives today are a lot better.
If you're really getting hassled like that, then don't bother explaining to the low level support person. Tell them you'd like to speak with their supervisor, or someone higher up who will elevate your problem. Start a support ticket, that sort of thing, etc..
Not hassled enough to elevate it, but I think it's still a pain in the ass. They will give you the code after explaining...
Also, the reason you provide (hardware testing) is a bit lacking. Windows XP will operate fully for 30 (or maybe 15? I don't remember right now..) days without being activated.
Still think I'm making this shit up, uh?;)
We worked on boards for embedded systems. Part of the testing is the retention of BIOS settings when the battery is removed. Well, if you remove the battery, then the time is lost. Guess what happens if you accidentally allow Windows to boot through?
Combine testing certain functions under Windows with the about 20 tests or so that require the CMOS to be removed and you can see that it won't take long before the current XP installation get's screwed up (and you have to register or re-install).
I would look into Microsoft's corporate licensing, or a subscription to MSDN, which would provide you with a copy of Windows XP that does not require activation.
The corporate licensing was apparently not available to us (maybe because we were 60 people). The MSDN subscription sounds interesting and I'm curious why the guy that worked for us that investigated our options didn't find out about that.
Typical/. response. Just because of your own anecdotal experience, you assume those are the facts.
What, do you think I make this shit up?
Just because YOUR experience is a certain way doesn't mean it always happens like that. I have personally been asked for an explanation twice now and at my previous job, where we tested boards my boss called in and was asked also. He was actually pretty upset because I had just told him that he wouldn't be transferred to a real human (that was my experience then).
In fact, we had the guy inside our company that was in contact with MS figure out if there was anything we could do, because it's a real pain in the ass for companies that do a lot of testing on different boards/hardware etc.
MS came back and said no, nothing could be done, and we should just explain the situation every time we registered.
Dont give me the "C is portable too" crap, just today I found differences in the behaviour of strtok between platforms
Well, that's a pretty poor example. There are differences in behaviour of Java functions between platforms as well.
Although differences in behaviour between platforms can be bugs in the implementation, more commonly they are a result of insufficient documentation. In other words, the differences are usually found in situations that are incompletely or not at all documented.
Not that I'm saying that C is the most portable of them all.
This is largely true, if you were on Win2K. In fact because of the rediculous registration process I was considering going back to Win2K (and I have a legal copy of XP, but I am offended that I have to explain/excuse my way through a phone call everytime I change harddrives).
There's one pathetic reason for not doing it though: ClearType...
Fortunately I full expect Linux to overtake Microsoft before Longhorn.
UCLA Helpdesk: Sup? Student: Seems my Internet is down. UCLA Helpdesk: Room? Student: 201 UCLA Helpdesk: Hmm, lemme have a look. UCLA Helpdesk: Ah, yeah, says here that Jack's Car Shop's FAC-U system has detected a copyright infringment on your computer. Student: What? Jack's Car Shop? UCLA Helpdesk: Uhuh Student: So what's this FAC-U thing? UCLA Helpdesk: Friendly Automated Copyright-infringment Underpants. Student: Ex-abuse-me? UCLA Helpdesk: Just an underpants targetting system that checks for copyright infringement. Student: So what kinda copyright of Jack's Car Shop am I violating?! UCLA Helpdesk: Uh, I dunno. Don't worry, an expert from Jack's Car Shop will soon be over to have a look at your computer. Student: What's he gonna do? UCLA Helpdesk: They usually come with a USB key and need a little time alone with your computer. UCLA Helpdesk: You probably got nothing to worry about. Student: WTF? That's crazy. Are there any other companies that have such systems running here? UCLA Helpdesk: Doh, are you kidding me? Of course! Every company that owns intellectual property has one. Student: So Jack's Car Shop has intellectual property? UCLA Helpdesk: That's what he says. Student: And you just take his word? UCLA Helpdesk: Listen son, these systems seem to be working quite well, at the moment we have 2,314 infringments pending. Student: Dude, there's only 2,315 students here. UCLA Helpdesk: Yeah that's right, the other guy doesn't have a computer.
I'd love to be paid for a project in D or Ocaml; I'm not going to bet the farm on that happening.
So true.
On the one hand it's obvious that management doesn't want to take the risk when there's such a large pool of C(++) programmers out there, but it certainly would be nice to have some productivity enhancements that could fit the gap between C/C++ and C#/Java.
I think one of the easiest way to overcome this is to create a language that can cleanly be translated to C/C++.
In other words if there was a compiler that translated D to C++ (with support code written in clean ANSI C++), then it may be a lot easier to convince management to take the risk.
So long as the generated C++ code is clean, there's always the option to revert back to C++.
There's another reason to take this approach. Some people will insist on using a certain tool-chain. They don't want to use an optimizing compiler from a relatively small/unknown company (I write software for aircraft sometimes, and I know I'm very picky about my tool-chain). Anyone that has followed the state of the optimizers of several of the well known C(++) compilers will know what I'm talking about.
So having a relatively simple translator that is just designed to do the job correct and leave the optimizations to the C++ compiler, that's a lot easier to swallow.
A couple of days ago I executed an MD5 hash and it was more functional than this.
Years ago I was thinking of writing a ray-tracer in 1 bit. But, I couldn't decide if I should write it in Java or C#.
Then I picked up my copy of "The Zen of Assembly Language", but unfortunately a little too swift so the dust cloud that that generated kept me from entering my parents basement for a couple of days.
"The Zen" is truly the a great piece of work, although I don't really know why we would need to use these new fangled 16-bit CPUs.
But back to the subject, let's walks through how this game could be done SOOOO much better:
A "basic" raytracing algorithm is very simple - you simply map a texture over a wireframe model and then scale the result by dividing the x and y dimensions by the z distance.
That's right. That's EXACTLY how a raytracer would work, if there ever was one. I think for this one we should also implement tracing the actual rays, to add to the effect. Btw, I've got a nice wireframe model sitting in my backyard that can be used for this. Again, I think this really can be done in 1 bit.
Basic FPS gameplay would involve loading your device handlers (mouse, keyboard, etc...), and writing a response loop.
I think we can safely say that with mouse, keyboard, speech synthesis, speech recognition and a couple of other run of the mill devices this could be done in 2 bits, give or take 1.
Asynchrous gameplay (i.e., enemy moves as you stand still) can likewise be handled by chaining the timer interrupt (18h? IIRC) to your "enemy movement" code.
What can be more simple than chaining an interrupt to the "enemy movement" code that appeared out of thin air? But because it deals with interrupts, maybe 2 bits??
I bet with a Z80 we could bring it down even more, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's better to keep the system requirements low. So far we can do this in a 74HCT04.
Collision detection, etc, could simply be brute-forced by plotting the vector of the expelled projectile until it collided with another object.
I have a question about this. Do you think we should also use radiosity on the projectiles? Because my plotter doesn't support that, and I'd hate to waste the ink. Well, let's round it off, say 3 bits. That gives us a target of 8 bits total.
There. We're practically done. What are these guys smoking. This can be done in 8 bits, on a 74HCT04.
[/sarcasm]
Sir, you are a fucktard. Your last experience with Assembler (yes I call it Assembler, not Assembly, sue me) seems to predate the invention of the 8086 CPU.
I actually write assember for a living, and I can tell you that what these guys do is amazing. They are squeezing the last drop out of the space. These are the people that _write_ books like the Zen of Assembly (which is in serious need of a predecessor).
I'm going to open up a whole can of worms here, but bear with me.
What I see here all the time is how we can work around x, y or z. That's truly interesting, although not terribly brilliant. Anyone will realize that as long as our ears can hear something, we can record that and voila, DRM is hacked.
Now, I'm not going to enter into a penis measuring contest here, but it will suffice to say that some of us realized this WELL before spam arrived in our inbox.
Yes, the recording industry has had their heads in the sand for years now, so be it.
Here's the question: how about true solutions?
Let's give you a challenge: none of the more obvious answers is correct.
'artists should make their money doing live gigs': sure that may work for your favorite musician, but it doesn't for mine. I actually spoke to quite a few moderately famous musicians, and a lot of them don't like performing live. At the very minimum, they see their effort of recording a song very seperated from live performances.
In fact, I'll go as far as saying that the concept of musicians having to make their money through live gigs is very similar to the Open Source concept of software manufacturers having to make their money through support (vs. charging for the software).
The only difference being that musicians will have to do the live performance themselves, whereas the programmers potentially have the luxury of having someone else take care of the support.
I'm not trying to slide to far off topic here, but can you see the problem with saying that software should be funded by support (like lots of Open Source advocates say)?
The first problem is that there is an incentive to make software such that it requires support. Whereas in an ideal world software wouldn't need support at all.
The second problem is that support != development. Someone has to pay for the development. Someone has to come up with the $$$ to get programmers to come in and write the code. However, they are expected to recoup their investment through a relatively unrelated service (support). That's a big risk, and quite frankly history has shown that it doesn't always work that well. Traditionally it has proven less risky to make money on the core competency that you have (writing code, supposedly).
There's a reason that car manufacturers don't give away cars and charge only for your 10K service. (well, maybe a bad analogy, but what shitty/. post can survive without a car analogy?)
Back to music, the core competency is musicians creating this really wonderful music. But there's a fair amount of them that either don't want to perform live, or are simply not very good at doing it. Are we willing to cut off that group? If not, how exactly are these musicians going to have to go about making a living?
I've been thinking about this for about 10 years or more, and I _still_ can't really give you an answer.
I'd like to think that they could become independent and sell their stuff on the Internet and people would be generous enough to donate a bit of cash because they really like it. But seeing how people really just behave like giant black holes, I'm wondering if this really will happen.
Time will tell, I suppose, and it will be very interesting for us programmers. Because what we do really isn't that different from musicians.
As Sun was the major complaining competitor in the EU case, this gives M$ a lot of fire support when trying to challenge the record fine. Another indication is the timing: shortly after the EU announced the fine.
Good point. Maybe this is an attempt to keep those hard-earned $$$ within the US?
In an attempt for everyone to display how clever they are that they 'got it', every story is littered with "doh it's April Fools" comments even though the story does not resemble even the slights sign of a practical joke.
I'll quote from another post: April Fools: April 1; celebrated by playing of practical jokes Practical Joke: A mischievous trick played on a person, especially one that causes the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort.
And I was just going to comment that it seems like the editors are refraining from posting every godamn stupid April Fools they can get their hands on.
I can't believe all the people that don't catch april fools
Please enlighten us as to how this qualifies as an April Fools? I doubt that that's the intention, but even if it is, by definition it still is not an April Fools: April Fools: April 1; celebrated by playing of practical jokes Practical Joke: A mischievous trick played on a person, especially one that causes the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort.
And I second the parent post in that I certainly don't see why this is put on the front-page either. These are the type of things that you don't put on the front because it's stupid. It's stupid because there's many MANY more people that have stuff (laptops,cars,cell phones) stolen. Should they all get front-page attention? I don't think so.
What WOULD be front-page material is a link to a website where you can register stolen items, with information such as MAC addresses of the network interfaces. And the website has an 'API' so you can write software to automatically scan your network for those MACs, or a program that you can run before you buy it, to see if hardware is stolen.
That would be news for nerds.
But I'm sure Michael will soon enough find out about his mistake as the submission queue gets overladen with similar stories.
(don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the person that got all that stuff stolen. But putting on the front page, [nl]daar kan je niet aan gaan beginnen...[/nl])
If you want to enter the operating systems market, right now, today, you can pick up a copy of GNU/Linux, make whatever tweaks you want, and start selling CDs
yeah right, whatever.
I can run a cable to all my neighbors and start a cable TV network for practically no cost either.
That's a totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with seriously entering the market.
Using your terms, companies selling CDRs with Linux _are_ the most trivial operations and have no fighting chance in the OS market.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how interesting that article is, I can't take an article that starts with "Google is a great website" very seriously.
I mean if the authors can't find a better description for Google than 'a website'...
I agree with what you are saying, but just to add to that, "jitter" was also reffered to when a CD drive would not return audio samples on the correct sector boundary.
Basically, an audio CD does not have sectors. However, when software reads data from a CD, be it audio or other data, it requests this in sectors.
Data CDs do use sectors, I believe of 2352 bytes in size, where only 2048 bytes are used for data and the rest for error detection and recovery.
For some reason a lot of CD drives do not return the data for audio CDs on the exact same boundary when a certain sector is requested. So if you look at the CD as a large stream of data and you request the second sector then some CD drives will one time return the bytes at offset 2350 through 4702 and a subsequent call may return 2354 through 4706.
Hence jitter.
Most CD ripper software compensated for this (usually through some setting or command line option). They'd read overlapping sectors to check for jitter.
I always used Plextor drives because they were known to not have this problem (plus they could sustain at high datarates). If, or rather When, I'm going to digitize my CD collection I will absolutely use a Plextor drive.
I'm writing this mostly in the past-tense because it has been a few years ago that I messed with this. I would imagine that most CD/DVD drives today are a lot better.
If you're really getting hassled like that, then don't bother explaining to the low level support person. Tell them you'd like to speak with their supervisor, or someone higher up who will elevate your problem. Start a support ticket, that sort of thing, etc..
;)
Not hassled enough to elevate it, but I think it's still a pain in the ass. They will give you the code after explaining...
Also, the reason you provide (hardware testing) is a bit lacking. Windows XP will operate fully for 30 (or maybe 15? I don't remember right now..) days without being activated.
Still think I'm making this shit up, uh?
We worked on boards for embedded systems. Part of the testing is the retention of BIOS settings when the battery is removed. Well, if you remove the battery, then the time is lost. Guess what happens if you accidentally allow Windows to boot through?
Combine testing certain functions under Windows with the about 20 tests or so that require the CMOS to be removed and you can see that it won't take long before the current XP installation get's screwed up (and you have to register or re-install).
I would look into Microsoft's corporate licensing, or a subscription to MSDN, which would provide you with a copy of Windows XP that does not require activation.
The corporate licensing was apparently not available to us (maybe because we were 60 people). The MSDN subscription sounds interesting and I'm curious why the guy that worked for us that investigated our options didn't find out about that.
Linux won't overtake Windows for a while (I'm talking about home market only--server is another story).
Fair enough, I actually ment for me. In other words I expect Linux to be at a level where it makes sense for me to switch. That's all...
Typical /. response. Just because of your own anecdotal experience, you assume those are the facts.
What, do you think I make this shit up?
Just because YOUR experience is a certain way doesn't mean it always happens like that. I have personally been asked for an explanation twice now and at my previous job, where we tested boards my boss called in and was asked also. He was actually pretty upset because I had just told him that he wouldn't be transferred to a real human (that was my experience then).
In fact, we had the guy inside our company that was in contact with MS figure out if there was anything we could do, because it's a real pain in the ass for companies that do a lot of testing on different boards/hardware etc.
MS came back and said no, nothing could be done, and we should just explain the situation every time we registered.
Dont give me the "C is portable too" crap, just today I found differences in the behaviour of strtok between platforms
Well, that's a pretty poor example. There are differences in behaviour of Java functions between platforms as well.
Although differences in behaviour between platforms can be bugs in the implementation, more commonly they are a result of insufficient documentation. In other words, the differences are usually found in situations that are incompletely or not at all documented.
Not that I'm saying that C is the most portable of them all.
Just as there was no reason to buy Windows XP
This is largely true, if you were on Win2K. In fact because of the rediculous registration process I was considering going back to Win2K (and I have a legal copy of XP, but I am offended that I have to explain/excuse my way through a phone call everytime I change harddrives).
There's one pathetic reason for not doing it though: ClearType...
Fortunately I full expect Linux to overtake Microsoft before Longhorn.
No, he just hates Canadians ;-)
Seriously though, that 'chap' is the chairman of the EFF, which makes it a particularly dissapointing comment...
UCLA Helpdesk: Sup?
Student: Seems my Internet is down.
UCLA Helpdesk: Room?
Student: 201
UCLA Helpdesk: Hmm, lemme have a look.
UCLA Helpdesk: Ah, yeah, says here that Jack's Car Shop's FAC-U system has detected a copyright infringment on your computer.
Student: What? Jack's Car Shop?
UCLA Helpdesk: Uhuh
Student: So what's this FAC-U thing?
UCLA Helpdesk: Friendly Automated Copyright-infringment Underpants.
Student: Ex-abuse-me?
UCLA Helpdesk: Just an underpants targetting system that checks for copyright infringement.
Student: So what kinda copyright of Jack's Car Shop am I violating?!
UCLA Helpdesk: Uh, I dunno. Don't worry, an expert from Jack's Car Shop will soon be over to have a look at your computer.
Student: What's he gonna do?
UCLA Helpdesk: They usually come with a USB key and need a little time alone with your computer.
UCLA Helpdesk: You probably got nothing to worry about.
Student: WTF? That's crazy. Are there any other companies that have such systems running here?
UCLA Helpdesk: Doh, are you kidding me? Of course! Every company that owns intellectual property has one.
Student: So Jack's Car Shop has intellectual property?
UCLA Helpdesk: That's what he says.
Student: And you just take his word?
UCLA Helpdesk: Listen son, these systems seem to be working quite well, at the moment we have 2,314 infringments pending.
Student: Dude, there's only 2,315 students here.
UCLA Helpdesk: Yeah that's right, the other guy doesn't have a computer.
I'd love to be paid for a project in D or Ocaml; I'm not going to bet the farm on that happening.
So true.
On the one hand it's obvious that management doesn't want to take the risk when there's such a large pool of C(++) programmers out there, but it certainly would be nice to have some productivity enhancements that could fit the gap between C/C++ and C#/Java.
I think one of the easiest way to overcome this is to create a language that can cleanly be translated to C/C++.
In other words if there was a compiler that translated D to C++ (with support code written in clean ANSI C++), then it may be a lot easier to convince management to take the risk.
So long as the generated C++ code is clean, there's always the option to revert back to C++.
There's another reason to take this approach. Some people will insist on using a certain tool-chain. They don't want to use an optimizing compiler from a relatively small/unknown company (I write software for aircraft sometimes, and I know I'm very picky about my tool-chain). Anyone that has followed the state of the optimizers of several of the well known C(++) compilers will know what I'm talking about.
So having a relatively simple translator that is just designed to do the job correct and leave the optimizations to the C++ compiler, that's a lot easier to swallow.
Did you mean: Radio control speed controller
PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art
I mean, who writes this shit?
So there's nothing real to be seen here. Move on.
But, "In Japan, no one pays for 40,000 convenience store cooling fans without being reasonably sure that they are going to work."
And if that didn't convince you:
Hopefully soon the design will make it in to your home PC, allowing them to run much quieter.
Because we all know that the noise generated by the fan comes from the motor and not from air hitting the fan.
How can you contradict such a logical and fact laden article?
"Cause even Trolls love Rock & Roll"
I totally agree with your post.
A couple of days ago I executed an MD5 hash and it was more functional than this.
Years ago I was thinking of writing a ray-tracer in 1 bit. But, I couldn't decide if I should write it in Java or C#.
Then I picked up my copy of "The Zen of Assembly Language", but unfortunately a little too swift so the dust cloud that that generated kept me from entering my parents basement for a couple of days.
"The Zen" is truly the a great piece of work, although I don't really know why we would need to use these new fangled 16-bit CPUs.
But back to the subject, let's walks through how this game could be done SOOOO much better:
A "basic" raytracing algorithm is very simple - you simply map a texture over a wireframe model and then scale the result by dividing the x and y dimensions by the z distance.
That's right. That's EXACTLY how a raytracer would work, if there ever was one. I think for this one we should also implement tracing the actual rays, to add to the effect. Btw, I've got a nice wireframe model sitting in my backyard that can be used for this. Again, I think this really can be done in 1 bit.
Basic FPS gameplay would involve loading your device handlers (mouse, keyboard, etc...), and writing a response loop.
I think we can safely say that with mouse, keyboard, speech synthesis, speech recognition and a couple of other run of the mill devices this could be done in 2 bits, give or take 1.
Asynchrous gameplay (i.e., enemy moves as you stand still) can likewise be handled by chaining the timer interrupt (18h? IIRC) to your "enemy movement" code.
What can be more simple than chaining an interrupt to the "enemy movement" code that appeared out of thin air? But because it deals with interrupts, maybe 2 bits??
I bet with a Z80 we could bring it down even more, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's better to keep the system requirements low. So far we can do this in a 74HCT04.
Collision detection, etc, could simply be brute-forced by plotting the vector of the expelled projectile until it collided with another object.
I have a question about this. Do you think we should also use radiosity on the projectiles? Because my plotter doesn't support that, and I'd hate to waste the ink. Well, let's round it off, say 3 bits. That gives us a target of 8 bits total.
There. We're practically done. What are these guys smoking. This can be done in 8 bits, on a 74HCT04.
[/sarcasm]
Sir, you are a fucktard. Your last experience with Assembler (yes I call it Assembler, not Assembly, sue me) seems to predate the invention of the 8086 CPU.
I actually write assember for a living, and I can tell you that what these guys do is amazing. They are squeezing the last drop out of the space. These are the people that _write_ books like the Zen of Assembly (which is in serious need of a predecessor).
Hehe, these are the kind of jokes I read /. for. :-D
I'm going to open up a whole can of worms here, but bear with me.
/. post can survive without a car analogy?)
What I see here all the time is how we can work around x, y or z. That's truly interesting, although not terribly brilliant. Anyone will realize that as long as our ears can hear something, we can record that and voila, DRM is hacked.
Now, I'm not going to enter into a penis measuring contest here, but it will suffice to say that some of us realized this WELL before spam arrived in our inbox.
Yes, the recording industry has had their heads in the sand for years now, so be it.
Here's the question: how about true solutions?
Let's give you a challenge: none of the more obvious answers is correct.
'artists should make their money doing live gigs': sure that may work for your favorite musician, but it doesn't for mine. I actually spoke to quite a few moderately famous musicians, and a lot of them don't like performing live. At the very minimum, they see their effort of recording a song very seperated from live performances.
In fact, I'll go as far as saying that the concept of musicians having to make their money through live gigs is very similar to the Open Source concept of software manufacturers having to make their money through support (vs. charging for the software).
The only difference being that musicians will have to do the live performance themselves, whereas the programmers potentially have the luxury of having someone else take care of the support.
I'm not trying to slide to far off topic here, but can you see the problem with saying that software should be funded by support (like lots of Open Source advocates say)?
The first problem is that there is an incentive to make software such that it requires support. Whereas in an ideal world software wouldn't need support at all.
The second problem is that support != development. Someone has to pay for the development. Someone has to come up with the $$$ to get programmers to come in and write the code. However, they are expected to recoup their investment through a relatively unrelated service (support). That's a big risk, and quite frankly history has shown that it doesn't always work that well. Traditionally it has proven less risky to make money on the core competency that you have (writing code, supposedly).
There's a reason that car manufacturers don't give away cars and charge only for your 10K service. (well, maybe a bad analogy, but what shitty
Back to music, the core competency is musicians creating this really wonderful music. But there's a fair amount of them that either don't want to perform live, or are simply not very good at doing it. Are we willing to cut off that group? If not, how exactly are these musicians going to have to go about making a living?
I've been thinking about this for about 10 years or more, and I _still_ can't really give you an answer.
I'd like to think that they could become independent and sell their stuff on the Internet and people would be generous enough to donate a bit of cash because they really like it. But seeing how people really just behave like giant black holes, I'm wondering if this really will happen.
Time will tell, I suppose, and it will be very interesting for us programmers. Because what we do really isn't that different from musicians.
[jebus, that's a rant if there ever was one...]
Everytime I hear someone use the phrase "hacker-proof". I think of the Titanic's designers calling it "unsinkable"
Nah, there actually was a remote change that that statement was going to be proven true.
I agree, I would have called it the 'Open Sores Database'.
As Sun was the major complaining competitor in the EU case, this gives M$ a lot of fire support when trying to challenge the record fine. Another indication is the timing: shortly after the EU announced the fine.
Good point. Maybe this is an attempt to keep those hard-earned $$$ within the US?
[/tinfoil hat.]
Aaaaaaaargh!!
What an annoying day.
In an attempt for everyone to display how clever they are that they 'got it', every story is littered with "doh it's April Fools" comments even though the story does not resemble even the slights sign of a practical joke.
I'll quote from another post:
April Fools: April 1; celebrated by playing of practical jokes
Practical Joke: A mischievous trick played on a person, especially one that causes the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort.
And I was just going to comment that it seems like the editors are refraining from posting every godamn stupid April Fools they can get their hands on.
I can't believe all the people that don't catch april fools
Please enlighten us as to how this qualifies as an April Fools? I doubt that that's the intention, but even if it is, by definition it still is not an April Fools:
April Fools: April 1; celebrated by playing of practical jokes
Practical Joke: A mischievous trick played on a person, especially one that causes the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort.
And I second the parent post in that I certainly don't see why this is put on the front-page either. These are the type of things that you don't put on the front because it's stupid. It's stupid because there's many MANY more people that have stuff (laptops,cars,cell phones) stolen. Should they all get front-page attention? I don't think so.
What WOULD be front-page material is a link to a website where you can register stolen items, with information such as MAC addresses of the network interfaces. And the website has an 'API' so you can write software to automatically scan your network for those MACs, or a program that you can run before you buy it, to see if hardware is stolen.
That would be news for nerds.
But I'm sure Michael will soon enough find out about his mistake as the submission queue gets overladen with similar stories.
(don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the person that got all that stuff stolen. But putting on the front page, [nl]daar kan je niet aan gaan beginnen...[/nl])
He writes totally unreadable perl scripts
;)
Heh, if there ever was one thing redundant, then that's it.
Why not Moogle?
Because Gmail is more in line with their future wireless services called Gspot.
What's the worst ever job you had to do in the name of 'software development' (or as a software developer)?
You'd like to know, wouldn't you?
If you want to enter the operating systems market, right now, today, you can pick up a copy of GNU/Linux, make whatever tweaks you want, and start selling CDs
yeah right, whatever.
I can run a cable to all my neighbors and start a cable TV network for practically no cost either.
That's a totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with seriously entering the market.
Using your terms, companies selling CDRs with Linux _are_ the most trivial operations and have no fighting chance in the OS market.