You can safely ignore such tests as no one seems to have a firm grasp on the actual number of mozilla users. For example, how many people are still browsing behind proxies which either hide the fact that it's mozilla (trying to make it look like IE for compatibility reasons) or are simply having their browser directly prepresent it self as another browser (trying to make it look like IE for compatibility reasons).
This is almost as hard as trying to count the actual number of Linux boxen. Simple fact is, unless they put some science into trying to gestimate the number of obfuscated browsers, such studies do nothing but attempt to create self fulfilling prophecy.
I've yet to see any evidence that the number of Mozilla users is decreasing. Lastly, let me say, it makes absolutely zero sense if you stop and think about it. The number of Linux desktops are starting to seriously grow, as are the number Linux machines in general. Easily more Linux boxes now, than even bfore. That means, you should have more mozilla (or family thereof) than ever before. The only possibility would be that Konq is taking a huge chunk and I've not seen anything which put credible light on such a claim either.
Long story short, something is seriously stinking about those numbers. They defy common sense and just don't mesh at all with current market conditions.
I'm running a P2 333 and it it runs just fine here. Anyone who says it's unusable is simply insane, though startups are painfully slow. And this is an older version of OO. Just wait till you try the newer version, which loads faster, AND you get a 2.6 kernel, load times should be significantly faster.
simply "transposing" the Bible to their civilization and thus making them "human equivalents" would most likely be totally impossible.
I'm not sure you need to. After all, look around our own planet. It's not like there is one and only one religion found on our planet. Wouldn't other species be looked at like any other "alien" (non-christian) religion?
For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image".
That doesn't have to mean, "always and forever". It just as well mean, "at that point in time." As for created in God's image, well, that pretty much means any image that God takes, could then be created. Again, neither are violated.
And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds.
Not sure that's a valid argument either. The quote is, "...he died for our sins...". Perhaps our species or more sinful than others? Perhaps other symbolic deaths serve other cultures? In other words, I don't think it says,...our sins and the wierdos on Alpha Centauri..." LOL. That sounds funny.
Long story short, arguments like the above never make any sense to me. When I hear people say things like, "discovery of aliens will destroy our religions", I'm always left dumb-founded. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If people insist on buying into it and can find a way for their religion to encompass modern society, one has to ask, how relevant is it to start with?
Think of it this way, pork products are supposed to be verboten and we are only supposed to drink milk from goats. Just the same, both Tenents made sense in their day, however, the associated beliefs, for many, adopted because they realized they just don't make sense anymore.
Which, of course, tip-toes into the whole "free choice" and "free-will" idioms. So on and so forth. Long story short, those that think discovery of aliens is going to destroy religions have a very narrow and unflexible point of view. Or, another way of looking at it, any religion which can't adopt deserves to be destroyed as they are no longer relevent.
I keep seeing people quote those high g numbers from historic tests of days past. One of the most critical factors in determining how fatal a g rating is on a human, is not only the g's, but the duration the g's were sustained. For example, a human can take insanely high g's over a very finite duration. Those same g's which may of only bruised and bloodied your body may have killed you if the same g's were sustained for twice the duration.
The problem is, those were G's realative to the person horizontally (perpendicular). When talking about vertical G's (parallel to the spine), a human can withstand far, far fewer G's. This is because our body isn't made to compress and the energy has to go somewhere. When taking G's head on, your body is good about bending and flexing to rid it self of the energy. When impacting vertically, pretty much the only mechanism your body has is to compress your spine. Pilots who land harshly often find themselves inches shorter and a life time of back and body problems.
Besides, if they had used IPv6, that would of made people happy. Making people too happy makes them fail to function in the matrix. So obviously, they had only one choice...IPv4!
Can you point me to instructions for booting and running linux on a PS2. I've been wanting to do this for a while, without having to purchase Sony's Linux SDK stuff.
I see. Just keep in mind that more and more people are seeing XML for what it is, overhyped. IMO, XML is great for interchange and stinks for just about everything else. That especially includes storage.
Outlook does almost everything. Exchange is nothing but a datastore with a couple of extras thrown in. Seriously, the REAL workhorse is Outlook. Exhange is crap! Here's the catch! MS, with each version, has gone out of their way to continue to REDUCE functionality to ensure that you can only do certain features in certain modes, and almost exclusively when talking with an Exchange server. Now how is that possible if Exchange does so much? Why would MS bother to do such a thing if Exchange did it, not the client?
Feel free to argue all you want, and I'm sure there are plenty that don't know any better, but this is 100% correct. *Almost* everything that people think Exchange server does, Outlook really does the work!
Exchange is nothing but a MTA and datastore with lots of APIs, public and undocumented, to sore, access, and manipulate data. Period!
Worse, MAPI isn't even a protocol. It is not a storage method. It's an API. To boot, it's a VERY MS centric API. Worse, MS heavily abused the standard by making much of what they do through MAPI completely undocumented. Still worse yet, their undocumented interfaces tend to slightly change from release to release in ever so slightly non-compatible ways. This in an effort to help ensure any attempt to use their undocumented interfaces are as painful and as broken as possible.
First, let me say, you're reasonable and have a logical argument. Unlike some that commented on this topic.
I want to stress, IMO, this really isn't about the developer, even though it did effect them. I should also say, I never jumped on the Java bandwagon either. I personally think there are much better solutions (Python & wxPython, for example).
The problem occurs because the Microsoft Java guys were not being clearly told which junctions were strictly MS JVM, IIRC. Furthermore, some of the, what beans?, from Microsoft leveraged their own stuff too. This means is was very easy to MS Java developers to create completely incompatible applications without realizing it. Damage was inflicted to Sun's mindshare. Both at the consumer level but also at the corporate level. All of this, in spite of the fact, that MS was prohibited from making those incompatible changes.
Lastly, when you say it's the developer's responsibility to deliver the application, I do agree. In fact, that was never the problem. The problem was, for web site applets, for example, you have no control over pushing a JVM to someone. And if you did, who would want a huge download being forced down their throat. Especially in light of the fact that a, it shouldn't be needed and b, if MS hadn't created additional incompatible interfaces, it would of been a null argument. Remember, at that time, the big push was for your application to be delivered over the Internet via your web browser and it would automatically run, as long as you have a Java VM, safely. Who is going to want to download, I don't remember, 100M?, 200M?, 300M?, just to use an application that is maybe 200K - 1M in size? Wouldn't you be hugely turned off, especially if you had to download it at 14.4 - 28.8???
Where's the troll mod points when you need them. Shesh. Are you for real? I'm assuming by your tone you're a Microsoft flunky. At any rate...
Like any analogy, none are 100% perfect. Picking apart the analogy, only makes you sound foolish and inept.
Contrary to your opinion, most people do consider breach of contract a crime, regardless if it's handled by civil or criminal courts. Not to mention, most people also consider Microsoft's anti-trust position to be rather significant in this case. And by most people, I mean it's a significant part of Sun's case. As it should be! Feel free to delude yourself all you like. In the mean time, real world continues to move on.
Sadly, Microsoft was given yet another green light to rape and pillage other companies and consumers at large.
I stand by my analogy as it actually is fairly representative for those that obviously haven't followed the whole tale...as much as any analogy can be. It does fairly well at placing the wrong-doings in perspective for all parties.
Actually, the consumer is the one that suffered. If you ran an applet that was written using Microsoft's flavor of java on Sun's implementation, it wouldn't work.
This doesn't have anything to do with this language or that language. It has to do with Microsoft fragmenting the market, inflicting loss of reputation in the eyes of the end user. Now granted, this did place an extra burden on developers.
This is more like you burning down my house, on purpose, and a judge says I'm allowed to live in your house until restitution is made by you, while my house is being rebuilt. Then, these other judges come along and say, "woe", that doesn't make any sense. Even though you burned down my house on purpose, you shouldn't be held responsible unless the on-going legal action says otherwise. In the mean time, I have to go live under a bridge while you and the judges all laugh at me.
This has nothing to do with marketing or product promotion. This has to do with holding Microsoft responsible for it's very illegal and harmful activities.
Okay. Thanks. I guess I can buy into that because somewhere back in the fog, I think I do remember it being said that it was not an AIX JFS port. Which, of course, does not rule out OS/2. Oddly enough, I didn't even know you could get JFS for OS/2.:)
I think I remember reading that JFS on Linux was a new implementation rather than a direct port. Does that mean some code was lifted? I have no idea. XFS, OTOH, is a port.
Not really sure this adds anything to the topic, but there it is.;)
Slashdot Mirror
You can safely ignore such tests as no one seems to have a firm grasp on the actual number of mozilla users. For example, how many people are still browsing behind proxies which either hide the fact that it's mozilla (trying to make it look like IE for compatibility reasons) or are simply having their browser directly prepresent it self as another browser (trying to make it look like IE for compatibility reasons).
This is almost as hard as trying to count the actual number of Linux boxen. Simple fact is, unless they put some science into trying to gestimate the number of obfuscated browsers, such studies do nothing but attempt to create self fulfilling prophecy.
I've yet to see any evidence that the number of Mozilla users is decreasing. Lastly, let me say, it makes absolutely zero sense if you stop and think about it. The number of Linux desktops are starting to seriously grow, as are the number Linux machines in general. Easily more Linux boxes now, than even bfore. That means, you should have more mozilla (or family thereof) than ever before. The only possibility would be that Konq is taking a huge chunk and I've not seen anything which put credible light on such a claim either.
Long story short, something is seriously stinking about those numbers. They defy common sense and just don't mesh at all with current market conditions.
I'm running a P2 333 and it it runs just fine here. Anyone who says it's unusable is simply insane, though startups are painfully slow. And this is an older version of OO. Just wait till you try the newer version, which loads faster, AND you get a 2.6 kernel, load times should be significantly faster.
Too bad it's called the /. effect and not a DoS attack! There is a difference! One is legal. The other is not!
Maybe, if they lose all their fans and come in last place, they can move to a new stadium? ;P
Sounds like you guys need to look at ACE. Multiple platform and implements all sorts of design patterns!
Good Stuff!
simply "transposing" the Bible to their civilization and thus making them "human equivalents" would most likely be totally impossible.
...our sins and the wierdos on Alpha Centauri..." LOL. That sounds funny.
I'm not sure you need to. After all, look around our own planet. It's not like there is one and only one religion found on our planet. Wouldn't other species be looked at like any other "alien" (non-christian) religion?
For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image".
That doesn't have to mean, "always and forever". It just as well mean, "at that point in time." As for created in God's image, well, that pretty much means any image that God takes, could then be created. Again, neither are violated.
And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds.
Not sure that's a valid argument either. The quote is, "...he died for our sins...". Perhaps our species or more sinful than others? Perhaps other symbolic deaths serve other cultures? In other words, I don't think it says,
Long story short, arguments like the above never make any sense to me. When I hear people say things like, "discovery of aliens will destroy our religions", I'm always left dumb-founded. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If people insist on buying into it and can find a way for their religion to encompass modern society, one has to ask, how relevant is it to start with?
Think of it this way, pork products are supposed to be verboten and we are only supposed to drink milk from goats. Just the same, both Tenents made sense in their day, however, the associated beliefs, for many, adopted because they realized they just don't make sense anymore.
Which, of course, tip-toes into the whole "free choice" and "free-will" idioms. So on and so forth. Long story short, those that think discovery of aliens is going to destroy religions have a very narrow and unflexible point of view. Or, another way of looking at it, any religion which can't adopt deserves to be destroyed as they are no longer relevent.
That's correct! That would be one possible solution. Then again, that's a design issue rather than anything else.
I keep seeing people quote those high g numbers from historic tests of days past. One of the most critical factors in determining how fatal a g rating is on a human, is not only the g's, but the duration the g's were sustained. For example, a human can take insanely high g's over a very finite duration. Those same g's which may of only bruised and bloodied your body may have killed you if the same g's were sustained for twice the duration.
The problem is, those were G's realative to the person horizontally (perpendicular). When talking about vertical G's (parallel to the spine), a human can withstand far, far fewer G's. This is because our body isn't made to compress and the energy has to go somewhere. When taking G's head on, your body is good about bending and flexing to rid it self of the energy. When impacting vertically, pretty much the only mechanism your body has is to compress your spine. Pilots who land harshly often find themselves inches shorter and a life time of back and body problems.
Besides, if they had used IPv6, that would of made people happy. Making people too happy makes them fail to function in the matrix. So obviously, they had only one choice...IPv4!
Cheers!
Happen to have any links you can share?
Does anyone know how to get Linux running on a PS2 without Sony's special boot DVD?
Can you point me to instructions for booting and running linux on a PS2. I've been wanting to do this for a while, without having to purchase Sony's Linux SDK stuff.
I see. Just keep in mind that more and more people are seeing XML for what it is, overhyped. IMO, XML is great for interchange and stinks for just about everything else. That especially includes storage.
Thanks for clarifying your point.
Cheers!
I was with you on everything you said until you got to "XML-based datastore". Why would you need/want it to be XML based?
XML is great for interchange. It's horrible for just about everything else.
Can't tell you how many times I've seen this...
It's plain wrong!
Outlook does almost everything. Exchange is nothing but a datastore with a couple of extras thrown in. Seriously, the REAL workhorse is Outlook. Exhange is crap! Here's the catch! MS, with each version, has gone out of their way to continue to REDUCE functionality to ensure that you can only do certain features in certain modes, and almost exclusively when talking with an Exchange server. Now how is that possible if Exchange does so much? Why would MS bother to do such a thing if Exchange did it, not the client?
Feel free to argue all you want, and I'm sure there are plenty that don't know any better, but this is 100% correct. *Almost* everything that people think Exchange server does, Outlook really does the work!
Exchange is nothing but a MTA and datastore with lots of APIs, public and undocumented, to sore, access, and manipulate data. Period!
Worse, MAPI isn't even a protocol. It is not a storage method. It's an API. To boot, it's a VERY MS centric API. Worse, MS heavily abused the standard by making much of what they do through MAPI completely undocumented. Still worse yet, their undocumented interfaces tend to slightly change from release to release in ever so slightly non-compatible ways. This in an effort to help ensure any attempt to use their undocumented interfaces are as painful and as broken as possible.
Yes, ditto! Thank you too.
Best Regards!
First, let me say, you're reasonable and have a logical argument. Unlike some that commented on this topic.
I want to stress, IMO, this really isn't about the developer, even though it did effect them. I should also say, I never jumped on the Java bandwagon either. I personally think there are much better solutions (Python & wxPython, for example).
The problem occurs because the Microsoft Java guys were not being clearly told which junctions were strictly MS JVM, IIRC. Furthermore, some of the, what beans?, from Microsoft leveraged their own stuff too. This means is was very easy to MS Java developers to create completely incompatible applications without realizing it. Damage was inflicted to Sun's mindshare. Both at the consumer level but also at the corporate level. All of this, in spite of the fact, that MS was prohibited from making those incompatible changes.
Lastly, when you say it's the developer's responsibility to deliver the application, I do agree. In fact, that was never the problem. The problem was, for web site applets, for example, you have no control over pushing a JVM to someone. And if you did, who would want a huge download being forced down their throat. Especially in light of the fact that a, it shouldn't be needed and b, if MS hadn't created additional incompatible interfaces, it would of been a null argument. Remember, at that time, the big push was for your application to be delivered over the Internet via your web browser and it would automatically run, as long as you have a Java VM, safely. Who is going to want to download, I don't remember, 100M?, 200M?, 300M?, just to use an application that is maybe 200K - 1M in size? Wouldn't you be hugely turned off, especially if you had to download it at 14.4 - 28.8???
Where's the troll mod points when you need them. Shesh. Are you for real? I'm assuming by your tone you're a Microsoft flunky. At any rate...
Like any analogy, none are 100% perfect. Picking apart the analogy, only makes you sound foolish and inept.
Contrary to your opinion, most people do consider breach of contract a crime, regardless if it's handled by civil or criminal courts. Not to mention, most people also consider Microsoft's anti-trust position to be rather significant in this case. And by most people, I mean it's a significant part of Sun's case. As it should be! Feel free to delude yourself all you like. In the mean time, real world continues to move on.
Sadly, Microsoft was given yet another green light to rape and pillage other companies and consumers at large.
I stand by my analogy as it actually is fairly representative for those that obviously haven't followed the whole tale...as much as any analogy can be. It does fairly well at placing the wrong-doings in perspective for all parties.
Actually, the consumer is the one that suffered. If you ran an applet that was written using Microsoft's flavor of java on Sun's implementation, it wouldn't work.
This doesn't have anything to do with this language or that language. It has to do with Microsoft fragmenting the market, inflicting loss of reputation in the eyes of the end user. Now granted, this did place an extra burden on developers.
You obviously never followed the topic.
The "Insightful" moderation is simply sad.
This is more like you burning down my house, on purpose, and a judge says I'm allowed to live in your house until restitution is made by you, while my house is being rebuilt. Then, these other judges come along and say, "woe", that doesn't make any sense. Even though you burned down my house on purpose, you shouldn't be held responsible unless the on-going legal action says otherwise. In the mean time, I have to go live under a bridge while you and the judges all laugh at me.
This has nothing to do with marketing or product promotion. This has to do with holding Microsoft responsible for it's very illegal and harmful activities.
Yep! With the sole purpose of creating incompatibilities thus fragmenting and/or destroying Java's momentum.
And as usual, MS is left to take a bow for screwing the consumer, smiling all the while!
Okay. Thanks. I guess I can buy into that because somewhere back in the fog, I think I do remember it being said that it was not an AIX JFS port. Which, of course, does not rule out OS/2. Oddly enough, I didn't even know you could get JFS for OS/2. :)
Thanks again!
was porting JFS
;)
I think I remember reading that JFS on Linux was a new implementation rather than a direct port. Does that mean some code was lifted? I have no idea. XFS, OTOH, is a port.
Not really sure this adds anything to the topic, but there it is.