I disagree. I believe that the content of your lectures ought to belong to the people, as they are supported by the State and Federal Government. Perhaps things would be different if it were a private school, in which case you could make this part of the contract you have with students, if you really desired to hold this license on your lectures.
The US Constitution creates Intellectual Property rights "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". I don't really see how carving out a new type of IP for the semantic content of speeches made to students, which is what lectures are, promotes science or "useful arts". If your ideas are so interesting and new as to warrant IP protection, then you should publish the ideas, copyright them and sell them.
As others have pointed out, this is a very dangerous precedent, a slippery slope from which we might find ourselves gagged from just trying to relate what certain "protected classes" (like professors) say.
And, really, what do you have against someone profitting from the packaging and dissemination of ideas. If the product is any good, it would only go to build a reputation for you as a teacher and help support those book sales that might help you to make some money off of your ideas for yourself.
You might find it annoying that others are profiting from the content of your lectures, but, to me, that's not sufficient cause to create a new class of IP. We don't have an inherent right not to be annoyed.
I'm not sure, but I believe that Oracle is the most popular database for SAP R/3 installations.
I would bet that this move is all about SAP chafing under their relationship with Oracle. On the one hand, they are heavily dependent on Oracle RDBMS as a component, on the other hand, Oracle is, successfully as of late, competing with SAP with their Oracle Apps.
It's a complicated world out there. Lately, SAP have been aligning themselves more and more with Microsoft. Ellison has declared war on.net with their own, yet to be named, internet-based distributed application framework. SAP is taking a shot at Oracle with this move, I think, but doing it in a way that doesn't put them too close to Microsoft. You can hardly be considered a friend of Microsoft by GPLing applications, with Microsoft's forays into the Linux world rumored and real, this may be changing, however.
Sure, you could have always used this database with your SAP R/3 installation, but now SAP might benefit from Open Source development of it and Oracle will have to fend off yet another Open Source RDBMS.
Anyone else extremely annoyed with the NY Times requiring a login to read their articles?
Not me. I'm really happy to have quality NY Times reporting available for free.
Hey, I think it's a pretty darn clever way of avoiding deep linking. Without something like this, any shmoe could setup an on-line news site which would get all the advantages of NYT reporting for nothing.
Do people here really feel that information should be so free as to remove all incentive to those who produce it?
I think the solution to script-kiddy wankerism is a revival of the demo scene. Everyone uses GUIs now, so it's harder to program to the metal to make cool demos that cut the edge of technology.
A lot more potential crackers are involved today in the Linux scene than were ever involved in the demo scene. But, maybe you have a point, maybe these guys need something palpable to show for all their midnight hacking.
Seems like doing demos on Linux would be pretty cool. One problem. It's a lot harder to impress these days.
If they evolved with the ability to observe the "true quantum-wave reality" of our existence, then they might not be aware of the "radio waves" that appear as artifacts of some more fundamental medium.
Maybe you're talking about some kind of evolution that I can't even imagine (and I would think you couldn't either, but perhaps I'm wrong).
But, such an alien would presumably be aware of spatial dimensions. Radio waves would appear to them to be extensions of a wave phenomenom into many spatial dimensions.
Again, maybe these aliens would be just as aware of things on a very small spatial scale as large and not think much of such a thing, but one would think that they wouldn't ignore large wave patterns that seem to be generated by intelligence extending out across many thousands of light-years of space.
I would think that such aliens would be able to more immediately grasp the significance of radio waves (and all electomagentic spectrum phenomenon) than we are and would have uses for them (bouncing them off of other wave phenomenon, art, who knows). As I said, maybe I just don't have the imagination necessary to posit your aliens.
Look. I'm not criticizing you for attacking the Dems, I'm criticizing you for not holding them responsible, for giving them a pass when none is warranted.
I was saying that I don't see the Republicans getting a pass, ever, on such issues. I stand by it. I still haven't seen it.
The best you can bring yourself to say about the Republicans is that they are the 'lesser of two evils'. Sheesh... Why not just focus on the greater evil? The party (Democratic) who had all the campaign finance law violations and then have the temerity to lecture us on the need for more stringent laws. The administration that's allowed the most aggressive merger mania in history and lecture us that they are 'for the little guy'. The party that claims not to be in thrall to big special interests like Drug Companies, but takes huge donations. The party that looks the other way when Anne Richards (former Democratic Governor of Texas) executes more convicts than any other state at that time, but then roasts GW Bush for doing the same.
Everybody has failings, Democrats and Republicans alike. To say that they are both evil may be true, but doesn't accomplish anything. I say, let's focus on the worst always and rid our political process of them. If we continue to do this, then Government will get better.
If you don't like Republicans, then vote Green, whatever. Just get rid of the Democrats and their hypocrisy.
While that's a clever jab, it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here. Seems more like a question of Establishmentarianism -- politicians in office like to remain there, and know about both corporate bread-buttering and the importance of appearing reassuringly normal.
"hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party"? Give me a break.
Can anyone here imagine people making similar excuses for a Republican administration? If a Republican Administration were doing this we would see people here screaming themselves apoplectic about how this is yet another sell out by the Republicans to their powerful backers.
Face it, the Democrat's rhetoric is for the little guy, but their deeds are somewhere else entirely. It's the Democrats who were involved in the serious campaign finance violations. It's during the Clinton administration that the biggest corporate mergers have occurred (lest you forget, the 2 largest oil mergers ever, the 2 largest media mergers ever, the biggest automotive industry merger).
Wake up! You might not like the Republicans, but it's the Democrats who are clearly in the pocket of rich and powerful special interests.
It's a fact that many schools do lower their minimum entrance requirements for Athletes. I don't know if OSU is one of these. That should not be allowed.
They can probably call you stupid because you don't know much about football.
Is this some kind of argument that Football knowledge should be regarded as an Academic field?
Look, I don't really have a problem with College Athletics. I don't think there's justification for spending public funds for it and I don't see why public Academic institutions should be granting Athletic scholarships. I'm sorry, but I don't want public Institutions involving themselves in what amounts to Professional Sports - the coaches and trainers are professionals and the Colleges make money, or so we are told - as "marketing". That's all. I don't think I'm be unreasonable. This is not a "geek vs. jock" thing. It's just sensible public policy.
Harvard is VERY happy with their Rugby program. My cousin went there on a full scholarship and is now practicing at a successful law firm. Yep, that dumb jock who got straight A's in College really did not deserve the chance for a full ride.
I happen to know that anyone who gets accepted to Harvard can get funded to go to Harvard through their numerous foundations, loans, work programs, etc. So, your cousin didn't really have a problem, as long as Harvard didn't lower their standards so that they could have a better Rugby team. (That didn't happen did it?)
Now, tell me why any Athletes deserve a full ride to School? Are you saying that Athletes cannot compete like the rest? Your relatives who graduated Cum Laude could probably qualify for Academic Scholarships, get loans, work, you know, like the rest of the poor schleps out there?
I'm noticing the possibility that you never played a sport in college...most of my friends did.
Sheesh, is this supposed to be an ad hominem? What does it matter whether I played sports or not. Stick to the issues. Yeah, I didn't get a sports scholarship like you and your pals. Just like 99.9% of all the rest of the metriculating students.
Yes policies and focus HAVE to change, but saying that sports have NO place in higher education is fairly silly.
Who said no sports in higher education? I would say no scholarships, no lowering of standards (only students who could get in through the front door would be allowed to play) and no huge coaching staffs that at many Universities dwarf the salaries of any of the Academic departments. Under such a return to the true Amateur spirit there would be little opportunity for sports to corrupt what should be the real focus of education.
What about kids who play sports? What are you going to do for them? "Oops, sorry. After High School, you have no hopes of continuing on your education...just join the footbal league".
I dunno, maybe the kids who play sports can get through school just like the overwhelming majority of other students do. What about the kids who play chess?? How are they ever going to get to school without those Chess Scholarships?! (Oh, no Chess Scholarships? hmmm...)
It's corrupting for the focus of an academic institution to be Athletics. It gives you people like Bobby Knight and "students" like you have at many big Football schools who can hardly read.
You throw out a lot of smoke about how it keeps donors happy, blah, blah, blah. Show me one once of justification that it's a net positive to the school. And, don't give me the cooked books from the Sports Communication Deptartments who count that fancy fieldhouse as a benefit to the school.
I wonder how the donors at Harvard are kept happy with their modest sports programs?
If an institution develops a new process of engineering and publishes a paper on it, why would the national press be interested in it? Only scientific circles give a damn abou it.
Oh really? Let me ask you, which gets more coverage on/. Sports or engineering? There's a lot of interest in Science, Technology in Society. Education is listed as the most important issue to voters in the upcoming election. But, colleges are geared toward hyping their Athletic programs, not their Science and Education. Just look at the huge Sport's Communication Departments.
Its true, that maybe sports should not have all the limelight, however it is what brings the dough in.
But this is simply not true. You point to the millions that it brings in. How much does it cost? Counting everything, facilities, coaches, Scholarships, everything? And remember, that huge field house that Alumni dollars builds doesn't count as a benefit to the Academic programs when it is used almost entirely in the support of Sports programs. Then, you have to show that the Alumni money would dry up without the sports angle when there's no reason to believe this whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is indicated in that many schools with relatively small sports programs have huge endowments.
I side with Dr. Sperber's research. Sports is a net drain on School budgets financially.
Even if it was true that Athletic programs brought in money (which I believe to be false), it's just flat wrong for our Schools to be in this business. It corrupts the institutions in any number of ways. The fact that it's actually a drain on our Education dollars removes any justification whatsoever.
Sports is only a way to attract money from Alumni. Trust me...been there, worked there. Its the money that allows the school to build buildings and support research.
The only research I've ever seen on this makes me believe that College Sports is a net drain on our Institutions of higher learning. See the work of Murray Sperber,Beer and Circus : How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education, for support of this view.
Sure, it's easy to point at a building here or a research grant there, but could you know for sure that these wouldn't have been granted had their not been the Alumni/Sports connection? The schools that do the best in those academic ratings you cite typically fare poorly in Sports. If Sports excellence were responsible for inflows of support to schools, you would expect that the schools that have the best sports would also have the best facilities and this is hardly true. I believe you'll find that the Ivy League schools have the largest endowments and the best facilities, but far from the best sports programs.
I agree with "Mr. Trollman". It is hard to take seriously "schools" that are merely support systems for Athletic programs. Let me ask you, what's the real focus in American Society on our Academic Institutions? How much press coverage does Academic Research and Education get in ratio to the amount of press coverage that their Sports programs receive? I would imagine it's over 1000 to 1 in favor of the Sports programs. Ridiculous.
Firstly, I think this does not bode well for Transmeta.
I don't think it bodes well for Transmeta, either. I don't see why you wouldn't want big partners like IBM and Toshiba if you are Transmeta. Unless, neither IBM nor Toshiba are not interested in bringing products forward using the Transmeta technology, which we have some reason to believe because of the recent Toshiba criticism of the Transmeta chip set.
Transmeta would have only been able to get the licenses back from Toshiba and IBM by prying them out of their cold, dead hands.
Now, this is a leap. We don't know that there wasn't a favorable buy-back clause in the licensing agreements that Transmeta signed with those guys.
Check the history of how Amateur athletics became so popular in the International Arena.
It started in England in the 19th century when the dilettante landed classes wanted to have athletic competitions and not have to compete in feats of strength against laborers.
Being aware of such competitions only since the 60's, I can't remember a time when International "Amateur" athletics was a sham because the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes had their full-time "Amateurs" who lived better than 99% of the general populace in those countries.
Here's a dichotomy for you. Either (a) Windows deployment saves you time and money or (b) Their marketing is bull. Both are not true. Their actions tend to make be believe (a).
but don't blame Microsoft for not converting 100% of its M&A business to Win2k... I'd personally rather have them spend their time making Win2K better, wouldn't you?
If they don't use it for everything they tell you to use it for, then how do they know when they've made it "better".
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The true measure of useability is in the use.
Besides, you're giving us a false dichotomy. They only have time to (a) make Win2K better or (b) use Win2K themselves, but not both? Last I looked, they make unusually high profits for a software company. They should be able to capitalize those "upgrades" to Windows for their internal applications which, according to their own hype, will save them money.
Here's a dichotomy for you. Either (a) Windows deployment saves you time and money or (b) Their marketing is bull. Both are not true. Their actions tend to make be believe (a).
True, Microsoft should be using their own stuff, but what about the case where they buy up an existing company which uses FreeBSD? If they were smart, they'd probably just leave things as is (if it isn't broken, don't fix it).
If they were smart, they wouldn't be Microsoft.:-)
But seriously, it's hypocritical of them NOT to move them with all possible haste on to their own platforms. They are telling their customers to do just this, every day. If the move from "legacy" (non-Windows in the Microsoft lexicon) to Windows doesn't have huge benefits that easily justifies the porting effort, then their marketing is just a sham.
I'm really surprised that they don't move more aggressively to port those systems to Windows. I would think any potential service interruptions (and reasonably, there would be some with any large migration) would be much less embarrassing than the continued reminder that their marketing promises are just so much bull.
I remember when the X Consortium went out of business a few years ago. The stewardship of X got folded into The Open Group at that time. All (or most all) of the original X developers moved on. Where are those guys now?
Seemed a little odd at the time that the work on Broadway was just finishing up (or was done) and the X Consortium went out of business.
Of course, looking at the splash Broadway has made, it's not surprising.
Gosh, is anyone using Broadway out there? It seems like a good idea. Extend your X apps to browsers and still have the native X application. From what I've heard, it's slow, hard to use and immature as a technology.
Anyway, back on topic here. Who is doing this work for The Open Group and why? Is this being driven by the Unix vendors needs for new features?
Digital/Tru64 unix remains the only commercial unix that is largely based on the BSD code.
Where did you get the idea that OSF-1 was based on BSD code?
From what I remember, OSF-1 was based the Mach Microkernel with an old version of AIX (SysV derived, but older than the SysV that Sun/AT&T were pushing) providing the Unix elements.
What might never have been born without the VAX is BSD Unix, which led the way towards fully paged VMs (V7 just swapped whole segments).
BSD Unix was born on PDP-11s, not VAXen. In fact, the first version of BSD Unix for the VAX 11/780 was outperformed by the then current version of BSD Unix for the PDP-11/70.
BTW, fully paged VMs predate both the VAX and Unix.
They already tried to pull the plug on it once, but the outcry from corporate customers was too great.
This is an oft heard lie. At no time did Compaq announce or even float a plan past customers that OpenVMS was to be dropped.
One of the big Analyst firms (Gartner?) said that they expected Compaq to stop new development on OpenVMS by the end of 2001, which has always been denied by Compaq (Compaq has published several revisions of a rolling 5-year development plan for OpenVMS since this prediction).
It's probably just FUD from competitors who want to get into those Compaq OpenVMS shops with their wares.
If you look at it, it doesn't make any sense at all from a business standpoint. Compaq makes $4 Billion a year from AlphaServer sales and sales of software/services/licensing to support said sales (this includes Tru64 Unix and OpenVMS).
I'm not clear on the breakdowns, but OpenVMS brings in more than Tru64, I think.
This is all very high margin stuff. Nobody in their right mind would retire this cash cow.
I've been forced to use VMS this summer, and that version control crap is a huge pain in my arse. The version control in VMS eats up my quota so fast that I have to purge often...purging often destroys any intended version control.
You just need to learn how to use VMS. Do a "HELP SET FILE/VERSION" and "HELP SET DIR/VERSION". You can set a maximum number of versions to keep for any file in any directory, or for any file by name.
If you don't like versions, you can apply a version limit of 1 to all of your files, effectively giving you the lack of file versions you somehow feel is preferable. You see, file versions as implemented in VMS are an added feature that can be turned off easily.
You may also want to check out "PURGE/KEEP=n", which will maintain n file versions. Thus, you don't have to eradicate the advantages of file versions with every purge command.
I dunno, I've find it very handy for program development and configuration files. Sure, backups and CVS are good ideas, but do you commit to RCS after every edit? Give me a break. Being able to undo the last modification is a big relief to me.
This guy from the Meta Group would never have said the same thing about SAP, which is delivered as source for all it's applications. This line about "Linux is not part of the business process" is just a sound byte to fortify managers who need something to say when confronted with a Linux solution that they'd prefer to reject because it's new.
They are really stretching hard to find something to hate about Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Constitution creates Intellectual Property rights "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". I don't really see how carving out a new type of IP for the semantic content of speeches made to students, which is what lectures are, promotes science or "useful arts". If your ideas are so interesting and new as to warrant IP protection, then you should publish the ideas, copyright them and sell them.
As others have pointed out, this is a very dangerous precedent, a slippery slope from which we might find ourselves gagged from just trying to relate what certain "protected classes" (like professors) say.
And, really, what do you have against someone profitting from the packaging and dissemination of ideas. If the product is any good, it would only go to build a reputation for you as a teacher and help support those book sales that might help you to make some money off of your ideas for yourself.
You might find it annoying that others are profiting from the content of your lectures, but, to me, that's not sufficient cause to create a new class of IP. We don't have an inherent right not to be annoyed.
-Jordan Henderson
I would bet that this move is all about SAP chafing under their relationship with Oracle. On the one hand, they are heavily dependent on Oracle RDBMS as a component, on the other hand, Oracle is, successfully as of late, competing with SAP with their Oracle Apps.
It's a complicated world out there. Lately, SAP have been aligning themselves more and more with Microsoft. Ellison has declared war on .net with their own, yet to be named, internet-based distributed application framework. SAP is taking a shot at Oracle with this move, I think, but doing it in a way that doesn't put them too close to Microsoft. You can hardly be considered a friend of Microsoft by GPLing applications, with Microsoft's forays into the Linux world rumored and real, this may be changing, however.
Sure, you could have always used this database with your SAP R/3 installation, but now SAP might benefit from Open Source development of it and Oracle will have to fend off yet another Open Source RDBMS.
All pure speculation...
-Jordan Henderson
Not me. I'm really happy to have quality NY Times reporting available for free.
Hey, I think it's a pretty darn clever way of avoiding deep linking. Without something like this, any shmoe could setup an on-line news site which would get all the advantages of NYT reporting for nothing.
Do people here really feel that information should be so free as to remove all incentive to those who produce it?
-Jordan Henderson
A lot more potential crackers are involved today in the Linux scene than were ever involved in the demo scene. But, maybe you have a point, maybe these guys need something palpable to show for all their midnight hacking.
Seems like doing demos on Linux would be pretty cool. One problem. It's a lot harder to impress these days.
-Jordan Henderson
Maybe you're talking about some kind of evolution that I can't even imagine (and I would think you couldn't either, but perhaps I'm wrong). But, such an alien would presumably be aware of spatial dimensions. Radio waves would appear to them to be extensions of a wave phenomenom into many spatial dimensions.
Again, maybe these aliens would be just as aware of things on a very small spatial scale as large and not think much of such a thing, but one would think that they wouldn't ignore large wave patterns that seem to be generated by intelligence extending out across many thousands of light-years of space.
I would think that such aliens would be able to more immediately grasp the significance of radio waves (and all electomagentic spectrum phenomenon) than we are and would have uses for them (bouncing them off of other wave phenomenon, art, who knows). As I said, maybe I just don't have the imagination necessary to posit your aliens.
-Jordan Henderson
I was saying that I don't see the Republicans getting a pass, ever, on such issues. I stand by it. I still haven't seen it.
The best you can bring yourself to say about the Republicans is that they are the 'lesser of two evils'. Sheesh... Why not just focus on the greater evil? The party (Democratic) who had all the campaign finance law violations and then have the temerity to lecture us on the need for more stringent laws. The administration that's allowed the most aggressive merger mania in history and lecture us that they are 'for the little guy'. The party that claims not to be in thrall to big special interests like Drug Companies, but takes huge donations. The party that looks the other way when Anne Richards (former Democratic Governor of Texas) executes more convicts than any other state at that time, but then roasts GW Bush for doing the same.
Everybody has failings, Democrats and Republicans alike. To say that they are both evil may be true, but doesn't accomplish anything. I say, let's focus on the worst always and rid our political process of them. If we continue to do this, then Government will get better.
If you don't like Republicans, then vote Green, whatever. Just get rid of the Democrats and their hypocrisy.
-Jordan Henderson
"hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party"? Give me a break.
Can anyone here imagine people making similar excuses for a Republican administration? If a Republican Administration were doing this we would see people here screaming themselves apoplectic about how this is yet another sell out by the Republicans to their powerful backers.
Face it, the Democrat's rhetoric is for the little guy, but their deeds are somewhere else entirely. It's the Democrats who were involved in the serious campaign finance violations. It's during the Clinton administration that the biggest corporate mergers have occurred (lest you forget, the 2 largest oil mergers ever, the 2 largest media mergers ever, the biggest automotive industry merger).
Wake up! You might not like the Republicans, but it's the Democrats who are clearly in the pocket of rich and powerful special interests.
-Jordan Henderson
It's a fact that many schools do lower their minimum entrance requirements for Athletes. I don't know if OSU is one of these. That should not be allowed.
Is this some kind of argument that Football knowledge should be regarded as an Academic field?
Look, I don't really have a problem with College Athletics. I don't think there's justification for spending public funds for it and I don't see why public Academic institutions should be granting Athletic scholarships. I'm sorry, but I don't want public Institutions involving themselves in what amounts to Professional Sports - the coaches and trainers are professionals and the Colleges make money, or so we are told - as "marketing". That's all. I don't think I'm be unreasonable. This is not a "geek vs. jock" thing. It's just sensible public policy.
-Jordan Henderson
I happen to know that anyone who gets accepted to Harvard can get funded to go to Harvard through their numerous foundations, loans, work programs, etc. So, your cousin didn't really have a problem, as long as Harvard didn't lower their standards so that they could have a better Rugby team. (That didn't happen did it?)
Now, tell me why any Athletes deserve a full ride to School? Are you saying that Athletes cannot compete like the rest? Your relatives who graduated Cum Laude could probably qualify for Academic Scholarships, get loans, work, you know, like the rest of the poor schleps out there?
Sheesh, is this supposed to be an ad hominem? What does it matter whether I played sports or not. Stick to the issues. Yeah, I didn't get a sports scholarship like you and your pals. Just like 99.9% of all the rest of the metriculating students.
Who said no sports in higher education? I would say no scholarships, no lowering of standards (only students who could get in through the front door would be allowed to play) and no huge coaching staffs that at many Universities dwarf the salaries of any of the Academic departments. Under such a return to the true Amateur spirit there would be little opportunity for sports to corrupt what should be the real focus of education.
-Jordan Henderson
I dunno, maybe the kids who play sports can get through school just like the overwhelming majority of other students do. What about the kids who play chess?? How are they ever going to get to school without those Chess Scholarships?! (Oh, no Chess Scholarships? hmmm...)
It's corrupting for the focus of an academic institution to be Athletics. It gives you people like Bobby Knight and "students" like you have at many big Football schools who can hardly read.
You throw out a lot of smoke about how it keeps donors happy, blah, blah, blah. Show me one once of justification that it's a net positive to the school. And, don't give me the cooked books from the Sports Communication Deptartments who count that fancy fieldhouse as a benefit to the school.
I wonder how the donors at Harvard are kept happy with their modest sports programs?
-Jordan Henderson
Oh really? Let me ask you, which gets more coverage on /. Sports or engineering? There's a lot of interest in Science, Technology in Society. Education is listed as the most important issue to voters in the upcoming election. But, colleges are geared toward hyping their Athletic programs, not their Science and Education. Just look at the huge Sport's Communication Departments.
But this is simply not true. You point to the millions that it brings in. How much does it cost? Counting everything, facilities, coaches, Scholarships, everything? And remember, that huge field house that Alumni dollars builds doesn't count as a benefit to the Academic programs when it is used almost entirely in the support of Sports programs. Then, you have to show that the Alumni money would dry up without the sports angle when there's no reason to believe this whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is indicated in that many schools with relatively small sports programs have huge endowments.
I side with Dr. Sperber's research. Sports is a net drain on School budgets financially.
Even if it was true that Athletic programs brought in money (which I believe to be false), it's just flat wrong for our Schools to be in this business. It corrupts the institutions in any number of ways. The fact that it's actually a drain on our Education dollars removes any justification whatsoever.
-Jordan Henderson
The only research I've ever seen on this makes me believe that College Sports is a net drain on our Institutions of higher learning. See the work of Murray Sperber,Beer and Circus : How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education, for support of this view.
Sure, it's easy to point at a building here or a research grant there, but could you know for sure that these wouldn't have been granted had their not been the Alumni/Sports connection? The schools that do the best in those academic ratings you cite typically fare poorly in Sports. If Sports excellence were responsible for inflows of support to schools, you would expect that the schools that have the best sports would also have the best facilities and this is hardly true. I believe you'll find that the Ivy League schools have the largest endowments and the best facilities, but far from the best sports programs.
I agree with "Mr. Trollman". It is hard to take seriously "schools" that are merely support systems for Athletic programs. Let me ask you, what's the real focus in American Society on our Academic Institutions? How much press coverage does Academic Research and Education get in ratio to the amount of press coverage that their Sports programs receive? I would imagine it's over 1000 to 1 in favor of the Sports programs. Ridiculous.
-Jordan Henderson
I don't think it bodes well for Transmeta, either. I don't see why you wouldn't want big partners like IBM and Toshiba if you are Transmeta. Unless, neither IBM nor Toshiba are not interested in bringing products forward using the Transmeta technology, which we have some reason to believe because of the recent Toshiba criticism of the Transmeta chip set.
Now, this is a leap. We don't know that there wasn't a favorable buy-back clause in the licensing agreements that Transmeta signed with those guys.
-Jordan Henderson
Check the history of how Amateur athletics became so popular in the International Arena.
It started in England in the 19th century when the dilettante landed classes wanted to have athletic competitions and not have to compete in feats of strength against laborers.
Being aware of such competitions only since the 60's, I can't remember a time when International "Amateur" athletics was a sham because the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes had their full-time "Amateurs" who lived better than 99% of the general populace in those countries.
-Jordan Henderson
Oops, I mean I tend to believe (b).
-Jordan Henderson
If they don't use it for everything they tell you to use it for, then how do they know when they've made it "better".
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The true measure of useability is in the use.
Besides, you're giving us a false dichotomy. They only have time to (a) make Win2K better or (b) use Win2K themselves, but not both? Last I looked, they make unusually high profits for a software company. They should be able to capitalize those "upgrades" to Windows for their internal applications which, according to their own hype, will save them money.
Here's a dichotomy for you. Either (a) Windows deployment saves you time and money or (b) Their marketing is bull. Both are not true. Their actions tend to make be believe (a).
-Jordan Henderson
If they were smart, they wouldn't be Microsoft. :-)
But seriously, it's hypocritical of them NOT to move them with all possible haste on to their own platforms. They are telling their customers to do just this, every day. If the move from "legacy" (non-Windows in the Microsoft lexicon) to Windows doesn't have huge benefits that easily justifies the porting effort, then their marketing is just a sham.
I'm really surprised that they don't move more aggressively to port those systems to Windows. I would think any potential service interruptions (and reasonably, there would be some with any large migration) would be much less embarrassing than the continued reminder that their marketing promises are just so much bull.
-Jordan Henderson
How do you manage that?
Whenever I drink alcohol, my slacks always heat up.
-Jordan Henderson
Hey, thanks for all the good information.
Boy, I wish I could take that informative point someone gave me and reassign it to your post.
I don't know what's informative about my post...
(I really should have self-moderated with "No Score +1 Bonus".)
-Jordan Henderson
Seemed a little odd at the time that the work on Broadway was just finishing up (or was done) and the X Consortium went out of business.
Of course, looking at the splash Broadway has made, it's not surprising.
Gosh, is anyone using Broadway out there? It seems like a good idea. Extend your X apps to browsers and still have the native X application. From what I've heard, it's slow, hard to use and immature as a technology.
Anyway, back on topic here. Who is doing this work for The Open Group and why? Is this being driven by the Unix vendors needs for new features?
-Jordan Henderson
Where did you get the idea that OSF-1 was based on BSD code?
From what I remember, OSF-1 was based the Mach Microkernel with an old version of AIX (SysV derived, but older than the SysV that Sun/AT&T were pushing) providing the Unix elements.
-Jordan Henderson
BSD Unix was born on PDP-11s, not VAXen. In fact, the first version of BSD Unix for the VAX 11/780 was outperformed by the then current version of BSD Unix for the PDP-11/70.
BTW, fully paged VMs predate both the VAX and Unix.
-Jordan Henderson
This is an oft heard lie. At no time did Compaq announce or even float a plan past customers that OpenVMS was to be dropped.
One of the big Analyst firms (Gartner?) said that they expected Compaq to stop new development on OpenVMS by the end of 2001, which has always been denied by Compaq (Compaq has published several revisions of a rolling 5-year development plan for OpenVMS since this prediction).
It's probably just FUD from competitors who want to get into those Compaq OpenVMS shops with their wares.
If you look at it, it doesn't make any sense at all from a business standpoint. Compaq makes $4 Billion a year from AlphaServer sales and sales of software/services/licensing to support said sales (this includes Tru64 Unix and OpenVMS). I'm not clear on the breakdowns, but OpenVMS brings in more than Tru64, I think.
This is all very high margin stuff. Nobody in their right mind would retire this cash cow.
-Jordan Henderson
You just need to learn how to use VMS. Do a "HELP SET FILE/VERSION" and "HELP SET DIR/VERSION". You can set a maximum number of versions to keep for any file in any directory, or for any file by name.
If you don't like versions, you can apply a version limit of 1 to all of your files, effectively giving you the lack of file versions you somehow feel is preferable. You see, file versions as implemented in VMS are an added feature that can be turned off easily.
You may also want to check out "PURGE/KEEP=n", which will maintain n file versions. Thus, you don't have to eradicate the advantages of file versions with every purge command.
I dunno, I've find it very handy for program development and configuration files. Sure, backups and CVS are good ideas, but do you commit to RCS after every edit? Give me a break. Being able to undo the last modification is a big relief to me.
-Jordan Henderson
They are really stretching hard to find something to hate about Linux.
-Jordan Henderson