In real life it will be considerably higher. And yes, I agree that they're a bastard to refuel and maintain generally - but they are otherwise peerless. I like an aircraft that can outfly missiles.
Personal sacrifice is the only realistic standard. After the flood, no raindrop wants to accept responsibility for causing it, but after the drought no raindrop wants to accept responsibility for not having fallen, too. In short, a country is made up of its individuals, and in order to comapre them fairly you would have to lop the USA up into 16-million-person chunks and compare each of those (at $32M each) with the Netherlands ($320M) to see whose generosity made the most difference.
Also, the one that gives $600M will almost invariably insist that it takes the form of American goods delivered by American service companies and/or military to the subset of the dependents that strikes Americans as being easiest to deliver to; the one that gives $320M will be more likely to distribute it through locals in whatever form and manner best suits said locals - which will in the end prove an order of magnitude more effective.
To turn it around and put it an an absolute-size footing so that you can understand that America loses even from your own perspective, if the United States of Europe (EU) donated at half the rate of our hypothetical.nl, they would give $7B versus our hypothetical United States of America at $600M. If they donated at the same rate each, the EU would still raise 15% or so more than the USA and by your definition be more useful.
Should I mention that Western Australia has a single shire which is bigger than Texas? That might make us a better country by your standards. (-:
They won't tell you just how fast it goes, but one was clocked crossing Canada in much less than an hour and they start their landing approaches to Perth out over Kalgoorlie.
If 300 million Americans donate USD$2 each, that's more noble than 16 million Hollanders donating USD$20 each? Hello? Is this brain on? Quick, go buy a lottery ticket, you might win!
WRT the DIY version, you can set Linux up to merge inputs from multiple keyboards (actually, that's its default behaviour and dissuading it from doing that is one of the big traumas involved in making multiple independent X instances work), so you could plug two potentially mangled keyboards in and lay one to each side, and potentially also have another unmangled keyboard before you as well.
In addition to the random dropouts, I've had instances of Lookout failing in an amazing array of predictable (and unpredictable) ways. One Lookout would reliably bluescreen the machine on Send and Recieve yet its neighbour with identical settings was fine. And only Lookout, everything else on the same machine operated (as much as you get this under MS-Windows) flawlessly. Another machine on the same LAN would sit there spinning its wheels on Send and Recieve, about one time in 3 or 4. In both cases the tech responsible for them (I only did the Linux gateway, but being a tech get asked about everything with a cable in it or buttons on it) tried everything and eventually had to wipe and reinstall the entire OS (Win2k) on each box to make things happy.
Not KMail, pine, emacs - at least, not for me, not so far.
As for Lookout, AKA VirusFlypaper, I've had that freeze, go crazy and/or slow, and bluescreen frequently (both Lookout proper and Lookout Expletive, I mean Express).
it's also worthy to note that a lot of 2K/2K03 IT admins would probably like an exchange replacement running on Windows as well.
A lot of the software components listed as part of an MS-Exchange replacement do run under MS-Windows as well. For serious loads you would be far better off installing Linux and XPde to please the PHBs than running it under MS-Windows.
a whacking great bolt of lightning should just about do it. The characteristics match across the board. The only issue being that conventional science admits of no source for such a bolt.
It says "Welcome to the Bill Workgroup Server and exchange4linux website" and right on the front page adds "BILL Open Workgroup Server is under the GNU public licence. BILL is also part of the exchange4linux (exchange for linux) project on sourceforge.net [...] exchange4linux/BILL now includes support for Meeting Invitations and Free/Busy and the forwarding of all Outlook Objects in e-mail."
Management couldn't give a monkeys about the license. They just want to know that when they click Send & Receive, it will indeed Send & Receive. Every time.
I'm sure I'll get bombarded with comments about how it only deals with one ergonomic feature, when it shou[l]d deal with 42 and a half
Wrong. You'll get bombarded with comments about how it just plain sucks.
It's horrible enough with two hands, but if you switch to one hand you have to travel an extra half mile each time you change sides, and you have less choice for multi-key input (Ctrl-Y, for example). It doesn't solve any ergonomic problems, it just gives Mr Billion-dollars-a-month-profit another chance to charge exorbitant amounts of money for a uniquely broken keyboard.
Thanks, I'll stick to my AUD$9 AOpen keyboard (to say nothing of an AOpen optical mouse which cost 1/2 as much as the Microsoft equivalent, and they threw in an extra wheel) until someone comes up with something which makes switching worthwhile.
No, The SCO Group (TSG) pays lawyers to do barratry.
The Santa Cruz Operation is probably the company you had in mind, and they don't exist. They sold their UNIX rights to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarantella. And apparently are still producing code. Hopefully, they're now producing good code, because I've seen SCO UNIX and it ain't a pretty sight.
AFAICT TSG (a glove-puppet for The Canopy Group) have never lifted their finger to any creative or constructive work in their entire collective lives. Their only visible occupation is "suer". They make money from suing.
if ibm really stole sco's code, the are guilty and have to pay sco for it.
I agree. But this is not what TSG are claiming.
TSG do claim to own derivative works (including hardware) that IBM wrote and the agreement says IBM have the rights to. They are also claiming ownership by derivation of every operating system in the world. I'll read that again. TSG claim to own every OS there is. Even Windows. I haven't seen them explicitly claim to own DOS yet, but hey, they sued (and I think rightfully for a change) over what Microsoft did to DR-DOS.
You only have to rephrase that statement to understand all of the implications:
"IBM doesn't give a...."
TSG are the ones who need a real cash flow. If their case had any legs (ha!), it would be in IBM's interest to file those motions and drag things out a little. The fact that IBM haven't done so hints that they want TSG to embarrass themselves... er... show their evidence in court as soon as possible.
TSG unearthed Amendment 2 from the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory marked "beware of the leopard" located in a dark stairless basement (the Planning Department) on a planet circling Alpha Centauri. Nobody else has an original of this fabled Amendment or any other record of it.
The Amendment purports to cede some copyrights to a predecessor of TSG. Even if the document hasn't been drawn up very recently and artifically aged, the copyright transfer has not been registered with the USPTO so it isn't (yet) valid. They don't yet actually own any related copyrights.
Dollars to doughnuts this is the mysterious transfer of copyrights that they were polling Novell about (and denied so doing) just before they whipped Percival out and shoved him into the legal meat grinder.
They have no patents at all, and no claim to any patents.
Also, if Amendment 2 turns out to be a forgery, the only share trading D'ohl will be doing is trading shares of his posterior for the opportunity to stay alive and relatively unhurt in a Federal penitentiary. Given his arrogance so far, he may not survive long enough to be offered even that.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they'll build Bang-Bang?
Tax at $1 a head on 1.5GP netts you a lot more spendable than $1 a head on 300MP.
It's amazing how much you can say by changing the emphasis on just one word.
My real favourite all-weather candidate is Ruby.
In real life it will be considerably higher. And yes, I agree that they're a bastard to refuel and maintain generally - but they are otherwise peerless. I like an aircraft that can outfly missiles.
Personal sacrifice is the only realistic standard. After the flood, no raindrop wants to accept responsibility for causing it, but after the drought no raindrop wants to accept responsibility for not having fallen, too. In short, a country is made up of its individuals, and in order to comapre them fairly you would have to lop the USA up into 16-million-person chunks and compare each of those (at $32M each) with the Netherlands ($320M) to see whose generosity made the most difference.
.nl, they would give $7B versus our hypothetical United States of America at $600M. If they donated at the same rate each, the EU would still raise 15% or so more than the USA and by your definition be more useful.
Also, the one that gives $600M will almost invariably insist that it takes the form of American goods delivered by American service companies and/or military to the subset of the dependents that strikes Americans as being easiest to deliver to; the one that gives $320M will be more likely to distribute it through locals in whatever form and manner best suits said locals - which will in the end prove an order of magnitude more effective.
To turn it around and put it an an absolute-size footing so that you can understand that America loses even from your own perspective, if the United States of Europe (EU) donated at half the rate of our hypothetical
Should I mention that Western Australia has a single shire which is bigger than Texas? That might make us a better country by your standards. (-:
They won't tell you just how fast it goes, but one was clocked crossing Canada in much less than an hour and they start their landing approaches to Perth out over Kalgoorlie.
If 300 million Americans donate USD$2 each, that's more noble than 16 million Hollanders donating USD$20 each? Hello? Is this brain on? Quick, go buy a lottery ticket, you might win!
WRT the DIY version, you can set Linux up to merge inputs from multiple keyboards (actually, that's its default behaviour and dissuading it from doing that is one of the big traumas involved in making multiple independent X instances work), so you could plug two potentially mangled keyboards in and lay one to each side, and potentially also have another unmangled keyboard before you as well.
In addition to the random dropouts, I've had instances of Lookout failing in an amazing array of predictable (and unpredictable) ways. One Lookout would reliably bluescreen the machine on Send and Recieve yet its neighbour with identical settings was fine. And only Lookout, everything else on the same machine operated (as much as you get this under MS-Windows) flawlessly. Another machine on the same LAN would sit there spinning its wheels on Send and Recieve, about one time in 3 or 4. In both cases the tech responsible for them (I only did the Linux gateway, but being a tech get asked about everything with a cable in it or buttons on it) tried everything and eventually had to wipe and reinstall the entire OS (Win2k) on each box to make things happy.
Not KMail, pine, emacs - at least, not for me, not so far.
As for Lookout, AKA VirusFlypaper, I've had that freeze, go crazy and/or slow, and bluescreen frequently (both Lookout proper and Lookout Expletive, I mean Express).
Holding 'phone, eating, mousing, etc.
BTW, it still sucks to use it two-handed and takes up a lot of desk space as well. (-:
It's been a while since I last used it, but isn't there a kind of stand-alone email calendaring mode in Lookout?
A lot of the software components listed as part of an MS-Exchange replacement do run under MS-Windows as well. For serious loads you would be far better off installing Linux and XPde to please the PHBs than running it under MS-Windows.
Are you talking about Sobig-E or the price tag? (-:
a whacking great bolt of lightning should just about do it. The characteristics match across the board. The only issue being that conventional science admits of no source for such a bolt.
...since we don't have to work to subtly (or not so subtly) break interaction with competing software and/or every standard we can lay hands on.
It says "Welcome to the Bill Workgroup Server and exchange4linux website" and right on the front page adds "BILL Open Workgroup Server is under the GNU public licence. BILL is also part of the exchange4linux (exchange for linux) project on sourceforge.net [...] exchange4linux/BILL now includes support for Meeting Invitations and Free/Busy and the forwarding of all Outlook Objects in e-mail."
This links to the exchange4linux SourceForge page, and unlike OSER has actual downloads and complete setup instruction on it. I'm guessing that this BILL comes from Bill Hughes, an e4l author.
Well, at least that eliminates Outlook.
Wrong. You'll get bombarded with comments about how it just plain sucks.
It's horrible enough with two hands, but if you switch to one hand you have to travel an extra half mile each time you change sides, and you have less choice for multi-key input (Ctrl-Y, for example). It doesn't solve any ergonomic problems, it just gives Mr Billion-dollars-a-month-profit another chance to charge exorbitant amounts of money for a uniquely broken keyboard.
Thanks, I'll stick to my AUD$9 AOpen keyboard (to say nothing of an AOpen optical mouse which cost 1/2 as much as the Microsoft equivalent, and they threw in an extra wheel) until someone comes up with something which makes switching worthwhile.
The OSER project seems to agree:
Guys, does it have to be that Outlook-compatible?
No, The SCO Group (TSG) pays lawyers to do barratry.
The Santa Cruz Operation is probably the company you had in mind, and they don't exist. They sold their UNIX rights to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarantella. And apparently are still producing code. Hopefully, they're now producing good code, because I've seen SCO UNIX and it ain't a pretty sight.
AFAICT TSG (a glove-puppet for The Canopy Group) have never lifted their finger to any creative or constructive work in their entire collective lives. Their only visible occupation is "suer". They make money from suing.
I agree. But this is not what TSG are claiming.
TSG do claim to own derivative works (including hardware) that IBM wrote and the agreement says IBM have the rights to. They are also claiming ownership by derivation of every operating system in the world. I'll read that again. TSG claim to own every OS there is. Even Windows. I haven't seen them explicitly claim to own DOS yet, but hey, they sued (and I think rightfully for a change) over what Microsoft did to DR-DOS.
So... you're for who?
TSG are the ones who need a real cash flow. If their case had any legs (ha!), it would be in IBM's interest to file those motions and drag things out a little. The fact that IBM haven't done so hints that they want TSG to embarrass themselves... er... show their evidence in court as soon as possible.
The Amendment purports to cede some copyrights to a predecessor of TSG. Even if the document hasn't been drawn up very recently and artifically aged, the copyright transfer has not been registered with the USPTO so it isn't (yet) valid. They don't yet actually own any related copyrights.
Dollars to doughnuts this is the mysterious transfer of copyrights that they were polling Novell about (and denied so doing) just before they whipped Percival out and shoved him into the legal meat grinder.
They have no patents at all, and no claim to any patents.
Also, if Amendment 2 turns out to be a forgery, the only share trading D'ohl will be doing is trading shares of his posterior for the opportunity to stay alive and relatively unhurt in a Federal penitentiary. Given his arrogance so far, he may not survive long enough to be offered even that.