Burning the hydrogen produces more energy than it takes to extract it. This is not a transfer of energy from the electricity to the hydrogen to the engine. It is similar to a turbo charger or super charger. You are using power from the engine to compress air which makes the engine run better. This also is not a direct chain of energy transfer. That is the trick with enhancing car performance, either harnessing wasted energy ( brake systems that recharge batteries in hybrids ), or enhancing the combustion reaction somehow ( HFI, turbo, NOS ).
I think that the 360 launch will be kind of a dud. They really do not seem to be offering anything new. Sure, maybe the HD bleeding edge people will have a field day, but that is not a very large audience. Hell, my 24 inch CRT television is not able to fully exploit the graphical capabilities of the XBox. I do not think that the holiday season will help either because the HD'ers mentioned above would buy this for themselves no matter the season and it is too expensive for most parents to buy for their kids. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it.
Seeing as he was using the name "Windows Defender" to market and distribute his software, it seems clear that he is benifiting by using the name of another product, "Windows", and profiting from its success and marketing. Isn't that textbook infringement? If I made an email app called "Windows Mail", I could expect the same treatment.
2 GB of main memory on the chip, or better yet a GPU. Then a wireless chip and finally the audio subsystem. If we can put all of these things on the chip we could have a griddle and make pancakes.
I think you would have to title the book "GCC Puzzlers" or something of the sort. Different compilers give you different behavior for C. For example, how big is an int? Java is much more concrete.
That is a good point. I amend my previous statements to "crippled system". I had heard about iBook heat issues, but your story makes me very glad that I did not decide to buy one.
Sure, look at the iBook. It will not let you do dual display with extended desktop, only a mirrored desktop. Furthermore, the iBook will not continue to run when the lid is closed if that is what you want it to do. With the level of hardware that is in the iBook there is no way that you can convince me that it is incapable of doing these simple things. The reason they cripple the iBook is to sell the PowerBook. Oh and another thing, the iBook does not have an audio-in port. Check out the comparison chart at http://store.apple.com//Catalog/US/images/portable s_comparison_chart_con.html
No, no dual-display mode is not a deal breaker for me. No lid-closed mode turns me off. But what really gets me is that they are intentionally selling me a crippled machine. If I am going to buy a laptop, I want full access to all of its functionality. That is why I have a Thinkpad.
I don't know why you would call this "crooked". They are taking a gamble for a marketing strategy. They could just overproduce and hope they sell all of the first batch or they could sell a bunch first week and sell out there by creating more of a buzz. They are the only ones who could possibly be hurt in this. Crooked? No, but stupid? Maybe.
No, that is completely the wrong way to think about it. This is a way to be able to sell to customers whose entire infrastructure is from a competitor(EMC, Sun, Fujitsu) by being able to integrate or "virtualize" all of it so it works as a cohesive unit. It is all about virtualization of storage.
Joe: "I can't find things on the Internet." Google: "We solved your internet search problems!" Joe: "Search the Internet!?" Google: "Yeah, we indexed the Internet." Google: "Also, we solved your desktop search problems!" Joe: "How did you do that?" Google: "We indexed your hard-drive." Joe: "Oh, cool I guess." Google: "We solved you email organization problems!" Joe: "How?" Google: "We indexed your inbox!" Joe: "Wow, this brute force thing never gets old with you guys huh?"
I think those clauses are perfectly reasonable. It basically does not allow for changing the product and distributing it as the original. I am not sure what the GPL world does, but imagine if somebody started distributing sabotaged binaries or source of GNOME and did not notify users that this is not the original source. The OSS world is comfortable because they usually know who is legit for distributing software. This is not the same for the Windows world. A corporation has to protect its interests at all costs and clauses like this are how they do it. I am not a fan of the GPL and am glad that Microsoft is leaning more towards the side of the BSD lisence for their most open one.
Say a building collapses because one of the supports was not welded/poured/constructed properly. Would it be a fair solution to hold the few construction workers that worked on that support responsible for any damage or loss of life? No, that is completely ridiculous. If a company sells a product it is their legal responsibility. The construction company has a right to fire those responsible, but they should not be able to sue them for mistakes.
It is not about having no choice. It is about having a stable platform to target for development. Kind of like the appeal of Java is not the language, it is the platform.
If you check out their prepackaged virtual machines you will see one called "Browser Appliance". I think it is essentially a sandbox machine that just runs a browser isolated from your host OS.
I don't think anybody would deny that the ability to customize a linux distro is a strong point. This is seen the highest level of your distinctions; desktop, server, realtime, embedded, etc. The problem with linux being brought into the mainstream is the fragmentation of the desktop distros. Many linux fans think that they are pitting linux against Windows in an OS vs OS way, but they are wrong. To compete with Windows you have to compete with the platform. If linux distros do not all have the same platforms then there is fragmentation. What do I mean? Well, let's say that I want to develop software or drivers for Windows. I know exactly what platform I can develop that for and be able to easily test and distribute. If I want to do the same thing with linux it is a whole different ball game. Different architectures, libraries, custom compiled kernels, graphics systems, services, etc. This is why fragmentation is bad. The linux world's greatest strength and weakness lies in the fact that nobody is in charge of making the choices to design a standard platform.
I think the argument for bloat is that automatic grammar checking slows down the entire app, because stuff like that can. But if the AbiWord coders are at all intelligen, which I am sure they are, then they probably made it pretty easy to turn any feature like that off. So most of these criticizers just do not want to admit that in fact MS Office had a good feature first and this is AbiWord trying to catch up. Kind of the opposite of people criticizing Microsoft for implementing tabbed browsing in IE. Lesson, if MS had it first and an OSS app copies the functionality then they are just doing it to appease the people enslaved by Bill Gates at the cost of tainting their app. If an OSS app had it first and Microsoft copied the functionality then it is pure proof that Microsoft is incapable of innovating the way that the OSS world can. Pretty messed up double standard is you ask me, but thus is the/.
Slashdot Mirror
Burning the hydrogen produces more energy than it takes to extract it. This is not a transfer of energy from the electricity to the hydrogen to the engine. It is similar to a turbo charger or super charger. You are using power from the engine to compress air which makes the engine run better. This also is not a direct chain of energy transfer. That is the trick with enhancing car performance, either harnessing wasted energy ( brake systems that recharge batteries in hybrids ), or enhancing the combustion reaction somehow ( HFI, turbo, NOS ).
I think that the 360 launch will be kind of a dud. They really do not seem to be offering anything new. Sure, maybe the HD bleeding edge people will have a field day, but that is not a very large audience. Hell, my 24 inch CRT television is not able to fully exploit the graphical capabilities of the XBox. I do not think that the holiday season will help either because the HD'ers mentioned above would buy this for themselves no matter the season and it is too expensive for most parents to buy for their kids. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it.
Seeing as he was using the name "Windows Defender" to market and distribute his software, it seems clear that he is benifiting by using the name of another product, "Windows", and profiting from its success and marketing. Isn't that textbook infringement? If I made an email app called "Windows Mail", I could expect the same treatment.
2 GB of main memory on the chip, or better yet a GPU. Then a wireless chip and finally the audio subsystem. If we can put all of these things on the chip we could have a griddle and make pancakes.
I think you would have to title the book "GCC Puzzlers" or something of the sort. Different compilers give you different behavior for C. For example, how big is an int? Java is much more concrete.
That is a good point. I amend my previous statements to "crippled system". I had heard about iBook heat issues, but your story makes me very glad that I did not decide to buy one.
Sure, look at the iBook. It will not let you do dual display with extended desktop, only a mirrored desktop. Furthermore, the iBook will not continue to run when the lid is closed if that is what you want it to do. With the level of hardware that is in the iBook there is no way that you can convince me that it is incapable of doing these simple things. The reason they cripple the iBook is to sell the PowerBook. Oh and another thing, the iBook does not have an audio-in port. Check out the comparison chart at http://store.apple.com//Catalog/US/images/portable s_comparison_chart_con.html
No, no dual-display mode is not a deal breaker for me. No lid-closed mode turns me off. But what really gets me is that they are intentionally selling me a crippled machine. If I am going to buy a laptop, I want full access to all of its functionality. That is why I have a Thinkpad.
And then you have to pay the premium to get the non-crippled hardware. To much of a premium for me.
Yes, because we all know that Linux is immune to buffer attacks. This is actually an innovative idea that I would like to see implemented.
I don't know why you would call this "crooked". They are taking a gamble for a marketing strategy. They could just overproduce and hope they sell all of the first batch or they could sell a bunch first week and sell out there by creating more of a buzz. They are the only ones who could possibly be hurt in this. Crooked? No, but stupid? Maybe.
Am I the only one that noticed that slasdot is listed under sci and tech news on the Windows Live page?
No, that is completely the wrong way to think about it. This is a way to be able to sell to customers whose entire infrastructure is from a competitor(EMC, Sun, Fujitsu) by being able to integrate or "virtualize" all of it so it works as a cohesive unit. It is all about virtualization of storage.
I have always been amazed thy MySQL has been able to gain the popularity it has without features like stored procs and triggers.
Joe: "I can't find things on the Internet."
Google: "We solved your internet search problems!"
Joe: "Search the Internet!?"
Google: "Yeah, we indexed the Internet."
Google: "Also, we solved your desktop search problems!"
Joe: "How did you do that?"
Google: "We indexed your hard-drive."
Joe: "Oh, cool I guess."
Google: "We solved you email organization problems!"
Joe: "How?"
Google: "We indexed your inbox!"
Joe: "Wow, this brute force thing never gets old with you guys huh?"
I think those clauses are perfectly reasonable. It basically does not allow for changing the product and distributing it as the original. I am not sure what the GPL world does, but imagine if somebody started distributing sabotaged binaries or source of GNOME and did not notify users that this is not the original source. The OSS world is comfortable because they usually know who is legit for distributing software. This is not the same for the Windows world. A corporation has to protect its interests at all costs and clauses like this are how they do it. I am not a fan of the GPL and am glad that Microsoft is leaning more towards the side of the BSD lisence for their most open one.
Say a building collapses because one of the supports was not welded/poured/constructed properly. Would it be a fair solution to hold the few construction workers that worked on that support responsible for any damage or loss of life? No, that is completely ridiculous. If a company sells a product it is their legal responsibility. The construction company has a right to fire those responsible, but they should not be able to sue them for mistakes.
It is not about having no choice. It is about having a stable platform to target for development. Kind of like the appeal of Java is not the language, it is the platform.
If you check out their prepackaged virtual machines you will see one called "Browser Appliance". I think it is essentially a sandbox machine that just runs a browser isolated from your host OS.
Windowss h=%18%F6%20s%FD%FA%DA%D5%91%86%94%10%DE%A5%8FV%B6% 1Fi%A1
s h=%90%F7%EA%13%9AC%1E%05V%97%05%E2%5D%96%07%E40%CD l%B2
http://borft.student.utwente.nl:6969/file?info_ha
Linux x86
http://borft.student.utwente.nl:6969/file?info_ha
The have a link to torrents. I highly suggest that. I am seeding right now so come and get it.
I don't think anybody would deny that the ability to customize a linux distro is a strong point. This is seen the highest level of your distinctions; desktop, server, realtime, embedded, etc. The problem with linux being brought into the mainstream is the fragmentation of the desktop distros. Many linux fans think that they are pitting linux against Windows in an OS vs OS way, but they are wrong. To compete with Windows you have to compete with the platform. If linux distros do not all have the same platforms then there is fragmentation. What do I mean? Well, let's say that I want to develop software or drivers for Windows. I know exactly what platform I can develop that for and be able to easily test and distribute. If I want to do the same thing with linux it is a whole different ball game. Different architectures, libraries, custom compiled kernels, graphics systems, services, etc. This is why fragmentation is bad. The linux world's greatest strength and weakness lies in the fact that nobody is in charge of making the choices to design a standard platform.
I think the argument for bloat is that automatic grammar checking slows down the entire app, because stuff like that can. But if the AbiWord coders are at all intelligen, which I am sure they are, then they probably made it pretty easy to turn any feature like that off. So most of these criticizers just do not want to admit that in fact MS Office had a good feature first and this is AbiWord trying to catch up. Kind of the opposite of people criticizing Microsoft for implementing tabbed browsing in IE. Lesson, if MS had it first and an OSS app copies the functionality then they are just doing it to appease the people enslaved by Bill Gates at the cost of tainting their app. If an OSS app had it first and Microsoft copied the functionality then it is pure proof that Microsoft is incapable of innovating the way that the OSS world can. Pretty messed up double standard is you ask me, but thus is the /.
Does anybody else get tired of the seemingly interchangeable way that bytes(B) and bits(b) are used by many people?
Then the provider would not be able to possibly sell you extra features like text/pic/vid messaging. So no, really nobody wants to sell that to you.
I hope that you realize that "to constantly split" is a split infinitive.