Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
That may be true, but the Oxford dictionary isn't US law. US antitrust law doesn't require exclusive control in order to be declared a monopoly. It merely requires substantial control over market prices.
Still, they have a habit of taking crap and actually making it pretty decent. At least to my experience.
What, like with Internet Explorer? MSIE 2 was a dream to use compared to Netscape. IE 3 was less so. IE4 was a bloated piece of crap. IE5 removed some of the bloat, but it was still crap. IE6? Still crap. IE7? Better than IE6, but compared to anything else, still crap.
They also, along with Netscape, destroyed HTML. We still haven't fully recovered.
Or perhaps you're referring to OS/2. How about Windows Me? Or Hotmail when they tried to run it on IIS?
The compressional forces that concrete or any mineral type of rock can endure are almost endless.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'll take your word for it, for now. However, the stones of a pyramid don't just experience compressional forces. In an idealized, completely solid pyramid, there would be only compression forces, but real pyramids were partially hollowed out, but considering the varying quality and non-uniform size of the stones, there would be likely be places where there the stones experience large shearing forces.
Also, someone else mentioned that the density of the man-made stones was lower. Could that mean that the stones were somewhat porous? If that were the case, I'd expect them to have a lower ability to withstand compressional forces, as well.
Good point. I'm not sure that I agree that Newton's laws aren't mathematical relationships, but I concede that there may be more to "laws" than just math.
Consider the column of rock in the centre of the pyramid. The stone at the bottom has to withstand the entire weight of the stones above it. If you remove the bottom stone (or it crumbles) then the four stones above it are going to experience huge shearing forces. Again, these forces will be greater at the bottom-centre of the structure, and weakening as you move upward and outward.
So the stones at the bottom need to be stronger than the ones at the top.
A law is a mathematical description of the relationships between physical quantities. PV=nRT, is called the ideal gas law, even though there is no such thing as an ideal gas, because many gases, under certain conditions, behave like an ideal gas. Laws can be advanced by hypotheses and theories alike. In science, when you hear the word "law", you should think, "equation". The reason scientists don't just call them equations is because some laws aren't actually equations, though they're still mathematical descriptions (see, for example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
I think you might be reading too much into it. If what you say were true, then there would probably be only one or two pyramids that have both types of rock. If a large number of pyramids have both quarred and poured limestone, then I'd suspect that maybe the stones at the base might have needed to be stronger than the ones near the top.
Though I am very much against RFID in passports. RFID in baggage makes a lot of sense.
Exactly, because you can remove the RFID tags from the baggage when you're leaving the airport, most of the attacks against passport RFID systems simply don't apply to baggage RFID.
Now, if baggage companies started embedding RFID tags in my luggage, it would be an entirely different matter.
With that condescending tone, you had better at least be a copyright lawyer. But I already know that you aren't, because if you were, you'd know that the law isn't so straightforward that it would be reasonable to expect everyone to understand it in a way that would justify being such a jerk about it.
Forking of mixed-license code has been done before. GNU started out as UNIX, and then the individual programs were replaced, one by one. Linux was written on using Minix, and FreeBSD is free because all of the copyright-protected AT&T UNIX code was replaced.
We have the entire history of the Linux source code, starting at version 0.01. There is no reason to think that a GPLv3 fork of Linux couldn't be created if people wanted it to happen.
In addition to what you are saying, I suspect that experts are more likely than non-experts to recognize the weaknesses in other publications (Encyclopaedia Britannica being the canonical example). If that's true, then an expert would view Wikipedia more favourably when compared to those other publications.
Just because they have the majority of the market share and because you personally don't like the company doesn't make Microsoft a monopoly.
IIRC, it does for the purposes of U.S. antitrust law. If I remember correctly from the Slashdot discussions from 1999, you're legally a monopoly if you have a significant influence over prices in the market.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft doesn't substantially influence the pricing of office software?
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true, but the Oxford dictionary isn't US law. US antitrust law doesn't require exclusive control in order to be declared a monopoly. It merely requires substantial control over market prices.
You forgot the part of Godwin's law that states that if you explicitly invoke Godwin's law, the thread isn't over.
I imagine a lot of illiterate people can still understand numbers.
Because legislation is the answer to all our problems!
What, like with Internet Explorer? MSIE 2 was a dream to use compared to Netscape. IE 3 was less so. IE4 was a bloated piece of crap. IE5 removed some of the bloat, but it was still crap. IE6? Still crap. IE7? Better than IE6, but compared to anything else, still crap.
They also, along with Netscape, destroyed HTML. We still haven't fully recovered.
Or perhaps you're referring to OS/2. How about Windows Me? Or Hotmail when they tried to run it on IIS?
Examples would be nice...
Don't think about your breathing!
I'm not sure I agree, but I'll take your word for it, for now. However, the stones of a pyramid don't just experience compressional forces. In an idealized, completely solid pyramid, there would be only compression forces, but real pyramids were partially hollowed out, but considering the varying quality and non-uniform size of the stones, there would be likely be places where there the stones experience large shearing forces.
Also, someone else mentioned that the density of the man-made stones was lower. Could that mean that the stones were somewhat porous? If that were the case, I'd expect them to have a lower ability to withstand compressional forces, as well.
Good point. I'm not sure that I agree that Newton's laws aren't mathematical relationships, but I concede that there may be more to "laws" than just math.
Yes, for stability.
Consider the column of rock in the centre of the pyramid. The stone at the bottom has to withstand the entire weight of the stones above it. If you remove the bottom stone (or it crumbles) then the four stones above it are going to experience huge shearing forces. Again, these forces will be greater at the bottom-centre of the structure, and weakening as you move upward and outward.
So the stones at the bottom need to be stronger than the ones at the top.
Actually, I did, but what does that have to do with what I said?
That's not impossible, just infinitely improbable. Which means it will happen, according to Murphy's law.
No.
A law is a mathematical description of the relationships between physical quantities. PV=nRT, is called the ideal gas law, even though there is no such thing as an ideal gas, because many gases, under certain conditions, behave like an ideal gas. Laws can be advanced by hypotheses and theories alike. In science, when you hear the word "law", you should think, "equation". The reason scientists don't just call them equations is because some laws aren't actually equations, though they're still mathematical descriptions (see, for example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
I think you might be reading too much into it. If what you say were true, then there would probably be only one or two pyramids that have both types of rock. If a large number of pyramids have both quarred and poured limestone, then I'd suspect that maybe the stones at the base might have needed to be stronger than the ones near the top.
Exactly, because you can remove the RFID tags from the baggage when you're leaving the airport, most of the attacks against passport RFID systems simply don't apply to baggage RFID.
Now, if baggage companies started embedding RFID tags in my luggage, it would be an entirely different matter.
With regard to the DMCA. Learn to write, shithead!
Now that's flamebait!
I read it as, "Ban on Louisiana Video Game; Law Now Permanent."
You realize that .1uCi is 3.3 times larger than .03uCi, right?
With that condescending tone, you had better at least be a copyright lawyer. But I already know that you aren't, because if you were, you'd know that the law isn't so straightforward that it would be reasonable to expect everyone to understand it in a way that would justify being such a jerk about it.
Forking of mixed-license code has been done before. GNU started out as UNIX, and then the individual programs were replaced, one by one. Linux was written on using Minix, and FreeBSD is free because all of the copyright-protected AT&T UNIX code was replaced.
We have the entire history of the Linux source code, starting at version 0.01. There is no reason to think that a GPLv3 fork of Linux couldn't be created if people wanted it to happen.
Big words from an anonymous coward.
I thought you couldn't get court judgements discharged in bankruptcy court.
You forgot the favourite describes-every-problem word of post-DS9 Star Trek:
The quantum vortex core containment field is fluctuating.
In addition to what you are saying, I suspect that experts are more likely than non-experts to recognize the weaknesses in other publications (Encyclopaedia Britannica being the canonical example). If that's true, then an expert would view Wikipedia more favourably when compared to those other publications.
What if the rest of the world cuts off the U.S. oil supply?
News at 11.
IIRC, it does for the purposes of U.S. antitrust law. If I remember correctly from the Slashdot discussions from 1999, you're legally a monopoly if you have a significant influence over prices in the market.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft doesn't substantially influence the pricing of office software?