2. Neither Linux (currently technically incapable) or OS X (incompatible hardware) are in a position to challenge MS for the commodity desktop. This situation is not likely to change any time soon.
Perhaps you should preface that with "my opinion is..." I believe many people are having great success with linux on the desktop. Unless, of course, you have some actual, logical proof to the contrary.
OS X will/never/ be ported to x86.
Darwin (core of OS X) already runs on x86. Perhaps you meant Aqua.
Firstly, Apple has no interest in alienating MORE developers with yet another giant architectural switch-over.
GNUStep is the full OpenStep API, which forms the core of Cocoa, and runs on Linux, Darwin, Solaris and a bunch of other OS's which I'll leave you to look into if you're so inclined. The GNUStep developers have even expressed a desire to track Apple's recent updates to OpenStep(which make up Cocoa). That takes care of multiple platform compatibility.
Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that the Cocoa/OpenStep API's are themselves cross-platform->easy for Apple to port and since platform-independence is a major factor in Cocoa/OpenStep, developers wouldn't have to do a damn thing except recompile to port their apps over to any architecture that currently hosts OpenStep. Perhaps you meant a hardware switch-over forcing people to buy new machines?
And secondly, Apple makes the lion's share of their money from HARDWARE sales.
You could argue that increased compatibility with existing x86 software would bring Apple more machine sales. I sold computers for about two years, and Windows compatibility was a big reason people weren't buying the Apple machines I was trying to sell. Either because they already owned apps which wouldn't run, or because they wouldn't have the availability and selection of the Windows software world. If Apple managed OS 8 and 9 compatibility through Classic and Carbon, they could certainly perform a similar feat for OS X on x86.
Not only would that bring them more software, it would give them cheaper hardware and parts to work with, and they wouldn't have to worry about hyping "The PPC is 2x as fast as an equally clocked x86 chip!". Additionaly, they'd have the coolest looking boxes and best built/bundled hardware of any x86 manufacturer anywhere. Any computer stores would gladly accept Apple machines, compared to now where most wouldn't touch them with a pole. If executed properly, I definitely think Apple could succeed in the x86 world.
You make an interesting point, but I would simply say: "Don't work for people who have a track record of hiring slip-shod workers". If they have such a lack of foresight that they keep these people, this company is doomed. You're better off on your own. No free rides, since that company is doomed, those lazy people will get their dues and quickly be out of a job. No problem.
As to your situation: your boss has just given you license to take extra paid breaks. If your boss doesn't like the thought of that, tell him he should come up with a better solution.
A socialist friend of mine used that argument to justify a 90-90% unemployment rate: if we could just feed, clothe, and house people who messed up the work we did, we'd be more than 20 times more efficient with the same effort, and could easily afford the astronomical taxes to support the welfare state that would result.
I'm sorry, I can't seem to parse that. Could you reword it please? Who feeds what people? Who's "we" in "messed up the work we did"? Messed up what work? If you mean employ more people, it seems you are expending more effort, not less.
Blatant lying is not protected under the law. Ever heard of false advertising? Slander? Those are crimes, not protected speech. Why? Because they are blatantly, intentionally false and designed to harm another party. So if Microsoft is saying false, disparaging things they should be stopped. It IS a crime.
If you recall, the "important" people with "military experience" could not resist the ring's temptation. The hobbit's were the only one's who didn't want the power, so naturally, they should be the ones to hold onto it.
Where did I mention any of what you said? I was talking about establishing a country of freedom, not exploiting resources and slaves. Do you understand freedom? Freedom means no slavery. And I never said anything about the American way as the right way. I'm Canadian, and to be perfectly honest, I prefer the state we're in than the US is getting itself into. The point still stands though: we must still fight for our freedoms. We must still spend money defending our rights even while people are starving because there's no use saving someone's life if you sell their soul into slavery.
Before you can help others, you have to help yourself. You're no help to someone if you're in just as bad a situation as they are (albeit different circumstances). Freedom is very important, more important than food, shelter or anything else you can possibly think of. I would rather starve free, then live a comfortable, oppressed life.
When freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the source
of the natural improvement of the human condition.
~ Brian S. Wesbury ~
In order to truly help these countries, we must provide them with a model upon which to build. If the free world (not just US) can provide this example, then that is a worthy goal. No amount of free giving will solve the causes of those problems; they will just temporarily alleviate the suffering.
To sum it up: there is no point helping someone survive starvation, war, or any other form of suffering, if all you do is buy them a life of slavery. That is why freedom is important.
The best thing about Family Guy is that it's not only low-brow humour, but also subtle, cynical and sarcastic humour too! That's why Family Guy rules! Thank God they brought it back.
I personally don't see how interesting each minor release is.
The REAL question is: does anybody really care what you think Slashdot should be like?
The answer is: not really! But thanks anyway. Next time, just try ignoring the article. That's usually what you do in real newspapers when you come across articles that don't interest you.
Your second postulate cannot be proven with a theory. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid, but that does not mean they are absolutely correct. They are simply accepted as "laws" but that does not make them so. Furthermore, even if the Universe does undergo heat death, it does not suddenly vanish or cease to exist. All the matter is still there so the Universe still exists and thus, it's age is not finite.
However, the fact that the Universe came into existence is not a consequence of the fact that it's age is finite, but of the fact that it exists at all. If you really want to base your argument on Thermodynamics, then the fact the Universe exists means it must have been created at some time in the past, otherwise it would have already suffered heat death (because if the Universe were not created, it would have always existed, and therefore it's timespan is infinite and it would have undergone heat death an infinite time ago).
In conclusion, nice try. Unfortunately, you won't solve the great God mystery that easily.;-)
Except in modern physics, you don't need ether for light to propagate and to explain gravity (and a bunch of other stuff I'm too lazy to look up now). Seems much more acceptable to me.
>Why should I subject my business to the whims of the community?
Because that's where your customers come from?
That's partly true. But if they do not wish to purchase from me, they don't have to. That's the way it should work. That doesn't mean I should have to do whatever they say.
You should have to do what others tell you because they're the ones with the money, and you want the money. Doing what other people want is the very basis of capitalism, not its antithesis.
Now that is not true. Freedom is the basis of capitalism, freedom to make money however you like as long as it does not trample another's rights. There are some type of money I would not want: money gained from harming people, money gained from stealing, etc. In your definition, the people running the business wouldn't care because money is all that matters. It seems you have a rather heartless view of capitalists. Instead of think "money grubber" when you hear capitalist, try thinking "freedom lover".
If the community of your customers (workers have customers too; they're called "employers") does not approve of your actions, they are free to stop giving you their money.
Exactly. That still does not mean I have to do what they say. They can feel free to stop giving me money; I will simply find someone who does approve of my actions and will pay me in exchange for my services. It's called freedom.
You would be called upon to do this in any society. It would not be a functioning society otherwise.
No, you wouldn't. You might be asked, but nothing in a free society is compulsory except the law (which should be there only to protect people's rights and freedoms and no more). The law does not require you to sacrifice yourself for others. I think you are confused. Furthermore, society could very well work without compulsory measures; it's called volunteering in your own best interests. As an example, if your country goes to war against fanatical anti-freedomists, it would definitely be in your best interests to do everything you can to ensure your country wins.
British (Chambers 20th century):
The theory, principle, or scheme of social organisation which places means of production and distribution in the hands of the community.
No hint of planned economy, dictatorship, or even big government. Hardly conflicting with Libertarianism - in fact, phrased that way, it sounds like they're a good match, given that a community is just a semi-organised bunch of citizens!
You still fail to explain why this is a good thing. Why should I subject my business to the whims of the community? Why should I have to do what others tell me? As long as I'm not breaking the law, I should be free to do as I please, but all of a sudden I cannot because "the community" does not approve? Why should the community dictate how I sell my product? Why should the community dictate what I sell? This "social theory" essentially sacrifices individual liberty for the "common good", and that's what I object to. It doesn't matter that the government isn't in charge, it matters that I'm now supposed to sacrifice myself for others. Forcing people to sacrfice their freedom for any purpose is never a solution.
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn:
{socialist economy}] [ant: {capitalism}]
Why give the state more power than it already has and needs? This has "restrictions of freedoms" written all over it. Even if it doesn't necessarily mean that, it has the strong potential to degenerate to that level. Why take the risk when a truly free society is possible?
If they can give me, say, twice the battery life it might be worth switching to an off-brand processor that is much slower.
Apple Powerbooks. Battery life of 5 hours compared to the 2.5-3 hours I keep hearing from PC books (I'm not an Apple fanatic, but their PBK's are good).
I had this exact same idea for a cellphone/PDA years ago; I'm glad someone came out with something like it because it's a really good idea. But it seems a little bulky and unwieldy. I'm sure successive generations will improve on it. Thanks for the link!
No, I think you're misunderstanding. It's not preempting the kernel, it's preemtping a lower-priority thread that happens to be in the kernel (ie. during a system call). If there is a runnable thread with a higher priority, it should be set running. But as things currently stand, if the low-priority thread is in the kernel it can't be preempted, and so the high priority thread has to wait. That is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Neither Linux (currently technically incapable) or OS X (incompatible hardware) are in a position to challenge MS for the commodity desktop. This situation is not likely to change any time soon.
/never/ be ported to x86.
Perhaps you should preface that with "my opinion is..." I believe many people are having great success with linux on the desktop. Unless, of course, you have some actual, logical proof to the contrary.
OS X will
Darwin (core of OS X) already runs on x86. Perhaps you meant Aqua.
Firstly, Apple has no interest in alienating MORE developers with yet another giant architectural switch-over.
GNUStep is the full OpenStep API, which forms the core of Cocoa, and runs on Linux, Darwin, Solaris and a bunch of other OS's which I'll leave you to look into if you're so inclined. The GNUStep developers have even expressed a desire to track Apple's recent updates to OpenStep(which make up Cocoa). That takes care of multiple platform compatibility.
Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that the Cocoa/OpenStep API's are themselves cross-platform->easy for Apple to port and since platform-independence is a major factor in Cocoa/OpenStep, developers wouldn't have to do a damn thing except recompile to port their apps over to any architecture that currently hosts OpenStep. Perhaps you meant a hardware switch-over forcing people to buy new machines?
And secondly, Apple makes the lion's share of their money from HARDWARE sales.
You could argue that increased compatibility with existing x86 software would bring Apple more machine sales. I sold computers for about two years, and Windows compatibility was a big reason people weren't buying the Apple machines I was trying to sell. Either because they already owned apps which wouldn't run, or because they wouldn't have the availability and selection of the Windows software world. If Apple managed OS 8 and 9 compatibility through Classic and Carbon, they could certainly perform a similar feat for OS X on x86.
Not only would that bring them more software, it would give them cheaper hardware and parts to work with, and they wouldn't have to worry about hyping "The PPC is 2x as fast as an equally clocked x86 chip!". Additionaly, they'd have the coolest looking boxes and best built/bundled hardware of any x86 manufacturer anywhere. Any computer stores would gladly accept Apple machines, compared to now where most wouldn't touch them with a pole. If executed properly, I definitely think Apple could succeed in the x86 world.
You make an interesting point, but I would simply say: "Don't work for people who have a track record of hiring slip-shod workers". If they have such a lack of foresight that they keep these people, this company is doomed. You're better off on your own. No free rides, since that company is doomed, those lazy people will get their dues and quickly be out of a job. No problem.
As to your situation: your boss has just given you license to take extra paid breaks. If your boss doesn't like the thought of that, tell him he should come up with a better solution.
Oh, were you saying that's part of the article? I thought that was directed at me being apathetic.
:-)
Both. Merry Christmas.
A socialist friend of mine used that argument to justify a 90-90% unemployment rate: if we could just feed, clothe, and house people who messed up the work we did, we'd be more than 20 times more efficient with the same effort, and could easily afford the astronomical taxes to support the welfare state that would result.
I'm sorry, I can't seem to parse that. Could you reword it please? Who feeds what people? Who's "we" in "messed up the work we did"? Messed up what work? If you mean employ more people, it seems you are expending more effort, not less.
Blatant lying is not protected under the law. Ever heard of false advertising? Slander? Those are crimes, not protected speech. Why? Because they are blatantly, intentionally false and designed to harm another party. So if Microsoft is saying false, disparaging things they should be stopped. It IS a crime.
If you recall, the "important" people with "military experience" could not resist the ring's temptation. The hobbit's were the only one's who didn't want the power, so naturally, they should be the ones to hold onto it.
Where did I mention any of what you said? I was talking about establishing a country of freedom, not exploiting resources and slaves. Do you understand freedom? Freedom means no slavery. And I never said anything about the American way as the right way. I'm Canadian, and to be perfectly honest, I prefer the state we're in than the US is getting itself into. The point still stands though: we must still fight for our freedoms. We must still spend money defending our rights even while people are starving because there's no use saving someone's life if you sell their soul into slavery.
In order to truly help these countries, we must provide them with a model upon which to build. If the free world (not just US) can provide this example, then that is a worthy goal. No amount of free giving will solve the causes of those problems; they will just temporarily alleviate the suffering.
To sum it up: there is no point helping someone survive starvation, war, or any other form of suffering, if all you do is buy them a life of slavery. That is why freedom is important.
The best thing about Family Guy is that it's not only low-brow humour, but also subtle, cynical and sarcastic humour too! That's why Family Guy rules! Thank God they brought it back.
I personally don't see how interesting each minor release is.
The REAL question is: does anybody really care what you think Slashdot should be like?
The answer is: not really! But thanks anyway. Next time, just try ignoring the article. That's usually what you do in real newspapers when you come across articles that don't interest you.
Your second postulate cannot be proven with a theory. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid, but that does not mean they are absolutely correct. They are simply accepted as "laws" but that does not make them so. Furthermore, even if the Universe does undergo heat death, it does not suddenly vanish or cease to exist. All the matter is still there so the Universe still exists and thus, it's age is not finite.
;-)
However, the fact that the Universe came into existence is not a consequence of the fact that it's age is finite, but of the fact that it exists at all. If you really want to base your argument on Thermodynamics, then the fact the Universe exists means it must have been created at some time in the past, otherwise it would have already suffered heat death (because if the Universe were not created, it would have always existed, and therefore it's timespan is infinite and it would have undergone heat death an infinite time ago).
In conclusion, nice try. Unfortunately, you won't solve the great God mystery that easily.
"A thousand experiments may prove me right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
~ Albert Einstein ~
Except in modern physics, you don't need ether for light to propagate and to explain gravity (and a bunch of other stuff I'm too lazy to look up now). Seems much more acceptable to me.
Isn't the whole reason you're reading those things is not to impress people but to learn? Then there's no problem. :-)
If only tiBooks had the little nub mouse instead!
;-)
You poor, sick man.
>Why should I subject my business to the whims of the community?
Because that's where your customers come from?
That's partly true. But if they do not wish to purchase from me, they don't have to. That's the way it should work. That doesn't mean I should have to do whatever they say.
You should have to do what others tell you because they're the ones with the money, and you want the money. Doing what other people want is the very basis of capitalism, not its antithesis.
Now that is not true. Freedom is the basis of capitalism, freedom to make money however you like as long as it does not trample another's rights. There are some type of money I would not want: money gained from harming people, money gained from stealing, etc. In your definition, the people running the business wouldn't care because money is all that matters. It seems you have a rather heartless view of capitalists. Instead of think "money grubber" when you hear capitalist, try thinking "freedom lover".
If the community of your customers (workers have customers too; they're called "employers") does not approve of your actions, they are free to stop giving you their money.
Exactly. That still does not mean I have to do what they say. They can feel free to stop giving me money; I will simply find someone who does approve of my actions and will pay me in exchange for my services. It's called freedom.
You would be called upon to do this in any society. It would not be a functioning society otherwise.
No, you wouldn't. You might be asked, but nothing in a free society is compulsory except the law (which should be there only to protect people's rights and freedoms and no more). The law does not require you to sacrifice yourself for others. I think you are confused. Furthermore, society could very well work without compulsory measures; it's called volunteering in your own best interests. As an example, if your country goes to war against fanatical anti-freedomists, it would definitely be in your best interests to do everything you can to ensure your country wins.
British (Chambers 20th century):
The theory, principle, or scheme of social organisation which places means of production and distribution in the hands of the community.
No hint of planned economy, dictatorship, or even big government. Hardly conflicting with Libertarianism - in fact, phrased that way, it sounds like they're a good match, given that a community is just a semi-organised bunch of citizens!
You still fail to explain why this is a good thing. Why should I subject my business to the whims of the community? Why should I have to do what others tell me? As long as I'm not breaking the law, I should be free to do as I please, but all of a sudden I cannot because "the community" does not approve? Why should the community dictate how I sell my product? Why should the community dictate what I sell? This "social theory" essentially sacrifices individual liberty for the "common good", and that's what I object to. It doesn't matter that the government isn't in charge, it matters that I'm now supposed to sacrifice myself for others. Forcing people to sacrfice their freedom for any purpose is never a solution.
Why give the state more power than it already has and needs? This has "restrictions of freedoms" written all over it. Even if it doesn't necessarily mean that, it has the strong potential to degenerate to that level. Why take the risk when a truly free society is possible?
If they can give me, say, twice the battery life it might be worth switching to an off-brand processor that is much slower.
Apple Powerbooks. Battery life of 5 hours compared to the 2.5-3 hours I keep hearing from PC books (I'm not an Apple fanatic, but their PBK's are good).
Are there this many idiots in the world?
If that's not a rhetorical question, I'll just say: you'd be surprised.
and Apple did it before Microsoft
At least the Xerox->Apple transition was an evolution and huge improvement. You can't say the same for Apple->Microsoft.
I had this exact same idea for a cellphone/PDA years ago; I'm glad someone came out with something like it because it's a really good idea. But it seems a little bulky and unwieldy. I'm sure successive generations will improve on it. Thanks for the link!
No, I think you're misunderstanding. It's not preempting the kernel, it's preemtping a lower-priority thread that happens to be in the kernel (ie. during a system call). If there is a runnable thread with a higher priority, it should be set running. But as things currently stand, if the low-priority thread is in the kernel it can't be preempted, and so the high priority thread has to wait. That is bad.
I believe they say "free to use under these conditions", which is their right. It is their library after all.
Well you can still download what you can under the GPL. It may not be the whole thing, but it's possible to fill-in the rest if it becomes necessary.