In my book you get more geek cred for knowing how to download a MacOS X torrent and install it on a hackintosh you built yourself. But why would you waste time making an OS X box into a server? The vanilla BSD OSes are far superior.
Let's say you want to design a chip with about 100 million transistors.
A 50 megabyte memory chip? People do it all the time. You're heralding what kind of computer he used. I am more interested in whether he sat on a Steelcase or a Herman Miller chair.
but had C and Unix not existed, we might just be using Pascal and Multics instead.
Or maybe we'd still be queuing at the half-door to the Computer Room and hoping those smug fucks in the lab coats would bring out our 'reports' on fanfold.
Re:C not all that unique, except buffer overflow
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 1
Turbo Pascal was for the PC. There may have been a warped and weird port of it to the Macintosh, but I am not aware of it, and it would in any case be a footnote.
H-P's power supplies historically are crap. They had to buy out another power supply vendor, Harrison Labs, before they had anything to offer in that line that I would want on the bench.
Why not invest a little money in the hard tooling to make a lot of these things and stamp them out in volume. These 3D printers are suited for one-off designs, not for mass fabrication of large quantities of the same thing.
However, putting together a fundraiser to pay for high volumes of what the hermit crabs actually need won't get the hype and eyespace that this project will. Nor will it sell more stuff to a demographic with a significant disposable income.
The fact remains, however, that the iPod was lame and continued to be lame until it got wireless. And it didn't have much storage space. Also, it was DRM-laden back then, too.
It remains the case that Apple's business plan floats along on a big fat gasbag of marketing hype. Mr. Jobs flirted with new-age cult crap in his youth, and learned how to do that stuff pretty effectively. To the degree, even, that True Believers will write this comment off as coming from a Hater.
Apple's Macintosh, the basis of everything they have become, was founded on the principle that it was a 'hacker proof' machine. And yes, they meant 'hacker' in the old, good sense. It was hyped long and hard as a 'just use it, no screwdriver required, or even permitted' system.
I have never seen a solution from a vendor that did not need server scripting to make it work well in our environment.
Well, once you start breaking everything in your environment with scripts and tweaks and various shims, it's common for 'fixing everything' wth more tweaks and shims to be a regular requirement.
The hardware vendors are also vigorously trying to make certain there isn't any 'old hardware' to employ. The local thrift stores here have a deal with Dell where any old computer hardware that gets donated is whisked off to a shredder/recycler and they are compensated by Dell. It is marketed as a 'green' thing but it's quite the opposite of reuse-recycling. A lot of curious young people have gotten involved in tech because of a surplus of cool old gear being out there to fool with. A lot of people explore things like Linux by throwing it on the old box in the corner first to try.
It won't matter whether the old hardware can boot Linux if it's been sucked out of existence and destroyed.
It's rather amusing that you have found a way to 'put down' both sides in the conflict with a single sentence. Goatherders? Do you think the Taliban and AQ are simply that? How racist and derogatory. Are you some sort of right wing European Nationalist?
But likely, you're just some troll-dork who lives in New Jersey. Net-rage, right? I've been trolled, eh?
Either way in marketing terms Apple, the marketing engine is making itself look ugly, cheap and tacky. This kind of legal battle always cheapens a company image and for Apple that is a disaster and the longer it goes on the worse it is.
When Apple sued and ran all the Apple II clone producers out of the market back in that era, they got away with it.
When Apple sued all the GUI developers, driving all of them out of the market except Microsoft (and incidentally forcing the market to embrace either their or Microsoft's GUI- sorry about destroying the GEM desktop etc., Apple drove us all into Microsoft's arms) they got away with that too.
Apple builds up around themselves a cult-like customer base. Do you really think that when the Media and the Government persecuted Reverend Moon, it causes the Moonies to drop out of their religion? Does government investigation of Scientology cause their membership leave? No, they cling to their churches, as Apple customers cling to theirs.
They're probably trying to coax a few details out of you. You can resolve it so easy by just telling us:
What are a few examples of the patented features that Apple is claiming they 'own' that you forthrightly would agree they 'own?' Give the folks here an idea what ground you stand on. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of detail. What does Apple have the right to that the other companies are 'stealing?'
The last time Apple tried this crap, in the touch-and-feel era when they sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (for their NewWave object-oriented desktop which ran on top of Windows 3) they were ultimately thrown out of court. We're trying to make sure they don't pull that same sort of obstructionist crap again.
If people do not wish to live by these rules, and enjoy the benefits of society, they are free to leave and set up somewhere else.
Yes. That's what a lot of the people who lived under Communism in the past tried to do. If it was possible. The Communist Block countries soon discovered it was necessary to close their borders and prevent the most talented people in their countries from leaving.
It's amazing how so many people cling to the delusion that it is possible to implement theoretical free market. It's just not possible.
There are degrees of freedom. It is something to strive toward. It isn't perfect, it isn't pure, and it can't be.
You're right though, that it isn't something that some outside controlling body can 'implement.' That's a key word to ponder on.
Why the hell should ANYBODY have the right to 'implement' a top-heavy set of rules on everyone else? And yet that's the programme of every Communist, Left, or Progressive political organization.
That is completely wrong. The Communist Manifesto is on the reading list for courses in many colleges. Many many people have read it.
However, it's just a manifesto, and speaks to the conditions of 19th century Europe. It isn't 1848 anymore, and we don't need a stodgy intellectual hanging out in the British Library to tell everyone else "it's time to rise up."
Marx was a 19th-century political economist. Most of what he wrote is now considered obsolete. Wasting time with his 'new ideas' which were tested again and again in the 20th century at the cost of millions of lives is, well, a little ridiculous.
It takes a certain sort of person to become a Marxist in this day and age. They have to be moderately intelligent, enough to grasp some abstract concepts. But they need to be mediocre, of average intelligence, or frustrated in some way so that they 'turn to alternatives' instead of growing up and becoming part of the real world of ideas.
No. It's more likely that the labor unions were busy resistng any form of automation or change. Remember, the savings that is used to justify ny changes evaporates when workers can't be reassigned or laid off.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. If you want the real stuff, get Circuit Cellar Ink or Nuts and Volts.
In my book you get more geek cred for knowing how to download a MacOS X torrent and install it on a hackintosh you built yourself. But why would you waste time making an OS X box into a server? The vanilla BSD OSes are far superior.
If you bend, fold, staple, or mutilate it....
Oh well. Whatever.
Let's say you want to design a chip with about 100 million transistors.
A 50 megabyte memory chip? People do it all the time. You're heralding what kind of computer he used. I am more interested in whether he sat on a Steelcase or a Herman Miller chair.
but had C and Unix not existed, we might just be using Pascal and Multics instead.
Or maybe we'd still be queuing at the half-door to the Computer Room and hoping those smug fucks in the lab coats would bring out our 'reports' on fanfold.
Turbo Pascal was for the PC. There may have been a warped and weird port of it to the Macintosh, but I am not aware of it, and it would in any case be a footnote.
Are you one of those people too dumb to hook a terminal to your Altair?
Were you determined to show that you're a hater who doesn't
'Hater' is code-speak. Please admit it. You're a member of a fucking cult.
he was an asshole with taste.
Wow. An Apple fanboy who admits what the taste in his mouth is.
H-P's power supplies historically are crap. They had to buy out another power supply vendor, Harrison Labs, before they had anything to offer in that line that I would want on the bench.
Why not invest a little money in the hard tooling to make a lot of these things and stamp them out in volume. These 3D printers are suited for one-off designs, not for mass fabrication of large quantities of the same thing.
However, putting together a fundraiser to pay for high volumes of what the hermit crabs actually need won't get the hype and eyespace that this project will. Nor will it sell more stuff to a demographic with a significant disposable income.
The fact remains, however, that the iPod was lame and continued to be lame until it got wireless. And it didn't have much storage space. Also, it was DRM-laden back then, too.
It remains the case that Apple's business plan floats along on a big fat gasbag of marketing hype. Mr. Jobs flirted with new-age cult crap in his youth, and learned how to do that stuff pretty effectively. To the degree, even, that True Believers will write this comment off as coming from a Hater.
Apple's Macintosh, the basis of everything they have become, was founded on the principle that it was a 'hacker proof' machine. And yes, they meant 'hacker' in the old, good sense. It was hyped long and hard as a 'just use it, no screwdriver required, or even permitted' system.
Many of us have said 'fuck that' for decades.
I have never seen a solution from a vendor that did not need server scripting to make it work well in our environment.
Well, once you start breaking everything in your environment with scripts and tweaks and various shims, it's common for 'fixing everything' wth more tweaks and shims to be a regular requirement.
The hardware vendors are also vigorously trying to make certain there isn't any 'old hardware' to employ. The local thrift stores here have a deal with Dell where any old computer hardware that gets donated is whisked off to a shredder/recycler and they are compensated by Dell. It is marketed as a 'green' thing but it's quite the opposite of reuse-recycling. A lot of curious young people have gotten involved in tech because of a surplus of cool old gear being out there to fool with. A lot of people explore things like Linux by throwing it on the old box in the corner first to try.
It won't matter whether the old hardware can boot Linux if it's been sucked out of existence and destroyed.
It's rather amusing that you have found a way to 'put down' both sides in the conflict with a single sentence. Goatherders? Do you think the Taliban and AQ are simply that? How racist and derogatory. Are you some sort of right wing European Nationalist?
But likely, you're just some troll-dork who lives in New Jersey. Net-rage, right? I've been trolled, eh?
When Apple sued and ran all the Apple II clone producers out of the market back in that era, they got away with it.
When Apple sued all the GUI developers, driving all of them out of the market except Microsoft (and incidentally forcing the market to embrace either their or Microsoft's GUI- sorry about destroying the GEM desktop etc., Apple drove us all into Microsoft's arms) they got away with that too.
Apple builds up around themselves a cult-like customer base. Do you really think that when the Media and the Government persecuted Reverend Moon, it causes the Moonies to drop out of their religion? Does government investigation of Scientology cause their membership leave? No, they cling to their churches, as Apple customers cling to theirs.
They're probably trying to coax a few details out of you. You can resolve it so easy by just telling us:
What are a few examples of the patented features that Apple is claiming they 'own' that you forthrightly would agree they 'own?' Give the folks here an idea what ground you stand on. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of detail. What does Apple have the right to that the other companies are 'stealing?'
The last time Apple tried this crap, in the touch-and-feel era when they sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (for their NewWave object-oriented desktop which ran on top of Windows 3) they were ultimately thrown out of court. We're trying to make sure they don't pull that same sort of obstructionist crap again.
This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively.
Okay. So we have to agree. Google is starting to act as shitty and unethical as Apple and Microsoft customarily do.
If people do not wish to live by these rules, and enjoy the benefits of society, they are free to leave and set up somewhere else.
Yes. That's what a lot of the people who lived under Communism in the past tried to do. If it was possible. The Communist Block countries soon discovered it was necessary to close their borders and prevent the most talented people in their countries from leaving.
It expects people to be able to act rationally and in their long-term best interest. That's still not how people work.
Ah, but that's how people can tend if they strive for it. And that's the best we can hope for.
It's amazing how so many people cling to the delusion that it is possible to implement theoretical free market. It's just not possible.
There are degrees of freedom. It is something to strive toward. It isn't perfect, it isn't pure, and it can't be.
You're right though, that it isn't something that some outside controlling body can 'implement.' That's a key word to ponder on.
Why the hell should ANYBODY have the right to 'implement' a top-heavy set of rules on everyone else? And yet that's the programme of every Communist, Left, or Progressive political organization.
The Maoists still have a 'center of struggle' though. The organization called 'Shining Path' in Peru still carry Mao's torch.
The regular people in Peru are terrified of them, and with just cause.
That is completely wrong. The Communist Manifesto is on the reading list for courses in many colleges. Many many people have read it.
However, it's just a manifesto, and speaks to the conditions of 19th century Europe. It isn't 1848 anymore, and we don't need a stodgy intellectual hanging out in the British Library to tell everyone else "it's time to rise up."
Marx was a 19th-century political economist. Most of what he wrote is now considered obsolete. Wasting time with his 'new ideas' which were tested again and again in the 20th century at the cost of millions of lives is, well, a little ridiculous.
It takes a certain sort of person to become a Marxist in this day and age. They have to be moderately intelligent, enough to grasp some abstract concepts. But they need to be mediocre, of average intelligence, or frustrated in some way so that they 'turn to alternatives' instead of growing up and becoming part of the real world of ideas.
No. It's more likely that the labor unions were busy resistng any form of automation or change. Remember, the savings that is used to justify ny changes evaporates when workers can't be reassigned or laid off.