No, I wasn't actually trolling. Routing questions about the new stuff to a different team happens all the time. I've both seen it, and I've been a part of it. It's not uncommon when doing what would otherwise be considered a complex transition. Such as moving from lotus notes to exchange (or the reverse), changing brands of ERP, automation, financials, or billing systems. Heck, I've even seen it at the local dept stores and fast food joints. You can call the transition specialists, on the job trainers, upgrade support, on site trainers, problem resolvers, or probably a dozen other names, but their function is usually the same. Keep the questions answered quickly, keep users from becoming too frustrated, and keep management happy during the transition time -- at least until you can find your local "champion" who will evangelize the new system and fill in the cracks when you phase out the additional support.
Compared to Windows NT??? Nice guys, lol. And of course, they decided to add in the cost of upgrading their OS every 3-4 years for the next 10 years in the "costs saved already". Nice PR piece, and that is some seriously stretching of the truth. Of course, they didn't include the cost of retraining and productivity lost over the next 10 years, including any new hires they have to make that don't know how to use linux/OOo, and have to be trained or being able to select from a smaller employment pool. They may or may not save money, but this article is full of crap, especially their help desk calls going down. Really? How'd you do that? Most likely they don't route questions about the new stuff to the help desk, and instead route them somewhere else where they are getting inundated.
Not exactly, or not even close. The population density of Toronto is 3,972.4 people per km^2 (10,287 per mi^2), while New York City is 10,429.6/km^2 (26,402.9/mi^2). I wouldn't call those "about the same". In fact, that would make Toronto the 118th densest city in the US. Perhaps you were comparing Toronto in people per km^2, and NYC in people per mi^2?
Well considering that comcast instituted their 250GB caps Oct 1, 2008, and it has not changed since, and the amount of traffic that users consume doubles every 18 months, what was once a reasonable cap is now effectively 1/4th that amount. I suspect that comcast will continue to either not increase their cap, or increase it at a much slower rate than consumers increase their traffic, and you quickly begin to see this effectively the same thing as raising the cost of external content in relation to their own.
And when was the last time they changed that 250GB cap? Considering users eat twice the bandwidth every 18 months, how long will it take before that 250GB cap feels like a 5GB cap? I will save you the trouble, it's approximately 8 years. Ask again in 8 years how great of an idea it was to let this happen.
ICQ became a bloated piece of crap that was hard to use, and didn't support things like voice/video chat in a timely fashion. It crashed often, leaked your IP address, didn't work well with NAT routers (no UPNP support) among other things.
First, it as $20 million, not billions, well unless you consider $0.02 billions.
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers," Sun CEO Scott McNealy said in a statement. "The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."
Oh, yes, that sure sounds like they allow for forks, and code additions. Straight from the CEO's mouth.
"With the deal struck, Cullinan said Microsoft will be allowed to continue to offer its existing Java products, including its popular J++ development tool, for the next seven years.".
Oh, I guess Microsoft isn't free to...anything at all with the code. Not even an IDE for Java. Is that you definition of free?
"Sun's Rich Green, general manager of Java Software at Sun, said the company could have prohibited Microsoft from distributing even an older version of Java."
Doesn't sound free to me at all.
"Sun sued Microsoft in 1997, charging that the Redmond, Wash.-based company breached its contract by trying to extend Java so it would work differently, and presumably better, on Windows computers. One of Sun's main arguments in the case was that Microsoft wrongfully advertised that its products were Java-compatible because, in Sun's eyes, they were not." -- ZDNET
Again, Sun sued Microsoft for making changes to their version of the JVM that they didn't like.
"On March 11, 1996, Sun and Microsoft entered into a licensing agreement which allows Microsoft to use, modify and adapt Java Technology. Microsoft proceeded to use Java Technology in developing MS Internet Explorer 4.0, and other software products. Sun alleges that Microsoft has refused to adhere to Sun's most recent set of Java specifications and Java API," -- court documents
As I said, Sun changed their specifications AFTER Microsoft made changes to their JVM so it would fail their "specifications", and then they could claim it wasn't in conformance with the specification.
""Will MS be permitted to use Sun's Java Compatible Logo to promote and distribute its Internet Explorer 4.0 and related products even though its products fail to pass Sun's compatibility tests suite, and therefore fail to satisfy the conditions for use of Sun's trademark."" -- court documents
Again, the compatibility test suite that was specifically written to fail the changes Microsoft made.
"Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Whyte's determination that Sun is likely to prevail on its claim that Microsoft violated its agreement with Sun by:
Adding unauthorized keywords and compiler directives
Modifying its compiler to support Microsoft's unauthorized extensions
Failing to implement the standard Java native method interface, called JNI, in the products Microsoft distributes. "
Again, not very open if you aren't allowed to change and distribute code that you've modified yourself. So JAVA is completely open, but you can't change anything, nor can you add anything, and you must implement everything that Sun tells you to, or Sun will take you to court to have all your work removed and barring you from distributing anything.
So are you: A) Saying JAVA *IS* F/OSS as we know it, and if you use F/OSS, you can expect the same type of behavior and be under the same set of restrictions as above, OR B) JAVA is *NOT* F/OSS.
You are confused. Sun only claimed trademark abuse because it was the easiest route to go. They yanked Microsoft's ability to claim "Java Compatible" because they specifically created tests (called signature tests) to check for the exact changes that Microsoft made and declared that the tests failed and therefore it isn't compliant. So yes, you are free to make changes unless Sun/Oracle decides they don't like it, then they create tests to make your changes "invalid", and then declare you can't mention the word Java anywhere or they will sue you for trademark violation. Call that FOSS if you want, but I don't. It's definitely not "FREE" as most people understand it to be.
How quickly one forgets how sun sued Microsoft and forced them to stop distributing their JVM. Unless you consider java somehow unrelated to the vm required to run java, you can't change, enhance or fork it like any other FOSS project. See sun vs Microsoft for full details.
Because Java isn't F/OSS in the way you think it is. It is technically free, and it is technically open source, but it doesn't use the same license most F/OSS projects do. It's more a READ-ONLY OSS, and you aren't allowed to change it unless sun/oracle says you can.
I think a lot of people who actually read the patents that Google.. I mean Motorola.. is in a huff about and the amount they are asking for agree that they are using them as a scam and not trying to simply license them for what they are worth.
Actually the license fee gets the BBC about (3.5 billion pounds) 5.5 billion dollars. They also collect (1.5 billion pounds) 2.4 billion dollars from BBC Worldwide.
Could US syndication replace the BBC tax? It's already quite well on it's way. In fact, if you just include BBC One content (which is all that is rebroadcast overseas here on BBC America), it already does. In the last published financials (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_online_2010_11.pdf - this years should be finalized any day now), the BBC Tax income only increased 2% this year, while overseas syndication income increased 10% this year, and will likely be even higher in 2012 now that BBC Worldwide just landed a nice deal to transmit in HD. If you don't like it, may I suggest you protest by never watching BBC One ever again.
Because the prices quoted in the EU include your sales taxes, while the US prices don't have the sales taxes included. Because the cost of doing business in the EU is higher (and the threat of the EU commission randomly charging a large fine against you for silly reasons). Because the EU consumer protection agencies demand a longer warranty than you get in the US (2 years vs 1 year). Because the labor cost associated with having a presence in the EU is higher (higher minimum wages, longer vacation times, shorter working hours per week, etc).
I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
There may or may not be employees at the DMV, but I can't confirm that. I can however, with a high degree of certainty, state there are no employees at the DMV that are there to assist you. Collect a paycheck, perhaps, but to actually assist you? No.
Playing devil's advocate, if a person is 20% more likely to contract diabetes because of their genetic makeup, why is it not appropriate to charge more for health insurance? Why must the remainder of the population be forced to carry the burden? Wouldn't that also (in theory) cause those without genetic disposition to major illnesses to pay less?
Seems illogical that health insurance companies are allowed to use some factors to determine risk, but now it's a bad thing if they are actually able to do it more accurately? Should health insurance companies be unable to charge a different premium for a 90 year old than a 25 year old? If not, why, and how is that different?
It may be vulnerable to the denial of service (or just crashing the remote desktop service), but likely, it isn't vulnerable to running arbitrary code/privilege escalation. But I could be wrong.
Getting back to the original point, even if you want to call Royal Dutch Shell, plc a dutch company, is still isn't as big as either Chevron, or ExxonMobil, both US based companies in the petroleum business, so it's still little compared to the US. You might also want to call BP an American company as well (although I would not) sense they merged with one of the baby Standard Oils (Standard Oil of Ohio), and Amoco (also a US based petroleum company).
Perhaps you need to actually do a little research. First, from shell.com: "In 1833, shopkeeper Marcus Samuel decided to expand his London business. He sold antiques, but now added oriental shells. He aimed to capitalise on a fashion for using them in interior design. His instinct was right - such was the demand that Samuel quickly began importing shells from the Far East, laying the foundations for his import/export business."
Which was later merged with Royal Dutch Petroleum.
Now, if you are going to name the parent company, you should do so by it's full name. Royal Dutch Shell, plc. See, those three little letters "plc" make a pretty big difference, since it makes it a UK company regardless of what the name is. But feel free to call it a dutch company if you want, it is/was partially dutch.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I wasn't actually trolling. Routing questions about the new stuff to a different team happens all the time. I've both seen it, and I've been a part of it. It's not uncommon when doing what would otherwise be considered a complex transition. Such as moving from lotus notes to exchange (or the reverse), changing brands of ERP, automation, financials, or billing systems. Heck, I've even seen it at the local dept stores and fast food joints. You can call the transition specialists, on the job trainers, upgrade support, on site trainers, problem resolvers, or probably a dozen other names, but their function is usually the same. Keep the questions answered quickly, keep users from becoming too frustrated, and keep management happy during the transition time -- at least until you can find your local "champion" who will evangelize the new system and fill in the cracks when you phase out the additional support.
Compared to Windows NT??? Nice guys, lol. And of course, they decided to add in the cost of upgrading their OS every 3-4 years for the next 10 years in the "costs saved already". Nice PR piece, and that is some seriously stretching of the truth. Of course, they didn't include the cost of retraining and productivity lost over the next 10 years, including any new hires they have to make that don't know how to use linux/OOo, and have to be trained or being able to select from a smaller employment pool. They may or may not save money, but this article is full of crap, especially their help desk calls going down. Really? How'd you do that? Most likely they don't route questions about the new stuff to the help desk, and instead route them somewhere else where they are getting inundated.
Not sure why you even bothered to read this article at all since it's specifically about comcast. Do you get comcast out there in britland? No?
Hmm.. Why don't you write your government and ask them why you have to pay for TV. We don't. Unlimited TV for free, as many TVs as we want to have.
Not exactly, or not even close. The population density of Toronto is 3,972.4 people per km^2 (10,287 per mi^2), while New York City is 10,429.6/km^2 (26,402.9/mi^2). I wouldn't call those "about the same". In fact, that would make Toronto the 118th densest city in the US. Perhaps you were comparing Toronto in people per km^2, and NYC in people per mi^2?
Well considering that comcast instituted their 250GB caps Oct 1, 2008, and it has not changed since, and the amount of traffic that users consume doubles every 18 months, what was once a reasonable cap is now effectively 1/4th that amount. I suspect that comcast will continue to either not increase their cap, or increase it at a much slower rate than consumers increase their traffic, and you quickly begin to see this effectively the same thing as raising the cost of external content in relation to their own.
And when was the last time they changed that 250GB cap? Considering users eat twice the bandwidth every 18 months, how long will it take before that 250GB cap feels like a 5GB cap? I will save you the trouble, it's approximately 8 years. Ask again in 8 years how great of an idea it was to let this happen.
And how does it compare to the US when you discount the huge tracts of largely unpopulated deserts and sparsely populated farming land in the US?
You can fix that by putting your tinfoil hat over your laptop!
ICQ became a bloated piece of crap that was hard to use, and didn't support things like voice/video chat in a timely fashion. It crashed often, leaked your IP address, didn't work well with NAT routers (no UPNP support) among other things.
Easy enough to solve, don't install Java at all.
If my more than a decade after, you mean it was announced november 16, 1996, 6 months prior to the lawsuit, then you would be correct.
First, it as $20 million, not billions, well unless you consider $0.02 billions.
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers," Sun CEO Scott McNealy said in a statement. "The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."
Oh, yes, that sure sounds like they allow for forks, and code additions. Straight from the CEO's mouth.
"With the deal struck, Cullinan said Microsoft will be allowed to continue to offer its existing Java products, including its popular J++ development tool, for the next seven years.".
Oh, I guess Microsoft isn't free to...anything at all with the code. Not even an IDE for Java. Is that you definition of free?
"Sun's Rich Green, general manager of Java Software at Sun, said the company could have prohibited Microsoft from distributing even an older version of Java."
Doesn't sound free to me at all.
"Sun sued Microsoft in 1997, charging that the Redmond, Wash.-based company breached its contract by trying to extend Java so it would work differently, and presumably better, on Windows computers. One of Sun's main arguments in the case was that Microsoft wrongfully advertised that its products were Java-compatible because, in Sun's eyes, they were not." -- ZDNET
Again, Sun sued Microsoft for making changes to their version of the JVM that they didn't like.
"On March 11, 1996, Sun and Microsoft entered into a licensing agreement which allows Microsoft to use, modify and adapt Java Technology. Microsoft proceeded to use Java Technology in developing MS Internet Explorer 4.0, and other software products. Sun alleges that Microsoft has refused to adhere to Sun's most recent set of Java specifications and Java API," -- court documents
As I said, Sun changed their specifications AFTER Microsoft made changes to their JVM so it would fail their "specifications", and then they could claim it wasn't in conformance with the specification.
""Will MS be permitted to use Sun's Java Compatible Logo to promote and distribute its Internet Explorer 4.0 and related products even though its products fail to pass Sun's compatibility tests suite, and therefore fail to satisfy the conditions for use of Sun's trademark."" -- court documents
Again, the compatibility test suite that was specifically written to fail the changes Microsoft made.
"Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Whyte's determination that Sun is likely to prevail on its claim that Microsoft violated its agreement with Sun by:
Adding unauthorized keywords and compiler directives
Modifying its compiler to support Microsoft's unauthorized extensions
Failing to implement the standard Java native method interface, called JNI, in the products Microsoft distributes.
"
Again, not very open if you aren't allowed to change and distribute code that you've modified yourself. So JAVA is completely open, but you can't change anything, nor can you add anything, and you must implement everything that Sun tells you to, or Sun will take you to court to have all your work removed and barring you from distributing anything.
So are you:
A) Saying JAVA *IS* F/OSS as we know it, and if you use F/OSS, you can expect the same type of behavior and be under the same set of restrictions as above, OR
B) JAVA is *NOT* F/OSS.
Please pick one.
You are confused. Sun only claimed trademark abuse because it was the easiest route to go. They yanked Microsoft's ability to claim "Java Compatible" because they specifically created tests (called signature tests) to check for the exact changes that Microsoft made and declared that the tests failed and therefore it isn't compliant. So yes, you are free to make changes unless Sun/Oracle decides they don't like it, then they create tests to make your changes "invalid", and then declare you can't mention the word Java anywhere or they will sue you for trademark violation. Call that FOSS if you want, but I don't. It's definitely not "FREE" as most people understand it to be.
How quickly one forgets how sun sued Microsoft and forced them to stop distributing their JVM. Unless you consider java somehow unrelated to the vm required to run java, you can't change, enhance or fork it like any other FOSS project. See sun vs Microsoft for full details.
Because Java isn't F/OSS in the way you think it is. It is technically free, and it is technically open source, but it doesn't use the same license most F/OSS projects do. It's more a READ-ONLY OSS, and you aren't allowed to change it unless sun/oracle says you can.
I think a lot of people who actually read the patents that Google.. I mean Motorola.. is in a huff about and the amount they are asking for agree that they are using them as a scam and not trying to simply license them for what they are worth.
Actually the license fee gets the BBC about (3.5 billion pounds) 5.5 billion dollars. They also collect (1.5 billion pounds) 2.4 billion dollars from BBC Worldwide.
Could US syndication replace the BBC tax? It's already quite well on it's way. In fact, if you just include BBC One content (which is all that is rebroadcast overseas here on BBC America), it already does. In the last published financials (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_online_2010_11.pdf - this years should be finalized any day now), the BBC Tax income only increased 2% this year, while overseas syndication income increased 10% this year, and will likely be even higher in 2012 now that BBC Worldwide just landed a nice deal to transmit in HD. If you don't like it, may I suggest you protest by never watching BBC One ever again.
Because the prices quoted in the EU include your sales taxes, while the US prices don't have the sales taxes included.
Because the cost of doing business in the EU is higher (and the threat of the EU commission randomly charging a large fine against you for silly reasons).
Because the EU consumer protection agencies demand a longer warranty than you get in the US (2 years vs 1 year).
Because the labor cost associated with having a presence in the EU is higher (higher minimum wages, longer vacation times, shorter working hours per week, etc).
I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
As long as it's recycled lead bullets, you're good to go!
There may or may not be employees at the DMV, but I can't confirm that. I can however, with a high degree of certainty, state there are no employees at the DMV that are there to assist you. Collect a paycheck, perhaps, but to actually assist you? No.
Playing devil's advocate, if a person is 20% more likely to contract diabetes because of their genetic makeup, why is it not appropriate to charge more for health insurance? Why must the remainder of the population be forced to carry the burden? Wouldn't that also (in theory) cause those without genetic disposition to major illnesses to pay less?
Seems illogical that health insurance companies are allowed to use some factors to determine risk, but now it's a bad thing if they are actually able to do it more accurately? Should health insurance companies be unable to charge a different premium for a 90 year old than a 25 year old? If not, why, and how is that different?
Out of the nearly 12 million flights per year, there was a problem in 10. So when is less than 1 in a million "pretty darn common"?
It may be vulnerable to the denial of service (or just crashing the remote desktop service), but likely, it isn't vulnerable to running arbitrary code/privilege escalation. But I could be wrong.
Getting back to the original point, even if you want to call Royal Dutch Shell, plc a dutch company, is still isn't as big as either Chevron, or ExxonMobil, both US based companies in the petroleum business, so it's still little compared to the US. You might also want to call BP an American company as well (although I would not) sense they merged with one of the baby Standard Oils (Standard Oil of Ohio), and Amoco (also a US based petroleum company).
Perhaps you need to actually do a little research.
First, from shell.com:
"In 1833, shopkeeper Marcus Samuel decided to expand his London business. He sold antiques, but now added oriental shells. He aimed to capitalise on a fashion for using them in interior design. His instinct was right - such was the demand that Samuel quickly began importing shells from the Far East, laying the foundations for his import/export business."
Which was later merged with Royal Dutch Petroleum.
Now, if you are going to name the parent company, you should do so by it's full name. Royal Dutch Shell, plc. See, those three little letters "plc" make a pretty big difference, since it makes it a UK company regardless of what the name is. But feel free to call it a dutch company if you want, it is/was partially dutch.