At least not on linux with free software. Storage is practically free. One banner ad probably pays enough for all the hard drives they've used to date.
They did develop a webapp, which probably cost something, and if improved will cost a little more, but its not that hard to do. Ask most anyone who reads slashdot.
A competent sysadmin might set them back a little, but a competent sysadmin wouldn't need to spend all his time working on sourceforge if he didn't have to upload new policies all the time
Bandwidth is their major expense. Everyone cries about the cost of bandwidth these days, but bandwidth is only getting cheaper. Companies are just getting greedy. A dedicated T-3 only costs about $10,000 a month.
The problem is, right now *if* Ximian fully implements Mono as planned, and Microsoft doesn't expand their functionality at all, the numbers are 75% customized for Windows already. 900 classes in the ECMA spec vs. around 3600 in the current Microsoft implementation.
If by much more, you mean that the 2% of the population that makes over $200,000 a year averages $1,000,000 and pays 39% tax then split the remainder in half -- assuming half don't pay taxes at all, and that the remainder pay an average of 20% on 40,000 (and got a $300 tax break last year)... assuming 100,000,000 tax payers:
The rich paid $390,000 a piece for a total of $780 billion
and the majority paid $8000 a piece for a total of $784 billion
But the fact is that the rich pay hardly any taxes because they can afford good accountants and "expenses" and some poor guy who makes $14,000 working at McDonalds pays about $3000 in taxes.
note: these numbers are made up -- except the McDonalds guy -- who actually worked at another fast food establishment whose name was changed in order to protect the innocent.
yeah, you use the defined classes to make RPC called to the undefined ones. So even though you implement the whole spec (which is less than 1/4 of the classes), it doesn't work with some, and others, it works just fine with -- but you get a big pop-up on your screen from verisign that says
"You are using an unsecure application that does not have a guaranteed Microsoft checksum. Are you really stupid enough to trust anyone but Microsoft-Verisign?"
what you describe is "forward" compatibility, not backward compatibility. Frontpage 2000 pages wont work on IE 4, But Frontpage 98 pages (to the extent that it can be said) work on IE 5, 5.5, and 6. The same is even more true with Word, Excel, and other document formats. It's not just a matter of expansion, because even a subset of the protocols don't work. It's called planned obsolescence, and its *not* a feature.
Miguel's decision to embrace technology that exists as only a fraction of an IEEE spec, a few "Dummies" books, and a beta SDK shows his lack of judgement, nomatter how you feel about it. He may turn out to be right, but not because of any great wisdom or foresight on his part. He's gambling on something that's only been *vaporware* for a year and a half, and is just now being implemented.
that's the point. Miguel can speak for Ximian and say "I plan to base Ximian Gnome 4.0 on.NET and hope other Gnome developers will follow suit) but he can't declare what path Gnome will take.
While its true that many key Gnome developers do happen to work for Ximian, not all do. Also, there has been financial support for the Gnome Foundation from other companies and individuals.
Also, by using the GPL on their code they relinquished the right to withdraw it. By accepting the contributions of others (not employed by Ximian) they have agreed to the terms of the GPL and can't just steal other people's code, however insignificant they feel those contributions to be. They can request permission from those other contributors or extract the "tainted" GPL code, or all Gnome developers may choose to develop on the Microsoft.NET framework, but it's not a pronouncement Miguel should make without even discussing it with the community.
The "Gnome" trademark may be owned by the FSF, as well, which complicates things.
but, if you go back 5 years or more, you will find a completely different demographic.
Most open source developers started in college or before. The maturity level in open source represents the *maturing* of open source. No one has replaced Linus, but there are newcomers like Marcello. Many other projects are still spearheaded by the same people that started them in their basements when they were teenagers. As far as I know, there hasn't been a massive UV radiation die-off, or kidnapping/cyborg replacement program of key developers
Ten or twenty years from now when Johnny Slashdot becomes John Q. Political Candidate (or worse, political dissenter) of John Corporate Competitor the information suddenly becomes very useful.
select zip_code, channel_watched, segments_replayed from viewing_statistics order by zip_code, time_added;
all they have to do is change their query this:
select a.customer_name, b.channel_watched, b.segments_replayed from tivo_users a, viewing statistics b where a.account_number = b.account_number;
Just because they don't send the results of the second query to pepsi & fox (for the same price as the first query) doesn't mean the data is impossible to collect.
Combine this with external data and it becomes much more potentially harmful.
Opt out is not a legal method of contract law. There was a court case a few years ago between a cable company (TCI I think) and subscribers where you had to "opt out" of certain premium channels (crap like Starz) where it was upheld that opt out was invalid. They've since got around it by offering "standard" packages that include some premium channels.
How would you like to receive a message that says "you agree to purchase our product unless you send a certified letter and check for $200 to such address within 10 days of the date posted on this letter. Furthermore you agree to all terms and conditions of such contract which may change without notice at any time."
And you're thinking "hey, they're pretty good about giving me notice now."
your account sends the information. I suppose you would fill out an anonymous survey postcard that was mailed to you, put it in an envelop, leave off the return address, and feel safe in your anonymity.
Do you think they want to produce four times as much content for the same size audience? Their goal is to reduce expenses. While they may take a roundabout way to squeeze those last stubborn individuals into the mold, that is their end goal. That's why they fear things like Napster.
If you let them show you what they want you to watch, and give them feedback on what pushes your buttons, eventually what you like to watch will become exactly what the average person wants to watch.
The thing is, they aren't going to sell you what you want. You are essentially giving them the opportunity to read your mind (preferences.)
It also allows them to practice manipulating your preferences. So, in the end, you won't be buying routers. You'll be buying tampons because you are convinced that they help you keep that fresh feeling while filtering packets. And you'll be paying four times as much for them.
you don't use the service, pepsi does. You pay a monthly fee for hardware you already own.
You got to love the complaint.
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Especially point 11.
They (UNICOMSI.COM) claim he (Chip -- UNICOM.COM) is engaged in "cyberpiracy" and is diverting their traffic to his website by allowing their customers to type his domain name into their browser. But what really gets them mad is that, in their opinion, his site looks "amateurish."
Whereas they have broken links, missing images, and javascript rollovers that don't work.
I believe you are right concerning the benchmark. I, too, saw the same thing, and had to jump to the bottom to see his conclusion. I think either on the table or the summary he switched the description. Since he twice defended the rmap's speed in the summary, it may be the table -- which would align with other benchmarks of the AA vm suffering under extended load.
Ironically, Rik's rmap patch wound up being unable to complete the test, and his complaint about using 2.4.18pre3 seem disengenius since he was asked politely for info on testing against it, and refused.
Slashdot Mirror
Web hosting is not expensive!
At least not on linux with free software. Storage is practically free. One banner ad probably pays enough for all the hard drives they've used to date.
They did develop a webapp, which probably cost something, and if improved will cost a little more, but its not that hard to do. Ask most anyone who reads slashdot.
A competent sysadmin might set them back a little, but a competent sysadmin wouldn't need to spend all his time working on sourceforge if he didn't have to upload new policies all the time
Bandwidth is their major expense. Everyone cries about the cost of bandwidth these days, but bandwidth is only getting cheaper. Companies are just getting greedy. A dedicated T-3 only costs about $10,000 a month.
charities could use a little suffering. It might put them more in touch with those they are claiming to help.
or maybe you were deceived
um... that was me. libwww, don't you know?
I think you mean Mutant X... Isn't special unit 2 the one with then gnome?
The problem is, right now *if* Ximian fully implements Mono as planned, and Microsoft doesn't expand their functionality at all, the numbers are 75% customized for Windows already. 900 classes in the ECMA spec vs. around 3600 in the current Microsoft implementation.
If by much more, you mean that the 2% of the population that makes over $200,000 a year averages $1,000,000 and pays 39% tax then split the remainder in half -- assuming half don't pay taxes at all, and that the remainder pay an average of 20% on 40,000 (and got a $300 tax break last year)... assuming 100,000,000 tax payers:
The rich paid $390,000 a piece for a total of $780 billion
and the majority paid $8000 a piece for a total of $784 billion
But the fact is that the rich pay hardly any taxes because they can afford good accountants and "expenses" and some poor guy who makes $14,000 working at McDonalds pays about $3000 in taxes.
note: these numbers are made up -- except the McDonalds guy -- who actually worked at another fast food establishment whose name was changed in order to protect the innocent.
yeah, you use the defined classes to make RPC called to the undefined ones. So even though you implement the whole spec (which is less than 1/4 of the classes), it doesn't work with some, and others, it works just fine with -- but you get a big pop-up on your screen from verisign that says
"You are using an unsecure application that does not have a guaranteed Microsoft checksum. Are you really stupid enough to trust anyone but Microsoft-Verisign?"
what you describe is "forward" compatibility, not backward compatibility. Frontpage 2000 pages wont work on IE 4, But Frontpage 98 pages (to the extent that it can be said) work on IE 5, 5.5, and 6. The same is even more true with Word, Excel, and other document formats. It's not just a matter of expansion, because even a subset of the protocols don't work. It's called planned obsolescence, and its *not* a feature.
Miguel's decision to embrace technology that exists as only a fraction of an IEEE spec, a few "Dummies" books, and a beta SDK shows his lack of judgement, nomatter how you feel about it. He may turn out to be right, but not because of any great wisdom or foresight on his part. He's gambling on something that's only been *vaporware* for a year and a half, and is just now being implemented.
that's the point. Miguel can speak for Ximian and say "I plan to base Ximian Gnome 4.0 on .NET and hope other Gnome developers will follow suit) but he can't declare what path Gnome will take.
While its true that many key Gnome developers do happen to work for Ximian, not all do. Also, there has been financial support for the Gnome Foundation from other companies and individuals.
Also, by using the GPL on their code they relinquished the right to withdraw it. By accepting the contributions of others (not employed by Ximian) they have agreed to the terms of the GPL and can't just steal other people's code, however insignificant they feel those contributions to be. They can request permission from those other contributors or extract the "tainted" GPL code, or all Gnome developers may choose to develop on the Microsoft.NET framework, but it's not a pronouncement Miguel should make without even discussing it with the community.
The "Gnome" trademark may be owned by the FSF, as well, which complicates things.
Most open source developers started in college or before. The maturity level in open source represents the *maturing* of open source. No one has replaced Linus, but there are newcomers like Marcello. Many other projects are still spearheaded by the same people that started them in their basements when they were teenagers. As far as I know, there hasn't been a massive UV radiation die-off, or kidnapping/cyborg replacement program of key developers
Do you think TV has gone downhill? Do you think the studios know less about your viewing habits than they did in the past?
Ten or twenty years from now when Johnny Slashdot becomes John Q. Political Candidate (or worse, political dissenter) of John Corporate Competitor the information suddenly becomes very useful.
you need to use a little more common sense.
here is there current query:
select zip_code, channel_watched, segments_replayed from viewing_statistics order by zip_code, time_added;
all they have to do is change their query this:
select a.customer_name, b.channel_watched, b.segments_replayed from tivo_users a, viewing statistics b where a.account_number = b.account_number;
Just because they don't send the results of the second query to pepsi & fox (for the same price as the first query) doesn't mean the data is impossible to collect.
Combine this with external data and it becomes much more potentially harmful.
until it sends another update
Opt out is not a legal method of contract law. There was a court case a few years ago between a cable company (TCI I think) and subscribers where you had to "opt out" of certain premium channels (crap like Starz) where it was upheld that opt out was invalid. They've since got around it by offering "standard" packages that include some premium channels.
How would you like to receive a message that says "you agree to purchase our product unless you send a certified letter and check for $200 to such address within 10 days of the date posted on this letter. Furthermore you agree to all terms and conditions of such contract which may change without notice at any time."
And you're thinking "hey, they're pretty good about giving me notice now."
your account sends the information. I suppose you would fill out an anonymous survey postcard that was mailed to you, put it in an envelop, leave off the return address, and feel safe in your anonymity.
Do you think they want to produce four times as much content for the same size audience? Their goal is to reduce expenses. While they may take a roundabout way to squeeze those last stubborn individuals into the mold, that is their end goal. That's why they fear things like Napster.
If you let them show you what they want you to watch, and give them feedback on what pushes your buttons, eventually what you like to watch will become exactly what the average person wants to watch.
Its *easy* to tell what they're programming you with on Star Trek or Moesha. With the Simpsons, its much more subtle and seemingly conflicted.
The thing is, they aren't going to sell you what you want. You are essentially giving them the opportunity to read your mind (preferences.)
It also allows them to practice manipulating your preferences. So, in the end, you won't be buying routers. You'll be buying tampons because you are convinced that they help you keep that fresh feeling while filtering packets. And you'll be paying four times as much for them.
you don't use the service, pepsi does. You pay a monthly fee for hardware you already own.
Especially point 11.
They (UNICOMSI.COM) claim he (Chip -- UNICOM.COM) is engaged in "cyberpiracy" and is diverting their traffic to his website by allowing their customers to type his domain name into their browser. But what really gets them mad is that, in their opinion, his site looks "amateurish."
Whereas they have broken links, missing images, and javascript rollovers that don't work.
I believe you are right concerning the benchmark. I, too, saw the same thing, and had to jump to the bottom to see his conclusion. I think either on the table or the summary he switched the description. Since he twice defended the rmap's speed in the summary, it may be the table -- which would align with other benchmarks of the AA vm suffering under extended load.
Ironically, Rik's rmap patch wound up being unable to complete the test, and his complaint about using 2.4.18pre3 seem disengenius since he was asked politely for info on testing against it, and refused.