The interface is somewhat streamlined. It is noticeably faster. The support for open standards is better and that's great. They certainly worked hard to ensure they had a solid product--a long time in coming. But, I use Linux most of the time. I'd like to have the features supported in other OSes available to me in my primary OS. Any ideas as to when/if they will have full support for 3d acceleration? I would also like the interface to be identical. I know the Google Chrome guys complained about making their product identical to the Windows version. They ultimately succeeded. I can only wonder when they will for the Linux community.
I have a friend like you. Way overboard when it comes to politics and religion, unreasonable, outspoken, nonsensical most of the time, and extreme. Just have to keep him out of political and religious discussions.
A lot of the problems start at home too. Seriously. When someone who's of college age has a mother (say 45-55) and they focus their child on manual and unskilled labor, then there's a real problem. It's not that kids are not capable it's that the mothers didn't spend the time focusing those kids on grades in order to achieve beyond house painting, auto mechanics, construction, factory work, etc.
My sister has kids of college age and she flat out stated she should have put significantly more emphasis on school rather than on the extra activities.
I know a woman that has worked as a grocery clerk for 16 years (yes the same job--can you imagine 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, standing in a check out line pushing groceries over a bar code reader). Her kids are cool and popular. but they don't have the mind-set to focus on higher learning. They've tried, but they end up as laborers fixing cars or stacking boxes. It's fast money so they can get some toys to tickle their fancy and to impress their friends. Her problem is that she didn't put any time into learning computers. Someone else in her family sets everything up for her. She doesn't even know how to connect to her own facebook page nor how do do much more than just read email--but that's not the real problem. She has a disdain for technology and that feeds down-stream. It's sad.
I'd say you were informed up to a point, though you make the fallacious conclusion that DirectX results in better looking games and that Linux games suck because of the lack of DirectX . OpenGL exists, and great looking well done games can be created for use with that API. The problem is the commitment by the large game development houses to support the 100 million Linux users. Some do. The problem is the same as AMD is complaining of--ONLY SO MUCH RESOURCES CAN BE THROWN AT A PROJECT BY ANY GIVEN DEVELOPER.
Your statement about how laughable the situation is belies the difference between how the OpenGL games look and play vs. their DirectX equivalent--that those differences are imperceivable. Unreal Tournament is a great example. There's no perceived visual or play characteristics that make the DirectX version better.
Oh, give me a break. You don't know what you are talking about. You sound just as much a shill as those postulating the original argument. You are here because you want to make the GPL look bad (if it wasn't for the GPL this or GPL that then we'd not have this or that problem--give me a break--the GPL is a good license and is just that).
If it is a matter of leaving out the copyright message they need only put it back to remedy.
Much of what I've read that supports this FUD is bunk. Please, let's all move on.
You have to be kidding everyone. Go look at the headers. You sound ridiculous. There's no case here, and having this FUD spread by ex-microsoft guys with someone else assisting that's been at war with Google for some time shows you shouldn't put any stock in them. And, if someone wants to challenge Google over copyright over some headers then let them. It's hardly an issue. It is hardly a challenge.
'The motivations behind the news release are murky: the lawyer who outlined the violation is an ex-Microsoft hand, and the news was widely propagated by gadfly Florian Mueller, who's tangled with Google over patent issues in the past. '
Reducing prices makes a big difference in how the consumer perceives what they bought. It is actually rare to have a company succeed by increasing prices by distorting the value of their product (for example, Apple). The music industry for example has super high prices and those prices have been extremely high forever. Even at $10.00 per CD the prices is outrageous.
Lately I've heard about how some book and program authors have made significantly more money selling their products at $.99 than even at $2.99. Sometimes the income has risen dramatically. The problem with the music industry is that they want to keep their old business model and sell at the same price thus keeping themselves living as billionaires. The consumer on the other hand has said "definitely no" to those prices. Music stores have gone out of business and the sales emphasis is really focused on digital online sales. But the music industry keeps pushing the numbers because they think they'll make even more if they box us into their old price structure.
The internet changes one significant variable. That is distribution. The internet gives everyone a chance to open their own stores online. Buy what you need JIT and resell. You do the shipping and maintain a minimal workforce. Contrast that with what the music industry wants--to control distribution. In controlling that channel they can determine the prices, even going so far as having the RIAA member companies fix the prices. The internet widely opens almost every market to anyone. Getting your target audience's attention or even growing your target audience is vastly simplified. This is far different than it was even 30 years ago.
The consumer knows it costs less to produce digital works and to distribute them, therefore there's no need to keep paying the high price, so they download the music for free instead of caving in to the music industry's demands. What the music industry doesn't understand is that the ability to get the attention of more people and to let them sample the music is vastly increased via the internet. That means they can continue to grow their businesses with digital sales at significantly lower prices because of that access.
So, to me, the basic premise of price reduction is spot on. Dunce-heads in various industries affected by free digital downloads are killing their own business and giving away the market to others to control (i.e., Apple, Amazon, etc.) To those dunce-heads: lower your prices because we the consumer know that your costs are significantly reduced and your access to the consumer is vastly expanded. And, while you are at it, go back and give those artists what they deserve and stop stealing from them.
I have never used BofA. But I know their influence. They are massive and everywhere. My niece worked there for a while. She said it was a horrible place.
It should be that, if the government bails out a corporation, because it is felt that it was too big to fail, the corporation should be required by law to break up into smaller parts so as not to be to big to fail. No corporation that asks for help should be allowed to exist in that manner and partake of government assistance.
Jobs mean employees that pay taxes. It also means that a President worrying about jobs and economic growth has to focus on what promotes both. A corporation provides jobs. If a corporation does bad deeds you can't jail it (or punish it too much) because those jobs, that economic growth, and that shareholder value depend on that corporation.
This is the same logic that the MPAA and the RIAA are scamming President Obama with in an attempt to use the downturn in the economy and job's loss to create a protected segment for themselves. They have convinced President Obama that he has to act on jobs and this is the only way to do it--to protect certain businesses. Never before in the history of our country has our government so bent over backwards to protect a segment of business.
Two problems here. 1) This won't accomplish what the MPAA and RIAA claim, and 2) it will give them a position of protection far beyond the downturn in the economy, thus providing them an unprecedented seat of power to influence further and to punish those they disparage.
The President's Administration and his Justice Department won't punish the corporations because he can't afford to punish them.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding from reading other online articles is that Firefox 4, within the first 24 hours, was downloaded over 7 million times.
I'm sorry, but the number of users of XP is far more than 40%. 70% as a figure comes to mind.
Knowing Ballmer it's probably the cake left over from their IE9 launch party.
The interface is somewhat streamlined. It is noticeably faster. The support for open standards is better and that's great. They certainly worked hard to ensure they had a solid product--a long time in coming. But, I use Linux most of the time. I'd like to have the features supported in other OSes available to me in my primary OS. Any ideas as to when/if they will have full support for 3d acceleration? I would also like the interface to be identical. I know the Google Chrome guys complained about making their product identical to the Windows version. They ultimately succeeded. I can only wonder when they will for the Linux community.
I have a friend like you. Way overboard when it comes to politics and religion, unreasonable, outspoken, nonsensical most of the time, and extreme. Just have to keep him out of political and religious discussions.
On most other topics he's a pretty good guy.
A lot of the problems start at home too. Seriously. When someone who's of college age has a mother (say 45-55) and they focus their child on manual and unskilled labor, then there's a real problem. It's not that kids are not capable it's that the mothers didn't spend the time focusing those kids on grades in order to achieve beyond house painting, auto mechanics, construction, factory work, etc.
My sister has kids of college age and she flat out stated she should have put significantly more emphasis on school rather than on the extra activities.
I know a woman that has worked as a grocery clerk for 16 years (yes the same job--can you imagine 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, standing in a check out line pushing groceries over a bar code reader). Her kids are cool and popular. but they don't have the mind-set to focus on higher learning. They've tried, but they end up as laborers fixing cars or stacking boxes. It's fast money so they can get some toys to tickle their fancy and to impress their friends. Her problem is that she didn't put any time into learning computers. Someone else in her family sets everything up for her. She doesn't even know how to connect to her own facebook page nor how do do much more than just read email--but that's not the real problem. She has a disdain for technology and that feeds down-stream. It's sad.
I'd say you were informed up to a point, though you make the fallacious conclusion that DirectX results in better looking games and that Linux games suck because of the lack of DirectX . OpenGL exists, and great looking well done games can be created for use with that API. The problem is the commitment by the large game development houses to support the 100 million Linux users. Some do. The problem is the same as AMD is complaining of--ONLY SO MUCH RESOURCES CAN BE THROWN AT A PROJECT BY ANY GIVEN DEVELOPER.
Your statement about how laughable the situation is belies the difference between how the OpenGL games look and play vs. their DirectX equivalent--that those differences are imperceivable. Unreal Tournament is a great example. There's no perceived visual or play characteristics that make the DirectX version better.
Oh, give me a break. You don't know what you are talking about. You sound just as much a shill as those postulating the original argument. You are here because you want to make the GPL look bad (if it wasn't for the GPL this or GPL that then we'd not have this or that problem--give me a break--the GPL is a good license and is just that).
If it is a matter of leaving out the copyright message they need only put it back to remedy.
Much of what I've read that supports this FUD is bunk. Please, let's all move on.
You have to be kidding everyone. Go look at the headers. You sound ridiculous. There's no case here, and having this FUD spread by ex-microsoft guys with someone else assisting that's been at war with Google for some time shows you shouldn't put any stock in them. And, if someone wants to challenge Google over copyright over some headers then let them. It's hardly an issue. It is hardly a challenge.
My goodness you should like chicken little.
'The motivations behind the news release are murky: the lawyer who outlined the violation is an ex-Microsoft hand, and the news was widely propagated by gadfly Florian Mueller, who's tangled with Google over patent issues in the past. '
I fix computers for a living. I work with the internals. I have fixed Apple computers for as far back as the Mac was introduced.
I can tell you now, flat out, without hesitation, without exaggeration, Apple computers are extremely over-priced.
Their goal should be to reduce copyright infringement, not shoot for that other pipe-dream.
You can never stop copyright infringement as you can't provide your product to everyone when they want it. That mechanism is left to the net.
Most BANDS are lucky to make $.10 per song. ZZ Top, which is a well established band, complained that they were only making $.10 per song off iTunes.
Reducing prices makes a big difference in how the consumer perceives what they bought. It is actually rare to have a company succeed by increasing prices by distorting the value of their product (for example, Apple). The music industry for example has super high prices and those prices have been extremely high forever. Even at $10.00 per CD the prices is outrageous.
Lately I've heard about how some book and program authors have made significantly more money selling their products at $.99 than even at $2.99. Sometimes the income has risen dramatically. The problem with the music industry is that they want to keep their old business model and sell at the same price thus keeping themselves living as billionaires. The consumer on the other hand has said "definitely no" to those prices. Music stores have gone out of business and the sales emphasis is really focused on digital online sales. But the music industry keeps pushing the numbers because they think they'll make even more if they box us into their old price structure.
The internet changes one significant variable. That is distribution. The internet gives everyone a chance to open their own stores online. Buy what you need JIT and resell. You do the shipping and maintain a minimal workforce. Contrast that with what the music industry wants--to control distribution. In controlling that channel they can determine the prices, even going so far as having the RIAA member companies fix the prices. The internet widely opens almost every market to anyone. Getting your target audience's attention or even growing your target audience is vastly simplified. This is far different than it was even 30 years ago.
The consumer knows it costs less to produce digital works and to distribute them, therefore there's no need to keep paying the high price, so they download the music for free instead of caving in to the music industry's demands. What the music industry doesn't understand is that the ability to get the attention of more people and to let them sample the music is vastly increased via the internet. That means they can continue to grow their businesses with digital sales at significantly lower prices because of that access.
So, to me, the basic premise of price reduction is spot on. Dunce-heads in various industries affected by free digital downloads are killing their own business and giving away the market to others to control (i.e., Apple, Amazon, etc.) To those dunce-heads: lower your prices because we the consumer know that your costs are significantly reduced and your access to the consumer is vastly expanded. And, while you are at it, go back and give those artists what they deserve and stop stealing from them.
There was a time when income tax was on corporations only. Technically, there's no US law that says individuals must pay US federal taxes.
Like HP was?
Early on working in business you learn that the job of the corporation is to "increase shareholder value".
I have never used BofA. But I know their influence. They are massive and everywhere. My niece worked there for a while. She said it was a horrible place.
What you are saying is "don't bother to revolt" because that's the way it has always been. It's nothing new. Move on.
No disrespect intended.
It's the "republic" part that causes this and defeats democracy itself.
Depending on the crisis ongoing in the US steroid use prosecution has become(s) en vogue.
If you can't play by the rules change the rules.
It should be that, if the government bails out a corporation, because it is felt that it was too big to fail, the corporation should be required by law to break up into smaller parts so as not to be to big to fail. No corporation that asks for help should be allowed to exist in that manner and partake of government assistance.
But alas it seems, corporation is government.
Every "manager" and up typically gets free legal representation by the Corporation's lawyers.
Jobs mean employees that pay taxes. It also means that a President worrying about jobs and economic growth has to focus on what promotes both. A corporation provides jobs. If a corporation does bad deeds you can't jail it (or punish it too much) because those jobs, that economic growth, and that shareholder value depend on that corporation.
This is the same logic that the MPAA and the RIAA are scamming President Obama with in an attempt to use the downturn in the economy and job's loss to create a protected segment for themselves. They have convinced President Obama that he has to act on jobs and this is the only way to do it--to protect certain businesses. Never before in the history of our country has our government so bent over backwards to protect a segment of business.
Two problems here. 1) This won't accomplish what the MPAA and RIAA claim, and 2) it will give them a position of protection far beyond the downturn in the economy, thus providing them an unprecedented seat of power to influence further and to punish those they disparage.
The President's Administration and his Justice Department won't punish the corporations because he can't afford to punish them.