How IBM Plans To Win Jeopardy!
I am glad we can count on your to predict the future.
> I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
lol, inb4 20/20 hindsight. Just look at the comments above yours.
Can You Be Denied the Right To Support OSS?
Wow, slashdot commenting sucks. I came back here after a year, and really, firehose was too little too late, I notice better stories, but really, back to reddit.
Multi Theft Auto - San Andreas Goes Open Source
> net: network handling (this module is covered by a different license and is only available as a binary release)
First rule of business, fork, and add a new network layer, then use google's bug database.
How to Deal With an Aging Brain?
> is that why you're always misplacing your keys and finding the phone in the fridge?
Don't joke about it.
When I was 25 I did this.
Not that I've lost my phone since, but I have one or twice, with great trepidation and foreboding, opened the fridge on the off-chance that my keys are in there.
Can You Be Denied the Right To Support OSS?
I don't think you are arguing against the point he made. I think you are answering an entirely different question.
He is asking, am I allowed to charge support for companies using the OSS version of a product.
Can I install some shit, and when it breaks, charge to fix it, or indeed, if they can't find the send button, charge than $50 to tell them where it is.
He isn't asking to buy support from a company, or offer their support, but use the non-commercial license version.
If he was asking for their support, he would use the commercial license, since, that inevitably is linked to support anyway.
And don't say 'run the open version yourself'.
They are both open (source) versions (AFAIK, and if they are not this argument is still valid, and by open source, I mean, the source is open) we are just talking about additional rights given by a license.
Can you restrict people from charging services (and thus, competing against you) on your 'own' open source app?
That wasn't me asking that question, that was the idiots who submitted / posted asking, but clearly stated.
Internet Explorer 8 Delayed Until 2009
It is ok to hate firefox now. They pissed away all that google money and gave us firefox 3, which is fail.
Internet Explorer 8 Delayed Until 2009
Firstly, Microsoft are realizing that each Windows needs to lock out some users to ensure it gets adopted. Just like with Office that used deliberately coded breaks in compatibility, and especially using 'going open format' as an excuse for ensuring that even the same person who wrote a document now has trouble opening it again.
This isn't a delay. IE will be launched WITH Windows 7, trying to build their marketing efforts together.
And who bets that IE 8 for XP and Vista will have some 'wow, if you have windows 7, you wouldn't have just accidentally your whole machine!'.
Now, the real juicy part: Are you really going to use a browser that is deliberately holding back the internet, proof that IE8 STILL won't fix PNG's properly, just try animating PNG transparency and sizing in IE 7.0, still causes problems.
Microsoft are big and have enough money NOT TO RELEASE A GOOD BROWSER.
Can't you see that? Sure they could make a standards compliant renderer and add a bookmark toolbar to it, but why the hell do they want to?
They see this as weakening their grasp on developers / software deployments, which makes sense because really, it is drivers and those shitty software apps you get with cheapo peripherals that are keeping people from using linux.
That is why IP interfaces are killing windows.
If you talk over the network, the device handles itself over http, whilst on USB you need to support whatever junk they have written.
Give me http on gps devices, heart monitors, cameras, phones.
tod_miller hasn't submitted any stories.
Reading older stuff from the DNA threads
Re:Oh, DAMN... (Score:5, Funny)
by TomV (138637) on Monday August 25, @06:31AM (#6782685)
Remember that "if we should ever figure out what everything means, it will instantly be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable"
Can we PLEASE have just one thread here that doesn't reference that damned SCO suit? ;-)
[ Parent ]
The following is interesting not funny! :-)
Re:Checks and balances? (Score:2, Interesting)
by cheekyboy (598084) Neutral on Thursday December 09, @07:57AM (#11039658)
( http://dynamik.info/ )
Microsoft will probably spend $9billion to buy 51% share in NYT, then refuse the adds.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
RSS for many people is a nice way of futher embroiling people into thier own neurotic 'blogging' (how I hate that word) or 'news' service.
For many sites, like /., it was cool to have one, but now what you have basically done is started to realise there is a line:
Do I publish my entire site as XML, and allow people to use thier own stylesheet, and never [op optionally] display the adverts (I am a believer in advert supported rss - as a choice for the rss source).
RSS was a 'new checker' see the headlines, but for many veneer sites of data flow, this is what people use them for. /. is basically a headlines site.
Very few items havea 'read more', but the value of slashdot is not 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' but 'find out what everyone else thinks of the news for nerds, stuff that matters' i.e. the comments are the value /. brings, not the news itself (which is linked) but you knew that.
I doubt /. would xml feed its comments :-)
What you have to understand is, for every check someone makes to an RSS (2kb-15kb?) you save someone accessing your sites front page which is probably 150kb for many sites today (at LEAST!) code, images etc.
So, when people worry about RSSa) worrying thier site has too many visitors - put up a sign to deter them
b) wants these people to visit the front page and get 900% more bandwidth usage for the same 'interest'
c) are not converting these rss feeds into real hits that hit advertising and revenues.
d) do not understand what rss was or is, wy it is worthwhile, it was part of thier installed 'web thingy' package, and they are looking at where the bandwidth goes, and shock horror, aar-ees-ees is the culprit... *.,.*
idea-prior-art-anti-patent-block (TM patent pending):
advertising and keyword advertising over RSS, with on topic and sementically sensitive automated and linking is RSS, a method and technique thereof.
Smoking and society
For those who are about to die, we salute you!
Smokers, you either love them, or you want to pour chlorine down thier epiglottal.
Smoking is so complex.
Child smoking is a 6 billion dollar industry in the US alone. You fund that industry, and perpetuate it.
People start smoking today due to peer pressure, wanting to fit it. I defy anyone who will deny it, and say, I was the original smoker - people at college wanted to be like me.
People continue smoking because of: Addiction. They either admit that, or say they like to smoke (which in essence is true, it is enjoyable because thier body feels better). However, they mainly don't think about it (habitual).
If they really think about it, they would preffer if they never started.
Smokers have lower immune systems and cost health care lots of money. Tabacco taxes do feed back into that healthcare, but a lot of research (which is limited folks, only a certain number of bright people on this planet) is taken to these areas, as it is profitable.
Now, aside from all that. Public smoking. People think they have a right. The worst thing is if someone sits next to me who is smoking, I am past the half turn, full turn and eye roll (Seinfeld) I just say, no smoking to them, and if they don't get the message I say leave.
Now, I would love to take a big fat fsck-off cigar with me, because even cigarette smokers find that noxious offensive smoke painfully intruding, but what can they say, if they sit next to me with thier symbol of immaturity and insecurity. /rant
I honestly believe that the only good thing about smoking is the fact that it is bad for you.
Burying Moore and his 'Law'
Comments now enabled after initial cool-off period :-)
I hope this small journal will put rest all your pandering to Moores law.
Why do I object to 'Moore's Law'
1: It is now a law but a commentary of the rate in which research is able to force transistors into a CPU. This follows cycles of research that are easily identified.
2: It hasn't even stayed the same, the law changes every time the measurement doesn't add up. If it doubled in a year, the new law if it will double in a year. If it doubles in 18 months, the new law is 18 months.
Original 1965 1 year prediction, and latter 18 month 'tweak'
So Moore's law is a prediction based on previous data, or a guess, an estimate.
Lets call it Moore's Guess. And lets not say things like:
From those dolts at M$:
Everyone knows Moore's law--the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 18 months. What a lot of people forget is that network bandwidth and storage technologies are growing at an even faster pace than Moore's law would suggest.
Yes because Moore was a cofounder of Intel, and spoke about transistors, not about network bandwidth or storage. Damn you shakes fist ineffectually at monitor
I believe you want Ciscos Law and Seagate's Ponderings to find out how fast those technologies are going to continue their developments.
Or perhaps you can just guess, or use a tealeaves and a teacup.
Please do not mention Moore, his Law, or apple tart and custard on /., as we are professionals for the most part, at heart anyway, ok I retract that statement, we do not want to mire our names in the slurry of pestilent filth that is Moore's law.