So...

Apple should be able to sue other companies over this because... they have made the most money of the old old concept in the present age?

That doesn't sound like much of a basis for a lawsuit.

But then, I'm not I lawyer.

Regards.

cubes are not the projection of planes in 3d space

regards.

So, by your stance you should not own any computer, or probably any product produced by a corporation.

Please list those computer products you own, so that we may begin telling you how the companies involved have done the same thing.

Or perhaps you just unreasonably hate Apple?

Lol.

There will always be a top five percent.

This is a brilliant move to cause *everyone* to reduce usage. The people at 3GB feel safe because of the headroom. But if everyone cuts down to a max of 3GB, what then?

Top 5% baby! Ok, so *most* of those users cut down. Well, there's still a top 5% that gets throttled, unless *they* also cut down...

Truly a race to the bottom - whatever AT&T says they won't throttle at is eventually where almost all users will end up.

Nice. For them, at least.

Regards.

It is used to tie you to other Identities that they may not currently associate with your real name.

They don't particularly care if it is useful to *you*, but it is very useful to *them*.

So, now you are seeing what their priorities are. Of course, this should probably already be obvious to everyone.

Regards.

Yes, of course they have to track you to know that you have opted out of tracking.

How else do think it would work?

This pattern is depressingly similar to how the whole legal system is going.

Because they were the ones who were buying, perhaps?

I suppose that Slashdot could have gotten together and bought them...

>>It used to be that the embedded marketplace was full of odd hardware with its own oddball C compiler.

This is not better, in my opinion.

>> Alternative software that does mostly the same thing gets crowded out of the market.

Especially *software that you have to pay for*. But I don't think that's a bad thing either.

>>Linux's success makes it hard for the BSDs to gain traction.

Yes, power laws applies to software projects, too. I'm sorry that's the case, but how do you propose to mitigate one of the fundamental observations of the 90's? Both developers and installs will track 'teh hotness'.

But, this also actually ensures there *will be* BSD developers, as it is a smaller, yet stable strange attractor, so to say.

Regards.

So, you're blaming gcc for having "non-standard" extensions?

To, presumably other compiler writers, who can write their own if they wish?

So, your first culprit should be other compiler writers, for not supporting versions of these extensions, if so many people want to use the extensions with other compilers.

And then, you also blame gcc for widget makers who *also* wont recode to compiler independent formats.

No, I don't think so.

The end result occurred because gcc was good enough, and has had competition to become better (even from within the codebase).

>> But the end result is about the same as what Microsoft ended up doing with J++.

Really? As far as I know, J++ is not very widely used, while gcc is. So, it can hardly be claimed that this is true or both would have the same fate in the marketplace.

In fact, one might expect Microsoft J++ to have more market share than gcc if they are using the same strategies, since they have much more weight to leverage things.

On the other hand, you could be talking of some other type of 'end result', so please elucidate if that is the case.

Regards.

>> If you have a dedicated key for switching between two workspaces, and the switching is instant and not laggy, that's almost as good as two monitors

And right in your argument you defeat it. Why would I want almost as good if I don't have to do that? Especially for something I use every day for multiple hours a day?

Regards.

>>To a very large extent gcc has sucked the air out of the room

Yes, but why or how? Was it designed to kill off the other compliers? Did the gcc folks make any efforts to destroy complier companies or their compilers?

>>Still, there certainly are cases where GNU software uses its market share to help it compete.

Cite, please? I don't think this is the case with compilers, which you brought up as an example. I am just wondering if you have any other examples, or if you can provide more details on how gcc used it's market share to force other compiler makers out of business.

Regards.

Sorry, I prefer the solutions goal found The Culture myself, but you can definitely go to Venus if you desire, instead.

Well, in simple genetic terms, it is often better to be the product of a hybridization process.

The resultant mix is more likely, after generations, to include more of the individual beneficial features of each separate base stock as such would provide a higher survivability rate.

So, no, I don't think it would stop the white supremacists at all.

They just have to redefine what they mean by perfect to be the opposite of what they currently pin the meaning on.

Since this is a rational or logical dissonance, in the end, all you'd get is a *whoosh* as a new generation of supremacists argue that this genetic mixture is what defines their superiority.

Regards.

That takes a bit of space, and can hardly be determined in term's of todays 'intelligence' tests.

Perhaps different species have different kinds of 'intelligence', particular to some 'test' as derived from a filter of some "scientist".

That is, we select which species are "intelligent" dependent upon the type(s) of tests we provide training to.

Regards.

Not in the slightest.

I think fake geeks are dooming other fake geeks, since they both end up knowing how fake they are being.

Regards