Doesn't matter how baseless it is, you can file suit. However, that is not to say you'll succeed or it is a good idea. A judge can throw the case out in pre-trial, and can impose sanctions if it is an extremely stupid suit.

In PETA's case, I imagine this is largely a publicity stunt and something to try and harass detractors. They wouldn't really want this to go to trial as it would not go in their favour.

What is Chris Dodd' sinvolvement in this? Since he left Congress and works for the MPAA now, you can bet he's in it somewhere...

Our central infrastructure is on Hyper-V at work now on account of VMWare wanting way too much money. We use a lot of RHEL systems and they all work well. Our web server, MySQL server, puppet server, that sort of thing all run on Hyper-V. The Linux admin didn't have much trouble with it. The main limitation I'm aware of is that you can't do dynamic memory.

While it isn't ad Linux friendly as VMWare, it seems to work just fine. As to which between them you should use, depends on features and price. In our case Hyper-V was "free" since we have software assurance with MS campus wide and VMWare wanted like $20,000 per system for vSphere with the feature set we wanted, so it was stacked heavily to Hyper-V. You case may be different, so make sure to check out both.

However don't write off Hyper-V because it is MS. With Server 2012 it is a real, no-shit, enterprise virtualization solution that works well and has loads of good features. They fixed their rubbish networking from 2008R2 also, their virtual switches are exceedingly fast, and it supports full SR-IOV if your NICs do.

I was very pleased when I tried it out, our Linux admin liked it, so we migrated (we had an old VMWare 3 setup). Migrating VMs was easy too. Uninstall VMWare tools, use the Starwind converter to go from vmdk to vhd, use Hyper-V to go from vhd to vhdx (and make it fixed size), set up a VM, start it, and install the integration services.

I keep hearing this kind of thing from ARM fans. Ok, show it to me. You can't, because it doesn't exist, nor anything even close to it. What that means is you are just hoping this is the case, making things up, not that it is actually the case.

Trademark law is on MS's side, they'll win this. If the guy is lucky, it'll be in ICANN's arbitration and he'll just lose the name. If he's unlucky, it'll go to US courts as a trademark issue and he may owe MS lawyer fees when he loses (which he will).

This stuff isn't a case of "First guy to grab it gets to extort whatever they want." Trademark law doesn't work that way. If someone has a legit trademark on something they defend, they are going to get it.

So if you register a generic name that a company wants, ya that you can pretty much charge whatever for. However if you own a domain that is their trademark, they'll take that away from you, if they want it.

It was a fan site, they went down, squatter registered it, and now here we are.

The company my father worked at prior to retirement encountered this. Their name had been registered by some individual with the same last name as the company. So they approached him and offered him quite a bit, like 20,000 pounds (company was headquartered in the UK, and this guy lived in the UK) for the domain and his trouble moving to a new one. Guy said no. So, to court it went (this was prior to the resolution process via ICANN). The guy lost, and got nothing for it, as the company had a trademark on the name.

People can be really stupid when it comes to this. They think having a domain name that is something a company has should be the jackpot to quick riches, and will turn down reasonable offers. I remember an eBay auction I saw once for the domain "generalmills.cc" at a time when they already owned generalmills.com. The dipstick trying to sell it seemed to think that $10 million was a good opening bid.

So MS may well have contacted this guy and said "Hey you have a domain we'd like, we'll give you a couple grand for your trouble," and he replied "Nope, I want millions," so they are taking him to ICANN's arbitration. If that doesn't rule in their favour, it'll probably go to court as a trademark issue.

This dude is just trying to get himself attention and Slashdot is obliging. I mean for one, building an "office suite" is not necessarily impressive. All that office suite actually means is a program that does word processing, spreadsheets, maybe presentations. Well, there can be a great range in that. High end office suites, like Microsoft Office, do a whole lot of complex shit and do it well, and has a bunch of well built tools (like a spell checker and so on). However a crap office suite might do little more than you'd get out of Wordpad and SSS.

Then there's the fact that "alpha" has traditionally meant in software "feature incomplete, still under heavy development." These days given that beta often seems to mean that (it used to mean feature complete, working on bugs) alpha might mean "Well, it complies now and runs sometimes!"

It would not be very hard to set a rather low goal for what constitutes an "office suite," bash the basis of that out, and then call it an alpha. I can't try it, since I do not care to install Java on my system, but looking at the screen shots, it looks like he did precisely that. It looks exceedingly simple, largely using a bunch of the built in Java controls. That's fine and all, but I don't find that really that impressive for 30 days of work. Part of the point of managed languages like Java, C#, that kind of thing it to be able to bash together something basic pretty quick.

So ya, I'm voting that he's just publicity whoring. If he wants to call us back when 1.0 comes out, then I'll have a look. Maybe then it'll be something cool, but I kinda doubt it. Personally I'd stick to MS Office, Google Docs, Libre Office, or whatever your current preferred suite is.

Slashdot seems to have lots of ARM fanboys that look at ARM's low power processors and assume that ARM could make processors on par with Intel chips but much more efficient. They seem to think Intel does things poorly, as though they don't spend billions on R&D.

Of course that would beg the question as to why ARM doesn't and the answer is they can't. The more features you blot on to a chip, the higher the clock speed, and so on, the more power it needs. So you want 64-bit? More power. Bigger memory controller? More power. Heavy hitting vector unit? More power. And so on.

There's no magic ju ju in ARM designs. They are low power designs, in both sense of the word. Now that's wonderful, we need that for cellphones. You can't be slogging around with a 100 watt chip in a phone or the like. However don't mistake that for meaning that they can keep that low consumption and offer performance equal to the 100 watt chip.

But when I was a surveyor's assistant we usually tried to close surveys to less than an inch. We were really, really, precise about locations. Maybe that was just a weird firm, but I suspect not, I think that's SOP. Given that we placed markers that precise, it is hard to imagine that the physical structures, items, etc got placed more than a couple inches off.

I can't imagine roadways would be much different.

So ya, as you say, these things are known pretty precisely. Turns out that even pre-GPS you could get really good measurements, if you did it right.

Also having done that, it makes me think all the metric stuff is a little silly. It really isn't that hard to go back and forth. Most contracts were in US units, however some government contracts were in metric. So what did we do? Switched the digital theodolite and computer to metric and worked with that.

Really metric only shines when you talk science or engineering, when you are doing more advanced things like inter-unit conversion. There the standardization is so damn useful, hence why science, including in the US, is done and taught in metric (or at least it was when I went to school).

For every day use though? It doesn't really matter. All that matters is you have a feel for the units, and you can have that for both no problem. I really can't see what the compelling reason to convert to metric for everyday use is. Even in countries that have converted, you find plenty of unit mixture. In Canada you will see things at grocers sold in pounds, gallons, etc. It is amusing that in the same grocer you can see meats side by side, some priced by pound, some by 100 grams.

Then all over you find some units that defy either system. Like ever buy a home AC? They are sized in "tons" however if you've had a look at the unit you realize that it is far lighter than the figure. So what the hell does that mean? It means how many tons of ice per day you'd need to equal the cooling capacity. Seriously. It started way back in the day when it was a new concept, and that was a comparable method of measure.

I really think people make a bigger deal of this than is warranted. I certainly don't think there should be any resistance to using the metric system, it is great, but in terms of forcing a conversion, I fail to see what that gains you.

It can also mean "no preset limit" which is what it usually mean for Internet plans. They don't have a hard and fast limit, you can use it without hitting some magic number when you get cut off or charged. However that doesn't mean you can just go crazy and use the max all the time.

This is also how it needs to be, if you want cheap Internet. If you think companies can cheaply provide Internet service where everyone uses it full bore 24/7, then you haven't done much looking in to network infrastructure. The only way it works is if people play nice and use it when they need it, and let it be used by other people the rest of the time.

When your chosen platform can't do something, just redefine the goal and then hate on anyone who doesn't accept that definition. So any game I can't get on Linux is a "watt-sucking/heat-sink-busting" game? Well then count me in as wanting to play those! Of games I've played lately that don't run on Linux Skyrim has topped the list, 200 hours in it so far. It is an extremely entertaining game, I have gotten my money's worth and more out of it. Also on the list would be Xcom, Torchlight 2, Deus Ex, Fallen Enchantress, Shogun 2 Total War, Terraia and so on. Now if those are all "watt-sucking/heat-sink-busting" games according to you, fine, but I don't care I liked them, a lot, and want to play them. Crysis? Not on the list, I didn't care for it, so I haven't bought any of the sequels.

Frankly the measure of how good the platform is for gaming isn't how many games you can find for it, it is how many games that you want to play run on it. That'll vary person to person. However trying to point to a bunch of little indy or half-finished OSS titles isn't going to make many gamers happy. Sorry, but I want Skyrim, it is all kinds of worth it and not just for the graphics (though when yo uload up some mods those are pretty impressive too). I don't want Vega Strike.

If you want higher resolutions and frame rates, you need more powerful GPUs to handle it. For example moving to 2560x1600 or to 120fps doubles the pixel requirement over 1920x1080@60fps. So whatever amount of power you needed to achieve 1080p60, double that for either of those targets. 4k will require a quadrupling, and 120fps 4k would require 8x the power.

All this is assuming you are getting 60fps in the first place. Now maybe you are fine with trading off lower frame rates, or lower resolutions, that's all up to you. If 720p30 is your target, you can get away with a whole lot less power. However that doesn't mean that nobody wants to target higher resolutions or frame rates.

There are also other visual quality settings to consider, like anti-aliasing and so on that can require more power. Depending on what you are targeting with that, you can need a lot of power.

Personally I really find frame rates much below 60 pretty annoying in most games. I really like the feeling of fluidity you get. 120 fps is even better, but the monitor I normally use doesn't handle that. Well maintaining that 60fps at a 2.5k resolution is not a trivial feat. I don't think a $250 graphics card would do that for most games.

Seriously, for some people, gaming is their hobby and that kind of money is not that much when you talk what people spend on hobbies. My coworker just bought himself like a $2000 turbo for his car, to replace (or augment, I'm not sure) the one that's already there. He has no need for it, but he likes playing with his car.

Now that you, and most others, don't want to spend that kind of money is understandable and not problematic. There's a reason why companies have a lineup of stuff and why the high end stuff is just for those with plenty of money. It also doesn't scale linearly since the higher end something is, the less units get sold, and so the more the fixed costs influence the unit cost.

However don't hate on it. That you don't wish to spend that kind of money doesn't mean that nobody should. Also you should be glad people do: The expensive parts fund the cheap parts. They can recover more R&D costs on these units, letting them sell lower end parts for less, since lower end parts are the same tech, just less of it.