And therefore violates the terms of the iPhone SDK EULA! Which is what makes it so entirely silly.
The EULA for Safari for windows also forbids the installing of safari on windows. Again silly. Apple needs to become about 638% less litigious. Yes, I quantified it, wana fight about it?
3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
Slashdotters apparently don't like that you can never write browsers, music/video players or background applications.
Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden.
I can't think of any other company that has ever done anything like this. I'm really just curious, has any company ever publicised a SDK that has been so very private and restrictive? No other browsers?!?
This story reminds me of the time I tried to hook my Apple cinema display up to my Cable box's DVI port, it's just not worth it, even if you get it to work, you have 5 more lbs of monitor you've got to hide somewhere, just because Apple wanted to squeeze a little dough out of people with more proprietary cable connectors.
Apple has always been about "Show me the money", every action they take reemphasized that they are only interested in more money, not innovation. Here though, they really go out of their way to stifle innovation with literals like "...calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise...". It really says it all, don't bother trying to write this for our hardware, you may compete with us in such a way that we can't fuck you properly.
First of all, what you have there is not a RAM disk as we were talking about RAM disks. Yes it's made of RAM, yes it appears to the system as a HDD, but it is not a RAM disk. A RAM disk uses the system memory, what you have there is more like a SSD. It uses the IDE bus, it's limited to the 150Gbps of the IDE bus, which is a fraction of what a real RAM bandwidth. Besides being completely irrelevant to the discussion, your disk is just a gimmick, if you have 4GB of system memory, your 4GB RAM Drive isn't even big enough for your swap file.
If you have Vista and 4gb of RAM you really don't need a page file. Removing the page file will make it so no programs use the page file and can only use the physical memory. Photoshop uses a separate 'scratch disk' in lieu of the system page file so it is not affected. I know you *can* get hardware RAM disks large enough to install an OS on, the only problem is they start around $20,000. I'm not sure about you, but I'll be purchasing another car before I buy a $20,000 RAM disk. If you think they are cheaper, show me the link.
Vista install needs more disk space than your main development server because, it's not a server, and it's not 1992, it has a TV tuner in it along with big sample content, it has a bunch of pictures. It really should be obvious why it takes more space on the disk, just look at the DVD's content. Shit it comes on a DVD, there's your first clue. And of course a server should just have the server's OS and nothing else, no extra 'content' as vista has. But more telling than anything is that 1992 occurred 16 years ago.
Once you learn that you don't need a swap file, and you think the swap file goes slow, just don't use it. But don't tell me about how you got this super fast swap file, swap files are, in my opinion, a bad idea, and only useful for people who cannot afford the proper amount of RAM. I assume, and it's a big assumption, that if you have spent money to buy 4GB of RAM for your RAM drive, that you have already purchased at least that amount for your systems memory. If you're using your resources in a silly way, well, I don't think I'll be able to convince you to do otherwise.
I don't think this is comparable to the theoretical 10GB RAM disk. Furthermore, I think the only programs that can really benefit from a RAM disk are video games, and a lot of those now in days are bigger than 10gb and are pretty damn fast when they do load, some don't even load and just stream in the background as you move around. Crysys, which we talked about earlier is 14gb! You're also disregarding the fact that most applications are written for "Load off the disk into RAM" performance. I'm not saying that a hyper fast disk isn't cool, it is. In fact, I'll make the claim that HDDs waste more of our time, in total, than any other component in the computer. Everything is measured in NS excepting the HDDs which are measured in MS, a whole magnitude of time higher. But a 4GB disk? What is this, 1992? I'm surprised it's not ISA compatible.
SSD's and RAM Disks right now are kind of like alteritive energy. Sure pulling power from the sun is a great idea, but when I'm trying to win the indy 500, I'm using the 4 stroke engine with some high octane, oil derived, racing petrol! When they start making solar cars that out preform the petrol cars sign me up! Until then, it's interesting, but just interesting, not useful. I'm going to stick with my 4 member RAID5 of mixed up shitty disks that still score off the chart on the craptastic vista benchmark tool (5.9 of what?), something the single SSD in this article can't do.
Sorry about 'annihilated', my speeling is whoreable.
Wow, I've never seen anyone take such a scathing critique so well. I salute you in your humbleness. If I could take criticism as well as you can I would count myself as a better man.
Acronis and Google desktop are just 3rd party versions of system restore and indexer. Even if they don't require as much disk time, which is arguable, they still eat up quite a bit of disk time. Open up your task manager and display the columns "Page Faults" and "Page Faults Delta", maybe it's called PF Delta. A page fault is when a program can't find the data it's looking for in memory, it must look up the data from the disk. This isn't the exact definition but good enough for gauging disk usage. Find the program that has the most page faults, that's the program that thrashes your disk the most. For instance you'll see explorer with a page fault delta of 1 at all times. That's explorer checking the content of your 'desktop' folder to see if it has changed. Open up two folders, you'll see two PF deltas, unless you have explorer instance per window set, in which case you'll see two explorer.exe's with 1 PF delta each. Now 1 PF delta is no big deal, 100,000 PF Delta is a big deal.
As far as running with no page file, I've run XP32 and XP64 with 2GB and 4GB respectively with no page file for years and have never experienced a BSOD that wasn't obviously related to some other piece of hardware (DAMN NVIDIA!). I'm running vista64 with 4GB and no page file since it came out in January and have never had a non nvidia BSOD (DAMN NVIDIA AGAIN!). Thankfully Nvidia has cleaned up their driver a lot and I haven't had a BSOD since then. Regardless, if you shut off the swap and run out of memory XP and Vista give a nice little dialog that literally says "Out of Memory". I've also ran into a problem where, with really old video cards, vista ran out of video memory and therefore could not produce the dialog that says "Out of Memory". This is unrelated to system memory though, and only happened on a older Dell quadro workstation, again more Nvidia crap drivers.
If you really want to tweak vista into the lean and mean gaming machine you know it can be check this site out: http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm. This guy seems pretty through in his tweaking, I found it while searching for a guide on services I can safely turn off, though I shut them all off anyhow just to see what would happen. Ahh, reminds me of the days when me and my buddies would get in PSKILL wars and shut off processes remotely, of course someone would always shut off the system process instead of just cmd.exe or explorer.exe and end the game prematurely.
If you want to show me some benchmarks that show I'm full of shit I'm down to read it, and I may even change my mind if your arugment is good enough, but I've been doing this for a pretty long time and don't pick fights I can't win.
And fuck crysys, that game sucks even if it does run well. I shoot a korean guy from 300 meters with a 7.62 round and he just jerks back, then looks at me as if I insulted his mother. So I shoot 5 or 6 more times, nothing. Then I remember that the guns do-not-work if you are further than 150 meters away. I just want to know, who the fuck thinks that's cool? Or realistic in any way? Most combat with rifles takes place at 300 meters or more, a lot more if you have optics, but crysys has this idea that bullets are just not effective at ranges over 150 meters. Maybe they thought they were modeling airsoft guns.
I like ARMA. Crappy UI, shitty graphics, poor controls, but very realistic. If you get shot, at all, you're probably dead.
Hell, for fcuk's sake if i use a RAM Disk with 64-bit Vista and a 10 GB RAM disk as non-system disk, it will slow down even RAM by superfetching its crap.
I'm saying you don't have a 10GB RAM disk, and your assertion that Vista makes RAM run poorly is pure conjecture. Let's say you somehow made a 10GB RAM disk, ignoring for the moment that you would have no RAM to run system, why you would go about installing any programs on a RAM disk is really amazingly stupid, the moment you restarted your computer the program would be annaliated. But clearly you don't have 10GB in your system, or for that matter 10GB of RAM at all, but you're fully willing to give performance descriptions of this imaginary setup, all the way down to the why of "why it runs poorly". THAT is the lie part.
And, as if in an effort to display your complete ignorance, you said:
By creating a RAM disk out of the 8GB extra RAM i have, i can use it as a SWAP drive or as TEMP folder.
Please explain why you would make a swap drive out of RAM? Are you so bereft of knowledge about memory management that you don't know that 10GB on a system would never require a swap file? Didn't anyone tell you that a swap file is used when the system cannot use the faster physical memory because there is not enough. Why on earth you have a swap now with 4GB RAM is really beyond my meager understanding, and when you said you'd make an 8GB RAM drive to use as swap file, well, then you really jumped the shark.
All insults aside, If you really want to take advantage of the 4GB you have try shutting off the swap file. For that matter, if you want disk performance, shut off the indexer and system restore too and see if Vista doesn't run faster for you. Vista was really made for people who are going to fuck up their computers, if you promise not to fuck it up, you can turn off all the protection and it will run just as fast as XP on the same hardware. And you'll get the all new DX10 fuzzy feeling when you splash in the water in crysys.
I agree with you however, that crysys is a piece of shit though! I have a 9800GX2 and 4GB and still can't run that bitch in native resolution (1920x1080)! I'll just chalk that up to poor coding, it's not like crytek had a machine that ran the game well, so they had to know it runs like shit. Then, all the reviewers just don't do their jobs. They give it high ratings based on... well, obviously not on playing it.
And your mac STILL can't play crysys! I'm interested in this 'ram disk with 64bit vista' too, maybe you can elaborate on your setup there, sounds like you love to just make stuff up to me. No technical explanation in your rant, just some obvious lies, and people should believe you why?
Actually the way you started your rant kind of reminds me of Dwight
QUICK: Which would win in a fight a shark or a bear? FALSE!
So is SANDISK telling the lie now when they say it runs poorly or are they telling the lie then when they say it will run optimally and even provide benchmarks. No matter how you look at it, SANDISK is lying.
The country is ruled by the rich, as are all Communist countries. The average Cuban makes on average $10 a month and can't even dream of owning a computer, the only time the average guy sees a computer is at the public Internet cafe, if he can afford it, and it's passed through a proxy server, just like China's, that removes pages that contain subversive words like freedom, equality, democracy. Removing any embargo will only make life more comfortable for the ruling %1 of Cuba and the rest of the ordinary citizens will still have nothing. Until the Communists are removed from Cuba it will continue to be a 3rd world country, as will all Communist countries, and I don't think that's necessarily a coincidence that all Communist countries are terrible places to live.
And please, no comments about how "the U.S. Is ruled by the rich" I'm pretty sure GWB will leave office when his term is up to allow another guy to be voted in to take his place, maybe even from the opposing party. You can't say the same for the life appointments of the dictators in Communist countries. Even if the leader mysteriously dies there is no chance of another party gaining control. And if you live in the U.S. you're making more than $10 a month even if you don't have a job!
Last time I checked, people who are not citizens of these great United States of America are not entitled to protections offered under the bill of rights. I guess the argument would be then that Google has a right to distribute them because they are in the US. But they don't even 'look' at the videos before they distribute them. It's like a phone call more than a TV show. There is no FCC, there is no accountability on the part of the poster, so a bad dude can 'call' and remain totally anonymous. If they are slick at all they will have posted the video as they drove by a wi-fi or hijacked a zombie machine in a different country yada yada they are totally anonymous! So, no, they (the jihadists) are not entitled to "freedom of speech". All the people who wish our country destroyed are entitled to is a MIRV. And all these people who claim they love America and want to save our freedoms by protecting the rights of people who don't even live here can go hang out with the people whom they so dearly care about and see how much their love is reciprocated.
So if we wanted to power say, California, which as of 2006 has 36,457,549 people we would need something around (36,457,549/4=28044 so 28044*4=) 112,177 wind turbines. That is stupid ridiculous!
Why would we not have 2 or 3 nuke plants and achieve the same goal with way less environmental impact, better impact on the tax payers wallets and we wouldn't kill all the birds in the state!
Wind power 'feels good' but when you start running the numbers it gets dumb real quick.
I'm using Safari in Windows, maybe it has a root CA list on a mac through the key chain system. I found this problem using the same exact method, I was writing instructions on how to install my internal cert generated by my own CA for every browser and found that Safari didn't give any warning. Maybe it's different on a Mac, if so, they admit that it should be done but omitted this functionality in windows. I don't own a Mac so I can't test Safari on that platform.
My assertion was always that safari does not warn of invalid 3rd party certs. I think you take issue with what I call invalid. Anything that is not in the list of trusted root certs I would call invalid, indeed all browsers but Safari call these certs invalid, so it is not my opinion alone to call them invalid. I never challenged the cypher as you say, certs issued by unknown entities are useless to everyone but the person who created it and who subscribes to that CA, for example, a small business may have it's own CA for it's mail server, but it will use a public CA for it's retail web site. I think you get this, but you're just hung up on Safari being so secure. Safari lacks a root cert list, the uneducated user can't distinguish between certs issued by bogus companies and the certs issued by valid root CA's, i.e.: the user doesn't know if the person with the cert is who he claims to be, other browsers go out of their way to prevent this from occurring, Safari does not, that makes it less secure, period.
And it's still not "You can't install other browsers on the system", I agree that MS forces their browser on you, that was never in contention. They do not, and never have, said "no other browsers allowed" which is a hell of a lot worse than "check us out first".
The argument is not if the cypher is secure, it's if the person you're talking to is whom they claim to be.
The whole point of a verified cert is to verify the person with whom you are buying something from can be held accountable for their website's claims. The verification process has different levels, the lowest requiring a active phone number, the highest requiring a tax license and a notarized document from an attorney authenticating your claim to the online business with active fax/mail/email and a valid business licence in the state where you claim to do business. THAT is why it's so VERY important to have a VALID root certificate from a ROOT CERTIFIER! But if root certificates are sooo unimportant why would they exist at all? Why do certs cost money? What's with the authentication process? Why go through all that hassle if you could just make a cert on your own server?
It's about trust, just because you have a cert doesn't mean I should trust you, but if Thawt says you are trustworthy (you passed their authentication process) then I can trust that you will at least return my phone calls. It's about trust: Certificate authority read this and find out WHY people use certificate authorities and WHY every browser, with the exception of safari, relies on root certification lists. Safari's security relies on the user knowing who issues trustworthy certs and who's are just bogus. I can make a cert, I use them internally, but externally I would be laughed at if I made my own cert..
MORE PROOF?!
Every single retail web site uses a trusted certificate authority. Why would they do that? They cost a lot of money. Were they not technically savvy enough to make a cert on their own? Or maybe the chain of trust means something.
Maybe if you attack the references the Wikipedia article made you'd have something there, but a blanket "Wikipedia sucks" statement is lame, attack the idea, not the messenger, or provide proof the message is false, not "you're a poopie pants because you didn't use the reference material I found likeable". I think Wikipedia's reference list is a hell of a lot better than New York Times who just says "...according to IDC, the tracking firm." and cites nothing else or even who IDC is.
Now compare the reference from TFA and the Wikipedia references.
I think it would be safe to say "As far as smartphone market share Wikipedia has better references than TFA". And they got the whole idea for the story from..... APPLE!!! Ya, there's never been bias in Apples reporting of their own statistics ever, they are far more trustworthy with their own stats!
I've thought about this argument for a long, long time and Apple locking certain software out because it directly competes with their software IS A BAD THING. If you think locking people out because you don't want to compete is good, then have fun with your IPhone.
Um, I use Safari, and if it gets a 3rd party cert it can't verify, then it will, by default, notify you and ask if you want to accept it or not.
I can make certs all day long on my own cert server and Safari will eat them up! Because the cert isn't issued from a ROOT CERTIFICATE PROVIDER, but rather issued by me, the cert is INVALID as far as confirming the identity of the host! Safari doesn't even have a list of root certificate providers! So in safari when it says "HTTPS" and the cert was issued by "CRACKS.AM" it will look the same as the "HTTPS" when its issued by verisign! Now if this goes over your head, maybe you should read up on it a bit, but don't tell me I'm wrong.
"They didn't say "no browsers but ours" they just included it for free."
Wrong. That's exactly what then said to OEM vendors. Then, magically, IE became a integrated part of Windows and removal became "impossible". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98lite
You're intentionally misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say "MS says that you can remove their browser" I said they will allow other browsers on their OS. APPLE will NOT allow other browsers, music players, background tasks and a whole slew other other programs just because they want a monopoly on the device.
When Safari is running on +95% of internet devices, you may have a point. Apple isn't a convicted monopolist. Microsoft is. They have to behave differently because of it. They have no one else to blame but themselves.
And as far as IE being integrated into the shell, did it ever occur to you that it was useful and some people may actually have an opinion that is different from your own.
OEMs not being allowed to bundle things!? I'm not sure what planet you get your OEM computers from, but that's all they seem to be able to do - bundle things - and lots of them. I've never heard of MS specifically saying "we don't allow other browsers" - Maybe they give price breaks to OEMs to promote their products. It's called a free country and last time I checked promoting your product is not against the law. It's the OEM's decision to take the price break or not. It's called buying market share and it's done on a regular basis in every industry, if you don't like it tuff shit.
Don't go around making false claims and certainly don't make it seem like I made a false claim, if you have a link to show me I'm wrong that's one thing, your link just says "You can't uninstall IE", I never said you could, or should, it would be like uninstalling telnet or nslookup, it's just part of the OS, and useful even if you use it to go grab Firefox.
Symbian 65%
Windows Mobile 12%
RIM BlackBerry 11%
IPhone 7%
Linux 5%
Looks like TFA just picked a few from the bottom of the market share list for Q4 '07 and called them the new front runners!
Kinda hard to discount WM with %12, and with Nvidia's new processor for WM (yes it plays quake 3) for mobile phones it's a shoe in as an IPhone killer. Apple keeps locking up their platform more and more: no browsers, music players, applications that run in the background, all because apple doesn't want competition on their phone.
----Digression--- Didn't MS get sued for being a monopoly when it included a browser? Somthing you need if you want to get another browser or anything of the Internet (I guess you can use telnet). They didn't say "no browsers but ours" they just included it for free. Apple specifically states that you can't make a browser on their IPhone OS and everyone looks the other way? What a bunch of bias bullshit.----EODigression---
I think it's way to early to say what "two" big players are going to be left, at this point it's obvious it's not going to just two, there are 4 or 5 or more and I doubt the "big" one's are going to be Apple and RIM, Apple doesnt care a rats ass about security (Safari accepts invalid 3rd party certs 100% of the time, and don't get me started on the IPhone itself.), and RIM's idea of 'PUSH EMAIL' is: "buy this $5000 software from us to give your email server "RIM PUSH EMAIL" and god help you if their racket of a service fails, not to mention their complete lack of hardware innovation in the last decade. IMHO Apple and RIM seem like the least promising.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it does it make a noise? The question of course to scientist is "of course it makes a nose, noise is the consequence of matter vibrating the air." Math is no more an invention than noise is an invention. Would you also declare the discovery of light beyond the visible spectrum an invention? If invisible light is a discovery, than transcendental numbers must be a discovery: they already exist in their entirety, only as our computing power increases can we calculate what the next number in the sequence is.
Do you think a circle cares what PI is? Do you think an object along a ballistic trajectory thinks of it's decent as a mathematical formula? Yet the functions exist, have always existed, and are only awaiting our observation and discovery.
I've saved the best point for last: if math was invented, how could be be "corrected" as new discoveries are made unless it's truly just our interpretation of what we think math is.
Let me give you a hypothetical example of how judges must abide by the statues of the law. Say there was a drug smuggler driving down the interstate, a cop, without probable cause pulls over the smuggler and searches the car, again without probable cause. The cop finds the drugs, arrests the man. Now when the case reaches the court the judge must make the result of the search inadmissible because it violated the law, EVEN IF HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE LAW. Now SOME judges would allow the evidence despite what the law says, that's no good, THAT is an 'activist judge', on appeal it will be thrown out because it's an obvious violation of the 4th amendment. Now this exact thing happens all the time, the judge is required to abide by the law. Your example of row v. wade is a good one, the argument is the law says that woman have a right to abortion. Here is the specifics of the law cited by the justices:
From http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
You'll notice in this ruling they specified the statute they were giving an opinion on, the ninth and fourteenth amendment. The reasons doctors 'bound by roe v. wade' as you say is not because of the court case, but rather the supreme courts interpretation of the 9th and 14th amendments, not the case itself, but statute. So it's the courts opinion that the 9th and 14th amendments give a woman a right to an abortion. Though I'm not entirely sure it doesnt violate the 14th amendment rights of the unborn child.
I also gave an example of the D.C. gun ban. Now I'm sure you know that here in the U.S. we have a 2nd amendment statutory right to carry weapons. The judge in D.C. decided that the law doesn't apply to D.C. or had some other interpretation of the 2nd amendment, perhaps he thought they were talking about grizzly bear arms or something, regardless, the 2nd amendment was obviously ignored and the lower courts opinion was overturned, not the law, but their interpretation of the law. Now if you ignore the law, as the D.C. gun ban case, there will be a higher court that should overturn the lower courts ruling. If the judge in the gun ban case isn't an 'activist judge' then they truly don't exist.
The reason you may think judges make laws is because they administer the laws and their opinion of what the law says is the one that really matters. But if you've ever been in a jury you'll find the judge does not make decisions but simply explains what the law in question is all about and asks the jury to interpret the law. The big picture I'm trying to show you here is the judicial system follows the law, not the other way around.
I've provided you with a link to the department of state describing how legislatures make the laws and judges interpret them. I've tried to explain how judges who don't follow the letter of the law are overturned by higher courts. I've cited an article from the LA Times on the D.C. gun ban that was overturned because it violated the 2nd amendment.
As the final arbiter of the
law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American
people the promise of equal justice under law and,
thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of
the Constitution.
Article 3: The judicial Branch Section 2 Clause 1:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies
to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or
more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different
States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of
different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens
or Subjects.
I'm missing the part where they make laws. I think that's the legislature's job.
Also from the constitution:
Article 1: The legislative Branch Section 8 Clause 18:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
An officially elected or otherwise selected body of people vested with the responsibility and power to make laws for a political unit, such as a state or nation.
To make a decision or reach a conclusion after examining all the factual evidence presented. To form an opinion after evaluating the facts and applying the law.
A public officer chosen or elected to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice; one who controls the proceedings in a courtroom and decides questions of law or discretion.
I read the entire page and didn't see where judges make any laws.
Here's more from Answers.com about the court system in the United States. And of course a quote.
... judicial branches of the federal and state governments charged with the application and interpretation of the law.
Here's one from wiki.answers.com And the quote
The United States Constitution set up a system of checks and balances whereby each branch can check the power of the other two branches while all three share in the policy and legislative making process on a daily basis. The major function of the legislative branch is to make laws. The major function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.
Now that's a lot of evidence for my argument that judges interpret the law the legislature makes. Now if you can give me something beyond "take my word for it" or a D&D analogy about how great a DM you are, I'm willi
You asked what "activist judges" were. They are judges who overlook the letter of the law and make rulings that contradict the law or constitution. Statutory and constitutional law always must be given higher priority than common law. To do otherwise ignores the will of the people, the legislature, and upsets the balance of power. A good example is the D.C. handgun ban that was overturned by the supreme court recently. This law was an obvious abuse of the citizens 2nd amendment rights but activist judges in D.C. overlooked the letter of the law and made "common law" what was overturned by the higher court because it was in conflict with the constitution which fortionatly for us plebeians trumps common law and statutory law. I hope this answers your "what's an activist judge" question, it was never about case law.
Slashdot Mirror
And therefore violates the terms of the iPhone SDK EULA! Which is what makes it so entirely silly.
The EULA for Safari for windows also forbids the installing of safari on windows. Again silly. Apple needs to become about 638% less litigious. Yes, I quantified it, wana fight about it?
Kaspersky dosen't like that idea
Slashdotters apparently don't like that you can never write browsers, music/video players or background applications.
I can't think of any other company that has ever done anything like this. I'm really just curious, has any company ever publicised a SDK that has been so very private and restrictive? No other browsers?!?
This story reminds me of the time I tried to hook my Apple cinema display up to my Cable box's DVI port, it's just not worth it, even if you get it to work, you have 5 more lbs of monitor you've got to hide somewhere, just because Apple wanted to squeeze a little dough out of people with more proprietary cable connectors.
Apple has always been about "Show me the money", every action they take reemphasized that they are only interested in more money, not innovation. Here though, they really go out of their way to stifle innovation with literals like "...calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise...". It really says it all, don't bother trying to write this for our hardware, you may compete with us in such a way that we can't fuck you properly.
First of all, what you have there is not a RAM disk as we were talking about RAM disks. Yes it's made of RAM, yes it appears to the system as a HDD, but it is not a RAM disk. A RAM disk uses the system memory, what you have there is more like a SSD. It uses the IDE bus, it's limited to the 150Gbps of the IDE bus, which is a fraction of what a real RAM bandwidth. Besides being completely irrelevant to the discussion, your disk is just a gimmick, if you have 4GB of system memory, your 4GB RAM Drive isn't even big enough for your swap file.
If you have Vista and 4gb of RAM you really don't need a page file. Removing the page file will make it so no programs use the page file and can only use the physical memory. Photoshop uses a separate 'scratch disk' in lieu of the system page file so it is not affected. I know you *can* get hardware RAM disks large enough to install an OS on, the only problem is they start around $20,000. I'm not sure about you, but I'll be purchasing another car before I buy a $20,000 RAM disk. If you think they are cheaper, show me the link.
Vista install needs more disk space than your main development server because, it's not a server, and it's not 1992, it has a TV tuner in it along with big sample content, it has a bunch of pictures. It really should be obvious why it takes more space on the disk, just look at the DVD's content. Shit it comes on a DVD, there's your first clue. And of course a server should just have the server's OS and nothing else, no extra 'content' as vista has. But more telling than anything is that 1992 occurred 16 years ago.
Once you learn that you don't need a swap file, and you think the swap file goes slow, just don't use it. But don't tell me about how you got this super fast swap file, swap files are, in my opinion, a bad idea, and only useful for people who cannot afford the proper amount of RAM. I assume, and it's a big assumption, that if you have spent money to buy 4GB of RAM for your RAM drive, that you have already purchased at least that amount for your systems memory. If you're using your resources in a silly way, well, I don't think I'll be able to convince you to do otherwise.
I don't think this is comparable to the theoretical 10GB RAM disk. Furthermore, I think the only programs that can really benefit from a RAM disk are video games, and a lot of those now in days are bigger than 10gb and are pretty damn fast when they do load, some don't even load and just stream in the background as you move around. Crysys, which we talked about earlier is 14gb! You're also disregarding the fact that most applications are written for "Load off the disk into RAM" performance. I'm not saying that a hyper fast disk isn't cool, it is. In fact, I'll make the claim that HDDs waste more of our time, in total, than any other component in the computer. Everything is measured in NS excepting the HDDs which are measured in MS, a whole magnitude of time higher. But a 4GB disk? What is this, 1992? I'm surprised it's not ISA compatible.
SSD's and RAM Disks right now are kind of like alteritive energy. Sure pulling power from the sun is a great idea, but when I'm trying to win the indy 500, I'm using the 4 stroke engine with some high octane, oil derived, racing petrol! When they start making solar cars that out preform the petrol cars sign me up! Until then, it's interesting, but just interesting, not useful. I'm going to stick with my 4 member RAID5 of mixed up shitty disks that still score off the chart on the craptastic vista benchmark tool (5.9 of what?), something the single SSD in this article can't do.
Sorry about 'annihilated', my speeling is whoreable.
Wow, I've never seen anyone take such a scathing critique so well. I salute you in your humbleness. If I could take criticism as well as you can I would count myself as a better man.
Acronis and Google desktop are just 3rd party versions of system restore and indexer. Even if they don't require as much disk time, which is arguable, they still eat up quite a bit of disk time. Open up your task manager and display the columns "Page Faults" and "Page Faults Delta", maybe it's called PF Delta. A page fault is when a program can't find the data it's looking for in memory, it must look up the data from the disk. This isn't the exact definition but good enough for gauging disk usage. Find the program that has the most page faults, that's the program that thrashes your disk the most. For instance you'll see explorer with a page fault delta of 1 at all times. That's explorer checking the content of your 'desktop' folder to see if it has changed. Open up two folders, you'll see two PF deltas, unless you have explorer instance per window set, in which case you'll see two explorer.exe's with 1 PF delta each. Now 1 PF delta is no big deal, 100,000 PF Delta is a big deal.
As far as running with no page file, I've run XP32 and XP64 with 2GB and 4GB respectively with no page file for years and have never experienced a BSOD that wasn't obviously related to some other piece of hardware (DAMN NVIDIA!). I'm running vista64 with 4GB and no page file since it came out in January and have never had a non nvidia BSOD (DAMN NVIDIA AGAIN!). Thankfully Nvidia has cleaned up their driver a lot and I haven't had a BSOD since then. Regardless, if you shut off the swap and run out of memory XP and Vista give a nice little dialog that literally says "Out of Memory". I've also ran into a problem where, with really old video cards, vista ran out of video memory and therefore could not produce the dialog that says "Out of Memory". This is unrelated to system memory though, and only happened on a older Dell quadro workstation, again more Nvidia crap drivers.
If you really want to tweak vista into the lean and mean gaming machine you know it can be check this site out: http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm. This guy seems pretty through in his tweaking, I found it while searching for a guide on services I can safely turn off, though I shut them all off anyhow just to see what would happen. Ahh, reminds me of the days when me and my buddies would get in PSKILL wars and shut off processes remotely, of course someone would always shut off the system process instead of just cmd.exe or explorer.exe and end the game prematurely.
If you want to show me some benchmarks that show I'm full of shit I'm down to read it, and I may even change my mind if your arugment is good enough, but I've been doing this for a pretty long time and don't pick fights I can't win.
And fuck crysys, that game sucks even if it does run well. I shoot a korean guy from 300 meters with a 7.62 round and he just jerks back, then looks at me as if I insulted his mother. So I shoot 5 or 6 more times, nothing. Then I remember that the guns do-not-work if you are further than 150 meters away. I just want to know, who the fuck thinks that's cool? Or realistic in any way? Most combat with rifles takes place at 300 meters or more, a lot more if you have optics, but crysys has this idea that bullets are just not effective at ranges over 150 meters. Maybe they thought they were modeling airsoft guns.
I like ARMA. Crappy UI, shitty graphics, poor controls, but very realistic. If you get shot, at all, you're probably dead.
Looking forward to those benchmarks!
I'm saying you don't have a 10GB RAM disk, and your assertion that Vista makes RAM run poorly is pure conjecture. Let's say you somehow made a 10GB RAM disk, ignoring for the moment that you would have no RAM to run system, why you would go about installing any programs on a RAM disk is really amazingly stupid, the moment you restarted your computer the program would be annaliated. But clearly you don't have 10GB in your system, or for that matter 10GB of RAM at all, but you're fully willing to give performance descriptions of this imaginary setup, all the way down to the why of "why it runs poorly". THAT is the lie part.
And, as if in an effort to display your complete ignorance, you said:
Please explain why you would make a swap drive out of RAM? Are you so bereft of knowledge about memory management that you don't know that 10GB on a system would never require a swap file? Didn't anyone tell you that a swap file is used when the system cannot use the faster physical memory because there is not enough. Why on earth you have a swap now with 4GB RAM is really beyond my meager understanding, and when you said you'd make an 8GB RAM drive to use as swap file, well, then you really jumped the shark.
All insults aside, If you really want to take advantage of the 4GB you have try shutting off the swap file. For that matter, if you want disk performance, shut off the indexer and system restore too and see if Vista doesn't run faster for you. Vista was really made for people who are going to fuck up their computers, if you promise not to fuck it up, you can turn off all the protection and it will run just as fast as XP on the same hardware. And you'll get the all new DX10 fuzzy feeling when you splash in the water in crysys.
I agree with you however, that crysys is a piece of shit though! I have a 9800GX2 and 4GB and still can't run that bitch in native resolution (1920x1080)! I'll just chalk that up to poor coding, it's not like crytek had a machine that ran the game well, so they had to know it runs like shit. Then, all the reviewers just don't do their jobs. They give it high ratings based on... well, obviously not on playing it.
And your mac STILL can't play crysys! I'm interested in this 'ram disk with 64bit vista' too, maybe you can elaborate on your setup there, sounds like you love to just make stuff up to me. No technical explanation in your rant, just some obvious lies, and people should believe you why?
Actually the way you started your rant kind of reminds me of Dwight
QUICK: Which would win in a fight a shark or a bear? FALSE!
http://www.sandisk.com/Corporate/PressRoom/PressReleases/PressRelease.aspx?ID=3785
The country is ruled by the rich, as are all Communist countries. The average Cuban makes on average $10 a month and can't even dream of owning a computer, the only time the average guy sees a computer is at the public Internet cafe, if he can afford it, and it's passed through a proxy server, just like China's, that removes pages that contain subversive words like freedom, equality, democracy. Removing any embargo will only make life more comfortable for the ruling %1 of Cuba and the rest of the ordinary citizens will still have nothing. Until the Communists are removed from Cuba it will continue to be a 3rd world country, as will all Communist countries, and I don't think that's necessarily a coincidence that all Communist countries are terrible places to live.
And please, no comments about how "the U.S. Is ruled by the rich" I'm pretty sure GWB will leave office when his term is up to allow another guy to be voted in to take his place, maybe even from the opposing party. You can't say the same for the life appointments of the dictators in Communist countries. Even if the leader mysteriously dies there is no chance of another party gaining control. And if you live in the U.S. you're making more than $10 a month even if you don't have a job!
Last time I checked, people who are not citizens of these great United States of America are not entitled to protections offered under the bill of rights. I guess the argument would be then that Google has a right to distribute them because they are in the US. But they don't even 'look' at the videos before they distribute them. It's like a phone call more than a TV show. There is no FCC, there is no accountability on the part of the poster, so a bad dude can 'call' and remain totally anonymous. If they are slick at all they will have posted the video as they drove by a wi-fi or hijacked a zombie machine in a different country yada yada they are totally anonymous! So, no, they (the jihadists) are not entitled to "freedom of speech". All the people who wish our country destroyed are entitled to is a MIRV. And all these people who claim they love America and want to save our freedoms by protecting the rights of people who don't even live here can go hang out with the people whom they so dearly care about and see how much their love is reciprocated.
So if we wanted to power say, California, which as of 2006 has 36,457,549 people we would need something around (36,457,549/4=28044 so 28044*4=) 112,177 wind turbines. That is stupid ridiculous!
Why would we not have 2 or 3 nuke plants and achieve the same goal with way less environmental impact, better impact on the tax payers wallets and we wouldn't kill all the birds in the state!
Wind power 'feels good' but when you start running the numbers it gets dumb real quick.
I stand corrected. Using another browser to install the cert is not only unique, but rather odd. Thanks for the correction, I won't say that anymore.
I'm using Safari in Windows, maybe it has a root CA list on a mac through the key chain system. I found this problem using the same exact method, I was writing instructions on how to install my internal cert generated by my own CA for every browser and found that Safari didn't give any warning. Maybe it's different on a Mac, if so, they admit that it should be done but omitted this functionality in windows. I don't own a Mac so I can't test Safari on that platform.
My assertion was always that safari does not warn of invalid 3rd party certs. I think you take issue with what I call invalid. Anything that is not in the list of trusted root certs I would call invalid, indeed all browsers but Safari call these certs invalid, so it is not my opinion alone to call them invalid. I never challenged the cypher as you say, certs issued by unknown entities are useless to everyone but the person who created it and who subscribes to that CA, for example, a small business may have it's own CA for it's mail server, but it will use a public CA for it's retail web site. I think you get this, but you're just hung up on Safari being so secure. Safari lacks a root cert list, the uneducated user can't distinguish between certs issued by bogus companies and the certs issued by valid root CA's, i.e.: the user doesn't know if the person with the cert is who he claims to be, other browsers go out of their way to prevent this from occurring, Safari does not, that makes it less secure, period.
And it's still not "You can't install other browsers on the system", I agree that MS forces their browser on you, that was never in contention. They do not, and never have, said "no other browsers allowed" which is a hell of a lot worse than "check us out first".
The argument is not if the cypher is secure, it's if the person you're talking to is whom they claim to be.
The whole point of a verified cert is to verify the person with whom you are buying something from can be held accountable for their website's claims. The verification process has different levels, the lowest requiring a active phone number, the highest requiring a tax license and a notarized document from an attorney authenticating your claim to the online business with active fax/mail/email and a valid business licence in the state where you claim to do business. THAT is why it's so VERY important to have a VALID root certificate from a ROOT CERTIFIER! But if root certificates are sooo unimportant why would they exist at all? Why do certs cost money? What's with the authentication process? Why go through all that hassle if you could just make a cert on your own server?
It's about trust, just because you have a cert doesn't mean I should trust you, but if Thawt says you are trustworthy (you passed their authentication process) then I can trust that you will at least return my phone calls. It's about trust: Certificate authority read this and find out WHY people use certificate authorities and WHY every browser, with the exception of safari, relies on root certification lists. Safari's security relies on the user knowing who issues trustworthy certs and who's are just bogus. I can make a cert, I use them internally, but externally I would be laughed at if I made my own cert..
MORE PROOF?!
Every single retail web site uses a trusted certificate authority. Why would they do that? They cost a lot of money. Were they not technically savvy enough to make a cert on their own? Or maybe the chain of trust means something.
Maybe if you attack the references the Wikipedia article made you'd have something there, but a blanket "Wikipedia sucks" statement is lame, attack the idea, not the messenger, or provide proof the message is false, not "you're a poopie pants because you didn't use the reference material I found likeable". I think Wikipedia's reference list is a hell of a lot better than New York Times who just says "...according to IDC, the tracking firm." and cites nothing else or even who IDC is.
Now compare the reference from TFA and the Wikipedia references.
I think it would be safe to say "As far as smartphone market share Wikipedia has better references than TFA". And they got the whole idea for the story from..... APPLE!!! Ya, there's never been bias in Apples reporting of their own statistics ever, they are far more trustworthy with their own stats!
I can make certs all day long on my own cert server and Safari will eat them up! Because the cert isn't issued from a ROOT CERTIFICATE PROVIDER, but rather issued by me, the cert is INVALID as far as confirming the identity of the host! Safari doesn't even have a list of root certificate providers! So in safari when it says "HTTPS" and the cert was issued by "CRACKS.AM" it will look the same as the "HTTPS" when its issued by verisign! Now if this goes over your head, maybe you should read up on it a bit, but don't tell me I'm wrong.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
IE even at it's height was never 95%. Sure, you exaggerated. It was for the artistic flare of the comment.
And as far as IE being integrated into the shell, did it ever occur to you that it was useful and some people may actually have an opinion that is different from your own.
OEMs not being allowed to bundle things!? I'm not sure what planet you get your OEM computers from, but that's all they seem to be able to do - bundle things - and lots of them. I've never heard of MS specifically saying "we don't allow other browsers" - Maybe they give price breaks to OEMs to promote their products. It's called a free country and last time I checked promoting your product is not against the law. It's the OEM's decision to take the price break or not. It's called buying market share and it's done on a regular basis in every industry, if you don't like it tuff shit.
Don't go around making false claims and certainly don't make it seem like I made a false claim, if you have a link to show me I'm wrong that's one thing, your link just says "You can't uninstall IE", I never said you could, or should, it would be like uninstalling telnet or nslookup, it's just part of the OS, and useful even if you use it to go grab Firefox.
You are correct, I am but a humble programmer and do not know the ways of physics yet.
First let's look at the market share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
Looks like TFA just picked a few from the bottom of the market share list for Q4 '07 and called them the new front runners!
Kinda hard to discount WM with %12, and with Nvidia's new processor for WM (yes it plays quake 3) for mobile phones it's a shoe in as an IPhone killer. Apple keeps locking up their platform more and more: no browsers, music players, applications that run in the background, all because apple doesn't want competition on their phone.
----Digression---
Didn't MS get sued for being a monopoly when it included a browser? Somthing you need if you want to get another browser or anything of the Internet (I guess you can use telnet). They didn't say "no browsers but ours" they just included it for free. Apple specifically states that you can't make a browser on their IPhone OS and everyone looks the other way? What a bunch of bias bullshit.----EODigression---
I think it's way to early to say what "two" big players are going to be left, at this point it's obvious it's not going to just two, there are 4 or 5 or more and I doubt the "big" one's are going to be Apple and RIM, Apple doesnt care a rats ass about security (Safari accepts invalid 3rd party certs 100% of the time, and don't get me started on the IPhone itself.), and RIM's idea of 'PUSH EMAIL' is: "buy this $5000 software from us to give your email server "RIM PUSH EMAIL" and god help you if their racket of a service fails, not to mention their complete lack of hardware innovation in the last decade. IMHO Apple and RIM seem like the least promising.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it does it make a noise? The question of course to scientist is "of course it makes a nose, noise is the consequence of matter vibrating the air." Math is no more an invention than noise is an invention. Would you also declare the discovery of light beyond the visible spectrum an invention? If invisible light is a discovery, than transcendental numbers must be a discovery: they already exist in their entirety, only as our computing power increases can we calculate what the next number in the sequence is.
Do you think a circle cares what PI is? Do you think an object along a ballistic trajectory thinks of it's decent as a mathematical formula? Yet the functions exist, have always existed, and are only awaiting our observation and discovery.
I've saved the best point for last: if math was invented, how could be be "corrected" as new discoveries are made unless it's truly just our interpretation of what we think math is.
Your example of row v. wade is a good one, the argument is the law says that woman have a right to abortion. Here is the specifics of the law cited by the justices:
From http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
You'll notice in this ruling they specified the statute they were giving an opinion on, the ninth and fourteenth amendment. The reasons doctors 'bound by roe v. wade' as you say is not because of the court case, but rather the supreme courts interpretation of the 9th and 14th amendments, not the case itself, but statute. So it's the courts opinion that the 9th and 14th amendments give a woman a right to an abortion. Though I'm not entirely sure it doesnt violate the 14th amendment rights of the unborn child.
I also gave an example of the D.C. gun ban. Now I'm sure you know that here in the U.S. we have a 2nd amendment statutory right to carry weapons. The judge in D.C. decided that the law doesn't apply to D.C. or had some other interpretation of the 2nd amendment, perhaps he thought they were talking about grizzly bear arms or something, regardless, the 2nd amendment was obviously ignored and the lower courts opinion was overturned, not the law, but their interpretation of the law. Now if you ignore the law, as the D.C. gun ban case, there will be a higher court that should overturn the lower courts ruling. If the judge in the gun ban case isn't an 'activist judge' then they truly don't exist.
The reason you may think judges make laws is because they administer the laws and their opinion of what the law says is the one that really matters. But if you've ever been in a jury you'll find the judge does not make decisions but simply explains what the law in question is all about and asks the jury to interpret the law. The big picture I'm trying to show you here is the judicial system follows the law, not the other way around.
Let me try again...
Here's the U.S. Supreme Court's Constitutional Interpretation
And a quote from the PDF:
Here is a link to the U.S. Constitution. And another quote.
I'm missing the part where they make laws. I think that's the legislature's job.
Also from the constitution:
I've made bold the part we are talking about.
Here is the definition of Legislature
Here is the definition of Judge
And a quote:
I read the entire page and didn't see where judges make any laws.
Here's more from Answers.com about the court system in the United States.
And of course a quote.
Here's one from wiki.answers.com
And the quote
Now that's a lot of evidence for my argument that judges interpret the law the legislature makes. Now if you can give me something beyond "take my word for it" or a D&D analogy about how great a DM you are, I'm willi
You asked what "activist judges" were. They are judges who overlook the letter of the law and make rulings that contradict the law or constitution. Statutory and constitutional law always must be given higher priority than common law. To do otherwise ignores the will of the people, the legislature, and upsets the balance of power. A good example is the D.C. handgun ban that was overturned by the supreme court recently. This law was an obvious abuse of the citizens 2nd amendment rights but activist judges in D.C. overlooked the letter of the law and made "common law" what was overturned by the higher court because it was in conflict with the constitution which fortionatly for us plebeians trumps common law and statutory law. I hope this answers your "what's an activist judge" question, it was never about case law.