As a business, money (mostly) makes the world go around.
It's well known that ads are simply a business model that people (including myself) don't enjoy. Many of us choose the alternative: eliminate the annoyance, and the internet is more enjoyable.
Things I don't miss:
Ads that you simply don't care to see (Viagra for women? Not for me, thank you)
Ads that get in the way of actually READING something (flashing ads, Flash "window" ads, etc)
And my personal favorite: Misleading ads.
Please (PLEASE!) don't make a new annoyance just because they're not getting their way. I'm -okay- with reasonable sanity (remember those old Google text-only ads?), but I have AdBlock installed for a reason.
If AdBlock goes to a business model that makes browsing annoying again, I'll find a new alternative. Either way, I'll be getting what I want, and what AdBlock does is its own business.
I will point something out though: most of our support would dry up once annoyances come up again. An unhappy consumer base won't go very far in the long run.
You can't really have an agent-based paradigm when you're focused on large blocks of code that do everything.
The gist of it is simple: you use C# to make the large blocks of code that does everything, or you can use Axum to make small blocks of code that does something small efficiently.
Which one is easier to program?
And how is this the fault of senior management or bad hacking? You can still mix and match, even though I wouldn't do so excessively.
Every programming language has its downsides. Race conditions -are- preventable, especially with a system to slow down fast code blocks or speeding up slow code blocks.
The easiest way (in my experience, but I'm an amateur programmer) to program concurrently is to synchronize the agent's I/O, and where it becomes hardware dependent, either queue it or prioritize it.
I can see that this is going to be a popular programming language for 4+ processor systems... but they need the right development framework to make it successful.
An agent model makes sense (used appropriately); and it would go a long ways toward making a logical development system).
I would like to see the day when logical development is easily visual and self-adaptable (not the pencil and paper kind of visual), and this is a step in the right direction.
I second the fact that DosBox is better than Microsoft's own offerings within Windows.
Time-critical things are smoother, and there's quite a lot of legacy DOS applications that are time-critical.
I've seen people program on an 8086 such compressed and timer-reliant code that only recently has Linux (before other OS'es for that matter) been able to get that functionality back.
The same individual responsible was also a fanatic of the Atari 8-bit era, even going through large lengths to slave a PC to one (as a hard drive emulator). This is also very timer-sensitive; because any stutter in the I/O transfer means corrupt data.
This project has kept alive many relics of the old enthusiast community; and it's nice to see that it's not forgotten.
Re:Better reception with this unit
on
Mobile Wi-Fi Hot Spot
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Units like this are nothing new.
The inherent problem with these isn't the fact that they're celluar; it's the fact that they're WIFI.
Driving around with this isn't nearly so great when you're getting interference from APs on the same channel (and there's no way to avoid it).
This means stuttered speeds while there's interference; and until this problem is solved with either a new WIFI spec or limiting the AP to an uncommon spec (who uses A these days?) that its utility is limited.
And when utility is limited, it's not going to be the wonder product that people would like.
I just don't understand how Microsoft expects it to be a practical replacement for companies when it's so limited to high-end hardware; unless, of course, it's not intended as a commonly practical XP replacement.
I expect that this is something that they intentionally designed this for, so that they're not competing with the lower-end virtualization products. After all, they should be learning at least a few lessons from the EU repeatedly burning them.
With this in mind... I'll be the first to say that the companies that use legacy software will hurt. They will have to either replace legacy software (which is difficult for some clients) or buy a high-end computer just to get a decent upgrade for Vista/XP.
Catering to the small-business legacy software needs is a losing proposition though. This should be correctly labeled as a developer tool, and not a regular XP virtual machine.
Population density? yes, it matters, but the culture matters too!
Portland Oregon has had public transit (light rail and bus system) for almost the past century. It's a sprawl of a metropolis, and to me, it has a very different feel than most other cities.
People who live there grew up with it, and don't mind taking a hop on the bus for groceries or taking the light rail to the airport, and is also host to one of the -few- debt-free public transport systems in the US (since so many others here look at tax assistance as free money).
By the way, Portland has a population density of 1,655.31/kmÂ, less than the population density of Sacremento quoted nearby.
The average person in Portland (at least to me, this is just an observation) is much more social and much more relaxed compared to the typical suburbanite.
Population density might matter, but the culture matters too! If people in a town chose to use it, it would grow.
I looked at his links, and what I see backs him up.
This optimization of the x264 codec is optimized for SSIM (Structural SIMilarity, a measurement of image comparison accuracy), which inherently decreases PSNR (Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio). After all, an accurate, less densely compressed image will actually show textures and such better!
I personally like to be able to pause a video I'm watching, and look at say... the whiskers on Hugh Jackman's face (I'm sure you guys might like the equivalent).
While PSNR is important for determining compressibility, in lossy compression, you're talking about losing details no matter what. Some people want those smaller file sizes!
Comparing apples with oranges is more of a taste comparison than an aesthetics debate, but it's still important to be informed about the real differences.
Definitely fully tested. I remember one episode...
I know of lots of "end of the earth stories". Science doesn't back it up completely, unless you're talking about real threats (like grey goo or a mutant airborne and massively contagious e-bola virus).
Just because there's media hype about "what if" doesn't make it true. Yes, "fully tested" has to involve human trials at some point; but with the success we've had in curing rat diabetes and growing spare organs, I believe it has proved itself (definitely at least as an experimental therapy).
Dealing with mutations is always a risky business. --- there are safety procedures in place for a reason.
There are already therapies available that are much more dangerous. Mutations are a problem though? Wow, there's been too many horror movies on that subject; and that's all they continue being. Mutations mean cancer at worst, not the next fictional zombie threat.
Take for example: bone marrow cancer. Treatment is difficult, and even -if- it is successful, it can still rear problems that will kill. This is a treatment, because people choose to try an experimental (albeit common) treatment rather than none at all.
What I see in this is the drug companies saying "no" to alternative treatment. They like the profits they make! (after all, who wouldn't?). They are also effective lobbyists (because they have moolah to throw around) and have the most to lose from independence of various drugs.
Is it so surprising that we're simply dealing with an antiquated business model that is stifling innovation?
...Oh wait, this is/. That should go without saying.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to clarify that I'd be okay with AdBlock allowing a text-only advertising option. (nag-free please!)
I won't be happy with anything less, and I do feel it's reasonable.
As a business, money (mostly) makes the world go around.
It's well known that ads are simply a business model that people (including myself) don't enjoy. Many of us choose the alternative: eliminate the annoyance, and the internet is more enjoyable.
Things I don't miss: Ads that you simply don't care to see (Viagra for women? Not for me, thank you) Ads that get in the way of actually READING something (flashing ads, Flash "window" ads, etc) And my personal favorite: Misleading ads.
Please (PLEASE!) don't make a new annoyance just because they're not getting their way. I'm -okay- with reasonable sanity (remember those old Google text-only ads?), but I have AdBlock installed for a reason.
If AdBlock goes to a business model that makes browsing annoying again, I'll find a new alternative. Either way, I'll be getting what I want, and what AdBlock does is its own business.
I will point something out though: most of our support would dry up once annoyances come up again. An unhappy consumer base won't go very far in the long run.
You can't really have an agent-based paradigm when you're focused on large blocks of code that do everything.
The gist of it is simple: you use C# to make the large blocks of code that does everything, or you can use Axum to make small blocks of code that does something small efficiently.
Which one is easier to program?
And how is this the fault of senior management or bad hacking? You can still mix and match, even though I wouldn't do so excessively.
Every programming language has its downsides. Race conditions -are- preventable, especially with a system to slow down fast code blocks or speeding up slow code blocks.
The easiest way (in my experience, but I'm an amateur programmer) to program concurrently is to synchronize the agent's I/O, and where it becomes hardware dependent, either queue it or prioritize it.
I can see that this is going to be a popular programming language for 4+ processor systems... but they need the right development framework to make it successful.
An agent model makes sense (used appropriately); and it would go a long ways toward making a logical development system).
I would like to see the day when logical development is easily visual and self-adaptable (not the pencil and paper kind of visual), and this is a step in the right direction.
I second the fact that DosBox is better than Microsoft's own offerings within Windows.
Time-critical things are smoother, and there's quite a lot of legacy DOS applications that are time-critical.
I've seen people program on an 8086 such compressed and timer-reliant code that only recently has Linux (before other OS'es for that matter) been able to get that functionality back.
The same individual responsible was also a fanatic of the Atari 8-bit era, even going through large lengths to slave a PC to one (as a hard drive emulator). This is also very timer-sensitive; because any stutter in the I/O transfer means corrupt data.
This project has kept alive many relics of the old enthusiast community; and it's nice to see that it's not forgotten.
Units like this are nothing new.
The inherent problem with these isn't the fact that they're celluar; it's the fact that they're WIFI.
Driving around with this isn't nearly so great when you're getting interference from APs on the same channel (and there's no way to avoid it).
This means stuttered speeds while there's interference; and until this problem is solved with either a new WIFI spec or limiting the AP to an uncommon spec (who uses A these days?) that its utility is limited.
And when utility is limited, it's not going to be the wonder product that people would like.
I'll stick with my USB 3G, thank you.
I just don't understand how Microsoft expects it to be a practical replacement for companies when it's so limited to high-end hardware; unless, of course, it's not intended as a commonly practical XP replacement.
I expect that this is something that they intentionally designed this for, so that they're not competing with the lower-end virtualization products. After all, they should be learning at least a few lessons from the EU repeatedly burning them.
With this in mind... I'll be the first to say that the companies that use legacy software will hurt. They will have to either replace legacy software (which is difficult for some clients) or buy a high-end computer just to get a decent upgrade for Vista/XP.
Catering to the small-business legacy software needs is a losing proposition though. This should be correctly labeled as a developer tool, and not a regular XP virtual machine.
Population density? yes, it matters, but the culture matters too!
Portland Oregon has had public transit (light rail and bus system) for almost the past century. It's a sprawl of a metropolis, and to me, it has a very different feel than most other cities.
People who live there grew up with it, and don't mind taking a hop on the bus for groceries or taking the light rail to the airport, and is also host to one of the -few- debt-free public transport systems in the US (since so many others here look at tax assistance as free money).
By the way, Portland has a population density of 1,655.31/kmÂ, less than the population density of Sacremento quoted nearby.
The average person in Portland (at least to me, this is just an observation) is much more social and much more relaxed compared to the typical suburbanite.
Population density might matter, but the culture matters too! If people in a town chose to use it, it would grow.
I looked at his links, and what I see backs him up. This optimization of the x264 codec is optimized for SSIM (Structural SIMilarity, a measurement of image comparison accuracy), which inherently decreases PSNR (Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio). After all, an accurate, less densely compressed image will actually show textures and such better! I personally like to be able to pause a video I'm watching, and look at say... the whiskers on Hugh Jackman's face (I'm sure you guys might like the equivalent). While PSNR is important for determining compressibility, in lossy compression, you're talking about losing details no matter what. Some people want those smaller file sizes! Comparing apples with oranges is more of a taste comparison than an aesthetics debate, but it's still important to be informed about the real differences.
Definitely fully tested. I remember one episode...
I know of lots of "end of the earth stories". Science doesn't back it up completely, unless you're talking about real threats (like grey goo or a mutant airborne and massively contagious e-bola virus).
Just because there's media hype about "what if" doesn't make it true. Yes, "fully tested" has to involve human trials at some point; but with the success we've had in curing rat diabetes and growing spare organs, I believe it has proved itself (definitely at least as an experimental therapy).
Dealing with mutations is always a risky business. --- there are safety procedures in place for a reason.
There are already therapies available that are much more dangerous. Mutations are a problem though? Wow, there's been too many horror movies on that subject; and that's all they continue being. Mutations mean cancer at worst, not the next fictional zombie threat.
Take for example: bone marrow cancer. Treatment is difficult, and even -if- it is successful, it can still rear problems that will kill. This is a treatment, because people choose to try an experimental (albeit common) treatment rather than none at all.
What I see in this is the drug companies saying "no" to alternative treatment. They like the profits they make! (after all, who wouldn't?). They are also effective lobbyists (because they have moolah to throw around) and have the most to lose from independence of various drugs.
Is it so surprising that we're simply dealing with an antiquated business model that is stifling innovation?