The Charles de Gualle Aircraft carrier has yet to leave port. It's expected to depart later this week. The French do have a few cruisers and other assets in the area but no aircraft carrier. French planes are using ground based launch platforms.
Huh, I've read on at least a couple of news websites that the Charles de Gaulle arrived either today or yesterday. Well, I suppose low accuracy is hardly surprising when it comes to the news media...
The rebels actually were holding most of the oil fields a few days ago (I'm not sure of the current situation), the biggest worry I heard of from various "experts" was that Ghaddafi would decide to emulate the Iraqis at the end of Desert Storm by attacking the fields from the air...
Also, if all that mattered was the oil then it would've been easier to just let Ghaddafi wipe out the rebels and buy oil from him.
Well, Italy is letting the UN forces use their ports and airbases, Denmark and Norway have both sent fighters.
Not to mention that the first planes that went into Libyan airspace were French and British. Oh, and various shared NATO resources, and the french have the Charles de Gaulle parked off the Libyan coast and...
Oh sorry, you wanted to rant about how Amurka(!) is always called upon to play the world police only to be bashed by the world community. Feel free to continue.
I don't really know anyone who uses 3G/4G connections for torrenting. Youtube and similar content? Sure, but I can't say I've noticed any performance issues myself.
A little off-topic, for wired connections, I've tested the speed of my connection (100/100 Mbps) a number of times at different times of the day and week and never gotten less than 90 Mbps downstream for any test site in Scandinavia. Outside of europe it tends to drop a bit when using only one connection but with multiple connections to various hosts outside of europe (that is, using Bittorrent) the downstream has been maxed out with no problem.
The upstream speed seems to work about the same. For some reason single connections to the US and Asia are slower than multiple connections (that is, I can sustain four 20 Mbps streams fine but a single 80 Mbps seems almost impossible, not just with this ISP either). Feel free to speculate where the bottleneck is...
I'll admit that I haven't read TFA but I don't see any problem with MS (or other companies' employees for that matter) joining the police in the raid to make sure it doesn't turn out like the raid against TPB here in Sweden (where the cops basically raided the datacenter and took pretty much every machine they found, turned out that the vast majority of those machines weren't related to TPB and were in fact owned or rented by various businesses who were not all that happy about the cops being unable to just grab the machines they were looking for).
If that fanfic is as "unbiased" as that site's "Technology comparison" I'm assuming that it involves Luke Skywalker farting which results in the entire trek universe collapsing in on itself...
1. StarDust. An excellent movie that did not get even a fraction of the marketing and any of the awards Hollywood hands out to all kinds of cr*p.
I'm amazed how so few people have even heard of Stardust. OTOH, I only noticed it because I read the novel before I heard of the movie and wanted to see how it translated into a movie. I found it quite nice although as seems to be the case, if you've read the book before seeing the movie you are almost always a little disappointed with a things that are lost in the adaption...
Well, that seems to come with the assumption that the line of business you're in has at least the possibility of being cool.
If your work is basically building and maintaining in-house backend systems for various financial reports and such for say, a call center, well it's kind of hard to really make that into a cool and amazing job. It might be a good job, might have a lot of interesting challenges but it doesn't quite have the same appeal as say, working on the latest cool game or even just writing random bits of backend code for one of the well-known giants like Apple, Google or even MS.
While I suppose it wouldn't mean all that much when it comes to day-to-day work on some level it would be nice to work somewhere "cool". A company with "mythical" server parks rather than the typical "one small server room per site plus a couple of rented racks in a datacenter for external stuff".
Oh well, maybe I'll find a job at one of those places someday...
"The Zune experience"? I keep seeing that phrase pop up, did they rename the software to "The Zune experience" or something? Because I can't figure out if that's Prince's latest name or something from a soda commercial...
But by your own numbers that comes to 21.8 inhabitants per km^2 here in Sweden and 31.3 inhabitants per km^2 in the US.
And considering that approximately 3 618 196 (wikipedia numbers) swedes live in the Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö metro areas (12 771 km^2) that means that the population density for the rest of the country is actually closer to 14.1 inhabitants per km^2. This does not factor in that the population in the southern half of Sweden is a lot denser than in the northern half, the region I live in has a population density of approximately 3.3 per km^2. And despite this I can choose from a large number of DSL providers delivering their services through the DSLAMs of three different telcos/backbone providers as well as seven different FTTH providers.
I'm just not buying the "geography argument", it doesn't make sense.
Others include a minimum guaranteed always-on bandwidth (for example 4 Mbps) with a capped "burst bandwidth" and simply paying a fixed amount for guaranteed bandwidth.
But hey, don't let me stop your attempts at trolling and/or astroturfing for the ISPs...
I just don't understand why americans tolerate ISPs enforcing ridiculous caps. From a swedish perspective it seems kind of backwards, I don't really know of any ISPs here that have caps and it really seems like a concept take from the early days of consumer broadband (mid-to-late 90s there were a few swedish ISPs that tried the whole thing with caps but they were pretty much forced into obscurity since most ISPs didn't cap).
There's no reason why a manager needs to understand the industry, provided he's smart enough to recognize when subordinates are more informed and can focus on getting things coordinated so that things run smoothly.
Well, this is generally the thing that people who manage IT or development teams fail at.
My suspicion is that it's especially common in managers used to environments where there is always a bit of "flexibility" (if an employee says "it can't be done" it means "it will be hard to do", if an employee says "three weeks" it means "two weeks with less time in the break room") who end up managing developers and IT people and don't understand that when their "The decision has already been made by management, we will [foo]" gets a "That's not possible, not just with the current state of computing but most likely not with our current understanding of the laws of physics" that's generally not negotiable, it really means that it's impossible.
I've heard outright demands that developers figure out a way to write code that computed things that can't be computed, that they somehow invent a report for a backend system that can't be generated because there's no way to get the data without involving actual magic and of course the order to build a website that could do XSS by exploiting browser bugs in IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome (no, that last one never got completed, and this was a perfectly legit company, it was just that management had decided they wanted things to work a certain way and they just couldn't work that way without exploiting XSS bugs).
Well, I wouldn't complain about shortening the workday in winter, good luck getting employers to go along with that one (and if they did they'd demand we work around the clock during the summer months.
Also, unless you live north of Vaasa then I still live further north than you do.:P
Well, for a large part of the year mornings here in Sweden are pitch black with normal time so from our point of view having DST all year round wouldn't make much of a difference there, we'd still be getting to work while it was pitch black for quite some time but at least when we got off from work in the afternoon there'd be a few less weeks when it would already be pitch black again.
As I stated, with normal time we have "sunrise" (beginning of dawn) around 9:30-10:00 in december with sunset (end of dusk and beginning of actual darkness) around 14:00, in practice we have a couple of hours of sunlight in the middle of the day. Saying you want "more" sunlight in the morning implies you're lucky enough to live somewhere where the sun is actually up in the morning all year round...
I don't think anyone actually thinks they get more free time.
What you do get though is light that lasts longer into the evening which is great for those of us who don't live near the equator (and by Scandinavian standards Italy and the continental US are pretty damn close to the equator).
Where I live the sunrise in mid-december is generally around 9:30-10:00 in the morning with sunset just after 14:00. In fact, with standard office hours we basically have sunset before 17:00 betweeen late october and early february with sunrise during this period occurring at the earliest at about the same time as you're on your way to work in the morning.
If we used summertime all year round the period during which sunset occurred before the time that most people get off from work would be shortened to mid-november to mid-january which means more sunlight overall. That's the difference most people would be interested in.
This is counting dusk and dawn as time when the sun is up. If you count it as time when the sun is down then we don't actually get to experience sunlight after work until the end of february (and considering that this isn't summer dusk and dawn but rather the sun lazily dragging itself over the horizon just enough that it's no longer pitch black I don't really want to count dusk and dawn in the winter as time when the sun is up).
I know I'm not alone in preferring more light in afternoons and evenings even if it means that the sun won't be up until after the morning coffee break rather than before...
I think a lot of these places are quite safe from being in the general vicinity of a nuclear attack, they're just not safe if targeted directly with a high-yield hydrogen bomb, a "city killer" if you will. So the militaries and governments of the world aren't interested in these facilities for their original purposes (command and control and such things) since they are likely to be directly targeted in the event of a nuclear exchange. A private datacenter OTOH is unlikely to be directly targeted and can thus afford to be slightly less well protected to remain practically "nuke proof".
You're assuming no one will be left alive and have a will to rebuild.
It is very likely that even a large-scale nuclear war will leave hundreds of millions alive which would imply there might still be enough remnants of various organizations left to pick up the pieces. In fact, if your company, non-profit organization or random government agency came out of a nuclear war slightly less destroyed than the competition, wouldn't you want to be able to hit the ground running? Fetch your important data, get your organization up and running like before? Or would you just throw your hands in the air and decide to whither away and die a slow agonizing death from starvation because obviously nuclear war means even the survivors are 100% sure the be screwed?
I'd rather try surviving, seems I'm not the only one.
(Not to mention that a lot of these datacenters are also very useful for more limited disaster scenarios).
I wasn't claiming that "cop action movies" were accurate depictions of a normal day in the life of a police officer.
I pointed out that it seems like when it comes to facts surrounding things like medicine, dentistry, mechanics, computers, etc it tends to be computers and other "magic tech" that gets the "Oh wtf let's just make everything up" treatment, with other subjects used in plots it seems that filmmakers either bring in consultants to make sure they get the facts straight or at the very least try to use some common sense and basic knowledge of what is even remotely possible.
To quote GNUALMAFUERTE's post "What we get in movies is the equivalent of dr house sticking a catheter down someones ass and injecting 120 tons of aspirin directly into the skull with a thermometer to cure cancer.". That is to say, completely nonsensical made up "facts".
I'd even take it a step further and say that with computers filmmakers often even go so far as to plain invent jargon that doesn't even make sense, would you believe a movie where the main character has "bluecute coughingitis in his tear bladder" that requires "a two hundred volt enemorph in his rear toe pair"? Because there are plenty of movies that deal with any mention of computers in that way...
Now let's see... how many anti-nuclear hippies died from doing too much LSD or ketamine or whatever it is they do? Probably thousands.
Well, Ketamine can definitely kill you. As for LSD, IIRC there has been one or two verified deadly overdoses from obscene amounts (one apparently involved someone finding pure LSD in powder form and mistook it for amphetamine, basically taking hundreds of times the regular dose.
Also, a lot of the anti-nuclear people aren't "hippies", they're the same people who are terrified of everything, regular people who demand perfect safety in every way.
Well, in my experience from watching movies and TV shows with friends who aren't computer geeks but rather highly skilled in other fields my impression is that while it is common for movies to get facts a bit wrong most of the time they at least seem to make an effort (unless it's one of those truly dumbed-down beyond all belief movies that focus entirely on a "cool" protagonist and his cool car/explosions/whatever with no sanity whatsoever when it comes to the plot, not much different from the usual hollywood fare, just taken to its extreme I suppose).
However, even my non-geek friends often cringe at the lack of accuracy when it comes to computers in movies, and they drop lovely comments like "What? Why would anyone put an override button next to the login button? What's the point of logging in then?", that sort of thing is a bit more obviously wrong to the average viewer than a surgeon in the movie asking a nurse to increase the drug dosage for a patient way too much, the latter being the sort of thing that even a medical professional who's not specialized in heart/brain/whatever surgery may not pick up on (or would have to look up before stating that the dosage was wrong)...
I suspect movie and TV producers have just gotten used to plain making shit up when dealing with computers...
But they don't all hack the same computer at the same time.
So your posts begins with "You said A but that's not true, it's A, not B."?
Unless I've missed something in the various reports of the competition then Safari was the first target, followed by IE, next up was Chrome (where there were no attacks).
That is to say, while Safari did technically fail "first" if the first time slot had been given to IE then it would've been the first browser to fail. I'm still assuming that the anti-mac trolls will have a field day claiming that "Safari was hacked first" without understanding/caring about the fact that it only failed first because it was attacked first.
Imagine if the Farnsworth Killbot(r) was pitted against the world's top boxers, one match every two hours starting with the current world champ. Would it be truthful to say that the champ performed the worst against the killbot simply because he was torn to shreds two hours before the next boxer was torn to shreds by the killbot? Because that's the reasoning a lot of people are using with pwn2own...
Actually the reason Safari went down first was because it was the first target. Followed by IE8 which also went down. The researcher who was going to go after Chrome never showed up and Firefox is next in line...
I'm not even talking about the fact that even the highest end computer isn't running with a 65" screen and a high end audio system like your home theater is. Or that your computer is on a desk in front of an office chair, like you probably spend most of your life in already, instead of on a nice comfy beanbag or sofa or lounger, like your television. I'm just talking about the presentation itself, the controls, and the pretty decent online experience (as far as match-making and number of people to play with
Well, most people don't have 65" TVs, they're more likely to have a 32" or 40" TV. OTOH 22" and even 24" monitors are becoming quite common among "regular folk" (while us geeks have multi-monitor setups with 27" or 30" monitors these days) so considering the difference between sitting 10' away from a 40" TV and 3' away from a 24" monitor I'd take the latter.
As for the audio, for most people you do have a point. OTOH a lot of gamers who play online games use headsets (even us "casuals" find it to be useful for immersion a lot of the time).
As for the chair, for extended gaming sessions my computer chair (actually an old and very comfortable armchair with a swivel base) beats my sofa easily, the sofa is great for watching movies or sitting around talking to other people in the same room but for gaming it's just not very comfy.
So yeah, if you already have a really comfortable sofa/armchair/beanbag in your living room, a huge TV or a 1080p projector and a high end audio system while you don't have a computer then it might make sense but for most people I meet it just seems like they are more likely to have a good computer than a good home entertainment system...
Slashdot Mirror
The Charles de Gualle Aircraft carrier has yet to leave port. It's expected to depart later this week. The French do have a few cruisers and other assets in the area but no aircraft carrier. French planes are using ground based launch platforms.
Huh, I've read on at least a couple of news websites that the Charles de Gaulle arrived either today or yesterday. Well, I suppose low accuracy is hardly surprising when it comes to the news media...
The rebels actually were holding most of the oil fields a few days ago (I'm not sure of the current situation), the biggest worry I heard of from various "experts" was that Ghaddafi would decide to emulate the Iraqis at the end of Desert Storm by attacking the fields from the air...
Also, if all that mattered was the oil then it would've been easier to just let Ghaddafi wipe out the rebels and buy oil from him.
Well, Italy is letting the UN forces use their ports and airbases, Denmark and Norway have both sent fighters.
Not to mention that the first planes that went into Libyan airspace were French and British. Oh, and various shared NATO resources, and the french have the Charles de Gaulle parked off the Libyan coast and...
Oh sorry, you wanted to rant about how Amurka(!) is always called upon to play the world police only to be bashed by the world community. Feel free to continue.
I don't really know anyone who uses 3G/4G connections for torrenting. Youtube and similar content? Sure, but I can't say I've noticed any performance issues myself.
A little off-topic, for wired connections, I've tested the speed of my connection (100/100 Mbps) a number of times at different times of the day and week and never gotten less than 90 Mbps downstream for any test site in Scandinavia. Outside of europe it tends to drop a bit when using only one connection but with multiple connections to various hosts outside of europe (that is, using Bittorrent) the downstream has been maxed out with no problem.
The upstream speed seems to work about the same. For some reason single connections to the US and Asia are slower than multiple connections (that is, I can sustain four 20 Mbps streams fine but a single 80 Mbps seems almost impossible, not just with this ISP either). Feel free to speculate where the bottleneck is...
I'll admit that I haven't read TFA but I don't see any problem with MS (or other companies' employees for that matter) joining the police in the raid to make sure it doesn't turn out like the raid against TPB here in Sweden (where the cops basically raided the datacenter and took pretty much every machine they found, turned out that the vast majority of those machines weren't related to TPB and were in fact owned or rented by various businesses who were not all that happy about the cops being unable to just grab the machines they were looking for).
If that fanfic is as "unbiased" as that site's "Technology comparison" I'm assuming that it involves Luke Skywalker farting which results in the entire trek universe collapsing in on itself...
1. StarDust. An excellent movie that did not get even a fraction of the marketing and any of the awards Hollywood hands out to all kinds of cr*p.
I'm amazed how so few people have even heard of Stardust. OTOH, I only noticed it because I read the novel before I heard of the movie and wanted to see how it translated into a movie. I found it quite nice although as seems to be the case, if you've read the book before seeing the movie you are almost always a little disappointed with a things that are lost in the adaption...
Well, that seems to come with the assumption that the line of business you're in has at least the possibility of being cool.
If your work is basically building and maintaining in-house backend systems for various financial reports and such for say, a call center, well it's kind of hard to really make that into a cool and amazing job. It might be a good job, might have a lot of interesting challenges but it doesn't quite have the same appeal as say, working on the latest cool game or even just writing random bits of backend code for one of the well-known giants like Apple, Google or even MS.
While I suppose it wouldn't mean all that much when it comes to day-to-day work on some level it would be nice to work somewhere "cool". A company with "mythical" server parks rather than the typical "one small server room per site plus a couple of rented racks in a datacenter for external stuff".
Oh well, maybe I'll find a job at one of those places someday...
"The Zune experience"? I keep seeing that phrase pop up, did they rename the software to "The Zune experience" or something? Because I can't figure out if that's Prince's latest name or something from a soda commercial...
But by your own numbers that comes to 21.8 inhabitants per km^2 here in Sweden and 31.3 inhabitants per km^2 in the US.
And considering that approximately 3 618 196 (wikipedia numbers) swedes live in the Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö metro areas (12 771 km^2) that means that the population density for the rest of the country is actually closer to 14.1 inhabitants per km^2. This does not factor in that the population in the southern half of Sweden is a lot denser than in the northern half, the region I live in has a population density of approximately 3.3 per km^2. And despite this I can choose from a large number of DSL providers delivering their services through the DSLAMs of three different telcos/backbone providers as well as seven different FTTH providers.
I'm just not buying the "geography argument", it doesn't make sense.
That's hardly the only pricing model for hosting.
Others include a minimum guaranteed always-on bandwidth (for example 4 Mbps) with a capped "burst bandwidth" and simply paying a fixed amount for guaranteed bandwidth.
But hey, don't let me stop your attempts at trolling and/or astroturfing for the ISPs...
I just don't understand why americans tolerate ISPs enforcing ridiculous caps. From a swedish perspective it seems kind of backwards, I don't really know of any ISPs here that have caps and it really seems like a concept take from the early days of consumer broadband (mid-to-late 90s there were a few swedish ISPs that tried the whole thing with caps but they were pretty much forced into obscurity since most ISPs didn't cap).
There's no reason why a manager needs to understand the industry, provided he's smart enough to recognize when subordinates are more informed and can focus on getting things coordinated so that things run smoothly.
Well, this is generally the thing that people who manage IT or development teams fail at.
My suspicion is that it's especially common in managers used to environments where there is always a bit of "flexibility" (if an employee says "it can't be done" it means "it will be hard to do", if an employee says "three weeks" it means "two weeks with less time in the break room") who end up managing developers and IT people and don't understand that when their "The decision has already been made by management, we will [foo]" gets a "That's not possible, not just with the current state of computing but most likely not with our current understanding of the laws of physics" that's generally not negotiable, it really means that it's impossible.
I've heard outright demands that developers figure out a way to write code that computed things that can't be computed, that they somehow invent a report for a backend system that can't be generated because there's no way to get the data without involving actual magic and of course the order to build a website that could do XSS by exploiting browser bugs in IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome (no, that last one never got completed, and this was a perfectly legit company, it was just that management had decided they wanted things to work a certain way and they just couldn't work that way without exploiting XSS bugs).
Well, I wouldn't complain about shortening the workday in winter, good luck getting employers to go along with that one (and if they did they'd demand we work around the clock during the summer months.
Also, unless you live north of Vaasa then I still live further north than you do. :P
Well, for a large part of the year mornings here in Sweden are pitch black with normal time so from our point of view having DST all year round wouldn't make much of a difference there, we'd still be getting to work while it was pitch black for quite some time but at least when we got off from work in the afternoon there'd be a few less weeks when it would already be pitch black again.
As I stated, with normal time we have "sunrise" (beginning of dawn) around 9:30-10:00 in december with sunset (end of dusk and beginning of actual darkness) around 14:00, in practice we have a couple of hours of sunlight in the middle of the day. Saying you want "more" sunlight in the morning implies you're lucky enough to live somewhere where the sun is actually up in the morning all year round...
I don't think anyone actually thinks they get more free time.
What you do get though is light that lasts longer into the evening which is great for those of us who don't live near the equator (and by Scandinavian standards Italy and the continental US are pretty damn close to the equator).
Where I live the sunrise in mid-december is generally around 9:30-10:00 in the morning with sunset just after 14:00. In fact, with standard office hours we basically have sunset before 17:00 betweeen late october and early february with sunrise during this period occurring at the earliest at about the same time as you're on your way to work in the morning.
If we used summertime all year round the period during which sunset occurred before the time that most people get off from work would be shortened to mid-november to mid-january which means more sunlight overall. That's the difference most people would be interested in.
This is counting dusk and dawn as time when the sun is up. If you count it as time when the sun is down then we don't actually get to experience sunlight after work until the end of february (and considering that this isn't summer dusk and dawn but rather the sun lazily dragging itself over the horizon just enough that it's no longer pitch black I don't really want to count dusk and dawn in the winter as time when the sun is up).
I know I'm not alone in preferring more light in afternoons and evenings even if it means that the sun won't be up until after the morning coffee break rather than before...
I think a lot of these places are quite safe from being in the general vicinity of a nuclear attack, they're just not safe if targeted directly with a high-yield hydrogen bomb, a "city killer" if you will. So the militaries and governments of the world aren't interested in these facilities for their original purposes (command and control and such things) since they are likely to be directly targeted in the event of a nuclear exchange. A private datacenter OTOH is unlikely to be directly targeted and can thus afford to be slightly less well protected to remain practically "nuke proof".
You're assuming no one will be left alive and have a will to rebuild.
It is very likely that even a large-scale nuclear war will leave hundreds of millions alive which would imply there might still be enough remnants of various organizations left to pick up the pieces. In fact, if your company, non-profit organization or random government agency came out of a nuclear war slightly less destroyed than the competition, wouldn't you want to be able to hit the ground running? Fetch your important data, get your organization up and running like before? Or would you just throw your hands in the air and decide to whither away and die a slow agonizing death from starvation because obviously nuclear war means even the survivors are 100% sure the be screwed?
I'd rather try surviving, seems I'm not the only one.
(Not to mention that a lot of these datacenters are also very useful for more limited disaster scenarios).
Your point being?
I wasn't claiming that "cop action movies" were accurate depictions of a normal day in the life of a police officer.
I pointed out that it seems like when it comes to facts surrounding things like medicine, dentistry, mechanics, computers, etc it tends to be computers and other "magic tech" that gets the "Oh wtf let's just make everything up" treatment, with other subjects used in plots it seems that filmmakers either bring in consultants to make sure they get the facts straight or at the very least try to use some common sense and basic knowledge of what is even remotely possible.
To quote GNUALMAFUERTE's post "What we get in movies is the equivalent of dr house sticking a catheter down someones ass and injecting 120 tons of aspirin directly into the skull with a thermometer to cure cancer.". That is to say, completely nonsensical made up "facts".
I'd even take it a step further and say that with computers filmmakers often even go so far as to plain invent jargon that doesn't even make sense, would you believe a movie where the main character has "bluecute coughingitis in his tear bladder" that requires "a two hundred volt enemorph in his rear toe pair"? Because there are plenty of movies that deal with any mention of computers in that way...
Now let's see... how many anti-nuclear hippies died from doing too much LSD or ketamine or whatever it is they do? Probably thousands.
Well, Ketamine can definitely kill you. As for LSD, IIRC there has been one or two verified deadly overdoses from obscene amounts (one apparently involved someone finding pure LSD in powder form and mistook it for amphetamine, basically taking hundreds of times the regular dose.
Also, a lot of the anti-nuclear people aren't "hippies", they're the same people who are terrified of everything, regular people who demand perfect safety in every way.
Well, in my experience from watching movies and TV shows with friends who aren't computer geeks but rather highly skilled in other fields my impression is that while it is common for movies to get facts a bit wrong most of the time they at least seem to make an effort (unless it's one of those truly dumbed-down beyond all belief movies that focus entirely on a "cool" protagonist and his cool car/explosions/whatever with no sanity whatsoever when it comes to the plot, not much different from the usual hollywood fare, just taken to its extreme I suppose).
However, even my non-geek friends often cringe at the lack of accuracy when it comes to computers in movies, and they drop lovely comments like "What? Why would anyone put an override button next to the login button? What's the point of logging in then?", that sort of thing is a bit more obviously wrong to the average viewer than a surgeon in the movie asking a nurse to increase the drug dosage for a patient way too much, the latter being the sort of thing that even a medical professional who's not specialized in heart/brain/whatever surgery may not pick up on (or would have to look up before stating that the dosage was wrong)...
I suspect movie and TV producers have just gotten used to plain making shit up when dealing with computers...
But they don't all hack the same computer at the same time.
So your posts begins with "You said A but that's not true, it's A, not B."?
Unless I've missed something in the various reports of the competition then Safari was the first target, followed by IE, next up was Chrome (where there were no attacks).
That is to say, while Safari did technically fail "first" if the first time slot had been given to IE then it would've been the first browser to fail. I'm still assuming that the anti-mac trolls will have a field day claiming that "Safari was hacked first" without understanding/caring about the fact that it only failed first because it was attacked first.
Imagine if the Farnsworth Killbot(r) was pitted against the world's top boxers, one match every two hours starting with the current world champ. Would it be truthful to say that the champ performed the worst against the killbot simply because he was torn to shreds two hours before the next boxer was torn to shreds by the killbot? Because that's the reasoning a lot of people are using with pwn2own...
Actually the reason Safari went down first was because it was the first target. Followed by IE8 which also went down. The researcher who was going to go after Chrome never showed up and Firefox is next in line...
I'm not even talking about the fact that even the highest end computer isn't running with a 65" screen and a high end audio system like your home theater is. Or that your computer is on a desk in front of an office chair, like you probably spend most of your life in already, instead of on a nice comfy beanbag or sofa or lounger, like your television. I'm just talking about the presentation itself, the controls, and the pretty decent online experience (as far as match-making and number of people to play with
Well, most people don't have 65" TVs, they're more likely to have a 32" or 40" TV. OTOH 22" and even 24" monitors are becoming quite common among "regular folk" (while us geeks have multi-monitor setups with 27" or 30" monitors these days) so considering the difference between sitting 10' away from a 40" TV and 3' away from a 24" monitor I'd take the latter.
As for the audio, for most people you do have a point. OTOH a lot of gamers who play online games use headsets (even us "casuals" find it to be useful for immersion a lot of the time).
As for the chair, for extended gaming sessions my computer chair (actually an old and very comfortable armchair with a swivel base) beats my sofa easily, the sofa is great for watching movies or sitting around talking to other people in the same room but for gaming it's just not very comfy.
So yeah, if you already have a really comfortable sofa/armchair/beanbag in your living room, a huge TV or a 1080p projector and a high end audio system while you don't have a computer then it might make sense but for most people I meet it just seems like they are more likely to have a good computer than a good home entertainment system...