The effectiveness here refers to the usability and support aspect. Certain OS and UI features will be unavailable unless you use the XP interface. Some software may not work properly, or not work at all.
This is all great news and stuff (compatibility mode), but it's foolish to just dismiss it. How many native apps are there for OS X right now? Existing users have 3 choices here... not upgrade, upgrade and run compat mode thus necessitating additional hardware purchases, or dual boot. I suppose that's pretty good actually, all things considered.
that's true, but this release of MacOS X (March 24th) is meant to get the OS in as many developer's hands as possible.
That's not true. Developers have had access to OS X for a couple of months now, this is so they can have enough time to build the much needed application base.
Reverting back the XP interface to Win2000 will be about as useful as reverting to File Manager (of Win 3.1 fame) in Win95. That is to say you _can_ use your computer after you do it, Just not very effectively.
This does bring up the question of trust in.net and specifically, application hosting. Any ASP of sufficient size will be the target of attacks, via dns denial, hacks into weakened machines, certificate hijacking and others. Microsoft itself experienced the first two, but, say with their dns servers knocked out or an expired domain, it wouldn't take very long for someone to start impersonating Microsoft.
No, there is talk of labor unions because these days people can't just walk up to a company, with unknown and unproven skills, apply for a position with unknown qualifications and requirements, ask for $100k+/year and get it. Since companies need to pay real money now (not the worthless paper called stock options) wages are being depressed, and with financing all shot to hell they're also watching where the money goes. So no more slacking off for you, you need to justify your existance now. Hence unions, so you don't have to.
It's not just a pain in the ass for non-English speakers and lost on search engines, it's highly unprofesional. The differences between there/their/they're, sight/site/cite and its/it's are substantial and there is no excuse for using an incorrect version, especially by editors (right Taco?) Even when it's in a quote, any self-respecting news organization will append a [sic] after a booboo so a quote can remain a quote. Otherwise it's a tyop or illiteracy.
And don't give me that 'well, you can't expect non-english speakers to be able to write correct english' bull. I will bet anything that the large, huge, vast majority of people making those mistakes are native english speakers, furthermore, most (if not all) of them are from the US. Most other countries' educational systems place a somewhat higher value on the written word and as a result their citizens tend to make more careful word selections.
Shame on you all, the least you can accomplish in your life is to learn proper usage of your native tongue.
Well, I don't know if MS documents this feature, but even though it's kinda nice, it's also broken (as compared to UNIX-type completion). The completion in DOS will always complete, that is, even when there are multiple matches it just completes one for you.
Anyway, my only point with telnet was that I thought it was already commonly accepted that encryption was the only thing that was going to stop hijacking. I guess this may get proved out.
The reason for using SSH is not only to prevent password sniffing, but to also make hijacked connections useless. So someone can still take over or interrupt your connection, but it's pretty useless for the attacker when all content is encrypted.
It's not just that developers _want_ the source code, but the companies MS wants to sell to _demand_ it. VMS, IBM, Sun, HP have been including source code with systems ever since their first machine sold. It's expected in the high-end market. It helps in-house developers, and provides a measure of security, should the company ever go out of business or discontinue the product they sold you. Very simply, MS _has_ to do this... and it's not for _everyone_. Check out the requirements... 1500 Windows licences? Premium subscriptions? This eliminates very many software development companies that are supposed to benefit from this service.
No kidding... aside from appeasing Windows developers, conspiracy theory tells you this is a move to entrap Linux developers such as those working on Samba. A fair chunk of them write Windows apps for a living, and should their company ever sign up to view Windows source, any free code they now write is contaminated.
If you need to change prices, either use product code versions or make a new product (wiget-20010307). If you require such functionality (frequenet price changes) in the first place, you need a more robust and sophisticated shopping cart anyways. It would include product versioning, and maybe even would alert a shopper a product in their cart is out of date, here is the new price, do you want to replace it or remove it. Really, if you're thinking so far ahead that price changes occur to you as a potential issue, you have it way more together than I do, and you're more than capable of building a shopping cart system that doesn't take the prices from a client form... but then again, that's _really_ allowing for price changes, eh?;)
We're almost ready to roll out, all we have to do is pay our contractor for another two hours of work to add in the price verifi...
Price verification?!?! What price verification?
A shopping cart should never ever be verifying any prices. It _knows_ the prices, because they're stored in a database (SQL, dbm, flat file, common include file, whatever) and hence doesn't have to verify them. I could never understand how one could possibly design a shopping cart system that accepts product prices from a form... wouldn't this be much more work actually? You're displaying the price, plus you have to code in the hidden price tag, plus write code to process the price in the form handler... But you know what's in the cart, and you know its price (since you displayed it just a second ago), why on earth would you take the price again from a form! Why! Someone please tell me! Anyone thinking this is a good idea for _any_ reason simply has no business programming.
Hard to say, really. I believe the reason ISPs charge for extra IP addresses these days is that IPv4 addresses are relatively scarce.
They're not just getting more scarce, they're much harder to get allocated (for ISPs). These days the IP orgs (such as ARIN) require ISPs signing up for new blocks to make absolutely sure they're not overusing right now, to justify their current usage (even requireing moving to name based hosting).
Not only are military codes still much more accurate, many 'sensitive' areas continue to be covered under Selective Availability. This includes Washington DC, most of Montana, Virginia and any other location with important government installations.
Something definitely weird is going on with Mozilla memory usage... I'm running it on Win2000 (always the latest nightly), with 392MB RAM. Weird thing is if I switch to another app for half hour or so, or copy some files back and forth and then switch back to Mozilla, it takes _forever_. I mean, it would be pretty wierd for Windows to swap out a process when there's over 200MB free at any given time, but I can hear the disk grinding away for almost a minute before the window gets redrawn! It's really horrible. But for now I'm assuming it's either a regression bug (it didn't used to be that bad a while back) or some debugging code.
Please SLOW DOWN the video card technology! Not everyone can keep up.:( Thanks.
Well, at least this didn't have to be moderated to get to +2... it's just your standard whiny rant.
Whine, whine, whine, I can't afford the new stuff, so therefore no one else can, so all you video chip makers put a sock in it. First of all nVidia wouldn't be doing this if they wouldn't make any money. Rest assured, sales will be brisk right from the start. Second, upgrades don't come _all_ that often. You have the latest crop of cards (most expensive of which comes in at around $500-600). Did you whine then? Then you have the generation before that (or half generation), the TNT2 (I myself have TNT2 Ultra), and that was, what, 12-18 months ago. I bet you whined then too. And of course before that still you had Voodoo 3, Voodoo 2, and a bunch of other also-runs.
You see, this sort of progress waits for no one, except the marketing department. Are you also complaining about the speed race in the CPU market? I upgrade my CPU every 3 years, roughly. I went from 50 to 200 to 500 to probably 2000+ MHz (in another year) with more than enough performance to match. I bet you're complaining about that too, hmm?
Your problem is (and others like you) you have the 'old' generation of cards, which have suddenly been 'obsoleted' by this announcement from nVidia. Seeing as you probably paid a good bundle of money for that priviledge, you now feel cheated. Or maybe you just got a 'new' card and the box is still laying in your trash can, in which case you feel cheated as well. I mean, man, here I bought a brand spanking new card for at least $300 and it was just a waste of money! Grow up. The vast majority of people will never buy the latest and greatest, they can't afford it or don't have other prerequisite hardware to support it. Just wait 3-6 months after release and do what everyone else does: buy reasoable performance at a reasonable price.
I myself and getting pretty tired of all these 'insightful' posts to any story remotely related to Q3. The way the game looks does not have much to do with the engine. Q# was meant to look cartoonish, and I think it has suceeded pretty well. But this result comes from the textures used (and dynamic lighting to some extent), not the game engine. You don't have to use lightly shaded pastel colours on your models.
Slashdot Mirror
This is definitely a wordy way of saying 'why don't we let people do their own content filtering.'. Well, duh!
The effectiveness here refers to the usability and support aspect. Certain OS and UI features will be unavailable unless you use the XP interface. Some software may not work properly, or not work at all.
This is all great news and stuff (compatibility mode), but it's foolish to just dismiss it. How many native apps are there for OS X right now? Existing users have 3 choices here... not upgrade, upgrade and run compat mode thus necessitating additional hardware purchases, or dual boot. I suppose that's pretty good actually, all things considered.
That's not true. Developers have had access to OS X for a couple of months now, this is so they can have enough time to build the much needed application base.
Reverting back the XP interface to Win2000 will be about as useful as reverting to File Manager (of Win 3.1 fame) in Win95. That is to say you _can_ use your computer after you do it, Just not very effectively.
If you want better swap performance create a fixed swap file (min and max the same #). Just defrag your drive first, so it's contiguous.
Doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it.
This does bring up the question of trust in .net and specifically, application hosting. Any ASP of sufficient size will be the target of attacks, via dns denial, hacks into weakened machines, certificate hijacking and others. Microsoft itself experienced the first two, but, say with their dns servers knocked out or an expired domain, it wouldn't take very long for someone to start impersonating Microsoft.
No, there is talk of labor unions because these days people can't just walk up to a company, with unknown and unproven skills, apply for a position with unknown qualifications and requirements, ask for $100k+/year and get it. Since companies need to pay real money now (not the worthless paper called stock options) wages are being depressed, and with financing all shot to hell they're also watching where the money goes. So no more slacking off for you, you need to justify your existance now. Hence unions, so you don't have to.
And don't give me that 'well, you can't expect non-english speakers to be able to write correct english' bull. I will bet anything that the large, huge, vast majority of people making those mistakes are native english speakers, furthermore, most (if not all) of them are from the US. Most other countries' educational systems place a somewhat higher value on the written word and as a result their citizens tend to make more careful word selections.
Shame on you all, the least you can accomplish in your life is to learn proper usage of your native tongue.
Well, I don't know if MS documents this feature, but even though it's kinda nice, it's also broken (as compared to UNIX-type completion). The completion in DOS will always complete, that is, even when there are multiple matches it just completes one for you.
The reason for using SSH is not only to prevent password sniffing, but to also make hijacked connections useless. So someone can still take over or interrupt your connection, but it's pretty useless for the attacker when all content is encrypted.
It's not just that developers _want_ the source code, but the companies MS wants to sell to _demand_ it. VMS, IBM, Sun, HP have been including source code with systems ever since their first machine sold. It's expected in the high-end market. It helps in-house developers, and provides a measure of security, should the company ever go out of business or discontinue the product they sold you. Very simply, MS _has_ to do this... and it's not for _everyone_. Check out the requirements... 1500 Windows licences? Premium subscriptions? This eliminates very many software development companies that are supposed to benefit from this service.
No kidding... aside from appeasing Windows developers, conspiracy theory tells you this is a move to entrap Linux developers such as those working on Samba. A fair chunk of them write Windows apps for a living, and should their company ever sign up to view Windows source, any free code they now write is contaminated.
Well, all things being equal I doubt anyone would_print_ out a book instead of buying one. Check your paper and toner prices recently?
If you need to change prices, either use product code versions or make a new product (wiget-20010307). If you require such functionality (frequenet price changes) in the first place, you need a more robust and sophisticated shopping cart anyways. It would include product versioning, and maybe even would alert a shopper a product in their cart is out of date, here is the new price, do you want to replace it or remove it. Really, if you're thinking so far ahead that price changes occur to you as a potential issue, you have it way more together than I do, and you're more than capable of building a shopping cart system that doesn't take the prices from a client form... but then again, that's _really_ allowing for price changes, eh? ;)
Price verification?!?! What price verification?
A shopping cart should never ever be verifying any prices. It _knows_ the prices, because they're stored in a database (SQL, dbm, flat file, common include file, whatever) and hence doesn't have to verify them. I could never understand how one could possibly design a shopping cart system that accepts product prices from a form... wouldn't this be much more work actually? You're displaying the price, plus you have to code in the hidden price tag, plus write code to process the price in the form handler... But you know what's in the cart, and you know its price (since you displayed it just a second ago), why on earth would you take the price again from a form! Why! Someone please tell me! Anyone thinking this is a good idea for _any_ reason simply has no business programming.
They're not just getting more scarce, they're much harder to get allocated (for ISPs). These days the IP orgs (such as ARIN) require ISPs signing up for new blocks to make absolutely sure they're not overusing right now, to justify their current usage (even requireing moving to name based hosting).
Not only are military codes still much more accurate, many 'sensitive' areas continue to be covered under Selective Availability. This includes Washington DC, most of Montana, Virginia and any other location with important government installations.
Which is why IE2 which to this day ships with NT4 CDs can't connect to MS site to upgrade itself. You have to download Netscape first.
And of course you get just enough of it to hang yourself with...
Ok, ok, nothing to see here, go back to work!
Something definitely weird is going on with Mozilla memory usage... I'm running it on Win2000 (always the latest nightly), with 392MB RAM. Weird thing is if I switch to another app for half hour or so, or copy some files back and forth and then switch back to Mozilla, it takes _forever_. I mean, it would be pretty wierd for Windows to swap out a process when there's over 200MB free at any given time, but I can hear the disk grinding away for almost a minute before the window gets redrawn! It's really horrible. But for now I'm assuming it's either a regression bug (it didn't used to be that bad a while back) or some debugging code.
Well, at least this didn't have to be moderated to get to +2... it's just your standard whiny rant.
Whine, whine, whine, I can't afford the new stuff, so therefore no one else can, so all you video chip makers put a sock in it. First of all nVidia wouldn't be doing this if they wouldn't make any money. Rest assured, sales will be brisk right from the start. Second, upgrades don't come _all_ that often. You have the latest crop of cards (most expensive of which comes in at around $500-600). Did you whine then? Then you have the generation before that (or half generation), the TNT2 (I myself have TNT2 Ultra), and that was, what, 12-18 months ago. I bet you whined then too. And of course before that still you had Voodoo 3, Voodoo 2, and a bunch of other also-runs.
You see, this sort of progress waits for no one, except the marketing department. Are you also complaining about the speed race in the CPU market? I upgrade my CPU every 3 years, roughly. I went from 50 to 200 to 500 to probably 2000+ MHz (in another year) with more than enough performance to match. I bet you're complaining about that too, hmm?
Your problem is (and others like you) you have the 'old' generation of cards, which have suddenly been 'obsoleted' by this announcement from nVidia. Seeing as you probably paid a good bundle of money for that priviledge, you now feel cheated. Or maybe you just got a 'new' card and the box is still laying in your trash can, in which case you feel cheated as well. I mean, man, here I bought a brand spanking new card for at least $300 and it was just a waste of money! Grow up. The vast majority of people will never buy the latest and greatest, they can't afford it or don't have other prerequisite hardware to support it. Just wait 3-6 months after release and do what everyone else does: buy reasoable performance at a reasonable price.
It's for the sheeple.
I myself and getting pretty tired of all these 'insightful' posts to any story remotely related to Q3. The way the game looks does not have much to do with the engine. Q# was meant to look cartoonish, and I think it has suceeded pretty well. But this result comes from the textures used (and dynamic lighting to some extent), not the game engine. You don't have to use lightly shaded pastel colours on your models.