Plus, the idea that a musician under a smaller label gets none (or less) of the money while a musician under a larger label gets more (because they are part of the big 4) is ridiculous. Yeah, I know that the big guys are the ones getting pirated the most. And I know similar industry-invented programs work in a similar way. But almost everything that the music industry has constructed in terms of markets and legislation just funnels money from the bottom to the top, like paying ASCAP dues here in the US. The high-profile artists and labels literally make money off the backs of the smaller acts. The musician's union might be the one exception.
Wasn't Charter the *last* big cable company to get on board with DOCSIS 3? The summary reads like a press release. The reality is that Charter is lagging behind in this area.
I hope to god nobody here drinks any of their kool-aid. When Comcast was sending rst packets, Charter was in bed with NebuAd. It was "out out", except you couldn't really opt-out since it was based on a cookie...all of the data collection on the back end still was going on. The *only* reason they stopped (and even then they almost didn't) was because a couple Senators were beathing down their (and NebuAd's) necks.
I know it's just a web forum but if you're going to say "science says X" then at least cite something. Because the majority of the published literature either talks about AGW or doesn't bring it up. Very little actually attempts to disprove it.
And there has not yet been an alternative explanation for the current climate pattern that has satisfied the scientific mainstream. Some have been put forward, and perhaps someday one will be found. But as of today, that's not the case. I don't know where you're getting your info, but it's not the journals.
Which people are you referring to? Because a lot of the people studying climate change have done so over the course of their entire career? If you're worried about what the man in the street is saying: don't. Focus on the science.
I don't deal with flying men on a daily basis, so something so unbelievable is not likely to pull me out of the story. It's not so much the "that's not possible" but the "they got it horribly wrong".
But you already knew that, since you were just being facetious.
It's probably better for certain things. For at least the things I'm knowledgeable about, I find plenty of errors in WP. I have to assume that those pages are a representative sample, and not an exception. The sad thing is that you look in the talk page, you see the same story:
one or two people in the field vs. the wikipedia regulars, who know and believe what we'll call "the internet version", that is, a popular misconception or generalization
Non-regulars aren't trusted, and it goes far beyond vandalism. So someone who's too busy working in the field to worry about WP stops in, goes to fix something, and sees it doesn't stick. They head to the talk page. Things get personal. They stick around for a week, maybe two. Eventually they realize that WP is not the end-all-be-all and in many ways not worth "fighting for". I have read through enough of those and so I know better to even bother editing unless it's a typo or something.
WP has plenty of good information. But there is a large problem brought on the fact that not everything can be summed up in a paragraph or two, but people will read that paragraph somewhere and consider themselves an expert. And so there are a lot more internet experts out there than there are people in the various fields. This move to an approval system, if it happens, doesn't seem to be based on expertise in a particular area other than Wikipedia editing. So I doubt that it will lead to an increase in quality except for the most obvious cases of vandalism.
And the downside will be a WP that's much slower to expand. But given their financial situation, maybe that's what they want. Wales would also benefit from a shrinking Wikipedia because of people moving to Wikia.
Skip the rest, just get the local news in there. They are always looking for stuff like that to report, I don't care where you live.
"Tonight at 8, someone's stealing notes from students, and it's the TEACHER? Plus, how to tell if your cat has what it takes to be in show business. All that and our best guess as to tomorrow's weather, right here on News 5."
But their puff piece will make the school go crazy and be the gossip of everyone in town, and the teacher won't be able to go grocery shopping without hearing people whisper "that's the lady that takes the notes!"
You're right, it shouldn't matter. That's why it struck me as really odd that Ars was trying to somehow get around the fact that these two interface concepts are very similar. Grouping windows by application, as well as not differentiating so much between open and closed apps, was a good idea. It seems like since everyone's stating the obvious (they're similar), Ars decided to be controversial. Instead they look stupid and argumentative, and we are left asking, "why do I care?"
I think you are confused regarding switches versus hubs. That's a combination AP + router + switch + DSL modem.
Hubs and switches both extend the network, but differ in how they operate. Hubs are "dumb" and forward all received frames out on all ports. Switches keep track of which MAC address is on which port, and only forward frames to their intended recipients (except those going to multicast & broadcast addresses).
The ports on that WRT are part of a switch, and will not handle frames the way a hub does, at least not out of the box.
Anyway, the OP was just trying to make the distinction between between an ethernet hub and a wireless repeater. Repeaters do for wireless what hubs do for wired networks (extend the network at the cost of throughput). It was a shallow point to make, just what terminology to use, but I don't believe he was wrong.
I'm amazed that you've gotten as far as you have in life despite not being able to make the distinction between "a difference in degree" and "a difference in kind".
You know, I usually take those "change this registry setting for improved performance" tips with a dash of salt but for whatever reason clearing the prefetch folder is one of those things that I do on a machine that someone tells me is having performance problems, and it does seem to help.
Given what it does, it'd make much more sense if it didn't. The effect is more than what I can chalk up to a placebo effect. Maybe it only happens on the old, crappy, beat up machines I'm usually asked to work on, but it could also be that I'm crazy.
In any case I do think that turning prefetch off completely is cargo cult thinking, unless there's some special circumstance like you're always loading from a snapshot and writing to the drive would be a waste of time. But in that case, which I admit I've never run into, I'd probably forget to turn it off anyway.
I had the same feeling, but once I tried the beta I was surprised at how much I liked it. There is still a clear distinction between what's running and what's not, but now it's more like an app having an on/off switch than being listed in one place if it's not running and two if it is.
Then again, I've long since gotten used to the way Macs do it, which is very similar. You may very well end up not liking it but I think it's worth your consideration. I was actually more annoyed by the changes to the notification area.
But I agree with the general statement...they should stick to one model. One window is one application. Great. I'm weird in that I actually like MDI. I hate how Excel does it, where I have to guess whether or not my workbook is in a child window or a brand new parent, since the task bar doesn't make it clear. Makes dragging and dropping individual spreadsheets into a workbook a huge hassle, and I've long since given up on trying to explain it to the users I support.
Windows 7 Taskbar Not So Similar To OS X Dock After All
C'mon, this has to be flamebait. The article pointed out some differences, and mainly tried to make the window-centric-vs-application-centric distinction we all know about already. It didn't say that they "weren't so similar after all", because that's clearly false.
The new taskbar is nice and it has a couple of features that the dock doesn't have and probably won't ever pick up. Specifically, the window thumbnails and the fact that "jump lists" (aka contextual menus) stay behind even when the app is closed.
I'm not accusing MS of taking ideas. I am accusing them of taking too long to implement what was the optimal solution to a design problem. Having an icon on the desktop, in the start menu, the quick launch bar, and possibly the notification area...none of which correspond to the actual open windows, which are instead listed in the task bar: stupid. Not that anyone these days has a problem with it, but still, from a design standpoint it's wasteful and annoying.
Ars is fishing for objectivity points here, and at best is running this as a dog-bites-man story (that is, "we know the new taskbar acts like the dock, and MS has a history of playing catch-up in this area, but you'll be surprised at what we think is the truth"). The fact that the headline on Slashdot exaggerates this further pisses me off quite a bit.
If it looks like the dock, walks like the dock, and quacks like the dock...you know the rest.
Seriously. You could shut your hairdryer or toaster off a few seconds earlier or forgo using the toaster once and you've saved enough electricty to provide standby power for you devices guilt-free for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, the idea that a musician under a smaller label gets none (or less) of the money while a musician under a larger label gets more (because they are part of the big 4) is ridiculous. Yeah, I know that the big guys are the ones getting pirated the most. And I know similar industry-invented programs work in a similar way. But almost everything that the music industry has constructed in terms of markets and legislation just funnels money from the bottom to the top, like paying ASCAP dues here in the US. The high-profile artists and labels literally make money off the backs of the smaller acts. The musician's union might be the one exception.
Wasn't Charter the *last* big cable company to get on board with DOCSIS 3? The summary reads like a press release. The reality is that Charter is lagging behind in this area.
I hope to god nobody here drinks any of their kool-aid. When Comcast was sending rst packets, Charter was in bed with NebuAd. It was "out out", except you couldn't really opt-out since it was based on a cookie...all of the data collection on the back end still was going on. The *only* reason they stopped (and even then they almost didn't) was because a couple Senators were beathing down their (and NebuAd's) necks.
I know it's just a web forum but if you're going to say "science says X" then at least cite something. Because the majority of the published literature either talks about AGW or doesn't bring it up. Very little actually attempts to disprove it.
And there has not yet been an alternative explanation for the current climate pattern that has satisfied the scientific mainstream. Some have been put forward, and perhaps someday one will be found. But as of today, that's not the case. I don't know where you're getting your info, but it's not the journals.
Which people are you referring to? Because a lot of the people studying climate change have done so over the course of their entire career? If you're worried about what the man in the street is saying: don't. Focus on the science.
Have you actually investigated the models that are used and the predictions they've been able to make, or are you just saying that?
It's a patent on the iPhone interface as a whole, not touch screens.
I don't deal with flying men on a daily basis, so something so unbelievable is not likely to pull me out of the story. It's not so much the "that's not possible" but the "they got it horribly wrong".
But you already knew that, since you were just being facetious.
It's probably better for certain things. For at least the things I'm knowledgeable about, I find plenty of errors in WP. I have to assume that those pages are a representative sample, and not an exception. The sad thing is that you look in the talk page, you see the same story:
one or two people in the field
vs.
the wikipedia regulars, who know and believe what we'll call "the internet version", that is, a popular misconception or generalization
Non-regulars aren't trusted, and it goes far beyond vandalism. So someone who's too busy working in the field to worry about WP stops in, goes to fix something, and sees it doesn't stick. They head to the talk page. Things get personal. They stick around for a week, maybe two. Eventually they realize that WP is not the end-all-be-all and in many ways not worth "fighting for". I have read through enough of those and so I know better to even bother editing unless it's a typo or something.
WP has plenty of good information. But there is a large problem brought on the fact that not everything can be summed up in a paragraph or two, but people will read that paragraph somewhere and consider themselves an expert. And so there are a lot more internet experts out there than there are people in the various fields. This move to an approval system, if it happens, doesn't seem to be based on expertise in a particular area other than Wikipedia editing. So I doubt that it will lead to an increase in quality except for the most obvious cases of vandalism.
And the downside will be a WP that's much slower to expand. But given their financial situation, maybe that's what they want. Wales would also benefit from a shrinking Wikipedia because of people moving to Wikia.
99.999% of the music on top 40 radio. Which is an incredibly small fraction of what's out there.
That's it, the internet must be stopped.
Skip the rest, just get the local news in there. They are always looking for stuff like that to report, I don't care where you live.
"Tonight at 8, someone's stealing notes from students, and it's the TEACHER? Plus, how to tell if your cat has what it takes to be in show business. All that and our best guess as to tomorrow's weather, right here on News 5."
But their puff piece will make the school go crazy and be the gossip of everyone in town, and the teacher won't be able to go grocery shopping without hearing people whisper "that's the lady that takes the notes!"
I think that's pretty good for a revenge plan.
You're right, it shouldn't matter. That's why it struck me as really odd that Ars was trying to somehow get around the fact that these two interface concepts are very similar. Grouping windows by application, as well as not differentiating so much between open and closed apps, was a good idea. It seems like since everyone's stating the obvious (they're similar), Ars decided to be controversial. Instead they look stupid and argumentative, and we are left asking, "why do I care?"
They should change their name to "iTouch -Apple".
They're still running BeOS.
World War II jokes? How innovative!
I think you are confused regarding switches versus hubs. That's a combination AP + router + switch + DSL modem.
Hubs and switches both extend the network, but differ in how they operate. Hubs are "dumb" and forward all received frames out on all ports. Switches keep track of which MAC address is on which port, and only forward frames to their intended recipients (except those going to multicast & broadcast addresses).
The ports on that WRT are part of a switch, and will not handle frames the way a hub does, at least not out of the box.
Anyway, the OP was just trying to make the distinction between between an ethernet hub and a wireless repeater. Repeaters do for wireless what hubs do for wired networks (extend the network at the cost of throughput). It was a shallow point to make, just what terminology to use, but I don't believe he was wrong.
And also shouting it to people as they drive down the street.
I'm amazed that you've gotten as far as you have in life despite not being able to make the distinction between "a difference in degree" and "a difference in kind".
If it is a service going haywire, it'll usually show up in the event log.
People have said it a few times, but it needs to be repeated 20 more. Check the event viewer!
Every workstation in our company has the SysInternals complete suite installed in the C: drive.
Network shares!
You know, I usually take those "change this registry setting for improved performance" tips with a dash of salt but for whatever reason clearing the prefetch folder is one of those things that I do on a machine that someone tells me is having performance problems, and it does seem to help.
Given what it does, it'd make much more sense if it didn't. The effect is more than what I can chalk up to a placebo effect. Maybe it only happens on the old, crappy, beat up machines I'm usually asked to work on, but it could also be that I'm crazy.
In any case I do think that turning prefetch off completely is cargo cult thinking, unless there's some special circumstance like you're always loading from a snapshot and writing to the drive would be a waste of time. But in that case, which I admit I've never run into, I'd probably forget to turn it off anyway.
I had the same feeling, but once I tried the beta I was surprised at how much I liked it. There is still a clear distinction between what's running and what's not, but now it's more like an app having an on/off switch than being listed in one place if it's not running and two if it is.
Then again, I've long since gotten used to the way Macs do it, which is very similar. You may very well end up not liking it but I think it's worth your consideration. I was actually more annoyed by the changes to the notification area.
But I agree with the general statement...they should stick to one model. One window is one application. Great. I'm weird in that I actually like MDI. I hate how Excel does it, where I have to guess whether or not my workbook is in a child window or a brand new parent, since the task bar doesn't make it clear. Makes dragging and dropping individual spreadsheets into a workbook a huge hassle, and I've long since given up on trying to explain it to the users I support.
Windows 7 Taskbar Not So Similar To OS X Dock After All
C'mon, this has to be flamebait. The article pointed out some differences, and mainly tried to make the window-centric-vs-application-centric distinction we all know about already. It didn't say that they "weren't so similar after all", because that's clearly false.
The new taskbar is nice and it has a couple of features that the dock doesn't have and probably won't ever pick up. Specifically, the window thumbnails and the fact that "jump lists" (aka contextual menus) stay behind even when the app is closed.
I'm not accusing MS of taking ideas. I am accusing them of taking too long to implement what was the optimal solution to a design problem. Having an icon on the desktop, in the start menu, the quick launch bar, and possibly the notification area...none of which correspond to the actual open windows, which are instead listed in the task bar: stupid. Not that anyone these days has a problem with it, but still, from a design standpoint it's wasteful and annoying.
Ars is fishing for objectivity points here, and at best is running this as a dog-bites-man story (that is, "we know the new taskbar acts like the dock, and MS has a history of playing catch-up in this area, but you'll be surprised at what we think is the truth"). The fact that the headline on Slashdot exaggerates this further pisses me off quite a bit.
If it looks like the dock, walks like the dock, and quacks like the dock...you know the rest.
Sometimes morality is not relative. For instance, the Holocaust was morally wrong.
Any "measure of morality" that would consider the Holocaust morally right is broken.
Hell, let's be daring and extend that: any measure of morality that considers genocide to be right or good is broken.
Seriously. You could shut your hairdryer or toaster off a few seconds earlier or forgo using the toaster once and you've saved enough electricty to provide standby power for you devices guilt-free for a long time.