"Well it's just the minimum, under typical usage conditions it will last much longer"
Incorrect. I would respond, "That is the minimum time under the heaviest possible load it can be put under."
Typical - Hard to pin down because everyone's usage differs for various reasons ( operating system, time of day, intended usage )
Fully loaded - Nearly constant
I'd like to kindly point you to my initial post where I quite clearly said "fully load" and not "typical load"..
It could even come down to a single resistor that measures the battery output, could be slightly faulty, and turn the PC off sooner.
Then the laptop is defective and should be sent in for repair/replacement:)
I know that there is some variance ( there always is ) but isn't the metric simply more reliable because of the universal way of testing it ( loading the machine/battery fully ) then some "average" which differs depending on how the manufacturer determines "average"? After all, if you suspend-to-ram, the battery life averages in the tens of hours and on average, that might be the state the laptop is in.
Is it? To me it is about knowing what I am going to get.
In a choice between knowing I *will* get at least 40 minutes working time or I *might* get the 3 hour "maximum" battery life if I suspend the machine to RAM, I'll take the 40 minutes.
1) Fully load the machine 2) Time until battery death 3) Advertise "minimum" battery life
What is wrong with that? Then I can expect at least 40 minutes of battery life and anything more than that is nice. You will generally not be fully loading the machine so it will always be more than 40 minutes anyway..
If you are selling 2Mb/s you are selling 2Mb/s not "might be 2Mb/s some of the time but the rest of the time be 1Mb/s which is £5 cheaper if you were on the 1Mb/s plan"
This whole thing about throttling because heavy users are slowing down other users has only risen because ISPs are selling something that they *do not have*. The popularity and increasing use of streaming video etc. is going to cause that bubble to burst sooner or later.
McAfee at my workplace would have stopped it from spreading too because it makes my computer grind to a halt. I have to use my personal laptop ( which isn't authorised ) to do my work when the anti-virus starts scanning because of this..
My thoughts exactly. My connection is with Virgin Media who throttle connections to 75% of their bandwidth after only 2.5 GB during off-peak hours. It's just over 1GB during the evening ( on-peak ).
Digital distribution won't replace physical, it'll probably supplement it as it does now, because caps and throttling will mean it is always faster for me to drive to the next town 10 miles away to pick up a copy of XYZ from Game or whatever, than try to download it at 1MB/s for 20 minutes then get throttled. Unless its.kkrieger:)
Meanwhile, the App Store is dealing with a flood of titles that shows no sign of slowing, making it somewhat difficult to keep tabs on the higher-quality games.
Just get Apple to block the lower-quality games then. Don't they do that already with other apps in the store? ( Link was first hit from an "apple blocks competitor" Google search ).
Emphasis mine.
I want to sign the extensions with *my* key pair. It'd be a completely local thing.
i.e. If an extension has not been signed by my private key ( verifiable by the corresponding public key I gave Firefox ), it is disabled.
Its good to see you replaying to suggestions without actually reading them though, thanks.
I'll be right on it after I have figured out if some people can tell the difference between an end-user demand ( which I agree would warrant the "it's open source, you can write a patch yourself" response ) and a programmer throwing an idea into the field for review because he *already knows* it is open source and he can write a patch himself.
Could Firefox add some sort of public/private key extensions signing so I can sign extensions I want to use? Then unsigned extensions wouldn't be loaded and this sort of thing could be stopped ( by the technical minded anyway ).
Okay, I've seen people say that Bioshock was a title that stands out in the midst of other games but my personal experience of it was hugely disappointing. However, I only played up to the part where you have to go to 'Neptune's Bounty'. I was in the big room with all the ways leading off and one said "Neptune's Bounty" so I headed towards it. There was a big incident, the antagonist made his first appearance and that way got blocked so I had to go "around" via the medical bay ( IIRC ).
This would have been fine if I hadn't already guessed this would happen as soon as I was asked to go to Neptune's Bounty. I was so racked off with the predictability I closed the game and haven't touched it since. Does it get better after this or something?
Slashdot Mirror
"Well it's just the minimum, under typical usage conditions it will last much longer"
Incorrect. I would respond, "That is the minimum time under the heaviest possible load it can be put under."
Typical - Hard to pin down because everyone's usage differs for various reasons ( operating system, time of day, intended usage )
Fully loaded - Nearly constant
I'd like to kindly point you to my initial post where I quite clearly said "fully load" and not "typical load"..
It could even come down to a single resistor that measures the battery output, could be slightly faulty, and turn the PC off sooner.
Then the laptop is defective and should be sent in for repair/replacement :)
I know that there is some variance ( there always is ) but isn't the metric simply more reliable because of the universal way of testing it ( loading the machine/battery fully ) then some "average" which differs depending on how the manufacturer determines "average"? After all, if you suspend-to-ram, the battery life averages in the tens of hours and on average, that might be the state the laptop is in.
Is it? To me it is about knowing what I am going to get.
In a choice between knowing I *will* get at least 40 minutes working time or I *might* get the 3 hour "maximum" battery life if I suspend the machine to RAM, I'll take the 40 minutes.
1) Fully load the machine
2) Time until battery death
3) Advertise "minimum" battery life
What is wrong with that? Then I can expect at least 40 minutes of battery life and anything more than that is nice. You will generally not be fully loading the machine so it will always be more than 40 minutes anyway..
Hey, here's an idea. Don't over-subscribe.
If you are selling 2Mb/s you are selling 2Mb/s not "might be 2Mb/s some of the time but the rest of the time be 1Mb/s which is £5 cheaper if you were on the 1Mb/s plan"
This whole thing about throttling because heavy users are slowing down other users has only risen because ISPs are selling something that they *do not have*. The popularity and increasing use of streaming video etc. is going to cause that bubble to burst sooner or later.
If a teacher gets no input and/or no respect of course the class won't work!
I went to do A level physics and the class ( of 6 or 8 ) spent most of the lesson correcting the teacher.
Having a teacher who actually knows the course helps too!
McAfee at my workplace would have stopped it from spreading too because it makes my computer grind to a halt.
I have to use my personal laptop ( which isn't authorised ) to do my work when the anti-virus starts scanning because of this..
My thoughts exactly. My connection is with Virgin Media who throttle connections to 75% of their bandwidth after only 2.5 GB during off-peak hours. It's just over 1GB during the evening ( on-peak ).
.kkrieger :)
Digital distribution won't replace physical, it'll probably supplement it as it does now, because caps and throttling will mean it is always faster for me to drive to the next town 10 miles away to pick up a copy of XYZ from Game or whatever, than try to download it at 1MB/s for 20 minutes then get throttled. Unless its
If they come back dead, we know drowning there causes zombie-ism.
a year or two ago it was all anyone could do to not jizz themselves over MySpace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3a-ajsVVus
Meanwhile, the App Store is dealing with a flood of titles that shows no sign of slowing, making it somewhat difficult to keep tabs on the higher-quality games.
Just get Apple to block the lower-quality games then. Don't they do that already with other apps in the store?
( Link was first hit from an "apple blocks competitor" Google search ).
Nicely spotted
News for nerds, stuff that matter[ed yesterday]!
On another note, if the editor knew of the previous story.. why was it posted? I must admit, I'm not very knowledgeable on the editorial process of ./
I'm not saying this would prevent it from installing but it would prevent Firefox from loading and then running it.
s/replaying/replying/;
Digital sigs do nothing but help verify WHO SIGNED THE PACKAGE.
The entire point behind my suggestion. Firefox, if I haven't signed this extension, don't load it.
so I can sign extensions I want to use
Emphasis mine. I want to sign the extensions with *my* key pair. It'd be a completely local thing.
i.e. If an extension has not been signed by my private key ( verifiable by the corresponding public key I gave Firefox ), it is disabled.
Its good to see you replaying to suggestions without actually reading them though, thanks.
I'll be right on it after I have figured out if some people can tell the difference between an end-user demand ( which I agree would warrant the "it's open source, you can write a patch yourself" response ) and a programmer throwing an idea into the field for review because he *already knows* it is open source and he can write a patch himself.
Geez *eye roll*
Oops, that was supposed to read:
I would if I knew <insert programming language of Firefox> . But I don't.. yet.
I would if I knew . But I don't.. yet.
Could Firefox add some sort of public/private key extensions signing so I can sign extensions I want to use? Then unsigned extensions wouldn't be loaded and this sort of thing could be stopped ( by the technical minded anyway ).
Okay, I've seen people say that Bioshock was a title that stands out in the midst of other games but my personal experience of it was hugely disappointing. However, I only played up to the part where you have to go to 'Neptune's Bounty'. I was in the big room with all the ways leading off and one said "Neptune's Bounty" so I headed towards it. There was a big incident, the antagonist made his first appearance and that way got blocked so I had to go "around" via the medical bay ( IIRC ).
This would have been fine if I hadn't already guessed this would happen as soon as I was asked to go to Neptune's Bounty. I was so racked off with the predictability I closed the game and haven't touched it since. Does it get better after this or something?
People complain about others bashing Microsoft but I have to give you kudos for working it into that!
+1 Respect ;)
Firefox Faster In Wine
And here I was thinking inebriation led to slower brain functions!
Yes, because all she would be doing is executing the instructions you gave her.
"Click A, Click B, Click C" is no more easier than "Click A, Click B, Click C, Click D, Click E". One instruction set is merely longer than the other.
If she couldn't follow your instructions, the instructions would be hard to use, not the application(s).
.. does not mean monkey understand.
This doesn't show it is easy to use, it merely demonstrates the ability of a 4 1/2 year old to follow a set of instructions.