Go to Germany and wear a T-shirt with a swastika on it and you will find out.
Np, YOU explain to ALL OF US why it should be disallowed to print a simple FACT on anything.
OK. The only reason (that I can think of) to print "a simple FACT" that "everybody knows" on the label of a product (and word it like that product was medicine) is to confuse and mislead potential customers into thinking that the product is somehow special, even though the label does not say it explicitly. Or it could be even worse - trying to confuse people into thinking that this water was medicine.
Why else would the company go trough all the trouble of asking permission to print it?
Or OK, if you really think that some people may not know that "simple FACT" then you should also print another, less commonly known fact that "drinking too much water will kill you". You don't see this warning on bottled water, I wonder why...
It's stupid to assume anyone still living does not know about what liquids do when you drink them.
Then explain me the reason why would the statement in question be printed on the label of a bottle of water? After all, paint (or whatever they use for printing labels) costs money, even though the cost of that one sentence is really small (but adds up over millions of bottles), why would the company choose to reduce its profit by printing it? If it did not print the statement, the label size could be reduced, saving more money.
And you read the statement as it it was programming code.
Yes, water (and other fluids that include water) prevents dehydration. Yes, everybody knows it. Then why print it (after all, there is no label that states "this bottle of water does not contain potassium cyanide" even though it is almost certainly true)? Should the companies that produce soft drinks also print it (because, well, Pepsi also prevents dehydration). Most likely reason for the companies wanting to print this statement is to confuse people into thinking that the bottled water is somehow better at preventing dehydration. That's why it should not be printed.
Russia did turn off gas for the EU when there was some problem with Ukraine (and the pipe goes trough it). Also, while you can store oil or gas so it lasts you a couple of months or more, it would be impossible to store that much electricity. Also, the power cables would make a good target for terrorists - it's difficult to guard the entire cable and you don't need to go to a foreign country to hurt it. On the other hand, guarding a power plant is easier and the terrorist would have to get into the country to bomb the power plant.
If your suggestion was already in place, do you think Gaddafi (or his supporters, even after the revolution) would have refrained from bombing the cables out of spite when the other countries decided to help the people?
1% of North African desert could power the entire EU.
Until the people living in the African countries between the desert and the EU start shooting at each other (like they did this year) and hit a power cable.
A hydro dam that breaks will NOT cause the water to shoot up stream. Sure it sucks for the people down stream and there might be a lot of people downstream but the risk is calculable and limited.
Maybe it is possible to round up the people that survived and make them clean up the contaminated land until they die. Then the count of dead would be similar to a dam failure but some of the precious land would be recovered.
Contaminated land can still be useful, say, for storing nuclear waste.
As for the back yard - my back yard is too small for a big power plant, but I would gladly take a 10kW (I don't really need more) reactor (or coal power plant, I do not care) if it meant that I would have to pay less for electricity.
I do. PS/2 is OK for keyboard and mouse, also PS/2+VGA KVM switches are much cheaper than USB ones and there is not much point in using USB for keyboard and mouse.
I can visually inspect the tires quite easily, also I usually replace the tires twice a year and the guys who do the replacing would tell me if the tires are no good. I most likely will not see a tiny hole in a battery.
brake fluid leakage
That is more dangerous, but the brakes get used quite a lot, so I would most likely notice failed brakes before I get into an accident. Though I had one brake failure - one brake disc in my car broke, that was unexpected and I almost crashed into another car.
corroding wiring
That won't cause any big problems. Depending on the wires that corroded, I would not have lights (not that big a problem, a lost turning signal wire will be noticeable (the blinker relay switches twice as fast), lost headlight(s) will be noticeable at night), wipers (very noticeable), alternator (at worst I will have a discharged battery, also it can be noticeable), or the engine just won't work or work badly (bad ignition wires, spark plug wires, fuel valve wires). Oh, or I could also lose the fuel or the engine temperature gauge, which is not that big a problem and also noticeable. Unless the wires corrode in such a way that they create a short circuit, but in that case the fuse will melt and protect the car.
Under current bios and power management regimes you are forced to either unplug the drive you don't want to use manually and switch the physical cables or having one of the drives idle and using power while dealing with manual ini/config tweaking (in Windows XP i.e. multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINDOWS=1).
In my experience, if I leave the boot.ini line as
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional"
Windows will bot from the drive with that boot.ini file no matter where it is connected. Move the drive from the IDE port on the motherboard to a PCI IDE controller - works, if I set it up so that the the BIOS now reads MBR from the drive connected to the PCI IDE controller. Copy the contents of the drive to a SCSI drive - works, if the system can be set up to read the MBR from that SCSI drive.
So, I guess that for Windows, the drive from which BIOS reads the MBR is the "multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)" drive. It is even easier with modern BIOSs where I can choose which drive to use as a boot drive instead of selecting "SCSI/other" and adding the PCI controller cards in order so that the card with the boot drive connected got initialized first, then making sure that the card BIOS selected the right drive as a boot drive.
I do not really care who writes the drivers, as long as the drivers work.
For example, I tried everything I could think of to make Canon iR1022A scan from Linux. No official drivers (official drivers only for printing). Zero SANE support. Wine did not work too. ReactOS on VirtualBox also did not work.
Depends on how the law is written. It could make provisions for backup, something like "if a user deletes some data, you have to delete the online copy and remove any access. Backups, created prior to the deletion, can still contain the data, but it cannot be shared with anyone (for uses other than restoring your own online copy from backup) and in case you restore from that backup, the deleted data should be deleted from the online storage".
I do not know how much resources would css based windowing system use, but if it used about the same as the current windowing system then it would be better. The normal user could leave the settings as is, while I culd make the OS look like Windows 3.11 or XP if I wanted. Hey, somebody would probably create "skins" to make the OS look like other OSs and most likely even some normal users would like the option of making Linux look like Windows because that's what they are used to.
I disable the animations in Windows XP (I don't use 7, but if I did, I would make the UI look like 2k), because to me this feels faster. For example, I click the minimize button and the window immediately disappears. With animation, the minimize function takes feels longer because the animation takes some time.
CLI has one big disadvantage - it is very difficult to figure out how to do something if you do not know it already (and do not or can not google it). To add to that, different systems use different commands for the same thing.
So, let's say I am a MSDOS user who installed Linux and want to do something. Ok, so I get the directory listing with "dir", though it does not display how much free space is left and want to delete a file. I type "del somefile" and bash does not recognize the command. So, what other command could there be for deleting a file. It turns out to be "rm", short for "remove", but the long version does not work and how am I supposed to know that the short version is "rm" and not, say, "rem"? On the other hand, if this was a GUI and had a menu, then I would figure out that "rm" is probably short for "remove" and this is the equivalent of "delete". Even if I type "help", it displays a bunch of commands, but "rm" is not among them.
Other devices have, well, GUIs. If I want to record something using a tape deck, I look for a button named "record" (or a word that means the same in other language) or "rec" or with an icon that most likely represents recording (arrow pointing to a tape for example). I may have to press "play" at the same time I press record. I do not have to type "record" or "rec" or "r" or "tape.record.start" or something else and guess what could the command be.
I hate iTunes software because it does none of those music related things well, and it does them slowly.
A lot of those all-in-one software are slow, maybe because with so many functions there is less time to optimize each function. It is easier to optimize software with less functions.
The same can be said about devices - a device with many functions usually is worse at any of them than a single function device.
That's quite new. None of my mahines use DDR2 or newer RAM technology, only SDR (one server) and DDR1 (everything else).
Though the machines are a bit too old - my torrent server cannot fully utilize my 300mbps connection, so I have to use two machines for torrents. hard drives are also getting old (almost all IDE, some SCSI, a couple SATA) and only my main PC has dualcore CPUs, all others have single cores (but the torrent server has 3 of them and the router has 2, but faster).
I would find it surprising if that many "power users" were using hardware *that* old though.
Especially if they can't reinstall Windows, do not know anyone who can do it for them or do not think to ask.
The reason that software is bigger these days is that it does more for you.
It depends on whether I actually want that "more". For example, I use mpc-hc for playing music files because I only want a media player, not a media player+CD ripper+MP3 encoder+CD writer+music store+something else. So, for me, iTunes are bloated because the software has all those functions I do not usually need. When I need them, I can start another small program to do that function.
For the most part I agree with you, except that I also like GUI (a bit more than CLI), the reason being my bad memory. With CLI I need to remember the exact command to do something, or it won't work, added to that, different OSs (and different versions of OS) use some different commands and then I have to remember everything, which I can only do for commands that I use often. On the other hand, with a GUI, it is possible to figure out how to do something without remembering, RTFM or googling.
But yes, simplifying things too much reduces the efficiency, because then it becomes too dependent on thought patterns. Something may be obvious to me but hard to understand for you and vice versa. So, if the UI was designed with you in mind, it will be difficult to me, if it was designed with me in mind, it will be difficult to you and if it was designed by taking both of us into account then it will e slightly less difficult but for both of us.
Well, except that the new ISP will not route the packets that have IP from the failed ISP to me. NAT router can just change the source IP of the packets, decoupling the internal IP from the external ones. The ISP will most likely not even send out the packets with the wrong (not their) source IP.
As I remember I had problems running older games on 2000, but when I installed Whistler, they ran better, though not as good as on 98. Newgames ran OK on both 2k and XP.
For #1 people who still use XP never upgrade and therefore use IE.
Interesting. Though I told everybody (who I know) to not use IE for anything other than websites that require it. Some people are using IE as their primary browser but that is not the fault of the OS, as Microsoft even offers a choice window to choose another browser. Now, if the other browsers did not work on XP then it would be different.
OK, 7 supports GPU accelerated graphics (2D, that is, other than games). Other features of HTML5 look like they can be implemented on XP (maybe Firefox already supports them).
even with up to date Windows Updates it still has design flaws that make it insecure even if you use another browser.
Isn't 7 also vulnerable to zero-day exploits? I mean if only the hacker knows about the bug then he can exploit it. And 7 has bugs, otherwise it would not get new updates (since everything is fixed).
If you are refering to ram, keep in mind you are not seeing the whole the picture as Windows 7 will cache it.
Caching is good, but I have a win7 VM and it uses more RAM than XP, even if I consider cache as "empty". Also, on the same VM server, XP with 512MB RAM runs faster than 7 with 1GB.
7 uses ~400MB straight after boot (Total memory: 1024, available: 617, free 417), while XP uses only 123MB and that is with AV running.
At $15 per gig that is not a big deal anymore.
As my main PC uses registered ECC DDR1, the memory costs more. The point is that now with XP, 3.25GB is enough for me. The remaining ~700MB are not wort the very painful reinstalling, even if I installed 2003 (32/64bit) or XP 64 bit, not to mention 7 with its different UI (making the reinstall more painful, and for now the ClassicShell does not bring the Win2k UI completely back).
1) how? I am quite sure that there is no anti-html5 service running on XP and if Firefox, Opera or Chrome supports it and runs on XP then it can be used. 2) even if it does (though see #1 above), why is that so bad? Flash works. HTML5 will probably works as well (or use a few times more resources because it is more modern and it's not cool when a newer technology runs on older hardware, so you need to add more layers of abstraction and delay loops).
Time to move on seriously.
Why? What does 7 do that XP don't? Is the difference worth the price of 7? OK, I'll simplify that -let's say that I pirate Win7, is the difference worth me reinstalling Windows and having the computer not work correctly (because I forgot to install some app that I rarely use but now need to use) for a week? And no, additional ~700MB of RAM isn't worth it, since the 7 will most likely use them up anyway.
Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP?
on
10 Years of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1
Major banks run 40 year old software with IBM 360 emulators still.
And it's good that they use software that withstood the tests of time. Whatever new version they create will not be as proven reliable as this, well, without actually using it for 40 years. I doubt that the requirements change all that often or that the current software is no good just because it is old.
I think a bank should be able to make a decision that is more economical, so, most likely, running old software is better for them.
Though if the software was rewritten today, it would most likely require the fastest modern mainframe to do those functions that the old software did with an IBM 360.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to freedom of speech?
Go to Germany and wear a T-shirt with a swastika on it and you will find out.
Np, YOU explain to ALL OF US why it should be disallowed to print a simple FACT on anything.
OK. The only reason (that I can think of) to print "a simple FACT" that "everybody knows" on the label of a product (and word it like that product was medicine) is to confuse and mislead potential customers into thinking that the product is somehow special, even though the label does not say it explicitly. Or it could be even worse - trying to confuse people into thinking that this water was medicine.
Why else would the company go trough all the trouble of asking permission to print it?
Or OK, if you really think that some people may not know that "simple FACT" then you should also print another, less commonly known fact that "drinking too much water will kill you". You don't see this warning on bottled water, I wonder why...
It's stupid to assume anyone still living does not know about what liquids do when you drink them.
Then explain me the reason why would the statement in question be printed on the label of a bottle of water? After all, paint (or whatever they use for printing labels) costs money, even though the cost of that one sentence is really small (but adds up over millions of bottles), why would the company choose to reduce its profit by printing it? If it did not print the statement, the label size could be reduced, saving more money.
And you read the statement as it it was programming code.
Yes, water (and other fluids that include water) prevents dehydration. Yes, everybody knows it. Then why print it (after all, there is no label that states "this bottle of water does not contain potassium cyanide" even though it is almost certainly true)? Should the companies that produce soft drinks also print it (because, well, Pepsi also prevents dehydration). Most likely reason for the companies wanting to print this statement is to confuse people into thinking that the bottled water is somehow better at preventing dehydration. That's why it should not be printed.
Russia did turn off gas for the EU when there was some problem with Ukraine (and the pipe goes trough it).
Also, while you can store oil or gas so it lasts you a couple of months or more, it would be impossible to store that much electricity. Also, the power cables would make a good target for terrorists - it's difficult to guard the entire cable and you don't need to go to a foreign country to hurt it. On the other hand, guarding a power plant is easier and the terrorist would have to get into the country to bomb the power plant.
If your suggestion was already in place, do you think Gaddafi (or his supporters, even after the revolution) would have refrained from bombing the cables out of spite when the other countries decided to help the people?
1% of North African desert could power the entire EU.
Until the people living in the African countries between the desert and the EU start shooting at each other (like they did this year) and hit a power cable.
A hydro dam that breaks will NOT cause the water to shoot up stream. Sure it sucks for the people down stream and there might be a lot of people downstream but the risk is calculable and limited.
Maybe it is possible to round up the people that survived and make them clean up the contaminated land until they die. Then the count of dead would be similar to a dam failure but some of the precious land would be recovered.
Contaminated land can still be useful, say, for storing nuclear waste.
As for the back yard - my back yard is too small for a big power plant, but I would gladly take a 10kW (I don't really need more) reactor (or coal power plant, I do not care) if it meant that I would have to pay less for electricity.
I do. PS/2 is OK for keyboard and mouse, also PS/2+VGA KVM switches are much cheaper than USB ones and there is not much point in using USB for keyboard and mouse.
like balding tires
I can visually inspect the tires quite easily, also I usually replace the tires twice a year and the guys who do the replacing would tell me if the tires are no good. I most likely will not see a tiny hole in a battery.
brake fluid leakage
That is more dangerous, but the brakes get used quite a lot, so I would most likely notice failed brakes before I get into an accident. Though I had one brake failure - one brake disc in my car broke, that was unexpected and I almost crashed into another car.
corroding wiring
That won't cause any big problems. Depending on the wires that corroded, I would not have lights (not that big a problem, a lost turning signal wire will be noticeable (the blinker relay switches twice as fast), lost headlight(s) will be noticeable at night), wipers (very noticeable), alternator (at worst I will have a discharged battery, also it can be noticeable), or the engine just won't work or work badly (bad ignition wires, spark plug wires, fuel valve wires). Oh, or I could also lose the fuel or the engine temperature gauge, which is not that big a problem and also noticeable.
Unless the wires corrode in such a way that they create a short circuit, but in that case the fuse will melt and protect the car.
Under current bios and power management regimes you are forced to either unplug the drive you don't want to use manually and switch the physical cables or having one of the drives idle and using power while dealing with manual ini/config tweaking (in Windows XP i.e. multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINDOWS=1).
In my experience, if I leave the boot.ini line as
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional"
Windows will bot from the drive with that boot.ini file no matter where it is connected. Move the drive from the IDE port on the motherboard to a PCI IDE controller - works, if I set it up so that the the BIOS now reads MBR from the drive connected to the PCI IDE controller. Copy the contents of the drive to a SCSI drive - works, if the system can be set up to read the MBR from that SCSI drive.
So, I guess that for Windows, the drive from which BIOS reads the MBR is the "multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)" drive.
It is even easier with modern BIOSs where I can choose which drive to use as a boot drive instead of selecting "SCSI/other" and adding the PCI controller cards in order so that the card with the boot drive connected got initialized first, then making sure that the card BIOS selected the right drive as a boot drive.
I do not really care who writes the drivers, as long as the drivers work.
For example, I tried everything I could think of to make Canon iR1022A scan from Linux. No official drivers (official drivers only for printing). Zero SANE support. Wine did not work too. ReactOS on VirtualBox also did not work.
Depends on how the law is written. It could make provisions for backup, something like "if a user deletes some data, you have to delete the online copy and remove any access. Backups, created prior to the deletion, can still contain the data, but it cannot be shared with anyone (for uses other than restoring your own online copy from backup) and in case you restore from that backup, the deleted data should be deleted from the online storage".
And this is why GUI is better - no need to RTFM to do basic functions.
I do not know how much resources would css based windowing system use, but if it used about the same as the current windowing system then it would be better. The normal user could leave the settings as is, while I culd make the OS look like Windows 3.11 or XP if I wanted. Hey, somebody would probably create "skins" to make the OS look like other OSs and most likely even some normal users would like the option of making Linux look like Windows because that's what they are used to.
I disable the animations in Windows XP (I don't use 7, but if I did, I would make the UI look like 2k), because to me this feels faster. For example, I click the minimize button and the window immediately disappears. With animation, the minimize function takes feels longer because the animation takes some time.
CLI has one big disadvantage - it is very difficult to figure out how to do something if you do not know it already (and do not or can not google it). To add to that, different systems use different commands for the same thing.
So, let's say I am a MSDOS user who installed Linux and want to do something. Ok, so I get the directory listing with "dir", though it does not display how much free space is left and want to delete a file. I type "del somefile" and bash does not recognize the command. So, what other command could there be for deleting a file. It turns out to be "rm", short for "remove", but the long version does not work and how am I supposed to know that the short version is "rm" and not, say, "rem"?
On the other hand, if this was a GUI and had a menu, then I would figure out that "rm" is probably short for "remove" and this is the equivalent of "delete".
Even if I type "help", it displays a bunch of commands, but "rm" is not among them.
Other devices have, well, GUIs. If I want to record something using a tape deck, I look for a button named "record" (or a word that means the same in other language) or "rec" or with an icon that most likely represents recording (arrow pointing to a tape for example). I may have to press "play" at the same time I press record. I do not have to type "record" or "rec" or "r" or "tape.record.start" or something else and guess what could the command be.
I hate iTunes software because it does none of those music related things well, and it does them slowly.
A lot of those all-in-one software are slow, maybe because with so many functions there is less time to optimize each function. It is easier to optimize software with less functions.
The same can be said about devices - a device with many functions usually is worse at any of them than a single function device.
The quote should have been different -
"Normal users usually are at the mercy of the dominant vendors and have to pay and pay and pay."
That's quite new. None of my mahines use DDR2 or newer RAM technology, only SDR (one server) and DDR1 (everything else).
Though the machines are a bit too old - my torrent server cannot fully utilize my 300mbps connection, so I have to use two machines for torrents. hard drives are also getting old (almost all IDE, some SCSI, a couple SATA) and only my main PC has dualcore CPUs, all others have single cores (but the torrent server has 3 of them and the router has 2, but faster).
I would find it surprising if that many "power users" were using hardware *that* old though.
Especially if they can't reinstall Windows, do not know anyone who can do it for them or do not think to ask.
The reason that software is bigger these days is that it does more for you.
It depends on whether I actually want that "more". For example, I use mpc-hc for playing music files because I only want a media player, not a media player+CD ripper+MP3 encoder+CD writer+music store+something else. So, for me, iTunes are bloated because the software has all those functions I do not usually need. When I need them, I can start another small program to do that function.
For the most part I agree with you, except that I also like GUI (a bit more than CLI), the reason being my bad memory. With CLI I need to remember the exact command to do something, or it won't work, added to that, different OSs (and different versions of OS) use some different commands and then I have to remember everything, which I can only do for commands that I use often. On the other hand, with a GUI, it is possible to figure out how to do something without remembering, RTFM or googling.
But yes, simplifying things too much reduces the efficiency, because then it becomes too dependent on thought patterns. Something may be obvious to me but hard to understand for you and vice versa. So, if the UI was designed with you in mind, it will be difficult to me, if it was designed with me in mind, it will be difficult to you and if it was designed by taking both of us into account then it will e slightly less difficult but for both of us.
Well, except that the new ISP will not route the packets that have IP from the failed ISP to me. NAT router can just change the source IP of the packets, decoupling the internal IP from the external ones. The ISP will most likely not even send out the packets with the wrong (not their) source IP.
As I remember I had problems running older games on 2000, but when I installed Whistler, they ran better, though not as good as on 98. Newgames ran OK on both 2k and XP.
For #1 people who still use XP never upgrade and therefore use IE.
Interesting. Though I told everybody (who I know) to not use IE for anything other than websites that require it. Some people are using IE as their primary browser but that is not the fault of the OS, as Microsoft even offers a choice window to choose another browser. Now, if the other browsers did not work on XP then it would be different.
OK, 7 supports GPU accelerated graphics (2D, that is, other than games). Other features of HTML5 look like they can be implemented on XP (maybe Firefox already supports them).
even with up to date Windows Updates it still has design flaws that make it insecure even if you use another browser.
Isn't 7 also vulnerable to zero-day exploits? I mean if only the hacker knows about the bug then he can exploit it. And 7 has bugs, otherwise it would not get new updates (since everything is fixed).
If you are refering to ram, keep in mind you are not seeing the whole the picture as Windows 7 will cache it.
Caching is good, but I have a win7 VM and it uses more RAM than XP, even if I consider cache as "empty". Also, on the same VM server, XP with 512MB RAM runs faster than 7 with 1GB.
7 uses ~400MB straight after boot (Total memory: 1024, available: 617, free 417), while XP uses only 123MB and that is with AV running.
At $15 per gig that is not a big deal anymore.
As my main PC uses registered ECC DDR1, the memory costs more. The point is that now with XP, 3.25GB is enough for me. The remaining ~700MB are not wort the very painful reinstalling, even if I installed 2003 (32/64bit) or XP 64 bit, not to mention 7 with its different UI (making the reinstall more painful, and for now the ClassicShell does not bring the Win2k UI completely back).
XP is keeping flash alive and HTML 5 out.
1) how? I am quite sure that there is no anti-html5 service running on XP and if Firefox, Opera or Chrome supports it and runs on XP then it can be used.
2) even if it does (though see #1 above), why is that so bad? Flash works. HTML5 will probably works as well (or use a few times more resources because it is more modern and it's not cool when a newer technology runs on older hardware, so you need to add more layers of abstraction and delay loops).
Time to move on seriously.
Why? What does 7 do that XP don't? Is the difference worth the price of 7? OK, I'll simplify that -let's say that I pirate Win7, is the difference worth me reinstalling Windows and having the computer not work correctly (because I forgot to install some app that I rarely use but now need to use) for a week? And no, additional ~700MB of RAM isn't worth it, since the 7 will most likely use them up anyway.
Major banks run 40 year old software with IBM 360 emulators still.
And it's good that they use software that withstood the tests of time. Whatever new version they create will not be as proven reliable as this, well, without actually using it for 40 years. I doubt that the requirements change all that often or that the current software is no good just because it is old.
I think a bank should be able to make a decision that is more economical, so, most likely, running old software is better for them.
Though if the software was rewritten today, it would most likely require the fastest modern mainframe to do those functions that the old software did with an IBM 360.