I don't know about you unfortunately, but I expect to be able to have chemists tell me more about chemistry than a behavioural psychologist can - not everything in science is equal. An economist for instance may consider themselves a scientist.
I am curious what degree you think the climate "scientists" have, and how it applies to what they are doing (statistics.)
What's missing out of your type of evangelism, as much as an open source advocate's evangelism is that software is a tool.
Note to self: Linux zealots imagine evangelism whenever someone questions the logic of choosing something other than Linux from a strictly rational cost/benefit point of view.
If I choose Linux, I spend hours searching for properly supported hardware whenever I want to upgrade or add anything. If I choose Linux, I deal with limited choices in software which often forces more work on me. My time is worth $25 per hour. The cost of OEM Win7 isn't anything at all in comparison to the amount of time I will have to waste running Linux as a desktop OS.
Yes, well I am not arguing against H.264. I am actually an ardent supporter of the format (with or without patents) precisely because it is already widely adopted. I am ashamed of my browser maker (Opera) for not supporting it.
Most of the readers on slashdot already have an H.264 license. Win7? Vista? OS/X? Flash? Silverlight? iPhone? Chrome? Safari? Its hard to imagine that very many people go without these days.
Sure, the 100% FOSS crowd is an edge case of people that go without, but they are for lack of a better term just a vocal minority and the vast majority of them know where to get "illegal in their region" H.264 codecs.
But back on topic: Google doesnt give a rats ass about undermining the proprietary. Its not a rational business strategy, so its not a rational google strategy.
No. It's due to the fact that software purchases trap you. What you bought yesterday determine what you can buy
today unless you are willing to suffer an extremely large migration burden.
I like how you slipped in the "purchases" and "bought", as if free software doesnt have this same effect.
To rephrase your bias into something rational:
It's due to the fact that software traps you. What you used yesterday determines what you can use today unless you are willing to suffer migration pains.
In the end, Linux is not free. Its certainly free as in not spending a dime, but even if I were to wholly embrace Linux and accept the lock-in, the damn thing just isnt as user friendly and the software ecosystem is a lot smaller. The Win7 OEM costs about $100. I make $25 per hour. Over the typical 3 to 4 year lifespan of my main desktop, I will certainly save myself at least 4 hours of my time by choosing Win7.
for all the anxiety about google's increasing power, as long google does something like this: actively undermine and destroy a closed format in favor of an open one
You mean like how Google actively undermines H.264?
Yes. I am very impressed that they are actively undermining H.264.
Definitely it can be said that Google actively undermines H.264.
You seem to be confusing "web design" with "website creation".
You seem to be confusing "more effort" with "dumbing down." Hitting the most eyes possible DOES require more effort than being a lazy shit crying about web standards.
The question was rhetorical. The correct answer is 'no.' Any other answer is bullshit, for why stop at classifying at netbooks? The same logic you use to promote mobile phones to netbook status also promotes them to desktop status because it can do browsing and email, just like a desktop!
The logic is straw grasping nonsense. Mobile Phones are not netbooks and neither is the iPad. The iPad is a TABLET.
The people that are worrying about the write limit on SSD's are bad at math. Assuming a 100MB/sec constant write speed (I choose this because thats about the best you get from a standard hard drive) it would take nearly a year (289 days) to wear out the write limit (10000+ cycles) of one of the larger SSD's (512GB) on the market right now.
In other words, the SSD could be written to full blast for nearly a year before it couldnt be written to any more. Try writing to a standard rotating HD full blast for a year and see how long it lasts.
For most people, 1GB/day would be on the very high end of drive writes.. and thats being completely careless (oblivious?) about the fact that its an SSD with limited write cycles. Even a small SSD (64GB) could last 640000 days at 1GB writing per day.
Never-the-less they do have the right to disallow the taking of photographs in their establishment, just as the local theater has the right to disallow the bringing of your own food and beverages.
If you are buying a brand new copy of the OS... then why would you buy an old version that is out of support, or about to be out of support?
The main reason that people are forced to buy new versions at all is because they are under an OEM license and can not (or at least should not) use their old copy.
For the record I think the OEM license is the way to go for most people, even if they build their systems themselves. You save about 50% of the cost with the OEM license and normally the system lasts long enough to justify having to purchase a new license with a new system. When saving 50%, you can get two OEM licenses for the same price as one that migrates.
One of the things that both of these search engines do is group some similar results into a category, but they arent using any automation to dynamically create categories. For example, both will group some videos together, and some images together:
But they arent grouping forums together, published paper archives together, patent archives together, or any of the other classes of sites where you will get dozens of hits all with the exact same or very highly similar (copied) content.
Now, they could manually start grouping these things up, but that isnt the real solution. The solution is to recognize highly correlated sites and group them.
Then no, you didn't. You said you did, but obviously you didn't. The only slightly similar thing is that in google earth when a user clicks on a link, it will zoom into a position where the image perfectly aligns (if the person who authored the link successfully made it align.) Thats in contrast to what Microsoft is doing where no matter what orientation the user has put himself, the image will be morphed to align, and that no link authoring is necessary at all (nor any tedious positioning, by definition)
You mean that irrelevant eye candy effect that google earth had since it was first released?
Google Earth does not do this with the overlayed images. To get the overlayed images, you must click on a link to them and then the camera is moved to a specific position for viewing. Essentially, this google earth feature is stupidly not useful at all and has simply been hacked into their earth client with the absolute bare minimum of effort.
It makes me wonder if you are aware of the tools which have been available for, say, the past 5 years.
I do not wonder weather or not you viewed the demonstration video. I know you didn't. You couldn't have without being so retarded about whats in it.
You seem to be suggesting that atapi.sys was updated. Got any proof of that?
You seem to be using the same failed logic as other people, that a file modification exists after it has been over-written. No, it actually doesn't. There are no ghostly modified bits that linger around. Clearly this file is doing something it shouldn't, which by definition means that it didnt get replaced in the update.
If you arent a programmer or some shit, dont offer your opinion, because right now its terribly stupid.
Well I know for sure that a certain clique of assembly language programmers liked to discuss ways of avoiding import tables and the like, and that when vista came on the scene with users defaulting to non-admin, they ran into a wall where they could no longer make direct calls into other processes that they liked (they were calling another processes kernel32.dll reference, specifically its LoadLibrary() function)
Discussion along these lines was eventually banned from several assembly language forums. That clique of people was, it was believed, almost certainly up to no good.
Sorry, how is that a scam? Because the OEM's dont provide a CD, (or non destructive CD, as the case may be)?
With the OEM license it is specifically the OEM's responsibility to provide tech support. Not Microsoft. If they didnt provide the Install CD, then it is the OEM and not Microsoft which is doing something akin to scamming (obviously they want future support money, or are making money on the payload included with the recovery partition/cd)
When a tech at the local computer shop installs a pirated copy of the OS, that is itself also a scam. They just violated the law for personal profit.
..and that means what, exactly? That because you failed to make it only 64K (like everyone else in the scene) that you are somehow closer to a game developer than a decent demo writer?
The GP is spot on about OpenGL's problems. They caved in to interests that weren't game related, making OpenGL far less of a game rendering API than it could have been. This is admitted to by the OpenGL boys themselves, so its in other words a fact.
But honestly, the game industry doesnt give a shit about OpenGL or DirectX. The game industry licenses game engines because they really really really dont want to deal with either of them. So the question really is: How many game engine solutions are there that (A) support BOTH linux and windows, (B) support the latest features of video cards, and (C) is free?
None? Yeah. Thats right. None.
Because of (C) you dont get very many FOSS games at all (for any platform), and the only thing that will change that is a modernized FOSS game engine.
Discounting (C), when a developer actually has to pay for the game engine.. the last thing on his mind is supporting Linux. He wants the best of the best for the target audience, which is Windows or one of the consoles. Linux is barely a market and until that changes.. this is the reality.
Even if the file was modified, over-writing it with a valid one will not cause a problem under normal operation.
When the file is over-written, those modifications that you are thinking of are gone. The modifications can't come back from the grave as ghosts and cause a problem.
The only way there can be a problem is if 'something else' is making an assumption about that file incorrectly, and that does not mean that the assumption is that the file has been modified. More likely the assumption that it will NEVER be modified, which leads to the likely conclusion that it was in fact never modified. The file was exactly as expected by the updater and no matter how many times or ways you run a hash on it, equal is equal.
Does the Windows update process, in fact, just naively apply patches to files that have the correct name and path, without verifying hashes or signatures, thus running a very high risk of breaking hard any file that had been slightly modified?
You didn't seem to comprehend what was written.
The idea is not that the library which was patched was previously modified, but that another rogue process was making an inter-process call by reference to one of its procedures. A rogue process would do this if it doesnt want to have a normal reference to the library (possibly to avoid detection.. aka rootkit), instead relying on the fact that this library is always loaded (by something specific.)
The rogue would need to be ring0 to make such an inter-process direct call, and would need to be ring0 to exhibit such a blue screen as well. The rogue authors were apparently lazy and didn't derive the relative address of the procedure at runtime, instead using just hardcoded an offset.
Even if your theory that the library was previously modified were true, all trace of that modification would be removed when its replaced. Your logic just doesnt fit the reality of how things work. Code that used to be there but isnt now can't cause a blue-screen, since it no longer exists. Apparently you are not a (at least decent) programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because simple graphs are science. With this one we conclude that pirates cause global warming.
I don't know about you unfortunately, but I expect to be able to have chemists tell me more about chemistry than a behavioural psychologist can - not everything in science is equal. An economist for instance may consider themselves a scientist.
I am curious what degree you think the climate "scientists" have, and how it applies to what they are doing (statistics.)
What's missing out of your type of evangelism, as much as an open source advocate's evangelism is that software is a tool.
Note to self: Linux zealots imagine evangelism whenever someone questions the logic of choosing something other than Linux from a strictly rational cost/benefit point of view.
If I choose Linux, I spend hours searching for properly supported hardware whenever I want to upgrade or add anything. If I choose Linux, I deal with limited choices in software which often forces more work on me. My time is worth $25 per hour. The cost of OEM Win7 isn't anything at all in comparison to the amount of time I will have to waste running Linux as a desktop OS.
Yes, well I am not arguing against H.264. I am actually an ardent supporter of the format (with or without patents) precisely because it is already widely adopted. I am ashamed of my browser maker (Opera) for not supporting it.
Most of the readers on slashdot already have an H.264 license. Win7? Vista? OS/X? Flash? Silverlight? iPhone? Chrome? Safari? Its hard to imagine that very many people go without these days.
Sure, the 100% FOSS crowd is an edge case of people that go without, but they are for lack of a better term just a vocal minority and the vast majority of them know where to get "illegal in their region" H.264 codecs.
But back on topic: Google doesnt give a rats ass about undermining the proprietary. Its not a rational business strategy, so its not a rational google strategy.
No. It's due to the fact that software purchases trap you. What you bought yesterday determine what you can buy today unless you are willing to suffer an extremely large migration burden.
I like how you slipped in the "purchases" and "bought", as if free software doesnt have this same effect.
To rephrase your bias into something rational:
It's due to the fact that software traps you. What you used yesterday determines what you can use today unless you are willing to suffer migration pains.
In the end, Linux is not free. Its certainly free as in not spending a dime, but even if I were to wholly embrace Linux and accept the lock-in, the damn thing just isnt as user friendly and the software ecosystem is a lot smaller. The Win7 OEM costs about $100. I make $25 per hour. Over the typical 3 to 4 year lifespan of my main desktop, I will certainly save myself at least 4 hours of my time by choosing Win7.
for all the anxiety about google's increasing power, as long google does something like this: actively undermine and destroy a closed format in favor of an open one
You mean like how Google actively undermines H.264?
Yes. I am very impressed that they are actively undermining H.264.
Definitely it can be said that Google actively undermines H.264.
You seem to be confusing "web design" with "website creation".
You seem to be confusing "more effort" with "dumbing down." Hitting the most eyes possible DOES require more effort than being a lazy shit crying about web standards.
At least you're not *killing* your customers.
I'm sure plenty of people have committed suicide while on hold with comcast support.
Yes
The question was rhetorical. The correct answer is 'no.' Any other answer is bullshit, for why stop at classifying at netbooks? The same logic you use to promote mobile phones to netbook status also promotes them to desktop status because it can do browsing and email, just like a desktop!
The logic is straw grasping nonsense. Mobile Phones are not netbooks and neither is the iPad. The iPad is a TABLET.
This.
Really.
The people that are worrying about the write limit on SSD's are bad at math. Assuming a 100MB/sec constant write speed (I choose this because thats about the best you get from a standard hard drive) it would take nearly a year (289 days) to wear out the write limit (10000+ cycles) of one of the larger SSD's (512GB) on the market right now.
In other words, the SSD could be written to full blast for nearly a year before it couldnt be written to any more. Try writing to a standard rotating HD full blast for a year and see how long it lasts.
For most people, 1GB/day would be on the very high end of drive writes.. and thats being completely careless (oblivious?) about the fact that its an SSD with limited write cycles. Even a small SSD (64GB) could last 640000 days at 1GB writing per day.
So all semi-modern mobile phones are netbooks?
There are two valid solutions to the classic problem of accidentally mixing imperial and metric.
One solution is to use only metric.
The other solution is to use only imperial.
I blame the rest of the world for trying to force their system of measurement upon us.
Patches are necessary no matter what road you take. This is of course the support I was referring to. Good luck getting new patches for Windows 98.
The real question is, what if he posts these facts from the UK but they are hosted in Australia?
Never-the-less they do have the right to disallow the taking of photographs in their establishment, just as the local theater has the right to disallow the bringing of your own food and beverages.
If you are buying a brand new copy of the OS... then why would you buy an old version that is out of support, or about to be out of support?
The main reason that people are forced to buy new versions at all is because they are under an OEM license and can not (or at least should not) use their old copy.
For the record I think the OEM license is the way to go for most people, even if they build their systems themselves. You save about 50% of the cost with the OEM license and normally the system lasts long enough to justify having to purchase a new license with a new system. When saving 50%, you can get two OEM licenses for the same price as one that migrates.
100% agree.
One of the things that both of these search engines do is group some similar results into a category, but they arent using any automation to dynamically create categories. For example, both will group some videos together, and some images together:
Moon Landing
Moon Landing
But they arent grouping forums together, published paper archives together, patent archives together, or any of the other classes of sites where you will get dozens of hits all with the exact same or very highly similar (copied) content.
Now, they could manually start grouping these things up, but that isnt the real solution. The solution is to recognize highly correlated sites and group them.
Yes, I did.
...
You mean like this?
Then no, you didn't. You said you did, but obviously you didn't. The only slightly similar thing is that in google earth when a user clicks on a link, it will zoom into a position where the image perfectly aligns (if the person who authored the link successfully made it align.) Thats in contrast to what Microsoft is doing where no matter what orientation the user has put himself, the image will be morphed to align, and that no link authoring is necessary at all (nor any tedious positioning, by definition)
You mean that irrelevant eye candy effect that google earth had since it was first released?
Google Earth does not do this with the overlayed images. To get the overlayed images, you must click on a link to them and then the camera is moved to a specific position for viewing. Essentially, this google earth feature is stupidly not useful at all and has simply been hacked into their earth client with the absolute bare minimum of effort.
It makes me wonder if you are aware of the tools which have been available for, say, the past 5 years.
I do not wonder weather or not you viewed the demonstration video. I know you didn't. You couldn't have without being so retarded about whats in it.
You seem to be suggesting that atapi.sys was updated. Got any proof of that?
You seem to be using the same failed logic as other people, that a file modification exists after it has been over-written. No, it actually doesn't. There are no ghostly modified bits that linger around. Clearly this file is doing something it shouldn't, which by definition means that it didnt get replaced in the update.
If you arent a programmer or some shit, dont offer your opinion, because right now its terribly stupid.
Well I know for sure that a certain clique of assembly language programmers liked to discuss ways of avoiding import tables and the like, and that when vista came on the scene with users defaulting to non-admin, they ran into a wall where they could no longer make direct calls into other processes that they liked (they were calling another processes kernel32.dll reference, specifically its LoadLibrary() function)
Discussion along these lines was eventually banned from several assembly language forums. That clique of people was, it was believed, almost certainly up to no good.
Sorry, how is that a scam? Because the OEM's dont provide a CD, (or non destructive CD, as the case may be)?
With the OEM license it is specifically the OEM's responsibility to provide tech support. Not Microsoft. If they didnt provide the Install CD, then it is the OEM and not Microsoft which is doing something akin to scamming (obviously they want future support money, or are making money on the payload included with the recovery partition/cd)
When a tech at the local computer shop installs a pirated copy of the OS, that is itself also a scam. They just violated the law for personal profit.
..and that means what, exactly? That because you failed to make it only 64K (like everyone else in the scene) that you are somehow closer to a game developer than a decent demo writer?
The GP is spot on about OpenGL's problems. They caved in to interests that weren't game related, making OpenGL far less of a game rendering API than it could have been. This is admitted to by the OpenGL boys themselves, so its in other words a fact.
But honestly, the game industry doesnt give a shit about OpenGL or DirectX. The game industry licenses game engines because they really really really dont want to deal with either of them. So the question really is: How many game engine solutions are there that (A) support BOTH linux and windows, (B) support the latest features of video cards, and (C) is free?
None? Yeah. Thats right. None.
Because of (C) you dont get very many FOSS games at all (for any platform), and the only thing that will change that is a modernized FOSS game engine.
Discounting (C), when a developer actually has to pay for the game engine.. the last thing on his mind is supporting Linux. He wants the best of the best for the target audience, which is Windows or one of the consoles. Linux is barely a market and until that changes.. this is the reality.
The shareholders.
In your fantasy world, microsoft is pure evil. In the real world, its a corporation.
This doesnt make sense.
Even if the file was modified, over-writing it with a valid one will not cause a problem under normal operation.
When the file is over-written, those modifications that you are thinking of are gone. The modifications can't come back from the grave as ghosts and cause a problem.
The only way there can be a problem is if 'something else' is making an assumption about that file incorrectly, and that does not mean that the assumption is that the file has been modified. More likely the assumption that it will NEVER be modified, which leads to the likely conclusion that it was in fact never modified. The file was exactly as expected by the updater and no matter how many times or ways you run a hash on it, equal is equal.
Does the Windows update process, in fact, just naively apply patches to files that have the correct name and path, without verifying hashes or signatures, thus running a very high risk of breaking hard any file that had been slightly modified?
You didn't seem to comprehend what was written.
The idea is not that the library which was patched was previously modified, but that another rogue process was making an inter-process call by reference to one of its procedures. A rogue process would do this if it doesnt want to have a normal reference to the library (possibly to avoid detection.. aka rootkit), instead relying on the fact that this library is always loaded (by something specific.)
The rogue would need to be ring0 to make such an inter-process direct call, and would need to be ring0 to exhibit such a blue screen as well. The rogue authors were apparently lazy and didn't derive the relative address of the procedure at runtime, instead using just hardcoded an offset.
Even if your theory that the library was previously modified were true, all trace of that modification would be removed when its replaced. Your logic just doesnt fit the reality of how things work. Code that used to be there but isnt now can't cause a blue-screen, since it no longer exists. Apparently you are not a (at least decent) programmer.