I still havent picked up Win7 yet, but it seems to me that the keyspace is probably unimaginably large. The idea that a keygen "will" come out with your key doesnt seem at all reasonable if the keys are 128-bit or larger, even after trillions upon trillions of keys generated (and then used, a requirement of you experiencing problems.)
It would be far more likely that you (or Microsofts servers) get hacked and your key gets out that way. Maybe man-in-the-middle might work too. After all, this is Windows.
The fact that you have had this problem more than once tells me that you are a willy-nilly file deleter, and it is likely that you will have the same sort of problems with other operating systems if you continue to be a willy-nilly file deleter.
I dont know why it dropped files essential to uninstallation on your desktop, and its hard to believe that the installer was coded specifically to do that. Did you tell it to install directly to your desktop? If so, don't do that. Really.
It should be noted that the definition of Heavy Metal has changed over the years. Back in the mid 70's, bands like Zeppelin were considered heavy metal but by the mid-80's bands like Iron Maiden were considered heavy metal. Neither would be considered heavy Metal by the mid 90's and today they are relegated to merely Classic Rock or Hard Rock.
Take a sheet of paper with printing on it and place it in front of one of your eyes at normal glasses-distance.
If you are 30+ years old the odds are very good that you cant focus on the print at all, even if you do not need to wear glasses.
So the solution is some sort of individually-tailored-to-the-person glasses to aid in viewing the hypothetical goggles of yours. Compared with the mass production of one-size-fits-all shutter glasses or polarized lenses, its no contest.
I predict that most 3D systems will be the polarized variety, not just because the glasses are really really inexpensive compared to shutters, but also because its not terribly difficult to manufacture displays that have alternating vertical-stripe or checker-board polarization.
You keep stating these things as fact, but aren't you really just trolling?
Nope.
I can't find any reference to "the apple chip", or any kind of boot time hardware verification scheme in OSX at all.
Really? You can't find anything at all? Even though there have been years of articles on slashdot about the hacks required to bypass their verification? You didn't hear about the downfall of a company which had to sell hacked versions of OS/X to get OS/X to run on non-apple hardware? You didn't hear that this hacking was one of the key things that the courts lambasted the company on? Really? You can't find anything about this, at all? Really?
You're missing the forest for the trees. Mac OS never asks for validation at any stage of installation besides every time it verifies that you've got 100% Apple Certified Hardware. Just put your disc in, install, and every time you reboot it will verify that you have apple certified hardware.
But I thought we were talking about an operating system for a general-purpose computer. Contrasting Mac OS X with any post- W2K Microsoft OS:
- I've never had to enter an 'activation' key to install it.
- I've never had to worry if it's going to turn on me and accuse me of using a 'counterfeit' version of it.
- I've never had to call Apple and ask, "Pretty please, is it okay to have my computer back?"
Your activation key is the hardware itself. People complain that they have to reactivate windows when they swap out the motherboard in their desktop. Try that with a Mac. Go on. Replace the motherboard. You are an Apple certified repairman with access to Apple certified hardware, right? Fail on both counts? Yeah.
If Microsoft required you to have a Dongle instead of an activation key, you would be crying like a fucking baby about it. But there it is.. Apple requires you to do exactly what you would cry about with any other company.
Why are they working so hard to make their world more painful for themselves and their users?
Because they think that they are clever. This is a social phenomenon. Web developers say in public how messed up IE6 is and how it restricts their cleverness, and other web developers hear the complaints and agree. They could be so much more clever if they could just ignore IE6. Users who run IE6 must be too stupid to realize how clever these web developers could be if only they would stop running it.
Before you know it they all have forgotten what their job is, which is to orchestrate the delivery of content to eyeballs.
Sometimes the product is a thing. Sometimes a product is eyeballs. For a web developer who is marketing his services, the only product he actually has to offer is eyeballs. The web developer who is marketing his services is charging money for the eyeballs that he will deliver.
You are going on and on about what the client of said web developer should do to make the web developers life easier. Thats not how it works, failboy.
Sometimes a clients can orchestrate a situation where he only needs specific eyeballs. This is most common in situations where the client pays for BOTH the web development AND those eyeballs, pages on the corporate intranet, because they save money that way. Even in your crazy dream world where clients were somehow forced to orchestrate FF3.5 eyeballs, about 10 years from now the web developers would be in the same boat as today: The client needs specific eyeballs that are far away from current web standards.
If you are a web developer, then I declare you a moron for not knowong what the hell your product really is. You are not selling chunks of HTML. You are not selling chunks of CSS. You are not selling chunks of javascript, ajax, or flash. You are selling eyeballs. It is YOUR failure if you cannot or will not deliver the eyeballs that the client wants. It is not the clients failure.
A simple way to visualize the complete stupidity of your argument is to imagine a client using a completely proprietary system not based on HTML, CSS, or any of the other WEB buzzwords. Would you, the developer looking for money, demand that the people with the money switch to HTML? IE6 is right now is the most common proprietary system out there, but it is no different than any other proprietary system, and the latest greatest web browsers will be considered just as "broken" a decade from now.
When it is observed that these professional developers that work for Mozilla have basically told a whole bunch of people to fuck off, waving the your hands screaming "but its open source" does not negate the criticism.
The real question is, how many 10.4 users had donated to Mozilla prior to them being told to fuck off.
Firstly, all browsers can be designed to use whatever codec the user can supply. This would include H.264.
Secondly, many embedded devices have H.264 and other decoding capability, but not Theora. This prevents some of those existing devices from ever decoding Theora.
So your statement that the only video codec that every browser can use is Theora just doesnt wash.
This, my friend, is coming to you live from an Opera user.. a browser that does not support H.264 playback. The makers of my browser are as dumb as the makers of your browser. Since when did it become OK for the browser makers to dictate these things?
Let the users decide in cases where they can (I have the codec already.. it came with the OS), and let vendors decide in cases where they must make their own choices.
This is similar to Firefox or Opera saying that they wont support Flash or Silverlight. Both are proprietary as fuck, but there they are launching and interacting with the binary when Flash content is on the page. Whats different? Did the Mozilla boys suddenly find morals? Really? I would hazard a guess that something else besides morals is behind their refusal to make the obvious choices that would enable them to play video encoded with any arbitrary codec at no cost to them.
The only formats that will succeed in the long term on the web are open formats.
H.264 can not only be described as having succeeded, it in fact has won vs all the alternatives. It is hands-down the clear winner. If this was the Olympics it would not only take the gold, but the silver and bronze too.
The only reason Theora is even a consideration is because its "open." On a merits standpoint, its not even in the running.
What Google did was wrong, yes...but there is still money to be made (not to mention the public gaining even more access to information.)
Here's an idea. Why doesnt Google make me an offer, either a blanket opt-in or personally to me, and then I can accept or reject said offer.
This doesnt require changing any laws. If there is money to be made, then surely they can make an offer that will be beneficial to both of us.
If Google was so concerned with preserving older works that arent being published, there would be an ad on all their services saying "Are you an author? Google would like to publish your old works. Click here to see our offer"
But no.. thats exactly not what Google has done.. instead they started copying every book that they could get their hands on with complete disregard for anyones rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I still havent picked up Win7 yet, but it seems to me that the keyspace is probably unimaginably large. The idea that a keygen "will" come out with your key doesnt seem at all reasonable if the keys are 128-bit or larger, even after trillions upon trillions of keys generated (and then used, a requirement of you experiencing problems.)
It would be far more likely that you (or Microsofts servers) get hacked and your key gets out that way. Maybe man-in-the-middle might work too. After all, this is Windows.
The fact that you have had this problem more than once tells me that you are a willy-nilly file deleter, and it is likely that you will have the same sort of problems with other operating systems if you continue to be a willy-nilly file deleter.
I dont know why it dropped files essential to uninstallation on your desktop, and its hard to believe that the installer was coded specifically to do that. Did you tell it to install directly to your desktop? If so, don't do that. Really.
Just say'n.
It should be noted that the definition of Heavy Metal has changed over the years. Back in the mid 70's, bands like Zeppelin were considered heavy metal but by the mid-80's bands like Iron Maiden were considered heavy metal. Neither would be considered heavy Metal by the mid 90's and today they are relegated to merely Classic Rock or Hard Rock.
Try this.
Take a sheet of paper with printing on it and place it in front of one of your eyes at normal glasses-distance.
If you are 30+ years old the odds are very good that you cant focus on the print at all, even if you do not need to wear glasses.
So the solution is some sort of individually-tailored-to-the-person glasses to aid in viewing the hypothetical goggles of yours. Compared with the mass production of one-size-fits-all shutter glasses or polarized lenses, its no contest.
I predict that most 3D systems will be the polarized variety, not just because the glasses are really really inexpensive compared to shutters, but also because its not terribly difficult to manufacture displays that have alternating vertical-stripe or checker-board polarization.
... in the best way possible.
You keep stating these things as fact, but aren't you really just trolling?
Nope.
I can't find any reference to "the apple chip", or any kind of boot time hardware verification scheme in OSX at all.
Really? You can't find anything at all? Even though there have been years of articles on slashdot about the hacks required to bypass their verification? You didn't hear about the downfall of a company which had to sell hacked versions of OS/X to get OS/X to run on non-apple hardware? You didn't hear that this hacking was one of the key things that the courts lambasted the company on? Really? You can't find anything about this, at all? Really?
fanboy is lazy, or fanboy is willfully blind.
Because its Apple Genuine Advantage Hardware instead.
Did you think OS/X ran without talking to the apple chip to verify that everything is from apple? Really?
You're missing the forest for the trees. Mac OS never asks for validation at any stage of installation besides every time it verifies that you've got 100% Apple Certified Hardware. Just put your disc in, install, and every time you reboot it will verify that you have apple certified hardware.
There. Fixed that for you.
But I thought we were talking about an operating system for a general-purpose computer. Contrasting Mac OS X with any post- W2K Microsoft OS:
- I've never had to enter an 'activation' key to install it.
- I've never had to worry if it's going to turn on me and accuse me of using a 'counterfeit' version of it.
- I've never had to call Apple and ask, "Pretty please, is it okay to have my computer back?"
Your activation key is the hardware itself. People complain that they have to reactivate windows when they swap out the motherboard in their desktop. Try that with a Mac. Go on. Replace the motherboard. You are an Apple certified repairman with access to Apple certified hardware, right? Fail on both counts? Yeah.
If Microsoft required you to have a Dongle instead of an activation key, you would be crying like a fucking baby about it. But there it is.. Apple requires you to do exactly what you would cry about with any other company.
You were so upset by WGA that you decided to do business with Super-Lockdown-Incorporated? Really?
Why are they working so hard to make their world more painful for themselves and their users?
Because they think that they are clever. This is a social phenomenon. Web developers say in public how messed up IE6 is and how it restricts their cleverness, and other web developers hear the complaints and agree. They could be so much more clever if they could just ignore IE6. Users who run IE6 must be too stupid to realize how clever these web developers could be if only they would stop running it.
Before you know it they all have forgotten what their job is, which is to orchestrate the delivery of content to eyeballs.
.
You are epic fail and heres why.
Sometimes the product is a thing. Sometimes a product is eyeballs. For a web developer who is marketing his services, the only product he actually has to offer is eyeballs. The web developer who is marketing his services is charging money for the eyeballs that he will deliver.
You are going on and on about what the client of said web developer should do to make the web developers life easier. Thats not how it works, failboy.
Sometimes a clients can orchestrate a situation where he only needs specific eyeballs. This is most common in situations where the client pays for BOTH the web development AND those eyeballs, pages on the corporate intranet, because they save money that way. Even in your crazy dream world where clients were somehow forced to orchestrate FF3.5 eyeballs, about 10 years from now the web developers would be in the same boat as today: The client needs specific eyeballs that are far away from current web standards.
If you are a web developer, then I declare you a moron for not knowong what the hell your product really is. You are not selling chunks of HTML. You are not selling chunks of CSS. You are not selling chunks of javascript, ajax, or flash. You are selling eyeballs. It is YOUR failure if you cannot or will not deliver the eyeballs that the client wants. It is not the clients failure.
A simple way to visualize the complete stupidity of your argument is to imagine a client using a completely proprietary system not based on HTML, CSS, or any of the other WEB buzzwords. Would you, the developer looking for money, demand that the people with the money switch to HTML? IE6 is right now is the most common proprietary system out there, but it is no different than any other proprietary system, and the latest greatest web browsers will be considered just as "broken" a decade from now.
I can't because I'm using floating point.
When it is observed that these professional developers that work for Mozilla have basically told a whole bunch of people to fuck off, waving the your hands screaming "but its open source" does not negate the criticism.
The real question is, how many 10.4 users had donated to Mozilla prior to them being told to fuck off.
Vegas has an exclusive on sports betting. Its actually a federal law, believe it or not.
You seem to be suggesting that anyone who takes a bet must by definition be a criminal.
,br>
Is your local convenience store run by criminals?
..and creates lots of jobs.
This.
Also, Flash is a programming language. Apple doesnt allow programming languages onto iPods, iPhones, or iPads.
Flash could replace a large majority of whats on the App Store.
This isnt true.
Firstly, all browsers can be designed to use whatever codec the user can supply. This would include H.264.
Secondly, many embedded devices have H.264 and other decoding capability, but not Theora. This prevents some of those existing devices from ever decoding Theora.
So your statement that the only video codec that every browser can use is Theora just doesnt wash.
This, my friend, is coming to you live from an Opera user.. a browser that does not support H.264 playback. The makers of my browser are as dumb as the makers of your browser. Since when did it become OK for the browser makers to dictate these things?
Let the users decide in cases where they can (I have the codec already.. it came with the OS), and let vendors decide in cases where they must make their own choices.
This is similar to Firefox or Opera saying that they wont support Flash or Silverlight. Both are proprietary as fuck, but there they are launching and interacting with the binary when Flash content is on the page. Whats different? Did the Mozilla boys suddenly find morals? Really? I would hazard a guess that something else besides morals is behind their refusal to make the obvious choices that would enable them to play video encoded with any arbitrary codec at no cost to them.
The only formats that will succeed in the long term on the web are open formats.
H.264 can not only be described as having succeeded, it in fact has won vs all the alternatives. It is hands-down the clear winner. If this was the Olympics it would not only take the gold, but the silver and bronze too.
The only reason Theora is even a consideration is because its "open." On a merits standpoint, its not even in the running.
You question how Theora would be accelerated on Windows proprietary drivers.
We call them Shaders, and this can be done in regular old GLSL. The GPU's are already plenty programmable by design.
Alvin Toffler, is that you?
What Google did was wrong, yes...but there is still money to be made (not to mention the public gaining even more access to information.)
Here's an idea. Why doesnt Google make me an offer, either a blanket opt-in or personally to me, and then I can accept or reject said offer.
This doesnt require changing any laws. If there is money to be made, then surely they can make an offer that will be beneficial to both of us.
If Google was so concerned with preserving older works that arent being published, there would be an ad on all their services saying "Are you an author? Google would like to publish your old works. Click here to see our offer"
But no.. thats exactly not what Google has done.. instead they started copying every book that they could get their hands on with complete disregard for anyones rights.
Even if I used a publisher at one time, I can still hold the copyright. Thats between me and the publisher, not between me, the publisher, and google.
What do the publishers have to do with my copyright?