Remember that they were also introducing a new security model, which is one of the reasons they HAD to break it. They made that choice, for better or worse.
Just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations here.. 48000 samples/second (DVD quality) * 6 channels (5.1 surround sound) * 200 sources (absurd #) = 57.6 million samples per second.
That could be handled in a scripting language, run under an emulator. Thats right.. 200 "5.1 surround sound" channels is *trivial*, and when you consider that most anything other than movie players outputs only 2 channel sound...
This is why hardware mixing died over 10 years ago. I remember the glory days of the Gravis UltraSound. They were short. By the time Win 3.1 rolled out, software mixing programers could do hundreds of channels on a 486.
Read the ruling. And the commentary from the EU Commission.
Why not quote the portions relevant to your opinion? Its harder than you are suggesting, as in impossible.
You are making things up again. I am *amazed* that you would do that immediately after being called out on the very same thing.
The ruling is about bundling.
Here is an actual quote for you, from the EU commission:
"As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal [to ship no browser at all] may potentially be more positive [...] It is noted that computer manufacturers would appear to be able to choose to install Internet Explorer--which Microsoft will supply free of charge--another browser or multiple browsers."
You might actualy want to read some of the material on the subject before you go ahead and make things up. At least that way, you wouldn't be so easily caught in lies.
Cloud it all you want, but the bottom line is that the EU acted to ensure CONSUMER choice in browsers.
No they didn't. You have made many things up so far, and this is another gem.
The ruling is not aboit choice, its about bundling. The consumers have always had choice, and will continue to have choice. If Microsoft had prevented choice it would have been an entirely different court ruling. Consumers the world over have been choosing other browsers, with Firefox being #1 in some countries and Opera being #1 in others.
Have I got this straight: Adobe is shipping a crappy proprietary flash implementation because the "hatred of the proprietary" deters them from fixing it, not because they think Linux is marginal and not worth spending more time on.
No, you don't have it straight.
For a start, Adobe's implementation is crappy and proprietary under ALL operating systems. Its quite a bit worse under Linux because you folks cannot even agree on anything simple, like a standard audio subsystem (its also important not to break it once you've agreed, which is something I think is likely considering the track record of audio subsystems in general on Linux)
Its the Ubuntu end-users problem, and its in-their-face, while they won't have this problem with XP or 7.
Part of the problem is the hatred of the proprietary, which is a huge deterant for the hardware and software support they actualy need (from video chip makers and adobe) which would allow them to grow up and be an "OS for real people."
You neglect the corresponding growth in desert areas.
What makes you think that there is, or will be, a 'corresponding growth in desert areas.' ?
If you believe that man made global warming is shrinking the polar caps, then you believe that man made global warming is shrinking the largest deserts on the planet. These go hand-in-hand because the largest desert in the world is in fact Antartica.
But before you go jumping to conclusions and start going on-and-on about these being ice and blah blah blah, the Sahara is also shrinking right now as we speak. Thats not ice.
You see, one of the side effects of a warmer climate is more precipitation, which leads to less deserts overall.
Would you like to restate your diatribe with some science-based arguements, or are you going to stick with your conclusion-jumping psuedo-science dogma?
Mom and dad don't need 1TB. Junior might waste a few TB on movies, but most juniors in general don't actualy need 1TB.
The need for these large volumes is actualy quite specialized. Professionals and serious hacks in multimedia, ripped-movie pack-rats, and businesses/institutions with large databases.
As far as newer multimedia uses (3D, holographic, and so on) there is still a limit as to how much data a person can reasonably consume per second of time. That goes for porn too.
With these latest high capacity drives (2TB), a person can read/write 1KB/sec for the entirety of the average lifespan of 70 years and only at the end of their life be worried about space. In a few years that will be 4KB/sec, then 16KB/sec, then 64KB/sec
.. within two decades we will easily be able to record and store BlueRay quality video for an entire 70 year lifetime onto a single drive.
Something similar to the open source movement, but science instead of software.
The two methodologies: Open Science and Peer Reviewed Publishing can coexist. If anything, this sort of thing might actualy make the peer reviewers do something.. like actualy review the work they are signing off on.
WAIT before you leap to conclusion. This article cites only blogs which are known to misrepresent science and actions pertaining to them.
Let me correct you. This article cites a blog run by a member of the IPCC review panel.
Lets make this 100% crystal clear.
ClimateAudit is run by a member of the IPCC review panel and he has also published more than a couple peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Your vitriol combined with a distinct lack of knowledge is quite revealing.
Yes, many climate scientists have a big problem with Steve McIntyre, because the only thing he does in the field is try to find faults with other peoples work. He is the kind of scientist that should only be feared if you are knowingly doing sloppy or fraudulent work.
In the real world it isn't possible to independently judge the credibility of every bit of information you come across
The point is that its supposed to be possible to pick some research and then independenly verify it.
Most peer reviewed journals have rules that all data must be archived, and made available. These rules are completely ignored when it comes to climate science.
Imagine I publish on my web site some paper claiming that black holes don't exist, that the observed data can be explained by some other properties of space, and back it up with pages of obscure mathematics, whilst at the same time admitting that I have no qualifications in physics.
Imagine instead that you are working on climate science but have no degree in the "field", but are established enough to be a member of the IPCC review panel. If this doesnt sound familiar to you, then let me brush you up. Steve McIntyre is a member of the IPCC review panel and is the one being rufed access to this data. He runs the site ClimateAudit and has many peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Red herring. Tell us how the EU is to enforce the ruling if the OEMs can do as they please, including only provide IE. Go on, explain it. Or go away.
The ruling is against Microsoft. Microsoft will include a ballot screen or suffer consequences.
The red herring is that the EU must "enforce" the ruling. Thats not how it works. They make a ruling against Microsoft, and then Microsoft either complies or it does not. If they do not, they end up back in court.
OEM's still get to do what they want, such as choose the browser for the buyer of the computer. Additonally, and this is completely on top of your already irrational thought process, is that the OEMs are not a monopoly.
I am not the one that decided that there was a problem. I just pointed out that OEMs get to do what they want. Since then I have responded to your "solution" to a problem that you havent even clearly stated, and that said "solution" tramples all over the rights of OEM's and end-users.
You have lept to the conclusion that there is a problem with OEM's doing what they want. Its not correct. The arguement in court was that Microsoft had used its influence over OEMs to penalize the inclusion of other browsers. Now they can't do that. Now OEM's get to do what they want.
Now please explain clearly what the problem is, and why OEMs, end-users, and admins should have their rights removed.
The difference is, MS doesn't make most of its money with support.
What you are saying is that the people who make money providing support should provide less, while the people who spend money providing support should provide more.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing you quoted backs up your arguements.
Care to try again?
They broke it on purpose, yes.
Remember that they were also introducing a new security model, which is one of the reasons they HAD to break it. They made that choice, for better or worse.
Just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations here.. 48000 samples/second (DVD quality) * 6 channels (5.1 surround sound) * 200 sources (absurd #) = 57.6 million samples per second.
That could be handled in a scripting language, run under an emulator. Thats right.. 200 "5.1 surround sound" channels is *trivial*, and when you consider that most anything other than movie players outputs only 2 channel sound...
This is why hardware mixing died over 10 years ago. I remember the glory days of the Gravis UltraSound. They were short. By the time Win 3.1 rolled out, software mixing programers could do hundreds of channels on a 486.
Read the ruling. And the commentary from the EU Commission.
Why not quote the portions relevant to your opinion? Its harder than you are suggesting, as in impossible.
You are making things up again. I am *amazed* that you would do that immediately after being called out on the very same thing.
The ruling is about bundling.
Here is an actual quote for you, from the EU commission:
"As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal [to ship no browser at all] may potentially be more positive [...] It is noted that computer manufacturers would appear to be able to choose to install Internet Explorer--which Microsoft will supply free of charge--another browser or multiple browsers."
You might actualy want to read some of the material on the subject before you go ahead and make things up. At least that way, you wouldn't be so easily caught in lies.
Cloud it all you want, but the bottom line is that the EU acted to ensure CONSUMER choice in browsers.
No they didn't. You have made many things up so far, and this is another gem.
The ruling is not aboit choice, its about bundling. The consumers have always had choice, and will continue to have choice. If Microsoft had prevented choice it would have been an entirely different court ruling. Consumers the world over have been choosing other browsers, with Firefox being #1 in some countries and Opera being #1 in others.
Have I got this straight: Adobe is shipping a crappy proprietary flash implementation because the "hatred of the proprietary" deters them from fixing it, not because they think Linux is marginal and not worth spending more time on.
No, you don't have it straight.
For a start, Adobe's implementation is crappy and proprietary under ALL operating systems. Its quite a bit worse under Linux because you folks cannot even agree on anything simple, like a standard audio subsystem (its also important not to break it once you've agreed, which is something I think is likely considering the track record of audio subsystems in general on Linux)
You are right, its not Ubuntu's problem.
Its the Ubuntu end-users problem, and its in-their-face, while they won't have this problem with XP or 7.
Part of the problem is the hatred of the proprietary, which is a huge deterant for the hardware and software support they actualy need (from video chip makers and adobe) which would allow them to grow up and be an "OS for real people."
Maybe someday. Not today. Sorry.
I thought Russia was focusing on botnets. Most of these have a lot more processing power than the fastest supercomputers.
You neglect the corresponding growth in desert areas.
What makes you think that there is, or will be, a 'corresponding growth in desert areas.' ?
If you believe that man made global warming is shrinking the polar caps, then you believe that man made global warming is shrinking the largest deserts on the planet. These go hand-in-hand because the largest desert in the world is in fact Antartica.
But before you go jumping to conclusions and start going on-and-on about these being ice and blah blah blah, the Sahara is also shrinking right now as we speak. Thats not ice.
You see, one of the side effects of a warmer climate is more precipitation, which leads to less deserts overall.
Would you like to restate your diatribe with some science-based arguements, or are you going to stick with your conclusion-jumping psuedo-science dogma?
The problem with that is that LOTS OF THINGS DIED WHEN IT HAPPENED.
You don't get to make things up.
Mom and dad don't need 1TB. Junior might waste a few TB on movies, but most juniors in general don't actualy need 1TB.
.. within two decades we will easily be able to record and store BlueRay quality video for an entire 70 year lifetime onto a single drive.
The need for these large volumes is actualy quite specialized. Professionals and serious hacks in multimedia, ripped-movie pack-rats, and businesses/institutions with large databases.
As far as newer multimedia uses (3D, holographic, and so on) there is still a limit as to how much data a person can reasonably consume per second of time. That goes for porn too.
With these latest high capacity drives (2TB), a person can read/write 1KB/sec for the entirety of the average lifespan of 70 years and only at the end of their life be worried about space. In a few years that will be 4KB/sec, then 16KB/sec, then 64KB/sec
ok I am now unsettled.
I should have said Peer Reviewed Earch Science Journals. For exmaple, Nature.
I have called for this before.
Something similar to the open source movement, but science instead of software.
The two methodologies: Open Science and Peer Reviewed Publishing can coexist. If anything, this sort of thing might actualy make the peer reviewers do something.. like actualy review the work they are signing off on.
ClimateAudit run by a conspiracy nut... really?
He is a member of the IPCC review panel and has more than a couple peer reviewed papers on the subject.
WAIT before you leap to conclusion. This article cites only blogs which are known to misrepresent science and actions pertaining to them.
Let me correct you. This article cites a blog run by a member of the IPCC review panel.
Lets make this 100% crystal clear.
ClimateAudit is run by a member of the IPCC review panel and he has also published more than a couple peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Your vitriol combined with a distinct lack of knowledge is quite revealing.
Yes, many climate scientists have a big problem with Steve McIntyre, because the only thing he does in the field is try to find faults with other peoples work. He is the kind of scientist that should only be feared if you are knowingly doing sloppy or fraudulent work.
In the real world it isn't possible to independently judge the credibility of every bit of information you come across
The point is that its supposed to be possible to pick some research and then independenly verify it.
Most peer reviewed journals have rules that all data must be archived, and made available. These rules are completely ignored when it comes to climate science.
Imagine I publish on my web site some paper claiming that black holes don't exist, that the observed data can be explained by some other properties of space, and back it up with pages of obscure mathematics, whilst at the same time admitting that I have no qualifications in physics.
Imagine instead that you are working on climate science but have no degree in the "field", but are established enough to be a member of the IPCC review panel. If this doesnt sound familiar to you, then let me brush you up. Steve McIntyre is a member of the IPCC review panel and is the one being rufed access to this data. He runs the site ClimateAudit and has many peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Red herring. Tell us how the EU is to enforce the ruling if the OEMs can do as they please, including only provide IE. Go on, explain it. Or go away.
The ruling is against Microsoft. Microsoft will include a ballot screen or suffer consequences.
The red herring is that the EU must "enforce" the ruling. Thats not how it works. They make a ruling against Microsoft, and then Microsoft either complies or it does not. If they do not, they end up back in court.
OEM's still get to do what they want, such as choose the browser for the buyer of the computer. Additonally, and this is completely on top of your already irrational thought process, is that the OEMs are not a monopoly.
If you do have a CA-signed cert, the connection still isnt secure. Thats the real problem.
Anyone willing to screw lots of people, each out of thousands of dollars, is also willing to game the CA system with stolen credit cards.
It is all about trust. If you can't trust the signing authority, how can you trust the signer?
A solution to what?
I am not the one that decided that there was a problem. I just pointed out that OEMs get to do what they want. Since then I have responded to your "solution" to a problem that you havent even clearly stated, and that said "solution" tramples all over the rights of OEM's and end-users.
You have lept to the conclusion that there is a problem with OEM's doing what they want. Its not correct. The arguement in court was that Microsoft had used its influence over OEMs to penalize the inclusion of other browsers. Now they can't do that. Now OEM's get to do what they want.
Now please explain clearly what the problem is, and why OEMs, end-users, and admins should have their rights removed.
All of our admins use an image.
So your image has all users created beforehand, and every machine gets all users? The theory was that the ballot should be at user creation time.
If OEMs can force a choice, what's to prevent OEMs from colluding with MS?
The law. Are you suggesting that instead of punishing law breakers, that we punish everyone beforehand, just in case?
The EU can decide if this is OK, but if so, it can't be IE, or it presents and easy way around the ruling
The ruling isnt again the OEM's, or their customers.
If I were the OEM, I'd provide the binaries on disk for browsers
We all know what kind of binaries OEMs like to infect their customers with.
Look, the EU made the ruling
..against Microsoft.
I'm talking about how to enforce it
..by dictating to OEMs? I think you dont understand the law. The OEM's didnt have representation at Microsofts trial.
If you don't like the ruling, take it up with them
I am dealing with your stated method of enforcing it. I am taking that up with you.
What are the limits to this assertation?
Can Microsoft bundle a single text editor, which it makes?
So admin's don't get to pick a single browser and install it once for all users?
OEM's dont get to install the only browser they indend to support?
OEM's dont get to preconfigure the machine with a net-nanny type kid-safe browser?
People with netbooks and expensive wifi have to pay high rates to download a browser?
OEM's can't be told what to do based on a ruling against Microsoft.
The difference is, MS doesn't make most of its money with support.
What you are saying is that the people who make money providing support should provide less, while the people who spend money providing support should provide more.
Did you actualy think about it?