Can you explain to me why you are wrapping media files into size-increasing RAR's, let-alone multi-part ones?
Is it a 4GB file size limit issue?
The only time I ever see RAR files is when I am dealing with a warez-kiddie. RAR is not the best at compressing (that would be PAQ), nor is it the most popular or widely implemented (that would be ZIP), nor is it an open standard of any kind (I guess the most popular would be 7zip?)..
This is called "being a pedantic ass". Especially since Sun themselves use the terms interchangeably.
So Sun gets to decide what SSD means?
No, they don't. It means Solid State Drive.
Unless SSDs have suddenly dropped to the same price as thumb drives..
Thumb drives are about $2/gig on the low end, while SSD's are about $3/gig on the high end.
SSD's perform better than thumb drives.
...and that they are in fact faster than conventional drives in every single measure.
...or increased in size to the same as magnetic media.
Now you are stearing away from the posters point completely. His point is that SSD's are replacing rotational media, and they are.
Will they replace all rotational media? Of course not. Those big reels of 2" magnetic tape are also still in use.
Hard Drives didnt supercede them, so I guess your point is that hard drives are a cache for 2" tape reels, that SSD's are a cache for hard drvies, and RAM is a cache for SSD's?
Which brand of 2" tape do you recommend so that I can use my HD as a cache for it?
The fact is that for all intents and purposes, hard drives *replaced* the 2" reels.
The fact is that for all intents and purposes, SSD's will be replacing hard drives.
That was the posters point.
There is no room for another abstraction layer in there that consists of a same or worse performing part, and that those niche markets that use things like 2" reels or hard drives will make do with what the market brings to the table just like it always has.
Open standards enable new products to import data from the old ones -- old hardware is not needed. Nothing guarantees that they will offer this functionality of course, but the possibility is there _for anyone_.
An unpopular open standard is unlikely to get such treatment, while a popular proprietary format is. It doesnt matter if its not popular in the future. Popularity equates to demand. As far as HD-DVD's.. your definition of popular seems to be wanting, since even BlueRay barely qualifies yet.
Sure, I like to really own something I bought, ie know for sure that 10 years down the road when Amazon is gone I'll still be able to read my books, and that's open standards.
Open standards doesnt guarantee that either, unless you plan on keeping todays hardware and software around and in working condition.
"Popular" is much better that "open" given your requirements.
You ask for evidence. How about some evidence that SSD's are being used anywhere in the way that you describe.. as a cache between rotational media and ram.
There are millions of people already using SSD's as (superior) drive replacements.
Do you really want evidence of the fact that SSD's are already replacing drives, that many millions of them have been sold specifically for that purpose, that even companies like Apple offer SSD's as alternatives solutions to rotational media in their standard packages?
Note that Abrash defected from I.D. (Quake) and went to work for Microsoft (XBOX), then defected from Microsoft and went to work for RAD (Pixomatic) whos technology is found in.. you guessed it.. the Unreal engine.
I recently heard that he was now working for Intel (Larabbee) but can't find anything official-sounding to back that up.
I think one of the main reasons that the Unreal engine really took off is that it comes with UnrealEd.
With ID's engine, you were shopping around for some 3rd party editor and then importing the data, while with Unreal you STILL had the option of importing from 3rd party editors and could do some final tweaking (or working from scratch) while running under the very engine you are targeting in realtime.
Sure, when we just call people idiots, and give no proof of what they
are idiots for, then there is no real threat to your argument, right!
I'm not here to be popular.
The proof it all over the place in the comments here. I guess you don't care about facts either.
Have you even bothered to program with VS?
What the hell does VS have to do with it?
The fact is that TFA is full of shit, and the fact is that some people here immediately believed it and then took the time to tell us how M.S. needs punishment for the claims of TFA.
The fact is that TFA is written by an idiot. The fact is that the people calling for punishment for whats in the TFA are also idiots. You seem to be an idiot too, since you are bringing visual studio into this and write "M$" every chance you get.
Place a mirror in front of you, and then Think Critically. I may be rude, but you are an idiot. Your common sense filter seems to be failing you whenever someone mentions Microsoft.
She acted like a teenage boy with the intent of having a relationship with an underage girl.
On the contrary, she never had any intentions of having a "relationship" with the child.
Her intentions were to fuck with the child, which is different than trying to set up a meeting for sex.
It is legal to pretend to be a teenage boy. It is illegal to set up a meeting with the intention of having sexual activities with a minor. She didnt do that the later, only the former.
Hope they go to court over this and finally learn a hard lesson.
Todays "hard" lesson is that a lot of anti-microsoft shit is formulated by idiots that jump to conclusions, and is additionally believed by idiots who take anything anti-microsoft to be fact.
TFA is in the first group of idiots.
You are in the second.
Thanks for teaching Microsoft a hard, yet valuable, lesson.
They arent actualy trying to end the resale market entirely. They are creating a justification for some features, etc, not being resellable. So that when you go to buy a new game you really dont know if the entire product will be resellable, and that when you go buy a used game you really dont know if the entire product is in there.
You say that now, but if Linux was a market as big as windows, then there is absolutely no chance that repositories will be able to hold all the software people want, nor is there any chance at all that all those eyes you are talking about will look at all the source, and further there is no chance in hell that you are going to get the source to even half the stuff people will want.
A very simple case in point is that a whole hell of a lot of Ubuntu users are right now, as we speak, running with a sourceless binary blob from nvidia. The entire ethos of "FOSS" goes right out the window when something is cool or slick, and thats already the case with the current "dedicated" linux crowd.
Throw into the mix the mob of people that is Windows and you will find that your cute "FOSS" shit will be a minority, that very little that a user runs will come from a repository, and that the repositories themselves will be flooded with more than the dedicated boys can handle.
Remember that the people who you need to start running Linux in order to achieve a majority share are not developers, don't know what programming is, and have no care at all about any of that. They will not be Contributors to FOSS in any way, shape, or form. They will only be Consumers, and after they go through the trouble of download something, they are going to make it run no matter how obviously it is malware. They will learn about sudo and then they will use it.
The real problem is that of the billion computer users on the planet, 99 out of 100 of them really dont give a fuck about security, and don't even understand what it actualy means to give a fuck about security. Linux doesnt address this problem at all, and to be quite honest.. Linux shouldnt even be trying to entice these people because they will only ruin it.
Compared to Microsoft Office, Open Office *isnt* good.
Open Office is definately good in comparison to what people were using 10 years ago, but MS Office really and truely is the king of features. For the home user, Open Office is probably more than sufficient, but in a real business environment it doesnt even come close.
You cannot blame Open Office, but instead can only blame the Free Open Source Software paradigm, because a rag-tag group of loosely coupled and arbitrarily motivated developers simply cannot compete against the focused efforts of a for-profit corporation. Its the same reason that Photoshop is the best in the business. GIMP is nice and all, but it was made by developers for developers, instead of by developers for professionals.
The only current FOSS projects that I see as really measuring up vs commercial alternatives are Operation Systems and Browsers. This is understandable and wholly predictable because these things have concrete endgames. A perfect browser rendering engine is a tangible finite thing, while a perfect image manipulator isnt finite at all (there is always another feature to be added.)
This is exactly it. The #1 reason that OS/2 Warp failed SO MISERABLY against Win95 was that it was easy to get Win95 for free. Remember that OS/2 was Win 3.1 compatible.
In terms of compatability, features, and so on, OS/2 Warp was king. But everyone already had access to Win95, and that in the end, trumped the OS/2 advantage.
MS makes money on its other products, mainly its office suite. They do not make a whole hell of a lot on its OS when you factor in the entire support costs. Those updates cost money to deliver, and were even willingly delivered to known pirates. The crackdown on pirates getting XP updates didnt happen until Vista was almost ready. The crackdown on the pirates getting Vista updates still hasnt happened.
There are some catches, once the package is opened there are no returns(you can see the serial number) some OEM packaging is changing and sellers are accepting returns, once installed on a motherboard it is stuck to that computer and under the OEM no motherboard switching even if it breaks
Not true in practice. When I changed machines completely (from a 2ghz Athlon to a 3800+ AMD64 dual core) all that was required was that I call Microsoft for a manual XP activation code (which came from a guy in India who asked me a few simple questions.. Just told him I upgraded my computer.. the facts)
Instrumental data describing large-scale surface temperature changes are only available for roughly the past 150 years.
..and that data consists of real concrete forever unchanging values. If the data from a specific surface station on a specific data was x, then that value is ALWAYS going to be x.
Estimates of surface temperature changes further back in time must therefore make use of the few long available instrumental records or historical documents and natural archives or 'climate proxy' indicators, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores and lake sediments, and historical documents to reconstruct patterns of past surface temperature change.
These values are also concrete and unchanging. Given the exact same data, they should have gotten the exact same result if they used the exact same methodology.
Which is it?
A) They not use the exact same data.
B) They not use the exact same methodology.
C) They used neither.
D) They use both.
I have a hard time believing (D) since they got different results. If its (C) then I simply have to laugh. If its (B) then Mann used a different methodology to at least 11 other studies. Who is right? If its (A) then the entire field has some serious fucked up shit going on because the data doesnt change.
This is the fact of climate science. It is not an experimental science where different researching using the same methodology might get different results. I dont have to read what you said to know this fact. Reading what you said tells me that you don't.
This data is avialable to everyone and it isnt ever going to change. Did you not know this?
How do you read that statement and not come away with the implied message that it is perfectly acceptable to ingnore the future state of things, as long as we don't have any consequences we have to suffer, and who cares what consequences that imaginary people suffers as a result of our actions, or inactions?
ten other independent groups have been able to duplicate Mann's work and show that Mann was too conservative in his findings.
Umm... duplicate.. but different?
Hellllooooo??? Even someone who is decidedly non-skeptical would find a problem with this statement.
What you are telling me is that 10 other independent groups also could not replicate Mann's results, which should be PERFECTLY replicatable if Mann had done it right.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you explain to me why you are wrapping media files into size-increasing RAR's, let-alone multi-part ones?
..
Is it a 4GB file size limit issue?
The only time I ever see RAR files is when I am dealing with a warez-kiddie. RAR is not the best at compressing (that would be PAQ), nor is it the most popular or widely implemented (that would be ZIP), nor is it an open standard of any kind (I guess the most popular would be 7zip?)
This is called "being a pedantic ass". Especially since Sun themselves use the terms interchangeably.
So Sun gets to decide what SSD means?
No, they don't. It means Solid State Drive.
Unless SSDs have suddenly dropped to the same price as thumb drives..
Thumb drives are about $2/gig on the low end, while SSD's are about $3/gig on the high end.
...and that they are in fact faster than conventional drives in every single measure.
SSD's perform better than thumb drives.
...or increased in size to the same as magnetic media.
Now you are stearing away from the posters point completely. His point is that SSD's are replacing rotational media, and they are.
Will they replace all rotational media? Of course not. Those big reels of 2" magnetic tape are also still in use.
Hard Drives didnt supercede them, so I guess your point is that hard drives are a cache for 2" tape reels, that SSD's are a cache for hard drvies, and RAM is a cache for SSD's?
Which brand of 2" tape do you recommend so that I can use my HD as a cache for it?
The fact is that for all intents and purposes, hard drives *replaced* the 2" reels.
The fact is that for all intents and purposes, SSD's will be replacing hard drives.
That was the posters point.
There is no room for another abstraction layer in there that consists of a same or worse performing part, and that those niche markets that use things like 2" reels or hard drives will make do with what the market brings to the table just like it always has.
Sun 7000 doesnt use SSD's.. but it does use several types of FLASH memory.
ReadyBoost is actualy made moot by SSD's, which perform better than ReadyBoost (without the extra layer of complexity.)
Open standards enable new products to import data from the old ones -- old hardware is not needed. Nothing guarantees that they will offer this functionality of course, but the possibility is there _for anyone_.
An unpopular open standard is unlikely to get such treatment, while a popular proprietary format is. It doesnt matter if its not popular in the future. Popularity equates to demand. As far as HD-DVD's.. your definition of popular seems to be wanting, since even BlueRay barely qualifies yet.
Sure, I like to really own something I bought, ie know for sure that 10 years down the road when Amazon is gone I'll still be able to read my books, and that's open standards.
Open standards doesnt guarantee that either, unless you plan on keeping todays hardware and software around and in working condition.
"Popular" is much better that "open" given your requirements.
You ask for evidence. How about some evidence that SSD's are being used anywhere in the way that you describe.. as a cache between rotational media and ram.
There are millions of people already using SSD's as (superior) drive replacements.
Do you really want evidence of the fact that SSD's are already replacing drives, that many millions of them have been sold specifically for that purpose, that even companies like Apple offer SSD's as alternatives solutions to rotational media in their standard packages?
Note that Abrash defected from I.D. (Quake) and went to work for Microsoft (XBOX), then defected from Microsoft and went to work for RAD (Pixomatic) whos technology is found in.. you guessed it.. the Unreal engine.
I recently heard that he was now working for Intel (Larabbee) but can't find anything official-sounding to back that up.
I think one of the main reasons that the Unreal engine really took off is that it comes with UnrealEd.
With ID's engine, you were shopping around for some 3rd party editor and then importing the data, while with Unreal you STILL had the option of importing from 3rd party editors and could do some final tweaking (or working from scratch) while running under the very engine you are targeting in realtime.
False Dilemma.
You don't have to do either.
Sure, when we just call people idiots, and give no proof of what they are idiots for, then there is no real threat to your argument, right!
I'm not here to be popular.
The proof it all over the place in the comments here. I guess you don't care about facts either.
Have you even bothered to program with VS?
What the hell does VS have to do with it?
The fact is that TFA is full of shit, and the fact is that some people here immediately believed it and then took the time to tell us how M.S. needs punishment for the claims of TFA.
The fact is that TFA is written by an idiot. The fact is that the people calling for punishment for whats in the TFA are also idiots. You seem to be an idiot too, since you are bringing visual studio into this and write "M$" every chance you get.
Place a mirror in front of you, and then Think Critically. I may be rude, but you are an idiot. Your common sense filter seems to be failing you whenever someone mentions Microsoft.
She acted like a teenage boy with the intent of having a relationship with an underage girl.
On the contrary, she never had any intentions of having a "relationship" with the child.
Her intentions were to fuck with the child, which is different than trying to set up a meeting for sex.
It is legal to pretend to be a teenage boy. It is illegal to set up a meeting with the intention of having sexual activities with a minor. She didnt do that the later, only the former.
Hope they go to court over this and finally learn a hard lesson.
Todays "hard" lesson is that a lot of anti-microsoft shit is formulated by idiots that jump to conclusions, and is additionally believed by idiots who take anything anti-microsoft to be fact.
TFA is in the first group of idiots.
You are in the second.
Thanks for teaching Microsoft a hard, yet valuable, lesson.
Let me guess.. you are in your teens/early 20's..
You do realize that in the real world people play the prisoner's dilemma, right?
Please write down your randomly generated 256-bit key: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Your data cannot be recovered without it!
..as if a person had exactly one player which supported exactly one format..
Got some news for ya.. HD DVD players play regular DVD's just fine.
Well thats certainly a good reason to consider it better.
They really have thought it through.
They arent actualy trying to end the resale market entirely. They are creating a justification for some features, etc, not being resellable. So that when you go to buy a new game you really dont know if the entire product will be resellable, and that when you go buy a used game you really dont know if the entire product is in there.
Think "Bonus" Downloadable Content.
You say that now, but if Linux was a market as big as windows, then there is absolutely no chance that repositories will be able to hold all the software people want, nor is there any chance at all that all those eyes you are talking about will look at all the source, and further there is no chance in hell that you are going to get the source to even half the stuff people will want.
A very simple case in point is that a whole hell of a lot of Ubuntu users are right now, as we speak, running with a sourceless binary blob from nvidia. The entire ethos of "FOSS" goes right out the window when something is cool or slick, and thats already the case with the current "dedicated" linux crowd.
Throw into the mix the mob of people that is Windows and you will find that your cute "FOSS" shit will be a minority, that very little that a user runs will come from a repository, and that the repositories themselves will be flooded with more than the dedicated boys can handle.
Remember that the people who you need to start running Linux in order to achieve a majority share are not developers, don't know what programming is, and have no care at all about any of that. They will not be Contributors to FOSS in any way, shape, or form. They will only be Consumers, and after they go through the trouble of download something, they are going to make it run no matter how obviously it is malware. They will learn about sudo and then they will use it.
The real problem is that of the billion computer users on the planet, 99 out of 100 of them really dont give a fuck about security, and don't even understand what it actualy means to give a fuck about security. Linux doesnt address this problem at all, and to be quite honest.. Linux shouldnt even be trying to entice these people because they will only ruin it.
Compared to Microsoft Office, Open Office *isnt* good.
Open Office is definately good in comparison to what people were using 10 years ago, but MS Office really and truely is the king of features. For the home user, Open Office is probably more than sufficient, but in a real business environment it doesnt even come close.
You cannot blame Open Office, but instead can only blame the Free Open Source Software paradigm, because a rag-tag group of loosely coupled and arbitrarily motivated developers simply cannot compete against the focused efforts of a for-profit corporation. Its the same reason that Photoshop is the best in the business. GIMP is nice and all, but it was made by developers for developers, instead of by developers for professionals.
The only current FOSS projects that I see as really measuring up vs commercial alternatives are Operation Systems and Browsers. This is understandable and wholly predictable because these things have concrete endgames. A perfect browser rendering engine is a tangible finite thing, while a perfect image manipulator isnt finite at all (there is always another feature to be added.)
This is exactly it. The #1 reason that OS/2 Warp failed SO MISERABLY against Win95 was that it was easy to get Win95 for free. Remember that OS/2 was Win 3.1 compatible.
In terms of compatability, features, and so on, OS/2 Warp was king. But everyone already had access to Win95, and that in the end, trumped the OS/2 advantage.
MS makes money on its other products, mainly its office suite. They do not make a whole hell of a lot on its OS when you factor in the entire support costs. Those updates cost money to deliver, and were even willingly delivered to known pirates. The crackdown on pirates getting XP updates didnt happen until Vista was almost ready. The crackdown on the pirates getting Vista updates still hasnt happened.
There are some catches, once the package is opened there are no returns(you can see the serial number) some OEM packaging is changing and sellers are accepting returns, once installed on a motherboard it is stuck to that computer and under the OEM no motherboard switching even if it breaks
Not true in practice. When I changed machines completely (from a 2ghz Athlon to a 3800+ AMD64 dual core) all that was required was that I call Microsoft for a manual XP activation code (which came from a guy in India who asked me a few simple questions.. Just told him I upgraded my computer.. the facts)
Instrumental data describing large-scale surface temperature changes are only available for roughly the past 150 years.
Estimates of surface temperature changes further back in time must therefore make use of the few long available instrumental records or historical documents and natural archives or 'climate proxy' indicators, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores and lake sediments, and historical documents to reconstruct patterns of past surface temperature change.
These values are also concrete and unchanging. Given the exact same data, they should have gotten the exact same result if they used the exact same methodology.
Which is it?
A) They not use the exact same data.
B) They not use the exact same methodology.
C) They used neither.
D) They use both.
I have a hard time believing (D) since they got different results. If its (C) then I simply have to laugh. If its (B) then Mann used a different methodology to at least 11 other studies. Who is right? If its (A) then the entire field has some serious fucked up shit going on because the data doesnt change.
This is the fact of climate science. It is not an experimental science where different researching using the same methodology might get different results. I dont have to read what you said to know this fact. Reading what you said tells me that you don't.
This data is avialable to everyone and it isnt ever going to change. Did you not know this?
How do you read that statement and not come away with the implied message that it is perfectly acceptable to ingnore the future state of things, as long as we don't have any consequences we have to suffer, and who cares what consequences that imaginary people suffers as a result of our actions, or inactions?
There, fixed that for you.
ten other independent groups have been able to duplicate Mann's work and show that Mann was too conservative in his findings.
Umm... duplicate.. but different?
Hellllooooo??? Even someone who is decidedly non-skeptical would find a problem with this statement.
What you are telling me is that 10 other independent groups also could not replicate Mann's results, which should be PERFECTLY replicatable if Mann had done it right.
Due to the way "climate science" is "practiced", the most important degree to have is one in statistics.