Or here's another idea -- take it off your car and just stick it in your garage. They already know where you live, so it's not like they get any new information, and unless they run your plates while out patrolling, they can't prove that your car isn't just parked in your garage all the time.
Except that housing in suburbs is spread out over large areas -- very different than housing in urban areas. You CAN include suburbs in mass transit solutions, it's just that to do it in a way people will actually use will cost a crap load more money because you'd have to have many more stations.
Except that this isn't like the police seeing you do something suspicious in public and following you to see if you do anything else suspicious. This is more akin to fixing a GPS tag to an animal to track everything it does at every moment (I said akin, not the same as).
I built a new desktop about 6 months ago and put Windows XP on it, then once the Win 7 beta came out dual booted with that. If I turn off Aero I see maybe a 10% drop in gaming performance going to Win 7 (but with the exception of a whopping one game, that 10% isn't even close to relevant in frame rates and it still doesn't even matter in that one game when it comes to actually playing). With everything BUT gaming, I see a noticeable increase in how responsive my system is going to Win 7.
My assumption for this increase is that I have a quad-core system and since the most a non-server computer could have back when XP was released was two single-core processors, XP doesn't do nearly as good of a job of spreading the load over four cores as Win 7 does. Running identical programs (except for a few extra background windows services in Win 7), in Win 7 I normally have every core running at about the same percent load, where in XP I'll have one core normally always at 100% and the others vary depending on what else I'm doing. As a result, doing something as simple as loading firefox in XP has noticeable lag (due to things I always have running, hence the one core always being at 100%), yet running that same load and launching firefox in Win 7 I have firefox up and running almost instantly.
The reason this is news is that you no longer have the problem of using Open Office and saving in.doc format and then having things not display right on a Windows system running MS Office due to different fonts. This makes it much easier to use Open Office in the business world without having to worry if the document will display wrong when someone at another firm opens the file.
First, my comment about how fast Win 7 is on older hardware is NOT from MS, but from people who have installed the Win 7 beta on 3-5 year old LAPTOPS and been amazed at how fast it was.
Second, I HAVE run Linux in a VM on XP and that was on a crappy 1.5 GHz processor with only half a gig of ram 7 years ago. Surprisingly, it actually didn't run all that slow. It definitely wasn't the fastest, but again -- half a gig of ram, so after I gave Linux 256 MB to run on, I only had the minimum specs for ram on XP left.
I run only Linux on my laptop and only Windows on my desktop (the desktop is for gaming). Until game companies start supporting Linux (or some billionaire gives a massive donation to the WINE team for them to go into hyperspeed), I'll always have to have a copy of Windows. Win 7 64-bit actually IS good. It runs just about every program I've thrown at it, sometimes with a work around (Icewind Dale has to be run in windowed mode or you get some weird graphics glitches that make the game nauseating to play). It looks good, the new taskbar is actually very handy as well as very clean looking, and it's fast. With the virtual XP in it, Win 7 64-bit should run every last bit of software I own without a hitch (anything old enough to not run right has low enough requirements that my gaming rig won't be affected by it). Face it, Microsoft is actually making something worth buying for once. Quit whining and accept it.
BTW, XP SP3 running as a virtual machine under 7 *will* be dog, doggy, dog dog dog SLOW. MS pooches it again!
Only if you're using a crap system. Given that the vast majority of programs are still designed to run on a single core, even a person with a crap dual core system shouldn't have much of an issue, especially given how well Win 7 runs on older hardware. Anyone with a quad-core system might see a brief moment of lag and that would probably be it.
I'm pretty freakin happy. I've had Win 7 64-bit dual booting on my gaming rig since it was released for beta and just about all of my games run fine........but there's a couple that don't run 100% right. Hopefully this allows those games to run just fine, and since they're older (late 90's, early 2000's), they shouldn't have a problem running in a vm on a quadcore system.
I virtually never download anything, but if you do download a movie or a song or a book or whatever, you're not stealing. Why? Because there is no cost to the original creator of copying a file.
For example. Lets say that I make a video game and want to sell it for $50 a copy. Now, lets say that someone buys the game and then puts an iso of it up on their home ftp server. I got my $50 for the copy they bought, and then some people download from that guys server. Am I losing money when they download? No. I'm not paying money for the bandwidth. No physical disk, manual, or box was produced and stolen. It is no different than if you couldn't download and people just decided that your product wasn't good enough to buy and as a result just didn't buy it.
Either way, you wouldn't receive a penny for it, so how can you claim that you're losing by someone downloading files from a private server?
NBC has it's own proprietary software called NBC Direct. It probably DOES use the bittorrent protocol, but you can't watch the videos without the player in NBC Direct or get the download started.
True, all tv websites seem to be windows only (that's why I keep a vm of xp around). I don't see why they can't make it so that you can use linux or mac also.
Which is why NBC has the right idea with NBC Direct. Sure, they have some glitches right now, but they're working on it and release updates every couple weeks.
I got busted by NBC for getting episodes of season 1 of Heroes over bittorrent because I misssed a couple episodes and NBC didn't post them online -- now they use p2p to let people download their videos in HD onto your computer and then watch it whenever you feel like it. Right now I'm working the night shift, so when I get home on the night a new episode was posted, I start the download, go to bed, and when I wake up I can watch it while eating breakfast. Overall I'd say it's much better than Fox on Demand in that the quality is consistent and it's better quality (the only downside being the rare occasions when the program breaks and you have to spend 30 minutes screwing with things to get it fixed).
I think all tv stations should switch over to NBC's model and exclusively release shows online for download and release them on dvd / blu-ray. It would let people manage their time a lot better and (for stations funded by commercials) you wouldn't have to pay for cable just to get a show in HD that you could pick up for free with an antenna (granted, in crap quality). Channels like HBO that you do have to pay for with cable could just charge a small monthly subscription to get their shows online. Sounds like a good plan to me, but that's just my opinion.
Yes, but when you were in school, the police hadn't yet heard of those newfangled computational devices yet! They can't say you're commiting crimes with a computer if they don't even know such a thing as a computer exists!
What do you get from Linux? How about a computer that virtually never crashes? How about an operating system for $150 (or more depending on the version) less? How about free programs to do just about everything you could ever want (and it's all LEGALLY free)? How about an operating system that actually IS faster? How about the fact that WINE will let you run most Windows software you already own without having to pay for crap like Vista?
How this guy's inane post got modded interesting I'll never figure out....
Goddamn it, I'll risk my excellent karma for this....
Your analogy fails because we KNOW that there are natural changes in temperatures. There are also many climate researchers who provide evidence that the Earth is still warming up after the Little Ice Age a that ended in the mid-1800's and that we still haven't reached the pre-Little Ice Age levels.
I'm aware that some jackass is going to whine that I don't provide a source. Well too damn bad that I did research on the Little Ice Age 3 years ago and god only knows which cd in my collection of backups the data is backed up on. Since so many people here think that they're Nobel Prize worthy, I'm sure it won't be hard for those who want to brush me off for not linking to a source to find exactly what I'm talking about.
My view on global warming? Yes, it's natural. The CO2 levels are obviously going to be higher, not because of the evil technology which releases CO2, but because of deforestation that releases previously stored CO2 and prevents current CO2 from being stored in plants.
Seeing as how the US essentially IS NATO, no matter what, we'd be stuck supplying most of the troops and most of the money.
And before people start foaming at the mouth about how I'm want war, I think the current war is idiotic and that the only justified war that the US has fought in a century is fighting against Japan during WWII. Outside of that, the US has never fought anyone who harmed them / posed a threat. That's why I laugh when I hear people talk of soldiers in Iraq / Afghanistan "defending our freedom" -- our freedom was never threatened by them.
I did respond intelligently. You ignored what I said and harped on about things that were completely irrelevant to what I said / made no sense given what I said. You've proven that you have no argument, or else you'd be able to read what people say and respond accordingly.
Try reading what I wrote again. I'm sure you'll still miss everything I said just because I don't worship our Lord and Savior Obama, but I did address the nuclear power issue and explained why this would be bad for technology. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you were just too obsessed with watching Obama's latest photo shoot to read what I wrote instead of just intentionally ignoring everything I said.
Re:at least the UN doesn't have real power
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I see your comment and raise you -- when will everyone realise that the only people who care about the UN are members of the Democrat party and France?
I've yet to hear of anyone who'd have the ability to force a change (read: government) support nuclear power as opposed to purely solar / wind / hydro. Should we use solar / wind / hydro? Sure. We should also keep researching ways to make them more efficient. However, without using nuclear power, solar / wind / hydro technology can NOT currently begin to come close to fulfilling our power needs (unless Dr. Manhattan comes and gives us an overnight 50 year jump in technology).
As for why these things would result in technology stagnating? Well for one, the taxes people like Obama want to put in place to kill off demand for fossil fuel power will cause money that would have been spent on technology (newer more powerful computers, things like the Kindle or iPhone) will instead be spent on paying those taxes. Sales decrease and some of those technologically advanced gadgets will no longer be available since they won't be profitable any more. Another reason would be if we use only solar / wind / hydro that we simply won't have the power necessary to keep doing these things since all the power will be directed to more important things like electricity for homes, government buildings, etc. Also, even if you take into account the technology that needs to be invented for us to purely use solar / wind / hydro power, it would require diverting resources from other research just to find ways to provide electricity, therefore slowing down (or bringing it to a screeching halt) the advancement of other technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Or here's another idea -- take it off your car and just stick it in your garage. They already know where you live, so it's not like they get any new information, and unless they run your plates while out patrolling, they can't prove that your car isn't just parked in your garage all the time.
Except that housing in suburbs is spread out over large areas -- very different than housing in urban areas. You CAN include suburbs in mass transit solutions, it's just that to do it in a way people will actually use will cost a crap load more money because you'd have to have many more stations.
Good idea, but I'll do you one better -- take it off and ship it to China.
Except that this isn't like the police seeing you do something suspicious in public and following you to see if you do anything else suspicious. This is more akin to fixing a GPS tag to an animal to track everything it does at every moment (I said akin, not the same as).
The CIA is obviously using a very loose definition of the term "urban". They're probably counting suburbs around large cities as being IN the city.
I built a new desktop about 6 months ago and put Windows XP on it, then once the Win 7 beta came out dual booted with that. If I turn off Aero I see maybe a 10% drop in gaming performance going to Win 7 (but with the exception of a whopping one game, that 10% isn't even close to relevant in frame rates and it still doesn't even matter in that one game when it comes to actually playing). With everything BUT gaming, I see a noticeable increase in how responsive my system is going to Win 7.
My assumption for this increase is that I have a quad-core system and since the most a non-server computer could have back when XP was released was two single-core processors, XP doesn't do nearly as good of a job of spreading the load over four cores as Win 7 does. Running identical programs (except for a few extra background windows services in Win 7), in Win 7 I normally have every core running at about the same percent load, where in XP I'll have one core normally always at 100% and the others vary depending on what else I'm doing. As a result, doing something as simple as loading firefox in XP has noticeable lag (due to things I always have running, hence the one core always being at 100%), yet running that same load and launching firefox in Win 7 I have firefox up and running almost instantly.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none
Just wanted to correct your sig for you.
Love few, trust no one, and harm all who cross you.
There, that's better!
My best guess as to why Adobe stopped objecting? Someone from MS stopped by and handed them a check with a lot of zeroes.
The reason this is news is that you no longer have the problem of using Open Office and saving in .doc format and then having things not display right on a Windows system running MS Office due to different fonts. This makes it much easier to use Open Office in the business world without having to worry if the document will display wrong when someone at another firm opens the file.
First, my comment about how fast Win 7 is on older hardware is NOT from MS, but from people who have installed the Win 7 beta on 3-5 year old LAPTOPS and been amazed at how fast it was.
Second, I HAVE run Linux in a VM on XP and that was on a crappy 1.5 GHz processor with only half a gig of ram 7 years ago. Surprisingly, it actually didn't run all that slow. It definitely wasn't the fastest, but again -- half a gig of ram, so after I gave Linux 256 MB to run on, I only had the minimum specs for ram on XP left.
I run only Linux on my laptop and only Windows on my desktop (the desktop is for gaming). Until game companies start supporting Linux (or some billionaire gives a massive donation to the WINE team for them to go into hyperspeed), I'll always have to have a copy of Windows. Win 7 64-bit actually IS good. It runs just about every program I've thrown at it, sometimes with a work around (Icewind Dale has to be run in windowed mode or you get some weird graphics glitches that make the game nauseating to play). It looks good, the new taskbar is actually very handy as well as very clean looking, and it's fast. With the virtual XP in it, Win 7 64-bit should run every last bit of software I own without a hitch (anything old enough to not run right has low enough requirements that my gaming rig won't be affected by it). Face it, Microsoft is actually making something worth buying for once. Quit whining and accept it.
BTW, XP SP3 running as a virtual machine under 7 *will* be dog, doggy, dog dog dog SLOW. MS pooches it again!
Only if you're using a crap system. Given that the vast majority of programs are still designed to run on a single core, even a person with a crap dual core system shouldn't have much of an issue, especially given how well Win 7 runs on older hardware. Anyone with a quad-core system might see a brief moment of lag and that would probably be it.
I'm pretty freakin happy. I've had Win 7 64-bit dual booting on my gaming rig since it was released for beta and just about all of my games run fine........but there's a couple that don't run 100% right. Hopefully this allows those games to run just fine, and since they're older (late 90's, early 2000's), they shouldn't have a problem running in a vm on a quadcore system.
I virtually never download anything, but if you do download a movie or a song or a book or whatever, you're not stealing. Why? Because there is no cost to the original creator of copying a file.
For example. Lets say that I make a video game and want to sell it for $50 a copy. Now, lets say that someone buys the game and then puts an iso of it up on their home ftp server. I got my $50 for the copy they bought, and then some people download from that guys server. Am I losing money when they download? No. I'm not paying money for the bandwidth. No physical disk, manual, or box was produced and stolen. It is no different than if you couldn't download and people just decided that your product wasn't good enough to buy and as a result just didn't buy it.
Either way, you wouldn't receive a penny for it, so how can you claim that you're losing by someone downloading files from a private server?
NBC has it's own proprietary software called NBC Direct. It probably DOES use the bittorrent protocol, but you can't watch the videos without the player in NBC Direct or get the download started.
True, all tv websites seem to be windows only (that's why I keep a vm of xp around). I don't see why they can't make it so that you can use linux or mac also.
Which is why NBC has the right idea with NBC Direct. Sure, they have some glitches right now, but they're working on it and release updates every couple weeks.
I got busted by NBC for getting episodes of season 1 of Heroes over bittorrent because I misssed a couple episodes and NBC didn't post them online -- now they use p2p to let people download their videos in HD onto your computer and then watch it whenever you feel like it. Right now I'm working the night shift, so when I get home on the night a new episode was posted, I start the download, go to bed, and when I wake up I can watch it while eating breakfast. Overall I'd say it's much better than Fox on Demand in that the quality is consistent and it's better quality (the only downside being the rare occasions when the program breaks and you have to spend 30 minutes screwing with things to get it fixed).
I think all tv stations should switch over to NBC's model and exclusively release shows online for download and release them on dvd / blu-ray. It would let people manage their time a lot better and (for stations funded by commercials) you wouldn't have to pay for cable just to get a show in HD that you could pick up for free with an antenna (granted, in crap quality). Channels like HBO that you do have to pay for with cable could just charge a small monthly subscription to get their shows online. Sounds like a good plan to me, but that's just my opinion.
I was just mocking the retarded boston police, I figured you probably weren't that old..........
Yes, but when you were in school, the police hadn't yet heard of those newfangled computational devices yet! They can't say you're commiting crimes with a computer if they don't even know such a thing as a computer exists!
What do you get from Linux? How about a computer that virtually never crashes? How about an operating system for $150 (or more depending on the version) less? How about free programs to do just about everything you could ever want (and it's all LEGALLY free)? How about an operating system that actually IS faster? How about the fact that WINE will let you run most Windows software you already own without having to pay for crap like Vista?
How this guy's inane post got modded interesting I'll never figure out....
Goddamn it, I'll risk my excellent karma for this....
Your analogy fails because we KNOW that there are natural changes in temperatures. There are also many climate researchers who provide evidence that the Earth is still warming up after the Little Ice Age a that ended in the mid-1800's and that we still haven't reached the pre-Little Ice Age levels.
I'm aware that some jackass is going to whine that I don't provide a source. Well too damn bad that I did research on the Little Ice Age 3 years ago and god only knows which cd in my collection of backups the data is backed up on. Since so many people here think that they're Nobel Prize worthy, I'm sure it won't be hard for those who want to brush me off for not linking to a source to find exactly what I'm talking about.
My view on global warming? Yes, it's natural. The CO2 levels are obviously going to be higher, not because of the evil technology which releases CO2, but because of deforestation that releases previously stored CO2 and prevents current CO2 from being stored in plants.
Seeing as how the US essentially IS NATO, no matter what, we'd be stuck supplying most of the troops and most of the money.
And before people start foaming at the mouth about how I'm want war, I think the current war is idiotic and that the only justified war that the US has fought in a century is fighting against Japan during WWII. Outside of that, the US has never fought anyone who harmed them / posed a threat. That's why I laugh when I hear people talk of soldiers in Iraq / Afghanistan "defending our freedom" -- our freedom was never threatened by them.
I did respond intelligently. You ignored what I said and harped on about things that were completely irrelevant to what I said / made no sense given what I said. You've proven that you have no argument, or else you'd be able to read what people say and respond accordingly.
Try reading what I wrote again. I'm sure you'll still miss everything I said just because I don't worship our Lord and Savior Obama, but I did address the nuclear power issue and explained why this would be bad for technology. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you were just too obsessed with watching Obama's latest photo shoot to read what I wrote instead of just intentionally ignoring everything I said.
I see your comment and raise you -- when will everyone realise that the only people who care about the UN are members of the Democrat party and France?
I've yet to hear of anyone who'd have the ability to force a change (read: government) support nuclear power as opposed to purely solar / wind / hydro. Should we use solar / wind / hydro? Sure. We should also keep researching ways to make them more efficient. However, without using nuclear power, solar / wind / hydro technology can NOT currently begin to come close to fulfilling our power needs (unless Dr. Manhattan comes and gives us an overnight 50 year jump in technology).
As for why these things would result in technology stagnating? Well for one, the taxes people like Obama want to put in place to kill off demand for fossil fuel power will cause money that would have been spent on technology (newer more powerful computers, things like the Kindle or iPhone) will instead be spent on paying those taxes. Sales decrease and some of those technologically advanced gadgets will no longer be available since they won't be profitable any more. Another reason would be if we use only solar / wind / hydro that we simply won't have the power necessary to keep doing these things since all the power will be directed to more important things like electricity for homes, government buildings, etc. Also, even if you take into account the technology that needs to be invented for us to purely use solar / wind / hydro power, it would require diverting resources from other research just to find ways to provide electricity, therefore slowing down (or bringing it to a screeching halt) the advancement of other technologies.