I have a radical idea: maybe you should actually *use* Vista or Windows 7 before slamming it. Just a thought.
Vista, like previous versions of Windows, requires driver installs for any piece of hardware that I plug in. They seem to have short-circuited the dialog box so that for some hardware that I plug in, it looks for the driver itself somewhere and installs it. However, the process still causes things to pause for a significant period and is far from "just works".
For a lot of other hardware, it really requires driver CDs, and a lot of devices come with little stickers over their USB ports that say "STOP! Install driver CD first." Apparently, if you don't, bad things happen.
So, I'm sorry to say, it's you who is "completely wrong".
Yes, it's an easy claim to make. It's frustrating to watch computer science die under the thumb of unix zealots. The industry has become regressive.
Yes, it has, and Microsoft is chiefly responsible for that regression. In the 1980's and 1990's, Microsoft had an opportunity to deliver truly modern operating systems and development environments. What did they give us instead? Another bloated C/C++ kernel, GUI libraries written in C/C++, bad imitations of visual programming environments, and (lately) a Java clone.
Now the Microsoft pot (NT kernel, MFC, etc.) is calling the kettle (Linux kernel, Qt, Gtk+) black. Give me a break. Linux at least has an excuse for being cheap and old tech. But with its hundreds of billions sunk into Windows, Microsoft should have been doing a lot better.
If I have to use 1970's operating system technologies, at least I'm going to stick to the open source technology with the simpler architecture, instead of the overdesigned, overpriced, marketing driven corporate bloatware.
If Microsoft actually ever starts delivering 21st century software and software that isn't just a badly executed clone of someone else's ideas, then I'll give them another try.
You haven't given a single fact in your diatribe, all you do is state your religiously held beliefs as truth.
We have an entire generation of shoddy insecure servers and energy wasting devices now because of a mix of laziness, illogical penny-pinching, and a religious following behind Linux.
Actually, it's not penny pinching. People like me have given Windows a good chance, again and again, and it simply doesn't work well for our purposes. Your mistake is that you assume that a "superior" design or architecture would matter, even if Windows possessed it. There are far more important things than that.
Of course, I would disagree with your assertion anyway. Having used two of Cutler's systems extensively, my conclusion is that the guy is (to use your words) a complete "moron". He couldn't design a decent kernel if his life depended on it. The NT kernel exhibits the classical second system effect, building on the experience of an already completely overdesigned VMS kernel.
The Windows kernel is tiny and modern. It's practically a microkernel and about a decade or two ahead of linux in architecture. When people complain about Windows, they're not talking about the NT kernel. There is no comparable open source equivalent.
And this "modern architecture" buys me... what? Is it easier to develop drivers for Windows? Is Windows more stable? Does it perform better? Does it require less time or money to develop? Is it cheaper to buy? The answer to all of those is, for practical purposes, "no".
Kernels are supposed to do only a few things: move bits back and forth between devices and users, manage memory, and keep users and processes out of each other's hair. That's not rocket science, and it doesn't require a complicated architecture or complex OOD.
Sure, Linux has some software engineering problems, but so does Windows. Both of them use inherently unsafe languages. On balance, there is very little real-world difference between the two.
One could design and implement a better, less bloated kernel than either Linux or Windows, one that has genuinely useful functionality that doesn't exist in either of them. But so far, nobody has bothered because it's not really worth the effort and there are more important things to spend one's software development time on.
Yeah, but when I installed Windows 7, my wireless network card, printer, 3D graphics, webcam, bluetooth dongle, external hard drive, dual displays, and Touch Diamond 2 mobile phone all connected and worked immediately.
Unless Windows 7 has changed radically how drivers work under Windows, those usually require user installation on drivers. So, in different words, you're bullshitting.
I've tried to get that all working (all hardware at least 18 months old now, except the phone) in Ubuntu since 6.x
Funny, on Ubuntu 9.04, all of those really do just work, with no driver installation or other kinds of user interaction.
All the recent brouhaha about the "long tail" doesn't merely relate to the shape of the distribution (which has been known for a long time); it's about inferences people draw from that shape.
A lot of the inferences I have seen are unwarranted, and papers like this come to the same conclusion.
It's the drivers' responsibility to maintain control of their vehicles and be cognizant of sudden dangers in the street.
It's everybody's responsibility to avoid accidents, not just the drivers of automobiles. Pedestrians and bicyclist can cause accidents, can be at fault in accidents, and can (and should) be held legally responsible for their actions just as much as everybody else. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because you choose one mode of transportation over another.
That is why Microsoft Visual Studios even with the abomination of.NET virtual machine garbage
I actully prefer the.NET virtual machine garbage to the Java virtual machine garbage, not because it's faster, but because it has features like pointers, structure return, and working templates.
I'm not misreading it; the sentence is ambiguous and poorly worded. Hence it doesn't support your assertion. If you want to support your reading, you really need to find a better source.
In general, in many European legal systems, even true statements may result in defamation claims under certain circumstances. There is no reason to believe that Britain would be any more lenient.
Modern drives perform bad block replacement internally. By the time you actually see drive errors at the OS level, the drive has already experienced massive failures.
The publisher could prove the statement to be true, it could be fair comment - so long as the opinion is based on true facts, [and] is genuinely held and not influenced by malice - or it could be protected by privilege
That is, if your intent is malicious or if the information is "privileged", then even truth isn't a defense against libel under the British system anymore.
Which is as it should be - if I write "Darkness404 molests goats" then unless it is true why should I not compensate you for the resulting harm to your reputation?
Because that kind of law is harmful to democracy and freedom, as these cases show. People need to be able to say negative things about politicians, products, religions, and everything else even without being able to prove the truth of everything they say; without some leeway, reasonable public debate and dialog is impossible.
However, if the Court determines that there is a defamatory imputation on the face of the statement, then it is for the maker of the statement to justify it.
That's the way it works in the US as well. The question is what level of justification is required. Requiring the person who made the statement to prove that it is true is harmful to democracy and liberty. The US level of justification is about right: you merely have to prove that it was reasonable to assume that the statement was true, not that the statement is actually true.
The suggestion in the article that all of this is new and has journalists "running scared" is bogus (ahem) too. Essentially the same principles have applied for several hundred years.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and that's why the UK has been such a shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the world for several hundred years, right?</sarcasm>
If all knowledge is suspect, as you seem to indicate, then the whole exercise is pointless.
Not at all. In science and engineering, knowledge is always suspect. That means that you rely on it as if it were true until it is shown to be false (which usually happens sooner or later). It works quite well.
The alternative--assuming that some things are true--simply does not work. Very little of what we believed to be true 100 years ago is still true; most of it just turned out to be a useful heuristic or approximation, but it was ultimately false.
Touch and multitouch have been around for decades; the reason people aren't using them is because they simply aren't all that useful, outside maybe consumer phones and systems like ATMs. It's the same with 3D movies and interfaces; like flu epidemics, these dead ideas keep coming back every decade-and-a-half.
Heart rate monitors monitor -- guess what -- heart rate. Heart rate is how often your heart beats per minutes. For optimal training, heart rate should be kept in a particular (age-dependent) range. That's completely normal training procedure: almost every piece of aerobic exercise equipment at health clubs supports it.
Be happy that your school is teaching your kids something about modern fitness, since you obviously aren't able to teach them.
It will come with some unique features, though, like an HD radio tuner, and with software that has been well-received by users.
Yeah, all three of them.
Seriously, besides the iPod Touch, the players to beat in the coming year are likely going to be the Android-based MIDs. Zune? I don't think it matters much anymore.
Right now, red states are receiving massive net subsidies from blue states, and a significant part of that goes to their road infrastructure.
In different words, while California can't make ends meet and its roads are falling apart, people in Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Alabama are driving around on roads paid for by California and Massachusetts tax payers (and cursing those damned welfare liberals while they are doing it); every resident of those states gets, on average, more than $4000 in federal benefits more than they pay in federal taxes.
So, before we tax vehicle use more, let's first balance things out so that states pay for more of what they actually use themselves.
Do you really think that insurance companies would have much power or money if healthcare became really cheap and successful? For companies passing money along, their own profits usually end up being a percentage of what flows through them. That's why insurance companies actually don't mind the cost explosion in the health care system; they don't pay for it, you do, they just take a cut.
In the US, you can take photographs and video almost anywhere you are (there are some exceptions for dressing rooms and toilets), in public or in private. All people can do is ask you to leave private premises. In a public place, anything goes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a radical idea: maybe you should actually *use* Vista or Windows 7 before slamming it. Just a thought.
Vista, like previous versions of Windows, requires driver installs for any piece of hardware that I plug in. They seem to have short-circuited the dialog box so that for some hardware that I plug in, it looks for the driver itself somewhere and installs it. However, the process still causes things to pause for a significant period and is far from "just works".
For a lot of other hardware, it really requires driver CDs, and a lot of devices come with little stickers over their USB ports that say "STOP! Install driver CD first." Apparently, if you don't, bad things happen.
So, I'm sorry to say, it's you who is "completely wrong".
Yes, it's an easy claim to make. It's frustrating to watch computer science die under the thumb of unix zealots. The industry has become regressive.
Yes, it has, and Microsoft is chiefly responsible for that regression. In the 1980's and 1990's, Microsoft had an opportunity to deliver truly modern operating systems and development environments. What did they give us instead? Another bloated C/C++ kernel, GUI libraries written in C/C++, bad imitations of visual programming environments, and (lately) a Java clone.
Now the Microsoft pot (NT kernel, MFC, etc.) is calling the kettle (Linux kernel, Qt, Gtk+) black. Give me a break. Linux at least has an excuse for being cheap and old tech. But with its hundreds of billions sunk into Windows, Microsoft should have been doing a lot better.
If I have to use 1970's operating system technologies, at least I'm going to stick to the open source technology with the simpler architecture, instead of the overdesigned, overpriced, marketing driven corporate bloatware.
If Microsoft actually ever starts delivering 21st century software and software that isn't just a badly executed clone of someone else's ideas, then I'll give them another try.
[long diatribe]
You haven't given a single fact in your diatribe, all you do is state your religiously held beliefs as truth.
We have an entire generation of shoddy insecure servers and energy wasting devices now because of a mix of laziness, illogical penny-pinching, and a religious following behind Linux.
Actually, it's not penny pinching. People like me have given Windows a good chance, again and again, and it simply doesn't work well for our purposes. Your mistake is that you assume that a "superior" design or architecture would matter, even if Windows possessed it. There are far more important things than that.
Of course, I would disagree with your assertion anyway. Having used two of Cutler's systems extensively, my conclusion is that the guy is (to use your words) a complete "moron". He couldn't design a decent kernel if his life depended on it. The NT kernel exhibits the classical second system effect, building on the experience of an already completely overdesigned VMS kernel.
"This picture has been manipulated. The French president appears considerably taller than he is in real life."
(Heaven help us when there are French leaders who have issues with their height.)
The Windows kernel is tiny and modern. It's practically a microkernel and about a decade or two ahead of linux in architecture. When people complain about Windows, they're not talking about the NT kernel. There is no comparable open source equivalent.
And this "modern architecture" buys me... what? Is it easier to develop drivers for Windows? Is Windows more stable? Does it perform better? Does it require less time or money to develop? Is it cheaper to buy? The answer to all of those is, for practical purposes, "no".
Kernels are supposed to do only a few things: move bits back and forth between devices and users, manage memory, and keep users and processes out of each other's hair. That's not rocket science, and it doesn't require a complicated architecture or complex OOD.
Sure, Linux has some software engineering problems, but so does Windows. Both of them use inherently unsafe languages. On balance, there is very little real-world difference between the two.
One could design and implement a better, less bloated kernel than either Linux or Windows, one that has genuinely useful functionality that doesn't exist in either of them. But so far, nobody has bothered because it's not really worth the effort and there are more important things to spend one's software development time on.
Yeah, but when I installed Windows 7, my wireless network card, printer, 3D graphics, webcam, bluetooth dongle, external hard drive, dual displays, and Touch Diamond 2 mobile phone all connected and worked immediately.
Unless Windows 7 has changed radically how drivers work under Windows, those usually require user installation on drivers. So, in different words, you're bullshitting.
I've tried to get that all working (all hardware at least 18 months old now, except the phone) in Ubuntu since 6.x
Funny, on Ubuntu 9.04, all of those really do just work, with no driver installation or other kinds of user interaction.
Maybe you just got Windows and Ubuntu confused.
It can figure out that Little Tiffany is dangerous and deserved to die?
Sea slugs can learn under classical conditioning; it doesn't require consciousness or even a brain.
All the recent brouhaha about the "long tail" doesn't merely relate to the shape of the distribution (which has been known for a long time); it's about inferences people draw from that shape.
A lot of the inferences I have seen are unwarranted, and papers like this come to the same conclusion.
That song has been so overused in dystopic SF movies that it has taken on a rather menacing meaning.
It's the drivers' responsibility to maintain control of their vehicles and be cognizant of sudden dangers in the street.
It's everybody's responsibility to avoid accidents, not just the drivers of automobiles. Pedestrians and bicyclist can cause accidents, can be at fault in accidents, and can (and should) be held legally responsible for their actions just as much as everybody else. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because you choose one mode of transportation over another.
That is why Microsoft Visual Studios even with the abomination of .NET virtual machine garbage
I actully prefer the .NET virtual machine garbage to the Java virtual machine garbage, not because it's faster, but because it has features like pointers, structure return, and working templates.
Compiling Python to JavaScript running in a browser really is like putting lipstick on a dog.
I'm not misreading it; the sentence is ambiguous and poorly worded. Hence it doesn't support your assertion. If you want to support your reading, you really need to find a better source.
In general, in many European legal systems, even true statements may result in defamation claims under certain circumstances. There is no reason to believe that Britain would be any more lenient.
Filling the drive with helium should help; the speed of sound in helium is 3x higher than in air, and it offers less resistance.
(Hydrogen would be even better, but it has a tendency to interact with metals in unfortunate ways.)
Modern drives perform bad block replacement internally. By the time you actually see drive errors at the OS level, the drive has already experienced massive failures.
You left out an important part:
That is, if your intent is malicious or if the information is "privileged", then even truth isn't a defense against libel under the British system anymore.
Which is as it should be - if I write "Darkness404 molests goats" then unless it is true why should I not compensate you for the resulting harm to your reputation?
Because that kind of law is harmful to democracy and freedom, as these cases show. People need to be able to say negative things about politicians, products, religions, and everything else even without being able to prove the truth of everything they say; without some leeway, reasonable public debate and dialog is impossible.
However, if the Court determines that there is a defamatory imputation on the face of the statement, then it is for the maker of the statement to justify it.
That's the way it works in the US as well. The question is what level of justification is required. Requiring the person who made the statement to prove that it is true is harmful to democracy and liberty. The US level of justification is about right: you merely have to prove that it was reasonable to assume that the statement was true, not that the statement is actually true.
The suggestion in the article that all of this is new and has journalists "running scared" is bogus (ahem) too. Essentially the same principles have applied for several hundred years.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and that's why the UK has been such a shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the world for several hundred years, right?</sarcasm>
If all knowledge is suspect, as you seem to indicate, then the whole exercise is pointless.
Not at all. In science and engineering, knowledge is always suspect. That means that you rely on it as if it were true until it is shown to be false (which usually happens sooner or later). It works quite well.
The alternative--assuming that some things are true--simply does not work. Very little of what we believed to be true 100 years ago is still true; most of it just turned out to be a useful heuristic or approximation, but it was ultimately false.
Touch and multitouch have been around for decades; the reason people aren't using them is because they simply aren't all that useful, outside maybe consumer phones and systems like ATMs. It's the same with 3D movies and interfaces; like flu epidemics, these dead ideas keep coming back every decade-and-a-half.
Heart rate monitors monitor -- guess what -- heart rate. Heart rate is how often your heart beats per minutes. For optimal training, heart rate should be kept in a particular (age-dependent) range. That's completely normal training procedure: almost every piece of aerobic exercise equipment at health clubs supports it.
Be happy that your school is teaching your kids something about modern fitness, since you obviously aren't able to teach them.
It will come with some unique features, though, like an HD radio tuner, and with software that has been well-received by users.
Yeah, all three of them.
Seriously, besides the iPod Touch, the players to beat in the coming year are likely going to be the Android-based MIDs. Zune? I don't think it matters much anymore.
Right now, red states are receiving massive net subsidies from blue states, and a significant part of that goes to their road infrastructure.
In different words, while California can't make ends meet and its roads are falling apart, people in Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Alabama are driving around on roads paid for by California and Massachusetts tax payers (and cursing those damned welfare liberals while they are doing it); every resident of those states gets, on average, more than $4000 in federal benefits more than they pay in federal taxes.
So, before we tax vehicle use more, let's first balance things out so that states pay for more of what they actually use themselves.
Do you really think that insurance companies would have much power or money if healthcare became really cheap and successful? For companies passing money along, their own profits usually end up being a percentage of what flows through them. That's why insurance companies actually don't mind the cost explosion in the health care system; they don't pay for it, you do, they just take a cut.
In the US, you can take photographs and video almost anywhere you are (there are some exceptions for dressing rooms and toilets), in public or in private. All people can do is ask you to leave private premises. In a public place, anything goes.