Maybe I'm lucky but I don't notice flash playback using very much CPU. Just tried it on youtube, full screen. 5% cpu usage. 10-20% of %5 is 0.5 to 1% CPU usage.
I guess 5% to 1% is great for you, but to me such gains aren't worth putting up with quicktime. Especially since Apple keeps trying to sneak in itunes along with it. Anyone remember itunes causing BSODs? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=543
I don't recall Adobe ever bugging me and suggesting I get "Flash Player Pro" when I try to play flash movies.
Adobe is bad, but Apple has a worse track record.
I sure hope someone comes up with a decent alternative when flash player gets as crap as adobe acrobat reader, but quicktime isn't a decent alternative to me.
I don't think I'm trolling, so I guess you can call me an idiot, which is fine with me as long as I don't have to use quicktime.
Yeah, and instead of installing annoying Adobe Acrobat reader I can install some other PDF reader (and I do).
But that's not really the point since when I said Quicktime I meant Apple's version of it. And I assume the OP meant that too. Similarly I believe "flash" meant Adobe's stuff.
FWIW, I have tried Quicktime Alternative - and it was flaky too (crashes, hangs, doesn't fail gracefully, etc) - given that other codecs and video playing stuff I've installed don't give as much trouble I think quicktime is the problem[1]. So I uninstalled that too. I'm not going to bother trying QT Lite because frankly I don't feel like wasting more time on "quicktime".
I don't care if in theory the technology is great, because in practice it isn't. For example when there video downloads with multiple format choices I have not noticed "MOV" videos being significantly smaller in typical cases. In fact they often seem to be bigger. Just google for mov wmv download trailer and look for examples with the same video at same res (e.g. 720p ) available.
Why should I install some flaky software when the downloads aren't significantly smaller in practice?
Maybe one day it will be less crap.
[1] I don't blame the crashes on Media Player Classic (included with quicktime alternative) since in my experience it's less crash prone than VLC (which is subpar - I noticed when playing short videos VLC often doesn't render some frames at the end, VLC has lots of other annoyances too, but I'm digressing enough;) ).
The trouble is most libertarians are barking up the wrong tree asking for small government.
It should be about quality and not quantity.
Sticking with the code example, good programmers know that the quality of a program is not measured by the number of lines, or even its apparent simplicity and elegance.
Just because a program is a simple and elegant one-liner doesn't make it good or even correct. A 10 million line program is not necessarily good either.
And very often when a simple and elegant algorithm meets the real world it usually stops looking so simple and elegant.
The data processing bit of it may remain simple and elegant, but the exception/error handling, stuff "marketing/XYZ/boss required" and other real world stuff is likely to be so ugly that only its parent might love it;).
Why's that modded troll? Quicktime has annoyed me enough to uninstall it. I still have flash installed.
Installing quicktime puts some stupid icon in the systray that annoys you every now and then. If you're not careful while installing quicktime, you might get itunes bundled along.
Adobe hasn't got around to making flash as annoying as quicktime yet (but they have made Acrobat Reader annoying thus I no longer have it installed).
He might not have been raised to be a liar, but he sure wasn't raised to be a diplomat;).
He might be telling the truth because if he talks to the cops the way he posts on Slashdot, I'm not surprised the cops in Florida gave him special treatment.
Imagine a professor publishing climate research was caught using misquotes from tabloids as a source of data. Sure it's only one mistake. But he/she might as well pack up and find a new job.
Credibility is critical for the IPCC. It is close to their "reason for existence".
If the IPCC loses too much credibility, too few may listen to them (and their mistakes be used as excuses to not do the right stuff) in which case the IPCC might as well pack up and stop wasting resources, and a new organization be created to replace it.
To quote their own website: <quote>Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information.
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.</quote>
Their jobs are to make very few mistakes (rigorous etc etc). That's not true for your examples.
Congress and Parliament are voted in by the people, and the voters almost expect them to make mistakes and plenty of them:).
A company that specializes in providing cheap, tasty food, with a reputation for not being so good for health, will get away with an "oops, salmonella got in somehow". Most people will stop buying for a while, but they'll return eventually. Because their job isn't "don't make mistakes", their job is "provide cheap tasty food".
In contrast a company that specializes in providing expensive but safe food for infants could make just one a stupid mistake causing some babies to die and their business might never recover.
Similarly if a premium burger restaurant that prides itself in serving very expensive burgers that have beef patties made out of 100% pure beef, is one day caught using patties that include "rat", people might say "I might as well be eating at some cheap burger chain". Whereas if a cheap burger chain is caught doing that, people will be upset, but there'll be a fair bit of "somehow we're not that surprised";).
So if your reason for being (raison d'etre) is providing credible stuff, and you are no longer credible you might as well resign and join Moody's or Standard and Poors, where _pretending_ to supply credible data and analysis is your job:).
The pay might even be better, and you can get away with "yes I know we said it was 'AAA' yesterday, but today it's 'BB'".
> They have the unenviable task of summarizing the results of literally thousands of research papers.
If they are summarizing from research papers, which research paper used the news misquotes?
> as though an error in one paragraph on one page means that all thousands of pages are totally invalid.
But how do we know whether their other conclusions are valid or not when the IPCC is generating some conclusions from news agency misquotes?
If we have to verify their stuff and go through the research ourselves, why bother with the IPCC?
It's their job to be rigorous with their conclusions and the analysis leading to their _public_ releases, not our job.
I agree that the global warming issue is important, and it is certain that humans are affecting climate. But their conclusions may influence what Governments and entire countries do. And likely negatively in economic terms.
If they can't do their jobs properly why should their possibly invalid conclusions be used to affect the lives of billions of people in the world?
They have to do far far better than Slashdot editors.
That's ass-backwards. Having the reader included is a big plus point for hard drives since it's included for such a low price. It's a big minus for tape drives.
You said: "If a tape drive dies, it is expensive, but it can be replaced and generally not cause loss of data. The media is separate from the reader." And: "If the heads die on a hard disk, you are facing a very expensive recovery process if anything is stored on that drive that is wanted."
If a 1.5TB hard drive dies, it is separate from the other 1.5TB hard drives too. You can backup/restore with the others. What's the big deal?
In contrast, if your expensive tape drive dies, you need to get a replacement before you can use any of your tapes. If in the meantime your systems are down and can't be restored from backups, you are screwed.
And if a particularly precious 800MB LT4 tape dies, you also need an expensive recovery process for it. So what's the difference?
**Cost A tape drive is about USD1.6K, LTO4 800GB tapes are USD40 each.
A 1.5TB HDD is about USD110 each - the "media" comes with its own drive.
A tape system is cheaper at the point USD1.6k * number of tape media * USD40 < number of HDD for same capacity * USD 110.
You need more than 100 tapes per tape drive for a tape drive to be cheaper "today". More if you buy a more expensive tape drive (some are 4K).
How many companies have more than 100 tapes per tape drive? Once you start needing lots more tapes to backup your stuff, you might start needing more tape drives to cope with the I/O requirements.
Tapes are only cheaper if you really need to archive lots of stuff for a long time.
** Future proofing
If tomorrow LTOx+1 tapes become affordable, you need to buy a very expensive LTOx+1 drive to use them.
If tomorrow 3TB hard drives become affordable, you just buy the 3TB HDDs and use them.
** Bandwidth A single tape drive has 120MB transfer rate. You want more I/O you need more tape drives or more expensive tape drives.
A 1.5TB HDD has about 100MB transfer rate.
You can plug your hard drives to other computers and get more backup I/O if necessary. For the price of a tape drive you can get a new computer + a few TB drives thrown in.
** Reliability and robustness.
Sure HDDs are more fragile, but in my experience tapes and tape drives don't seem to be way more reliable than HDDs that don't get dropped. They get shredded by the drive (or in some cases "mutually assured destruction" occurs). I've even heard horror stories where tapes could only be read the drive that wrote them.
If you get the better drives (that cost way more than USD1.6K) and tapes the cost calculations change- you may need even more tapes per drive for them to come out cheaper.
I wonder how Sikuli copes with "click page down till you find the icon you need to actually click on".
How about if the stuff you click on might look rather different each time? e.g. the IP address might not be 0.0.0.0 but something else the second or third time around.
And what if the stuff you need to click on can only be identified by text or an icon that you don't click on - you actually click on the stuff to the right (or left or whatever) of it. This one isn't a biggie - it shouldn't be too difficult to get Sikuli to search for the text, then search from an offset for the stuff to click on, or click on a relative offset point.
As a Mac user you would know that OSX got so much more marketshare in a shorter time.
You can say part of it was due to Steve Job's reality distortion field, but, fact is desktop linux got better up to a point then stopped getting better and remained "not good enough" and some bits even got worse (I actually switched from KDE to GNOME because KDE got so crap recently).
Sound doesn't work well.
And NetworkManager seems to be neither great for the "pros", nor great for the "noobs".
I had lots of problems just getting WiFi to work with "out of the box" Ubuntu. The OSS bunch can blame vendors for not writing drivers etc, but hey I think WiFi works out of the box on Macs right?
FWIW, I don't think Windows 7 is such a great improvement for "pro users" either.
Why would you stop using your retina? Think of it as "aux video".
Or a third eye (or even more;) ).
It'll be interesting if children get augmented at an early age. We currently have stereoscopic, 3 colour vision, but they might have something far better.
1) allows the blind to see - but with crappy resolution. Also do a search for "seeing tongue" - seeing is in the mind. 2) allows paralyzed people to control devices with their thoughts.
So if tech improves, the screen will be in your head. And the keyboard too.
No need to waste energy on backlights.
Add wireless tech and some "software glue", and you'd have virtual telepathy and virtual telekinesis.
The real problem is Copyright Law and DRM. The laws and DRM systems might prevent you from recalling videos you record (as you walk in a mall that has copyrighted background music) or limit you to limited plays per pay...
Like the other poster said there's register renaming - this allows pipelined stuff to be executed in parallel even though they happen to be using the same registers.
For example, if you have a pipeline of 8 instructions, the first four instructions might be using R1, and the second set of four instructions might be using R1 too - but for different _independent_ reasons. Now you can't store the same R1 values to two different locations since the second four instructions would generate a different "R1" value. So the CPU figures out that there are no dependencies and so the second set of four instructions actually use R1' to do stuff.
Register renaming can still help when you have 32 registers, but you just have less pressure to do it:).
Also while you are right that the x86 processor has to store and load from main memory more often, the CPU doesn't always have to wait for it to happen. When conditions are right it writes and reads from the cache and runs merrily along at higher speeds. Only later is the final value committed to main memory. This is not as fast as pure register access, but I'm sure there are other tricks the x86 CPU designers do for performance.
I don't like Bing that much, but it'll be no surprise to me if Bing provides better search results than Google.
This is because lots of SEO spammers are targeting Google. If Bing and Google use different algorithms and they start having similar marketshare that might make it harder for the spammers. Anything that results in less spam in my results is good for me.
> it's much more difficult for them to use a gun safely and effectively, but those obstacles are no more insuperable than many others a blind person faces.
If it's really dark, some of them might be able to shoot you before you shoot them;)
There are a fair number of blind people who use echolocation and passive hearing to detect objects.
Even sighted people can notice the "sound shadow" caused by someone blocking ambient sound - so it doesn't matter even if that someone is very quiet - the "soundscape" changes.
Get someone to put move a hand near your ear. You'll be able hear the difference.
Reporting in the medical journal Thorax, they describe the cases of four young men who suffered a lung collapse -- technically called pneumothorax -- that appeared to be triggered by loud music. Three of the men were at a concert or club when the pneumothorax occurred, while the fourth was in his car, which was outfitted with a 1,000-watt bass box because he "liked to listen to loud music."
Privilege escalation isn't a big deal for "desktop users" in practice because:
1) The windows crowd are already running as admin, or they'll just click "OK" as many times as it takes to see the dancing pigs/bunnies. 2) The linux crowd if they are not running as admin, are often running unsandboxed browsers (e.g. firefox) using the same account they are logged in as. That means if the browser is exploited, the malware can access all their precious data, credentials, certs, emails on their local filesystems and on remote filesystems. The malware can make network connections through their VPN connections. The malware can do whatever their normal user account allows them to do - which is often a lot. 3) Only a few people should care about the OS files. The rest should care more about their data. There are usually plenty of copies of the OS available, and the O/S files aren't private files.
Yeah, the recent movie Avatar made 1.6 billion USD worldwide after just a month. Not 5 years. Not 50. Not 120.
I say even 50 years is too long.
14 might be OK.
Microsoft has made plenty out of Windows 95. If Windows 95 going public domain is a threat to Windows 7, then maybe they should make something much better right?
And in 5 years they must release something way better than Windows XP. Which is harder, but hey if you want to encourage innovation and increase the pace of progress.
Say they fail, and the Windows XP compatibles and copies start hitting the market, would it be so bad?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm lucky but I don't notice flash playback using very much CPU. Just tried it on youtube, full screen. 5% cpu usage. 10-20% of %5 is 0.5 to 1% CPU usage.
I guess 5% to 1% is great for you, but to me such gains aren't worth putting up with quicktime. Especially since Apple keeps trying to sneak in itunes along with it. Anyone remember itunes causing BSODs? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=543
I don't recall Adobe ever bugging me and suggesting I get "Flash Player Pro" when I try to play flash movies.
Adobe is bad, but Apple has a worse track record.
I sure hope someone comes up with a decent alternative when flash player gets as crap as adobe acrobat reader, but quicktime isn't a decent alternative to me.
I don't think I'm trolling, so I guess you can call me an idiot, which is fine with me as long as I don't have to use quicktime.
Yeah, and instead of installing annoying Adobe Acrobat reader I can install some other PDF reader (and I do).
;) ).
But that's not really the point since when I said Quicktime I meant Apple's version of it. And I assume the OP meant that too. Similarly I believe "flash" meant Adobe's stuff.
FWIW, I have tried Quicktime Alternative - and it was flaky too (crashes, hangs, doesn't fail gracefully, etc) - given that other codecs and video playing stuff I've installed don't give as much trouble I think quicktime is the problem[1]. So I uninstalled that too. I'm not going to bother trying QT Lite because frankly I don't feel like wasting more time on "quicktime".
I don't care if in theory the technology is great, because in practice it isn't. For example when there video downloads with multiple format choices I have not noticed "MOV" videos being significantly smaller in typical cases. In fact they often seem to be bigger. Just google for mov wmv download trailer and look for examples with the same video at same res (e.g. 720p ) available.
Why should I install some flaky software when the downloads aren't significantly smaller in practice?
Maybe one day it will be less crap.
[1] I don't blame the crashes on Media Player Classic (included with quicktime alternative) since in my experience it's less crash prone than VLC (which is subpar - I noticed when playing short videos VLC often doesn't render some frames at the end, VLC has lots of other annoyances too, but I'm digressing enough
The trouble is most libertarians are barking up the wrong tree asking for small government.
;).
It should be about quality and not quantity.
Sticking with the code example, good programmers know that the quality of a program is not measured by the number of lines, or even its apparent simplicity and elegance.
Just because a program is a simple and elegant one-liner doesn't make it good or even correct. A 10 million line program is not necessarily good either.
And very often when a simple and elegant algorithm meets the real world it usually stops looking so simple and elegant.
The data processing bit of it may remain simple and elegant, but the exception/error handling, stuff "marketing/XYZ/boss required" and other real world stuff is likely to be so ugly that only its parent might love it
Why's that modded troll? Quicktime has annoyed me enough to uninstall it. I still have flash installed.
Installing quicktime puts some stupid icon in the systray that annoys you every now and then. If you're not careful while installing quicktime, you might get itunes bundled along.
Adobe hasn't got around to making flash as annoying as quicktime yet (but they have made Acrobat Reader annoying thus I no longer have it installed).
The problem is the respawn time.
:).
;).
I heard it's a bit like CS in that you have to wait till everything is over before you respawn.
If it were up to me it'll be more like Team Fortress
The graphics are pretty realistic though.
But maybe there should be some sort of glow and sound effect when you get a promotion or level up some other thing
He might not have been raised to be a liar, but he sure wasn't raised to be a diplomat ;).
He might be telling the truth because if he talks to the cops the way he posts on Slashdot, I'm not surprised the cops in Florida gave him special treatment.
Imagine a professor publishing climate research was caught using misquotes from tabloids as a source of data. Sure it's only one mistake. But he/she might as well pack up and find a new job.
:).
;).
:).
Credibility is critical for the IPCC. It is close to their "reason for existence".
If the IPCC loses too much credibility, too few may listen to them (and their mistakes be used as excuses to not do the right stuff) in which case the IPCC might as well pack up and stop wasting resources, and a new organization be created to replace it.
To quote their own website:
<quote>Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information.
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.</quote>
Their jobs are to make very few mistakes (rigorous etc etc). That's not true for your examples.
Congress and Parliament are voted in by the people, and the voters almost expect them to make mistakes and plenty of them
A company that specializes in providing cheap, tasty food, with a reputation for not being so good for health, will get away with an "oops, salmonella got in somehow". Most people will stop buying for a while, but they'll return eventually. Because their job isn't "don't make mistakes", their job is "provide cheap tasty food".
In contrast a company that specializes in providing expensive but safe food for infants could make just one a stupid mistake causing some babies to die and their business might never recover.
Similarly if a premium burger restaurant that prides itself in serving very expensive burgers that have beef patties made out of 100% pure beef, is one day caught using patties that include "rat", people might say "I might as well be eating at some cheap burger chain". Whereas if a cheap burger chain is caught doing that, people will be upset, but there'll be a fair bit of "somehow we're not that surprised"
So if your reason for being (raison d'etre) is providing credible stuff, and you are no longer credible you might as well resign and join Moody's or Standard and Poors, where _pretending_ to supply credible data and analysis is your job
The pay might even be better, and you can get away with "yes I know we said it was 'AAA' yesterday, but today it's 'BB'".
> They have the unenviable task of summarizing the results of literally thousands of research papers.
If they are summarizing from research papers, which research paper used the news misquotes?
> as though an error in one paragraph on one page means that all thousands of pages are totally invalid.
But how do we know whether their other conclusions are valid or not when the IPCC is generating some conclusions from news agency misquotes?
If we have to verify their stuff and go through the research ourselves, why bother with the IPCC?
It's their job to be rigorous with their conclusions and the analysis leading to their _public_ releases, not our job.
I agree that the global warming issue is important, and it is certain that humans are affecting climate. But their conclusions may influence what Governments and entire countries do. And likely negatively in economic terms.
If they can't do their jobs properly why should their possibly invalid conclusions be used to affect the lives of billions of people in the world?
They have to do far far better than Slashdot editors.
That's ass-backwards. Having the reader included is a big plus point for hard drives since it's included for such a low price. It's a big minus for tape drives.
You said: "If a tape drive dies, it is expensive, but it can be replaced and generally not cause loss of data. The media is separate from the reader."
And: "If the heads die on a hard disk, you are facing a very expensive recovery process if anything is stored on that drive that is wanted."
If a 1.5TB hard drive dies, it is separate from the other 1.5TB hard drives too. You can backup/restore with the others. What's the big deal?
In contrast, if your expensive tape drive dies, you need to get a replacement before you can use any of your tapes. If in the meantime your systems are down and can't be restored from backups, you are screwed.
And if a particularly precious 800MB LT4 tape dies, you also need an expensive recovery process for it. So what's the difference?
**Cost
A tape drive is about USD1.6K, LTO4 800GB tapes are USD40 each.
A 1.5TB HDD is about USD110 each - the "media" comes with its own drive.
A tape system is cheaper at the point USD1.6k * number of tape media * USD40 < number of HDD for same capacity * USD 110.
You need more than 100 tapes per tape drive for a tape drive to be cheaper "today". More if you buy a more expensive tape drive (some are 4K).
How many companies have more than 100 tapes per tape drive? Once you start needing lots more tapes to backup your stuff, you might start needing more tape drives to cope with the I/O requirements.
Tapes are only cheaper if you really need to archive lots of stuff for a long time.
** Future proofing
If tomorrow LTOx+1 tapes become affordable, you need to buy a very expensive LTOx+1 drive to use them.
If tomorrow 3TB hard drives become affordable, you just buy the 3TB HDDs and use them.
** Bandwidth
A single tape drive has 120MB transfer rate. You want more I/O you need more tape drives or more expensive tape drives.
A 1.5TB HDD has about 100MB transfer rate.
You can plug your hard drives to other computers and get more backup I/O if necessary. For the price of a tape drive you can get a new computer + a few TB drives thrown in.
** Reliability and robustness.
Sure HDDs are more fragile, but in my experience tapes and tape drives don't seem to be way more reliable than HDDs that don't get dropped. They get shredded by the drive (or in some cases "mutually assured destruction" occurs). I've even heard horror stories where tapes could only be read the drive that wrote them.
If you get the better drives (that cost way more than USD1.6K) and tapes the cost calculations change- you may need even more tapes per drive for them to come out cheaper.
The RIAA and their friends are more likely to make less money, if people don't buy music in normal way, and just buy merch and attend concerts.
The artists and performers might make more money, but they're not the RIAA.
I wonder how Sikuli copes with "click page down till you find the icon you need to actually click on".
How about if the stuff you click on might look rather different each time? e.g. the IP address might not be 0.0.0.0 but something else the second or third time around.
And what if the stuff you need to click on can only be identified by text or an icon that you don't click on - you actually click on the stuff to the right (or left or whatever) of it. This one isn't a biggie - it shouldn't be too difficult to get Sikuli to search for the text, then search from an offset for the stuff to click on, or click on a relative offset point.
But yeah it's interesting.
Viagra? ;)
OK I know it's not the best selling, but it's a favourite in many other ways (jokes, spam etc)...
> There are a LOT of technical problems to overcome before you're even at the point where DRM et al is even a potential concern.
:)
You think they'll only overcome them after Mickey Mouse becomes public domain in the USA?
Movement? Was it a spasm, a twitch or a tic?
As a Mac user you would know that OSX got so much more marketshare in a shorter time.
You can say part of it was due to Steve Job's reality distortion field, but, fact is desktop linux got better up to a point then stopped getting better and remained "not good enough" and some bits even got worse (I actually switched from KDE to GNOME because KDE got so crap recently).
Sound doesn't work well.
And NetworkManager seems to be neither great for the "pros", nor great for the "noobs".
I had lots of problems just getting WiFi to work with "out of the box" Ubuntu. The OSS bunch can blame vendors for not writing drivers etc, but hey I think WiFi works out of the box on Macs right?
FWIW, I don't think Windows 7 is such a great improvement for "pro users" either.
Why would you stop using your retina? Think of it as "aux video".
;) ).
Or a third eye (or even more
It'll be interesting if children get augmented at an early age. We currently have stereoscopic, 3 colour vision, but they might have something far better.
Currently there's tech that:
1) allows the blind to see - but with crappy resolution. Also do a search for "seeing tongue" - seeing is in the mind.
2) allows paralyzed people to control devices with their thoughts.
So if tech improves, the screen will be in your head. And the keyboard too.
No need to waste energy on backlights.
Add wireless tech and some "software glue", and you'd have virtual telepathy and virtual telekinesis.
The real problem is Copyright Law and DRM. The laws and DRM systems might prevent you from recalling videos you record (as you walk in a mall that has copyrighted background music) or limit you to limited plays per pay...
Like the other poster said there's register renaming - this allows pipelined stuff to be executed in parallel even though they happen to be using the same registers.
:).
For example, if you have a pipeline of 8 instructions, the first four instructions might be using R1, and the second set of four instructions might be using R1 too - but for different _independent_ reasons. Now you can't store the same R1 values to two different locations since the second four instructions would generate a different "R1" value. So the CPU figures out that there are no dependencies and so the second set of four instructions actually use R1' to do stuff.
Register renaming can still help when you have 32 registers, but you just have less pressure to do it
Also while you are right that the x86 processor has to store and load from main memory more often, the CPU doesn't always have to wait for it to happen. When conditions are right it writes and reads from the cache and runs merrily along at higher speeds. Only later is the final value committed to main memory. This is not as fast as pure register access, but I'm sure there are other tricks the x86 CPU designers do for performance.
I don't like Bing that much, but it'll be no surprise to me if Bing provides better search results than Google.
This is because lots of SEO spammers are targeting Google. If Bing and Google use different algorithms and they start having similar marketshare that might make it harder for the spammers. Anything that results in less spam in my results is good for me.
> it's much more difficult for them to use a gun safely and effectively, but those obstacles are no more insuperable than many others a blind person faces.
If it's really dark, some of them might be able to shoot you before you shoot them ;)
There are a fair number of blind people who use echolocation and passive hearing to detect objects.
See: http://www.benunderwood.com/echolocation.html
Even sighted people can notice the "sound shadow" caused by someone blocking ambient sound - so it doesn't matter even if that someone is very quiet - the "soundscape" changes.
Get someone to put move a hand near your ear. You'll be able hear the difference.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/09/64829
Reporting in the medical journal Thorax, they describe the cases of four young men who suffered a lung collapse -- technically called pneumothorax -- that appeared to be triggered by loud music. Three of the men were at a concert or club when the pneumothorax occurred, while the fourth was in his car, which was outfitted with a 1,000-watt bass box because he "liked to listen to loud music."
Privilege escalation isn't a big deal for "desktop users" in practice because:
1) The windows crowd are already running as admin, or they'll just click "OK" as many times as it takes to see the dancing pigs/bunnies.
2) The linux crowd if they are not running as admin, are often running unsandboxed browsers (e.g. firefox) using the same account they are logged in as. That means if the browser is exploited, the malware can access all their precious data, credentials, certs, emails on their local filesystems and on remote filesystems. The malware can make network connections through their VPN connections. The malware can do whatever their normal user account allows them to do - which is often a lot.
3) Only a few people should care about the OS files. The rest should care more about their data. There are usually plenty of copies of the OS available, and the O/S files aren't private files.
I thought it would be:
No Sherlock? Shit.
Yeah, the recent movie Avatar made 1.6 billion USD worldwide after just a month. Not 5 years. Not 50. Not 120.
I say even 50 years is too long.
14 might be OK.
Microsoft has made plenty out of Windows 95. If Windows 95 going public domain is a threat to Windows 7, then maybe they should make something much better right?
And in 5 years they must release something way better than Windows XP. Which is harder, but hey if you want to encourage innovation and increase the pace of progress.
Say they fail, and the Windows XP compatibles and copies start hitting the market, would it be so bad?
> those reasons are basically the only ones that hold at all for having copyright extended after the death of an author
There's another reason: if copyrights ended on the death of an author, authors might somehow end up having lower lifespans than average.
Having it author's death + 25 at least makes them wait a bit longer...
Fixed term from creation date is better of course - decouples the death from the copyright.
Maybe he's 150kg of muscle and in "category 3". 150kg * 3.5W/kg = 525W. He won't beat Armstrong up hills or in acceleration ;).
:).
Or, the exercise bike is counting how much energy he is burning per second, which is different from how much work he was doing.
Or as you say- something is wrong somewhere