Arms dealers aren't generally selling things like B-1 bombers and cruise missiles...those kinds of things go straight from the manufacturer to the purchaser.
Oh, absolutely true, and it's really not an option for any of these countries to declare all-out war on any of the others.
But, I was assuming that nuclear was off the table, in which case China, France, and the UK really can't deliver any real force more than a small distance. They have some capability, but the US and Russia are the only ones that can really send a large amount of destructive force anywhere, and can stop other countries from sending forces very far.
And, Russia and the US are the only countries with enough conventional weapons to flatten entire countries from a distance.
The idea here is to run your applications on the SSD drive and all of your less-central media files (work documents, movies, game backups, etc.) on your HDD drives.
That's another strike against SSDs.
Laptops generally don't have space for a second drive (and you sure don't want to lug an external drive around) unless you are content with the non-upgradeable, proprietary form-factor SSD drives that some laptops are offering now.
And, desktops have enough space that they can benefit from other technology options (>4GB RAM, RAID-10, etc.) that make SSDs less of a win. Seriously, for the price of a 256GB SSD that won't exhaust the write count too quickly, you can outfit a system with 16GB of RAM and four 300GB 10K drives in RAID-10.
But why would anybody pay $36 for 80GB when they can pay $45 for 250GB?
Sure, you may not need more than 80GB right now, but when you get 170GB more for the price of a fast food meal, it's kind of a no-brainer. And, with the exception of 10K rpm drives, you pretty much have to buy a larger drive to get the latest, greatest technology.
If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.
On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.
A machine with a 2-2.8GHz CPU and 512MB-1GB of RAM was pretty much the middle of the road when Vista was launched, so it should run just fine on that configuration. With Aero, you'll need a decent graphics card, but you shouldn't need 4GB of RAM or a 3.4GHz processor just to run the basic system.
Seems the previous government of Iraq - that under Saddam Hussein - lasted all of 6 weeks before it was completely obliterated and their military destroyed. And then a new government was set up with US involvement.
Also, the US was trying to do what was necessary to topple the existing government and military in Iraq with minimal damages to the general population and non-military targets.
If the US had basically just wanted a very large hole where Iraq used to be, that would also have been quite easy to do. There is no country other than possible Russia that could stand up to this, as no other country can project so much of their military power to any location in the world like the US. China, for example, would be almost impossible to invade and conquer, but they can't really use their army for anything but defense against the US (unless they can swim better than we have seen).
I'm guessing that all this is theoretical, because I'm pretty sure you don't have that many murderers running around your city, and I'm also fairly sure that you haven't actually killed even one of them in self-defense.
You'll also find that there are times when walking away without letting anyone know might fight back is far safer than waving a gun and having the entire gang (several of whom you didn't even see) shoot first and not bother to ask questions. Or, worse yet, they shoot you with your own gun, which is not at all unlikely, even to pros who try to go it alone against an armed group.
I only have the 504, and it looks somewhat like a portable drive enclosure with a screen.
I like it because I don't have to re-encode movies specifically for it. If I want to, I can just copy.avi files that contain my ripped DVDs...the only ones that won't work are the ones with DTS sound.
That's completely a function of software, not hardware.
There are at least two (and probably more) apps that will do the same thing with the Archos as happens with an iPod...plug it in and everything just syncs up. There is nothing special about the Archos, so one of the apps that was written years before the hardware was sold, and it Just Works® because they had already thought about syncing your music to another (possibly removable) drive.
The key statement in the GP post that you overlooked is "people don't mind paying fair prices and owning what they buy".
In other words, some people download so they can actually use the content they have paid for, because it's harder to break the artificial restrictions (i.e., DRM) yourself than just download something without those restrictions.
Some people also download because they don't want to pay $20 for the crapshoot that new movies are. It's sort of like paying on the way out of a movie theater if you were entertained.
I've downloaded re-mastered CDs to see for myself if they are better or worse than the original releases that I already own. I'm not going to gamble $15 when the vast majority are worse than the original releases, because "re-mastered" today seems to mean "compress the hell out of it so that the overall volume level is louder", and stupid people will review it with astonishment about how they can now "hear the piano", even though it was there all the time and was meant to be 20dB down from the main volume.
I also own over 1000 movies on various formats, and I'm sick and tired of seeing many of them re-released every year with 20 seconds more footage, or the commentary that was supposed to be on the "special edition", but is now available on the new "extra special edition". I'm just not going to pay another $10-15 to companies that believe I'm only buying a "license" to their content and who believe that I shouldn't be allowed to sell the old version to help pay for the new one.
Besides, why does it matter if I kill a murderer or thief who is attacking me?
Besides, why does it matter if one of my stray bullets hits a 6-month-old baby?
I'm pretty much in the NRA camp when it comes to restrictions on gun ownership, but I really don't want to see my town turned into Dodge City or Tombstone.
I once saw a movie where they did this...what was it called...? MacArthur Park?
What I'm wondering is if this is an intentional Weird Al reference, or just more proof that patents are bad (because multiple people often come up with the same idea independently).
no offense, but the general populace (at least in the states) doesn't like or 'get' python.
Actually, they just think they don't like or get it.
Saturday Night Live was an attempt to be a US version. Not a rip-off, but the same sort of really out there humor that sometimes results in convulsive laughter and sometimes just goes on too long if it doesn't work. Lorne Michaels often talks about the influence Python had on the show.
Also, the creators of Cheers have also cited the Python humor as being an influence. I don't really see it myself, but then I didn't create the show.
I'll concede that some the warnings amount to pseudo-security, but the reality is that Vista is much more secure than XP.
At this point, most of the Vista "security" appears to be one of the same reasons that Linux is not targeted by malware as much: market share.
There's very little profit in writing a piece of malware to specifically target Vista, even though it's quite possible to do so, and has been done in labs.
Signed drivers, the inability to put administrator items into your startup, and a whack of other measures all significantly hardened Vista to a damned LOT of the XP malware out there.
Much of this isn't about security...it's about control. The signed driver requirement is only slightly for security...now a hobby developer can't create anything that more than essentially an end-user, non-trusted application, and even reputable companies might have problems (I have some hardware that went through rapid updates to the drivers, and many of those were not signed).
I see part of it as heading toward the nasty "trusted computing", since in a default install, Vista has files on your drive that an administrator cannot modify...only the "TrustedInstaller" can modify them. For me, this is particularly annoying, as some of the files are things like the "Computer Management" MMC data file. This means I have to live with Microsoft's brain-dead default settings that eat up valuable screen real estate for no good reason...except that this way Microsoft can move people one step closer to "have it our way...we know best".
It's true that Vista isn't half as fast as XP. For some operations, it is far, far slower.
Although an actual bug and not a feature, the slow file copy that plagued Vista before SP1 resulted in copy times that were 10x that of XP on the same files. The thing that bothers me most about this sort of bug is that it was not in the public betas, so it must have been a change purely for the release version. That means the copy slowdown was either intentional, or there was absolutely no testing of this change.
The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately.
If Vista were actually doing more for the user than XP, then people wouldn't be quite so upset.
But, most of what makes Vista slow are either bugs (file copy bug, poor algorithm used by SuperFetch that actually slows down real-world usage, etc.) or things the user doesn't want, like DRM or the extra pseudo-security features that don't really do anything, since there are still exploits from the Win2K days that work on an out-of-the-box Vista install.
In order to support quite a few common and popular programs, a Windows legacy sandbox would have to replicate a legacy windows environment, including provisions for installing kernel drivers and similar.
With the state of virtualization technology today, the only tricky part is figuring out the best way to allow the sandboxed app to communicate with other apps (either native or in their own sandboxes) in only completely safe ways.
In other words, if the sandboxed app tries to enumerate all running applications, it would see only itself (and maybe a virtualized Explorer), or if it tried to read the raw display to see if other windows were there, it would see itself and a virtual desktop. Then, only things like the clipboard would get shared with other apps.
In general, this is just fine. There are very few apps that require more communications with other apps, and most of them are system apps that will be re-written as native. For a "single" application that is really multiple running programs, you'd allow the user to build sandboxes that hold multiple apps of their choosing.
With all of these apps running on the desktop as if they were native, the user probably won't be able to tell the difference between a legacy sandboxed app and a native one.
I don't think you understand the term "distribution" very well.
It can't be applied to a single trial.
Also, (honest) coin flips aren't a normal distribution...you'll get 50% heads and 50% tails with no outliers.
Or, perhaps you are thinking of the fact that in the combinations of heads and tails for a given number of flips, each number of heads (or tails) generates a normal distribution. But, your first 9 flips are an outlier for either 9 or 10 flips. So logic says the next flip would be heads because despite the fact that you think it's a fair coin, it's not really. Also, logic says that since the combinations should lead to a normal distribution, the next flip should be tails to bring it back closer.
Thus, everything says that the chance for heads on the next flip is 50%.
Not con-man: Hey, my secretary made a mistake on that check and wrote it for too much...can you cash it and send me the difference?
Seller: No, I really need you to send me another check for the correct amount.
Not con-man: Well, then, screw you...I'm gonna stop payment on that check and you don't have to send me the stuff.
See...if you don't agree to these extra terms, even a completely honest buyer might just cost you some profit. Of course, a real con man would say exactly the same thing.
Also, some of these bad check scams have the con man saying things like, "...and keep $20/100/500 for the trouble of doing this for me", where the amount to keep is relative to the overpayment amount.
Some of the more intelligent people are coming up with cons. People of lower intelligence fall for them. No magic here.
Smart people fall for cons too.
Smart or not smart has little to do with it, but many people seem to think "lazy" and "greedy" people are also generally less smart.
Greedy people fall for cons, while people who believe that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is don't get conned. "Greedy" doesn't have to mean they'd steal money, or run cons themselves. "Greedy" means that if they think they can make a quick buck with no work involved, they will.
In the first linked article, the guy fell for the con because he saw he could get a $100 reward for finding a lost object that he didn't actually find. But, like pretty much every scam (including all the Nigerian e-mail scams), to get the money he had to pay an advance fee.
Compared to other non-Microsoft SMB/CIFS client implementations, the OS X SMB client is deficient.
It does not support DFS, which basically amounts to having symlinks from one CIFS share to another (so a hierarchy of directories spread across many servers can be accessed via one namespace.) But Linux's cifs client driver can use it and Samba can host it.
Don't believe everything you read about Samba.
Its DFS support is shoddy at best and catastrophic at worst. It just fails to mount on Fedora 6 (samba 3.0.24-7, kernel 2.6.22.14-72.fc6), and causes a kernel panic on Fedora 9 (samba 3.2.4-0.21, kernel 2.6.26.5-45.fc9.i686). Of course, I am using Windows 2003 R2, which has improved DFS (which, is absolutely killer, especially the much better replication).
Since they don't want jail time, I can see why he wouldn't be worried even if he did do something wrong.
Any fine is going to be pretty much a drop in the bucket for him. Sure, he won't like paying the $1-10M (based on his avoiding $750,000 in losses), but we won't see him on the street with a "will work for food" sign anytime soon, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Arms dealers aren't generally selling things like B-1 bombers and cruise missiles...those kinds of things go straight from the manufacturer to the purchaser.
There were several laptops where the SSD is either on the motherboard or otherwise non-standard. I don't know if they are still made.
Sorry, but I can't find where I read about them. Obviously, it was one of the larger manufacturers like Dell, Lenovo, etc.
Oh, absolutely true, and it's really not an option for any of these countries to declare all-out war on any of the others.
But, I was assuming that nuclear was off the table, in which case China, France, and the UK really can't deliver any real force more than a small distance. They have some capability, but the US and Russia are the only ones that can really send a large amount of destructive force anywhere, and can stop other countries from sending forces very far.
And, Russia and the US are the only countries with enough conventional weapons to flatten entire countries from a distance.
The idea here is to run your applications on the SSD drive and all of your less-central media files (work documents, movies, game backups, etc.) on your HDD drives.
That's another strike against SSDs.
Laptops generally don't have space for a second drive (and you sure don't want to lug an external drive around) unless you are content with the non-upgradeable, proprietary form-factor SSD drives that some laptops are offering now.
And, desktops have enough space that they can benefit from other technology options (>4GB RAM, RAID-10, etc.) that make SSDs less of a win. Seriously, for the price of a 256GB SSD that won't exhaust the write count too quickly, you can outfit a system with 16GB of RAM and four 300GB 10K drives in RAID-10.
But why would anybody pay $36 for 80GB when they can pay $45 for 250GB?
Sure, you may not need more than 80GB right now, but when you get 170GB more for the price of a fast food meal, it's kind of a no-brainer. And, with the exception of 10K rpm drives, you pretty much have to buy a larger drive to get the latest, greatest technology.
If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.
On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.
A machine with a 2-2.8GHz CPU and 512MB-1GB of RAM was pretty much the middle of the road when Vista was launched, so it should run just fine on that configuration. With Aero, you'll need a decent graphics card, but you shouldn't need 4GB of RAM or a 3.4GHz processor just to run the basic system.
Seems the previous government of Iraq - that under Saddam Hussein - lasted all of 6 weeks before it was completely obliterated and their military destroyed. And then a new government was set up with US involvement.
Also, the US was trying to do what was necessary to topple the existing government and military in Iraq with minimal damages to the general population and non-military targets.
If the US had basically just wanted a very large hole where Iraq used to be, that would also have been quite easy to do. There is no country other than possible Russia that could stand up to this, as no other country can project so much of their military power to any location in the world like the US. China, for example, would be almost impossible to invade and conquer, but they can't really use their army for anything but defense against the US (unless they can swim better than we have seen).
I'm guessing that all this is theoretical, because I'm pretty sure you don't have that many murderers running around your city, and I'm also fairly sure that you haven't actually killed even one of them in self-defense.
You'll also find that there are times when walking away without letting anyone know might fight back is far safer than waving a gun and having the entire gang (several of whom you didn't even see) shoot first and not bother to ask questions. Or, worse yet, they shoot you with your own gun, which is not at all unlikely, even to pros who try to go it alone against an armed group.
I only have the 504, and it looks somewhat like a portable drive enclosure with a screen.
I like it because I don't have to re-encode movies specifically for it. If I want to, I can just copy .avi files that contain my ripped DVDs...the only ones that won't work are the ones with DTS sound.
That's completely a function of software, not hardware.
There are at least two (and probably more) apps that will do the same thing with the Archos as happens with an iPod...plug it in and everything just syncs up. There is nothing special about the Archos, so one of the apps that was written years before the hardware was sold, and it Just Works® because they had already thought about syncing your music to another (possibly removable) drive.
The key statement in the GP post that you overlooked is "people don't mind paying fair prices and owning what they buy".
In other words, some people download so they can actually use the content they have paid for, because it's harder to break the artificial restrictions (i.e., DRM) yourself than just download something without those restrictions.
Some people also download because they don't want to pay $20 for the crapshoot that new movies are. It's sort of like paying on the way out of a movie theater if you were entertained.
I've downloaded re-mastered CDs to see for myself if they are better or worse than the original releases that I already own. I'm not going to gamble $15 when the vast majority are worse than the original releases, because "re-mastered" today seems to mean "compress the hell out of it so that the overall volume level is louder", and stupid people will review it with astonishment about how they can now "hear the piano", even though it was there all the time and was meant to be 20dB down from the main volume.
I also own over 1000 movies on various formats, and I'm sick and tired of seeing many of them re-released every year with 20 seconds more footage, or the commentary that was supposed to be on the "special edition", but is now available on the new "extra special edition". I'm just not going to pay another $10-15 to companies that believe I'm only buying a "license" to their content and who believe that I shouldn't be allowed to sell the old version to help pay for the new one.
If you are trying to be sarcastic, you aren't doing a very good job.
If you're serious, though, all I can say is Jack...Jack Valenti, is that you?
Besides, why does it matter if I kill a murderer or thief who is attacking me?
Besides, why does it matter if one of my stray bullets hits a 6-month-old baby?
I'm pretty much in the NRA camp when it comes to restrictions on gun ownership, but I really don't want to see my town turned into Dodge City or Tombstone.
I once saw a movie where they did this...what was it called...? MacArthur Park?
What I'm wondering is if this is an intentional Weird Al reference, or just more proof that patents are bad (because multiple people often come up with the same idea independently).
no offense, but the general populace (at least in the states) doesn't like or 'get' python.
Actually, they just think they don't like or get it.
Saturday Night Live was an attempt to be a US version. Not a rip-off, but the same sort of really out there humor that sometimes results in convulsive laughter and sometimes just goes on too long if it doesn't work. Lorne Michaels often talks about the influence Python had on the show.
Also, the creators of Cheers have also cited the Python humor as being an influence. I don't really see it myself, but then I didn't create the show.
I'll concede that some the warnings amount to pseudo-security, but the reality is that Vista is much more secure than XP.
At this point, most of the Vista "security" appears to be one of the same reasons that Linux is not targeted by malware as much: market share.
There's very little profit in writing a piece of malware to specifically target Vista, even though it's quite possible to do so, and has been done in labs.
Signed drivers, the inability to put administrator items into your startup, and a whack of other measures all significantly hardened Vista to a damned LOT of the XP malware out there.
Much of this isn't about security...it's about control. The signed driver requirement is only slightly for security...now a hobby developer can't create anything that more than essentially an end-user, non-trusted application, and even reputable companies might have problems (I have some hardware that went through rapid updates to the drivers, and many of those were not signed).
I see part of it as heading toward the nasty "trusted computing", since in a default install, Vista has files on your drive that an administrator cannot modify...only the "TrustedInstaller" can modify them. For me, this is particularly annoying, as some of the files are things like the "Computer Management" MMC data file. This means I have to live with Microsoft's brain-dead default settings that eat up valuable screen real estate for no good reason...except that this way Microsoft can move people one step closer to "have it our way...we know best".
It's true that Vista isn't half as fast as XP. For some operations, it is far, far slower.
Although an actual bug and not a feature, the slow file copy that plagued Vista before SP1 resulted in copy times that were 10x that of XP on the same files. The thing that bothers me most about this sort of bug is that it was not in the public betas, so it must have been a change purely for the release version. That means the copy slowdown was either intentional, or there was absolutely no testing of this change.
The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately.
If Vista were actually doing more for the user than XP, then people wouldn't be quite so upset.
But, most of what makes Vista slow are either bugs (file copy bug, poor algorithm used by SuperFetch that actually slows down real-world usage, etc.) or things the user doesn't want, like DRM or the extra pseudo-security features that don't really do anything, since there are still exploits from the Win2K days that work on an out-of-the-box Vista install.
In order to support quite a few common and popular programs, a Windows legacy sandbox would have to replicate a legacy windows environment, including provisions for installing kernel drivers and similar.
With the state of virtualization technology today, the only tricky part is figuring out the best way to allow the sandboxed app to communicate with other apps (either native or in their own sandboxes) in only completely safe ways.
In other words, if the sandboxed app tries to enumerate all running applications, it would see only itself (and maybe a virtualized Explorer), or if it tried to read the raw display to see if other windows were there, it would see itself and a virtual desktop. Then, only things like the clipboard would get shared with other apps.
In general, this is just fine. There are very few apps that require more communications with other apps, and most of them are system apps that will be re-written as native. For a "single" application that is really multiple running programs, you'd allow the user to build sandboxes that hold multiple apps of their choosing.
With all of these apps running on the desktop as if they were native, the user probably won't be able to tell the difference between a legacy sandboxed app and a native one.
No acrobat, i don't need to be running all the time. You listening, Apple?
Apple might be listening, but it's unlikely they can do anything about Adobe Acrobat starting when you log in to Microsoft Windows.
I don't think you understand the term "distribution" very well.
It can't be applied to a single trial.
Also, (honest) coin flips aren't a normal distribution...you'll get 50% heads and 50% tails with no outliers.
Or, perhaps you are thinking of the fact that in the combinations of heads and tails for a given number of flips, each number of heads (or tails) generates a normal distribution. But, your first 9 flips are an outlier for either 9 or 10 flips. So logic says the next flip would be heads because despite the fact that you think it's a fair coin, it's not really. Also, logic says that since the combinations should lead to a normal distribution, the next flip should be tails to bring it back closer.
Thus, everything says that the chance for heads on the next flip is 50%.
Nope, it's greed, too:
Not con-man: Hey, my secretary made a mistake on that check and wrote it for too much...can you cash it and send me the difference?
Seller: No, I really need you to send me another check for the correct amount.
Not con-man: Well, then, screw you...I'm gonna stop payment on that check and you don't have to send me the stuff.
See...if you don't agree to these extra terms, even a completely honest buyer might just cost you some profit. Of course, a real con man would say exactly the same thing.
Also, some of these bad check scams have the con man saying things like, "...and keep $20/100/500 for the trouble of doing this for me", where the amount to keep is relative to the overpayment amount.
Smart people fall for cons too.
Smart or not smart has little to do with it, but many people seem to think "lazy" and "greedy" people are also generally less smart.
Greedy people fall for cons, while people who believe that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is don't get conned. "Greedy" doesn't have to mean they'd steal money, or run cons themselves. "Greedy" means that if they think they can make a quick buck with no work involved, they will.
In the first linked article, the guy fell for the con because he saw he could get a $100 reward for finding a lost object that he didn't actually find. But, like pretty much every scam (including all the Nigerian e-mail scams), to get the money he had to pay an advance fee.
Compared to other non-Microsoft SMB/CIFS client implementations, the OS X SMB client is deficient.
It does not support DFS, which basically amounts to having symlinks from one CIFS share to another (so a hierarchy of directories spread across many servers can be accessed via one namespace.) But Linux's cifs client driver can use it and Samba can host it.
Don't believe everything you read about Samba.
Its DFS support is shoddy at best and catastrophic at worst. It just fails to mount on Fedora 6 (samba 3.0.24-7, kernel 2.6.22.14-72.fc6), and causes a kernel panic on Fedora 9 (samba 3.2.4-0.21, kernel 2.6.26.5-45.fc9.i686). Of course, I am using Windows 2003 R2, which has improved DFS (which, is absolutely killer, especially the much better replication).
Since they don't want jail time, I can see why he wouldn't be worried even if he did do something wrong.
Any fine is going to be pretty much a drop in the bucket for him. Sure, he won't like paying the $1-10M (based on his avoiding $750,000 in losses), but we won't see him on the street with a "will work for food" sign anytime soon, either.