Gnutella is very nice for MP3s and small files - the biggest you want here is a music video perhaps at 50megs or so, there doesn't seem to be much large content like movies.
What in the world are you talking about? There are TONS of movies on Gnutella. New, old, legal, illegal, big, small, english, french, german, etc.
Good for them. I can think of many companies, made-up of "a nice bunch of folks" from whom I will never purchase anything. If they were a non-profit, I might consider donating, but they aren't. They are a company, and therefore need to make something people want to buy to get money.
2. These people are pioneers of key browser features. Tabbed browsing, standards support, integrated mail/news/RSS/IRC/BT client, mail labels (what Gmail did later), etc etc
They didn't invent tabbed browsing, and even if they had, their implimentation of tabs is TERRIBLE, IMHO. I don't want to jump back to the last page I viewed, I want to go to the next tab to the left, like Moz. Opera later included a feature like this, but it's still not very good. Moz got it right immediately.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that Opera, or any other company invented "standards support".
Integrated browser/mail/news is one of the features I HATE the most.
Inspite of fact that they did all those features waaay before anybody else, they haven't patented anything.
It would be embarassing if they tried to patent features of their browser done elsewhere first. I would also love to see them try to patent "standards support".
Folks, the product is worth the money.
Not IMHO. Opera is nice and fast, and has a couple neat features not really found elsewhere. However, it's missing other features found in other browsers since before Opera came out. The Opera interface is painful for me to try and use, so even if it was free, I wouldn't use it.
The one chance Opera had, would have been to come along and be a good browser on Unix systems, when the ONLY browser option was the ultra-crappy Netscape 4x. Back then, I would have gladly paid $20 for Opera, because the competition was so, so much worse. These days, Moz/Firefox is damn good (great interface, good extensions, and recently getting much faster than it was).
They are good people(TM) and that is reason enough these days to support them.
That would make for some great advertising... "We made a product you don't want or need, but we aren't evil, so buy it!"
Because they are distributing material that they have no right to distribute?
Actually, the correct answer is: "They have the amazing ability to accomplish more than one task at a time. And suing bittorrent users does not exclude them from trying to stop other, more serious infractions."
I don't like how the RIAA is conducting itself regarding P2P users, but this is a completely ridiculous argument. You could use the same baseless argument for anything...
Why are police issuing speeding tickets when murders are going unsolved? Why is TV going to high-def when the content isn't good? Why is slashdot switching to CSS, when they still have a problem with dupes? Why does McDonalds bother to clean the floors while they can't serve customers quickly enough? Why does the government spend money on the military when there's numerous other problems in the world (hunger, environment, whatever)? etc. etc. etc.
And, since it all ends up getting blitted out to a 2D screen anyway, why not utilize the bad-ass 3D hardware to accelerate the 2D desktop?
Why not? Because video card manufacturers won't release the docs for their videocards, so very few cards have open-source drivers with 3D support.
Making the X server only work on one specific videocard would allow for extensive optimizations, but that isn't practical, just as depending on 3D support isn't currently practical.
I find it difficult to believe that an EV manufacturer would product a series of EV's that don't include regenerative brakes.
Who the hell said they don't have regenerative brakes? They DO have regenerative brakes. Not only does it say so in the docs on their website, but I've even driven one up/down hills and watched as the battery meter goes UP (a couple percent) as it is stopping.
Another reader commented that this is "a modified golf cart," and I'd have to say he's right.
No, it's not. They have less in-common than golf carts than they do with typical cars. They can be used as golf-carts, however, but I wouldn't recomend it. They weigh probably 3Xs as much as the heaviest golf cart you can find, and the electric motors in GEMs are monsterously powerful... probably an order of magnitude (10X) more powerful than golf carts. Even set to "turf", anyone who isn't very light on the accelerator will find themselves digging 2-inch deep holes in the ground...
Besides that it has a very strong aluminum frame (basically a roll-cage), an impact-resistant windsheild, windsheild wipers, and headlights, all of which are probably stronger than what you've got in your car.
Now to be fair, there certainly are some major cons. The accelrator pedal is the worst thing they could have done... You rest your entire foot on the pedal, not on the floor like in a car (and in most golf carts), so you don't have much control, and any bumps easily drive your foot to the floor, making you accelerate unintentionally. Additionally, the shocks are very rigid, and you are setting up much much higher than you would in a car or a golf cart, so the ride is very, very rough. Even at 10MPH over small bumps it feels like you're driving in a truck going offroad at 50MPH... Absolutely not smooth riding.
As it stands, it really is just a golf cart with a NEV rating.
Well you're just the expert then... Not having ever driven one, not bothering to read any of the information at the official web site, or even bothering to spend a few seconds doing a search.
It's command-line interface sucks, IMHO. I'm sticking with lilo, because it's trivial to add parameters, change settings, etc., at the lilo command-line before boot-up. Grub is much more complex and picky about it.
Its just too easy to render a computer unbootable with LILO
Yeah, I did that once when I was just learning Linux, and never in the many years since. Is it really that hard to remember to run lilo? Come on. You can put "lilo" in your shutdown script and have it run automatically if you really have that much of a problem typing "lilo".
Google appears to be purchasing dark (unused) fiber optic cable across the United States
This is a fact. Fact's are good.
with the intention of building its own alternative parallel internet
This is wild speculation. Wild speculation is bad.
What's been happening to/. lately? Why must the most wild speculation be treated as reasonable? It's the Apple/x86 thing isn't it? Every crazy "what if" story gets posted, even when alternative and rational explanations are numerous.
Firstly, it is not off the subject. It is entirely on topic, seeing as how it's in the headline.
No, the fact that he used the work "gimmick" to describe one specific part of the DS is off-topic. The fact is, he was calling the DS a gimmick. He didn't say "the DS is a gimmick", but he still said it. Since when do/. titles have to be a literal quote?
He didn't call the DS a gimmick.
Yes, yes he did.
Saying that whole Pokemon bit is not demeaning. It might be wrong, but not demeaning.
Yes, yes it is. What he said, and also how he said it. It was entirely demeaning.
I suggest you read the article instead of the inaccurate Slashdot summary.
You have the reading comprehension of a 10 year-old... Not only did you completely misunderstand the article, you didn't understand my comments at all either.
I've read the story, how else would I have exact quotes from it? How else would I have discussed things not in the summary?
I'm tired of hitting my head against a wall arguing with you, since nothing is getting through, so don't expect any further replies.
Completely off the subject. He was calling the DS a gimmick, even though he didn't specifically say the DS is a gimmick.
Is targetting children for a gaming platform demeaning somehow?
Saying Nintendo's entire market is: "pretty much defined by a boy or girl's ability to admire Pokémon" is certainly demeaning. That's particularly true considerering that Nintendo controls the entire portables market. Saying that they can only get Pokemon fans to buy their handhelds is not only demeaning, but completely opposite of reality.
The Karma is a technical masterpiece. Any audiophile or Linux geek who doesn't own or yearn for a Karma is quite crazy.
I almost wanted a Karma, but not quite. The big thing it is missing is UMASS support. You can't transfer your files by just copying them to the device, as you can with every other digital player ever made...
The feature-crippled Java applet is the only way you can use non-Windows systems to transfer music files to/from the device, and I simply don't use Java... at all... anywhere...
Maybe I got confused as to the hard drive sizes. I think with less cachet, bad software, and being bigger than an iPod, it's tough to justify that price in my mind.
I think you're confused again... Bigger than an iPod? What? Have you ever even seen a Karma?
Harrison merely said that the DS' touch-screen was a gimmick, not that the DS itself was a gimmick.
He never exactly used the word "gimick" to describe the DS itself, but he implied it quite thoroughly./. often posts misleading summaries, but this is not one of them.
He also said that the DS was not part of Sony's planning as well as it shouldn't be. He believes they're targetting different markets, so why should it?
Now this is really ridiculous! He doesn't just "believe" they are targeting different markets, he reams Nintendo, saying the one people interested in them are Pokemon playing children./. got this story right. You are the one who is being incredibly misleading.
Meanwhile, J.K. Rowling is holed up in her thousand acre castle trying to decide whether to buy and sell the queen.
Meanwhile, Stephen King is living in his small house in Maine, filled floor to ceiling with money, deciding whether or not to buy and sell J.K. Rowling.
[...] your comment is completely from left field. [...] GP Poster asked what makes 2000 better than NT
SLAPS FOREHEAD
First of all, you don't seem to realize you are arguing with the "GP Poster" right now.
Second, in that post, I QUOTED the statement to which I was replying... (As I did again just now, while replying to your post--It's called context) In that quote (to which I was replying) you will see this line: but NT isn't comparable to a desktop OS like Win 95
You are the one who's comments are comming out of left field. You're ignoring the original post (to which I was replying), and the relevant text of the original post, which I quoted in my post.
NT4 came with DX3 and recent versions that supported 3D cards (DX6, DX7) were incompatible with Windows NT.
NT4 came with DX3, but it got DX4 in a service-pack down the line (don't recall which). And later, a DirectX 6 upgrade for NT4 was released. NT4 was usually one directx version behind 9x, but I really don't see that being much of a problem.
(yeah, I know, many of these features started in NT, but NT isn't comparable to a desktop OS like Win 95, not even NT Workstation)
That's completely ridiculous. There really weren't that many changes between NT4 and 2000. They added a few user-friendly bits like the device manager, moved some things around, added better backwards compatibility, and just gave it newer versions of directx, media player, etc.
What in the world do you think NT4 was missing that Windows 2000 had, that was so significant?
As with the Turing test, the entire purpose of a captcha is to distinguish humans from machines.
Eliza: Why do you mention computers?
As captcha-defeaters improve, the captchas will need to become more and more sophisticated and require more and more human or human-like intelligence to process.
None of these "standards" you mention were formed through competition. SMTP had no direct competition, nor did anything you've listed. They suck mainly because they did not have competition.
Consider some products that DID have competition.
Because like it or not, politics matter.
I don't like it, and I don't agree.
But in the digital era more than ever, the clumsy, quick-and-dirty engineering that makes consensus more likely can be worked around, smoothed over, or otherwise patched up later.
Not true. Look at anything like DVDs and see how crappy the results are. Huge ammounts of artifacts, due to poor design.
More on-topic, consider the failed effort that lead to this story. If they had agreed, that would mean BluRay discs would be gone, and we'd be forced to accept significantly lower-capacity HD-DVD discs instead. I'd rather have it fought-out in the market, rather than accept mediocre crap as the only option. They will get critical mass, it will just take longer because of competition.
250watts at 70% efficency, assuming that's even accurate is 175watts.
Power supplies are measured by the OUTPUT, not the input. A power supply, rated at 250w should provide 250w output, no matter what it's effeciency. Look at the sticker on the side of the unit sometime... The outputs all add up to the rated wattage, and the input (for a 300W PS) is generally 115/230v @8/5A which is more than 900W for input.
That 250watt compusa generic powersupply does NOT cut the mustard.
Well, to be fair, it does for absolutely everyone who isn't using a Pentium 4. My hottest 2GHz+ system is only using 100W when maxed-out, the rest are even lower.
It looks like it works but I've established that most of my intermitent problems were a result of a lame power supply.
I would very much like to know how you "established" that. Even if you're right, it's almost certainly a defective unit, not a case of your system exceeding the rated capacity.
My biostar motherboard (VIP) wouldn't even post with a generic 250watt compusa generic powersupply. Hell it rejected a 400watt PS.
That is clearly a case of defective products. Either the motherboard is on it's last leg, or those dirt-cheap power supplies you are getting are utter crap.
Slashdot Mirror
What in the world are you talking about? There are TONS of movies on Gnutella. New, old, legal, illegal, big, small, english, french, german, etc.
Good for them. I can think of many companies, made-up of "a nice bunch of folks" from whom I will never purchase anything. If they were a non-profit, I might consider donating, but they aren't. They are a company, and therefore need to make something people want to buy to get money.
They didn't invent tabbed browsing, and even if they had, their implimentation of tabs is TERRIBLE, IMHO. I don't want to jump back to the last page I viewed, I want to go to the next tab to the left, like Moz. Opera later included a feature like this, but it's still not very good. Moz got it right immediately.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that Opera, or any other company invented "standards support".
Integrated browser/mail/news is one of the features I HATE the most.
It would be embarassing if they tried to patent features of their browser done elsewhere first. I would also love to see them try to patent "standards support".
Not IMHO. Opera is nice and fast, and has a couple neat features not really found elsewhere. However, it's missing other features found in other browsers since before Opera came out. The Opera interface is painful for me to try and use, so even if it was free, I wouldn't use it.
The one chance Opera had, would have been to come along and be a good browser on Unix systems, when the ONLY browser option was the ultra-crappy Netscape 4x. Back then, I would have gladly paid $20 for Opera, because the competition was so, so much worse. These days, Moz/Firefox is damn good (great interface, good extensions, and recently getting much faster than it was).
That would make for some great advertising... "We made a product you don't want or need, but we aren't evil, so buy it!"
Actually, the correct answer is: "They have the amazing ability to accomplish more than one task at a time. And suing bittorrent users does not exclude them from trying to stop other, more serious infractions."
I don't like how the RIAA is conducting itself regarding P2P users, but this is a completely ridiculous argument. You could use the same baseless argument for anything...
Why are police issuing speeding tickets when murders are going unsolved?
Why is TV going to high-def when the content isn't good?
Why is slashdot switching to CSS, when they still have a problem with dupes?
Why does McDonalds bother to clean the floors while they can't serve customers quickly enough?
Why does the government spend money on the military when there's numerous other problems in the world (hunger, environment, whatever)?
etc. etc. etc.
Why not? Because video card manufacturers won't release the docs for their videocards, so very few cards have open-source drivers with 3D support.
Making the X server only work on one specific videocard would allow for extensive optimizations, but that isn't practical, just as depending on 3D support isn't currently practical.
Who the hell said they don't have regenerative brakes? They DO have regenerative brakes. Not only does it say so in the docs on their website, but I've even driven one up/down hills and watched as the battery meter goes UP (a couple percent) as it is stopping.
No, it's not. They have less in-common than golf carts than they do with typical cars. They can be used as golf-carts, however, but I wouldn't recomend it. They weigh probably 3Xs as much as the heaviest golf cart you can find, and the electric motors in GEMs are monsterously powerful... probably an order of magnitude (10X) more powerful than golf carts. Even set to "turf", anyone who isn't very light on the accelerator will find themselves digging 2-inch deep holes in the ground...
Besides that it has a very strong aluminum frame (basically a roll-cage), an impact-resistant windsheild, windsheild wipers, and headlights, all of which are probably stronger than what you've got in your car.
Now to be fair, there certainly are some major cons. The accelrator pedal is the worst thing they could have done... You rest your entire foot on the pedal, not on the floor like in a car (and in most golf carts), so you don't have much control, and any bumps easily drive your foot to the floor, making you accelerate unintentionally. Additionally, the shocks are very rigid, and you are setting up much much higher than you would in a car or a golf cart, so the ride is very, very rough. Even at 10MPH over small bumps it feels like you're driving in a truck going offroad at 50MPH... Absolutely not smooth riding.
Well you're just the expert then... Not having ever driven one, not bothering to read any of the information at the official web site, or even bothering to spend a few seconds doing a search.
It's command-line interface sucks, IMHO. I'm sticking with lilo, because it's trivial to add parameters, change settings, etc., at the lilo command-line before boot-up. Grub is much more complex and picky about it.
Yeah, I did that once when I was just learning Linux, and never in the many years since. Is it really that hard to remember to run lilo? Come on. You can put "lilo" in your shutdown script and have it run automatically if you really have that much of a problem typing "lilo".
This is a fact. Fact's are good.
This is wild speculation. Wild speculation is bad.
What's been happening to
No, the fact that he used the work "gimmick" to describe one specific part of the DS is off-topic. The fact is, he was calling the DS a gimmick. He didn't say "the DS is a gimmick", but he still said it. Since when do
Yes, yes he did.
Yes, yes it is. What he said, and also how he said it. It was entirely demeaning.
You have the reading comprehension of a 10 year-old... Not only did you completely misunderstand the article, you didn't understand my comments at all either.
I've read the story, how else would I have exact quotes from it? How else would I have discussed things not in the summary?
I'm tired of hitting my head against a wall arguing with you, since nothing is getting through, so don't expect any further replies.
Completely off the subject. He was calling the DS a gimmick, even though he didn't specifically say the DS is a gimmick.
Saying Nintendo's entire market is: "pretty much defined by a boy or girl's ability to admire Pokémon" is certainly demeaning. That's particularly true considerering that Nintendo controls the entire portables market. Saying that they can only get Pokemon fans to buy their handhelds is not only demeaning, but completely opposite of reality.
I get the feeling you must work for Sony...
Yes, the iPod just works... for 18 months until the battery can no longer hold a charge.
Dammed propritary battery-packs are the main reason I haven't bought a hard-drive-based MP3 player yet.
I almost wanted a Karma, but not quite. The big thing it is missing is UMASS support. You can't transfer your files by just copying them to the device, as you can with every other digital player ever made...
The feature-crippled Java applet is the only way you can use non-Windows systems to transfer music files to/from the device, and I simply don't use Java... at all... anywhere...
I think you're confused again... Bigger than an iPod? What? Have you ever even seen a Karma?
He never exactly used the word "gimick" to describe the DS itself, but he implied it quite thoroughly.
Now this is really ridiculous! He doesn't just "believe" they are targeting different markets, he reams Nintendo, saying the one people interested in them are Pokemon playing children.
Meanwhile, Stephen King is living in his small house in Maine, filled floor to ceiling with money, deciding whether or not to buy and sell J.K. Rowling.
SLAPS FOREHEAD
First of all, you don't seem to realize you are arguing with the "GP Poster" right now.
Second, in that post, I QUOTED the statement to which I was replying... (As I did again just now, while replying to your post--It's called context)
In that quote (to which I was replying) you will see this line: but NT isn't comparable to a desktop OS like Win 95
You are the one who's comments are comming out of left field. You're ignoring the original post (to which I was replying), and the relevant text of the original post, which I quoted in my post.
NT4 came with DX3, but it got DX4 in a service-pack down the line (don't recall which). And later, a DirectX 6 upgrade for NT4 was released. NT4 was usually one directx version behind 9x, but I really don't see that being much of a problem.
Would you like to try again?
So did Windows 95/98/ME. Please try again.
That's completely ridiculous. There really weren't that many changes between NT4 and 2000. They added a few user-friendly bits like the device manager, moved some things around, added better backwards compatibility, and just gave it newer versions of directx, media player, etc.
What in the world do you think NT4 was missing that Windows 2000 had, that was so significant?
Eliza: Why do you mention computers?
What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?
None of these "standards" you mention were formed through competition. SMTP had no direct competition, nor did anything you've listed. They suck mainly because they did not have competition.
Consider some products that DID have competition.
I don't like it, and I don't agree.
Not true. Look at anything like DVDs and see how crappy the results are. Huge ammounts of artifacts, due to poor design.
More on-topic, consider the failed effort that lead to this story. If they had agreed, that would mean BluRay discs would be gone, and we'd be forced to accept significantly lower-capacity HD-DVD discs instead. I'd rather have it fought-out in the market, rather than accept mediocre crap as the only option. They will get critical mass, it will just take longer because of competition.
Which is also the exact same terms thousands upon thousands of
Oh look, the Oracle CEO mentioned a "CPU", which is the same term the Intel CEO uses. They must be having secret meetings...
Absolutely not. No way. Never.
A standard is something you have to live with for a long time. You want it to be as good as humanly possible.
I would rather have the strong and weak battle it out, leaving the stronger format as the defacto standard, rather than some mediocre monopoly.
Of course, that's the point of view from a consumer, not a stock-holder...
What power supply is this? (Brand/Model#)
I've seen lots of power supplies, but never any that lie about their rating like that.
Not true. They can mix the signal in with content that you can't see or hear, but that will show up on camcorders...
Power supplies are measured by the OUTPUT, not the input. A power supply, rated at 250w should provide 250w output, no matter what it's effeciency. Look at the sticker on the side of the unit sometime... The outputs all add up to the rated wattage, and the input (for a 300W PS) is generally 115/230v @8/5A which is more than 900W for input.
Well, to be fair, it does for absolutely everyone who isn't using a Pentium 4. My hottest 2GHz+ system is only using 100W when maxed-out, the rest are even lower.
I would very much like to know how you "established" that. Even if you're right, it's almost certainly a defective unit, not a case of your system exceeding the rated capacity.
That is clearly a case of defective products. Either the motherboard is on it's last leg, or those dirt-cheap power supplies you are getting are utter crap.