Something tells me that a lot of these come from meaningless accounts that people make when they know theyre never coming back to the site. Iv made something like asd123 as username and pass for stupid sites that MAKE you sign up just to access something.
I have a feeling that if you actually surveyed people to find out what they used for passwords and they were honest, like 90% of people would have their pet's name or something similar.
I upgraded to Karmic 2 days before its release, just thinking "oh, itll update itself find when the actual release comes out" The beta was FULL of issues for me. I use the same/home partition, and it wouldnt let me have access to it, so X wouldnt start. Someone without any linux experience(not than Im any expert) would be stuck, but i was able to chown my/home/user folder and get X running. Then my drivers wouldnt work. No nvidia driver would install, absolutely NOTHING would install through apt-get, it kept telling me another instance was running/installing something else. Nothing would work on startup, no matter how many times I put it into the startup applications or ticked/unticked the "start at login" box. I was also getting some pretty severe sounding kernel crashes(though nothing ever became unstable or crashed)
I did a reinstall as soon as the non-beta version came out, and it resolved everything except for getting Gnome-do to run at startup. All my other startup apps work fine, why not gnome-do?
Iv said it several times and Ill say it again. The only thing wrong with Vista is the system requirements. My laptop with a 2GHz amd x2 processor and 2GB of RAM ran vista very poorly, even though vista only "requires" 1GB. I cant imagine running it with 1GB.
But Vista works fine when you have 3+GBs Not only was it speedy on my desktop powerhouse, but it was stable too. More so than I have found XP to be.
Windows 7 is absolutely great if you have a system that can run Vista decently, and win7 on my laptop actually ran a lot better than Vista. The only issue Im having with 7 right now is stability. Several months after the install, I have come back to my computer after class only to see a BSOD. Still some kinks I suppose, and considering im running the release candidate its not unheard of.
While you have a very valid point, I disagree on a few things. Windows 7 FEELS faster because when something is taking a second to respond, the rest of the OS acts normal, so things seem to be moving right along. This was outlined a few months ago on/.
Windows Vista really isnt all that slow, so many people complain about it but they really just need to do their own tuning and removing of stupid programs(especially startup programs) Windows 7 also uses less RAM than Vista. A clean install of both Ultimate editions shows Vista using ~1300MB, where 7 uses ~800MB. Thus 7 will run just a bit better on just a few older PCs with 1-2GB of RAM. It also has some extra features, a UI improvement, but otherwise its Vista 1.5 And I like it a lot, but I liked Vista just fine =P
Only if wikipeida were a paid-subscription site. It doesnt make sense to me take ad revenue from the site to pay every jackass that changes "there" to "their"
This is only a margin faster than the new USB 3.0 spec, at 4.9Gbits...
I see more headway being made in the flash storage area. I really doubt hard drives as we know it will last another couple years. With SSDs and flash being faster, it only makes sense
100% true. When people say anything like "Vista sucks! Windows 7 is shaping up though" it makes me want to kill someone. It seems to me that it now makes you cool to pretend to hate vista without an actual justifiable reason. Windows 7 is better, but Vista worked perfectly fine for me for the last year and a half.
The only thing I can say that they changed is the memory footprint. I dont know what they cut out or what they optimized, but Windows 7 Ultimate RC uses ~700MB on my laptop, where vista used ~1.3GB. Both clean installs, same laptop.
Im not sure the realization that Vista=7 will set in, because most people have entirely refused Vista a chance because of bad reputation. That reputation it got during the RC stage, and all the issues were pretty much fixed even before SP1.
Iv been reading some other posts about/by him and iv come to the following conclusion:
Hes probably a douche bag that doesn't know anything about anything except windows+lenovo. The other explanation is that MS is paying him to bash linux in any way possible.
Both equally possible.
I mean the guy said Linux was too hard because it requires users to upload data. He also quoted TurboMax as being a linux distro.
Thats what makes me wonder why we are considering this dwarf star a candidate in the first place. Why wouldnt we start with stars that are most similar to our sun.
Doesnt the white dwarf occur after the supernova explosion? Or something like that? Im no astronomer.
Wouldnt that mean that it EXPLODED and ENGULFED an area much larger than its current size, potentially destroying all life that could have been on these planets anyway?
Finding organic living matter on other planets would be fantastic, but unfortunately that wont be the first kind of extra-terrestrial life we find (prospective there is any). Our most advanced instruments are just now able to detect exoplanets, and soon enough they may be able to actually scan the surface for signs of life.
If we COULD send instruments there that could detect microscopic living organisms, we might actually have a lot better luck at finding life. This just isnt feasible currently, and were going to have to stick with superficial surface scanning for creatures crawling around until we can actually send instruments there that could report back.
If we did find intelligent life, I think it would be a good idea to send a rocket with a screen and dvd player or something, with a big red button on it that plays it. Imagine being on Earth 200 years ago and finding something similar, with videos of aliens and things. It would have been revolutionary, and eventually we may be able to greet another intelligent race in a similar fashion.
They didnt purposefully install the malicious software That would be like saying IE is safe, and its the users fault for purposefully clicking the "Install ActiveX" button that happened to install malware.
If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.
Not that im claiming that *any* OS is safer than any other, im justing saying OSX did NOT protect the user.
As a 7 beta tester who has posted multiple feedback, and actually had replies, I have to say they are at least trying.
I believe they sort through them to find the people that might actually have a good idea of whats going on, and act upon those because they actaully have somewhere to start and head toward.
If you want to be heard, leave a good analysis of whats going on and maybe some suggestions as well. They arent just going to hire people to go through these and analyze the 12 different bugs that 12,000 people are complaining about.
Or the kind of servers that open source software companies can buy and manage. Or should I say server.. Unfortunately, they dont have a huge repetour of games and donations to fund better servers. They never stood a chance against/.
How is bundling Firefox going to be any different from bundling IE? Dont force anybody to use any browser. Give them a choice. Bundle none of the browsers,or bundle ALL of the leading browsers and let people try them all out before deciding. Of course that gets kind of complicated and time consuming for most people. I would suggest that on first startup, a window pops up as soon as you have a network connection displaying choices to download Firefox, IE, or Opera, with another option to show more of the less used browsers. And maybe a "shut up microsoft and let me install what I want by myself" option.
Its not about what the guy did with the player. He obviously did the right thing, instead of trying to sell it to the Russians. The issue is more of why someone thought it was ok to put this information on an MP3 player of all things, and then sell it without even trying to delete anything.
I agree, but i dunno about the FBI or CIA. They should just figure out which officer's MP3 player it was and question him about what other kinds of security he may have accidentally released to the public.
And also, if the information was about a mission that was put into action long ago, it may not have any real value to anyone anyway. It doesnt seem like there should be much alarm in this case, but it does raise questions about security in general.
Because your main admin account doesnt have a password. If it did, it would ask for that. Note that the account you see at logon != the hidden admin account, even if you named it "Administrator"
Im sorry, I cant see using DVDs as reliable long term backup. I have yet to buy a pack of DVDs that last longer than a couple months, even at slower burning speeds. The dvds from the last 100 pack I bought only last a week or two at the most, but I guess thats what you get for buying the cheapest ones you see. I doubt blank blue ray media will be any more reliable. And lets face it, burning 58GB of data will take far too long to do, especially if you have to burn at 2x or 4x speed to retain reliability like in the case of blank DVDs
Wouldnt an elevator protruding from our atmosphere release our precious oxygen into the vacuum of space? I mean, if you blow a really big soap bubble, and shove a straw into with the bubble still intact, wouldnt it deflate in a lower-pressured environment?
Slashdot Mirror
Something tells me that a lot of these come from meaningless accounts that people make when they know theyre never coming back to the site.
Iv made something like asd123 as username and pass for stupid sites that MAKE you sign up just to access something.
I have a feeling that if you actually surveyed people to find out what they used for passwords and they were honest, like 90% of people would have their pet's name or something similar.
And its all SOLID
I upgraded to Karmic 2 days before its release, just thinking "oh, itll update itself find when the actual release comes out" /home partition, and it wouldnt let me have access to it, so X wouldnt start. /home/user folder and get X running.
The beta was FULL of issues for me.
I use the same
Someone without any linux experience(not than Im any expert) would be stuck, but i was able to chown my
Then my drivers wouldnt work. No nvidia driver would install, absolutely NOTHING would install through apt-get, it kept telling me another instance was running/installing something else.
Nothing would work on startup, no matter how many times I put it into the startup applications or ticked/unticked the "start at login" box.
I was also getting some pretty severe sounding kernel crashes(though nothing ever became unstable or crashed)
I did a reinstall as soon as the non-beta version came out, and it resolved everything except for getting Gnome-do to run at startup.
All my other startup apps work fine, why not gnome-do?
Iv said it several times and Ill say it again.
The only thing wrong with Vista is the system requirements.
My laptop with a 2GHz amd x2 processor and 2GB of RAM ran vista very poorly, even though vista only "requires" 1GB.
I cant imagine running it with 1GB.
But Vista works fine when you have 3+GBs
Not only was it speedy on my desktop powerhouse, but it was stable too. More so than I have found XP to be.
Windows 7 is absolutely great if you have a system that can run Vista decently, and win7 on my laptop actually ran a lot better than Vista.
The only issue Im having with 7 right now is stability.
Several months after the install, I have come back to my computer after class only to see a BSOD.
Still some kinks I suppose, and considering im running the release candidate its not unheard of.
While you have a very valid point, I disagree on a few things. /.
Windows 7 FEELS faster because when something is taking a second to respond, the rest of the OS acts normal, so things seem to be moving right along.
This was outlined a few months ago on
Windows Vista really isnt all that slow, so many people complain about it but they really just need to do their own tuning and removing of stupid programs(especially startup programs)
Windows 7 also uses less RAM than Vista.
A clean install of both Ultimate editions shows Vista using ~1300MB, where 7 uses ~800MB.
Thus 7 will run just a bit better on just a few older PCs with 1-2GB of RAM.
It also has some extra features, a UI improvement, but otherwise its Vista 1.5
And I like it a lot, but I liked Vista just fine =P
Only if wikipeida were a paid-subscription site.
It doesnt make sense to me take ad revenue from the site to pay every jackass that changes "there" to "their"
This is only a margin faster than the new USB 3.0 spec, at 4.9Gbits...
I see more headway being made in the flash storage area.
I really doubt hard drives as we know it will last another couple years.
With SSDs and flash being faster, it only makes sense
100% true.
When people say anything like "Vista sucks! Windows 7 is shaping up though" it makes me want to kill someone.
It seems to me that it now makes you cool to pretend to hate vista without an actual justifiable reason.
Windows 7 is better, but Vista worked perfectly fine for me for the last year and a half.
The only thing I can say that they changed is the memory footprint.
I dont know what they cut out or what they optimized, but Windows 7 Ultimate RC uses ~700MB on my laptop, where vista used ~1.3GB.
Both clean installs, same laptop.
Im not sure the realization that Vista=7 will set in, because most people have entirely refused Vista a chance because of bad reputation.
That reputation it got during the RC stage, and all the issues were pretty much fixed even before SP1.
Iv been reading some other posts about/by him and iv come to the following conclusion:
Hes probably a douche bag that doesn't know anything about anything except windows+lenovo.
The other explanation is that MS is paying him to bash linux in any way possible.
Both equally possible.
I mean the guy said Linux was too hard because it requires users to upload data.
He also quoted TurboMax as being a linux distro.
Windows isn't a cult.
It's a religion.
Exactly, just like scientology
Thats what makes me wonder why we are considering this dwarf star a candidate in the first place.
Why wouldnt we start with stars that are most similar to our sun.
Doesnt the white dwarf occur after the supernova explosion? Or something like that? Im no astronomer.
Wouldnt that mean that it EXPLODED and ENGULFED an area much larger than its current size, potentially destroying all life that could have been on these planets anyway?
Finding organic living matter on other planets would be fantastic, but unfortunately that wont be the first kind of extra-terrestrial life we find (prospective there is any).
Our most advanced instruments are just now able to detect exoplanets, and soon enough they may be able to actually scan the surface for signs of life.
If we COULD send instruments there that could detect microscopic living organisms, we might actually have a lot better luck at finding life.
This just isnt feasible currently, and were going to have to stick with superficial surface scanning for creatures crawling around until we can actually send instruments there that could report back.
If we did find intelligent life, I think it would be a good idea to send a rocket with a screen and dvd player or something, with a big red button on it that plays it. Imagine being on Earth 200 years ago and finding something similar, with videos of aliens and things.
It would have been revolutionary, and eventually we may be able to greet another intelligent race in a similar fashion.
Oh the possibilities..
Photoshop cs2 and cs3 work with wine =)
They didnt purposefully install the malicious software
That would be like saying IE is safe, and its the users fault for purposefully clicking the "Install ActiveX" button that happened to install malware.
If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.
Not that im claiming that *any* OS is safer than any other, im justing saying OSX did NOT protect the user.
Makes me think of black mesa..
We MUST stop this
As a 7 beta tester who has posted multiple feedback, and actually had replies, I have to say they are at least trying.
I believe they sort through them to find the people that might actually have a good idea of whats going on, and act upon those because they actaully have somewhere to start and head toward.
If you want to be heard, leave a good analysis of whats going on and maybe some suggestions as well.
They arent just going to hire people to go through these and analyze the 12 different bugs that 12,000 people are complaining about.
To me at least, it appears they are trying.
Or the kind of servers that open source software companies can buy and manage. Or should I say server.. /.
Unfortunately, they dont have a huge repetour of games and donations to fund better servers.
They never stood a chance against
How is bundling Firefox going to be any different from bundling IE?
Dont force anybody to use any browser.
Give them a choice.
Bundle none of the browsers,or bundle ALL of the leading browsers and let people try them all out before deciding.
Of course that gets kind of complicated and time consuming for most people.
I would suggest that on first startup, a window pops up as soon as you have a network connection displaying choices to download Firefox, IE, or Opera, with another option to show more of the less used browsers.
And maybe a "shut up microsoft and let me install what I want by myself" option.
Its not about what the guy did with the player.
He obviously did the right thing, instead of trying to sell it to the Russians.
The issue is more of why someone thought it was ok to put this information on an MP3 player of all things, and then sell it without even trying to delete anything.
I agree, but i dunno about the FBI or CIA.
They should just figure out which officer's MP3 player it was and question him about what other kinds of security he may have accidentally released to the public.
And also, if the information was about a mission that was put into action long ago, it may not have any real value to anyone anyway. It doesnt seem like there should be much alarm in this case, but it does raise questions about security in general.
Because your main admin account doesnt have a password.
If it did, it would ask for that.
Note that the account you see at logon != the hidden admin account, even if you named it "Administrator"
I believe Steve Ballmer actually said something like "Windows 7 is essentially Windows Vista v1.2"
Citation needed, I read it on google news
Where fishers make more then phishers.
Wasnt technology supposed to be the future?
Im sorry, I cant see using DVDs as reliable long term backup.
I have yet to buy a pack of DVDs that last longer than a couple months, even at slower burning speeds.
The dvds from the last 100 pack I bought only last a week or two at the most, but I guess thats what you get for buying the cheapest ones you see.
I doubt blank blue ray media will be any more reliable.
And lets face it, burning 58GB of data will take far too long to do, especially if you have to burn at 2x or 4x speed to retain reliability like in the case of blank DVDs
Upon first reading about this, I was wondering:
Wouldnt an elevator protruding from our atmosphere release our precious oxygen into the vacuum of space?
I mean, if you blow a really big soap bubble, and shove a straw into with the bubble still intact, wouldnt it deflate in a lower-pressured environment?