I'm not sure I understand how I'm wrong. I understand Windows XXX supports PAE. But despite that fact, Windows never reports more than 3.5 or so GB of ram on the machine.
To me that means that Windows is perfectly capable of supporting >4GB of ram, but Microsoft just doesn't want it to.
I forgot to mention... if you go the virtual machine route, then there's no functional difference between what I stated, or using a Linux machine or a Mac and running VM software on top of that instead. There is a difference in cost, however, because you'll need to get VM software which may or may not be free, and you'll need to purchase a retail copy of Windows XP.
First and foremost, all consumer 32-bit windows versions are licensed to top out at 4GB. If you want more than 4GB, you will have to buy a (reassuringly expensive) server edition that permits it. Done. End of story.
The only other alternative is to get a 64-bit version of Windows 7 Pro. The Professional (and up) versions of Windows include something called compatibility mode, which is a free copy of Windows XP 32-bit, running inside a virtual machine. That's probably going to be your most cost-effective way of running your legacy apps on top of a 64-bit machine with oodles of RAM.
But thank you for pointing me to that politifact site. If you look further into the site, they seem to have an a pretty substantial number of items calling out republicans as well. In fact, if you check out their Pants on Fire section (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire), that entire section is overwhelmingly, almost exclusively republican, which is consistent with my argument that conservatives actively try to misinform. Not that democrats don't lie of course, but republicans seem to be way far in the lead on that score.
First of all, I didn't mean to imply that all conservatives deny evolution and I apologize if I did. That being said, if you made even the slightest attempt at googling, you would find that the only person making stuff up here is you. A massive number of conservatives DO think evolution is the "devil's work", as you put it.
And no, I didn't ignore your point. You ignored mine. You accuse liberals in general of going around talking about how smart they are. Meanwhile, the article you posted does exactly that. It's one big long ad hominem attack. So the only one trying to act smugly superior here is you.
The problem here is that you "can't handle the truth". And the truth is that the average conservative IS more poorly educated than the average liberal. Go on, look up the stats if you dare. People in traditionally conservative states are less likely to have a degree. Hell, they're less likely to graduate high school. This has been confirmed by a number of different sources. The data is all there waiting to be googled. Similarly, studies have been done that show people who watch Fox News are even more poorly informed about current events than people who watch no news at all.
And, since I obviously have to point this out explicitly, I am NOT accusing them of being 'not as smart'. What I AM accusing them of, is being more poorly educated, and making the conscious choice to be wilfully ignorant of the facts. The evolution thing is just a very obvious and well known example of that.
If the best you can do is put the word "facts" in quotes and just hand wave my argument away, then you are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If you want to challenge me on this, then refute my points directly. Show me hard data that I'm wrong. I dare you to try.
What I find amazing is how conservatives keep patting themselves on the back about how smart and intelligent they are, and how liberals are the 'dumb vote'. Meanwhile, the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that I can only stare in disbelief. Hell, Fox News viewers have been clearly shown to be less informed about current events that people who watch no news at all.
And never mind the fact that these people also deny evolution occurs despite the enormously overwhelming evidence, think hurricanes are caused by gay people and that earthquakes happen when women bear their breasts in public.
What you say is sort of true, but I disagree that it is inherently evil. Evil implies a malicious intent. At worst, it's simply sociopathic. Facebook is doing what it's doing so that it can make money, and it's methods arn't even remotely secret. They would have no power at all if it wasn't handed to them gleefully by people.
Further it's disingenuous to compare them to the mafia and similar, for one simple reason. The mafia does what it does against people who are unwilling participants. Facebook on the other hand, is being fed almost limitless information by people giving it up willingly.
I don't see a problem with Facebook for the same reason I don't see a problem with 419 scammers. Only incredibly stupid and greedy people fall for 419 scammers. People who post their most intimate details on Facebook are either similarly stupid, or just don't think what they're posting is of value to anyone. Which would be true if you're posting pictures of kittens. But as many have already found out, that picture of you drunk at a party can get you fired. In either case, it's the people themselves that orchestrated their own demise.
So calling Facebook evil is like calling a crocodile evil because you were stupid enough to walk your dog right on the edge of a swamp known to home crocodiles, and a crocodile came out and ate your dog. The crocodile didn't do anything any other crocodile wouldn't do, and Facebook isn't doing anything that bajillions of other companies arn't already doing (case in point, google for Target and pregnant daughter).
What they do can't be stopped because not enough people care enough to actually try. All you can do is walk with your eyes open and avoid problems where possible.
And to block ad servers, I'm not sure. If there are only a couple, then adding entries to your hosts file would do it. But I've also read that Microsoft has started dynamically playing around with that file, so that may not work.
The problem is that Unions have a bad reputation at this point of being self serving and generally unrealistic demands. Especially lately. A perfect example is the TTC in Toronto. The last strike they had was because cleaners didn't want to have to work night shift. I assume it was actually more than that, but that's what filtered to the public. So what happened? Legislation was rammed through to make them an essential service and eliminate their bargaining rights. And the collective public were all, "Booyah!" cause they were sick of it.
And then a few months ago I overheard someone talking to someone else about how they were new to a union, and the bosses told him that he had to slow down because he was doing too good of a job and making others look bad. Say WHAT? The idea of being required to slow down and do a poorer job than I'm doing now is counter to every impulse that drove me to a technology career in the first place. I suspect most other techs feel the same way, and this would go far to explaining why there arn't any tech unions.
There needs to be a balance between a union that enforces *reasonable* compensation to all members, while still permitting individuals to excel.
I have used an iPad, and I used to have an iPhone 3GS, so I'm very familiar with the IOS ins and outs. The main reason I switched to an android phone was a) I got sick of having to jailbreak to do what I wanted, and b) I wanted a removable battery.
But AFAIK there are no android tablets with removable battery, and I've been very unimpressed by the level of support manufacturers give after sale. They may be a lot cheaper, but you can forget about reliable OS updates and patches. Asus seems to be one of the only ones on the ball in that regard, but they refuse to sell the product I want in Canada.
BTW if you read a lot of PDFs, I can't recommend GoodReader enough. Not free, and worth every penny. Best reader I've seen ever, on ANY platform.
That's what I saw too. I was hoping that there was a 3G Nexus 10 that just wasn't being advertised.
The reason I want one is because: a) I want a tablet I can read technical documentation on b) I make so few phone calls that I want to get rid of my existing cell phone and just use a voip client on a data-enabled tablet. That will drop my monthly cell costs in half.
But Nexus 10 doesn't do it, and Nexus 7 is too small. Looks like iPad 4 is still the only open.
So wait... Reading other posts I'm getting the impression that while it doesn't have LTE, it does have cellular connectivity. Am I understanding this correctly? Everything I've found up till now has given zero indication that this capability is there.
Right now I'm considering buying the new iPad 4 because so far in Canada it's the only cell-enabled tablet that isn't a piece of crap (Samsung *still* hasn't release any OS updates for their existing 3G tablets, so Samsung is off my list of viable options).
I've been waiting to see if Asus was going to release their TF700KL anywhere besides Germany, but so far there hasn't been a peep.
But if the Nexus 10 can do cellular, then that changes things, for me at least.
You know, I'm getting really tired of seeing people say this, although it doesn't happen as much nowadays.
Just because someone has found a bug doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that they have the time, energy, or the skill to fix it.
Just because the source code is available for anyone to tinker with does not mean everyone wants to, so please stop being such a knob. Nobody likes an uppity holier-than-thou nerd.
Okay, Apple is pulling a '90s Microsoft now. NFC isn't good enough cause they can't control it, so they just HAVE to make their own. Just like Microsoft did with WAV files, TrueType fonts, etc.
Then either disable SecureBoot entirely, which makes you no worse off than you are now, or use a distribution that provides proper secureboot keys like Redhat. Companies, et al, who need to have secure operations should like this option very much.
Because Motorola has been getting their ass handed to them in Germany. They already had to take most of their products off the shelves due to another suit.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I understand how I'm wrong. I understand Windows XXX supports PAE. But despite that fact, Windows never reports more than 3.5 or so GB of ram on the machine.
To me that means that Windows is perfectly capable of supporting >4GB of ram, but Microsoft just doesn't want it to.
I forgot to mention... if you go the virtual machine route, then there's no functional difference between what I stated, or using a Linux machine or a Mac and running VM software on top of that instead. There is a difference in cost, however, because you'll need to get VM software which may or may not be free, and you'll need to purchase a retail copy of Windows XP.
First and foremost, all consumer 32-bit windows versions are licensed to top out at 4GB. If you want more than 4GB, you will have to buy a (reassuringly expensive) server edition that permits it. Done. End of story.
The only other alternative is to get a 64-bit version of Windows 7 Pro. The Professional (and up) versions of Windows include something called compatibility mode, which is a free copy of Windows XP 32-bit, running inside a virtual machine. That's probably going to be your most cost-effective way of running your legacy apps on top of a 64-bit machine with oodles of RAM.
Is it really necessary to drop the fbomb?
And with all due respect, is that the best you can do? One article talking about one specific thing Jon Stewart said? Jon Stewart had even (which he of course then twists to his own purposes...) apologized on air for his remarks. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements?xrs=share_copy
I also managed to find this. I don't know what the political leanings of that site is, but they make an interesting point.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/06/22/jon-stewart-gets-it-right-about-fox-news/180787
But thank you for pointing me to that politifact site. If you look further into the site, they seem to have an a pretty substantial number of items calling out republicans as well. In fact, if you check out their Pants on Fire section (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire), that entire section is overwhelmingly, almost exclusively republican, which is consistent with my argument that conservatives actively try to misinform. Not that democrats don't lie of course, but republicans seem to be way far in the lead on that score.
Well now isn't THAT interesting!
When liberals do it, they're proclaiming their intelligence. But when conservatives do it, they're just "pointing out".
Do you even realize how hypocritical you're being?
First of all, I didn't mean to imply that all conservatives deny evolution and I apologize if I did. That being said, if you made even the slightest attempt at googling, you would find that the only person making stuff up here is you. A massive number of conservatives DO think evolution is the "devil's work", as you put it.
And no, I didn't ignore your point. You ignored mine. You accuse liberals in general of going around talking about how smart they are. Meanwhile, the article you posted does exactly that. It's one big long ad hominem attack. So the only one trying to act smugly superior here is you.
The problem here is that you "can't handle the truth". And the truth is that the average conservative IS more poorly educated than the average liberal. Go on, look up the stats if you dare. People in traditionally conservative states are less likely to have a degree. Hell, they're less likely to graduate high school. This has been confirmed by a number of different sources. The data is all there waiting to be googled. Similarly, studies have been done that show people who watch Fox News are even more poorly informed about current events than people who watch no news at all.
And, since I obviously have to point this out explicitly, I am NOT accusing them of being 'not as smart'. What I AM accusing them of, is being more poorly educated, and making the conscious choice to be wilfully ignorant of the facts. The evolution thing is just a very obvious and well known example of that.
If the best you can do is put the word "facts" in quotes and just hand wave my argument away, then you are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If you want to challenge me on this, then refute my points directly. Show me hard data that I'm wrong. I dare you to try.
You mean like the conservatives do in that article you posted?
What I find amazing is how conservatives keep patting themselves on the back about how smart and intelligent they are, and how liberals are the 'dumb vote'. Meanwhile, the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that I can only stare in disbelief. Hell, Fox News viewers have been clearly shown to be less informed about current events that people who watch no news at all.
And never mind the fact that these people also deny evolution occurs despite the enormously overwhelming evidence, think hurricanes are caused by gay people and that earthquakes happen when women bear their breasts in public.
What you say is sort of true, but I disagree that it is inherently evil. Evil implies a malicious intent. At worst, it's simply sociopathic. Facebook is doing what it's doing so that it can make money, and it's methods arn't even remotely secret. They would have no power at all if it wasn't handed to them gleefully by people.
Further it's disingenuous to compare them to the mafia and similar, for one simple reason. The mafia does what it does against people who are unwilling participants. Facebook on the other hand, is being fed almost limitless information by people giving it up willingly.
I don't see a problem with Facebook for the same reason I don't see a problem with 419 scammers. Only incredibly stupid and greedy people fall for 419 scammers. People who post their most intimate details on Facebook are either similarly stupid, or just don't think what they're posting is of value to anyone. Which would be true if you're posting pictures of kittens. But as many have already found out, that picture of you drunk at a party can get you fired. In either case, it's the people themselves that orchestrated their own demise.
So calling Facebook evil is like calling a crocodile evil because you were stupid enough to walk your dog right on the edge of a swamp known to home crocodiles, and a crocodile came out and ate your dog. The crocodile didn't do anything any other crocodile wouldn't do, and Facebook isn't doing anything that bajillions of other companies arn't already doing (case in point, google for Target and pregnant daughter).
What they do can't be stopped because not enough people care enough to actually try. All you can do is walk with your eyes open and avoid problems where possible.
As another poster noted, you can find it here:
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/index.html
And to block ad servers, I'm not sure. If there are only a couple, then adding entries to your hosts file would do it. But I've also read that Microsoft has started dynamically playing around with that file, so that may not work.
I haven't noticed any ads, myself.
Of course, the first thing I did after I installed Windows 8 was install classic shell and disable metro entirely, so maybe that's why. ^_^.
The problem is that Unions have a bad reputation at this point of being self serving and generally unrealistic demands. Especially lately. A perfect example is the TTC in Toronto. The last strike they had was because cleaners didn't want to have to work night shift. I assume it was actually more than that, but that's what filtered to the public. So what happened? Legislation was rammed through to make them an essential service and eliminate their bargaining rights. And the collective public were all, "Booyah!" cause they were sick of it.
And then a few months ago I overheard someone talking to someone else about how they were new to a union, and the bosses told him that he had to slow down because he was doing too good of a job and making others look bad. Say WHAT? The idea of being required to slow down and do a poorer job than I'm doing now is counter to every impulse that drove me to a technology career in the first place. I suspect most other techs feel the same way, and this would go far to explaining why there arn't any tech unions.
There needs to be a balance between a union that enforces *reasonable* compensation to all members, while still permitting individuals to excel.
As opposed to, what, partially hacked?
Isn't that like being almost pregnant?
I have used an iPad, and I used to have an iPhone 3GS, so I'm very familiar with the IOS ins and outs. The main reason I switched to an android phone was a) I got sick of having to jailbreak to do what I wanted, and b) I wanted a removable battery.
But AFAIK there are no android tablets with removable battery, and I've been very unimpressed by the level of support manufacturers give after sale. They may be a lot cheaper, but you can forget about reliable OS updates and patches. Asus seems to be one of the only ones on the ball in that regard, but they refuse to sell the product I want in Canada.
BTW if you read a lot of PDFs, I can't recommend GoodReader enough. Not free, and worth every penny. Best reader I've seen ever, on ANY platform.
That's what I saw too. I was hoping that there was a 3G Nexus 10 that just wasn't being advertised.
The reason I want one is because:
a) I want a tablet I can read technical documentation on
b) I make so few phone calls that I want to get rid of my existing cell phone and just use a voip client on a data-enabled tablet. That will drop my monthly cell costs in half.
But Nexus 10 doesn't do it, and Nexus 7 is too small. Looks like iPad 4 is still the only open.
So wait... Reading other posts I'm getting the impression that while it doesn't have LTE, it does have cellular connectivity. Am I understanding this correctly? Everything I've found up till now has given zero indication that this capability is there.
Right now I'm considering buying the new iPad 4 because so far in Canada it's the only cell-enabled tablet that isn't a piece of crap (Samsung *still* hasn't release any OS updates for their existing 3G tablets, so Samsung is off my list of viable options).
I've been waiting to see if Asus was going to release their TF700KL anywhere besides Germany, but so far there hasn't been a peep.
But if the Nexus 10 can do cellular, then that changes things, for me at least.
"Dressing up a fraud as a lawsuit does not immunize you from prosecution"
Then please explain patent trolls to me?
You know, I'm getting really tired of seeing people say this, although it doesn't happen as much nowadays.
Just because someone has found a bug doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that they have the time, energy, or the skill to fix it.
Just because the source code is available for anyone to tinker with does not mean everyone wants to, so please stop being such a knob. Nobody likes an uppity holier-than-thou nerd.
Okay, Apple is pulling a '90s Microsoft now. NFC isn't good enough cause they can't control it, so they just HAVE to make their own. Just like Microsoft did with WAV files, TrueType fonts, etc.
I thought you were dead!
Of course it won't. But that's how security works. This is just one more tool being made available for people.
Security is the practice of putting up enough road blocks that an attacker decides breaking in isn't worth the effort.
There's no such thing as a be all end all silver bullet solution and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling snake oil.
What's wrong with doing them in the order they are recieved, like almost everyone else does for everything else?
Then either disable SecureBoot entirely, which makes you no worse off than you are now, or use a distribution that provides proper secureboot keys like Redhat. Companies, et al, who need to have secure operations should like this option very much.
We can only hope. If we're lucky they'll all destroy themselves, and room can be made for new people that want to actually, you know, innovate.
Because Motorola has been getting their ass handed to them in Germany. They already had to take most of their products off the shelves due to another suit.