One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.
I actually think it would make it harder to arrest them because, after all, they have a gun.
Or would you prefer links to gaming benchmarks that show how much slower games are even with Vista SP1 than XP?
Yes.
Actually I can't be bothered.That's fine but I shouldn't have to suffer just because you think a bog slow pretty piece of heavily restricted crap is what computing should be.
And the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because you want to live in 1975.
Maybe you missed it, so here it is again: Speciation (ie, one species splitting into two) has been observed
If you're expecting a dog turning into a horse in one go, you're not going to get it, because that's not what evolution does. In fact, if we saw that happen, it would be a nasty blow against evolution.
Micro Evolution is where species can adapt and change appearance due to environmental circumstances. Macro Evolution is where one species changes to another species. Micro evolution is factual, but macro evolution is purely speculative, having no facts behind it - which even Darwin himself concluded.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot has happened in the 149 years since Origin of Species was published.
Well, that's not what his blog in The Guardian says. He says: "I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view".
Anyone who feels that creationism is not a misconception has no place in the direction of such an important scientific body as the Royal Society.
I don't think you get it. I think what he was saying is that teachers shouldn't think of creationism as just a little thing that people get wrong. He's saying they should think of it as a way that people look at the world. A misconception is something like, "Water spirals down the drain in different directions in the northern and southern hemispheres". A worldview is something like, "I believe the earth and everything on it were created in entirety by a powerful supernatural being."
If something thinks water drains in different directions, the teacher can just say, "Nah, it's a myth. The Coriolis effect from the Earth's rotation only really applies to very large things like hurricanes." But if they're going to argue against someone who's been taught from birth that God did it all and evolutionary scientists are evil heathen liars out to subvert our way of life, they need to be well-prepared and know all the arguments and all the rebuttals.
Since they have access to all the information required to write their own why didn't they do so? Video drivers are now very major chunks of the operating system and they are getting others to do it for them for free while shipping a substandard product.
Jesus Christ. Everyone complains about how Microsoft owns the whole industry and now you want them to write your drivers too?
How many people would they have to employ to write drivers for every piece of hardware out there? A driver for every video card, every sound card, every printer, every special device that plugs into a USB port, every network card, every goofy special PCI card used in some niche market, etc, etc?
Hang on isn't this the same company that has solid and stable XP drivers? Doesn't that say something? Perhaps Vista drivers are harder to write. Perhaps they're just not mature yet. However automatically blaming HP is unfair. It MIGHT be fair it if were just one company or a small group, but MOST companies had trouble. THAT to me suggests the problem IS in fact Vista.
They probably are harder to write for Vista because the model is more strict; in other words, you can't get away with crap you used to be able to get away with. So if the problem is that it's simply harder, then no, I don't think that's Vista's fault. (And no, I don't know if that really is the problem, I'm just speculating.)
Good for you. Hope you enjoy the bloat, the pretty effects and having your rights restricted left right and center? Oh and the popups. Can't forget the popups.
It's not much more bloated than XP (and I don't really care anyway), I do like the pretty effects, I don't think my rights are being restricted, and there aren't that many popups really, and I don't mind the ones that I do get.
Gaming on Vista is shite compared to XP and will be for the forseeable future (with the exception of a handful of really hardware intensive resource hogging DirectX 10 games so encumbered with DRM I won't touch them anyway).
This is pretty much wrong since service pack 1 was released.
Except this is mostly untrue untrue for Windows and occasionally untrue for Linux.
There's been very few times on Windows when I couldn't get to the taskmasker to kill something, and there have been times on Linux where I had to power cycle the machine because some combination of make or g++ put it into a catatonic state.
We are utterly unique, and I suspect that intelligent life is so improbable, that it requires 1e85th power cycles of the universe(s) for it to happen *once*.
Advancement in technology means miniaturization, simplification. More advanced technologies require less power, not more. The modern desktop computer is thousands of times smaller than our first computers, millions of times faster, but you can run them on a battery, where as our first computers required their own power grid.
The fact that new software requires more CPU cycles, more raw power, is a mark of the immaturity of software technology. As we advance, our applications should require less memory and less power as we trim out redundant features.
The difference is, processors are still doing what they always did: fiddle with bits and move stuff into and out of memory. People don't expect any more from the CPU, other than it should be faster than the one in their last Dell. That's relatively easy.
On the other hand we constantly expect more from our software. If I download Eyecandy 2.0, it better have nicer graphics than 1.0 AND it needs to synch with my iPod and tell me the temperature in Sumatra too. It's unlikely you can fit all those new 2.0 features into the 1.0 footprint.
A better analogy might be motherboards. Hardware, right? And yet, once upon a time, your motherboard had a socket for the CPU, some memory slots, a few ISA slots and that was it. Now they have integrated video, integrated surround-sound audio, multiple on-board ethernet ports, on-board wireless networking, SATA controllers, several different kinds of expansion slots, etc, etc. Is that all hardware bloat?
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Oh,and I'm typing this on an 8 year old 1.1GHz Celeron with 512Mb of RAM with 7 tabs open in FF3 and still have 156Mb of RAM left and everything is snappy!
That's great, really. I'm happy that you found a product that runs well on an old system. But you need to face facts: these days, your machine is a slow piece of crap without enough memory.
It's unreasonable to expect every new product to run well on your ancient machine. A lot of people have 4 GB or more of memory and multi-core processors and don't really give a shit if the browser takes 300 MB of that if it provides a better experience. Any time that developers are using in an effort to save that last MB of memory so it works well on your system is taking away from time they could be using to build a better product.
What's that? Saving memory IS building a better product you cry? Yes indeed, it is, but there's a point where it stops being admirable and starts becoming an unreasonable burden, and I think worrying about how well stuff runs on an 8-year-old PC is past that point. Nothing is stopping you from using Firefox on your computer until the end of time, but at least stop complaining because new apps that actually make better use of the resources available to them don't run well on your stone-knives-and-bearskins computer.
It's like the UFO believers. "The truth is out there", they say. But they won't accept that maybe the truth is that there aren't any aliens visiting us. They think they already KNOW what the "truth" is, and anything that points somewhere else is obviously wrong, or is part of the Conspiracy.
Do you not remember the reports of a car bomb going off at the State Department? Because I do. Nobody really had a handle on what was going on for hours. Is it really so hard for you to accept that someone heard someone say "WTC7 is in danger of collapse", and that it probably got passed through several people, and that it mistakenly wound up on the air as "WTC7 has collapsed"?
If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?
Frankly, I don't think there will ever be another successful hijacking in this country, or at least none for a long while. The next time somebody stands up on a plane and announces a hijack, he's going to get jumped by 30 people. We get counter terrorism briefings at work, and it used to be that the recommended response if you were on a hijacked flight was to sit tight, follow the hijackers instructions, and you'll get out alive because all they wanted was money or to be flown somewhere. The current recommendation is to do whatever you think is best because all bets are off.
Could they blow up the plane in the air? Probably. Could they successfully take control of the plane and fly it into Hoover Dam? I very much doubt it.
I have a dual core processor with 3 GB of ram and I do not want an OS that can use it all just for the sake of using resources.
Frankly, this is pretty dumb. I have a dual-core processor with 4 GB of RAM. Vista doesn't use much more processor than XP did, and I want it to use all the memory. That's what it's there for; it's not some precious non-renewable resource that must be preserved at all costs. I'd rather have the OS fill it up with stuff that I use instead of having to wait for it to load off the disk.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that AIDS doesn't actually kill you.
Well, usually, but AIDS is capable of killing you by itself.
Do they give you an erection?
Does minding other people's business for them give you one?
One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.
I actually think it would make it harder to arrest them because, after all, they have a gun.
Or would you prefer links to gaming benchmarks that show how much slower games are even with Vista SP1 than XP?
Yes.
Actually I can't be bothered.That's fine but I shouldn't have to suffer just because you think a bog slow pretty piece of heavily restricted crap is what computing should be.
And the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because you want to live in 1975.
You on the other hand consider evolution to be science.
And so does every biologist in the world.
I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change
Really? What are they? What is the biological mechanism that only allows changes to pile up so far and not further?
And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.
Except there haven't always been dogs. Dogs are a relatively recent species.
Maybe you missed it, so here it is again: Speciation (ie, one species splitting into two) has been observed
If you're expecting a dog turning into a horse in one go, you're not going to get it, because that's not what evolution does. In fact, if we saw that happen, it would be a nasty blow against evolution.
Micro Evolution is where species can adapt and change appearance due to environmental circumstances.
Macro Evolution is where one species changes to another species.
Micro evolution is factual, but macro evolution is purely speculative, having no facts behind it - which even Darwin himself concluded.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot has happened in the 149 years since Origin of Species was published.
For instance, speciation has since been observed.
Well, that's not what his blog in The Guardian says. He says: "I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view".
Anyone who feels that creationism is not a misconception has no place in the direction of such an important scientific body as the Royal Society.
I don't think you get it. I think what he was saying is that teachers shouldn't think of creationism as just a little thing that people get wrong. He's saying they should think of it as a way that people look at the world. A misconception is something like, "Water spirals down the drain in different directions in the northern and southern hemispheres". A worldview is something like, "I believe the earth and everything on it were created in entirety by a powerful supernatural being."
If something thinks water drains in different directions, the teacher can just say, "Nah, it's a myth. The Coriolis effect from the Earth's rotation only really applies to very large things like hurricanes." But if they're going to argue against someone who's been taught from birth that God did it all and evolutionary scientists are evil heathen liars out to subvert our way of life, they need to be well-prepared and know all the arguments and all the rebuttals.
Carl Sagan got the two intertwined in many of his videos.
Name one.
You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet.
If you define "macroevolution" as "speciation", then yes, we have seen it happen. How do you define macroevolution? I hope it isn't...
seen a dog produce a non-dog
because that wouldn't be evolution. It would be creation.
Since they have access to all the information required to write their own why didn't they do so? Video drivers are now very major chunks of the operating system and they are getting others to do it for them for free while shipping a substandard product.
Jesus Christ. Everyone complains about how Microsoft owns the whole industry and now you want them to write your drivers too?
How many people would they have to employ to write drivers for every piece of hardware out there? A driver for every video card, every sound card, every printer, every special device that plugs into a USB port, every network card, every goofy special PCI card used in some niche market, etc, etc?
Hang on isn't this the same company that has solid and stable XP drivers? Doesn't that say something? Perhaps Vista drivers are harder to write. Perhaps they're just not mature yet. However automatically blaming HP is unfair. It MIGHT be fair it if were just one company or a small group, but MOST companies had trouble. THAT to me suggests the problem IS in fact Vista.
They probably are harder to write for Vista because the model is more strict; in other words, you can't get away with crap you used to be able to get away with. So if the problem is that it's simply harder, then no, I don't think that's Vista's fault. (And no, I don't know if that really is the problem, I'm just speculating.)
Good for you. Hope you enjoy the bloat, the pretty effects and having your rights restricted left right and center? Oh and the popups. Can't forget the popups.
It's not much more bloated than XP (and I don't really care anyway), I do like the pretty effects, I don't think my rights are being restricted, and there aren't that many popups really, and I don't mind the ones that I do get.
Gaming on Vista is shite compared to XP and will be for the forseeable future (with the exception of a handful of really hardware intensive resource hogging DirectX 10 games so encumbered with DRM I won't touch them anyway).
This is pretty much wrong since service pack 1 was released.
Except this is mostly untrue untrue for Windows and occasionally untrue for Linux.
There's been very few times on Windows when I couldn't get to the taskmasker to kill something, and there have been times on Linux where I had to power cycle the machine because some combination of make or g++ put it into a catatonic state.
And why the hell were you modded to +5?
We are utterly unique, and I suspect that intelligent life is so improbable, that it requires 1e85th power cycles of the universe(s) for it to happen *once*.
Show your work.
Now that Dodge Challenger looks fucking awesome with the specs to match! If I were to buy a new car, that would be it.
You mean a $40,000 car that weighs over 2 tons and gets 18 mpg on the highway?
Advancement in technology means miniaturization, simplification. More advanced technologies require less power, not more. The modern desktop computer is thousands of times smaller than our first computers, millions of times faster, but you can run them on a battery, where as our first computers required their own power grid.
The fact that new software requires more CPU cycles, more raw power, is a mark of the immaturity of software technology. As we advance, our applications should require less memory and less power as we trim out redundant features.
The difference is, processors are still doing what they always did: fiddle with bits and move stuff into and out of memory. People don't expect any more from the CPU, other than it should be faster than the one in their last Dell. That's relatively easy.
On the other hand we constantly expect more from our software. If I download Eyecandy 2.0, it better have nicer graphics than 1.0 AND it needs to synch with my iPod and tell me the temperature in Sumatra too. It's unlikely you can fit all those new 2.0 features into the 1.0 footprint.
A better analogy might be motherboards. Hardware, right? And yet, once upon a time, your motherboard had a socket for the CPU, some memory slots, a few ISA slots and that was it. Now they have integrated video, integrated surround-sound audio, multiple on-board ethernet ports, on-board wireless networking, SATA controllers, several different kinds of expansion slots, etc, etc. Is that all hardware bloat?
Oh,and I'm typing this on an 8 year old 1.1GHz Celeron with 512Mb of RAM with 7 tabs open in FF3 and still have 156Mb of RAM left and everything is snappy!
That's great, really. I'm happy that you found a product that runs well on an old system. But you need to face facts: these days, your machine is a slow piece of crap without enough memory.
It's unreasonable to expect every new product to run well on your ancient machine. A lot of people have 4 GB or more of memory and multi-core processors and don't really give a shit if the browser takes 300 MB of that if it provides a better experience. Any time that developers are using in an effort to save that last MB of memory so it works well on your system is taking away from time they could be using to build a better product.
What's that? Saving memory IS building a better product you cry? Yes indeed, it is, but there's a point where it stops being admirable and starts becoming an unreasonable burden, and I think worrying about how well stuff runs on an 8-year-old PC is past that point. Nothing is stopping you from using Firefox on your computer until the end of time, but at least stop complaining because new apps that actually make better use of the resources available to them don't run well on your stone-knives-and-bearskins computer.
Christ.
and the American people are idiots for thinking that getting elected to the senate once is all the qualifications needed for the presidency.
Pray tell, what ARE the qualifications needed for the presidency? Be specific.
This is why the 280 still spanks a 4870
Except maybe in the price/performance category.
Except what evidence would they accept?
It's like the UFO believers. "The truth is out there", they say. But they won't accept that maybe the truth is that there aren't any aliens visiting us. They think they already KNOW what the "truth" is, and anything that points somewhere else is obviously wrong, or is part of the Conspiracy.
Do you not remember the reports of a car bomb going off at the State Department? Because I do. Nobody really had a handle on what was going on for hours. Is it really so hard for you to accept that someone heard someone say "WTC7 is in danger of collapse", and that it probably got passed through several people, and that it mistakenly wound up on the air as "WTC7 has collapsed"?
for example you have to go through a couple of them just to open the device manager.
Uh, no. Just one.
The C syntax is horrendous, the conversion rules chaotic
Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++, is saying that C has a horrendous syntax and chaotic conversion rules...
Hahahahahahahahaha.
If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?
Frankly, I don't think there will ever be another successful hijacking in this country, or at least none for a long while. The next time somebody stands up on a plane and announces a hijack, he's going to get jumped by 30 people. We get counter terrorism briefings at work, and it used to be that the recommended response if you were on a hijacked flight was to sit tight, follow the hijackers instructions, and you'll get out alive because all they wanted was money or to be flown somewhere. The current recommendation is to do whatever you think is best because all bets are off.
Could they blow up the plane in the air? Probably. Could they successfully take control of the plane and fly it into Hoover Dam? I very much doubt it.
I have a dual core processor with 3 GB of ram and I do not want an OS that can use it all just for the sake of using resources.
Frankly, this is pretty dumb. I have a dual-core processor with 4 GB of RAM. Vista doesn't use much more processor than XP did, and I want it to use all the memory. That's what it's there for; it's not some precious non-renewable resource that must be preserved at all costs. I'd rather have the OS fill it up with stuff that I use instead of having to wait for it to load off the disk.