> You think that if virus writers could capture 100% of 8% of the market that > they wouldn't have done so sometime in the past 8 years?
I wouldn't suprise me at all if when that 8% is more like 25%, that quite a few viruses and malware apps might start showing up for OS X. Apple patches OS X with security fixes. That means there were holes in it. If there WERE holes, that means there are probably still more which haven't been fixed yet. There's absolutely NOTHING stopping anybody writing a virus for OS X, and when they do, no users will have any protection, because they believe they are already secure. So just imagine what that virus will do and imagine the impact to Apple's image in the aftermath.
Not really. You would need that if you were transferring a file from one computer to another. But Bittorrent scrapes together little bits of file from lots of other computers. If a packet is lost here and there, that bit of file is naturally requested again, probably from a different machine.
No... you're getting confused between network packets (a kilobyte or two) and bittorrent's blocks (many kilobytes). Each bittorrent chunk is transferred using many network packets. If you're going to transfer those chunks using UDP, you need to sort out the packet order and do all the missing-packet checks and retries etc yourself. So you still DO need to build some kind of TCP-like protocol on top - even just for the error checking.
> Perhaps even more irritating than this, is how some people can't distinguish between 30 and 60 FPS
The problem is, you can have a 60Hz or 120Hz *refresh rate* but you'll still be looking at 24, 25 or 30FPS. No matter how fast your TV refreshes, you're still only seeing about 24-30 FPS, and I find that on a large screen with lots of motion, it still looks jerky.
We need more actual recorded frames per second. I wish everything was filmed at 40 or 50FPS.
> A 1920 x 1080 OLED display around 6x3 inches could be pretty cool.
I'd be happy with half that resolution on a screen that size. I doubt your eye could perceive the extra detail at a sensible viewing distance anyway. The iPhone screen res is just not quite enough to look sharp (it's "480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 ppi")
This story is about pictures with the EXIF meta data REMOVED. If you read the article, you'll see that copying and pasting the image into a new file does NOT solve the problem.
I think the dupe is intentional. They're actually going to post this story another 88 times and see if any of the other versions end up being read by a different demographic.
Computers are getting faster MUCH MUCH more quickly than operating systems are getting slower. I did a degree in computer science 10 years ago using a computer which had less RAM and Mhz than my *phone* does now! I was running Windows 98, which is much slower than Vista, but guess what - my Vista machine is still about 16 times faster than my old Windows 98 machine and it has 32 times more memory. I'm certainly not complaining.
I don't really see why it's a problem if any given operating system is 3 or 4% slower than the previous version. Do you really want to go back to using Windows 3.1 just because it's slightly faster? I sure as hell don't.
The vast majority of plane crashes occur while the planes are flying. Very few simply crash while they're sitting in the hangar - so he was still flying when he crashed I expect.
Just in case it isn't obvious, the photo is NOT related to the article summary and the pumpkin was NOT carved on a CNC machine! This article is massively misleading. The photo was stolen from another site featuring hand-carved pumpkins. I doubt a CNC machine could even vaguely come close to doing that on a material so soft and flexible.
I'm not sure that assuming that just because somethings done in hardware, that it happens in zero time (or even near zero time) is at all accurate. A review I read of a different encrypted drive, said it was 5-10% slower than it's non-encrypted equivalent. It wasn't the Seagate you're talking about, but I doubt that even hardware encryption can do it instantly, so I think your "zero" is an exaggeration.
I'm wasting my mod-points already awarded to previous posters just to reply to this.
No, it very probably will NOT outperform XP.
If you want something that outperforms XP, try Windows 95, or Windows NT 4. If you want something that runs 21st century software and games, buy Vista or Windows 7.
I can't stand all this "will it be EVEN SLOWER" crap. Of course it will, but who gives a shit? Computers are getting faster MUCH MUCH more quickly than operating systems are getting slower. I did a degree in computer science 10 years ago using a computer which had less RAM and Mhz than my *phone* does now!
I wish people would stop moaning that any given operating system is 3 or 4% slower than the previous version. Do you really want to go back to using Windows 3.1 just because it's slightly faster? I sure as hell don't.
OK, my mistake. I thought he meant GSM as opposed to digital. I hadn't realised there was more than on digital standard for cell phones as we only really have GSM here in the UK and not CDMA or anything else.
Only if you never want to see where you're going and don't want to look outside again.
The article says the display is translucent - not transparent. ie, it lets some light through, but you can't see through it - like greaseproof paper, or frosted glass. Pretty useless for making a HUD.
I think I read somewhere it will be 599 USD, so I think that's pretty cheap actually. What actually are you comparing it to which is significantly cheaper?
My el-cheapo machine can easily run Vista with glass enabled at over 300 FPS with internet radio and a file copy operation going on in the background without even noticing. Admittedly it took service pack 1 to get it to that state. It cost me all of £350 ($600?) from the Dell outlet store and is only a pretty average spec.
The only reason all these tiring Vista jokes keep being repeated is that these idiots that think you can run the latest game or operating system on their 4 year old 512MB PC. This is like putting a Formula 1 car's engine management unit in your 1.4 litre Ford Focus and then complaining that it doesn't do 220mph.
> Consider microscopy. Often with even the most well prepared samples, the > salient details can be difficult to discern from the background.
If you're working for a company which uses microsopes over the Internet which use lossy video compression to do real work, then I'd be very worried. Most medical and scientific organisations transfer images using very low-loss or lossless compression for precisely that reason. I can't think of why anybody would remotely be using a microsope over the Internet anyway. Was that a real example?
The summary mentions IE8 more than once, but the article is comparing Firefox 3.1 to IE 7 (yes SEVEN - you know, the OLD one!)
The Javascript engine in IE8 is much faster than the one in IE7, so it's a pretty unfair test in the first place and should never have been posted in the first place.
Many posters above already seem to be confused about the IE7/8 thing.
Slashdot Mirror
> Market share has nothing to do with how easy it is to break into a system.
Nobody is claiming it is. They're claiming that nobody will BOTHER to break into a system which has a very small market share.
> UNIX on the other hand was designed from day one to be networked multi-user OS
REALLY bad example! Viruses were *invented* on Unix!
> You think that if virus writers could capture 100% of 8% of the market that
> they wouldn't have done so sometime in the past 8 years?
I wouldn't suprise me at all if when that 8% is more like 25%, that quite a few viruses and malware apps might start showing up for OS X. Apple patches OS X with security fixes. That means there were holes in it. If there WERE holes, that means there are probably still more which haven't been fixed yet. There's absolutely NOTHING stopping anybody writing a virus for OS X, and when they do, no users will have any protection, because they believe they are already secure. So just imagine what that virus will do and imagine the impact to Apple's image in the aftermath.
Not really. You would need that if you were transferring a file from one computer to another. But Bittorrent scrapes together little bits of file from lots of other computers. If a packet is lost here and there, that bit of file is naturally requested again, probably from a different machine.
No... you're getting confused between network packets (a kilobyte or two) and bittorrent's blocks (many kilobytes). Each bittorrent chunk is transferred using many network packets. If you're going to transfer those chunks using UDP, you need to sort out the packet order and do all the missing-packet checks and retries etc yourself. So you still DO need to build some kind of TCP-like protocol on top - even just for the error checking.
> Perhaps even more irritating than this, is how some people can't distinguish between 30 and 60 FPS
The problem is, you can have a 60Hz or 120Hz *refresh rate* but you'll still be looking at 24, 25 or 30FPS. No matter how fast your TV refreshes, you're still only seeing about 24-30 FPS, and I find that on a large screen with lots of motion, it still looks jerky.
We need more actual recorded frames per second. I wish everything was filmed at 40 or 50FPS.
> A 1920 x 1080 OLED display around 6x3 inches could be pretty cool.
I'd be happy with half that resolution on a screen that size. I doubt your eye could perceive the extra detail at a sensible viewing distance anyway. The iPhone screen res is just not quite enough to look sharp (it's "480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 ppi")
RTFA! (or even the summary)
This story is about pictures with the EXIF meta data REMOVED. If you read the article, you'll see that copying and pasting the image into a new file does NOT solve the problem.
I think the dupe is intentional. They're actually going to post this story another 88 times and see if any of the other versions end up being read by a different demographic.
> Just release the carbon into the air, so the trees can use it.
I couldn't work out if that's supposed to be funny or troll or if you're just stupid. I seriously hope it's the first one :)
Presumably NBGalaxy.com looking at his web address.
What do you mean by the "ring tone one"?
Who cares if it's a few percent slower?
Computers are getting faster MUCH MUCH more quickly than operating systems are getting slower. I did a degree in computer science 10 years ago using a computer which had less RAM and Mhz than my *phone* does now! I was running Windows 98, which is much slower than Vista, but guess what - my Vista machine is still about 16 times faster than my old Windows 98 machine and it has 32 times more memory. I'm certainly not complaining.
I don't really see why it's a problem if any given operating system is 3 or 4% slower than the previous version. Do you really want to go back to using Windows 3.1 just because it's slightly faster? I sure as hell don't.
I used my Honda Civic as an impact probe last month and to be honest, it wasn't as fun as I thought it would be.
The vast majority of plane crashes occur while the planes are flying.
Very few simply crash while they're sitting in the hangar - so he was still flying when he crashed I expect.
Just in case it isn't obvious, the photo is NOT related to the article summary and the pumpkin was NOT carved on a CNC machine! This article is massively misleading. The photo was stolen from another site featuring hand-carved pumpkins. I doubt a CNC machine could even vaguely come close to doing that on a material so soft and flexible.
I'm not sure that assuming that just because somethings done in hardware, that it happens in zero time (or even near zero time) is at all accurate. A review I read of a different encrypted drive, said it was 5-10% slower than it's non-encrypted equivalent. It wasn't the Seagate you're talking about, but I doubt that even hardware encryption can do it instantly, so I think your "zero" is an exaggeration.
I'm wasting my mod-points already awarded to previous posters just to reply to this.
No, it very probably will NOT outperform XP.
If you want something that outperforms XP, try Windows 95, or Windows NT 4.
If you want something that runs 21st century software and games, buy Vista or Windows 7.
I can't stand all this "will it be EVEN SLOWER" crap. Of course it will, but who gives a shit? Computers are getting faster MUCH MUCH more quickly than operating systems are getting slower. I did a degree in computer science 10 years ago using a computer which had less RAM and Mhz than my *phone* does now!
I wish people would stop moaning that any given operating system is 3 or 4% slower than the previous version. Do you really want to go back to using Windows 3.1 just because it's slightly faster? I sure as hell don't.
OK, my mistake. I thought he meant GSM as opposed to digital. I hadn't realised there was more than on digital standard for cell phones as we only really have GSM here in the UK and not CDMA or anything else.
Only if you never want to see where you're going and don't want to look outside again.
The article says the display is translucent - not transparent. ie, it lets some light through, but you can't see through it - like greaseproof paper, or frosted glass. Pretty useless for making a HUD.
The RAZR *is* a GSM phone.
I think I read somewhere it will be 599 USD, so I think that's pretty cheap actually. What actually are you comparing it to which is significantly cheaper?
> Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?
no
My el-cheapo machine can easily run Vista with glass enabled at over 300 FPS with internet radio and a file copy operation going on in the background without even noticing. Admittedly it took service pack 1 to get it to that state. It cost me all of £350 ($600?) from the Dell outlet store and is only a pretty average spec.
The only reason all these tiring Vista jokes keep being repeated is that these idiots that think you can run the latest game or operating system on their 4 year old 512MB PC. This is like putting a Formula 1 car's engine management unit in your 1.4 litre Ford Focus and then complaining that it doesn't do 220mph.
Not really. One of my rooms has over 60 feet of drywall and it's only 15 feet square. I don't think you thought that through.
> Consider microscopy. Often with even the most well prepared samples, the
> salient details can be difficult to discern from the background.
If you're working for a company which uses microsopes over the Internet which use lossy video compression to do real work, then I'd be very worried. Most medical and scientific organisations transfer images using very low-loss or lossless compression for precisely that reason. I can't think of why anybody would remotely be using a microsope over the Internet anyway. Was that a real example?
The summary mentions IE8 more than once, but the article is comparing Firefox 3.1 to IE 7 (yes SEVEN - you know, the OLD one!)
The Javascript engine in IE8 is much faster than the one in IE7, so it's a pretty unfair test in the first place and should never have been posted in the first place.
Many posters above already seem to be confused about the IE7/8 thing.