But there are over 2,000 years of human history with god(s) without fixing the violence toward your fellow man issue. I'd almost claim that religion has made things worse at the national level since conflicts between countries aren't resolved once the battle for land/resources is over, but persist in the minds and actions of individuals as a religious conflict.
The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict is decidedly not about control over world-class farm land, but about control over artefacts of religious value. Similarly, the Sunni vs Shiia issue in Iraq is not about getting the most competent people in power, but about electing people based on their non-objective interpretation a non-authoritatively documented divergence of religious views that happened 1500 years ago.
Perhaps we should do some stronger natural selection against the mal-adapted religious sects out there...
Yes... just like how European computer shops couldn't keep the court-ordered Windows N in stock because consumers wanted to pay more for less. Oh wait, that didn't happen at all.
Microsoft mostly wins because this ruling will have next to zero negative impact on new PC sales (and hence new Windows licenses) since the vast majority of purchase decisions do not hinge on the inclusion of free, downloadable software.
Mobile computing doesn't really matter much to the gaming console market.
Sure it does. GameBoy* and PSP* are profitable, and will continue to be profitable as they gain enough processing power to run re-releases of current console games in the next five years or so. A self-powered X-Box that fits into a discman-size form factor would be a killer app, and is close to being achievable today.
OO.o 1 and 2 can export files that resemble PDFs, but do not always successfully open on many default PDF viewers such as ggv or even xpdf due improper typeface handling. This is a challenge for OO.o on Linux, OS X and Windows. Creating standard (portable) PDFs that open reliably on other platforms from OO.o requires an intermediate layer such as Adobe's PDF print driver, OS X's native ps to pdf engine, or PrimoPDF.
No version of OO.o can open PDFs as editable documents as of yet.
If we could only invent a device which would record a pattern light onto a flat photo-sensitive surface of some kind. Perhaps this surface could be spooled so that a series of light images could be captured in rapid sequence, creating the illusion of motion.
A rock is a good enough hammer in many cases, just don't try to do fine carpentry with it. Similarly, Word/WP is good enough in many cases, just don't use it to edit your novel.
All you've shown is that you can misuse a tool in a slightly failing way. Despite your best attempt (or at least good attempt) to foil the tool, it let you convey your intended message.
Even if you could get the incomplete source to compile without the important missing bits, it would soon become obsolete as it won't have any kind of support for new hardware.
the reason i put it in quotes is that i've never heard of vesa in the last 5-7 years in regards to video standards, especially in relation to lcd technology.
I'm curious: What part of VESA's work did you pay attention to in the last 5-7 years?
From their standards page, it appears that a large majority of VESA's work since the mid-'90s has been focused on video standards and compatibility. Perhaps you were engrossed with the work from TCTG?
you may also want to read a few more articles about lcds... if you think the response rate listed on the box is actually accurate.
You might become better informed in general if you read with more care, and didn't falsely attribute statements or positions to others. I stated no opinions about LCD technology.
they certainly got you representing lcds in a better light than they ought to be.
Again, I wrote nothing about LCDs. I fail to see where you are getting this misinformation about my post. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
In any case, please consider that products within particular classes of any particular display technology are not homogeneous with respect to quality or technical characteristics.
You could Google for VESA instead of putting it in quotes as though it were some foreign term. But then again, why would you need to Google for VESA? Since you're an expert on the subject of computer video hardware, you would surely know about the standards body that has guided the industry for the last 15 years...
Marketing people may often lie, but that does not excuse consumers' ignorance.
1) Well composed operating systems (from a "basic user"'s perspective) have the feature that the user can be productive without noticing the kernel or other nasty computer stuff.
2) Most computers, operating systems and applications don't cease to work for the sole reason that a newer version exists.
3) Your original post is correct, "It [is] a matter of the changes being unnecessary." No one is forced to upgrade their operating system or applications since the "basic users [who] have a computer on their desk to write reports, letters or memos, work a spreadsheet, use e-mail, use the WWW, or print something from any of the above" can do so using almost any PC operating system produced in the last 10 years if not longer. IT departments and vendors usually drive change, not end users, who, as you state, are satisfied with that which currently works. There's no reason to upgrade NT4, Warp 3, Mac OS 8.6, or slack 7 in the many cases where they still work well in their environments.
4) Modularity doesn't help "basic users" who never need to interact with the modules themselves, but only use the computer at the application layer.
5) I'll ignore your inability or unwillingness to show just one instance in which a Windows upgrade rendered useless a "basic user"'s prior Windows skills.
Win95/NT/2000/XP/2003 all have different interfaces and behaviors.
1) What skills required of your "basic users" acquired from an earlier version of Windows are inapplicable to a later version?
2) Why would you deploy a server operating system (Windows 2003) to basic users?
Most of these basic users have a computer on their desk to write reports, letters or memos, work a spreadsheet, use e-mail, use the WWW, or print something from any of the above.
Do you remember the upswell of annoyed and terminally confused end-users the last time Microsoft changed all the interfaces for Word[Perfect] or Star Office the last time they upgraded Windows? Probably not, since application interfaces made by someone else don't change functionally between versions of Windows.
If yout users have issues because the colour of the Windows flag in the Start button changed, or because the menu bar highlight defaults to raised instead of blue, there are compounding factors beyond the software.
Learning to mouse left-handed was fairly easy for me since window widgets have a large tolerance for that which is considered to be accurate input. Learning to Photoshop left-handed was somewhat more difficult, but doable within a few months.
Also, not having to move my right hand from the right third of the keyboard (where most of the non-letter keys live) to use a mose pwns in almost every game and application.
There's a big difference between checking for non-Intel chips and checking for AMD chips. According to this:http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html (from another thread), the compiled code branches to SSE* instructions if it detects GenuineIntel, or to generic 386 instructions if it doesn't detect GenuineIntel. If this is the case, the compiler doesn't act specifically against AMD, but rather generates code that performs poorly on non-modern Intel processors.
What if you had a system that Just Worked, where you didn't have to deal with these things, and where you really could be on the computer just for doing what you want to do?
For me, that's Windows 2003, OSX 10.4 and FC4. I know enough about each of these to not have to spend more than an hour per month in total maintaining the systems, and I'm efficient (at different kinds of tasks) with all three. While it's possible to spend much more time incompetently dealing with system tasks (or worse yet, trying to force the tools to become something they're not), users' lack of knowledge are not the fault of the operating systems.
Interesting that he does indicate that rentamark is registered as a trademark. But then again, there's probably no dager of anyone wanting to infringe on his line of cliches typed in badly transformed fonts imposed on crappy clipart.
So, people seriously think that a book-sized router with an antenna 4" long will broadcast over 30 miles while sitting next to your computer???
My fist-sized cell phone and that bus/truck/taxi driver's radio seem to work at long distances just fine. Car radios pick up FM stations form dozens of miles away. These observations create the reasonable expectation that wireless electronics work over substantial distances (miles), whether or not the technology can do it.
Off the top of your head, what's the range of a CDMA cell phone? GSM? What about 802.11a/b/g? Under what conditions? How many watts does your base station transmit at? Your laptop?
If most of us as computer geeks can't ballpark these figures within an order of magnitude, why should we expect non-techs to be able to do so?
Yes, because without knowing exactly what hardware the both of you are using, your datapoints ABOUT OSX and experience are somehow more correct than his ABOUT WINDOWS AND LINUX, always.
But instead of pointing out that with almost all Linux distributions, most components can be stripped out by the end user with relative ease to save memory and CPU cycles, or that the Windows and Linux memory managers might show different performance optima depending on the amount of installed memory, you've resorted to a failed attempt at feigning zealotism.
hector_uk, I invite you do show me, with any arbitrary computing task of your choice, how trained monkeys might perform better than you using a computer running XP and 128 MB of RAM. If your the duties of your vocation can be performed with trained monkeys, you might also consider a more meaningful line of work.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are over 2,000 years of human history with god(s) without fixing the violence toward your fellow man issue. I'd almost claim that religion has made things worse at the national level since conflicts between countries aren't resolved once the battle for land/resources is over, but persist in the minds and actions of individuals as a religious conflict.
The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict is decidedly not about control over world-class farm land, but about control over artefacts of religious value. Similarly, the Sunni vs Shiia issue in Iraq is not about getting the most competent people in power, but about electing people based on their non-objective interpretation a non-authoritatively documented divergence of religious views that happened 1500 years ago.
Perhaps we should do some stronger natural selection against the mal-adapted religious sects out there...
Yes... just like how European computer shops couldn't keep the court-ordered Windows N in stock because consumers wanted to pay more for less. Oh wait, that didn't happen at all.
Microsoft mostly wins because this ruling will have next to zero negative impact on new PC sales (and hence new Windows licenses) since the vast majority of purchase decisions do not hinge on the inclusion of free, downloadable software.
Eh?
The SEC Safe Harbour statement and disclosure is pretty much boilerplate that appears almost everywhere.
Mobile computing doesn't really matter much to the gaming console market.
Sure it does. GameBoy* and PSP* are profitable, and will continue to be profitable as they gain enough processing power to run re-releases of current console games in the next five years or so. A self-powered X-Box that fits into a discman-size form factor would be a killer app, and is close to being achievable today.
Actually... you know how in glasses of beer there seems to be an infinate number of bubbles from the same spot on the glass? Can't we harness that?
I think the amount of gas dissolved in a particular volume of beer is finite.
-or-
So that's where all the greenhouse gases are coming from.
OO.o 1 and 2 can export files that resemble PDFs, but do not always successfully open on many default PDF viewers such as ggv or even xpdf due improper typeface handling. This is a challenge for OO.o on Linux, OS X and Windows. Creating standard (portable) PDFs that open reliably on other platforms from OO.o requires an intermediate layer such as Adobe's PDF print driver, OS X's native ps to pdf engine, or PrimoPDF.
No version of OO.o can open PDFs as editable documents as of yet.
If we could only invent a device which would record a pattern light onto a flat photo-sensitive surface of some kind. Perhaps this surface could be spooled so that a series of light images could be captured in rapid sequence, creating the illusion of motion.
Or perhaps, we could simply use CMOS sensors...
Doesn't matter if it's not in a frequency that your rods and cones will react to.
Well, not react to _immediately_. Damage is possible.
A rock is a good enough hammer in many cases, just don't try to do fine carpentry with it. Similarly, Word/WP is good enough in many cases, just don't use it to edit your novel.
All you've shown is that you can misuse a tool in a slightly failing way. Despite your best attempt (or at least good attempt) to foil the tool, it let you convey your intended message.
I want this as a screensaver
If you have a modern Windows box...
Rename drivey.exe to drivey.scr
copy to \windows\system32
right-click desktop | properties
choose Drivey013 as your screen saver
Note that this hack won't honour anything that resembles "terminate on mouse move or keypress" functionality, and may expose some security issues.
This won't magically add arbitrary music to the program, but it would be easy enough to hack something up in VB...
If I buy a computer pre-installed with Linux, do I own that information (Linux)?
Even if you could get the incomplete source to compile without the important missing bits, it would soon become obsolete as it won't have any kind of support for new hardware.
the reason i put it in quotes is that i've never heard of vesa in the last 5-7 years in regards to video standards, especially in relation to lcd technology.
I'm curious: What part of VESA's work did you pay attention to in the last 5-7 years?
From their standards page, it appears that a large majority of VESA's work since the mid-'90s has been focused on video standards and compatibility. Perhaps you were engrossed with the work from TCTG?
you may also want to read a few more articles about lcds... if you think the response rate listed on the box is actually accurate.
You might become better informed in general if you read with more care, and didn't falsely attribute statements or positions to others. I stated no opinions about LCD technology.
they certainly got you representing lcds in a better light than they ought to be.
Again, I wrote nothing about LCDs. I fail to see where you are getting this misinformation about my post. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
In any case, please consider that products within particular classes of any particular display technology are not homogeneous with respect to quality or technical characteristics.
You could Google for VESA instead of putting it in quotes as though it were some foreign term. But then again, why would you need to Google for VESA? Since you're an expert on the subject of computer video hardware, you would surely know about the standards body that has guided the industry for the last 15 years...
Marketing people may often lie, but that does not excuse consumers' ignorance.
1) Well composed operating systems (from a "basic user"'s perspective) have the feature that the user can be productive without noticing the kernel or other nasty computer stuff.
2) Most computers, operating systems and applications don't cease to work for the sole reason that a newer version exists.
3) Your original post is correct, "It [is] a matter of the changes being unnecessary." No one is forced to upgrade their operating system or applications since the "basic users [who] have a computer on their desk to write reports, letters or memos, work a spreadsheet, use e-mail, use the WWW, or print something from any of the above" can do so using almost any PC operating system produced in the last 10 years if not longer. IT departments and vendors usually drive change, not end users, who, as you state, are satisfied with that which currently works. There's no reason to upgrade NT4, Warp 3, Mac OS 8.6, or slack 7 in the many cases where they still work well in their environments.
4) Modularity doesn't help "basic users" who never need to interact with the modules themselves, but only use the computer at the application layer.
5) I'll ignore your inability or unwillingness to show just one instance in which a Windows upgrade rendered useless a "basic user"'s prior Windows skills.
Win95/NT/2000/XP/2003 all have different interfaces and behaviors.
1) What skills required of your "basic users" acquired from an earlier version of Windows are inapplicable to a later version?
2) Why would you deploy a server operating system (Windows 2003) to basic users?
Most of these basic users have a computer on their desk to write reports, letters or memos, work a spreadsheet, use e-mail, use the WWW, or print something from any of the above.
Do you remember the upswell of annoyed and terminally confused end-users the last time Microsoft changed all the interfaces for Word[Perfect] or Star Office the last time they upgraded Windows? Probably not, since application interfaces made by someone else don't change functionally between versions of Windows.
If yout users have issues because the colour of the Windows flag in the Start button changed, or because the menu bar highlight defaults to raised instead of blue, there are compounding factors beyond the software.
Learning to mouse left-handed was fairly easy for me since window widgets have a large tolerance for that which is considered to be accurate input. Learning to Photoshop left-handed was somewhat more difficult, but doable within a few months.
Also, not having to move my right hand from the right third of the keyboard (where most of the non-letter keys live) to use a mose pwns in almost every game and application.
There's a big difference between checking for non-Intel chips and checking for AMD chips. According to this:http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html (from another thread), the compiled code branches to SSE* instructions if it detects GenuineIntel, or to generic 386 instructions if it doesn't detect GenuineIntel. If this is the case, the compiler doesn't act specifically against AMD, but rather generates code that performs poorly on non-modern Intel processors.
What if you had a system that Just Worked, where you didn't have to deal with these things, and where you really could be on the computer just for doing what you want to do?
For me, that's Windows 2003, OSX 10.4 and FC4. I know enough about each of these to not have to spend more than an hour per month in total maintaining the systems, and I'm efficient (at different kinds of tasks) with all three. While it's possible to spend much more time incompetently dealing with system tasks (or worse yet, trying to force the tools to become something they're not), users' lack of knowledge are not the fault of the operating systems.
If one core opens the pdf, any process running on the other core can read the contents as they pass across the cache. Oops!
Not a problem specific to Adobe...
We have this at the University of Calgary:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/it/webdisk/
Basically, WebDAV over HTTPS with a Free OS X client but non-free Windows client on almost every public computer on campus.
You can plan for months and decide to execute (or not) in minutes. See D-Day, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, etc.
Interesting that he does indicate that rentamark is registered as a trademark. But then again, there's probably no dager of anyone wanting to infringe on his line of cliches typed in badly transformed fonts imposed on crappy clipart.
So, people seriously think that a book-sized router with an antenna 4" long will broadcast over 30 miles while sitting next to your computer???
My fist-sized cell phone and that bus/truck/taxi driver's radio seem to work at long distances just fine. Car radios pick up FM stations form dozens of miles away. These observations create the reasonable expectation that wireless electronics work over substantial distances (miles), whether or not the technology can do it.
Off the top of your head, what's the range of a CDMA cell phone? GSM? What about 802.11a/b/g? Under what conditions? How many watts does your base station transmit at? Your laptop?
If most of us as computer geeks can't ballpark these figures within an order of magnitude, why should we expect non-techs to be able to do so?
"[T]hat is a blatent lie,"
Yes, because without knowing exactly what hardware the both of you are using, your datapoints ABOUT OSX and experience are somehow more correct than his ABOUT WINDOWS AND LINUX, always.
But instead of pointing out that with almost all Linux distributions, most components can be stripped out by the end user with relative ease to save memory and CPU cycles, or that the Windows and Linux memory managers might show different performance optima depending on the amount of installed memory, you've resorted to a failed attempt at feigning zealotism.
hector_uk, I invite you do show me, with any arbitrary computing task of your choice, how trained monkeys might perform better than you using a computer running XP and 128 MB of RAM. If your the duties of your vocation can be performed with trained monkeys, you might also consider a more meaningful line of work.