I don't contest that there are lots of unnecessary writes. Things can be improved. Still, for a 64 GB drive, the thing will become very replaceable well before it dies from windows disk noise. I guess needing to replace such a key component after a few years is a little bit troublesome, but the replacement will surely last essentially forever (especially if you assume that software improves). Even a drive that is quite full will last several years, especially for people who leave their computer sleeping 2/3 of the time (in the best case, the wear leveling moves static data around, eliminating the free capacity factor, in worse cases, 10 GB still provides for an awful lot of writes).
I'm not going to run out and spend $400 for a 100 GB disk, but $250 for a 250 GB disk is in sight, and it won't hurt all that bad to spend $300 for a 500GB disk 2 years after that. So, is it a possible source of problems? Yes. Is it a likely, expensive problem? No.
Wear leveling algorithms would have to be nearly brain dead for a few megabytes a minute to kill a disk with 100 gigabytes and 100,000 write cycles (that's billions of minutes, which is hundreds of years).
Parsimony suggests that optimizing for the characteristics of the device is a good idea, but SSD wear isn't something that desktop users even need to think about.
They can afford to make a few billion dollar bets a year.
If you ignore the Nasdaq share price (which may or may not be a good idea...), Microsoft looks pretty good over the last few years. Good revenue growth. Good net income growth. Etc.
To some extent, they are (in the market) getting punished for their size. In absolute terms, Microsoft has grown their operations hilariously more than Google or Apple, but that doesn't count for much when you start at $10 billion a year in income.
So maybe they need to make a few mistakes to make sure tat they are taking enough chances.
All government spending should provide a positive return on investment for the tax payer. The return isn't necessarily going to be easy to measure in dollars, so disagreement about the value of the return is inevitable, but negative returns are 'waste'. So lets not limit that way of thinking to the stimulus money.
As far as software, open source software probably does end up giving the tax payer greater value, but the people writing it may (or may not...) demand a higher level of compensation in order to give up the future sales. The opposite way of looking at it is that the closed binaries may well cost less.
For a lot of existing open source software, this isn't true, but the overall point is that you have to measure both costs and benefits, and it really isn't automatic that the open software will cost less (but it seems to be a fairly common situation).
(In general, software provides so much value that the licensing model and costs aren't all that important; open source just lets users keep more of the value)
I would imagine that the companies who own these things (or the governments who are moving in and cleaning up after irresponsible companies) have weighed the costs (especially time and fuel) and decided to do the cheapest thing possible.
When was the last time that you loaded the homepage and it failed to work?
That's the only correct that they are worried about. Given that the majority of web browsers that end up loading that site are not fully compliant with web standards, why bother fiddling to that test?
Better disable javascript so that a web page doesn't simulate a password field and post that.
I think having a "banking mode" that enforced https and limited the domains that could be accessed at the same time would provide a better end user experience for secure browsing and for normal browsing.
Making it a separate app would trick people into thinking it was easy to switch in and out of banking mode.
The per new user marginal cost on xp is surely tiny. Basically, a little bit of bandwidth (I suppose there are activation costs, but in my limited experience, that doesn't apply to oem installs; I suppose it gets rather muddy in this context). As far as I know, they make money selling support, so it isn't a cost.
The default configuration of windows stinks. It is a technical problem, but it stems from many decisions to favor backwards compatibility, not from the capabilities of the operating system (well, post NT anyway).
The end result is that it is more attractive to exploit a windows box, as it will probably be easier, and the box will expose more resources once it has been exploited.
Right. It isn't plausible. Or, you might get out of consequences, but the software would probably still be treated as if it were licensed (and thus you would have to answer for using it without said license.
The first question would be something like "you maintain that prior to the incidents leading to this hearing, you had no knowledge whatsoever of software EULAs?" and whoever was listening would not believe you if you agreed. It isn't plausible.
The ones complaining or the ones backpedaling? My statement is probably overly strong, and more applicable to the click through step than the actual EULA, but the complainers have a problem because they want(ed) to use Facebook, not because some part of EULA has been found to be in force.
You could certainly argue that it wasn't you that clicked the button. Good luck using that to work around one of the disclaimers in the EULA (sure I thought windows was good software to run a life support system on, and since the kid down the street clicked the button, I never agreed not to sue Microsoft for my death...).
People that think the EULAs are about anything other than a good faith effort at notifying you of the disclaimers on the product are out of control paranoid. They put other stuff in because they can; they don't care much about it.
There really isn't any need to pay off the entirety of that debt with the money that happens to exist today, especially if the term on the debt is 20 or 30 years (like the $10 trillion that is in mortgages). That comparison is a red herring. If there was never any consumption or production of goods and services you would be correct, but that isn't true, even in the United Services of America.
The whole principle behind credit is that it is probably o.k. to give me money I don't have today in exchange for me paying it back over time. Given that GDP is in excess of $10 trillion, $47 trillion seems managable (but taxes are going to have to go up eventually, and spending down, as the debt won't be paid off by taking out new debt).
I do think that the U.S. government and people are carrying too much debt (financing a television is idiotic, and government debt, while managable, isn't a win as often as the goverment thinks).
Since you are spouting this nonsense elsewhere, here is a simple way of looking at it: say Canada gives the U.S. 10 pounds of wheat, in exchange for a certificate that says that the U.S. owes Canada $20 (U.S.). The U.S., having come around to the notion that it doesn't want to owe Canada money anymore, plants some seeds in the ground and grows some grain. Cananda says "We will give you $25 (U.S.) for 15 pounds of wheat". The U.S takes the money for the wheat and then says "Hey, Canada, can I pay you back?" and then gives Canada the money (which was really just a placeholder representing the value of the wheat).
The basic problem isn't that it is conceptually impossible for a nation to pay back a debt, the basic problem is that the U.S. government doesn't have any interest in paying back the debt.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of tape and a strong reality distortion field.
I don't contest that there are lots of unnecessary writes. Things can be improved. Still, for a 64 GB drive, the thing will become very replaceable well before it dies from windows disk noise. I guess needing to replace such a key component after a few years is a little bit troublesome, but the replacement will surely last essentially forever (especially if you assume that software improves). Even a drive that is quite full will last several years, especially for people who leave their computer sleeping 2/3 of the time (in the best case, the wear leveling moves static data around, eliminating the free capacity factor, in worse cases, 10 GB still provides for an awful lot of writes).
I'm not going to run out and spend $400 for a 100 GB disk, but $250 for a 250 GB disk is in sight, and it won't hurt all that bad to spend $300 for a 500GB disk 2 years after that. So, is it a possible source of problems? Yes. Is it a likely, expensive problem? No.
Wear leveling algorithms would have to be nearly brain dead for a few megabytes a minute to kill a disk with 100 gigabytes and 100,000 write cycles (that's billions of minutes, which is hundreds of years).
Parsimony suggests that optimizing for the characteristics of the device is a good idea, but SSD wear isn't something that desktop users even need to think about.
They can afford to make a few billion dollar bets a year.
If you ignore the Nasdaq share price (which may or may not be a good idea...), Microsoft looks pretty good over the last few years. Good revenue growth. Good net income growth. Etc.
To some extent, they are (in the market) getting punished for their size. In absolute terms, Microsoft has grown their operations hilariously more than Google or Apple, but that doesn't count for much when you start at $10 billion a year in income.
So maybe they need to make a few mistakes to make sure tat they are taking enough chances.
I bet you breath through your lungs.
I wonder if anyone in the porn industry anticipated the collection fetish.
And yes, I am pretty sure that having several months worth of video that you never watch qualifies as a collection fetish.
All government spending should provide a positive return on investment for the tax payer. The return isn't necessarily going to be easy to measure in dollars, so disagreement about the value of the return is inevitable, but negative returns are 'waste'. So lets not limit that way of thinking to the stimulus money.
As far as software, open source software probably does end up giving the tax payer greater value, but the people writing it may (or may not...) demand a higher level of compensation in order to give up the future sales. The opposite way of looking at it is that the closed binaries may well cost less.
For a lot of existing open source software, this isn't true, but the overall point is that you have to measure both costs and benefits, and it really isn't automatic that the open software will cost less (but it seems to be a fairly common situation).
(In general, software provides so much value that the licensing model and costs aren't all that important; open source just lets users keep more of the value)
I would imagine that the companies who own these things (or the governments who are moving in and cleaning up after irresponsible companies) have weighed the costs (especially time and fuel) and decided to do the cheapest thing possible.
When was the last time that you loaded the homepage and it failed to work?
That's the only correct that they are worried about. Given that the majority of web browsers that end up loading that site are not fully compliant with web standards, why bother fiddling to that test?
Better disable javascript so that a web page doesn't simulate a password field and post that.
I think having a "banking mode" that enforced https and limited the domains that could be accessed at the same time would provide a better end user experience for secure browsing and for normal browsing.
Making it a separate app would trick people into thinking it was easy to switch in and out of banking mode.
He was insinuating that the giant corporation probably picked convenient facts.
The comparison to the previous laptop makes for good copy, but it doesn't mean a great deal.
The per new user marginal cost on xp is surely tiny. Basically, a little bit of bandwidth (I suppose there are activation costs, but in my limited experience, that doesn't apply to oem installs; I suppose it gets rather muddy in this context). As far as I know, they make money selling support, so it isn't a cost.
The default configuration of windows stinks. It is a technical problem, but it stems from many decisions to favor backwards compatibility, not from the capabilities of the operating system (well, post NT anyway).
The end result is that it is more attractive to exploit a windows box, as it will probably be easier, and the box will expose more resources once it has been exploited.
So suspend her for a week. The court case is a waste of everyone's time.
Right. It isn't plausible. Or, you might get out of consequences, but the software would probably still be treated as if it were licensed (and thus you would have to answer for using it without said license.
I hope he didn't make you sex.
The first question would be something like "you maintain that prior to the incidents leading to this hearing, you had no knowledge whatsoever of software EULAs?" and whoever was listening would not believe you if you agreed. It isn't plausible.
You can claim no knowledge, my point was that it isn't plausible.
I suppose a judge might believe the it coming from someone foolish enough to give a tech savvy kid unfettered access to their computer.
He miswrote. It really is 50k tweets per hour.
I tweet each plop.
The ones complaining or the ones backpedaling? My statement is probably overly strong, and more applicable to the click through step than the actual EULA, but the complainers have a problem because they want(ed) to use Facebook, not because some part of EULA has been found to be in force.
It doesn't give you any plausible deniability.
You could certainly argue that it wasn't you that clicked the button. Good luck using that to work around one of the disclaimers in the EULA (sure I thought windows was good software to run a life support system on, and since the kid down the street clicked the button, I never agreed not to sue Microsoft for my death...).
People that think the EULAs are about anything other than a good faith effort at notifying you of the disclaimers on the product are out of control paranoid. They put other stuff in because they can; they don't care much about it.
Hydroelectric energy storage is highly efficient and offers huge capacity. For example:
http://www.consumersenergy.com/welcome.htm?/content/hiermenugrid.aspx?id=31
There really isn't any need to pay off the entirety of that debt with the money that happens to exist today, especially if the term on the debt is 20 or 30 years (like the $10 trillion that is in mortgages). That comparison is a red herring. If there was never any consumption or production of goods and services you would be correct, but that isn't true, even in the United Services of America.
The whole principle behind credit is that it is probably o.k. to give me money I don't have today in exchange for me paying it back over time. Given that GDP is in excess of $10 trillion, $47 trillion seems managable (but taxes are going to have to go up eventually, and spending down, as the debt won't be paid off by taking out new debt).
I do think that the U.S. government and people are carrying too much debt (financing a television is idiotic, and government debt, while managable, isn't a win as often as the goverment thinks).
Since you are spouting this nonsense elsewhere, here is a simple way of looking at it: say Canada gives the U.S. 10 pounds of wheat, in exchange for a certificate that says that the U.S. owes Canada $20 (U.S.). The U.S., having come around to the notion that it doesn't want to owe Canada money anymore, plants some seeds in the ground and grows some grain. Cananda says "We will give you $25 (U.S.) for 15 pounds of wheat". The U.S takes the money for the wheat and then says "Hey, Canada, can I pay you back?" and then gives Canada the money (which was really just a placeholder representing the value of the wheat).
The basic problem isn't that it is conceptually impossible for a nation to pay back a debt, the basic problem is that the U.S. government doesn't have any interest in paying back the debt.
Hey everybody! This fucking idiot bought a TV.
The things people do!