Besides missing the point (WHOOSH!), experiments have to be interpreted. Who interprets the results of the experiments? Scientists and their peers. There *is* a framework in place that science is supposed to follow. That's why no one can successfully claim that "I lit a match, therefore it's cold fusion." But at the end of the day, it's the people committed to following that framework that make it work.
Freud wasn't the only one who was peer reviewed. Einstein, for example, was also peer reviewed. And there was a lot of resistance to his theories in the day. The key is that his peers held themselves to the ideals of the scientific method. They poked, prodded, and tested his theory (both logically and empirically) until they were forced to accept it.
How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!
I'm sure it did, but there were several other issues as detailed in this Space.com article:
Foam coming off the tank because of improper application; deficiencies in the materials used; degradation during its transport to the Cape; the loading of supercold fuels; and the violent ride to space. Florida Today reported earlier this year that foam came off the tank on at least 71 flights to date, but NASA did not consider the resulting damage to the heat shield a safety issue.
Requirements and specifications not being followed in testing and manufacturing of the external tank.
Loss of institutional knowledge and experience at NASA and the Michoud plant because of "lots of old-timers retiring or taking buyouts" as the shuttle program reduced its workforce throughout the latter half of the 1990s.
NASA's limited insight into changes vendors had made with materials used in making the tanks.
Environmental requirements requiring removal of freon from the process for spraying the foam insulation onto the tank. NASA has said that the freon-free application method resulted in foam that initially did not adhere to the tank as well, but changes were later made to strengthen the bond of the environmentally friendly foam.
On top of all that, the shuttles themselves are just getting *old*. I imagine that leads to all sorts of maintenance and structural issues. They may still be within engineering tolerances, but engineering tolerances for the Shuttle predicted a 1 in 100,000 flight failure. A figure which Richard Feynman challenged and reduced to somewhere between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100.
So far we're on target for Dr. Feynman's predictions.:-/
Yeah, that's it. That's why NASA has sent up tile repair kits with the crew, and made sure they dock at a space station capable of supporting the astronauts for an extended stay. I'm sure the crew of the Endeavour is quite doomed.</sarcasm>
Perl has always had a compiler: your source is compiled into an internal form (a parse tree) which is then optimized before being run.
From my understanding of the engine, SpiderMonkey works along similar lines, using a combination of byte codes and parser information to perform execution. This is a bit different approach from the Flash VM, which pre-compiles the source into a representation executable by its "Actions" VM.
The difference between interpreted languages and compiled languages these days is largely academic.
I will agree with this. True interpreters are a rare find these days. Interpreting bytecodes is becoming a common method, and even JITs are showing up in a lot of interpreted languages. That being said, the one distinction is that interpreted languages rarely give up their interpreters. If you give them a dynamic piece of source code, they will execute it whether it does a strict interpretation of the source or a full compile to its internal VM.
In comparison, Java is a strictly compiled language designed for the Java VM platform. Furthermore, it is JITed at runtime and is no longer interpreted as most VMs designed for "interpreted languages" do.
Hell, even Java has JSPs, which use Java like a scripting language.
Scripting is not the same thing as interpreted. JSPs are compiled before execution. The file is turned inside out by the parser (all that HTML becomes output.write("") statements) then compiled by JavaC, loaded by the ClassLoader, and finally executed by the HotSpot VM. It's an involved process, but it's much faster than the traditional interpreted approach of PHP and pre-.NET ASP.
And how do you propose to run them and their JIT compiler without another VM?
How you think Linus wrote the first version Linux? By flipping switches on the front of his Honeywell? Of course not, fool! He used Minix as a host platform to compile the first versions. You always need a host platform to bootstrap the first copy before it can become self-hosting.
Modern interpreters compile the language and then run the bytecode. Early interpreters work the way you describe because memory was at a premium.
These words come out of your mouth, but you obviously don't understand what they mean. Early interpreters started the concept of "compiling down" interpreted code because memory was at a premium. It's not a Virtual Machine, it's a symbolic language that makes it easier to execute the code.
Hell, I have a Commodore 64 sitting at home that keeps all its programs in a symbolic form to preserve its mere 64K of memory. I know you have no idea what a Commodore 64 is (I'm pegging you at somewhere around 12-14) but programmers often wondered why their programs were being reformatted by the machine. As it so happens, it wasn't reformatting them. It was translating the programs to symbolic codes, then translating them back when the user asked for a program listing.
See Parrot, the VM for Perl
Parrot is a VM. Period. Languages like Perl can be compiled for it if desired. Jython also exists to target Python execution in the JVM environment. The existence of these tools does not make the languages any less of interpreted language. It merely provides a specific implementation which is compiled. Just as many companies used to offer BASIC compilers, even though BASIC was technically an interpreted language.
Tamarin, Mozilla's JavaScript VM.
Taramin is the latest version of the Virtual Machine designed for the Flash platform. The Actionscript language was evolved toward ECMAScript compliance, thus making it an excellent platform for JITing Javascript code.
Again, you fail it. Go back to high school, graduate, work your way through a college education in CS, then come back when you know what you're talking about.
Then explain why there's a "javac.exe" under Windows and [Linux]
Simple. It's a stub. Typing "java -cp tools.jar com.sun.tools.javac.Main" all the time isn't very convenient, so Sun provides executables that load the JVM and execute the compiler. If you look in your JDK installation directory, you can find the tools.jar file in the "lib" subdirectory. You can try running it from that directory as above, or look inside the zip file for the mindblowing (eye roll) Java class files for the compiler.
No, it can't. By definition you have to start with a JVM written in something that isn't Java. Otherwise your JVM is written in bytecode that nothing can run, since it isn't compiled to native code until runtime.
Perfect example of someone who didn't read or take the time to understand. The Jalapeno VM and JNode OS are both written in pure Java. They used their own JIT compiler to compile themselves into native code. That native code is a Java program that runs on the native platform.
By that definition, Python, Perl, and JavaScript are all compiled languages.
Python is not compiled. Perl is not compiled. Javascript is not compiled. These languages are read in, line by line, and executed. You fail it.
This is CS101 stuff we're talking about here. How badly can you fail it?
"A distinguishing characteristic of Jikes RVM is that it is implemented in the Java(TM) programming language and is self-hosted i.e., its Java code runs on itself without requiring a second virtual machine."
being an interpreted language, fails that test miserably.
Failure #3: You called Java an interpreted language. Java is a compiled language that runs on a virtual machine. Like most VM-based platforms, that provides two options. The first is to interpret the bytecodes directly. The second is to compile the bytecodes into native code at runtime using a Just In Time Compiler. The most common JIT compiler for Java is the HotSpot VM. HotSpot is quite capable of keeping pace with and even exceeding the performance of native code.
I've once seen a student project, a java interpreter, written in Java.
Failure #4: You see these things, yet you fail to take the time to understand them. You have failed as a geek. Turn in your member card immediately and leave in shame.
the higher cost of entry may be helping the PlayStation 3 in this respect.
Since when does higher cost mean higher quality, regardless of what it can do?
It doesn't. However, it does mean that the buyers are researching their purchases more carefully before shelling out for such a high price tag. Which means that they're more likely to know their system's capabilities.
One of the interesting quirks of the market is that if you position a device as a game machine, people will buy it as a game machine. Thing like the media it takes are secondary to the function the device is being sold for. So if you sell your machine as a game machine, expect that people will treat it as such and compare it to other game machines. Secondary features like the BluRay drive will only matter if the device compares favorably on its primary function.
Now if you position a device like the PS3 as a Sony's PlayStation Media Center, suddenly it looks like a good deal. It can play BluRay, PS1 games, PS2 games, and games "designed for the BluRay format". All for less than competing BluRay players.
It's too bad that Sony didn't do this. They might have had a better response if they had.
I have found that using gamerankings.com usually helps bring things truth to light
It's funny, because I've had the exact opposite impression of most ranking systems employed today. Everyone tends to either give the game a perfect 10/10, a 1/10 because it's not their cup of tea, or an average score like 8/10. After it's all tallied, it just becomes so much statistical noise.
Ever wonder why the "top" games on any site are always the newest? This is often done to compensate for their ranking system which places nearly everything within the same range. About the only games that break out from the fold are the really terrible games or the truly great games. (Both of which you've probably found out from other means than looking at the ranking.)
The best method I've found for working within the system is to hear as many different reviews as possible, get a feel for whether it has the type of content that interests you, then decide to take a chance on it or not. From that perspective sites like GameRankings and Amazon can be useful. But their ratings data doesn't mean all that much.
Speaking from a theoretical perspective, I'd appreciate it if more sites did a bit of research into voting methodology. I know that the "stars" or "out of ten" systems are very popular, but such scores can be computed from something more useful like approval voting. With approval voting, games that are actually good would float to the top as more and more players say they liked the game. Meanwhile, bad games would stay near the bottom. The number of votes could be normalized against the largest number of votes cast, or a "negative" vote could be introduced to provide a total number of voters in the context of the individual game. (percentage = Math.floor(positive/(positive+negative)*100))
if it runs on the same fuel as the Space Shuttle, maybe we could expect to go from 0 - 22,350 km/h in about 9 minutes
<pedantic>Technically, the Space Shuttle obtains its MaxQ (maximum velocity inside the atmosphere) thanks to the high thrust-to-weight ratio of the two Solid Fuel Boosters (SRB). The Space Shuttle would go absolutely nowhere if it had to rely solely on the thrust from its LHOx engines.</pedantic>
you'd know that it has had this option - for at least the last 10 years.
I did know, but not off the top of my head. I haven't mucked around at that level for quite a while now. Given that the summary seemed to imply that Linux did *not* have noatime support (which would be quite an odd thing indeed) I was not ready to challenge it until I actually read the article. Of course, it was a case of bad-summary-itis. (Again.)
As it so happens, TFA is an exercise in the danger of pulling from a conversation with little context to back it up. The only reason why they are discussing the matter is because a few programs like MUTT still use atime to synchronize their operation. If it weren't for MUTT (and presumably a few other unmentioned examples) I imagine that atime would be off by default by now.
Yeah, I finally read the article. I thought I remembered that Linux could turn off atime, but I wasn't going to commit to it until I was sure.
FWIW, the Relative Access Time (relatime) patch simply doesn't update the access time unless the file has been modified since the last atime write. That allows ancient applications like MUTT to still synchronize on various files. Synchronization that does not work with noatime set.
Of course, I have to question why they're still using something as ancient as MUTT. A nice event system would be 1000x more efficient than trying to synchronize on flat files stored in your home directory on the file system. Of course, that would require designing OSes beyond the standard UNIX/POSIX philosophy and design. So I doubt we'll see that in Linux any time soon.
This is talking about the Last Access Time feature of most Unix systems. The OS will write a timestamp to disk each time the file is opened, closed, changed, or just looked at funny. Most professional Unixes (Solaris springs to mind) have the option of disabling the access timestamps. I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not quite sure why Linux hasn't followed suit by now. It's a security feature that's not all that useful on most systems.
You know, moderations like this are the great mystery of Slashdot. Why is the above post modded Flamebait? Is it not acceptable to be sarcastic to one's own self? If so, why should being sarcastic to one's self involve starting a flamewar? What would be the responses? Somehow, "JSON can indeed be styled with CSS, but you were being sarcastic so off with 'yer head!" doesn't strike me as a realistic scenario.
Maybe it's grumpy moderator day. Um... happy grumpy moderator day? =D =D =D
(Wait, if it's grumpy moderator day, should I really be wishing them a happy day? My head hurts.)
With XML of course. Actually, you can apply CSS to just about any data format to produce a layout. Whether your browser will support it or not is another matter all together.
I'm just waiting for someone to create a Javascript shunt that will allow CSS to be applied to JSON documents. In fact, I'm sure that someone will produce a link in 3... 2... 1...
1. It merely used the JVM as a vector to install itself. As a virus, it was actually a Windows program and was reported as such by all virus tools in existence. Thus the original poster would not have known it as a "Java virus".
2. There are actually a wide variety of CWS variants. Some of them used the JVM vulnerability while others used other system vulnerabilities like a hole in the Windows Meta File.
3. As another poster pointed out, it was a hole in Microsoft's VM that was exploited. Which would seem to be further evidence for moving away from IE.
This has nothing to do with Sony. It has everything to do with a grudge that UbuntuDupe has been carrying around for well over a year. His reference to "smug" and "condescending" replies are a sideswipe at an attempt at a helpful response I made to him in relation to the use of the term "price point" in a Nintendo article prior to the Wii launch.
If you have a relevant response, I'd like to hear it.
No you don't. If you did, you would have accepted my previous apology for not understanding your issue with the use of "price point". As I said, my "condescending lecture" was an attempt to helpfully answer your question. It didn't even occur to me that you might have a pet grievance against the use of "price point".
I accept that those are price points, as defined under the economic theory. That's not in dispute.
And this is pretty much the crux of the issue. You started your tirade when "price point" was used correctly and in context. You yourself admit that. So making it a personal mission to stamp out "price point" smacks of the same grudge you've been holding this entire time.
Get. Over. It.
It's just not worth it.
Now if you want something useful to rant about, how about taking on the endless abuse of the term SKU? I know I'm far from the only person who cringes every time I see a/. story talking about "XYZ was done to the SKU". They mean "model" or "product" (both well-defined, technical terms), but for some reason the posters think it's cooler to say "Stock Keeping Unit" in a context where no stock exists. Go figure.
Love the tag "situationnormal"
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I remember freaking out 10 years ago every time I saw someone running that cutesy little "fireworks display" email attachment. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't get the users to stop unzipping and opening it*. Glad to see that things haven't changed much.
SNAFU (Situation Normal: All F***ed Up)
* Before I get 10 million suggestions for a decade-past issue, yes we did find more effective ways of blocking it.
Wow. That was like, what, a year ago now? Dude, you need to get over it. Holding a grudge is not good for your health.
And for the record, we were talking about price points in the issue you were referencing. As in "Nintendo should have gone with the $199 price point rather than the $249 price point." Redefining the argument so it sounds like you weren't ranting about a pet peeve is disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides missing the point (WHOOSH!), experiments have to be interpreted. Who interprets the results of the experiments? Scientists and their peers. There *is* a framework in place that science is supposed to follow. That's why no one can successfully claim that "I lit a match, therefore it's cold fusion." But at the end of the day, it's the people committed to following that framework that make it work.
Freud wasn't the only one who was peer reviewed. Einstein, for example, was also peer reviewed. And there was a lot of resistance to his theories in the day. The key is that his peers held themselves to the ideals of the scientific method. They poked, prodded, and tested his theory (both logically and empirically) until they were forced to accept it.
How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!
Think about it.
I agree with you 100%. That was the point of the sarcasm tag. ;-)
On top of all that, the shuttles themselves are just getting *old*. I imagine that leads to all sorts of maintenance and structural issues. They may still be within engineering tolerances, but engineering tolerances for the Shuttle predicted a 1 in 100,000 flight failure. A figure which Richard Feynman challenged and reduced to somewhere between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100.
So far we're on target for Dr. Feynman's predictions.
Yeah, that's it. That's why NASA has sent up tile repair kits with the crew, and made sure they dock at a space station capable of supporting the astronauts for an extended stay. I'm sure the crew of the Endeavour is quite doomed.</sarcasm>
Failure is not an option!
From my understanding of the engine, SpiderMonkey works along similar lines, using a combination of byte codes and parser information to perform execution. This is a bit different approach from the Flash VM, which pre-compiles the source into a representation executable by its "Actions" VM.
I will agree with this. True interpreters are a rare find these days. Interpreting bytecodes is becoming a common method, and even JITs are showing up in a lot of interpreted languages. That being said, the one distinction is that interpreted languages rarely give up their interpreters. If you give them a dynamic piece of source code, they will execute it whether it does a strict interpretation of the source or a full compile to its internal VM.
In comparison, Java is a strictly compiled language designed for the Java VM platform. Furthermore, it is JITed at runtime and is no longer interpreted as most VMs designed for "interpreted languages" do.
Scripting is not the same thing as interpreted. JSPs are compiled before execution. The file is turned inside out by the parser (all that HTML becomes output.write("") statements) then compiled by JavaC, loaded by the ClassLoader, and finally executed by the HotSpot VM. It's an involved process, but it's much faster than the traditional interpreted approach of PHP and pre-.NET ASP.
How you think Linus wrote the first version Linux? By flipping switches on the front of his Honeywell? Of course not, fool! He used Minix as a host platform to compile the first versions. You always need a host platform to bootstrap the first copy before it can become self-hosting.
These words come out of your mouth, but you obviously don't understand what they mean. Early interpreters started the concept of "compiling down" interpreted code because memory was at a premium. It's not a Virtual Machine, it's a symbolic language that makes it easier to execute the code.
Hell, I have a Commodore 64 sitting at home that keeps all its programs in a symbolic form to preserve its mere 64K of memory. I know you have no idea what a Commodore 64 is (I'm pegging you at somewhere around 12-14) but programmers often wondered why their programs were being reformatted by the machine. As it so happens, it wasn't reformatting them. It was translating the programs to symbolic codes, then translating them back when the user asked for a program listing.
Parrot is a VM. Period. Languages like Perl can be compiled for it if desired. Jython also exists to target Python execution in the JVM environment. The existence of these tools does not make the languages any less of interpreted language. It merely provides a specific implementation which is compiled. Just as many companies used to offer BASIC compilers, even though BASIC was technically an interpreted language.
Taramin is the latest version of the Virtual Machine designed for the Flash platform. The Actionscript language was evolved toward ECMAScript compliance, thus making it an excellent platform for JITing Javascript code.
Again, you fail it. Go back to high school, graduate, work your way through a college education in CS, then come back when you know what you're talking about.
Simple. It's a stub. Typing "java -cp tools.jar com.sun.tools.javac.Main" all the time isn't very convenient, so Sun provides executables that load the JVM and execute the compiler. If you look in your JDK installation directory, you can find the tools.jar file in the "lib" subdirectory. You can try running it from that directory as above, or look inside the zip file for the mindblowing (eye roll) Java class files for the compiler.
Perfect example of someone who didn't read or take the time to understand. The Jalapeno VM and JNode OS are both written in pure Java. They used their own JIT compiler to compile themselves into native code. That native code is a Java program that runs on the native platform.
Python is not compiled. Perl is not compiled. Javascript is not compiled. These languages are read in, line by line, and executed. You fail it.
This is CS101 stuff we're talking about here. How badly can you fail it?
Failure #1: Java's compiler is written in Java. The first use of the early Oak/Java VM was to get the compiler self-compiling.
Failure #2: Java *can* bootstrap itself just fine, thank you very much.
http://www.jnode.org/
http://jikesrvm.org/
"A distinguishing characteristic of Jikes RVM is that it is implemented in the Java(TM) programming language and is self-hosted i.e., its Java code runs on itself without requiring a second virtual machine."
Failure #3: You called Java an interpreted language. Java is a compiled language that runs on a virtual machine. Like most VM-based platforms, that provides two options. The first is to interpret the bytecodes directly. The second is to compile the bytecodes into native code at runtime using a Just In Time Compiler. The most common JIT compiler for Java is the HotSpot VM. HotSpot is quite capable of keeping pace with and even exceeding the performance of native code.
http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchma
Failure #4: You see these things, yet you fail to take the time to understand them. You have failed as a geek. Turn in your member card immediately and leave in shame.
It doesn't. However, it does mean that the buyers are researching their purchases more carefully before shelling out for such a high price tag. Which means that they're more likely to know their system's capabilities.
One of the interesting quirks of the market is that if you position a device as a game machine, people will buy it as a game machine. Thing like the media it takes are secondary to the function the device is being sold for. So if you sell your machine as a game machine, expect that people will treat it as such and compare it to other game machines. Secondary features like the BluRay drive will only matter if the device compares favorably on its primary function.
Now if you position a device like the PS3 as a Sony's PlayStation Media Center, suddenly it looks like a good deal. It can play BluRay, PS1 games, PS2 games, and games "designed for the BluRay format". All for less than competing BluRay players.
It's too bad that Sony didn't do this. They might have had a better response if they had.
It's funny, because I've had the exact opposite impression of most ranking systems employed today. Everyone tends to either give the game a perfect 10/10, a 1/10 because it's not their cup of tea, or an average score like 8/10. After it's all tallied, it just becomes so much statistical noise.
Ever wonder why the "top" games on any site are always the newest? This is often done to compensate for their ranking system which places nearly everything within the same range. About the only games that break out from the fold are the really terrible games or the truly great games. (Both of which you've probably found out from other means than looking at the ranking.)
The best method I've found for working within the system is to hear as many different reviews as possible, get a feel for whether it has the type of content that interests you, then decide to take a chance on it or not. From that perspective sites like GameRankings and Amazon can be useful. But their ratings data doesn't mean all that much.
Speaking from a theoretical perspective, I'd appreciate it if more sites did a bit of research into voting methodology. I know that the "stars" or "out of ten" systems are very popular, but such scores can be computed from something more useful like approval voting. With approval voting, games that are actually good would float to the top as more and more players say they liked the game. Meanwhile, bad games would stay near the bottom. The number of votes could be normalized against the largest number of votes cast, or a "negative" vote could be introduced to provide a total number of voters in the context of the individual game. (percentage = Math.floor(positive/(positive+negative)*100))
<pedantic>Technically, the Space Shuttle obtains its MaxQ (maximum velocity inside the atmosphere) thanks to the high thrust-to-weight ratio of the two Solid Fuel Boosters (SRB). The Space Shuttle would go absolutely nowhere if it had to rely solely on the thrust from its LHOx engines.</pedantic>
"I haven't read the article yet..."
Not much of a commitment, there. The summary implied that notime was not supported. Do you disagree that it doesn't?
Go find bigger fish to fry.
I did know, but not off the top of my head. I haven't mucked around at that level for quite a while now. Given that the summary seemed to imply that Linux did *not* have noatime support (which would be quite an odd thing indeed) I was not ready to challenge it until I actually read the article. Of course, it was a case of bad-summary-itis. (Again.)
As it so happens, TFA is an exercise in the danger of pulling from a conversation with little context to back it up. The only reason why they are discussing the matter is because a few programs like MUTT still use atime to synchronize their operation. If it weren't for MUTT (and presumably a few other unmentioned examples) I imagine that atime would be off by default by now.
Yeah, I finally read the article. I thought I remembered that Linux could turn off atime, but I wasn't going to commit to it until I was sure.
FWIW, the Relative Access Time (relatime) patch simply doesn't update the access time unless the file has been modified since the last atime write. That allows ancient applications like MUTT to still synchronize on various files. Synchronization that does not work with noatime set.
Of course, I have to question why they're still using something as ancient as MUTT. A nice event system would be 1000x more efficient than trying to synchronize on flat files stored in your home directory on the file system. Of course, that would require designing OSes beyond the standard UNIX/POSIX philosophy and design. So I doubt we'll see that in Linux any time soon.
This is talking about the Last Access Time feature of most Unix systems. The OS will write a timestamp to disk each time the file is opened, closed, changed, or just looked at funny. Most professional Unixes (Solaris springs to mind) have the option of disabling the access timestamps. I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not quite sure why Linux hasn't followed suit by now. It's a security feature that's not all that useful on most systems.
You know, moderations like this are the great mystery of Slashdot. Why is the above post modded Flamebait? Is it not acceptable to be sarcastic to one's own self? If so, why should being sarcastic to one's self involve starting a flamewar? What would be the responses? Somehow, "JSON can indeed be styled with CSS, but you were being sarcastic so off with 'yer head!" doesn't strike me as a realistic scenario.
Maybe it's grumpy moderator day. Um... happy grumpy moderator day? =D =D =D
(Wait, if it's grumpy moderator day, should I really be wishing them a happy day? My head hurts.)
Oh, hey, look at that. JsonML. Styled by CSS even. Who would have guessed?
With XML of course. Actually, you can apply CSS to just about any data format to produce a layout. Whether your browser will support it or not is another matter all together.
I'm just waiting for someone to create a Javascript shunt that will allow CSS to be applied to JSON documents. In fact, I'm sure that someone will produce a link in 3... 2... 1...
Well, there are a couple of things about CWS:
1. It merely used the JVM as a vector to install itself. As a virus, it was actually a Windows program and was reported as such by all virus tools in existence. Thus the original poster would not have known it as a "Java virus".
2. There are actually a wide variety of CWS variants. Some of them used the JVM vulnerability while others used other system vulnerabilities like a hole in the Windows Meta File.
3. As another poster pointed out, it was a hole in Microsoft's VM that was exploited. Which would seem to be further evidence for moving away from IE.
This has nothing to do with Sony. It has everything to do with a grudge that UbuntuDupe has been carrying around for well over a year. His reference to "smug" and "condescending" replies are a sideswipe at an attempt at a helpful response I made to him in relation to the use of the term "price point" in a Nintendo article prior to the Wii launch.
No you don't. If you did, you would have accepted my previous apology for not understanding your issue with the use of "price point". As I said, my "condescending lecture" was an attempt to helpfully answer your question. It didn't even occur to me that you might have a pet grievance against the use of "price point".
And this is pretty much the crux of the issue. You started your tirade when "price point" was used correctly and in context. You yourself admit that. So making it a personal mission to stamp out "price point" smacks of the same grudge you've been holding this entire time.
Get. Over. It.
It's just not worth it.
Now if you want something useful to rant about, how about taking on the endless abuse of the term SKU? I know I'm far from the only person who cringes every time I see a
I remember freaking out 10 years ago every time I saw someone running that cutesy little "fireworks display" email attachment. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't get the users to stop unzipping and opening it*. Glad to see that things haven't changed much.
SNAFU (Situation Normal: All F***ed Up)
* Before I get 10 million suggestions for a decade-past issue, yes we did find more effective ways of blocking it.
Wow. That was like, what, a year ago now? Dude, you need to get over it. Holding a grudge is not good for your health.
And for the record, we were talking about price points in the issue you were referencing. As in "Nintendo should have gone with the $199 price point rather than the $249 price point." Redefining the argument so it sounds like you weren't ranting about a pet peeve is disingenuous.
parent rating: -1 Flamebait