Windows 8.1 worked fine in "just" 1Gb (my tablet ran it with that, it was a very smooth environment.)
People were expecting Windows 10 to be the "7" to 8.0s "Vista" (boy, is that a confusing sentence.) I think Windows 10 though is the second coming of Vista. I'm hoping "what comes after Windows 10" (I'm not sure how the marketing will go) to be rather more memory efficient.
Technically Windows 10 runs in 1Gb, it's running on the same tablet right next to me. But it crawls. All the smoothness of 8.1 is gone.
Jobs, yes. Zuckerberg I can't comment upon. Gates? Supposedly very pleasant and encouraging to developers who reported to him (not always for the right reasons, there's a nice story about the author of one of the first multi-app extensions for Mac OS where Gates try to manipulate him into over-promising by flattering him.)
Still, that said, I still really don't understand the mentality that says a good boss or project leader should be an abusive asshole, or that abuse is a reasonable way to impart criticism that doesn't over all cause harm in the long run. Abuse is abuse. Jobs will be thought of as a great innovator long after his death, but he'll never, ever, be thought of as a great leader.
And Sharp has made it clear it's not criticism she's afraid of, it's the personalization of it, the fact so much comes across (rightly or wrongly) as "You're a fuck-up" rather than "You made this mistake".
I wouldn't want to work in that environment either. But then I don't really care for those Reality TV shows that comprise of a rude Brit expert insulting the contestants... (spoof)
The reason we use 2.4GHz is because we're cheap. We've known of problems with it for years, with cordless phone makers making 2.4GHz phones, and with even the most well shielded Microwave oven causing interference. But we continue to use it because early 802.11a gear was expensive, and because "advanced" equipment like 802.11a repeaters was priced for corporate purchasing, when they cost $10 or so a unit to make.
Even after this, we still have 900MHz and 5GHz free and clear. Personally, I think the 5GHz Wi-fi system, coupled with cheap repeaters, is a better system than 2.4GHz, and I wish we'd move over to it. There's massively more bandwidth, interference from neighbors is close to impossible both because of walls and because the bandwidth makes it rare two networks will use the same frequency, and there's less interference from every day devices like cordless phones (even 5GHz phones, which are being phased out in favor of DECT anyway) and Microwave ovens.
If LTE-U both pushes us to move to 5GHz, and gives our mobile devices better coverage and more bandwidth, I'm all in favor of it.
Young kids of today! With their iPads and Katy Perrys and Disney Channels and Twitters and Tumblrs and The Angry Birds video games! *shakily waves fist at sky*
What if it's a good product? I don't mean "good" as in "high quality" here, but as in "worthwhile", "makes the world a better place", that kind of thing?
I mean, if an evil company (presupposing Monsanto is/was evil, I guess that Agent Orange thing would be an example, though they were one of many, probably thought they were saving lives by shortening the war, and is that division still part of Monsanto?) suddenly decides it's going to save orphans, cure cancer, and solve (or at least do something to help solve) world hunger, do we really say "Nah, you suck", or "Yes, keep doing that, maybe concentrate on that kind of thing, and less on the Eating Puppies and Using Laser Weapons to Threaten The UN Building, type stuff".
In this case, no, Monsanto isn't saving orphans or curing cancer... but it is doing something significant on the road to helping end world hunger.
The problum with ButaMax isn't that, it's that it only has a rucording time of onu hour, not nuarly unough for an untiru moviu. VHS, on thu othur hand, starts at two hours, and thu "LP" mode luts you rucord up to four.
I'm struggling to figure out how Monsanto can create a dependency upon something that's self-replicating and for which any legal restrictions they try to impose can only last 20 years. Also how "20 years" constitutes an "indefinite monopoly".
Round-up doesn't have patent protection any more. And Round-up ready seeds won't have for much longer.
Not a bit of this is true. Monsanto has only ever sued one farmer, in a specially designed test case where the farmer essentially went out of their way to be sued (as in they contacted Monsanto), and where the farmer had made a few elementary errors like having signed an agreement with Monsanto in the past. Plus he bought the seeds (from a grain elevator) with the intention of using them as GM crops (that is, planting them, then spraying the crop with Roundup to kill weeds.)
You guys are intent on inventing an insane conspiracy around them, when what they're doing is actually pretty good: make it easier for farmers to grow food, and ultimately food prices will fall. Cheap. Food.
That's something the world has always wanted. We humans have never really dug that whole "starvation" and "famine" thing. Those, in fact, are widely thought of as bad things we should do our best to avoid.
If Monsanto is making it cheaper to grow food and increasing yields in the process, then good for them.
I read the article and I only saw this:
Q. How about our current president?
A. Well, heâ(TM)s helping us on criminal justice reform, so weâ(TM)re grateful on that. And thereâ(TM)s a sign they may be beginning to realize the inequity and the harm that this occupational licensing does.
...which, uh, doesn't really say a lot. It's not even the starting point of a debate.
Shouldn't the rule for a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages be exactly the same as a private user who sends his or her drone out to pick up and retrieve a package?
This feels like a description of a war between Al Qaeda and ISIL.
A company with no regard to the law wades into territory infested with other groups who similarly don't give a rat's behind about the law. It's not even popcorn worthy...
I believe these refer to cooling towers used for air conditioning, from context. These are more efficient versions (if I understand it correctly) of the compressor (the box that's usually outside as part of a normal two unit home air conditioning system), that use water evaporation to cool the system.
Sometimes that's a good thing though. It took decades for the *ix community to realize that, actually, yes, email, rules applying to email, address books (both local and LDAP), and calendars go together, and many are still trying to figure out SSO, largely because the latter isn't as relevant to home networks as, say, email.
The problem isn't integration, it's bad integration. Netscape really screwed everyone over by making Communicator some all-in-one master-of-nothing PoC in the 1990s, creating unnecessary bloatware that influenced a generation of geeks to fear attempts to integrate.
Exchange Server is something I reluctantly admit Microsoft got completely 100% right.
I'm guessing that's the reason then, Amazon doesn't want to give Apple a cut if someone browses their library via an app and decides to buy the video there, rather than use the website to buy it and then switch to the Apple TV for actual watching.
I'd say both side's positions are wholly understandable under the circumstances.
I think the main reason these things fail is because people, upon getting the 3D devices, realize that they're not actually what was wanted in the first place.
What people think about when they hear "VR" is The Matrix (or something similar.) They kinda sorta recognize that a headset or 3DTV isn't going to give you that, but they go with it anyway and get excited because they think it might be a decent compromise between what can be done, and what's wanted.
And then you find out that if "normal", flat, technology is 231 millionths of the way towards VR, that actually 3D goggles (or whatever) is only 237 millionths of the way towards VR. And it's clunky, and makes your eyes bleed.
So they go back to the 2D devices, and we forget about 3D for another 20 years.
Since when has Google been responsible for producing the apps to access third party content distributors on Chromecast? They publish an API for a reason you know.
I also doubt that Amazon Instant Video has an API that's fully documented. Your Sony plays it because Amazon wrote something for that platform, not because Sony independently wrote an app to play videos from Amazon. If it were as easy as you're suggesting, Android would have a hundred third party Amazon Instant Video apps.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
I can't comment on Apple TV, but Chromecast is pretty much open, there's nothing stopping Amazon from writing an app to stream to Chromecast. I'm kinda bewildered to be honest they're blocking it.
(For those who have experience: What is the situation with Apple TV? Is Apple open to any app provider, and do they allow app makers to use their own methods of funding, or do they demand a cut of any payments?)
Large industrial companies that go "out of business" have a tendency to survive in real terms after the collapse, albeit with some restructuring, if the business was viable before the collapse. Car manufacturers, airlines, and railroads have collapsed on paper, but the same facilities have been doing largely the same things ten years later with the same lower level employees, just with different shareholders and upper management.
I would expect VW to be bought out as a going concern if it went bankrupt due to this scandal. The business itself is very viable, VW makes huge profits, the products are generally good, and this particular scandal was never necessary - a simple $500 modification to the cars affected would have been a legal alternative, and the idea that a $10,000 car will sell but not a $10,500 car, is preposterous.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that the lawmakers choose the enforcement mechanism that was easier and more likely to win in court because of campaign contributions from the potential losers of the lawsuits?
Remember: VW is facing billions in fines for this. If the Clean Air Act had gone the other way, prosecutors right now would might be able to find something they could pin on a low level, lowly paid, underling, the kind of person the automakers wouldn't care about losing, but would find it increasingly difficult to make charges stick against higher ups who have some nominal "distance" from the decision.
Plus. you know, they'd probably fail even at that because the "crime" would have been committed in a different country, and it would have been difficult to convince a judge and jury that the person's act fell under US law at the time it was made.
The civil system seems very appropriate to this case. It's quick. There's no need to prove particular individuals are liable. And it's going to hurt VW. Economically, it'll hurt VW more than adding the less-than-$500 modifications needed to every engine that left the factory that would have meant they could have been compliant in the first place.
It's not really a loophole. Instead it was a conscious decision about how to enforce the Clean Air Act by the lawmakers who made it. They felt that criminal prosecutions would be hard to win, so opted to use the civil lawsuit system instead.
FTPWA:
Former Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), a longtime congressman and auto industry ally who helped pass the Clean Air Act, said in an interview that the law focused on civil penalties because theyâ(TM)re easier to enforce. âoeItâ(TM)s easier, speedier, quicker,â he said. Mr. Dingell predicted Volkswagen will face billions of dollars in costs regardless. âoeThe cost to Volkswagen is going to be unbelievable,â he said. Volkswagen has set aside $7.3 billion to cover the fallout from the emissions scandal. âoeThe risk of them going out of business is very real.â
I'm sure many people read the headline and assumed it meant VW is off the hook. It isn't. It's just no VW executives, or for that matter software developers, will be going to jail. VW will, however, be paying absolutely massive fines. Which is probably what you expected anyway.
H1B visas aren't given to immigrants. In fact, immigrants and would-be immigrants are specifically excluded from being allowed to use them.You're here on a temporarily basis with one, and you have to leave after it expires, no option for applying for permanent residency, let alone citizenship.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8.1 worked fine in "just" 1Gb (my tablet ran it with that, it was a very smooth environment.)
People were expecting Windows 10 to be the "7" to 8.0s "Vista" (boy, is that a confusing sentence.) I think Windows 10 though is the second coming of Vista. I'm hoping "what comes after Windows 10" (I'm not sure how the marketing will go) to be rather more memory efficient.
Technically Windows 10 runs in 1Gb, it's running on the same tablet right next to me. But it crawls. All the smoothness of 8.1 is gone.
Jobs, yes. Zuckerberg I can't comment upon. Gates? Supposedly very pleasant and encouraging to developers who reported to him (not always for the right reasons, there's a nice story about the author of one of the first multi-app extensions for Mac OS where Gates try to manipulate him into over-promising by flattering him.)
Still, that said, I still really don't understand the mentality that says a good boss or project leader should be an abusive asshole, or that abuse is a reasonable way to impart criticism that doesn't over all cause harm in the long run. Abuse is abuse. Jobs will be thought of as a great innovator long after his death, but he'll never, ever, be thought of as a great leader.
The linked message was not to Sarah Sharp.
And Sharp has made it clear it's not criticism she's afraid of, it's the personalization of it, the fact so much comes across (rightly or wrongly) as "You're a fuck-up" rather than "You made this mistake".
I wouldn't want to work in that environment either. But then I don't really care for those Reality TV shows that comprise of a rude Brit expert insulting the contestants... (spoof)
The reason we use 2.4GHz is because we're cheap. We've known of problems with it for years, with cordless phone makers making 2.4GHz phones, and with even the most well shielded Microwave oven causing interference. But we continue to use it because early 802.11a gear was expensive, and because "advanced" equipment like 802.11a repeaters was priced for corporate purchasing, when they cost $10 or so a unit to make.
Even after this, we still have 900MHz and 5GHz free and clear. Personally, I think the 5GHz Wi-fi system, coupled with cheap repeaters, is a better system than 2.4GHz, and I wish we'd move over to it. There's massively more bandwidth, interference from neighbors is close to impossible both because of walls and because the bandwidth makes it rare two networks will use the same frequency, and there's less interference from every day devices like cordless phones (even 5GHz phones, which are being phased out in favor of DECT anyway) and Microwave ovens.
If LTE-U both pushes us to move to 5GHz, and gives our mobile devices better coverage and more bandwidth, I'm all in favor of it.
Let me guess, you're one of those morons who sets cats tails on fire and then uploads a video of you doing this onto YouTube, right?
Young kids of today! With their iPads and Katy Perrys and Disney Channels and Twitters and Tumblrs and The Angry Birds video games! *shakily waves fist at sky*
What if it's a good product? I don't mean "good" as in "high quality" here, but as in "worthwhile", "makes the world a better place", that kind of thing?
I mean, if an evil company (presupposing Monsanto is/was evil, I guess that Agent Orange thing would be an example, though they were one of many, probably thought they were saving lives by shortening the war, and is that division still part of Monsanto?) suddenly decides it's going to save orphans, cure cancer, and solve (or at least do something to help solve) world hunger, do we really say "Nah, you suck", or "Yes, keep doing that, maybe concentrate on that kind of thing, and less on the Eating Puppies and Using Laser Weapons to Threaten The UN Building, type stuff".
In this case, no, Monsanto isn't saving orphans or curing cancer... but it is doing something significant on the road to helping end world hunger.
That's... good, right?
The problum with ButaMax isn't that, it's that it only has a rucording time of onu hour, not nuarly unough for an untiru moviu. VHS, on thu othur hand, starts at two hours, and thu "LP" mode luts you rucord up to four.
I'm struggling to figure out how Monsanto can create a dependency upon something that's self-replicating and for which any legal restrictions they try to impose can only last 20 years. Also how "20 years" constitutes an "indefinite monopoly".
Round-up doesn't have patent protection any more. And Round-up ready seeds won't have for much longer.
Not a bit of this is true. Monsanto has only ever sued one farmer, in a specially designed test case where the farmer essentially went out of their way to be sued (as in they contacted Monsanto), and where the farmer had made a few elementary errors like having signed an agreement with Monsanto in the past. Plus he bought the seeds (from a grain elevator) with the intention of using them as GM crops (that is, planting them, then spraying the crop with Roundup to kill weeds.)
You guys are intent on inventing an insane conspiracy around them, when what they're doing is actually pretty good: make it easier for farmers to grow food, and ultimately food prices will fall. Cheap. Food.
That's something the world has always wanted. We humans have never really dug that whole "starvation" and "famine" thing. Those, in fact, are widely thought of as bad things we should do our best to avoid.
If Monsanto is making it cheaper to grow food and increasing yields in the process, then good for them.
Shouldn't the rule for a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages be exactly the same as a private user who sends his or her drone out to pick up and retrieve a package?
This feels like a description of a war between Al Qaeda and ISIL.
A company with no regard to the law wades into territory infested with other groups who similarly don't give a rat's behind about the law. It's not even popcorn worthy...
I believe these refer to cooling towers used for air conditioning, from context. These are more efficient versions (if I understand it correctly) of the compressor (the box that's usually outside as part of a normal two unit home air conditioning system), that use water evaporation to cool the system.
Yes, all libertarians I know love lawsuits, and truly believe this country would be better off with fewer clearly defined rules, and more lawsuits.
Hold on, my sarcasm meter just broke down.
Sometimes that's a good thing though. It took decades for the *ix community to realize that, actually, yes, email, rules applying to email, address books (both local and LDAP), and calendars go together, and many are still trying to figure out SSO, largely because the latter isn't as relevant to home networks as, say, email.
The problem isn't integration, it's bad integration. Netscape really screwed everyone over by making Communicator some all-in-one master-of-nothing PoC in the 1990s, creating unnecessary bloatware that influenced a generation of geeks to fear attempts to integrate.
Exchange Server is something I reluctantly admit Microsoft got completely 100% right.
I'm sure if we protest enough, they'll also give us a coupon for 20% off at Bed, Bath, and Beyond
I'm guessing that's the reason then, Amazon doesn't want to give Apple a cut if someone browses their library via an app and decides to buy the video there, rather than use the website to buy it and then switch to the Apple TV for actual watching.
I'd say both side's positions are wholly understandable under the circumstances.
I think the main reason these things fail is because people, upon getting the 3D devices, realize that they're not actually what was wanted in the first place.
What people think about when they hear "VR" is The Matrix (or something similar.) They kinda sorta recognize that a headset or 3DTV isn't going to give you that, but they go with it anyway and get excited because they think it might be a decent compromise between what can be done, and what's wanted.
And then you find out that if "normal", flat, technology is 231 millionths of the way towards VR, that actually 3D goggles (or whatever) is only 237 millionths of the way towards VR. And it's clunky, and makes your eyes bleed.
So they go back to the 2D devices, and we forget about 3D for another 20 years.
Since when has Google been responsible for producing the apps to access third party content distributors on Chromecast? They publish an API for a reason you know.
I also doubt that Amazon Instant Video has an API that's fully documented. Your Sony plays it because Amazon wrote something for that platform, not because Sony independently wrote an app to play videos from Amazon. If it were as easy as you're suggesting, Android would have a hundred third party Amazon Instant Video apps.
I can't comment on Apple TV, but Chromecast is pretty much open, there's nothing stopping Amazon from writing an app to stream to Chromecast. I'm kinda bewildered to be honest they're blocking it.
(For those who have experience: What is the situation with Apple TV? Is Apple open to any app provider, and do they allow app makers to use their own methods of funding, or do they demand a cut of any payments?)
Large industrial companies that go "out of business" have a tendency to survive in real terms after the collapse, albeit with some restructuring, if the business was viable before the collapse. Car manufacturers, airlines, and railroads have collapsed on paper, but the same facilities have been doing largely the same things ten years later with the same lower level employees, just with different shareholders and upper management.
I would expect VW to be bought out as a going concern if it went bankrupt due to this scandal. The business itself is very viable, VW makes huge profits, the products are generally good, and this particular scandal was never necessary - a simple $500 modification to the cars affected would have been a legal alternative, and the idea that a $10,000 car will sell but not a $10,500 car, is preposterous.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that the lawmakers choose the enforcement mechanism that was easier and more likely to win in court because of campaign contributions from the potential losers of the lawsuits?
Remember: VW is facing billions in fines for this. If the Clean Air Act had gone the other way, prosecutors right now would might be able to find something they could pin on a low level, lowly paid, underling, the kind of person the automakers wouldn't care about losing, but would find it increasingly difficult to make charges stick against higher ups who have some nominal "distance" from the decision.
Plus. you know, they'd probably fail even at that because the "crime" would have been committed in a different country, and it would have been difficult to convince a judge and jury that the person's act fell under US law at the time it was made.
The civil system seems very appropriate to this case. It's quick. There's no need to prove particular individuals are liable. And it's going to hurt VW. Economically, it'll hurt VW more than adding the less-than-$500 modifications needed to every engine that left the factory that would have meant they could have been compliant in the first place.
It's not really a loophole. Instead it was a conscious decision about how to enforce the Clean Air Act by the lawmakers who made it. They felt that criminal prosecutions would be hard to win, so opted to use the civil lawsuit system instead.
FTPWA:
I'm sure many people read the headline and assumed it meant VW is off the hook. It isn't. It's just no VW executives, or for that matter software developers, will be going to jail. VW will, however, be paying absolutely massive fines. Which is probably what you expected anyway.
H1B visas aren't given to immigrants. In fact, immigrants and would-be immigrants are specifically excluded from being allowed to use them.You're here on a temporarily basis with one, and you have to leave after it expires, no option for applying for permanent residency, let alone citizenship.