Or else, Microsoft's recent actions made me take this for granted.
Regardless what, I'm not the slightest surprised.
It's about Windows Server 2003 for servers, Windows XP for desktops, and Windows Vista when that one's released for Microsoft now, and if you're using anything older, you can't expect Microsoft to show any support for your cause, not even when it comes to operating system security.
Remember this if you're going to use Vista later on; it's good to have other operating systems to rely on when (it's only a matter of time) Microsoft will stop supporting that operating system and history will repeat itself.
Reading the comments in your linked article, I'm not sure it mentioned "Commodore" by name, but it being instead "They fucked it up". Anyway, that was indeed working in 1.2 but was later changed to:
Insert disk - The Amiga, Born a Champion Eject disk - Still a Champion... in Kickstart 1.3, as Commodore found out about this message.
IMHO, cookies were intended to make web sites stateful, not people.
If you make your pretty network of ad servers to track my steps, to me that's abusing the rights I give you to store data on my computer, and I act accordingly. Store info for your site alone to make it stateful and directly enhance the services it can provide me, and I won't. One may say "but without ads, our services will get worse", but in that case I'd like your competition as a web site with the rest of the world speak. And so far I'm seeing little to no proof that an ad ridden site is an excellent site, anyway. I think there's almost no relationship, personally.
They should be happy users have been relatively clueless for this long instead.:-p
Yeah, because as we all know, the X server is well-known for its huge amount of eye candy by now.:-p Interesting piece of sarcasm; I can only hope it was.:-s
1.5 and 2.0 was already planned in their roadmap since earlier.
1.5 was always supposed to released in this approximate timeframe.
1.1 never came to be as they probably ended up adding more stuff than they first had planned for, so they skip releasing it, probably as they don't want to stabilize and support two releases so close to each other, with few differences.
So I don't really see them pumping version numbers. If they were doing that, they'd simply call 1.5 as 2.0, and 2.0 a few months later as 3.0.
One just have to point a laser beam to the reflective surfaces the astronauts placed on the moon, and notice thaty our beam is reflected. They were placed there for this specific purpose.
And for those who asks why Linux doesn't have one desktop - this is the reason - Innovation.
No, because a single group of people can innovate too. Google is a company that has came up with several innovations. Microsoft is one that hasn't. It's about several groups of people wishing to innovative different things, and prefer splitting up instead of adjusting themselves to a common belief in what's best.
I'd rather whine about the content creators that want to have it this way...
This wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have paranoid movie companies.
Personally, I think it's a matter of who's developing the support -- just like Longhorn will indirectly support movie piracy like Windows XP does by not preventing it, it will supporting this technology. If Microsoft wouldn't, the movie companies would probably develop software for it instead.
Actually, just like Linus isn't against DRM in Linux, I bet he doesn't have problems with this support becoming a part of the Linux kernel in the future either, which is actually just another one in the long line of DRM technologies. At least I can't see a reason to why he with his stance of allowing anyone to use Linux for anything you want to, including watching protected content, would change that stance now.
Generally speaking, HD-DVD is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while Blu-ray is preferred by those more interested in features and data storage.
Personally, I'm the most interested in a format that can be at least as reliable (preferrably even more) than the DVD-R format. Now that would be something for data archival -- a common format that's reliable as hell. Especially as the storage size keeps increasing, I keep finding this to be an important factor. But for some reason you rarely hear about it in the Blu-ray/HD-DVD debate, but rather just what's more costly. If Blu-ray is more expensive but also clearly more reliable in addition to a greater storage, I'll happily pay at least 50% more for one of those than a HD-DVD.
Should I be happy because someone ignored a consultant or sad that they caused so much trouble by doing so?
Or take care in listening too much to a single consultant and his work in digging through mountains of code?
As for me, it's a good sign for Linux, but I'm personally having a hard time even envisioning how a single consultant can do much work in clarifying this. It's not like checking for small fragments of code in a regular application's source code.
I wouldn't worry about these kind of optimizations really; won't they run into trouble if they don't try to keep down power consumption and heat these days? Or maybe not now, but pretty soon...
Who cares how many lights the chipsets can emulate when the games themselves still suck?
So, please enlighten us on what you'd like to see then? Maybe we'd even get a discussion going? You'd like to see Civilization IV? Or what?? You're apparently not pleased with FPS games since the market is choking on them?
Although that UI rings a bell, I'm still not 100% sure I recall that one, but I did use a DOS mp2 player that caused regular sound "pops" in the music as my computer was on the border of being fast enough to decode the music in real-time.:-)
I can confirm the second one, because I'm typing this on a Windows XP box, have just verified that the switch is on, and yet minimising and maximising windows (for several different apps, just to be sure) exhibits no perceptible difference to when the setting is off.
I can assure you the setting does work, so you must have a program running that overrides it, such as nVidia's nView desktop manager.
back in the old days, windows turned into just a 1 pixel border when you moved them, and solid window movement was a big new feature. progress, eh?
I don't recall using an OS that ever did this (that is -- *turning* a window into a border).
However, I *do* recall the "old days" of operating systems that created a 1 pixel border outline for the "windows move in progress", which was replaced with the window at the place where you released the mouse button, and where the original window remained at the first place until you did. For example Windows 3.11 and 95 had this, and many/most Linux distros I've used too.
This is however a bit worse than using transparency at move, because you don't see what's under the first window position until dropping it on the new place.
I assume the submitter believe Avalon is WinFX, but Avalon is a technology to write user interfaces, while WinFX is the replacement for the Win32 API.
Also, WinFX can't be seen in a screenshot, much like coding for Posix standards can't be seen in a screenshot.
*grumble* I knew this would happen when Microsoft picked the name "WinFX"; it reminds way too much of "Windows Effects => must have something to do with the UI for regular users. WinFX stand for Windows (.NET) Framework eXtensions.
I'm interested in switching over to an alternate keyboard layout, probably Dvorak, before I begin to suffer any effects of RSI.
First, try to enlighten yourself on why Dvorak may not be a great solution for more efficient keyboard usage, if that's what you're looking for to achieve.
I can't really see key placements as the issue here, but how you physically use a keyboard, how your wrists are aligned, etc.
You still have to move your fingers and press keys an awful lot on Dvorak boards if that's what you're looking to avoid, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought I also already knew this. :-/
Or else, Microsoft's recent actions made me take this for granted.
Regardless what, I'm not the slightest surprised.
It's about Windows Server 2003 for servers, Windows XP for desktops, and Windows Vista when that one's released for Microsoft now, and if you're using anything older, you can't expect Microsoft to show any support for your cause, not even when it comes to operating system security.
Remember this if you're going to use Vista later on; it's good to have other operating systems to rely on when (it's only a matter of time) Microsoft will stop supporting that operating system and history will repeat itself.
Reading the comments in your linked article, I'm not sure it mentioned "Commodore" by name, but it being instead "They fucked it up". Anyway, that was indeed working in 1.2 but was later changed to:
... in Kickstart 1.3, as Commodore found out about this message.
Insert disk - The Amiga, Born a Champion
Eject disk - Still a Champion
They recommend Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace if you're ending up liking this movie.
:-) ( or maybe the question should be frased -- how the algorithm doesn't work ;-) )
Wow...
Hmm, I wonder how that algorithm works anyway, if it's automated.
IMHO, cookies were intended to make web sites stateful, not people.
:-p
If you make your pretty network of ad servers to track my steps, to me that's abusing the rights I give you to store data on my computer, and I act accordingly. Store info for your site alone to make it stateful and directly enhance the services it can provide me, and I won't. One may say "but without ads, our services will get worse", but in that case I'd like your competition as a web site with the rest of the world speak. And so far I'm seeing little to no proof that an ad ridden site is an excellent site, anyway. I think there's almost no relationship, personally.
They should be happy users have been relatively clueless for this long instead.
Yeah, because as we all know, the X server is well-known for its huge amount of eye candy by now. :-p :-s
Interesting piece of sarcasm; I can only hope it was.
1.5 and 2.0 was already planned in their roadmap since earlier.
1.5 was always supposed to released in this approximate timeframe.
1.1 never came to be as they probably ended up adding more stuff than they first had planned for, so they skip releasing it, probably as they don't want to stabilize and support two releases so close to each other, with few differences.
So I don't really see them pumping version numbers. If they were doing that, they'd simply call 1.5 as 2.0, and 2.0 a few months later as 3.0.
Yes; they don't even name the geographical features either.
:-)
I think a mail is on its way to that mail link they provided.
Actually, it doesn't take all that analysis.
One just have to point a laser beam to the reflective surfaces the astronauts placed on the moon, and notice thaty our beam is reflected. They were placed there for this specific purpose.
Read more here.
And for those who asks why Linux doesn't have one desktop - this is the reason - Innovation.
No, because a single group of people can innovate too. Google is a company that has came up with several innovations. Microsoft is one that hasn't. It's about several groups of people wishing to innovative different things, and prefer splitting up instead of adjusting themselves to a common belief in what's best.
If it's okay in this instance, it it okay to DDOS the next guy who does something we don't like?
That's a pretty bad generalization.
A better one is "if it's OK in this instance, is it OK to DDOS the next guy who does something that violates the law?"
Ethanol More Trouble Than It's Worth?
I will only schell you schiss... *hic* Schefinitly not!!
Another reason why Tiger and Leopard makes Longhorn look long-in-the-tooth ^^
Why do you think this won't come as a "feature" in a OS X service pack?
I'd rather whine about the content creators that want to have it this way...
This wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have paranoid movie companies.
Personally, I think it's a matter of who's developing the support -- just like Longhorn will indirectly support movie piracy like Windows XP does by not preventing it, it will supporting this technology. If Microsoft wouldn't, the movie companies would probably develop software for it instead.
Actually, just like Linus isn't against DRM in Linux, I bet he doesn't have problems with this support becoming a part of the Linux kernel in the future either, which is actually just another one in the long line of DRM technologies. At least I can't see a reason to why he with his stance of allowing anyone to use Linux for anything you want to, including watching protected content, would change that stance now.
Generally speaking, HD-DVD is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while Blu-ray is preferred by those more interested in features and data storage.
Personally, I'm the most interested in a format that can be at least as reliable (preferrably even more) than the DVD-R format. Now that would be something for data archival -- a common format that's reliable as hell. Especially as the storage size keeps increasing, I keep finding this to be an important factor. But for some reason you rarely hear about it in the Blu-ray/HD-DVD debate, but rather just what's more costly. If Blu-ray is more expensive but also clearly more reliable in addition to a greater storage, I'll happily pay at least 50% more for one of those than a HD-DVD.
Should I be happy because someone ignored a consultant or sad that they caused so much trouble by doing so?
Or take care in listening too much to a single consultant and his work in digging through mountains of code?
As for me, it's a good sign for Linux, but I'm personally having a hard time even envisioning how a single consultant can do much work in clarifying this. It's not like checking for small fragments of code in a regular application's source code.
I wouldn't worry about these kind of optimizations really; won't they run into trouble if they don't try to keep down power consumption and heat these days? Or maybe not now, but pretty soon...
Who cares how many lights the chipsets can emulate when the games themselves still suck?
So, please enlighten us on what you'd like to see then? Maybe we'd even get a discussion going? You'd like to see Civilization IV? Or what?? You're apparently not pleased with FPS games since the market is choking on them?
No, he doesn't have an asterisk next to his name to indicate he's a subscriber. the_mad_poster (640772), that is.
Although that UI rings a bell, I'm still not 100% sure I recall that one, but I did use a DOS mp2 player that caused regular sound "pops" in the music as my computer was on the border of being fast enough to decode the music in real-time. :-)
... until the porn business buys it after starting to make a strong presence in the mobile phone business. :-/
RTFA...
I can confirm the second one, because I'm typing this on a Windows XP box, have just verified that the switch is on, and yet minimising and maximising windows (for several different apps, just to be sure) exhibits no perceptible difference to when the setting is off.
I can assure you the setting does work, so you must have a program running that overrides it, such as nVidia's nView desktop manager.
back in the old days, windows turned into just a 1 pixel border when you moved them, and solid window movement was a big new feature. progress, eh?
I don't recall using an OS that ever did this (that is -- *turning* a window into a border).
However, I *do* recall the "old days" of operating systems that created a 1 pixel border outline for the "windows move in progress", which was replaced with the window at the place where you released the mouse button, and where the original window remained at the first place until you did. For example Windows 3.11 and 95 had this, and many/most Linux distros I've used too.
This is however a bit worse than using transparency at move, because you don't see what's under the first window position until dropping it on the new place.
"... Internet Explorer 7 and Avalon or WinFX."
Why is there an "or" in there?
I assume the submitter believe Avalon is WinFX, but Avalon is a technology to write user interfaces, while WinFX is the replacement for the Win32 API.
Also, WinFX can't be seen in a screenshot, much like coding for Posix standards can't be seen in a screenshot.
*grumble* I knew this would happen when Microsoft picked the name "WinFX"; it reminds way too much of "Windows Effects => must have something to do with the UI for regular users. WinFX stand for Windows (.NET) Framework eXtensions.
I'm interested in switching over to an alternate keyboard layout, probably Dvorak, before I begin to suffer any effects of RSI.
First, try to enlighten yourself on why Dvorak may not be a great solution for more efficient keyboard usage, if that's what you're looking for to achieve.
I can't really see key placements as the issue here, but how you physically use a keyboard, how your wrists are aligned, etc.
You still have to move your fingers and press keys an awful lot on Dvorak boards if that's what you're looking to avoid, anyway.