800MB with 5 or 6 tabs? WTF sites are those? I have over 600 tabs open right now in FF, and it's only using 800MB. Chrome can't hit 30 or so tabs without starting to die and taking the whole computer along with it. No other browser can robustly handle heavy usage like Firefox can. At all.
A few tips though: - Turn on the setting (note, a setting only Firefox has): 'Only load tabs when I view them' - Use Adblock Plus - Use something like FlashBlock.. most of the slowdowns etc. when browsing the web are caused by badly coded Flash craplets - I also use NoScript, but YMMV on the usefulness of that.
I know what Win7 is, you dolt, I use it on my own laptop.
Without customers and vendors you wouldn't be there.
That's right, and one of the ways we've built a customer base is through offering competitive pricing for our services - which means we don't just waste money on crap and pass on inflated costs to our customers. Our customers appreciated and enjoy that, and it's why they keep coming back to us, and our business is growing.
Our customers also have many older systems, and having older systems internally is also good for our customers because it means that we make sure our own offerings still work well on these older systems. Our customers appreciate that.
"After 11 years"? Wow, that would be pretty amazing given the business I work for didn't exist 11 years ago. We're talking about +/- 6 year old computers.. they do the job.
Sorry after 11 years you have no one to blame but yourself
What do you mean with "blame", we aren't sitting with a problem. We're sitting in a perfectly satisfactory situation. I wasn't complaining. Microsoft is the one sitting with a problem. You're the one complaining. "Blame"? WTF? Did you forget to take your meds?
Get with the times as the world does not revolve around your office and yes your office revolves around the world. Without customers and vendors you wouldn't be there.
What is this even supposed to mean - are you saying we have some sort of obligation to spend our money on unnecessary upgrades? That's the most retarded, and downright disturbed/deranged/psychotic thing I have read in a very long time.
There are certainly cost savings in TCO and power alone on newer hardware with better support for sleep
You don't think we've done the cost/benefit analyses? Done the math, and guess what, staying with what we have makes more sense. You really think that your one slashdot post blows away our own cost/benefit analyses, where we have access to all the facts and information and details? You are so full of yourself... or let me guess, you work in hardware sales, and you're pissed that people aren't falling over hand and feet to keep upgrading and sending you business. Your post represents some sort of psychosis, you don't control other businesses, get over it.
I've got news for you, most people actually don't care much about security. If they did, Windows would never have become so widespread in the first place.
Eventually your business will get emails with docx 1.3 file formats in which OFfice 2003 can't read. Then what?
Then we'll upgrade then, when we need to, "eventually". I'm not sure why you are blowing smoke out your ears fuming that businesses don't want to spend money unnecessarily on upgrading much earlier than is necessary.
Most Photoshop users are still on older versions and likewise have no reason to upgrade at this point. Delay the upgrades for a year and for the same money you'll get better hardware, possibly even a newer/better version of software like PS at that point, plus the SP's will be out for Win8 so you can have bypassed all the pain that the early adopters go through.
To be fair, Metro is really ugly, but one of the most useful new features of Win8 is that you can click through to the 'desktop' and get the Metro crap out the way. And the broken Start menu can be restored with some free toolbar-ware (just be careful when installing it to uncheck the toolbar crap). So to me what really matters is how it will perform compared to Win7 once the rubbish is out the way and you're back in the desktop.
XP also took at least two service packs to become "good".
And it still looks Fisher-Pricey --- people who say XP is "good" do not mean that they've somehow come to like how it looks... what they mean is that it overall offers reasonable performance on slightly older hardware, and that they have begrudgingly gotten used to the fact that it is so ugly.
Which happens to be the same reason businesses are slow to adopt Win7. In our small business we have multiple somewhat older laptops and desktops that are still perfectly usable computers with XP, and they are actively in use for various tasks... but they are too slow for Win7, and there is no reason to buy new computers purely for the sake of buying new computers, that's stupid enough in boom times let alone in a recession.
Businesses do pay VAT, except for later they "cancel" it thanks to the input/output VAT compensation.
Lol.. so in other words, they don't pay that VAT, which is what tuppe said.
It is even right in the name of "VAT" that businesses (intermediaries) do not pay it - "Value Added Tax" - i.e. it's a tax on the end-points of the value chain. Businesses "collect" VAT.
It's just a matter of accounting that the two effectively partly cancel one another out.
Because - what lends credence is that they name names... so all this is very easy to verify internally at Amazon as either true or false, and if it's false, this blogger will be hit with so much legal crap so quickly that he will be financially ruined for life.
So what the government is basically doing is skimming the differential between average print book prices and average e-book prices.. it's smart, because the average tax victim doesn't perceive that he's being ripped off so badly, because they still think they're getting a reasonable deal overall.
Governments have been applying the same concept to airline tickets.... from the airline side, there have been a number of improvements in cost efficiencies and lowering of prices due to competition... but every time airlines lower the costs, governments match the decrease with a corresponding increase in taxes. This avoids an outcry because air travellers "perceive" that the overall costs are remaining "about the same", not realizing that the proportion going to taxes is increasing, and that they should be paying less. E.g. http://web.mit.edu/TicketTax/
They were found guilty of manslaughter... in other words, the claim is ultimately (in effect) that those people who died WOULD HAVE survived had these scientists made a stronger statement. I must admit, I find that a flimsy claim.
The opposite view is that they could instead predict an earthquake every single time, but that would be dumb and useless.
"With the seismic history of the region, what sane scientist would claim that there was no danger?"
If the region has such a history of significant seismic activity, then surely the people who live there would be aware of this, and would already be doing regular earthquake preparedness, as is done in seismically active parts of the US?
A more relevant question is, can they prove that the specific individuals who died, would have survived if they had been warned by these scientists in the way that you describe. That seems flimsy and unlikely to me. At best, if these guys are 'shooting from the hip', you can maybe accuse them of doing a poor job and firing them. But culpability for deaths, that is stupid.
Thing is, in a seismically active region, danger exists "all the time"... 24/7. And the people who live in these regions know this. Should people avoid, say, going to work permanently then, if some level of danger is always there? Only idiots believe that "scientists" are magically able to predict earthquakes.
It's not a logical fallacy to state a fact. "You're so fucking ignorant you don't know how this is a bad thing" in this context is actually just a true statement... ShanghaiBill is either trolling or he is really honestly so fucking ignorant he doesn't know how this is a bad thing. If he doesn't know, he doesn't know... pointing out a true fact that someone lacks some knowledge is not a logical fallacy.
Some percentage of users will definitely be confused by it. I do support for software sales of Windows-only software, it's clearly labelled Windows only, and yet a regular request is processing refunds for users who bought the software and then claim to be confused that it doesn't run on their iPad or iPhone or Mac. If people can't even tell the difference between Mac and Windows then they sure aren't going to grasp these relatively finer distinctions. If you're stupid you must suffer.
+1.. I literally fell off my chair when I read "starting to be" and "might start to". What are you smoking Jeff.. can he really be that blind, or does the world just look that different from up in the ivory towers? Smaller tech companies have been veritably being bulldozed by the patent system for at least 15, 20 years.
Sigh.. this type of stupid attitude reminds me of the bad old days when I would listen to blowhard admins arguing (I'm not kidding, I still had arguments on/. about this) "I've yet to see legitimate email from China, so I've blocked all emails from China automatically". Apparently nowadays morons block entire top-level domains.. that is a massive WTF.
Slashdot Mirror
800MB with 5 or 6 tabs? WTF sites are those? I have over 600 tabs open right now in FF, and it's only using 800MB. Chrome can't hit 30 or so tabs without starting to die and taking the whole computer along with it. No other browser can robustly handle heavy usage like Firefox can. At all.
A few tips though: .. most of the slowdowns etc. when browsing the web are caused by badly coded Flash craplets
- Turn on the setting (note, a setting only Firefox has): 'Only load tabs when I view them'
- Use Adblock Plus
- Use something like FlashBlock
- I also use NoScript, but YMMV on the usefulness of that.
But that's why most people are changing to Chrome, because it's "cooler". (Privacy be damned.)
Windows 7 really is more than just a gui update
I know what Win7 is, you dolt, I use it on my own laptop.
Without customers and vendors you wouldn't be there.
That's right, and one of the ways we've built a customer base is through offering competitive pricing for our services - which means we don't just waste money on crap and pass on inflated costs to our customers. Our customers appreciated and enjoy that, and it's why they keep coming back to us, and our business is growing.
Our customers also have many older systems, and having older systems internally is also good for our customers because it means that we make sure our own offerings still work well on these older systems. Our customers appreciate that.
"After 11 years"? Wow, that would be pretty amazing given the business I work for didn't exist 11 years ago. We're talking about +/- 6 year old computers .. they do the job.
Sorry after 11 years you have no one to blame but yourself
What do you mean with "blame", we aren't sitting with a problem. We're sitting in a perfectly satisfactory situation. I wasn't complaining. Microsoft is the one sitting with a problem. You're the one complaining. "Blame"? WTF? Did you forget to take your meds?
Get with the times as the world does not revolve around your office and yes your office revolves around the world. Without customers and vendors you wouldn't be there.
What is this even supposed to mean - are you saying we have some sort of obligation to spend our money on unnecessary upgrades? That's the most retarded, and downright disturbed/deranged/psychotic thing I have read in a very long time.
There are certainly cost savings in TCO and power alone on newer hardware with better support for sleep
You don't think we've done the cost/benefit analyses? Done the math, and guess what, staying with what we have makes more sense. You really think that your one slashdot post blows away our own cost/benefit analyses, where we have access to all the facts and information and details? You are so full of yourself ... or let me guess, you work in hardware sales, and you're pissed that people aren't falling over hand and feet to keep upgrading and sending you business. Your post represents some sort of psychosis, you don't control other businesses, get over it.
I've got news for you, most people actually don't care much about security. If they did, Windows would never have become so widespread in the first place.
Eventually your business will get emails with docx 1.3 file formats in which OFfice 2003 can't read. Then what?
Then we'll upgrade then, when we need to, "eventually". I'm not sure why you are blowing smoke out your ears fuming that businesses don't want to spend money unnecessarily on upgrading much earlier than is necessary.
Most Photoshop users are still on older versions and likewise have no reason to upgrade at this point. Delay the upgrades for a year and for the same money you'll get better hardware, possibly even a newer/better version of software like PS at that point, plus the SP's will be out for Win8 so you can have bypassed all the pain that the early adopters go through.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
To be fair, Metro is really ugly, but one of the most useful new features of Win8 is that you can click through to the 'desktop' and get the Metro crap out the way. And the broken Start menu can be restored with some free toolbar-ware (just be careful when installing it to uncheck the toolbar crap). So to me what really matters is how it will perform compared to Win7 once the rubbish is out the way and you're back in the desktop.
XP also took at least two service packs to become "good".
And it still looks Fisher-Pricey --- people who say XP is "good" do not mean that they've somehow come to like how it looks ... what they mean is that it overall offers reasonable performance on slightly older hardware, and that they have begrudgingly gotten used to the fact that it is so ugly.
Which happens to be the same reason businesses are slow to adopt Win7. In our small business we have multiple somewhat older laptops and desktops that are still perfectly usable computers with XP, and they are actively in use for various tasks ... but they are too slow for Win7, and there is no reason to buy new computers purely for the sake of buying new computers, that's stupid enough in boom times let alone in a recession.
You're both wrong, it's all about how effectively you can focus your Chi, grasshopper.
I challenge you to indefinite rounds of Tic Tac Toe to test that theory.
Businesses do pay VAT, except for later they "cancel" it thanks to the input/output VAT compensation.
Lol .. so in other words, they don't pay that VAT, which is what tuppe said.
It is even right in the name of "VAT" that businesses (intermediaries) do not pay it - "Value Added Tax" - i.e. it's a tax on the end-points of the value chain. Businesses "collect" VAT.
It's just a matter of accounting that the two effectively partly cancel one another out.
Because - what lends credence is that they name names ... so all this is very easy to verify internally at Amazon as either true or false, and if it's false, this blogger will be hit with so much legal crap so quickly that he will be financially ruined for life.
So what the government is basically doing is skimming the differential between average print book prices and average e-book prices .. it's smart, because the average tax victim doesn't perceive that he's being ripped off so badly, because they still think they're getting a reasonable deal overall.
Governments have been applying the same concept to airline tickets .... from the airline side, there have been a number of improvements in cost efficiencies and lowering of prices due to competition ... but every time airlines lower the costs, governments match the decrease with a corresponding increase in taxes. This avoids an outcry because air travellers "perceive" that the overall costs are remaining "about the same", not realizing that the proportion going to taxes is increasing, and that they should be paying less. E.g. http://web.mit.edu/TicketTax/
Or, the moral is, vote out the idiots running the show, and vote in people with sense.
"That may be what they were found guilty of,"
They were found guilty of manslaughter ... in other words, the claim is ultimately (in effect) that those people who died WOULD HAVE survived had these scientists made a stronger statement. I must admit, I find that a flimsy claim.
The opposite view is that they could instead predict an earthquake every single time, but that would be dumb and useless.
You're right, they just KNEW an earthquake was going to happen - they KNEW it - and then they deliberately lied about it! Those bastard scientists!
That makes soooo much sense.
"With the seismic history of the region, what sane scientist would claim that there was no danger?"
If the region has such a history of significant seismic activity, then surely the people who live there would be aware of this, and would already be doing regular earthquake preparedness, as is done in seismically active parts of the US?
A more relevant question is, can they prove that the specific individuals who died, would have survived if they had been warned by these scientists in the way that you describe. That seems flimsy and unlikely to me. At best, if these guys are 'shooting from the hip', you can maybe accuse them of doing a poor job and firing them. But culpability for deaths, that is stupid.
Thing is, in a seismically active region, danger exists "all the time" ... 24/7. And the people who live in these regions know this. Should people avoid, say, going to work permanently then, if some level of danger is always there? Only idiots believe that "scientists" are magically able to predict earthquakes.
It's not a logical fallacy to state a fact. "You're so fucking ignorant you don't know how this is a bad thing" in this context is actually just a true statement ... ShanghaiBill is either trolling or he is really honestly so fucking ignorant he doesn't know how this is a bad thing. If he doesn't know, he doesn't know ... pointing out a true fact that someone lacks some knowledge is not a logical fallacy.
I never expected my iPad to run OSX applications
I can see people possibly being confused by this
Some percentage of users will definitely be confused by it. I do support for software sales of Windows-only software, it's clearly labelled Windows only, and yet a regular request is processing refunds for users who bought the software and then claim to be confused that it doesn't run on their iPad or iPhone or Mac. If people can't even tell the difference between Mac and Windows then they sure aren't going to grasp these relatively finer distinctions. If you're stupid you must suffer.
+1 .. I literally fell off my chair when I read "starting to be" and "might start to". What are you smoking Jeff .. can he really be that blind, or does the world just look that different from up in the ivory towers? Smaller tech companies have been veritably being bulldozed by the patent system for at least 15, 20 years.
Sigh .. this type of stupid attitude reminds me of the bad old days when I would listen to blowhard admins arguing (I'm not kidding, I still had arguments on /. about this) "I've yet to see legitimate email from China, so I've blocked all emails from China automatically". Apparently nowadays morons block entire top-level domains .. that is a massive WTF.
So your point is that Muslims are as psychologically fragile as 12-year-olds?
Or your point is that "insulting" Islam (in general) is equivalent to harassing and posting topless photos of a specific 12-year old individual?
I'm afraid I'm not really getting your point, it seems to me you have various different things all mixed up.
Also so that they know the limitations/expectations their unsuspecting victims are held to.
I'm not sure which part of 'being arrested and thrown in jail' you consider 'living the good life'.