Rather than send the difference in the executable, they send the difference in a sort of source code. Saves space if a small source change (move this line past this function) causes a big executable difference.
Because whatever fallback the CSS uses makes all the text overlap in large font sizes and thus makes it unreadable. Not some "picky" issue about aesthetics but practically impossible to decipher overlaid text.
Licensing? Nightmare. Bandwidth? Eek. Security? Whoa! Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable) Gains? Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it. Seven million websites written in Comic Sans. And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).
Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page?)
"Back on topic now, Microsoft didn't just decide to remove IE from Windows, they though long and hard"
That's doubtful. The announcement came hot on the heels of an EU ruling and if the idea *was* brewing, they still seemed to be caught totally off-guard in every other sense. I think it was more likely a knee-jerk / screw-you sentiment that may well backfire. Any idiot could think of ten "better" ways of doing what was needed without doing what MS have done, that wouldn't hurt consumers (CUSTOMERS... remember those, MS?), would comply and wouldn't interfere. The whole "Well, the EU needs its own version, then" thing is a crock from a technical point of view and just political games.
"You think they just thought that that was the easiest? No."
No. I think they thought they had better do something but to comply as minimally as they possibly could. That's *not* a good attitude to have in court, it really isn't. Oh, and have they paid that fine yet? Things like this are just good ways to piss off an entire continent's legal processes...
"They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know."
I doubt it. They *don't* want the option in there at all, people not using IE means people not necessarily using Silverlight or ActiveX or other OS-tie-ins. 99% of users will never see an upgrade or installation in their life, Windows "comes with the computer" (didn't you know?:-P ) - this is a way to "penalise" the EU for making MS's life difficult. The browser choice / OS upgrade issues are COMPLETELY seperate in all but MS's mind.
"They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU."
They might *think* that, but they are sadly mistaken. It doesn't take an idiot to say "Why can't I just run the same installer and not install IE?"... it's LESS work for the programmers, computers, etc. to do. Users are naive and will not understand any supposed "technical" problem - just why the damn thing isn't doing things sensibly.
"It's a two-finger salute to the EU. It fulfills the law, but in the worst possible way."
This is the MAIN, possibly even SOLE reason. It's a STUPID move. In court, you want to show co-operation. In the court run by your customers, you want to show MORE. In a court run by a CONTINENT full of your customers, you want to be on your best behaviour. MS screwed up when they decided to play hard-ball, because they didn't think there would be repurcussions. MS are getting an *incredibly* easy time of things at the moment (that fine been paid yet?) and things can get a lot, lot, lot more difficult and will do if they don't buck their ideas up. You're not talking about a few politicians being bought and the thing brushed under the carpet - the EU is a conglomeration of countries, each with its own agenda, and you'd have to basically buy the entire parliament of several dozen countries (which would be a) obvious, b) stupid, c) public knowledge and d) illegal).
I honestly believe that MS thought that it had bought the decision, or at least a lighter sentence. Failing that, it thought that no-one in their right-mind would object to MS doing what they are doing. I'd be ashamed and appalled at my employers if they thought like that, more so than the shame of their actions in the first place.
"Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things)."
The law of what? There is no precedent here. There is no law which determines at which point something is monopolistic, or damaging, or contemptuous, or reasonable. That's for judges, juries, experts, etc. to decide. Those people that MS just pissed off by sticking two fingers up at them. If necessary, on this scale of court, you can INVENT new laws to deal with the problem - it's costing the EU MILLIONS and MILLIONS of damage (That fin
Okay, so I'm on XP at the moment... Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade, exactly?
I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program, purely out of interest. Technically, I shouldn't have to update any hardware, though it didn't like my version of OpenOffice. Hardware's the biggest hurdle usually - I didn't plug every USB device I have in (as it recommends) but I don't see there being problems. However, the hassle associated with an "upgrade" is too much:
- I would have to wipe my machine clean (I've never done that on a personal computer, only for work... I've reimaged from backups, or converted a blank partition over to Linux, but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade). - I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs, settings, drivers, etc. that took me MONTHS to set up (seriously, I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them). - I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use. - I gain some features that I really *can't* imagine myself using, and some that I can't imagine *anyone* really using. - I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer, that I don't use anyway.
I'm simplifying horribly, but what do I actually *gain* in real terms? Slightly updated hardware support? Maybe, but I haven't found anything that doesn't work on XP yet. Slightly better performance? Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only *just* qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway, whereas I'm way over XP's comfort zone. Does it actually *do* anything that my current OS doesn't (that I will *ever* use), or is it just a case of "version apathy" and that when I get a new computer, it'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have? Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I'll leave it until I get a new computer (which is a rare event for me).
I don't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 (and their various editions). I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now (although it's not something I would just assume would work). There's no technical reason why I can't upgrade, it's purely political, but even assuming I could: What do I gain for my money?
When the cost of an operating system would actually see *more* benefit by being used to purchase RAM, drive space, peripherals, etc. I fail to see the attraction. Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will "upgrade" and tell us all how wonderful it is, but I can't see ANYTHING here... I didn't even see anything in Vista (which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support). Even the usual press is quite "dumbed down" about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website, that was about it, and most of that was telling how people "can't upgrade". I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it doesn't seem present this time around.
Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS?
Might be a pain in the arse to the psychologists but surely this *helps* anyone who has seen them. If you're being asked to take one of these test (I have never been in that position) then it suggest that they believe there is a *possibility* you could be psychotic etc. Thus, in any sensible (even psychotic) mind, it's only good sense to make the test fail. I fail to believe that they could ever possibly be a rigourous diagnostic tool anyway and thus this allows the following:
"Now, we're going to be taking an inkblo..." "Horse, fridge, man driving up a hill,..." "Eh?" "Rorschach, yes?" "Yes." "I just invalidated the results of your test, didn't I?" "Well, yes." "Good... could we have something a little more rigourous and bit less 'Hollywood' please, if you're going to be seriously analysing me?"
And if the analyst *doesn't* abandon the test at that point? That's probably a good ground for misconduct because even their own representative groups *say* that the test is useless if you've seen the images before.
Re:if moon landings were possible in 1969...
on
NASA Has the Lost Tapes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We've sent probes down to the Marianas trench, so why aren't we living in bubbles down there? It's the same sort of question. Basically, because it's 'king hard to do still.
Apollo was *unbelievably* expensive (now adjust for inflation!) to achieve and had ENORMOUS political backing... but well... not very much in terms of science got done (engineering, sure, but science? Not so much). We can now do that science *MUCH* better from, say, the International Space Station, Hubble or the Mars Rovers. There's three reasons where we haven't gone back to the moon. Space missions are primarily about science, not land-grabs, military superiority or other factors. It's the only way to recoup some of the costs (patents, etc.), provide impetus to the people doing it (scientists and engineers) and prove to other nations that your intentions are peaceful.
Sending humans to places adds orders of magnitude to the costs involved in going somewhere (compare cost of one satellite to costs of one manned orbiting mission). Sending a probe, satellite or rover is so much cheaper in comparison, it's silly. And why do you need to send a human? To either say "Look, we stepped here" (Apollo, and Aldrin's recent suggestion to go back to Mars) or to colonise the place (way out of our capabilities at the moment, if not engineering then financial). Look at the problems and costs faced with the ISS... now imagine that it's several MONTHS away and several MONTHS back, even when you manage to get the Shuttle in the air to supply it (which takes months / years in itself). Astronaut ill? Ooops. He's dead. Tool needed for critical repair? Oops, there goes the air pressure before you can get to it.
The Moon landings were not only possible in 1969 but probably earlier if enough money had been thrown at it. Modern satellites, shuttles, etc. really aren't that much more advanced (or, if they are, don't need to be in order to do the same job - most of the tech just makes it safer, more interesting, etc.). It's not a question of technology... it's a question of how do you justify several BILLION dollars of ongoing costs for probably about a decade in order to step next to the footprint on the moon and say "Hey, look what I did?". It worked back in 1969 because of the political backing and finances being MADE available. No chance of that now, unless it comes from joint ventures with NASA, ESA etc. and why would a joint venture want to go back to the moon when Mars isn't "that" much farther out of our reach? Or you could send a dozen probes to various places (Moon, Mars, orbit) for the same price.
BTW: The onboard computer on the Apollo is probably outclassed by a fancy digital watch, or a desktop calculator now. Technology has moved on in orders of magnitude but it still doesn't really help when the only practical way to get thousands of tons of equipment off the ground against gravity is by lighting the end of a huge tube of liquid oxygen/hydrogen (literally TONS and TONS of it)... a gross simplification but that's basically the gist of the propulsion. Simple physics demands a certain amount of acceleration to pull it off (computers can help find an optimal path, but there's still a minimum that you need), therefore a certain amount of thrust, therefore a certain amount of fuel... and fuel prices don't go down much as technology increases, even for simple fuels like this. In fact, it's probably risen by quite a substantial amount because prices of things like metal for its containment, costs of transporting it etc. have risen.
Pillock. Someone doesn't read, and you've also managed to push various opinions on my persona without checking whether they are true or not.
Are a few swine flu cases in ANY WAY comparable to *completely preventable* diseases which millions of kids die from (e.g. diarrohea, etc.)? Nope. Is swine flu treatable? Yes, in the VAST majority of cases - look at the percentages. Therefore, by your reasonsing, is swine flu any more or less "important" than diarrohea?
The ONLY thing that you, I or medical personnel can go by are the statistics. That's what happens EVERY DAY in emergency rooms and other medical locations... And swine flu is about as negligible and "important" as a particularly serious tea-cosy accident. LET'S BAN TEA COSIES, HAVE A FUNDRAISER, CURE TEA-COSY-ITIS. This is how ridiculous it's been blown out of proportion. If from there you want to claim lack of compassion, that's your (pathetic) link to make and only serves to explain your poor grasp of other statistics (correlation does not equal causation, etc.).
Nee-aaa... That's the nearest rendition I can do to the sound I made when I read your post.
Ungrounded outlets? I take it that you could, at some point in the year, be running heaters or air-con, or computers connected to phone lines, or a fish tank, or washing machine, etc. from them? Or that you have any metal-enclosed device like a PC that you touch the case of at any point while it's on? Hell, even static buildup can be a problem with unearthed appliances and it's a known factor in combustion of flammable substances.
You have to be quite, quite, mad to think that's a good thing not to have an Earth on there. But then, I live in a country that has the safest mains plugs in the world (UK and, because they copied us, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, Botswana, Ghana, Hong Kong, Macau, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Mauritius, Iraq, Kuwait, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Belize, Dominica, St. Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada and some parts of Saudi Arabia). You can't even get near a live conductor without the aid of at least one solid object to pop open the safety pin that blocks access to the L/N connectors and another to touch the conductor behind that - not the sort of thing you can do accidentally.
We do *have* double-insulated, non-Earthed appliances that plug into our normal sockets but I'm pretty sure it's against almost all wiring regulations to NOT have an Earth on the *sockets* except on extremely legacy systems. Just about everything made since the 50's has had that. The *slightest* bit of damp in the walls, a flooding appliance, a spilled glass of water on your PC or even just a bad thunderstorm and you'll quickly learn why Earth connections were put into virtually every electrical supply system in the world. The worst that happens with *properly*-Earthed and fused outlets (both are required in order to work properly) is an extremely brief, painful shock, and we use 220v+ over here. Without proper Earthing you are playing with slowly killing yourself either by shock, fire or exploding appliances.
I just hope like hell that you never find out what that means physically.
Sorry, I don't see how this technology and "using the Internet" are at all related.
It's a store-and-forward technology designed to allow interruptions of seconds, days, weeks, months, etc. in communication. How does that relate to the modern Internet or being able to "post on Twitter"? What you're saying is that I can request a webpage and (via suitable protocol-translation at some gateway presumably back on Earth) eventually my request will be sent - TCP handshaking is out of the window, timeouts will defeat login attempts, etc. What this actually *might* be is a very, very delay-tolerant email setup... we have one of those... it's called "retry and exponential backoff". This assumes *so* much it's unbelievable and basically tries to plant real-time TCP web traffic in the same category as "send this message to Earth, I don't care when it arrives".
Are the public seriously that stupid that even this mildly technical article has to be related to Twitter in order for people to understand it (erroneously)?
So what you're saying is that we should have genuine concern (fair enough) over anything that's new (eek!) to people. That's a recipe for trouble, if nothing else.
Flu, especially swine flu, isn't *all* that serious in terms of pretty much any measure you want to put out there. It really isn't. Let's say that this one particular strain (which has, inevitably, grown from the usual strains with a slight mutation and which we expect to happen VERY quickly to ALL such viruses, every single day) will *kill* your "couple of hundred thousand" in, say, the next year and pick some completely random passages from Wikipedia on death rates (I leave actually verifying those data to other people... never trust another person's data). Hell, compare it to a MILLION swine flu deaths within the year, if you want.
"Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each *day* across the globe, about two thirds 100,000 per *day* die of age-related causes." (that's 36.5m a year, and those people might have swine flu and will thus be included in swineflu statistics for no reason other than they "had" it near the time of their death). "One such disease is tuberculosis, a bacterial disease which killed 1.7 million people in 2004." (Note the year - TB killed MORE people in a very recent year despite being around for decades - did you panic about that at the time?) "Malaria causes... approximately one to three *million* deaths annually." (see above) "AIDS death toll in Africa may reach 90-100 million by 2025." "Tobacco smoking killed 100 million people worldwide in the 20th century and could kill 1 billion people around the world in the 21st century, the WHO Report warned." (One billion in a century - that's 10m a year and we're talking about THIS century, when everyone is "giving up" smoking for health reasons).
So let's say that the above are "true" and that your hypothetical scenario where hundreds of thousands of people across the globe start dying within the YEAR of swine flu (an increase of several orders of magnitude over the current scenario). That's absolutely NEGLIGIBLE (don't try for the "human" aspect - of course any single death is devastating, but you have to put these things in context) in the grand scheme of things, even against diseases that we have perfectly good existing medicine for and also those conditions that are currently incurable.
Swine flu is, statistically speaking, an interesting little blip on the low end of the radar - the rest of the signal is almost 99.9% diseases that are much more scary, prevelant, existing and that we know *lots* more about - some are even man-made problems like tobacco smoking. You've fallen for statistical propoganda with zero understanding of statistics. It's nothing to be ashamed of, so has *everyone* else I've heard mention swine flu in the last few months.
67,000 people are injured each year trying to peel the cellophane off a packet of sandwiches, open a ready meal or open a ring-pull can. More than 150 people a day - have accidentally stabbed themselves when trying to prise the top off a jar or opening a ready meal with a knife A total of 379,000 injuries caused by trainers, high heels, sandals, platforms and countless other types of footwear.
I'll leave you to read through the rest of the statistics in that article and I'm fairly sure a lot of them are UK-only statistics.
FFS... THIRTY SEVEN PEOPLE were injured by tea cosies in 1999, so seriously that they were admitted to hospital. Do you know what a tea cosy is? It's a woolen warmer for a teapot. More people were injured by tea cosies in the UK than have died from swine flu here so far. Does that put it into perspective for you?
Even an MPEG ASIC has to do *all* of the above actions, and a general purpose CPU have specialist machine instructions for ALL sorts of stuff. And you *know* that if you "misuse" such an ASIC, you could easily turn it into a GP processor (much like people have, and industry now supports, with graphics processors) without any hardware modifications - just feed it a stream designed to do what you want it to do. If it is at all physically possible to make it in any way simulate a Turing machine, then you just made a GP processor (and thus, all patents on it would therefore be invalidated instantly).
There is a distinction between "programmable" and "not", but that's it... and virtually every device is "programmable", just not necessarily in a simple way (JTAG, reprogramming EEPROM's, re-laying a FGPA, flicking switches, soldering links, etc.). There's really no distinction apart from *intention*, though. If you don't *intend* something to be programmable or not, that's hardly a basis for issuing a patent and an unreliable test.
What about if, in 20 years time, the original hardware manufacturer can't buy an Intel 8088 and thus decides to just slap in a general purpose processor with some kind of emulation (or an ICE, in other words) in any of those products that they service... that immediately invalidates patents on that machine. Whether or not it matches with your opinion, as a legal test *all* definitions of such things just stink. Thus, it's stupid to even *try* and categorise such devices/patents until someone comes up with a pretty damn definitive test. That means that either: Nobody distinguishes between GP and SP processors in patent applications, with the ramifications of that, or that *software* patents become invalid. Either option is fine. Middle-ground, however, sucks.
If I created a work of my own volition it is, almost by definition, copyrightable. Nothing else really matters. However, a *patent* is by no means "automatic" like copyright. You're lumping together extraordinarily disparate subjects, because lawyers do so and call it IP so that if they *don't* turn out to have a valid patent, they can pursue trademark and/or copyright claims without having to re-file.
However, it really irks me that someone in the EU bothered to distinguish between a general purpose processor and a fixed-purpose processor. At the end of the day, it's still nothing more than a set of transisitors, a set of boolean logical operations encoded in the arrangement of those transistors and a set of algorithms encoded in those boolean operations. I can't patent a "chip that does X", but I can patent a "chip that ONLY does X". It's just stupid.
"What's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games?" To allow me to interact with a visual element (voice-only games are boring!).
"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?" Commodity graphics cards (where they used to be a massive, expensive, add-on only), excess of speed/power/capabilities, people buy "pretty" games for no real reason other than they are pretty, young people have "grown up" with 3D graphics, ease of putting out titles that are pretty rather than addictive, "competition" with videogame consoles, previous titles and industry competitors who think the same way.
"What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?" Too much graphics, not enough gameplay. Graphics are *brilliant*, don't get me wrong, but after the fiftieth alpha-blended, anti-aliased, dynamically-shadowed, etc.etc.etc. game then it's no longer novel or impressive, even if the resolution improves or the thing being shown is using more detailed models. Half-Life Blue Shift, I will use as a case in point. It came with "higher res" models of the Half-life universe as an option. Hands up all those who knew that and/or used them (SvenCoop users don't count - it tells you in the installer).
"Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?" Neither. I prefer people not to use 3D when it's not needed, and when they use 3D to go with a particular look that suits the game and/or the gamer's requirements. A silly puzzle game (even 3D) does not need lens-flare, dynamic lighting, etc. However, an immersive FPS which relies heavily on atmosphere to build tension (e.g. Left4Dead) might. In fact an immersive game like that might well do things strangely - such as add film-grain to deliberately decrease the quality of the image to fit in with the game's atmosphere. But at the end of the day, if it wasn't an addictive game, people would not be playing it in their thousands... you don't set up a powerful PC on a fast Internet connection and play multiplayer because it "looks cool". At least, not after the novelty wears off. Most gameplay-heavy multiplayer games NEVER die online, even if the game network disappears.
There is no "standard formula" for a good game in terms of graphics. Spy Hunter in the arcades WORKED in 2D, Lemmings worked in 2D, Street Fighter worked in 2D, but their 3D incarnations are *ALL* dire. Similarly for sequels, extensions, mods, add-ons, etc. that thought that adding some fancy rendering, higher-resolution, etc. would save them having to make a new game. Graphics are just a layer of interface to the actual game underneath. If the interface is crap, the game might still be good. If the game is crap, however, it doesn't matter how good the interface looks - it's like a Ferrari with a Fiat 100 engine inside.
Look at Quake. The amount of mods for that thing was PHENOMENAL. Even the official expansion packs didn't try to upgrade the resolutions or the renderer or this or that... they just made some more content and kept the game interesting (I think one of them did some QuakeC tricks to implement some very primitive physics, but that's *not* graphical, that's a gameplay trick). Now, of course, there's GLQuake, Quake with lighting, ray-traced Quake, etc. The graphics-heavy ones aren't that popular, they don't add much and if you play them it's only out of interest to see once. You might even "stick" with GLQuake or Tenebrae or whatever, but at the end of the day if you're just re-running the same old Quake levels, there's no real fun. However, *additional content* with new ideas, new gameplay etc. - that's completely different and will make you load it back up no matter what interface you prefer.
Look at the Half-Life engines - both basically unchanged since release (alright, HL2:E1 added that HDR stuff but you bought it for the story and the extra hours of gameplay, not the HDR - hopefully). Now look
I once had the following conversation with someone I was picking up that day:
"Where do you live?" "I don't know the name of the road." "Fine, how do *I* get there?" "Well, you know the big roundabout in Exeter?" (Exeter is NOTHING but roundabouts!) "No." "Well, it's not that one, it's the next one."
I can't remember the last time my photo ID was *required*, except possibly to put on my driver's license (so, by a government-only department that already had all the information about me it required), and my driving license has *never* been requested or required for anything. I don't have *anything* else with my photo on, at all. I'm pretty sure the only other "photo ID" I've ever had was a student card, because it got me student discounts. Even that was optional.
Additionally, credit/debits cards are *not* as big over here as over countries and a lot of people only "trust" cash. Cheques have only just stopped being accepted in most stores (as in, the last year or two). Although, inevitably, their use will increase over time.
Also, the problem with ID cards *isn't* either of the above. The problem with ID cards is that we were going to be required to pay for them, that they would "link" several disparate databases together and that there was *no* demonstrated need for them at all. There was also going to be a legal requirement to carry them (such a requirement doesn't exist in the UK at all and is, in fact, very alien to us... the nearest equivalent we have is that we have to produce a driving license at a police station of our choice within 48 hours if a policeman so demands it in connection with a driving offence) and therefore a requirement to HAVE them. It was a £100 "compulsory-voluntary" stealth tax to make us carry a card we would never use unless "needs" were created for it (anti-terrorism crap, basically). It was never required before and nobody could justify why it was required after (terrorists normally have valid or plausible ID, for example).
The stink wasn't about "ID Cards" so much as the pathetically poor method of introduction: Hey, you. I want you to carry a card around for the rest of your life for no reason, and I'm going to "invent" excuses to make you need to have it on you. And now you owe me £100 and a day filling out forms in order for me to give you that card. Cough up.
(Windows 7 64-bit license + 64-bit processor (admittedly standard nowadays) + 4Gb RAM or more + Solid State Disk + upgrades necessary to get to that point and/or new computer....)
Or I could just load XP/Linux on "any old machine" and get on with my job without noticing a difference? This is the point here - who *needs* that kind of hardware, and out of those people who doesn't *already* have it? Most business machines DO NOT NEED anything approaching that sort of hardware. For every server with >4Gb RAM *required*, there are a hundred clients that are quite happy on 1Gb. XP is for the 90% of machines where 4Gb RAM doesn't even affect anything, let alone "required".
Brilliant. Wish they'd get a move on. Because, as far as I know, there are no alternatives authorised by my government and, in fact, the UK government in particular is so heavily entrenched in MS software that *anything* is an upgrade. Seriously, even their educaitonal standards bodies say how MS is a waste of money and shouldn't be used etc. and yet every government project in schools and other governmental bodies is MS-software, MS-funded, etc. It's so farcical. (And, as far as I know, the UK aren't particularly keen to hurt MS *at all* - our EU-membership is, was and always has been more of a "for-show" item than anything else)
The goverment can't make me use an OS / office suite that they want (or if they do, I'll be long gone, don't fear), all they can do is kill MS. And if you think that MS are being forced into an "impossible situation", you have absolutely no idea just how much MS makes, after expenses, from even the smallest of businesses. If it happens that way, as far as I'm concerned, both the government and I are then just two sides benefitting from the same outcome no matter how it arose.
Please, please, hurry it up, governments, if this is the case. My little Linux install CD is desperate to be used until it's worn out. Hell, stick a percent on my tax for this year if you get a move on.
(Oh, BTW: I love the way you manage to turn it into not just a pro-MS thing, but also lob a conspiracy theory in to boot. It's nothing short of genius.)
I know it's "normal practice" to do this sort of thing with IT purchases, but I do love it. It just means that MS, whether they need to or not, are slowly pricing themselves out of the market.
As it is, I don't know of a single person who *buys* Microsoft Office / Windows. It either comes with their (over-priced) PC, they get the "Student/Teacher" edition (I work in schools), or they run in horror at the price for a boxed copy (and I refer them to OpenOffice or other OS). As people tighten their belts, new PC purchases are less and less common, spending limits are coming down (both in business and with consumers), and people are much less willing to buy things that are getting more and more expensive for no clear reason.
In the last six months, I've been told (by Microsoft themselves, no less) that Windows XP is basically unpurchaseable in bulk any more without signing up to annual contracts (not going to happen), that Windows Vista requires upgrades to almost every PC on my networks and provides little benefit at all, that Windows 7 is just the same, that Internet Explorer won't necessarily be included (I'm in the EU) and I'll have a choice to install alternate browsers (which makes my "Firefox on the desktop" policy even easier to justify) and now that Windows 7 is going to be more expensive than necessary. If ever there was a time to push for replacement of the whole damn lot, it's now.
MS has dug themselves an enormous hole. Of course people will end up buying Windows 7, but in my experience home users who have been lumbered with Vista aren't happy about it (and this is non-tech users too) and if they know the same will happen with Windows 7 they will be doing more of what they are already doing - coming to me and asking how to get "XP back".
Please, Microsoft, please... keep it up. Piss off the EU regulator some more. Hike prices, cut features in Windows 7, make it hard to buy what people want. You're doing a great job so far, just continue on the same lines. How about threatening the EU with pulling out or something, that'd be funny and useful to me.
It's a downward spiral when people who WANT to buy a product (say, XP) from you can't, and don't want your "alternative" (Vista / 7) that you suggest to them. If that was a temporary situation, it'd be normal. But Vista came and is now on the verge of going and still people can't buy what they want from you. It's fantastic. You're keeping me in work, and satisfying my own personal agenda too!
The "practice interview" is always my recommendation too. It's surprising even what an inexperienced friend can pick up on. If it's done properly (i.e. you say that from THIS second, we're in interview mode and must act like it for the next 30 minutes) then it's a great help and it stops people being "nervous" about interviews. It's a good time to have someone throw you a curveball question and see how you react... if you clam up, it's not a big deal but in a real interview it would cost you.
And, yes, a surprising number of people fail the basics. I've even worked alongside at least one person (working tech support for large networks) who couldn't answer even the simplest IT question, yet somehow made it through the interview. It led to a year of great quotes like "So, TCP/IP is written in C - so I have to learn C first to understand it", "Can I flash a 10Mbps switch to upgrade it to Gigabit?", etc.
When recession hits people can and SHOULD go for anything. It's a pain for people hiring because they have to sift the crap, which means you have to stand out more, but even a programmer by trade interviewing for a tech support job can be an astounding candidate if they try. Recession might mean you have to lower sights, or work harder to get things, or change areas of expertise, or the scale of your job, but it doesn't mean jobs *don't* exist. Any brief glance at an online jobsite will show you that.
"It lasts, right now, for 1.25 years. Do the math."
Erm... 1.25 years of unemployment on a CV (and I don't know the rules but in most places you ARE allowed to do volunteer work and sometimes a small amount of actual work and still claim). Followed by the following thoughts in a potential employer's head:
"He was on benefits for over a year." "He didn't do anything else in that time." "If I employ him, there's nothing to stop him leaving in 3/6/9 months, whatever the cut-off point is, and then going back on full benefits for another year." "Maybe he's using me to 'refresh' his benefits." "I'm not going to get the best work out of him, and he's been idle for at least a year, and then he'll probably leave or get himself sacked." "Why should I employ him?"
Unless you can answer that last question, there's nothing in it for an employer. It's harsh, yes, but true. Especially true as you get older... if you're going to employ a 40-year-old over a 30-year-old, they better have 10 years of experience to draw on! If they can't show that, you might as well employ the 30-year-old (who will want less money) and train him.
Lack of paid experience isn't the issue - I had zero experience in my job at first and walked into several VERY well-respected, high-level jobs with an awful lot of responsibility (wanna take the rap when the network that holds every exam result of every child, and their emergency medical information, etc. goes down? I've been responsible for that since the day I left uni and got my first client of my self-employment and never had a serious issue). Six YEARS of unemployment at ANYTHING is the issue. This is my point - hell, you could VOLUNTEER and still have something more IT-relevant than doing nothing at all. Do tech support for a charity, or recondition old PC's, etc.
Freelance work, volunteering, hell just being able to say that you did SOMETHING other than write games (see my other post) in a back bedroom. Employers will pretty much ignore anything in terms of experience that didn't a) happen under a former employer (not related) or b) happen to make you a ton of money by doing it for a living. Everything else is just showing you *can* work. Go work at a hardware store, ffs (Yes, I've been there, done that too, to make up the slack periods of work - I've also been a website designer, freelance tech support, worked in an office typing up documents while working as IT Manager inside the same week!). He obviously HAD spare time (he wrote an MMORPG), but it's six wasted years in the eyes of an employer (unless, as I stated, he is applying to games companies).
Catch-22 is only relevant if you get reasons for rejection from your potential employers (almost all of them will give one if pressed). Was he refused because he had no experience, because he had no IT experience, because he had no relevant IT experience, or because they saw a 6-year gap on his CV that his explanations couldn't cover? You can't trust *his* opinion alone. It could be because his CV was written in crayon for all we know. My guess is that the gap was the problem, or that his knowledge was percieved as too out-of-date. You can fight that by showing how you learned new things quickly and applied them quickly in an actual *employment* (or, not quite as good but still relevant, volunteer role). I have zero professional certifications, just my degree and earlier qualifications - but I learn damn fast and make sure potential employers know it.
Nobody is *entitled* to a job (in fact, I can name half a dozen people who shouldn't have the jobs they've got!). Hence, when a bad CV comes in the door, it WILL get binned. You can spruce up your CV (either in reality by actually doing things to put on it, by clever wording, or by outright lying - I've *never* lied on a CV), or you can continue to get ignored. The more your CV is ignored, the more it will continue to be ignored in the future if you don't improve it (a bad CV, a bad CV with one year's unemployment, etc.). I've been there too... my last bout of job hunting consisted of 1000 cherry-picked jobs from jobsites, 200 applications (10% on paper) and a handful of interviews - I had a job to fall back on but my job hunting was no easier - in fact, if I hadn't had the job to fall back on, I *would* have had to take the first thing that popped up. Fortunately, I rarely have to job-hunt because my relevant, up-to-date, experience speaks for itself - and the fact that I can provide a dozen references that I've worked for in the past year.
Working in non-IT jobs does NOT make the CV worse, it merely stops it improving. However not working *at all* makes the CV worse. And working in *anything* IT-based keeps the CV at the same level but relevant (helpdesk, tech support, hell - putting an ad in the paper as The PC Man).
I would not *touch* an employee who has a six year gap on their CV without an explanation (actually INSIDE the CV / covering letter). But one who had an explanation ("2003-2009: Travelled across six continents"), no gap because they were volunteering / keeping themselves busy / running a business / who had a line that said "Various other paid employment" for the gap, no problem at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than send the difference in the executable, they send the difference in a sort of source code. Saves space if a small source change (move this line past this function) causes a big executable difference.
Because whatever fallback the CSS uses makes all the text overlap in large font sizes and thus makes it unreadable. Not some "picky" issue about aesthetics but practically impossible to decipher overlaid text.
So, follow your own advice.
Licensing? Nightmare.
Bandwidth? Eek.
Security? Whoa!
Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)
Gains? Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it. Seven million websites written in Comic Sans. And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).
Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page?)
"Back on topic now, Microsoft didn't just decide to remove IE from Windows, they though long and hard"
That's doubtful. The announcement came hot on the heels of an EU ruling and if the idea *was* brewing, they still seemed to be caught totally off-guard in every other sense. I think it was more likely a knee-jerk / screw-you sentiment that may well backfire. Any idiot could think of ten "better" ways of doing what was needed without doing what MS have done, that wouldn't hurt consumers (CUSTOMERS... remember those, MS?), would comply and wouldn't interfere. The whole "Well, the EU needs its own version, then" thing is a crock from a technical point of view and just political games.
"You think they just thought that that was the easiest? No."
No. I think they thought they had better do something but to comply as minimally as they possibly could. That's *not* a good attitude to have in court, it really isn't. Oh, and have they paid that fine yet? Things like this are just good ways to piss off an entire continent's legal processes...
"They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know."
I doubt it. They *don't* want the option in there at all, people not using IE means people not necessarily using Silverlight or ActiveX or other OS-tie-ins. 99% of users will never see an upgrade or installation in their life, Windows "comes with the computer" (didn't you know? :-P ) - this is a way to "penalise" the EU for making MS's life difficult. The browser choice / OS upgrade issues are COMPLETELY seperate in all but MS's mind.
"They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU."
They might *think* that, but they are sadly mistaken. It doesn't take an idiot to say "Why can't I just run the same installer and not install IE?"... it's LESS work for the programmers, computers, etc. to do. Users are naive and will not understand any supposed "technical" problem - just why the damn thing isn't doing things sensibly.
"It's a two-finger salute to the EU. It fulfills the law, but in the worst possible way."
This is the MAIN, possibly even SOLE reason. It's a STUPID move. In court, you want to show co-operation. In the court run by your customers, you want to show MORE. In a court run by a CONTINENT full of your customers, you want to be on your best behaviour. MS screwed up when they decided to play hard-ball, because they didn't think there would be repurcussions. MS are getting an *incredibly* easy time of things at the moment (that fine been paid yet?) and things can get a lot, lot, lot more difficult and will do if they don't buck their ideas up. You're not talking about a few politicians being bought and the thing brushed under the carpet - the EU is a conglomeration of countries, each with its own agenda, and you'd have to basically buy the entire parliament of several dozen countries (which would be a) obvious, b) stupid, c) public knowledge and d) illegal).
I honestly believe that MS thought that it had bought the decision, or at least a lighter sentence. Failing that, it thought that no-one in their right-mind would object to MS doing what they are doing. I'd be ashamed and appalled at my employers if they thought like that, more so than the shame of their actions in the first place.
"Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things)."
The law of what? There is no precedent here. There is no law which determines at which point something is monopolistic, or damaging, or contemptuous, or reasonable. That's for judges, juries, experts, etc. to decide. Those people that MS just pissed off by sticking two fingers up at them. If necessary, on this scale of court, you can INVENT new laws to deal with the problem - it's costing the EU MILLIONS and MILLIONS of damage (That fin
Okay, so I'm on XP at the moment... Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade, exactly?
I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program, purely out of interest. Technically, I shouldn't have to update any hardware, though it didn't like my version of OpenOffice. Hardware's the biggest hurdle usually - I didn't plug every USB device I have in (as it recommends) but I don't see there being problems. However, the hassle associated with an "upgrade" is too much:
- I would have to wipe my machine clean (I've never done that on a personal computer, only for work... I've reimaged from backups, or converted a blank partition over to Linux, but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade).
- I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs, settings, drivers, etc. that took me MONTHS to set up (seriously, I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them).
- I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use.
- I gain some features that I really *can't* imagine myself using, and some that I can't imagine *anyone* really using.
- I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer, that I don't use anyway.
I'm simplifying horribly, but what do I actually *gain* in real terms? Slightly updated hardware support? Maybe, but I haven't found anything that doesn't work on XP yet. Slightly better performance? Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only *just* qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway, whereas I'm way over XP's comfort zone. Does it actually *do* anything that my current OS doesn't (that I will *ever* use), or is it just a case of "version apathy" and that when I get a new computer, it'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have? Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I'll leave it until I get a new computer (which is a rare event for me).
I don't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 (and their various editions). I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now (although it's not something I would just assume would work). There's no technical reason why I can't upgrade, it's purely political, but even assuming I could: What do I gain for my money?
When the cost of an operating system would actually see *more* benefit by being used to purchase RAM, drive space, peripherals, etc. I fail to see the attraction. Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will "upgrade" and tell us all how wonderful it is, but I can't see ANYTHING here... I didn't even see anything in Vista (which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support). Even the usual press is quite "dumbed down" about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website, that was about it, and most of that was telling how people "can't upgrade". I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it doesn't seem present this time around.
Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS?
Apparently, there is no AI. It's not clear what else is missing, either.
Might be a pain in the arse to the psychologists but surely this *helps* anyone who has seen them. If you're being asked to take one of these test (I have never been in that position) then it suggest that they believe there is a *possibility* you could be psychotic etc. Thus, in any sensible (even psychotic) mind, it's only good sense to make the test fail. I fail to believe that they could ever possibly be a rigourous diagnostic tool anyway and thus this allows the following:
"Now, we're going to be taking an inkblo..." ..."
"Horse, fridge, man driving up a hill,
"Eh?"
"Rorschach, yes?"
"Yes."
"I just invalidated the results of your test, didn't I?"
"Well, yes."
"Good... could we have something a little more rigourous and bit less 'Hollywood' please, if you're going to be seriously analysing me?"
And if the analyst *doesn't* abandon the test at that point? That's probably a good ground for misconduct because even their own representative groups *say* that the test is useless if you've seen the images before.
We've sent probes down to the Marianas trench, so why aren't we living in bubbles down there? It's the same sort of question. Basically, because it's 'king hard to do still.
Apollo was *unbelievably* expensive (now adjust for inflation!) to achieve and had ENORMOUS political backing... but well... not very much in terms of science got done (engineering, sure, but science? Not so much). We can now do that science *MUCH* better from, say, the International Space Station, Hubble or the Mars Rovers. There's three reasons where we haven't gone back to the moon. Space missions are primarily about science, not land-grabs, military superiority or other factors. It's the only way to recoup some of the costs (patents, etc.), provide impetus to the people doing it (scientists and engineers) and prove to other nations that your intentions are peaceful.
Sending humans to places adds orders of magnitude to the costs involved in going somewhere (compare cost of one satellite to costs of one manned orbiting mission). Sending a probe, satellite or rover is so much cheaper in comparison, it's silly. And why do you need to send a human? To either say "Look, we stepped here" (Apollo, and Aldrin's recent suggestion to go back to Mars) or to colonise the place (way out of our capabilities at the moment, if not engineering then financial). Look at the problems and costs faced with the ISS... now imagine that it's several MONTHS away and several MONTHS back, even when you manage to get the Shuttle in the air to supply it (which takes months / years in itself). Astronaut ill? Ooops. He's dead. Tool needed for critical repair? Oops, there goes the air pressure before you can get to it.
The Moon landings were not only possible in 1969 but probably earlier if enough money had been thrown at it. Modern satellites, shuttles, etc. really aren't that much more advanced (or, if they are, don't need to be in order to do the same job - most of the tech just makes it safer, more interesting, etc.). It's not a question of technology... it's a question of how do you justify several BILLION dollars of ongoing costs for probably about a decade in order to step next to the footprint on the moon and say "Hey, look what I did?". It worked back in 1969 because of the political backing and finances being MADE available. No chance of that now, unless it comes from joint ventures with NASA, ESA etc. and why would a joint venture want to go back to the moon when Mars isn't "that" much farther out of our reach? Or you could send a dozen probes to various places (Moon, Mars, orbit) for the same price.
BTW: The onboard computer on the Apollo is probably outclassed by a fancy digital watch, or a desktop calculator now. Technology has moved on in orders of magnitude but it still doesn't really help when the only practical way to get thousands of tons of equipment off the ground against gravity is by lighting the end of a huge tube of liquid oxygen/hydrogen (literally TONS and TONS of it)... a gross simplification but that's basically the gist of the propulsion. Simple physics demands a certain amount of acceleration to pull it off (computers can help find an optimal path, but there's still a minimum that you need), therefore a certain amount of thrust, therefore a certain amount of fuel... and fuel prices don't go down much as technology increases, even for simple fuels like this. In fact, it's probably risen by quite a substantial amount because prices of things like metal for its containment, costs of transporting it etc. have risen.
Pillock. Someone doesn't read, and you've also managed to push various opinions on my persona without checking whether they are true or not.
Are a few swine flu cases in ANY WAY comparable to *completely preventable* diseases which millions of kids die from (e.g. diarrohea, etc.)? Nope. Is swine flu treatable? Yes, in the VAST majority of cases - look at the percentages. Therefore, by your reasonsing, is swine flu any more or less "important" than diarrohea?
The ONLY thing that you, I or medical personnel can go by are the statistics. That's what happens EVERY DAY in emergency rooms and other medical locations... And swine flu is about as negligible and "important" as a particularly serious tea-cosy accident. LET'S BAN TEA COSIES, HAVE A FUNDRAISER, CURE TEA-COSY-ITIS. This is how ridiculous it's been blown out of proportion. If from there you want to claim lack of compassion, that's your (pathetic) link to make and only serves to explain your poor grasp of other statistics (correlation does not equal causation, etc.).
Nee-aaa... That's the nearest rendition I can do to the sound I made when I read your post.
Ungrounded outlets? I take it that you could, at some point in the year, be running heaters or air-con, or computers connected to phone lines, or a fish tank, or washing machine, etc. from them? Or that you have any metal-enclosed device like a PC that you touch the case of at any point while it's on? Hell, even static buildup can be a problem with unearthed appliances and it's a known factor in combustion of flammable substances.
You have to be quite, quite, mad to think that's a good thing not to have an Earth on there. But then, I live in a country that has the safest mains plugs in the world (UK and, because they copied us, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, Botswana, Ghana, Hong Kong, Macau, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Mauritius, Iraq, Kuwait, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Belize, Dominica, St. Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada and some parts of Saudi Arabia). You can't even get near a live conductor without the aid of at least one solid object to pop open the safety pin that blocks access to the L/N connectors and another to touch the conductor behind that - not the sort of thing you can do accidentally.
We do *have* double-insulated, non-Earthed appliances that plug into our normal sockets but I'm pretty sure it's against almost all wiring regulations to NOT have an Earth on the *sockets* except on extremely legacy systems. Just about everything made since the 50's has had that. The *slightest* bit of damp in the walls, a flooding appliance, a spilled glass of water on your PC or even just a bad thunderstorm and you'll quickly learn why Earth connections were put into virtually every electrical supply system in the world. The worst that happens with *properly*-Earthed and fused outlets (both are required in order to work properly) is an extremely brief, painful shock, and we use 220v+ over here. Without proper Earthing you are playing with slowly killing yourself either by shock, fire or exploding appliances.
I just hope like hell that you never find out what that means physically.
Sorry, I don't see how this technology and "using the Internet" are at all related.
It's a store-and-forward technology designed to allow interruptions of seconds, days, weeks, months, etc. in communication. How does that relate to the modern Internet or being able to "post on Twitter"? What you're saying is that I can request a webpage and (via suitable protocol-translation at some gateway presumably back on Earth) eventually my request will be sent - TCP handshaking is out of the window, timeouts will defeat login attempts, etc. What this actually *might* be is a very, very delay-tolerant email setup... we have one of those... it's called "retry and exponential backoff". This assumes *so* much it's unbelievable and basically tries to plant real-time TCP web traffic in the same category as "send this message to Earth, I don't care when it arrives".
Are the public seriously that stupid that even this mildly technical article has to be related to Twitter in order for people to understand it (erroneously)?
So what you're saying is that we should have genuine concern (fair enough) over anything that's new (eek!) to people. That's a recipe for trouble, if nothing else.
Flu, especially swine flu, isn't *all* that serious in terms of pretty much any measure you want to put out there. It really isn't. Let's say that this one particular strain (which has, inevitably, grown from the usual strains with a slight mutation and which we expect to happen VERY quickly to ALL such viruses, every single day) will *kill* your "couple of hundred thousand" in, say, the next year and pick some completely random passages from Wikipedia on death rates (I leave actually verifying those data to other people... never trust another person's data). Hell, compare it to a MILLION swine flu deaths within the year, if you want.
"Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each *day* across the globe, about two thirds 100,000 per *day* die of age-related causes." (that's 36.5m a year, and those people might have swine flu and will thus be included in swineflu statistics for no reason other than they "had" it near the time of their death). ... approximately one to three *million* deaths annually." (see above)
"One such disease is tuberculosis, a bacterial disease which killed 1.7 million people in 2004." (Note the year - TB killed MORE people in a very recent year despite being around for decades - did you panic about that at the time?)
"Malaria causes
"AIDS death toll in Africa may reach 90-100 million by 2025."
"Tobacco smoking killed 100 million people worldwide in the 20th century and could kill 1 billion people around the world in the 21st century, the WHO Report warned." (One billion in a century - that's 10m a year and we're talking about THIS century, when everyone is "giving up" smoking for health reasons).
So let's say that the above are "true" and that your hypothetical scenario where hundreds of thousands of people across the globe start dying within the YEAR of swine flu (an increase of several orders of magnitude over the current scenario). That's absolutely NEGLIGIBLE (don't try for the "human" aspect - of course any single death is devastating, but you have to put these things in context) in the grand scheme of things, even against diseases that we have perfectly good existing medicine for and also those conditions that are currently incurable.
Swine flu is, statistically speaking, an interesting little blip on the low end of the radar - the rest of the signal is almost 99.9% diseases that are much more scary, prevelant, existing and that we know *lots* more about - some are even man-made problems like tobacco smoking. You've fallen for statistical propoganda with zero understanding of statistics. It's nothing to be ashamed of, so has *everyone* else I've heard mention swine flu in the last few months.
Just for fun:
http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2500903
67,000 people are injured each year trying to peel the cellophane off a packet of sandwiches, open a ready meal or open a ring-pull can.
More than 150 people a day - have accidentally stabbed themselves when trying to prise the top off a jar or opening a ready meal with a knife
A total of 379,000 injuries caused by trainers, high heels, sandals, platforms and countless other types of footwear.
I'll leave you to read through the rest of the statistics in that article and I'm fairly sure a lot of them are UK-only statistics.
FFS... THIRTY SEVEN PEOPLE were injured by tea cosies in 1999, so seriously that they were admitted to hospital. Do you know what a tea cosy is? It's a woolen warmer for a teapot. More people were injured by tea cosies in the UK than have died from swine flu here so far. Does that put it into perspective for you?
Possibly, because "neutral" is just the same in theory but slightly harder to isolate from the mains supply, but in theory there's no reason why not.
However, only stupid countries have unearthed outlets.
And, again, how does that differ?
Even an MPEG ASIC has to do *all* of the above actions, and a general purpose CPU have specialist machine instructions for ALL sorts of stuff. And you *know* that if you "misuse" such an ASIC, you could easily turn it into a GP processor (much like people have, and industry now supports, with graphics processors) without any hardware modifications - just feed it a stream designed to do what you want it to do. If it is at all physically possible to make it in any way simulate a Turing machine, then you just made a GP processor (and thus, all patents on it would therefore be invalidated instantly).
There is a distinction between "programmable" and "not", but that's it... and virtually every device is "programmable", just not necessarily in a simple way (JTAG, reprogramming EEPROM's, re-laying a FGPA, flicking switches, soldering links, etc.). There's really no distinction apart from *intention*, though. If you don't *intend* something to be programmable or not, that's hardly a basis for issuing a patent and an unreliable test.
What about if, in 20 years time, the original hardware manufacturer can't buy an Intel 8088 and thus decides to just slap in a general purpose processor with some kind of emulation (or an ICE, in other words) in any of those products that they service... that immediately invalidates patents on that machine. Whether or not it matches with your opinion, as a legal test *all* definitions of such things just stink. Thus, it's stupid to even *try* and categorise such devices/patents until someone comes up with a pretty damn definitive test. That means that either: Nobody distinguishes between GP and SP processors in patent applications, with the ramifications of that, or that *software* patents become invalid. Either option is fine. Middle-ground, however, sucks.
What's copyrightable got to do with patentable?
If I created a work of my own volition it is, almost by definition, copyrightable. Nothing else really matters. However, a *patent* is by no means "automatic" like copyright. You're lumping together extraordinarily disparate subjects, because lawyers do so and call it IP so that if they *don't* turn out to have a valid patent, they can pursue trademark and/or copyright claims without having to re-file.
However, it really irks me that someone in the EU bothered to distinguish between a general purpose processor and a fixed-purpose processor. At the end of the day, it's still nothing more than a set of transisitors, a set of boolean logical operations encoded in the arrangement of those transistors and a set of algorithms encoded in those boolean operations. I can't patent a "chip that does X", but I can patent a "chip that ONLY does X". It's just stupid.
"What's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games?" To allow me to interact with a visual element (voice-only games are boring!).
"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?" Commodity graphics cards (where they used to be a massive, expensive, add-on only), excess of speed/power/capabilities, people buy "pretty" games for no real reason other than they are pretty, young people have "grown up" with 3D graphics, ease of putting out titles that are pretty rather than addictive, "competition" with videogame consoles, previous titles and industry competitors who think the same way.
"What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?" Too much graphics, not enough gameplay. Graphics are *brilliant*, don't get me wrong, but after the fiftieth alpha-blended, anti-aliased, dynamically-shadowed, etc.etc.etc. game then it's no longer novel or impressive, even if the resolution improves or the thing being shown is using more detailed models. Half-Life Blue Shift, I will use as a case in point. It came with "higher res" models of the Half-life universe as an option. Hands up all those who knew that and/or used them (SvenCoop users don't count - it tells you in the installer).
"Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?" Neither. I prefer people not to use 3D when it's not needed, and when they use 3D to go with a particular look that suits the game and/or the gamer's requirements. A silly puzzle game (even 3D) does not need lens-flare, dynamic lighting, etc. However, an immersive FPS which relies heavily on atmosphere to build tension (e.g. Left4Dead) might. In fact an immersive game like that might well do things strangely - such as add film-grain to deliberately decrease the quality of the image to fit in with the game's atmosphere. But at the end of the day, if it wasn't an addictive game, people would not be playing it in their thousands... you don't set up a powerful PC on a fast Internet connection and play multiplayer because it "looks cool". At least, not after the novelty wears off. Most gameplay-heavy multiplayer games NEVER die online, even if the game network disappears.
There is no "standard formula" for a good game in terms of graphics. Spy Hunter in the arcades WORKED in 2D, Lemmings worked in 2D, Street Fighter worked in 2D, but their 3D incarnations are *ALL* dire. Similarly for sequels, extensions, mods, add-ons, etc. that thought that adding some fancy rendering, higher-resolution, etc. would save them having to make a new game. Graphics are just a layer of interface to the actual game underneath. If the interface is crap, the game might still be good. If the game is crap, however, it doesn't matter how good the interface looks - it's like a Ferrari with a Fiat 100 engine inside.
Look at Quake. The amount of mods for that thing was PHENOMENAL. Even the official expansion packs didn't try to upgrade the resolutions or the renderer or this or that... they just made some more content and kept the game interesting (I think one of them did some QuakeC tricks to implement some very primitive physics, but that's *not* graphical, that's a gameplay trick). Now, of course, there's GLQuake, Quake with lighting, ray-traced Quake, etc. The graphics-heavy ones aren't that popular, they don't add much and if you play them it's only out of interest to see once. You might even "stick" with GLQuake or Tenebrae or whatever, but at the end of the day if you're just re-running the same old Quake levels, there's no real fun. However, *additional content* with new ideas, new gameplay etc. - that's completely different and will make you load it back up no matter what interface you prefer.
Look at the Half-Life engines - both basically unchanged since release (alright, HL2:E1 added that HDR stuff but you bought it for the story and the extra hours of gameplay, not the HDR - hopefully). Now look
I once had the following conversation with someone I was picking up that day:
"Where do you live?"
"I don't know the name of the road."
"Fine, how do *I* get there?"
"Well, you know the big roundabout in Exeter?" (Exeter is NOTHING but roundabouts!)
"No."
"Well, it's not that one, it's the next one."
That was it. Somehow, I found them in time.
And, if my users are anything to go by, a drop in ie7 usage too...
I'm from the UK, just to clarify things.
I can't remember the last time my photo ID was *required*, except possibly to put on my driver's license (so, by a government-only department that already had all the information about me it required), and my driving license has *never* been requested or required for anything. I don't have *anything* else with my photo on, at all. I'm pretty sure the only other "photo ID" I've ever had was a student card, because it got me student discounts. Even that was optional.
Additionally, credit/debits cards are *not* as big over here as over countries and a lot of people only "trust" cash. Cheques have only just stopped being accepted in most stores (as in, the last year or two). Although, inevitably, their use will increase over time.
Also, the problem with ID cards *isn't* either of the above. The problem with ID cards is that we were going to be required to pay for them, that they would "link" several disparate databases together and that there was *no* demonstrated need for them at all. There was also going to be a legal requirement to carry them (such a requirement doesn't exist in the UK at all and is, in fact, very alien to us... the nearest equivalent we have is that we have to produce a driving license at a police station of our choice within 48 hours if a policeman so demands it in connection with a driving offence) and therefore a requirement to HAVE them. It was a £100 "compulsory-voluntary" stealth tax to make us carry a card we would never use unless "needs" were created for it (anti-terrorism crap, basically). It was never required before and nobody could justify why it was required after (terrorists normally have valid or plausible ID, for example).
The stink wasn't about "ID Cards" so much as the pathetically poor method of introduction: Hey, you. I want you to carry a card around for the rest of your life for no reason, and I'm going to "invent" excuses to make you need to have it on you. And now you owe me £100 and a day filling out forms in order for me to give you that card. Cough up.
"It feels like the future is meant to feel !!!!!"
Expensive?
(Windows 7 64-bit license + 64-bit processor (admittedly standard nowadays) + 4Gb RAM or more + Solid State Disk + upgrades necessary to get to that point and/or new computer....)
Or I could just load XP/Linux on "any old machine" and get on with my job without noticing a difference? This is the point here - who *needs* that kind of hardware, and out of those people who doesn't *already* have it? Most business machines DO NOT NEED anything approaching that sort of hardware. For every server with >4Gb RAM *required*, there are a hundred clients that are quite happy on 1Gb. XP is for the 90% of machines where 4Gb RAM doesn't even affect anything, let alone "required".
Brilliant. Wish they'd get a move on. Because, as far as I know, there are no alternatives authorised by my government and, in fact, the UK government in particular is so heavily entrenched in MS software that *anything* is an upgrade. Seriously, even their educaitonal standards bodies say how MS is a waste of money and shouldn't be used etc. and yet every government project in schools and other governmental bodies is MS-software, MS-funded, etc. It's so farcical. (And, as far as I know, the UK aren't particularly keen to hurt MS *at all* - our EU-membership is, was and always has been more of a "for-show" item than anything else)
The goverment can't make me use an OS / office suite that they want (or if they do, I'll be long gone, don't fear), all they can do is kill MS. And if you think that MS are being forced into an "impossible situation", you have absolutely no idea just how much MS makes, after expenses, from even the smallest of businesses. If it happens that way, as far as I'm concerned, both the government and I are then just two sides benefitting from the same outcome no matter how it arose.
Please, please, hurry it up, governments, if this is the case. My little Linux install CD is desperate to be used until it's worn out. Hell, stick a percent on my tax for this year if you get a move on.
(Oh, BTW: I love the way you manage to turn it into not just a pro-MS thing, but also lob a conspiracy theory in to boot. It's nothing short of genius.)
I know it's "normal practice" to do this sort of thing with IT purchases, but I do love it. It just means that MS, whether they need to or not, are slowly pricing themselves out of the market.
As it is, I don't know of a single person who *buys* Microsoft Office / Windows. It either comes with their (over-priced) PC, they get the "Student/Teacher" edition (I work in schools), or they run in horror at the price for a boxed copy (and I refer them to OpenOffice or other OS). As people tighten their belts, new PC purchases are less and less common, spending limits are coming down (both in business and with consumers), and people are much less willing to buy things that are getting more and more expensive for no clear reason.
In the last six months, I've been told (by Microsoft themselves, no less) that Windows XP is basically unpurchaseable in bulk any more without signing up to annual contracts (not going to happen), that Windows Vista requires upgrades to almost every PC on my networks and provides little benefit at all, that Windows 7 is just the same, that Internet Explorer won't necessarily be included (I'm in the EU) and I'll have a choice to install alternate browsers (which makes my "Firefox on the desktop" policy even easier to justify) and now that Windows 7 is going to be more expensive than necessary. If ever there was a time to push for replacement of the whole damn lot, it's now.
MS has dug themselves an enormous hole. Of course people will end up buying Windows 7, but in my experience home users who have been lumbered with Vista aren't happy about it (and this is non-tech users too) and if they know the same will happen with Windows 7 they will be doing more of what they are already doing - coming to me and asking how to get "XP back".
Please, Microsoft, please... keep it up. Piss off the EU regulator some more. Hike prices, cut features in Windows 7, make it hard to buy what people want. You're doing a great job so far, just continue on the same lines. How about threatening the EU with pulling out or something, that'd be funny and useful to me.
It's a downward spiral when people who WANT to buy a product (say, XP) from you can't, and don't want your "alternative" (Vista / 7) that you suggest to them. If that was a temporary situation, it'd be normal. But Vista came and is now on the verge of going and still people can't buy what they want from you. It's fantastic. You're keeping me in work, and satisfying my own personal agenda too!
The "practice interview" is always my recommendation too. It's surprising even what an inexperienced friend can pick up on. If it's done properly (i.e. you say that from THIS second, we're in interview mode and must act like it for the next 30 minutes) then it's a great help and it stops people being "nervous" about interviews. It's a good time to have someone throw you a curveball question and see how you react... if you clam up, it's not a big deal but in a real interview it would cost you.
And, yes, a surprising number of people fail the basics. I've even worked alongside at least one person (working tech support for large networks) who couldn't answer even the simplest IT question, yet somehow made it through the interview. It led to a year of great quotes like "So, TCP/IP is written in C - so I have to learn C first to understand it", "Can I flash a 10Mbps switch to upgrade it to Gigabit?", etc.
When recession hits people can and SHOULD go for anything. It's a pain for people hiring because they have to sift the crap, which means you have to stand out more, but even a programmer by trade interviewing for a tech support job can be an astounding candidate if they try. Recession might mean you have to lower sights, or work harder to get things, or change areas of expertise, or the scale of your job, but it doesn't mean jobs *don't* exist. Any brief glance at an online jobsite will show you that.
"It lasts, right now, for 1.25 years. Do the math."
Erm... 1.25 years of unemployment on a CV (and I don't know the rules but in most places you ARE allowed to do volunteer work and sometimes a small amount of actual work and still claim). Followed by the following thoughts in a potential employer's head:
"He was on benefits for over a year."
"He didn't do anything else in that time."
"If I employ him, there's nothing to stop him leaving in 3/6/9 months, whatever the cut-off point is, and then going back on full benefits for another year."
"Maybe he's using me to 'refresh' his benefits."
"I'm not going to get the best work out of him, and he's been idle for at least a year, and then he'll probably leave or get himself sacked."
"Why should I employ him?"
Unless you can answer that last question, there's nothing in it for an employer. It's harsh, yes, but true. Especially true as you get older... if you're going to employ a 40-year-old over a 30-year-old, they better have 10 years of experience to draw on! If they can't show that, you might as well employ the 30-year-old (who will want less money) and train him.
Lack of paid experience isn't the issue - I had zero experience in my job at first and walked into several VERY well-respected, high-level jobs with an awful lot of responsibility (wanna take the rap when the network that holds every exam result of every child, and their emergency medical information, etc. goes down? I've been responsible for that since the day I left uni and got my first client of my self-employment and never had a serious issue). Six YEARS of unemployment at ANYTHING is the issue. This is my point - hell, you could VOLUNTEER and still have something more IT-relevant than doing nothing at all. Do tech support for a charity, or recondition old PC's, etc.
Freelance work, volunteering, hell just being able to say that you did SOMETHING other than write games (see my other post) in a back bedroom. Employers will pretty much ignore anything in terms of experience that didn't a) happen under a former employer (not related) or b) happen to make you a ton of money by doing it for a living. Everything else is just showing you *can* work. Go work at a hardware store, ffs (Yes, I've been there, done that too, to make up the slack periods of work - I've also been a website designer, freelance tech support, worked in an office typing up documents while working as IT Manager inside the same week!). He obviously HAD spare time (he wrote an MMORPG), but it's six wasted years in the eyes of an employer (unless, as I stated, he is applying to games companies).
Catch-22 is only relevant if you get reasons for rejection from your potential employers (almost all of them will give one if pressed). Was he refused because he had no experience, because he had no IT experience, because he had no relevant IT experience, or because they saw a 6-year gap on his CV that his explanations couldn't cover? You can't trust *his* opinion alone. It could be because his CV was written in crayon for all we know. My guess is that the gap was the problem, or that his knowledge was percieved as too out-of-date. You can fight that by showing how you learned new things quickly and applied them quickly in an actual *employment* (or, not quite as good but still relevant, volunteer role). I have zero professional certifications, just my degree and earlier qualifications - but I learn damn fast and make sure potential employers know it.
Nobody is *entitled* to a job (in fact, I can name half a dozen people who shouldn't have the jobs they've got!). Hence, when a bad CV comes in the door, it WILL get binned. You can spruce up your CV (either in reality by actually doing things to put on it, by clever wording, or by outright lying - I've *never* lied on a CV), or you can continue to get ignored. The more your CV is ignored, the more it will continue to be ignored in the future if you don't improve it (a bad CV, a bad CV with one year's unemployment, etc.). I've been there too... my last bout of job hunting consisted of 1000 cherry-picked jobs from jobsites, 200 applications (10% on paper) and a handful of interviews - I had a job to fall back on but my job hunting was no easier - in fact, if I hadn't had the job to fall back on, I *would* have had to take the first thing that popped up. Fortunately, I rarely have to job-hunt because my relevant, up-to-date, experience speaks for itself - and the fact that I can provide a dozen references that I've worked for in the past year.
Working in non-IT jobs does NOT make the CV worse, it merely stops it improving. However not working *at all* makes the CV worse. And working in *anything* IT-based keeps the CV at the same level but relevant (helpdesk, tech support, hell - putting an ad in the paper as The PC Man).
I would not *touch* an employee who has a six year gap on their CV without an explanation (actually INSIDE the CV / covering letter). But one who had an explanation ("2003-2009: Travelled across six continents"), no gap because they were volunteering / keeping themselves busy / running a business / who had a line that said "Various other paid employment" for the gap, no problem at all.