How is that a troll? I don't want proprietary formats, and I just don't see the logic in creating new ones when ODF pretty much has word processing covered. If I were OK with proprietary formats, I'd chose the one that 95% of the population uses, not one that will only let me interact with a small subset of users of a still relatively little-used OS. I have a Mac and I wouldn't hesitate to buy iWork if it didn't mean being locked in yet again.
I'd gladly buy it if it supported ODF. But if I'm going with something other than MS Office, it's at least going to use open standards that the rest of the world is migrating to. Seriously, the iWorks formats have all the lock-in of Office but none of the ubiquity. What's the point in that?
What difference does it make that your 13 year old PC plays mp3s over the network? It's not like MS is 13 years behind, it's a BUG.
13 years is almost 9 Moore generations ago. Wikipedia seems to think that a new Core 2 Extreme can run about 250 times faster than his CPU. What kind of bug could possibly account for over two orders of magnitude slowdown in the new system, and what lack of engineering oversight allowed it to happen?
If he'd said that XP on his P4 was faster for certain activities, OK, I could chalk that up to fine tuning issues and a bit of optimization. This isn't anywhere near that simple.
When audio skips you are FUCKED. When network traffic stalls, TCP - and in fact UDP and most other protocols layered in some fashion over Ethernet or ATM - is actually designed to handle it by retransmission.
Yeah, I bet FPS players love having to choose between hearing sound or losing every game because their latency is through the roof. For all the talk about how great Windows is for gaming, it looks like ME2, oops, Vista just isn't up to the task.
"Please note that some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not. In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design."
In other words they see a bug especially on gigabit connections.
Yes. The bug is that the audio system has any correlation whatsoever, however minor and imperceptible, with the frickin' network stack, and even moreso that this is expected.
It's not expected behavior. I don't care how much they jump up and down and cry that most people won't notice, this is bullshit.
Me: Every time I get in my car, a hammer pops out and hits me in the jaw, painfully.
GM: That's a bug. It shouldn't hurt so much.
Rational observer: WTF?
There's no lost context or missing information. The facts are that MS is OK with the idea that an MP3 reduces your network throughput. There's really nothing else to say in the matter. That one admitted fact alone is enough to declare it defective by design.
Explain to me how the offending comic counts as "dynamic content" [...] It uses a static JPG, at a static path, linked by a static (except for ads) page
Asked and answered.
Honestly, I didn't know anyone still got worked up about cookies. I'm paranoid to the point that I wrote some GPLed anonymous remailer client software because I didn't trust the closed source alternatives, but even I don't bother disabling cookies anymore.
As a web developer, I have little sympathy for people who break site navigation and then complain that they can't navigate. There's no sin in using a session cookie to provide dynamic content.
Having said that, my browser supports cookies (Opera on a DS both with and without a cookie management proxy, HoTTProxy) and I still get that message. I'm not very sympathetic to that brokenness, either.
people who write flawless code can easily prove their innocence by answering a couple of questions about the implementation on the spot.
I think there was a bit of that, too: (pointing at me) "why did you do this?" "Because of this requirement in the last paragraph." (Pointing at friend) "and why didn't you use this approach?" "That wouldn 't have worked because of this part here."
How did you know they were cheating and didn't derive their similar approaches from a common origin (presumably material that was presented in class or else from the textbook)?
Amen to that. This is an old story, but I think it bears repeating. A friend of mine and I got "caught" turning in identical code for an assignment. I mean, identical. Same structures, variables, types, layout - everything. However, we wrote our programs separately and never saw each others' until our teacher asked about it.
It sounds improbable, but consider that:
We both directly transcribed variable names from the homework assignment. A sentence like "it is a fatal error condition for the user to specify a negative number of tasks" became "assert(numtasks >= 0);".
We used the same editor and the same indenting style.
We had done much of our homework together in previous classes because we tended to take the same approach to solving problems.
The assignment wasn't terribly complex to begin with, so the resulting code was only a few pages long.
We had a teacher who trusted us and we were both good students with good test grades, so it was dismissed as a humorous coincidence. I'm glad a human was willing to listen to our explanation and not just go along with the findings of an automated tester.
I see. Yes, that should definitely be thrown out, as I know that in 1995 I personally wrote that functionality into a hotel management system (to complete guests' names as you typed them), and I certainly didn't invent it myself.
No-one is forcing them to create an open standard that will allow other software to interact with MS Office documents, but they are.
Seriously? That would be sweet! Because all we've had so far is this non-specified confusingly named OOXML junk that isn't a standard and isn't open. It'd be great if they abandon that for the one you seem to know about.
Is ODF really much better as a "standard" on which to build a world or are we really just sticking it to Microsoft here?
OK, this ventures into troll territory, but I really mean it. ODF:OOXML::evolution:creationism. ODF and evolution are both working standards that can be argued and refined. OOXML and creationism are both nebulous descriptions of how things might be that leave out all the information necessary to properly discuss them.
If you believe that evolution is a theory while creationism is a conjecture, then you must also believe that ODF is a standard while OOXML is an internal code document for approximately the same reasons.
So, instead of doing a little research, or asking at forums.gentoo.org, you just state it doesn't?
however, my cable connection at home just reset while I was looking up the command lines, so I'm out of luck.
Pot, meet kettle.
However, in the process, don't put yourself out or anything... It's OK to make yourself look like a total tool, talking about things when you have no clue...
Were I in a flaming mood, this is where I'd dismiss you as a hypocrite and walk away.
Depends whether that particular grammatical rule makes sense and is consistent.
It makes sense. "It's" is a contraction for "it is", like "he's" for "he is" and "she's" for "she is". "Its" is an possessive pronoun, like "his". You wouldn't apostrophize "hi's", and you don't apostrophize "it's".
Because you don't like the way Gentoo works (when it has the same facilities, minus the GUI) isn't a good reason to go around implying/saying it doesn't support the feature at all.
But as far as I know, it doesn't. Can you ask it for a list of all USE flags that will get involved in recursive compilation before you start, or get it to prompt you as you go? Because from what I saw, if you didn't know that mpg123 was going to get installed as a deep dependency, you'd never know that you needed to configure for it before you started. FreeBSD won't prompt you up-front, either, but at least it can ask you at each new step in the process.
Don't want X at all? USE="-X" in/etc/make.conf. Don't want perl to install mpg123? Set the package up in/etc/portage/package.use.
...as opposed to FreeBSD that pops up a curses-based GUI for each new package that it installs that has compile-time options, and that automatically remembers your choices.
I'm aware of package.use but I still don't like having to manually manage it.
Is it really impossible to autodetect the CPUTYPE?
Yes, because the machine doesn't know that it isn't a build server that should be pushing generic x86 packages to every server on your network and therefore shouldn't optimze for quad-core Opterons.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that a troll? I don't want proprietary formats, and I just don't see the logic in creating new ones when ODF pretty much has word processing covered. If I were OK with proprietary formats, I'd chose the one that 95% of the population uses, not one that will only let me interact with a small subset of users of a still relatively little-used OS. I have a Mac and I wouldn't hesitate to buy iWork if it didn't mean being locked in yet again.
I'd gladly buy it if it supported ODF. But if I'm going with something other than MS Office, it's at least going to use open standards that the rest of the world is migrating to. Seriously, the iWorks formats have all the lock-in of Office but none of the ubiquity. What's the point in that?
As far as I know, but I'm hardly the first to make the comparison.
13 years is almost 9 Moore generations ago. Wikipedia seems to think that a new Core 2 Extreme can run about 250 times faster than his CPU. What kind of bug could possibly account for over two orders of magnitude slowdown in the new system, and what lack of engineering oversight allowed it to happen?
If he'd said that XP on his P4 was faster for certain activities, OK, I could chalk that up to fine tuning issues and a bit of optimization. This isn't anywhere near that simple.
Yeah, I bet FPS players love having to choose between hearing sound or losing every game because their latency is through the roof. For all the talk about how great Windows is for gaming, it looks like ME2, oops, Vista just isn't up to the task.
Absolute bullshit.Indeed.
"Please note that some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not. In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design."
In other words they see a bug especially on gigabit connections.
Yes. The bug is that the audio system has any correlation whatsoever, however minor and imperceptible, with the frickin' network stack, and even moreso that this is expected.
It's not expected behavior. I don't care how much they jump up and down and cry that most people won't notice, this is bullshit.
Me: Every time I get in my car, a hammer pops out and hits me in the jaw, painfully.
GM: That's a bug. It shouldn't hurt so much.
Rational observer: WTF?
There's no lost context or missing information. The facts are that MS is OK with the idea that an MP3 reduces your network throughput. There's really nothing else to say in the matter. That one admitted fact alone is enough to declare it defective by design.
No, because it was dumb. Come back with something that's at least as clever as it is "shocking" (bah!) and we'll talk.
Asked and answered.
Honestly, I didn't know anyone still got worked up about cookies. I'm paranoid to the point that I wrote some GPLed anonymous remailer client software because I didn't trust the closed source alternatives, but even I don't bother disabling cookies anymore.
As a web developer, I have little sympathy for people who break site navigation and then complain that they can't navigate. There's no sin in using a session cookie to provide dynamic content.
Having said that, my browser supports cookies (Opera on a DS both with and without a cookie management proxy, HoTTProxy) and I still get that message. I'm not very sympathetic to that brokenness, either.
Of course! ;-)
people who write flawless code can easily prove their innocence by answering a couple of questions about the implementation on the spot.I think there was a bit of that, too: (pointing at me) "why did you do this?" "Because of this requirement in the last paragraph." (Pointing at friend) "and why didn't you use this approach?" "That wouldn 't have worked because of this part here."
Amen to that. This is an old story, but I think it bears repeating. A friend of mine and I got "caught" turning in identical code for an assignment. I mean, identical. Same structures, variables, types, layout - everything. However, we wrote our programs separately and never saw each others' until our teacher asked about it.
It sounds improbable, but consider that:
We had a teacher who trusted us and we were both good students with good test grades, so it was dismissed as a humorous coincidence. I'm glad a human was willing to listen to our explanation and not just go along with the findings of an automated tester.
I see. Yes, that should definitely be thrown out, as I know that in 1995 I personally wrote that functionality into a hotel management system (to complete guests' names as you typed them), and I certainly didn't invent it myself.
See? Told you I was venturing close to troll territory. Sigh.
Seriously? That would be sweet! Because all we've had so far is this non-specified confusingly named OOXML junk that isn't a standard and isn't open. It'd be great if they abandon that for the one you seem to know about.
In what way would this differ from a spellchecker, said technology being available since at least the 1970s?
Oh, I didn't mean you! I meant what I was getting ready to say. A big "I agree" to the rest of your comment.
OK, this ventures into troll territory, but I really mean it. ODF:OOXML::evolution:creationism. ODF and evolution are both working standards that can be argued and refined. OOXML and creationism are both nebulous descriptions of how things might be that leave out all the information necessary to properly discuss them.
If you believe that evolution is a theory while creationism is a conjecture, then you must also believe that ODF is a standard while OOXML is an internal code document for approximately the same reasons.
"Normal" meaning "of the norm", or the most common case.
The common case is for those holes not to exist, hence the hole is not normal.
Feel free!
I started to write "objective", realized I was wrong, and replaced it with "possessive".
At any rate, my grammar aren't the most best, so cut me some slack. :-)
So, instead of doing a little research, or asking at forums.gentoo.org, you just state it doesn't?
however, my cable connection at home just reset while I was looking up the command lines, so I'm out of luck.
Pot, meet kettle.
However, in the process, don't put yourself out or anything... It's OK to make yourself look like a total tool, talking about things when you have no clue...Were I in a flaming mood, this is where I'd dismiss you as a hypocrite and walk away.
It makes sense. "It's" is a contraction for "it is", like "he's" for "he is" and "she's" for "she is". "Its" is an possessive pronoun, like "his". You wouldn't apostrophize "hi's", and you don't apostrophize "it's".
But as far as I know, it doesn't. Can you ask it for a list of all USE flags that will get involved in recursive compilation before you start, or get it to prompt you as you go? Because from what I saw, if you didn't know that mpg123 was going to get installed as a deep dependency, you'd never know that you needed to configure for it before you started. FreeBSD won't prompt you up-front, either, but at least it can ask you at each new step in the process.
...as opposed to FreeBSD that pops up a curses-based GUI for each new package that it installs that has compile-time options, and that automatically remembers your choices.
I'm aware of package.use but I still don't like having to manually manage it.
Yes, because the machine doesn't know that it isn't a build server that should be pushing generic x86 packages to every server on your network and therefore shouldn't optimze for quad-core Opterons.