Well, it's not the symptoms, even. It's the cause that's identical: repeated impact and constant tension against a smooth surface. Are we going to have seperate disorders for Wii, Playstation, etc.?
Na, it's just the researchers/medical people vying for the media spotlight. It's freaking dumb.
This logic to support the fact that features haven't been added - the beta is simply an older build. Note that most of the 'new features' are simply things like UI tweaks (Win-#) and additions of older features which have been around for decades (FAT/NTFS support for external media) which they likely didn't need to change much, if at all.
Most likely, they added them long ago (or didn't modify them since Vista) and said "let's take this out/revert this to an older version for the beta, then call it a 'new feature' post beta".
Are they really, though? How do you know? Because MS said so?
I wonder why there's no mention of the requests to decrease the amount of RAM the fucking OS requires, eh? You know, the "system is bloated, takes up all available system RAM and chugs along in swap immediately after boot on a new system" bug/feature. And no, I'm not talking about the fact that it's caching - SuperCache or whatever they're calling it.
Oh, I'd say that most of them are probably of some use, such as this one:
34. FAT32 support
Local FAT32 hard disk drives were not support in libraries for Beta. RC libraries will now support non-removable FAT32 and NTFS hard disk drives thanks to the feedback we received.
Though I'd hesitate to call that a "new feature". More like, "re-adding basic functionality that's been around for 20 years that we took out of the beta so people wouldn't be tempted to use it for their daily OS and so we'd have a 'new features' list to present in a couple weeks." I suspect most of the 'new features' are like that.
In other words, expect W7 to be more bloated and slower than the beta, because they added all those essential infrastructures taken out which they'd removed from the beta. Though I imagine the UI might be slightly improved, as well.
This 'feature list' is additional evidence, IMO, towards the theory that the beta was just a build older than their current tree, stripped and specifically limited for beta deployment. A 'trial' version, if you will. I highly doubt there will be any stability or infrastructure improvements from beta's code base before release.
Doesn't it seem a bit... silly? for them to be giving it a new name, though? It's the same observed phenomena, just at a different location.
I remember this happening to me back in the NES days. It was, basically, a blister without the callous, or maybe a blister without the call a callous, with a bruise. I've had similar things happen to me since while working.
Calling this a "medical disorder" is farcical. People in the medical establishment are so fucking excited to discover something that'll potentially get them grant money, and to try to look all scientificy, that they'll give a little "boo boo" a big specialized, scientific name.
Shame on the parent(s) for bringing the kid in, too. Make the kid go outdoors!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ext* have a filesystem level UNIX permissions? I know the 3rd party ext2 driver for Windows does not support them, instead (IIRC) requiring administrative permissions to access ext* filesystems. How would that be "worked around"? Could it be implemented in the driver to simply ignore and hide said permissions from the user?
The same thing that skewers statistics in Linux's favor makes Linux users more socially reticent. Simply put, Apple users are more likely to be seen outside, whereas Linux users are more likely to be on their computer during every waking hour.
To a system level programmer (IE someone messing with hardware, protocols), I can understand a UNIX certification being important. Maybe - maybe - a consultant, if they're just playing cards and catering to the - you guessed it - corporate decision maker. OR maybe they think it'd look good on their resume.
But for anyone who actually has to work with the systems, at a mid-low to high level, as an administrator, UNIX cert means jack shit. It means nothing about the system's configuration, and how easy it is maintain. It says nothing about infuriating quirk "features that act as bugs" that continually make things messy. It says nothing about an intelligent package management system (or lack thereof). Those are as equally important, if not moreso.
Where are they? They're not there. If they're anywhere, they're more in the "services" side of IT.
IT related stuff is mentally difficult stuff. Women as a gender are much more 'balanced' intellectually than males: they have a lot fewer retards, and a lot fewer geniuses. There are also fewer people on the extreme sides of normal (using conventional methods of testing intelligence).
As such, there's simply a smaller pool of conventionally smart women to pull from - and due to the fact that women are, as a general rule, much socially/instinctively smarter than men, they're smart enough to realize that getting into IT is a bad idea.:P
Childbirth makes women stupid. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are approximately 20% less intelligent than before pregnancy. I believe they (can, potentially) eventually recover from it, but it's largely determined on whether they get enough (I think it was) amino and trans-fatty acids in their diet. (Whatever the acids/fats were, it's whatever is found in fish/cod/etc. oils.)
I also believe my wife told me something about how breastfeeding actually results in a more complete, quicker intelligence recovery (again, provided there's sufficient nutrients to rebuild the brain).
I used to know a bright, funny girl who had a kid. She had the kid and put it up for adoption. For whatever reason (quite possibly diet - she didn't eat all that well) she was seemingly permanently dull after that, and not all that lively/funny, either.
I'm not so good at remembering this stuff (or any 'stuff', really, like what it was I was supposed to do before going to bed tonight... hmmm). That's my wife's domain. She's the smart one (no, really). Guess (smart) women can afford to lose a little intelligence.:P
Speaking from the perspective of someone who has in the past had to do frontline support in an office of approximately 50 30-60 year-old women, it has been my experience that they can do very basic things. They just do them wrong. Repeatedly. Even after - repeatedly - being told to not do so. Things like: installing crap screen savers that infest the system with spyware, or so on and so forth. They know how to repeatedly download and install a myriad of the things, but they don't know to listen and use common sense.
Personally, I think it's animosity/hostility/self-righteousness that causes the problem, but I can very easily see how someone might perceive it as stupidity. Maybe it's the age group, or something else, but part of me wonders if it isn't the "women can do anything men can do" mentality that comes into play, resulting in (some) women thinking that they know as well as anything a man tells them - so they just go about their business doing what they want.
I don't know. It doesn't make any sense: why would women tend to be so stupid with computers while at the same time being able to orchestrate some fairly complex business/nursing/accounting/engineering/whatever tasks? I used to know a woman who was a financial wiz with accounts and would always find errors in billing (and what have you) to the company's favor. But this woman was, simply put, dangerous on a computer.
Maybe they think they're supposed - socially expected - to be dipshits when it comes to the operation of a basic machine/appliance? Maybe it has something to do with spatial orientation? Anything you might propose sounds good to me, because frankly I haven't a clue why it happens.
At any rate, I think the above, or something like it, might be why many 'geeks' view women as fundamentally incompetent when it comes to computers.
I'd guess it's somewhat related to the same psychological factors which lead to children who were beaten to beat their own children in many cases. The behavior pattern of subjugation of the weak by the strong has been ingrained. (Also, it's not just women who get beat down in IT; it's anyone who doesn't show mettle.
I don't know if women are exclusively singled out simply because they're expected to fail, or if women in IT are for some reason less able to perform, or if there might be another option such as sexism. My personal experience has been that women in IT are in IT because they blew someone, they threatened to say someone asked them to blow them, or they pretended they might blow someone. Granted, anecdote is not evidence, statistically speaking.)
You never hear about the people who were beaten as children who don't beat their kids, because they're not as visible. That'd likely also be part of that 'beaten child' picture.
So reviewing a book on its merits alone means he's going to be giving it an unfair review, simply because he's not the target audience?
If it's supposed to be a technically oriented book, the review should consider this - even if it's a primer.
That said, the review makes the book itself look like it regards women as less intelligent. Why treat women - the target audience - like complete idiots?
You are right, of course. I hadn't realized the tactic at first, but you are dead on the money. I strongly suspect that their real target isn't TomTom; it's Asus, or one of the other Linux-shipping vendors.
It would be a great service to the world's technology companies if a company like IBM or Apple, or a coalition of companies, came together and proposed an open alternative to FAT. I doubt it'd happen, but something does need to be done: it's just as important as doing something like standardizing on a cell phone charger adapter.
In the face of it, this is ridiculous. It is, no pun intended, patently absurd. Every device I can think of that has been made in the past 15, 20 years that can read or write to CF cards or use USB has had FAT support: cameras, laptops, etc. Every OS supports it, and has for at least 15 years.
Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on how long you can wait to try and enforce a patent? Never mind the fact that this, like most other patents, really shouldn't be valid due to their "no shit" nature.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Balmer mostly ridden coattail to Bill Gates all these years, only recently taking the chair *badda bing* after Gates' retirement several years ago?
It would seem to me that MS has done horribly since Balmer rolled up his sleeves.
The thing is, everything is an evolution of things that came before it. Einstein's breakthrough ideas were revolutionary and innovative, yes; they were also evolutionary - built on the shoulders of those who came before him. Same for Newton, and everyone else.
Like a war, politics or anything else in life, we're usually not able to see how truly revolutionary, or how truly crappy, something is until well after the fact. Do you think the Germans knew what they were getting into, and how much of a $big_deal it would be when they voted Hitler into power? How about Ford, when he industrialized the automotive industry? Or Pasteur, that his discoveries would lead to food which could sit on shelves for years? And so on and so forth.
I'm not saying it's all sunshine and daisies, but there is certainly something innovative in the approach that Google uses for searching, indexing, storage, etc. of data? Do you think anyone 20 years ago could have imagined a dynamic computing cluster of the type which Google has created, and cloud computing in general, being prevailant at this point in time? No - they likely envisioned something else, something more Star Trek-like. But look at the "netbook" and "cell phone" market segment: we're moving in the direction of universally connected "communicators in that department, too. And those communicators will have to retrieve data from somewhere until we're able to create Portable Google.
And how, exactly, would they get support in Windows for those devices?
The only possibility I can think of is ext2, or something like it. Or maybe another FAT implementation which is permission-agnostic. At any rate, it will require people to install the appropriate interface drivers on their system, and currently there isn't anything readily viable.
Yet, they wait to target it against a company which sells a product which ships with Linux as the operating system.
If they would've persued this regardless of which OS ran TomTom, why didn't they? Do all devices which use CF and SD cards license Fat32 from Microsoft? All Linux distributions? How about Apple - surely they license FAT32? Why did they wait to sue TomTom, specifically? Are GPS units a sector of the market where MS wants to make in-roads? Did TomTom turn down a 'discount' from MS to use WinCE? What, exactly, is the motive here?
Nonsense. It wasn't a faulty assumption on my part. It was a gross miscommunication on your part: a "twist bore" inexplicably refers to rifling.
What world do you come from where I'm an idiot because your typo of the contracted form of an archaic 14th century word made sense - albeit factually flawed sense - in the context of the typo?
The disproportionate casualties were largely due to disproportionate fighting forces. The Revolution had very few "fighting men": most were your average man - from ages as young as 10 up through 80. And of those men, very few were military men. Add to these facts the fact that the English had massive armies of German mercenaries, and you've got a situation where you're out-gunned and out-manned.
Faced with these odds, you've got little choice but to shoot the most valuable targets from concealed positions. It was the only option they had, short of being massacred. Keeping this in mind, it was a brilliant strategy: it kept as many men alive from the barrages of the Redcoats as possible, long enough for the British to exhaust themselves.
Hit and run tactics are very effective in the face of a superior force (eg. Afgahnistan and Iraq), provided the demonstrated force of the larger military is not too substantial (eg. US Marines vs. hajji with an AK).
The biggest reason that Rome flourished is that they had a marked division of labor, in tiers. In short, they had a ruling class, a peasant class, and slaves. Romans were very good slavers, and this was a large part of why their economy did as well as it did - not because of advancements in engineering, administration, and construction. Such advances were only made possible by a surplus of cheap labor, allowing the Roman citizens to specialize enough to make those advances. The slavery came a long time before the advances, which gave the middle class a chance to develop.
Doing damage at a mile and hitting a target at a mile are two drastically different things. Remember, these ships were made of wood; wood, particularly when wet, has incredible tensile strength. The rounds would have to be coming in at a high enough velocity to impart impactive damage and not simply "push" on the thick beams used for ship construction.
Also, the Dutch were primarily traders. They were very profitable during this area because their guns did provide an incentive to leave them alone, and because they stayed away from warfare.
Only the cheapest of the cheap ammo has only a steel core. Most is very soft steel clad with lead, which then is either clad or washed with a soft but harder-than-lead metal like copper or brass. Steel is too light to make an effective projectile at today's velocities.
The sole/primary purpose of this clad is to hit an equilibrium between not damaging the barrel and not fouling the barrel - as lead is a very soft metal, and will stick within the grooves and pits of a barrel quite readily.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not the symptoms, even. It's the cause that's identical: repeated impact and constant tension against a smooth surface. Are we going to have seperate disorders for Wii, Playstation, etc.?
Na, it's just the researchers/medical people vying for the media spotlight. It's freaking dumb.
This logic to support the fact that features haven't been added - the beta is simply an older build. Note that most of the 'new features' are simply things like UI tweaks (Win-#) and additions of older features which have been around for decades (FAT/NTFS support for external media) which they likely didn't need to change much, if at all.
Most likely, they added them long ago (or didn't modify them since Vista) and said "let's take this out/revert this to an older version for the beta, then call it a 'new feature' post beta".
Are they really, though? How do you know? Because MS said so?
I wonder why there's no mention of the requests to decrease the amount of RAM the fucking OS requires, eh? You know, the "system is bloated, takes up all available system RAM and chugs along in swap immediately after boot on a new system" bug/feature. And no, I'm not talking about the fact that it's caching - SuperCache or whatever they're calling it.
Oh, I'd say that most of them are probably of some use, such as this one:
34. FAT32 support
Local FAT32 hard disk drives were not support in libraries for Beta. RC libraries will now support non-removable FAT32 and NTFS hard disk drives thanks to the feedback we received.
Though I'd hesitate to call that a "new feature". More like, "re-adding basic functionality that's been around for 20 years that we took out of the beta so people wouldn't be tempted to use it for their daily OS and so we'd have a 'new features' list to present in a couple weeks." I suspect most of the 'new features' are like that.
In other words, expect W7 to be more bloated and slower than the beta, because they added all those essential infrastructures taken out which they'd removed from the beta. Though I imagine the UI might be slightly improved, as well.
This 'feature list' is additional evidence, IMO, towards the theory that the beta was just a build older than their current tree, stripped and specifically limited for beta deployment. A 'trial' version, if you will. I highly doubt there will be any stability or infrastructure improvements from beta's code base before release.
Doesn't it seem a bit... silly? for them to be giving it a new name, though? It's the same observed phenomena, just at a different location.
I remember this happening to me back in the NES days. It was, basically, a blister without the callous, or maybe a blister without the call a callous, with a bruise. I've had similar things happen to me since while working.
Calling this a "medical disorder" is farcical. People in the medical establishment are so fucking excited to discover something that'll potentially get them grant money, and to try to look all scientificy, that they'll give a little "boo boo" a big specialized, scientific name.
Shame on the parent(s) for bringing the kid in, too. Make the kid go outdoors!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ext* have a filesystem level UNIX permissions? I know the 3rd party ext2 driver for Windows does not support them, instead (IIRC) requiring administrative permissions to access ext* filesystems. How would that be "worked around"? Could it be implemented in the driver to simply ignore and hide said permissions from the user?
The same thing that skewers statistics in Linux's favor makes Linux users more socially reticent. Simply put, Apple users are more likely to be seen outside, whereas Linux users are more likely to be on their computer during every waking hour.
Sure, it's funny. But it's also likely true.
To a system level programmer (IE someone messing with hardware, protocols), I can understand a UNIX certification being important. Maybe - maybe - a consultant, if they're just playing cards and catering to the - you guessed it - corporate decision maker. OR maybe they think it'd look good on their resume.
But for anyone who actually has to work with the systems, at a mid-low to high level, as an administrator, UNIX cert means jack shit. It means nothing about the system's configuration, and how easy it is maintain. It says nothing about infuriating quirk "features that act as bugs" that continually make things messy. It says nothing about an intelligent package management system (or lack thereof). Those are as equally important, if not moreso.
MS is supporting Apple. They own a massive proportion of the "competition".
Where are they? They're not there. If they're anywhere, they're more in the "services" side of IT.
IT related stuff is mentally difficult stuff. Women as a gender are much more 'balanced' intellectually than males: they have a lot fewer retards, and a lot fewer geniuses. There are also fewer people on the extreme sides of normal (using conventional methods of testing intelligence).
As such, there's simply a smaller pool of conventionally smart women to pull from - and due to the fact that women are, as a general rule, much socially/instinctively smarter than men, they're smart enough to realize that getting into IT is a bad idea. :P
Childbirth makes women stupid. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are approximately 20% less intelligent than before pregnancy. I believe they (can, potentially) eventually recover from it, but it's largely determined on whether they get enough (I think it was) amino and trans-fatty acids in their diet. (Whatever the acids/fats were, it's whatever is found in fish/cod/etc. oils.)
I also believe my wife told me something about how breastfeeding actually results in a more complete, quicker intelligence recovery (again, provided there's sufficient nutrients to rebuild the brain).
I used to know a bright, funny girl who had a kid. She had the kid and put it up for adoption. For whatever reason (quite possibly diet - she didn't eat all that well) she was seemingly permanently dull after that, and not all that lively/funny, either.
I'm not so good at remembering this stuff (or any 'stuff', really, like what it was I was supposed to do before going to bed tonight... hmmm). That's my wife's domain. She's the smart one (no, really). Guess (smart) women can afford to lose a little intelligence. :P
Speaking from the perspective of someone who has in the past had to do frontline support in an office of approximately 50 30-60 year-old women, it has been my experience that they can do very basic things. They just do them wrong. Repeatedly. Even after - repeatedly - being told to not do so. Things like: installing crap screen savers that infest the system with spyware, or so on and so forth. They know how to repeatedly download and install a myriad of the things, but they don't know to listen and use common sense.
Personally, I think it's animosity/hostility/self-righteousness that causes the problem, but I can very easily see how someone might perceive it as stupidity. Maybe it's the age group, or something else, but part of me wonders if it isn't the "women can do anything men can do" mentality that comes into play, resulting in (some) women thinking that they know as well as anything a man tells them - so they just go about their business doing what they want.
I don't know. It doesn't make any sense: why would women tend to be so stupid with computers while at the same time being able to orchestrate some fairly complex business/nursing/accounting/engineering/whatever tasks? I used to know a woman who was a financial wiz with accounts and would always find errors in billing (and what have you) to the company's favor. But this woman was, simply put, dangerous on a computer.
Maybe they think they're supposed - socially expected - to be dipshits when it comes to the operation of a basic machine/appliance? Maybe it has something to do with spatial orientation? Anything you might propose sounds good to me, because frankly I haven't a clue why it happens.
At any rate, I think the above, or something like it, might be why many 'geeks' view women as fundamentally incompetent when it comes to computers.
I'd guess it's somewhat related to the same psychological factors which lead to children who were beaten to beat their own children in many cases. The behavior pattern of subjugation of the weak by the strong has been ingrained. (Also, it's not just women who get beat down in IT; it's anyone who doesn't show mettle.
I don't know if women are exclusively singled out simply because they're expected to fail, or if women in IT are for some reason less able to perform, or if there might be another option such as sexism. My personal experience has been that women in IT are in IT because they blew someone, they threatened to say someone asked them to blow them, or they pretended they might blow someone. Granted, anecdote is not evidence, statistically speaking.)
You never hear about the people who were beaten as children who don't beat their kids, because they're not as visible. That'd likely also be part of that 'beaten child' picture.
So reviewing a book on its merits alone means he's going to be giving it an unfair review, simply because he's not the target audience?
If it's supposed to be a technically oriented book, the review should consider this - even if it's a primer.
That said, the review makes the book itself look like it regards women as less intelligent. Why treat women - the target audience - like complete idiots?
You are right, of course. I hadn't realized the tactic at first, but you are dead on the money. I strongly suspect that their real target isn't TomTom; it's Asus, or one of the other Linux-shipping vendors.
It would be a great service to the world's technology companies if a company like IBM or Apple, or a coalition of companies, came together and proposed an open alternative to FAT. I doubt it'd happen, but something does need to be done: it's just as important as doing something like standardizing on a cell phone charger adapter.
In the face of it, this is ridiculous. It is, no pun intended, patently absurd. Every device I can think of that has been made in the past 15, 20 years that can read or write to CF cards or use USB has had FAT support: cameras, laptops, etc. Every OS supports it, and has for at least 15 years.
Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on how long you can wait to try and enforce a patent? Never mind the fact that this, like most other patents, really shouldn't be valid due to their "no shit" nature.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Balmer mostly ridden coattail to Bill Gates all these years, only recently taking the chair *badda bing* after Gates' retirement several years ago?
It would seem to me that MS has done horribly since Balmer rolled up his sleeves.
The thing is, everything is an evolution of things that came before it. Einstein's breakthrough ideas were revolutionary and innovative, yes; they were also evolutionary - built on the shoulders of those who came before him. Same for Newton, and everyone else.
Like a war, politics or anything else in life, we're usually not able to see how truly revolutionary, or how truly crappy, something is until well after the fact. Do you think the Germans knew what they were getting into, and how much of a $big_deal it would be when they voted Hitler into power? How about Ford, when he industrialized the automotive industry? Or Pasteur, that his discoveries would lead to food which could sit on shelves for years? And so on and so forth.
I'm not saying it's all sunshine and daisies, but there is certainly something innovative in the approach that Google uses for searching, indexing, storage, etc. of data? Do you think anyone 20 years ago could have imagined a dynamic computing cluster of the type which Google has created, and cloud computing in general, being prevailant at this point in time? No - they likely envisioned something else, something more Star Trek-like. But look at the "netbook" and "cell phone" market segment: we're moving in the direction of universally connected "communicators in that department, too. And those communicators will have to retrieve data from somewhere until we're able to create Portable Google.
Yeah, but do you really want to play that game with Apple and Linux? Microsoft, I could understand, but it doesn't apply to any of their stuff.
And how, exactly, would they get support in Windows for those devices?
The only possibility I can think of is ext2, or something like it. Or maybe another FAT implementation which is permission-agnostic. At any rate, it will require people to install the appropriate interface drivers on their system, and currently there isn't anything readily viable.
Yet, they wait to target it against a company which sells a product which ships with Linux as the operating system.
If they would've persued this regardless of which OS ran TomTom, why didn't they? Do all devices which use CF and SD cards license Fat32 from Microsoft? All Linux distributions? How about Apple - surely they license FAT32? Why did they wait to sue TomTom, specifically? Are GPS units a sector of the market where MS wants to make in-roads? Did TomTom turn down a 'discount' from MS to use WinCE? What, exactly, is the motive here?
Nonsense. It wasn't a faulty assumption on my part. It was a gross miscommunication on your part: a "twist bore" inexplicably refers to rifling.
What world do you come from where I'm an idiot because your typo of the contracted form of an archaic 14th century word made sense - albeit factually flawed sense - in the context of the typo?
The disproportionate casualties were largely due to disproportionate fighting forces. The Revolution had very few "fighting men": most were your average man - from ages as young as 10 up through 80. And of those men, very few were military men. Add to these facts the fact that the English had massive armies of German mercenaries, and you've got a situation where you're out-gunned and out-manned.
Faced with these odds, you've got little choice but to shoot the most valuable targets from concealed positions. It was the only option they had, short of being massacred. Keeping this in mind, it was a brilliant strategy: it kept as many men alive from the barrages of the Redcoats as possible, long enough for the British to exhaust themselves.
Hit and run tactics are very effective in the face of a superior force (eg. Afgahnistan and Iraq), provided the demonstrated force of the larger military is not too substantial (eg. US Marines vs. hajji with an AK).
The biggest reason that Rome flourished is that they had a marked division of labor, in tiers. In short, they had a ruling class, a peasant class, and slaves. Romans were very good slavers, and this was a large part of why their economy did as well as it did - not because of advancements in engineering, administration, and construction. Such advances were only made possible by a surplus of cheap labor, allowing the Roman citizens to specialize enough to make those advances. The slavery came a long time before the advances, which gave the middle class a chance to develop.
Doing damage at a mile and hitting a target at a mile are two drastically different things. Remember, these ships were made of wood; wood, particularly when wet, has incredible tensile strength. The rounds would have to be coming in at a high enough velocity to impart impactive damage and not simply "push" on the thick beams used for ship construction.
Also, the Dutch were primarily traders. They were very profitable during this area because their guns did provide an incentive to leave them alone, and because they stayed away from warfare.
Steel cores contribute to premature barrel wear.
Only the cheapest of the cheap ammo has only a steel core. Most is very soft steel clad with lead, which then is either clad or washed with a soft but harder-than-lead metal like copper or brass. Steel is too light to make an effective projectile at today's velocities.
The sole/primary purpose of this clad is to hit an equilibrium between not damaging the barrel and not fouling the barrel - as lead is a very soft metal, and will stick within the grooves and pits of a barrel quite readily.