Unless FW1600 is out yet, SATA is faster. Firewire is 400, 800 and 1600Mb/s (afaik). SATA is 150MB/s, with 300MB/s due out mid-2004, and 600MB/s in 2007.
it doesn't have the upper limit of devices that SATA does
SATA is a port, not a bus. You get one device per port, period. No more master/slave bullshit.
Full time jobs cut into your ability to create good art
And your ability to sit around smoking.. whatever while the royalties roll in, no doubt. Assuming anyone actually likes your particular brand of 'art' that is.
Tell me, as an artist, why can't you play gigs as your job? That at least is a real job. Then you can sell official merchandise to fans, and if the masses want pirate copies for free, so be it.
The rest of us don't get to record what we do and sell/license it out to millions of employers, so it's hardly suprising a lot of people don't have the same respect for copyright as they do for a physical object made by someone with a real job.
Only NT has the true BSOD, and I count exactly zero BSODs when ejecting/fixing bad media. The blue screen Win9x pops up from time to time (like when you forcefully eject media Windows is writing to) isn't a BSOD. It is a BS (by default, but you can change it), but not OD.
I believe ATA is a port not a bus, hence the master/slave bullshit. I guess it was cheaper to fudge two drives onto one controller than to put two controllers in every PC.
Yeah, that one that's "really close" is the base 2 computer usage. 1024 is kinda close to 1000, so they called it a kilo-byte. Eventually, enough of those "kinda close" KBs add up to enough to bite you in the arse - there's millions of the little bastards on an average HDD.
The standard units are the SI prefixes, and they're base 10, no exceptions. Common computer use is simply wrong, but there are too many stubborn people to admit it and use something else. Of course it doesn't help that that "something else" (kibi- mebi- and the rest) looks and sounds kinda silly. Geeks are even less likely to use those terms in polite company as they are to start crapping on about Ogg Vorbis.
He implies no such thing. He said your machine knows where they are even if you can't see them. ie. your machine knows more than it's telling you, therefore you can cheat by accessing this data.
What is implied from this is that the server should deny or delay to the client any data it doesn't absolutely need. There are many problems with this of course, but they can be dealt with..
If they're just surfing the net, then Linux is probably ideal. Maybe even use a CD based distro.
If they must run Windows, what you have to do depends on how they're fucking it up. If they're deliberately doing dumb shit, like opening attachments they shouldn't, you'll have to educate them. If they're getting tricked by shifty web sites, you can just set IE's default security zone to High (and manually tweak it for good measure), or use Mozilla and tweak it's config file (there's a lot more options you can tweak by hand than you can see in the Config dialog).
Failing that, you'll have to see an admin of a large Windows site, and find out about Group Policy. Or Google it. It's been years since I've messed with that stuff, but I think you can lock it down so far as to only allow EXEs you specify to be run. That of course means you'll have to log on remotely or make a house call every time they want to do something new.
And make sure they're not running as an admin (if it's not an NT based Windows, get one, even if it's NT4).
PCs suffer from internal maintenance overheads though - past a point, you're better off replacing all the machines in a given area with new ones, rather than a) deal with dozens of weird and wonderful configurations, b) have to make small (and therefore more expensive) orders of new units to replace old out-of-warranty units as they fail.
DX never worked properly for me with HL (decals were smudged). Not suprising, since it's based on the Quake engines from id, and id don't do DX at all (last I checked anyway).
Microsoft's OS prior to Windows was DOS. Only with DOS6 did it get a barely decent memory manager, disk compression and defragging tools. Before that, you needed QEMM and Norton Utilities to get shit done. And you didn't get a TCP/IP stack at all (*shudder* @ Trumpet Winsock).
So how do you explain to the court that Microsoft should be allowed to "include" memory management in it's new Windows OS? Should MS really have to explain to courts that it's an inherent property of virtual memory systems, and how that differs from "integrating" other kinds of functionality previously provided by 3rd parties?
There is a difference between "market correction" and outright sabotage. IMO, blocking Microsoft from a) advancing their product and b) doing what all it's competitors are doing is going too far.
OTOH, there's no reason a monopolist that's rolling in cash should be subject to pricing/contract regulations instead - if they want to add more stuff, then they'll have to do it for free, AND be prevented from charging for it at a later date (after the competition drown).
And I notice they have/had $40bil just sitting around.. that'll fund some upstart competition nicely.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to the cop? He shoulda been tossed in gaol (jail) himself.
*shudder*
Well, I dev on Windows (coz working in X shits me to tears) and deploy on Linux, so anything that doesn't do both seamlessly gets the red card.
England. Aparently, the headline in The Mirror was "Darking Meters" :)
Necessity, invention, and all that.
Did someone patent paragraphs?
SATA is a port, not a bus. You get one device per port, period. No more master/slave bullshit.
They could use the same mechanism that stops people getting crushed in automatic doors - stop when a certain amount of external force is applied.
And/or stick an override button on the steering wheel somewhere.
Tell me, as an artist, why can't you play gigs as your job? That at least is a real job. Then you can sell official merchandise to fans, and if the masses want pirate copies for free, so be it.
The rest of us don't get to record what we do and sell/license it out to millions of employers, so it's hardly suprising a lot of people don't have the same respect for copyright as they do for a physical object made by someone with a real job.
Only NT has the true BSOD, and I count exactly zero BSODs when ejecting/fixing bad media. The blue screen Win9x pops up from time to time (like when you forcefully eject media Windows is writing to) isn't a BSOD. It is a BS (by default, but you can change it), but not OD.
Clear as mud?
Heh, the Collins fire Gould torpedos :)
I believe ATA is a port not a bus, hence the master/slave bullshit. I guess it was cheaper to fudge two drives onto one controller than to put two controllers in every PC.
Will the generators come under attack from rebel Mac users and the motherboard's native dust bunnies?
Yeah, that one that's "really close" is the base 2 computer usage. 1024 is kinda close to 1000, so they called it a kilo-byte. Eventually, enough of those "kinda close" KBs add up to enough to bite you in the arse - there's millions of the little bastards on an average HDD.
The standard units are the SI prefixes, and they're base 10, no exceptions. Common computer use is simply wrong, but there are too many stubborn people to admit it and use something else. Of course it doesn't help that that "something else" (kibi- mebi- and the rest) looks and sounds kinda silly. Geeks are even less likely to use those terms in polite company as they are to start crapping on about Ogg Vorbis.
He implies no such thing. He said your machine knows where they are even if you can't see them. ie. your machine knows more than it's telling you, therefore you can cheat by accessing this data.
What is implied from this is that the server should deny or delay to the client any data it doesn't absolutely need. There are many problems with this of course, but they can be dealt with..
If they're just surfing the net, then Linux is probably ideal. Maybe even use a CD based distro.
If they must run Windows, what you have to do depends on how they're fucking it up. If they're deliberately doing dumb shit, like opening attachments they shouldn't, you'll have to educate them. If they're getting tricked by shifty web sites, you can just set IE's default security zone to High (and manually tweak it for good measure), or use Mozilla and tweak it's config file (there's a lot more options you can tweak by hand than you can see in the Config dialog).
Failing that, you'll have to see an admin of a large Windows site, and find out about Group Policy. Or Google it. It's been years since I've messed with that stuff, but I think you can lock it down so far as to only allow EXEs you specify to be run. That of course means you'll have to log on remotely or make a house call every time they want to do something new.
And make sure they're not running as an admin (if it's not an NT based Windows, get one, even if it's NT4).
Four bytes @ 7 bits is enough to store the state of 28 humans: dead(0) or alive(1).
PCs suffer from internal maintenance overheads though - past a point, you're better off replacing all the machines in a given area with new ones, rather than a) deal with dozens of weird and wonderful configurations, b) have to make small (and therefore more expensive) orders of new units to replace old out-of-warranty units as they fail.
DX never worked properly for me with HL (decals were smudged). Not suprising, since it's based on the Quake engines from id, and id don't do DX at all (last I checked anyway).
argh, "no reason a monopolist that's rolling in cash shouldn't be subject to"
You can go even further than AV and GUI shells.
Microsoft's OS prior to Windows was DOS. Only with DOS6 did it get a barely decent memory manager, disk compression and defragging tools. Before that, you needed QEMM and Norton Utilities to get shit done. And you didn't get a TCP/IP stack at all (*shudder* @ Trumpet Winsock).
So how do you explain to the court that Microsoft should be allowed to "include" memory management in it's new Windows OS? Should MS really have to explain to courts that it's an inherent property of virtual memory systems, and how that differs from "integrating" other kinds of functionality previously provided by 3rd parties?
There is a difference between "market correction" and outright sabotage. IMO, blocking Microsoft from a) advancing their product and b) doing what all it's competitors are doing is going too far.
OTOH, there's no reason a monopolist that's rolling in cash should be subject to pricing/contract regulations instead - if they want to add more stuff, then they'll have to do it for free, AND be prevented from charging for it at a later date (after the competition drown).
And I notice they have/had $40bil just sitting around.. that'll fund some upstart competition nicely.
They'd be De Beernuts, no?
So's the moon, but that doesn't stop nutjobs selling off bits of it..