Windows needs to deal with a broader array of components than MacOS does. Plain and simple. With MacOS, it's relatively easy to "dial in" power management because they don't have to make allowances for a vast breadth of component differentiation.
Windows doesn't have that luxury. So they have to deal with less than optimal settings for certain subsystems, causing them to eat/bleed more power. This also takes into account the fact that portions of the OS were never designed with optimal power management in mind. Something that will take time to make it's way through and be rewritten for.
On top of that, some optimizations for power management in Windows could result in system performance loss. MacOS has had it's UI "tweaked" in ways that disguise crappy/slow performance. Windows, really, hasn't. So there are areas where such loss of performance would be QUITE noticeable.
So trying to compare a dialed in niche OS on a dialed in niche platform with an OS that runs the other 90+% of everything out there (and is expected to run pretty much any component you give it) is a bit disingenuous. Don't you think?
Re:Anti-science? See, now you have proof!
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No. Actually it isn't. Because homeopathy can't even replicate their own results in controlled environments.
It SHOULD, however, be a wakeup call to scientists all over that their chosen fields are more caught up in the "publish or perish" mentality than they should be.
Between this, and others willing to take these unreplicated (and possibly unreproducible) studies as "Holy Writ", what people think of as science IS becoming as sloppy as religion. Which makes it harder for the people who actually DO the grunt work and the follow-up to receive their just due.
The first one was a sweet one Second one was a blast Soon I finished off the bag, ate 'em up real fast You can see 'em in my teeth Tell it when I talk Had so many my pancreas just went into shock
I love the white stuff, baby In the middle of an Oreo I love the white stuff, baby It's the most delicious thing I know
I've had a zillion or two In my life, they're so right My teeth are all rotted clear through But who cares? What else am I supposed to do?
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, the white stuff Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo What's in the middle? The white stuff
The first time that I tried it Got a big sugar buzz Nothing gets me high as that sandwhich cookie does But I love the filling most I rub it on my roast Mix it in with my coffee and spread it on my toast
I love the white stuff, baby In the middle of an Oreo I love the white stuff, baby Take some with me everywhere I go
Might get a pimple or two Well, so what? It's all right Now Twinkies and Ding Dongs won't do All I need... You know what it is
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, the white stuff Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, the white stuff Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo What's in the middle? The white stuff
Not talking about a hunting cabin in BFE Alaska. Talking about states like Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Maine, etc. Many of these states simply don't see the amount of sunlight necessary, and/or suffer inclement conditions that reduce the usefulness of solar.
"If energy was free"
And if we all rode unicorns....
Sorry, but this is a stupid, bullshit pipe dream. The materials used to manufacture panels are a nonrenewable resource. And it costs to acquire them and manufacture (not to mention install) the panels. "Free power" is a myth.
And when I asked about the environmental impact of all those panels?
"Less than coal plants outputting the same power."
You suppose right? Call me when you have real data, not pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams.
So when some poor nutjob calls their shrink and then offs themselves LIVE ON VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET, it'll take even LESS time for it to hit the sharing sites!
Maybe, in the southern states of the union, this MIGHT be a plan. But only if SOMEONE builds in the appropriate power storage infrastructure (which currently doesn't exist). Otherwise you have no power in the evenings.
In northern climates, care and maintenance of panels would eat up massive quantities of time, and the weather can be severe enough to destroy panels. Additionally, there are going to large swaths of time, due to ambient conditions, where the panels generate NO power whatsoever. Even during the day.
Sorry, but "ubiquitous solar" is a pipe dream. And most solar advocates know better than to try and suggest it.
Then there's the environmental impact of building all those panels...
No. Because science is a composite of a number of theories. And as much as you'd like to believe that it's a monolithic whole, it isn't. Look at physics. Lots of different theories about what all the data means. Some general (but not universal) consensus, and a big chunk of the field wide open to interpretation and better models. Climate science is just the same.
If you want to harangue people that they're in danger you can:
Stand on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH!", as people have since time immemorial (like a clock, someone will eventually be right on this).
Or you can take a rational, social approach. You HAVE to convince people. Because there's lots of data out there. And lots of opinions on what it means.
You have to convince people YOU are "right" and that others clamoring for their attention (and money) are wrong. Regardless of your humanitarian interest, you HAVE to "sell" it to people.
Again, treating your target audience as a rabid mob of idiots is a poor way to go about this.
And you have to accept that, even if you have a silver tongue, and an iron-clad case, some people are still not going to buy in. No matter what you say and how persuasive you are. It doesn't make them "stupid" or obstinate or any such thing. Such trust issues come up in every venue.
Promising people Heaven is one thing. But if you're an asshole about it, a certain amount of the population would turn around and walk straight into Hell, smiling spitefully the entire time. Your "message" gets lost due to other factors.
No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".
You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.
Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2". As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.
Uh. The kid is like...FOUR! Not saying they're too stupid to use a phone or too irresponsible to keep/maintain one. But they're four years old. Try to remember back to the time when YOU were four. Remember how adult and responsible and totally "with it" you were? Kinda tough eh?
If you want to keep in touch with your rugrat, talk with his care provider and look at possibly setting up a computer with Skype or something. But a phone at that age is just way too much, way too soon.
Sorry, but you've NEVER actually done a CRM/ERP migration have you?
Yeah. You're right. You can drop field data that doesn't schema-match into the notes fields. However, a lot of that stuff isn't going to make sense to future users because there's no longer any context for it. In which case, you may as well be dumping in random characters. Also, not every setup supports raw copy/dumps in a forward-compatible manner. Sure, the data may appear on the server. But in some cases, it won't sync because it wasn't brought in properly with the API. Meaning that if you're running a sync-user setup for remote salesguys, they don't ever see that data.
This is CRM Migration 101. While a CRM may sit atop SQL, simply treating it as "yet another bunch of SQL data" is missing the point.
Anyone who willingly opts into this is a friggin moron.
I can understand some cases where having a Facebook account or a Paypal account is a necessary evil (mostly emphasis on "evil"). But both of these services display an almost nonexistent regard for their user bases, with Paypal going so far as to actually steal money from its users (locking out accounts with cash in them for months on end and continuing to profit from the interest, fraudulently attempting to hoover out users' bank accounts, etc).
But hey, if you want these two to potentially ruin your life by bankrupting you and reporting about it online, go ahead! I'll just sit back and laugh at you derisively.
Sorry. I live in an area where several municipalities use ticket writing as a massive revenue stream.
And before someone starts yakking out their ass about how tickets don't generate a lot of money, explain to me why the state of Illinois took several of these municipalities to court over issuance of municipal citations rather than state citations, arguing that it deprived the state of revenue.
In these areas, we have cops writing tickets for frivolous things at the drop of a hat. Again, not by catching a speeder. But having two (or even three!) cop cars sitting at an intersection with 4-6 cops cycling out for ticket writing on seatbelt checks and the like.
So yeah, there's a certain amount of dislike for such pedantic tactics. Zero tolerance always SOUNDS nice in a "We're really doing something" kind of way. Until you're the poor shit who gets caught out on zero tolerance based on some bizarre technicality.
As an end-user, paying for service from a carrier/ISP/etc, *I* initiate the traffic request. This is what *I* am paying them for. Fulfilling that request. If I don't make the request, they carry nothing. If I make a request and they DON'T fulfill it, because they've been trying to squeeze the site purveyor for "a little something to wet their beak", then I stop giving them my money and go to someone (WITH A FUCKING FUNCTIONAL BRAIN) who WILL.
This is the greedy cock-mongers trying to double dip.
There's absolutely NO point to a completely balkanized Internet where traffic gets routed inconsistently based on who's payola-ing whom.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows needs to deal with a broader array of components than MacOS does.
Plain and simple.
With MacOS, it's relatively easy to "dial in" power management because they don't have to make allowances for a vast breadth of component differentiation.
Windows doesn't have that luxury. So they have to deal with less than optimal settings for certain subsystems, causing them to eat/bleed more power.
This also takes into account the fact that portions of the OS were never designed with optimal power management in mind. Something that will take time to make it's way through and be rewritten for.
On top of that, some optimizations for power management in Windows could result in system performance loss.
MacOS has had it's UI "tweaked" in ways that disguise crappy/slow performance.
Windows, really, hasn't. So there are areas where such loss of performance would be QUITE noticeable.
So trying to compare a dialed in niche OS on a dialed in niche platform with an OS that runs the other 90+% of everything out there (and is expected to run pretty much any component you give it) is a bit disingenuous. Don't you think?
No. Actually it isn't. Because homeopathy can't even replicate their own results in controlled environments.
It SHOULD, however, be a wakeup call to scientists all over that their chosen fields are more caught up in the "publish or perish" mentality than they should be.
Between this, and others willing to take these unreplicated (and possibly unreproducible) studies as "Holy Writ", what people think of as science IS becoming as sloppy as religion.
Which makes it harder for the people who actually DO the grunt work and the follow-up to receive their just due.
Actually, IIRC the Mythbusters proved you CAN polish a turd.
*I* still wouldn't want it either way...
No.l Actually 8.1 WON'T fix that.
All it does is add a teasing layer of "fuck you" to the interface with the useless "Start button".
What the people asking for a start button back are REALLY asking for is a start MENU. Not a start SCREEN.
The white stuff, The white stuff
The first one was a sweet one
Second one was a blast
Soon I finished off the bag, ate 'em up real fast
You can see 'em in my teeth
Tell it when I talk
Had so many my pancreas just went into shock
I love the white stuff, baby
In the middle of an Oreo
I love the white stuff, baby
It's the most delicious thing I know
I've had a zillion or two
In my life, they're so right
My teeth are all rotted clear through
But who cares? What else am I supposed to do?
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, the white stuff
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo
What's in the middle? The white stuff
The first time that I tried it
Got a big sugar buzz
Nothing gets me high as that sandwhich cookie does
But I love the filling most
I rub it on my roast
Mix it in with my coffee and spread it on my toast
I love the white stuff, baby
In the middle of an Oreo
I love the white stuff, baby
Take some with me everywhere I go
Might get a pimple or two
Well, so what? It's all right
Now Twinkies and Ding Dongs won't do
All I need... You know what it is
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, the white stuff
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, the white stuff
Oh OH OH-OH-Oh, Oh Oreo
What's in the middle? The white stuff
Not talking about a hunting cabin in BFE Alaska. Talking about states like Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Maine, etc.
Many of these states simply don't see the amount of sunlight necessary, and/or suffer inclement conditions that reduce the usefulness of solar.
"If energy was free"
And if we all rode unicorns....
Sorry, but this is a stupid, bullshit pipe dream. The materials used to manufacture panels are a nonrenewable resource. And it costs to acquire them and manufacture (not to mention install) the panels. "Free power" is a myth.
And when I asked about the environmental impact of all those panels?
"Less than coal plants outputting the same power."
You suppose right? Call me when you have real data, not pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams.
Thanks for failing to address the issue of "what do northern states do?"
Well it's obvious isn't it? Become economic slave states to the energy producers!
Also, what's the environmental impact of having panels and hot salt towers EVERYWHERE?
So when some poor nutjob calls their shrink and then offs themselves LIVE ON VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET, it'll take even LESS time for it to hit the sharing sites!
Okay, this is complete and utter bullshit.
Maybe, in the southern states of the union, this MIGHT be a plan. But only if SOMEONE builds in the appropriate power storage infrastructure (which currently doesn't exist). Otherwise you have no power in the evenings.
In northern climates, care and maintenance of panels would eat up massive quantities of time, and the weather can be severe enough to destroy panels. Additionally, there are going to large swaths of time, due to ambient conditions, where the panels generate NO power whatsoever. Even during the day.
Sorry, but "ubiquitous solar" is a pipe dream. And most solar advocates know better than to try and suggest it.
Then there's the environmental impact of building all those panels...
Keep them dumb and dependent!
No. Because science is a composite of a number of theories.
And as much as you'd like to believe that it's a monolithic whole, it isn't.
Look at physics. Lots of different theories about what all the data means. Some general (but not universal) consensus, and a big chunk of the field wide open to interpretation and better models.
Climate science is just the same.
If you want to harangue people that they're in danger you can:
Stand on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH!", as people have since time immemorial (like a clock, someone will eventually be right on this).
Or you can take a rational, social approach. You HAVE to convince people. Because there's lots of data out there. And lots of opinions on what it means.
You have to convince people YOU are "right" and that others clamoring for their attention (and money) are wrong. Regardless of your humanitarian interest, you HAVE to "sell" it to people.
Again, treating your target audience as a rabid mob of idiots is a poor way to go about this.
And you have to accept that, even if you have a silver tongue, and an iron-clad case, some people are still not going to buy in. No matter what you say and how persuasive you are.
It doesn't make them "stupid" or obstinate or any such thing. Such trust issues come up in every venue.
Promising people Heaven is one thing. But if you're an asshole about it, a certain amount of the population would turn around and walk straight into Hell, smiling spitefully the entire time.
Your "message" gets lost due to other factors.
No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".
You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.
Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.
http://youtu.be/2zfqw8nhUwA
So that's what the REAL cause of the 4th Succession War>/A> is!
Why do I get both the urge to infinitely face-palm AND the mental image of Frau Farbissina doing her "Lies! ALL LIES!" line?
Why am I so mad?
Because blatant stupidity offends and infuriates me.
This is one of the reasons I choose NOT to own a firearm. The temptation to sanitize the gene pool of these people is overwhelming.
Like between his legs.
Show him "physiological consequences".
Fucking religious nutbags.
(Pun unintentional.)
Uh. The kid is like...FOUR!
Not saying they're too stupid to use a phone or too irresponsible to keep/maintain one.
But they're four years old.
Try to remember back to the time when YOU were four.
Remember how adult and responsible and totally "with it" you were?
Kinda tough eh?
If you want to keep in touch with your rugrat, talk with his care provider and look at possibly setting up a computer with Skype or something.
But a phone at that age is just way too much, way too soon.
Sorry, but you've NEVER actually done a CRM/ERP migration have you?
Yeah. You're right. You can drop field data that doesn't schema-match into the notes fields.
However, a lot of that stuff isn't going to make sense to future users because there's no longer any context for it.
In which case, you may as well be dumping in random characters.
Also, not every setup supports raw copy/dumps in a forward-compatible manner.
Sure, the data may appear on the server. But in some cases, it won't sync because it wasn't brought in properly with the API. Meaning that if you're running a sync-user setup for remote salesguys, they don't ever see that data.
This is CRM Migration 101. While a CRM may sit atop SQL, simply treating it as "yet another bunch of SQL data" is missing the point.
Anyone who willingly opts into this is a friggin moron.
I can understand some cases where having a Facebook account or a Paypal account is a necessary evil (mostly emphasis on "evil").
But both of these services display an almost nonexistent regard for their user bases, with Paypal going so far as to actually steal money from its users (locking out accounts with cash in them for months on end and continuing to profit from the interest, fraudulently attempting to hoover out users' bank accounts, etc).
But hey, if you want these two to potentially ruin your life by bankrupting you and reporting about it online, go ahead!
I'll just sit back and laugh at you derisively.
Sorry. I live in an area where several municipalities use ticket writing as a massive revenue stream.
And before someone starts yakking out their ass about how tickets don't generate a lot of money, explain to me why the state of Illinois took several of these municipalities to court over issuance of municipal citations rather than state citations, arguing that it deprived the state of revenue.
In these areas, we have cops writing tickets for frivolous things at the drop of a hat. Again, not by catching a speeder. But having two (or even three!) cop cars sitting at an intersection with 4-6 cops cycling out for ticket writing on seatbelt checks and the like.
So yeah, there's a certain amount of dislike for such pedantic tactics. Zero tolerance always SOUNDS nice in a "We're really doing something" kind of way. Until you're the poor shit who gets caught out on zero tolerance based on some bizarre technicality.
Sorry. But until Hulu can offer a subscription service WITHOUT ads, and that allows place-marking, I won't be supporting them.
Netflix remembers where I am in a flick. So if I stop watching and come back to it later, it picks right up where I left off.
Amazon Prime does the same thing.
Hulu? I have to drag to the approximate spot. Then suffer through all the interstitial commercials. Even if I'm paying them money.
People pay for convenience. And Hulu just isn't convenient.
Seriously.
As an end-user, paying for service from a carrier/ISP/etc, *I* initiate the traffic request. This is what *I* am paying them for. Fulfilling that request.
If I don't make the request, they carry nothing.
If I make a request and they DON'T fulfill it, because they've been trying to squeeze the site purveyor for "a little something to wet their beak", then I stop giving them my money and go to someone (WITH A FUCKING FUNCTIONAL BRAIN) who WILL.
This is the greedy cock-mongers trying to double dip.
There's absolutely NO point to a completely balkanized Internet where traffic gets routed inconsistently based on who's payola-ing whom.
I honestly think it's going to be yet another fiasco for the tech sector.
Now where's the fun in that?