The BSD TCP/IP stack was copied for Windows and Mac OSX - this is great, it saves a tonne of time but you also means you inherit the exact same bugs as the BSD stack.
The other side to this is, it means you've only got one place to fix the bug, and it's fixed on all systems that use it. The more TCP/IP stacks you have, the more the developers are spread out, rather than concentrating on making one perfect, secure stack.
I think he means in ten years, when Harry Potter has gone out of fashion and no-one's interested in it any more because the quality of the books wasn't high enough to outlive the fad.
It'd be like trying to sell a tamagotchi or some pogs.
I'm sure that fishermen know how to operate kettles. And they're not the sort who drink espressos either, or who care about freshly roasted beans or barristas.
Well what else do you expect from a chain business? Starbucks is the McDonalds of cafés. The whole point of a Starbucks is to make money, the same as KFC or Tescos. Quality is the bare minimum needed to keep the profits up. If you want quality go to a decent independent place where the motive for running it is reputation rather than money.
If you're getting headaches from caffeine withdrawal, the last think you should do is have some more coffee. The thing you do is to NEVER HAVE ANY AGAIN. Caffeine doesn't wake you up, you're just addicted to it so you need the caffeine to stay awake. When you're not addicted to it, you're just as awake as a caffeine addict after 5 cups.
The only time you can get a benefit from caffeine is if you're someone who doesn't drink caffeine except the rare occasional cup. Anything else and you're just fulfilling the self-perpetuating addiction.
As for Starbucks, they don't sell coffee, they sell image. Unless you count a watery, sugary froth served in a flimsy cup as 'coffee'. Like a lot of companies, they survive on marketing.
umm, i wouldn't brag about "been there, done that" in this case. that's no way to live. how about we not occupy/invade/bomb/etc other ppls homes and countries so we don't have to live like this?
Fifty dead in London, versus how many killed by Saddam Hussein? How many were murdered by the Taleban?
Or do you suggest that as we have it so easy in our democracies, we should sit back and let other countries commit genocide?
Where do these people come from? Do they exist in the real world? I've never met anyone who actually thinks like this. This HAS to be a troll, there's no way it can be real.
Even your own logic betrays you. If an invention isn't of benefit to society, and so wouldn't generate any 'restitution', why do you care that other people aren't allowed to use it because it's patented?
And why should tax-payers pay for this? Do you know how much corporations make? You're talking about maybe DOUBLING the tax burden just so cheapskates like you don't have to pay to licence patented technology.
What happened to the days when people discussed real-life issues rather than masturbation like this?
It's not a rare thing, it happens a lot. That's why it's illegal to stop a taxi on the street, you have to ring one up first (by law at least, it happens anyway).
Taxis should be regulated, for the sake of safety and quality. For example compare the quality of London taxi drivers with New York ones.
It's not awesome. Let's get this straight: I pay an extortionate TV licence, yet I can't see this new programme. Instead, people who don't pay a licence fee, with fast Internet connections get to see it. Somehow this doesn't strike me as exactly fair.
We should get a refund from our licence, and people watching this over the Internet should have to pay instead.
Sounds like a load of marketing bullshit to me, but then what do I know. What the hell is six-sigma?
Looking at the price (STARTING at $8,500), I don't know if that's going to outperform a similarly-priced cluster. Seems that clustering is all the rage these days, big super computers are on the way out, like the dinosaurs.
Because DVDs are better than videos. I don't think that comparison applies in this case. I don't think Longhorn will be offering anything of any value other than increased system requirements (which is only of value to the hardware industry).
It's a deal between Microsoft and the hardware industry: Microsoft makes money on its operating systems, the vendors make money on the hardware, they both profit and everyone else gets arse-raped.
There'll soon be a day when you'll need a gigabyte of RAM to send an e-mail or write a shopping list. And it won't do anything that couldn't be done on a tenth of the requirements.
Developers are lazy these days. Computer power increases so quickly the developers get sloppier and sloppier, making slower and more bloated code. They're like a gas: expanding to fill all available space. If they release an upgrade or a new version of some software, they don't just fix the broken bits and make it easier or faster to use than before, they do some of that, and then throw in some bloated eye candy that doesn't do anything.
This means the user can choose between an old, fast, half-usable version, and a new, slow, more-functional version. They could of course make a new, fast, functional version, but there's no money to be made in that. Glitter and hype sells, functionality doesn't.
And I wonder how many of these people spending thousands a year on cars they don't need complain that they can't afford decent health care or decent food.
$2.35 is nothing. If it were taxed to make it $6 a gallon, Americans might think twice about using their SUVs to drive their fat arses 200 yards down the road to the local Burger King.
Pardon me, but what's innovative about that? It tries to look good, but it's uglier than OSX, and even looks less professional than Windows XP. It's not as fast and light as its equivalents, and it's not as functional or featureful as others, so where exactly is the innovation? Does making something look like The Matrix count as innovative?
Konqueror
A web browser with nothing exceptional about it. Firefox has got the open-source browser market cornered. Konqueror just feels like a poor man's Internet Explorer. Again, no innovation.
ogg
A clone of MP3 for zealots. That's not an innovation, unless incompatability is an innovation (in which case Linux is incredibly innovative).
Python/Ruby
We already have scripting languages which do exactly the same things. Changing the syntax and the whitespace doesn't make it an innovation.
It seems that someone is confusing innovation with copying other people's efforts. Isn't that what people accuse Microsoft of?
The women in Amish communities generally just get beaten, raped and abused, often by their own relatives. And there's nothing they can do about it because the society covers it up.
They've kept knowledge of how to live independently of electricity within living human memory, for one thing
There are a lot of people in the world who live independently of electricity. Unless you thought that America = The World. I think that learning how to live without electricity is about as valuable as learning how to live without written language or indoor plumbing. Should the world be held back just in case something terrible happens?
I use my mobile entirely for telling the time, and occasionally recieving a call. On the other hand I use the Internet at least 6-10 hours a day. I'd take broadband any day.
Re:Gadget Filled
on
The Escapist
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Do you usually get a lot of people and plot in the first paragraph?
Not necessarily, but that's not the point. It's not the exact content of the first paragraph, it's the way it's written. It seems that the author isn't very good. What I mean is, he doesn't know how to describe things. Therefore he just throws adjectives and names all over the place without any thought as to the result.
You can describe things, and you can mention doing things, but when you combine them the result is often a disaster. No offence to the author, but it's like the sort of think you get from a 10 year old who's learning to write stories, and has just been taught about adjectives:
"Bob got up from the big black chair. He walked across the blue carpet and opened the small wooden door with the shiny brass handle. He walked into the wide long dark corridor with a wooden floor..."
Also the use of 'impetuously' is completely incongruent. The style of the writing seems to be a very casual one, i.e. the narrator isn't exactly eloquent, he uses a lot of slang, probably with some sort of strong accent. But then someone like that wouldn't say 'impetuously'. When you're writing from the perspective of the narrator, you have to keep the style of writing congruent with the character. Otherwise someone reading it will feel that something isn't right, even if they don't know what it is. Like a bacon sandwich with coffee on it.
I'm afraid that the reason this author is effectively giving the book away is that it's no good. You can't judge a book by its cover, but you if the writing in the first paragraph is of a schoolboy level, the rest probably isn't going to be any better.
Re:"antihero" != "evil"
on
The Escapist
·
· Score: 1
No, an antihero, used to describe a character in fiction, is a character who's one of the main characters, but isn't good, he's not a hero, he's not morally upstanding.
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm still stuck on 56k. And all they do is jack up the prices whilst lowering the quality of service. By now it should be about a pound a month with no time limits.
When do I get some of this broadband? I've seen it advertised on TV, with a ONE GIGABYTE MONTHLY CAP! Living in the UK is like living in the stoneage.
Nonetheless, if it costs $25/month to break even then I say go for it! Why? Because the benefits per month to an individual is EASILY $25/Month.
$25 per month...that's $300 a year. That is unacceptably high. No doubt it will end up costing even more than that, and will be paid for from the tax-payer's pocket. How can you justify taking $300 a year from people just so some yuppies don't have to pay for their wireless?
Becaues municipal WIFI is free, there will be a ton of people joining and using it, especially the lower income people.
1. It won't be free, you'll be paying more for it than most normal Internet access. So if you pay $25 a month for your home ISP, then you're forced to pay for this again, that's doubled your Internet bill.
2. Lower income people don't have laptops, let alone wireless. And they can't afford the $300 a year that will be added to their council tax. I'm not sure how you'd advertise this: "Buy a laptop for $1000, then pay $300 a year for a service you probably don't need."
I'm not sure what you mean by lower income, but the lower income people I know don't spend their lunch hours sat in trendy inner-city cafés sipping lattes and browsing the Internet on their laptops. They spend them sat in the works canteen eating sandwiches and reading the Sun, or on a building site sipping stale coffee from a flask. Most of them don't even have a computer.
And as for the yuppies, the places they take their laptops already provide wireless access, so who exactly would use this? There's no market.
I know that for an affluent geek with five laptops and a cluster of servers at home, this seems like a great idea. After all, what geek doesn't want to carry his laptop around and get 'free' wireless wherever he goes? But if you step out of your bubble for a moment, into this place we call the 'real world', wireless access is just not needed, especially not from the tax-payer's wallet.
School's are underfunded, nurses are underpaid, hospitals are falling into decay, the last thing we need to spend money on is a wireless service for which anyone who wants it can afford to pay for it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The BSD TCP/IP stack was copied for Windows and Mac OSX - this is great, it saves a tonne of time but you also means you inherit the exact same bugs as the BSD stack.
The other side to this is, it means you've only got one place to fix the bug, and it's fixed on all systems that use it. The more TCP/IP stacks you have, the more the developers are spread out, rather than concentrating on making one perfect, secure stack.
I think he means in ten years, when Harry Potter has gone out of fashion and no-one's interested in it any more because the quality of the books wasn't high enough to outlive the fad.
It'd be like trying to sell a tamagotchi or some pogs.
I'm sure that fishermen know how to operate kettles. And they're not the sort who drink espressos either, or who care about freshly roasted beans or barristas.
Well what else do you expect from a chain business? Starbucks is the McDonalds of cafés. The whole point of a Starbucks is to make money, the same as KFC or Tescos. Quality is the bare minimum needed to keep the profits up. If you want quality go to a decent independent place where the motive for running it is reputation rather than money.
If you're getting headaches from caffeine withdrawal, the last think you should do is have some more coffee. The thing you do is to NEVER HAVE ANY AGAIN. Caffeine doesn't wake you up, you're just addicted to it so you need the caffeine to stay awake. When you're not addicted to it, you're just as awake as a caffeine addict after 5 cups.
The only time you can get a benefit from caffeine is if you're someone who doesn't drink caffeine except the rare occasional cup. Anything else and you're just fulfilling the self-perpetuating addiction.
As for Starbucks, they don't sell coffee, they sell image. Unless you count a watery, sugary froth served in a flimsy cup as 'coffee'. Like a lot of companies, they survive on marketing.
umm, i wouldn't brag about "been there, done that" in this case. that's no way to live. how about we not occupy/invade/bomb/etc other ppls homes and countries so we don't have to live like this?
Fifty dead in London, versus how many killed by Saddam Hussein? How many were murdered by the Taleban?
Or do you suggest that as we have it so easy in our democracies, we should sit back and let other countries commit genocide?
Where do these people come from? Do they exist in the real world? I've never met anyone who actually thinks like this. This HAS to be a troll, there's no way it can be real.
Even your own logic betrays you. If an invention isn't of benefit to society, and so wouldn't generate any 'restitution', why do you care that other people aren't allowed to use it because it's patented?
And why should tax-payers pay for this? Do you know how much corporations make? You're talking about maybe DOUBLING the tax burden just so cheapskates like you don't have to pay to licence patented technology.
What happened to the days when people discussed real-life issues rather than masturbation like this?
I don't think people who drive taxis are part of the old boy's network. That's for politicians and the like.
It's not a rare thing, it happens a lot. That's why it's illegal to stop a taxi on the street, you have to ring one up first (by law at least, it happens anyway).
Taxis should be regulated, for the sake of safety and quality. For example compare the quality of London taxi drivers with New York ones.
It's not awesome. Let's get this straight: I pay an extortionate TV licence, yet I can't see this new programme. Instead, people who don't pay a licence fee, with fast Internet connections get to see it. Somehow this doesn't strike me as exactly fair.
We should get a refund from our licence, and people watching this over the Internet should have to pay instead.
Sounds like a load of marketing bullshit to me, but then what do I know. What the hell is six-sigma?
Looking at the price (STARTING at $8,500), I don't know if that's going to outperform a similarly-priced cluster. Seems that clustering is all the rage these days, big super computers are on the way out, like the dinosaurs.
I live in Britain and I can confirm that the term does not exist here. I've never heard it used here at all. The above post is completely wrong.
'horn' generally means erection. This is good marketing from Microsoft.
Because DVDs are better than videos. I don't think that comparison applies in this case. I don't think Longhorn will be offering anything of any value other than increased system requirements (which is only of value to the hardware industry).
It's a deal between Microsoft and the hardware industry: Microsoft makes money on its operating systems, the vendors make money on the hardware, they both profit and everyone else gets arse-raped.
There'll soon be a day when you'll need a gigabyte of RAM to send an e-mail or write a shopping list. And it won't do anything that couldn't be done on a tenth of the requirements.
Developers are lazy these days. Computer power increases so quickly the developers get sloppier and sloppier, making slower and more bloated code. They're like a gas: expanding to fill all available space. If they release an upgrade or a new version of some software, they don't just fix the broken bits and make it easier or faster to use than before, they do some of that, and then throw in some bloated eye candy that doesn't do anything.
This means the user can choose between an old, fast, half-usable version, and a new, slow, more-functional version. They could of course make a new, fast, functional version, but there's no money to be made in that. Glitter and hype sells, functionality doesn't.
Or more appropriately, Stillborn.
And I wonder how many of these people spending thousands a year on cars they don't need complain that they can't afford decent health care or decent food.
$2.35 is nothing. If it were taxed to make it $6 a gallon, Americans might think twice about using their SUVs to drive their fat arses 200 yards down the road to the local Burger King.
What makes you think it's a lot less? Because unlike in the real world they're not allowed to report it?
Enlightenment
Pardon me, but what's innovative about that? It tries to look good, but it's uglier than OSX, and even looks less professional than Windows XP. It's not as fast and light as its equivalents, and it's not as functional or featureful as others, so where exactly is the innovation? Does making something look like The Matrix count as innovative?
Konqueror
A web browser with nothing exceptional about it. Firefox has got the open-source browser market cornered. Konqueror just feels like a poor man's Internet Explorer. Again, no innovation.
ogg
A clone of MP3 for zealots. That's not an innovation, unless incompatability is an innovation (in which case Linux is incredibly innovative).
Python/Ruby
We already have scripting languages which do exactly the same things. Changing the syntax and the whitespace doesn't make it an innovation.
It seems that someone is confusing innovation with copying other people's efforts. Isn't that what people accuse Microsoft of?
The women in Amish communities generally just get beaten, raped and abused, often by their own relatives. And there's nothing they can do about it because the society covers it up.
They've kept knowledge of how to live independently of electricity within living human memory, for one thing
There are a lot of people in the world who live independently of electricity. Unless you thought that America = The World. I think that learning how to live without electricity is about as valuable as learning how to live without written language or indoor plumbing. Should the world be held back just in case something terrible happens?
I use my mobile entirely for telling the time, and occasionally recieving a call. On the other hand I use the Internet at least 6-10 hours a day. I'd take broadband any day.
Do you usually get a lot of people and plot in the first paragraph?
Not necessarily, but that's not the point. It's not the exact content of the first paragraph, it's the way it's written. It seems that the author isn't very good. What I mean is, he doesn't know how to describe things. Therefore he just throws adjectives and names all over the place without any thought as to the result.
You can describe things, and you can mention doing things, but when you combine them the result is often a disaster. No offence to the author, but it's like the sort of think you get from a 10 year old who's learning to write stories, and has just been taught about adjectives:
"Bob got up from the big black chair. He walked across the blue carpet and opened the small wooden door with the shiny brass handle. He walked into the wide long dark corridor with a wooden floor..."
Also the use of 'impetuously' is completely incongruent. The style of the writing seems to be a very casual one, i.e. the narrator isn't exactly eloquent, he uses a lot of slang, probably with some sort of strong accent. But then someone like that wouldn't say 'impetuously'. When you're writing from the perspective of the narrator, you have to keep the style of writing congruent with the character. Otherwise someone reading it will feel that something isn't right, even if they don't know what it is. Like a bacon sandwich with coffee on it.
I'm afraid that the reason this author is effectively giving the book away is that it's no good. You can't judge a book by its cover, but you if the writing in the first paragraph is of a schoolboy level, the rest probably isn't going to be any better.
No, an antihero, used to describe a character in fiction, is a character who's one of the main characters, but isn't good, he's not a hero, he's not morally upstanding.
'Anti' means 'opposite'.
For example:
Hero = John Wayne
Anti-hero = Clint Eastwood
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm still stuck on 56k. And all they do is jack up the prices whilst lowering the quality of service. By now it should be about a pound a month with no time limits.
When do I get some of this broadband? I've seen it advertised on TV, with a ONE GIGABYTE MONTHLY CAP! Living in the UK is like living in the stoneage.
Nonetheless, if it costs $25/month to break even then I say go for it! Why? Because the benefits per month to an individual is EASILY $25/Month.
$25 per month...that's $300 a year. That is unacceptably high. No doubt it will end up costing even more than that, and will be paid for from the tax-payer's pocket. How can you justify taking $300 a year from people just so some yuppies don't have to pay for their wireless?
Becaues municipal WIFI is free, there will be a ton of people joining and using it, especially the lower income people.
1. It won't be free, you'll be paying more for it than most normal Internet access. So if you pay $25 a month for your home ISP, then you're forced to pay for this again, that's doubled your Internet bill.
2. Lower income people don't have laptops, let alone wireless. And they can't afford the $300 a year that will be added to their council tax. I'm not sure how you'd advertise this: "Buy a laptop for $1000, then pay $300 a year for a service you probably don't need."
I'm not sure what you mean by lower income, but the lower income people I know don't spend their lunch hours sat in trendy inner-city cafés sipping lattes and browsing the Internet on their laptops. They spend them sat in the works canteen eating sandwiches and reading the Sun, or on a building site sipping stale coffee from a flask. Most of them don't even have a computer.
And as for the yuppies, the places they take their laptops already provide wireless access, so who exactly would use this? There's no market.
I know that for an affluent geek with five laptops and a cluster of servers at home, this seems like a great idea. After all, what geek doesn't want to carry his laptop around and get 'free' wireless wherever he goes? But if you step out of your bubble for a moment, into this place we call the 'real world', wireless access is just not needed, especially not from the tax-payer's wallet.
School's are underfunded, nurses are underpaid, hospitals are falling into decay, the last thing we need to spend money on is a wireless service for which anyone who wants it can afford to pay for it themselves.