Are you honestly claiming that "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" isn't being sold as a particular version of "Windows XP Professsional"? I'm actually saying that when you're reading a particular product's requirements you should make sure that the actual product name is actually listed. Yes, but your argument only holds water if "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" can't reasonably be considered a version of "Windows XP Professsional".
MS's naming/marketing clearly implies that it *is* being sold as such (regardless of the actual underpinnings), so it's disingenuous to suggest that Apple didn't imply compatibility when they listed "Windows XP Professional" without qualifying that in any way.
The official name of the 64 bit product is Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.
That name is not listed on the iPhone page, don't expect it to be supported. At my most charitable I'd consider that downright pedantic, though more likely it's simply false. Are you honestly claiming that "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" isn't being sold as a particular version of "Windows XP Professsional"?
You can argue the toss about the actual code base, but if it's being sold as XP Professsional, that's all that is relevant. I guess you'd use the same argument against any product being sold as "Windows XP comptatible" that didn't work with 32-bit Home or Pro because, hey, they're sold as "Windows XP Home" (etc.) not "Windows XP".
Let me see if I understand this; Going by the following, you don't:
a select group of Windows users, who use 64 bit, consider themselves elite knowledgeable computer users are complaining that the other group of elite computer users is shunning them. No, they're complaining that Apple omitted information from the product requirements. Apple said it ran under Vista and XP, but neglected to mention that this excluded the 64-bit versions.
A lot of apps still aren't supporting 64 bit. Might have been a good idea to ask. No, it might have been a good idea for them to mention it in the requirements, since they stated that it was supported under Vista and XP. Any restrictions they should have mentioned.
Come on, who'd buy a first-gen iPod without checking to see if it would work with their XP box? Or a Newton without checking to see if it could data transfer with Windows 3.1? That's a poor and downright misleading comparison. The listed product requirements mention XP and Vista, but didn't (and at the time of writing still don't) mention anything about incompatibility with 64-bit versions.
It's reasonable to assume that- unless otherwise stated- the requirements in Apple's list would be both necessary and sufficient. It's not like it says "see this obscure Apple doc for more details". Apple probably kept that on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'...;-)
My assumption when I first heard that expression was that Voltaire was referring to smartass wordplay and the like- i.e. catchy "insights" "proved" by cleverness with language are not reasoned arguments. I don't feel that he meant it to apply to sayings such as Tacitus's.
Self-righteous indignation is fun, huh? I'm certain that NYC will *not* miss your tourism dollars. If NYC itself took such a haughty attitude as you do, and constantly annoyed tourists with petty bureaucratic rules, they almost certainly *would* see a drop in tourist income. Though whether tourism is a significant source of income to the city is questionable- I certainly don't know. If it's only a minor source, they might not consider it worth their while to change their stance.
FWIW, the same could be said for the United States as a whole- I don't know whether tourism is a major enough part of the economy for them to worry about it. My understanding is that in the UK, those convicted- or even just arrested- for the most minor (e.g. traffic) offenses now require a visa to enter the US. In many cases this can mean a long journey across the UK (with one or more possible overnight stays) to a particular centre to obtain the visa. I can't remember what sort of interview- if any- is required, nor whether the granting of the visa is almost guaranteed if the offense is trivial.
A family where one of the parents has a minor conviction for (e.g.) speeding may consider that the major inconvenience and uncertainty this throws into their holiday plans makes it worthwhile to consider going elsewhere.
Personally, I'd just stop the convicted person from hiring a car or driving in the US, but it's their country, and if they think making it a PITA to visit for people with a couple of penalty points for speeding will improve Homeland Security, it's their decision.
One thing to note is that this isn't a drug; it's a dominant negative transgene, so you're not going to popping pills for this any time soon. I bet that didn't stop Keith Richards from getting high on it during the 1970s...
At the risk of getting marked troll or flamebait, it almost sounds like a pseudo communism. There are bins for them to have shirts, and free food... Google takes care of everything for them. Throw in the "you are all alike" attitude, especially evinced by the random desks and overcrowding. Hmm... not convinced. Being cynical about it, it's more like if Google provide everything an employee needs (i.e. takes care of the immediate things that an employee would otherwise consider going home for), they spend more of their time at work, and even build their life around it.
That's arguably where the 20-something college-kid mentality (akin to supposedly "old" Microsoft) applies too.
Fair enough; I had assumed that the process was more like flashing the BIOS on a particular piece of hardware (i.e. permanent) instead of something that was lost on power down and had to be redone every time.
Since microcode isn't hardware, fixing it shouldn't require any changes to the hardware. This is true; however, microcode *does* blur the line between software and hardware.
(Disclaimer; I am not an expert on the subject matter, take the following with a pinch of salt).
Consider this; do you really have x86 CPU "hardware" in your Intel-based PC? This depends on how you define "hardware".
As far as I'm aware, all modern Intel "x86" CPUs (Pentium Pro/Pentium II onwards) have a RISC core. They have to convert the long and irregular (i.e. nothing like RISC) x86 code into the native RISC instruction set via microcode. So it could reasonably be argued that the CPUs aren't actually executing the x86 instructions themselves in hardware.
Of course, all this is transparent to the user; as far as they are concerned, the CPU *is* "hardware", and I'm not sure if any of this is even visible from a system-designer's point of view (i.e. the processor is- I'd assume- still a "black box" for this purpose).
Anyway, I assume they did this because- even with the overhead of translation and the added complexity- it would still have made optimising the design much easier. Generally speaking, this is one of the major benefits of RISC design; x86's CISC instructions (i.e. long, complex and irregular) would have presented a major headache to Intel's engineers.
It's notable that the older Pentium-I had a CISC core; so internally the chip was *very* different from the Pentium Pro/P-II. I assume this means that it *was* based around the x86 instruction set to some extent, although I don't know how much- if any- conversion or translation of instructions via microcode was involved. I suspect that because the core hardware would have been based round the x86 instructions themselves and less reliant on microcode, fixing bugs (etc) via microcode would have been far harder- if it was possible at all.
I do not think you're right: when I boot linux (an old RH8) I see a part of the boot message saying "applying microcode patch" (or something like that). Do you seriously think that Linux (or any other OS) would attempt to update the CPU's microcode automatically, every time you booted the thing?!
Of course it's possible to update the microcode; Intel included that facility in the CPU. But the idea that Linux would automatically attempt to make a fundamental (and very serious) change to your processor every time you booted is highly unlikely. My guess is that it's a workaround for a bug in the kernel.
And what about rare music? When some remix/promo single or obscure album/12" is long out of print and not carried by places like the iTunes Store To be fair, I just bought a non-DRMed album at the iTunes store which was (apparently) out of print on CD, not available via EBay and not available via (totally legal, guv) file-sharing.
I'd rather have bought and ripped the CD, but it wasn't worth that much hassle to me.
Lucky you. I bought Right Said Fred. Personally I can't stand any of their singles anyway, but even if you loved them, Right Said Fred *don't* strike me as the kind of band whose albums you can automatically assume would be as good as the singles.
Putting a disk in my player for a 3 minute song is NOT worth it, especially when the other songs are so intolerable that one can't bear to listen for even a moment. I junked the whole disk. I can sympathise here; having CD albums in my collection that I only listened to for one or (at best) two songs just annoys the hell out of me. In many cases, I just made high-quality MP3s of the tracks I like and sold the CDs. Not really for the money, I just didn't see the point in having all that around.
It's the same reason I never liked CD singles. Overpriced rubbish with lots of extra tracks (crappy B-side rubbish or- worse- endless remixes) because they can- and to justify the cost. Since you usually only ever listen to the first ("A-side") track, you have to change the CD for every song anyway. Negates one of the benefits the format was originally sold on (random access to lots of tracks).
First of all you're starting with a weak argument: "what does Bob Dylan know about what music sounds like" is not the sort of position I would prefer to defend. Someone called Chefelf wrote an interesting blog entry called Bob Dylan can go to hell. With a title like that, you know it's not going to be a "Dylan is God, Maaaaaaan" fest, but in case you think I (or he/she/it) is trolling, here is the part that applies to what we were discussing. It sums up Dylan's hypocritical attitude towards digital music. (Read the article to see it properly in context).
[Dylan says that] CDs apparently have no stature, but the iPod does, particularly when Apple is giving him a sizeable check to perform a yawn-inducing "blues" track from his shitty new album which he is also able to shamelessly plug at the same tune. Or
Bob Dylan: "CDs are small. There's no stature to it."
Translation: It is the size of CDs that affect sound. Records are bigger. Bigger is better. That's just common sense. The replies are certainly worth reading too; it's not an all-out attack on Dylan- he has his defenders, but having read them all, I'm not convinced that Dylan's attitudes are worthy of attention any more than any other angry old man's.
And the guy was *never* technically brilliant. Quite the opposite. It's somewhat strange to be lectured on issues like sound quality by a guy whose sound was.... rough. I don't deny the guy's influence, and he's undeniably recorded some important stuff, but that doesn't make him God, or even stop him being a Grumpy Old Man.
In this message, the real Miguel ("Miguel" (7116)) said:
The `Miguel de Icaza' account is an impersonator, I do not know who it is. And his views have nothing to do with mine.
This is a shame, because that person has been flaming everywhere.
The slashdot admins have said that they can not do anything about it.
...who will be digitally replaced with Hayden Christensen in the special edition. This would be a somewhat appropriate excuse to have that shot of Darth Vader yelling "Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!"
And its strange English-to-Chinese-to-English subtitle:
"Do Not Want".
That's an interesting post; however, my point was that "political correctness" is a concept essentially created by those on the right and often applied as a useful strawman of left-wing thought.
For what it's worth though, the behaviour you describe sounds fairly par for the course in some universities. I'm not a massive fan of identity politics, and what you describe has been going on since the 1960s.
It was a little infuriating to hear her, of all people, call someone else spoiled. I'm not familiar with the dynamic of your friendship, but personally I wouldn't bite my tongue for very long if she was coming out with stuff like that. Particularly not the anti-Korean racist crap.
On the left, sometimes our goddamned group identities just estrange and isolate. "Left" and "right" wing aren't particularly useful on their own anyway. There are many, supposedly on the left, who behave just like those on the right.
I didn't say that I didn't believe any of it, I said that there was so much blatantly and stereotypically nutcase conspiracy bollocks mixed in with it that I didn't care to spend hours reading the damned thing just to guess what was what and what was chaff.
Back in the late '90s I was infected by my first virus. I had never connected to the internet, I had just used the library and school computers. Somehow, I still managed to get a virus on my floppy diskette. Sheesh, I forget so easily, but now that you mention it... Viruses of that nature had been around since the late-80s.
It sounds laughable now, but they were actually a real problem on the likes of the Amiga and Atari ST during the early 90s. No network required; the Amiga ones resided on the floppy boot-sector and could survive a warm reset.
Folks,if you catch your kid engaging in "hactivism" or using words like "politically correct" Flamebait? Sure. But badly-constructed flamebait- the only people who use the expression "politically correct" are those attacking the concept.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "political correctness" only ever really existed as a convenient strawman caricature, useful for smearing anything remotely smacking of "liberal" or left wing views.
I have an old miniature TV bought in the UK, and when I plugged it in in Belgium it gives B&W with no sound. That's the reason for my original statement that all PALs are not equal. Fair enough; I don't know why that is- as I said, I'm not an expert in the area.
That having been said, as far as I know, it's irrelevant to the original problem- i.e. playing French games on a British system... I think.:-)
If you want to get a jump on what SHOULD be included in the documents to be released, check out this document on CIA run Mind Control programs: No doubt the CIA have been involved in mind control programs, successful or otherwise. Still, the document you linked to is Illuminati/New World Order conspiracy religious crap of the highest order. If there's any truth in there at all, it's so mixed up with paranoid borderline-schizo garbage that it's not worth going through for that reason. Though I might suggest reading it if you want an insight into the mindset of conspiracy psychos.
Of course, I might suggest that the CIA wrote this to discredit by association any reports of their activities:-/
Slashdot Mirror
MS's naming/marketing clearly implies that it *is* being sold as such (regardless of the actual underpinnings), so it's disingenuous to suggest that Apple didn't imply compatibility when they listed "Windows XP Professional" without qualifying that in any way.
You can argue the toss about the actual code base, but if it's being sold as XP Professsional, that's all that is relevant. I guess you'd use the same argument against any product being sold as "Windows XP comptatible" that didn't work with 32-bit Home or Pro because, hey, they're sold as "Windows XP Home" (etc.) not "Windows XP".
It's reasonable to assume that- unless otherwise stated- the requirements in Apple's list would be both necessary and sufficient. It's not like it says "see this obscure Apple doc for more details". Apple probably kept that on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'...
My assumption when I first heard that expression was that Voltaire was referring to smartass wordplay and the like- i.e. catchy "insights" "proved" by cleverness with language are not reasoned arguments. I don't feel that he meant it to apply to sayings such as Tacitus's.
FWIW, the same could be said for the United States as a whole- I don't know whether tourism is a major enough part of the economy for them to worry about it. My understanding is that in the UK, those convicted- or even just arrested- for the most minor (e.g. traffic) offenses now require a visa to enter the US. In many cases this can mean a long journey across the UK (with one or more possible overnight stays) to a particular centre to obtain the visa. I can't remember what sort of interview- if any- is required, nor whether the granting of the visa is almost guaranteed if the offense is trivial.
A family where one of the parents has a minor conviction for (e.g.) speeding may consider that the major inconvenience and uncertainty this throws into their holiday plans makes it worthwhile to consider going elsewhere.
Personally, I'd just stop the convicted person from hiring a car or driving in the US, but it's their country, and if they think making it a PITA to visit for people with a couple of penalty points for speeding will improve Homeland Security, it's their decision.
That's arguably where the 20-something college-kid mentality (akin to supposedly "old" Microsoft) applies too.
If it doesn't remind me of communism, though, Google is certainly reminiscent of a cult in some respects. I'm not smart enough to work for Google, but if I was, I still wouldn't want to for that very reason.
Fair enough; I had assumed that the process was more like flashing the BIOS on a particular piece of hardware (i.e. permanent) instead of something that was lost on power down and had to be redone every time.
(Disclaimer; I am not an expert on the subject matter, take the following with a pinch of salt).
Consider this; do you really have x86 CPU "hardware" in your Intel-based PC? This depends on how you define "hardware".
As far as I'm aware, all modern Intel "x86" CPUs (Pentium Pro/Pentium II onwards) have a RISC core. They have to convert the long and irregular (i.e. nothing like RISC) x86 code into the native RISC instruction set via microcode. So it could reasonably be argued that the CPUs aren't actually executing the x86 instructions themselves in hardware.
Of course, all this is transparent to the user; as far as they are concerned, the CPU *is* "hardware", and I'm not sure if any of this is even visible from a system-designer's point of view (i.e. the processor is- I'd assume- still a "black box" for this purpose).
Anyway, I assume they did this because- even with the overhead of translation and the added complexity- it would still have made optimising the design much easier. Generally speaking, this is one of the major benefits of RISC design; x86's CISC instructions (i.e. long, complex and irregular) would have presented a major headache to Intel's engineers.
It's notable that the older Pentium-I had a CISC core; so internally the chip was *very* different from the Pentium Pro/P-II. I assume this means that it *was* based around the x86 instruction set to some extent, although I don't know how much- if any- conversion or translation of instructions via microcode was involved. I suspect that because the core hardware would have been based round the x86 instructions themselves and less reliant on microcode, fixing bugs (etc) via microcode would have been far harder- if it was possible at all.
Of course it's possible to update the microcode; Intel included that facility in the CPU. But the idea that Linux would automatically attempt to make a fundamental (and very serious) change to your processor every time you booted is highly unlikely. My guess is that it's a workaround for a bug in the kernel.
I'd rather have bought and ripped the CD, but it wasn't worth that much hassle to me.
It's the same reason I never liked CD singles. Overpriced rubbish with lots of extra tracks (crappy B-side rubbish or- worse- endless remixes) because they can- and to justify the cost. Since you usually only ever listen to the first ("A-side") track, you have to change the CD for every song anyway. Negates one of the benefits the format was originally sold on (random access to lots of tracks).
Translation: It is the size of CDs that affect sound. Records are bigger. Bigger is better. That's just common sense. The replies are certainly worth reading too; it's not an all-out attack on Dylan- he has his defenders, but having read them all, I'm not convinced that Dylan's attitudes are worthy of attention any more than any other angry old man's.
And the guy was *never* technically brilliant. Quite the opposite. It's somewhat strange to be lectured on issues like sound quality by a guy whose sound was.... rough. I don't deny the guy's influence, and he's undeniably recorded some important stuff, but that doesn't make him God, or even stop him being a Grumpy Old Man.
This is a shame, because that person has been flaming everywhere.
The slashdot admins have said that they can not do anything about it.
...who will be digitally replaced with Hayden Christensen in the special edition. This would be a somewhat appropriate excuse to have that shot of Darth Vader yelling "Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!"And its strange English-to-Chinese-to-English subtitle:
"Do Not Want".
For what it's worth though, the behaviour you describe sounds fairly par for the course in some universities. I'm not a massive fan of identity politics, and what you describe has been going on since the 1960s. It was a little infuriating to hear her, of all people, call someone else spoiled. I'm not familiar with the dynamic of your friendship, but personally I wouldn't bite my tongue for very long if she was coming out with stuff like that. Particularly not the anti-Korean racist crap. On the left, sometimes our goddamned group identities just estrange and isolate. "Left" and "right" wing aren't particularly useful on their own anyway. There are many, supposedly on the left, who behave just like those on the right.
I didn't say that I didn't believe any of it, I said that there was so much blatantly and stereotypically nutcase conspiracy bollocks mixed in with it that I didn't care to spend hours reading the damned thing just to guess what was what and what was chaff.
It sounds laughable now, but they were actually a real problem on the likes of the Amiga and Atari ST during the early 90s. No network required; the Amiga ones resided on the floppy boot-sector and could survive a warm reset.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "political correctness" only ever really existed as a convenient strawman caricature, useful for smearing anything remotely smacking of "liberal" or left wing views.
[6]Global Thermonuclear War Let's hope you don't accidentally hit "6" instead of "5"; which reminds me of the end of this video.
But I suspect most of them are more like this (background), this, this, this or this.
That having been said, as far as I know, it's irrelevant to the original problem- i.e. playing French games on a British system... I think.
Of course, I might suggest that the CIA wrote this to discredit by association any reports of their activities