No, i don't like living in industrial sector. UNLESS it's dirt cheap, and comes with a huge garage, then i wouldn't mind:)
Besides, having a solar power plant on backyard would be kinda nice too from one perspective: You would know you couldn't get any greener electricity than that @ home: Solar, and next to 0 transmission losses. (Assuming 100% of my elect. comes direct from that plant)
There are plenty of renewable electricity sources. Atleast here in Finland, if you want to, you can opt for 100% green, renewable energy for your consumption. Price difference is 5-15%
I can say that Ubuntu has nothing on w7, absolutely nothing. I normally use w7 but was "forced" to use Ubuntu for 1month starting from end of July.
I'm a business owner and web developer, who like to play the occasional game too. (gaming was not really possible with ubuntu, wasn't looking on spending on transgaming or fiddle around)
Ubuntu vs w7 Performance: Ubuntu performance simply sucks, memory leaks ALL OVER the place. It's funny to see how a basic media player consumes 600mb ram, or firefox 1.7Gb... Ubuntu performance is OK when you use it for short periods of time (ie. reboot daily, or restart software every couple days by latest)
Usability: What a stinking pile of mess in ubuntu.
- Clipboard: Doesn't work seamlessly, requires all kinds of tricks. Copy & paste from FFOX input field to Terminal or Putty... or from Putty to anywhere (Note: Can be done, just not that trivial. Hint: Mouse middle button... Hint 2: You will begin to lust to change scroll to simple button)
- Shortcuts: Or the lack off in Ubuntu. Try to minimize or maximize window like in W7 in ubuntu... Or change the side of the screen... or launch applications.... (w7 sticky bar thing big thumbs up! esp. important for someone like me handling sometimes 30+ putty sessions)
- Menus: Some menus cannot be reached at all (ie. Putty, after you've connected, that menu where you can get to settings to change translation etc. or save session)
- Close, minimize, maximize buttons on the wrong side (mac users love this... Others not so much. Also disables the above mentioned menu)
- Some things requires you to run through some hoops (ie. get mp3s to play, not much of a hoop but a taster of what's to come) + tons of tiny things. (+ application specific problems)
Software:
- Ubuntu has easy to access installation of a lot of good apps (tho some important things, or should be default, are not or replaced by inferior apps)
- Under ubuntu, you are kind of required to choose a lot of apps immediately to install
- Under windows i can get by with actually installing less new apps out of the box than under ubuntu (how bizarre that is?) and thus get setup faster from vanilla installation
- Some important apps just are not there in Ubuntu, and have to use vastly inferior apps (Photoshop vs. Gimp is the ages old debate, OpenOffice vs. Office another)
Despite all of that, it was kind of a nice experience. But i was really excited to get back to use w7 after that 1month. Workflow is just so much smoother under w7 despite i had to get reaccustomed to and some badhabits are now ahrd to get rid of, which i had to learn to get through some ubuntu usability issues.
Linux on the desktop has come a reaaally long way in usability in the past 4-5years, but it's still behind years in usability. Usability is pretty much all what matters in the end, to get the smoothest & most efficient workflow.
Even ethanol is better suited for vehicle power than hydrogen. Hydrogen is worst of them all. Only thing hydrogen is good in is the ability to give huge out amounts of energy fast. That's the only scenario where Hydrogen works, in any other scenario anything is better, even ethanol.
the 7litre engine/250mph topspeed isn't exactly a good example of wastefull, as they are niche cars.
But heavy cars are. Any car sold today is A LOT heavier than cars sold say 30yrs back. Ie. my 30yo corolla coupe weights about 980kg and is RWD (some added weight for being RWD). and it wasn't exactly a lightweight car back in the day neither.
How many today's production cars are under 1000kg... Not many, if any (regular car sized, regular road car, not say k-cars or niche sports cars). That is WASTEFULL if anything. lugging all that extra weight around.
last time i checked, plastic tubing wasn't exactly expensive neither... and maybe, just maybe, some other shape would work just as fine as well or close enough, for lower costs;)
Heard of the Sahara for example?;) pleeeeenty of space to grow some algae. And i'm pretty sure the arabs won't mind using the waste space for that, nor even funding it themselves to get started and they'll turn from oil shakes to algae shakes;)
There are plastics in existence which do not rely on anything oil based. Also, there's composite materials, which i've seen shaped just like plastic, yet being amazingly strong. Depends of course if something oil based went into the composite but...
Ram in systems has not increased because RAM price has actually been increasing during the past several years, to more than double than it was few years back.
Which is extremely odd as RAM is becoming cheaper to produce...
Just because the OS is not HDD thrashing does not mean you are NOT out of ram already.
RAM not used by applications actively is A) swapped and B) the free ram is used as disk cache to speedup everything you do on the computer.
Swap is normally used only for INACTIVE memory. In your case editing 10 RAW images ran outbound of the ram you have REALLY bad, really the worst case scenario there is when data being handled accounts for more than the ram amount.
XP64 was actually a server version of windows retailored as regular windows. So it was more than kernel different, but not in a visible way.
XP64 also eclipsed Vista in performance by 15-18.5%
Driver support was not as good as XP 32bit, but it was decent, and most soundcards, vidcards etc. were supported. Somethigns were not supported, but the same thigns don't likely run on 64bit W7 neither.
XP64 was better than XP 32bit even if you did not have more than 4Gb of RAM.
Because a regular merchant account is harder to get, and setup initially. Also, a lot of consumers actually prefer Paypal, and simply having Paypal as option is guaranteed to increase conversion rate and overall revenue.
Same here, will adopt Google Checkout as one of the payment methods the moment it goes global, and welcome it with big fanfare, excepting more business:)
Btw, google checkout is available only to business in US, but accepts payments globally.
And i thought PP holds digital funds, paid using credit cards 99% of the time. Not actual bills of cash. I also thought that when you pay using a credit card, you got to also eventually give cold hard cash away to keep that said credit.
Since when using a credit card for payment is not spending REAL money?
Have you EVER tried to reach Paypal support? Go and try... don't stop until you reach them. Good luck with that, was nice knowing you etcetera etcetera.
Yes, but the Federal Reserve and investment bankers do it within law, supporting the modern slavery system and goverment via very large taxes paid, and federal reserve prints money as US govt needs. Remember tho, Federal Reserve is not part of US Govt, but rather an individual organization which has nothing to do with US Govt except for the business they condone together. The US currency is not "owned" by US Goverment.
If the world were just that black & white... Paypal is in market monopoly. Many businesses would not have a business without Paypal. Many businesses get 90%+ of their revenue via Paypal, business otherwise lost.
We get requests for WU more than IBAN Wiretransfer/Moneybookers. Downside is that WU is expensive, and so in practicable that transaction costs increase even more. Thus we cannot accept payment via WU.
Slashdot Mirror
No, i don't like living in industrial sector. :)
UNLESS it's dirt cheap, and comes with a huge garage, then i wouldn't mind
Besides, having a solar power plant on backyard would be kinda nice too from one perspective: You would know you couldn't get any greener electricity than that @ home: Solar, and next to 0 transmission losses. (Assuming 100% of my elect. comes direct from that plant)
There are plenty of renewable electricity sources. Atleast here in Finland, if you want to, you can opt for 100% green, renewable energy for your consumption. Price difference is 5-15%
I can say that Ubuntu has nothing on w7, absolutely nothing. I normally use w7 but was "forced" to use Ubuntu for 1month starting from end of July.
I'm a business owner and web developer, who like to play the occasional game too. (gaming was not really possible with ubuntu, wasn't looking on spending on transgaming or fiddle around)
Ubuntu vs w7 ... Ubuntu performance is OK when you use it for short periods of time (ie. reboot daily, or restart software every couple days by latest)
Performance: Ubuntu performance simply sucks, memory leaks ALL OVER the place. It's funny to see how a basic media player consumes 600mb ram, or firefox 1.7Gb
Usability: What a stinking pile of mess in ubuntu. .... (w7 sticky bar thing big thumbs up! esp. important for someone like me handling sometimes 30+ putty sessions) ... Others not so much. Also disables the above mentioned menu)
- Clipboard: Doesn't work seamlessly, requires all kinds of tricks. Copy & paste from FFOX input field to Terminal or Putty... or from Putty to anywhere (Note: Can be done, just not that trivial. Hint: Mouse middle button... Hint 2: You will begin to lust to change scroll to simple button)
- Shortcuts: Or the lack off in Ubuntu. Try to minimize or maximize window like in W7 in ubuntu... Or change the side of the screen... or launch applications
- Menus: Some menus cannot be reached at all (ie. Putty, after you've connected, that menu where you can get to settings to change translation etc. or save session)
- Close, minimize, maximize buttons on the wrong side (mac users love this
- Some things requires you to run through some hoops (ie. get mp3s to play, not much of a hoop but a taster of what's to come)
+ tons of tiny things. (+ application specific problems)
Software:
- Ubuntu has easy to access installation of a lot of good apps (tho some important things, or should be default, are not or replaced by inferior apps)
- Under ubuntu, you are kind of required to choose a lot of apps immediately to install
- Under windows i can get by with actually installing less new apps out of the box than under ubuntu (how bizarre that is?) and thus get setup faster from vanilla installation
- Some important apps just are not there in Ubuntu, and have to use vastly inferior apps (Photoshop vs. Gimp is the ages old debate, OpenOffice vs. Office another)
Despite all of that, it was kind of a nice experience. But i was really excited to get back to use w7 after that 1month. Workflow is just so much smoother under w7 despite i had to get reaccustomed to and some badhabits are now ahrd to get rid of, which i had to learn to get through some ubuntu usability issues.
Linux on the desktop has come a reaaally long way in usability in the past 4-5years, but it's still behind years in usability. Usability is pretty much all what matters in the end, to get the smoothest & most efficient workflow.
Even ethanol is better suited for vehicle power than hydrogen. Hydrogen is worst of them all. Only thing hydrogen is good in is the ability to give huge out amounts of energy fast. That's the only scenario where Hydrogen works, in any other scenario anything is better, even ethanol.
the 7litre engine/250mph topspeed isn't exactly a good example of wastefull, as they are niche cars.
But heavy cars are. Any car sold today is A LOT heavier than cars sold say 30yrs back.
Ie. my 30yo corolla coupe weights about 980kg and is RWD (some added weight for being RWD). and it wasn't exactly a lightweight car back in the day neither.
How many today's production cars are under 1000kg... Not many, if any (regular car sized, regular road car, not say k-cars or niche sports cars).
That is WASTEFULL if anything. lugging all that extra weight around.
last time i checked, plastic tubing wasn't exactly expensive neither ... ;)
and maybe, just maybe, some other shape would work just as fine as well or close enough, for lower costs
Heard of the Sahara for example? ;) pleeeeenty of space to grow some algae. And i'm pretty sure the arabs won't mind using the waste space for that, nor even funding it themselves to get started and they'll turn from oil shakes to algae shakes ;)
There are plastics in existence which do not rely on anything oil based. ...
Also, there's composite materials, which i've seen shaped just like plastic, yet being amazingly strong. Depends of course if something oil based went into the composite but
and if that happens, it's only momentarily it's more expensive to dig up than sold for. Market forces, market forces. Prices aren't static.
Ram in systems has not increased because RAM price has actually been increasing during the past several years, to more than double than it was few years back.
Which is extremely odd as RAM is becoming cheaper to produce ...
Yup it was loading them into ram. An old RAM usage pattern known as Disk cache.
Just because the OS is not HDD thrashing does not mean you are NOT out of ram already.
RAM not used by applications actively is A) swapped and B) the free ram is used as disk cache to speedup everything you do on the computer.
Swap is normally used only for INACTIVE memory. In your case editing 10 RAW images ran outbound of the ram you have REALLY bad, really the worst case scenario there is when data being handled accounts for more than the ram amount.
XP64 was actually a server version of windows retailored as regular windows.
So it was more than kernel different, but not in a visible way.
XP64 also eclipsed Vista in performance by 15-18.5%
Driver support was not as good as XP 32bit, but it was decent, and most soundcards, vidcards etc. were supported. Somethigns were not supported, but the same thigns don't likely run on 64bit W7 neither.
XP64 was better than XP 32bit even if you did not have more than 4Gb of RAM.
How large pct of your payments/revenue is via Paypal? I assume quite large likely.
Because a regular merchant account is harder to get, and setup initially. Also, a lot of consumers actually prefer Paypal, and simply having Paypal as option is guaranteed to increase conversion rate and overall revenue.
Same here, will adopt Google Checkout as one of the payment methods the moment it goes global, and welcome it with big fanfare, excepting more business :)
Btw, google checkout is available only to business in US, but accepts payments globally.
And i thought PP holds digital funds, paid using credit cards 99% of the time. Not actual bills of cash.
I also thought that when you pay using a credit card, you got to also eventually give cold hard cash away to keep that said credit.
Since when using a credit card for payment is not spending REAL money?
Have you EVER tried to reach Paypal support? Go and try... don't stop until you reach them. Good luck with that, was nice knowing you etcetera etcetera.
Maybe that's exactly the reason, or maybe he even can't disable payments?
Yes, but the Federal Reserve and investment bankers do it within law, supporting the modern slavery system and goverment via very large taxes paid, and federal reserve prints money as US govt needs.
Remember tho, Federal Reserve is not part of US Govt, but rather an individual organization which has nothing to do with US Govt except for the business they condone together. The US currency is not "owned" by US Goverment.
If the world were just that black & white ... Paypal is in market monopoly. Many businesses would not have a business without Paypal. Many businesses get 90%+ of their revenue via Paypal, business otherwise lost.
We get requests for WU more than IBAN Wiretransfer/Moneybookers. Downside is that WU is expensive, and so in practicable that transaction costs increase even more. Thus we cannot accept payment via WU.
In Europe PP is registered as a bank
Moneybookers, ePassporte, AlertPay are probably the biggest. Then there is the niche eGold and the like.
But nothing garners consumers & buyers for business like Paypal! Over 98% of our proceeds come via paypal for example.
Better yet, i make some 3 withdraw requests each week. :)
I keep always very low amount in PP account vs. fees i pay to PP per annum.
Just is common sense, PP doesn't even pay interest, and my bank pays a nice interest :)