AFAIK, Word documents keep some old, already "over-written" stuff (for Undo functionality, maybe).
I saw a story (in a dead tree mag, no link). A company sent an offer to several companies, using just one Word document as a template to finish up slightly different deals to the companies. Then a geek at one of those companies unearthed all the versions from the offer they received. Somewhat embarrassing to the sender.
I don't know whether the story is true or myth; or whether this is "possible" or "routine" out there;-)
Maybe it's because .biz looks just as respectable as .mob... No really, some people just want to have the plain old .com over any new fangled invention (never mind the dot bomb era).
No! The idea of using one application for all tasks is simply totally counter-intuitive! It feels more natural (to the end user) to have an application per task, one that is designed to suit the task. WTF is this compulsory need to "integrate" at all costs? It's just plain stupid! Humbug! Bah!
FWIW, I do interface design so I've had to give this some thought. Anyway, going back to my cave now.
"Steal"? Good Heavens, what has this world come to?
Shopping malls and department stores typically sprout ads thru the PA system. If I go there listening to my portable CD player, am I stealing? After all, I'm blocking the ads (deliberately indeed -- I loathe them).
I choose what I listen, and I damn well choose what I browse. I have never asked for or agreed to
pop-ups, so I do with them what I please.
You're wrong. Phones weren't commonplace in 1870. The Internet wasn't commonplace in 1992. But cell phones are commonplace now. And have been some time.
You are not talking about a new appliance, but 3G over 2.5G. This is not a new appliance, it's just new widgetry that (by and large) nobody needs.
So you need to create a new market and new supply, to give birth to the demand. In my book, that sucks large watermelons.
Well, it's that, or alternatively that you give standing ovation to the new 170,000 strong Gestapo that Bush Junior and his merry congressmen just created. (In which case the cops wouldn't be at your doorstep, either.)
Wrong. The Macintosh GUI was original work by Jef Raskin; whereas the work at XPARC was to a large extent based on his goundwork and lectures on interfaces and ergonomy he gave earlier in his career, long before joining Apple. (You can Google it up, I have lost the links. The story is pretty juicy, with the jealous Steve Jobs busy trying to kill Raskin's Macintosh project in favor of the at that point plain vanilla CLI Lisa, and all...) -- Raskin is the original GUI guy.
John Carmack's hardly the person to decide that. It's up to ATI to supply a good driver.
Of course it's up to Id Software to optimise for any given card. I guess it's somewhat indicative of JC's sentiments that Doom III was demoed at E3 (?) on a R300 (Radeon 9700) card.:-)
Otherwise you're right, but GF"4" MX has hardware T&L -- it just doesn't have a vertex shader (programmable hardware T&L). But agreed, GF3 would be the much better choice!
Nvidia too a lot of heat for the naming scheme, as feature-wise the GF4 MX is same generation as GF2.
Well, they don't sell the cards for free. With the 300+ bucks you pay for a R9700 card, aren't you entitled to some nice customer service with the drivers?
And this is not only after-sales bitching. Available drivers are a key point to many prospective buyers (as evident enough here).
The PowerVR Series 4 and 5 have been under development for a long time (Kyro 2 is Series 3), but Videologic (a division of Img Tec) is stuck in a hard place: their foundry and tech partner STMicro wants to sell their entire Graphics Products division entirely, and there have been no buyers yet... hence no fabber for Series 4 and 5. (STMicro currently holds the licenses to those two.) Rumours say VIA was interested at some point of time, but nothing materialised.
Radeon 9700 smokes GF4 4600 in just about every benchmark there is. Especially at higher resolutions, and with AA and AF on. Check any hardware site (Tom's, Anand, Beyond3D, whatnot) to see for yourself.
ATI's R300 based hardware is fantastic. And the drivers are reported to be quite solid, on par with Nvidia's (who, incidentally, has had some quality problems with the 40.x drivers, odd stuttering in games -- se the sites for more info).
This in Windows land - I don't know about *nix or *BSD.
Thank you for your helpful offer. Unfortunately, we are aiming at an intelligence at least capable of telling the difference between dollars and pounds.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, Word documents keep some old, already "over-written" stuff (for Undo functionality, maybe).
;-)
I saw a story (in a dead tree mag, no link). A company sent an offer to several companies, using just one Word document as a template to finish up slightly different deals to the companies. Then a geek at one of those companies unearthed all the versions from the offer they received. Somewhat embarrassing to the sender.
I don't know whether the story is true or myth; or whether this is "possible" or "routine" out there
The testing is sickening. But it's us or them, really.
Maybe it's because .biz looks just as respectable as .mob ... No really, some people just want to have the plain old .com over any new fangled invention (never mind the dot bomb era).
Jesus. This Hector Ruiz guy makes Ellen Fleiss look sober.
So... no benefit to the end user?
Have we forgot our medication again, mmm?
Sure sure, it's all most possible, indeed! Easy now...
No! The idea of using one application for all tasks is simply totally counter-intuitive! It feels more natural (to the end user) to have an application per task, one that is designed to suit the task. WTF is this compulsory need to "integrate" at all costs? It's just plain stupid! Humbug! Bah!
FWIW, I do interface design so I've had to give this some thought. Anyway, going back to my cave now.
Didn't Microsoft just inform us to not trust their content? There was a /. story a few days back...
[I don't know why the above ended up here; I thought I was commenting on the AC who suggested that blocking pop-ups is "stealing". Ah well.]
"Steal"? Good Heavens, what has this world come to?
Shopping malls and department stores typically sprout ads thru the PA system. If I go there listening to my portable CD player, am I stealing? After all, I'm blocking the ads (deliberately indeed -- I loathe them).
I choose what I listen, and I damn well choose what I browse. I have never asked for or agreed to pop-ups, so I do with them what I please.
Jesus...
Obviosuly, the "#" is two "++" thrown together, one atop another. And Microsoft wanted to look sharp.
It was the preceding character from "X".
You're wrong. Phones weren't commonplace in 1870. The Internet wasn't commonplace in 1992. But cell phones are commonplace now. And have been some time.
You are not talking about a new appliance, but 3G over 2.5G. This is not a new appliance, it's just new widgetry that (by and large) nobody needs.
So you need to create a new market and new supply, to give birth to the demand. In my book, that sucks large watermelons.
Do get the channels for Spanish pregnant gay men yet? If not, stop complaining ;-)
Pregnat male gay Korean coders on Slashdot, unite! Oh wait
Well, it's that, or alternatively that you give standing ovation to the new 170,000 strong Gestapo that Bush Junior and his merry congressmen just created. (In which case the cops wouldn't be at your doorstep, either.)
Actually, according to AMD, a "2100" rating means equivalent to a 2100 MHz classic (pre-XP) Athlon -- there's no comparison to Pentiums.
:-)
Agreed that it's faster.
Wrong. The Macintosh GUI was original work by Jef Raskin; whereas the work at XPARC was to a large extent based on his goundwork and lectures on interfaces and ergonomy he gave earlier in his career, long before joining Apple. (You can Google it up, I have lost the links. The story is pretty juicy, with the jealous Steve Jobs busy trying to kill Raskin's Macintosh project in favor of the at that point plain vanilla CLI Lisa, and all...) -- Raskin is the original GUI guy.
While not a general aviation aircraft, wasn't the F-111 the first aircraft overall to employ the idea of ejecting the whole cockpit on a parachute?
John Carmack's hardly the person to decide that. It's up to ATI to supply a good driver.
:-)
Of course it's up to Id Software to optimise for any given card. I guess it's somewhat indicative of JC's sentiments that Doom III was demoed at E3 (?) on a R300 (Radeon 9700) card.
Otherwise you're right, but GF"4" MX has hardware T&L -- it just doesn't have a vertex shader (programmable hardware T&L). But agreed, GF3 would be the much better choice!
Nvidia too a lot of heat for the naming scheme, as feature-wise the GF4 MX is same generation as GF2.
Well, they don't sell the cards for free. With the 300+ bucks you pay for a R9700 card, aren't you entitled to some nice customer service with the drivers?
And this is not only after-sales bitching. Available drivers are a key point to many prospective buyers (as evident enough here).
The PowerVR Series 4 and 5 have been under development for a long time (Kyro 2 is Series 3), but Videologic (a division of Img Tec) is stuck in a hard place: their foundry and tech partner STMicro wants to sell their entire Graphics Products division entirely, and there have been no buyers yet... hence no fabber for Series 4 and 5. (STMicro currently holds the licenses to those two.) Rumours say VIA was interested at some point of time, but nothing materialised.
Radeon 9700 smokes GF4 4600 in just about every benchmark there is. Especially at higher resolutions, and with AA and AF on. Check any hardware site (Tom's, Anand, Beyond3D, whatnot) to see for yourself. ATI's R300 based hardware is fantastic. And the drivers are reported to be quite solid, on par with Nvidia's (who, incidentally, has had some quality problems with the 40.x drivers, odd stuttering in games -- se the sites for more info). This in Windows land - I don't know about *nix or *BSD.
Dear Jason,
Thank you for your helpful offer. Unfortunately, we are aiming at an intelligence at least capable of telling the difference between dollars and pounds.
Yours Sincerely,
IBM