...and an assumption that hardware components will always fail.
I think perhaps this is something we could all take a little more seriously. Part of me realises this is a comment on the sheer data being manipulated, but then something else that sprung to mind is the gradual reduction of warranties on HDDs, for example. I wonder what sort of stats an operation of this size could gather on various hardware components, and their varying propensities to wither and die.
How can you bemoan an advance like this, based upon students have extremely high data transfer needs.
I don't want to get into the argument about whether these perceived 'needs' this is based upon are legal or not, but there are also other perspectives. This is surely a reasonable test of VoIP, which should be welcomed as a step forward along this technical path. Not only that, but sooner or later (I'll leave others to debate which this will be) the majority of us may very well have a need for concurrent high data transfer and VoIP capabilities. Would you prefer this technology was further refined in a suitable environment (due to technical, physical, and informational resources) such as this, or not at all?
Ignorant? Yes. No more ignorant than most people's? Yes! Do I want to stay ignorant about the inner workings of office software? Hell yes!
When it comes to this sort of thing, most users just want to know that xxx app will open the document, and display it as close to how it should be as reasonably possible. Yes, free (or cheaper) is good, but then so is functionality.
I have read various comments on this but wouldn't mind the/. crowd's various takes. What happens when MS's Office switches to bastardised XML? Is it going to tip the whole cart over, or is it a small bump in the road? For someone considering switching to *nix, this could make a significant difference...
This brings an interesting point to bear - who's right is it to say what appears on a site and what doesn't?
I walk into a store, for which the construction and lease/purchase was paid for by the owner, and I do not expect to see any advertising for a competitor. This seems to make sense, as the store owner paid for the store, and has the right to choose what is in the store.
I browse to a company site, for which the creation and hosting and domain name is paid for by the owner, yet the owner does not have total control over what I see. Is the spanner in this the fact that I (or someone on my behalf *cough*) pay for my connection, and I have agreed to a 3rd party 'facilitating' or 'augmenting' this visit in some way?
I guess this is a question that will become more frequently asked, as advertisers and their agents come up with increasingly convoluted methods of gaining the attention of consumers. Who ultimately has the right to state what we see, when we visit sites on the web.
I'd go with the worms theory - everyone knows Microsoft products are full holes, so why not the back up tapes their emails are kept on? The fact that they're two totally different concepts is irrevelant, as this IS Microsoft...
Apart stating the obvious fact that.mov is a better container format than.avi (yes I know divx is a file format), why did you want QT Pro? If it's for full screen on a Mac try:
If people weren't irrational, they'd be one of those things which everyone is having this discussion about:) Then of course, it would come down to which 'race' is better. Oh dear...
Performance? Here.
Granted the benchmarking was carried out for Apple, but it was by an independent body, and was carried out as fairly as possible. Ultimately, it's a manufacturer's website, but they don't differ from anyone else in the chip making/selling sphere. I think it is safe to say that performance is at least equal to, if not exceeding that available from Intel. I suggest you delete the 3 year old cache from your machine, or at least refresh those somewhat stale pages....
Ahh, I think you're missing the point somewhere along the way - why would he pirate software the manufaturer was attempting to force him to buy, as he didn't want it in the first place? Makes me think - RTFA....
Slashdot Mirror
Just like everywhere else...
We use Morse Code by candle light. What's your problem?
I think perhaps this is something we could all take a little more seriously. Part of me realises this is a comment on the sheer data being manipulated, but then something else that sprung to mind is the gradual reduction of warranties on HDDs, for example. I wonder what sort of stats an operation of this size could gather on various hardware components, and their varying propensities to wither and die.
I need something for my p...err, book collection.
Windows ME that is...
Dust lightly with flour, open microwave door, then 4 minutes on high should do it...
I don't want to get into the argument about whether these perceived 'needs' this is based upon are legal or not, but there are also other perspectives. This is surely a reasonable test of VoIP, which should be welcomed as a step forward along this technical path. Not only that, but sooner or later (I'll leave others to debate which this will be) the majority of us may very well have a need for concurrent high data transfer and VoIP capabilities. Would you prefer this technology was further refined in a suitable environment (due to technical, physical, and informational resources) such as this, or not at all?
YES!!!!
It's my eye sight you see, it's failing for, err, ahh, some reason....
I searched all the comments above, and couldn't find the obligatory post about por...oops pr0n. This can't be /. - where the HELL am I?
Ignorant? Yes.
No more ignorant than most people's? Yes!
Do I want to stay ignorant about the inner workings of office software? Hell yes!
When it comes to this sort of thing, most users just want to know that xxx app will open the document, and display it as close to how it should be as reasonably possible. Yes, free (or cheaper) is good, but then so is functionality.
I have read various comments on this but wouldn't mind the /. crowd's various takes. What happens when MS's Office switches to bastardised XML? Is it going to tip the whole cart over, or is it a small bump in the road? For someone considering switching to *nix, this could make a significant difference...
I walk into a store, for which the construction and lease/purchase was paid for by the owner, and I do not expect to see any advertising for a competitor. This seems to make sense, as the store owner paid for the store, and has the right to choose what is in the store.
I browse to a company site, for which the creation and hosting and domain name is paid for by the owner, yet the owner does not have total control over what I see. Is the spanner in this the fact that I (or someone on my behalf *cough*) pay for my connection, and I have agreed to a 3rd party 'facilitating' or 'augmenting' this visit in some way?
I guess this is a question that will become more frequently asked, as advertisers and their agents come up with increasingly convoluted methods of gaining the attention of consumers. Who ultimately has the right to state what we see, when we visit sites on the web.
About as happy as the women when they got their 'pythons' home as well...
http://http-tunnel.com/HT_Products_HTTPTunnelClien t.asp
I'd go with the worms theory - everyone knows Microsoft products are full holes, so why not the back up tapes their emails are kept on? The fact that they're two totally different concepts is irrevelant, as this IS Microsoft...
And you would need a login prompt why? By 2005 Microsoft will have everyone's user/pass and will log in for you, to reduce security risk...
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone /
Transcoding, I agree 100%. Unless of course they like repeatedly serving up content to thousands upon thousands of internet junkies...
http://www.webmastermac.com/tips/quicktime/qtfulls creen.shtml
If people weren't irrational, they'd be one of those things which everyone is having this discussion about :) Then of course, it would come down to which 'race' is better. Oh dear...
Twice as much and half as fast?
Dual 3.06GHz Xeon (Dell) $3999
Dual 2GHz G5 PM (Apple) $2999
Performance? Here. Granted the benchmarking was carried out for Apple, but it was by an independent body, and was carried out as fairly as possible. Ultimately, it's a manufacturer's website, but they don't differ from anyone else in the chip making/selling sphere. I think it is safe to say that performance is at least equal to, if not exceeding that available from Intel. I suggest you delete the 3 year old cache from your machine, or at least refresh those somewhat stale pages....
Obviously not running Windows XP then...
Ahh, I think you're missing the point somewhere along the way - why would he pirate software the manufaturer was attempting to force him to buy, as he didn't want it in the first place? Makes me think - RTFA....
Oh, wait a sec - that's not funny - that's true... ..k