I just read on the Wikipedia page that Silverlight is optional. Oops, TFA says the same thing. It will be interesting to see how useful it is without the client side plug in.
To be fair, Google also did a 'me too' since they bought the companies Upstartle and 2Web Technologies to get word processing and spreadsheet components of Google Docs. There were other paid services that did the same thing too. Also Microsoft haven't only just realised to do this now. It was announced back in October 2008.
And frankly, who cares if it has been done before. There is no doubt that Microsoft's Office Web Apps will be a great step up from Google Docs in terms of functionality, but the requirement of Silverlight means I will give it a miss. I don't want to install stuff locally to access my files on the web. That defeats the purpose in my opinion.
Wow. I was going to download some apps from one of those app stores. I can't believe I nearly exposed my phone to something even more dangerous than anything on my PC. In future, I am going to just limit myself to downloading whacky screensavers for my Windows system, because that is totally unlike downloading an app for my phone.
Seriously, I can't believe the gall of those attention-seeking media whores who call themselves security experts. Years after we have been able to download applications for phones, some nitwit finally realises that one of those apps could be harmful. All they have to do is blow the danger out of all proportion and wait for the stupid media to lap up the story.
"But this time it is different - instead of downloading the app from a website, you get them from an app store!" Yeah, right.
With Intel's offerings the thing is that they don't really have any advantages
What about the large reduction in power requirements for their supporting chipset. This was always the weakest link for Intel. Their CPUs are quite low powered, but their chipsets ruin any power savings. The all-in-one CPUs now allow for substantial overall power savings, meaning Intel is the king when it comes to performance per Watt.
Actually, Intel's CPUs with built-in GPU are infinitely faster than AMD's in that you can buy one of the Intel chips now. Coming up with technical quibbles is meaningless without any real benchmarks to show the differences, which even AMD can't provide.
Calling Intel's offerings crude sounds like it is quoting from AMD's press release. It may be crude, but it works and was quick and cheap to implement. But does it have any disadvantages? Certainly the quote from the article doesn't seem terribly confident that the integrated offering is going to be any better:
We hope so. We've just got the silicon in and we're going through the paces right now - the engineers are taking a look at it. But it should have power and performance advantages.
Dissing a product for some technical reason that may not have any real performance penalties? That's FUD!
Don't be so dismissive. With the firewall that the government is trying to force on us, this will be the closest thing that Aussies will get to see porn. And speaking of being political, did anyone notice that one of the grey, bland, featureless male models was actually a picture of our Prime Minister? I wonder how many people will spot that.
Am I to understand you agree with it ? Because if you do... we've really got nothing to discuss.
We have nothing to discuss because you continue to make broad, unsubstantiated accusations, and when pressed for evidence you keep changing the subject. Like you just did again.
We have nothing to discuss because you can't even understand the articles to which you have linked. Nowhere did the reported studies mention socialism. Nowhere does it say that people with higher intelligence do not vote for right wing parties, just that more of them vote for left wing parties. Nobody has claimed that if you don't believe in socialism then you are dumb. You also haven't shown how this is supposed to be biased. If there are people are saying that there is a link between intelligence and politicial allegiance, is it wrong to study it and see if that it true? If so, then we might as well give up on psychology completely. Was there anything wrong with the methodologies? Or is it just the results that you don't like? Do you think that a study should be supressed because you don't like what the outcome?
Finally, we have nothing to discuss because this thread is getting way too old and despite me trying to steer it back on topic, it has nothing to do with climate research.
I am asking for evidence of your claim that socialist and communist organisations are funding climate research at universities. You have given me one political science study that you disagree with (thas has nothing to do with the topic at hand). You have completely missed the point, but I can't tell if this is due to stupidity or a deliberate desire to push your own prejudices.
We already have evidence of at least one plane nearly crashing due to volcanic ashes. Is this guy saying that we should take the chance? Would he say that to the families of those who could die because of it?
Exactly. It does make you wonder what costs are being cut at his budget airline that might also be a danger to passengers.
I just did a couple of quick Googles and found that every time there was a mention of the British government accepting that there was an overreaction was a direct quote from Branson. I don't think that he could be considered an impartial source on this quote. I certainly find it difficult to believe that the government is asking for compensation.
And don't the airlines have insurance against this sort of natural disaster?
Yes, I had to. I had originally asked ArcherB to provide some proof to the unfounded claims that climate research was funded by socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club. I never did get that proof. All I got was you making even more unfounded claims, as if you agreeing with the original poster was some sort of proof. So naturally I had to ask you to show some evidence too. As yet, neither you nor ArcherB have been able to substantiate your allegations.
The only response I have had from you was an attempt to deflect conversation by rambling on about something that is completely unrelated. Seriously, I asked you for evidence of your claim of "socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities", and you respond with "do you seriously believe universities have a pro free-market bias?". Who the hell mentioned anything about pro free-market bias? How did that suddenly enter this discussion? I certainly didn't mention it. And to bring this back on topic, I don't think that climate research CAN be either for or against the free market. There is very little free market up there in the clouds!
Now once again. Name the socialist and communist organisations that are funding the universities in order to control climate research.
Like all good socialists, they don't have money. Instead they used any and all influence they have anywhere, from government to university boards to physical attack in some cases, to attack anyone not on their side.
Wow. This is dynamite stuff, if it is true. So who are these mythical socialists then? Let's name names and get it all out in the open. Otherwise you will sound like the grandparent poster who spouted the same sort of unsubstantiated vague and paranoid ramblings without a single fact to back it up.
There are NO scientists funding their own research anymore (used to be a basic requirement of being called "objective").
When was that ever a basic requirement of being objective? Most of the pure scientific breakthroughs of the modern science happened at Universities because it is precisely those places that can afford to work on scientific problems that do not have any immediate application.
Corporate research departments, like IBM's or Philips' have are the closest thing to impartial organisations we have in this day and age.
Why don't you trust the motives of publicly funded institutions but will blindly trust corporate research.
And what evidence do you have for this?
You know, much more proof than is available than just walking into just about any university's "human sciences" (in case you don't know "climate" is not an exact science at all) department and talking to just about anyone is not really needed.
Or just ask a student you how they think of unemployment. Or just look up a few articles on the split of political parties in any university. You'll notice, that the percentages are entirely different than those in the general population, nearly exclusively democrat (and not "sensibly" democrat, loony democrat).
So when I want evidence that PETA (amongst others) are managing to influence climate change scientists, you come back with the fact that educated people tend to vote Democrat. That is not proof of anything.
Unless of course, you think that somehow there are barely any republicans that have any measure of intelligence at all. That would, of course, make you a racist.
No it wouldn't, because Republicans aren't a different race. Kind of an unfortunate mistake, given the statement you were making!
As previously stated, very nearly all university research is sponsored by the quintessential political organisation : the government. Despite this, there is no shortage of socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities. The paper trail is ineed lengthy and obvious for all to see if you just take a look.
Then I will ask you what I asked ArcherB. What evidence do you have for this? If it is lengthy and obvious then point it out to us. Who are these socialists and communists who are funding research in large universities (despite them not having any money as you had already stated)?
In other words, climate changes is being run by socialists (who want everyone to drive equal cars), PETA (who doesn't want people eating helpless animals), and the Sierra Club (who wants plants to have rights).
Let me get this straight. You think that socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club have managed to buy out virtually all the climate scientists of the world? Where did they get the money for that? And what evidence do you have for this? For such a massive conspiracy, there would have to be a large paper trail. There would be evidence of these organisations funding research groups, just like we see evidence of anti-climate change think tanks being funded by industry at places like SourceWatch.
I guess you are saying that SUVs don't produce more CO2 than smaller cars, that cows don't produce massive amounts of methane and that deforestation has no effect on the ability of this planet to convert CO2 to O2. Well you would be wrong. On one hand you have these proven scientific facts, while on the other hand you have unproven conspiracies that have been supposedly committed by people who I doubt would have the organisational skills to pull it off. Which seems more likely?
I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.
I am sure that if nobody complained then the ad executives would plant their own complaints in the news just to get people to talk about it. How many times do you hear news reports about people being outraged without ever saying who those people are. I imagine that it is rare to need to resort to doing their own complaints, because the people who get offended by this are so predictably vocal. And who cares if you piss them off, because the target market are young people who think sexting is OK and who would be quite happy to rebel against the prudes.
There is nothing about Opera Mini that crosses even the unwritten rules Apple has, only the rules anti-Apple people THINK Apple has.
I think that the reason the anti-Apple people THINK this "duplicate functionality" rule exists might be because there were:
a few rejections with that wording.
I can't imagine why the zealots would think a rule existed merely because it had been cited by Apple as the rule that justifies banning an application.
I don't remember the last time that I played a demo, but then I tend to wait until the games are on special at around $5. If I really want something then I will pay $10 (like I did this weekend for Dirt 2 at Direct2Drive's current sale). Sure I am behind everyone else, but then often the worst of the DRM has been removed, major bugs fixed and there's enough reviews written by people who aren't getting paid to be positive about a game.
I feel if I can no longer resell games second hand due to activation or being tied to services like Steam then will only pay single digit amounts. It works for me because I got bored of multiplayer years ago.
While it's an intellectual challenge, and appeals to geek curiosity, how many really meaningful, influential games were written in one of these contests?
This is supposed to be news for nerds, please hand in your/. userid. The correct nerd response to a 48 hour game competition is "that would be fun" and not "what is the point". Some people do actually program for their own fun and not just to give you an updated version of NetHack. Anyone playing the games that result from these competitions are not doing so to find the next big classic game, but to see what people can achieve in a short time.
Sorry to sound confrontational, but I can't understand why anyone could even think that this sort of competition should end up with some meaningful and influential game. This is the epitime of the original, true geek. The goal of the geek is the same as a mountaineer: you climb a mountain or solve a problem because it is there.
While you may be amused by my statement, it is actually correct.
Opera mini will never be a contender to run Flash like web apps. It doesn't even support HTML, but uses OBML or Opera Binary Markup Language. This highly optimised language is used to transfer renderings of pages that have been built on Opera's server (which as far as I am aware, doesn't support HTML5). Doing an animation on web page actually means downloading the entire page multiple times.
The scripting is performed on Opera's servers and is incredibly basic. For example, there are no mouse, key or focus events. And since the javascript is all run on another computer, it can't possibly do anything on the iPhone/iPad that Apple doesn't want. They can't look up phone numbers, or call undocumented APIs.
...thus bypassing the App Store and Apple's cut of the money.
That makes no sense because they are pushing HTML5 which allows the same thing
It is not about the money, it is about the control. With HTML5, Apple can still control what is done on the device because only their own Safari can actually display it. They can still change the rules on a whim to disallow certain things being done on their phones. They also know that nobody else can slip in some undocumented API allowing unauthorised scripting on the phone.
Although Apple's attitude reeks of paranoia, I do have some sympathy for them wanting to ban Flash. After all, it is the biggest security hole on virtually every platform on which it runs.
Regardless, the first step to troubleshooting should be to USE THE FUCKING DEFAULTS, you idiot!
The only problem with your rant is that the Asus AI Tweaker is turned on by "fucking" default (or at least set to "auto"). It is how Asus tries to score higher in benchmark tests. As he found out, these auto settings can get confused and push the speeds too high.
I don't bother with any overclocking these days, so I alway turn off these so-called intelligent settings. The slight improvement in speed can be completely offset by random crashes. It has been a long time since I had a computer that wasn't more than fast enough for my needs. (Mind you, I don't play Crysis.) But I can understand how someone might think that the default setting would be the conservative one.
Sure, he replaced all the other parts of the system before he replaced the CPU, but he already had those other parts on hand
Correction to myself. He did buy another motherboard because he had already had problems with it previously. If it had been problematic before then it seems reasonable to think that it may have been the causing this issue on the Win7 install.
When the book is out, someone should write a review on Amazon to tell potential readers the author's capability of running windows on properly.
So after 400 (presumably) successful installations he has a hardware failure that causes problems. Exactly what would you say that he couldn't do in your review on Amazon? That he couldn't get Windows installed? Surely not, because he did end up getting it installed after replacing the faulty part.
Sure, he replaced all the other parts of the system before he replaced the CPU, but he already had those other parts on hand. He had to end up buying the new CPU. Surely you would try the stuff that you could do for free before shelling out money on new equipment.
More evidence he's a "script-kiddy": He uses Microsoft's "excellent" Windows 7 USB DVD Download Tool, instead of simply using diskpart to create a partition on the stick and copying the files over from the ISO.
Yeah, right. He writes books on Windows 7, but he shouldn't try the official way of installing from USB. Because that would mean that he had used the tools that he wanted to write about. Shame on him!
Slashdot is nearly as bad as mainstream media, constantly trying to sensationalize everything...
You can't sensationalize something that already is sensational.
You don't see it as a problem? Why is it not alright to be ignorant, but it is OK to choose to be deliberately ignorant? If someone didn't know why lightning occurs, can that be justified because they claim that it is the god Thor throwing around lightning bolts.
That would be laughable. Just as laughable as any other god creating humans as we are today, and then planting fossils to "test our faith".
Slashdot Mirror
I just read on the Wikipedia page that Silverlight is optional. Oops, TFA says the same thing. It will be interesting to see how useful it is without the client side plug in.
To be fair, Google also did a 'me too' since they bought the companies Upstartle and 2Web Technologies to get word processing and spreadsheet components of Google Docs. There were other paid services that did the same thing too. Also Microsoft haven't only just realised to do this now. It was announced back in October 2008.
And frankly, who cares if it has been done before. There is no doubt that Microsoft's Office Web Apps will be a great step up from Google Docs in terms of functionality, but the requirement of Silverlight means I will give it a miss. I don't want to install stuff locally to access my files on the web. That defeats the purpose in my opinion.
Wow. I was going to download some apps from one of those app stores. I can't believe I nearly exposed my phone to something even more dangerous than anything on my PC. In future, I am going to just limit myself to downloading whacky screensavers for my Windows system, because that is totally unlike downloading an app for my phone.
Seriously, I can't believe the gall of those attention-seeking media whores who call themselves security experts. Years after we have been able to download applications for phones, some nitwit finally realises that one of those apps could be harmful. All they have to do is blow the danger out of all proportion and wait for the stupid media to lap up the story.
"But this time it is different - instead of downloading the app from a website, you get them from an app store!" Yeah, right.
With Intel's offerings the thing is that they don't really have any advantages
What about the large reduction in power requirements for their supporting chipset. This was always the weakest link for Intel. Their CPUs are quite low powered, but their chipsets ruin any power savings. The all-in-one CPUs now allow for substantial overall power savings, meaning Intel is the king when it comes to performance per Watt.
Actually, Intel's CPUs with built-in GPU are infinitely faster than AMD's in that you can buy one of the Intel chips now. Coming up with technical quibbles is meaningless without any real benchmarks to show the differences, which even AMD can't provide.
Calling Intel's offerings crude sounds like it is quoting from AMD's press release. It may be crude, but it works and was quick and cheap to implement. But does it have any disadvantages? Certainly the quote from the article doesn't seem terribly confident that the integrated offering is going to be any better:
We hope so. We've just got the silicon in and we're going through the paces right now - the engineers are taking a look at it. But it should have power and performance advantages.
Dissing a product for some technical reason that may not have any real performance penalties? That's FUD!
Don't be so dismissive. With the firewall that the government is trying to force on us, this will be the closest thing that Aussies will get to see porn. And speaking of being political, did anyone notice that one of the grey, bland, featureless male models was actually a picture of our Prime Minister? I wonder how many people will spot that.
Am I to understand you agree with it ? Because if you do ... we've really got nothing to discuss.
We have nothing to discuss because you continue to make broad, unsubstantiated accusations, and when pressed for evidence you keep changing the subject. Like you just did again.
We have nothing to discuss because you can't even understand the articles to which you have linked. Nowhere did the reported studies mention socialism. Nowhere does it say that people with higher intelligence do not vote for right wing parties, just that more of them vote for left wing parties. Nobody has claimed that if you don't believe in socialism then you are dumb. You also haven't shown how this is supposed to be biased. If there are people are saying that there is a link between intelligence and politicial allegiance, is it wrong to study it and see if that it true? If so, then we might as well give up on psychology completely. Was there anything wrong with the methodologies? Or is it just the results that you don't like? Do you think that a study should be supressed because you don't like what the outcome?
Finally, we have nothing to discuss because this thread is getting way too old and despite me trying to steer it back on topic, it has nothing to do with climate research.
I am asking for evidence of your claim that socialist and communist organisations are funding climate research at universities. You have given me one political science study that you disagree with (thas has nothing to do with the topic at hand). You have completely missed the point, but I can't tell if this is due to stupidity or a deliberate desire to push your own prejudices.
We already have evidence of at least one plane nearly crashing due to volcanic ashes. Is this guy saying that we should take the chance? Would he say that to the families of those who could die because of it?
Exactly. It does make you wonder what costs are being cut at his budget airline that might also be a danger to passengers.
I just did a couple of quick Googles and found that every time there was a mention of the British government accepting that there was an overreaction was a direct quote from Branson. I don't think that he could be considered an impartial source on this quote. I certainly find it difficult to believe that the government is asking for compensation.
And don't the airlines have insurance against this sort of natural disaster?
You just repeat what you've said before
Yes, I had to. I had originally asked ArcherB to provide some proof to the unfounded claims that climate research was funded by socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club. I never did get that proof. All I got was you making even more unfounded claims, as if you agreeing with the original poster was some sort of proof. So naturally I had to ask you to show some evidence too. As yet, neither you nor ArcherB have been able to substantiate your allegations.
The only response I have had from you was an attempt to deflect conversation by rambling on about something that is completely unrelated. Seriously, I asked you for evidence of your claim of "socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities", and you respond with "do you seriously believe universities have a pro free-market bias?". Who the hell mentioned anything about pro free-market bias? How did that suddenly enter this discussion? I certainly didn't mention it. And to bring this back on topic, I don't think that climate research CAN be either for or against the free market. There is very little free market up there in the clouds!
Now once again. Name the socialist and communist organisations that are funding the universities in order to control climate research.
Like all good socialists, they don't have money. Instead they used any and all influence they have anywhere, from government to university boards to physical attack in some cases, to attack anyone not on their side.
Wow. This is dynamite stuff, if it is true. So who are these mythical socialists then? Let's name names and get it all out in the open. Otherwise you will sound like the grandparent poster who spouted the same sort of unsubstantiated vague and paranoid ramblings without a single fact to back it up.
There are NO scientists funding their own research anymore (used to be a basic requirement of being called "objective").
When was that ever a basic requirement of being objective? Most of the pure scientific breakthroughs of the modern science happened at Universities because it is precisely those places that can afford to work on scientific problems that do not have any immediate application.
Corporate research departments, like IBM's or Philips' have are the closest thing to impartial organisations we have in this day and age.
Why don't you trust the motives of publicly funded institutions but will blindly trust corporate research.
And what evidence do you have for this?
You know, much more proof than is available than just walking into just about any university's "human sciences" (in case you don't know "climate" is not an exact science at all) department and talking to just about anyone is not really needed.
Or just ask a student you how they think of unemployment. Or just look up a few articles on the split of political parties in any university. You'll notice, that the percentages are entirely different than those in the general population, nearly exclusively democrat (and not "sensibly" democrat, loony democrat).
So when I want evidence that PETA (amongst others) are managing to influence climate change scientists, you come back with the fact that educated people tend to vote Democrat. That is not proof of anything.
Unless of course, you think that somehow there are barely any republicans that have any measure of intelligence at all. That would, of course, make you a racist.
No it wouldn't, because Republicans aren't a different race. Kind of an unfortunate mistake, given the statement you were making!
As previously stated, very nearly all university research is sponsored by the quintessential political organisation : the government. Despite this, there is no shortage of socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities. The paper trail is ineed lengthy and obvious for all to see if you just take a look.
Then I will ask you what I asked ArcherB. What evidence do you have for this? If it is lengthy and obvious then point it out to us. Who are these socialists and communists who are funding research in large universities (despite them not having any money as you had already stated)?
In other words, climate changes is being run by socialists (who want everyone to drive equal cars), PETA (who doesn't want people eating helpless animals), and the Sierra Club (who wants plants to have rights).
Let me get this straight. You think that socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club have managed to buy out virtually all the climate scientists of the world? Where did they get the money for that? And what evidence do you have for this? For such a massive conspiracy, there would have to be a large paper trail. There would be evidence of these organisations funding research groups, just like we see evidence of anti-climate change think tanks being funded by industry at places like SourceWatch.
I guess you are saying that SUVs don't produce more CO2 than smaller cars, that cows don't produce massive amounts of methane and that deforestation has no effect on the ability of this planet to convert CO2 to O2. Well you would be wrong. On one hand you have these proven scientific facts, while on the other hand you have unproven conspiracies that have been supposedly committed by people who I doubt would have the organisational skills to pull it off. Which seems more likely?
I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.
I am sure that if nobody complained then the ad executives would plant their own complaints in the news just to get people to talk about it. How many times do you hear news reports about people being outraged without ever saying who those people are. I imagine that it is rare to need to resort to doing their own complaints, because the people who get offended by this are so predictably vocal. And who cares if you piss them off, because the target market are young people who think sexting is OK and who would be quite happy to rebel against the prudes.
There is nothing about Opera Mini that crosses even the unwritten rules Apple has, only the rules anti-Apple people THINK Apple has.
I think that the reason the anti-Apple people THINK this "duplicate functionality" rule exists might be because there were:
a few rejections with that wording.
I can't imagine why the zealots would think a rule existed merely because it had been cited by Apple as the rule that justifies banning an application.
I don't remember the last time that I played a demo, but then I tend to wait until the games are on special at around $5. If I really want something then I will pay $10 (like I did this weekend for Dirt 2 at Direct2Drive's current sale). Sure I am behind everyone else, but then often the worst of the DRM has been removed, major bugs fixed and there's enough reviews written by people who aren't getting paid to be positive about a game.
I feel if I can no longer resell games second hand due to activation or being tied to services like Steam then will only pay single digit amounts. It works for me because I got bored of multiplayer years ago.
While it's an intellectual challenge, and appeals to geek curiosity, how many really meaningful, influential games were written in one of these contests?
This is supposed to be news for nerds, please hand in your /. userid. The correct nerd response to a 48 hour game competition is "that would be fun" and not "what is the point". Some people do actually program for their own fun and not just to give you an updated version of NetHack. Anyone playing the games that result from these competitions are not doing so to find the next big classic game, but to see what people can achieve in a short time.
Sorry to sound confrontational, but I can't understand why anyone could even think that this sort of competition should end up with some meaningful and influential game. This is the epitime of the original, true geek. The goal of the geek is the same as a mountaineer: you climb a mountain or solve a problem because it is there.
While you may be amused by my statement, it is actually correct.
Opera mini will never be a contender to run Flash like web apps. It doesn't even support HTML, but uses OBML or Opera Binary Markup Language. This highly optimised language is used to transfer renderings of pages that have been built on Opera's server (which as far as I am aware, doesn't support HTML5). Doing an animation on web page actually means downloading the entire page multiple times.
The scripting is performed on Opera's servers and is incredibly basic. For example, there are no mouse, key or focus events. And since the javascript is all run on another computer, it can't possibly do anything on the iPhone/iPad that Apple doesn't want. They can't look up phone numbers, or call undocumented APIs.
...thus bypassing the App Store and Apple's cut of the money.
That makes no sense because they are pushing HTML5 which allows the same thing
It is not about the money, it is about the control. With HTML5, Apple can still control what is done on the device because only their own Safari can actually display it. They can still change the rules on a whim to disallow certain things being done on their phones. They also know that nobody else can slip in some undocumented API allowing unauthorised scripting on the phone.
Although Apple's attitude reeks of paranoia, I do have some sympathy for them wanting to ban Flash. After all, it is the biggest security hole on virtually every platform on which it runs.
Regardless, the first step to troubleshooting should be to USE THE FUCKING DEFAULTS, you idiot!
The only problem with your rant is that the Asus AI Tweaker is turned on by "fucking" default (or at least set to "auto"). It is how Asus tries to score higher in benchmark tests. As he found out, these auto settings can get confused and push the speeds too high.
I don't bother with any overclocking these days, so I alway turn off these so-called intelligent settings. The slight improvement in speed can be completely offset by random crashes. It has been a long time since I had a computer that wasn't more than fast enough for my needs. (Mind you, I don't play Crysis.) But I can understand how someone might think that the default setting would be the conservative one.
Sure, he replaced all the other parts of the system before he replaced the CPU, but he already had those other parts on hand
Correction to myself. He did buy another motherboard because he had already had problems with it previously. If it had been problematic before then it seems reasonable to think that it may have been the causing this issue on the Win7 install.
When the book is out, someone should write a review on Amazon to tell potential readers the author's capability of running windows on properly.
So after 400 (presumably) successful installations he has a hardware failure that causes problems. Exactly what would you say that he couldn't do in your review on Amazon? That he couldn't get Windows installed? Surely not, because he did end up getting it installed after replacing the faulty part.
Sure, he replaced all the other parts of the system before he replaced the CPU, but he already had those other parts on hand. He had to end up buying the new CPU. Surely you would try the stuff that you could do for free before shelling out money on new equipment.
More evidence he's a "script-kiddy": He uses Microsoft's "excellent" Windows 7 USB DVD Download Tool, instead of simply using diskpart to create a partition on the stick and copying the files over from the ISO.
Yeah, right. He writes books on Windows 7, but he shouldn't try the official way of installing from USB. Because that would mean that he had used the tools that he wanted to write about. Shame on him!
Slashdot is nearly as bad as mainstream media, constantly trying to sensationalize everything...
You can't sensationalize something that already is sensational.
You don't see it as a problem? Why is it not alright to be ignorant, but it is OK to choose to be deliberately ignorant? If someone didn't know why lightning occurs, can that be justified because they claim that it is the god Thor throwing around lightning bolts.
That would be laughable. Just as laughable as any other god creating humans as we are today, and then planting fossils to "test our faith".