Reprinting 5,000 DVD's would be much less costly than an early pirated version of the movie.
And missing out on major movie awards that draw paying viewers into the theaters may well be much more costly than an early pirated version of that same movie.
So we should all switch to FireFox and Thunderbird because IE/Outlook are the most common browser/e-mail clients, and hence the biggest target. And besides, Microsoft can't write secure code.
Except if we all do switch then FF and TB will become the most common browser/e-mail clients, and there's no reason to believe that Mozilla's coders are that much better than MS's. FF has gone through how many versions these last 12 months?
Why aren't the programmers that worked on any given buggy module ever named? If you faced public ridicule and loss of reputation for releasing exploitable code you might be more careful about what you certify as ready to ship.
won't reverse that unless they can get Intel can get the 64 and 45nm fabs up and running fast.
That's not Intel's problem. AMD has a better design with a low latency integrated memory controller that Intel's bus system can't match. And Intel keeps pushing out the roadmap for when their chips will match this rather crucial design feature.
Putting an article together for submission to Slashdot doesn't come at no effort. And obviously there's some upset on this issue. What would make at least some us happy is two things:
1: If we submit a story that's Rejected, we don't want to see the same story Accepted from a later submitter. Posting the time that an article is initially submitted to Slashdot would help us know when we really were beaten by another submitter.
2: In addition to Accepted and Rejected status on submissions, having a Duplicate status would be nice to say, "Hey, it is a great submission, but someone else really did beat you to this one. Better luck next time."
At least this would make me happier. I've had items Rejected, only to appear a day and a half later under someone else's name.
Haven't other studies confirmed much longer lifetimes in the past for CD-R? After all, we've had CD burners for longer than 2-5 years. Is this only a surprise because absolutely nobody has ever gone back and tried to read an old disc? Somehow I'm still doubtful of his conclusions.
we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television
Gee, and did the government specifically help them buy them buy their first television? If not, why should it be expected to help them buy this new one? Enquiring minds, and all that jazz.
millions of American households without cable or satellite access will lose free access to news and weather along with the rest of their broadcast fare.
WTF? It was never free. You had to buy the current generation television receiver to access this content. And TV's get cheaper every year. Now you'll just have to buy a new TV to access the new content. I don't see anywhere that they're about to start charging you to receive content over the public airwaves. Clearly the article poster did not think through their summary very well.
Excuse me. The hole has been there since 1990. It hasn't been caught by any code or security review since then, despite Mr. Gates change of direction and push to make security the top Microsoft priority how many years ago now? And it's patched by a third party days ahead of the scheduled Microsoft patch.
Maybe Microsoft -- and you -- should be the ones getting clues.
One gets the feeling that the MS programmer didn't want to come in over the New Year's holiday to work on some piece of legacy code from 1990 that he was handed several years ago when the last programmer whose responsibility it was, was promoted/left for Google. This latest programmer has never looked into this code before this last weekend.
It may not have been anything like this at all, but this is the feeling one gets.
One also wonders about the job security of the MS programmer who didn't get this fix out in a timely manner.
Even with correctable glasses I can't focus on anything closer than about 4 inches. You think I -- and anybody else my age with the natural progression of eyesight as we age -- are going to be able to watch this thing?
And what about the eyestrain of focusing to close over a long period of time (e.g. 2hr35min Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)?
Until the laser writes directly on the retina and corrects automatically for vision problems, I don't think this is for me.
Obviously related. Galaxies aren't spinning property, and Pioneer spacecraft aren't flying properly. These two items are obviously related, and don't deserve to have two separate items in the list.
Along with realizing that Dark Energy and Dark Matter come from the same explanation (see previous post), we'll have this list whittled down to a much more reasonable 10 Items before you know it. After all, who has ever heard of a Top 13 list?
Same thing, and both explained by String Theory. The missing matter/undetectable energy are strings that have not yet coalesced into recognisable matter and energy. It's simply unformed stuff that we can't detect yet.
How do you explain to an 11 year old that it sucks now.. but may get better by next year?
You start by not catering to unrealistic expectations. Otherwise by the age of 16 he'll expect a new car -- and it better be a faster one than his friends are getting.
He can tide himself over by either earning and saving the money (even a 11-year-old can do chores to earn his allowance) the money to buy it himself and get a real sense of the real world. Or go play at his friend's houses whose parents don't stand up to the pressure as well as you have. Let him buy a $60 game they don't have as his contribution to play on their $399 hardware, and everyone comes out ahead.
It's the parents that are the problem here -- not the kids who just take advantage of the situation they're offered.
...to wait at least a year after launch before buying a new console. In addition to the cost savings, a chance to check out the competition, and developers learning to fully use the power of the new system.
You clearly don't understand the short attention span of today's youth, and the inability of their parents to stand up against unreasonable kid's demands that they must have the newest/best NOW! They all pay early adopter prices, while putting up with early adopter glitches. All this happens because there are too many people who just can't wait a few months for the latest + greatest.
Apple did it. Twice. They managed to move their entire user base from 680x0 to PowerPC with a combination of emulation and fat binaries. Then they added AltaVec with the G4 computers, while still maintaining compatibility with earlier G3 computers. Finally, they have moved to the 64 bit G5. Wait that's three times. (Four if you include the introduction of CoreImage that depends on advances in Video cards).
You missed one. They also moved from 68008 24-bit addressing to 68020/30/40 clean 32-bit addressing, which required a lot of cleanup since the top byte of the 32-bit address word had been used for other functions by some developers.
But you give too much credit to Apple. It's the Apple developers who keep migrating their code to ever newer Apple platforms. Apple may create a future development environment, compiler, and migration tools that will work with most programs with some effort, but much of the burden falls on the developers who now have to support a completely new program version. At what point to they throw up their hands and say "Enough of this!" for a platform with only 15% market-share? Their only advantage is the ability to sell the same software for the new platform when a user purchases new hardware or OS. Then the end-user gets screwed by not being able to run his perfectly good purchased software on the new platform with any increased performance after you subtract the cost of emulation. I guess that's the reward to the developers -- rather like the RIAA having you repurchase your music with every new format change.
Come to think of it, Apple users have been screwed a lot along the way. Amazing that Apple keeps doing it and yet retains so much loyalty. Now the promise of cheap Intel hardware is completely negated by Apple insisting that their OS will only be allowed to run on their hardware still. Jobs could sell ice to Eskimos.
Microsoft...to fully integrate MMX/SSE into their operating system because it would have been too much work.
Let's see. It would have been work. And it would have broken compatibility with every older computer in user's hands each time Microsoft did this. End of operating systems upgrades for all those users. I'll bet Microsoft considers this a problem, even if you don't. And keeping track of all the different Windows versions for each new Intel update wouldn't be easy either.
Besides, just how useful is SSE2/SSE3 in an operating system? Even in MSOffice, at best you might make the case for Excel, but it would be a weak one. When Intel wants their new instructions used they release compilers to developers that incorporate them. Why is that Microsoft's fault?
Next time I suggest you look at things from Microsoft's perspective before condemning this business decisions. Might make more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they moved him to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay because he is an illegal alien. Landed on the Earth without a visa.
And missing out on major movie awards that draw paying viewers into the theaters may well be much more costly than an early pirated version of that same movie.
Die by DRM.
Maybe now that it starts hurting important people something might actually be done about it.
Actually I have -- and do.
Except if we all do switch then FF and TB will become the most common browser/e-mail clients, and there's no reason to believe that Mozilla's coders are that much better than MS's. FF has gone through how many versions these last 12 months?
People don't patch. More news at eleven.
There, I've just saved you from having to RTFA.
Why aren't the programmers that worked on any given buggy module ever named? If you faced public ridicule and loss of reputation for releasing exploitable code you might be more careful about what you certify as ready to ship.
That's not Intel's problem. AMD has a better design with a low latency integrated memory controller that Intel's bus system can't match. And Intel keeps pushing out the roadmap for when their chips will match this rather crucial design feature.
Pigs will fly.
Hell freezes over.
Pick any two.
1: If we submit a story that's Rejected, we don't want to see the same story Accepted from a later submitter. Posting the time that an article is initially submitted to Slashdot would help us know when we really were beaten by another submitter.
2: In addition to Accepted and Rejected status on submissions, having a Duplicate status would be nice to say, "Hey, it is a great submission, but someone else really did beat you to this one. Better luck next time."
At least this would make me happier. I've had items Rejected, only to appear a day and a half later under someone else's name.
After all, I read it on Slashdot!
Haven't other studies confirmed much longer lifetimes in the past for CD-R? After all, we've had CD burners for longer than 2-5 years. Is this only a surprise because absolutely nobody has ever gone back and tried to read an old disc? Somehow I'm still doubtful of his conclusions.
Gee, and did the government specifically help them buy them buy their first television? If not, why should it be expected to help them buy this new one? Enquiring minds, and all that jazz.
WTF? It was never free. You had to buy the current generation television receiver to access this content. And TV's get cheaper every year. Now you'll just have to buy a new TV to access the new content. I don't see anywhere that they're about to start charging you to receive content over the public airwaves. Clearly the article poster did not think through their summary very well.
Excuse me. The hole has been there since 1990. It hasn't been caught by any code or security review since then, despite Mr. Gates change of direction and push to make security the top Microsoft priority how many years ago now? And it's patched by a third party days ahead of the scheduled Microsoft patch.
Maybe Microsoft -- and you -- should be the ones getting clues.
It may not have been anything like this at all, but this is the feeling one gets.
One also wonders about the job security of the MS programmer who didn't get this fix out in a timely manner.
I'm coming to distrust anything with "Trusted" in it's name. It may be a backlash from the very concept of TCP and TCM.
And what about the eyestrain of focusing to close over a long period of time (e.g. 2hr35min Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)?
Until the laser writes directly on the retina and corrects automatically for vision problems, I don't think this is for me.
Along with realizing that Dark Energy and Dark Matter come from the same explanation (see previous post), we'll have this list whittled down to a much more reasonable 10 Items before you know it. After all, who has ever heard of a Top 13 list?
Now wasn't that easy?
You start by not catering to unrealistic expectations. Otherwise by the age of 16 he'll expect a new car -- and it better be a faster one than his friends are getting.
He can tide himself over by either earning and saving the money (even a 11-year-old can do chores to earn his allowance) the money to buy it himself and get a real sense of the real world. Or go play at his friend's houses whose parents don't stand up to the pressure as well as you have. Let him buy a $60 game they don't have as his contribution to play on their $399 hardware, and everyone comes out ahead.
It's the parents that are the problem here -- not the kids who just take advantage of the situation they're offered.
You clearly don't understand the short attention span of today's youth, and the inability of their parents to stand up against unreasonable kid's demands that they must have the newest/best NOW! They all pay early adopter prices, while putting up with early adopter glitches. All this happens because there are too many people who just can't wait a few months for the latest + greatest.
You missed one. They also moved from 68008 24-bit addressing to 68020/30/40 clean 32-bit addressing, which required a lot of cleanup since the top byte of the 32-bit address word had been used for other functions by some developers.
But you give too much credit to Apple. It's the Apple developers who keep migrating their code to ever newer Apple platforms. Apple may create a future development environment, compiler, and migration tools that will work with most programs with some effort, but much of the burden falls on the developers who now have to support a completely new program version. At what point to they throw up their hands and say "Enough of this!" for a platform with only 15% market-share? Their only advantage is the ability to sell the same software for the new platform when a user purchases new hardware or OS. Then the end-user gets screwed by not being able to run his perfectly good purchased software on the new platform with any increased performance after you subtract the cost of emulation. I guess that's the reward to the developers -- rather like the RIAA having you repurchase your music with every new format change.
Come to think of it, Apple users have been screwed a lot along the way. Amazing that Apple keeps doing it and yet retains so much loyalty. Now the promise of cheap Intel hardware is completely negated by Apple insisting that their OS will only be allowed to run on their hardware still. Jobs could sell ice to Eskimos.
Let's see. It would have been work. And it would have broken compatibility with every older computer in user's hands each time Microsoft did this. End of operating systems upgrades for all those users. I'll bet Microsoft considers this a problem, even if you don't. And keeping track of all the different Windows versions for each new Intel update wouldn't be easy either.
Besides, just how useful is SSE2/SSE3 in an operating system? Even in MSOffice, at best you might make the case for Excel, but it would be a weak one. When Intel wants their new instructions used they release compilers to developers that incorporate them. Why is that Microsoft's fault?
Next time I suggest you look at things from Microsoft's perspective before condemning this business decisions. Might make more sense.