We are actively discouraged from using them, so naturally other resources will be sought, and found.
This is the new paradigm. First you provide something useful, then you make it suck, then you say 'well, no-one is using this anymore, so we'll scrap it'.
I'm sure that the HDDs manufactures were able to produce large enough disks 5 years ago, but they're slowly increasing the capacity, just to force us to buy a new disk every year.
One of the big issues is that when drives hit 2TB a lot of things broke. A traditional BIOS has a hard time booting from a >2TB drive and older operating systems couldn't handle the 4kB sectors either... even if they could build 4TB drives there wasn't much point when you couldn't boot from them and performance was sluggish due to bad partition alignment.
It has been proven, repeatedly, in the real world economy, that lowering corporate income taxes does not lower the cost of goods in an industry, it only ever increases the profits in that industry.
Competition lowers the cost of goods. Why would companies sell for less than customers are willing to pay?
But right now we're in the worst recession for decades: what kind of retard would think that they're going to improve the economy and encourage corporations to hire more people by... increasing taxes?
On twitter every day there are people screaming about the U.S. "high corporate tax rate" and they always forget to mention that NOBODY pays that rate... to many ways around it.
Well then, there'll be no problem with cutting the tax rate than no-one pays anyway.
Of course in the real world, no corporation pays tax. They either pass the increased costs onto their customers or the reduced income onto their employees in lower wages or layoffs. So anyone demanding that we 'tax rich corporations' is really demanding higher prices and/or lower wages and/or less jobs.
Well, duh. If you want a dedicated e-reader you buy an e-ink Kindle, if you want to watch videos, etc, then you have to use an LCD because e-ink response time is so slow.
I really do hope that all the people complaining about Unity have tried the version that got released today and are not just basing their opinion on an old version.
Unity's not so bad on my netbook where I mostly just run Firefox on a tiny screen, but on my 11.04 laptop the app-launcher sucks, the 'global menu' sucks and the stupid scrollbars suck.
Did they fix any of those in 11.10? Oh, they can't, because they're broken by design.
Google's priority is to return search results in under 100ms. That requires tight integration. It's all about cache management, not platform APIs. Some data has to be pushed to clients, rather than pulled through APIs, or performance will suffer badly.
I'd be happy to wait a second or more for results if it actually gave me what I asked for and not what it thinks I really wanted to ask for.
Google search really sucks these days for tech-related queries.
I interviewed at Amazon once, what he says is true about the offices, they didn't look very clean and impressive. That's a bad impression right there.
Well, duh. I've worked for a bunch of tech companies, and when they decided that spending a ton of money on a fancy office was better than spending the money on hardware and employees, that was always a pretty good sign that it was going downhill.
They came up with "science" to justify their views as well.
And the Commies.
Fortunately governments today have no incentive to create fake 'scientific' results in order to justify massive increases in power or taxation (or both).
You do understand how lame the 'poop bag' argument sounds right? Im not going to respond to that part.
What's the difference between an otherwise worthless camera and a poop bag? Both were paid for by US taxpayers, both were going to be dumped on the moon and I'm guessing that a ceritified Apollo astronaut lunar poop bag would probably sell for more than an old camera. Why do you refuse to talk about one but think the other is a BIG DEAL?
Remember back then they accounted for weight on everything.
No they didn't. As I said elsewhere, do you really think they weighed every moon rock they collected? Apollo had significant margins for the return flight because they didn't want a simple screwup to kill the crew.
The main thing I am getting at is just ask first, don't just think you are entitle to grab stuff that belongs to someone else and assume ownership of it.
Lots of people go dumpster-diving. This is the lunar equivalent. NASA hasn't given a crap about this camera for decades and now suddenly it's important enough to release the dogs of law?
Nevermind that, if violating an order, by taking the camera back with them had been sufficient to affect the launch from the Moon and created an Apollo 13 like crisis (or even killed the astronauts) would it be OK?
Apollo astronauts weren't retards. There was a significant margin in return mass and no chance that a 16mm camera would take them over that margin unless they were already in 'an Apollo 13 like crisis'.
Heck, it's not like they weighed every moon rock before the return trip to make sure they didn't have too many.
We paid for this and went about getting it absolutely the wrong way.
The Apollo astronauts left a lot of poop bags on the moon too, which NASA paid for; both the bags and the poop inside them. If he'd brought back a bag full of space-poop and was selling it, would you be making the same argument?
Ultimately it's a camera which was to be abandoned on the moon, which would have essentially no value if it hadn't been to the moon because very soon you won't even be able to buy 16mm film anymore. If the government gets it back they're just going to stick it in a box and it will never be seen again.
What's the point? NASA looks bad and gains nothing unless it then turns around and sells the camera itself.
It's a legal issue having nothing to do with technology, why is it cluttering up these august pages?
You could argue that the money NASA is blowing on lawyers to chase after one of the heroes of the Apollo program for selling a camera which was going to be thrown away anyway could be better spent developing new technology.
What do you by really good? Really good for them you mean.
Uh, yes. The really good ones come into a company, strip it bare to pump up their bonuses and then get out early enough to blame the collapse on their successor; the bad ones are that successor.
Yeah, I had an HP scanner and it was great. But I moved across the Atlantic so it won't work anymore because the power adapter is 220V and they won't sell me a 110V adapter for less than the cost of a new scanner.
That was one of the reasons why they lost a $1200 sale to Toshiba when I bought my laptop last year.
Brain trust? If I was making decisions like this for a company, I would *THINK* about the effects of the change and how that affects other parts of the company. I would do this *in advance*.
This is why you're not a billionaire hedge-fund manager.
Lastly, Win 8 finally appears to be an upgrade that may finally pry people off Win XP and truly offer integration across smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop and gaming (xbox).
Uh, what?
XP laptop and desktop users are waiting out Windows 7 so they can 'upgrade' to a crappy tablet interface?
So, do you drive a Ferrari, always fly first class, and have a home IMAX? If not, is driving an affordable car being a stinking peasent?
The difference between my i5 system and a slower AMD system would have been about $100 at most, but the AMD system would have been hotter and sucked up more power.
If a Ferrari was as reliable and practical as a Civic but more economical and more powerful and only cost $100 more then we'd all be driving them.
If it weren't for AMD, we'd still be using Pentium 4's at 1.6Ghz
Yeah, because it's not like Intel had any other competition. Those 1.6GHz P4s would have stomped on HP-PA, SPARC and other workstation/server CPUs.
I don't want to see AMD go bust, but they look to me to be facing a downward spiral of low sales prices reducing R&D spending leaving them unable to compete leading to even lower sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Interactions between coupled particles have been shown to occur instantaneously, ie, faster than light.
Hint for you: Google 'transactional interpretation'.
We are actively discouraged from using them, so naturally other resources will be sought, and found.
This is the new paradigm. First you provide something useful, then you make it suck, then you say 'well, no-one is using this anymore, so we'll scrap it'.
I'm sure that the HDDs manufactures were able to produce large enough disks 5 years ago, but they're slowly increasing the capacity, just to force us to buy a new disk every year.
One of the big issues is that when drives hit 2TB a lot of things broke. A traditional BIOS has a hard time booting from a >2TB drive and older operating systems couldn't handle the 4kB sectors either... even if they could build 4TB drives there wasn't much point when you couldn't boot from them and performance was sluggish due to bad partition alignment.
It has been proven, repeatedly, in the real world economy, that lowering corporate income taxes does not lower the cost of goods in an industry, it only ever increases the profits in that industry.
Competition lowers the cost of goods. Why would companies sell for less than customers are willing to pay?
But right now we're in the worst recession for decades: what kind of retard would think that they're going to improve the economy and encourage corporations to hire more people by... increasing taxes?
On twitter every day there are people screaming about the U.S. "high corporate tax rate" and they always forget to mention that NOBODY pays that rate... to many ways around it.
Well then, there'll be no problem with cutting the tax rate than no-one pays anyway.
Of course in the real world, no corporation pays tax. They either pass the increased costs onto their customers or the reduced income onto their employees in lower wages or layoffs. So anyone demanding that we 'tax rich corporations' is really demanding higher prices and/or lower wages and/or less jobs.
Now you just think what you want to do, and it will be done.
No need for that. In the utopia of Jobsism, in a few years your iThings will not need a control interface because they'll just tell you what to think.
The Kindle Fire doesn't even use E-Ink, but a standard IPS LCD display.
Well, duh. If you want a dedicated e-reader you buy an e-ink Kindle, if you want to watch videos, etc, then you have to use an LCD because e-ink response time is so slow.
I really do hope that all the people complaining about Unity have tried the version that got released today and are not just basing their opinion on an old version.
Unity's not so bad on my netbook where I mostly just run Firefox on a tiny screen, but on my 11.04 laptop the app-launcher sucks, the 'global menu' sucks and the stupid scrollbars suck.
Did they fix any of those in 11.10? Oh, they can't, because they're broken by design.
Just go with Gnome 3 and shell and forget about Unity.
Except Gnome 3 sucks at least as bad as Unity because they're fundamentally both crappy touchscreen interfaces pushed onto desktop users.
Debian, Slackware, Fedora, Suse, Crunchbang, any of a dozen others?
Fedora swtiched to Gnome 3, didn't it?
Google's priority is to return search results in under 100ms. That requires tight integration. It's all about cache management, not platform APIs. Some data has to be pushed to clients, rather than pulled through APIs, or performance will suffer badly.
I'd be happy to wait a second or more for results if it actually gave me what I asked for and not what it thinks I really wanted to ask for.
Google search really sucks these days for tech-related queries.
I interviewed at Amazon once, what he says is true about the offices, they didn't look very clean and impressive. That's a bad impression right there.
Well, duh. I've worked for a bunch of tech companies, and when they decided that spending a ton of money on a fancy office was better than spending the money on hardware and employees, that was always a pretty good sign that it was going downhill.
They came up with "science" to justify their views as well.
And the Commies.
Fortunately governments today have no incentive to create fake 'scientific' results in order to justify massive increases in power or taxation (or both).
You do understand how lame the 'poop bag' argument sounds right? Im not going to respond to that part.
What's the difference between an otherwise worthless camera and a poop bag? Both were paid for by US taxpayers, both were going to be dumped on the moon and I'm guessing that a ceritified Apollo astronaut lunar poop bag would probably sell for more than an old camera. Why do you refuse to talk about one but think the other is a BIG DEAL?
Remember back then they accounted for weight on everything.
No they didn't. As I said elsewhere, do you really think they weighed every moon rock they collected? Apollo had significant margins for the return flight because they didn't want a simple screwup to kill the crew.
The main thing I am getting at is just ask first, don't just think you are entitle to grab stuff that belongs to someone else and assume ownership of it.
Lots of people go dumpster-diving. This is the lunar equivalent. NASA hasn't given a crap about this camera for decades and now suddenly it's important enough to release the dogs of law?
The term "UFO" (while including the word "unidentified"), implies "extraterrestrials".
Only foo-freaks think that 'Unidentified Flying Object' implies that little grey men are flying them.
It says 220V and I'm not sure I want to risk finding out whether it's lying.
Nevermind that, if violating an order, by taking the camera back with them had been sufficient to affect the launch from the Moon and created an Apollo 13 like crisis (or even killed the astronauts) would it be OK?
Apollo astronauts weren't retards. There was a significant margin in return mass and no chance that a 16mm camera would take them over that margin unless they were already in 'an Apollo 13 like crisis'.
Heck, it's not like they weighed every moon rock before the return trip to make sure they didn't have too many.
We paid for this and went about getting it absolutely the wrong way.
The Apollo astronauts left a lot of poop bags on the moon too, which NASA paid for; both the bags and the poop inside them. If he'd brought back a bag full of space-poop and was selling it, would you be making the same argument?
Ultimately it's a camera which was to be abandoned on the moon, which would have essentially no value if it hadn't been to the moon because very soon you won't even be able to buy 16mm film anymore. If the government gets it back they're just going to stick it in a box and it will never be seen again.
What's the point? NASA looks bad and gains nothing unless it then turns around and sells the camera itself.
It's a legal issue having nothing to do with technology, why is it cluttering up these august pages?
You could argue that the money NASA is blowing on lawyers to chase after one of the heroes of the Apollo program for selling a camera which was going to be thrown away anyway could be better spent developing new technology.
Just suggestin'.
What do you by really good? Really good for them you mean.
Uh, yes. The really good ones come into a company, strip it bare to pump up their bonuses and then get out early enough to blame the collapse on their successor; the bad ones are that successor.
Yeah, I had an HP scanner and it was great. But I moved across the Atlantic so it won't work anymore because the power adapter is 220V and they won't sell me a 110V adapter for less than the cost of a new scanner.
That was one of the reasons why they lost a $1200 sale to Toshiba when I bought my laptop last year.
Brain trust? If I was making decisions like this for a company, I would *THINK* about the effects of the change and how that affects other parts of the company. I would do this *in advance*.
This is why you're not a billionaire hedge-fund manager.
Lastly, Win 8 finally appears to be an upgrade that may finally pry people off Win XP and truly offer integration across smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop and gaming (xbox).
Uh, what?
XP laptop and desktop users are waiting out Windows 7 so they can 'upgrade' to a crappy tablet interface?
That's some good stuff you're smoking.
So, do you drive a Ferrari, always fly first class, and have a home IMAX? If not, is driving an affordable car being a stinking peasent?
The difference between my i5 system and a slower AMD system would have been about $100 at most, but the AMD system would have been hotter and sucked up more power.
If a Ferrari was as reliable and practical as a Civic but more economical and more powerful and only cost $100 more then we'd all be driving them.
If it weren't for AMD, we'd still be using Pentium 4's at 1.6Ghz
Yeah, because it's not like Intel had any other competition. Those 1.6GHz P4s would have stomped on HP-PA, SPARC and other workstation/server CPUs.
I don't want to see AMD go bust, but they look to me to be facing a downward spiral of low sales prices reducing R&D spending leaving them unable to compete leading to even lower sales.