I've rejected Mono due to a distrust of Mono. Not anything to do with MS.
If I was shown that Mono is a solid platform to work on, stable, fully functional, I'd be all for ditching php and using something I consider superior (which I consider.net on a windows box to be far superior compared to php).
I am shocked. What is this "mission critical" desktop crap?
Windows 2000 over Windows Server 2003 would make sense in those terms. And I think those are both very solid server OS's. 1000's of mission critical desktops though? Semantics I guess.
This is just desktop. And while my personal experience with Vista is a hell of a lot better then the doom n gloom crap I read here in some posts this is still just desktop OS of choice.
A lot more people are familar with XP then Vista, and given the scenario here I would probably pick XP over Vista even though I personally consider Vista to be a better OS then XP. Most people I know haven't upgraded to Vista because their XP install is fine.
Yes, but you see a long time ago there was IBM and Apple. IBM shot itself in the foot by releasing a good OS in a poor state, and Apple in a desire to control every aspect of the computing experience priced itself out range of most people, as well as kept the needed 3rd parties away.
So emerged MS. As much as by "right place right time" as anything else. And soon this MS had their software on basically every single user's PC out there.
But alas, MS got caught with their pants down and did not have an OS that was ready for the internet/computer boom of the mid 90's. So there were issues. And resentment from geeks everywhere.
And that is the short version of why people make babies.
Last I knew Windows was made by MS. And the other part of the conspiracy theory he mentions he won't mention is also MS.
Just stop. You'd have to try and break it down into a semantical arguement to have a point. At which case you're adding nothing to the discussion.
Notice how my post was a "reply" to another post.
You might want to start there before saying things like "It's not blamed on MS" and "I haven't seen the name of the company quoted in comments before yours".
It's less then an ounce heavier. It's slightly larger. Come on. Should I rightfully point out using your verbage that the zune screen is MUCH larger. It's over 50% bigger!!!!.
See. All that crap is meaningless. Numbers and whether it means something to you or not. For man, I'd guess both are small and light enough so size didn't matter. To some, that.8 oz difference in weight between the two might matter.
iPOD 4.1" x 2.4" x 0.43 - 4.8 oz
Zune 4.4" x 2.4" x 0.6" - 5.5 oz
And 30 Gig vs 30 Gig they were the same exact price when the zune hit the market and the Zune is the cheaper of the two now.
You're just another hater here to spew fud about something you know crap about but already hate.
Re:Microsoft is thrilled by this news
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah, heaven forbid anyone actually use the device. Or actually be able to describe what's not to like about it IN DETAIL.
It's a rebranded Toshiba MP3 that is actually a very nice piece of hardware, the software ontop is just fine. The music store isn't a great, but outside of that it'll ignore DRM completely. Meaning like most MP3 players your stuff off of CD or other MP3/AAC(without DRM)/etc just plays no questions asked.
It's fucking pathetic that people like you and the AC write crap like that because I like something. You guys are ignorant clowns and nothing more.
Go actually use the device and then write something intelligent for a change.
Re:The main thing wrong with the Zune
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Totally agree. Also, the marketing was awful. It was like iPod x2 hipness factor crammed down my throat. Welcome to the social complete with overly hipp people jamming on their zune.
If I wanted an "in" thing, or something that was to be my "media center" is was right out. Though combined with a 360 I found it amusing if nothing else.
But when I was looking to upgrade my rio to something that did images music and radio, it was a good buy IMO and still worthwhile since it does what I want it to do well.
Re:Microsoft is thrilled by this news
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I didn't say it as anything has changed.
And seriously. You opinion on the interface was very convincing. It sucks because it sucks. What does it actually do worse.
If you pick the thing up you can navigate through songs/albums/artists/media/etc very quickly and easily. Hence, it doesn't suck.
Everyone's going to have a preference (though 90% of the ones I'm going to read about the zune I can rightfully dismiss as people that have no clue what their talking about). But I've yet to see the race between zune and iPod users finding music or using the device in other ways.
Oh yeah, and the better screen. I guess the specs are arguable. But "better" in most cases is subjective. Never had a problem with my screen, and bigger is better on a device of similar size. It's easier for people to see pics of my dog/cat/wife/car/whatever on the zune then it would be on a comparable iPod. In fact, I really wanted to Zen Vision W, but it was just a tad too big to be carried around.
But I know I know. Apple is great, MS sucks. Your statements were very thought out.
Re:Microsoft is thrilled by this news
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Shoot. I liked mine better then the iPod's at the time it was released.
Not really sure why anyone would total diss it other then hype/marketing/backlash/etc.. It's not like iTunes was a DRM free happy land when the Zune was launched either.
Interface was no worse then iPOD (seriously, I'd love to see someone that has actually used both try and claim the interface sucked or was somehow worse), storage for the price point was the same, Zune had bigger screen which was a feature I wanted since I use it for carrying around photos and listening to the radio as much as MP3's.
It was a decent product, sales have been so-so but nothing special. But it just gets too much flask IMO because it's MS and not Apple.
Hell, apple could probably launch a $600 phone with virtually no 3rd party apps and that can't even send pictures in text messages and people would probably buy it.
I think a lot of movies try walk the middle. Private Ryan for example did just that. That movie was a blend of action scenes and character development.
Not every movie that walks the middle is good though. I don't think there's a % based formula that leads to a great movie.
It either works or it doesn't.
I was entertained by Transformers due to the sprinkling of lighthearted comedy on a base of pure action. The iconic nature of the film certainly helped, but regardless I was throughly entertained for 2 hours. Which is what I want going to a movie. I enjoy all types of movies and I'm not too concerned about the formula or genre of the movie as much as did I have a good time watching it.
I thought the movie was superb. One of the few movies I've been too that got a ovation from the audience at the end.
It was a mindless action movie and there is nothing wrong with that. Certain "critics" act like every movie needs to have some deep philosophical meaning.
I wanted to see giant space alien robots beat the crap out of each other and the movie delivered in spades.
You claim that most of the action shots are already in trailers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apparently you missed the last half of the entire movie.
To me it's as if you went to a fireworks show and are now complaining that they didn't take the time to explain the type and origin of each and every shell that was ignited.
Myself, I prefer to just enjoy the show. If I want the meaning of life I'll pick up Kant.
I'd figure this would have been something better from FoH or Afterlife.
Or even something about the old Mercs guild when this here interweb was still young to most of the public.
Though I guess in the case of FoH this book was already written via their public forums.
Still, I wouldn't consider the Syndicate to be *the Guild of Guilds* or anything so I find it somewhat odd that this was done, and that it made Slashdot.
I don't think we are either. Maybe never will be. Who knows?
But it amazes me that so many people are willing to jump through hoops to try and explain the world through QM assuming our true free-will, when an easier explanation is right in front of them. But the latter requires one to give up something that is so dearly wanted yet never proven.
In fact, everything from chemicals altering choices to reaction tests are evidence against hard free-will. But it won't go away because of the desire for it.
The question is why should we mess up Mars, we're just barely starting on the road to fix the damage we've done to our own planet.
Yes, I'd hate to ruin all that prinstine forest over there on the red planet.
I couldn't care less about "ruining" currently lifeless worlds. Even if we found something similar to bacteria I wouldn't care if we went in there and "ruined" it by putting life on the same planet.
Only worlds like Europa where there's a least the potential for some multi-cellular life as we know it would I proceed with caution.
Life is special and we should put it everywhere we can. While potentially we might be messing with some Martian nano-scale bacteria and the like, the risks are far outweighed by the gains.
Oh, and as far as "ruining" Earth goes. We are a product of the Earth. Humans are natural. We're life and evolved from the same process that gave us sharks and walnuts and horses. We're probably Earth's most precious resource because we're the lone form of life that can get to other planets, that can spread out beyond Earth. The Earth is far from ruined, it still supports trillons and trillons of individual life forms. And one form of life, us, is just getting capable of one of the greatest achievements possible. Spreading life out beyond the planet it formed on.
Free-will or not, has nothing to do with it. The quantum-level is so low a level, that when we observe something, we irrevocably change the state. If we measure it a different way, we change the state in a different way. So wether we have free will or not, we can measure things differently, and the way we do it, will affect the result differently.
That is not what I was questioning. It is obvious that the act of measuring changes the outcome and it is impossible to do otherwise. What I question, and am perfectly valid in doing so, is the role of the observer in order for an outcome to exist. And that *is* based soley no the assumed free-will of the observer.
While many people currently believe determinism to be impossible based on past QM experiments, that is not the case. What is the case is that if humans have true free-will then the experiments have shown this. But why should we assume true free-will? Without that assumption, for us to say that everything, inlcuding us, is pre-determined is perfectly valid as is the most simple and obvious interpretation.
Actually, I understand this quite well. And I find it absurd that you missed my point entirely went off on a meaningless tangent, and got +5 for it.
And you could have easily done the search for Bell's word, not mine, who I doubt you would say doesn't understand physics.
The assumption of true free will, the belief that the human observer is of course free from determinism, is used as evidence for a non-deterministic view of the rest of the universe. That was exactly's Bell point in this. And this is exactly the relevancy of the observer.
In other words, humans assumed themselves differently then the rest of the universe, and thus showed that the results show the universe itself is non-deterministic.
The quote I used from the story was on the role of the observer. And that interpretation *is* 100% a result of assumed free-will of the human observer.
Slashdot Mirror
I've rejected Mono due to a distrust of Mono. Not anything to do with MS.
.net on a windows box to be far superior compared to php).
If I was shown that Mono is a solid platform to work on, stable, fully functional, I'd be all for ditching php and using something I consider superior (which I consider
I am shocked. What is this "mission critical" desktop crap?
Windows 2000 over Windows Server 2003 would make sense in those terms. And I think those are both very solid server OS's. 1000's of mission critical desktops though? Semantics I guess.
This is just desktop. And while my personal experience with Vista is a hell of a lot better then the doom n gloom crap I read here in some posts this is still just desktop OS of choice.
A lot more people are familar with XP then Vista, and given the scenario here I would probably pick XP over Vista even though I personally consider Vista to be a better OS then XP. Most people I know haven't upgraded to Vista because their XP install is fine.
In Soviet Russia memes end YOU.
No really!
Yes, but you see a long time ago there was IBM and Apple. IBM shot itself in the foot by releasing a good OS in a poor state, and Apple in a desire to control every aspect of the computing experience priced itself out range of most people, as well as kept the needed 3rd parties away.
So emerged MS. As much as by "right place right time" as anything else. And soon this MS had their software on basically every single user's PC out there.
But alas, MS got caught with their pants down and did not have an OS that was ready for the internet/computer boom of the mid 90's. So there were issues. And resentment from geeks everywhere.
And that is the short version of why people make babies.
it's not.
They even have pictures of the little spies:
http://img.fark.com/images/squirrel.jpg
Wow. Never thought I get to use that pic and be ontopic.
Yeah. You make fun of it.
But me and Suad don't go out no more because of those things.
Last I knew Windows was made by MS. And the other part of the conspiracy theory he mentions he won't mention is also MS.
Just stop. You'd have to try and break it down into a semantical arguement to have a point. At which case you're adding nothing to the discussion.
Notice how my post was a "reply" to another post.
You might want to start there before saying things like "It's not blamed on MS" and "I haven't seen the name of the company quoted in comments before yours".
Pssst...rookies
A potential flaw in a linux driver from Samsung is blamed on MS, in 2 different manners no less, and it jets to +5.
/.
Classic
The larger/heavier is subjective.
.8 oz difference in weight between the two might matter.
It's less then an ounce heavier. It's slightly larger. Come on. Should I rightfully point out using your verbage that the zune screen is MUCH larger. It's over 50% bigger!!!!.
See. All that crap is meaningless. Numbers and whether it means something to you or not. For man, I'd guess both are small and light enough so size didn't matter. To some, that
iPOD 4.1" x 2.4" x 0.43 - 4.8 oz Zune 4.4" x 2.4" x 0.6" - 5.5 oz
And 30 Gig vs 30 Gig they were the same exact price when the zune hit the market and the Zune is the cheaper of the two now.
You're just another hater here to spew fud about something you know crap about but already hate.
Yeah, heaven forbid anyone actually use the device. Or actually be able to describe what's not to like about it IN DETAIL.
It's a rebranded Toshiba MP3 that is actually a very nice piece of hardware, the software ontop is just fine. The music store isn't a great, but outside of that it'll ignore DRM completely. Meaning like most MP3 players your stuff off of CD or other MP3/AAC(without DRM)/etc just plays no questions asked.
It's fucking pathetic that people like you and the AC write crap like that because I like something. You guys are ignorant clowns and nothing more.
Go actually use the device and then write something intelligent for a change.
Totally agree. Also, the marketing was awful. It was like iPod x2 hipness factor crammed down my throat. Welcome to the social complete with overly hipp people jamming on their zune.
If I wanted an "in" thing, or something that was to be my "media center" is was right out. Though combined with a 360 I found it amusing if nothing else.
But when I was looking to upgrade my rio to something that did images music and radio, it was a good buy IMO and still worthwhile since it does what I want it to do well.
I didn't say it as anything has changed.
And seriously. You opinion on the interface was very convincing. It sucks because it sucks. What does it actually do worse.
If you pick the thing up you can navigate through songs/albums/artists/media/etc very quickly and easily. Hence, it doesn't suck.
Everyone's going to have a preference (though 90% of the ones I'm going to read about the zune I can rightfully dismiss as people that have no clue what their talking about). But I've yet to see the race between zune and iPod users finding music or using the device in other ways.
Oh yeah, and the better screen. I guess the specs are arguable. But "better" in most cases is subjective. Never had a problem with my screen, and bigger is better on a device of similar size. It's easier for people to see pics of my dog/cat/wife/car/whatever on the zune then it would be on a comparable iPod. In fact, I really wanted to Zen Vision W, but it was just a tad too big to be carried around.
But I know I know. Apple is great, MS sucks. Your statements were very thought out.
Shoot. I liked mine better then the iPod's at the time it was released.
Not really sure why anyone would total diss it other then hype/marketing/backlash/etc.. It's not like iTunes was a DRM free happy land when the Zune was launched either.
Interface was no worse then iPOD (seriously, I'd love to see someone that has actually used both try and claim the interface sucked or was somehow worse), storage for the price point was the same, Zune had bigger screen which was a feature I wanted since I use it for carrying around photos and listening to the radio as much as MP3's.
It was a decent product, sales have been so-so but nothing special. But it just gets too much flask IMO because it's MS and not Apple.
Hell, apple could probably launch a $600 phone with virtually no 3rd party apps and that can't even send pictures in text messages and people would probably buy it.
These semi-autonomous explorers have been up there working on the surface of *another planet* for several years now.
Whatever you may think now I'm pretty sure the problem isn't "bad design". At this point "good design" is rather apparent.
I think a lot of movies try walk the middle. Private Ryan for example did just that. That movie was a blend of action scenes and character development.
Not every movie that walks the middle is good though. I don't think there's a % based formula that leads to a great movie.
It either works or it doesn't.
I was entertained by Transformers due to the sprinkling of lighthearted comedy on a base of pure action. The iconic nature of the film certainly helped, but regardless I was throughly entertained for 2 hours. Which is what I want going to a movie. I enjoy all types of movies and I'm not too concerned about the formula or genre of the movie as much as did I have a good time watching it.
Not every movie can be as artistically satisfying as Brokeback Mountain.
Though as someone that has never seen that movie I'm only guessing as to the type of hot movie action you find satisfying.
I thought the movie was superb. One of the few movies I've been too that got a ovation from the audience at the end.
It was a mindless action movie and there is nothing wrong with that. Certain "critics" act like every movie needs to have some deep philosophical meaning.
I wanted to see giant space alien robots beat the crap out of each other and the movie delivered in spades. You claim that most of the action shots are already in trailers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apparently you missed the last half of the entire movie.
To me it's as if you went to a fireworks show and are now complaining that they didn't take the time to explain the type and origin of each and every shell that was ignited.
Myself, I prefer to just enjoy the show. If I want the meaning of life I'll pick up Kant.
No, the reasonable assumption is that something on Justin's end is actually the cause of the problem.
Which is what most of the good earlier posts in this thread claimed. Not that he was a liar.
Your reasoonable assumption just isn't as reasonable as mine.
I'd figure this would have been something better from FoH or Afterlife.
Or even something about the old Mercs guild when this here interweb was still young to most of the public.
Though I guess in the case of FoH this book was already written via their public forums.
Still, I wouldn't consider the Syndicate to be *the Guild of Guilds* or anything so I find it somewhat odd that this was done, and that it made Slashdot.
I don't think we are either. Maybe never will be. Who knows?
But it amazes me that so many people are willing to jump through hoops to try and explain the world through QM assuming our true free-will, when an easier explanation is right in front of them. But the latter requires one to give up something that is so dearly wanted yet never proven.
In fact, everything from chemicals altering choices to reaction tests are evidence against hard free-will. But it won't go away because of the desire for it.
Yeah, it would be a real shame if we put some life on that barren lifeless planet we call Mars.
*rolleyes*
I so applaud all you protectors of the barren rocks.
The question is why should we mess up Mars, we're just barely starting on the road to fix the damage we've done to our own planet.
Yes, I'd hate to ruin all that prinstine forest over there on the red planet.
I couldn't care less about "ruining" currently lifeless worlds. Even if we found something similar to bacteria I wouldn't care if we went in there and "ruined" it by putting life on the same planet.
Only worlds like Europa where there's a least the potential for some multi-cellular life as we know it would I proceed with caution.
Life is special and we should put it everywhere we can. While potentially we might be messing with some Martian nano-scale bacteria and the like, the risks are far outweighed by the gains.
Oh, and as far as "ruining" Earth goes. We are a product of the Earth. Humans are natural. We're life and evolved from the same process that gave us sharks and walnuts and horses. We're probably Earth's most precious resource because we're the lone form of life that can get to other planets, that can spread out beyond Earth. The Earth is far from ruined, it still supports trillons and trillons of individual life forms. And one form of life, us, is just getting capable of one of the greatest achievements possible. Spreading life out beyond the planet it formed on.
Free-will or not, has nothing to do with it. The quantum-level is so low a level, that when we observe something, we irrevocably change the state. If we measure it a different way, we change the state in a different way. So wether we have free will or not, we can measure things differently, and the way we do it, will affect the result differently.
That is not what I was questioning. It is obvious that the act of measuring changes the outcome and it is impossible to do otherwise. What I question, and am perfectly valid in doing so, is the role of the observer in order for an outcome to exist. And that *is* based soley no the assumed free-will of the observer.
While many people currently believe determinism to be impossible based on past QM experiments, that is not the case. What is the case is that if humans have true free-will then the experiments have shown this. But why should we assume true free-will? Without that assumption, for us to say that everything, inlcuding us, is pre-determined is perfectly valid as is the most simple and obvious interpretation.
Actually, I understand this quite well. And I find it absurd that you missed my point entirely went off on a meaningless tangent, and got +5 for it.
And you could have easily done the search for Bell's word, not mine, who I doubt you would say doesn't understand physics.
The assumption of true free will, the belief that the human observer is of course free from determinism, is used as evidence for a non-deterministic view of the rest of the universe. That was exactly's Bell point in this. And this is exactly the relevancy of the observer.
In other words, humans assumed themselves differently then the rest of the universe, and thus showed that the results show the universe itself is non-deterministic.
The quote I used from the story was on the role of the observer. And that interpretation *is* 100% a result of assumed free-will of the human observer.