I don't really understand the mocking of the 'tubes' analogy. After all, internet connections have been called by the slang term 'pipes' by many people, including network engineers, for years.
Indeed - data is data, it doesn't matter if it's on Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or even DVD. The only issue is related to the storage capacity, i.e. what bitrate you're able to encode the data at.
I'd sooner see comparisons on other aspects of the technology, such as the durability of Blu-Ray compared to HD-DVD.
They didn't even choose which is better. The only mention in the article of MCE 2004 is on the last page, where they list a few differences, but there's nothing there to say that they prefer MythTV, let alone by "quite a margin".
It's a horrendously misleading article summary, and it shouldn't have been posted. I can only surmise that the editor didn't look at the submission, either that or they don't care that it's so misleading.
I predict this will be Microsoft's biggest flop ever.
Windows ME is Microsoft's biggest flop so far IMHO, and from my experiences from using the Pre-RC1 build, there's no way that Vista will come close to rivaling that. Beta 2 may have been disappointing, but Pre-RC1 has had a lot of positive feedback.
Bad impersonation? Whilst not being an 'impersonation' as such (unfortunately it's real enough), the John Gibsn article certainly displays characteristics that Colbert's character often satirically displays, such as the following:
Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Stephen Colbert quoted this article, and 'agreed' with his points - it's exactly the sort of thing that'd be brought up on the show.
This whole debate arose because of discoveries of objects similar to Pluto, which obviously meant that a decision had to be made on how to treat them. Therefore, textbooks would have had to be changed anyway, no matter what happened.
I don't get this either - that's from a quote from a Harvard professor who drafted the proposal to increase the number of planets. From somebody from such a background, I'd hope for more accuracy - even if he'd doubled that figure, it'd have been closer (since the actual figure is ~15.7%).
It's also interesting that, out of the two quotes in the article against this decision, one is from somebody leading a mission to Pluto, the other is from somebody who helped draft a proposal to raise the number of planets. Why am I not surprised that they're both against this decision and the vote that led to it?
Yes, of course the cost of buying processors is more than running existing processors.
My point, however, wasn't to compare costs of running existing processors to buying new ones, it was to say that the money might be better spent on other areas of cancer research (i.e. other than Folding@Home). If I'm going to give $300 (in either power or monetary donation) to cancer research, I'd want it to go to the best avenue of research - and I have no idea if this is 'Folding@Home' or not.
No matter what the cause, it's still important to consider the costs and the benefits of running it.
Even if we assume that most people know about the extra power cost and are willing to pay that, is it an efficient use of the money in terms of getting results? Would it be better if people donated the money instead?
I'm just wondering where you got this previous 'anti-download' stance of his from? Weird Al does an 'Ask Al' page and here's a quote from 2000 (it's on his website, but it's down at the moment so I can't link):
I have very mixed feelings about [Napster]. On one hand, I'm concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!
He's previously said that his biggest problem with internet downloading is that many files on the internet are incorrectly labelled with him as the artist, some of these being much more offensive than his actual material.
There's an overview of what happened over 'You're Pitiful' here.
Basically, James Blunt approved the parody, so Weird Al went ahead and did the track, but then James Blunt's record label objected - so Weird Al released it for free on his website.
"I have a long-standing history of respecting artists' wishes," Yankovic writes. "So if James Blunt himself were objecting, I wouldn't even offer my parody for free on my Web site. But since it's a bunch of suits -- who are actually going against their own artist's wishes -- I have absolutely no problem with it."
You can send this song in an e-card at the URL of the song [dontdownloadthissong.com] (which also hilariously allows you to download this song).
It's worth noting that it's also better to download the song from http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/, as opposed to the MySpace linked to in the summary (where the MP3 is 96kbps/22khz, as opposed to 160kbps/44khz).
I've seen more than one person shake their head sceptically when they've seen the picture quality and then looked at those 'HD Ready' logos slapped all over them.
In my experience, this is mostly down to the TVs not displaying HD resolution material. A good 'HD Ready' set will easily highlight the relative lack of resolution in DVDs, let alone on standard broadcast television. A normal TV set can easily look a lot better on these type of broadcasts, simply because the display isn't as sharp.
How on earth does 'missing out the Googler' show that AOL is biased? The article wasn't even written by somebody at AOL.
I have absolutely no clue as to how the parent post deserves '+5 Insightful', I just guess there's enough people out there that *want* to believe anything bad said about AOL.
The biggest problem for an 'average user' is if somebody has access to the data, and tries some searches for names, schools, etc. If they turn up results, it's very possible that they could identify somebody they know.
In many cases, you can link a set of search queries to a person, since the queries often include personal information. Privacy is definitely being violated here.
Ah, but TFA also predicts an October release date would be followed by a steady stream of patches.
The article only predicts those if they "arbitrarily hit their latest release promise" - i.e. if it's not ready in time, but Microsoft ship it anyway. As he says, he thinks it "could be" ready.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably people who read the subject 'Opportunity from Tragedy' - there's no opportunity from such a tragedy.
I'm pretty sure it was an analogy. You might like to believe that Ted Stevens genuinely thought they were actually tubes, but I don't.
The rest of his speech is highly mockable, such as 'internets', but 'tubes' isn't really that bad of an analogy.
Windows 2000 doesn't reboot automatically when a BSOD occurs.
Windows XP does by default, but can be set not to (Control Panel, System, Advanced, Startup and Recovery).
A BSOD will also create a memory dump on disk (which can be set to either be a 'minidump', or a complete memory dump).
I don't really understand the mocking of the 'tubes' analogy. After all, internet connections have been called by the slang term 'pipes' by many people, including network engineers, for years.
Indeed - data is data, it doesn't matter if it's on Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or even DVD. The only issue is related to the storage capacity, i.e. what bitrate you're able to encode the data at.
I'd sooner see comparisons on other aspects of the technology, such as the durability of Blu-Ray compared to HD-DVD.
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/09/08/the_mythtv_co nvergence_uk/page4.html
It's a horrendously misleading article summary, and it shouldn't have been posted. I can only surmise that the editor didn't look at the submission, either that or they don't care that it's so misleading.
No, testing the card only on two poorly specced machines was the stupid move.
You may be right, and upgrading the video card or other parts might improve the network performance just as well. On the other hand, it might not.
Windows ME is Microsoft's biggest flop so far IMHO, and from my experiences from using the Pre-RC1 build, there's no way that Vista will come close to rivaling that. Beta 2 may have been disappointing, but Pre-RC1 has had a lot of positive feedback.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/releases/2 .0b2.html
That's not the first release candidate. RC1 isn't out yet, just build 5536.
Before anybody points out that the ISO filename of 5536 says 'rc1', the version information on the desktop after it's installed says 'Pre-RC1'.
Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Stephen Colbert quoted this article, and 'agreed' with his points - it's exactly the sort of thing that'd be brought up on the show.
This whole debate arose because of discoveries of objects similar to Pluto, which obviously meant that a decision had to be made on how to treat them. Therefore, textbooks would have had to be changed anyway, no matter what happened.
I don't get this either - that's from a quote from a Harvard professor who drafted the proposal to increase the number of planets. From somebody from such a background, I'd hope for more accuracy - even if he'd doubled that figure, it'd have been closer (since the actual figure is ~15.7%).
It's also interesting that, out of the two quotes in the article against this decision, one is from somebody leading a mission to Pluto, the other is from somebody who helped draft a proposal to raise the number of planets. Why am I not surprised that they're both against this decision and the vote that led to it?
Yes, of course the cost of buying processors is more than running existing processors.
My point, however, wasn't to compare costs of running existing processors to buying new ones, it was to say that the money might be better spent on other areas of cancer research (i.e. other than Folding@Home). If I'm going to give $300 (in either power or monetary donation) to cancer research, I'd want it to go to the best avenue of research - and I have no idea if this is 'Folding@Home' or not.
No matter what the cause, it's still important to consider the costs and the benefits of running it.
Even if we assume that most people know about the extra power cost and are willing to pay that, is it an efficient use of the money in terms of getting results? Would it be better if people donated the money instead?
I have very mixed feelings about [Napster]. On one hand, I'm concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!
He's previously said that his biggest problem with internet downloading is that many files on the internet are incorrectly labelled with him as the artist, some of these being much more offensive than his actual material.
Basically, James Blunt approved the parody, so Weird Al went ahead and did the track, but then James Blunt's record label objected - so Weird Al released it for free on his website.
"I have a long-standing history of respecting artists' wishes," Yankovic writes. "So if James Blunt himself were objecting, I wouldn't even offer my parody for free on my Web site. But since it's a bunch of suits -- who are actually going against their own artist's wishes -- I have absolutely no problem with it."
It's worth noting that it's also better to download the song from http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/, as opposed to the MySpace linked to in the summary (where the MP3 is 96kbps/22khz, as opposed to 160kbps/44khz).
In my experience, this is mostly down to the TVs not displaying HD resolution material. A good 'HD Ready' set will easily highlight the relative lack of resolution in DVDs, let alone on standard broadcast television. A normal TV set can easily look a lot better on these type of broadcasts, simply because the display isn't as sharp.
How on earth does 'missing out the Googler' show that AOL is biased? The article wasn't even written by somebody at AOL.
I have absolutely no clue as to how the parent post deserves '+5 Insightful', I just guess there's enough people out there that *want* to believe anything bad said about AOL.
The biggest problem for an 'average user' is if somebody has access to the data, and tries some searches for names, schools, etc. If they turn up results, it's very possible that they could identify somebody they know.
In many cases, you can link a set of search queries to a person, since the queries often include personal information. Privacy is definitely being violated here.
AOL users! ;)
Here's the link that goes over all the figures: http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.p hp?uas=IE6-IE7-FX1_5-OP8-OP9
The article only predicts those if they "arbitrarily hit their latest release promise" - i.e. if it's not ready in time, but Microsoft ship it anyway. As he says, he thinks it "could be" ready.