errrrrrr.... youve been watching a little bit too much bbc there, chief. comparing cnn to nazi propaganda isn't just a little off base... it's fucking 10 million light years from reasonable.
i believe it was actually first described in homer's oddessy in the passage concerning carpets and doorknobs. the greek word for amber is actually a corruption of the phrase "doorknob carpet shock."
you run strings against your vendor's binary to find "NETSCAPE PROGRAMMERS ARE WEENIES!" and "NSA security backdoor: press control shift shift alt triangle trianlge circle for infinite leetness"
oh wait, the month of security awareness solved these problems! I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER! whens the month for removing insults against competitors and easter eggs?
In most states, sending some email is a slightly more minor transgression than illegally accessing with the dean's pc.
If the student violated a signed contract with the university, then he's in trouble. But not because he's stealing. The university provided him with a connection so he could use a little bandwidth. That's the internet connection's only purpose. He just happen to use it in a way that problably infringes on his usage agreement with the uni.
Toss about hysterical terms such as stealing and arrested and you look like an ass.
sun's management is not the type to settle comfortably in a niche, and theyve made enemies of just about every major player in the industry. like sgi theyve been so profitable so long that even though things are trending downhill theyll piss away their warchest on tangential products and unecessary technology and marketing, completely missing the oportunity to retain a sizeable, loyal market.
Using the 64 bit question as leverage against intel by hinting it favors one architecture or the other from time to time.
And what if MS pulls a dos 6.0 and sits on the 64 bit question for years, insisting everyone fork out for the new millenium's dos4gw. Do you think people would stand for it? Screw segmentation, even if the kernel does it transparently. I'd rather walk my grandmother through a netbsd install on an sgi crimson via postcard than code with segmentation in mind again. It's not freaking nineteen nintyone anymore.
Every time intel has attempted to come up with a novel architecture, they've failed and reverted back to extending x86. If they'd extended x86 to being 64 bit (which is something windows media player, realplayer, software dvd players etc could benefit from) they'd have a successful 64 bit cpu *right now*.
My point is intel's management is completely arbitrary and disorganized. Almost everything they do fails miserably, hard, embarrassingly and on a massive scale (same examples as before: their entire networking division, rambus, all of their risc products, infiniband). If they didnt have the x86 cushion they wouldve perished long ago.
Theres almost no software for itanium because historically it's an intel branch out product that will be dropped and replaced with an x86 extension. Thats what folks are waiting for.
An analogy: say in 1950 cars were v4 and ford came out with a turbine powered car to get over the "v4 hump." Only problem is it burned hydrogen and required an entirely new gas station infrastructure. They touted it as the next big thing, invested billions, then one day announced the v6 and forgot the whole idea.
Then in 1980 they released an improved turbine to get over the v6 hump, invested billions more. Then again forgot about it and released the v8.
Today they announce an even better turbine to get over the v8 hump and tell folks internal combustion is dying. Would you be investing in hydrogen gas stations or instead training your mechanics to fix v10's?
" I think Intel is currently dismissing 64-bit computing except for specialized needs because the vast majority of current mainstream software doesn't support 64-bit operations."
Yeah, just like they didn't support MMX when the vast majority of mainstream software didn't support MMX operations. Or sse operations. Or sse2 operations. They do what they want, when they want, without regards to what the market wants (witness rambus, itanium, selling their networking division, etc, etc, etc)
I'm trying to think of another industry where the employees are given loans or are required to make initial investments and usually end up screwed. Hmmm... where else does this happen... In what other industry are the guys on the bottom so braindead they participate even though it's common knowlege they'll get the shaft?
Amway? Herbal Life? Yeah.
This nation is capitalist and if you are too stupid to ensure you are properly compensated for your efforts, you are giving work away for free. In this case the fools are giving it to record labels, and that's fine with me. When I buy something it's because I'm paying what it's worth too me. If the wrong people profit, too fricken bad... I still get what I want.
And you can't say "well people buy crappy music, thereby supporting an artificial economy perpetuated by marketing!!!" IF PEOPLE BUY SOMETHING THERE IS A MARKET FOR IT GOD DAMN IT! And if under the current system no music is produced that anyone wants, the system wont continue existing, now will it? Theres a reason labels continue to profit and it has nothing to do with them being bastards. Nearly everyone acts selfishly. The industry produces a product people apparently want and the competition to be an employee is so intense they aren't obligated to pay fairly.
Labels are trying some legislative things to prop themselves up (and they have the right to do so), but democracy has a solution for that: dont vote for the industry's lackies. And if they still win then the people seem to want the industry supported by laws. If you dont like it, too bad.
SATA offers all the speed benefits of SCSI (such as command queueing and device initiated data transfer). In addition, it is one drive per channel. But "wait," you say, "servers need lots of drives in raid5 on each channel!!!" One drive per channel is a blessing in disguise.
From time to time I've seen drive logic fail (as opposed to surface errors), which often brings down the entire SCSI channel. With raid5, you can only afford to lose one drive and perhaps a couple hot spares. Certainly not 14 drives in one shot. SCSI is many pinned, and SCSI raid adapters are designed to have many drives on each channel. One drive per interface is extremely costly and impractical. In this respect, SATA is more robust.
"If one drive per channel serial interfaces are so good, why weren't the used in the first place," you might wonder. Modern high clock rate microcontroller technology permits much higher frequency twisted pair serial interfaces that can offer superior bandwidth to older parallel, ribbon cable interfaces. If SCSI were being designed today it would look something like firewire, which I'm sure you're not biased against. Don't be fooled by the ATA moniker.
What you mean to say is that the default interface presented to the user should be clean and uncluttered, so important features are readily identifiable.
That your background can be set to be a webpage but it isnt by default is irrelevant. One has to dig quite far to find that option - its presence does not clutter the interface and the function is off by default, so the distracting nature of a webpage background wouldn't be bothering a noob anyway.
The user doesnt give a shit what happens when you middle click or press control shift f1. The user cares about how to get things done. That's why you structure the help file based on features and how to do things and not based on what happens when you slap alt backspace.
For the newbie you offer tutorials based on default functionality. You say:
"A good way to copy text is to write click on it and select copy in the context sensitive menu. A faster way is to press control-C. Try selecting some text and copying it both ways."
That's the handholding introduction. The advanced user, the type who would be changing key bindings and mouse behavior and menu entries would be trying to figure out something more advanced, like what happens if you copy an area of the document with text and images. For him, there is the reference help file stating this:
"The rich content copy and paste system is intelligent. Only content the destination application understands is transferred. If a less advanced destination application is recieving mixed content from a more advanced application, only content the primitive app can represent is transferred."
You dont say:
"Pressing control-C with stuff selected and pressing control-V in another program that doesnt understand some of the stuff copies only the understood stuff."
The functionality is what matters, not key bindings. To reiterate, you have default UI specific tutorials to get the user started and functionality driven help files for the user to refer to.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean some company did? Was this before the embargo? Then they did because it's profitable.
anywhere youd consider moving would be more socialist and have at least as many problems to piss you off
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah tax voip...
a mature civilization tends to document novel inventions
errrrrrr.... youve been watching a little bit too much bbc there, chief. comparing cnn to nazi propaganda isn't just a little off base... it's fucking 10 million light years from reasonable.
i believe it was actually first described in homer's oddessy in the passage concerning carpets and doorknobs. the greek word for amber is actually a corruption of the phrase "doorknob carpet shock."
if they were so mature why didnt they document it?
would they have happened if iran had defeated iraq? the us didnt support iraq because it seemed like a fun idea.
Your "shadiness" test is damn weak. Just because they came up with an idea on their own doesnt mean it's original or non-obvious.
We tend to favor companies that arent trying to destroy us.
yeah get them at www.ext2_for_windows_xp.com
my modchip must be working then
19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 *submit*
you run strings against your vendor's binary to find "NETSCAPE PROGRAMMERS ARE WEENIES!" and "NSA security backdoor: press control shift shift alt triangle trianlge circle for infinite leetness"
oh wait, the month of security awareness solved these problems! I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER! whens the month for removing insults against competitors and easter eggs?
In most states, sending some email is a slightly more minor transgression than illegally accessing with the dean's pc.
If the student violated a signed contract with the university, then he's in trouble. But not because he's stealing. The university provided him with a connection so he could use a little bandwidth. That's the internet connection's only purpose. He just happen to use it in a way that problably infringes on his usage agreement with the uni.
Toss about hysterical terms such as stealing and arrested and you look like an ass.
"Sun wants 64 bit capability to be a differentiator for Solaris. So they will not rush to use AMD's 64 bit offerings."
errr.......... what?
members of the supposed jury that doesnt make sense.
sun's management is not the type to settle comfortably in a niche, and theyve made enemies of just about every major player in the industry. like sgi theyve been so profitable so long that even though things are trending downhill theyll piss away their warchest on tangential products and unecessary technology and marketing, completely missing the oportunity to retain a sizeable, loyal market.
seeing as how solaris is free for 4 proc boxen or less, what does it matter? pay the $0 and move on.
Using the 64 bit question as leverage against intel by hinting it favors one architecture or the other from time to time.
And what if MS pulls a dos 6.0 and sits on the 64 bit question for years, insisting everyone fork out for the new millenium's dos4gw. Do you think people would stand for it? Screw segmentation, even if the kernel does it transparently. I'd rather walk my grandmother through a netbsd install on an sgi crimson via postcard than code with segmentation in mind again. It's not freaking nineteen nintyone anymore.
Every time intel has attempted to come up with a novel architecture, they've failed and reverted back to extending x86. If they'd extended x86 to being 64 bit (which is something windows media player, realplayer, software dvd players etc could benefit from) they'd have a successful 64 bit cpu *right now*.
My point is intel's management is completely arbitrary and disorganized. Almost everything they do fails miserably, hard, embarrassingly and on a massive scale (same examples as before: their entire networking division, rambus, all of their risc products, infiniband). If they didnt have the x86 cushion they wouldve perished long ago.
Theres almost no software for itanium because historically it's an intel branch out product that will be dropped and replaced with an x86 extension. Thats what folks are waiting for.
An analogy: say in 1950 cars were v4 and ford came out with a turbine powered car to get over the "v4 hump." Only problem is it burned hydrogen and required an entirely new gas station infrastructure. They touted it as the next big thing, invested billions, then one day announced the v6 and forgot the whole idea.
Then in 1980 they released an improved turbine to get over the v6 hump, invested billions more. Then again forgot about it and released the v8.
Today they announce an even better turbine to get over the v8 hump and tell folks internal combustion is dying. Would you be investing in hydrogen gas stations or instead training your mechanics to fix v10's?
" I think Intel is currently dismissing 64-bit computing except for specialized needs because the vast majority of current mainstream software doesn't support 64-bit operations."
Yeah, just like they didn't support MMX when the vast majority of mainstream software didn't support MMX operations. Or sse operations. Or sse2 operations. They do what they want, when they want, without regards to what the market wants (witness rambus, itanium, selling their networking division, etc, etc, etc)
I'm trying to think of another industry where the employees are given loans or are required to make initial investments and usually end up screwed. Hmmm... where else does this happen... In what other industry are the guys on the bottom so braindead they participate even though it's common knowlege they'll get the shaft?
Amway? Herbal Life? Yeah.
This nation is capitalist and if you are too stupid to ensure you are properly compensated for your efforts, you are giving work away for free. In this case the fools are giving it to record labels, and that's fine with me. When I buy something it's because I'm paying what it's worth too me. If the wrong people profit, too fricken bad... I still get what I want.
And you can't say "well people buy crappy music, thereby supporting an artificial economy perpetuated by marketing!!!" IF PEOPLE BUY SOMETHING THERE IS A MARKET FOR IT GOD DAMN IT! And if under the current system no music is produced that anyone wants, the system wont continue existing, now will it? Theres a reason labels continue to profit and it has nothing to do with them being bastards. Nearly everyone acts selfishly. The industry produces a product people apparently want and the competition to be an employee is so intense they aren't obligated to pay fairly.
Labels are trying some legislative things to prop themselves up (and they have the right to do so), but democracy has a solution for that: dont vote for the industry's lackies. And if they still win then the people seem to want the industry supported by laws. If you dont like it, too bad.
SATA offers all the speed benefits of SCSI (such as command queueing and device initiated data transfer). In addition, it is one drive per channel. But "wait," you say, "servers need lots of drives in raid5 on each channel!!!" One drive per channel is a blessing in disguise.
From time to time I've seen drive logic fail (as opposed to surface errors), which often brings down the entire SCSI channel. With raid5, you can only afford to lose one drive and perhaps a couple hot spares. Certainly not 14 drives in one shot. SCSI is many pinned, and SCSI raid adapters are designed to have many drives on each channel. One drive per interface is extremely costly and impractical. In this respect, SATA is more robust.
"If one drive per channel serial interfaces are so good, why weren't the used in the first place," you might wonder. Modern high clock rate microcontroller technology permits much higher frequency twisted pair serial interfaces that can offer superior bandwidth to older parallel, ribbon cable interfaces. If SCSI were being designed today it would look something like firewire, which I'm sure you're not biased against. Don't be fooled by the ATA moniker.
Faster defragging.
What you mean to say is that the default interface presented to the user should be clean and uncluttered, so important features are readily identifiable.
That your background can be set to be a webpage but it isnt by default is irrelevant. One has to dig quite far to find that option - its presence does not clutter the interface and the function is off by default, so the distracting nature of a webpage background wouldn't be bothering a noob anyway.
Talk about a strawman argument.
The user doesnt give a shit what happens when you middle click or press control shift f1. The user cares about how to get things done. That's why you structure the help file based on features and how to do things and not based on what happens when you slap alt backspace.
For the newbie you offer tutorials based on default functionality. You say:
"A good way to copy text is to write click on it and select copy in the context sensitive menu. A faster way is to press control-C. Try selecting some text and copying it both ways."
That's the handholding introduction. The advanced user, the type who would be changing key bindings and mouse behavior and menu entries would be trying to figure out something more advanced, like what happens if you copy an area of the document with text and images. For him, there is the reference help file stating this:
"The rich content copy and paste system is intelligent. Only content the destination application understands is transferred. If a less advanced destination application is recieving mixed content from a more advanced application, only content the primitive app can represent is transferred."
You dont say:
"Pressing control-C with stuff selected and pressing control-V in another program that doesnt understand some of the stuff copies only the understood stuff."
The functionality is what matters, not key bindings. To reiterate, you have default UI specific tutorials to get the user started and functionality driven help files for the user to refer to.