Nicotine gum and patches are 18+ in almost every state.
Which is weird in itself. As stimulants go, nicotine is somewhere around caffeine. But coffee and caffeinated drinks are not regulated... well, at least not for caffeine content (some are for sugar content).
I guess the producers of e-cigs couldn't ask for a better way to promote their business. In fact, their lobbyists could have spent their entire budget on getting this done and it still wouldn't be enough money spent on it. First, it will popularize e-cigs today because of the current climate of general distrust for the government. And then it will eliminate competition in the future by producing huge regulatory barriers to entry for new producers after the patents expire.
What do you mean? Nicotine is a mild cognitive stimulant -- just like caffeine. The only harmful part of cigarettes is the actual delivery mechanism (the smoke). Since e-cigarettes don't have tobacco smoke (they use water vapor), they are effectively a new form of nicotine gum or nicotine patch. The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes. This is literally trying to use a healthcare agency (FDA) to regulate an element of cultural perception.
That's news. Because they are selling version 12 (promising Win 10 support which was originally promised in VMware WS11). They are also promising usb3 pass through support, but there is no way it will work with all the 3rd party usb3 drivers.
Using Intel for running hypervisors is... well, it just makes me sigh. And I have *a* usb3 driver on the AMD machine. It's just not generic MS driver (like it is on Win8.1). Of all the things to backport, this should have been pretty high on the list... unless MS was looking to push people off Win7 and into the PC as a cloud-terminal world.
Office workers - still form the bulk of PC desktop users IMO
Office workers get quite a bit of convenience from being able to disconnect a usb device from one vm, connect it to the other and then, if need be, take the dongle with all their work home. This way the VM does the processing (and has all the software license for the operating system that's running on it), but the data can reside in one place (which doesn't need network to connect to it). Think of (photos, audio, etc.) stored in bulk and processed by different system. Keeping anything over a gigabyte on a network drive for random access is laughably slow. Switching it from one VM to another or one desktop to another is much more convenient and reliable than a synchronization solution. The reliability comes from not having a possibility of binary files (altered images, embedded db's, etc.) getting simultaneously changed and having the synchronization wipe out conflicting changes.
They may not know what embedded databases are, but they do notice that keeping the documents on the PC itself or within the hypervisor itself is much faster than keeping it on a usb2 dongle. If the dongle was passthrough usb3, the difference would not exist. I know this because I've tried it on Win8.1. But I am still not going to put Win8.1 or Win10 on my main PC desktop. The UI sucks. And I want to reduce to a minimum any chance of telemetry running on a system which hosting half a dozen running VMs.
Power Gamers - Not going to be running hypervisors much.
And they are the only market for Intel (which bet the farm on making faster chips with fewer cores and having more of L1 cache dedicated to data). AMD (which decided to have more slower cores and have more L1 cache dedicated to instructions) is better at running multiple operating systems at the same time (ie, at hosting hypervisors).
old timers -- Not going to be running hypervisors ever.
Old timers who have been using PC's their entire lives and who are explained that there is a trivial solution to not losing their old PC (but running it as an application in a window on their new PC) generally love it -- same applications + new applications + new cheaper printers and other toys.
Power users - Only a significant fraction of which would use a hypervisor; and only a minor fraction would care about USB3 support passed through to the guest. (which is the context here -- because even I use hypervisors left and right, and USB3 isn't even on my radar as something i worry about.)
You don't need to copy bulk data then. But when VMs are used to virtualize legacy systems, this particular scenario becomes more common.
Separately I work with a multitude of medical practices... just the practice management software, accounting, etc
Hmm. My dentist doesn't. They don't want to switch their patient management system because that's too much effort (or probably too expensive to pay someone for it). So the office has new desktops in every room, but they run their record keeping and patient info within VMs.
I said find the errors in your own assertions. You have chosen to skip out on that task. Let's call it the end of the discussion then. Feel free to bout out without a grace if you have the need to have the last word.
There are usb3 drivers for win7. Also you're assuming all the people running win7 have usb3 hardware.
You are making 2 easily refutable arguments in 2 sentences. If you want to have any further discussion on the subject, please, let me know that you see the counterarguments to the arguments you made. Please, show that you can refute the two assertions you made there all by yourself. Then we can have a real discussion.
Even if I accepted the premise that most of the desktop users didn't know about VM's (and I don't accept it), it would still not be true that they can't tell the difference between usb 2 and usb 3 and the huge difference in speed between the 2. With nearly 50% of user base running Win 7, and with usb dongles being the ubiquitous way to store data, the idea that the same dongle runs 10x slower on one Win7 PC than it does on another Win7 PC (with similar specs) makes for quite a few "what the heck?"s.
The number of people looking at Windows 7 USB3 support as a hypervisor host is only slightly more people than "just you".
The number of people who use a desktop PC (not a laptop, but an actual desktop) and don't use at least some form of hypervisor (even if it's just a VMWare player) is shrinking with every generation of chips getting released. The more cores the machines have, the less likely people are to do everything in the context of one running desktop instead of going for different desktops in order to create an isolated environment for various applications. Containers are still much harder to set up than just downloading a VMWare player and virtualizing old PCs instead of upgrading all the applications they have. Not having even the simplest usb dongles work at full speed on a Win 7 PC without installing (usually buggy) 3rd party usb drivers is also a deal breaker for many people. It just creates the perception that Win 7 is "slow". While it's actually not. It's just deliberately doesn't support the fast usb.
All it would take is for Win7 to have a native usb3 driver supported at the same level as Win8.1 and Win10 usb3 drivers and Win7 would be the operating system of choice for the next 15 years. Both Win8.1 and Win10 work too hard to break the boundary between PC as a personal computer and PC as a cloud terminal. Win7 still has more functionality, as a desktop operating system, than Win8.1 and Win10.
The flat-out refusal to have kernel level generic usb3 driver means that all hypervisors running on Win7 must either have their own full USB3 implementation or be limited to USB2. This is just an attempt to get people to upgrade from Win7 to force them to open up to all the cloud integration features. Right now you are faced with the choice: fully supported USB3 and less autonomous desktop, or the best autonomous desktop (Win7), but no generic USB3 support.
The actual windows managers in Win8.1 and Win10 are all far inferior (less functional) to Win7. Although the administrative features do improve in 8.1 compared to 7 and in 10 compared to 8.1 So your ideal opearating system for a desktop would be Win7 with generic kernel usb3 driver and 8.1 task manager.
His job is not to complain. His job is information gathering and information warfare. Remember something else: all warfare is deception. This is not my paranoia. This is established understanding of how the world works. Now see what follows if you adapt this premise.
Having a scientific education qualifies him to study the subject matter... not to comment on it because other scientists have studied it.
You would be right if he were disagreeing with what the scientists have said, but since he's merely paraphrasing it so that less scientifically-minded people can understand it, you're completely, totally, utterly, and in all ways wrong. In fact, having a scientific education is specifically what qualifies him to comment on it; if he didn't have one, he'd be likely to misunderstand it, and then he wouldn't be qualified. You literally could not be more wrong.
No, I am right. Having studied subject A, subject B and subject C, in the situation where subject C is related to subject D, does not make one qualified to explain conclusions one overheard about subject D even though one never studied D himself. Because one never examined the fact-finding process which led to those conclusions.
It's ridiculous to say that someone who has a degree is that which the degree says they are. This is how insurance companies get away with claiming that denying medical services is done by their "doctors". While, in fact, these are people with MD education who work full-time as insurance adjusters. Professional credentials are lost without practice. Would someone who was a programmer 20 years ago be a credible "programming expert"? Would they be that even if they accomplished something of note 20 years ago? Would you trust them on their opinion on a piece of software whose source they never saw? Then why would a former gynecologist be qualified to judge what type of medicine a cancer patient need? Or why would a TV actor's judgement of subtle scientific difference between "scientifically certain" of whether a hypothesis been proven, as opposed to"scientifically sound" opinion of whether a hypothesis been proven, would be a judgement worth listening to? Having a scientific education qualifies him to study the subject matter... not to comment on it because other scientists have studied it.
'you program like a computer scientist' used to be 'fighting words'..
That's funny. I always think that people who program like engineers write throw-away prototypes which break the moment requirements change. I am often (but, of course, not always) right.
"learn to..." usually means that someone has not reached a point in their cognitive development where they realize that people specialize in what they do and are not idiots because they don't specialize in what the person hurling the insult does. Coming to appreciate the fact that smart people still don't know everything is often a slow grinding process. This insult is an indication of frustration that someone is present in the context with which they are not fully familiar. Each context has its own set of known facts and its own (often idiosyncratic nomenclature). Confusing someone new to a certain context with someone who is ignorant is a sure sign of someone who's only worked in one context and doesn't know much about anything else. It maybe frustrating, but the frustration comes from inability to explain something which has been internalized. A person who doesn't recognize this about themselves usually ends up being difficult to work with.
I'd like to thank whoever modded me as a troll. I should have known better. Not only can Russia not go to the moon in 4 years. I should have known better than to say that they can stage a moon landing in 4 years. They don't have the technology.
Should Obama be held accountable for everything his father did? Or would it be ok for him to say that it's a private matter and has nothing to do with his functioning as President? Cameron's father is a private citizen unless he is a member of the government, isn't he? Saying it's a private matter doesn't mean that Cameron says there is a connection to him, but he wants it to remain private. He is saying that the connection he has to the individual (his father) is private and is not related to his function in the government (the Prime Minister). As long as no wrong doing is claimed by the PM himself, why shouldn't he continue to insist that his father is his father (even if he is by some chance convicted of some crime such as tax evasion)? His relationship with his father is still a private matter -- not a government matter.
This might be cultural. I've been told (and no, I have not verified it although it could have been on slashdot) that Germany had to put in male voices in GPS units because drivers didn't trust female voices to give them directions.
Slashdot Mirror
Nicotine gum and patches are 18+ in almost every state.
Which is weird in itself. As stimulants go, nicotine is somewhere around caffeine. But coffee and caffeinated drinks are not regulated... well, at least not for caffeine content (some are for sugar content).
it's no more tobacco than a can of coke is a cup of coffee.
there is no more tobacco in them than there is in a nicotine gum.
I guess the producers of e-cigs couldn't ask for a better way to promote their business. In fact, their lobbyists could have spent their entire budget on getting this done and it still wouldn't be enough money spent on it. First, it will popularize e-cigs today because of the current climate of general distrust for the government. And then it will eliminate competition in the future by producing huge regulatory barriers to entry for new producers after the patents expire.
What do you mean? Nicotine is a mild cognitive stimulant -- just like caffeine. The only harmful part of cigarettes is the actual delivery mechanism (the smoke). Since e-cigarettes don't have tobacco smoke (they use water vapor), they are effectively a new form of nicotine gum or nicotine patch. The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes. This is literally trying to use a healthcare agency (FDA) to regulate an element of cultural perception.
VMWare Workstation is no longer made.
That's news. Because they are selling version 12 (promising Win 10 support which was originally promised in VMware WS11). They are also promising usb3 pass through support, but there is no way it will work with all the 3rd party usb3 drivers.
Using Intel for running hypervisors is... well, it just makes me sigh. And I have *a* usb3 driver on the AMD machine. It's just not generic MS driver (like it is on Win8.1). Of all the things to backport, this should have been pretty high on the list... unless MS was looking to push people off Win7 and into the PC as a cloud-terminal world.
Office workers - still form the bulk of PC desktop users IMO
Office workers get quite a bit of convenience from being able to disconnect a usb device from one vm, connect it to the other and then, if need be, take the dongle with all their work home. This way the VM does the processing (and has all the software license for the operating system that's running on it), but the data can reside in one place (which doesn't need network to connect to it). Think of (photos, audio, etc.) stored in bulk and processed by different system. Keeping anything over a gigabyte on a network drive for random access is laughably slow. Switching it from one VM to another or one desktop to another is much more convenient and reliable than a synchronization solution. The reliability comes from not having a possibility of binary files (altered images, embedded db's, etc.) getting simultaneously changed and having the synchronization wipe out conflicting changes.
They may not know what embedded databases are, but they do notice that keeping the documents on the PC itself or within the hypervisor itself is much faster than keeping it on a usb2 dongle. If the dongle was passthrough usb3, the difference would not exist. I know this because I've tried it on Win8.1. But I am still not going to put Win8.1 or Win10 on my main PC desktop. The UI sucks. And I want to reduce to a minimum any chance of telemetry running on a system which hosting half a dozen running VMs.
Power Gamers - Not going to be running hypervisors much.
And they are the only market for Intel (which bet the farm on making faster chips with fewer cores and having more of L1 cache dedicated to data). AMD (which decided to have more slower cores and have more L1 cache dedicated to instructions) is better at running multiple operating systems at the same time (ie, at hosting hypervisors).
old timers -- Not going to be running hypervisors ever.
Old timers who have been using PC's their entire lives and who are explained that there is a trivial solution to not losing their old PC (but running it as an application in a window on their new PC) generally love it -- same applications + new applications + new cheaper printers and other toys.
Power users - Only a significant fraction of which would use a hypervisor; and only a minor fraction would care about USB3 support passed through to the guest. (which is the context here -- because even I use hypervisors left and right, and USB3 isn't even on my radar as something i worry about.)
You don't need to copy bulk data then. But when VMs are used to virtualize legacy systems, this particular scenario becomes more common.
Separately I work with a multitude of medical practices... just the practice management software, accounting, etc
Hmm. My dentist doesn't. They don't want to switch their patient management system because that's too much effort (or probably too expensive to pay someone for it). So the office has new desktops in every room, but they run their record keeping and patient info within VMs.
I said find the errors in your own assertions. You have chosen to skip out on that task. Let's call it the end of the discussion then. Feel free to bout out without a grace if you have the need to have the last word.
There are usb3 drivers for win7. Also you're assuming all the people running win7 have usb3 hardware.
You are making 2 easily refutable arguments in 2 sentences. If you want to have any further discussion on the subject, please, let me know that you see the counterarguments to the arguments you made. Please, show that you can refute the two assertions you made there all by yourself. Then we can have a real discussion.
Even if I accepted the premise that most of the desktop users didn't know about VM's (and I don't accept it), it would still not be true that they can't tell the difference between usb 2 and usb 3 and the huge difference in speed between the 2. With nearly 50% of user base running Win 7, and with usb dongles being the ubiquitous way to store data, the idea that the same dongle runs 10x slower on one Win7 PC than it does on another Win7 PC (with similar specs) makes for quite a few "what the heck?"s.
The number of people looking at Windows 7 USB3 support as a hypervisor host is only slightly more people than "just you".
The number of people who use a desktop PC (not a laptop, but an actual desktop) and don't use at least some form of hypervisor (even if it's just a VMWare player) is shrinking with every generation of chips getting released. The more cores the machines have, the less likely people are to do everything in the context of one running desktop instead of going for different desktops in order to create an isolated environment for various applications. Containers are still much harder to set up than just downloading a VMWare player and virtualizing old PCs instead of upgrading all the applications they have. Not having even the simplest usb dongles work at full speed on a Win 7 PC without installing (usually buggy) 3rd party usb drivers is also a deal breaker for many people. It just creates the perception that Win 7 is "slow". While it's actually not. It's just deliberately doesn't support the fast usb.
All it would take is for Win7 to have a native usb3 driver supported at the same level as Win8.1 and Win10 usb3 drivers and Win7 would be the operating system of choice for the next 15 years. Both Win8.1 and Win10 work too hard to break the boundary between PC as a personal computer and PC as a cloud terminal. Win7 still has more functionality, as a desktop operating system, than Win8.1 and Win10.
The flat-out refusal to have kernel level generic usb3 driver means that all hypervisors running on Win7 must either have their own full USB3 implementation or be limited to USB2. This is just an attempt to get people to upgrade from Win7 to force them to open up to all the cloud integration features. Right now you are faced with the choice: fully supported USB3 and less autonomous desktop, or the best autonomous desktop (Win7), but no generic USB3 support.
The actual windows managers in Win8.1 and Win10 are all far inferior (less functional) to Win7. Although the administrative features do improve in 8.1 compared to 7 and in 10 compared to 8.1 So your ideal opearating system for a desktop would be Win7 with generic kernel usb3 driver and 8.1 task manager.
His job is not to complain. His job is information gathering and information warfare. Remember something else: all warfare is deception. This is not my paranoia. This is established understanding of how the world works. Now see what follows if you adapt this premise.
pretty sure those are started by task scheduler. so you can disable them in task scheduler.
Having a scientific education qualifies him to study the subject matter... not to comment on it because other scientists have studied it.
You would be right if he were disagreeing with what the scientists have said, but since he's merely paraphrasing it so that less scientifically-minded people can understand it, you're completely, totally, utterly, and in all ways wrong. In fact, having a scientific education is specifically what qualifies him to comment on it; if he didn't have one, he'd be likely to misunderstand it, and then he wouldn't be qualified. You literally could not be more wrong.
No, I am right. Having studied subject A, subject B and subject C, in the situation where subject C is related to subject D, does not make one qualified to explain conclusions one overheard about subject D even though one never studied D himself. Because one never examined the fact-finding process which led to those conclusions.
It's ridiculous to say that someone who has a degree is that which the degree says they are. This is how insurance companies get away with claiming that denying medical services is done by their "doctors". While, in fact, these are people with MD education who work full-time as insurance adjusters. Professional credentials are lost without practice. Would someone who was a programmer 20 years ago be a credible "programming expert"? Would they be that even if they accomplished something of note 20 years ago? Would you trust them on their opinion on a piece of software whose source they never saw? Then why would a former gynecologist be qualified to judge what type of medicine a cancer patient need? Or why would a TV actor's judgement of subtle scientific difference between "scientifically certain" of whether a hypothesis been proven, as opposed to"scientifically sound" opinion of whether a hypothesis been proven, would be a judgement worth listening to? Having a scientific education qualifies him to study the subject matter... not to comment on it because other scientists have studied it.
'you program like a computer scientist' used to be 'fighting words'..
That's funny. I always think that people who program like engineers write throw-away prototypes which break the moment requirements change. I am often (but, of course, not always) right.
"learn to..." usually means that someone has not reached a point in their cognitive development where they realize that people specialize in what they do and are not idiots because they don't specialize in what the person hurling the insult does. Coming to appreciate the fact that smart people still don't know everything is often a slow grinding process. This insult is an indication of frustration that someone is present in the context with which they are not fully familiar. Each context has its own set of known facts and its own (often idiosyncratic nomenclature). Confusing someone new to a certain context with someone who is ignorant is a sure sign of someone who's only worked in one context and doesn't know much about anything else. It maybe frustrating, but the frustration comes from inability to explain something which has been internalized. A person who doesn't recognize this about themselves usually ends up being difficult to work with.
I'd like to thank whoever modded me as a troll. I should have known better. Not only can Russia not go to the moon in 4 years. I should have known better than to say that they can stage a moon landing in 4 years. They don't have the technology.
Russia never saw a bad idea it didn't like. They are probably planning to fake the moon landing because they think they can get away with it.
Should Obama be held accountable for everything his father did? Or would it be ok for him to say that it's a private matter and has nothing to do with his functioning as President? Cameron's father is a private citizen unless he is a member of the government, isn't he? Saying it's a private matter doesn't mean that Cameron says there is a connection to him, but he wants it to remain private. He is saying that the connection he has to the individual (his father) is private and is not related to his function in the government (the Prime Minister). As long as no wrong doing is claimed by the PM himself, why shouldn't he continue to insist that his father is his father (even if he is by some chance convicted of some crime such as tax evasion)? His relationship with his father is still a private matter -- not a government matter.
This might be cultural. I've been told (and no, I have not verified it although it could have been on slashdot) that Germany had to put in male voices in GPS units because drivers didn't trust female voices to give them directions.