My only point was that this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart with a "revamped" one as the title of the article implies and as many people posted comments have assumed.
Well, I hope it isn't - schools are buying it, so I hope no one's doing anything stupid here - but it seems to me a print of the 50's artwork would be better. Not to knock ecologists, but I'm not completely trusting his table - he's got a few of the series ordered...oddly.
According to Phillip Stewarts website, this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart.
From the website :
The intention is not to replace the familiar table, but to complement it and at the same time to stimulate the imagination and to evoke wonder at the order underlying the universe.
Then he failed on all accounts, since the 50's one - created by an actual artist, so it presumably "stimulates the imagination" - was also more usable, informative, and accurate.
SpamBayes definitely reduces the spam count, but a human could definitely do a lot better (though a bit slower). If it can't learn to play chess better than it filter's e-mail, it probably wouldn't be much of a match.
And if you can hire someone to filter your mail for you, that's great. Otherwise, hang on to your Bayesian and/or heuristic based filter.
Called a contract. If you're stupid enough to sign a contract that says you couldn't get another job, then the burden is on you.
Not true. Many contracts can be deemed null if they violate the law - labor law in this instance. Since MS dabbles in every area of the computer indistry, any computer company could conceivably be an MS competitor if interpreted broadly. That would leave him either 1) an MS slave or 2) unemployed for a year, and that situation would probably not be legal. I know it's not in CA.
Also, we haven't seen the contract, and the site was slim on details.
I'm sure it was a non-compete clause in the contract and that's what their disputing. Sure, it's chickenshit on Microsoft's part, but still it's probably a valid argument.
Unless he's working on competing *projects* at google that fell under the scope of his work at MS, no, they probably don't. I don't know WA, but as well as I can tell they wouldn't stand a chance in CA.
Well, ignoring that the infrastructure may have been publicly subsidized, why shouldn't the people who own the wires be able to decide what to do with them? Why can't they only allow their own network connections across those wires? Or charge competitors extra to use it?
If they own every inch of the land over which the wires run, sure. That, however, is never the case.
When I am thinking about medicine on the web, I am giving surfers the benefit of the doubt that they are going to WebMD or pharma home pages, Pfizer, etc; and not Joe Schmo site with no credibility.
But it goes to show that Win2K's core is relatively efficient, making it a good choice if you need Windows on older hardware.
I'm not surprised. Win2K is my favorite windows ever, going away. I haven't got it on a 486, but I have run it on an old PII with 32 MB. Slow, but fine.
I've had the same experience with XP Home on the machines of less fortunate family members - I've upgraded whoever was running it on 128MB to 384 MB. A Celeron 2GHz machine with 128MB and XP Home is slow to the point of uselessness.
Very interesting the bit about the diff re: home vs. pro. Is this another way "home" is intentionally crippled?
As for 3.1...it not only runs, it runs absolutely *fine* on 4 MB. All I ever had in high school and first 2 years of college, a 486SX-25 with 4 MB running win 3.1. I can't imagine the luxury of 16MB.
They have several... They are called "Subscribers". I have done by job multiple times and been thanked by the editors via e-mail at least a handful of times... Yet there have been just as many (if not more) times that I have submitted the story as being duped and it has been ignored.
Did you print out the emails and frame them? Because they're surely as cool as a Knuth check, no?
Running an OS on a machine well below the manufacturer's specs and then complaining that it is running slow compared to an OS that fits the machine's hardware loadout isn't a valid performance analysis.
I wouldn't expect XP to run on a 32MB machine, and have never tried. However, you're the one who claimed I've not noticed any appreciable performance hit in XP compared to the previous versions. If that claim is true, then XP should run fine on any machine that runs 98, or else your comparison is meaningless (which it is, see below).
To answer your question, yes I did run 98 and XP on the same machine. It was a 1.4GHz Athon with 768 MBs of memory. On that machine there was no qualitative speed difference between the OSs on the applications (content creation) that I normally use.
Well no kidding, that's still a solid machine even by today's standards (or at least as of when XP was released). It's kind of the reverse comparison that matters. Your comparison is like saying I didn't notice a speed difference between my Pinto and my Ferrari when they're both parked. Obviously if you choose a machine that runs XP perfectly...you won't notice a difference. For a valid scientific comparison, you'd have to drop the RAM until one of them lags. It will be XP, and it will probably be when you get down to 128MB (from my experience), at which point all other versions of Windows still work fine. None of them is particularly processor intensive for the base OS.
To sum up, yes, XP is much more bloated than 98, and actually rather moreso than 2K.
Having used 98, NT4.x, 2K, and XP at work (digital content creation) and at home since about '97 I can say that I've not noticed any appreciable performance hit in XP compared to the previous versions. Certainly not enough to warrant buying a product that lost mainstream support six weeks ago.
The support issues are one thing, but go install XP on something with 32 MB of RAM if you want to talk speed. If you've noticed no difference between versions, it's probably because you haven't run 98 and XP on the same machine. See you in a week after it boots. Maybe. Even 128 is slow as hell, which 2K works fine with.
MTBE is a serious water pollution problem - it travels long distances in the ground when spilled. There are sections in my town where folks' private wells are unusable due to MTBE contamination. There are signs at one local lake warning against eating fish due to MTBE.
Kinda funny (sarcasm) that MTBE was forced upon us to reduce air pollution, and it ended up poisoning the water.
It is, but it's not smart to make that decision on a national basis since local priorities vary. Like in LA, controlling air pollution is a lot more important than the odd MTBE, since no one in LA has a well and there aren't any lakes either
In your area, I'd say go with ethanol, so the fish only get drunk.
Weve got sound based fusion reactors nearing break-even, AND we have what could be an easy way to generate hydrogen from water using sodium. Now, with this in mind, tell me why ethanol is needed?
1) No fusion method has actually broken even on this planet, and even if it did, it's tabletop. Not a car. It would probably be 30+ years away from actual use.
2) That sodium crap is *definitely* an energy loser, as sodium metal isn't just sitting around and takes a lot of energy to reduce to its metallic form from the ionic form in which it's actually found. It's also just basically reversing the reaction that generates sodium in the first place. Talking about getting energy from that is like talking about the relative merits of a perpetual motion machine.
3) Ethanol burns in cars. Now. With actual internal-combustion engines that exist.
The relative ethanol break-even is important to a degree, but it (or something like it) is needed now to get more oxygen in fuels which helps prevent incomplete combustion (read: air pollution). MTBE (methyl t-butyl ether) was used previously, but is worse than ethanol in groundwater. Ethanol is worse for aerosol formation in the atmosphere I've heard (ie, more smog), and is a bit more expensive. We use ethanol these days instead of MTBE thanks to ex-Sen Daschle, protecting his state's corn lobby.
Bottom line? We have to use ethanol, or something like ethanol, to clean up gasoline if not for a fuel. We also need something realistic to bridge the gap between fosil fuels and the further-out alternative fuels.
I forwarded this to our corporate risk group that Linux's source has been audited and proven clean.
I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.
I really think it's more token control in the end. Nothing much should or would be changed - just greater world cooperation between the nations of the world.
What a bunch of crap. So basically, and like usual, the small countries want to feel important and play Student Council to inflate their egos while not actually accomplishing anything. Too bad. The internet works fine, it's decentralized, it doesn't need to be centralized, and doing so would defeat the entire point of the internet.
The internet should not be controlled by any one country. WWW is not U.SWW.
... and treaty-based bodies administer the international communications issues like radio spectrum and satellite slots. So what's the difference?
Not the point. The US runs it now. Having the US not run it would probably not be as good for the US as the status quo. So why should the US volutarily give it up again?
Although, Firefox doesn't run particularly fast on my G5 compared to my run-of-the-mill XP box at work.
I've noticed the same. Any chance it's the version of firefox on Mac in addition to hardware issues? It also seems to me that Firefox on Mac has significantly more stability problems and, from my experience, memory leaks.
Of course, that won't take care of the PPC-build-on-Intel-with Rosetta argument, but it might mitigate the G5 vs. XP issues.
Arguably, the entire point of fine arts is to explore someone else's worldview
Fine line between that and annoying propaganda. Many people, when they want entertainment, don't want a lecture. Regardless of how well it's camouflaged.
That said, I liked Deus Ex - still one of the best 5 games I've played - and didn't see it's material as a problem or a political attack.
Part of AMD's claims is outrageous. Why would AMD expect its competitor, Intel, to write software that supports AMD's own products? We would not expect IBM to modify AIX or any other IBM software package to run on SPARC, which is a poorly designed processor. Sun Microsystems can surely whine about IBM's tactics, and Sun has definitely whined. However, IBM is well within its rights to withhold software support.
There's a difference between not supporting hardware and using your position to intentionally tank someone else's product. They have to go out of their way to make code execute crappy on AMD. If they were being chip-agnostic and it just didn't run on AMD, that would be different.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I hope it isn't - schools are buying it, so I hope no one's doing anything stupid here - but it seems to me a print of the 50's artwork would be better. Not to knock ecologists, but I'm not completely trusting his table - he's got a few of the series ordered...oddly.
Then he failed on all accounts, since the 50's one - created by an actual artist, so it presumably "stimulates the imagination" - was also more usable, informative, and accurate.
And if you can hire someone to filter your mail for you, that's great. Otherwise, hang on to your Bayesian and/or heuristic based filter.
Not true. Many contracts can be deemed null if they violate the law - labor law in this instance. Since MS dabbles in every area of the computer indistry, any computer company could conceivably be an MS competitor if interpreted broadly. That would leave him either 1) an MS slave or 2) unemployed for a year, and that situation would probably not be legal. I know it's not in CA.
Also, we haven't seen the contract, and the site was slim on details.
I'm sure it was a non-compete clause in the contract and that's what their disputing. Sure, it's chickenshit on Microsoft's part, but still it's probably a valid argument.
Unless he's working on competing *projects* at google that fell under the scope of his work at MS, no, they probably don't. I don't know WA, but as well as I can tell they wouldn't stand a chance in CA.
If they own every inch of the land over which the wires run, sure. That, however, is never the case.
Don't. They are.
I'm not surprised. Win2K is my favorite windows ever, going away. I haven't got it on a 486, but I have run it on an old PII with 32 MB. Slow, but fine.
I've had the same experience with XP Home on the machines of less fortunate family members - I've upgraded whoever was running it on 128MB to 384 MB. A Celeron 2GHz machine with 128MB and XP Home is slow to the point of uselessness.
Very interesting the bit about the diff re: home vs. pro. Is this another way "home" is intentionally crippled?
As for 3.1...it not only runs, it runs absolutely *fine* on 4 MB. All I ever had in high school and first 2 years of college, a 486SX-25 with 4 MB running win 3.1. I can't imagine the luxury of 16MB.
Did you print out the emails and frame them? Because they're surely as cool as a Knuth check, no?
Running an OS on a machine well below the manufacturer's specs and then complaining that it is running slow compared to an OS that fits the machine's hardware loadout isn't a valid performance analysis.
I wouldn't expect XP to run on a 32MB machine, and have never tried. However, you're the one who claimed I've not noticed any appreciable performance hit in XP compared to the previous versions. If that claim is true, then XP should run fine on any machine that runs 98, or else your comparison is meaningless (which it is, see below).
To answer your question, yes I did run 98 and XP on the same machine. It was a 1.4GHz Athon with 768 MBs of memory. On that machine there was no qualitative speed difference between the OSs on the applications (content creation) that I normally use.
Well no kidding, that's still a solid machine even by today's standards (or at least as of when XP was released). It's kind of the reverse comparison that matters. Your comparison is like saying I didn't notice a speed difference between my Pinto and my Ferrari when they're both parked. Obviously if you choose a machine that runs XP perfectly...you won't notice a difference. For a valid scientific comparison, you'd have to drop the RAM until one of them lags. It will be XP, and it will probably be when you get down to 128MB (from my experience), at which point all other versions of Windows still work fine. None of them is particularly processor intensive for the base OS.
To sum up, yes, XP is much more bloated than 98, and actually rather moreso than 2K.
The support issues are one thing, but go install XP on something with 32 MB of RAM if you want to talk speed. If you've noticed no difference between versions, it's probably because you haven't run 98 and XP on the same machine. See you in a week after it boots. Maybe. Even 128 is slow as hell, which 2K works fine with.
It is, but it's not smart to make that decision on a national basis since local priorities vary. Like in LA, controlling air pollution is a lot more important than the odd MTBE, since no one in LA has a well and there aren't any lakes either
In your area, I'd say go with ethanol, so the fish only get drunk.
1) No fusion method has actually broken even on this planet, and even if it did, it's tabletop. Not a car. It would probably be 30+ years away from actual use.
2) That sodium crap is *definitely* an energy loser, as sodium metal isn't just sitting around and takes a lot of energy to reduce to its metallic form from the ionic form in which it's actually found. It's also just basically reversing the reaction that generates sodium in the first place. Talking about getting energy from that is like talking about the relative merits of a perpetual motion machine.
3) Ethanol burns in cars. Now. With actual internal-combustion engines that exist.
The relative ethanol break-even is important to a degree, but it (or something like it) is needed now to get more oxygen in fuels which helps prevent incomplete combustion (read: air pollution). MTBE (methyl t-butyl ether) was used previously, but is worse than ethanol in groundwater. Ethanol is worse for aerosol formation in the atmosphere I've heard (ie, more smog), and is a bit more expensive. We use ethanol these days instead of MTBE thanks to ex-Sen Daschle, protecting his state's corn lobby.
Bottom line? We have to use ethanol, or something like ethanol, to clean up gasoline if not for a fuel. We also need something realistic to bridge the gap between fosil fuels and the further-out alternative fuels.
I'd like a free pony too, but I'm more likely to get my pony than you are DRM-less RIAA music.
You forgot "Excellent..."
It would be if it weren't missing a line. Now it has to compete for the "worst poem" honors with 90% of high-school haikus.
Nice, that'll get you promoted.
What a bunch of crap. So basically, and like usual, the small countries want to feel important and play Student Council to inflate their egos while not actually accomplishing anything. Too bad. The internet works fine, it's decentralized, it doesn't need to be centralized, and doing so would defeat the entire point of the internet.
The internet should not be controlled by any one country. WWW is not U.SWW.
www != internet.
Not the point. The US runs it now. Having the US not run it would probably not be as good for the US as the status quo. So why should the US volutarily give it up again?
But they're always playing catch-up. Works for a while, not forever. We'll see if they can overturn google and iPod+iTunes.
That's what MS has never gotten. Make it part of a person's lifestyle first, then they'll make it part of their work.
If you alternate the current, you just reverse the reaction.
I've noticed the same. Any chance it's the version of firefox on Mac in addition to hardware issues? It also seems to me that Firefox on Mac has significantly more stability problems and, from my experience, memory leaks.
Of course, that won't take care of the PPC-build-on-Intel-with Rosetta argument, but it might mitigate the G5 vs. XP issues.
Anyone else, or is it just me?
Why would you do that? CGA's just fine.
Fine line between that and annoying propaganda. Many people, when they want entertainment, don't want a lecture. Regardless of how well it's camouflaged.
That said, I liked Deus Ex - still one of the best 5 games I've played - and didn't see it's material as a problem or a political attack.
There's a difference between not supporting hardware and using your position to intentionally tank someone else's product. They have to go out of their way to make code execute crappy on AMD. If they were being chip-agnostic and it just didn't run on AMD, that would be different.