Yes, but/. seems to love spreading the prop^H^H^H^Hidea that it is China, in spite of facts. It doesn't matter where the implementation lies - you have to cut off spamming at it's source, otherwise the problem will not go away. Anything else is like respondonding to a murderer by going after the company that manufactured the gun.
In copying M$ Office so slavishly, the writers of Star Office (and, by inheritance, Open Office) are copying what I consider to be an abominable UI.
Heh, I often used to wonder why the idiocy of if you want to edit headers/footers in Word, you have to use the view menu. Then someone explained it to me: WordPerfect used to have it like that, and back when WordPerfect was the dominant word processor, Microsoft just copied them to make it easier for people to migrate to their software. Then everyone learned where it is, in the wrong place, so now they can't put it where it belongs, under "Edit".
Actually a lot of it is directly due to Windows security problems, because there are so many holes in Internet Explorer that allow a malicious site to install programs on your computer without so much as doing anything other than viewing a webpage. This should never have been possible.
How can 6,000,000 have been less than 2% of Germany's population? Even today Germany's population stands at around 82,000,000, so at worst it was at least 7% of the population. That is a pretty significant potential segment of an army even if only 1,000,000 of them were capable of fighting (even the women (and even childre) though could have supported the war via industrial labour). And the whole point of GP post was that "forcing them to emigrate before the war" was an impractical strategic decision as those people could rather have been rallied to join the war.
You say Germany's problem was lack of workers and lack of soldiers. GP states the obvious, that had Hitler rallied the Jews to his side, he would have had more workers and more soldiers! An extra couple million soldiers and workers is a lot.
Of course Microsoft saw it coming, which is why they improve their products so slowly, adding as little as possible to each new version of Windows and adding only just enough to give people a reason to upgrade every few years. Which is why Windows XP is technologically as advanced as any good 1996/7 operating system. Of course they couldn't have done that if they'd had competition. But anyway, yes, it's getting harder and harder for them to do, and since hardware is getting much cheaper they start looking at new "tricks" like one plan to try tie OSs to "free hardware" with DRM. I suspect that one reason Microsoft has allowed the spyware/virus/security problems to get so bad is to give people an extra incentive to grab Longhorn when it comes out (again - 'no competition' required).
Supply and demand are where it's at. The market laws apply to all industries and all countries for all commodities. What makes music industry execs think they're immune to it?
They don't, which is exactly why they're trying this scheme, to lower the 'supply' side of music content. By creating technology to limit how often a CD can be copied, they're creating artificial scarcity, effectively artifically creating "wear and tear" on a product that effectively has none.
No, they certainly don't think they're immune to supply and demand, but I do think they may be somewhat in denial for believing that they can control anything but a negligible amount of market supply in this way, and that they're naive to believe that this is a good and sustainable way to adapt to a changing market environment.
This joke might have worked if there had been anything incorrect in the original comment that you reworked, but all you did was re-work it into a different style, which is just stupid. All you're telling us is that you "would have used a different style to phrase the same remark".
Also, slashdot is casual conversation, no matter which way you slice it.
Oh, and a "fallacy" is something that is false, and so it makes no sense at all to call the remark "I just hope you're not an English university instructor" a "fallacy".
Hmm.. seems like Microsoft shills are slowly taking over slashdot, rabidly and zealously calling even a totally non-biased objective post that only happens to mention Microsoft "linux-zealot" and "anti-MS troll". Grow up, you idiot.
Re:they need updated docs for todays ram amounts
on
Is Swap Necessary?
·
· Score: 1
Indeed.. but I think Windows complains if you turn off swap. I can't remember what we actually did about it in the end though. Note this was back when 512MB was considered a LOT of RAM. I remember doing some research about this, and found some sites on the Web that said that making the swap file larger would help too. Something about causing it to set that "threshold point" higher.
Paging is removing inactive segments from memory so that the memory can be used for a higher purpose. This is "good".
But that's the point, it's not necessarily good. If, say, some rich guy buys a PC with 2GB RAM just to do a little web browsing and e-mail, and never even uses more than a couple hundred megs RAM, then any sort of paging/swapping to disk is only going to unnecessarily slow down the system. You can load everything you need in RAM, and keep it there (writes notwithstanding of course). We had a specific application we developed, running on Win2K, that we knew only needed about 380MB RAM, and we bought systems with 512 MB RAM, more than enough to hold EVERYTHING we needed and this was the only application that would run on the system. Yet Windows would "pre-emptively" start swapping as much as possible to disk after the first 256 MB had been allocated, hurting the application's performance noticably and unnecessarily (real-time terrain database visualization).
Re:they need updated docs for todays ram amounts
on
Is Swap Necessary?
·
· Score: 1
Windows' (2K/XP) virtual memory management is retarded. If you have 512MB RAM, it will start eagerly dumping as much as possible onto the HD when your memory usage reaches 256MB, LONG before you really need to start swopping, trying hard to keep that upper 256MB of real memory free. So performance in Windows degrades much faster than it really needs to. We were developing terrain visualisation systems that required a certain, known amount of RAM, about 400MB, so we bought 512MB systems, which is more than enough to hold both our application and the OS without ever so much as touching the swap file. But Windows started swapping and slowing down very noticably as one moved around the terrain database. We did a little system monitoring and noticed that it would always start swapping things out at 256MB. I'm not sure what this point is if you have 1GB RAM.
No matter how much headway China makes in patching open relays etc., the spam problem will never go away, or even begin to slow down unless the USA bothers to do something about the source of the problem. The spammers will keep finding ways to spam as long as it is profitable and they can get away with it. But American egos seem to prevent us from even allowing themselves to acknowledge that we are the cause of the problem. So don't expect much headway on this when the country causing the problem thinks it isn't.
For some reason it's always "news" when Microsoft brings out something that other systems had a few years ago already. I don't know any other company that can consistently get that much press coverage for introducing features that in some cases are five to ten years old. Hell, it's even news when Microsoft just announces that in two years time they're going to introduce a feature that is already at least a few years old (e.g. months ago already we had the "news" that IE would get popup blocking when Longhorn is released in around 2006 or so). This is the way it's always been - "Windows gets 'skins'", "Windows gets 32-bit multitasking", "Windows gets memory protection", "Windows gets 32-bit icons", "Windows gets a firewall", "Windows gets recycle bin (Mac trash can)", "Windows gets Internet Connection Sharing (IPMasq)" - always made news. Yet it seems most people really don't mind sticking with MS and waiting a few years longer than others for stuff.
I fully agree with you, if there is free software available that already does X, why not bring it up? Now you bring it up and you get bashed for "Microsoft-bashing".
How can you possibly know that Powerpoint was used for that? That website says nothing about Powerpoint anywhere. Seems more likely you thought it was Powerpoint because of the topic of this slashdot article. If that person wanted to make bullshit comparison, there are millions of ways, many of which are far better ways than using Powerpoint, and if one removes the context of the slashdot article that this discussion is in, then the idea of this being Powerpoint seems so INCREDIBLY arbitrary that the chances are about zero that this was anything other than a mistake by you. Unless you happen to know the webdeveloper of the http://bluehalo.homeunix.org/ site, and you happen to know that he/she used Powerpoint to create the screenshot. Chances are slim to none - I'm calling you on this, I think you're just FUDding.
It doesn't. Open the.exe in dependency walker and you'll see it doesn't even link to the MFC libraries. (Microsoft are at least smart enough to never use MFC for anything, I'll grant them that.) Try do those combobox dropdowns built into the toolbars in MFC...
This describes just about every single thing Microsoft has ever made - bringing to Windows the features and capabilities that other systems have had for about five years, with a klunky bloated implementation that requires several times more powerful hardware. Then each time we get to listen to Windows users excitedly jabbering on about all the things they can do that was old hat to everyone else at least five years back - big, fat wank. Honestly, I don't know why people bother with Windows anymore.
What's powerpoint got to do with the price of eggs? The link is just a normal web page with two screenshots of sub-pixel font anti-aliasing in Mac OS X and Longhorn. And anyway, powerpoint doesn't rasterise text and resample as bitmap, it renders text using the OS text rendering engine in GDI.
But you're giving up more and more power to even be able to protect yourself against a possibly corrupt/'evil' government. When the 'shit hits the fan', there will be so much surveillance etc. in place that you won't be able to defend yourself or even organize enough people to be able to defend yourself. The questions you should be asking are (a) if the 'shit hits the fan', will I still have enough privacy/powers to even be able to organize enough people to defend ourselves, and (b) does the government need so much surveillance etc. powers in the first place that you are rendered entirely defenceless if the government becomes corrupt.
I'm afraid your hope of "working within the system" and basically "hoping it doesn't happen" is very naive. Study a little history, study what the potential of technology is, put the two together.
That attitude works pretty well until the definitions of "guilty" and "innocent" are changed underneath you. (For a few examples, see human history of, oh, nearly every country on the planet).
That doesn't make sense. The perpetrator of an act is the guilty party, not the origin/location of the tool used. If the majority of knives used in US murders were made in China, would you criticise China for producing the knives? You're advocating dealing with the symptoms of a problem while ignoring the source of the problem. And that will never make spam go away, because the spammers will just continue to find more ways to spam until you deal with the spammers themselves.
I would be interested to know though: if the situation was reversed and the majority of spam originators were Chinese organizations using mostly poorly secured US boxes, would you still be focusing on the "source machine" or would your view be different, and China still be the bad guys?
What worries me is more the issue of air traffic control. Or a driver/pilot having a stroke at the joystick and flying into a primary school, or a dozen other low risk high consequence scenarios. Until we have completely fool proof automated ATC and a plane-car that flies itself, maybe. And that will be a long time coming, I suspect, due to the length of time it takes to fully debug safety critical systems.
Why does it have to be 100% safe before using it should be considered? That's silly. Cars are far from being safe and we use them all the time, in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people die every year in car accidents, quite possibly around 100,000 people a year worldwide. Of course there are going to be accidents in flying cars, but unless the accident rate is higher than with cars, why would it be so much of a problem that the whole idea should just be shelved? Sure a pilot may have a stroke and crash into a primary school. Things like that will happen. But accidents are part of every mode of human travel, but we don't reject those other modes of travel unless the accident rate is so high as to make the mode impractical for general use.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but /. seems to love spreading the prop^H^H^H^Hidea that it is China, in spite of facts. It doesn't matter where the implementation lies - you have to cut off spamming at it's source, otherwise the problem will not go away. Anything else is like respondonding to a murderer by going after the company that manufactured the gun.
In copying M$ Office so slavishly, the writers of Star Office (and, by inheritance, Open Office) are copying what I consider to be an abominable UI.
Heh, I often used to wonder why the idiocy of if you want to edit headers/footers in Word, you have to use the view menu. Then someone explained it to me: WordPerfect used to have it like that, and back when WordPerfect was the dominant word processor, Microsoft just copied them to make it easier for people to migrate to their software. Then everyone learned where it is, in the wrong place, so now they can't put it where it belongs, under "Edit".
Actually a lot of it is directly due to Windows security problems, because there are so many holes in Internet Explorer that allow a malicious site to install programs on your computer without so much as doing anything other than viewing a webpage. This should never have been possible.
How can 6,000,000 have been less than 2% of Germany's population? Even today Germany's population stands at around 82,000,000, so at worst it was at least 7% of the population. That is a pretty significant potential segment of an army even if only 1,000,000 of them were capable of fighting (even the women (and even childre) though could have supported the war via industrial labour). And the whole point of GP post was that "forcing them to emigrate before the war" was an impractical strategic decision as those people could rather have been rallied to join the war.
You say Germany's problem was lack of workers and lack of soldiers. GP states the obvious, that had Hitler rallied the Jews to his side, he would have had more workers and more soldiers! An extra couple million soldiers and workers is a lot.
Of course Microsoft saw it coming, which is why they improve their products so slowly, adding as little as possible to each new version of Windows and adding only just enough to give people a reason to upgrade every few years. Which is why Windows XP is technologically as advanced as any good 1996/7 operating system. Of course they couldn't have done that if they'd had competition. But anyway, yes, it's getting harder and harder for them to do, and since hardware is getting much cheaper they start looking at new "tricks" like one plan to try tie OSs to "free hardware" with DRM. I suspect that one reason Microsoft has allowed the spyware/virus/security problems to get so bad is to give people an extra incentive to grab Longhorn when it comes out (again - 'no competition' required).
Supply and demand are where it's at. The market laws apply to all industries and all countries for all commodities. What makes music industry execs think they're immune to it?
They don't, which is exactly why they're trying this scheme, to lower the 'supply' side of music content. By creating technology to limit how often a CD can be copied, they're creating artificial scarcity, effectively artifically creating "wear and tear" on a product that effectively has none.
No, they certainly don't think they're immune to supply and demand, but I do think they may be somewhat in denial for believing that they can control anything but a negligible amount of market supply in this way, and that they're naive to believe that this is a good and sustainable way to adapt to a changing market environment.
This joke might have worked if there had been anything incorrect in the original comment that you reworked, but all you did was re-work it into a different style, which is just stupid. All you're telling us is that you "would have used a different style to phrase the same remark".
Also, slashdot is casual conversation, no matter which way you slice it.
Oh, and a "fallacy" is something that is false, and so it makes no sense at all to call the remark "I just hope you're not an English university instructor" a "fallacy".
Hmm .. seems like Microsoft shills are slowly taking over slashdot, rabidly and zealously calling even a totally non-biased objective post that only happens to mention Microsoft "linux-zealot" and "anti-MS troll". Grow up, you idiot.
Indeed .. but I think Windows complains if you turn off swap. I can't remember what we actually did about it in the end though. Note this was back when 512MB was considered a LOT of RAM. I remember doing some research about this, and found some sites on the Web that said that making the swap file larger would help too. Something about causing it to set that "threshold point" higher.
Paging is removing inactive segments from memory so that the memory can be used for a higher purpose. This is "good".
But that's the point, it's not necessarily good. If, say, some rich guy buys a PC with 2GB RAM just to do a little web browsing and e-mail, and never even uses more than a couple hundred megs RAM, then any sort of paging/swapping to disk is only going to unnecessarily slow down the system. You can load everything you need in RAM, and keep it there (writes notwithstanding of course). We had a specific application we developed, running on Win2K, that we knew only needed about 380MB RAM, and we bought systems with 512 MB RAM, more than enough to hold EVERYTHING we needed and this was the only application that would run on the system. Yet Windows would "pre-emptively" start swapping as much as possible to disk after the first 256 MB had been allocated, hurting the application's performance noticably and unnecessarily (real-time terrain database visualization).
Windows' (2K/XP) virtual memory management is retarded. If you have 512MB RAM, it will start eagerly dumping as much as possible onto the HD when your memory usage reaches 256MB, LONG before you really need to start swopping, trying hard to keep that upper 256MB of real memory free. So performance in Windows degrades much faster than it really needs to. We were developing terrain visualisation systems that required a certain, known amount of RAM, about 400MB, so we bought 512MB systems, which is more than enough to hold both our application and the OS without ever so much as touching the swap file. But Windows started swapping and slowing down very noticably as one moved around the terrain database. We did a little system monitoring and noticed that it would always start swapping things out at 256MB. I'm not sure what this point is if you have 1GB RAM.
No matter how much headway China makes in patching open relays etc., the spam problem will never go away, or even begin to slow down unless the USA bothers to do something about the source of the problem. The spammers will keep finding ways to spam as long as it is profitable and they can get away with it. But American egos seem to prevent us from even allowing themselves to acknowledge that we are the cause of the problem. So don't expect much headway on this when the country causing the problem thinks it isn't.
For some reason it's always "news" when Microsoft brings out something that other systems had a few years ago already. I don't know any other company that can consistently get that much press coverage for introducing features that in some cases are five to ten years old. Hell, it's even news when Microsoft just announces that in two years time they're going to introduce a feature that is already at least a few years old (e.g. months ago already we had the "news" that IE would get popup blocking when Longhorn is released in around 2006 or so). This is the way it's always been - "Windows gets 'skins'", "Windows gets 32-bit multitasking", "Windows gets memory protection", "Windows gets 32-bit icons", "Windows gets a firewall", "Windows gets recycle bin (Mac trash can)", "Windows gets Internet Connection Sharing (IPMasq)" - always made news. Yet it seems most people really don't mind sticking with MS and waiting a few years longer than others for stuff.
I fully agree with you, if there is free software available that already does X, why not bring it up? Now you bring it up and you get bashed for "Microsoft-bashing".
How can you possibly know that Powerpoint was used for that? That website says nothing about Powerpoint anywhere. Seems more likely you thought it was Powerpoint because of the topic of this slashdot article. If that person wanted to make bullshit comparison, there are millions of ways, many of which are far better ways than using Powerpoint, and if one removes the context of the slashdot article that this discussion is in, then the idea of this being Powerpoint seems so INCREDIBLY arbitrary that the chances are about zero that this was anything other than a mistake by you. Unless you happen to know the webdeveloper of the http://bluehalo.homeunix.org/ site, and you happen to know that he/she used Powerpoint to create the screenshot. Chances are slim to none - I'm calling you on this, I think you're just FUDding.
It doesn't. Open the .exe in dependency walker and you'll see it doesn't even link to the MFC libraries. (Microsoft are at least smart enough to never use MFC for anything, I'll grant them that.) Try do those combobox dropdowns built into the toolbars in MFC ...
This describes just about every single thing Microsoft has ever made - bringing to Windows the features and capabilities that other systems have had for about five years, with a klunky bloated implementation that requires several times more powerful hardware. Then each time we get to listen to Windows users excitedly jabbering on about all the things they can do that was old hat to everyone else at least five years back - big, fat wank. Honestly, I don't know why people bother with Windows anymore.
What's powerpoint got to do with the price of eggs? The link is just a normal web page with two screenshots of sub-pixel font anti-aliasing in Mac OS X and Longhorn. And anyway, powerpoint doesn't rasterise text and resample as bitmap, it renders text using the OS text rendering engine in GDI.
But you're giving up more and more power to even be able to protect yourself against a possibly corrupt/'evil' government. When the 'shit hits the fan', there will be so much surveillance etc. in place that you won't be able to defend yourself or even organize enough people to be able to defend yourself. The questions you should be asking are (a) if the 'shit hits the fan', will I still have enough privacy/powers to even be able to organize enough people to defend ourselves, and (b) does the government need so much surveillance etc. powers in the first place that you are rendered entirely defenceless if the government becomes corrupt.
I'm afraid your hope of "working within the system" and basically "hoping it doesn't happen" is very naive. Study a little history, study what the potential of technology is, put the two together.
That attitude works pretty well until the definitions of "guilty" and "innocent" are changed underneath you. (For a few examples, see human history of, oh, nearly every country on the planet).
I agree, I couldn't see why that was "opinion" when everything in the sentence was really a fact .. although, well, StuWho seems to agree, so so be it.
That doesn't make sense. The perpetrator of an act is the guilty party, not the origin/location of the tool used. If the majority of knives used in US murders were made in China, would you criticise China for producing the knives? You're advocating dealing with the symptoms of a problem while ignoring the source of the problem. And that will never make spam go away, because the spammers will just continue to find more ways to spam until you deal with the spammers themselves.
I would be interested to know though: if the situation was reversed and the majority of spam originators were Chinese organizations using mostly poorly secured US boxes, would you still be focusing on the "source machine" or would your view be different, and China still be the bad guys?
http://sophos.com/spaminfo/articles/dirtydozen.htm l, http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/.
Nope, the majority of the 'spam originators' are in the US: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/.
What worries me is more the issue of air traffic control. Or a driver/pilot having a stroke at the joystick and flying into a primary school, or a dozen other low risk high consequence scenarios. Until we have completely fool proof automated ATC and a plane-car that flies itself, maybe. And that will be a long time coming, I suspect, due to the length of time it takes to fully debug safety critical systems.
Why does it have to be 100% safe before using it should be considered? That's silly. Cars are far from being safe and we use them all the time, in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people die every year in car accidents, quite possibly around 100,000 people a year worldwide. Of course there are going to be accidents in flying cars, but unless the accident rate is higher than with cars, why would it be so much of a problem that the whole idea should just be shelved? Sure a pilot may have a stroke and crash into a primary school. Things like that will happen. But accidents are part of every mode of human travel, but we don't reject those other modes of travel unless the accident rate is so high as to make the mode impractical for general use.
Tests have shown that the more stupid a person is, the quicker they learn and better a driver they are
References please? I'm somehow not convinced.