In response to this, I'm inclined to agree with Gervase Markham at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind ustry_sectors/media/article675138.ece -- it's reasonable for Microsoft to EOL it's operating systems... at some point. For '98, there were 8 years of patching and support -- enough for the vast majority of the market to move on to a later release.
MS isn't talking about an EOL date for XP anytime soon, but is planning ahead to a time when supporting XP will no longer be economical. Makes sense to me.
Firstly, there are hundreds of computation-intensive applications that can keep 80 cores busy: environmental modeling, protein folding... anything that currently uses a supercomputer.
Secondly, why is the parallelizable nature of ray tracing embarrassing?! It's parallelizable exactly because each ray is computed independently of other rays - I don't see what is embarrassing or surprising about that.
Finally, talking about the application to consumer gaming shows that you completely missed the point of this story. Way down the line... another whole generation of hardware later, maybe you'll have 80 cores on your home computer. But it's a little early to be thinking about that right now.
Like you, I don't have any big problems with spatial Nautilus as a concept, or in implementation, apart from one respect, which I haven't seen mentioned.
In old Nautilus, I'm pretty sure I could open two different views of the same folder, happily manipulate both, and refresh once in a while without problems. In spatial Nautilus, if you try to do the same thing, both folders take the view you last set whenever you Refresh.
I expect the spatial UI advocates will be crying "Why do you need two views of the same folder"? The answer, and maybe my real bone of contention, is that in the 'Image Collection' view, Nautilus doesn't let you actually do anything with the files. So if I've got a whole load of photos, want to see them at a decent size, before choosing to delete each one or not, I need an Image Collection view (to show the photos) and an Icon view (to delete/rename/edit).
I don't care if Nautilus 'fixes' the two views thing, or fixes the Image Collection view to be a bit more useful. But with Gnome 2.6, they made this sort of action very clumsy to operate.
Your comment says it all. You don't write I haven't even learned to type without quote marks, because that's not true. The truth is that you have learned to type, albeit informally.
You, perhaps, are sure that a keyboard will be the most efficient input device you can ever hope to use. But I fail to see how that relates to the possibility of a more intuitive interface for future generations.
The vast majority of hits that Slashdot gets comes from Microsoft Internet Explorer.
You must be assuming that nobody spoofs their User-Agent string. That sounds unlikely to me, especially among a group of people who will happily tweak configuration to get access to awkward sites.
I'm dubious how confident we can be of user agent statistics.
Can anybody suggest any source of evidence behind the numerous claims of the age of virus writers?
I know Script Kiddies are a generally accepted stereotype on Slashdot. But is that really a reflection on reality, or on how Slashdotters spent their time when they were teenagers?
"It's not clear at present that this is being done by anyone other than pranksters, but one can't help wondering, how long before commercial spammers catch on."
Okay, so spam annoys us all, but is it really relevant to scaremonger about commercial spamming in this context, given
the limited range of Bluetooth, and
the fact that Bluetooth can be easily disabled?
I presume the writer imagined some situation where a commercial spammer goes into some crowded place, searches for Bluetooth phones and uses some automated Bluetooth send device. I think the simple requirement for a person (or device) to be in the vicinity of the 'spammed' makes that very unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I'll swap.
MS isn't talking about an EOL date for XP anytime soon, but is planning ahead to a time when supporting XP will no longer be economical. Makes sense to me.
I'm sorry, but this comment is really crazy:
Firstly, there are hundreds of computation-intensive applications that can keep 80 cores busy: environmental modeling, protein folding... anything that currently uses a supercomputer.
Secondly, why is the parallelizable nature of ray tracing embarrassing?! It's parallelizable exactly because each ray is computed independently of other rays - I don't see what is embarrassing or surprising about that.
Finally, talking about the application to consumer gaming shows that you completely missed the point of this story. Way down the line... another whole generation of hardware later, maybe you'll have 80 cores on your home computer. But it's a little early to be thinking about that right now.
Like you, I don't have any big problems with spatial Nautilus as a concept, or in implementation, apart from one respect, which I haven't seen mentioned.
In old Nautilus, I'm pretty sure I could open two different views of the same folder, happily manipulate both, and refresh once in a while without problems. In spatial Nautilus, if you try to do the same thing, both folders take the view you last set whenever you Refresh.
I expect the spatial UI advocates will be crying "Why do you need two views of the same folder"? The answer, and maybe my real bone of contention, is that in the 'Image Collection' view, Nautilus doesn't let you actually do anything with the files. So if I've got a whole load of photos, want to see them at a decent size, before choosing to delete each one or not, I need an Image Collection view (to show the photos) and an Icon view (to delete/rename/edit).
I don't care if Nautilus 'fixes' the two views thing, or fixes the Image Collection view to be a bit more useful. But with Gnome 2.6, they made this sort of action very clumsy to operate.
Your comment says it all. You don't write I haven't even learned to type without quote marks, because that's not true. The truth is that you have learned to type, albeit informally.
You, perhaps, are sure that a keyboard will be the most efficient input device you can ever hope to use. But I fail to see how that relates to the possibility of a more intuitive interface for future generations.
The vast majority of hits that Slashdot gets comes from Microsoft Internet Explorer.
You must be assuming that nobody spoofs their User-Agent string. That sounds unlikely to me, especially among a group of people who will happily tweak configuration to get access to awkward sites.
I'm dubious how confident we can be of user agent statistics.
Can anybody suggest any source of evidence behind the numerous claims of the age of virus writers?
I know Script Kiddies are a generally accepted stereotype on Slashdot. But is that really a reflection on reality, or on how Slashdotters spent their time when they were teenagers?
"It's not clear at present that this is being done by anyone other than pranksters, but one can't help wondering, how long before commercial spammers catch on."
Okay, so spam annoys us all, but is it really relevant to scaremonger about commercial spamming in this context, given
I presume the writer imagined some situation where a commercial spammer goes into some crowded place, searches for Bluetooth phones and uses some automated Bluetooth send device. I think the simple requirement for a person (or device) to be in the vicinity of the 'spammed' makes that very unlikely.