That's what I'm talking about - running the software people want to run. Currently I can't use Ubuntu as my desktop, as my work requires me to use software that simply doesn't exist on Ubuntu (Adobe suite, mainly). The same goes for at home, as I like to play games. As for hardware support, you have to install drivers on Ubuntu, as well. It's not magic:) It does have plenty of built-in drivers, but then so does Windows. So far I've had a much better experience with hardware support on Windows than on Ubuntu (or indeed any linux distro). I'm not knocking anything, I'm just saying it's not perfect, in fact there are a few show-stoppers that need to be addressed before Windows is toppled.
It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does. That has to be achieved before it can topple Vista. It could happen, but I fear by the time it's achieved that, new software and hardware will have been released which it needs to support. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I don't see how it can win, which sucks.
Try again:) One should push for improvement in the face of adversity if the improvement is truly worth it, and I think ridding/. from the first posters is worth it.
When you want random-access to a file, streaming doesn't work. That's why BitTorrent is so good. Also, it means you can publish your own content and not have to send it to everyone, just some folks. Once it's out there, if it's popular, other folks can download it from others, saving you thousands in bandwidth costs. FLV is just a video codec - it's being served over HTTP, which is ages-old and not particularly suited for mass-dissemination of data in a bandwidth-effective way, anyway. FLV might be good for low-quality videos, but it sure ain't good for gigs of ISOs, DVD-quality movies, albums, libraries of pictures, etc. It's all about using the right tool for the job, and FLV is great at streaming low-quality videos to users at great expense to the server.
It's very wise indeed. If the enemy knows what they're up to, TPB guys will have to make sure it's as secure as possible. Relying on security through obscurity, as we know, is (to use a technical term) balls. It also means they get input from a whole bunch of folks on the net as to how it can be made better.
Exactly. So now all Linux needs to do is offer everything Windows does, and then people can switch across without having to give anything up (obviously I'm not talking about various OS foibles one would rather live without, just the good stuff, like software they use, hardware, etc.). Once that happens you won't be able to stop people from switching to Linux. My God. You wouldn't need any advocacy to do it. You don't need to sell the virtues of a free McDonalds hamburger to a starving person - they'll see there's nothing to lose and eat the bastard. Once there really are no differences in operability, Linux will take over the desktop, once and for all. Being "open source" is not going to make someone feel any better when they've switched from Windows to Linux and can't play their games or run Photoshop. But then that's just what I think. I'm not trolling, this is what I actually believe and I welcome any and all sane, rational debate on the subject, should anyone want to, that is:)
All console manufacturers effectively subsidise their consoles to begin with, as consoles are supposed to be affordable to children, one of their major markets. It's not just an MS thing.
Making money doesn't automatically make the business behind the money acceptable to the consumer, regardless whether the consumer is happy in their purchase or not. If the consumer knew they were being violently ripped-off by their latest purchase, no matter how great it was, they'd be upset.
I did read some of the links you provided, but as it's argument is fatally-flawed from the very outset, reading any more would have been a waste of time.
Of course if you look at the fossil record, it makes no sense. The fossil record is not a record of every species that has ever existed. As I said earlier, to make a fossil takes a lot of luck. It doesn't disprove or even threaten evolution.
Microsoft is not Apple. It's not about vision, but about the natural evolution of their products. Microsoft does a lot more than just Windows (XBoxes, Zunes, mobile phone OSs, embedded OSs, etc.), Apple does a bit more than just Macs and OS X (iPods, iPhones, iEverythingElse). Apple are where they are because they are great at marketing, and were in the right place at the right time to become Apple as we know it. They spotted a niche and went for it. Microsoft have been going for it ever since the success of their early Windows releases becoming entrenched in business, and they're were they are at the moment - with software used by most top-end companies around the world. I'm no zealot - I use whatever's best for the job. I just think it's funny when people try and figure out why MS/Apple is better than Apple/MS. They're different.
I've used OS X a lot. Vista is more responsive, plus Vista's keyboard-accessibility is unparalelled. There's a lot of Vista criticism on slashdot, and I don't think all of it is reasonable. Vista's GUI is the fastest GUI I've ever used on any platform. The mouse is quick, the windows move speedily, there's no lag, the keyboard shortcuts work brilliantly.
Darwinism explains everything we know about the animal kingdom. There are no "missing links", just animals missing from the fossil record (which doesn't contain all the animals that have ever existed, as creating a fossil requires a lot of luck in itself). We can see, just from our DNA, that we are related to the other apes - that we have common ancestors. We have observed evolution in laboratories. What are these evolutionary leaps you talk about that you claim disprove Darwinian evolution? I'd be very interested to hear:)
The only dogma of scientists is the understanding that the scientific method is the only way to ever ascertain anything about the universe. It will always go head-to-head with any dogma that is not divised by the scientific method, creationism being one of them. You could write the scientific "dogma" on the back of a postage stamp, and even then, it's open to debate. Any rational scientist will throw it out if it's shown not to work. As we currently stand, it's working perfectly, and religion has taught us nothing in 4,000 years.
If you're capable of unfettered independent thought, you automatically become a scientist. You can't have that one gift and cling to religion, or even embrace spirituality, as a rational mind requires evidence. There is no evidence in spirituality/religion - it's nonsense.
It's a shortened version of "mathematics", which is a plural. You wouldn't say "auto" when referring to a group of automobiles, but "autos", hence most people in the world who speak English say "maths".
Newspapers and magazines have ads in them. If they didn't, they'd cost about 5 times as much, and their value to you, the reader, would be diminished. What if this game would actually cost you $100 without the advertising subsidy EA are getting for the ads? They're saving you money by selling something you don't mind being sold (or, indeed expect to be sold), namely advertising space, and passing the savings on to you. oh noes!!11
Or, if the people who download it will buy it on DVD or go to see it at the cinema, then there is no correlation between those who download and lost revenue. None at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Kicking ass? With its 3% share of the desktop market?
It's not ready to kill Vista. Not even close. Check out the market share of Windows vs. OS X, and you'll see that. Hype != reality :)
That's what I'm talking about - running the software people want to run. Currently I can't use Ubuntu as my desktop, as my work requires me to use software that simply doesn't exist on Ubuntu (Adobe suite, mainly). The same goes for at home, as I like to play games. As for hardware support, you have to install drivers on Ubuntu, as well. It's not magic :) It does have plenty of built-in drivers, but then so does Windows. So far I've had a much better experience with hardware support on Windows than on Ubuntu (or indeed any linux distro). I'm not knocking anything, I'm just saying it's not perfect, in fact there are a few show-stoppers that need to be addressed before Windows is toppled.
It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does. That has to be achieved before it can topple Vista. It could happen, but I fear by the time it's achieved that, new software and hardware will have been released which it needs to support. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I don't see how it can win, which sucks.
Then Linux will never break through and topple Windows. Great work.
Try again :) One should push for improvement in the face of adversity if the improvement is truly worth it, and I think ridding /. from the first posters is worth it.
When you want random-access to a file, streaming doesn't work. That's why BitTorrent is so good. Also, it means you can publish your own content and not have to send it to everyone, just some folks. Once it's out there, if it's popular, other folks can download it from others, saving you thousands in bandwidth costs. FLV is just a video codec - it's being served over HTTP, which is ages-old and not particularly suited for mass-dissemination of data in a bandwidth-effective way, anyway. FLV might be good for low-quality videos, but it sure ain't good for gigs of ISOs, DVD-quality movies, albums, libraries of pictures, etc. It's all about using the right tool for the job, and FLV is great at streaming low-quality videos to users at great expense to the server.
It's very wise indeed. If the enemy knows what they're up to, TPB guys will have to make sure it's as secure as possible. Relying on security through obscurity, as we know, is (to use a technical term) balls. It also means they get input from a whole bunch of folks on the net as to how it can be made better.
Milk works brilliantly, too. Water and fizzy drinks (even beer! noo!) make it worse.
Exactly. So now all Linux needs to do is offer everything Windows does, and then people can switch across without having to give anything up (obviously I'm not talking about various OS foibles one would rather live without, just the good stuff, like software they use, hardware, etc.). Once that happens you won't be able to stop people from switching to Linux. My God. You wouldn't need any advocacy to do it. You don't need to sell the virtues of a free McDonalds hamburger to a starving person - they'll see there's nothing to lose and eat the bastard. Once there really are no differences in operability, Linux will take over the desktop, once and for all. Being "open source" is not going to make someone feel any better when they've switched from Windows to Linux and can't play their games or run Photoshop. But then that's just what I think. I'm not trolling, this is what I actually believe and I welcome any and all sane, rational debate on the subject, should anyone want to, that is :)
All console manufacturers effectively subsidise their consoles to begin with, as consoles are supposed to be affordable to children, one of their major markets. It's not just an MS thing.
Making money doesn't automatically make the business behind the money acceptable to the consumer, regardless whether the consumer is happy in their purchase or not. If the consumer knew they were being violently ripped-off by their latest purchase, no matter how great it was, they'd be upset.
I did read some of the links you provided, but as it's argument is fatally-flawed from the very outset, reading any more would have been a waste of time.
Of course if you look at the fossil record, it makes no sense. The fossil record is not a record of every species that has ever existed. As I said earlier, to make a fossil takes a lot of luck. It doesn't disprove or even threaten evolution.
Microsoft is not Apple. It's not about vision, but about the natural evolution of their products. Microsoft does a lot more than just Windows (XBoxes, Zunes, mobile phone OSs, embedded OSs, etc.), Apple does a bit more than just Macs and OS X (iPods, iPhones, iEverythingElse). Apple are where they are because they are great at marketing, and were in the right place at the right time to become Apple as we know it. They spotted a niche and went for it. Microsoft have been going for it ever since the success of their early Windows releases becoming entrenched in business, and they're were they are at the moment - with software used by most top-end companies around the world. I'm no zealot - I use whatever's best for the job. I just think it's funny when people try and figure out why MS/Apple is better than Apple/MS. They're different.
Vista's GUI is 3D, not 2.5D. It's rendered in Direct3D, on your GPU, with each window being a 3D surface.
I've used OS X a lot. Vista is more responsive, plus Vista's keyboard-accessibility is unparalelled. There's a lot of Vista criticism on slashdot, and I don't think all of it is reasonable. Vista's GUI is the fastest GUI I've ever used on any platform. The mouse is quick, the windows move speedily, there's no lag, the keyboard shortcuts work brilliantly.
Darwinism explains everything we know about the animal kingdom. There are no "missing links", just animals missing from the fossil record (which doesn't contain all the animals that have ever existed, as creating a fossil requires a lot of luck in itself). We can see, just from our DNA, that we are related to the other apes - that we have common ancestors. We have observed evolution in laboratories. What are these evolutionary leaps you talk about that you claim disprove Darwinian evolution? I'd be very interested to hear :)
The only dogma of scientists is the understanding that the scientific method is the only way to ever ascertain anything about the universe. It will always go head-to-head with any dogma that is not divised by the scientific method, creationism being one of them. You could write the scientific "dogma" on the back of a postage stamp, and even then, it's open to debate. Any rational scientist will throw it out if it's shown not to work. As we currently stand, it's working perfectly, and religion has taught us nothing in 4,000 years.
In 6 days.
If you're capable of unfettered independent thought, you automatically become a scientist. You can't have that one gift and cling to religion, or even embrace spirituality, as a rational mind requires evidence. There is no evidence in spirituality/religion - it's nonsense.
It's a shortened version of "mathematics", which is a plural. You wouldn't say "auto" when referring to a group of automobiles, but "autos", hence most people in the world who speak English say "maths".
Windows machines can have that disabled by the active directory in a couple of clicks. As for Macs and Linuxesesses I don't know.
Newspapers and magazines have ads in them. If they didn't, they'd cost about 5 times as much, and their value to you, the reader, would be diminished. What if this game would actually cost you $100 without the advertising subsidy EA are getting for the ads? They're saving you money by selling something you don't mind being sold (or, indeed expect to be sold), namely advertising space, and passing the savings on to you. oh noes!!11
Those methods weren't legal.
And if those people aren't actually going to buy the movie:
I.Now.Pronounce.You.Chuck.And.Larry[2007]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo SE 5257 LE 11556
MPAA Lose: Total: (5257 + 11556)* $0 = $0
Pirates.Of.The.Caribbean-At.World's.End[2007]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo 10-17 19:11 Decargar 900.29 MiB 5182 7394
Or, if the people who download it will buy it on DVD or go to see it at the cinema, then there is no correlation between those who download and lost revenue. None at all.MPAA Lose: Total: (5182 + 7394) * $0 = $0