Your assertion that dedicated sound cards aren't needed anymore is plain silly. Unless the only sounds your computer will play are the Windows ones, you're going to want a dedicated card because of all the noise the onboard cards introduce.. especially if you're recording any audio, which is part of editing videos on your computer.. which a growing number of people are doing.
Well apparently there were enough geeks on enough forums that they thought it was a big deal. They said it was because of bad PR that they reversed their decision.
No, none of your arguments hold. It doesn't really matter if your cars are older, unless people in your country don't maintain them. But if it's a maintence problem, that's going to cause accidents regardless of speed. If you maintain your cars, speeding DOESN'T increase accident rates. In the US, only 2.2% of all accidents are caused by speeding. The rest are caused by other things; not paying attention, DUI, etc. Changing speed limits has no effect on whether or not people pay attention or drive under the influence, so there's little room for argument there.
Regarding wildlife, we have that here as well. Deer or moose do run out, sometimes even bears. Again, speed is of little matter here, more important is to be paying attention so you don't hit the animal at all.
Also, I'd be suprised if the down under varied in accident rates when comparing urban areas to rural areas. Urban areas have more accidents... but that's just because there are more cars in those areas.
Of course no one is saying floor it over every road. What I am saying is that most people are reasonable and will drive reasonablly. That's one reason speed limits don't make a difference; if they are set too low (which in the US they almost always are), people ignore them anyway because their experience has told them they can safely travel at a given speed.
Limits that are too low cause problems because some people will always try to follow the law; a car going 65, which is the speed limit for many highways, on a section of road where the majority of traffic is going 75, the SLOWER car is six times more likely to be in an accident. That's why the limit (if you MUST have a limit) should be set by figuring out what the 85th percentile is doing. You mostly eliminate speed differences, and roads are safer overall.
A crackdown is likely to lead to backlash; after all, we're not talking about morality here, we're talking about an arbitrary number. If people aren't obeying it, the number is not valid. That's actually true of any law. The only reason reason to keep a law most are violating is if the law favors a majority over a minority (such as not letting blacks vote.. blacks have the right to vote, and there's no reasonable reason to take that right away).
Sorry, but if your dad is "totally lost" because window boards now display differently, I can only think he's extraordinarly retarded. If all he needs is a browser, he's unlikely to need to find where some things have moved.. say Network Connections.
As far as new features go, there are plenty, but not all are drawn on the screen. It is more secure, printing is much more reliable, the search integrated into the start menu actually works really well, just to name a few. I've been using Vista for a while now, and its not any slower than XP was (although I never settle for that crap onboard video).
As for the salesman.. they're going to lie to you to sell you something. Wow, shocker. I hate to tell you, that kind of thing isn't limited to the computer world.
MS Sql is known as T-Sql. Anyway, you can write ISO standard Sql, and all of those databases should execute the query in a consistent matter. So they all implement the standard, but also allow their own extensions. The point though is that if you want to target any Sql server adhering to the ISO standard, you can.
Speeding does not cause accidents. Lowering speed limits below what people would drive without them raises accident rates. Perhaps the down under has saner laws, but here in the US driver violations are seen as revenue, not safety issues. So even thought the proven safest limit is set by following the 85th percentile rule, most roads in the US are set far lower.
The notion that slower is safer is simply not true. It would seem to be common sense, but humans and common sense have a pretty poor record. It was also once common sense that the earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth.
Please, stop relying on your common sense and anecdote to promote ideas which actually decrease overall safety.
But I don't hate MS. I do hate what they've done to the science of computing. I don't want them to fail as a company, but I do want them to fail at their illegal business practices.
The "science of computing?" You mean making computers easier for people to use? As far as illegal business practices, they seem to have followed all the rules for the ISO standard submission process. If you think the ISO has a flawed process, that's your opinion, but it's currently operating "as designed."
No, now I'm worried that purchasing agents will think it is a standard and will accept it as if it was a standard, not realizing it won't bring them the advantages a real standard like ODF can.
It's been certified as an ISO standard.. so.. how exactly is that not a standard? Others can now implement it. ODF has it's failings as well; some even complain it doesn't describe the standard in enough detail to implement.
Yes that is exactly right. MS's huge market share will put a lot of implementations out there compared to ODF. The fact that you don't recognize leveraging monopoly influence as a bad thing is very sad.
Sorry, I didn't see any rulings that MS Office has a monopoly on office productivity software. Such a trial would be a big deal, just like the OS monopoly trial was.
Also, Office didn't get to where it is becaue it was bundled. People have been paying money for it from the beginning. So there's a huge install base because people want it.
I have no problem with OOXML being implemented more than ODF, but it should be because it is a better standard, not because Microsoft is pushing it on people who generally don't have the power to do anything about it.
Well, I suggest you get over it. Lots of inferior standards have displaced suprior ones. See TCP vs. the OSI stack.
Besides, now that OOXML is a standard, OOo can support it natively, as can any other office application. This should increase competition, and if otehr office suites are better, they will begin to displace MS Office.
Ugh. Please, just admit you hate MS, and you want them to fail at everything, and you're zealotry wants ODF to succeed, and that you're worried that now the OOXML is a standard, the huge install base will put a lot more implementions of OOXML out there than ODF.
I never said it was a flaw. The rules allowed it. Besides, what is wrong with people voting on an issue when they suddenly have a reason to care? Or are you suggesting that people that normally wouldn't vote are voting because they want to support, say, Obama?
It seems that the ISO has rules for voting and becoming a member, and those rules were followed. You can try to claim moral ground, but there's no moral issues here. It's a standards body, and people can choose to participate and have done so according to the body's rule.
Seriously, what harm has OOXML becoming a standard done? If it does have problems that prevent it from anyone else implementing it, it won't be a used stanard. There's plenty of those around.
Get over yourself. You're trying to disgise "waah1!! I hate MS and they shouldn't be allowed to propose standards" with some pseduo-moral nonsense.
If its for everyday usage and gaming? Just stick with whatever's on the motherboard. Sound cards have evolved to the point that integrated is probably as good as it gets for watching movies and gaming on anything 7.1 or lower. Now if you have special requirements, I have no clue whatsoever:)
No, sorry. Onboard sound cards blow. They pick up any distortion from the powersupply, fans, etc. Actually onboard anything sucks.. even the onboard networking port on my server MB is crap and unreliable. Install a dedicated NIC and everything works perfectly.
Because if they actually ticketed everyone that broke the speed limit law, government would finally be forced to raise speed limits... especially since Australia is likely in the same spot as the US; illegally setting limits lower than dictated by civil engineers for the purpose of raising revenue and pushing more draconion measures on drivers.
What the hell are you talking about? All an ISO standard means is that people can look at the standard, and implement it. So that if two people implement the same ISO standard, they should have the same implementations. I don't think it has any bearing on whether the standard is good or not.
Sql is an ISO standard; does that mean everything in ISO Sql makes compete sense, or functions as you'd expect? No, but you DO know how everyone else that implements it expects it to act.
Well, since it's pretty obvious that what he was doing was un-crippling software that they had intentionally broken, I think it's understandable that they're pissed.
Normally I'd agree. But why should I lose features in Vista because Creative decided that the card I already bought shouldn't work in a new OS? I can only think it is to encourage people to buy new cards. That's slimey.
About the corruption - how about Microsoft Sweden and buying of votes? Or is that common in hundreds of other approved buggy standards?
Buying votes seems to be a problem with the ISO process itself; that no other company has tried to taken advantage of that is suprising. Unless of course they were more discrete. Apparently though, you don't need to buy votes to get buggy standards approved.
No. But, is there a case, where ISO standard was given to specification, which already had unresolved bugs? I thought the whole process of BRM was to eliminate the issues countries had.
That's the intent of the process; perhaps other standards are as thoroughly scrutinized as this one has been, for whatever reason?
Basically yes. The approval of 900 remaining issues using single vote on BRM was... unique and really interesting solution.
Ok, where are the rules that forbid that?
Not letting people from Sun and IBM to the voting hall in Portugal in September (correct me if I am wrong, I don't remember all the facts) because there were not enough chairs was definitely not against the rules.
I don't remember that, so I can't comment.
How about Germany and the practical inability of the delegates to vote against the OOXML after the BRM? I guess that is still OK, though a bit unfair.
It may have been unfair, but unless you have a reference to an ISO rule that forbids it, I assume it was allowed.
Then, you can see how the P committee can be stuffed with countries voting for your cause - it just costs the registration fees. And it slows down ISO as well (since these P countries didn't, in majority, vote on anything else than DIS29500. Ever.).
Again, that seems more of a flaw in the ISO process than anything else.
I am claiming, that ISO is useless, since passing 6000 pages of documentation using FAST TRACK, with another loads of comments and amendments after the BRM shows, that the people working for ISO either have 28 hour long day, or are... not doing their work properly.
How long have you been following the ISO? If it's only been since the start of the MS application process, I'd say "not long enough." For all you or I would know, that could be fairly normal.
Ya, insulting people leads to good discussion. As does spouting things without providing backup. According to Wikipedia Office 2007 does in fact implement it, as well as some Apple programs.
1) it can only be fully implimented by MS which by definition excludes it as a standard.
Why? Are you saying no one could possibly implement it?
2) the fact that MS's promise not to sue puts restrictions on software that can not exist in FOSS projects.
So what? I don't recall ISO standards as having to be free of patents.
3) it is poorly documented and what has been documented has significant technical flaws.
Have you read other ISO standards?
4) proprietary standards are much more difficult to use as archives because the specifications are not fully known, they must be reverse engineered if older documents are to be used on different platforms.
That argument is void. It's like "let's kill this guy, cause there are more of them killed anyway".
Oh goodie, a useless analogy. Can't anyone argue here? Analogies are good to clarify things. You haven't even attempted to articulate anything before launching into the analogy.
The problem with it being approved is... well, look at what happened in India - they took the ISO procedure to the point. After they found first bug in the specification, their NB voted no. The 1.1.1900 bug is widely known, as well as 12345.12345 in spreadsheets. That means the NB's either didn't have enough time to review the specs (which would lead to NO to fast-tracking), or found a bug unresolved after Geneva's BRM (NO to DIS29500 itself).
Is there a requirement somewhere that standards must be bug free? JavaScript has some flaws, yet it was standardized.
I don't actually mind the OOXML passing (because as Microsoft said, they won't be able to implement ECMA's changes to the standard anyway => Microsoft will have it's own, incompatible version), I mind the harm it did to ISO on the way.
What harm? Aside from Norway seemingly not knowing how to count votes, it seems that ISO processes have been followed. Or is your claim that the ISO isn't following it's own processes?
Huh. It's almost like people claim the organization is corrupt because it approved a standard submitted by MS, by people who hate MS. Its sad that politics interfers with technology.
Seriously.. what's the problem with it being approved? Technical issues? Lack of clarity? There are hundreds of other standards that fall into those categories as well, yet they are still standards. But no one cried corruption until now..
Slashdot Mirror
Your assertion that dedicated sound cards aren't needed anymore is plain silly. Unless the only sounds your computer will play are the Windows ones, you're going to want a dedicated card because of all the noise the onboard cards introduce.. especially if you're recording any audio, which is part of editing videos on your computer.. which a growing number of people are doing.
Well apparently there were enough geeks on enough forums that they thought it was a big deal. They said it was because of bad PR that they reversed their decision.
I'm sorry, but did you even read the article? I know it's out of fashion right now, but I think its time reading the article made a come back.
No, none of your arguments hold. It doesn't really matter if your cars are older, unless people in your country don't maintain them. But if it's a maintence problem, that's going to cause accidents regardless of speed. If you maintain your cars, speeding DOESN'T increase accident rates. In the US, only 2.2% of all accidents are caused by speeding. The rest are caused by other things; not paying attention, DUI, etc. Changing speed limits has no effect on whether or not people pay attention or drive under the influence, so there's little room for argument there.
Regarding wildlife, we have that here as well. Deer or moose do run out, sometimes even bears. Again, speed is of little matter here, more important is to be paying attention so you don't hit the animal at all.
Also, I'd be suprised if the down under varied in accident rates when comparing urban areas to rural areas. Urban areas have more accidents... but that's just because there are more cars in those areas.
Of course no one is saying floor it over every road. What I am saying is that most people are reasonable and will drive reasonablly. That's one reason speed limits don't make a difference; if they are set too low (which in the US they almost always are), people ignore them anyway because their experience has told them they can safely travel at a given speed.
Limits that are too low cause problems because some people will always try to follow the law; a car going 65, which is the speed limit for many highways, on a section of road where the majority of traffic is going 75, the SLOWER car is six times more likely to be in an accident. That's why the limit (if you MUST have a limit) should be set by figuring out what the 85th percentile is doing. You mostly eliminate speed differences, and roads are safer overall.
A crackdown is likely to lead to backlash; after all, we're not talking about morality here, we're talking about an arbitrary number. If people aren't obeying it, the number is not valid. That's actually true of any law. The only reason reason to keep a law most are violating is if the law favors a majority over a minority (such as not letting blacks vote.. blacks have the right to vote, and there's no reasonable reason to take that right away).
Sorry, but if your dad is "totally lost" because window boards now display differently, I can only think he's extraordinarly retarded. If all he needs is a browser, he's unlikely to need to find where some things have moved.. say Network Connections.
As far as new features go, there are plenty, but not all are drawn on the screen. It is more secure, printing is much more reliable, the search integrated into the start menu actually works really well, just to name a few. I've been using Vista for a while now, and its not any slower than XP was (although I never settle for that crap onboard video).
As for the salesman.. they're going to lie to you to sell you something. Wow, shocker. I hate to tell you, that kind of thing isn't limited to the computer world.
MS Sql is known as T-Sql. Anyway, you can write ISO standard Sql, and all of those databases should execute the query in a consistent matter. So they all implement the standard, but also allow their own extensions. The point though is that if you want to target any Sql server adhering to the ISO standard, you can.
Speeding does not cause accidents. Lowering speed limits below what people would drive without them raises accident rates. Perhaps the down under has saner laws, but here in the US driver violations are seen as revenue, not safety issues. So even thought the proven safest limit is set by following the 85th percentile rule, most roads in the US are set far lower.
The notion that slower is safer is simply not true. It would seem to be common sense, but humans and common sense have a pretty poor record. It was also once common sense that the earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth.
Please, stop relying on your common sense and anecdote to promote ideas which actually decrease overall safety.
But I don't hate MS. I do hate what they've done to the science of computing. I don't want them to fail as a company, but I do want them to fail at their illegal business practices.
The "science of computing?" You mean making computers easier for people to use? As far as illegal business practices, they seem to have followed all the rules for the ISO standard submission process. If you think the ISO has a flawed process, that's your opinion, but it's currently operating "as designed."
No, now I'm worried that purchasing agents will think it is a standard and will accept it as if it was a standard, not realizing it won't bring them the advantages a real standard like ODF can.
It's been certified as an ISO standard.. so.. how exactly is that not a standard? Others can now implement it. ODF has it's failings as well; some even complain it doesn't describe the standard in enough detail to implement.
Yes that is exactly right. MS's huge market share will put a lot of implementations out there compared to ODF. The fact that you don't recognize leveraging monopoly influence as a bad thing is very sad.
Sorry, I didn't see any rulings that MS Office has a monopoly on office productivity software. Such a trial would be a big deal, just like the OS monopoly trial was.
Also, Office didn't get to where it is becaue it was bundled. People have been paying money for it from the beginning. So there's a huge install base because people want it.
I have no problem with OOXML being implemented more than ODF, but it should be because it is a better standard, not because Microsoft is pushing it on people who generally don't have the power to do anything about it.
Well, I suggest you get over it. Lots of inferior standards have displaced suprior ones. See TCP vs. the OSI stack.
Besides, now that OOXML is a standard, OOo can support it natively, as can any other office application. This should increase competition, and if otehr office suites are better, they will begin to displace MS Office.
Ugh. Please, just admit you hate MS, and you want them to fail at everything, and you're zealotry wants ODF to succeed, and that you're worried that now the OOXML is a standard, the huge install base will put a lot more implementions of OOXML out there than ODF.
And I suppose now you'll tell me a simple patch to update Office 2007 to adhere to the changed standard is impossible.
Please, WTF is your point?
I never said it was a flaw. The rules allowed it. Besides, what is wrong with people voting on an issue when they suddenly have a reason to care? Or are you suggesting that people that normally wouldn't vote are voting because they want to support, say, Obama?
It seems that the ISO has rules for voting and becoming a member, and those rules were followed. You can try to claim moral ground, but there's no moral issues here. It's a standards body, and people can choose to participate and have done so according to the body's rule.
Seriously, what harm has OOXML becoming a standard done? If it does have problems that prevent it from anyone else implementing it, it won't be a used stanard. There's plenty of those around.
Get over yourself. You're trying to disgise "waah1!! I hate MS and they shouldn't be allowed to propose standards" with some pseduo-moral nonsense.
If its for everyday usage and gaming? Just stick with whatever's on the motherboard. Sound cards have evolved to the point that integrated is probably as good as it gets for watching movies and gaming on anything 7.1 or lower. Now if you have special requirements, I have no clue whatsoever :)
No, sorry. Onboard sound cards blow. They pick up any distortion from the powersupply, fans, etc. Actually onboard anything sucks.. even the onboard networking port on my server MB is crap and unreliable. Install a dedicated NIC and everything works perfectly.
Because if they actually ticketed everyone that broke the speed limit law, government would finally be forced to raise speed limits... especially since Australia is likely in the same spot as the US; illegally setting limits lower than dictated by civil engineers for the purpose of raising revenue and pushing more draconion measures on drivers.
What the hell are you talking about? All an ISO standard means is that people can look at the standard, and implement it. So that if two people implement the same ISO standard, they should have the same implementations. I don't think it has any bearing on whether the standard is good or not.
Sql is an ISO standard; does that mean everything in ISO Sql makes compete sense, or functions as you'd expect? No, but you DO know how everyone else that implements it expects it to act.
I agree. Who do you recommend though? ProSpectrum cards from MediaVision I actually liked quite a bit back in the day. Wonder if they're still around.
Well, since it's pretty obvious that what he was doing was un-crippling software that they had intentionally broken, I think it's understandable that they're pissed.
Normally I'd agree. But why should I lose features in Vista because Creative decided that the card I already bought shouldn't work in a new OS? I can only think it is to encourage people to buy new cards. That's slimey.
About the corruption - how about Microsoft Sweden and buying of votes? Or is that common in hundreds of other approved buggy standards?
Buying votes seems to be a problem with the ISO process itself; that no other company has tried to taken advantage of that is suprising. Unless of course they were more discrete. Apparently though, you don't need to buy votes to get buggy standards approved.
No. But, is there a case, where ISO standard was given to specification, which already had unresolved bugs? I thought the whole process of BRM was to eliminate the issues countries had.
That's the intent of the process; perhaps other standards are as thoroughly scrutinized as this one has been, for whatever reason?
Basically yes. The approval of 900 remaining issues using single vote on BRM was... unique and really interesting solution.
Ok, where are the rules that forbid that?
Not letting people from Sun and IBM to the voting hall in Portugal in September (correct me if I am wrong, I don't remember all the facts) because there were not enough chairs was definitely not against the rules.
I don't remember that, so I can't comment.
How about Germany and the practical inability of the delegates to vote against the OOXML after the BRM? I guess that is still OK, though a bit unfair.
It may have been unfair, but unless you have a reference to an ISO rule that forbids it, I assume it was allowed.
Then, you can see how the P committee can be stuffed with countries voting for your cause - it just costs the registration fees. And it slows down ISO as well (since these P countries didn't, in majority, vote on anything else than DIS29500. Ever.).
Again, that seems more of a flaw in the ISO process than anything else.
I am claiming, that ISO is useless, since passing 6000 pages of documentation using FAST TRACK, with another loads of comments and amendments after the BRM shows, that the people working for ISO either have 28 hour long day, or are... not doing their work properly.
How long have you been following the ISO? If it's only been since the start of the MS application process, I'd say "not long enough." For all you or I would know, that could be fairly normal.
Ya, insulting people leads to good discussion. As does spouting things without providing backup. According to Wikipedia Office 2007 does in fact implement it, as well as some Apple programs.
Oh piss off. Anyone that doesn't bash MS is a shill. It's no wonder this site isn't taken seriously.
1) it can only be fully implimented by MS which by definition excludes it as a standard.
Why? Are you saying no one could possibly implement it?
2) the fact that MS's promise not to sue puts restrictions on software that can not exist in FOSS projects.
So what? I don't recall ISO standards as having to be free of patents.
3) it is poorly documented and what has been documented has significant technical flaws.
Have you read other ISO standards?
4) proprietary standards are much more difficult to use as archives because the specifications are not fully known, they must be reverse engineered if older documents are to be used on different platforms.
If it were approved, it would be a standard..
MS seems to have an implementation, and I don't see being free of patents or the standard being "simple" part of the rules for an ISO standard.
That argument is void. It's like "let's kill this guy, cause there are more of them killed anyway".
Oh goodie, a useless analogy. Can't anyone argue here? Analogies are good to clarify things. You haven't even attempted to articulate anything before launching into the analogy.
The problem with it being approved is... well, look at what happened in India - they took the ISO procedure to the point. After they found first bug in the specification, their NB voted no. The 1.1.1900 bug is widely known, as well as 12345.12345 in spreadsheets. That means the NB's either didn't have enough time to review the specs (which would lead to NO to fast-tracking), or found a bug unresolved after Geneva's BRM (NO to DIS29500 itself).
Is there a requirement somewhere that standards must be bug free? JavaScript has some flaws, yet it was standardized.
I don't actually mind the OOXML passing (because as Microsoft said, they won't be able to implement ECMA's changes to the standard anyway => Microsoft will have it's own, incompatible version), I mind the harm it did to ISO on the way.
What harm? Aside from Norway seemingly not knowing how to count votes, it seems that ISO processes have been followed. Or is your claim that the ISO isn't following it's own processes?
Huh. It's almost like people claim the organization is corrupt because it approved a standard submitted by MS, by people who hate MS. Its sad that politics interfers with technology.
Seriously.. what's the problem with it being approved? Technical issues? Lack of clarity? There are hundreds of other standards that fall into those categories as well, yet they are still standards. But no one cried corruption until now..
Modernize? You mean copy Vista, but do it poorly so it looks ugly?
Um, maybe you're just thinking of MFC, because in .Net you do that the same way as the other poster suggested for Java.