I suspect he means the history that shows when you start typing in the address bar. While I find that immensely useful, I could see how it would be annoying on a system not fast enough to do it well.
Just curious, how is having a history search available through the address bar immensely useful?
What I do is to make extensive use of keywords for bookmarks. Thus, typing 'slash' takes me to http://slashdot.org/ typing 'g' followed by a search string performs a Google search on that string, 'news' takes me to http://news.google.com/ and 'ebay' followed by a search string allows me to search eBay for old computers that don't run Firefox very well.;-)
The only time I've made use of Firefox's history is on those rare occasions when I've bounced around sites while searching for something on Google and can't remember where I saw something worth remembering, or when I'm purging it. Having a history search performed in the address bar I personally find annoying, but obviously not enough to take the trouble to look up an about:config setting to see whether it can be disabled. That said, Firefox has in its favour the ability to tab through the history, unlike IE where one is required to use arrow keys (requiring removing one's hands from the keyboard).
Agreed on the monitor... but scissor-action, laptop-style keys should have taken over the desktop a long time ago. Both faster and ergonomically more effective, because you don't have to move your fingers nearly as far for each keystroke.
And I thought I was nuts because I was preferring to use my laptop for real work and doing without the benefits of the larger monitor, etc. of a desktop system.
Also worth pointing out is that (despite certain funky keyboard arrangements and/or problems manipulating trackpads for copy/paste, etc.) you get to work with your fingers on the keyboard (preferrably on the home keys) like God intended. If you do need a mouse, it's an inch or so away. As a result, there's none of this stop-what-you're-doing and remove a hand to reach for the mouse.
As for those users who rely on and/or do everything with a mouse, they look slightly less stupid posed with a single finger on their notebook trackpad then they normally do with their right hand beside the keyboard holding a mouse, and their left hand resting somewhere on the keyboard and doing nothing.
Still, notebooks will never be the be all and end all of computing. Screen size, screen placement, cost, performance, and heat are all issues that are problematic.
Except, you ignorant cunt, you're the one who is *not* dealing with you own fucking mewling brats and therefore are trying to fuck up the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with your own problems.
You must be a hoot on parent teacher days.
I'd love to be in the same room with you when all the mothers stand in unison to voice their objections, after which they try and beat you to death with their purses and the teachers look on with a feigned look of shock and try not to cheer you on.
But relevant advertising is just "valuable information".
Perhaps, but only in circumstances when you are actively researching or shopping. To use your amazon.com example, when I visit Amazon, it would fair to assume that I'm looking to buy a book. To the extent Amazon's recommendations are relevant, there's no reason to object to their "valuable information."
When I'm using my computer, or watching a movie, or taking my dog for a walk, I'm not shopping. I'm busy doing something I want to be doing. And during that time, I'm not a consumer, nor do I want to be interrupted, disturbed or otherwise assailed with advertising, valuable information, or recommendations of any kind. Unless, of course, I was someone with a compulsive spending disorder, or a woman.
Some of us have a life that doesn't consist of buying shit. And we like it like that.
When I lived in Italy, I noticed the DJs always talked over the first and last 20 seconds of every song. A friend told me it was so that people don't record the music.
That's been going on since the 60's that I remember, and probably longer. It has everything to do with the DJ's sense of self-importance (making a living delivering monologues will do that to you), and the station's need to interject commercial sponsor or promotional messages wherever and whenever possible. Any musical intro to a song would invite a voice over. The tail end of a song, if not cut off altogether would similarly be talked over.
There was a brief respite during the 70s when people started buying LP albums (singles were dismissed), migrated to FM, and drugs became popular. On a given night, it wasn't unusual to hear the entire side of an LP album being played without interruption of any kind.
Things changed over time, of course. Drugs fell out of use, the "album version" was replaced by the single, and the need to make money became paramount. Some stations even resorted to increasing the speed at which songs played. Today, commercial radio is like AM radio was way back when (lots of commercials, interruptions, self-promotion, and a limited but rotating playlist) and AM radio turned into.. well, that's another subject. I'm surprised to see that people still listen to commercial radio of any kind.
Re:How is he determinig profit?
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
vis-a-vie patent portfolios
I think you meant vis-a-vis?
Or perhaps more correctly, vis-à-vis. Old French meaning face to face, IIRC. "Vie" is a different word altogether.
As far as I can see, there is apparently no consequence for making a false claim of ownership. Perhaps false claims of ownership should result in the loss of their ability to assert copyright at all.
Reading this reminded me of a website I came across recently that sells training videos for Vmware's products.
Can i sell my training on Ebay or other sites?
No. Our copyright agreement listed here: http://www.eliaskhnaser.com/info/copyright.htm clearly outlines that the training material you buy can't be translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including copying or recording without the written permission of the publisher.
As such, you can't resell the training on EBay or other web sites like Amazon. We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law such violations.
Sell/resell, original/copy, backup/duplicate, steal/infringe. Who has time to parse words?
The idea is that if you want true security, you don't keep records.
But are we talking about keeping records, or about computers which keep records on our behalf? If it's the former, then, yes, everyone who's watched an episode of the Sopranos gets the point. I only sought to emphasize that anyone using a computer (just about everyone) is going to have certain data maintained for them and about them by the operating system. In Vista's case, and elsewhere (as another poster pointed out) to a greater extent in the future, there is more of that data, and more ways for it to be stored.
Maybe it's obvious. All I know is in my case, I prefer to keep my house clean and my life simple. When I throw out the household trash, or delete a voice mail, I'd prefer knowing that duplicate copies of that garbage (or an itemised list of its contents) doesn't exist, or, if it did, was permanently deleted, and that everything to do with that voicemail is similarly gone. The approach doesn't necessarily apply to computers, but to the extent it does, I don't think it's too much to expect.
I'm afraid you're mistaken in suggesting that other systems do not use similar methods. Mac OS X, for example, includes Spotlight...
Well, yeah, but Spotlight by itself isn't Vista. Nor is my weekly 'locate' cron job, for example. Previous offerings from Microsoft similarly offered nothing on that scale either, so I think my "in general" characterisation was fair, even more so when you take into account the tortured mess of what's kept in the Windows registry and the general inaccessibility of that data, along with an ad-hoc file system hierarchy which may or not contain anything of interest.
As for features that may or not be added in the future to other operating systems, that's an open and possibly interesting discussion. The article was about forensic issues with regards to Vista. Again, I think it's fair to say that Vista is unique.
I agree that the "feature rich" approach (indexing, transactional file systems, etc.) do benefit most. However, I do take issue with the general case of a non-criminal user. Perfectly ordinary features like maintaining browser history, to a limited and pedestrian example, can be problematic for anyone.
This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul."
My favourite bit was the following from the last link:
Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.
For anyone unfamiliar with Coleridge, reading something on the origin of the phrase suspension of disbelief might be informative. At least easier than reading Coleridge's own works.
Their decision to use Microsoft's proprietary formats puzzles me, because the BBC has often been in the news for actually using open formats, and they used to actually work on an open format and player, themselves. Why did they decide to go for a proprietary format in this case?
From the fine article:
the files would require DRM to ensure that they were appropriately restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption. The only system that currently provides this security is Windows Media 10 and above. Further, the only comprehensively deployed operating system that currently supports Windows Media Player 10 and above is the Windows XP operating system.
At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough. The problem is life is rarely so simple.;-) As for the OP's statement that this is normal to use a platform-specific approach:
But choosing Microsoft's DRM is not just a neutral "doing something", it is doing absolutely the wrong thing - which is far worse than "doing nothing". It would provide a huge propaganda victory for Microsoft and its DRM scheme, just at the time when even people like Steve Jobs are casting doubt on the efficacy of DRM in general. The last thing we need now is for Microsoft to be able to go around to other broadcasters and music companies and say: "See, even the famously objective BBC has chosen our DRM; this proves it's the best. Why don't you follow suit?"
If you put aside the unecessary rhetoric and narrow focus, the real issue becomes obvious, and that is that the BBC has responsibility to implement a platform agnostic (which means not only Windows users, or, for that matter, Windows plus "Mac and Linux users") approach in the face of all the issues brought about by new technology.
If you wish to be secure in your illegal activities, you'd probably be wise to avoid keeping any records at all.
Allow me to edit the above:
If you wish to secure your data from unwanted intrusion, you'd probably be wise to avoid using Vista which records your activities using methods not found in previous Microsoft systems, or other systems in general.
as I'm sure that anyone who has seen a pair of dogs shagging in public will agree.
I've shagged my share of dogs in public... but my guess is you've seen that just a bit less often. The ones in public are the ones are who got caught with their proverbial trousers around their ankles.
Dogs would prefer to do it privately. Hell, they don't want to be even smelled by strangers. Despite being pack animals (a live or die proposition in the real world), they'd also prefer to eat, urinate, defecate, give birth, and nurse privately, and typically do. Playing is always social, but who hasn't noticed a dog burying a bone, or hiding toys for later.
I'm sure there's countless examples aside from dogs, but I'm sure everyone has some degree of familiarity or relationship with them that using their species as analogy is as valid as it easily recognisable.
Instead of forking over 1200 quid for the card, take 300 of those to get a good card and use the other 900 (or less) to make the computer silent.
Been there and done that.
I've replaced the heatsinks and fans on every system I've ever owned. I've built and made use of, with varying degrees of success, soundproof enclosures. I own a number of VIA fanless systems (some with 2.5" drives) and two Soekris boxes -- they all make noise. Betcha ya didn't know that monitors (CRT or LCD) make noise? If I could get back all the money and time (often compromising on performance) I spent pursuing the uphill-both-ways effort of making things less annoying, I could have easily afforded the Matrox box and gone back to rackmounting everything in a sane manner.
I live in an area where the loudest noise is the sound of birds chirping. The office I work is such that with the window closed, the noise output of a single laptop is acceptable, but a distraction. And that's only because I moved (to an enclosed closet) the hissing, buzzing, and whining collection of peripherals (which, by their very nature, typically have no moving parts and are therefore supposed to completely silent), and then moved everything else either to a room on the other side of an adjoining wall or the garage.
Silent, of course, is a relative term. If you work or live in an area where there's a fair amount of ambient noise, then maybe you won't notice, or care. A pebble in a shoe can be overlooked, but enough pebbles over a long enough walk and you will notice. The shitty thing is that for most of us who make a living using computers, it's always a long walk, and one that you'll repeat day-in day-out until you retire. In that light, 1200 quid doesn't seem a bad investment.
This product doesn't look suited to the consumer market, either.
Indeed, the article quotes the price to be as reviewed £1,645.00 (Inc VAT). That's a chunk of change, to be sure.
My own solution (to cut a hole through two adjoining rooms) produces similar results, but is far less elegant. I'd be interested in such a device. Or, put another way, it may be that the limited consumer market includes people concerned about noise, clutter and peace of mind (like me), in addition to any number of other subgroups, like those into music recording or production. In my day, that last group included just about everyone under 18 with a part-time job.
I call it the halo effect. Watch it, next time your driving. People cut you off, don't use their turn signals, speed, basically drive like idiots. Place a patrol car in the mix, (in fact the second it comes into sight of any of the aforementioned asshole drivers) and suddenly, without warning, little halos appear over every car and everyone is just a cute little perfect driver doing what they're supposed to.
Halo effect is a great term.
I'm reminded of a Dr. Phil episode where the guy was "on trial" for watching too much internet porn. Putting aside the deeper issues of the subject, Dr. Phil demanded to know why, if he loved his wife as much as he said he did, and was as committed to the marriage as she was, he would do something that knew he would have to hide his wife.
The wife and audience nodded silently.
Internet porn, bad driving, personal grooming and bathroom habits, telling white lies, stealing glances at attractive passersby, hell, the list is endless. We're all human and have failings that we believe to be entirely forgivable so it's understandable when people say, "I just don't care about privacy." On the other hand, it's worth reminding those people that such commonplace forgiveness is rarely extended when those failings are taken out of context, recorded on tape or video, and presented in edited from in front of a TV audience or, worse, a courtroom.
I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.
Personally, I think the idea of modified nicotine may hold promise for many, but for those who smoke, the concept is somewhat akin to taking caffeine tablets instead of enjoying (or sharing ) that great cup of coffee. To the extent it works, life becomes a little bit less enjoyable. And less social.
I smoke. Not because I suffer from an addiction to nicotine, or an innability to change any number of related habits, but because I choose to. And I derive great pleasure from it for a large number of reasons. I have, on occasion, cut back, or stopped entirely for weeks or months at a time, but I think that was due in most part to suffering the effects of a good habit gone bad. Too much of anything is bad (or bad for you, if you prefer). The ability to make that distinction is important.
The benefits of nicotine for those suffering schizophrenia I found notable. Anyone familiar with the disease knows that smoking "relaxes" schizophrenics. I have a family member who has suffered from schizophrenia for most of his life. Watching him suffer from the disease is one thing, but seeing him endure the effects of the varying regimen of (mostly ineffective) drugs was even more painful. Personally, I'd prefer that he have a cigarette from time to time to make his (and others) life more bearable.
For anyone that has opinions on smoking that borders on the hysterical, I'd suggest they lighten up. Or better still, light up once in a while. There are many things in life that are good for you in small amounts, but dangerous or poisonous at higher levels. Put another way, you'd be better served by not moralising your (and everyone else's) choices and instead, pick your favourite poison and enjoy it responsibly. Besides, what else are you going to do after sex? Peel an orange?
Actually, it's not so much that they are pointless - just that they are useless.
I'd prefer that an operating system, or the software we run from day to day be fairly generic and taken for granted, but we live in a world where the average person believes software, if not downloaded on those rare occasions from some obscure website, is available in shrink-wrapped packages only. And then from a vendor who, we assume, will support that software (the corrollary being that everyone who writes software makes a living by selling it). The Diebold fiasco is evidence of this. Instead of turning to the academia, for example, to examine the issues, the politicians we elected turned to a commercial vendor.
Also, given that we live in a competitive world, things often need to be evaluated with respect to their competition. If it doesn't have numbers, isn't marketed with glossy brochures or offered for sale in a shiny package, it can't possibly be of much value, right? At its most basic, that's just human nature. No one needs reminding that Microsoft exterts powerful monopoly control over the entire industry. Competing on merits alone is never enough.
So while I'd like to agree that numbers don't matter, using a We Know Better or We Don't Care About Such Things set of arguments or postures to dismiss what huge numbers of people are doing or buying seems a bit naive. And it doesn't help the guy in management squirming in his chair make a good decision.
Wow, your sense of style interferes with your enjoyment of your computer. Do you trade in your house every couple of years, or do you just cringe through it?
Actually, I think the OP made a good point. And as far as Macs are concerned, it is dated. It also lacks wide appeal so the change should increase sales.
Looks are important. Imagine yourself working on a pink laptop, or staring a monitor with pony decals all over it and then ask yourself that same question. The best designs in everything are always subtle and unobtrusive. My own humble opinion is that clear or white plastic on computer equipment is somewhere between goofy and distracting, and looks out of place in most any environment. Even if everyone is wearing black turtlenecks.
In one of the life in hell books he says it rhymes with "complaining".
That's correct, but it's nice to see someone reference something other than The Simpsons when talking about Matt Groening.
I've read Akbar and Jeff and Life In Hell for years. When The Simpsons came out, I was impressed enough by the writing, but the bombastic Danny Elfman score pushes things so over the top (at least for me) that I couldn't watch it regularly. Somehow, it seemed less intelligent than it really was, sort of like South Park with volume turned way up.
Stop. Think. A Briton is in America, wanting American citizens - and only American citizens - to play with extremely dangerous explosives. There can be only one explanation. Revenge for The A-Team and Knight Rider.
Those darned Britons, huh?
There's a second explanation. The Briton was actually an unexploded and unemployed Scotsmen belonging to the Queen's Own McKamikaze Highlanders.
Expect a news story about a Briton cloning a man with three buttocks next.
We should not take chances with this. Lives are at stake.
It's this kind of reflex thinking that would encourage someone to get enrolled and attend classes wearing a turban muttering occasional Allahu Akbar under his breath. Just for laughs.
Lighten up. The country is filled with people who drive cars, own and carry guns, have arguments with their ex-wives, hold a grudge against the IRS, hate the President, or work at the post office. I'd be more worried about the sheer numbers of people in any of those groups before I'd worry about someone who wants to pursue what could be described as a slightly juvenile interest or hobby.
The very best course I have found is a ~32 hour DVD course on the FreeBSD kernel internals and: Advanced FreeBSD Kernel Code Walkthrough Videos I've never found anything more thorough.
Or, if the BSD kernel is indeed your thing, hire Groggy. Would you study under someone without a beard?
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect he means the history that shows when you start typing in the address bar. While I find that immensely useful, I could see how it would be annoying on a system not fast enough to do it well.
;-)
Just curious, how is having a history search available through the address bar immensely useful?
What I do is to make extensive use of keywords for bookmarks. Thus, typing 'slash' takes me to http://slashdot.org/ typing 'g' followed by a search string performs a Google search on that string, 'news' takes me to http://news.google.com/ and 'ebay' followed by a search string allows me to search eBay for old computers that don't run Firefox very well.
The only time I've made use of Firefox's history is on those rare occasions when I've bounced around sites while searching for something on Google and can't remember where I saw something worth remembering, or when I'm purging it. Having a history search performed in the address bar I personally find annoying, but obviously not enough to take the trouble to look up an about:config setting to see whether it can be disabled. That said, Firefox has in its favour the ability to tab through the history, unlike IE where one is required to use arrow keys (requiring removing one's hands from the keyboard).
Agreed on the monitor... but scissor-action, laptop-style keys should have taken over the desktop a long time ago. Both faster and ergonomically more effective, because you don't have to move your fingers nearly as far for each keystroke.
And I thought I was nuts because I was preferring to use my laptop for real work and doing without the benefits of the larger monitor, etc. of a desktop system.
Also worth pointing out is that (despite certain funky keyboard arrangements and/or problems manipulating trackpads for copy/paste, etc.) you get to work with your fingers on the keyboard (preferrably on the home keys) like God intended. If you do need a mouse, it's an inch or so away. As a result, there's none of this stop-what-you're-doing and remove a hand to reach for the mouse.
As for those users who rely on and/or do everything with a mouse, they look slightly less stupid posed with a single finger on their notebook trackpad then they normally do with their right hand beside the keyboard holding a mouse, and their left hand resting somewhere on the keyboard and doing nothing.
Still, notebooks will never be the be all and end all of computing. Screen size, screen placement, cost, performance, and heat are all issues that are problematic.
Except, you ignorant cunt, you're the one who is *not* dealing with you own fucking mewling brats and therefore are trying to fuck up the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with your own problems.
You must be a hoot on parent teacher days.
I'd love to be in the same room with you when all the mothers stand in unison to voice their objections, after which they try and beat you to death with their purses and the teachers look on with a feigned look of shock and try not to cheer you on.
But relevant advertising is just "valuable information".
Perhaps, but only in circumstances when you are actively researching or shopping. To use your amazon.com example, when I visit Amazon, it would fair to assume that I'm looking to buy a book. To the extent Amazon's recommendations are relevant, there's no reason to object to their "valuable information."
When I'm using my computer, or watching a movie, or taking my dog for a walk, I'm not shopping. I'm busy doing something I want to be doing. And during that time, I'm not a consumer, nor do I want to be interrupted, disturbed or otherwise assailed with advertising, valuable information, or recommendations of any kind. Unless, of course, I was someone with a compulsive spending disorder, or a woman.
Some of us have a life that doesn't consist of buying shit. And we like it like that.
When I lived in Italy, I noticed the DJs always talked over the first and last 20 seconds of every song. A friend told me it was so that people don't record the music.
.. well, that's another subject. I'm surprised to see that people still listen to commercial radio of any kind.
That's been going on since the 60's that I remember, and probably longer. It has everything to do with the DJ's sense of self-importance (making a living delivering monologues will do that to you), and the station's need to interject commercial sponsor or promotional messages wherever and whenever possible. Any musical intro to a song would invite a voice over. The tail end of a song, if not cut off altogether would similarly be talked over.
There was a brief respite during the 70s when people started buying LP albums (singles were dismissed), migrated to FM, and drugs became popular. On a given night, it wasn't unusual to hear the entire side of an LP album being played without interruption of any kind.
Things changed over time, of course. Drugs fell out of use, the "album version" was replaced by the single, and the need to make money became paramount. Some stations even resorted to increasing the speed at which songs played. Today, commercial radio is like AM radio was way back when (lots of commercials, interruptions, self-promotion, and a limited but rotating playlist) and AM radio turned into
vis-a-vie patent portfolios
I think you meant vis-a-vis?
Or perhaps more correctly, vis-à-vis. Old French meaning face to face, IIRC. "Vie" is a different word altogether.
Not sure about "determinig". ;-)
Reading this reminded me of a website I came across recently that sells training videos for Vmware's products.
Sell/resell, original/copy, backup/duplicate, steal/infringe. Who has time to parse words?
The idea is that if you want true security, you don't keep records.
But are we talking about keeping records, or about computers which keep records on our behalf? If it's the former, then, yes, everyone who's watched an episode of the Sopranos gets the point. I only sought to emphasize that anyone using a computer (just about everyone) is going to have certain data maintained for them and about them by the operating system. In Vista's case, and elsewhere (as another poster pointed out) to a greater extent in the future, there is more of that data, and more ways for it to be stored.
Maybe it's obvious. All I know is in my case, I prefer to keep my house clean and my life simple. When I throw out the household trash, or delete a voice mail, I'd prefer knowing that duplicate copies of that garbage (or an itemised list of its contents) doesn't exist, or, if it did, was permanently deleted, and that everything to do with that voicemail is similarly gone. The approach doesn't necessarily apply to computers, but to the extent it does, I don't think it's too much to expect.
I'm afraid you're mistaken in suggesting that other systems do not use similar methods. Mac OS X, for example, includes Spotlight ...
Well, yeah, but Spotlight by itself isn't Vista. Nor is my weekly 'locate' cron job, for example. Previous offerings from Microsoft similarly offered nothing on that scale either, so I think my "in general" characterisation was fair, even more so when you take into account the tortured mess of what's kept in the Windows registry and the general inaccessibility of that data, along with an ad-hoc file system hierarchy which may or not contain anything of interest.
As for features that may or not be added in the future to other operating systems, that's an open and possibly interesting discussion. The article was about forensic issues with regards to Vista. Again, I think it's fair to say that Vista is unique.
I agree that the "feature rich" approach (indexing, transactional file systems, etc.) do benefit most. However, I do take issue with the general case of a non-criminal user. Perfectly ordinary features like maintaining browser history, to a limited and pedestrian example, can be problematic for anyone.
My favourite bit was the following from the last link:
For anyone unfamiliar with Coleridge, reading something on the origin of the phrase suspension of disbelief might be informative. At least easier than reading Coleridge's own works.
From the fine article:
At first glance, it the above statement appears reasonable enough. The problem is life is rarely so simple.
If you put aside the unecessary rhetoric and narrow focus, the real issue becomes obvious, and that is that the BBC has responsibility to implement a platform agnostic (which means not only Windows users, or, for that matter, Windows plus "Mac and Linux users") approach in the face of all the issues brought about by new technology.
If you wish to be secure in your illegal activities, you'd probably be wise to avoid keeping any records at all.
Allow me to edit the above:
If you wish to secure your data from unwanted intrusion, you'd probably be wise to avoid using Vista which records your activities using methods not found in previous Microsoft systems, or other systems in general.
If they were deployed right, it would be very nice teaming and redundancy. What are the chances of that on retail hardware?
From the fine article:
My first thought was that if I needed 4 GigE NICs, they'd all be Intel, so maybe this isn't so much a feature.
Ah! That would be 'ubiquity' then?
Maybe the poster was trying to be ironical?
as I'm sure that anyone who has seen a pair of dogs shagging in public will agree.
... but my guess is you've seen that just a bit less often. The ones in public are the ones are who got caught with their proverbial trousers around their ankles.
I've shagged my share of dogs in public
Dogs would prefer to do it privately. Hell, they don't want to be even smelled by strangers. Despite being pack animals (a live or die proposition in the real world), they'd also prefer to eat, urinate, defecate, give birth, and nurse privately, and typically do. Playing is always social, but who hasn't noticed a dog burying a bone, or hiding toys for later.
I'm sure there's countless examples aside from dogs, but I'm sure everyone has some degree of familiarity or relationship with them that using their species as analogy is as valid as it easily recognisable.
Instead of forking over 1200 quid for the card, take 300 of those to get a good card and use the other 900 (or less) to make the computer silent.
Been there and done that.
I've replaced the heatsinks and fans on every system I've ever owned. I've built and made use of, with varying degrees of success, soundproof enclosures. I own a number of VIA fanless systems (some with 2.5" drives) and two Soekris boxes -- they all make noise. Betcha ya didn't know that monitors (CRT or LCD) make noise? If I could get back all the money and time (often compromising on performance) I spent pursuing the uphill-both-ways effort of making things less annoying, I could have easily afforded the Matrox box and gone back to rackmounting everything in a sane manner.
I live in an area where the loudest noise is the sound of birds chirping. The office I work is such that with the window closed, the noise output of a single laptop is acceptable, but a distraction. And that's only because I moved (to an enclosed closet) the hissing, buzzing, and whining collection of peripherals (which, by their very nature, typically have no moving parts and are therefore supposed to completely silent), and then moved everything else either to a room on the other side of an adjoining wall or the garage.
Silent, of course, is a relative term. If you work or live in an area where there's a fair amount of ambient noise, then maybe you won't notice, or care. A pebble in a shoe can be overlooked, but enough pebbles over a long enough walk and you will notice. The shitty thing is that for most of us who make a living using computers, it's always a long walk, and one that you'll repeat day-in day-out until you retire. In that light, 1200 quid doesn't seem a bad investment.
This product doesn't look suited to the consumer market, either.
Indeed, the article quotes the price to be as reviewed £1,645.00 (Inc VAT). That's a chunk of change, to be sure.
My own solution (to cut a hole through two adjoining rooms) produces similar results, but is far less elegant. I'd be interested in such a device. Or, put another way, it may be that the limited consumer market includes people concerned about noise, clutter and peace of mind (like me), in addition to any number of other subgroups, like those into music recording or production. In my day, that last group included just about everyone under 18 with a part-time job.
I call it the halo effect. Watch it, next time your driving. People cut you off, don't use their turn signals, speed, basically drive like idiots. Place a patrol car in the mix, (in fact the second it comes into sight of any of the aforementioned asshole drivers) and suddenly, without warning, little halos appear over every car and everyone is just a cute little perfect driver doing what they're supposed to.
Halo effect is a great term.
I'm reminded of a Dr. Phil episode where the guy was "on trial" for watching too much internet porn. Putting aside the deeper issues of the subject, Dr. Phil demanded to know why, if he loved his wife as much as he said he did, and was as committed to the marriage as she was, he would do something that knew he would have to hide his wife.
The wife and audience nodded silently.
Internet porn, bad driving, personal grooming and bathroom habits, telling white lies, stealing glances at attractive passersby, hell, the list is endless. We're all human and have failings that we believe to be entirely forgivable so it's understandable when people say, "I just don't care about privacy." On the other hand, it's worth reminding those people that such commonplace forgiveness is rarely extended when those failings are taken out of context, recorded on tape or video, and presented in edited from in front of a TV audience or, worse, a courtroom.
I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.
Personally, I think the idea of modified nicotine may hold promise for many, but for those who smoke, the concept is somewhat akin to taking caffeine tablets instead of enjoying (or sharing ) that great cup of coffee. To the extent it works, life becomes a little bit less enjoyable. And less social.
I smoke. Not because I suffer from an addiction to nicotine, or an innability to change any number of related habits, but because I choose to. And I derive great pleasure from it for a large number of reasons. I have, on occasion, cut back, or stopped entirely for weeks or months at a time, but I think that was due in most part to suffering the effects of a good habit gone bad. Too much of anything is bad (or bad for you, if you prefer). The ability to make that distinction is important.
The benefits of nicotine for those suffering schizophrenia I found notable. Anyone familiar with the disease knows that smoking "relaxes" schizophrenics. I have a family member who has suffered from schizophrenia for most of his life. Watching him suffer from the disease is one thing, but seeing him endure the effects of the varying regimen of (mostly ineffective) drugs was even more painful. Personally, I'd prefer that he have a cigarette from time to time to make his (and others) life more bearable.
For anyone that has opinions on smoking that borders on the hysterical, I'd suggest they lighten up. Or better still, light up once in a while. There are many things in life that are good for you in small amounts, but dangerous or poisonous at higher levels. Put another way, you'd be better served by not moralising your (and everyone else's) choices and instead, pick your favourite poison and enjoy it responsibly. Besides, what else are you going to do after sex? Peel an orange?
Actually, it's not so much that they are pointless - just that they are useless.
I'd prefer that an operating system, or the software we run from day to day be fairly generic and taken for granted, but we live in a world where the average person believes software, if not downloaded on those rare occasions from some obscure website, is available in shrink-wrapped packages only. And then from a vendor who, we assume, will support that software (the corrollary being that everyone who writes software makes a living by selling it). The Diebold fiasco is evidence of this. Instead of turning to the academia, for example, to examine the issues, the politicians we elected turned to a commercial vendor.
Also, given that we live in a competitive world, things often need to be evaluated with respect to their competition. If it doesn't have numbers, isn't marketed with glossy brochures or offered for sale in a shiny package, it can't possibly be of much value, right? At its most basic, that's just human nature. No one needs reminding that Microsoft exterts powerful monopoly control over the entire industry. Competing on merits alone is never enough.
So while I'd like to agree that numbers don't matter, using a We Know Better or We Don't Care About Such Things set of arguments or postures to dismiss what huge numbers of people are doing or buying seems a bit naive. And it doesn't help the guy in management squirming in his chair make a good decision.
Wow, your sense of style interferes with your enjoyment of your computer. Do you trade in your house every couple of years, or do you just cringe through it?
Actually, I think the OP made a good point. And as far as Macs are concerned, it is dated. It also lacks wide appeal so the change should increase sales.
Looks are important. Imagine yourself working on a pink laptop, or staring a monitor with pony decals all over it and then ask yourself that same question. The best designs in everything are always subtle and unobtrusive. My own humble opinion is that clear or white plastic on computer equipment is somewhere between goofy and distracting, and looks out of place in most any environment. Even if everyone is wearing black turtlenecks.
In one of the life in hell books he says it rhymes with "complaining".
That's correct, but it's nice to see someone reference something other than The Simpsons when talking about Matt Groening.
I've read Akbar and Jeff and Life In Hell for years. When The Simpsons came out, I was impressed enough by the writing, but the bombastic Danny Elfman score pushes things so over the top (at least for me) that I couldn't watch it regularly. Somehow, it seemed less intelligent than it really was, sort of like South Park with volume turned way up.
Stop. Think. A Briton is in America, wanting American citizens - and only American citizens - to play with extremely dangerous explosives. There can be only one explanation. Revenge for The A-Team and Knight Rider.
Those darned Britons, huh?
There's a second explanation. The Briton was actually an unexploded and unemployed Scotsmen belonging to the Queen's Own McKamikaze Highlanders.
Expect a news story about a Briton cloning a man with three buttocks next.
We should not take chances with this. Lives are at stake.
It's this kind of reflex thinking that would encourage someone to get enrolled and attend classes wearing a turban muttering occasional Allahu Akbar under his breath. Just for laughs.
Lighten up. The country is filled with people who drive cars, own and carry guns, have arguments with their ex-wives, hold a grudge against the IRS, hate the President, or work at the post office. I'd be more worried about the sheer numbers of people in any of those groups before I'd worry about someone who wants to pursue what could be described as a slightly juvenile interest or hobby.
The very best course I have found is a ~32 hour DVD course on the FreeBSD kernel internals and: Advanced FreeBSD Kernel Code Walkthrough Videos I've never found anything more thorough.
Or, if the BSD kernel is indeed your thing, hire Groggy. Would you study under someone without a beard?