I honestly wonder if people will still deny global warming when we have freighters traveling through the north pole in the summer. I mean, what's it going to take?
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes. Someone can criticise AGW theories without also saying that the world is ever unchanging and will always be so.
You're computer is only five times as powerful as one built a decade before it?
I was trying to extrapolate where I think things are going. I don't know how much further we're going to go in terms of sheer processor speed. Less far in the next ten years in terms of multiples of what has gone before, than in the previous ten years. There might be some revolutions that lead to much faster computers in the areas where that's needed (scientific computing, perhaps) but less likely in general public computers. We're probably going to see increases in cores and that doesn't translate as well into saying the hardware is "more" or "less" powerful. It's different. Certainly it will be a lot more "powerful" when I'm compiling something. But it may not be as significant when I'm just running an application like Inkscape. Hard to say, really. Partly depends on how much advantage programmers take of multi-core programming. So that's why I was conservative with my estimates. I think my point has some (sarcastic) truth to it, but the numbers are guesswork.
Mutts nice, but I like to send HTML emails and last time I looked at it, that wasn't Mutt. If someone made something as lean and powerful as Mutt, with the HTML editing capabilities of Thunderbird (nowadays a bloated corpse of an email client), it would be my dream email client.
I actually believe that they started using the NT scheme after ME
Slightly before, actually. Windows 2000 followed on from NT. XP followed on from 2000. ME was the last dying gasp of the Win 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 line. It existed simultaneously with 2000 but was very different and wasn't an ancestor of XP, more an evolutionary off-shoot that died out (thankfully).
it's deemed insecure due to their constraints - even though I've handled security in a different section.
Yep - sounds like more bloat to me. In ten years time, we're going to be running our software on hardware five times as powerful as that which we use today and the software will do the same things it does today no faster.
And then some old person will implement an email client in C using only the oldest and slimmest of libraries and everybody's heads will explode with shock at the speed of it.
You missed out Windows 2000. This may be because it was a different stream of Windows, growing more from Windows NT than from the Win 95-98 family. But it is relevant to include it because XP grew from NT, not WinME. Basically, by the time you came to Windows ME (which as you say, was *awful*), you have two competing streams. Windows ME was the death cry of the real 95 descendents. From there on, you had the NT successors: 2000 and XP. Seen in this light, the pattern you identify loses coherence. You do have initial versions of products series sucking - Win 95, Win XP, Vista - followed by improved, snazzier versions - Win 98, Win XP SP1, Win 7. The thing to realise is that Win 8 is highly unlikely to be the start of a new series. With Vista, MS introduced most of the major foundation for new versions. They don't need to do that again with Win 8 (at least I can't see any reason why they would), so Win 8 should theoretically be pretty smooth.
What's interesting is that you say there's basically no reason to upgrade from XP. I disagree with that because Windows 7 is a better experience, takes better advantage of modern hardware and gives you a foundation for newer software What I can't see is the reason people will need to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8. I expect that if you don't have WIndows 7 you'll want to go directly to 8, but if you have 7, I can't see what 8 will offer. I could be wrong - maybe it will have some really innovative features. Now that MS have created a good solid base (Win 7), they may be able to extend that with more interesting ideas. But I think it unlikely there will be any must-haves. As much as anything, Win 8 may just be their marketing way of driving it home to XP users that they're now [i]two[/i] versions behind and they really should get a move on.
Actually, though I understand and agree with your general point, I suspect you've never had any major dealings with Accenture. Microsoft can be good or bad (though with something as lucrative and high-profile as this, they're generally pretty good), but Accenture... Print out every Dilbert comic you've ever read, mush it into a great big soggy pulp and squeeze the distillated management greed and stupidity out into a barrel. Add a shot of highly toxic mercury for the Hell of it. This is what Accenture board members have in their veins instead of blood.
I think you saw that mention of Microsoft and thought: "another Linux cheerleader". Yep, fair enough. But to those of us familiar with Accenture, his post makes a lot of sense. No company in the world does bloat and overrun like Accenture.
Can the hardware play 1080p video without needing a noisy fan? How low power is "low-power"?
1080p blu-ray isn't that hard. If that's your primary interest you don't need to worry about getting a fancy card that scores well in gaming tests. The two things don't (mostly) correlate. With AMD cards, you're looking for something that has UVD2 support. That's the clue that indicates a card can give you proper blu-ray playback. And yes, that's plenty possible without a fan. For example, this oldish 4350 should be fine for blu-ray (has UVD2.2, the latest) and is fanless, But I'm certain you could fine this cheaper second-hand.
I think the general issue here is that you see the OP's morale stance as motivated by an arrogant belief that they are better than someone else / a desire to seem better than other people. That doesn't sound very edifying, but it seems you allow no space for people who take a morale stance because they believe in that morality, and that you consider all morality merely an opportunity to "brag [...] about their self-imposed ideals". Which seems a rather bleak view of humanity to me.
I would hire someone who put their morality ahead of their bank account like a shot.
Would you ask?
In the interview for my current job I was asked something like, "you could clearly get a job in IT at an investment bank and earn £10-15k + bonus more than what we're offering. Why have you applied here?" I explained that I wouldn't work for a bank on principle, and that I imagined the work to be boring anyway. I hoped a science (ish) job would be more useful to the world, and that the work would be more interesting.
There are few useful ways to ask someone how ethical they are in an interview. But you give a good example of how it can sometimes come to an employer's attention and in your example, yes, your answer would be a very strong boost to your candidacy. My only concern would be whether someone so strongly motivated by finding their work interesting might leave too soon if the work grew stale. But hopefully that wouldn't be the case.
I would never hire someone that sounded like you; that placed themselves on a pedestal and made claims of moral superiority. Good luck with that endeavor.
I would hire someone who put their morality ahead of their bank account like a shot. So would anyone who (a) was sensible and (b) wasn't wanting to put that person to work doing immoral things. Now I don't know whether you fall down on the being sensible part, or not engaging in immoral things (or both), but your post is borderline nonsense. You think *you* are "providing a luxury" to this person? They have a job so they're not living off you. And if you regard morality as a luxury, then you don't really understand what principles are, you think they're some sort of affectation. And if you really think that the US employment levels are where they are because people are too moral to work for the potenital employers, then you fail at reality.
I have no problem with proprietary software in principle. People should be able to negotiate for the value of their work. But I respect someone adhering to their own beliefs where it harms no-one. Or maybe the GP objects on the grounds of things like the ODF ISO fiasco, which would be more supportable, imo. But in either case, their post comes across a Hell of a lot better than yours does.
He said "decline in the web-forum discussion arena" which means a relative decline. You don't have to change to decline at all if everyone else is improving around you.
That said, my only problems with it are what seem to be an increasing number of Troll stories seemingly posted for the sole sake of getting a nice, hit-count generating flamewar going and a certain echo-chamber like quality amongst the mob where it seems people come here to tell each other that their ideas are radical and right (piracy group-think, I'm looking at you) and to shout at people who don't share the group think.
On topic, why the Hell is this a story? Reasons to work at Microsoft? They pay you money. Or is that out of fashion these days?;)
Often if someone posts to say something will be modded down, people then mod it up. Also, just because you see something at +5 Informative, doesn't mean it wasn't blasted down as Flamebait, Overrated or Redundant which comments often are for a while first. On the whole, the Slashdot system balances things out because moderations are capped, so it only takes a few people to mod something up to counterbalance a horde of people modding it down. For some reason the process tends to go down first then up, so it depends how long after the comment was posted (and how far down the story it's slid) what outcome you see.
I'm a anti-piracy AGW-skeptic. Trust me, I know about getting modded down.;)
Looking back at that link, you made that comment nearly three years ago. If the AC is digging it out still, wow - that really is some tragic stalking on their part. We all do stupid things. Weird to have someone bringing it up to badmouth after that length of time.
If movie makers ever will get away from trying to display the 3D and show off, I will welcome it. However, in every wave of 3D so far, this has not happened.
That happens with pretty much any technology. It happened with sound, with colour, with the ability to morph actors into other actors or animals (how many sci-fi and horror films from the Eighties wave this in your face?). First people learn how to do something, then they settle down and learn how not to do it. Some slasher-flicks shove 3D in your face gratuitously. Avatar was a much better example because apart from the odd golf-ball and rifle, the 3D was used carefully.
Not happy with anonymously trolling me, some people feel the need to anonymously stalk me. I feel loved.
Well having just read the linked to comment, it's hardly surprising that you bragging about ruining some people's evening who you didn't even know through sustained harassment of a girl is going to follow you around.
Color enhanced the experience. Stereo enhanced the experience. 5.1 enhanced the experience. 3D on the other hand detracts from the experience. See how that works?
Yep. Stuff you had as a kid is cool. Stuff that' comes out when you're older, is new-fangled and unnecessary.;)
Well they tried mining in Australia but got attacked by Flying Polyps and the contractors from China just keep mumbling something about the Plateau of Leng. So really, it's a no-win situation.
(And yeah, AtMoM was the first thing I thought of at that line as well. Here's hoping now that he's free of the Hobbit Del Torro returns to making the first ever big-budget Lovecraft adaptation)
Some of the projected estimates of how much could be mined from one suitable asteroid are staggering though. Yes, it would be a monstrous project to accomplish, perhaps it would take us twenty years to pull off. But put it in context - a small, metallic asteroid was estimated to yield around $20 trillion dollars worth of iron and precious metals and that's at 1997 prices. Some of the larger asteroids could effectively supply our metal needs on this planet (iron, rare earths, whatever) for any forseeable time period. Sounds like a bargain. And it's not like such a project is purely additional cost, you're long-term shifting the costs from the existing mining industry.
But as good as this is, such projects would re-energise Western countries that are currently in a malaise caused by lots of labour-force freed from being needed due to mechanisation and off-shoring to poorer countries. You can't build an entire society on life-style coaches and shop-assistants. We need to reach out now that we're able to and strive to achieve more. We're not, on the whole, doing that. Which is a big problem for societies where the rewards of mechanisation and off-shoring go to an owning class rather than to people across society. There are only two ways out of that situation - up or down.
I'm also pretty careful about what pictures I appear in, since I have no control what other people do with pictures they've taken.
Don't know how you manage that. You can't go to a party, bar or club at all these days without someone wanting to take pictures for Facebook so they can show the world they have friends,
Hello. You know I agree with pretty much everything you say and get where you're coming from. The only thing I take issue with is the Nerd Elitism (for want of a better word). I've always disliked the social movement that lumps disparate interests such as IT and comic books together. I see it as some mishapen product of the American school system (I'm European) and an unwelcome cultural export that says: you like database analysis and design, therefore you get lumped in with the Star Trek fans, etc. Rolling in a lack of avarice to the ever-expanding remit of the movement, well it's admirable in its way but it's in no way a preserve of "the nerd". I'm not even sure it's a prevalent trait (have you seen the graphics card industry?).
I'm happy that you take some pride in your nerdiness, but (and this is probably a good thing), most of those positive attributes you hold up aren't banners of your tribe, they're just qualities of you as an individual.
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly wonder if people will still deny global warming when we have freighters traveling through the north pole in the summer. I mean, what's it going to take?
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes. Someone can criticise AGW theories without also saying that the world is ever unchanging and will always be so.
Oh, so you're one of those people I hate who keep sending me HTML emails.
Nah, I'm pretty sure everyone on my email list is living in the 21st Century by now. :)
You're computer is only five times as powerful as one built a decade before it?
I was trying to extrapolate where I think things are going. I don't know how much further we're going to go in terms of sheer processor speed. Less far in the next ten years in terms of multiples of what has gone before, than in the previous ten years. There might be some revolutions that lead to much faster computers in the areas where that's needed (scientific computing, perhaps) but less likely in general public computers. We're probably going to see increases in cores and that doesn't translate as well into saying the hardware is "more" or "less" powerful. It's different. Certainly it will be a lot more "powerful" when I'm compiling something. But it may not be as significant when I'm just running an application like Inkscape. Hard to say, really. Partly depends on how much advantage programmers take of multi-core programming. So that's why I was conservative with my estimates. I think my point has some (sarcastic) truth to it, but the numbers are guesswork.
Mutts nice, but I like to send HTML emails and last time I looked at it, that wasn't Mutt. If someone made something as lean and powerful as Mutt, with the HTML editing capabilities of Thunderbird (nowadays a bloated corpse of an email client), it would be my dream email client.
His comments seem reasonable enought to me.
I actually believe that they started using the NT scheme after ME
Slightly before, actually. Windows 2000 followed on from NT. XP followed on from 2000. ME was the last dying gasp of the Win 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 line. It existed simultaneously with 2000 but was very different and wasn't an ancestor of XP, more an evolutionary off-shoot that died out (thankfully).
it's deemed insecure due to their constraints - even though I've handled security in a different section.
Yep - sounds like more bloat to me. In ten years time, we're going to be running our software on hardware five times as powerful as that which we use today and the software will do the same things it does today no faster.
And then some old person will implement an email client in C using only the oldest and slimmest of libraries and everybody's heads will explode with shock at the speed of it.
You missed out Windows 2000. This may be because it was a different stream of Windows, growing more from Windows NT than from the Win 95-98 family. But it is relevant to include it because XP grew from NT, not WinME. Basically, by the time you came to Windows ME (which as you say, was *awful*), you have two competing streams. Windows ME was the death cry of the real 95 descendents. From there on, you had the NT successors: 2000 and XP. Seen in this light, the pattern you identify loses coherence. You do have initial versions of products series sucking - Win 95, Win XP, Vista - followed by improved, snazzier versions - Win 98, Win XP SP1, Win 7. The thing to realise is that Win 8 is highly unlikely to be the start of a new series. With Vista, MS introduced most of the major foundation for new versions. They don't need to do that again with Win 8 (at least I can't see any reason why they would), so Win 8 should theoretically be pretty smooth.
What's interesting is that you say there's basically no reason to upgrade from XP. I disagree with that because Windows 7 is a better experience, takes better advantage of modern hardware and gives you a foundation for newer software What I can't see is the reason people will need to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8. I expect that if you don't have WIndows 7 you'll want to go directly to 8, but if you have 7, I can't see what 8 will offer. I could be wrong - maybe it will have some really innovative features. Now that MS have created a good solid base (Win 7), they may be able to extend that with more interesting ideas. But I think it unlikely there will be any must-haves. As much as anything, Win 8 may just be their marketing way of driving it home to XP users that they're now [i]two[/i] versions behind and they really should get a move on.
That tells me nothing.
Actually, though I understand and agree with your general point, I suspect you've never had any major dealings with Accenture. Microsoft can be good or bad (though with something as lucrative and high-profile as this, they're generally pretty good), but Accenture... Print out every Dilbert comic you've ever read, mush it into a great big soggy pulp and squeeze the distillated management greed and stupidity out into a barrel. Add a shot of highly toxic mercury for the Hell of it. This is what Accenture board members have in their veins instead of blood.
I think you saw that mention of Microsoft and thought: "another Linux cheerleader". Yep, fair enough. But to those of us familiar with Accenture, his post makes a lot of sense. No company in the world does bloat and overrun like Accenture.
Well, maybe EDS.
Can the hardware play 1080p video without needing a noisy fan? How low power is "low-power"?
1080p blu-ray isn't that hard. If that's your primary interest you don't need to worry about getting a fancy card that scores well in gaming tests. The two things don't (mostly) correlate. With AMD cards, you're looking for something that has UVD2 support. That's the clue that indicates a card can give you proper blu-ray playback. And yes, that's plenty possible without a fan. For example, this oldish 4350 should be fine for blu-ray (has UVD2.2, the latest) and is fanless, But I'm certain you could fine this cheaper second-hand.
I think the general issue here is that you see the OP's morale stance as motivated by an arrogant belief that they are better than someone else / a desire to seem better than other people. That doesn't sound very edifying, but it seems you allow no space for people who take a morale stance because they believe in that morality, and that you consider all morality merely an opportunity to "brag [...] about their self-imposed ideals". Which seems a rather bleak view of humanity to me.
I would hire someone who put their morality ahead of their bank account like a shot.
Would you ask?
In the interview for my current job I was asked something like, "you could clearly get a job in IT at an investment bank and earn £10-15k + bonus more than what we're offering. Why have you applied here?" I explained that I wouldn't work for a bank on principle, and that I imagined the work to be boring anyway. I hoped a science (ish) job would be more useful to the world, and that the work would be more interesting.
There are few useful ways to ask someone how ethical they are in an interview. But you give a good example of how it can sometimes come to an employer's attention and in your example, yes, your answer would be a very strong boost to your candidacy. My only concern would be whether someone so strongly motivated by finding their work interesting might leave too soon if the work grew stale. But hopefully that wouldn't be the case.
I would never hire someone that sounded like you; that placed themselves on a pedestal and made claims of moral superiority. Good luck with that endeavor.
I would hire someone who put their morality ahead of their bank account like a shot. So would anyone who (a) was sensible and (b) wasn't wanting to put that person to work doing immoral things. Now I don't know whether you fall down on the being sensible part, or not engaging in immoral things (or both), but your post is borderline nonsense. You think *you* are "providing a luxury" to this person? They have a job so they're not living off you. And if you regard morality as a luxury, then you don't really understand what principles are, you think they're some sort of affectation. And if you really think that the US employment levels are where they are because people are too moral to work for the potenital employers, then you fail at reality.
I have no problem with proprietary software in principle. People should be able to negotiate for the value of their work. But I respect someone adhering to their own beliefs where it harms no-one. Or maybe the GP objects on the grounds of things like the ODF ISO fiasco, which would be more supportable, imo. But in either case, their post comes across a Hell of a lot better than yours does.
He said "decline in the web-forum discussion arena" which means a relative decline. You don't have to change to decline at all if everyone else is improving around you.
;)
That said, my only problems with it are what seem to be an increasing number of Troll stories seemingly posted for the sole sake of getting a nice, hit-count generating flamewar going and a certain echo-chamber like quality amongst the mob where it seems people come here to tell each other that their ideas are radical and right (piracy group-think, I'm looking at you) and to shout at people who don't share the group think.
On topic, why the Hell is this a story? Reasons to work at Microsoft? They pay you money. Or is that out of fashion these days?
Often if someone posts to say something will be modded down, people then mod it up. Also, just because you see something at +5 Informative, doesn't mean it wasn't blasted down as Flamebait, Overrated or Redundant which comments often are for a while first. On the whole, the Slashdot system balances things out because moderations are capped, so it only takes a few people to mod something up to counterbalance a horde of people modding it down. For some reason the process tends to go down first then up, so it depends how long after the comment was posted (and how far down the story it's slid) what outcome you see.
;)
I'm a anti-piracy AGW-skeptic. Trust me, I know about getting modded down.
A white hole?
Looking back at that link, you made that comment nearly three years ago. If the AC is digging it out still, wow - that really is some tragic stalking on their part. We all do stupid things. Weird to have someone bringing it up to badmouth after that length of time.
If movie makers ever will get away from trying to display the 3D and show off, I will welcome it. However, in every wave of 3D so far, this has not happened.
That happens with pretty much any technology. It happened with sound, with colour, with the ability to morph actors into other actors or animals (how many sci-fi and horror films from the Eighties wave this in your face?). First people learn how to do something, then they settle down and learn how not to do it. Some slasher-flicks shove 3D in your face gratuitously. Avatar was a much better example because apart from the odd golf-ball and rifle, the 3D was used carefully.
Not happy with anonymously trolling me, some people feel the need to anonymously stalk me. I feel loved.
Well having just read the linked to comment, it's hardly surprising that you bragging about ruining some people's evening who you didn't even know through sustained harassment of a girl is going to follow you around.
Color enhanced the experience. Stereo enhanced the experience. 5.1 enhanced the experience. 3D on the other hand detracts from the experience. See how that works?
Yep. Stuff you had as a kid is cool. Stuff that' comes out when you're older, is new-fangled and unnecessary. ;)
Well they tried mining in Australia but got attacked by Flying Polyps and the contractors from China just keep mumbling something about the Plateau of Leng. So really, it's a no-win situation.
(And yeah, AtMoM was the first thing I thought of at that line as well. Here's hoping now that he's free of the Hobbit Del Torro returns to making the first ever big-budget Lovecraft adaptation)
Some of the projected estimates of how much could be mined from one suitable asteroid are staggering though. Yes, it would be a monstrous project to accomplish, perhaps it would take us twenty years to pull off. But put it in context - a small, metallic asteroid was estimated to yield around $20 trillion dollars worth of iron and precious metals and that's at 1997 prices. Some of the larger asteroids could effectively supply our metal needs on this planet (iron, rare earths, whatever) for any forseeable time period. Sounds like a bargain. And it's not like such a project is purely additional cost, you're long-term shifting the costs from the existing mining industry.
But as good as this is, such projects would re-energise Western countries that are currently in a malaise caused by lots of labour-force freed from being needed due to mechanisation and off-shoring to poorer countries. You can't build an entire society on life-style coaches and shop-assistants. We need to reach out now that we're able to and strive to achieve more. We're not, on the whole, doing that. Which is a big problem for societies where the rewards of mechanisation and off-shoring go to an owning class rather than to people across society. There are only two ways out of that situation - up or down.
Not as much as how in the Middle East, you can now buy MP5 players. Marketing people. Nobody ever said it better than Bill Hicks.
I'm also pretty careful about what pictures I appear in, since I have no control what other people do with pictures they've taken.
Don't know how you manage that. You can't go to a party, bar or club at all these days without someone wanting to take pictures for Facebook so they can show the world they have friends,
Hello. You know I agree with pretty much everything you say and get where you're coming from. The only thing I take issue with is the Nerd Elitism (for want of a better word). I've always disliked the social movement that lumps disparate interests such as IT and comic books together. I see it as some mishapen product of the American school system (I'm European) and an unwelcome cultural export that says: you like database analysis and design, therefore you get lumped in with the Star Trek fans, etc. Rolling in a lack of avarice to the ever-expanding remit of the movement, well it's admirable in its way but it's in no way a preserve of "the nerd". I'm not even sure it's a prevalent trait (have you seen the graphics card industry?).
I'm happy that you take some pride in your nerdiness, but (and this is probably a good thing), most of those positive attributes you hold up aren't banners of your tribe, they're just qualities of you as an individual.