I'd say that enigma of "2" is at least weakly linked with the truth of "1". Cult literature is probably unique in that a piss-poor and unfaithful cinema adaptation will create more column inches and consequently draw in more punters than an equally bad movie cut from whole cloth.
If you're sailing in a yacht made of cake with sails of tissue paper, with pegs for both legs and hooks for both hands, it's useful to know where the leaks in your boat are.
That's not how I remember it - they were pretty clear with the press that the game was nowhere near complete and would need another year. Seeing as anyone could look at the game at that stage and see how unfinished it was, for them to claim otherwise would've been preposterous.
Well, in that instance the 1 genius would be a dumbass for using the mean when the distribution of intelligence clearly makes it an unsuitable measure, so you have a world of 100 dumbasses and everything balances out.
Flash banner instructs me that I should go to specsavers. I did, in fact, go to specsavers several years ago, where I purchased the spectacles I now look through, if not the actual lenses.
It's been quoted as anything from one to five microns for moulds, depending on the source. Generally speaking, newer sources quote around the one micron figure, so I think they update the press materials as they improve the manufacturing process. It's not clear how this translates into the tolerances for bricks. They could buy molds with a tolerance of +/-2 microns and produce bricks with a tolerance of +/-1 micron. It's probably cheaper to manufacture inaccurate moulds and recycle 5% of your bricks, after all. Still, he had the right order of magnitude.
As for that source you quote, I wouldn't trust something which supposes a tolerance can be quoted as "no better than" a certain value, which is surely the exact opposite of a manufacturing tolerance. I suspect a marketing copyeditor got their hands in there.
That's a bit disingenuous, sure, although literally true (Page's blocks, and Christiansen's original derivatives, were rather different from the modern Lego brick). However their own history of the brick is pretty clear that it was derived from Page's blocks.
Addenum: Actually I'm having trouble finding particularly solid sources that Lego acquired the rights to the Kiddicraft blocks. At any rate, there were no exclusive rights on the mainland to purchase, and by the time the Lego "system" appeared (which led to the product's success), many of Page's patents had already expired, and he was deceased.
Your timeline is incorrect, based on most of the sources I can find. Lego-to-be obtained samples of Page's blocks back around '47, and although Page hadn't bothered to patent them outside the UK and France (where he had businesses), Lego-to-be obtained the rights to produce the blocks from Kiddicraft anyway, in '49. The started selling their own that year. Both sets of bricks were abysmal failures by any reasonable measure. Page didn't commit suicide until '57, and Lego didn't introduce the central "tube" until '58. Lego acquired all of Kiddicraft's remaining plastic block patents in ninteen eighty one, almost twenty-five years after Page's suicide, as an aid to their impending litigation.
This article, right here, states that the Windows 7 interface is quicker, while the actual computational performance of a machine running Windows 7 is not changed. That is what it says, and it's interesting. What it does not do is come up with some bunch of crap about crippling compatability issues which seem to be pure inventions of this summary's author.
Computing site shocked to discover that FlickR performs poorly in comparison to photos stored on hard drive. FlickR declared backwards-ass waste of time.
Ah, but the other article was about how Windows performed the same computationally while having a faster interface. That failed to needlessly bash Microsoft by extrapolating miles from the evidence, and therefore was insufficient.
One of the biggest PR failures of Vista was serious compatability issues with old software and hardware. (I'm going to blame the soft/hardware makers for this. Everyone had 5 years to collect an arsenal of XP gear so I don't think they cried themselves to sleep that we had to buy new Vista Compatible printers just because they couldn't be bothered fixing the drivers.) MS have decided to base Win7 almost entirely around the existing Vista kernel to avoid this, hence the identical performance. "[I]ntroducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues" would be more likely if MS had decided to chase performance improvements in Win7, unless they based Win7 around the old XP kernel (which ain't happening in their new one-kernel-to-rule-them-all approach).
Y'know, having briefly been part of the freebie-grabbing online reviewing circuit, I've got to say that it just does not matter. Serious journos are so saturated in free tat that it becomes utterly meaningless, while the half-rate bloggers running home excited at their free laptop are unlikely to make much of a PR impact anyway. Ultimately free stuff just devalues the product in the reviewer's mind. It's the all-expenses-paid promo junkets that worry me more.
Word is that it does have a revamped kernel. However it's not clear just how it worked out - it seems they pulled some essential parts of the Win32 kernel out of MinWin so it's not really "minimum windows" any more. It looks like it's more about making it easy for Microsoft to rework the OS than actually making Win7 teeny-tiny.
Indeed. Here's a version that pits OSX against Win 2000. That said, that Vista's network stack shipped in such a state as to make that seem plausable is damning in itself. (I find it much, much nippier since SP1 thankfully.)
Well, it's worth pointing out that Win7 and Vista are not processing at the same speed as XP and everything else, just the same speed as each other. How much of that performance hit is acceptable is up for debate, although it's reassuring that Win7 isn't any more of a burden than Vista.
Actually the feedback is, people are finding "click to usable outcome" is quicker. None of the feedback says "Windows shows placeholder windows quicker and we think this is just fantastic".
I dunno about most of you, but I do consider a nippier interface to be an improvement in productivity. For the vast majority of Windows users, the thing they want to see improved is those moments lost "when they click a button and nothing seems to happen", as the article author puts it. That is time that has been taken from me. If I get those moments back, and the performance of the trivial CPU tasks involved in actually reading and writing files are kept the same, then yes, my productivity has improved.
I imagine it's not "a criminal" they're worried about but organised-but-unapproved stores like allofmp3 or pirate sources like ThePirateBay. ThePirateBay is protected by their juristiction's hands-off approach to file sharing, but I imagine that trademark law there is much more cut-and-dry.
Traditionally the way logo-approval schemes have gone is that you apply to the group that owns the logo for permission to use it, and possibly pay out a lot of licencing fees. That's my biggest concern. I'd like to see this logo pop up on emusic.com, or ocremix, for example, but politically that may not happen.
That's a really undersold benefit of Linux-as-we-know-it. Everything is built in, or can be found on the repositories in a way that makes Windows Update look amateurish.
My understanding is that for serious computer forensics you need to work on bit-level duplicates of the original drive, with the original protected by a hardware write-blocker from the moment it's extracted from the original machine (and doing that without risking loss of evidence is quite a challenge in itself, coming down to a choice between data loss through a specially modified shutdown.exe or data loss through yanking the mains). There's just no other way to properly guarantee that the data is pristine. By malice or error, it is entirely possible for you to destroy or contaminate computer evidence, even if you've booted up a Linux disk that's not supposed to write to the original drive, and isn't supposed to give you the ability to fiddle with the contents of the original drive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that enigma of "2" is at least weakly linked with the truth of "1". Cult literature is probably unique in that a piss-poor and unfaithful cinema adaptation will create more column inches and consequently draw in more punters than an equally bad movie cut from whole cloth.
If you're sailing in a yacht made of cake with sails of tissue paper, with pegs for both legs and hooks for both hands, it's useful to know where the leaks in your boat are.
That's not how I remember it - they were pretty clear with the press that the game was nowhere near complete and would need another year. Seeing as anyone could look at the game at that stage and see how unfinished it was, for them to claim otherwise would've been preposterous.
Well, in that instance the 1 genius would be a dumbass for using the mean when the distribution of intelligence clearly makes it an unsuitable measure, so you have a world of 100 dumbasses and everything balances out.
Flash banner instructs me that I should go to specsavers. I did, in fact, go to specsavers several years ago, where I purchased the spectacles I now look through, if not the actual lenses.
To coin a phrase, a religion is a cult with an army and a navy. 'course, Scientology's already got one of those sorted.
It's been quoted as anything from one to five microns for moulds, depending on the source. Generally speaking, newer sources quote around the one micron figure, so I think they update the press materials as they improve the manufacturing process. It's not clear how this translates into the tolerances for bricks. They could buy molds with a tolerance of +/-2 microns and produce bricks with a tolerance of +/-1 micron. It's probably cheaper to manufacture inaccurate moulds and recycle 5% of your bricks, after all. Still, he had the right order of magnitude.
As for that source you quote, I wouldn't trust something which supposes a tolerance can be quoted as "no better than" a certain value, which is surely the exact opposite of a manufacturing tolerance. I suspect a marketing copyeditor got their hands in there.
That's a bit disingenuous, sure, although literally true (Page's blocks, and Christiansen's original derivatives, were rather different from the modern Lego brick). However their own history of the brick is pretty clear that it was derived from Page's blocks.
Addenum: Actually I'm having trouble finding particularly solid sources that Lego acquired the rights to the Kiddicraft blocks. At any rate, there were no exclusive rights on the mainland to purchase, and by the time the Lego "system" appeared (which led to the product's success), many of Page's patents had already expired, and he was deceased.
Your timeline is incorrect, based on most of the sources I can find. Lego-to-be obtained samples of Page's blocks back around '47, and although Page hadn't bothered to patent them outside the UK and France (where he had businesses), Lego-to-be obtained the rights to produce the blocks from Kiddicraft anyway, in '49. The started selling their own that year. Both sets of bricks were abysmal failures by any reasonable measure. Page didn't commit suicide until '57, and Lego didn't introduce the central "tube" until '58. Lego acquired all of Kiddicraft's remaining plastic block patents in ninteen eighty one, almost twenty-five years after Page's suicide, as an aid to their impending litigation.
This article, right here, states that the Windows 7 interface is quicker, while the actual computational performance of a machine running Windows 7 is not changed. That is what it says, and it's interesting. What it does not do is come up with some bunch of crap about crippling compatability issues which seem to be pure inventions of this summary's author.
Computing site shocked to discover that FlickR performs poorly in comparison to photos stored on hard drive. FlickR declared backwards-ass waste of time.
Ah, but the other article was about how Windows performed the same computationally while having a faster interface. That failed to needlessly bash Microsoft by extrapolating miles from the evidence, and therefore was insufficient.
One of the biggest PR failures of Vista was serious compatability issues with old software and hardware. (I'm going to blame the soft/hardware makers for this. Everyone had 5 years to collect an arsenal of XP gear so I don't think they cried themselves to sleep that we had to buy new Vista Compatible printers just because they couldn't be bothered fixing the drivers.) MS have decided to base Win7 almost entirely around the existing Vista kernel to avoid this, hence the identical performance. "[I]ntroducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues" would be more likely if MS had decided to chase performance improvements in Win7, unless they based Win7 around the old XP kernel (which ain't happening in their new one-kernel-to-rule-them-all approach).
Y'know, having briefly been part of the freebie-grabbing online reviewing circuit, I've got to say that it just does not matter. Serious journos are so saturated in free tat that it becomes utterly meaningless, while the half-rate bloggers running home excited at their free laptop are unlikely to make much of a PR impact anyway. Ultimately free stuff just devalues the product in the reviewer's mind. It's the all-expenses-paid promo junkets that worry me more.
Word is that it does have a revamped kernel. However it's not clear just how it worked out - it seems they pulled some essential parts of the Win32 kernel out of MinWin so it's not really "minimum windows" any more. It looks like it's more about making it easy for Microsoft to rework the OS than actually making Win7 teeny-tiny.
Indeed. Here's a version that pits OSX against Win 2000. That said, that Vista's network stack shipped in such a state as to make that seem plausable is damning in itself. (I find it much, much nippier since SP1 thankfully.)
Well, it's worth pointing out that Win7 and Vista are not processing at the same speed as XP and everything else, just the same speed as each other. How much of that performance hit is acceptable is up for debate, although it's reassuring that Win7 isn't any more of a burden than Vista.
Actually the feedback is, people are finding "click to usable outcome" is quicker. None of the feedback says "Windows shows placeholder windows quicker and we think this is just fantastic".
I dunno about most of you, but I do consider a nippier interface to be an improvement in productivity. For the vast majority of Windows users, the thing they want to see improved is those moments lost "when they click a button and nothing seems to happen", as the article author puts it. That is time that has been taken from me. If I get those moments back, and the performance of the trivial CPU tasks involved in actually reading and writing files are kept the same, then yes, my productivity has improved.
I imagine it's not "a criminal" they're worried about but organised-but-unapproved stores like allofmp3 or pirate sources like ThePirateBay. ThePirateBay is protected by their juristiction's hands-off approach to file sharing, but I imagine that trademark law there is much more cut-and-dry.
Traditionally the way logo-approval schemes have gone is that you apply to the group that owns the logo for permission to use it, and possibly pay out a lot of licencing fees. That's my biggest concern. I'd like to see this logo pop up on emusic.com, or ocremix, for example, but politically that may not happen.
That's a really undersold benefit of Linux-as-we-know-it. Everything is built in, or can be found on the repositories in a way that makes Windows Update look amateurish.
My understanding is that for serious computer forensics you need to work on bit-level duplicates of the original drive, with the original protected by a hardware write-blocker from the moment it's extracted from the original machine (and doing that without risking loss of evidence is quite a challenge in itself, coming down to a choice between data loss through a specially modified shutdown.exe or data loss through yanking the mains). There's just no other way to properly guarantee that the data is pristine. By malice or error, it is entirely possible for you to destroy or contaminate computer evidence, even if you've booted up a Linux disk that's not supposed to write to the original drive, and isn't supposed to give you the ability to fiddle with the contents of the original drive.
I'm betting on McCain. I consider it a form of compensation should he actually get in.