I imagine that most people buying PCs don't care about where the memory comes from, and I don't think that the PCs' manufacturers care either, as long as there aren't any "Acer uses teh evilRAM"-style headlines to give them bad press.
Ah, I guess I credited the OS with more consistency than I should have. That's a lot less impressive, yet using these symlink things seems such an obvious solution to me.:/
Has some rather worrying implications for back compatability, doesn't it? You might have to go and buy your software again to make sure it doesn't try to eat itself. Wait a minute...
"Virtual folders", I believe it's used for
on
Vista To Get Symlinks?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Some of the Vista previews have shown off things dubbed "virtual folders" which work in a similar way to browsing by artist or album in the current version of Media Player. You can manipulate the files like it's a normal folder window, yet the actual files may be scattered over different folders and drives. Presumably it's an effort to make managing large amounts of music/video outside of Media Player easier. They almost certainly use these symbolic links. They're a bit different from shortcuts.
The one major drawback with OLED monitors at the moment is their lifespan. The blue OLEDs have historically had a tendency to die before the others, which isn't a problem for a MP3 player screen but pretty much ends a video display.
That said, what's the oldest display you've got?
Very interesting, players could use generic items as "currency" even if Microsoft stop them transferring points to eachother. That currency could then be converted back into opints at will.
You can sell your own items to other players for points, but not for real cash. It's all points when you're online. Of course, by getting points in this way, you have to spend less cash on your MMORPG subscription and so on.
The implication there is that it needs reviving. As far as I'm aware it's the healthiest part of the company by a long shot. Sony really are banking on SCE: when the PS2 began to approach saturation point (pre-slimline PS2) and sales dipped, Sonys profits dropped by some obscene percentage.
I appreciate that mass production would allow for a whole lot of rovers for a significantly reduced outlay, but that has its own drawbacks in terms of the value of the information created, not to mention the shortage of launch slots available. I guess it's a balance that NASA think tips in the direction of more one-off launches; that could very well change in the future. I think that's a more reasonable explaination than saying that NASA chose this model in order to artifically perpetuate themselves (not that I see the logic there).
There's already been considerable backing for the "many probes" approach by those in the field.
Sounds a bit like Scotty's engineering estimates:
LaForge: "Yeah, well, I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour."
Scotty: "How long will it really take?"
LaForge: "An hour."
Scotty: "You didn't tell him now long it would really take, did you?"
LaForge: "Of course I did."
Scotty: "Laddie, you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!"
It still costs a huge amount to send rovers into space. It's not like a PS2 where R&D costs a few hundred million and then they can run them off at $100 a pop, you know. Therefore it's probably worth the extra cost of designing a new mission with more, better instruments.
Well, look at it this way: the rovers were designed with redundancy and robustness so that if things go somewhat wrong they can still provide their target lifespan. A side effect of this is that when things don't go wrong, they exceed their target lifespan.
I'd say that it doesn't work is a prefectly good reason to throw this idea out. And science's incomplete view of vortex phenomena is no reason to reject current models or embrace the first bit of bizarre claptrap that comes along.
Ah, sorry, and yes, I am rather new at discussing here. This one just threw me because I'm just more used to seeing news stories submitted that have been covered elsewhere (e.g. the BBC or New Scientist) which adds an extra layer of editorial filtering.
I'm more shocked that it got through when the article submitter works for the source website. Surely waiting for some qualified thirdparty to confirm the news isn't nonsense would've been wise?
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that most people buying PCs don't care about where the memory comes from, and I don't think that the PCs' manufacturers care either, as long as there aren't any "Acer uses teh evilRAM"-style headlines to give them bad press.
D'oh, got my wires crossed. I'd read about the patent on this kind of display just a week or so ago too.
Oh, I agree, I just went for the media thing because that was where it would prove most useful.
Ah, I guess I credited the OS with more consistency than I should have. That's a lot less impressive, yet using these symlink things seems such an obvious solution to me. :/
Has some rather worrying implications for back compatability, doesn't it? You might have to go and buy your software again to make sure it doesn't try to eat itself. Wait a minute...
Some of the Vista previews have shown off things dubbed "virtual folders" which work in a similar way to browsing by artist or album in the current version of Media Player. You can manipulate the files like it's a normal folder window, yet the actual files may be scattered over different folders and drives. Presumably it's an effort to make managing large amounts of music/video outside of Media Player easier. They almost certainly use these symbolic links. They're a bit different from shortcuts.
The one major drawback with OLED monitors at the moment is their lifespan. The blue OLEDs have historically had a tendency to die before the others, which isn't a problem for a MP3 player screen but pretty much ends a video display. That said, what's the oldest display you've got?
Because ActiveX widgets (somewhat fortunately for security reasons) don't work on much else?
You're right of course. The moderation system can take care of these folks more effectively if they're ignored.
Very interesting, players could use generic items as "currency" even if Microsoft stop them transferring points to eachother. That currency could then be converted back into opints at will.
I'm more worried at the suggestion that if the BBFC allow the game to be released, the Government will go over their heads and ban it anyway.
You can sell your own items to other players for points, but not for real cash. It's all points when you're online. Of course, by getting points in this way, you have to spend less cash on your MMORPG subscription and so on.
Why are you even here? Shouldn't you be off discussing this somewhere relevant instead of lowering the tone of a sci-tech discussion site?
Yes, poor people are in trouble because they keep buying overpriced luxury goods. That's the real root of the problem.
The implication there is that it needs reviving. As far as I'm aware it's the healthiest part of the company by a long shot. Sony really are banking on SCE: when the PS2 began to approach saturation point (pre-slimline PS2) and sales dipped, Sonys profits dropped by some obscene percentage.
I suspect that when they said things were "looking good" they meant that the games were running properly on the system.
I appreciate that mass production would allow for a whole lot of rovers for a significantly reduced outlay, but that has its own drawbacks in terms of the value of the information created, not to mention the shortage of launch slots available. I guess it's a balance that NASA think tips in the direction of more one-off launches; that could very well change in the future. I think that's a more reasonable explaination than saying that NASA chose this model in order to artifically perpetuate themselves (not that I see the logic there). There's already been considerable backing for the "many probes" approach by those in the field.
Sounds a bit like Scotty's engineering estimates: LaForge: "Yeah, well, I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour." Scotty: "How long will it really take?" LaForge: "An hour." Scotty: "You didn't tell him now long it would really take, did you?" LaForge: "Of course I did." Scotty: "Laddie, you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!"
It still costs a huge amount to send rovers into space. It's not like a PS2 where R&D costs a few hundred million and then they can run them off at $100 a pop, you know. Therefore it's probably worth the extra cost of designing a new mission with more, better instruments.
Well, look at it this way: the rovers were designed with redundancy and robustness so that if things go somewhat wrong they can still provide their target lifespan. A side effect of this is that when things don't go wrong, they exceed their target lifespan.
I'd say that it doesn't work is a prefectly good reason to throw this idea out. And science's incomplete view of vortex phenomena is no reason to reject current models or embrace the first bit of bizarre claptrap that comes along.
You do realise the subtle appropriateness and insight of your choice of phrase there, right?
Thanks, (non-chemical) thermodynamics isn't my strong suit.
Ah, sorry, and yes, I am rather new at discussing here. This one just threw me because I'm just more used to seeing news stories submitted that have been covered elsewhere (e.g. the BBC or New Scientist) which adds an extra layer of editorial filtering.
I'm more shocked that it got through when the article submitter works for the source website. Surely waiting for some qualified thirdparty to confirm the news isn't nonsense would've been wise?