This rollback procedure got my Win7 x64 system booting again:
From another system with the same bit width and service pack level, grab the files C:\Windows\System32\gdi32.dll and C:\Windows\System32\Win32k.sys.
Using HBCD or a similar boot disc, boot your defunct system. You can also snag the hard drive and plug it into another working computer.
BACK UP the gdi32.dll and win32k.sys files from System32 to another location just in case. Overwrite those two files in System32 with the ones you grabbed from the other system.
Your system is now bootable, having effectively rolled back the KB2982791 update. This is a quick and dirty procedure and leaves the update itself in an indeterminate state.
I wonder which direction the money flows in cases like this. Does Facebook pay the carrier, or does the carrier pay Facebook? Seems to me that both parties are equally at fault here. Some suits probably had a meeting about increasing shareholder value and leveraging popular apps and shook hands, then told the dev team to make it happen. Not that I'm thrilled with bundled software being possible on Android... I wish it wasn't... but it's not Android's fault that someone got greedy.
I did this to a former roommate as well. He would have HD videos (Netflix, Youtube, etc) streaming on his computer AND game consoles at the same time, while he was uploading videos he was editing and downloading games and stuff like that.
Exactly my point... If you learn a skill at your job, your employer cannot strip you of that skill when you leave.
Obviously selling government secrets is different from saying here's how you implement industry best practices to create security processes.
If the government had a secret security-bypassing technique, and had educated him on its use, he may or may not be obligated under his new employer to close the hole. And as a constituent of that government, I would approve of that use of that information.
Publicists usually say that any kind of buzz is good for business.
And they know people are going to buy it. When J. Random User with $400 walks into a store and wants to buy a laptop, does (s)he have any other choice?
Same experience here... There were turds in all these hidden locations, because the cat knew I would be upset about it... and the cat was always so guilty looking and skittish (normally greets me like a dog) when I would come home to a fresh one. So I didn't even find out about the clumping or odor control. It doesn't seem like they even tested the product before going to market.
Nobody (or nearly nobody) is doing or wants 384khz in studios. 192khz is next to non-existant as well and it gets pretty heated in the forums when people discuss whether there's any benefit to 192 over 96 and it usually comes down to "it's good if your equipment supports it because it will be more accurate at lower sample rates". Some tracking engineers will record at 88 or 96, but it's usually 48k. The tradeoff between disk space and sound quality for higher sample rates just isn't attractive. When you have 30, 40, or more tracks plus alternate takes plus renders plus bounced down tracks, all at several minutes long, that gets huge really fast and you can't just burn a CD with those files for backups anymore. Having a bunch of in-flight projects on the computer at the same time, you have to be mindful of disk space. The CPU use required to process that gets really big too, especially if you use a lot of plugins and a lot of tracks, and most plugins don't even support 192, never mind 384. Forget about tracking a lot of them at once, the latency can get pretty big. I have not seen software that advertised support for 384. Also in the mix is the fact that many of the ADC/DAC interfaces in common use don't even support a 192khz samplerate, and you'd possibly need more digital clocks. That gets expensive real fast. Now, I know some people would do it and I'd see massive threads in the engineering forums if it became an advertised feature! There would even be one or two people who would claim you can hear a difference, and a huge argument about that.
24-bit is fairly standard and 32-bit is in use by a lot of people who want that nearly infinite headroom while mixing.
It all gets downsampled to 44/16 (CD, MP3, AAC, YouTube) or 48/16-48/24 (Dolby Digital, DTS) for the end product anyway. We'll see what happens with the next gen stuff like Pono or whatever Apple is doing, if it goes the way of SACD and DVD-Audio.
Partial downtime / reduced capacity still represents money though. In some cases, large amounts of money. There are a lot of realtime call processing systems that run 2003 because the vendor doesn't support, or charges a lot of money to upgrade to software supporting, Server 2008 or newer. The systems need to come online in a specific order instead of all at once (might be 4-10 or more) and if you have a vendor onsite doing maintenance, charging by the hour, who can't leave until it's verified operational, that 15-60 minutes per server gets really expensive.
Yup, frequent and sane fliers do. The rest of us who might fly once or twice in our lifetimes would prefer not to hear conference calls on that 12 hour day of flying.
They have a lot of settlements like that with unions, groups, the DEC, etc etc. and there are still ongoing negotiations with some of those.
It does total a lot of money. They actually had the cash reserves to just pay that and continue business as usual. This was a company turning over multiple billions back then, with huge sustained growth.
If it did actually hurt that much, it would have made great business sense to be more in tune with the market, in order to profitably manage what they had left after that. Wouldn't you think?
And then realize that for Kodak to capitalize on the digital revolution they'd have needed(...)
All those other companies pulled it off. Kodak simply didn't WANT to do it because they were making big money maintaining their status quo.
It's a classic story of pride and hubris. They were the big dogs and making easy money today has a funny way of blinding people to the future. The execs in the early 2000s realized their error but it was too late. By then, the executives responsible were long gone. Most of them retired with their millions from the film era.
I don't know where this meme of "Kodak had the world in the hands, but failed to embrace digital and lost it all" got started
Their EMPLOYEES at the time are the ones who started that. They were privy to the meetings where those decisions were made. Go ahead. Find one and ask them! I have worked and do currently work with a lot of ex-Kodak people. It's accurate. People were telling them "digital is the future" for DECADES, they even invented the technology. It's not like they failed at one crucial moment. They continually made the conscious choice not to do it for about 25 years, in spite of clear trends for the latter 15 years of that span.
in 1990 it *was* easier to share photo's on a CD
Absolutely, I agree with you. The point I make is that Photo CD was an expensive format that you couldn't make yourself. It cost the labs too much to make and you needed special software/equipment to view them. Regular CDs could contain whatever you wanted, including images at any resolution you wanted, and you could burn them yourself. So Kodak threw a pile of money away on that.
Slashdot Mirror
This rollback procedure got my Win7 x64 system booting again:
From another system with the same bit width and service pack level, grab the files C:\Windows\System32\gdi32.dll and C:\Windows\System32\Win32k.sys.
Using HBCD or a similar boot disc, boot your defunct system. You can also snag the hard drive and plug it into another working computer.
BACK UP the gdi32.dll and win32k.sys files from System32 to another location just in case. Overwrite those two files in System32 with the ones you grabbed from the other system.
Your system is now bootable, having effectively rolled back the KB2982791 update. This is a quick and dirty procedure and leaves the update itself in an indeterminate state.
No no, upsell and upset are synonymous in this case. It's totally okay.
I wonder which direction the money flows in cases like this. Does Facebook pay the carrier, or does the carrier pay Facebook? Seems to me that both parties are equally at fault here. Some suits probably had a meeting about increasing shareholder value and leveraging popular apps and shook hands, then told the dev team to make it happen. Not that I'm thrilled with bundled software being possible on Android... I wish it wasn't... but it's not Android's fault that someone got greedy.
> Google's Android phones flat out REFUSE to uninstall Facebook, for example.
It uninstalls just fine, thank you very much.
Or are you referring specifically to Nexus devices?
I did this to a former roommate as well. He would have HD videos (Netflix, Youtube, etc) streaming on his computer AND game consoles at the same time, while he was uploading videos he was editing and downloading games and stuff like that.
Exactly my point... If you learn a skill at your job, your employer cannot strip you of that skill when you leave.
Obviously selling government secrets is different from saying here's how you implement industry best practices to create security processes.
If the government had a secret security-bypassing technique, and had educated him on its use, he may or may not be obligated under his new employer to close the hole. And as a constituent of that government, I would approve of that use of that information.
"Without the classified information he acquired in his former position, he literally would have nothing to offer to you."
Oh brother. A former work colleague saying "You'd be nothing without us!"
It's not like a person exists outside of their job, or can ever learn new things, right?
Which big box retailer or mall outlet sells those?
Publicists usually say that any kind of buzz is good for business.
And they know people are going to buy it. When J. Random User with $400 walks into a store and wants to buy a laptop, does (s)he have any other choice?
Same experience here... There were turds in all these hidden locations, because the cat knew I would be upset about it... and the cat was always so guilty looking and skittish (normally greets me like a dog) when I would come home to a fresh one. So I didn't even find out about the clumping or odor control. It doesn't seem like they even tested the product before going to market.
It would be awesome if cell phone salespeople would be aware of that and help their customers who are switching platforms.
That first screenshot... I thought I was looking at a slightly less polished MacOS/X for a minute there. The resemblance is strong.
Exactly. Those squids are people too. We have way too many insensitive clods in here these days.
Nobody (or nearly nobody) is doing or wants 384khz in studios. 192khz is next to non-existant as well and it gets pretty heated in the forums when people discuss whether there's any benefit to 192 over 96 and it usually comes down to "it's good if your equipment supports it because it will be more accurate at lower sample rates". Some tracking engineers will record at 88 or 96, but it's usually 48k. The tradeoff between disk space and sound quality for higher sample rates just isn't attractive. When you have 30, 40, or more tracks plus alternate takes plus renders plus bounced down tracks, all at several minutes long, that gets huge really fast and you can't just burn a CD with those files for backups anymore. Having a bunch of in-flight projects on the computer at the same time, you have to be mindful of disk space. The CPU use required to process that gets really big too, especially if you use a lot of plugins and a lot of tracks, and most plugins don't even support 192, never mind 384. Forget about tracking a lot of them at once, the latency can get pretty big. I have not seen software that advertised support for 384. Also in the mix is the fact that many of the ADC/DAC interfaces in common use don't even support a 192khz samplerate, and you'd possibly need more digital clocks. That gets expensive real fast. Now, I know some people would do it and I'd see massive threads in the engineering forums if it became an advertised feature! There would even be one or two people who would claim you can hear a difference, and a huge argument about that.
24-bit is fairly standard and 32-bit is in use by a lot of people who want that nearly infinite headroom while mixing.
It all gets downsampled to 44/16 (CD, MP3, AAC, YouTube) or 48/16-48/24 (Dolby Digital, DTS) for the end product anyway. We'll see what happens with the next gen stuff like Pono or whatever Apple is doing, if it goes the way of SACD and DVD-Audio.
Yeah, exactly.
Line 66 of that page...
script type="text/javascript" src="http://www-images.panasonic.com/includes/js/jquery-1.7.1.min.js"
script type="text/javascript" src="http://www-images.panasonic.com/includes/js/header/jquery.hoverIntent.minified.js"
Duh.
Can I recommend some of these?
http://www.amazon.com/Etymotic...
Huge noise reduction and a lot lighter weight.
Or learn how to access it...
Remember, if "They" can do it, for any value of They, so can someone else.
If Google can merge Samsung's camera stuff into stock Android... win for everyone!
Partial downtime / reduced capacity still represents money though. In some cases, large amounts of money. There are a lot of realtime call processing systems that run 2003 because the vendor doesn't support, or charges a lot of money to upgrade to software supporting, Server 2008 or newer. The systems need to come online in a specific order instead of all at once (might be 4-10 or more) and if you have a vendor onsite doing maintenance, charging by the hour, who can't leave until it's verified operational, that 15-60 minutes per server gets really expensive.
Yup, frequent and sane fliers do. The rest of us who might fly once or twice in our lifetimes would prefer not to hear conference calls on that 12 hour day of flying.
A duck.
It reliably dumps a longer stack trace than my scrollback can handle, anyway.
They sure have, but seeing what that was exposed on that film takes a while when you have to retrieve it from a satellite.
They have a lot of settlements like that with unions, groups, the DEC, etc etc. and there are still ongoing negotiations with some of those.
It does total a lot of money. They actually had the cash reserves to just pay that and continue business as usual. This was a company turning over multiple billions back then, with huge sustained growth.
If it did actually hurt that much, it would have made great business sense to be more in tune with the market, in order to profitably manage what they had left after that. Wouldn't you think?
And then realize that for Kodak to capitalize on the digital revolution they'd have needed(...)
All those other companies pulled it off. Kodak simply didn't WANT to do it because they were making big money maintaining their status quo.
It's a classic story of pride and hubris. They were the big dogs and making easy money today has a funny way of blinding people to the future. The execs in the early 2000s realized their error but it was too late. By then, the executives responsible were long gone. Most of them retired with their millions from the film era.
I don't know where this meme of "Kodak had the world in the hands, but failed to embrace digital and lost it all" got started
Their EMPLOYEES at the time are the ones who started that. They were privy to the meetings where those decisions were made. Go ahead. Find one and ask them! I have worked and do currently work with a lot of ex-Kodak people. It's accurate. People were telling them "digital is the future" for DECADES, they even invented the technology. It's not like they failed at one crucial moment. They continually made the conscious choice not to do it for about 25 years, in spite of clear trends for the latter 15 years of that span.
in 1990 it *was* easier to share photo's on a CD
Absolutely, I agree with you. The point I make is that Photo CD was an expensive format that you couldn't make yourself. It cost the labs too much to make and you needed special software/equipment to view them. Regular CDs could contain whatever you wanted, including images at any resolution you wanted, and you could burn them yourself. So Kodak threw a pile of money away on that.