Microsoft's virtual desktop manager seems to exist for the sole purpose of convincing people that virtual desktop managers don't work. If you're used to X11 virtual desktops it's no substitute at all.
>the two are completely unrelated and this story refers to the BBC TV program. No it doesn't. From the article (the first paragraph instead):
Keith Vaz, Member of Parliament for Leicester East, called for a discussion of Rockstar Games' Bully (Canis Canem Edit in the UK) in today's Prime Minister's Question Time.
Followed by (beginning of next paragraph)
Vaz addressed Tony Blair in London's House of Commons...
That seems to be pretty clearly the parlimentary Question Time (or Prime Minister's Questions or "Questions to the Prime Minister" as it's called in the UK), and not a BBC programme.
> You don't care because you don't understand. Performance, cost and power consumption are directly affected by such things as clock-speed, cache, core integration, architecture etc.
Yes, but saying "Oooh, our chip is true quad core and yours isn't" doesn't on its own say anything about final cost or performance. They might as well have said "But ours are red".
It's a clue that it might perform better with all other factors being equal, which they're not, so it's still a useless statement. Until they benchmarks are out, it's all just speculation.
They also work a hell of a lot better outside. The older screens may not have suffered from reflections, but the newer ones don't wash out in strong light. My previous laptop with a matte screen was practically useless outside, whereas my current one with a glossy screen is fine. I don't know if it's the glossyness that's responsible but if it is, then it's an acceptible trade-off for me.
I suspected that might be the case after replying. In which case, you must be well aware that you are so far in the minority that you statistically don't even exist, and we never had this conversation;)
> It is a connection, not authorized by the user, possibly giving the full HTTP-headers as well. You haven't got the slightest idea how it works, and yet you're condemning it. Stop and think about how a sane person would implement a blacklist based phishing protection system and _then_ explain to me how it's a privacy problem. (Hint, it won't include connecting to another party every time you go to a web page)
It's no more a privacy problem than when your anti-virus software downloads it's latest definition files.
You mean the disabled-by-default option to use Google (or potentially another search engine - hence the drop-down) to check if the site is a phising site? The one that very clearly tells you what it will be doing and verifies that you really want to do it first?
The Anti-Phising feature itself is enabled by default, but by default it does _NOT_ use Google, it uses a downloaded blacklist.
My impression of it is certainly not "Google Spyware", it's "Framework for allowing Firefox to check pages against search engine results", the default search engine you can use - if you enable it - being Google.
A properly written piece of legislation wouldn't prevent that. I have no idea whether or not the proposed bill in the USA is properly written though;)
The issue is not giving YouTube faster access to customers at a price, it's prioritizing their traffic over providers that don't pay - and thus penalizing the providers that don't pay, due to the fact that bandwidth is finite. The situation you describe wouldn't cause that - in fact, it would be better for everyone, because traffic to YouTube that would normally slow down regular internet traffic would instead be going through the dedicated link.
However, I'm not sure that's what the ISPs have in mind - that would require a whole lot of investment and there'd be very few content providers willing to do it. From the ISPs point of view it's much simpler and cheaper to use the extortion method.
Re:Why would you want an RFID blocking wallet??
on
Top Ten Geek Wallets
·
· Score: 1
That's why I said I'd stick it in the safe.
I certainly don't trust myself not to lose it somewhere if I was carrying it round. I'd probably carry a photocopy of the important pages though, just in case. (not much help getting through immigration, but a big help at your embassy / high commission)
Where do people get the idea that Microsoft doesn't charge for point releases? They've _always_ charged for point releases.
XP itself is a point release - it's Windows NT 5.1. It was the same with the Windows 9.x series. 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.10 and ME was 4.somethingelse Even Windows 98 SE wasn't a free upgrade from Windows 98. And Windows 3.1 certainly wasn't a free upgrade from 3.0
There are four parties involved. A. The content provider B. The content provider's ISP / Hosting provider, whatever C. The consumer D. The consumer's ISP (in this case NextGenTel)
Note - A is _NOT_ a customer of D.
If A wants to serve more content at higher speeds, no problem, they pay B more money. If C wants to get more content at higher speeds, again no problem, they pay D more money. No one has any problem with that concept.
The problem is when D decides that they can extort money out of A, by throttling the traffic between C and A unless A pays them some money - regardless of the fact that D doesn't actually provide any service to A. They try to use the justification that with there being so much high bandwidth content around that they can't handle the load anymore, so someone has to pay. But they gloss over the fact that someone _IS_ paying: C, the customer that actually requested the content from A in the first place. If C's internet habits are really costing D money, then they should be charging C directly, not charging the sites they visit - that's just insane.
I don't know how any of these companies think they can possibly justify it - they already have the means to cover their costs, it's not the content providers' fault that the ISPs are greedy enough to try to charge coming and going.
Re:Why would you want an RFID blocking wallet??
on
Top Ten Geek Wallets
·
· Score: 1
> but what about your passport. Just leave it at home when you travel? I certainly wouldn't carry it with me in my wallet - I'd keep it in the safe in my hotel room.
Yes we know that, but that doesn't make it right. It still creates the situation where the most significant application from Microsoft is the one that least follows their own guidelines.
> Other countries have dealt with high energy prices by promoting mass transit, build more efficient cars, etc.
No, we just complain but pay the price anyway. At least that's how it is in Australia
Re:The idiot endangered his son
on
Steve Irwin Dead
·
· Score: 1
> Crocs can and do nail gazelles. Was Steve Irwin faster than a gazelle? No? Then his kid was in mortal danger, and he put him there. Wow, I bet Steve didn't know that. It's a pity you weren't there to educate him on the dangers of crocodiles.
Everyone endagers their children all the time. Even when you cross the road with your children you endanger them. Just because there were risks involved doesn't mean he didn't understand them. Part of parenting is choosing which risks to take - and in general it's no one elses business but yours.
Using "then" instead of "than" is a very jarring mistake that no one with a primary school education should make. It also changes the meaning of the sentence.
Not capitalising a proper noun is most likely either a typo or just simple laziness, and doesn't really change the meaning.
As for the placement of the full stop, even if it should be within the quote marks, I'd personally put it outside simply because that makes far more sense in this context. I have heard of the rule of always putting the full stop inside the quotes if the sentence ends with a quote (even if the quoted portion is not itself a sentence), but it sounds like the sort of rule that merely existed to make the life of a typesetter easier. It doesn't make any sense from a gramatical point of view.
There's a difference between making a complaint about a genuinely bad spelling or gramatical problem, and just being a dickhead. Choose your battles if you want people to pay any attention to you.
BTW, I'm aware that there are probably any number of style issues with the above post, but I have read it over (and used the preview button) and as far as I know I'm at least using the correct words and they're spelt correctly, which makes the post more than suitable for a forum like Slashdot. If I were submitting it to some sort of professional publication, I would take the time to ensure that it complied with the style guidelines favoured by that publication. But I'm not, so I won't.
> I should also tell you that I don't even know in what extent these products do cost anything.
Xen is Open Source, and VMWare has two free of cost products - VMWare Player and VMWare Server and two commerical products - VMWare Workstation and VMWare ESX
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's virtual desktop manager seems to exist for the sole purpose of convincing people that virtual desktop managers don't work.
If you're used to X11 virtual desktops it's no substitute at all.
gah!
s/instead/in fact/
I even previewed that...
No it doesn't.
From the article (the first paragraph instead):
Followed by (beginning of next paragraph)
That seems to be pretty clearly the parlimentary Question Time (or Prime Minister's Questions or "Questions to the Prime Minister" as it's called in the UK), and not a BBC programme.
Scientific "rules", even the ones we think are the most set in stone come from observation of what actually happened, they don't dictate reality.
So whatever will happen to the human race is whatever will happen to it, 1000 Darwins can't change that.
> You are down to that topsoil level maybe if you are in a desert on the opposite side of the world from the closest volcano (extinct or active.)
;)
I see you've been to Australia then
Though here, topsoil is something that happens to Other People
I don't care what you do with your collective nouns - were a is always wrong.
"Microsoft were box-shifters", or "Microsoft was a box-shifter"
pick one or the other, not half of each.
> The strength of Windows in the corporate desktop is that everything is integrated together.
Wow, I want the version of Windows you've got!
> You don't care because you don't understand. Performance, cost and power consumption are directly affected by such things as clock-speed, cache, core integration, architecture etc.
Yes, but saying "Oooh, our chip is true quad core and yours isn't" doesn't on its own say anything about final cost or performance. They might as well have said "But ours are red".
It's a clue that it might perform better with all other factors being equal, which they're not, so it's still a useless statement. Until they benchmarks are out, it's all just speculation.
They also work a hell of a lot better outside. The older screens may not have suffered from reflections, but the newer ones don't wash out in strong light. My previous laptop with a matte screen was practically useless outside, whereas my current one with a glossy screen is fine.
I don't know if it's the glossyness that's responsible but if it is, then it's an acceptible trade-off for me.
I suspected that might be the case after replying. In which case, you must be well aware that you are so far in the minority that you statistically don't even exist, and we never had this conversation ;)
> It is a connection, not authorized by the user, possibly giving the full HTTP-headers as well.
You haven't got the slightest idea how it works, and yet you're condemning it.
Stop and think about how a sane person would implement a blacklist based phishing protection system and _then_ explain to me how it's a privacy problem. (Hint, it won't include connecting to another party every time you go to a web page)
It's no more a privacy problem than when your anti-virus software downloads it's latest definition files.
How?
You mean the disabled-by-default option to use Google (or potentially another search engine - hence the drop-down) to check if the site is a phising site?
The one that very clearly tells you what it will be doing and verifies that you really want to do it first?
The Anti-Phising feature itself is enabled by default, but by default it does _NOT_ use Google, it uses a downloaded blacklist.
My impression of it is certainly not "Google Spyware", it's "Framework for allowing Firefox to check pages against search engine results", the default search engine you can use - if you enable it - being Google.
> Gah, does this clichéd joke really have to be explained?
No, but apparently his one does.
However, I'm not going to do it.
A properly written piece of legislation wouldn't prevent that. ;)
I have no idea whether or not the proposed bill in the USA is properly written though
The issue is not giving YouTube faster access to customers at a price, it's prioritizing their traffic over providers that don't pay - and thus penalizing the providers that don't pay, due to the fact that bandwidth is finite.
The situation you describe wouldn't cause that - in fact, it would be better for everyone, because traffic to YouTube that would normally slow down regular internet traffic would instead be going through the dedicated link.
However, I'm not sure that's what the ISPs have in mind - that would require a whole lot of investment and there'd be very few content providers willing to do it. From the ISPs point of view it's much simpler and cheaper to use the extortion method.
That's why I said I'd stick it in the safe.
I certainly don't trust myself not to lose it somewhere if I was carrying it round.
I'd probably carry a photocopy of the important pages though, just in case. (not much help getting through immigration, but a big help at your embassy / high commission)
Where do people get the idea that Microsoft doesn't charge for point releases? They've _always_ charged for point releases.
XP itself is a point release - it's Windows NT 5.1.
It was the same with the Windows 9.x series. 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.10 and ME was 4.somethingelse
Even Windows 98 SE wasn't a free upgrade from Windows 98.
And Windows 3.1 certainly wasn't a free upgrade from 3.0
> THE. INTERNET. IS. NOT. A. SET. OF. PIPES!
;)
That's right, everyone knows it's tubes
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
bah - they're not even my caps.
I don't quite think you understand the issue.
There are four parties involved.
A. The content provider
B. The content provider's ISP / Hosting provider, whatever
C. The consumer
D. The consumer's ISP (in this case NextGenTel)
Note - A is _NOT_ a customer of D.
If A wants to serve more content at higher speeds, no problem, they pay B more money.
If C wants to get more content at higher speeds, again no problem, they pay D more money.
No one has any problem with that concept.
The problem is when D decides that they can extort money out of A, by throttling the traffic between C and A unless A pays them some money - regardless of the fact that D doesn't actually provide any service to A. They try to use the justification that with there being so much high bandwidth content around that they can't handle the load anymore, so someone has to pay. But they gloss over the fact that someone _IS_ paying: C, the customer that actually requested the content from A in the first place.
If C's internet habits are really costing D money, then they should be charging C directly, not charging the sites they visit - that's just insane.
I don't know how any of these companies think they can possibly justify it - they already have the means to cover their costs, it's not the content providers' fault that the ISPs are greedy enough to try to charge coming and going.
> but what about your passport. Just leave it at home when you travel?
I certainly wouldn't carry it with me in my wallet - I'd keep it in the safe in my hotel room.
Yes we know that, but that doesn't make it right.
It still creates the situation where the most significant application from Microsoft is the one that least follows their own guidelines.
> Other countries have dealt with high energy prices by promoting mass transit, build more efficient cars, etc.
No, we just complain but pay the price anyway. At least that's how it is in Australia
> Crocs can and do nail gazelles. Was Steve Irwin faster than a gazelle? No? Then his kid was in mortal danger, and he put him there.
Wow, I bet Steve didn't know that. It's a pity you weren't there to educate him on the dangers of crocodiles.
Everyone endagers their children all the time. Even when you cross the road with your children you endanger them. Just because there were risks involved doesn't mean he didn't understand them.
Part of parenting is choosing which risks to take - and in general it's no one elses business but yours.
What exactly does capitolized mean?
Using "then" instead of "than" is a very jarring mistake that no one with a primary school education should make. It also changes the meaning of the sentence.
Not capitalising a proper noun is most likely either a typo or just simple laziness, and doesn't really change the meaning.
As for the placement of the full stop, even if it should be within the quote marks, I'd personally put it outside simply because that makes far more sense in this context.
I have heard of the rule of always putting the full stop inside the quotes if the sentence ends with a quote (even if the quoted portion is not itself a sentence), but it sounds like the sort of rule that merely existed to make the life of a typesetter easier. It doesn't make any sense from a gramatical point of view.
There's a difference between making a complaint about a genuinely bad spelling or gramatical problem, and just being a dickhead. Choose your battles if you want people to pay any attention to you.
BTW, I'm aware that there are probably any number of style issues with the above post, but I have read it over (and used the preview button) and as far as I know I'm at least using the correct words and they're spelt correctly, which makes the post more than suitable for a forum like Slashdot. If I were submitting it to some sort of professional publication, I would take the time to ensure that it complied with the style guidelines favoured by that publication. But I'm not, so I won't.
> I should also tell you that I don't even know in what extent these products do cost anything.
Xen is Open Source, and VMWare has two free of cost products - VMWare Player and VMWare Server and two commerical products - VMWare Workstation and VMWare ESX