Apple's APIs on the other hand, completely blow Microsoft Win32 out of the water.
That's hardly a fair comparison. The Win32 API is 15+ years old. It was built to support the previous 16-bit Win16 API. It spans the development of about 8 major operating systems.
Newer portions of the Windows API being introduced with Vista and Win7 are a lot better than most of the older stuff and the integration of.NET into Windows has pretty much given you a completely re-written object-oriented approach to the Win32 API (still lacking some of the more low-level stuff, but interop exists for the few cases you need those).
If your statement is true, then I'm back to square one on understanding this "entanglement" thingie.
As far as I know, the problem comes down to measurement. The basic idea is that you can entangle two photons (put them both into superposition states) and then move them far apart from each other. At this point you have two photons in an "unknown" state. If you measure one of the photons the superposition will collapse and the other entangled photon will instantly move out of superposition and into the alternate absolute state. This change is instant and does actually "travel" faster than light.
The problem is that you cannot use this mechanism to actually transmit information faster than light because you need some other kind of means to know when to observe your entangled photon. If Bob and Alice have entangled photons, Alice has no way of knowing if Bob has sent her a message using her photon because if she checks it to see if the superposition has collapsed then she will herself cause it to collapse if it hasn't already done so (thereby preventing Bob from sending a message at all).
This means that you're left using some alternative means of communication (radio, etc) which itself is limited by the speed of light. Bob will collapse his photon, send a message to Alice via normal means, at which time she can measure her photon and see the result of Bob's actions on his photon.
At least, that's the way I understand it. No, my uid is not three digits; no, I don't have a degree in Physics; and no, the rest of your post doesn't make any sense at all. Anyone can feel free to correct me.
This is exactly it. Our department typically buys Dell Optiplex (business class) machines with the cheapest processor and a minimal amount of memory (around 2GB lately). Combined with a 5-year NBD warranty and we have a machine that is a perfectly capable office machine for 5 years.
Who cares if Vendor A's machine performs 5% better than Vendor B at the same price? That analysis is a waste of time -- you'd be better off spending it researching reliability and compatibility. Any more a modern computer's hardware will fail before the system becomes too underpowered to be useful.
US may not do the same, but Europeans take privacy seriously.
If you stand on a street corner and yell back and forth at your neighbor across the street, is somebody standing 100 feet away from you with a tape recorder capturing your conversation violating your privacy?
That's exactly what Google was doing with their wireless capture. I can't say I really like it, but at the same time I also can't say they were violating privacy. If I want to have a private conversation I stop yelling or start using encryption.
Or can we finally realize that religion and morality are not synonymous?
Oh, I see. You're trying to change this into an argument about morality. Sorry, all I was doing was pointing out the completely bogus claim in your original post. That's all.
Only if you're both capable and vigilant. Most people aren't able to really be safe from spyware.
That was true about 4-6 years ago. With a more modern operating system (Linux/Vista/Win7, heck even XPSP3) the technical threat is drastically reduced. The biggest problem has always been user attitude and actions, something which is often WORSE on Mac than it is elsewhere due to the prevalent belief that "Macs can't get virus/malware!". When users stop running as admin and stop clicking pretty screensaver ads then we'll have made some real progress, but that's a social problem, not technical.
Only by forgoing things like YouTube.
That's funny, because I can watch 720p video on YouTube and see about 25% CPU usage. Not bad for HD video playback. Of course if I'm worried about battery I can drop to SD or just save a link and watch the video when I'm plugged into the wall. You don't even have that option with the iPad.
Apple actually provides an alternative.
Um, no, they don't.
But your kids aren't.
It's my job as a parent to ensure my kids don't access material I deem appropriate. No matter how much some people might wish it were the case, neither a computer nor a TV is not a parental replacement. Besides, why should Apple decide what is "porn" and what isn't? Is an anatomically-correct human body reference app "porn"? Would it be rejected from the app store? Better break out your Magic 8 Ball to find out.
I think that O'Brien's reversal of the motto is more appropriate for Apple: SLAVERY IS FREEDOM.
You're right that the reversal is very appropriate, but since we're talking an equality and not implication (slavery == freedom, not slavery -> freedom), I think the phrase can be written either way.
Freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Nice job combining those bottom two, Steve. How did the CEO of the company that produced the 1984 commercial go from that to this utter drivel?
I am free from programs that steal my private data on my PC if I choose to be. I am free from programs that trash my battery on my PC if I choose to be. I am free from porn on my PC, if I choose to be.
Do you see the difference Steve?
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The most amazing part of this entire thing is the complete role reversal. The running woman in 1984 no longer represents Apple or its products. She is now represented by the PC and its many forms with the drones being Apple users basking in their "freedom". You never have more freedom when you have fewer choices. NEVER.
This is the very reason I won't buy Apple's products. The doublethink being presented here by Steve goes against everything I believe computing should be about.
Just be glad your broken system is a lot less broken than the US system. At least you guys -have- minority parties.
Minority parties might have benefits but as this demonstrates perfectly, they're just as full of flaws as our traditional two-party system. In either case, however, I have to say that the line "maybe even forcing the Queen to dismiss the current Government" is something I hope never has an analog in the United States. The idea that an unelected figurehead can simply sweep away the electorate when it's convenient is terrifying.
No system of government is perfect but as for myself, I'll take our checks and balances over a monarchy any day.
To give him the benefit of the doubt, it appears he's saying that 9/11 was a "wake up call" which should have brought us out of a certain level of ignorance about the state of things both outside and inside our country. While ignorance might be bliss, nobody ever said it was safe or smart.
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that there's a surefire way to prevent all attacks or acts of aggression against the country. Like I was telling somebody yesterday, the only reason that bomb didn't go off in NYC is luck. The guy was stupid and we got lucky. In a city the size of New York there's no reason somebody couldn't detonate a crude device like that without arousing suspicion. Sometimes, no matter how much effort you put in you cannot eliminate a certain level of ignorance.
In any case, the real question is whether or not we're less ignorant of the dangers than we were previously. Given the state of things I'm not so sure we are.
I'm a computer geek and I only use about 30 gigs a month (on a different provider). I don't really see what the problem is.
A friend works at a local ISP and he tells me that 0.1% of the customers use as much bandwidth as I do. That's a very tiny percentage.
The problem is that while right now few people use a ton of bandwidth, it's pretty much certain that trend won't continue. The "average" person is starting to notice services like Netflix streaming (how many gigabytes for a 2-hour movie on a megabit-class connection?) and Steam (two games I just downloaded: Bioshock is 7GB and Mass Effect is over 10GB alone!). Now think of a family of 4-6 each using this connection. All of a sudden that 60 GB monthly limit starts looming close pretty fast.
Services that utilize internet content distribution are only going to become more common with only two real solutions. Either (A) ISPs start putting down billions of dollars in new infrastructure to support these demands, or (B) ISPs start charging a premium for bandwidth. Which do you think they'll choose (at least initially)?
Except that it's not! As far as video playback is concerned, HTML5 is a huge step backwards.
10 years ago I could do <embed src="foo.avi" width="100" height="100"> . How is this any different than the "new" HTML5 method? To play video in a browser we've gone from using embedded plugins and apps, then to browser plugins (Flash, Silverlight), and finally now we're back to what is essentially an embedded application. Sure the browser might be taking care of some of the playback, but we're still relying on codecs being available on the client machine -- the very reason Flash took over video in the first place!
While getting everybody together and trying to agree on a specific codec will help, we can already see it's not working. Firefox and all the browsers based on it will not be able to play back h264 and most other browers won't play Ogg/Theora.
There are no restrictions on what video and audio codec can be used with the <video> tag, and users with all kinds of video files aren't going to run to transcode them to h264/Theora just so they can be "compliant". Most people have DivX/mpeg4 codecs so just stick those AVI files up! Most people have wmv/wma support, just stick those files up too! Flash and Silverlight have a lot of problems and are abused in many ways, but using them to play video is the least of their issues.
From what I can tell, we've managed to reinvent the <embed> tag. Good work everyone.
I don't know the level of detail that he was involved in, but Cameron did have a hand in developing the camera and he's used it in several of his movies (including Avatar).
How much actual technical help was he? No idea, but it is called the Pace-Cameron Fusion Camera System. It must be pretty good as well considering both the amazing job it did for Avatar and the fact that the technology is going to be used in other films as well.
And, as others mentioned, dropping his name is good for publicity and is probably designed to give the public something to look forward to from the next rover.
I'm not going to get into the copyright violation vs theft argument (again), but this is just plain WRONG. Drivel like this reeks of **AA and artist entitlement whining.
YOU are denying the person who created the content the sale.
No, because I had no plans on buying whatever it was I'm downloading. If I can get X for free, I'll grab it. If I can't, I'll do without. No sale lost.
YOU have denied them the money they would have made.
They wouldn't have made any money, ergo I denied them nothing.
YOU have TAKEN from them something that was rightfully theirs. THE SALE.
Again, there was no sale to be made. 0 - 0 = 0.
If you want to argue on the basis of morals then I imagine most people would agree that violating a (sane) copyright is wrong. When you start talking about 120-year old copyrights or trying to prevent what most feel is fair use then people will start to disagree.
Regardless of all that, the monetary value of a potential sale is exactly $0.00.
I think the shuttle will be remembered like the Pentium 4, interesting, useful, but a technological dead end.
Except that when Intel dropped the P4 they had something much better to replace it with. It was a planned and thought-out transition. The shuttle? No better replacement, no real plan.
I also don't see why you'd call the vehicle itself a dead end. Why can't the design be expanded and improved?
I think a better comparison could be between the shuttle and the Pentium 3. It too was interesting and useful, but while it was phased out the architecture was later revived in a new and improved fashion. There's no need to completely scrap something which works well.
I'd side with the commenter that more than 136 votes are needed. Now, whether or not you truncate the decimal or round it, I'm not sure. In this case it doesn't matter though, it comes to 137 either way.
It's either: 1) Another CPU core 2) Yet more cache.
More cache please.
Cache is a pig in terms of die real estate, but it has a huge impact on performance for memory-hungry applications (these days that means every application). That said, I'd assume they're using system RAM for the video memory of the on-chip graphics so the actual size of the GPU components is probably pretty small.
As long as you stay away from ATI or nVidia graphics cards, you should be OK.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but geez, advice like this is the exact reason we haven't seen the Year of the Linux Desktop yet.
Telling people to avoid graphics chipsets by ATI and nVidia is like telling them to avoid Intel and AMD processors. Are there alternatives? Well, yes, but at best they're niche products and at worst they're completely incompatible.
When you're dealing with market saturation like ATI and nVidia have, it's either support them or die. Yes, most Linux distros do okay at this, but it's still hit-or-miss, and telling people to stay clear of those chipsets doesn't help anything.
This is front-page news for Slashdot now? Here's the sum total of TFA:
Guy tries to install 64-bit Windows 7 on a machine previously running 32-bit Windows 7
Install fails over and over again
He replaces hardware components with no luck until he swaps out the CPU
Windows installs but is unstable
Worthless ASUS BIOS automatic "optimizers" cause stability problems (surprise!)
With BIOS settings changed to sane values Windows is stable
Wow, color me impressed!
How are "mortals" supposed to figure it out? I guess they buy a PC from Dell because everything in that article qualifies as "no duh" for system builders.
Re:Can't buy the OS for $200?
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That was my thought too.
Windows 7 Home Premium: $99.99 (or Professional for $140) Microsoft Security Essentials: $0.00 Knowing your wireless card and webcam will work: Priceless
I can *see* the 3-D but it does not "immerse" me any more than 2-D.
I have to disagree, but with some conditions. Watching Avatar in IMAX 3D, I definitely felt that the movie WAS visually more immersive in most scenes than it was in 2D. Several times it almost caught me by surprise when I realized I wasn't looking through some window into the world being presented and was instead just looking at a flat screen.
That said, the 3D image was most effective when used in medium-deep fields. The 3D images of things popping out of the screen (trees, the little camera, etc) was much less immersive (and, in some ways, actually disruptive) while the depth-of-field in wide shots and things like the falling ash and things in the distance was incredibly well done.
Basically, for narrow shots and closeups, 3D doesn't really help immersion, but for medium/wide shots, backgrounds, and environments it's amazing.
Awesome! Where do I go to download the Windows 7 kernel source?
Actually, Microsoft does allow certain groups access to the Windows (client, mobile, embedded, server) source code. If you're elegible (and willing to sign a pretty significant NDA) give them a call.
It's obviously not open source, but you can get access.
Slashdot Mirror
Please document this claim.
See the Patch 1.12 section: http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=21358
As of last week it still asked me for the disk.
learn2read patch notes. You need to copy the MPQ files from the Diablo II discs to your local installation folder or it will still ask for the CD.
Apple's APIs on the other hand, completely blow Microsoft Win32 out of the water.
That's hardly a fair comparison. The Win32 API is 15+ years old. It was built to support the previous 16-bit Win16 API. It spans the development of about 8 major operating systems.
Newer portions of the Windows API being introduced with Vista and Win7 are a lot better than most of the older stuff and the integration of .NET into Windows has pretty much given you a completely re-written object-oriented approach to the Win32 API (still lacking some of the more low-level stuff, but interop exists for the few cases you need those).
If your statement is true, then I'm back to square one on understanding this "entanglement" thingie.
As far as I know, the problem comes down to measurement. The basic idea is that you can entangle two photons (put them both into superposition states) and then move them far apart from each other. At this point you have two photons in an "unknown" state. If you measure one of the photons the superposition will collapse and the other entangled photon will instantly move out of superposition and into the alternate absolute state. This change is instant and does actually "travel" faster than light.
The problem is that you cannot use this mechanism to actually transmit information faster than light because you need some other kind of means to know when to observe your entangled photon. If Bob and Alice have entangled photons, Alice has no way of knowing if Bob has sent her a message using her photon because if she checks it to see if the superposition has collapsed then she will herself cause it to collapse if it hasn't already done so (thereby preventing Bob from sending a message at all).
This means that you're left using some alternative means of communication (radio, etc) which itself is limited by the speed of light. Bob will collapse his photon, send a message to Alice via normal means, at which time she can measure her photon and see the result of Bob's actions on his photon.
At least, that's the way I understand it. No, my uid is not three digits; no, I don't have a degree in Physics; and no, the rest of your post doesn't make any sense at all. Anyone can feel free to correct me.
This is exactly it. Our department typically buys Dell Optiplex (business class) machines with the cheapest processor and a minimal amount of memory (around 2GB lately). Combined with a 5-year NBD warranty and we have a machine that is a perfectly capable office machine for 5 years.
Who cares if Vendor A's machine performs 5% better than Vendor B at the same price? That analysis is a waste of time -- you'd be better off spending it researching reliability and compatibility. Any more a modern computer's hardware will fail before the system becomes too underpowered to be useful.
US may not do the same, but Europeans take privacy seriously.
If you stand on a street corner and yell back and forth at your neighbor across the street, is somebody standing 100 feet away from you with a tape recorder capturing your conversation violating your privacy?
That's exactly what Google was doing with their wireless capture. I can't say I really like it, but at the same time I also can't say they were violating privacy. If I want to have a private conversation I stop yelling or start using encryption.
I'll see your Stalin, and raise you Hitler.
What does Hitler have to do with anything?
Or can we finally realize that religion and morality are not synonymous?
Oh, I see. You're trying to change this into an argument about morality. Sorry, all I was doing was pointing out the completely bogus claim in your original post. That's all.
Do I win yet?
Looks like the opposite, I'm afraid.
Atheists haven't been causing genocide, torturing people, raping children or forcing people to follow our dictates for the last couple millenia.
Wow, just wow.
Some tens of millions of people would like to disagree with you.
Theism vs atheism is always filled with hyperbole from both sides, but it's uncommon to see someone go so far off the deep end. Nice job.
Only if you're both capable and vigilant. Most people aren't able to really be safe from spyware.
That was true about 4-6 years ago. With a more modern operating system (Linux/Vista/Win7, heck even XPSP3) the technical threat is drastically reduced. The biggest problem has always been user attitude and actions, something which is often WORSE on Mac than it is elsewhere due to the prevalent belief that "Macs can't get virus/malware!". When users stop running as admin and stop clicking pretty screensaver ads then we'll have made some real progress, but that's a social problem, not technical.
Only by forgoing things like YouTube.
That's funny, because I can watch 720p video on YouTube and see about 25% CPU usage. Not bad for HD video playback. Of course if I'm worried about battery I can drop to SD or just save a link and watch the video when I'm plugged into the wall. You don't even have that option with the iPad.
Apple actually provides an alternative.
Um, no, they don't.
But your kids aren't.
It's my job as a parent to ensure my kids don't access material I deem appropriate. No matter how much some people might wish it were the case, neither a computer nor a TV is not a parental replacement. Besides, why should Apple decide what is "porn" and what isn't? Is an anatomically-correct human body reference app "porn"? Would it be rejected from the app store? Better break out your Magic 8 Ball to find out.
I think that O'Brien's reversal of the motto is more appropriate for Apple: SLAVERY IS FREEDOM.
You're right that the reversal is very appropriate, but since we're talking an equality and not implication (slavery == freedom, not slavery -> freedom), I think the phrase can be written either way.
Freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Nice job combining those bottom two, Steve. How did the CEO of the company that produced the 1984 commercial go from that to this utter drivel?
I am free from programs that steal my private data on my PC if I choose to be.
I am free from programs that trash my battery on my PC if I choose to be.
I am free from porn on my PC, if I choose to be.
Do you see the difference Steve?
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The most amazing part of this entire thing is the complete role reversal. The running woman in 1984 no longer represents Apple or its products. She is now represented by the PC and its many forms with the drones being Apple users basking in their "freedom". You never have more freedom when you have fewer choices. NEVER.
This is the very reason I won't buy Apple's products. The doublethink being presented here by Steve goes against everything I believe computing should be about.
Just be glad your broken system is a lot less broken than the US system. At least you guys -have- minority parties.
Minority parties might have benefits but as this demonstrates perfectly, they're just as full of flaws as our traditional two-party system. In either case, however, I have to say that the line "maybe even forcing the Queen to dismiss the current Government" is something I hope never has an analog in the United States. The idea that an unelected figurehead can simply sweep away the electorate when it's convenient is terrifying.
No system of government is perfect but as for myself, I'll take our checks and balances over a monarchy any day.
Now we see why they say, "Go not to Slashdot for counsel, for they will say both yes and no."
To give him the benefit of the doubt, it appears he's saying that 9/11 was a "wake up call" which should have brought us out of a certain level of ignorance about the state of things both outside and inside our country. While ignorance might be bliss, nobody ever said it was safe or smart.
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that there's a surefire way to prevent all attacks or acts of aggression against the country. Like I was telling somebody yesterday, the only reason that bomb didn't go off in NYC is luck. The guy was stupid and we got lucky. In a city the size of New York there's no reason somebody couldn't detonate a crude device like that without arousing suspicion. Sometimes, no matter how much effort you put in you cannot eliminate a certain level of ignorance.
In any case, the real question is whether or not we're less ignorant of the dangers than we were previously. Given the state of things I'm not so sure we are.
I'm a computer geek and I only use about 30 gigs a month (on a different provider). I don't really see what the problem is.
A friend works at a local ISP and he tells me that 0.1% of the customers use as much bandwidth as I do. That's a very tiny percentage.
The problem is that while right now few people use a ton of bandwidth, it's pretty much certain that trend won't continue. The "average" person is starting to notice services like Netflix streaming (how many gigabytes for a 2-hour movie on a megabit-class connection?) and Steam (two games I just downloaded: Bioshock is 7GB and Mass Effect is over 10GB alone!). Now think of a family of 4-6 each using this connection. All of a sudden that 60 GB monthly limit starts looming close pretty fast.
Services that utilize internet content distribution are only going to become more common with only two real solutions. Either (A) ISPs start putting down billions of dollars in new infrastructure to support these demands, or (B) ISPs start charging a premium for bandwidth. Which do you think they'll choose (at least initially)?
HTML5 video is a major leap forward.
Except that it's not! As far as video playback is concerned, HTML5 is a huge step backwards.
10 years ago I could do <embed src="foo.avi" width="100" height="100"> . How is this any different than the "new" HTML5 method? To play video in a browser we've gone from using embedded plugins and apps, then to browser plugins (Flash, Silverlight), and finally now we're back to what is essentially an embedded application. Sure the browser might be taking care of some of the playback, but we're still relying on codecs being available on the client machine -- the very reason Flash took over video in the first place!
While getting everybody together and trying to agree on a specific codec will help, we can already see it's not working. Firefox and all the browsers based on it will not be able to play back h264 and most other browers won't play Ogg/Theora.
There are no restrictions on what video and audio codec can be used with the <video> tag, and users with all kinds of video files aren't going to run to transcode them to h264/Theora just so they can be "compliant". Most people have DivX/mpeg4 codecs so just stick those AVI files up! Most people have wmv/wma support, just stick those files up too! Flash and Silverlight have a lot of problems and are abused in many ways, but using them to play video is the least of their issues.
From what I can tell, we've managed to reinvent the <embed> tag. Good work everyone.
I don't know the level of detail that he was involved in, but Cameron did have a hand in developing the camera and he's used it in several of his movies (including Avatar).
How much actual technical help was he? No idea, but it is called the Pace-Cameron Fusion Camera System. It must be pretty good as well considering both the amazing job it did for Avatar and the fact that the technology is going to be used in other films as well.
And, as others mentioned, dropping his name is good for publicity and is probably designed to give the public something to look forward to from the next rover.
I'm not going to get into the copyright violation vs theft argument (again), but this is just plain WRONG. Drivel like this reeks of **AA and artist entitlement whining.
YOU are denying the person who created the content the sale.
No, because I had no plans on buying whatever it was I'm downloading. If I can get X for free, I'll grab it. If I can't, I'll do without. No sale lost.
YOU have denied them the money they would have made.
They wouldn't have made any money, ergo I denied them nothing.
YOU have TAKEN from them something that was rightfully theirs. THE SALE.
Again, there was no sale to be made. 0 - 0 = 0.
If you want to argue on the basis of morals then I imagine most people would agree that violating a (sane) copyright is wrong. When you start talking about 120-year old copyrights or trying to prevent what most feel is fair use then people will start to disagree.
Regardless of all that, the monetary value of a potential sale is exactly $0.00.
I agree with you except for this:
I think the shuttle will be remembered like the Pentium 4, interesting, useful, but a technological dead end.
Except that when Intel dropped the P4 they had something much better to replace it with. It was a planned and thought-out transition. The shuttle? No better replacement, no real plan.
I also don't see why you'd call the vehicle itself a dead end. Why can't the design be expanded and improved?
I think a better comparison could be between the shuttle and the Pentium 3. It too was interesting and useful, but while it was phased out the architecture was later revived in a new and improved fashion. There's no need to completely scrap something which works well.
This doesn't seem that hard.
206 * (2/3) = 412/3 = 137 + 1/3
I'd side with the commenter that more than 136 votes are needed. Now, whether or not you truncate the decimal or round it, I'm not sure. In this case it doesn't matter though, it comes to 137 either way.
Obviously you can't have 1/3 of a vote.
It's either:
1) Another CPU core
2) Yet more cache.
More cache please.
Cache is a pig in terms of die real estate, but it has a huge impact on performance for memory-hungry applications (these days that means every application). That said, I'd assume they're using system RAM for the video memory of the on-chip graphics so the actual size of the GPU components is probably pretty small.
As long as you stay away from ATI or nVidia graphics cards, you should be OK.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but geez, advice like this is the exact reason we haven't seen the Year of the Linux Desktop yet.
Telling people to avoid graphics chipsets by ATI and nVidia is like telling them to avoid Intel and AMD processors. Are there alternatives? Well, yes, but at best they're niche products and at worst they're completely incompatible.
When you're dealing with market saturation like ATI and nVidia have, it's either support them or die. Yes, most Linux distros do okay at this, but it's still hit-or-miss, and telling people to stay clear of those chipsets doesn't help anything.
This is front-page news for Slashdot now? Here's the sum total of TFA:
Wow, color me impressed!
How are "mortals" supposed to figure it out? I guess they buy a PC from Dell because everything in that article qualifies as "no duh" for system builders.
That was my thought too.
Windows 7 Home Premium: $99.99 (or Professional for $140)
Microsoft Security Essentials: $0.00
Knowing your wireless card and webcam will work: Priceless
Hm, that's a lot less than $200.
I can *see* the 3-D but it does not "immerse" me any more than 2-D.
I have to disagree, but with some conditions. Watching Avatar in IMAX 3D, I definitely felt that the movie WAS visually more immersive in most scenes than it was in 2D. Several times it almost caught me by surprise when I realized I wasn't looking through some window into the world being presented and was instead just looking at a flat screen.
That said, the 3D image was most effective when used in medium-deep fields. The 3D images of things popping out of the screen (trees, the little camera, etc) was much less immersive (and, in some ways, actually disruptive) while the depth-of-field in wide shots and things like the falling ash and things in the distance was incredibly well done.
Basically, for narrow shots and closeups, 3D doesn't really help immersion, but for medium/wide shots, backgrounds, and environments it's amazing.
Awesome! Where do I go to download the Windows 7 kernel source?
Actually, Microsoft does allow certain groups access to the Windows (client, mobile, embedded, server) source code. If you're elegible (and willing to sign a pretty significant NDA) give them a call.
It's obviously not open source, but you can get access.