It's really not that hard to grok, "new tech" is not always "good tech". "Expensive and complex" does not always mean "worthwhile or interesting". 3D (but I'm on board with the more accurate term Stereovision) as it is sold today is really just the tech industry selectively forgetting the lessons learned from Virtual Boy/VR32, and really the whole VR hype train from the 90's.
We want our TV's to have good brightness at an angle because we're not always sitting right in front of them. We want our game controllers wireless and our laptops and tablets to have wireless internet and good battery life because we want to pick them up and take them places. We want to lay down or sit or sprawl in odd positions.
We want our electronics to accommodate how we feel comfortable using them.
The current generation of Stereovision fails on that point. It makes us strap shit to our heads. Many geeks already wear glasses, and those almost never stack comfortably. It makes us sit at a certain angle from the screen, and we cannot tilt our head more than a few degrees. Our eyes are forced to refocus on the binocular (cross, uncross) while remaining at a fixed focus on the monocular (depth of field) which induces the same headaches as stereograms do.
So as far as "new tech" goes, it's barely even a novelty. The basics of Stereovision are nearly a hundred years old, and we've all ridden this train before. It's expensive and inconvenient. And probably the worst bit for geek involvement is, it's not really hackable or malleable in any way.
Part of the goal for media's stereovision push it to create a content walled garden. 3d is expensive to produce, more difficult to pirate, and gives them an excuse to charge for another premium. Independents can't compete. Geeks have no easy way to generate or record their own 3d content to display on these devices.
But if tech only has to be complex or new to turn you on, then there is this great inmate ankle band you've got to hear about. Delivers shocks on par with a tazer when the inmate leaves their itinerary. It's all proprietary so I can't really tell you how it works this magic, and it costs a mint, but I can certainly put one on you and charge it to your nerd card!:D
the issue is that LCD manufacturing companies are having a hard time selling 75MHz 30" cinema displays at 2500+ resolution.
The other major issue is the content side of the equation. Studios want control over content, and they are losing it. On one face this means stopping "piracy" and "copyright infringement" because they don't want people to view their content without first paying the right (set of) toll(s). They're a bit hamstrung on this point because they have to pay their tolls for music, footage and clearance within their own content so they need us to pay ours.
The other face of this is stopping all competing content. Studios can't make payroll if you watch their stuff without paying, but turned on it's head that really means they can't make payroll unless you pay to watch their stuff. Watch pirated content or watch independent content or public domain or creative commons content, and it's all the same blow to big media. So it's not even about making you pay to watch *their* stuff, it's about making you pay to watch *anything* at all.
They look at 3D as the next battleground which may help to plug the analog hole. If everyone is magically hooked on 3D content (that's the step 3 ??? part) then independent creators have a harder time crafting said content to compete with them, rippers have a harder time pirating the content, etc etc.
Yes, it will bomb. While this this rendition of Stereovision is marginally superior to the Anaglyph offerings of the 20th century, they are still messy and complicated for the end user. This is nothing like the radio to video, black and white to color, or analog to digital transitions. Color never gave anyone a headache or forced you to keep your head still at an uncomfortable angle nor required expensive glasses which interfere with your prescription ones, took batteries or had to be tethered to the set. Also, color offers a much richer addition to a black and white image than stereovision does to monovision.
Even if you compare stereovision to a mounted set of binoculars, the binoculars at least come with a "focus" knob that let you alter the depth of field, like the human eye does naturally when encountering an actually 3d scene. Stereovision media puts you at the director's mercy for depth of field, which in turn gives you a headache whenever your eyes try to focus on the blurry foreground or background objects (cued by having to cross or uncross to see them without doublevision) and naturally fail. I first noticed this watching Bolt in 3D at the theater, when the camera was looking down a tall wall. Depth of field was first at the dog, at the bottom of the wall, and then refocused to the top of the wall. In Monovision my eyes don't care, as they're not being prompted to cross and uncross at someone else's whim. in Stereovision, I just about barfed.
Absolutely not! Space is just 100 km up while earth-based locations can be 20,000 km apart.
Considering that Earth has a diameter of about 12750km, I'd highly doubt that.
You started mixing vertical and lateral distances...;-)
That's still up to 20,000km as the crow flies, or distance between points as measured in 3d polar coordinates. GP's terminology is just fine, nobody here is assuming a Euclidean metric.:S
You're not designing for availability. Each movement should get it's own child table. Each hosted on a separate machine. Geographically distributed, ideally each on different continents.
Granted you might run out of continents, but if you can't just buy more then you probably can't afford my consulting fees, either. Next!
Alright, so now for instance my graph is at "1.17GB" while the stats below (which I rarely read being that they never seem to add up, and.. they're not a graph;D) Say:
Physical Memory (MB)
Total: 4094 (sounds right to me)
Cached: 1911 (more than the graph has.. so not represented in graph?)
Available: 2887 (?)
Free: 1046 (?)
Not that this is a Window's howto forum or anything, but I just rely on the graph to tell me how much RAM I have free. I never see problems until that graph is at 100% memory utilization (which in turn has never happened to me since upgrading to 4gig.. yes I run hundreds of tabs in 4 web browsers plus 3 dozen other applications sometimes:D)
If My graph shows ~500MB more used on startup than it did when I was in XP, and if the cache you mention is not represented in that graph, then it's not relevant to my measurement. Of course, if I've got four gig (as did OP) and never remotely approach that in either OS, then memory usage might not be OP's problem either.
So, just saying. Thanks for the input, just doesn't look relevant.:3
Win7 eats ram for cache. As does LINUX, or any other reasonably modern OS.
Yeah, OK. Again, I've got 4 gigs. So instead of never going over 2 gigs used now I never go over 2.5. I dun care.:3
Still, if what you say explains the readings I get from Task Manager, then why not can they put a separate line for amount of memory used by disk cache? Kind of like the optional "kernel" line for CPU usage, or like the "+/- buffers" column in linux' "free" command.
But that's just it. If computing is like taking your model T out on the highway, then Ipad is like a train. don't got to maintain it, but you're only going where they want to take you and paying through the nose all the way there.
I'm glad you chose benchmarks as an example. Unfortunately in a real word example...typing a letter...pressing a damn key and the letter appearing is the slowdown. Thats using the bread and butter of Microsoft Office+OS combo
Then this might not be an OS problem but an MS Office problem. I don't use Word at all. I use Google Docs on occasion and OpenOffice on occasion (mostly for spreadsheets or for zero-config collaboration) and tons of plain text, as formated text isn't used too often in my bare metal work.
Otherwise, I never experience a hard time typing save here: in Slashdot's comment section (on sev'ral web browsers). I certainly can't blame the OS for that.
High personal involvement with what one used and drove was standard through the 1950s.
God, that sounds about like the requirement to run computers these days too.
I wonder when our industry will grow as mature as 1950's automotive, where knowing how to operate the steering wheel, foot pedals, signals, wipers, lights, pamphlet worth of road policies and how to talk to a mechanic can get you anywhere you want to go?
With something mechanical you usually have movement or sound to tell you the answer to that. For a circuit, you have to go get your multimeter- you can't really observe the circuit unaided.
So in short, it's easy to forensically sift out symptoms from the constant noise a mechanical device generates in the process of wearing itself down to a stub, but it's so difficult to diagnose problems in solid state electronics with no noise to analyze.
Yeah, I guess that's a tradeoff. Just wait until you're working on quantum computers and no multimeter in the world will get you past Heisenberg's velvet rope to find out what really went wrong.;D
I run Windows 7 on my my new Revo box 64-bit 2core, 4GB, Nvidia, 500GB Hard Drive. Runs so slow. I spent £300 on it because of lies like yours.
Alrighty. I run Windows 7 on my old Dell Inspiron 1520 with 64 bit dual core, 4GB (aftermarket), Nvidia and 120GB Hard Drive. Bought it in Feb 08 with XP on it. This was during the reign of Vista and this was the only laptop Dell still sold with XP on it.
Got hit by a virus (damn AVG Free did not protect me; even though I scanned the suspect file thoroughly before trying to use it. Switched to Avira, we'll see how that does;D) and had to re-install. I had already tried Win7 during RC and decided it is marginally better than XP, just not better enough to switch unless you're rolling a new OS anyway.. and now I was. So I switched from 32 bit XP to 64 bit 7.
Now it seems to run every bit as fast as XP did, with Aero turned on. It eats more RAM (900MB used at startup instead of 350MB, overhead appears constant after days of uptime) and this is after applying most of Black Viper's recommended service tweaks to both OSen. I find win+tab is handy when you've got a ton of browser windows open (each with tabs; I generally run one window per distinct project) and want to quickly get to one which is visually distinct.
so tuppe, does my counter-example anecdote mean that you're the liar now? Or perhaps we should yeild the predictive power of all of our personal one-off experiences in favor of actual research?
ZDnet's benchmarks maintain that Windows 7 is faster than XP for standard use, although XP remains more capable for devices with limited memory and outdated graphics.
Maximum PC's benchmarks claim that Win7 simply feels faster than XP on the hardware they tested.
Tom's Hardware's netbook benchmarks show that Windows 7 does not beat XP on the netbook but that it is quite responsive, and would probably surpass XP with better driver support.
TechRadar's benchmark includes many plusses and minuses for Windows 7 with a net plus, but clearly states that it provides "better performance than XP can deliver on today's hardware."
I'm not picking up on any benchmarks that have the same trouble you've had, so unfortunately I have no way to confirm you did not just misconfigure your machine.
If you are interested in the truth and have the required attention span to analyse detailed information, you won't be using Twitter.
Or shitty social networking websites, for that matter.
I don't see how these critiques are relevant to adding an "I call bullshit" button to such services, and an aggregator which charts the currents of bullshit across these mediums. All forms of communication deserve the benefit of fact-checking. Whether you use them or not, they are popular, and I guarantee you're related to people who will believe what they read there. Leave them alone and they'll all rise up as one to elect Sarah Palin for president, and then the terrorists win.
Well, otoh one of two scenarios leading to what he meant was "we will wipe ourselves out" (and my overall point about how extrapolating progress like that has...issues)
Meh, plenty of people have worried about nuclear annihilation in the past. It is pretty well understood that a complete nuclear offensive would if not extinguish the human race, at least ravage the human population and set back civilization a century or more, not to mention ruining the continuity of what we see as history. We would probably arise from the ashes, but I don't think we would arise as the same people we were when we fell.
Then there is asteroid impact. Yeah, asteroids don't have to be too big before even bacteria are toasted. The universe is pretty much a huge russian roulette wheel for processes as awkward as our biosphere, so unless this flame spreads it will inevitably falter for one reason or another.
And generally - do people even care about constellations all that much? (they sure don't care about how almost all the stars basically dissapeared behind light pollution)
Meh, sheeple don't care about light pollution obscuring the stars or heavy metal pollution fouling the water. We used to use constellations as navigational aids. All you needed was a clear view of the night sky and you could find your bearings. Now we rely on GPS, where you still need a clear view of the sky and.. what are the fleets of GPS satellites called again?
How many people care about your rhino, or even "objective" monkey face for that matter?;)
Rhino, just me. If any of my friends lived in the viewing area (less than half a mile away, for example) then they may have done as well.
Monkey Face, I dunno. Google shows a quarter million hits though.;P
I see GIMP, Mypaint, Alchemy, Inkscape, Python, Subversion - did I miss any? Which one of these can handle GIF (jif) and JPEGs?
The GIMP is an image editor roughly comparable to Photoshop and Paintshop Pro. It can view and edit GIF, JPEG, and a myriad other static image formats.
ffmpeg and mencoder are also important and powerful open source projects for video work including encoding, muxing and compositing. I'm not sure if those were either listed or used for this specific project.
I'm sad they didn't mention the TI-99/4a speech synthesizer. I mean every computer in early 80's movies and television could talk (Kit, WOPR, Hawking) but try getting that tech into your personal video game system, right?
Even today Microsoft Sam on a quad core 3.3Ghz machine with 4gb of RAM hasn't really gained a lot of ground past Parsec's onboard computer 29 years ago on a single core 300khz machine with 16kb of (usable) RAM. Yeah speech synth was a hardware add-on, might have had it's own processor and ram but they sure as hell weren't any denser than what the chassis had.
But that wasn't the premise, it was about "we probably won't even be here anymore"
OP might have meant "we probably won't even be here exclusively anymore". The sentiment that a 2 dimensional constellation of three dimensional stars is colloquial to a fixed star system is not heavily influenced by whether or not we continue to inhabit the original system.
For example, we have a complicated rock formation on the horizon from the house where I grew up called Smith Rocks. From the angle of my house, the entire formation looks like a rhino. It was quite nice as a kid to have this Rhino chilling on the horizon. But I could never see the Rhino when we traveled just a few miles to other places. It turns out because Smith Rock covers a good portion of a square mile of land, and parallax kills the effect from any other 3d angle. Even traveling in a straight line to the site causes features such as the rhino horn to vanish behind the nearer features.
Now I've grown up and moved a few miles away, and I've climbed smith rocks and travel very close to it regularly. I still visit my Grandmother at the house where I was raised often, but never so much see a Rhino anymore now that I am more familiar with the three dimensional structure of the site. I now see it as a proper 3d structure from a particular angle.
The fun part it turns out is that Smith Rocks harbors a smaller feature called "Monkey Face" which does resemble the face of a primate from every angle.:D So perhaps our future generations will work out 3 dimensional constellations to fuel their imaginations, and recognize them from odd angles? 3d constellations would not tear apart as quickly as 2d constellations do as apparent motion of nearby objects is hyperbolic while actual relative motion of any object is linear.
For instance, Internet Exploder is notorious for having this problem with PNG images.
So? Why on Earth does Google get to soapbox about image compression if they can't even pngcrush -rem gAMA? That would both fix the gamma mishandling in IE (by removing the contentious gamma header) and reduce the size of the PNGs used in the previews by 30% or more.
Reminds me of celebrities flying gas guzzling personal lears to get to events where they can proselytize against Global Warming.:3
But staticy. By my quick calculation it's only 2.4 kbps encoding. Like listening to voice over a 2400 baud modem.
By *my* calculation it is 2.24kbps encoding, and the entire point is being able to deliver higher quality speech over a bottleneck the size of a 2400 baud modem than has been available up to this point.
But to be fair, 2.24 sounds like just the lowest setting available, not necessarily the most optimal setting. Jpeg is great, but Jpeg at 99% compression, not so much.:P
If we want ultimately to be able to co-exist in a civil manner, then the civility needs to start with someone, the uncivilised behaviour needs to start somewhere.
Second sentence has the wrong number of negatives in it, I'm going to assume you meant "The *civilized behavior needs to start somewhere" or "The uncivilized behavior needs to end somewhere".
In either case, I agree. Someone needs to be the better man, am I right? So how about we start with: I pledge not to hijack any planes, bomb any train stations, or make any death threats of any kind. Fair enough? I don't seek to end the lives, or even the livelihoods, of any other law abiding peoples of any nation. I respect human life.
I'll go one better: I promise not to get upset if people desecrate their own property, or draw absolutely any illustrations they want. I value my freedom of speech which means I'll defend anyone's freedom of speech. You can write essays about, or draw cartoons of, Obama, Zuckerburg, or myself being hanged or stoned or whatever. I won't care until/unless you are protesting your local government to make these things happen, or working with the consulate to try to have people extradited and killed.
There is a line to be drawn between these behaviors where one side of the line represents violent acts which seek to endanger human life, and the other side of the line represents strongly worded, yet still civilized speech. It demonstrates a lack of perspective if you equate these things. You say I'm an asshole if I burn a Quran, or if I advocate doing so. I'm having a debate with you so I'll acknowledge your words and try to counter them. But you'll do little more than issue the same admonishment to Muslim countries for officially executing non-believers just for being non-believers. Of course they are not having a debate with you, could care less what you have to say, and heads will continue to roll.
So in a way you probably did not intend, you (and the many people who share your position) are essentially promoting violence over speech, by not properly disambiguating the two. Sensibilities and superstitions are never more valuable than Life, Liberty and reasonable levels of safety.
And please don't go back to gnawing the bone of desecration as a threat. Tons of people burned CD singles of Achey Breaky Heart when it got too much air time in the early nineties, but Billy Ray's life was never in danger, contrast with Salman Rushdie during the same time period.
Slashdot Mirror
Its 3d! What kind of nerd hates new tech.
It's really not that hard to grok, "new tech" is not always "good tech". "Expensive and complex" does not always mean "worthwhile or interesting". 3D (but I'm on board with the more accurate term Stereovision) as it is sold today is really just the tech industry selectively forgetting the lessons learned from Virtual Boy/VR32, and really the whole VR hype train from the 90's.
We want our TV's to have good brightness at an angle because we're not always sitting right in front of them. We want our game controllers wireless and our laptops and tablets to have wireless internet and good battery life because we want to pick them up and take them places. We want to lay down or sit or sprawl in odd positions.
We want our electronics to accommodate how we feel comfortable using them.
The current generation of Stereovision fails on that point. It makes us strap shit to our heads. Many geeks already wear glasses, and those almost never stack comfortably. It makes us sit at a certain angle from the screen, and we cannot tilt our head more than a few degrees. Our eyes are forced to refocus on the binocular (cross, uncross) while remaining at a fixed focus on the monocular (depth of field) which induces the same headaches as stereograms do.
So as far as "new tech" goes, it's barely even a novelty. The basics of Stereovision are nearly a hundred years old, and we've all ridden this train before. It's expensive and inconvenient. And probably the worst bit for geek involvement is, it's not really hackable or malleable in any way.
Part of the goal for media's stereovision push it to create a content walled garden. 3d is expensive to produce, more difficult to pirate, and gives them an excuse to charge for another premium. Independents can't compete. Geeks have no easy way to generate or record their own 3d content to display on these devices.
But if tech only has to be complex or new to turn you on, then there is this great inmate ankle band you've got to hear about. Delivers shocks on par with a tazer when the inmate leaves their itinerary. It's all proprietary so I can't really tell you how it works this magic, and it costs a mint, but I can certainly put one on you and charge it to your nerd card! :D
the issue is that LCD manufacturing companies are having a hard time selling 75MHz 30" cinema displays at 2500+ resolution.
The other major issue is the content side of the equation. Studios want control over content, and they are losing it. On one face this means stopping "piracy" and "copyright infringement" because they don't want people to view their content without first paying the right (set of) toll(s). They're a bit hamstrung on this point because they have to pay their tolls for music, footage and clearance within their own content so they need us to pay ours.
The other face of this is stopping all competing content. Studios can't make payroll if you watch their stuff without paying, but turned on it's head that really means they can't make payroll unless you pay to watch their stuff. Watch pirated content or watch independent content or public domain or creative commons content, and it's all the same blow to big media. So it's not even about making you pay to watch *their* stuff, it's about making you pay to watch *anything* at all.
They look at 3D as the next battleground which may help to plug the analog hole. If everyone is magically hooked on 3D content (that's the step 3 ??? part) then independent creators have a harder time crafting said content to compete with them, rippers have a harder time pirating the content, etc etc.
Yes, it will bomb. While this this rendition of Stereovision is marginally superior to the Anaglyph offerings of the 20th century, they are still messy and complicated for the end user. This is nothing like the radio to video, black and white to color, or analog to digital transitions. Color never gave anyone a headache or forced you to keep your head still at an uncomfortable angle nor required expensive glasses which interfere with your prescription ones, took batteries or had to be tethered to the set. Also, color offers a much richer addition to a black and white image than stereovision does to monovision.
Even if you compare stereovision to a mounted set of binoculars, the binoculars at least come with a "focus" knob that let you alter the depth of field, like the human eye does naturally when encountering an actually 3d scene. Stereovision media puts you at the director's mercy for depth of field, which in turn gives you a headache whenever your eyes try to focus on the blurry foreground or background objects (cued by having to cross or uncross to see them without doublevision) and naturally fail. I first noticed this watching Bolt in 3D at the theater, when the camera was looking down a tall wall. Depth of field was first at the dog, at the bottom of the wall, and then refocused to the top of the wall. In Monovision my eyes don't care, as they're not being prompted to cross and uncross at someone else's whim. in Stereovision, I just about barfed.
Bacteria play Conway's Game of Life.
Wrong, bitches play Minecraft, just like everyone else. Reminds me a lot of a 3d Conway's, though..
Absolutely not! Space is just 100 km up while earth-based locations can be 20,000 km apart.
Considering that Earth has a diameter of about 12750km, I'd highly doubt that. You started mixing vertical and lateral distances... ;-)
That's still up to 20,000km as the crow flies, or distance between points as measured in 3d polar coordinates. GP's terminology is just fine, nobody here is assuming a Euclidean metric. :S
Or your could keep all of the road information available in a large database, something similar to google maps, perhaps.
And that seems to be what they are doing, which is inferior to being able to read local signage for reasons such as the following:
Signage
Signage
Signage
Opps
Each movement should be a row in a child table.
You're not designing for availability. Each movement should get it's own child table. Each hosted on a separate machine. Geographically distributed, ideally each on different continents.
Granted you might run out of continents, but if you can't just buy more then you probably can't afford my consulting fees, either. Next!
They do. See "cached" reading
Alright, so now for instance my graph is at "1.17GB" while the stats below (which I rarely read being that they never seem to add up, and .. they're not a graph ;D) Say:
Physical Memory (MB) .. so not represented in graph?)
Total: 4094 (sounds right to me)
Cached: 1911 (more than the graph has
Available: 2887 (?)
Free: 1046 (?)
Not that this is a Window's howto forum or anything, but I just rely on the graph to tell me how much RAM I have free. I never see problems until that graph is at 100% memory utilization (which in turn has never happened to me since upgrading to 4gig .. yes I run hundreds of tabs in 4 web browsers plus 3 dozen other applications sometimes :D)
If My graph shows ~500MB more used on startup than it did when I was in XP, and if the cache you mention is not represented in that graph, then it's not relevant to my measurement. Of course, if I've got four gig (as did OP) and never remotely approach that in either OS, then memory usage might not be OP's problem either.
So, just saying. Thanks for the input, just doesn't look relevant. :3
Win7 eats ram for cache. As does LINUX, or any other reasonably modern OS.
Yeah, OK. Again, I've got 4 gigs. So instead of never going over 2 gigs used now I never go over 2.5. I dun care. :3
Still, if what you say explains the readings I get from Task Manager, then why not can they put a separate line for amount of memory used by disk cache? Kind of like the optional "kernel" line for CPU usage, or like the "+/- buffers" column in linux' "free" command.
ipad?
But that's just it. If computing is like taking your model T out on the highway, then Ipad is like a train. don't got to maintain it, but you're only going where they want to take you and paying through the nose all the way there.
I'm glad you chose benchmarks as an example. Unfortunately in a real word example...typing a letter...pressing a damn key and the letter appearing is the slowdown. Thats using the bread and butter of Microsoft Office+OS combo
Then this might not be an OS problem but an MS Office problem. I don't use Word at all. I use Google Docs on occasion and OpenOffice on occasion (mostly for spreadsheets or for zero-config collaboration) and tons of plain text, as formated text isn't used too often in my bare metal work.
Otherwise, I never experience a hard time typing save here: in Slashdot's comment section (on sev'ral web browsers). I certainly can't blame the OS for that.
High personal involvement with what one used and drove was standard through the 1950s.
God, that sounds about like the requirement to run computers these days too.
I wonder when our industry will grow as mature as 1950's automotive, where knowing how to operate the steering wheel, foot pedals, signals, wipers, lights, pamphlet worth of road policies and how to talk to a mechanic can get you anywhere you want to go?
With something mechanical you usually have movement or sound to tell you the answer to that. For a circuit, you have to go get your multimeter- you can't really observe the circuit unaided.
So in short, it's easy to forensically sift out symptoms from the constant noise a mechanical device generates in the process of wearing itself down to a stub, but it's so difficult to diagnose problems in solid state electronics with no noise to analyze.
Yeah, I guess that's a tradeoff. Just wait until you're working on quantum computers and no multimeter in the world will get you past Heisenberg's velvet rope to find out what really went wrong. ;D
I run Windows 7 on my my new Revo box 64-bit 2core, 4GB, Nvidia, 500GB Hard Drive. Runs so slow. I spent £300 on it because of lies like yours.
Alrighty. I run Windows 7 on my old Dell Inspiron 1520 with 64 bit dual core, 4GB (aftermarket), Nvidia and 120GB Hard Drive. Bought it in Feb 08 with XP on it. This was during the reign of Vista and this was the only laptop Dell still sold with XP on it.
Got hit by a virus (damn AVG Free did not protect me; even though I scanned the suspect file thoroughly before trying to use it. Switched to Avira, we'll see how that does ;D) and had to re-install. I had already tried Win7 during RC and decided it is marginally better than XP, just not better enough to switch unless you're rolling a new OS anyway.. and now I was. So I switched from 32 bit XP to 64 bit 7.
Now it seems to run every bit as fast as XP did, with Aero turned on. It eats more RAM (900MB used at startup instead of 350MB, overhead appears constant after days of uptime) and this is after applying most of Black Viper's recommended service tweaks to both OSen. I find win+tab is handy when you've got a ton of browser windows open (each with tabs; I generally run one window per distinct project) and want to quickly get to one which is visually distinct.
so tuppe, does my counter-example anecdote mean that you're the liar now? Or perhaps we should yeild the predictive power of all of our personal one-off experiences in favor of actual research?
ZDnet's benchmarks maintain that Windows 7 is faster than XP for standard use, although XP remains more capable for devices with limited memory and outdated graphics.
Maximum PC's benchmarks claim that Win7 simply feels faster than XP on the hardware they tested.
Tom's Hardware's netbook benchmarks show that Windows 7 does not beat XP on the netbook but that it is quite responsive, and would probably surpass XP with better driver support.
TechRadar's benchmark includes many plusses and minuses for Windows 7 with a net plus, but clearly states that it provides "better performance than XP can deliver on today's hardware."
I'm not picking up on any benchmarks that have the same trouble you've had, so unfortunately I have no way to confirm you did not just misconfigure your machine.
If you are interested in the truth and have the required attention span to analyse detailed information, you won't be using Twitter.
Or shitty social networking websites, for that matter.
I don't see how these critiques are relevant to adding an "I call bullshit" button to such services, and an aggregator which charts the currents of bullshit across these mediums. All forms of communication deserve the benefit of fact-checking. Whether you use them or not, they are popular, and I guarantee you're related to people who will believe what they read there. Leave them alone and they'll all rise up as one to elect Sarah Palin for president, and then the terrorists win.
Well, otoh one of two scenarios leading to what he meant was "we will wipe ourselves out" (and my overall point about how extrapolating progress like that has...issues)
Meh, plenty of people have worried about nuclear annihilation in the past. It is pretty well understood that a complete nuclear offensive would if not extinguish the human race, at least ravage the human population and set back civilization a century or more, not to mention ruining the continuity of what we see as history. We would probably arise from the ashes, but I don't think we would arise as the same people we were when we fell.
Then there is asteroid impact. Yeah, asteroids don't have to be too big before even bacteria are toasted. The universe is pretty much a huge russian roulette wheel for processes as awkward as our biosphere, so unless this flame spreads it will inevitably falter for one reason or another.
And generally - do people even care about constellations all that much? (they sure don't care about how almost all the stars basically dissapeared behind light pollution)
Meh, sheeple don't care about light pollution obscuring the stars or heavy metal pollution fouling the water. We used to use constellations as navigational aids. All you needed was a clear view of the night sky and you could find your bearings. Now we rely on GPS, where you still need a clear view of the sky and.. what are the fleets of GPS satellites called again?
How many people care about your rhino, or even "objective" monkey face for that matter? ;)
Rhino, just me. If any of my friends lived in the viewing area (less than half a mile away, for example) then they may have done as well.
Monkey Face, I dunno. Google shows a quarter million hits though. ;P
I see GIMP, Mypaint, Alchemy, Inkscape, Python, Subversion - did I miss any? Which one of these can handle GIF (jif) and JPEGs?
The GIMP is an image editor roughly comparable to Photoshop and Paintshop Pro. It can view and edit GIF, JPEG, and a myriad other static image formats.
ffmpeg and mencoder are also important and powerful open source projects for video work including encoding, muxing and compositing. I'm not sure if those were either listed or used for this specific project.
I'm sad they didn't mention the TI-99/4a speech synthesizer. I mean every computer in early 80's movies and television could talk (Kit, WOPR, Hawking) but try getting that tech into your personal video game system, right? Even today Microsoft Sam on a quad core 3.3Ghz machine with 4gb of RAM hasn't really gained a lot of ground past Parsec's onboard computer 29 years ago on a single core 300khz machine with 16kb of (usable) RAM. Yeah speech synth was a hardware add-on, might have had it's own processor and ram but they sure as hell weren't any denser than what the chassis had.
But that wasn't the premise, it was about "we probably won't even be here anymore"
OP might have meant "we probably won't even be here exclusively anymore". The sentiment that a 2 dimensional constellation of three dimensional stars is colloquial to a fixed star system is not heavily influenced by whether or not we continue to inhabit the original system.
For example, we have a complicated rock formation on the horizon from the house where I grew up called Smith Rocks. From the angle of my house, the entire formation looks like a rhino. It was quite nice as a kid to have this Rhino chilling on the horizon. But I could never see the Rhino when we traveled just a few miles to other places. It turns out because Smith Rock covers a good portion of a square mile of land, and parallax kills the effect from any other 3d angle. Even traveling in a straight line to the site causes features such as the rhino horn to vanish behind the nearer features.
Now I've grown up and moved a few miles away, and I've climbed smith rocks and travel very close to it regularly. I still visit my Grandmother at the house where I was raised often, but never so much see a Rhino anymore now that I am more familiar with the three dimensional structure of the site. I now see it as a proper 3d structure from a particular angle.
The fun part it turns out is that Smith Rocks harbors a smaller feature called "Monkey Face" which does resemble the face of a primate from every angle. :D So perhaps our future generations will work out 3 dimensional constellations to fuel their imaginations, and recognize them from odd angles? 3d constellations would not tear apart as quickly as 2d constellations do as apparent motion of nearby objects is hyperbolic while actual relative motion of any object is linear.
Hey, Abby does it too, and she's hotter.
Wait, what? Hotter than .. who, Rimmer?
Good God, you could Kill A Person making comparisons like that! D:<
Unless Google actually stole WebP technology from Abby Sciuto!!1!one!
Hey! Don't be all for blaming Abby for the infamous "CSI image enhancement" trope. :3
For instance, Internet Exploder is notorious for having this problem with PNG images.
So? Why on Earth does Google get to soapbox about image compression if they can't even pngcrush -rem gAMA? That would both fix the gamma mishandling in IE (by removing the contentious gamma header) and reduce the size of the PNGs used in the previews by 30% or more.
Reminds me of celebrities flying gas guzzling personal lears to get to events where they can proselytize against Global Warming. :3
>>>But will you be presenting IN Codec2?
But staticy. By my quick calculation it's only 2.4 kbps encoding. Like listening to voice over a 2400 baud modem.
By *my* calculation it is 2.24kbps encoding, and the entire point is being able to deliver higher quality speech over a bottleneck the size of a 2400 baud modem than has been available up to this point.
But to be fair, 2.24 sounds like just the lowest setting available, not necessarily the most optimal setting. Jpeg is great, but Jpeg at 99% compression, not so much. :P
Two people can keep a secret . . . If one of them is dead.
Yeah, until the ME finally pries the truth from him. :P
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Those who do not understand base(2 - 1/infinity) and those who envy the first group.
If we want ultimately to be able to co-exist in a civil manner, then the civility needs to start with someone, the uncivilised behaviour needs to start somewhere.
Second sentence has the wrong number of negatives in it, I'm going to assume you meant "The *civilized behavior needs to start somewhere" or "The uncivilized behavior needs to end somewhere".
In either case, I agree. Someone needs to be the better man, am I right? So how about we start with: I pledge not to hijack any planes, bomb any train stations, or make any death threats of any kind. Fair enough? I don't seek to end the lives, or even the livelihoods, of any other law abiding peoples of any nation. I respect human life.
I'll go one better: I promise not to get upset if people desecrate their own property, or draw absolutely any illustrations they want. I value my freedom of speech which means I'll defend anyone's freedom of speech. You can write essays about, or draw cartoons of, Obama, Zuckerburg, or myself being hanged or stoned or whatever. I won't care until/unless you are protesting your local government to make these things happen, or working with the consulate to try to have people extradited and killed.
There is a line to be drawn between these behaviors where one side of the line represents violent acts which seek to endanger human life, and the other side of the line represents strongly worded, yet still civilized speech. It demonstrates a lack of perspective if you equate these things. You say I'm an asshole if I burn a Quran, or if I advocate doing so. I'm having a debate with you so I'll acknowledge your words and try to counter them. But you'll do little more than issue the same admonishment to Muslim countries for officially executing non-believers just for being non-believers. Of course they are not having a debate with you, could care less what you have to say, and heads will continue to roll.
So in a way you probably did not intend, you (and the many people who share your position) are essentially promoting violence over speech, by not properly disambiguating the two. Sensibilities and superstitions are never more valuable than Life, Liberty and reasonable levels of safety.
And please don't go back to gnawing the bone of desecration as a threat. Tons of people burned CD singles of Achey Breaky Heart when it got too much air time in the early nineties, but Billy Ray's life was never in danger, contrast with Salman Rushdie during the same time period.