If you approve of those verdicts and fines, then you cannot simultaneously criticize Microsoft for forcing you to install all those things. Approving of these fines means simply that we accept (or rather demand) the inconveniences they inflict.
I approve of the fines as necessary with MS in a monopoly position. I look forward to the time when windows is no longer a monopoly and so can start becoming a good OS.
Everything you say is true, but the comparison to a spam filter is apt. How many people read through and check all their emails carefully, in case they really are the heir of a deceased nigerian prince? Yes, some non-peer-reviewed papers might be valid; brilliant even. But it's simply not worth the cost of wading through the crap.
For a long time I ran wine successfully under SFU on windows XP. It was a geeky thing to show off, nothing more. (Sadly, now that I'm running vista x64 and could actually do with having wine work under it, it won't build).
What if the only ways to travel in space are no much better than the ones we know? We'd be all restrained to our own star systems.
No. With the political willpower it would be possible to colonise the galaxy using only current technology - generation ships using nuclear pulse propulsion - and in a surprisingly short timeframe (IIRC 250 million years).
True, but it will happily install (at least using the Linux Kernel's driver for it) on any size drive.
Not so; the limit is quite low, IIRC 274GB (and even that requires a non-standard cluster size). Yes, the 32GB limit in windows XP is fake (and you can bypass it by using an earlier version of windows), but the hard limit isn't so much higher.
I don't think we don't go to the Dr. till something is wrong so much for cost...but, just don't wanna waste their time or ours. Maybe it is more of a 'guy' thing, but, unless I feel like something is REALLY wrong, I just don't feel like taking off work to go to a Dr. wait around...just to have him tell me 99% of the time I'm fine. If something is wrong, I'm bleeding badly or feeling very poorly, sure I'll go, but, other than that...I just don't like to go for things that aren't serious.
I can understand the attitude, but I also know it's too often ultimately quite harmful - and I think taking financial matters out of the equation makes it a lot easier for doctors over here to encourage people to come and see them whenever something seems "up". Every doctor I've known personally (which is admittedly, well, three) has told me they preferred even the hypochondriacs who were in every other week to the guys (and it does indeed seem to be a mostly male thing) who'd let permanent damage happen because it took until there was severe pain for them to come in.
Hmm...but, you're still not paying enough in taxes you feel?
I'm a European. My taxes seem to manage to be sufficient to fund healthcare without being excessively burdensome. I wouldn't want to live in a country without nationalized healthcare, even if it meant an overall saving to me personally.
We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly.
How well does that work out? My impression is that in the US a lot of conditions end up getting treated a lot later (and hence both less effectively and far more expensively) than they should be, because people won't go to a doctor unless it seems serious.
then you'd be willing to give some of it up voluntarily to a charity that deals with health care for the poor, or your local hospital?
No. I have no belief in the effectiveness of privately-run charity.
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same?
How about the present state of the US healthcare system? Irritating things, facts.
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
How so? As a high-earning guy without children, I probably pay more than my "fair share", whatever that means, of taxes, so there's no hypocrisy I see in wanting them.
Suspect if it wasn't for the need to eat, we would all program C & figure out ways to get the same features of our day job languages in C.
Huh? That makes very little sense, unless you're comparing Java. If it weren't for the need to eat, I would program everything in python, and I don't think I'm alone.
If it were in c++, there are a bunch of errors that I could have seen at compile time.
And there'd be a bunch that you couldn't.
I think it would have saved me a lot of time, and right now, I would be more sure that those apps worked
You could be confident they worked based on having them compile? Man, I don't ever want to run your code.
In all seriousness: you're never going to be able to catch all errors at compile time. Probably not even most errors. You're always going to need proper testing suites to catch runtime errors; all static verification does, from where I'm standing, is introduce an artificial and confusing split in your debugging, and distract people from writing a good testsuite from day 1.
Not really; I've always found the OSX tool harder to use (though that may just be since it corresponds less closely to the configuration file, which I'm familiar with). In any case, there's nothing wrong with writing your own GUI if you're going to test and maintain it properly, but clearly your problem is that Ubuntu hasn't. This is Ubuntu's fault, not Samba's, and this kind of thing (see also network-manager, etc.) is one of my reasons for disliking the distribution. If there were actual problems with SWAT which the Ubuntu people have identified then fair enough, though it would be better if they'd fixed these things in SWAT rather than writing their own new incompatible tool. But as far as I can see there aren't such things, so there's really nothing the Samba people can do to make this any better - they've done everything you asked, but the distribution ignores it. Worse, I suspect they're duplicating exactly the same thing that's been done before by mandrake, and by suse's YaST before that - and when the next super-duper popular distro comes along, they'll rewrite it yet again and make the same errors.
Uh... apologies if I'm being stupid here, but why didn't you just make it three eight hour shifts, early/day/night (one of you 2-10am, one of you 10am-6pm, one of you 6pm-2am or some such) like factory workers?
These are probably the same people that bitched because people used mp3, not completely free, over ogg, completely free.
I find that highly unlikely.
I will admit I was one of those idiots. At first I preferred avi the mp4 for my container. Then I realized in some incredibly bout of stupidity the industrial standard for audio, ac3, was left out of the format. Let me rephrase that, the standard format for audio on dvd's, ac3, cannot be included in a standard mp4 container unless its in a "user" track.
That's because ac3 is a subset of AAC; AAC is the new version and includes all its features.
They should have got consistency by going the other way. Once you've used a language where you can simply write "function argument" for a function call, brackets seem so clunky.
It's not failed, not by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it's finally doing what mp4 never managed, that is killing AVI. Anime fansubbers would never use anything else these days - the only other container with reasonable softsub support is OGM, and that has a list of problems as long as my arm (if you want something tangible, it can't handle variable framerate). It's also the format of choice for high-quality rips of more regular content, both from new HD formats and even from DVDs - it has lower overhead, better tools, greater codec support, and is simply the best current container format by far. Of course there are a number of idiots who can't figure out how to play it, but that will be the case with any new technology.
about half the malware infections I clean off of friends' computers got there through installation of NoCD cracks or pirated software that included a Trojan.
As a proportion of software installs, how does that compare to the number of infections from non-pirated software that included a trojan?
You trust each government to sign certificates in its own TLD - Australian government handles.au, French government handles.fr, etc. Then if people want to trust a.cx (say) website that's up to them.
My home network has been IPv6-ready for three years. Two years ago I looked at actually switching it over - it would've been a cool geeky project. But the IPv6 overlords in their infinite wisdom have decided that we can't just use a 192.168.0.* equivalent, oh no. All addresses must be publicly routeable.
Which is fine - after all, there should be plenty of addresses, right? So why is there nowhere that will give me, as a private individual, an IPv6 address (officially, I mean - I'm aware of that website that generates an address that should be ok to use)?
This sort of thing should be what drives the IPv6 transition - I'm willing to experiment, to find problems and fix them. But the system is such that I am locked out of doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
I approve of the fines as necessary with MS in a monopoly position. I look forward to the time when windows is no longer a monopoly and so can start becoming a good OS.
Everything you say is true, but the comparison to a spam filter is apt. How many people read through and check all their emails carefully, in case they really are the heir of a deceased nigerian prince? Yes, some non-peer-reviewed papers might be valid; brilliant even. But it's simply not worth the cost of wading through the crap.
For a long time I ran wine successfully under SFU on windows XP. It was a geeky thing to show off, nothing more. (Sadly, now that I'm running vista x64 and could actually do with having wine work under it, it won't build).
No. With the political willpower it would be possible to colonise the galaxy using only current technology - generation ships using nuclear pulse propulsion - and in a surprisingly short timeframe (IIRC 250 million years).
Not so; the limit is quite low, IIRC 274GB (and even that requires a non-standard cluster size). Yes, the 32GB limit in windows XP is fake (and you can bypass it by using an earlier version of windows), but the hard limit isn't so much higher.
Comparing ext4 to reiser3? Biased much?
I can understand the attitude, but I also know it's too often ultimately quite harmful - and I think taking financial matters out of the equation makes it a lot easier for doctors over here to encourage people to come and see them whenever something seems "up". Every doctor I've known personally (which is admittedly, well, three) has told me they preferred even the hypochondriacs who were in every other week to the guys (and it does indeed seem to be a mostly male thing) who'd let permanent damage happen because it took until there was severe pain for them to come in.
I'm a European. My taxes seem to manage to be sufficient to fund healthcare without being excessively burdensome. I wouldn't want to live in a country without nationalized healthcare, even if it meant an overall saving to me personally.
We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly.
How well does that work out? My impression is that in the US a lot of conditions end up getting treated a lot later (and hence both less effectively and far more expensively) than they should be, because people won't go to a doctor unless it seems serious.
No. I have no belief in the effectiveness of privately-run charity.
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same?
How about the present state of the US healthcare system? Irritating things, facts.
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
How so? As a high-earning guy without children, I probably pay more than my "fair share", whatever that means, of taxes, so there's no hypocrisy I see in wanting them.
Huh? That makes very little sense, unless you're comparing Java. If it weren't for the need to eat, I would program everything in python, and I don't think I'm alone.
And there'd be a bunch that you couldn't.
I think it would have saved me a lot of time, and right now, I would be more sure that those apps worked
You could be confident they worked based on having them compile? Man, I don't ever want to run your code.
In all seriousness: you're never going to be able to catch all errors at compile time. Probably not even most errors. You're always going to need proper testing suites to catch runtime errors; all static verification does, from where I'm standing, is introduce an artificial and confusing split in your debugging, and distract people from writing a good testsuite from day 1.
Not really; I've always found the OSX tool harder to use (though that may just be since it corresponds less closely to the configuration file, which I'm familiar with). In any case, there's nothing wrong with writing your own GUI if you're going to test and maintain it properly, but clearly your problem is that Ubuntu hasn't. This is Ubuntu's fault, not Samba's, and this kind of thing (see also network-manager, etc.) is one of my reasons for disliking the distribution. If there were actual problems with SWAT which the Ubuntu people have identified then fair enough, though it would be better if they'd fixed these things in SWAT rather than writing their own new incompatible tool. But as far as I can see there aren't such things, so there's really nothing the Samba people can do to make this any better - they've done everything you asked, but the distribution ignores it. Worse, I suspect they're duplicating exactly the same thing that's been done before by mandrake, and by suse's YaST before that - and when the next super-duper popular distro comes along, they'll rewrite it yet again and make the same errors.
SWAT is that and it works fine. The problem is distributions which love to slap their own barely-tested GUI over everything.
So they *wanted* to have to do the 12/24 schedule? Because that seems to be the only way that could happen.
Uh... apologies if I'm being stupid here, but why didn't you just make it three eight hour shifts, early/day/night (one of you 2-10am, one of you 10am-6pm, one of you 6pm-2am or some such) like factory workers?
GDP is not a fair measure to compare with, because it assumes everything not paid for is worthless. Enjoy paying for your healthcare.
I find that highly unlikely.
I will admit I was one of those idiots. At first I preferred avi the mp4 for my container. Then I realized in some incredibly bout of stupidity the industrial standard for audio, ac3, was left out of the format. Let me rephrase that, the standard format for audio on dvd's, ac3, cannot be included in a standard mp4 container unless its in a "user" track.
That's because ac3 is a subset of AAC; AAC is the new version and includes all its features.
It's unpleasant in the short term, but gains you a lot in the long term when you have to maintain the code. It's very much in the python spirit.
They should have got consistency by going the other way. Once you've used a language where you can simply write "function argument" for a function call, brackets seem so clunky.
It's not failed, not by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it's finally doing what mp4 never managed, that is killing AVI. Anime fansubbers would never use anything else these days - the only other container with reasonable softsub support is OGM, and that has a list of problems as long as my arm (if you want something tangible, it can't handle variable framerate). It's also the format of choice for high-quality rips of more regular content, both from new HD formats and even from DVDs - it has lower overhead, better tools, greater codec support, and is simply the best current container format by far. Of course there are a number of idiots who can't figure out how to play it, but that will be the case with any new technology.
On the contrary, bullshitting is necessary to get a high score on that part of the GRE.
If it quacks like a duck.... Depends on what exactly the DRM does. Certainly if it allows them to run arbitrary code on your machine, it's a trojan.
This, obviously, excluding things like Bonzi Buddy. That's hardly "legit" in any sense of the word
I said non-pirated, not "legit".
As a proportion of software installs, how does that compare to the number of infections from non-pirated software that included a trojan?
You trust each government to sign certificates in its own TLD - Australian government handles .au, French government handles .fr, etc. Then if people want to trust a .cx (say) website that's up to them.
Which is fine - after all, there should be plenty of addresses, right? So why is there nowhere that will give me, as a private individual, an IPv6 address (officially, I mean - I'm aware of that website that generates an address that should be ok to use)?
This sort of thing should be what drives the IPv6 transition - I'm willing to experiment, to find problems and fix them. But the system is such that I am locked out of doing so.