Doesn't it worry you that Adams and the Python guys just ad libbed most of this stuff to make their friends laugh and you're quoting it decades later? They never took it as seriously then as you do now. In fact I bet if you quoted it to them even a year later they'd think you were a bit unimaginative for not having thought up anything else funny in the meantime.
So you'd need to install SP4 and set this before imaging. Win2k was a bit funky too - if the Bios didn't report the 48bit LBA disk capacity it would only see 137GB. So if anything went wrong the disk would become corrupt soon after moving to the 250GB drive since 48 bit LBA wasn't enabled. On Windows XP (no SP1) with a 300GB drive I installed to a 137GB partition - the max I could create during installation - then installed SP1 to enable 48 bit LBA and then created a second 'data' partition in the 163GB of unallocated space that then appeared.
If you use Win2k with slipstreamed SP3 it will work though. Though you need to set EnableBigLBA in the registry. I suppose it is effectively partition - you need to install on a partition smaller that 137GB and then install SP3 if you didn't slipstream and tweak the registry so that you can see the whole capacity of the drive.
From here http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?board.id=soundblaster&thread.id=116332
We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make. Someone else put it like this -
1) The licence agreement which we all accept to says that we must not reverse engineer or tamper with the software as it is the property of Creative Labs. 2) I firmly believe that Daniel K has caught the flack because of the Dolby Digital feature As far as I am aware Auzentech paid a lot of money for an exclusive licence with Dolby to have their cards support this. Now, Creative would get into trouble if they allow a means for this to be "cracked" to run on non-Auzentech cards. 3) Accepting money (even in the form of donations) for someone elses copyrighted material is a big NO NO. Now let's suppose that he has a legal right to reverse engineer 1), and they are willing to ignore 3). There's still a problem with 2), that his drivers allow Dolby Digital on non Auzentech cards. It seems like Auzentech make cards based on the Creative chipset but they pay royalties to Dolby for some Dolby code/patents. The official Creative driver always has the code but only enables it on Auzentech cards.
Now Daniel_K comes along and enables the code on Creative cards. Dolby finds out and complains to Auzentech since they probably signed a contract that only allows them to use the technology on their cards. Auzentech complains to Creative who've signed a contract to enforce this in the driver. And things look bad for Creative, since they allowed him to post the crack on their forum.
So it's not the Vista driver he's in trouble for, it's unlocking Dolby on Creative cards.
That said, the traditional way to handle this is to negotiate in private not on some internet forum, offer the guy a job and so on. And release the missing Vista drivers.
Well yeah. But I've built stuff for Win64 and only seen problems with bad pointer casting and not using sizeof. So the others are not exactly common idioms. Plus there were articles on MSDN back when Itanium was being planned explaining how you could build with/Wp64 to find them. I remember reading them almost 10 years ago. And assert(!(pPointer&0x80000000)); was broken even then on a 32 bit x86 OS. If your application was run with the/3GB boot switch and was marked LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE then then user/kernel virtual address boundary was at 3GB. In typical Microsoft style, applications saw a 2GB virtual address space unless they were marked LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE. So you could leave code that checked the high bits of pointers and it would still work, or make sure it was gone and set the linker flag and have a 3GB address space if the OS supported it.
Which will no doubt annoy purists, but it allowed some software houses to opt into a larger address space after they audited the code and retested it. Others could be sure that their code wouldn't break.
Some apps may need to be re-written for Win64 if they were written badly enough to begin with. Not at all. In your examples the pointer casting bugs can be fixed with LONG_PTR types. Inline assembler needs a rewrite, but if you're sensible you write in C, profile and then only rewrite a few hotspots in assembler surrounded by #ifdef _M_X86. Most of the time, even this is unnecessary since you can get the performance you need out of C. And if you do write assembler, Win32 has always supported non x86 chips, and it's always handy to be able to build with mingw32, so it was always good practice to make sure you could build a pure C version with minimal effort. If you keep the C version of the hotspot code around, that is always possible.
In general I'd say a few days of hard work will convert a largish and averagely crappy application to Win64. Maybe longer but it's still less work than Adobe needed to port Photoshop from Carbon to Cocoa to get it from 32 bit Mac x86 to 64 bit Mac x64. It looks like they need to rewrite the UI code in Objective C. What's funny is that Apple told them they would port Carbon to 64 bit for years and only recently reneged on that. So it's pretty clear who's to blame for Photoshop being 32 bit only on Macs.
The benchmarks I've seen seem to imply that the speedup is not that great. Probably because all x86 processors have more internal registers than the architected ones and use register renaming to allow code to take advantage of them, even though the code only thinks it is using the architected number of registers.
32 bit non server versions of Windows do have a 4GB physical address space limitation though, so even if your Bios maps Ram hidden by IO devices above 4GB, Windows XP 32 and Vista 32 won't use it. Windows Server will though.
The 6502 in the C64 used a 16 bit address space. Registers where only 8 bit and one register could indeed only access one of 256 addresses. But pointers in code could be 16 bit e.g. store accumulator to address $8000 was like this -
STA $8000 ; I still remember the hex for this $8D $00 $8d
You could use the 8 bit registers as an offset too, e.g
LDA $8000,X ; Load the accumulator from address $8000+X
Finally the first 256 bytes of memory called the zero page could be used to hold 16 bit addresses. So if you had an zero page space you could do
LDA ($40),Y ; load a from the (16 bit address at $40)+Y
Note that since all the registers - A,X,Y (and even the stack pointer!) are 8 bit the offsets from pointers can only be 8 bit. It's a bit like a stripped down version of 8086 in 16 bit mode. There you had a 16 bit offset from a segment. Segments were 16 bit values but they were shifted left 4 bits to give addresses below 1MB. Effectively you have a 1MB address space consisting of arbitrarily aligned 64 segments.
In much the same way, you can think of the 6502 as having a 16 bit (64K) address space and 256 byte segments.
Of course in 6502, if your code runs from Ram, you can write a 16 bit address directly into the instruction. Since 6502s don't do much in the way of caching or prefetching, this is still fast.
Now some 6502 designs used bank switching to get access to more than 64K of memory. Typically they would use a memory mapped IO port to latch the high order address bits. So you'd write the address bits to a port and then some chunk of the 64 address space would be remapped. An example would be to have a 16K window mapped anywhere in 128K of Ram.
They should be concerned that Adobe got told that the API they relied on won't be ported to 64 bit though. That might affect other third party software vendors.
On Win32 the API doesn't really change when you go to 64 bit. And the LLP model means int and long stay 32 bit, only the pointers change size. So code that reads bitmaps for example won't break. Now you can argue about this, but it means if you've spent ages developing Win32 code it only takes a few days to port a large application to Win64.
Now Windows has ~90% of the market place and Apple has ~6%. If you were Adobe and getting to 64 bit on Apple required a lot more work in return access to far less of the market place, wouldn't you be tempted to tell people to use Bootcamp if they want to use the 64 bit version? Now I know Adobe will do the work at least this time, but don't you think decisions like this may cause other vendors to reconsider keeping their Mac ports going?
I know Adobe had a hard time going from PPC to Intel
The thing that Apple needs to realise is that independent software vendors are an asset to the platform. If you keep making them to extra unnecessary work - the transition from Metroworks to XCode and from Carbon to Cocoa - to support a minority platform when the majority platform doesn't require this, then they might well just tell people to use Bootcamp. Which they do already for Framemaker.
http://www.macworld.com/article/50465/2006/04/photoshop.html
"However there are some products that we have today that we have not been able to afford to continue to develop to make available on the Mac. A great example being FrameMaker. The majority of FrameMaker users use Windows as an OS but there is a small percentage that want to use FrameMaker on the Mac so they can use Boot Camp." Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen Actually maybe Bootcamp is too much hassle for most people. But I've seen Parallels desktop, and it's really slick. Sooner or later someone will work out a way to get Windows applications running seamlessly on Intel Mac, if they haven't already.
So the hassle for Mac users running a Windows application is dropping all the time. And that will definitely affect Adobe's decisions whether to spend man power on refactoring every few months to keep tracking Job's whims. But in the long run, if the Mac has no native third party applications, it will go the way of OS/2.
ARM processors rock for embedded stuff but they are a bit underpowered for a desktop machine. Even the fastest ARM is significantly slower than a Intel Atom. Of course, they have a much smaller die and use less power too. But 1-2W and an Atom sized die should still make a cheap machine with a long battery life.
And ARM are aiming at the embedded market, not at desktops, so they won't expend effort in designing chips to take it over.
He thinks that global warming will cause cannibalism unless we take drastic action, the Iraqi insurgents are patriots, and the US doesn't need an army because the Chinese 'just want to sell us shoes' and the North Koreans are 'absolutely sincere'.
Actually it would be funnier if the Reply button was a little gradient shaded button with a logo rather than text so it looked like the unlabelled Start button in Vista.
I like that. It reminds of the Joker's insane 'joke' in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel.
"Well... This guy goes into the hospital, okay?...His wife's just had a baby and he can't wait to see them both. So he meets the doctor and he says, `Oh, Doc, I've been so worried. How are they?' And the doctor smiles and says, 'they're fine, just fine. Your wife's delivered a healthy baby boy and they're both in tip-top form. You're one lucky guy.' So the guy rushes into the maternity ward with his flowers. But it's empty. His wife's bed is empty. 'Doc?' he says and turns around and the doctors and nurses wave their arms and scream in his face, 'APRIL FOOL! Your wife's dead and the baby's a spastic!!"
Actually I think it was worse than that, like the Doctor lead him through rooms of increasingly deformed children on the way to last room.
Incidentally your signature implies you think one of the partisan sides in political arguments is more or less correct. But when you think about it, there's no reason for that to the case. It's quite possible, indeed likely, that both sides are actually talking almost complete nonsense.
I dunno about that. Round here HR is on a strict orders to hire anyone with "Web 2.0" on their resumes. But on the first day the security guards beat them to death with a spade and bury them under the flowerbeds out back.
Maybe MacThorpe is a twitter sockpuppet too. Just a really strategically minded one, building up a large reserve of karma before burning it in a sudden kamikaze flash of advocacy.
I am not a physicist, but from what little physics I have had, and from reading threw the thread/flamewar, I dont think we have to worry about the LHC That's what scientists said about DDT, Agent Orange, Plutonium and Carbon Dioxide though. The precautionary principle clearly tells us that we should stop building particle accelerators and return to a Amish type lifestyle. Think of your grandchildren!
What I think is funny about that is the way the percentage difference between what hard disk manufacturers define as a [kilo|mega|giga|tera] byte, i.e. 10^(3n) and the 'traditional' binary definition i.e. 2^(10n) grows with n. So a hard disk maker's megabyte is 95% traditional megabytes. But with gigabytes it's 93% and terabytes it's 90%. So this scheme devalues the [kilo|mega|giga|tera]byte a bit more each generation. Genius.
What I think would be funny would be if one of them complained about Microsoft using sockpuppets to get the standard through ISO. At least it would show he has a sense of irony.
How exactly? It's the editor who decides what to run. And it's the journalist who decides what questions to ask and how to write the resulting article. The owners don't really care so long as the paper sells. And probably a large chunk of the newspaper buying market is left of center. At least in the UK, leftwing parties tend to do better in the ABC "professional" market class who buy the most newspapers. So maybe they knew what they were doing when they hired those editors. Actually, I don't really believe that, I think it's more likely that left wing ideas appeal to the sort of people who become journalists.
From the Guardian
The Hollow World of George Bush
The power of positive thinking is the president's shield from reality Safe to say he's not a supporter I think.
At the bottom
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com Hmm, so he's clearly partisan (and I actually would have voted for Clinton)
Or
"London bombs justify 'torture', says Bush". Actually he said
He told the BBC's Matt Frei: "To the critics, I ask them this: when we, within the law, interrogate and get information that protects ourselves and possibly others in other nations to prevent attacks, which attack would they have hoped that we wouldn't have prevented?
"And so, the United States will act within the law. We'll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law."
He claimed the families of victims of the July 7 terror attacks in London would understand his position. "I suspect the families of those victims understand the nature of killers. What people gotta understand is that we'll make decisions based upon law. We're a nation of law."
But Bush was undercut by a senior official in his administration who admitted yesterday, for the first time, that waterboarding is illegal. Stephen Bradbury, head of the justice department's office of legal counsel, giving evidence to a congressional committee, said: "Let me be clear, though: There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law." The fact that he kept repeating that the US would act within the law and someone in his administration said that waterboarding was not lawful, makes you wonder how honest the headline really is. The other thing that annoys me is the single quotes around the word torture. Thay implies that he actually said it, but I don't see it in a quote from him in the article.
But I'm sure they're just doing their job, right and will be as tough on the other side
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/barackobama.uselections2008
He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves. Hmmph.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't it worry you that Adams and the Python guys just ad libbed most of this stuff to make their friends laugh and you're quoting it decades later? They never took it as seriously then as you do now. In fact I bet if you quoted it to them even a year later they'd think you were a bit unimaginative for not having thought up anything else funny in the meantime.
That would only work if you slipstreamed SP4 before copying and TrueImage supports 48 bit LBA.
And SP4 does need EnableBigLBA
http://www.computing.net/windows2000/wwwboard/forum/65067.html
So you'd need to install SP4 and set this before imaging. Win2k was a bit funky too - if the Bios didn't report the 48bit LBA disk capacity it would only see 137GB. So if anything went wrong the disk would become corrupt soon after moving to the 250GB drive since 48 bit LBA wasn't enabled. On Windows XP (no SP1) with a 300GB drive I installed to a 137GB partition - the max I could create during installation - then installed SP1 to enable 48 bit LBA and then created a second 'data' partition in the 163GB of unallocated space that then appeared.
Even if it's true it's still stupid for Apple to keep forcing Adobe to do unnecessary work like this.
It's disk. Greater than 137GB requires that ATAPI.SYS, the IDE driver use 48 bit LBA
http://www.48bitlba.com/win2k.htm
If you use Win2k with slipstreamed SP3 it will work though. Though you need to set EnableBigLBA in the registry. I suppose it is effectively partition - you need to install on a partition smaller that 137GB and then install SP3 if you didn't slipstream and tweak the registry so that you can see the whole capacity of the drive.
From here
http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?board.id=soundblaster&thread.id=116332 We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make. Someone else put it like this - 1) The licence agreement which we all accept to says that we must not reverse engineer or tamper with the software as it is the property of Creative Labs.
2) I firmly believe that Daniel K has caught the flack because of the Dolby Digital feature As far as I am aware Auzentech paid a lot of money for an exclusive licence with Dolby to have their cards support this. Now, Creative would get into trouble if they allow a means for this to be "cracked" to run on non-Auzentech cards.
3) Accepting money (even in the form of donations) for someone elses copyrighted material is a big NO NO. Now let's suppose that he has a legal right to reverse engineer 1), and they are willing to ignore 3). There's still a problem with 2), that his drivers allow Dolby Digital on non Auzentech cards. It seems like Auzentech make cards based on the Creative chipset but they pay royalties to Dolby for some Dolby code/patents. The official Creative driver always has the code but only enables it on Auzentech cards.
Now Daniel_K comes along and enables the code on Creative cards. Dolby finds out and complains to Auzentech since they probably signed a contract that only allows them to use the technology on their cards. Auzentech complains to Creative who've signed a contract to enforce this in the driver. And things look bad for Creative, since they allowed him to post the crack on their forum.
So it's not the Vista driver he's in trouble for, it's unlocking Dolby on Creative cards.
That said, the traditional way to handle this is to negotiate in private not on some internet forum, offer the guy a job and so on. And release the missing Vista drivers.
twitter? Is that you?
Which will no doubt annoy purists, but it allowed some software houses to opt into a larger address space after they audited the code and retested it. Others could be sure that their code wouldn't break. Some apps may need to be re-written for Win64 if they were written badly enough to begin with. Not at all. In your examples the pointer casting bugs can be fixed with LONG_PTR types. Inline assembler needs a rewrite, but if you're sensible you write in C, profile and then only rewrite a few hotspots in assembler surrounded by #ifdef _M_X86. Most of the time, even this is unnecessary since you can get the performance you need out of C. And if you do write assembler, Win32 has always supported non x86 chips, and it's always handy to be able to build with mingw32, so it was always good practice to make sure you could build a pure C version with minimal effort. If you keep the C version of the hotspot code around, that is always possible.
In general I'd say a few days of hard work will convert a largish and averagely crappy application to Win64. Maybe longer but it's still less work than Adobe needed to port Photoshop from Carbon to Cocoa to get it from 32 bit Mac x86 to 64 bit Mac x64. It looks like they need to rewrite the UI code in Objective C. What's funny is that Apple told them they would port Carbon to 64 bit for years and only recently reneged on that. So it's pretty clear who's to blame for Photoshop being 32 bit only on Macs.
The benchmarks I've seen seem to imply that the speedup is not that great. Probably because all x86 processors have more internal registers than the architected ones and use register renaming to allow code to take advantage of them, even though the code only thinks it is using the architected number of registers.
That's virtual address space, not physical address space.
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/22/218527.aspx
32 bit non server versions of Windows do have a 4GB physical address space limitation though, so even if your Bios maps Ram hidden by IO devices above 4GB, Windows XP 32 and Vista 32 won't use it. Windows Server will though.
The 6502 in the C64 used a 16 bit address space. Registers where only 8 bit and one register could indeed only access one of 256 addresses. But pointers in code could be 16 bit e.g. store accumulator to address $8000 was like this -
STA $8000 ; I still remember the hex for this $8D $00 $8d
You could use the 8 bit registers as an offset too, e.g
LDA $8000,X ; Load the accumulator from address $8000+X
Finally the first 256 bytes of memory called the zero page could be used to hold 16 bit addresses. So if you had an zero page space you could do
LDA ($40),Y ; load a from the (16 bit address at $40)+Y
Note that since all the registers - A,X,Y (and even the stack pointer!) are 8 bit the offsets from pointers can only be 8 bit. It's a bit like a stripped down version of 8086 in 16 bit mode. There you had a 16 bit offset from a segment. Segments were 16 bit values but they were shifted left 4 bits to give addresses below 1MB. Effectively you have a 1MB address space consisting of arbitrarily aligned 64 segments.
In much the same way, you can think of the 6502 as having a 16 bit (64K) address space and 256 byte segments.
Of course in 6502, if your code runs from Ram, you can write a 16 bit address directly into the instruction. Since 6502s don't do much in the way of caching or prefetching, this is still fast.
Now some 6502 designs used bank switching to get access to more than 64K of memory. Typically they would use a memory mapped IO port to latch the high order address bits. So you'd write the address bits to a port and then some chunk of the 64 address space would be remapped. An example would be to have a 16K window mapped anywhere in 128K of Ram.
On Win32 the API doesn't really change when you go to 64 bit. And the LLP model means int and long stay 32 bit, only the pointers change size. So code that reads bitmaps for example won't break. Now you can argue about this, but it means if you've spent ages developing Win32 code it only takes a few days to port a large application to Win64.
Now Windows has ~90% of the market place and Apple has ~6%. If you were Adobe and getting to 64 bit on Apple required a lot more work in return access to far less of the market place, wouldn't you be tempted to tell people to use Bootcamp if they want to use the 64 bit version? Now I know Adobe will do the work at least this time, but don't you think decisions like this may cause other vendors to reconsider keeping their Mac ports going?
I know Adobe had a hard time going from PPC to Intel
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/macintosh_and_t.html
The thing that Apple needs to realise is that independent software vendors are an asset to the platform. If you keep making them to extra unnecessary work - the transition from Metroworks to XCode and from Carbon to Cocoa - to support a minority platform when the majority platform doesn't require this, then they might well just tell people to use Bootcamp. Which they do already for Framemaker.
http://www.macworld.com/article/50465/2006/04/photoshop.html "However there are some products that we have today that we have not been able to afford to continue to develop to make available on the Mac. A great example being FrameMaker. The majority of FrameMaker users use Windows as an OS but there is a small percentage that want to use FrameMaker on the Mac so they can use Boot Camp."
Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen Actually maybe Bootcamp is too much hassle for most people. But I've seen Parallels desktop, and it's really slick. Sooner or later someone will work out a way to get Windows applications running seamlessly on Intel Mac, if they haven't already.
So the hassle for Mac users running a Windows application is dropping all the time. And that will definitely affect Adobe's decisions whether to spend man power on refactoring every few months to keep tracking Job's whims. But in the long run, if the Mac has no native third party applications, it will go the way of OS/2.
ARM processors rock for embedded stuff but they are a bit underpowered for a desktop machine. Even the fastest ARM is significantly slower than a Intel Atom. Of course, they have a much smaller die and use less power too. But 1-2W and an Atom sized die should still make a cheap machine with a long battery life.
And ARM are aiming at the embedded market, not at desktops, so they won't expend effort in designing chips to take it over.
17 years isn't a long lifespan. The B52 will have a life of at least 90 years, from 1952 to 2040.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress
What about this interview with Ted Turner, the owner of CNN?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism
He thinks that global warming will cause cannibalism unless we take drastic action, the Iraqi insurgents are patriots, and the US doesn't need an army because the Chinese 'just want to sell us shoes' and the North Koreans are 'absolutely sincere'.
So I'm guessing he's not a Bush supporter.
Actually it would be funnier if the Reply button was a little gradient shaded button with a logo rather than text so it looked like the unlabelled Start button in Vista.
Actually slashdot was originallly for post 'slash' fanfics. We just misuse it for geek stuff.
I like that. It reminds of the Joker's insane 'joke' in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel.
"Well... This guy goes into the hospital, okay?...His wife's just had a baby and he can't wait to see them both. So he meets the doctor and he says, `Oh, Doc, I've been so worried. How are they?' And the doctor smiles and says, 'they're fine, just fine. Your wife's delivered a healthy baby boy and they're both in tip-top form. You're one lucky guy.' So the guy rushes into the maternity ward with his flowers. But it's empty. His wife's bed is empty. 'Doc?' he says and turns around and the doctors and nurses wave their arms and scream in his face, 'APRIL FOOL! Your wife's dead and the baby's a spastic!!"
Actually I think it was worse than that, like the Doctor lead him through rooms of increasingly deformed children on the way to last room.
Incidentally your signature implies you think one of the partisan sides in political arguments is more or less correct. But when you think about it, there's no reason for that to the case. It's quite possible, indeed likely, that both sides are actually talking almost complete nonsense.
Works fine in Opera. And by the way Ron Paul! Ron Paul!
I think it would have been funnier if they introduced the new UI on April 1st and then said on April the 2nd that it wasn't in fact a joke.
I dunno about that. Round here HR is on a strict orders to hire anyone with "Web 2.0" on their resumes. But on the first day the security guards beat them to death with a spade and bury them under the flowerbeds out back.
Maybe MacThorpe is a twitter sockpuppet too. Just a really strategically minded one, building up a large reserve of karma before burning it in a sudden kamikaze flash of advocacy.
That was the IEC. They were also responsible for getting Hitler interested in military history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#IEC_standard_prefixes
What I think is funny about that is the way the percentage difference between what hard disk manufacturers define as a [kilo|mega|giga|tera] byte, i.e. 10^(3n) and the 'traditional' binary definition i.e. 2^(10n) grows with n. So a hard disk maker's megabyte is 95% traditional megabytes. But with gigabytes it's 93% and terabytes it's 90%. So this scheme devalues the [kilo|mega|giga|tera]byte a bit more each generation. Genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#Approximate_ratios_between_binary_and_decimal_prefixes
What I think would be funny would be if one of them complained about Microsoft using sockpuppets to get the standard through ISO. At least it would show he has a sense of irony.
From the Guardian
The Hollow World of George Bush The power of positive thinking is the president's shield from reality Safe to say he's not a supporter I think.
At the bottom Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com Hmm, so he's clearly partisan (and I actually would have voted for Clinton)
Or
"London bombs justify 'torture', says Bush".
Actually he said He told the BBC's Matt Frei: "To the critics, I ask them this: when we, within the law, interrogate and get information that protects ourselves and possibly others in other nations to prevent attacks, which attack would they have hoped that we wouldn't have prevented?
"And so, the United States will act within the law. We'll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law."
He claimed the families of victims of the July 7 terror attacks in London would understand his position. "I suspect the families of those victims understand the nature of killers. What people gotta understand is that we'll make decisions based upon law. We're a nation of law."
But Bush was undercut by a senior official in his administration who admitted yesterday, for the first time, that waterboarding is illegal. Stephen Bradbury, head of the justice department's office of legal counsel, giving evidence to a congressional committee, said: "Let me be clear, though: There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law." The fact that he kept repeating that the US would act within the law and someone in his administration said that waterboarding was not lawful, makes you wonder how honest the headline really is. The other thing that annoys me is the single quotes around the word torture. Thay implies that he actually said it, but I don't see it in a quote from him in the article.
But I'm sure they're just doing their job, right and will be as tough on the other side
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/barackobama.uselections2008 He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves. Hmmph.