Because people are saying "I deserve what they get." Regardless of the fact that you don't know all the details, and it may very well bomb every version of XP home out there.
>Scenario 1) Patches are not yet stable to be release to general public but we will give them to AirForce. This sucks
Had you actually bothered to read any material on the matter, you'd know that they're giving them a CLOSED BETA VERSION. They're not putting it on every darn computer, they're testing it. *1
"Advance testing will make it possible for government agencies to install the patches as soon as Microsoft releases the final versions."
I find it funny that my previous post is considered trolling, yet it's one of the most informed ones. Just goes to show that content doesn't matter.
>Yet another attempt to fight off impending doom, by trying to keep the government away from open source?"
Yes, absolutely.::)
I see nothing wrong with this at all. They're a private business and they can do whatever they want. And I'm sorry if you have ego issues with the Air Force having a higher priority than your entertainment center.
Must we jump on every single thing anyone does that could even slightly be interpreted as "bad"?
>A CD-R is "write-once", but in multi-session mode, tracks can be written one after the other, up to 99 tracks or the CD becomes full.
99 steps is extremely low. That means you'll have 99 sessions maximum. Multi-session is very inefficient too. But you're using a CD in the first place, so I guess efficiency isn't high on your list.:)
CD-RWs also have problems because they also have a limited number of writes. But you could cut down on the rewriting if you used some sort of hybrid multi-session scheme (where it did the multi-session method until it started getting out of hand, then rewrote the CD).
Using something like that would give you a pretty long lifetime per medium.
> Instead, you posted a registration-required link and mentioned Google.
The link didn't demand registration when I found it.
>If you could support it, Google cache, anyone?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&sa fe =active&c2coff=1&q=Beacon+Journal+%7C+03%2F28%2F20 +04+%7C+Three+Mile+Island+still+a+symbol&btnG=Sear ch
Click cached on the first link.
>And what did they end up paying in fines?
Meet: >The companies paid federal fines of $1.5 million for the accident.
How is this 5+ Insightful? It's 5+ "preaching what Slashdot wants to hear" but that doesn't make it factually sound.
>Janet's breast, no public risk ("But think of the kids!" Yeah, the same kids that started life sucking on a pair of the same things) - $550,000 fine. Three mile island, by comparison, did release quite a bit of radiation into the nearboy Middletown area, and came within half an hour of rendering half of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years - $155,000 fine.
A quick google * yielded fines of $1.5 million, and $80 million in medical settlements. A tad bit more than $150,000, don't you think? And of course, lets not take into account any new laws or regulations in the past 20 years. That wouldn't help your argument either.
*http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/8296741.htm?1 c
I agree that a nuclear disaster is a bigger problem (only an idiot wouldn't), but to claim that a nuclear disaster would cost _less_ than swearing on television is just as idiotic. Contrary to what you might believe, people aren't that retarded. _Nobody_ can be that stupid.
How can people be so stupid? Sure the advertisement is "false" but you would assume it's supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. Or did you think 1 million bottle tops would get you a Harrier?
I see nothing wrong with any of the actual policies. You're taking it back LATE. Instead of being charged ungodly fees, you're charged less. According to the parent, it's only a $1.50 for up to 30 days. Try that last year and see if you weren't paying over $20.
>if you don't bring it back before the 30 days, you are STUCK with the movie.
Oh no, I decided to keep a movie an EXTRA 30 days and they CHARGED me?! The injustice! I'm going to sue!
If you're a "professional," are you going to make a rational decision--that is, to use it or not--based on the logo, or the performance?
If they want a new logo, that's perfectly fine. But if they want a new logo because people might think it's "cute," they need to take a step back and think for a moment.
Who ever said that every viewer is going to dish out money to see a show they may not even care for that much. Just because someone is a "viewer" doesn't mean they're a die-hard fan. Most people don't give a crap about a TV show because they have lives.
The amount of die-hard fans (that would actually pay money) is probably less than a thousand. So if everyone wants to dish out $35,000, go for it. But I'd rather use that money to buy something actually useful (assuming I HAD it to begin with).
>The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.
Well, if we're going to disregard them on those grounds, we might as well disregard ActiveX exploits too (since FireFox doesn't support it). An exploit is an exploit. Don't play the game of justification.
I think it's good. They had creative control over Halo 1. Sure it came out late as heck, but it became one the the greatest FPS games made. They know what they want. If Microsoft makes sure it's a good movie, then I have no problem whatsoever.
But then again, I've yet to see a "game movie" that didn't suck...
...is this really a line that we should cross? For a deep question: Will we loose our own humanity if we continue to destroy our morals for the sake of progress?
Why are we reporting a mod that isn't even near being out? It's just a mod for goodness sakes. It's not a cure for cancer next week. Couldn't we wait till it had a playable beta version?
>Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
That's a flawed comparison. A _correct_ one would be "not all material in this book has been proven." There are quite a few things in the bible that have been proven. Besides, anyone who blatently goes around yelling "God doesn't exist" is more close-minded than a stereo-typical southern baptist. Have you ever even bothered to think "what if"? Or are you too afraid of what you might find? Creepy, eh?
>Those who pass the most rigorous stability tests become server chips, the others may (unless scrap) be sold as desktops.
That's so incorrect, I almost lost some intelligence. High-quality processors (server ones) have to meet a higher level of stability, yes. But the ones that don't, simply aren't used. They aren't sold at a lower clock rate or at all for that matter. Or do you think Opterons somehow magically fit into Athlon FX boards? Or that a 3200 XP is just a really good 1900 XP?
The problem with a "good" virus, is that because of an oversight, it may cause more damage. It could open up a new expliot, or subtly damage a part of the server.
"The survey found that use of the Internet has displaced television watching and a range of other activities. Internet users watch television for one hour and 42 minutes a day, compared with the national average of two hours.'"
By 18 minutes...? How is this news?
>"People don't understand that time is hydraulic," he said, meaning that time spent on the Internet is time taken away from other activities.
If someone doesn't realize that spending time on something takes time, well, I guess we might as well ask for the definition of "is" while we're at it. Because logic has left the building.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why do you think this is an ego issue?
j html?articleID=159401297&tid=13692
Because people are saying "I deserve what they get." Regardless of the fact that you don't know all the details, and it may very well bomb every version of XP home out there.
>Scenario 1) Patches are not yet stable to be release to general public but we will give them to AirForce. This sucks
Had you actually bothered to read any material on the matter, you'd know that they're giving them a CLOSED BETA VERSION. They're not putting it on every darn computer, they're testing it. *1
"Advance testing will make it possible for government agencies to install the patches as soon as Microsoft releases the final versions."
I find it funny that my previous post is considered trolling, yet it's one of the most informed ones. Just goes to show that content doesn't matter.
*1 http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.
A quick google news found that one.
>Yet another attempt to fight off impending doom, by trying to keep the government away from open source?"
::)
Yes, absolutely.
I see nothing wrong with this at all. They're a private business and they can do whatever they want. And I'm sorry if you have ego issues with the Air Force having a higher priority than your entertainment center.
Must we jump on every single thing anyone does that could even slightly be interpreted as "bad"?
>A CD-R is "write-once", but in multi-session mode, tracks can be written one after the other, up to 99 tracks or the CD becomes full.
:)
99 steps is extremely low. That means you'll have 99 sessions maximum. Multi-session is very inefficient too. But you're using a CD in the first place, so I guess efficiency isn't high on your list.
CD-RWs also have problems because they also have a limited number of writes. But you could cut down on the rewriting if you used some sort of hybrid multi-session scheme (where it did the multi-session method until it started getting out of hand, then rewrote the CD).
Using something like that would give you a pretty long lifetime per medium.
> Instead, you posted a registration-required link and mentioned Google.
a fe =active&c2coff=1&q=Beacon+Journal+%7C+03%2F28%2F20 +04+%7C+Three+Mile+Island+still+a+symbol&btnG=Sear ch
The link didn't demand registration when I found it.
>If you could support it,
Google cache, anyone?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&s
Click cached on the first link.
>And what did they end up paying in fines?
Meet:
>The companies paid federal fines of $1.5 million for the accident.
How is this 5+ Insightful? It's 5+ "preaching what Slashdot wants to hear" but that doesn't make it factually sound.
1 c
>Janet's breast, no public risk ("But think of the kids!" Yeah, the same kids that started life sucking on a pair of the same things) - $550,000 fine.
Three mile island, by comparison, did release quite a bit of radiation into the nearboy Middletown area, and came within half an hour of rendering half of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years - $155,000 fine.
A quick google * yielded fines of $1.5 million, and $80 million in medical settlements. A tad bit more than $150,000, don't you think? And of course, lets not take into account any new laws or regulations in the past 20 years. That wouldn't help your argument either.
*http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/8296741.htm?
I agree that a nuclear disaster is a bigger problem (only an idiot wouldn't), but to claim that a nuclear disaster would cost _less_ than swearing on television is just as idiotic. Contrary to what you might believe, people aren't that retarded. _Nobody_ can be that stupid.
How can people be so stupid? Sure the advertisement is "false" but you would assume it's supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. Or did you think 1 million bottle tops would get you a Harrier?
I see nothing wrong with any of the actual policies. You're taking it back LATE. Instead of being charged ungodly fees, you're charged less. According to the parent, it's only a $1.50 for up to 30 days. Try that last year and see if you weren't paying over $20.
>if you don't bring it back before the 30 days, you are STUCK with the movie.
Oh no, I decided to keep a movie an EXTRA 30 days and they CHARGED me?! The injustice! I'm going to sue!
If you're a "professional," are you going to make a rational decision--that is, to use it or not--based on the logo, or the performance?
If they want a new logo, that's perfectly fine. But if they want a new logo because people might think it's "cute," they need to take a step back and think for a moment.
Their logic is horribly flawed.
>divided by 3,000,000 viewers
Who ever said that every viewer is going to dish out money to see a show they may not even care for that much. Just because someone is a "viewer" doesn't mean they're a die-hard fan. Most people don't give a crap about a TV show because they have lives.
The amount of die-hard fans (that would actually pay money) is probably less than a thousand. So if everyone wants to dish out $35,000, go for it. But I'd rather use that money to buy something actually useful (assuming I HAD it to begin with).
I strongly recommend the "get a life" comment.
>The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.
Well, if we're going to disregard them on those grounds, we might as well disregard ActiveX exploits too (since FireFox doesn't support it). An exploit is an exploit. Don't play the game of justification.
p.s. I use Firefox.
>upshot of digital controls is more precision, which I doubt is needed in a car.
I agree! Fuel-injection is overrated! Nobody needs that...
Please don't assume everything you see in your car is as simple as it appears.
I think it's good. They had creative control over Halo 1. Sure it came out late as heck, but it became one the the greatest FPS games made. They know what they want. If Microsoft makes sure it's a good movie, then I have no problem whatsoever.
But then again, I've yet to see a "game movie" that didn't suck...
I don't see any children...
...is this really a line that we should cross? For a deep question: Will we loose our own humanity if we continue to destroy our morals for the sake of progress?
Why are we reporting a mod that isn't even near being out? It's just a mod for goodness sakes. It's not a cure for cancer next week. Couldn't we wait till it had a playable beta version?
Sadly, because the movie industry wants more money.
>Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
That's a flawed comparison. A _correct_ one would be "not all material in this book has been proven." There are quite a few things in the bible that have been proven. Besides, anyone who blatently goes around yelling "God doesn't exist" is more close-minded than a stereo-typical southern baptist. Have you ever even bothered to think "what if"? Or are you too afraid of what you might find? Creepy, eh?
News for Nerds. Stuff that kinda sorta maybe matters but mostly kinda sortof just doesn't. ;)
>Those who pass the most rigorous stability tests become server chips, the others may (unless scrap) be sold as desktops.
That's so incorrect, I almost lost some intelligence. High-quality processors (server ones) have to meet a higher level of stability, yes. But the ones that don't, simply aren't used. They aren't sold at a lower clock rate or at all for that matter. Or do you think Opterons somehow magically fit into Athlon FX boards? Or that a 3200 XP is just a really good 1900 XP?
The problem with a "good" virus, is that because of an oversight, it may cause more damage. It could open up a new expliot, or subtly damage a part of the server.
"The survey found that use of the Internet has displaced television watching and a range of other activities. Internet users watch television for one hour and 42 minutes a day, compared with the national average of two hours.'"
By 18 minutes...? How is this news?
>"People don't understand that time is hydraulic," he said, meaning that time spent on the Internet is time taken away from other activities.
If someone doesn't realize that spending time on something takes time, well, I guess we might as well ask for the definition of "is" while we're at it. Because logic has left the building.
Of course! Until it reflects and solders your eyes...