I am going to disagree with this one. Here's how. There has been two aspects to studying the stars historically. One is the study of the movement of celestial bodies and predicting various aspects of their positions etc learned from this studying. The second one is the interpretation of those movements and how they related to events on earth. The former we now call astronomy, the latter we call astrology. Historically they were typically performed by the same person, but they were still two vastly different disciplines requiring very different tools and foundations.
The fact that the two were performed by the same person, and even at the time was called the same, doesn't mean they were the same things. The studying of the movement of celestial bodies was, and is a science. The predictions of earthly events based on these positions wasn't and isn't.
No scientist ever said that since it is quite self-evidently untrue. Birds are heavier than air and they fly. If someone actually said it, they were retarded.
with the underlying notion that Server 2012 is doing something revolutionary
Not to defend the original AC, but me thinks you did not read his entire post. It opens with: "We used to run linux in the server room because it was lean and easy to admin. Windows was slow, mousy, and dependencies were hellish."
Stating that he claims the new headless developments in Windows Server are new (in general, obviously new to Windows) or revolutionary is disingenuous at best. What I get from what he is actually writing is that while Linux has been moving towards bloat and cr@p, or moving towards becoming Windows-y if you will, Windows has been doing the opposite, trying to become more Unix-y. That is clearly the case, isn't it? Even Linus thinks Linux is bloated.
Microsoft was never a real Server-OS vendor so that they took a while to "get it" shouldn't be surprising. The fact that they are now eating their own medicine (in Azure) probably has a lot to do with it. Heck, it isn't that long ago that all of microsoft.com ran on Sun. Once it stopped, unsurprisingly both IIS and Windows Server suddenly received significant improvements - for those of us who prefer low-footprint server operating systems.
Wow, so you looked at a Surface pro with a small screen, perhaps the SP2 and you didn't like it because it had a smaller screen than a Mac Book. Why not look at one with a comparable size? You are one of those clever people, right? Your mom still ties your shoe laces?
I find it funny that MS is now the only major OS vendor that isn't running on a UNIX base. Seems like an uphill struggle as the world passes them by.
This is one of those religious things I find quite funny. For the record, I have used Linux since 0.97 and Slackware. I grew up on SunOS and thought that Sun moving the System V with Solaris was a tragedy. I even once ran a home-written BBS (you wouldn't know) on a dual-floppy x86 machine running Minix. I know Unix. Standard Unix Operating system architecture is an archaic, abhorrent monstrosity that we should have left behind computer-eons ago. The Linux OS architecture is bad at its core level, and it isn't really fixable. The Windows NT core is a much better architecture, but Microsoft has made some serious mistakes on the user end.
Oh, and let's not forget X. It was a reasonable idea back when we had big-ass servers running X clients talking to "cheap" X terminals with X servers on them (yeah, X terminology is kinda backwards). I theory. In practice it became a pig. A monster pig. Sure, you can smear any kind of lipstick on the X pig, whether that lipstick is called KDE or GNOME, but it is still just a monster pig smeared with (what is now monster) lipstick. Leave it to the OS community to take what amounts to lipstick and make it a huge unwieldy monster in it self!
If you want to see Unix-like operating systems with a decent architecture, look at Minix 3 and QNX. The concept "Unix base" is not a good thing (TM) per se. Quite the opposite. Monolithic monstrosities are never a good thing. Think about it, the entire core of Minix 3 has plenty of room to run inside the L1 cache of your CPU.
Wow. So much clueless nonsense. I'd rather run Photoshop and Premiere Pro on a Surface Pro 3 any time of the day than on a MacBook Pro. The Surface Pro 3 blows the MacBook Pro out of the water. Seriously. I have both.
is barely suitable for writing cheap business documents
Firstly, that's utter bullshit, but if you are talking about Word 2.0, sure. You forget one thing though. The following part of the sentence: "for the vast majority of the population". For the vast majority of the population, including about 99% of the business document producers, even Word 2.0 is still plenty good (missing some cloud integration etc, but you get my point - for writing documents that 99% of the population does.
Microsoft was changing the functionality of the APIs
That was not a problem. The problem with WP was not that it got tripped by Microsoft, the problem with WP for Windows was that it functioned completely different than all other Windows applications. The WP teams insisted on following their own GUI Guidelines rather than following the "standard" GUI functionality. The development team and the architects plus their managers were all incompetent fools. They were so full of them selves that they didn't start changing WP in sensible ways until it was way too late.
None of the problems with WP had anything to do with Microsoft APIs.
The Netscape issue was how the whole trial started
It was a bullsh*t trial, IMnsHO. The basic tenet of the trial was absurd. The fact that Microsoft bundled a browser with their operating system was not anti-competitive in any way. Netscape would have been able to out-compete IE if it was in any way a useful product. Netscape never became half-way decent and even though Firefox started out OK it quickly spiraled into oblivion due to it being crap. It still is. Chrome would have been almost at the market share of IE right now if it hadn't been for the dumb asses clinging to the bloated monster that is FF.
Better yet: D) Microsoft incorporates (entirely or just the relevant business areas) outside of the US and tells overstepping US judges to go f#ck them selves.
According to the IPCC personal vehicles contribute about 5% if the worlds CO2 emissions. Since most electricity is produced using non-renewable fuel, they pollute somewhere in the same range as gasoline cars. What does this mean? It means that anyone who talks about personal vehicles and any change to their use whatsoever as a solution to climate change is a moron. Most environuts I have met are morons. Please note, before you get your panties in a bunch, I am not a climate change denier, I am just pointing out that anyone talking about cars as a solution to any problem related to climate change is a moron. Even if we all stopped driving tomorrow and decided to bike to work, it would have an entirely insignificant impact on CO2 emissions.
Changing from gasoline cars to electrical cars will have almost zero effect on CO2 emissions when you consider that walking instead of driving will have a theoretical maximum effect of 5%.
The largest CO2 emitters are electricity production, the agricultural sector etc. This is where we need to start. Starting at a place with a maximum 5% effect is simply retarded. Here is a tip to the environuts: Stop yapping about cars, cars do not emit CO2 in any statistically significant manner.
As for buses, it's basically the same, though the total CO2 emissions are even lower. Again, according to the IPCC the entire transport sector accounts for about 15% of the CO2 emissions, so any discussion involving changes to transportation as a means to solve the CO2 emission problem is retarded.
Word Perfect for Windows was total crap. It didn't lose because of shady Microsoft techniques, it lost because Word 2.0 was centuries ahead of Word Perfect for the vast majority of the population. Word Perfect owned the word processing market but lost it because the development and management teams were utterly incompetent in addition to be so full of them selves that no matter how much market loss they were experience they refused to listen to their customers.
Netscape was ruling the world until IE6, in hindsight a crap browser, but at the time, heads, shoulders and entire torsos above Netscape. At the time. Afterwards Netscape grew into a bloated monster and the world was saved by Google Chrome.
We'll never know the full story of the first-rate products we missed out on.
Wow, I love your argument. Since Microsoft were only creating mediocre products magically that prevented their magical hypothetical competition from creating magical hypothetical software of magical unicorn quality. You are clearly fully rational.
That isn't actually true. Microsoft was the ones who did the bribery and they did pay a lot of money to turn HD-DVD into a winner, they lost even more.
I don't think he is all that confused, that's why he wrote: "while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0 - my emphasis. He was commenting on someone looking at images and not being able to see the difference between the resolutions on his monitor. His images are not 4:2:0 encoded, and given the different color gamut between 4K and 1080p, his comment is valid though not entirely technically correct.:-)
UHD monitor and I've taken very high resolution photos (18MP)
That is in fact not a valid test. When you view your images you see them at a significantly better color gamut than what your TV has. You also view them at a significantly better color gamut (even bigger) than what video has. 4K is not only about resolution, it is also about a much wider color gamut, which will also add significantly to the quality of your video (but you won't see a difference between pictures).
Try it your self, shoot some high quality HD video on your camcorder. Edit and color it on your computer (with no professional monitor to pre-view). If you can make it look as good on your TV as it looked on your computer screen you are a genius. A one of a kind. TVs and computer monitors are not the same. By a long shot.
You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?
Not being able to tell the difference between good SD and good HD requires you have bad eye sight and are watching a 40" screen from 10 feet away.
Not being able to tell the difference between perfect HD and decent 4K on a 70" screen from 8 feet away means you are blind. Entirely blind. The difference is huge, and not only because of the higher resolution. 4K video also has a significantly improved color gamut which means it looks even more spectacular.
The main problem is that most people are 6 feet or more from their TV. To properly experience 4K, that would require a screen in the 90" area.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually astrology was a science
I am going to disagree with this one. Here's how. There has been two aspects to studying the stars historically. One is the study of the movement of celestial bodies and predicting various aspects of their positions etc learned from this studying. The second one is the interpretation of those movements and how they related to events on earth. The former we now call astronomy, the latter we call astrology. Historically they were typically performed by the same person, but they were still two vastly different disciplines requiring very different tools and foundations.
The fact that the two were performed by the same person, and even at the time was called the same, doesn't mean they were the same things. The studying of the movement of celestial bodies was, and is a science. The predictions of earthly events based on these positions wasn't and isn't.
Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century
Sure, and astrology is a science, homeopathy works and I can do telekinesis.
Heavier than air flight is impossible
No scientist ever said that since it is quite self-evidently untrue. Birds are heavier than air and they fly. If someone actually said it, they were retarded.
Firefox? Seriously? Is anyone still using that bloated piece of shit?
FINALLY, we have a legitimate reason to nuke Texas!
with the underlying notion that Server 2012 is doing something revolutionary
Not to defend the original AC, but me thinks you did not read his entire post. It opens with: "We used to run linux in the server room because it was lean and easy to admin. Windows was slow, mousy, and dependencies were hellish."
Stating that he claims the new headless developments in Windows Server are new (in general, obviously new to Windows) or revolutionary is disingenuous at best. What I get from what he is actually writing is that while Linux has been moving towards bloat and cr@p, or moving towards becoming Windows-y if you will, Windows has been doing the opposite, trying to become more Unix-y. That is clearly the case, isn't it? Even Linus thinks Linux is bloated.
Microsoft was never a real Server-OS vendor so that they took a while to "get it" shouldn't be surprising. The fact that they are now eating their own medicine (in Azure) probably has a lot to do with it. Heck, it isn't that long ago that all of microsoft.com ran on Sun. Once it stopped, unsurprisingly both IIS and Windows Server suddenly received significant improvements - for those of us who prefer low-footprint server operating systems.
exaggerating slightly for comic
Surface Pro 3.
Wow, so you looked at a Surface pro with a small screen, perhaps the SP2 and you didn't like it because it had a smaller screen than a Mac Book. Why not look at one with a comparable size? You are one of those clever people, right? Your mom still ties your shoe laces?
I find it funny that MS is now the only major OS vendor that isn't running on a UNIX base. Seems like an uphill struggle as the world passes them by.
This is one of those religious things I find quite funny. For the record, I have used Linux since 0.97 and Slackware. I grew up on SunOS and thought that Sun moving the System V with Solaris was a tragedy. I even once ran a home-written BBS (you wouldn't know) on a dual-floppy x86 machine running Minix. I know Unix. Standard Unix Operating system architecture is an archaic, abhorrent monstrosity that we should have left behind computer-eons ago. The Linux OS architecture is bad at its core level, and it isn't really fixable. The Windows NT core is a much better architecture, but Microsoft has made some serious mistakes on the user end.
Oh, and let's not forget X. It was a reasonable idea back when we had big-ass servers running X clients talking to "cheap" X terminals with X servers on them (yeah, X terminology is kinda backwards). I theory. In practice it became a pig. A monster pig. Sure, you can smear any kind of lipstick on the X pig, whether that lipstick is called KDE or GNOME, but it is still just a monster pig smeared with (what is now monster) lipstick. Leave it to the OS community to take what amounts to lipstick and make it a huge unwieldy monster in it self!
If you want to see Unix-like operating systems with a decent architecture, look at Minix 3 and QNX. The concept "Unix base" is not a good thing (TM) per se. Quite the opposite. Monolithic monstrosities are never a good thing. Think about it, the entire core of Minix 3 has plenty of room to run inside the L1 cache of your CPU.
Wow. So much clueless nonsense. I'd rather run Photoshop and Premiere Pro on a Surface Pro 3 any time of the day than on a MacBook Pro. The Surface Pro 3 blows the MacBook Pro out of the water. Seriously. I have both.
Sigh. Clueless nonsense as usual from the religious nutcases among us. Read his post again, particularly the three letters of P, R and O.
it is making Linux easier for those that see it as an appliance
Which is to say to someone who would like a stroll on a hilltop (99% of all users) that it is easier to climb K2 than Mount Everest.
is barely suitable for writing cheap business documents
Firstly, that's utter bullshit, but if you are talking about Word 2.0, sure. You forget one thing though. The following part of the sentence: "for the vast majority of the population". For the vast majority of the population, including about 99% of the business document producers, even Word 2.0 is still plenty good (missing some cloud integration etc, but you get my point - for writing documents that 99% of the population does.
Microsoft was changing the functionality of the APIs
That was not a problem. The problem with WP was not that it got tripped by Microsoft, the problem with WP for Windows was that it functioned completely different than all other Windows applications. The WP teams insisted on following their own GUI Guidelines rather than following the "standard" GUI functionality. The development team and the architects plus their managers were all incompetent fools. They were so full of them selves that they didn't start changing WP in sensible ways until it was way too late.
None of the problems with WP had anything to do with Microsoft APIs.
The Netscape issue was how the whole trial started
It was a bullsh*t trial, IMnsHO. The basic tenet of the trial was absurd. The fact that Microsoft bundled a browser with their operating system was not anti-competitive in any way. Netscape would have been able to out-compete IE if it was in any way a useful product. Netscape never became half-way decent and even though Firefox started out OK it quickly spiraled into oblivion due to it being crap. It still is. Chrome would have been almost at the market share of IE right now if it hadn't been for the dumb asses clinging to the bloated monster that is FF.
somebody created a market, and Microsoft used various techniques to dominate it
Yes. So did Google. IBM. Cisco. In fact, all companies in the world more or less.
and Microsoft used anticompetitive practices
Yes, they bundled software with the OS. Strangely so does every other operating system vendor these days, but...
Better yet: D) Microsoft incorporates (entirely or just the relevant business areas) outside of the US and tells overstepping US judges to go f#ck them selves.
According to the IPCC personal vehicles contribute about 5% if the worlds CO2 emissions. Since most electricity is produced using non-renewable fuel, they pollute somewhere in the same range as gasoline cars. What does this mean? It means that anyone who talks about personal vehicles and any change to their use whatsoever as a solution to climate change is a moron. Most environuts I have met are morons. Please note, before you get your panties in a bunch, I am not a climate change denier, I am just pointing out that anyone talking about cars as a solution to any problem related to climate change is a moron. Even if we all stopped driving tomorrow and decided to bike to work, it would have an entirely insignificant impact on CO2 emissions.
Changing from gasoline cars to electrical cars will have almost zero effect on CO2 emissions when you consider that walking instead of driving will have a theoretical maximum effect of 5%.
The largest CO2 emitters are electricity production, the agricultural sector etc. This is where we need to start. Starting at a place with a maximum 5% effect is simply retarded. Here is a tip to the environuts: Stop yapping about cars, cars do not emit CO2 in any statistically significant manner.
As for buses, it's basically the same, though the total CO2 emissions are even lower. Again, according to the IPCC the entire transport sector accounts for about 15% of the CO2 emissions, so any discussion involving changes to transportation as a means to solve the CO2 emission problem is retarded.
Word Perfect and Netscape Navigator.
Seriously?
Word Perfect for Windows was total crap. It didn't lose because of shady Microsoft techniques, it lost because Word 2.0 was centuries ahead of Word Perfect for the vast majority of the population. Word Perfect owned the word processing market but lost it because the development and management teams were utterly incompetent in addition to be so full of them selves that no matter how much market loss they were experience they refused to listen to their customers.
Netscape was ruling the world until IE6, in hindsight a crap browser, but at the time, heads, shoulders and entire torsos above Netscape. At the time. Afterwards Netscape grew into a bloated monster and the world was saved by Google Chrome.
We'll never know the full story of the first-rate products we missed out on.
Wow, I love your argument. Since Microsoft were only creating mediocre products magically that prevented their magical hypothetical competition from creating magical hypothetical software of magical unicorn quality. You are clearly fully rational.
Sigh.
BeOS was a bust, OS/2 was unsupported by its creator (I developed software for OS/2 and Warp was great). Warp was too little too late.
Sony paid a whole lot of bribery money
That isn't actually true. Microsoft was the ones who did the bribery and they did pay a lot of money to turn HD-DVD into a winner, they lost even more.
I don't think he is all that confused, that's why he wrote: "while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0 - my emphasis. He was commenting on someone looking at images and not being able to see the difference between the resolutions on his monitor. His images are not 4:2:0 encoded, and given the different color gamut between 4K and 1080p, his comment is valid though not entirely technically correct. :-)
UHD monitor and I've taken very high resolution photos (18MP)
That is in fact not a valid test. When you view your images you see them at a significantly better color gamut than what your TV has. You also view them at a significantly better color gamut (even bigger) than what video has. 4K is not only about resolution, it is also about a much wider color gamut, which will also add significantly to the quality of your video (but you won't see a difference between pictures).
Try it your self, shoot some high quality HD video on your camcorder. Edit and color it on your computer (with no professional monitor to pre-view). If you can make it look as good on your TV as it looked on your computer screen you are a genius. A one of a kind. TVs and computer monitors are not the same. By a long shot.
You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?
Not being able to tell the difference between good SD and good HD requires you have bad eye sight and are watching a 40" screen from 10 feet away.
Not being able to tell the difference between perfect HD and decent 4K on a 70" screen from 8 feet away means you are blind. Entirely blind. The difference is huge, and not only because of the higher resolution. 4K video also has a significantly improved color gamut which means it looks even more spectacular.
The main problem is that most people are 6 feet or more from their TV. To properly experience 4K, that would require a screen in the 90" area.