It's the one that means when you bring Firefox up after it has been minimized, that the OS will have to laboriously swap in all of the memory for it from disk
I don't get this, what kind of systems are we talking about here, and with what amounts of RAM? I have never seen this in 2000, in XP and I currently do not see it in Vista 64 (yes I had to, I am running 64 bit apps on Windows and Vista is the only real choice).
I typically have a bunch of apps open at the same time, currently Outlook (company choice), Firefox, Eclipse, VMWare with Fedora 10, Opera, Chrome, Acrobat reader, a few command prompts etc. Switching between apps is instantaneous, no delay. I just switched to Acrobat which has been minimized since yesterday morning, and it was instant. Chrome has not been used in at least 24 hours, and voila, switching to it is instant.
This is on a laptop with 4G of memory and a laptop drive. Laptop is recently issued, so I had to check the settings for my PF, which is at 1xRAM. Still works like a charm. Just switched to Eclipse too, no disk hit, no delay.
Not saying you are full of it, but I have never seen the behavior you describe, at least not since real-mode Windows. Not on PCs with any real amount of memory at least.
What's idiotic about wanting my software to run on case-sensitive filesystems too?
Nothing at all, but there is a huge difference between wanting to have software run on case-sensitive file systems, and requiring case-sensitive file systems. I develop for Unix on both Windows and on Linux (mainly) and I don't require case-sensitive file systems to do the development or the testing even though I know I have to deploy on case-sensitive file systems.
Again, mandating case-sensitivity, or mandatating case-insensitivity is absurd both and a sign of a bad developer. You develop the app in such a way that it isn't impacted by such trivialities, and then you have unit and functional tests that ensures this is the case. This isn't hard to do for a competent developer and there is no need for him to know the intrinsicasies of the deployment platform.
I would love to see the outline of a use-case where case-sensitivity of the file system was relevant at all.
Again, mandating this or that triviality about the underlying OS is absurd and a good sign of a poor developer.
when those configuration details have a good chance of rendering plenty of software written for that platform unusable
I guess you can find incompetent software developers everywhere. Someone else said in this thread that this is apparently an issue for Adobe on the Mac platform, if that is the case that is pathetic.
I develop software that has to run on case-sensitive filesystems.
Honestly, if you do, you are an idiot. Honestly. Having any application dependent on such an irrelevant part of the underlying operating system would mean that you should be fired as a developer. The fact that you didn't apparently know that you could format HFS to be case sensitive (I use Linux for development and even I knew that) should qualify you for dismissal due to ignorance.
Honestly, if any of the software developers I have ever worked with wrote code that required a case-sensitive file system I'd have him fired on the spot. Writing software that requires something like that is absurd in the extreme. Writing software that just assumes the file system is not case sensitive (like a lot of Windows developers I have met do) is a little dumb, but it pales compared to actually writing software that mandates case-sensitivity.
I know that kindergarten children feel that they have testable, falsifiable theories. As adults we have to rely a little bit more on reality than what one would expect from kindergarten children. Not that I have seen that so far in the discussion about whether psychology is a science though.
I have been able to falsify your lies about psychology;
Absolutely not. A number of studies positively correlate astrological signs to behavioral traits or physical ailments. A Canadian study "concluded" that Libras are more likely to break their pelvis, Pisces are more likely to suffer heart problems etc and so forth. It was done primarily as an illustration to show what pseudoscience is. All the data was 100% valid, and the conclusions were, if you conclude as you do, valid. You can't.
Why does psychology fail the tests of scientific discipline? I think that this article sums it up to a degree. The two most glaring problems discussed in the article to me are "does research change practice" and "are there any falsifiable core theories defining the field".
Nothing against psychologists, by all means. They do a fine job on a lot of levels. That doesn't mean that what they do is science however.
Curious why you think psychology is invalid - certainly there are crazy theories out there, but there are also many theories about human behavior and now the mind works that offer repeatable, testable, falsifiable experiments.
I would love to see one of those repeatable, testable, falsifiable theories.
for most disagreements there is no money or will to do an experiment
I'd love to see some documentation on this. Honestly, I think you are just making this up, as you did with all the numbers you were using.
(or the experiment is impossible, or unethical, as is often the case in psychology.
Psychology is not a science. Never was, probably never will be. I have never seen a single theory from the field of psychology. A theory is something that can be falsified. Psychology, sociology etc some times use real science (such as statistics) to appear scientific, but measuring something doesn't mean that the work you do is scientific. I could, for example, postulate that if the average height of pines in North America is 8 feet 12 inches tree, then there is a God. The fact that I am measuring trees doesn't mean that my postulating is scientific behavior.
for example that video games really do increase the likelihood of violent behavior, which is more than proven).
Two things here, the first is "rubbish". No such thing has ever been "proven". Secondly, the fact that you even seem to think that proving things is what science is about shows that you do not even understand the basics.
"I don't know" should be the answer to nearly every question.
Again, another "rubbish" to you. We know quite a lot of things. You seem to mix skepticism with the tenet that nothing is inherently knowable, or at least close to nothing. This is childhood philosophy and long since show to be absurd. There are things that we do not know, obviously, but that isn't relevant, what is relevant is whether we can ask sensible questions and device methods to find answers to those questions.
How do I know if I can trust an "expert"? I look at his methodology, how he works. If that is scientific, and the work he has done on a particular subject adheres to those principles, then I have an amount of trust in the conclusions he arrives at.
Why did the theories of Newton catch on? Because anyone could test them and nobody was able to falsify them.
Now, on to Popper, as a starting point, and move on to the more advanced from there my friend.
on most of the planes I've been on, they have this thing down the middle, or on big ones two things, called "aisles".
Let's see, the pilot exits the door, turns around, closes the door. The whole operation takes less than three seconds. From what seat on a plane would a passenger be able to get up, move down to the cockpit area, muscle away a rather heavy metal cart and the airline person behind it, in addition to incapacitating the captain to the point where he was unable to give the door a kick so that it closes, in three seconds?
I am just curious. I usually, for a medical reason actually, try to get bulk-head business or first class seats. This means that on most flights I am in the seat closest to the door the captain is coming out of, and I know for sure I would not be able to make it past the cart blocking my way in the time the door is open.
Once the door is closed, no matter what side of it the captain is on, it can only be opened from the inside.
about three feet, and another three feet (maybe four) to the door. A very short trip.
And you can make this trip in three to four seconds, moving past a cart, a stewardess and a captain? Incapacitating both the latter to the point where they are unable to give the door a push? I'd love to see that Clark Kent.
As for the cart being put away while the pilots are out, not on the flights I've been on.
Depends on the flight. On longer international flights the crew actually leaves the cockpit for an extended period of time. They usually sit in the starboard bulk-head seats in first class during the break. At least on most of the one-world flights I have been on.
And most people under 35 are too stupid to know the difference between a journalist and an idiot with a website.
So we can safely assume that you are under 35 and that you thought that this was written by a blogger. Good for you. I'd say you are under 15, but that is just an educated guess. You get to make those when (if I should probably say) you get an education.
So he waits until the pilot comes out to take a pee, or chat up the flight attendants, or get a coffee.
I have flown numerous (probably a lot more than most) domestic and international flights over the past three years. Every time the pilot exits the cockpit he closes the door behind him, leaving one or two other people in the cockpit. The cart remains in place only for as long as the door is open. How does this pose a threat? Killing the (co-)pilot while he is out taking a leak is not going to be an issue for the flight or the security of the remaining live people on board.
From what I can gather the following is the procedure when anyone leaves or enters the cockpit
Call the flight attendant who then blocks the entrance, wait for clear from attendant
After clear, open the door, exit, close the door
(Optionally) Stretch a little, chat with the flight attendant, ask people in first class how they might be doing. Sit down at designated seats in first class for a while and snooze.
Have attendant block isle again
Open door, enter and close door
Given the extra attention attendees appear to pay during the opening and closing of doors, even someone who was able to fly above the seats at high speed would have problems getting through that door, let alone someone who has to navigate past all the fat people sitting in isle seats.
Obviously you never fly first class. All airlines I have flown on currently use metal cutlery in business and first class. I have flown 200 000 (flown, not accrued) business or first class miles so far in 2008.
I have a class I strongly recommend. It is high intensity. It takes a lot more out of you than flying lessons, and only the very, very best will graduate. Less than ten percent of the US students usually graduate. The class is called "Recognizing humor". There is also an advanced class called "Irony, can you stick a magnet to it".
their older Windows apps that I have to support requiring administrator rights to even work
This is an annoyance, and a significant part of the blame belongs with Microsoft for the way they handled the move from the Win 9x world to the Win NT/2000/XP World. A lot of what was common practice, even in Microsoft documentation for quite some time, meant that you had to run as an Administrator on NT-based operating systems. The fact that this has been fixed by most software vendors today shows that it was a minor issue. It pales compared to Apple screwing over all of the third-party developers for Mac OS X.
and also because of Dmitri Sklyarov
Why would you be pissed about this? Because Adobe advocated his release from just a few days after his arrest? Under US law Adobe had a valid reason for complaint against Elcomsoft, but it wasn't Adobe who arrested Dimitri.
Apple always said Carbon was a viable future, and Apple also believed it since they never started porting FCP to Cocoa. Apple encouraged people to move to Cocoa, but for an application like PPro, FCP or similar that would have been insane given that Carbon was 100% viable. That is, until Apple, in a rather typical manner, screwed everybody, including the FCP team actually.
it's just that Adobe never bothered to switch
Adobe never switched because they are not insane. There was never any reason to switch to Cocoa. Why would they? Switching to Cocoa would have meant thousands of man-hours spent on porting an application and gaining nothing whatsoever. Adobe should focus on making their apps better, and porting it to Cocoa would have gained them or their customers nothing at all.
As long as Apple said that Carbon was going to be there any product manager advocating moving an application the size of PPro to a new API for no reason whatsoever should be fired instantly for gross incompetence. Adobe did exactly what they should and needed to do for a sane company, and Apple rammed a big stick up their ass just for laughs.
This is entirely the fault of Apple. Apple was touting Carbon as a viable solution until last year. Moving a huge app like PPro or Photoshop to Cocoa will take a lot of time. If Apple hadn't told everybody that Carbon was a viable platform for 64 bits Adobe would have started switching a long time ago.
Obviously Apple encouraged everybody to go Cocoa, but for Adobe and most other large apps that would have been an absurd choice. If Carbon was viable, why would they port to Cocoa at the expense of fixing application bugs and adding real features? Moving from Carbon to Cocoa would not give Adobe any new features but the cost would be significant. Staying with Carbon was the only sane solution no matter what the zealots claim.
Apple screwed everybody on that one. Not an unusual move for Apple really...
Now, many Apple fan-boys and dummies will state that Adobe should have moved a long time ago. It was the way of the future (despite Apple stating Carbon was too). Every sensible company should move to Cocoa according to these zealots. Problem is, not even Apple has done that. Final Cut Pro is a Carbon app and will need a significant re-write if it wants to go 64 bit. Perhaps the FCP team also believed Steve when he BS'ed about Carbon also being the future.
Often stated, but never verified. The published methadology for the Flash numbers is a consumer survey, and thus doesn't capture enterprise desktops, which are more likely to not have Flash installed
This I would like to see substantiated. Most video sites do not require H.264 supporting versions of Flash, so you don't need the latest and greatest.
WMV is almost certainly more broadly supported
Rubbish. It is not supported natively on the Mac platform, and WMV support on Apple is certainly lower than Flash support. Stating that WMV is more widely supported than Flash is absurd.
There are a few reasons to run a 32 bit browser also in a 64 bit environment. As others point out, usability and features is one of them, and unless your browser needs access to more than 2G of continuous memory running a 32 bit browser on a 64 bit OS poses no issues whatsoever.
Also, the number of fully supported 64 bit browsers out there is very limited. If you know how to get your fingers on a 64 bit version of Firefox (for example) you probably also know how to run the 32 bit Flash plugin in the 64 bit version of Firefox, something that isn't really magic.
So, the 64 bit argument isn't an argument for not using Flash. Firstly there is very little 64 bit out there outside of Max OS X (which is only sorta 64 bit, and fully supports flash since Safari and Firefox are 32 bit on OS X), secondly, on most of the 64 OSs you can either run a 32 bit browser with Flash support or a 64 bit browser with 32 bit Flash support.
It excludes those who have any 64 bit OS other than Windows.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Flash is available for most of these platforms. Flash is not available in a 64 bit version for 64 bit anything (including Windows) but neither are the majority of browsers on the market today unless you are an expert. If you are an expert you really should not have a problem at all running flash on your 64 bit computer. I run Flash on Linux, Mac OS X and Windows, all of them (sorta) 64 bit OSs.
As it comes to universality, Flash has broader coverage than any other distribution mechanism in the real world today, and therefore Flash would be the appropriate choice for Web distribution.
If you want some sort of "universally" available distribution your only real option is Flash. The best flash video site (which even supports HD) is Vimeo, and you would probably find it to be the highest recommended site among video pros.
An alternative is to encode into one of the standard formarts, MPEG-1 probably covers most ground and distribute using Vuze, but that requires your audience download Vuze (aka Azuerus).
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
How could criminals possibly know that they have to destroy evidence of their crimes!
So you didn't even understand what was written, proving that you in fact are mentally handicapped. The statement is that evidence for the Enron trial was stored at WTC. Since there was no trial, no investigation or in any other way a reason to collect (or therefore store) evidence. If there no evidence collected, how can it be stored anywhere?
That's unpossible!
Eh... the word you are looking for is impossible.
they couldn't know where the detailed records of their intricate crimes were located,
There was no trial, no investigation and no evidence to store anywhere. Dang, you are retarded!
You're mentally retarded, conviced that people with an IQ above yours are simply crazy, by definition.
- if you are the same species, you are on the list
The government is a bunch of morons elected mainly by retards (that is us, the people). They hire brainless idiots to "run" the country and in the process totally screw it up. Government never does anything worth while. Oh, and please note, that goes for any company older than 10 years with more than 2,000 employees. Such companies evolve in exactly the same manner as government does.
It is beyond belief that people in the world actually think that the retards who try to run this country would be able to pull off something like a 9/11 "coup". Government employees are lucky if they put their pants on the right way every morning.
But is the evidence? How many INDEPENDENT studies have been done?
As I said, the NIST report, fully ready for your review, is available in it's entirety.
An agenda can cloud thinking and very plausible and convincing
Why would NIST have an agenda? Given all the people involved, how on earth would you manage a consensus based on flawed data? Have you ever even met a scientist? Are you not aware that each and every argument you have against the official explanation requires MASSIVE leaps of faith. Far more than is needed to accept the NIST findings. This is why you are a religious crackpot.
Again, you insult, you impugn
Nope. I observe, analyze, conclude and report. Nothing more.
you'd be forced to accept something you can't accept: doubt
As a skeptic, doubt is part of my nature. Gullibility and fairy tale belief is not.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the one that means when you bring Firefox up after it has been minimized, that the OS will have to laboriously swap in all of the memory for it from disk
I don't get this, what kind of systems are we talking about here, and with what amounts of RAM? I have never seen this in 2000, in XP and I currently do not see it in Vista 64 (yes I had to, I am running 64 bit apps on Windows and Vista is the only real choice).
I typically have a bunch of apps open at the same time, currently Outlook (company choice), Firefox, Eclipse, VMWare with Fedora 10, Opera, Chrome, Acrobat reader, a few command prompts etc. Switching between apps is instantaneous, no delay. I just switched to Acrobat which has been minimized since yesterday morning, and it was instant. Chrome has not been used in at least 24 hours, and voila, switching to it is instant.
This is on a laptop with 4G of memory and a laptop drive. Laptop is recently issued, so I had to check the settings for my PF, which is at 1xRAM. Still works like a charm. Just switched to Eclipse too, no disk hit, no delay.
Not saying you are full of it, but I have never seen the behavior you describe, at least not since real-mode Windows. Not on PCs with any real amount of memory at least.
What's idiotic about wanting my software to run on case-sensitive filesystems too?
Nothing at all, but there is a huge difference between wanting to have software run on case-sensitive file systems, and requiring case-sensitive file systems. I develop for Unix on both Windows and on Linux (mainly) and I don't require case-sensitive file systems to do the development or the testing even though I know I have to deploy on case-sensitive file systems.
Again, mandating case-sensitivity, or mandatating case-insensitivity is absurd both and a sign of a bad developer. You develop the app in such a way that it isn't impacted by such trivialities, and then you have unit and functional tests that ensures this is the case. This isn't hard to do for a competent developer and there is no need for him to know the intrinsicasies of the deployment platform.
I would love to see the outline of a use-case where case-sensitivity of the file system was relevant at all.
Again, mandating this or that triviality about the underlying OS is absurd and a good sign of a poor developer.
when those configuration details have a good chance of rendering plenty of software written for that platform unusable
I guess you can find incompetent software developers everywhere. Someone else said in this thread that this is apparently an issue for Adobe on the Mac platform, if that is the case that is pathetic.
I develop software that has to run on case-sensitive filesystems.
Honestly, if you do, you are an idiot. Honestly. Having any application dependent on such an irrelevant part of the underlying operating system would mean that you should be fired as a developer. The fact that you didn't apparently know that you could format HFS to be case sensitive (I use Linux for development and even I knew that) should qualify you for dismissal due to ignorance.
Honestly, if any of the software developers I have ever worked with wrote code that required a case-sensitive file system I'd have him fired on the spot. Writing software that requires something like that is absurd in the extreme. Writing software that just assumes the file system is not case sensitive (like a lot of Windows developers I have met do) is a little dumb, but it pales compared to actually writing software that mandates case-sensitivity.
I know that kindergarten children feel that they have testable, falsifiable theories. As adults we have to rely a little bit more on reality than what one would expect from kindergarten children. Not that I have seen that so far in the discussion about whether psychology is a science though.
I have been able to falsify your lies about psychology;
Absolutely not. A number of studies positively correlate astrological signs to behavioral traits or physical ailments. A Canadian study "concluded" that Libras are more likely to break their pelvis, Pisces are more likely to suffer heart problems etc and so forth. It was done primarily as an illustration to show what pseudoscience is. All the data was 100% valid, and the conclusions were, if you conclude as you do, valid. You can't.
Why does psychology fail the tests of scientific discipline? I think that this article sums it up to a degree. The two most glaring problems discussed in the article to me are "does research change practice" and "are there any falsifiable core theories defining the field".
Nothing against psychologists, by all means. They do a fine job on a lot of levels. That doesn't mean that what they do is science however.
Curious why you think psychology is invalid - certainly there are crazy theories out there, but there are also many theories about human behavior and now the mind works that offer repeatable, testable, falsifiable experiments.
I would love to see one of those repeatable, testable, falsifiable theories.
for most disagreements there is no money or will to do an experiment
I'd love to see some documentation on this. Honestly, I think you are just making this up, as you did with all the numbers you were using.
(or the experiment is impossible, or unethical, as is often the case in psychology.
Psychology is not a science. Never was, probably never will be. I have never seen a single theory from the field of psychology. A theory is something that can be falsified. Psychology, sociology etc some times use real science (such as statistics) to appear scientific, but measuring something doesn't mean that the work you do is scientific. I could, for example, postulate that if the average height of pines in North America is 8 feet 12 inches tree, then there is a God. The fact that I am measuring trees doesn't mean that my postulating is scientific behavior.
for example that video games really do increase the likelihood of violent behavior, which is more than proven).
Two things here, the first is "rubbish". No such thing has ever been "proven". Secondly, the fact that you even seem to think that proving things is what science is about shows that you do not even understand the basics.
"I don't know" should be the answer to nearly every question.
Again, another "rubbish" to you. We know quite a lot of things. You seem to mix skepticism with the tenet that nothing is inherently knowable, or at least close to nothing. This is childhood philosophy and long since show to be absurd. There are things that we do not know, obviously, but that isn't relevant, what is relevant is whether we can ask sensible questions and device methods to find answers to those questions.
How do I know if I can trust an "expert"? I look at his methodology, how he works. If that is scientific, and the work he has done on a particular subject adheres to those principles, then I have an amount of trust in the conclusions he arrives at.
Why did the theories of Newton catch on? Because anyone could test them and nobody was able to falsify them.
Now, on to Popper, as a starting point, and move on to the more advanced from there my friend.
Why is it that so many people do not understand the difference between "an open mind" and "a hole in the head"?
on most of the planes I've been on, they have this thing down the middle, or on big ones two things, called "aisles".
Let's see, the pilot exits the door, turns around, closes the door. The whole operation takes less than three seconds. From what seat on a plane would a passenger be able to get up, move down to the cockpit area, muscle away a rather heavy metal cart and the airline person behind it, in addition to incapacitating the captain to the point where he was unable to give the door a kick so that it closes, in three seconds?
I am just curious. I usually, for a medical reason actually, try to get bulk-head business or first class seats. This means that on most flights I am in the seat closest to the door the captain is coming out of, and I know for sure I would not be able to make it past the cart blocking my way in the time the door is open.
Once the door is closed, no matter what side of it the captain is on, it can only be opened from the inside.
about three feet, and another three feet (maybe four) to the door. A very short trip.
And you can make this trip in three to four seconds, moving past a cart, a stewardess and a captain? Incapacitating both the latter to the point where they are unable to give the door a push? I'd love to see that Clark Kent.
As for the cart being put away while the pilots are out, not on the flights I've been on.
Depends on the flight. On longer international flights the crew actually leaves the cockpit for an extended period of time. They usually sit in the starboard bulk-head seats in first class during the break. At least on most of the one-world flights I have been on.
And most people under 35 are too stupid to know the difference between a journalist and an idiot with a website.
So we can safely assume that you are under 35 and that you thought that this was written by a blogger. Good for you. I'd say you are under 15, but that is just an educated guess. You get to make those when (if I should probably say) you get an education.
So he waits until the pilot comes out to take a pee, or chat up the flight attendants, or get a coffee.
I have flown numerous (probably a lot more than most) domestic and international flights over the past three years. Every time the pilot exits the cockpit he closes the door behind him, leaving one or two other people in the cockpit. The cart remains in place only for as long as the door is open. How does this pose a threat? Killing the (co-)pilot while he is out taking a leak is not going to be an issue for the flight or the security of the remaining live people on board.
From what I can gather the following is the procedure when anyone leaves or enters the cockpit
Given the extra attention attendees appear to pay during the opening and closing of doors, even someone who was able to fly above the seats at high speed would have problems getting through that door, let alone someone who has to navigate past all the fat people sitting in isle seats.
Obviously you never fly first class. All airlines I have flown on currently use metal cutlery in business and first class. I have flown 200 000 (flown, not accrued) business or first class miles so far in 2008.
I have a class I strongly recommend. It is high intensity. It takes a lot more out of you than flying lessons, and only the very, very best will graduate. Less than ten percent of the US students usually graduate. The class is called "Recognizing humor". There is also an advanced class called "Irony, can you stick a magnet to it".
their older Windows apps that I have to support requiring administrator rights to even work
This is an annoyance, and a significant part of the blame belongs with Microsoft for the way they handled the move from the Win 9x world to the Win NT/2000/XP World. A lot of what was common practice, even in Microsoft documentation for quite some time, meant that you had to run as an Administrator on NT-based operating systems. The fact that this has been fixed by most software vendors today shows that it was a minor issue. It pales compared to Apple screwing over all of the third-party developers for Mac OS X.
and also because of Dmitri Sklyarov
Why would you be pissed about this? Because Adobe advocated his release from just a few days after his arrest? Under US law Adobe had a valid reason for complaint against Elcomsoft, but it wasn't Adobe who arrested Dimitri.
Apple always said Carbon was a viable future, and Apple also believed it since they never started porting FCP to Cocoa. Apple encouraged people to move to Cocoa, but for an application like PPro, FCP or similar that would have been insane given that Carbon was 100% viable. That is, until Apple, in a rather typical manner, screwed everybody, including the FCP team actually.
it's just that Adobe never bothered to switch
Adobe never switched because they are not insane. There was never any reason to switch to Cocoa. Why would they? Switching to Cocoa would have meant thousands of man-hours spent on porting an application and gaining nothing whatsoever. Adobe should focus on making their apps better, and porting it to Cocoa would have gained them or their customers nothing at all.
As long as Apple said that Carbon was going to be there any product manager advocating moving an application the size of PPro to a new API for no reason whatsoever should be fired instantly for gross incompetence. Adobe did exactly what they should and needed to do for a sane company, and Apple rammed a big stick up their ass just for laughs.
This is entirely the fault of Apple. Apple was touting Carbon as a viable solution until last year. Moving a huge app like PPro or Photoshop to Cocoa will take a lot of time. If Apple hadn't told everybody that Carbon was a viable platform for 64 bits Adobe would have started switching a long time ago.
Obviously Apple encouraged everybody to go Cocoa, but for Adobe and most other large apps that would have been an absurd choice. If Carbon was viable, why would they port to Cocoa at the expense of fixing application bugs and adding real features? Moving from Carbon to Cocoa would not give Adobe any new features but the cost would be significant. Staying with Carbon was the only sane solution no matter what the zealots claim.
Apple screwed everybody on that one. Not an unusual move for Apple really...
Now, many Apple fan-boys and dummies will state that Adobe should have moved a long time ago. It was the way of the future (despite Apple stating Carbon was too). Every sensible company should move to Cocoa according to these zealots. Problem is, not even Apple has done that. Final Cut Pro is a Carbon app and will need a significant re-write if it wants to go 64 bit. Perhaps the FCP team also believed Steve when he BS'ed about Carbon also being the future.
Often stated, but never verified. The published methadology for the Flash numbers is a consumer survey, and thus doesn't capture enterprise desktops, which are more likely to not have Flash installed
This I would like to see substantiated. Most video sites do not require H.264 supporting versions of Flash, so you don't need the latest and greatest.
WMV is almost certainly more broadly supported
Rubbish. It is not supported natively on the Mac platform, and WMV support on Apple is certainly lower than Flash support. Stating that WMV is more widely supported than Flash is absurd.
There are a few reasons to run a 32 bit browser also in a 64 bit environment. As others point out, usability and features is one of them, and unless your browser needs access to more than 2G of continuous memory running a 32 bit browser on a 64 bit OS poses no issues whatsoever.
Also, the number of fully supported 64 bit browsers out there is very limited. If you know how to get your fingers on a 64 bit version of Firefox (for example) you probably also know how to run the 32 bit Flash plugin in the 64 bit version of Firefox, something that isn't really magic.
So, the 64 bit argument isn't an argument for not using Flash. Firstly there is very little 64 bit out there outside of Max OS X (which is only sorta 64 bit, and fully supports flash since Safari and Firefox are 32 bit on OS X), secondly, on most of the 64 OSs you can either run a 32 bit browser with Flash support or a 64 bit browser with 32 bit Flash support.
It excludes those who have any 64 bit OS other than Windows.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Flash is available for most of these platforms. Flash is not available in a 64 bit version for 64 bit anything (including Windows) but neither are the majority of browsers on the market today unless you are an expert. If you are an expert you really should not have a problem at all running flash on your 64 bit computer. I run Flash on Linux, Mac OS X and Windows, all of them (sorta) 64 bit OSs.
As it comes to universality, Flash has broader coverage than any other distribution mechanism in the real world today, and therefore Flash would be the appropriate choice for Web distribution.
First and second Vimeo. It is Youtube with decent (very decent in fact) quality. No hassle with bandwidth issues. No problem regarding quality.
If you want some sort of "universally" available distribution your only real option is Flash. The best flash video site (which even supports HD) is Vimeo, and you would probably find it to be the highest recommended site among video pros.
An alternative is to encode into one of the standard formarts, MPEG-1 probably covers most ground and distribute using Vuze, but that requires your audience download Vuze (aka Azuerus).
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
How could criminals possibly know that they have to destroy evidence of their crimes!
So you didn't even understand what was written, proving that you in fact are mentally handicapped. The statement is that evidence for the Enron trial was stored at WTC. Since there was no trial, no investigation or in any other way a reason to collect (or therefore store) evidence. If there no evidence collected, how can it be stored anywhere?
That's unpossible!
Eh... the word you are looking for is impossible.
they couldn't know where the detailed records of their intricate crimes were located,
There was no trial, no investigation and no evidence to store anywhere. Dang, you are retarded!
You're mentally retarded, conviced that people with an IQ above yours are simply crazy, by definition.
My underwear has a higher IQ than you do.
and again, what happens to the top floor of a 95 story building if a 15 story building falls on it, will it hold or will it collapse? Simple question.
You forgot
- if you are the same species, you are on the list
The government is a bunch of morons elected mainly by retards (that is us, the people). They hire brainless idiots to "run" the country and in the process totally screw it up. Government never does anything worth while. Oh, and please note, that goes for any company older than 10 years with more than 2,000 employees. Such companies evolve in exactly the same manner as government does.
It is beyond belief that people in the world actually think that the retards who try to run this country would be able to pull off something like a 9/11 "coup". Government employees are lucky if they put their pants on the right way every morning.
But is the evidence? How many INDEPENDENT studies have been done?
As I said, the NIST report, fully ready for your review, is available in it's entirety.
An agenda can cloud thinking and very plausible and convincing
Why would NIST have an agenda? Given all the people involved, how on earth would you manage a consensus based on flawed data? Have you ever even met a scientist? Are you not aware that each and every argument you have against the official explanation requires MASSIVE leaps of faith. Far more than is needed to accept the NIST findings. This is why you are a religious crackpot.
Again, you insult, you impugn
Nope. I observe, analyze, conclude and report. Nothing more.
you'd be forced to accept something you can't accept: doubt
As a skeptic, doubt is part of my nature. Gullibility and fairy tale belief is not.