Drive manufacturers used base-2 for decades, then the marketing people got involved and found out they could squeeze out some 'extra' space if they counted in base-10. They suddenly changed what they had been doing for a *long* time for marketing purposes.
Absolute bullshit. Even the earliest hard drives (1960s?) used decimal measurement. Can give me some source info for which hard drives were measured in binary units?
I don't remember NICs ever measuring in base-2 and then switching to base-10--they have always been base-10.
So, your precious units don't matter when they've always been used improperly (according to your standards)? That's some weird logic there. Using this logic, the the HD manufacturers are fine, because they always counted capacity in decimal.
Who asks that besides people with a slight technical inclination who can also easily be taught 'Hard drive marketing droids decided to be devious and they are measuring a base-two storage device using base-ten'.
Why would you want to tell people lies? This idea of "devious hard drive marketing" is a complete myth. In other words, TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT that never happened, but gets spread by misinformed people like yourself.
Interestingly, why is it that the hard drive makers always get this accusation leveled at them, but nobody blinks twice when network throughput is measured in decimal units? Why don't you accuse network card manufacturers of being in on this conspiracy?
It was a bad idea when OS X 10.6 did it, and it's a bad idea for Ubuntu now. Hopefully they at least give an option to display the actual space used/remaining, unlike Apple.
Say what? Apple does give this option in Mac OS X.
No, it has nothing to do with marketing or attempts at deception by hard-drive manufacturers. This is revisionist history. What it has to do with, is the units never being consistently defined in the first place.
The "hard drive marketing" conspiracy is fictitious, and was a myth introduced after the fact by computer nerds who were stuck in their ways and emotionally attached to their preferred definition of the units.
Why would a business or educational institution want multiple desktop platforms?
Different users have different preferences, for one. There are also areas where different platforms have speciality applications that are unavailable on other platforms - such as video editing on Macs, or AutoCAD on Windows. Or perhaps a company wants to migrate to Linux, but make the transition gradually, with familiar tools.
Whatever their reasons, isn't really a concern of yours. I'm just saying it can be a valid consideration.
Also, if you have multiple desktop OSes in an enterprise setting, having same software for them is going to be the least of your worry - UI will still be different enough to cause major headaches with user training etc.
I haven't found this to be the case. For example, Adobe's Creative Suite is almost identical on Mac or Windows, with minor differences that don't affect the core interface. MS Office is more divergent, but still works in basically the same way. Firefox is basically the same across platforms.
They did indeed offer a variety of different courses to him simply because - by law - he would not be allowed to work with a large variety of systems based on e.g. old color coding of wiring (red and green for live and neutral) in houses.
One would hope the school didn't teach people to use green for neutral, because that's the traditional color for earth.
"Would you like ultra-wide spectrum super-HD eyes with 60x optical zoom, Internet-connected HUD and complimentary laser cannons, just like everyone else has?"
What they don't tell you is that this particular operation causes your penis to fall off.
In addition, four fictional manufacturers run by fake people
How can fake people run a company? I'd seriously like to know, because it could save my company a lot of money in labor costs, if I could get non-existent people to do the work.
And apparently this gentleman has found that the only other people he really needs is his mother and whoever he has contact with through non-meatspace methods.
That's simply not true. He needs the people who grow his food. He needs the people who help stabilize society, so he is not murdered or killed in a war.
Let's live and let live, shall we?
Did I ever say anything about not letting him live? All I did was note the irony of his condemning other people (calling them assholes, amongst other things) while at the same time bemoaning somebody passing less offensive judgment on somebody else.
Well, supposedly that $1M is in the committee now. What's stopping them from giving it away to charities? It's not like, if Perelman refuses it, it magically disappears in a puff of smoke.
Most likely they have some ethics rule or constitution which prevents them from using it for anything other than awarding to the winner of the prize.
The ironic thing about you and your type is that it just re-enforces my beliefs that actually talking to people is a waste of time and will likely end up in people insulting me because I live in my mothers basement trying to improve my mind by doing programming assignments, practicing Mathematics, reading psychology, instead of socializing and gossiping and making value judgments on people.
No, the really ironic thing is that you decry the judgment of other people, while you are highly judgmental of others.
Not wanting to socialize with people is a GOOD thing, it isn't a bad thing. But, like usual, assholes like you will judge me by my ability and willingness to socialize, instead of by my intelligence, logic, or morality.
You make it sound like intelligence and is somehow the opposite of socializing. It's not. Humans are social creatures. That's not a very intelligent thing to ignore. You live on a planet full of other people, and you depend on those other people for your continued survival.
Why buy the 3D TV if you're just going to turn it off then? Seems rather wasteful.
You wouldn't if you were never going to turn it on. But you might want to turn it off in some situations, as mentioned here, and turn it on in other situations. Do you even read the thread before replying?
I have seen this automatic stuff before and when you look carefully at it it's not very clean unless you re-sample down to 1/4 the resolution or go small for web use.. it's never clean enough to print out at 11X17 or larger.
I've seen professional retouching (hell, I do it myself) and it's usually not very clean, either. Nobody prints or views 11x17 prints these days, except for images intended for an art gallery exhibition. The majority of images are used on the web, or maybe printed in a magazine.
Adobe allowing "controlled leakage" is the best free marketing campaign since Office 97 went from workplace "to the house" and back again.
Riiiiight. Adobe is deliberately putting copies of Photoshop on bittorrent networks as a marketing effort. It's not bittorrent users who share software doing it, it's a direct effort from Adobe.
You talk of Adobe "allowing" this. Pray tell, how would Adobe stop it? We all know that any copy protection is hacked in short order, but you think Adobe has some magical power to prevent its products from appearing on bittorrent?
Photoshop currently sells at a "lightweight" $700. How many photos would I have to edit to make that cost effective?
Just one, if that photo is valuable enough.
It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.
That's a very odd statement, as that was its intended use from day one. It was never not in that category. It has always been relatively expensive in consumer terms, but if you're a professional photographer, it's less than the cost of one lens, so it's relatively inexpensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Drive manufacturers used base-2 for decades, then the marketing people got involved and found out they could squeeze out some 'extra' space if they counted in base-10. They suddenly changed what they had been doing for a *long* time for marketing purposes.
Absolute bullshit. Even the earliest hard drives (1960s?) used decimal measurement. Can give me some source info for which hard drives were measured in binary units?
I don't remember NICs ever measuring in base-2 and then switching to base-10--they have always been base-10.
So, your precious units don't matter when they've always been used improperly (according to your standards)? That's some weird logic there. Using this logic, the the HD manufacturers are fine, because they always counted capacity in decimal.
drive manufacturers should be reporting in base-2 like they did for years and years until marketing droids started messing with stuff...
[citation needed]
Even the very first hard drives were measured in decimal units. It has nothing to do with "marketing droids." That's just something you made up.
Hard disks were always measured this way, it has nothing to do with making them "seem bigger."
You must have a horribly difficult time in this world.
Oh come one. The guy only has two fingers. We should feel sorry for him, instead of poking fun.
Who asks that besides people with a slight technical inclination who can also easily be taught 'Hard drive marketing droids decided to be devious and they are measuring a base-two storage device using base-ten'.
Why would you want to tell people lies? This idea of "devious hard drive marketing" is a complete myth. In other words, TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT that never happened, but gets spread by misinformed people like yourself.
Interestingly, why is it that the hard drive makers always get this accusation leveled at them, but nobody blinks twice when network throughput is measured in decimal units? Why don't you accuse network card manufacturers of being in on this conspiracy?
It was a bad idea when OS X 10.6 did it, and it's a bad idea for Ubuntu now. Hopefully they at least give an option to display the actual space used/remaining, unlike Apple.
Say what? Apple does give this option in Mac OS X.
No, it has nothing to do with marketing or attempts at deception by hard-drive manufacturers. This is revisionist history. What it has to do with, is the units never being consistently defined in the first place.
The "hard drive marketing" conspiracy is fictitious, and was a myth introduced after the fact by computer nerds who were stuck in their ways and emotionally attached to their preferred definition of the units.
Why would a business or educational institution want multiple desktop platforms?
Different users have different preferences, for one. There are also areas where different platforms have speciality applications that are unavailable on other platforms - such as video editing on Macs, or AutoCAD on Windows. Or perhaps a company wants to migrate to Linux, but make the transition gradually, with familiar tools.
Whatever their reasons, isn't really a concern of yours. I'm just saying it can be a valid consideration.
Also, if you have multiple desktop OSes in an enterprise setting, having same software for them is going to be the least of your worry - UI will still be different enough to cause major headaches with user training etc.
I haven't found this to be the case. For example, Adobe's Creative Suite is almost identical on Mac or Windows, with minor differences that don't affect the core interface. MS Office is more divergent, but still works in basically the same way. Firefox is basically the same across platforms.
The story is about Linux. What relevance does OS X have here?
In many scenarios, it's useful to have the same application software on multiple platforms. Such as, oh I don't know, business and education?
They did indeed offer a variety of different courses to him simply because - by law - he would not be allowed to work with a large variety of systems based on e.g. old color coding of wiring (red and green for live and neutral) in houses.
One would hope the school didn't teach people to use green for neutral, because that's the traditional color for earth.
"Would you like ultra-wide spectrum super-HD eyes with 60x optical zoom, Internet-connected HUD and complimentary laser cannons, just like everyone else has?"
What they don't tell you is that this particular operation causes your penis to fall off.
In addition, four fictional manufacturers run by fake people
How can fake people run a company? I'd seriously like to know, because it could save my company a lot of money in labor costs, if I could get non-existent people to do the work.
And then Oklahoma sends in Chuck Norris.
Dick Armey? Who's his wife, Vagina Coastguard?
And apparently this gentleman has found that the only other people he really needs is his mother and whoever he has contact with through non-meatspace methods.
That's simply not true. He needs the people who grow his food. He needs the people who help stabilize society, so he is not murdered or killed in a war.
Let's live and let live, shall we?
Did I ever say anything about not letting him live? All I did was note the irony of his condemning other people (calling them assholes, amongst other things) while at the same time bemoaning somebody passing less offensive judgment on somebody else.
Gives the user something physical to insert, that way they understand it. It also reduces the number of variables in the transaction process
You obviously have vastly different experiences with physically inserting things than I do.
Well, supposedly that $1M is in the committee now. What's stopping them from giving it away to charities? It's not like, if Perelman refuses it, it magically disappears in a puff of smoke.
Most likely they have some ethics rule or constitution which prevents them from using it for anything other than awarding to the winner of the prize.
The ironic thing about you and your type is that it just re-enforces my beliefs that actually talking to people is a waste of time and will likely end up in people insulting me because I live in my mothers basement trying to improve my mind by doing programming assignments, practicing Mathematics, reading psychology, instead of socializing and gossiping and making value judgments on people.
No, the really ironic thing is that you decry the judgment of other people, while you are highly judgmental of others.
Not wanting to socialize with people is a GOOD thing, it isn't a bad thing. But, like usual, assholes like you will judge me by my ability and willingness to socialize, instead of by my intelligence, logic, or morality.
You make it sound like intelligence and is somehow the opposite of socializing. It's not. Humans are social creatures. That's not a very intelligent thing to ignore. You live on a planet full of other people, and you depend on those other people for your continued survival.
Why buy the 3D TV if you're just going to turn it off then? Seems rather wasteful.
You wouldn't if you were never going to turn it on. But you might want to turn it off in some situations, as mentioned here, and turn it on in other situations. Do you even read the thread before replying?
I have seen this automatic stuff before and when you look carefully at it it's not very clean unless you re-sample down to 1/4 the resolution or go small for web use.. it's never clean enough to print out at 11X17 or larger.
I've seen professional retouching (hell, I do it myself) and it's usually not very clean, either. Nobody prints or views 11x17 prints these days, except for images intended for an art gallery exhibition. The majority of images are used on the web, or maybe printed in a magazine.
Butt plug? Tree trunk?
Why is Gimp always brought up when talking about Photoshop competitors?
Because it's Open Source.
I understand the near future will take Gimp out of the domain of "programmers-who-like-to-do-graphics"
That doesn't really matter to GIMP fans - it being for programmers, and it being Open Source are why they like it.
Adobe allowing "controlled leakage" is the best free marketing campaign since Office 97 went from workplace "to the house" and back again.
Riiiiight. Adobe is deliberately putting copies of Photoshop on bittorrent networks as a marketing effort. It's not bittorrent users who share software doing it, it's a direct effort from Adobe.
You talk of Adobe "allowing" this. Pray tell, how would Adobe stop it? We all know that any copy protection is hacked in short order, but you think Adobe has some magical power to prevent its products from appearing on bittorrent?
Photoshop currently sells at a "lightweight" $700. How many photos would I have to edit to make that cost effective?
Just one, if that photo is valuable enough.
It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.
That's a very odd statement, as that was its intended use from day one. It was never not in that category. It has always been relatively expensive in consumer terms, but if you're a professional photographer, it's less than the cost of one lens, so it's relatively inexpensive.
In opposite...
"In opposite"???