This is nonsense. First, moving to 45nm would save money. They're not going to hold back on that. Second, releasing a chip at 300/300 (back in the day) took a lot of validation and work, it's not something "free" that they can just sit on.
This whole article is just FUD. Producing new chips in a fab doesn't mean they're "ready". They need to be exhaustively validated and tested for as long as possible. The longer the better, so we don't have e.g. another FDIV. A more likely reason, if they were delaying, is that they only reason when it's needed because they want to validate the shit out of it as long as possible.
That's because this isn't a vulnerability. Furthermore, MS only has the power to reboot machines when explicitly granted that power. But the rest of your post makes sense. Oh, wait, that nonsense comprises the entirety of your post. Nevermind.
As written, that's what it means. However, being in prison you explicitly lose certain rights so that doesn't fly. You also give up certain rights when you're under 18.
But if they wanted to make it more specific, they would have gone through the trouble to pass a new ammendment updating the language and explicitly delineating the types of weapons and specific exceptions.
In general, common sense prevails. Don't let nuts, children, convicts have them. Don't allow weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes common sense doesn't prevail, e.g. limits on magazine capacity, fully automatic weapons (ooh, but they're so scary! Nevermind they're generally less effective than semi-auto in most people's hands).
What is absolutely retarded is the claim that they would put some kind of a "right to have a militia" in the constitution. Anyone who makes this argument isn't fooling anyone except people who just don't want other people having guns, Constitution be damned.
A taste of your own medicine. I've seen asshats who block IE and put up some ridiculous "Use Firefox!" banner for IE users. In reply, I promptly leave the site but it is annoying.
You're mising the point. First, you have a TV, no? So you can get the BBC. That's all you're entitled to. Internet streaming is an extra service. A lot of people don't even have PC's, so obviously it's not an entitlement you all have some "right to".
Sorry, no refund. I'm paying for all kinds of shit I don't want to pay for. How do I get my refund for paying for some lazy whore to pop out 5 kids and have them taken away and taken care of by the state?
You pay for the BBC. You get the BBC on your TV. Now you're acting like you have this new "right" to get it over the Internet as well. The BBC went the cheap/easy route, and now people are complaining. They're complaining about a service above and beyond what they already had, which I find odd, and moreover they're complaining becuase a tiny percentage of people won't be able to use the new service. As the grandparent post said - fine, they should just not offer it at all.
So..wait. I thought you said it was open to anyone with standard DVB-S equipment across most of western europe? Now I'm easily confused, but how exactly does what the BBC is doing further restrict this access? Seems to me, and again - I'm quaint and old fashioned, that they are expanding service above and beyond what's in their charter.
You will absolutely not run into this problem if your video card and monitor are truly HDCP enabled. You won't even run into it right now if you're not HDCP compliant, nobody sets ICT. And you cannot possibly run into it with non-DRM content. The article is factually incorrect (wouldn't want to say the NZ guy is a complete ridiculous liar, so I'll say... factually incorrect).
You're arguing with a retard, and you can't win an argument with a retard. Anyone who inserts ridiculous manglings of the spelling of Microsoft or zany reworkings of their marketing blurbs is by definition a retard.
"Duhhh, Microsoft made it illegal to bypass DRM, durrrr! Micro$haft, where did you want to go with 640K of memory yesterday, durrrrr, hehe haha hoho!".
Your post is factually incorrect. First, "natively" supporting a format is silly. Vista is an OS, and half the ridiculous dirty UNIX nerds on this site scream at MS anytime the "OS" includes extra functionality. I'm sure some pathetic h.264 codec vendor would sue MS if they put the codec into the OS, and you'd all cheer the suit on. Freaks.
As for Vegas not working with Vista, this is simply a lie. I have used it myself on Vista.
The guy in the article is an idiot, plain and simple. Go to http://www.avsforum.com/ and peruse the HTPC forums, people are easily playing high def video from Vista, even without HDCP compliant video cards. It's kind of odd that this guy would make this ridiculously easy to disprove claim, but I guess he thought nobody would, I don't know, actually try to play a high def video from Vista?
This is complete, easily disproved bullshit. If you get degraded video, it has nothing to do with DRM or Vista downgrading for nefarious purposes, it's a misconfiguration plain and simple. More than likely you run your TFT at low resolution, and then were like "Durr, why is it showing my video at 800x600..durrr".
1987. Yeah, nothing's changed since then. As for the socialist "money attracts the greedy" idea, give me a break. Do you think the best football players in the world are the middle aged guys who go out and play for fun on Sunday? Are the best skateboarders in the world the 17 year olds down at the community ramps on weekends?
The idea is ridiculous. I do like how you basically admitted you have no idea about what Microsoft is doing. At least that's telling - you base your meaningless opinions on hearsay and the groupthink phenomenon that runs rampant around here.
I would tend to disagree about the long term projects and inexperienced developers. Windows does cost, but SQL server is far out of the league of e.g. MySQL and Postgres. There's just so much more you can do with it. Microsoft actually does "OK" in OS's, I won't claim they're perfect but no OS is perfect. They excel in a few key areas, though, and your average drooling, closed-minded dirty UNIX guy hasn't the slightest clue.
1. SQL server. Works well, easy to manage, very easy to develop against. The last point is why SQL server, if you can afford it, is a no-brainer for any enterprise level development project.
2..NET. It's ironic when UNIX people knock.NET. It's absolutely light years ahead of anything in the UNIX realm (well, except Mono;). Take web services. There is no better platform for easily developing standards compliant, cutting edge web services than.NET. Period. It's not even a close contest.
3. Visual Studio. 2005. Orcas. Enough said to anyone who has ever developed real software.
4. Enterprise Library and all the other goodies MS produces to help developers develop industrial strength software.
5. MSDN.
6. Team Foundation System.
7. IIS 6/7. They work very well. Typical UNIX nerds, being stuck in the past, like to think of IIS pre-6 when they denigrate it.
I've developed in Linux/UNIX and going back to it would be painful. I work in the semiconductor industry and Linux is becoming the platform of choice for design engineering/EDA and I think it does and should dominate in that domain. It's far easier to "glue" applications together in UNIX based OS's, and this is a lot of what happens in EDA design. So don't get me wrong, Linux is absolutely superior in some domains.
Linux is, however, some primitive ass shit when it comes to shrink wrap and Enterprise level software development.
As for the idea that Windows is better for inexperienced developers - true, it is. "I can click and drool" developers do better in Windows. But that is orthogonal to high quality professional developers. There are far more quality, professional, high end developers in Windows simply because the market is larger and the tools for developing Windows software are superior.
For all your gibber jabber and meaningfully imparted quotes (did you half-close your eyes and give a deep, thoughful look when you typed those?), you still don't get it. Microsoft isn't just marketing, legal, and business development. I see you (not subtly) left out the developers at Microsoft. Nice attempt, but the fact is Microsoft has the best software developers in the world. Go look around on MSDN and read up a bit on some of the stuff MS is doing in the SW dev world. It's light years ahead of what the FOSS community considers advanced.
Seriously, you people can delude yourselves and think MS hires a bunch of idiots all you want, but this aspect of capitalism (money attracts talent) is why FOSS will never, ever "win" the way you all want it to.
I find most of the people who ridicule Windows don't really know shit about it. Most of you jerkoff anti-MS zealots seem very ridiculous to pretty much any serious professional in the IT/software world. You people are the angry, contrarian teenagers still angrily trying to define yourselves by rebelling against "mom" (Microsoft). I'm almost...wait. Yep. I'm positive. You all disgust me. This whole article and the replies are hilarious.
Yeah, the Itanium family. The one with monster floating point. People can call it Itanic all they want, the fact is that it's a good chip in the are for which it was designed.
It's not all that interesting. It's 1 GHz for a reason, they went with core-glut instead of GHz glut. Upcoming IA64 chips are the real competition for this, but for most of the stuff normal people do with computers, meaning non-scientific computing, modern x86 chips are better in almost every way. Sun is, always has been, and always will be an also-ran.
Whew, that was a close one. Those dummies at NASA almost made fools of themselves. I think they owe you a hardy pat on the back and a "job well done" for saving them from their lack of knowledge of these things you bring up!
Slashdot Mirror
This whole article is just FUD. Producing new chips in a fab doesn't mean they're "ready". They need to be exhaustively validated and tested for as long as possible. The longer the better, so we don't have e.g. another FDIV. A more likely reason, if they were delaying, is that they only reason when it's needed because they want to validate the shit out of it as long as possible.
That's because this isn't a vulnerability. Furthermore, MS only has the power to reboot machines when explicitly granted that power. But the rest of your post makes sense. Oh, wait, that nonsense comprises the entirety of your post. Nevermind.
Because I've _never_ seen a MySQL error from some random online forum.
But if they wanted to make it more specific, they would have gone through the trouble to pass a new ammendment updating the language and explicitly delineating the types of weapons and specific exceptions.
In general, common sense prevails. Don't let nuts, children, convicts have them. Don't allow weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes common sense doesn't prevail, e.g. limits on magazine capacity, fully automatic weapons (ooh, but they're so scary! Nevermind they're generally less effective than semi-auto in most people's hands).
What is absolutely retarded is the claim that they would put some kind of a "right to have a militia" in the constitution. Anyone who makes this argument isn't fooling anyone except people who just don't want other people having guns, Constitution be damned.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" .
The only part of that sentence that means anything is the bold part, the rest is parenthetical. It's really very simple.
Let's practice. "Because I like the way you spend all your money on porn, I am going to give you $1,000,000."
Now, do you have to spend the $1,000,000 on porn? No, you don't. The first portion of the sentence is parenthetical.
A taste of your own medicine. I've seen asshats who block IE and put up some ridiculous "Use Firefox!" banner for IE users. In reply, I promptly leave the site but it is annoying.
Nonsense. But way to dig up a 7 year old paper. I'm sure Live is _totally_ the same thing and their complaints are still _totally_ valid.
Sorry, no refund. I'm paying for all kinds of shit I don't want to pay for. How do I get my refund for paying for some lazy whore to pop out 5 kids and have them taken away and taken care of by the state?
You pay for the BBC. You get the BBC on your TV. Now you're acting like you have this new "right" to get it over the Internet as well. The BBC went the cheap/easy route, and now people are complaining. They're complaining about a service above and beyond what they already had, which I find odd, and moreover they're complaining becuase a tiny percentage of people won't be able to use the new service. As the grandparent post said - fine, they should just not offer it at all.
Right on. I don't understand the furor. BBC is offering a _new_ service. Now people are whining it's not enough. So get rid of it completely, then.
So..wait. I thought you said it was open to anyone with standard DVB-S equipment across most of western europe? Now I'm easily confused, but how exactly does what the BBC is doing further restrict this access? Seems to me, and again - I'm quaint and old fashioned, that they are expanding service above and beyond what's in their charter.
You will absolutely not run into this problem if your video card and monitor are truly HDCP enabled. You won't even run into it right now if you're not HDCP compliant, nobody sets ICT. And you cannot possibly run into it with non-DRM content. The article is factually incorrect (wouldn't want to say the NZ guy is a complete ridiculous liar, so I'll say... factually incorrect).
"Duhhh, Microsoft made it illegal to bypass DRM, durrrr! Micro$haft, where did you want to go with 640K of memory yesterday, durrrrr, hehe haha hoho!".
Wow. It's more than a little sad that you just spent time writing that jibba jabba based on an article that is basically 100% factually incorrect.
As for Vegas not working with Vista, this is simply a lie. I have used it myself on Vista.
The guy in the article is an idiot, plain and simple. Go to http://www.avsforum.com/ and peruse the HTPC forums, people are easily playing high def video from Vista, even without HDCP compliant video cards. It's kind of odd that this guy would make this ridiculously easy to disprove claim, but I guess he thought nobody would, I don't know, actually try to play a high def video from Vista?
This is complete, easily disproved bullshit. If you get degraded video, it has nothing to do with DRM or Vista downgrading for nefarious purposes, it's a misconfiguration plain and simple. More than likely you run your TFT at low resolution, and then were like "Durr, why is it showing my video at 800x600..durrr".
The idea is ridiculous. I do like how you basically admitted you have no idea about what Microsoft is doing. At least that's telling - you base your meaningless opinions on hearsay and the groupthink phenomenon that runs rampant around here.
1. SQL server. Works well, easy to manage, very easy to develop against. The last point is why SQL server, if you can afford it, is a no-brainer for any enterprise level development project. .NET. It's ironic when UNIX people knock .NET. It's absolutely light years ahead of anything in the UNIX realm (well, except Mono ;). Take web services. There is no better platform for easily developing standards compliant, cutting edge web services than .NET. Period. It's not even a close contest.
2.
3. Visual Studio. 2005. Orcas. Enough said to anyone who has ever developed real software.
4. Enterprise Library and all the other goodies MS produces to help developers develop industrial strength software.
5. MSDN.
6. Team Foundation System.
7. IIS 6/7. They work very well. Typical UNIX nerds, being stuck in the past, like to think of IIS pre-6 when they denigrate it.
I've developed in Linux/UNIX and going back to it would be painful. I work in the semiconductor industry and Linux is becoming the platform of choice for design engineering/EDA and I think it does and should dominate in that domain. It's far easier to "glue" applications together in UNIX based OS's, and this is a lot of what happens in EDA design. So don't get me wrong, Linux is absolutely superior in some domains.
Linux is, however, some primitive ass shit when it comes to shrink wrap and Enterprise level software development.
As for the idea that Windows is better for inexperienced developers - true, it is. "I can click and drool" developers do better in Windows. But that is orthogonal to high quality professional developers. There are far more quality, professional, high end developers in Windows simply because the market is larger and the tools for developing Windows software are superior.
Seriously, you people can delude yourselves and think MS hires a bunch of idiots all you want, but this aspect of capitalism (money attracts talent) is why FOSS will never, ever "win" the way you all want it to.
I find most of the people who ridicule Windows don't really know shit about it. Most of you jerkoff anti-MS zealots seem very ridiculous to pretty much any serious professional in the IT/software world. You people are the angry, contrarian teenagers still angrily trying to define yourselves by rebelling against "mom" (Microsoft). I'm almost...wait. Yep. I'm positive. You all disgust me. This whole article and the replies are hilarious.
Yeah, the Itanium family. The one with monster floating point. People can call it Itanic all they want, the fact is that it's a good chip in the are for which it was designed.
It's not all that interesting. It's 1 GHz for a reason, they went with core-glut instead of GHz glut. Upcoming IA64 chips are the real competition for this, but for most of the stuff normal people do with computers, meaning non-scientific computing, modern x86 chips are better in almost every way. Sun is, always has been, and always will be an also-ran.
Whew, that was a close one. Those dummies at NASA almost made fools of themselves. I think they owe you a hardy pat on the back and a "job well done" for saving them from their lack of knowledge of these things you bring up!
Oooh, zinger! You effectively huffed and puffed confusedly for a minute, then came up with "uhh, no, uhh...you're the idiot!"