Normally I'd argue, but it would be like arguing with a retard over whether the moon is made of cheese or not. You say a bunch of things, but you're just blathering a bunch of fat, geeky dweeb nonsense.
Fortunately people like you who are incapable of adapting to new technology and get emotional about operating systems get weeded out. Face it, brother, you're a dinosaur.
The main problem is that complex software is just hard to secure. And not just complex MS software - they are not the only ones suffering these kinds of vulnerabilities.
This incremental approach will eventually result in operating systems that are secure to all but the most sophisticated local attacks. You can't stop the attack where someone just downloads something and blindly runs it. Unlike most people, I don't think computer OS's and apps will always be as insecure as they have been for the last 15 years since the explosion of the Internet to the masses.
It may take another 5 years, but I think we're getting there. Vista isn't perfect, but it's a step closer.
I don't care about angry MPAA fans and their mod points, he deserves a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave for the laws he and the RIAA have inflicted upon an unwilling majority of citizens in this country.
Give me a fucking break. Are you fucking kidding me? It takes a lot of nuts to say something that retarded. It's like some scumbag politician standing in front of a group of his fellow Christians and saying "I don't care what anybody says, I love children! Oh, and God! I don't hare if the enormous God and children hating contingent of this group hates me for it, I've said it!".
That is a valid point, I'm fortunate to work in a large entperprise and get all that stuff "free" (enterprise pays for it). Still, you can get a pretty decent free.NET development environment from MS to do a good percentage of the stuff most single developers need to do.
Nonsense. "A lot" is more like a very very few. You can break a project up into multiple solutions and use msbuild to tie them together, but edit them in VS2005. No sane person would develop in C# of VB in anything but VS2005.
The advantage that a good IDE gives you isn't something that "folks talk about" anymore than gravity is something "folks talk about".
Rich commentary. Unfortunately, MS _isn't_ going anywhere no matter what happens with Vista. Vista will succeed simply through attrition - in 5-6 years XP will be much akin to 2000, still used some places but pretty much dead.
The real problem is people who tout all UNIX's supposed superiority in every way don't really know shit about modern Windows. You can easily manage 10, 100, or 1000 IIS servers identically with as much ease, and far more intuitively, than the same number of Apache.
Most of these people are worse than blowhards, they're closed minded idiots. I've recently moved to developing stuff in.NET with all the latest goodies, and I absolutely dread moving back to developing code on UNIX or in Java. Microsoft provides end to end goodness - VS2005,.NET 2/3, Team Foundation Server, Workflow Foundation, Enterprise Library, etc... All of it just works almost perfectly together.
My only problems with VS2005 is it's kind of slow and some of the new.NET 3.0 stuff has occasional issues in VS2005, e.g. workflow designer. I'm willing to pay that price for the massive productivity benefit, I'd pay it if it were twice as slow. I'm hoping they fix it in Orcas.
As a professional linux user/developer and.NET developer, I can say absolutely that people choose to develop in Windows both because it just works and because it's more productive. Ever developed a web service in.NET 3.0? Tried Windows Workflow Foundation? Enterprise Library? Team Foundation Server? I'm absolutely loathe to go back to primitive ass Java coding. I'd rather use Perl, at least it has a niche - Java is inferior in almost every way to.NET.
The only two benefits of Java are cross platform (which I don't care about, I'm writing WS-I(+) compliant web services) and in the rich set of open source libraries available. Both of these are completely overwhelemed by the sheer productivity superiority of.NET in almost every case.
Except in a Socialist Utopia like many seem to want in this country, just because people choose to use Microsoft products in the face of many choices doesn't make it a monopoly. People use Microsoft because they want to - they most certainly have a choice.
Oooh. Sorry. "Monopoly" doesn't apply within a company's own line of products. Whether people "buy" Vista or "buy" XP is immaterial with respect to Microsoft's "monopoly". Their "monopoly" would apply when compared to other vendor products, not their own.
And I'm pretty sure your definition of monopoly is different from mine seeing as how I can choose from literally dozens of alternative OS's, many of which are completely free.
So all music is good music. True in the subjective sense, meaningless in any conversational sense. Britney Spears == The Beatles, Ashlee Simpson == Mozart.
Regardless, music is categorized into genres and it always will be by everyone but you and about 30 other contrarians.
This is simply untrue. The gun control nuts have a bigger megaphone and _immediately_ jumped on the bandwagon. For proof see abcnews.com's headlines, one of their front page stories is rampant conjecture about how "assault weapon" "clips" were used and that congress missed their chance to renew the ban on them.
Ahh, technological disconnect then. Gnash will never support bypassing of DRM, including the forced adverts. This is a simple truism for technical as well as legal reasons.
Why? Are you under the idiotically mistaken idea that Flash now forces you as a web developer to use forced adverts and DRM. Do you thikn Flash ships with stock adverts you must use if you don't want to do your own? Your statement utterly confuses me. If you don't want forced adverts or DRM, don't use it - it has nothing to do with Flash itself.
Talk to the content providers. If consumers don't want this shit, the content providers won't use it. It has nothing to do with Flash. You people seem a little confused on the whole DRM issue. Providing the technology is a separate issue from the policies content providers choose to enact. Adobe isn't doing anything wrong here. It's like blaming the gun manufacturers when some piece of shit nutjob goes on a killing spree.
I'm not sure I see your point. If a content provider wants to give you content that doesn't have DRM restrictions or forced adverts, they still can. Adobe isn't forcing content providers to force DRM/Adverts, they're giving them the ability.
So here's the riddle. If a content provider wants to force you to use adverts, they will force you - Gnash won't help. If they don't want to force you, Gnash is unnecessary. So what, exactly, does this have to do with...well...anything?
As it currently exists, no. But check out WPF from Microsoft, it's what Java in the browser should have been. Miguel Whatisface from the Mono team is scared of it.
If you don't have a native 1080p display, 720p will indeed look better for many things, especially if the source is 720p. Even for a 1080i source, 720p might look better with an analog projector for the same reason standard def video looks really good played in a 2x2" window on a PC, it helps hide some of the imperfections.
If you have a 1080p native display with good deinterlacing, 1080p should look better. And it will definitely look better with a fixed pixel display.
Guh? You seem to be trying to be the "voice of reason", but your point is nonsensical.
The question isn't whether a majority of people have 50" or larger TV's. It's not even whether the ones who do watch it up close or the "what's worth watching".
Your argument makes about as much sense as the half-witted "why do we need these super fast CPUs??" verbal ejaculate that gets spewed here every time an article about CPUs is posted. The fact is more and more people are buying big TV's in the 40" and over segment, so it's a valid question whether 1080p is of any use at a given screen size.
Your boring argument about TV being crap is pointless. The content is the content, some people like what's on, so they'll watch it. And HD (1080i feed) looks much better than SD.
I got bored reading the articles and I couldn't find the answer immediately. Which campaign donor paid for this, or which Mormon edict is behind it? It's obviously one or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
"Our next exciting story - a new article from BlahBlah.com with details on how to add active javascript links to your HTML!". zzzzzzz.
Fortunately people like you who are incapable of adapting to new technology and get emotional about operating systems get weeded out. Face it, brother, you're a dinosaur.
This incremental approach will eventually result in operating systems that are secure to all but the most sophisticated local attacks. You can't stop the attack where someone just downloads something and blindly runs it. Unlike most people, I don't think computer OS's and apps will always be as insecure as they have been for the last 15 years since the explosion of the Internet to the masses.
It may take another 5 years, but I think we're getting there. Vista isn't perfect, but it's a step closer.
Give me a fucking break. Are you fucking kidding me? It takes a lot of nuts to say something that retarded. It's like some scumbag politician standing in front of a group of his fellow Christians and saying "I don't care what anybody says, I love children! Oh, and God! I don't hare if the enormous God and children hating contingent of this group hates me for it, I've said it!".
Retard.
Perl - not so different from a receipt.
Java - not so different from a can of blue paint.
Linux - not so different from a left shoe with green shoe-laces.
Sweet Jumping Jesus, do you even know what the hell .NET is?
That is a valid point, I'm fortunate to work in a large entperprise and get all that stuff "free" (enterprise pays for it). Still, you can get a pretty decent free .NET development environment from MS to do a good percentage of the stuff most single developers need to do.
The advantage that a good IDE gives you isn't something that "folks talk about" anymore than gravity is something "folks talk about".
Rich commentary. Unfortunately, MS _isn't_ going anywhere no matter what happens with Vista. Vista will succeed simply through attrition - in 5-6 years XP will be much akin to 2000, still used some places but pretty much dead.
The real problem is people who tout all UNIX's supposed superiority in every way don't really know shit about modern Windows. You can easily manage 10, 100, or 1000 IIS servers identically with as much ease, and far more intuitively, than the same number of Apache.
My only problems with VS2005 is it's kind of slow and some of the new .NET 3.0 stuff has occasional issues in VS2005, e.g. workflow designer. I'm willing to pay that price for the massive productivity benefit, I'd pay it if it were twice as slow. I'm hoping they fix it in Orcas.
The only two benefits of Java are cross platform (which I don't care about, I'm writing WS-I(+) compliant web services) and in the rich set of open source libraries available. Both of these are completely overwhelemed by the sheer productivity superiority of .NET in almost every case.
Except in a Socialist Utopia like many seem to want in this country, just because people choose to use Microsoft products in the face of many choices doesn't make it a monopoly. People use Microsoft because they want to - they most certainly have a choice.
And I'm pretty sure your definition of monopoly is different from mine seeing as how I can choose from literally dozens of alternative OS's, many of which are completely free.
Regardless, music is categorized into genres and it always will be by everyone but you and about 30 other contrarians.
It's called "pop punk" (which should be an oxymoron, but isn't). It's basically pop music with a very thin veneer of pretend-punk thrown in.
You misspelled "By adding these things called 'features'." Hope ths helps.
Ahh, technological disconnect then. Gnash will never support bypassing of DRM, including the forced adverts. This is a simple truism for technical as well as legal reasons.
Why? Are you under the idiotically mistaken idea that Flash now forces you as a web developer to use forced adverts and DRM. Do you thikn Flash ships with stock adverts you must use if you don't want to do your own? Your statement utterly confuses me. If you don't want forced adverts or DRM, don't use it - it has nothing to do with Flash itself.
Talk to the content providers. If consumers don't want this shit, the content providers won't use it. It has nothing to do with Flash. You people seem a little confused on the whole DRM issue. Providing the technology is a separate issue from the policies content providers choose to enact. Adobe isn't doing anything wrong here. It's like blaming the gun manufacturers when some piece of shit nutjob goes on a killing spree.
So here's the riddle. If a content provider wants to force you to use adverts, they will force you - Gnash won't help. If they don't want to force you, Gnash is unnecessary. So what, exactly, does this have to do with...well...anything?
As it currently exists, no. But check out WPF from Microsoft, it's what Java in the browser should have been. Miguel Whatisface from the Mono team is scared of it.
If you have a 1080p native display with good deinterlacing, 1080p should look better. And it will definitely look better with a fixed pixel display.
The question isn't whether a majority of people have 50" or larger TV's. It's not even whether the ones who do watch it up close or the "what's worth watching".
Your argument makes about as much sense as the half-witted "why do we need these super fast CPUs??" verbal ejaculate that gets spewed here every time an article about CPUs is posted. The fact is more and more people are buying big TV's in the 40" and over segment, so it's a valid question whether 1080p is of any use at a given screen size.
Your boring argument about TV being crap is pointless. The content is the content, some people like what's on, so they'll watch it. And HD (1080i feed) looks much better than SD.
I got bored reading the articles and I couldn't find the answer immediately. Which campaign donor paid for this, or which Mormon edict is behind it? It's obviously one or the other.