And this is bad because...? Oh, if you believe in some kind of super-powered being who is human enough to care if we worship him and don't eat meat on Friday etc.. etc... but god enough to have created the laws of physics and the Universe then maybe you have a point.
Me, I don't care - it's what you do, not why you do it.
Is it hard, towing that much of the SlashDot line - does it hurt your back?
Name the evil things he's done, specifically. I'm sure these evil things involve outright theft, physical assault, and fraud - so please provide a laundry list of these nefarious dealings.
I'm being facetious. I know, of course, he's done no such thing and you're going to trot out a list of business dealings between consenting adults. It amuses me that you SlashDot geeky dweebs are by and large Libertarian leaning, but not when it comes to Micrsoft.
I know why you think about it, because you're an asshole. That's why. And not just for this schticky, cheesy urbanization you applied to the story - that just makes you a jerkoff who thinks he's funny.
No, you're an asshole because your point is meaningless. It implies the idea that charitable donations or good deeds have to be compared. The simple fact is that the Gates foundation does more good on this world than most any other organization. It sure as hell does more good than the nutbag religious ones which give with one hand then sew dissention and hate of other relgions with the other.
I prefer the message of the Buddha - moderation. You don't have to give the clothing off your back to do good.
Ooh, yeah. That makes sense. Maybe they made a rash decision and then looked at it again and realized it couldn't really be done. That's just plain EVIL.
You're a jackass. Your uber geeky dweeb glasses that paint anything MS as negative are making you behave ridiculously. The most logical assumption is they made a quick release with full intention of doing it (they're a charity, what possible motive can you provide for them wanting to do "evil"). Then they realized they couldn't, after more investigation.
My wife works in the social work field. Poverty begets poverty for the simple reason that semi-retarded, poor, illiterate scumbags pop out child after child, and those children do the same damn thing. I literally _hate_ those kinds of poor people. Hate them with a passion.
This may sound "overly-republican", but you won't be able to point out any flaw in the logic. One way we could improve this country in about 2 generations is by, I don't know, _enforcing_ all that bullshit we spout about "think of the children"? Here's how it works. If you abuse your child once, you get probation, education, whatever (assuming you didn't cut of a hand or sexually molest) - I'm talking run of the mill abuse. Second time, depending on the severity - you get a choice: You get sterilized or you go to prison for a very long time. Either way you're not going to spit out more children to abuse who will in turn have more poor, abused scumbag children.
You'd be amazed how poorly the state protects children and how _many_ children these scumbags spit out, one after the other. This leads to an obvious exponential scumbag-ization effect over time when 90% of these children do the same thing.
You mean the mythical VHS versus Beta where the "better" format lost, or the _real_ VHS vs. Beta war where the better format (longer tapes, for one thing) actually won but where people keep propogating the "Beta was better than VHS!" myth?
Umm, huh? When the DRM is cracked I'll be able to play these discs on my Vista install without the onerous DRM. Oh, and, like, play games and use professional grade desktop software. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a great server OS but really other than MythTV which is quite nice, it's pointless to run Linux on a home desktop unless you're just a Linux nerd.
BTW, your Gates quote is apocryphal.
Seriously - isn't it somewhat silly to undertake a project of this magnitude (and we're talking a _lot_ of magnitude - take for example redoing drivers for new 8800 line) when it could be instantly obsoleted by one phrase from Nvidia: "OK, nevermind, here are the drivers - we changed out mind."
This sounds, for lack of a better phrase, retarded to me.
So although Microsoft and the SFLC are on the same side, I'm quite sure Microsoft would have preferred stating its case without this brief.
I'm not quite sure. How are you convinced software patents help Microsoft? In reality, they hurt Microsoft as they worry about getting sued by some little podunk who patented the idea for some obvious algorithm that's been in use for years.
Software patents only benefit companies who don't actually produce a lot of software and would prefer to just go around suing. Microsoft would be better off without them.
Saying "zero" and "nada" is incorrect. When analyzing evolution you eventually end up at some starting point. Evolution applies to chemical processes as well as it does to living creatures.
So it would be perfectly valid to describe the formation of self replicating biological matter as evolution.
Thank you, very well said. These arguments about how x86 isn't "pretty" are ridiculous and they never go away. It's the same argument about how Kentsfield isn't "real" quad core or how AMD's chips are "better" because they use HT. But the fact is that at the end of the day all that matters is price, performance, and power usage. And Intel (and AMD) chips have come to dominate the day in that mishmash of dimensions.
I'm also sick of hearing about Cell. It was (amazingly, Sony?!! say it ain't so) massively overhyped. AMD and Intel will be releasing processors with _more_ cores that Cell over the next few years, and each of those _real_ cores will be several times faster than a Cell core.
What is this, 1999?;)
Right now 300-400GB hard drives are the sweet spot, and 500GB and 750GB drives will probably be the sweet spot by the end of 2007. I have about 1.2TB of usable disk space (a few 400 gig drives, a 300, and some misc other space) available. At 15GB per movie (which is probably too high anyway) that's like 80 high def movies.
So I don't buy the disk space argument. As others have mentioned, however, these movies are compessed about as efficiently as they can be. Recompressing would cost considerable quality.
I don't have to, your model is unworkable. For one thing, NFS only supports 16 groups. Using your "gee, I'll just create groups that are aggregates of other groups" approach simply won't work in any UNIX environment of any size.
Guh? Do you know anything about Windows? Like that it uses ACLs natively? Some UNIX versions support ACL's, but nobody really uses them and they're not interoperable. How about the root access model? Windows security people are appalled that root access on a client grants effectively universal access to any non-root-owned file on a file server which exports to that client, unless a site has migrated to Kerberized NFS (my guess is fewer than 1/10 of all UNIX shops have done this). With Windows, being a local super-user on a client doesn't grant me any special rights to any Windows file server.
At a low level, the security model for NT is applicable to files, handles, process objects, etc... Not so in UNIX. UNIX has simplicity going for it, but its security model purely as an OS is far less featured that Windows 2000+.
You can't even assign access to more than one group in UNIX, for Christ's sake, again barring specialized incompatible implementations. As for group policies, I don't think you know what they are. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Policy . There are third party applications for UNIX systems which will do that stuff, of course, but your average open source Linux shop with 200 Linux hosts has to script this stuff themselves.
Utter nonsense. The fact that you call them "windos dudes" pretty much indicates your bias and their ability.
Windows clearly has a more robust permission scheme with its ACL's and user rights policies, so original poster is 100%, unarguably correct in that comment, unless you want to discuss specialized UNIX systems with non-standard filesystems.
Windows group policies is something with no real equivelent in UNIX either. So again, original poster's comments are true.
Wow, what's even funnier is that you can do that in XP as well (Start Menu-F). I guess MS jumped in a time machine and stole this feature to use in Windows XP, also.
Yeah, because applying antitrust law to intellectual property is perfectly rational. A company can literally invent an idea and then be declared to have a monopoly on that idea. It really does make perfect sense.
OK, I'm being sarcastic. Applying antitrust law to Microsoft is just another example of the cognitive dissonance and sense of entitlement that's pervading this country. Antitrust is in existence to protect society from a single entity or entities abusing a shared physical resource. Read: oil, water, power, etc...
The fact that a computer user can choose from literally dozens of different computer OS's clearly defines the idiocy of claiming MS has a desktop OS monopoly. The fact that you have to jump through hoops to define a new category "Computer operating systems running on X86 hardware which are compatible with the Microsoft Windows API and runtime system" in order to define Microsoft as a monopolist is absolutely laughable and takes this idiocy to whole new levels.
Ugg, I'm so tired of this falsehood being repeated like gospel over and over. Please quit perpetuating this myth. Beta was superior to VHS in some aspects, and inferior in others. In the important ways it was obviously inferior, as it lost the race.
Agreed. AMD should have butched up and just waited until K8L to take on Intel. This product is absolutely ridiculous, it's strictly for AMD fanbois with more money than sense. Let's see.. slower on almost every benchmark, very expensive motherboard and memory requirements, ridiculous power requirements, questionable future.
I can only assume that by "give the impression" you actually meant "give the illusion".
I'm actually surprised the review was so positive. It's somewhat neutral, but really the conclusion is simple - 4x4 is a piece of crap. It uses ridiculou power and still loses the majority of benchmarks. In fact, in most applications, an E6600 would match or exceed it in performance, especially when both are overclocked.
Espensive, high power requirements, average performance, questionable future. Seriously, pretty sad offering.
You misspelled dirty socialistic protectionism of European Buggy Whip Maker companies. The whole European antitrust jihad against Microsoft is transparent and idiotic.
You're not following. This isn't about using procedural techniques to generate maps, 3D graphics, or anything else. This is specifically textures. Meaning instead of drawing a picture of e.g. rust or cracked glass and layering it on 3D model, they generate the picture algorithmically.
So it's more specific (and difficult) than what you describe, and most certainly wasn't done in 1984.
The ironing is delicious. You do know that traditional textures are often created in, you guessed it, Photoshop? Ergo, his question is perfectly valid, and his point is more valid. Do you need to sit down and write code to do these procedural textures, or can ordinary tools be modified to create them.
Please try to keep up with the conversation before you mock someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Me, I don't care - it's what you do, not why you do it.
Name the evil things he's done, specifically. I'm sure these evil things involve outright theft, physical assault, and fraud - so please provide a laundry list of these nefarious dealings.
I'm being facetious. I know, of course, he's done no such thing and you're going to trot out a list of business dealings between consenting adults. It amuses me that you SlashDot geeky dweebs are by and large Libertarian leaning, but not when it comes to Micrsoft.
No, you're an asshole because your point is meaningless. It implies the idea that charitable donations or good deeds have to be compared. The simple fact is that the Gates foundation does more good on this world than most any other organization. It sure as hell does more good than the nutbag religious ones which give with one hand then sew dissention and hate of other relgions with the other.
I prefer the message of the Buddha - moderation. You don't have to give the clothing off your back to do good.
You're a jackass. Your uber geeky dweeb glasses that paint anything MS as negative are making you behave ridiculously. The most logical assumption is they made a quick release with full intention of doing it (they're a charity, what possible motive can you provide for them wanting to do "evil"). Then they realized they couldn't, after more investigation.
My wife works in the social work field. Poverty begets poverty for the simple reason that semi-retarded, poor, illiterate scumbags pop out child after child, and those children do the same damn thing. I literally _hate_ those kinds of poor people. Hate them with a passion. This may sound "overly-republican", but you won't be able to point out any flaw in the logic. One way we could improve this country in about 2 generations is by, I don't know, _enforcing_ all that bullshit we spout about "think of the children"? Here's how it works. If you abuse your child once, you get probation, education, whatever (assuming you didn't cut of a hand or sexually molest) - I'm talking run of the mill abuse. Second time, depending on the severity - you get a choice: You get sterilized or you go to prison for a very long time. Either way you're not going to spit out more children to abuse who will in turn have more poor, abused scumbag children. You'd be amazed how poorly the state protects children and how _many_ children these scumbags spit out, one after the other. This leads to an obvious exponential scumbag-ization effect over time when 90% of these children do the same thing.
You mean the mythical VHS versus Beta where the "better" format lost, or the _real_ VHS vs. Beta war where the better format (longer tapes, for one thing) actually won but where people keep propogating the "Beta was better than VHS!" myth?
Oooh, good point. But wait. When a cracked CODEC is released this won't be a problem on Vista either. D'Oh for you.
Umm, huh? When the DRM is cracked I'll be able to play these discs on my Vista install without the onerous DRM. Oh, and, like, play games and use professional grade desktop software. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a great server OS but really other than MythTV which is quite nice, it's pointless to run Linux on a home desktop unless you're just a Linux nerd.
BTW, your Gates quote is apocryphal.
This sounds, for lack of a better phrase, retarded to me.
Software patents only benefit companies who don't actually produce a lot of software and would prefer to just go around suing. Microsoft would be better off without them.
So it would be perfectly valid to describe the formation of self replicating biological matter as evolution.
Thank you, very well said. These arguments about how x86 isn't "pretty" are ridiculous and they never go away. It's the same argument about how Kentsfield isn't "real" quad core or how AMD's chips are "better" because they use HT. But the fact is that at the end of the day all that matters is price, performance, and power usage. And Intel (and AMD) chips have come to dominate the day in that mishmash of dimensions.
I'm also sick of hearing about Cell. It was (amazingly, Sony?!! say it ain't so) massively overhyped. AMD and Intel will be releasing processors with _more_ cores that Cell over the next few years, and each of those _real_ cores will be several times faster than a Cell core.
Right now 300-400GB hard drives are the sweet spot, and 500GB and 750GB drives will probably be the sweet spot by the end of 2007. I have about 1.2TB of usable disk space (a few 400 gig drives, a 300, and some misc other space) available. At 15GB per movie (which is probably too high anyway) that's like 80 high def movies.
So I don't buy the disk space argument. As others have mentioned, however, these movies are compessed about as efficiently as they can be. Recompressing would cost considerable quality.
Grant access to a directory to 2 or more groups.
At a low level, the security model for NT is applicable to files, handles, process objects, etc... Not so in UNIX. UNIX has simplicity going for it, but its security model purely as an OS is far less featured that Windows 2000+.
You can't even assign access to more than one group in UNIX, for Christ's sake, again barring specialized incompatible implementations. As for group policies, I don't think you know what they are. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Policy . There are third party applications for UNIX systems which will do that stuff, of course, but your average open source Linux shop with 200 Linux hosts has to script this stuff themselves.
Windows clearly has a more robust permission scheme with its ACL's and user rights policies, so original poster is 100%, unarguably correct in that comment, unless you want to discuss specialized UNIX systems with non-standard filesystems.
Windows group policies is something with no real equivelent in UNIX either. So again, original poster's comments are true.
So what exactly are you debating, again?
Wow, what's even funnier is that you can do that in XP as well (Start Menu-F). I guess MS jumped in a time machine and stole this feature to use in Windows XP, also.
OK, I'm being sarcastic. Applying antitrust law to Microsoft is just another example of the cognitive dissonance and sense of entitlement that's pervading this country. Antitrust is in existence to protect society from a single entity or entities abusing a shared physical resource. Read: oil, water, power, etc...
The fact that a computer user can choose from literally dozens of different computer OS's clearly defines the idiocy of claiming MS has a desktop OS monopoly. The fact that you have to jump through hoops to define a new category "Computer operating systems running on X86 hardware which are compatible with the Microsoft Windows API and runtime system" in order to define Microsoft as a monopolist is absolutely laughable and takes this idiocy to whole new levels.
Do a web search to educate yourself, here's one: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/st ory/0,12449,881780,00.html
Yeah, it's a real winner.
I'm actually surprised the review was so positive. It's somewhat neutral, but really the conclusion is simple - 4x4 is a piece of crap. It uses ridiculou power and still loses the majority of benchmarks. In fact, in most applications, an E6600 would match or exceed it in performance, especially when both are overclocked.
Espensive, high power requirements, average performance, questionable future. Seriously, pretty sad offering.
You misspelled dirty socialistic protectionism of European Buggy Whip Maker companies. The whole European antitrust jihad against Microsoft is transparent and idiotic.
So it's more specific (and difficult) than what you describe, and most certainly wasn't done in 1984.
Please try to keep up with the conversation before you mock someone else.