1: have your OSX drivers switch between on board and dedicated GPU as needed.
2: Make the drivers for every other OS use the dedicated GPU constantly even if there's no real need.
3: Claim the sucky battery life is MS' fault and that their OS is poorly programmed
The 11 year old wearing such heavy makeup (lipstick, mascara and other stuff I'm too manly to admit to knowing the names of) is far more worrying than the burnt out ipod she's holding
There seems to be a lot of speculation in that article (and the headline) saying they'll drop Windows 7 E and charge people for the full version (instead of getting the full version for upgrade prices like we are currently).
It would be a complete and utter disaster if they did that. Throughout Europe they have hundreds of thousands of Win7 pre-orders. There's never been so many people pre-ordering boxed copies of an OS. For them to either jack up the price or to say to the people the full version they thought they were buying was just an upgrade would be a PR nightmare. It's possible after launch they may change it to upgrade editions but there's no way they're going to piss off or confuse untold numbers of people who are fairly buzzed about the OS.
I think the speculation is pure BS really. It even says in one of the other articles that it's going to be browserless and the ballot screen is shown the first time IE is run. You cannot upgrade a OS with IE to one without which was the reason for windows 7 E in the first place.
Sadly this results in teacher's just completely snapping. Most of the time it results in them crying or shouting but it has potential to get much worse.
There was a recent incident in here in the UK where a teacher had come back to school after recovering from a stroke and wasn't quite back to normal. The kids noticed this and in the class they started singing "I'm looking at the psycho in the mirror" (to the tune of the similarly named MJ song). He demanded they stop, the lead kid swore at him in return.
What happened then? The teacher bashed the student over the head with a metal weight, dragged the student into a supply room where he almost beat the student to death before he was dragged off by a load of students.
The surprising thing was the reaction. There was very little pity for the student in question and huge amounts of support for the teacher (who's now on attempted murder charges).
people go to search engines to search for something specific rather than general idle reading, that's a different type of reader (and one that isn't as valuable).
They still go to the website if they get the headlines and links from a third party but they don't go via the homepage. They'll get far fewer page views from someone who gets a list of their stories on a third party site than if they go to their front page to do so.
However, would you like it if, instead of visiting your site every day, they visited a central site that listed the stories on it instead. You ended up not getting homepage views and viewers on average visited few pages if they visited. For popular sites, this could represent a massive drop in revenue.
Some places just don't like the principle of a robot systematically plowing through their site and copying an publishing many pages worth of text written by them on a daily basis. Even if the snippets themselves are small, overall, huge amounts of content is being ripped automatically from their site and being profited upon by someone.
It's one thing saying "they're suing because of 11 words!", it's another saying "they're suing for pages upon pages being ripped on a regular basis"
Isn't this just EMI saying they'll no longer send out small shipments because it isn't viable for them so you have to buy from a large wholesaler instead?
I thought this was standard practice for most industries.
Today I will demonstrate on this stage a vulnerability that MS have known about for a year! I will show off an attack that will give me control of any system!
*opens IE and visits the site with his exploit*
*nothing happens* ...
*becomes aware of the sound of crickets and 2000 people in the audience*
Attractiveness has nothing to do with the number of kids you pump out. If anything attractive people tend to attract rich husbands or be rich in their own right which makes them likely to have fewer kids.
Trailer trash/chavs on the otherhand pump out loads of kids
I'd imagine The Register will run with it. They do well written Global warming articles. They're not so much as sceptical of the theory but report on questionable science and the worrying trend of attacking the people behind sceptical reports rather than their observations/data.
I have to admit, as a brit, I used to love my country, I had a genuine pride in being British. No longer though.
I'm ashamed at people who pump out kids they don't care for just to get themselves a council house and benefits. There's an entire generation of 'ME ME ME' kids being brought up and I'm going to have to work with them or manage them.
Our DNA database is completely shocking and a disgrace, as are the draconian laws regarding pornography and other restrictions of free speech.
I used to think it unimaginable that I could move overseas. However now, if I was offered a job in the US for decent money, I'd seriously consider taking it.
I'm ashamed of an increasing section of the British population and I'm ashamed by our government.
The problem Microsoft have with implementing HTML 5 is that there's so much that isn't fully decided yet. Suppose they try to implement it based on what they predict will be in it and the spec changes. You'll end up with things like IE6's implementation of the box model (which I still actually believe is better than the 'proper' one. If I change the border of one element, I don't want to have to adjust the sizes of 15 other elements to compensate). If they jump the gun and their implementation doesn't become standard, they get accused of undermining standards. As such, their only choice is to wait for a standard to become fairly set in stone.
Firefox doesn't seem to get the same flak when it's non-standard (doesn't like negative z-indexs, it may not display 100% valid RSS feeds, needs a custom command to switch the box model).
Better sound implementation (less blue screens from bad drivers and better control over sound in each application), DX11, proper 64 bit (games are already hitting the 3.5gig limit and it'll only get worse with id's megatexture tech)
All the information about this story is in 3 pages, all of which seem to link to each other as a source. There's a very fuzzy picture about what went on. Big questions I have about the story:
The issue appears to be that there were drivers linked to open source code. Which exact binaries, which GPL'ed code?
What are the timescales? Was the discovery of GPL'ed code made before or after MS released the code? If before, how long before? It's not clear on any of the pages.
Was the GPL'ed code able to be licensed through other means? Is there a possibility they decided to make this GPL'ed code a while ago and decided to link to other GPL'ed code because of this?
I don't mind doing a bit of my own research to get the full facts of a story but having to read 3 vague blog posts and still coming out non the wiser is irritating.
Putting on a seatbelt doesn't make you think there's a good chance of you dying for months on end and have to undergo lots of unpleasant examinations and tests.
A positive cancer test has major implications and ultimately, the average well being of a patient is as important a factor as the lives saved.
To use a theoretical example. Imagine a doctor discovers that if they tell a mother giving birth that the baby has died in the womb, the reaction from the woman giving birth somehow lowers the chance of a miscarriage by 0.1%. Over the course of a year this could save 10 babies but it would come at the cost of severe mental trauma for every mother (and father). No doctor would do this because it's immoral.
Likewise, if you give them the results of a test which will make the patient feel they're living on borrowed time, despite knowing the chances of the test result being accurate is slim, that'll make lots of doctors unhappy.
I don't deny these demos are impressive but the fact they use existing libraries lessens the achievement for me.
When DirectX basically has it's own 3D engine, you're basically turning the task of creating a demo into generating sounds, textures and models from formulae.
Libraries used should be limited to the minimum needed to create a window or change the display mode and shouldn't do any real grunt work or, there should be a second metric of RAM and swap files used.
Wikipedia does have a big free online rival:
Search engines. It can be just as fast to find specialist info straight through a search engine than to go through wikipedia (especially if the info you're after is in a maze of disambiguation and split articles).
Text formatting is something that is protected by copyright law. Don't believe me? Feel free to scan a recently published book of public domain material by a big publisher and post it online , see how long it takes you to get sued.
Look at any advice on using public domain material from the web (such as government documents), they'll all tell you that if you wish to use public domain works, make sure you save them as raw text with no formatting.
The works of Shakespeare as they appear in any book are copyrighted by the publisher. If you type out the entire works of Shakespeare with your own formatting, you can indeed claim copyright on it.
Photos are granted copyright by default. There has to be an explicit reason for copyright of those photos to be taken away (such as not having permission to copyrighted/trademarked items in the photo) otherwise it expires 70 years after publication or creator's death. As there is no such exception under British law, the copyright is the same as with any other photo.
And damn those evil public galleries that in Wikipedia's words "restrict access" by putting them in galleries that have free entry and free guided tours!
Slashdot Mirror
1: have your OSX drivers switch between on board and dedicated GPU as needed.
2: Make the drivers for every other OS use the dedicated GPU constantly even if there's no real need.
3: Claim the sucky battery life is MS' fault and that their OS is poorly programmed
The 11 year old wearing such heavy makeup (lipstick, mascara and other stuff I'm too manly to admit to knowing the names of) is far more worrying than the burnt out ipod she's holding
There seems to be a lot of speculation in that article (and the headline) saying they'll drop Windows 7 E and charge people for the full version (instead of getting the full version for upgrade prices like we are currently).
It would be a complete and utter disaster if they did that. Throughout Europe they have hundreds of thousands of Win7 pre-orders. There's never been so many people pre-ordering boxed copies of an OS. For them to either jack up the price or to say to the people the full version they thought they were buying was just an upgrade would be a PR nightmare. It's possible after launch they may change it to upgrade editions but there's no way they're going to piss off or confuse untold numbers of people who are fairly buzzed about the OS.
I think the speculation is pure BS really. It even says in one of the other articles that it's going to be browserless and the ballot screen is shown the first time IE is run. You cannot upgrade a OS with IE to one without which was the reason for windows 7 E in the first place.
Sadly this results in teacher's just completely snapping. Most of the time it results in them crying or shouting but it has potential to get much worse.
There was a recent incident in here in the UK where a teacher had come back to school after recovering from a stroke and wasn't quite back to normal. The kids noticed this and in the class they started singing "I'm looking at the psycho in the mirror" (to the tune of the similarly named MJ song). He demanded they stop, the lead kid swore at him in return.
What happened then? The teacher bashed the student over the head with a metal weight, dragged the student into a supply room where he almost beat the student to death before he was dragged off by a load of students.
The surprising thing was the reaction. There was very little pity for the student in question and huge amounts of support for the teacher (who's now on attempted murder charges).
people go to search engines to search for something specific rather than general idle reading, that's a different type of reader (and one that isn't as valuable).
They still go to the website if they get the headlines and links from a third party but they don't go via the homepage. They'll get far fewer page views from someone who gets a list of their stories on a third party site than if they go to their front page to do so.
However, would you like it if, instead of visiting your site every day, they visited a central site that listed the stories on it instead. You ended up not getting homepage views and viewers on average visited few pages if they visited. For popular sites, this could represent a massive drop in revenue.
Some places just don't like the principle of a robot systematically plowing through their site and copying an publishing many pages worth of text written by them on a daily basis. Even if the snippets themselves are small, overall, huge amounts of content is being ripped automatically from their site and being profited upon by someone.
It's one thing saying "they're suing because of 11 words!", it's another saying "they're suing for pages upon pages being ripped on a regular basis"
Isn't this just EMI saying they'll no longer send out small shipments because it isn't viable for them so you have to buy from a large wholesaler instead?
I thought this was standard practice for most industries.
Memory footprint is a misleading metric. Unused ram is wasted ram. I/O speed and other memory benchmarks are far more useful.
Doesn't sound like a bad tactic to me.
...
*Haxx0r ur world con 2009*
Today I will demonstrate on this stage a vulnerability that MS have known about for a year! I will show off an attack that will give me control of any system!
*opens IE and visits the site with his exploit*
*nothing happens*
*becomes aware of the sound of crickets and 2000 people in the audience*
Attractiveness has nothing to do with the number of kids you pump out. If anything attractive people tend to attract rich husbands or be rich in their own right which makes them likely to have fewer kids.
Trailer trash/chavs on the otherhand pump out loads of kids
I'd imagine The Register will run with it. They do well written Global warming articles. They're not so much as sceptical of the theory but report on questionable science and the worrying trend of attacking the people behind sceptical reports rather than their observations/data.
I have to admit, as a brit, I used to love my country, I had a genuine pride in being British. No longer though.
I'm ashamed at people who pump out kids they don't care for just to get themselves a council house and benefits. There's an entire generation of 'ME ME ME' kids being brought up and I'm going to have to work with them or manage them.
Our DNA database is completely shocking and a disgrace, as are the draconian laws regarding pornography and other restrictions of free speech.
I used to think it unimaginable that I could move overseas. However now, if I was offered a job in the US for decent money, I'd seriously consider taking it.
I'm ashamed of an increasing section of the British population and I'm ashamed by our government.
The problem Microsoft have with implementing HTML 5 is that there's so much that isn't fully decided yet. Suppose they try to implement it based on what they predict will be in it and the spec changes. You'll end up with things like IE6's implementation of the box model (which I still actually believe is better than the 'proper' one. If I change the border of one element, I don't want to have to adjust the sizes of 15 other elements to compensate). If they jump the gun and their implementation doesn't become standard, they get accused of undermining standards. As such, their only choice is to wait for a standard to become fairly set in stone.
Firefox doesn't seem to get the same flak when it's non-standard (doesn't like negative z-indexs, it may not display 100% valid RSS feeds, needs a custom command to switch the box model).
Better sound implementation (less blue screens from bad drivers and better control over sound in each application), DX11, proper 64 bit (games are already hitting the 3.5gig limit and it'll only get worse with id's megatexture tech)
Don't you know, Troll actually means "I disagree". Although in this case it likely means "lalala I can't hear you"
My first thought once I navigated through the maze of links to the source of this info was that people were jumping to conclusions:
"Microsoft released code that would otherwise violate GPL" = Microsoft were caught out and forced to release the code.
When this could be just as true:
Microsoft always intended to release the code so used GPL'ed code in it.
All the information about this story is in 3 pages, all of which seem to link to each other as a source. There's a very fuzzy picture about what went on. Big questions I have about the story:
The issue appears to be that there were drivers linked to open source code. Which exact binaries, which GPL'ed code?
What are the timescales? Was the discovery of GPL'ed code made before or after MS released the code? If before, how long before? It's not clear on any of the pages.
Was the GPL'ed code able to be licensed through other means? Is there a possibility they decided to make this GPL'ed code a while ago and decided to link to other GPL'ed code because of this?
I don't mind doing a bit of my own research to get the full facts of a story but having to read 3 vague blog posts and still coming out non the wiser is irritating.
Putting on a seatbelt doesn't make you think there's a good chance of you dying for months on end and have to undergo lots of unpleasant examinations and tests.
A positive cancer test has major implications and ultimately, the average well being of a patient is as important a factor as the lives saved.
To use a theoretical example. Imagine a doctor discovers that if they tell a mother giving birth that the baby has died in the womb, the reaction from the woman giving birth somehow lowers the chance of a miscarriage by 0.1%. Over the course of a year this could save 10 babies but it would come at the cost of severe mental trauma for every mother (and father). No doctor would do this because it's immoral.
Likewise, if you give them the results of a test which will make the patient feel they're living on borrowed time, despite knowing the chances of the test result being accurate is slim, that'll make lots of doctors unhappy.
I don't deny these demos are impressive but the fact they use existing libraries lessens the achievement for me.
When DirectX basically has it's own 3D engine, you're basically turning the task of creating a demo into generating sounds, textures and models from formulae.
Libraries used should be limited to the minimum needed to create a window or change the display mode and shouldn't do any real grunt work or, there should be a second metric of RAM and swap files used.
Wikipedia does have a big free online rival: Search engines. It can be just as fast to find specialist info straight through a search engine than to go through wikipedia (especially if the info you're after is in a maze of disambiguation and split articles).
You are flat out wrong.
Text formatting is something that is protected by copyright law. Don't believe me? Feel free to scan a recently published book of public domain material by a big publisher and post it online , see how long it takes you to get sued.
Look at any advice on using public domain material from the web (such as government documents), they'll all tell you that if you wish to use public domain works, make sure you save them as raw text with no formatting.
The works of Shakespeare as they appear in any book are copyrighted by the publisher. If you type out the entire works of Shakespeare with your own formatting, you can indeed claim copyright on it.
Photos are granted copyright by default. There has to be an explicit reason for copyright of those photos to be taken away (such as not having permission to copyrighted/trademarked items in the photo) otherwise it expires 70 years after publication or creator's death. As there is no such exception under British law, the copyright is the same as with any other photo.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf
And damn those evil public galleries that in Wikipedia's words "restrict access" by putting them in galleries that have free entry and free guided tours!
UK law is very clear, photographs, even if they're of a subject matter that is public domain, are subject to their own copyright as an original work.