Engine temp is regulated by the thermostat, and probably computerized by now(god help us).
No, it isn't. It's still based on a wax-and-spring mechanical thermostat, and as long as you don't have Dex-Cool (the pinkish/salmon-color antifreeze) for your coolant, it is a very reliable mechanism.
Large corps have lots at stake, and they really, really, REALLY are terrified of any solutions that aren't basically guaranteed to work by large, trusted vendors.
Aside from hardware (game controllers, mice/mouses[?], keyboards, etc.) what does Microsoft guarantee to work? I have read their EULAs. Heck, I even worked second-tier Windows support back in the day. They expressly disclaim all warranties, stated or implied. There _is_no_guarantee_ that Windows or Microsoft Office will work for any purpose. They do not guarantee that it will work, and they certainly won't guarantee that Microsoft Excel can properly add 2+2.
With all warranties expressly disclaimed, HOW does "REALLY are terrified of any solutions that aren't basically guaranteed to work by large, trusted vendors" make expensive proprietary software a better choice than free/open source solutions? The industry entrenched around the theory that you need it, and you will NOT take your mouth off the teats of Microsoft and you will need expensive training and "maintenance."
Finger-pointing? What happens when a proprietary product reaches EOL and support is required? Many companies require you to purchase the new product even before you can purchase the support incident - if they will even support the old version at all. Who fixes the product then? If you need data recovered, it takes someone deciphering the data format with a hex editor, or trying to make heads and tails of a closed-source vendor's idea of a database schema.
When an open-source product loses its backing (project is abandoned, the company which created it is sold or closes, or whatever) who can fix it? Whatever developer you can find who knows the language the product was coded in. Worst case you'll still have access to your data and can migrate it to something else, but in most cases you can get the defect fixed and move on in life and get back to doing your real work.
When looking at it objectively:
Which is the bigger risk? Which is the safer bet?
You might argue that Microsoft is stable and isn't going anywhere soon, but on the other hand, all you bought was 20 seats of office (or "pirated" (arrrgh!) one across 20 workstations) and to a company with $100 billion in the bank, your threat to go elsewhere if they don't fix your bug in $f00, it's less than the buzzing of a mosquito. It's not even head lice to them. They couldn't care less because a) they already have your money b) you're too small to give a squat about and c) you're ("you" in this hypothetical situation, not "you" specifically) stupid enough to keep buying their product even when they do not fix their bugs.
So, the bug will not be fixed, and you still will pay for the product. That is just how life is. However, F/OSS would have given you the software for free (BONUS!) and you would have been able to get the bug fixed. Now, it is true perhaps that fixing the bug might cost more (if you had to hire a developer to fix it for you) than Microsoft Office would have cost you, but on the other hand, the fact remains that you could fix it and gain access to your data and get on with making a living.
Now, in an "enterprise" situation I would think that in a situation where there is no warranty, and there is an option costing millions with limited hardware support and a limited lifetime and risk of lawsuits in the event of "license" "violations" and there is a free option where the support is JUST AS GOOD, if not better, supports more server-grade hardware, there is NO risk of per-seat "license" "violations" AND the source is available so you know that at worst you can have your IT department fix it, it should be a no-brainer.
Unfortunately, swag and kickbacks convince suits otherwise.
Of course they have to forbid Ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is a gateway drug. It starts out like this: you get really bad menstrual cramps or are prone to migraines, so you start taking aspirin. Asprin doesn't work, so you try acetaminophen. That works for a while, but it's not enough and you need something stronger to keep away the pain. So, the next step is ibuprofen.
See, the problem with that is that ibuprofen is a gateway drug. Once you turn to ibuprofen, it's all over. You'll be popping 2-3 pills every time you get a headache or cramp, and the next thing you know, you'll end up addicted to the hard drugs like Midol. Don't get me started about my Midol addiction!
Now for the serious part of my post:
Are they for real? Why throw common sense out of the window? Why are aspirin. ibuprofen, Midol, claritin, and other non-narcotic, legal, over-the-counter medications forbidden from schools? In high school I had aspirin and ibuprofen with me. It was a non-issue. Plus, if I didn't have any with me and I got a migraine, I could get some from the school nurse or a teacher. There was no issue with it. They didn't even call home to get permission from my mommy and daddy. Back in the '80s, even public school teachers and administrators had the common sense to discern the difference between illegal narcotics or stimulants from safe, legal, over-the-counter medications that even a four-year-old can purchase over the counter.
I am so sick of the dumbing down of America and my fellow citizens sacrificing liberties in exchange for security theater and a nanny state. What's next: on the next episode of Homeland Security Theater is bottled water going to be banned from schools? That is EXACTLY what happened in Boston the other day. Because three students were drinking alcohol (it was either rum or vodka, I don't remember which) in a classroom and the idiotic teacher and principal did not do a thing about it, the superintendent decided the smart thing to do was to ban ALL beverages from the campus. The teacher and principal of that school still have their jobs and were not reprimanded. Instead, EVERYONE is punished because two douchebag faculty members let three moronic teenagers drink vodka in class. They couldn't punish the evildoers involved - no, of course not. They punish EVERYONE except the guilty parties.
Soviet Russia is looking better than what "progressives" here in America are trying to create. Sheesh!
This is another form of FUD, IMHO, Why not focus on finding all the exploits in their own software which results in easy installation of rootkits and spyware and other malware in their systems which results in boot times of 5 to 15 minutes, where there can be literally HUNDREDS to THOUSANDS of processes infesting the Windows platform and the Microsoft Office suite?
I have yet to see an exploit in *nix that can't be relatively easily removed. I HAVE seen rooted boxes but they have been installed by determined crackers - on slowlaris and Linux - in those cases the exploit was able to be removed and verifying against known-clean machines has verified they were clean - in an enterprise environment at a state college. Other infections I've seen have been confined to individual user accounts, or to an individual application (apache).
Heck, I've had a machine rooted because I did not want to update OpenSSL on one of my machines a few years ago. I had opened the machine up to the net (it was normally on a clean net but I opened it up and forgot to close the firewall after I finished testing) but even that was easily cleaned, and I verified against a backup that I had successfully cleaned the system. I did reinstall as a safeguard and finally patched OpenSSL. However that was a known-and-patched exploit that I didn't care to upgrade because it was a private machine normally inaccessible from the wild. It was the result of carelessness. I cleaned it in under 15 minutes and could have left it and been safe but I took the opportunity to upgrade to a newer distro release anyhow.
The difference is, so many Windows apps require admin/root access that it is the normal operating mode of Windows, and one application with an exploit (MSIE and IIS in particular) can almost invariably result in the box being rooted, and Windows does not make it easy to clean. Why? Because even "safe mode" can be exploited to run processes at startup. Cleaning up the mess is a tedious process, and while BartPE or WinPE (if you have access to WinPE) do make the job a little easier, it's still a pain in the neck.
Linux exploits usually are the result of one to three things:
1. Carelessness: running an intentionally-or-uninentionally patched box open to the 'net. I've done this before and had to clean up the mess.
2. User running as root - this is a surefire way to get exploited. No mainstream applications not designed for administration tasks require root access, and unlike Vista's UAC, the privilege escalation mechanisms in *nix variants/distros actually do what they are designed without being obnoxious.
3. Sheer determination: the cracker just keeps pounding and pounding on the box using all known exploits and then turns to brute force. Eventually the user will get in unless the firewall detects the attempts because you can't stop determined douchebaggery.
Now, as far as Windows is concerned: there are a quintillion (OK, a slight exaggeration) unpatched known exploits (some of them having been known for 10+ years), probably >99% of users run as Administrator because many applications and even some games require admin access to run, so the boxes are uber-easy to hack.
So, why doesn't Microsoft produce these tools for Windows, so the mass populace can help identify, log steps to reproduce, and report the exploits? Why are they using their resources to create tools for testing open source software for exploits? It is so they can give windows fanbois tools to create yet more anti-Linux and anti-F/OSS FUD, pure and simple. It's not about caring about F/OSS, it's not about wanting to contribute, and it certainly is not about being a good netizen. It is entirely self-centered. And, it makes sense for Microsoft since their duopoly is in danger and they know they peaked long ago and the only direction they have to go is down, and they know it.
Sorry, but I just don't see it. 15 minutes? Either you have Symantec's security suite and only 256MB of RAM AND have the eye candy turned on AND a ton of OEM software running at startup AND 5400RPM or 4500RPM drives, AND it's heavily fragmented or it's just a really old computer. Or, it's really loaded up with spyware or has otherwise been rooted.
I've usually seen Vista boot more quickly than XP. Once at the desktop it is more sluggish than XP, that is true, but not by orders of magnitude.
It's not BS I remembered the resolution wrong. I just checked - it's 1400x1050. In any case, it was an old and at the time (relatively) cheap notebook and it was still higher resolution than Apple's best 15" Macbook Pro. Thank you for pointing out my error however you could do it in a less douchebaggy way, and not post AC.
it's not a true two-button mouse. You don't have a middle click and cannot emulate middle click properly since it detects EITHER right OR left - a problem when dealing with X applications, or Linux in general. (I do like OS X but would not run it on a daily basis)
The $130 doesn't get you an OS that will run on commodity hardware.
Let me introduce you to the hacintosh. Macs have been nothing more than commodity PCs in a proprietary case since they switched to the x86/x64 platform.
In the case of notebooks, it is also true the Macbook chassis is vastly superior to practically any "PC" notebook vendor. However I am going Dell Precision rather than Macbook Pro for my next notebook for two reasons: 1. Dell offers WUXGA resolution and 2) Dell offers a three-button "mouse" (trackpointer and touchpad), and one minor reason (a "powerslice" external battery which will allow the PC to run a full 10-12 hours). The price I negotiated Dell down to is about the same as a Macbook Pro 15 but I'll have a better optical drive, a magnesium alloy case (as opposed to aluminum), more RAM, higher resolution (with RGB-LED backlight!), faster CPU, faster video chipset, backlit keyboard, and no retarded one-button mouse (touchpad/trackpointer). Oh, and accidental damage coverage and three-year warranty with on-site service (although no "tech" will touch my notebook - I will insist on receiving the part only in the event that I need service).
I'd love to have gone with a Macbook even though it's commodity hardware - the Macbook is lighter and they're pretty, but on the other hand, I'm not retarded. I want two or three mouse buttons. Also, I'm not blind. I want high resolution because I design graphics, and now I am getting into embroidery and clothing design for a hobby. I need something better than 1440x900. Heck, my old (circa-1991) Latitude did 1680x1050, and my older Thinkpad had a three-button mouse. Jobs, please enter the new millennium. Most Mac users are at least somewhat computer-literate, certainly more capable than most Windows users, and can deal with a multi-button mouse/touchpad/trackpointer.
Oh, and Ballmer? My real work will be done in Linux. Windows will be only for games and embroidery design (I need to convert from.svg and.ai to.sew), and if I can get the embroidery software to talk to the machine while running under crossover office, so much the better - I may not need Windows at all.:D
You mean, kind of like the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the NSA, and of course, our wonderful color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System"? The same people who consider citizens who carry the Constitution or know it well and who support libertarian-minded candidates such as Ron Paul to be domestic terrorists, and yet don't deem illegal aliens, er, "illegal immigrants" to be any kind of threat whatsoever?
If I were to say you're an idiot, Calvin would say that God made me say it. Because, you know, we have no free will and every single move is dictated by YHVH. So basically, we're just in an RPG on God's wii.
According to what some call "hyper-calvinists" even satan's every single thought and deed is actually manipulated by YHVH.
If that is the case, then I would like to pose an argument: since God is in total and complete move and micro-manages every single move we make, then God is to blame for all of the evil in the world. He is the cause of world hunger, WWI, the Holocaust, the murder of over 40 million unborn babies, Stalin's murdering of 20 million, the crusades, the current economic crisis, the Iraq war (God's fault, not Duhbya's). The obvious conclusion is: God is evil, and it doesn't matter whether or not I believe in a "god" because if there is a god, then he or she or it or they already made that decision for me. Hence, Calvinism is idiotic.
Now, regarding "free will" and electrons. A prerequisite for free will is sentience. If you are unaware of self, you cannot make a decision. If you cannot make a decision, free will is impossible.
I have an alternate idea: How about subscribing to a "child-safe" ISP which sanitizes your content for you? Sure, you will have to pay extra for the service, but it is YOU who want the censorship, not I. I'll take the bad with the good if it means that my liberty to choose to produce crud or good content remains intact.
Geothermal would not involve filling underground caverns with high-pressure water. It would involve drilling, driving a coil down the well, and letting the fluid flow through a closed loop.
That's okay, my system won't run the malware, not even under Crossover Office. I always submit reports to malware authors but they never respond to help me install their software. I feel so ostricised by the malware community! I'm a Linux geek and I have feelings, damn it!:(
First up is a brand new 100-mpg supercar by Lighting Hybrids.
FTFA:
Loveland, Colorado-based Lightning Hybrids has its sights set on the $10 million automotive x-prize with a sleek biodiesel-fueled vehicle that they claim will break the 100MPG barrier for a production sedan. Once completed, their hydraulic hybrid prototype will boast 240 hp, a carbon fiber chassis, and a 0-60 speed of 5.9 seconds.
5.9 seconds is NOT supercar territory. It's actually in family sedan territory nowadays. In the late 70s/early 80s it might be considered supercar territory. There is a whole slew of family sedans that are quicker than that. Heck, a Saab 9-3 can beat that with just a new ECM profile, and a Saab 9-3 X will beat that bone stock.
Even my car that can do 0-60 in 4.1 seconds and go over 185mph isn't in supercar territory any more. Mid-4s for 0-60 is pretty run of the mill for today's sportscars (and even some luxury sedans!) and top speeds of 170+ is something every real sportscars today can achieve - with many exceeding 180mph.
Now, I LIKE the lightning and would buy one if I had the cash, but you know, I wouldn't even consider it a sportscar with those specs. It's just a neat-looking GT, at best.
IMHO the bar for "supercar" status keeps moving higher as the exotics and even higher-end mainstream sportscars get better and better. If a current base-model Corvette(not even the ZR-1 or even Z06) or a high-end Rustang can outrun your current "supercar," you do not have a "supercar." Sorry.
I'm torn between hoping that this software patent is invalidated since almost anything you can implement in software is obvious to those skilled in the trade, and hoping that this patent is upheld so that Amazon will have to remove the DRM or be otherwise punished for their using DRM to restict right of first sale and fair use.
Trying to figure out which side to support in this case is enough to make one's head explode!
IBM's version of the OpenOffice.org suite (Symphony) is horrible, though. If they get their hands on Openoffice.org I hope someone else (Novell) builds up a community for their fork of the suite and everyone in the project switches to the fork.
That's not to say that Openoffice.org can't use some TLC - a lot of the legacy code is really, really crappy and disorganized (which discourages many from getting involved) but I do like the direction OpenOffice is going now. Under IBM, it could turn real ugly real fast if Symphony is any indication.
I'd just play their game. Waste their time listening to them about the ESP, their $99 HDMI cables, and so forth, let them gather all the stuff up then right at payment time tell them "gee, sorry guys, I just want the $NOTEBOOK/$TV/$FOO, not all the other crap. Sorry about that, just having second thoughts." Then, you get your crap $450 notebook or $1200 TV and you've just taught a sales associate to not waste a customer's time because some customers are smart enough to do the same back to them.
Child porn is illegal in many countries, and yet Apple chose to include a camera on a phone which is often given to horny teens who are tempted to make nudie shots of themselves and send them to SOs, who promptly forward them to friends. Should Apple not have included a camera since the camera could potentially enable aspiring underage pr0n starlets?
Ah, but it's the right of first sale which actually applies, NOT a EULA. Besides, I now agree to amended EULAs. I now put paper up to the screen and agree to the EULA I modify, just as you would modify any contract you have a problem with, so it is immaterial in the first place.
It is a commodity good, not a work for hire. Doctrine of first sale applies, not contract law.
That pixel count doesn't mean jack if it's loaded with noise, or has been smeared into a blurry mess by noise reduction filters. I'd rather have 10MP and usable ISO 1600, ISO 3200, and ISO 6400 modes where noise is unnoticeable.
How about this? Hold weekly code reviews, and assign one developer to document another developer's code. Devote 10% to 20% of the time to code reviews and documentation and chances are unit testing will improve, lessening the load on QA and you'll actually have a hope of shipping a product with zero fatal defects on time, and only a handful of less severe but noticeable defects. Quality assurance should NOT begin with the QA department, but should be implemented throughout the process, from requirements through deployment and maintenance. The end result is usually actually less costly than the balls-to-the-wall approach and results in repeat customers who will purchase at each upgrade cycle.
Also, having code documentation in place helps your release engineer produce builds on time because then build failures are more easily fixed at 7:00am by the release engineer without having to wait until the developer rolls in at the crack of noon to find out where the missing parenthesis belongs in your spaghetti code of an algorithm.
Didn't OpenGL always support real-time raytracing if you throw it enough hardware? Unfortunately "enough hardware" to render complex scenes in real time has not existed yet.
Can you magine what kind of 3D modeling rig god has? Somehow I don't think it's based on an ATI or nVidia chipset.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, I'm sure some concerned slashdotter with terrible karma will step up to the plate and flame kdawson for this blunder!
No, it isn't. It's still based on a wax-and-spring mechanical thermostat, and as long as you don't have Dex-Cool (the pinkish/salmon-color antifreeze) for your coolant, it is a very reliable mechanism.
Aside from hardware (game controllers, mice/mouses[?], keyboards, etc.) what does Microsoft guarantee to work? I have read their EULAs. Heck, I even worked second-tier Windows support back in the day. They expressly disclaim all warranties, stated or implied. There _is_no_guarantee_ that Windows or Microsoft Office will work for any purpose. They do not guarantee that it will work, and they certainly won't guarantee that Microsoft Excel can properly add 2+2.
With all warranties expressly disclaimed, HOW does "REALLY are terrified of any solutions that aren't basically guaranteed to work by large, trusted vendors" make expensive proprietary software a better choice than free/open source solutions? The industry entrenched around the theory that you need it, and you will NOT take your mouth off the teats of Microsoft and you will need expensive training and "maintenance."
Finger-pointing? What happens when a proprietary product reaches EOL and support is required? Many companies require you to purchase the new product even before you can purchase the support incident - if they will even support the old version at all. Who fixes the product then? If you need data recovered, it takes someone deciphering the data format with a hex editor, or trying to make heads and tails of a closed-source vendor's idea of a database schema.
When an open-source product loses its backing (project is abandoned, the company which created it is sold or closes, or whatever) who can fix it? Whatever developer you can find who knows the language the product was coded in. Worst case you'll still have access to your data and can migrate it to something else, but in most cases you can get the defect fixed and move on in life and get back to doing your real work.
When looking at it objectively:
Which is the bigger risk?
Which is the safer bet?
You might argue that Microsoft is stable and isn't going anywhere soon, but on the other hand, all you bought was 20 seats of office (or "pirated" (arrrgh!) one across 20 workstations) and to a company with $100 billion in the bank, your threat to go elsewhere if they don't fix your bug in $f00, it's less than the buzzing of a mosquito. It's not even head lice to them. They couldn't care less because a) they already have your money b) you're too small to give a squat about and c) you're ("you" in this hypothetical situation, not "you" specifically) stupid enough to keep buying their product even when they do not fix their bugs.
So, the bug will not be fixed, and you still will pay for the product. That is just how life is. However, F/OSS would have given you the software for free (BONUS!) and you would have been able to get the bug fixed. Now, it is true perhaps that fixing the bug might cost more (if you had to hire a developer to fix it for you) than Microsoft Office would have cost you, but on the other hand, the fact remains that you could fix it and gain access to your data and get on with making a living.
Now, in an "enterprise" situation I would think that in a situation where there is no warranty, and there is an option costing millions with limited hardware support and a limited lifetime and risk of lawsuits in the event of "license" "violations" and there is a free option where the support is JUST AS GOOD, if not better, supports more server-grade hardware, there is NO risk of per-seat "license" "violations" AND the source is available so you know that at worst you can have your IT department fix it, it should be a no-brainer.
Unfortunately, swag and kickbacks convince suits otherwise.
Of course they have to forbid Ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is a gateway drug. It starts out like this: you get really bad menstrual cramps or are prone to migraines, so you start taking aspirin. Asprin doesn't work, so you try acetaminophen. That works for a while, but it's not enough and you need something stronger to keep away the pain. So, the next step is ibuprofen.
See, the problem with that is that ibuprofen is a gateway drug. Once you turn to ibuprofen, it's all over. You'll be popping 2-3 pills every time you get a headache or cramp, and the next thing you know, you'll end up addicted to the hard drugs like Midol. Don't get me started about my Midol addiction!
Now for the serious part of my post:
Are they for real? Why throw common sense out of the window? Why are aspirin. ibuprofen, Midol, claritin, and other non-narcotic, legal, over-the-counter medications forbidden from schools? In high school I had aspirin and ibuprofen with me. It was a non-issue. Plus, if I didn't have any with me and I got a migraine, I could get some from the school nurse or a teacher. There was no issue with it. They didn't even call home to get permission from my mommy and daddy. Back in the '80s, even public school teachers and administrators had the common sense to discern the difference between illegal narcotics or stimulants from safe, legal, over-the-counter medications that even a four-year-old can purchase over the counter.
I am so sick of the dumbing down of America and my fellow citizens sacrificing liberties in exchange for security theater and a nanny state. What's next: on the next episode of Homeland Security Theater is bottled water going to be banned from schools? That is EXACTLY what happened in Boston the other day. Because three students were drinking alcohol (it was either rum or vodka, I don't remember which) in a classroom and the idiotic teacher and principal did not do a thing about it, the superintendent decided the smart thing to do was to ban ALL beverages from the campus. The teacher and principal of that school still have their jobs and were not reprimanded. Instead, EVERYONE is punished because two douchebag faculty members let three moronic teenagers drink vodka in class. They couldn't punish the evildoers involved - no, of course not. They punish EVERYONE except the guilty parties.
Soviet Russia is looking better than what "progressives" here in America are trying to create. Sheesh!
This is another form of FUD, IMHO, Why not focus on finding all the exploits in their own software which results in easy installation of rootkits and spyware and other malware in their systems which results in boot times of 5 to 15 minutes, where there can be literally HUNDREDS to THOUSANDS of processes infesting the Windows platform and the Microsoft Office suite?
I have yet to see an exploit in *nix that can't be relatively easily removed. I HAVE seen rooted boxes but they have been installed by determined crackers - on slowlaris and Linux - in those cases the exploit was able to be removed and verifying against known-clean machines has verified they were clean - in an enterprise environment at a state college. Other infections I've seen have been confined to individual user accounts, or to an individual application (apache).
Heck, I've had a machine rooted because I did not want to update OpenSSL on one of my machines a few years ago. I had opened the machine up to the net (it was normally on a clean net but I opened it up and forgot to close the firewall after I finished testing) but even that was easily cleaned, and I verified against a backup that I had successfully cleaned the system. I did reinstall as a safeguard and finally patched OpenSSL. However that was a known-and-patched exploit that I didn't care to upgrade because it was a private machine normally inaccessible from the wild. It was the result of carelessness. I cleaned it in under 15 minutes and could have left it and been safe but I took the opportunity to upgrade to a newer distro release anyhow.
The difference is, so many Windows apps require admin/root access that it is the normal operating mode of Windows, and one application with an exploit (MSIE and IIS in particular) can almost invariably result in the box being rooted, and Windows does not make it easy to clean. Why? Because even "safe mode" can be exploited to run processes at startup. Cleaning up the mess is a tedious process, and while BartPE or WinPE (if you have access to WinPE) do make the job a little easier, it's still a pain in the neck.
Linux exploits usually are the result of one to three things:
1. Carelessness: running an intentionally-or-uninentionally patched box open to the 'net. I've done this before and had to clean up the mess.
2. User running as root - this is a surefire way to get exploited. No mainstream applications not designed for administration tasks require root access, and unlike Vista's UAC, the privilege escalation mechanisms in *nix variants/distros actually do what they are designed without being obnoxious.
3. Sheer determination: the cracker just keeps pounding and pounding on the box using all known exploits and then turns to brute force. Eventually the user will get in unless the firewall detects the attempts because you can't stop determined douchebaggery.
Now, as far as Windows is concerned: there are a quintillion (OK, a slight exaggeration) unpatched known exploits (some of them having been known for 10+ years), probably >99% of users run as Administrator because many applications and even some games require admin access to run, so the boxes are uber-easy to hack.
So, why doesn't Microsoft produce these tools for Windows, so the mass populace can help identify, log steps to reproduce, and report the exploits? Why are they using their resources to create tools for testing open source software for exploits? It is so they can give windows fanbois tools to create yet more anti-Linux and anti-F/OSS FUD, pure and simple. It's not about caring about F/OSS, it's not about wanting to contribute, and it certainly is not about being a good netizen. It is entirely self-centered. And, it makes sense for Microsoft since their duopoly is in danger and they know they peaked long ago and the only direction they have to go is down, and they know it.
Sorry, but I just don't see it. 15 minutes? Either you have Symantec's security suite and only 256MB of RAM AND have the eye candy turned on AND a ton of OEM software running at startup AND 5400RPM or 4500RPM drives, AND it's heavily fragmented or it's just a really old computer. Or, it's really loaded up with spyware or has otherwise been rooted.
I've usually seen Vista boot more quickly than XP. Once at the desktop it is more sluggish than XP, that is true, but not by orders of magnitude.
It's not BS I remembered the resolution wrong. I just checked - it's 1400x1050. In any case, it was an old and at the time (relatively) cheap notebook and it was still higher resolution than Apple's best 15" Macbook Pro. Thank you for pointing out my error however you could do it in a less douchebaggy way, and not post AC.
left-click: "normal" click
right-click: context menu
middle button: paste (in non-OSX *nix)
left+right: emulated middle click
yes, I need a three-button mouse/touchpad/trackpointer, or at minimum, a true two-button mouse.
it's not a true two-button mouse. You don't have a middle click and cannot emulate middle click properly since it detects EITHER right OR left - a problem when dealing with X applications, or Linux in general. (I do like OS X but would not run it on a daily basis)
Let me introduce you to the hacintosh. Macs have been nothing more than commodity PCs in a proprietary case since they switched to the x86/x64 platform.
In the case of notebooks, it is also true the Macbook chassis is vastly superior to practically any "PC" notebook vendor. However I am going Dell Precision rather than Macbook Pro for my next notebook for two reasons: 1. Dell offers WUXGA resolution and 2) Dell offers a three-button "mouse" (trackpointer and touchpad), and one minor reason (a "powerslice" external battery which will allow the PC to run a full 10-12 hours). The price I negotiated Dell down to is about the same as a Macbook Pro 15 but I'll have a better optical drive, a magnesium alloy case (as opposed to aluminum), more RAM, higher resolution (with RGB-LED backlight!), faster CPU, faster video chipset, backlit keyboard, and no retarded one-button mouse (touchpad/trackpointer). Oh, and accidental damage coverage and three-year warranty with on-site service (although no "tech" will touch my notebook - I will insist on receiving the part only in the event that I need service).
I'd love to have gone with a Macbook even though it's commodity hardware - the Macbook is lighter and they're pretty, but on the other hand, I'm not retarded. I want two or three mouse buttons. Also, I'm not blind. I want high resolution because I design graphics, and now I am getting into embroidery and clothing design for a hobby. I need something better than 1440x900. Heck, my old (circa-1991) Latitude did 1680x1050, and my older Thinkpad had a three-button mouse. Jobs, please enter the new millennium. Most Mac users are at least somewhat computer-literate, certainly more capable than most Windows users, and can deal with a multi-button mouse/touchpad/trackpointer.
Oh, and Ballmer? My real work will be done in Linux. Windows will be only for games and embroidery design (I need to convert from .svg and .ai to .sew), and if I can get the embroidery software to talk to the machine while running under crossover office, so much the better - I may not need Windows at all. :D
You mean, kind of like the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the NSA, and of course, our wonderful color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System"? The same people who consider citizens who carry the Constitution or know it well and who support libertarian-minded candidates such as Ron Paul to be domestic terrorists, and yet don't deem illegal aliens, er, "illegal immigrants" to be any kind of threat whatsoever?
If I were to say you're an idiot, Calvin would say that God made me say it. Because, you know, we have no free will and every single move is dictated by YHVH. So basically, we're just in an RPG on God's wii.
According to what some call "hyper-calvinists" even satan's every single thought and deed is actually manipulated by YHVH.
If that is the case, then I would like to pose an argument: since God is in total and complete move and micro-manages every single move we make, then God is to blame for all of the evil in the world. He is the cause of world hunger, WWI, the Holocaust, the murder of over 40 million unborn babies, Stalin's murdering of 20 million, the crusades, the current economic crisis, the Iraq war (God's fault, not Duhbya's). The obvious conclusion is: God is evil, and it doesn't matter whether or not I believe in a "god" because if there is a god, then he or she or it or they already made that decision for me. Hence, Calvinism is idiotic.
Now, regarding "free will" and electrons. A prerequisite for free will is sentience. If you are unaware of self, you cannot make a decision. If you cannot make a decision, free will is impossible.
I have an alternate idea: How about subscribing to a "child-safe" ISP which sanitizes your content for you? Sure, you will have to pay extra for the service, but it is YOU who want the censorship, not I. I'll take the bad with the good if it means that my liberty to choose to produce crud or good content remains intact.
Geothermal would not involve filling underground caverns with high-pressure water. It would involve drilling, driving a coil down the well, and letting the fluid flow through a closed loop.
That's okay, my system won't run the malware, not even under Crossover Office. I always submit reports to malware authors but they never respond to help me install their software. I feel so ostricised by the malware community! I'm a Linux geek and I have feelings, damn it! :(
KDE is better than Gnome! Only baby-eating rapists choose the Gnome desktop!
Oh, and vi is hands-down the one true text editor.
Oh, you want Linux help? man $f00, n00b!
FTFS:
FTFA:
5.9 seconds is NOT supercar territory. It's actually in family sedan territory nowadays. In the late 70s/early 80s it might be considered supercar territory. There is a whole slew of family sedans that are quicker than that. Heck, a Saab 9-3 can beat that with just a new ECM profile, and a Saab 9-3 X will beat that bone stock.
Even my car that can do 0-60 in 4.1 seconds and go over 185mph isn't in supercar territory any more. Mid-4s for 0-60 is pretty run of the mill for today's sportscars (and even some luxury sedans!) and top speeds of 170+ is something every real sportscars today can achieve - with many exceeding 180mph.
Now, I LIKE the lightning and would buy one if I had the cash, but you know, I wouldn't even consider it a sportscar with those specs. It's just a neat-looking GT, at best.
IMHO the bar for "supercar" status keeps moving higher as the exotics and even higher-end mainstream sportscars get better and better. If a current base-model Corvette(not even the ZR-1 or even Z06) or a high-end Rustang can outrun your current "supercar," you do not have a "supercar." Sorry.
I'm torn between hoping that this software patent is invalidated since almost anything you can implement in software is obvious to those skilled in the trade, and hoping that this patent is upheld so that Amazon will have to remove the DRM or be otherwise punished for their using DRM to restict right of first sale and fair use.
Trying to figure out which side to support in this case is enough to make one's head explode!
IBM's version of the OpenOffice.org suite (Symphony) is horrible, though. If they get their hands on Openoffice.org I hope someone else (Novell) builds up a community for their fork of the suite and everyone in the project switches to the fork.
That's not to say that Openoffice.org can't use some TLC - a lot of the legacy code is really, really crappy and disorganized (which discourages many from getting involved) but I do like the direction OpenOffice is going now. Under IBM, it could turn real ugly real fast if Symphony is any indication.
I'd just play their game. Waste their time listening to them about the ESP, their $99 HDMI cables, and so forth, let them gather all the stuff up then right at payment time tell them "gee, sorry guys, I just want the $NOTEBOOK/$TV/$FOO, not all the other crap. Sorry about that, just having second thoughts." Then, you get your crap $450 notebook or $1200 TV and you've just taught a sales associate to not waste a customer's time because some customers are smart enough to do the same back to them.
Child porn is illegal in many countries, and yet Apple chose to include a camera on a phone which is often given to horny teens who are tempted to make nudie shots of themselves and send them to SOs, who promptly forward them to friends. Should Apple not have included a camera since the camera could potentially enable aspiring underage pr0n starlets?
Ah, but it's the right of first sale which actually applies, NOT a EULA. Besides, I now agree to amended EULAs. I now put paper up to the screen and agree to the EULA I modify, just as you would modify any contract you have a problem with, so it is immaterial in the first place.
It is a commodity good, not a work for hire. Doctrine of first sale applies, not contract law.
That pixel count doesn't mean jack if it's loaded with noise, or has been smeared into a blurry mess by noise reduction filters. I'd rather have 10MP and usable ISO 1600, ISO 3200, and ISO 6400 modes where noise is unnoticeable.
How about this? Hold weekly code reviews, and assign one developer to document another developer's code. Devote 10% to 20% of the time to code reviews and documentation and chances are unit testing will improve, lessening the load on QA and you'll actually have a hope of shipping a product with zero fatal defects on time, and only a handful of less severe but noticeable defects. Quality assurance should NOT begin with the QA department, but should be implemented throughout the process, from requirements through deployment and maintenance. The end result is usually actually less costly than the balls-to-the-wall approach and results in repeat customers who will purchase at each upgrade cycle.
Also, having code documentation in place helps your release engineer produce builds on time because then build failures are more easily fixed at 7:00am by the release engineer without having to wait until the developer rolls in at the crack of noon to find out where the missing parenthesis belongs in your spaghetti code of an algorithm.
Didn't OpenGL always support real-time raytracing if you throw it enough hardware? Unfortunately "enough hardware" to render complex scenes in real time has not existed yet.
Can you magine what kind of 3D modeling rig god has? Somehow I don't think it's based on an ATI or nVidia chipset. ;)