BTX wasn't a total failure. A lot of the BTX improvements - like what direction air flows through your case - were silently integrated into existing "ATX" machines.
a democratized system, where the more music is being downloaded / the more prints are being made of a work or the more it is being visited / etc, the larger the share of the total pot the artist gets
So... Like, when an artist makes a CD, and a lot of people buy it, they get more money?
If that's true, then why wouldn't my local drug store sell me potent oxidizers? I could be starting an explosive new fad of explosives, using all my untapped teen purchasing power!
Trust me - someone out there desperately wants to. But, for better or for worse, we do not live in a free market and no-one will rise to meet that demand.
Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.
Who decides what "abuses and undermines" the progress of science and useful arts?
He's saying he'd rather see a cure developed using public funds so that anybody can make it for $10 a pop today.
The government doesn't do anything today - for all intents and purposes, it has unlimited money and will exist tomorrow and always whether or not it succeeds today. Additionally, the politicians controlling the levers of government have no incentive to do anything - they keep their jobs by maintaining their popularity, not necessarily by accomplishing anything.
On the other hand, if a private company fails, they have not only squandered a large amount of their finite money, but might even go out of business. Lookee at Amtrak, for example - politicians placing stops not where rail service was needed, but where votes were needed. Even with the ticket costs it charges, it bled federal coffers of $1.2 billion dollars this year. A private company would long have died, but Amtrak has chugged merrily along since 1971, despite being made obsolete by something called a "highway."
so that anybody can make it for $10 a pop today, vs a privately developed one sold at $10 million a pop with $10 being the hope for fifty years down the line.
Any selfless philanthropist can work on a cure for cancer. But, there are a lot more greedy people than selfless philanthropists.
How to get the greedy people to work on medicine that benefits everyone? Let them sell whatever they end up inventing at whatever the heck they want. This way you don't disqualify 99% of the population from medical research and get cures you otherwise wouldn't have. Any cure is better than no cure, and even expensive cures come down in price.
And I see you only acknowledge laise faire capitalism and aristocracy as the only choices. Whatever happened to democracy?
Democracy is a form of government. Aristocracy and "laissez-fair" capitalism are methods of allocating resources. They're related, but separate concepts. In the early years of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, we had what resembled a laissez-fair economic system running under a democratic government.
What a sad commentary when the only "worth" someone can see as "true" is the dollar value placed on it. Aside from more philosophical questions, it should be pretty obvious to any capitalist that one can distort and hide something's value so as to either artificially increase or decrease its price
The grandparent poster wasn't talking about "price", but "what people were willing to pay for it."
The best example of this is an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Calvin sits at a box, selling "swift kicks in the butt" for a dollar. Calvin is baffled at the snail's pace of his ass-kicking business, when "everyone needs what I'm selling!"
The price of a swift kick was a dollar. The price people were willing to pay for a swift kick was obviously a lot less. This sense of value is what the grandparent referred to as the "the only true measure of anything."
And it's true - what people are willing to pay for something is the ultimate democracy in the sense that everyone by virtue of their existance plays a role in deciding the value of an item. In a free market, the value people have chosen ("the price people are willing to pay") dictates the actual price charged for an item.
Or has the voice of the people no worth, since in a secret ballot election you can't (reliably) buy votes?
Gee, how does a pound of people-voice cost? Free markets are the voice of the people.
Follow the link from my previous post before assuming I'm citing fraud.
Evidently 4000 signed your Heidelberg petition; 15,000 (10,000 with "advanced scientific degrees") signed the petition created by Frederick Seitz, professor emeritus of Rockefeller University, questioning the accuracy of the methods used to justify the formation of the Kyoto protocols.
Besides criticizing two sources I never used (really, is it that hard to click on a link?), Wikipedia isn't where I'd look for concrete, unbiased, and accurate information on global warming.
Not quite sure exactly what you think "isn't up for debate" - that environmental regulation "hurts the economy"? It's true - nobody disputes that dumping all of our crap in the ocean is cheaper that properly disposing of it. Generally, having breathable air and drinkable water are worth some economic loss - the "debate" is where to draw the line between the extremes of competing with China and hugging spotted owls.
Desptite whatever FUD you hear, we have a decent economy that created 176,000 jobs last month.
We have so much going wrong in this country after 8 years that even if we get a Democratic president and Congress, it will take 10 years to recover policy-wise after this administration is finally run out of office
That's funny; the current Republican president took an economy at the brink of recession and took it to booming in only a few years. I don't think it will take Democrats a decade to fix what isn't broken.
The environment isn't high school debate club; this is serious and it matters
True. That's why we need to stop pretending that there is 100% agreement an extremely politicized scientific issue when at least 10,000 climatologists disagree with the prevailing notion that man is responsible for the warming of the planet. It is irresponsible to pretend that we have a "consensus" or that "the debate is over" just because the prevailing truthiness supports your worldview.
Something's wrong when even the UN keeps revising figures on the extent of global warming - we're down to an upper limit estimate of a 17" rise in sea levels by 2100.
I can now sit back and observe the spectra emitted by my flaming karma - but, despite the prevailing notions on Slashdot, the United States has a strong and improving economy, and it is still very much debatable whether or not we will all be the proud owners of an above-ground swimming pool.
All they need to do is open up the specs, and people will do all the work for them
Yes... if ATI opens up their specs, their people will do all the work for nVidia's people. And vice versa.
I, for one, can understand why there's some animosity towards releasing the blueprints of your state-of-the-art 5-hojillion-manhours-in-the-making video card to all the tubes on the internets.
Granted, it's not the same as giving nVidia a briefcase of trade secrets, but you have to be careful when your company's existence depends on that extra frame per second your hardware gets in Doom VII 1/2
Microsoft gives Xandros $money, an agreement not to sue, and works on interoperability - right now, it sounds like just making SharePoint play nice and working on an open-source reader for their new Office XML document thingies.
Xandros, in return, works on "management packs" that let Xandros servers talk with Windows servers.
I dunno. Sounds like win-win. But Microsoft is made of lava...
Or, it could be that Microsoft recognizes that their Windows market share is at its zenith, and wants to start disarming a potentially nuclear patent war. Sure, Microsoft has a bunch of patents, but how many times has Microsoft been accused of (or actually has been) "borrowing" some *nix code here and there?
Granted, Microsoft could hire an entire state bar association if they wanted, but litigation is a pain and Microsoft's PR is bad enough as it is. Is is possible that there isn't a conspiracy, and that they just want some 1) good PR and 2) to avoid an ugly suit they're sure to lose by the "deepest pockets" theory of social justice?
Firstly, monopolies aren't illegal. In fact, they're beneficial in many cases (think economies of scale) until they start doing silly things, like, pushing their (potential) competitors out of the market and inflating prices. Monopolistic practices are illegal, but the attitudes towards monopolies themselves depends on the current climate of political opportunism. Remember (OK, none of you remember the 1930s) that the Sherman Antitrust act was originally used to break up unions, not business trusts.
Microsoft can't "force" anyone to upgrade - and if the discussion on/. is any indication, they aren't. About the only thing they can really do is stop spending R&D money on 12-year-old operating systems.
But in light of this, all you have is "the iPhone is going to sux!11!". Bravo. That will show 'em.
But, in light of the fact that everyone who cares already upgraded their computers (RAM included) for Vista, all you have is the "Vista is dud!1!1!"
You'll recall this classic line from people who already own a version of Windows, people who just bought a crappy computer, Mac fans, and Linux fans in:
Windows XP is a dud.
Windows 2000 is a dud.
Windows NT 4.0 is a dud.
Windows 98 is a dud.
Windows 95 is a dud.
Windows 3.1 is a dud.
DOS 6.0 is a dud.
CP/80-based code is a dud.
Binary math is a dud.
Vista might not have the magic sparkle that Windows 95 and 3.11 had, but calling it a "dud" is still a tad premature. Besides, today's Apple, Inc. really does excel (tm) at two things: marketing, and repackaging existing products into shiny vertical-monopoly boxes.
A lot of versions of Office has been Microsoft tacking on a new version number to try to get everyone to re-buy Office again - look at the differences between Word 2000 and 2003, for example.
But, when Microsoft has had a real competitor, things have improved. Look at the difference between the original DOS Word and early Windows versions and Word 6 due to WordStar and WordPerfect, and look at the nifty new version Microsoft made (2007) due to OpenOffice. Same thing goes with Internet Explorer - until FireFox came along, IE stayed pretty much the same for years, and love it or hate it, 7 is the first "new" version to come along in a long time.
Would I have spent $300 to upgrade from 2000 to 2003, or from 95 to 97? No. Would I have spent $300 to go from DOS versions to Word from Windows, or from 2003 to 2007? Yes. The bane of taking advanced classes is that professors like shiny lab reports, and there are (in my poor college-student opinion) $300 improvements between some word versions.
Microsoft's "Windows Cardspace" probably solves this problem already.
Granted, Microsoft is envisioning a system where an "identity provider" like a bank could look at your card and come up with a credit rating and whatnot, but using it for something less lofty, like a universal karma score, isn't that much of a stretch. Not much of a.NET guy myself, but it seems reasonable.
we, liek, get taht u, liek, hate M$ n lollerz, but u need hlep
All those dollar signs are clogging the internet's tubes. The little copy editors inside older computers can't handle that degree of brokenness. If you post using that new-fangled Tux-powered OS, I'm sure that constitutes some kind of animal cruelty. "M$" is just as unfunny as "Linsux", "open sores", and "twatter", and makes the grammar-nazi schizoid voice in my head go absolutely bonkers with uncontrollable hell-spawned fury, endangering countless potentially Linux-using children.
Some AC used to troll your posts with a message like this:
twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.
As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.
What makes you think that will fix the equation editor problem with M$'s new formats?
They did "fix" the equation editor. The result is the new one that Office 2007 uses by default.
The original one was a third-party package Microsoft bought and put into Word, and could be somewhat daunting. The new one is simpler and built into the ribbon, but really only useful for one-line formulas.
Something everyone's missing, though: THE ORIGINAL EQUATION EDITOR IS STILL IN OFFICE 2007!. Put in your "Microsoft Equation" object the same way you always have - insert->object.
I like listening to songs I wouldn't normally hear, either because they need "time to grow on you" or don't make the top 100 or aren't aired on the radio or whatever.
But, music appreciation is expensive, and I'm a poor soon-to-be college student. If I spent $10 on every artist in my playlist instead of $1, I'd be broke.
Hopefully the album won't die before I can buy one ^.^
Let's say you're trying to find out the average length of the world's ring fingers. You don't go out and measure 6 billion ring fingers; you measure a small sample of them and, through the magic of statistics, come up with a number that's close to the real world average.
A confidence interval is a range of values - say from 2 to 3 inches. A 95% confidence interval means that, given your measurements of a small group of people in the world, that there's a 95% chance the average for the rest of the world falls within your 2-3 inches range.
If you have a 95% confidence interval, there's a 5% chance that the real world average falls outside your interval.
So, if you're trying to find a correlation between math skills and... anything... measure 20 anythings. If your alpha-level is 5%, and you perform 20 tests, odds are you'll find at least one correlation, just by random chance.
That's why it's bad statistics to measure 20 anythings on a wild goose chase for correlations - do enough tests, and you're guaranteed to find one whether it exists or not.
You buy a $10,000 TV on your credit card. Congratulations! Party at your house.
Then, you get $10 cash back. Woot, drinks are on you.
So, the credit card company pays you $10. But, credit card companies make money (in part) by charging merchants for swiping your card. So, the merchant paid you (part of) the $10.
So, the merchant charges $11 more for a $9,990 television... and you get $10 back!
Why can't the rootkit software look at an MD5 checksum of the kernel vs the kernel as configured, to determine if there are changes to the kernel?
Not a *nix programmer myself, but as previous posters pointed out (FreeBSD is a Ford Escape and whatnot), the same ideas apply everywhere.
Your OS is rooted. So, you call your OS's MakeMD5Hash() function. Except, how do the hash function wasn't rooted? For all you know, that code could now return nothing but the MD5 hash calculated before the kernel was raped.
So you do the dirty work yourself. You compute a checksum from examining every byte of kernelspace in memory... except, how do you know you're reading the memory you think you are, that a rootkit hypervisor isn't redirecting your memory access elsewhere? Windows (32-bit) "guarantees" every process 4GB of flat memory to work with through this magic, and your program is none the wiser.
Now, imagine that kind of memory tomfoolery being played on your OS by a hypervisor. Just like a program running in multitasking Windows, you have no idea if the memory you just read at 0xBAADF00D actually came from 0xBAADF00D. Go down to bare metal and view memory yourself with some good ol' kernelspace assembler code - and watch as the rootkit running in "ring -1" of your modern CPU invisibly redirects every attempt to access memory.
The problem with anything running at the kernel- or user-level on a rooted system is that you have no way of knowing if anything was compromised, if what your code reports to you is "real." It's like your OS took some magic mushrooms - you can't trust what your kernel-API "senses" are telling you, and in the meantime there's some Italian plumber running around after your princess and credit card information.
Looks to me like if you make calls to it in one way, ATI shines, but call it another way and its all Nvidia -- yet both cards+drivers allegedly comply with the standard
Both cards do do the same thing.
Just that some engineer at nVidia thought of a genius way to, say, handle antialiasing, whereas some ATI engineer came up with a genius way to do T&L. (Just pulling these examples out of my Canada, but you get the idea.) Point is, chips designed by different people at different companies will perform differently.
It shouldn't be surprising that when two cards take different routes to the same pixel-shaded destination, that one card gets there faster.
The problem comes in when nVidia and ATI loan out "consultants" to help game development companies code. Sure, people who built the videocard your game will be running on from the ground up can have some pretty useful ideas, but then you end up with a big green "nVidia" logo on your game's splash screen and better performance on nVidia cards than ATI.
Leave incentives to the market, not government tinkering.
We would need to devote a ridiculous amount of our country (I've heard estimates of 1/3 of the United States, though I don't quite believe it would be that much) to grow enough biofuel to replace our current oil consumption.
There are already incentives - and more every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up. You don't need to waste taxpayer dollars or worsen the aberrations created by the meddling of government and special interests to convince people that money == good.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone thought of the trees!
...and replaced them with horrible, toxic, non-renewable phosphorescent chemicals and heavy metals!
BTX wasn't a total failure. A lot of the BTX improvements - like what direction air flows through your case - were silently integrated into existing "ATX" machines.
Actually, McAfee 8.5 checks for rootkits by default (at least in the Enterprise Edition - it's a required install at my college.)
But, we already have that.
Don't buy their CDs. Done, and without all that messy authoritarianism.
a democratized system, where the more music is being downloaded / the more prints are being made of a work or the more it is being visited / etc, the larger the share of the total pot the artist gets
So... Like, when an artist makes a CD, and a lot of people buy it, they get more money?
If that's true, then why wouldn't my local drug store sell me potent oxidizers? I could be starting an explosive new fad of explosives, using all my untapped teen purchasing power!
Trust me - someone out there desperately wants to. But, for better or for worse, we do not live in a free market and no-one will rise to meet that demand.
Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.
Who decides what "abuses and undermines" the progress of science and useful arts?
He's saying he'd rather see a cure developed using public funds so that anybody can make it for $10 a pop today.
The government doesn't do anything today - for all intents and purposes, it has unlimited money and will exist tomorrow and always whether or not it succeeds today. Additionally, the politicians controlling the levers of government have no incentive to do anything - they keep their jobs by maintaining their popularity, not necessarily by accomplishing anything.
On the other hand, if a private company fails, they have not only squandered a large amount of their finite money, but might even go out of business. Lookee at Amtrak, for example - politicians placing stops not where rail service was needed, but where votes were needed. Even with the ticket costs it charges, it bled federal coffers of $1.2 billion dollars this year. A private company would long have died, but Amtrak has chugged merrily along since 1971, despite being made obsolete by something called a "highway."
so that anybody can make it for $10 a pop today, vs a privately developed one sold at $10 million a pop with $10 being the hope for fifty years down the line.
Any selfless philanthropist can work on a cure for cancer. But, there are a lot more greedy people than selfless philanthropists.
How to get the greedy people to work on medicine that benefits everyone? Let them sell whatever they end up inventing at whatever the heck they want. This way you don't disqualify 99% of the population from medical research and get cures you otherwise wouldn't have. Any cure is better than no cure, and even expensive cures come down in price.
And I see you only acknowledge laise faire capitalism and aristocracy as the only choices. Whatever happened to democracy?
Democracy is a form of government. Aristocracy and "laissez-fair" capitalism are methods of allocating resources. They're related, but separate concepts. In the early years of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, we had what resembled a laissez-fair economic system running under a democratic government.
What a sad commentary when the only "worth" someone can see as "true" is the dollar value placed on it. Aside from more philosophical questions, it should be pretty obvious to any capitalist that one can distort and hide something's value so as to either artificially increase or decrease its price
The grandparent poster wasn't talking about "price", but "what people were willing to pay for it."
The best example of this is an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Calvin sits at a box, selling "swift kicks in the butt" for a dollar. Calvin is baffled at the snail's pace of his ass-kicking business, when "everyone needs what I'm selling!"
The price of a swift kick was a dollar. The price people were willing to pay for a swift kick was obviously a lot less. This sense of value is what the grandparent referred to as the "the only true measure of anything."
And it's true - what people are willing to pay for something is the ultimate democracy in the sense that everyone by virtue of their existance plays a role in deciding the value of an item. In a free market, the value people have chosen ("the price people are willing to pay") dictates the actual price charged for an item.
Or has the voice of the people no worth, since in a secret ballot election you can't (reliably) buy votes?
Gee, how does a pound of people-voice cost? Free markets are the voice of the people.
Follow the link from my previous post before assuming I'm citing fraud.
Evidently 4000 signed your Heidelberg petition; 15,000 (10,000 with "advanced scientific degrees") signed the petition created by Frederick Seitz, professor emeritus of Rockefeller University, questioning the accuracy of the methods used to justify the formation of the Kyoto protocols.
Besides criticizing two sources I never used (really, is it that hard to click on a link?), Wikipedia isn't where I'd look for concrete, unbiased, and accurate information on global warming.
This isn't even up for debate
Not quite sure exactly what you think "isn't up for debate" - that environmental regulation "hurts the economy"? It's true - nobody disputes that dumping all of our crap in the ocean is cheaper that properly disposing of it. Generally, having breathable air and drinkable water are worth some economic loss - the "debate" is where to draw the line between the extremes of competing with China and hugging spotted owls.
Desptite whatever FUD you hear, we have a decent economy that created 176,000 jobs last month.
We have so much going wrong in this country after 8 years that even if we get a Democratic president and Congress, it will take 10 years to recover policy-wise after this administration is finally run out of office
That's funny; the current Republican president took an economy at the brink of recession and took it to booming in only a few years. I don't think it will take Democrats a decade to fix what isn't broken.
The environment isn't high school debate club; this is serious and it matters
True. That's why we need to stop pretending that there is 100% agreement an extremely politicized scientific issue when at least 10,000 climatologists disagree with the prevailing notion that man is responsible for the warming of the planet. It is irresponsible to pretend that we have a "consensus" or that "the debate is over" just because the prevailing truthiness supports your worldview.
Something's wrong when even the UN keeps revising figures on the extent of global warming - we're down to an upper limit estimate of a 17" rise in sea levels by 2100.
I can now sit back and observe the spectra emitted by my flaming karma - but, despite the prevailing notions on Slashdot, the United States has a strong and improving economy, and it is still very much debatable whether or not we will all be the proud owners of an above-ground swimming pool.
All they need to do is open up the specs, and people will do all the work for them
Yes... if ATI opens up their specs, their people will do all the work for nVidia's people. And vice versa.
I, for one, can understand why there's some animosity towards releasing the blueprints of your state-of-the-art 5-hojillion-manhours-in-the-making video card to all the tubes on the internets.
Granted, it's not the same as giving nVidia a briefcase of trade secrets, but you have to be careful when your company's existence depends on that extra frame per second your hardware gets in Doom VII 1/2
Microsoft gives Xandros $money, an agreement not to sue, and works on interoperability - right now, it sounds like just making SharePoint play nice and working on an open-source reader for their new Office XML document thingies.
Xandros, in return, works on "management packs" that let Xandros servers talk with Windows servers.
I dunno. Sounds like win-win. But Microsoft is made of lava...
Or, it could be that Microsoft recognizes that their Windows market share is at its zenith, and wants to start disarming a potentially nuclear patent war. Sure, Microsoft has a bunch of patents, but how many times has Microsoft been accused of (or actually has been) "borrowing" some *nix code here and there?
Granted, Microsoft could hire an entire state bar association if they wanted, but litigation is a pain and Microsoft's PR is bad enough as it is. Is is possible that there isn't a conspiracy, and that they just want some 1) good PR and 2) to avoid an ugly suit they're sure to lose by the "deepest pockets" theory of social justice?
I like feeding trolls!
Firstly, monopolies aren't illegal. In fact, they're beneficial in many cases (think economies of scale) until they start doing silly things, like, pushing their (potential) competitors out of the market and inflating prices. Monopolistic practices are illegal, but the attitudes towards monopolies themselves depends on the current climate of political opportunism. Remember (OK, none of you remember the 1930s) that the Sherman Antitrust act was originally used to break up unions, not business trusts.
Microsoft can't "force" anyone to upgrade - and if the discussion on /. is any indication, they aren't. About the only thing they can really do is stop spending R&D money on 12-year-old operating systems.
But in light of this, all you have is "the iPhone is going to sux!11!". Bravo. That will show 'em.
But, in light of the fact that everyone who cares already upgraded their computers (RAM included) for Vista, all you have is the "Vista is dud!1!1!"
You'll recall this classic line from people who already own a version of Windows, people who just bought a crappy computer, Mac fans, and Linux fans in:
Vista might not have the magic sparkle that Windows 95 and 3.11 had, but calling it a "dud" is still a tad premature. Besides, today's Apple, Inc. really does excel (tm) at two things: marketing, and repackaging existing products into shiny vertical-monopoly boxes.
A lot of versions of Office has been Microsoft tacking on a new version number to try to get everyone to re-buy Office again - look at the differences between Word 2000 and 2003, for example.
But, when Microsoft has had a real competitor, things have improved. Look at the difference between the original DOS Word and early Windows versions and Word 6 due to WordStar and WordPerfect, and look at the nifty new version Microsoft made (2007) due to OpenOffice. Same thing goes with Internet Explorer - until FireFox came along, IE stayed pretty much the same for years, and love it or hate it, 7 is the first "new" version to come along in a long time.
Would I have spent $300 to upgrade from 2000 to 2003, or from 95 to 97? No. Would I have spent $300 to go from DOS versions to Word from Windows, or from 2003 to 2007? Yes. The bane of taking advanced classes is that professors like shiny lab reports, and there are (in my poor college-student opinion) $300 improvements between some word versions.
Microsoft's "Windows Cardspace" probably solves this problem already.
Granted, Microsoft is envisioning a system where an "identity provider" like a bank could look at your card and come up with a credit rating and whatnot, but using it for something less lofty, like a universal karma score, isn't that much of a stretch. Not much of a .NET guy myself, but it seems reasonable.
7|-|3r3 15 /\/0 r3450/\/ 4 4/\/^/ 54/\/3 |+3r50/\/ 70 7|-|1/\/|< 7|-|3/\/\53|_\/35 (|_3\/3|2 |33(4|_|53 7|-|3^/ /\/\4/\/463|) 70 |=|_|r7|-|3r /\/\4/\/6|_3 7|-|3 3/\/6|_15|-| |_4/\/6|_|463.
we, liek, get taht u, liek, hate M$ n lollerz, but u need hlep
All those dollar signs are clogging the internet's tubes. The little copy editors inside older computers can't handle that degree of brokenness. If you post using that new-fangled Tux-powered OS, I'm sure that constitutes some kind of animal cruelty. "M$" is just as unfunny as "Linsux", "open sores", and "twatter", and makes the grammar-nazi schizoid voice in my head go absolutely bonkers with uncontrollable hell-spawned fury, endangering countless potentially Linux-using children.
Some AC used to troll your posts with a message like this:
twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
There's a lot of wisdom in these lines. Take it or leave it; just for goshsakes don't bite anyone.
What makes you think that will fix the equation editor problem with M$'s new formats?
They did "fix" the equation editor. The result is the new one that Office 2007 uses by default.
The original one was a third-party package Microsoft bought and put into Word, and could be somewhat daunting. The new one is simpler and built into the ribbon, but really only useful for one-line formulas.
Something everyone's missing, though: THE ORIGINAL EQUATION EDITOR IS STILL IN OFFICE 2007!. Put in your "Microsoft Equation" object the same way you always have - insert->object.
I like listening to songs I wouldn't normally hear, either because they need "time to grow on you" or don't make the top 100 or aren't aired on the radio or whatever.
But, music appreciation is expensive, and I'm a poor soon-to-be college student. If I spent $10 on every artist in my playlist instead of $1, I'd be broke.
Hopefully the album won't die before I can buy one ^.^
Let's say you're trying to find out the average length of the world's ring fingers. You don't go out and measure 6 billion ring fingers; you measure a small sample of them and, through the magic of statistics, come up with a number that's close to the real world average.
A confidence interval is a range of values - say from 2 to 3 inches. A 95% confidence interval means that, given your measurements of a small group of people in the world, that there's a 95% chance the average for the rest of the world falls within your 2-3 inches range.
If you have a 95% confidence interval, there's a 5% chance that the real world average falls outside your interval.
So, if you're trying to find a correlation between math skills and... anything... measure 20 anythings. If your alpha-level is 5%, and you perform 20 tests, odds are you'll find at least one correlation, just by random chance.
That's why it's bad statistics to measure 20 anythings on a wild goose chase for correlations - do enough tests, and you're guaranteed to find one whether it exists or not.
I like having a CD, but I don't like paying for a CD.
I don't want to spend $10 for one song, and saving $9 a track is almost worth the DRM.
You buy a $10,000 TV on your credit card. Congratulations! Party at your house.
Then, you get $10 cash back. Woot, drinks are on you.
So, the credit card company pays you $10. But, credit card companies make money (in part) by charging merchants for swiping your card. So, the merchant paid you (part of) the $10.
So, the merchant charges $11 more for a $9,990 television... and you get $10 back!
Why can't the rootkit software look at an MD5 checksum of the kernel vs the kernel as configured, to determine if there are changes to the kernel?
Not a *nix programmer myself, but as previous posters pointed out (FreeBSD is a Ford Escape and whatnot), the same ideas apply everywhere.
Your OS is rooted. So, you call your OS's MakeMD5Hash() function. Except, how do the hash function wasn't rooted? For all you know, that code could now return nothing but the MD5 hash calculated before the kernel was raped.
So you do the dirty work yourself. You compute a checksum from examining every byte of kernelspace in memory... except, how do you know you're reading the memory you think you are, that a rootkit hypervisor isn't redirecting your memory access elsewhere? Windows (32-bit) "guarantees" every process 4GB of flat memory to work with through this magic, and your program is none the wiser.
Now, imagine that kind of memory tomfoolery being played on your OS by a hypervisor. Just like a program running in multitasking Windows, you have no idea if the memory you just read at 0xBAADF00D actually came from 0xBAADF00D. Go down to bare metal and view memory yourself with some good ol' kernelspace assembler code - and watch as the rootkit running in "ring -1" of your modern CPU invisibly redirects every attempt to access memory.
The problem with anything running at the kernel- or user-level on a rooted system is that you have no way of knowing if anything was compromised, if what your code reports to you is "real." It's like your OS took some magic mushrooms - you can't trust what your kernel-API "senses" are telling you, and in the meantime there's some Italian plumber running around after your princess and credit card information.
Looks to me like if you make calls to it in one way, ATI shines, but call it another way and its all Nvidia -- yet both cards+drivers allegedly comply with the standard
Both cards do do the same thing.
Just that some engineer at nVidia thought of a genius way to, say, handle antialiasing, whereas some ATI engineer came up with a genius way to do T&L. (Just pulling these examples out of my Canada, but you get the idea.) Point is, chips designed by different people at different companies will perform differently.
It shouldn't be surprising that when two cards take different routes to the same pixel-shaded destination, that one card gets there faster.
The problem comes in when nVidia and ATI loan out "consultants" to help game development companies code. Sure, people who built the videocard your game will be running on from the ground up can have some pretty useful ideas, but then you end up with a big green "nVidia" logo on your game's splash screen and better performance on nVidia cards than ATI.
Leave incentives to the market, not government tinkering.
We would need to devote a ridiculous amount of our country (I've heard estimates of 1/3 of the United States, though I don't quite believe it would be that much) to grow enough biofuel to replace our current oil consumption.
There are already incentives - and more every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up. You don't need to waste taxpayer dollars or worsen the aberrations created by the meddling of government and special interests to convince people that money == good.