On the other hand we could charge trucks 7000 times as much to roll around and then we'd end up paying it back in the form of higher prices for everything on the shelves at the grocery store, at the mall, or pretty much anywhere else.
We're not going to get out of paying it. So the goal should be to look for the most efficient manner of paying for it.
Just because you have a right to own something doesn't mean anyone has to sell you one.
If one has the right to own one, and there is no government enforced prohibition preventing one from getting one then they WILL fall into private hands.
The government isn't obligated to sell you a nuke anymore than I have to sell you one of my rare guns.
Why would one buy one from the government? In a world where one had the right to have such weapons there would be commercial enterprises selling them.
Anyone who would want one couldn't afford one
Only because of government enforced monopolies that are in place to prevent the public (and foreign nations) from getting them, or even the elements to make them.
If you argue that civilians have a right to bear nuclear weapons then you argue that civilians have the right to obtain and process fissionable materials, and so forth.
The only reason it is so expensive is because its a monopoly, and not just a monopoly but a military monopoly. A basic nuclear bomb is NOT all that complicated. ICBM propulsion and guidance systems are hard, the explodey bit on the end is relatively easy if you can buy the parts.
and anyone who could afford one wouldn't want one.
You'd be wrong on that point. There are plenty of rich or well funded nuts. And a basic dirty bomb wouldn't even cost all that much.
people who buy guns because they like to shoot... shoot.
Yes, I already agreed with that. And I don't dispute that they are competent and responsible and whatever else.
But lots of people buy guns, not JUST gun enthusiasts. People ALSO buy them from self defense but have never taken any training and don't know how to use them. Lots of idiots buy them to be cool and reasons even dumber than that.
Well-trained people with firearms make a community safer, not less safe. And the community is safest when the bad guys are guessing who is armed and who isn't.
There is no actual evidence that this is true. It sounds pretty truthy, but where's the evidence?
In reality-land there are plenty of weapons in the hands of people with no training. In reality land these well trained people with firearms live with people who aren't well trained, kids, and outright idiots.
Not to mention the number of firearms stolen from well trained people now in the hands of the idiots the government would have refused to sell them to...
but that interactive map is also a guide to which houses are gun-free zones. The unarmed folks should be outraged; that newspaper just put them in worse danger.
But they weren't outraged. The only people who were outraged were the people who had their houses identified as being "extra safe and secure". Funny that.
Prior restraint on any of them because of what "could" happen is unacceptable.
You counter your own argument with some of those examples. We have ALL kinds of restrictions on cars. You need to pass tests, you need to renew a license to operate one, they are all registered to there owners, and you are even required to have insurance before it can leave your property. We are seeing graduated licensing introduced with additional restrictions on new drivers. And your permission to operate one can be revoked for all kinds of reasons.
Even gasoline has all kinds of rules regulating how it may be stored and transported.
Society as a whole doesn't find this the least bit unacceptable.
I for one am not trying to trample all over your 2nd amendment rights. But if all gun owners were all so well trained and conscientious America wouldn't be rubbing shoulders with 3rd world countries run by despots for its gun related violence statistics. America's guns aren't making it safe. The reality you aspire for isn't the one we have.
If you can bear (carry) them, you should be able to have them.
Why the limitation on being able to carry them? A cavalry horse is a very different animal (metaphorically) from a plough horse. Would you say that we can only own horses trained for war if addition to riding them, they can ride us?
Allowing civilian tanks and so forth seems to be perfectly acceptable in context of being able to bear arms.
Given the extreme cost of the only man portable item you listed, I doubt many would have them.
Meh, given that the only buyers are despotic regimes and no-compete / cost-plus military suppliers and that trade is heavily regulated and restricted the cost is inflated.
Let walmart source and sell them, and the cost will drop immensely. (quality too probably, but that's a separate issue.)
Not that I'm for the arming of civilians but still...its doable.
The only reason the State knows legally that you have a gun is by registering, which is frankly unconstitutional in itself.
Like registering title to property? Or vehicles? Or requiring drivers to have licenses?
The State acted irresponsibly with the information releasing it to a Public source.
The weapon permit applications are a matter of the public record. Like property title records. The only thing that's even somewhat novel is that where you used to have to drive down to city hall and rummage through boxes of paperwork now its on the internet. But it was always a public record.
On the other hand, it raises the VERY VERY valid point that much that is defined as public is only tolerated as being "public" when its reasonably difficult and impractical to access that information so that while technically public its effectively private.
Perhaps handgun permits should be "private", but currently they aren't.
This overall point applies much more broadly... for example its the same issue we have with the new audio recording on public busses -- likewise those conversations were always technically "in public"... but prior to them being systematically recorded one could have an effectively private conversation on a bus, and we're (rightfully) offended at the idea of having those conversations recorded.
Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?
No. I agree. But there are many many law enforcement (and -esque) groups that do have at least cursory gun handling standards and require time on the range.
Now take the gun enthusiasts...blah blah blah
Ok, now take that minority of well trained enthusiasts and set them aside.
Now take the majority remaineder all the people with guns who don't do any of that. At all. Ever.
What about them?
I can't really follow what your argument is, it seems to be trying to argue that random civilians can handle weapons better than law-enforcement-esque types and sure that's true for some handful of carefully screened and cherry picked group of civilians.
but had the keyboard dangling off the screen. They were fairly close to the same size and weight at the end of the day, and the tablets turned out to be quite a bit better for the couch-web.
Basically the only thing you'd probably want to remove is the tuner,
And the camera and microphone, i don't ever plan to video skype with the TV's built in app. Nor do I plan to use its useless gesture controls. Nor do I plan to use its woefully insecure capabilities as a video surveillance system.
And the wifi chip. I don't need my TV on the network. I'm not using skype, and the netflix app is worse then the one on my HTPC, my xbox, and my wiiu.
And without wifi and cameras and what not I can do without the whole app thing too. TV apps are as a bad as those awful DVD games they dump on disney movies.
And DLNA or whatever, lose that too. It doesn't work well, and I stream stuff over to it thtough one of the many infinitely better devices i have attached to the TV.
And the 3d support. Don't need it don't use it.
And the tuner. Don't have an antenna. Never will.
And honestly, i could do without all the inputs too along with the speakers; I bought a modern receiver, everything plugs into it, and I have one HDMI cable running from the receiver up to the TV. I realize I don't speak for everyone here but for me all I want is a large high quality display. The only feature i'm interested in is pictual quality: contrast, viewing angles, refresh rate, etc. That's it.
Oh and a good remote control system. Not that i use the remote they provide -- I have a harmony one. Nothing is more frustrating to integrate with a universal programmable remote than a tv that only has a power toggle command instead of a dedicated power on/power off. Or a TV that only has a command to cycle inputs or modes instead of commands to go directly to a specified input or mode, etc.
I'm not sure how much actual hardware i've shaved off the unit, but its more than a little, and I've definitely shaved a ton off of product development and testing.
He's not complaining about C#. He's saying he thinks windows 8 is a flop, and that because he is a c# developer we should believe he is normally at least somewhat pro-windows.
for what its worth, i don't think windows 8 is a flop although I do think they botched the launch pretty badly in a variety of ways. (And there is no question that the windows 8 desktop has some issues to address; i just don't think they are nearly as bad as the hype.)
Why should you need a third party solution? That's the whole point.
No, the whole point is that its an irrelevant feature virtually nobody cares about. Mark it off as a plus for linux if you wish, but its just not relevant.
When I switched the same system to Linux (KDE), it just worked without any reboot required. I've known quite a few computers to have that same kind of issue - it always came down to the drivers.
Yes, yes, yes, and for every system where hardware/driver support got better when switching to linux there are another 10 where it got worse. This isn't really a line of argument that makes sense to pursue.
I'd say characterizing yourself as a "no longer a windows user" is somewhat inaccurate, wouldn't you?
But depending on what you want to do, that can very well be a bug.
If you REALLY want to do that, you can buy a 3rd party solution.
With Linux you have to configure X such that it makes the monitors one big desktop area; there is no option on Windows to do so save a few very special (and expensive) graphics cards with drivers that do it to make the marketeers happy.
What exactly is your complaint?
That windows doesn't have a feature that almost nobody wants that can be added via a 3rd party if you really do want it?
Really? That's the complaint here?
Good to hear. They're catching up to the Unix world with much of that. KDE 3 (EOL'd several years ago) had multiple "taskbars" on each display years (10+?) ago; but Windows just gets it with Windows 8!
Meanwhile setting up multiple monitors on KDE3 in the first was a huge pain in the ass while I ran plug-and-play multiple monitors with windows 10+ years ago. I'm so glad Linux is finally just getting "plug-and-play" multi-monitor support that actually works. (well, we'll see if it actually just plug-n-play works... once distros start bundling it.);)
Microsoft has done a bit to help cleanup the APIs for applications, and make a nicer settings for it all they still leave 90% of the grunt work to the graphics drivers; where X handles it in the X Server - above the graphics drivers, but below the Display Manager.
This seems like architectural nit-picking to me. So what if the grunt work is in the drivers?
Still, Windows is far behind in features for multi-monitor support compared to the rest of the world.
And yet I'd rather set up multiple monitors on Windows than on linux because despite it being allegedly "far behind" its much easier to do, it's not a big mess if you remove or swap in a different monitor without reconfiguring the system first -- it just works.
If, in fact, you are in violation of several thousand patents, then you do not have a viable product or business.
Do you think Marvell not be allowed to exist?
Just a couple more patent infringements and its bankrupt. Its been fined over 25% of its market capitalization for infringing 2 patents. Its products are covered by literally thousands...
A couple more patent infringements and its bankrupt. If the judge triples damages for "wilful infringement" its bankrupt.
This is like having the government take 1/4 of your net worth for parking illegally.
Now it is your turn to justify...
My turn? You still haven't justified why the patent judgments should be so high in the first place.
why your business should be allowed to exist when it is violating several thousand patents.
That was the point, which you missed entirely, again. Violating all the patents in just one product is theoretically punishable by amounts greater than the entire economic output of the largest economy on the planet. Does that seem rational to you?
That amount is so insanely high, that even if you correctly license 99.9% of the patents covering that product, you would still be on the hook for a handful of patents -- and that would be enough to completely bankrupt most companies, such as marvell.
And all this in a world where everyone knows a huge number of the patents being enforced are completely invalid in the first place.
Thus you are being fined a quarter of your net worth for parking illegally... in a spot that you should be allowed to park in.
Ah well, then I guess you are well qualified to comment then.
or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors
That's over simplifying a lot.
The monitors can be set up more or less independently. They don't need to have the same resolution, and they can be positioned arbitrarily relative to each other.
The task bar doesn't get stretched out. There are hotkeys for moving windows between monitors. The desktop background isn't stretched out either. Its hardly simply a really big desktop with a few "viewports" onto it.
but applications can only min/max on one monitor
That's a feature not a bug. The desirability of the maximize button maximizing an application across multiple monitors of often different resolutions and arbitrary relative positions is pretty much nil. But if you want to stretch it across multiple monitors you can.
Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers.
Windows does most of the main multi-monitor functions just fine on its own. A few more esoteric functions, like being able to define rotations for the screens independently is typically offered by the drivers, and is not natively offered by windows. (And rotations might even be offered in windows 8... I'm not sure about that one offhand; although I do recall seeing something about setting the orientation.)
As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available...
So, uh, as of a version that is pretty much EOL, and is the oldest version you would really expect to see people actually using it already had a useful tool for managing multiple monitors? Is that the last time you used windows?
and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to
Windows 8 adds some really nice multiple monitor improvements actually... in particular you can show taskbars on multiple displays - with a variety of options such as the ability to have an application icon appear just on the taskbar on the screen its on, or on the screen its on, plus the primary display, or on all taskbars on all displays.
Additionally you can open the start start screen on any display, and you can set independent backgrounds.
so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor
In other words, with dual monitors you can run metro and desktop alongside eachother if you like. Or classic on both monitors. Or metro on both monitors. Or with 3 monitors... Or Metro on 2 monitors, classic on 1 monitor. Or classic on 2 monitors, metro on 1. Or metro on all 3. Or Classic on all 3 monitor....
Sad thing is I'm not even really a microsoft cheerleader; but the amount of ignorant nonsense i read about windows on slashdot forces me to defend them.
The diamond problem isn't this beast for which there is no reasonable solution. It's just something you need to be cognizant of when coding.
A solution using MI isn't necessarily bad on its own, and it's easy "be cognizant when coding" when you are designing and implementing something from scratch to solve a problem. MI can even seem elegant.
But when you come back to it and start maintaining and extending it... more often than not the previous 'elegance' of MI rapidly becomes regrettable.
There's also the people who complain about all the incredibly hard to debug crazy stuff people do with templates.
The problem with templates starts right with debugging issues that crop up with the STL. Even the compile time errors are frequently cryptic or even outright incomprehensible.
It works perfectly fine as a desktop app; and I've got VLC installed myself.
But this new version should also run on ARM windows RT devices along with Windows phones, where obviously the "usual version" currently does not, and would not really be appropriate user interface-wise even if it did.
A tablet / touch / full screen version of VLC for that platform makes a lot of sense, and it would be pretty nice on x86 windows 86 systems for watching movies etc -- I'd like it for my HTPC for example.
I'll keep the classic vlc on my desktop, but there is definitely a place for a so-called 'modern ui' version.
I find your comment pretty damn silly considering the link I provided you with many examples of OSs that have done exactly what you ask,
All I saw was a LONG a list of half baked projects, toys, and experiments.
"single user multitasking" "the next version will support DLL files!" "status alpha" "status early development" "FreeDOS is ideal for anyone who wants to bundle a version of DOS" "This is basically a dead project."
Ooh this one looks ready to go, we'll just run it right off the whiteboard!
" It will be written in assembly language and C. "
Wait, here's a promising one:
"Ity is currently under active development but far from finished."
I guess what? only 10 days to go instead of 14?
Maybe this one:
Logram is a small operating system fully 64-bit. It uses its own file system (FSL), and recognizes the keyboard.
That's sounding promising. Keyboard support is definitely a plus; hmm... uh oh... from the logram website:
"Logram est un projet de distribution GNU/Linux"
No, I don't know how good your french is, but take my word for it, it says essentially:
"The Logram project is a GNU/Linux distribution"
So close to being what we wanted... looking for a drop in kernel replacement for Linux and well... they're just using linux. I guess its "too close".
Now, no disrepect to ANY of the above projects or any other project on that list.
But I don't really see anything that even remotely comes close to taking GNU/Linux and giving you a drop in replacement for the Linux half.
They created a system which criminalizes almost everyone so that they can threaten the populace at will with just one more law.
Uh huh, in addition to the multitude of others that already exist. I agree its bullshit, but its not "new scary bullshit", its the same old bullshit we already live with.
Remember, the game is making sure that everyone is violating at least one law as a sort of rubberstamp on harassment.
There is no "game" to make sure everyone is breaking the law so they can rubberstamp harrassment. Take off your tin foil hat.
The governement really isn't THAT organized - and the power mad petty functionaries who want to harass people already have far better tools then this.
Of course they'll probably pull the Canadian trick of making cracking-DRM to do it a criminal offense.
Yeah that sucked pretty hard. But setting the cap on the penalty for doing so low enough that the lawyers won't generally be interested in bothering anyone over it.
Its not remotely perfect, but its dysfunctional enough that it sort of balances itself out.
it really sucks that he didn't use the "at your option any future version" text in the license, -- I mean, he made it impossible to change the license why
Fortunately this can be resolved by simply writing a new kernel.
Which is easy.
And best of all you can make it compatible with the linux kernel, and then just substitute it in with GPLv2 or later in the license.
You said it could be ready in 2 weeks? Can't wait.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand we could charge trucks 7000 times as much to roll around and then we'd end up paying it back in the form of higher prices for everything on the shelves at the grocery store, at the mall, or pretty much anywhere else.
We're not going to get out of paying it. So the goal should be to look for the most efficient manner of paying for it.
Just because you have a right to own something doesn't mean anyone has to sell you one.
If one has the right to own one, and there is no government enforced prohibition preventing one from getting one then they WILL fall into private hands.
The government isn't obligated to sell you a nuke anymore than I have to sell you one of my rare guns.
Why would one buy one from the government? In a world where one had the right to have such weapons there would be commercial enterprises selling them.
Anyone who would want one couldn't afford one
Only because of government enforced monopolies that are in place to prevent the public (and foreign nations) from getting them, or even the elements to make them.
If you argue that civilians have a right to bear nuclear weapons then you argue that civilians have the right to obtain and process fissionable materials, and so forth.
The only reason it is so expensive is because its a monopoly, and not just a monopoly but a military monopoly. A basic nuclear bomb is NOT all that complicated. ICBM propulsion and guidance systems are hard, the explodey bit on the end is relatively easy if you can buy the parts.
and anyone who could afford one wouldn't want one.
You'd be wrong on that point. There are plenty of rich or well funded nuts. And a basic dirty bomb wouldn't even cost all that much.
Out of my circle of acquaintances...
Nuff said?
Now try looking at the people you wouldn't associate with.
No, you don't get it.
people who buy guns because they like to shoot... shoot.
Yes, I already agreed with that. And I don't dispute that they are competent and responsible and whatever else.
But lots of people buy guns, not JUST gun enthusiasts. People ALSO buy them from self defense but have never taken any training and don't know how to use them. Lots of idiots buy them to be cool and reasons even dumber than that.
Well-trained people with firearms make a community safer, not less safe. And the community is safest when the bad guys are guessing who is armed and who isn't.
There is no actual evidence that this is true. It sounds pretty truthy, but where's the evidence?
In reality-land there are plenty of weapons in the hands of people with no training. In reality land these well trained people with firearms live with people who aren't well trained, kids, and outright idiots.
Not to mention the number of firearms stolen from well trained people now in the hands of the idiots the government would have refused to sell them to...
but that interactive map is also a guide to which houses are gun-free zones. The unarmed folks should be outraged; that newspaper just put them in worse danger.
But they weren't outraged. The only people who were outraged were the people who had their houses identified as being "extra safe and secure". Funny that.
Prior restraint on any of them because of what "could" happen is unacceptable.
You counter your own argument with some of those examples. We have ALL kinds of restrictions on cars. You need to pass tests, you need to renew a license to operate one, they are all registered to there owners, and you are even required to have insurance before it can leave your property. We are seeing graduated licensing introduced with additional restrictions on new drivers. And your permission to operate one can be revoked for all kinds of reasons.
Even gasoline has all kinds of rules regulating how it may be stored and transported.
Society as a whole doesn't find this the least bit unacceptable.
I for one am not trying to trample all over your 2nd amendment rights. But if all gun owners were all so well trained and conscientious America wouldn't be rubbing shoulders with 3rd world countries run by despots for its gun related violence statistics. America's guns aren't making it safe. The reality you aspire for isn't the one we have.
Yes.
So a nutter can detonate a nuke in a major city?
If you can bear (carry) them, you should be able to have them.
Why the limitation on being able to carry them? A cavalry horse is a very different animal (metaphorically) from a plough horse. Would you say that we can only own horses trained for war if addition to riding them, they can ride us?
Allowing civilian tanks and so forth seems to be perfectly acceptable in context of being able to bear arms.
Given the extreme cost of the only man portable item you listed, I doubt many would have them.
Meh, given that the only buyers are despotic regimes and no-compete / cost-plus military suppliers and that trade is heavily regulated and restricted the cost is inflated.
Let walmart source and sell them, and the cost will drop immensely. (quality too probably, but that's a separate issue.)
Not that I'm for the arming of civilians but still...its doable.
The only reason the State knows legally that you have a gun is by registering, which is frankly unconstitutional in itself.
Like registering title to property? Or vehicles? Or requiring drivers to have licenses?
The State acted irresponsibly with the information releasing it to a Public source.
The weapon permit applications are a matter of the public record. Like property title records. The only thing that's even somewhat novel is that where you used to have to drive down to city hall and rummage through boxes of paperwork now its on the internet. But it was always a public record.
On the other hand, it raises the VERY VERY valid point that much that is defined as public is only tolerated as being "public" when its reasonably difficult and impractical to access that information so that while technically public its effectively private.
Perhaps handgun permits should be "private", but currently they aren't.
This overall point applies much more broadly ... for example its the same issue we have with the new audio recording on public busses -- likewise those conversations were always technically "in public"... but prior to them being systematically recorded one could have an effectively private conversation on a bus, and we're (rightfully) offended at the idea of having those conversations recorded.
Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?
No. I agree. But there are many many law enforcement (and -esque) groups that do have at least cursory gun handling standards and require time on the range.
Now take the gun enthusiasts...blah blah blah
Ok, now take that minority of well trained enthusiasts and set them aside.
Now take the majority remaineder all the people with guns who don't do any of that. At all. Ever.
What about them?
I can't really follow what your argument is, it seems to be trying to argue that random civilians can handle weapons better than law-enforcement-esque types and sure that's true for some handful of carefully screened and cherry picked group of civilians.
So what exactly?
but had the keyboard dangling off the screen. They were fairly close to the same size and weight at the end of the day, and the tablets turned out to be quite a bit better for the couch-web.
Basically the only thing you'd probably want to remove is the tuner,
And the camera and microphone, i don't ever plan to video skype with the TV's built in app. Nor do I plan to use its useless gesture controls. Nor do I plan to use its woefully insecure capabilities as a video surveillance system.
And the wifi chip. I don't need my TV on the network. I'm not using skype, and the netflix app is worse then the one on my HTPC, my xbox, and my wiiu.
And without wifi and cameras and what not I can do without the whole app thing too. TV apps are as a bad as those awful DVD games they dump on disney movies.
And DLNA or whatever, lose that too. It doesn't work well, and I stream stuff over to it thtough one of the many infinitely better devices i have attached to the TV.
And the 3d support. Don't need it don't use it.
And the tuner. Don't have an antenna. Never will.
And honestly, i could do without all the inputs too along with the speakers; I bought a modern receiver, everything plugs into it, and I have one HDMI cable running from the receiver up to the TV. I realize I don't speak for everyone here but for me all I want is a large high quality display. The only feature i'm interested in is pictual quality: contrast, viewing angles, refresh rate, etc. That's it.
Oh and a good remote control system. Not that i use the remote they provide -- I have a harmony one. Nothing is more frustrating to integrate with a universal programmable remote than a tv that only has a power toggle command instead of a dedicated power on/power off. Or a TV that only has a command to cycle inputs or modes instead of commands to go directly to a specified input or mode, etc.
I'm not sure how much actual hardware i've shaved off the unit, but its more than a little, and I've definitely shaved a ton off of product development and testing.
He's not complaining about C#. He's saying he thinks windows 8 is a flop, and that because he is a c# developer we should believe he is normally at least somewhat pro-windows.
for what its worth, i don't think windows 8 is a flop although I do think they botched the launch pretty badly in a variety of ways. (And there is no question that the windows 8 desktop has some issues to address; i just don't think they are nearly as bad as the hype.)
Why should you need a third party solution? That's the whole point.
No, the whole point is that its an irrelevant feature virtually nobody cares about. Mark it off as a plus for linux if you wish, but its just not relevant.
When I switched the same system to Linux (KDE), it just worked without any reboot required. I've known quite a few computers to have that same kind of issue - it always came down to the drivers.
Yes, yes, yes, and for every system where hardware/driver support got better when switching to linux there are another 10 where it got worse. This isn't really a line of argument that makes sense to pursue.
Multi-monitor in Linux is now dead simple...
Great
far simpler than Windows ever was.
Hardly.
but I'd much rather do it in Linux than Windows.
Because?
I'd say I'm still qualified to answer.
I'd say characterizing yourself as a "no longer a windows user" is somewhat inaccurate, wouldn't you?
But depending on what you want to do, that can very well be a bug.
If you REALLY want to do that, you can buy a 3rd party solution.
With Linux you have to configure X such that it makes the monitors one big desktop area; there is no option on Windows to do so save a few very special (and expensive) graphics cards with drivers that do it to make the marketeers happy.
What exactly is your complaint?
That windows doesn't have a feature that almost nobody wants that can be added via a 3rd party if you really do want it?
Really? That's the complaint here?
Good to hear. They're catching up to the Unix world with much of that. KDE 3 (EOL'd several years ago) had multiple "taskbars" on each display years (10+?) ago; but Windows just gets it with Windows 8!
Meanwhile setting up multiple monitors on KDE3 in the first was a huge pain in the ass while I ran plug-and-play multiple monitors with windows 10+ years ago. I'm so glad Linux is finally just getting "plug-and-play" multi-monitor support that actually works. (well, we'll see if it actually just plug-n-play works... once distros start bundling it.) ;)
Microsoft has done a bit to help cleanup the APIs for applications, and make a nicer settings for it all they still leave 90% of the grunt work to the graphics drivers; where X handles it in the X Server - above the graphics drivers, but below the Display Manager.
This seems like architectural nit-picking to me. So what if the grunt work is in the drivers?
Still, Windows is far behind in features for multi-monitor support compared to the rest of the world.
And yet I'd rather set up multiple monitors on Windows than on linux because despite it being allegedly "far behind" its much easier to do, it's not a big mess if you remove or swap in a different monitor without reconfiguring the system first -- it just works.
If, in fact, you are in violation of several thousand patents, then you do not have a viable product or business.
Do you think Marvell not be allowed to exist?
Just a couple more patent infringements and its bankrupt. Its been fined over 25% of its market capitalization for infringing 2 patents. Its products are covered by literally thousands...
A couple more patent infringements and its bankrupt.
If the judge triples damages for "wilful infringement" its bankrupt.
This is like having the government take 1/4 of your net worth for parking illegally.
Now it is your turn to justify...
My turn? You still haven't justified why the patent judgments should be so high in the first place.
why your business should be allowed to exist when it is violating several thousand patents.
That was the point, which you missed entirely, again. Violating all the patents in just one product is theoretically punishable by amounts greater than the entire economic output of the largest economy on the planet. Does that seem rational to you?
That amount is so insanely high, that even if you correctly license 99.9% of the patents covering that product, you would still be on the hook for a handful of patents -- and that would be enough to completely bankrupt most companies, such as marvell.
And all this in a world where everyone knows a huge number of the patents being enforced are completely invalid in the first place.
Thus you are being fined a quarter of your net worth for parking illegally... in a spot that you should be allowed to park in.
Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally.
Yes. That is true. But you missed the point he was making entirely.
It is a question of degree.
If I start a hard drive company, and don't license any patents, I will be in violation of several thousand patents.
Should my liability for that violation be in excess of the gross domestic product of the largest economy in the world?
Don't hand wave that being caught breaking the law is more expensive than doing something legally.
Justify that violating the patents to make a single product should result in a damage award exceeding the entire economic output of the United States.
No longer a Windows user...
Ah well, then I guess you are well qualified to comment then.
or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors
That's over simplifying a lot.
The monitors can be set up more or less independently. They don't need to have the same resolution, and they can be positioned arbitrarily relative to each other.
The task bar doesn't get stretched out.
There are hotkeys for moving windows between monitors.
The desktop background isn't stretched out either.
Its hardly simply a really big desktop with a few "viewports" onto it.
but applications can only min/max on one monitor
That's a feature not a bug. The desirability of the maximize button maximizing an application across multiple monitors of often different resolutions and arbitrary relative positions is pretty much nil. But if you want to stretch it across multiple monitors you can.
Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers.
Windows does most of the main multi-monitor functions just fine on its own. A few more esoteric functions, like being able to define rotations for the screens independently is typically offered by the drivers, and is not natively offered by windows. (And rotations might even be offered in windows 8... I'm not sure about that one offhand; although I do recall seeing something about setting the orientation.)
As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available...
So, uh, as of a version that is pretty much EOL, and is the oldest version you would really expect to see people actually using it already had a useful tool for managing multiple monitors? Is that the last time you used windows?
and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to
Windows 8 adds some really nice multiple monitor improvements actually... in particular you can show taskbars on multiple displays - with a variety of options such as the ability to have an application icon appear just on the taskbar on the screen its on, or on the screen its on, plus the primary display, or on all taskbars on all displays.
Additionally you can open the start start screen on any display, and you can set independent backgrounds.
so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor
In other words, with dual monitors you can run metro and desktop alongside eachother if you like. ...
Or classic on both monitors.
Or metro on both monitors.
Or with 3 monitors...
Or Metro on 2 monitors, classic on 1 monitor.
Or classic on 2 monitors, metro on 1.
Or metro on all 3.
Or Classic on all 3 monitor.
Sad thing is I'm not even really a microsoft cheerleader; but the amount of ignorant nonsense i read about windows on slashdot forces me to defend them.
Would you prefer a law that had never been tested?
Looks like Canada is off the list. Even Britain isn't this prudish.
Not sure why; the boundary of the law was tested and the correct verdict was returned.
The diamond problem isn't this beast for which there is no reasonable solution. It's just something you need to be cognizant of when coding.
A solution using MI isn't necessarily bad on its own, and it's easy "be cognizant when coding" when you are designing and implementing something from scratch to solve a problem. MI can even seem elegant.
But when you come back to it and start maintaining and extending it... more often than not the previous 'elegance' of MI rapidly becomes regrettable.
There's also the people who complain about all the incredibly hard to debug crazy stuff people do with templates.
The problem with templates starts right with debugging issues that crop up with the STL. Even the compile time errors are frequently cryptic or even outright incomprehensible.
It works perfectly fine as a desktop app; and I've got VLC installed myself.
But this new version should also run on ARM windows RT devices along with Windows phones, where obviously the "usual version" currently does not, and would not really be appropriate user interface-wise even if it did.
A tablet / touch / full screen version of VLC for that platform makes a lot of sense, and it would be pretty nice on x86 windows 86 systems for watching movies etc -- I'd like it for my HTPC for example.
I'll keep the classic vlc on my desktop, but there is definitely a place for a so-called 'modern ui' version.
Everyone has to start somewhere:
Of course.
But lets not pretend that it would only take a couple weeks to replace the modern linux kernel with something remotely equivalent.
I find your comment pretty damn silly considering the link I provided you with many examples of OSs that have done exactly what you ask,
All I saw was a LONG a list of half baked projects, toys, and experiments.
"single user multitasking"
"the next version will support DLL files!"
"status alpha"
"status early development"
"FreeDOS is ideal for anyone who wants to bundle a version of DOS"
"This is basically a dead project."
Ooh this one looks ready to go, we'll just run it right off the whiteboard!
" It will be written in assembly language and C. "
Wait, here's a promising one:
"Ity is currently under active development but far from finished."
I guess what? only 10 days to go instead of 14?
Maybe this one:
Logram is a small operating system fully 64-bit. It uses its own file system (FSL), and recognizes the keyboard.
That's sounding promising. Keyboard support is definitely a plus; hmm... uh oh... from the logram website:
"Logram est un projet de distribution GNU/Linux"
No, I don't know how good your french is, but take my word for it, it says essentially:
"The Logram project is a GNU/Linux distribution"
So close to being what we wanted... looking for a drop in kernel replacement for Linux and well... they're just using linux. I guess its "too close".
Now, no disrepect to ANY of the above projects or any other project on that list.
But I don't really see anything that even remotely comes close to taking GNU/Linux and giving you a drop in replacement for the Linux half.
They created a system which criminalizes almost everyone so that they can threaten the populace at will with just one more law.
Uh huh, in addition to the multitude of others that already exist. I agree its bullshit, but its not "new scary bullshit", its the same old bullshit we already live with.
Remember, the game is making sure that everyone is violating at least one law as a sort of rubberstamp on harassment.
There is no "game" to make sure everyone is breaking the law so they can rubberstamp harrassment. Take off your tin foil hat.
The governement really isn't THAT organized - and the power mad petty functionaries who want to harass people already have far better tools then this.
Of course they'll probably pull the Canadian trick of making cracking-DRM to do it a criminal offense.
Yeah that sucked pretty hard. But setting the cap on the penalty for doing so low enough that the lawyers won't generally be interested in bothering anyone over it.
Its not remotely perfect, but its dysfunctional enough that it sort of balances itself out.
Creating a kernel is easy.
Well in that case...
it really sucks that he didn't use the "at your option any future version" text in the license, -- I mean, he made it impossible to change the license why
Fortunately this can be resolved by simply writing a new kernel.
Which is easy.
And best of all you can make it compatible with the linux kernel, and then just substitute it in with GPLv2 or later in the license.
You said it could be ready in 2 weeks? Can't wait.