UAC is NOT working as advertised. It is so useless that EVERYBODY turns it off!
I left it on. And I know how to turn it off. Part of my job is to develop and support applications, and I need to know what my users are experiencing. So I left it on. And you know what, get over yourself, its not nearly that bad.
The *only* program I use on a regular basis that recommends 'run as administrator' and requires escalation priviledges each time I launch it is visual studio 2005. And I expect even that will be resolved in the next version. And frankly, I'm not even that put out that a tool incorporating a low level debugger to need explicit admin priviledges each launch. (And VS2005 can be run without admin priv's but then some features do not work)
Other than that I only get UAC prompts when I install software, or add devices. I can live with that too.
As for 'a shitload of apps didn't work on it and many still don't'. I haven't encountered that. And from what I can see most of the stuff that 'broke' was badly written, and *shouldn't* have worked on any OS. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that nothing I've written had any trouble on Vista, and caused no UAC prompts except during install.
I'm also running the 64 bit edition, and there have been some minor issues related to that, particularly the management of 32-bit and 64-bit odbc drivers, for example was clearly an oversight.
My only real complaint about vista so far is:
driver signing - I would like to be able to sign unsigned drivers to authorize them to run on my system, even if they aren't blessed by microsoft. I am aware I can disable driver signing requirements entirely, even in x64, but I don't want to turn the feature off. I think its a GOOD THING(tm). I just strongly believe the owner of the PC should have the right to authorize unsigned drivers for his own pc by allowing an owner to add his own signing key to the trusted list (with UAC prompt), and then signing the driver (again with UAC prompt). A driver signed this way would only run on machines with my key installed.
This would give me the ability to preserve the only run signed drivers function of Vista, without losing the ability to authorize F/OSS drivers I build myself, etc...
I'm really surprised that the laptop industry has gone towards bigger laptops, rather than smaller
You can get a device with a screen from 2" to 17" with stops at 3", 4", 5", 8", 12", 13", 15" in form factors ranging from PDA to Tablet to Laptop -- I don't really think the industry has let us down that badly.
I didn't realize the US Constitution has been changed to allow the US President the power to declare war. In the past, that has be delegated to the Congress. Sheesh! Things change so fast in this modern age.
The constitution hasn't been changed and Congress hasn't declared war since World War II.
So I guess we aren't at war. I'm sure the troops will be relieved to hear this! I wonder why so many of them are vacationing in Iraq with their units, and without their families.
I, for one, have a better ability to visualize how large "a football field" is than ~100 x ~70m, even if the former 'measurement' is ambiguous. All football fields are in the same ballpark (haha), and higher precision isn't needed.
I mean if they said it was about half a hectare, that would be about as precise and far less meaningful.
I was under the impression that OpenGL wasn't platform dependent, so if 2.0/3.0 will be released it won't be able to use the same GPU features on WinXP and Vista?
OpenGL is not platform dependant, but that is NOT the issue.
In another post you wrote:
DX10 and OpenGL are nothing than just APIs to the GPU! You can emulate both ways, IIRC MS first tried to emulate OGL using DX in the early Vista days. OGL 2.0/3.0 will have DX10-like features. Maybe some even are possible to emulate in OGL 1.5.
OpenGL and DirectX10 Direct3D as 'scene description languages' work like that. You can even implement OpenGL3 entirely in software and emit the frames to a laser printer. And each frame will look perfect.
That's not the issue, and never has been. DirectX10 is a hell of a lot more than just the Direct3D scene description APIs.
The issue is that directX10, in ADDITION to its 'scene description language' is ALSO a PLATFORM. It specifies that the hardware actually be able to do certain things. Its true you can get away with emulating those features but you'll take a performance hit, and possibly a stability hit if there are timing constraints tied into those features. (Not to mention you lose the right to use the directx10 logos).
Another part of the directx 10 platform requires the operating system to support certain features that Vista supports, but XP does not. XP cannot do virtual video memory or gpu multitasking. Period.
Imagine if DirectX required pre-emptive multitasking support. (not hard to do, it actually DOES)
How would you backport that to Windows 3.1? Which only supports cooperative multitasking. There is no real way of doing that short of upgrading the 3.1 kernel to support pre-emptive multitasking, at which point you might as well just give them the NT3 kernel, and NT3 drivers...
And that's where we are now. To give XP virtual video memory and gpu multitasking, we'd pretty much have to upgrade the xp kernel to vista...and require vista drivers.
Don't confusing DirectX10 with OpenGL. There is a part of DirectX that is interchangable with OpenGL and its an important part. But there is a big part of DirectX that is NOT.
DirectX10 cannot run on XP. XP cannot multitask the GPU for example. Period. There is no possibility of creating a wrapper that uses opengl to make that happen.
At best, all you'll be able to do is write wrappers for fluff like shader model 4. And that's what it is FLUFF. The real features of directx10 are virtual video memory, gpu multitasking, and so on. This simply cannot be backported to XP using opengl wrappers.
Right now, most directx10 compatible games ARE directx9 games that are extended to use some of the directx10 rendering fluff, so its relatively easy to just stub around all the gpu multitasking, and just implement wrappers for the new sharder stuff. And then we see idiotic frenzies because 'omg! directx game X has been hacked to run on xp'
But the reality is that only the fluff part of directx10 can be wrapped like this, and it just so happens that the fluff part is the only part the new direct9/direct10 'hybrid' games are using.
But if they start releasing REAL directx10-only games that make use of gpu multitasking etc those stubs will have to do *something*, and XP just can't do it, the kernel doesn't support it. So either its going to run like a DOG as they write some kludge to thunk around the kernel limitation or its not going to run at all.
To use a car analagy, directx10 is like a 90's Porsche, and direct9 is one from the 80's. Sure with enough welding and grafting you could put the new body on the old chassis, and then you could release photos showing that the new xenon headlights work, along with the heated side mirrors, electric sunroof -- and you can even start it and drive it around... and it runs nearly as fast as the 80's 911 always did, which you'd expect given that's what the engine is, and the extra weight you've added.
But if you look closer you'll find out that the AWD and ABS is missing, the automatic ride height adjustment is gone, and the number 6 on your transmission knob doesn't actually do anything
So perhaps they should make it aware of the URL the user types in the browser... if I visit by typing msn.com and I login with the @msn.com email, but if I type hotmail.co.uk then my mail login will be @hotmail.co.uk
Sure that would be awesome when it works. And then one day, you click a link somewhere that takes you to the hotmail page via the 'wrong' URL, and it rejects your username and password.
Maybe it would give a helpful message like. Please verify you are entering it in the correct case, oh, and check the URL because we assume your email address uses the same domain suffix as the hotmail URL you are accessing......at which point joe average goes... "domain suffix URL say what now!?"
Or even worse, what if, for some user name, xyz@hotmail.com and xyz@msn.com have the same password... and xyz@msn.com inadvertantly checks xyz@hotmail.com's address and has absolutely no clue what happened to all his messages...oops... who do you think is going to bear the blame for that fuckup?
...that requires your REAL FUCKING NAME about privacy issues?
What does one have to do with the other?
The government has oodles of files that require my "REAL FUCKING NAME", and I expect them not to whore that information around with marketing sleaze. My Dentist requires my "REAL FUCKING NAME", and I expect him not to whore the information he has on me around. Hell, even my car insurance requires my "REAL FUCKING NAME", and I expect them to keep their information private too. Why suddenly, does having to give a website ones real name equate to some sort of tacit agreement to bend over and take it in the ass when it comes to privacy?
Aside from AdBlock, you can do the following to effectively de-activate this service:
I think closing ones account and would be an infinitely preferable option. Yours only resolves this one issue. But what about the next one? And the one after that?
They say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that's fine, but I think the facebook baby went down the drain a while ago, and all that's left is a mass of humanity puttering around in its own dirty bathwater.
What? Are you serious? The UN was against it. Pretty much everyone involved from the generals to the cia have admitted there were serious issues with the intelligence and the way it was acted on. Even the weapons inspecters were against it. That they didn't actually find any WMDs...and even if they did they had no real plausible way of attacking US soil with them... need I go on?
Oh, right, I got my information from various media, so it must ALL be a lie. And I should believe none of it.
I see you believe everything the media tells you.
No. Not everything. But I don't have my head up my ass singing la-la-la either, which is what someone would have to do to still beleive their was any validity to the war.
Since 1990, there have been major wars in Tajikistan, Sudan, Chad, Ivory coast, Chechnya, Congo, Thailand, Somalia, Israel and Lebanon, just to name the big ones. All of these wars must have had an aggressor, however the accusations of "War Criminal" are few and far between in Europe or the US (Rwanda and Kosovo are pretty much the only two). I wonder why?
I'd disagree. There have been calls of "War Crimes" in nearly all, if not all of those conflicts. From calling Irael 'indiscriminately' bombing Lebanon a war crime, to accusing Russian officials of war crimes for their part in Chechyna. Just because you say accusations of 'war criminal' are few and far between, doesn't make it so.
Bush is not a war criminal. Please do not cheapen the term.
Illegally declaring a war on false premises leading directly to the death of thousands of American soldiers, foreign soldiers, -and- civilians? He's no genocidal madman, but he's certainly no common criminal either.
Plus if he were the president of any other country (say if Iran were to invade another country to halt its nuclear weapons program, for example) the US administration and media would surely call him a war criminal.
It is pretty impressive at first blush, but without real numbers its hard to gauge. Especially considering ipods occupy 13 of the 25 products listed, including #2,3,4,5,8,11,12,14,15,16,18,19,20. Zunes have 4 in the top 25, including: 1,10,24 and 25.
From 25 - 50, there are 2 more Zunes, and 8 more iPod model, From 51-100 - 5 zunes and 7 ipods.
That the -brown- zune is the most popular product could well be pretty meaningless, as well as a reflection of the blowout pricing. The black and red versions ranked FAR lower, and I find it impossible to imagine that brown is what everybody wants.
The point is: there are 14 zunes in the top HUNDRED, while there are 13 ipods in the top TWENTY. (and 28 in the top 100).
If the brown zune at blowout pricing can grab the #1 spot, yeah that's impressive, but really doesn't say THAT much. Looking at the numbers its clear that ipod still utterly dominates. If only we had the numbers so we could add up total zunes and total ipods then we'd know by how much.
Its also clear the ipod is far more profitable, considering the lock they have on positions 2,3,4,5,and 8 all at pretty much regular full retail, and especially considering the number 3 spot is held by the 16GB ipod touch which is their flagship product and runs more than twice the price of the zune.
Also, ipod, by having twice as many sku's roughly cuts its sales scores in half, because sales are divided by that many more products. I suspect that if ipods weren't available in quite the same rainbow of options as they are, they'd handily lock up the top 5 to 10 spots no matter what Microsoft did.
Damn them! How dare they have a phone turned on during a concert! By god and all that is right those signals should have been jammed! I don't care if she has a terminal illness... nobody should be able to interrupt my enjoyment of the Teletubbies Christmas Jam!/sarcasm
Uh... you realize nearly all phones have both a silent and a vibrate mode.
Moreover, that the ability to locate them like this would be *needed* at all suggests that the phone was at least either silent or off. (Otherwise, they would have just CALLED them repeatedly to let them know.)
But since the phone was either silent or off, they looked up its position. (either its current reported postion if "silent" or last reported position if "off") and sent someone over to physically find/get them.
My phone has an option to turn off GPS unless I dial 911. Are you saying that this feature doesn't really work? Or that the phone company can override it?
The feature to turn of GPS is likely working. Its reasonably improbable that they'd be able to remotely stealth turn it on.
However, cellphones talk to multiple towers simultaneously. Carriers can a locate a phone relatively accurately even without GPS. Additionally cellphones regularly communicate with the towers to let the network know where it is, so that the network knows where to route an incoming call or sms. So you can assume the carrier gets regular positional updates from the phone provided its on, even if gps is off.
After the Rebels blow up the Big Round Thing II, there are a bunch of perfectly good Star Destroyers left in orbit.
The war was over. The emperor was dead. Darth Vader was dead. The remaining officers had no real reason to fight on, and probably only only were fighting up until then out of fear.
Its likely that a someone held out the white flag and called truce within a few minutes of it being confirmed that the Big Round Thing II was indeed blown up and that the Emperor and Vader were presumed dead.
Nearly all wars end with plenty of troops on the losing side being -capable- of fighting on.
I went to the remaining films only because they were "group morale events" that my employers paid for; I would not have spent my own money going -- and frankly, these events did not do much for anyone's morale, that I could see).
I went to the first one on opening night. I bought the second and third ones "previously viewed" on DVD.
Re:Oblig: The "Moon" - A ridiculous liberal myth
on
Earth's Moon is a Rarity
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950."
Yeah, I know you were joking, but 1950? I've got a copy of Jules Verne's 1865 "From Earth to the Moon", and 1870's "Around the Moon" both published prior to 1950.
I'm sure there are people with bibles published a couple hundred ago, all with a few dozen mentions of the moon.
And its well documented that Isaac Newton was considering the moon when he wrote 1686's Principia and its treatment of gravitational force.
Good nutter theories are supposed to be a little harder to disprove.
I have rarely if ever seen an EULA for console games. Does Halo 3 even present one?
Even if it did have one, most of the terms on eula's haven't been tested in court.
Finally, its one thing to say there are a million PCs out there and each one is different, has different hardware, different software, different settings, and its unreasonable that we warrant that it work on all of them. Its something else entirely to release a game exclusively for the xbox 360 that won't run reliably on an xbox 360. An xbox 360 is a very well defined platform, with almost no variation - its reasonable to expect the publisher to warrant that the product functions on it. If it doesn't then the product is *defective*.
Its simpler and cheaper to do a "RAID1" by simply running two independant disks, and copying from one to the next on a regular basis. Then if one goes down, you replace it, copy the disk, and away you go. No need to fiddle with 'rebuilding the Array'.
The GP is correct, the value of RAID is more about availability and performance, where you can't afford downtime. If all you want is a budget "RAID1" go with JBOD (just a bunch of discs).
Its far simpler and more flexible.
You can use any drives, of any size and type. If the motherboard/controller goes, you can trivially mount any of the discs on any SATA controller in any available PC to get your data back. You can stick the drive in an external enclosure and take it to a remote site and just use it. You can upgrade the size by just replacing the disks and copying the data, etc.
In my experience, when a home raid has problems, its usually fairly stressful to the owner because the average home user has practically no experience with their raid recovery processes, and how to deal with any problems that crop up - while dealing with JBOD is familiar territory.
Slashdot Mirror
UAC is NOT working as advertised. It is so useless that EVERYBODY turns it off!
I left it on. And I know how to turn it off. Part of my job is to develop and support applications, and I need to know what my users are experiencing. So I left it on. And you know what, get over yourself, its not nearly that bad.
The *only* program I use on a regular basis that recommends 'run as administrator' and requires escalation priviledges each time I launch it is visual studio 2005. And I expect even that will be resolved in the next version. And frankly, I'm not even that put out that a tool incorporating a low level debugger to need explicit admin priviledges each launch. (And VS2005 can be run without admin priv's but then some features do not work)
Other than that I only get UAC prompts when I install software, or add devices. I can live with that too.
As for 'a shitload of apps didn't work on it and many still don't'. I haven't encountered that. And from what I can see most of the stuff that 'broke' was badly written, and *shouldn't* have worked on any OS. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that nothing I've written had any trouble on Vista, and caused no UAC prompts except during install.
I'm also running the 64 bit edition, and there have been some minor issues related to that, particularly the management of 32-bit and 64-bit odbc drivers, for example was clearly an oversight.
My only real complaint about vista so far is:
driver signing - I would like to be able to sign unsigned drivers to authorize them to run on my system, even if they aren't blessed by microsoft. I am aware I can disable driver signing requirements entirely, even in x64, but I don't want to turn the feature off. I think its a GOOD THING(tm). I just strongly believe the owner of the PC should have the right to authorize unsigned drivers for his own pc by allowing an owner to add his own signing key to the trusted list (with UAC prompt), and then signing the driver (again with UAC prompt). A driver signed this way would only run on machines with my key installed.
This would give me the ability to preserve the only run signed drivers function of Vista, without losing the ability to authorize F/OSS drivers I build myself, etc...
I'm really surprised that the laptop industry has gone towards bigger laptops, rather than smaller
You can get a device with a screen from 2" to 17" with stops at 3", 4", 5", 8", 12", 13", 15" in form factors ranging from PDA to Tablet to Laptop -- I don't really think the industry has let us down that badly.
I didn't realize the US Constitution has been changed to allow the US President the power to declare war. In the past, that has be delegated to the Congress. Sheesh! Things change so fast in this modern age.
The constitution hasn't been changed and Congress hasn't declared war since World War II.
So I guess we aren't at war. I'm sure the troops will be relieved to hear this!
I wonder why so many of them are vacationing in Iraq with their units, and without their families.
You'd almost think there was a war going on.
I, for one, have a better ability to visualize how large "a football field" is than ~100 x ~70m, even if the former 'measurement' is ambiguous. All football fields are in the same ballpark (haha), and higher precision isn't needed.
I mean if they said it was about half a hectare, that would be about as precise and far less meaningful.
I was under the impression that OpenGL wasn't platform dependent, so if 2.0/3.0 will be released it won't be able to use the same GPU features on WinXP and Vista?
OpenGL is not platform dependant, but that is NOT the issue.
In another post you wrote:
DX10 and OpenGL are nothing than just APIs to the GPU! You can emulate both ways, IIRC MS first tried to emulate OGL using DX in the early Vista days. OGL 2.0/3.0 will have DX10-like features. Maybe some even are possible to emulate in OGL 1.5.
OpenGL and DirectX10 Direct3D as 'scene description languages' work like that. You can even implement OpenGL3 entirely in software and emit the frames to a laser printer. And each frame will look perfect.
That's not the issue, and never has been. DirectX10 is a hell of a lot more than just the Direct3D scene description APIs.
The issue is that directX10, in ADDITION to its 'scene description language' is ALSO a PLATFORM. It specifies that the hardware actually be able to do certain things. Its true you can get away with emulating those features but you'll take a performance hit, and possibly a stability hit if there are timing constraints tied into those features. (Not to mention you lose the right to use the directx10 logos).
Another part of the directx 10 platform requires the operating system to support certain features that Vista supports, but XP does not. XP cannot do virtual video memory or gpu multitasking. Period.
Imagine if DirectX required pre-emptive multitasking support. (not hard to do, it actually DOES)
How would you backport that to Windows 3.1? Which only supports cooperative multitasking. There is no real way of doing that short of upgrading the 3.1 kernel to support pre-emptive multitasking, at which point you might as well just give them the NT3 kernel, and NT3 drivers...
And that's where we are now. To give XP virtual video memory and gpu multitasking, we'd pretty much have to upgrade the xp kernel to vista...and require vista drivers.
Don't confusing DirectX10 with OpenGL. There is a part of DirectX that is interchangable with OpenGL and its an important part. But there is a big part of DirectX that is NOT.
DirectX10 cannot run on XP. XP cannot multitask the GPU for example. Period. There is no possibility of creating a wrapper that uses opengl to make that happen.
At best, all you'll be able to do is write wrappers for fluff like shader model 4. And that's what it is FLUFF. The real features of directx10 are virtual video memory, gpu multitasking, and so on. This simply cannot be backported to XP using opengl wrappers.
Right now, most directx10 compatible games ARE directx9 games that are extended to use some of the directx10 rendering fluff, so its relatively easy to just stub around all the gpu multitasking, and just implement wrappers for the new sharder stuff. And then we see idiotic frenzies because 'omg! directx game X has been hacked to run on xp'
But the reality is that only the fluff part of directx10 can be wrapped like this, and it just so happens that the fluff part is the only part the new direct9/direct10 'hybrid' games are using.
But if they start releasing REAL directx10-only games that make use of gpu multitasking etc those stubs will have to do *something*, and XP just can't do it, the kernel doesn't support it. So either its going to run like a DOG as they write some kludge to thunk around the kernel limitation or its not going to run at all.
To use a car analagy, directx10 is like a 90's Porsche, and direct9 is one from the 80's. Sure with enough welding and grafting you could put the new body on the old chassis, and then you could release photos showing that the new xenon headlights work, along with the heated side mirrors, electric sunroof -- and you can even start it and drive it around... and it runs nearly as fast as the 80's 911 always did, which you'd expect given that's what the engine is, and the extra weight you've added.
But if you look closer you'll find out that the AWD and ABS is missing, the automatic ride height adjustment is gone, and the number 6 on your transmission knob doesn't actually do anything
So perhaps they should make it aware of the URL the user types in the browser... if I visit by typing msn.com and I login with the @msn.com email, but if I type hotmail.co.uk then my mail login will be @hotmail.co.uk
...at which point joe average goes... "domain suffix URL say what now!?"
Sure that would be awesome when it works. And then one day, you click a link somewhere that takes you to the hotmail page via the 'wrong' URL, and it rejects your username and password.
Maybe it would give a helpful message like. Please verify you are entering it in the correct case, oh, and check the URL because we assume your email address uses the same domain suffix as the hotmail URL you are accessing...
Or even worse, what if, for some user name, xyz@hotmail.com and xyz@msn.com have the same password... and xyz@msn.com inadvertantly checks xyz@hotmail.com's address and has absolutely no clue what happened to all his messages...oops... who do you think is going to bear the blame for that fuckup?
...that requires your REAL FUCKING NAME about privacy issues?
What does one have to do with the other?
The government has oodles of files that require my "REAL FUCKING NAME", and I expect them not to whore that information around with marketing sleaze. My Dentist requires my "REAL FUCKING NAME", and I expect him not to whore the information he has on me around. Hell, even my car insurance requires my "REAL FUCKING NAME", and I expect them to keep their information private too. Why suddenly, does having to give a website ones real name equate to some sort of tacit agreement to bend over and take it in the ass when it comes to privacy?
Aside from AdBlock, you can do the following to effectively de-activate this service:
I think closing ones account and would be an infinitely preferable option. Yours only resolves this one issue. But what about the next one? And the one after that?
They say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that's fine, but I think the facebook baby went down the drain a while ago, and all that's left is a mass of humanity puttering around in its own dirty bathwater.
False premises according to WHO?
What? Are you serious? The UN was against it. Pretty much everyone involved from the generals to the cia have admitted there were serious issues with the intelligence and the way it was acted on. Even the weapons inspecters were against it. That they didn't actually find any WMDs...and even if they did they had no real plausible way of attacking US soil with them... need I go on?
Oh, right, I got my information from various media, so it must ALL be a lie. And I should believe none of it.
I see you believe everything the media tells you.
No. Not everything. But I don't have my head up my ass singing la-la-la either, which is what someone would have to do to still beleive their was any validity to the war.
Since 1990, there have been major wars in Tajikistan, Sudan, Chad, Ivory coast, Chechnya, Congo, Thailand, Somalia, Israel and Lebanon, just to name the big ones. All of these wars must have had an aggressor, however the accusations of "War Criminal" are few and far between in Europe or the US (Rwanda and Kosovo are pretty much the only two). I wonder why?
I'd disagree. There have been calls of "War Crimes" in nearly all, if not all of those conflicts. From calling Irael 'indiscriminately' bombing Lebanon a war crime, to accusing Russian officials of war crimes for their part in Chechyna. Just because you say accusations of 'war criminal' are few and far between, doesn't make it so.
Bush is not a war criminal. Please do not cheapen the term.
Illegally declaring a war on false premises leading directly to the death of thousands of American soldiers, foreign soldiers, -and- civilians? He's no genocidal madman, but he's certainly no common criminal either.
Plus if he were the president of any other country (say if Iran were to invade another country to halt its nuclear weapons program, for example) the US administration and media would surely call him a war criminal.
It probably doesn't hurt that cellar door is the most beautiful phrase in the english language.
It is pretty impressive at first blush, but without real numbers its hard to gauge. Especially considering ipods occupy 13 of the 25 products listed, including #2,3,4,5,8,11,12,14,15,16,18,19,20. Zunes have 4 in the top 25, including: 1,10,24 and 25.
From 25 - 50, there are 2 more Zunes, and 8 more iPod model, From 51-100 - 5 zunes and 7 ipods.
That the -brown- zune is the most popular product could well be pretty meaningless, as well as a reflection of the blowout pricing. The black and red versions ranked FAR lower, and I find it impossible to imagine that brown is what everybody wants.
The point is: there are 14 zunes in the top HUNDRED, while there are 13 ipods in the top TWENTY. (and 28 in the top 100).
If the brown zune at blowout pricing can grab the #1 spot, yeah that's impressive, but really doesn't say THAT much. Looking at the numbers its clear that ipod still utterly dominates. If only we had the numbers so we could add up total zunes and total ipods then we'd know by how much.
Its also clear the ipod is far more profitable, considering the lock they have on positions 2,3,4,5,and 8 all at pretty much regular full retail, and especially considering the number 3 spot is held by the 16GB ipod touch which is their flagship product and runs more than twice the price of the zune.
Also, ipod, by having twice as many sku's roughly cuts its sales scores in half, because sales are divided by that many more products. I suspect that if ipods weren't available in quite the same rainbow of options as they are, they'd handily lock up the top 5 to 10 spots no matter what Microsoft did.
-cheers
Hey, you created me. I didn't create some loser alter-ego to make myself feel better. Take some responsibility!
Damn them! How dare they have a phone turned on during a concert! By god and all that is right those signals should have been jammed! I don't care if she has a terminal illness... nobody should be able to interrupt my enjoyment of the Teletubbies Christmas Jam! /sarcasm
Uh... you realize nearly all phones have both a silent and a vibrate mode.
Moreover, that the ability to locate them like this would be *needed* at all suggests that the phone was at least either silent or off. (Otherwise, they would have just CALLED them repeatedly to let them know.)
But since the phone was either silent or off, they looked up its position. (either its current reported postion if "silent" or last reported position if "off") and sent someone over to physically find/get them.
My phone has an option to turn off GPS unless I dial 911. Are you saying that this feature doesn't really work? Or that the phone company can override it?
The feature to turn of GPS is likely working. Its reasonably improbable that they'd be able to remotely stealth turn it on.
However, cellphones talk to multiple towers simultaneously. Carriers can a locate a phone relatively accurately even without GPS. Additionally cellphones regularly communicate with the towers to let the network know where it is, so that the network knows where to route an incoming call or sms. So you can assume the carrier gets regular positional updates from the phone provided its on, even if gps is off.
After the Rebels blow up the Big Round Thing II, there are a bunch of perfectly good Star Destroyers left in orbit.
The war was over. The emperor was dead. Darth Vader was dead. The remaining officers had no real reason to fight on, and probably only only were fighting up until then out of fear.
Its likely that a someone held out the white flag and called truce within a few minutes of it being confirmed that the Big Round Thing II was indeed blown up and that the Emperor and Vader were presumed dead.
Nearly all wars end with plenty of troops on the losing side being -capable- of fighting on.
I went to the remaining films only because they were "group morale events" that my employers paid for; I would not have spent my own money going -- and frankly, these events did not do much for anyone's morale, that I could see).
I went to the first one on opening night. I bought the second and third ones "previously viewed" on DVD.
"Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950."
Yeah, I know you were joking, but 1950? I've got a copy of Jules Verne's 1865 "From Earth to the Moon", and 1870's "Around the Moon" both published prior to 1950.
I'm sure there are people with bibles published a couple hundred ago, all with a few dozen mentions of the moon.
And its well documented that Isaac Newton was considering the moon when he wrote 1686's Principia and its treatment of gravitational force.
Good nutter theories are supposed to be a little harder to disprove.
I have rarely if ever seen an EULA for console games. Does Halo 3 even present one?
Even if it did have one, most of the terms on eula's haven't been tested in court.
Finally, its one thing to say there are a million PCs out there and each one is different, has different hardware, different software, different settings, and its unreasonable that we warrant that it work on all of them. Its something else entirely to release a game exclusively for the xbox 360 that won't run reliably on an xbox 360. An xbox 360 is a very well defined platform, with almost no variation - its reasonable to expect the publisher to warrant that the product functions on it. If it doesn't then the product is *defective*.
*whoosh*
Ah, but that's the beauty of assigning copyright to a corporation. They don't have to die. They don't have to ever stop earning money.
Err. That's what I said. That using a RAID for backups was pointless.
Software raid is just fine for most applications in a home environment as long as you have proper backups.
What would the point of implementing a raid for backups if he needs to have proper backups before it can be considered reliable.
The op wants to use this for his backups. So if he sets this up and then needs to make backups of it, it rather defeats the purpose, don't you think?
Its simpler and cheaper to do a "RAID1" by simply running two independant disks, and copying from one to the next on a regular basis. Then if one goes down, you replace it, copy the disk, and away you go. No need to fiddle with 'rebuilding the Array'.
The GP is correct, the value of RAID is more about availability and performance, where you can't afford downtime. If all you want is a budget "RAID1" go with JBOD (just a bunch of discs).
Its far simpler and more flexible.
You can use any drives, of any size and type. If the motherboard/controller goes, you can trivially mount any of the discs on any SATA controller in any available PC to get your data back. You can stick the drive in an external enclosure and take it to a remote site and just use it. You can upgrade the size by just replacing the disks and copying the data, etc.
In my experience, when a home raid has problems, its usually fairly stressful to the owner because the average home user has practically no experience with their raid recovery processes, and how to deal with any problems that crop up - while dealing with JBOD is familiar territory.