So MACOS X is bug free? What about any licensed version of Unix? What about...oh I don't know...just about every piece of commercial software out there? Bugs happen, it's a sad shame, but it happens and no software is ever "bug free". This is why they measure bugs not by raw number, but by number per XXX lines of code - if you can keep your average below a set number, you're doing well.
I'm sure you're happy to let Linux be a tad buggy because it's open source and thus "free", but there's quite a few licensed distros you're supposed to pay for, what about those?
You should have properly researched your choice for buying Windows 95 at the time. Maybe it wasn't the right software for you, maybe you should have bought a Mac or installed Linux, but from what you're saying, you expect a piece of software to be absolutely perfect when you pay for it, so perfect that future, better versions of the OS should never be needed, so I'm fairly sure you would be bitching and complaining now that you had to upgrade no matter what you decided to buy.
That's quite an interesting Article, thanks for the Link!
I would like to point out, though (For those that can't be bothered reading it all), that Microsoft never actually released the code mentioned in it. For the final release of Windows 3.1, the code was disabled and DR DOS ran fine with it. This WAS likely due to the lawsuit, of course, but if anything it's probably the reason Microsoft takes compatibility so seriously today.
Ok, I called your bluff. I actually went and searched for it.
The VERY top link is this slashdot article which states:
"We've all heard the story of Microsoft's battle cry of "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run". Adam Barr investigates the myth, interviewing various Microsoft and Lotus old-timers (including Mitch Kapor), and finds no basis for its legitimacy or any case of 1-2-3 actually not running. Whom to blame for Lotus Notes is not discussed."
I checked the next few links and they pretty much all pointed to the same article, namely this one. One site even described it as a "complete and utter annihilation of the myth".
I actually thought you were disagreeing with me, but now I see you were pointing out that people have been claiming the same thing for years and it was just as unfounded then as it is now. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.
When has Microsoft ever actually done that? Apple has released updates that DELIBERATELY bricked devices (jailbroken iphones for one), but that's ok, yet when a Microsoft device breaks due to a very obvious bug (obvious in that it's obvious it IS a bug, not obvious in that it really should have been noticed - bugs do happen in pretty much ALL software) that has a stupidly simple fix (Let it drain the battery then turn it on again), suddenly the Conspiracy theories are out in full force and they're once again branded as the most Evil Corporation on the planet? Please.
There's so much you can bash Microsoft for (legitimately), why do you feel the need to actually make shit up?
Besides, from all the reports I've read so far, Windows 7 is actually looking to be a worthy Upgrade (if you're a windows user, that is - for anyone else, your mileage may vary) and I don't just mean from Vista, I mean from XP as well.
But no, it's easier to just hate the large, monolithic, rich company than accept that sometimes shit just happens.
I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves for "misrepresenting" them or something and I very much doubt the RIAA would sue their partners in crime, MediaSentry almost certainly has plenty of dirt on them.
I'm not sure how Privacy laws work with regards to P2P, but it's probably quite easy to show you willingly shared the contents of your Hard Drive with others, or you'd be able to sue every other P2P user out there who connects to you.
Then again, I sure as shit aren't a lawyer and in this Crazy, topsy turvy world we live in, anything is possible.
I don't think "complexity" and "having shit to do that is worth doing" are necessarily the same thing. Simplicity is good, simplicity is why we write those shell scripts instead of typing them out each and every time, I think the problem with Lively was that it had no point, no goal, it was just...pointless. In something like WoW, you have tasks, quests, missions, whatever you want to call them. You have goals, objectives, you have character development. Yet, it's all quite user friendly, I wouldn't call it a "complex" game at all.
That's assuming that a font size of 12 wasn't used for a reason (such as readability - I, myself, have trouble reading a font size of 10 due to an eyesight condition I have and before anyone says, no, glasses do not help) and the same reasoning can be applied to a font size of 10 - why not drop it down to 8? At least with this font, the idea is you don't have to change your font sizes or anything yet still be able to save a bit more ink. It's crude, but it could certainly be effective if used correctly.
Tell you what, when you can come up with a better way to save 20% of the ink used on a printed document, then you can say it's stupid. Until then, I think it's a cleverly simple idea.
I'd say that what's interesting and what's not interesting is all a matter of opinion, but it stands to reason that if you own a Mac and would be interested in this software, you would also be interested in knowing that a recently released update from Apple is causing major system trouble.
I'm curious why this was modded troll, I think the above poster has a valid point - why did slashdot miss out on a pretty important article that could potentially affect all Mac users, while they posted an article that's not really going to apply to more than 1% or 2% of Mac users?
That's not a problem with computers in schools, that's a problem with the teaching syllabus. All too often, the computer classes are just passed off onto general teachers who have, at most, some worthless Microsoft Certificate in Word 97.
If we taught them more about proper usage of computers, such as basic maintenance (defrag, virus scan, etc.), emails (And the dangers of random attachments), etc. we'd probably save billions on tech support costs just a few short years down the line. I dread to think how much money is wasted on trivial calls to the Tech support line that could have been avoided with some simple, basic knowledge such as this.
Nobody actually needs to use a phone 24/7, it's physically impossible to do so, but the internet is a different kettle of fish. When you say "Home internet service is designed to be used on-demand, not maxed out 24/7", I can happily say "Well it's been designed wrong". At the very least, the advertised service plans are a disgrace, don't advertise what you can't provide, it's as simple as that. Why would it be so difficult for an ISP to advertise a truly unlimited 4Mbit connection instead of a severely oversold 15Mbit connection? I believe some ISPs sell a certain speed connection (lets say it's 10Mbit), but what they do is throttle each connection after a few seconds. So for maybe 30s, you do get the full 10Mbit, then the speed drops down considerably, to like 2Mbit. I have no problem with this, except that they'll advertise it as a 10Mbit connection rather than a 2Mbit connection that occasionally jumps to 10Mbit. This needs to change and the sooner, the better.
Ideally, I'd like ISPs to use a system like this, but advertise the sustained speeds you're likely to get. So for "Mum & Dad" users that only need basic browsing and email, they'll get nice, fast, speedy connections and for those who want to constantly download, they'll get slower sustained speeds (Without compromising day-to-day browsing since each new connection gets full speed for a few seconds) but without the "fair use" crap that we've been forced to deal with, lately.
Or, better yet, have ISP's better regulated so if they offer you that 10Mbit connection, you GET that 10Mbit connection for however much and however long you like.
The system is broken and it needs fixed, the internet has evolved beyond the bandwidth necessities of the 90's, now we're in the multi-GB era and thanks to the likes of On-demand streaming, even "average joe" users are going to need more and more bandwidth - enforcing caps will only delay the inevitable, ISPs need to seriously upgrade the entire infrastructure or the whole country will fall behind.
Two entries down on the front page, there's an article speculating that the internet will meltdown due to some change an application is about to make, yet here's an article proposing FREE wireless internet to everyone?
If the infrastructure can't handle what people are paying for, how on earth do they plan to give it away for free? Even with severe bandwidth restrictions, it's going to cause a hell of a lot more usage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this kind of thing and I'd love to see Free Wireless internet for everyone, I just wish people would make up their minds - is the internet ready to expand or collapse on top of itself?
This article (And the summary, of course) is spinning this way out of control.
This is taken DIRECTLY from the guys behind uTorrent:
This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We use this for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it. In addition, we use information from this transport, if active, to control the transfer rate of TCP connections. This means uTorrent, when using uTP, should not kill your net connection - even if you do not set any rate limits.
Hey look at that, this actually stops uTorrent using more Bandwidth than you have. If your ISP sells you an 8Mbit connection and you use all 8Mbit of it, surely that's all well and good? If the ISP can't handle you using all 8Mbit, then they shouldn't sell you it. Simple-as.
If (And it's a big if) this actually does cause any kind of "Internet meltdown", it'll be because the ISPs oversold on what they can actually deliver - it's not your fault, my fault or uTorrent's fault.
Hopefully ISP's will either stop overselling their bandwidth or update their infrastructure to cope.
That's like asking "Should I flash linux onto the Microwave so I can use it as a file server?" or "Should I port Doom to the Credit-card reader I bought off eBay?" or "Should I build a deliberately complicated system of relays, pulleys, levers, programs and scripts so that I may control the precise movements and power output by a bog-standard toaster remotely, from 500 miles away?". I mean, really, do you have to ask? Of course we fucking should!
Slashdot Mirror
So MACOS X is bug free? What about any licensed version of Unix? What about...oh I don't know...just about every piece of commercial software out there? Bugs happen, it's a sad shame, but it happens and no software is ever "bug free". This is why they measure bugs not by raw number, but by number per XXX lines of code - if you can keep your average below a set number, you're doing well.
I'm sure you're happy to let Linux be a tad buggy because it's open source and thus "free", but there's quite a few licensed distros you're supposed to pay for, what about those?
You should have properly researched your choice for buying Windows 95 at the time. Maybe it wasn't the right software for you, maybe you should have bought a Mac or installed Linux, but from what you're saying, you expect a piece of software to be absolutely perfect when you pay for it, so perfect that future, better versions of the OS should never be needed, so I'm fairly sure you would be bitching and complaining now that you had to upgrade no matter what you decided to buy.
That's quite an interesting Article, thanks for the Link!
I would like to point out, though (For those that can't be bothered reading it all), that Microsoft never actually released the code mentioned in it. For the final release of Windows 3.1, the code was disabled and DR DOS ran fine with it.
This WAS likely due to the lawsuit, of course, but if anything it's probably the reason Microsoft takes compatibility so seriously today.
Ok, I called your bluff. I actually went and searched for it.
The VERY top link is this slashdot article which states:
"We've all heard the story of Microsoft's battle cry of "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run". Adam Barr investigates the myth, interviewing various Microsoft and Lotus old-timers (including Mitch Kapor), and finds no basis for its legitimacy or any case of 1-2-3 actually not running. Whom to blame for Lotus Notes is not discussed."
I checked the next few links and they pretty much all pointed to the same article, namely this one. One site even described it as a "complete and utter annihilation of the myth".
I actually thought you were disagreeing with me, but now I see you were pointing out that people have been claiming the same thing for years and it was just as unfounded then as it is now. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.
When has Microsoft ever actually done that? Apple has released updates that DELIBERATELY bricked devices (jailbroken iphones for one), but that's ok, yet when a Microsoft device breaks due to a very obvious bug (obvious in that it's obvious it IS a bug, not obvious in that it really should have been noticed - bugs do happen in pretty much ALL software) that has a stupidly simple fix (Let it drain the battery then turn it on again), suddenly the Conspiracy theories are out in full force and they're once again branded as the most Evil Corporation on the planet? Please.
There's so much you can bash Microsoft for (legitimately), why do you feel the need to actually make shit up?
Besides, from all the reports I've read so far, Windows 7 is actually looking to be a worthy Upgrade (if you're a windows user, that is - for anyone else, your mileage may vary) and I don't just mean from Vista, I mean from XP as well.
But no, it's easier to just hate the large, monolithic, rich company than accept that sometimes shit just happens.
I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves for "misrepresenting" them or something and I very much doubt the RIAA would sue their partners in crime, MediaSentry almost certainly has plenty of dirt on them.
I'm not sure how Privacy laws work with regards to P2P, but it's probably quite easy to show you willingly shared the contents of your Hard Drive with others, or you'd be able to sue every other P2P user out there who connects to you.
Then again, I sure as shit aren't a lawyer and in this Crazy, topsy turvy world we live in, anything is possible.
I don't think "complexity" and "having shit to do that is worth doing" are necessarily the same thing. Simplicity is good, simplicity is why we write those shell scripts instead of typing them out each and every time, I think the problem with Lively was that it had no point, no goal, it was just...pointless. In something like WoW, you have tasks, quests, missions, whatever you want to call them. You have goals, objectives, you have character development. Yet, it's all quite user friendly, I wouldn't call it a "complex" game at all.
Not true, we've been sending Robots to Mars for years now and we still pine for a manned mission.
Not really better, though, is it?
I don't own a mac and I'm still pretty interested in knowing when Updates and such go awry.
That's assuming that a font size of 12 wasn't used for a reason (such as readability - I, myself, have trouble reading a font size of 10 due to an eyesight condition I have and before anyone says, no, glasses do not help) and the same reasoning can be applied to a font size of 10 - why not drop it down to 8? At least with this font, the idea is you don't have to change your font sizes or anything yet still be able to save a bit more ink. It's crude, but it could certainly be effective if used correctly.
Tell you what, when you can come up with a better way to save 20% of the ink used on a printed document, then you can say it's stupid. Until then, I think it's a cleverly simple idea.
I'd say that what's interesting and what's not interesting is all a matter of opinion, but it stands to reason that if you own a Mac and would be interested in this software, you would also be interested in knowing that a recently released update from Apple is causing major system trouble.
I'm curious why this was modded troll, I think the above poster has a valid point - why did slashdot miss out on a pretty important article that could potentially affect all Mac users, while they posted an article that's not really going to apply to more than 1% or 2% of Mac users?
That's not a problem with computers in schools, that's a problem with the teaching syllabus. All too often, the computer classes are just passed off onto general teachers who have, at most, some worthless Microsoft Certificate in Word 97.
If we taught them more about proper usage of computers, such as basic maintenance (defrag, virus scan, etc.), emails (And the dangers of random attachments), etc. we'd probably save billions on tech support costs just a few short years down the line. I dread to think how much money is wasted on trivial calls to the Tech support line that could have been avoided with some simple, basic knowledge such as this.
Yey!
Nobody actually needs to use a phone 24/7, it's physically impossible to do so, but the internet is a different kettle of fish. When you say "Home internet service is designed to be used on-demand, not maxed out 24/7", I can happily say "Well it's been designed wrong".
At the very least, the advertised service plans are a disgrace, don't advertise what you can't provide, it's as simple as that. Why would it be so difficult for an ISP to advertise a truly unlimited 4Mbit connection instead of a severely oversold 15Mbit connection?
I believe some ISPs sell a certain speed connection (lets say it's 10Mbit), but what they do is throttle each connection after a few seconds. So for maybe 30s, you do get the full 10Mbit, then the speed drops down considerably, to like 2Mbit. I have no problem with this, except that they'll advertise it as a 10Mbit connection rather than a 2Mbit connection that occasionally jumps to 10Mbit. This needs to change and the sooner, the better.
Ideally, I'd like ISPs to use a system like this, but advertise the sustained speeds you're likely to get. So for "Mum & Dad" users that only need basic browsing and email, they'll get nice, fast, speedy connections and for those who want to constantly download, they'll get slower sustained speeds (Without compromising day-to-day browsing since each new connection gets full speed for a few seconds) but without the "fair use" crap that we've been forced to deal with, lately.
Or, better yet, have ISP's better regulated so if they offer you that 10Mbit connection, you GET that 10Mbit connection for however much and however long you like.
The system is broken and it needs fixed, the internet has evolved beyond the bandwidth necessities of the 90's, now we're in the multi-GB era and thanks to the likes of On-demand streaming, even "average joe" users are going to need more and more bandwidth - enforcing caps will only delay the inevitable, ISPs need to seriously upgrade the entire infrastructure or the whole country will fall behind.
Two entries down on the front page, there's an article speculating that the internet will meltdown due to some change an application is about to make, yet here's an article proposing FREE wireless internet to everyone?
If the infrastructure can't handle what people are paying for, how on earth do they plan to give it away for free?
Even with severe bandwidth restrictions, it's going to cause a hell of a lot more usage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this kind of thing and I'd love to see Free Wireless internet for everyone, I just wish people would make up their minds - is the internet ready to expand or collapse on top of itself?
This article (And the summary, of course) is spinning this way out of control.
This is taken DIRECTLY from the guys behind uTorrent:
Source: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=49813
Hey look at that, this actually stops uTorrent using more Bandwidth than you have. If your ISP sells you an 8Mbit connection and you use all 8Mbit of it, surely that's all well and good? If the ISP can't handle you using all 8Mbit, then they shouldn't sell you it. Simple-as.
If (And it's a big if) this actually does cause any kind of "Internet meltdown", it'll be because the ISPs oversold on what they can actually deliver - it's not your fault, my fault or uTorrent's fault.
Hopefully ISP's will either stop overselling their bandwidth or update their infrastructure to cope.
Progress++;
Goes without saying really, but iwantoneforchristmas.
And have the ejaculatory fluids do what, exactly? Swish around, just waiting to drip out?
That's like asking "Should I flash linux onto the Microwave so I can use it as a file server?" or "Should I port Doom to the Credit-card reader I bought off eBay?" or "Should I build a deliberately complicated system of relays, pulleys, levers, programs and scripts so that I may control the precise movements and power output by a bog-standard toaster remotely, from 500 miles away?". I mean, really, do you have to ask? Of course we fucking should!
Wait wait wait...you ARE a University?
That's no off-topic! That's a genuine star wars quote, which is precisely ON topic for this thread!
Mod parent up.
Mod me up, while you're at it. Informative should do nicely.
And while you're at it, please, fuck my wife.
Is it really a reference if it's stated outright?
Port Doom to it.