Liberals, Conservatives, pah. I tried to explain the other day why using PHP for desktop applications is not the best choice when you have Java, C#, C++ and so forth available instead and hence why PHP is best left to what it's good at- web apps, and got modded flamebait.
It's when your red dot sight on Quakeworld TF is always a couple of centimetres behind where you're actually pointing on screen.
It's where you have to aim where you think the other player will be in 133ms and can tell yourself you're an awesome player for one shotting him because he was on ISDN and only had 60ms ping and should've easily got you first.
But then you get broadband, and realise it is actually more fun being able to just simply aim and shoot, as much as there was a feeling of victory to be had from near perfecting the skill of being able to kill those LPBs from your well honed ability to know where they were going to be when that bullet landed at the server.
If they actually care, I'd imagine they'd be more upset at the fact that ID cards are almost certainly not going to survive the next election in a couple of months more than anything.
But it has to be absolute, either you accept the agreement or you don't, because the clause for the right to recognition of work exists because a large portion of the world do actually agree to that term. If you think picking and choosing is acceptable, then why do you think you have anymore right to ignore that principle than the music industry has to ignore your right to privacy and fair trial? It tries to establish ground that everyone should agree, and can compromise on.
Again, whilst I'm not convinced 27.2 is important enough to put alongside other rights personally, many are, but I'm not sure 27.2 is that unfair- it ensures people can't steal others work and claim it as their own for example, I'd argue that's not too bad a concept, the problem is it's quite arbitrary in it's definition, and much modern copyright law stretches the definition a little too far and often even takes it far beyond what is stated in 27.2.
So whilst I agree it's perhaps not worthy of being a human right personally, I respect that it is, and would expect that in turn, my right to privacy and fair trial is also recognised. You seem to be somewhat against the whole thing in principle, but then where are we? in a situation where a country could invade yours and rape your family, torture you, detain you without trial, and when your nation finally gets it's freedom back there is absolutely no comeback against the nation that invaded? It needn't necessarily be a foreign state either, if your nation's government is not signed up to it could just as well detain you without trial. In the UK for example, our government has in recent years tried to infringe some of these fundamental rights, but thanks to the European Court of Human Rights applying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human rights, the governments actions have been overturned- sometimes international oversight on national government is actually a very good thing.
Yes, and I was talking about both which is quite obvious to anyone who bothered to read my post.
Or were you not aware that an image of an executable on disk gets copied into RAM at runtime so 11kb extra on disk is still just 11kb extra in process space?
See my point about 80 processes running at once, with 11kb extra would still only be an extra 880kb of RAM used if it was across all processes- i.e. not enough to matter to anyone using a system less than about 10 years old.
"Under your system, the Chinese government has the right to censor information and arrest and execute random people, the Iranian government has the right to brutally put down protests and every other evil regime would be justified because that's just how things work over there."
Absolutely, that's exactly it. If you only look at a localised section of the world- that is, in China, if you ignore all external views and treaties, you do not have the rights you do elsewhere. If however you do not focus purely on China, and instead look at China in the context of the world view, then because there is a stronger view that people in China have those rights, then they can be recognised as rights- again, rights can only exist when there is enough agreement to recognise and enforce them, or at least, for there to be the will and acceptance to recognise and enforce them.
You seem to finally get it in your last sentence.
This is exactly what I said- laws do not define morality, they formally define what has previously been generally agreed as to what is moral. This is precisely the case with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- it does not define in itself what fundamental rights people should have, it cannot, because that is subjective. It defines the generally accepted world view on what those fundamental rights should be to the extent that enough people are willing to recognise them as, and support them as rights.
Okay, that's a rather simplistic and ignorant comment, I'll try and explain it for you.
It's a document that outlines the fundamental rights that must be respected by governments and citizens of any nations which has given official recognition to the document, which I believe is in fact every member of the UN- so every country in the world bar Vatican City, Taiwan, and Kosovo.
It tells you what the officially accepted view of rights is, and the fundamental rights which you have in the eyes of international law, such that if someone breaches those rights, that person must face punishment.
Generally, these rights are implemented as laws that recognise said rights, and so adherence to them and punishment for breaching with them is just dealt by local law.
So yes, a piece of paper written by a bunch of people in suits tells you the generally globally accepted view of what everyone's basic rights are. Also yes, laws often define the socially accepted level of morality too- e.g. sex with kids under 16 is generally accepted as wrong.
If you feel that the rights granted and listed by the declaration don't truly reflect the socially accepted view of what counts as a basic right, and which must be protected, then you're more than welcome to go and start a campaign to get it changed.
Are you suggesting basic rights are something that exists independently of social acceptance? Are you suggesting you unilaterally decide your rights? Rights and morals aren't something that "just exist", the natural state of the world is such that no one has any rights, and no level of morality is pre-defined- someone could come and chain you up and make you their slave, whilst raping your sister defying all views of modern rights and morality tommorrow, it relies on a general acceptance of what your rights are to protect that from happening, and those men in suits are the representatives who write the guidelines developed internationally to cover the generally accepted view of what rights people should have. You do not inherently have any rights at all, unless other people allow you them. If you want people to allow you your rights, you better allow others their rights.
I did notice some of that (although not with the marching cards), but I assumed it was mostly part of the surrealism of Wonderland.
The most important thing I'd say though, is did it make the film look better? I'd say yes, without a doubt, the 3D version still looked far better regardless and to me, I find it's a much bigger improvement than say the differences between SD and HD TV.
I wish you were right, but check Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find that copyright, or at least something that offers that same basic principles is in fact a fundamental right. Where copyright does stray is in things like transfer of ownership- that's not covered as a fundamental right.
Now, I really have to agree I'm not sure this is something that should sit alongside things like the right to privacy, the right to fair trial and so forth, but unfortunately, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is currently written, it does.
The real debate is in determining how far above and beyond the basic rights granted by the declaration go if at all. I would say that right now, copyright strays well too far above and beyond those rights granted in the declaration.
But that's not my point- I agree piracy is frankly what the movie industry deserves for it's price fixing.
My point is merely that 3D is an attempt by them to make money even in the face of piracy, yet people are slagging them off for doing that now. This gives the suggestion that people believe they shouldn't be able ot make any money at all from their production which is wrong- I'm fine with piracy, I believe it's a valid backlash to the over the top pricing of DVDs and so forth, but what I have a problem with is this idea that movies shouldn't be able to make any money.
Why slag off 3D if it let's Hollywood remain profitable so that Hollywood no longer has to care about pirates meaning pirates can still pirate away, and Hollywood can still make money from 3D ticket sales? It's win-win for everyone- both sides get what they want.
It's a stupid comparison. XBox Live Arcade is the equivalent of the PSN's games as you still need to go through Sony/Microsoft's certification and review process to get published, the barrier to entry is much, much higher. XBox Live Arcade has been making a small fortune for developers there pretty much since the console's release.
This is talking about XBox Live Indie Games which is completely different- it's a place where developers can publish with no barrier to entry other than a $49 4 month subscription (or $99 for a year) and peer review as to whether your game actually works and doesn't crash.
We're talking about people being able to spend no more than a week developing a game, $49 to publish it on XBox Live Indie games, and still earning over £100,000. That's quite a contrast to having to spend months- possibly making it a full time job, and thousands of pounds and then still having to wait in line at the whim of Microsoft/Sony to publish.
Where did you get the idea it's one person? Did you only really the summary but still manage to miss the fact it said "Devs" as in plural?
A handful of people have made over £100,000 out of this in about a year, tons have made tens of thousands. Your assumption that it's a single person is simply wrong. People are making money on things they would struggle to otherwise be able to make money from, often because it means putting a lot of time, effort and money into support, distribution and marketing- all problems that XBL Indie games basically solves for you to a decent extent (although additional marketing never hurts).
What stands out with XBox Indie Games is that it's probably one of the easiest ways to build a game and publish it. Nothing matches the combination of Visual Studio.NET, C#, and XNA in terms of ease and speed of game development whilst retaining the ability to build solid, professional grade games.
You do need an XNA subscription to publish, but you only need a 4 month one to publish to the Xbox 360, and that's hardly going to break the bank at $49. You can still release on Windows for free. Once that's done, the whole process of submission for peer review, eventual publishing if in a fit state for release and payment is so well automated and simple. The subscription gives you the opportunity to play through other games people have released as part of the peer review process too.
Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly? I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better. I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.
I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now. I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.
I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.
I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?
Actually, as an afterthought I just realised that HTC is somewhat important to Microsoft too- HTC has been one of the biggest Windows Mobile success stories and one of only a small handful of manufacturers who have not dropped Windows mobile. HTC are largely responsible for Windows Mobile gaining the marketshare it did in the pre-iPhone era, so it's probably also worth noting that with Windows Mobile 7 coming out, Microsoft trying to work their way back into the cellphone market with HTC being one of their most experienced and only remaining cell phone partners, that Microsoft also may not be interested in seeing harm come to HTC.
The point is though, if Apple's patents could shut down Microsoft's core business- Windows and Office, then it's still going to put Apple in a position where they can force concessions out of Microsoft.
"Besides, why now? Why not 5 years ago? Why not last year?"
Yeah exactly, it starts making a lot more sense when you just put Apple's lawsuit in the context of their fallout with Google.
I'm sure Microsoft are taking notice though, because if Apple can enforce those patents, it can enforce those patents against everyone, including Microsoft, and not even necessarily just on phones, because most if not all the patents in Apple's claim actually seemed very generic, enough so to be applicable against desktop Windows too.
Yeah, cos when a company fucks up like that, it's not like they ever learn anything from it, and that company remains static for the rest of it's existence in this respect.
It is doomed to repeat these expensive costly mistakes, and would never do anything to rectify them.
Seriously, you think a 16 year old bug is in any way relevant to Intel's modern line of chips where processes, architecture, and methods have changed drastically? You realise that AMD wasn't even building their own design chips until 1996 and was just producing reverse engineered Intel clones? It was only 1997 that Cyrix was consumed by VIA too. 16 years is such a long time in the processor world, because things have changed so much in that time, that a bug that old is utterly irrelevant to the quality and trusworthiness or lack of of modern Intel chips.
Does it have to be a car to break the land speed record, or will any land vehicle do? If it's the latter, then this thing fits the bill and that's what matters.
Alternatively, maybe thinking like that is exactly why we have any amount of complex software in the first place.
If we spent weeks quibbling over saving a few kilobytes, then we'd never actually get any decent modern software written at all.
I just searched for *.exe on my laptop, there are 4955. Every executable on the hard drive having 11k extra, equates to around 53mb or so of extra data. On a 160gb hard drive, that's literally fuck all. It might be an pain on a 1gb hard drive, it may be an inconvenience on a 10gb hard drive, but on a 20gb or more hard drive, really, who cares? Even if you somehow managed to run every executable on your system at once on a 4gb RAM machine 60mb out of that is hardly a big deal.
In reality, I actually only have 80 processes running though, which is 880k, a fairly trivial amount of data (i.e. less than half a percent) out of even 256mb of RAM, let alone out of 1gb, 2gb, 4gb, or 8gb as modern machines have.
This meme about how applications are bloated and so forth because they're not handcrafted in assembly anymore really needs to die, it's so utterly out of date it makes no sense on modern PCs- it might matter on embedded systems and such but that's not what we're talking about here. Sometimes people have this nostalgic get off my lawn view of "When I was a lad, I had to save every kilobyte I could whilst walking 50 miles uphill in 20ft of snow to school each morning", that's nice, really, but you also didn't have software that had half the features, or games that had even close to the visual effects of even the low end software around nowadays. Even my phone is more impressive than my PC was a mere 10 years ago- and handcrafted assembly barely even mattered for the vast majority of apps then.
I'm not saying there isn't still bloated software out there, of course there is, it's a fair comment- but quibbling over 11k? really? Even if it's 11k that takes a programmer only 15 minutes to shave off, it's still not cost effective for anyone to have a programmer doing that in the vast majority of circumstances.
If every executable on the hard drive has 11k extra data because everyone thought it was insignificant, then well, yeah, they were right actually.
They're not meant to be deeply scientific, they're meant to give an overview of some of the more amazing things our planet has to offer, which they do well. That doesn't mean of course that there isn't an awful lot to be learnt for many people from those programs, because 99% of the population has absolutely no idea about the feeding habits and migration patterns of certain animals.
The likes of Horizon handle the more scientific stuff at the low to mid end. It would be nicer if there was more programs at the higher end, but the audience for that is such a small niche that it's not justifiable.
UKIP only does well in European elections because they ride on xenophobic anti-Europe sentiment which is easy to rile up in the uneducated who think anyone from a different country is somehow bad.
In general elections we see no such thing, but the sad fact is, a vote for an independent somewhat ironically really IS a wasted vote because we have no form of PR, FPTP ensures that any vote for the person who didn't win, really is indeed exactly that- a wasted vote. That's why as I say, the FPTP problem has to be solved first before we can even begin to think about seeing any meaningful amount of power amongst independents and smaller parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Liberals, Conservatives, pah. I tried to explain the other day why using PHP for desktop applications is not the best choice when you have Java, C#, C++ and so forth available instead and hence why PHP is best left to what it's good at- web apps, and got modded flamebait.
It's the PHP fanboys I'm running scared of!
It's when your red dot sight on Quakeworld TF is always a couple of centimetres behind where you're actually pointing on screen.
It's where you have to aim where you think the other player will be in 133ms and can tell yourself you're an awesome player for one shotting him because he was on ISDN and only had 60ms ping and should've easily got you first.
But then you get broadband, and realise it is actually more fun being able to just simply aim and shoot, as much as there was a feeling of victory to be had from near perfecting the skill of being able to kill those LPBs from your well honed ability to know where they were going to be when that bullet landed at the server.
6? There's that many out there now?
If they actually care, I'd imagine they'd be more upset at the fact that ID cards are almost certainly not going to survive the next election in a couple of months more than anything.
It'll be like playing Quake on dialup again, oh the nostalgia!
But it has to be absolute, either you accept the agreement or you don't, because the clause for the right to recognition of work exists because a large portion of the world do actually agree to that term. If you think picking and choosing is acceptable, then why do you think you have anymore right to ignore that principle than the music industry has to ignore your right to privacy and fair trial? It tries to establish ground that everyone should agree, and can compromise on.
Again, whilst I'm not convinced 27.2 is important enough to put alongside other rights personally, many are, but I'm not sure 27.2 is that unfair- it ensures people can't steal others work and claim it as their own for example, I'd argue that's not too bad a concept, the problem is it's quite arbitrary in it's definition, and much modern copyright law stretches the definition a little too far and often even takes it far beyond what is stated in 27.2.
So whilst I agree it's perhaps not worthy of being a human right personally, I respect that it is, and would expect that in turn, my right to privacy and fair trial is also recognised. You seem to be somewhat against the whole thing in principle, but then where are we? in a situation where a country could invade yours and rape your family, torture you, detain you without trial, and when your nation finally gets it's freedom back there is absolutely no comeback against the nation that invaded? It needn't necessarily be a foreign state either, if your nation's government is not signed up to it could just as well detain you without trial. In the UK for example, our government has in recent years tried to infringe some of these fundamental rights, but thanks to the European Court of Human Rights applying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human rights, the governments actions have been overturned- sometimes international oversight on national government is actually a very good thing.
Yes, and I was talking about both which is quite obvious to anyone who bothered to read my post.
Or were you not aware that an image of an executable on disk gets copied into RAM at runtime so 11kb extra on disk is still just 11kb extra in process space?
See my point about 80 processes running at once, with 11kb extra would still only be an extra 880kb of RAM used if it was across all processes- i.e. not enough to matter to anyone using a system less than about 10 years old.
"Under your system, the Chinese government has the right to censor information and arrest and execute random people, the Iranian government has the right to brutally put down protests and every other evil regime would be justified because that's just how things work over there."
Absolutely, that's exactly it. If you only look at a localised section of the world- that is, in China, if you ignore all external views and treaties, you do not have the rights you do elsewhere. If however you do not focus purely on China, and instead look at China in the context of the world view, then because there is a stronger view that people in China have those rights, then they can be recognised as rights- again, rights can only exist when there is enough agreement to recognise and enforce them, or at least, for there to be the will and acceptance to recognise and enforce them.
You seem to finally get it in your last sentence.
This is exactly what I said- laws do not define morality, they formally define what has previously been generally agreed as to what is moral. This is precisely the case with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- it does not define in itself what fundamental rights people should have, it cannot, because that is subjective. It defines the generally accepted world view on what those fundamental rights should be to the extent that enough people are willing to recognise them as, and support them as rights.
Okay, that's a rather simplistic and ignorant comment, I'll try and explain it for you.
It's a document that outlines the fundamental rights that must be respected by governments and citizens of any nations which has given official recognition to the document, which I believe is in fact every member of the UN- so every country in the world bar Vatican City, Taiwan, and Kosovo.
It tells you what the officially accepted view of rights is, and the fundamental rights which you have in the eyes of international law, such that if someone breaches those rights, that person must face punishment.
Generally, these rights are implemented as laws that recognise said rights, and so adherence to them and punishment for breaching with them is just dealt by local law.
So yes, a piece of paper written by a bunch of people in suits tells you the generally globally accepted view of what everyone's basic rights are. Also yes, laws often define the socially accepted level of morality too- e.g. sex with kids under 16 is generally accepted as wrong.
If you feel that the rights granted and listed by the declaration don't truly reflect the socially accepted view of what counts as a basic right, and which must be protected, then you're more than welcome to go and start a campaign to get it changed.
Are you suggesting basic rights are something that exists independently of social acceptance? Are you suggesting you unilaterally decide your rights? Rights and morals aren't something that "just exist", the natural state of the world is such that no one has any rights, and no level of morality is pre-defined- someone could come and chain you up and make you their slave, whilst raping your sister defying all views of modern rights and morality tommorrow, it relies on a general acceptance of what your rights are to protect that from happening, and those men in suits are the representatives who write the guidelines developed internationally to cover the generally accepted view of what rights people should have. You do not inherently have any rights at all, unless other people allow you them. If you want people to allow you your rights, you better allow others their rights.
I did notice some of that (although not with the marching cards), but I assumed it was mostly part of the surrealism of Wonderland.
The most important thing I'd say though, is did it make the film look better? I'd say yes, without a doubt, the 3D version still looked far better regardless and to me, I find it's a much bigger improvement than say the differences between SD and HD TV.
Indeed, a computing world filled with Apple style controlled devices would be quite horrible.
I wish you were right, but check Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find that copyright, or at least something that offers that same basic principles is in fact a fundamental right. Where copyright does stray is in things like transfer of ownership- that's not covered as a fundamental right.
Now, I really have to agree I'm not sure this is something that should sit alongside things like the right to privacy, the right to fair trial and so forth, but unfortunately, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is currently written, it does.
The real debate is in determining how far above and beyond the basic rights granted by the declaration go if at all. I would say that right now, copyright strays well too far above and beyond those rights granted in the declaration.
But that's not my point- I agree piracy is frankly what the movie industry deserves for it's price fixing.
My point is merely that 3D is an attempt by them to make money even in the face of piracy, yet people are slagging them off for doing that now. This gives the suggestion that people believe they shouldn't be able ot make any money at all from their production which is wrong- I'm fine with piracy, I believe it's a valid backlash to the over the top pricing of DVDs and so forth, but what I have a problem with is this idea that movies shouldn't be able to make any money.
Why slag off 3D if it let's Hollywood remain profitable so that Hollywood no longer has to care about pirates meaning pirates can still pirate away, and Hollywood can still make money from 3D ticket sales? It's win-win for everyone- both sides get what they want.
It's a stupid comparison. XBox Live Arcade is the equivalent of the PSN's games as you still need to go through Sony/Microsoft's certification and review process to get published, the barrier to entry is much, much higher. XBox Live Arcade has been making a small fortune for developers there pretty much since the console's release.
This is talking about XBox Live Indie Games which is completely different- it's a place where developers can publish with no barrier to entry other than a $49 4 month subscription (or $99 for a year) and peer review as to whether your game actually works and doesn't crash.
We're talking about people being able to spend no more than a week developing a game, $49 to publish it on XBox Live Indie games, and still earning over £100,000. That's quite a contrast to having to spend months- possibly making it a full time job, and thousands of pounds and then still having to wait in line at the whim of Microsoft/Sony to publish.
Where did you get the idea it's one person? Did you only really the summary but still manage to miss the fact it said "Devs" as in plural?
A handful of people have made over £100,000 out of this in about a year, tons have made tens of thousands. Your assumption that it's a single person is simply wrong. People are making money on things they would struggle to otherwise be able to make money from, often because it means putting a lot of time, effort and money into support, distribution and marketing- all problems that XBL Indie games basically solves for you to a decent extent (although additional marketing never hurts).
What stands out with XBox Indie Games is that it's probably one of the easiest ways to build a game and publish it. Nothing matches the combination of Visual Studio .NET, C#, and XNA in terms of ease and speed of game development whilst retaining the ability to build solid, professional grade games.
You do need an XNA subscription to publish, but you only need a 4 month one to publish to the Xbox 360, and that's hardly going to break the bank at $49. You can still release on Windows for free. Once that's done, the whole process of submission for peer review, eventual publishing if in a fit state for release and payment is so well automated and simple. The subscription gives you the opportunity to play through other games people have released as part of the peer review process too.
Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly? I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better. I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.
I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now. I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.
I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.
I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?
Actually, as an afterthought I just realised that HTC is somewhat important to Microsoft too- HTC has been one of the biggest Windows Mobile success stories and one of only a small handful of manufacturers who have not dropped Windows mobile. HTC are largely responsible for Windows Mobile gaining the marketshare it did in the pre-iPhone era, so it's probably also worth noting that with Windows Mobile 7 coming out, Microsoft trying to work their way back into the cellphone market with HTC being one of their most experienced and only remaining cell phone partners, that Microsoft also may not be interested in seeing harm come to HTC.
The point is though, if Apple's patents could shut down Microsoft's core business- Windows and Office, then it's still going to put Apple in a position where they can force concessions out of Microsoft.
"Besides, why now? Why not 5 years ago? Why not last year?"
Yeah exactly, it starts making a lot more sense when you just put Apple's lawsuit in the context of their fallout with Google.
I'm sure Microsoft are taking notice though, because if Apple can enforce those patents, it can enforce those patents against everyone, including Microsoft, and not even necessarily just on phones, because most if not all the patents in Apple's claim actually seemed very generic, enough so to be applicable against desktop Windows too.
Yeah, cos when a company fucks up like that, it's not like they ever learn anything from it, and that company remains static for the rest of it's existence in this respect.
It is doomed to repeat these expensive costly mistakes, and would never do anything to rectify them.
Seriously, you think a 16 year old bug is in any way relevant to Intel's modern line of chips where processes, architecture, and methods have changed drastically? You realise that AMD wasn't even building their own design chips until 1996 and was just producing reverse engineered Intel clones? It was only 1997 that Cyrix was consumed by VIA too. 16 years is such a long time in the processor world, because things have changed so much in that time, that a bug that old is utterly irrelevant to the quality and trusworthiness or lack of of modern Intel chips.
Does it even matter?
Does it have to be a car to break the land speed record, or will any land vehicle do? If it's the latter, then this thing fits the bill and that's what matters.
"If I made decisions at Microsoft, that's how I'd do it."
Totally, I would too. In fact, I'd mandate that all employees murder a baby and kick a puppy each day too.
Alternatively, maybe thinking like that is exactly why we have any amount of complex software in the first place.
If we spent weeks quibbling over saving a few kilobytes, then we'd never actually get any decent modern software written at all.
I just searched for *.exe on my laptop, there are 4955. Every executable on the hard drive having 11k extra, equates to around 53mb or so of extra data. On a 160gb hard drive, that's literally fuck all. It might be an pain on a 1gb hard drive, it may be an inconvenience on a 10gb hard drive, but on a 20gb or more hard drive, really, who cares? Even if you somehow managed to run every executable on your system at once on a 4gb RAM machine 60mb out of that is hardly a big deal.
In reality, I actually only have 80 processes running though, which is 880k, a fairly trivial amount of data (i.e. less than half a percent) out of even 256mb of RAM, let alone out of 1gb, 2gb, 4gb, or 8gb as modern machines have.
This meme about how applications are bloated and so forth because they're not handcrafted in assembly anymore really needs to die, it's so utterly out of date it makes no sense on modern PCs- it might matter on embedded systems and such but that's not what we're talking about here. Sometimes people have this nostalgic get off my lawn view of "When I was a lad, I had to save every kilobyte I could whilst walking 50 miles uphill in 20ft of snow to school each morning", that's nice, really, but you also didn't have software that had half the features, or games that had even close to the visual effects of even the low end software around nowadays. Even my phone is more impressive than my PC was a mere 10 years ago- and handcrafted assembly barely even mattered for the vast majority of apps then.
I'm not saying there isn't still bloated software out there, of course there is, it's a fair comment- but quibbling over 11k? really? Even if it's 11k that takes a programmer only 15 minutes to shave off, it's still not cost effective for anyone to have a programmer doing that in the vast majority of circumstances.
If every executable on the hard drive has 11k extra data because everyone thought it was insignificant, then well, yeah, they were right actually.
They're not meant to be deeply scientific, they're meant to give an overview of some of the more amazing things our planet has to offer, which they do well. That doesn't mean of course that there isn't an awful lot to be learnt for many people from those programs, because 99% of the population has absolutely no idea about the feeding habits and migration patterns of certain animals.
The likes of Horizon handle the more scientific stuff at the low to mid end. It would be nicer if there was more programs at the higher end, but the audience for that is such a small niche that it's not justifiable.
Yes they are, and there's a small hole in the 360 boxes through which you can see the serial number so the retailer and Microsoft could easily tell
Oh, and what he suggested is also more commonly known as fraud.
Not the smartest move, and well, certainly not recommended.
UKIP only does well in European elections because they ride on xenophobic anti-Europe sentiment which is easy to rile up in the uneducated who think anyone from a different country is somehow bad.
In general elections we see no such thing, but the sad fact is, a vote for an independent somewhat ironically really IS a wasted vote because we have no form of PR, FPTP ensures that any vote for the person who didn't win, really is indeed exactly that- a wasted vote. That's why as I say, the FPTP problem has to be solved first before we can even begin to think about seeing any meaningful amount of power amongst independents and smaller parties.