AVG does have the option to work together with different IM networks. Ive been using it for a while on several computers at home and Ive never had a virus breakout or a major problem. It is also very user friendly and updating doent take long, at least not with a good internet conenction.
"You could break a transistor and instead of getting a 1 in 10^-20 chance of error it's now upto 10^-9"
Im impressed about the chances of error in this post. If I know well, 10^-20 stands for something like:
0.0000000000000000001
So the post is saying is that you have an error of 1 every 0.0000000000000000001, which basically means that you have 100% chance of having an error (actually, it would turn out to be a 100000000000000000000% which is matematically incorrect so 100% is assumed). Its just a matter of remembering that having a 1 in a 100 means a 1% chance of having an error, having a 1 in 10 means having 10% chance, and having 1 in 2 is 50% chance. Just work out the numbers on a calc and youll find the calculations are right.
This means that, according to the post, overclocking would throw a 1 in a 0.00000001, which gives the mathematically incorrect percentage of 1000000000% of having an error -again, assuming that could be posible- so it also says that youll have an error both ways, WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
Looking at the post, I believe the numbers should actually be 1 in 10^20 (without the minus sign) for normal conditions and 1 in 10^9 (again, without minus sign) for overclocking.
Makes me remember when Bill Gates was quoted saying: "64 kb should be more than enough for anyone". For every era, the technological innovations of the next one just cant be foreseen with accuracy, not even if youre a tech guru.
-An internal error has occurred while performing your search. Please contact Microsoft to inform about this problem-
I prefer almost error-free beta versions rather than full of this kind of errors "final" versions.
If this guys really want to make their voices heard, then what they should do first is aim well at the people (government in this case)whose decision is banning google search results via "local laws", as google states at the very end of all their searches (oppossite to what Yahoo and Microsoft do). Aiming at google may create some argument between literate people but it is not really affecting the decision of the people who have the real power to "uncensor" the search results. Its that easy: aim your complaints at the GOVERNMENT, not GOOGLE.
There are always two sides of any given story. Just put yourselves in the shoes of any Chinese citizen and think what it would be to live without an efficient search engine such as Google. The only way to bringing all the Chinese people such a useful tool is to adapt it to their national laws. So, what is Google really doing? Depends on how you look at it. For me, they are changing the way they usually do things in order to be able to bring an efficient service to people that would, otherwise, be unable to use it. So, again, are they doing evil? I really don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
AVG does have the option to work together with different IM networks. Ive been using it for a while on several computers at home and Ive never had a virus breakout or a major problem. It is also very user friendly and updating doent take long, at least not with a good internet conenction.
"You could break a transistor and instead of getting a 1 in 10^-20 chance of error it's now upto 10^-9"
Im impressed about the chances of error in this post. If I know well, 10^-20 stands for something like:
0.0000000000000000001
So the post is saying is that you have an error of 1 every 0.0000000000000000001, which basically means that you have 100% chance of having an error (actually, it would turn out to be a 100000000000000000000% which is matematically incorrect so 100% is assumed). Its just a matter of remembering that having a 1 in a 100 means a 1% chance of having an error, having a 1 in 10 means having 10% chance, and having 1 in 2 is 50% chance. Just work out the numbers on a calc and youll find the calculations are right.
This means that, according to the post, overclocking would throw a 1 in a 0.00000001, which gives the mathematically incorrect percentage of 1000000000% of having an error -again, assuming that could be posible- so it also says that youll have an error both ways, WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
Looking at the post, I believe the numbers should actually be 1 in 10^20 (without the minus sign) for normal conditions and 1 in 10^9 (again, without minus sign) for overclocking.
Makes me remember when Bill Gates was quoted saying: "64 kb should be more than enough for anyone". For every era, the technological innovations of the next one just cant be foreseen with accuracy, not even if youre a tech guru.
-An internal error has occurred while performing your search. Please contact Microsoft to inform about this problem- I prefer almost error-free beta versions rather than full of this kind of errors "final" versions.
If this guys really want to make their voices heard, then what they should do first is aim well at the people (government in this case)whose decision is banning google search results via "local laws", as google states at the very end of all their searches (oppossite to what Yahoo and Microsoft do). Aiming at google may create some argument between literate people but it is not really affecting the decision of the people who have the real power to "uncensor" the search results. Its that easy: aim your complaints at the GOVERNMENT, not GOOGLE.
There are always two sides of any given story. Just put yourselves in the shoes of any Chinese citizen and think what it would be to live without an efficient search engine such as Google. The only way to bringing all the Chinese people such a useful tool is to adapt it to their national laws. So, what is Google really doing? Depends on how you look at it. For me, they are changing the way they usually do things in order to be able to bring an efficient service to people that would, otherwise, be unable to use it. So, again, are they doing evil? I really don't think so.