The problem is that people are using them less and less and there's more and more directories available. I can't recall the last time I looked anything up in the phone book as it's usually more convenient to look it up online. I also have the ability to look up reviews and coupons while I'm at it.
Indeed, you've been able to get a 12" screen by default for many years. I remember them being available when I bought my first notebook back in 2003, and the form factor wasn't new at that point.
Netbooks are meant to be cheap, ultra portable and resilient. Ultra portable and resilient are why they typically use an SSD rather than a real disk.
I think it's more that MS started leaning on the manufacturers to discontinue it and started to charge them royalties for their IP whether they used Windows or not.
A genuine Netbook shouldn't be running Windows, it should use a specialty OS that's more appropriate for the form factor. And not just a neutered version either.
Plus, you can break most people with an extreme unflinching, unblinking stare. Did that to the branch manager of the company I used to work for and he just about shit his pants he was so scared.
It doesn't work against the people that you most want to use it against. The people that are really tricky will have a pretty good idea that you're full of it and make you give details.
There was a good reason for dismissing those possibilities. MS ought to be smart enough at this point to avoid those possibilities. If anything, he was overly generous in assuming that MS has the competence to know to use more than one benchmark when assessing speed and able to put together an engine which is resilient enough to deal with what should be a non-change.
Strictly speaking neither of those lines should even appear when run, that's supposed to be more or less stripped out before the engine starts doing any calculations. And in the case of the explicit return that shouldn't have any impact at all.
So, it's not without good reason that he's suggesting that it's cheating. MS at this point ought to be hiring people that are competent, at least if this isn't an effort to get themselves booted from even more people's computers.
That's not a problem with benchmarks per se, that's a problem with the idiots that insist that benchmark performance is the same thing as good performance in general.
It really depends how the benchmark is set up, certain things are known to be costly in terms of IO, RAM and processing time. And a benchmark which measures things like that and gives some meaningful indication where the time is being spent is definitely valuable.
No it couldn't. Firefox has for a long time lagged on pretty much all the tests, including that stupid ACID test. They lagged specifically because they were more focused on real improvements over faking it or optimizing for conditions that one is unlikely to encounter.
Or, it could be that they're just incredibly incompetent at cheating. I suppose that's possible. But given the degree to which the real speed has improved with the 4.0b7, I think we can largely rule out that level of incompetence.
Most likely they are cheating. The other possibilities are far less plausible. Even if you discount that possibility, either they're not competent at optimization or they're not competent at writing a robust engine.
In none of the cases is MS doing something legitimately. Optimizing to one test is invariably a bad idea, no matter how well designed, and quite honest at this point they should be able to code an engine that's a lot more resilient than that.
One of my complaints about some of the designs that are currently in use is that they don't tolerate large fingers very well. The Nexus One does a pretty good job, but it's a challenge to use it very quickly. At least it shows you what the letter is that you've pushed.
Not really. Most of what I know about politics comes through the media and yet I reach a very different conclusion than most. Perhaps it isn't so much the media as the sloth exercised by the voters in failing to research any of the topics at hand.
It's probably a limited roll out. Often times they do it in waves so that they can avoid hosing a lot of people if there's something which made it through the QA which shouldn't have. It's also a lot easier on the infrastructure.
The reason for the invites was a combination of building a buzz and not wanting to swamp the infrastructure before it had fully stabilized. The only reason to start another invite campaign would be to have people spamming their friends. Probably not the sort of buzz that Google wants or needs.
Well, to be fair, I can't imagine anybody volunteering to join Facebook. Seems like the same sort of people that go to the airport just for the free molestation.
That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.
I wouldn't say that it's inevitable, but the odds are really long on Facebook still being relevant 10 years from now. It could happen, but given the lack of competence exhibited by Facebook's managers, I would be surprised if it was still relevant in 5.
I'll have to look into that. I live a bit closer to at least three different airports that service that sort of thing. One of them is probably too small as it mostly handles small planes, but the other two can handle anything that boeing makes.
I won't be flying anymore. The fact that the TSA is now allowed to grope, fondle and molest people under threat of prosecution is beyond belief.
Newsflash to the TSA, it's not an optional screening if there are serious consequences to saying no. I wouldn't consider something optional if the alternative is paying a $10,000 fine or being arrested. Sure technically there isn't a gun to the head, but no reasonable person is going to conclude that there isn't force being applied.
This isn't any different than when a Priest, teacher or parent pressures a child to allow touching which wouldn't normally be tolerated. There is no informed consent when the party asking for it has the power to inflict such serious consequences.
I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID to board a flight. It seems like a reasonable thing to do.
What makes you think that had anything to do with terrorism? One of the biggest reasons why you'd want to do that is so that you know who's really onboard the plane. It's not a preventative measure against terrorism it is however useful in notifying next of kin that the person was on the plane rather than skipping town. Or at least make it less likely that that sort of problem will come up.
Not that it makes it OK, but he does have to tow the line to an extent, if he doesn't and anything does happen, whether or not the measures would prevent it, he loses the next election and the Democrats get painted as soft. Remember these are the same Republicans doing the smearing that told everybody there were death panels in the health care reform package to scare people into opposing it.
It's also the same Republicans that were more interested in knowing the amount of sperm on Ms. Lewinsky's dress than fighting al Qaeda in the 90s and more interested in gay men having sex than dealing with the war in Iraq.
Which is why I won't be flying via the US anymore. If I really need to fly, I'll take a quick train ride up to BC and fly from there. I'm sure I'll be flagged as suspicious, but at least that way I won't be groped by some perv TSA agent.
And yes, anybody that forces you to show you themselves naked or allow you to grope them is a pervert, medical doctors excepted. The TSA agents don't have to do it, they could very easily refuse on the basis of it being illegal and/or sue the TSA for sexual harassment.
I can't speak for the other ones, but in the US typically the people who complain about it the most vote for the politicians that are the most assholish. I really do think that there's something to the theory that America votes sarcastically.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that people are using them less and less and there's more and more directories available. I can't recall the last time I looked anything up in the phone book as it's usually more convenient to look it up online. I also have the ability to look up reviews and coupons while I'm at it.
Indeed, you've been able to get a 12" screen by default for many years. I remember them being available when I bought my first notebook back in 2003, and the form factor wasn't new at that point.
Netbooks are meant to be cheap, ultra portable and resilient. Ultra portable and resilient are why they typically use an SSD rather than a real disk.
I think it's more that MS started leaning on the manufacturers to discontinue it and started to charge them royalties for their IP whether they used Windows or not.
A genuine Netbook shouldn't be running Windows, it should use a specialty OS that's more appropriate for the form factor. And not just a neutered version either.
Plus, you can break most people with an extreme unflinching, unblinking stare. Did that to the branch manager of the company I used to work for and he just about shit his pants he was so scared.
It doesn't work against the people that you most want to use it against. The people that are really tricky will have a pretty good idea that you're full of it and make you give details.
There was a good reason for dismissing those possibilities. MS ought to be smart enough at this point to avoid those possibilities. If anything, he was overly generous in assuming that MS has the competence to know to use more than one benchmark when assessing speed and able to put together an engine which is resilient enough to deal with what should be a non-change.
Strictly speaking neither of those lines should even appear when run, that's supposed to be more or less stripped out before the engine starts doing any calculations. And in the case of the explicit return that shouldn't have any impact at all.
So, it's not without good reason that he's suggesting that it's cheating. MS at this point ought to be hiring people that are competent, at least if this isn't an effort to get themselves booted from even more people's computers.
That's not a problem with benchmarks per se, that's a problem with the idiots that insist that benchmark performance is the same thing as good performance in general.
It really depends how the benchmark is set up, certain things are known to be costly in terms of IO, RAM and processing time. And a benchmark which measures things like that and gives some meaningful indication where the time is being spent is definitely valuable.
No it couldn't. Firefox has for a long time lagged on pretty much all the tests, including that stupid ACID test. They lagged specifically because they were more focused on real improvements over faking it or optimizing for conditions that one is unlikely to encounter.
Or, it could be that they're just incredibly incompetent at cheating. I suppose that's possible. But given the degree to which the real speed has improved with the 4.0b7, I think we can largely rule out that level of incompetence.
Most likely they are cheating. The other possibilities are far less plausible. Even if you discount that possibility, either they're not competent at optimization or they're not competent at writing a robust engine.
In none of the cases is MS doing something legitimately. Optimizing to one test is invariably a bad idea, no matter how well designed, and quite honest at this point they should be able to code an engine that's a lot more resilient than that.
One of my complaints about some of the designs that are currently in use is that they don't tolerate large fingers very well. The Nexus One does a pretty good job, but it's a challenge to use it very quickly. At least it shows you what the letter is that you've pushed.
Not really. Most of what I know about politics comes through the media and yet I reach a very different conclusion than most. Perhaps it isn't so much the media as the sloth exercised by the voters in failing to research any of the topics at hand.
Assuming it ever expires. I think that it's a one off for Peter Pan, but it does have an eternal copyright at least as far as the UK goes.
Yes, and unfortunately, I fear that our Senators are too stupid or corrupt to pass on it.
I bet it's privacy. Nobody would see that coming.
It's probably a limited roll out. Often times they do it in waves so that they can avoid hosing a lot of people if there's something which made it through the QA which shouldn't have. It's also a lot easier on the infrastructure.
The reason for the invites was a combination of building a buzz and not wanting to swamp the infrastructure before it had fully stabilized. The only reason to start another invite campaign would be to have people spamming their friends. Probably not the sort of buzz that Google wants or needs.
Well, to be fair, I can't imagine anybody volunteering to join Facebook. Seems like the same sort of people that go to the airport just for the free molestation.
That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.
I wouldn't say that it's inevitable, but the odds are really long on Facebook still being relevant 10 years from now. It could happen, but given the lack of competence exhibited by Facebook's managers, I would be surprised if it was still relevant in 5.
I'll have to look into that. I live a bit closer to at least three different airports that service that sort of thing. One of them is probably too small as it mostly handles small planes, but the other two can handle anything that boeing makes.
I won't be flying anymore. The fact that the TSA is now allowed to grope, fondle and molest people under threat of prosecution is beyond belief.
Newsflash to the TSA, it's not an optional screening if there are serious consequences to saying no. I wouldn't consider something optional if the alternative is paying a $10,000 fine or being arrested. Sure technically there isn't a gun to the head, but no reasonable person is going to conclude that there isn't force being applied.
This isn't any different than when a Priest, teacher or parent pressures a child to allow touching which wouldn't normally be tolerated. There is no informed consent when the party asking for it has the power to inflict such serious consequences.
I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID to board a flight. It seems like a reasonable thing to do.
What makes you think that had anything to do with terrorism? One of the biggest reasons why you'd want to do that is so that you know who's really onboard the plane. It's not a preventative measure against terrorism it is however useful in notifying next of kin that the person was on the plane rather than skipping town. Or at least make it less likely that that sort of problem will come up.
Not that it makes it OK, but he does have to tow the line to an extent, if he doesn't and anything does happen, whether or not the measures would prevent it, he loses the next election and the Democrats get painted as soft. Remember these are the same Republicans doing the smearing that told everybody there were death panels in the health care reform package to scare people into opposing it.
It's also the same Republicans that were more interested in knowing the amount of sperm on Ms. Lewinsky's dress than fighting al Qaeda in the 90s and more interested in gay men having sex than dealing with the war in Iraq.
Which is why I won't be flying via the US anymore. If I really need to fly, I'll take a quick train ride up to BC and fly from there. I'm sure I'll be flagged as suspicious, but at least that way I won't be groped by some perv TSA agent.
And yes, anybody that forces you to show you themselves naked or allow you to grope them is a pervert, medical doctors excepted. The TSA agents don't have to do it, they could very easily refuse on the basis of it being illegal and/or sue the TSA for sexual harassment.
I can't speak for the other ones, but in the US typically the people who complain about it the most vote for the politicians that are the most assholish. I really do think that there's something to the theory that America votes sarcastically.