Yeah, I use Ultramon at work since I have two LCDs there. It's a great little app and makes dual monitors that much better. The two key features for me are the non-mirroring taskbars (i.e. apps open on one monitor will only show up in the taskbar for that monitor) and the button beside minimize that quickly lets you move a window from one monitor to another. Killer app.
Neither does voting- Democrats and Republicans are purchased just about equally- all choices on the ballot have been bought and paid for.
So what you're saying is that most choices can't be broken down simply to two different solutions? Welcome to pretty much every democracy outside of the USA:)
If you're an ATI enthusiast who craves the most performance, it doesn't get any better than Sapphire's TOXIC X1950 XTX at this point. Quite simply, it's the coolest-running Radeon X1950 XTX board on the market right now, and with the addition of A.P.E., it's also the fastest X1950 XTX.
.....
With an MSRP of $539, Sapphire's TOXIC X1950 XTX is by no means cheap. With street prices on X1950 XTX boards often selling for $450 or less, you could buy your own Radeon X1950 XTX board and mount an aftermarket cooler to it and still have some change left over, but you'd void your card's warranty in the process, and wouldn't get the TOXIC board's guaranteed speeds of 695MHz. Apparently that's the price you pay for peace of mind.
So, bottomline is: it's the fastest top end ATI card out there with the price to match.
You are confused - I was referring to different versions of Vista. i.e. a) why would someone pirate home when they could pirate ultimate and b) of course home will have fewer features than ultimate/business - that's the point.
The same is true for almost any product (typically, obviously not always).
There's no difference between hardware and a VM as far as the OS is concerned, what fucking business is it of Microsofts how their paying customers use the commodity product?
Yeah, exactly! Just like if someone releases something under a creative commons license - who cares if it's commercial or not? It's all the same to the maker!
Seriously though, it's Microsoft's product - they have right to decide what's done with it.
Good job - I certainly don't have the attention span to read through the EULA - I'm sure most people dont, which is the point for most software EULA's.
In addition to what you said, wasn't the whole custom computer thing (i.e. buy new Windows with new components) used as an argument against Windows XP due to it's product activation? I seem to recall people arguing that you would need to buy new copies of XP if you upgraded your computer (I admit that lack of attention makes me not search very hard for such posts). That didn't really end up being the case - I'd suspect that will happen now as well.
Looks like they will certainly reduce piracy, as even a fully function version of the OS isn't fully functional and not even worth stealing.
In other news, $cheap_product1 is reported as having less features than $more_expensive_product2. Also, theft of $cheap_product1 is not as high as $more_expensive_product2 - apparently criminals dont find the price tag to be much of a barrier.
Google has outgrown any organization like RIAA or MPAA.
Riiiiiight. Google, an advertising company (it may be "on the leading edge of internet progress" - wtf does that even mean? - but it's revenue is 99% ad based) has outgrown content creators. Now that you mention it, though, the RIAA and MPAA certainly dont represent any kind of advertising expenditure.
I know of few programs on the same level of complexity as Firefox that wouldn't have some memory issues after multiple days of active use.
I leave Outlook 2007 (beta version) open for days and/or weeks at a time and don't run into problems as severe as what he is describing. Also, since when is a web browser a benchmark for complexity?
Yeah, that's a good point I suppose. I guess if you're looking for implementations of specific classes/functions/whatever, it could be handy. It could be a double-edged sword though: I've picked up several bad habbits in the past looking at coworkers code (not to mention what I've likely passed on!) - looking over the shoulders of random people on the web may not be a good thing;)
Whenever I search for something code related on the web it's usually because I want to know how to do something. In such cases I dont really know what the code itself would be (i.e. the reason why I'm searching) so this wouldn't help at all. I suppose if you were looking for specific code it could be useful, but why would you be doing that? That would likely be your own code, so wouldn't a simple grep be easier?
I'm sure I'm missing something here - Google doesn't (usually) release useless new products:)
This is very weak, and very typical of Slashdot "editing".
For once this doesn't really have anything to do with Slashdot editing. The linked to article makes the same extrapolation. The actual title of the study is apparently No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. I dont see any links to it, but it sounds like it supports that case for at least that specific story. Generalizing the specifics of a story for the purposes of headlines is pretty common amongst news sources.
I get the impression from the poster that it's not up to him to choose how he spends his time.
Seems more likely to me that he is looking for a case with which to justify selling a non-grid solution to his boss. He may not be making the final choice, but it seems quite likely that he would have at least some influence over it. Having the right justifications and facts to back yourself up would obviously be of great help.
Psst. When you are buying a house, you are in fact paying for both real estate agents.
Umm, wouldn't the buyer pay for their agent and the seller theirs? I guess it's coming out of the same pool of money, but that money is the seller's once the sale is made. Am I missing something (never bought a house, so quite possible).
The problem with this is that in this situation there are two middlemen. First, the consumer broadband company that is providing homes with internet. Secondly, the content providers themselves are paying a middleman for their own bandwidth. So, both middlemen are being payed at present. What the broadband companies want to do is to get payed by both parties, even though one of them is already paying someone else. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to pay both real estate agents when buying/selling a house (i.e. mine and the other party's).
I come to Slashdot for the excellent editorialship and breaking news.
Indeed, looking further into the article we find:
In June 2006 NextGenTel, one of the biggest broadband providers in Norway decided to deliberately limit the bandwidth from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).
And by further into the article, I mean the first sentence of the "Original article". So, to recap, this story misses the update (which indicates that this is now a non-issue), and is reporting on something that started several months ago. Bravo:)
Update:
It seems like the customers won this battle (link, to Norwegian article). Due to bad publicity and reactions from customers NextGenTel have removed the limit and NRK is now back on full speed in their network. What should I say? Thanks to the people contacting NextGenTel and to the blogs and media that understand how this was a serious violation to network neutrality.
I'm glad to see that the bad publicity was enough to prevent it from sticking. Hopefully that's enough on this side of the world as well.
As a side note, that update was the first thing in the article (second, counting the disclaimer). You'd think the poster/editor would've noticed that...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I use Ultramon at work since I have two LCDs there. It's a great little app and makes dual monitors that much better. The two key features for me are the non-mirroring taskbars (i.e. apps open on one monitor will only show up in the taskbar for that monitor) and the button beside minimize that quickly lets you move a window from one monitor to another. Killer app.
Web 1.0 was all about porn; Web 2.0 is all about video card reviews.
So what you're saying is that most choices can't be broken down simply to two different solutions? Welcome to pretty much every democracy outside of the USA :)
.....
So, bottomline is: it's the fastest top end ATI card out there with the price to match.
You are confused - I was referring to different versions of Vista. i.e. a) why would someone pirate home when they could pirate ultimate and b) of course home will have fewer features than ultimate/business - that's the point.
The same is true for almost any product (typically, obviously not always).
Yeah, exactly! Just like if someone releases something under a creative commons license - who cares if it's commercial or not? It's all the same to the maker!
Seriously though, it's Microsoft's product - they have right to decide what's done with it.
Good job - I certainly don't have the attention span to read through the EULA - I'm sure most people dont, which is the point for most software EULA's.
In addition to what you said, wasn't the whole custom computer thing (i.e. buy new Windows with new components) used as an argument against Windows XP due to it's product activation? I seem to recall people arguing that you would need to buy new copies of XP if you upgraded your computer (I admit that lack of attention makes me not search very hard for such posts). That didn't really end up being the case - I'd suspect that will happen now as well.
In other news, $cheap_product1 is reported as having less features than $more_expensive_product2. Also, theft of $cheap_product1 is not as high as $more_expensive_product2 - apparently criminals dont find the price tag to be much of a barrier.
More at eleven.
Riiiiiight. Google, an advertising company (it may be "on the leading edge of internet progress" - wtf does that even mean? - but it's revenue is 99% ad based) has outgrown content creators. Now that you mention it, though, the RIAA and MPAA certainly dont represent any kind of advertising expenditure.
......
FYI, I use Firefox with OWA (Outlook Web Access) all the time. The 'Web 2.0' parts of it dont really work, but I can read my email just fine.
No, that would've been trolling as well. Generally stepping to the furthest reaches of either extreme will fall into that category.
I'd mod that 'pedantic' if I could - seems that's usually seen as 'insightful' here.
...they'd start charging all the -1 Trolls on Slashdot. Now that would be progress.
I leave Outlook 2007 (beta version) open for days and/or weeks at a time and don't run into problems as severe as what he is describing. Also, since when is a web browser a benchmark for complexity?
He answered your question in his post:
Yeah, that's a good point I suppose. I guess if you're looking for implementations of specific classes/functions/whatever, it could be handy. It could be a double-edged sword though: I've picked up several bad habbits in the past looking at coworkers code (not to mention what I've likely passed on!) - looking over the shoulders of random people on the web may not be a good thing ;)
My first thought was this. I didn't think anyone actually used those in real life.
Whenever I search for something code related on the web it's usually because I want to know how to do something. In such cases I dont really know what the code itself would be (i.e. the reason why I'm searching) so this wouldn't help at all. I suppose if you were looking for specific code it could be useful, but why would you be doing that? That would likely be your own code, so wouldn't a simple grep be easier?
I'm sure I'm missing something here - Google doesn't (usually) release useless new products :)
For once this doesn't really have anything to do with Slashdot editing. The linked to article makes the same extrapolation. The actual title of the study is apparently No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. I dont see any links to it, but it sounds like it supports that case for at least that specific story. Generalizing the specifics of a story for the purposes of headlines is pretty common amongst news sources.
Seems more likely to me that he is looking for a case with which to justify selling a non-grid solution to his boss. He may not be making the final choice, but it seems quite likely that he would have at least some influence over it. Having the right justifications and facts to back yourself up would obviously be of great help.
Umm, wouldn't the buyer pay for their agent and the seller theirs? I guess it's coming out of the same pool of money, but that money is the seller's once the sale is made. Am I missing something (never bought a house, so quite possible).
The problem with this is that in this situation there are two middlemen. First, the consumer broadband company that is providing homes with internet. Secondly, the content providers themselves are paying a middleman for their own bandwidth. So, both middlemen are being payed at present. What the broadband companies want to do is to get payed by both parties, even though one of them is already paying someone else. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to pay both real estate agents when buying/selling a house (i.e. mine and the other party's).
Indeed, looking further into the article we find:
And by further into the article, I mean the first sentence of the "Original article". So, to recap, this story misses the update (which indicates that this is now a non-issue), and is reporting on something that started several months ago. Bravo :)
I'm glad to see that the bad publicity was enough to prevent it from sticking. Hopefully that's enough on this side of the world as well.
As a side note, that update was the first thing in the article (second, counting the disclaimer). You'd think the poster/editor would've noticed that...
Are you actually suggesting that adultery should be a crime?