who determines what's law abiding and what's not?
on
Caught Before the Act
·
· Score: 1
The law makers. 'Law abiding' means abiding by (obeying) the law. In any case, you are already being monitored, they're just talking of devising better tools.
Can you wait till NT goes into SuperSlowMode, and then try rebooting? I notice that all my NT servers that I forget to reboot weekly will eventually hit "SSM" and crunch along, easily taking 10 minutes to bring up the task manager. So once in SSM, you can start a reset and wait for literally hours before NT can complete a basic shutdown. I ususally just pull the power (it's actually somewhat satisfying).
Note that this is on simple hardware (no loopy hardware conflicts), 20 Gig filesystems, and fairly modern systems (P II/300's).
Installing Exchange Server always adds about 15 minutes to the restart time, but I don't think you're exactly right about why. According to Microsoft (there's a technet article on it), the system pauses for a period after stopping each service to make sure each has time to complete. You can change the delay time in the Registry to make things shutdown faster, or you can, as you note, manually shut down services first.
Not only motion, but color, hides the flicker. And of course, TVs interlace to compensate for low refresh rates.
When you watch TV, the refresh rate isn't as obvious because of the low resolution, interlacing and changing picture.
On a PC monitor, you don't have interlacing, the picture is typically static, and the screen is often predominantly the same color, often white or light. This makes the refresh rate much more obvious. Set your Mac to 75 MHz and see if you can tell a differnce between watching full motion video and staring at a blank white window. (If you don't have a Mac, you probably don't care how the screen looks.)
Then again, some people just don't see the difference, or it doesn't annoy them as much. I can't hardly stand anything less than 85 MHz--it gives me headaches.
I assume BSkyB digital TV technology works like the US DBS digital systems.
Unlike than analog TV stations on cable, which all get the same bandwidth chunk, digital sat broadcasts have one enoumous bandwidth that can be split into a number of differnet feeds. As you ramp up the number of feeds, the quality for each feed drops. This can be done inequally, so that movies have bigger chunk for a better picture, while channels 'requiring' less picture quality--especially sports broadcasts--can be squeezed on. This trades off picture quality for variety.
While you make a valid point, I think it makes sense to make the unrelated note that free software will never in itself provide the masses with good UI. Quality UI isn't free, and isn't a product of anarchy.
The overriding spirit of free software is very close to the UNIX minimalist philosophy: 'make everything as effecient and functional as possible.'
Compare this to the Apple Design philosophy, which is more like: 'do whatever it takes to make the user comfortable, including sacrificing speed or functionality.'
(And of course, there's the worthless compromise of Windows: 'be somewhat easy to use and somewhat functional, provide for many features, but maximize profitability. Show no concern for size.')
Free software projects churn out great functional software, but can't in themselves provide the kind of rich, out-of-the-box pleasantness you get with high profit, well designed Apple stuff (not that all Apple stuff is awesome, but the best of it is really great). Or look at NeXT--great interface, not free. Software UI needs strong central design leadership and that requires funding. The anarchy and distributed design of free software that works so well to fix technical flaws doesn't produce a good UI. Free software projects value functionality over looks. The free window managers, a product of decentralized design, sure don't make for a consistant, intuitive experience throughout.
Strong central design creates great stuff. Compare European transit systems to the liberal chaos of (SF, CA) Bay Area public transit. When one group is in control of an area's public transit, it works well. In the Bay Area, you have two handfuls of agencies all trying to do things the way they like. You can't transverse the transit systems without a lot of frustration.
Megahertz is a poor measurement of speed. It's not even valid when comparing Celeron to Pentium III, much less between chip families from very differnt designs, like the PPC 7400 and x86.
In addition, mindless Mhz comparision fails to take into consideration things like different operating systems, application quality and the design of the surrounding PC hardware system.
The fact the x86 processors have higher clock speeds isn't useful in itself. Apple has frequently advertised various other measurements that the idiot public hasn't paid much attention to. Besides the BYTEmarks the PC-lovers love to hate, you can take a look at:
a) independant testing that shows Mac users are more effecient that Windows users because the OS is more consistant and easier to use.
b) Intel benchmarks that Apple ran against the new G4s. Mostly Photoshop filters, which the G4's Velocity Engine is best at, that whomp the PIII. (Look at apples' G4 web pages).
Because the idiot public would rather rely on megahertz, Apple now is pushing PPC development to higher clock speeds rather than just higher performance (note they are not the same goal).
Of course, the Wintel group can boast faster speed in certain areas due to flaws in the MacOS. Or features: Windows is often faster at file system "Finder" work, because it isn't managing a desktop database of metadata, doesn't handle resource forks, and doesn't calculate the size of directories. This speed trade off means you lose much of the Mac feel and features of the Finder. But it's marginally faster.
Apple can charge more because they're doing more. They sell a whole product, not just clone a basic design and outsource the software to Microsoft. In turn, you have a richer system that's less crapped together. It's suprising that Macs aren't more; this is another result of the idiot public buying only by price, not by quality. Imagine if the BMW M3 was within 10% of the price of the Ford Escort. What would you drive?
I'd like to see BeOS on both x86 and G4 for comparison. Comparing two OS on the two chips is already doable, and pointless as a hardware comparision.
Compare Mac Word98 to Win Word2000. Then compare QuickTime4 on the PC and Mac. That's interesting.
Then compare FinalCut Pro on the Mac to... the PC just sitting there overclocked to 1000Mhz creating heat. Task: edit video. The Mac wins!
Don't get too worried about the comments. MacWeek attributed the comment to "another source."
This kind of attribution means the writer didn't talk to someone worth naming. Had the comment been from Apple or Motorola, it would have been attributed that way. Evidently, the "information" came from:
1) someone at the MacWeek watercooler 2) someone on IRC or comp.sys.mac.geek.at.home 3) a bum on the street (there's lots in SF) 4) the writer's kid
MacWeek frequently attributes quotes to nobody in such a way as to make it sound authoritarian. (e.g. "according to sources close to Apple"--what the hell does that mean? Nothing!)
Don't put too much stock into journalism. It's just an exercise in creative writing to fill pages.
You are right that society in general is moving toward a total apathy of religion. But this doesn't mean that religion will fade away.
I believe religion will soon come under attack. According to the bible of religion ('The Bible'), political rulers will mount an all-out attack on apostate religion worldwide. As it is described, it will be motivated by a desire to obtain the wealth and control of religion. And interestingly, this will done not by the governments themselves, but by proxy: apparently, by the United Nations.
Today, that is only being seen in a fairly passive way: go to Europe and see how many churches are now discos or other things. But according to the prophecy, God will use the nations, through the UN, to totally destroy apostate religion: they will "hate" religion, and make it "devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and completely burn her with fire." This does not sound like a passive fall into obsurity. (Revelation 17:15-17)
As soon as government finishes the task, and turns to destroy the people of God, God destroys all world governments and sets up the utopian 'Kingdom of God' over the Earth. That's what the Lord's Prayer is talking about with "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."
This event should have a fairly large impact on some of the other/. predictions.
aufait said: "Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'"
Actually, that's exactly the definition of 'spreading propoganda.' Both their Dvorak and Microsoft arguments start with a clear agenda and continue with various proof to support their idea.
The difference between science and politics is that in science, you are suposed to start with a hypothesis and test this (impartially) to achieve a result. The point is to reach an accurate understanding.
In politics, you start with a position and try to pursuade others to agree with your idea. The point is to propogandize a belief you hold to be accurate.
Their article is politics, and only pretends to be science. Additionally, this group is receiving money to be Microsoft's lapdancer. So it's not only unscientificly prejusticed, it's whore-ably biased.
Slashdot Mirror
with iMovie
The law makers. 'Law abiding' means abiding by (obeying) the law. In any case, you are already being monitored, they're just talking of devising better tools.
Can you wait till NT goes into SuperSlowMode, and then try rebooting? I notice that all my NT servers that I forget to reboot weekly will eventually hit "SSM" and crunch along, easily taking 10 minutes to bring up the task manager. So once in SSM, you can start a reset and wait for literally hours before NT can complete a basic shutdown. I ususally just pull the power (it's actually somewhat satisfying).
Note that this is on simple hardware (no loopy hardware conflicts), 20 Gig filesystems, and fairly modern systems (P II/300's).
Installing Exchange Server always adds about 15 minutes to the restart time, but I don't think you're exactly right about why. According to Microsoft (there's a technet article on it), the system pauses for a period after stopping each service to make sure each has time to complete. You can change the delay time in the Registry to make things shutdown faster, or you can, as you note, manually shut down services first.
Not only motion, but color, hides the flicker. And of course, TVs interlace to compensate for low refresh rates.
When you watch TV, the refresh rate isn't as obvious because of the low resolution, interlacing and changing picture.
On a PC monitor, you don't have interlacing, the picture is typically static, and the screen is often predominantly the same color, often white or light. This makes the refresh rate much more obvious. Set your Mac to 75 MHz and see if you can tell a differnce between watching full motion video and staring at a blank white window. (If you don't have a Mac, you probably don't care how the screen looks.)
Then again, some people just don't see the difference, or it doesn't annoy them as much. I can't hardly stand anything less than 85 MHz--it gives me headaches.
I assume BSkyB digital TV technology works like the US DBS digital systems.
Unlike than analog TV stations on cable, which all get the same bandwidth chunk, digital sat broadcasts have one enoumous bandwidth that can be split into a number of differnet feeds. As you ramp up the number of feeds, the quality for each feed drops. This can be done inequally, so that movies have bigger chunk for a better picture, while channels 'requiring' less picture quality--especially sports broadcasts--can be squeezed on. This trades off picture quality for variety.
While you make a valid point, I think it makes sense to make the unrelated note that free software will never in itself provide the masses with good UI. Quality UI isn't free, and isn't a product of anarchy.
The overriding spirit of free software is very close to the UNIX minimalist philosophy: 'make everything as effecient and functional as possible.'
Compare this to the Apple Design philosophy, which is more like: 'do whatever it takes to make the user comfortable, including sacrificing speed or functionality.'
(And of course, there's the worthless compromise of Windows: 'be somewhat easy to use and somewhat functional, provide for many features, but maximize profitability. Show no concern for size.')
Free software projects churn out great functional software, but can't in themselves provide the kind of rich, out-of-the-box pleasantness you get with high profit, well designed Apple stuff (not that all Apple stuff is awesome, but the best of it is really great). Or look at NeXT--great interface, not free. Software UI needs strong central design leadership and that requires funding. The anarchy and distributed design of free software that works so well to fix technical flaws doesn't produce a good UI. Free software projects value functionality over looks. The free window managers, a product of decentralized design, sure don't make for a consistant, intuitive experience throughout.
Strong central design creates great stuff. Compare European transit systems to the liberal chaos of (SF, CA) Bay Area public transit. When one group is in control of an area's public transit, it works well. In the Bay Area, you have two handfuls of agencies all trying to do things the way they like. You can't transverse the transit systems without a lot of frustration.
Megahertz is a poor measurement of speed. It's not even valid when comparing Celeron to Pentium III, much less between chip families from very differnt designs, like the PPC 7400 and x86.
In addition, mindless Mhz comparision fails to take into consideration things like different operating systems, application quality and the design of the surrounding PC hardware system.
The fact the x86 processors have higher clock speeds isn't useful in itself. Apple has frequently advertised various other measurements that the idiot public hasn't paid much attention to. Besides the BYTEmarks the PC-lovers love to hate, you can take a look at:
a) independant testing that shows Mac users are more effecient that Windows users because the OS is more consistant and easier to use.
b) Intel benchmarks that Apple ran against the new G4s. Mostly Photoshop filters, which the G4's Velocity Engine is best at, that whomp the PIII. (Look at apples' G4 web pages).
Because the idiot public would rather rely on megahertz, Apple now is pushing PPC development to higher clock speeds rather than just higher performance (note they are not the same goal).
Of course, the Wintel group can boast faster speed in certain areas due to flaws in the MacOS. Or features: Windows is often faster at file system "Finder" work, because it isn't managing a desktop database of metadata, doesn't handle resource forks, and doesn't calculate the size of directories. This speed trade off means you lose much of the Mac feel and features of the Finder. But it's marginally faster.
Apple can charge more because they're doing more. They sell a whole product, not just clone a basic design and outsource the software to Microsoft. In turn, you have a richer system that's less crapped together. It's suprising that Macs aren't more; this is another result of the idiot public buying only by price, not by quality. Imagine if the BMW M3 was within 10% of the price of the Ford Escort. What would you drive?
I'd like to see BeOS on both x86 and G4 for comparison. Comparing two OS on the two chips is already doable, and pointless as a hardware comparision.
Compare Mac Word98 to Win Word2000. Then compare QuickTime4 on the PC and Mac. That's interesting.
Then compare FinalCut Pro on the Mac to... the PC just sitting there overclocked to 1000Mhz creating heat. Task: edit video. The Mac wins!
Don't get too worried about the comments. MacWeek attributed the comment to "another source."
This kind of attribution means the writer didn't talk to someone worth naming. Had the comment been from Apple or Motorola, it would have been attributed that way. Evidently, the "information" came from:
1) someone at the MacWeek watercooler
2) someone on IRC or comp.sys.mac.geek.at.home
3) a bum on the street (there's lots in SF)
4) the writer's kid
MacWeek frequently attributes quotes to nobody in such a way as to make it sound authoritarian. (e.g. "according to sources close to Apple"--what the hell does that mean? Nothing!)
Don't put too much stock into journalism. It's just an exercise in creative writing to fill pages.
You are right that society in general is moving toward a total apathy of religion. But this doesn't mean that religion will fade away.
/. predictions.
I believe religion will soon come under attack. According to the bible of religion ('The Bible'), political rulers will mount an all-out attack on apostate religion worldwide. As it is described, it will be motivated by a desire to obtain the wealth and control of religion. And interestingly, this will done not by the governments themselves, but by proxy: apparently, by the United Nations.
Today, that is only being seen in a fairly passive way: go to Europe and see how many churches are now discos or other things. But according to the prophecy, God will use the nations, through the UN, to totally destroy apostate religion: they will "hate" religion, and make it "devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and completely burn her with fire." This does not sound like a passive fall into obsurity. (Revelation 17:15-17)
As soon as government finishes the task, and turns to destroy the people of God, God destroys all world governments and sets up the utopian 'Kingdom of God' over the Earth. That's what the Lord's Prayer is talking about with "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."
This event should have a fairly large impact on some of the other
aufait said: "Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'"
Actually, that's exactly the definition of 'spreading propoganda.' Both their Dvorak and Microsoft arguments start with a clear agenda and continue with various proof to support their idea.
The difference between science and politics is that in science, you are suposed to start with a hypothesis and test this (impartially) to achieve a result. The point is to reach an accurate understanding.
In politics, you start with a position and try to pursuade others to agree with your idea. The point is to propogandize a belief you hold to be accurate.
Their article is politics, and only pretends to be science. Additionally, this group is receiving money to be Microsoft's lapdancer. So it's not only unscientificly prejusticed, it's whore-ably biased.