Time will tell whether Windows 7 manages to convince a majority to upgrade again, but it will be a long time before there's the kind of critical mass that happened with XP.
Current Market share (March 2010): Windows XP 32 bit (-3.48%) 40.33% Windows 7 64 bit (+3.95%) 22.99% Windows Vista 32 bit (-1.51%) 16.88% Windows 7 (+1.16%) 10.92%
XP is losing 3.48% of it's market share each month, and Windows 7 is gaining nearly 4.64% market share each month. How long exactly at that rate will it take for Windows 7 to reach this critical mass point?
Well first, I just the other day finished writing my 25th check from my checking account that I've had for 12 years. So I write about 2 checks a year, and I'd guess the majority of those were to set up direct deposit/auto withdrawl. See when you enter an agreement with a company to have them automatically pull the correct funds from your account every month, typically they ask you to send them a voided check because the bank information, and account number are on the check, which eliminates some errors in the process (debiting/crediting the wrong account because either it got copied wrong, remembered wrong, or their handwriting was so bad it can't be read).
And they aren't talking about mailing the checks. They are transmitting them online. Although, I agree that if I know someones routing number and account number, I should be able to transfer funds to it immediately with little to no hassle, and have it show up in the other account in less than 24 hours, but that's not the way it typically works unless you want to do an expensive wire transfer over here.
It does plenty of good, if you create a.xxx TLD and a.kid TLD. You can be *reasonably* assured of the content of sites using those TLDs. Now I don't expect that a site that has a majority of adult content to be forced to register a.com domain for those pages that contain absolutely no adult material, nor would I expect them to be forced to register a.xxx TLD, but being on.kid wouldn't be appropriate..xxx -> almost guaranteed adult material.kid -> reasonably child safe.com/.net/.org -> Anything including content appropriate for kids, and adults.
That way the christian purists that limit their kids to the.kid domain and firefox/chrome can automatically delete all history/cookies whenever I visit tehfapsite.xxx.
First, my array is set up with the first half of the drive as RAID-0, 128K stripe. The second half of the drives are set up as RAID-1. They are attached to a intel raid controller (ICH8R I believe).
HD Tach 3.0.4.0 says 400MB/s to 250MB/s with an average of 307.6MB/s on the quick bench. HD Tune Pro 4.01 says 251MB/s to 201MB/s with an average of 225.6MB/s.
I don't think the marvel raid controller is worth the silicon it's made from. All the other reviews I just called up from google show the drive should get around 130-135MB/s on the fast part of the drive (Hardware secrets shows 156). Based on those articles, a short stroked RAID-0 on a decent raid controller should be getting 260-312MB/s, which both HD Tach and HD Tune's averages are showing, although HD Tune's numbers are definitely much lower.
In any case, the rates the SSD achieves are worse results than my RAID-0 with both HD Tach and HD Tune. Better results could be achieved with a higher end raid controller and a larger numbers of drives.
ST31000528AS or commonly called Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.12's.
I wasn't arguing that the SSD's weren't a significant advantage, otherwise I wouldn't have one myself. Just the performance claims the parent to my original post was an exaggeration, and I corrected that. SSDs are an amazing technology, but it isn't suited for everything. Their lower than a good raid of hard drives make them less desirable for say, video editing or encoding where sequential read/write is the most important aspect (not to mention size issues, either). They may also be a bad choice for highly transactional databases that have a high write to read ratio. However, they are awesome for things like compiling where you access large numbers of small files, or booting from.
Your benchmarks for 7.2k drives is defiantly outdated. My 2 drive raid-0 is doing 400MB/sec on the fastest part, and 250MB/sec at the slowest with an average of 309MB/sec. These aren't the latest drives, nor are they highend SCSI/SAS drive, just typical seagate desktop drives. My single Intel 80GB SSD is 220-200MB from start to finish.
And you do more research, and read the entire page that you linked, you will see they even say either approach works in all modern browsers, including the method Microsoft used:
"My technique was to take a small array [1,2,3,4] and create all (4! = 24) permutations of it. Then I would apply the shuffling function to the array a large number of times and count how many times each permutation is generated. A good shuffling algoritm would distribute the results quite evenly over all the permutations, while a bad one would not create that uniform result.
Using the code below I tested in Firefox, Opera, Chrome, IE6/7/8.
Surprisingly for me, the random sort and the real shuffle both created equally uniform distributions. So it seems that (as many have suggested) the main browsers are using merge sort. This of course doesn't mean, that there can't be a browser out there, that does differently, but I would say it means, that this random-sort-method is reliable enough to use in practice."
And if you google "javascript random sort" like most programmers who don't use "shuffles" every day (or ever), the top hit is exactly what Microsoft implemented.
In which case, this would fall under 15A404(b)4 -- A crime involving theft or destruction of property. Allowing copyrightable material to be downloaded has been proven to be theft of property in the court of law. And such arrest, detention or criminal action may be held until again, stated in 15A-404(d)1 -- The determination that no offense has been committed.
No, actually, it kind of doesn't. As I have said before, the copyright issue isn't that there was a "secret". Young could have easily gotten this "secret" out in the open without breaking copyright law by writing his own version of what the document said. Was it necessary that Young maintain the exact same fonts, colors, styling, wording, copyright notices, sentence structure as was in the document to uncover the "secret"? No, of course it wasn't, and that is where and why your argument falls apart.
Under your "due process" I suppose if a policeman sees a car that has been reported stolen, he must wait for a court to file a preliminary (something) before he's allowed to pull the car over or detain/arrest the driver?
Actually, they offer linux for free. They sell support contracts.
And it wouldn't have been an issue of Young had written up his own description of what Microsoft did. If you took a look at the document in question, you'd see it's not just a plaintext list of steps that can't be communicated using different wording. As such, the document has it's own style, and literary content. It'd would not have been an issue if young had made a post that said.. Hey, I've seen an official document that says that they will disclose this this this and this, if presented with these things. He however took a document that was clearly copyrighted, and he posted it without permission of the copyright holder.
Whether the information should be a matter of public record, or not, is a different discussion entirely.
Really guys, WTF? The document was copyrighted, that is really hard to dispute considering that it takes nothing more than literally putting "Copyright 2010" on a document for it to be LEGALLY copyrighted. Young was not given permission to distribute that document, which put him in violation of copyright law, period. The DCMA was created for just this purpose to where copyrighted materials could be forced to be pulled down. Microsoft asked him to stop copying it (making it available for download), and he REFUSED. Just because you feel it's inappropriate for a company to "hide" information, doesn't make it right to break copyright laws. He could have simply paraphrased what most of the document said, and avoided the whole issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that should have read Windows 7 is gaining 5.11% market share each month.
Time will tell whether Windows 7 manages to convince a majority to upgrade again, but it will be a long time before there's the kind of critical mass that happened with XP.
Current Market share (March 2010):
Windows XP 32 bit (-3.48%) 40.33%
Windows 7 64 bit (+3.95%) 22.99%
Windows Vista 32 bit (-1.51%) 16.88%
Windows 7 (+1.16%) 10.92%
XP is losing 3.48% of it's market share each month, and Windows 7 is gaining nearly 4.64% market share each month. How long exactly at that rate will it take for Windows 7 to reach this critical mass point?
Most decent VM engines support RDP too
Really which ones? Because most don't.
But what happens after the last payment is made?
It's important because the iPhone has an absolutely horrid camera.
There is nothing secure about the paper that checks are written on.
Well first, I just the other day finished writing my 25th check from my checking account that I've had for 12 years. So I write about 2 checks a year, and I'd guess the majority of those were to set up direct deposit/auto withdrawl. See when you enter an agreement with a company to have them automatically pull the correct funds from your account every month, typically they ask you to send them a voided check because the bank information, and account number are on the check, which eliminates some errors in the process (debiting/crediting the wrong account because either it got copied wrong, remembered wrong, or their handwriting was so bad it can't be read).
And they aren't talking about mailing the checks. They are transmitting them online. Although, I agree that if I know someones routing number and account number, I should be able to transfer funds to it immediately with little to no hassle, and have it show up in the other account in less than 24 hours, but that's not the way it typically works unless you want to do an expensive wire transfer over here.
It does plenty of good, if you create a .xxx TLD and a .kid TLD. You can be *reasonably* assured of the content of sites using those TLDs. Now I don't expect that a site that has a majority of adult content to be forced to register a .com domain for those pages that contain absolutely no adult material, nor would I expect them to be forced to register a .xxx TLD, but being on .kid wouldn't be appropriate. .xxx -> almost guaranteed adult material .kid -> reasonably child safe .com/.net/.org -> Anything including content appropriate for kids, and adults.
That way the christian purists that limit their kids to the .kid domain and firefox/chrome can automatically delete all history/cookies whenever I visit tehfapsite.xxx.
Yes, the same way of saying preschool is pedophile smorgasbord.
First, my array is set up with the first half of the drive as RAID-0, 128K stripe. The second half of the drives are set up as RAID-1. They are attached to a intel raid controller (ICH8R I believe).
HD Tach 3.0.4.0 says 400MB/s to 250MB/s with an average of 307.6MB/s on the quick bench.
HD Tune Pro 4.01 says 251MB/s to 201MB/s with an average of 225.6MB/s.
I don't think the marvel raid controller is worth the silicon it's made from. All the other reviews I just called up from google show the drive should get around 130-135MB/s on the fast part of the drive (Hardware secrets shows 156). Based on those articles, a short stroked RAID-0 on a decent raid controller should be getting 260-312MB/s, which both HD Tach and HD Tune's averages are showing, although HD Tune's numbers are definitely much lower.
In any case, the rates the SSD achieves are worse results than my RAID-0 with both HD Tach and HD Tune. Better results could be achieved with a higher end raid controller and a larger numbers of drives.
That should have read "Their lower sequential read and write than a good raid of hard drives" ...
ST31000528AS or commonly called Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.12's.
I wasn't arguing that the SSD's weren't a significant advantage, otherwise I wouldn't have one myself. Just the performance claims the parent to my original post was an exaggeration, and I corrected that. SSDs are an amazing technology, but it isn't suited for everything. Their lower than a good raid of hard drives make them less desirable for say, video editing or encoding where sequential read/write is the most important aspect (not to mention size issues, either). They may also be a bad choice for highly transactional databases that have a high write to read ratio. However, they are awesome for things like compiling where you access large numbers of small files, or booting from.
Where the hell do you spend that kind of money on a RAID controller?
EMC Clariion CX3-80 will run you between $13k and $130k depending on how it is configured.
Your benchmarks for 7.2k drives is defiantly outdated. My 2 drive raid-0 is doing 400MB/sec on the fastest part, and 250MB/sec at the slowest with an average of 309MB/sec. These aren't the latest drives, nor are they highend SCSI/SAS drive, just typical seagate desktop drives. My single Intel 80GB SSD is 220-200MB from start to finish.
And you do more research, and read the entire page that you linked, you will see they even say either approach works in all modern browsers, including the method Microsoft used:
"My technique was to take a small array [1,2,3,4] and create all (4! = 24) permutations of it. Then I would apply the shuffling function to the array a large number of times and count how many times each permutation is generated. A good shuffling algoritm would distribute the results quite evenly over all the permutations, while a bad one would not create that uniform result.
Using the code below I tested in Firefox, Opera, Chrome, IE6/7/8.
Surprisingly for me, the random sort and the real shuffle both created equally uniform distributions. So it seems that (as many have suggested) the main browsers are using merge sort. This of course doesn't mean, that there can't be a browser out there, that does differently, but I would say it means, that this random-sort-method is reliable enough to use in practice."
And if you google "javascript random sort" like most programmers who don't use "shuffles" every day (or ever), the top hit is exactly what Microsoft implemented.
To be in the violation of the law simply means that there is a law that states it is illegal to do X, and someone did X.
To be proven that someone did X in a court of law, must be done in a court of law.
A legal action, is any action that is legally permissible (any action that does not have a law that states you may NOT do it).
As for an arrest, detention or stopping of criminal action, then NO, you do not need "legally appointed officials", as stated in US law:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_15A/GS_15A-404.html
In which case, this would fall under 15A404(b)4 -- A crime involving theft or destruction of property. Allowing copyrightable material to be downloaded has been proven to be theft of property in the court of law. And such arrest, detention or criminal action may be held until again, stated in 15A-404(d)1 -- The determination that no offense has been committed.
No, actually, it kind of doesn't. As I have said before, the copyright issue isn't that there was a "secret". Young could have easily gotten this "secret" out in the open without breaking copyright law by writing his own version of what the document said. Was it necessary that Young maintain the exact same fonts, colors, styling, wording, copyright notices, sentence structure as was in the document to uncover the "secret"? No, of course it wasn't, and that is where and why your argument falls apart.
Under your "due process" I suppose if a policeman sees a car that has been reported stolen, he must wait for a court to file a preliminary (something) before he's allowed to pull the car over or detain/arrest the driver?
Actually, they offer linux for free. They sell support contracts.
And it wouldn't have been an issue of Young had written up his own description of what Microsoft did. If you took a look at the document in question, you'd see it's not just a plaintext list of steps that can't be communicated using different wording. As such, the document has it's own style, and literary content. It'd would not have been an issue if young had made a post that said.. Hey, I've seen an official document that says that they will disclose this this this and this, if presented with these things. He however took a document that was clearly copyrighted, and he posted it without permission of the copyright holder.
Whether the information should be a matter of public record, or not, is a different discussion entirely.
For the record, Microsoft claimed they were the owners of copright on the document in question, and sure enough, page 2 of the document states:
"2007-2008© Copyright Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, MSN, Hotmail, Xbox and Xbox 360 are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies. No part of this handout may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of Microsoft Corporation."
Really hard to claim that Microsoft wasn't the copyright owner when the document young was distributing even had the copyright notice intact!
Is/was young able to produce written permission from Microsoft as required?
No, didn't think so.
It doesn't take going to court to be in violation of the law, just to be proven so.
Wow, I got modded as a troll for that?
Really guys, WTF? The document was copyrighted, that is really hard to dispute considering that it takes nothing more than literally putting "Copyright 2010" on a document for it to be LEGALLY copyrighted. Young was not given permission to distribute that document, which put him in violation of copyright law, period. The DCMA was created for just this purpose to where copyrighted materials could be forced to be pulled down. Microsoft asked him to stop copying it (making it available for download), and he REFUSED. Just because you feel it's inappropriate for a company to "hide" information, doesn't make it right to break copyright laws. He could have simply paraphrased what most of the document said, and avoided the whole issue.
You apparently don't know what copyright is, what can be copyrighted, and what it's original and current uses are.
Are you suggesting that linux isn't copyrightable because it's not something that a company offers for sale?
No, he was willfully in violation of copyright law. He was using the domain name in order to further violate copyright law.