I've never heard Microsoft say that there was a "no selling of used games policy"...ever. What I did hear was they were contemplating not using physical media, which sparked a bunch of people to make wild assumptions. When asked about it, Microsoft responded that you could resell them (based on licensing agreements by 3rd parties), and you would get a code that you could then give to someone else so they could download and activate it. Always seemed reasonable to me, but the wild theories about everything were floating around everywhere that had no actual basis in fact or statements from Microsoft itself.
I don't post as an anonymous coward to hide my identity. I've posted when I was clearly in the minority, but I still post, and I've taken some crazy karma hits for it too. My karma is pretty good, so I don't mind the occasional hit because I'm not in the majority opinion, but I don't write inflammatory or troll posts either.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the commentary would be better off without AC posts as well.
The new base 2014 Corvette Stingray also has an aluminum frame and many carbon fiber parts. Although, I heard the 2015 pickups are reusing some of the same tech and will have an all aluminum frame as well.
What else is there by default? Java certainly is NOT there by default on windows machines, nor is it there on a very large percentage of them. According to *MY* statistics, and my target client base, java support is at 65.6%. A far smaller number than.NET/mono which sits at 85.43% (Windows) + 0.9% (Linux).
Or yet another one, what if two people cross the street without looking, and the car swerves off the road to avoid them and rather kill one person who was walking on te pavement, not doing anything wrong?
Simple, you break as quickly as you can, while obeying all traffic laws, and you let Darwin handle the outcome.
The thing is, Linux engineers would have no problem learning Windows stuff, while the opposite is more seldom.
So you admit that the pool of possible candidates is larger and will always remain larger for windows administration, yet somehow expect that the cost will be lower for linux. That's some very odd theories you have, especially considering your assumptions.
You mean like that change that happened over 7 years ago? You point out one disruptive thing that has happened to the office suite since it was created 24 years ago? One disruptive thing every 24 years I think is highly appropriate.
FYI, contrary to the summary's baseless contention, "Electrical" is not always greater than "mechanical." Otherwise, parking brakes wouldn't still be engaged with steel cables.
You also won't find in the news the guy next to him who decided he didn't need health insurance, also got into a terrible accident just like your brother. Of course, he couldn't afford it, landed up declaring bankruptcy, and while bad for him, the hospital and doctors got stuck with the bill, so now they need to pass it on to the rest of us. And welcome to the $15 asprin.
TCP window sizes are on a per-connection basis, and obviously only affects TCP traffic. Most VoIP, gaming, and many common file sharing protocols don't use TCP so any of these would be unaffected by QoS using the above techniques. Also, having many multiple simultaneous TCP connections in the order of hundreds or thousands would also render this technique useless as you would need to shrink each window so small so in case they all filled up that you could respond in a reasonable time frame that latency (vs inflight buffer) would kill the throughput of any TCP link. Which are reasons why this wouldn't work, and why it isn't implemented in anything beyond niche experimental stuff.
Well, you might want to reread the first paper, which talks about live lock, which is a completely different cause than the one you describe, although similar. You seem to understand what the problem is, but I fail to see how you don't understand why your solution is so wrong.
Live lock as described in the paper you linked was solved over a decade ago using the method described in the paper under section 5.1, at least under windows. It's a standard property to rate limit the interrupts under heavy load, and many network cards have many setting that allow you to tweak this from off to fixed to multiple dynamic methods.
Yes, so your argument is that you can, with great difficulty cause a possible security issue in C#, but in order to do so, you have to basically say... I'm about to do something possibly bad, please don't check to make sure what I'm doing is bad. Then modify the compiler from default to allow said code to be compiled, then put it into a fully trusted assembly so it bypasses all security checks, and THEN you might have an issue.
and this is comparision to where in C/C++ where you can write an exploit in 2 lines of code by accident, using nothing but defaults.
Yeah, if you continue to make 50k for 18 years straight, especially as a developer, you've done something very wrong. Living off of 29k pre-tax isn't difficult. Just difficult if you try and live like you have 50k to spend and only really have 29k. Getting ahead isn't easy if you have no self control, but it's really easy if you plan ahead and stick to it.
Why did you stop at Windows 7 Ultimate, why didn't you compare it to the price of Windows 7 Datacenter, or a customized version of Windows 7 for Supercomputing clusters? Your copy of Windows XP doesn't have any of the added features in Ultimate, so why choose that?
Of course, you could have upgraded when it first came out and saved yourself a ton of money, but you procrastinated. Maybe you should wait for Windows 9 and see if they have a deal when it launches.
For any particular crime, you can with in reason pin point it to the exact planet on which the criminal is on. I therefore suggest, we just charge everyone on that planet with the crime in the name of security. Or perhaps, just get a search warrant for the planet so we can identify the correct user. If we did this for every crime, it would solve everything.
Get a different job. They aren't hard to find. They don't want a good programmer, they want a code monkey. You'll be much happier in the long run (and the short run, and every run inbetween -- trust me).
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard Microsoft say that there was a "no selling of used games policy"...ever. What I did hear was they were contemplating not using physical media, which sparked a bunch of people to make wild assumptions. When asked about it, Microsoft responded that you could resell them (based on licensing agreements by 3rd parties), and you would get a code that you could then give to someone else so they could download and activate it. Always seemed reasonable to me, but the wild theories about everything were floating around everywhere that had no actual basis in fact or statements from Microsoft itself.
I don't post as an anonymous coward to hide my identity. I've posted when I was clearly in the minority, but I still post, and I've taken some crazy karma hits for it too. My karma is pretty good, so I don't mind the occasional hit because I'm not in the majority opinion, but I don't write inflammatory or troll posts either.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the commentary would be better off without AC posts as well.
Probably the best explanation of the problem and how adaptive sync works that I've seen. Well done!
The new base 2014 Corvette Stingray also has an aluminum frame and many carbon fiber parts. Although, I heard the 2015 pickups are reusing some of the same tech and will have an all aluminum frame as well.
Tourism web site
What else is there by default? Java certainly is NOT there by default on windows machines, nor is it there on a very large percentage of them. According to *MY* statistics, and my target client base, java support is at 65.6%. A far smaller number than .NET/mono which sits at 85.43% (Windows) + 0.9% (Linux).
Why would I be walking with my children in front of a moving car?
Or yet another one, what if two people cross the street without looking, and the car swerves off the road to avoid them and rather kill one person who was walking on te pavement, not doing anything wrong?
Simple, you break as quickly as you can, while obeying all traffic laws, and you let Darwin handle the outcome.
The thing is, Linux engineers would have no problem learning Windows stuff, while the opposite is more seldom.
So you admit that the pool of possible candidates is larger and will always remain larger for windows administration, yet somehow expect that the cost will be lower for linux. That's some very odd theories you have, especially considering your assumptions.
You mean like that change that happened over 7 years ago? You point out one disruptive thing that has happened to the office suite since it was created 24 years ago? One disruptive thing every 24 years I think is highly appropriate.
FYI, contrary to the summary's baseless contention, "Electrical" is not always greater than "mechanical." Otherwise, parking brakes wouldn't still be engaged with steel cables.
They aren't. Mine isn't.
OMG your post made me laugh so hard.
You also won't find in the news the guy next to him who decided he didn't need health insurance, also got into a terrible accident just like your brother. Of course, he couldn't afford it, landed up declaring bankruptcy, and while bad for him, the hospital and doctors got stuck with the bill, so now they need to pass it on to the rest of us. And welcome to the $15 asprin.
TCP window sizes are on a per-connection basis, and obviously only affects TCP traffic. Most VoIP, gaming, and many common file sharing protocols don't use TCP so any of these would be unaffected by QoS using the above techniques. Also, having many multiple simultaneous TCP connections in the order of hundreds or thousands would also render this technique useless as you would need to shrink each window so small so in case they all filled up that you could respond in a reasonable time frame that latency (vs inflight buffer) would kill the throughput of any TCP link. Which are reasons why this wouldn't work, and why it isn't implemented in anything beyond niche experimental stuff.
Well, you might want to reread the first paper, which talks about live lock, which is a completely different cause than the one you describe, although similar. You seem to understand what the problem is, but I fail to see how you don't understand why your solution is so wrong.
Live lock as described in the paper you linked was solved over a decade ago using the method described in the paper under section 5.1, at least under windows. It's a standard property to rate limit the interrupts under heavy load, and many network cards have many setting that allow you to tweak this from off to fixed to multiple dynamic methods.
Yes, so your argument is that you can, with great difficulty cause a possible security issue in C#, but in order to do so, you have to basically say... I'm about to do something possibly bad, please don't check to make sure what I'm doing is bad. Then modify the compiler from default to allow said code to be compiled, then put it into a fully trusted assembly so it bypasses all security checks, and THEN you might have an issue.
and this is comparision to where in C/C++ where you can write an exploit in 2 lines of code by accident, using nothing but defaults.
Yeah, if you continue to make 50k for 18 years straight, especially as a developer, you've done something very wrong. Living off of 29k pre-tax isn't difficult. Just difficult if you try and live like you have 50k to spend and only really have 29k. Getting ahead isn't easy if you have no self control, but it's really easy if you plan ahead and stick to it.
How does your system handle powering up the softraid when you turn the system on now?
Why did you stop at Windows 7 Ultimate, why didn't you compare it to the price of Windows 7 Datacenter, or a customized version of Windows 7 for Supercomputing clusters? Your copy of Windows XP doesn't have any of the added features in Ultimate, so why choose that?
Here, you go, saved you about half: http://www.dabs.com/products/m...
Of course, you could have upgraded when it first came out and saved yourself a ton of money, but you procrastinated. Maybe you should wait for Windows 9 and see if they have a deal when it launches.
It's obviousness it should be KingMotleyland.
Problem solved. All warrants now specify earth as the location.
Because no one wants to pay the $19.95 for the rental that the movie studios would want to charge for it.
For any particular crime, you can with in reason pin point it to the exact planet on which the criminal is on. I therefore suggest, we just charge everyone on that planet with the crime in the name of security. Or perhaps, just get a search warrant for the planet so we can identify the correct user. If we did this for every crime, it would solve everything.
Lawyer for a trademark issue for under $30,000?
It would likely cheaper to throw them away and make new ones that red with pink stripes.
Get a different job. They aren't hard to find. They don't want a good programmer, they want a code monkey. You'll be much happier in the long run (and the short run, and every run inbetween -- trust me).