... finally a judge that is requiring the RIAA to follow the law and due process.
One more nail in the RIAA's coffin - the question is what type of backlash can others (music buyers, other "potential infringers", artists, etc) expect now that it is getting harder and harder for the RIAA to conduct "Business As Usual"?
Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint
...MS hasnt agreed to do anything...
However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary.
(Micorsoft,) Please define "if necessary"... is it:
If Google continues their anti-trust case?
If enough end-users complain
If they are forced to because of the results of the anti-trust case
If BillG feels "charitable" towards his competition
Until such a definition is announced by MS, this statement doesnt mean much of anything - except perhaps as an attempt to make the general public think they are addressing the issue of choice on the public's behalf (as most of the general public will probably read into their statement in the same way that happened when the article title was created).
My DishNetwork (and the DirecTV setups I've seen) have been rock solid and had better picture quality than ComCast/CableVision (Optimum Online here).
Much of this though is due to two major factors being required... (1) A proper satellite setup, and (2) a good satellite box.
If those requirements are met, satellite seems to far surpass cable - include also a higher number of HD and HD near channels on satellite and the difference is night and day.
Also add to the factors, something that the cable companies (and Verizon/AT&T) dont want you to know... their signals are also coming in (primarily) from satellites. While a satellite setup at your house has it's own satellite, the cable networks have satellites at their local stations/distribution centers that receive the signals and then send them through the cables (with the regional differences being done at the local distribution stations, like the late night ads for the plumber down the block).
I've found that poor reception due to storms is as prevalent in cable feeds on the East Coast as they are with satellite. It took a massive storm for interference to my satellite system, with less massive ones causing little or no interference, while with cable, the glitches seem to be more numerous during moderate storms but sometimes more short lived (a few seconds compared to a minute to 5 minutes). The cable companies' larger dishes are probably the cause for less lengthy glitches - though I have experienced far more glitches (signal degradation/loss) using cable.
If your satellite is set up properly, many signal issues caused by accumulated snow can be virtually eliminated. If it is aimed and located properly (no trees, etc in it's line of sight, and a secondary satellite also within line of site) then even severe storms cause little or no interference. Mine was aimed at two satellites and tuned to both - with my box being able to re-adjust for either automatically or manually using it's remote.
A poor setup [things like trees in the line of sight, only one satellite programmed into the system, the dish not properly aligned due to a poor location choice preventing proper pointing of the dish (for instance, side of the house providing wrong angle because the roof or a higher point isnt easily accessible)] seem to be the causes of Dish Systems underperforming their cable counterparts.
The other factor as mentioned earlier in this post is the dish's set-top-box. The dish signal is sent in a compressed digital format (MPEG of some sort) and the decoder in the box is definitely a cause for great or crappy image quality (and everything in-between). The same could be seen a number of years back when buying a really cheap DVD player and a higher quality one. The cheap one (in my particular experience, some off brand starting with an "A") drops frames, downsampled the resolution, showed video glitches during high frame motion and had artifacts when viewing big color contrasts and/or black/grey areas. Playing the same DVDs after returning said model for a better quality (and more expensive) one resolved all of those issues. While nowadays when buying a DVD player such things are rarely issues since the decoder chipsets have increased in capabilities greatly, similar issues still seem to arise in various brands and models of satellite set-top-boxes, with quality sometimes varying greatly between models.
My satellite setup came with two boxes, both different models... while both models were decent, the one I used (gave a roommate the "cheaper" one) consistently put out a better picture and sound quality (and is the one I am using as a reference in my comparisons). Oddly, we were paying the same amount for both receivers, but got two different models and were not allowed to switch the cheaper one out to the better model... but that was years ago.
Interestingly, this machine pulls 1400 watts when running at full tilt. I'm guessing it stores a lot of power (in something like capacitors) for power conditioning and filtering - and remaining on until it does it's necessary "Ooops... no power" functions.
It's kinda neat unplugging it while it is on and watching it still run. Usually, it hits about 15 seconds from after it complains there is no ac power (which happens immediately).
Right... but if EMI is (was?) an RIAA member company, how will that affect the way RIAA operates with content published by EMI? Domehow I have a feeling that the RIAA doesnt call up EMI, Sony, etc and say "Hey, so and so just downloaded 'The Music We Publish Sucks' by Another Runofthemill Artist... should we sue them on your behalf? Or perhaps EMI, Sony, etc contact the RIAA and have them institute suits...
So/Or does this mean that EMI will soon no longer be an RIAA company? (Speculation or facts wanted)
I'm not sure what parent is using, but I own a Netfinity, and it can be set up so that
Opening the case triggers some action (shut-down, lock-up, email/network/pager/phone alert, etc)
changing hardware in the machine triggers some action (shut-down, lock-up, email/network/pager/phone alert, etc)
a device failing triggers some action (shut-down, lock-up, email/network/pager/phone alert, etc)
Powering off the machine (via the soft-power through mobo switch) triggers some action (lock-up next start, email/network/pager/phone alert, etc)
shutting down the power supply (using the switches on the power supplies) triggers some action (lock-up next start, email/network/pager/phone alert even with no power, etc)
physically unplugging all 3 power cords triggers some action (lock-up on next start, email/network/pager/phone alert, etc even with no power)
cutting the power to the location instantaneously triggers some action (lock-up on next start, email/network/pager/phone alert, etc)
and on many models, trying to remove the unplugged unit from a building triggers some action (email/network/pager/phone alert, etc) - with the appropriate RFID station in said building.
Parts of the machine stay on for a very long time without power, and the whole machine itself can take up to 30 seconds to power down with no power connected. The System Management board has it's own internal power (though minimal), and most every hardware or power related issue gets logged into the hardware's system log - even with no power to the machine (ie: pulling all plugs or hitting the circuit breaker will make the machine log a "No AC Power" with Time & Date stamp; and send out a notification - even though it has no AC power - before the machine drains what is stored internally).
Pretty neat piece of machinery - and at 130lbs and a ridiculously high "guaranteed uptime" I guess such functions arent much to expect. Even so, many far lower end Netfinity's and their Intellistation brethren have (had) at least a few of the same features/capabilities).
I am presuming the replacement i Series e-Servers do as well - though that is just a presumption, and reality may be far different.
-Robert
PS: Making a home brew solution is very easy [though I think some boards natively support this through their "Case Tamper" pins which just need to be wired to a case intrusion switch (standard roller arm switch)]
Except, we're on slashdot, therefore I can presume that we are normally referring to such individuals.
You can presume that, but that is not what you clearly stated:
Since most consumers aren't buying WinVista if they can avoid it.
"Since most of us aren't..." would have allowed you to claim a presumption about/. users that may have been more accurate (which is still debatable as there are people here who seem to love Vista, and there has never been a poll to determine how many here will wait and how many here will not).
Nonetheless, a contradictory presumption of your own clearly worded statement is ridiculous. Most consumers are not/. readers. All/. readers combined equal a small percentage of "most consumers". Thus/. readers are irrelevant to your statement because of how you worded.
You wrote it, not me.
Regardless, on your last statement:
Personally, until I see an actual list of the questions, their sequence, the methodology, and the counts (with regional breakdowns, time of day, self-selection criteria versus random phone calls, how they handled people with unlisted cell numbers), any statistical study is meaningless.
I agree - but then that begs the question of how you determined "Since most consumers aren't buying WinVista if they can avoid it." regardless of how you try to (re)define "most consumers".
The last paragraph of your last post would seem to indicate that you think there is yet no basis to determine how many consumers (/. or otherwise) arent buying Vista... yet you came to a conclusion about a (apparently ever changing in your mind) group of people related to just the claim you say there is no valid or provable information for. You are thus claiming (no matter how you re-qualify your original post) your own statement is meaningless, since any study related to your claim is meaningless (by your own admission).
I am really losing track of what you are trying to say as you keep swicthing donkeys mid-stride.
most consumers - no, slashdot users (which we can presume accounts for most consumers "Except, we're on slashdot, therefore I can presume that we are normally referring to such individuals."
"Since most consumers aren't buying WinVista if they can avoid it." - no, wait "Personally, until I see... blah, blah blah...any statistical study is meaningless." - oh, wait; "I guess that means my ever changing initial premise is just as meaningless"
It seems you are just attempting to incite a flame war here.
Ah well, it is/. - this seems to be the place for it.;-)
Thanks for clarifying... makes a lot more sense now.
But, nonetheless, I would still have evaluated the situation myself, your reasons not withstanding.
Yes, Firefox does (appear to) use more memory. It used to have a very big memory leak - which has since been near eradicated (confirmed through testing and reading other's results). It appears to take more memory to run - but this is because, unlike IE, it doesnt use the already loaded IE components to run. IE takes as much memory, but many core functions are also used by the OS and thus already loaded, thus opening an IE window doesnt increase the memory usage as much as opening a Firefox window. This might be reason to choose IE over Firefox based off memory requirements/availability - but otherwise (to me) is a moot point (especially when considered memory bloat, which the situation is definitely not). Firefox uses far more memory to cache objects and (historical) pages than IE... then again, IE uses far more disk space (regardless of what you tell it to do) to cache the same. Thus, to me, this aspect of memory usage is also irrelevant; both browsers allow you to delete the caches and free the memory and/or disk space utilized. A winning aspect for Firefox on this, is, (as noted in the article referenced in the original post) you can control how much memory Firefox uses for each aspect of web surfing - and Firefox adheres to these rules - while IE does not. A few hundred meg to a gig or two of temp files seems to be the norm for IE after intensive surfing regardless of what settings you choose in IE, forcing you to pull up the Internet options and delete the cached info. Firefox wins when it comes to that as well - a lot less clicks to do the same thing, and easier to find "Tools -> Clear Private Data", and a lot more user control as to what data/cache info you delete.
Firefox (for me) wins in respect to conforming (better) to web standards... something MS still has not managed to match. Yes, neither are perfect in this respect, but Firefox comes closer. While to most people, that would make IE the choice for surfing since it has the market-share, and things (web pages and apps) are more likely to work using MS's broken and/or proprietary "standards", I prefer supporting a model that (as closely as possible) meets those standards to help further promote such adherence, and since in doing web design, that means also supporting IE's ever changing method of handling such things, I find Firefox an easier browser to write to, as it rarely breaks standards compliance when updated, while IE has with each release.
When it comes to security, I also prefer Firefox... again, it too isnt perfect and has suffered from it's share of exploits, but they are (usually) far less severe and less numerous than the ones on IE. And certain classes of exploits are safer to be hit with when using Firefox over IE... such as exploits that hijack or hose the browser. Firefox is simple to re-install... Windows isnt that fun to re-install which is usually the required action if IE truly gets hosed. The Firefox community also seems much more prone to respond to exploits (in general, though not always) than MS is for IE. They usually (but not always) seem to work on fixing the issues at hand, while MS usually (but not always) tries to make a patch to work around it, until someone figures out a way to work around that, which restarts the patch->hack->patch cycle ad-infinitum (such as buffer overflows - which MS's patches seem to usually only deal with the specific exploit instead of actually fixing the broken memory model that allows it, hence patch after patch after patch dealing with buffer overflows alone).
Firefox I also find to be much more customizable than IE, with tons of third party widgets, extensions and apps for it. And (brings me back to another point) if I hose Firefox by improperly installing an add-on, or improperly configuring it, or improperly selecting one (that isnt compatible with my version - which is near impossible
Most consumers dont know the technical merits or technical disadvantages to choose between the two and probably dont care. If you had said "most informed and educated IT Professionals" then maybe your statement would have been correct - I emphasize maybe, because though I think it would be the decision *I* would make, I have yet to see enough (accurate) statistics to confirm or agree with even such a statement as that.
The GGP post wasn't talking about the modifications mentioned in the article, he was talking about about:config changes in general. Obviously, the article isn't going to have "dangerous" about:config tweaks. But then the GP chimed in that more or less no matter what you do, Firefox will handle the changes admirably, which just isn't true. And so, for completely ignoring facts and blindly posting incorrect, positive comments anyway, I said he's a fanboy.
I dont see anywhere in his post where he infers that. And regardless, whatever you do using about:config, if you have that backup, then his point is correct.
As for the other part of my comment, it's exactly the "ignore the facts in favor of blind praise" type people who drove me away from Firefox. Question anything about their precious, and they take it as a direct personal insult. I'm not joining a religion, I just want a web browser. Every project has them, but somehow Firefox seems to get the lion's share.
So, you are saying that because you think he and others subscribe to the "ignore the facts in favor of blind praise" category, that you would be childish enough to not evaluate the situation yourself and come to your own conclusion? And please dont claim now that that isnt what you meant - it is exactly what you said: "it's exactly the "ignore the facts in favor of blind praise" type people who drove me away from Firefox. "
So, if he's a fanboy, what does that make you? Just curious.
I guess I'm just a guy who doesn't like bullshit.
Ah, so much so, that you admit to bullshit yourself? So much so, that you decided you thus cannot evaluate the software yourself to come up with your own opinion? So much so, that you assume that just because there are fanboys out there, with fanboy attitudes (not claiming the GGP was such), that you are unwilling to use Firefox? If your comment and stance on such things were anywhere near mature - much less a good way of determining such things, then no one would use IE, Windows or Linux - as each have their fanboy communities.
Here's the other part I suspect you are missing. Each such community's fanboys are probably right on many points, regardless of what reason they came to them. Just because a fanboy says something doesnt mean... well, anything. You obviously have a brain... use it to make your own conclusions. It doesnt matter what a fanboy, zealot or even a well informed/educated tech geek thinks. In such things, their thoughts are irrelevant. As an example, I despise (most versions of) Windows (Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.x)... but the truth is, for many people it is the appropriate solution to their needs - even for me, there are tasks I prefer to do in Windows, over doing in Linux, eComStation or on a Mac. When I came to that decision, it wasnt based on what a fanboy or fanboys said - and it wasnt even based on a comparison of the technical strengths of the OS's. It was based on best tool for the job. It's like comparing a motorcycle to a pickup truck. If it's snowing out (or I have a lot of groceries to bring back from the supermarket), guess which I would pick? The faster, smoother riding, far more fuel efficient, far more enjoyable to ride one? Nope. The one that suits the task at hand - the pickup.
Thinking for oneself seems to be a commodity few people want to buy anymore. You should try it though. And not because I am a "thinking for oneself" fanboy (though I am), but because you may like the results.
Why? He's 100% right! Just follow the instructions and you are all set with no chance of there being problems. You see, the instructions on that web page clearly state in bold letters: "Keep a log of everything you change, or make backups."
So, either:
Firefox acts weird or doesnt run at all, and you restore prefs.js from backup and have no problems
or it worsens performance, and you restore from backup and have no problems
or it improves performance and you happily surf away and have no problems
So, because he is correct, he's a fanboy? With IE, you run the possibility of having to do much more than restore a preferences file if you hose something. With Firefox, if you follow the instructions (and something goes wrong), it takes you a few extra seconds to restore the file to original state and "nothing major" happens (other than a wasted few minutes in total trying the tweaks).
So, if he's a fanboy, what does that make you? Just curious.
(1) You are assuming I want to see Windows/Microsoft die... I'm a computer technician and co-own my own business with my brother... more than half of our repairs are Windows related issues (Windows hosed something, viruses, spyware, etc - listed in no particular order). As much as I hate the fact that crappy software with lotsa holes is the cause for more than half our repair labor, I'd rather not do without it.
(2) MS already has things in their EULA that says they can and will share your info with themselves and their affiliates/partners - that unfortunately includes anyone who advertises through them. So, sharing the info wont be illegal. It's obtaining it without the individual's permission that would be. And that can simply be covered in yet another massive EULA in yet another update that installs these components ambiguously referring to them as a security or service update [kinda like WGA - which was the point I was trying to make that you seemed to have missed... WGA may not be such an evil thing in and of itself (though that could be debated) - it's how they slipped it past the end user with very ambiguous, and sometimes outright incorrect information in it's EULA]. I never mentioned anything about MS Update or legal or illegal licenses. I pointed out the deceptive method MS used to deploy WGA - and numerous similar business practices.
(3) More and more, we the people are learning that businesses can lobby to have laws changed to allow them to break what previously was a law that applied to them... SoundExchange and the Copyright Office, RIAA and the CanSpy Act, RIAA & others and the DMCA with it's ridiculous loopholes, MPAA and the DMCA - just to point out some of the more obvious ones that you probably have seen on/. (since you dont seem to have given this much thought - though there are tons of others, environmentally, privacy related, freedom related, computer related, etc).
(4) I dont know what you mean by "even a lot of small companies..." - MS isnt a small company. What a small company can get sued for (civilly) or can get criminal charges brought against for; can and often end the company in a very short period of time. MS though is far from a small company, and such suits (whether criminal or civil) can be dragged out for many many years - making it rather irrelevant whether what they are doing is illegal; since by the time the case(s) are over, the damage has been done (over the span of years).
(5) The casual user WONT catch wind of this - or if they do, they'll buy into whatever idiotic reason MS claims this new "feature" is being added for - simply out of naivety - because I am damn sure the casual user doesnt read/., Groklaw or anywhere else that will post a breakdown of what this "feature" really does and will add to their computer experience. As an example, even with the tremendous growth in the AV market, there are still a lot of users who (a) dont know what a virus is, (b) dont know what a virus does, (c) dont know why a virus is dangerous, (d) dont realize they need good anti-virus software (or dont think it's that important) or (e) dont think they'll get one because they only surf the web (or combinations of 2 or more of the above). It is that type of computer illiteracy (on a technical level) that means it doesnt even matter if the casual user catches wind of this.
Kinda like (as another example) the whole Vista downsampling/upsampling HD streams causing higher resource usage and lower quality HD content. On/. there were pages of complaints and rants about it... the casual user goes on blissfully never knowing whats going on - and probably wouldnt understand it if they did (assuming MS explained it - their explanation makes it sound like a rather good thing). Arguably, probably anyone on/. could explain it to the casual user and they would understand - but there are a lot more of them than there are people here - and it's not like we are gonna take out commercials
Do YOU realize that MS claims they are going to be doing this, it is being developed by MS China
from Microsoft's research lab in Beijing, China where I am sure the government there is supporting and/or assisting them, and that with MS' ability to control and monitor the OS and IE, these "theoretical algorithms" are in reality far from theoretical.
You act like this is working software already on people's computers without their permission. Geesh.
Working software - yes - in test versions from what the article says - it does indicate they've done enough work on it and studied the results sufficiently to glean a bunch of the information they are already after.
already (installed) on people's computers without their permission. - without their permission? You mean like WGA and numerous other components in Windows that the closest thing to permission is "Agree to this EULA or dont use any of our software"? Yeah... I can see it happening. Fits their track record very nicely.
Second, a five year moratorium on biofuels is not what is needed. A permanent moratorium on growing plants in soil as a biofuel feedstock is what we need.
Hi Drinkypoo, what if instead of a moratoreum, we stop burning crops that the govt is subsidizing in the US and use that for biofuel? Yeah, it's not a global solution (or maybe with some work, us and other countries doing similar things can make it a global solution). Just a thought. Never looked into how much corn crops are destroyed compared to how much ethanol they could have produced compared to how much ethanol we are using and trending towards... but at the least, it should improve the situation I would think...
Then again it's been a long day... so I am not sure if I am actually thinking at all...
Because what MS is claiming on planning to do means they are defining "browser history" as browser history, cache, cached form data, form data and more in order to accumulate the data they are going for. That is a far cry from what Google is doing. In addition, MS has proven they are far less trustworthy than Google and many other companies out there (see numerous lawsuits and anti-trust cases in this and other countries). Also, people opt in to allow Google to have access to their data. MS is making no such claim... they are claiming "This is what we are going to do" which is far different. And yes, other companies have tried similar things and been sued in court and lost and/or fined for their actions. So, there's the difference.
If people want to bitch about Big Brother, they should look to Washinton DC, not Washington State.
I think people here are bitching about the invasion of privacy this would add up to. For that, it doesnt matter if it's Washington DC, Washington State, or the guy who lives down the block who is illegally obtaining your personal information - just because they decided they wanted to for whatever twisted reasons they claim.
There are a plethora of other methods to allow such functionality. Where I used to work, we had a nationwide network, and amazingly, all I had to do was log in to the nationwide network and voila! My home drive, preferences and all available!!! On XP and 2000 based clients!!! Wow!!! Amazing!!!! And that doesnt even cover the semi-thin network clients that did all the same as well...
So, in what way does MS now need to spy on and collect personal information about a user's viewing habits to determine who they are, where they live, and possibly tons of other even more sensitive information to enable a feature that already exists and works?
It's interesting that parent was modded troll, when what he posted was for the most part accurate.
If it is illegal for (spam) companies to glean such information, why would it be legal for Microsoft to gather such info for their own marketing purposes - or those of their affiliates (which broadly covers everyone using Windows Live Search)?
Spam, above is in parenthesis because I am indicating companies, who through similar actions have been considered spam companies.
Though the Linux point may make parent seem like a troll, it too is accurate - and one of the few PC based alternatives... so perhaps to make parent not considered by the over-sensitive on/. a troll, the last paragraph should have read...
These people are getting freaking spooky. We really need to shut them down and fast. Stop frigging buying Microsoft products. Protect your security and your privacy by using Linux, eComStation, MacOSX, or any other OS not from Redmond .
Though perhaps that too seems like a troll... but the fact is, if MS has it's way, the only other alternative is to not use the Internet - which isnt going to happen... the truth is not a troll post. The only part of his post that may be inaccurate is the part about the NSA - though the government did request such code be installed in Windows, I dont know if anyone actually ever proved such an occurrence happened, and though MS claimed they would not do such a thing (which we've learned means nothing in the real world), there oddly are enough back doors in Windows to make one wonder.
Mod parent up... just my opinion. You dont have to like what someone posts to realize the validity of it.
This may all become a moot point if the multi-format drives (by Samsung and LG) mentioned earlier on/. (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/19332 01) become a reality, thus allowing end-users to buy content on HD-DVD or BluRay or regular DVD and run any of them on their drives/players. This would also allow the studios to release in whatever format they are geared up for instead of in both formats - or instead of hoping the format they selected "wins the war" (as the war would essentially end in a "it doesnt matter anymore" scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
... finally a judge that is requiring the RIAA to follow the law and due process.
One more nail in the RIAA's coffin - the question is what type of backlash can others (music buyers, other "potential infringers", artists, etc) expect now that it is getting harder and harder for the RIAA to conduct "Business As Usual"?
Contrary to the title of the article...
Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint...MS hasnt agreed to do anything...
However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary.(Micorsoft,) Please define "if necessary"... is it:
Until such a definition is announced by MS, this statement doesnt mean much of anything - except perhaps as an attempt to make the general public think they are addressing the issue of choice on the public's behalf (as most of the general public will probably read into their statement in the same way that happened when the article title was created).
Just my thoughts on the matter...
-Robert
My DishNetwork (and the DirecTV setups I've seen) have been rock solid and had better picture quality than ComCast/CableVision (Optimum Online here).
Much of this though is due to two major factors being required... (1) A proper satellite setup, and (2) a good satellite box.
If those requirements are met, satellite seems to far surpass cable - include also a higher number of HD and HD near channels on satellite and the difference is night and day.
Also add to the factors, something that the cable companies (and Verizon/AT&T) dont want you to know... their signals are also coming in (primarily) from satellites. While a satellite setup at your house has it's own satellite, the cable networks have satellites at their local stations/distribution centers that receive the signals and then send them through the cables (with the regional differences being done at the local distribution stations, like the late night ads for the plumber down the block).
I've found that poor reception due to storms is as prevalent in cable feeds on the East Coast as they are with satellite. It took a massive storm for interference to my satellite system, with less massive ones causing little or no interference, while with cable, the glitches seem to be more numerous during moderate storms but sometimes more short lived (a few seconds compared to a minute to 5 minutes). The cable companies' larger dishes are probably the cause for less lengthy glitches - though I have experienced far more glitches (signal degradation/loss) using cable.
If your satellite is set up properly, many signal issues caused by accumulated snow can be virtually eliminated. If it is aimed and located properly (no trees, etc in it's line of sight, and a secondary satellite also within line of site) then even severe storms cause little or no interference. Mine was aimed at two satellites and tuned to both - with my box being able to re-adjust for either automatically or manually using it's remote.
A poor setup [things like trees in the line of sight, only one satellite programmed into the system, the dish not properly aligned due to a poor location choice preventing proper pointing of the dish (for instance, side of the house providing wrong angle because the roof or a higher point isnt easily accessible)] seem to be the causes of Dish Systems underperforming their cable counterparts.
The other factor as mentioned earlier in this post is the dish's set-top-box. The dish signal is sent in a compressed digital format (MPEG of some sort) and the decoder in the box is definitely a cause for great or crappy image quality (and everything in-between). The same could be seen a number of years back when buying a really cheap DVD player and a higher quality one. The cheap one (in my particular experience, some off brand starting with an "A") drops frames, downsampled the resolution, showed video glitches during high frame motion and had artifacts when viewing big color contrasts and/or black/grey areas. Playing the same DVDs after returning said model for a better quality (and more expensive) one resolved all of those issues. While nowadays when buying a DVD player such things are rarely issues since the decoder chipsets have increased in capabilities greatly, similar issues still seem to arise in various brands and models of satellite set-top-boxes, with quality sometimes varying greatly between models.
My satellite setup came with two boxes, both different models... while both models were decent, the one I used (gave a roommate the "cheaper" one) consistently put out a better picture and sound quality (and is the one I am using as a reference in my comparisons). Oddly, we were paying the same amount for both receivers, but got two different models and were not allowed to switch the cheaper one out to the better model... but that was years ago.
Just things to keep in mind.
-Robert
Interestingly, this machine pulls 1400 watts when running at full tilt. I'm guessing it stores a lot of power (in something like capacitors) for power conditioning and filtering - and remaining on until it does it's necessary "Ooops... no power" functions.
It's kinda neat unplugging it while it is on and watching it still run. Usually, it hits about 15 seconds from after it complains there is no ac power (which happens immediately).
Right... but if EMI is (was?) an RIAA member company, how will that affect the way RIAA operates with content published by EMI? Domehow I have a feeling that the RIAA doesnt call up EMI, Sony, etc and say "Hey, so and so just downloaded 'The Music We Publish Sucks' by Another Runofthemill Artist... should we sue them on your behalf? Or perhaps EMI, Sony, etc contact the RIAA and have them institute suits...
So/Or does this mean that EMI will soon no longer be an RIAA company? (Speculation or facts wanted)
But how does this affect EMI's relationship with Sony and the RIAA, and how would this affect (possible) actions from the RIAA?
Not trying to troll or start a war, just curious as I cant find anything that discusses this aspect anywhere online.
Parts of the machine stay on for a very long time without power, and the whole machine itself can take up to 30 seconds to power down with no power connected. The System Management board has it's own internal power (though minimal), and most every hardware or power related issue gets logged into the hardware's system log - even with no power to the machine (ie: pulling all plugs or hitting the circuit breaker will make the machine log a "No AC Power" with Time & Date stamp; and send out a notification - even though it has no AC power - before the machine drains what is stored internally).
Pretty neat piece of machinery - and at 130lbs and a ridiculously high "guaranteed uptime" I guess such functions arent much to expect. Even so, many far lower end Netfinity's and their Intellistation brethren have (had) at least a few of the same features/capabilities).
I am presuming the replacement i Series e-Servers do as well - though that is just a presumption, and reality may be far different.
-Robert
PS: Making a home brew solution is very easy [though I think some boards natively support this through their "Case Tamper" pins which just need to be wired to a case intrusion switch (standard roller arm switch)]
You can presume that, but that is not what you clearly stated:
Since most consumers aren't buying WinVista if they can avoid it."Since most of us aren't..." would have allowed you to claim a presumption about /. users that may have been more accurate (which is still debatable as there are people here who seem to love Vista, and there has never been a poll to determine how many here will wait and how many here will not).
Nonetheless, a contradictory presumption of your own clearly worded statement is ridiculous. Most consumers are not /. readers. All /. readers combined equal a small percentage of "most consumers". Thus /. readers are irrelevant to your statement because of how you worded.
You wrote it, not me.
Regardless, on your last statement:
Personally, until I see an actual list of the questions, their sequence, the methodology, and the counts (with regional breakdowns, time of day, self-selection criteria versus random phone calls, how they handled people with unlisted cell numbers), any statistical study is meaningless.I agree - but then that begs the question of how you determined "Since most consumers aren't buying WinVista if they can avoid it." regardless of how you try to (re)define "most consumers".
The last paragraph of your last post would seem to indicate that you think there is yet no basis to determine how many consumers (/. or otherwise) arent buying Vista... yet you came to a conclusion about a (apparently ever changing in your mind) group of people related to just the claim you say there is no valid or provable information for. You are thus claiming (no matter how you re-qualify your original post) your own statement is meaningless, since any study related to your claim is meaningless (by your own admission).
I am really losing track of what you are trying to say as you keep swicthing donkeys mid-stride.
It seems you are just attempting to incite a flame war here.
Ah well, it is /. - this seems to be the place for it. ;-)
Thanks for clarifying... makes a lot more sense now.
But, nonetheless, I would still have evaluated the situation myself, your reasons not withstanding.
Yes, Firefox does (appear to) use more memory. It used to have a very big memory leak - which has since been near eradicated (confirmed through testing and reading other's results). It appears to take more memory to run - but this is because, unlike IE, it doesnt use the already loaded IE components to run. IE takes as much memory, but many core functions are also used by the OS and thus already loaded, thus opening an IE window doesnt increase the memory usage as much as opening a Firefox window. This might be reason to choose IE over Firefox based off memory requirements/availability - but otherwise (to me) is a moot point (especially when considered memory bloat, which the situation is definitely not). Firefox uses far more memory to cache objects and (historical) pages than IE... then again, IE uses far more disk space (regardless of what you tell it to do) to cache the same. Thus, to me, this aspect of memory usage is also irrelevant; both browsers allow you to delete the caches and free the memory and/or disk space utilized. A winning aspect for Firefox on this, is, (as noted in the article referenced in the original post) you can control how much memory Firefox uses for each aspect of web surfing - and Firefox adheres to these rules - while IE does not. A few hundred meg to a gig or two of temp files seems to be the norm for IE after intensive surfing regardless of what settings you choose in IE, forcing you to pull up the Internet options and delete the cached info. Firefox wins when it comes to that as well - a lot less clicks to do the same thing, and easier to find "Tools -> Clear Private Data", and a lot more user control as to what data/cache info you delete.
Firefox (for me) wins in respect to conforming (better) to web standards... something MS still has not managed to match. Yes, neither are perfect in this respect, but Firefox comes closer. While to most people, that would make IE the choice for surfing since it has the market-share, and things (web pages and apps) are more likely to work using MS's broken and/or proprietary "standards", I prefer supporting a model that (as closely as possible) meets those standards to help further promote such adherence, and since in doing web design, that means also supporting IE's ever changing method of handling such things, I find Firefox an easier browser to write to, as it rarely breaks standards compliance when updated, while IE has with each release.
When it comes to security, I also prefer Firefox... again, it too isnt perfect and has suffered from it's share of exploits, but they are (usually) far less severe and less numerous than the ones on IE. And certain classes of exploits are safer to be hit with when using Firefox over IE... such as exploits that hijack or hose the browser. Firefox is simple to re-install... Windows isnt that fun to re-install which is usually the required action if IE truly gets hosed. The Firefox community also seems much more prone to respond to exploits (in general, though not always) than MS is for IE. They usually (but not always) seem to work on fixing the issues at hand, while MS usually (but not always) tries to make a patch to work around it, until someone figures out a way to work around that, which restarts the patch->hack->patch cycle ad-infinitum (such as buffer overflows - which MS's patches seem to usually only deal with the specific exploit instead of actually fixing the broken memory model that allows it, hence patch after patch after patch dealing with buffer overflows alone).
Firefox I also find to be much more customizable than IE, with tons of third party widgets, extensions and apps for it. And (brings me back to another point) if I hose Firefox by improperly installing an add-on, or improperly configuring it, or improperly selecting one (that isnt compatible with my version - which is near impossible
Most consumers dont know the technical merits or technical disadvantages to choose between the two and probably dont care. If you had said "most informed and educated IT Professionals" then maybe your statement would have been correct - I emphasize maybe, because though I think it would be the decision *I* would make, I have yet to see enough (accurate) statistics to confirm or agree with even such a statement as that.
I dont see anywhere in his post where he infers that. And regardless, whatever you do using about:config, if you have that backup, then his point is correct.
As for the other part of my comment, it's exactly the "ignore the facts in favor of blind praise" type people who drove me away from Firefox. Question anything about their precious, and they take it as a direct personal insult. I'm not joining a religion, I just want a web browser. Every project has them, but somehow Firefox seems to get the lion's share.So, you are saying that because you think he and others subscribe to the "ignore the facts in favor of blind praise" category, that you would be childish enough to not evaluate the situation yourself and come to your own conclusion? And please dont claim now that that isnt what you meant - it is exactly what you said: "it's exactly the "ignore the facts in favor of blind praise" type people who drove me away from Firefox. "
So, if he's a fanboy, what does that make you? Just curious.I guess I'm just a guy who doesn't like bullshit.
Ah, so much so, that you admit to bullshit yourself? So much so, that you decided you thus cannot evaluate the software yourself to come up with your own opinion? So much so, that you assume that just because there are fanboys out there, with fanboy attitudes (not claiming the GGP was such), that you are unwilling to use Firefox? If your comment and stance on such things were anywhere near mature - much less a good way of determining such things, then no one would use IE, Windows or Linux - as each have their fanboy communities.
Here's the other part I suspect you are missing. Each such community's fanboys are probably right on many points, regardless of what reason they came to them. Just because a fanboy says something doesnt mean... well, anything. You obviously have a brain... use it to make your own conclusions. It doesnt matter what a fanboy, zealot or even a well informed/educated tech geek thinks. In such things, their thoughts are irrelevant. As an example, I despise (most versions of) Windows (Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.x)... but the truth is, for many people it is the appropriate solution to their needs - even for me, there are tasks I prefer to do in Windows, over doing in Linux, eComStation or on a Mac. When I came to that decision, it wasnt based on what a fanboy or fanboys said - and it wasnt even based on a comparison of the technical strengths of the OS's. It was based on best tool for the job. It's like comparing a motorcycle to a pickup truck. If it's snowing out (or I have a lot of groceries to bring back from the supermarket), guess which I would pick? The faster, smoother riding, far more fuel efficient, far more enjoyable to ride one? Nope. The one that suits the task at hand - the pickup.
Thinking for oneself seems to be a commodity few people want to buy anymore. You should try it though. And not because I am a "thinking for oneself" fanboy (though I am), but because you may like the results.
Why? He's 100% right! Just follow the instructions and you are all set with no chance of there being problems. You see, the instructions on that web page clearly state in bold letters: "Keep a log of everything you change, or make backups."
So, either:
So, because he is correct, he's a fanboy? With IE, you run the possibility of having to do much more than restore a preferences file if you hose something. With Firefox, if you follow the instructions (and something goes wrong), it takes you a few extra seconds to restore the file to original state and "nothing major" happens (other than a wasted few minutes in total trying the tweaks).
So, if he's a fanboy, what does that make you? Just curious.
Nah, I think it's expresso at Starbucks and the fast food joints that sell it. You need to go to a really decent coffee shop to get espresso. ;-)
(1) You are assuming I want to see Windows/Microsoft die... I'm a computer technician and co-own my own business with my brother... more than half of our repairs are Windows related issues (Windows hosed something, viruses, spyware, etc - listed in no particular order). As much as I hate the fact that crappy software with lotsa holes is the cause for more than half our repair labor, I'd rather not do without it.
(2) MS already has things in their EULA that says they can and will share your info with themselves and their affiliates/partners - that unfortunately includes anyone who advertises through them. So, sharing the info wont be illegal. It's obtaining it without the individual's permission that would be. And that can simply be covered in yet another massive EULA in yet another update that installs these components ambiguously referring to them as a security or service update [kinda like WGA - which was the point I was trying to make that you seemed to have missed... WGA may not be such an evil thing in and of itself (though that could be debated) - it's how they slipped it past the end user with very ambiguous, and sometimes outright incorrect information in it's EULA]. I never mentioned anything about MS Update or legal or illegal licenses. I pointed out the deceptive method MS used to deploy WGA - and numerous similar business practices.
(3) More and more, we the people are learning that businesses can lobby to have laws changed to allow them to break what previously was a law that applied to them... SoundExchange and the Copyright Office, RIAA and the CanSpy Act, RIAA & others and the DMCA with it's ridiculous loopholes, MPAA and the DMCA - just to point out some of the more obvious ones that you probably have seen on /. (since you dont seem to have given this much thought - though there are tons of others, environmentally, privacy related, freedom related, computer related, etc).
(4) I dont know what you mean by "even a lot of small companies..." - MS isnt a small company. What a small company can get sued for (civilly) or can get criminal charges brought against for; can and often end the company in a very short period of time. MS though is far from a small company, and such suits (whether criminal or civil) can be dragged out for many many years - making it rather irrelevant whether what they are doing is illegal; since by the time the case(s) are over, the damage has been done (over the span of years).
(5) The casual user WONT catch wind of this - or if they do, they'll buy into whatever idiotic reason MS claims this new "feature" is being added for - simply out of naivety - because I am damn sure the casual user doesnt read /., Groklaw or anywhere else that will post a breakdown of what this "feature" really does and will add to their computer experience. As an example, even with the tremendous growth in the AV market, there are still a lot of users who (a) dont know what a virus is, (b) dont know what a virus does, (c) dont know why a virus is dangerous, (d) dont realize they need good anti-virus software (or dont think it's that important) or (e) dont think they'll get one because they only surf the web (or combinations of 2 or more of the above). It is that type of computer illiteracy (on a technical level) that means it doesnt even matter if the casual user catches wind of this.
Kinda like (as another example) the whole Vista downsampling/upsampling HD streams causing higher resource usage and lower quality HD content. On /. there were pages of complaints and rants about it... the casual user goes on blissfully never knowing whats going on - and probably wouldnt understand it if they did (assuming MS explained it - their explanation makes it sound like a rather good thing). Arguably, probably anyone on /. could explain it to the casual user and they would understand - but there are a lot more of them than there are people here - and it's not like we are gonna take out commercials
That must be really boring for the females, and really frustrating for the males...
Mod parent funny!!!
An excellent alternative* and one I subscribe to as well...
* But for the average user, such a method is far beyond them :-(
Do YOU realize that MS claims they are going to be doing this, it is being developed by MS China
from Microsoft's research lab in Beijing, China where I am sure the government there is supporting and/or assisting them, and that with MS' ability to control and monitor the OS and IE, these "theoretical algorithms" are in reality far from theoretical. You act like this is working software already on people's computers without their permission. Geesh.Working software - yes - in test versions from what the article says - it does indicate they've done enough work on it and studied the results sufficiently to glean a bunch of the information they are already after.
already (installed) on people's computers without their permission. - without their permission? You mean like WGA and numerous other components in Windows that the closest thing to permission is "Agree to this EULA or dont use any of our software"? Yeah... I can see it happening. Fits their track record very nicely.
Hi Drinkypoo, what if instead of a moratoreum, we stop burning crops that the govt is subsidizing in the US and use that for biofuel? Yeah, it's not a global solution (or maybe with some work, us and other countries doing similar things can make it a global solution). Just a thought. Never looked into how much corn crops are destroyed compared to how much ethanol they could have produced compared to how much ethanol we are using and trending towards... but at the least, it should improve the situation I would think...
Then again it's been a long day... so I am not sure if I am actually thinking at all...
-Rob
Excellent suggestion! But how long do we have to wait until those nuke facilities can fit in a car? ;-)
Perhaps it isnt the best suggestion after all. I for one dont want to be driving around a Ford Chernoybl.
Because what MS is claiming on planning to do means they are defining "browser history" as browser history, cache, cached form data, form data and more in order to accumulate the data they are going for. That is a far cry from what Google is doing. In addition, MS has proven they are far less trustworthy than Google and many other companies out there (see numerous lawsuits and anti-trust cases in this and other countries). Also, people opt in to allow Google to have access to their data. MS is making no such claim... they are claiming "This is what we are going to do" which is far different. And yes, other companies have tried similar things and been sued in court and lost and/or fined for their actions. So, there's the difference.
If people want to bitch about Big Brother, they should look to Washinton DC, not Washington State.I think people here are bitching about the invasion of privacy this would add up to. For that, it doesnt matter if it's Washington DC, Washington State, or the guy who lives down the block who is illegally obtaining your personal information - just because they decided they wanted to for whatever twisted reasons they claim.
There are a plethora of other methods to allow such functionality. Where I used to work, we had a nationwide network, and amazingly, all I had to do was log in to the nationwide network and voila! My home drive, preferences and all available!!! On XP and 2000 based clients!!! Wow!!! Amazing!!!! And that doesnt even cover the semi-thin network clients that did all the same as well...
So, in what way does MS now need to spy on and collect personal information about a user's viewing habits to determine who they are, where they live, and possibly tons of other even more sensitive information to enable a feature that already exists and works?
Explain that to me if you would...
It's interesting that parent was modded troll, when what he posted was for the most part accurate.
If it is illegal for (spam) companies to glean such information, why would it be legal for Microsoft to gather such info for their own marketing purposes - or those of their affiliates (which broadly covers everyone using Windows Live Search)?
Spam, above is in parenthesis because I am indicating companies, who through similar actions have been considered spam companies.
Though the Linux point may make parent seem like a troll, it too is accurate - and one of the few PC based alternatives... so perhaps to make parent not considered by the over-sensitive on /. a troll, the last paragraph should have read...
These people are getting freaking spooky. We really need to shut them down and fast. Stop frigging buying Microsoft products. Protect your security and your privacy by using Linux, eComStation, MacOSX, or any other OS not from Redmond .Though perhaps that too seems like a troll... but the fact is, if MS has it's way, the only other alternative is to not use the Internet - which isnt going to happen... the truth is not a troll post. The only part of his post that may be inaccurate is the part about the NSA - though the government did request such code be installed in Windows, I dont know if anyone actually ever proved such an occurrence happened, and though MS claimed they would not do such a thing (which we've learned means nothing in the real world), there oddly are enough back doors in Windows to make one wonder.
Mod parent up... just my opinion. You dont have to like what someone posts to realize the validity of it.
This may all become a moot point if the multi-format drives (by Samsung and LG) mentioned earlier on /. (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/19332 01) become a reality, thus allowing end-users to buy content on HD-DVD or BluRay or regular DVD and run any of them on their drives/players. This would also allow the studios to release in whatever format they are geared up for instead of in both formats - or instead of hoping the format they selected "wins the war" (as the war would essentially end in a "it doesnt matter anymore" scenario.
-Robert
Oooh... I wonder how that will work on Vista?
Vista: Open Office wants permission to generate a pop-up requesting approval to run a possibly malicious script... Cancel/Allow
...Allow
OO: OO needs permission to run a script... Cancel/Allow
...Allow
Vista: Open Office is trying to run a script... Cancel/Allow
...Allow
Vista: Steve Ballmer is about to throw a chair at you... Allow/Duck & Allow