I guess I'm the only person ever to take a hard drive image through:
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95 Beta
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me (uninstalled that one, luckily I backed it up first)
Windows XP
It always ran great except when I put crappy Kodak camera drivers on it. Then it blue-screened about once a month. Other than that, I ran it for about 10 years with little to no issues.
The key is buying decent hardware from solid companies and not installing every piece of garbage that you find on the internet.
I'm still getting over the fact that people actually had respect for them.
I mean, if you think it's funny but you don't respect them, that's one thing. But I am seriously shocked that people could watch South Park and think the creators of it were some kind of decent, upstanding human beings.
News flash for you. The Jackass guys are probably not respectable either.
Actually, funnily enough, I remember a guy that replaced his floppy on a Mac with a PC drive and had this exact problem (had to manually detect floppies after that).
But Facebook's whole point is that it usually links to Fackbook. So it is going to have 100 links per page that could be reduced by 100 characters each. So it's outbound bandwidth too.
Using GET syntax, each of the 100 links must contain all the metadata about the user's current state, etc.
Using POST syntax, the links each contain only the page information. The metadata WILL be added to the call, the same as the GET syntax, but not to each <a> tag on the page.
Aren't ethernet packets about 1500 characters in length?
So, I'm guessing that a 150 vs. 50 difference in URL length makes exactly ZERO difference in the initial call of the page. Now, maybe logging and links within the page will chew up some bandwidth. Maybe that's what they were getting at, since Facebook pages have about a billion links each.
Thankfully, X finally is forgotten. But as recently as Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, it continuously made its presence known when installing or even randomly after rebooting.
Really, you might want to tell that to these guys: http://www.answersingenesis.org/. They keep spending millions searching for answers through scientific experiments. I wonder why they keep doing that when they could just close their Bible and say "God said so."
But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes
You mean like the creationist that correctly predicted the magnetic fields of all the planets prior to the Voyager flybys (non-creationists got them all wrong, but their theory is in your science book, not the guy who got them all right):
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
It is very easy to spot people who have never read a single creationist article.
They make statements that assume that creationists don't follow the scientific method, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Creationists have done literally thousands of repeatable, scientific experiments that cast doubt on the current understanding of the big bang and evolution. There is plenty of evidence that casts serious doubt on many of the things that are taken for granted in your science book.
So scientists with doctorates (from other Universities) falsifying the evolutionary and big bang theories with repeatable experiments using the scientific method is NOT science?
Occasionally, they even do repeatable scientific experiments that prove that the earth might be younger than billions of years old, even thousands of years old. Again, this is all done with close attention to the scientific method.
Sounds like a very political definition of science to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy. Bands don't own the rights to their own music.
I guess I'm the only person ever to take a hard drive image through:
It always ran great except when I put crappy Kodak camera drivers on it. Then it blue-screened about once a month. Other than that, I ran it for about 10 years with little to no issues.
The key is buying decent hardware from solid companies and not installing every piece of garbage that you find on the internet.
I'm still getting over the fact that people actually had respect for them.
I mean, if you think it's funny but you don't respect them, that's one thing. But I am seriously shocked that people could watch South Park and think the creators of it were some kind of decent, upstanding human beings.
News flash for you. The Jackass guys are probably not respectable either.
FTFY. Apparently you've never watched a David Blaine special.
I don't have to look carefully! I'm using Lynx you insensitive clod!
The fact that it is 12-20% slower than Server 2008 on the exact same hardware.
No thanks, I don't really feel like paying the 12-20% MAFIAA tax.
Actually, funnily enough, I remember a guy that replaced his floppy on a Mac with a PC drive and had this exact problem (had to manually detect floppies after that).
This makes sense, since it's impossible to boot Windows 95 from a Floppy Disk.
Great idea. 15 years too late, but nice thinking!
With the same hardware and software?
Speed is not the only measure of an Operating System. If it were, we'd all still be using command lines.
What competitors? The DSL line provided by the evil phone company that goes 10X slower?
Cool! How long until I can use my punch cards with Firefox and then use the output on my dot matrix printer?
But Facebook's whole point is that it usually links to Fackbook. So it is going to have 100 links per page that could be reduced by 100 characters each. So it's outbound bandwidth too.
Let's say a Facebook page has 100 links on it.
Using GET syntax, each of the 100 links must contain all the metadata about the user's current state, etc.
Using POST syntax, the links each contain only the page information. The metadata WILL be added to the call, the same as the GET syntax, but not to each <a> tag on the page.
Aren't ethernet packets about 1500 characters in length?
So, I'm guessing that a 150 vs. 50 difference in URL length makes exactly ZERO difference in the initial call of the page. Now, maybe logging and links within the page will chew up some bandwidth. Maybe that's what they were getting at, since Facebook pages have about a billion links each.
Try it on a Vista PC with an old VGA monitor. You'll see what he means.
Evolution?
Wow, I actually wrote a printer driver for the Atari 8-bit for my Panasonic KX-P1124. That brings back memories.
And my brother still has a mindspring.com e-mail address.
Thankfully, X finally is forgotten. But as recently as Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, it continuously made its presence known when installing or even randomly after rebooting.
Try ReiserFS.
Oh, I thought you said, "killer's FS".
Seriously, I'll never understand article after article about mulitple CPUs being wasted when I have 37 processes in Task Manager.
Really, you might want to tell that to these guys: http://www.answersingenesis.org/. They keep spending millions searching for answers through scientific experiments. I wonder why they keep doing that when they could just close their Bible and say "God said so."
You mean like this whole section of their website (with 8 subsections):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth
You mean like the creationist that correctly predicted the magnetic fields of all the planets prior to the Voyager flybys (non-creationists got them all wrong, but their theory is in your science book, not the guy who got them all right): http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
It is very easy to spot people who have never read a single creationist article.
They make statements that assume that creationists don't follow the scientific method, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Creationists have done literally thousands of repeatable, scientific experiments that cast doubt on the current understanding of the big bang and evolution. There is plenty of evidence that casts serious doubt on many of the things that are taken for granted in your science book.
Maybe people should try reading a couple articles so they can speak knowledgeably on the topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers
Really?
So scientists with doctorates (from other Universities) falsifying the evolutionary and big bang theories with repeatable experiments using the scientific method is NOT science?
Occasionally, they even do repeatable scientific experiments that prove that the earth might be younger than billions of years old, even thousands of years old. Again, this is all done with close attention to the scientific method.
Sounds like a very political definition of science to me.
Were you talking about Kodak or Microsoft? I couldn't tell.