I understand that it's important to establish where one's time and effort would yield the most accurate data, but do we really need to know "who won"? If I really want to find out as much information as possible about a given topic of research, I'm going to use data from as many sources as possible to not only glean data, but to corroborate the information obtained from each standalone source.
All in all, I think the winner here is consumers. Google may not be perfect, and they might be intentionally modifying the results to promote/demote certain company sites, but it's still the quickest way to find the most widely-available information on the web.
I don't know much about SATA, so pardon the newbie question. But I've heard that SATA (Serial ATA) and/or SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) will make computers easier to upgrade, at comparable or lower cost, and is more scalable than the current (Parallel) ATA in use.
My question, then: in a SATA-based system, where legacy (P)ATA has been phased out entirely, would you be able to do other things AND burn a CD at the same time with little / zero impact on performance? Also, is SATA meant to replace AGP, too?
The above poster was asking what that might be. You did an awfully good job of responding to the question without actually answering it.
I must apologize profusely for my ignorance. In posting, I thought that most people would have had the presence of mind to seek out more information about the BBC's reasons for undertaking this project on their own, assuming they were interested in reading more about it. I did not take into account people such as yourself, who lack the technical savvy to know where to look online for more details, or couldn't be bothered with doing the legwork themselves.
The philosophy behind the Dirac codec is "keep it simple". This is an ambitious aim since video codecs, particularly those with state of the art performance, tend to be fearsomely complex.
If you wish to contact us about the Dirac compression system the best approach is to send an e-mail to dirac@rd.bbc.co.uk. We hope to respond to all e-mails within one week of receipt.
Seems like a bit of a waste of license payers money when there already a several open source video codecs (eg. Ogg Theora, 3ivx). What does this offer that those don't?
Does the current work being done on Linux seem like a waste of time and money, when there are already several other operating systems (Windows, Macintosh, Unix) available? And don't try and use the argument "but those are closed source; open source is better!" argument -- in the end, it's just software people use, regardless of the licensing / development model.
Getting back on-topic: apparently it offers the BBC something that warrants the time, effort and money required to fund such an undertaking. At the very least, it's yet another example of big companies using open-source to reduce costs and/or fulfill their own specific needs, and can only encourage other companies to fund future OSS development efforts.
I'm a programmer, so my normal installs tend to be more coder-oriented. And of course, I patch the hell out of everything once the core sfotware is installed.
Konqueror, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, Mozilla et etc.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous. Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of functionality and work is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of open source software. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for browsers instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones á Firefox, and one or two "fully featured" like Mozilla.
Isn't the whole point of open source that there's as many choices as there are people to invest the time and energy? Shouldn't that broaden the possibilities of a given piece of software, if each is trying to bring something new to the table?
That being said, I agree that it would probably be best to focus efforts on the more mature technologies. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unproductive: rather, they're producing something, but there may be a lot of overlap between it and any other browser-type app out there.
'The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties'
Sounds very high-tech and all that. But will it stop bullets from piercing my tender hide?
The Clone War was cool, but somehow I wonder if it's really worth it to spend umpty millions to put 87 different kinds of laser blasting vehicles on the screen and vast horizons of rendered landscapes when the cantina scene in the original was more interesting.
It must be. George Lucas wouldn't be making the movies if he didn't think people would buy into all those the SFX. Though personally, I don't think the SFX make up for the sorry lack of character depth or plot, so it's not worth it to me.
Why bother using A9 -- a brand new, vendor-specific solution implementing privacy policies that are in the vendor's interests, and not the end user's? Google has proven that it's more willing to preserve end users' privacy, and to clearly state in what manner their information will be served.
Personally, I'd trust Google over Amazon any day. Google was founded by two geeks, serves a huge community of geeks, runs geek technology (Linux) as their core infrastructure, and stands to profit not by selling a service that respects the wishes not only of advertisers, but the user base it serves. Amazon was built by a marketing guru who stands to profit mainly by pushing product, and has already proven (different prices for same product, anyway) that it does not cater to users as much as those who wish to hawk their wares.
I've been SpySweeper as my primary spyware scanning tool ever since, with Ad-Aware as a 2nd-scan chaser. On the rare occasion that Spy Sweeper misses something, Ad-Aware always gets it, with a 0% margin of error (when using Spybot S&D as a 3rd-round scanner). Conversely, there were a few occasions that Spy Sweeper missed something in Round #1, but Spybot S&D also missed a few in Round #2, so that it was necessary to run a 3rd scan at all using Ad-Aware.
To summarize: Spy Sweeper rocks. If you want even more security, run periodic Ad-Aware scans, and you should be spyware-free (assuming you keep your product definitions updated).
Lots of nagging consciences will be asking that over the next week, as taxpayers confront new sections on state returns that ask them to fork over unpaid sales taxes for items purchased out of state, including online transactions.
So basically, you have to pay taxes twice for products you buy outside state lines?
Quitting makes it more painful to you if you don't happen to have a nest egg, and have bills to pay, and don't have another job lined up. Quitting means you forego your right to unemployment insurance, which is at least something to help staunch the flow of red ink while you look for another job.
So, unless you're somewhat financial secure or confident you can find another job in short order, suck it up, train the lemmings and take your 6 months' of free government cheese.
The action of a single company sending jobs overseas will always make financial sense for that company. It's just the collective action of many pursuing their optimal policies that leads to low profit for all.
Actually, a select few will profit from it -- the people in the upper-echelons of the corporate structure, who have major investments in the company (performance incentives, stock, options, 401k, golden parachute, etc). And I suspect that, so long as they make out like bandits, they could care less what happens to those below them.
But if you've been planning your departure for some time, and you already have a job "waiting in the wings", you should have been moving all of your stuff out of your office in the preceding weeks. That way, when they tell you to load up a box and move out ASAP, all you have to take with you is the stuff you brought in with you that same day to work.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that it's important to establish where one's time and effort would yield the most accurate data, but do we really need to know "who won"? If I really want to find out as much information as possible about a given topic of research, I'm going to use data from as many sources as possible to not only glean data, but to corroborate the information obtained from each standalone source.
All in all, I think the winner here is consumers. Google may not be perfect, and they might be intentionally modifying the results to promote/demote certain company sites, but it's still the quickest way to find the most widely-available information on the web.
I don't know much about SATA, so pardon the newbie question. But I've heard that SATA (Serial ATA) and/or SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) will make computers easier to upgrade, at comparable or lower cost, and is more scalable than the current (Parallel) ATA in use.
My question, then: in a SATA-based system, where legacy (P)ATA has been phased out entirely, would you be able to do other things AND burn a CD at the same time with little / zero impact on performance? Also, is SATA meant to replace AGP, too?
"[...] AMD accounted for 52% of desktop CPU sales. Granted its just one week [...] So, when will Dell begin carrying AMD?"
Dell will start carrying AMD desktops when it's not just one week that AMD beats Intel, but a number of successive weeks or months.
I must apologize profusely for my ignorance. In posting, I thought that most people would have had the presence of mind to seek out more information about the BBC's reasons for undertaking this project on their own, assuming they were interested in reading more about it. I did not take into account people such as yourself, who lack the technical savvy to know where to look online for more details, or couldn't be bothered with doing the legwork themselves.
From the Dirac Overview:
Seems like a bit of a waste of license payers money when there already a several open source video codecs (eg. Ogg Theora, 3ivx). What does this offer that those don't?
Does the current work being done on Linux seem like a waste of time and money, when there are already several other operating systems (Windows, Macintosh, Unix) available? And don't try and use the argument "but those are closed source; open source is better!" argument -- in the end, it's just software people use, regardless of the licensing / development model.
Getting back on-topic: apparently it offers the BBC something that warrants the time, effort and money required to fund such an undertaking. At the very least, it's yet another example of big companies using open-source to reduce costs and/or fulfill their own specific needs, and can only encourage other companies to fund future OSS development efforts.
What about the billions of other classic games for the C-64? What about Mail Order Monsters, Seven Cities of Gold, Auto Duel or M.U.L.E.?
1) Nullsoft Winamp
2) WinZIP
3) Microsoft Office 2000
4) Allaire Homesite 4.5.2
5) Microsoft Visual Sourcesafe 6
6) Adobe Photoshop
7) DeadAIM
8) Adobe Acrobat
9) Cloudmark SpamNet
10) FlashFXP
I'm a programmer, so my normal installs tend to be more coder-oriented. And of course, I patch the hell out of everything once the core sfotware is installed.
Konqueror, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, Mozilla et etc.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of functionality and work is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of open source software. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for browsers instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones á Firefox, and one or two "fully featured" like Mozilla.
Isn't the whole point of open source that there's as many choices as there are people to invest the time and energy? Shouldn't that broaden the possibilities of a given piece of software, if each is trying to bring something new to the table?
That being said, I agree that it would probably be best to focus efforts on the more mature technologies. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unproductive: rather, they're producing something, but there may be a lot of overlap between it and any other browser-type app out there.
Shouldn't Nigeria be the next to be black-listed? I've received enough penis-extension offers and hot stock tips from there to last me a lifetime!
'The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties'
Sounds very high-tech and all that. But will it stop bullets from piercing my tender hide?
Does this mean that I could eventually use my GeForce to do things like matrix inversion for me?
In Nvidia's Russia, you have the Matrix.
The Clone War was cool, but somehow I wonder if it's really worth it to spend umpty millions to put 87 different kinds of laser blasting vehicles on the screen and vast horizons of rendered landscapes when the cantina scene in the original was more interesting.
It must be. George Lucas wouldn't be making the movies if he didn't think people would buy into all those the SFX. Though personally, I don't think the SFX make up for the sorry lack of character depth or plot, so it's not worth it to me.
Did the writer of 'Gigli' get anything?
A swift kick to the nuts, in the hopes that inspiration of the type that spawned Gigli will not be passed on through the bloodline.
Why bother using A9 -- a brand new, vendor-specific solution implementing privacy policies that are in the vendor's interests, and not the end user's? Google has proven that it's more willing to preserve end users' privacy, and to clearly state in what manner their information will be served.
Personally, I'd trust Google over Amazon any day. Google was founded by two geeks, serves a huge community of geeks, runs geek technology (Linux) as their core infrastructure, and stands to profit not by selling a service that respects the wishes not only of advertisers, but the user base it serves. Amazon was built by a marketing guru who stands to profit mainly by pushing product, and has already proven (different prices for same product, anyway) that it does not cater to users as much as those who wish to hawk their wares.
I had been using both Lavasoft's Ad-Aware and Kolla's SpyBot Search and Destroy to keep my box free of crapware, before my boss turned me onto Webroot's Spy Sweeper.
I've been SpySweeper as my primary spyware scanning tool ever since, with Ad-Aware as a 2nd-scan chaser. On the rare occasion that Spy Sweeper misses something, Ad-Aware always gets it, with a 0% margin of error (when using Spybot S&D as a 3rd-round scanner). Conversely, there were a few occasions that Spy Sweeper missed something in Round #1, but Spybot S&D also missed a few in Round #2, so that it was necessary to run a 3rd scan at all using Ad-Aware.
To summarize: Spy Sweeper rocks. If you want even more security, run periodic Ad-Aware scans, and you should be spyware-free (assuming you keep your product definitions updated).
From the state that brought you the current president..... nuff said.
Remember, HTML is your friend....... go here for the goodness.
There's already a little something called Froogle. If it ain't broke......
MCOSR: Microsoft Certified Operating System Refurbishers?
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/06/news/economy/taxes _corporate.dj/?cnn=yes
Lots of nagging consciences will be asking that over the next week, as taxpayers confront new sections on state returns that ask them to fork over unpaid sales taxes for items purchased out of state, including online transactions.
So basically, you have to pay taxes twice for products you buy outside state lines?
Quitting makes it more painful to you if you don't happen to have a nest egg, and have bills to pay, and don't have another job lined up. Quitting means you forego your right to unemployment insurance, which is at least something to help staunch the flow of red ink while you look for another job.
So, unless you're somewhat financial secure or confident you can find another job in short order, suck it up, train the lemmings and take your 6 months' of free government cheese.
The action of a single company sending jobs overseas will always make financial sense for that company. It's just the collective action of many pursuing their optimal policies that leads to low profit for all.
Actually, a select few will profit from it -- the people in the upper-echelons of the corporate structure, who have major investments in the company (performance incentives, stock, options, 401k, golden parachute, etc). And I suspect that, so long as they make out like bandits, they could care less what happens to those below them.
But if you've been planning your departure for some time, and you already have a job "waiting in the wings", you should have been moving all of your stuff out of your office in the preceding weeks. That way, when they tell you to load up a box and move out ASAP, all you have to take with you is the stuff you brought in with you that same day to work.
Wonder what an older version of the Darth Vader uniform will look like?
Something like this?