What is the purpose of virtual video memory? I assume that's the same thing or similar in nature to pagefile.sys. Wouldn't it be better just to keep it in physical memory? I hate even having virtual memory wasting space on my hard drive since I have plenty of physical memory.
You might be able to make a case for GPU multitasking, but only bad things can come of virtual video memory.
No, you are not understanding what I said. I said they didn't have PCs that could handle Vista. While I did say Vista had ridiculous hardware requirements(cause it does) I didn't say anything about my friends meeting them or anything of the sort.
95% of my friends meet the minimum requirements. But as anyone with less an A+ cert knows the minimum requirements aren't actually enough to run the program productively. They always complain how slow XP is, even though they more than exceed its min requirements. Take a look at Dells little chart, you'll notice that the recommended is a dual core chip, none of my friends will ever buy one of those things. Their computers are closer to Vista "capable" so they'll only be able to, and I quote, " Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games." So don't tell me Vista doesn't have ridiculous hardware requirements.
Use hdparm -tT/dev/sda1 or so... I'm not sure I remember the options though. Though that shows hard drives to have far superior I/O speeds than flash disks. I don't think it's anything more than a novelty used to fool people that don't understand how PCs work.
I'm not sure how flash manufacturers came up with the 100,000 writes before a failure, but I do know a little how HDD manufacturers come up with "MTBF." Basically, it's the average time before the drive goes belly up. So if you have a MTBF of however many hours, some drives could bust within a matter of hours or even minutes but rated at the same MTBF as one that would last years.
They had a deal with the flash manufacturers... just think about all those flash drives that will have to be replaced because of overuse. Think about all the data that will be lost because people just didn't know any better... and the money some geek is going to get recovering that data...
2gs was just an exaggeration.
And I know M$ isn't literally forcing people to upgrade but they're going out of their way to make it nearly impossible for anyone not to. And that's what I meant. Sooner or later they're going to release a new version of MSN Messenger that requires Vista even though there could not possibly any technical reason it would need it. Just like what they're doing with dx10, if they wanted to make it compatible with XP they could have done so. Making dx10 Vista only was purely a marketing decision.
If M$ wanted to truly upgrade windows, they would have taken the NT base code and made it more optimized, more compact, added some good features and took bugs out of it, added a flash GUI and then produce a descent workable Windows upgrade. You do not need a lot of horsepower to have good features, good performance and a flashy GUI. It's a shame they didn't do that.
But it *is* M$'s fault that they didn't take into considering the fact that most people don't have/don't want/don't care about owning a high performance PC. There is a huge demographic of users that use a PC as essentially a telephone. Do you honestly think that demographic should be forced to run out and spend 2000$ just to buy a system that is Vista "capable"? I don't think so.
Yea, that what I was wondering what the point of using a USB device as RAM? The only reason I can think of is Vista's ridiculous hardware requirements. They know at least 60% of computer users(I know 95% of my friends don't) don't even have a system that could handle Vista so they came up with this half baked "solution" which doesn't even really work well.
Bill Gates couldn't figure out why their code was so bloated so they just named the memory leaks, Superfetch and sold everyone the idea that it's actually making good use out of the 500$ you spent on RAM alone just to boot the system.
Resorting to childish insults shows your character, or should I say, lack thereof. Perhaps you truly did deserve to get beaten and robbed or whatever it is you claimed.
I didn't make a typo, someone edited my post. I know what I said. Why on earth would I say, "blame the idiot?" That's not my argument that is yours. That makes absolutely no sense given my view point of this topic. Maybe someone hacked my post, but the other guys post changed as well. I don't remember his exact quote, but I had quoted what he said to make a point, but then my browser crashed and when I went to repost, his post was altered. Call me illiterate or what you will, but I am not a liar nor am I so dellusional to make up something so stupid. I would not make an argument nor state something like that without just cause, reason or fact.
On one hand, you have the telcoms who want to charge us more and possibly block or limit certain content. On the other, you have Microsoft, etc, who want the government to regulate the internet to make sure it stays neutral.
It seems to me that the government would do everything it can to turn that regulation into propagation of their policies and their own interests. Obviously, that isn't good for smaller websites who disagree with certain policies the government has. Maybe the telcoms would limit certain websites because they don't make that much money or don't bribe them(figuratively or otherwise) or whatever, but it sounds like it would be better for free speech to side with the telecoms. Since, they don't, or at least, I think they don't have any real political objectives with this, other than monetary.
Though everyone here seems to think net neutrality is a good thing. I don't see how the government regulating the internet is preferable to the telecoms doing something similar. Are we screwed either way? If so, somebody has got to find a plan to free the internet.
It is plainly obvious from your idiotic, "blame the victim" diatribe that you have never been a victim of a crime before. Just because your life is perfect doesn't make you any better or smarter than someone who gets an ass full shit rammed down their throat.
I just wanted to correct my post as it seems as if there is a very immature person modding this board. Of course, given the juvenility of the responses here, I can expect this post to be editted as well.
So in other words, every single naive 14 year old child should be dragged out of their house and beaten and raped? That is exactly what you are saying, if you think that it is her fault she got raped. I can't believe I'm even arguing this. I can't believe the complete lack of even the basest form of compassion in these responses. People say they've been robbed and beaten here, but I sincerely doubt you know what it is like to be raped. There is a huge gigantic difference. Unless you are claiming that you are at fault for being beaten? But no, you're not. You state that quite clearly in your post. It's her fault for lack of judgement, but it's not your fault for your lack of judgement for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please, you are the very epitome of the word hypocrite.
"does look cool, but then you start to think 'How exactly would I organise my 10,000 corporate documents with this? Or my thousands of digital photos. Hm.... How about all my music. Oh no. Hang on. Too many.'"
I was thinking the same thing. While this does sound like a cool idea, I think it amounts to just a gimmick. It says it's more than that, but I can't see this as something I'd actually use.
Whoever is modding these forums is changing the posts. This is not conducive to proper and fair debate. I realise I can be a bit inflamatory, but that does not rationalize altering posts to put me in unfavorable light. Especially, when I'm not the one advocating raping girls who are "naive" and go home with someone.
"But to claim that she is in no way, shape, or form responsible for what happened to her is ridiculous."
So... just how was she responsible for getting raped? What action did she take that caused her warrant some dipshit(understatement of the year) forcibly taking her virginity(I can only assume because of her age.) That (assumed) fact makes this all the more disgusting. Doing one stupid thing does not make you responsible for some elses disgusting perversions. You are blaming the victim and she had made no decision worthy of being sexually assaulted by this animal. I sense that you too have never been the victim of a crime. Yes, the lawsuit is rediculous but all this, "she's a stupid cunt who deserved to get raped" bullshit is the true, "absolute rejection of reality."
"Reasonable humans take responsibility for their actions. If you've decided to meet a random person you met on the internet, no matter what your age, you're probably a flaming idiot, and should take responsibility for that. Let's face it, odds are if it wasn't myspace, she would have ended up walking into a biker bar and started insulting the ugly bikers or something.
People who refuse to take responsibility for their actions disgust me. People who refuse to take responsibility for their actions then launch a frivolous tort lawsuit to turn a personal tragedy into an opportunity to strike it rich should commit suicide so they can stop dishonouring the name of their parents and grandparents."
It is plainly obvious from your idiotic, "blame the idiot" diatribe that you have never been a victim of a crime before. Just because your life is perfect doesn't make you any better or smarter than someone who gets an ass full shit rammed down their throat.
This is where you lose all credibility. She may have been naive and done something stupid but she is in no way shape or form at fault for what happened to her.
"So stating that killing and driving away millions of people is now evidence of a "Jew world conspiracy"? "
No, that's not what I said or meant. The author worded his statement such that if all Jews were to cease to exist that there would be no more intellectual thought left in this world. That is the very definition of racism. Look it up in the dictionary.
The entire paragraph goes on to say that Germans are too stupid to make a silicon valley just because there are no or few Jews in Germany, thus insinuating that if there were a decent population Jews there it would be a different story. To spell it out, he essentially says, "because Jews are supioror to Germans and there are few Jews therein, Germany will never grow the intellectual ability to have a silicon valley."
I just love how even stating the most benign question, questioning the racial superiority of Jews is always answered with, "You're an anti-semite" even when the facts so obviously contradict this absurd notion only an intellectual midget wouldn't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the purpose of virtual video memory? I assume that's the same thing or similar in nature to pagefile.sys. Wouldn't it be better just to keep it in physical memory? I hate even having virtual memory wasting space on my hard drive since I have plenty of physical memory. You might be able to make a case for GPU multitasking, but only bad things can come of virtual video memory.
I would guess that the server would be protected by international law as well.. and not easily shut down.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ubuntu_(ideol ogy) ;)
Your dynamically assigned number is different than the IP used when you connect with the internet. So, no, they won't count him again when he updates.
You've obviously never posted in a Linux forum before.
That's not what you said the first time.
No, you are not understanding what I said. I said they didn't have PCs that could handle Vista. While I did say Vista had ridiculous hardware requirements(cause it does) I didn't say anything about my friends meeting them or anything of the sort.
95% of my friends meet the minimum requirements. But as anyone with less an A+ cert knows the minimum requirements aren't actually enough to run the program productively. They always complain how slow XP is, even though they more than exceed its min requirements. Take a look at Dells little chart, you'll notice that the recommended is a dual core chip, none of my friends will ever buy one of those things. Their computers are closer to Vista "capable" so they'll only be able to, and I quote, " Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games." So don't tell me Vista doesn't have ridiculous hardware requirements.
Use hdparm -tT /dev/sda1 or so... I'm not sure I remember the options though. Though that shows hard drives to have far superior I/O speeds than flash disks. I don't think it's anything more than a novelty used to fool people that don't understand how PCs work.
I'm not sure how flash manufacturers came up with the 100,000 writes before a failure, but I do know a little how HDD manufacturers come up with "MTBF." Basically, it's the average time before the drive goes belly up. So if you have a MTBF of however many hours, some drives could bust within a matter of hours or even minutes but rated at the same MTBF as one that would last years.
They had a deal with the flash manufacturers... just think about all those flash drives that will have to be replaced because of overuse. Think about all the data that will be lost because people just didn't know any better... and the money some geek is going to get recovering that data...
2gs was just an exaggeration. And I know M$ isn't literally forcing people to upgrade but they're going out of their way to make it nearly impossible for anyone not to. And that's what I meant. Sooner or later they're going to release a new version of MSN Messenger that requires Vista even though there could not possibly any technical reason it would need it. Just like what they're doing with dx10, if they wanted to make it compatible with XP they could have done so. Making dx10 Vista only was purely a marketing decision. If M$ wanted to truly upgrade windows, they would have taken the NT base code and made it more optimized, more compact, added some good features and took bugs out of it, added a flash GUI and then produce a descent workable Windows upgrade. You do not need a lot of horsepower to have good features, good performance and a flashy GUI. It's a shame they didn't do that.
But it *is* M$'s fault that they didn't take into considering the fact that most people don't have/don't want/don't care about owning a high performance PC. There is a huge demographic of users that use a PC as essentially a telephone. Do you honestly think that demographic should be forced to run out and spend 2000$ just to buy a system that is Vista "capable"? I don't think so.
Yea, that what I was wondering what the point of using a USB device as RAM? The only reason I can think of is Vista's ridiculous hardware requirements. They know at least 60% of computer users(I know 95% of my friends don't) don't even have a system that could handle Vista so they came up with this half baked "solution" which doesn't even really work well.
Bill Gates couldn't figure out why their code was so bloated so they just named the memory leaks, Superfetch and sold everyone the idea that it's actually making good use out of the 500$ you spent on RAM alone just to boot the system.
Resorting to childish insults shows your character, or should I say, lack thereof. Perhaps you truly did deserve to get beaten and robbed or whatever it is you claimed.
I didn't make a typo, someone edited my post. I know what I said. Why on earth would I say, "blame the idiot?" That's not my argument that is yours. That makes absolutely no sense given my view point of this topic. Maybe someone hacked my post, but the other guys post changed as well. I don't remember his exact quote, but I had quoted what he said to make a point, but then my browser crashed and when I went to repost, his post was altered. Call me illiterate or what you will, but I am not a liar nor am I so dellusional to make up something so stupid. I would not make an argument nor state something like that without just cause, reason or fact.
On one hand, you have the telcoms who want to charge us more and possibly block or limit certain content. On the other, you have Microsoft, etc, who want the government to regulate the internet to make sure it stays neutral.
It seems to me that the government would do everything it can to turn that regulation into propagation of their policies and their own interests. Obviously, that isn't good for smaller websites who disagree with certain policies the government has. Maybe the telcoms would limit certain websites because they don't make that much money or don't bribe them(figuratively or otherwise) or whatever, but it sounds like it would be better for free speech to side with the telecoms. Since, they don't, or at least, I think they don't have any real political objectives with this, other than monetary.
Though everyone here seems to think net neutrality is a good thing. I don't see how the government regulating the internet is preferable to the telecoms doing something similar. Are we screwed either way? If so, somebody has got to find a plan to free the internet.
It is plainly obvious from your idiotic, "blame the victim" diatribe that you have never been a victim of a crime before. Just because your life is perfect doesn't make you any better or smarter than someone who gets an ass full shit rammed down their throat.
I just wanted to correct my post as it seems as if there is a very immature person modding this board. Of course, given the juvenility of the responses here, I can expect this post to be editted as well.
So in other words, every single naive 14 year old child should be dragged out of their house and beaten and raped? That is exactly what you are saying, if you think that it is her fault she got raped. I can't believe I'm even arguing this. I can't believe the complete lack of even the basest form of compassion in these responses. People say they've been robbed and beaten here, but I sincerely doubt you know what it is like to be raped. There is a huge gigantic difference. Unless you are claiming that you are at fault for being beaten? But no, you're not. You state that quite clearly in your post. It's her fault for lack of judgement, but it's not your fault for your lack of judgement for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please, you are the very epitome of the word hypocrite.
"does look cool, but then you start to think 'How exactly would I organise my 10,000 corporate documents with this? Or my thousands of digital photos. Hm.... How about all my music. Oh no. Hang on. Too many.'"
I was thinking the same thing. While this does sound like a cool idea, I think it amounts to just a gimmick. It says it's more than that, but I can't see this as something I'd actually use.
Whoever is modding these forums is changing the posts. This is not conducive to proper and fair debate. I realise I can be a bit inflamatory, but that does not rationalize altering posts to put me in unfavorable light. Especially, when I'm not the one advocating raping girls who are "naive" and go home with someone.
So... just how was she responsible for getting raped? What action did she take that caused her warrant some dipshit(understatement of the year) forcibly taking her virginity(I can only assume because of her age.) That (assumed) fact makes this all the more disgusting. Doing one stupid thing does not make you responsible for some elses disgusting perversions. You are blaming the victim and she had made no decision worthy of being sexually assaulted by this animal. I sense that you too have never been the victim of a crime. Yes, the lawsuit is rediculous but all this, "she's a stupid cunt who deserved to get raped" bullshit is the true, "absolute rejection of reality."
It is plainly obvious from your idiotic, "blame the idiot" diatribe that you have never been a victim of a crime before. Just because your life is perfect doesn't make you any better or smarter than someone who gets an ass full shit rammed down their throat.
This is where you lose all credibility. She may have been naive and done something stupid but she is in no way shape or form at fault for what happened to her.
No, that's not what I said or meant. The author worded his statement such that if all Jews were to cease to exist that there would be no more intellectual thought left in this world. That is the very definition of racism. Look it up in the dictionary.
The entire paragraph goes on to say that Germans are too stupid to make a silicon valley just because there are no or few Jews in Germany, thus insinuating that if there were a decent population Jews there it would be a different story. To spell it out, he essentially says, "because Jews are supioror to Germans and there are few Jews therein, Germany will never grow the intellectual ability to have a silicon valley."
I just love how even stating the most benign question, questioning the racial superiority of Jews is always answered with, "You're an anti-semite" even when the facts so obviously contradict this absurd notion only an intellectual midget wouldn't see it.