It works both ways though -- some number of users experience a problem and they think that *everyone* must be having the problem. Other users aren't having the problem and don't understand how *anyone* could be having trouble. Despite what some may think, assholes are a two-way street:)
Thanks - I do in fact run with UAC turned off so I'll try it with it turned on instead. As a side note, I don't hate UAC and like the *idea* of it, but not the implementation that Microsoft chose. Too annoying and they need to refine it into something far less obtrusive. Ironic that leaving it off prevents this one particular security problem though.
That's brilliant! It makes perfect sense -- because a TV station which airs one ad at a time and charges thousands of dollars for each ad is able to actually monitor their content, then anybody displaying ads should be able to police them! Who cares if they display millions of ads and only charge a few dollars for each one, they're serving it up so they should have hordes of people verifying every ad before it's allowed to go live. Google should've called Australia and talked to both car dealers to ensure that they had some sort of co-marketing agreement. If they don't care about some piddly-ass local car dealer ad then what do they care about?
While we're at it, how about hitting up the phone company for allowing harassing phone calls to go through and force them to monitor every call for us? Grocery stores should be responsible for testing every box of every product too -- I don't see why they should be off the hook for food poisoning just because they didn't test each bag of Veggie Plops before selling them.
I'm running Vista and trying the link in IE just causes Firefox to launch, at which point Firefox puts up the security warning about external applications. Guess it's only XP and earlier that can trigger an unprompted launch.
You are wrong, I *have* used content searching and I don't see it as a huge leap over searching by file name. Searching my files is searching my files and file name is just a special form of content in my opinion. The fact that searching has been expanded to include what's inside the files instead of just what's in the files directory record is not a major change.
P.S. "then you've never used content searching" is such a lame way to bolster your argument. I wouldn't expect anyone to use such a self-serving but meaningless conclusion as a basis for an argument after leaving high school.
Yeah, but we're talking about searching files on your computer here. This is a feature that has been in pretty much every OS since God was a teenager. Sure, it's evolving into faster and smarter searching and incorporating content searches as well as file name searches, but it's still just about searching your computer for your stuff. If this isn't within the domain of an OS then what is?
Google made a name for itself by indexing the internet and providing a useful way to search for content there. Now they want to extend that business to your desktop to expand their name recognition and become synonymous with the very word "search". That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doing Google harm because it's continuing to provide and (arguably) improve a feature that they and every other OS been shipping for decades and which users of computers find indispensable. To me it mostly means that Google wants of piece of the desktop/OS so they can continue to grow their business and they're hoping they can use the courts to at least give them a leg up on Windows.
Regardless of whether the original article had it wrong, someone at Slashdot should've read the posted summary text and noticed the error. You shouldn't be a "News for Nerds" editor and not immediately notice that the sentence makes absolutely no sense as written.
From the article: "GE has invested more than $200 million in the last four years on the development of energy efficient lighting, including reduced-powered Miser® light bulbs"
The Miser series are nothing more than lower-wattage incandescents. Their marketing for them was something like "Here's a 68 watt bulb, it uses less energy than a 75 watt bulb!" It's great that they've got this new technology and I certainly will give it a try once available, but I sure hope that most of that $200 million they spent was used on this developing new bulb and not so much on just marketing a dimmer bulb:P
I'd also add that some also seem to emit a large amount of infrared during their warmup -- my remotes become nearly useless until the ones at my bedside have had a chance to come up to full. I like them and use several of them around the house, but they aren't perfect replacements (yet) for incandescents.
The purpose of making the Spielberg reference was to point out the sort of absurdity of hollywood essentially believing its own stories. Viewing the theater-going experience as some sort of mystical devil's tower drawing us together to a greater purpose is just ridiculous, but is very nearly what he tried to trying to encourage theater attendance.
To the poster who commented about "doing this while watching the Oscars", I think you missed the point as well. I don't hate movies and the fact that I was watching the Oscars has little to do with what I was trying to illustrate. Hollywood desparately wants to promote going to the theaters but provides little incentive to do so and, aside from the vast majority of movies being medicore at best, one of the reasons I hate seeing movies in theaters is that it's just a sucky experience. It's expensive, there's too much time overhead in getting to the theater early to get a good seat, you have to put up with people who talk and babies who cry during the film, and you can't pause it to take a piss. I love my home theater and I love good movies, but I don't give a shit about seeing movies in theaters anymore unless both the film and the theater are really really special.
I was floored when the MPAA president tried promoting moving theater attendance during Sunday's awards by espousing the virtues of viewing a movie with a group of strangers brought together by a common cause (is watching a movie really a cause?). Does he really believe his own crap? When was the last time he even saw a movie with the general public instead of in a plush private theater ahead of its general release date? I, for one, am not a big fan of paying a fortune to fight with strangers for a decent seat only to have to put up with chatter and cell phones throughout the film. I'm certainly not building mashed potato cinemas at the dinner table along with thousands of others who will find themselves also drawn to this mysterious force bringing us all together to watch some hollywood shovelware.
What's the latest with Windows Vista and support for OpenGL beyond the 1.4 APIs? Last I heard it was a no-go due to the heavy integration of DirectX/Direct3D into the desktop (unless you shut off the schwingy graphics anyhow). Is that still the case or will vendors be able to support OpenGL 2.0 and beyond in Vista?
Microsoft's previously announced plans for Vista were that OpenGL would only be supported via an emulation layer and that layer would be OpenGL 1.4 with few (if any) extensions supported. In addition to this, it wasn't going to be possible for driver vendors to provide better support for OpenGL unless the user disabled the Vista chrome, which really means that it wouldn't be practical since few users would be willing to give up their slick new UI.
The question the parent poster is raising is whether moving the drivers to user mode obviates the issue.
I agree, my iPod is full and now that I've bought most of the music I already know and love I'm left with the rare gems in a sea of garbage to seek out and buy. My music spending is way down, but since I don't download "free" music I can assure the RIAA that it isn't because I'm finding it elsewhere, it's simply because I'm not finding what I want.
The article makes a big issue of painting this to be big corporations supporting big corporations, but I suspect you're right and that it's actually because of the DMCA. The anti-virus companies removed the cloaking code, nothing too risky about that as far as the DMCA goes. Removing the rest of the code however isn't nearly so clear cut. Personally, I'd love to see the DMCA gutted, but until it is this sort of issue is going to be there. When is it ok to remove a piece of software which is a combination of copyright protection AND spyware? Seems like a very fuzzy area in the DMCA indeed given that an anti-virus company can't exactly pick apart the software to leave the protection features in place while knocking out the spyware.
This issue isn't about big companies supporting big companies, it's about companies not knowing where the legal line is on what they can remove from your computer without being slapped with a DMCA lawsuit.
From the article: "And some keystrokes generate a category that doesn't seem to match the character in the original text, because the key happened to sound different that time, or because the categorization algorithm isn't perfect, or because the typist made a mistake and typed a garbbge charaacter."
So did anyone else notice the irony/coincidence that garbage was typed incorrectly in the statement above?
Your brother could simply consider disabling the Themes service and any other services he doesn't want in XP. Then the UI reverts to the plain old look of Windows 2000 with no shading or transparancy effects and their performance impact. Like many others however, he may have reasons beyond theming for not wanting to run XP.
I live about 10 miles or so from the Apple campus and Microsoft's imagery of my neighborhood is suprisingly up-to-date. On Google, the strip mall next door still exists and my old garage is still standing, making those images 5 to 10 years old. In Microsoft's images the strip mall has been replaced by the current small commercial complex and condos and my new garage with solar panels is clearly visible.
I find it amusing that in the span of ten miles in a dense urban/suburban area they could both have such vastly different images. Google has current images for Apple's campus and Microsoft has old images. Google has old images for my neighborhood and Microsoft has current images. Makes me want to start searching for the seam between modern and 10 years old just to see if they try to blend them or just have a gross cut between them.
(and no, I'm not going to post my home address for people to compare images. I'm just too paranoid to do that:)
Other than cropping and converting to PNG, the image has not been modified in any way.
Zoom in on the items and you can clearly see that the background texture does not get tiled by each item and is continuous from the top to the bottom of the auction frame.
Note that there is a tiling band that extends vertically above the Silver bidding text field, and that band appears in both this image and the hoax image, but the horizontal bands seen in the hoax image are missing.
That's an interesting point about the artifacts in the screenshot. At first I thought you might be mistaken and that they might just be normal artifacts of the way WoW renders the auction frame so I went into the game and did a screenshot of an auction frame. The artifacts do not show up there: the background texture is continous between auction items and not tiled the way it appears in the screenshot nor does it change abruptly after the last item.
Lol, yeah, Rockstar puts content in the game and then is suprised when someone discovers the flag that allows that content to be viewed. Everybody is constantly looking for these hidden features/flags to expose and for Rockstar to act suprised when this gets discovered is just disingenuous.
If they really didn't want the content found then they should've compiled it out of their app before they shipped it. Otherwise, they should've fully expected that people would find it and that the content should've been included in the rating. Personally, I believe they deliberately left it in, knowing that it would be discovered someday. I'd bet that sales of GTA:SA are rising as fast as all those teenage peenies right now.
Slashdot Mirror
It works both ways though -- some number of users experience a problem and they think that *everyone* must be having the problem. Other users aren't having the problem and don't understand how *anyone* could be having trouble. Despite what some may think, assholes are a two-way street :)
Thanks - I do in fact run with UAC turned off so I'll try it with it turned on instead. As a side note, I don't hate UAC and like the *idea* of it, but not the implementation that Microsoft chose. Too annoying and they need to refine it into something far less obtrusive. Ironic that leaving it off prevents this one particular security problem though.
That's brilliant! It makes perfect sense -- because a TV station which airs one ad at a time and charges thousands of dollars for each ad is able to actually monitor their content, then anybody displaying ads should be able to police them! Who cares if they display millions of ads and only charge a few dollars for each one, they're serving it up so they should have hordes of people verifying every ad before it's allowed to go live. Google should've called Australia and talked to both car dealers to ensure that they had some sort of co-marketing agreement. If they don't care about some piddly-ass local car dealer ad then what do they care about?
While we're at it, how about hitting up the phone company for allowing harassing phone calls to go through and force them to monitor every call for us? Grocery stores should be responsible for testing every box of every product too -- I don't see why they should be off the hook for food poisoning just because they didn't test each bag of Veggie Plops before selling them.
I'm running Vista and trying the link in IE just causes Firefox to launch, at which point Firefox puts up the security warning about external applications. Guess it's only XP and earlier that can trigger an unprompted launch.
You are wrong, I *have* used content searching and I don't see it as a huge leap over searching by file name. Searching my files is searching my files and file name is just a special form of content in my opinion. The fact that searching has been expanded to include what's inside the files instead of just what's in the files directory record is not a major change.
P.S. "then you've never used content searching" is such a lame way to bolster your argument. I wouldn't expect anyone to use such a self-serving but meaningless conclusion as a basis for an argument after leaving high school.
How so? I don't see content searching as a huge leap over searching purely by file name.
Yeah, but we're talking about searching files on your computer here. This is a feature that has been in pretty much every OS since God was a teenager. Sure, it's evolving into faster and smarter searching and incorporating content searches as well as file name searches, but it's still just about searching your computer for your stuff. If this isn't within the domain of an OS then what is?
Google made a name for itself by indexing the internet and providing a useful way to search for content there. Now they want to extend that business to your desktop to expand their name recognition and become synonymous with the very word "search". That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doing Google harm because it's continuing to provide and (arguably) improve a feature that they and every other OS been shipping for decades and which users of computers find indispensable. To me it mostly means that Google wants of piece of the desktop/OS so they can continue to grow their business and they're hoping they can use the courts to at least give them a leg up on Windows.
Regardless of whether the original article had it wrong, someone at Slashdot should've read the posted summary text and noticed the error. You shouldn't be a "News for Nerds" editor and not immediately notice that the sentence makes absolutely no sense as written.
From the article: "GE has invested more than $200 million in the last four years on the development of energy efficient lighting, including reduced-powered Miser® light bulbs"
:P
The Miser series are nothing more than lower-wattage incandescents. Their marketing for them was something like "Here's a 68 watt bulb, it uses less energy than a 75 watt bulb!" It's great that they've got this new technology and I certainly will give it a try once available, but I sure hope that most of that $200 million they spent was used on this developing new bulb and not so much on just marketing a dimmer bulb
I'd also add that some also seem to emit a large amount of infrared during their warmup -- my remotes become nearly useless until the ones at my bedside have had a chance to come up to full. I like them and use several of them around the house, but they aren't perfect replacements (yet) for incandescents.
The purpose of making the Spielberg reference was to point out the sort of absurdity of hollywood essentially believing its own stories. Viewing the theater-going experience as some sort of mystical devil's tower drawing us together to a greater purpose is just ridiculous, but is very nearly what he tried to trying to encourage theater attendance.
To the poster who commented about "doing this while watching the Oscars", I think you missed the point as well. I don't hate movies and the fact that I was watching the Oscars has little to do with what I was trying to illustrate. Hollywood desparately wants to promote going to the theaters but provides little incentive to do so and, aside from the vast majority of movies being medicore at best, one of the reasons I hate seeing movies in theaters is that it's just a sucky experience. It's expensive, there's too much time overhead in getting to the theater early to get a good seat, you have to put up with people who talk and babies who cry during the film, and you can't pause it to take a piss. I love my home theater and I love good movies, but I don't give a shit about seeing movies in theaters anymore unless both the film and the theater are really really special.
I was floored when the MPAA president tried promoting moving theater attendance during Sunday's awards by espousing the virtues of viewing a movie with a group of strangers brought together by a common cause (is watching a movie really a cause?). Does he really believe his own crap? When was the last time he even saw a movie with the general public instead of in a plush private theater ahead of its general release date? I, for one, am not a big fan of paying a fortune to fight with strangers for a decent seat only to have to put up with chatter and cell phones throughout the film. I'm certainly not building mashed potato cinemas at the dinner table along with thousands of others who will find themselves also drawn to this mysterious force bringing us all together to watch some hollywood shovelware.
What's the latest with Windows Vista and support for OpenGL beyond the 1.4 APIs? Last I heard it was a no-go due to the heavy integration of DirectX/Direct3D into the desktop (unless you shut off the schwingy graphics anyhow). Is that still the case or will vendors be able to support OpenGL 2.0 and beyond in Vista?
Microsoft's previously announced plans for Vista were that OpenGL would only be supported via an emulation layer and that layer would be OpenGL 1.4 with few (if any) extensions supported. In addition to this, it wasn't going to be possible for driver vendors to provide better support for OpenGL unless the user disabled the Vista chrome, which really means that it wouldn't be practical since few users would be willing to give up their slick new UI.
The question the parent poster is raising is whether moving the drivers to user mode obviates the issue.
I agree, my iPod is full and now that I've bought most of the music I already know and love I'm left with the rare gems in a sea of garbage to seek out and buy. My music spending is way down, but since I don't download "free" music I can assure the RIAA that it isn't because I'm finding it elsewhere, it's simply because I'm not finding what I want.
I think that would depend on whether they're truely being "uncooperative" or if Vonage is blowing smoke to cover up their own technical inadequacies.
The article makes a big issue of painting this to be big corporations supporting big corporations, but I suspect you're right and that it's actually because of the DMCA. The anti-virus companies removed the cloaking code, nothing too risky about that as far as the DMCA goes. Removing the rest of the code however isn't nearly so clear cut. Personally, I'd love to see the DMCA gutted, but until it is this sort of issue is going to be there. When is it ok to remove a piece of software which is a combination of copyright protection AND spyware? Seems like a very fuzzy area in the DMCA indeed given that an anti-virus company can't exactly pick apart the software to leave the protection features in place while knocking out the spyware.
This issue isn't about big companies supporting big companies, it's about companies not knowing where the legal line is on what they can remove from your computer without being slapped with a DMCA lawsuit.
From the article: "And some keystrokes generate a category that doesn't seem to match the character in the original text, because the key happened to sound different that time, or because the categorization algorithm isn't perfect, or because the typist made a mistake and typed a garbbge charaacter."
So did anyone else notice the irony/coincidence that garbage was typed incorrectly in the statement above?
No, all of the OpenGL ARB books are paperback only
Your brother could simply consider disabling the Themes service and any other services he doesn't want in XP. Then the UI reverts to the plain old look of Windows 2000 with no shading or transparancy effects and their performance impact. Like many others however, he may have reasons beyond theming for not wanting to run XP.
I live about 10 miles or so from the Apple campus and Microsoft's imagery of my neighborhood is suprisingly up-to-date. On Google, the strip mall next door still exists and my old garage is still standing, making those images 5 to 10 years old. In Microsoft's images the strip mall has been replaced by the current small commercial complex and condos and my new garage with solar panels is clearly visible.
:)
I find it amusing that in the span of ten miles in a dense urban/suburban area they could both have such vastly different images. Google has current images for Apple's campus and Microsoft has old images. Google has old images for my neighborhood and Microsoft has current images. Makes me want to start searching for the seam between modern and 10 years old just to see if they try to blend them or just have a gross cut between them.
(and no, I'm not going to post my home address for people to compare images. I'm just too paranoid to do that
I cropped the image I took for comparison and posted it to ImageShack at http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/3773/wowscrnsho t0721050850262rj.png
Other than cropping and converting to PNG, the image has not been modified in any way.
Zoom in on the items and you can clearly see that the background texture does not get tiled by each item and is continuous from the top to the bottom of the auction frame.
Note that there is a tiling band that extends vertically above the Silver bidding text field, and that band appears in both this image and the hoax image, but the horizontal bands seen in the hoax image are missing.
That's an interesting point about the artifacts in the screenshot. At first I thought you might be mistaken and that they might just be normal artifacts of the way WoW renders the auction frame so I went into the game and did a screenshot of an auction frame. The artifacts do not show up there: the background texture is continous between auction items and not tiled the way it appears in the screenshot nor does it change abruptly after the last item.
This screenshot does in fact appear to be a hoax.
Lol, yeah, Rockstar puts content in the game and then is suprised when someone discovers the flag that allows that content to be viewed. Everybody is constantly looking for these hidden features/flags to expose and for Rockstar to act suprised when this gets discovered is just disingenuous.
If they really didn't want the content found then they should've compiled it out of their app before they shipped it. Otherwise, they should've fully expected that people would find it and that the content should've been included in the rating. Personally, I believe they deliberately left it in, knowing that it would be discovered someday. I'd bet that sales of GTA:SA are rising as fast as all those teenage peenies right now.
Except that "Strong Sexual Content" != "Explicit Sexual Content"
Wiggling your joystick in rhythm to make some guy fuck a chick goes a little beyond strong imho.