I can recommend Sedo.com as a reliable and honest domain escrow service. If you're looking for recommendations. I also have a few domain names for sale, you can take one for your business: http://blakeyrat.com/index.php/domain-names-for-sale/
For example, "webpageofshit" might be appropriate.;)
Well, true, but California is also about 5 propositions and an earthquake away from becoming a Max Mad-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland. Would be nice to see some responses from states filled with sane people.
You're not kidding. What's truly amazing is that it's *utterly* random.
Sometimes I'm running WOW, playing a DVD, and have 5-6 browser windows open and my computer's solid as a rock for days. Sometimes, I've got nothing but a single browser window, and bam-- "Vista has detected your graphics driver has crashed."
The good news is that Vista can recover from it 9 times out of 10. Even without crashing WOW, which is pretty impressive.
Estimates put the total at about 4.5 million. Now, if you throw in the countless (uncountable?) people sitting in secret prisons outside the US, and people in military custody, it starts to make Stalin and other dictators look like pikers.
Oh come on, is there an equivalent to Godwin for Stalin references?
Look, the reason Stalin kept his prison population low was that he SHOT PEOPLE INSTEAD. Is that what you want the US to do? Anybody who's been in jail more than 5 years? Pop them in the head. Bam, now our statistics look really good on the books! "PopeRatzo" can post about how awesome the US is!
Oh and... if the secret people are sitting in prisons "outside the US", why should they count towards the US prison population?
The problem is that in an RTS, you play as the "almighty all-seeing controller". If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level, it's: 1) Not emulating playing another human (not ideal) 2) Keeping track of so much more than a human player can
Like when you're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty, and the AI could use every unit's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled "cheater!" since a human couldn't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.
If it looks like a cheat, I'd call that lousy AI.
An ideal AI would play on the same terms as the human player: it would control units the same way, have similar reaction times, and the same knowledge as the human player.
What the fuck ever. Sorry for not being a pedantic asshole, like everybody else on this site.
In any case, pre-caching is: 1) A subset of caching, so the usage is still correct 2) Not in my spell-checker
The issue with precaching is lets say the operating system decides to load/usr/bin/emacs into pagecache, just because I might use it. Now, since I'm an XEmacs user that's all wasted pagecache space and the time it took to load it. Background or not, it consumes system resources.
Ok; so you're saying the Linux system was rejected because it sucked ass. I don't see what that has anything to do with Vista.
Vista determines what to cache (I'm purposefully not typing "precache" just to piss you off, BTW) based on your computer usage. If there's anything to complain about with Vista's implementation, it's that you get very little benefit until you've used the computer for a few weeks, since Vista doesn't know what applications you use often until you... often use them.
Since most people who hate Vista haven't actually used it-- oh they may have run it for a few minutes, maybe even a day or two, but they haven't actually used it-- people aren't going to see the benefit.
My two most frequently loaded apps are World of Warcraft and Mail.app. In neither case do I want those loaded at system boot or at any other time that I have not selected them to be loaded. WoW is for play and I want it to reside quietly on disk when I'm doing something else. Mail.app I only use when I'm connected to the company VPN. There's an idiot MSEXCHANGE server behind it, so a few seconds loading time doesn't impact the sync time once its loaded.
Why?
Now given, there's not a lot of benefit for either of those apps, since I'm pretty sure Vista won't cache video game art files or mail databases, but let's assume it did, and doing so could shorten the launch time by 10 seconds.
Why the hell *don't* you want your system shortening the launch time of your most commonly-use apps? Is it just because you're a masochist?
More likely, it's because you simply do not understand the point I made originally (and then pointed out that most people don't understand it): the cache is not wasted RAM because it takes no time to flush, when that RAM is needed by someone else. No time. Zero seconds.
Your computer could fill up your entire RAM with nothing but Night Elf animation files, and boom, suddenly WOW launches much quicker. But, oh no, now I want to launch Mail.app! Ok, the system flushes all the stripper pole motion captures (which, I remind you, takes ZERO TIME) and starts loading Mail.app. That's the worst case scenario. And what's the end result? Mail.app takes the same amount of time to load that it would if the system did no caching at all. You've lost nothing; and if you had run WOW, you'd have saved a lot of time.
I certainly do not want NeoOffice precached because even though it's kind of slow to load, it's usually wasted space because I only ever need to use it once a week or so.
If you only use it once a week or so, it probably wouldn't ever get cached. But even if it did, what possibly "harm" could that cause to the rest of your system? Remember, the cache can be flushed in ZERO TIME. That's the point people don't get.
If Microsoft Vista is really doing precaching not caching, then perhaps you should listen to your users screaming out in pain.
I don't have any users screaming out in pain.
Whatever. Linux doesn't do it because it causes performance issues.
It caused "performance issues" (vague, unspecified ones) because their implementation sucked. That says nothing about Vista's implementation. Hell, your example was Linux caching a program that you never ran! How the fuck did it determine what to cache? Random number generator?
Look, Windows 95 had protected memory (in theory at least) and programs crashed
Re:Best of Arcade games
on
Tetris Turns 25
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It had the unfortunate side effect of sculpting my upper body into the form of Adonis, and all the attention from women prevented me from playing Tetris as much as I wanted -- but man, my fitting-blocks-into-a-confined-space skills really blossomed that summer.
Wow, I wouldn't have guessed this guy was on Slashdot!
See that post. There's a SourceForge page, but none of the submitted bugs are fixed, and most go unread. So it's pretty much like every other open source project's bug tracker, in that regard.
It's an operating system. It's supposed to leave the resources to the user programs.
But it does. The two aren't mutually-exclusive: Vista can aggressively cache *and* leave resources to user programs.
It takes time to fill RAM, because you have to load stuff from disk (or network, or whatever). It takes no time to empty RAM. Zero. This is an extremely basic fact that a lot of "technical" people on this board simply don't understand.
What Vista does is fill your RAM with stuff it thinks you're likely to use, in a background thread when your computer is idle. Thus it takes none of your (the user) time.
If another program requires memory, Vista just unloads as much cache as is needed to make that program happy. Since it takes no time for Vista to give another program control of that memory, you (the user) have lost no time.
The only real crime is that every other OS doesn't do the same thing.
Will it look like an ancient Palm, with a black-and-white screen, a writing area, and only a dozen apps on the homescreen?
SLASHDOT, FFS, GET SOME NEW ICONS!
And WTF is up with the MacBook icon on this iPhone story? I guess I need to change my request to "new and accurate icons."
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the editors of this site give a fuck.
The only reason to visit Slashdot is the quality of the comments, which is good since you have to rely on the first 4-5 comments to correct all the bullshit in the story summaries.
not one, but TWO search boxes (the second simply to search within microsoft.com) which will probably frustrate and confuse as many users as it might help.
Google has the one placement at the top of the page, virtually identical to Bing's. It has no placement at the bottom, given, but it has 8 placements in the right column.
Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.
Wrong. They're using Flash, like everybody doing video on the web.
Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.
It's your computer at fault, not Microsoft.
MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.
They're using Flash, you gigantic ass. It doesn't even query for the Silverlight plug-in-- Bing is *all Flash*.
Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?
No they don't. Which is why their video previews has the same requirement YouTube has: Flash installed.
How did your retarded posting get modded up? Christ.
In short: there's *nothing wrong with using resources at your disposal*. If your machine has lots of memory, and you can get better performance by building a large, in-memory cache, then by all means, do it! This is *not* the same as "bloat". It's selecting the right algorithm given your target execution environment.
Now if only all the Slashdotters criticizing Vista would realize that when they complain about high memory usage...
The difference is that Xerox didn't *purposefully* destroy their technology, they just had no clue what to do with it. The story usually goes like this: 1) Inventor brings revolutionary technology to large corporation 2) Company pays through the nose for exclusive use of the inventor's patents 3) Company then buries the invention and all related materials in the desert somewhere 4) (optional) Company assassinates inventor
That's completely different than the Xerox situation, which is more like: 1) Xerox assigns teams to do computer UI research 2) Team creates system leaps and bounds above everything else available 3) Management says "duuuh" 4) Team invents WYSIWYG printing and LAN networking 5) Management says "duuuh" 6) Apple gets a demo of team's invention, asks Xerox to license it 7) Management says "duuuh, sure" 8) Apple creates all the products Xerox should have had perfected and marketed 5 years before
Can you prove to me that 4) has ever happened? Every story I've heard about that has ended up being an urban legend. (Seriously, those stories all equate to: company finds a massive advantage over competitors, buries it instead of racking up the cash. Makes no sense.)
The *manual* for my PT Cruiser says there's no problem if you change oil every 5,000 miles. So that equates to twice a year for my car. (I know some people recommend every 3,000 miles, but if the manual says 5,000 I'm going with 5,000.)
Slashdot Mirror
I can recommend Sedo.com as a reliable and honest domain escrow service. If you're looking for recommendations. I also have a few domain names for sale, you can take one for your business: http://blakeyrat.com/index.php/domain-names-for-sale/
For example, "webpageofshit" might be appropriate. ;)
Well, true, but California is also about 5 propositions and an earthquake away from becoming a Max Mad-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland. Would be nice to see some responses from states filled with sane people.
Christ, where do you live? Washington State gets by fine with 8.25% and no income tax. (I'm not sure how our property taxes compare to other states.)
Get off the line, Guy!
You don't have to use a blog as a blog, either. WordPress has excellent CMS features, even if you completely ignore the blogging part of the software.
But yah, I don't see how we (random message board posters) can possibly answer this question.
Although (correctly) moderated as "Funny" I think, sadly, that neoform was actually being serious.
You're not kidding. What's truly amazing is that it's *utterly* random.
Sometimes I'm running WOW, playing a DVD, and have 5-6 browser windows open and my computer's solid as a rock for days. Sometimes, I've got nothing but a single browser window, and bam-- "Vista has detected your graphics driver has crashed."
The good news is that Vista can recover from it 9 times out of 10. Even without crashing WOW, which is pretty impressive.
Estimates put the total at about 4.5 million. Now, if you throw in the countless (uncountable?) people sitting in secret prisons outside the US, and people in military custody, it starts to make Stalin and other dictators look like pikers.
Oh come on, is there an equivalent to Godwin for Stalin references?
Look, the reason Stalin kept his prison population low was that he SHOT PEOPLE INSTEAD. Is that what you want the US to do? Anybody who's been in jail more than 5 years? Pop them in the head. Bam, now our statistics look really good on the books! "PopeRatzo" can post about how awesome the US is!
Oh and... if the secret people are sitting in prisons "outside the US", why should they count towards the US prison population?
The problem is that in an RTS, you play as the "almighty all-seeing controller". If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level, it's:
1) Not emulating playing another human (not ideal)
2) Keeping track of so much more than a human player can
Like when you're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty, and the AI could use every unit's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled "cheater!" since a human couldn't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.
If it looks like a cheat, I'd call that lousy AI.
An ideal AI would play on the same terms as the human player: it would control units the same way, have similar reaction times, and the same knowledge as the human player.
Nope. Not the same thing. That's precaching.
What the fuck ever. Sorry for not being a pedantic asshole, like everybody else on this site.
In any case, pre-caching is:
1) A subset of caching, so the usage is still correct
2) Not in my spell-checker
The issue with precaching is lets say the operating system decides to load /usr/bin/emacs into pagecache, just because I might use it. Now, since I'm an XEmacs user that's all wasted pagecache space and the time it took to load it. Background or not, it consumes system resources.
Ok; so you're saying the Linux system was rejected because it sucked ass. I don't see what that has anything to do with Vista.
Vista determines what to cache (I'm purposefully not typing "precache" just to piss you off, BTW) based on your computer usage. If there's anything to complain about with Vista's implementation, it's that you get very little benefit until you've used the computer for a few weeks, since Vista doesn't know what applications you use often until you ... often use them.
Since most people who hate Vista haven't actually used it-- oh they may have run it for a few minutes, maybe even a day or two, but they haven't actually used it-- people aren't going to see the benefit.
My two most frequently loaded apps are World of Warcraft and Mail.app. In neither case do I want those loaded at system boot or at any other time that I have not selected them to be loaded. WoW is for play and I want it to reside quietly on disk when I'm doing something else. Mail.app I only use when I'm connected to the company VPN. There's an idiot MSEXCHANGE server behind it, so a few seconds loading time doesn't impact the sync time once its loaded.
Why?
Now given, there's not a lot of benefit for either of those apps, since I'm pretty sure Vista won't cache video game art files or mail databases, but let's assume it did, and doing so could shorten the launch time by 10 seconds.
Why the hell *don't* you want your system shortening the launch time of your most commonly-use apps? Is it just because you're a masochist?
More likely, it's because you simply do not understand the point I made originally (and then pointed out that most people don't understand it): the cache is not wasted RAM because it takes no time to flush, when that RAM is needed by someone else. No time. Zero seconds.
Your computer could fill up your entire RAM with nothing but Night Elf animation files, and boom, suddenly WOW launches much quicker. But, oh no, now I want to launch Mail.app! Ok, the system flushes all the stripper pole motion captures (which, I remind you, takes ZERO TIME) and starts loading Mail.app. That's the worst case scenario. And what's the end result? Mail.app takes the same amount of time to load that it would if the system did no caching at all. You've lost nothing; and if you had run WOW, you'd have saved a lot of time.
I certainly do not want NeoOffice precached because even though it's kind of slow to load, it's usually wasted space because I only ever need to use it once a week or so.
If you only use it once a week or so, it probably wouldn't ever get cached. But even if it did, what possibly "harm" could that cause to the rest of your system? Remember, the cache can be flushed in ZERO TIME. That's the point people don't get.
If Microsoft Vista is really doing precaching not caching, then perhaps you should listen to your users screaming out in pain.
I don't have any users screaming out in pain.
Whatever. Linux doesn't do it because it causes performance issues.
It caused "performance issues" (vague, unspecified ones) because their implementation sucked. That says nothing about Vista's implementation. Hell, your example was Linux caching a program that you never ran! How the fuck did it determine what to cache? Random number generator?
Look, Windows 95 had protected memory (in theory at least) and programs crashed
It had the unfortunate side effect of sculpting my upper body into the form of Adonis, and all the attention from women prevented me from playing Tetris as much as I wanted -- but man, my fitting-blocks-into-a-confined-space skills really blossomed that summer.
Wow, I wouldn't have guessed this guy was on Slashdot!
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1253765&threshold=2&commentsort=3&mode=thread&pid=28182635#28183971
See that post. There's a SourceForge page, but none of the submitted bugs are fixed, and most go unread. So it's pretty much like every other open source project's bug tracker, in that regard.
You can try filing a bug, but Slashdot never fixes bugs. Hell, few of the ones I've submitted have even been read:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939528&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939531&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939535&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939538&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939546&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939555&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939558&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1939563&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1949166&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1964699&group_id=4421&atid=104421
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1973248&group_id=4421&atid=104421
And of course:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1973268&group_id=4421&atid=104421
Note that some of those bugs might actually be fixed, but if they are, it's certainly not a result of the bug report in their bug tracking system.
It's an operating system. It's supposed to leave the resources to the user programs.
But it does. The two aren't mutually-exclusive: Vista can aggressively cache *and* leave resources to user programs.
It takes time to fill RAM, because you have to load stuff from disk (or network, or whatever). It takes no time to empty RAM. Zero. This is an extremely basic fact that a lot of "technical" people on this board simply don't understand.
What Vista does is fill your RAM with stuff it thinks you're likely to use, in a background thread when your computer is idle. Thus it takes none of your (the user) time.
If another program requires memory, Vista just unloads as much cache as is needed to make that program happy. Since it takes no time for Vista to give another program control of that memory, you (the user) have lost no time.
The only real crime is that every other OS doesn't do the same thing.
Has it occurred to you that you could simply not buy it?
The plugin was installed by automatic updates. The automatic update did not describe that it was going to install the plugin.
Are you sure? I never read the EULAs or release notes. You've carefully read them?
Remaining vulnerable is undesirable. Using automatic updates is undesirable. The only remaining option is to not use the OS.
Best argument I've seen yet for switching to Linux.
How is the situation in Linux any different?
Will it look like an ancient Palm, with a black-and-white screen, a writing area, and only a dozen apps on the homescreen?
SLASHDOT, FFS, GET SOME NEW ICONS!
And WTF is up with the MacBook icon on this iPhone story? I guess I need to change my request to "new and accurate icons."
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the editors of this site give a fuck.
The only reason to visit Slashdot is the quality of the comments, which is good since you have to rely on the first 4-5 comments to correct all the bullshit in the story summaries.
not one, but TWO search boxes (the second simply to search within microsoft.com) which will probably frustrate and confuse as many users as it might help.
Yeah, because Google would never have a Microsoft search box within search results:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=microsoft&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=2Inaafc1UxE
Seriously, you can't fault them for duplicating the functionality of the well-established leader in search.
There's only one placement at the top of the page, one placement at the bottom, and a single text ad in the right column.
Compare to the Google search of the same term: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22sql+server%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=2Inaafc1UxE
Google has the one placement at the top of the page, virtually identical to Bing's. It has no placement at the bottom, given, but it has 8 placements in the right column.
So Bing's total placements: 3. Google's: 9.
Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.
Wrong. They're using Flash, like everybody doing video on the web.
Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.
It's your computer at fault, not Microsoft.
MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.
They're using Flash, you gigantic ass. It doesn't even query for the Silverlight plug-in-- Bing is *all Flash*.
Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?
No they don't. Which is why their video previews has the same requirement YouTube has: Flash installed.
How did your retarded posting get modded up? Christ.
In short: there's *nothing wrong with using resources at your disposal*. If your machine has lots of memory, and you can get better performance by building a large, in-memory cache, then by all means, do it! This is *not* the same as "bloat". It's selecting the right algorithm given your target execution environment.
Now if only all the Slashdotters criticizing Vista would realize that when they complain about high memory usage...
The difference is that Xerox didn't *purposefully* destroy their technology, they just had no clue what to do with it. The story usually goes like this:
1) Inventor brings revolutionary technology to large corporation
2) Company pays through the nose for exclusive use of the inventor's patents
3) Company then buries the invention and all related materials in the desert somewhere
4) (optional) Company assassinates inventor
That's completely different than the Xerox situation, which is more like:
1) Xerox assigns teams to do computer UI research
2) Team creates system leaps and bounds above everything else available
3) Management says "duuuh"
4) Team invents WYSIWYG printing and LAN networking
5) Management says "duuuh"
6) Apple gets a demo of team's invention, asks Xerox to license it
7) Management says "duuuh, sure"
8) Apple creates all the products Xerox should have had perfected and marketed 5 years before
But on the down-side, our cars are a lot less interesting than the ones in Mad Max.
Can you prove to me that 4) has ever happened? Every story I've heard about that has ended up being an urban legend. (Seriously, those stories all equate to: company finds a massive advantage over competitors, buries it instead of racking up the cash. Makes no sense.)
What if he only puts 10k on the odometer a year?
The *manual* for my PT Cruiser says there's no problem if you change oil every 5,000 miles. So that equates to twice a year for my car. (I know some people recommend every 3,000 miles, but if the manual says 5,000 I'm going with 5,000.)