Get this through your stupid head, **it's about the GDP, stupid!** Regardless of who pays for it, there is MORE PAYING going on in the US. A lot more paying. And the system is not 'better' by any measurable amount. This is what people mean by 'spending less on healthcare'... they DO SPEND LESS. A LOT LESS. Understand?
Wow, you're an ass.
Look, he's not denying that. I don't think there's a single rational person who thinks the US healthcare system is perfect and beyond criticism. Never did he say anything that suggested he wasn't aware that Canada spends less on healthcare. Never.
All he's saying is that quoting figures like $100/month is misleading if you don't also include the additional tax burden. And that's a completely fair statement.
I have no idea where you got that idea... I think you just pulled it out of your ass, somehow convinced yourself to get really, really angry at it, then posted this retarded flamebait.
"Best" by the metric of "can work as a team during a RAID lasting several hours."
Not "best" by the metric of, "having the most fun" or "meeting new friends" or "trading/crafting like a well-run shop" or any of the thousand other ways I'd consider somebody good at the game. I know from experience that most of the people in those raiding guilds are miserable.
(And why wouldn't they be? The guilds are full of assholes who enforce schedules like the worst bureaucrats... the "crime" of living on the west coast and having a 9-5 job is enough to be rejected by those asses.)
Listen to people wax nostalgic about Everquest sometime, talking about how they had to line-up for 8 hours to enter an instance with 20 people, how if even a single person got disconnected they'd lose their spot in line and have to restart, how if they wiped in the dungeon it took 6 hours to get back to where they were before, how raiding was a 16-hour day almost every time, with no breaks.
Then ask yourself, "would I want to play the game they're describing?" (No, you wouldn't.)
Odds are, UO was actually just a pretty bad game. The reason he goes on about it is because his brain is infected with the nostalgia disease, which makes everything old look good even if it wasn't.
But it's the same kernel. It's not like Vista and Windows 7 are using significantly different kernels... it's the chosen configuration that wasn't suited for a netbook, not (what a Linux user would refer to as) "the OS".
So yes, I can have it both ways. If you're going to compare the barebones Linux kernel's flexibility, I get to compare it to barebone Windows NT kernel.
I definitely remember getting five or six separate UAC prompts during the installation of a single piece of software.
First of all, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's the fault of that installer. I'm not sure exactly what would cause that, but I'd wager that it could happen if the installer runs a bunch of different programs to take care of sub-tasks-- usually Windows handles this seamlessly, though, which means that it must be doing it in a funky way.
But it's also not the drivers that made it take far longer to boot than XP, while Win7 took less time than XP.
Who reboots their OS? My desktop is always on, and my laptop is always sleeping. I've always thought boot time was a stupid measure of... anything.
Linux was never "designed" to run on Netbooks either, it's just flexible enough that it doesn't matter.
Yep, not only did they rip off sudo (which would've been fine), they managed to screw it up.
First of all, Windows has had "sudo"-equivalent features for a long time-- since Windows 2000, I believe.
Secondly, how did they screw it up? It works fine for me.
No, the issue is that the Vista release, like most Microsoft products, was at best beta quality, more like alpha quality.
The problem was that the OS was release-quality, but the drivers from various third-parties was beta-quality for a good year after the OS was released. (And this despite over a year of technical preview releases... fucking lazy driver writers!)
Did Vista have bugs? Yah, it had a bug that slowed down file copies. But they were all fixed, and if you used Vista about a year after it came out it would be fine.
(With one disclaimer: Vista was never designed to run on Netbooks, which was a market Microsoft didn't anticipate while they were developing it.)
In the latest installment, they're quoting somebody known only as "SirBruce" who backs up their story. Of course, they don't link to SirBruce's actual article, they only quote from it a bit... I'm sure whoever he is, he's not just some 12-year-old in his parents' attic.
He's also actively debating all-comers, it looks like. He plays off the Ars debunker's computer as being "misconfigured" somehow.
Nobody has yet brought up in that blog post that he's a liar as well as being completely technically inept, so please be my guest if you like.
It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.
To be clear, they *are* wrong. But this particular article isn't about that... there was one friday or yesterday discussing how wrong the memory consumption figures were.
When I say dumped I mean dumped, discarded, tossed.
I thought you meant it had to be saved to disk first. Sorry.
But that brings up another question: how long do you think it takes to dump RAM? (Without saving it back to disk?) Honestly, it's something the CPU can do with spare cycles between actual useful work anyway... for all practical purposes, dumping RAM takes *zero* time.
And that was the whole point I was trying to make. If you can dump RAM to use for another purpose in practically no time, then it's retarded to keep RAM free instead of using it for aggressive pre-caching.
I notice it when our testbeds get low on RAM. They take longer to come around than when we run XP.
Well, if you're using the computer as a testbed, then pretty much by definition you're not doing what the normal average user is doing. Windows is optimized for normal human beings, not for stress testing. I don't see your experience here as being particular valid when debating the usefulness of caching.
B. I seriously doubt that Microsoft has based their entire multi-touch platform application development on an Adobe product.
B. They didn't, you fuckwit. What I said is that Flash is one of the main LANGUAGES (all caps to piss your pedantic off) being used with the Surface table, both inside and outside of Microsoft.
Notice how that statement is different than this one: "Microsoft based their entire multi-touch platform on an Adobe product." See how the two are not equivalent? Good boy!! Go get a cookie!!
Flash is one of the main languages used to develop Surface tables-- and those are nothing but giant touchscreens.
I think the real point here doesn't have anything to do with Flash itself, it's just "applications built for a mouse won't necessarily work on a touchscreen." Which is... duh. (Also true of DHTML applications that make use of rollovers.)
The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of that cached memory is read-only caches (like DLL caching and superfetch) which doesn't need to be "dumped". Some small, very small, portion of it is read/write disk cache, but that portion is never going to be dumped unless you're *completely* out of memory otherwise. And that's basically a "last resort failure mode" at that point.
You're as bad as the guys who wrote that article in the first place. If you don't know how Windows works, please don't talk about it.
If the other browsers aren't well-presented, that's their own fault. All the copy/images was submitted by the browser team, it wasn't created by Microsoft.
While you make a good argument, I still refuse to call anything with a 12.1" screen a netbook. 10" or smaller, only. I'm just going to be stubborn about that.
Apple doesn't call the MacBook Air a netbook, and I don't see why anybody else would. It's not only too huge, but it's about 4 times too expensive to fit in with the rest of the netbooks.
You're complaining about having to download 2 files instead of 1?
Yes, it's twice the pain-in-the-ass. Why wouldn't I? When I see bullshit, I call it out.
In the year 2010?
What does the year have anything to do with it?
Are you serious?
Yes.
Native zip handling sucks anyway.
No, it works fine.
In any case, the crackers don't have to use the native zip handling if they don't fucking want to. I'm not holding a gun to their heads. But they could upload the file in fucking zip format. The format EVERYBODY can read without doing anything at all except double-clicking it.
Ok, so the.rar file is 1k smaller than the.zip version of same. As you said, it's 2010-- why the fuck does 1k matter? Just use a.zip file that *isn't* a pain-in-the-ass in the first place.
7zip, winzip, winrar et al do a much better job of working with compressed files.
I don't want to "work with" compressed files. That's the point you seem to be missing. I want to decompress the file once, ever. That's all I want to do. The built-in.zip handling is more than good enough to accomplish that, and about 20 less steps than downloading some other piece of shit program I don't want.
If you work with compressed files, then use whatever fucking software you want. Knock yourself. But when you try to send that file to other human beings, please use the file that EVERY OS SUPPORTS, not your idiotic pet favorite that does nothing but piss everybody off.
And please, software usability is already bad enough without idiots like you encouraging people to make it worse. Let's make computers EASY. Let's make computers PAIN-IN-THE-ASS-FREE. Can we agree on that goal?
When my iBook had a 12" screen, it was a laptop not a netbook.
Don't let the term slip like that... if it's 12", it's a freakin' laptop. Otherwise, the word "netbook" becomes even more meaningless than it already kind-of is.
Hell, next thing you know, my 13.1" tablet will be a "netbook", and then my 14.1" work laptop will be a "netbook"...
My first-generation MSI Wind has no problems playing HD video when running Windows 7. I can even multitask to some extent.
What's the point of this story? Next are you going to post a summary of how to view webpages on a netbook? Or maybe some special $10 solution to connect your netbook to wifi?
With the way Buzz worked when released, it didn't matter what direction the contact went in. If he sent her emails, it considered him a "friend" even if she never replied, or indeed deleted them all immediately.
So basically, Buzz rewarded stalkers by giving them *more* information about their victims.
I played with Wave for a few hours, but I never figured out what it was *for*. I tried making a Wave for Godzilla fans, but then it turns out you can't just publish it to everybody like a website. (Or maybe you can and I never figured out how?)
Also, it worked horribly in Firefox, bogging down to a standstill after only a few hours. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
Get this through your stupid head, **it's about the GDP, stupid!** Regardless of who pays for it, there is MORE PAYING going on in the US. A lot more paying. And the system is not 'better' by any measurable amount. This is what people mean by 'spending less on healthcare'... they DO SPEND LESS. A LOT LESS. Understand?
Wow, you're an ass.
Look, he's not denying that. I don't think there's a single rational person who thinks the US healthcare system is perfect and beyond criticism. Never did he say anything that suggested he wasn't aware that Canada spends less on healthcare. Never.
All he's saying is that quoting figures like $100/month is misleading if you don't also include the additional tax burden. And that's a completely fair statement.
I have no idea where you got that idea... I think you just pulled it out of your ass, somehow convinced yourself to get really, really angry at it, then posted this retarded flamebait.
"Best" by the metric of "can work as a team during a RAID lasting several hours."
Not "best" by the metric of, "having the most fun" or "meeting new friends" or "trading/crafting like a well-run shop" or any of the thousand other ways I'd consider somebody good at the game. I know from experience that most of the people in those raiding guilds are miserable.
(And why wouldn't they be? The guilds are full of assholes who enforce schedules like the worst bureaucrats... the "crime" of living on the west coast and having a 9-5 job is enough to be rejected by those asses.)
There's a high nostalgia factor, too.
Listen to people wax nostalgic about Everquest sometime, talking about how they had to line-up for 8 hours to enter an instance with 20 people, how if even a single person got disconnected they'd lose their spot in line and have to restart, how if they wiped in the dungeon it took 6 hours to get back to where they were before, how raiding was a 16-hour day almost every time, with no breaks.
Then ask yourself, "would I want to play the game they're describing?" (No, you wouldn't.)
Odds are, UO was actually just a pretty bad game. The reason he goes on about it is because his brain is infected with the nostalgia disease, which makes everything old look good even if it wasn't.
But it's the same kernel. It's not like Vista and Windows 7 are using significantly different kernels... it's the chosen configuration that wasn't suited for a netbook, not (what a Linux user would refer to as) "the OS".
So yes, I can have it both ways. If you're going to compare the barebones Linux kernel's flexibility, I get to compare it to barebone Windows NT kernel.
I definitely remember getting five or six separate UAC prompts during the installation of a single piece of software.
First of all, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's the fault of that installer. I'm not sure exactly what would cause that, but I'd wager that it could happen if the installer runs a bunch of different programs to take care of sub-tasks-- usually Windows handles this seamlessly, though, which means that it must be doing it in a funky way.
But it's also not the drivers that made it take far longer to boot than XP, while Win7 took less time than XP.
Who reboots their OS? My desktop is always on, and my laptop is always sleeping. I've always thought boot time was a stupid measure of... anything.
Linux was never "designed" to run on Netbooks either, it's just flexible enough that it doesn't matter.
So is Windows, what's your point?
Yep, not only did they rip off sudo (which would've been fine), they managed to screw it up.
First of all, Windows has had "sudo"-equivalent features for a long time-- since Windows 2000, I believe.
Secondly, how did they screw it up? It works fine for me.
No, the issue is that the Vista release, like most Microsoft products, was at best beta quality, more like alpha quality.
The problem was that the OS was release-quality, but the drivers from various third-parties was beta-quality for a good year after the OS was released. (And this despite over a year of technical preview releases... fucking lazy driver writers!)
Did Vista have bugs? Yah, it had a bug that slowed down file copies. But they were all fixed, and if you used Vista about a year after it came out it would be fine.
(With one disclaimer: Vista was never designed to run on Netbooks, which was a market Microsoft didn't anticipate while they were developing it.)
BTW, they're still digging the hole deeper if you check-back to their blog:
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/editorial-what-took-you-so-long.html
In the latest installment, they're quoting somebody known only as "SirBruce" who backs up their story. Of course, they don't link to SirBruce's actual article, they only quote from it a bit... I'm sure whoever he is, he's not just some 12-year-old in his parents' attic.
He's also actively debating all-comers, it looks like. He plays off the Ars debunker's computer as being "misconfigured" somehow.
Nobody has yet brought up in that blog post that he's a liar as well as being completely technically inept, so please be my guest if you like.
It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.
To be clear, they *are* wrong. But this particular article isn't about that... there was one friday or yesterday discussing how wrong the memory consumption figures were.
When I say dumped I mean dumped, discarded, tossed.
I thought you meant it had to be saved to disk first. Sorry.
But that brings up another question: how long do you think it takes to dump RAM? (Without saving it back to disk?) Honestly, it's something the CPU can do with spare cycles between actual useful work anyway... for all practical purposes, dumping RAM takes *zero* time.
And that was the whole point I was trying to make. If you can dump RAM to use for another purpose in practically no time, then it's retarded to keep RAM free instead of using it for aggressive pre-caching.
I notice it when our testbeds get low on RAM. They take longer to come around than when we run XP.
Well, if you're using the computer as a testbed, then pretty much by definition you're not doing what the normal average user is doing. Windows is optimized for normal human beings, not for stress testing. I don't see your experience here as being particular valid when debating the usefulness of caching.
A. Flash is not a language
A. You are a pedantic asshole
B. I seriously doubt that Microsoft has based their entire multi-touch platform application development on an Adobe product.
B. They didn't, you fuckwit. What I said is that Flash is one of the main LANGUAGES (all caps to piss your pedantic off) being used with the Surface table, both inside and outside of Microsoft.
Notice how that statement is different than this one: "Microsoft based their entire multi-touch platform on an Adobe product." See how the two are not equivalent? Good boy!! Go get a cookie!!
Flash is one of the main languages used to develop Surface tables-- and those are nothing but giant touchscreens.
I think the real point here doesn't have anything to do with Flash itself, it's just "applications built for a mouse won't necessarily work on a touchscreen." Which is... duh. (Also true of DHTML applications that make use of rollovers.)
Humor me:
How much information about you is encoded in your fingerprint, exactly?
If someone gained access to your fingerprint could they, for example, empty your bank account? Take out a loan in your name? Give me an example here.
I like how these Linux projects are always created like the day after Microsoft announces that the feature is going into their next OS. So innovative.
The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of that cached memory is read-only caches (like DLL caching and superfetch) which doesn't need to be "dumped". Some small, very small, portion of it is read/write disk cache, but that portion is never going to be dumped unless you're *completely* out of memory otherwise. And that's basically a "last resort failure mode" at that point.
You're as bad as the guys who wrote that article in the first place. If you don't know how Windows works, please don't talk about it.
If the other browsers aren't well-presented, that's their own fault. All the copy/images was submitted by the browser team, it wasn't created by Microsoft.
While you make a good argument, I still refuse to call anything with a 12.1" screen a netbook. 10" or smaller, only. I'm just going to be stubborn about that.
Apple doesn't call the MacBook Air a netbook, and I don't see why anybody else would. It's not only too huge, but it's about 4 times too expensive to fit in with the rest of the netbooks.
I'd recommend something like SmallBasic: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/devlabs/cc950524.aspx
But, oh, I guess according to the grandparent it's impossible to learn computers with Microsoft products, so nevermind.
You're complaining about having to download 2 files instead of 1?
Yes, it's twice the pain-in-the-ass. Why wouldn't I? When I see bullshit, I call it out.
In the year 2010?
What does the year have anything to do with it?
Are you serious?
Yes.
Native zip handling sucks anyway.
No, it works fine.
In any case, the crackers don't have to use the native zip handling if they don't fucking want to. I'm not holding a gun to their heads. But they could upload the file in fucking zip format. The format EVERYBODY can read without doing anything at all except double-clicking it.
Ok, so the .rar file is 1k smaller than the .zip version of same. As you said, it's 2010-- why the fuck does 1k matter? Just use a .zip file that *isn't* a pain-in-the-ass in the first place.
7zip, winzip, winrar et al do a much better job of working with compressed files.
I don't want to "work with" compressed files. That's the point you seem to be missing. I want to decompress the file once, ever. That's all I want to do. The built-in .zip handling is more than good enough to accomplish that, and about 20 less steps than downloading some other piece of shit program I don't want.
If you work with compressed files, then use whatever fucking software you want. Knock yourself. But when you try to send that file to other human beings, please use the file that EVERY OS SUPPORTS, not your idiotic pet favorite that does nothing but piss everybody off.
And please, software usability is already bad enough without idiots like you encouraging people to make it worse. Let's make computers EASY. Let's make computers PAIN-IN-THE-ASS-FREE. Can we agree on that goal?
When my iBook had a 12" screen, it was a laptop not a netbook.
Don't let the term slip like that... if it's 12", it's a freakin' laptop. Otherwise, the word "netbook" becomes even more meaningless than it already kind-of is.
Hell, next thing you know, my 13.1" tablet will be a "netbook", and then my 14.1" work laptop will be a "netbook"...
What model is it? Where do I buy one?
Of course, since you pulled that out of your ass, you might have a little trouble answering. We all know such a machine does not exist.
My first-generation MSI Wind has no problems playing HD video when running Windows 7. I can even multitask to some extent.
What's the point of this story? Next are you going to post a summary of how to view webpages on a netbook? Or maybe some special $10 solution to connect your netbook to wifi?
What a waste of bits.
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening?
Plastics.
With the way Buzz worked when released, it didn't matter what direction the contact went in. If he sent her emails, it considered him a "friend" even if she never replied, or indeed deleted them all immediately.
So basically, Buzz rewarded stalkers by giving them *more* information about their victims.
I played with Wave for a few hours, but I never figured out what it was *for*. I tried making a Wave for Godzilla fans, but then it turns out you can't just publish it to everybody like a website. (Or maybe you can and I never figured out how?)
Also, it worked horribly in Firefox, bogging down to a standstill after only a few hours. Oh well.