3419 posts • joined Friday 5th October 2007 13:42 GMT
Buy a pre-installed Linux machine
Oh, hang on, if they do that, they don't get marketing money from Microsoft, so they either have to charge more for all their PCs or drop the profits.
So there's more than one side to "4+4=8"?
Sometimes the two sides are
And you pick one.
Now, do you have any concrete evidence that says that the CO2 put up there doesn't cause warming and that the warming will be less than 1degree?
Because, just as in a Court of Law, the jurors and judge don't ***know*** what went on, but they do have two solicitors arguing the case for the prosecution and the case for the defense. And if one side has lots of evidence and the other side not much at all apart from "Well, he's wrong, innit", which side do you think the jury and judge will decide on?
"Well, he's wrong, innit"
re: Get worse
Well, how did they get any browser before there was IE? How did they get one when IE was available but not bundled?
a) Bought something that came with a browser
b) All ISP's included a browser on the Setup CD/floppy
d) Copied from a friend
e) Cover disks
Or do these no longer work any more? Which then brings up the question about how you get a browser for a computer that doesn't come with a browser, like, oh, Solaris.
"If you want to beat MS in the browser market "
There used to be IE for Mac, produced by Microsoft.
What did they say was the reason for stopping?
"We cannot compete with a browser that comes with the operating system".
If Microsoft don't reckon you have a chance to beat a browser even if you start with a 90% market share if that browser is built in to the OS, what chance does a browser with less than 10% market share have to do it?
re: Re: Miocrosoft is a monolply
Well why the flying monkey wank-fuck does it say "Thank you for your comment. We will moderate it as soon we can. If it is accepted then it will appear on the comments page."
If you're busy moderating, that's what you should be doing. If you're busy doing something else, don't say stupid shit like that.
re: Stupid EU
And Microsoft used to be able to expose a HTML API so that other browsers could replace IE seamlessly.
They dropped that.
Plus, I can do exactly the same with KDE. Probably fewer lines, though. Doesn't have to be IE.
re: Hardware support
You are talking bollocks. Command line for Mouse support?
Now, take your fancy newly installed WindowsXP box with the mouse in the USB slot.
Now place your USB mouse in a new USB slot.
Oh, you have to wait while it notices the mouse, looks for a driver and then goes "OK, you can use it now". Linux? Plug it in and it works. No waiting.
Probably the same with Vista.
What is missing from Open Office, then?
Why is it NVidia's fault when its drivers for Vista fucked the system right up, but it's Linux's problem when NVidia's open information doesn't support multiple monitors?
If you want to see what happens when you SUPPORT the platform, take a look at the 945 chipset integrated graphics.
Will it run Aero? Will it fuck.
Will it run Compiz? Yup. Nicely too. Sharing the memory with the CPU can make it a bit pissy if you have a memory intensive program running, but that's inherent in shared memory architecture.
Will it support multiple monitors in Linux? Yes.
All you fanboi's, make the installation idiot proof
It IS idiot proof.
Much more so than Windows.
Psymon Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 11:59 GMT
And yet in Linux, you can ghost images that actually frigging WORK.
A slight change to the chipset? No worries, it will be picked up and you won't have to change a thing. Since X.org 7.1 you don't have to have an xorg.conf, it autoconfigures (try that with Windows. Swap out your NVidia card for an ATI one. You'll need to TELL it to use the new one).
No need to install the new drivers.
Heck, you can boot of a live CD with a prepackaged presentation. Or netboot entirely over the network as you want to do for XP (but without having to put something to post-install configure the machine).
DynamicDNS updates is how your server can remember the machine.
Guess what? That's BIND. That's on Linux. No advantage for windows.
Because you can put EVERYTHING for the home user on its own partition, put /opt on a different machine, etc, you don't have to worry about a hosed system on linux either. It takes as long to reimage as it takes to punt that image over to the HDD. No advantage there for Windows.
You DO NOT USE Samba for it. There's no need. You use Samba to cooperate with what Microsoft wants you to do with their OS. If you're running Linux/Mac/Solaris/... you don't need it. Read up on LTS (Linux Terminal Server).
Does all you need and more.
With no need to fuck about with drivers after installation. Or CALs, audits, etc.
I'm pretty sure that nobody IN THE WORLD has *ever* thought of that.
Your genius is unsurpassed and you will get a Nobel prize forthwith for uncovering the forgotten element.
The World Salutes You.
Saviour Of The Planet.
Please show your workings
"Your missing the point, even if we turned *all* 100% of biomass & oil and coal from plant material to CO2, NOW, in zero seconds, the earth would still not suffer runaway global warming."
Please show your workings.
Since you have stated this as evident truth, you must have done so.
So, please. Show us.
Or tell us the journal you have written that has this in.
We await your magnificence to be revealed...
re: misonomers about open source
You kids. Your big misnomer is thinking that closed source is the normal way. Open source was the normal way.
Source code was how you got your OS and applications out there.
The source code being available WAS THE WAY.
It is only a recent invention where you sell a binary blob and keep the source code closed.
And the computers in the 40's-80's worked absolutely A-OK. Even though the source was open.
Copyright is not amenable to software
There is no expressive content in the binary. Copyright law is all about expressive.
Derived works do not work in software. Take linking. Even symbolic linking. You run the program and it loads and executes the library linked. But that then constitutes from copyright law a clear case of derived work: you have now effectively quoted huge sections of the library code to ensure YOUR code works. Illegal.
Two clear examples of where copyright does not work with software.
And it used to be that copyright DID NOT APPLY to software. That's why all that bollocks about AT&T vs BSDL went on. There was no copyright on code, so no license so no mention of licensing or anything ON THE CODE.
Then people started finagling copyright to apply to source and the trouble started.
Then people started finagling copyright to apply to binary output and the trouble got much much worse (you no longer owned the work and when copyright expires, the public have NOTHING to show for it). Then the accountants started applying copyright to the Look and Feel. Worse.
Then SCO tried "Negative Know-how" (i.e. "When they tried this, it didn't work, so don't try it" is benefiting from the work of the person who failed, so you OWE THEM).
Copyright on software:
Only with the source code. (NOTE this doesnt mean you have any license to copy chinks any more than having the plain english latin character set of "Harry Potter and the Higgledy Piggles" in the pages of the book lets you copy JK Rowling's work [though, it does let HER copy someone else's work, but let's not get into that]).
No source code = no copyright. You can use trade secret.
No EULA on non-copyright controlled actions. E.g. You can say "for one computer only" but not "No benchmarks" or "You must activate your copy".
And the rest of the cast apart from guest speakers Paul and Linda McCartney and Apu (who is indian) take the piss out of it. Hell one line is
"Jeesz, Apu, your lot must have been at the back of the queue when they handed out gods".
"Please, Mr Homer, stop feeding my got Peanuts"
Will Nancy accept a sketch taking the piss out of CoS?
Chef in South Park didn't.
Simpsons take the piss out of religion as much as they endorse it.
Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 11:02 GMT
"You've already admitted your employer is a climate centre. You have a vested interest in promoting AGW theories, because they pay for you to post messages all day."
No, I categorically deny I work in climatology. I have never ever said I work in climatology. Now you may mean a different Mark because, believe it or not, there's more than one Mark in the world, but I deny I have ever said that.
Now, who do YOU work for? And why do you hide under the plausible deniability of "Anonymous Coward" so that nobody knows how much of a speed respondent you are..?
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear with telling us and not posting AC.
@Steven << Cluestick
And those plants took the Carbon out when they were living.
Some lived 2,000,001 years ago and took the carbon out then.
Some lived 2,000,002 years ago and took the carbon out then.
Some lived ....
For millions of years, carbon was taken out.
And we burn a thousand years worth of carbon each day.
(The UK gets nearly 100cm of rain, 39 inches. It if all drops in one hour, we have a catastrophy. If it drops over a year, we have maritime weather.)
Miocrosoft is a monolply
So why the FUCK do you twats keep bleating "What about Linux? What about Apple?".
And El Reg, what the flying monkey-fuck do you think you're doing letting that shit through?
".It consists of a laboratory fact some very pessimistic models and censored and manipulated data."
Where is your proof of manipulation of the data? If it's censored and you know, where's the proof of censorship and how you know it when nobody else does? Where's the proof it IS censorship.
Come on, you DEMAND data. Where's yours/
re:Call yourselves professionals?
How about IE6? 7?
Do you need another license? Does IE change when you have Vista Ultimate rather than Vista Basic? etc.
How about not making IE the core functionality so you can change the browser maybe per account to be whatever you need to frigging test against.
You don't need a VM to test FF2 and FF3 on windows, do you. So it's hardly necessary.
"The first is nothing like science (intergovernmental report"
Uh, it's written by scientists.
It is about the scientific basis of the AGW debate.
It has science in it.
What does it have to have to be "science"?
Say that there's no AGW? Is THAT the only condition needed to be considered science by you?
Water Vapour falls from our sky
limiting how it can DRIVE rather than REACT to change.
So water vapour being a bigger warmer than CO2 is irrelevant: H2O doesn't drive, only react. CO2 doesn't rain out so it CAN drive, AND react.
And how about the denialist screed that once CO2 reached 280ppm that it stopped because the IR absorption band was saturated? Does that not happen with H2O? Or is that idea a load of donkey-balls?
"That being said, the scientific information from both side seems to be based more on belief than on science."
Uh, where do you get the absurd notion there's no science on the ProAGW side?
In case you don't like climatologists:
and to tie that in:
That isn't the scientific process, though.
You just put a wild-ass-guess out there.
Nothing about how such a pole reversal could act as you suggest, nothing about when or how fast this is changing (even, really, if it is) and, most importantly, you haven't show how that undoes the known and obvious heating effect of the CO2 we can currently measure out there now, this instant.
That's the denialist elephant-in-the-room. Anything you come up with has to explain why the currently know and measured CO2 that can be traced back to trillions of tons of fossil fuel carbon and the heating that necessarily results is undone by your scheme AND YET still shows a signature change that just happens to cooperate with the rate of fossil fuel consumption.
THAT is the "scientific process". Not some shit-wild guess as to how something else could be to blame, but how that idea fits into what we ALREADY KNOW.
Without that, all we're left with is "well, it could be that, but there's nothing to show it, whereas we have <this> to show that the CO2 we pump out is doing it. Since that has data supporting it, until you get back to us, we'll go with that idea".
The next stage is up to you.
"The comment that climate change groups and scientists hype the threat to receive funding should be treated in the same manner as any other issue - judge each on a case by case basis"
Well, that's right, but that isn't what happens, is it. Scientists proposing AGW are doing it purely for grant money.
That's the screed.
Strange how the people there don't say the same about this guy. *This* guy is a scientist who isn't saying stuff just for the money.
Now, there are those saying seriously that this guy is doing the same thing but for the side of Big Oil.
Now, that's a little off, but the contraindicators aren't there for him:
a) No paper produced for dissemination and review
b) He's already overblown his credentials. He wasn't Hanson's boss, he left NASA 15 years ago
c) Big Oil have a shitload more ready cash to spend on this sort of thing than grants available for climate conspiracies
d) He isn't having to conspire with almost all of the climate community to defraud. Mostly because he isn't producing anything verifiable, partly because he's talking on his own.
The Big Oil conspiracy is a lot easier to take than a conspiracy involving thousands of specialists who not only have to make up the data but have to do so in such a way that nobody can prove it wrong, AND requires the inclusion of international governmental collusion (no matter what the political inclination of the members).
Lastly, we have already one huge great big elephant in the room showing that Big Industry can and WILL hide change and pay off scientific opinion to keep its money flowing in: The Tobacco Industry.
Note: the exposure showed how there was, deliberately, a creed to hide or coerce studies that they did or sponsored if they showed there was a risk in smoking.
Do we have any proof that intergovernmental, international conspiracies occurred like the one supposed with AGW?
Wll, were you THERE when the concentration camps were found by the allies?
Then all you have are the photos (you can fake photos) and reports (mostly from the people who benefit from the persecution of the Germans).
But the *amount* of evidence is huge. Even though you WILL find lots and LOTS of people claiming there WAS NEVER a holocaust and it's all a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, the evidence points to there really having been a holocaust.
Doesn't that sound an awful lot like the AGW "debate"? "There's a petition of scientists say it's wrong", "It's all a scam to get taxes", "Eco-nazis are trying to get us all to live in caves" et al.
Sounds familiar to me. Just the epithet of "Nazi" is on the other side.
And if this is a 30-year cycle then it must be in the records for 1940, 1910, 1880, etc with the comensurate 30 year highs in 1955, 1925, 1905, ...
So where are they?
Or is this a "cycle of one"...
Yup, the nuclear engine in the sky
David, why not use the fucking huge nuclear power station safely stationed 93 million miles away?
RE: I love it when people say...
Ah, the irony.
Someone spouting off about what they know not and kidding on they're one of the cognoscenti.
Tritium. Even rarer, but still a lot of it.
Fusion reactor, with Lithium shell around. Lithium is so easy to get that we make batteries out of it.
Tritium gives excellent energy conversion with the temperatures we can manage in a tokamak (much lower than the solar core) and releases neutrons.
Neutrons hit lithium and the product is.... tritium!
There *are* engineering problems but your four points are neutered badly if you consider the above real-life example.
Weren't we buying licenses?
I thought we were buying "licenses".
And, by the reading of the black-and-white of distribution licenses, only the physical medium is restricted, not the ephemeral license.
Then again, grey imports should be completely legal for a product legal in that country.
"His disregard of the Court's authority is thus very serious indeed."
Course, it's just as well the *Judge* said that, not the Microsoft employee...
Your original point:
"Who needs, uses or wants Compiz? Much less in a portable device?"
"So turn it off."
"That isn't an answer to my question, youngster."
Well, if you really want to know, how about we reverse it? Does *nobody* in the *world* *anywhere* want Compiz, even if it doesn't have to be a portable device?
I would suggest that the likelihood that there is not one single solitary person in the world who doesn't want Compiz is so close to zero as to be zero. Even if we take that nobody here asked for it.
Now, if you are asking the implied question: "Why would *I* want it, especially on a portable device" then "Turn it off" makes the query moot. You don't have to have it.
So if you ask a question in the future, try making it one that is
b) actually may have a possibility of being true
Treat MP3s and digital dissemination
like they treat free advertising.
The Virgin website can then offer higher quality rips or physical media (with extras that aren't amenable to internet transmission). RIAA et al can become places to sift the good from the bad on the internet. Rather than the "guardians" of content, the "Professional Journalists" of content.
Margins of profit WILL be lower, but the profit margins on PC's dropped MASSIVELY in the 1990's and they are still selling PC's at a profit last I looked.
And with more content available, they may really be able to make it up on volume.
re: Deep Joy
Hang on, this is a *scientist*.
You all know that scientists only ever lie about the results so that they can get more funding, so this man is obviously lying here to get funding from elsewhere.
And that is the same oregon petition that included names of people who have asked to be removed? The same petition that has names of people who are dead, fictional characters and not scientists?
Or do you only check up for lies when the statement disagrees with your preconceptions?
Are we? Or is that just an argument from personal incredulity?
Remember, the earth's atmosphere is thinner in proportion to the earth than the skin of an apple.
That's all we need to change, not the entire earth, just the extremely thin and tenuous gas that we all have to breathe.
But the vast majority of scientists wouldn't know what climatology was like if it snuck into bed with them and gave them a BJ.
Fuck, a programmer is a computer scientist.
So you might be right, but that's not necessarily of any frigging use whatsoever.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging