Posts by Mark 3397 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
How did all that water get up in the air? Water rolls DOWNHILL. It doesn't fall up.
The only way to get that happening is for it to be boiled and that turns it into vapour.
So all that snow must have been put there by an ENORMOUS amount of extra energy.
Thereby proving GW.
Or, alternatively, you can stop obsessing about one small segment to "prove" your point.
But why is that going into AGW? In the 90's it wasn't big. In fact, for most places, persuing AGW too prominently would get you sacked. See GWB's actions on environment agency high-ups saying there's a problem and him sacking them.
When that was going on, why were there still people persuing it? Surely they should all have been busy "proving" it wrong, so as to get all that lovely money.
Alternatively, you're talking out of your arse.
And keep your head up your arse.
You can install Firefox IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY on Linux.
This is because the developers of FireFox aren't writing for "Windows XP SP3" but *for other OS's you may wish to use FireFox on*.
Not windows doing it, the FF developers. If it were windows' work, you wouldn't be able to do it the same way on other OS's.
That 99% figure hasn't been true for over a decade. Windows only has an 80% (give or take a couple of %) desktop penetration. Many people dual boot, so the total of Windows and Linux is greater than 100%, so your implication that Linux isn't on 99% of desktops would be incorrect in any case.
"A metaphorical example – imagine you hire a builder and he turns up with inadequate tools, but charges you for his labour time. Would you be happy?"
No, but how does that apply here? Imagine if there were a big toolhouse where people could borrow tools so that they could work like Bob Vila. They don't own the equipment, they all clubbed together to pay for lots of things they may not need often enough to pay for a whole one for, but renting means someone had to make money not off the equipment but off the fact that you can't justify buying one, even though it would be cheaper in the long term.
The tools are looked after because each user knows and works as if it were their kit (better, since others will see how you left the tools after using it and word of your sloppy workmanship would get about and you'd be banned from the toolshed and find new work drying up). They turn up to build your boat.
But because they didn't have to buy the "making a keel for a boat" router bit just for your one boat, they could charge much less than another builder who either can't afford to buy the router or charges you for its rental (plus markup).
Would you be happy?
Hell yes.
And you're just as dead as a billionaire as someone without a penny.
So why NOT spend it? He can stop when he's out of money and sell some of his things to live on comfortably the rest of his life.
So why hoard it? It doesn't make you live longer and you'd hope your children will make their own money and make you proud. You gave them advantages growing up (best schools, etc) so after you're gone, there's no need to give them a huge wodge: they should already have made their own wodge.
Aye, I know.
And for lots, XP is what they want. Lack of the extra fluffies you can afford to install on a netbook style machine with Linux is of less value than the benefits of XP. The administration is a valid one. If you know how to do it on XP, why learn (for your own needs) how to adminster another? Doesn't make sense. Compatability is another, but one that really shouldn't exist. Computers are only worth it if they can talk to other computers and MS try their damndest to make sure that Windows can only be talked to by Windows.
Software compatability isn't MS's fault (except in so far as they hide the API. I wonder though where all those MS fans who said "there are no hidden APIs" when MS produced a honking big list of hidden APIs after a court ordered it...) but the ability to produce the output is now hardly a reason to pick one over the other.
And if you're using "cloud computing" there's no reason at all.
So the choice between XP and linux is between a machine that administers like your other machine or a machine that has more on it.
And for Aunt Tillie, she isn't administering either machine.
For computer knowledgable, learning one OS isn't much different or harder than learning two.
For computer users who only used Windows, the OS is a lot different. And that isn't a problem with Windows, it's a problem with the user. And it isn't one that the user needs to fix. It's their life and their life is as valid a way of living as any other. But what they shouldn't be doing is saying it is the fault of Linux not themselves. I'd like to change it but as much as for their ability to negotiate a deal for what they take vs what they want as to ensure that I'm not banned from anything for not using the only accepted OS.
There's a hell of a lot of proof of the poor validity of that site for "proving" Windows penetration.
Why are MS so shit scared for a start about Munich? UK Schools (BECTA) telling schools to use FOSS, Russian schools having to use FOSS or pay for it out of their own pocket (to avoid teachers being arrested for buying software that turns out non legit), Venezuela, OLPC and Classmate PC's being PAID to have Windows put on over Linux (with payment being "marketing contracts" for feck all) and so on, nearly eternally..?
Either MS are cowardly little girly-men afraid of tiny little mice or you're wrong and they know how much Windows is losing ground.
"[1] You wouldn't know it by listening to it's fanboys (you included)."
A quote from you, that.
The rest of the figures are pulled from the place where the sun shines not.
Ubuntu isn't all that Linux is.
"Instant On" Dells use Linux to play the media on the laptop without booting. Linux is used widely on many desktops across the world, MS would not be "sneaky when cornered" if it were not so, since they would not be "cornered" to be "sneaky" within. That they pay millions to African countries merely to STOP them using Linux, more millions to suppliers of educational machines to put Windows on there to replace Linux shows that they ARE sneaky.
And it's all for nothing.
If MS stopped being cunts and just let the systems work, I doubt whether MS's offering (excepting Vista) would get less than 60% of the market. For some people they do stuff the way people like it done. Hell, some people like "Strictly come dancing". If MS were still fighting to "win" at that point, MS will very likely sink quickly.
And MS are still stuck in the Old Guard of "if someone else wins, we lose".
MS cares deeply. A single loss is them "losing" and that don't happen, bro.
Arrogance and complete twattery. If they grew up, their share would drop a fair bit soon. If they stay infantile they'll lose their share later but they'll lose ALL of it.
Just because I call you and other MS zealots out on the bullshit doesn't mean that I think Linux should "win".
It works for me, now, this instant.
What I don't want to see is it excluded (DRM and TPM would do that nicely, MS's patent calamities and MSOOXML would do it too).
That you can only think of people wanting something to be *allowed* to compete must mean that they want it to "win" shows how poor a human being you are.
They aren't "Windows niches". These programs are available for Windows and most not for Linux (Maya is, as is lightwave and PS CS3 works under Crossover Office, probably Wine too now). These windows niches are getting smaller aren't they.
There's no need for these to be on Windows either. It used to be all these programs were NOT on Windows. Windows still (somehow) managed to get in front. Maybe because the "need" for these programs are very much a niche market and their "need" overexaggerated to "prove" someone is right in knocking Linux.
Linux doesn't CARE about "beating Windows" and this is one of the major reasons it IS beating Windows and Microsoft cannot find a way to fight back: Linux isn't playing the game.
What are you on about? iTunes isn't the application you want. The AAC from the iTunes store is what you want to play. That could be done by Amarok and the users wouldn't care.
Office isn't why MS Office is used at work: the documents in that format are what you want MS Office for.
There are only a few programs where it is the applcation is what you want. Examples are Maya 3DSMax. Applications where the task is so complex and the output so generic that the only discriminator is how the app operates.
Uh, they have a telly.
Why are they wanting a PC as a telly? Especially one with a 9inch screen?
PS out of the box, XP doesn't given them these either. Nor does Vista (which you can't FIT in a netbook). Heck, XP comes with bugger all and can't take it either on a netbook.
I thought about phoning up Wossie on his show and asking about whether his youngest is still going to be wearing the "Halloween Whore" outfit he was describing and whether he could get a photo up on the website of it.
Or would he figure that's a bit off?
One defendant said that it was no worse than some workplace shenanigans. Forgetting that Andrew Sachs wasn't part of the BBC Radio 2 team.
I dare say Wossie isn't hurting too much, he's trousered millions from the BBC already.
I bought the CD and the software thereon.
If I require to copy it to use it, the Berne Convention doesn't count this as a copyright controlled action and in the UK, since it is a civil tort, only damages can be applied and not punitive action (this requires a criminal court). Damages from ***using*** the software you bought to the person you bought it ***from***???
Yeah, that pony flies.
You bought a CD. It contains software. There's no license needed to USE the software. No matter how much you want to to be.
Nope, you own the software with GPL. There is NO ***END USER*** license needed. Specifically stated in black and white for the retards who spout this sort of crap because they think it is the ONLY way software can exist.
You don't own the copyrights, but you DO own the code. Until you start distributing copies (or a derivative work, as, for example, a binary compilation) you can do what you like with the code.
The owner of the MS software doesn't think nor is he asking for ownership of the RIGHTS of the software copyright owner. He's asking for the ownership RIGHTS of the copy he bought.
You're presumed innocent until proven guilty here.
Now, if he was there for nefarious purposes, why the HELL did he say what the security hole was?
If you're just making shit up to ask a question, ask that one. Why did he say anything if he were intent on doing wrong?". Answer that one.
The problem is that this senator who doesn't know what the internet is was at the time in charge of how the internet should work.
If your doctor was heard to say "your heart is like a big pump and like a big pump it needs grease" would you be happy for them to check out that funny feeling in your chest? To open it up and tinker with it?
@AC: you need to stop thinking of the human body as only being for sex. The fraction of women who are worth looking at is a small minority. Even if the number of men worth looking at were nil, that's only a small minority difference. Not much at all. And, unlike you apparently, I can look at a woman and enjoy the view without thinking "I'd have that for a dollar..!".
Grow up and realise that it isn't all about sex.
Pfft. You either have no imagination or too much.
Most women aren't really worth looking at naked. More men aren't, but the difference is not all that big.
And, since you're not going to be able to slap the salami at the station (it would be a bit of a givaway) you'd have to just remember the best ones for "total recall" later. And the incidence of heifers and unsuitable blokes will
a) keep the boner under control
b) "prove" you aren't just in the job for perving, honest
Hell, if the blokes fit, you can admire the looks without getting sexually aroused.
PS I wonder how they are going to manage children who have to pass through. Will they have to employ children too?
is to be able to say "no" when they ask for your fingerprint.
If they want you to go to the station, ask why. If they can't answer (and you should get a statement on record that this is why, so you can sue for wrongful arrest), you should be allowed to go on your way.
Just because they say "please" doesn't mean it's asking. If you're allowed to say "no", it's asking.
And the google devices notice if there's already noise from a different device on that channel and move to another one.
So the pastor's mike will remain interference free.
But, because the mikes are done on the QT they don't negotiate a LAN like space for their use and not interfere with each other. What if Dolly has a mic and a local church is using that too? They'd have to change without knowing what the other one is doing.
> You decide your *forward* speed by what you see in your rear view mirror?
No, your forward speed can be overlooked because
a) You're distracted.
b) Unless you check, the difference in 25mph and 35mph is most noticeable when other traffic is going at one speed or the other
That's why coming off the motorway can be disorienting to begin with: you seem to be going pretty slow, but those corners are coming up quick! You're "used" to 70mph. And 50mph feels like 30 if you don't look at the speedometer.
> You decide your *forward* speed by what you see in your rear view mirror?
No, your forward speed can be overlooked because
a) You're distracted.
b) Unless you check, the difference in 25mph and 35mph is most noticeable when other traffic is going at one speed or the other
That's why coming off the motorway can be disorienting to begin with: you seem to be going pretty slow, but those corners are coming up quick! You're "used" to 70mph. And 50mph feels like 30 if you don't look at the speedometer.
PS:
>I'd assume if the fixed cameras were typically drifting wildly off calibration, there'd be more successful challenges.
But you can't GET the calibration information. A few people have managed it by getting an expensive lawyer to get the police to turn it up. And it's not something that the pro-cam camp want known about.
Problem is that
a) that leeway isn't real: the speed cameras need frequent recalibration and are inaccurate anyway, so you need that leeway to account for the camera being wrong.
b) when someone is riding your tail, you can go faster and not notice until you look down. Your speed is then dependent on someone else's driving.
But that's not "speed kills".
If you drive below the speed limit but are concentrating on
a) the tailgater who won't be happy unless you're AT the limit
b) the speedo because you won't be happy if the car goes over the limit
you can have many more accidents.
Fewer deaths, but having your bollocks speared by the bull bars is not nice.
Oh, and on the "think of the children" bit. 4x4 moms who DEMAND a large car like this "to protect my children" you don't seem to give a shit that your car has a bonnet that rather than throw the child up and over will hit them square, making a more certain kill (or throwing them on the ground in front of your wheels). Bull bars make the recipient of a collision more likely to die.
So why not ban them or fine people five times the amount for any accident with such a vehicle speeding/being in an accident? After all, if the reason for the cams is to punish speeding and remove the fatalities, these 4x4 bullbars should be banned or fined too, yes?
And you can't say that you're a safe driver, so it's OK for you. As you just pointed out, everyone says "I'm a good driver, it's all the others that are crap".
If you bought a Sony CD player off me and got a Phillips one, it still plays CD's so what are you worried about?
Oh, you have a multi-remote with your amp that is a Sony amp and knows that model of CD player so you don't have to have 5 remotes to control your
DVD
CD
Amp
TV
VHS Recorder
because they're all Sony.
But Mac isn't why "PS CS4 isn't on Linux" is a problem for "Windows users" , so I figured it pretty much tangential. Heck, PS on Mac uses a GIMP-like multi-window interface, so no retooling needed for the UI.
Plenty of people say that they would use Linux if it had PS ("GIMP's a stupid name" or "It isn't ready for CMYK so I can't use it") so the demand is there. Plenty of people BUY Linux and Occulus makes enough money over the cost of licensing to make porting a game to Linux and selling it a job that pays.
So the "free as in beer" bit is no reason not to sell on Linux.
Unless adobe are afraid that PS will not compete with GIMP, despite the name and all that...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
