Don't you get the irony of Phoenix? It's a small and light version of Firefox which was a small and light version of Mozilla. It's turtles all the way down man.
Uh... I think he does. Firefox used to be called Firebird. You know why? Because hey had to change the original name: Phoenix.
"They" who?
The WINE project?
No. That's never been the model, actually, since there's no business model. It's an open source project. That said, like any free software project, it's easier to motivate people to fix the bugs that you care about if you show up with patches or donations -- but neither is necessary.
Now if you're referring to Codeweavers, then yes, actually, that is part of their business model.
I thought that anyone could run anything on 8. I know my Win8 laptop runs lots of things that aren't in any app store. I think it's an optional walled garden. There are plenty of problems with MS, you don't need to make up any more.
For the developers, not the users.
If you want to write a "Metro" (Windows Store) app, you must get a special license from Microsoft and must ship via the Windows Store or you'll be locked out of at least some of the Windows 8 devices (since they'll need to have sideloading enabled -- and not everything will).
Yes, for now it's a minor restriction, but when has Microsoft ever tried to *loosen* its control in subsequent generations?
Outside of Metro, what's different between 8 and 7 (especially in tablet form)?
Providing support for a walled garden design which restricts developers who don't play the "app store" game.
If they weren't on your website, (or if they don't provide the header, an act to be widely discouraged)
Excuse me?
No, actually, it's not an act to be "widely discouraged". Why? Because I don't trust you. Shit, I run several large sites and I wouldn't want my users to trust me with that sort of thing. Ok, I can at least see a case for providing it for intra-site requests, but it's absolutely a bad thing from a privacy standpoint to tell every site where you were previously.
Plus, you know, what with Google serving their results over HTTPS, there's not going to be a ref. header for the subsequent request to your site.
Seriously though, HTTP_REFERRER should burn in a fire. It's right up there with SMTP: a vestige from a time when networks consisted of admins and users who generally could be trusted to do the right thing. Those days are over. Sorry.
Now sending a User Agent header... that's at least a *little* more defensible (though not much...)
You'd point to data denying global warming or the link between smoking and cancer as being from an industry source, why are you so quick to accept data from the sugar industry?
You know why this is different?
Because in those cases, there's good data from neutral parties that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer and that the earth is getting warmer.
But that HFCS is worse, measure-for-measure, than sucrose when in food consumed by healthy adults?
The data just ain't there. Sorry. It's just not. And no, that Princeton study that you're trying to find the link for right now doesn't count.
Are there any laws in the US that allow you to break contract for free if you don't agree with the newly enforced 'contract', that you didn't sign?
Yes. Or rather, since the US has a "default allow" policy with regards to rights: no, there are no laws forcing you to stick with a contract which has changed substantially.
Furthermore, AT&T's practices (in this case) extend to pre-paid and month-to-month service as well, for which there is no contract.
If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.
That's actually a pretty good idea, and while it would require a little bit of carrier cooperation (though not more than they already do, since toll-free numbers are still a thing) it seems like simply allowing people the option of filtering calls where ANI != CID would cut out a lot of the call spam. It wouldn't catch it all, but it would at least get the low-hanging fruit...
It seems to me a general truth that people who focus so much on "personal responsibility" and "willpower" are people who are much less interested in solving problems, and much more interested in making themselves feel superior by way of their own good fortune. The line your advocating is equivalent to "Just say no to drugs" or abstinence-only sex education.
Then this will probably be a real mindfuck then:
I'm a rather hardcore liberal, and I believe that the focus should in fact be on "personal responsibility" and "willpower".
Further, we should work on teaching not only how to apply those concepts, but the best ways to do so as part of public health education and (in schools) home ec. and PE (you know, those things that we've slowly worked on purging in favor of bland, guaranteed-not-to-anger-parents "replacements".)
Yes, you can't teach "willpower", but you can teach personal responsibility, and you can give people the tools to help better themselves and support throughout the process. And as a liberal, that's exactly what I think we should do.
I'm glad you mentioned sex and drugs. Because you know what is most effective at preventing pregnancy? Not fucking. And that's one of the things that we can teach in sex ed. But because I'm not a far-right idiot, I *also* believe in providing additional lines of defense (condom distribution, better public health support, Planned Parenthood clinics, etc.)
It's the same thing with food. You know what's most effective? Eating less. And yeah, like not fucking it can be pretty hard when the temptation's staring you in the face. And some people will fail at that, which is why in addition to trying to teach restraint we should also provide additional lines of defense (reduce corn subsidies, continue improving food science, require truth in advertising for fast food, fix school lunches, etc.)
Think about taking a phone call where the problem is that their video driver needs to be reinstalled. Under windows, this is merely painful and requires a couple reboots -- 15 minute call. Under Linux, it could require a kernel recompilation, editing files in
Ok. No problem. Here's how it will go:
Blizzard Support: Can you please tell me what version of Ubuntu you're running?
User: I don't think I'm running Ubuntu. My friend installed this thing called Fedora for me.
Blizzard: I'm sorry sir, but we only support Ubuntu. If you have problems getting $GAME to run under that please feel free to call back.
Status: Resolved
Ok, so how about for Ubuntu. Well funny enough, but the support procedures for Debian and Ubuntu for reinstalling one's drivers (i.e. re-installing the NVIDIA drivers, 'cause the scenario you posed is only really an issue with the NVIDIA ones...) is pretty straightforward, even if it does involve the big scary package manager.
Motif with its 3D chiselled look was actually quite nice. IRIX was cooler though.
Maybe my memory's faulty, but didn't IRIX use Motif for the Indigo Magic Desktop?
Considering that the "Assembled in USA" text is on the machine itself, no, it's not.
Also, the FTC takes a very harsh attitude towards the approach outlined in the GP's post. IIRC they actually discuss that very thing on their site.
But hey, let's not let that stop the anti-USA snark!
Why bother labeling it at all? Apple's not the only one to design machines in the US. But they are, AFAIK, the only ones to label them accordingly.
We do know that it's a POWER-based CPU, almost definitely POWER7, but it could be single-core for all we know (although the rumors seem to have settled on quad-core, with some level of SMT, with a clock speed in the 3GHz range).
There's no way that IBM is shipping a high-end POWER7 CPU in a consumer console. Not unless the Wii U comes with pre-approval for a new line of credit...
My money's on a high-end PowerPC variant. Maybe it takes some "inspiration" from POWER7, but that's about all I'd be willing to bet on.
Or maybe, the cost of a mis-predicted branch causing a 8000 cycle CPU stall, made worse by the fact there was no branch predictor, which meant every line of existing code had to be re-written without branches?
Ok, this confused me. What do you mean "no branch predictor"? I mean... it's either doing speculative execution or it's not -- and if it's not, how the hell do you have a "mis-predicted branch"? And if it is, how do you do that without branch prediction? Or does it just treat bne as a jump and beq as a nop? (aka. static prediction?)
All of the POWER and PowerPC chips I've heard of definitely have branch prediction (and mostly quite good prediction at that), and while I don't know the first thing about the Cell and how dumbed-down it is/isn't, what you described seemed.... odd.
Also, 8000 cycles? A mis-prediction takes out the SPE for 8000 cycles?!? Holy shit. That makes Prescott look downright thrifty...
That platform sounds nightmarish. Best of luck.
You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.
