I don't know why this reply is labeled redundant except to show a bias against stating a legitimate concerns and problems with Wikipedia. It sounds like there is a broken mod system here on
/. as well. Not that this is also stating the obvious.
It could be that the post just before that one by Nwallins (1059978) on 2009.11.25 13:41 (#30228784) makes the same mention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold. I wouldn't have marked either as redundant though because the other was first and the second one has more material.
I also wouldn't say that
A large government has far more opportunities for graft and corruption than a small one.
That is a good point, but as I see it, having a smaller government would mean fewer congressmen to bribe to reach a majority vote, allowing the company to expand its influence for the same budget. If you meant "small government" figuratively, you are right; a large government tends to have far more public projects to try to push through congress. However, without these, they would then focus their attack on public policy, resulting in additional lobbying against regulation and anything else detrimental to business yet necessary to ensure the rights and safety of the people.
Regardless of the literal and figurative size of the government, however, lobbyists had, have, and will continue to have more influence than entire political parties IMO.
People who want to get laid?
impossible. people on facebook are too busy growing crops in FarmVille or doing epic crimes in Mafia Wars or making creepy comments on attractive friends-of-friends's photos to have time to have mere sex.
2) It may surprise many, but steroids are quite legal also. Unethical, perhaps, but legal.
Umm in most places they are illegal*. For example in Hawaii (which is part of the 9th circuit, which is the same on as mentioned in this article.) steroids are considered a 'harmful drug' and possession of any amount is a misdemeanor.
*: Assuming you mean 'real' steroids and not those used for asthma and so forth. Also there is a huge cat-and-mouse game with law-makers and steroid-makers, law-makers ban substance X, steroid makers tweak it slightly so it does the same thing, but it has a slightly different chemical structure, so law markers ban that one, and so forth. But the law-markers bannings take a long time to do, so any one substance might be legal for a while.
Take a world map, throw a dart...
Unless he's black, Polish, Romani, homosexual or disabled.
Not that Stalin was any better, but Hitler most certainly didn't killed only Jews.
It also offloads the graphics into faster dedicated memory and composets each window seporatly meaning crashes do not cause screen corruption.
Display drivers have always been allowed to store device associated bitmaps in video memory, and draw on them directly. However, you are right that the DWM model in Vista is better. It matches modern hardware much better than the old GDI model.
The new RDP uses far less bandwidth and allows the sending of documents to a printer using a generic driver so that each printer does not need to be installed on both sides. It also supports transport over SSL inside the base program which pipes it easily over the web. It can serve up individual applications and composite them with the other local windows. It also has full support for multiple moniters and video streaming which may be eye candy but is useful.
I thought the single window support was only in the server editions. I wasn't aware of the other features; those do sound quite useful.
BS, XP is shit at wireless. It does connect, if you get everything right and there are no adverse conditions. Enter the key wrong and it will still say it is connected but won't allow net access, it takes a minute or so to figure out it is not connected! The automatic connection method and wireless polling is also inferior in comparison. It also plays its connected but not connected games sometimes when you are using the right keys (observed in Multiple machines and environments).
I know anecdote wars are never very helpful, and I don't know what I have configured differently than you, but XP Wireless support has always just worked for me, at least post SP2 (when I've used it the most).
Using the GPU also means that it is simply a case of switching which pre rendered surface (window) is on top which is much quicker than going through GDI+ where only visible bits windows were rendered as a part of the whole screen. This meant that every move or refresh meant a whole in CPU screen re-render ad a crashed window could corrupt the screen.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. When a window in the XPDDM is redrawn (due to a WM_PAINT message being received), the request is only for the changed/newly visible section. Subsequent drawing to this area and the window area is clipped by region by GDI, which prevents anything outside the changed area inside the window from being painted on. XP and Vista/7 do have a mode where they will display the last image of an unresponsive window, greyed instead of ignoring paint commands (leaving a hall of mirrors effect). Many programs were already caching their window bitmaps privately, simply blitting to WM_PAINT request areas. For compatibility, Vista and 7 still have to send messages like WM_ERASEBKGND and WM_PAINT to applications in many cases, like having the window get focus or when moving partially off screen.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.