With that said it provides a wonderful example of why organisations should avoid proprietary extensions to standards. One day the world will move on and you'll be stuck with an un-integrateable piece of shit platform.
Taking it one step further, we could have a piece of paper that says how much to transfer, signed by the transferer to make it legal. Then there'd even be a paper trail that could be checked if there were any problems!
Not sure what to call something like that, maybe "instant signed bank-to-bank transfer guarantee on paper receipt" (or "isbtobtgopr" for short)?
Except that it isn't reliable, or instant, or guaranteed (when we still had cheques here, they were only guaranteed up to 300 guilders (about 125 euro). So you'd still need a whole stack of them to pay for a car, cash would be easier.)
If someone pays me via a direct online bank transfer, I can check if the money is in my account immediately, usually doesn't take more than a minute. Also, it'll show up on my and their bank statement so you do have a paper trail.
There's not a lot of room for Necrophiliac Sadism in chemistry, but I suppose if you were making (and taking) LSD or pouring HCL on biology's lab mice for therapy, you'd be having a sit-down with your dean.
Nice strawman. As it happens, some chemistry labs do indeed involve dissolving various things in HCl (capitalization matters here, so get it right). Suppose I said I enjoyed them (I do) and were looking forward to the next one (I am); should that get me banned?
You do realize that embalming (or some methods of it, anyway) requires cutting open the corpse, right?
it likely still shipped with Windows, meaning you still paid the Microsoft tax,
I have heard that most or maybe all of the "Microsoft tax" is covered by the junkware that the computer vendors include on their Windows install disks, so the amount that Windows adds to the price of a new computer is very close to zero.
I don't know if this is really the case, though, and I'm frankly rather suspicious of that. Does anyone know for sure?
I'm a bit confused, what about that publication provides ANY additional information to the thread?
Or are you insinuating I need a crash course in "computers"? Kernighan is a legend and a good writer but I would be surprised if the average IEEE journal reader didn't already know everything he wrote about...
In my intro to operating systems class, Stanford used "NACHOS" (not another completely heuristic operating system). I loved that course, but it looks like they have switched to "Pintos" more recently.
This (in my opinion) shows there is of course no perfect model, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that a good teacher will always search out what they think will help students the most...
I have no idea why you think using the kernel from the most popular OS in the world as a study aid is a bad thing. Personally, the last few set-top boxes I have worked on have been Linux, and I think that whole industry is pretty much dominated by the Linux kernel. I haven't done any serious Windows development in years. But for many new grads a solid understanding of the Windows kernel would be invaluable to their future jobs. In the end, at the kernel level most of the fundamental design principles are pretty much the same - what *I* am amazed at is how many candidates I interview don't even know the basics of virtual memory, disk I/O, process scheduling, multithreading/sychronization, etc.
Once again, I'm trying not to pass judgement... but read your post and decide if it added anything useful. The only concrete phrase in the whole thing was "direct observation and investigation", which yes, is provable, and no, you haven't shown that the MS program does not include.
My i7 920 system, overclocked to 3.2GHz, draws 95W at idle (monitor excluded). This is based on the APC utility that monitors my UPS unit into which my computer is plugged.
That seems extremely high for an idle system. You should check it with something like a Kill-a-watt.
Are you sure you don't have a few instances of Prime95 or something running in the background ?
We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.