Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Well the pattern fits (Score 1) 635

by UnknowingFool (#48039207) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows 10
Notice that you are concerned with actual versions numbers while I am talking about marketing. For MS they're terrible at this sort of thing. MS is the opposite of Apple (and frankly everyone else) in this regard. While Apple had to switch from cats to places for their codenames, they had a legitimate reason (They were running out of cats). However, overall it has always been 10.x "Codename". For MS, it has been Windows "Something" with the something being a version, a date, a codename, acronym, whatever MS is thinking at the time.

+ - Microsoft shows off Windows 10->

Submitted by UnknowingFool
UnknowingFool (672806) writes "Today Microsoft unveiled the next version of their OS but it will be called Windows 10 instead of 9. No reason on the skip in version numbers but Microsoft hasn't been known for their consistent naming conventions before. Windows 10 will be "mobile-first, cloud-first world" and operate both tablets and desktops. Some considerations however have been given for desktop users with Windows 7 type features. Also a feature called Continuum will change the UI depending if the user is in desktop mode or tablet mode. It is due to be released in spring 2015"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Exploit that only affects Mac and Linux (Score 1) 163

by UnknowingFool (#48026985) Attached to: Apple Fixes Shellshock In OS X

This is the kind of thing people on the slashdot of yesteryear thought were impossible. Remember when people would post that Apple computers and/or Linux wasn't vulnerable like Windows?

No what people have said is that Windows was vulnerable in different ways than Linux or Unix. Viruses were/are a huge problem for Windows machines and largely a Windows problem. All machines can be compromised with a Trojan if the user allows it to run. Vulnerabilities affect all systems but Linux, Unix, and OS X are built differently than Windows.

Comment: Re:Of course it does. (Score 1) 173

by UnknowingFool (#47996317) Attached to: Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun

For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.

Or arrived in the solar system after the sun formed. There is that possibility.

Comment: Re:So, when can we expect... (Score 1) 154

by UnknowingFool (#47995337) Attached to: Blizzard Has Canceled Titan, Its Next-gen MMO

Maybe, but even in WoW it's freely acknowledged by the developers that that 1 vs 1 combat is not balanced, that some classes will just be BETTER than other classes, but that together they achieve some sort of form of balance.

Personally I found many of the problems that Blizzards runs into when to balance is self-inflicted when they to balance PvE and PvP on the same character. For a PvE raider they don't like it when their damage has been nerfed because of PvP balance that they don't care about. For competitive guilds, they may lose a raid spot through no fault of their own.

Comment: Re:There are numerous other obvious flaws (Score 1) 275

by UnknowingFool (#47993381) Attached to: Nvidia Sinks Moon Landing Hoax Using Virtual Light

It is hard to doctor the fact that you can bounce a laser from the moon if you aim at the spot where the astronauts left mirrors. But this is how hoaxers' logic works:

Me: There are mirrors on the moon that will bounce back a laser signal.
Hoaxer: That proves nothing. If you use a powerful enough laser, you can bounce a signal from any surface. All you have to do is get a really powerful laser.
Me: No, there is an upper limit to laser power. At some point the laser will burn the surface. Only reflective material will bounce back a signal. Like a mirror.
Hoaxer: That proves nothing. The entire moon surface is reflective enough for any laser.
Me: If that were true then why doesn't the laser bounce back when not pointed to an Apollo mirrors?
Hoaxer: That proves nothing. NASA could have used unmanned spacecraft to put the mirrors there.
And so on . . .

Comment: Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score 2) 200

by UnknowingFool (#47993237) Attached to: Why India's Mars Probe Was So Cheap
It's not that India cannot be more efficient than the US when it comes to space probes but in this particular case it is an apples to orange comparison when comparing MOM to Maven or even MRO. All probes these have different missions and different requirements and therefore different costs.

Comment: Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score 1) 200

by UnknowingFool (#47993203) Attached to: Why India's Mars Probe Was So Cheap

The article says it all:

The MOM orbiter's 33-pound (15-kilogram) scientific payload comprises five instruments that will monitor Mars' atmosphere and weather, take color pictures of the surface and map the planet's mineralogy over the course of six months. In contrast, Maven's 143-pound (65-kilogram) payload includes nine instruments to study Mars' upper atmosphere as part of a yearlong mission and a decades-long scientific campaign. It can also serve as a relay for communications with NASA probes on the Martian surface.

So MOM was cheaper because it wasn't designed to do the same thing as Maven.

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison