almost "every other" windows release is always a flop

windows 3.11 stable as a rock
windows 95 new ui but crashed on a sneeze
windows 98 stable as a rock (SE2 release of course)
windows ME omg crashed if you breathed or looked at it wrong
windows xp sp2,sp3 stable as a rock
windows vista omg it's an updated UI repackage of ME
windows 7 stable as a rock
windows 8 here comes the ME experience again...

so wait on windows 9 for the "stable as a rock" version


and of course stable as a rock should come with quotes as none are perfect and I ignored the server releases but seriously as far as reputation that's pretty much how it went.

course I have more than 1 pc, and I'm still using windows xp on my gaming pc, debian linux on my main pc and laptop has windows 7

From what I've heard it's geared stupendously heavy towards tablet-PCs / small touch screens without a "normal" desktop PC UI.

I already threw a fit when I plugged my wacom tablet into my Win7 desktop for the first time and it assumed to be a tablet-PC and I had to slap that stupid idea right out of its memory (which is something your run-of-the-mill user would have problems with).
If it stays that way I'll pass on Win8 like I passed on Vista... don't want to rage every time I use my PC.

Looks worse than Vista.

Maybe 20+ years experience of search engines helps? Or perhaps it's 20+ years experience of goofing off looking for things like this instead of the research I was supposed to be doing... I remember using Archie when I was at University, and later being impressed that Alta Vista had a whopping 6GB of RAM for speedy web searches

There are possibly one or two vids in my pqueue that may interest you, given the style of music we were discussing.
In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
Damn dude! I used to think I knew how to search the net. Nice work, and I thank you for the info.

These were submitted in the hope of finding just such info, more than any hope they'd get sifted. So I owe you one now. LOL

115 sift viewers are Apple owners. Or is that Vista lovers?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

The fact that you have to beg this one in the first place says the Sift has fallen low...

Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat.

All I ever see from the liberal left's ProgLibDytes are clips that focus on the 'wealth disparity' between the rich and poor. I've never seen the ProgLibDyte clip that focuses on something like median income. That's because focusing on median income tells a completely opposing story. The point is that ProgLibDytes and and left as a whole focus only on a narrow band of stats that drives thier agenda-based narrative. They ignore huge vistas of other facts, studies, research, thought, and evidence because it cuts the legs out from under thier world view and makes them look like idiots.

Barak Obama himself is a CLASSIC example of this narrow-minded kind of agenda-driven cherry-picking of reality. Every time that specimen opens his mouth it is to say, "The experts I have spoken to agree with me..." And what about the bazillions of experts he DIDN'T speak to which all disagree with him, or contradict him? Of course is his empty noggin such people don't exist - or don't matter. The same issue plagues neolib leftists across whole spectrums. Global Warming, Abortion, Economics - you name it - the left picks a tiny slice of carefully selected grain of sand to tell a story, and ignores whole beaches of sand that says the opposite.

Not that the right doesn't suffer from the same problem. It is not an issue limited to only the left. However, the left is more aggressively self-important, pious, and arrogant about their narrative - and far more inclined to try to base bad legislation on it.

How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale?

The US tax rate (both corporate and private) is already one of the highest in the world. I counter your question with another. "What good is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points going to do?" You could confiscate every penny the top 10% of America has and it would not get America's government out of the red even for one year - let alone for the 15 trillion we have in debts - and the SIXTY-FOUR TRILLION we have in 'unfunded liabilities' such as Social Security. There isn't enough money in the entire economy to pay for all the spending the government is doing and/or proposing with its leftist big-government agendas. The economic problem is one of spending - not taxation.

But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates.

Irrelevant. The gap between the top 1% and the bottom 5% means nothing. It is immaterial statisitically speaking. If I earn a million a year compared to a guy that earns 30K then he makes 3% of what I do. A year later I am earning 1,050,000 a year and he is earning 28K for a new adjusted difference of 2.66% of what I earn. Head for the hills, Ma Barker! Since when is this -0.34% shift of any value. Or let's go the other way and now I'm only earning 950,000 and he's earning 32,000 for a 3.25% How is that helping either the rich guy OR the poor guy? Or let's take the real world situation that Barak Obama brought us and BOTH of them go down while the government's income skyrockets. Wow - that's really benefiting society isn't it?

The wealth gap is utterly irrelevant - static or dynamic. And for the record - I never assume ANY economic stat is static except for one. Government growth. Government baseline budgeting has created an untenable economic drag on the nation because it continues to grow at 8% to 10% Year over Year no matter what the economy is doing. That's the only static economic stat out there - and it is not a good one.

(BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!)

Right back at you Clyde. Who are you to decide what an inside-trader's job should or shouldn't be worth? The IT generates real profit for his company, and they compensate him to keep him doing it. Who are you - or Cunk - or any other ProgLibDyte to come along with the cheek to say they don't deserve it?

I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class.

The mistake you and the left make is that for some reason you think that 'taxes' make things 'more equal'. They don't except in one way... Taxes make everyone equally miserable. Money goes into government and dissappears. Taxing the rich doesn't make things better for the poor or the middle class. It only gives government more power - which is the last thing our bloated federal system needs right now. The poor pay virtually no income taxes - so it is quite impossible to 'ease up' on them except at the state & sales tax level. The middle class? Hey - anything helps but in the average budget we're talking a few hundred bucks a year. I don't have a problem with the rich paying thier 'fair share' (as leftists so vaguely love to put it). But the rich already ARE paying thier fair share and then some. If they jacked 'the rich' tax rate up to 90% it wouldn't do jack-squat for 'the poor' or the middle class.

Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

America's captial gains taxes are already the #2 highest in the world. Gapital gains are treated differently for a reason. This is another thing that most leftists prove themselves woefully ignorant about whenever they talk about it. And again - even if we did that how exactly is that going to 'help' anyone? All that does is provide you lefties with an ephemeral, meaningless sense of shadenfruede which you can suckle on as you trudge back to your government-mandated hovels - properly pacified with the meaningless knowledge that a rich guy is getting taxed some more. That is until you realize he's still rich, you're still poor, and only the government got something out of the deal. How leftists can be so stupid on the subject of economics I will never know, but I can only tip my hat to the depths of human gullibility.

Tried to figure out what was so special about Vista Way... Apparently it's just a dorm for college kids working at WDW. I suppose the stories are all fueled by the fact that Disney employees tend to be a little better looking than average, then add in the teenage hormones and lack of parental supervision. I suppose it makes sense.

Alta Vista>> ^SlipperyPete:

>> ^Trancecoach:
anyone in Mountain View who says they worked in a start-up and is presently retired, you can bet dollars to donuts they're talking about the one you'd guess.

Ask Jeeves?

you mother fuckers i still havent upgraded from vista yet

cool

hasta la vista, illegitimate child.

Ya know, there are way too many movies with great lines and iconic quotes in them. Even tho it had Arnie saying "I'll be bahk," it didn't have "Hasta la vista, baby."

I'll concede that windows could not stop ninja cat...but I bet Vista could.

>> ^grinter:

>> ^Friesian:
That has to be some of the worst editing and voiceover work I've seen. Shame though, because the spiders were pretty cool subject matter.

If biologist were paid what BBC producers were, then maybe it would make sense that you are complaining. As it is, I think this video is a pretty good value.
If you want cheesy, polished narration, check out the ABC version:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3160792.htm


I never said I wanted cheesy, polished narration. Nor do I expect high quality swooping shots of glorious vistas, all edited together in a magical and breathtaking piece of art.

However, I would have liked something which didn't have varying background sound levels (it could easily have been muted or evened out during the closeups with voiceover). I would have also liked less shots of the same thing. "This female is watching carefully", followed by "And this one as well", followed by a third "Another female arrives on the scene", followed by 20 seconds of random shots of the females. There was no context to those shots - they could have been stock footage of unconnected females that was added into the film solely to pad it out. They didn't add anything to the purpose of the film, which was showcasing the mating behaviour, and they didn't really tie into the overall direction of the narration.

The video is indeed pretty good value, but I think it's a shame that there are several small things that could be improved without having to be ABC and without a massive time/money investment. No idea if I'm the only one, but while the content was very interesting I did not watch the whole 6.5 minute clip, which to me is indicative of the mistakes I mentioned.

Wow, great explanation! Thanks!
>> ^DonanFear:

>> ^Skeeve:
Very interesting.
I'm surprised that IE 9, which can only run on Microsoft's newest OS, only made it to 95/100 on Acid Test 3, while on my computer (running Vista) Chrome gets to 100/100 flawlessly. Why would they release a "brand new" browser that couldn't keep up with an existing and competing one?

They did this on purpose. They didn't implement features that aren't finalized and might change in the future to avoid ending up with another IE6 situation where sites/apps made for IE6 don't work in newer browsers because they don't interpret the code the same way the old browser does. In theory a page made for IE9 should work fine in IE11 or Chrome 17 as long as the new browser supports the standard and the features supported by IE9 don't change.
Google uses a different approach and releases new versions supporting all the latest stuff very frequently. The problem with this is that a site that tested fine with for example Chrome 9 will not necessarily work properly in future versions because parts of the standard aren't set in stone and might change.

>> ^Skeeve:

Very interesting.
I'm surprised that IE 9, which can only run on Microsoft's newest OS, only made it to 95/100 on Acid Test 3, while on my computer (running Vista) Chrome gets to 100/100 flawlessly. Why would they release a "brand new" browser that couldn't keep up with an existing and competing one?


They did this on purpose. They didn't implement features that aren't finalized and might change in the future to avoid ending up with another IE6 situation where sites/apps made for IE6 don't work in newer browsers because they don't interpret the code the same way the old browser does. In theory a page made for IE9 should work fine in IE11 or Chrome 17 as long as the new browser supports the standard and the features supported by IE9 don't change.

Google uses a different approach and releases new versions supporting all the latest stuff very frequently. The problem with this is that a site that tested fine with for example Chrome 9 will not necessarily work properly in future versions because parts of the standard aren't set in stone and might change.