Vista the Last of Its Kind

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a TechWorld story about Windows Vista. According to the Gartner Group, Windows Vista is likely to be the last of its kind. "The problem is that the operating system's increasing complexity is making it ever more difficult for enterprises to implement migrations, and impossible for Microsoft to release regular updates. This, in turn, stands in the way of Microsoft's efforts to push companies to subscription licensing. The answer, according to Gartner, is virtualization, which is built into newer chips from Intel and AMD, and has become mainstream for x86 servers through the efforts of VMware." Speaking of Vista, C|Net reports that a new release candidate is on the way. The average tester should expect it by the end of September.

Comments

Post to Slashdot

[toochoos]

Did you see before the post-to-slashdot link at the bottom of the page? It simply posts the story to slashdot, using the submit.pl page, filled with its story.
What do they expect?
That by flooding/spamming, their story will be accepted? It seemed to work!

your .sig

[anomaly]

-- get your stickers out of my science book. I don't paste crap in your bible.
Witty, but content-free.

If you're saying that your science book reflects the same theological content as my Bible, then you're absolutely right and I'll keep my stickers off as long as you keep your theological tome out of the SCIENCE classroom.

I assume that you're saying that things influenced by theology should not contaminate science books. In that, you and I are in complete agreement. Get your materialistic philosophy out of my science books and I'll stop trying to restrict that content.

You think that the universe came from nothing via the Big Bang? You're free to believe that but since the scientific method can't be used to test that concept, it's not science and does not belong in science books.

Evolution as a means of speciation? Perhaps that is current thinking in science, but I expect that to change in the next 50 years. This theory will be the 19th and 20th century's equivalent of "stone knives and bearskins" to quote Star Trek.

Re:your .sig

[acidrain69]

"-- get your stickers out of my science book. I don't paste crap in your bible.
Witty, but content-free."

It's called a 120 character limit. I couldn't explain all the ways the right wing is ruining the US in 1,000,000,000 characters.

"If you're saying that your science book reflects the same theological content as my Bible, then you're absolutely right and I'll keep my stickers off as long as you keep your theological tome out of the SCIENCE classroom."

I'm not saying a science book reflects any theological content. That is the point. I don't paste crap in your bible, there was enough in there to begin with; along with every other religious text written by people hallucinating in the desert. Nothing personal. It's just that aside from the whole "treat people as you want to be treated", there is nothing worthwhile in it. What theological tome am I trying to put in the classroom? Are you implying evolution is really theological in nature?

"Get your materialistic philosophy out of my science books and I'll stop trying to restrict that content. You think that the universe came from nothing via the Big Bang? You're free to believe that but since the scientific method can't be used to test that concept, it's not science and does not belong in science books. Evolution as a means of speciation? Perhaps that is current thinking in science, but I expect that to change in the next 50 years. This theory will be the 19th and 20th century's equivalent of "stone knives and bearskins" to quote Star Trek."

Do I believe it? No. I'm not convinced. But it's infinitely more believeable than the supernatural "you can't see me" explanation. Personally, I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. And please explain why the scientific method can't be used to probe the origins of the universe? And what exactly do you expect to fill the role of evolution? I'm not denying it couldn't happen, but your statement wasn't witty, and it was definately content free. But you get +1 geek points for the star trek reference.

your questions

[anomaly]

please explain why the scientific method can't be used to probe the origins of the universe?
Can it be observed? Can you repeat it and document the results of the repetition?

Seriously. It's not testable. If it's not testable, it's not science.

What theoretical physics is doing is gathering data, speculating about what *might* have happened, and calling it science. This is not the stuff of science. For that matter, creationists have the same data as naturalists and have a different, non-testable explanation. To me, it's the same thing, with just as much religious fervor. I don't claim that creationism is scientific in nature, although I do lend great credence to the ID argument - "look, all of the stuff around you is so complex it certainly appears to have been designed."

To my way of thinking, that's just as credible as the multiverse theory.

And what exactly do you expect to fill the role of evolution?
Evolution as it describes variation within types of creatures is testable and credible science. Evolution as a means of speciation is not supported by the fossil evidence. This is demonstrated in the need to develop "new" theories like punctuated equilibrium.

My view is that God created the universe from nothing. Perhaps you don't find that believeable. I find the idea that it all came from nothing by natural processes to be ridiculous. If matter is "all there is, all there ever was, and all that ever will be" then the universe should have equilibrated an eternity ago. All heat and motion and should have stopped virtually an infinite amount of time before you and I existed.

Frankly origins is not science and has no place in science textbooks because it's all speculation.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:your questions

[acidrain69]

"Can it be observed? Can you repeat it and document the results of the repetition?

Seriously. It's not testable. If it's not testable, it's not science."

Can you prove that you were born? That you are a human? No one had to be there to prove that you were born and are human. So the answer is yes, you can repeat and document the results.

"What theoretical physics is doing is gathering data, speculating about what *might* have happened, and calling it science. This is not the stuff of science. For that matter, creationists have the same data as naturalists and have a different, non-testable explanation. To me, it's the same thing, with just as much religious fervor. I don't claim that creationism is scientific in nature, although I do lend great credence to the ID argument - "look, all of the stuff around you is so complex it certainly appears to have been designed."

Actually, I'd say that IS science. You gather data and make a hypothesis, and test it. Or maybe I have my steps backwards and you make the hypothesis first, but regardless, it works either way. Previous information may lead you to propose a hypothesis, which may require more data-gathering. I don't see any evidence that says life is so complex it has to have been designed. There are simple systems that are easy to explain, there are hugely complex systems such as humans which ID people may want to believe are beyond explation, but that is just being short sighted. Just because something is complex doesn't automatically lead to design. If we don't destroy ourselves first, I think the human race will figure out all the secrets of life in the next century or two. Computers are getting to the point where it may be possible to model part or all of a complex system.

"My view is that God created the universe from nothing. Perhaps you don't find that believeable.

I can honestly say that I find the whole god-creation a possibility, but I can't help but look at how religion keeps trying to push the line in the sand back. Religion has done nothing in thousands of years to reveal the secrets of the world and the universe. "Oh, you proved that wrong? Well, maybe god is really here, and you just can't see him". Push the line back. The bible is full of so many ridiculous inconsistencies, it makes even the worst science book look like the irrefutable truth of everything. If there really is a god, I don't think it is even REMOTELY resembles anything in the bible/torah/koran etc.

"I find the idea that it all came from nothing by natural processes to be ridiculous. If matter is "all there is, all there ever was, and all that ever will be" then the universe should have equilibrated an eternity ago. All heat and motion and should have stopped virtually an infinite amount of time before you and I existed."

But you can demonstrate the distance between things and compute movement in the universe. If there was a big bang, why should it have equilibrated? Infinite time before we existed? What are you talking about? Every once in a while they come up with a new age for the universe. Can't say I understand any of it though.