Have you looked at dosbox or dosemu under Linux? I've had better luck with them than trying to run DOS programs in more recent versions of Windows. YMMV, of course.
My mail server at home is a 166 Mhz Pentium MMX that I think is overclocked to 200 Mhz. It's currently running Debian but I actually, believe it or not, have Gentoo installed on a separate partition. I've upgraded the hard drives in the machine, it now has two 20 gig drives and one or two sub-3 gig drives. 64 megs of RAM.
It does all I need for mail serving, web serving, cvs, and the occasional ftp duties. It also ran bugzilla, along with MySQL for the database, for a while. I just recently retired it from NAT duties as I picked up a Linksys wireless router that does the job slightly better.
I'll probably ditch this machine next year when I buy a new desktop machine (my current desktop is a 1.46 Ghz Athlon which is starting to feel its age), I'll move the old desktop over to replace it. Probably I'd also put X on the old desktop at that time and use it as a web browser for my living room.
If the game refuses to run on your system and you meet the system requirements, return it to the store. The store is required by law to accept it for a full refund as they have sold you goods that are not of merchandisable quality.
That said, I bought the DVD edition of Sims2 and had no problems. I have daemon tools and nero installed.
Note that this list is far from comprehensive. In the sewing machine industry, for example, there are problems with several boxed applications from big name sewing machine companies. None of them are listed on this link. Now, ganted, most of the problems are due to unresolved bugs in these manufacturers' software but the fact remains, the list published by Microsoft hardly scratches the surface of software that will be negatively affected by SP2.
Believing that God or a god exists but can not be observed (therefore, cannot be known), is absolutely an agnostic point of view.
That is to say, the belief that God or a god exists is outside of what makes someone an agnostic. It is quite possible to be an atheist agnostic, for example. I think you think this is impossible.
"A scientist would say, surely, that it should be possible to establish the existence of god if god exists"
On what basis do you say this on? If God exists, it does not imply that we can prove it.
It is conceivable that God or a god exists who makes no conceivable difference to any observation we could possibly make and yet still exists. The belief that such a god exists is, I think, clearly agnostic. On the other hand, if a god exists who makes an observable difference, we should be able to come up with a scientific theory for such (though not necessarily now, of course).
"that if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist" - this is a logical fallacy, even given the previous assumption. Lack of proof for X does not prove !X. For example, it could be that we haven't come across the proof for God yet.
I didn't say it proved that god did not exist (clearly this is not the case), I said one should assume god does not exist. Just as one assumes magic unicorns do not exist.
I know this is off-topic, but I have to question your sig.
The scientific view is agnosticism and simplicity, not atheism.
I don't understand this. Agnosticism is pretty much summed up by the statement, 'One cannot know whether or not god exists.' This is a positive belief, a belief that it is impossible to know something. This seems very far away from a scientific view. A scientist would say, surely, that it should be possible to establish the existence of god if god exists, and that if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist. (Of course, many will say that there is plenty of evidence of the existence of god, that is outside of my argument here). This view is pretty much the antithesis of agnosticism.
Am I misunderstanding your sig? Or perhaps, you don't really mean 'agnostic', you actually mean 'weak atheist' and I am being too pedantic over exact meanings.
Why should Americans be concerned? They should already know that web privacy policies mean nothing. Microsoft could say whatever they wanted on that page, they do not have to follow those policies with consumers in the U.S. Perhaps they simply decided to be more honest about it and not bother posting one?
Depends entirely on your provider. I know several people who routinely transfer tens or hundreds of gigabytes per month and get no complaints from their service provider.
Although most of our population lives close to the U.S. border, our population density over that area is still approximately the same (depending on how you judge) as that of the U.S. in its entirity.
Furthermore, your argument falls apart when you consider that small towns in Canada, such as Fort McMurray in Alberta (and many towns even smaller than that) have had broadband for years now (since 1997, in Fort McMurray's case) while many major cities in the U.S. still don't have half-decent broadband penetration.
Apple isn't scheduled to release the first 64-bit version of OS X until the first half of next year and even then, it is not guaranteed to be fully 64-bit (though this is what most people, including me, believe).
Canada shares 8893 kilometers of border with the U.S. We have a population of 32,507,874. If you are correct and 90% of our population is within 100 miles of your border, that gives us at most an area of 55,250 square miles, or approximately 52.95 people per square mile in the 'inhabited area'. The U.S., by contrast, has an area of 3,537,424 square miles and a population of 293,027,571, or approximately 82.84 people per square mile.
Now, not all of the border is entirely straight, though most of it is. As a result, we may have slightly more than 52.95 people per square mile in our inhabited area.
These numbers are all available from your government here.
In other words, the U.S. has a much higher population density than Canada and should therefore have a higher market penetration of broadband.
I'm with Shaw Cable in Edmonton and we have no enforced bandwidth caps. That said, some of my friends who run ftp sites have been told to knock it off, and these were presumably found through bandwidth monitoring. There used to be official bandwidth limits on cable modem service but they weren't enforced, I'm not sure if they still exist.
I believe Telus, and therefore all ADSL providers in town, do cap bandwidth.
I cannot speak about the situation with other bandwidth providers.
I'm guessing it is because we pay less for high speed Internet access that accounts for the difference. You can find high speed Internet here for as low as about $18.75 U.S. per month, with 'fuller' plans available for $30 U.S. per month. I pay $48.75 U.S. for a small-office cable modem package, including modem rental, and that gives me permission to host servers. Virtually no package from our cable provider or ADSL provider actually blocks servers, but they do not officially allow them either. I could almost certainly find cheaper packages but not by very much.
It isn't stealing in Canada. It probably isn't immoral either, as we have already paid for the music even if we never actually copy it, though the moral issues here are more debateable.
Yes but the minimalist firewall wasn't turned on automatically. Also, the firewall didn't load until almost the end of the boot sequence. That's certainly well after the four-seconds-to-0wn time reported at the University of Alberta, meaning that the firewall is of dubious use unless you perform the crazy workaround of unplugging your computer from the network when booting up, until it finishes booting.
Actually, the University of Alberta has a pretty good network as far as security and patches are concerned, though your point is undoubtedly valid. The Computing Science department, particularly the undergraduate part thereof, is a huge supporter of OpenBSD and that is generally what the undergrad public machines run.
Fundamentally, I'm not sure what they could do differently. There's no doubt that it is a hostile environment, but the only alternative seems to be to simply shut down network access, something that just isn't reasonable at a university.
I should point out, of course, that the 4-seconds-to-0wn time is from the results of testing they did. None of the system administrators there would ever plug in a unpatched machine they weren't planning on immediately wiping.
This is true. This is why I always install ZoneAlarm on a newly-installed XP system (ZoneAlarm is apparently better than the firewall built in to SP2). However, I am not a casual computer user. Is it really reasonable to expect naive users to do something like this? Probably not, which is why SP2 has a firewall (albeit a low-quality firewall) built-in.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you looked at dosbox or dosemu under Linux? I've had better luck with them than trying to run DOS programs in more recent versions of Windows. YMMV, of course.
You allow Microsoft to disclaim almost all accountability when you accept the EULA.
My mail server at home is a 166 Mhz Pentium MMX that I think is overclocked to 200 Mhz. It's currently running Debian but I actually, believe it or not, have Gentoo installed on a separate partition. I've upgraded the hard drives in the machine, it now has two 20 gig drives and one or two sub-3 gig drives. 64 megs of RAM.
It does all I need for mail serving, web serving, cvs, and the occasional ftp duties. It also ran bugzilla, along with MySQL for the database, for a while. I just recently retired it from NAT duties as I picked up a Linksys wireless router that does the job slightly better.
I'll probably ditch this machine next year when I buy a new desktop machine (my current desktop is a 1.46 Ghz Athlon which is starting to feel its age), I'll move the old desktop over to replace it. Probably I'd also put X on the old desktop at that time and use it as a web browser for my living room.
If the game refuses to run on your system and you meet the system requirements, return it to the store. The store is required by law to accept it for a full refund as they have sold you goods that are not of merchandisable quality.
That said, I bought the DVD edition of Sims2 and had no problems. I have daemon tools and nero installed.
Note that this list is far from comprehensive. In the sewing machine industry, for example, there are problems with several boxed applications from big name sewing machine companies. None of them are listed on this link. Now, ganted, most of the problems are due to unresolved bugs in these manufacturers' software but the fact remains, the list published by Microsoft hardly scratches the surface of software that will be negatively affected by SP2.
Believing that God or a god exists but can not be observed (therefore, cannot be known), is absolutely an agnostic point of view.
That is to say, the belief that God or a god exists is outside of what makes someone an agnostic. It is quite possible to be an atheist agnostic, for example. I think you think this is impossible.
You have covered my points, thanks. :) And thanks for not turning this into a flamewar.
It is conceivable that God or a god exists who makes no conceivable difference to any observation we could possibly make and yet still exists. The belief that such a god exists is, I think, clearly agnostic. On the other hand, if a god exists who makes an observable difference, we should be able to come up with a scientific theory for such (though not necessarily now, of course).
I didn't say it proved that god did not exist (clearly this is not the case), I said one should assume god does not exist. Just as one assumes magic unicorns do not exist.
I don't understand this. Agnosticism is pretty much summed up by the statement, 'One cannot know whether or not god exists.' This is a positive belief, a belief that it is impossible to know something. This seems very far away from a scientific view. A scientist would say, surely, that it should be possible to establish the existence of god if god exists, and that if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist. (Of course, many will say that there is plenty of evidence of the existence of god, that is outside of my argument here). This view is pretty much the antithesis of agnosticism.
Am I misunderstanding your sig? Or perhaps, you don't really mean 'agnostic', you actually mean 'weak atheist' and I am being too pedantic over exact meanings.
Why should Americans be concerned? They should already know that web privacy policies mean nothing. Microsoft could say whatever they wanted on that page, they do not have to follow those policies with consumers in the U.S. Perhaps they simply decided to be more honest about it and not bother posting one?
Depends entirely on your provider. I know several people who routinely transfer tens or hundreds of gigabytes per month and get no complaints from their service provider.
What? By those numbers, the U.S. has 81.98 people per square mile, Sweden has 46.05 people per square mile.
Although most of our population lives close to the U.S. border, our population density over that area is still approximately the same (depending on how you judge) as that of the U.S. in its entirity.
Furthermore, your argument falls apart when you consider that small towns in Canada, such as Fort McMurray in Alberta (and many towns even smaller than that) have had broadband for years now (since 1997, in Fort McMurray's case) while many major cities in the U.S. still don't have half-decent broadband penetration.
Apple isn't scheduled to release the first 64-bit version of OS X until the first half of next year and even then, it is not guaranteed to be fully 64-bit (though this is what most people, including me, believe).
Which, as I'm sure you are aware, does not let you modify the source code.
Read the article. Section 2.4 "possibly fails Tentacles of Evil test".
Our population density even within that 100 miles is less than the population density in the U.S. See here.
Canada shares 8893 kilometers of border with the U.S. We have a population of 32,507,874. If you are correct and 90% of our population is within 100 miles of your border, that gives us at most an area of 55,250 square miles, or approximately 52.95 people per square mile in the 'inhabited area'. The U.S., by contrast, has an area of 3,537,424 square miles and a population of 293,027,571, or approximately 82.84 people per square mile.
Now, not all of the border is entirely straight, though most of it is. As a result, we may have slightly more than 52.95 people per square mile in our inhabited area.
These numbers are all available from your government here.
In other words, the U.S. has a much higher population density than Canada and should therefore have a higher market penetration of broadband.
I'm with Shaw Cable in Edmonton and we have no enforced bandwidth caps. That said, some of my friends who run ftp sites have been told to knock it off, and these were presumably found through bandwidth monitoring. There used to be official bandwidth limits on cable modem service but they weren't enforced, I'm not sure if they still exist.
I believe Telus, and therefore all ADSL providers in town, do cap bandwidth.
I cannot speak about the situation with other bandwidth providers.
Keep it up, U.S. Pretty soon, you might catch up to where Canadians were back in January, 2003. ;-)
I'm guessing it is because we pay less for high speed Internet access that accounts for the difference. You can find high speed Internet here for as low as about $18.75 U.S. per month, with 'fuller' plans available for $30 U.S. per month. I pay $48.75 U.S. for a small-office cable modem package, including modem rental, and that gives me permission to host servers. Virtually no package from our cable provider or ADSL provider actually blocks servers, but they do not officially allow them either. I could almost certainly find cheaper packages but not by very much.
It isn't stealing in Canada. It probably isn't immoral either, as we have already paid for the music even if we never actually copy it, though the moral issues here are more debateable.
Near as I can tell, it doesn't handle route mapping at all.
Yes but the minimalist firewall wasn't turned on automatically. Also, the firewall didn't load until almost the end of the boot sequence. That's certainly well after the four-seconds-to-0wn time reported at the University of Alberta, meaning that the firewall is of dubious use unless you perform the crazy workaround of unplugging your computer from the network when booting up, until it finishes booting.
Actually, the University of Alberta has a pretty good network as far as security and patches are concerned, though your point is undoubtedly valid. The Computing Science department, particularly the undergraduate part thereof, is a huge supporter of OpenBSD and that is generally what the undergrad public machines run.
Fundamentally, I'm not sure what they could do differently. There's no doubt that it is a hostile environment, but the only alternative seems to be to simply shut down network access, something that just isn't reasonable at a university.
I should point out, of course, that the 4-seconds-to-0wn time is from the results of testing they did. None of the system administrators there would ever plug in a unpatched machine they weren't planning on immediately wiping.
This is true. This is why I always install ZoneAlarm on a newly-installed XP system (ZoneAlarm is apparently better than the firewall built in to SP2). However, I am not a casual computer user. Is it really reasonable to expect naive users to do something like this? Probably not, which is why SP2 has a firewall (albeit a low-quality firewall) built-in.