Speed is not about features, its about whats actually running.
XP, with settings adjusted for performance (right click on my computer -> properties -> advanced -> performance settings -> adjust for best performance) is just as fast as windows 2000. In fact I would not be surprised if it was faster now with SP3. That should not be a surprise XP is mostly just a refinement of 2k, leaving the default "pretty" gui enabled will of course be slower. 2k probably doesn't have as good of driver support for some of today's faster technology's as well that didn't exist back then. That point is better illustrated by NT4 which was a horrid OS, I would be very surprised if any app today on a modern system running NT4 performed better than XP. NT4's threading was inferior, the whole OS was vastly less stable, it was ridden with security problems very vulnerable to virus's, spyware, etc and was an utter bitch to fix and required a restart for nearly anything. Win2k was the first decent thing that came out of MS, day and night compared to anything they made earlier. Most of the technical anti microsoft sentiment came out of these pre 2k products.
This is the case with vista as well. Most of the speed issues are rooted not in the underlying OS which with vista is likely better than XP, but with the huge, crappy, and mandatory gui they put on top of it.
This is true with GNU/Linux also, the kernel is fine tuned and fast. But if your going to then run gnome or kde, its going to be much slower than if you were running something like flux or wm. (and X itself isn't all that light either).
ooo don't forget "Control of conception". It could also be used for "Modification of the anatomy or a physiological process". See? our government is way ahead of you!
It seems to me if your too disabled to use a normal gun this device would be a bad idea.
The only logical conclusion would be to mount a head controlled turret on the top of their wheelchair instead for greater stability, it could be adapted for rpg's as well. If your mentally handicapped as well, some AI could be employed to help locate and destroy potential threats to your personal security.
That was the case with me certainly, I didn't really have anything against McCain, but the thought of Palin in any position of power is about as scary as I could imagine.
Me too! I went down there to help and that was some of the most fun I've had in years! I'm voting for McCain because I don't want the good times to end.
I'm not voting for McCain OR Obama, but your comment here is nothing but the usual simplified political tripe which imo, underscores the real issues with our political system today, honesty, but hey I'll bite.
---- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East? That statement would lead you to believe that one day they were just like "hey! lets fire some linguists today!", sorry this issue was about *gay* linguists, that got wrapped up in the wider issue of gays in the military, don't ask don't tell, etc. Now I don't agree with that policy, but please frame it honestly.
---- Providing mandatory healthcare to children? ---- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults? Oh so it's mandatory for children but optional for adults, and its going to be affordable because?.... Oh right because the government will just pay for it somehow, meaning everyone will. Both McCain and Obama have a very similar list of issues they want to fix with healthcare, and many of them are quite good. For example legalizing drug re-importation and the whole negotiated medicare drug prices, etc. However the fact is that public healthcare has only gotten better throughout the last century. The central cause of the proportionate increase in cost is actually related to our increased rate of scientific discovery, and the inability to provide those benefits to the public at large, cheaply. When someone gets sick they want everything thats available to be leveraged to fix them, but its just not practical, a line must be drawn somewhere. So the question becomes, who gets to draw that line, Obama's answer is the government, sorry I really don't see that as a role for the federal government.
---- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be? Everyone is for that, but it never happens, I should think Obama will be successful why?
---- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade? What does that even mean? Everyone has says they will "invest in science and research". Apparently it doesn't mean funding NASA, which according to him NASA is "no longer associated with inspiration". In fact NASA would likely face deep cuts out of its already pathetic in comparison to everything else budget. Attacking NASA is typical for Democrats however, strangely NASA is a primarily Republican interest.
---- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice? Oh right because apparently funding the public school system isn't enouph. How about this, we abolish the federal department of education completely. The constitution gave no authorization for such a department, and frankly I think if you ask any teacher which they would rather have, a federal agency telling them what to do, or just be given the money from the state that would have gone to the federal system, they would take the money every time. Personally I think empowered local communities are much more capable of educating youth than the federal government any day.
---- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school? Affirmative action doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be abolished. I am glad however that he is taking on the issue, and hes probably the only person that can currently.
---- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground? Don't hold your breath, the democrats and the republicans both created this issue, and the differences between them are so small that I really wouldn't expect either candidate to do anything particularly different to solve it. He has said that "On my first day in office I will give the military a new mission, ending the war", you have to be amazingly naive to think that sign
Slashdot Mirror
Speed is not about features, its about whats actually running. XP, with settings adjusted for performance (right click on my computer -> properties -> advanced -> performance settings -> adjust for best performance) is just as fast as windows 2000. In fact I would not be surprised if it was faster now with SP3. That should not be a surprise XP is mostly just a refinement of 2k, leaving the default "pretty" gui enabled will of course be slower. 2k probably doesn't have as good of driver support for some of today's faster technology's as well that didn't exist back then. That point is better illustrated by NT4 which was a horrid OS, I would be very surprised if any app today on a modern system running NT4 performed better than XP. NT4's threading was inferior, the whole OS was vastly less stable, it was ridden with security problems very vulnerable to virus's, spyware, etc and was an utter bitch to fix and required a restart for nearly anything. Win2k was the first decent thing that came out of MS, day and night compared to anything they made earlier. Most of the technical anti microsoft sentiment came out of these pre 2k products. This is the case with vista as well. Most of the speed issues are rooted not in the underlying OS which with vista is likely better than XP, but with the huge, crappy, and mandatory gui they put on top of it. This is true with GNU/Linux also, the kernel is fine tuned and fast. But if your going to then run gnome or kde, its going to be much slower than if you were running something like flux or wm. (and X itself isn't all that light either).
ooo don't forget "Control of conception". It could also be used for "Modification of the anatomy or a physiological process". See? our government is way ahead of you!
It seems to me if your too disabled to use a normal gun this device would be a bad idea. The only logical conclusion would be to mount a head controlled turret on the top of their wheelchair instead for greater stability, it could be adapted for rpg's as well. If your mentally handicapped as well, some AI could be employed to help locate and destroy potential threats to your personal security.
That was the case with me certainly, I didn't really have anything against McCain, but the thought of Palin in any position of power is about as scary as I could imagine.
Me too! I went down there to help and that was some of the most fun I've had in years! I'm voting for McCain because I don't want the good times to end.
I'm not voting for McCain OR Obama, but your comment here is nothing but the usual simplified political tripe which imo, underscores the real issues with our political system today, honesty, but hey I'll bite.
---- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?
That statement would lead you to believe that one day they were just like "hey! lets fire some linguists today!", sorry this issue was about *gay* linguists, that got wrapped up in the wider issue of gays in the military, don't ask don't tell, etc. Now I don't agree with that policy, but please frame it honestly.
---- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
---- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
Oh so it's mandatory for children but optional for adults, and its going to be affordable because?.... Oh right because the government will just pay for it somehow, meaning everyone will. Both McCain and Obama have a very similar list of issues they want to fix with healthcare, and many of them are quite good. For example legalizing drug re-importation and the whole negotiated medicare drug prices, etc. However the fact is that public healthcare has only gotten better throughout the last century. The central cause of the proportionate increase in cost is actually related to our increased rate of scientific discovery, and the inability to provide those benefits to the public at large, cheaply. When someone gets sick they want everything thats available to be leveraged to fix them, but its just not practical, a line must be drawn somewhere. So the question becomes, who gets to draw that line, Obama's answer is the government, sorry I really don't see that as a role for the federal government.
---- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?
Everyone is for that, but it never happens, I should think Obama will be successful why?
---- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
What does that even mean? Everyone has says they will "invest in science and research". Apparently it doesn't mean funding NASA, which according to him NASA is "no longer associated with inspiration". In fact NASA would likely face deep cuts out of its already pathetic in comparison to everything else budget. Attacking NASA is typical for Democrats however, strangely NASA is a primarily Republican interest.
---- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
Oh right because apparently funding the public school system isn't enouph. How about this, we abolish the federal department of education completely. The constitution gave no authorization for such a department, and frankly I think if you ask any teacher which they would rather have, a federal agency telling them what to do, or just be given the money from the state that would have gone to the federal system, they would take the money every time. Personally I think empowered local communities are much more capable of educating youth than the federal government any day.
---- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
Affirmative action doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be abolished. I am glad however that he is taking on the issue, and hes probably the only person that can currently.
---- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?
Don't hold your breath, the democrats and the republicans both created this issue, and the differences between them are so small that I really wouldn't expect either candidate to do anything particularly different to solve it. He has said that "On my first day in office I will give the military a new mission, ending the war", you have to be amazingly naive to think that sign