Wow. After years and years of "Windows is a buggy kludge running on top of DOS", Microsoft finally kills the beast and exorcises the 16-bit code from Windows.
So what happens?
"We miss DOS, and Microsoft was STUPID to get rid of it!"
Micro$oft can't do anything right, can they?
Let's look at this realistically. How many "ordinary users" out there are still running off the command line with computers that meet XP's installation requirements. Four (more or less). That's not enough reason to keep DOS alive.
Besides, as I understand it (disclaimer - I have no personal experience with this), XP will run DOS programs. As soon as I get XP (when Dell gives it to me) I'm going to attempt to install WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. If that works, then those four users will be satisfied, and I will too.
Let Microsoft price itself out of business if they want to.
Frankly, as a personal user of Windows, I can care less whether or not corporate users get sweetheart deals by buying in bulk. Hell, maybe if they paid the same price for Windows XX that I did each upgrade, then maybe the price for everyone else would be less. (then again, maybe not)
Sure Habitat for Humanity could take it in the shorts, but under the new pricing scheme (yeah, it's a scheme) they STILL will pay less than I do.
Here's an idea: Maybe I should incorporate in order to get a better deal out of M$...
It just goes to show..
on
Brian West Update
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
..that we shouldn't automatically believe the story of every hacker/cracker/defendant who claims that he's being prosecuted for being a "good citizen". Every single prosecution of someone for some sort of "computer crime" isn't cause for us to plead for more donations to the EFF.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't support the EFF.
Most every criminal defendent comes up with some story as to why his acts weren't really illegal, or if illegal, should have been legal. We, as a community, listened to Brian West's story or made up one of our own and decided that this was yet another travesty of justice.
The bottom line in this case is that West was a crook (or at least admitted to being one). Our lesson to learn is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Instead of reinforcing the cockpit door, remove it and provide a separate entrance for the cockpit crew with a relatively thick bulkhead between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. If we make it impossible, under any circumstances, for passengers to get into the cockpit, we would prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again.
I'm looking foward to a Star Trek without Picard/Janeway's preachy Prime Directive nonsense. If you look at TOS, the Prime Directive increased in its application between TOS and STTNG/DS9/Voyager. Janeway's use of the Prime Directive was so severe that I always thought of it as the "substantive interpretation of the Prime Directive" - much worse than TOS.
Anyway, if you want morality plays, I'm sure that they will have several episodes in which the well-meaning crew of the Enterprise totally screws up alien civilizations, causing the Vulcan to say "I told you so" and the Earth to adopt the Prime Directive in it's TOS form.
Ah! The joys of hydrazine. Once, in a college chem lab, I made the mistake of sniffing 2,2-dichlorolphenylnitrohydrazine. It's commonly used to help identify unknown organic chemicals. You combine it with the unknown, and run a whole lot of tests on the resulting compound, and then you run the results though the big CRC book (Chemical Research Corporation) and maybe you'll find out what it is.
Anyway, I got a whiff of this stuff, and my eyes watered for about ten minutes. It was VERY painful.
As for memory loss? Well, I have a degree in chemistry, but I can't remember a damn thing about it...
The review was pretty interesting. Essentially it comes down to this:
1. The P4 1.7G is a faster processor than the Athlon 1.1G (and probably the 1.4G but they really can't say).
2. It costs a few hundred bucks more.
3. Just wait till next year's model, which will be even better.
It seems to me that the people who want the highest performance will pick up the P4, and those who want to save money will pick up a Celeron. Who would buy the Athlon? People who want to compromise between price and performance.
As for the temperature slowdown switch, I'm all for it. Why fry my processor unnecessarily?
I have examined all the evidence, and I can conclusively demonstrate the invalidity of the researchers' so-called "single arrow" theory. No one arrow could have caused such damage. There must have been another archer, perhaps firing from the grassy knoll.
I am a lawyer. I work for a firm in Sonoma, California. My employer has a radio program where he answers legal questions on the air.
I started working for my employer in 1994, fixing and upgrading his computers (eventually I built up a network). In early 1995, I was hired on full time to put together a book proposal consisting of a bunch of newspaper columns written by this attorney. Eventually I started drafting answers to letters written to the newspaper column (which were always reviewed and rewritten by the attorney). I also did on-the-fly legal research for persons calling the radio program.
Eventually, my boss took me aside and said "You're a schmuck if you don't go to law school". After an hour of arm twisting, I relented. I started law school, and liked it.
Here I am.
Much of my job today consists of dealing with questions posed by persons calling or e-mailing the radio program. I do research and draft answers for my employer to use on the air. The questions are highly varied, such as "How can I get my 20 year old marijuana conviction purged from my record?" and "My boss's check bounced. How can I get the money?" For this reason, I can understand the position Marcus Arnold is in. I've been there (albeit at a much older age, and under the supervision of an attorney).
Arnold is not doing poorly, but I have to admit that some of his answers leave something to be desired. As an example, the answer concerning the Miranda rights of a criminal defendant is not necessarily correct. The statements of a person under arrest made in response to a custodial interrogation without benefit of the Miranda warning are admissible to impeach the testimony of the defendant (at least they were two years ago while I was studying constitutional law). It's hard to know things like this unless you have recently taken a class in criminal procedure or constitutional law or you work in the field.
The advice that Marcus can give (and it is legal advice - we should not kid ourselves) is good, but it's not enough. He can spot some issues, but he really cannot give anyone a definitive answer. Why? Because he hasn't been trained enough in the law to be able to spot all the important issues posed in a question, and without access to the applicable statutes and case law, he's really just guessing as to what the law is on a particular subject.
Having said that, more power to him. I don't have any problems with him dispensing his opinion via e-mail, as long as he's not masquerading as a person actually licensed to practice law. His coorespondents should not read his answers with the belief that they are a correct statement of the law, because it could get them in trouble.
I hope that Arnold goes to law school and becomes a lawyer for real. Not many 15-year-olds have as powerful an interest in the law as he has.
FLIR technology is used to help spot outdoor marijuana farms. because marijuana would keep its heat longer than the surrounding vegitation. It's got nothing to do with this decision, and will continue to remain legal.
My father, a semi-retired small aircraft pilot, once flew missons in Mendocino County, California, looking for marijuana. Marijuana grows greener than the surrounding vegitation, so it's possible to spot visually from the air.
The jury was absolutely prohibited from doing their own investigation into the facts of the case, just as they are prohibited to do so in EVERY trial. Juries may only consider the evidence that is admitted at trial, and the judge gets to make the determination about which evidence is admissible (subject, naturally, to appeals).
Let's be realistic here. What the declaration of goodwill means is that in return for getting a chance to see an advanced preview of an unfinished work, you agree that you won't rag on it, BECAUSE IT'S AN UNFINISHED WORK - but you can feel free to talk about how cool it is.
I think this is pretty reasonable, in this context (a screening of an unfinished artistic work). If you had walked in on Picasso producing one of his works, and you had been allowed to view the unfinished canvas, it would have been in awefully bad taste if you had told everyone how much it sucked.
Give the guys a break, and let them finish making their movie. THAT's what the declaration of goodwill means.
But is it binding. Hell if I know. I'd have to read the declaration first, after babelfish translates it from French.
There is no federal civil rights statute that makes age discrimination illegal, and age is not a protected class entitled to the additional safeguard of the "strict scrutiny" test for the constitutionality of government actions.
If this were a government action (and Intel employment policies should not be construed as a government action) then the constitutional test that would apply is the "rational basis" test, in which the state action is legal if it is rationally related to a legitmate government purpose.
Treaties must be approved by the Senate before they become effective, no matter what the President does.
Historical Example: The League of Nations Treaty, negotiated and signed by Woodrow Wilson. The Senate rejected it, and American never entered the League of Nations.
Once a treaty is executed and is approved of by the Senate, then it supercedes federal law, and state law in areas over which the federal government has power (Commerce, etc.)
Actually the solution is obvious. The Region 2 DVD player is mounted opposite the Region 1 player. Both players are run at the same time, and counteract each other's angular momentum.
Actually, my understanding is that Apple and MS settled the lawsuit because Apple was going in the tank and needed MS's huge investment to save its skin.
Sorry, incorrect. Copyright must be privately enforced, or not at all. If a copyright holder consistantly fails to enforce copyright, the material will enter the public domain by default.
The constitutional prohibition against regulating interstate commerce was included in the constitution in order to prevent the several states from levying import taxes. There were two reasons for this. The first, of course, is to prevent a sort of highway robbery - the state standing upon the bridge like the troll from that Three Billygoats story.
The second reason is to prevent a state from discriminating against the citizens of other states by giving their own citizens an economic advantage.
The states can regulate interstate commerce, in areas in which the federal government has given the states the authority to do so. In addition to that, the states may have laws, such as the sales tax laws, that have an effect on interestate commerce - if 1) The laws do not discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of local commerce; and 2) The laws do not present an undue burden on interstate commerce.
At one point in time it would be an undue burden to allow states to tax retailers in other states. But it wouldn't be too hard to cobble together a continuously updated database of local tax rates, so a state sales tax wouldn't be that much of a burden on interstate commerce.
I don't believe it. Why? Because it's just so complicated, why you'd have to have a computer to figure it out.
Oh yeah.
I don't see any problem with this. Honest. Why should Internet commerce be singled out as getting a tax break. I'm all in favor of e-commerce, but the tax advantage of buying on the internet is having an effect on snail-world retailers. How many local books stores are left in your hometown? The ones that weren't killed off by Waldenbooks are being wiped out slowly by Barnes Ignoble and Amazon.com.
The technical reasons for excluding interstate sales no longer apply. The Department of Commerce could probably put together a functioning state and local sales-tax lookup database in about a week.
The only question is whether or not it's constitutional for the states to tax out of state commerce. They can do it only if there's no discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. Since the interstate sales will be taxed on the exact same basis as local sales, there is nothing in such a tax to penalize businesses for doing business out of the local jurisdiction. Unless of course they can't afford a computer to figure out how much sales tax they must pay on each transaction.
IANAL, but my California Bar Exam results come out on November 17th.
But, read Marbury v. Madison (actually don't read it, it's dense). Essentially, if the Supreme Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law or government act, then there's absolutely no point to having a constitution. Ergo, the constitution implies that the Supreme Court has the power of constitutional review.
A bit of a circular argument, but it's the basis of the power of the Supreme Court, and it ain't going to be changed until the revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. After years and years of "Windows is a buggy kludge running on top of DOS", Microsoft finally kills the beast and exorcises the 16-bit code from Windows.
So what happens?
"We miss DOS, and Microsoft was STUPID to get rid of it!"
Micro$oft can't do anything right, can they?
Let's look at this realistically. How many "ordinary users" out there are still running off the command line with computers that meet XP's installation requirements. Four (more or less). That's not enough reason to keep DOS alive.
Besides, as I understand it (disclaimer - I have no personal experience with this), XP will run DOS programs. As soon as I get XP (when Dell gives it to me) I'm going to attempt to install WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. If that works, then those four users will be satisfied, and I will too.
Let Microsoft price itself out of business if they want to.
Frankly, as a personal user of Windows, I can care less whether or not corporate users get sweetheart deals by buying in bulk. Hell, maybe if they paid the same price for Windows XX that I did each upgrade, then maybe the price for everyone else would be less. (then again, maybe not)
Sure Habitat for Humanity could take it in the shorts, but under the new pricing scheme (yeah, it's a scheme) they STILL will pay less than I do.
Here's an idea: Maybe I should incorporate in order to get a better deal out of M$...
..that we shouldn't automatically believe the story of every hacker/cracker/defendant who claims that he's being prosecuted for being a "good citizen". Every single prosecution of someone for some sort of "computer crime" isn't cause for us to plead for more donations to the EFF.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't support the EFF.
Most every criminal defendent comes up with some story as to why his acts weren't really illegal, or if illegal, should have been legal. We, as a community, listened to Brian West's story or made up one of our own and decided that this was yet another travesty of justice.
The bottom line in this case is that West was a crook (or at least admitted to being one). Our lesson to learn is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Instead of reinforcing the cockpit door, remove it and provide a separate entrance for the cockpit crew with a relatively thick bulkhead between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. If we make it impossible, under any circumstances, for passengers to get into the cockpit, we would prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again.
I'm looking foward to a Star Trek without Picard/Janeway's preachy Prime Directive nonsense. If you look at TOS, the Prime Directive increased in its application between TOS and STTNG/DS9/Voyager. Janeway's use of the Prime Directive was so severe that I always thought of it as the "substantive interpretation of the Prime Directive" - much worse than TOS.
Anyway, if you want morality plays, I'm sure that they will have several episodes in which the well-meaning crew of the Enterprise totally screws up alien civilizations, causing the Vulcan to say "I told you so" and the Earth to adopt the Prime Directive in it's TOS form.
Ah! The joys of hydrazine. Once, in a college chem lab, I made the mistake of sniffing 2,2-dichlorolphenylnitrohydrazine. It's commonly used to help identify unknown organic chemicals. You combine it with the unknown, and run a whole lot of tests on the resulting compound, and then you run the results though the big CRC book (Chemical Research Corporation) and maybe you'll find out what it is.
Anyway, I got a whiff of this stuff, and my eyes watered for about ten minutes. It was VERY painful.
As for memory loss? Well, I have a degree in chemistry, but I can't remember a damn thing about it...
David Brown
USNA, Class of 1987
The review was pretty interesting. Essentially it comes down to this:
1. The P4 1.7G is a faster processor than the Athlon 1.1G (and probably the 1.4G but they really can't say).
2. It costs a few hundred bucks more.
3. Just wait till next year's model, which will be even better.
It seems to me that the people who want the highest performance will pick up the P4, and those who want to save money will pick up a Celeron. Who would buy the Athlon? People who want to compromise between price and performance.
As for the temperature slowdown switch, I'm all for it. Why fry my processor unnecessarily?
I have examined all the evidence, and I can conclusively demonstrate the invalidity of the researchers' so-called "single arrow" theory. No one arrow could have caused such damage. There must have been another archer, perhaps firing from the grassy knoll.
I am a lawyer. I work for a firm in Sonoma, California. My employer has a radio program where he answers legal questions on the air.
I started working for my employer in 1994, fixing and upgrading his computers (eventually I built up a network). In early 1995, I was hired on full time to put together a book proposal consisting of a bunch of newspaper columns written by this attorney. Eventually I started drafting answers to letters written to the newspaper column (which were always reviewed and rewritten by the attorney). I also did on-the-fly legal research for persons calling the radio program.
Eventually, my boss took me aside and said "You're a schmuck if you don't go to law school". After an hour of arm twisting, I relented. I started law school, and liked it.
Here I am.
Much of my job today consists of dealing with questions posed by persons calling or e-mailing the radio program. I do research and draft answers for my employer to use on the air. The questions are highly varied, such as "How can I get my 20 year old marijuana conviction purged from my record?" and "My boss's check bounced. How can I get the money?" For this reason, I can understand the position Marcus Arnold is in. I've been there (albeit at a much older age, and under the supervision of an attorney).
Arnold is not doing poorly, but I have to admit that some of his answers leave something to be desired. As an example, the answer concerning the Miranda rights of a criminal defendant is not necessarily correct. The statements of a person under arrest made in response to a custodial interrogation without benefit of the Miranda warning are admissible to impeach the testimony of the defendant (at least they were two years ago while I was studying constitutional law). It's hard to know things like this unless you have recently taken a class in criminal procedure or constitutional law or you work in the field.
The advice that Marcus can give (and it is legal advice - we should not kid ourselves) is good, but it's not enough. He can spot some issues, but he really cannot give anyone a definitive answer. Why? Because he hasn't been trained enough in the law to be able to spot all the important issues posed in a question, and without access to the applicable statutes and case law, he's really just guessing as to what the law is on a particular subject.
Having said that, more power to him. I don't have any problems with him dispensing his opinion via e-mail, as long as he's not masquerading as a person actually licensed to practice law. His coorespondents should not read his answers with the belief that they are a correct statement of the law, because it could get them in trouble.
I hope that Arnold goes to law school and becomes a lawyer for real. Not many 15-year-olds have as powerful an interest in the law as he has.
FLIR technology is used to help spot outdoor marijuana farms. because marijuana would keep its heat longer than the surrounding vegitation. It's got nothing to do with this decision, and will continue to remain legal.
My father, a semi-retired small aircraft pilot, once flew missons in Mendocino County, California, looking for marijuana. Marijuana grows greener than the surrounding vegitation, so it's possible to spot visually from the air.
The jury was absolutely prohibited from doing their own investigation into the facts of the case, just as they are prohibited to do so in EVERY trial. Juries may only consider the evidence that is admitted at trial, and the judge gets to make the determination about which evidence is admissible (subject, naturally, to appeals).
Let's be realistic here. What the declaration of goodwill means is that in return for getting a chance to see an advanced preview of an unfinished work, you agree that you won't rag on it, BECAUSE IT'S AN UNFINISHED WORK - but you can feel free to talk about how cool it is.
I think this is pretty reasonable, in this context (a screening of an unfinished artistic work). If you had walked in on Picasso producing one of his works, and you had been allowed to view the unfinished canvas, it would have been in awefully bad taste if you had told everyone how much it sucked.
Give the guys a break, and let them finish making their movie. THAT's what the declaration of goodwill means.
But is it binding. Hell if I know. I'd have to read the declaration first, after babelfish translates it from French.
It's not illegal.
There is no federal civil rights statute that makes age discrimination illegal, and age is not a protected class entitled to the additional safeguard of the "strict scrutiny" test for the constitutionality of government actions.
If this were a government action (and Intel employment policies should not be construed as a government action) then the constitutional test that would apply is the "rational basis" test, in which the state action is legal if it is rationally related to a legitmate government purpose.
Treaties must be approved by the Senate before they become effective, no matter what the President does.
Historical Example: The League of Nations Treaty, negotiated and signed by Woodrow Wilson. The Senate rejected it, and American never entered the League of Nations.
Once a treaty is executed and is approved of by the Senate, then it supercedes federal law, and state law in areas over which the federal government has power (Commerce, etc.)
2001-03-14 17:35:00
/. member wears size L or smaller. (^_^)
Size XLT or XL t-shirt please.
As if any
Actually the solution is obvious. The Region 2 DVD player is mounted opposite the Region 1 player. Both players are run at the same time, and counteract each other's angular momentum.
Actually, my understanding is that Apple and MS settled the lawsuit because Apple was going in the tank and needed MS's huge investment to save its skin.
Sorry, incorrect. Copyright must be privately enforced, or not at all. If a copyright holder consistantly fails to enforce copyright, the material will enter the public domain by default.
IAAL.
All astronomers really know that planets are planets because they have Sailor Senshi. Setsuna Meiou is Sailor Pluto, therefore Pluto is a Planet.
QED.
I think a few astronomers are going to be listening to a "Dead Scream" in the near future.
Here's one proposal:
"Self-Transforming Robotic Planetary Explorers"
Autobots or Decepticons?
It's a little bit complicated.
The constitutional prohibition against regulating interstate commerce was included in the constitution in order to prevent the several states from levying import taxes. There were two reasons for this. The first, of course, is to prevent a sort of highway robbery - the state standing upon the bridge like the troll from that Three Billygoats story.
The second reason is to prevent a state from discriminating against the citizens of other states by giving their own citizens an economic advantage.
The states can regulate interstate commerce, in areas in which the federal government has given the states the authority to do so. In addition to that, the states may have laws, such as the sales tax laws, that have an effect on interestate commerce - if 1) The laws do not discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of local commerce; and 2) The laws do not present an undue burden on interstate commerce.
At one point in time it would be an undue burden to allow states to tax retailers in other states. But it wouldn't be too hard to cobble together a continuously updated database of local tax rates, so a state sales tax wouldn't be that much of a burden on interstate commerce.
1. The "taxes" on bringing products into the country are called "customs duties", and have been around since before the revolution.
2. If your bonus did not have income tax withheld from it, you would have to pay the tax anyway.
The issue here isn't "Why should the states have sales tax?" The true issue is whether or not the Internet should be a tax-free zone.
I don't believe it. Why? Because it's just so complicated, why you'd have to have a computer to figure it out.
Oh yeah.
I don't see any problem with this. Honest. Why should Internet commerce be singled out as getting a tax break. I'm all in favor of e-commerce, but the tax advantage of buying on the internet is having an effect on snail-world retailers. How many local books stores are left in your hometown? The ones that weren't killed off by Waldenbooks are being wiped out slowly by Barnes Ignoble and Amazon.com.
The technical reasons for excluding interstate sales no longer apply. The Department of Commerce could probably put together a functioning state and local sales-tax lookup database in about a week.
The only question is whether or not it's constitutional for the states to tax out of state commerce. They can do it only if there's no discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. Since the interstate sales will be taxed on the exact same basis as local sales, there is nothing in such a tax to penalize businesses for doing business out of the local jurisdiction. Unless of course they can't afford a computer to figure out how much sales tax they must pay on each transaction.
You are correct.
IANAL, but my California Bar Exam results come out on November 17th.
But, read Marbury v. Madison (actually don't read it, it's dense). Essentially, if the Supreme Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law or government act, then there's absolutely no point to having a constitution. Ergo, the constitution implies that the Supreme Court has the power of constitutional review.
A bit of a circular argument, but it's the basis of the power of the Supreme Court, and it ain't going to be changed until the revolution.