You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage.
Isn't one of MS's major arguments against Linux the fact that it could fork, it could die off, etc and you, as the customer, will be left holding the bag (and by their logic completely screwed) because there's no longer a big company behind Linux? So they do the same with NT and it's fine? Sure you can pay for extra support for NT, just like you can pay for a programmer to come an maintain your Linux code...
Am I crazy or does this sound like typical MS double-speak?
From what I've seen and heard, the T-Mobile ones need to be rebooted (hard reset) once a week or more. Compared to my T610 or old-school Nokia, which *never* crashed.
Now, that's not to say Windows Mobile is bad, it may be "improper" use or some other hand-wavable user offense, but everyone at my previous employer had the problem... I was the only one who opted for a Nokia.
But it sync'd with Outlook and had all these other features that they supposedly needed (but rarely used)... I think the biggest plus was that they could use terminal services from it. The phone was huge though and looked rediculous when you held it to your head.
Can't send picture messages without a camera. Can't sell my sister $2 ring tones unless the phone supports them. Ring tones is a billion dollar industry.
If you get a phone with Bluetooth, and your PC has it as well, you can use Bluetooth to transfer ringtones (MIDIs), pictures, themes, games, etc. Surprisingly, Gnome's Bluetooth subsystem works great, better, in fact, than Windows XP SP2.
There's a philosophy in politics that goes like this: "It doesn't matter what they're saying about you, as long as they're talking about you. When they stop talking about you, you are dead".
Or, you're campaign of "look, shiny things" has taken the public by storm, and you are now free to force your values onto a distracted populous.
I think you've got the wrong article. This is the one about the record-breaking-fast dual GPU card, not the one from earlier about the system-RAM-using value card.
From the article:
While Gigabyte claims that the 3D1 will trump the performance of Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition and the GeForce 6800 Ultra cards, it says that the card will be offered in combination with the mainboard GA-K8NXP-SLI for less money than ATI's and Nvidia's single-GPU graphics cards alone.
It's designed to compete with the high end cards, but at a lower price point. While it is a record-breaking card, it is not going to be marketed (and thus sold) as "high end." Most likely it will be used as an incentive to buy their motherboard.
Oh I see that these latest cards are finally taking the modder's advice and adding integrated blue LEDs, for that extra burst of raw rendering power.
I know that people are cutting holes in their cases so people can admire their wiring, but I'd like to pay a bit less and save the R&D costs on the appearance-enhancing design. Plus, if this is a budget card, will appearance matter as much? It's like putting nice rims on a Yugo, I see the point but you're not fooling anyone.
Yes, they aren't catching on as much as espected; television is much more accessible to people who attended our schools. Also, the talking heads have told us not to get too attached, as the Lord (GWB) is sending out the thought police soon to start burning them all. I hope they start before winter's over.
These days, the threat is from countries that have limited missile capabilities. North Korea has the ability to fly only a few hundred kilometres with their existing missiles, and the same is for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries.
Well, China has nukes, and has put a man in space, so if they don't have ICBMs yet, they will soon. I assume they already have them.
Americans like to think that the US is the only super power left, having won the cold war, but frankly China is basically the new Russia. Except they keep their heads down and pretend to be accepting capitalism and the like. They will threaten US hegemony in the next 100 years, if not the next 20.
Now, let's also not forget North Korea has nukes and can hit the US west cost with their missiles, as well as Japan. I would assume China has a huge interest in North Korea not getting nuked in retaliation, so I assume they're putting a lot of pressure on Kim Jong-Il to stop ruffling so many feathers, but, hey, the guy looks and behaves like a classic movie villian.
With that said, what if Iran or North Korea sold their missiles and nuclear technology to someone a bit closer to the US, like Cuba, Mexico or Canada?/Doesn't support the missile defense shield
Last Windows breach: 3 months ago, between install and d/l of SP4 (yeah, I couldn't even download the service pack before getting hit, I had to get the redistributable package via my Linux box and burn it to CD!) Last Linux breach: NEVER
SP4 has been out for a long, long time. I'm assuming you ran into the "breach" because you were reinstalling Windows 2000 which was not firewalled but was connected to the Internet prior to the install of the appropriate patches.
The same thing could happen to your Linux box. The fact that your virgin Windows system was unpatched isn't Microsoft's fault or even your fault, but you could have taken extra steps to protect what you admit is an inherently less secure system.
Your example that a Windows system was exploited isn't a fair claim; if you secure Linux and Windows fully, and Windows still gets owned, then we might have a story (as might be the case with the article linked in this story).
I'm not saying Windows is perfect either; my point is your example is flawed. By your own admission it needed SP4 (and subsequent patches I assume) and thus suggests to me that the system was not ready for use. It's like crash testing a car where you hadn't gotten around to installing the airbags yet -- of course it will fail safety tests. Is it fair to then say, "Look it failed the test!" when any reasonable (computer-literate) person would expect that outcome?
I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual.
What's sad is when Bush finally has to deal with Iran, it will be in his demonstrated, Texas-inspired, "bring it on" style. That means a draft since the military is overextended abroad. That also means the same group that can't be motivated to vote will be the fodder in a war of attrition in Persia, and also assumes that the conflict doesn't spill over into neighboring countries (Pakistan? Israel?).
Now, assume that you're sitting at a construction site, with contractors everywhere. Somebody shows up in a VW full of concrete bags, promsing to make a run to get more.
Actually, I think a more accurate analogy would be a depleted uranium shipping palette full of concrete bags (sidenote: this palette has a non-skid, textured surface). You just watched some of the hardest working people in the country drag that sled to the construction site per their boss's orders, and now the boss wants them to make another supply run.
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to run hard-wired fiber into every building
Well that would require digging up just about every street in the city, while wifi towers would require digging only a few holes for the foundations.
is there an election coming up in SF that this guy is trying to get votes for?
He was just elected last year, so he has three more years left on his term.
Now, what's my personal opinion on this? I hope, hope, hope that they have a *secure* means of accessing the web. I wouldn't mind using the system, but only if it's secure. That means an encrypted wifi connection *if I request it*. I know not everyone will have hardware to support that, but I just hope it's there for the (dare I say) "rich folks" who have the more modern hardware.
Also, won't a system like this kill the DSL/cable providers in the city? Or maybe it's intended to provide some competition to PacBell, who've been resting on their laurels for years.
It would certainly be hypocritical to say PCs should cost $100 when the OS itself costs more.
Actually I disagree with that.
It's not hypocritical, that's good business; you want to change the maximum price the customer is willing to pay. If that means $100 hardware and a million dollar suite of software on top, fine.
The problem for Microsoft is two-fold:
1. The hardware and software are NOT tied together (yet? insert Palladium comments). This means that at present the two are separate purchases (or at least *could* be for most folks).
2. Free/cheaper software is available for those who don't want to pay for Windows. Thus the more expensive purchase in this equation is the software.
The issue for Microsoft is how to extract the maximum price from the consumer, while not appearing to overcharge them. Whether or not is actually *is* overcharging, market perception has led to the belief that for consumers, software should be cheaper than the hardware. Microsoft must see lower software pricing as inevitable, as they're clearly smart enough to realize the cost of hardware will continue to fall.
But when literally free software is available, how can they compete? In the long run the hardware costs will approach zero and the software costs will be zero. Thus software companies must either offer highly specialized products with no free replacement (sorry MS, that's not you), or they need to offer some sort of subscription service where the cost isn't paid up front (and thus not as obvious for most consumers).
How is this man -- who has never worked outside of comedy -- going to critique actual journalists, and get taken seriously?
Stewart can watch the "actual" journalists just as you can: as a talking head in their native environment.
His point is that they claim to be journalists yet at the end of the programs he comes away with a bad taste in his mouth; he, like many of the viewers, feel like they've been taken for a ride and if anything have ended up more confused. Issues that could've been discussed or examined were not, but rather people just spouted off spin/party lines. That's not discussion, it's a live-action campaign ad.
He's telling the "actual" journalists that they're not doing the job that they claim they're doing. I stopped watching the programs in question for that exact reason; that is the problem Stewart is trying to address.
After watching one of these programs, do you think to yourself, "Wow, I'm really glad I watched that program... the commentary was insightful, the moderators asked tough questions, and when the guests dodged those questions the moderators went after them."
Lots of people have forgotten why they even started voting Republican in the first place and have become dumb enough to think that anything Republicans do must necessarily be conservative just because they are the "conservative party."
But look who the main Republican candidate is... GWB. He *is* conservative. So while you may like aspects of the Republican ideology, as I do, you're basically saying, "Republicans can be centrists too, we're not all nut jobs -- you can vote for us too!" (you could easily make the same arguments about the Democrats).
Yet the primary Republican candidate *is* a nut job, who's record over the past four years has hardly inspired confidence in his "leadership". Do you honestly think people "forgot" why they voted Republican? Or do you think it's people like me who look at the Bush Administration and feel nothing but disgust, since his "leadership" has, for the very first time in my life, made me ashamed to be an American. I was willing to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt when he came into power, and I didn't particularly like him (or Gore either). But whatever credibility the current administration had was squandered long ago.
Stewart is right: his job will be much harder if Kerry is elected because the absurdity of the current administration is prime material for humor.
I don't understand why you feel the need to promote "the party"; tying yourself to a party only closes you off from the other side. Don't vote the party, vote the candidate; you'll be a more effective citizen.
If the US and other countries have nukes, then every sovereign nation on the planet has the duty to defend itself with similar force.
While I generally agree with you, that statement assumes a situation like the Cold War, where both sides understand and want to avoid the result: complete annihilated by the other (mutually assured destruction). Does Kim Jong-Il care? Would Osama Bin Laden care if he had a nuclear arsenal? You don't start a nuclear bluffing match with a madman who has nothing to lose.
Convential weapons are efficient enough... no need to grant undue destructive power to smaller, uncontrollable entities.
I think the problem is more along the lines of GWB & Co taking the "Motti" stance:
"This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."
Shortly after the mess that was the 2000 election, Fidel Castro offered to send Cuban election observers to Florida. I guess he does have a sense of humor.
Actually, Saddam Hussein isn't busy, we should have him come by and monitor elections in the US. Who better to monitor an election than a guy that was so popular he had 100% participation among his population and won 100% of the vote?
Re:low unemployment compared to europe
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Compare your (and your country's) situation to four years ago and vote accordingly.
But, but... if you vote accordingly the terrorists will win!
"People understand that we are living in a computer world."
"Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, his is the captain speaking. Flight attendents, please return to your seats. Our in-flight computer has malfunctioned and crashed, and apparently we will be as well. Since our in-plane IT support is on vacation this week, this means our terrain-avoidance system will be offline and that mountain you see rapidly approaching will signal the end of this flight. I'm sure you understand that we are living in a computer world, and these things happen. Please remain seated until you have died from your wounds. Thank you for choosing us for your final flight!"
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage.
Isn't one of MS's major arguments against Linux the fact that it could fork, it could die off, etc and you, as the customer, will be left holding the bag (and by their logic completely screwed) because there's no longer a big company behind Linux? So they do the same with NT and it's fine? Sure you can pay for extra support for NT, just like you can pay for a programmer to come an maintain your Linux code...
Am I crazy or does this sound like typical MS double-speak?
Saying that, how deep does Windows Mobile go?
From what I've seen and heard, the T-Mobile ones need to be rebooted (hard reset) once a week or more. Compared to my T610 or old-school Nokia, which *never* crashed.
Now, that's not to say Windows Mobile is bad, it may be "improper" use or some other hand-wavable user offense, but everyone at my previous employer had the problem... I was the only one who opted for a Nokia.
But it sync'd with Outlook and had all these other features that they supposedly needed (but rarely used)... I think the biggest plus was that they could use terminal services from it. The phone was huge though and looked rediculous when you held it to your head.
Can't send picture messages without a camera. Can't sell my sister $2 ring tones unless the phone supports them. Ring tones is a billion dollar industry.
If you get a phone with Bluetooth, and your PC has it as well, you can use Bluetooth to transfer ringtones (MIDIs), pictures, themes, games, etc. Surprisingly, Gnome's Bluetooth subsystem works great, better, in fact, than Windows XP SP2.
What ever happened to SP2 as the end-all to MS's security flaws?
XP SP2 is searching for the "real security killers" with it's predecessor, Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing.
Why am I reminded of Chris Rock's comments regarding February, when I think of why Microsoft chose that month to focus on security?
From page 2:
Doesn't support of OpenGL imply support for that game? Or are game makers adding proprietary OpenGL extensions?
There's a philosophy in politics that goes like this: "It doesn't matter what they're saying about you, as long as they're talking about you. When they stop talking about you, you are dead".
Or, you're campaign of "look, shiny things" has taken the public by storm, and you are now free to force your values onto a distracted populous.
From the article:
It's designed to compete with the high end cards, but at a lower price point. While it is a record-breaking card, it is not going to be marketed (and thus sold) as "high end." Most likely it will be used as an incentive to buy their motherboard.
Oh I see that these latest cards are finally taking the modder's advice and adding integrated blue LEDs, for that extra burst of raw rendering power.
I know that people are cutting holes in their cases so people can admire their wiring, but I'd like to pay a bit less and save the R&D costs on the appearance-enhancing design. Plus, if this is a budget card, will appearance matter as much? It's like putting nice rims on a Yugo, I see the point but you're not fooling anyone.
For real? You guys have books now?
Yes, they aren't catching on as much as espected; television is much more accessible to people who attended our schools. Also, the talking heads have told us not to get too attached, as the Lord (GWB) is sending out the thought police soon to start burning them all. I hope they start before winter's over.
These days, the threat is from countries that have limited missile capabilities. North Korea has the ability to fly only a few hundred kilometres with their existing missiles, and the same is for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries.
/Doesn't support the missile defense shield
Well, China has nukes, and has put a man in space, so if they don't have ICBMs yet, they will soon. I assume they already have them.
Americans like to think that the US is the only super power left, having won the cold war, but frankly China is basically the new Russia. Except they keep their heads down and pretend to be accepting capitalism and the like. They will threaten US hegemony in the next 100 years, if not the next 20.
Now, let's also not forget North Korea has nukes and can hit the US west cost with their missiles, as well as Japan. I would assume China has a huge interest in North Korea not getting nuked in retaliation, so I assume they're putting a lot of pressure on Kim Jong-Il to stop ruffling so many feathers, but, hey, the guy looks and behaves like a classic movie villian.
With that said, what if Iran or North Korea sold their missiles and nuclear technology to someone a bit closer to the US, like Cuba, Mexico or Canada?
I love their motto - "because our children are watching".
I think they should change their motto to:
Because we're not watching our children.
Those Microsoft brains must be working really hard... just look at the Slashdot advertisements that are running with this story.
t _336x260_25k_v3.gif
MS's "Get the Facts"
http://m3.doubleclick.net/790463/mrs03111_VeriTes
Oh the irony!
Maybe that content-based advertising system really does work!
Last Windows breach: 3 months ago, between install and d/l of SP4 (yeah, I couldn't even download the service pack before getting hit, I had to get the redistributable package via my Linux box and burn it to CD!)
Last Linux breach: NEVER
SP4 has been out for a long, long time. I'm assuming you ran into the "breach" because you were reinstalling Windows 2000 which was not firewalled but was connected to the Internet prior to the install of the appropriate patches.
The same thing could happen to your Linux box. The fact that your virgin Windows system was unpatched isn't Microsoft's fault or even your fault, but you could have taken extra steps to protect what you admit is an inherently less secure system.
Your example that a Windows system was exploited isn't a fair claim; if you secure Linux and Windows fully, and Windows still gets owned, then we might have a story (as might be the case with the article linked in this story).
I'm not saying Windows is perfect either; my point is your example is flawed. By your own admission it needed SP4 (and subsequent patches I assume) and thus suggests to me that the system was not ready for use. It's like crash testing a car where you hadn't gotten around to installing the airbags yet -- of course it will fail safety tests. Is it fair to then say, "Look it failed the test!" when any reasonable (computer-literate) person would expect that outcome?
Why don't we hear about a new buffer overflow or mishandled JPG in Apache every two weeks?
If there was, would it matter? What percentage of Apache processes run as root? What percentage of IE processes run with full administrative rights?
My guess is that they'll inject adverts in to your e-mail when you download it using pop.
Won't that break digitally signed messages?
I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual.
What's sad is when Bush finally has to deal with Iran, it will be in his demonstrated, Texas-inspired, "bring it on" style. That means a draft since the military is overextended abroad. That also means the same group that can't be motivated to vote will be the fodder in a war of attrition in Persia, and also assumes that the conflict doesn't spill over into neighboring countries (Pakistan? Israel?).
Fate it seems, is not without a sense of irony.
Now, assume that you're sitting at a construction site, with contractors everywhere. Somebody shows up in a VW full of concrete bags, promsing to make a run to get more.
VW != stupid.
Concrete != stupid.
VW + concrete == stupid.
Actually, I think a more accurate analogy would be a depleted uranium shipping palette full of concrete bags (sidenote: this palette has a non-skid, textured surface). You just watched some of the hardest working people in the country drag that sled to the construction site per their boss's orders, and now the boss wants them to make another supply run.
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to run hard-wired fiber into every building
Well that would require digging up just about every street in the city, while wifi towers would require digging only a few holes for the foundations.
is there an election coming up in SF that this guy is trying to get votes for?
He was just elected last year, so he has three more years left on his term.
Now, what's my personal opinion on this? I hope, hope, hope that they have a *secure* means of accessing the web. I wouldn't mind using the system, but only if it's secure. That means an encrypted wifi connection *if I request it*. I know not everyone will have hardware to support that, but I just hope it's there for the (dare I say) "rich folks" who have the more modern hardware.
Also, won't a system like this kill the DSL/cable providers in the city? Or maybe it's intended to provide some competition to PacBell, who've been resting on their laurels for years.
It would certainly be hypocritical to say PCs should cost $100 when the OS itself costs more.
Actually I disagree with that.
It's not hypocritical, that's good business; you want to change the maximum price the customer is willing to pay. If that means $100 hardware and a million dollar suite of software on top, fine.
The problem for Microsoft is two-fold:
1. The hardware and software are NOT tied together (yet? insert Palladium comments). This means that at present the two are separate purchases (or at least *could* be for most folks).
2. Free/cheaper software is available for those who don't want to pay for Windows. Thus the more expensive purchase in this equation is the software.
The issue for Microsoft is how to extract the maximum price from the consumer, while not appearing to overcharge them. Whether or not is actually *is* overcharging, market perception has led to the belief that for consumers, software should be cheaper than the hardware. Microsoft must see lower software pricing as inevitable, as they're clearly smart enough to realize the cost of hardware will continue to fall.
But when literally free software is available, how can they compete? In the long run the hardware costs will approach zero and the software costs will be zero. Thus software companies must either offer highly specialized products with no free replacement (sorry MS, that's not you), or they need to offer some sort of subscription service where the cost isn't paid up front (and thus not as obvious for most consumers).
How is this man -- who has never worked outside of comedy -- going to critique actual journalists, and get taken seriously?
Stewart can watch the "actual" journalists just as you can: as a talking head in their native environment.
His point is that they claim to be journalists yet at the end of the programs he comes away with a bad taste in his mouth; he, like many of the viewers, feel like they've been taken for a ride and if anything have ended up more confused. Issues that could've been discussed or examined were not, but rather people just spouted off spin/party lines. That's not discussion, it's a live-action campaign ad.
He's telling the "actual" journalists that they're not doing the job that they claim they're doing. I stopped watching the programs in question for that exact reason; that is the problem Stewart is trying to address.
After watching one of these programs, do you think to yourself, "Wow, I'm really glad I watched that program... the commentary was insightful, the moderators asked tough questions, and when the guests dodged those questions the moderators went after them."
Lots of people have forgotten why they even started voting Republican in the first place and have become dumb enough to think that anything Republicans do must necessarily be conservative just because they are the "conservative party."
But look who the main Republican candidate is... GWB. He *is* conservative. So while you may like aspects of the Republican ideology, as I do, you're basically saying, "Republicans can be centrists too, we're not all nut jobs -- you can vote for us too!" (you could easily make the same arguments about the Democrats).
Yet the primary Republican candidate *is* a nut job, who's record over the past four years has hardly inspired confidence in his "leadership". Do you honestly think people "forgot" why they voted Republican? Or do you think it's people like me who look at the Bush Administration and feel nothing but disgust, since his "leadership" has, for the very first time in my life, made me ashamed to be an American. I was willing to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt when he came into power, and I didn't particularly like him (or Gore either). But whatever credibility the current administration had was squandered long ago.
Stewart is right: his job will be much harder if Kerry is elected because the absurdity of the current administration is prime material for humor.
I don't understand why you feel the need to promote "the party"; tying yourself to a party only closes you off from the other side. Don't vote the party, vote the candidate; you'll be a more effective citizen.
If the US and other countries have nukes, then every sovereign nation on the planet has the duty to defend itself with similar force.
While I generally agree with you, that statement assumes a situation like the Cold War, where both sides understand and want to avoid the result: complete annihilated by the other (mutually assured destruction). Does Kim Jong-Il care? Would Osama Bin Laden care if he had a nuclear arsenal? You don't start a nuclear bluffing match with a madman who has nothing to lose.
Convential weapons are efficient enough... no need to grant undue destructive power to smaller, uncontrollable entities.
I think the problem is more along the lines of GWB & Co taking the "Motti" stance:
"This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."
Shortly after the mess that was the 2000 election, Fidel Castro offered to send Cuban election observers to Florida. I guess he does have a sense of humor.
Actually, Saddam Hussein isn't busy, we should have him come by and monitor elections in the US. Who better to monitor an election than a guy that was so popular he had 100% participation among his population and won 100% of the vote?
Compare your (and your country's) situation to four years ago and vote accordingly.
But, but... if you vote accordingly the terrorists will win!
"People understand that we are living in a computer world."
"Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, his is the captain speaking. Flight attendents, please return to your seats. Our in-flight computer has malfunctioned and crashed, and apparently we will be as well. Since our in-plane IT support is on vacation this week, this means our terrain-avoidance system will be offline and that mountain you see rapidly approaching will signal the end of this flight. I'm sure you understand that we are living in a computer world, and these things happen. Please remain seated until you have died from your wounds. Thank you for choosing us for your final flight!"