Businesses can't use XP Home because you can't log into a domain server with it etc.
I was of course being a little facetious in that some businesses can get volume discounts for licenses either directly from MS, or more likely, through their hardware provider e.g. Dell.
My main point is valid though in that Windows XP Professional is priced obscenely high when compared to the hardware it runs on. Compare the current situation to the one 17 years ago when an average PC cost $2000+ and MS-DOS was ~$80 dollars.
Yes Windows XP does a lot more than DOS did, but the hardware does a a hell of a lot more too (orders of magnitude), and for LESS money.
PC Economics according to Microsoft:
on
The PC Is Not Dead
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"For a few hundred dollars per employee, companies can now empower their workers with raw processing power that would have been unfathomable just a few years ago. "
You just got a '5' Funny Moderation for a serious post. Then got a '5' Funny Moderation for pointing this out and responding to your own post. And then you got another '5' Funny for responding to that post.
My friend, that is the 'hole-in-one' of karma whoring.:P
moofdaddy is correct. The grandparent post WAS informative especically since the video is slashdotted. At close glance they appeared to be the same link, but that is not so and I am glad that was pointed out (and modded up). Would you prefer to NOT have seen the screenshots???
"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."
Isn't one of the most important definitions of human life that we possess a working human brain? I.e. if you were in an accident and only your brain survived and lets say we were able to keep it alive in a vat, this would still be 'you'. The same would not be true for your heart, legs of liver.
So we are going to have a human brain INSIDE another animal. How absolutely wrong is that? I don't really care what can be learned, for the poor human trapped inside a rats body its clearly horrible (obviously this would be a sub-human of sorts since their brains would be much smaller and would have less opportunity to develop, I assume).
We need to step back and think about things like this before doing them first.
Somehow I think we will put up a slightly stronger fight than the palestians. We are talking about taking massive amounts of land from a peacful G7 country that is a founding member of NATO.
So you give away sovereign Canadian soil to compensate for global polution? Yeah that's fair. How about we give away land masses based on C02 emissions? That way 25% of the US will be up for auction.
and John Edwards took cases that showed EGREGIOUS fault on the defendants, e.g. knowingly installing bad screws, etc. that caused injuries to CHILDREN.
He is not an ambulance chaser or slips and falls guy. Do some G-damn research before posting.
At least that is an identified regional variation of pronounciation that Kerry is following, I doubt many Texans would accept that Misunderestimate, Nucular, or Subliminable are accepted regional variations.
You don't have to be a lefty or have hate to acknowledge that Bush has a problem communicating. His stump speech, his GOP acceptance speech AND the debates all contained jokes where HE HIMSELF said that he has a problem speaking.
I just don't understand why making fun of George W. Bush makes you a liberal, a hater of America, a hater in general, a friend of terrorists, or a treasonist bastach.
The guy once said "I know how hard is for you to put food on your family", case dismissed.
1) The REPUBLICANS created the first lawsuit in election 2000, and they have done so again in 2004. As well, if you recall the lawsuit before the Supreme Court was BUSH v. Gore, not the other way around.
By voting for Bush because Osama says vote for Kerry (which he didn't btw if you watch the tape or read transcripts), is STILL letting Osama decide the election. Voting for whomever you were going to vote for REGARDLESS of what he says is the right course of action.
Doing something "just because it's there" is exactly what has historically lead to the most profits
SNIP
The only guarantee is that if you throw enough money at them they will and it will pay off.
You can't just look at successes to define whether something is profitable, you must also take into account failures.
For every Columbus there are a bunch of Franklin Expeditions, for every nuclear fission there are a bunch of alchemy's.
This is not to say that you shouldn't try, but the point is that if you are investor you must take into account previous failures as well as successes when forming a risk assesment.
Rattus rattus (mammal)
A native of the Indian sub-continent, this rat has now spread throughout the world. It will feed on and damage almost any edible thing. Ship rats are widespread in forest and woodlands as well as being able to live in and around buildings. A very agile rat, it often frequents the tree tops searching for food and nesting there in bunches of leaves and twigs.
Common Names: Black rat, black rat, blue rat, bush rat, European house rat, Hausratte, roof rat, ship rat
Common, Rattus Rattus? Why event USE a latin name? That's like saying Piggus Piggus.:P
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty only restricts the use or deployment of WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION (more info here ) in space. Conventional warfare is not restricted. What has kept everyone from weaponizing space is:
a) It is expensive b) Soldiers, Ports, Airstrips and Radar stations are not found there c) The first nation to do it will be universally despised d) It is expensive
Now however there are enough 'assets' in space that the US is beginning to fret that a space Pearl Harbour is a distinct possibility because of the military's (over) reliance on GPS and other satellite-based communication. Therefore the costs, both economic and political, are becoming less important to military thinkers.
From the (tiny) article (which is really just a post from the submitter to some lame site):"The power consumption and size is the same as with current QVGA (320x240) displays. Meaning current mobile phone models could directly be upgraded with a VGA display. So we could very soon see 2.2 inch Mobile phones with VGA resolution.
What crack are the moderators smoking on this one? How is this INFORMATIVE? What INFORMATION did this post provide? There are different mod types for a reason, next time try INSIGHTFUL or INTERESTING.
Bush began to send the economy into recession BEFORE he became president, and here's how:
He and Cheney kept referring to the weakening economy as being in "likely recession" (Which is was not at the time) during the 2000 eleciton cycle. Every politician and economist knows that you don't use the word recession until the downturn is either fully engaged or over in order to avoid having it become a self-fulfilling prophesy, i.e. people hear the word recession and they begin to dial down their spending and increase their saving in order to ride it out, thus creating the recession. Futhermore they chose to refer to the education situation in the country as an "education recession", in order to have the word repeated as many times as possible. during campaign. The reasons for doing so are obvious: if enough people think the economy is going in the wrong direction they will likely want new leadership to change the diection. So Bush and Cheney helped create, or at the very least worsen, a recession solely for the purpose of getting elected which I think is pretty sick.
Feel free to google or Lexus/Nexus the above to confirm.
Only looking at the end result is not the way to judge the war (and the end result isn't looking too good either btw).
The question is not just was the war in the end a good thing on balance for the Iraqies, but how did we go to war in the first place.
Here are some facts that need to be taken into account:
The administration claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning on acquiring nuclear weapons.
The administration further claimed that Iraq would use these weapons on America, or give them to Al Qaeda to use on America (whom, it was claimed they had a relationship with).
The administration then lobbied congress to give it the ability to use force, as a means to back up its threats against Saddam to reveal his weapons or face 'dire consequences'. Congress agreed in order to give the administration the strongest hand in forcing Saddam.
When Saddam refused to reveal them (because it turns out didn't have them) then the United States was forced to go to war or else it would have failed to back up its threat.
Now, the questions become:
A) Did the administration know whether or not Saddam had weapons before the war? If it knew he did not, then the administration lied to Congress who would not have backed the resolution authorizing force.
B) Did the administration know that the Iraq - Al Qaeda link was tenuous at best (if existant at all), and thus that the risk of Saddam passing weapons was very unlikely. (Indeed it is obvious to many that it would make no sense for him to pass the weapons because it would ensure his, and his country's, destruction).
If either A or B is true then the Iraqi war was the greatest breach of the public trust in the nation's history, and no matter how well it turns out it is unjustifiable.
If, however, they both turn out to be false then at least the administration's basis for the war was believed true at its beginning.
There is of course still the argument of whether or not it was justifiable EVEN WITH A and B both being true.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even close. You can purchse XP Professional with media for around $140 legally from many websites.
Please point out a single legal website that sells XP Professional FULL Version (non-upgrade) for $140.
Why don't you try checking out Microsoft's own webpage for XP Professional pricing .
Businesses can't use XP Home because you can't log into a domain server with it etc.
I was of course being a little facetious in that some businesses can get volume discounts for licenses either directly from MS, or more likely, through their hardware provider e.g. Dell.
My main point is valid though in that Windows XP Professional is priced obscenely high when compared to the hardware it runs on. Compare the current situation to the one 17 years ago when an average PC cost $2000+ and MS-DOS was ~$80 dollars.
Yes Windows XP does a lot more than DOS did, but the hardware does a a hell of a lot more too (orders of magnitude), and for LESS money.
"For a few hundred dollars per employee, companies can now empower their workers with raw processing power that would have been unfathomable just a few years ago. "
Cost of Windows XP Professional: $299 plus taxes.
Cost of hardware: apparently $0
What about MS Word 95???
That was the one that gave them their current monopoly (by being first to market with a Windows 95 compatible suite).
You just got a '5' Funny Moderation for a serious post.
:P
Then got a '5' Funny Moderation for pointing this out and responding to your own post.
And then you got another '5' Funny for responding to that post.
My friend, that is the 'hole-in-one' of karma whoring.
"internaute" and "courriel" are widely used words and are understood by everybody.
Weirder french terms are:
polluriel (spam)
addiciel (add-on)
applette (applet)
bidouilleur (hacker)
fumiciel (vaporware)
Yeah that's pretty weird.
You said:
"Most of those guys quit or were laid off in the early 1970s."
From the article:
"Seven stayed on through the 1970's and finally got to fly aboard the space shuttle."
In reality most stayed on and actually got to fly.
moofdaddy is correct. The grandparent post WAS informative especically since the video is slashdotted. At close glance they appeared to be the same link, but that is not so and I am glad that was pointed out (and modded up). Would you prefer to NOT have seen the screenshots???
"...and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north."
As a Canadian I need to clarify a couple of points:
1) Canada DOES NOT share a border with Russia, we only have a border with the USA.
2) Canada IS NOT the northern most country. That would be Greenland (Denmark).
From the article:
"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."
Isn't one of the most important definitions of human life that we possess a working human brain? I.e. if you were in an accident and only your brain survived and lets say we were able to keep it alive in a vat, this would still be 'you'. The same would not be true for your heart, legs of liver.
So we are going to have a human brain INSIDE another animal. How absolutely wrong is that? I don't really care what can be learned, for the poor human trapped inside a rats body its clearly horrible (obviously this would be a sub-human of sorts since their brains would be much smaller and would have less opportunity to develop, I assume).
We need to step back and think about things like this before doing them first.
Somehow I think we will put up a slightly stronger fight than the palestians. We are talking about taking massive amounts of land from a peacful G7 country that is a founding member of NATO.
Good luck!
So you give away sovereign Canadian soil to compensate for global polution? Yeah that's fair. How about we give away land masses based on C02 emissions? That way 25% of the US will be up for auction.
"Let me guess. You've never actually been to Massachusetts."
You guess wrong jerk.
and John Edwards took cases that showed EGREGIOUS fault on the defendants, e.g. knowingly installing bad screws, etc. that caused injuries to CHILDREN.
He is not an ambulance chaser or slips and falls guy. Do some G-damn research before posting.
At least that is an identified regional variation of pronounciation that Kerry is following, I doubt many Texans would accept that Misunderestimate, Nucular, or Subliminable are accepted regional variations.
You don't have to be a lefty or have hate to acknowledge that Bush has a problem communicating. His stump speech, his GOP acceptance speech AND the debates all contained jokes where HE HIMSELF said that he has a problem speaking.
I just don't understand why making fun of George W. Bush makes you a liberal, a hater of America, a hater in general, a friend of terrorists, or a treasonist bastach.
The guy once said "I know how hard is for you to put food on your family", case dismissed.
Couple points for you:
1) The REPUBLICANS created the first lawsuit in election 2000, and they have done so again in 2004. As well, if you recall the lawsuit before the Supreme Court was BUSH v. Gore, not the other way around.
By voting for Bush because Osama says vote for Kerry (which he didn't btw if you watch the tape or read transcripts), is STILL letting Osama decide the election. Voting for whomever you were going to vote for REGARDLESS of what he says is the right course of action.
Doing something "just because it's there" is exactly what has historically lead to the most profits
SNIP
The only guarantee is that if you throw enough money at them they will and it will pay off.
You can't just look at successes to define whether something is profitable, you must also take into account failures.
For every Columbus there are a bunch of Franklin Expeditions, for every nuclear fission there are a bunch of alchemy's.
This is not to say that you shouldn't try, but the point is that if you are investor you must take into account previous failures as well as successes when forming a risk assesment.
Rattus rattus (mammal)
:P
A native of the Indian sub-continent, this rat has now spread throughout the world. It will feed on and damage almost any edible thing. Ship rats are widespread in forest and woodlands as well as being able to live in and around buildings. A very agile rat, it often frequents the tree tops searching for food and nesting there in bunches of leaves and twigs.
Common Names: Black rat, black rat, blue rat, bush rat, European house rat, Hausratte, roof rat, ship rat
Common, Rattus Rattus? Why event USE a latin name? That's like saying Piggus Piggus.
You are incorrect.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty only restricts the use or deployment of WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION (more info here ) in space. Conventional warfare is not restricted. What has kept everyone from weaponizing space is:
a) It is expensive
b) Soldiers, Ports, Airstrips and Radar stations are not found there
c) The first nation to do it will be universally despised
d) It is expensive
Now however there are enough 'assets' in space that the US is beginning to fret that a space Pearl Harbour is a distinct possibility because of the military's (over) reliance on GPS and other satellite-based communication. Therefore the costs, both economic and political, are becoming less important to military thinkers.
WTF they are almost exactly the same:
From the (tiny) article (which is really just a post from the submitter to some lame site):"The power consumption and size is the same as with current QVGA (320x240) displays. Meaning current mobile phone models could directly be upgraded with a VGA display. So we could very soon see 2.2 inch Mobile phones with VGA resolution.
Why even have a link?
What crack are the moderators smoking on this one? How is this INFORMATIVE? What INFORMATION did this post provide? There are different mod types for a reason, next time try INSIGHTFUL or INTERESTING.
Bush began to send the economy into recession BEFORE he became president, and here's how:
He and Cheney kept referring to the weakening economy as being in "likely recession" (Which is was not at the time) during the 2000 eleciton cycle. Every politician and economist knows that you don't use the word recession until the downturn is either fully engaged or over in order to avoid having it become a self-fulfilling prophesy, i.e. people hear the word recession and they begin to dial down their spending and increase their saving in order to ride it out, thus creating the recession. Futhermore they chose to refer to the education situation in the country as an "education recession", in order to have the word repeated as many times as possible. during campaign. The reasons for doing so are obvious: if enough people think the economy is going in the wrong direction they will likely want new leadership to change the diection. So Bush and Cheney helped create, or at the very least worsen, a recession solely for the purpose of getting elected which I think is pretty sick.
Feel free to google or Lexus/Nexus the above to confirm.
Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.
Nothing impossible to solve is solvable, and nothing unsolvable is possible to solve.
I think the word you are looking for is intractable.
Only looking at the end result is not the way to judge the war (and the end result isn't looking too good either btw).
The question is not just was the war in the end a good thing on balance for the Iraqies, but how did we go to war in the first place.
Here are some facts that need to be taken into account:
The administration claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning on acquiring nuclear weapons.
The administration further claimed that Iraq would use these weapons on America, or give them to Al Qaeda to use on America (whom, it was claimed they had a relationship with).
The administration then lobbied congress to give it the ability to use force, as a means to back up its threats against Saddam to reveal his weapons or face 'dire consequences'. Congress agreed in order to give the administration the strongest hand in forcing Saddam.
When Saddam refused to reveal them (because it turns out didn't have them) then the United States was forced to go to war or else it would have failed to back up its threat.
Now, the questions become:
A) Did the administration know whether or not Saddam had weapons before the war? If it knew he did not, then the administration lied to Congress who would not have backed the resolution authorizing force.
B) Did the administration know that the Iraq - Al Qaeda link was tenuous at best (if existant at all), and thus that the risk of Saddam passing weapons was very unlikely. (Indeed it is obvious to many that it would make no sense for him to pass the weapons because it would ensure his, and his country's, destruction).
If either A or B is true then the Iraqi war was the greatest breach of the public trust in the nation's history, and no matter how well it turns out it is unjustifiable.
If, however, they both turn out to be false then at least the administration's basis for the war was believed true at its beginning.
There is of course still the argument of whether or not it was justifiable EVEN WITH A and B both being true.