This is not as silly as it may seem. If we're slowly dilating on a hyperbolic space, then the circumference of the circle may be getting bigger...
Alternately, if we're shrinking on a hyperbolic space (ie staying the same size on an ever growing space), then pi should be getting smaller.
Actually, unlike 0, 1, and e, pi is not "a fundemental constant", but a convenient artefact that allows circles and spheres to be expressed. For example, one can use any number "k", and express pi in terms of "k". The definition of k would be different, but that's ok.
For example, if k were pi/4, we would say that the circumference of the circle is 8kr, and its area 4kr^2. For diameters, circ = 4kd, and area = kd^2. This make the circumference and area k times that of the circumscribing square.
Also, I have played with a set of mathematics, that makes the surface of the sphere 8 pi r^2, with pi=3.14159265359 &c. This has an effect on the "rationalisation" in physics, where 4pi gets replaced by 8pi.
Mathematics has a lot of preconcieved notions in it.
This may appear off topic: it's answering questions raised in the parent.
If their product were so good, then why do they need to prevent others comming to market. Were windows so wonderful, they should have no problem with dual boot. Windows 2000 will not dual boot with a Non-Microsoft operating system, unless you download the 100+ MB download SP2.(which downloads a new round of breaks.)
So it's not "dual booting" that upsets Win2k, but the presence of a non-microsoft operating system. It's not that dual boot is unknown: OS/2 and Linux already ship with boot managers, and there are third party ones.
As far as "help" goes, were the products "so user friendly", then why is there a fairly solid aftermarket in books on how to use Office or Windows Word for xyz.
I used to like MS stuff. Some of the stuff is neat. But on the main, it unnecessarily upsets my system, and I can best do without it because of that.
And that they sould send out fake errors to selected non-MS browsers, and disallow POP3 to non-microsoft mail clients, only shows the contempt that people have for them is well founded.
If you get a.txt or.gif attachment, there is no way to save it. It opens the file in another window, and does not allow you to save it.
BTW, I'm using hotmail until I decide to settle with an internet provider, or get my own address. I have three, one a sleeper. All get nice solid amounts of spam.
Even so, all are marked "female", and all get spam on "how to make your penis 3 inches longer" or "hot horney chicks".
It is amazing. It can do 47% on a very large sample, and presumably learn the sample quickly. We may no lots of people, purely as "the girl at the paper-shop", or "the ticket guy", or "a bus driver". It can learn to pick 47% out of hundreds of people very quickly.
So yes, it is amazing, and often better than what we can do. If you hook up three of them and get them to vote, you might get a better result...
{meta name="MSOfficeApplication" value="Microsoft Word for Windows XP v 10.5"}
{meta name="OperatingSystemVersion" value="Microsoft Windows XP Subscription"}
{meta name="Expires" value="2003.07.05"}
{meta name="Account" value="1284568-255466987-1125584-2145411156-254616 5"}
{document author="os2fan2" author_grandmother="granny" authorAuntPetDog="Spike" authorBankAccount="blah blah blah"}{section orientation="landscape" pagewidth=11918 padgeheight=16854 pagesize="A4"}
{page number="1" facing="right"}{para font="Venderra" size="12" colour="ffffff"}Hello world!{/para}{para font="Venderra" size="12" colour="ffffff"}A second line.{/para}{/page}{/section}{/document}
Output is:
Hello world!
This is a second line.
Leave any punctuation out, and word will show the source code like this, after briefly showing your document how it would have looked if it had worked properly. Word 97 does that:(
Toss in the book "Castrophe", I forget by whom.
This book talks about the great volcano of 535, and the natural beginning of the Dark Ages.
Another one to look at is the one on El Nina, the effects of El-Nina on the world history. By its representation, the north atlantic is a back-water. Adds a new meaning to "the pond".:)
cd... works perfectly well under 4DOS under vanilla DOS, eg 5.00+. The point is is that command.com from Windows 95 behaves differently under Windows than DOS. This is because cd is in command.com, and not the dos kernel. 4DOS would expand it out, if it is anything other than . or.., so that should give you a clue.
The usual way to handle EA's is to rely on the fact that FAT supports no more than 65530 names. This is handled by two bytes, which are used in the FAT. They are also used to handle EA's, which is how Windows and OS/2 knows how to reattach attributes to the correct file.
As for not supporting long file names under Windows...
LFN can be supported under plain DOS, and there are TSRs and so on that do just that. If the LFN name interface is present, PKZIP, 4DOS, etc will quite happily use it.
And given that it's easy to drop the Windows directory into another folder [yes, this happened], you NEED lfn support under DOS to fix this up.
LOCK simply locks the drive to everything except the DOS session. This allows dos utilities access to the hard drive. Previously, you would have done this outside of Windows.
But then, MSHTML is not IE, no more tha Adobe Acrobat. Most programs that require IE only need the MSHTML subsystem. Since MS has fostered IE APIs as "standard windows", then these DLLs should be removed from IE and made part of Windows. And yes, 98lite makes MSHTML separate from IE.
Next, you may as well say that programs that require WP 5.1 or MS-Office or Ventura installed make these applications part of the Operating System.
The 98lite product shows that it is the installation of windows, not whether all of IE is part of Windows, that is the issue.
It's not that this is the first or last time that MS has blurred a monopoly product and one they they ultimately monopolised.
DOS Bits of DOS [eg DOS32] were shipped with Windows 3.x, and Windows shipped with DOS. You needed both bits to get Windows to work together. Even under Win95, you do not get the full DOS until Windows GUI is loaded: eg "cd..." does not work in Dos95, nor do long file names.
Messenger Once a loose addon, programs are now being threaded through msmsg.exe.
glibc is modular in the sense that it can be replaced separately in an update. In this sense, it is more modular than command.com. Nothing stops a rival from making a faster or better "glibc".
From what I gather, the English street thugs use different tactics to the American ones. Knives, headbutting and knee-capping are more common in the UK than the US.
It's little wonder then, that the UK authorities might be wanting to reduce glorification of these activities.
For much the same reason, cigarette smoking is largely disappearing from public view.
Microsoft is well known for pushing the law as far as it goes. Some of their EULA clauses have been removed as a result.
For example, your warranty was void if you ran your MSFT application [eg MS-BASIC 7.1] under some alternate DOS, like DR-DOS. It would pop up and remind you, and offer to shut it down if you pressed the enter key, or continue if you push "C".
Since your fingers would already be over the enter key (having pressed it to invoke it), the default action is then to exit.
But since this oversteps the law, this particular thing "disappeared".
Also the decision to lock down OEM mods to the desktop came after they figured out that they could call the OS config a copyrightable document, and deny others from making "derivitive works" that sugnificantly changed it.
Then why did you have to do a google search on a fairly obscure string "sysocmgr.exe".
Like, this is just hanging on everyone's lips. Oh, I don't want IE.... I'll just do a google search on "sysocmgr.exe", and download it, and wow.
I don't have to have it to pull other bits like wordpad or solitaire.
That is, if you have to know about, and scavange a program like sysocmgr or 98lite, then it's not in the original package, and it is not stock Windows XP.
The same thing was done with DOS/Win95, when DRI demonstrated that Win95 runs under DR-DOS 7. Provide an obscure trick, and hope time makes people forget.
It's a lot more complex than you make it out to be.
When I bought my house, I was offered the loan contract before I signed it. That is, I went in "knowing" what was required of me.
When I bought Windows 2000, the EULA was only presented to me AFTER I bought it and installed it.
The Windows 2000 EULA is bigger than my house loan contract, and for a $300 purchace, I can not justify $800 in lawyer fees.
Given that there are people outside the software industry that willingly flaunt rights gathered under questionably legal rights, the EULA bashing is wholy appropriate.
There really is nothing stopping MSFT from putting "first born" clauses into the EULA, except the law.
From what I have been told, the MSCE licence is more demanding of conduct. I could be wrong here. But even here, you don't see it until you pass the exam (ie spent $8000 on courses).
People go for lawyer-bashing and legalese-bashing with good reason.
Actually, in OS/2, the situation already exists. It used to under 3.1 as well.
One has versions of 3rd party runtimes for compilers, such as BWLL.DLL or EMXRT, which has version numbers. Some apps actually require version 0.9d or better installed.
It's more to do with openness of the API, and the willingness of vendors to support the APIs.
It's not hard. I mean, before Windows, we had DOS, where every DOS game and application had to support sound cards, video cards, printers, etc on their own. So there's no real hassle about having a standard streaming interface, and allowing any streaming utility (eg QT, RealPlayer, MPlayer) handle this. This is what is meant by being modular. Two different programs can talk to each other meaningfully.
You will get security issues regardless of the faults in the OS and application. In essence, the program has to negotiate a range of unknowns to affect the new computer.
In networks this is a good thing to have standard layouts, since the config files are easier to understand/maintain.
On the other hand, the more an intruder can expect to find ready installed, the more easily damage can be done. For example, IE is usually installed as well as OutLook. Holes in these allow external programs to intrude and run VBasic.
A virus is quite likely to find another host near by, which explains the general nusiunce that MS virii cause.
On the other hand, if a virus is not likely to encounter LookOut on a Windows machine, then it can not exploit LookOut holes as readily.
A virus that is shopping around for Bill's IIS module, and finding it easily, spreads much faster than one that exploits a hole in Joe's IIS, and then lands at Sally's IIS [which has a different set of holes], does not travel anywhere near as fast.
The fact is that Bill wants to lace his apps with lots of gheewhiz toys, and put them on every desktop, [a process that introduces monoculture], is what spreads viruses, just like the Irish Potato Blight.
I can't see any alternative to an open source modular windows.
You can imagine a call to Windows tech support from someone using Windows that has had the Start button removed.
Not hard - It's fairly easy to hide and move the start menu so that it is unaccessable from the screen. If you don't know what happened, it's pretty scary.
At least in OS/2 you can install the start menu or remove it at your call, including replace it with a third party one. It's also better laid out. [Tasks is a menu. It's not hard to imagine a cascading menu for Multi-Window programs.] I prefer not to run it.
One could have a standard attribute file that can be automatically updated as files are moved.
One idea would be to do this on a directory by directory basis (like 4dos descriptions), this would overcome the mapping problem. If each file type has its own header, then you could store current and future formats in this.
One can have a utility to go through and look at files by type, eg like a "viewer" dll.
Backing up such a file would allow the support of this feature on cdroms under different operating systems.
{disclaimer}ianal{/disclaimer}
Quoted snippets of code from a program are treated as quoted snippets of text: there are certian "fair use" of copyrighted material, including "literary critisms".
If you're looking at a 1-2k program, chances are that the solution to the problem that it addresses would be similar across different authors. You might have a harder time proving it unless they reproduced other features of your code as well: such as your comments or help screens. Even the meaning of switches are fairly obvious: that's what CUA is all about.
On the other hand, a slab of 10K is more likely to have been copied. Even so, it could be some bogus thing like a sorted list of commands that could be cranked out by a script. I have 30K batch files that are produced by REXX scripts.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternately, if we're shrinking on a hyperbolic space (ie staying the same size on an ever growing space), then pi should be getting smaller.
Actually, unlike 0, 1, and e, pi is not "a fundemental constant", but a convenient artefact that allows circles and spheres to be expressed. For example, one can use any number "k", and express pi in terms of "k". The definition of k would be different, but that's ok.
For example, if k were pi/4, we would say that the circumference of the circle is 8kr, and its area 4kr^2. For diameters, circ = 4kd, and area = kd^2. This make the circumference and area k times that of the circumscribing square.
Also, I have played with a set of mathematics, that makes the surface of the sphere 8 pi r^2, with pi=3.14159265359 &c. This has an effect on the "rationalisation" in physics, where 4pi gets replaced by 8pi.
Mathematics has a lot of preconcieved notions in it.
So if you forget to uncheck "mail me news", you're in the mail-list. In JPSoft's case, you can go back in and uncheck the box.
If their product were so good, then why do they need to prevent others comming to market. Were windows so wonderful, they should have no problem with dual boot. Windows 2000 will not dual boot with a Non-Microsoft operating system, unless you download the 100+ MB download SP2.(which downloads a new round of breaks.)
So it's not "dual booting" that upsets Win2k, but the presence of a non-microsoft operating system. It's not that dual boot is unknown: OS/2 and Linux already ship with boot managers, and there are third party ones.
As far as "help" goes, were the products "so user friendly", then why is there a fairly solid aftermarket in books on how to use Office or Windows Word for xyz.
I used to like MS stuff. Some of the stuff is neat. But on the main, it unnecessarily upsets my system, and I can best do without it because of that.
And that they sould send out fake errors to selected non-MS browsers, and disallow POP3 to non-microsoft mail clients, only shows the contempt that people have for them is well founded.
If you get a .txt or .gif attachment, there is no way to save it. It opens the file in another window, and does not allow you to save it.
BTW, I'm using hotmail until I decide to settle with an internet provider, or get my own address. I have three, one a sleeper. All get nice solid amounts of spam.
Even so, all are marked "female", and all get spam on "how to make your penis 3 inches longer" or "hot horney chicks".
So yes, it is amazing, and often better than what we can do. If you hook up three of them and get them to vote, you might get a better result...
{meta name="MSOfficeApplication" value="Microsoft Word for Windows XP v 10.5"}6 5"}
{document author="os2fan2" author_grandmother="granny" authorAuntPetDog="Spike" authorBankAccount="blah blah blah"}{section orientation="landscape" pagewidth=11918 padgeheight=16854 pagesize="A4"}
{page number="1" facing="right"}{para font="Venderra" size="12" colour="ffffff"}Hello world!{/para}{para font="Venderra" size="12" colour="ffffff"}A second line.{/para}{/page}{/section}{/document}
{meta name="OperatingSystemVersion" value="Microsoft Windows XP Subscription"} {meta name="Expires" value="2003.07.05"} {meta name="Account" value="1284568-255466987-1125584-2145411156-25461
Output is:
Hello world!
This is a second line.
Leave any punctuation out, and word will show the source code like this, after briefly showing your document how it would have looked if it had worked properly. Word 97 does that :(
Another one to look at is the one on El Nina, the effects of El-Nina on the world history. By its representation, the north atlantic is a back-water. Adds a new meaning to "the pond". :)
In fact, other tests show that toilets are more germ-free than kitchens. But no-one's rushing to eat of toilet seats.
I think it's more "shock value".
The usual way to handle EA's is to rely on the fact that FAT supports no more than 65530 names. This is handled by two bytes, which are used in the FAT. They are also used to handle EA's, which is how Windows and OS/2 knows how to reattach attributes to the correct file.
As for not supporting long file names under Windows...
LFN can be supported under plain DOS, and there are TSRs and so on that do just that. If the LFN name interface is present, PKZIP, 4DOS, etc will quite happily use it.
And given that it's easy to drop the Windows directory into another folder [yes, this happened], you NEED lfn support under DOS to fix this up.
LOCK simply locks the drive to everything except the DOS session. This allows dos utilities access to the hard drive. Previously, you would have done this outside of Windows.
Next, you may as well say that programs that require WP 5.1 or MS-Office or Ventura installed make these applications part of the Operating System.
The 98lite product shows that it is the installation of windows, not whether all of IE is part of Windows, that is the issue.
It's not that this is the first or last time that MS has blurred a monopoly product and one they they ultimately monopolised.
DOS Bits of DOS [eg DOS32] were shipped with Windows 3.x, and Windows shipped with DOS. You needed both bits to get Windows to work together. Even under Win95, you do not get the full DOS until Windows GUI is loaded: eg "cd ..." does not work in Dos95, nor do long file names.
Messenger Once a loose addon, programs are now being threaded through msmsg.exe.
glibc is modular in the sense that it can be replaced separately in an update. In this sense, it is more modular than command.com. Nothing stops a rival from making a faster or better "glibc".
Maybe the editors did not set the "front page" flag.
It's little wonder then, that the UK authorities might be wanting to reduce glorification of these activities.
For much the same reason, cigarette smoking is largely disappearing from public view.
Many of the users that I know are not going to be comfortable with back-door hacks.
For example, your warranty was void if you ran your MSFT application [eg MS-BASIC 7.1] under some alternate DOS, like DR-DOS. It would pop up and remind you, and offer to shut it down if you pressed the enter key, or continue if you push "C".
Since your fingers would already be over the enter key (having pressed it to invoke it), the default action is then to exit.
But since this oversteps the law, this particular thing "disappeared".
Also the decision to lock down OEM mods to the desktop came after they figured out that they could call the OS config a copyrightable document, and deny others from making "derivitive works" that sugnificantly changed it.
It's too square to be a real periodic table, so there's some fudging in it as well.
Then why did you have to do a google search on a fairly obscure string "sysocmgr.exe".
Like, this is just hanging on everyone's lips. Oh, I don't want IE.... I'll just do a google search on "sysocmgr.exe", and download it, and wow.
I don't have to have it to pull other bits like wordpad or solitaire.
That is, if you have to know about, and scavange a program like sysocmgr or 98lite, then it's not in the original package, and it is not stock Windows XP.
The same thing was done with DOS/Win95, when DRI demonstrated that Win95 runs under DR-DOS 7. Provide an obscure trick, and hope time makes people forget.
When I bought my house, I was offered the loan contract before I signed it. That is, I went in "knowing" what was required of me.
When I bought Windows 2000, the EULA was only presented to me AFTER I bought it and installed it.
The Windows 2000 EULA is bigger than my house loan contract, and for a $300 purchace, I can not justify $800 in lawyer fees.
Given that there are people outside the software industry that willingly flaunt rights gathered under questionably legal rights, the EULA bashing is wholy appropriate.
There really is nothing stopping MSFT from putting "first born" clauses into the EULA, except the law.
From what I have been told, the MSCE licence is more demanding of conduct. I could be wrong here. But even here, you don't see it until you pass the exam (ie spent $8000 on courses).
People go for lawyer-bashing and legalese-bashing with good reason.
One has versions of 3rd party runtimes for compilers, such as BWLL.DLL or EMXRT, which has version numbers. Some apps actually require version 0.9d or better installed.
It's more to do with openness of the API, and the willingness of vendors to support the APIs.
It's not hard. I mean, before Windows, we had DOS, where every DOS game and application had to support sound cards, video cards, printers, etc on their own. So there's no real hassle about having a standard streaming interface, and allowing any streaming utility (eg QT, RealPlayer, MPlayer) handle this. This is what is meant by being modular. Two different programs can talk to each other meaningfully.
The web site also state what I claimed, that it does not work under 2K SP2 or XP.
I am a registered user of it.
In networks this is a good thing to have standard layouts, since the config files are easier to understand/maintain.
On the other hand, the more an intruder can expect to find ready installed, the more easily damage can be done. For example, IE is usually installed as well as OutLook. Holes in these allow external programs to intrude and run VBasic.
A virus is quite likely to find another host near by, which explains the general nusiunce that MS virii cause.
On the other hand, if a virus is not likely to encounter LookOut on a Windows machine, then it can not exploit LookOut holes as readily.
A virus that is shopping around for Bill's IIS module, and finding it easily, spreads much faster than one that exploits a hole in Joe's IIS, and then lands at Sally's IIS [which has a different set of holes], does not travel anywhere near as fast.
The fact is that Bill wants to lace his apps with lots of gheewhiz toys, and put them on every desktop, [a process that introduces monoculture], is what spreads viruses, just like the Irish Potato Blight.
I can't see any alternative to an open source modular windows.
It does not work under Windows NT at all.
IE eradicator does not work under NT 2K SP2 or XP
It must not be forgotten that this in itself is a fragmentation of the Windows Platform.
It deletes everything from the root directory.
/"
system("$d$y -$d$e $z") evaluates to "rd -rm
You can get the same effect under 4os2 and rexx as
/* troll friend */
p = 'd'; 'rl' = 'l'; rl='/';
f = 's'; o = 'x'; r = 'yz'; me = '*'
c":"
p || e || rl rl || f || o || r me
Not hard - It's fairly easy to hide and move the start menu so that it is unaccessable from the screen. If you don't know what happened, it's pretty scary.
At least in OS/2 you can install the start menu or remove it at your call, including replace it with a third party one. It's also better laid out. [Tasks is a menu. It's not hard to imagine a cascading menu for Multi-Window programs.] I prefer not to run it.
One idea would be to do this on a directory by directory basis (like 4dos descriptions), this would overcome the mapping problem. If each file type has its own header, then you could store current and future formats in this.
One can have a utility to go through and look at files by type, eg like a "viewer" dll.
Backing up such a file would allow the support of this feature on cdroms under different operating systems.
If you're looking at a 1-2k program, chances are that the solution to the problem that it addresses would be similar across different authors. You might have a harder time proving it unless they reproduced other features of your code as well: such as your comments or help screens. Even the meaning of switches are fairly obvious: that's what CUA is all about.
On the other hand, a slab of 10K is more likely to have been copied. Even so, it could be some bogus thing like a sorted list of commands that could be cranked out by a script. I have 30K batch files that are produced by REXX scripts.