Well, for example IE4 replaced your explorer shell with a different explorer (one that had web-browser like buttons). A very common occurence I ran into while fixing machines around my job, was when you tried to shut down the machine Exporer will ipf (in Kernel32.dll if I remember right, but we upgraded to IE5 about a week after it came out and it has become much more rare) then explorer restarts and you are back at your desktop. Complete inability to shut down. The fix _from_the_microsoft_KB_ is to unistall/reinstall IE. Crazier things happen as well, but often you simply can't fix that install of windows anymore (uninstall of IE crashes, etc.) so you format, reinstall, and try again.
Well, I do not admin the NT server at work, but it does run sql, and it also has a web server running on it. It could be that the way our client software queries (in fact I know of certain queries that will crash it instantly, so it is probably the admin or Db programmer being an idiot, but on the other hand it did not happen when the server was a unix server), but it requires a reboot almost daily, sometimes more. This is with less than 200 users at any given time and the server is an 8 processor machine.
Well, maybe it is offtopic to compare the two browsers, but I support IE 5, and if it has not failed/hosed the os (if you are on windows) then you are lucky. I get at least one call each day from a tech with a customer that has an IE that will not open- no error, it just does not open. Repair, uninstall/reinstall does not fix it, and since there is no error, there is not really any way to troubleshoot the problem (fourtuneately since IE "becomes part of the OS" we can then refer them to the mfr. who will have them format and reinstall, and this is support for a company that is partly OWNED by microsoft). Add the supremely large acive x security hole to the mix, and I wouldn't install it on my computer, even if they did make one for my OS -which they won't. But I will give it this, IE 5's problems are at least less frequent than IE 4's (I still support it too), and 4's problems gave you a trashed os a lot more often than 5 does. At any rate, if you are using windows, the last thing I would advise is to install an application that makes the os less stable and secure, If Netscape crashes or becomes completely unusable, at least that is all that crashed.
Well, the problem with your argument is the fact that a species is a human construct created so we can classify a group of particular animals. It simply depends on what you would decide is a distinguishable trait, think of it as a measurement of evolution, the same as a measurement of distance. If I can prove that a certain amount of explosive can propel an object a certain number of feet, than with enough expieriments of varying amounts of explosive will allow me to theorize, with a reasonable degree of certainty, how far an object can be propelled with amounts of explosive that I cannot obtain. Likewise, I can reasonalbly state that if over small amounts of time, changes happen in an organisim due to a certain amount of mutation, that do not kill the organisim, and sometimes make it a very different organisim of the same species, then I could theorize that a VERY different organisim would be likely to occur if given an amount of time that I cannot obtain (4.5 billion years for example). As for mutiple species arising from the same species, most organisims are not confined to a given area, they move about, so the half a dozen speicies of monkeys in a given area did not have to all originate there, they may have migrated. Now, for your argument of the mathematicians' findings, I think you probalbly mean that they had proven that it COULD have taken 40-50 billion years, as they are working with mathematical models of evolution, and not actual evolution. Since they were not here for that period of time, they do not know the original state of their model, but the final one, and they are working, therefore, in probability. Taking this number as a fact would be like saying that the odds against buying only one lottery ticket and winning make it impossible to win by buying only one ticket. But it does happen. And the odds of it happening fall within the range of not only the possibe outcomes, but also within the probable ones.
(please be kind pointing out any innaccuracies, I am neither a biologist, physicist, or mathematician)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for example IE4 replaced your explorer shell with a different explorer (one that had web-browser like buttons). A very common occurence I ran into while fixing machines around my job, was when you tried to shut down the machine Exporer will ipf (in Kernel32.dll if I remember right, but we upgraded to IE5 about a week after it came out and it has become much more rare) then explorer restarts and you are back at your desktop. Complete inability to shut down. The fix _from_the_microsoft_KB_ is to unistall/reinstall IE. Crazier things happen as well, but often you simply can't fix that install of windows anymore (uninstall of IE crashes, etc.) so you format, reinstall, and try again.
Well, I do not admin the NT server at work, but it does run sql, and it also has a web server running on it. It could be that the way our client software queries (in fact I know of certain queries that will crash it instantly, so it is probably the admin or Db programmer being an idiot, but on the other hand it did not happen when the server was a unix server), but it requires a reboot almost daily, sometimes more. This is with less than 200 users at any given time and the server is an 8 processor machine.
Well, maybe it is offtopic to compare the two browsers, but I support IE 5, and if it has not failed/hosed the os (if you are on windows) then you are lucky. I get at least one call each day from a tech with a customer that has an IE that will not open- no error, it just does not open. Repair, uninstall/reinstall does not fix it, and since there is no error, there is not really any way to troubleshoot the problem (fourtuneately since IE "becomes part of the OS" we can then refer them to the mfr. who will have them format and reinstall, and this is support for a company that is partly OWNED by microsoft). Add the supremely large acive x security hole to the mix, and I wouldn't install it on my computer, even if they did make one for my OS -which they won't. But I will give it this, IE 5's problems are at least less frequent than IE 4's (I still support it too), and 4's problems gave you a trashed os a lot more often than 5 does. At any rate, if you are using windows, the last thing I would advise is to install an application that makes the os less stable and secure, If Netscape crashes or becomes completely unusable, at least that is all that crashed.
Well, the problem with your argument is the fact that a species is a human construct created so we can classify a group of particular animals. It simply depends on what you would decide is a distinguishable trait, think of it as a measurement of evolution, the same as a measurement of distance. If I can prove that a certain amount of explosive can propel an object a certain number of feet, than with enough expieriments of varying amounts of explosive will allow me to theorize, with a reasonable degree of certainty, how far an object can be propelled with amounts of explosive that I cannot obtain. Likewise, I can reasonalbly state that if over small amounts of time, changes happen in an organisim due to a certain amount of mutation, that do not kill the organisim, and sometimes make it a very different organisim of the same species, then I could theorize that a VERY different organisim would be likely to occur if given an amount of time that I cannot obtain (4.5 billion years for example). As for mutiple species arising from the same species, most organisims are not confined to a given area, they move about, so the half a dozen speicies of monkeys in a given area did not have to all originate there, they may have migrated. Now, for your argument of the mathematicians' findings, I think you probalbly mean that they had proven that it COULD have taken 40-50 billion years, as they are working with mathematical models of evolution, and not actual evolution. Since they were not here for that period of time, they do not know the original state of their model, but the final one, and they are working, therefore, in probability. Taking this number as a fact would be like saying that the odds against buying only one lottery ticket and winning make it impossible to win by buying only one ticket. But it does happen. And the odds of it happening fall within the range of not only the possibe outcomes, but also within the probable ones.
(please be kind pointing out any innaccuracies, I am neither a biologist, physicist, or mathematician)