It's still a patent lawsuit. MS has sued hundreds of companies for all kinds of stuff. They are the original litigious bastards.
There's a huge difference between defending yourself from people trying to use their patent library against you, and using your patent library as a weapon - something that Microsoft has never done.
" Be careful what you wish for. Microsoft (which I don't believe has filed any patent infringement lawsuits to date) "
Not true see http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/10304113.asp
MS has been an awfully litigious company. They have sued dozens of companies for all kinds of stuff including trademarks, defamation, and yes even patent related stuff. There is no reason whatsoever to think that a company which has publicly stated it intends "vigorously defend our intellectual property" and has filed tons of lawsuits in the past will not sue over patent infringement.
That article you're linking to? It states that they're filing a defensive lawsuit against Lucent's representatives, who "sent Microsoft a letter in January, listing 16 patents and seeking to persuade Microsoft to enter talks about licensing them. The firm, called ThinkFire, wrote that the patents were crucial to current and planned Microsoft products, and "impact approximately $9 billion of current Microsoft annual sales." "
That's defensive use of your patent library against others who want to screw you out of money using THEIR patent library. That's not Microsoft going out and trying to sue defenseless people out of business because they own a patent on something.
If you're going to go off spouting baseless Microsoft rhetoric, please at least read the entire article you link to.
NO what is stopping you from shooting a feature is how you think it must be shot... ie in the way features are made in hollywood.
Kind of. The problem is that I want it to look great - I don't want it to look like I was running around in a park with a Hi8 camcorder.
Which means proper lighting, good locations, proper audio capture, good actors, rehearsals, etc.
Unless I want to build a set, which costs more money, it's going to be tricky to find a working location for some of this stuff. How many bars do you know who will let people come in for 9 hours a day, two days a week, for 8 weeks for free?
Hey, that's pretty neat. Is there a web page or wiki or something somewhere where people can post stuff like that?
Not that I know of, but it's all pretty obvious if you do any research on SFX. Look for books on the subject, books on motion picture history, and read Cinefex magazine religiously. Particularly look at the work of people such as John Dykstra, if you're looking for rotoscoping or other practical and optical work.
Even when open source is not chosen, it's having an effect. This article clearly shows how open source is lowering costs for customers, and driving Microsoft to make important improvements. Poor Microsoft. They've never really been exposed to competitve pressures before.
Yes they have. Plenty of times. Lotus, Corel, IBM, you name it.
What they haven't had to deal with before is people giving away their work for free. It's hard to compete with free - that's why there are laws against product dumping.
I have shot 10 minutes of video. But I need to create the interdimensional window. What can I use to do that? I am using Adobe Premiere to edit.
That depends on what you want it to look like. Think in terms of practical effects - you can always set up an alpha-key using Premiere to do a simple split-screen effect if you want to paint something in.
What I'd do is to lock down the camera. On the right hand side of frame, put a bank of lights with some with blue gels, bouncing slightly off a tray of water which was being vibrated or otherwise sloshed around. I'd use the middle of the frame as the "gateway", and have the actors walk across the frame from left to right toward the bank of lights. I'd then shoot the same scene again without the bank of lights, create a matte along the middle of the frame, and overlay it with a thin white line running from top to bottom of the frame with a Gaussian blurred blue line and Gaussian blurred cyan line (with a smaller radius) additively blended on top.
it's a quick and hacky way of doing it - but heck, it works for Stargate. They just do more match-moving, and have a prettier interdimensional gate graphic.
But if I start demanding a hundred thousand dollars per hour, I would damn well expect people to ship me off and have someone else take my place.
Fine. Assuming that we're paying the actors not exorbitantly, but a living wage... again, if the movies are all being distributed for free, how do you pay them at all?
Not everyone is going to be willing to sink money into film production with zero mechanism for making that back. If only for the fact that most people would only have the resources to make a single short film, and never have enough to make a feature.
I still find it interesting how many people seem to have this misconception that if you take away the Schwarzeneggers and the Cruises that a movie becomes miraculously cheap to make. If that was the case, I'd have made 4 features by now, because the only thing holding me back is lack of capital.
Now let's say what-if this cheap digital camera technology was already in use. It doesn't require the enormously complex and expensive lighting that film does. Cheap cameras allow you to capture the scene from multiple angles simultaneously drastically reducing production costs by cutting retakes to a minimum. With a higher resolution digital image, you can pan the image digitally instead of using expensive custom mechanical systems.
Although you appear to be speaking theoretically, I'm going to address some of your ideas.
We're still years away from digital cameras with higher resolution than film. That may also be impossible; film is about as high resolution as you can get already.
Digital cameras require as complex lighting as film cameras do, unless you want your finished product to look like crap, amateur hour, home movie quality camcorder work.
You have a point when it comes to print costs. But those are minor compared to the other costs involved in making a film - which includes everything from feeding cast and crew to paying places to use their locations to paying for the script.
As for using blender for special effects? Please, get real.
Panning digitally? Apart from the aforementioned problem with finding a higher resolution image, you also have the problem that your aperture and thus depth of focus is going to be different that way than if you used a camera mounted to a jib arm, or laid down track and used a dolly.
Using multiple cameras cutting costs by reducing retakes? Not really. 28 Days Later had lower setup times by using Canon GL-1 cameras - that was the big benefit which allowed them to film the deserted London city scenes. Using multiple cameras has its own set of special problems - including lighting issues (most DPs & Cinematographers will light for a single camera - not for multiple ones which are exponentially more difficult), making sure that you don't cross lines of action, and making sure that you don't see the other cameras in another camera's view.
As for costs? Writers get paid handsomely for some deals, not so much for others (same goes for any other position in the industry). Actors, directors, producers, crew... these all cost money. Logistics, housing them during the film shoot in hotels, renting sound stages, feeding people, transportation, makeup... all of these cost money.
You don't expect EVERYONE to work for free on films, do you?
You are so wrong. Your own words are a fatal weapon against you.
Good actors require a passionate desire to act. If you think good actors look at acting as an occupation you have no idea what you're talking about.
Show me an actor that doesn't require food or money, and I'll show you Fred Astaire in a Dust Devil commercial.
In the real world, even actors with a huge passion for their chosen vocation want to be paid for their work.
Heck, I am even making a short movie right now. Look for it on kazaa in a month or so....
I'm editing one right now. Kazaa is an unlikely place to find it. Maybe iFilm. But the short film is a means to an end - it's not the end itself. And there's a big difference between a short and a feature in terms of time and cost to produce.
My short cost $400 - and that's with everyone giving equipment and time for free, and a two-day shooting schedule. That doesn't include editing software, which cost $1500+tax. Or computer equipment (up to about $4000 on that puppy now all told).
Still... if you really are making a short, then what's it called and how do you find it? Here's the web-page for mine:
Before you say people will not do something for nothing you need to think about it. Open source is all about people doing something that they want to do without any immediate reward in place.
Good actors require - at the very least - food. And money. For them it's an occupation.
Production companies perhaps have life left. Finding and promoting talent... real talent... could be a money making proposition. However they can't remain based on income from physical based media distribution, it is absurd... absolutly absurd in an age that becomes more digital with each passing day.
So, again, I ask... where do they make the money from? If you think that product placement is going to be the place to get it from, then I ask you to go see I Robot again, and ask yourself if this is what you really really want. If not product placement, then how, precisely?
You can see the latter happening to media companies. They had their hayday, and they used to have a purpose, which is distributing intellectual material (music, movies...) by distributing the media they're stored on. Now that technology allows people to share the intellectual material without exchanging the physical media, media companies find themselves with no business case. They're superfluous and struggling to stay alive, but they won't be able to adapt, simply because they aren't needed anymore.
Superfluous? Presumably you have some alternative plan for how those movies are going to be funded - and therefore created - then?
Who, in your plan, will be creating these movies to be distributed for free?
If you recall, it used to have junk mail filtering. Then Blue Mountain Arts sued Microsoft and forced them to take it out - because not only were they not willing to work with MS to ensure that their greetings cards got through, but they were assinine bastards as well.
I'm not defending Jerry Falwell (I don't even know who he is really), but I needed to speak up in compassion for those of you who are lost.
Being loud and obnoxious about your chosen Religious Service Provider does not mean that you are "speaking in compassion for [those who are] lost".
For a start, those people don't consider themselves lost. And some of us consider you to be the one who is completely lost - that is, you've lost the ability to reason, and you're running on the huffed fumes of faith alone.
Always dangerous for a human to do that - it makes you so easily manipulated. And that's what religion was invented for - to allow societies to be built around them, because it allowed the upper echelons to manipulate the sheeple. Such as yourself, oh great beacon of light in the darkness.
The point of Jesus's resurection was to free us from the laws and customs set forth in the Old testament.
Really? Where does it say that in the bible? I thought the point was to absolve us from our sins. so that we could all go to heaven in the end, but maybe I missed something in the middle of that whole being-nailed-to-a-tree part.
Does that mean we throw out all? No, But the new testament does free us Gentiles from the sanitary and dietary laws, but not the moral laws. Homesexuality is condemned throughout the bible, not just the OT, as a moral law.
Kind of a cop out to throw any of it out. Is it not the "Word of God" any more? You can't just pick and choose the bits you like and don't like you know.
What about the Apocrypha? They were New Testament stories which were thrown out of the bible during the Council of Nicea (IIRC). Why were THEY eliminated? Why aren't they still part of the bible today? They weren't Old Testament.
Face it, it's inconsistent. The ONE lesson you should take from the bible is that you should be nice to other people. That's it - end of sermon. Anything else is hogwash, plain and simple.
I beg to differ. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. In fact, the It states clearly that fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And so, I must say that these verses sums it all up nicely:
It also says pretty much the same thing about those who eat shellfish. Better hope you've not been to Red Lobster recently.
Good? Try "safe" instead. They're probably safer than they would be driving at a higher speed, although (I suspect) you're right that as a class they're more likely to be the cause of an accident.
work with a CRM finance program named Made2Manage. We were informed by them that this service pack breaks the connection between them and SQL. We have heard the same thing from another software vendor for a sql based e-mail system. Supposedly, when MS turned on all of the security features for this SP they eliminated the way in which a number of vendors communicated with SQL. To date I have not received the go ahead for this service pack. M2M evidently contacted MS about this issue but received little or no assistance in resolving this issue.
Perhaps they didn't receive any assistance because all of the information they need is already on the web and has been on the web for the past two or three months?
A. SQL Server will have access to the local subnet by means of file and print sharing, which will enable access to named pipes, also known as multi-protocol, that use Port 445. TCP/IP and UDP will be turned off by default. Applications that connect to a SQL Server database by means of a network will not be able to accept or make connections. This setting change helps protect the customer system by making it resilient to malicious worms that send port requests to a computer in an attempt to create a denial of service attack.
Q. What if my application needs SQL Server to listen to the network?
A. In cases where your application needs to use TCP/IP or named pipes to access the network, we recommend that you set up access on an as needed basis. We also recommend that for TCP/IP, you use a static port assignment. For applications that use a named instance of MSDE with dynamic TCP port selection enabled, you can open the UDP port 1434 and the TCP/IP port as appropriate. For named pipes, we recommend that you use the Windows Firewall tool to open file and print sharing with Port 445 enabled. Microsoft does not recommend the use of multi-protocol to connect to SQL Server or MSDE.
Holly cow, that's bigger than ALL of windows 98! I know there are a TON of improvements in SP2 but the size is kind of crazy
That's the administrative install version that covers everything - including Windows Media Center edition, Windows Tablet PC Edition, etc. If you download the client version, it'll only download the files you need.
People don't care what's under the hood... if they did, we wouldn't be using hideously inefficient Carnot Cycle engines to run our vehicles and most of our power plants after all this time. It's good enough that the car starts every morning and gets them to work on time.
How did this get modded up? Carnot Cycle engines are the most efficient heat-cycle engine there are. Until you come up with something to replace it (ie. a process that generates electricity from fuel directly, that is more efficient than a Carnot Cycle engine), it is the pinnacle. There is and cannot be anything better.
As Schroeder puts it "So don't bother installing a Carnot engine in your car; while it would increase your gas mileage, you would be passed on the highway by pedestrians."
That's not what you hear in this forum when the discussion turns to desktops, then OSS has too many which are too different. What software does Emacs copy? VIM, Apache, PHP, Webmin, etc, etc?
Some of us don't believe in people earning thousands of times more than other people merely for being insanely popular.
They're not earning thousands of times more than other people merely for being insanely popular.
They're earning that because they came up with a book/novel/music/movie script/made a film/produced a piece of art that people WANTED.
There's a big difference. But hey, what the hell would *you* know about the hours of thankless high-risk of no return work involved in creating something like that?
Answer: Absolutely NOTHING. So until you've tried it for yourself, and taken that risk, and gone out on a limb to make your own path instead of being a boring employee wageslave, why don't you just shut your boring yapping cakehole.
From what I remember of the Seattle Underground tour, there were (nearly) 24/7 "ATMs" running in Seattle in the 1900's.
Specifically, there were booths dotted around the place which had tellers sitting in them. Same exact idea, but without the "A" part of "ATM".
Element Computer's Computer is NOT a TabletPC
on
Tablet PCs Enter Reality
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
TabletPCs are NOT touch-sensitive. They use EM resonance based pens, so you can lean your arm on the device while you write, or hover over it. Some can even measure the tilt of the pen, or determine the difference between the tip of the pen and the eraser end.
Element Computer's "tablet", however, has a touch screen like a PDA. It's not even close to a tablet, and would not work like one even if it had the right software.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a patent lawsuit. MS has sued hundreds of companies for all kinds of stuff. They are the original litigious bastards.
There's a huge difference between defending yourself from people trying to use their patent library against you, and using your patent library as a weapon - something that Microsoft has never done.
" Be careful what you wish for. Microsoft (which I don't believe has filed any patent infringement lawsuits to date) "
p
Not true see http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/10304113.as
MS has been an awfully litigious company. They have sued dozens of companies for all kinds of stuff including trademarks, defamation, and yes even patent related stuff. There is no reason whatsoever to think that a company which has publicly stated it intends "vigorously defend our intellectual property" and has filed tons of lawsuits in the past will not sue over patent infringement.
That article you're linking to? It states that they're filing a defensive lawsuit against Lucent's representatives, who "sent Microsoft a letter in January, listing 16 patents and seeking to persuade Microsoft to enter talks about licensing them. The firm, called ThinkFire, wrote that the patents were crucial to current and planned Microsoft products, and "impact approximately $9 billion of current Microsoft annual sales." "
That's defensive use of your patent library against others who want to screw you out of money using THEIR patent library. That's not Microsoft going out and trying to sue defenseless people out of business because they own a patent on something.
If you're going to go off spouting baseless Microsoft rhetoric, please at least read the entire article you link to.
NO what is stopping you from shooting a feature is how you think it must be shot... ie in the way features are made in hollywood.
Kind of. The problem is that I want it to look great - I don't want it to look like I was running around in a park with a Hi8 camcorder.
Which means proper lighting, good locations, proper audio capture, good actors, rehearsals, etc.
Unless I want to build a set, which costs more money, it's going to be tricky to find a working location for some of this stuff. How many bars do you know who will let people come in for 9 hours a day, two days a week, for 8 weeks for free?
Hey, that's pretty neat. Is there a web page or wiki or something somewhere where people can post stuff like that?
Not that I know of, but it's all pretty obvious if you do any research on SFX. Look for books on the subject, books on motion picture history, and read Cinefex magazine religiously. Particularly look at the work of people such as John Dykstra, if you're looking for rotoscoping or other practical and optical work.
Even when open source is not chosen, it's having an effect. This article clearly shows how open source is lowering costs for customers, and driving Microsoft to make important improvements.
Poor Microsoft. They've never really been exposed to competitve pressures before.
Yes they have. Plenty of times. Lotus, Corel, IBM, you name it.
What they haven't had to deal with before is people giving away their work for free. It's hard to compete with free - that's why there are laws against product dumping.
I have shot 10 minutes of video. But I need to create the interdimensional window. What can I use to do that? I am using Adobe Premiere to edit.
That depends on what you want it to look like. Think in terms of practical effects - you can always set up an alpha-key using Premiere to do a simple split-screen effect if you want to paint something in.
What I'd do is to lock down the camera. On the right hand side of frame, put a bank of lights with some with blue gels, bouncing slightly off a tray of water which was being vibrated or otherwise sloshed around. I'd use the middle of the frame as the "gateway", and have the actors walk across the frame from left to right toward the bank of lights. I'd then shoot the same scene again without the bank of lights, create a matte along the middle of the frame, and overlay it with a thin white line running from top to bottom of the frame with a Gaussian blurred blue line and Gaussian blurred cyan line (with a smaller radius) additively blended on top.
it's a quick and hacky way of doing it - but heck, it works for Stargate. They just do more match-moving, and have a prettier interdimensional gate graphic.
So? I want to be payed for my work, too.
But if I start demanding a hundred thousand dollars per hour, I would damn well expect people to ship me off and have someone else take my place.
Fine. Assuming that we're paying the actors not exorbitantly, but a living wage... again, if the movies are all being distributed for free, how do you pay them at all?
Not everyone is going to be willing to sink money into film production with zero mechanism for making that back. If only for the fact that most people would only have the resources to make a single short film, and never have enough to make a feature.
I still find it interesting how many people seem to have this misconception that if you take away the Schwarzeneggers and the Cruises that a movie becomes miraculously cheap to make. If that was the case, I'd have made 4 features by now, because the only thing holding me back is lack of capital.
Now let's say what-if this cheap digital camera technology was already in use. It doesn't require the enormously complex and expensive lighting that film does. Cheap cameras allow you to capture the scene from multiple angles simultaneously drastically reducing production costs by cutting retakes to a minimum. With a higher resolution digital image, you can pan the image digitally instead of using expensive custom mechanical systems.
Although you appear to be speaking theoretically, I'm going to address some of your ideas.
We're still years away from digital cameras with higher resolution than film. That may also be impossible; film is about as high resolution as you can get already.
Digital cameras require as complex lighting as film cameras do, unless you want your finished product to look like crap, amateur hour, home movie quality camcorder work.
You have a point when it comes to print costs. But those are minor compared to the other costs involved in making a film - which includes everything from feeding cast and crew to paying places to use their locations to paying for the script.
As for using blender for special effects? Please, get real.
Panning digitally? Apart from the aforementioned problem with finding a higher resolution image, you also have the problem that your aperture and thus depth of focus is going to be different that way than if you used a camera mounted to a jib arm, or laid down track and used a dolly.
Using multiple cameras cutting costs by reducing retakes? Not really. 28 Days Later had lower setup times by using Canon GL-1 cameras - that was the big benefit which allowed them to film the deserted London city scenes. Using multiple cameras has its own set of special problems - including lighting issues (most DPs & Cinematographers will light for a single camera - not for multiple ones which are exponentially more difficult), making sure that you don't cross lines of action, and making sure that you don't see the other cameras in another camera's view.
As for costs? Writers get paid handsomely for some deals, not so much for others (same goes for any other position in the industry). Actors, directors, producers, crew... these all cost money. Logistics, housing them during the film shoot in hotels, renting sound stages, feeding people, transportation, makeup... all of these cost money.
You don't expect EVERYONE to work for free on films, do you?
If so, why? You don't work for free, do you?
You are so wrong. Your own words are a fatal weapon against you.
Good actors require a passionate desire to act. If you think good actors look at acting as an occupation you have no idea what you're talking about.
Show me an actor that doesn't require food or money, and I'll show you Fred Astaire in a Dust Devil commercial.
In the real world, even actors with a huge passion for their chosen vocation want to be paid for their work.
Heck, I am even making a short movie right now. Look for it on kazaa in a month or so....
I'm editing one right now. Kazaa is an unlikely place to find it. Maybe iFilm. But the short film is a means to an end - it's not the end itself. And there's a big difference between a short and a feature in terms of time and cost to produce.
My short cost $400 - and that's with everyone giving equipment and time for free, and a two-day shooting schedule. That doesn't include editing software, which cost $1500+tax. Or computer equipment (up to about $4000 on that puppy now all told).
Still... if you really are making a short, then what's it called and how do you find it? Here's the web-page for mine:
http://www.popcornfilms.com/projects.html
Before you say people will not do something for nothing you need to think about it. Open source is all about people doing something that they want to do without any immediate reward in place.
Good actors require - at the very least - food. And money. For them it's an occupation.
Production companies perhaps have life left. Finding and promoting talent... real talent... could be a money making proposition. However they can't remain based on income from physical based media distribution, it is absurd... absolutly absurd in an age that becomes more digital with each passing day.
So, again, I ask... where do they make the money from? If you think that product placement is going to be the place to get it from, then I ask you to go see I Robot again, and ask yourself if this is what you really really want. If not product placement, then how, precisely?
You can see the latter happening to media companies. They had their hayday, and they used to have a purpose, which is distributing intellectual material (music, movies...) by distributing the media they're stored on. Now that technology allows people to share the intellectual material without exchanging the physical media, media companies find themselves with no business case. They're superfluous and struggling to stay alive, but they won't be able to adapt, simply because they aren't needed anymore.
Superfluous? Presumably you have some alternative plan for how those movies are going to be funded - and therefore created - then?
Who, in your plan, will be creating these movies to be distributed for free?
Outlook Express has no junk mail filtering.
If you recall, it used to have junk mail filtering. Then Blue Mountain Arts sued Microsoft and forced them to take it out - because not only were they not willing to work with MS to ensure that their greetings cards got through, but they were assinine bastards as well.
I'm not defending Jerry Falwell (I don't even know who he is really), but I needed to speak up in compassion for those of you who are lost.
Being loud and obnoxious about your chosen Religious Service Provider does not mean that you are "speaking in compassion for [those who are] lost".
For a start, those people don't consider themselves lost. And some of us consider you to be the one who is completely lost - that is, you've lost the ability to reason, and you're running on the huffed fumes of faith alone.
Always dangerous for a human to do that - it makes you so easily manipulated. And that's what religion was invented for - to allow societies to be built around them, because it allowed the upper echelons to manipulate the sheeple. Such as yourself, oh great beacon of light in the darkness.
The point of Jesus's resurection was to free us from the laws and customs set forth in the Old testament.
Really? Where does it say that in the bible? I thought the point was to absolve us from our sins. so that we could all go to heaven in the end, but maybe I missed something in the middle of that whole being-nailed-to-a-tree part.
Does that mean we throw out all? No, But the new testament does free us Gentiles from the sanitary and dietary laws, but not the moral laws. Homesexuality is condemned throughout the bible, not just the OT, as a moral law.
Kind of a cop out to throw any of it out. Is it not the "Word of God" any more? You can't just pick and choose the bits you like and don't like you know.
What about the Apocrypha? They were New Testament stories which were thrown out of the bible during the Council of Nicea (IIRC). Why were THEY eliminated? Why aren't they still part of the bible today? They weren't Old Testament.
Face it, it's inconsistent. The ONE lesson you should take from the bible is that you should be nice to other people. That's it - end of sermon. Anything else is hogwash, plain and simple.
I beg to differ. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. In fact, the It states clearly that fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And so, I must say that these verses sums it all up nicely:
It also says pretty much the same thing about those who eat shellfish. Better hope you've not been to Red Lobster recently.
Good? Try "safe" instead. They're probably safer than they would be driving at a higher speed, although (I suspect) you're right that as a class they're more likely to be the cause of an accident.
Correlation != causation.
Wow, now there's a name I haven't seen in ages. Come back to push your Microsoft trolls on us again, spectecjr?
1. Point out where I was trolling above, loser boy.
2. I never went anywhere. Apparently you're about as observant as a very myopic slug.
3. Funny how you're posting anonymously, isn't it? Anyone would think that you don't have the courage of your convictions.
4. You're a dick.
work with a CRM finance program named Made2Manage. We were informed by them that this service pack breaks the connection between them and SQL. We have heard the same thing from another software vendor for a sql based e-mail system. Supposedly, when MS turned on all of the security features for this SP they eliminated the way in which a number of vendors communicated with SQL. To date I have not received the go ahead for this service pack. M2M evidently contacted MS about this issue but received little or no assistance in resolving this issue.
Perhaps they didn't receive any assistance because all of the information they need is already on the web and has been on the web for the past two or three months?
Microsoft's SQL Server with XP SP2 FAQ
Q. How does Windows XP SP2 affect SQL Server?
A. SQL Server will have access to the local subnet by means of file and print sharing, which will enable access to named pipes, also known as multi-protocol, that use Port 445. TCP/IP and UDP will be turned off by default. Applications that connect to a SQL Server database by means of a network will not be able to accept or make connections. This setting change helps protect the customer system by making it resilient to malicious worms that send port requests to a computer in an attempt to create a denial of service attack.
Q. What if my application needs SQL Server to listen to the network?
A. In cases where your application needs to use TCP/IP or named pipes to access the network, we recommend that you set up access on an as needed basis. We also recommend that for TCP/IP, you use a static port assignment. For applications that use a named instance of MSDE with dynamic TCP port selection enabled, you can open the UDP port 1434 and the TCP/IP port as appropriate. For named pipes, we recommend that you use the Windows Firewall tool to open file and print sharing with Port 445 enabled. Microsoft does not recommend the use of multi-protocol to connect to SQL Server or MSDE.
Holly cow, that's bigger than ALL of windows 98! I know there are a TON of improvements in SP2 but the size is kind of crazy
That's the administrative install version that covers everything - including Windows Media Center edition, Windows Tablet PC Edition, etc. If you download the client version, it'll only download the files you need.
How did this get modded up? Carnot Cycle engines are the most efficient heat-cycle engine there are. Until you come up with something to replace it (ie. a process that generates electricity from fuel directly, that is more efficient than a Carnot Cycle engine), it is the pinnacle. There is and cannot be anything better.
More info here
Quote:
That's not what you hear in this forum when the discussion turns to desktops, then OSS has too many which are too different. What software does Emacs copy? VIM, Apache, PHP, Webmin, etc, etc?
PHP was a copy of ASP. Just FYI.
Some of us don't believe in people earning thousands of times more than other people merely for being insanely popular.
They're not earning thousands of times more than other people merely for being insanely popular.
They're earning that because they came up with a book/novel/music/movie script/made a film/produced a piece of art that people WANTED.
There's a big difference. But hey, what the hell would *you* know about the hours of thankless high-risk of no return work involved in creating something like that?
Answer: Absolutely NOTHING. So until you've tried it for yourself, and taken that risk, and gone out on a limb to make your own path instead of being a boring employee wageslave, why don't you just shut your boring yapping cakehole.
From what I remember of the Seattle Underground tour, there were (nearly) 24/7 "ATMs" running in Seattle in the 1900's.
Specifically, there were booths dotted around the place which had tellers sitting in them. Same exact idea, but without the "A" part of "ATM".
TabletPCs are NOT touch-sensitive. They use EM resonance based pens, so you can lean your arm on the device while you write, or hover over it. Some can even measure the tilt of the pen, or determine the difference between the tip of the pen and the eraser end.
Element Computer's "tablet", however, has a touch screen like a PDA. It's not even close to a tablet, and would not work like one even if it had the right software.