I believe you were attempting George Carlin's joke, but you're missing that well articulated, and enlightening comment, such as "pre-suck my genital situation!" that Carlin brings to any discussion:
"Anyway, it's part of this boarding process, they say, "We would like to pre-board." Well, what exactly is that anyway? What does it mean to pre-board? To get on before you get on?
That's another complaint of mine. Too much use of this prefix "pre". It's all over the language now. Pre-this, pre-that. "Place the turkey in a pre-heated oven." It's ridiculous. There are only two states an oven can possibly exist in: heated or unheated. Pre-heated is a meaningless, fucking term.
It's like pre-recorded. "This program was pre-recorded." Well, of course it was pre-recorded. When else are you gonna record it, afterwards? That's the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand. Otherwise it doesn't really work, does it!
Pre-existing, pre-planning, pre-screening. You know what I tell these people? Pre-suck my genital situation! And they seem to understand what I'm talking about. "
"Since 1976, about 1,300 documented NASA technologies have benefited U.S. industry, improved the quality of life and created jobs for Americans." (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm)
Just do a search on google for NASA spinoffs and I'm sure you'll come up with a huge list of important (and arguable some less-important) inventions that have been the result of NASA.
However, I think that too often people miss the point of investing in space. Many important technologies have already come out of NASA's efforts, including CAT scans, self-righting life-rafts, kidney dialysis machines, etc. Even despite these advances, how do we know that something better isn't out there waiting to be discovered? That is what we are investing in.
Doing research in space is just the same as doing any type of research. It's the persuit of something better, even though we don't always know what, if anything, it will produce. Why do research in anything for that matter? By investing millions of dollars in gene research do we know for sure we're going to find a cure for cancer, or alsheimers, or any other diseases? No, but we look into it anyway because we might find something. Why bother mapping the human genome otherwise? We have nothing better than guesses as to what eventual result can come out of that.
Lastly, we just have to look at history. Why did Spain fund Christopher Columbus to sail to the edge of the world when they _knew_ the world was flat? Why did we continue to try and split the atom when we _knew_ it was the smallest piece of matter? Sure some advances have been made as a result of funding in NASA. Whether or not those results are worth the initial investment is arguable, but how do we _know_ that NASA isn't going to make a landmark discovery that makes the investment required for that discovery seem laughable?
You're right, Linux is not a company. Linux is a product that other companies like Redhat and IBM are trying to push into the Enterprise server space as well as the desktop space.
To the people here on slashdot Linux is just something that "gets adopted," because we have free time to play around with new technologies. However, when IBM / Redhat go talk to companies who are trying to decide on a platform to base their business on, such as this bank, it very much is a product that their respective marketting departments are trying to "push" into this space, just the same way Microsoft is trying to sell Windows in this space.
Those requirements are for the entire SDK, including the ability to build the source, not the minimum requirements just to run it.
The minimum requirements for just the.NET Frameworks redist are 32M ram on a 90mhz machine. See this page for more info. (Note: The bottom table, ".NET Framework Redistributable," lists the minimum requirements for the executable.)
I think/.'ers are missing the point here. Nowhere in the article did Microsoft say that Windows was not designed to be modular, in fact, it was an analyst who said that:
"The product was not designed to be modular," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group.
The Microsoft quote is:
"From an engineering standpoint, No. 1, we cannot remove software code for multiple functionalities without degrading other functionalities of the operating system," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out."
"The proposal would require "a complete redesign" that would cost millions of hours to build and test, Desler said.
Which is significantly different. Microsoft is saying that, while it could be technically possible to remove certain components from the operating system, doing so would break other areas that depend on that component. For example, ripping out IE is going to break HTML Help.
Even more importantly is the second sentance is the second sentance, it "would cost millions of hours to build and test." So it should be possible to replace IE with Netscape, or Opera, and HTML Help could use it. Now you go and make is possible to replace all sorts of other components: IE, Messenger, Media Player, Data Access Components, System Information, DirectX, Scandisk, MS Cryptography, MS Help Files. Each time you replace a component there are tons of different replacements to choose from so the eventual number of configurations you have to test becomes astronomical.
As if that weren't enough, you still have versions of Windows with all of the Microsoft components in them. What if a user chooses to upgrade their fully ripped apart and replaced version of Windows 2000 with Windows XP, but gets the version of Windows XP with everything in it. How do you choose what to replace and what not to replace? Does the user want everything replaced with Microsoft programs because they were fed up with the ripped apart version? Or did they just not know any better and got the wrong version? If you upgrade a component, like MS Help, does it still have to be backwards compatible with whatever version of Opera the user is using as a web browser? Again, the amount of testing on this new setup would be completely unfeasable and impossible. This is Microsoft's argument.
Furthermore, the company said customer support could be prohibitively expensive because experts would have to be knowledgeable about as many as 4,000 different Windows configurations.
Does anyone know where to find the colored iMacs. They are extremely back ordered and the colored versions are impossible to find.
As a side note, if you are in the Montana area, Vanns is advertising that they are selling iMacs. DO NOT buy from them. Their sales people are rude and to make matters worse they *LOST* our computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you were attempting George Carlin's joke, but you're missing that well articulated, and enlightening comment, such as "pre-suck my genital situation!" that Carlin brings to any discussion:
"Anyway, it's part of this boarding process, they say, "We would like to pre-board." Well, what exactly is that anyway? What does it mean to pre-board? To get on before you get on?
That's another complaint of mine. Too much use of this prefix "pre". It's all over the language now. Pre-this, pre-that. "Place the turkey in a pre-heated oven." It's ridiculous. There are only two states an oven can possibly exist in: heated or unheated. Pre-heated is a meaningless, fucking term.
It's like pre-recorded. "This program was pre-recorded." Well, of course it was pre-recorded. When else are you gonna record it, afterwards? That's the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand. Otherwise it doesn't really work, does it!
Pre-existing, pre-planning, pre-screening. You know what I tell these people? Pre-suck my genital situation! And they seem to understand what I'm talking about. "
-Alias
Actually,
"Since 1976, about 1,300 documented NASA technologies have benefited U.S. industry, improved the quality of life and created jobs for Americans." (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm)
Just do a search on google for NASA spinoffs and I'm sure you'll come up with a huge list of important (and arguable some less-important) inventions that have been the result of NASA.
However, I think that too often people miss the point of investing in space. Many important technologies have already come out of NASA's efforts, including CAT scans, self-righting life-rafts, kidney dialysis machines, etc. Even despite these advances, how do we know that something better isn't out there waiting to be discovered? That is what we are investing in.
Doing research in space is just the same as doing any type of research. It's the persuit of something better, even though we don't always know what, if anything, it will produce. Why do research in anything for that matter? By investing millions of dollars in gene research do we know for sure we're going to find a cure for cancer, or alsheimers, or any other diseases? No, but we look into it anyway because we might find something. Why bother mapping the human genome otherwise? We have nothing better than guesses as to what eventual result can come out of that.
Lastly, we just have to look at history. Why did Spain fund Christopher Columbus to sail to the edge of the world when they _knew_ the world was flat? Why did we continue to try and split the atom when we _knew_ it was the smallest piece of matter? Sure some advances have been made as a result of funding in NASA. Whether or not those results are worth the initial investment is arguable, but how do we _know_ that NASA isn't going to make a landmark discovery that makes the investment required for that discovery seem laughable?
-Mark
You're right, Linux is not a company. Linux is a product that other companies like Redhat and IBM are trying to push into the Enterprise server space as well as the desktop space.
To the people here on slashdot Linux is just something that "gets adopted," because we have free time to play around with new technologies. However, when IBM / Redhat go talk to companies who are trying to decide on a platform to base their business on, such as this bank, it very much is a product that their respective marketting departments are trying to "push" into this space, just the same way Microsoft is trying to sell Windows in this space.
See Redhat's Enterprise Solutions page.
Well, let's keep this in context. He is looking for an editorial position at slashdot...
;-)
I'm pretty sure you're going to hell for misspelling "Matthew."
Looks to me like he'd fit right in!
Those requirements are for the entire SDK, including the ability to build the source, not the minimum requirements just to run it.
.NET Frameworks redist are 32M ram on a 90mhz machine. See this page for more info. (Note: The bottom table, ".NET Framework Redistributable," lists the minimum requirements for the executable.)
The minimum requirements for just the
I think /.'ers are missing the point here. Nowhere in the article did Microsoft say that Windows was not designed to be modular, in fact, it was an analyst who said that:
"The product was not designed to be modular," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group.
The Microsoft quote is:
"From an engineering standpoint, No. 1, we cannot remove software code for multiple functionalities without degrading other functionalities of the operating system," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out."
"The proposal would require "a complete redesign" that would cost millions of hours to build and test, Desler said.
Which is significantly different. Microsoft is saying that, while it could be technically possible to remove certain components from the operating system, doing so would break other areas that depend on that component. For example, ripping out IE is going to break HTML Help.
Even more importantly is the second sentance is the second sentance, it "would cost millions of hours to build and test." So it should be possible to replace IE with Netscape, or Opera, and HTML Help could use it. Now you go and make is possible to replace all sorts of other components: IE, Messenger, Media Player, Data Access Components, System Information, DirectX, Scandisk, MS Cryptography, MS Help Files. Each time you replace a component there are tons of different replacements to choose from so the eventual number of configurations you have to test becomes astronomical.
As if that weren't enough, you still have versions of Windows with all of the Microsoft components in them. What if a user chooses to upgrade their fully ripped apart and replaced version of Windows 2000 with Windows XP, but gets the version of Windows XP with everything in it. How do you choose what to replace and what not to replace? Does the user want everything replaced with Microsoft programs because they were fed up with the ripped apart version? Or did they just not know any better and got the wrong version? If you upgrade a component, like MS Help, does it still have to be backwards compatible with whatever version of Opera the user is using as a web browser? Again, the amount of testing on this new setup would be completely unfeasable and impossible. This is Microsoft's argument.
Furthermore, the company said customer support could be prohibitively expensive because experts would have to be knowledgeable about as many as 4,000 different Windows configurations.
Think of it, millions of /.ers names on the Martian surface.
That's just what we need..the Martian surface littered with millions of "First Post!" letters.
You can download this page as a Microsoft Word Document by...
Gee...that's fitting.
Future shop went out of business. They're currently ditching their stock, I doubt they'll be getting anything new in.
Does anyone know where to find the colored iMacs. They are extremely back ordered and the colored versions are impossible to find.
As a side note, if you are in the Montana area, Vanns is advertising that they are selling iMacs. DO NOT buy from them. Their sales people are rude and to make matters worse they *LOST* our computer.
When are these going to become available? I want one!