People don't want the "local roadhouse," they want McDonalds. They don't want Jack and Jill's Country Inn, they want Motel 6. They don't want the General Store, they want WalMart.
In the case of McDonald's and WalMart, you're completely off-base here - people don't want consistency, but they do want low prices, and they're willing to put up with consistent crap as long as it's cheap. (In the case of Motel 6, people do want consistency, because they have nothing else by which to judge the quality of a motel in an unfamiliar town, and there are a lot of really awful motels out there).
My favorite computer scene in Jurassic Park is the live video phone call, where you can clearly see the QuickTime progress bar progressing through the pre-recorded video, while they're having a live two-way conversation.
As for Firewall, I think they did a pretty good job of being realistic. The scanner IPod thing was a stretch, but when they do computer security in the movie it looks like an actual computer. We see actual firewall rules and such that look like what I'd see on my actual computer. Given that it was a hollywood movie built around a very technical subject, I was pretty impressed with the realism level.As for Firewall, I think they did a pretty good job of being realistic. The scanner IPod thing was a stretch, but when they do computer security in the movie it looks like an actual computer. We see actual firewall rules and such that look like what I'd see on my actual computer. Given that it was a hollywood movie built around a very technical subject, I was pretty impressed with the realism level.
I agree, I thought Firewall was very well done. Agreed, the scanner/iPod thing was a stretch, but hey, at least they got the basic components right (a FAX machine really does contain optical scanning stuff, and an iPod really can be used as a hard drive to store pictures).
What impressed me most about Firewall was that they actually tried to deemphasize the tech stuff, visually - there was a lot of tech stuff, but the tech stuff wasn't the main focus of the scene, it's just what the characters were using, because we live in a world filled with tech stuff. The main focus was on the characters.
When I downloaded RC1, they offered a direct link to the iso, in addition to the Java-based download manager, which worked fine in Firefox on Mac OS X.
The primary objective of the creationist movement (as opposed to evangelicals as a whole) right now involves getting an unprovable class of hypotheses (many elements of which have ended up disprovable) into textbooks for public school science classes.
That is not the primary objective of the Creationist movement. It is one objective, certainly, but I would say the primary objective is to gain a better understanding and appreciation of God by trying to better understand His Creation. Another objective is to use this understanding of Creation to bring others closer to the Creator. Another objective is simply to do good science: coming up with testable hypotheses, doing research to affirm or disprove the hypotheses, adjusting the theory as needed, and forming new hypotheses.
Placing creationism on the same level as science is discounting thousands of years of painfully tedious work accumulating basic knowledge about the world around us, so that we don't have to challenge the beliefs we already were indoctrinated in.
I think you'll find that a significant portion of that painfully tedious work you mention was done in an attempt to better understand God's Creation, and it's only relatively recently that atheistism has been the norm in the scientific community. Galileo didn't believe that his heliocentric theory contradicted the Bible; he merely interpreted the Bible differently than the Catholic Church at the time. Newton said "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
No, don't look behind that curtain, it might confuse you!
On the contrary: yes, look behind that curtain! It might lead you to a better understanding of the wonderful world God created for us, and therefore to a better understanding of and appreciation for our Creator.
a.)Would you allow tapping of phones incoming / outgoing calls where one or more of the parties were suspected Al Qaeda as long as a warrant was acquired prior?
Or if a warrant will be acquired up to 72 hours afterwards, as current law allows, yes, absolutely.
b.)Would you not attack or try to capture any Al Qaeda abroad, but instead just wait for action until they confront us?
I would say the 9/11 attacks, combined with the successful Madrid and London bombings and other unsuccessful attempts count as them confronting us. No need to wait for more.
c.)Would you try to begin peace talks with Al Qaeda?
I haven't seen any indication that there's anyone connected to al Qaeda that we can talk to about peace.
d.)Would you put a fence up along both our north and south borders?
This is a separate issue, but yes. Making it more difficult to enter this country illegally, combined with making it easier to enter this country legally, are both important parts of a good immigration policy.
e.)If we are attacked again would you respond by holding a press conference, shunning the actions, and then trying to negotiate peace talks?
Anyone who would attack the United States is clearly not interested in negotiating for peace. If they wanted to negotiate, they would have asked to negotiate. Holding a press conference and shunning the actions? There's nothing wrong with that. But anyone who demonstrates both the will and the means to attack this country is a threat that needs to be dealt with, in order to protect innocent lives.
I just don't see why taking the actions necessary to defend our country from terrorism can't be done without also respecting the law and the Constitution.
Perhaps because employees need to actually USE sensitive data when they're away from the office (which is why they had a laptop in the first place). Have you ever tried working with large documents that are saved only on a file server that you're connected to through a VPN from a public wifi connection? And forget about getting anything done on an airplane, or anywhere else where broadband Internet isn't readily available.
So at that point, why have a laptop at all, if you can't really use it to get work done?
Huh? There are tons of anti-science, anti-education, creationist Republican trolls here on Slashdot, many of whom get uprated with surprising regularity.
Please note that Creationists are not anti-science or anti-education. In fact, without science, Creationism would be limited to the vague narrative provided by the Bible, which by itself isn't particularly interesting.
1. Proxy settings. All the users at one site HAVE to go through a proxy server. It's a transparent server, but...
What you're describing is not a transparent proxy server. It's just a normal proxy server, that has to be configured in the browser. A transparent proxy server is where your firewall hijacks all outbound traffic on port 80 and reroutes it to the proxy server's IP without the browser knowing about it. This would solve your problem.
Another option you may want to look into (it won't help with the issue of users being able to turn it off, but it might make configuration easier) is Web Proxy Automatic Detection (WPAD). Start by making a Proxy Automatic Configuration (PAC) file, which is just a bit of JavaScript code that tells the browser what proxy server to use. For example:
function FindProxyForURL(url, host) {// Don't use a proxy when connecting to local servers
if(isInNet(host, "192.168.1.0", "255.255.255.0")) return "DIRECT";
return "PROXY proxyserver.example.com:3128"; }
Put this file on an internal web server. Name the file "wpad.dat", and configure the server to give the MIME type as application/x-ns-proxy-autoconfig, for example:
Now, configure your internal DNS server to add a host "wpad" at whatever domain you're using internally to point to your web server, so that http://wpad/wpad.dat will return the PAC file you've created.
Finally, to cover all the bases, make it explicit in your DHCP server. Set this global option in dhcpd.conf:
option wpad code 252 = text;
Then add this within your subnet declaration:
option wpad "http://wpad/wpad.dat\n";
Internet Explorer breaks without the trailing \n. I'm not sure if it has to be \n, or if some other character would work better, but this seems to work just fine.
Sounds complicated! But just remember, you only have to do this once. Internet Explorer and Firefox will both respect it automatically, out of the box, with no client-side configuration at all. One caveat: Mac OS X does not currently support WPAD; I'm hoping Apple fixes this in 10.5 "Leopard" next spring, but I haven't seen anything official about it. In the mean time, Mac clients have to set the URL of the PAC file manually. WPAD works in Firefox on Mac, but see bug 327381 if you're running it on a laptop (I don't know if that bug applies to Windows as well).
Given the scope of the operation, are these losses to be expected or is this an example of poor government security standards?
How many laptops does the Department of Commerce have, total? What percentage of these were lost or stolen over the past five years? What percentage of laptops owned by other government agencies were lost or stolen during the same time period? What percentage of laptops owned by a private company (say, for example, WalMart) were lost or stolen during the same time period? If 1,137 out of however many the DoC has is unusually high, then this is a problem.
I had not even considered the free speech issue. That issue is even bigger than the child porn issue.
Whenever you hear anyone mention child porn, you must always consider the free speech issue, because almost any proposed solution for the child porn problem involves abridging the freedom of speech. As you've just discovered, it's an easy mistake to make.
Just as the USA PATRIOT Act was intended* to enable law enforcement to combat terrorism, but has been used for unrelated purposes, any law passed to combat child pornography will be used for unrelated purposes.
* Of course, some people believe that the USA PATRIOT Act was not actually intended to combat terrorism, but was in fact intended to restrict our civil liberties, using fighting terrorism as a cover to sell it to the American public. I would be surprised if significant portions of the bill hadn't already been drafted prior to 9/11/01, just waiting for a suitable justification to present itself.
There are plenty of good reasons why it's very important for citizens to be able to anonymously take and distribute photographs. Not of naked children, of course, but (for example) police officers inappropriately beating someone, or anything else where someone with authority is abusing their position. We must be guaranteed the right to free and anonymous speech and press (and I submit that photography fits in there), because if it can't be anonymous it isn't truly free.
However, there's a question that keeps nagging me every time I see mentions of this so-called "child porn" in the internet. What's exactly that "child porn" people keep mentioning? I get hundreds of unwanted emails every day. I have lost count of all the pornography I have seen in the internet. Yet I never saw one single picture of a child engaged in sex!
Well, I have seen plenty of images that some people call "child porn", but those are merely pictures of young women who could be of any age between 15 and 30 with shaved pubic hair and small breasts. Anorexic women who have their pictures taken when they are 25 years old do not count as "child porn" in my book.
I've gotten "lolita" spam containing pictures of children who are clearly too young to be involved that sort of thing (I don't mean somewhere between 15 and 30, I mean definitely under 15), but I don't recally seeing any actually involved in sex - just standing around naked.
I dunno, maybe if you follow the links in the spam, they have pictures of kids having sex? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen that. Not that pictures of children standing around naked doesn't count as kiddie porn, it's just a thought that struck me when you mentioned "a child engaged in sex".
Most of the spam I get these days is for penny stocks, questional pharmaceuticals, refinancing, and inexpensive diplomas from genuine non-accredited off-shore universities. At least, that's what makes it past my filters.
Is that you need a credit card, even if you just want free album artwork, etc.
Is this true now? I used the iTunes Music Store for at least a year before I ever gave them a credit card. I downloaded free tracks (almost) every week, and won something from their Pepsi promotion way back whenever that was. I would expect free album artwork to work the same way. You do need a valid e-mail address, but shouldn't need a credit card.
If Apple Lossless is an option on the table, you can convert DRM'd AAC to Apple Lossless with no (further) loss of quality (beyond the loss incurred by Apple's original AAC encoding, before they sold it to you). Unfortunately it's a cumbersome process and requires burning to audio CD and re-ripping, but the result will sound identical to the original file you downloaded, with no DRM (of course using a lossless format will result in a much larger file size).
Is it just me, or was the new iTunes release a step down from the last one? I just don't like the interface as much.
It's just you. iTunes 7 addresses just about every complaint I've ever heard about iTunes. No, it's not perfect. The new interface may include some changes that are worse than before, but it certainly includes improvements as well, and several features that were simply broken before are fixed.
Give it some time. This is the most significant UI change in iTunes' history. It took awhile to get used to it when I first started using iTunes; it will take awhile to get used to the new version. After a couple weeks, start using the iTunes Feedback form to send your thoughts to Apple. They won't reply to you, but they really do read them, and if a lot of people have a common complaint, chances are good that Apple will address it.
Wrong. The Blue Background Crash screen in NT 4.0 is what the vast majority of people were referring to.
I'm sure it's what the vast majority of NT users were referring to, but I think you'll find that a lot more people used Win9x than ever saw NT.
Windows 98/ME do not 'crash' to a blue screen. There are error states where a blue-background screen is displayed, they are all warnings that the machine will exit from (press key to continue.)
Just because it says "press any key to continue" doesn't mean the machine will exit from the error. The only error I can think of that actually fits your description is the error you get if you eject a floppy disk while trying to access it. Most of the time, if you see a blue error message on Win9x, your machine is completely hosed and you must reboot. Pressing a key might get you a black screen with the mouse pointer working, but rarely much better than that.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of ignorant people say who never ran an 'NT' derived version of Microsoft Windows until XP.
It was precisely that bunch of ignorant people I was referring to when I said most people meant Win9x's error screen when they said BSOD. They may be ignorant, but they outnumber you by a wide margin.
Iam waiting for Nov elections so that the new Dems Congress and Senate can impeach the prez. and indict him for war crimes.
Don't hold your breath.
Why don;t all the parents/spouses of all the fine Soldiers he got killed sue the Prez in a Civil Action. Its easier to get a judgement that way.
Four of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court were appointed by either GW Bush or his father. Three were appointed by other Republican presidents.
I usually couldn't run Win95 or Win98 for more than about 6 hours without having problems that needed a reboot to fix. When I had to use 95/98 at work, I would reboot my PC every morning and again at lunch; if I skipped the lunchtime reboot I very rarely made it to the end of the workday without it crashing in the middle of something. WinXP can run for days without crashing. Notice I said it can run for days without crashing, not that you can't get it to crash.
Windows ME, and 98, and 95 do not have a blue screen of death. There is a blue background crash screen for those 'Operating Environments' but there is near-zero debug information on that screen.
The blue background crash screen of which you speak is precisely what the vast majority of people (prior to the release of Windows XP) were referring to when they mentioned a Blue Screen Of Death.
1. A pleasant semi-transparent overlay that asks them to reboot their machine (in their native language)
I have one complaint about Apple's kernel panic screen:
It tells the user they need to reboot, with absolutely no indication as to why. I'm not talking about a technical error message, I'm talking about a title at the top saying something akin to "The system has crashed." Being told you need to restart your computer, without being told that the system has crashed, is rather unsettling, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't want the "local roadhouse," they want McDonalds. They don't want Jack and Jill's Country Inn, they want Motel 6. They don't want the General Store, they want WalMart.
In the case of McDonald's and WalMart, you're completely off-base here - people don't want consistency, but they do want low prices, and they're willing to put up with consistent crap as long as it's cheap. (In the case of Motel 6, people do want consistency, because they have nothing else by which to judge the quality of a motel in an unfamiliar town, and there are a lot of really awful motels out there).
Ah, I take it you've tried this? ;-)
My favorite computer scene in Jurassic Park is the live video phone call, where you can clearly see the QuickTime progress bar progressing through the pre-recorded video, while they're having a live two-way conversation.
As for Firewall, I think they did a pretty good job of being realistic. The scanner IPod thing was a stretch, but when they do computer security in the movie it looks like an actual computer. We see actual firewall rules and such that look like what I'd see on my actual computer. Given that it was a hollywood movie built around a very technical subject, I was pretty impressed with the realism level.As for Firewall, I think they did a pretty good job of being realistic. The scanner IPod thing was a stretch, but when they do computer security in the movie it looks like an actual computer. We see actual firewall rules and such that look like what I'd see on my actual computer. Given that it was a hollywood movie built around a very technical subject, I was pretty impressed with the realism level.
I agree, I thought Firewall was very well done. Agreed, the scanner/iPod thing was a stretch, but hey, at least they got the basic components right (a FAX machine really does contain optical scanning stuff, and an iPod really can be used as a hard drive to store pictures).
What impressed me most about Firewall was that they actually tried to deemphasize the tech stuff, visually - there was a lot of tech stuff, but the tech stuff wasn't the main focus of the scene, it's just what the characters were using, because we live in a world filled with tech stuff. The main focus was on the characters.
When I downloaded RC1, they offered a direct link to the iso, in addition to the Java-based download manager, which worked fine in Firefox on Mac OS X.
The primary objective of the creationist movement (as opposed to evangelicals as a whole) right now involves getting an unprovable class of hypotheses (many elements of which have ended up disprovable) into textbooks for public school science classes.
That is not the primary objective of the Creationist movement. It is one objective, certainly, but I would say the primary objective is to gain a better understanding and appreciation of God by trying to better understand His Creation. Another objective is to use this understanding of Creation to bring others closer to the Creator. Another objective is simply to do good science: coming up with testable hypotheses, doing research to affirm or disprove the hypotheses, adjusting the theory as needed, and forming new hypotheses.
Placing creationism on the same level as science is discounting thousands of years of painfully tedious work accumulating basic knowledge about the world around us, so that we don't have to challenge the beliefs we already were indoctrinated in.
I think you'll find that a significant portion of that painfully tedious work you mention was done in an attempt to better understand God's Creation, and it's only relatively recently that atheistism has been the norm in the scientific community. Galileo didn't believe that his heliocentric theory contradicted the Bible; he merely interpreted the Bible differently than the Catholic Church at the time. Newton said "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
No, don't look behind that curtain, it might confuse you!
On the contrary: yes, look behind that curtain! It might lead you to a better understanding of the wonderful world God created for us, and therefore to a better understanding of and appreciation for our Creator.
a.)Would you allow tapping of phones incoming / outgoing calls where one or more of the parties were suspected Al Qaeda as long as a warrant was acquired prior?
Or if a warrant will be acquired up to 72 hours afterwards, as current law allows, yes, absolutely.
b.)Would you not attack or try to capture any Al Qaeda abroad, but instead just wait for action until they confront us?
I would say the 9/11 attacks, combined with the successful Madrid and London bombings and other unsuccessful attempts count as them confronting us. No need to wait for more.
c.)Would you try to begin peace talks with Al Qaeda?
I haven't seen any indication that there's anyone connected to al Qaeda that we can talk to about peace.
d.)Would you put a fence up along both our north and south borders?
This is a separate issue, but yes. Making it more difficult to enter this country illegally, combined with making it easier to enter this country legally, are both important parts of a good immigration policy.
e.)If we are attacked again would you respond by holding a press conference, shunning the actions, and then trying to negotiate peace talks?
Anyone who would attack the United States is clearly not interested in negotiating for peace. If they wanted to negotiate, they would have asked to negotiate. Holding a press conference and shunning the actions? There's nothing wrong with that. But anyone who demonstrates both the will and the means to attack this country is a threat that needs to be dealt with, in order to protect innocent lives.
I just don't see why taking the actions necessary to defend our country from terrorism can't be done without also respecting the law and the Constitution.
Perhaps because employees need to actually USE sensitive data when they're away from the office (which is why they had a laptop in the first place). Have you ever tried working with large documents that are saved only on a file server that you're connected to through a VPN from a public wifi connection? And forget about getting anything done on an airplane, or anywhere else where broadband Internet isn't readily available.
So at that point, why have a laptop at all, if you can't really use it to get work done?
Huh? There are tons of anti-science, anti-education, creationist Republican trolls here on Slashdot, many of whom get uprated with surprising regularity.
Please note that Creationists are not anti-science or anti-education. In fact, without science, Creationism would be limited to the vague narrative provided by the Bible, which by itself isn't particularly interesting.
What you're describing is not a transparent proxy server. It's just a normal proxy server, that has to be configured in the browser. A transparent proxy server is where your firewall hijacks all outbound traffic on port 80 and reroutes it to the proxy server's IP without the browser knowing about it. This would solve your problem.
Another option you may want to look into (it won't help with the issue of users being able to turn it off, but it might make configuration easier) is Web Proxy Automatic Detection (WPAD). Start by making a Proxy Automatic Configuration (PAC) file, which is just a bit of JavaScript code that tells the browser what proxy server to use. For example:
Put this file on an internal web server. Name the file "wpad.dat", and configure the server to give the MIME type as application/x-ns-proxy-autoconfig, for example:
Now, configure your internal DNS server to add a host "wpad" at whatever domain you're using internally to point to your web server, so that http://wpad/wpad.dat will return the PAC file you've created.
Finally, to cover all the bases, make it explicit in your DHCP server. Set this global option in dhcpd.conf:
Then add this within your subnet declaration:
Internet Explorer breaks without the trailing \n. I'm not sure if it has to be \n, or if some other character would work better, but this seems to work just fine.
Sounds complicated! But just remember, you only have to do this once. Internet Explorer and Firefox will both respect it automatically, out of the box, with no client-side configuration at all. One caveat: Mac OS X does not currently support WPAD; I'm hoping Apple fixes this in 10.5 "Leopard" next spring, but I haven't seen anything official about it. In the mean time, Mac clients have to set the URL of the PAC file manually. WPAD works in Firefox on Mac, but see bug 327381 if you're running it on a laptop (I don't know if that bug applies to Windows as well).
Given the scope of the operation, are these losses to be expected or is this an example of poor government security standards?
How many laptops does the Department of Commerce have, total? What percentage of these were lost or stolen over the past five years? What percentage of laptops owned by other government agencies were lost or stolen during the same time period? What percentage of laptops owned by a private company (say, for example, WalMart) were lost or stolen during the same time period? If 1,137 out of however many the DoC has is unusually high, then this is a problem.
I had not even considered the free speech issue. That issue is even bigger than the child porn issue.
Whenever you hear anyone mention child porn, you must always consider the free speech issue, because almost any proposed solution for the child porn problem involves abridging the freedom of speech. As you've just discovered, it's an easy mistake to make.
Just as the USA PATRIOT Act was intended* to enable law enforcement to combat terrorism, but has been used for unrelated purposes, any law passed to combat child pornography will be used for unrelated purposes.
* Of course, some people believe that the USA PATRIOT Act was not actually intended to combat terrorism, but was in fact intended to restrict our civil liberties, using fighting terrorism as a cover to sell it to the American public. I would be surprised if significant portions of the bill hadn't already been drafted prior to 9/11/01, just waiting for a suitable justification to present itself.
To my great surprise, Enterprise didn't suck (most of the time). The Star Wars prequels were disappointing.
There are plenty of good reasons why it's very important for citizens to be able to anonymously take and distribute photographs. Not of naked children, of course, but (for example) police officers inappropriately beating someone, or anything else where someone with authority is abusing their position. We must be guaranteed the right to free and anonymous speech and press (and I submit that photography fits in there), because if it can't be anonymous it isn't truly free.
However, there's a question that keeps nagging me every time I see mentions of this so-called "child porn" in the internet. What's exactly that "child porn" people keep mentioning? I get hundreds of unwanted emails every day. I have lost count of all the pornography I have seen in the internet. Yet I never saw one single picture of a child engaged in sex!
Well, I have seen plenty of images that some people call "child porn", but those are merely pictures of young women who could be of any age between 15 and 30 with shaved pubic hair and small breasts. Anorexic women who have their pictures taken when they are 25 years old do not count as "child porn" in my book.
I've gotten "lolita" spam containing pictures of children who are clearly too young to be involved that sort of thing (I don't mean somewhere between 15 and 30, I mean definitely under 15), but I don't recally seeing any actually involved in sex - just standing around naked.
I dunno, maybe if you follow the links in the spam, they have pictures of kids having sex? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen that. Not that pictures of children standing around naked doesn't count as kiddie porn, it's just a thought that struck me when you mentioned "a child engaged in sex".
Most of the spam I get these days is for penny stocks, questional pharmaceuticals, refinancing, and inexpensive diplomas from genuine non-accredited off-shore universities. At least, that's what makes it past my filters.
Is that you need a credit card, even if you just want free album artwork, etc.
Is this true now? I used the iTunes Music Store for at least a year before I ever gave them a credit card. I downloaded free tracks (almost) every week, and won something from their Pepsi promotion way back whenever that was. I would expect free album artwork to work the same way. You do need a valid e-mail address, but shouldn't need a credit card.
Someone let me know if this has changed.
If Apple Lossless is an option on the table, you can convert DRM'd AAC to Apple Lossless with no (further) loss of quality (beyond the loss incurred by Apple's original AAC encoding, before they sold it to you). Unfortunately it's a cumbersome process and requires burning to audio CD and re-ripping, but the result will sound identical to the original file you downloaded, with no DRM (of course using a lossless format will result in a much larger file size).
Is it just me, or was the new iTunes release a step down from the last one? I just don't like the interface as much.
It's just you. iTunes 7 addresses just about every complaint I've ever heard about iTunes. No, it's not perfect. The new interface may include some changes that are worse than before, but it certainly includes improvements as well, and several features that were simply broken before are fixed.
Give it some time. This is the most significant UI change in iTunes' history. It took awhile to get used to it when I first started using iTunes; it will take awhile to get used to the new version. After a couple weeks, start using the iTunes Feedback form to send your thoughts to Apple. They won't reply to you, but they really do read them, and if a lot of people have a common complaint, chances are good that Apple will address it.
Wrong. The Blue Background Crash screen in NT 4.0 is what the vast majority of people were referring to.
I'm sure it's what the vast majority of NT users were referring to, but I think you'll find that a lot more people used Win9x than ever saw NT.
Windows 98/ME do not 'crash' to a blue screen. There are error states where a blue-background screen is displayed, they are all warnings that the machine will exit from (press key to continue.)
Just because it says "press any key to continue" doesn't mean the machine will exit from the error. The only error I can think of that actually fits your description is the error you get if you eject a floppy disk while trying to access it. Most of the time, if you see a blue error message on Win9x, your machine is completely hosed and you must reboot. Pressing a key might get you a black screen with the mouse pointer working, but rarely much better than that.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of ignorant people say who never ran an 'NT' derived version of Microsoft Windows until XP.
It was precisely that bunch of ignorant people I was referring to when I said most people meant Win9x's error screen when they said BSOD. They may be ignorant, but they outnumber you by a wide margin.
Iam waiting for Nov elections so that the new Dems Congress and Senate can impeach the prez. and indict him for war crimes.
Don't hold your breath.
Why don;t all the parents/spouses of all the fine Soldiers he got killed sue the Prez in a Civil Action. Its easier to get a judgement that way.
Four of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court were appointed by either GW Bush or his father. Three were appointed by other Republican presidents.
I usually couldn't run Win95 or Win98 for more than about 6 hours without having problems that needed a reboot to fix. When I had to use 95/98 at work, I would reboot my PC every morning and again at lunch; if I skipped the lunchtime reboot I very rarely made it to the end of the workday without it crashing in the middle of something. WinXP can run for days without crashing. Notice I said it can run for days without crashing, not that you can't get it to crash.
Windows ME, and 98, and 95 do not have a blue screen of death. There is a blue background crash screen for those 'Operating Environments' but there is near-zero debug information on that screen.
The blue background crash screen of which you speak is precisely what the vast majority of people (prior to the release of Windows XP) were referring to when they mentioned a Blue Screen Of Death.
1. A pleasant semi-transparent overlay that asks them to reboot their machine (in their native language)
I have one complaint about Apple's kernel panic screen:
It tells the user they need to reboot, with absolutely no indication as to why. I'm not talking about a technical error message, I'm talking about a title at the top saying something akin to "The system has crashed." Being told you need to restart your computer, without being told that the system has crashed, is rather unsettling, in my opinion.
Oh shit, remind me to never use MS Windows for anything important.
You actually need a reminder???
I never expected to live in a world where librarians and encyclopedists are the guardians of civil liberties.
What did you expect them to be guardians of?