Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the root.exe installed by Code Red has Administrator privaleges, which iisreset.exe needs. Or at least, that's my guess, since it isn't working.
OK. But the beta users know exactly what they are getting into. RC2 is not supposed to be used by people who are not beta testing the software. The driver blocking is a problem because it is being used at a beta stage rather than at a release stage.
I'm not saying RC2 is supposed to be used by stupid consumers. It's obviously not. However, if Microsoft plans to incllude this feature in the final release, wouldn't it be a good idea to test it first, before releasing it in the final version? I definitely think there needs to be an override button, though (like there is in WinME).
Dr Dobbs had a great article on this issue.
Yes, that was a great article.:-)
Part of the purpose of beta testing is to help manufacturers solve the problems with their apps. This prevents this if it is done in a beta.
It sounds like Microsoft is working with developers on this, and the impression I get is that they're talking to the developers before adding their drivers to the list, so the developers have an opportunity to fix the problems - I'm sure some provision is being made for software developers here.
I hate to defend Microsoft, but I have to say that this is not as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Yes, Microsoft is still an evil evil company, but this isn't the reason why.
And by the way, the Preview button is your friend.;-)
Note: according to this article, the change does not prevent Black Ice or other programs from running per se -- but it does require them to use updated versions tailored for XP.
Hello??? Anybody home? Did it occur to anyone that maybe the reason why Microsoft is considering blocking old versions of ZoneAlarm and BlackIce is because they don't work on the new operating system? I'm sure by the time XP ships, there will be updated versions of ZoneAlarm and BlackIce available, and users will simply be required to upgrade them (for free I'm sure) before installing them on XP. If Microsoft didn't do this, some morons would try to install the same old version they used on Win98, and it would break things, and many of the users would blame XP.
Microsoft did something similar in WinME: the OS ships with a database of known-incompatible software, and if you try to run a known-incompatible program, it gives you a warning, with the option to cancel or run it anyway. An example of this is Enternet 100, a PPPoE client that Mindspring used to distribute for their ADSL service. Guess what? It actually doesn't work on WinME. Runs fine on Win95b, Win98, NT 4 and 2000, and I understand there's a way to hack it to make it work on ME, but according to the company that makes it, it's not compatible - you have to upgrade to a version of Enternet 300, or use a different PPPoE client. I did tech support for Earthlink after the Mindspring merger, and that feature that Microsoft put in actually saved us from some pretty annoyed customers, because it told them it wasn't going to work before they found out for themselves the hard way.
The solution here has already been reached once. There needs to be a breakup. Preferably one that splits applications, OS and.NET among at least three separate entities. If MS is smart, they'll do it voluntarily once [if] they know they're beaten.
Microsoft can't do it voluntarily. They're too intertwined internally. They have teams of engineers that, for example, work on both Windows and Office. They can't split the two and move the team over to Office, because that means Windows would lose those developers, which would hurt Windows development in addition to killing morale. Microsoft was deathly afraid of that breakup; they didn't know how they were going to do it without completely falling apart.
You've hit the nail on the head here. Microsoft honestly has no idea why everyone hates them. I've had several long discussions online with a Microsoft programmer; he honestly doesn't see any problem with the company's actions, and has an uncanny way of explaining away any negative points I bring up. Microsoft does very evil things, but the impression that I get is that they're not evil on purpose. Very weird.
Yet another disclaimer: I, too, am a Christian, who believes in the bible, goes to church, all that sort of thing. However, I find the concept of the earth being created in six days flat bizarre. Given the sun was only created on the fourth 'day', how do you judge how long each of those days was? Surely the sun and the rotation of the earth is what governs a 'day'?
Well, I suppose the rotation would still govern days, even without the sun, and it makes sense that it would have been created spinning. I would assume that the "days" referred to were lengths of time equivalent to the days after Creation.
Other than the definition of "days", do you find anything else about a six-day creation bizarre?
Disclaimer: I am a church-going Christian, and have been for many years.
I am a Bible-believing Christian, although I haven't been going to church regularly lately.
The key difference between religion and science is right here, from the article: "As scientists, we have a responsibility when a mistake like that is made to fess up."
I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, and I believe God to be infallible. Of course, fallible humans often make some pretty imaginitive interpretations of what the Bible says, and when someone does make an erroneous interpretation or judgement, I expect them to own up to their mistake. You're not helping anyone by living a lie.
I visited the Institute for Creation Research a few years ago. These fools try to make the claim that belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as belief in God -- and one counter to the Bible.
The study of origins is essentially nothing more than a feasibility study: could this have happened? We cannot scientifically prove what we cannot observe - we can only make an educated guess about what really happened, and then compare our model with obervable evidence to see whether our model is consistent with the facts. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the existence of black holes (singularities) has not actually been proven - we can observe what appear to be the effects of a black hole, and our observations have been consistent with the black hole theory, so it's a pretty good bet that that's what's going on, but it's always possible that there could be something else happening that we haven't thought of. We don't know, because we can't (currently) observe it.
The theory of evolution (macroevolution, species evolving into other species over millions of years) is clearly inconsistent with the Bible, which says that the Earth and everything on it was divinely created within six days, and there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that this was not intended to be taken literally. As I have stated, I personally believe the Bible to be infallible, but that's just me. It certainly cannot be proven scientifically that the Biblical account of creation actually happened as described - we can only compare that model with observable facts.
But this is patently false. The difference is, when scientists learn something new, they -usually- (but there are exceptions) give up on the old theories and make new ones.
When religious scholars learn something new, they usually give up on their old interpretations or assumptions. This seems to vary greatly between religions, and some religious groups have become so set in their traditions that they've begun to ignore the foundation upon which their faith is based. I personally base my faith on the Bible, and have yet to see anyone point out a valid contradiction between the Bible and scientific fact.
Compare with religion: Once something becomes part of religious doctrine, it can take CENTURIES before someone convinces people that it was a mistake. And the folks at the ICR are like this: You cannot convince them, even with scriptures that plainly contradict their beliefs, that they're wrong. The human doctrine has become their God.
Please, show me where the scriptures contradicts ICR's beliefs. If you can find a good example, I'll write to them myself; I'd really like to hear their response for myself. What you describe is certainly a real danger.
The relevant point I'm trying to make here is this: Don't poke fun at the scientists for making a mistake; give them credit for admitting it. It's what they ought to be doing. It's how science advances, and how we learn. This is, in the end, a very good thing.
I agree completely.
By the way, I'm not a huge fan of ICR; my biggest problem is that they have almost no materials presenting evidence for Creation that can be used in a secular context; they constantly make religious references in all of their scientific discussions.
I highly recommend the book In Six Days, edited by John F. Ashton, PhD. It's a collection of essays by 50 scientists in a variety of disciplines, each with a PhD, explaining why they believe in the six-day creation described in the Bible, and giving scientific evidence to support their belief. If you don't read the book, at least read the reviews at amazon.com.
I notice that the briQ is more expensive than an iBook with comparable specifications. Can someone explain to me exactly how the price/performance of the briQ makes it worth even considering seriously?
And no, the word "Linux" on the side of the case doesn't count.
The technical contact having the ability to make technical changes, without the involvement of the administrative contact, was one of the only things I liked about NSI that most other registrars don't do. For the few domains that I'm still involved with that haven't been moved over to joker.com, this will probably be annoying. Fortunately, the new joker system (once we start switching everything to that) lets me do this! Yay!
My preferred registrar is Joker, originally a CORE reseller and now an ICANN-accredited registrar themselves. I've been using them for well over two years now, and between myself and several friends of mine, we've registered around 25 domains with Joker, and have all been very happy with the service.
Joker rocks. They're my registrar of choice as well (although I'm still keeping one domain with NSI). Their Web site has intelligent documentation that explains how stuff works, and they haven't been overtaken by a retarded marketing department (in contrast to NSI, whose marketing department decided that top level domains should now be called "web extensions").
and, OSX.1 was delayed 2 months, NOT OSX. OSX has been out, as has OSX Server.
Oh come on. OSX 10.0.x sucks ass; it's not even really useful to more than a handful of people. It's a beta release, despite the name. I've been playing with it off and on (treating it as a beta) and it's got a lot of potential, and I'm fairly confident that the real 1.0 release (which Apple calls 10.1) will be a good enough product that I will finally be able to use it as my primary OS. Until that time, I'm stuck with Mac OS 9.1 (or 9.2 if they'll release it, please please please).
It seems to me that Altavista's "featured sites" are just as clearly separated from the main results as Google's "sponsored links" -- or perhaps "featured" isn't as clear as "sponsored"?
Actually, no, "featured" is not as clear as "sponsored". Everyone knows that sponsorship means paying money. Anyone whose IQ is at least 100 should be able to figure out that AltaVista is probably only featuring sites that pay money, but the dumber half of the population might be a little slower to catch on - and that's what Nader is trying to draw attention to.
Maybe five people have ever used Netscape or MSN search on purpose, but those are things one accidentally uses by clicking the wrong button in her browser.
Do you have any idea how many MILLIONS of people Microsoft has conned into "clicking the wrong button" that takes them to an MSN search page? Some versions of MSIE will redirect there any time a DNS lookup fails.
The result of the merger between Juno and NetZero is #2, MSN is #3 and Earthlink is #4. Earthlink says they're still #2, though, because they only count paying customers.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. I got it to work on a different server. Only one, though; most of the rest I've tried don't seem to have root.exe installed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the root.exe installed by Code Red has Administrator privaleges, which iisreset.exe needs. Or at least, that's my guess, since it isn't working.
Oh come on, just because there's nothing special about it doesn't mean you can't patent it! This is America!
OK. But the beta users know exactly what they are getting into. RC2 is not supposed to be used by people who are not beta testing the software. The driver blocking is a problem because it is being used at a beta stage rather than at a release stage.
:-)
;-)
I'm not saying RC2 is supposed to be used by stupid consumers. It's obviously not. However, if Microsoft plans to incllude this feature in the final release, wouldn't it be a good idea to test it first, before releasing it in the final version? I definitely think there needs to be an override button, though (like there is in WinME).
Dr Dobbs had a great article on this issue.
Yes, that was a great article.
Part of the purpose of beta testing is to help manufacturers solve the problems with their apps. This prevents this if it is done in a beta.
It sounds like Microsoft is working with developers on this, and the impression I get is that they're talking to the developers before adding their drivers to the list, so the developers have an opportunity to fix the problems - I'm sure some provision is being made for software developers here.
I hate to defend Microsoft, but I have to say that this is not as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Yes, Microsoft is still an evil evil company, but this isn't the reason why.
And by the way, the Preview button is your friend.
Note: according to this article, the change does not prevent Black Ice or other programs from running per se -- but it does require them to use updated versions tailored for XP.
Hello??? Anybody home? Did it occur to anyone that maybe the reason why Microsoft is considering blocking old versions of ZoneAlarm and BlackIce is because they don't work on the new operating system? I'm sure by the time XP ships, there will be updated versions of ZoneAlarm and BlackIce available, and users will simply be required to upgrade them (for free I'm sure) before installing them on XP. If Microsoft didn't do this, some morons would try to install the same old version they used on Win98, and it would break things, and many of the users would blame XP.
Microsoft did something similar in WinME: the OS ships with a database of known-incompatible software, and if you try to run a known-incompatible program, it gives you a warning, with the option to cancel or run it anyway. An example of this is Enternet 100, a PPPoE client that Mindspring used to distribute for their ADSL service. Guess what? It actually doesn't work on WinME. Runs fine on Win95b, Win98, NT 4 and 2000, and I understand there's a way to hack it to make it work on ME, but according to the company that makes it, it's not compatible - you have to upgrade to a version of Enternet 300, or use a different PPPoE client. I did tech support for Earthlink after the Mindspring merger, and that feature that Microsoft put in actually saved us from some pretty annoyed customers, because it told them it wasn't going to work before they found out for themselves the hard way.
Netscape is now a part of Microsoft's largest competitor, AOL Time Warner. They're hardly dead.
--
Microsoft can't do it voluntarily. They're too intertwined internally. They have teams of engineers that, for example, work on both Windows and Office. They can't split the two and move the team over to Office, because that means Windows would lose those developers, which would hurt Windows development in addition to killing morale. Microsoft was deathly afraid of that breakup; they didn't know how they were going to do it without completely falling apart.
--
--
You still have the legal right to back up these CDs. It just became a bit more technically challenging to do so.
--
Wondering who came up with the name......
The same people who came up with "Take ME Home", perhaps?
Well, I suppose the rotation would still govern days, even without the sun, and it makes sense that it would have been created spinning. I would assume that the "days" referred to were lengths of time equivalent to the days after Creation.
Other than the definition of "days", do you find anything else about a six-day creation bizarre?
--
I am a Bible-believing Christian, although I haven't been going to church regularly lately.
The key difference between religion and science is right here, from the article: "As scientists, we have a responsibility when a mistake like that is made to fess up."
I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, and I believe God to be infallible. Of course, fallible humans often make some pretty imaginitive interpretations of what the Bible says, and when someone does make an erroneous interpretation or judgement, I expect them to own up to their mistake. You're not helping anyone by living a lie.
I visited the Institute for Creation Research a few years ago. These fools try to make the claim that belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as belief in God -- and one counter to the Bible.
The study of origins is essentially nothing more than a feasibility study: could this have happened? We cannot scientifically prove what we cannot observe - we can only make an educated guess about what really happened, and then compare our model with obervable evidence to see whether our model is consistent with the facts. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the existence of black holes (singularities) has not actually been proven - we can observe what appear to be the effects of a black hole, and our observations have been consistent with the black hole theory, so it's a pretty good bet that that's what's going on, but it's always possible that there could be something else happening that we haven't thought of. We don't know, because we can't (currently) observe it.
The theory of evolution (macroevolution, species evolving into other species over millions of years) is clearly inconsistent with the Bible, which says that the Earth and everything on it was divinely created within six days, and there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that this was not intended to be taken literally. As I have stated, I personally believe the Bible to be infallible, but that's just me. It certainly cannot be proven scientifically that the Biblical account of creation actually happened as described - we can only compare that model with observable facts.
But this is patently false. The difference is, when scientists learn something new, they -usually- (but there are exceptions) give up on the old theories and make new ones.
When religious scholars learn something new, they usually give up on their old interpretations or assumptions. This seems to vary greatly between religions, and some religious groups have become so set in their traditions that they've begun to ignore the foundation upon which their faith is based. I personally base my faith on the Bible, and have yet to see anyone point out a valid contradiction between the Bible and scientific fact.
Compare with religion: Once something becomes part of religious doctrine, it can take CENTURIES before someone convinces people that it was a mistake. And the folks at the ICR are like this: You cannot convince them, even with scriptures that plainly contradict their beliefs, that they're wrong. The human doctrine has become their God.
Please, show me where the scriptures contradicts ICR's beliefs. If you can find a good example, I'll write to them myself; I'd really like to hear their response for myself. What you describe is certainly a real danger.
The relevant point I'm trying to make here is this: Don't poke fun at the scientists for making a mistake; give them credit for admitting it. It's what they ought to be doing. It's how science advances, and how we learn. This is, in the end, a very good thing.
I agree completely.
By the way, I'm not a huge fan of ICR; my biggest problem is that they have almost no materials presenting evidence for Creation that can be used in a secular context; they constantly make religious references in all of their scientific discussions.
I highly recommend the book In Six Days, edited by John F. Ashton, PhD. It's a collection of essays by 50 scientists in a variety of disciplines, each with a PhD, explaining why they believe in the six-day creation described in the Bible, and giving scientific evidence to support their belief. If you don't read the book, at least read the reviews at amazon.com.
--
--
--
--
--
And no, the word "Linux" on the side of the case doesn't count.
--
The technical contact having the ability to make technical changes, without the involvement of the administrative contact, was one of the only things I liked about NSI that most other registrars don't do. For the few domains that I'm still involved with that haven't been moved over to joker.com, this will probably be annoying. Fortunately, the new joker system (once we start switching everything to that) lets me do this! Yay!
--
--
--
--
Oh come on. OSX 10.0.x sucks ass; it's not even really useful to more than a handful of people. It's a beta release, despite the name. I've been playing with it off and on (treating it as a beta) and it's got a lot of potential, and I'm fairly confident that the real 1.0 release (which Apple calls 10.1) will be a good enough product that I will finally be able to use it as my primary OS. Until that time, I'm stuck with Mac OS 9.1 (or 9.2 if they'll release it, please please please).
--
Actually, no, "featured" is not as clear as "sponsored". Everyone knows that sponsorship means paying money. Anyone whose IQ is at least 100 should be able to figure out that AltaVista is probably only featuring sites that pay money, but the dumber half of the population might be a little slower to catch on - and that's what Nader is trying to draw attention to.
--
Do you have any idea how many MILLIONS of people Microsoft has conned into "clicking the wrong button" that takes them to an MSN search page? Some versions of MSIE will redirect there any time a DNS lookup fails.
--
--