The OSR2 shell is actually part of Windows 95 OSR2, and that's what the 26MB of "Uninstall Information" is when you install IE4+ on Windows 95 OSR2.
Seems like it would be worth a try to run IEradicator. If it realy does mess up, (which I doubt), just reinstall IE and you're no worse off. Not that there is really much difference in the shells between Win 3.1/95/98 anyway, as far as functionality goes, just a way to start apps.
Here in Hong Kong I have no cap, and pay HK$165/month (about US$22) for 1.5MB, no cap. I could pay another $10/month to get 3MB but haven't found the need... I spend about half what I was paying for 56k, and don't lose my phone when I'm online.
I'm one of the folks that got $rtbl'ed for modding up the forbidden post awhile back. As a result I have never gotten moderation rights and metamoderation went away.
If you actually care about that, why not just create a new user ID for yourself and start clean? If I got negative karma, that's certainly what I'd do.
IEradicator is a tiny (~25k), free utility to strip IE4 and IE5 from unmodified Windows98 or Windows98SE installations without requiring any additional files.
My laptop has Windows 95. Besides, I'd need a copy of the OSR2 shell, and I just know 5.5SP2 would find it's way back on when it gets handed off again...
"Windows 95 - Where is 95lite?":
You can use IEradicator to remove Internet Explorer and desktop integration from Windows 95!
IEradicator - the Internet Explorer Hitman! ... surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows 95, Windows 98,... claiming back 30+MB of closet space.
I guess their documentation hasn't been updated all over, but it should work. I don't know what you mean about the OSR2 shell... that's used for 98lite, (which of course does need Win98) but not, AFAIR, if you just want to kill IE.
Virus software is subscription based. You subscribe to recieve updates to the virus database.
So we now will have a Windows component that has to phone home periodically to work at all. And of course with a little integration this becomes part of the DRM enforcer, the anti-pirating check, the naughty-website warden, etc, etc. Can anyone be,ieve that they won't roll it all together as soon as they can?
Just another "feature" that is first optional, then after a year or three, mandatory, to use the system at all.
The previous owner installed IE5.5 to surf pr0n (I know. I wiped out the cache by hand - and no, my other hand was NOT occupied), and now it's there for good
there are also advantages to at least having basic HTML rendering support built in to a fancy graphical OS.
If it was just "basic HTML", that would be fine. But it runs every kind of malicious HTML and script. So when this is used by, eg, an email app to preview a message, you are screwed.
Another problem is that many apps, with no need to access the Internet to dothe function you installed them for, now insist on having this support to show you some advertising or other useless crap and refuse to install or run if it's not there.
I myself haven't even looked at PKWare since the days of Windows 3.11... and won't be switching anytime soon.
I just use the latest command line version of pkzip (which you get by installing the demo of the GUI version, finding pkzip.exe, then deleting the rest). Then I use Far's archive support (virtual directories) to access archives, though I usually create them on the command line.
When I want GUI to do archives, I use Aladdin Expander, or occasionally Quickview.
Finally, if Columbia had this, would it be enough to have patched the leak in the wing? I'm not sure how the plasma would perform at re-entry speeds.
Finally, a speculation that isn't based on Trekkie wet dreams.
This seems worthy of investigation. At reentry, isn't the shuttle surrounded by a plasma? Could this actually be used to protect it? Here the SF precedent is of "Bussard ramjets" (as popularised by Larry Niven, Poul Anderson et al), not "force fields" ("Warning Will Robinson!").
>>A EULA is not a law. Legislatures make laws, not companies.
>Tell that to Disney next time they try to buy a copyright extension.
As you wrote:they have to BUY the law. They have to bribe/lobby/persuade legislators to get it passed. They can't just create a criminal offence (of defying Disney/Microsoft/...) by writing a EULA. Bad laws CAN be defeated or repealed even if supported by big business.
t looks to the rest of us like companies acutally write the laws.
Of course. Nevertheless, Micorosoft can't make a law just by writing a EULA. It does have to be passed by a legislature. And it's not just MS; in the Mac world I hear people say things like "Apple says it's ILLEGAL to distibute the URL of an Apple service manual." (Not the file, just the URL, on apple.com, where they "hide" them.) It's amazing how people ascribe such power and authority to a company (yes, you can be crushed by corporate lawyers on a bogus complaint, but that's another matter).
The average user doesn't know the difference between Windows/Lindows, except the fact that there is no Word, Excel, Outlook (Express), etc yet. No one's heard of WordPerfect.
Ask someone over 35. Ten years ago, offices ran on DOS. Secretaries used WordPerfect, WordStar, Lotus 123, etc, etc. People expected to have to look up a few things to get going, but knew that once they'd learnt their way around they'd be productive. Are people today really so much dumber than they were in the 80s? The average person can and did use command line DOS, much more "unfriendly" than modern Linux distros. Why do people insist that if they can't learn it in 10 seconds that it's impossible?
I mostly use FAR from RARlab, which is a Norton Commander clone for Win32, with archive support built in (virtual file system). Just get the free commandline pkzip.exe and there you go. (Midnight Commander, for *,ix and Windows, is in the same vein, slightly less slick.)
If you just need to expand archives, Aladdin Expander is very nice, and does Mac formats like sit and hqx as well as most PC and Unix ones.
But since a force field should be a field that exerts force, this qualifies. That it's built from particles is irrelevant.
Then your definition of "force field" would include wooden doors. I think, as far a "force field" has any meaning at all, it would not be composed of matter.
Erm. I dunno. For a lot of laypeople, a valve with no 'solid' parts fits the definition of a 'force field'.
A plasma is made of matter NOT "force". Is an air curtain a force field? This plasma valve actually is a lot more akin to that than the fantasy "force field".
here are great SF and Western and Mystery writers, but they're the exception
So what? Great writers of any stamp are.
Perhaps youve heard of Sturgeon's Law:
"I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of sf is crud.
"The Revelation: Ninety percent of everything is crud.
"Corallary 1: The existence of immense quantities of trash in science fiction is admitted and if is regrettable; but it is no more unnatural than the existence of trash anywhere.
"Corallary 2: The best science fiction is as good as the best fiction in any field."
Most people wouldn't classify Orwell's '1984' as science fiction. It's not a narrow genre-bound work, Orwell didn't publish his stories in pulp SF magazines. And 1984 was about Stalinism. Orwell was a former Communist, and very disillusioned about the whole thing.
I agree with all your descriptions of 1984, but fail to see how any disqualify it from being science fiction. It's seems to be the old idea that if a book deals with serious ideas, it ipso facto cannot be science fiction. Utopias and dystopias are and have always been part of SF. orwell wrote abut politics in the context of all-pervasive surveillance technology. That makes it SF.
>>The same argument could be made for preventing you from doing almost anything you don't have to do, regardless of how public spirited.
>No - only actions which are in breach of the law.
No, that would make sense, but it isn;t the issue here. Consider restaurants which do not give excess food to the poor for fear of liability, for instance. Many similar "good deeds" are banned by copnaies in fear of litigation.
>>And in particular, when in the history of this world, has "malicious code [been] deliberately released" as part of an OSS?
>Well, OpenSSH was trojaned.
By an "intruder", not a contributor, as far as anyone knows.
>But frankly, the frequency of the incidents is pretty much irrelevant.
No, it's highly relevant. This is risk management, and you have to look at real numbers. When the historic number is zero, you can make a good case that the risk is negligible. When insurance companies look at fire risk in relation to smoking, and changed their premiums accordingly, many companies banned smoking, because there was a real risk and cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like it would be worth a try to run IEradicator. If it realy does mess up, (which I doubt), just reinstall IE and you're no worse off. Not that there is really much difference in the shells between Win 3.1/95/98 anyway, as far as functionality goes, just a way to start apps.
Here in Hong Kong I have no cap, and pay HK$165/month (about US$22) for 1.5MB, no cap. I could pay another $10/month to get 3MB but haven't found the need... I spend about half what I was paying for 56k, and don't lose my phone when I'm online.
If you actually care about that, why not just create a new user ID for yourself and start clean? If I got negative karma, that's certainly what I'd do.
Most people know which time zone they're in (as in GMT+/-x, personally I'm in +8), but if you're not an American, have no idea when "8pm Eastern" is.
And I know that you don't care; so we can just leave it at that.
My laptop has Windows 95. Besides, I'd need a copy of the OSR2 shell, and I just know 5.5SP2 would find it's way back on when it gets handed off again...
I guess their documentation hasn't been updated all over, but it should work. I don't know what you mean about the OSR2 shell... that's used for 98lite, (which of course does need Win98) but not, AFAIR, if you just want to kill IE.So we now will have a Windows component that has to phone home periodically to work at all. And of course with a little integration this becomes part of the DRM enforcer, the anti-pirating check, the naughty-website warden, etc, etc. Can anyone be,ieve that they won't roll it all together as soon as they can?
Just another "feature" that is first optional, then after a year or three, mandatory, to use the system at all.
Try IEradicator.
If it was just "basic HTML", that would be fine. But it runs every kind of malicious HTML and script. So when this is used by, eg, an email app to preview a message, you are screwed.
Another problem is that many apps, with no need to access the Internet to dothe function you installed them for, now insist on having this support to show you some advertising or other useless crap and refuse to install or run if it's not there.
I just use the latest command line version of pkzip (which you get by installing the demo of the GUI version, finding pkzip.exe, then deleting the rest). Then I use Far's archive support (virtual directories) to access archives, though I usually create them on the command line.
When I want GUI to do archives, I use Aladdin Expander, or occasionally Quickview.
Shld b "f srts"
Finally, a speculation that isn't based on Trekkie wet dreams.
This seems worthy of investigation. At reentry, isn't the shuttle surrounded by a plasma? Could this actually be used to protect it? Here the SF precedent is of "Bussard ramjets" (as popularised by Larry Niven, Poul Anderson et al), not "force fields" ("Warning Will Robinson!").
>Tell that to Disney next time they try to buy a copyright extension.
As you wrote:they have to BUY the law. They have to bribe/lobby/persuade legislators to get it passed. They can't just create a criminal offence (of defying Disney/Microsoft/...) by writing a EULA. Bad laws CAN be defeated or repealed even if supported by big business.
Of course. Nevertheless, Micorosoft can't make a law just by writing a EULA. It does have to be passed by a legislature. And it's not just MS; in the Mac world I hear people say things like "Apple says it's ILLEGAL to distibute the URL of an Apple service manual." (Not the file, just the URL, on apple.com, where they "hide" them.) It's amazing how people ascribe such power and authority to a company (yes, you can be crushed by corporate lawyers on a bogus complaint, but that's another matter).
Ask someone over 35. Ten years ago, offices ran on DOS. Secretaries used WordPerfect, WordStar, Lotus 123, etc, etc. People expected to have to look up a few things to get going, but knew that once they'd learnt their way around they'd be productive. Are people today really so much dumber than they were in the 80s? The average person can and did use command line DOS, much more "unfriendly" than modern Linux distros. Why do people insist that if they can't learn it in 10 seconds that it's impossible?
A EULA is not a law. Legislatures make laws, not companies.
If you prefer, get it from oldversion.com.
If you just need to expand archives, Aladdin Expander is very nice, and does Mac formats like sit and hqx as well as most PC and Unix ones.
Then your definition of "force field" would include wooden doors. I think, as far a "force field" has any meaning at all, it would not be composed of matter.
A plasma is made of matter NOT "force". Is an air curtain a force field? This plasma valve actually is a lot more akin to that than the fantasy "force field".
2) The plasma valve is INSIDE a copper container.
If you think this is a "force field" then you might also be interested in the "ray gun" in your television tube.
An interesting story nonetheless, spoiled only by the fatuous ignorance of the submitter and editor.
So what? Great writers of any stamp are. Perhaps youve heard of Sturgeon's Law:
More precisely, National Socialism.
I agree with all your descriptions of 1984, but fail to see how any disqualify it from being science fiction. It's seems to be the old idea that if a book deals with serious ideas, it ipso facto cannot be science fiction. Utopias and dystopias are and have always been part of SF. orwell wrote abut politics in the context of all-pervasive surveillance technology. That makes it SF.
That's an explanation, but not an excuse. That's why you have editors, to fix things like that. But of course Slashdot editors don't edit.
>No - only actions which are in breach of the law.
No, that would make sense, but it isn;t the issue here. Consider restaurants which do not give excess food to the poor for fear of liability, for instance. Many similar "good deeds" are banned by copnaies in fear of litigation.
>>And in particular, when in the history of this world, has "malicious code [been] deliberately released" as part of an OSS?
>Well, OpenSSH was trojaned.
By an "intruder", not a contributor, as far as anyone knows.
>But frankly, the frequency of the incidents is pretty much irrelevant.
No, it's highly relevant. This is risk management, and you have to look at real numbers. When the historic number is zero, you can make a good case that the risk is negligible. When insurance companies look at fire risk in relation to smoking, and changed their premiums accordingly, many companies banned smoking, because there was a real risk and cost.