When SCO first filed their lawsuit about 15 months ago, that was the initial speculation -- they were trying to goad IBM into buying them.
It's difficult to say why IBM thinks its cheaper now to fight it out in court rather than pony up the $80 million or so and be done with it. One thing is certain -- they are not moving like they want this matter closed immediately on a technicality. The actions of their legal team have been steady, patient, reasonable, factual, and deliberate. This has led some to suggest that perhaps what they actually want out of this is a clear decision by the court clearing Linux, Linus and the GPL as officially "okey-doke". Others have suggested they want SCO to be made really, really, reeeeally dead. Me? I think they're having fun - those SCO court documents are some of the funniest things you can find on "the intarnet" outside of homestarrunner.com. Check out groklaw.com if you haven't already for details, commentary and daily updates.
Are you kidding? He's trying to sell a book, it's 100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight as long as possible no matter what that takes.
I disagree. I think he's trying to PUBLISH a book, hence the vanity publisher others have pointed out above me. I expect that actually getting humans to go out and buy the book in a bookstore is not a part of the game plan -- In fact, I would even wager that whatever copies actually do make it off the printing presses will be snapped up by one customer - whoever paid Brown to write this hunk-a-hunk-a-burnin' trash.
[I don't remember any details, but IIRC, there was a low-profile scandal about 15 or 20 years ago in the US when a political special interest lobbying group paid off a congressman by working a deal where he "wrote a book" that was then "published". Then, all of the "published copies" were purchased by one customer -- the org that set up the payoff -- and subsequently destroyed. Minus some printing and binding costs, it was basically a laundered political contribution. It's fuzzy, but I **think** the pages of the books were actually "printed" blank so they could save money on ink. I dunno - it sounds familiar - does anyone else remember any details about it or am I batty?]
Either way, we can clearly agree that this is most likely a low-rent PR stunt aimed at FUDding up the Linux market. The only question is who's gonna end up with the books if they ever get published?
Yes, even despite their claims about eating their own dogfood. It just seems that they have a different experience with it than the rest of us. For example; I wonder what percentage of the employee (production) PCs at the MS campus still have Explorer set to hide file extensions for registered file types?
We just upgraded our NT4.0 servers last month... to Windows 2000. The new software we're going to be running isn't certified to run on Win2003 yet.
The reason we upgraded? New accounting software.
Microsoft seriously overrates the value of upgrading something that is working without having a compelling reason for doing so. Sometimes I wonder if they actually use their own software at all.
Well, that was the point of the article. My point was that this problem extends beyond the router and into the network, if you were relying on the NAT capabilities of the router to prevent inbound connection attacks ala MSBLASTER.
Microsoft is more than willing to innovate - just not in ways that make me want to give them more money anymore.
Example: The Win95 interface was just about right for me. Add the drag and drop menus of Win98 and I'm golden. But, instead of leaving it there and fixing other ACTUAL problems, we get the WinXP interface which -- while pretty -- changes the operation of the Network Neighborhood, introduces a start menu that forced me to get used to quicklaunch toolbars to work around the lack of top-level folders, and about doubled the number of "stupid-n00b" default explorer options (hiding file extensions and system folders, etc...) I have to turn off to make it usable. What I *would* like to see instead is the ability to set per-computer interface defaults so that all user account profiles that get created start with the same customized explorer and interface view settings. THAT would be useful. Policies should do it, but for some reason, none if the standard templates include the settings on TOOLS/FOLDER OPTIONS.
Now, annoyances aside, once it's fully tweaked, XP is my favorite version of Windows yet, but it will be my last. It seems like every feature that is planned for Longhorn is focused on stripping me of the conviction that my PC is actually mine and not theirs. I won't have that.
Yes, but could they reconfigure the WAP to turn on that "unrestricted access to internet" feature that maps every inbound port on the router to one internal machine? Lesee - they know your internal IP block from the router config, and even the addresses of your DHCP workstation. If you haven't kept your patches up to date.....
pWN3D!
Maybe it's just the way the summary was written, but for some reason the original article poster makes this sound like more of a nuisance than the serious problem it really is.
Of course the term 'windows' was was generic prior to 1985. If it wasn't, then Microsoft is, itself, guilty of trademark infringement for using it on the first release of their software, right? You can't claim a trademark on the name of software (or anything else for that matter) before it is conceived. If they wanted to do that, wouldn't they have had filed paperwork claiming the trademark without a product prior to 1985, thus resolving the issue?
Following up what parent saud, I have no idea how you are doing this or how it works, but would it be possible as a temporary option for such folks to provide a 'gateway service' that runs the connection through a proxy or NAT device of some sort for the hosts that can't see the mesh?
The details are sketchy and fading from my memory, but I recall that I had this client about five or six years ago that (most likely because of bad design than anything else) had this weird-ass internet config for their macs on a lan where ONE mac was was running some sort of personal proxy gateway. It took packets from the other macs on the ethernet port with an interal IP address and proxied them back out through the same ethernet interface with outside IP addresses that were picked up by the router. Yes, the router and the macs were all on the same ethernet segment, but they couldn't connect to each other because they were configured in different IP network blocks. Only the one mac 'gateway' could do both through this proxy thingy. (I told you it was weird.)
So, how about you plug both interfaces of a Win95 PC running some kind of proxy (is Wingate still around?) into the same ethernet segment and set the IPs of the macs to the same network and gateway as the "internal" address of the proxy.
You know, on second thought, that sounds really stupid. It *might* work, but it's really REALLY ridiculous. Maybe? Maybe not? If it does, IT'S TEMPORARY - GET THE DEV TEAM TO WORK ON CROSS-PLATFORM SUPPORT! Oh, and send me a postcard about it -- I could use a giggle.
Sorry for the lame headline, my brain is spent for today.
I don't think you can say they are losing ground yet, (at least on the desktop, where we all know this is going to get interesting) but I think a lot of people are 'leaning over' the box to look inside and see what's going on with Apple, Linux, etc.
Yes, I think viruses and security problems are a big part of that.
No, it's not the only part. I honestly think people are getting tired of Microsoft insisting that they need to upgrade just because they have a new version out and the strongarm tactics are really putting them off. MS needs to learn how to fork a project so they can maintain support and improve features for those who want to stay with the older desktops (like Win98SE), while people who don't like thinking for themselves and controlling their own property can plow right on ahead into Longhorn.
This is way off topic, but I don't care becuase I had an idea yesterday. I've been trying to get someone to tell me one good reason for MS wanting to get rid of the web browser as a stand-alone application, and I think I came up with one for myself.
I'm just hypothesiX0ring here, but hear me out. This is fascinating.
The whole idea behind.NET and the XAML is that MS wants to serve apps like web pages. Instead of going to a web site, downloading a binary installer, running setup, running it, configuring, yada yada yada, you'll use some kind of browser service to download a 'served' app whose logic and controls are XAML and the OS will "render" the app like a web page is rendered. You won't have to install anything, it'll update and patch automatically, and it won't take any storage space when you aren't running it.
Sounds great, right? Well, remember, this is M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T we're talking about. So think a minute.... what's the MOST ANNOYING thing about the internet? SPAM? Spyware/Trojans? HAH! Pop-up ads!...and to really screw things up, you need teams of professionals working round-the-clock!
So, imagine a world where all your pop-ups are PROGRAMS.
The worst case scenario I've come up with so far is that you try to run OpenOffice and some piece of crap adbot spyware like Claria/Gator (which TCPA won't let you disable because you agreed to a license authorizing it) opens up MS Word or WordPerfect for you instead. Worse, without a browser, how are you going to find all these wonderful apps? Well, your START menu is going to evolve into little more than a flashing neon billboard loaded with GREAT DEALS! It's only job will be to steer you toward the software and services whose vendors are most willing to pay to be on your START menu.
Think about it -- why was Passport so important - to make multi-site logins possible? Hell no! How about web services? Apps as a service? XAML?.NET? TCPA/Palladium? It's all starting to come into focus.
Maybe the days of contolling the PC you bought and paid for are truly over in MS land, eh?
Please tell me I'm wrong, because I really hope I am. It *is* late, and I've had a very long day, so I'm probably more paranoid than average. But if I'm not, I think MS is signing their own death certificate because nobody's gonna go along with that kind of a hairbrained scheme.
My advice is GO BIG (German Shepherd, Retriever, Laborador, etc.) It'll cost more in supplies, but from the feature list for WinLH, it looks like you're going to need more volume than a small dog can handle. You don't want poor fido to wear out after a week on the job, eh?
If searching is such a critical a problem, why does MS keep making their local file search utility less and less useful? Windows 98 had it just right for me -- maybe move the "containing text" box to the front tab, but otherwise perfect. Win2K made it worse by making the "search subdirs", "hidden" and "system files" options non-sticky and hidden. WinXP?! Too much damn clicking, waiting and NON-DOINGSTUFF! Let's just say "thank heaven for TweakUI" or someone in Redmond would have gotten a VERY unpleasent letter and a flaming pile of dog poo from me.
Per the article's comments about Longhorn and the "end of the browser" and how MS is planning to integrate network access with local services and applications to the point where a browser won't be necessary.:
Did I miss something? I thought Microsoft integerated the net with the local pc back in 1997 when they released IE4 and Windows 98 with desktop integration. Hrmmph... Go figure.
Ok, I'm being facetious.
Still, I'm not so certain this is a feature I want. In fact, until someone can demonstrate an example of why it would be useful, I'm certain I don't. I like having the local PC as a distinct domain separate from the net! I like that I have to open a program to access information that isn't stored locally! What am I missing about this -- is their focus group testing indicating that using a browser is just too confusing?
You know what's confusing? Windows HELP -- and not just how you use it, but THAT IT EVEN EXISTS AT ALL! My lusers come up to me all the time with questions that could easily be answered with good ole' F1.
...but i digress, that's another issue.
What bothers me is that all of the work going on at Microsoft is pointed at new ways to annoy me. You want to make me a happyuser? Get your lousy freaking vendor partners to stop auto-running useless programs in my system tray; cancel ActiveX (*without* adding the TDMA crap I don't want) and get rid of the Windows registry. My main concern whenever I hear about these new thingamabobbers they're cooking ip is "Eeek! How hard is it going to be to turn *that* off? I sure hope R&D cancels it before Longhorn gets out of beta." I honestly think it's time they consider forking the project, or XP is my last version of Windows. Period.
There's just no joy in Windows anymore, you know what I mean?
Sincerely,
Eagerly awaiting Debian Sarge going stable in Ohio.
Or, if you install systems with publicly-visible IPs like this a lot, just get a stupid lame-o $50 NAT boxes that can serve DHCP addresses.
Whenever you need to install a new server, just plug in the NAT box between it and the internet and let it give you a DHCP 192.168.1.x address. Once you have a web browser, you can set the NAT's outside address (if the NAT didn't DHCP its own external address automatically) and then you have all kinds of time to install SPs and Updates on the server because the NAT will prevent inbound rogue connections to your TCP/IP stack (such as those from MSBLASTER).
Once everything's patched and the server's ready to go, remove the NAT box, plug the server in where it's supposed to end up and set the the server's external net interface with its final IP address and parameters and go on about your way.
Sheesh, people, I can't be the only person that thought of this! That whole plugging/unplugging cables thing makes it look like we don't know how to use technology tools to solve problems!
I'm new to blogging and group/forum CMS systems, so forgive my n00b-idity.
In terms of features and target implementation, how do WordPress and MT stack up against stuff like PhpNuke, Drupal and Plone? Don't they all do basically the same thing?
Ordinary audio CDs can function as a diffraction grating, too.
We got bored one afternoon in grad school (physics) and got into an argument over the track spacing on a CD. After about five minutes of yelling, I said "Wait a minute. We're reasonably smart **AND** we have access to lab equipment. We oughta be able to measure this for ourselves." And we went down to the lab, set up a (red) HeNe laser to bounce off a cd onto a screen behind it. A couple of measurements and a quick plug and chug later, we had our answer. Parallax introduced some error that was difficult to eliminate because of kwickee equipment configuration we had set up, but we weren't interested in more than an order of magnitude anyway.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but are you sure your using your wife correctly? Mine stayed out with me for about three hours watching the same Leonid show -- she loved it and now we watch skystuff whenever we get the chance! (She thinks it's vewwwwy womantic!)
I agree with this guy *and* Cliff Stoll. The educational arena need to be an electronic-free zone. Until you get to college, the only real use computers have in education is for teaching programming. Short of that, they are a violent distraction. Maybe the last couple of years of high school you get to use a calculator. Maybe. Unless you want to start teaching electrical engineering in high school -- that would be cool, and a valid reason to have computers around, but then they'd have to teach mathematics.... REAL mathematics, like vector calculus and complex analysis.... which means the teachers would have to learn it....
Title says it all - do you think there's a possibility MS could be planning a 3E (embrace-extend-exterminate) assault on Mozilla?
MS has said they're done upgrading IE, we all know it's too broken to fix, and FF already has a working standards-compliant rendering engine.
Pretty much they just need to add support for XML data islands (Why, oh WHY hasn't someone written a FF extension for XML data islands yet?) and they've got it.
Gran Turismo (PS1) is probably the hardest game I've stuck with long enough to master and what that game teaches you is incredible -- like high-speed racing is all about braking, unless you are in a Suzuki Escudo PP, of course.
I recall one specific night shortly after I bought GT where all I did was drive a 1985 nissan 280 around the short Autumn track for *SIX* *HOURS*. After four hours or so, I was able to get all the way around without spinning out in the hairpins. The best part is that different cars really are different, so you have to take some time to learn how to drive the tracks all over again. After you put enough hours in, of course, you adapt to new cars more quickly, but the learning curve over those first few hurdles is immense.
Some people just don't understand the directional arrows of logical implication. That think that "A implies B" automatically means that "B implies A". (Don't even THINK about trying to explain contrapositives!)
That or it's a typo, in which case the editors (if t here is one) and proofreader should be shot.
Slashdot Mirror
When SCO first filed their lawsuit about 15 months ago, that was the initial speculation -- they were trying to goad IBM into buying them.
It's difficult to say why IBM thinks its cheaper now to fight it out in court rather than pony up the $80 million or so and be done with it. One thing is certain -- they are not moving like they want this matter closed immediately on a technicality. The actions of their legal team have been steady, patient, reasonable, factual, and deliberate. This has led some to suggest that perhaps what they actually want out of this is a clear decision by the court clearing Linux, Linus and the GPL as officially "okey-doke". Others have suggested they want SCO to be made really, really, reeeeally dead. Me? I think they're having fun - those SCO court documents are some of the funniest things you can find on "the intarnet" outside of homestarrunner.com. Check out groklaw.com if you haven't already for details, commentary and daily updates.
I noticed the same thing about newSCO's original company name.
Are you kidding? He's trying to sell a book, it's 100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight as long as possible no matter what that takes.
I disagree. I think he's trying to PUBLISH a book, hence the vanity publisher others have pointed out above me. I expect that actually getting humans to go out and buy the book in a bookstore is not a part of the game plan -- In fact, I would even wager that whatever copies actually do make it off the printing presses will be snapped up by one customer - whoever paid Brown to write this hunk-a-hunk-a-burnin' trash.
[I don't remember any details, but IIRC, there was a low-profile scandal about 15 or 20 years ago in the US when a political special interest lobbying group paid off a congressman by working a deal where he "wrote a book" that was then "published". Then, all of the "published copies" were purchased by one customer -- the org that set up the payoff -- and subsequently destroyed. Minus some printing and binding costs, it was basically a laundered political contribution. It's fuzzy, but I **think** the pages of the books were actually "printed" blank so they could save money on ink. I dunno - it sounds familiar - does anyone else remember any details about it or am I batty?]
Either way, we can clearly agree that this is most likely a low-rent PR stunt aimed at FUDding up the Linux market. The only question is who's gonna end up with the books if they ever get published?
It seems to me that the Z2, or perhaps even the Z1 may have predated it.
Yes, even despite their claims about eating their own dogfood. It just seems that they have a different experience with it than the rest of us. For example; I wonder what percentage of the employee (production) PCs at the MS campus still have Explorer set to hide file extensions for registered file types?
Stupidest... default... setting... ever. Grrrrrr...
We just upgraded our NT4.0 servers last month... to Windows 2000. The new software we're going to be running isn't certified to run on Win2003 yet.
The reason we upgraded? New accounting software.
Microsoft seriously overrates the value of upgrading something that is working without having a compelling reason for doing so. Sometimes I wonder if they actually use their own software at all.
Well, that was the point of the article. My point was that this problem extends beyond the router and into the network, if you were relying on the NAT capabilities of the router to prevent inbound connection attacks ala MSBLASTER.
Microsoft is more than willing to innovate - just not in ways that make me want to give them more money anymore.
Example: The Win95 interface was just about right for me. Add the drag and drop menus of Win98 and I'm golden. But, instead of leaving it there and fixing other ACTUAL problems, we get the WinXP interface which -- while pretty -- changes the operation of the Network Neighborhood, introduces a start menu that forced me to get used to quicklaunch toolbars to work around the lack of top-level folders, and about doubled the number of "stupid-n00b" default explorer options (hiding file extensions and system folders, etc...) I have to turn off to make it usable. What I *would* like to see instead is the ability to set per-computer interface defaults so that all user account profiles that get created start with the same customized explorer and interface view settings. THAT would be useful. Policies should do it, but for some reason, none if the standard templates include the settings on TOOLS/FOLDER OPTIONS.
Now, annoyances aside, once it's fully tweaked, XP is my favorite version of Windows yet, but it will be my last. It seems like every feature that is planned for Longhorn is focused on stripping me of the conviction that my PC is actually mine and not theirs. I won't have that.
Yes, but could they reconfigure the WAP to turn on that "unrestricted access to internet" feature that maps every inbound port on the router to one internal machine? Lesee - they know your internal IP block from the router config, and even the addresses of your DHCP workstation. If you haven't kept your patches up to date.....
pWN3D!
Maybe it's just the way the summary was written, but for some reason the original article poster makes this sound like more of a nuisance than the serious problem it really is.
Anyone know if Thunderbird is affected by this? There's nothing posted about it on their home page.
Anyone have prior art to invalidate their patent?
Howsabout every Grateful Dead concert from the 70's and beyond? IIRC The Dead encouraged bootleg taping and selling of their concerts.
Of course the term 'windows' was was generic prior to 1985. If it wasn't, then Microsoft is, itself, guilty of trademark infringement for using it on the first release of their software, right? You can't claim a trademark on the name of software (or anything else for that matter) before it is conceived. If they wanted to do that, wouldn't they have had filed paperwork claiming the trademark without a product prior to 1985, thus resolving the issue?
Ouch! LOGIC - it's a killa!
To the poster of the original submission:
Following up what parent saud, I have no idea how you are doing this or how it works, but would it be possible as a temporary option for such folks to provide a 'gateway service' that runs the connection through a proxy or NAT device of some sort for the hosts that can't see the mesh?
The details are sketchy and fading from my memory, but I recall that I had this client about five or six years ago that (most likely because of bad design than anything else) had this weird-ass internet config for their macs on a lan where ONE mac was was running some sort of personal proxy gateway. It took packets from the other macs on the ethernet port with an interal IP address and proxied them back out through the same ethernet interface with outside IP addresses that were picked up by the router. Yes, the router and the macs were all on the same ethernet segment, but they couldn't connect to each other because they were configured in different IP network blocks. Only the one mac 'gateway' could do both through this proxy thingy. (I told you it was weird.)
So, how about you plug both interfaces of a Win95 PC running some kind of proxy (is Wingate still around?) into the same ethernet segment and set the IPs of the macs to the same network and gateway as the "internal" address of the proxy.
You know, on second thought, that sounds really stupid. It *might* work, but it's really REALLY ridiculous. Maybe? Maybe not? If it does, IT'S TEMPORARY - GET THE DEV TEAM TO WORK ON CROSS-PLATFORM SUPPORT! Oh, and send me a postcard about it -- I could use a giggle.
Sorry for the lame headline, my brain is spent for today.
I don't think you can say they are losing ground yet, (at least on the desktop, where we all know this is going to get interesting) but I think a lot of people are 'leaning over' the box to look inside and see what's going on with Apple, Linux, etc.
Yes, I think viruses and security problems are a big part of that.
No, it's not the only part. I honestly think people are getting tired of Microsoft insisting that they need to upgrade just because they have a new version out and the strongarm tactics are really putting them off. MS needs to learn how to fork a project so they can maintain support and improve features for those who want to stay with the older desktops (like Win98SE), while people who don't like thinking for themselves and controlling their own property can plow right on ahead into Longhorn.
This is way off topic, but I don't care becuase I had an idea yesterday. I've been trying to get someone to tell me one good reason for MS wanting to get rid of the web browser as a stand-alone application, and I think I came up with one for myself.
I'm just hypothesiX0ring here, but hear me out. This is fascinating.
The whole idea behind
Sounds great, right? Well, remember, this is M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T we're talking about. So think a minute.... what's the MOST ANNOYING thing about the internet? SPAM? Spyware/Trojans? HAH! Pop-up ads!
So, imagine a world where all your pop-ups are PROGRAMS.
The worst case scenario I've come up with so far is that you try to run OpenOffice and some piece of crap adbot spyware like Claria/Gator (which TCPA won't let you disable because you agreed to a license authorizing it) opens up MS Word or WordPerfect for you instead. Worse, without a browser, how are you going to find all these wonderful apps? Well, your START menu is going to evolve into little more than a flashing neon billboard loaded with GREAT DEALS! It's only job will be to steer you toward the software and services whose vendors are most willing to pay to be on your START menu.
Think about it -- why was Passport so important - to make multi-site logins possible? Hell no! How about web services? Apps as a service? XAML?
Maybe the days of contolling the PC you bought and paid for are truly over in MS land, eh?
Please tell me I'm wrong, because I really hope I am. It *is* late, and I've had a very long day, so I'm probably more paranoid than average. But if I'm not, I think MS is signing their own death certificate because nobody's gonna go along with that kind of a hairbrained scheme.
My advice is GO BIG (German Shepherd, Retriever, Laborador, etc.) It'll cost more in supplies, but from the feature list for WinLH, it looks like you're going to need more volume than a small dog can handle. You don't want poor fido to wear out after a week on the job, eh?
If searching is such a critical a problem, why does MS keep making their local file search utility less and less useful? Windows 98 had it just right for me -- maybe move the "containing text" box to the front tab, but otherwise perfect. Win2K made it worse by making the "search subdirs", "hidden" and "system files" options non-sticky and hidden. WinXP?! Too much damn clicking, waiting and NON-DOINGSTUFF! Let's just say "thank heaven for TweakUI" or someone in Redmond would have gotten a VERY unpleasent letter and a flaming pile of dog poo from me.
Per the article's comments about Longhorn and the "end of the browser" and how MS is planning to integrate network access with local services and applications to the point where a browser won't be necessary.:
Did I miss something? I thought Microsoft integerated the net with the local pc back in 1997 when they released IE4 and Windows 98 with desktop integration. Hrmmph... Go figure.
Ok, I'm being facetious.
Still, I'm not so certain this is a feature I want. In fact, until someone can demonstrate an example of why it would be useful, I'm certain I don't. I like having the local PC as a distinct domain separate from the net! I like that I have to open a program to access information that isn't stored locally! What am I missing about this -- is their focus group testing indicating that using a browser is just too confusing?
You know what's confusing? Windows HELP -- and not just how you use it, but THAT IT EVEN EXISTS AT ALL! My lusers come up to me all the time with questions that could easily be answered with good ole' F1.
What bothers me is that all of the work going on at Microsoft is pointed at new ways to annoy me. You want to make me a happyuser? Get your lousy freaking vendor partners to stop auto-running useless programs in my system tray; cancel ActiveX (*without* adding the TDMA crap I don't want) and get rid of the Windows registry. My main concern whenever I hear about these new thingamabobbers they're cooking ip is "Eeek! How hard is it going to be to turn *that* off? I sure hope R&D cancels it before Longhorn gets out of beta." I honestly think it's time they consider forking the project, or XP is my last version of Windows. Period.
There's just no joy in Windows anymore, you know what I mean?
Sincerely,
Eagerly awaiting Debian Sarge going stable in Ohio.
Or, if you install systems with publicly-visible IPs like this a lot, just get a stupid lame-o $50 NAT boxes that can serve DHCP addresses.
Whenever you need to install a new server, just plug in the NAT box between it and the internet and let it give you a DHCP 192.168.1.x address. Once you have a web browser, you can set the NAT's outside address (if the NAT didn't DHCP its own external address automatically) and then you have all kinds of time to install SPs and Updates on the server because the NAT will prevent inbound rogue connections to your TCP/IP stack (such as those from MSBLASTER).
Once everything's patched and the server's ready to go, remove the NAT box, plug the server in where it's supposed to end up and set the the server's external net interface with its final IP address and parameters and go on about your way.
Sheesh, people, I can't be the only person that thought of this! That whole plugging/unplugging cables thing makes it look like we don't know how to use technology tools to solve problems!
I'm new to blogging and group/forum CMS systems, so forgive my n00b-idity.
In terms of features and target implementation, how do WordPress and MT stack up against stuff like PhpNuke, Drupal and Plone? Don't they all do basically the same thing?
Ordinary audio CDs can function as a diffraction grating, too.
We got bored one afternoon in grad school (physics) and got into an argument over the track spacing on a CD. After about five minutes of yelling, I said "Wait a minute. We're reasonably smart **AND** we have access to lab equipment. We oughta be able to measure this for ourselves." And we went down to the lab, set up a (red) HeNe laser to bounce off a cd onto a screen behind it. A couple of measurements and a quick plug and chug later, we had our answer. Parallax introduced some error that was difficult to eliminate because of kwickee equipment configuration we had set up, but we weren't interested in more than an order of magnitude anyway.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but are you sure your using your wife correctly? Mine stayed out with me for about three hours watching the same Leonid show -- she loved it and now we watch skystuff whenever we get the chance! (She thinks it's vewwwwy womantic!)
Maybe it's time to call tech support about it?
I know what you mean about the binoculars, though. (sigh)
I agree with this guy *and* Cliff Stoll. The educational arena need to be an electronic-free zone. Until you get to college, the only real use computers have in education is for teaching programming. Short of that, they are a violent distraction. Maybe the last couple of years of high school you get to use a calculator. Maybe. Unless you want to start teaching electrical engineering in high school -- that would be cool, and a valid reason to have computers around, but then they'd have to teach mathematics.... REAL mathematics, like vector calculus and complex analysis.... which means the teachers would have to learn it....
Title says it all - do you think there's a possibility MS could be planning a 3E (embrace-extend-exterminate) assault on Mozilla?
MS has said they're done upgrading IE, we all know it's too broken to fix, and FF already has a working standards-compliant rendering engine.
Pretty much they just need to add support for XML data islands (Why, oh WHY hasn't someone written a FF extension for XML data islands yet?) and they've got it.
Gran Turismo (PS1) is probably the hardest game I've stuck with long enough to master and what that game teaches you is incredible -- like high-speed racing is all about braking, unless you are in a Suzuki Escudo PP, of course.
I recall one specific night shortly after I bought GT where all I did was drive a 1985 nissan 280 around the short Autumn track for *SIX* *HOURS*. After four hours or so, I was able to get all the way around without spinning out in the hairpins. The best part is that different cars really are different, so you have to take some time to learn how to drive the tracks all over again. After you put enough hours in, of course, you adapt to new cars more quickly, but the learning curve over those first few hurdles is immense.
Some people just don't understand the directional arrows of logical implication. That think that "A implies B" automatically means that "B implies A". (Don't even THINK about trying to explain contrapositives!)
That or it's a typo, in which case the editors (if t here is one) and proofreader should be shot.