I agree, they are catering to their market. Personally, I hate the Netscape browser and hope that it dies a slow horrible death, along with AOL. But, there are always things you can't have. I don't let it bother me. The trash out there like that, just makes the stuff I use look even better. Good to have something crappy to comapre my mediocre stuff to.
I would. For the continued royalties you could glean off it alone. Secondly, in it's day, it was the best Operating system around for a PC, hands down. DOS brought device handling up front, to the user. It was a major step in the direction that all OS' follow now. Without that history, much of the device layer we are accustomed to today, wouldn't be there. I was a professional in the field then and it's creation opened so many doors. It was a cool time to be paid to work with the stuff.
They don't. They are so similar to MS dos commands that it can easily be said that they are sister OS'. File handling, executables, directory structure, even the commands themselves are too nearly identical to be a mear coincidence.
Hurray! A voice of sanity! Praise to you who can see past the idiotic 'technology' ruins our children arguements. Tools are important. How we use them is important. Just because we don't know how to use them 'best' doesn't mean we shouldn't use them at all. Heck, I have driven a nail with the butt end of a screwdriver before. It worked fine. Wasn't pretty, but worked.
"It's not how you get there, but the goal that matters. " "It's not the goal that matters, but how you get there."
No, it's a reasonable combination of both that is the most successful. Arguements that cause you to have to ignore the tools that simplify you getting to the goal, or arguements that cause you to have to use certain tools regardless of the goal are both wrong. Common sense says you need both. Why is it when people start to argue about the 'pieces' of a concept, they forget the whole picture and completely lose track of what it is all about?
It's sad to see people who spent their lives in search of things to make lives easier. Then when someone else they don't like finds a way, they will stop their own progress and shake a poisionous finger at them stating how they are ruining the world with their inventions.
I am glad to see someone else can observe the thick veil of hypocracy people seem to take when MS is involved. I believe that if MS did develop a better screwdriver, that you would see a great number of people decry that all screwdrivers were bad and that MS was 'pushing' evil screwdrivers on the world so that they could take over the minds and bodies of the genereal public.
It seems like everything MS does, is treated here as an afront to humanity and must somehow be an underhanded attempt to make your life miserable (while making you think it's better).
I know that doesn't help I really should have spell checked my reply before submitting it, sorry. I know that doesn't help credibility at all.
seperated ~ separated
consious ~ conscious
Regardless of my failings, I think the real question should be, why can we not observe multiple instantiations (at least interference patterns that show they exist) of other things, as we do in the slit experiments. Or do we actually see them and do not recognize them for what they really are?
"In fact, quantum mechanics (which is the whole point of the double slit experiment) treats time in a VERY linear manner. Ideas of where things are and where they're going get a little more complicated than we're used to in everyday life, which is what the double slit experiment shows. However, quantum systems evolve in a very orderly fashion as time progresses."
Exactly. As far as I see it, you only support Nicky's arguement, not defeat it. I have to agree with Nicky to a point here. Just because a can opener in not a naturally occuring phenomenon, does not mean that it is supernatural either. Knowing how the can opener is made, and what it does, takes all of the mystery out of it and it seems ridicuolously simple.
Time is not a new or even another dimension, it is not something that can be 'seperated' from everything else. It is difficult to even speak about it properly using a 'time' based language like our own. We are dealing with our 'consious' ability to see and travel along any number of 'instances'.
"Even such a strange conception of quantum mechanics such as Feynmann's "the particle takes every possible path simultaneously" approach still treats time linearly."
I have to disagree with you there. It does not treat time linearly. It simply states that all paths are taken simultaneously. That would actually fly in the face of our current concept of time, as we treat each object as it's own unique instance in the universe. We say, "If you take ball A from position 1 and place it in position 2. We can safely say that ball A is no longer in position 1. Because it exists in position 2, it cannot exist in position 1 anymore. That is strictly a measurement of instances, because of course the ball is in both places, depending on which instantiation you choose to look at. Therefore, because we observe the possible instantiations, we have removed ourselves from the linearity of our perception of 'time' and things appear to be able to take all paths. The fundamental problem with Feynmann observation is that it tries to observe instantiations and then explain it using time based words, such as 'simultaneously'. That is contradictory to the states that were observed in the experiment. Perspective is written into the results and should not be.
The really cool thing that can tie this together a wee bit better is a book by Roger Penrose called "the Emperor's New Mind". It takes a stab at explaining what we are. Using that as a perspective when looking at the results of some of the later quantum experiments, you get a bit of a different sense of what these things 'might' mean. I would urge you to read the book, even if you disagree with Penrose's suppositions, it can provide a depth to a 'one slit' perspective we tend to apply to quantum mechanics today.
hmmm. Good arguement. I can't challenge that as I think you are right on all of those accounts. I fear though, that perhaps this latest iteration of Star Trek is a bit too close to where we see ourselves in the near future and it therefore doesn't garner a lot of interest. I am not sure. It's hard to put a finger on, but the show has a very 'limited' feel to it, constrained. Granted, much of that comes from the need to stay within previous Star Trek timelines, but perhaps that IS the problem. My generatation has grown up with that show. It was on when I was a child, and now as an middle aged adult. I was always attracted to it because it gave me a way to think differently about the possibilities of the future. So many new things, only the limits of imagination were the limits of the episodes. Not true with Enterprise. Too much imagination seems forbidden there. It would violate the 'prime directive' of the shows fundamental timeline. Makes it very hard to get excited about watching any of the episodes, becuase you know they can only rehash older crap.
Perhaps it is time for a different show, that does not have the trappings that the long lived Star Trek series finds itself in. Perhaps it wold be better to project the Star Trek series forward again instead of the retro series we have now. Whatever the answer, I am not sure that I agree that Enterprise is the serial that fulfills that vision you are talking about.
Agreed. I don't dislike the show, don't get me wrong here. All this shows is that there are morons with too much money too.
Their point is well taken. We do need more shows that foster the broader imagination of tomorrow's scientists and inventors, but I think this is not the show for that. Perhaps Stargate would be a better imagination fostering show, or even Battlestar Galactica. I think that both of those have more fostering potential than the latest iteration of Star Trek that Enterprise represents.
They say that by navigating to the site that I was 'infected' at, I gave my consent to them to do such a think. They said it was posted somewhere on that site in legal ease. I can't tell you where I got this from, or what site. I would love to know.
I agree that these activities are exactly the same as hacking. They are using the old EULA arguement to cover their butts. They hide the intent in their legal mumbo jumbo, as a sidebar on a page, and then fall back on that when someone raises a flag. Legal precedent already states that whether you read the agreement or not, you accept the terms by proceeding. Even whether they warn you or not. That has to change, (for both the software EULA and the Web EULA).
More importantly though, the process by which the intentionally make it nearly impossible to remove the software, (through multiple registry entries and multiple executables run at startup and dll's that are not ever released by the applications). That is what should be illegal. It is nothing short of intentional that they went to such great lengths to ensure you could not remove it with a 'helper' application. They intentionally remove your ability to reverse the installation, knowing that anyone who installs it, will imeadiately want to remove it. Why else would you go to such great lengths to make it so difficult to remove once installed? None. They know no one would want this stuff to begin with. That's why they do it that way.
Run one office application on the dual core machine, like a word processor. You won't see any performance increase at all. Run your Antivirus at the same time and you will likely see an 80% improvement, without any rewritten code. That's because the second process will try to run on the second core rather than the first. You shouldn't see any performance hits with the dual core.
It's more of a situation that will remove performance hits rather than make gains in performance.
It's like putting two engines in your car. No real gain in driving down the street at 65. Maybe a bit in starting from a dead stop. The real gain is in driving up the hills. Twice as easy as before. You don't slow down as much when you encounter hills. Same with the dual core. It won't help the normal cruisng along at all. It will help when you have to do multiple tasks at the same time, (run multiple apps at once).
If you run Windows XP, or even 2000, there are services that run in the background. Those tasks would no longer interfere, or take clock cycles away from your main application. There would be a baseline gain in those systems, no matter what you are running. Simply due to the OS architecture.
Most new games ARE multi-threaded. They have to be to even work in today's environments (and be worth a hoot). The problem is not an overall multithreading problem at all. It's a problem of allowing for branch code within the main processing routine. The code needs to be based more on modules supplying pieces of pertainant information back to the main thread instead of the main thread supplying information to the outlying threads. Think of it in this way; let's use how Battlefield 1942 works in multiplayer. Each user's PC is running it's own code and sending back small pieces of resultant data concerning the single user's placement and collision informationa back to the main thread, (aka main server), for integration back into the whole (the map with all of the players on it). Each piece is working independently (each individual player) yet is sharing data back with the main and the main rolls out new data to control the direction of the underling processes (data back to each individual player again).
That's what needs to happen to take advantage of multiprocessor cored CPU's. Multi-process code, not multi-threaded code. Multi-threading is old hat stuff and nearly every piece of code you see today can multithread.
I don't see anything that actually solves the puzzle. I don't see anything that is even close to 200 lines of code. What's up with that? When you have to severly exagerate your claims to get people to look, then perhaps it wasn't worth looking to begin with. You can only sucker people so long before they absolutely stop believing you. Perhaps people at Slashdot are a bit more gullible than most? Nah, I don't believe it.
I was INFECTED by this stuff recently. I had an extremely difficult time removing it from my machine. It would reinstall itself continuiously and had so many roots in my registry it took me hours to weed it all out. When I wrote a letter to the manufacturer. They told me that I should not try to uninstall their software. If I insisted, They would send me an uninstall 'package' taht I could install to remove the installation. The really pissed me off as they wanted me to install more of their software in order to remove the first software.
I didn't bite.
I replied to them that their software had been installed on my machine without my permission and without my knowledge, took over my machine settings and that was wrong. Because of those properties, it was spyware. They got pissy and told me that I was wrong. That it was not spyware and that not utility that I could get off the market could remove their product successfully. They seemed quite proud of that fact.
THe only way I found to successfully remove the infectious dlls and such was to change the security settings on the target executables so that they did not have enough permission to run on a reboot and then reboot the machine and delete all of the dll's and executable you otherwise could not because they were already being actively used.
We pass laws to stop people like this and all they do is find a new way to skirt the law, while the boy down the street, who was just goofing around and made a mistake, gets arrested and sent to jail under that same law. Our approach to fixing these problems is obviously not working. Why does everyone insist on continuing down that road? We write laws that contain templates to check to see if someone is 'bad'. If you fit the template, you are bad and go to jail. The problem is that the bad guys you are really after simply alter themselves just enough, so they no longer fit the template, and skate free. We need to target these people SPECIFICALLY not generically as we are doing now. We are harming people who don't deserve it and curtailing our own freedoms with this method. It is not showing ANY results that matter. Stop the nonsense, PLEASE!
Ok, it's people like you who nbever learn how things work in real life. If you want to stop drugs, do you arrest as many drug users as you can? Will that stop the flow of drugs? No. Proof is sitting out there for you to see for yourself. If you want guns off the streets do you go after the gun owners? No, that doesn't work either. You have to stop the flow of the material at the source. It's the ONLY way to stop it. Punishing the last person on the ladder does NOTHING to stop the problem. It goes a long ways toward hurting people who should be in the position in the first place. You stop drugs by stopping the manufacturing of them. You stop guns by stopping the manufacture of them. You stop Spyware by stopping the manufacture of them. It's the only way. Because you can't find them does not give you the right to punsih the poor people who end up the victims of it. Make them a victim twice? Once by becoming infected, again by being punished for it by your employer? The manufacturer of the spyware sits back and laughs his head off at your logic. He wins EVERY time with your logic.
Personally I got rid of all of my Old Shags (girlfriends) for a purpose. They made me uncomfortable. But perhaps I would have to say my first OS made me most comfortable. She's married now.
The Gartner Group followed up the IDC report by saying that the increase in the number of Linux boxes sold is mainly due to people replacing boxes with older Linux versions. Rather than upgrade the existing boxes, it turns out to be cheaper, once manhours are included, to replace the Linux box rather than try to figure out an upgrade path in the highly undocumented world of Linux distributions.
I can't believe that this is on Slashdot. This only bolsters outsiders views that Slashdot is a community of extreme left wing Microsoft bashers (don't believe me? Look up slashdot in wikipedia). This article is clearly wrong. How can this be posted without checking it out for real? I wouldn't be surprised if Slashdot gets slapped with a slander suit over this one.
I plead with the editors to stop posting this far left trash on this site. Most of us do not wish to be cast in such a fanatical light. We love Open Source, we love Slashdot, but we don't want to be looked at a sneaking lieing Microsoft haters that will stoop to unbelievable lows to make stuff up.
Why would they go with an chip like the Power when it also has no basis for acceptance as a high end server platform. That would seem like just as stupid a move, if not worse, than the Itanium. Granted it's their own technology, but if that's the precurser, then the Power chip is already out of the question. They have much better stuff behind their doors than that old thing. Have you read anything about cell processing lately? If they want to go with a chip that already has a base of millions of shipped units, then perhaps they should go AMD Opteron. That would be a better choice for battling the acceptance problem they perceive (And even Microsoft is specifically wrapping their 64 bit OS around it). I don't think you are going to see IBM try to drive the market with their Power chip, that's EXACTLY what happened to Intel and the Itanium. Besides that's a huge move from Cisc to Risc that 99% of their exisiting Intel based customers are simply not going to do. I have to believe IBM is smarter than that.
That won't turn any heads at the studio. They bank on that much from a series/week run in advertising time. That might enable them to squeak one more episode out, but that's it. From what they have done so far with the series, I say good riddens. It has gone a long way in bringing down the Star Trek Empire.
It probably won't effect you. It 'should not' effect you is the proper thing to say here.
If it does become a problem for you, the most likely cause would be that the small vendor who sold you the machine ripped off an OEM copy of XP and has resold it to you as a legit copy. Otherwise the only people who will be effected are those who have to reinstall from selected Dell EOM cd's and selected HP EOM cd's, (there are a few others), that were sold between certain time frames and under certain license agreements. It is not a big group.
It onl effects past XP versions sold by large license holding OEMs. Retail versions are not effected at all and OEMs from here forward are also not effected. The likelyhood of falling in the pool of licenses that require a phone call is very small when compared to the entire XP installation population out there.
Shouldn't effect you at all, unless you are trying to install a large OEM copy of XP that was purchased in the past. Any future OEM XP versions will not have this issue, because they will be internet activated, as the retail version is already. The only people this is going to snare are people who are using stole OEM copies.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, they are catering to their market. Personally, I hate the Netscape browser and hope that it dies a slow horrible death, along with AOL. But, there are always things you can't have. I don't let it bother me. The trash out there like that, just makes the stuff I use look even better. Good to have something crappy to comapre my mediocre stuff to.
I would. For the continued royalties you could glean off it alone. Secondly, in it's day, it was the best Operating system around for a PC, hands down. DOS brought device handling up front, to the user. It was a major step in the direction that all OS' follow now. Without that history, much of the device layer we are accustomed to today, wouldn't be there. I was a professional in the field then and it's creation opened so many doors. It was a cool time to be paid to work with the stuff.
They don't. They are so similar to MS dos commands that it can easily be said that they are sister OS'. File handling, executables, directory structure, even the commands themselves are too nearly identical to be a mear coincidence.
Hurray! A voice of sanity! Praise to you who can see past the idiotic 'technology' ruins our children arguements. Tools are important. How we use them is important. Just because we don't know how to use them 'best' doesn't mean we shouldn't use them at all. Heck, I have driven a nail with the butt end of a screwdriver before. It worked fine. Wasn't pretty, but worked.
"It's not how you get there, but the goal that matters. "
"It's not the goal that matters, but how you get there."
No, it's a reasonable combination of both that is the most successful. Arguements that cause you to have to ignore the tools that simplify you getting to the goal, or arguements that cause you to have to use certain tools regardless of the goal are both wrong. Common sense says you need both. Why is it when people start to argue about the 'pieces' of a concept, they forget the whole picture and completely lose track of what it is all about?
It's sad to see people who spent their lives in search of things to make lives easier. Then when someone else they don't like finds a way, they will stop their own progress and shake a poisionous finger at them stating how they are ruining the world with their inventions.
I am glad to see someone else can observe the thick veil of hypocracy people seem to take when MS is involved. I believe that if MS did develop a better screwdriver, that you would see a great number of people decry that all screwdrivers were bad and that MS was 'pushing' evil screwdrivers on the world so that they could take over the minds and bodies of the genereal public.
It seems like everything MS does, is treated here as an afront to humanity and must somehow be an underhanded attempt to make your life miserable (while making you think it's better).
I know that doesn't help I really should have spell checked my reply before submitting it, sorry. I know that doesn't help credibility at all.
seperated ~ separated
consious ~ conscious
Regardless of my failings, I think the real question should be, why can we not observe multiple instantiations (at least interference patterns that show they exist) of other things, as we do in the slit experiments. Or do we actually see them and do not recognize them for what they really are?
"In fact, quantum mechanics (which is the whole point of the double slit experiment) treats time in a VERY linear manner. Ideas of where things are and where they're going get a little more complicated than we're used to in everyday life, which is what the double slit experiment shows. However, quantum systems evolve in a very orderly fashion as time progresses." Exactly. As far as I see it, you only support Nicky's arguement, not defeat it. I have to agree with Nicky to a point here. Just because a can opener in not a naturally occuring phenomenon, does not mean that it is supernatural either. Knowing how the can opener is made, and what it does, takes all of the mystery out of it and it seems ridicuolously simple.
Time is not a new or even another dimension, it is not something that can be 'seperated' from everything else. It is difficult to even speak about it properly using a 'time' based language like our own. We are dealing with our 'consious' ability to see and travel along any number of 'instances'.
"Even such a strange conception of quantum mechanics such as Feynmann's "the particle takes every possible path simultaneously" approach still treats time linearly."
I have to disagree with you there. It does not treat time linearly. It simply states that all paths are taken simultaneously. That would actually fly in the face of our current concept of time, as we treat each object as it's own unique instance in the universe. We say, "If you take ball A from position 1 and place it in position 2. We can safely say that ball A is no longer in position 1. Because it exists in position 2, it cannot exist in position 1 anymore. That is strictly a measurement of instances, because of course the ball is in both places, depending on which instantiation you choose to look at. Therefore, because we observe the possible instantiations, we have removed ourselves from the linearity of our perception of 'time' and things appear to be able to take all paths. The fundamental problem with Feynmann observation is that it tries to observe instantiations and then explain it using time based words, such as 'simultaneously'. That is contradictory to the states that were observed in the experiment. Perspective is written into the results and should not be.
The really cool thing that can tie this together a wee bit better is a book by Roger Penrose called "the Emperor's New Mind". It takes a stab at explaining what we are. Using that as a perspective when looking at the results of some of the later quantum experiments, you get a bit of a different sense of what these things 'might' mean. I would urge you to read the book, even if you disagree with Penrose's suppositions, it can provide a depth to a 'one slit' perspective we tend to apply to quantum mechanics today.
hmmm. Good arguement. I can't challenge that as I think you are right on all of those accounts. I fear though, that perhaps this latest iteration of Star Trek is a bit too close to where we see ourselves in the near future and it therefore doesn't garner a lot of interest. I am not sure. It's hard to put a finger on, but the show has a very 'limited' feel to it, constrained. Granted, much of that comes from the need to stay within previous Star Trek timelines, but perhaps that IS the problem. My generatation has grown up with that show. It was on when I was a child, and now as an middle aged adult. I was always attracted to it because it gave me a way to think differently about the possibilities of the future. So many new things, only the limits of imagination were the limits of the episodes. Not true with Enterprise. Too much imagination seems forbidden there. It would violate the 'prime directive' of the shows fundamental timeline. Makes it very hard to get excited about watching any of the episodes, becuase you know they can only rehash older crap.
Perhaps it is time for a different show, that does not have the trappings that the long lived Star Trek series finds itself in. Perhaps it wold be better to project the Star Trek series forward again instead of the retro series we have now. Whatever the answer, I am not sure that I agree that Enterprise is the serial that fulfills that vision you are talking about.
Agreed. I don't dislike the show, don't get me wrong here. All this shows is that there are morons with too much money too.
Their point is well taken. We do need more shows that foster the broader imagination of tomorrow's scientists and inventors, but I think this is not the show for that. Perhaps Stargate would be a better imagination fostering show, or even Battlestar Galactica. I think that both of those have more fostering potential than the latest iteration of Star Trek that Enterprise represents.
They say that by navigating to the site that I was 'infected' at, I gave my consent to them to do such a think. They said it was posted somewhere on that site in legal ease. I can't tell you where I got this from, or what site. I would love to know.
I agree that these activities are exactly the same as hacking. They are using the old EULA arguement to cover their butts. They hide the intent in their legal mumbo jumbo, as a sidebar on a page, and then fall back on that when someone raises a flag. Legal precedent already states that whether you read the agreement or not, you accept the terms by proceeding. Even whether they warn you or not. That has to change, (for both the software EULA and the Web EULA).
More importantly though, the process by which the intentionally make it nearly impossible to remove the software, (through multiple registry entries and multiple executables run at startup and dll's that are not ever released by the applications). That is what should be illegal. It is nothing short of intentional that they went to such great lengths to ensure you could not remove it with a 'helper' application. They intentionally remove your ability to reverse the installation, knowing that anyone who installs it, will imeadiately want to remove it. Why else would you go to such great lengths to make it so difficult to remove once installed? None. They know no one would want this stuff to begin with. That's why they do it that way.
Run one office application on the dual core machine, like a word processor. You won't see any performance increase at all. Run your Antivirus at the same time and you will likely see an 80% improvement, without any rewritten code. That's because the second process will try to run on the second core rather than the first. You shouldn't see any performance hits with the dual core.
It's more of a situation that will remove performance hits rather than make gains in performance.
It's like putting two engines in your car. No real gain in driving down the street at 65. Maybe a bit in starting from a dead stop. The real gain is in driving up the hills. Twice as easy as before. You don't slow down as much when you encounter hills. Same with the dual core. It won't help the normal cruisng along at all. It will help when you have to do multiple tasks at the same time, (run multiple apps at once).
If you run Windows XP, or even 2000, there are services that run in the background. Those tasks would no longer interfere, or take clock cycles away from your main application. There would be a baseline gain in those systems, no matter what you are running. Simply due to the OS architecture.
Most new games ARE multi-threaded. They have to be to even work in today's environments (and be worth a hoot). The problem is not an overall multithreading problem at all. It's a problem of allowing for branch code within the main processing routine. The code needs to be based more on modules supplying pieces of pertainant information back to the main thread instead of the main thread supplying information to the outlying threads. Think of it in this way; let's use how Battlefield 1942 works in multiplayer. Each user's PC is running it's own code and sending back small pieces of resultant data concerning the single user's placement and collision informationa back to the main thread, (aka main server), for integration back into the whole (the map with all of the players on it). Each piece is working independently (each individual player) yet is sharing data back with the main and the main rolls out new data to control the direction of the underling processes (data back to each individual player again).
That's what needs to happen to take advantage of multiprocessor cored CPU's. Multi-process code, not multi-threaded code. Multi-threading is old hat stuff and nearly every piece of code you see today can multithread.
I don't see anything that actually solves the puzzle. I don't see anything that is even close to 200 lines of code. What's up with that? When you have to severly exagerate your claims to get people to look, then perhaps it wasn't worth looking to begin with. You can only sucker people so long before they absolutely stop believing you. Perhaps people at Slashdot are a bit more gullible than most? Nah, I don't believe it.
I was INFECTED by this stuff recently. I had an extremely difficult time removing it from my machine. It would reinstall itself continuiously and had so many roots in my registry it took me hours to weed it all out. When I wrote a letter to the manufacturer. They told me that I should not try to uninstall their software. If I insisted, They would send me an uninstall 'package' taht I could install to remove the installation. The really pissed me off as they wanted me to install more of their software in order to remove the first software.
I didn't bite.
I replied to them that their software had been installed on my machine without my permission and without my knowledge, took over my machine settings and that was wrong. Because of those properties, it was spyware. They got pissy and told me that I was wrong. That it was not spyware and that not utility that I could get off the market could remove their product successfully. They seemed quite proud of that fact.
THe only way I found to successfully remove the infectious dlls and such was to change the security settings on the target executables so that they did not have enough permission to run on a reboot and then reboot the machine and delete all of the dll's and executable you otherwise could not because they were already being actively used.
We pass laws to stop people like this and all they do is find a new way to skirt the law, while the boy down the street, who was just goofing around and made a mistake, gets arrested and sent to jail under that same law. Our approach to fixing these problems is obviously not working. Why does everyone insist on continuing down that road? We write laws that contain templates to check to see if someone is 'bad'. If you fit the template, you are bad and go to jail. The problem is that the bad guys you are really after simply alter themselves just enough, so they no longer fit the template, and skate free. We need to target these people SPECIFICALLY not generically as we are doing now. We are harming people who don't deserve it and curtailing our own freedoms with this method. It is not showing ANY results that matter. Stop the nonsense, PLEASE!
Ok, it's people like you who nbever learn how things work in real life. If you want to stop drugs, do you arrest as many drug users as you can? Will that stop the flow of drugs? No. Proof is sitting out there for you to see for yourself. If you want guns off the streets do you go after the gun owners? No, that doesn't work either. You have to stop the flow of the material at the source. It's the ONLY way to stop it. Punishing the last person on the ladder does NOTHING to stop the problem. It goes a long ways toward hurting people who should be in the position in the first place. You stop drugs by stopping the manufacturing of them. You stop guns by stopping the manufacture of them. You stop Spyware by stopping the manufacture of them. It's the only way. Because you can't find them does not give you the right to punsih the poor people who end up the victims of it. Make them a victim twice? Once by becoming infected, again by being punished for it by your employer? The manufacturer of the spyware sits back and laughs his head off at your logic. He wins EVERY time with your logic.
That was the best! I was sorry to see them go. Another MS fatality.
Personally I got rid of all of my Old Shags (girlfriends) for a purpose. They made me uncomfortable. But perhaps I would have to say my first OS made me most comfortable. She's married now.
Bill's first task, after being knighted, is rumored to be to changed the way we all surf. Or was that to change us all into serfs? hmmm. I forget.
The Gartner Group followed up the IDC report by saying that the increase in the number of Linux boxes sold is mainly due to people replacing boxes with older Linux versions. Rather than upgrade the existing boxes, it turns out to be cheaper, once manhours are included, to replace the Linux box rather than try to figure out an upgrade path in the highly undocumented world of Linux distributions.
I can't believe that this is on Slashdot. This only bolsters outsiders views that Slashdot is a community of extreme left wing Microsoft bashers (don't believe me? Look up slashdot in wikipedia). This article is clearly wrong. How can this be posted without checking it out for real? I wouldn't be surprised if Slashdot gets slapped with a slander suit over this one.
I plead with the editors to stop posting this far left trash on this site. Most of us do not wish to be cast in such a fanatical light. We love Open Source, we love Slashdot, but we don't want to be looked at a sneaking lieing Microsoft haters that will stoop to unbelievable lows to make stuff up.
Why would they go with an chip like the Power when it also has no basis for acceptance as a high end server platform. That would seem like just as stupid a move, if not worse, than the Itanium. Granted it's their own technology, but if that's the precurser, then the Power chip is already out of the question. They have much better stuff behind their doors than that old thing. Have you read anything about cell processing lately? If they want to go with a chip that already has a base of millions of shipped units, then perhaps they should go AMD Opteron. That would be a better choice for battling the acceptance problem they perceive (And even Microsoft is specifically wrapping their 64 bit OS around it). I don't think you are going to see IBM try to drive the market with their Power chip, that's EXACTLY what happened to Intel and the Itanium. Besides that's a huge move from Cisc to Risc that 99% of their exisiting Intel based customers are simply not going to do. I have to believe IBM is smarter than that.
That won't turn any heads at the studio. They bank on that much from a series/week run in advertising time. That might enable them to squeak one more episode out, but that's it. From what they have done so far with the series, I say good riddens. It has gone a long way in bringing down the Star Trek Empire.
It probably won't effect you. It 'should not' effect you is the proper thing to say here.
If it does become a problem for you, the most likely cause would be that the small vendor who sold you the machine ripped off an OEM copy of XP and has resold it to you as a legit copy. Otherwise the only people who will be effected are those who have to reinstall from selected Dell EOM cd's and selected HP EOM cd's, (there are a few others), that were sold between certain time frames and under certain license agreements. It is not a big group.
It onl effects past XP versions sold by large license holding OEMs. Retail versions are not effected at all and OEMs from here forward are also not effected. The likelyhood of falling in the pool of licenses that require a phone call is very small when compared to the entire XP installation population out there.
Shouldn't effect you at all, unless you are trying to install a large OEM copy of XP that was purchased in the past. Any future OEM XP versions will not have this issue, because they will be internet activated, as the retail version is already. The only people this is going to snare are people who are using stole OEM copies.