THIS is insightful? Did he even read the article? Microsoft will NOT [read it again, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT] be handling the data or anything like that. The gov wants to use their system as the method for logging into government websites. That is ALL. Why does this make everyone so afraid?
It's not national ID. It's not Microsoft getting your SS#. It's the government choosing a company to use a system by which people can use government websites online! What, do you not want ANY public government websites? They'll have to authenticate you somehow! What do you think this is?
The systems that you described were in place to prevent people with less knowledge, certanly, from voting, but the same founding fathers had only the white, male land owners [and thus the only ones to recieve any education] voting.
Errant Windows apps in 2k or XP rarely hang the whole system... From an office standpoint, is it really better to have X lockup [and lose everything you were working on] than rebooting the whole machine? Is there any real difference if all of your business apps are in X?
If you really think that people wouldn't read the article, they could have put the pictures at the bottom... This is definitely a time where pictures would enhance, not detract, from the original article.
That's fine, if the case if legal, but it's not. His ISP wants to give him the axe because he's causing them trouble, even if it's indirectly. If he can't get his act together, then why should his parent ISP have to suffer, too?
RTFP. You'd still be violating the letter of the EULA. ["You used the multiprocessing system 4 times, so you're paying up!"] It's a moot point if you CAN do it or not.
No. Heavy use does not mean overclocking, not at all. If you run your CPU pegged, the chip wouldn't overheat... and isn't the topic of the post about Intel doing this?
Only support a max 2 processors? Does this mean that anyone who wants more than 1 real processor has to run the Server edition of one or the other?
And... what about per-cpu liscences? If I wanted to run my dual-Xeon mobo before, I only needed a liscense for 2 cpus...
PHB: Hey guys, we need to protect our cds from the evil MP3.
R&D 1: Uh... I don't think that's possib...
R&D 2: *punches R&D1 in the throat* Sure thing, boss. We'll come up with something in a jiff!
In short, all of these guys need to justify their $70,000/yr jobs, even if they know it's a futile protection system.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now, Villians was #1 for a while :P
THIS is insightful? Did he even read the article? Microsoft will NOT [read it again, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT] be handling the data or anything like that. The gov wants to use their system as the method for logging into government websites. That is ALL. Why does this make everyone so afraid? It's not national ID. It's not Microsoft getting your SS#. It's the government choosing a company to use a system by which people can use government websites online! What, do you not want ANY public government websites? They'll have to authenticate you somehow! What do you think this is?
It most certanly WAS based on educated people.
The systems that you described were in place to prevent people with less knowledge, certanly, from voting, but the same founding fathers had only the white, male land owners [and thus the only ones to recieve any education] voting.
Gee, maybe if they HADN'T looked away, we couldn't do that, now could we?
I like how, near the end of the bit on the X-BOX game, it throws in [in it's own paragraph!]
:o
(MSNBC is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)
for no apparent reason.
[And for you guys who, I suppose, didn't bother to read the entire article, the guy rips on the X-Box games just as bad as the rest of them.]
Errant Windows apps in 2k or XP rarely hang the whole system... From an office standpoint, is it really better to have X lockup [and lose everything you were working on] than rebooting the whole machine? Is there any real difference if all of your business apps are in X?
If you really think that people wouldn't read the article, they could have put the pictures at the bottom... This is definitely a time where pictures would enhance, not detract, from the original article.
That's fine, if the case if legal, but it's not. His ISP wants to give him the axe because he's causing them trouble, even if it's indirectly. If he can't get his act together, then why should his parent ISP have to suffer, too?
Around 2000kb = 16000kbit / 120sec = 133kbit/sec. How do you get 400mbits/sec? That's 50MB/sec!
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020227/
:o
Interesting - they tested one of the Hammer CPUs on Suse, but they only ran XP in 32-bit...
Good riddence to FastTrack. This makes me very happy.
A few of the more impressive pictures: http://spiff.homelinux.net/gaussgun/
mirrored, to avoid the Slashdot effect... http://spiff.homelinux.net/gaussgun/
RTFP. You'd still be violating the letter of the EULA. ["You used the multiprocessing system 4 times, so you're paying up!"] It's a moot point if you CAN do it or not.
It does allow more processing in less space, which was the point I was making.
No. Heavy use does not mean overclocking, not at all. If you run your CPU pegged, the chip wouldn't overheat... and isn't the topic of the post about Intel doing this?
Only support a max 2 processors? Does this mean that anyone who wants more than 1 real processor has to run the Server edition of one or the other? And... what about per-cpu liscences? If I wanted to run my dual-Xeon mobo before, I only needed a liscense for 2 cpus...
Allows more processors in less space. I don't know about performance figures...
Evidence of what? This is even a stretch for circumstancial evidence.
PHB: Hey guys, we need to protect our cds from the evil MP3. R&D 1: Uh... I don't think that's possib... R&D 2: *punches R&D1 in the throat* Sure thing, boss. We'll come up with something in a jiff! In short, all of these guys need to justify their $70,000/yr jobs, even if they know it's a futile protection system.
Which means that you'll have to click the little "Install Anyway" button when you install the drivers? So what? It still works.
Open up c:\windows\inf\sysoc.inf, and find the line:
msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7
Remove the word "hide", save, and open up Add/Remove Programs / Windows Components, and you can uninstall that little bugger.