If you RTFA carefully, he is suggesting that a move away from Windows becomes likely once they are no longer using applications that are Windows only, but replacements (Open Office, Firefox...) that run just as well on Linux.
Recursion is not always bad. It often makes code much easier to understand, and a good compiler can sometimes optimize the recursion away in the object code.
I still use Knoppix on a regular basis because of its excellent hardware detection. However, having once tried using the Knoppix installer to convert the live CD to a Debian install, I would never do it again. The result is ugly, whereas the newer desktop oriented distros do this really well.
Until the 1930s, the King of Thailand was officially a God. While all kings and constitutions since have disavowed this view, most Thais still feel that (especially) the current King is more than just a man. He is seen as both a God-like and a father figure. I do not think it is any business of the rest of the world to approve or disapprove of this view. You are talking about something very much akin to a religion.
there was a plan to fix voting machines to really switch votes from Democrats to Republicans invisibly; and
those involved were concerned about how they would explain a wide discrepancy between exit polls and counted votes.
What might one do to cover the tracks? Well, if there was an apparent issue with the user interface, wouldn't this provide rather good camouflage? Sure, some would be suspicious anyway, but the important thing is plausible deniability.
The powers given to customs officials were designed to prevent smuggling. If I have data that can be transferred electronically and want to smuggle it into the US, I suspect I could find a way of doing so that does not entail carrying it manually through customs. Random searches of private data on people's notebook computers, iPods and phones may successfully find incriminating information. It does absolutely nothing to keep contraband out of the US.
Reminds me that even companies with pretty good processes for reviewing and fixing error messages can sometimes mess up. Back in the 1970s, I received the following IBM VSAM error message under OS/VS1:
IDC9999T This message should not appear
I did not find this overly helpful in identifying the cause of the error.
It is true that a very basic free service is provided to allow you to get a feel for how it works. However, anyone who makes the decision to use Fastmail.fm for their primary email service should go for Full (about $20 per year) or better. To use your own domain (recommended so you can move if you ever need to) you must use an Enhanced account (about $40 per year).
Fastmail.fm is the real deal and thoroughly recommended. Do not confuse them with fastmail.com, a completely different, and inferior, service.
I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.
Sigh! +5 Insightful and you did not check on what the "good reverend" did have in mind. What he has in mind in pretty much exactly that. He states that, in the past, he just tried to ignore creationism in science teaching. The problem is that this does nothing to demonstrate why creationism is not science. Why is it that, even here on/., a relatively intelligent group, most look at the words "creationism", "reverend" and "science class" and jump to conclusions without examining the facts?
If Michael Reiss suffers an academic lynching over his attempts to recommend how to fight creationist views, this will be a tragedy.
You are just one of many who say that use of the MIPS processor is going to be a deal breaker for the average consumer. I suspect you are wrong. I do not know if flash and PDF support (albeit with plenty of warts) via open source packages is to be pre-installed. Even without that, if it looks half way decent in the store, a very low price will sway many average consumers a lot more than concerns about what restrictions it might impose.
It is quite possible that you are right about my judgment.
I have looked at the refutations of the various alternative theories of 9/11 that have been put forward. I reject most of those theories myself. I have yet to see a good explanation of molten steel in the debris weeks after the collapse. Neither have I seen a good explanation of the very small amount of debris following the collapse of these structures.
According to their design criteria, none of the WTC buildings should have collapsed. I have yet to see this acknowledged in any of the official reports or more informal attempts to debunk alternative explanations for their collapse.
Most likely, my judgment is faulty, but I shall have to eventually prove that to myself by having the things I imperfectly understand explained to me.
I am an engineer, but you are correct in your assumption that I am not a structural engineer. Are you? I have spoken with two structural engineers about the collapse of WTC 7. They both said that the collapse was odd, but that they were willing to wait for the official report. I have not had the opportunity to talk to either since the report became available.
I know I should be a good little boy and accept the official report issued by the government. Well, sorry, but experience has taught me that governments do not always tell the truth.
The fact is that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were all extremely strongly built structures. The first two were specifically designed to withstand impacts by the largest jet aircraft without collapsing. WTC 7 was not hit by any aircraft. With the exception of the three claimed examples of September 11, 2001, no steel frame structure has ever collapsed as a result of fire.
I am well aware of the implausibility of the "controlled demolition" scenario. I am not saying that that is what happened. I am saying that there are enough demonstrated lies and is enough attempted misinformation around the events of 9/11 to raise strong suspicions that there is more to the events than three buildings failing to meet their design criteria.
I assume from your post that you have looked at all the evidence and have managed to form a theory that matches all the known facts. I have looked at everything I could find, and am still uncomfortable with any theory I have heard put forward. I am hoping you can finally provide me with an explanation that seems to fit the facts without being crazy.
The most difficult issue to deal with is what yourself said. Steel frame skyscrapers are hard to bring down. It is especially difficult to bring them down into their own footprint such that there are no residual steel columns left standing. With due respect to the authors of this official report and their three years of computer simulations, I do not believe for one moment that thermal expansion from the burning of paper, desks and plastic fittings (even over a period of many hours) is sufficient to explain this. I also do not think it can explain molten steel in the wreckage weeks after the event.
It is true that significant preparation for a controlled demolition would have been required. From what I have read, it is not true that tons of TNT would have been required, or that the columns would have needed drilling if thermite charges were used. I am not saying that this is definitely what happened. I am saying it fits the observed collapse and debris better than thermal expansion.
Forgive me if I ignore your strawmen.
Now, please, if you have really read everything available and have a good explanation, please lay it out for us.
On balance, I do not think anyone in the BBC was involved in any conspiracy. However, two things do puzzle me
Why did the BBC not correct the erroneous report of the collapse of WTC7 at the time?
Was the loss of the live transmission just before the real collapse and failure by the BBC to show the actual collapse later purely coincidental?
Most likely, media management was being handled elsewhere and the press release to the BBC was made early. I am guessing the BBC did not get around to a correction and coincidence was indeed involved in the BBC's loss of the live feed (or, perhaps, someone outside the BBC cut the feed).
The parent post is probably going to be moderated into oblivion, and I have no doubt my reply will too. However, I urge everyone to look at all the evidence in an unbiased way and come to their own conclusions. The official report on how a steel frame building collapsed due to fire (for the third time in history, the first two being WTC1 and WTC2) is not convincing. The visual evidence suggests controlled demolition. There is physical evidence that is consistent with this. There may indeed have been a "conspiracy" involved here. I am not comfortable with any of the theories that have been put forward, but I certainly do not buy the fantasy in this official report.
Consider: someone arrives from 10 years in the future in a time machine. OK, at the time he arrives this is news. However, at the point the individual leaves to go back in time, we have already known about this for 10 years. He may even be reusing the same time machine, if it was never used in the intervening period. How is a 10 year old story news (I am ignoring/. for the purpose of this argument)?
I had to laugh. For the benefit of those not fully familiar with English (probably originally Irish) slang, "to have a slash" means to take a pee. Thus, it is quite appropriate that a game that involves peeing to hit a target should appear on Slashdot.
As I understand it, this only impacts Windows XP users who are running computers with AMD or Intel processors. There is no evidence of SP3 introducing problems on XP machines with alternative architectures.
Unfortunately, your lack of practice in reading articles is apparent in your attempted explanation. I am no expert on the subject matter, but even I know enough to recognize that you misunderstood what they are saying.
Actually, the main message I get from the article is how complex the universe is, and how little is known, even by the most knowledgeable, about how these mechanisms work.
I have played with the shared folder feature, but never saw any real advantage over just using standard networking (SMB, NFS etc.) Is there some advantage to VMware's shared folder feature that I am too blind to see?
... it strikes me as a mistake not to hire an attorney in a case like this...
While I would hire a lawyer if I was ever the target of a criminal charge, the only way I would ever risk hiring a lawyer to pursue a civil case in the US is if the lawyer was being paid on a contingency basis.
If Chris had lost this case, he would certainly not have been pleased. However, life would have gone on. If he had delivered himself into the clutches of the lawyers, he would have risked years of pain and possible eventual financial ruin.
Say in the future MS want to push out a patch that is so mean and so unethical that Autopatcher refuse to include...
... or, perhaps, a patch that checks whether you are running a licensed copy of Windows and connects to Microsoft every day as part of that process (maybe called Windows Genuine Advantage or something).
I personally think it significant that Microsoft acted against Autopatcher shortly after they added MS Office support.
It was bad news when Microsoft stepped on AP. Where I live, plenty of people still have only dial-up Internet. Assuming use of a client's legal media (so I cannot just use a generic slip-streamed DVD for install) AP used to often save me at least two hours on the full format and reinstall of XP, Office and associated gunk.
Even now, the new Autopatcher provides much more than just XP security updates. There is support for XP, Vista, MS Office 2003/2007 and a bunch of add-ons of the type you often want to incorporate just after a new install.
Slashdot Mirror
If you RTFA carefully, he is suggesting that a move away from Windows becomes likely once they are no longer using applications that are Windows only, but replacements (Open Office, Firefox ...) that run just as well on Linux.
Recursion is not always bad. It often makes code much easier to understand, and a good compiler can sometimes optimize the recursion away in the object code.
I still use Knoppix on a regular basis because of its excellent hardware detection. However, having once tried using the Knoppix installer to convert the live CD to a Debian install, I would never do it again. The result is ugly, whereas the newer desktop oriented distros do this really well.
Until the 1930s, the King of Thailand was officially a God. While all kings and constitutions since have disavowed this view, most Thais still feel that (especially) the current King is more than just a man. He is seen as both a God-like and a father figure. I do not think it is any business of the rest of the world to approve or disapprove of this view. You are talking about something very much akin to a religion.
What might one do to cover the tracks? Well, if there was an apparent issue with the user interface, wouldn't this provide rather good camouflage? Sure, some would be suspicious anyway, but the important thing is plausible deniability.
A geek with a girlfriend
The powers given to customs officials were designed to prevent smuggling. If I have data that can be transferred electronically and want to smuggle it into the US, I suspect I could find a way of doing so that does not entail carrying it manually through customs. Random searches of private data on people's notebook computers, iPods and phones may successfully find incriminating information. It does absolutely nothing to keep contraband out of the US.
I did not find this overly helpful in identifying the cause of the error.
Fastmail.fm is the real deal and thoroughly recommended. Do not confuse them with fastmail.com, a completely different, and inferior, service.
To get a feel, take a look at the independent (though Fastmail representative visited) forums at http://www.emaildiscussions.com/forumdisplay.php?&f=27
Sigh! +5 Insightful and you did not check on what the "good reverend" did have in mind. What he has in mind in pretty much exactly that. He states that, in the past, he just tried to ignore creationism in science teaching. The problem is that this does nothing to demonstrate why creationism is not science. Why is it that, even here on /., a relatively intelligent group, most look at the words "creationism", "reverend" and "science class" and jump to conclusions without examining the facts?
If Michael Reiss suffers an academic lynching over his attempts to recommend how to fight creationist views, this will be a tragedy.
You are just one of many who say that use of the MIPS processor is going to be a deal breaker for the average consumer. I suspect you are wrong. I do not know if flash and PDF support (albeit with plenty of warts) via open source packages is to be pre-installed. Even without that, if it looks half way decent in the store, a very low price will sway many average consumers a lot more than concerns about what restrictions it might impose.
I have looked at the refutations of the various alternative theories of 9/11 that have been put forward. I reject most of those theories myself. I have yet to see a good explanation of molten steel in the debris weeks after the collapse. Neither have I seen a good explanation of the very small amount of debris following the collapse of these structures.
According to their design criteria, none of the WTC buildings should have collapsed. I have yet to see this acknowledged in any of the official reports or more informal attempts to debunk alternative explanations for their collapse.
Most likely, my judgment is faulty, but I shall have to eventually prove that to myself by having the things I imperfectly understand explained to me.
I know I should be a good little boy and accept the official report issued by the government. Well, sorry, but experience has taught me that governments do not always tell the truth.
The fact is that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were all extremely strongly built structures. The first two were specifically designed to withstand impacts by the largest jet aircraft without collapsing. WTC 7 was not hit by any aircraft. With the exception of the three claimed examples of September 11, 2001, no steel frame structure has ever collapsed as a result of fire.
I am well aware of the implausibility of the "controlled demolition" scenario. I am not saying that that is what happened. I am saying that there are enough demonstrated lies and is enough attempted misinformation around the events of 9/11 to raise strong suspicions that there is more to the events than three buildings failing to meet their design criteria.
The most difficult issue to deal with is what yourself said. Steel frame skyscrapers are hard to bring down. It is especially difficult to bring them down into their own footprint such that there are no residual steel columns left standing. With due respect to the authors of this official report and their three years of computer simulations, I do not believe for one moment that thermal expansion from the burning of paper, desks and plastic fittings (even over a period of many hours) is sufficient to explain this. I also do not think it can explain molten steel in the wreckage weeks after the event.
It is true that significant preparation for a controlled demolition would have been required. From what I have read, it is not true that tons of TNT would have been required, or that the columns would have needed drilling if thermite charges were used. I am not saying that this is definitely what happened. I am saying it fits the observed collapse and debris better than thermal expansion.
Forgive me if I ignore your strawmen.
Now, please, if you have really read everything available and have a good explanation, please lay it out for us.
Most likely, media management was being handled elsewhere and the press release to the BBC was made early. I am guessing the BBC did not get around to a correction and coincidence was indeed involved in the BBC's loss of the live feed (or, perhaps, someone outside the BBC cut the feed).
The parent post is probably going to be moderated into oblivion, and I have no doubt my reply will too. However, I urge everyone to look at all the evidence in an unbiased way and come to their own conclusions. The official report on how a steel frame building collapsed due to fire (for the third time in history, the first two being WTC1 and WTC2) is not convincing. The visual evidence suggests controlled demolition. There is physical evidence that is consistent with this. There may indeed have been a "conspiracy" involved here. I am not comfortable with any of the theories that have been put forward, but I certainly do not buy the fantasy in this official report.
Consider: someone arrives from 10 years in the future in a time machine. OK, at the time he arrives this is news. However, at the point the individual leaves to go back in time, we have already known about this for 10 years. He may even be reusing the same time machine, if it was never used in the intervening period. How is a 10 year old story news (I am ignoring /. for the purpose of this argument)?
Are you interested in the Minidumps if the test causes a BSOD?
I had to laugh. For the benefit of those not fully familiar with English (probably originally Irish) slang, "to have a slash" means to take a pee. Thus, it is quite appropriate that a game that involves peeing to hit a target should appear on Slashdot.
As I understand it, this only impacts Windows XP users who are running computers with AMD or Intel processors. There is no evidence of SP3 introducing problems on XP machines with alternative architectures.
Actually, the main message I get from the article is how complex the universe is, and how little is known, even by the most knowledgeable, about how these mechanisms work.
I have played with the shared folder feature, but never saw any real advantage over just using standard networking (SMB, NFS etc.) Is there some advantage to VMware's shared folder feature that I am too blind to see?
If Chris had lost this case, he would certainly not have been pleased. However, life would have gone on. If he had delivered himself into the clutches of the lawyers, he would have risked years of pain and possible eventual financial ruin.
I personally think it significant that Microsoft acted against Autopatcher shortly after they added MS Office support.
It was bad news when Microsoft stepped on AP. Where I live, plenty of people still have only dial-up Internet. Assuming use of a client's legal media (so I cannot just use a generic slip-streamed DVD for install) AP used to often save me at least two hours on the full format and reinstall of XP, Office and associated gunk.
Even now, the new Autopatcher provides much more than just XP security updates. There is support for XP, Vista, MS Office 2003/2007 and a bunch of add-ons of the type you often want to incorporate just after a new install.