Microsoft is constantly competing with itself, not others. It needs people to buy the latest versions of its OS and applications (office) to keep revenues coming in.
As a result, it chooses to do things like release the XP2 firewall but not offer it for win2k - to push people towards newer versions, despite win2k being in mainstream support.
Recently, they've been forced by the HUGE number of corporate customers to offer WinFS as an option for XP as well as future versions of the OS. Why? Because corporate customers don't run bleeding edge software.
So what they need is a huge, wonderful carrot that will lead customers to the latest version. We arent talking about Dear Old Aunt Sally - she doesn't buy new versions of OS's. She buys a computer, and it comes with it.
We are talking about corporate customers. They didn't buy the concept that WinFS couldn't work on XP, but Microsoft has been shouting (even swearing in court) that the browser is part of the OS.
As a result, MS could very easily make IE7 only available on longhorn. As such, it's an opportunity for them to make it a selling point - a carrot.
To make the carrot more attractive, they need to make it do as many things RIGHT as possible. If IE7 truly supported css2, png transparency, javascript, and so on, WEBDESIGNERS would start drawing the line at older versions of IE - doing Microsoft's selling for them!
Businesses, portals, and the list goes on - anywhere that wants to make a truly compelling site without a million css box model hacks would start suggesting users use IE7, and before long, REQUIRING IE7.
Microsoft has every reason in the world to kick major standards-ass with IE7, but unfortunately, they have a track record of not doing it.
Here's hoping that their business savy is more powerful than their laziness.:)
The *only* substantial change was in who they contacted to break the story at the very end. In almost every other item, it was word-for-word accurate with the excellent book.
Christine was fairly close as well.
While Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory wasnt THE SAME as the book series, it was true to the spirit, and imho, was definitely "near as good" as the books.
Except for the fact that Apache is the standard, and because of its design philosophies, it has proven to be far more secure than IIS, despite having a much larger install base (and thus, according to your theory, more people attacking it).
I mean, they have to get a sample, so just guard your land, and shoot any moron trying to swipe a sample of your crop - its tresspassing, plain and simple.
Personally, I'd put up a nice sized electric fence, get some dogs, and nice long rifle.
I wouldnt use the GM seeds, but if someone tried to "sample" my goods to "prove" I *was* using them, they'd lose that arm.
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
>We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately Not true at all - it gives us over a decade to reach our goal, and gives us the ability to buy credits to ease the transition. Thats called "reasonable compromise", not "a gun to your head".
>The best way to cut oil consumption is through market forces And thats why it has worked so well for the last 3 decades? Oh wait, right - our use has only continually increased that entire period, never once slowing due to "market forces".
>A few years from now there will be hybrids all over the road. Multiple manufacturers just halted production of hybrid vehicles this year. Why? Low profit, high cost. Market forces hard at work against your theory.
> The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions
Sorry, yes it does. It deeply encourages countries to commit to reducing their outputs - and it has already worked. In the UK, in Brazil, and in other countries, since signing on, they've made substantial reductions specifically to increase their position with the treaty.
> What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want
Actually, no it doesnt. It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers.
The net result is that if those third-world countries sell their credits, they too will quickly become annex 1 countries - putting them under the same rules we would be under. The net result? They get money to modernize, we get to slow our reduction rates, and eventually everyone is under the same rules! A net win for all sides.
>Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle Brazil has reduced their emissions - not increased them.
It has nothing to do with Bush - and everything to do with bad assumptions due to a short-sighted focus on "jobs".
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, as you said, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
With the Bush cups at the checkup line, I went looking for a Kerry cup. I was told it was "Back there".
I walked through the cooler, into the storage shed in the back, crawled under the chicken wire enclosure, picked the lock on the cabinet door, opened the door, got the cup, took it back to the counter, and was told there was a $5 cooler tax.
"Please show me where it says that changes are permitted.".
No need - Darren clarified that changes WERENT permitted - after having his code accepted AND MODIFIED multiple times by multiple BSD developers.
It was only when he disagreed with a change the OpenBSD team made that he "clarified" his license.
Context matters - while the license did not specify that changes WERE or WERE NOT allowed, HE DID ALLOW THEM TO OCCUR - and only when he didnt get his way, did he "clarify" his position.
Not that it matters one whit - the OpenBSD team took the "clarification" at face value, removed the non-BSD licensed code (based on his clarification), and wrote their own.
The fact that their own is vastly superior, more secure, and better written, well, thats just icing on the cake.
They had the on-the-ground knowledge: They flew experts out from around the country for this seizure. It was the largest private seizure in FBI history, supposedly. So that argument is out.
The "evidence may be elsewhere" argument is only appropriate one place: In front of the judge. In fact, the seizure order didnt specify all the machines - only ones directly involved. Thats two down..
Methodology was actually close to the description - they just took the long approach. AFTER removing all the machines, then they cloned the drives, eventually gave those back (about 4 months later), and now they are giving back the original machines - without the original drives. So, they still did far more than they had to do, and are continuing to do so.
It was all punitive - designed to stick it to people that had the audacity to host there. Abuse of power IN THE EXTREME.
> Let's say I steal $1000 and put it in my business's client trust account.
Thats not at all what happened. A hosting company - much like an apartment complex in many ways - had several bad customers, and the CEO that bought the hosting company was bad.
So the equivalent would be seizing EVERYTHING in EVERY apartment that CEO rented out.
Slashdot Mirror
Give an url where they happen so we can see what you mean, and why they happen.. most likely there is a way to block them that you just dont realize.
Microsoft is constantly competing with itself, not others. It needs people to buy the latest versions of its OS and applications (office) to keep revenues coming in.
:)
As a result, it chooses to do things like release the XP2 firewall but not offer it for win2k - to push people towards newer versions, despite win2k being in mainstream support.
Recently, they've been forced by the HUGE number of corporate customers to offer WinFS as an option for XP as well as future versions of the OS. Why? Because corporate customers don't run bleeding edge software.
So what they need is a huge, wonderful carrot that will lead customers to the latest version. We arent talking about Dear Old Aunt Sally - she doesn't buy new versions of OS's. She buys a computer, and it comes with it.
We are talking about corporate customers. They didn't buy the concept that WinFS couldn't work on XP, but Microsoft has been shouting (even swearing in court) that the browser is part of the OS.
As a result, MS could very easily make IE7 only available on longhorn. As such, it's an opportunity for them to make it a selling point - a carrot.
To make the carrot more attractive, they need to make it do as many things RIGHT as possible. If IE7 truly supported css2, png transparency, javascript, and so on, WEBDESIGNERS would start drawing the line at older versions of IE - doing Microsoft's selling for them!
Businesses, portals, and the list goes on - anywhere that wants to make a truly compelling site without a million css box model hacks would start suggesting users use IE7, and before long, REQUIRING IE7.
Microsoft has every reason in the world to kick major standards-ass with IE7, but unfortunately, they have a track record of not doing it.
Here's hoping that their business savy is more powerful than their laziness.
Talk about vaporware.. While the nano-ITX MB design has been released, its not available anywhere.
Even with a functional version, what about the cooling for the processor?
I'd be impressed if it was like IBM's cell, with multiple chips, each with low heat output.
That would be both interesting and potentially functional. Of course, Intel isn't likely to promote IBM's chips, which begs the question..
Which Intel processor can fit in that box, be cooled, AND compete in any way with a G4?
You are the exact type of user that would do well in web-based games. They are slower (non-twitch), fairly accessible, and strategy based.
I author The Kabal Invasion, and contribute to Blacknova Traders, Wordog, and even an upcoming fork of Legend of the Green Dragon.
TKI especially has worked hard to make the game accessible to all, and the version coming out in a few days is deeply focused on accessibility issues.
Its not WoW, mind you, but its a nice way to burn time, interact, practice strategy, and keep mentally stimulated.
Hope that helps!
Quoting Joey Tribbiani: "Its a moo point. It's like a cows opinion, its just moo."
Firestarter.
The *only* substantial change was in who they contacted to break the story at the very end. In almost every other item, it was word-for-word accurate with the excellent book.
Christine was fairly close as well.
While Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory wasnt THE SAME as the book series, it was true to the spirit, and imho, was definitely "near as good" as the books.
YMMV.
Nice troll.
:)
You can use innodb tables to get referential integrity, and why wouldn't you be able to normalize the data? MySQL has had that ability for ages.
And you are already a subscriber HERE, where they use MySQL, so clearly you are willing to pay for services driven by mysql.
Except for the fact that Apache is the standard, and because of its design philosophies, it has proven to be far more secure than IIS, despite having a much larger install base (and thus, according to your theory, more people attacking it).
It says it uses solid-state CF.. so how much memory does it have?
I dont see it in the article, nor on their main site. They DO mention having lots of apps installed, so I presume its not zero..
How are they enforcing this?
I mean, they have to get a sample, so just guard your land, and shoot any moron trying to swipe a sample of your crop - its tresspassing, plain and simple.
Personally, I'd put up a nice sized electric fence, get some dogs, and nice long rifle.
I wouldnt use the GM seeds, but if someone tried to "sample" my goods to "prove" I *was* using them, they'd lose that arm.
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
>We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately
Not true at all - it gives us over a decade to reach our goal, and gives us the ability to buy credits to ease the transition. Thats called "reasonable compromise", not "a gun to your head".
>The best way to cut oil consumption is through market forces
And thats why it has worked so well for the last 3 decades? Oh wait, right - our use has only continually increased that entire period, never once slowing due to "market forces".
>A few years from now there will be hybrids all over the road.
Multiple manufacturers just halted production of hybrid vehicles this year. Why? Low profit, high cost. Market forces hard at work against your theory.
> The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions
Sorry, yes it does. It deeply encourages countries to commit to reducing their outputs - and it has already worked. In the UK, in Brazil, and in other countries, since signing on, they've made substantial reductions specifically to increase their position with the treaty.
> What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want
Actually, no it doesnt. It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers.
The net result is that if those third-world countries sell their credits, they too will quickly become annex 1 countries - putting them under the same rules we would be under. The net result? They get money to modernize, we get to slow our reduction rates, and eventually everyone is under the same rules! A net win for all sides.
>Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle
Brazil has reduced their emissions - not increased them.
It has nothing to do with Bush - and everything to do with bad assumptions due to a short-sighted focus on "jobs".
Sorry, not quite.
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, as you said, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
China ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.
We wouldn't be restricted to all hell - we'd have over a decade to move to a reasonable level of emissions, just like every other annex 1 country.
As more countries join and ratify, more will become annex 1 countries, and more will be under the same restrictions we are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
China has ratified it, and *will* be held to the same standards (Annex 1 country) within the decade - probably sooner.
India has also ratified it, but is not yet an annex 1 country. As more countries join in, more countries will commit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
China ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
With the Bush cups at the checkup line, I went looking for a Kerry cup. I was told it was "Back there".
I walked through the cooler, into the storage shed in the back, crawled under the chicken wire enclosure, picked the lock on the cabinet door, opened the door, got the cup, took it back to the counter, and was told there was a $5 cooler tax.
Damn battleground states.
"Please show me where it says that changes are permitted.".
No need - Darren clarified that changes WERENT permitted - after having his code accepted AND MODIFIED multiple times by multiple BSD developers.
It was only when he disagreed with a change the OpenBSD team made that he "clarified" his license.
Context matters - while the license did not specify that changes WERE or WERE NOT allowed, HE DID ALLOW THEM TO OCCUR - and only when he didnt get his way, did he "clarify" his position.
Not that it matters one whit - the OpenBSD team took the "clarification" at face value, removed the non-BSD licensed code (based on his clarification), and wrote their own.
The fact that their own is vastly superior, more secure, and better written, well, thats just icing on the cake.
"If Lucas doesn't protect his work, he loses his rights in this regard"
Thats trademarks, not copyrights, and they don't apply that way, in this case.
Which forum software?
I regularly post on phpbb, invision, postnuke, phpnuke, slash (like right now), and other forum software's just fine.
If you mention the forum software, perhaps some coders could help fix the bug where it exists - in the forum software, not in the browser.
The last reason is dead on here.
They had the on-the-ground knowledge: They flew experts out from around the country for this seizure. It was the largest private seizure in FBI history, supposedly. So that argument is out.
The "evidence may be elsewhere" argument is only appropriate one place: In front of the judge. In fact, the seizure order didnt specify all the machines - only ones directly involved. Thats two down..
Methodology was actually close to the description - they just took the long approach. AFTER removing all the machines, then they cloned the drives, eventually gave those back (about 4 months later), and now they are giving back the original machines - without the original drives. So, they still did far more than they had to do, and are continuing to do so.
It was all punitive - designed to stick it to people that had the audacity to host there. Abuse of power IN THE EXTREME.
> Let's say I steal $1000 and put it in my business's client trust account.
Thats not at all what happened. A hosting company - much like an apartment complex in many ways - had several bad customers, and the CEO that bought the hosting company was bad.
So the equivalent would be seizing EVERYTHING in EVERY apartment that CEO rented out.
Sound fair? It wasn't.
Not everyone on the staff got felony charges.
Further, they seized 150 computers - over 100 that were *completely unrelated* to the charges.
Two of them were mine, and one STILL hasnt been returned to me.
The government absolutely DID rape the constitution.
>Security through obscurity!?
heh. Well, in a choice between showing private data publicly and not - yes.