There are a few things that I am aware of hampering Win 2k on old hardware going forward:
Modern antivirus consumes huge amounts of RAM.
newer technologies that weren't incorporated into Win 2k but are part of Win XP such as:
WPA wireless encryption
Bluetooth
Microsoft's intentional obselecense of Win 2k:
no 'security' service pack.
no IE 7 (for those that don't use a better browser)
no newer media player (might become an issue in the near future if codecs are not available)
Just today, I was searching for help on Technet (the website), and noticed that many Windows 2000 & Windows 2000 Server technet documents have broken links. The error page stated that Microsoft is removing outdated information from the website.
So, all you can do now is search for your answers under Win XP & Win 2003 documents, and try to figure out what applies to Win 2k and what doesn't.
Some people have better genes than others in various ways. Your 'evidence' call this varation a mutation, which it was not. It's just variance within the human species. Mutation involves change outside the scope of what the ancestors had in the past. Couldn't there have been an ancestor with the beneficial traits discussed in the paper?
Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events
Evidence?
Well, you got me there. I didn't have evidence. I did a quick Google and the first result reads:
It ultimately proves that the origin of all complex life goes back much further than previously imagined. (abc.net.au)
They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?
They assume neither and both. The evidence (age, traits etc.etc.) determines one or the other based on previous evidence/conclusions.
I think they have a mountain of previous evidence that is based on prior assumptions of previous evidence concluded from assumptions that.. well, you know where I'm going with this.
Evolutionists have an agenda
Based on testable theories. Creationists have no testable theories.
How can they be testable theories? How do you test these theories without going back in time? Evidence?
How religious is your evolution?
While I have Creationist leanings, I realize that religious theories probably do not belong in public schools.
But Evolution is just as religious as creationism but in an athiestic sense. Consider my foolish thoughts below:
The chance of a beneficial genetic mutation is close to zero. It's much less likely than a tossed deck of cards landing neatly stacked in an order that conveys meaning. (if you didn't like that one, then go with the classic "monkeys with typewriters" comparison)
Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events to explain away the infinitesimal chance of beneficial mutations occuring.
They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?
Evolutionists have an agenda. They want to explain the world in a way that is acceptable to their athiest views. I know that creationists also have an agenda, but my point is that evolutionists are not unbiased observers.
I guess my point is that evolution is as religious as creationism is. What little observable science there is can't prove or disprove either theory.
Maybe a thousand years from now, scientists will observe how much we have "evolved" between now and then, and have some scientific data to back up those observations. But a thousand years is a drop in the ocean to evolution, so it probably wont prove much of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a few things that I am aware of hampering Win 2k on old hardware going forward:
Just today, I was searching for help on Technet (the website), and noticed that many Windows 2000 & Windows 2000 Server technet documents have broken links. The error page stated that Microsoft is removing outdated information from the website.
So, all you can do now is search for your answers under Win XP & Win 2003 documents, and try to figure out what applies to Win 2k and what doesn't.
My point was that the evolutionist agenda is based on the belief in no god , and so is just a religious as the creationist point of view.
Some people have better genes than others in various ways. Your 'evidence' call this varation a mutation, which it was not. It's just variance within the human species. Mutation involves change outside the scope of what the ancestors had in the past. Couldn't there have been an ancestor with the beneficial traits discussed in the paper?
Well, you got me there. I didn't have evidence. I did a quick Google and the first result reads:
I think they have a mountain of previous evidence that is based on prior assumptions of previous evidence concluded from assumptions that .. well, you know where I'm going with this.
How can they be testable theories? How do you test these theories without going back in time? Evidence?
- The chance of a beneficial genetic mutation is close to zero. It's much less likely than a tossed deck of cards landing neatly stacked in an order that conveys meaning. (if you didn't like that one, then go with the classic "monkeys with typewriters" comparison)
- Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events to explain away the infinitesimal chance of beneficial mutations occuring.
- They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?
- Evolutionists have an agenda. They want to explain the world in a way that is acceptable to their athiest views. I know that creationists also have an agenda, but my point is that evolutionists are not unbiased observers.
I guess my point is that evolution is as religious as creationism is. What little observable science there is can't prove or disprove either theory. Maybe a thousand years from now, scientists will observe how much we have "evolved" between now and then, and have some scientific data to back up those observations. But a thousand years is a drop in the ocean to evolution, so it probably wont prove much of anything.