Err, 'scuse me. Micro$haft have got the patent on the NOT operator. Your post shows flagrant disregard of Micro$haft's IP and consequently a writ is being prepared and sent to your registered home address.
Micro$haft will be seeking $1 billion in restorative damages, $3 gazillion in punitive damages and wish to obtain a judicial order forcing you to use Windows ME and IE4 for the remainder of your natural life.
And remember people, if you like this story, purchase your Washington Post next week for other exclusives:
- Toilet habits of bears
- Religious beliefs of the Pope
- Bill Gates' views on Linux
- Enron's financial position
- GWB revelation that he's not a liberal peacenik
I'd be more surprised to hear that Al Qaeda were not using the internet and cell phones.
Being an early adopter (I'm running XP SP2 so I can find all the bugs in it), I'm proud to announce what microsoft's innovative new and improved Security Center consists of:
- A new entry in the Control panel called Security Options
- Conveniently provided links within this section to Automatic Updates, Internet Security Settings, and the Internet Connection Firewall.
- Default settings enabling the firewall, automatic updates, and applying a security policy to IE so damn restrictive, you get error messages displaying 404 pages (no kidding).
- Pop-up blocker not turned on, so only those who know about it or happen to stumble upon it will find it.
- Erm, that's it.
On a related note, inside sources have indicated that SP3 for Windows XP will contain more innovative features. Chief amongst these will be the Microsoft ActiveTransport Enabling-Agent Device.
Deployment of this device will obviously be considerably cheaper than easier than the open-source alternative - the wheel.
It doesn't stop when they leave Iran either... I know of several Iranian women here in New Zealand who seem to spend vast amounts of time sitting on Persian-language dating and chat sites searching for well-off Iranian men to marry.
The amendments (Bill of Rights) had a good deal to do with what happened after the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, since they were ratified in 1791.
That was the first and only time that the Brits were evicted from the USA. The second amendment, passed as you say in 1791 was several years after said eviction.
The war of 1812 was not won by either side. Sure, guns were used against the Brits, but singularly ineffectively. As the Brits withdrew of their own accord, guns weren't used to evict them.
I'm not a Canadian but I do know some things about how the British Empire used to be run. The phrase 'technically under the control of' is pretty accurate. Theoretically the British had the power to involve Canada in WW1 - Britain just didn't choose to exercise it.
The Queen 'technically' has the power to dissolve the British parliament, order the beheading of the Prime Minister and rule by royal decree. Whilst some people think this might not be such a bad idea, in practice that kind of power has not been exercised by any British monarch since the time of Queen Anne.
Well, at least get your foreign history straight. The guns weren't used on slaves, they were used to evict the Brits -- twice.
I'd suggest you got YOUR history straight. The guns were used to evict the Brits once. Of course, that was before the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so the right to bear arms does not apply in that circumstance.
The only other real time the Brits were in the USA in a war-like mood was in 1812. I seem to remember that the British incursion into the USA was as a result of American aggression against the British province of Canada. A few battles were fought, which the USA lost convincingly, the British redcoats marched to Washington after laying siege to the Potomac harbour(or whichever river feeds Washington - my US geography is pretty crap), set the White House on fire, then marched out again. I believe the USA did win some kind of naval battle in New Orleans... though unfortunately it was after a ceasefire had been declared and some kinda deal signed.
Makes you wonder what the Brits could have done if:
they had a proper garrison stationed in Canada rather than a few badly-trained reserves;
they were able to get troops to Canada quickly in response; and
they weren't busy kicking Napoleon's arse across Europe and fighting with Indian and Persian troops in Calcutta.
Hey - now here's a trick. Try reading and understanding what I posted before replying to it.
My comment was that the previous poster's statement that "Traction control and anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish..." was incorrect. The reference to rally driving was to indicate that, in some circumstances, ABS and traction control do not a safe car make.
I also went on to say "What is true is that for most drivers running down to Walmart for a six-pack, traction control and ABS offers them the greatest level of safety." which is exactly what you were trying to flame me not saying.
I believe the world record for parking in a space using this method was done by a British stunt driver (forget his name) who managed to handbrake into a space 17cm longer than the car itself and stop with both wheels within 10cm of the kerb. It took his about four tries to do this.
The stunt driver in question made his name doing the same stunt in TV ads for the Austin Montego car - a car so truly f'ing awful that it deserved to be confined to the great car crusher in the sky upon launch.
Traction control and anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish...
How I can put this? Bollocks! Whilst it is true that no driver can modulate brake pressure on four individual wheels 10,000 times a second, it is also true to state that most expert drivers don't need to. They know how hard to brake and can modulate brake pressure well enough to get the best out of their vehicle. Rally drivers could never use traction control and ABS. Why? Because they require their cars to slide and the wheels to spin. It's the fastest way of getting from point A to point B.
What is true is that for most drivers running down to Walmart for a six-pack, traction control and ABS offers them the greatest level of safety.
No, I can't give evidence as Blair et al have never come out and said "we want to disband the BBC". Doing so would be political suicide.
However, the Labour government have made public their wish to carry out a detailed study into the way the BBC is funded, into the BBC's mandate and into the continuing existence of the licence-fee. To many, including me, this is the all the evidence that one needs.
Speaking as an ex-pat Brit, the BBC is the premiere producer of high-quality content on the planet. There isn't a single content producer with an archive that can match the Beeb's.
Although Blair is desperate to get rid of the BBC or to change its mandate to make it advertiser-funded (in no small part because it criticises "New Labour") any change made to the way the BBC operates or is funded would spell the end of one of the greatest organisations anywhere in the world.
The BBC can produce the programs they do, and report news in the way it does, because it answers to no-one. Not the UK government, not to sponsors, not to advertisers. It doesn't have to keep anyone happy. Think of this: How in-depth was the reporting of the M$ vs DoJ debacle on MSNBC? How in-depth was the reporting of AOHell's financial woes on CNN?
The BBC recently came under huge criticism for their claim that the UK's official government dossier on Iraq's WMD was "sexed up". In the viewer feedback section they had on this, at least half of the comments posted on the BBC's site were anti-BBC. Some were calling for it to be shutdown and disbanded. Can you imagine CNN doing the same?
I think the decision to open up their content archive to the public for free is truly wonderful. I think it also has business possibilities for the BBC. Would ISPs in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries get business from advertising a high-speed BBC content mirror? I think so. ISP pays the BBC to mirror their content = ISP gets more customers = BBC gets more money.
If the BBC's sale of DVDs and videos remained unchanged or even went up as a result, it would also put a final nail in the coffin of the MPAssA and RIAssA's arguments that: free download = doom, gloom, bankrupt artists = death of civilisation as we know it. The BBC has the might to compete with anyone on the world stage. Their public popularity is, and has been for many year, the envy of every other media company in existence. The RIAssA and MPAssA would not have a leg to stand on should the BBC come out in favour (backed up by figures, of course) of making content freely-available.
-5 Flamebait:
If the US military are the most highly-trained military force on the planet, how come they keep on shooting their allies? They managed to confuse a British Tornado with an incoming Iraqi missile in the latest Bush'n'Blair show and shot it down. Also managed to bomb a division of UK tanks. I seem to remember they opened fire on their own tanks, too.
In Afghanistan they bombed a Canadian division killing 16 or thereabouts, despite having been told about the Canadian's presence in that area. In the Gulf War 1 they killed more UK troops by accident than the Iraqis managed to do deliberately.
Sure, it's a war and accidents do happen, but it seems that it's usually the US military that causes them.
OK - maybe this is a -5 Flamebait here, but here's a couple of my thoughts.
The desktop world is ruled (by numbers, anyway) by Microsoft. Any potential malware s'kiddie can knock together some malware in a few hours, dump it into some unsuspecting newsgroup somewhere or email it to his Outlook-using mates and start an epidemic relatively easily. The sheer number of vulnerable machines makes that easy.
The installed base of Windows boxes also means that, despite MS not opening up their code to anyone (except governments and universities willing to sign away their first-born as insurance against breaking the NDA), large numbers of people spend vast tracts of time throwing McValue Meal-sized URLs at web-servers and mutant packets at RPC interfaces.
Lots of people x Lots of time x Lots of machines = lots of vulnerabilities found...
Now consider *nix. It has a number of advantages straight off the block:
It's open source. Code that finds its way into the kernel goes through the best peer-review system available; public scrutiny.
Generally, the people who run *nix are more tech-savvy than an average Joe Blow.
Any vulnerabilities that are found get acknowledged and fixed very quickly.
But what would happen if *nix had the sort of desktop penetration that Windows does? How quickly would the kind of person that thinks a computer case is called a 'hard drive' apply a *nix security patch? If *nix was that popular, how many more people would devote vast tracts of time to finding obscure security holes and vulnerabilities?
Nope, it's the use of 'ls' to see what files you've written.
You are hereby required to pay the sum of $100 for each directory listing you make from now on, with a further $50 for every parameter you pass to it.
Oh, and just sign over your first-born as recompense for your past illegal use of this development technique...
Japan, probably would have never attacked if the US had not sent their gunship to Japan one century earlier.
Actually, it was more to do with a pact between Germany, Italy and Japan (the Axis) to open multiple fronts to prevent the allies from gaining to much momentum. Japan attacked the USA. Germany then declared war on the USA hoping that Japan would declare war on the British and the Russians, therefore preventing British army personnel from India being used against Germany, and diverting some Russian resources away from the Eastern front. Germany was still thinking that its military might would be enough to counter the allies in Europe, but knew it could use some help in Russia. The plan, needless to say, backfired.
On the other hand, Germans have to thank the US for not speaking Russian these days.
Even when East Germany was a Russian protectorate and adopting Russian ideology at a rate that left most Stalinists baffled, they still spoke German;)
Sanx's $0.02: Where do you draw the line between hardware and software?
You could kinda understand it if the company charging through the nose made generic software that could run on a number of platforms. But your average company ain't going to go buy a router on eBay just to get hold of a certain version of IOS to run on their XBox. Likewise, a Cisco router cannot be run on Linux (though SCO are probably trying to work out if any parts of their valuable IP is in IOS in case you happen to have more than one ASIC!).
The hardware is useless without the software, and vice versa. It should be treated as one product.
This simply strikes of sheer extortion. Nothing more, nothing less, and Cisco et al should be taken to task, legally if needs be, for it.
Slashdot Mirror
But having logs of IM conversations is a really good way of proving the girlfriend I'd told her something... 'Bout the only time I ever win arguments.
But if HP were producing it, you'd be forced to buy jelly at $100 an ounce...
Micro$haft will be seeking $1 billion in restorative damages, $3 gazillion in punitive damages and wish to obtain a judicial order forcing you to use Windows ME and IE4 for the remainder of your natural life.
That'll learn ya.
And remember people, if you like this story, purchase your Washington Post next week for other exclusives: - Toilet habits of bears - Religious beliefs of the Pope - Bill Gates' views on Linux - Enron's financial position - GWB revelation that he's not a liberal peacenik I'd be more surprised to hear that Al Qaeda were not using the internet and cell phones.
- A new entry in the Control panel called Security Options
- Conveniently provided links within this section to Automatic Updates, Internet Security Settings, and the Internet Connection Firewall.
- Default settings enabling the firewall, automatic updates, and applying a security policy to IE so damn restrictive, you get error messages displaying 404 pages (no kidding).
- Pop-up blocker not turned on, so only those who know about it or happen to stumble upon it will find it.
- Erm, that's it.
On a related note, inside sources have indicated that SP3 for Windows XP will contain more innovative features. Chief amongst these will be the Microsoft ActiveTransport Enabling-Agent Device.
Deployment of this device will obviously be considerably cheaper than easier than the open-source alternative - the wheel.
It doesn't stop when they leave Iran either... I know of several Iranian women here in New Zealand who seem to spend vast amounts of time sitting on Persian-language dating and chat sites searching for well-off Iranian men to marry.
McBribe would never go for it. If he lost the law-suit he'd end up without hands...
That was the first and only time that the Brits were evicted from the USA. The second amendment, passed as you say in 1791 was several years after said eviction.
The war of 1812 was not won by either side. Sure, guns were used against the Brits, but singularly ineffectively. As the Brits withdrew of their own accord, guns weren't used to evict them.
And I have a sense of humour, damnit. ;)
Manufactured teeny-pop should be a capital crime.
The Queen 'technically' has the power to dissolve the British parliament, order the beheading of the Prime Minister and rule by royal decree. Whilst some people think this might not be such a bad idea, in practice that kind of power has not been exercised by any British monarch since the time of Queen Anne.
I'd suggest you got YOUR history straight. The guns were used to evict the Brits once. Of course, that was before the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so the right to bear arms does not apply in that circumstance.
The only other real time the Brits were in the USA in a war-like mood was in 1812. I seem to remember that the British incursion into the USA was as a result of American aggression against the British province of Canada. A few battles were fought, which the USA lost convincingly, the British redcoats marched to Washington after laying siege to the Potomac harbour(or whichever river feeds Washington - my US geography is pretty crap), set the White House on fire, then marched out again. I believe the USA did win some kind of naval battle in New Orleans ... though unfortunately it was after a ceasefire had been declared and some kinda deal signed.
Makes you wonder what the Brits could have done if:
My comment was that the previous poster's statement that "Traction control and anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish..." was incorrect. The reference to rally driving was to indicate that, in some circumstances, ABS and traction control do not a safe car make.
I also went on to say "What is true is that for most drivers running down to Walmart for a six-pack, traction control and ABS offers them the greatest level of safety." which is exactly what you were trying to flame me not saying.
Have a nice day.
The stunt driver in question made his name doing the same stunt in TV ads for the Austin Montego car - a car so truly f'ing awful that it deserved to be confined to the great car crusher in the sky upon launch.
How I can put this? Bollocks! Whilst it is true that no driver can modulate brake pressure on four individual wheels 10,000 times a second, it is also true to state that most expert drivers don't need to. They know how hard to brake and can modulate brake pressure well enough to get the best out of their vehicle. Rally drivers could never use traction control and ABS. Why? Because they require their cars to slide and the wheels to spin. It's the fastest way of getting from point A to point B.
What is true is that for most drivers running down to Walmart for a six-pack, traction control and ABS offers them the greatest level of safety.
No, I can't give evidence as Blair et al have never come out and said "we want to disband the BBC". Doing so would be political suicide.
However, the Labour government have made public their wish to carry out a detailed study into the way the BBC is funded, into the BBC's mandate and into the continuing existence of the licence-fee. To many, including me, this is the all the evidence that one needs.
Although Blair is desperate to get rid of the BBC or to change its mandate to make it advertiser-funded (in no small part because it criticises "New Labour") any change made to the way the BBC operates or is funded would spell the end of one of the greatest organisations anywhere in the world.
The BBC can produce the programs they do, and report news in the way it does, because it answers to no-one. Not the UK government, not to sponsors, not to advertisers. It doesn't have to keep anyone happy. Think of this: How in-depth was the reporting of the M$ vs DoJ debacle on MSNBC? How in-depth was the reporting of AOHell's financial woes on CNN?
The BBC recently came under huge criticism for their claim that the UK's official government dossier on Iraq's WMD was "sexed up". In the viewer feedback section they had on this, at least half of the comments posted on the BBC's site were anti-BBC. Some were calling for it to be shutdown and disbanded. Can you imagine CNN doing the same?
I think the decision to open up their content archive to the public for free is truly wonderful. I think it also has business possibilities for the BBC. Would ISPs in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries get business from advertising a high-speed BBC content mirror? I think so. ISP pays the BBC to mirror their content = ISP gets more customers = BBC gets more money.
If the BBC's sale of DVDs and videos remained unchanged or even went up as a result, it would also put a final nail in the coffin of the MPAssA and RIAssA's arguments that: free download = doom, gloom, bankrupt artists = death of civilisation as we know it. The BBC has the might to compete with anyone on the world stage. Their public popularity is, and has been for many year, the envy of every other media company in existence. The RIAssA and MPAssA would not have a leg to stand on should the BBC come out in favour (backed up by figures, of course) of making content freely-available.
Now, where do I get that OC43 connection from?
In Afghanistan they bombed a Canadian division killing 16 or thereabouts, despite having been told about the Canadian's presence in that area. In the Gulf War 1 they killed more UK troops by accident than the Iraqis managed to do deliberately.
Sure, it's a war and accidents do happen, but it seems that it's usually the US military that causes them.
The desktop world is ruled (by numbers, anyway) by Microsoft. Any potential malware s'kiddie can knock together some malware in a few hours, dump it into some unsuspecting newsgroup somewhere or email it to his Outlook-using mates and start an epidemic relatively easily. The sheer number of vulnerable machines makes that easy.
The installed base of Windows boxes also means that, despite MS not opening up their code to anyone (except governments and universities willing to sign away their first-born as insurance against breaking the NDA), large numbers of people spend vast tracts of time throwing McValue Meal-sized URLs at web-servers and mutant packets at RPC interfaces.
Lots of people x Lots of time x Lots of machines = lots of vulnerabilities found...
Now consider *nix. It has a number of advantages straight off the block:
- It's open source. Code that finds its way into the kernel goes through the best peer-review system available; public scrutiny.
- Generally, the people who run *nix are more tech-savvy than an average Joe Blow.
- Any vulnerabilities that are found get acknowledged and fixed very quickly.
But what would happen if *nix had the sort of desktop penetration that Windows does? How quickly would the kind of person that thinks a computer case is called a 'hard drive' apply a *nix security patch? If *nix was that popular, how many more people would devote vast tracts of time to finding obscure security holes and vulnerabilities?Just a thought. Now flame away ;)
Nope, it's the use of 'ls' to see what files you've written. You are hereby required to pay the sum of $100 for each directory listing you make from now on, with a further $50 for every parameter you pass to it. Oh, and just sign over your first-born as recompense for your past illegal use of this development technique...
I'm using Windows XP. It was cheaper to license...
--sanx--
No. Backing-up is like voting. Doesn't matter what you do, the same old shit happens.
You could kinda understand it if the company charging through the nose made generic software that could run on a number of platforms. But your average company ain't going to go buy a router on eBay just to get hold of a certain version of IOS to run on their XBox. Likewise, a Cisco router cannot be run on Linux (though SCO are probably trying to work out if any parts of their valuable IP is in IOS in case you happen to have more than one ASIC!).
The hardware is useless without the software, and vice versa. It should be treated as one product.
This simply strikes of sheer extortion. Nothing more, nothing less, and Cisco et al should be taken to task, legally if needs be, for it.
--sanx--