They're known EXACTLY for not doing what they are told by their leadership. Don't confuse fanaticism with obedience. They're tenacious fighters, but their command structure leaves a lot to be desired, especially as they're disparate groups of fighters. So your example might work, but then that's just one commander, and there are hundreds of those guys out there. It just takes one signal for the bombs to be called in. "Lol" indeed.
Because IIS integrates with the active directory, allowing access to various URLs and resources to be restricted/granted depending on your user account. It's all about things working together, which is what active directory does quite well.
You can also do this on windows, if you have OpenSSH installed:
net stop opensshd net start opensshd
Windows Server, and indeed on the desktop, allows you two ways of doing things - clicky/pointy/pretty way, and CLI. I use the CLI a lot when I'm using Windows - it's fast, and as you say, has other benefits as well.
I hear what you're saying. The problem is if it doesn't do 100% of what you want, why would people use it over something that does do 100%? I've been waiting to try Linux on my desktop again for a year or so, but every time I try, something pops up. It's getting less and less each and every time I try, but there's still something that makes me go "oh." and reach for my Windows CD. Usually it's interoperability between the FOSS software and its proprietary counterparts not being 100%, though sometimes it's because there simply is no alternative software on Linux (Flash).
So you're a proponent of security-through-obscurity? If these things are so important, shouldn't we spend the time and effort in making them invulnerable to the mighty weapon of the human eye? It's kind of like screaming at people wathching a "secret troop deployment" right through town on a sunny saturday afternoon - of course people are going to look. Screaming that they shouldn't look might even make them look more, as you've just told them they shouldn't. I agree we should do everything to help everyone around the world who's on the wrong end of the injustice stick, but this is taking the piss. Or, maybe letting the terrorists/oppressors/french look for satellites would be a good thing, as they won't be able to determine which one is a GPS satellite and which one is an NSA-down-your-throat special, and every time one passes overhead they drop their oppression and go sit in a bunker somewhere.
China's just looking out for China, as the US is just looking out for the US. If you find fault with one, you must find it in the other. It works both ways. I don't want to re-hash old ground, but if you listed the things the US has done to China (like funding Taiwan's military and 'meddling' in Tibet's circumstances), they might have good cause to be a bit edgy.
No, but a bunch of other countries can launch nuclear warheads from their nuclear submarines and twat every major city the US has to offer. So if the US kicked off with any one of those nations, the best they could hope for is a frazzly, cajun-style draw.
So you're saying the Chinese couldn't find enough people to watch computer-harvested images of satellites captured via telescopes? That they'd rather use sketchy data from folks around the world instead?
That's why you use redundancy. Having a delay is better than having no storage in the first place, and if you have the data on multiple machines, the chance of all of them being turned off is drastically reduced. The delay of turning a computer on and having it start up (about 30 seconds) isn't that bad, considering it wouldn't happen that often.
Wake on LAN would take care of that. It could even turn the computers off when they're not needed, if it woke them up in the first place (and no-one started using them in the mean time). Having data striped across multiple machines means that it's less likely all machines with the specific data will be off at the same time, and when they are, Wake on LAN will do the trick.
You can't hear the hard disk in most computers, especially in an office. From my experience, office users don't care if the hard disk starts doing cartwheels - as long as they can use their computer, they're fine. As for having them leave their computer on all the time, well, you can use redundancy to minimise the unavailability of files, and then use Wake on LAN to turn specific computers on should both/all computers with the data you need be off at once. The users don't even have to be told what's going on, and this entire process can be automated.
Why is it bad? You don't have to wade through menu items you never use in order to find the ones you do. It's learning from what you do, and works with you. It's the same as the customisation tools, only it does it for you.
I'm not talking about terrorists, but the coalition forces. Terrorists don't even figure in this, as I thought the coalition held itself to a higher standard than that. My point about the attack on the Bradley involved absolutely no-one else with weapons, just the US army. I'm interested in hearing how you absolve the US army of any blame for targetting, and killing, unarmed civilians (including a journalist live on TV). I know civilians will be killed in war, but as soon as we start to actively target civilians in order to minimise our losses (as we did when we targetted Saddam's supposed hideouts before he was captured, which were in built-up areas, which killed a bunch of families), we get dangerously close to the same tactics as these "terrorists" (insurgents) you speak of - not caring about civilian casualties in order to help ease our own losses. Bowing to pressure at home has caused the US forces in particular to switch to airstrikes from fighting on the ground, which has significantly raised the levels of civilians killed, which demonstrates the US forces' preference for the very civilians they're fighting for to die before their own people. Just like the insurgents, just like Al Qaida. Your point?
Don't try to bring the bible into a discussion about what's in the bible. That doesn't matter. It's only what's in the Koran that matters when discussing the bible. How dare you use logic and cite your sources when showing the abject hypocrisy of some folks! It's disgusting!
There's also power usage and manufacturing differences. Intel chips have historically had better engineering, and it's continuing to this day. Say it's marketing BS if you want, but that's been the case for ages. Intel isn't always the best processor, but for most folks it is.
The Bible promotes killing a heck of a lot, too. It's not being politically correct, but realising most folks know not to kill, and those that do are corrupted in their view of the world. Ascribing it to one religion and not the other is, well, retarded. There have been plenty of Christian terrorists who've killed innocents, but in the current political climate (where vast amounts oil is/was present in mainly-Islamic countries, the problems we see with fighting between the indigenous populations and us are coming from Islamic areas. Correlation != causation, etc.). If the world was homogenous, with every person in every country living the exact same life with the exact same pressures and problems, you'd have a case. As the world clearly isn't like that, your ignorance is showing.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely if an ISP adopted this, they'd have people signing up left right and centre. Wouldn't it be awfully attractive to their target audience?
No, it's "euros", just as "dollar" becomes "dollars" and "pound" becomes "pounds".
"We should have nuked Afghanistan"??
Idiot.
They're known EXACTLY for not doing what they are told by their leadership. Don't confuse fanaticism with obedience. They're tenacious fighters, but their command structure leaves a lot to be desired, especially as they're disparate groups of fighters. So your example might work, but then that's just one commander, and there are hundreds of those guys out there. It just takes one signal for the bombs to be called in. "Lol" indeed.
But it's a lot harder to enforce that personal change in thousands of people than it is to pull 1 plug.
Because IIS integrates with the active directory, allowing access to various URLs and resources to be restricted/granted depending on your user account. It's all about things working together, which is what active directory does quite well.
Windows Server, and indeed on the desktop, allows you two ways of doing things - clicky/pointy/pretty way, and CLI. I use the CLI a lot when I'm using Windows - it's fast, and as you say, has other benefits as well.
Vista works perfectly well with mediocre CPUs and GPUs. No need for any new fancy architecture.
What is the power consumption of this chip, though? That's one of the reasons for bluetooth's widespread adoption in mobile devices.
I hear what you're saying. The problem is if it doesn't do 100% of what you want, why would people use it over something that does do 100%? I've been waiting to try Linux on my desktop again for a year or so, but every time I try, something pops up. It's getting less and less each and every time I try, but there's still something that makes me go "oh." and reach for my Windows CD. Usually it's interoperability between the FOSS software and its proprietary counterparts not being 100%, though sometimes it's because there simply is no alternative software on Linux (Flash).
So you're a proponent of security-through-obscurity? If these things are so important, shouldn't we spend the time and effort in making them invulnerable to the mighty weapon of the human eye? It's kind of like screaming at people wathching a "secret troop deployment" right through town on a sunny saturday afternoon - of course people are going to look. Screaming that they shouldn't look might even make them look more, as you've just told them they shouldn't. I agree we should do everything to help everyone around the world who's on the wrong end of the injustice stick, but this is taking the piss. Or, maybe letting the terrorists/oppressors/french look for satellites would be a good thing, as they won't be able to determine which one is a GPS satellite and which one is an NSA-down-your-throat special, and every time one passes overhead they drop their oppression and go sit in a bunker somewhere.
China's just looking out for China, as the US is just looking out for the US. If you find fault with one, you must find it in the other. It works both ways. I don't want to re-hash old ground, but if you listed the things the US has done to China (like funding Taiwan's military and 'meddling' in Tibet's circumstances), they might have good cause to be a bit edgy.
No, but a bunch of other countries can launch nuclear warheads from their nuclear submarines and twat every major city the US has to offer. So if the US kicked off with any one of those nations, the best they could hope for is a frazzly, cajun-style draw.
So you're saying the Chinese couldn't find enough people to watch computer-harvested images of satellites captured via telescopes? That they'd rather use sketchy data from folks around the world instead?
That's why you use redundancy. Having a delay is better than having no storage in the first place, and if you have the data on multiple machines, the chance of all of them being turned off is drastically reduced. The delay of turning a computer on and having it start up (about 30 seconds) isn't that bad, considering it wouldn't happen that often.
Wake on LAN would take care of that. It could even turn the computers off when they're not needed, if it woke them up in the first place (and no-one started using them in the mean time). Having data striped across multiple machines means that it's less likely all machines with the specific data will be off at the same time, and when they are, Wake on LAN will do the trick.
You can't hear the hard disk in most computers, especially in an office. From my experience, office users don't care if the hard disk starts doing cartwheels - as long as they can use their computer, they're fine. As for having them leave their computer on all the time, well, you can use redundancy to minimise the unavailability of files, and then use Wake on LAN to turn specific computers on should both/all computers with the data you need be off at once. The users don't even have to be told what's going on, and this entire process can be automated.
I thought "cat" came from the Latin "cattus"...
Why is it bad? You don't have to wade through menu items you never use in order to find the ones you do. It's learning from what you do, and works with you. It's the same as the customisation tools, only it does it for you.
I'm not talking about terrorists, but the coalition forces. Terrorists don't even figure in this, as I thought the coalition held itself to a higher standard than that. My point about the attack on the Bradley involved absolutely no-one else with weapons, just the US army. I'm interested in hearing how you absolve the US army of any blame for targetting, and killing, unarmed civilians (including a journalist live on TV). I know civilians will be killed in war, but as soon as we start to actively target civilians in order to minimise our losses (as we did when we targetted Saddam's supposed hideouts before he was captured, which were in built-up areas, which killed a bunch of families), we get dangerously close to the same tactics as these "terrorists" (insurgents) you speak of - not caring about civilian casualties in order to help ease our own losses. Bowing to pressure at home has caused the US forces in particular to switch to airstrikes from fighting on the ground, which has significantly raised the levels of civilians killed, which demonstrates the US forces' preference for the very civilians they're fighting for to die before their own people. Just like the insurgents, just like Al Qaida. Your point?
Don't try to bring the bible into a discussion about what's in the bible. That doesn't matter. It's only what's in the Koran that matters when discussing the bible. How dare you use logic and cite your sources when showing the abject hypocrisy of some folks! It's disgusting!
So all that stuff in the old testament about how we should kill bad folks/unruly kids/etc. is a typo?
There's also power usage and manufacturing differences. Intel chips have historically had better engineering, and it's continuing to this day. Say it's marketing BS if you want, but that's been the case for ages. Intel isn't always the best processor, but for most folks it is.
The Bible promotes killing a heck of a lot, too. It's not being politically correct, but realising most folks know not to kill, and those that do are corrupted in their view of the world. Ascribing it to one religion and not the other is, well, retarded. There have been plenty of Christian terrorists who've killed innocents, but in the current political climate (where vast amounts oil is/was present in mainly-Islamic countries, the problems we see with fighting between the indigenous populations and us are coming from Islamic areas. Correlation != causation, etc.). If the world was homogenous, with every person in every country living the exact same life with the exact same pressures and problems, you'd have a case. As the world clearly isn't like that, your ignorance is showing.