I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution. If their leadership is clearly not taking care of them the North Korean people should get pissed off.
Although the approach makes logical sense it seems as though revolution isn't really possible these days especially in a place like NK. Sanctions end up only harming the people you are ultimately trying to push to help themselves. Of course sanctions also prevent countries from importing goods needed to create nuclear reactors and such but when they are poorly implemented which is the case with NK you have a complete failure scenario. So then what is the proper course of action? Go in and assassinate the generals and KJ himself? And then watch the power vacuum consume a nation for 30 years?
I'm not sure of the right solution, everything we've tried has failed. We tried fighting them a long time ago and that war never ended.
If the problem is glandular then this approach will not result in a healthy form of weight loss. Yes, technically ingesting fewer calories should result in weightloss but how many on which days is necessary to accomplish the day? It's Monday, I can probably have 3,000 calories today and burn it all, tomorrow I may be doing the exact same activities and only burn 2,000. It all depends on my individual body chemistry and it varies from day to day, hour to hour.
Also, starving yourself to lose weight is known to cause other problems like an inability to cope with stress, over production of adrenalin to keep you going and several other side effects of that weight loss can occur. Who cares if someone lost 100lbs if their heart is about to give out from the stress of losing the weight?
More exercise is generally just a good idea for everyone so we can at least agree on that. Although, if you're starving and exercising like a lot of anorexics then you may only be damaging your muscle tissue because your body isn't getting what it needs which is food.
I agree with you completely. I was specifically arguing that the weight problem is a complicated issue unlike the HIV/AIDS problem. There is no one solution and there are a lot of variables to consider which is why obesity is such a problem.
I shouldn't say the HIV/AIDS problem is simple either but it is a fair sight simpler than the original topic.
I argued that because there was so much conflicting information from the sources you specify that obesity is such a problem. It has a lot of causes so it needs to be seen as something that isn't a disease, but a symptoms of other diseases/conditions. Some people lack the self control and take in regularly more than their body can use. Some people lack the hormone receptors to acknowledge that they are full. There are hundreds of causes that lead to obesity.
For the record, I take in twice as many calories but you're right, I eat better food, I exercise more, I don't drink as much, I try to sleep more regularly although that's proven quite difficult as my body doesn't seem to want to work that way. I get in a routine and then my body jolts me out of it with insomnia for a month. Fun stuff and they all play a part.
Who was suggesting it wasn't his/her responsibility to do something about it? You're use of math to sound smart only accomplishes the opposite as you make a highly flawed assumption that the same math applies to everyone the same when it simply does not.
When I lift a 30lbs weight I do not burn the same number of calories as when you lift the same weight. I can pretty well guarantee it because I can pretty well assume we eat different diets at different times.
As for your first assumption you ignored my case which is a common one as well. I eat more, I eat 5 meals a day now and I'm losing a lot of weight. They are smaller meals spread throughout the day to keep my metabolism high.
Happy you were able to diet successfully. I am not on a restricted, I am just reasonable with my food and creating a habit that is more healthy than only eating lunch like I used to. I can even still drink a soda during the day if I like.
Thank you for completely ignoring my case where I actually eat more than I did before which jump started my metabolism so my body burns more calories. You're statement of physics leaves out a lot of variables much like Newtonian physics. Yes, for general rules of thumb it works for a lot of situations. Try to send someone to the moon with that rule of thumb.
You're statement is simply inaccurate at best. I consume twice as many calories as I did when I was overweight but I'm losing weight. This is common as well. My chiropractor was the first to suggest this approach so naturally I was skeptical since I'm skeptical of chiropractic care.
So I'm sorry to say you are either incredibly shortsighted or don't understand metabolism. My sister had an enlarged thyroid which is a common problem among the women in my family. It's a hereditary condition. It causes her metabolism to halt to a relative standstill so she gained a lot of weight and couldn't had a diminished capacity to produce adrenalin. She recently got out of surgery for her condition and she's improving a lot eating the same amount of food.
Please try to realize this problem is no where near as simple as you think it is. Desk jobs are big cause of a low metabolism since people sit at their desk and snack commonly. I guess we all should work in construction or should move furniture in our off times so we get the exercise we need. It is a cop-out as everyone can make time for exercise but it is natural when you have a desk job to feel tired after sitting on your ass all day.
You don't understand why AIDS gets more attention than obesity? Tell, how many causes are there of AIDS? Okay; how many hundreds of causes lead to obesity?
Many people seem to think people only get fat because they eat too much when it relates more to their individual metabolism which is different in everyone so methods that work for some can actually make problems worse for others. The obesity problem is much more complicated than you lead on.
HIV/AIDS can be fought with simple education, obesity, not so much. Body chemistry is a complicated field of study of which we are only beginning to realize how the human body works. Attacking something peripheral like AIDS is easy compared to something tightly integrated with all vital organs like obesity. The thyroid gland being enlarged or otherwise malfunctioning whether through subluxation or through some chemical cause can lead to obesity with normal caloric intake. If the body metabolizes everything into fat then you will get obese. Then of course the muscle you build will be the first to go when you reduce your caloric intake to lose weight.
Of course since I brought up the spine we'll take it with a grain of salt and realize that it's still an evolving science which is why there isn't much progress.
This of course is in addition to fast food and other foods high in fat. Ordinarily red meat is one of the most nutritious foods you can eat but then yes, overconsumption will lead to obesity but that problem can be easily solved through education and a varied diet.
Another problem is largely cultural with the mixing of starches and meets, the ole meat and potatoes mentality which is actually quite bad for us.
In short, obesity is a very complex problem with new singular solution unlike HIV/AIDS. So I say, yes, help the people with HIV since there are things we can do about that and yes, educate people so they make better decisions about what they eat but that will not stop the problem alone.
One more thing I'll add since I was an overweight child. I became overweight because I was underweight to my doctor at the time told my parents to feed more food to help me gain weight. Unfortunately this didn't stop so I spent the high school years and college years working through the problem. I'm mostly successful but there is so much conflicting information out there because of varying causes for obesity that I'm not sure how much I blame people for getting fat.
BTW, my solution was to eat more food more often to increase my metabolism which is the opposite of conventional wisdom towards weight loss.
Corn syrup is only cheaper because we aren't growing as much sugar cane as we could or should. The corn lobbyists are the ones that made corn a principle crop and you can blame them for high fructose corn syrup being in practically everything as they artificially keep the price of sugar cane high. Everywhere else in the world sugar cane is cheaper than corn, hell, Brazil bases a large portion of their energy policy on it.
Me too, but I don't call high fructose corn syrup natural either. No one was debating the merits of which is better or worse just the dishonesty of marketing.
It's a shame considering things like agave nectar make great sweeteners and so does real sugar for that matter. The corn lobbyists really screwed over the health of an entire country which just hit 300 million so cheers to them!
I think everyone would be better off without corn syrup in their daily lives.
Yeah, those were funny but the thought of 7UP going up mine doesn't sound very pleasant to me. I could be wrong though; I'll admit I've never felt a fizzing sensation "down there" so it might be quite enjoyable. The sticky aftermath might be nice too.
Cheers on the mixed drink, have you ever considered vodka and root beer? An odd combination but I tell ya it works!
Then you have the likes of 7UP another coke product I believe saying it's all natural and yet it still contains corn-syrup which is highly processed. It's amazing the outright lies they get away with.
With that said, it sounds like they are advertising that their product is hard to digest and portraying it in a good light like it's not a bad thing. It reminds of an episode of the Simpsons when Homer starts drug testing to pick up extra cash. They spray him with perfume that burns and marketing comes up with a way to sell it. Another example was with the diet pill which makes you blind. The writers of the Simpsons saw this coming so it shouldn't be a surprise!
That is a fine point of view. Keep in mind if you are suspected because of a phone call you made that they know nothing about you can be held for 5 years or more without charges or any evidence. To make it legal all they need to do is strip you of U.S. citizenship. This single act is not that scary but when combined with other laws now signed by the president you end up with some seriously scary scenarios.
Beyond that, why do connection logs needs to be stored for more than 30 days? Most ISPs make that their policy for a few legal reasons and have storage to accomodate it. Expanding it to 10 years without giving them any money for the storage is just ridiculous. Let's assume they are given the money for the equipment, now they need space in their server rooms and additional SAN management. The cost of being ISP skyrockets.
Let's also keep in mind that there was sufficient evidence 9/11 was going to happen before all these changes and the information wasn't acted upon. So why do we need more information? Won't that make it take even long to act upon information you have?
As another poster put it. It's a broken solution to a non-existent problem.
Slipstreaming being illegal is utterly absurd, there is nothing in the EULA that says you can't copy the install media since the install media isn't copyrighted. The software on the install media is copyrighted. This is why I have remote installation services with all my software to push new machines on the network faster. Microsoft even provides instructions for this and says no where that it is not legal so regardless of copyright MS has relinquished the right to stop the copying of the cd. This also ignores the fact that there is no copy protection on the Windows install media. Furthermore, I don't buy Windows CDs I buy Windows licenses that don't come with media and I don't sell modified installation discs so the whole thing is moot.
More fud debunked The system, requirements aren't any different. The 1.5gig space requirement only applies if system restore is enabled which would be the same thing for SP1.
As for the web spider bullshit the few people that do it have the option of modifying their systems. It is not typical usage of Windows so faulting Microsoft for locking down their OS is just utterly stupid. Security is traditionally the art of breaking services. The OS is far less exposed to worms and other malicious software and as a result you have to do some more work. I'd agree with you that if XP Home SP1 had IIS and SP2 deleted it then you would have a valid claim to be pissed. That is not the case and you have failed to state how SP2 removes functionality. In reality it is quite the opposite.
This is an interesting set of bullshit. I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media and it takes up no noticeable amount of space difference. Talking maybe 100megs and that's stretching. Considering it has a lot of low level security fixes and considering we haven't had a worm bust through since SP2s release I think it more of a help than any hinderence.
As for 30 half-open TCP connections, what is the problem with that? P2P services don't rely solely on half-open connections and perform quite well under SP2 so what's the effective limit? You can't run a server on a desktop OS? Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps why HP home doesn't come with IIS. Are you going to fault MS with that decision as well? You don't list how any of this is a showstopper since I already debunked the hard drive myth. Besides that it's incredibly difficult to find a machine which doesn't have enough free space for SP2 since 40gig drives were already well into the norm when XP was released.
How bout you try again and mention a networking application which isn't feasible which is an end-user application and not a server. There is a reason most people don't complain about that and those that do are often trying to make XP into something it's not in which case I have no sympathy.
Good luck with that as EMC owns VMWare and they are no small company. Point well taken though as more and more servers are being virtualized for good reason beyond what you just mentioned. Would just be one additional bonus.
As a side note, VMware server is now free as well. Definitely surprising from EMC.
Considering the billions in government subsidies given to Shell and to a lesser extent BP I'm not sure you're right on this. There has been heavy investment in alternatives for almost 20 years and they've yet to be behind any release of new technology. Instead you find smaller shops creating the technology using private funding.
It's the same way with the telcos. All the government money and they won't do a thing until the little guy comes out with a fancy new technology which forces them to act which usually requires even more subsidies.
I'll agree that the oil companies aren't as insidious as a lot of people would lead us to believe but they certainly aren't doing as much as they could.
Arizona is the same way, along with Vermont. In AZ you can also donate money to help others pay for their electric bill. Poor families can qualify for electricity grants which SRP manages. I've never been on the receiving end of it but I think it's nice that the option exists.
I had the same experience, it was my first install and it took 72 hours because I screwed up half way through twice causing me to have to start all over again.
Then I discovered the quick install handbook and never looked back. It get's your base install so then you can lookup any other issues you have in forums. The thing is, everything worked after some tweaking, but it worked really fast and really reliabily. That was what made me like Gentoo. Installs don't happen very often so that part doesn't really bother me.
You would have a valid point if the DMCA didn't prevent the circumvention of copy protection. Why does my fair use not include DRM'd music to MP3? I'm now restricted as to which formats and methods I can use? That doesn't sound like fair use to me at all.
My father has thousands of MP3s converted from his cds of which he also has thousands. He has no use for Kazaa and honestly now that I have XM I don't really either. The point is irrelevent however as trading DRM media is also possible and indeed routinely done especially on kazaa. That is a completely different discussion; the sharing of music with potentially thousands of people rather than the fair use doctrine of being able to share with your friends.
The McDonalds reference doesn't even remotely apply as no one is saying music is required to be free. This would be a bit like having to pay to get into a restaurant before you even know what is available on the menu. The food might be good or it might be awful but you have to pay for entrance and once you've done that there are no guarantees. This doesn't sound like the idea for a successful dining experience unless you can pretty consistently deliver some really good food. Of course that is up for interpretation as it is a matter of taste. Even this analogy is awful and I'll admit it right away. Intellectual property cannot be so easily compared physical property. When I copy a song from my cd to my mp3 player I am not stealing anything. Unless you have a twisted definition of stealing then I don't see this being anything that should be restricted.
It's times like these I'm glad my music tastes don't include RIAA affiliated bands so when I get their CD I can do whatever I want with it and the artist will actually be happy I'm enjoying it even if I'm not paying for the same song in WMA, MP3, Ogg, AAC, or all the other formats available.
One thing is for certain, the bands I worked with back in Vermont all cared more about getting their music heard than making money. Of course that's probably why they signed with a non-profit record label.
I think 20% of the consumers are already doing this and it only leads to them blaming piracy for all of it.
I will agree that losing Britney Spears isn't a bad thing but what about the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Aerosmith, hell, even Guns N Roses? There is a lot of music already out there and a lot of people like them. You're going to get people to give up this music for alternatives which might be better and often are a lot worse.
Of course that ignores the fact that most people don't even understand what DRM does and why it's wrong. So I guess the simple solution would be to just educate everyone about DRM and the problem will solve itself naturally.
I apologize if you were being sarcastic. Comments such as yours are so wrong that I have to believe you are being sarcastic. Have you ever actually met a real artist? My sister is one of them. I buy her lots of supplies and canvases because she is a truly talented painter. She produces incredible stuff and has no desire to sell any of it. We have an artwalk here in Scottsdale every thursday night where artists show off their work. Some make a little money to recover their costs but very very very few of them are doing it make a lot of money.
I have friend who is an actor. He makes pretty decent money at it but he also does plays for free because he enjoys it. Considering all the free theaters in this city which is not even known for it's theater I wonder how much you see this in NYC? There are those that make money at it but don't fool yourself into thinking they are the majority. Look at all the people in high school who started bands in addition to their day jobs. I know lots and lots.
Maybe I'm the one who's way off. That's entirely possible. So far I've worked with a record label called BigHeavyWorld which is a non-profit record label and it is not the only of its kind. The money they make recoups their costs and the rest if any goes to charity. They also offer their music online for free albeit a limited selection designed to encourage people to buy their CDs. It works and no DRM is required.
Okay, I overexaggerated. It is possible. Getting 300 million people to agree that murder is wrong without cause is easy as well. I don't think this is on the level required to achieve that unanimity required to accomplish the goal the parent made out as so simple. Utopia sounds great and that is something 300 million people can agree on too. Of course the definition of Utopia for those 300 million will be different.
Personally I don't see the ipod as a fad that is going away anytime soon if ever. I'm with you in that I'll stick with MP3s though.
I didn't accept anything. I am not informed of what I am getting into before I get into it. Thus the agreement is not legally binding.
The simple solution sounds great but as I said, it is not realistic, I can say for certain it will not happen. That is why you should consider a different solution. The simple solution to all computing problems is for every one to use Linux. It's not going to happen though. There will always be alternatives and some will pick some and some will pick another. It is a complex problem which does not have a simple solution. It would be easy to just kill all people convicted of violent crimes for instance. It's not practical though because the system isn't perfect. There are those convicted but are innocent.
Slashdot Mirror
We tried the military option before and failed.
Next
I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution. If their leadership is clearly not taking care of them the North Korean people should get pissed off.
Although the approach makes logical sense it seems as though revolution isn't really possible these days especially in a place like NK. Sanctions end up only harming the people you are ultimately trying to push to help themselves. Of course sanctions also prevent countries from importing goods needed to create nuclear reactors and such but when they are poorly implemented which is the case with NK you have a complete failure scenario. So then what is the proper course of action? Go in and assassinate the generals and KJ himself? And then watch the power vacuum consume a nation for 30 years?
I'm not sure of the right solution, everything we've tried has failed. We tried fighting them a long time ago and that war never ended.
If the problem is glandular then this approach will not result in a healthy form of weight loss. Yes, technically ingesting fewer calories should result in weightloss but how many on which days is necessary to accomplish the day? It's Monday, I can probably have 3,000 calories today and burn it all, tomorrow I may be doing the exact same activities and only burn 2,000. It all depends on my individual body chemistry and it varies from day to day, hour to hour.
Also, starving yourself to lose weight is known to cause other problems like an inability to cope with stress, over production of adrenalin to keep you going and several other side effects of that weight loss can occur. Who cares if someone lost 100lbs if their heart is about to give out from the stress of losing the weight?
More exercise is generally just a good idea for everyone so we can at least agree on that. Although, if you're starving and exercising like a lot of anorexics then you may only be damaging your muscle tissue because your body isn't getting what it needs which is food.
I agree with you completely. I was specifically arguing that the weight problem is a complicated issue unlike the HIV/AIDS problem. There is no one solution and there are a lot of variables to consider which is why obesity is such a problem.
I shouldn't say the HIV/AIDS problem is simple either but it is a fair sight simpler than the original topic.
I argued that because there was so much conflicting information from the sources you specify that obesity is such a problem. It has a lot of causes so it needs to be seen as something that isn't a disease, but a symptoms of other diseases/conditions. Some people lack the self control and take in regularly more than their body can use. Some people lack the hormone receptors to acknowledge that they are full. There are hundreds of causes that lead to obesity.
For the record, I take in twice as many calories but you're right, I eat better food, I exercise more, I don't drink as much, I try to sleep more regularly although that's proven quite difficult as my body doesn't seem to want to work that way. I get in a routine and then my body jolts me out of it with insomnia for a month. Fun stuff and they all play a part.
Who was suggesting it wasn't his/her responsibility to do something about it? You're use of math to sound smart only accomplishes the opposite as you make a highly flawed assumption that the same math applies to everyone the same when it simply does not.
When I lift a 30lbs weight I do not burn the same number of calories as when you lift the same weight. I can pretty well guarantee it because I can pretty well assume we eat different diets at different times.
As for your first assumption you ignored my case which is a common one as well. I eat more, I eat 5 meals a day now and I'm losing a lot of weight. They are smaller meals spread throughout the day to keep my metabolism high.Happy you were able to diet successfully. I am not on a restricted, I am just reasonable with my food and creating a habit that is more healthy than only eating lunch like I used to. I can even still drink a soda during the day if I like.
Thank you for completely ignoring my case where I actually eat more than I did before which jump started my metabolism so my body burns more calories. You're statement of physics leaves out a lot of variables much like Newtonian physics. Yes, for general rules of thumb it works for a lot of situations. Try to send someone to the moon with that rule of thumb.
You're statement is simply inaccurate at best. I consume twice as many calories as I did when I was overweight but I'm losing weight. This is common as well. My chiropractor was the first to suggest this approach so naturally I was skeptical since I'm skeptical of chiropractic care.
So I'm sorry to say you are either incredibly shortsighted or don't understand metabolism. My sister had an enlarged thyroid which is a common problem among the women in my family. It's a hereditary condition. It causes her metabolism to halt to a relative standstill so she gained a lot of weight and couldn't had a diminished capacity to produce adrenalin. She recently got out of surgery for her condition and she's improving a lot eating the same amount of food.
Please try to realize this problem is no where near as simple as you think it is. Desk jobs are big cause of a low metabolism since people sit at their desk and snack commonly. I guess we all should work in construction or should move furniture in our off times so we get the exercise we need. It is a cop-out as everyone can make time for exercise but it is natural when you have a desk job to feel tired after sitting on your ass all day.
You don't understand why AIDS gets more attention than obesity? Tell, how many causes are there of AIDS? Okay; how many hundreds of causes lead to obesity?
Many people seem to think people only get fat because they eat too much when it relates more to their individual metabolism which is different in everyone so methods that work for some can actually make problems worse for others. The obesity problem is much more complicated than you lead on.
HIV/AIDS can be fought with simple education, obesity, not so much. Body chemistry is a complicated field of study of which we are only beginning to realize how the human body works. Attacking something peripheral like AIDS is easy compared to something tightly integrated with all vital organs like obesity. The thyroid gland being enlarged or otherwise malfunctioning whether through subluxation or through some chemical cause can lead to obesity with normal caloric intake. If the body metabolizes everything into fat then you will get obese. Then of course the muscle you build will be the first to go when you reduce your caloric intake to lose weight.
Of course since I brought up the spine we'll take it with a grain of salt and realize that it's still an evolving science which is why there isn't much progress.
This of course is in addition to fast food and other foods high in fat. Ordinarily red meat is one of the most nutritious foods you can eat but then yes, overconsumption will lead to obesity but that problem can be easily solved through education and a varied diet.
Another problem is largely cultural with the mixing of starches and meets, the ole meat and potatoes mentality which is actually quite bad for us.
In short, obesity is a very complex problem with new singular solution unlike HIV/AIDS. So I say, yes, help the people with HIV since there are things we can do about that and yes, educate people so they make better decisions about what they eat but that will not stop the problem alone.
One more thing I'll add since I was an overweight child. I became overweight because I was underweight to my doctor at the time told my parents to feed more food to help me gain weight. Unfortunately this didn't stop so I spent the high school years and college years working through the problem. I'm mostly successful but there is so much conflicting information out there because of varying causes for obesity that I'm not sure how much I blame people for getting fat.
BTW, my solution was to eat more food more often to increase my metabolism which is the opposite of conventional wisdom towards weight loss.
Corn syrup is only cheaper because we aren't growing as much sugar cane as we could or should. The corn lobbyists are the ones that made corn a principle crop and you can blame them for high fructose corn syrup being in practically everything as they artificially keep the price of sugar cane high. Everywhere else in the world sugar cane is cheaper than corn, hell, Brazil bases a large portion of their energy policy on it.
Me too, but I don't call high fructose corn syrup natural either. No one was debating the merits of which is better or worse just the dishonesty of marketing.
It's a shame considering things like agave nectar make great sweeteners and so does real sugar for that matter. The corn lobbyists really screwed over the health of an entire country which just hit 300 million so cheers to them!
I think everyone would be better off without corn syrup in their daily lives.
Yeah, those were funny but the thought of 7UP going up mine doesn't sound very pleasant to me. I could be wrong though; I'll admit I've never felt a fizzing sensation "down there" so it might be quite enjoyable. The sticky aftermath might be nice too.
Cheers on the mixed drink, have you ever considered vodka and root beer? An odd combination but I tell ya it works!
Then you have the likes of 7UP another coke product I believe saying it's all natural and yet it still contains corn-syrup which is highly processed. It's amazing the outright lies they get away with.
With that said, it sounds like they are advertising that their product is hard to digest and portraying it in a good light like it's not a bad thing. It reminds of an episode of the Simpsons when Homer starts drug testing to pick up extra cash. They spray him with perfume that burns and marketing comes up with a way to sell it. Another example was with the diet pill which makes you blind. The writers of the Simpsons saw this coming so it shouldn't be a surprise!
That is a fine point of view. Keep in mind if you are suspected because of a phone call you made that they know nothing about you can be held for 5 years or more without charges or any evidence. To make it legal all they need to do is strip you of U.S. citizenship. This single act is not that scary but when combined with other laws now signed by the president you end up with some seriously scary scenarios.
Beyond that, why do connection logs needs to be stored for more than 30 days? Most ISPs make that their policy for a few legal reasons and have storage to accomodate it. Expanding it to 10 years without giving them any money for the storage is just ridiculous. Let's assume they are given the money for the equipment, now they need space in their server rooms and additional SAN management. The cost of being ISP skyrockets.
Let's also keep in mind that there was sufficient evidence 9/11 was going to happen before all these changes and the information wasn't acted upon. So why do we need more information? Won't that make it take even long to act upon information you have?
As another poster put it. It's a broken solution to a non-existent problem.
First off, Original XP Requirements Guess what? They aren't any different.
Slipstreaming being illegal is utterly absurd, there is nothing in the EULA that says you can't copy the install media since the install media isn't copyrighted. The software on the install media is copyrighted. This is why I have remote installation services with all my software to push new machines on the network faster. Microsoft even provides instructions for this and says no where that it is not legal so regardless of copyright MS has relinquished the right to stop the copying of the cd. This also ignores the fact that there is no copy protection on the Windows install media. Furthermore, I don't buy Windows CDs I buy Windows licenses that don't come with media and I don't sell modified installation discs so the whole thing is moot.
More fud debunked The system, requirements aren't any different. The 1.5gig space requirement only applies if system restore is enabled which would be the same thing for SP1.
As for the web spider bullshit the few people that do it have the option of modifying their systems. It is not typical usage of Windows so faulting Microsoft for locking down their OS is just utterly stupid. Security is traditionally the art of breaking services. The OS is far less exposed to worms and other malicious software and as a result you have to do some more work. I'd agree with you that if XP Home SP1 had IIS and SP2 deleted it then you would have a valid claim to be pissed. That is not the case and you have failed to state how SP2 removes functionality. In reality it is quite the opposite.
This is an interesting set of bullshit. I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media and it takes up no noticeable amount of space difference. Talking maybe 100megs and that's stretching. Considering it has a lot of low level security fixes and considering we haven't had a worm bust through since SP2s release I think it more of a help than any hinderence.
As for 30 half-open TCP connections, what is the problem with that? P2P services don't rely solely on half-open connections and perform quite well under SP2 so what's the effective limit? You can't run a server on a desktop OS? Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps why HP home doesn't come with IIS. Are you going to fault MS with that decision as well? You don't list how any of this is a showstopper since I already debunked the hard drive myth. Besides that it's incredibly difficult to find a machine which doesn't have enough free space for SP2 since 40gig drives were already well into the norm when XP was released.
How bout you try again and mention a networking application which isn't feasible which is an end-user application and not a server. There is a reason most people don't complain about that and those that do are often trying to make XP into something it's not in which case I have no sympathy.
Good luck with that as EMC owns VMWare and they are no small company. Point well taken though as more and more servers are being virtualized for good reason beyond what you just mentioned. Would just be one additional bonus.
As a side note, VMware server is now free as well. Definitely surprising from EMC.
Considering the billions in government subsidies given to Shell and to a lesser extent BP I'm not sure you're right on this. There has been heavy investment in alternatives for almost 20 years and they've yet to be behind any release of new technology. Instead you find smaller shops creating the technology using private funding.
It's the same way with the telcos. All the government money and they won't do a thing until the little guy comes out with a fancy new technology which forces them to act which usually requires even more subsidies.
I'll agree that the oil companies aren't as insidious as a lot of people would lead us to believe but they certainly aren't doing as much as they could.
Arizona is the same way, along with Vermont. In AZ you can also donate money to help others pay for their electric bill. Poor families can qualify for electricity grants which SRP manages. I've never been on the receiving end of it but I think it's nice that the option exists.
I had the same experience, it was my first install and it took 72 hours because I screwed up half way through twice causing me to have to start all over again.
Then I discovered the quick install handbook and never looked back. It get's your base install so then you can lookup any other issues you have in forums. The thing is, everything worked after some tweaking, but it worked really fast and really reliabily. That was what made me like Gentoo. Installs don't happen very often so that part doesn't really bother me.
You would have a valid point if the DMCA didn't prevent the circumvention of copy protection. Why does my fair use not include DRM'd music to MP3? I'm now restricted as to which formats and methods I can use? That doesn't sound like fair use to me at all.
My father has thousands of MP3s converted from his cds of which he also has thousands. He has no use for Kazaa and honestly now that I have XM I don't really either. The point is irrelevent however as trading DRM media is also possible and indeed routinely done especially on kazaa. That is a completely different discussion; the sharing of music with potentially thousands of people rather than the fair use doctrine of being able to share with your friends.
The McDonalds reference doesn't even remotely apply as no one is saying music is required to be free. This would be a bit like having to pay to get into a restaurant before you even know what is available on the menu. The food might be good or it might be awful but you have to pay for entrance and once you've done that there are no guarantees. This doesn't sound like the idea for a successful dining experience unless you can pretty consistently deliver some really good food. Of course that is up for interpretation as it is a matter of taste. Even this analogy is awful and I'll admit it right away. Intellectual property cannot be so easily compared physical property. When I copy a song from my cd to my mp3 player I am not stealing anything. Unless you have a twisted definition of stealing then I don't see this being anything that should be restricted.
It's times like these I'm glad my music tastes don't include RIAA affiliated bands so when I get their CD I can do whatever I want with it and the artist will actually be happy I'm enjoying it even if I'm not paying for the same song in WMA, MP3, Ogg, AAC, or all the other formats available.
One thing is for certain, the bands I worked with back in Vermont all cared more about getting their music heard than making money. Of course that's probably why they signed with a non-profit record label.
We'll call this fair enough as we have arrived at something we can agree on.
I think 20% of the consumers are already doing this and it only leads to them blaming piracy for all of it.
I will agree that losing Britney Spears isn't a bad thing but what about the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Aerosmith, hell, even Guns N Roses? There is a lot of music already out there and a lot of people like them. You're going to get people to give up this music for alternatives which might be better and often are a lot worse.
Of course that ignores the fact that most people don't even understand what DRM does and why it's wrong. So I guess the simple solution would be to just educate everyone about DRM and the problem will solve itself naturally.
I apologize if you were being sarcastic. Comments such as yours are so wrong that I have to believe you are being sarcastic. Have you ever actually met a real artist? My sister is one of them. I buy her lots of supplies and canvases because she is a truly talented painter. She produces incredible stuff and has no desire to sell any of it. We have an artwalk here in Scottsdale every thursday night where artists show off their work. Some make a little money to recover their costs but very very very few of them are doing it make a lot of money.
I have friend who is an actor. He makes pretty decent money at it but he also does plays for free because he enjoys it. Considering all the free theaters in this city which is not even known for it's theater I wonder how much you see this in NYC? There are those that make money at it but don't fool yourself into thinking they are the majority. Look at all the people in high school who started bands in addition to their day jobs. I know lots and lots.
Maybe I'm the one who's way off. That's entirely possible. So far I've worked with a record label called BigHeavyWorld which is a non-profit record label and it is not the only of its kind. The money they make recoups their costs and the rest if any goes to charity. They also offer their music online for free albeit a limited selection designed to encourage people to buy their CDs. It works and no DRM is required.
Okay, I overexaggerated. It is possible. Getting 300 million people to agree that murder is wrong without cause is easy as well. I don't think this is on the level required to achieve that unanimity required to accomplish the goal the parent made out as so simple. Utopia sounds great and that is something 300 million people can agree on too. Of course the definition of Utopia for those 300 million will be different.
Personally I don't see the ipod as a fad that is going away anytime soon if ever. I'm with you in that I'll stick with MP3s though.
I didn't accept anything. I am not informed of what I am getting into before I get into it. Thus the agreement is not legally binding.
The simple solution sounds great but as I said, it is not realistic, I can say for certain it will not happen. That is why you should consider a different solution. The simple solution to all computing problems is for every one to use Linux. It's not going to happen though. There will always be alternatives and some will pick some and some will pick another. It is a complex problem which does not have a simple solution. It would be easy to just kill all people convicted of violent crimes for instance. It's not practical though because the system isn't perfect. There are those convicted but are innocent.