Your broad brush that says it's cool to hate Christianity right now is incorrect. Some people that label themselves Christian give the concept a bad name.
In the US, the separation of church and state should be strong; the concept's been in the US Constitution as a principle from the Articles of Confederation. Once again, a legislature tries to impose dogmatic/orthodox beliefs on others. It's been happening as long as the constitution has been around, and it will be struck down like the rest of the attempts.
Louisiana now joins Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, and other jurisdictions where the votes have been for legislated morality.
And so fie on your sense of hatred of Christians-- it's a small orthodox lunatic minority that gives Christianity a bad name. Fight them.
Serious only if you're using BIND and a non-SOA DNS server. See http://secure64.com/products.shtml for good reasons to ditch BIND if you have some spare $$.
Remember: no cache, no fooling around with cache for giggles.
Such abusive and controlling components warrant a resignation. In the US, we have liberty and rights. The obsessively paranoid need to be constrained and contained through the use of peer pressure to resign, so that they can subsequently crawl into the hole from whence they came. It's mind-boggling!
We would agree; in this case, a vulnerable woman was 'driven' to it. MySpace was the communications method used. Would the medium have been a phone line, or a postal-mail message, the theory would be the same, and the communications medium different. The fraud was a masked user ID. Was it murder? No. Suicide is voluntary. Other theories would seem to apply, however. Felony prosecution for purposefully masked identity seems to be over the top.
The telcos are running scared. They may no longer be able to bribe (oops, sorry, I meant lobby and give campaign contributions) to Congress and the White House, so it's time to grab all available opportunity to extend and destroy-- I mean deploy.
The thought of public utility as a concept is just about over in many areas, and communications is a de facto utlity concept. So, if you can't woo them, like Verizon did to Ft Wayne Indiana, then simply sue and use the legal funds to drive municipalities broke.
This so begs for a reexamination of competition in the communications markets, but it's unlikely to happen after the last two legislative fiascos (this after Judge Greene).
Use of a pseudonym, nom de plume, alias, or other fictitious ID is perfectly legal in the context of not defrauding or otherwise causing injury to someone. IANAL, nonetheless, it's a theory of law that's well understood.
And it's a chickenshit prosecution, at best. Not that what happened to the girl that committed suicide is in any way morally justified, rather, it's a stretch of the imagination to use this context to prosecute. Manslaughter I can see, but not within the context of the fraud that was used. I can even see fraud being used as the vehicle to prosecute. But this is a huge stretch.
Your sense of history through your message string is in your own reality distortion field.
Everything from graphics cards to reasonable chipsets on Ethernet cards didn't work. Your viewpoint, however, is blinded by your business interest in Microsoft, IMHO. I don't have one.
The code base in 1998, after much wrangling was to merge at Windows 2000, server and client. XP was perhaps the first 'home' operating system but others clamored for this as Windows NT 4 wasn't what they wanted, and the builds to and through ME were limited and unusable.
Vista, once touted as though it was going to be the cure-all end-all answer, wasn't.
While we'll agree with NTFS and FS failure, there was once a concept that abstracted many calls from the hardware layer through the HMI. Part of what hardware vendors feel is their own intellectual property (for better or worse) is the 'burden' of driver development and the asset cost behind them. They're pretty unwilling to give up their costs to Microsoft, who makes them do interesting dances in the quest to get everything 'certified' and bundled. The number of unneeded drivers in Vista isn't as bad as an aged copy of XP SP2 that was originally XP. Still, there's always that guy that's trying to get you into the program, like it was lovefest that you *pay* for.
And if you haven't run into DRM blues, try using that nice HP to do home movies conversion, or watch cable TV on the box and suddenly have the screen go blanks. Not pretty. Not fun.
It was perceived as being very solid at the time, and OS/2 found itself in high-reliability offerings. The same status wasn't conferred onto Windows NT at the time, and Microsoft has been fighting the problems subsequently through a series of techno miss-steps that plagued it. In a nutshell, its architecture needed revamping and it still does. I don't believe Microsoft has the guts to come out with something truly new and leading edge; they'll always be borrowers unless there's a visionary regime change-- and not the kind of guys that throw chairs and tantrums.
This was written on a G4 PowerBook.... with a fancy HP with 4GB of DRAM running Vista to my immediate right on the desk.
Over in the NOC is a server running samples in VMs of XP, XP SP2, XP SP3, 2000P, and (illegally, perhaps) VIsta. That doesn't even cover the servers, a long list of samples.
Oh yeah... remember the 'Ring Zero' contentiousness, it was incredible red herring. I remember the paperless office, and as Adam Osborne once said, it'll happen when the paperless bathroom does.
1) Your defense of Microsoft is admirable, but hardware makers had a long chance and decided what to do. The drivers are issued officially by Microsoft, and Microsoft didn't do the work necessary to attract hardware makers to submit their code to Microsoft so that they could be 'certified'.
2) your defense of coders is admirable. Have a nice day.
3) Sure. Let users be flooded with messages that they don't understand, patching years of problems where user==root. Fie.
4) the DRM is truly miserable; Microsoft took the worst parts of Apple's stance and made them worse. Intellectual property at its worse.
Pre-releasing it was well worse. If wanting a baked operating system with real drivers is being a troll, then that's what I am.
There was NT 4 workstation, and then 2000 Professional, and then XP. If you're talking about 'home' operating systems, XP was probably the one. The code base for developers merged at 2000. Look it up in 'historical' mags like Windows Magazine, or in other archives. I wrote seven books on Windows from 95-2000, not to mention others.
I worked with the code from OS/2 and from the original WinNT SDKs (55 floppies of it). Sorry, but conceptually, Cutler had little choice but to take the OS/2 APIs and turn them into Microsoft analogs. I have the code; Cutler had marching orders to one-up IBM and he did it. No argument except citing anything from the WSJ as a technical history source.
1) lack of hardware drivers, rendering many machines obsolete 2) lack of support for legacy apps (although arguably, some of those apps were badly written) 3) intensive hassling of the user because of inept prior version code that make user root/admin 4) truly piggish DRM
And so you might consider that point #1 prevented adoption in a big way-- this over-bloated mistake needs lots of hardware, and most of it fresh and new from OEMs willing to make lots of money supplying it to you. Many machines simply didn't work at all despite hardware compatibility meeting the match because the HCList was buggered, too.
You haven't listened and I find it incredulous that you would mark someone as troll for your rationale. The information is out there about why Vista has been such a huge disappointment, but you aren't facing the facts that millions of users have rejected it for precisely the reasons I state above.
No. The code bases were to merge at Windows 2000 Professional. Windows 95/98/ME were based on DOS. Win2K was the merge point at server and 'desktop'. XP came after Win2K, sealing the fate. At Vista, support for 8/16-bit code using DOS functionality essentially died. Try Duke Nukem II if you're unsure.
Windows NT was a re-write of OS/2 when Microsoft divorced IBM (or vice versa, depending on whom you believe). It started a new code branch, one that ran in 32-bit only (advanced at the time) and inter-version compatibility was often iffy at best-- NOT mostly compatible.
These two code branches merged at Windows 2000.
I smell a rat behind the entire thing. Windows 7 might be a hypervisor with plug-ins for whatever. I think Microsoft is floating trial ballons to see what might be marketable after the enormous and embarrassing mistakes found in Vista. It's an actual, along with a PR nightmare for them and justifiably so. Were I a stockholder, I'd have their heads.
Don't mistake for a moment that Microsoft is still seeking solutions to the enormous problems they have in stagnation. Vista was supposed to be a monumental endeavor, and it's a monumental disaster for them. Now that BIll's gone, who knows what's going to happen.
Mod parent up. Any kill switch is vulnerable. The temptation would be huge, if only to find the ones connected to various politicians and CEOs, their spouses, and so on. What, that movie star won't slow down for the papparazzi? Find her kill switch. Ah, now there, that's the shot!
Mobiles and notebooks I can see. Everything else is probably suspect. And please, let's find the one for Paris Hilton's cell phone.
A nice idea, but it has drawbacks, like lack of 64-bit support, unprotected registry, user-is-root, weak malloc support, 4gb drive limitations, and so on. It might be cute as a VM, but sadly it would go into the deadpool ranks of BeOS, and other 16/32-bit OSes. I'm reminded of silk purses and sow's ears.
That's pre-supposing there's something desirable to download. Ok, how about Vista? No? XP? It's going to be supported until 2015! No? How about MS Office? What, won't run on Linux? Hmmmm. It kind of runs on Macs.... maybe you need some Wine.
Sure, mod me flamebait. I need to feel the heat of Microsoft's new OSS. Oh-- SUSE support? Great-- but not Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS or Ubuntu or 400 other distros? Gosh.
Gates leaving changes nothing. Time to short the stock before it rides down with the rest of the market. Make sure you do it in Euros.
QoS-trusted is an oxymoron even in MPLS systems because of congestion. Congestion along other routing paths which may, or may not be congested-- always will increase latency and therefore break isochronous time domains and screw up results or freak out codecs at the receiving end.
The Internet, and Ethernet, and even ARCNet and Token Rings were designed for data, and not isochronous-digitized data. So I propose two, one that's free of congestion-like traffic (and not just lack of UDP) that's allocated for isochronous apps, and one that's who-cares. You pay for the availability of either pipe, while one is somewhat NOT oversold and the other one is the crapshoot we have today.
There is no politic. We do this now for FIOS (respect some forms of QoS and have a formulaic somewhat generous backhaul speed) and other non-symmetrical fiber schemes, but we actually get odd fairness in WiFi because of the MAC layer's collision avoidance except in dual-channel (e.g. fdx) configurations. FIOS is otherwise a scam built by Verizon at a time when there were few FTTH/FTTC standards. Luckily, they put some backhaul QoS into their design or it might truly stink.
So I merely want to cut the BS and have two pipes, one that's committed, and the other that's fast but uncommitted. I'll pay a price for both so that I can do realtime VoIP and Vid-IP and gaming for others in the house --- while using the other for non-realtime, like everything else... surfing, downloads, etc.
And so does Cerf, and all of the other co-called inventors, and fathers. They got us into this mess.
Someone needs to sort out egalitarian access, hopefully some visionaries and NOT a large group of non-vendors, so that the process can be as inclusive as possible.
My suggestion: two channels, one for QoS-respected traffic, the other free-for-all. The QoS channel costs you, per period time. The free-for-all is all you can eat. Vary the mix you want to purchase, or offer at your free hotspot or WebbieTubeBar. You get what you pay for, no more, and less if you don't use it.
The pontiff approach ain't working.
Re:Missing Stuff: Airline Execs from Hell
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
No, I don't wonder why at all. There's a mentality at virtually all of them that needs a change. I've been flying for 35 years; seen it all. Southwest, American, and on a good day Continental, seem to try to show common sense and customer-focused values. The rest of them seem to be very greed-focused. At first, they seemed like a bunch of young Howard Hughes, but now I think they all want to be Richard Bransons and airlines are the touch-stone to their fantasies. For me, the punishment is over 2.6 million logged flying miles. They need to be spanked.
The TOS that people sign don't abrogate their right to privacy, especially with other individuals with whom they communicate who are not party to the TOS in any way. The Charter TOS may in fact be illegal. IANAL, but deep inspection is a radical and unexpected step!
Charter, unlike say AT&T, is usually the sole provider in their own markets for cable, and so there is no competition; it's not a matter of hey-- let's go with TW, Cox, Comcast, etc. That's not the way cable plays, although an attempt to do this years ago was tried.
Litigation does work. Legislation is iffy. Scaring the hell out of people in congressional hearings is a joy in circumstances like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Your broad brush that says it's cool to hate Christianity right now is incorrect. Some people that label themselves Christian give the concept a bad name.
In the US, the separation of church and state should be strong; the concept's been in the US Constitution as a principle from the Articles of Confederation. Once again, a legislature tries to impose dogmatic/orthodox beliefs on others. It's been happening as long as the constitution has been around, and it will be struck down like the rest of the attempts.
Louisiana now joins Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, and other jurisdictions where the votes have been for legislated morality.
And so fie on your sense of hatred of Christians-- it's a small orthodox lunatic minority that gives Christianity a bad name. Fight them.
Serious only if you're using BIND and a non-SOA DNS server. See http://secure64.com/products.shtml for good reasons to ditch BIND if you have some spare $$.
Remember: no cache, no fooling around with cache for giggles.
Such abusive and controlling components warrant a resignation. In the US, we have liberty and rights. The obsessively paranoid need to be constrained and contained through the use of peer pressure to resign, so that they can subsequently crawl into the hole from whence they came. It's mind-boggling!
We would agree; in this case, a vulnerable woman was 'driven' to it. MySpace was the communications method used. Would the medium have been a phone line, or a postal-mail message, the theory would be the same, and the communications medium different. The fraud was a masked user ID. Was it murder? No. Suicide is voluntary. Other theories would seem to apply, however. Felony prosecution for purposefully masked identity seems to be over the top.
The telcos are running scared. They may no longer be able to bribe (oops, sorry, I meant lobby and give campaign contributions) to Congress and the White House, so it's time to grab all available opportunity to extend and destroy-- I mean deploy.
The thought of public utility as a concept is just about over in many areas, and communications is a de facto utlity concept. So, if you can't woo them, like Verizon did to Ft Wayne Indiana, then simply sue and use the legal funds to drive municipalities broke.
This so begs for a reexamination of competition in the communications markets, but it's unlikely to happen after the last two legislative fiascos (this after Judge Greene).
Use of a pseudonym, nom de plume, alias, or other fictitious ID is perfectly legal in the context of not defrauding or otherwise causing injury to someone. IANAL, nonetheless, it's a theory of law that's well understood.
And it's a chickenshit prosecution, at best. Not that what happened to the girl that committed suicide is in any way morally justified, rather, it's a stretch of the imagination to use this context to prosecute. Manslaughter I can see, but not within the context of the fraud that was used. I can even see fraud being used as the vehicle to prosecute. But this is a huge stretch.
Your sense of history through your message string is in your own reality distortion field.
Everything from graphics cards to reasonable chipsets on Ethernet cards didn't work. Your viewpoint, however, is blinded by your business interest in Microsoft, IMHO. I don't have one.
The code base in 1998, after much wrangling was to merge at Windows 2000, server and client. XP was perhaps the first 'home' operating system but others clamored for this as Windows NT 4 wasn't what they wanted, and the builds to and through ME were limited and unusable.
Vista, once touted as though it was going to be the cure-all end-all answer, wasn't.
You can have your opinion, but the facts remain.
While we'll agree with NTFS and FS failure, there was once a concept that abstracted many calls from the hardware layer through the HMI. Part of what hardware vendors feel is their own intellectual property (for better or worse) is the 'burden' of driver development and the asset cost behind them. They're pretty unwilling to give up their costs to Microsoft, who makes them do interesting dances in the quest to get everything 'certified' and bundled. The number of unneeded drivers in Vista isn't as bad as an aged copy of XP SP2 that was originally XP. Still, there's always that guy that's trying to get you into the program, like it was lovefest that you *pay* for.
And if you haven't run into DRM blues, try using that nice HP to do home movies conversion, or watch cable TV on the box and suddenly have the screen go blanks. Not pretty. Not fun.
It was perceived as being very solid at the time, and OS/2 found itself in high-reliability offerings. The same status wasn't conferred onto Windows NT at the time, and Microsoft has been fighting the problems subsequently through a series of techno miss-steps that plagued it. In a nutshell, its architecture needed revamping and it still does. I don't believe Microsoft has the guts to come out with something truly new and leading edge; they'll always be borrowers unless there's a visionary regime change-- and not the kind of guys that throw chairs and tantrums.
Amen brother, amen.
This was written on a G4 PowerBook.... with a fancy HP with 4GB of DRAM running Vista to my immediate right on the desk.
Over in the NOC is a server running samples in VMs of XP, XP SP2, XP SP3, 2000P, and (illegally, perhaps) VIsta. That doesn't even cover the servers, a long list of samples.
Amen. TrollsRUs (C)(TM)(SM)(CC)
Oh yeah... remember the 'Ring Zero' contentiousness, it was incredible red herring. I remember the paperless office, and as Adam Osborne once said, it'll happen when the paperless bathroom does.
1) Your defense of Microsoft is admirable, but hardware makers had a long chance and decided what to do. The drivers are issued officially by Microsoft, and Microsoft didn't do the work necessary to attract hardware makers to submit their code to Microsoft so that they could be 'certified'.
2) your defense of coders is admirable. Have a nice day.
3) Sure. Let users be flooded with messages that they don't understand, patching years of problems where user==root. Fie.
4) the DRM is truly miserable; Microsoft took the worst parts of Apple's stance and made them worse. Intellectual property at its worse.
Pre-releasing it was well worse. If wanting a baked operating system with real drivers is being a troll, then that's what I am.
There was NT 4 workstation, and then 2000 Professional, and then XP. If you're talking about 'home' operating systems, XP was probably the one. The code base for developers merged at 2000. Look it up in 'historical' mags like Windows Magazine, or in other archives. I wrote seven books on Windows from 95-2000, not to mention others.
I worked with the code from OS/2 and from the original WinNT SDKs (55 floppies of it). Sorry, but conceptually, Cutler had little choice but to take the OS/2 APIs and turn them into Microsoft analogs. I have the code; Cutler had marching orders to one-up IBM and he did it. No argument except citing anything from the WSJ as a technical history source.
the instruction sets were a superset, but the memory model was different. Remember the diff between 8088/8086/80286?
Let's see what's wrong with Vista:
1) lack of hardware drivers, rendering many machines obsolete
2) lack of support for legacy apps (although arguably, some of those apps were badly written)
3) intensive hassling of the user because of inept prior version code that make user root/admin
4) truly piggish DRM
And so you might consider that point #1 prevented adoption in a big way-- this over-bloated mistake needs lots of hardware, and most of it fresh and new from OEMs willing to make lots of money supplying it to you. Many machines simply didn't work at all despite hardware compatibility meeting the match because the HCList was buggered, too.
You haven't listened and I find it incredulous that you would mark someone as troll for your rationale. The information is out there about why Vista has been such a huge disappointment, but you aren't facing the facts that millions of users have rejected it for precisely the reasons I state above.
No. The code bases were to merge at Windows 2000 Professional. Windows 95/98/ME were based on DOS. Win2K was the merge point at server and 'desktop'. XP came after Win2K, sealing the fate. At Vista, support for 8/16-bit code using DOS functionality essentially died. Try Duke Nukem II if you're unsure.
Windows NT was a re-write of OS/2 when Microsoft divorced IBM (or vice versa, depending on whom you believe). It started a new code branch, one that ran in 32-bit only (advanced at the time) and inter-version compatibility was often iffy at best-- NOT mostly compatible.
These two code branches merged at Windows 2000.
I smell a rat behind the entire thing. Windows 7 might be a hypervisor with plug-ins for whatever. I think Microsoft is floating trial ballons to see what might be marketable after the enormous and embarrassing mistakes found in Vista. It's an actual, along with a PR nightmare for them and justifiably so. Were I a stockholder, I'd have their heads.
Don't mistake for a moment that Microsoft is still seeking solutions to the enormous problems they have in stagnation. Vista was supposed to be a monumental endeavor, and it's a monumental disaster for them. Now that BIll's gone, who knows what's going to happen.
Mod parent up. Any kill switch is vulnerable. The temptation would be huge, if only to find the ones connected to various politicians and CEOs, their spouses, and so on. What, that movie star won't slow down for the papparazzi? Find her kill switch. Ah, now there, that's the shot!
Mobiles and notebooks I can see. Everything else is probably suspect. And please, let's find the one for Paris Hilton's cell phone.
A nice idea, but it has drawbacks, like lack of 64-bit support, unprotected registry, user-is-root, weak malloc support, 4gb drive limitations, and so on. It might be cute as a VM, but sadly it would go into the deadpool ranks of BeOS, and other 16/32-bit OSes. I'm reminded of silk purses and sow's ears.
That's pre-supposing there's something desirable to download. Ok, how about Vista? No? XP? It's going to be supported until 2015! No? How about MS Office? What, won't run on Linux? Hmmmm. It kind of runs on Macs.... maybe you need some Wine.
Sure, mod me flamebait. I need to feel the heat of Microsoft's new OSS. Oh-- SUSE support? Great-- but not Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS or Ubuntu or 400 other distros? Gosh.
Gates leaving changes nothing. Time to short the stock before it rides down with the rest of the market. Make sure you do it in Euros.
QoS-trusted is an oxymoron even in MPLS systems because of congestion. Congestion along other routing paths which may, or may not be congested-- always will increase latency and therefore break isochronous time domains and screw up results or freak out codecs at the receiving end.
The Internet, and Ethernet, and even ARCNet and Token Rings were designed for data, and not isochronous-digitized data. So I propose two, one that's free of congestion-like traffic (and not just lack of UDP) that's allocated for isochronous apps, and one that's who-cares. You pay for the availability of either pipe, while one is somewhat NOT oversold and the other one is the crapshoot we have today.
There is no politic. We do this now for FIOS (respect some forms of QoS and have a formulaic somewhat generous backhaul speed) and other non-symmetrical fiber schemes, but we actually get odd fairness in WiFi because of the MAC layer's collision avoidance except in dual-channel (e.g. fdx) configurations. FIOS is otherwise a scam built by Verizon at a time when there were few FTTH/FTTC standards. Luckily, they put some backhaul QoS into their design or it might truly stink.
So I merely want to cut the BS and have two pipes, one that's committed, and the other that's fast but uncommitted. I'll pay a price for both so that I can do realtime VoIP and Vid-IP and gaming for others in the house --- while using the other for non-realtime, like everything else... surfing, downloads, etc.
And so does Cerf, and all of the other co-called inventors, and fathers. They got us into this mess.
Someone needs to sort out egalitarian access, hopefully some visionaries and NOT a large group of non-vendors, so that the process can be as inclusive as possible.
My suggestion: two channels, one for QoS-respected traffic, the other free-for-all. The QoS channel costs you, per period time. The free-for-all is all you can eat. Vary the mix you want to purchase, or offer at your free hotspot or WebbieTubeBar. You get what you pay for, no more, and less if you don't use it.
The pontiff approach ain't working.
No, I don't wonder why at all. There's a mentality at virtually all of them that needs a change. I've been flying for 35 years; seen it all. Southwest, American, and on a good day Continental, seem to try to show common sense and customer-focused values. The rest of them seem to be very greed-focused. At first, they seemed like a bunch of young Howard Hughes, but now I think they all want to be Richard Bransons and airlines are the touch-stone to their fantasies. For me, the punishment is over 2.6 million logged flying miles. They need to be spanked.
The TOS that people sign don't abrogate their right to privacy, especially with other individuals with whom they communicate who are not party to the TOS in any way. The Charter TOS may in fact be illegal. IANAL, but deep inspection is a radical and unexpected step!
Charter, unlike say AT&T, is usually the sole provider in their own markets for cable, and so there is no competition; it's not a matter of hey-- let's go with TW, Cox, Comcast, etc. That's not the way cable plays, although an attempt to do this years ago was tried.
Litigation does work. Legislation is iffy. Scaring the hell out of people in congressional hearings is a joy in circumstances like this.