MS is making big deals with resellers to push Vista to non-Vista computer users. I work for a CompUSA in NY, and we are soon going to be required to do a Vista analysis on every machine that comes in for service to "advise" the customer of all the "reasons" they should be replacing XP/NT/etc with Vista: "multimedia advantages", "better performance", "better security", "the neat UI experience", and infinitum.
Wait a second there... Vista comes with infinitum?!
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I'm sold.
What part of "pursuit" of happiness do you not understand?
America was not created to guarantee that everyone, no matter how lazy and uneducated they may be, can get by just fine.
The CEO is more important than the janitor precisely because he or she decides what to pay employees (and a whole slew of other things). He or she has done the hard work or had the good fortune of making it to the top. That is an enormous achievement in and of itself. And you do vote on your boss - you vote on your boss by choosing where to work. That's the freedom part.
Ever heard of the American Dream? It calls for hard work and - admittedly - a little bit of luck. There's no such thing as the American Promise, thank God.
Windows 3.1 to 95 was massive averhaul of the filesystem kernel driver subsystems and target audience USB Support Direct X rendering , powerful WDM driver support offering extended multimedia potential (tv card, hardware 3d acceleration)
You may want to do your homework before enumerating the major changes between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.
DirectX did not come out until after the release of Windows 95. Thus it was obviously not seen as a major new feature.
Further, Windows 95 did not employ WDM drivers, but rather the same VxD paradigm that Windows 3.1 used. WDM was first implemented in Windows 98. Next time you download a WDM driver, check out what operating systems are supported.
One of the interesting things about groups like Hiedi Fliess and this, is that we will find that Liberals and Conservatives alike visit the same place and sadly in about the same number. Only one of them condemms it though.
Heidi Fleiss?
Which party, pray tell, doesn't condemn prostitution?
Just confirms it.. they arnt going to do anything new are they? Despite what they say.
A few flags up, a few rocks down some media air time and lost interest...
I dont want to be a synic on this, but their (NASA/US) track record on almost everything follows this.
Yes, God forbid they follow in the footsteps of the ONLY SUCCESSFUL MANNED MISSIONS TO THE MOON.
Your drivel seeks to undercut one of the most important achievements of mankind. In your urgency to defame, you ignore the massive, worldwide scientific contributions that made the Apollo missions possible. Our ability to launch novel, worthwhile, and exciting programs is a function of the global view of spaceflight. During the 1960s, the world was watching and waiting with baited breath. The American government was eager to provide funds and NASA was almost unstoppable.
It's the pessimists who destroy that spirit. It's the detractors who cast doubt, giving good reason to cut exploratory funding. It's the misanthropists who cast a pall over NASA.
But since you're so on top of things, what exactly would your ideal moon mission be?
A few questions for all those who bristle at the idea of downloading software because of their "right" to a physical copy:
Consider the incredible amount of resources we would save by effectively utilizing online distribution. Does your "god-given entitlement" to DRM-less software outweigh a boon to the environment?
If - heaven forbid - the publisher goes out of business and you are no longer able to play some of your old games (until you locate a patch), will you be satisfied knowing that your concession made the world a better place?
Either way, I don't see how a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants would help fight terrorism, unless the flow dropped to 0. Whether this bill would cause that kind of a drop has yet to be seen.
A reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants means that the border patrol will be able to apprehend a higher percentage of border jumpers, thereby improving the chances of catching terrorists.
I don't see the how my overall opinion on terrorism or illegal immigration matters to this discussion. Will you only stop arguing if I say I agree with you? Or will you just not listen to what I have to say if I say I don't agree with you? Are you unable to focus on the facts? Can you actually discuss a topic in a non-partisan way?
I will gladly stop arguing. And I would love a non-partisan discussion. Yet you continue to give no indication of what facts you are referring to. I am not requesting more of your opinion, I am merely asking you to actually cite your sources. Claiming that you have factual support means nothing when you provide none of it.
Oh, and I agree that your opinion does not matter =).
Admittedly, Bush has begun to discuss the issue, and I believe that he has a genuine desire to solve this problem.
What I doubt is his ability to achieve a meaningful change in policy due to current political chaos. Remember what happened to Social Security reform?
This issue is frustrating because the solution is simple: put more bodies on the border. Use the National Guard until the border patrol has been given the manpower and resources it needs to truly patrol the border.
We don't need a fence (although I'm not against one). We don't need a miracle. We don't need to rehabilitate Mexico's economy. And we certainly don't need to kowtow to idiots like Fox. All we need is a government willing to follow the will of the clear majority of people who want more border security.
Terrorists can cross our borders just as easily as illegal immigrants can. The lack of American ID never stopped illegal immigrants, so it's completely illogical to assume that lack of American ID will stop terrorists.
From your prior post, referring to the Real ID:
This law only provides another disincentive for illegal immigrants to enter our country.
So which is it? Will the law do nothing or will it be another disincentive for illegal immigrants?
Please keep in mind that the ability of the average overworked border patrol agent to do his or her job is abetted by a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants. Of course, this would be a nonissue if we were to implement proper border security.
My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
I would love to. Unfortunately, you have given no indication as to what "facts" you are referring to.
The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it.
I don't "know it."
Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
Just because a task is difficult does not mean we should shy away from it. Especially regarding matters of life and death.
This has nothing to do with reducing terrorism and everything to do with reducing illegal immigration.
No, that's just an added benefit.
We spend billions of dollars to secure our airports whilst doing nothing about the million people per year that cross our borders illegally. This is akin to buying a home alarm system, wiring it to the front door, and leaving the back wide open.
We desperately need to combine a sane border policy with an extensive guest worker program. The current administration does not understand this. At least the governor of Arizona does.
They are in good company; Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and George W. Bush have also been Time's Man of the Year.
None of those "winners" were lauded as "Good Samaritans." From the article:
The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, and his wife, Melinda, were named Time magazine's "Persons of the Year"... for being "Good Samaritans"...
Or you could have read the summary. Either way, you would have noticed that Bill and Melinda Gates won SPECIFICALLY for doing good. Unlike Adolf Hitler.
But I would like to congratulate you for creating on of the most subtle Godwins ever =).
The article does NOT state with certainty that the government's inquiry into the student was a direct result of his request of The Little Red Book.
According to the professor:
"Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."
He openly admits that this is merely his take on the situation. The student has not come forward with his story. The journalist who wrote this sensationalistic piece has no idea what truly triggered the investigation. Observe the following quote (also from the professor):
"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that."
Further, note that the student had amassed "significant time abroad," presumably in antagonistic
countries.
Suppose this individual carried out an attack. In retrospect, the time spent abroad and the observance of terrorist websites would seem like obvious red flags. These behaviors were no doubt of far greater interest to investigators than any of Mao's works. The book request was probably used to intimidate the poor guy, a tactic that I certainly do not condone. Yet I think it is clear to all rational members of society that "monitoring" al-Qaeda Web sites will (and should) yield the attention of the DHS.
This is a clear instance where some sort of oversight is needed. A supervisory body should rule on the legality and prudence of this investigation. However, the opinions of a professor and the misleading writings of a journalist should not hold sway in the court of public opinion.
Day in and day out, Microsoft takes a beating around here for putting too many irrelevant subsystems into their kernel.
And then, when Microsoft makes a positive design change, they are attacked for HYPOTHETICAL marketing. You don't know how (or if) they'll market this.
I can see it now: Bill Gates shows up at your front door, hands you a million dollars, and walks away. You run to your computer and submit the headline, "BILL GATES IS A TRESSPASSER."
Nice headline. You do know that Colombia's government is virulently anti-union?
It seems rather insipid to single out Coca-Cola based on its brand recognition. The mining and textile industries have also had workers die at the hands of paramilitary groups. This should come as no surprise: Colombia is one of the most violent countries in the world. You may legitimately argue that American companies should not operate there due to the insidious "official" government and the activities of rebel organizations like FARC and ELN. However, if American companies pull out of Colombia, a lot of money goes with them. Poverty has a way of exacerbating violence.
Perhaps your "movement" will be taken seriously when it ceases resorting to hyperbole. The sad thing is that the real problem of uncontrollable violence in Colombia is being reduced to a crime perpetrated by a beverage company.
But here's hoping not drinking Coca-Cola makes you feel superior to those dastardly talk radio folks!
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a big day... I wonder if he had time for Bed Bath & Beyond.
From the Lycos Mail New Account page: The above is highlighted right under the account type selection area. Oh, and one of the mail plans is called PRESERVATION.
I think I'm getting a raging clue.
Wait a second there... Vista comes with infinitum?!
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I'm sold.
Which part of "good fortune" did you miss?
What part of "pursuit" of happiness do you not understand?
America was not created to guarantee that everyone, no matter how lazy and uneducated they may be, can get by just fine.
The CEO is more important than the janitor precisely because he or she decides what to pay employees (and a whole slew of other things). He or she has done the hard work or had the good fortune of making it to the top. That is an enormous achievement in and of itself. And you do vote on your boss - you vote on your boss by choosing where to work. That's the freedom part.
Ever heard of the American Dream? It calls for hard work and - admittedly - a little bit of luck. There's no such thing as the American Promise, thank God.
Double incorrect.
Windows 95 was released on August 24, 1995.
DirectX 1.0 came out on September 30, 1995.
Good old WinG - I remember PC Gamer writing about how amazing it was going to be. The article had a shot of WinG Doom.
Umm... status bars?
life: 050
ammo: 096
weak ass hud: priceless
You may want to do your homework before enumerating the major changes between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.
DirectX did not come out until after the release of Windows 95. Thus it was obviously not seen as a major new feature.
Further, Windows 95 did not employ WDM drivers, but rather the same VxD paradigm that Windows 3.1 used. WDM was first implemented in Windows 98. Next time you download a WDM driver, check out what operating systems are supported.
Which party, pray tell, doesn't condemn prostitution?
Your drivel seeks to undercut one of the most important achievements of mankind. In your urgency to defame, you ignore the massive, worldwide scientific contributions that made the Apollo missions possible. Our ability to launch novel, worthwhile, and exciting programs is a function of the global view of spaceflight. During the 1960s, the world was watching and waiting with baited breath. The American government was eager to provide funds and NASA was almost unstoppable.
It's the pessimists who destroy that spirit. It's the detractors who cast doubt, giving good reason to cut exploratory funding. It's the misanthropists who cast a pall over NASA.
But since you're so on top of things, what exactly would your ideal moon mission be?
P.S.: It's spelled "cynic".
Google caters to the wishes of China: they are aiding and abetting an oppressive regime.
ICANN refuses to cater to the wishes of China: they are on a "high horse."
So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. Would you really want ICANN to bend over backwards to satisfy the Chinese government?
What other metric would a corporation care about?
"Alright, board members: we got more free downloads than Linux!"
"Hey, guys! The Slashdot people finally like us!"
"Man it feels good to embrace open source!"
Call me crazy, but MADE A LOT MORE MONEY has a nicer ring.
A few questions for all those who bristle at the idea of downloading software because of their "right" to a physical copy:
Consider the incredible amount of resources we would save by effectively utilizing online distribution. Does your "god-given entitlement" to DRM-less software outweigh a boon to the environment?
If - heaven forbid - the publisher goes out of business and you are no longer able to play some of your old games (until you locate a patch), will you be satisfied knowing that your concession made the world a better place?
Do you make fun of people who drive S.U.V.s?
Oh, and I agree that your opinion does not matter =).
Admittedly, Bush has begun to discuss the issue, and I believe that he has a genuine desire to solve this problem.
What I doubt is his ability to achieve a meaningful change in policy due to current political chaos. Remember what happened to Social Security reform?
This issue is frustrating because the solution is simple: put more bodies on the border. Use the National Guard until the border patrol has been given the manpower and resources it needs to truly patrol the border.
We don't need a fence (although I'm not against one). We don't need a miracle. We don't need to rehabilitate Mexico's economy. And we certainly don't need to kowtow to idiots like Fox. All we need is a government willing to follow the will of the clear majority of people who want more border security.
After all, it's the law.
Please keep in mind that the ability of the average overworked border patrol agent to do his or her job is abetted by a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants. Of course, this would be a nonissue if we were to implement proper border security. I would love to. Unfortunately, you have given no indication as to what "facts" you are referring to.
Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
Just because a task is difficult does not mean we should shy away from it. Especially regarding matters of life and death.
No, that's just an added benefit.
We spend billions of dollars to secure our airports whilst doing nothing about the million people per year that cross our borders illegally. This is akin to buying a home alarm system, wiring it to the front door, and leaving the back wide open.
We desperately need to combine a sane border policy with an extensive guest worker program. The current administration does not understand this. At least the governor of Arizona does.
What an odd comment from someone who READS SLASHDOT.
But I would like to congratulate you for creating on of the most subtle Godwins ever =).
Alright, IsraCast, the material is strong. We get the point.
But did you really need to give the armor a six-pack?
According to the professor: He openly admits that this is merely his take on the situation. The student has not come forward with his story. The journalist who wrote this sensationalistic piece has no idea what truly triggered the investigation. Observe the following quote (also from the professor): Further, note that the student had amassed "significant time abroad," presumably in antagonistic countries.
Suppose this individual carried out an attack. In retrospect, the time spent abroad and the observance of terrorist websites would seem like obvious red flags. These behaviors were no doubt of far greater interest to investigators than any of Mao's works. The book request was probably used to intimidate the poor guy, a tactic that I certainly do not condone. Yet I think it is clear to all rational members of society that "monitoring" al-Qaeda Web sites will (and should) yield the attention of the DHS.
This is a clear instance where some sort of oversight is needed. A supervisory body should rule on the legality and prudence of this investigation. However, the opinions of a professor and the misleading writings of a journalist should not hold sway in the court of public opinion.
This is just priceless.
Day in and day out, Microsoft takes a beating around here for putting too many irrelevant subsystems into their kernel.
And then, when Microsoft makes a positive design change, they are attacked for HYPOTHETICAL marketing. You don't know how (or if) they'll market this.
I can see it now: Bill Gates shows up at your front door, hands you a million dollars, and walks away. You run to your computer and submit the headline, "BILL GATES IS A TRESSPASSER."
Nice headline. You do know that Colombia's government is virulently anti-union?
It seems rather insipid to single out Coca-Cola based on its brand recognition. The mining and textile industries have also had workers die at the hands of paramilitary groups. This should come as no surprise: Colombia is one of the most violent countries in the world. You may legitimately argue that American companies should not operate there due to the insidious "official" government and the activities of rebel organizations like FARC and ELN. However, if American companies pull out of Colombia, a lot of money goes with them. Poverty has a way of exacerbating violence.
Perhaps your "movement" will be taken seriously when it ceases resorting to hyperbole. The sad thing is that the real problem of uncontrollable violence in Colombia is being reduced to a crime perpetrated by a beverage company.
But here's hoping not drinking Coca-Cola makes you feel superior to those dastardly talk radio folks!