But why should Microsoft care? There aren't enough OOo or WordPerfect users out there for their voices to add up to anything more than a fringe. What is needed first is for people to become less fearful of using non-Microsoft software...but every time something fails to render properly, people run back to what they were using for years.
I know it sounds strange applied to MS, but the market responds to customers. A lot of customers want the advantages of open standards and are tired of promises to bring those advantages without the standards themselves, something MS has promised and failed to deliver repeatedly. If governments, organizations, and companies continue the trend of demanding support for open standards in office documents, then MS will have to comply, or lose increasingly large chunks of the market. Either way, the lock-in is broken and then it is just the best product that wins.
The POP access is the main thing for me, and it is part of a trend. They also provide a Jabber compliant chat account, rather than some proprietary protocol that can only talk to Yahoo chat subscribers. Now the install base for Jabber is not huge right now, but for those who use it internally for their company or who just want a choice of clients it is a big bonus. Go open standards! Boo proprietary lock-in.
I'd prefer FCKEditor on a simple web page than OO Writer. OO Writer tries to do everything on all platforms, and it became heavily bloated.
I don't mind OO writer, but I can see where others might. One thing I'd like to see that might help mitigate that kind of bloat is something like the system services on OS X. They've added spell checking and a dictionary/thesaurus that can be accessed by any application and a grammar checker is supposed to be built into Leopard. I also use a more comprehensive collection of online dictionaries, some macros and scripts, quick language translations, automated bibliography citations, and statistic summaries (word/page count etc.) on a regular basis. Since they are implemented as services rather than built into every program, I can add them or not add them for a given program without any bloat and build up a custom toolbox with just the features I need. Don't need a quick translation to/from german? Don't add it to your services. This sort of customizability goes a long way towards removing the bloat while still letting any given user have the features they want or need and keeps you from having to rely on multiple implementations of the same thing for different programs (I taught my dictionary that ICMP is not a misspelling in InDesign... I don't want to have to do the same in Vi, Pico, Word, TextEdit, Photoshop, Safari, etc.).
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
True enough, though those are different kinds of reliability. One is the whether your document will be accidentally destroyed and the other is whether you will be able to view/edit it at any given point. There are a lot of drawbacks to office applications as services as well, although in truth I hope all office suites or operating systems begin offering a remote server mode so that I can access the same data and applications from remote terminals. I still am in locations without internet access enough that I'd be unwilling to lose the ability to edit files locally, even without the privacy considerations. I'm also not to keen on having access to my half-finshed book DDoSed by some punk botnet operator.
There is not a chance in hell I would use an online app for something that runs fine on my local pc. Why add an unneeded security risk?
There are four main advantages:
Free and free upgrades - You don't have to worry about paying for this or keeping it up to date especially if you use multiple different computers.
Accessible anywhere - you can work on the same files at home, work, the library, your cousin's house, school, or anywhere else without bringing a laptop or constantly transferring it to a disk.
Reliability - Network services have real redundancy. If your hard drive dies, you might lose all or some of your work, depending how good your backups are (most people have none at all). If your house burns down, you might lose it all. Having it stored remotely in multiple physical locations is safer.
Collaboration - With an online service you and a friend can both work on the same documents easily. With the right software, you can both even edit the same word processing doc simultaneously, with multiple insertion points/cursors. It is fun and useful.
For the most part, I agree that I won't be using these services and my company sure doesn't want me collaborating on work projects that get stored by a third party. My backups are good enough and I already host my own server on my workstation when I collaborate on documents (SubEthaEdit). This might, however, make sense for others I know who like to casually collaborate or who know how to use a Web browser and Web mail and don't want to be confused by anything else. To some people, the Web browser is the only application they really run. This might be fine for them and they don't care if someone else steals the Senior Citizen Arts and Crafts schedule, or the erotic sci-fi short story they are co-editing with their old college buddy.
What was meant is obvious to anyone not using sophistry to prop up a weak argument.
Perhaps you've had time to consider your argument. Everyone experiences racism in some way. Almost everyone who does not live in a homogenous environment has been the subject of racism. Applying your racist prejudices to decide en mass that whites are less knowledgeable and less able to express useful works about racism, is more than a little backwards.
I note at this point you've ignored all my commentary on how you, yourself have been making racist comments here. It is interesting that you choose to avoid this topic.
Putting a book on a school curriculum IS choosing it to teach a particular lesson and removing it is NOT preventing anyone from reading it if they so desire.
Ahh, but if it is someone other than the teacher choosing that curriculum then it is others assuming they can make better choices, but without taking responsibility. For example, banning "To Kill a Mockingbird" does not assure that teachers will choose a better book and fulfilling the racist goals you mention and stipulating the teacher choose a book written by a black person is a huge step backwards for anyone interested in equality. It simply forwards the idea that such a book is not good enough to be chosen on its own merit. And we're talking about literature here, not a class in black american studies. I find the whole concept not only distasteful, but fundamentally racist.
If Dell will start installing it on systems (thus knocking $100 buck off the price of a machine), then it can make some serious in-roads, and knock Windows back.
First, Dell probably pays in the range of $70 for each copy of Windows pre-installed. They make a significant portion of that back by being paid to include random software that is arguably spyware or adware, or is a limited version of some software. Most of that software runs only on Windows, so they'd take a hit unless they could get those software makers to port said software. More importantly, doing so places them at great risk. Dell's only real selling point is price. They sell cheap, cheap systems with low margins. Imagine if the price for Windows on each of those computers rose to $150 when they renegotiated their OEM license with MS. And their MS Office prices went up as well. And their Servers and everything else from MS they currently get a discount on. At that point Dell has bet their company on Linux, taking off in the home, a risky proposition at best for such a small initial return.
I don't know if it's ready for a corporate enviroment, though. Although I don't like MS, their combo of Exchange, AD, and DC is pretty powerful.
Actually, I think this is where Linux is ready. A big company can save a lot of money by ditching all their Windows license fees and competent admins have already managed large scale migrations of this sort. There is really very little Exchange, AD, and DC bring to the average user's desktop that open source tools do not do just as well, but cheaper. They may be harder to configure or require a better admin, but that is not something that effects the end user and you can hire quite a few good admins for the millions you're saving in licensing. I'd go so far as to say any corporate entity on Windows right now, that is not looking at Linux as an alternative to an eventual upgrade to Vista, is incompetent or not acting in the best interests of their company. Not that it is the right time for everyone to move, but it should be seriously evaluated as an option if they want to remain competitive.
So witnessing racism is equivalent to experiencing it? I don't think so.
Umm, witnessing something is an experience so, by definition, yes. Perhaps you meant something else?
We (whites) pull out a half-century old book like Mockingbird, so we can pat ourselves on the back for how far we've come and how enlightened we are compared to our grandparents.
Sigh. This statement is racist. You're prejudging white people based upon only the fact that they are white. You say this is something white people do. You assume no black or asian or hispanic person has ever read this book and thought, well society has come a long way and our grandparents sure were dumb. You further assume that white people in general read this book and react in a certain way, but you don't know. You're making that assumption based entirely on race. You are pre-judging them.
That does nothing to address current issues and instead makes it seem like we've already solved the problem of racism.
It is sort of sad that you talk about how this book is part of the problem, when in truth it is your attitude that is part of the problem. The book is a story and different people will interpret it differently and take different things away from it. Some will agree with an idea in it and some will disagree. Claiming that people with one color of skin will interpret it one way is your own racist belief.
I'm not denying that Mockingbird is a classic piece of literature, only that in terms of addressing social issues (as all great art should), it's time has passed.
Apparently it did not manage to teach you too much. In any case, whether or not it is the best book to teach a particular lesson is avery different question than whether it is appropriate to force that opinion on teachers, libraries, and young readers by banning it.
It absolutely means that the public which owns it should vote democratically about whatever standards they want the library to hold. The public should not be forced to fund something they don't want.
Luckily the US government is structured so that it takes a super majority, rather than a simple majority to infringe basic human rights. In many cases we're not talking about funding. Usually, these are attempts to remove books the library already has, either because they were purchased or donated. Rarely does it cost anything at all.
Obviously publishing tools which script kiddies can use to attack people is not a good idea, that's not what we're talking about. Surely I should at least tell people that I have found a vulnerability and that the software in question is not, in my opinion, something that you should be using if you care about security.
I don't think a hard and fast 120 days rule makes sense, but I think a researcher should look at the characteristics of the vulnerability before deciding what is responsible, as well as the motivational effect on the software vendor. Is the vulnerability likely to have been discovered by blackhats? Is the vulnerability something that can be mitigated with firewalls, ACLs, or by disabling non-essential services if people know about it. Are their realistic alternatives people can employ to avoid this vulnerability (download Firefox). Will announcing the vulnerability make it obvious to blackhats or is it hard to find even if you are looking? Will announcing the vulnerability motivate the vendor to patch it more quickly?
There is a lot to consider for any individual case.
What if I'm an IDS manufacturer? I start getting alarms that shell code has been detected in a protocol stream that has never before seen shell code in it. Analysing the incident I discover that there is a vulnerability in a particular daemon which these attackers are using to gain unauthorised access. Who should I inform? The vendor of that daemon? My customers? Or the general public?
This is different than discovering a vulnerability. You've discovered an in-the-wild exploit. It tips the balance strongly towards full disclosure. If there is only one vendor for that type of product, and no work around, and the product is critical to those using it, it might be reasonable to just inform the vendor if you think they will fix it as fast as possible. Otherwise, full disclosure will almost always be the best option.
I think what you allude to is simply that there is no one rule for what you should always do. There are a lot of factors and each researchers has to evaluate them and make a call based upon them. So long as they are trying to be responsible and do the right thing, instead of grandstanding or trying to milk it for cash, I think we will all be pretty forgiving if they turn out to be in error.
Listen to yourself - you are equating a funny picture showing the real state of affairs (i.e. the trend of Islamic states heading towards terrorism) to an intentionally offensive one of showing a religious head performing sexual acts.
It is called an analogy. Some of us use them to try to understand others. It is called putting yourself in another's shoes. The analogy I presented provides a pretty accurate role reversal for the average person, placing them in the position said muslims were in at the time. By picturing it, you can begin to understand the mindset of people there and predict how they are likely to respond to future events. It also allows us to normalize significant factors, except religion to show how foolish claims that it is the Islamic religion that is the cause of the behavior, and not the situation as a whole.
As for your assertion that Islamic states are headed towards terrorism, it is fairly accurate, but you might have your cause and effect a little screwy. The US has moved drastically toward increased terrorism in recent years to an extreme degree. We launched a larger army that all the middle east could ever manage for our "shock and awe" campaign against certain predominantly muslim nations. If that is not blatant attempts to use terror as a weapon. Maybe you need to reconsider exactly what the definition of "terrorism" is rather than buying into the media hype.
Did they show Allah making out with a naked guy? All they did was have a comic commenting on Islamic terrorism, and a very valid one at that.
You are very misinformed. The cartoons that were published in numerous papers and shown on TV showed acts of copulation as well as cartoons equating Islam with terrorism. The second is a touchy subject because of the situation in which the average muslim is placed. If you would bother even trying to understand their position you'd see they have friends and relatives, children, daughters, and grandfathers who have been blown up by an invading army whose excuse has been an act of "muslim terrorism" even though the country all those muslims were from is not the one that was invaded. To them it looks like an obvious pretext for a war, and promoting that pretext further simply looks like an invitation to use it to possibly do the same to them.
I'm sorry, Islam by itself may not be violent, but a significant chunk of Muslims out there are increasinly turning to a violent version of the religion.
Gee, I wonder why that would be? I don't suppose it has anything to do with a huge army marching into their homes and killing them and blowing up their brothers and sisters with cluster bombs? If I were asked five or ten years ago what the best way would be to increase the amount of muslim terrorism, I'm not sure I would have come up with an effective a method as we are now implementing. It is a great way to drive a huge number of people bound together by a common religion into such horror and despair and anger that they are willing to die simply to try to exact some revenge for all that has been done to them. But then, having an enemy and spreading fear are great ways to win votes, which I'm sure had nothing to do with our decision to invade.
You can say all you want about hicks and conservatives, but their percentages are way lower.
Really? How many conservatives and christians are there in the US military? How many people have they killed? Seems pretty violent and the numbers are many orders of magnitude greater than those killed by muslims lately. Or do you mean violence not done by Americans?
Heck, you see comics and cartoons involving almost every religion in a lot of democractic countries
You can flick a match against a wet cloth in your kiddie pool and nothing happens. If you flick a match against sandpaper in a room full of gunpowder there is an explosion. Obviously cloth is better than sandpaper and we need to be vigilant against the dangerous sandpaper out there. Be sure to place the blame where it belongs, on the sandpaper.
Go back to watching the 700 club and never questioning your beliefs of considering other points of view. I'm sure you'll be happy in your holier-than-thou, but blind-as-hell convictions.
Many of the rabble rousers were religious zealots.
Really? Can you send me citations for evidence of this. I looked into it at the time and was unable to find any real evidence of who created many of the drawings sent to the press and the BBC investigation drew a blank as well, last I heard. It seems probable than many of those fanning the flames were the normal crew who use religion as a path to power, but I've not seen evidence in this case, only speculation. I've seen other speculation from industry insiders that this may have been a military intelligence operation from the US or an unknown other country.
The congregation listened and it escalated despite the fact that probably most had never even seen the drawings themselves.
The drawings were widely publicized on television, the internet, and in print.
Look at the levels of response to this pen and ink drawing versus the response to the "piss christ" exhibit or other things.
The "piss christ" exhibit was basically completely unknown without any publicity and was never displayed anywhere expect a snobby art gallery in an urban area.
Can you see the difference in the magnitude of response?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Take a look at my previous post. I build an analogous situation including many, many important psychological factors. People don't react in anger unless they are subjected to a threat. People rarely react with extreme anger unless they are subjected to multiple, real threats and persistent fear. The people of the US have not seen their more powerful neighbors invaded and conquered by a foreign power that routinely backs their largest religious rival and which repeatedly makes scornful remarks about their religion. The inherently evil nature of christianity has not been the excuse for such an invasion. The US is not under imminent threat of invasion by such a vastly larger an more advanced army that they are certain to be defeated. Until they are, comparing a small trigger in said powder keg to a different trigger in a kiddie pool is in no way useful.
Go ahead and look at my analogy from the previous post and if you want to argue against it, go ahead and show a way in which it is not analogous or explain why you think religious community leaders would be trying to stop the rocks. I hope at least a few of them are strong and selfless enough to do just that, but I sadly do not expect such a thing.
The main problem is that mostly white teachers choose this 46-year-old book by a white author to teach students about racism. 46 years ago, a novel by a white author was about the only way such a message could reach a wide audience, but in 2006 there have got to be better ways. Any black author knows far more about racism than Harper Lee (despite Mr. Lee's best intentions), and it's time for the curiculum to reflect that.
So you're saying these parents missed the point of the book and were racists themselves in that they assume that white teachers are less able to teach the subject and put together a curriculum than because they are white and because they assume any black author knows more about racism than any white can. That is just sad. Why is it so many people assume racism by blacks is any better than racism by whites?
This comment is a reach. If a Democratically-elected institution decides that it doesn't want to expend public funds to make certain books available to the public free of charge, this is hardly a "ban".
I disagree. If a library decides it does not want to spend the money to carry a book, fine. If, however, a law is passed preventing a library from carrying a book, or if a book is donated for free, and then discarded by the library because they don't agree with it, that is a ban.
Taking this to the logical extreme, by your argument if the US government instituted free public television, like the BBC, but refused to carry programs on that television station or in libraries that spoke favorably of the republican party, but did carry opinions in favor of the democratic party then that would be just fine? The government is providing a service that fills a niche in our society, ruining the market for private libraries. They are obligated to carry out that service in a way way that is impartial and upholds free speech.
You may not like it, and you may disagree with the majority vote, but it seems perfectly legitimate to me for the public to decide how it wants to spend its money.
The constitution was created to stop tyrannies of the majority. You need a super-majority to overturn the freedom of speech, then the government can take actions that have a chilling effect on free speech, such as banning books from public libraries.
Wow, local govt "commonly" banning books from their local library? sounds like your country is more restrictive than the UK.
There are an estimated 8000 or so attempts to ban a book from a library or locality each year in the US. Most of them do not succeed. Given the number of religious wackos we have here, it could be worse.
I used to work in a UK library, we were restricted in what we could stock because we only had a limited budget (obviously) but we had a pretty decent interlibrary loan system
Most libraries in the US are part of such a system, although if the local library refuses to fetch a book for you because it is banned, there is not a lot you can do. Google just implemented a search engine for banned books, including libraries that have them, providing a useful online resource for bypassing this. Doubtless some libraries will ban that Web address as well, since in many poorer areas Libraries provide the only internet access some individual have.
...latest Harry Potter: sure, just a waiting list because everybody wants it and we can only afford 20 copies...
Interestingly, J.K. Rowlings is the 4th most banned author in the US, since so many feel her Harry Potter books are promoting witchcraft among susceptible young minds. I only wish I were kidding.
You miss out on the fact that the library is (usually) a government institution funded at public expense. Declining to spend public money to provide a book at taxpayer expense is not equivalent to banning. Banning would be forbidding people to provide a book at their own expense.
I completely disagree. Censorship is simply preventing ideas or writing from reaching the public. Just because a library is government funded, does not mean they should be able to pick and choose which ideas are provided to the public. In many cases, books are donated and cost the library nothing. Removing those works, is banning in a very real sense.
Let me remind you that the Islamic-Fascist's go one better: attempt to kill the author. Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists that drew the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark have had to live in hiding
I find the news coverage and people's opinions of the cartoon issue very interesting. Certain rabble rousers intentionally tried to cause trouble over the cartoons, the the point of sending ones they created and which had never been published anywhere to newspapers and to religious zealots in many countries. And yet, I saw not in one place, but in many, Muslim clerics placing themselves between an embassy and a mob throwing stones and trying to calm the situation and prevent violence. Islamic culture won big points in my mind that day.
I just picture a bunch of hicks from rural America showing up at an Iranian embassy after the widespread publication and promotion of pictures of jesus being sodomized. Then, to put it in context, I picture this happening in Texas, months after an army of middle easterners had conquered Mexico, bombing cities and sending frightened refugees to hide in the USA. Where each of these hicks knew some old friend or relative or friend of a friend or friend of a relative who had lost a mother or son or child to the bombings. And then I pictured all this happening after the President of Iran had made comments about how they should invade the US too, since the US had aided Mexico and all those christians were violent sodomites. With this picture in my mind, I wondered how many local pastors and priests in texas would be there, placing themselves between the rocks and the mob, and the Iranian embassy.
Yes Virgina, evil exists and it wants to kill you.
I don't approve of censorship or murder, but I do understand why people are convinced that both are right in certain circumstances. Lets just be sure not to pre judge people based upon religion or ethnicity. A catholic, muslim, or atheist is equally capable of promoting fascism.
Google's banned book list looks like a required reading list from a college literature. I don't see any of Stephen King's books that were banned by various schools over the years. He's probably the best writer of the last half of the 20th century.
You'll be happy to know Stephen King is the 7th most banned author according to the ALA, for 1999-2004. He just writes so bloody many books in the same vein, that none of them are in the top 10 right now. Amusingly, he is beaten by J.K. Rowling and her witchcraft promoting Harry Potter books, which come in at number 4.
I disagree. I think that these books merely represent a list of books that were banned at some time and place and are currently not banned in this time and place.
Many of these books are banned in many places right now. Maybe where you live.
I think if someone wrote a book like "Lolita" today, they would probably be banned. Lolita itself is not because of its fame.
Ahh, but here's the thing. Despite being banned, all of these books are still available in the US. If someone wrote a book like Lolita, it would be constitutionally protected and you'd be able to order it online, or find a library that had it using the Google search mentioned.
I don't see how these are banned books... they might even choose at a community level not to stock your book at the library, that doesn't mean that your book has been banned.
If the government at any level forbids a library from carrying a book, it has been banned. In addition to that, books have been banned for ownership in certain localities.
Heck most libraries don't carry everything anyway, I can't go get Hustler and Playboy at my Library. At my local library I can't find copies of the Jane's Reference books, or many other books.
The difference is, is it the choice of the library or of an external influence? When some of the most popular and requested books, like the Harry Potter books, are not carried by the library because the city council has passed a law preventing the library from carrying them, then they are effectively being censored. This is a common occurrence and something everyone should be aware of.
There are good books on that list, but you don't need to hype them by saying that they have been banned or censored by "the man." You should take the books as what they are.
The point is, they have been banned and burned and what is being celebrated is victory over that. The fact that anyone can go online and find a way to get these books is worth celebrating.
A lot of people have no problems with downloading software or other copyrighted materials illegaly, as long as it is for free. But a lot of people are against selling such items, or making a profit off of it. Unfortunately, the copyright lobby views both groups as filthy stinking pirates, but the public don't really care about the first group, and only view the second group as the real pirates that actually ought to be punished for it.
This is because until the 70's, non-commercial copyright infringement was not a crime. Most people still don't know that it is a crime or understand why. Of those that do know, a lot of them don't think it should be. That is what you get for electing scumbags to office who make laws based upon who gives them the most money. Until we get electoral reform and the legalized bribes from lobbyists are criminalized, you'll see more and more laws like this that benefit only big businesses.
Interesting that they did a preview of a product they're not ready to formally announce yet. Rather uncharacteristic. I guess they feel their hand is being forced. Perhaps they're trying to steal thunder from Vista Media Center Edition or whatever it's called?
Their hand was forced by the nature of the products/service they are announcing. If they announce movie downloads for sale, but no way to get them from the computer to the TV every article would be calling their offering DOA. This way, they provide all the necessary components, even if one of them is not available quite yet. They aren't too worried about competing with Windows media center, because it is missing that part of the picture. Windows media center serves the watching TV on a computer crowd. This is aiming for the regular TV crowd, that also has a mac, or might be considering one.
You'd think they'd at least finalize the name, though. Really odd.
I have a theory about that. iTV is a pretty obvious name, but if they started researching they'd quickly see EyeTV, pronounced the same, already has recognition in the related digital recorder market for macs. So either they noticed that late in the game or perhaps they are in talks with the creators of EyeTV. For that matter, they might be acquiring them and adding them to the lineup to fill in another missing chunk of their offerings.
The current anti-virus business is mainly built on loose ground: (the lack of) security in the main OS that they support... So, seeing that the anti-virus business is in a lose-lose situation, I guess they concluded they might as well cry wolf.
You're missing part of the picture. First, MS has a monopoly on the desktop OS. Second, they allowed a market for these security products to develop. As a result, it is illegal for MS to bundle a firewall or anti-virus program, or otherwise illegally tie it to their monopoly OS.
The correct solution to this problem is one MS does not like. That is, instead of constantly taking them to court over each individual infraction of this sort, when they willfully disobey the law as part of their business plan, break the company up so it no longer has a monopoly to abuse.
Hear me out on this. If MS was divided into multiple companies, one for applications, and two for desktop OS's, and both of these latter companies are given full rights to the existing source code for Windows, then MS will no longer have a monopoly. They won't have to worry about including a firewall or antivirus or a Web browser or a media player. It will all be 100% legal. They will just have to worry about giving customers what they want, because they will be in competition with one another and with other OS providers. Their lock-in will be broken and the market can go back to behaving properly. MS shareholders will get their stock doubled or quintupled or whatever. Everyone will be happy, except the MS executives who have built a business model on breaking the law in a way that they will no longer be capable of.
This is probably what would have happened in the first place in the US, were our politicians not so easily bribed by MS's vast fortune. The EU is unlikely to do this for political reasons. MS is an American company first, and it is really the US's place to take this action. So long as Americans vote out all the corrupt scum that currently run our government and elect people who aren't corrupt, this solution is likely to come about. So remember, just vote for the person who isn't a crook on the next couple of ballots. I'll leave it to your judgement to figure out which candidate that is.
I'm perfectly content with my 1.2GHz single-core single-processor laptop...
Back in the day, I was surprised to see how much a second processor helped for my workstation. Sort of the way having two eyes provides a significant advantage over one in nature, having two processors does the same for a workstation. Poorly written software that tries to monopolize CPU resources does not make the machine any less responsive. I'm less convinced of the benefits of more processors/cores until software development finds a better way to take advantage of them, but my old dual-533Mhz is still going strong as a low bandwidth server, media machine, and PVR. I'll be quite happy to have a second core in my laptop.
If Release Candidate ALWAYS meant what you think it does, then there would NEVER be RC1, RC2, RC3 - as the later two would be redundant. Get It?
Nope. Do you know what the term "candidate" means? It's just like a candidate in an election, except serial instead of parallel. Here is release candidate 1 (rc1) we'd like to ship him to customers. Oops, it has a critical bug dealing with ethernet interfaces and a few minor bugs. Okay we fixed those and have cut a new version of the code we've frozen in our versioning. It is called rc2 and we'd like to release him to customers. Oops, one of our pre-release test customers we sent it to says it crashes under high load. Okay we fixed that and have cut a third candidate for general release. It is called rc3. After two weeks with QA and pre-release customers, we have found seven minor bugs, none of which are critical. Lets ship this code as the gold master and get it printed while we start writing a patch to fix those minor bugs which we can ship after the general release.
Where the hell do you people work that you don't know this? Every development house I've ever worked has used this terminology. I think it is coded as the default in bugzilla even. Even if you've never worked at a development shop, all you really need is a dictionary. RC means release candidate. It is a candidate for being released. It is inherent in the term "candidate" that there may be other candidates.
And if not, I'm sorry you are new to this or just want to play devils donkey. I have been involved in development far too long to argue such idiotic semantics over terms that are fairly standard if you have worked with Microsoft for the past 15 years.
I'm not new to anything. Just because MS willfully misuses a term in a way not standard in the industry and which contradicts the meaning of the acronym they never spell out does not mean we should go along with it and start calling cats "dogs" and bugs "spontaneous features." The fact that you are so blind to their redefining a term for marketing reasons is sad. Maybe you should stop drinking the kool-aid.
If you want to call Vista Crap, then call Vista Crap, don't tip toe around saying that RC1 isn't RTM Quality.
I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I specifically said I haven't spent enough time with the RC to judge the quality. What I said was it is misleading if they are misusing the term, as many claim they are.
RC1s are never RTM Quality no matter what company is producing it - PERIOD
Bullshit. Everywhere I've worked an RC has always been a finished, polished release. By the time it hits RC1, it has the help system written and built in and a draft of the manual is downloadable by the users. Any given RC may not be what walks out the door, but they are all under consideration for the job and one of them eventually becomes GM.
Slashdot Mirror
But why should Microsoft care? There aren't enough OOo or WordPerfect users out there for their voices to add up to anything more than a fringe. What is needed first is for people to become less fearful of using non-Microsoft software...but every time something fails to render properly, people run back to what they were using for years.
I know it sounds strange applied to MS, but the market responds to customers. A lot of customers want the advantages of open standards and are tired of promises to bring those advantages without the standards themselves, something MS has promised and failed to deliver repeatedly. If governments, organizations, and companies continue the trend of demanding support for open standards in office documents, then MS will have to comply, or lose increasingly large chunks of the market. Either way, the lock-in is broken and then it is just the best product that wins.
The POP access is the main thing for me, and it is part of a trend. They also provide a Jabber compliant chat account, rather than some proprietary protocol that can only talk to Yahoo chat subscribers. Now the install base for Jabber is not huge right now, but for those who use it internally for their company or who just want a choice of clients it is a big bonus. Go open standards! Boo proprietary lock-in.
I'd prefer FCKEditor on a simple web page than OO Writer. OO Writer tries to do everything on all platforms, and it became heavily bloated.
I don't mind OO writer, but I can see where others might. One thing I'd like to see that might help mitigate that kind of bloat is something like the system services on OS X. They've added spell checking and a dictionary/thesaurus that can be accessed by any application and a grammar checker is supposed to be built into Leopard. I also use a more comprehensive collection of online dictionaries, some macros and scripts, quick language translations, automated bibliography citations, and statistic summaries (word/page count etc.) on a regular basis. Since they are implemented as services rather than built into every program, I can add them or not add them for a given program without any bloat and build up a custom toolbox with just the features I need. Don't need a quick translation to/from german? Don't add it to your services. This sort of customizability goes a long way towards removing the bloat while still letting any given user have the features they want or need and keeps you from having to rely on multiple implementations of the same thing for different programs (I taught my dictionary that ICMP is not a misspelling in InDesign... I don't want to have to do the same in Vi, Pico, Word, TextEdit, Photoshop, Safari, etc.).
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
True enough, though those are different kinds of reliability. One is the whether your document will be accidentally destroyed and the other is whether you will be able to view/edit it at any given point. There are a lot of drawbacks to office applications as services as well, although in truth I hope all office suites or operating systems begin offering a remote server mode so that I can access the same data and applications from remote terminals. I still am in locations without internet access enough that I'd be unwilling to lose the ability to edit files locally, even without the privacy considerations. I'm also not to keen on having access to my half-finshed book DDoSed by some punk botnet operator.
There is not a chance in hell I would use an online app for something that runs fine on my local pc. Why add an unneeded security risk?
There are four main advantages:
For the most part, I agree that I won't be using these services and my company sure doesn't want me collaborating on work projects that get stored by a third party. My backups are good enough and I already host my own server on my workstation when I collaborate on documents (SubEthaEdit). This might, however, make sense for others I know who like to casually collaborate or who know how to use a Web browser and Web mail and don't want to be confused by anything else. To some people, the Web browser is the only application they really run. This might be fine for them and they don't care if someone else steals the Senior Citizen Arts and Crafts schedule, or the erotic sci-fi short story they are co-editing with their old college buddy.
What was meant is obvious to anyone not using sophistry to prop up a weak argument.
Perhaps you've had time to consider your argument. Everyone experiences racism in some way. Almost everyone who does not live in a homogenous environment has been the subject of racism. Applying your racist prejudices to decide en mass that whites are less knowledgeable and less able to express useful works about racism, is more than a little backwards.
I note at this point you've ignored all my commentary on how you, yourself have been making racist comments here. It is interesting that you choose to avoid this topic.
Putting a book on a school curriculum IS choosing it to teach a particular lesson and removing it is NOT preventing anyone from reading it if they so desire.
Ahh, but if it is someone other than the teacher choosing that curriculum then it is others assuming they can make better choices, but without taking responsibility. For example, banning "To Kill a Mockingbird" does not assure that teachers will choose a better book and fulfilling the racist goals you mention and stipulating the teacher choose a book written by a black person is a huge step backwards for anyone interested in equality. It simply forwards the idea that such a book is not good enough to be chosen on its own merit. And we're talking about literature here, not a class in black american studies. I find the whole concept not only distasteful, but fundamentally racist.
If Dell will start installing it on systems (thus knocking $100 buck off the price of a machine), then it can make some serious in-roads, and knock Windows back.
First, Dell probably pays in the range of $70 for each copy of Windows pre-installed. They make a significant portion of that back by being paid to include random software that is arguably spyware or adware, or is a limited version of some software. Most of that software runs only on Windows, so they'd take a hit unless they could get those software makers to port said software. More importantly, doing so places them at great risk. Dell's only real selling point is price. They sell cheap, cheap systems with low margins. Imagine if the price for Windows on each of those computers rose to $150 when they renegotiated their OEM license with MS. And their MS Office prices went up as well. And their Servers and everything else from MS they currently get a discount on. At that point Dell has bet their company on Linux, taking off in the home, a risky proposition at best for such a small initial return.
I don't know if it's ready for a corporate enviroment, though. Although I don't like MS, their combo of Exchange, AD, and DC is pretty powerful.
Actually, I think this is where Linux is ready. A big company can save a lot of money by ditching all their Windows license fees and competent admins have already managed large scale migrations of this sort. There is really very little Exchange, AD, and DC bring to the average user's desktop that open source tools do not do just as well, but cheaper. They may be harder to configure or require a better admin, but that is not something that effects the end user and you can hire quite a few good admins for the millions you're saving in licensing. I'd go so far as to say any corporate entity on Windows right now, that is not looking at Linux as an alternative to an eventual upgrade to Vista, is incompetent or not acting in the best interests of their company. Not that it is the right time for everyone to move, but it should be seriously evaluated as an option if they want to remain competitive.
So witnessing racism is equivalent to experiencing it? I don't think so.
Umm, witnessing something is an experience so, by definition, yes. Perhaps you meant something else?
We (whites) pull out a half-century old book like Mockingbird, so we can pat ourselves on the back for how far we've come and how enlightened we are compared to our grandparents.
Sigh. This statement is racist. You're prejudging white people based upon only the fact that they are white. You say this is something white people do. You assume no black or asian or hispanic person has ever read this book and thought, well society has come a long way and our grandparents sure were dumb. You further assume that white people in general read this book and react in a certain way, but you don't know. You're making that assumption based entirely on race. You are pre-judging them.
That does nothing to address current issues and instead makes it seem like we've already solved the problem of racism.
It is sort of sad that you talk about how this book is part of the problem, when in truth it is your attitude that is part of the problem. The book is a story and different people will interpret it differently and take different things away from it. Some will agree with an idea in it and some will disagree. Claiming that people with one color of skin will interpret it one way is your own racist belief.
I'm not denying that Mockingbird is a classic piece of literature, only that in terms of addressing social issues (as all great art should), it's time has passed.
Apparently it did not manage to teach you too much. In any case, whether or not it is the best book to teach a particular lesson is avery different question than whether it is appropriate to force that opinion on teachers, libraries, and young readers by banning it.
It absolutely means that the public which owns it should vote democratically about whatever standards they want the library to hold. The public should not be forced to fund something they don't want.
Luckily the US government is structured so that it takes a super majority, rather than a simple majority to infringe basic human rights. In many cases we're not talking about funding. Usually, these are attempts to remove books the library already has, either because they were purchased or donated. Rarely does it cost anything at all.
Obviously publishing tools which script kiddies can use to attack people is not a good idea, that's not what we're talking about. Surely I should at least tell people that I have found a vulnerability and that the software in question is not, in my opinion, something that you should be using if you care about security.
I don't think a hard and fast 120 days rule makes sense, but I think a researcher should look at the characteristics of the vulnerability before deciding what is responsible, as well as the motivational effect on the software vendor. Is the vulnerability likely to have been discovered by blackhats? Is the vulnerability something that can be mitigated with firewalls, ACLs, or by disabling non-essential services if people know about it. Are their realistic alternatives people can employ to avoid this vulnerability (download Firefox). Will announcing the vulnerability make it obvious to blackhats or is it hard to find even if you are looking? Will announcing the vulnerability motivate the vendor to patch it more quickly?
There is a lot to consider for any individual case.
What if I'm an IDS manufacturer? I start getting alarms that shell code has been detected in a protocol stream that has never before seen shell code in it. Analysing the incident I discover that there is a vulnerability in a particular daemon which these attackers are using to gain unauthorised access. Who should I inform? The vendor of that daemon? My customers? Or the general public?
This is different than discovering a vulnerability. You've discovered an in-the-wild exploit. It tips the balance strongly towards full disclosure. If there is only one vendor for that type of product, and no work around, and the product is critical to those using it, it might be reasonable to just inform the vendor if you think they will fix it as fast as possible. Otherwise, full disclosure will almost always be the best option.
I think what you allude to is simply that there is no one rule for what you should always do. There are a lot of factors and each researchers has to evaluate them and make a call based upon them. So long as they are trying to be responsible and do the right thing, instead of grandstanding or trying to milk it for cash, I think we will all be pretty forgiving if they turn out to be in error.
Listen to yourself - you are equating a funny picture showing the real state of affairs (i.e. the trend of Islamic states heading towards terrorism) to an intentionally offensive one of showing a religious head performing sexual acts.
It is called an analogy. Some of us use them to try to understand others. It is called putting yourself in another's shoes. The analogy I presented provides a pretty accurate role reversal for the average person, placing them in the position said muslims were in at the time. By picturing it, you can begin to understand the mindset of people there and predict how they are likely to respond to future events. It also allows us to normalize significant factors, except religion to show how foolish claims that it is the Islamic religion that is the cause of the behavior, and not the situation as a whole.
As for your assertion that Islamic states are headed towards terrorism, it is fairly accurate, but you might have your cause and effect a little screwy. The US has moved drastically toward increased terrorism in recent years to an extreme degree. We launched a larger army that all the middle east could ever manage for our "shock and awe" campaign against certain predominantly muslim nations. If that is not blatant attempts to use terror as a weapon. Maybe you need to reconsider exactly what the definition of "terrorism" is rather than buying into the media hype.
Did they show Allah making out with a naked guy? All they did was have a comic commenting on Islamic terrorism, and a very valid one at that.
You are very misinformed. The cartoons that were published in numerous papers and shown on TV showed acts of copulation as well as cartoons equating Islam with terrorism. The second is a touchy subject because of the situation in which the average muslim is placed. If you would bother even trying to understand their position you'd see they have friends and relatives, children, daughters, and grandfathers who have been blown up by an invading army whose excuse has been an act of "muslim terrorism" even though the country all those muslims were from is not the one that was invaded. To them it looks like an obvious pretext for a war, and promoting that pretext further simply looks like an invitation to use it to possibly do the same to them.
I'm sorry, Islam by itself may not be violent, but a significant chunk of Muslims out there are increasinly turning to a violent version of the religion.
Gee, I wonder why that would be? I don't suppose it has anything to do with a huge army marching into their homes and killing them and blowing up their brothers and sisters with cluster bombs? If I were asked five or ten years ago what the best way would be to increase the amount of muslim terrorism, I'm not sure I would have come up with an effective a method as we are now implementing. It is a great way to drive a huge number of people bound together by a common religion into such horror and despair and anger that they are willing to die simply to try to exact some revenge for all that has been done to them. But then, having an enemy and spreading fear are great ways to win votes, which I'm sure had nothing to do with our decision to invade.
You can say all you want about hicks and conservatives, but their percentages are way lower.
Really? How many conservatives and christians are there in the US military? How many people have they killed? Seems pretty violent and the numbers are many orders of magnitude greater than those killed by muslims lately. Or do you mean violence not done by Americans?
Heck, you see comics and cartoons involving almost every religion in a lot of democractic countries
You can flick a match against a wet cloth in your kiddie pool and nothing happens. If you flick a match against sandpaper in a room full of gunpowder there is an explosion. Obviously cloth is better than sandpaper and we need to be vigilant against the dangerous sandpaper out there. Be sure to place the blame where it belongs, on the sandpaper.
Go back to watching the 700 club and never questioning your beliefs of considering other points of view. I'm sure you'll be happy in your holier-than-thou, but blind-as-hell convictions.
Many of the rabble rousers were religious zealots.
Really? Can you send me citations for evidence of this. I looked into it at the time and was unable to find any real evidence of who created many of the drawings sent to the press and the BBC investigation drew a blank as well, last I heard. It seems probable than many of those fanning the flames were the normal crew who use religion as a path to power, but I've not seen evidence in this case, only speculation. I've seen other speculation from industry insiders that this may have been a military intelligence operation from the US or an unknown other country.
The congregation listened and it escalated despite the fact that probably most had never even seen the drawings themselves.
The drawings were widely publicized on television, the internet, and in print.
Look at the levels of response to this pen and ink drawing versus the response to the "piss christ" exhibit or other things.
The "piss christ" exhibit was basically completely unknown without any publicity and was never displayed anywhere expect a snobby art gallery in an urban area.
Can you see the difference in the magnitude of response?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Take a look at my previous post. I build an analogous situation including many, many important psychological factors. People don't react in anger unless they are subjected to a threat. People rarely react with extreme anger unless they are subjected to multiple, real threats and persistent fear. The people of the US have not seen their more powerful neighbors invaded and conquered by a foreign power that routinely backs their largest religious rival and which repeatedly makes scornful remarks about their religion. The inherently evil nature of christianity has not been the excuse for such an invasion. The US is not under imminent threat of invasion by such a vastly larger an more advanced army that they are certain to be defeated. Until they are, comparing a small trigger in said powder keg to a different trigger in a kiddie pool is in no way useful.
Go ahead and look at my analogy from the previous post and if you want to argue against it, go ahead and show a way in which it is not analogous or explain why you think religious community leaders would be trying to stop the rocks. I hope at least a few of them are strong and selfless enough to do just that, but I sadly do not expect such a thing.
The main problem is that mostly white teachers choose this 46-year-old book by a white author to teach students about racism. 46 years ago, a novel by a white author was about the only way such a message could reach a wide audience, but in 2006 there have got to be better ways. Any black author knows far more about racism than Harper Lee (despite Mr. Lee's best intentions), and it's time for the curiculum to reflect that.
So you're saying these parents missed the point of the book and were racists themselves in that they assume that white teachers are less able to teach the subject and put together a curriculum than because they are white and because they assume any black author knows more about racism than any white can. That is just sad. Why is it so many people assume racism by blacks is any better than racism by whites?
This comment is a reach. If a Democratically-elected institution decides that it doesn't want to expend public funds to make certain books available to the public free of charge, this is hardly a "ban".
I disagree. If a library decides it does not want to spend the money to carry a book, fine. If, however, a law is passed preventing a library from carrying a book, or if a book is donated for free, and then discarded by the library because they don't agree with it, that is a ban.
Taking this to the logical extreme, by your argument if the US government instituted free public television, like the BBC, but refused to carry programs on that television station or in libraries that spoke favorably of the republican party, but did carry opinions in favor of the democratic party then that would be just fine? The government is providing a service that fills a niche in our society, ruining the market for private libraries. They are obligated to carry out that service in a way way that is impartial and upholds free speech.
You may not like it, and you may disagree with the majority vote, but it seems perfectly legitimate to me for the public to decide how it wants to spend its money.
The constitution was created to stop tyrannies of the majority. You need a super-majority to overturn the freedom of speech, then the government can take actions that have a chilling effect on free speech, such as banning books from public libraries.
Wow, local govt "commonly" banning books from their local library? sounds like your country is more restrictive than the UK.
There are an estimated 8000 or so attempts to ban a book from a library or locality each year in the US. Most of them do not succeed. Given the number of religious wackos we have here, it could be worse.
I used to work in a UK library, we were restricted in what we could stock because we only had a limited budget (obviously) but we had a pretty decent interlibrary loan system
Most libraries in the US are part of such a system, although if the local library refuses to fetch a book for you because it is banned, there is not a lot you can do. Google just implemented a search engine for banned books, including libraries that have them, providing a useful online resource for bypassing this. Doubtless some libraries will ban that Web address as well, since in many poorer areas Libraries provide the only internet access some individual have.
Interestingly, J.K. Rowlings is the 4th most banned author in the US, since so many feel her Harry Potter books are promoting witchcraft among susceptible young minds. I only wish I were kidding.
You miss out on the fact that the library is (usually) a government institution funded at public expense. Declining to spend public money to provide a book at taxpayer expense is not equivalent to banning. Banning would be forbidding people to provide a book at their own expense.
I completely disagree. Censorship is simply preventing ideas or writing from reaching the public. Just because a library is government funded, does not mean they should be able to pick and choose which ideas are provided to the public. In many cases, books are donated and cost the library nothing. Removing those works, is banning in a very real sense.
Let me remind you that the Islamic-Fascist's go one better: attempt to kill the author. Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists that drew the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark have had to live in hiding
I find the news coverage and people's opinions of the cartoon issue very interesting. Certain rabble rousers intentionally tried to cause trouble over the cartoons, the the point of sending ones they created and which had never been published anywhere to newspapers and to religious zealots in many countries. And yet, I saw not in one place, but in many, Muslim clerics placing themselves between an embassy and a mob throwing stones and trying to calm the situation and prevent violence. Islamic culture won big points in my mind that day.
I just picture a bunch of hicks from rural America showing up at an Iranian embassy after the widespread publication and promotion of pictures of jesus being sodomized. Then, to put it in context, I picture this happening in Texas, months after an army of middle easterners had conquered Mexico, bombing cities and sending frightened refugees to hide in the USA. Where each of these hicks knew some old friend or relative or friend of a friend or friend of a relative who had lost a mother or son or child to the bombings. And then I pictured all this happening after the President of Iran had made comments about how they should invade the US too, since the US had aided Mexico and all those christians were violent sodomites. With this picture in my mind, I wondered how many local pastors and priests in texas would be there, placing themselves between the rocks and the mob, and the Iranian embassy.
Yes Virgina, evil exists and it wants to kill you.
I don't approve of censorship or murder, but I do understand why people are convinced that both are right in certain circumstances. Lets just be sure not to pre judge people based upon religion or ethnicity. A catholic, muslim, or atheist is equally capable of promoting fascism.
Google's banned book list looks like a required reading list from a college literature. I don't see any of Stephen King's books that were banned by various schools over the years. He's probably the best writer of the last half of the 20th century.
You'll be happy to know Stephen King is the 7th most banned author according to the ALA, for 1999-2004. He just writes so bloody many books in the same vein, that none of them are in the top 10 right now. Amusingly, he is beaten by J.K. Rowling and her witchcraft promoting Harry Potter books, which come in at number 4.
I disagree. I think that these books merely represent a list of books that were banned at some time and place and are currently not banned in this time and place.
Many of these books are banned in many places right now. Maybe where you live.
I think if someone wrote a book like "Lolita" today, they would probably be banned. Lolita itself is not because of its fame.
Ahh, but here's the thing. Despite being banned, all of these books are still available in the US. If someone wrote a book like Lolita, it would be constitutionally protected and you'd be able to order it online, or find a library that had it using the Google search mentioned.
I don't see how these are banned books... they might even choose at a community level not to stock your book at the library, that doesn't mean that your book has been banned.
If the government at any level forbids a library from carrying a book, it has been banned. In addition to that, books have been banned for ownership in certain localities.
Heck most libraries don't carry everything anyway, I can't go get Hustler and Playboy at my Library. At my local library I can't find copies of the Jane's Reference books, or many other books.
The difference is, is it the choice of the library or of an external influence? When some of the most popular and requested books, like the Harry Potter books, are not carried by the library because the city council has passed a law preventing the library from carrying them, then they are effectively being censored. This is a common occurrence and something everyone should be aware of.
There are good books on that list, but you don't need to hype them by saying that they have been banned or censored by "the man." You should take the books as what they are.
The point is, they have been banned and burned and what is being celebrated is victory over that. The fact that anyone can go online and find a way to get these books is worth celebrating.
A lot of people have no problems with downloading software or other copyrighted materials illegaly, as long as it is for free. But a lot of people are against selling such items, or making a profit off of it. Unfortunately, the copyright lobby views both groups as filthy stinking pirates, but the public don't really care about the first group, and only view the second group as the real pirates that actually ought to be punished for it.
This is because until the 70's, non-commercial copyright infringement was not a crime. Most people still don't know that it is a crime or understand why. Of those that do know, a lot of them don't think it should be. That is what you get for electing scumbags to office who make laws based upon who gives them the most money. Until we get electoral reform and the legalized bribes from lobbyists are criminalized, you'll see more and more laws like this that benefit only big businesses.
Interesting that they did a preview of a product they're not ready to formally announce yet. Rather uncharacteristic. I guess they feel their hand is being forced. Perhaps they're trying to steal thunder from Vista Media Center Edition or whatever it's called?
Their hand was forced by the nature of the products/service they are announcing. If they announce movie downloads for sale, but no way to get them from the computer to the TV every article would be calling their offering DOA. This way, they provide all the necessary components, even if one of them is not available quite yet. They aren't too worried about competing with Windows media center, because it is missing that part of the picture. Windows media center serves the watching TV on a computer crowd. This is aiming for the regular TV crowd, that also has a mac, or might be considering one.
You'd think they'd at least finalize the name, though. Really odd.
I have a theory about that. iTV is a pretty obvious name, but if they started researching they'd quickly see EyeTV, pronounced the same, already has recognition in the related digital recorder market for macs. So either they noticed that late in the game or perhaps they are in talks with the creators of EyeTV. For that matter, they might be acquiring them and adding them to the lineup to fill in another missing chunk of their offerings.
The current anti-virus business is mainly built on loose ground: (the lack of) security in the main OS that they support... So, seeing that the anti-virus business is in a lose-lose situation, I guess they concluded they might as well cry wolf.
You're missing part of the picture. First, MS has a monopoly on the desktop OS. Second, they allowed a market for these security products to develop. As a result, it is illegal for MS to bundle a firewall or anti-virus program, or otherwise illegally tie it to their monopoly OS.
The correct solution to this problem is one MS does not like. That is, instead of constantly taking them to court over each individual infraction of this sort, when they willfully disobey the law as part of their business plan, break the company up so it no longer has a monopoly to abuse.
Hear me out on this. If MS was divided into multiple companies, one for applications, and two for desktop OS's, and both of these latter companies are given full rights to the existing source code for Windows, then MS will no longer have a monopoly. They won't have to worry about including a firewall or antivirus or a Web browser or a media player. It will all be 100% legal. They will just have to worry about giving customers what they want, because they will be in competition with one another and with other OS providers. Their lock-in will be broken and the market can go back to behaving properly. MS shareholders will get their stock doubled or quintupled or whatever. Everyone will be happy, except the MS executives who have built a business model on breaking the law in a way that they will no longer be capable of.
This is probably what would have happened in the first place in the US, were our politicians not so easily bribed by MS's vast fortune. The EU is unlikely to do this for political reasons. MS is an American company first, and it is really the US's place to take this action. So long as Americans vote out all the corrupt scum that currently run our government and elect people who aren't corrupt, this solution is likely to come about. So remember, just vote for the person who isn't a crook on the next couple of ballots. I'll leave it to your judgement to figure out which candidate that is.
I'm perfectly content with my 1.2GHz single-core single-processor laptop...
Back in the day, I was surprised to see how much a second processor helped for my workstation. Sort of the way having two eyes provides a significant advantage over one in nature, having two processors does the same for a workstation. Poorly written software that tries to monopolize CPU resources does not make the machine any less responsive. I'm less convinced of the benefits of more processors/cores until software development finds a better way to take advantage of them, but my old dual-533Mhz is still going strong as a low bandwidth server, media machine, and PVR. I'll be quite happy to have a second core in my laptop.
If Release Candidate ALWAYS meant what you think it does, then there would NEVER be RC1, RC2, RC3 - as the later two would be redundant. Get It?
Nope. Do you know what the term "candidate" means? It's just like a candidate in an election, except serial instead of parallel. Here is release candidate 1 (rc1) we'd like to ship him to customers. Oops, it has a critical bug dealing with ethernet interfaces and a few minor bugs. Okay we fixed those and have cut a new version of the code we've frozen in our versioning. It is called rc2 and we'd like to release him to customers. Oops, one of our pre-release test customers we sent it to says it crashes under high load. Okay we fixed that and have cut a third candidate for general release. It is called rc3. After two weeks with QA and pre-release customers, we have found seven minor bugs, none of which are critical. Lets ship this code as the gold master and get it printed while we start writing a patch to fix those minor bugs which we can ship after the general release.
Where the hell do you people work that you don't know this? Every development house I've ever worked has used this terminology. I think it is coded as the default in bugzilla even. Even if you've never worked at a development shop, all you really need is a dictionary. RC means release candidate. It is a candidate for being released. It is inherent in the term "candidate" that there may be other candidates.
And if not, I'm sorry you are new to this or just want to play devils donkey. I have been involved in development far too long to argue such idiotic semantics over terms that are fairly standard if you have worked with Microsoft for the past 15 years.
I'm not new to anything. Just because MS willfully misuses a term in a way not standard in the industry and which contradicts the meaning of the acronym they never spell out does not mean we should go along with it and start calling cats "dogs" and bugs "spontaneous features." The fact that you are so blind to their redefining a term for marketing reasons is sad. Maybe you should stop drinking the kool-aid.
If you want to call Vista Crap, then call Vista Crap, don't tip toe around saying that RC1 isn't RTM Quality.
I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I specifically said I haven't spent enough time with the RC to judge the quality. What I said was it is misleading if they are misusing the term, as many claim they are.
RC1s are never RTM Quality no matter what company is producing it - PERIOD
Bullshit. Everywhere I've worked an RC has always been a finished, polished release. By the time it hits RC1, it has the help system written and built in and a draft of the manual is downloadable by the users. Any given RC may not be what walks out the door, but they are all under consideration for the job and one of them eventually becomes GM.