Why is there this continued assumption that minority views are always right? Sure, quantum mechanics was once a minority view, but so was the belief that the earth is hollow. Not all minority views turn out right - in fact almost none of them do.
I think that 'consensus' views tend to be simplistic to the point of being wrong. It's not so much that the majority of scientists are wrong, just that in this case the media tries to turn what they say into "Imminent catastophe: We rich people are to blame". The scientists I've spoken to see things as being much less clear cut, and the climate as being essentially unpredictable.
You don't get to pick the minority view you want simply to support your political or economic beliefs.
Glad we agree on something. I think this is exactly what the greens are doing, and it's highly annoying.
No, it really isn't. Crichton is not an expert in this field. He has extremely minor scientific qualifications. Writing bad science fiction does not qualify someone to discuss these matters.
Surely anyone with an interest in science or economics can discuss them? If you only ask experts on climate change if climate change is a serious problem, aren't you introducing a bit of bias?
The planet isn't doomed, but there could be nasty wars over land and water, and the migration of hundreds of millions.
People have been claiming stuff like that for ages. Michael Crichton may not be an expert on climate change, but he's smart enough to dig up cases of people like Paul Ehrlich claiming imminent mass starvation in America, commodity prices going through the roof and so on, and he's been wrong every time.
No-one is claiming that.
Yes they are. The whole tone of the greens' argument is obnoxious, it's all about how the consensus agrees with me, the only people that don't are paid shills. The evidence I've seen doesn't really convince me that we need to do anything drastic, it's as simple as that. There's a load of uncertainty in this stuff, and the everyone seems to be be picking the worst case result of climate change to make the problem seem much more serious than it likely is, and then using a mixture of ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority to silence people that question them.
Yeah, it was ridiculed. Until the proposer of the hypothesis actually did experiments to demonstrate his idea. Those experiments could be reproduced.
But we can't do experiments on the Earth's climate, so the correcting mechanism is broken.
Actually, I think the problem is trying to use the provisional truth that's the best that science can give you, using it to make predictions into the distant future, and then making drastic economic changes now based on those predictions.
E.g. Lysenkoism, creationism, eugenics and planned economies where interesting ideas. Basing public policy on them, especially public policy which was not democratically alterable was disasterous.
It's same with global warming, global cooling, population explosion, population collapse, running out of resources. A few of these are probably correct in fact, but I don't think we'll no enough about any of them to avoid them causing a disaster in the future.
Actually, population explosion is my favourite example. Mao decided that the Chinese population was growing too fast when actually it was probably static or falling. He decided to take drastic action, the one child policy, enforced by things like forced abortions. This was a catastophe for the Chinese, and it may yet cause them economic problems in the future because it will cause their society to age before it gets rich. Their gender balance is seriously skewed too.
Come to think of it global cooling is kind of interesting too. Just imagine if global warming is real and we had made public policy decisions based on the consensus on global cooling in the 1970s.
The point is that if you don't really know how to predict stuff into the distant future, you should not have a policy that's determined by those predictions. But I think science probably corrects itself ok in the absence of this. It happened with global cooling, if global warming is similar flawed, that will get corrected too.
Yeah, but if the BBC covered that like they covered climate change they'd say "the overwhelming consensus is that the old theory is mostly correct, and can be fixed with a few minor changes. Only a small minority of scientists believe in so called quantum theory, which is a much more radical revision"
Not that it would matter a jot, since that doesn't have any public policy implications. A better example, as Michael Crichton pointed out, would be the consensus on eugenics or Lysenkoism, which was used to justify some very evil actions. Planned economies had consensus support at the start of the 20th Century, and they turned out to be a disaster too. Millions of people died in each case incidentally, so the stakes are pretty high here. Actually, even if absolutely no one dies because of alarmism about the environment, we've still lost something intellectually as a species, as he points out with his comments about the way Scientific American treated Bjorn Lomborg.
In fact it's worth quoting his comments on that. Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.
Ouch.
The point is that you have a complicated subject, and most of the media, including the BBC and Scientific American covers it as "If we don't take drastic action, the planet is doomed, only a few people have been paid by Big Oil to question this truth", which is a gross oversimplification. It's also kind of suspicious that imminent climate collapse is being used to justify the same sort of statist policies that BBC style leftwingers used to support for different reasons before socialism self destructed. I don't trust people who find a new justification for their highly questionable policy ideas when the old one becomes untenable or unfashionable.
And looking at the details, like Lomborg did, there's all sorts of stuff wrong with this. Implementing Kyoto would be expensive, and yet it's actually not really enough to dent CO2 emissions. And the countries likely to increase their emissions most are actually exempt. Once again, it's a climate change based way to implement the kind of redistributive policie, especially from the US to the rest of the world that left wingers have been arguing for unsuccessfully for ages.
And finally, there's something implicitly totalitarian about the idea that we know the absolute truth, and the only reason we can't take the necessary action is because of fools and dupes of big business are questioning it. This is the sort of mentality that leads, if not to the gulag, to a much less democratic system implementing disasterous policies against the wishes of the population. Like the UN or the EU in fact.
So relying on the consensus is unreliable, and using the scientific consensus to justify radically altering the world economy is the road to serfdom quite frankly, no matter how altruistic the people doing it think they are.
b3ta to links to a site which had text under the banners to say something like "Thank you for blocking adverts. Now I will have to spend money on bandwidth that I would otherwise have spent feeding my kids". It was flash movies and the like, probably got zillions of page views. Now I've no idea what percentage of bandwidth costs get met my ad revenue, so maybe they were just taking the piss, but you never know. Maybe looking at the funny flash movies with adblock enabled is like eating at a diner and not tipping. I click on ads on sites which are interesting and bogged down anyhow. What's the time you save not doing it?
The only question is whether they want to, exactly what they want to do there, and how much effort do they want to put into a computer whose price would more than double if they actually sold a Windows OEM license with it.
They've already offered free Windows licenses for OLPC. I think it's a OLPC is a bit like Netscape, they basically want a product to compete with it, even if they don't see any money for the forseeable future. More generously, the Gates foundation pays billions to charity, and free Windows for the third world is probably worth it for the publicity.
Though it's got a x86 compatible AMD Geode, so it could run XP or Win2K. Given the huge number of platforms NT&CE have run on (x86, x86-63, Itanium, Alpha, Mips, PowerPC, Alpha64, i860, ARM, Hitachi SH, Matsushita AM33, Mitsubishi M32R *) there are obviously some people inside Microsoft who are keen or porting things to new hardware.
The latest developments in XPLite now see clean installations of Windows XP in under 350MB and Windows 2000 approaching less than 200 MB (excluding paging file) with much smaller memory requirements! These sizes are obtained simply by running XPLite/2000Lite on a fresh install of windows. Enterprising developers should easily be able to strip out additional log files, INF files and unused drivers to reduce the footprint by another 50MB or so. If your goal is to run a dedicated task in as little storage as possible - then look no further than XPlite.
And this is just hacking.inf files, I bet you could shrink it further if you could rebuild the binaries to strip out stuff that the hardware doen't need. You could probably go for an NT style non plug and play boot for example, where NTLDR just passes a hardcoded config to the kernel. You could strip out unused filesystems too.
But XP in 300MB is no problem even if you just hack inf files.
* OK, maybe not that huge but consider how many they absolutely needed to support. On NT, Mips, PowerPC and Alpha had negligable market share or support from applications and were eventually dropped. But despite that, someone in the kernel team decided to pay for the work to port to them. There's a document with the of PE processor types here
Emulation is slow. E.g. a PowerPC executing x86 code by emulation will be much slower than a native x86. There are tricks, like profiling the application and translating, rather than emulating the frequently used bits, but it in general there will always be a hefty penalty. And modern performance critical code will use multimedia instructions which don't have 1:1 mappings to a different instruction set.
But on an Intel Mac none of this is an issue, since the Windows app and a mac one run on exactly the same instruction set. Of course, the API the applications use will be completely different. Virtualisation is about running two kernels simultaneously on the same hardware. Now this is tricky, because OS kernels want to be in sole control of the hardware. The x86 isn't completely self virtualisable, i.e. you can't trap and emulate all the instructions you need to fool the kernel, so you go back to profiling and translating, at least for kernel mode code. Or you can trap many more instructions than you need to. But recent intel chips have a technology called VT which plugs the holes and allows self virtualisation.
So you can run the guest kernel code at full speed, and trap and emulate just enough to keep the guest OS under control of the hypervisor.
I dunno. I think it's for the same reason that QuickTime and RealPlayer both install those damn system tray icons, and even reinstall them in case the user 'accidentally' deleted them.
Oddly enough, I work at company that makes embedded systems, and I know of at least one bug report where the installing our SDK fails if you have Google toolbar installed. Even stranger, I debugged a problem with the emulated version running on Windows. Customer code did something quite reasonable, but the emulator crashed inside a DLL from a trojan, which had installed a bunch of hooks and then crashed handling a message. Unbelievable, I figured all largish corporations run IE/Windows in a ultra locked down mode so they didn't get these sorts of issues.
These days, I regard any toolbar or commercial media player as a stability risk.
+ Gracenote founder Steve Scherf has come a long way from his younger days of meth-fueled + llama sodomizing. While once it looked like he'd soon die in a gutter, that six months + he spent in the federal pen for killing a bussload of nuns while drunk (which he coyly + refers to as "Happy happy shower butt fun time") cleaned him up, allowing him to become + the ruthless corporate asshat we know today.
I'm not sure what the correct foot shooting analogy is but with Win2K and NT you could install a cracked version and it worked the same as the uncracked version.
With XP you can install a cracked version, and you get updates, something Microsoft took some time to clarify. For a while, it was hard to install the service packs, until Microsoft wrote a helpful article on how to change your product key. Given that key generators are widely available, this was Microsoft effectively conceding that cracked installs could be have the service packs installed.
But you can't download stuff from microsoft unless you validate your install as genuine. The Genuine Advantage detector keeps getting cracked and patched all the time though. So at the moment, the advantage you get from actually buying the software is rather slight. They also show no sign of persuing the owners of cracked installs who get automatic updates. They persue companies ruthlessly, but home owners seem to be exempt.
But it's easy to imagine that they plan to gradually increase the advantage you get from having a legal copy of the OS, without actually stopping the cracked versions from working over night.
The use of RFID that I worry about most are the chips that the government installs on us that we don't know about. These days they have been using air-guns to shoot them at unsuspecting citizens. All you hear is a slight buzzing and feel what feels and looks like a mosquito bite, and BAM! -- you're being tracked. I think this practice is just plain wrong and should be stopped. In the meantime, stay away from wooded or swampy areas because for some reason this is where these agents tend to hang out.
Score -1 Troll
Oh, come on mods!
Troll? It's satire on all the paranoid posters here. It made me smile anyway.
UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy.
Most of Western Europe in fact apart from France and occasionally Germany. Most of South East Asia, except for Vietnam and Burma. China seldom vetoes American sponsored UN resolutions, and it's plausible that China and the US have some kind of arrangement to maximize cooperation on shared interests and avoid conflict over several decades.
In the War on violent Fundamentalist Sunni Islam, Russia, France and most of the Middle Eastern dictatorships are allies, including normally hostile countries like Syria and Iran. In fact it's only the Axis of evil countries that actually hate the US enough to give useful support to the other side.
Now as you go down the list, it's more about shared interests than being particularly pro American, but if you look at Russia or China or Syria, the basically hate and fear Sunni fundamentalist Islam much more than the US and their actions reflect this. E.g. the Russians fought and won an extremely dirty war against Chechens which was partly about Islamic terrorism, and the Syrian regime has been battling Islamist violence since the 1980s.
The EFF doesn't have a bakery. They can give you a web page with a recipe containing a mixture of flour, water and sugar, but when you bake it it doesn't taste anything like cookies. If you mention this on the internet, people tell you that they're NOT ALLOWED to make it better, because the BIG COOKIE manufacturers have REFUSED to give out the recipe. Oh, and that the gloop you baked TASTES MUCH BETTER than store bought cookies anyway.
I still own guns. I no longer own a bike. The kooks driving their cars while yapping on the cell phone and munching McCheezies scare me worse that the kooks with the guns.
If you own a gun, why do you put up with it? I'm not suggesting you should put a cap in someone's ass for talking on the cellphone while driving, but a warning shot for first offense and a wing mirror shot for the second seems reasonable.
Ever see someone driving while playing the clarinet? Be very afraid.....
Actually, I take that back. You should put a cap in someone's ass for playing the clarinet.
huh? The squishy feeling is a good thing(tm) It's called a quiet keyboard. I very much dislike the spring keyboards, esp if you use them for data entry. With quiet keyboards it's much easier to press the keys.
My keyboard maybe a bit loud, but at least I can tell when I've pressed the key hard enough for it to register.
It's because shortcuts are from the Windows 95 shell, which had to work on FAT. Shortcuts can link to things that aren't files too, IIRC. So they're not really anything to do with symlinks.
And they're only used in the Start Menu, so only the shell supports them.
NTFS supports real hardlinks, but it's only used by POSIX. You can use DeviceIoControls to make them from Win32, and sysinternals has sample code.
Oddly enough in FAT32, the high 4 bits of each FAT entry are reserved. The problem with a FAT based filesystem is that you don't have an inode to hold a count of the number of links to a file. But you could use the high bits of the fat entry to track it. It'd be kind of gross though, presumably files with more than 16 links would need to add extra clusters to hold the extra counter bits. E.g. a one cluster file would have 4 bits of link count, a two cluster file would have 8 bits and so on. Would be hairy trying to update it though, since you'd need to have some kind of mutex to protect the FAT.
To create a symlink (or hardlink) in NTFS you either need to use Unix services for Windows to get a command line, or use the POSIX compatibility engine programatically (just make the same API calls you would in UNIX though random function names will have leading '_'s just to make it difficult).
You need to
#define _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE 1
or add a/D_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE in the compiler options.
214432 bytes contains read only versions of NTFS and FAT. Oddly enough, if you have a SCSI card which doesn't have Bios support, it can use the normal NT driver if you rename it NTBOOTDD.SYS, so it must contain stubs for big chunks of the kernel and IO subsystem, presumably in single threaded mode. On 99.999% of PC's it has a built in driver which switches back to V86 mode to use the Bios to read sectors. It also knows how to understand the registry, so it can load the device drivers which are needed ultra early in the system boot.
But adding support for another filesystem inside that is basically impossible. I'm suprised that it's not NTFS only to be honest, since they could tailor NTFS to make the boot process simpler, whereas FAT was a pre existing standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there this continued assumption that minority views are always right? Sure, quantum mechanics was once a minority view, but so was the belief that the earth is hollow. Not all minority views turn out right - in fact almost none of them do.
I think that 'consensus' views tend to be simplistic to the point of being wrong. It's not so much that the majority of scientists are wrong, just that in this case the media tries to turn what they say into "Imminent catastophe: We rich people are to blame". The scientists I've spoken to see things as being much less clear cut, and the climate as being essentially unpredictable.
You don't get to pick the minority view you want simply to support your political or economic beliefs.
Glad we agree on something. I think this is exactly what the greens are doing, and it's highly annoying.
No, it really isn't. Crichton is not an expert in this field. He has extremely minor scientific qualifications. Writing bad science fiction does not qualify someone to discuss these matters.
Surely anyone with an interest in science or economics can discuss them? If you only ask experts on climate change if climate change is a serious problem, aren't you introducing a bit of bias?
The planet isn't doomed, but there could be nasty wars over land and water, and the migration of hundreds of millions.
People have been claiming stuff like that for ages. Michael Crichton may not be an expert on climate change, but he's smart enough to dig up cases of people like Paul Ehrlich claiming imminent mass starvation in America, commodity prices going through the roof and so on, and he's been wrong every time.
No-one is claiming that.
Yes they are. The whole tone of the greens' argument is obnoxious, it's all about how the consensus agrees with me, the only people that don't are paid shills. The evidence I've seen doesn't really convince me that we need to do anything drastic, it's as simple as that. There's a load of uncertainty in this stuff, and the everyone seems to be be picking the worst case result of climate change to make the problem seem much more serious than it likely is, and then using a mixture of ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority to silence people that question them.
Yeah, it was ridiculed. Until the proposer of the hypothesis actually did experiments to demonstrate his idea. Those experiments could be reproduced.
But we can't do experiments on the Earth's climate, so the correcting mechanism is broken.
Actually, I think the problem is trying to use the provisional truth that's the best that science can give you, using it to make predictions into the distant future, and then making drastic economic changes now based on those predictions.
E.g. Lysenkoism, creationism, eugenics and planned economies where interesting ideas. Basing public policy on them, especially public policy which was not democratically alterable was disasterous.
It's same with global warming, global cooling, population explosion, population collapse, running out of resources. A few of these are probably correct in fact, but I don't think we'll no enough about any of them to avoid them causing a disaster in the future.
Actually, population explosion is my favourite example. Mao decided that the Chinese population was growing too fast when actually it was probably static or falling. He decided to take drastic action, the one child policy, enforced by things like forced abortions. This was a catastophe for the Chinese, and it may yet cause them economic problems in the future because it will cause their society to age before it gets rich. Their gender balance is seriously skewed too.
Come to think of it global cooling is kind of interesting too. Just imagine if global warming is real and we had made public policy decisions based on the consensus on global cooling in the 1970s.
The point is that if you don't really know how to predict stuff into the distant future, you should not have a policy that's determined by those predictions. But I think science probably corrects itself ok in the absence of this. It happened with global cooling, if global warming is similar flawed, that will get corrected too.
Yeah, but if the BBC covered that like they covered climate change they'd say "the overwhelming consensus is that the old theory is mostly correct, and can be fixed with a few minor changes. Only a small minority of scientists believe in so called quantum theory, which is a much more radical revision"
Not that it would matter a jot, since that doesn't have any public policy implications. A better example, as Michael Crichton pointed out, would be the consensus on eugenics or Lysenkoism, which was used to justify some very evil actions. Planned economies had consensus support at the start of the 20th Century, and they turned out to be a disaster too. Millions of people died in each case incidentally, so the stakes are pretty high here. Actually, even if absolutely no one dies because of alarmism about the environment, we've still lost something intellectually as a species, as he points out with his comments about the way Scientific American treated Bjorn Lomborg.
In fact it's worth quoting his comments on that.
Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.
Ouch.
The point is that you have a complicated subject, and most of the media, including the BBC and Scientific American covers it as "If we don't take drastic action, the planet is doomed, only a few people have been paid by Big Oil to question this truth", which is a gross oversimplification. It's also kind of suspicious that imminent climate collapse is being used to justify the same sort of statist policies that BBC style leftwingers used to support for different reasons before socialism self destructed. I don't trust people who find a new justification for their highly questionable policy ideas when the old one becomes untenable or unfashionable.
And looking at the details, like Lomborg did, there's all sorts of stuff wrong with this. Implementing Kyoto would be expensive, and yet it's actually not really enough to dent CO2 emissions. And the countries likely to increase their emissions most are actually exempt. Once again, it's a climate change based way to implement the kind of redistributive policie, especially from the US to the rest of the world that left wingers have been arguing for unsuccessfully for ages.
And finally, there's something implicitly totalitarian about the idea that we know the absolute truth, and the only reason we can't take the necessary action is because of fools and dupes of big business are questioning it. This is the sort of mentality that leads, if not to the gulag, to a much less democratic system implementing disasterous policies against the wishes of the population. Like the UN or the EU in fact.
So relying on the consensus is unreliable, and using the scientific consensus to justify radically altering the world economy is the road to serfdom quite frankly, no matter how altruistic the people doing it think they are.
b3ta to links to a site which had text under the banners to say something like "Thank you for blocking adverts. Now I will have to spend money on bandwidth that I would otherwise have spent feeding my kids". It was flash movies and the like, probably got zillions of page views. Now I've no idea what percentage of bandwidth costs get met my ad revenue, so maybe they were just taking the piss, but you never know. Maybe looking at the funny flash movies with adblock enabled is like eating at a diner and not tipping. I click on ads on sites which are interesting and bogged down anyhow. What's the time you save not doing it?
They've already offered free Windows licenses for OLPC. I think it's a OLPC is a bit like Netscape, they basically want a product to compete with it, even if they don't see any money for the forseeable future. More generously, the Gates foundation pays billions to charity, and free Windows for the third world is probably worth it for the publicity.
I think they'll run Windows CE on it.
http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS261936762
Though it's got a x86 compatible AMD Geode, so it could run XP or Win2K. Given the huge number of platforms NT&CE have run on (x86, x86-63, Itanium, Alpha, Mips, PowerPC, Alpha64, i860, ARM, Hitachi SH, Matsushita AM33, Mitsubishi M32R *) there are obviously some people inside Microsoft who are keen or porting things to new hardware.
These guys, http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html
say
And this is just hacking
But XP in 300MB is no problem even if you just hack inf files.
* OK, maybe not that huge but consider how many they absolutely needed to support. On NT, Mips, PowerPC and Alpha had negligable market share or support from applications and were eventually dropped. But despite that, someone in the kernel team decided to pay for the work to port to them. There's a document with the of PE processor types here
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/fir
Emulation is slow. E.g. a PowerPC executing x86 code by emulation will be much slower than a native x86. There are tricks, like profiling the application and translating, rather than emulating the frequently used bits, but it in general there will always be a hefty penalty. And modern performance critical code will use multimedia instructions which don't have 1:1 mappings to a different instruction set.
But on an Intel Mac none of this is an issue, since the Windows app and a mac one run on exactly the same instruction set. Of course, the API the applications use will be completely different. Virtualisation is about running two kernels simultaneously on the same hardware. Now this is tricky, because OS kernels want to be in sole control of the hardware. The x86 isn't completely self virtualisable, i.e. you can't trap and emulate all the instructions you need to fool the kernel, so you go back to profiling and translating, at least for kernel mode code. Or you can trap many more instructions than you need to. But recent intel chips have a technology called VT which plugs the holes and allows self virtualisation.
So you can run the guest kernel code at full speed, and trap and emulate just enough to keep the guest OS under control of the hypervisor.
There were a lot more than 3000 sperm cells on that dress.
I dunno. I think it's for the same reason that QuickTime and RealPlayer both install those damn system tray icons, and even reinstall them in case the user 'accidentally' deleted them.
Oddly enough, I work at company that makes embedded systems, and I know of at least one bug report where the installing our SDK fails if you have Google toolbar installed. Even stranger, I debugged a problem with the emulated version running on Windows. Customer code did something quite reasonable, but the emulator crashed inside a DLL from a trojan, which had installed a bunch of hooks and then crashed handling a message. Unbelievable, I figured all largish corporations run IE/Windows in a ultra locked down mode so they didn't get these sorts of issues.
These days, I regard any toolbar or commercial media player as a stability risk.
You should install the lord_pwnalot toolbar, that protects you against spyware and adware too.
But we know he killed those nuns, Wikipedia says it
t e&diff=91696045&oldid=91695353
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graceno
This is hilarious
t e&action=history
t e&diff=91696045&oldid=91695353
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graceno
Edit description : misspelt "younger", fixed punctuation problem
Edit contents http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graceno
- {Whole article}
+ Gracenote founder Steve Scherf has come a long way from his younger days of meth-fueled
+ llama sodomizing. While once it looked like he'd soon die in a gutter, that six months
+ he spent in the federal pen for killing a bussload of nuns while drunk (which he coyly
+ refers to as "Happy happy shower butt fun time") cleaned him up, allowing him to become
+ the ruthless corporate asshat we know today.
I'm not sure what the correct foot shooting analogy is but with Win2K and NT you could install a cracked version and it worked the same as the uncracked version.
With XP you can install a cracked version, and you get updates, something Microsoft took some time to clarify. For a while, it was hard to install the service packs, until Microsoft wrote a helpful article on how to change your product key. Given that key generators are widely available, this was Microsoft effectively conceding that cracked installs could be have the service packs installed.
But you can't download stuff from microsoft unless you validate your install as genuine. The Genuine Advantage detector keeps getting cracked and patched all the time though. So at the moment, the advantage you get from actually buying the software is rather slight. They also show no sign of persuing the owners of cracked installs who get automatic updates. They persue companies ruthlessly, but home owners seem to be exempt.
But it's easy to imagine that they plan to gradually increase the advantage you get from having a legal copy of the OS, without actually stopping the cracked versions from working over night.
The use of RFID that I worry about most are the chips that the government installs on us that we don't know about. These days they have been using air-guns to shoot them at unsuspecting citizens. All you hear is a slight buzzing and feel what feels and looks like a mosquito bite, and BAM! -- you're being tracked. I think this practice is just plain wrong and should be stopped. In the meantime, stay away from wooded or swampy areas because for some reason this is where these agents tend to hang out.
Score -1 Troll
Oh, come on mods!
Troll? It's satire on all the paranoid posters here. It made me smile anyway.
Bullshit.
UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy.
Most of Western Europe in fact apart from France and occasionally Germany. Most of South East Asia, except for Vietnam and Burma. China seldom vetoes American sponsored UN resolutions, and it's plausible that China and the US have some kind of arrangement to maximize cooperation on shared interests and avoid conflict over several decades.
In the War on violent Fundamentalist Sunni Islam, Russia, France and most of the Middle Eastern dictatorships are allies, including normally hostile countries like Syria and Iran. In fact it's only the Axis of evil countries that actually hate the US enough to give useful support to the other side.
Now as you go down the list, it's more about shared interests than being particularly pro American, but if you look at Russia or China or Syria, the basically hate and fear Sunni fundamentalist Islam much more than the US and their actions reflect this. E.g. the Russians fought and won an extremely dirty war against Chechens which was partly about Islamic terrorism, and the Syrian regime has been battling Islamist violence since the 1980s.
Well one of the editors would need to read the article.
Good God man, the whole fabric of spacetime would be put at risk.
And Oracle ain't exactly all puppy farts and unicorn giggles, either.
Yes it was. Mind you, if you knew why the puppy was farting and the unicorn giggling, it wouldn't seem so innocent.
UHIA?
Give this AC the whole EFFing bakery
The EFF doesn't have a bakery. They can give you a web page with a recipe containing a mixture of flour, water and sugar, but when you bake it it doesn't taste anything like cookies. If you mention this on the internet, people tell you that they're NOT ALLOWED to make it better, because the BIG COOKIE manufacturers have REFUSED to give out the recipe. Oh, and that the gloop you baked TASTES MUCH BETTER than store bought cookies anyway.
I still own guns. I no longer own a bike. The kooks driving their cars while yapping on the cell phone and munching McCheezies scare me worse that the kooks with the guns.
If you own a gun, why do you put up with it? I'm not suggesting you should put a cap in someone's ass for talking on the cellphone while driving, but a warning shot for first offense and a wing mirror shot for the second seems reasonable.
Ever see someone driving while playing the clarinet? Be very afraid.....
Actually, I take that back. You should put a cap in someone's ass for playing the clarinet.
huh? The squishy feeling is a good thing(tm) It's called a quiet keyboard. I very much dislike the spring keyboards, esp if you use them for data entry. With quiet keyboards it's much easier to press the keys.
My keyboard maybe a bit loud, but at least I can tell when I've pressed the key hard enough for it to register.
It's a pity the address made up of ASCII bytes.I need some more web server space pretty badly.
Access violation at 0x41414141 always makes me smile when I've been sending user names like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
It's because shortcuts are from the Windows 95 shell, which had to work on FAT. Shortcuts can link to things that aren't files too, IIRC. So they're not really anything to do with symlinks.
.lnk file format
/ lnk/shortcut.pdf
And they're only used in the Start Menu, so only the shell supports them.
Someone reverse engineered the
http://mediasrv.ns.ac.yu/extra/fileformat/windows
NTFS supports real hardlinks, but it's only used by POSIX. You can use DeviceIoControls to make them from Win32, and sysinternals has sample code.
Oddly enough in FAT32, the high 4 bits of each FAT entry are reserved. The problem with a FAT based filesystem is that you don't have an inode to hold a count of the number of links to a file. But you could use the high bits of the fat entry to track it. It'd be kind of gross though, presumably files with more than 16 links would need to add extra clusters to hold the extra counter bits. E.g. a one cluster file would have 4 bits of link count, a two cluster file would have 8 bits and so on. Would be hairy trying to update it though, since you'd need to have some kind of mutex to protect the FAT.
To create a symlink (or hardlink) in NTFS you either need to use Unix services for Windows to get a command line, or use the POSIX compatibility engine programatically (just make the same API calls you would in UNIX though random function names will have leading '_'s just to make it difficult).
/D_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE in the compiler options.
s tID=87401&SiteID=1
You need to
#define _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE 1
or add a
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?Po
NTLDR is a pretty special piece of code.
t wsbooting.html
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/windows/ntwsguide/n
214432 bytes contains read only versions of NTFS and FAT. Oddly enough, if you have a SCSI card which doesn't have Bios support, it can use the normal NT driver if you rename it NTBOOTDD.SYS, so it must contain stubs for big chunks of the kernel and IO subsystem, presumably in single threaded mode. On 99.999% of PC's it has a built in driver which switches back to V86 mode to use the Bios to read sectors. It also knows how to understand the registry, so it can load the device drivers which are needed ultra early in the system boot.
But adding support for another filesystem inside that is basically impossible. I'm suprised that it's not NTFS only to be honest, since they could tailor NTFS to make the boot process simpler, whereas FAT was a pre existing standard.
In other news, the Pope is Catholic, and Bears shit in the woods.
If you really understood the book, you'd know how Tom Bombadil's song explains everything.