Likely it suffer from what I like to call "Sony Redesign Syndrome (SRS)".
That's where it overheats after the first hour of play and you have to turn it off for a while before you can play it again. Both the PS1 and the PS2 had it. I would not buy the new PS2 after my first such purchase and went to pawn shops to get a new PS2 regular after my slim failed. I am not a PS3 fan (even though I do own one for Blue-ray), and will refuse to purchase a slim.
Actually, that would be kind of irrelevent. The Mormons consider themselves (ourselves) a christian denomination. Essentially any religion that follows the teachings of Jesus exclusivly is christian. The jews and muslims can not make that claim. The jews don't actually consider him holy.
Some here may argue that if it weren't for the constat new OS releases by MS, that replacing old computers wouldn't be necessary.
Umm, and to those that argue that I usually have to point out the issues involved with system degradation. Over time every system slows down and begins to perform poorly. There have been alot of people with alot of theories as to why this is, and the only thing I know is that after about three years of daily operation, a system needs to be replaced, regardless if it is useing XP or not. Just because there is no new OS released does not mean that systems do not reach EOL. It just means that the user will expect the new system to mirror the old in regards to personal data on the system (which is something that I often have to disabuse the user of).
And just because there is a new OS out does not mean that migrating NOW is a must.
Do I advise my supervisors to look into Vista? No. Vista today reminds me very much of working with XP in its early days. A lot of painful hours trying to get everything up and running and never being entirely succesful.
In time, after a Service Pack or two, Vista may live up to the promise it is currently making to home users. But running a system at home and at work are two different concepts with different needs and requirements. Vista works well at home almost all but the most serious gamers right now. On the job site, however, Vista sucks.
Technicians are not refusing Vista altogether, just waiting until the problems settle down.
Think of it in terms of new cars. You would normally wait and not buy a brand new car the first model year until after the redesign is tweaked and the problems worked out, right?
Same thing with Vista.
The problem is the legality in most states is very murky. While one resident in Minneapolis won a civil lawsuit with the argument that the radio signal was in his house and unsecure so he could therefore use as he wish(this prompted an immediate rewrite of laws in Minnesota), another man in Florida was arrested because he was sitting in the passenger seat of a car in front of a residence with a laptop illuminating his face.
The article clearly states that it is illegal but the whole question is really a gray area legally speaking. Stating it is illegal works for such broad statements, but saying law-makers declared it explicitly illegal and judges have built precedents for the arguments is pushing it.
While content on the internet is fairgame and free to access, unless secured it is equal to putting the info on a billboard next to a freeway, this does not mean that an open access to the internet is neccesarily fair game also.
Anybody who operates an access point with it being unsecured is acting foolishly, nobody disputes that. But what are the morals of taking bandwidth that is not charged in cents per mb, but in monthly rates? Can you really steal bandwidth late at night if the subscriber has gone to sleep and left his wifi on? He isn't using the service is he? He isn't being charged extra because you are useing the service. Does he pay an extra penny for every megabite you down load? Does he get charged extra for additional service in the same way that he would if someone stole electric from?
The law on this subject is murky because these moral/ethical questions are not answered clearly for anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
Likely it suffer from what I like to call "Sony Redesign Syndrome (SRS)". That's where it overheats after the first hour of play and you have to turn it off for a while before you can play it again. Both the PS1 and the PS2 had it. I would not buy the new PS2 after my first such purchase and went to pawn shops to get a new PS2 regular after my slim failed. I am not a PS3 fan (even though I do own one for Blue-ray), and will refuse to purchase a slim.
Actually, that would be kind of irrelevent. The Mormons consider themselves (ourselves) a christian denomination. Essentially any religion that follows the teachings of Jesus exclusivly is christian. The jews and muslims can not make that claim. The jews don't actually consider him holy.
Umm, and to those that argue that I usually have to point out the issues involved with system degradation. Over time every system slows down and begins to perform poorly. There have been alot of people with alot of theories as to why this is, and the only thing I know is that after about three years of daily operation, a system needs to be replaced, regardless if it is useing XP or not. Just because there is no new OS released does not mean that systems do not reach EOL. It just means that the user will expect the new system to mirror the old in regards to personal data on the system (which is something that I often have to disabuse the user of).
And just because there is a new OS out does not mean that migrating NOW is a must. Do I advise my supervisors to look into Vista? No. Vista today reminds me very much of working with XP in its early days. A lot of painful hours trying to get everything up and running and never being entirely succesful. In time, after a Service Pack or two, Vista may live up to the promise it is currently making to home users. But running a system at home and at work are two different concepts with different needs and requirements. Vista works well at home almost all but the most serious gamers right now. On the job site, however, Vista sucks. Technicians are not refusing Vista altogether, just waiting until the problems settle down. Think of it in terms of new cars. You would normally wait and not buy a brand new car the first model year until after the redesign is tweaked and the problems worked out, right? Same thing with Vista.
The problem is the legality in most states is very murky. While one resident in Minneapolis won a civil lawsuit with the argument that the radio signal was in his house and unsecure so he could therefore use as he wish(this prompted an immediate rewrite of laws in Minnesota), another man in Florida was arrested because he was sitting in the passenger seat of a car in front of a residence with a laptop illuminating his face. The article clearly states that it is illegal but the whole question is really a gray area legally speaking. Stating it is illegal works for such broad statements, but saying law-makers declared it explicitly illegal and judges have built precedents for the arguments is pushing it. While content on the internet is fairgame and free to access, unless secured it is equal to putting the info on a billboard next to a freeway, this does not mean that an open access to the internet is neccesarily fair game also. Anybody who operates an access point with it being unsecured is acting foolishly, nobody disputes that. But what are the morals of taking bandwidth that is not charged in cents per mb, but in monthly rates? Can you really steal bandwidth late at night if the subscriber has gone to sleep and left his wifi on? He isn't using the service is he? He isn't being charged extra because you are useing the service. Does he pay an extra penny for every megabite you down load? Does he get charged extra for additional service in the same way that he would if someone stole electric from? The law on this subject is murky because these moral/ethical questions are not answered clearly for anybody.