I would expect CEO's of tech companies to be less susceptiple to this sort of tactic than those of a company whose tech budget is all under the 'expense' column.
A quick glance through the page set off my bullshit detector big time.
I mean some of these are gems:
Comprehensive: Windows XP Embedded is the most reliable version of Windows ever. Comprehensive OS foundation with proven performance and reliability On a brand new system. Where was this proven, in the imagination of MS marketing?
Windows XP delivers equivalent or better uptime than Windows 2000 Professional and three times the uptime performance of Windows NT® 4.0. Compared to the crap we got you to buy before this thing rocks!
Across an average of industry-standard benchmarks (Winstone and Webmark), Windows XP system performance is 54% faster than Windows® Me® and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional.
Windows XP is 34% faster on system startup and 21% faster on resume from standby than Windows 2000 Professional (700 MHz CPUs and above).
Application startup is 21% faster in Windows XP than in Windows Me and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional (after first use).
Comparing this to our other products, rather than to the competition which we're trying to mislead you to believe we're doing in this document, this is faster, contrary to third party benchmarks.
Note: Windows XP Embedded was not tested directly. Internal Microsoft testing indicates that Windows XP Embedded exhibited similar or better reliability and performance characteristics than Windows XP Professional.
In fact we're not even really talking about what we say we are.
On the Linux side we have a big N/A. Meaning we don't want to compare to them in this category.
Windows XP Embedded supports a minimal bootable image of 4.8 MB.
I'm not an embedded developer, so I can't say how good this is.
Lineo sites a minimum footprint size of 2MB ROM / 4 MB RAM for Real Time Linux with an embedded Linux kernel (both are required). Red Hat, for its new version of embedded Linux, recommends 8MB RAM and 4MB Flash as minimum system requirements. The Red Hat Linux kernel alone uses approximately 1.5-2MB in ROM depending on configuration.
But I can say that comparing the minimum needed to boot versus the recommended usable system size isn't apples to apples. To actually have anything besides the OS it seems like Linux will take far fewer resources in any configuration.
Unmatched Windows XP Embedded
An unmatched technology portfolio for building the next generation of devices
Buzzwords, zero content.
Windows XP Embedded delivers a feature-rich multimedia experience. Full support for DirectX® 8 provides superior graphics rendering and performance.Direct3D®-advanced support for interactive 3-D graphics applications.Windows Media 8 for industry-leading codecs and Digital Rights Management (DRM).Support for advanced graphical functionality including ClearType® fonts and multiscreen.DVD video support.
We will completely tie you in to MS proprietary interfaces making it call for a complete rewrite of everything you've done if you want to move to any other platform.
Embedded Linux Linux is a follower, not an innovator
Arguable, but so is MS, but we won't mention that here.
To get the functionality, quality, performance, codec support and DRM delivered in Windows XP Embedded, OEMs will need to license an array of third party components including codecs, DRM and renderers (players) that generally come with incremental licensing fees. The MP3 basic decoder costs about $0.50 per-unit. If an OEM wants the enhanced functionality of MP3 Pro, it will pay an additional $2.50 per-unit royalty. For MP3 Pro encode and decode, costs can run an incremental $7.50 per-unit.
That's annoying.
One time I was setting up a Linux server for my brother and when it came time to select the partitions to mount, I discovered that the '/' key was broken.
New keyboard, reboot start over;-)
70%+60%=130%...
Ether you are not able to do basic math, or archeologist haven't found all the bodies yet.
Your stupidity is truly astounding.
Here's a hot tip for you.
It is possible to be black (or african american, but that was a different retard) and female *at the same time*.
What happens is that people who are not happy with the system as it is now for various reasons, vote for these people to show they're not happy.
It must be cool to know what every other person in the world is thinking and all of their motivations.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen a documentary on you.
Who in their right mind could believe what they say "Economy is bad, it's because of the blacks", "Arabs in our country causes an increase in murder, robberies, etc.
I think it's entirely possible to hold such opinions and still be in your right mind. Personally I think such opinions are generally the result of ignorance, lack of education, or possibly a traumatic experience at the hands of some one who happens to belong to whatever group they feel this way about, but having such opinions doesn't imply insanity.
The point is that although people voted for them, Having them in the government is not a good idea.
My point is that when it's your turn to have an unpopular opinion this same logic leads to saying that you should not have your opinion represented.
It doesn't matter what that opinion is. Maybe you feel that all Americas in your country should have to wear dunce caps in public, or maybe you feel that it should be illegal to shoot one of the last members of some endangered species native to your country. It doesn't matter how right or wrong your opinions are to you, it's the fact that such opinions are arbitrarily ignored that is the issue.
Well, I wouldn't say ridiculous and ignorant... These people are taking a stand against right wing extremists. I would take it very badly were they to deal with these people, as would many of the people who voted for them. They make a stand and I find this extremely nice of them.
Taking a stand against extremists isn't the problem. What I find ignorant and ridiculous is the method. You are saying that it is ok to do the very thing that you are saying is wrong to say that it is wrong. Purely statistically, I would assume that you are against capital punishment. Your argument says that if someone *suggests* killing someone, then they should be killed. If they *suggest* stealing from someone then they should be robbed.
If they *suggest* discriminating against someone then they should be discriminated against.
I'm pretty sure you don't believe the other things, but once the argument is validated, then whatever else it can be applied to gains validation. This is why Law is the way it is. You can't pick and choose in this manner or the whole thing breaks down.
Were they (right wing people) to be allowed to do what they want, they'd kick blacks, jews, italians, americans out of the country, and that's bad IMNSHO.
There is a huge difference between letting them do what they want and deciding a priori to block their participation in government. Sure, they're still allowed to vote, but we all know (I hope) that that isn't where the work of government is really done.
Elected officials should deal with these people as you would any other elected official. If they come into your office asking for support on their "let's kill all the darkies" bill, you laugh them out and maybe even hold a press conference so people know what they are doing. In theory, they have other opinions as well which you do support. Politics is all about working with people you disagree with.
The majority of representative believed so strongly that racial hatred is bad that they outlawed open expression of racial hatred.
This, I guess, is the point upon which we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Supressing unpopular opinion is an absolute bad in my opinion.
In the case of racial hatred, we are agreed that it is dumb to hold such opinions. If the majority were on the other side, then we would not even be allowed to express the opinion that rounding up all "undesirables" and deporting them is a bad idea.
That is the fundamental problem with this kind of thing. This is why so many Americans are so adamant about the importance of our first ammendment.
That's what democracy is about. Everyone can have ideas, only that of the majority will get implemented...
This is also the fundamental flaw with democracy which is what our supreme court allievates.
If the majority of the people in America thought black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, and voted a bill into law making it so, the supreme court would throw it out so fast it would make your head spin.
Just because in these cases we agree that it is the right thing to do doesn't mean it will be so in all cases. Making legislation like this is dangerous because it opens the door for oppression of the minority by the majority.
The sickening thing is that racist people manage to get elected...
If you see this as a problem, then it is a problem with your society. Unless they illegally stuffed the ballot box, or held guns to people's heads forcing them to vote for them, then there are a fairly large number of people in your country who *want* those people in office.
Now, if the rest of the government doesn't want to deal with them, that's perfectly right...They are elected, the 2 representative have the right to vote and express their opinions. If they're not heard by the others, what's the problem?
The problems in this are many. In the first place, the other members of the government are declaring their intent to be prejudiced against other legally elected members of the government because they are prejudiced. They are taking a moral stand by espousing the same bad morality they are claiming to be against. That is ignorant and ridiculous.
They need to be treated with the same fairness as any other legally elected official. If the majority of the representatives of the people don't believe in laws restricting the rights of citizens based on race or whatever, then no such laws will be passed. Even if they were, hopefully your government has some sort of checks and balances similar to the US supreme court that can overturn laws that violate the constitution. If not, then you need to look into that rather than arbitrarily cutting out representatives of the people based on the unpopularity of *some* of their opinions.
Actually, I don't consider I'm on the right side, it's just that I don't think people like these have anything to do in the government.
Because you are right and they are wrong.
It really is that simple. You need to realise that that is *exactly* what you are saying.
I pity you if you ever hold a minority opinion on anything since next time it could be *your* elected representative that gets ostracised. You are supporting that course of action.
(Suggestion to Slashcoders - a one-time-only "Oh crap, I screwed up, delete the post" button, maybe based on a cookie that expires 2 minutes after posting?)
Hey, what do you know, they did it.
From the bottom of the page you posted this from:
"Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!"
At some point, everything comes down to personal responsibility.
I can assure you that I'm not feeling any prosecution. And I think these people deserve being censored.
How good it must feel to be on the "right" side.
This time.
There's been an increase in numbers of people who voted for right wing parties (extremist ones). They were thus given the right to have 2 seats at the senate. One thing that made me happy is that all the other parties signed a (morally only, but better than nothing) a pact/treaty/paper saying that they would not deal with the representant of such parties.
That is sickening.
The government arbitrarily chooses to ignore the will of the people.
Fascism is fascism.
So if they chose to not allow *your* chosen representative to represent you then that would be ok?
I never did understand those jokes anyway, because all the Polish folks I ever knew very well at all were very, very smart people. Wasn't Mandelbrot Polish, too?
They originated at the time of a (the first?) major wave of Polish immigration to the US. They came over here mainly without speaking English. Due to this, they worked all the crap jobs (see Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle") and couldn't communicate well with English speakers. This left them open to jokes about how "stupid" they were.
Hate speech does not appeal to reason. Hate speech appeal to feelings and prejudices.
I seriously doubt that this is the definition being used.
Say someone posted a site arguing for the deportment (or killing or restriction of rights or whatever the point isn't the severity in this case, just bear with me)
of all people of some race.
Now say they argued their point in a logical rational manner. I personally feel I could probably find a hole in their logic or assumptions, but the structure is essentially logical and not an appeal to emotion.
This would be attacked under this law as well.
It has nothing to do with an appeal to emotion.
If that was the standard, then a lot of advertising would be banned as well as most religious speech as this quite often appeals to emotion at the expense of reason.
As far as being in an obscure place, where would you expect to find it?
Given that this is described by them as a *severe* security issue for everyone using ie or oulook, I would expect to find it in large letters prominently displayed on their home page where anyone who went there for any sort of information would find it.
This isn't an issue affecting "professionals" it affects *all* of their customers.
That would be the responsible thing to do.
I can't testify to this, never having used XP, but what many people are complaining about is that you can't turn off certain apps MS wants to force on users this way.
If this is true, then your point doesn't apply.
If not then it does and point taken.
You need no technical knowledge to set it up under *any* OS.
It's not as complex as setting up a modem even.
They have software that does it for you (win/mac)
and it's done during a redhat install or if you already have your system set up, then turn on DHCP.
It really is just that easy. It has absolutely nothing to do with XP
Hmm... change one config file in Linux to uninstall something.... change one config file in Windows to uninstall something....
Yeah, you're right. Linux is a whole lot easier than Windows
You're obviously trolling since it isn't possible to be that stupid and still manage to breathe.
Change one undocumented config file to allow you to then see that you are permitted to uninstall an application which is most likely a serious security hole waiting to happen.
-versus-
change one well documented config file to disable an application.
XP seems to integrate pretty flawlessly with the service. I did an install a few days ago that went about as smoothly as anyone could possibly hope for. Definitely a feather in XP's cap
You think it's a feather in XP's cap because it can get on a freaking standard network with DHCP?!?
I pity you
How is a consumer helped if his new computer doesn't work out of the box with his current Internet connection?
He isn't.
However if this is the case (which I doubt) then that is a serious flaw in XP, not a problem that Roadrunner should have to address.
Just because all the OEM's have fallen in to the trap of paying to support glitchy products doesn't mean it's a good idea. Given MS's record of releasing beta software as a finished product, it seems smart to wait a year so MS can fix the major issues before Roadrunner offers any sort of support for someone else's product.
Ah, so in your opinion, all the Muslims of the world are this easily duped.
Well, this much is obvious. They're not alone though. Anyone who defines themselves in terms of a belief in some all powerful and good concious being who nonetheless tortures and murders people for his own amusement *is* easily duped.
Islam isn't the cause for the world's major problems. Religion is.
In terms of atrocities committed, Islam has a long way to go to catch up with Christianity.
The essential problem is that once you postulate an all mighty power, then you create the ability to do atrocities not possible without such an incentive.
If we could have a little sense and sanity in this world and eliminate *ALL* gods, the world would be a much better place for everyone.
Why would Sun, Red Hat, Apple, etc., go along with Microsoft proprietary protocols being put into place and the Internet standards being obsoleted?
They wouldn't.
It makes no sense. It makes perfect sense
This is not even remotely a plausible scenario.
Ahhh but it is.
I'll lay it out for you.
Microsoft and the entertainment industry work together on one proposal. MS has always been more interested in giving industry what it wants over giving their customers what they want. This is a no brainer.
Red Hat and the rest of the industry companies who actually care about what their customers want will come up with another proposal. Neither side will agree with the other which means that the FTC gets to make up their own. My bet is that they will choose the one from MS and their side.
Quite simple, quite plausible, and quite likely.
Kudos to MSFT for making a patch immediately available
This word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.
From the article:
The vulnerablity was first brought to Microsoft's notice about two months ago by Symantec.
Most stores will refuse a return on Audio CDs, Computer Games, or DVDs that have had their seal broken.
Ahhh, but the reason for this is that people would copy the CD and return it. This is now "impossible", hence they *have* to accept the return just like any other consumer item.
I am very strongly against Microsoft on all fronts, but I don't think its fair to blame them very strongly for this. This is very much in keeping with the Macintosh ease of use philosophy.
Bullshit!
Going along with the ease of use philosophy means when you download a compressed then your decompression program (Stuffit Expander on a Mac) will automatically decode it for you. At which point you can, at your leisure, scan the file for viruses, worms, etc.
MS apparently wants to put Alladin systems out of business by including stuffit decompression in their product while at the same time making Apple look like MS by having an idiotic security hole.
Slashdot Mirror
I would expect CEO's of tech companies to be less susceptiple to this sort of tactic than those of a company whose tech budget is all under the 'expense' column.
A quick glance through the page set off my bullshit detector big time.
I mean some of these are gems:
Comprehensive:
Windows XP Embedded is the most reliable version of Windows ever. Comprehensive OS foundation with proven performance and reliability
On a brand new system. Where was this proven, in the imagination of MS marketing?
Windows XP delivers equivalent or better uptime than Windows 2000 Professional and three times the uptime performance of Windows NT® 4.0.
Compared to the crap we got you to buy before this thing rocks!
Across an average of industry-standard benchmarks (Winstone and Webmark), Windows XP system performance is 54% faster than Windows® Me® and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional.
Windows XP is 34% faster on system startup and 21% faster on resume from standby than Windows 2000 Professional (700 MHz CPUs and above).
Application startup is 21% faster in Windows XP than in Windows Me and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional (after first use).
Comparing this to our other products, rather than to the competition which we're trying to mislead you to believe we're doing in this document, this is faster, contrary to third party benchmarks.
Note: Windows XP Embedded was not tested directly. Internal Microsoft testing indicates that Windows XP Embedded exhibited similar or better reliability and performance characteristics than Windows XP Professional.
In fact we're not even really talking about what we say we are.
On the Linux side we have a big N/A. Meaning we don't want to compare to them in this category.
Windows XP Embedded supports a minimal bootable image of 4.8 MB.
I'm not an embedded developer, so I can't say how good this is.
Lineo sites a minimum footprint size of 2MB ROM / 4 MB RAM for Real Time Linux with an embedded Linux kernel (both are required). Red Hat, for its new version of embedded Linux, recommends 8MB RAM and 4MB Flash as minimum system requirements. The Red Hat Linux kernel alone uses approximately 1.5-2MB in ROM depending on configuration.
But I can say that comparing the minimum needed to boot versus the recommended usable system size isn't apples to apples. To actually have anything besides the OS it seems like Linux will take far fewer resources in any configuration.
Unmatched
Windows XP Embedded
An unmatched technology portfolio for building the next generation of devices
Buzzwords, zero content.
Windows XP Embedded delivers a feature-rich multimedia experience. Full support for DirectX® 8 provides superior graphics rendering and performance.Direct3D®-advanced support for interactive 3-D graphics applications.Windows Media 8 for industry-leading codecs and Digital Rights Management (DRM).Support for advanced graphical functionality including ClearType® fonts and multiscreen.DVD video support.
We will completely tie you in to MS proprietary interfaces making it call for a complete rewrite of everything you've done if you want to move to any other platform.
Embedded Linux
Linux is a follower, not an innovator
Arguable, but so is MS, but we won't mention that here.
To get the functionality, quality, performance, codec support and DRM delivered in Windows XP Embedded, OEMs will need to license an array of third party components including codecs, DRM and renderers (players) that generally come with incremental licensing fees. The MP3 basic decoder costs about $0.50 per-unit. If an OEM wants the enhanced functionality of MP3 Pro, it will pay an additional $2.50 per-unit royalty. For MP3 Pro encode and decode, costs can run an incremental $7.50 per-unit.
I just bought one. A charge of $113.06 was authorized to my card. I saw no other induced agreements.
You can never be too careful though.
Post the card # here and I'll check it out for you.
@johndan (whose hyphen and tilde keys are broken)
;-)
That's annoying.
One time I was setting up a Linux server for my brother and when it came time to select the partitions to mount, I discovered that the '/' key was broken.
New keyboard, reboot start over
70%+60%=130%...
Ether you are not able to do basic math, or archeologist haven't found all the bodies yet.
Your stupidity is truly astounding.
Here's a hot tip for you.
It is possible to be black (or african american, but that was a different retard) and female *at the same time*.
Numenor. ;-)
heh
What happens is that people who are not happy with the system as it is now for various reasons, vote for these people to show they're not happy.
It must be cool to know what every other person in the world is thinking and all of their motivations.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen a documentary on you.
Who in their right mind could believe what they say "Economy is bad, it's because of the blacks", "Arabs in our country causes an increase in murder, robberies, etc.
I think it's entirely possible to hold such opinions and still be in your right mind. Personally I think such opinions are generally the result of ignorance, lack of education, or possibly a traumatic experience at the hands of some one who happens to belong to whatever group they feel this way about, but having such opinions doesn't imply insanity.
The point is that although people voted for them, Having them in the government is not a good idea.
My point is that when it's your turn to have an unpopular opinion this same logic leads to saying that you should not have your opinion represented.
It doesn't matter what that opinion is. Maybe you feel that all Americas in your country should have to wear dunce caps in public, or maybe you feel that it should be illegal to shoot one of the last members of some endangered species native to your country. It doesn't matter how right or wrong your opinions are to you, it's the fact that such opinions are arbitrarily ignored that is the issue.
Well, I wouldn't say ridiculous and ignorant... These people are taking a stand against right wing extremists. I would take it very badly were they to deal with these people, as would many of the people who voted for them. They make a stand and I find this extremely nice of them.
Taking a stand against extremists isn't the problem. What I find ignorant and ridiculous is the method. You are saying that it is ok to do the very thing that you are saying is wrong to say that it is wrong. Purely statistically, I would assume that you are against capital punishment. Your argument says that if someone *suggests* killing someone, then they should be killed. If they *suggest* stealing from someone then they should be robbed.
If they *suggest* discriminating against someone then they should be discriminated against.
I'm pretty sure you don't believe the other things, but once the argument is validated, then whatever else it can be applied to gains validation. This is why Law is the way it is. You can't pick and choose in this manner or the whole thing breaks down.
Were they (right wing people) to be allowed to do what they want, they'd kick blacks, jews, italians, americans out of the country, and that's bad IMNSHO.
There is a huge difference between letting them do what they want and deciding a priori to block their participation in government. Sure, they're still allowed to vote, but we all know (I hope) that that isn't where the work of government is really done.
Elected officials should deal with these people as you would any other elected official. If they come into your office asking for support on their "let's kill all the darkies" bill, you laugh them out and maybe even hold a press conference so people know what they are doing. In theory, they have other opinions as well which you do support. Politics is all about working with people you disagree with.
The majority of representative believed so strongly that racial hatred is bad that they outlawed open expression of racial hatred.
This, I guess, is the point upon which we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Supressing unpopular opinion is an absolute bad in my opinion.
In the case of racial hatred, we are agreed that it is dumb to hold such opinions. If the majority were on the other side, then we would not even be allowed to express the opinion that rounding up all "undesirables" and deporting them is a bad idea.
That is the fundamental problem with this kind of thing. This is why so many Americans are so adamant about the importance of our first ammendment.
That's what democracy is about. Everyone can have ideas, only that of the majority will get implemented...
This is also the fundamental flaw with democracy which is what our supreme court allievates.
If the majority of the people in America thought black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, and voted a bill into law making it so, the supreme court would throw it out so fast it would make your head spin.
Just because in these cases we agree that it is the right thing to do doesn't mean it will be so in all cases. Making legislation like this is dangerous because it opens the door for oppression of the minority by the majority.
The sickening thing is that racist people manage to get elected...
If you see this as a problem, then it is a problem with your society. Unless they illegally stuffed the ballot box, or held guns to people's heads forcing them to vote for them, then there are a fairly large number of people in your country who *want* those people in office.
Now, if the rest of the government doesn't want to deal with them, that's perfectly right...They are elected, the 2 representative have the right to vote and express their opinions. If they're not heard by the others, what's the problem?
The problems in this are many. In the first place, the other members of the government are declaring their intent to be prejudiced against other legally elected members of the government because they are prejudiced. They are taking a moral stand by espousing the same bad morality they are claiming to be against. That is ignorant and ridiculous.
They need to be treated with the same fairness as any other legally elected official. If the majority of the representatives of the people don't believe in laws restricting the rights of citizens based on race or whatever, then no such laws will be passed. Even if they were, hopefully your government has some sort of checks and balances similar to the US supreme court that can overturn laws that violate the constitution. If not, then you need to look into that rather than arbitrarily cutting out representatives of the people based on the unpopularity of *some* of their opinions.
Actually, I don't consider I'm on the right side, it's just that I don't think people like these have anything to do in the government.
Because you are right and they are wrong.
It really is that simple. You need to realise that that is *exactly* what you are saying.
I pity you if you ever hold a minority opinion on anything since next time it could be *your* elected representative that gets ostracised. You are supporting that course of action.
(Suggestion to Slashcoders - a one-time-only "Oh crap, I screwed up, delete the post" button, maybe based on a cookie that expires 2 minutes after posting?)
Hey, what do you know, they did it.
From the bottom of the page you posted this from:
"Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!"
At some point, everything comes down to personal responsibility.
I can assure you that I'm not feeling any prosecution. And I think these people deserve being censored.
How good it must feel to be on the "right" side.
This time.
There's been an increase in numbers of people who voted for right wing parties (extremist ones). They were thus given the right to have 2 seats at the senate. One thing that made me happy is that all the other parties signed a (morally only, but better than nothing) a pact/treaty/paper saying that they would not deal with the representant of such parties.
That is sickening.
The government arbitrarily chooses to ignore the will of the people.
Fascism is fascism.
So if they chose to not allow *your* chosen representative to represent you then that would be ok?
That is a fact. It can be proven or disproven.
*pedantry mode on*
If it's a fact, then it can only be proven.
A statement can be proven or disproven
*pedantry mode off*
I never did understand those jokes anyway, because all the Polish folks I ever knew very well at all were very, very smart people. Wasn't Mandelbrot Polish, too?
They originated at the time of a (the first?) major wave of Polish immigration to the US. They came over here mainly without speaking English. Due to this, they worked all the crap jobs (see Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle") and couldn't communicate well with English speakers. This left them open to jokes about how "stupid" they were.
Benoit Mandelbrot was French.
Hate speech does not appeal to reason. Hate speech appeal to feelings and prejudices.
I seriously doubt that this is the definition being used.
Say someone posted a site arguing for the deportment (or killing or restriction of rights or whatever the point isn't the severity in this case, just bear with me)
of all people of some race.
Now say they argued their point in a logical rational manner. I personally feel I could probably find a hole in their logic or assumptions, but the structure is essentially logical and not an appeal to emotion.
This would be attacked under this law as well.
It has nothing to do with an appeal to emotion.
If that was the standard, then a lot of advertising would be banned as well as most religious speech as this quite often appeals to emotion at the expense of reason.
As far as being in an obscure place, where would you expect to find it?
Given that this is described by them as a *severe* security issue for everyone using ie or oulook, I would expect to find it in large letters prominently displayed on their home page where anyone who went there for any sort of information would find it.
This isn't an issue affecting "professionals" it affects *all* of their customers.
That would be the responsible thing to do.
I can't testify to this, never having used XP, but what many people are complaining about is that you can't turn off certain apps MS wants to force on users this way.
If this is true, then your point doesn't apply.
If not then it does and point taken.
You need no technical knowledge to set it up under *any* OS.
It's not as complex as setting up a modem even.
They have software that does it for you (win/mac)
and it's done during a redhat install or if you already have your system set up, then turn on DHCP.
It really is just that easy. It has absolutely nothing to do with XP
Hmm... change one config file in Linux to uninstall something.... change one config file in Windows to uninstall something....
Yeah, you're right. Linux is a whole lot easier than Windows
You're obviously trolling since it isn't possible to be that stupid and still manage to breathe.
Change one undocumented config file to allow you to then see that you are permitted to uninstall an application which is most likely a serious security hole waiting to happen.
-versus-
change one well documented config file to disable an application.
XP seems to integrate pretty flawlessly with the service. I did an install a few days ago that went about as smoothly as anyone could possibly hope for. Definitely a feather in XP's cap
You think it's a feather in XP's cap because it can get on a freaking standard network with DHCP?!?
I pity you
How is a consumer helped if his new computer doesn't work out of the box with his current Internet connection?
He isn't.
However if this is the case (which I doubt) then that is a serious flaw in XP, not a problem that Roadrunner should have to address.
Just because all the OEM's have fallen in to the trap of paying to support glitchy products doesn't mean it's a good idea. Given MS's record of releasing beta software as a finished product, it seems smart to wait a year so MS can fix the major issues before Roadrunner offers any sort of support for someone else's product.
Ah, so in your opinion, all the Muslims of the world are this easily duped.
Well, this much is obvious. They're not alone though. Anyone who defines themselves in terms of a belief in some all powerful and good concious being who nonetheless tortures and murders people for his own amusement *is* easily duped.
Islam isn't the cause for the world's major problems. Religion is.
In terms of atrocities committed, Islam has a long way to go to catch up with Christianity.
The essential problem is that once you postulate an all mighty power, then you create the ability to do atrocities not possible without such an incentive.
If we could have a little sense and sanity in this world and eliminate *ALL* gods, the world would be a much better place for everyone.
Look at the user number.
This is *not* the real OOG.
It would be great to see him back here, but this is an imposter.
Why would Sun, Red Hat, Apple, etc., go along with Microsoft proprietary protocols being put into place and the Internet standards being obsoleted?
They wouldn't.
It makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense
This is not even remotely a plausible scenario.
Ahhh but it is.
I'll lay it out for you.
Microsoft and the entertainment industry work together on one proposal. MS has always been more interested in giving industry what it wants over giving their customers what they want. This is a no brainer.
Red Hat and the rest of the industry companies who actually care about what their customers want will come up with another proposal. Neither side will agree with the other which means that the FTC gets to make up their own. My bet is that they will choose the one from MS and their side.
Quite simple, quite plausible, and quite likely.
Kudos to MSFT for making a patch immediately available
This word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.
From the article:
The vulnerablity was first brought to Microsoft's notice about two months ago by Symantec.
If you run untrusted code, then you get what you deserve. It does *ask* for permission to run the macro, right?
Of course not.
*That* is the exploit.
Read first then post.
Most stores will refuse a return on Audio CDs, Computer Games, or DVDs that have had their seal broken.
Ahhh, but the reason for this is that people would copy the CD and return it. This is now "impossible", hence they *have* to accept the return just like any other consumer item.
I am very strongly against Microsoft on all fronts, but I don't think its fair to blame them very strongly for this. This is very much in keeping with the Macintosh ease of use philosophy.
Bullshit!
Going along with the ease of use philosophy means when you download a compressed then your decompression program (Stuffit Expander on a Mac) will automatically decode it for you. At which point you can, at your leisure, scan the file for viruses, worms, etc.
MS apparently wants to put Alladin systems out of business by including stuffit decompression in their product while at the same time making Apple look like MS by having an idiotic security hole.
No one *ever* asked for something like this.