You've got to wonder why the people here think Microsoft even cares whether or not anybody uses their inclded software. Afterall its only a selling point - not a usability issue.
It's not a selling point. It's a control issue.
They included IE to force people who didn't even want it on their machines to use it. Forcing the second worst security hole (after Outlook) onto people is *not* a good selling point. It does, however, allow them to pollute standards and sell your eyeballs to 3rd parties (smart tags).
You can install other apps, but you *can't* remove MS's no matter how badly they might fuck up your system. Also even though you may be able to install them, you might not be able to use them (Kodak photo software)
Please try to think at least a tiny bit before posting something so blatantly stupid next time.
My experience is that IE is and was (at least by the time bundling started) simply better.
Your memory is faulty.
IE was bundled when people would still rather pay for Netscape then to use IE for free.
This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current state of the browsers, but at the time that was the reason.
IE was a complete and utter piece of crap until very recently.
I'm convinced that advertising people exist only so that lawyers can have someone to despise.
And that little gem is going right into my list of quotes;-)
---CONFLICT!!---
Re:no its a valid alternate historical perspective
on
Antimatter Propulsion
·
· Score: 1
It's really too bad, because we had the chance to show the world a true "good guys vs bad guys" scenario, and we flubbed it
I really hate this half ass apologetic bullshit
We would have been completely justified in carpet bombing the entire country and killing every single Japanese citizen if it would have saved a single Allied life.
The thing the apologists always forget is that this was their fucking war They murdered relatives of mine. Please spare me the bullshit about the innocent civilians as well. They put their government in power and they wanted this war. Their atrocities in Manchuria were as bad if not worse than what the Nazi's did. And don't even talk about their treatment of prisoners of war. They were (and still are to a point) absolutely convinced that it didn't matter what they did to these "subhumans" since they were so superior.
It is only the fact that the Chinese didn't have the same pull in Congress as the Jewish community that allowed them to this day to avoid responsibility for their actions.
We (the US) showed them far beyond an ideal good guys vs bad guys scenario. We Rebuilt their fucking country for them, covered all their bills, taught them how to succeed in the modern world, provide their defense. Who the fuck else in the history of the world has done anything approaching that level of charity?!?
If we had treated them fairly for their disgusting crimes against humanity, treachery, and cowardice we would have done as the Romans in Carthage and devestated their land so that nothing would ever grow there again.
But we didn't do a fucking thing out of vengeance. If they had won the war (and the after war against Germany cause you know that fight would have happened) then we (non-japanese) would all be dead or enslaved right now. They got off far easier than they deserved. ---CONFLICT!!---
First off, people creating new systems aren't going to be buying NT. If they're going the Windows route, they'd be buying Win2K
I would disagree with this. I used to be the webmaster for a 5000 person company which is a division of a really huge company. My arch nemesis was the head of the Novell/NT group. He would not allow me to install Samba on my Sun development web server to allow my develpers access to the box. His reasoning being essentially that it wasn't an MS product.
The point of that being that he is a gung-ho MS supporter and very good at that end of the house. They have been doing extensive testing of Win2K and his take on it is that Win2K pro is a good workstation and that the server version is an utter piece of shit. They will not be deploying it any time soon in any production situation. ---CONFLICT!!---
If an article on a somewhat "popular culture" item
isn't going to be news to/.ers then I cannot wait to plunk down my 5 bucks for the print issue to gain some amazing insights into the latest viruses and how to protect my systems. ---CONFLICT!!---
Better point right back at you;-) ---CONFLICT!!---
Re:FreeBSD kernel not used for OSX
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 2
Dear Moderators,
you and pe1rxq are idiots.
Before you claim flamebait consider:
An OS runs one kernal. Granted some mainframe OS's or VMware might run more than one, I don't know actually, but a normal OS has one.
OSX runs a modified Mach microkernal. A microkernal does not require a monolithic kernal to function properly. It is its own kernal.
OSX uses BSD userland stuff this means when you type 'ls', you're running BSD ls.
I don't know much about the technical aspects of all this, but that much is obvious to anyone who spends 2 minutes looking at apple's site.
The fact that pe1rxq didn't know this is ok. The fact that he wrote as if he did makes him an idiot or a troll. The fact that it was moderated up to insightful means some moderator is smoking more of that $3.00 crack.
That does make sense the way you explained it.
I think the analogy would be better drawn between the symbols in some area of mathematics and learning the interface to a new class. Granted method names usually give more insight into their purpose than some of the Greek, Hebrew, and just plain made up symbols used in mathematics, but you still need to learn the vocabulary whenever you get into a new area.
When I was working on my BS in math, whenever I started a new course, I'd flip through the book and barely understand a word after the first few pages. This was due to the fact that each area of mathematics starts by defining the structures and elements to be studied. This is much like the class definitions.
I guess it is more arbitrary in a sense because in programming if you're looking at a language you haven't seen before many things are the same across most languages: if, while, etc.
I used Baby Rudin my junior year in real analysis and while it was terse, the point is to teach you how to think about these concepts and how to do proofs based on these definitions. Not how to read someone else's proof. I bitched and cursed a lot and my copy is dented up in various places from being thrown into walls, but after I spent long enough reading through the discussions and grinding away "in some moment everything became clear to me" as Professor Ponce liked to say.
I think the terseness has a place in an upper division mathematics course.
Baby Rudin saved my ass the next year as a reference when I took graduate real analysis and we used Analysis NOW by Gert Pedersen which is equally as thin as Rudin, but in a full year graduate sequence we got through like 4 chapters.
If you go on with math beyond undergraduate you might just find that Rudin wasn't as terse as you think. In fact compared to some, he's a gabby little bitch;-)
I suspect plenty of students in a Calc class would be unable to identify the axioms their work rests on
Most of them couldn't even identify the assumptions. i.e. it has to be a closed bounded (compact) interval they're integrating over etc.
I mean business majors really don't need to know that stuff. Physics and engineering majors do sort of, but not to the extent that math majors do.
What has happened mostly so far is that they have a seperate calculus series for business/econ etc majors which is good, but they have also taken the standard track and "dumbed" it down putting more emphasis on calculators than proofs. They might need a seperate series just for math majors to keep them from being at a huge disadvantage when the hit upper division.
One of the things that has always put me off "real" mathematics is the degree to which its language is arbitrary
Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?!?
Other than the way in which all language is arbitrary (what does the word "apple" have to do with "appleness") language in mathematics is exactingly defined.
If I were to start talking about a locally convex topological vector space, unless you knew the exact definitions you would have an impossible time proving anything about it, but you could probably come up with a decent layman's description of one just from the name since the language isn't arbitrary.
Seriously, what did you mean by that?
That was to get a good mathematical education. Learning Discrete math for compsci was only a quarter class at my school, UCSB. Not even a semester.
You most likely didn't do very well in it:
If Achilles kills Agamemnon Agamemnon made it home from the Trojan war only to be killed in the bath by his wife. ---CONFLICT!!---
Ok, I see what you're saying.
So if you were to say that the universe was shaped like a big doughnut then it would be a 2-dimensional manifold since we're only talking about the surface. The different paths you could travel would be any way you could draw a line on it with a pen without lifting it ( or drizzle icing to stick with the doughnut analogy). You would never bump into the edge though like if you were drawing lines inside a box.
In this kind of universe you could look at the back of your head if you had a powerful enough telescope.
Cool.
Imagine a rubber sheet (ah, good ol' rubber sheets... what would cosmologists or incontinent physicists do without 'em?. Shape it into a balloon. This has no boundary, but it's surface can expand.
The rubber sheet is the boundary in this case. The region enclosed by the sheet not including the sheet has no boundary (but it is bounded).
Ummm you might want to look up "Greek Fire" which was trireme launched flaming artillery. The Greek city states used it quite a bit long before the Roman empire came to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, is that you, Bob?
Now, come on. Be honest. ;-)
You didn't add any of those comments until you knew you were going to post it publicly, did you
You've got to wonder why the people here think Microsoft even cares whether or not anybody uses their inclded software. Afterall its only a selling point - not a usability issue.
It's not a selling point. It's a control issue.
They included IE to force people who didn't even want it on their machines to use it. Forcing the second worst security hole (after Outlook) onto people is *not* a good selling point. It does, however, allow them to pollute standards and sell your eyeballs to 3rd parties (smart tags).
You can install other apps, but you *can't* remove MS's no matter how badly they might fuck up your system. Also even though you may be able to install them, you might not be able to use them (Kodak photo software)
Please try to think at least a tiny bit before posting something so blatantly stupid next time.
My experience is that IE is and was (at least by the time bundling started) simply better.
Your memory is faulty.
IE was bundled when people would still rather pay for Netscape then to use IE for free.
This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current state of the browsers, but at the time that was the reason.
IE was a complete and utter piece of crap until very recently.
---CONFLICT!!---
My Tyan Tiger 100 happens to be a gig max (flexing muscles)
Ummm nice try Mr. Puniverse.
My 5 year old mac can hold that much as can, I'm sure, many other old computers.
---CONFLICT!!---
I'm convinced that advertising people exist only so that lawyers can have someone to despise.
;-)
And that little gem is going right into my list of quotes
---CONFLICT!!---
It's really too bad, because we had the chance to show the world a true "good guys vs bad guys" scenario, and we flubbed it
I really hate this half ass apologetic bullshit
We would have been completely justified in carpet bombing the entire country and killing every single Japanese citizen if it would have saved a single Allied life.
The thing the apologists always forget is that this was their fucking war
They murdered relatives of mine. Please spare me the bullshit about the innocent civilians as well. They put their government in power and they wanted this war. Their atrocities in Manchuria were as bad if not worse than what the Nazi's did. And don't even talk about their treatment of prisoners of war. They were (and still are to a point) absolutely convinced that it didn't matter what they did to these "subhumans" since they were so superior.
It is only the fact that the Chinese didn't have the same pull in Congress as the Jewish community that allowed them to this day to avoid responsibility for their actions.
We (the US) showed them far beyond an ideal good guys vs bad guys scenario. We Rebuilt their fucking country for them, covered all their bills, taught them how to succeed in the modern world, provide their defense. Who the fuck else in the history of the world has done anything approaching that level of charity?!?
If we had treated them fairly for their disgusting crimes against humanity, treachery, and cowardice we would have done as the Romans in Carthage and devestated their land so that nothing would ever grow there again.
But we didn't do a fucking thing out of vengeance. If they had won the war (and the after war against Germany cause you know that fight would have happened) then we (non-japanese) would all be dead or enslaved right now. They got off far easier than they deserved.
---CONFLICT!!---
First off, people creating new systems aren't going to be buying NT. If they're going the Windows route, they'd be buying Win2K
I would disagree with this. I used to be the webmaster for a 5000 person company which is a division of a really huge company. My arch nemesis was the head of the Novell/NT group. He would not allow me to install Samba on my Sun development web server to allow my develpers access to the box. His reasoning being essentially that it wasn't an MS product.
The point of that being that he is a gung-ho MS supporter and very good at that end of the house. They have been doing extensive testing of Win2K and his take on it is that Win2K pro is a good workstation and that the server version is an utter piece of shit. They will not be deploying it any time soon in any production situation.
---CONFLICT!!---
If an article on a somewhat "popular culture" item /.ers then I cannot wait to plunk down my 5 bucks for the print issue to gain some amazing insights into the latest viruses and how to protect my systems.
isn't going to be news to
---CONFLICT!!---
Steve Young is a lawyer.
He's actually looking at doing sports law. This is, of course, assuming that the 16(?) concussions didn't screw up that plan
---CONFLICT!!---
I heard that Jamie Thomas is awesome playing his own character in Tony Hawk Pro Skater.
It wouldn't surprise me at all
---CONFLICT!!---
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
When you die you will receive total consciousness, so at least you have that going for you
---CONFLICT!!---
Better point right back at you ;-)
---CONFLICT!!---
Dear Moderators,
you and pe1rxq are idiots.
Before you claim flamebait consider:
An OS runs one kernal. Granted some mainframe OS's or VMware might run more than one, I don't know actually, but a normal OS has one.
OSX runs a modified Mach microkernal. A microkernal does not require a monolithic kernal to function properly. It is its own kernal.
OSX uses BSD userland stuff this means when you type 'ls', you're running BSD ls.
I don't know much about the technical aspects of all this, but that much is obvious to anyone who spends 2 minutes looking at apple's site.
The fact that pe1rxq didn't know this is ok. The fact that he wrote as if he did makes him an idiot or a troll. The fact that it was moderated up to insightful means some moderator is smoking more of that $3.00 crack.
---CONFLICT!!---
laugh. Go back to jerking off to Victoria's Secret catalogs
This is a punishment how exactly?
---CONFLICT!!---
That does make sense the way you explained it.
I think the analogy would be better drawn between the symbols in some area of mathematics and learning the interface to a new class. Granted method names usually give more insight into their purpose than some of the Greek, Hebrew, and just plain made up symbols used in mathematics, but you still need to learn the vocabulary whenever you get into a new area.
When I was working on my BS in math, whenever I started a new course, I'd flip through the book and barely understand a word after the first few pages. This was due to the fact that each area of mathematics starts by defining the structures and elements to be studied. This is much like the class definitions.
I guess it is more arbitrary in a sense because in programming if you're looking at a language you haven't seen before many things are the same across most languages: if, while, etc.
---CONFLICT!!---
Could be, but I just remembered that since the antecedent is false, the statement is true regardless of the other side.
---CONFLICT!!---
I used Baby Rudin my junior year in real analysis and while it was terse, the point is to teach you how to think about these concepts and how to do proofs based on these definitions. Not how to read someone else's proof. I bitched and cursed a lot and my copy is dented up in various places from being thrown into walls, but after I spent long enough reading through the discussions and grinding away "in some moment everything became clear to me" as Professor Ponce liked to say.
;-)
I think the terseness has a place in an upper division mathematics course.
Baby Rudin saved my ass the next year as a reference when I took graduate real analysis and we used Analysis NOW by Gert Pedersen which is equally as thin as Rudin, but in a full year graduate sequence we got through like 4 chapters.
If you go on with math beyond undergraduate you might just find that Rudin wasn't as terse as you think. In fact compared to some, he's a gabby little bitch
---CONFLICT!!---
I suspect plenty of students in a Calc class would be unable to identify the axioms their work rests on
Most of them couldn't even identify the assumptions. i.e. it has to be a closed bounded (compact) interval they're integrating over etc.
I mean business majors really don't need to know that stuff. Physics and engineering majors do sort of, but not to the extent that math majors do.
What has happened mostly so far is that they have a seperate calculus series for business/econ etc majors which is good, but they have also taken the standard track and "dumbed" it down putting more emphasis on calculators than proofs. They might need a seperate series just for math majors to keep them from being at a huge disadvantage when the hit upper division.
---CONFLICT!!---
One of the things that has always put me off "real" mathematics is the degree to which its language is arbitrary
Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?!?
Other than the way in which all language is arbitrary (what does the word "apple" have to do with "appleness") language in mathematics is exactingly defined.
If I were to start talking about a locally convex topological vector space, unless you knew the exact definitions you would have an impossible time proving anything about it, but you could probably come up with a decent layman's description of one just from the name since the language isn't arbitrary.
Seriously, what did you mean by that?
---CONFLICT!!---
Years of studying my ass
That was to get a good mathematical education. Learning Discrete math for compsci was only a quarter class at my school, UCSB. Not even a semester.
You most likely didn't do very well in it:
If Achilles kills Agamemnon
Agamemnon made it home from the Trojan war only to be killed in the bath by his wife.
---CONFLICT!!---
God will return to His rightful place in our Nation.
Until the mother fucker pays taxes he has no place in our nation.
Fucking troll
---CONFLICT!!---
Ok, I see what you're saying.
So if you were to say that the universe was shaped like a big doughnut then it would be a 2-dimensional manifold since we're only talking about the surface. The different paths you could travel would be any way you could draw a line on it with a pen without lifting it ( or drizzle icing to stick with the doughnut analogy). You would never bump into the edge though like if you were drawing lines inside a box.
In this kind of universe you could look at the back of your head if you had a powerful enough telescope.
Cool.
---CONFLICT!!---
Imagine a rubber sheet (ah, good ol' rubber sheets... what would cosmologists or incontinent physicists do without 'em?. Shape it into a balloon. This has no boundary, but it's surface can expand.
The rubber sheet is the boundary in this case. The region enclosed by the sheet not including the sheet has no boundary (but it is bounded).
---CONFLICT!!---
The flaming artillary? (not invented yet)
Ummm you might want to look up "Greek Fire" which was trireme launched flaming artillery. The Greek city states used it quite a bit long before the Roman empire came to be.
---CONFLICT!!---