Pot isnt harmless, people kill over it every day of every week. If you think thats not a side effect society could do without, you are probably a leaf tycoon:)
No, like the fact that the substance being sold has no legal or safe use, moderation or not, and that you are committing that person knowingly into a life of addiction and poverty. Every other item there has a legitimate use when you take it moderately, but I've never seen anyone plead the "Crack, but in moderation" case as poorly as that.
The only way Redhat makes money is by porting other peoples bugfixes and explaining how to use their shoddy tools. Lindows is the other end of the spectrum, with a Windows UI (Hence harder to sell support) they can charge up front.
Heh, I run a Windows show, and for us the TCO was lower. The developers want less, the deployment estimate was sooner and the delivery thus far hasn't been wanting. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, just like ATI's run Doom 3 faster, but Nvidias are the best for Far Cry and so forth. Different ponies for different shows. I've yet to see one solid dissection of the Windows TCO studies.
Patent seeking frenzy? It's their legal right to patent what they invent, and there are far far worse companies than MS in this regard. The entire.NET Framework spec is out there for anyone to implement, a-la Mono, and considering it was going to be a cornerstone of their business it's pretty devastating to your case that there are few and far between patents on that, apart from the OS specific UI libraries. Amazon patented a button, Apple their case shape, Sun their entire Java environment.
As for the purchases, there were some key aquisitions, but you can hardly blame them for a being a good buyer? SQL Server of today resembles little of what it was when Sybase flogged it (Each and every company that sold up was paid well above board for the product too), especially the latest renditions, while all the Operating Systems have been developed in house apart from a few minor components. Internet Explorers rendering engine was made by Microsoft at great labour, and so on. For every homegrown product, there *may* be another that was bought into the family, but when you use these products in a business scenario, you can't just scream "Bought this one out, ten points off on our usefulness criteria for SQL Server".
Defying the parties? They're mapping the lines of how far they can push the ruling, and then abiding to it in the strictest reading. Thats well within their rights, and not in itself illegal. Just because someone in power tells you to do something, doesnt mean you don't have the right to question it.
Funnelling money? The furthest I understand this could be traced was SCO asked them, and then Microsoft just said "Try Baystar". Noone has proven anything of the sort you are alleging though, it's just conspiricy theory, and there are those in the Slashdot readership who haven't invested in tin-foil headgear just yet.
The reason for the Anti-MS sentiment is that MS is the big boy, and nobody likes the big kids. IBM has done far worse things, made shadier deals and even affiliated with the Nazi's back in the day and walked away with a clean report from the Slashdot devout.
I don't think Microsoft is benign, they're damn agressive, and they have to be in this marketplace. The difference between you and I is that I don't find fault simply because when it comes to weighing in time, one company won.
What your argument boils down to is:-
(1) MS uses favourable case studies to show it's products, rather than unfavourable ones. Madness, clearly.
(2) They patent some inventions you'd like other companies to use. Incredible.
(3) They are attempting to define the minimal compliant arrangement for the EU deal. Who'd do such a thing?!?
(4) They must be behind all evil.
I guess of all the companies that have improved their products lately, Baco-foil is one I appear to have overlooked.
While we're at it, lets try and find the most recent instance of Microsoft doing "evil". Every single thing levelled against Microsoft basically dates back to before Windows 98 (Novell, Netscape, Java, bundling).
Since then, Microsoft seems to have learned a less and played well in the park. Rather than say the CEO's of the companies aforementioned, who've gone into venture capital after ditching AOL (AOL-TW/NS), sold their Linux licenses to SCO (Novell), lambasted the GPL (Sun).
However, these facts don't matter, because after all, it's Microsoft, and whenever they get a word in edgeways on Slashdot it's guaranteed to have more slant than a skatepark.
Regards,
-Steve
Data centers function on commodity hardware, and at the end of the day the cost of cooling the room would be bearable, however the cost of replacing all the cooling systems on the servers would not, and would need varied solutions for the thousands of types of boards likely to be in service. It's not a homogenous environment by any stretch of the mind.
Additionally, this whole thing makes the bad assumption that just by cooling the room, you cool the components that need it. Hard disks dont function at low temperatures, they' designed for work in typical computing environments. Whats also to say that airflow across critical components like ram and CPU would be sufficient to dissipate the heat at the required rate anyway, you'd still need fans obviously.
So, trading in your PSU fans, CPU fans for a room heating system, a hard disk warmer, protection for the ram and PSU, plus fans to circulate the air at a high rate through the case, does not seem like that much of a good idea.
I'm amazed to this day about why people argue for so much about the existence of black holes. The way I see it, it's just a group of scientists engaging in a pissing contest and wasting taxpayers money at scientific institutions, while achieving nothing material and reaching conclusions they will only contradict next time they call their publisher.
Do black holes exist? Maybe. Will we ever find one? Probably not, since seeing one causes all kinds of fun and games, and if we see one we'll all be consumed eventually.
In light of this, why is science with no application for the betterment of humanity, industry or anyone else living or dead funded so heavily?
It doesnt take a genious to realise why this is here. "Geeks" stereotypically love stuff like Gundams and whatnot, with it's well developed universe. What Cartoon network are doing is capitalizing on the (Also mentioned here on Slashdot) fan-subbing movement, and producing an original series in that style, meeting a growing need.
It's not going to make CNN, but for a place that covered the relevent material, and since the subject matter has a clear link to the readership of this site, that is why it's here.
Obviously you arent the part of the demographic with a degree in anything.
Regards,
The size is because the entire of the core services set has been recompiled to use the XP-SP2 Data-Execution prevention technology, which allows for NX support in all applications with appropriate hardware, and a further emulated NX feature that covers the core services infrastructure regardless of CPU platform.
This doesnt require most applications to be recompiled, because most of the changes have occured behind the Hardware abstraction that all Windows applications are coded for.
You'll find it was the other way around, Windows XP has had quite a few flaws since SP1 and SP2 that have been isolated and the patches cross-ported from the Windows server tree. Namely because there was a line by line review of the entire codebase for server, and that all of the new compiler tools were built and first used producing it.
Why release one if theres no loud demand for it? Seeing as your an Apple user, I'm afraid to break the news to you that not every OS vendor has chance to push out a few mediocre SDK features every half year and name it after some random wild animal.
Server is one of the most polished efforts from Microsoft yet, and as a test case of it's new security initiative you'd be hard pressed to find signifigant fault, since practically every bug that's hit the XP range is not a threat to it, and in terms of total security issues it's behind on the Linux kernel itself, let alone any of the distributions.
There are some beardy guys who can best even that, but I don't want to talk about theee....arr....ghhhh...heellp...
*runs from the Unix geeks*
If you find a firewall UI update has broken your key applications, I put it to you that your businesses IT department has a few larger concerns than the next update of Windows Server 2003.
The enhancements allow you server new things beyond a firewall update. Namely:-
(1) Boot-time IPSec rules applied. (i.e. no nasty attacks while booting)
(2) No-Execute (DEP/NX) functionality for core system services and the kernel.
(3) VPN isolation of unpatched machines.
(4) Firewall is controllable from Active Directory.
(5) IIS configuration metabase auditing.
These are things that are fairly vital really, possibly with the exception of 3, since it's not every server that really needs a VPN.
Point number 1 was addressed in Service Pack 1, Point number two was covered in Service Pack 2. These features are not new to the Windows family, but were cross ported to the server series after success in the XP product family.
Slashdot Mirror
Pot isnt harmless, people kill over it every day of every week. If you think thats not a side effect society could do without, you are probably a leaf tycoon :)
No, like the fact that the substance being sold has no legal or safe use, moderation or not, and that you are committing that person knowingly into a life of addiction and poverty. Every other item there has a legitimate use when you take it moderately, but I've never seen anyone plead the "Crack, but in moderation" case as poorly as that.
This one was posted in the Baltimoore Sun on 8th of March. Check the link for yourselves, it's in the article.
The only way Redhat makes money is by porting other peoples bugfixes and explaining how to use their shoddy tools. Lindows is the other end of the spectrum, with a Windows UI (Hence harder to sell support) they can charge up front.
Heh, I run a Windows show, and for us the TCO was lower. The developers want less, the deployment estimate was sooner and the delivery thus far hasn't been wanting. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, just like ATI's run Doom 3 faster, but Nvidias are the best for Far Cry and so forth. Different ponies for different shows. I've yet to see one solid dissection of the Windows TCO studies.
.NET Framework spec is out there for anyone to implement, a-la Mono, and considering it was going to be a cornerstone of their business it's pretty devastating to your case that there are few and far between patents on that, apart from the OS specific UI libraries. Amazon patented a button, Apple their case shape, Sun their entire Java environment.
Patent seeking frenzy? It's their legal right to patent what they invent, and there are far far worse companies than MS in this regard. The entire
As for the purchases, there were some key aquisitions, but you can hardly blame them for a being a good buyer? SQL Server of today resembles little of what it was when Sybase flogged it (Each and every company that sold up was paid well above board for the product too), especially the latest renditions, while all the Operating Systems have been developed in house apart from a few minor components. Internet Explorers rendering engine was made by Microsoft at great labour, and so on. For every homegrown product, there *may* be another that was bought into the family, but when you use these products in a business scenario, you can't just scream "Bought this one out, ten points off on our usefulness criteria for SQL Server".
Defying the parties? They're mapping the lines of how far they can push the ruling, and then abiding to it in the strictest reading. Thats well within their rights, and not in itself illegal. Just because someone in power tells you to do something, doesnt mean you don't have the right to question it.
Funnelling money? The furthest I understand this could be traced was SCO asked them, and then Microsoft just said "Try Baystar". Noone has proven anything of the sort you are alleging though, it's just conspiricy theory, and there are those in the Slashdot readership who haven't invested in tin-foil headgear just yet.
The reason for the Anti-MS sentiment is that MS is the big boy, and nobody likes the big kids. IBM has done far worse things, made shadier deals and even affiliated with the Nazi's back in the day and walked away with a clean report from the Slashdot devout.
I don't think Microsoft is benign, they're damn agressive, and they have to be in this marketplace. The difference between you and I is that I don't find fault simply because when it comes to weighing in time, one company won.
What your argument boils down to is:-
(1) MS uses favourable case studies to show it's products, rather than unfavourable ones. Madness, clearly.
(2) They patent some inventions you'd like other companies to use. Incredible.
(3) They are attempting to define the minimal compliant arrangement for the EU deal. Who'd do such a thing?!?
(4) They must be behind all evil.
I guess of all the companies that have improved their products lately, Baco-foil is one I appear to have overlooked.
While we're at it, lets try and find the most recent instance of Microsoft doing "evil". Every single thing levelled against Microsoft basically dates back to before Windows 98 (Novell, Netscape, Java, bundling). Since then, Microsoft seems to have learned a less and played well in the park. Rather than say the CEO's of the companies aforementioned, who've gone into venture capital after ditching AOL (AOL-TW/NS), sold their Linux licenses to SCO (Novell), lambasted the GPL (Sun). However, these facts don't matter, because after all, it's Microsoft, and whenever they get a word in edgeways on Slashdot it's guaranteed to have more slant than a skatepark. Regards, -Steve
Data centers function on commodity hardware, and at the end of the day the cost of cooling the room would be bearable, however the cost of replacing all the cooling systems on the servers would not, and would need varied solutions for the thousands of types of boards likely to be in service. It's not a homogenous environment by any stretch of the mind. Additionally, this whole thing makes the bad assumption that just by cooling the room, you cool the components that need it. Hard disks dont function at low temperatures, they' designed for work in typical computing environments. Whats also to say that airflow across critical components like ram and CPU would be sufficient to dissipate the heat at the required rate anyway, you'd still need fans obviously. So, trading in your PSU fans, CPU fans for a room heating system, a hard disk warmer, protection for the ram and PSU, plus fans to circulate the air at a high rate through the case, does not seem like that much of a good idea.
I'm amazed to this day about why people argue for so much about the existence of black holes. The way I see it, it's just a group of scientists engaging in a pissing contest and wasting taxpayers money at scientific institutions, while achieving nothing material and reaching conclusions they will only contradict next time they call their publisher. Do black holes exist? Maybe. Will we ever find one? Probably not, since seeing one causes all kinds of fun and games, and if we see one we'll all be consumed eventually. In light of this, why is science with no application for the betterment of humanity, industry or anyone else living or dead funded so heavily?
It doesnt take a genious to realise why this is here. "Geeks" stereotypically love stuff like Gundams and whatnot, with it's well developed universe. What Cartoon network are doing is capitalizing on the (Also mentioned here on Slashdot) fan-subbing movement, and producing an original series in that style, meeting a growing need. It's not going to make CNN, but for a place that covered the relevent material, and since the subject matter has a clear link to the readership of this site, that is why it's here. Obviously you arent the part of the demographic with a degree in anything. Regards,
The British public wouldn't accept Jasper Carrot in any primetime TV role. Thats been made quite, quite clear ;)
Small problem, you didn't declare pigeonholed_scifi_actor as an extern :)
The size is because the entire of the core services set has been recompiled to use the XP-SP2 Data-Execution prevention technology, which allows for NX support in all applications with appropriate hardware, and a further emulated NX feature that covers the core services infrastructure regardless of CPU platform. This doesnt require most applications to be recompiled, because most of the changes have occured behind the Hardware abstraction that all Windows applications are coded for.
You'll find it was the other way around, Windows XP has had quite a few flaws since SP1 and SP2 that have been isolated and the patches cross-ported from the Windows server tree. Namely because there was a line by line review of the entire codebase for server, and that all of the new compiler tools were built and first used producing it.
Why release one if theres no loud demand for it? Seeing as your an Apple user, I'm afraid to break the news to you that not every OS vendor has chance to push out a few mediocre SDK features every half year and name it after some random wild animal. Server is one of the most polished efforts from Microsoft yet, and as a test case of it's new security initiative you'd be hard pressed to find signifigant fault, since practically every bug that's hit the XP range is not a threat to it, and in terms of total security issues it's behind on the Linux kernel itself, let alone any of the distributions. There are some beardy guys who can best even that, but I don't want to talk about theee....arr....ghhhh...heellp... *runs from the Unix geeks*
If you find a firewall UI update has broken your key applications, I put it to you that your businesses IT department has a few larger concerns than the next update of Windows Server 2003.
:)
Pass my resume on to your manager
The enhancements allow you server new things beyond a firewall update. Namely:- (1) Boot-time IPSec rules applied. (i.e. no nasty attacks while booting) (2) No-Execute (DEP/NX) functionality for core system services and the kernel. (3) VPN isolation of unpatched machines. (4) Firewall is controllable from Active Directory. (5) IIS configuration metabase auditing. These are things that are fairly vital really, possibly with the exception of 3, since it's not every server that really needs a VPN.
Point number 1 was addressed in Service Pack 1, Point number two was covered in Service Pack 2. These features are not new to the Windows family, but were cross ported to the server series after success in the XP product family.