Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
1. the US was showing that we have the ability to shoot down satellites (they described it as "shooting through the eye of a needle to hit the eye of a needle"),
2. we wanted to keep sensitive information out of the hands of our "opponents" (James Bond plot alert!), or
3. there might have actually been a health risk to letting the satellite reenter orbit (it should burn up now)
I'm going to choose all of the above! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! I believe #2 is the main reason, with #3 being a possible 'think of the children' reason. If by chance, the fuel from the satellite would have killed everyone within close proximity to it, then that would have been bad PR indeed.
I think the US would have loved to have taken this satellite out WITHOUT shooting it down. We had nothing to prove. This just makes it ever more difficult for us to come down harder on the next guy that says he wants to shoot down a "failing" satellite. China could easily cause one of their junk satellite to de-orbit "accidentally" next month just for an excuse to shoot it down.
Just being able to say "Look how accurate our missles are!", it's worth the conspiracy theories or potential pissing match that is sure to result. Drawing direct attention to your possible hypocrisies doesn't make good politics.
I'm not sure I understand why my car needs to have a power plant in it. Why can't it just have a large capacitor or bank of batteries, which I can swap out at the filling station? Obviously I am not going to wait for charging at filling time, but why not just swap out the uncharged capacity for charged capacity much as we change out propane tanks? 1) The fact that all batteries may not have a standard housing or load rating for every model 2) The fact that swapping the batteries probably isn't something any Joe Blow can (or would want to) do on his way to work. 3) They take up a lot of space!
Do you have any idea how many cars a service station fills up in a given day? The service station would pretty much need a large warehouse just to house all the batteries. Gasoline is nice, because you pull it from an underground tank and pour it into your gas tank. Swapping out several large batteries is a different story.
Propane tank swap-outs work because so few people take advantage of them on any given day. Heck, 20 tanks will probably last a company all day in most cases. Gas stations typically get a few more than 20 people.
The fact that they made this "original" decision at all shows what kind of government we've installed/allowed to rise to power in Afghanistan. I am torn. Half of me agrees with you, while the other half is in conflict. As sad as it is, this government is much better than what they had before. In the past, the Taliban would have just killed you and then gone about their day. There would no time for an appeal by the international community nor local population.
The government isn't the problem, it's the politicians that are currently making up the government. The framework is in place for the elected officials to lose their standing as soon as the next election comes up. It would not necessarily be a bad thing in my eyes for an entirely new senate to be elected. One side may claim its a failure of the government 'we set up', however I would see it as a beneficial option given to the citizens as a result of the government 'we set up'.
We didn't select their leaders. They selected their own leaders. The US cannot be blamed because the citizens didn't choose wisely nor know how their elected representatives would act. Picking candidates wisely comes with time and experience; many of us in the US still haven't learned how to look past the flashy smear commercials during our election time.
They are still a very young democracy with new ideals being forced upon them. There will be many more examples of this in the future. When/If Iraq's democracy takes hold, I guarantee you will see the same stories from there as well. It's up to all of us an in international community to tactfully and politically inform them that they are being idiots when they do something as idiotic as this.
So the rich 1% pay 34.27% the middle class pay ~96.54% - 34.27% = 62.27% of income taxes and the middle class also pays 500 billion for Social Security and most property, excise and sales taxes. I love this example. So, you are basically saying that "Rich" only includes the top 1% of wage earners, everyone else is middle class? Exactly where are you placing the "Rich" income cap at?
Also, I love how you complain that the top 1% ONLY pay 34% of income takes. I suppose you would think it's more fair is the top 1% paid something close to 50%? Where does it end? Heck, why not just cap all income at 100k, and say anything over that goes to the gov't? That'll stick it to 'em!
I'm still scratching my head over how the middle class pay more sales tax. The last time I went Walmart, the didn't ask me what my income level was and tax accordingly. Property tax is more malarkey.
So yes if you look at all the numbers the middle class is paying most of the taxes. What a shocking revelation that that the sum of individuations that make up 94% (or whatever) of the US population pay the majority of the taxes. If it were the other way around, we'd be a welfare county. Thankfully we aren't there... yet. We should all get very nervous if we get to a position where 50+% of income taxes are paid by 1% of the population and that's deemed acceptable.
The programmers told the machines to give out false informations. The programmers told the others machines to trust what they are told. How is it so shocking that the 'lying' machine gave out false information while the other machines believed them?
I have an excel spreadsheet that 'learned' to add 2 columns together as soon as I used the =SUM function. It was quite amazing.
...documented a mind-bogglingly complex workaround...
So, it appears that in order to re-enable Office to open older formats, you need to do nothing more than make a single registry change for each product? Is there anyone on this entire site that honestly find making a registry change to be mind-bogglingly complex?
When I first read the summary, I thought to myself "oh no.. this may be something I need to alert the IT dept to". However, now I see it as just a non-issue. If/When this does become an issue, pushing out a script that changes a mind-bogglingly 5 registry keys will take all of 30 seconds.
However, I will considering going to my boss and saying "Sir... we have two options. We can either change 5 registry keys... or deploy open office across the firm and retrain everyone accordingly.". I'll let you know what he says.
Yes, I do believe MS should make the option to enable older formats something you could enable/disable via the 'options' menu, yet I do not believe it's worth all the hype it's getting here. Typical Slashdot unfortunately.
On a side note, I find it interesting that this limitation was put into Office 2003 and not 2007 (to my knowledge). It makes me wonder as to if the same change will be put into 2007, or if 2007 may not be as vulnerable as 2003 (hence the limitation isn't needed). Does anyone have any ideas about this?
Military Use? ummm.. .k
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 1
If they want to use it for military purposes, then they need to strap 100 pounds onto their back and push them out of a plane at night. If they survived the landing, all the team members would probably be separated by a country mile.
Is Vista stable? I don't care... Will my programs be stable on it... I do care
If the 3rd party apps that work on XP/2000 don't work on Vista then it will appear to be unstable, it does not matter if it is the OS or the app the impression is that Vista is unstable. I'm very glad you don't work for my firm. You wouldn't last very long if you couldn't objectively tell the difference between an OS stability issue and an OS compatibility issue. "MS Bashing" may be *cool* on Slashdot, but it won't get you very far in the corporate world... especially if you allow it to blind you from properly troubleshooting an issue.
Anyone competent in their job knows that when a piece of 3rd party software is released, the vendor cannot say it will be compatible with every version of Windows into the future. For that reason, we don't place the blame of the incompatibilities on Windows nor the 3rd party apps. Initially, none of the apps were certified for use in Vista, so we count ourselves lucky that they worked at all (as did the vendor, I'm sure).
Over time, more and more apps have been brought up to spec. Eventually, we expect they will all run under Vista. Vista changed a lot under the hood, and broke a lot as a result. Personally, I expected the vendors to be all up to spec by now, but they aren't. C'est la vie. Delays actually make my life easier, it allows me to focus on more important projects.
I'm not sure about other industry apps, but given that we are a tax/audit firm, I have a suspicion that most of our apps won't see a Vista stamp on them until after April 15th. Releasing a possibly buggy product during tax season could be disastrous. It's very possible they already have something they think *may* work, but they don't want to risk it. If you thought postal carriers were scary, you have lived until you seen a stressed out accountant on April 14th.
Has anyone actually had any stability problems with Vista?
In our testing, Vista has been perfectly stable. Our only complaint is that 3rd party software hasn't been updated to work with it yet (IE: be it applications such as our Audit software, or Web-based SSL VPN from Cisco ).
Some users bitched about the new GUI, but these are the same users that complained about XP's different start menu and forced 2000-class on everyone for a while.
We will happily move to Vista once the 3rd party apps work with it. Blaming Vista because 3rd party apps don't work with it makes as about as much sense as blaming Mac or *nix because, CCH didn't write a tax app for them.
Vista killed a lot of backward compatibility by making things more secure. Although their implementation of this security leaves a lot to be desired (accept/deny). We have no doubt that the 3rd party vendors will eventually update their apps accordingly.
Stability issue would definitely cause us to push our deployment schedule back, however right now we are only waiting on the vendors to update their software (all hardware works fine so far).
I wonder if this would allow a soldier to use his laptop in the dead of night, viewing his screen via night-vision goggles? Anyone out there that's ever used night-vision goggles know if this even possible in the slightest?
NASA's tested applying the goop on practice tiles on the end of the arm. Here's the thing: the arm wobbles. the underbelly of the shuttle is fragile. Astronauts on an EVA don't exactly have the same forces available that we do to react instantly. Stuff floats out there, inertia, all that stuff. One wrong hiccup and that 400-500 pound weight is crashing into the shuttle and there's no way to stop it.
Aren't these this kind of things that all that money and testing were supposed to account for?
That's why the don't want to do a repair: the risks outweigh the benefits. And what do you think the media would say if the tiles were damaged further during a repair? I shudder to think...
I believe the media would probably point out that NASA's DR plan was flawed.... and then five minutes later, they would have a new alert about Britney Spears' latest pool side romps.
Now, if they did it and everything worked perfectly, then it would be an amazing bit of wonderful PR for NASA. However, Britney would probably trump that news as well.
The risk/reward angle, is definitely valid and probably spot on. However, I can't shake the feeling that NASA simply doesn't have faith in there own repair techniques. It would make me very nervous if there was a warning label on a repair kit that said, "Last Resort Warning: Only use if you're pretty sure you're gonna die anyway."
....NASA's in-space repair abilities that they spent gobs of money on after Columbia remind me a lot about our "Disaster Recovery" plans at my firm. Sure.. we have one; Sure.. we spend a lot of money on it;... but please.. oh please.. don't make us actually test it or put it into practice.
I hope they didn't just spend all that money so that could check the "Disaster Recovery" check box on some form and quiet the complaints.
To my knowledge OSR2 is what introduced FAT32 and LBA. USB came in 2.1. OSR 2.5 was just IE and some other misc fixes you could download.
So yes, the difference between 2 and 2.1 was minor. USB support was added, but typically supporting new hardware doesn't warrant a new build number. Also, from my experience back then.... the USB support was terrible in 95 (although it could very likely be the vender's USB products as well). USB didn't seem truly solid until 98.
The different between 2.1 and 2.5 was even less than minor.
The point of the original post, wasn't that they updated the build number. It was about what a slow news day it must be for slashdot to be running a story on it. What's next?... are we going to start getting updated whenever a DLL is updated too?
I just love it when the subject line of a article is a question answered by the summary just below it.
MS is running out of keys, so they are releasing an updated build. mmmmm ok. so?
It's just a different build number, what's the big deal. The same thing happened back in the Windows 95 when they had SR 2, 2.1, and 2.5. The changes between those build were minor as well.
.. when you have a solid/dirt floor above every level and buildings on all sides of it, how exactly do you plan to get sunlight into the buildig for the plants to grow? My offices has lots of windows, but when we turn the lights off, it still gets dark in the center.
And as for "All produce would be organic as there would be no exposure to wild parasites and bugs":
I suppose that it would be true until a few bugs hitch a ride on the back of some freight. 'Nature finds a way'. Heck, I wouldn't be surpised if we've had a few ants on the space station by now.
And the way things are looking, even if I gradually replace all of the drives with larger ones, the array will still read the original size. For example, say I have 3x500gb drives in RAID 5 and over time replace all of them with 1TB drives. Instead of reading one big 3tb drive, it will still read 1.5tb. Is this true?
Yes... Fucking duh.... Have you even read the RAID 5 Wiki article? [wikipedia.org]
-------------------
I wouldn't say "fucking duh" in response to this. Depending on your controller and OS, it is possible to expand/extend a RAID5 array to include more drives and take advantage of the resulting space. Generally, you expand/extend the array at the controller level (via their software) which would add the drives to your new raid set, and then use something like diskpart to grow the volume. Windows server 2003 does it instantly, other software may require a reboot.
Have you given any thought to the controller you will be using? Read the specs carefully.
Also.. what OS would you be running?
Don't worry about the performance issues with RAID5. For a media center box, RAID5 is more than fine. When you initialize the array, just make sure use you use the largest cluster/block size available.
Business man makes business predictions about the future. Some are right... some are wrong!
And in related news.... critics choose to focus only on the predictions that were wrong!
* Personally, I really loved OS/2. It's wasn't the best piece of software *ever*, but it was truely remarkable for it's time. I wish MS would have stol^h^h^h borrowed more ideas from it.
Am I the only one who sees this as a business ploy? I predict that Verizon will make Vonage squirm, let their stock get as low as possible, and then buy them out.
No one else will touch Vonage due to their legal trouble, except Verizon who holds all the cards. Verizon can easily aquire 2.2 million customers cheap.
"With something so basic and fundamental, yes, it will be reported on/. It indicates MS completely blew QA on Vista..."
Yeah, let's blame MS for blowing the QA because they missed such an obvious problem! Anyone find it odd that is was never complained about anywhere previously to the release? Surely, the slashdot Anti-Microsoft Fanboys would have brought it up if it were so obvious and wide spread.
Oh well, that doesn't matter.. let's just hype it up and run with it!
Now, I will say that I don't run Vista yet. I plan to wait for the 3rd party drivers to catch up (summer maybe?). However, I do have other co-workers running Vista and none of them have complained about file copy/delete/rename slowness. I've actually been very suprised that everyone I've spoke with that runs Vista, has liked it. This makes me think there's more to the issue.
Yes, I'm sure Vista will have it's bugs. What OS doesn't? Should we label them all 'Defective by design'?
With "Windows 2010" (or whatever) comes out, we will have the exact same people saying 'Windows 2010 sucks because it's different. Windows Vista is the last OS I'll ever need!'.
This article is crap. Slashdot is kept alive my anti-microsoft stories/replies; this is just another example of the bias. It's a pretty sad day when people are complain about the programable menu lag or slight mouse inconsistacy. Give me a break.
I haven't installed Vista myself, but I will be once my 'busy season' is over. We do have a few techs here running Vista and none have complained a single time. From what I gather from them, Vista is a very nice OS... that *may* be ready for end-user deployment in 6 months. Our issues aren't with Vista, they are with vendors just needed to update their apps for a new OS. C'est la vie.
What are you talking about? A VM is viewed as any other machine. If you install Windows to a VM, then that VM needs a license. There's no special voodoo involved.
* There are some exceptions to this currently; namely... if you have a host OS that is the 'Enterprise' version of Windows; then you can run 4 standard VM's for free. This help makes the cost of Enterprise a little more bearable, and there are many examples where this option is more favorable to a company than droppinng $1000 for the starter version of ESX instead.
I'm excited to see what Longhorn has to offer. Currently we are a VMware shop, because VirtualPC/Virtual-Server is just sad.
7) Look at a calendar. This is 2007, start acting like there's been some improvement in installation tools in the last 20 years.
It's 2007.. why don't you just image your machines?
How server process is this: 1) Network boot system 2) Image new server/pc 3) reboot and answer sysprep prompts
A new server/pc is ready in 10 only minutes.
People that try to complain about the window's installer make me laugh. They've already dumbed it down to where you only click 'next->next->finish', yet people still whine.
'The digital micromirror device, as it is known, consists of a million or more tiny mirrors
Drop this device just one time and you've got bad luck for the rest of your life... or next million lives if you believe in reincarnation.
I urge all Eisoptrophobia'ist to avoid this at all cost!
Slashdot Mirror
Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
1. the US was showing that we have the ability to shoot down satellites (they described it as "shooting through the eye of a needle to hit the eye of a needle"),
2. we wanted to keep sensitive information out of the hands of our "opponents" (James Bond plot alert!), or
3. there might have actually been a health risk to letting the satellite reenter orbit (it should burn up now)
I'm going to choose all of the above! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! I believe #2 is the main reason, with #3 being a possible 'think of the children' reason. If by chance, the fuel from the satellite would have killed everyone within close proximity to it, then that would have been bad PR indeed.
I think the US would have loved to have taken this satellite out WITHOUT shooting it down. We had nothing to prove. This just makes it ever more difficult for us to come down harder on the next guy that says he wants to shoot down a "failing" satellite. China could easily cause one of their junk satellite to de-orbit "accidentally" next month just for an excuse to shoot it down.
Just being able to say "Look how accurate our missles are!", it's worth the conspiracy theories or potential pissing match that is sure to result. Drawing direct attention to your possible hypocrisies doesn't make good politics.
2) The fact that swapping the batteries probably isn't something any Joe Blow can (or would want to) do on his way to work.
3) They take up a lot of space!
Do you have any idea how many cars a service station fills up in a given day? The service station would pretty much need a large warehouse just to house all the batteries. Gasoline is nice, because you pull it from an underground tank and pour it into your gas tank. Swapping out several large batteries is a different story.
Propane tank swap-outs work because so few people take advantage of them on any given day. Heck, 20 tanks will probably last a company all day in most cases. Gas stations typically get a few more than 20 people.
The government isn't the problem, it's the politicians that are currently making up the government. The framework is in place for the elected officials to lose their standing as soon as the next election comes up. It would not necessarily be a bad thing in my eyes for an entirely new senate to be elected. One side may claim its a failure of the government 'we set up', however I would see it as a beneficial option given to the citizens as a result of the government 'we set up'.
We didn't select their leaders. They selected their own leaders. The US cannot be blamed because the citizens didn't choose wisely nor know how their elected representatives would act. Picking candidates wisely comes with time and experience; many of us in the US still haven't learned how to look past the flashy smear commercials during our election time.
They are still a very young democracy with new ideals being forced upon them. There will be many more examples of this in the future. When/If Iraq's democracy takes hold, I guarantee you will see the same stories from there as well. It's up to all of us an in international community to tactfully and politically inform them that they are being idiots when they do something as idiotic as this.
Also, I love how you complain that the top 1% ONLY pay 34% of income takes. I suppose you would think it's more fair is the top 1% paid something close to 50%? Where does it end? Heck, why not just cap all income at 100k, and say anything over that goes to the gov't? That'll stick it to 'em!
I'm still scratching my head over how the middle class pay more sales tax. The last time I went Walmart, the didn't ask me what my income level was and tax accordingly. Property tax is more malarkey. So yes if you look at all the numbers the middle class is paying most of the taxes. What a shocking revelation that that the sum of individuations that make up 94% (or whatever) of the US population pay the majority of the taxes. If it were the other way around, we'd be a welfare county. Thankfully we aren't there... yet. We should all get very nervous if we get to a position where 50+% of income taxes are paid by 1% of the population and that's deemed acceptable.
The programmers told the machines to give out false informations. The programmers told the others machines to trust what they are told. How is it so shocking that the 'lying' machine gave out false information while the other machines believed them?
I have an excel spreadsheet that 'learned' to add 2 columns together as soon as I used the =SUM function. It was quite amazing.
So, it appears that in order to re-enable Office to open older formats, you need to do nothing more than make a single registry change for each product? Is there anyone on this entire site that honestly find making a registry change to be mind-bogglingly complex?
When I first read the summary, I thought to myself "oh no.. this may be something I need to alert the IT dept to". However, now I see it as just a non-issue. If/When this does become an issue, pushing out a script that changes a mind-bogglingly 5 registry keys will take all of 30 seconds.
However, I will considering going to my boss and saying "Sir... we have two options. We can either change 5 registry keys... or deploy open office across the firm and retrain everyone accordingly.". I'll let you know what he says.
Yes, I do believe MS should make the option to enable older formats something you could enable/disable via the 'options' menu, yet I do not believe it's worth all the hype it's getting here. Typical Slashdot unfortunately.
On a side note, I find it interesting that this limitation was put into Office 2003 and not 2007 (to my knowledge). It makes me wonder as to if the same change will be put into 2007, or if 2007 may not be as vulnerable as 2003 (hence the limitation isn't needed). Does anyone have any ideas about this?
If they want to use it for military purposes, then they need to strap 100 pounds onto their back and push them out of a plane at night. If they survived the landing, all the team members would probably be separated by a country mile.
If the 3rd party apps that work on XP/2000 don't work on Vista then it will appear to be unstable, it does not matter if it is the OS or the app the impression is that Vista is unstable. I'm very glad you don't work for my firm. You wouldn't last very long if you couldn't objectively tell the difference between an OS stability issue and an OS compatibility issue. "MS Bashing" may be *cool* on Slashdot, but it won't get you very far in the corporate world... especially if you allow it to blind you from properly troubleshooting an issue.
Anyone competent in their job knows that when a piece of 3rd party software is released, the vendor cannot say it will be compatible with every version of Windows into the future. For that reason, we don't place the blame of the incompatibilities on Windows nor the 3rd party apps. Initially, none of the apps were certified for use in Vista, so we count ourselves lucky that they worked at all (as did the vendor, I'm sure).
Over time, more and more apps have been brought up to spec. Eventually, we expect they will all run under Vista. Vista changed a lot under the hood, and broke a lot as a result. Personally, I expected the vendors to be all up to spec by now, but they aren't. C'est la vie. Delays actually make my life easier, it allows me to focus on more important projects.
I'm not sure about other industry apps, but given that we are a tax/audit firm, I have a suspicion that most of our apps won't see a Vista stamp on them until after April 15th. Releasing a possibly buggy product during tax season could be disastrous. It's very possible they already have something they think *may* work, but they don't want to risk it. If you thought postal carriers were scary, you have lived until you seen a stressed out accountant on April 14th.
Has anyone actually had any stability problems with Vista?
In our testing, Vista has been perfectly stable. Our only complaint is that 3rd party software hasn't been updated to work with it yet (IE: be it applications such as our Audit software, or Web-based SSL VPN from Cisco ).
Some users bitched about the new GUI, but these are the same users that complained about XP's different start menu and forced 2000-class on everyone for a while.
We will happily move to Vista once the 3rd party apps work with it. Blaming Vista because 3rd party apps don't work with it makes as about as much sense as blaming Mac or *nix because, CCH didn't write a tax app for them.
Vista killed a lot of backward compatibility by making things more secure. Although their implementation of this security leaves a lot to be desired (accept/deny). We have no doubt that the 3rd party vendors will eventually update their apps accordingly.
Stability issue would definitely cause us to push our deployment schedule back, however right now we are only waiting on the vendors to update their software (all hardware works fine so far).
I wonder if this would allow a soldier to use his laptop in the dead of night, viewing his screen via night-vision goggles? Anyone out there that's ever used night-vision goggles know if this even possible in the slightest?
NASA's tested applying the goop on practice tiles on the end of the arm. Here's the thing: the arm wobbles. the underbelly of the shuttle is fragile. Astronauts on an EVA don't exactly have the same forces available that we do to react instantly. Stuff floats out there, inertia, all that stuff. One wrong hiccup and that 400-500 pound weight is crashing into the shuttle and there's no way to stop it.
Aren't these this kind of things that all that money and testing were supposed to account for?
That's why the don't want to do a repair: the risks outweigh the benefits. And what do you think the media would say if the tiles were damaged further during a repair? I shudder to think...
I believe the media would probably point out that NASA's DR plan was flawed.
Now, if they did it and everything worked perfectly, then it would be an amazing bit of wonderful PR for NASA. However, Britney would probably trump that news as well.
The risk/reward angle, is definitely valid and probably spot on. However, I can't shake the feeling that NASA simply doesn't have faith in there own repair techniques. It would make me very nervous if there was a warning label on a repair kit that said, "Last Resort Warning: Only use if you're pretty sure you're gonna die anyway."
....NASA's in-space repair abilities that they spent gobs of money on after Columbia remind me a lot about our "Disaster Recovery" plans at my firm. Sure.. we have one; Sure.. we spend a lot of money on it;... but please.. oh please.. don't make us actually test it or put it into practice.
I hope they didn't just spend all that money so that could check the "Disaster Recovery" check box on some form and quiet the complaints.
To my knowledge OSR2 is what introduced FAT32 and LBA. USB came in 2.1. OSR 2.5 was just IE and some other misc fixes you could download.
So yes, the difference between 2 and 2.1 was minor. USB support was added, but typically supporting new hardware doesn't warrant a new build number. Also, from my experience back then.... the USB support was terrible in 95 (although it could very likely be the vender's USB products as well). USB didn't seem truly solid until 98.
The different between 2.1 and 2.5 was even less than minor.
The point of the original post, wasn't that they updated the build number. It was about what a slow news day it must be for slashdot to be running a story on it. What's next?... are we going to start getting updated whenever a DLL is updated too?
I just love it when the subject line of a article is a question answered by the summary just below it.
MS is running out of keys, so they are releasing an updated build. mmmmm ok. so?
It's just a different build number, what's the big deal. The same thing happened back in the Windows 95 when they had SR 2, 2.1, and 2.5. The changes between those build were minor as well.
.. when you have a solid/dirt floor above every level and buildings on all sides of it, how exactly do you plan to get sunlight into the buildig for the plants to grow? My offices has lots of windows, but when we turn the lights off, it still gets dark in the center.
And as for "All produce would be organic as there would be no exposure to wild parasites and bugs":
I suppose that it would be true until a few bugs hitch a ride on the back of some freight. 'Nature finds a way'. Heck, I wouldn't be surpised if we've had a few ants on the space station by now.
-------------------
And the way things are looking, even if I gradually replace all of the drives with larger
ones, the array will still read the original size. For example, say I have 3x500gb drives in
RAID 5 and over time replace all of them with 1TB drives. Instead of reading one big 3tb
drive, it will still read 1.5tb. Is this true?
Yes... Fucking duh.... Have you even read the RAID 5 Wiki article? [wikipedia.org]
-------------------
I wouldn't say "fucking duh" in response to this. Depending on your controller and OS, it is
possible to expand/extend a RAID5 array to include more drives and take advantage of the
resulting space. Generally, you expand/extend the array at the controller level (via their
software) which would add the drives to your new raid set, and then use something like
diskpart to grow the volume. Windows server 2003 does it instantly, other software may
require a reboot.
Have you given any thought to the controller you will be using? Read the specs carefully.
Also.. what OS would you be running?
Don't worry about the performance issues with RAID5. For a media center box, RAID5 is more
than fine. When you initialize the array, just make sure use you use the largest
cluster/block size available.
Business man makes business predictions about the future. Some are right... some are wrong!
And in related news.... critics choose to focus only on the predictions that were wrong!
* Personally, I really loved OS/2. It's wasn't the best piece of software *ever*, but it was truely remarkable for it's time. I wish MS would have stol^h^h^h borrowed more ideas from it.
Am I the only one who sees this as a business ploy? I predict that Verizon will make Vonage squirm, let their stock get as low as possible, and then buy them out.
No one else will touch Vonage due to their legal trouble, except Verizon who holds all the cards. Verizon can easily aquire 2.2 million customers cheap.
Extortion, what?
"With something so basic and fundamental, yes, it will be reported on /. It indicates MS completely blew QA on Vista..."
Yeah, let's blame MS for blowing the QA because they missed such an obvious problem! Anyone find it odd that is was never complained about anywhere previously to the release? Surely, the slashdot Anti-Microsoft Fanboys would have brought it up if it were so obvious and wide spread.
Oh well, that doesn't matter.. let's just hype it up and run with it!
Now, I will say that I don't run Vista yet. I plan to wait for the 3rd party drivers to catch up (summer maybe?). However, I do have other co-workers running Vista and none of them have complained about file copy/delete/rename slowness. I've actually been very suprised that everyone I've spoke with that runs Vista, has liked it. This makes me think there's more to the issue.
Yes, I'm sure Vista will have it's bugs. What OS doesn't? Should we label them all 'Defective by design'?
Agreed.
With "Windows 2010" (or whatever) comes out, we will have the exact same people saying 'Windows 2010 sucks because it's different. Windows Vista is the last OS I'll ever need!'.
This article is crap. Slashdot is kept alive my anti-microsoft stories/replies; this is just another example of the bias. It's a pretty sad day when people are complain about the programable menu lag or slight mouse inconsistacy. Give me a break.
I haven't installed Vista myself, but I will be once my 'busy season' is over. We do have a few techs here running Vista and none have complained a single time. From what I gather from them, Vista is a very nice OS... that *may* be ready for end-user deployment in 6 months. Our issues aren't with Vista, they are with vendors just needed to update their apps for a new OS. C'est la vie.
What are you talking about? A VM is viewed as any other machine. If you install Windows to a VM, then that VM needs a license. There's no special voodoo involved.
* There are some exceptions to this currently; namely... if you have a host OS that is the 'Enterprise' version of Windows; then you can run 4 standard VM's for free. This help makes the cost of Enterprise a little more bearable, and there are many examples where this option is more favorable to a company than droppinng $1000 for the starter version of ESX instead.
I'm excited to see what Longhorn has to offer. Currently we are a VMware shop, because VirtualPC/Virtual-Server is just sad.
7) Look at a calendar. This is 2007, start acting like there's been some improvement in installation tools in the last 20 years.
It's 2007.. why don't you just image your machines?
How server process is this:
1) Network boot system
2) Image new server/pc
3) reboot and answer sysprep prompts
A new server/pc is ready in 10 only minutes.
People that try to complain about the window's installer make me laugh. They've already dumbed it down to where you only click 'next->next->finish', yet people still whine.
'The digital micromirror device, as it is known, consists of a million or more tiny mirrors
Drop this device just one time and you've got bad luck for the rest of your life... or next
million lives if you believe in reincarnation.
I urge all Eisoptrophobia'ist to avoid this at all cost!
Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
I dunno who OSTG is, but they must be pretty awesome. They pwned Slashdot and Linux.com!