Could be, but it's not unbelievable. W2K can be quite stable, as long as you load it with only a couple of stable applications and let it just sit there and run, like any server installation should. I've seen server installations that didn't do that, of course, but not everyone running Windows is stupid.;)
At the same time, test it under conditions more common for a home user (or a server with a poor admin) with a dozen or two random applications being started and stopped fairly frequently, and it crashes just like all of its predecessors. That's why I've been very impressed with my Mac, I use it fairly heavily, dozens of odd programs, games and all sorts of other strange stuff... unstable alpha software all over it. Never seen it crash yet. Corrupted the file system once, but that still didn't crash it, kept right on running while I repaired it. A friend of mine managed to crash his, but he won't tell me how, just that it took a lot of work.:)
But my uptime output isn't nearly so impressive, because I shut it down to save batteries sometimes.
% uname -a Darwin <hostname-deleted> 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
My x86 box had an uptime of 28 days once in linux... I rebooted to play an old game in windows. Even that box never crashed except when either running windows or when critical hardware failed... I agree, the poster needs a different PC, or maybe just a different OS.
The questions seemed pretty biased to make anyone a libertarian. I got pretty close, and, trust me, I am no libertarian:-)
What makes you not a libertarian then?
Anyway, I like the 2D view on politics used in this quiz. It says a lot more than the stereotypical left-right 1D perspective.
Indeed, I think it's important to get that view in front of as many people as possible, it really opens up the mind to break out of the one dimensional scale of the one-party-posing-as-two system.
but that one tends to get avoided because people take it as a slam on everyone else.
But Libertarianism is 'middle' in relation to right and left, it's just off a bit on a different axis as well. Take the quiz and look at the Nolan chart and you'll see what I mean.
BTW, there were no democracies (at least in their current incarnation) in Europe in the Middle Ages. The only thing that even comes close is the Roman Republic which collapsed several centuries before the time period known as "the Middle Ages." So your first statement makes absolutely no sense.
Actually the nordic lands were ruled by a somewhat democratic system into the early part of the middle ages IIRC. The Kings were elected. They didn't become hereditary in this part of the world until relatively late.
Re:Learn to state your case clearly
on
Ebay vs. Musician
·
· Score: 2
Yes he did, but I don't think he ever clearly told them in his complaint emails "I am the copyright holder and I stated so in my auction." If he did, he didn't state it at first, and he said way too many other things such that it got buried. His emails should have consisted of little more than just that sentence, because that's the real issue.
Umm yes he did. The very first reply he sent stated quite clearly 'We are the copyright holders of this product...This was clearly stated in our listing. Later missives from him went into more detail, asserting not only PA rights but also rights to the cover art, etc. So the sad thing is that he did essentially what you say (and you're right, that is the proper way to address such a misunderstanding) but ebay for some reason was unable to remember. They did, over and over, restore his auctions (after they were closed) but then when he reposted them, the same thing happened again and again. Each time he wrote, eventually they were restored, he reposts... start cycle again. Yes, towards the end he lost his cool and did some less smart things - but only after doing exactly the right thing over and over and over again to no lasting affect.
I am in Sweden, but my localisation settings on this machine are for English. I pull up google.com without ever having a problem. At the same time, another computer on the same net, setup in Swedish, does pull up a localised Swedish version when I type in google.com. So it has to be more complicated than just looking at your network number.
Anyway, this little fuss is just about people who think that everyone has a right to be on every network, anywhere. It's as if they believe that people every network is a public, free, resource.
Maybe there are some people that think that but I don't, and I didn't get the impression most of the posters do. These people have every right to ban cheaters anyway they can. But the fact of the matter is that this just won't work. It'll be childs play to defeat, and may well cause more inconvenience to random non-cheaters than the people they are trying to get rid of.
So is this just a convention in English? If I understand correctly, only increases in size are quantifiable in language.
Umm that doesn't sound right... lots of things besides increases in size are quantifiable in language... I must be misunderstanding you here.
Saying x is twenty times as a large as y or that y is one twentieth as large as x is correct, but to say that y is twenty times as small as x or that x is a twentieth as small as y is incorrect. All four phrases mean the same thing, but the latter two are unacceptable. Is this accurate? Please let me know, as I do enjoy semantics.:)
Hrmm... essentially correct. 'Times' here refers to multiplication, it's quite common to say 'twenty times smaller' but it is technically incorrect, if you multiply something smaller you multiply by a fraction, 'one-twentieth the size' (i.e. multiply by (1/20=.05)) would be correct. But it's a fairly obscure point that most people seem to just ignore.
It's a nice device, and it should run emacs great, if you don't want the setup hassle finding all the right drivers the good folks at emperorlinux will ship it to you properly setup for a small fee I bet. But it's hardly cheap. Over $2k no matter how you get it.
You can pick up a new iBook for about $1200, you get longer battery life and a better keyboard, emacs comes standard on OS X now, and you can wipe it and install Debian if you want anyway. Downside, of course, is that it's a bit larger, but it's still quite small really.
You still need to download Mozilla so you aren't using MSIE (I like Opera on Windows a lot, but last time I tried the Mac version it really wasn't so good,) and then we both need to figure out how to get openoffice.org to hurry up the OS X port...
...you're mistaking cause and correlation. The things that are found more typically among red-heads are not therefore caused by the same genes that cause the red hair - they're caused by other genes that just happen to be typical of the same gene-pools where you find red hair. So the fact that you didn't get the red hair doesn't affect the chances that you got the other in the least.
That's a very neat trick. To be fair, though, I must say that it's a bit unintuitive the way you have to drag the folder to the section of the dock that normally holds minimised apps, rather than the 'quickstart' section up top, it took me a minute to figure that out... I guess there is probably some approved mac lingo for that but I'm a new Mac user myself. It's not perfect, but it's quite good... hella better than windows xp, with the added bonus of having an almost-unix system accessible underneat too. Quite happy with my TiBook, quite happy...
And, btw, the GPL doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft. Microsoft was a two-bit outfit that made software for toys when GNU started - the big bad evil monopolist of the time was SUN.
Windows applications will always be less secure than OSS because it's much more complex and used by millions more users. This is the fact that tends to get missed by people who blindly quote stats that they don't comprehend.
Perhaps you hit the wrong button? I didn't write that, I didn't even quote it. I think your response is pretty much on the right track, though, as a response to the other poster. Except for the last bit which does seem to be a response to me, rather than the other poster...
The thought that security problems in commercial software being a conspiracy to make way for DRM and DRM based operating systems is laughable. I remember back in the early 90's a similar theory that IBM was writing the more common DOS viruses as a method to promote the usage of OS/2 because at the time no one had ever heard of any OS/2 virii. The fact that there was little OS/2 file swapping because there was little OS/2 native software never came into people's minds.
Ahh, but these are totally different circumstances, IBM didn't develop and market a technology that made it easier than before to write and propogate viruses, now did it? Microsoft has without a doubt done that in the case of ActiveX, going so far as to put an enourmous amount of effort into trying to make it impossible to remove the security hole thus created, the only question is why... now it would be laughable I suppose if I suggested that this was the sole reason for ActiveX, there are clearly other reasons, but I think one would be seriously underestimating the collective intelligence level at Microsoft to suggest that they aren't at least aware of the effect this has had, and actively planning to market their DRM as a solution to the problem they've thus created.
Agreed that it's a marketing name, but if you look at the way it's used you'll see it's clearly referring to the controls and scripting capabilities. That's the point. Those are the focus of the marketing, and the locus of security problems. Getting rid of those is, from a security point of view, job one. And making that impossible is, from Microsofts point of view, job one as well. See my point yet?
Not at all. I have a fully functional system at home running win98 with no trace of mshtml, totally invulnerable to exploits that rely on ActiveX (which is the vast majority of exploits that affect 98.) You can do the same thing with ME, the easy way is here. NT based systems are harder, but it's possible to achieve most of these improvements there as well, elsewhere on the same site you'll see he's still putting the finishing touches on a similar product for XP.
The APIs are moving to ActiveX (cf.NET),
Yes they are, an excellent reason to step up the pace on eliminating MS from any environment where security is important.
I don't know that you could remove it even on Win 3.1
Win 3.1 didn't include any of this, that's a very bad memory or some FUD, depending on your internal state when you wrote it. Some of the earliest versions could be run on 3.1, but that required installing Iexplore updates, it wasn't on the system by default.
Not really. All ActiveX is is a codification of C++ virtual tables and object instatiation into a language independent standard. That's it. It's all in how you use it.
Not quite, that's COM, ActiveX is how COM is made available to arbitrary code, as from a webpage or an email opened using MS tools, which as a rule don't just neglect to give the user proper warning before executing proper code, they typically give no warning at all. Click on a URL or just an email header in Outlook and you can run code without knowing you are doing so. This is a fundamental architectural flaw.
Microsoft has worked very hard to make ActiveX an integral 'part of the operating system' - it's a pain to get rid of it even on older systems, and I don't believe anyone has even worked out a way to properly disinfect it from XP to date (if I'm wrong give me a link, litepc.com is still working on it, it's a tough problem.) ActiveX is also the very exemplar of security hole from the ground up. Despite all the lip-service given recently to the concept of security by Microsoft, this particular policy, by far the biggest cause of security flaws, has been intensified over time, not backed off from. This makes Microsoft systems and security antonymical.
Now there are some smart folks at Microsoft, I can't credit the theory that no one there understands what they are doing. The alternative, of course, leads to what may be denigrated as 'conspiracy theory' but in this case it seems reasonable, for the reasons stated above. What does Microsoft gain by making their systems inherently insecure? A rationale for the 'necessity' of so-called security schemes (that really don't have anything to do with security, but rather with centralised control) such as DRM. Flood the net with insecure boxes and then cash in later by 'solving' the problem in a way that makes you the effective gatekeepers of the internet. Now there's a business model with some profit potential.
Disney is unlikely to lose anything over Mickey even if the Supremes do the right thing here. The copyright that could be lost on Mickey is the old version from way back, you wouldn't even recognise it if you saw it. The new Mickey, the one you're used to seeing, not only has a newer copyright that won't expire for years either way, it's also a TradeMark, and IIRC those don't expire as long as they're defended.
The only other thing I have to ask is how easy is it to get linux on that thing without a Sony CDROM Drive.
I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you want one preinstalled so you don't have to worry about getting the more obscure hardware working and so forth just talk to the folks at Emperor Linux - they have a similar picturebook as a standard offer, the Kiwi, and they're happy to do special orders if that's not exactly what you want.
If you just mean how to install it yourself without using a CD, most distros support net installation...
Because Mozilla is a Windows app which does not use the environment provided under any unix. It has to, for some reason, bring along it's own way of doing almost every little thing and in the process ignore what's available natively.
[...]
The scrollbars don't work properly. Sure, the middle button in the scrollbar will summon the slider directly to the cursor, and will remain captured so long as the button remains held. They got that right. But try clicking in the trough below the slider. Instead of the slider continuing it's movement all the way to the bottom so long as the button is held, it will stop at the point where the button was pressed. Even if the pointer is no longer there! Try the same on virtually any other graphic (GTK or Motif) app under a recent free unix and see how it's supposed to work.
As is hinted at by your use of the word virtually here, these things are not 'native' behaviours because X doesn't have such things. Now I agree with you that Mozilla does the wrong things here, XUL is one of my least favourite inventions ever, but it is innocent of the particular charge you bring here. Bringing along their own, non-native toolkit doesn't hit performance under X the same way it does Windows or Mac, because X doesn't have any native toolkit anyway - it's toolkit agnostic from the getgo, whether the app uses XUL or GTK or QT or what have you makes no difference!
On other systems that do have native toolkits you would get a performance boost by using them - but on X there just is no such thing. XUL can and should take blame for the crummy usability factors, but not for performance under X.
The real reason, or at least the main one (there are doubtless lots of smaller issues involved) is that X does rendering slower than Windows, other things being equal, because the video routines don't run at the kernel level. You pay a small price in performance for robustness, simple as that.
or are trying to compare Moz for Linux (which is =much= slower than it's Windows counterpart)
For the same reason that it can't make Linux crash, but can make Windows crash... the two systems make different tradeoffs regarding video performance versus stability.
Slashdot Mirror
Could be, but it's not unbelievable. W2K can be quite stable, as long as you load it with only a couple of stable applications and let it just sit there and run, like any server installation should. I've seen server installations that didn't do that, of course, but not everyone running Windows is stupid. ;)
At the same time, test it under conditions more common for a home user (or a server with a poor admin) with a dozen or two random applications being started and stopped fairly frequently, and it crashes just like all of its predecessors. That's why I've been very impressed with my Mac, I use it fairly heavily, dozens of odd programs, games and all sorts of other strange stuff... unstable alpha software all over it. Never seen it crash yet. Corrupted the file system once, but that still didn't crash it, kept right on running while I repaired it. A friend of mine managed to crash his, but he won't tell me how, just that it took a lot of work. :)
But my uptime output isn't nearly so impressive, because I shut it down to save batteries sometimes.
My x86 box had an uptime of 28 days once in linux... I rebooted to play an old game in windows. Even that box never crashed except when either running windows or when critical hardware failed... I agree, the poster needs a different PC, or maybe just a different OS.
What makes you not a libertarian then?
Indeed, I think it's important to get that view in front of as many people as possible, it really opens up the mind to break out of the one dimensional scale of the one-party-posing-as-two system.
but that one tends to get avoided because people take it as a slam on everyone else.
But Libertarianism is 'middle' in relation to right and left, it's just off a bit on a different axis as well. Take the quiz and look at the Nolan chart and you'll see what I mean.
Actually the nordic lands were ruled by a somewhat democratic system into the early part of the middle ages IIRC. The Kings were elected. They didn't become hereditary in this part of the world until relatively late.
Umm yes he did. The very first reply he sent stated quite clearly 'We are the copyright holders of this product...This was clearly stated in our listing. Later missives from him went into more detail, asserting not only PA rights but also rights to the cover art, etc. So the sad thing is that he did essentially what you say (and you're right, that is the proper way to address such a misunderstanding) but ebay for some reason was unable to remember. They did, over and over, restore his auctions (after they were closed) but then when he reposted them, the same thing happened again and again. Each time he wrote, eventually they were restored, he reposts... start cycle again. Yes, towards the end he lost his cool and did some less smart things - but only after doing exactly the right thing over and over and over again to no lasting affect.
I am in Sweden, but my localisation settings on this machine are for English. I pull up google.com without ever having a problem. At the same time, another computer on the same net, setup in Swedish, does pull up a localised Swedish version when I type in google.com. So it has to be more complicated than just looking at your network number.
Maybe there are some people that think that but I don't, and I didn't get the impression most of the posters do. These people have every right to ban cheaters anyway they can. But the fact of the matter is that this just won't work. It'll be childs play to defeat, and may well cause more inconvenience to random non-cheaters than the people they are trying to get rid of.
Of course, but in that context it's so well understood that it needn't be said anymore.
Umm that doesn't sound right... lots of things besides increases in size are quantifiable in language... I must be misunderstanding you here.
Hrmm... essentially correct. 'Times' here refers to multiplication, it's quite common to say 'twenty times smaller' but it is technically incorrect, if you multiply something smaller you multiply by a fraction, 'one-twentieth the size' (i.e. multiply by (1/20=.05)) would be correct. But it's a fairly obscure point that most people seem to just ignore.
It's a nice device, and it should run emacs great, if you don't want the setup hassle finding all the right drivers the good folks at emperorlinux will ship it to you properly setup for a small fee I bet. But it's hardly cheap. Over $2k no matter how you get it.
You can pick up a new iBook for about $1200, you get longer battery life and a better keyboard, emacs comes standard on OS X now, and you can wipe it and install Debian if you want anyway. Downside, of course, is that it's a bit larger, but it's still quite small really.
You still need to download Mozilla so you aren't using MSIE (I like Opera on Windows a lot, but last time I tried the Mac version it really wasn't so good,) and then we both need to figure out how to get openoffice.org to hurry up the OS X port...
...you're mistaking cause and correlation. The things that are found more typically among red-heads are not therefore caused by the same genes that cause the red hair - they're caused by other genes that just happen to be typical of the same gene-pools where you find red hair. So the fact that you didn't get the red hair doesn't affect the chances that you got the other in the least.
That's a very neat trick. To be fair, though, I must say that it's a bit unintuitive the way you have to drag the folder to the section of the dock that normally holds minimised apps, rather than the 'quickstart' section up top, it took me a minute to figure that out... I guess there is probably some approved mac lingo for that but I'm a new Mac user myself. It's not perfect, but it's quite good... hella better than windows xp, with the added bonus of having an almost-unix system accessible underneat too. Quite happy with my TiBook, quite happy...
Gah, calm down, take a breath.
And, btw, the GPL doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft. Microsoft was a two-bit outfit that made software for toys when GNU started - the big bad evil monopolist of the time was SUN.
Perhaps you hit the wrong button? I didn't write that, I didn't even quote it. I think your response is pretty much on the right track, though, as a response to the other poster. Except for the last bit which does seem to be a response to me, rather than the other poster...
Ahh, but these are totally different circumstances, IBM didn't develop and market a technology that made it easier than before to write and propogate viruses, now did it? Microsoft has without a doubt done that in the case of ActiveX, going so far as to put an enourmous amount of effort into trying to make it impossible to remove the security hole thus created, the only question is why... now it would be laughable I suppose if I suggested that this was the sole reason for ActiveX, there are clearly other reasons, but I think one would be seriously underestimating the collective intelligence level at Microsoft to suggest that they aren't at least aware of the effect this has had, and actively planning to market their DRM as a solution to the problem they've thus created.
Agreed that it's a marketing name, but if you look at the way it's used you'll see it's clearly referring to the controls and scripting capabilities. That's the point. Those are the focus of the marketing, and the locus of security problems. Getting rid of those is, from a security point of view, job one. And making that impossible is, from Microsofts point of view, job one as well. See my point yet?
Not at all. I have a fully functional system at home running win98 with no trace of mshtml, totally invulnerable to exploits that rely on ActiveX (which is the vast majority of exploits that affect 98.) You can do the same thing with ME, the easy way is here. NT based systems are harder, but it's possible to achieve most of these improvements there as well, elsewhere on the same site you'll see he's still putting the finishing touches on a similar product for XP.
Yes they are, an excellent reason to step up the pace on eliminating MS from any environment where security is important.
Win 3.1 didn't include any of this, that's a very bad memory or some FUD, depending on your internal state when you wrote it. Some of the earliest versions could be run on 3.1, but that required installing Iexplore updates, it wasn't on the system by default.
Not quite, that's COM, ActiveX is how COM is made available to arbitrary code, as from a webpage or an email opened using MS tools, which as a rule don't just neglect to give the user proper warning before executing proper code, they typically give no warning at all. Click on a URL or just an email header in Outlook and you can run code without knowing you are doing so. This is a fundamental architectural flaw.
Microsoft has worked very hard to make ActiveX an integral 'part of the operating system' - it's a pain to get rid of it even on older systems, and I don't believe anyone has even worked out a way to properly disinfect it from XP to date (if I'm wrong give me a link, litepc.com is still working on it, it's a tough problem.) ActiveX is also the very exemplar of security hole from the ground up. Despite all the lip-service given recently to the concept of security by Microsoft, this particular policy, by far the biggest cause of security flaws, has been intensified over time, not backed off from. This makes Microsoft systems and security antonymical.
Now there are some smart folks at Microsoft, I can't credit the theory that no one there understands what they are doing. The alternative, of course, leads to what may be denigrated as 'conspiracy theory' but in this case it seems reasonable, for the reasons stated above. What does Microsoft gain by making their systems inherently insecure? A rationale for the 'necessity' of so-called security schemes (that really don't have anything to do with security, but rather with centralised control) such as DRM. Flood the net with insecure boxes and then cash in later by 'solving' the problem in a way that makes you the effective gatekeepers of the internet. Now there's a business model with some profit potential.
Is the decision to label the Flag of the Republic of China as a bug. Seems wourthy of mention. Read more about it here.
Disney is unlikely to lose anything over Mickey even if the Supremes do the right thing here. The copyright that could be lost on Mickey is the old version from way back, you wouldn't even recognise it if you saw it. The new Mickey, the one you're used to seeing, not only has a newer copyright that won't expire for years either way, it's also a TradeMark, and IIRC those don't expire as long as they're defended.
I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you want one preinstalled so you don't have to worry about getting the more obscure hardware working and so forth just talk to the folks at Emperor Linux - they have a similar picturebook as a standard offer, the Kiwi, and they're happy to do special orders if that's not exactly what you want.
If you just mean how to install it yourself without using a CD, most distros support net installation...
[...]
As is hinted at by your use of the word virtually here, these things are not 'native' behaviours because X doesn't have such things. Now I agree with you that Mozilla does the wrong things here, XUL is one of my least favourite inventions ever, but it is innocent of the particular charge you bring here. Bringing along their own, non-native toolkit doesn't hit performance under X the same way it does Windows or Mac, because X doesn't have any native toolkit anyway - it's toolkit agnostic from the getgo, whether the app uses XUL or GTK or QT or what have you makes no difference!
On other systems that do have native toolkits you would get a performance boost by using them - but on X there just is no such thing. XUL can and should take blame for the crummy usability factors, but not for performance under X.
The real reason, or at least the main one (there are doubtless lots of smaller issues involved) is that X does rendering slower than Windows, other things being equal, because the video routines don't run at the kernel level. You pay a small price in performance for robustness, simple as that.
For the same reason that it can't make Linux crash, but can make Windows crash... the two systems make different tradeoffs regarding video performance versus stability.
I just looked at your page, it's fine... any page that's written in real HTML is fine. So why the concern?