At least for a short while, the voting machines could even be used for the same purpose as the toilets. But the voting machines wouldn't self-clean (except for their memories).
When my phone rings, I check the caller ID. If the call is not immediately identifiable as coming from someone with whom I actually may want to converse, I choose to let the phone ring until the caller gives up.
Yes, I'm on the various Do Not Call registries. But their first infraction with respect to a given phone is free to the telemarketer, as I read the laws. And I don't want to sit through a first infraction with every telemarketer.
Caller-ID filtering doesn't always suffice, though. It's a drag when I pick up the phone to make a call, and receive a (nuisance) call that hasn't had the courtesy to RING yet!
Corporations, by and large, will skip Vista for Windows 7. Corporate IT nerds know as well as the rest of us that M$ can't make 2 usable versions of windoze in a row.
One minor adjustment, if you please: The day I was born in 1955, my father was serving with the U. S. Navy in . . . Vietnam. So the involvement was substantially earlier than the official historian's line would suggest.
Before the first time I ever participated in a "standards body", I thought that the committees consisted of really smart technical people gathering together to figure out what was best for the industry at large. How naive!
Then came the rude awakening: The committees are almost entirely comprised of representatives (who often reflect minimal technical expertise in the domain of interest) of the major commercial players in the industry. Each of the reps does whatever he/she can to promote his/her constituent employer's stance on each and every detailed issue, without regard for ethics, and with no regard whatsoever to what is "best" for the industry at large. Buying votes is certainly considered within the pale, in these contexts.
Consequently, the only standards I can respect are the RFCs published by the IETF, for 2 major reasons:
They are framed as "Request For Comment" documents, not as "international standards."
They are required to reflect real implementations, so they don't invent new art or speculate about what only might be possible. They reflect things that are genuinely implementable.
It seems clear to me that the "last mile" problem in the U. S. is no coincidence: The providers are merely employing the "planned obsolescence" strategy (invented, as I recall by Detroit car manufacturers to motivate folks to feel a continuous "need" to buy a new car). The idea is to roll out new features/capabilities incrementally (say, 1-2 per year), to be used as trumped-up justification for additional fees and charges.
The only way I can imagine overcoming this strategy would be for some substantial ISP to go ahead and deploy state-of-the-art infrastructure to and through the last mile in a fairly media-exposed way: Such an event might force the rest of the ISPs to upgrade their infrastructures in order to save face/compete.
If you are seriously concerned about overpopulation, I suggest that you demonstrate your level of commitment to solving the problem by removing yourself from the excess, first. Thereafter, you may do as you please.
Browsers already can (and usually do) figure out the layout . . . IFF the server specifies image sizes through the relevant attributes on the HTML tags. This has been there since HTML 1; no new protocol or other mechanism is required.
>But as you say, it is questionable if most people actually need more performance.
The issue is not need, but want.
With respect to one's self, there is no such thing as too rich or too thin; with respect to one's personal computer(s), there is no such thing as too fast or too much RAM.
I know of one case (many years ago) when a sysadmin used his privilege to obtain copies of licensed software, code in progress, and even a resume from a workstation assigned to a colleague of mine.
When the SA's boss was presented with the various logs that proved that this stuff had been going on, the SA was moved to another building within the same company.
As to "One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects.." . . . what makes you think that WL Messenger DOESN'T apply this particular system setting *as intended*?
Slashdot Mirror
One bloatware app M$ could omit from Windoze would be Internet Explorer!
Two words: "free gruntles."
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.
As long as they're not windows, I'm happy.
So how would that be different from a copy of Windoze operating in its usual way?
At least for a short while, the voting machines could even be used for the same purpose as the toilets. But the voting machines wouldn't self-clean (except for their memories).
When my phone rings, I check the caller ID. If the call is not immediately identifiable as coming from someone with whom I actually may want to converse, I choose to let the phone ring until the caller gives up.
Yes, I'm on the various Do Not Call registries. But their first infraction with respect to a given phone is free to the telemarketer, as I read the laws. And I don't want to sit through a first infraction with every telemarketer.
Caller-ID filtering doesn't always suffice, though. It's a drag when I pick up the phone to make a call, and receive a (nuisance) call that hasn't had the courtesy to RING yet!
Corporations, by and large, will skip Vista for Windows 7. Corporate IT nerds know as well as the rest of us that M$ can't make 2 usable versions of windoze in a row.
One minor adjustment, if you please: The day I was born in 1955, my father was serving with the U. S. Navy in . . . Vietnam. So the involvement was substantially earlier than the official historian's line would suggest.
And brougham is pronounced . . . ?
. . . American internet access providers are exercising their inalienable rights to use planned obsolescence!
Texans should beware: There's a move afoot to split Alaska in two, making Texas the THIRD largest state.
. . . screen touches you!
Before the first time I ever participated in a "standards body", I thought that the committees consisted of really smart technical people gathering together to figure out what was best for the industry at large. How naive!
Then came the rude awakening: The committees are almost entirely comprised of representatives (who often reflect minimal technical expertise in the domain of interest) of the major commercial players in the industry. Each of the reps does whatever he/she can to promote his/her constituent employer's stance on each and every detailed issue, without regard for ethics, and with no regard whatsoever to what is "best" for the industry at large. Buying votes is certainly considered within the pale, in these contexts.
Consequently, the only standards I can respect are the RFCs published by the IETF, for 2 major reasons:
The only way I can imagine overcoming this strategy would be for some substantial ISP to go ahead and deploy state-of-the-art infrastructure to and through the last mile in a fairly media-exposed way: Such an event might force the rest of the ISPs to upgrade their infrastructures in order to save face/compete.
If you are seriously concerned about overpopulation, I suggest that you demonstrate your level of commitment to solving the problem by removing yourself from the excess, first. Thereafter, you may do as you please.
Browsers already can (and usually do) figure out the layout . . . IFF the server specifies image sizes through the relevant attributes on the HTML tags. This has been there since HTML 1; no new protocol or other mechanism is required.
The issue is not need, but want.
With respect to one's self, there is no such thing as too rich or too thin; with respect to one's personal computer(s), there is no such thing as too fast or too much RAM.
I know of one case (many years ago) when a sysadmin used his privilege to obtain copies of licensed software, code in progress, and even a resume from a workstation assigned to a colleague of mine.
When the SA's boss was presented with the various logs that proved that this stuff had been going on, the SA was moved to another building within the same company.
Why wasn't that bastard fired outright?
- Uninstall Vista from new PC
- Install XP and relevant patches on new PC
. . . just in order to have systems their users can boot and accomplish a task on during 8 hours at work.As to "One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects.." . . . what makes you think that WL Messenger DOESN'T apply this particular system setting *as intended*?
- Ray Stevens.
This is nothing new.
First came the invention of a light source (incandescent bulbs) that wear out quickly, so one is forced to buy more.
Then there were razor blades.
Then came annual automobile "model" upgrades.
Do we seriously believe that Nanomu$h invented "planned obsolesence"?
I think not; they haven't the requisite innovative spirit.
"Please also include in that list any Microsoft files that you might have trouble with."
3-word answer: "All of them."
OOPS!! My bias is showing!!!
. . . welcome our corporate overlord and router.