A liitle bit of web earching via google or yahoo maybe msn would reveal that 2k3 could infact be just like XP, only better thanks to the defaults that should of been included with The original XP.
The same can be said of Windows 2000. Hence, Win2k = v5.0, WinXP = v5.1, Win2k3 = v5.2. Gee, point releases offer the same packages, only slightly improved? Who woulda thunk it? I assume that Win2k3 R2 will appear as 5.3, and be even better. Apple didn't write the book on making users re-buy point releases. That's all MS.
so is 2k, even a newb that bought a dell back in 99/00 could do just that, only the 2k3 improved it significantly. A newb that bought a HP could do it today.
Quite obviously, he means Remote Desktop. If you want to do the same thing in Win2k, you need VNC or a similar 3rd party client. Yes, Computer Management and Telnet let you remote admin a Win2k box, but the native RDP clients in Win2k3 and WinXP make that much easier and you should never need to go into the server room except to fix hardware errors.
Peter J. Quinn is the CIO for Massachusetts. He's the guy ultimately responsible for picking ODF over Microsoft, which then resulted in MS making their XML-based document formats for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint "open".
Groklaw already has an article on it basically exonerating Mr. Quinn.
It doesn't matter that there were no major health issues caused by Three Mile Island. It is still the primary reason for the souring of opinion toward nuclear power in the US because it was a mistake that nearly ended in disaster. It still exhibits the fundamental problem of nuclear power: one mistake and you're done. People do not believe it is wise to try to operate a facility with those kinds of tolerances.
Something can be very safe, and still be considered too dangerous to use. For example, we don't use hydrogen in lighter-than-air vehicles anymore. It can be done safely for significantly less money than helium, and there were very few accidents. But you make a little mistake and "Oh the humanity!".
It doesn't really matter that you only have a 1 in 6 chance of death in Russian Roulette. Eventually, you get a bad pull. And the truth is that no other form of energy can have such a long-lasting or damaging disaster. Hydroelectric dams come close, but you don't have to deal with millions of acres of radioactive land, just death and mud.
What I find ironic is how often people who don't trust the fossil fuel industry, and claim not to believe anything they say, etc. have been taken in by the anti-nuclear FUD spread by the very people they claim to distrust.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I distrust nuclear power because of things like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. No amount of anti-FUD on nuclear power beats the fact that simple mistakes can and do happen everywhere, and simple mistakes in nuclear power can result in millions of deaths. Nuclar power is only as safe as the humans who operate it. Frankly, that's way to dangerous.
You are confusing Christianity with evangelicalism, the latter being a fork of the former which raises it's ugly head about one generation every century or so. A large number of American Christians are evangelical, but not all of them. Some of them believe it is the word of God, but it has been corrupted by being in the care of Men for so long. For me, I lose trust in biblical infallibility about the time of the Council of Nicea (something most Christians know little to nothing about).
There are as many ways to believe in God as there are stars in the sky.
This does make a good point. Science has three basic flaws inherent to the system:
1. Science can only be applied to things that can be repeatedly observed by man.
2. Science can only be usefully applied to things that can be repeatedly measured by man.
3. Science can only be reasonably applied to things that can be understood by man.
Assuming that the entirity of the universe can be observed, measured, and understood by man is just a small but of hubris on Science's part. Not that I fault it for trying, and not that it hasn't done a bully job with what we give it.
As far ID goes, I have no problem with it being taught in a public school. In a humanities class. Teaching it in a science class is just an example of very bad science, since ID is predicated on the existence of a force or being which by definition cannot be observed, measured, or understood. The most basic postulate is to throw out the scientific method.
Dell "unintentionally" leaks information to a source they know will spread the word across the Internet so they can judge market reactions (nowadays, blogs are best for this), and possibly to even get sweet deals from Intel or AMD. Officially, they deny rumors until their behind-the-scene findings are complete. Three months from now they make their decision, and they either announce they will produce AMD systems or throw out their incognito experiment with the rest of the world non the wiser.
Saves the PR people from having to backpedal on a flopped move, and allow you to save face to your current business partners if your new ones end up looking bad.
Who upgrades Windows on existing machines anyway?
3 years old and they're done as far as Business is concerned.
Who the heck do you work for? I've never seen a business retire a machine early. The only time a business upgrades is when the old hardware breaks and is out of warranty.
Slashdot Mirror
The same can be said of Windows 2000. Hence, Win2k = v5.0, WinXP = v5.1, Win2k3 = v5.2. Gee, point releases offer the same packages, only slightly improved? Who woulda thunk it? I assume that Win2k3 R2 will appear as 5.3, and be even better. Apple didn't write the book on making users re-buy point releases. That's all MS.
Quite obviously, he means Remote Desktop. If you want to do the same thing in Win2k, you need VNC or a similar 3rd party client. Yes, Computer Management and Telnet let you remote admin a Win2k box, but the native RDP clients in Win2k3 and WinXP make that much easier and you should never need to go into the server room except to fix hardware errors.
It's MS dragging the name of a government official through the mud just because he is choosing open standards over MS.
/. is for.
It's kinda what
Peter J. Quinn is the CIO for Massachusetts. He's the guy ultimately responsible for picking ODF over Microsoft, which then resulted in MS making their XML-based document formats for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint "open".
Groklaw already has an article on it basically exonerating Mr. Quinn.
Blame the Americans, huh?
Wow, that's such a novel concept.
It doesn't matter that there were no major health issues caused by Three Mile Island. It is still the primary reason for the souring of opinion toward nuclear power in the US because it was a mistake that nearly ended in disaster. It still exhibits the fundamental problem of nuclear power: one mistake and you're done. People do not believe it is wise to try to operate a facility with those kinds of tolerances.
Something can be very safe, and still be considered too dangerous to use. For example, we don't use hydrogen in lighter-than-air vehicles anymore. It can be done safely for significantly less money than helium, and there were very few accidents. But you make a little mistake and "Oh the humanity!".
It doesn't really matter that you only have a 1 in 6 chance of death in Russian Roulette. Eventually, you get a bad pull. And the truth is that no other form of energy can have such a long-lasting or damaging disaster. Hydroelectric dams come close, but you don't have to deal with millions of acres of radioactive land, just death and mud.
What I find ironic is how often people who don't trust the fossil fuel industry, and claim not to believe anything they say, etc. have been taken in by the anti-nuclear FUD spread by the very people they claim to distrust.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I distrust nuclear power because of things like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. No amount of anti-FUD on nuclear power beats the fact that simple mistakes can and do happen everywhere, and simple mistakes in nuclear power can result in millions of deaths. Nuclar power is only as safe as the humans who operate it. Frankly, that's way to dangerous.
So it is not possible to understand both deductive reasoning and the scientific method.
As he said, correlation does not imply causation. Just because both phrases were mentioned in the same sentence doesn't mean that one uses the other.
You are confusing Christianity with evangelicalism, the latter being a fork of the former which raises it's ugly head about one generation every century or so. A large number of American Christians are evangelical, but not all of them. Some of them believe it is the word of God, but it has been corrupted by being in the care of Men for so long. For me, I lose trust in biblical infallibility about the time of the Council of Nicea (something most Christians know little to nothing about).
There are as many ways to believe in God as there are stars in the sky.
This does make a good point. Science has three basic flaws inherent to the system:
1. Science can only be applied to things that can be repeatedly observed by man.
2. Science can only be usefully applied to things that can be repeatedly measured by man.
3. Science can only be reasonably applied to things that can be understood by man.
Assuming that the entirity of the universe can be observed, measured, and understood by man is just a small but of hubris on Science's part. Not that I fault it for trying, and not that it hasn't done a bully job with what we give it.
As far ID goes, I have no problem with it being taught in a public school. In a humanities class. Teaching it in a science class is just an example of very bad science, since ID is predicated on the existence of a force or being which by definition cannot be observed, measured, or understood. The most basic postulate is to throw out the scientific method.
Smells like a blog leak, to me.
Dell "unintentionally" leaks information to a source they know will spread the word across the Internet so they can judge market reactions (nowadays, blogs are best for this), and possibly to even get sweet deals from Intel or AMD. Officially, they deny rumors until their behind-the-scene findings are complete. Three months from now they make their decision, and they either announce they will produce AMD systems or throw out their incognito experiment with the rest of the world non the wiser.
Saves the PR people from having to backpedal on a flopped move, and allow you to save face to your current business partners if your new ones end up looking bad.
Let's start using what we have, and stop looking as technology as a panacea to fix the worlds' ills.
What the heck is technology for, numbnuts?
LARP killing tabletop would be like BeOS killing Linux. The extreme fringe stands little chance of ever overtaking the normal fringe.
Who upgrades Windows on existing machines anyway? 3 years old and they're done as far as Business is concerned.
Who the heck do you work for? I've never seen a business retire a machine early. The only time a business upgrades is when the old hardware breaks and is out of warranty.