Well, it's not completely automated, no. It does involve typing a few commands into a command prompt (six in total); but that shouldn't really be a problem for most of the people on Slashdot. Full instructions here (it looks like quite a long page, but the bottom 2/3 is just screenshot-by-screenshot guide on how to burn a bootable CD in 3 different CD burning programs, so it's not as long as it looks).
"Free" would mean completely without cost, and therefore something is not "completely without cost" if you're paying shipping/handling costs. I didn't pay shipping and handling costs. At the time, I didn't have a credit or debit card and thus had no means with which to pay shipping and handling costs even if I had wished to out of the goodness of my heart. I did not, in fact, pay any costs. Nor did anyone. I think they've started charging for shipping now, but they certainly didn't when they released SP2.
Second, shipping CDs is fine and dandy, but in this day and age, it's not so clearly "better" than a convenient high-speed download. Uhh... Huh? They do offer a high-speed download. They do for all their updates. They've always done so. It's called Windowsupdate. The point was that if you can't download, for whatever reason, you can order a CD as an alternative. And yes, obviously you can download updates as self-contained packages, and burn them to CD to be installed; it's called a 'network installation' (e.g. SP2 can be downloaded here). You can even 'slipstream' updates into a custom installation CD (instructions here) if you want.
MS sent out SP2 CDs when it came out to anyone who asked, completely free of charge. They still do it now; you just have to pay shipping. Not to mention MS have *always* offered tools to let you slipstream updates into a custom installation CD.
I can't tell... are you trying to be funny? Completely without cost (except for the costs) and better than near-instantaneous downloads, they'll probably get a CD to you within a couple months! I know you're a troll, but I'll bite. Yes, certainly "completely without cost". That's what "free" means, you know. I also have a SP2 CD that MS shipped for free. I think the main point was to get SP2 out to those who are stuck with dial-up or -- God forbid -- not connected to the internet. As for shipping time, it arrived quicker than Ubuntu Linux (but admittedly, being a security & stability update, wasn't as fun to play around with:) ).
How freakin' dorky do those "designer" glasses look? What's so hard here, integrate your displays into a normal looking pair of sunglasses and make them no more bulky while doing so. Yes, that means you are going to have to do something revolutionary and hide that revolutionary technology in something that looks normal. Cause that's what people want when they are out in public; to look like everyone else 1.3 billion people would disagree with you. That's a pretty large fraction of the Earth's population who wears glasses (ignoring contact-lens wearers). Once 1.3 billion people are doing something, it *becomes* normal, and frankly, it's not only stupid but downright idiotic that you would imply that all 1.3 billion want to "look like everyone else" or "look normal".
No to mention that you'd look pretty stupid wearing sunglasses indoors or when it's dark outside. But then, I'm guessing you do that already.
Yes -- but with large, heavy goggles that blocked out external light. Not with lightweight, normal glasses that still allow you to see through them normally, as the ones in TFA do.
Doesn't Aero exist to compete with Aqua? No. Aero exists to compete with Luna. Microsoft's biggest threat to Vista adoption by far is users sticking with XP. The threat from Apple is negligible by comparison.
I'm not sure I understand. OK, so taxes were raised on burning plastic in an attempt to discourage the burning of plastic. Fine; economic incentives often work (would high-economy diesal cars and the Prius have done so well if fuel duty did not exist?). But then you say that "we burn just as much plastic as before". Well, clearly the economic incentive has failed; because if it had suceesed maybe you'd start not burning your plastic, or using less plastic. So, why did the economic incentive fail? If the tax wasn't large enough to change any behaviour, I doubt you would be using it as an example. I can only conclude that there must be some inherent reason why you burn plastic; in which case the governing party should investigate the inherent reason and see if it is valid; and if it is legislative, remove it. Even if there is a reason why you must burn plastic waste, the economic incentive should still do what it was intented to do and reduce plastic usage, yes? If the consumer has to pay more to dispose of garbage they should produce less garbage; e.g. by using proper reusable shopping bags rather than use-once flimsy plastic ones. Which should be a good thing, yes?
My source for the Stratosphere cooling was NASA; I'm sure they'll be happy to know they've been discredited. However it is true that NASA's graph only goes back to 1979; it is certainly not evidence of a longer period. In a way, however, this is irrelevent: the fact is that unless the Sun is doing something now that it has not done at all in the past 400,000 years its effects can be predicted and taken into account of in the models. We have reasonably accurate data for CO2 concentrations especially but also temperature in the last 400,000 years, and they correlate pretty exactly (compare http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png with http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age _Temperature_Rev_png). Historically, CO2 has oscillated from 190 to 290 ppmv with the ice age and Sun activity cycles; it is now 380 ppmv. Sorry, Sun activity cannot fully account for global warming.
Re:No, this is correct, it's about lifcycle time
on
Vista the End of An Era?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But that aside, What is the actual benefit to those tweaks? I mean it's plausible that it makes a better server, but the desktop? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Three of the new features; the Avalon desktop window manager, graphics (DX10), and new sound stack especially would not have any relevence in a server at all! The new networking stack (especially the vastly better support for all types of wireless networks) will be heartily welcomed be anyone who's ever had to struggle with Windows networking (not that the other OSes have it much better). Obviously enough the kernel and driver framework improvements mostly won't be noticable; they're focussed on improving reliability, so if MS have done their job you shouldn't even know they're there. A lot of what remains is security changes; most of which probably won't impact the average Slashdotter much but should hopefully much improve the spyware situation with the average user. Some is just MS incorporating all the technological advances that have been made since 2001: e.g. you won't have to download Copernic to get decent searching because it'll be integrated into the OS. The features that'll give the most obvious benefit are the new window manager, the improved shell (start menu etc.), sound, graphics, and networking.
You simply cannot spend 2 years cranking out a dot level upgrade to an OS and expect thundering success. Because in the final analysis there isn't much new to Vista I'm sorry -- 2001 to 2006 is "two years"?
But it's rather unfair to say there's nothing new to Vista -- rewritten Windows Server 2003 kernel, new driver framework, new graphics & sound stacks, new window manager, new networking stack, new sudo-type user model... Full list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista.
Much higher than that actually - consider that at least 90% of the code is re-used code from WinXP and was already paid for. I very much doubt that it's anything like 90%. The kernel was based on Server 2003 -- which was significantly different from XP in the first place -- and significantly rewritten, especially with regard to memory management. Driver framework is completely new. Graphics & Sound stacks are completely new. Window manager is completely new. Networking is completely new. Etc, etc, you get the idea -- it won't be anything like 90%.
I just see Global Warming as the trendy Hollywood thing to worry about. Thirty years ago it was Global Cooling and finding ways to melt the Arctic ice caps... Yes, because as we all know, vast amounts of new data and improved theory accuracy means that old theories are still just as valid and likely to be true as new ones. Which is why satellites are now launched based on Archimedes' and Zeno's laws of motion; everyone still thinks it is as likely that the Sun goes round the Earth than the other way round; and large numbers of people still argue that Biblical Creationism should be taught as Science. Oh wait, that last one is actually true...
How do you measure the temperature? Uhhh... With a thermometer? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're getting at...
How do you calculate the average temperature? By taking an average of predicted temperatures all over the world
Why is it due to rise? Global warming. Surely you must have heard of it?
Why is it due to rise 5 degrees? Because that's what the bhest models we have tell us it's going to rise by.
Why is it due to rise over the next 100 years? Uhh... It's also due to rise over the next 50 and 500 years, obviously by less and more respectively. The article just happened to give what it would rise by in 100 years.
We can't even accurately predict the weather day to day; why should I believe these predictions are any better? You're confusing weather with climate. The Weather is a non-linear system; making prediction of day-to-day fluctuations very hard since they are chaotic (in the mathematical sense of the word). On Average, however, trends can be obsereved in global average temperature over decades -- energy is conserved; more Sun's energy, higher average temperatures.
Uh, no. They're revising predictions by 25% in response to new data. But of course, I should have realised that in the political world, any reasoned change in position entirely based on data, facts, and evidence is apparently "flip-flopping"...
I believe the point, whilst admittedly not made in the most eloquent manner, was that have a lot of references doesn't automatically make someone right.
Great comeback, lefty. Whilst we're here, can someone please explain to me why the political right seem to regard Global warming as a political issue? It's Science; it doesn't (well, shouldn't) change depending on political affiliation.
If you're located in the UK as an American, 911 isn't going to help you. Actually, even in the UK, 911 will still connect you to the emergency services, as will 112. (Anyone remember the days of "Get me Whitehall-1212!"? Liar.)
Except that the changes that are happening now far supplant the minor variations mentioned in the link you post. Have a look at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png: historicalically, CO2 concentrations have oscillated from around 190 to 290 ppmv in the ice-age cycles; they're now at about 380.
All of this so called global warming garbage just makes me shake my head. I guess no one ever cared to look at the output from the sun, which, has GROWN (ie:hotter) over the last several years. If you turn up your furnace, guess what? Your house gets hotter. If it is due to the Sun, the stratosphere would be warming as well; however, the stratosphere is cooling. Moreover, if it is purely down to the Sun, then why do temperature changes so closely match CO2 concentrations?
I know that most of the hysteria surrounding global warming is just scientist who are hell bent on maintaing their current level of government funding (suckling at the trough) Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? Certainly not the current administrations. No-one stands to benefit in the least from fabricating evidence. For your hypothesis to be correct, the entire, vast scientific community around the world, from Universities; Universities, research scientists, and all, would have to be participating in some sort of vast consipiracy. I'm sorry, that's rubbish. The evidence is there; no-one is fabricating it. If you want to argue against it, may I suggest breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually... consider the evidence and attempt to refute it, rather than tout paranoid conspiracy theories?
did the maths (not very well) on how much this would be about half a year ago on Slashdot, but can't find it now Ahah, found it! http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19327 8&cid=15860180. As I said, it wasn't a very accurate calculation, and Muttley poked some holes in it, but it gives you a ballpark.
The melting of ice will leave sea levels unchanged (an experiment you can try yourself with a glass of iced water). The rising sea levels comes from the fact that above 4 degrees C, water gets less dense the higher its temperature. The effect is not very large percentage-wise, but when the ocean is very deep and contains a lot of water, so a slight change in density will result in significant changes to sea level. I did the maths (not very well) on how much this would be about half a year ago on Slashdot, but can't find it now; Google doesn't seem to be bringing up any of my old posts for some reason...
I dunno what the fuss is about MS Office 2007 not running natively on the Intel Macbooks ...What? Office 2007 will run natively on Intel-based Macs. Come on, you didn't even need to RTFA for that, it's right there in the summary!
"Microsoft Office isn't among the apps that will run natively on Intel-based Macs and it won't be until the latter half of 2007" [i.e. when Office 2007 is released].
You're right; it's all cool gimmics. Especially the new networking stack TFA's about. And the new sound stack too; that'll be hours of fun. XPS is a laugh, and the completely new user-mode driver model is hilarious. The Dynamic System Address Space is way cool, as is Transactional NTFS. And don't get me started on the Communication Foundation, Workflow Foundation, are Cardspace! Many happy days to be wiled away...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not completely automated, no. It does involve typing a few commands into a command prompt (six in total); but that shouldn't really be a problem for most of the people on Slashdot. Full instructions here (it looks like quite a long page, but the bottom 2/3 is just screenshot-by-screenshot guide on how to burn a bootable CD in 3 different CD burning programs, so it's not as long as it looks).
Apologies; I stand corrected. Well, technically, I *sit* corrected, but meh.
MS sent out SP2 CDs when it came out to anyone who asked, completely free of charge. They still do it now; you just have to pay shipping. Not to mention MS have *always* offered tools to let you slipstream updates into a custom installation CD.
No to mention that you'd look pretty stupid wearing sunglasses indoors or when it's dark outside. But then, I'm guessing you do that already.
Yes -- but with large, heavy goggles that blocked out external light. Not with lightweight, normal glasses that still allow you to see through them normally, as the ones in TFA do.
I'm not sure I understand. OK, so taxes were raised on burning plastic in an attempt to discourage the burning of plastic. Fine; economic incentives often work (would high-economy diesal cars and the Prius have done so well if fuel duty did not exist?). But then you say that "we burn just as much plastic as before". Well, clearly the economic incentive has failed; because if it had suceesed maybe you'd start not burning your plastic, or using less plastic. So, why did the economic incentive fail? If the tax wasn't large enough to change any behaviour, I doubt you would be using it as an example. I can only conclude that there must be some inherent reason why you burn plastic; in which case the governing party should investigate the inherent reason and see if it is valid; and if it is legislative, remove it. Even if there is a reason why you must burn plastic waste, the economic incentive should still do what it was intented to do and reduce plastic usage, yes? If the consumer has to pay more to dispose of garbage they should produce less garbage; e.g. by using proper reusable shopping bags rather than use-once flimsy plastic ones. Which should be a good thing, yes?
My source for the Stratosphere cooling was NASA; I'm sure they'll be happy to know they've been discredited. However it is true that NASA's graph only goes back to 1979; it is certainly not evidence of a longer period. In a way, however, this is irrelevent: the fact is that unless the Sun is doing something now that it has not done at all in the past 400,000 years its effects can be predicted and taken into account of in the models. We have reasonably accurate data for CO2 concentrations especially but also temperature in the last 400,000 years, and they correlate pretty exactly (compare http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png with http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age _Temperature_Rev_png). Historically, CO2 has oscillated from 190 to 290 ppmv with the ice age and Sun activity cycles; it is now 380 ppmv. Sorry, Sun activity cannot fully account for global warming.
But it's rather unfair to say there's nothing new to Vista -- rewritten Windows Server 2003 kernel, new driver framework, new graphics & sound stacks, new window manager, new networking stack, new sudo-type user model... Full list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Wind
Uh, no. They're revising predictions by 25% in response to new data. But of course, I should have realised that in the political world, any reasoned change in position entirely based on data, facts, and evidence is apparently "flip-flopping"...
Great comeback, lefty. Whilst we're here, can someone please explain to me why the political right seem to regard Global warming as a political issue? It's Science; it doesn't (well, shouldn't) change depending on political affiliation.
Except that the changes that are happening now far supplant the minor variations mentioned in the link you post. Have a look at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png: historicalically, CO2 concentrations have oscillated from around 190 to 290 ppmv in the ice-age cycles; they're now at about 380.
The melting of ice will leave sea levels unchanged (an experiment you can try yourself with a glass of iced water). The rising sea levels comes from the fact that above 4 degrees C, water gets less dense the higher its temperature. The effect is not very large percentage-wise, but when the ocean is very deep and contains a lot of water, so a slight change in density will result in significant changes to sea level. I did the maths (not very well) on how much this would be about half a year ago on Slashdot, but can't find it now; Google doesn't seem to be bringing up any of my old posts for some reason...
"Microsoft Office isn't among the apps that will run natively on Intel-based Macs and it won't be until the latter half of 2007" [i.e. when Office 2007 is released].
Point had already been made and replied to above.
You're right; it's all cool gimmics. Especially the new networking stack TFA's about. And the new sound stack too; that'll be hours of fun. XPS is a laugh, and the completely new user-mode driver model is hilarious. The Dynamic System Address Space is way cool, as is Transactional NTFS. And don't get me started on the Communication Foundation, Workflow Foundation, are Cardspace! Many happy days to be wiled away...