Either you're twelve, or having been living in a cave.
Win95's success was built almost entirely on the fact that you suddenly had native connectivity to the internet, instead of having to cobble together a daisy chain of utilities oneself.
If people stopped using the internet tomorrow, PC sales would dry up, taking windows licensing sales along with it.
They'd still survive, but would take a HUGE hit financially.
I may have seen a post as completely ignorant as your at some time in the past, but I honestly can't recall it.
While consumer demand can sometimes drive great things (consumer demand for porn brought us the cheap vcr)it can also be a very reckless driver.
Apple fanbois will always exist, just as will the carbon copy "alternative" crowd.
The larger danger is Apple becoming the defacto smart phone standard, while dragging it abusive business practices along.
I don't really blame Apple - just like MS they're just a squirrel trying to get their nut.
I blame the other smart phone makers and cell carriers.
The Blackberry is antiquated and suffers from poor hardware design.
The trackballs require frequent replacement if people are making much use of them.
It can't sync more than one calendar (you can munge two into one using the Desktop app, but that not a real solution.) So, a manager can't bring up multiple calendars of subordinates. That's a real world, high impact limitation where the Iphone is clearly superior.
About the only advantage of the BB is speed of text entry.
WM phones are technically superior in terms of power and flexibility, but availability from carriers varies constantly.
And companies like HTC are great at designing new technologies, but poor at implementing them.
I use other browsers about 99% of the time, but I also need to have IE installed.
A home user might be able to get by with it, but I use a grip of different management tools, some of which require IE.
Some router config utils don't render properly in FF (and some don't render properly in certain versions of IE.)
I'd be pretty annoyed if I was doing a new office setup and couldn't install network devices because I needed to download a browser first. Not because it's a huge hassle, but because it an unnecessary one.
You can whine ad nauseum that it shouldn't be this way - but it is.
On my home pc's, IE is installed, but isn't the default, and the shortcuts are deleted.
The only way it runs is if it's started from command line or Start/Run.
"The State of World Liberty Project was founded in 2006 by Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party."
Their compiled list is nonsensical at best, and relies primarily on nebulous ratings of "economic freedom" from well known right wing political groups - like the Heritage Foundation.
Also note, that if you discount the economic figures, the top dozen or so countries are scored closely enough to lack any statistical significance.
And the economic figures are all based on taxation - since libertarians have never met a tax they liked.
Further - without being intimately familiar with the culture of each country, I could not honestly evaluate them - and it's glaringly obvious that no effort was made to do so on the site you are promoting.
So in summary, you're flinging out weak, biased data to support a conclusion you've reached without making any reasonable effort to ascertain the actual facts.
I still remain unaware of any specific country with greater overall freedom than the US.
Nothing you've posted could rationally be expected to alter that fact.
...knowing that most slash dotters are consumed with rabid anti-us sentiments, and don't have the attention span to read more than a one-liner.
The reality isn't what you imply.
The US has taken a few steps backward since 9-11 - but it still has greater protections over free expression than any other country of which I am aware.
I used to idly wonder if there was any significance to difference in intelligence metrics amongst different cultures.
Then I found out that academics aren't even allowed to raise the question.
Even pursuing research tangentially related research that has the *potential* of reaching a politically incorrect conclusion is a career death sentence.
Enough so that no basic research has been done in years.
It may run fine, but there are interoperability problems with win64 and Outlook - serious ones.
The Exchange management applets for mailbox moves and such use mapi functions from Outlook.
Because of shitty planning, you can't run these applets on a win64 machine. You have to run them from a 32 bit machine with the tools installed. ExMerge is only an option if you have old ansi psts - mine are all unicode.
The point is that there *still* are major issues with 64bit systems and interoperability of productivity software, not to mention hardware support.
It is not "their" network. It is hosted on the radio frequencies effectively leased to them by the FCC which is ultimately owned by "we the people."
With all that said, it is within the rights of the property owners to determine how the leased property can be used. I find that it is past time that the FCC or even congress enact rules that prevent carriers from harming consumers in much the same way that Bell Telephone abused consumers.
Actually, your basic assumption is patently false, and likely why you completely misunderstand the issue.
When something is leased, the lessor has full rights to use it as they see fit, subject to any restrictions or covenants contained in the lease, and not otherwise prohibited.
Obvious analogy:
I rent a house.
I have the right of "quiet enjoyment" - meaning my landlord cannot now decide that I can't do things with it that are not out of the norm.
Meaning, he can't tell me how to arrange my furniture, what bedroom to sleep in, or not to lie on my lawn sunbathing - even if I'm 60, weigh 400 lbs, and am overly fond of Speedos.
Similarly, the bar is fairly high on justification for the FCC (or congress) to change the rules on how carriers use the spectrum they lease.
This is really a technical issue - not a legal one.
The carriers have the right to place limitation on the service they offer. That's beyond dispute - and tested in numerous court decisions. It's not an unlimited right, but it's substantial and includes reselling and operating servers.
So, if the carrier wants to ban web servers, they can either drop packets going to your device, or stop the device from operating a server in the first place.
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning.
The business model since the beginning has been to build networks with business users in mind, and then selling unused capacity to consumers at bargain rates.
At one time, a buck a minute was normal, and for business users, still a bargain compared to the "mobile phone" that Perry Mason used.
Since the networks grew at an amazing rate, eventually reducing costs to commodity levels, that model was hardly flawed.
They never had enough capacity for their customers.
There have always been areas where use has jumped fast enough to outstrip network expansion. If you mean network resources have never been unlimited, I'll grant you that.
So as it stands today, there just isn't enough network for us, which is why when there are city/county/state-wide emergencies many calls do not go through.
YOUR calls don't go through - the important ones do. That's by design. Cell operators are required by Federal law to interrupt consumer cell service to prevent the network becoming unavailable to emergency responders.
Comcast (unfortunately my home ISP) is perhaps one of the worst offenders of this. Having resold the bandwidth I paid for multiple hundreds of times. Eventually instead of providing me with what I have been paying for (unlimited broadband, as in no bandwidth cap), they reneged on their deal and put in a hard cap of 250gb/mo.
So...what you are saying is that your monthly charge should cover 25 terabytes of transfer or more?
The fact of the matter is that you didn't buy ALL their bandwidth - they aren't reselling YOUR bandwidth - that's pure rubbish.
The question is how to strike a balance between use and cost.
There is a certain cost per byte that has to be recovered, or no one gets to play.
I probably come pretty close to the cap at times, but have never heard anything from Comcast. On my business accounts, I shatter that barrier every month - that's why I have business accounts that aren't subject to it.
You should stop whining and do the same.
Comcast COULD have simply limited your speed so that you couldn't exceed the cap. It would still be unlimited.
That was rejected as a bad compromise for obvious reasons - most people don't use bandwidth at a sustained high rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to post something about Bing sucking, then I discovered it's awesomeness as a porn search engine.
You likely won't see me posting any more today.
Win7 - yes.
All MS products?
I'd say it would be a wash who would suffer more - and a Pyrrhic victory at best for whomever won.
Sort of like a war between Walmart and Canada - though Walmart clearly has both weapons and transport superiority.
Either you're twelve, or having been living in a cave.
Win95's success was built almost entirely on the fact that you suddenly had native connectivity to the internet, instead of having to cobble together a daisy chain of utilities oneself.
If people stopped using the internet tomorrow, PC sales would dry up, taking windows licensing sales along with it.
They'd still survive, but would take a HUGE hit financially.
I may have seen a post as completely ignorant as your at some time in the past, but I honestly can't recall it.
"That's it mate. Come the revolution, you'll be first against the wall bop-bop-bop!" - Wolfie
"Citizen Smith" (1977)
then it's oh-so-richly deserved.
I've seen more clueless crap emanate from the eu than any hick state in the US.
Sadly, they are achieving ever greater relevance.
While consumer demand can sometimes drive great things (consumer demand for porn brought us the cheap vcr)it can also be a very reckless driver.
Apple fanbois will always exist, just as will the carbon copy "alternative" crowd.
The larger danger is Apple becoming the defacto smart phone standard, while dragging it abusive business practices along.
I don't really blame Apple - just like MS they're just a squirrel trying to get their nut.
I blame the other smart phone makers and cell carriers.
The Blackberry is antiquated and suffers from poor hardware design.
The trackballs require frequent replacement if people are making much use of them.
It can't sync more than one calendar (you can munge two into one using the Desktop app, but that not a real solution.)
So, a manager can't bring up multiple calendars of subordinates.
That's a real world, high impact limitation where the Iphone is clearly superior.
About the only advantage of the BB is speed of text entry.
WM phones are technically superior in terms of power and flexibility, but availability from carriers varies constantly.
And companies like HTC are great at designing new technologies, but poor at implementing them.
But it sounds stupid.
Are you advising that the eu attempt to force MS to publish details of it's file formats?
That will never happen.
The eu will become an IT ghetto before anyone is forced legislatively to open up closed source.
Or perhaps they tailor their product to demand.
There is a demand for IE.
I use other browsers about 99% of the time, but I also need to have IE installed.
A home user might be able to get by with it, but I use a grip of different management tools, some of which require IE.
Some router config utils don't render properly in FF (and some don't render properly in certain versions of IE.)
I'd be pretty annoyed if I was doing a new office setup and couldn't install network devices because I needed to download a browser first. Not because it's a huge hassle, but because it an unnecessary one.
You can whine ad nauseum that it shouldn't be this way - but it is.
On my home pc's, IE is installed, but isn't the default, and the shortcuts are deleted.
The only way it runs is if it's started from command line or Start/Run.
"The State of World Liberty Project was founded in 2006 by Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party."
Their compiled list is nonsensical at best, and relies primarily on nebulous ratings of "economic freedom" from well known right wing political groups - like the Heritage Foundation.
Also note, that if you discount the economic figures, the top dozen or so countries are scored closely enough to lack any statistical significance.
And the economic figures are all based on taxation - since libertarians have never met a tax they liked.
Further - without being intimately familiar with the culture of each country, I could not honestly evaluate them - and it's glaringly obvious that no effort was made to do so on the site you are promoting.
So in summary, you're flinging out weak, biased data to support a conclusion you've reached without making any reasonable effort to ascertain the actual facts.
I still remain unaware of any specific country with greater overall freedom than the US.
Nothing you've posted could rationally be expected to alter that fact.
Both Canada and Sweden have significant restrictions on what can be said in public.
They do this is the guise of protecting against "hate speech."
...knowing that most slash dotters are consumed with rabid anti-us sentiments, and don't have the attention span to read more than a one-liner.
The reality isn't what you imply.
The US has taken a few steps backward since 9-11 - but it still has greater protections over free expression than any other country of which I am aware.
I'm an American - Insight would be wasted on you scum!
sigh -and me with no mod points
You can't just dismiss everything based on past behavior. Especially for a corporate entity which changes directions more frequently than people do.
You do if you're going to play the blame game, and heap all the fault for every FOSS failing on MS doorstep.
A lot of the recommendations I see here are ones I would make - except for just about any classics which I have recently read.
A lot of the authors don't hold up well.
Now, I know I'll catch some guff here - but have you re-read any Heinlein lately?
The guy had very little original to begin with, and then later in his career he recycled his body of work a bit too vigorously for my taste.
Essentially, you could read a bad Junior College term paper touting the joys of Libertarianism and skip his last 8 or 10 books.
Asimov holds up well, as does some Clarke.
Farmer was never a great writer - though I do like that he stole his story ideas from L. Ron Hubbard - that takes enormous chutzpah.
Bottom line is this:
If you know literature - pick good literature that is also sci fi - which specific work doesn't matter.
If you don't know literature - and sci fi - this project will fall on it's ass.
"Shipping and Handling" is a scam in whatever form it takes. This is especially true when those charges are excessive.
Yes - charging shipping to pass along a variable, customer dependent charge is outrageous!
Get back under your bridge.
I used to idly wonder if there was any significance to difference in intelligence metrics amongst different cultures.
Then I found out that academics aren't even allowed to raise the question.
Even pursuing research tangentially related research that has the *potential* of reaching a politically incorrect conclusion is a career death sentence.
Enough so that no basic research has been done in years.
It's completely normal, and there is no deception.
Do you think Nvidia suddenly lost the ability to bring a product to market?
That they'll never produce another product?
Stop trolling
We can do any damned thing we want.
Much greater addressing capability, for one thing.
Which means being able to access >4gig of memory without relying on performance killing gymnastics.
Performance?
Naah.
There are some contrived instances which might benefit significantly - but generally the gains are trivial.
And none of it means squat without app/driver support.
That's why 64-bit fanbois cheer for the demise of 32-bit.
It's because they hope that with nowhere else to turn, 64-bit support will be forced to improve.
It may run fine, but there are interoperability problems with win64 and Outlook - serious ones.
The Exchange management applets for mailbox moves and such use mapi functions from Outlook.
Because of shitty planning, you can't run these applets on a win64 machine. You have to run them from a 32 bit machine with the tools installed.
ExMerge is only an option if you have old ansi psts - mine are all unicode.
The point is that there *still* are major issues with 64bit systems and interoperability of productivity software, not to mention hardware support.
For the same thing you pay, I get a business account with 5 times the bandwith, no cap and a .240 subnet
I was going to say that you're just a pissy little bitch - then I realized that you really ARE someone's bitch.
It is not "their" network. It is hosted on the radio frequencies effectively leased to them by the FCC which is ultimately owned by "we the people."
With all that said, it is within the rights of the property owners to determine how the leased property can be used. I find that it is past time that the FCC or even congress enact rules that prevent carriers from harming consumers in much the same way that Bell Telephone abused consumers.
Actually, your basic assumption is patently false, and likely why you completely misunderstand the issue.
When something is leased, the lessor has full rights to use it as they see fit, subject to any restrictions or covenants contained in the lease, and not otherwise prohibited.
Obvious analogy:
I rent a house.
I have the right of "quiet enjoyment" - meaning my landlord cannot now decide that I can't do things with it that are not out of the norm.
Meaning, he can't tell me how to arrange my furniture, what bedroom to sleep in, or not to lie on my lawn sunbathing - even if I'm 60, weigh 400 lbs, and am overly fond of Speedos.
Similarly, the bar is fairly high on justification for the FCC (or congress) to change the rules on how carriers use the spectrum they lease.
This is really a technical issue - not a legal one.
The carriers have the right to place limitation on the service they offer.
That's beyond dispute - and tested in numerous court decisions.
It's not an unlimited right, but it's substantial and includes reselling and operating servers.
So, if the carrier wants to ban web servers, they can either drop packets going to your device, or stop the device from operating a server in the first place.
The latter is much more efficient.
THIS got modded Insightful?!
1> The patent isn't on the idea of restricting phones, it's on a specific method.
2> No, it doesn't stop carriers from placing restrictions. Nothing ever will.
I guess actually understanding an issue before commenting is beyond the free-beer-trolls.
You don't seem to understand the flawed business model that communications providers have been running with since the beginning.
The business model since the beginning has been to build networks with business users in mind, and then selling unused capacity to consumers at bargain rates.
At one time, a buck a minute was normal, and for business users, still a bargain compared to the "mobile phone" that Perry Mason used.
Since the networks grew at an amazing rate, eventually reducing costs to commodity levels, that model was hardly flawed.
They never had enough capacity for their customers.
There have always been areas where use has jumped fast enough to outstrip network expansion.
If you mean network resources have never been unlimited, I'll grant you that.
So as it stands today, there just isn't enough network for us, which is why when there are city/county/state-wide emergencies many calls do not go through.
YOUR calls don't go through - the important ones do.
That's by design.
Cell operators are required by Federal law to interrupt consumer cell service to prevent the network becoming unavailable to emergency responders.
Comcast (unfortunately my home ISP) is perhaps one of the worst offenders of this. Having resold the bandwidth I paid for multiple hundreds of times. Eventually instead of providing me with what I have been paying for (unlimited broadband, as in no bandwidth cap), they reneged on their deal and put in a hard cap of 250gb/mo.
So...what you are saying is that your monthly charge should cover 25 terabytes of transfer or more?
The fact of the matter is that you didn't buy ALL their bandwidth - they aren't reselling YOUR bandwidth - that's pure rubbish.
The question is how to strike a balance between use and cost.
There is a certain cost per byte that has to be recovered, or no one gets to play.
I probably come pretty close to the cap at times, but have never heard anything from Comcast.
On my business accounts, I shatter that barrier every month - that's why I have business accounts that aren't subject to it.
You should stop whining and do the same.
Comcast COULD have simply limited your speed so that you couldn't exceed the cap.
It would still be unlimited.
That was rejected as a bad compromise for obvious reasons - most people don't use bandwidth at a sustained high rate.