Longhorn & Privacy

[Mephisto]

That's why I doubted it.  According to Microsoft, they've supposively ordererd their marketers to get people to upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows Server NT 4.0 and Windows Server 2000, by the end of 2004.

[Grok]

I don't see anything wrong with that.  Windows NT was written for 1996 hardware.  If you recall, that was ISA bus, 60Mhz Pentium processors, and maybe 64MB RAM if you had enough money.  We would splurge on servers and put 128MB in them to crank out the power.  Your video cards were 1MB S3 / Tridents.  Hard drives were 8GB top end, unless you could afford SCSI, then you could get 9GB Barracuda SCSI drives for $3000 each.

Windows NT has served well beyond its product lifetime.

[Mephisto]

I never said once, that it was a bad thing.  If it sounded like I was implying it, then I wasn't.  I was merely mentioning in relation to previous posts.

*Notes Windows NT is still used today in later editions (NT 5.0, 5.1, 5.2).  The names (2000, XP, 2003) are marketing names.*

[j0k3r]

Perhaps if what it says is true.  I would think that it's not good practice to form your entire view of something based on one (unnamed!) source.

True as that may be, this is the first I've read of it, and where would I go from here without an opinion?

[Skywing]

Perhaps if what it says is true.  I would think that it's not good practice to form your entire view of something based on one (unnamed!) source.

True as that may be, this is the first I've read of it, and where would I go from here without an opinion?

http://www.google.com is often a good first choice.

[Moonshine]

Again: who really cares?  People who *shouldn't* be copying music or software anyway?

People will just come up with more creative ways of copying CDs -- for example, high school kids might make a pool of money to buy CDs, maybe 5 people all put in to buy one CD and they all rip the music from it.

How about people who copy software?  Yay, finally, stupid lamer newb kids won't be able to just go and download Visual Basic and after 5 minutes think they know everything they've ever needed to write enterprise-class software.

The point is -- you shouldn't care if anybody is watching if you're not doing anything wrong.

If that's what you really think, I suppose you wouldn't mind, as eli stated, cameras installed all throughout your house.  What about while you sleep?  While you do the unmentionables?  After all, you're not doing anything wrong, so why does it matter?

The fact is these companies watching/controlling what you do on the computer is a gross infringement on privacy rights.  The closer you get to having large bodies of authority controlling/watching more aspects of your life, the closer you get to similar situations found in communism and fascism.  The idea that the people watching you will never corrupt and are infallible is absurd.

Who will watch the watchers?

[j0k3r]

Perhaps if what it says is true.  I would think that it's not good practice to form your entire view of something based on one (unnamed!) source.

True as that may be, this is the first I've read of it, and where would I go from here without an opinion?

http://www.google.com is often a good first choice.

I didn't ask where I could find out more about it, I simply said that if I didn't have an opinion about it I wouldn't care enough to read anymore about it.