Pangloss

Well that's an interesting point about the sameness of modern operating systems. I think they're a long way from "perfection" though. One of the interesting things about Vista is that Avalon, and later the 3-D desktop engine (whatever that's called, I forget), could radically change things again. That could be very interesting.

I think that's about right. That's early, though -- a long way from being in orbit.

Interesting list of lesser/trivial new features in Longhorn beta 1: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1840839,00.asp

Don't shoot, I'm unarmed!!!! ;-) Yeah ok, I dipped rather heavily into the hypothetical for this stage of the discussion. Like I said above, I don't think it'll turn out that way. (shrug) I don't mean to sound so "alarmist" about it.

(This is regarding my example, not the real-life case.) Right, which is why he ran. But what the cop actually suspected him of was being a suicide bomber, so he killed him. Exactly like what happened. Well we already know THAT's not true, because in the real-life case in question the man did NOT have a deadly weapon, and he ran. So clearly the only reason to run is not because you're carrying a deadly weapon. Are you going to educate everyone on the proper procedure, including tourists and other visitors, or are you just going to continue to SHOOT them? No, you don't shoot robbery suspects. You shoot innocent people who act in unexpected ways. I can't imagine why you would think that's *better*, but that's an interesting attempt at deflection, sliding America into the discussion like that. Nothing like a popular target to take the eye off the ball. Keep spinning, I'm sure you'll work out the verbiage to rationalize no-evidence, no-trial killing eventually. But since you brought up American law enforcement, let's talk about that. In America, law enforcement cannot shoot someone based on mere suspicion. There has to be actual evidence of some kind of immediate threat. A gun pointed at someone. A car being driven at someone. That sort of thing. When an officer does break those rules (and it does happen), the officer is arrested and put on trial. But not in England (at the moment). Remember, there are NO stated guidelines for this. What they're saying is that ANY UK cop feels your a terrorist, for ANY reason, and you're DEAD. In the US, get pulled over for a traffic ticket and mutter about Al Qaida cops and you might get tasered. Pull that in England now and you might DIE. Late for a court hearing and you run breathless into the courthouse? DEAD. Quip to a security guard at the airport about that shoe bomber case? DEAD. Not "facing federal charges" like in the states, just plain old DEAD. No trial. No discussion. No debate. DEAD. I'm sure you think I'm exaggerating or carried away, but remember, my contention and prediction is that this is in fact NOT how British law enforcement is going to operate. They WILL institute guidelines, and it will NOT be how you think it's going to be -- an open ability by local law to shoot down anyone they think might be a terrorist. It will NOT be that way. It simply isn't conceivable that an approach like that could possibly work. There have to be guidelines.

Is it "standby" or actually "hibernate" they're hoping to recover from in 2 seconds? I know that's what Klaynos' quote said (standby) but I read on various blogs that it was actually supposed to be "hibernate". I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Right, but I would insert the clause "... on an individual-policeman level..." near the end of your question, just to underscore the point of what we're actually suggesting here (which seems to me to be virtually impossible). Even the *Israelis* don't do this.

Mark Cuban's HDNet covered the launch live in HDTV. Too cool. If you get HDNet, they'll be showing a 30-minute recap tonight at 8pm Eastern.

I agree that would change things considerably. Presumably one of the questions they would ask, which clearly did not get asked in this case, is whether they have actually seen evidence of a bomb on the guy.

On the subject of WinFS, I think it will be interesting to follow this tech and see where it goes. Prior to Windows 2000 the tech of "directory services" (which at the time was only really found in Novel Netware, and the odd Banyan Vines installation here and there) was considered more or less an oddball concept, and showed little hope of widespread acceptance. Now it's quite common and an integral part of many business network environments. Clearly MS is trying the same approach here with file systems. From a science point of view, it makes sense -- the advantages of transactional database management applied to a file system (if only it can stand the processing overhead and dependency on computer control). But one of the interesting things about it is that it also makes sense from a marketing point of view. Will it result in more copies of Windows being sold?

It isn't a thread, it's a poll. If there's a way to attach a poll to an existing thread, or cut off posts in a poll thread, please tell me.

And the funny part is, apparently this company is right down the road in Redmond, Washington! Go figure. Surely too small fry for them to want to put the guy out of business deliberately, but maybe it's one of those cases of subliminal effects. (hehe) That'll be settled, though. Microsoft has billions in cash and no debt. They'll just make it go away.

And if the cop looks up and there's a guy pointing at another guy saying he's got wires sticking out his coat, best to shoot him too. Better safe than sorry. And if another cop shows up and sees a non-uniformed individual shooting people, well he probably needs to be dropped on the spot as well, just to be on the safe side. And if the new cop hears someone behind him muttering about bombs in subways, well, both of those people probably should be taken down as well, because they could be talking about bombs THEY want to plant on subways, rather than the daily news, and it's better to be safe than sorry. By the way, the above paragraph is not a straw man argument, because we've seen no standards whatsoever for this judgement to be made by -- we've only talked about the reasons for suspicion in this case. In other words, under this new policy an officer is judge, jury and executioner, and can make that decision based on any indications he feels appropriate at the time. Any. Any suspicion is 100% sufficient to summarily execute any individual the officer believes may be a terrorist.

Here's something else I wonder: If we shoot first and ask questions later, haven't we LOST? Doesn't that mean that the terrorists have WON? Isn't stopping first and figuring it out pretty much the hallmark of what it means to deny terror and elevate civilization above brutality? Even if it means there's a chance people will die, isn't that preferable to letting fear change the way we live our lives in a substantial, fundamental way like this? Isn't it better to have a unknown chance that innocent people will die rather than a 100% chance that someone will die who may or may not be guilty?

In my example he wasn't suspected of theft, he was suspected of terrorism. But this is the statement of yours that I really find interesting: Shot? SHOT?! Really? Well heck, somebody ought to tell the LAPD, so they can stop chasing and start shooting! Surely what you MEANT to say there was "running away from the police when suspected of terrorism". But then, of course, that begs the question I raised above -- how the hell do you know what they suspect you of? I agree that when someone is instructed by police they need to stand there and comply -- I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm saying that if they do not comply, the correct procedure is to find out why they're not complying. Not gun them down like dogs in the street just because the officer THINKS they MIGHT be a terrorist. Yeesh.

That's the list, thanks Klaynos. I bow to the superior blogosearcher. Yeah, not really enough to warrant upgrading, but I would like to have some of that stuff right now, which kinda suggests I'll be upgrading. I get everything from MS for free as a Partner/OEM/Dev so I'm sure I'll upgrade on the bleeding edge as usual, but of course the much more important question is whether typical users will see the need for it. By the way, the issue of boot time is more important now. Why? Because power consumption is through the ROOF on these newer computers. It's not unusual for a home computer to blast through $150-300/year in power costs. The old glory days of throwing your extra CPU cycles to the search for extra-terrestrials is sadly in our past.

This is a thread about the next version of Windows, and I expect to see some enforcement and fairness in moderating this thread. MS-bashing should not be any more acceptable than Linux-bashing, and this is a reasonably important subject for a reasonably professional discusion. As such, I'd like to see yourdadonapogos and JPQuiceno barred from posting in this thread, and herme3 if he insists on using this thread to bash Linux. 'Nuff said.

I agree, Dave, it's just vapid at this point. FWIW, I thought herme3linuxsux had some fair points at the very beginning, but he's just as pointless and erroneous in his posts as yourmommauseswindows at this point. All I got out of this is that you and Klaynos have some pretty good insights into the industry, and Sayo still knows how to remind a user when he's crossed the line. (chuckle) I say shut it down.

Were the London Police Justified in Killing Jean Charles de Menezes?

I think you should go for the monitor-less arrangement. Use the force, Pogo7!

Reworking my scenario to include the revelation that the victim spoke fluent English and had just committed a minor legal offense. Also adjusting "off duty" to "undercover", and "Antarctica" to "Scottish Highlands" to please Aardvark, who took issue with the likelihood of my first scenario. --------- An undercover policeman is walking down the street and sees a man wearing heavy winter coat, standing outside a playground full of children. The policeman thinks "july.. overcoat.. hmm.... must be a terrorist", and he pulls his weapon and points it at the man, instructing him to lie face down on the ground. The man is on his way home from the airport following a trip to the Scottish Highlands (I don't care, just pick a freaking cold place somebody might be returning to nice warm England from in July, yeesh), and stops to watch his son play ball on the playground. He had just grabbed a newspaper from a stand nearby without paying, so when the policeman confronts him, he figures it's about that. He decides to make a run for it. The policemen catches him and subdues him on the ground immediately, but because he's near the playground and the threat of terrorism has been high lately, he decides to plant five bullets in his brain, just to be sure. Voila, identical scenario. Are you sure that's what you want your policemen to go around doing?

Good posts from Ophi and IMM. You've missed the point. The police use guns when they don't know what they're dealing with. They used guns here, not knowing what they had. So it's certainly possible that they could use a gun on a purse snatcher, not knowing that it's merely a purse snatcher that's running from them, and not a terrorist. But that's *exactly what happened*. The man didn't show a bomb (couldn't, because he didn't have one), so all he did was fail to respond to instructions and run from the police. That could have happened because he didn't understand them, and/or because he was another (lesser) kind of criminal. I have made a prima facie case here, there's no denying this. He was sumarily executed, no ifs, ands or buts. I've never suggested that this makes England "the wild west", and I don't feel that comparison is valid. *That* would be an example of straw-manning.

No. Samba is a tool for Linux that makes it compatible with Microsoft Networking. It's not the other way around. Windows does have the capability to be on many other kinds of networks. You are mistaken. Dipping a bit into my distant MCSE knowledge, I know that it's compatible with IPX/SPX, NetBIOS/NetBEUI, DLC, and plenty more. It's just a matter of having the correct modules installed. Note also please that as of Windows 2000 (aka NT5), Windows' native networking protocol is IP, just like Linux. It's only the LAN stack at the application layer that's different, and you don't have to use the standard "Microsoft Networking" layer if you don't want to.