Paul Thurrot writes about Windows XP SP3: "If you were looking for any glimpse into the mind of Microsoft, this is it: the company has completely abandoned Windows XP, and it has absolutely no plans to ever ship an XP SP3. My guess is that Microsoft will do what it did with the final Windows 2000 Service Pack: claim years later that it's no longer needed and just ship a final security patch roll-up. This is the worst kiss-off to any Microsoft product I've ever seen, and you'd think the company would show a little more respect to its best-selling OS of all time."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-03
Actually, I'm still right.
Read the other thread about this. Your mistake here is to define a straight line in terms of a geodesic space (the surface of a sphere) and then change your metric to a 3d cartesian space (nearly 
). If you change metric, then straight-lines can become non-straight (strictly, the functional definition of a straight line is different in different numeric spaces).
Analogy: Take 2 boxes(A, B), put one on top of the other. You can now state S1: A is above B.
Now stand on your head, now you can say S2: B is above A
logically, S2 does not invalidate S1, you have just changed your frame of reference.
Member since:2005-10-02
I read the other thread just after having submitted my post... *sigh* (spank me, I'm Zoot 
)
Anyway, I don't agree with the redefinition of "straight line". A straight line doesn't bend 
- one can argue that a bended line is straight, but it can also be argued it is no longer straight. It can also be argued that the straight line I drew on the globe isn't a straight line since it bends too.
It all depends on definitions. Lovely, isn't it?
Member since:2006-03-10
Member since:
2005-10-02
It's not necessarily true. Take a globe and draw a straigt line between London and Ney Work and I dare say it is not the shortest route (because Earth is somewhat roundish).