Windows 95 worked like a lot of 386-enhanced DOS-based games did, loading itself after using DOS as a means to get the program loaded. '98 and ME were similar, though when they tried to strip most of that out of ME they made things screwy.
I also worked at an early commercial ISP, helping people install Trumpet Winsock on their Windows 3.1 machines. It was probably WfW 3.11 now that I think about it, given that there had to be at least a rudimentary stub of a TCP/IP stack.
I also worked with some interesting Novell applications where the diskless workstation would network-book to a Novell share, the user would log-in, get drive mappings in DOS, and from the server load Windows. Didn't work half-bad so long as the network connection was stable.
I do not discount the important evolutionary step in OS that Windows 3.0 was, but given that Windows 3.1 and then 3.11 for Workgroups fixed many of the problems that Windows 3.0 had and added the initial computer networking protocols, I just can't call 3.0-even the most important milestone of even the 3.x line, let alone Windows in general. I'd be more likely to label Windows NT 3.5 with that, as that was the first version where the server-side of things was robust enough to do something useful for corporate networks, and when they were still headed in a direction where the relatively light-weight GUI on the server box wasn't a horrible resource-hog for the running machine. Hell, they even had intended on taking NT into the embedded server market before they changed course with 4.0 and 2K.
Sometimes I wonder if the introduction of general-purpose computers into business environments was a mistake. Couple the general-purpose nature in that they run anything and everything with a connection to a global network and I wonder if the productivity gained through the use of a computer for many tasks has been taken away by the ability to be distracted.
I personally like NPR and some of the PBS news, but they're not infallible and they've made mistakes.
Fact of the matter is, I do not trust NewsCorp's motives as I do not know what those motives are in-whole, but the way I interpret their past direct actions, ie, that which they have themselves published or broadcast through their various properties, leads me to not assume that their intentions are what they seem to claim them to be. Even if they immediately decided to be wholly transparent and above-board it would probably take several years for me to be able to trust them, as there's usually no benefit in changing a negative opinion once it has been demonstrably earned.
So how much pollution do 471million microbeads actually make?
Wouldn't that be 471 beads?
Honestly I'm surprised that they were legal in the first place, but if there wasn't an explicit law against them then I guess the companies that have manufactured and used them were free to do so regardless of any perceived morality on the matter.
The Wall Street Journal has been a decent publication, but is now owned by a media entity whose management staff has an agenda and has nakedly used its media holdings to advance that agenda. The very name, "NewsCorp," is doublespeak when the bulk of their prominent content is not news. I have no doubt that WSJ's acquisition was in part strategic.
Not that it's much consolation to an anonymous coward like you, but I don't exactly put a lot of stock in CNN or MSNBC or whatever they're currently called either. The 24-hour news cycle is one of the worst things in that because it's ad-revenue based, it has to continually attract attention to itself to remain profitable, so it makes much ado about nothing in order to keep its audience. That means polarizing the audience because there's nothing people love more than to have some feeling of theirs reinforced. They're all echo-chambers that feedback on their respective audiences.
When a former convict goes back into the same community that he committed his crimes in, he's probably going to fall back into roughly the same life that he had before as that life was probably the path of least-resistance for that neighborhood. Put him into a different neighborhood and he has to learn a new way to live, and there's a greater chance over the previous one that it will not include crime. No guarantee, but it's probably better odds.