If you change Windows 98 operating system to Window XP, you are performing a(n) ?->(Show Answer!)

1. If you change Windows 98 operating system to Window XP, you are performing a(n)

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A system call in Linux operating system to create a new child process, which is a copy of the parent process:....

QA->The first Operating System used in Microprocessor based system was:....

QA->Who has been appointed as the new chairman of Sangeeth Natak Academy, the country’s premier institution for Performing arts?....

QA->Who has been ranked among top five best performing CEOs in the world by the prestigious Harvard Business Review?....

QA->Whichstate won the Better Performing Project Award 2015 for the development ofinfrastructure by tourism department under the ADB Funded Project?....

MCQ->You are the administrator of Windows 2000 domain and TWO Windows NT domains. The Windows 2000 domains trust each of the Windows NT domains. Each of Windows NT domains trust the Windows 2000 domain. A Windows 2000 domain controller named DC1 is configured to use a highly secure domain controller template. Users in the Windows NT domain report that they cannot access DC1. You need to allow the users of computers in the Windows NT domain to access resources on DC1. What should you do?....

MCQ->If ListBox is class present in System.Windows.Forms namespace, then which of the following statements are the correct way to create an object of ListBox Class? using System.Windows.Forms; ListBox lb = new ListBox(); using LBControl = System.Windows.Forms; LBControl lb = new LBControl(); System.Windows.Forms.ListBox lb = new System.Windows.Forms.ListBox(); using LBControl lb = new System.Windows.Forms.ListBox; using LBControl = System.Windows.Forms.ListBox; LBControl lb = new LBControl();....

MCQ-> Recently I spent several hours sitting under a tree in my garden with the social anthropologist William Ury, a Harvard University professor who specializes in the art of negotiation and wrote the bestselling book, Getting to Yes. He captivated me with his theory that tribalism protects people from their fear of rapid change. He explained that the pillars of tribalism that humans rely on for security would always counter any significant cultural or social change. In this way, he said, change is never allowed to happen too fast. Technology, for example, is a pillar of society. Ury believes that every time technology moves in a new or radical direction, another pillar such as religion or nationalism will grow stronger in effect, the traditional and familiar will assume greater importance to compensate for the new and untested. In this manner, human tribes avoid rapid change that leaves people insecure and frightened.But we have all heard that nothing is as permanent as change. Nothing is guaranteed. Pithy expressions, to be sure, but no more than cliches. As Ury says, people don’t live that way from day-to-day. On the contrary, they actively seek certainty and stability. They want to know they will be safe.Even so we scare ourselves constantly with the idea of change. An IBM CEO once said: ‘We only re-structure for a good reason, and if we haven’t re-structured in a while, that’s a good reason.’ We are scared that competitors, technology and the consumer will put us Out of business — so we have to change all the time just to stay alive. But if we asked our fathers and grandfathers, would they have said that they lived in a period of little change? Structure may not have changed much. It may just be the speed with which we do things.Change is over-rated, anyway, consider the automobile. It’s an especially valuable example, because the auto industry has spent tens of billions of dollars on research and product development in the last 100 years. Henry Ford’s first car had a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber types, a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, and four seats, and it could safely do 1 8 miles per hour. A hundred years and tens of thousands of research hours later, we drive cars with a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber tyres a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, four seats – and the average speed in London in 2001 was 17.5 miles per hour!That’s not a hell of a lot of return for the money. Ford evidently doesn’t have much to teach us about change. The fact that they’re still manufacturing cars is not proof that Ford Motor Co. is a sound organization, just proof that it takes very large companies to make cars in great quantities — making for an almost impregnable entry barrier.Fifty years after the development of the jet engine, planes are also little changed. They’ve grown bigger, wider and can carry more people. But those are incremental, largely cosmetic changes.Taken together, this lack of real change has come to man that in travel — whether driving or flying — time and technology have not combined to make things much better. The safety and design have of course accompanied the times and the new volume of cars and flights, but nothing of any significance has changed in the basic assumptions of the final product.At the same time, moving around in cars or aero-planes becomes less and less efficient all the time Not only has there been no great change, but also both forms of transport have deteriorated as more people clamour to use them. The same is true for telephones, which took over hundred years to become mobile or photographic film, which also required an entire century to change.The only explanation for this is anthropological. Once established in calcified organizations, humans do two things: sabotage changes that might render people dispensable, and ensure industry-wide emulation. In the 960s, German auto companies developed plans to scrap the entire combustion engine for an electrical design. (The same existed in the 1970s in Japan, and in the 1980s in France.) So for 40 years we might have been free of the wasteful and ludicrous dependence on fossil fuels. Why didn’t it go anywhere? Because auto executives understood pistons and carburettors, and would be loath to cannibalize their expertise, along with most of their factoriesAccording to the above passage, which of the following statements is true?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given.Do you ever feel there’s is a greater being inside of you bursting to get out? It is the voice that encourages you to really make something of your life. When you act congruently with that voice, it’s like your are a whole new person. You are bold and courageous. You are strong. You are unstoppable. But, then reality sets in, and soon those moments are history. It is not hard to put youself temporarily into an emotionally motivated state. Just listen to that motivational song for that matter. However, this motivation does not stay forever. Your great ideas seem impractical. How many times have you been temporarily inspired with a idea like, “I want to start my own business.” And then a week later it’s forgotten? You come up with inspiring ideas when you are motivated. But you fail to maintain that motivation through the action phase.The problem we ask ourselves is, why does this happen? You can listen to hundereds of motivational speakers and experience an emotional yo-yo effect, but it does not fast. The problem is that as we are intellectually guided, we try to find logic in emotional motivation and as we fail to find logic eventually phases out. I used to get frustrated when my emotional motivation fizzled out after a while. Eventually, I realised that being guided by intellect, was not such a bad thing after all. I just had to learn to use my mind as an effective motivational tool. I figured that if I was not feeling motivated to go after a particular goal, may be there was a logical reason for it. I noted that when I had strong intellectual reasons for doing something. I usually did not have trouble taking action.But when my mind thinks a goal is wrong on some level. I usually feel blocked. I eventually realised that this was my mind’s way of telling me the goal was a mistake to begin with. Sometimes a goal seem to make sense on one level but when you look further upstream, it becomes clear that the goal is ill advised. Suppose you work in sales, and you get a goal to increase your income by 20% by becoming a more effective salesperson. That seems like a reasonable and intelligent goal. But may be you are surprised to find yourself encountering all sorts of internal blocks when you try to pursue it. You should feel motivated, but you just don’t. The problem may be that on a deeper level your mind knows you don’t want to be working in sales at all. You really want to be a musician. Matter how hard you push yourself in sales career, it will always be a motivational dead end.Further when you set goals, that are too small and too timid, you suffer a perpetual lack of motivation. You just need to summon the courage to acknowledge your true desires. Then you will have to deal with the self-doubt and fear that’s been making you think too small. Ironically, the real key to motivation is to set the goals that scare you. You are letting fears, excuses and limiting beliefs hold you back. Your subconscious mind knows you are strong, so it won’t provide any motivational fuel until. You step up, face your fears, and acknowledge your hearts desire. Once you finally decide to face your tears and drop the excuses, then you will find your motivation turning on full blast.What does the author want to convey when he says, “When you look further upstream, it becomes clear that the goal is ill advised.”?
....

MCQ-> Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow. Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop - floor at Toyota. Work and inter - relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed ‘operating procedures’ that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule - bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a ‘command - control system’. It is able to retain the character of a learning organizationIn fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure – that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop - floor, often in teams, design the ‘operating procedure’ jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed ‘operating procedure’ specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter - temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action. One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter - measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large - scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man - machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization. It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following -‘the ability to deliver just - in - time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect - free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment’. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect - free fashion?
....