Slashdot Mirror

Interesting, because you sound like a pompous, ignorant dick who hasn't met a single atheist in his life, knows virtually nothing about what they believe or don't, and appears to know even less about forming cogent, lettered sentences to express your stupid, laughably caricatured opinions.

Dr DOS had a genuine incompatibility with Windows 3.1, and, moreover, was a configuration not supported by Microsoft, so the warning was entirely appropriate.

This one, I can prove. Not only that it was not a "genuine" incompatibility -- rather, a manufactured one -- but that management was well aware of what they were doing:

What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.

So, what's the rationalization for that?

all of them have an alternate interpretation where Microsoft's absolutely worst act is to protect themselves from lawsuits by people using an unsupported configuration of Windows 3.1.

If that was truly the intent, why obfuscate the code in question, and why not actually report the problem outright -- that it was explicitly checking for MS-DOS?

Ballmer? Or your crazy exaggerated caricature of Ballmer?

Ballmer is enough of a caricature onstage, without any help from me, but that's beside the point.

I said, specifically, that he "wouldn't be the first" -- that is, whether he's doing this or not, it's not as if no one else has ever fit that profile in history.

And it's actually run by Illuminati lizardmen who have tunnels from DC all the way to Area 51 in Nevada

You have a serious problem with critical thinking if you can't see why an entirely different species which has never been seen isn't even in the same category as a corporation acting in its own self-interest.

Indeed, we have seen corporations do evil things in their own self-interest before. (Citation needed? Enron. Need more? Tobacco marketing to children.) So suspecting Microsoft of the same thing wouldn't be entirely unexpected.

You really don't see the difference?

this is the same Microsoft who continues to fund SCO.

[Citation needed]

Reasonably unbiased citation:

Has Microsoft's money been a significant resource for the financially ailing SCO?
Without a doubt. In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, according to regulatory filings. Only longtime Unix fan Sun Microsystems previously paid close to that, with a $9.3 million license deal.

In particular, I think this is reasonable:

Although Linux threatens Microsoft, SCO was a convenient ally rather than a Microsoft puppet in the Linux fight...

Now, granted, you've also got this:

doesn't that represent a smoking gun that the Justice Department should at least be interested in?
No, at least not yet.

Indeed, they tend not to do things blatantly illegal, and I don't believe I've suggested that.

Regardless of motive, however, they are still funding SCO, quite literally.

you've yet to PROVE that Microsoft has been underhanded and subtle.

If the AARD code isn't sufficient proof, you have a very high standard for proof.

Microsoft has been deliberately "subtle" in the past -- see MS Java, Dr DOS and Windows 3.1, "It ain't done till Lotus won't run", etc.

MS Java - Microsoft added features to Java to make it integrate better with Windows, since Sun had absolutely no desire to make Java GUIs not suck-ass.

Dr DOS - Dr DOS had a genuine incompatibility with Windows 3.1, and, moreover, was a configuration not supported by Microsoft, so the warning was entirely appropriate.

Lotus won't run - Nothing but an urban legend. If you can *prove* that this incident happened then I'm all ears. So far I've seen no proof. Hell, I haven't even seen any evidence that any Lotus products failed to run on a particular Microsoft OS: which product? Which OS?

Now I don't doubt that *you* believe all those events represent nothing but pure, unadulterated, evil from Microsoft. But you also have to realize that all of them have an alternate interpretation where Microsoft's absolutely worst act is to protect themselves from lawsuits by people using an unsupported configuration of Windows 3.1. That doesn't strike me as particularly evil.

Again, the question here is: Is it so unbelievable that someone would both overtly rail at his enemies, and covertly attempt to undermine them? Ballmer wouldn't be the first to do this.

Ballmer? Or your crazy exaggerated caricature of Ballmer?

What I'm suggesting is more paranoid -- that said firm could easily be a front, or could be tempted with sufficient amounts of money, so that it looks as though they've sold the patents to a Linux-friendly company.

Yah! And it's actually run by Illuminati lizardmen who have tunnels from DC all the way to Area 51 in Nevada, which they use (with the assistance of chemtrails) to conceal the true secret of TimeCube from an unsuspecting public!

But keep in mind, this is the same Microsoft who sent astroturfers to a Linux convention, saying things like "It's all over, the suits are taking over," back when IBM started showing up at these conventions.

[Citation needed]

This is the same Microsoft who essentially stole the GUI concept wholesale from a Macintosh prototype -- keep in mind, Apple did actually license it from Xerox.

I think what really happened is that Apple's extremely useful implementation of the concept proved to Microsoft that it was worth pursuing their own.

And it's also worthwhile to mention that Windows was far more different from Macintosh then, say, GEOS was. And, much of the original success of the Macintosh was due to Microsoft applications-- the reason Apple showed their prototype to Microsoft in the first place was to convince Microsoft to write apps for it.

And this is the same Microsoft who continues to fund SCO.

[Citation needed]

It is not paranoid to expect a company which has been underhanded and "subtle" in the past to continue to do so in the future.

Perhaps not, but you've yet to PROVE that Microsoft has been underhanded and subtle. The best you've done at this point is quoted a debunked urban legend.

I'm just looking forward to a (hopefully) creeped out Mirkwood. I have high hopes for del Toro being able to make people squirm in their seats as the party traipses through it.

Unfortunately, I kind of dread what he's going to do with the physiognomy of the Wood Elves... I fear it may be too fairy-tale-ish, some kind of caricature of what we have all grown accustomed to from the three Jackon films.

OTOH, if the whole movie is done in del Toro's fairy-tale style, then it may work... but that's a big risk for New Line to take.

-1 Bitter Sexist faux-nice guy blaming own self esteem issues on popular caricatures of women.

I don't own a gun and I'm willing to bet that I could take you out just fine on my own with no weapons. However, a show of force to get the message out how many people are sick of incompetent cowards like you might get others of your kind to leave people alone and quit crying about everything.

Haha, you are such a caricature of the typical breathless internet libertarian that it makes me laugh.

I've probably spent more time in some of the worst neighborhoods in major cities than you have, and I never felt worried (hell, I laughed at my friends who were scared going through there) because I know that I'm perfectly capable of taking care of myself.

Bzzzt, sorry, grew up in NYC in the 80's during the crack epidemic and have spent plenty of time in real rough neighborhoods, and not as a tourist like you.

Not that long ago (50 years, tops) no one freaked out if you had a gun.

50 years ago people didn't just carry around guns because they could, they carried them for a purpose. They tended not to carry them openly through cities.

People fear what they do not understand - to them a gun is a scary magical thing that can kill you even if no one is holding it (kind of like how the moronic masses think that there's a magic key on the keyboard that will delete every file on your computer if you hit it while in a word processor). You do not have experience with guns and as such, they are foreign to you and you fear them. I suggest you take a class or go to a firing range and get over your phobia.

Wrong again, my young simpleton, I guarantee that I have been using firearms longer than you've been born. I just have the common sense to use them in somewhat rural areas, or at a firing range.

Funny that my post got a "flamebait" while yours is "2: Insightful". Slashdot ever ends to amaze me.
Yes, well /. used to be a live and let live libertarian playground, then the crypto-Trotskyists came and any notion of the supremacy of the individual is caricatured into some sort of mad max/ayn rand scenario.

• Bush and Cheney aren't the President and VP anymore, get some new material.
• Bush is the bumbling incompetent and Cheney is the evil mastermind; get your political caricatures straight.
• The concept of putting Cheney on Mars has potential for a decent political joke (e.g., evil overlord in space, new world to destroy). You instead revert to the tired, lame attack that we were all sick of six years ago... except you fail to even do that correctly.

This attempt at being a political troll is just plain sad. I suppose Bush and Cheney were the people everyone loved to hate, and now that they're gone there's a massive void in some people's lives.

You are very tiring.

"...eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society" is a subset of "removes existing societal structure". I have been trying (clearly in vain) to express this to you. I have not contradicted myself in any way.

Your talking points are of the vein "A is not like B in ways X, Y, Z, etc". I don't care about X, Y, Z, or anything else. I have clearly said how I think "A is like B in this way C". You must realize that under your logic, any comparison between Obama and Lincoln is invalid. Obama is black, a democrat, rich, has no beard, doesn't wear a tophat, has different motivations, has differet policies, isn't fighting a civil war, and so on. Just because I can list a thousand things that make them different doesn't make it silly or baseless to point out that they were both Senators from Illinois before they became President.

You also continue to bring up the flamingo. Yes, they both have two legs. But the reason this is a silly comparison is there are no flamingo cartoon sections in the newspaper, and there is no way to construe an Obama-flamingo caricature as having a political basis.

Which is it. Hmm, well, since I said it was the first one, and not the second one, I'm guessing it's the first one.

And the first one was a claim that this was the comparison basis:
"...eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society".

Again, you will have to excuse me if I am a bit confused here. Because you did also say that:
"I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure"..."

But you are now saying that you did not mean that? Can I ask you to not state things you do not mean - and if you do, not try to be snide about it when I get confused as to your position?

So just to be clear, despite your earlier claim that this is not your claim, your claim is that the comparison works because they are both "removing/eliminating/destroying/whatever certain parts of societal structure"?

One point of similarity is indeed pathetic if and only if the argument is that "A is exactly like B" (see above). If on the other hand you're a normal person evaluating the basis for a caricature, this can work quite well.

Again, noone here is talking about "exactly like". Noone. And noone ever has. The basis for a charicature of a politician is whether the claim being insinuated makes sense. When comparing someone to the Joker, you are insinuating these characteristics: evil, trying to tear down all of society, Nietzsche-inspired metaethics, wants to show people how animalistic they truly are, terrorist, über-sneaky, charismatic, funny, insane, seemingly insane or beyond our concept of sanity.

Now, the only thing you have pointed out as relevant is the bit about tearing down society. One thing! One. Painting X as the joker would normally be taken to mean you are saying all or at least the majority of the above things about him. You are saying (and sometimes saying you are not saying) one thing about him.

Lets look at it:
The Joker, in order to show people the animals they are without society, uses terrorist tactics to tear down all societal structure.

Obama is not doing what he is doing to show people their animal/unethical side.
He is not using terrorist tactics.
He is not tearing down all societal structure.
What he is doing, is removing certain structures, and putting others in their place.

Now, I have come to understand that you think he is somehow tearing down the constitution/basis for American society. This, having read American history and much of the philosophical reasoning behind the constitution, I find rather laughable.
But lets go ahead and assume that.

In that case, you could claim that he is, indeed, tearing down society's basics, just like the Joker.

Obama is equally similar to a flamingo, because he has two legs. They are different kinds of legs, used for different purposes - just like the "tearing down" you are talking about have different motivations and is done using different means.

You have not once tried to argue why your comparison is any less silly (except to claim I was saying Obama is/is exactly like a flamingo - if you are still labouring under that misapprehension, please read my posts again until you get it).

Which is it. Hmm, well, since I said it was the first one, and not the second one, I'm guessing it's the first one.

One point of similarity is indeed pathetic if and only if the argument is that "A is exactly like B" (see above). If on the other hand you're a normal person evaluating the basis for a caricature, this can work quite well.

Ok this is getting rather ridiculous. What's the point of having such a controller? If you're doing all that running around and stuff anyway, why not just go out and ... you know, do some actual sports?

Why are they doing all of this and still leaving behind the single best application of the wiimote - swordfights. That's the only place where I can see a benefit from doing sports electronically since it's a lot friendlier to slash at your friends with an electronic sword rather than a real one.

What's next? Everyone wears a Wiimote-shirt that can read smashing into other players so it can translate said readings into electronic caricatures of the game?

If that's the best that you can do then you've just proven my point for me.

The example I provided myself was much more meaningful.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Free Software community is more
than just the caricature of RMS that people like to perpetuate. Most people
have no problems peacefully coexisting with (and even enabling to a certain
extent) profiteers.

That fork happened a LONG time ago.

You are attempting to apply a standard to a cabal of volunteers that the big fat monopoly doesn't even satisfy.

Windows is not some idealized notion of what a Mac is.

All PCs are random collections of spare parts and YMMV.

This is how you can have a windows centric solution be just as user
hostile as the worst caricature of Linux that you can think up.

That said: At least "Linux doesn't work well with Laptop X" would
at least be ultimately useful to someone somewhere rather than
just being fodder for flame fests.

argh I can't resist continuing :)

I did read your post, and you insist on calling "silly" something people do everyday. A non-PC cartoon could depict Obama as a monkey, because they have big ears in common. Another cartoon could depict Bush as a cowboy with a foot in his mouth. Neither of these are literal of course. They are caricatures based on a perceived similarity. I have been merely trying to express how this similarity is perceived, and thus the poster is justified, whether you agree with it or not.

Your case rests on your assertion that the attribute they share is irrelevant. My original point in posting here was to say that it is not irrelevant, and to point out that which is similar between the two so that people confused about the poster might understand.

I fail to see how I'm painting you as making a different point. I am very curious why you think this. My defense, to reiterate, is that I am not equating Obama and the Joker, I am pointing out how they are similar in a not-irrelevant way as an explanation of the poster.

Perhaps you believe their similarity is not as poignant as I find it, and that's fine. I'm just trying to express why the poster exists.

I've never heard of anyone (prior to you) hating Jar Jar for being a 'realistic' CG character. They hate him because of his silly slapstick humour, or his caricatured portrayal of Jamaicans. In fact, the Star Wars Prequels (with Yoda), and the LOTR Trilogy (with Gollum), are a pretty good indication that fully CG characters can be embraced by audiences.

Does freedom of speech mean anything anymore?

Of course it does; it means a lot of things. It means that the rich can say "You have Freedom of Speech, so shut up", while they piss you up and down. It means that any idiot with a gob full of lies and nonsense can defend himself with "Freedom of Speech" and hope that people are suitably impressed. That is what "Freedom" usually means: the bastards can get away with anything, and the decent, fairminded people have no defence against them. Oh, and it also means that it isn't a crime in the legal sense to speak your mind; which is not the same as being safe from whoever is the biggest bully in the neighborhood.

What doesn't mean, but what it should mean is that ordinary, decent people are free to live their life the way they want and pursue the happiness they can find, without fear of losing their life or property. Freedom, at least in America, simply means that the rich and powerful are free to do as they please, and you have no right to stop them.

But back to this present case - although I find the caricature of Obama highly offensive and childish, whether we like it or not, this is what freedom of speech was actually meant to protect: the free expression of political opinion. On the other hand, what I don't like, and what I think should be punishable by law, is the constant use of outright lies and smear campaigns that seems to be all of American, political discourse.

This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.

I hear this argument all of the time. The reason internet media seems liberal is because it's more likely to be run by individuals or smaller corporations. People who don't automatically take the side of corporate interest over themselves, as most media corporations do. And as far as "left" and "right" are concerned, America is far more conservative than any other country in the West. Our overseas caricature is holding a gun and a bible for good reason. In other countries, they actually have communist and socialist parties that join in the discussion, without some schmuck screaming bloody murder the whole time.

I don't consider Obama a savior or anything. He was simply the lesser of two evils. He's quickly discovering that it doesn't matter how many people support healthcare reform (70%, with 50% wanting a "major" overhaul), if the change in policy affects too many big players in the corporate world. Insurance companies don't just lie down and let you force them to start playing by rules and making less money. Money pours into propaganda campaigns, and are usually successful. They will lie through their teeth to keep the profits rolling in, truth and ethics be damned.

In a sense, this is no different than a Democratic representative, meek and mild, turning into a lunatic when you threaten the jobs of their constituents who happen to build fighter jets that simply aren't useful for defense as they used to be.

And as far as parodies are concerned, there was a sitcom called "That's My Bush" that was on air within months of his inauguration, because he was so laughably inept, even in the beginning. I don't hesitate to remind everyone that at this point in his first term, Bush had taken a lot of vacations, given the Taliban 40 million dollars for their help with the war on drugs, and was nearly assassinated by a pretzel. Obama may do just as poorly, but so far, he's still got a chance for my vote next go around.

There are two schools of thought about teaching computer science. We might caricature the two views this way:

* The conservative view: Computer programs have become too large and complex to encompass in a human mind. Therefore, the job of computer science education is to teach people how to discipline their work in such a way that 500 mediocre programmers can join together and produce a program that correctly meets its specification.

* The radical view: Computer programs have become too large and complex to encompass in a human mind. Therefore, the job of computer science education is to teach people how to expand their minds so that the programs can fit, by learning to think in a vocabulary of larger, more powerful, more flexible ideas than the obvious ones. Each unit of programming thought must have a big payoff in the capabilities of the program.

It always seemed to me that both approaches have their place, and I would also argue that both are sometimes used inappropriately.

Comparing caricatures with realistic depiction of humans? Come on... That ain't even a proper straw-man.

Try these instead:

Japanse Spiderman manga vs. American Spiderman Comic.

Note how lips, nostrils and ears are generally unarticulated (particularly noses and ears that often are not present at all, or are just hinted) and how much more detailed american (comic) faces are.
On the other hand... manga artists attribute much greater attention to eyes and hair.

You can tell the character by his/her eyes immediately.
Bigger and more detailed the eyes - more innocent the character. Slits with a tiny dot for a pupil - evil fucker.