Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Told to Pay Tax on License Fee

MissingRainbow writes "To avoid paying taxes in India, Microsoft wanted a court to believe that it is selling its product and that there are no royalty payments involved. Their own EULA worked against them in this particular case however as it states, "the product is licensed, not sold". The court ruled against them."

282 comments

  1. pwndbyowneula tag. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suggest two new tags - 'pwndbyowneula' or 'canthaveitbothways' (although the old faithful 'haha' adequately expresses the extent of my sympathy for MS).

    Oh, and for those wondering, RS 700 crore == 175 Million USD. (a crore is 10 million).

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by capnkr · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...or maybe "openmouthinsertfoot". :)

      Glad to see there is some justice still floating around out there...

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    2. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "RS 700 crore == 175 Million USD. (a crore is 10 million)."

      Which, in the end, will only cost them 1 million in "donations" to win the higher court appeal.

    3. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by russlar · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's almost as good as Safari for Windows' EULA banning itself. eulaselfpwnage?

      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
    4. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by LaskoVortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      passitontotheconsumer

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    5. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      It's not a ban. They just need to pay taxes on it now.

    6. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by russlar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Safari for Windows EULA has language prohibiting Safari form being installed on anything but a mac. It was posted on slashdot a few days ago. that's the joke I was referencing.

      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
    7. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      How about 'bluegavelofdeath' ?

    8. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Divebus · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Safari for Windows EULA has language prohibiting Safari form being installed on anything but a mac. Actually, it must be installed on "Apple labeled hardware". That's what the stickers that came with your iPod are for.
      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    9. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      of course they do, but only if you buy their shit

    10. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Mateito · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > (a crore is 10 million).

      "Not Crore! Crore!"

      (Maybe that means nothing to anybody else....)

    11. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I just knew that one day that stupid license would come back to bite them in the ass. Does any one have Bill Gates home phone number? I feel a "Ha Ha" coming on.

    12. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re: your sig.

      (not an Apple fanboi)

      To me seems Apple pretty much dislikes DRM and tries to squirm out of using it as much as possible while still satisfying those who say DRM or Bust. How else would you explain the incompetence galore at implementing it? They were pretty competent at creating a decent OS, very nice UI, non-hopeless web browser a reasonable song distribution and indexing program, good computers and media players. But their implementation of DRM is hopeless - why would it stand out so much? Poor skill, design errors or maybe a fully aware decision "Make it broken and let the community take care of what we're not allowed to do"?

    13. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by moogied · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Lol.. "Moment Please."

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    14. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      How else would you explain the incompetence galore at implementing it? Nobody ever designs a DRM system intending to make it unhackable/perfect. It's always assumed that there are going to be regular, successful hacks, and you need to have a team that's dedicated to making patches that make the hacks not work anymore. This essentially explains the never-ending update cycle for iTunes. Next, you need to generate enough revenue to make sustaining such a team worth it.
    15. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by mpe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it must be installed on "Apple labeled hardware". That's what the stickers that came with your iPod are for.

      They probably couldn't complain if you used fruit sticker, so long as it came from an apple.

    16. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      More like the requirements were lax: the DRM must not be entirely trivial to defeat, but beyond that, it doesn't gain them any money to have stronger DRM, or lose them to have weaker. So while Apple wouldn't have complained about completely effective, unbeatable DRM, they wouldn't have had that as a goal, and wouldn't be willing to put forth the required effort to get that.

    17. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by electrictroy · · Score: 0

      Like I care about that EULA. I've been "illegally" using software since my first Commodore 64 and some games I downloaded off a BBS. I'm not putting some stupid sticker on my IBM-compatible just to make Apple jolly. I'll buy and use Safari whenever I feel like it, even though I am not using Apple hardware.

      GREED.

      That's the core issue here. The corporations like Apple/Microsoft want to make users pay again-and-again-and-again for the same software, but when it comes time for THEM to pay up (Indian taxes) then suddenly they don't want to. They don't want to pay.

      Hypocrites. If we users have to "pay up" for the privilege of using Windoze, then so too should you pay-up Mr. Microsoft for the privilege of access to the Indian market. Stop trying to be like a thief in the night & skirting around the law. The users paid; now it's your turn to pay Microsoft.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    18. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by pizzach · · Score: 1

      passitontotheconsumer I home you mean "pass it on to the customer" like how Microsoft deals with Windows Vista piracy in China.

      "Microsoft confirmed independent reports revealing that Windows Vista prices will be cut in half. On August 1, Zan Xiaoqin, representing 8844.com, a Beijing Federal Software online software distributor, indicated that the Redmond company will take drastic measures in China in order to boost Windows Vista in the competition with local pirated copies of the operating system."

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1637685.stm
      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    19. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm not putting some stupid sticker on my IBM-compatible just to make Apple jolly. I'll buy and use Safari whenever I feel like it, even though I am not using Apple hardware.

      Where it starts to get silly is that if you have Windows Itunes and/or Quicktime installed the "Apple Update" goes and finds Safari. Added to which the Itunes EULA a few weeks ago would sometimes display in a completly unreadable font.

    20. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Would you believe that's one of my favorite "Get Smart!" lines!!!

      How about "Sorry about that, Chief"?

      How about a boy scout with a slingshot?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    21. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by fugue · · Score: 1

      Long long ago someone proposed "stomapod" as a fancier-sounding synonym for this.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    22. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by R55 · · Score: 1

      Which, in the end, will only cost them 1 million in "donations" to win the higher court appeal. That, or services of some smartass lawyers. :(
    23. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      You do realize, of course, that Safari is free?

    24. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of it might be the human angle. A lot of people will line up to defeat DRM that might not to break the latest OS / browser / UI.

    25. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really question is where is this money going?

    26. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      passitontotheconsumer

      I believe you must have meant "pissontheconsumer".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    27. Re:pwndbyowneula tag. by SacredByte · · Score: 1

      Really? In that case, where do I go to pick up one of these? Would I have pay for my plane tickets, or are they included too?

  2. If only Washington State would tax Microsoft too by newscloud · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Washington State Legislators (who are greatly funded by Microsoft employees and corporate donations) have refused to close this $528 billion tax loophole ... yes Billion!

  3. Got Karma? by russlar · · Score: 5, Funny

    How appropriate, that in India, the birthplace of Karma, Microsoft gets whacked with a hefty dose of it.

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:Got Karma? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? Is there any penalty here, or just back payments? If the latter, it's essentially just a failed gambit, no harm no foul.

    2. Re:Got Karma? by kwrxxx · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to see Microsoft held accountable for once.

    3. Re:Got Karma? by naveenoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Looks like M$ couldnt curry any favours there ;)

    4. Re:Got Karma? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the article "With the addition of interest payable for all these years, the total tax liability could be about Rs 700 crore". So there doesn't appear to be a "penalty" outside of interest.

      However according to my calculations they appear to be charging an annual interest of about 12%. I'm no financial guru, but 12 points seems to me to include rather non-trivial "penalty points" above basic fair market interest rates. I think it is effectively working out in the ballpark of $180 million USD worth of penalty.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Got Karma? by mgblst · · Score: 3, Informative

      12% = 1200 points. You must get pretty surprised when they announce on the news that Interest Rates are going up 75 points?

    6. Re:Got Karma? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanx for the fix. Ok, a point equals one percent of one percent. I am now one point closer to being a financial guru :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Got Karma? by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      It would make for an interesting precedent, though, had the court been savvy enough to tell Microsoft "Very well; we accept your sworn declaration that purchase of a Microsoft product constitutes a sale, not a license. We hereby declare all EULAs associated with Microsoft products to be null and void; all purchases of Microsoft products, past and future, fall under the doctrine of first sale. Microsoft is hereby ordered to remove all forms of activation restriction from their products, and make freely available a tool to remove any such restriction from existing products."

  4. Obligatory by NeoManyon · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let me be the third to say, "Ha ha."

    This must mean that 2008 will be the year of Linux on the desktop!

    --
    Your thoughts form your reality.
    1. Re:Obligatory by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Whiney Mac Fanboibeat you to it.

    2. Re:Obligatory by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Oops. You said third, not first. Carry on.

    3. Re:Obligatory by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      This must mean that 2008 will be the year of Linux on the desktop!

      Totally offtopic, please mod me down, but 2008 is the year of Linux on the desktop already!

      Asus can't make enough eeePCs to meet demand, other retailers are coming out with cheap linux desktop products, Linux is finally being offered as an alternative by system builders.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    4. Re:Obligatory by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Asus can't make enough eeePCs to meet demand, other retailers are coming out with cheap linux desktop products, Linux is finally being offered as an alternative by system builders Who offers it besides Dell, some small OEMs (System76), and subnotebooks?
    5. Re:Obligatory by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HP is rolling out openSUSE on their computers I do believe. And WalMart has been selling Linux desktops.

      WalMart is about as mainstream as you can get.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:Obligatory by wellingj · · Score: 1

      Lenovo has some Suse Thinkpads.

    7. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize that the EEE was a desktop PC. It looked more like a portable device to me.

  5. He who lives .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He who lives by the EULA, dies by the EULA

    1. Re:He who lives .... by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gives a new meaning to the term "end user"...

    2. Re:He who lives .... by superash · · Score: 1

      More appropriate - "Eat your own dog food" :)

    3. Re:He who lives .... by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      ...or "Drink your own Kool-Aid".

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
  6. dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    leave the slashdot gui alone!

    1. Re:dear god! by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I hear ya. WTF guys. I don't need a massive "Reply to This" button.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is a vast improvement over past GUI on this site, at least since they started messing with it and got rid of viewing things by option at the top of discussions as nested/flat/threaded, etc. Go back to that or keep improving on this one. Its pretty good now.

    3. Re:dear god! by calebt3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I concur. What were they thinking? This is almost as unusable as idle.slashdot.org

    4. Re:dear god! by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they need to roll back the whole frigging site about a year.

    5. Re:dear god! by metalcup · · Score: 1

      yep,..damn page looks like barbie doll gave it a makeover..Bring back the old layout!!

      --
      "Laziness is an optimisation protocol"
    6. Re:dear god! by Enderandrew · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I really like the new gui.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:dear god! by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Informative

      I like being able to reply to comments inline, but I browse the site with an iphone and the uberbig boxes don't make for a very great browsing experience.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    8. Re:dear god! by jimmux · · Score: 1

      You haven't seen the worst of it. Try adjusting your preferences (using Firefox, at least). I actually had to start up IE and revisit my slashdot preferences so I could adjust them properly and reliably.

    9. Re:dear god! by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ok, unusable is the wrong word. Ugly fits better. At least I can submit a post without opening a new tab now. And one is forced to preview the post.

    10. Re:dear god! by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I blame Microsoft.

    11. Re:dear god! by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Meh, Preferences have been like that for a while.

    12. Re:dear god! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      /. can do whatever the hell they want to the look of their website.
      Just gimme an option in my settings to change it back.
      Please?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    13. Re:dear god! by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yeah, I hear ya. WTF guys. I don't need a massive "Reply to This" button.

      They're trying to appeal to an older half blind crowd. Just be thankful there isn't sound.

    14. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think a good compromise would be to integrate the Reply to this/Parent links into the title/score bar, but align it to the right side. Oh, and for the love of god, don't make the buttons so huge that the bar gets bigger in height.

    15. Re:dear god! by Zymergy · · Score: 1

      For a minute there I thought it was part of the April 1st thing.... but nope, today is the 2nd!
      And I keep thinking of several lines Lloyd Bridges (McCroskey) had in Airplane: "Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing Glue!" http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0006134/quotes
      -Nope, it's just the new /. layout!

      Oh ya, Ontopic: Ha Ha Ha Microsoft. I can hear all their lawyers giving out a big ol' Homer Simpson DOH!

    16. Re:dear god! by EdIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thank God you said something. I thought I was hallucinating.

    17. Re:dear god! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it would have been funnier if they introduced the new UI on April 1st and then said on April the 2nd that it wasn't in fact a joke.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    18. Re:dear god! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Works fine in Opera. And by the way Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    19. Re:dear god! by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      You mean like how we can get our robotic overlord to read the news to us?

      --
      signature is pants
    20. Re:dear god! by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Dear god, even the GUI has dupes!

      (Check out the "Cancel Reply" and "Cancel" buttons with the same exact functionality.

    21. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think they need to roll back the whole frigging site about a year.

      To what? OMG PWNIEZ?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    22. Re:dear god! by wanderingknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only this is awful, the sheer amount of javascript they've added makes it practically unusable. I was relatively happy when Firefox 3.0 beta 4 processed the scripts a lot faster than 2.0, making browsing Slashdot comments less of a chore... and now they've brought this abomination to the site.

    23. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't like the reply button...but i do appreciate how the threading is more pronounced. previously you could mistake a reply to belonging to a different parent comment

    24. Re:dear god! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Slashdot GUI was fine before. Now it is wierd, and takes more space.

    25. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I like it as well.

      The only thing I'd love to see is the left-hand side menu collapsed and floating, so that I don't have to scroll up when I need it.
      I know that there was a Firefox extension that did that, but I can't remember which one it was. Or if it would still work.

      The forced preview is also a thing many users had been asking for for ages.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    26. Re:dear god! by LunarCrisis · · Score: 1

      I thought it was pretty nice.

      Of course, best of all would be an option for a dark theme. . .

      --
      Mr. Period: Nine is the one that's right by ten!
      Nine: One day I will kill him. Then, I will be Ten.
    27. Re:dear god! by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am part of that older, half-blind crowd you inconsiderate clod, and I hate the new layout! This isn't improving the appearance of Slashdot, it's changing it for the sake of changing it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    28. Re:dear god! by Washii · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I've got to say, I'm reading this in Fx3 beta 3 still and I've got no performance problems.

      I can't imagine what my Fx2 install would do on this page, though.

    29. Re:dear god! by guamisc · · Score: 1

      please get rid of these buttons

    30. Re:dear god! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I think they need to roll back the whole frigging site about a year.

      To what? OMG PWNIEZ?



            Actually, that was TWO years ago. Time sure flies, doesn't it?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    31. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      bigger in height

      Around here they call that idea "taller."

      p.s. Sorry for the smallness in length of this post.

    32. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leave the slashdot gui alone!
      How soon will we see a YouTube video of a /.-er, who cries complete with dripping snot, telling people to leave the slashdot gui alone! Hasn't it suffer enough?
    33. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't even know you _COULD_ reply...

    34. Re:dear god! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hear ya. WTF guys. I don't need a massive "Reply to This" button. I'd take it if it meant the negative mod button was made smaller.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    35. Re:dear god! by wellingj · · Score: 1

      I like the new preview, but I'm with QuantumG here, This is taking up to much realestate on my old 1024x768 thinkpad. But I guess I can deal for the free news... for now...

    36. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the /. hierarchy thinking?

      Chunky buttons we don't need (parent? like how hard is it to scroll up and click on the few occasions that might be useful) and whose focus rectangles don't sit straight.

      Double line spacing between comments - lots of NOTHING - yeah, we all need that.

      And bigger chunkier title bars, making less space for content.

      Enormous horizontal and vertical indents, and just look at even this posting to see the excessive space between lines from a simple br tag.
      Didn't we just yesterday have splash adverts as well?

      Come on, man. We all had that involved process of redesigning the GUI, a competition that now seems to have been junked completely. Just put it back like it was.

    37. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot viewing experience may vary for the trendy and pretentious.

    38. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, try my account---I still have to use preview.

    39. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. At least the day before, or after.

    40. Re:dear god! by AJWM · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's worse that than. Those damn oval buttons keep giving me flashbacks of OpenLook.
      Hey Slashdot, the 1980s called, they want their GUI back.

      --
      -- Alastair
    41. Re:dear god! by erayd · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Gotta say I actually quite like the new version - not for the looks, but for the function. Being able to click parent and have it autoscroll, and then being able to easily find the post I diverted from is a big improvement on slowly scrolling up until I find the parent, and then using the browser's search function to find the post I was looking at previously.

      Also loving the new inline comments ;-)

      I do think the buttons are waaay too big now though. And the grey just looks wrong - /me thinks the buttons should all be /. green.

      --
      Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
    42. Re:dear god! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      It's worse that than. Those damn oval buttons keep giving me flashbacks of OpenLook.
      Hey Slashdot, the 1980s called, they want their GUI back. I agree in the button roundedness. Smaller buttons would be fine. But i definitely love actually having buttons and a text box for preview. Hey, look at this! Quote Parent! :D *clicks*

      It quoted you above my post! yay! And in the preview there's a "Continue editing" button. I love this.

    43. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leave the slashdot gui alone! And Tron Guy. Leave Tron Guy alone!
    44. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      IT doesn't even display the same across browsers. Load it in IE6, your see what I mean. I swear, they need to stop letting retarded monkeys play with the slashcode.

      They supposedly gave us an option to not use this crap in our preference settings. However, it doesn't seem to be working.

    45. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is fucked.

    46. Re:dear god! by symbolset · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually I was hoping they could make it blink. Every blog on the internet needs fifty huge blinking "Reply to this" buttons on every page, you know, so people can figure out which button to push to reply to my comments.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    47. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What are you smoking? I have always had a parent link right beside the reply to this link. It has always worked in the same manner as you described. Of course, when I reply to something, it lists the parent post above my reply windows so I can quote directly from it. Or if I need to go further up, I just open the parent links in a new tab first.

      This new look adds nothing that wasn't already here beside the god awful looks.

    48. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, unusable is exactly the right word.

      The page SCROLLS SLOW because of a box that scrolls with the page.

      What does that box do that's so important to come with you as you scroll down? The count of how many posts there are, and a login button.

      Whoever came up with these useless and debilitating changes needs to be beaten.

      post-preview edit: Dear god, now my preview shows up in a box inside of some white space inside of a larger box. Two beatings.

    49. Re:dear god! by Bj�rn · · Score: 1

      I like the boxes. They make finding the parent post much easier, but then I'm not browsing on an iPhone. Don't know about the buttons though.

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    50. Re:dear god! by arodland · · Score: 1

      Actually I think it's an improvement. D2 was kind of busted before. Now the threading works better. Yeah, the lines are too heavy and the buttons are too fat and there's a few bugs in, but it's a step in the right direction. Oh, and forcing people to hit preview... thank you! Other places have had it for a while now and it really does work. I'm glad slashdot got there.

    51. Re:dear god! by sltd · · Score: 1

      the iPhone doesn't make for a very great browsing experience.

      There, fixed it for you.

      (Ducks)
    52. Re:dear god! by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, who'd have thought that your mobile browsing experience may be sub-optimal on a 320x480 screen?

      Not anyone who drank the apple-flavored kool aid, apparently.

    53. Re:dear god! by sltd · · Score: 1

      Really, though. I clicked on some abbreviated comment and all of a sudden it had these weird buttons, and the rest of the page didn't. But I kind of like it.

    54. Re:dear god! by ggvaidya · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The autoscroll-thing didn't work on Opera until this site update. I don't know which other browsers it was "turned off" for.

    55. Re:dear god! by f1r3f0g · · Score: 1

      I think the large button is to facilitate the posting of drunken replies.

      Workin' for me.

      *hic.

    56. Re:dear god! by drspliff · · Score: 1

      In lightweight mode (e.g. without javascript) the new UI is a large improvement - boxes around content with nice buttons and nesting all clearly visible.

    57. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell to the YES!

      Seriously, why not? That was the best thing ever (on Slashdot, anyway), and I for one would love to see it brought back. Hmm, maybe there should be a Slashdot poll about this.

    58. Re:dear god! by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      aside from the large buttons, I like it... it seems more readable... not that I need to be reading Slashdot more.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    59. Re:dear god! by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Steve? Is that you?

    60. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, please. But make it 6-7 years instead.

    61. Re:dear god! by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Nice Buttons? Maybe, but they take up too much room. I enjoyed being able to read more than 3 comments on the page at the same time. I am after content, not prettiness (why I run on lite mode). Give me my content back, please!

      This is almost enough to make me start doing some work. Evil bastards!

    62. Re:dear god! by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 0

      Time might fly. But in this case, traumatic incidents stick in the memory.

      --
      it's = it is

      its = belonging to it

    63. Re:dear god! by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I really love the new giant "Reply to This" and "Parent" buttons.

      You see I have twenty-twohundred vision, and I don't bother using any special browser software for the visually impaired.

      I also have cerebral palsy and because of my hand-spasms the gigantic buttons make it much easier to hit them with my mouse.

      I'm also really really stupid and the new button designs help smack me in the brain when I get confused and keep forgetting how to reply and that there are parent posts and how to get to them.

      I also really love bellbottom jeans. In fact my favorite jeans are polkadot bellbottoms. HEAY! YEAH! They should put POLKADOTS on the Reply and Parent buttons! THAT WOULD ROCK!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    64. Re:dear god! by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like the Ajaxiness. The only real problem today is the gigantic buttons, but that should be easily fixed.

      What I'd like to know is, why do we get a completely revamped UI every week? Why not simply make the obvious improvements and stick to that?
      Every other week I discover that folding and unfolding has disappeared or reappeared in a different form. I also like the "quote parent" button, so I'd appreciate if it stopped disappearing all the time.

    65. Re:dear god! by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      No no, you *almost* had it there... they should have introduced the UI change on March 31. Then on April 1st they could talk about how it was an April Fools gag accidentally went live a day early. Then on April 2nd, as you suggest, they could state the April 1st talk about it being an "accidental early leaked gag" was all a joke.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    66. Re:dear god! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      i tend to agree.
      I got a pleasant shock this morning.

      I can finally see the indenting, and I like this inline commenting.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    67. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just marketing department's "annoyance threshold" determination to get you to login and customize.

      Irritating now I have to log in to see comments that aren't shown by default! Whose content is it anyway?

    68. Re:dear god! by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      forced to preview the post.

      Hey hey hey! Watch it there! IT IS TIME TO SPEAK UP!

      First the preview-before-posting Nazis came for the people that didn't preview before postsing, but I always preview before posting, so I didn't speak up.
      Then the RTFA Nazis came for the people who didn't RTFA before posting, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    69. Re:dear god! by dysfunct · · Score: 1

      I agree, it's awful. What's even worse is that it breaks the Firefox Slashdotter extension and I absolutely can't stand browsing /. without it. IMHO they should just have added many features the extension provides (inline expansion of long comments, quick reply, inline showing/hiding of comments, etc) instead of doing yet another useless and ugly redesign.

      --
      :/- spoon(_).
    70. Re:dear god! by waveman · · Score: 1

      There used to be a way to change the threshold on a discussion so you only see comments with a score > X. After 1/2 an hour I still cannot find this. Is there any way to do this? If so, please make it possible for people to find it!

      This is a show stopper for using slashdot for me.

    71. Re:dear god! by Nephrite · · Score: 1

      Hey, we are geeks, are we not? Write your own css and use it! Or grab mine: http://gogaxxx.narod.ru/slashdot.org.css

    72. Re:dear god! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Same here, very nice options, nice and clear as well.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    73. Re:dear god! by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Lots of things don't display the same in IE6...
      You're talking about a browser that's over 7 years old now, and woefully behind everything else out there.
      Slashdot doesn't look the same or load very quickly on my Amiga either.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    74. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      IT doesn't even display the same across browsers. Load it in IE6, your see what I mean. I swear, they need to stop letting retarded monkeys play with the slashcode.

      What does display the same across browsers, especially in IE6?

      I'd wager Slashdot doesn't even have enough visits from IE6 users to justify the expense of making it work for that craptastic and outdated browser.
      I mean, do webmasters test their sites in Netscape 4 and Firefox 1.5 and whatnot?
      The current version of IE is 7; if you use anything older than that, well⦠it sucks to be you.

      It sucks to be you if you use any kind of IE, in my opinion, but to each his own.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    75. Re:dear god! by zIRtrON · · Score: 0

      Fisher Price called, they want their GUI design back!

    76. Re:dear god! by residieu · · Score: 1

      It's a little ugly. But I like that it makes the thread trees easier to follow.

    77. Re:dear god! by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Yes - exactly as it is now. I like it! I can see the thread clearly, it is snappy on my Sempron-powered computer using Firefox browser, and the size of the buttons doesn't cause me any problems on a 1280x1024 screen.

      I just thought that I would redress the balance of opinion in this thread.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    78. Re:dear god! by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agree. Slim down the buttons and this will look quite nice.

      An added benefit: I usually middle click on reply instead of left click, so that I keep my place in the thread and don't have to reload the page. Now left click on reply brings the reply box inline with the thread. :-)

      Of course, it will be bette

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    79. Re:dear god! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I like that. It reminds of the Joker's insane 'joke' in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel.

      "Well... This guy goes into the hospital, okay?...His wife's just had a baby and he can't wait to see them both. So he meets the doctor and he says, `Oh, Doc, I've been so worried. How are they?' And the doctor smiles and says, 'they're fine, just fine. Your wife's delivered a healthy baby boy and they're both in tip-top form. You're one lucky guy.' So the guy rushes into the maternity ward with his flowers. But it's empty. His wife's bed is empty. 'Doc?' he says and turns around and the doctors and nurses wave their arms and scream in his face, 'APRIL FOOL! Your wife's dead and the baby's a spastic!!"

      Actually I think it was worse than that, like the Doctor lead him through rooms of increasingly deformed children on the way to last room.

      Incidentally your signature implies you think one of the partisan sides in political arguments is more or less correct. But when you think about it, there's no reason for that to the case. It's quite possible, indeed likely, that both sides are actually talking almost complete nonsense.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    80. Re:dear god! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is the April Fools joke for the year? Although, given the choice, I'd take the OMG PONIES!! look over this one. At the size I usually keep my browser windows, somewhere between a third and a half of the window is wasted with the new layout's enormous borders. Another fun thing is that when I click on the reply button it takes me to a new page with a reply thing, but when I middle-click (which, for every other link, opens in a new tab behind the current one) it gives me the in-page reply box. I have no idea how you would code such broken behaviour.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    81. Re:dear god! by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      You must be new here...
      (it's insensitive not inconsiderate)

    82. Re:dear god! by gatzke · · Score: 1

      But these buttons, they change color on a hover! How could you not love that crazy web 2.0 stuff?

      slashdot.org/palm still works if you just want to read a little without any cruft.

    83. Re:dear god! by somersault · · Score: 1

      It quoted you above my post! yay! And in the preview there's a "Continue editing" button. I love this. Whoah.. someone is easily impressed! :P It is kinda cool though. Ooh the options pop up in that weirdass menu thingy that they have. I think the forced preview is quite a good thing, will stop me forgetting to insert linebreaks and such :P
      --
      which is totally what she said
    84. Re:dear god! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I find the parent button very useful for large convoluted threads where the original parent comment was like 20 comments ago and I've lost track of exactly which comment is being replied to

      --
      which is totally what she said
    85. Re:dear god! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be funnier if the Reply button was a little gradient shaded button with a logo rather than text so it looked like the unlabelled Start button in Vista.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    86. Re:dear god! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I thought there was that "help, I'm locked in the stores cupboard!" sound last week? What? That's not part of the site? I've been wondering where Bob went..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    87. Re:dear god! by leamanc · · Score: 1

      I don't like the new discussion system at all. At least I can use the old one for the time being. The new "Reply"/"Parent" buttons are awful. Just give me my standard form buttons back! And what the heck is the deal with the comment score log? Slashdot calls it a "Moderation Comment Log." Shouldn't that be a "Comment Moderation Log"?

      --
      :q!
    88. Re:dear god! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And do something about the 25% of whitespace on the left side of the page... What a waste...

    89. Re:dear god! by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      Agreed!

    90. Re:dear god! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      There seem to be several missing preferences. I can't find the list of moderation modifiers (not that I ever used them, but I figured some people do) anywhere. It looks like posts that have a score of 1 are truncated now, and I can't find where to change that.

    91. Re:dear god! by LMacG · · Score: 1

      I bet thousands of people reading from work (like, oh, say, me) are stuck using IE6. And it seems the bigger the corporation, the tighter they lock things down. Slashdot looks fine from home where I can use any browser I want to, but I don't really have a choice when I'm in the cube farm. So yeah, sucks to me be.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    92. Re:dear god! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Using this on 2.0.0.13 on Mac OSX 10.3.9 (iBook G4) it works fine - less problems with missing comments like I had a few days ago (abbreviated comments not visible), and it works actually pretty fast. I have the feeling it's even faster than the previous incarnation. But then maybe my 'net connection has a good evening, that also varies now and then.
      All in all I like it. Haven't tried out the keybindings yet (12 of them already! Getting confusing), inline reply is great, but those buttons are too big.

    93. Re:dear god! by xbytor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought that would be 'embiggen'.

    94. Re:dear god! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      A noble spirit embiggens the largest toolbar.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    95. Re:dear god! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Did anyone tell the editors that April 1 was last Tuesday? This is friggin' worse than OMG PONIEZ!!!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    96. Re:dear god! by SEE · · Score: 1

      If they only did this to D2, that'd be fine by me. Of course, they didn't.

    97. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      IE6 is nothing like your Amiga. It is on several updates computers by default (XP sp2 until very recently). All the users of older OS's like windows 2000, perhaps even winME or win98 have no other choice to use it either.

      If slashdot expects to cater to a crowed of geeks and can only manage to get their pages to work in the most current version of MS-IE, they have a lot more problem then me complaining about it. Seems to me that you have some issues too.

    98. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yawn..

      All the websites I have a say in test for Netscape 6 or better, firefox 1.5, firefix. IE 6 and 7. They don't do this because it would suck to be someone who isn't using the latest or greatest, they do it because people don't use the latest or greatest. It is the people visiting that makes the sites useful and meaningful. Not some assclown web developer who thinks he can cop an attitude to make his professional life easier.

      In other words, just in case you didn't get the message there, by design, the user is the point of the site- not the lazy developer. For whatever the purpose of the site is, if users have issues with it rendering in two year old browsers, you aren't doing your job right and should be banned from making websites.

    99. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      For whatever the purpose of the site is, if users have issues with it rendering in two year old browsers, you aren't doing your job right and should be banned from making websites.

      The point is, though: IE6 is not two years old. It's closer to seven.

      Supporting a broken browser for the sake of the few who either refuse to upgrade or have it tough thanks to their IT department may be found to be unprofitable and is sure to be found harmful ultimately.
      IE6 is dangerous. The fewer sites work with it, the sooner people will be forced to switch.

      Otherwise, I could start ranting that this crappy UI doesn't work in lynx and these asshole admins should just fix it. Wouldn't that make me an asshole.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    100. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In lightweight mode (e.g. without javascript) the new UI is a large improvement - boxes around content with nice buttons and nesting all clearly visible.

      Eh? Gotta disagree with you there.

      I've been using lightweight mode for years. The boxes are thick - that's a big visual distraction to begin with. Worse, they don't appear consistently/predictably (especially in flat mode). Finally, the inter-line spacing (leading) is just wrong. There's too much white space between lines of text, and vastly too much white space between comments.

      This is bad for D2, and atrocious in classic mode (no_d2=1). Utterly unreadable.

    101. Re:dear god! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      ACHTUNG!

      > didn't preview before postsing

      Kommen Sie mit uns, bitte.

    102. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The point is, though: IE6 is not two years old. It's closer to seven.
      Actually, that would be an incorrect point. IE 7 wasn't available to the masses until October of 2006. That means until then, IE6 was the most current and up to date windows browser. Something that was less then 2 years ago. Microsoft hasn't even dropped support for it either. So it is still a current browser. The creation date means nothing in this topic. Hell, the Internet was created in the 80's and perfected for public use in the 90's. Does that mean the website shouldn't have to support it either?

      Supporting a broken browser for the sake of the few who either refuse to upgrade or have it tough thanks to their IT department may be found to be unprofitable and is sure to be found harmful ultimately.
      IE6 is dangerous. The fewer sites work with it, the sooner people will be forced to switch.
      It is only unprofitable if you are hiring inadequate retarde monkeys to do your website through cookie cutter programs designed to automate it. To that point, you really have no reason to be doing that.

      And if you think you have the right to force people to use a specific piece of software, then I would be glad to know all the companies you are associated with so I can ensure I nor my clients will ever do business with them or you. I can't believe that of all places, on slashdot, can I find someone arogent enought to think forced upgrades is a plus. You aren't one of those retarded monkey I was talking about earlier are you?

      Otherwise, I could start ranting that this crappy UI doesn't work in lynx and these asshole admins should just fix it. Wouldn't that make me an asshole.
      Well, you could rant about the appearance in lynks. People would take you more seriously is lynks was the most popular browser out the and current less then a year ago. I personally use Fire Fox an reserve IE to those times something absolutely needs IE to render correctly. But using your example, every site should forgo the expense of testing on alternative browsers and just support IE7 only. Am I right? I mean saving money and being profitable by only serving the people that your think should have been forced to upgrade already.

      Get a grip on reality first, then reply.
    103. Re:dear god! by erayd · · Score: 1

      That will be why then - I use Opera, and the parent thing has never worked for me in the past. It does now though :-D

      --
      Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
    104. Re:dear god! by sbeckstead · · Score: 0

      Yeah now every one of us half blind idiots can find the "Reply to This" button.

    105. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Actually, that would be an incorrect point. IE 7 wasn't available to the masses until October of 2006. That means until then, IE6 was the most current and up to date windows browser.

      That, alas, is quite incorrect.

      Until then, IE6 was the most current and up-to-date Internet Explorer.
      I don't really recall for how long its development had been arrested/abandoned, but the whole IE team was disbanded at some point, and only some bugfixes were issued.

      Practically every other browser on the Windows platform was more up-to-date than IE6, both feature-wise and standards compliance-wise.

      So, kids, what have we learned today? That's right, current and up to date don't necessarily mean the same thing.

      Something that was less then 2 years ago. Microsoft hasn't even dropped support for it either. So it is still a current browser. The creation date means nothing in this topic.

      See above.

      While the creation date may indeed be less-than-most relevant, the date IE development was arrested is highly relevant.

      Hell, the Internet was created in the 80's and perfected for public use in the 90's. Does that mean the website shouldn't have to support it either?

      OK, now you're just trolling.

      It is only unprofitable if you are hiring inadequate retarde monkeys to do your website through cookie cutter programs designed to automate it. To that point, you really have no reason to be doing that.

      Because nobody ever needed to re-code their site completely to work around IE's bugs and quirks.

      Right.

      And if you think you have the right to force people to use a specific piece of software, then I would be glad to know all the companies you are associated with so I can ensure I nor my clients will ever do business with them or you.

      Yet you seem to be doing some business with Microsoft.
      Am I the only one who finds this strangely... strange?

      I can't believe that of all places, on slashdot, can I find someone arogent enought to think forced upgrades is a plus.

      I wasnt't talking about forced upgrades; I was talking about strongly encouraged ones.

      A forced upgrade is something Microsoft has done on some occasions, one rather recent; I don't recall the details as I haven't really touched Windows in a while. But I do recall that an update was installed even if Automatic Updates were turned off, with no choice given to the user.
      As you can see, I propose nothing of the sort.

      You aren't one of those retarded monkey I was talking about earlier are you?

      I'm replying to a flamebaiting troll, so I must be.

      Well, you could rant about the appearance in lynks. People would take you more seriously is lynks was the most popular browser out the and current less then a year ago. I personally use Fire Fox an reserve IE to those times something absolutely needs IE to render correctly. But using your example, every site should forgo the expense of testing on alternative browsers and just support IE7 only. Am I right?

      No, you are not.

      I mean saving money and being profitable by only serving the people that your think should have been forced to upgrade already.

      I never said anything of the sort.
      If Slashdot has, say only 5% of IE6 visitors, and supporting it would have taken as much resources it had taken to support all the rest, then it is plainly an unprofitable venture.

      Get a grip on reality first, then reply.

      Learn how to read. Then I'll introduce you to Mr Pot.

      Pol Pot, by preference.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    106. Re:dear god! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I may be half-blind, but unlike you, I don't consider myself an idiot. YMMV and obviously does.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    107. Re:dear god! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well I don't get anywhere when I click a post using Konqueror 3.5.1.

    108. Re:dear god! by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, the script does load fast, but the thing scrolls extremely slow. It might not be Firefox's fault, though.

    109. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      That, alas, is quite incorrect.

      Until then, IE6 was the most current and up-to-date Internet Explorer.
      I don't really recall for how long its development had been arrested/abandoned, but the whole IE team was disbanded at some point, and only some bugfixes were issued.
      Well, no. It was the current up to date windows browser. Or should I say Microsoft browser. It doesn't matter if the IE6 team was disbanded or not either. It is what was available and what was the most current at the time.

      Practically every other browser on the Windows platform was more up-to-date than IE6, both feature-wise and standards compliance-wise.

      And yet 90% or better of the users only used IE6. And for the first 6 months after IE7 was available, the majority of users who had a choice didn't use it. It wasn't until microsoft forced it into existance with their automatic updates that it has gained the user base it has today, that has been what, 5 months ago?

      So, kids, what have we learned today? That's right, current and up to date don't necessarily mean the same thing.

      Wel, hoenstly, we have learned that you are willing to use abstract interpretations of things in order to press a point so you could get your way. That's ok it you where correct in the process. But you aren't and your ulterior goal really sucks ass big time.

      See above.

      While the creation date may indeed be less-than-most relevant, the date IE development was arrested is highly relevant.

      No, not really. Because it is what was available to the majority of people. You are insane if you think the majority of people use fire fox or opera when IE6 was available. You mom's home network just isn't representative of the Internet as a whole.

      OK, now you're just trolling.

      No, I am taking your example to an extreme to show how fucking retarded it is. Most people call that a straw man argument. A straw man argument isn't always bad because it can take an idea and apply it across the board to show how ridiculous the idea really is outside the tight little box that it makes sense to you in.

      Because nobody ever needed to re-code their site completely to work around IE's bugs and quirks.

      Lol.. Have they? And your point is what? It isn't hard to do for those of use not using cookie cutter programs to write their web code. Actually, it is rather simple to accomplish and to get a website to display properly simply by using style sheets based on the browser UA. It isn't that dificult, especially for a site like slashdot which I know for sure uses CSS and I know you can do this on the fly with perl scripts that pull the page your browser is displaying.

      Yet you seem to be doing some business with Microsoft.
      Am I the only one who finds this strangely... strange?

      Are you working for Microsoft or something? There are things I have control over and things I don't. Picking and choosing whether to run a Microsoft OS isn't. Picking and choosing to do business with you or any company your associated with, I do. Unless of course you are associated with Microsoft which explains a lot. Perhaps you should make this known so we know how to regard your "forcing people to update" stance.

      I wasnt't talking about forced upgrades; I was talking about strongly encouraged ones.

      A forced upgrade is something Microsoft has done on some occasions, one rather recent; I don't recall the details as I haven't really touched Windows in a while. But I do recall that an update was installed even if Automatic Updates were turned off, with no choice given to the user.
      As you can see, I propose nothing of the sort

      I don't know why your changing your position now. You actually said

      The fewer

    110. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Well, no. It was the current up to date windows browser. Or should I say Microsoft browser. It doesn't matter if the IE6 team was disbanded or not either. It is what was available and what was the most current at the time.

      Again, no.

      If the team was dis-ban-ded and no up-dates were pro-vi-ded, then the brow-ser was not up to date. It was fucking a-ban-don-ware
      Now, you have wisely chosen to drop the "up to date" phrase in this post, but you'd used it before. I'll grant you it was the most common Windows browser, but that doesn't make it any less of a piece of shit.

      And yet 90% or better of the users only used IE6. And for the first 6 months after IE7 was available, the majority of users who had a choice didn't use it. It wasn't until microsoft forced it into existance with their automatic updates that it has gained the user base it has today, that has been what, 5 months ago?

      Well, a good part of users had neither legitimate Windows installations nor the will to jump through hoops to make it work on non-legitimate installs.
      The mere fact Microsoft forced the upgrade tells me that even they think IE6 is crap.

      Wel, hoenstly, we have learned that you are willing to use abstract interpretations of things in order to press a point so you could get your way. That's ok it you where correct in the process. But you aren't and your ulterior goal really sucks ass big time.

      Funnily, I'm prone to say that about you, and have even shown how you change your word choice when proven wrong.

      No, not really. Because it is what was available to the majority of people. You are insane if you think the majority of people use fire fox or opera when IE6 was available. You mom's home network just isn't representative of the Internet as a whole.

      Neither is your company or your country.
      In Europe, Firefox has a much greater market share.

      No, I am taking your example to an extreme to show how fucking retarded it is. Most people call that a straw man argument. A straw man argument isn't always bad because it can take an idea and apply it across the board to show how ridiculous the idea really is outside the tight little box that it makes sense to you in.

      It really only shows how fucking retarded you are.

      Lol.. Have they? And your point is what? It isn't hard to do for those of use not using cookie cutter programs to write their web code. Actually, it is rather simple to accomplish and to get a website to display properly simply by using style sheets based on the browser UA. It isn't that dificult, especially for a site like slashdot which I know for sure uses CSS and I know you can do this on the fly with perl scripts that pull the page your browser is displaying.

      Yes, that is rather simple. What is not simple is making it look right in IE.

      Are you working for Microsoft or something? There are things I have control over and things I don't. Picking and choosing whether to run a Microsoft OS isn't.

      Ah, and the browser is the integral part of the OS, or what?

      Do you have to run IE6 or do you want to run IE6?

      Picking and choosing to do business with you or any company your associated with, I do. Unless of course you are associated with Microsoft which explains a lot. Perhaps you should make this known so we know how to regard your "forcing people to update" stance.

      Stop trolling. You are too rabid to be able to insult me anyway.

      A forced upgrade is something Microsoft has done on some occasions, one rather recent; I don't recall the details as I haven't really touched Windows in a while. But I do recall that an update was installed even if Automatic Updates were turned off, with no choice given to the user. As you can see, I propose nothing of the sort

      I don't know why your changin

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    111. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Again, no.

      If the team was dis-ban-ded and no up-dates were pro-vi-ded, then the brow-ser was not up to date. It was fucking a-ban-don-ware
      Now, you have wisely chosen to drop the "up to date" phrase in this post, but you'd used it before. I'll grant you it was the most common Windows browser, but that doesn't make it any less of a piece of shit.

      And you are quite incorect. Microsoft just released a security update for IE6 as late as feb 12 2008. If they would have abandoned IE6, this wouldn't have been possible.

      It is true that MS isn't adding new features to IE6 but what has changed so dramatically with web pages, specifically, slashdot web pages in the last year or so that it can no longer work? Nothing has. Nothing at all. And whether it is a piece of shit or not isn't really your call to make universally. It has it's used just like any other program out there. And yes, it is up to date because they are still providing security fixes for it. So check up on what your claiming before making the claims.

      Well, a good part of users had neither legitimate Windows installations nor the will to jump through hoops to make it work on non-legitimate installs.
      The mere fact Microsoft forced the upgrade tells me that even they think IE6 is crap.

      Whether it is crap or not isn't pertinent to the situation. What is pertinent is that for whatever reason people might want to use it. That isn't a crime, your attitude of forcing people to use different software because you don't like something should be.

      Funnily, I'm prone to say that about you, and have even shown how you change your word choice when proven wrong.

      Because you say something doesn't mean I was proved wrong. What a delusional ideal you have about your own self worth. MS has been actively supporting IE6 up to two months ago that I know of. It provided updates in Dec of 2007, October before that and pretty much every months in 2007. Like I said, it was the current up to date web MS browser for windows until IE7 came about. And yes, I did limit it to MS browsers because we are talking about the most used browsers of the world, MS browsers.

      Neither is your company or your country.
      In Europe, Firefox has a much greater market share.

      It still isn't more then IE's share. So my statement stands true, "it is what was available to the majority of people. You are insane if you think the majority of people use fire fox or opera when IE6 was available".

      It really only shows how fucking retarded you are.

      Lol.. No it shows how retarded your position is. Of course morons usually don't know when they are acting like morons so I won't hold it against you.

      Ah, and the browser is the integral part of the OS, or what?

      Do you have to run IE6 or do you want to run IE6?

      Actually, I run firefox and only open IE when something doesn't display correctly. I think I already told you that if you where paying attention to anything. And no, I haven't upgraded to IE6 yet and I don't plan to anytime soon. I'm against your insane idea of leaving IE6 in the dust to "force" people to upgrade to IE7 and an operating system that supports it because of your own dislike for IE6 and nothing more. It is not having the option to fall back to that it the problem. Not what I use or don't use.

      Stop trolling. You are too rabid to be able to insult me anyway.

      I simply asked a question, it wasn't trolling. If you don't want to answer it, fine. But don't pass your appearances off as my flaws.

      If they do that by attacking things I never said, try to insult me in the process and generally act as flamebaiting trolls, then yes, they are.

      Then why d

    112. Re:dear god! by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Users of older OS's that are no longer generally supported by their manufacturer, and are rapidly being phased out.
      Those users really need to upgrade, it's microsoft's upgrade treadmill, and those machines are probably still pretty serviceable, but the software is unsupported by it's original vendor, and cannot be supported by anyone else.
      The same applies to people running SunOS 4, MacOS 9 and other such deprecated systems.

      The Microsoft path is to upgrade these old machines... If you don't like the option Microsoft gives you, there are various Linux distributions designed for older hardware too.

      If the vendor who supplied the software no longer supports it, what makes you think anyone else should cater to it? You're just stifling progress...

      Also users of those older windows versions have the choice to install a third party browser, since Microsoft has abandoned their platforms for new browser releases.

      And the Amiga is a historic curiosity, I would never consider using it for any serious work, nor would I try to inconvenience anyone else by demanding they support it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    113. Re:dear god! by goldfndr · · Score: 1

      While the creation date may indeed be less-than-most relevant, the date IE development was arrested is highly relevant.
      No, not really. Because it is what was available to the majority of people. You are insane if you think the majority of people use fire fox or opera when IE6 was available. You mom's home network just isn't representative of the Internet as a whole.
      You misspelled "bundled".

      I'm wondering: if a band reunited after several years, played their original songs, but didn't play any new ones, would you say that their original songs were current and up to date?

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    114. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      And you are quite incorect. Microsoft just released a security update for IE6 as late as feb 12 2008. If they would have abandoned IE6, this wouldn't have been possible.

      Note the past tense I used; it was not reported speech, no need for tense shifting.
      With IE team disbanded, I'd say it was abandonware.

      It is true that MS isn't adding new features to IE6 but what has changed so dramatically with web pages, specifically, slashdot web pages in the last year or so that it can no longer work? Nothing has. Nothing at all.

      So what are you bitching about then?

      And whether it is a piece of shit or not isn't really your call to make universally. It has it's used just like any other program out there. And yes, it is up to date because they are still providing security fixes for it. So check up on what your claiming before making the claims.

      Yay, security fixes. Since IE6 is integrated in Windows, plugging IE's holes is essential for Windows functioning.
      That doesn't sound like active development or support to me. If IE were a standalone program, this kind of "support" would be only a step above total abandonment.

      If IE6 were up to date, it would have decent standards compliance, for one thing.

      Whether it is crap or not isn't pertinent to the situation.

      Yes, it is. It's crap because it is not standards compliant. Among other things.
      Since most pages nowadays are coded to standards (as much as possible, at least), this also means that it is not up to date.

      What is pertinent is that for whatever reason people might want to use it. That isn't a crime, your attitude of forcing people to use different software because you don't like something should be.

      I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. (Though you're tempting me.)
      I'm not installing different browsers on people's computers behind their backs. (Though in the case of IE6, it would not be such a terrible idea.)

      Because you say something doesn't mean I was proved wrong. What a delusional ideal you have about your own self worth.

      Your actions speak louder than my words: if I have not struck truth, why did you change your rhetoric?

      MS has been actively supporting IE6 up to two months ago that I know of. It provided updates in Dec of 2007, October before that and pretty much every months in 2007. Like I said, it was the current up to date web MS browser for windows until IE7 came about.

      Discounting the long-dead IE versions like IE5 and below, it was the only Microsoft's web browser, for Windows or otherwise.

      See above about "active support".

      And yes, I did limit it to MS browsers because we are talking about the most used browsers of the world, MS browsers.

      You may have been talking about them. Or was that the royal 'we'?

      Besides, it doesn't really matter as long as IE users are a minority on this site.

      It still isn't more then IE's share.

      What is this, a dick measuring contest?

      So my statement stands true, "it is what was available to the majority of people. You are insane if you think the majority of people use fire fox or opera when IE6 was available".

      It is what was preinstalled on the majority of desktop systems.

      I never said the majority of people in the world used Firefox, Opera or whatever; however, I'd guess Slashdot readership is a bit differend demographic. And we were discussing Slashdot, weren't we?

      Lol.. No it shows how retarded your position is.

      Your strawman shows how retarded my position is... riiight.

      Of course morons usually don't know when they are acting like morons so I won't hold it ag

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    115. Re:dear god! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Re: my sig
      Actually the "49% brilliance, 51% bullshit" thing was as a self deprecating jibe at *my own posts*.

      I certainly wasn't calling one party brilliant and the other party bullshit, chuckle. I am rather cynical about politicians and politics in general. So cynical that even someone with the right position on every issue (my position, chuckle) and with exactly the right reasoning and logic and arguments (mine, of course), and with always the best of intentions (mine, of course), that even then at best it's only 49% brilliance and still mostly pompous bullshit.

      Not to suggest it is all equal however. 49% brilliance 51% bullshit is merely the high point. Things seriously can and do go down from there. Even "20% brilliance" in politics is a good and valuable thing when the opposition is 0% brilliance.

      As for the two US parties, I think one side is out to get re-elected and out for power and playing selfserving political games and corrupt and pandering and shortsighted and dishonest and bought off by industry and special interest groups, yada yada yada.

      And that is the party I am quite partisan in favor of. Just because politics is *at best* mostly bullshit doesn't make both sides equal bullshit. I think it vitally important that my "partisan-preferred" party pick up seats in the Senate next election and vitally important they pick up seats in Congress in the next election, and most of all critically important that they win the presidential election. Important for my personal good, important for the good of the country as a whole, and important for the good of pretty much the globe in general.

      And maybe..... just *maybe*... I have managed to squeeze the bullshit percentage down below the 50% threshold in this post. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    116. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Users of older OS's that are no longer generally supported by their manufacturer, and are rapidly being phased out.
      Those users really need to upgrade, it's microsoft's upgrade treadmill, and those machines are probably still pretty serviceable, but the software is unsupported by it's original vendor, and cannot be supported by anyone else.
      The same applies to people running SunOS 4, MacOS 9 and other such deprecated systems.

      That's fine and all, but we are really talking about windows XP which isn't phased out yet. MS is rumored to be giving a 3rd service pack for it, is extending it's active life so it can have an option for low end-low cost laptop devices. I can understand not supporting Win9x-ME boxes but there is nothing specific to the web browser in this case that precludes an win9x or better box from displaying the same results on windows XP which is a more current browser. Their support would be more of a byproduct of keeping support for a newer operating system.

      Suppose that OS-9 was able to run the same FireFox or opera browsers that that are current today, should the website check the user agent string and drop the page because it comes back as OS-9? I don't think you are asking for that to happen but would you consider it odd when the same browsers are more then capable of displaying the code on OS-x also?

      The Microsoft path is to upgrade these old machines... If you don't like the option Microsoft gives you, there are various Linux distributions designed for older hardware too.

      Actually, I use linux quite a bit. I do this to have options and believe software is more about a choice for a tool for a job. Others I have talked to in this thread think it is perfectly fine to force someone to upgrade to a specific program. IE6 isn't that old, it hasn't even 2 years since Microsoft introduce it as a stable version for all to have back in October of 2006. Being forced off of it is a little premature. Especially from a site like Slashdot that seems so friendly to the software as a choice mantra. Actually, it isn't a matter of being forced off of IE6 on slashdot, it is having a different and more ugly UI when bouncing back and forth. This is something I find absolutely astounding, all the sites I am responsible for (whether I write the code or someone else does) display the same or with as little differences as possible between browsers. The layout is always is the same, the only differences might be the functions like with one site there is a flash script that enlarges thumbs on a mouse over and allows you to scroll across pictures show from a different page on the same site. I haven't done much web programming in the last 4 or 5 years and farm it out now but it is a requirement for the pages to display properly in the most popular browsers and at least one version behind the most current version of the browser including AOL's sad browser thing.

      I believe it is about what the users want, not what you or I want. Some users, especially corporate users, are stuck using an outdated browser or operating system and whether it is showing them a virtual tour of rental cabins or real estate for sale, or selling them nicknack's from an E-commerce site, it looks the same when they are at work or at home using different browsers. There really is no reason for it not too if you aren't doing something specific to an operating system like active X or something.

      If the vendor who supplied the software no longer supports it, what makes you think anyone else should cater to it? You're just stifling progress...

      I think I already answered this. But keep in mind, we are talking about the last version of IE that hasn't been replaced for more then 6 months for the most part. It is less then 2 years outdated and is supported by the currently most popular windows operating system. Well, I haven't checked lately, I assume Vista hasn't overtaken windows XP on installs yet. IT hasn't as

    117. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "bundled".
      Thanks.

      I'm wondering: if a band reunited after several years, played their original songs, but didn't play any new ones, would you say that their original songs were current and up to date?
      If they tweaked the tunes and got rid of the rough spots like bands often do after playing them for a while, Yes, it would be the updated versions. Take Kansas for instance, They went back on tour after 20 years of more of being broken up. They released their live version of a few songs and redid a "greatest hits" album with new recordings to capitalize on their tour but they where actually different then the old original versions in a few places. Those songs certainly wouldn't be the old versions that you knew. They might be so close that you won't recognize the differences without checking or someone telling your where the difference are, they might just sound better or worse. They would be the new and updated versions of the same songs.

      Some times, just using better equipment could cause something like that to happen. I remember how crude some early Iron Maiden and early Metallica (with Dave Mustang) sounded until they started taking off. Their re-releases of some of the songs sound way better then the older versions in most respects. I know it has more to do then the difference between records, tapes and CDs. Back in 2000 they did a Elvis show where they remastered most of his songs that actually sounded better then live performance and recording when they put them out. Of course they had an Elvis impersonator lip syncing with footage from the original concerts playing on big screens placed around the stage so it wasn't really Elvis, but the music was the new versions that lacked all the scratched and hisses of older recordings and punctuated his voice to a point that it sounded almost live as in right in front of you. I would call them the current and up to date recordings too because they sounded really well in playback machines not even envisioned when it came out.
    118. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Note the past tense I used; it was not reported speech, no need for tense shifting.
      With IE team disbanded, I'd say it was abandonware.

      Abandoned is past tense. Abandon is the present tense, no change of tense at all except that MS is still supporting IE6 which means it wasn't abandoned. Now defining abandon by part of the IE team being dismissed is sort of playing tricks. All Microsoft did was freeze features in IE6 and move that support to IE7. They didn't stop securing it. That is the reason I was able to demonstrate that it recieved a security update as recently as feburary of 2008- 2 months ago.

      So what are you bitching about then?

      I'm bitching about the lack or programing skills of whoever is responsible for the new slashdot UI that can't even use the exact same principles that were used a 6 months ago. You know, the retarded monkey that for whatever reason has decided that they should have to do something or is incapable of doing something that isn't really that hard to do.

      Yay, security fixes. Since IE6 is integrated in Windows, plugging IE's holes is essential for Windows functioning.
      That doesn't sound like active development or support to me. If IE were a standalone program, this kind of "support" would be only a step above total abandonment.

      If IE6 were up to date, it would have decent standards compliance, for one thing.

      First of all, microsoft will never have standards compliance because of it's embrace and extend philosophy. They seem to have a mindset of a moving target where they will present their failures as someone else's problems. They play lip service to standards and people are brain washed into thinking they have standards down but it never works in practice. IE7 isn't standards compliant so what your problem?

      And security fixes, why wouldn't they just replace IE6 with IE7 an be done with patching IE6? They haven't stop supporting IE6 security wise so I still don't see your point. The security fix life cycles extend beyond the development cycle.

      I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. (Though you're tempting me.)
      I'm not installing different browsers on people's computers behind their backs. (Though in the case of IE6, it would not be such a terrible idea.)

      No your not holding a gun to anyones head. You are advocating making sited incompatible to force people to either upgrade or do without. Or are you denying that again.

      Your actions speak louder than my words: if I have not struck truth, why did you change your rhetoric?

      The only thing I changed was windows to microsoft to get around the confusion of alternative browsers that where available when I said until IE7 came about less then 2 years ago, IE6 was the most up to date windows/MS web browser and the most common one in use. That isn't changing much when my intent was IE versions all along.

      If you somehow find that invalidates all of my arguments and validates yours, then I suggest we end this real soon because you have some problems that reason and facts simply won't take care of.

      Discounting the long-dead IE versions like IE5 and below, it was the only Microsoft's web browser, for Windows or otherwise.

      See above about "active support".

      Active, Currently seeing action. Support, fixing bugs. Currently fixing security bugs = active support. See above about standards.

      You may have been talking about them. Or was that the royal 'we'?

      Besides, it doesn't really matter as long as IE users are a minority on this site.

      I'm not so sure they are a minority on this site. At least not a minority that has an insignificant user base. Perhaps you can show your references on that. From what I can find, IE6 represented about 16% more of the IE metrics for browser base on the Internet for all

    119. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Abandoned is past tense. Abandon is the present tense, no change of tense at all except that MS is still supporting IE6 which means it wasn't abandoned.

      I have explained this a number of times, but you have still not learned to read. I will refer you to my previous posts; I have no desire to spell it out to you. Again.

      Now defining abandon by part of the IE team being dismissed is sort of playing tricks. All Microsoft did was freeze features in IE6 and move that support to IE7.

      Freezing features years before the new version was out... now that's what I call foresight.

      They didn't stop securing it. That is the reason I was able to demonstrate that it recieved a security update as recently as feburary of 2008- 2 months ago.

      Goody. You must have skipped over the part about security updates having to do with IE being an "integral part of Windows". Learn to fucking read, troll.

      I'm bitching about the lack or programing skills of whoever is responsible for the new slashdot UI that can't even use the exact same principles that were used a 6 months ago. You know, the retarded monkey that for whatever reason has decided that they should have to do something or is incapable of doing something that isn't really that hard to do.

      You haven't demonstrated that it had anything to do with incompetence.
      I still propose it has (nearly) everything to do with cost-effectiveness, but you have only countered it with name-calling.

      First of all, microsoft will never have standards compliance because of it's embrace and extend philosophy.

      Bullshit.

      In order to extend, they first have to embrace.
      IE8 will default to standards compliance, they say, and according to all trends, it is their only option.
      For FSM's sake, non-geeks have started ridiculing other non-geeks for using IE. If Microsoft don't get their heads out of their collective asses, IE will become a minority browser. This is why they made IE7 in the first place, and why they're developing IE8 so hastily, even taking great care to pass the Acid tests.

      They seem to have a mindset of a moving target where they will present their failures as someone else's problems. They play lip service to standards and people are brain washed into thinking they have standards down but it never works in practice. IE7 isn't standards compliant so what your problem?

      It is more standards compliant than IE6. It's a definite improvement.
      Then again, I think they couldn't have made it any worse unless they decided to program it all in VB.

      And security fixes, why wouldn't they just replace IE6 with IE7 an be done with patching IE6? They haven't stop supporting IE6 security wise so I still don't see your point. The security fix life cycles extend beyond the development cycle.

      Because IE7 does not and will not work on some of the existing Windows systems.

      No your not holding a gun to anyones head. You are advocating making sited incompatible to force people to either upgrade or do without. Or are you denying that again.

      That's incentive, not force.

      They want something; they do what they need to to get it. Or they do without it.

      The only thing I changed was windows to microsoft to get around the confusion of alternative browsers that where available when I said until IE7 came about less then 2 years ago, IE6 was the most up to date windows/MS web browser and the most common one in use. That isn't changing much when my intent was IE versions all along.

      What you meant may not have changed much; what you said, however, changed significantly.

      If you somehow find that invalidates all of my arguments and validates yours, then I suggest we end this real soon because you have some problems that reason and facts simply won't take care of.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    120. Re:dear god! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I have explained this a number of times, but you have still not learned to read. I will refer you to my previous posts; I have no desire to spell it out to you. Again.

      It doesn't matter how many times you explain, if you are wrong, your just repeating your incorrectness. Like I said, IE wasn't abandoned and abandoned is the correct past tense of abandon.

      Freezing features years before the new version was out... now that's what I call foresight.

      So what is the point? Like I said, there has been nothing new the IE has had to support and Microsoft pretty much set the limits to the standards in this realm. Like it or not, that is the way it was and probably still is.

      Goody. You must have skipped over the part about security updates having to do with IE being an "integral part of Windows". Learn to fucking read, troll.

      I can fucking read. Work on your comprehension skill idiot. If they were just a little bit better, you wouldn't be calling anyone a troll. Perhaps you missed where I said that doesn't matter because it is still getting security fixes and that was my point.

      ou haven't demonstrated that it had anything to do with incompetence.
      I still propose it has (nearly) everything to do with cost-effectiveness, but you have only countered it with name-calling.

      Lol.. I don't need to demonstrate anything. All I have to do is tell you or anyone to view it in different browsers and the programs will have demonstrated everything for me. I don't buy your cost effectiveness either. I am in charge of several large sites along with quite a few smaller ones and it costs me no more to have the pages display the same across all the browsers I specify then it does to hire an incompetent programmer who can't get the job done.

      Bullshit.

      In order to extend, they first have to embrace.
      IE8 will default to standards compliance, they say, and according to all trends, it is their only option.
      For FSM's sake, non-geeks have started ridiculing other non-geeks for using IE. If Microsoft don't get their heads out of their collective asses, IE will become a minority browser. This is why they made IE7 in the first place, and why they're developing IE8 so hastily, even taking great care to pass the Acid tests.

      OMG, you must be ignoring history and the obvious direction microsoft is going. IE7 doesn't pass the acid test and neither does IE8 unless you disable a lot of their shit. Read extend into that literally.

      t is more standards compliant than IE6. It's a definite improvement.
      Then again, I think they couldn't have made it any worse unless they decided to program it all in VB.

      That could be true but it doesn't matter. IE6 is still the most common up to date microsoft browser until IE7 came out and is still in use today. Almost half of the IE users on the web are still using IE6.

      What you meant may not have changed much; what you said, however, changed significantly.

      You need to work on your comprehension skills and stop being a troll. I was alwasy talking about Microsoft browsers. I corrected my statement from windows to microsoft because I realized how much of an idiot you are. Trust me, the change in wording is more to do with you being a moron then any change in my position.

      Stop attacking me and start attacking my points.
      I'd made it perfectly clear (to anyone who knows how to fucking read, at least) which of your arguments I considered invalidated at which point in the discussion.
      You, however, resorted to personal attacks; now we're flaming, and not really discussing.

      You choose how you wish to proceed.

      That wasn't an attack idiot. It was a simple out for you. I have made it perfectly clear that you are wrong on a number of points that you som

    121. Re:dear god! by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how many times you explain, if you are wrong, your just repeating your incorrectness.

      Pity you cannot prove me wrong. Guess that's why you resort to name-calling instead.

      Like I said, IE wasn't abandoned

      Except for its dev team dismisssed. Other than that, it wasn't abandoned.

      and abandoned is the correct past tense of abandon.

      Did I ever claim anything else?
      You are now either intentionally missing the point so as to shift the discussion to someplace else, or are just as illiterate as I'd originally pegged you.

      So what is the point? Like I said, there has been nothing new the IE has had to support and Microsoft pretty much set the limits to the standards in this realm. Like it or not, that is the way it was and probably still is.

      Say what?

      While all the standards IE6 was and has remained unable to support are indeed old enough, there has been a significant shift in the coding practices.
      Previously, IE6 was the de facto standard, as pages were coded primarily or exclusively to IE6, regardless of the real standards.
      Nowadays, I don't see it: people code to standards first, and add IE support later.
      Therefore, while IE6's lack of standards compliance along with being bundled with Windows worked against other browsers, nowadays this non-compliance works against it.

      I can fucking read. Work on your comprehension skill idiot. If they were just a little bit better, you wouldn't be calling anyone a troll.

      If who was just a bit better?

      Perhaps you missed where I said that doesn't matter because it is still getting security fixes and that was my point.

      As I said, it's life support. All development is dead.

      Lol.. I don't need to demonstrate anything.

      If you want to disprove my point, then you do.
      If all you want is flame, then by all means, keep flaming.

      All I have to do is tell you or anyone to view it in different browsers and the programs will have demonstrated everything for me.

      Ah, so the mere fact that Slashdot doesn't display properly in IE6 proves that the person responsible for that is incompetent and disproves that it may have been a conscious design decision.

      By FSM, I've talked to religious fanatics who made more sense than that.

      I don't buy your cost effectiveness either. I am in charge of several large sites along with quite a few smaller ones and it costs me no more to have the pages display the same across all the browsers I specify then it does to hire an incompetent programmer who can't get the job done.

      Are you in charge of Slashdot?
      If not, how do you know that IE6 support was specified?

      OMG, you must be ignoring history and the obvious direction microsoft is going. IE7 doesn't pass the acid test

      But it performs better than IE6. That's a step in the right direction.

      and neither does IE8 unless you disable a lot of their shit.

      IE8 is a beta. Or an alpha. Or whatever.
      We'll talk about what defaults are and what works or doesn't work once it gets out.

      Read extend into that literally.

      Whatever that means.

      That could be true but it doesn't matter. IE6 is still the most common up to date microsoft browser until IE7 came out and is still in use today.

      So it was the most common Microsoft's browser. But it was never the most up-to-date Windows browser, which is what you were saying initialy.

      Almost half of the IE users on the web are still using IE6.

      Poor sods. But that doesn't change anything: how many Slashdot users use IE6 to view Slashdot?

      You need to work on your comprehension skills and stop being a troll. I was a

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  7. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Robert1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You said billion twice for emphasis, even though it clearly says million even in the article's damn title.

  8. fyi 700 crore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is almost 145 million $

    1. Re:fyi 700 crore by stox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, in other words, less than Microsoft pays per year for power alone. I don't think this is going to make much of a dent in their budget.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    2. Re:fyi 700 crore by superash · · Score: 1

      It is not the amount of money that is spent but what it is spent on! Paying $175 million for power is OK as they consume power, but paying for licence is NOT OK from the P.O.V. of mc$ft!

    3. Re:fyi 700 crore by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, in other words, less than Microsoft pays per year for power alone.

      Yeah, but usually those power payments are made to politicians, not courts.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:fyi 700 crore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're not expecting them to actually pay this are you? They never paid the EU, why should they start in India?

  9. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by newscloud · · Score: 1

    Oooops - you are totally right! $528 million $528 million $528 million $528 million $528 million

  10. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0, Troll
    Besides the fact its million...

    There's a lot of professionally-unemployed meth addicts in the Puget Sound area who could REALLY use some more welfare!

    How much longer will evil profit makers be able to keep money they make? Its a shame! Employing people at the expense of non-working people! For shame!

  11. A better icon by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe instead a Borg Bill should be portrayed as Pinocchio.

    1. Re:A better icon by edraven · · Score: 1

      I am Pinocchio of Borg. Do not worry, you will definitely NOT be assimilated.
      Aw, crap.

  12. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... yes Million!

  13. After Dark by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1, Funny

    Remember the old "After Dark" screensaver suite for Windows 3.1? The one with the infamous "Flying Toasters" screensaver?

    What Vista needs is a "Flying Chairs" screensaver. Especially in light of the furniture that became airborne in Redmond at receipt of this news.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    1. Re:After Dark by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What Vista needs is a "Flying Chairs" screensaver. Especially in light of the furniture that became airborne in Redmond at receipt of this news.

      The amount they have to pay works out to about 28 hours of revenue.

    2. Re:After Dark by daveb · · Score: 1

      ummmm wasn't that an APPLE screensaver badly ported to windows?

  14. US $175 million = 110 million euros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    700 crore INR in USD = 175 million U.S. dollars = 111 million Euros

    1 Indian crore = 10 million

  15. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Washii · · Score: 1

    Would have been nice if they'd given a little leeway for those server-farms in WA State though.

    I live but a mile or two from the datacenter being build by Sabey that T-Mobile wishes to relocate ALL their datacenter activities (for the USA) to.

    So much for the Westside giving a damn about the Eastside of the State.

  16. Millions, billions. What is a "crore" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    What's a crore? Are they paying in bananas?

  17. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Washii · · Score: 1

    BTW, GP...That's $528 Million, that's MILLION, as stated by your own article.

    That's estimated to have saved them half a billion over 11 years by that article's author. Still would have been nice to have for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, I suppose.

  18. Is this calculated in the TCO? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    That would be the "Total Cost of Pwnership!"

    Damnit! I have gone for YEARS without using the term or anything similar simply because I thought it was stupid. Now look who's doing it?

    1. Re:Is this calculated in the TCO? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      That would be the "Total Cost of Pwnership!"

      Damnit! I have gone for YEARS without using the term or anything similar simply because I thought it was stupid. Now look who's doing it? Don't worry... you weren't wrong!
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Is this calculated in the TCO? by russlar · · Score: 1

      That would be the "Total Cost of Pwnership!" So.....

      TCP = Total Cost of Pwnership?

      UDP = Unintentional Cost of Pwnership?

      IP = Internationally Pwned?
      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
  19. Reassuring by RichPowers · · Score: 2, Funny

    That even MS employees don't read the EULA...

  20. microsoft already has its army of lwyers ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    last seen on CNBC TV, India, the channel asked one of MS's lawyers, who said some ruling/ past precedent of a royalty payment case was in their favor, and that they have a strong case and are very very comfortable. also, microsoft seem to have multiple layers of companies in India to sell/ license mswindows and msoffice. that kind of insulates them and passes the buck to these subsidiary.

    kinda sick to note that microsoft charges an arm and a leg for their software, but they evade taxes. (on a second note, India does have a double-taxation avoidance treaty with USA, so I'm not entirely sure if microsoft has paid its taxes in the USA for those sales in India. if they have paid it - its absolutely fine, else its mighty cheap of them)

  21. Microsoft in the same boat as software "pirates" by realkiwi · · Score: 5, Funny

    So do terrorist software pirates pay tax? Nope http://w3.bsa.org/thailand/press/newsreleases/IDC-Study.cfm
    Well look who is in the same boat...

    --
    realkiwi
  22. Font Size by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

    I just wish I could view Slashdot without having to turn up the font size every time. Just because I *can* read 9-pixel text doesn't mean I want to.

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    1. Re:Font Size by chthon · · Score: 1

      With Firefox you can ask to display a font of at least n points in size. I have put this to 14. I also always use a non-serif font, which is also more legible for me.

    2. Re:Font Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goggles, they do nothing?

      PS I love the new interface, if only they could get rid of the buttons (I liked the suggestion to put them in the header) and add a collapse [+] button like every normal tree view...

    3. Re:Font Size by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you know that you can click on the title to collapse everything under a comment? If you've always browsed at -1 then you may not, of course..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  23. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    So they would owe over 3 billion dollars! Wow.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  24. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are not a believer of the prophesied 1000 year reign of the Microsoft? Those numbers do add up.

  25. Evidence for offense-based remedies... by sixtyeight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Great piece of evidence in any Microsoft-unfair-business-practices lawsuit, establishing their basis, motive, and degree of integrity.

    --
    The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  26. HP and WalMart by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have both been selling machines with Linux for many years. HP offers Linux on, I believe, nearly every box they sell and drivers for nearly every printer.

    Instead let's talk instead about the eee PC from ASUS, and the clones of it, and all those hot new cheap mini laptops and mobile internet devices based on Intel's Atom that won't run Vista.

    Microsoft had better pay their taxes while they still can.

    XP dies in June. Unless they extend it every last one of those boxes is going out the door with Intel's MobiLinux or a distro that supports that platform. Let's talk about BMW, where Linux comes standard with many models.

    Forget Linux on the desktop. 2008 is the year of Linux in your pocket, in your dashboard, in your cable box, on your lap and bringing the third world online without contributing too much to global warming. Desktop? What do you need a desk for any more? Next year that question may read "What's a desk?"

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:HP and WalMart by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      XP dies in June. Unless they extend it every last one of those boxes is going out the door with Intel's MobiLinux or a distro that supports that platform. Let's talk about BMW, where Linux comes standard with many models. They did extend it, there was a slashdot story about it very recently...
      Amusingly, this means that users of these small laptops will end up with a system microsoft claim is inferior, and which they're trying hard to make sure new apps don't support... Conversely, apps will continue to support XP in order to run on these popular small laptops, leaving microsoft with even more fragmentation.

      It's already annoying enough when "windows mobile" os so crippled and incompatible with other versions of "windows", sharing little more than the name. By contrast, i can recompile apps from my desktop linux system to run on my linux based nokia n800 tablet.
      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:HP and WalMart by ayjay29 · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>XP dies in June

      You think so?

      I heard Microsoft were negotiating a deal to use this tune as a promotion and re-launch of the XP operating system. This was meant to be scheduled for the first of this month, but i have not heard the full details yet.

      --
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
    3. Re:HP and WalMart by somersault · · Score: 1

      Next year that question may read "What's a desk?" I'm going to have a really sore neck and legs if I have to support my laptop and monitor on my lap at work :( Or do we all get to lie on the floor? Possibly while doing our nails and gossiping about the new receptionist
      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:HP and WalMart by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent +1 on-topic.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    5. Re:HP and WalMart by Tintivilus · · Score: 1

      Let's talk about BMW, where Linux comes standard with many models.

      Like which? They switched iDrive from Windows CE to VxWorks many moons ago, but the only relationship Google can find between BMW and Linux is in business IT deployments and design work.

  27. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they would owe over 3 billion dollars! Well, technically that would make $2.64 billion, but who's counting at this point.
  28. To quote Mick Jagger by ameyer17 · · Score: 1

    You can't always get what you want

  29. No Tax on Income or Sales? by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article implies that there neither sales tax nor company income tax (of the MS subsidiary/partner) exists in India. Is this the case? Is the tax on royalties the only tax income the Indian people get from software peddlers in India?

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    1. Re:No Tax on Income or Sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's a bit confusing, but there _are_ sales tax and company income tax in India. What I can deduct here is that MS of course have paid its income tax (depending on the incentives of govt of India to promote IT, e.g. if they operated out of Special Economic Zone etc), but not sales tax on certain 'sales', and now India has nailed them into paying royalty tax which they never paid.

      But also remember that India Company tax laws are in a big mess with a lot of loopholes - giant companies like Reliance Petroleum and Reliance industries were zero tax companies at least for a long period of time (don't know about now).

      I expect MS to find its way out pretty easily.

  30. attention whoring or just ad revenue? by ya+really · · Score: 5, Insightful

    by newscloud (1037538) * on Thursday April 03, @12:24AM (#22948060) Homepage

    Washington State Legislators (who are greatly funded by Microsoft employees and corporate donations) have refused to close this $528 billion tax loophole [newscloud.com] ... yes Billion!

    Posting your own articles, eh? I don't exactly believe that's right. Although what for sure isn't right is not only posting your own article to your own blog, but also MISQUOTING your own article:

    "Microsoft's $528 million Washington tax break"


    Seriously, misrepresenting news in order to get people to read it? I'd expect that from Fox or CBS, but posting this rubbish on slashdot, that's just pathetic.
    1. Re:attention whoring or just ad revenue? by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously, misrepresenting news in order to get people to read it? I'd expect that from Fox or CBS, but posting this rubbish on slashdot, that's just pathetic. :O you really must be new here..
      --
      which is totally what she said
  31. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    Bean counters.

  32. Re:Millions, billions. What is a "crore" by sxpert · · Score: 1
  33. Safari by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I guess Apple wants to limit Safari for Windows to Macs running Windows via Boot Camp (or whatever it is named now). So it does not completely ban itself.

    But I still think it is a stupid decision. They are limiting the market share of their product, in an area where a popular free alternative exists with Firefox. This is not like using MacOS to push hardware sales.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Safari by penix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I still think it is a stupid decision. They are limiting the market share of their product, in an area where a popular free alternative exists with Firefox. This is not like using MacOS to push hardware sales.


      I don't think so. They are saving time, trouble and money by not supporting the problems of non-apple hardware. They are a hardware vendor after all. By not supporting competing hardware they automatically rule out 100s of different configuration problems. All one has to do is look at the fight Mozilla is having keeping up on security / bug issues in FireFox since it was first released for Windows to see that elimination of a subset of problems saves trouble for the developers.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:Safari by ronanbear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought it was just an oversight. Safari for Windows is important because it's the same browser that the iPhone uses and getting Safari marketshare up on Windows was an important way to improve iPhone compatibility and allow web developers to test pages easily.

      Apple don't need a Eula to limit installing when standard disclaimers cover all the configuration problems.

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    3. Re:Safari by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Safari doesn't really benefit Apple tho...
      It doesn't help them sell ipods like itunes does...
      The windows version doesn't help them sell macs...
      There's also nothing stopping someone else from taking the open source webkit and creating a new open source interface around it, and distributing it for free to be used on non apple labelled computers.
      It's just another alternative for windows users who got a horrendously outdated and buggy browser by default.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Safari by Von+Helmet · · Score: 1

      Unlikely... I have Itunes and Quicktime and whatnot installed on my Windows PC. The other day, one of them decided to offer me Safari as a product update. Surely they wouldn't be actively offering it if I wasn't allowed to install it?

    5. Re:Safari by spxero · · Score: 1

      Safari doesn't really benefit Apple tho...

      Just wait until there's iTunes+Quicktime+Safari, where the only way to get iTunes (legally) is to install their other software.

    6. Re:Safari by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      Is IE7 really "horrendously outdated and buggy," though? I no longer have a Windows machine handy, so I ask this in all seriousness without the usual Slashdot snark... I'll agree that IE6 was a festering crappile, at which point I started using Firefox and haven't looked back since.

    7. Re:Safari by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with your first statement, Apple would be saving themselves money by only supporting specific hardware configurations (Apple machines) for Safari. But they aren't, the EULA for Safari for Windows was an oversight.

      Additionally, what you are saying is that the bugs that were found and patched in FireFox that have no relation to Windows, are 'due to the porting of FireFox to Windows' even though most of them are not in Windows specific code and effect all operating systems?

      So if FireFox wasn't made to run in Windows, so no one cared enough to exploit it and the tiny percentage of users that used it ... then they wouldn't be bugs? Are they features under Linux and only bugs when running in Windows? Or is it okay that they exist because fewer of them would have been noticed without the market share Windows brings to the table causing people to look for exploits?

      Most of the FireFox bugs are not Windows specific, as such, your logic is flawed. And for future reference ALL of the platform specific code has an amount of bugs, more Windows users means more people notice those bugs and report them.

      The reason FireFox has to 'keep up with security / bug issues' from Windows users is because they make up the majority of its user base. It would be stupid to think that more bugs/security issues would be found from the smaller populations unless those smaller populations are in some way superior to the larger populations, which, for all intents and purposes they aren't. Most people who use FireFox are more tech saavy than the average Windows user, but across the board the users of FireFox are on average, the same regardless of OS.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Safari by SacredByte · · Score: 1

      I guess Apple wants to limit Safari for Windows to Macs running Windows via Boot Camp (or whatever it is named now). So it does not completely ban itself. But I still think it is a stupid decision. They are limiting the market share of their product, in an area where a popular free alternative exists with Firefox. This is not like using MacOS to push hardware sales. I think it was more ignorance/apathy on the part of whoever was in charge of "writing" the EULA for it -- namely that they simply copied and pasted the EULA from the OS X version into the Windows version.
    9. Re:Safari by SacredByte · · Score: 1

      The problem is not getting iTunes by itself; the problem is getting Quicktime by itself. It used to be that you could only get Quicktime as a standalone program. Now you need to dig through Apple's site to find the standalone installer, otherwise you need to install iTunes too. I don't want iTunes on my Windows box, thats what the Mac is for.

    10. Re:Safari by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's not great, it's CSS support while better than 6 (its hard to be worse) is still pretty poor compared to everything else... It's tabbed browsing is fairly lacklustre and it seems to have been rushed, because it's even more unstable than 6 was. It also seems to be even worse with memory than firefox 2 which is much maligned for it's memory leaks.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  34. yes! see slashdot.jp for guidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot.jp retains the layout that was here before the comments pages started being subjected to all these annoying experiments.

  35. Tax makes EULA valid? by Ciggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only thing that slightly worries me about this: if the EULA is what is causing MS to pay the tax, then in paying the tax, MS can clearly say that the EULA is valid (in India at least) as the government has demanded legal taxes based on it.

    --

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
    A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
    1. Re:Tax makes EULA valid? by scsirob · · Score: 1

      Well, I do not know Indian law at all, but in The Netherlands you can be slapped with income tax for illegal activities. If you run an illegal radio station and broadcast ads, the tax office can make an 'educated guess' of how much you made off of that, and tax you for it. This however does not legalise your illegal radio station..

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    2. Re:Tax makes EULA valid? by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US does that too.

      I once saw a PDF published by the IRS explaining how to report money from alternative income sources. There was a section on "bribes and kickbacks", a section on illegal drug sales, a section on "other illegal activities".

      They just want your money; they don't care how you made it.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    3. Re:Tax makes EULA valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ruling doesn't have to legitimize the EULA (though I have no clue how Indian law works). They could have just been using the wording of the EULA to derive Microsoft's intent. Microsoft believes that the EULA is legal and binding, and if they put language in there saying that they believe the sale of Windows is a purchase of a license (as opposed to just a sale of goods), then it can be shown that the arguement that Microsoft's lawyers are putting forth is in bad faith.

      As the tag states, they can't have it both ways. They can't argue that it's a sale of a physical item when it allows them to escape taxes, and then turn around and try to tell users that it is a purchase of a license when they want to restrict what users can do with it. The judge is basically saying, "You say that it's no a purchase of a license, but then your own wording of the the license agreement says that it's a license. Time to pay up." The only thing I can see that legitimizing is whether purchase of Windows is a purchase of a license from MS or a purchase of the software (not a license/lease of the software) from MS.

    4. Re:Tax makes EULA valid? by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only thing that slightly worries me about this: if the EULA is what is causing MS to pay the tax, then in paying the tax, MS can clearly say that the EULA is valid (in India at least) as the government has demanded legal taxes based on it.

      Not really. What it says is that MS doesn't believe what it's trying to tell the Indian court. Whether the EULA is legitimate or not, MS operates as if it is - as such, they are stating the software is licensed not sold.

      Courts - in the US & most western countries - tend to rule on very narrow topics. In this case the EULA is an official public document published by MS stating it's stance on the type of sale being conducted. Given that it is a direct contradiction to what the MS legal team was telling the court, the court ruled that the truth was what MS was telling the entire rest of the world & not what they were telling the court. This doesn't mean that the court ruled that the EULA was a valid license, just that the MS was licensing not selling Windows. The validity of the EULA is an entirely separate question - a matter of contract law not tax law.

  36. Well... by mutube · · Score: 5, Funny

    Agreed. Maybe if they made Slashdot look like this we'd actually get some work done?

    1. Re:Well... by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      OMG thats almost beyond words!! Its like a crappy cracked out 256color circus with conflicting single-instrument background MIDI tunes, a poorly done, looped stick figure animation for the backdrop and eye-searing moving colorbands of aaaaauuuuggggg!!!!

      the ponies were much better, and kinder.

      This guy must be going for the WORST myspace page ever!

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    2. Re:Well... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Shit, that stuff has happy music sounds man!! And I am supposed to be working...

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Well... by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Maybe if they made Slashdot look like this we'd actually get some work done?

      Blimey! Is that the 'Acid4' test? If so, Firefox needs some more work doing on it... Or is it meant to look like that?

    4. Re:Well... by phozz+bare · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's almost as awesome as Kibo's WebTV page!

    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My browser hates you.

    6. Re:Well... by SacredByte · · Score: 1

      Who likes the little, little duckies in the pond?

      I do, I do, I do a chick-a-quack quack.

    7. Re:Well... by argent · · Score: 1

      This guy must be going for the WORST myspace page ever!

      Isn't that what Myspace is for?

  37. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your sig agrees with your sentiment.

    I don't know much about the demographics of the area, but I really doubt that a signifigant portion of the population are meth addicts, nor probably a large percentage of those evil poor people. I rather doubt that this tax money would be quickly sent to that small portion of meth addicts (or even those damn people poorer than you), but would probably be distributed to other programs, like... hmmm.. roads, hospitals, police, fire, etc... You might, though, have to share these with those damn slackers, which is sad, since I'm sure they would rather not be burdened with more elitist, faux bourgeoisie, greedy rich people bandying about their self-interested ideas of entitlement.

    Why should corporations pay taxes, or at least obey the law? The society in which corporations are enmeshed are largely responsible for their prosperity, and thus they owe some level of entitlement towards the society as a whole.

    I'm not a socialist, I just think some people fail to realize that in many cases poverty is outside of the control of the individual. Either that or they have to decide this to justify their own crass greed. But then again I'm one of those loons that puts human life, health, and happiness above little green slips of paper.

    down mod at will.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  38. Vista for MID by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It's already annoying enough when "windows mobile" os so crippled and incompatible with other versions of "windows", sharing little more than the name. By contrast, i can recompile apps from my desktop linux system to run on my linux based nokia n800 tablet.

    Wait until you see "Vista for MID". You'll think Windows ME or Windows Mobile was the second coming of Brian Kernighan.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  39. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by aug24 · · Score: 1

    Maybe he meant to put a . in front of the 528? ;-)

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  40. Learn more about basis points by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    For the record, the full name for these "points" is "basis points". See Investopedia: basis point and Wikipedia: basis point.

  41. Re:Got Korma? by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    Korma whoring will get you everywhere, my friend

    --
    which is totally what she said
  42. Single Biggest Issue by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    There is a massive margin around comments section now, for some unbeknown reason. I cannot fathom why anyone would pad the entire comment thread in this way. Here's what appears to be the offending CSS, from the comments.css sheet.

    #commentlisting (line 110)
    {
    padding-top: 2em;
    padding-right: 2em;
    padding-bottom: 2em;
    padding-left: 2em;
    }

    There's more padding on the comments section than an asylum isolation cell. This is an abomination on Firefox 2.0.0.8, and I imagine everything else. Worse than the Big Grey Buttons by far.

    Does Taco even run these designs past anyone before they're rolled out. Wait, I'm guessing they get marketroids and graphics artists to run "surveys" on 15 year old Myspace users first.

    The big redesign was actually fine. This isn't. Seriously.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  43. A solution albeit not perfect... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    ... but if you add a UserContent.css to your Firefox-profile's chrome/-directory with the following:
    .nbutton {
    background: white ! important;
    padding: 0 0 ! important;
    margin:0 ! important;
    }
    .nbutton p b a {
    text-decoration: underline ! important;
    font-style: italic ! important;
    color: black ! important ;
    background: white ! important;
    padding: 0 0 ! important;
    margin:0 ! important;
    }

    It look's pretty decent again...

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  44. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or, you know, repairing the 520 bridge before it sinks to the bottom of the lake?

    How many MS employees use that bridge every day to get the Redmond campus?

  45. Why can't they pay taxes? by darkcmd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What really disappoints me is how greedy a company can get. They lie to avoid paying taxes in India when they make billions in revenue a year. I guess making billions isn't enough for them.

    1. Re:Why can't they pay taxes? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Most people would lie to get out of taxes, even you i bet. And no, billions isn't enough.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  46. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by schwit1 · · Score: 1
    Loophole? So, cars designed at a GM facility in Detroit should be taxed in Michigan even if they are manufactured in Japan or Tennessee?


    Drugs designed in stateA should be taxed by stateA regardless of where they are manufactured, bought or consummed?

  47. This is Slashdot. by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

    I like the Ajaxiness.

    This is Slashdot. It bloody well needs to be completely usable without Javascript. What do they think this is, ZDNet?

  48. Re:If only Washington State would tax Microsoft to by Fishead · · Score: 1

    I agree with what you say Omestes, but you missed an important point.

    When the government draws up a budget, they determine how much money they are going to need to spend, then decide where they are going to get the money from. By not taking the $528 million from the big greedy corporations, they need to adjust the tax rate of the citizens to compensate. So in essence, that $528 million is coming directly out of your pocket.

    The drug heads, bums, and other burdens on society are part of living in a civilized community. I would like to see laws allowing the incarceration of drug users for their own help, but that's just me.

  49. They got off light by sjames · · Score: 1

    If *I* were the judge, I would be sorely tempted to rule that since a fine, upstanding corporation like MS would never cheat on taxes or lie in court, they must have enclosed the EULA in error since it cannot be compatible with a sale. As it was a simple error, there's no need to get all upset, we'll just call it null and void and move on.

    1. Re:They got off light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever wondered why you're not a judge?

    2. Re:They got off light by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      f *I* were the judge, I would be sorely tempted to rule that since a fine, upstanding corporation like MS would never cheat on taxes or lie in court, they must have enclosed the EULA in error since it cannot be compatible with a sale.

      Which is why you are not a judge. Because, then, Microsoft would say, "these people still need to buy a EULA in order to install/use our software. All they bought was one copy, not any rights to reproduce it in RAM or create a derivative product on their hard drive." Oops.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:They got off light by sjames · · Score: 1

      Probably because I would make far too much sense :-)

      That and I have a sense of satire and humor that goes whooshing over people's heads!

    4. Re:They got off light by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the transaction was a sale, then the right to actually use the software was attached to the sale. Since the use includes a temporary copy into RAM, that's part of it.

      The entire theory behind a EULA is that the customer 'licensed' the software rather than buying it (that is, they bought a license, so their rights can be restricted. MS said that it wasn't a license, so that makes it a sale.

      So, my theory is that MS can either confess to perjury or accept all of the consequences of their claim being true, not just the ones they like.

      I have no idea how courts work in India, but in the U.S. a judge would never do that since he'd be way too busy hiking up Lady Justice's robes and passing MS the lube.

    5. Re:They got off light by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the transaction was a sale, then the right to actually use the software was attached to the sale

      Citation? I've never heard that copying the program into RAM was covered under 'fair use'.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:They got off light by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not depending on fair use, rather that a reasonable person assumes that something bought will be used, and so by selling it implicitly permits the buyer to use it. That use necessarily includes a copy to RAM.

  50. I've dealt with this ... by kwandar · · Score: 2, Informative

    The treaty is based on the model treaty of the Organization for Economic Development ("OECD"). Article 7 of OECD treaties says there is no withholding tax on sales, while Article 12 says that there may be up to a 15% withholding tax on royalties.

    As much as I might like to say "ha ha, its MS", there is a real question here. Does the customer buy the package software, or the license to use the software?

    This issue won't work in India's favour. They may collect more tax but Indian business will be hurt as we would charge extra if there is withholding tax. Also, Indian companies can expect the same treatment when selling their software to other countries, as well.

    Treaties are a two way street.

  51. Re:Millions, billions. What is a "crore" by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    According to Intel a core is part of a processor (the core 2 duo having two single core processors). So microsoft will be paying in processors which India will need to run vista. I am hoping that microsoft will pay using Intel or AMD and not VIA chips though...

  52. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like being able to reply to comments inline, but I browse the site with an iphone and the uberbig boxes don't make for a very great browsing experience. Translation for the lusers reading this on their laptops: Hey Lusers, I am a cool, uber-hip, trend-whoring asshole, and you all suck.
  53. Is it FF3 of the new layout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine what my Fx2 install would do on this page, though. Yes, earlier D2 on FF2 would just kill the session and the process (unless you wait for, probably 30 minutes?) due to scripting issues. Now this loads just fine on FF3. But I am not sure what is helping here - this new layout or upgrade from FF2 to FF3?
  54. Royalty taxes in the US? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hadn't thought about it before, but considering what the RIA/MPA/BSA and such are costing us in court time and enforcement, perhaps it's time to crank up the royalty tax rates to offset the costs (and I would assume that payments for permission to use patents should also count as "royalties", yes?).

    Certainly a substantial increase in the royalty tax rate should perhaps be a part of any "intellectual property" "reform" bill as proposed by those who profit from it (and perhaps this would encourage people to go back to actually SELLING things and slow the stampede towards the "bribe someone for permission to use under restricted conditions" model...)

  55. that is a problem by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    For computer programmers/geeks recompiling is not an issue. We know how/where to go look for and get a compiler. Do you think the average joe is going to know what a compiler is? They want to install and go. They do not want to compile, wait they need to get the compiler first if it is not there. You cannot assume that everyone will know how to get the extra steps needed to get the job done. Getting the compiler, compiling the program, making the executable are steps that the average joe has no idea about. Running the program, that they know. Yes apt-get/yum/package manager does a lot of this already which is great. But for things not in those lists the average joe will have a hard. And that will be a strike against the average joe using linux and a plus for apple/windows.

    1. Re:that is a problem by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The point is that anyone can, so people will and post binaries online...

      If you need to modify the code to make it compile, you decrease the number of people willing/capable of doing so depending on the complexity of the changes.
      If only a single company can recompile the code, they won't bother doing so unless they see a sufficiently large potential profit from doing so.
      All of which negatively affects the quantity and diversity of available applications.

      I have a massive set of apps for my N800, most of them i didn't compile myself, but use binaries other people had compiled. A lot of those apps were compiled simply because it was easy, people wouldn't have been willing to put significant effort into it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  56. So its a product by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If its good enough for India its good enough for the rest of us. I bought a product, not just a license.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  57. maybe this was what they intended by roju · · Score: 1

    This seems like they got self-pwned, but it may actually be intentional. Think about it - the court just asserted that their EULA is valid, and that they license software, not sell it. It's exactly what they want.

  58. Basis Point vs. Percentage Point by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

    12% = 1200 basis points. They announce on the U.S. news that the Fed lowered rates by 75 basis points , where a basis point is 1/100 of a percentage point, which is 1/100 of the whole. 75 basis points is the difference between 5.00% and 5.75%. And is three-quarters of a "point". Confusing, to be sure.

    "Points" are used in lending to indicate 1% of the loan value - known from their use in calculating the origination fee ("pay 1 point"), or as a metric for determining the cost to buy down the interest rate ("it costs half a point to buy down the rate from 6.75% to 6.40%"). It is short for "percentage point".

    "Basis points" are commonly known from their use in monitoring small, constant movements in the yield of debentures - e.g. "an 20 bp move in the 2 year treasury which lowered the yield from 2.24% to 2.06%."

  59. Does it have to be this way? by amohat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do we have to expect and then forgive this kind of obvious shysty behavior by our corporate citizens?

    Companies are petrified of "leaving money on the table", another way of saying that if they don't try to glean the profits By Any Means Necessary then another company will, and they will fail. Or be quickly punished by Wall Street.

    And we are all okay with this business model based on desperation, clawing and scamming and cheating...or at least pushing the edge of decency to absurd limits.

    So here we have a company, a country, a civilization that values and rewards cheating the system as far as it can get away with...which is only known in hindsight, as the raw and unapologetic greed that is required to succeed in this world inevitably leads to certain kinds of blindness.

    You know the type: not really seeing the poverty of your fellow humans, the destruction of the environment, the wars and civil strife...we sort of acknowledge that it's there but we refuse to honestly admit the causes and will not genuinely cooperate with the solutions.

    Because doing that might result in us "leaving money on the table"...for someone else! God forbid someone else rush in and fuck over the people in search of profits instead of us!

    Suffice to say, this is a perfect example of a company knowingly gaming the system, because everyone expects (nay---demands!) them to in order to survive.

    Great world, you assholes! Competition is good, sure. But is it so good that we forsake our humanity?

    (nope, I'm not mad at MS...why should they pay a tax that they might not have to pay? But how do you know if you have to pay it? Well...just try to not pay it as hard as you can. You will soon have your answer!)

  60. ob: simpsons by shentino · · Score: 1

    Nelson says, "Ha ha"

  61. Ah, so... by capnkr · · Score: 1

    ...now they are only charging half what it used to cost, which is still 100% more than a free torrent to a pirate who simply *must* have Vista (for some unfathomable reason).

    And, for those of us who prefer not to break the law, that 'half off' price is still 100% more than just about any given Linux distro.

    A Linux distro which, BTW, will have more capabilities, better security, faster updates, more and better default applications, likely free office suite, and in fact more of just about anything you can name than a default MS OS install will have.

    Except of course, the ridiculous "security" prompts, bloatware and crapware...

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  62. Drivers for every printer? by phorm · · Score: 1

    While the vast majority of HP printers I've used have worked on 'nix, many of the more recent ones (USB printers in particular) have been a huge pain-in-the-ass to get working, requiring that firmware be sent to the printer on bootup/connection, etc.

    HP's linux support isn't really all that good. Most of what I've seen has been developed by third-parties.

  63. "Undisclosed income source" by phorm · · Score: 1

    $100,000 Other Income: Undisclosed source

    Chances are the IRS might very well be happy with that. Unless, of course, they investigated to see if you were making more income than just the undisclosed amount.

  64. Correct me if I'm wrong... by Pluvius · · Score: 1

    ...but wouldn't it have to be an ongoing payment in order to count as a royalty, instead of the one-time purchase you make at the computer store or where ever?

    Rob

  65. WHAT DID I TELL YOU TACO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

    Thanks to all who have replied in this thread!! I have been complaining about this since it first started changing. Do any of you realize that, as of this writing, we have taken up 50% of the page complaining about this fucking system - IN THE MIDDLE OF A MICROSOFT DISCUSSION?!?!? That's gotta say something, doesn't it, Taco?

    Taco, now do you finally believe me? This system sucks sweaty, flea infested donkey balls!!

    Here's a suggestion: A lot of people have signed up for UID's, which means that they can save their viewing preferences. So, did it occur to you that you can get an idea of how many people hate this fucking system, by looking at their user preferences to see how many people turn this piece of shit off?

    Now maybe you'll get the hint?

    Please, please, please!! ::crosses fingers::

  66. Re:Got Korma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Korma whoring will get you everywhere, my friend Korma whores? Is that like goatse?
  67. It's time to let go of direct attached printers by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Most everybody moved to network printing years ago. It's working out fine.

    In fact, a lot of direct attached peripherals can go away. Gigabit networks are fine for most stuff you used to attach devices directly to your PC for.

    HP's linux support isn't really all that good. Most of what I've seen has been developed by third-parties.

    HP supports linux. They have for a long time. Kernel.org runs on servers donated by HP and they have since 2001. Third party support for HP gear is also strong as you note. I only wish they'd wake up and start using it for their web server. Their site is hideous and slow, and for the most part their web stuff is IE only. Other than that, good on them.

    Let me quote for you from a history article:

    Fourth Generation:

    As it become more apparent that the hardware needed an upgrade, Peter began to think about preparing a request to Hewlett-Packard for new hardware. Before he even made his request, HP contacted him basically saying, "hey, we noticed that you guys have been kind of struggling lately, what do you need?" Peter provided them with his wish list, and within two weeks the decision was made and new hardware was on the way. Peter noted, " HP came to us from a quite high level. They have been absolutely great."

    Matt Taggart, part of the R&D lab within HP's Open Source & Linux Organization, noted that HP is a large company and that the different donations to kernel.org actually came from different divisions. "There are plenty of people in HP that recognize the value that kernel.org provides and that benefit (both directly and indirectly through HP's customers) from having it perform well," he explained. "This time the donation came for HP's Open Source and Linux Operation R&D Lab, but in the past they have come from other places such as the Industry Standard Server Division (the folks that do ProLiant)." He went on to add, "HP's IT organizations also use Linux and are big users of kernel.org, so it benefits them as well."

    As for why HP has made these donations, Matt explained, "when possible, HP likes to help Free and Open Source software projects at the source. For example, if HP wants to contribute driver fixes for a piece of equipment that we ship, it is a better use of our time to work at the kernel.org level rather than duplicating effort by working individually with each distributor (or not being able to work with some at all). Providing kernel.org hardware is an easy way for us to give back to the project that has helped save us a lot of effort."

    'nuff said.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.