I don't whine when they say I have to buy a Mac to use OSX, even if I paid for the operating system.
If you had paid for and were already using the OS, but then were informed that after a certain date it would no longer function on your hardware and you would have to buy new hardware, that would be a lot more like the MSN situation.
These people have been using the service just fine with Mac and Linux machines. Now they're being told that in order to continue to receive service, they'll have to switch to Windows. (They haven't been explicitly told this yet, but unless you think Microsoft is going to go out of its way to provide an alternate solution for Linux users, that's what will happen.)
Well let's just ban everything then. You're being ridiculous.
"Any adult should be able to do as they please as long as they are willing to accept responsibility for their actions."
Except the government wants to decide for us in this case. Some people gamble irresponsibly and lose all their money. Most don't. Why take away some freedom from everyone because some people act irresponsibly? Some people invest irresponsibly and lose all their money. Should we ban that too?
Yeah, alcoholism hurts kids too. So does smoking. So does having workaholic parents. So does a million other things. When is the government going to quit trying to play nanny to everyone. Adults should take responsibility for their actions. If they gamble so much that they are neglecting their children's needs to the point that it is considered abuse, then take the kids away and toss the parent(s) in whatever facility or program is deemed appropriate.
The real problem is that making something illegal doesn't fix anything. If these people are addicted, as they claim to be, they will do it regardless of legality. You still end up with the same problems, but now even responsible adults have lost some of their freedom. Why punish everyone for the actions of a few?
It needs to be understood by Congress that the people are pissed off. If they don't vote in such reforms, they'll be out on their ass anyway and we'll vote in someone who will make the reforms. Failing that, there will be hell to pay.
But much pollution is not legal. Corporations get taken to court for it. Sometimes they lose. Should they be tried for terrorism now when they pollute a whole town or other similar acts?
It goes both ways, i'm sure you could pick out quite a few corporations that act against the good of society to the point of being deemed terrorists. (oil companies with their own private armies in 3rd world nations for example).
What do you think the chances are of any major global corporation being held responsible for their terrorist actions? (Hint: start with 0 and work your way down)
Their financial practices are in order and have over $30 billion in cold hard cash (not stocks) sitting in the bank to weather any storm (most companies in the world don't have a market cap near 30 billion, never mind cash).
According to one of Microsoft's witnesses in the trial, they keep track of their sales data on little scraps of paper:)
If Hubbard can make up some crap and get people to follow it, I believe people will follow damn near any bunch of hogwash you offer them. And his stuff was REALLY off the wall.
They had a good stand not using patents, but lots of pressure wares you down after a while.
What pressure are we talking about here? I assume you mean large software corps pressuring them. What do the corps have as leverage though? Why can't the W3C just tell them to take a flying leap?
You are seriously oversimplifying things. Nobody is saying they have to agree with Stallman. But many people DO believe that Internet standards should be accessible to everyone. Attaching fees to standards would make that impossible. But I guess you believe that nobody cares about such fees except us whiners on/.
Heh.. ok.. i'm apologizing left and right here. I've only been using Win2K for a couple weeks now and I hadn't noticed this until now. But it doesn't seem to work for all file types. MP3s give me a menu and that "Choose Program" option. Text files don't. I don't know what criteria they base the decision on.
Again... my bad. I just started using Win2k a couple weeks ago when we upgraded at work. I hadn't noticed this until now. For some reason it doesn't seem to work for certain file types. Some give me the "Open with" menu, and some just give me the "Open with" option that brings up the file association dialog. Text files don't give me the menu. MP3 files do. Not sure what criteria their basing this decision on.
Not sure when this got implemented, but I hadn't noticed it before. We just upgraded to Win2K at work a few weeks ago. This may be because it only seems to work for certain types of files, and it doesn't work for text files on my system. I've been used to changing my file associations manually when necessary.
This lits both Notepad and Internet Explorer as options for opening the text file.
Along with every other app you have installed. I'm talking about a simple menu that would list only apps registered to handle that particular file type.
Below this, seperated by t horizontal line is the Choose Program option.
Not sure what version of Windows you're using, but I don't think it's 2K. Or at least not a default install of it.
Make the "Open" option into an expandable menu instead of a single option. List all the programs that are registered to handle that file type in the menu and let the user select the one he wants. You could still select one app as a default for when you double-click on a file, but this way users could select a specific program a lot easier.
Most people don't know the little shortcuts in Windows. I don't know of a single person in my office that knows any of the shift-click shortcuts. If you right-click on a file that is already associated with an app, you just get the "Open" option, not the "Open with" option.
The "Open with" option only appears on file types that don't already have a default handler program selected. If they have one, you just get the "Open" option instead. If you want to change it, you have to know how to change your file associations in Explorer. Most people have no idea how to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't whine when they say I have to buy a Mac to use OSX, even if I paid for the operating system.
If you had paid for and were already using the OS, but then were informed that after a certain date it would no longer function on your hardware and you would have to buy new hardware, that would be a lot more like the MSN situation.
These people have been using the service just fine with Mac and Linux machines. Now they're being told that in order to continue to receive service, they'll have to switch to Windows. (They haven't been explicitly told this yet, but unless you think Microsoft is going to go out of its way to provide an alternate solution for Linux users, that's what will happen.)
It doesn't have to amount to an absolute monopoly in order to be deemed anti-competitive. Do some reading before making stupid comments.
How many $cientologists do you think are allowed to read /.? It's subversive man!!
Wait til they get legislation passed preventing the manufacturers from creating units that don't include "copyright protection technology."
Nearly everything you do affects someone else.
Well let's just ban everything then. You're being ridiculous.
"Any adult should be able to do as they please as long as they are willing to accept responsibility for their actions."
Except the government wants to decide for us in this case. Some people gamble irresponsibly and lose all their money. Most don't. Why take away some freedom from everyone because some people act irresponsibly? Some people invest irresponsibly and lose all their money. Should we ban that too?
Yeah, alcoholism hurts kids too. So does smoking. So does having workaholic parents. So does a million other things. When is the government going to quit trying to play nanny to everyone. Adults should take responsibility for their actions. If they gamble so much that they are neglecting their children's needs to the point that it is considered abuse, then take the kids away and toss the parent(s) in whatever facility or program is deemed appropriate.
The real problem is that making something illegal doesn't fix anything. If these people are addicted, as they claim to be, they will do it regardless of legality. You still end up with the same problems, but now even responsible adults have lost some of their freedom. Why punish everyone for the actions of a few?
I still get the same braindead responses back that prove to me that they never bothered to read my letter. (I live in Texas, btw)
It needs to be understood by Congress that the people are pissed off. If they don't vote in such reforms, they'll be out on their ass anyway and we'll vote in someone who will make the reforms. Failing that, there will be hell to pay.
Who cares anymore. The SSN has already become a national ID number. Try getting any financial services without it.
But much pollution is not legal. Corporations get taken to court for it. Sometimes they lose. Should they be tried for terrorism now when they pollute a whole town or other similar acts?
It goes both ways, i'm sure you could pick out quite a few corporations that act against the good of society to the point of being deemed terrorists. (oil companies with their own private armies in 3rd world nations for example).
What do you think the chances are of any major global corporation being held responsible for their terrorist actions? (Hint: start with 0 and work your way down)
I can see releasing 10,000 minks as being a crime, but terrorism? How so? Are refineries and factories that pollute the environment terrorists too?
Why should that matter? We're sending our people off to fight and die somewhere. To them, it's a war. Why doesn't Congress declare it?
Their financial practices are in order and have over $30 billion in cold hard cash (not stocks) sitting in the bank to weather any storm (most companies in the world don't have a market cap near 30 billion, never mind cash).
According to one of Microsoft's witnesses in the trial, they keep track of their sales data on little scraps of paper :)
I have no idea where you got C from. Certainly not from my post.
If Hubbard can make up some crap and get people to follow it, I believe people will follow damn near any bunch of hogwash you offer them. And his stuff was REALLY off the wall.
They had a good stand not using patents, but lots of pressure wares you down after a while.
What pressure are we talking about here? I assume you mean large software corps pressuring them. What do the corps have as leverage though? Why can't the W3C just tell them to take a flying leap?
You are seriously oversimplifying things. Nobody is saying they have to agree with Stallman. But many people DO believe that Internet standards should be accessible to everyone. Attaching fees to standards would make that impossible. But I guess you believe that nobody cares about such fees except us whiners on /.
Heh.. ok.. i'm apologizing left and right here. I've only been using Win2K for a couple weeks now and I hadn't noticed this until now. But it doesn't seem to work for all file types. MP3s give me a menu and that "Choose Program" option. Text files don't. I don't know what criteria they base the decision on.
Again... my bad. I just started using Win2k a couple weeks ago when we upgraded at work. I hadn't noticed this until now. For some reason it doesn't seem to work for certain file types. Some give me the "Open with" menu, and some just give me the "Open with" option that brings up the file association dialog. Text files don't give me the menu. MP3 files do. Not sure what criteria their basing this decision on.
Not sure when this got implemented, but I hadn't noticed it before. We just upgraded to Win2K at work a few weeks ago. This may be because it only seems to work for certain types of files, and it doesn't work for text files on my system. I've been used to changing my file associations manually when necessary.
This lits both Notepad and Internet Explorer as options for opening the text file.
Along with every other app you have installed. I'm talking about a simple menu that would list only apps registered to handle that particular file type.
Below this, seperated by t horizontal line is the Choose Program option.
Not sure what version of Windows you're using, but I don't think it's 2K. Or at least not a default install of it.
Make the "Open" option into an expandable menu instead of a single option. List all the programs that are registered to handle that file type in the menu and let the user select the one he wants. You could still select one app as a default for when you double-click on a file, but this way users could select a specific program a lot easier.
Most people don't know the little shortcuts in Windows. I don't know of a single person in my office that knows any of the shift-click shortcuts. If you right-click on a file that is already associated with an app, you just get the "Open" option, not the "Open with" option.
The "Open with" option only appears on file types that don't already have a default handler program selected. If they have one, you just get the "Open" option instead. If you want to change it, you have to know how to change your file associations in Explorer. Most people have no idea how to do this.