Actually I doubt it was KDE or GNOME that he saw. It was probably FVWM95 which is basically a rip of the Windows look complete with the "Start" button. It's basically like Win95 but not as pretty. If he'd seen KDE or GNOME then I don't think he would have been able to knock it as much as he did.
Bill is supposed to be "chief technology officer" or something like that. It appears that he's actually "door-to-international-door salesman" but that doesn't seem to bother him. Either way, I would think that he knows quite a bit about anything that competes with Windows. He's just lying because Linux is starting to make Windows look like the crap that it is.
Yeah.. I gotta agree with this. It's sad that Bill can simply lie about whatever he wants whenever he wants and get away with it. Since we can't really sue him or anything that would make the press take notice and get off their asses and do a little investigating for once instead of just reprinting whatever Bill says, he gets to get away with outright lies about Linux. Makes me pretty sick.
If he could find lawyers to stick it out until such a suit could come to fruition, then maybe he's got a chance. They simply countersue Microsoft for all the legal fees (and he should give all his lawyers a big raise:) and for emotional distress caused by a huge corporation filing a frivolous lawsuit against him. Yeah.. I like that.
CPT is a Ralph Nader thing. Too big for them to take down. It would get them some seriously bad PR if they try to take out a "consumer protection site."
Don't believe me, ask a psychologist, a responsible one will agree with me.
Did this line make sense to anyone??
Basically it says, "Don't believe me. Ask anyone who agrees with me." Hmm.. nice. By your reasoning I could say that censorship is good, but don't believe me. Ask anyone. If they are sane and reasonably intelligent, they will agree with me. There. I totally countered your arguments.
Seriously though, I'm not actually disagreeing with everything you said, I just think you didn't make a very good argument there at the end. I do think that there is a limit to when children should have unfettered access to the net. Probably sometime around 5th or 6th grade would be best. Anytime before that, they should either be supervised by a parent or closely supervised by a teacher. Even at the 5th or 6th grade levels, they should probably have teacher supervision if they are accessing the net from school. The rest is up to the parents.
She's full of err.. it. I doubt they review more than a tiny percentage of the sites. Even with a bunch of full-time websurfing grunts, they couldn't do it because content constantly changes.
A lot of the Old Testament is really at odds with the New Testament values I associate with Christianity (love, forgiveness, humility, etc.). Perhaps there has been a serious problem with translations. I just can't accept that God would want innocent children to be put to death.
Many people seem to be a lot more forgiving than God is in this way. I never could figure out all the seeming contradictions in the Bible. I've had people try to explain, but it usually comes down to "He knows what's best. You don't because you're not him." So again, it's all faith and no proof of any kind whatsoever. You either believe what you've been taught or you don't. Given the human tendency to cheat, and deceive for their own benefit, it's really tough to take anything someone teaches you at face value without any kind of proof. They may be sincere, but how do you know that someone wasn't lying a long time ago and it's still with us like one of those net chain letters that never seem to go away?
Is it feature complete? What kind of limits do they put on it? I'm wanting to learn, but can't afford the $2800 or so the full package costs. Then it's about $800 for upgrades. Too steep for me to learn on. If I can learn enough about it to be really good with the program then I'll have my company purchase the full version for me.:) Blender might be another way to go, but I don't know how it stands in relation to 3DS Max 2.5 as far as features and capabilities. Anyone know what the differences are?
"If Microsoft is to fail, let it be because we failed to innovate, not because our innovations were outlawed."
Hmm.. yeah. The only problem is that he can never come up with anything that Microsoft "innovated." They bought all their innovative stuff. I don't think we ever have to fear Microsoft failing because they failed to innovate. We've already seen that their monopoly is much too strong for that to happen.
I heard about this on NPR the other day. I didn't like it either. It's perfectly legal right now though.. maybe that's what I didn't like. Genes should not be considered IP. They were not invented. Procedures for manipulating genes are another matter. However, Monsanto didn't patent the procedure, they patented the result of the procedure. I don't agree with that. I do believe that companies who invent such things as new strains of corn, or whatever other crop, should receive some kind of return on their investment. If they had to sink millions into the research, they should be compensated and be able to profit from the research. If they can't receive some benefit from doing research to create new products, then what incentive would they have had to create the product in the first place? Would I want to put myself in debt for life just to invent a new type of corn to give to the world? I doubt it. Of course, research costs could be dramatically lowered if they were free to use other people's research instead of reinventing the wheel all the time. But that opens the door to all kinds of unscrupulous people who will take advantage of such a system. Perhaps when something such as this comes along it should be bought outright by the government and given to the country. That probably has capitalists everywhere shouting and spitting at their monitors, but so far, I can't come up with a fair way of doing things that won't be exploited.
What was it that Gordon Gecko said in Wall Street? "Greed is good. Greed works." I believe that was it. Greed seems to be the entire incentive for doing anything worthwhile in this (or most any other) country. (Not necessarily the greed of the scientists that are doing the work, but the greed of the stockholders who are expecting to make money by funding the research.) Maybe that's the real problem. Since there is no way to live a comfortable life without money, we have to make as much as we can to allow ourselves to live at the standard we desire as well as to have something to ensure our future comfort and pass on to our children. I don't see this changing anytime soon.. or indeed anytime at all. Money is a necessity for life in this country. (Unless you want to live in a cabin on a mountain.) People need it to survive, so it's human nature to want to have as much of it as possible so that you can not only survive, but prosper. Much like squirrels hoarding nuts for the winter.
Since our entire economy depends on the ownership of ideas, I don't know how (especially with the world economy in its present condition) we could move away from the current system. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Given that neither IE5 nor Communicator 4.5 can pass a standards test, it's about time a browser was made to adhere to the standards. That's why they're there in the first place! It isn't really a step back for web developers. They will finally be able to design their pages according to the true standards (i.e. those that have been approved by W3C) and not have to screw around with this or that browser's little eccentricities.
What do you want to bet that Microsoft's email policies get a major overhaul after this whole thing is done? That is if it hasn't already happened. Probably purge every couple of weeks and never keep backups. If they even get a whif of an investigation, employee harddrives will probably start to spontaneously combust.
They can't optimize like they do for Windows... at least the end result won't be the same. In Windows, they know all the tricks that they don't make public. This makes their software seem more on par with faster software, despite the bloat. In Linux, they bloat would be readily apparent and nobody would want to use something like that.
I'm not saying that money has no importance. I work full-time to support myself and pay my way through college. I understand the importance of money very well. I just don't make it the goal of my life or assign the kind of importance to it that would make me jealous of Bill Gates' money. I only said this because I hate being accused of being jealous off Bill's money anytime I say something critical of him. Some people can't seem to see past the money issue.
Who's becoming "closed-minded?" I think it was an accurate analysis of something that had me puzzled as well. I saw this magazine in a bookstore yesterday and wondered why anyone would listen to the guy. Yes, I realize he has more money than anyone else in the country, but that didn't come through his savvy business sense. A review of the events that got him to where he is today shows that there was at least as much luck as skill involved. Now the media goes and ignores all the trouble his vaunted business sense has gotten him into and publishes a puff piece on him. Are they even the slightest bit critical? Nope. Do they even question anything he says? Nope. Why not? That's all I want to know.
I agree that maybe the "pseudo-steps" at the end were going a bit far, but that's the kind of reaction that irresponsible media produces sometimes. I can't defend Jon for crossing the line either, but I can see why he did.
I'd rather not be written off as another jealous Bill-hater. Money is not that important to me and I don't let it color my perceptions of people. It's not the fact that he has money that makes me not like him. It's just him. His attitude. His business practices. His lies. His arrogance. Tell me what there is to like about him. I can't think of anything.
Actually, in at least one scene, Paladin and another guy were flying Broadswords (don't know if they even resembled those from the game). He used it to take out a cap ship.
Cast that ungodly software into the flames...etc..
on
MS Office for Linux
·
· Score: 1
The only time software is immoral is when it is used to hurt other people.
Actually, I'd say that the person using the software was immoral. Not the software itself. Software is inanimate. It can't be immoral.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't "CDDB" a pretty generic acronym? "FreeCompactDiscDataBase" just doesn't have the same ring to it :)
I missed that one.. that's why I taped it. I need to watch it again just for that sort of thing ;)
Yeah.. that was good, but I thought the doctor had some of the best lines in that episode :)
Actually I doubt it was KDE or GNOME that he saw. It was probably FVWM95 which is basically a rip of the Windows look complete with the "Start" button. It's basically like Win95 but not as pretty. If he'd seen KDE or GNOME then I don't think he would have been able to knock it as much as he did.
Bill is supposed to be "chief technology officer" or something like that. It appears that he's actually "door-to-international-door salesman" but that doesn't seem to bother him. Either way, I would think that he knows quite a bit about anything that competes with Windows. He's just lying because Linux is starting to make Windows look like the crap that it is.
Yeah.. I gotta agree with this. It's sad that Bill can simply lie about whatever he wants whenever he wants and get away with it. Since we can't really sue him or anything that would make the press take notice and get off their asses and do a little investigating for once instead of just reprinting whatever Bill says, he gets to get away with outright lies about Linux. Makes me pretty sick.
If he could find lawyers to stick it out until such a suit could come to fruition, then maybe he's got a chance. They simply countersue Microsoft for all the legal fees (and he should give all his lawyers a big raise :) and for emotional distress caused by a huge corporation filing a frivolous lawsuit against him. Yeah.. I like that.
CPT is a Ralph Nader thing. Too big for them to take down. It would get them some seriously bad PR if they try to take out a "consumer protection site."
Don't believe me, ask a psychologist, a responsible one will agree with me.
Did this line make sense to anyone??
Basically it says, "Don't believe me. Ask anyone who agrees with me." Hmm.. nice. By your reasoning I could say that censorship is good, but don't believe me. Ask anyone. If they are sane and reasonably intelligent, they will agree with me. There. I totally countered your arguments.
Seriously though, I'm not actually disagreeing with everything you said, I just think you didn't make a very good argument there at the end. I do think that there is a limit to when children should have unfettered access to the net. Probably sometime around 5th or 6th grade would be best. Anytime before that, they should either be supervised by a parent or closely supervised by a teacher. Even at the 5th or 6th grade levels, they should probably have teacher supervision if they are accessing the net from school. The rest is up to the parents.
She's full of err.. it. I doubt they review more than a tiny percentage of the sites. Even with a bunch of full-time websurfing grunts, they couldn't do it because content constantly changes.
A lot of the Old Testament is really at odds with the New Testament values I associate with Christianity (love, forgiveness, humility, etc.). Perhaps there has been a serious problem with translations. I just can't accept that God would want innocent children to be put to death.
Many people seem to be a lot more forgiving than God is in this way. I never could figure out all the seeming contradictions in the Bible. I've had people try to explain, but it usually comes down to "He knows what's best. You don't because you're not him." So again, it's all faith and no proof of any kind whatsoever. You either believe what you've been taught or you don't. Given the human tendency to cheat, and deceive for their own benefit, it's really tough to take anything someone teaches you at face value without any kind of proof. They may be sincere, but how do you know that someone wasn't lying a long time ago and it's still with us like one of those net chain letters that never seem to go away?
Is it feature complete? What kind of limits do they put on it? I'm wanting to learn, but can't afford the $2800 or so the full package costs. Then it's about $800 for upgrades. Too steep for me to learn on. If I can learn enough about it to be really good with the program then I'll have my company purchase the full version for me. :) Blender might be another way to go, but I don't know how it stands in relation to 3DS Max 2.5 as far as features and capabilities. Anyone know what the differences are?
"If Microsoft is to fail, let it be because we failed to innovate, not because our innovations were outlawed."
Hmm.. yeah. The only problem is that he can never come up with anything that Microsoft "innovated." They bought all their innovative stuff. I don't think we ever have to fear Microsoft failing because they failed to innovate. We've already seen that their monopoly is much too strong for that to happen.
I doubt the farmer is allowed by the contract to resell the seed. If he is, then it will probably be under the same conditions that he agreed to.
I heard about this on NPR the other day. I didn't like it either. It's perfectly legal right now though.. maybe that's what I didn't like. Genes should not be considered IP. They were not invented. Procedures for manipulating genes are another matter. However, Monsanto didn't patent the procedure, they patented the result of the procedure. I don't agree with that. I do believe that companies who invent such things as new strains of corn, or whatever other crop, should receive some kind of return on their investment. If they had to sink millions into the research, they should be compensated and be able to profit from the research. If they can't receive some benefit from doing research to create new products, then what incentive would they have had to create the product in the first place? Would I want to put myself in debt for life just to invent a new type of corn to give to the world? I doubt it. Of course, research costs could be dramatically lowered if they were free to use other people's research instead of reinventing the wheel all the time. But that opens the door to all kinds of unscrupulous people who will take advantage of such a system. Perhaps when something such as this comes along it should be bought outright by the government and given to the country. That probably has capitalists everywhere shouting and spitting at their monitors, but so far, I can't come up with a fair way of doing things that won't be exploited.
What was it that Gordon Gecko said in Wall Street? "Greed is good. Greed works." I believe that was it. Greed seems to be the entire incentive for doing anything worthwhile in this (or most any other) country. (Not necessarily the greed of the scientists that are doing the work, but the greed of the stockholders who are expecting to make money by funding the research.) Maybe that's the real problem. Since there is no way to live a comfortable life without money, we have to make as much as we can to allow ourselves to live at the standard we desire as well as to have something to ensure our future comfort and pass on to our children. I don't see this changing anytime soon.. or indeed anytime at all. Money is a necessity for life in this country. (Unless you want to live in a cabin on a mountain.) People need it to survive, so it's human nature to want to have as much of it as possible so that you can not only survive, but prosper. Much like squirrels hoarding nuts for the winter.
Since our entire economy depends on the ownership of ideas, I don't know how (especially with the world economy in its present condition) we could move away from the current system. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I assume you submitted these bugs to mozilla.org, right? :)
Given that neither IE5 nor Communicator 4.5 can pass a standards test, it's about time a browser was made to adhere to the standards. That's why they're there in the first place! It isn't really a step back for web developers. They will finally be able to design their pages according to the true standards (i.e. those that have been approved by W3C) and not have to screw around with this or that browser's little eccentricities.
As the subject says, I heard that it was already being discounted heavily because they think it won't sell.
What do you want to bet that Microsoft's email policies get a major overhaul after this whole thing is done? That is if it hasn't already happened. Probably purge every couple of weeks and never keep backups. If they even get a whif of an investigation, employee harddrives will probably start to spontaneously combust.
I don't see the comparison...
They can't optimize like they do for Windows... at least the end result won't be the same. In Windows, they know all the tricks that they don't make public. This makes their software seem more on par with faster software, despite the bloat. In Linux, they bloat would be readily apparent and nobody would want to use something like that.
I'm not saying that money has no importance. I work full-time to support myself and pay my way through college. I understand the importance of money very well. I just don't make it the goal of my life or assign the kind of importance to it that would make me jealous of Bill Gates' money. I only said this because I hate being accused of being jealous off Bill's money anytime I say something critical of him. Some people can't seem to see past the money issue.
Who's becoming "closed-minded?" I think it was an accurate analysis of something that had me puzzled as well. I saw this magazine in a bookstore yesterday and wondered why anyone would listen to the guy. Yes, I realize he has more money than anyone else in the country, but that didn't come through his savvy business sense. A review of the events that got him to where he is today shows that there was at least as much luck as skill involved. Now the media goes and ignores all the trouble his vaunted business sense has gotten him into and publishes a puff piece on him. Are they even the slightest bit critical? Nope. Do they even question anything he says? Nope. Why not? That's all I want to know.
I agree that maybe the "pseudo-steps" at the end were going a bit far, but that's the kind of reaction that irresponsible media produces sometimes. I can't defend Jon for crossing the line either, but I can see why he did.
I'd rather not be written off as another jealous Bill-hater. Money is not that important to me and I don't let it color my perceptions of people. It's not the fact that he has money that makes me not like him. It's just him. His attitude. His business practices. His lies. His arrogance. Tell me what there is to like about him. I can't think of anything.
Actually, in at least one scene, Paladin and another guy were flying Broadswords (don't know if they even resembled those from the game). He used it to take out a cap ship.
The only time software is immoral is when it is used to hurt other people.
Actually, I'd say that the person using the software was immoral. Not the software itself. Software is inanimate. It can't be immoral.