> Entire season means exhibition, regular season, all-star and playoffs/World Series.
No, actually, it does not. Ever heard of preseason games? Know what the prefix "pre" means? That's right, the phrase means "Games before the season starts." So how can "the season" be defined including before the season starts? Otherwise, "season" would not have been specified, they would have said "All MLB performances."
> Didja read the article? > If they were suing without this contractual obligation over their heads, I'd agree with you.
Did YOU read the article? The contract is for the baseball "season." The games in question are not season games. Hell, even if you stretch the definitions of the contract to include preseason games (which it does not cover), this isn't even a preseason game. This is about an exhibition game, totally independent of the season. Therefore, Real should have no case. We complain about people sueing others without recognizing some details that are obvious to us, but not to others. Well, to baseball fans, it is quite obvious that Exhibition games have no part in a "season."
> > watching the action is almost unnecessary > I'll even take it a little further and say it is completely unnecessary to watch baseball.
Taken to the logical extreme, the game itself is unnecessary -- just assume either the Braves or the Yankees won. Then there's only one game that needs to be played.
> The morality of the current paleo-conservative ruling junta?
Ah yes, the self-righteous poster. Using big words no one understands to make himself look smarter to the plebs. No, "administration" isn't a confusing enough word... Hey, here's a suggestion: when you are talking to people, use words that people actually know. (Yes, I know what they mean, that's not the point.)
> Californians never riot when they feel opressed.
Come on, that was not about opression. That whole Rodney King crap was just used as an excuse to break shit under the guise of opression. It was all bullshit led by hoodlums.
> There really are people that need to be protected from themselves
No, they don't. Natural Selection. If they can manage to do permanent damage to themselves using a computer (except maybe eyestrain or Carpal Tunnel (what's that acronym... RSI?)), they probably should not be passing on their genes.
> So if I told you to rewrite windows, and you have 1 week - you could do it?
MS couldn't do it either. Hell, they can't do it in one YEAR.
> "Done on time" is doing it in the time your boss says. Not a time frame that is necessarily reasonable.
But since MS is a corp and HAS no boss, they set the timeframe. If they are consistently missing that timeframe by 33% EVERY TIME, maybe they should add 33% more time onto their estimate perhaps? No, that would be responsible. Instead, they must lie to all their customers.
Read back through. The context of the conversation changed, so the exact words of the original poster are not a concern in this part of the discussion.
An AC made a statement that was incorrect, and I corrected him. As simple as that.
> Linux's existence proves that MS *does* control access to the field.
Logic? Hello? If Linux exists, that means there is no unpassable barrier to existence. Otherwise it WOULD NOT BE. I don't understand why this is so hard to realize, it is quite simple. Just because it is built on a different concept does not mean it is a different market. Maybe it's a confusion of terms or something. I consider a free OS to still be a competitor.
> BeOS was a superior OS to Microsoft's offerings at the time
Lay down the pipe, son. BeOS was not free (which, to Dell's endusers, Windows appears to be), so no one was going to go & buy it when they already had Windows. That means it is limited to those who are really "into" computers (a small %) and those who, for one reason or another, think MS is the devil (again, a small %).
"Superior" is a very subjective term. Since it cost money to use the "real" version and I didn't feel like pirating it (well, I tried, but couldn't find it anywhere), so I got the demo version. It sucked. HAAAAAARD. It was clearly NOT a superior OS (this version, at least). It wasn't immediately intuitive, there were absolutely no configuration options (unless all you wanted to do was change the background & make it look prettier), it wasn't particularly fast (although I am sure that was because it wasn't the "full" version) either...
One important thing about BeOS was that the bundled programs that I know of were very limited. Yeah, it had a web browser & some multimedia stuff, but it didn't have everything MS comes with, and CERTAINLY not everything Linux comes with -- which, IMO, is possibly Linux's strongest suit. Most distributions come with everything the average user will ever need.
> This is de facto regulation of the market, forbidding entry into the market by controlling the entry points.
Yes, MS has agreements with companies to only sell their OS. It makes it easier for these companies to provide enduser support. Is it fair? Not particularly, but that's how it is. And not every company is MS-only. They all were because there was nothing else available. But IBM now sells Linux PCs, and a whole lot of smaller companies do too. Come to think of it, of the large PC manufacturers, which ones make PCs that aren't shite & break all the time? IBM? (I only have experience with their very good laptops) That seems to be about it.
It is not a real viable option to Windows. Linux is more powerful (by FAAAAR), is more configurable, faster. Windows is easy to use, and that is the #1 priority. Secretaries do not have a CS degree. They are not expected to know how to use a CLI -- and they shouldn't, that's why we have IT departments. Too many Linux advocates say crap like "well, if you'd take a half hour to learn it you would be able to do such-and-such." The user should not have to learn it, it should be obvious. That's what those college (G)UI design classes were about.
> The *only* reason Linux has market share at all is because of the open nature of the development and distribution
If you mean because its open nature makes it free, then yes. If you mean it's open nature because of politics, then that only applies to hardcore UNIX geeks. If you mean it's open nature because it leads to more secure code & the ability to look at the code and find bugs, then no, not at all (except for the uber-ubur-UNIX-geeks).
The end user doesn't give half a shit if they can look at the source -- they never will, and they wouldn't understand it anyway. Hell, I wouldn't understand much of it, and I've written plenty of C/C++ stuff in Linux.
> The fact it takes a freely-available OS to even take a couple of percentage points away from MS indicates there is something dreadfully wrong with our industry.
Macs? Okay, it's an incorrect argument, since macs are stupidly closed/proprieta
We should be able to find out who moderated the posts. The one who modded me flamebait is obviously a christian who refuses to look at any ideas other than the ones he already has. There was nothing flamebaitish or even slightly offensive in this. Mod it Offtopic, if nothing else, you fucking boogyman-fearing loser. Except that it IS on-topic, isn't flamebait, isn't a troll... could be overrated, I guess.
> Why should it matter what their social status is-- THEY'RE ALONE!!!!
This was rated as "overrated," but is perfectly true: If you prefer to be by yourself, what surprise would come when people (that you don't talk to) don't consider you "socially important?" That's part of the whole point!
> Another thing that would help is if they stopped dressing like tramps
Bah, it's their right to dress like sluts! But somehow it's not my right to react like they are sluts. I guess only women & minorities have full rights.
> A human that is not raised in a social environment would not be "human". Think Tarzan and whatnot.
Tarzan was not human??? (err... ignoring that it's fiction) He certainly was human. Human is defined by a species, not by social interaction. Stating otherwise is just incorrectly redefining a preexisting term. If Tarzan was not human, he could not have had children with Jane. Not all people are social. Period. Just saying "period" doesn't make it true. Thoreau wrote about other people because otherwise, it would not have been a very interesting story. Try telling a story with no characters. (Animal characters are still "human" characters if they can talk, do other human stuff, etc) It is extremely difficult to do well, so I wouldn't expect him to try.
I think that no video games or anything should be banned, but at risk of looking like a hypocrite I would point out:
> Consider the lobby scene in The Matrix. Neo and Trinity have lots of guns. There are lots of bad guys with guns. Then in a very slick scene, they "kill" all the bad guys
The people Neo & Trinity kill are, in fact, NOT the bad guys. Inside the Matrix, the only bad guys are the Agents. None of the people killed were inhabited by agents, they were simply doing their job -- they just happened to be assigned to protecting that building. They were killed anyway. If Neo & Trinity were so worried about the people, they could have gotten through another way. If she can learn how to fly a helicopter in 10 seconds, she damn well better be able to learn how to use the back door! Or use tranquilizers -- they were gonna blow the place to the ground anyway, why the huge gunfight (I know, it's for slow-action shots)?
> Remind me again, what happens if you play it and don't kill anyone, hurt anyone or steal anything? Last I knew, you lose the game...
I've never lost a game like that... What happens? you get really bored with walking around looking at stuff. You don't gain any points, but unless you are an a mission you don't lose anything.
> In Passion, we see an example of noble sacrifice.
Really? I see a man who decided to sacrifice himself. It is not noble, it is just his choice. The only reason it is "noble" is because you see it as such. The only reason someone is offended by GTA is because they choose to be. I choose not to be offended by something completely made up, I choose not to consider Jesus noble for allowing himself to be killed.
(The real post is over, just a note on Christ: If he's so noble and can do miracles, would it not have been more noble for him to stick around longer & help heal/teach his followers? I don't believe this argument, but it is something to ponder.)
> It's akin to someone saying "All the French surrender on first hearing a shot" or "All muslims are terrorists" or "All Americans are addicted to twinkies and murder".
Hey, screw you, man! I am addicted to twinkies & murder!
> Perhaps people should remember that metric/SI is the international standard
And perhaps you ignorant foreigners should realize that theu U.S. does NOT use metric usually, so information coming from the U.S. should be looked at in this light. I don't bitch and moan because I go to your country & can't read the signs, so don't bitch when you visit a website in my country and don't understand our standards. Asshat.
> Obviously all you need is the power of your state government..
Actually, that's exactly what Real Republicans want. The Fed to butt out & let States take care of their problems. Of course, Democrats & new Republicans all just want bigger paychecks, which means bigger Federal Government.
Slashdot Mirror
> Entire season means exhibition, regular season, all-star and playoffs/World Series.
No, actually, it does not. Ever heard of preseason games? Know what the prefix "pre" means? That's right, the phrase means "Games before the season starts." So how can "the season" be defined including before the season starts? Otherwise, "season" would not have been specified, they would have said "All MLB performances."
> tinny little tranny with a handle on it.
Is that a character from The Wizard of Oz porn? The Tin Tranny?
> Didja read the article?
> If they were suing without this contractual obligation over their heads, I'd agree with you.
Did YOU read the article? The contract is for the baseball "season." The games in question are not season games. Hell, even if you stretch the definitions of the contract to include preseason games (which it does not cover), this isn't even a preseason game. This is about an exhibition game, totally independent of the season.
Therefore, Real should have no case. We complain about people sueing others without recognizing some details that are obvious to us, but not to others. Well, to baseball fans, it is quite obvious that Exhibition games have no part in a "season."
> Kodak is dying.
Has it been confirmed by Netcraft, or are you just speculating, hmmmm?
> > watching the action is almost unnecessary
> I'll even take it a little further and say it is completely unnecessary to watch baseball.
Taken to the logical extreme, the game itself is unnecessary -- just assume either the Braves or the Yankees won. Then there's only one game that needs to be played.
> The morality of the current paleo-conservative ruling junta?
Ah yes, the self-righteous poster. Using big words no one understands to make himself look smarter to the plebs. No, "administration" isn't a confusing enough word... Hey, here's a suggestion: when you are talking to people, use words that people actually know. (Yes, I know what they mean, that's not the point.)
> The hoodlums didn't just appear on the day of the verdict,
:/
Yeah, it was just a good reason for them to start stealing shit. I guess on the up side, It taught the hoods how to work together...
> Californians never riot when they feel opressed.
Come on, that was not about opression. That whole Rodney King crap was just used as an excuse to break shit under the guise of opression. It was all bullshit led by hoodlums.
> There really are people that need to be protected from themselves
No, they don't. Natural Selection. If they can manage to do permanent damage to themselves using a computer (except maybe eyestrain or Carpal Tunnel (what's that acronym... RSI?)), they probably should not be passing on their genes.
> So if I told you to rewrite windows, and you have 1 week - you could do it?
MS couldn't do it either. Hell, they can't do it in one YEAR.
> "Done on time" is doing it in the time your boss says. Not a time frame that is necessarily reasonable.
But since MS is a corp and HAS no boss, they set the timeframe. If they are consistently missing that timeframe by 33% EVERY TIME, maybe they should add 33% more time onto their estimate perhaps? No, that would be responsible. Instead, they must lie to all their customers.
> The original poster said "metric ton",
Read back through. The context of the conversation changed, so the exact words of the original poster are not a concern in this part of the discussion.
An AC made a statement that was incorrect, and I corrected him. As simple as that.
> Linux's existence proves that MS *does* control access to the field.
Logic? Hello? If Linux exists, that means there is no unpassable barrier to existence. Otherwise it WOULD NOT BE. I don't understand why this is so hard to realize, it is quite simple. Just because it is built on a different concept does not mean it is a different market. Maybe it's a confusion of terms or something. I consider a free OS to still be a competitor.
> BeOS was a superior OS to Microsoft's offerings at the time
Lay down the pipe, son. BeOS was not free (which, to Dell's endusers, Windows appears to be), so no one was going to go & buy it when they already had Windows. That means it is limited to those who are really "into" computers (a small %) and those who, for one reason or another, think MS is the devil (again, a small %).
"Superior" is a very subjective term. Since it cost money to use the "real" version and I didn't feel like pirating it (well, I tried, but couldn't find it anywhere), so I got the demo version. It sucked. HAAAAAARD. It was clearly NOT a superior OS (this version, at least). It wasn't immediately intuitive, there were absolutely no configuration options (unless all you wanted to do was change the background & make it look prettier), it wasn't particularly fast (although I am sure that was because it wasn't the "full" version) either...
One important thing about BeOS was that the bundled programs that I know of were very limited. Yeah, it had a web browser & some multimedia stuff, but it didn't have everything MS comes with, and CERTAINLY not everything Linux comes with -- which, IMO, is possibly Linux's strongest suit. Most distributions come with everything the average user will ever need.
> This is de facto regulation of the market, forbidding entry into the market by controlling the entry points.
Yes, MS has agreements with companies to only sell their OS. It makes it easier for these companies to provide enduser support. Is it fair? Not particularly, but that's how it is. And not every company is MS-only. They all were because there was nothing else available. But IBM now sells Linux PCs, and a whole lot of smaller companies do too. Come to think of it, of the large PC manufacturers, which ones make PCs that aren't shite & break all the time? IBM? (I only have experience with their very good laptops) That seems to be about it.
It is not a real viable option to Windows. Linux is more powerful (by FAAAAR), is more configurable, faster. Windows is easy to use, and that is the #1 priority. Secretaries do not have a CS degree. They are not expected to know how to use a CLI -- and they shouldn't, that's why we have IT departments. Too many Linux advocates say crap like "well, if you'd take a half hour to learn it you would be able to do such-and-such." The user should not have to learn it, it should be obvious. That's what those college (G)UI design classes were about.
> The *only* reason Linux has market share at all is because of the open nature of the development and distribution
If you mean because its open nature makes it free, then yes. If you mean it's open nature because of politics, then that only applies to hardcore UNIX geeks. If you mean it's open nature because it leads to more secure code & the ability to look at the code and find bugs, then no, not at all (except for the uber-ubur-UNIX-geeks).
The end user doesn't give half a shit if they can look at the source -- they never will, and they wouldn't understand it anyway. Hell, I wouldn't understand much of it, and I've written plenty of C/C++ stuff in Linux.
> The fact it takes a freely-available OS to even take a couple of percentage points away from MS indicates there is something dreadfully wrong with our industry.
Macs? Okay, it's an incorrect argument, since macs are stupidly closed/proprieta
We should be able to find out who moderated the posts. The one who modded me flamebait is obviously a christian who refuses to look at any ideas other than the ones he already has. There was nothing flamebaitish or even slightly offensive in this. Mod it Offtopic, if nothing else, you fucking boogyman-fearing loser. Except that it IS on-topic, isn't flamebait, isn't a troll... could be overrated, I guess.
> Sorry if I ever hinted that I believe in suing in this case
I recognized that you did not say that and I had hoped you wouldn't take it that way. I was just mentioning that since it is a common reaction.
> So how did Bush steal the election then?
Ah, good question. He didn't.
> Why should it matter what their social status is-- THEY'RE ALONE!!!!
This was rated as "overrated," but is perfectly true: If you prefer to be by yourself, what surprise would come when people (that you don't talk to) don't consider you "socially important?" That's part of the whole point!
> I'm anti-social and proud of it! Raaaaarrrrrrr!
Yes, only anti-socials use RAR! Everyone else uses ZIP.
> Another thing that would help is if they stopped dressing like tramps
Bah, it's their right to dress like sluts! But somehow it's not my right to react like they are sluts. I guess only women & minorities have full rights.
Clickable Link because it's a good article. I enjoyed it.
> A human that is not raised in a social environment would not be "human". Think Tarzan and whatnot.
Tarzan was not human??? (err... ignoring that it's fiction) He certainly was human. Human is defined by a species, not by social interaction. Stating otherwise is just incorrectly redefining a preexisting term. If Tarzan was not human, he could not have had children with Jane. Not all people are social. Period. Just saying "period" doesn't make it true. Thoreau wrote about other people because otherwise, it would not have been a very interesting story. Try telling a story with no characters. (Animal characters are still "human" characters if they can talk, do other human stuff, etc) It is extremely difficult to do well, so I wouldn't expect him to try.
I think that no video games or anything should be banned, but at risk of looking like a hypocrite I would point out:
> Consider the lobby scene in The Matrix. Neo and Trinity have lots of guns. There are lots of bad guys with guns. Then in a very slick scene, they "kill" all the bad guys
The people Neo & Trinity kill are, in fact, NOT the bad guys. Inside the Matrix, the only bad guys are the Agents. None of the people killed were inhabited by agents, they were simply doing their job -- they just happened to be assigned to protecting that building. They were killed anyway. If Neo & Trinity were so worried about the people, they could have gotten through another way.
If she can learn how to fly a helicopter in 10 seconds, she damn well better be able to learn how to use the back door! Or use tranquilizers -- they were gonna blow the place to the ground anyway, why the huge gunfight (I know, it's for slow-action shots)?
> Remind me again, what happens if you play it and don't kill anyone, hurt anyone or steal anything? Last I knew, you lose the game...
I've never lost a game like that... What happens? you get really bored with walking around looking at stuff. You don't gain any points, but unless you are an a mission you don't lose anything.
> In Passion, we see an example of noble sacrifice.
Really? I see a man who decided to sacrifice himself. It is not noble, it is just his choice. The only reason it is "noble" is because you see it as such. The only reason someone is offended by GTA is because they choose to be. I choose not to be offended by something completely made up, I choose not to consider Jesus noble for allowing himself to be killed.
(The real post is over, just a note on Christ: If he's so noble and can do miracles, would it not have been more noble for him to stick around longer & help heal/teach his followers? I don't believe this argument, but it is something to ponder.)
> It's akin to someone saying "All the French surrender on first hearing a shot" or "All muslims are terrorists" or "All Americans are addicted to twinkies and murder".
Hey, screw you, man! I am addicted to twinkies & murder!
> Perhaps people should remember that metric/SI is the international standard
And perhaps you ignorant foreigners should realize that theu U.S. does NOT use metric usually, so information coming from the U.S. should be looked at in this light. I don't bitch and moan because I go to your country & can't read the signs, so don't bitch when you visit a website in my country and don't understand our standards. Asshat.
> Obviously all you need is the power of your state government..
Actually, that's exactly what Real Republicans want. The Fed to butt out & let States take care of their problems. Of course, Democrats & new Republicans all just want bigger paychecks, which means bigger Federal Government.