Give 'The Wind-Up Bird Chronicles' a read, if you want a really great book. It's dense, filled with interesting characters, and it's full of those fun moments where you just kind of sit back, shake your head, and go 'what the fuck... ?'
It really is a great read.
His more recent books (Norwegian Wood and Sputnik Sweetheart) are also -incredibly- well written. These two, and Wind-up Bird, are 3 of my top 5 favorite books. These two are both a lot more *real* than his other works (not nearly as crazy as 'HardBoiled Wonderland at the End of the World'), and it's really easy to identify with the characters.
Obviously, I'm no book reviewer, but.. if Murakami interests you, the three books to check out (imo) are 'Norwegian Wood,' 'Sputnik Sweetheart,' and 'Wind-Up Bird Chronicles.'
You know..
If 10 times as many people are using windows systems, 10 times as many people will be trying to break in to windows systems, and 10 times as many security flaws will be found. .. and fixed.
Meanwhile, OSX is sitting there with just as many flaws (trust me.. apple programmers aren't gods just because they're apple programmers), but no one knows about them. Meaning OSX is far less secure than Windows 2000. (I'd rather have my security holes plugged than rely on the fact that my OS is obscure and no one bothers to try to crack it).
if the count ends up 271 for one side,
it'll be 267 for the other.
yeah?
269/269 could be a tie. which is why 270 is the magic number. (538 total elector votes).
i'm canadian, though, so i could be wrong (this is what i vaguely remember).
The poster was implying that America is better and has fewer crimes because Americans (for some fucked up reason) believe that God gave them the right to carry guns.
Maybe my analogy wasn't good. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet so she can look like him. And I'm sure my analogy still isn't perfect, but fuck it, the point remains: America has one of the highest crime rates in the first world. If you people know what's causing crime, fix your own fucking problems before you start telling other people how to fix theirs.
(and no, you can't factor out urban drug dealers, dumbass - a crime is a crime is a crime).
But what about violent crime in gun-free London going out of control because you can be sure to be able to do a housebreak or a mugging without encountering a gun?
You've GOT to be joking.
I'm sorry.
Americans have absolutely NO right to lecture other countries about crime. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet.
I didn't read the article and barely read the little useless description, either, BUT...
Forcing people to reboot is *never* *ever* going to fly.
True, you'd gain a lot of performance, but there's no way a user would go for it: no one wants to spend 2 minutes loading a game, and then when they're finished playing the game, 5 minutes getting back into their everyday OS.
Plus, it'd add a lot of work to the dev's plate..
It's just not worth it. (Although like someone mentioned, this is great for linux gaming demoes, because most people look at a demo once and then throw it away)
the FCC cannot weigh in on forcing an opening of AOL IM to others who wish to enter the space currently monopolized by AOL's refusal to open same.
Which is good, because it's FUCKING STUPID precedent to set to start forcing companies to open up code.
Open source is NOT something you can force on people. It's a great idea, but it's a decision that is UP TO THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THE CODE. It's not up to you, I or the government to decide that.
In a lot of situations, open source would just plain kill of the product or (at the very least) kill off the company making the product. (And no, this is NOT a good thing).
You doubt? Imagine this: a company that sells ultra-high-end, very 'aimed-to-satisfy-a-tiny-market' software for $80,000 a license. They sell maybe 300 copies a year.. now imagine them being forced to open their source. How long do you think they would be able to keep selling the software?
As the processor speed increases, the amount a program can do in a given time increases. And it does more stuff because people like you ask it to:
'I want a command prompt'.
'I want a file shell'.
'I want a GUI'.
'I want multitasking'.
'I want true multithreading'.
'I want networkability'.
'I want a punk-ass paperclip to annoy the hell out of me'.
etc..
So yeah, of course it's going to take up the processor time - we're asking our operating systems and programs to do WAY more than they did even just a few years ago. It has nothing to do with bad code.
(ps, slashdotpeople: don't be anal and tell me that multitasking came before gui, or shit like that. i'm aware. and don't care.).
Alright, am I the only one that's always shunned.coms? come on!
All you have to do is think about it for 15 seconds to realize that most of these sites are bullshit and will never turn a profit. Just ask yourself: 'Would you ever buy anything from that site, or pay for that service?' 99.9% of the time, I answer no, so there's no way in hell I'd ever work there.
The first explanation ("Perhaps interstellar spaceflight is infeasible") clearly fails. No known principle of physics or engineering rules out interstellar spaceflight. Even in these early days of the space age, engineers have envisaged propulsion strategies that might reach 10 to 20 percent of the speed of light, thereby permitting travel to nearby stars in a matter of decades [see "Reaching for the Stars," by Stephanie D. Leifer; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, February 1999].
Yeah.
And 100 years ago, no know rule of physics or engineering ruled out traveling faster than the speed of light. Things change. Limits are found.
Seriously, you can't go making wild claims like 'CLEARLY, this explanation FAILS, because an article in a previous issue of our magazine ENVISIONED SOME STRATEGIES as to how it might not fail'. They teach you not to do that shit in grade 8. Until it actually, physically works, it's not necessarily going to work.
Sucks to be him. Honestly, the guy has lots of money. The only people whining about this are the huge artists that already have millions of dollars. For -everyone- else, mp3 is a great thing, because it promotes the music and helps increase music sales. I mean, take the -entire- electronica genre for example. 90% of my disc collection is electronic music that I -never- would have bought had it not been for mp3s. Plastikman, Amon Tobin, Max Brennan... All fairly obscure stuff that.. I found a track of theirs and was like 'hey, that rocks,' and bought the disc. Granted, that may not be the way other people work (I'm sure there are people who never buy CDs), but.. still.. I mean, more CDs are being sold now than ever. Until these people can actually prove that they're *losing* money, I say 'shut up and quit whining.'
Okay, a quick question here... Everyone's already started screaming and everything, but... is what he's doing wrong?
The way that he's spinning it on his web page, it sounds like he's creating two entirely separate programs that simply verify that the quakeworld client hasn't been modified. Now, if this doesn't use any of the actual Quake source code, it seems to me that the GPL doesn't apply...
I say 'the way that he's spinning it,' because I really don't know if this is how his system works. But if it is,... doesn't he have the right to do this? And close-source his programs if he chooses to?
Yeah, see, but you're talking from your own experience. Of course, for anyone that has ever heard of slashdot, getting around a filter is beyond easy. But for someone used to an AOL account, or someone who has never had a computer, or for a 12 year old kid (note: just because you like to think that you were coding multithreaded operating systems at 12 doesn't mean that every kid was)... think about it. It is significantly more difficult to find porn through a filter than with none. Not impossible. But more difficult (making many people go 'bah, fuck, this is boring and not worth it'.. which was my original point).
As for '300' wrongly blocked sites.. well, follow that link. 53 million total access. 200000 blocked sites, total. Only 300 wrongly blocked sites. Do the math... 300/53million == very roughly, 1/200000 sites that gets accidentally blocked. So, unless you actually are trying to find porn on the web, the chances that the filtering software will make any difference to you at all are vanishingly remote. And, again, even if you do happen to get that unlucky 200000th site, you can a) ask a librarian to fix it, or b) click on the next link google returned you.
I read Jamie's article, and I was half convinced he was right, for a while. But then I thought about it myself, and I was like 'okay, what if I were a librarian or a teacher.' There is -amazing- potential for a librarian or teacher to get in a -hell- of a lot of trouble if some hardcore fundamentalist parents find out that there son has been viewing porn at school. Yeah, in an ideal society, we'd say "it's not the librarian's fault that your son is accessing porn," but really, that kid's parent is going to want to blame someone. And honestly, school and libraries do have a responsibility to at least make a half-assed attempt at adhering to local decency standards. That's why you won't find playboy mags at a library.
As for the 'it doesn't block all porn sites,' and 'it blocks other non-porn sites' arguments, well.. Think of it like this: a program like surfwatch isn't designed to make it impossible to get at porn anymore than a lock on a door makes it impossible to break into a house. All that a program like that does is skew the curve to such a degree that most people will give up, and decide that it's not worth the effort. Anyone who is dedicated enough will find a way around the filter, just as anyone can throw a rock through a window and crawl into your house. On the other hand, while a program like surfwatch might block some sites about breast cancer, and some sites about the starr report, since that is accidental (ie, that's not the purpose of the program), chances are that occurances will be -very- infrequent, and you'll have a lot of alternative sites that aren't blocked. The internet is big - you'll still be able to do your research, even if you can't hit the CNN article. And, if desperate, you can always just ask the librarian to unblock your site. True, the librarian might not be able to do it right away (you might have to come back a day later, after they've gotten their resident computer guru in), but it is an option. To use the lock analogy again, just because you get locked out of your car once doesn't mean that you have the locks removed. The locks still serve a purpose.
When Inprise was purchased by Corel, MS' stock was converted into common stock.
When I mentioned that the shares apparently won't vest until June 2001, she was kind enough to inform me that their agreement with Microsoft had a clause that at change of ownership the Class-C shares vest and become convertible.
So, while you probably are right in general, in this case, MS actually does own 4%.
Unless I'm misinterpreting things (I'm not a business person by any stretch of the imagination).
Come on people. Honestly, think a little. Read the article.
It's not 65000 bugs (though the author interprets it as bugs - FUD at it's best). It's 65000 logged work items. So, you've got all sorts of stuff in there: from minor, minor UI defects, like 'the splash screen is badly dithered,' to differing opinions on how something should work like 'should dragging an item onto the taskbar open it?' to functionality requests like 'double-clicking on the documents item in the start menu should open up the documents history folder,' to stuff like 'would it be possible to implement iteratively, rather than recursively'.
Also, I'm sure that in those 65000 bugs, there are duplicates and old bugs that just haven't been purged (you know, the kind of bug that gets fixed when another bug's fix gets checked in).
I mean, while I'm sure there are a few 'bugs' in the sense of the word that you are people are implying (the annoying ones that make you go 'fuck microsoft'), I can almost guarantee that 99.9% of those 65000 bugs aren't that kind of bug.
Seriously, sit back and think about it - you can't honestly tell me that linux is any better! I could probably come up with a list of 65000 problems with the UI alone. And note: with Microsoft, 'Windows' encompasses everything from bugs in notepad, to bugs in IIS, to bugs in it's GUI to bugs in it's kernel. There are -hundreds- of programs that would fit in that list. With Linux, you guys can just dismiss problems and say "well, that's not linux, that's X, or that's KDE.. not our problem if they have bugs."
So, anyways, moral of the story: Try to tone down the hypocrisy a little - every third story I see on slashdot is something about MS' FUD tactics. How is this -any- different than what MS does?
Man, you people are too fucking paranoid. I read michael's link, and laughed. And then realized 'hey, wait, these people are actually taking this seriously.'
Personally, I blame seti@home. They probably put some DoS code in their client when they realized that they were running out of real work to do. That's why they won't open source it.
It's a chemical process that has an effect on the functioning of your brain
So is living.
You may start to wonder when you're a little older where that depression and anxiety came from.
Everyone gets depressed. Everyone gets anxious. It's a natural fact of life, there's no way to avoid it. To blame it on LSD may be convenient, but I honestly don't think it's the truth.
I mean, maybe if you go hardcore, and do 4 tabs of acid every night for 3 years... I could understand that causing depression and anxiety a few years down the road. But, it's not any different than becoming and alcoholic and drinking yourself stupid every night for 3 years. Except that you don't get addicted to acid - you can stop any time you want. With alocohol, it's so much more difficult.
Then again, you could also have a freak reaction and die, either directly or indirectly. Before everyone jumps all over this at once, I'm not saying this is common, I'm saying it has happened. I mean, hell, sure statistically, it's rare, but if you're the one in a million,that doesn't make a big difference then, does it?
By that logic, one would never be able to leave home. Sure, there's a trillion to one chance that an airplane is going to crash on you. But if you're that one... (And, the odds while -driving-? Don't get me started!):-)
How does making the _personal_ decision not to do drugs make someone judgemental?
If you're informed and choose not to do drugs, great! More power to you! I've done all sorts of drugs, and I've basically decided that I don't want to do them as often as I used to. I do some, but infrequently, and only when I'm at a good party with a bunch of friends. I know what they're like, and I know what they do, and generally, I'm just not that interested. It's not that I have horror stories to tell, or that I'm afraid of what they'll do to me. It's just that I prefer (generally) being sober. HOWEVER, if you're basing your decision not to do drugs on what the government has told you about drugs, or what the media has told you, then that is just plain demonstrating ignorance. Most politicians still think that you can overdose on marijuana, and the media isn't going to write stories about the millions that have a perfectly good time on drugs, they're going to write about the 3 crack-addicts that died by drowning in their own feces. Go to any rave, anywhere, and I -guarantee- that half (more) of the people there are on some kind of drug. And raves are some of the friendliest, nicest parties you'll ever go to! In all of the raves I've been to, I've never -once- seen anyone overdose, and never -once- seen any fights or anything like that. They're just great people having a great time!
We take drugs -constantly- in our life, to cure ills, and to eliminate pain. And yet, recreational drugs are basically all illegal. Why is that? I mean, what is so different from a drug that makes you feel great, than from a drug that eliminates a headache? Sure, a lot of drugs are addictive, but it's really easy to find out which ones, and - just don't do them! I mean, -not- all drugs are addictive, and as long as you practice moderation, there's -absolutely- nothing to lose in taking drugs once in a while! Be careful, find out which ones can hurt you, and which can't, and.. have fun!
Anyways, that's just my little rant. It frustrates me when I meet someone who is so brainwashed by government propaganda (note: not at -all- referring to you.. you seem much more open-minded than most) that they are terrified of drugs. I take them to a rave, and they're like - 'hey, I see what you mean!'. I mean, they don't necessarily start doing drugs, but at least they understand a little about how mind-bogglingly out of proportion the government has blown most drugs.
You can not honestly compare the ease of use of linux with the ease of use of windows. There -is- no comparison, windows is by far easier to use.
If linux was their first exposure to computers, we'd be back in the days when DOS was king (well, okay, it's better than dos, but...), and very few people knew, or cared to know, how to run a computer. The reason there are so many people on the internet, and the reason there are so many people buying computer, and the reason the software industry is as big as it is today is, pure and simple, because Microsoft made an OS that was easy to use, and cheap. Apple could have done it, but they made a number of tactical mistakes, so Microsoft stepped in and picked up the reigns.
I've worked with users and I've worked quite a bit interface design, and there is -no- way linux will replace windows on the desktop without some -major- changes. And it's not just because they're used to windows (although, that is a part of it) - it's because Linux is inconsistent, cryptic, and difficult to understand in terms of interfaces.
I usually try to eat. Alas, I can't eat free software.
For those of us who make a living developing software, open source doesn't cut it. The market just isn't big enough for IPOs to fund many open source projects, and a lot of software just doesn't lend itself to open-sourcing.
As much fun as it is whining 'everything should be free,' and harassing poor sales reps who happen to be working for commercial software companies, unfortunately, the economics of it just don't work. There will -always- be commercial software. Period. And hassling people for making a living writing software that you think should be open sourced is just lame.
It seems too much like religious fundamentalists - 'I have my idea, and you disagree with it, so you're going to HELL. I hearby excommunicate you.' (because, you see, in my little analogy, every religious fundamentalist has the power to excommunicate others).
With open source, it's 'I have my philosophy, and you don't practice it, so you're a greedy, selfish capitalist bastard! Open source your software, or all of my opensource friends will come over there and kick your ass.' (because, you see, in my little analogy, open source coders are all jocks, and have much ass-kicking power).
Anyways, lame analogy, but you get the idea - don't try to force your philosophy on others.. Open source and commercial software -can- co-exist.
Slashdot Mirror
his two worst books!
Give 'The Wind-Up Bird Chronicles' a read, if you want a really great book. It's dense, filled with interesting characters, and it's full of those fun moments where you just kind of sit back, shake your head, and go 'what the fuck... ?'
It really is a great read.
His more recent books (Norwegian Wood and Sputnik Sweetheart) are also -incredibly- well written. These two, and Wind-up Bird, are 3 of my top 5 favorite books. These two are both a lot more *real* than his other works (not nearly as crazy as 'HardBoiled Wonderland at the End of the World'), and it's really easy to identify with the characters.
Obviously, I'm no book reviewer, but.. if Murakami interests you, the three books to check out (imo) are 'Norwegian Wood,' 'Sputnik Sweetheart,' and 'Wind-Up Bird Chronicles.'
microsoft: lets have some fun with the linux nuts. *poke* ... *poke* *poke*
dude,
slashdot still thinks linux is important.
You know..
.. and fixed.
If 10 times as many people are using windows systems, 10 times as many people will be trying to break in to windows systems, and 10 times as many security flaws will be found.
Meanwhile, OSX is sitting there with just as many flaws (trust me.. apple programmers aren't gods just because they're apple programmers), but no one knows about them. Meaning OSX is far less secure than Windows 2000. (I'd rather have my security holes plugged than rely on the fact that my OS is obscure and no one bothers to try to crack it).
rhyac.
if the count ends up 271 for one side, it'll be 267 for the other. yeah? 269/269 could be a tie. which is why 270 is the magic number. (538 total elector votes). i'm canadian, though, so i could be wrong (this is what i vaguely remember).
Did you read the original post?
The poster was implying that America is better and has fewer crimes because Americans (for some fucked up reason) believe that God gave them the right to carry guns.
Maybe my analogy wasn't good. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet so she can look like him. And I'm sure my analogy still isn't perfect, but fuck it, the point remains: America has one of the highest crime rates in the first world. If you people know what's causing crime, fix your own fucking problems before you start telling other people how to fix theirs.
(and no, you can't factor out urban drug dealers, dumbass - a crime is a crime is a crime).
rhyac.
But what about violent crime in gun-free London going out of control because you can be sure to be able to do a housebreak or a mugging without encountering a gun?
You've GOT to be joking.
I'm sorry.
Americans have absolutely NO right to lecture other countries about crime. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet.
rhyac.
I didn't read the article and barely read the little useless description, either, BUT...
Forcing people to reboot is *never* *ever* going to fly.
True, you'd gain a lot of performance, but there's no way a user would go for it: no one wants to spend 2 minutes loading a game, and then when they're finished playing the game, 5 minutes getting back into their everyday OS.
Plus, it'd add a lot of work to the dev's plate..
It's just not worth it. (Although like someone mentioned, this is great for linux gaming demoes, because most people look at a demo once and then throw it away)
rhyac.
the FCC cannot weigh in on forcing an opening of AOL IM to others who wish to enter the space currently monopolized by AOL's refusal to open same.
Which is good, because it's FUCKING STUPID precedent to set to start forcing companies to open up code.
Open source is NOT something you can force on people. It's a great idea, but it's a decision that is UP TO THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THE CODE. It's not up to you, I or the government to decide that.
In a lot of situations, open source would just plain kill of the product or (at the very least) kill off the company making the product. (And no, this is NOT a good thing).
You doubt? Imagine this: a company that sells ultra-high-end, very 'aimed-to-satisfy-a-tiny-market' software for $80,000 a license. They sell maybe 300 copies a year.. now imagine them being forced to open their source. How long do you think they would be able to keep selling the software?
rhyac.
Of course it's going to be slow!
As the processor speed increases, the amount a program can do in a given time increases. And it does more stuff because people like you ask it to:
'I want a command prompt'.
'I want a file shell'.
'I want a GUI'.
'I want multitasking'.
'I want true multithreading'.
'I want networkability'.
'I want a punk-ass paperclip to annoy the hell out of me'.
etc..
So yeah, of course it's going to take up the processor time - we're asking our operating systems and programs to do WAY more than they did even just a few years ago. It has nothing to do with bad code.
(ps, slashdotpeople: don't be anal and tell me that multitasking came before gui, or shit like that. i'm aware. and don't care.).
rhyac.
The only thing that'll really wind up being the boundary will be physics.
um.
yeah.
no kidding
i don't think anyone ever said that anything other than physics would be the boundary.
what else is there??
rhyac.
Alright, am I the only one that's always shunned .coms? come on!
All you have to do is think about it for 15 seconds to realize that most of these sites are bullshit and will never turn a profit. Just ask yourself: 'Would you ever buy anything from that site, or pay for that service?' 99.9% of the time, I answer no, so there's no way in hell I'd ever work there.
rhyac.
The first explanation ("Perhaps interstellar spaceflight is infeasible") clearly fails. No known principle of physics or engineering rules out interstellar spaceflight. Even in these early days of the space age, engineers have envisaged propulsion strategies that might reach 10 to 20 percent of the speed of light, thereby permitting travel to nearby stars in a matter of decades [see "Reaching for the Stars," by Stephanie D. Leifer; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, February 1999].
Yeah.
And 100 years ago, no know rule of physics or engineering ruled out traveling faster than the speed of light. Things change. Limits are found.
Seriously, you can't go making wild claims like 'CLEARLY, this explanation FAILS, because an article in a previous issue of our magazine ENVISIONED SOME STRATEGIES as to how it might not fail'. They teach you not to do that shit in grade 8. Until it actually, physically works, it's not necessarily going to work.
rhyac.
Sucks to be him. Honestly, the guy has lots of money. The only people whining about this are the huge artists that already have millions of dollars. For -everyone- else, mp3 is a great thing, because it promotes the music and helps increase music sales. I mean, take the -entire- electronica genre for example. 90% of my disc collection is electronic music that I -never- would have bought had it not been for mp3s. Plastikman, Amon Tobin, Max Brennan ... All fairly obscure stuff that.. I found a track of theirs and was like 'hey, that rocks,' and bought the disc. Granted, that may not be the way other people work (I'm sure there are people who never buy CDs), but.. still.. I mean, more CDs are being sold now than ever. Until these people can actually prove that they're *losing* money, I say 'shut up and quit whining.'
Don't knock mcdonalds. mmm.. Bigmac. I hear they're like 10% meal-worm. Good stuff.
Okay, a quick question here... Everyone's already started screaming and everything, but... is what he's doing wrong?
... doesn't he have the right to do this? And close-source his programs if he chooses to?
The way that he's spinning it on his web page, it sounds like he's creating two entirely separate programs that simply verify that the quakeworld client hasn't been modified. Now, if this doesn't use any of the actual Quake source code, it seems to me that the GPL doesn't apply...
I say 'the way that he's spinning it,' because I really don't know if this is how his system works. But if it is,
Yeah, see, but you're talking from your own experience. Of course, for anyone that has ever heard of slashdot, getting around a filter is beyond easy. But for someone used to an AOL account, or someone who has never had a computer, or for a 12 year old kid (note: just because you like to think that you were coding multithreaded operating systems at 12 doesn't mean that every kid was) ... think about it. It is significantly more difficult to find porn through a filter than with none. Not impossible. But more difficult (making many people go 'bah, fuck, this is boring and not worth it'.. which was my original point).
As for '300' wrongly blocked sites.. well, follow that link. 53 million total access. 200000 blocked sites, total. Only 300 wrongly blocked sites. Do the math... 300/53million == very roughly, 1/200000 sites that gets accidentally blocked. So, unless you actually are trying to find porn on the web, the chances that the filtering software will make any difference to you at all are vanishingly remote. And, again, even if you do happen to get that unlucky 200000th site, you can a) ask a librarian to fix it, or b) click on the next link google returned you.
This is a great point.
I read Jamie's article, and I was half convinced he was right, for a while. But then I thought about it myself, and I was like 'okay, what if I were a librarian or a teacher.' There is -amazing- potential for a librarian or teacher to get in a -hell- of a lot of trouble if some hardcore fundamentalist parents find out that there son has been viewing porn at school. Yeah, in an ideal society, we'd say "it's not the librarian's fault that your son is accessing porn," but really, that kid's parent is going to want to blame someone. And honestly, school and libraries do have a responsibility to at least make a half-assed attempt at adhering to local decency standards. That's why you won't find playboy mags at a library.
As for the 'it doesn't block all porn sites,' and 'it blocks other non-porn sites' arguments, well.. Think of it like this: a program like surfwatch isn't designed to make it impossible to get at porn anymore than a lock on a door makes it impossible to break into a house. All that a program like that does is skew the curve to such a degree that most people will give up, and decide that it's not worth the effort. Anyone who is dedicated enough will find a way around the filter, just as anyone can throw a rock through a window and crawl into your house. On the other hand, while a program like surfwatch might block some sites about breast cancer, and some sites about the starr report, since that is accidental (ie, that's not the purpose of the program), chances are that occurances will be -very- infrequent, and you'll have a lot of alternative sites that aren't blocked. The internet is big - you'll still be able to do your research, even if you can't hit the CNN article. And, if desperate, you can always just ask the librarian to unblock your site. True, the librarian might not be able to do it right away (you might have to come back a day later, after they've gotten their resident computer guru in), but it is an option. To use the lock analogy again, just because you get locked out of your car once doesn't mean that you have the locks removed. The locks still serve a purpose.
Anyway, that's just my take.
MS has voting stock, though.
When Inprise was purchased by Corel, MS' stock was converted into common stock.
When I mentioned that the shares apparently won't vest until June 2001, she was kind enough to inform me that their agreement with Microsoft had a clause that at change of ownership the Class-C shares vest and become convertible.
So, while you probably are right in general, in this case, MS actually does own 4%.
Unless I'm misinterpreting things (I'm not a business person by any stretch of the imagination).
Come on people. Honestly, think a little. Read the article.
It's not 65000 bugs (though the author interprets it as bugs - FUD at it's best). It's 65000 logged work items. So, you've got all sorts of stuff in there: from minor, minor UI defects, like 'the splash screen is badly dithered,' to differing opinions on how something should work like 'should dragging an item onto the taskbar open it?' to functionality requests like 'double-clicking on the documents item in the start menu should open up the documents history folder,' to stuff like 'would it be possible to implement iteratively, rather than recursively'.
Also, I'm sure that in those 65000 bugs, there are duplicates and old bugs that just haven't been purged (you know, the kind of bug that gets fixed when another bug's fix gets checked in).
I mean, while I'm sure there are a few 'bugs' in the sense of the word that you are people are implying (the annoying ones that make you go 'fuck microsoft'), I can almost guarantee that 99.9% of those 65000 bugs aren't that kind of bug.
Seriously, sit back and think about it - you can't honestly tell me that linux is any better! I could probably come up with a list of 65000 problems with the UI alone. And note: with Microsoft, 'Windows' encompasses everything from bugs in notepad, to bugs in IIS, to bugs in it's GUI to bugs in it's kernel. There are -hundreds- of programs that would fit in that list. With Linux, you guys can just dismiss problems and say "well, that's not linux, that's X, or that's KDE.. not our problem if they have bugs."
So, anyways, moral of the story: Try to tone down the hypocrisy a little - every third story I see on slashdot is something about MS' FUD tactics. How is this -any- different than what MS does?
Man, you people are too fucking paranoid. I read michael's link, and laughed. And then realized 'hey, wait, these people are actually taking this seriously.'
Personally, I blame seti@home. They probably put some DoS code in their client when they realized that they were running out of real work to do. That's why they won't open source it.
It's a chemical process that has an effect on the functioning of your brain
So is living.
You may start to wonder when you're a little older where that depression and anxiety came from.
Everyone gets depressed. Everyone gets anxious. It's a natural fact of life, there's no way to avoid it. To blame it on LSD may be convenient, but I honestly don't think it's the truth.
I mean, maybe if you go hardcore, and do 4 tabs of acid every night for 3 years... I could understand that causing depression and anxiety a few years down the road. But, it's not any different than becoming and alcoholic and drinking yourself stupid every night for 3 years. Except that you don't get addicted to acid - you can stop any time you want. With alocohol, it's so much more difficult.
Then again, you could also have a freak reaction and die, either directly or indirectly. Before everyone jumps all over this at once, I'm not saying this is common, I'm saying it has happened. I mean, hell, sure statistically, it's rare, but if you're the one in a million,that doesn't make a big difference then, does it?
:-)
By that logic, one would never be able to leave home. Sure, there's a trillion to one chance that an airplane is going to crash on you. But if you're that one... (And, the odds while -driving-? Don't get me started!)
How does making the _personal_ decision not to do drugs make someone judgemental?
If you're informed and choose not to do drugs, great! More power to you! I've done all sorts of drugs, and I've basically decided that I don't want to do them as often as I used to. I do some, but infrequently, and only when I'm at a good party with a bunch of friends. I know what they're like, and I know what they do, and generally, I'm just not that interested. It's not that I have horror stories to tell, or that I'm afraid of what they'll do to me. It's just that I prefer (generally) being sober. HOWEVER, if you're basing your decision not to do drugs on what the government has told you about drugs, or what the media has told you, then that is just plain demonstrating ignorance. Most politicians still think that you can overdose on marijuana, and the media isn't going to write stories about the millions that have a perfectly good time on drugs, they're going to write about the 3 crack-addicts that died by drowning in their own feces. Go to any rave, anywhere, and I -guarantee- that half (more) of the people there are on some kind of drug. And raves are some of the friendliest, nicest parties you'll ever go to! In all of the raves I've been to, I've never -once- seen anyone overdose, and never -once- seen any fights or anything like that. They're just great people having a great time!
We take drugs -constantly- in our life, to cure ills, and to eliminate pain. And yet, recreational drugs are basically all illegal. Why is that? I mean, what is so different from a drug that makes you feel great, than from a drug that eliminates a headache? Sure, a lot of drugs are addictive, but it's really easy to find out which ones, and - just don't do them! I mean, -not- all drugs are addictive, and as long as you practice moderation, there's -absolutely- nothing to lose in taking drugs once in a while! Be careful, find out which ones can hurt you, and which can't, and.. have fun!
Anyways, that's just my little rant. It frustrates me when I meet someone who is so brainwashed by government propaganda (note: not at -all- referring to you.. you seem much more open-minded than most) that they are terrified of drugs. I take them to a rave, and they're like - 'hey, I see what you mean!'. I mean, they don't necessarily start doing drugs, but at least they understand a little about how mind-bogglingly out of proportion the government has blown most drugs.
heh heh. no.
You can not honestly compare the ease of use of linux with the ease of use of windows. There -is- no comparison, windows is by far easier to use.
If linux was their first exposure to computers, we'd be back in the days when DOS was king (well, okay, it's better than dos, but...), and very few people knew, or cared to know, how to run a computer. The reason there are so many people on the internet, and the reason there are so many people buying computer, and the reason the software industry is as big as it is today is, pure and simple, because Microsoft made an OS that was easy to use, and cheap. Apple could have done it, but they made a number of tactical mistakes, so Microsoft stepped in and picked up the reigns.
I've worked with users and I've worked quite a bit interface design, and there is -no- way linux will replace windows on the desktop without some -major- changes. And it's not just because they're used to windows (although, that is a part of it) - it's because Linux is inconsistent, cryptic, and difficult to understand in terms of interfaces.
Hm.
I usually try to eat. Alas, I can't eat free software.
For those of us who make a living developing software, open source doesn't cut it. The market just isn't big enough for IPOs to fund many open source projects, and a lot of software just doesn't lend itself to open-sourcing.
As much fun as it is whining 'everything should be free,' and harassing poor sales reps who happen to be working for commercial software companies, unfortunately, the economics of it just don't work. There will -always- be commercial software. Period. And hassling people for making a living writing software that you think should be open sourced is just lame.
It seems too much like religious fundamentalists - 'I have my idea, and you disagree with it, so you're going to HELL. I hearby excommunicate you.' (because, you see, in my little analogy, every religious fundamentalist has the power to excommunicate others).
With open source, it's 'I have my philosophy, and you don't practice it, so you're a greedy, selfish capitalist bastard! Open source your software, or all of my opensource friends will come over there and kick your ass.' (because, you see, in my little analogy, open source coders are all jocks, and have much ass-kicking power).
Anyways, lame analogy, but you get the idea - don't try to force your philosophy on others.. Open source and commercial software -can- co-exist.