If the face of OSS people is "ha ha, sux0r, you got r0bb3d ya lus3r n00b" Who said that? His point was, as I read it, that it's things like this which highlight the security issues of Windows.
Misrepresenting him does not help your point. He never said anything remotely like, "ha ha, sux0r, you got r0bb3d ya lus3r n00b".
That's like dismissing Al Gore's film by mockingly pretending he said, "we should all turn vegan and live in mud huts".
I call to your attention yesterday's Dilbert Cartoon to bolster my point. =) Oh, well, if it was a punch-line in a comic... Surely I concede!:-P
Certainly, nothing wrong with criticizing SuperKendall's choice of wording, but I was responding to the attack, "your fucked up zealotry, morality and ideology". Dogtanian seriously jumped the gun on that one.
Dude, you're reading way too much into this. Do you honestly think "SuperKendall" would really thank the person? Do you think he *really* thinks the criminal involved is a good person and is doing a good thing and should be commended?
Of course not. What he wrote is meant to convey, "I hope people learn from this just how awful Windows security is, and take appropriate action."
If he does mean what you inferred, then I'd agree with you (not nearly as strongly as you had put it, you make him sound like Hitler or something).
That's what my original criticism was about, and I was very clear. You're an idiot if you think that it was a defence of MS or their products. So, are you really endorsing SuperKendall's position, or are you just stupid? So, to quote your subject, "My God... did you actually read what I said?"
Where, at all, did I say you were defending MS or their products? Where? Please, post it, make me look like a moron.
To answer your question, I am endorsing SK's position, his position is not what you think it is (although if he wishes to clear up the matter, I reserve the right to change my answer if I'm wrong about his position), and no, I'm not stupid.
People who willingly hide the file extensions from their display deserve what they get!:) Windows XP does this by default.
And no, they *don't* deserve it. If there was a warning dialog which said, "Doing this might cause you to get pwn3d", you might have a point. The problem is that there's no reason to expect your average user to understand the implications involved.
Every so often, bad weather during the winter leads to a few deaths due to people using charcoal barbecues in the house. It's not reasonable to suggest those people deserve what happened to them. If they didn't understand the risk (and many people don't) they are victims of their own, reasonable ignorance. If the heat is out, your stranded at home in a blizzard, and all you have is a barbecue, what do you think your average person is going to think?
It's the same with many Windows exploits. People use the OS the way its design promotes, and develop habits accordingly (such as blindly clicking "next, next, next" during software installation). Yes, education and vigilance would stop many of the problems, but the level of education and vigilance is above and beyond what is reasonable to expect.
As far as a man-in-the-middle attack goes, of course.
Which is to say, of course not, since man-in-the-middle isn't what's being discussed in the article. The article discusses two things: packet sniffing and file sharing.
Packet sniffing is something any OS is subject to, so just make sure you use SSL.
Man-in-the-middle attacks are also (as you said) something any OS can fall prey to, so never trust a questionable certificate on a public network (ie: when your browser tells you a website's certificate has some problem).
The file sharing aspect is something you need not worry too much about on the Mac. You have more than a few layers of protection here.
First, it's off by default. Generally, you'd know if you enabled it. Second, if you only enabled Mac file sharing, the odds of the attacker having the means to connect to it are minimal. Third, even if he does, or if you enable Windows file sharing, you will need a password to access anything except for public drop boxes. Drop boxes are write-only folders (ie. other people can put things in, but cannot access, or even list, the contents of the folder. In OS X, your Public/Drop Box folder in your home directory is a drop box). Fourth, even if (etc, etc), your attacker almost certainly does not have a Mac OS exploit to drop into your computer. He could, were he to get to that point, access your files, however. Not a pleasant thought, but the probability of it getting to that point is extremely small.
1) Clueless user connects to "Free Wifi" and has filesharing enabled with guest write access 2) Attacker uses file sharing to put malware on PC 3) Clueless user proceeds to run the malware and gets zombified.
1) "Clueless" implies fault of the user. It's unreasonable to expect your average user to have the technical acumen of your average geek. Given that other OSs do not have these issues, I am more inclined to blame Windows for being so easily made insecure by a "clueless" (read: average) user than I am the user. 2) Yes. 3) The user need do nothing. If you have read/write access to C:, you can install anything you want and have it run automatically.
your f****d up zealotry, morality and ideology are genuine
Windows has had serious architectural and procedural flaws for over a decade now, which Microsoft is fully aware of, yet has done very little to address, and it's "fucked up zealotry, morality and ideology" to hope that people will wise up and switch?
I'd highly prefer MS wise up and fix their OS, but they won't. Ever. They're just not that kind of company, never have been, never will be. On this, I would *love* to be proven wrong by MS's future actions.
I don't see how it's "fucked up zealotry, morality and ideology" to hope people will switch away from such a dreadful and dangerous product. I hope people will stop eating products with high fructose corn syrup and trans-fats. How is there anything wrong with such a position, *whatsoever*?
1. Which has what to do with what again? If Maine is still part of Mass., then people in Maine are subject to Mass taxes (unless explicitly excluded). Their failure to file and pay taxes to Mass. makes them evaders.
2. The question isn't whether the textbooks are wrong, but whether the State of Massachusetts teaches their children that Maine is a separate state. If you really *are* a lawyer, you'd know this is a valid argument against the notion that Mass. considers Maine as just part of Mass. (ie. if I were one of those "tax evaders" from Maine, it'd be in my list of arguments).
3. One critical element of a joke is that it be funny. I'll grant you the "suburb" part drew a chuckle, but that wasn't enough to make it clear you meant the whole thing as a joke.
The problem here is that your joke was very limited in scope (ie. *very* few people will get it) and presented as fact (completely dry and deadpan). I can assure you there are now more people who think they "know" that Maine is considered part of Mass. by Mass. than there are that found themselves rotflol.
Does Massachusetts prosecute tax evaders (ie: those that pay taxes in Maine, and not Massachusetts)? If not, I'd submit that even if Massachusetts has never officially recognized Maine as a separate state, it has done so de facto.
Also, do Massachusetts textbooks list Maine as a separate state? Does the government of Massachusetts have any official dealings with Maine? Etc.?
All of which, of course, has no bearing on whether Maine actually *is* a separate state. Does Maine consider itself a separate state? Does the US Government (yes, it does). Do the other 48 states? Even if Massachusetts actually believes Maine is still part of Massachusetts, the GP is right, Maine is a state, not a commonwealth, as such status is not for Massachusetts to decide on behalf of Maine.
How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today.
It's not about what *you* can do, it's about what the government, and the corporations and other private interests, can do, or will be made easier, by the card.
Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
Fuck you and your racist, fear-mongering bullshit. "Abu Mohammed" can no longer hijack a plane, and if he wants to fly, he could just get an ID and fly anyway. No ID is required to blow yourself up in a shopping mall (which has not happened in the US, and I highly doubt any government agency in the US has stopped such a plot, since that would be virtually impossible).
Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
A national ID card will not keep me safe *WHATSOEVER*. It does the exact *opposite*, in fact. It makes it easier for those in power (government and corporate) to gather information on me, and such easy access to information will only strengthen their power.
You still haven't answered the question. Why *should* we accept such a card? What good will it do?
These days, a slide rule is little more than a historical curiosity. There are only two practical uses for a slide rule that I can think of, and they are of limited scope.
First, is to learn a different way to do things. Understanding how a slide rule works can provide some mathematical insight which might otherwise be missed.
The second is to slow down the student. Early in learning new material, it's highly useful to take it slow and go step-by-step. Once a concept is understood, however, it's better to minimize the time and effort spent on that concept so that time and effort can be spent on the next concept to be learnt. In that manner, modern calculators help the student in a way absolutely impossible for a slide rule.
A scientific calculator can't do anything a slide rule can't[1], and a graphing calculator can't do anything paper and pencil can't[2]. 3D graphing would theoretically set them apart, but the 3D graphing on handheld calculators is pure shit[3].
I'll grant you 1, for the most part. 2 isn't quite as straightforward. Pencil and paper cannot graph anything, the student has to make the calculations. The calculator will generate a 2d graph from a formula. 3 is just silly. A shit 3d graph is superior to no 3d graph.
Also, modern calculators now include a CAS (Computer Algebra System), which slide rules cannot provide. Even pre-CAS calculators are programmable, have built-in solvers, can solve integrals and derivatives, sums, etc, all of which a slide rule cannot provide.
The HP-50G has its good points, but the keyboard, keyboard layout and documentation are still inferior to the HP-48G/GX.
You state that as though the keyboard is a negative ("[it] has its good points, but the keyboard...").
Agreed, it's inferior to the 48s/g series, it's not much worse, unlike the interim HPs and every other graphing calc out there.
In other words, the keyboard definitely is a plus of the 50g, even if it doesn't reach the pinnacle of HPs long past.
As for the documentation, the printed documentation is severely lacking. It seems to be around par for other calculator brands, but given the quality of past HP manuals, I really can't give them a pass on this one. Whereas the keyboard is close to the quality of the 48s/g, the manual is a mere shadow.
What made him a dumbass was not so much the fact that he didn't read it, but that he was proud of his ignorance.
I didn't see pride. I think you're projecting.
Besides, if you weren't interested enough to read the story, why are you bothering to post? You should have just skipped the thread entirely and moved to the next one.
Who the fuck are you to tell me when or where to post? My motivations for posting are entirely up to me, not you.
The reason I posted is because your post was basically just you being an asshole, and added absolutely nothing to the thread. Now, your next post is more of the same. Is that the sort of contribution you wish to make online? If so, that's pretty sad.
Although I suspect that's really *not* what you want, and probably don't fully realize just how useless and negative your post was, so I'm letting you know. Use this unrequested advice as you wish. Don't expect a response if it's just more of the same.
No, because the value of a company's stock is based on real assets, liabilities, and income
No, it's not. It's based on what people will pay for the stock. Those things might help mitigate the risk (at worst, if the company completely folds, you *might* get some of that money back via selling off the company), but you aren't guaranteed to be able to recover even 1 cent of the money you put into the stock.
The stock market is a pyramid scheme, although I'd have gone further and said money itself is a pyramid scheme. It's only valuable so long as people keep pretending it is. Paper money has very little inherent value.
Although up to this point, we've been playing loose with the term "pyramid scheme". The problem with a pyramid scheme is that no wealth is created, it's just transferred. That's why the people at the bottom get screwed. That happens in the real economy, as well. The difference is that in the real economy, wealth *is* created, and the people at the bottom aren't *completely* screwed, but do get to keep some small portion of the wealth they create.
The same is true of Second Life. There, people create wealth. I'm not familiar with the mechanics of the Second Life economy, but so long as goods (virtual, I assume, but perhaps people buy physical things via Second Life?) and services are provided, wealth is created, and the less like a pyramid scheme it is.
I have no idea how hard it is to convert Linden Dollars into US Dollars, but even if it's impossible, that alone isn't what makes something a pyramid scheme.
Not reading something doesn't make you a dumbass. I didn't read it either--not because I didn't expect it to be more interesting than the "above the fold" part, but because I'm not interested enough to read it to begin with. If I were to completely read every story on every page I open today, I'd be done sometime tomorrow, already making behind for *that* day's collection of stories, and so on.
You gotta pick and choose what to spend your time on. Don't tell me *you* don't do the same.
If not completely reading a webpage makes one a dumbass, then who here isn't?
The story that would be news would be a hotel that does *not* do this. No. This is news because it's excessive and uncommon.
Otherwise, why would any of these places provide free networking in the first place. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart and so they can sleep warm and cuddly at night. They're doing it because they've found other ways to make a buck off of it. Not everyone is so obsessed with money as you seem to think. Some people, even astute businesspeople, make decisions based on things like, "doing what's right", "giving back to the community", and "providing quality and value". I highly doubt that your average coffee-shop free WiFi is snooping on you.
Such extreme cynicism (as you seem to be promoting) is detrimental to society, and makes for a poor foundation to live by.
We're not talking about "silly babble from yesterday", we're talking about people *lying* about what they said in the past.
John Kerry admits he changed his mind, and he's skewered in the media.
George Bush lies about saying Saddam had WMDs, was tied to Al Qaida, and whether he ever said "stay the course", and no one cares.
It's not that the past shouldn't matter, it definitely should. It's just that it shouldn't be used as a meaningless gimmick. As it stands, our media plays it completely backwards.
Re:Response from Kevin Finisterre, second bug
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
WMVs played out of the box on your Mac? You didn't need Flip4Mac or anything else? How did you manage that, then? No, but it's much[*] easier to get them working on a Mac than it is on Linux.
[*] My entry in the "Understatement of the Year Award for 2007".
On the other hand, one might say that the clock continues to tick on the delay of what Longhorn was supposed to be. Which would put it at well over a decade, and still counting.
Cairo was supposed to be launched in the early-to-mid-90s. The OS we were promised then *still* has features that have yet to materialize.
As it stands, Longhorn was never released. Vista is just the subset of Longhorn that MS finally settled on, just as Longhorn is really just a subset of Cairo (and I'm not holding my breath for Linux).
The only technology in Vista that wasn't promised in Cairo that I can think of is WPF.
Cairo is to MS as "year of the desktop" is to Linux. In fact, that's not quite fair. I fully expect the year of the desktop to arrive before Cairo (and I'm not planning to hold my breath for Linux on the desktop anytime soon).
I no longer believe a single promise made by Microsoft. Their dates *always* slip and their promises *always* shrink. Why should things be any different this time?
Your response had NOTHING to do with this line of argument, and served only to derail it. It was never intended to address that issue (and I've already stated this, more than once). I don't like irrational "copyright infringement == theft" arguments. I've made it perfectly clear that I do agree with his intended point regarding the additional costs.
The prior poster was making a valid analogy, but instead of responding with an appropriate argument in your favor, you resorted to cheap semantic games. I did nothing of the kind, as I was not addressing the issue you seem to think I was.
When all else fails in an argument, resort to semantic word games. That copyright infringement isn't theft isn't "semantic word games", it's *making an important distinction*.
Arguing over semantics is when the word differences really aren't relevant, and are just a way of avoiding the issue. In the case of my post, the difference between copyright infringement and theft *is* the point.
Functionally, donating the proceeds gained from selling it is very different from giving it away to somebody.
For one thing, it's a tax write-off. Which is a function that has nothing to do with Microsoft.
For another, it's outside the scope of the agreement he made when he accepted it. What "scope"?
Resale is resale, regardless of what you're doing with the money. The form of resale he's going through is equivalent to giving it away. The "agreement" never said he couldn't resell it, in fact, it didn't list anything he *couldn't* do with it. It merely listed things he *could* do. One of those things was to give it away, which is arguably what he's doing.
I never said anything about trespassing in relation to Windows -- you made that erroneous connection. Yes, you did. You used it to justify your car analogy.
Going back to the top of the thread Which has nothing to do with this part of the thread, other than to have initiated the chain of posts. I'm *solely* posting in reference to your flawed car analogy.
The rest of your post is sloppy and I haven't the desire to go through it bit-by-bit, but I suggest you go back to the original post that started this thread, and you'll notice that Umuri deliberately stated he was referring to *production* costs, while you are talking about all sorts of different costs.
I agree with your assertion that he's not considering all the costs involved, but as I've already stated, multiple times, I'm not addressing that issue at all. Just your silly car analogy.
Nor has someone's identity ever been stolen. However, identity theft is a convenient term for something we all understand. Using a flawed analogy twice does not make it true.
Identity theft is just the high tech way of saying "impersonation".
Slashdot Mirror
Misrepresenting him does not help your point. He never said anything remotely like, "ha ha, sux0r, you got r0bb3d ya lus3r n00b".
That's like dismissing Al Gore's film by mockingly pretending he said, "we should all turn vegan and live in mud huts". I call to your attention yesterday's Dilbert Cartoon to bolster my point. =) Oh, well, if it was a punch-line in a comic... Surely I concede!
Certainly, nothing wrong with criticizing SuperKendall's choice of wording, but I was responding to the attack, "your fucked up zealotry, morality and ideology". Dogtanian seriously jumped the gun on that one.
Of course not. What he wrote is meant to convey, "I hope people learn from this just how awful Windows security is, and take appropriate action."
If he does mean what you inferred, then I'd agree with you (not nearly as strongly as you had put it, you make him sound like Hitler or something). That's what my original criticism was about, and I was very clear. You're an idiot if you think that it was a defence of MS or their products. So, are you really endorsing SuperKendall's position, or are you just stupid? So, to quote your subject, "My God... did you actually read what I said?"
Where, at all, did I say you were defending MS or their products? Where? Please, post it, make me look like a moron.
To answer your question, I am endorsing SK's position, his position is not what you think it is (although if he wishes to clear up the matter, I reserve the right to change my answer if I'm wrong about his position), and no, I'm not stupid.
And no, they *don't* deserve it. If there was a warning dialog which said, "Doing this might cause you to get pwn3d", you might have a point. The problem is that there's no reason to expect your average user to understand the implications involved.
Every so often, bad weather during the winter leads to a few deaths due to people using charcoal barbecues in the house. It's not reasonable to suggest those people deserve what happened to them. If they didn't understand the risk (and many people don't) they are victims of their own, reasonable ignorance. If the heat is out, your stranded at home in a blizzard, and all you have is a barbecue, what do you think your average person is going to think?
It's the same with many Windows exploits. People use the OS the way its design promotes, and develop habits accordingly (such as blindly clicking "next, next, next" during software installation). Yes, education and vigilance would stop many of the problems, but the level of education and vigilance is above and beyond what is reasonable to expect.
Blaming the user is foolish. Why not fix the OS?
Packet sniffing is something any OS is subject to, so just make sure you use SSL.
Man-in-the-middle attacks are also (as you said) something any OS can fall prey to, so never trust a questionable certificate on a public network (ie: when your browser tells you a website's certificate has some problem).
The file sharing aspect is something you need not worry too much about on the Mac. You have more than a few layers of protection here.
First, it's off by default. Generally, you'd know if you enabled it.
Second, if you only enabled Mac file sharing, the odds of the attacker having the means to connect to it are minimal.
Third, even if he does, or if you enable Windows file sharing, you will need a password to access anything except for public drop boxes. Drop boxes are write-only folders (ie. other people can put things in, but cannot access, or even list, the contents of the folder. In OS X, your Public/Drop Box folder in your home directory is a drop box).
Fourth, even if (etc, etc), your attacker almost certainly does not have a Mac OS exploit to drop into your computer. He could, were he to get to that point, access your files, however. Not a pleasant thought, but the probability of it getting to that point is extremely small.
2) Yes.
3) The user need do nothing. If you have read/write access to C:, you can install anything you want and have it run automatically.
I'd highly prefer MS wise up and fix their OS, but they won't. Ever. They're just not that kind of company, never have been, never will be. On this, I would *love* to be proven wrong by MS's future actions.
I don't see how it's "fucked up zealotry, morality and ideology" to hope people will switch away from such a dreadful and dangerous product. I hope people will stop eating products with high fructose corn syrup and trans-fats. How is there anything wrong with such a position, *whatsoever*?
1. Which has what to do with what again? If Maine is still part of Mass., then people in Maine are subject to Mass taxes (unless explicitly excluded). Their failure to file and pay taxes to Mass. makes them evaders.
2. The question isn't whether the textbooks are wrong, but whether the State of Massachusetts teaches their children that Maine is a separate state. If you really *are* a lawyer, you'd know this is a valid argument against the notion that Mass. considers Maine as just part of Mass. (ie. if I were one of those "tax evaders" from Maine, it'd be in my list of arguments).
3. One critical element of a joke is that it be funny. I'll grant you the "suburb" part drew a chuckle, but that wasn't enough to make it clear you meant the whole thing as a joke.
The problem here is that your joke was very limited in scope (ie. *very* few people will get it) and presented as fact (completely dry and deadpan). I can assure you there are now more people who think they "know" that Maine is considered part of Mass. by Mass. than there are that found themselves rotflol.
Does Massachusetts prosecute tax evaders (ie: those that pay taxes in Maine, and not Massachusetts)? If not, I'd submit that even if Massachusetts has never officially recognized Maine as a separate state, it has done so de facto.
Also, do Massachusetts textbooks list Maine as a separate state? Does the government of Massachusetts have any official dealings with Maine? Etc.?
All of which, of course, has no bearing on whether Maine actually *is* a separate state. Does Maine consider itself a separate state? Does the US Government (yes, it does). Do the other 48 states? Even if Massachusetts actually believes Maine is still part of Massachusetts, the GP is right, Maine is a state, not a commonwealth, as such status is not for Massachusetts to decide on behalf of Maine.
You still haven't answered the question. Why *should* we accept such a card? What good will it do?
These days, a slide rule is little more than a historical curiosity. There are only two practical uses for a slide rule that I can think of, and they are of limited scope.
First, is to learn a different way to do things. Understanding how a slide rule works can provide some mathematical insight which might otherwise be missed.
The second is to slow down the student. Early in learning new material, it's highly useful to take it slow and go step-by-step. Once a concept is understood, however, it's better to minimize the time and effort spent on that concept so that time and effort can be spent on the next concept to be learnt. In that manner, modern calculators help the student in a way absolutely impossible for a slide rule. I'll grant you 1, for the most part. 2 isn't quite as straightforward. Pencil and paper cannot graph anything, the student has to make the calculations. The calculator will generate a 2d graph from a formula. 3 is just silly. A shit 3d graph is superior to no 3d graph.
Also, modern calculators now include a CAS (Computer Algebra System), which slide rules cannot provide. Even pre-CAS calculators are programmable, have built-in solvers, can solve integrals and derivatives, sums, etc, all of which a slide rule cannot provide.
Agreed, it's inferior to the 48s/g series, it's not much worse, unlike the interim HPs and every other graphing calc out there.
In other words, the keyboard definitely is a plus of the 50g, even if it doesn't reach the pinnacle of HPs long past.
As for the documentation, the printed documentation is severely lacking. It seems to be around par for other calculator brands, but given the quality of past HP manuals, I really can't give them a pass on this one. Whereas the keyboard is close to the quality of the 48s/g, the manual is a mere shadow.
Who the fuck are you to tell me when or where to post? My motivations for posting are entirely up to me, not you.
The reason I posted is because your post was basically just you being an asshole, and added absolutely nothing to the thread. Now, your next post is more of the same. Is that the sort of contribution you wish to make online? If so, that's pretty sad.
Although I suspect that's really *not* what you want, and probably don't fully realize just how useless and negative your post was, so I'm letting you know. Use this unrequested advice as you wish. Don't expect a response if it's just more of the same.
The stock market is a pyramid scheme, although I'd have gone further and said money itself is a pyramid scheme. It's only valuable so long as people keep pretending it is. Paper money has very little inherent value.
Although up to this point, we've been playing loose with the term "pyramid scheme". The problem with a pyramid scheme is that no wealth is created, it's just transferred. That's why the people at the bottom get screwed. That happens in the real economy, as well. The difference is that in the real economy, wealth *is* created, and the people at the bottom aren't *completely* screwed, but do get to keep some small portion of the wealth they create.
The same is true of Second Life. There, people create wealth. I'm not familiar with the mechanics of the Second Life economy, but so long as goods (virtual, I assume, but perhaps people buy physical things via Second Life?) and services are provided, wealth is created, and the less like a pyramid scheme it is.
I have no idea how hard it is to convert Linden Dollars into US Dollars, but even if it's impossible, that alone isn't what makes something a pyramid scheme.
Not reading something doesn't make you a dumbass. I didn't read it either--not because I didn't expect it to be more interesting than the "above the fold" part, but because I'm not interested enough to read it to begin with. If I were to completely read every story on every page I open today, I'd be done sometime tomorrow, already making behind for *that* day's collection of stories, and so on.
You gotta pick and choose what to spend your time on. Don't tell me *you* don't do the same.
If not completely reading a webpage makes one a dumbass, then who here isn't?
Yeah, me too
Such extreme cynicism (as you seem to be promoting) is detrimental to society, and makes for a poor foundation to live by.
We're not talking about "silly babble from yesterday", we're talking about people *lying* about what they said in the past.
John Kerry admits he changed his mind, and he's skewered in the media.
George Bush lies about saying Saddam had WMDs, was tied to Al Qaida, and whether he ever said "stay the course", and no one cares.
It's not that the past shouldn't matter, it definitely should. It's just that it shouldn't be used as a meaningless gimmick. As it stands, our media plays it completely backwards.
[*] My entry in the "Understatement of the Year Award for 2007".
Cairo was supposed to be launched in the early-to-mid-90s. The OS we were promised then *still* has features that have yet to materialize.
As it stands, Longhorn was never released. Vista is just the subset of Longhorn that MS finally settled on, just as Longhorn is really just a subset of Cairo (and I'm not holding my breath for Linux).
The only technology in Vista that wasn't promised in Cairo that I can think of is WPF.
Cairo is to MS as "year of the desktop" is to Linux. In fact, that's not quite fair. I fully expect the year of the desktop to arrive before Cairo (and I'm not planning to hold my breath for Linux on the desktop anytime soon).
I no longer believe a single promise made by Microsoft. Their dates *always* slip and their promises *always* shrink. Why should things be any different this time?
Arguing over semantics is when the word differences really aren't relevant, and are just a way of avoiding the issue. In the case of my post, the difference between copyright infringement and theft *is* the point.
For one thing, it's a tax write-off. Which is a function that has nothing to do with Microsoft. For another, it's outside the scope of the agreement he made when he accepted it. What "scope"? Resale is resale, regardless of what you're doing with the money. The form of resale he's going through is equivalent to giving it away. The "agreement" never said he couldn't resell it, in fact, it didn't list anything he *couldn't* do with it. It merely listed things he *could* do. One of those things was to give it away, which is arguably what he's doing.
The rest of your post is sloppy and I haven't the desire to go through it bit-by-bit, but I suggest you go back to the original post that started this thread, and you'll notice that Umuri deliberately stated he was referring to *production* costs, while you are talking about all sorts of different costs.
I agree with your assertion that he's not considering all the costs involved, but as I've already stated, multiple times, I'm not addressing that issue at all. Just your silly car analogy.
Identity theft is just the high tech way of saying "impersonation".