People like you expect people to stare at TV commercial and considered it a high crime when someone leaves to take a piss during on of them.
I don't own a television, and don't plan to.
If I don't like the way you present your ads, I block them. Don't like it? charge a subscription.Subscriptions don't work? well then maybe your content is really worth a damn.
If you'd bothered to read any other my other posts in this thread instead of trying to put words in my mouth, you would have seen that I agree with this point of view. Oh, I'm sorry, is researching something before jumping to conclusions too difficult for you?
Funny, the person you are whining too specifically said they opted to not read it, so clearly you were just looking for something to jerl your knee at.
I'm simply saying that the editors should stick to reporting on the story itself and leave out the juvenile commentary. I'm sick of it, and I'm not alone in that regard. I'm not really someone prone to "knee jerl" reactions.
Let me make this just a little bit clearer for you, since you seem to be having trouble following things:
(1) Microsoft is absolutely in the wrong over the font licensing issue. I haven't disputed that anywhere, and in fact openly stated as much in other threads on this story. Let's call this economic value "x".
(2) Millions of copies of Windows have been illegally copied in China in what has become such a widespread practice that it's a running joke in I.T. Let's call that economic value "y".
(3) The value of y is orders of magnitude greater than the value of x.
(4) Chinese firms have a ridiculous track record of failing to respect any company's IP; Microsoft is far from alone in this respect. They also have a history of failing to respect open source licenses, incorporating GPLed code into closed-source products and thumbing their noses at the copyright holders.
I cannot possibly make this any clearer. If you can't comprehend it now, you're hopeless.
You honestly sound like a shill, and a bad one at that since you fail to understand basic mathematics.
Did you manage to miss my sig? I haven't used Windows on my desktops in six years, and have only used it on server systems owned by others that I had to support. Nice try, though.
That's clever:). Of course, it's going to account for a heck of a lot of articles that merely mention US-based companies being the victim of IP theft in China. Let's have another Google Fight.
Are you aware that the vast majority of Chinese government computers running Windows are not legally licensed? I'm beginning to seriously suspect you're a paid shill.
The Chinese government is responsible for decades of allowing people to literally set up stalls on the street selling pirated copies of Windows by the thousands. The monetary loss from IP theft perpetrated in this manner is a hell of a lot higher than the fraction attributable to the fonts. Your logic utterly fails.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I suppose you'd like to pay for each and every site you frequent. Guess what, junior? Operating sites costs money.
The net would be a better place if all the for-profit 'information' sites went offline.
Your suggested course of action would include the removal of Slashdot from the Internet. Why are you posting here? You obviously don't believe your own drivel.
First things first: I have absolutely no financial interest in the site linked in the story summary. Moving right along, here's the point: if you don't like a site's content, don't visit it again. Including juvenile statements about blocking ads in a story summary is just that: juvenile.
Re:Google is the Foundation
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
In addition to my earlier reply, you should probably learn about this.
Making snarky comments in the story summary contributes nothing to the story itself, and does nothing about the perceived "problem." People who would use AdBlock are already using it anyhow.
Hey, I get that it's not the most visually appealing thing on the Internet:). I'm just really tired of the culture of bitching about ads wherein people honestly expect to get stuff completely free of charge or ads when producing said stuff costs money.
Operating a site with good content costs money. Most good sites are run for profit. If you visit a site and don't like the content, don't visit that site again.
Re:Google is the Foundation
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
They also employ a CEO, which isn't listed on the jobs site either.
Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.
These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries, and it's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself. How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?
Slashdot Mirror
The term "sockpuppet" is usually reserved for someone who posts under multiple accounts. I believe you were looking for "mouthpiece" instead.
I found that comment fair and balanced.
People like you expect people to stare at TV commercial and considered it a high crime when someone leaves to take a piss during on of them.
I don't own a television, and don't plan to.
If I don't like the way you present your ads, I block them. Don't like it? charge a subscription.Subscriptions don't work? well then maybe your content is really worth a damn.
If you'd bothered to read any other my other posts in this thread instead of trying to put words in my mouth, you would have seen that I agree with this point of view. Oh, I'm sorry, is researching something before jumping to conclusions too difficult for you?
Funny, the person you are whining too specifically said they opted to not read it, so clearly you were just looking for something to jerl your knee at.
I'm simply saying that the editors should stick to reporting on the story itself and leave out the juvenile commentary. I'm sick of it, and I'm not alone in that regard. I'm not really someone prone to "knee jerl" reactions.
That's idiotic. The world's is responsible for the world-wide economic depression. It sure is easy to blame the U.S. out of jealousy, isn't it?
Sure it does. Chinese companies are welcome to bring suit against American firms just as soon as that ration is below something like 2:1.
Let me make this just a little bit clearer for you, since you seem to be having trouble following things:
(1) Microsoft is absolutely in the wrong over the font licensing issue. I haven't disputed that anywhere, and in fact openly stated as much in other threads on this story. Let's call this economic value "x".
(2) Millions of copies of Windows have been illegally copied in China in what has become such a widespread practice that it's a running joke in I.T. Let's call that economic value "y".
(3) The value of y is orders of magnitude greater than the value of x.
(4) Chinese firms have a ridiculous track record of failing to respect any company's IP; Microsoft is far from alone in this respect. They also have a history of failing to respect open source licenses, incorporating GPLed code into closed-source products and thumbing their noses at the copyright holders.
I cannot possibly make this any clearer. If you can't comprehend it now, you're hopeless.
You honestly sound like a shill, and a bad one at that since you fail to understand basic mathematics.
Did you manage to miss my sig? I haven't used Windows on my desktops in six years, and have only used it on server systems owned by others that I had to support. Nice try, though.
That's clever :). Of course, it's going to account for a heck of a lot of articles that merely mention US-based companies being the victim of IP theft in China. Let's have another Google Fight.
Are you aware that the vast majority of Chinese government computers running Windows are not legally licensed? I'm beginning to seriously suspect you're a paid shill.
Bad Soup of Death?
The Chinese government is responsible for decades of allowing people to literally set up stalls on the street selling pirated copies of Windows by the thousands. The monetary loss from IP theft perpetrated in this manner is a hell of a lot higher than the fraction attributable to the fonts. Your logic utterly fails.
How is pirating millions of copies of Windows not distributing IP without a license? I don't think you understand what the term means.
Pretty OT here
No, you've got it all wrong. This is OT.
That product really has me amped up!
Senator Xenophon? He must be in the clutches of Xenu! Someone get me an e-meter, quick!
Hey, I agree that the site looks like crap :). I'm just voicing my opinion over what seems to have become a trend in story summaries recently.
The net would be a better place if all the for-profit 'information' sites went offline.
Your suggested course of action would include the removal of Slashdot from the Internet. Why are you posting here? You obviously don't believe your own drivel.
First things first: I have absolutely no financial interest in the site linked in the story summary. Moving right along, here's the point: if you don't like a site's content, don't visit it again. Including juvenile statements about blocking ads in a story summary is just that: juvenile.
In addition to my earlier reply, you should probably learn about this.
Making snarky comments in the story summary contributes nothing to the story itself, and does nothing about the perceived "problem." People who would use AdBlock are already using it anyhow.
Yeah, I've got the checkbox too. It's a reward for being a good contributor :).
Hey, I get that it's not the most visually appealing thing on the Internet :). I'm just really tired of the culture of bitching about ads wherein people honestly expect to get stuff completely free of charge or ads when producing said stuff costs money.
Operating a site with good content costs money. Most good sites are run for profit. If you visit a site and don't like the content, don't visit that site again.
They also employ a CEO, which isn't listed on the jobs site either.
Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.
These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries, and it's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself. How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?
Good points.