the worst impact of this bubble burst will be felt by such companies as Intel and CISCO who provide products and services to dot coms
Don't forget that when these.coms go belly up, poor, little Intel will really get it in the nads. If only they had some other source of revenue, like the rest of corporate America, plus all of the American consumers above the poverty line, plus all of small business in America, plus these same markets all over the fucking planet, plus the case cash reserves to buy and sell the moons of Mars... wait, they do.
Look at Pepsi vs. Coke -- even though their ad campaigns probably somehow increase the consumption of their caronated beverages, pepsi and coke ads don't "pull" consumer to either side
Dumbass. Being pure of mind and heart, you drink only what quenches your thirst best for the least amount of money. Marketing and advertising doesn't work on you. And it doesn't work on the people who decide what drinks go on the shelves of grocery stores and Quick-E-Marts. And it doesn't work on the people who decide what brand of drink goes with the supersize combo you just ordered.
Coke has one of the finest brands on the planet. The best thing for them to do would be just save their money by not re-investing into that brand. Marketing doesn't work. At least not on those who are pure of mind and heart.
I think if you actually read the whole article, this is an innovation. The program checks for files that are duplicates, then replaces the duplicates with a symbolic link to a single file. This happens automagically, so the user never notices, or knows. It's the second part of this that may cause problems.
Let's say, at the end of the day, I copy a folder which contains files I have been working on to a backup folder on the same hard drive. The program deletes all of my copies, replacing them with symbolic links. The next day after a few hours work, I realize I need to revert to one of my backup files, but it's been changed to a symbolic link to the file I'm using now. Presto!
I think this has potential, and I think it could be a good idea, but the gods live in the details.
This guy seems to despair that Microsoft doesn't treat him like a valued customer, and there aren't any other options. The first part of this sentence is true, but there are certainly a lot of options. Abisource has done a great job with their GPL'd software, but even if this is a little too raw, is there anyone out there who is having trouble finding non-MS software?
They may be a legal monopoly, but there is not a single category of software for which they are the only vendor. There are other office suites if you want a huge monolithic office suite. There are other grotesquely bloated word processors, and there are well-written word processors.
Sure, if this guy wants to fundamentally change the way most people interact with their bloated office suite, he needs to "get inside" at Microsoft, but if he wants to help someone create a better word processor, there are better places to start, if only because Word is a lost cause.
I think the word monopoly implies a defeatist attitude towards Microsoft. We must use their products because everyone else does. We must accept the bloat because there are no alternatives. They're just another company. Use their stuff when it works, don't use it when it doesn't.
I don't normally get emotional in these situations, but comments like, "blocking "Babe: Pig in the City" would be a good start" are clearly inflammatory. If you can't appreciate the genius that is this movie and its predecessor, Babe, then I feel sorry for you. But don't start pouring your nonsense down my pants. Rent it, watch it, understand it. If you still don't get it, begin your protest against the MPAA now; movies are lost on you.
First Amendment Center scholar
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 2
This is soooo confusing. I think I'll wait a few days for the dumb version on freedomforum.org.
If you confessed to a murder, but couldn't produce a body, you wouldn't be in jail. If you confessed and weren't able to recount the details of the crime, they would laugh at you and send you on your way - after a visit to a shrink, I hope.
False confessions are not rare, especially for high profile crimes. The FBI may be completely clueless, but they certainly aren't going to investigate every Usenet kook or IRC whackjob that claims responsibility.
BTW, I did it. Me, A Big Gnu Thrush. So catch me if you can, because 3 days from know, at 25:62 GMT, I'm going to strike again, and no one can stop me!
Maybe the moderators just don't care about political issues. Of course, if this were Ask Slashdot, and the question was "Which window manager does Tom Christianson like best?" we'd see moderation points really flying.
This Wired article talks about the flood of donations received through McCain's web site after a win in NH. Increasingly, the most effective form of political activism appears to be cash. While a strong web presence could promote a dialogue of issues, this does not seem to be taking place.
If a web site brought in little or no money, could a candidate still view it as successful, or is income the final measure of success?
Sheepskin rules! Think of all the other great works from that same time period which were preserved because someone had the foresight to put it on sheepskin. There's that great document about... and that other poem with the guy who... and then there's the... OTH, maybe Beowulf just got lucky.
I don't have a problem using Open Source software and proprietary software. I make the choice based on my needs at the time and the solutions available. Some people put philosophical prinicples above practical considerations, but I don't.
In this way, the two sides compete but can co-exist as any competitors can. If Pepsi began giving away their formula but still selling the product, I would still drink Coke.
If you remove that pesky "copyright/patent/trademark proprietary structure" then you essentially hijack one element of a dynamic and successful market.
If Open Source is the solution you think it is, then this step won't be necessary.
If Open Source requires a change in the law to make it effective and competitive, then it's not the solution you think it is.
Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. See IBM. After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.
Katz (or whatever Perl script they've got running today): They are all very much linked by a growing, runaway menace: corporatism.
See, I knew you had it in you. Aren't you glad I made you go through the extra work? You'll thank me someday.
There is still a distinct application hidden in the woodwork of the operating system.
True. But utilities in any operating system can be distinct and yet still integral. You could write a prgram that launched itself on top of the Window's GUI and handled all file system functionality, but only MS can strip the GUI clean and create a new one. It's their product, and they don't have to make it infinitely flexible for their competitors.
The only real effect of that "swirling" that I can see is to prevent easy removal of the application, and to (successfully) stifle a competitor.
Maybe. More importantly, the only real "intent" was for Netscape to die. Microsoft dug in their heels rather than risk becoming irrelevant. Win98 blows, but it blows less than Win95 and one of the reasons is the the integrated browser.
They changed their product to fit the market. Again, the real problem is how they leveraged OEMs to prevent competition. It's the difference between making competition difficult by redesigning your product, or making competition difficult by threatening the distribution channel. The first should be legal, but IANAL, and the second should be illegal, but IANAL. (Thank God).
"I'm a retired engineer," Jim wrote me several weeks ago, "and I would never post a message on your website. It's complicated and it's just too hostile. I don't have an appetite for that."
What was this guy engineering? Rubber bands? Stacking blocks for three-year-olds? Maybe an aerodynamic Mr. Potato Head?
News flash! Engineer's free speech is quashed by complicated web submission form!
Is that why you never post, Jon? I'm sure Hemos will help if you ask.
I don't need to go into detail with this; if IE is available for Solaris, it ain't an inseparable part of Win98.
I think you gloss over what you admit is a crucial point of the case. If it is as important as you say it is, then support your opinion. Just because a product is available for another platform, does not mean that it can be separated from Win98. The decision to incorporate IE into the operating system may have been a bonehead technical move, it may have been a bonehead legal move, but I don't think you have convinced anyone that it's separate or easily separable.
Microsoft is a monopoly. As a monopoly they have the right to design their OS any way they choose (just as non-monopoly companies do) but they are outside of the law if they use that monopoly power to squash competition. Lawyers and judges shouldn't make decisions about software design, but they should rule on legal agreements between Microsoft and the OEMs. This is where Netscape got squeezed.
I saw the smiley. I thought the comment was funny. The ones who criticised your post are the same losers who "correct" Star Trek references. A real blast at parties. Next time, stick to literal discussions of the obvious and everyone will be fine (and bored).
I don't know these "!" are called in Canada, but in poor back-assward America we refer to them as "exclamation marks" not "periods". If you would like to terminate a sentance it is advisable to use the "period".
BTW, is your country still run by giant, crack-smoking rabbits? I miss Toronto.
Unfortunately, we can't just blame the Replicans on this one. Sure, they're all putzes, but The Father of the Internet and leading Democratic candidate is married to the woman who labels records for you. Thanks, Tipper! Who would have known that NIN cd contains words like fuck, damn, and pussy.
Slashdot Mirror
GMH Rules! But, please, what Project Gutenberg are you using? No Hopkins on the one I use.
the worst impact of this bubble burst will be felt by such companies as Intel and CISCO who provide products and services to dot coms
Don't forget that when these .coms go belly up, poor, little Intel will really get it in the nads. If only they had some other source of revenue, like the rest of corporate America, plus all of the American consumers above the poverty line, plus all of small business in America, plus these same markets all over the fucking planet, plus the case cash reserves to buy and sell the moons of Mars... wait, they do.
Try to think before you type.
Look at Pepsi vs. Coke -- even though their ad campaigns probably somehow increase the consumption of their caronated beverages, pepsi and coke ads don't "pull" consumer to either side
Dumbass. Being pure of mind and heart, you drink only what quenches your thirst best for the least amount of money. Marketing and advertising doesn't work on you. And it doesn't work on the people who decide what drinks go on the shelves of grocery stores and Quick-E-Marts. And it doesn't work on the people who decide what brand of drink goes with the supersize combo you just ordered.
Coke has one of the finest brands on the planet. The best thing for them to do would be just save their money by not re-investing into that brand. Marketing doesn't work. At least not on those who are pure of mind and heart.
Corporate America == Communist America
They control everything. Even our bold online revolutionaries take their pseudonyms from mass market paperbacks.
Don't worry, Ender Wigginz, I'm not talking about you. I'm sure your handle came from a much more original Open Source source.
I think if you actually read the whole article, this is an innovation. The program checks for files that are duplicates, then replaces the duplicates with a symbolic link to a single file. This happens automagically, so the user never notices, or knows. It's the second part of this that may cause problems.
Let's say, at the end of the day, I copy a folder which contains files I have been working on to a backup folder on the same hard drive. The program deletes all of my copies, replacing them with symbolic links. The next day after a few hours work, I realize I need to revert to one of my backup files, but it's been changed to a symbolic link to the file I'm using now. Presto!
I think this has potential, and I think it could be a good idea, but the gods live in the details.
And the second one was "Jurassic Park."
And the third one was "The Lost World."
Now if we could just get Crichton and Gibson to team up, we could have a virtual reality "Westworld." Oh, wait, that was "Sphere."
This guy seems to despair that Microsoft doesn't treat him like a valued customer, and there aren't any other options. The first part of this sentence is true, but there are certainly a lot of options. Abisource has done a great job with their GPL'd software, but even if this is a little too raw, is there anyone out there who is having trouble finding non-MS software?
They may be a legal monopoly, but there is not a single category of software for which they are the only vendor. There are other office suites if you want a huge monolithic office suite. There are other grotesquely bloated word processors, and there are well-written word processors.
Sure, if this guy wants to fundamentally change the way most people interact with their bloated office suite, he needs to "get inside" at Microsoft, but if he wants to help someone create a better word processor, there are better places to start, if only because Word is a lost cause.
I think the word monopoly implies a defeatist attitude towards Microsoft. We must use their products because everyone else does. We must accept the bloat because there are no alternatives. They're just another company. Use their stuff when it works, don't use it when it doesn't.
I don't normally get emotional in these situations, but comments like, "blocking "Babe: Pig in the City" would be a good start" are clearly inflammatory. If you can't appreciate the genius that is this movie and its predecessor, Babe, then I feel sorry for you. But don't start pouring your nonsense down my pants. Rent it, watch it, understand it. If you still don't get it, begin your protest against the MPAA now; movies are lost on you.
This is soooo confusing. I think I'll wait a few days for the dumb version on freedomforum.org.
Are we supposed to buy into this lame weather balloon story again?
NASA should fess up and release the alien heads to the public.
Last week, I wouldn't have believed it, but now that Roblimo is using words like "lucre" I may have to change my mind.
You go, girl!
If you confessed to a murder, but couldn't produce a body, you wouldn't be in jail. If you confessed and weren't able to recount the details of the crime, they would laugh at you and send you on your way - after a visit to a shrink, I hope.
False confessions are not rare, especially for high profile crimes. The FBI may be completely clueless, but they certainly aren't going to investigate every Usenet kook or IRC whackjob that claims responsibility.
BTW, I did it. Me, A Big Gnu Thrush. So catch me if you can, because 3 days from know, at 25:62 GMT, I'm going to strike again, and no one can stop me!
-insert maniacal laughter-
Maybe the moderators just don't care about political issues. Of course, if this were Ask Slashdot, and the question was "Which window manager does Tom Christianson like best?" we'd see moderation points really flying.
If a web site brought in little or no money, could a candidate still view it as successful, or is income the final measure of success?
"not to sound snobbish"
;))"
Too late. Hint: next time omit phrases like "(for those who don't know which newsgroup I'm talking about, good
For those who care, and if you're not sure, you probably don't, you can join the nonsense at alt.sysadmin.recovery.
Be sure to take some cramagrams with you.
Sheepskin rules! Think of all the other great works from that same time period which were preserved because someone had the foresight to put it on sheepskin. There's that great document about... and that other poem with the guy who... and then there's the... OTH, maybe Beowulf just got lucky.
especially given the UK's leading position in the industry.
You left out the emoticon...
;)
Very well said, but wrong.
I don't have a problem using Open Source software and proprietary software. I make the choice based on my needs at the time and the solutions available. Some people put philosophical prinicples above practical considerations, but I don't.
In this way, the two sides compete but can co-exist as any competitors can. If Pepsi began giving away their formula but still selling the product, I would still drink Coke.
If you remove that pesky "copyright/patent/trademark proprietary structure" then you essentially hijack one element of a dynamic and successful market.
If Open Source is the solution you think it is, then this step won't be necessary.
If Open Source requires a change in the law to make it effective and competitive, then it's not the solution you think it is.
From the Jargon File: /fuhd/ n.
FUD
Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. See IBM. After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.
Katz (or whatever Perl script they've got running today):
They are all very much linked by a growing, runaway menace: corporatism.
See, I knew you had it in you. Aren't you glad I made you go through the extra work? You'll thank me someday.
There is still a distinct application hidden in the woodwork of the operating system.
True. But utilities in any operating system can be distinct and yet still integral. You could write a prgram that launched itself on top of the Window's GUI and handled all file system functionality, but only MS can strip the GUI clean and create a new one. It's their product, and they don't have to make it infinitely flexible for their competitors.
The only real effect of that "swirling" that I can see is to prevent easy removal of the application, and to (successfully) stifle a competitor.
Maybe. More importantly, the only real "intent" was for Netscape to die. Microsoft dug in their heels rather than risk becoming irrelevant. Win98 blows, but it blows less than Win95 and one of the reasons is the the integrated browser.
They changed their product to fit the market. Again, the real problem is how they leveraged OEMs to prevent competition. It's the difference between making competition difficult by redesigning your product, or making competition difficult by threatening the distribution channel. The first should be legal, but IANAL, and the second should be illegal, but IANAL. (Thank God).
"I'm a retired engineer," Jim wrote me several weeks ago, "and I would never post a message on your website. It's complicated and it's just too hostile. I don't have an appetite for that."
What was this guy engineering? Rubber bands? Stacking blocks for three-year-olds? Maybe an aerodynamic Mr. Potato Head?
News flash! Engineer's free speech is quashed by complicated web submission form!
Is that why you never post, Jon? I'm sure Hemos will help if you ask.
I don't need to go into detail with this; if IE is available for Solaris, it ain't an inseparable part of Win98.
I think you gloss over what you admit is a crucial point of the case. If it is as important as you say it is, then support your opinion. Just because a product is available for another platform, does not mean that it can be separated from Win98. The decision to incorporate IE into the operating system may have been a bonehead technical move, it may have been a bonehead legal move, but I don't think you have convinced anyone that it's separate or easily separable.
Microsoft is a monopoly. As a monopoly they have the right to design their OS any way they choose (just as non-monopoly companies do) but they are outside of the law if they use that monopoly power to squash competition. Lawyers and judges shouldn't make decisions about software design, but they should rule on legal agreements between Microsoft and the OEMs. This is where Netscape got squeezed.
I saw the smiley. I thought the comment was funny. The ones who criticised your post are the same losers who "correct" Star Trek references. A real blast at parties. Next time, stick to literal discussions of the obvious and everyone will be fine (and bored).
More little corrections:
I don't know these "!" are called in Canada, but in poor back-assward America we refer to them as "exclamation marks" not "periods". If you would like to terminate a sentance it is advisable to use the "period".
BTW, is your country still run by giant, crack-smoking rabbits? I miss Toronto.
Unfortunately, we can't just blame the Replicans on this one. Sure, they're all putzes, but The Father of the Internet and leading Democratic candidate is married to the woman who labels records for you. Thanks, Tipper! Who would have known that NIN cd contains words like fuck, damn, and pussy.
Waste your vote on a Libertarian. It's important.