I downloaded that stupid PDF this morning, which tells where the US keeps all of it's fissionable materials. Do they want to tax that too, I wonder? How about my expose's from Stratfor? And, you can just BET the newspapers will be in on the taxation.......
I work with and service a lot of hydraulic machines. Generations of them, in fact. The pilot valves and such really haven't changed much in 50 years, as they are a simple device - but the CONTROLLERS are simply awesome. We use mostly David Bradley stuff, but there are plenty of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean valves and controllers in the plant. Amazing how accurate they can be when remotely controlled by a computer. Hydraulically powered computer can be sent 30 feet away from you, and come back, kiss your forehead, or a baby's cheek, and sent out again. It will repeat ad nauseum, and NEVER strike you hard.
Air? I would never trust air powered mechanisms to touch a baby, and simple electric motors can scare me too. Don't even dream of doing it with some kind of gasoline powered machine. Hydraulics are more reliable than anything I can think of.
I certainly wouldn't say NDA's have "absolutely nothing to do with" this probe. It's a peripheral issue, in that the corporations dictate terms of conduct, and threaten to punish you if you don't agree to the terms. Being slightly dishonest, I'd agree to the terms up front, then break them if/when I was fired, or whatever. If taken to court, I'd claim that I was coerced into the agreement, therefore it was invalid.
Corporations have no right to interfere with a working person's ability to earn a living, whether it be NDA's, or these no-hire agreements.
It has always been considered to be in "poor taste" to hire away the competition's employees, but colluding together to prevent it is just to much.
There already is. I have no idea how much it costs, but a Navy recruiter was in my house yesterday. Took out this little handy dandy plastic thing, similar to but larger than a blood sugar test strip. My son put a drop of blood on the thing, waited for a few minutes, and his prescreen for drugs was finished. They photocopied the strip, the son and the recruiter put their signatures on the paper, and that paper becomes a part of the kid's permanent record.
Quick and easy, it tested for several common drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and I don't know what else.
In this case, or even in any other particular case, in which mediasentry is being used as evidence, yes - you are correct that the point being argued is that the evidence is inadmissable.
However, in the broader picture, those who have pried into private lives using mediasentry without being duly licensed to do so would be liable in criminal court. All that is needed is for one or more citizens to press charges and/or one or more prosecuting attorneys to get a bee in their bonnet regarding the violation of law.
There is the potential here for EACH of the 50 states to collect millions from the *iaa's for damages, not to mention penalties. Those corporations and front organizations who have employed this and similar data mining measures could conceivable be put out of business. IF, that is, the 50 states and the Disctrict of Columbia were to coordinate their attacks - which I don't see happening. To many politicians have been bought and paid for using the ill gotten gains of RIAA and associates.
I don't think that I suggested that anti-pollution measures be dropped, and forgotten. I think that I pointed out that it is foolish to expect to rape the coal industry for the funds needed to enact all our pet projects. The costs, after all, are passed on to all of us.
Let's look at coal, for a moment. 40 years ago, coal was burnt in furnaces that had straight chimneys, open to the sky, with no filters at all. The village of West Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was literally covered in a layer of soot from the Penn Power plant on the Beaver River. Literally. No one in town washed laundry, and hung it out to dry, because everything would be black before it dried. Not grey, not brown, but black.
Today, the furnace has a chimney about 130 feet high (not sure the height, just guessing, really) with a scrubbing system that stops ALL the soot. The only visible emissions from that chimney is water vapor. OF COURSE CO2 and other emissions are coming out, but they are invisible. I know for a fact that sulphur is scrubbed out - the culprit behind acid rain.
My point is, the industry has made tremendous progress in my lifetime. Things are improving. This new generation has an alarmist attitude toward coal, blaming it for stuff like mercury poisoning that I'm not even convinced of.
All I'm saying is, slow down a little, and LOOK at things. Don't enact harebrained laws (as politicians like to do) without thinking about how those laws will impact on YOUR daily life.
Sure, we can tax coal til it's unprofitable to take coal out of the ground. When we have done so, you had BETTER have something in place - or be prepared to do without electricity. Fact is, we cannot replace the power produced by coal right now. Wind generation is, and will remain, uneconomical on a small scale, and it will take years to build it on a large scale. Solar panels are getting cheaper, but even so, it's going to take a couple thousand dollar investment for EACH PERSON to make most of their own power.
Just think, before you act. Once the coal plants are shut down, they will probably never start up again. This will please the zealots, of course, but ALL of us will have to pay for their zealotry.
Yeah, in 1963 I got on the wrong bus, INTENTIONALLY, so that I could go home and visit with a newly found friend. About 10 minutes into the ride, I realized I might be in trouble for doing so, but hey, to late now. When we got to Danny's house, his mother made me CALL HOME IMMEDIATELY.
No big deal, really.
I simply can't relate to an overly upset parent who loses contact with his kid for an hour or so. What are you going to do when the kid cuts school, and disappears for the entire day? Lock the kid in a closet til he/she reaches age 30?
No, you err on one small point. My analogy doesn't assume that the people who are supplying munchies expect any payment, in kind, or otherwise. The analogy asks for the READER's input. How do YOU feel, not the people in my made-up workplace. Obviously, from the article, SOME slashdot readers feel that something is owed. Others don't.
My personal opinion? Yeah - if you're willing to use community contributed resources for your own benefit, you should return the favor. How much, how often, and how is up for debate. But, accepting "free stuff" - ie, "charity", implies some sort of a moral debt. Just my two cents.........
There are 50 people on the worksite. One of those people often brings donuts, candy, or some such snack to share with workmates. Let's say this person does so once a week. Two other people bring such things less often - let's say twice a month. Another 10 people bring snacks occasionally - let's say once a month on average.
This is "open source" kinda. People giving to people, because they enjoy doing so, and they benefit from the camaraderie, and perhaps they enjoy some invisible "perks", such as the boss allows them time off when they ask.
So - the OTHER 37 people - should they be required to "give something back"?
Ehh, I feel like maybe they should, to "the best of their ability". One of them is a single mom, with three kids. SHE CAN'T AFFORD to repay her coworkers in kind. She MIGHT find the money to bring some home-baked goodies once in awhile, but the kids are more likely to snatch the goodies while they're hot, and they never make it to work.
How about the junior people, who may or may not have the responsibility of our single mom, but just don't make as much money? Do they "owe" their coworkers? Maybe, but just maybe some of them ARE repaying in a manner that just isn't recognized. Ask a favor of the doofus looking mail clerk, and he never says "no" or makes excuses - despite the fact that the favor is way outside his job description and responsibility.
Yeah, there are probably a couple greedy SOB's who routinely scarf down the free goodies, and never do anything to repay their coworkers. And, everybody probably knows who they are. But, what do you do about them? You can ostracize them - to a point. They'll still be your coworkers, you have to get along with them.
Best solution is probably to ignore their antisocial behaviour. It doesn't REALLY detract from anyone else's life, does it?
Nothing wrong with his analogy at all - for people who can't tell horse shit from roses. IF the Jews were only being prevented from trespassing on other people's (intellectual) property, THEN the analogy might fit. CoS has been abusive and arrogant in their dealings with the Wiki. The Wiki isn't exactly "public" property - that is, it is not owned by the government, it wasn't built by the government, and taxpayers don't have a monetary interest in it, in any way. The Wiki, like any private individual, can ban any person or group of persons for almost any reason, and they don't even have to justify it in a court of law. In this case, however, it could be easily justified in any impartial court, without ever once mentioning relious beliefs. CoS needs to change their conduct, plain and simple. Wiki doesn't care that they are a bunch of nutcases, they only care that the nutcases are abusive.
I make no apologies for my writing style. It is ironic that you use the same "technique" to make your own point.
The lack of apologies out of the way, you might consider some possibilities. Some of us have vision problems. Some of us have learning problems. Some of us are doing exactly what we were taught during the course of our lives. Some of us aren't really used to slashdot. I could go on. No need, though.
If you find my use of capitalization so objectionable, just add me to the ignore list. I am a loud man, and I really DO stress my points in conversation LOUDLY. There are no italics in the spoken language. Since I was taught to write like I talk, that's what I do.
Would you care to address the content of my post, or just the method of delivery? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts? That, I care about. Obviously, I don't care very much about proper punctuation, capitalization, etc. I'm not a very retentive person.;-)
I have no need to hide behind the AC mask. Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate. OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama, just because he's black. It's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he's black. I happen to be non-black. I'm a veteran, for that and some other reasons, I really WANTED to vote for McCain. So - why didn't I? Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama. McCain wouldn't have exactly followed in Bush's steps, but he would have followed closely enough that it wouldn't have made a tremendous difference. Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white? Not much. I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did, or will. The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet. Tremendously different perspective. The black guy can relate to the world, whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets. McCain may not be a pure neocon, but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century. It is McCain's mission to spread corporate control around the world, supposedly for the benefit of Americans, but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2% of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.
With one son in the Army, and one son in the Navy, I really feared for their lives with Bush in control. Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2%. That is exactly what Iraq accomplished, with the neocons in charge.
While you bitch and belly ache about the "nigger" in the White House, I breathe a sigh of relief. My own funny looking kids (sans the nappy heads) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.
Well, you have the right to sue Apple over the iPhone thing. If you win, then maybe the courts will impose sanctions on Apple. Go for it. I really don't care, because I don't own a thing that was manufactured by Apple. The only Apple software I use is their browser. I don't even use their player for.mov files - I use a set of codecs so that I can play.mov files in the player of choice. And, that choice changes from time to time, lol
As for the idea that the Euros are picking on MS because they are an American company - no, I don't think so. Maybe, but you would have to work hard to convince me. Remember, the monopoly has been successfully taken to court on THIS side of the Atlantic. Monopoly sanctions have been imposed here AND there. Thanks to a certain big business lackey occupying the White House for 8 years, Microsoft found the political clout to avoid any real penalties for being a monopoly. But, those days are gone. MS is going to be answering for some of their most serious sins over here again soon.
Price fixing should be on the dockets soon. Note the value of Win7 if installed on a netbook, as opposed to the retail price of Win7 if installed on a desktop or laptop. Yes, price fixing needs to be examined, in depth.
"Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user?"
Maybe you have found the REAL important part of this discussion. IMHO, if the user can't be bothered with selecting some options, he probably shouldn't HAVE a computer. He CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT be installing an operating system.
That said - what is it that makes *nis so secure? Most of us who use *nix feel that it has a superior security model to anything Microsoft has ever created. That might be argued - a lot of MS fanbois do argue it. So, I won't dwell on the security model.
What is *nix's second line of defense? Choice. Nothing major, just choice. No, I'm not crazy, at all. When the machine was set up, Root had several choices of distros. Next, he had several choices of kernels within those distros. Next, he chooses a desktop - CLI or GUI. If he wants a CLI, he can choose between - what? about 6 major ones? If he chooses a GUI, he has the two well known big ones, as well as some lesser known ones.
Okay - you want to hack into a Linux box. Which exploits are you going to use? How do you even identify his kernel, to get started? See, with Windows, all you need is a user agent obtained through some script or other. If it's W2k you have an entire range of hacks publicized for W2K. If it's WinXP, ditto. Granted, SP3 is patched a lot better than the original XP - but even so, it's the same kernel. What do you get from a user agent string on *nix? Well, you could assume that if I'm using Konqueror, I have a K desktop environment - and be wrong. So, I ask you - how do you begin to determine which exploits to use against me? How many hours are you willing to invest, just to get the data needed to make intelligent decisions about cracking my box?
Windows really needs choice. Jerking Trident out of the OS will make a boatload of exploits disappear. Getting rid of and/or disabling explorer.exe will make another boatload of exploits disappear. Getting rid of that most worthless app of all, Outlook Express will make yet another boatload of exploits vanish.
Each and every choice that the user makes eliminates one set of exploits, and possibly opens a different set of exploits. Every choice the user makes is a stab at the unhealthy monoculture that invites such widespread exploitation.
Give the users a thousand choices - and the end result will be tens, or even hundreds of thousands of new configurations, which are NOT all subject to the same exploits.
Make the damned crackers work for their ill-gained profits, huh? Let's stop making it so easy for them to steal people's money.
Well, number one, it's a sanction being imposed against MS and MS software. While the OEM's are going to have a lot of leeway in HOW the sanctions are imposed, MS will be involved. I'll put money on it. How about I put all my munchies money for the next month up against yours? Do we have a bet? MS isn't going to want to let every OEM from London to Rome implement some hare-brained implementation that may or may not work.
Operator: This is MS support at 1-800-CRYBABY
caller: Yes, I haz no Intertubez.
Operator: Please start your browser
caller: You're not listenin' Lady. I haz no Intertubez.
Operator: You have no browser?
caller: Correct, you win!! The script ran, and I chose to install Opera, and Firefox, but neither one works. I went back and tried to install Intertubez Explorer, but it won't install either.
Operator: Where did you purchase your computer, Sir?
caller: Well, the wife wanted a new dress, so we went down to Omar, the tentmaker's. Omar had some "Jihad Approved" machines on sale, so I took one.
Apple has not yet been convicted in multiple courts of being a monopoly, let alone an abusive monopoly. Personally, I think they ARE monopolistic, but haven't crossed the line into true monopoly land. If/when they are proven a monopoly IN COURT by competent jurists, then I suppose that the same sanctions being put into place against Microsoft might be used against Mac.
No. IE is not Explorer. I have an Nlited Windows XP, from which IE has been completely removed. Explorer works just fine without IE. Stop spreading FUD, please.
However - Explorer can be removed from XP along with IE, and replaced with some other shell. There are dozens of them available, many for free. The pretty icons, taskbar, systray, and start menus that you cite aren't even "part of the operating system", as you seem to imply.
My #1 favorite file browser is PowerDesk. I generally retain the Explorer shell, because the prettiest and best shells are proprietary, and I'm not willing to pay for them.
If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers. Microsoft is being required to make options available. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really are literate. Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous. Nanu Nanu, dude.
Maybe it's time to standardize. Maybe. I mean, why do we bitch so much about Microsoft? They fail to follow established standards, making it difficult for honest people to compete with them - most notably in Internet Explorer, not to mention their office suite.
So, why can't Linux establish standards? I mean, yeah, we can have choices out the wazoo, but why not a STANDARD? As Adobe points out, audio is a jungle. A set of standards for desktop audio would simplify life for MOST new users. It would simplify life for most developers. And, the standard would detract from NO ONE'S experience, since so many choices exist anyway. If ALSA becomes "the standard", and I really want to use OSS, well, OSS is still there to use.
Well, since you mention it, YES, it's a good thing!! What could possibly be better, than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits? When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world, THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.
Really, I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly. Each one of them worth a billion dollars or more. Redmond will be RACING to Washington, to BEG Congress to invalidate the portfolios of patent trolls. Of course, in the process, Microsoft's own trolls will be set adrift.....
I was just going to suggest that Linux offer gelded operating systems for off the shelf netbooks, but allow the users to "upgrade" to the Stallion edition. Lots of money there, right?
Oh shit. The Stallion editions are free too........
Odd. I was thinking about that, really. And, I was comparing it to the trucking industry in the '70's through today. Back in '70, an office with 5 to 10 individuals managed fleets of as many as 300 trucks, nationwide, WITHOUT benefit of computers. All they had were telephones, and their brains.
Today? A similar number of dispatchers manage similar numbers of trucks, WITH computers. There have been some benefits, I won't knock the use of computers. Some improvements in efficiency, among other things. But, trucking companies STILL rely on people. WM has a few concerns that the average trucking company doesn't - and some of the concerns that they share with trucking companies have to be approached a little differently. But still - software is NOT a freaking necessity. People can do the job.
And, still, getting rid of people IN ANTICIPATION OF a set of software that can replace them is the ultimate in managerial incompetence. I just can't seem to make that clear, can I?
Obviously, the people calling the shots at WM should be run off, or offered jobs on the trucks, and they should be replaced by people who understand what CYA means, among other things.
Slashdot Mirror
I downloaded that stupid PDF this morning, which tells where the US keeps all of it's fissionable materials. Do they want to tax that too, I wonder? How about my expose's from Stratfor? And, you can just BET the newspapers will be in on the taxation.......
I work with and service a lot of hydraulic machines. Generations of them, in fact. The pilot valves and such really haven't changed much in 50 years, as they are a simple device - but the CONTROLLERS are simply awesome. We use mostly David Bradley stuff, but there are plenty of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean valves and controllers in the plant. Amazing how accurate they can be when remotely controlled by a computer. Hydraulically powered computer can be sent 30 feet away from you, and come back, kiss your forehead, or a baby's cheek, and sent out again. It will repeat ad nauseum, and NEVER strike you hard.
Air? I would never trust air powered mechanisms to touch a baby, and simple electric motors can scare me too. Don't even dream of doing it with some kind of gasoline powered machine. Hydraulics are more reliable than anything I can think of.
I certainly wouldn't say NDA's have "absolutely nothing to do with" this probe. It's a peripheral issue, in that the corporations dictate terms of conduct, and threaten to punish you if you don't agree to the terms. Being slightly dishonest, I'd agree to the terms up front, then break them if/when I was fired, or whatever. If taken to court, I'd claim that I was coerced into the agreement, therefore it was invalid.
Corporations have no right to interfere with a working person's ability to earn a living, whether it be NDA's, or these no-hire agreements.
It has always been considered to be in "poor taste" to hire away the competition's employees, but colluding together to prevent it is just to much.
There already is. I have no idea how much it costs, but a Navy recruiter was in my house yesterday. Took out this little handy dandy plastic thing, similar to but larger than a blood sugar test strip. My son put a drop of blood on the thing, waited for a few minutes, and his prescreen for drugs was finished. They photocopied the strip, the son and the recruiter put their signatures on the paper, and that paper becomes a part of the kid's permanent record.
Quick and easy, it tested for several common drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and I don't know what else.
In this case, or even in any other particular case, in which mediasentry is being used as evidence, yes - you are correct that the point being argued is that the evidence is inadmissable.
However, in the broader picture, those who have pried into private lives using mediasentry without being duly licensed to do so would be liable in criminal court. All that is needed is for one or more citizens to press charges and/or one or more prosecuting attorneys to get a bee in their bonnet regarding the violation of law.
There is the potential here for EACH of the 50 states to collect millions from the *iaa's for damages, not to mention penalties. Those corporations and front organizations who have employed this and similar data mining measures could conceivable be put out of business. IF, that is, the 50 states and the Disctrict of Columbia were to coordinate their attacks - which I don't see happening. To many politicians have been bought and paid for using the ill gotten gains of RIAA and associates.
I don't think that I suggested that anti-pollution measures be dropped, and forgotten. I think that I pointed out that it is foolish to expect to rape the coal industry for the funds needed to enact all our pet projects. The costs, after all, are passed on to all of us.
Let's look at coal, for a moment. 40 years ago, coal was burnt in furnaces that had straight chimneys, open to the sky, with no filters at all. The village of West Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was literally covered in a layer of soot from the Penn Power plant on the Beaver River. Literally. No one in town washed laundry, and hung it out to dry, because everything would be black before it dried. Not grey, not brown, but black.
Today, the furnace has a chimney about 130 feet high (not sure the height, just guessing, really) with a scrubbing system that stops ALL the soot. The only visible emissions from that chimney is water vapor. OF COURSE CO2 and other emissions are coming out, but they are invisible. I know for a fact that sulphur is scrubbed out - the culprit behind acid rain.
My point is, the industry has made tremendous progress in my lifetime. Things are improving. This new generation has an alarmist attitude toward coal, blaming it for stuff like mercury poisoning that I'm not even convinced of.
All I'm saying is, slow down a little, and LOOK at things. Don't enact harebrained laws (as politicians like to do) without thinking about how those laws will impact on YOUR daily life.
Sure, we can tax coal til it's unprofitable to take coal out of the ground. When we have done so, you had BETTER have something in place - or be prepared to do without electricity. Fact is, we cannot replace the power produced by coal right now. Wind generation is, and will remain, uneconomical on a small scale, and it will take years to build it on a large scale. Solar panels are getting cheaper, but even so, it's going to take a couple thousand dollar investment for EACH PERSON to make most of their own power.
Just think, before you act. Once the coal plants are shut down, they will probably never start up again. This will please the zealots, of course, but ALL of us will have to pay for their zealotry.
"est way to create one right now is to tax coal and subsidize alternative power sources."
Oh-kay - coal gets taxed. How about 10,000%, to punish coal for polluting the air. How much is your electric bill going to increase?
Maybe you're rich, and the increase won't hurt you.
Yeah, in 1963 I got on the wrong bus, INTENTIONALLY, so that I could go home and visit with a newly found friend. About 10 minutes into the ride, I realized I might be in trouble for doing so, but hey, to late now. When we got to Danny's house, his mother made me CALL HOME IMMEDIATELY.
No big deal, really.
I simply can't relate to an overly upset parent who loses contact with his kid for an hour or so. What are you going to do when the kid cuts school, and disappears for the entire day? Lock the kid in a closet til he/she reaches age 30?
No, you err on one small point. My analogy doesn't assume that the people who are supplying munchies expect any payment, in kind, or otherwise. The analogy asks for the READER's input. How do YOU feel, not the people in my made-up workplace. Obviously, from the article, SOME slashdot readers feel that something is owed. Others don't.
My personal opinion? Yeah - if you're willing to use community contributed resources for your own benefit, you should return the favor. How much, how often, and how is up for debate. But, accepting "free stuff" - ie, "charity", implies some sort of a moral debt. Just my two cents.........
There are 50 people on the worksite. One of those people often brings donuts, candy, or some such snack to share with workmates. Let's say this person does so once a week. Two other people bring such things less often - let's say twice a month. Another 10 people bring snacks occasionally - let's say once a month on average.
This is "open source" kinda. People giving to people, because they enjoy doing so, and they benefit from the camaraderie, and perhaps they enjoy some invisible "perks", such as the boss allows them time off when they ask.
So - the OTHER 37 people - should they be required to "give something back"?
Ehh, I feel like maybe they should, to "the best of their ability". One of them is a single mom, with three kids. SHE CAN'T AFFORD to repay her coworkers in kind. She MIGHT find the money to bring some home-baked goodies once in awhile, but the kids are more likely to snatch the goodies while they're hot, and they never make it to work.
How about the junior people, who may or may not have the responsibility of our single mom, but just don't make as much money? Do they "owe" their coworkers? Maybe, but just maybe some of them ARE repaying in a manner that just isn't recognized. Ask a favor of the doofus looking mail clerk, and he never says "no" or makes excuses - despite the fact that the favor is way outside his job description and responsibility.
Yeah, there are probably a couple greedy SOB's who routinely scarf down the free goodies, and never do anything to repay their coworkers. And, everybody probably knows who they are. But, what do you do about them? You can ostracize them - to a point. They'll still be your coworkers, you have to get along with them.
Best solution is probably to ignore their antisocial behaviour. It doesn't REALLY detract from anyone else's life, does it?
R2-45 HIM NOW!!
Nothing wrong with his analogy at all - for people who can't tell horse shit from roses. IF the Jews were only being prevented from trespassing on other people's (intellectual) property, THEN the analogy might fit. CoS has been abusive and arrogant in their dealings with the Wiki. The Wiki isn't exactly "public" property - that is, it is not owned by the government, it wasn't built by the government, and taxpayers don't have a monetary interest in it, in any way. The Wiki, like any private individual, can ban any person or group of persons for almost any reason, and they don't even have to justify it in a court of law. In this case, however, it could be easily justified in any impartial court, without ever once mentioning relious beliefs. CoS needs to change their conduct, plain and simple. Wiki doesn't care that they are a bunch of nutcases, they only care that the nutcases are abusive.
"Try using italics. It WILL NOT BE as annoying."
I make no apologies for my writing style. It is ironic that you use the same "technique" to make your own point.
The lack of apologies out of the way, you might consider some possibilities. Some of us have vision problems. Some of us have learning problems. Some of us are doing exactly what we were taught during the course of our lives. Some of us aren't really used to slashdot. I could go on. No need, though.
If you find my use of capitalization so objectionable, just add me to the ignore list. I am a loud man, and I really DO stress my points in conversation LOUDLY. There are no italics in the spoken language. Since I was taught to write like I talk, that's what I do.
Would you care to address the content of my post, or just the method of delivery? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts? That, I care about. Obviously, I don't care very much about proper punctuation, capitalization, etc. I'm not a very retentive person. ;-)
I have no need to hide behind the AC mask. Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate. OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama, just because he's black. It's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he's black. I happen to be non-black. I'm a veteran, for that and some other reasons, I really WANTED to vote for McCain. So - why didn't I? Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama. McCain wouldn't have exactly followed in Bush's steps, but he would have followed closely enough that it wouldn't have made a tremendous difference. Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white? Not much. I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did, or will. The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet. Tremendously different perspective. The black guy can relate to the world, whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets. McCain may not be a pure neocon, but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century. It is McCain's mission to spread corporate control around the world, supposedly for the benefit of Americans, but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2% of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.
With one son in the Army, and one son in the Navy, I really feared for their lives with Bush in control. Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2%. That is exactly what Iraq accomplished, with the neocons in charge.
While you bitch and belly ache about the "nigger" in the White House, I breathe a sigh of relief. My own funny looking kids (sans the nappy heads) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.
Bottom line? Fuck off, you cretinous redneck!!
Well, you have the right to sue Apple over the iPhone thing. If you win, then maybe the courts will impose sanctions on Apple. Go for it. I really don't care, because I don't own a thing that was manufactured by Apple. The only Apple software I use is their browser. I don't even use their player for .mov files - I use a set of codecs so that I can play .mov files in the player of choice. And, that choice changes from time to time, lol
As for the idea that the Euros are picking on MS because they are an American company - no, I don't think so. Maybe, but you would have to work hard to convince me. Remember, the monopoly has been successfully taken to court on THIS side of the Atlantic. Monopoly sanctions have been imposed here AND there. Thanks to a certain big business lackey occupying the White House for 8 years, Microsoft found the political clout to avoid any real penalties for being a monopoly. But, those days are gone. MS is going to be answering for some of their most serious sins over here again soon.
Price fixing should be on the dockets soon. Note the value of Win7 if installed on a netbook, as opposed to the retail price of Win7 if installed on a desktop or laptop. Yes, price fixing needs to be examined, in depth.
"Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user?"
Maybe you have found the REAL important part of this discussion. IMHO, if the user can't be bothered with selecting some options, he probably shouldn't HAVE a computer. He CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT be installing an operating system.
That said - what is it that makes *nis so secure? Most of us who use *nix feel that it has a superior security model to anything Microsoft has ever created. That might be argued - a lot of MS fanbois do argue it. So, I won't dwell on the security model.
What is *nix's second line of defense? Choice. Nothing major, just choice. No, I'm not crazy, at all. When the machine was set up, Root had several choices of distros. Next, he had several choices of kernels within those distros. Next, he chooses a desktop - CLI or GUI. If he wants a CLI, he can choose between - what? about 6 major ones? If he chooses a GUI, he has the two well known big ones, as well as some lesser known ones.
Okay - you want to hack into a Linux box. Which exploits are you going to use? How do you even identify his kernel, to get started? See, with Windows, all you need is a user agent obtained through some script or other. If it's W2k you have an entire range of hacks publicized for W2K. If it's WinXP, ditto. Granted, SP3 is patched a lot better than the original XP - but even so, it's the same kernel. What do you get from a user agent string on *nix? Well, you could assume that if I'm using Konqueror, I have a K desktop environment - and be wrong. So, I ask you - how do you begin to determine which exploits to use against me? How many hours are you willing to invest, just to get the data needed to make intelligent decisions about cracking my box?
Windows really needs choice. Jerking Trident out of the OS will make a boatload of exploits disappear. Getting rid of and/or disabling explorer.exe will make another boatload of exploits disappear. Getting rid of that most worthless app of all, Outlook Express will make yet another boatload of exploits vanish.
Each and every choice that the user makes eliminates one set of exploits, and possibly opens a different set of exploits. Every choice the user makes is a stab at the unhealthy monoculture that invites such widespread exploitation.
Give the users a thousand choices - and the end result will be tens, or even hundreds of thousands of new configurations, which are NOT all subject to the same exploits.
Make the damned crackers work for their ill-gained profits, huh? Let's stop making it so easy for them to steal people's money.
"I'm facepalming hard."
Could be you are doing it wrong? Lose the palm, try the edge of the table. If you regain consciousness, you might want to explore nlite: http://www.box.net/shared/c1d4bd0az5#1:10768665:108618379 http://www.nliteos.com/guide/ Shared DLL's remain, of course. The DLL's are called "shared" for a reason. But, IE can be removed, not just disabled.
Well, number one, it's a sanction being imposed against MS and MS software. While the OEM's are going to have a lot of leeway in HOW the sanctions are imposed, MS will be involved. I'll put money on it. How about I put all my munchies money for the next month up against yours? Do we have a bet? MS isn't going to want to let every OEM from London to Rome implement some hare-brained implementation that may or may not work.
Operator: This is MS support at 1-800-CRYBABY
caller: Yes, I haz no Intertubez.
Operator: Please start your browser
caller: You're not listenin' Lady. I haz no Intertubez.
Operator: You have no browser?
caller: Correct, you win!! The script ran, and I chose to install Opera, and Firefox, but neither one works. I went back and tried to install Intertubez Explorer, but it won't install either.
Operator: Where did you purchase your computer, Sir?
caller: Well, the wife wanted a new dress, so we went down to Omar, the tentmaker's. Omar had some "Jihad Approved" machines on sale, so I took one.
Apple has not yet been convicted in multiple courts of being a monopoly, let alone an abusive monopoly. Personally, I think they ARE monopolistic, but haven't crossed the line into true monopoly land. If/when they are proven a monopoly IN COURT by competent jurists, then I suppose that the same sanctions being put into place against Microsoft might be used against Mac.
No. IE is not Explorer. I have an Nlited Windows XP, from which IE has been completely removed. Explorer works just fine without IE. Stop spreading FUD, please.
However - Explorer can be removed from XP along with IE, and replaced with some other shell. There are dozens of them available, many for free. The pretty icons, taskbar, systray, and start menus that you cite aren't even "part of the operating system", as you seem to imply.
My #1 favorite file browser is PowerDesk. I generally retain the Explorer shell, because the prettiest and best shells are proprietary, and I'm not willing to pay for them.
If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers. Microsoft is being required to make options available. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really are literate. Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous. Nanu Nanu, dude.
Maybe it's time to standardize. Maybe. I mean, why do we bitch so much about Microsoft? They fail to follow established standards, making it difficult for honest people to compete with them - most notably in Internet Explorer, not to mention their office suite.
So, why can't Linux establish standards? I mean, yeah, we can have choices out the wazoo, but why not a STANDARD? As Adobe points out, audio is a jungle. A set of standards for desktop audio would simplify life for MOST new users. It would simplify life for most developers. And, the standard would detract from NO ONE'S experience, since so many choices exist anyway. If ALSA becomes "the standard", and I really want to use OSS, well, OSS is still there to use.
"You make it sound like it's a good thing..."
Well, since you mention it, YES, it's a good thing!! What could possibly be better, than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits? When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world, THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.
Really, I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly. Each one of them worth a billion dollars or more. Redmond will be RACING to Washington, to BEG Congress to invalidate the portfolios of patent trolls. Of course, in the process, Microsoft's own trolls will be set adrift.....
I was just going to suggest that Linux offer gelded operating systems for off the shelf netbooks, but allow the users to "upgrade" to the Stallion edition. Lots of money there, right?
Oh shit. The Stallion editions are free too........
Odd. I was thinking about that, really. And, I was comparing it to the trucking industry in the '70's through today. Back in '70, an office with 5 to 10 individuals managed fleets of as many as 300 trucks, nationwide, WITHOUT benefit of computers. All they had were telephones, and their brains.
Today? A similar number of dispatchers manage similar numbers of trucks, WITH computers. There have been some benefits, I won't knock the use of computers. Some improvements in efficiency, among other things. But, trucking companies STILL rely on people. WM has a few concerns that the average trucking company doesn't - and some of the concerns that they share with trucking companies have to be approached a little differently. But still - software is NOT a freaking necessity. People can do the job.
And, still, getting rid of people IN ANTICIPATION OF a set of software that can replace them is the ultimate in managerial incompetence. I just can't seem to make that clear, can I?
Obviously, the people calling the shots at WM should be run off, or offered jobs on the trucks, and they should be replaced by people who understand what CYA means, among other things.