The parent to this comment was rated "Overrated." How can a comment be called overrated when the overrated rating is the first and only? Shouldn't it be impossible for the first rating to say "overrated?"
Thusly is not a word. Thus, your argument is null. Oh wait, using your logic against you will work as poorly as using against me.
I was not debating the words of the law, I was arguing what the principle of the law should be, and you admit to agreeing that it should be different. I do not pretend to argue the letter of laws, but I do say that if a law is wrong, it should be changed or disobeyed. I raise a philosophical issue, not a legal one.
Philosophically, is it not wrong for Sun to get away with something for which Microsoft would get hammered? And it goes vice versa, of course, because any good philosophy is reciprocal. Just as Sun shouldn't get away with something like this, neither should Microsoft, but they should both be equally opposed in their approach.
With Jobs' 2GHz G6, Aqua in OS X can render the minimize/maximize window genie effect in.0006 seconds, whereas it takes the 110Ghz PC running Windows an indefinite amount of time to do it.*
Fine print: Windows lacks the genie effect, proving the PPC's superiority over the Pentium.
Isn't that kind of like giving a wealthy person preferential treatment that a poor person would not get in a similar situation? Or letting a white guy off while you put a black guy in the slammer for the same crime? Shouldn't the same rules be applied all the time?
The agenda I'm hinting at is not Microsoft's but yours: in your calls for "freedom," you do nothing but attempt to take it away from others, rather than giving it to those who are lacking. As the underdog, people may root for you, and people may sign on to your cause, but does that make you right? Does that make success wrong? If so, to what end are you endeavoring?
If this had been converted from presentation-style to an actual webpage, it would have been deemed a big waste of time. Where is all the information? There isn't even anything new here, I already knew everything there, and I've only been using OpenBSD for a couple weeks.
The only thing there was a long list of titles with no information, old or new.
I said "imagine, for a moment" for a reason. If Office was offered on Linux for US$1000, but was free on Windows, which system would the end-users buy? That's right, they'd all buy the Windows box, even though the OS costs way too much and isn't necessarily as good.
People make their decisions based on the applications, not the OS.
Can't this be construed as anticompetitive practices? Everyone is blaming Microsoft for using their position in the OS market in order to leverage themselves into other markets. By offering their software for free only if you have their OS, and charging for it otherwise, they are doing something for which MS would be burned at the stake.
Imagine, for a moment, that MS decided to offer Office for free for Windows users, but charged several hundred dollars to use it on Mac or on Linux. What would everyone say? Would anyone say that it's a good thing for the company or for the users? Would anyone say it is fair? Obviously, they would be using their position in one market in order to gain easier access in another.
Laws, and opinions, should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of name, rank, or serial number.
So what you're saying is that no one person can do more than two things in their life? What happens if they work with people they like (thus have friends), and after work they all come over and play XBOX on your HDTV. Do you need a mirror above your TV to watch how futile your existence is when you're sitting on the couch with your three best friends at three in the morning, still playing Halo (that never gets tiring), even though you all have to go back to work in a few hours? Is that not fun? What else can you do at three in the morning? Everyone you meet at that hour is either going to attack you or assume you are attacking them.
Did people have said awareness of AOL before they started their CD campaign? (Well, disk campaign, anyway). If an organization promoting Linux were to do this, they would already be way ahead of AOL when they started, but they would run into a major problem. AOL had a huge money-making plan, involving draconian billing following a brief but intoxicating "free" period. Linux has no billing, and no way to make money (on its own), so how do you fund giving it away on discs, like AOL?
Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool.
Ummm, isn't that Visual Basic? Oh yeah, it is! You know, people can develop programs on a proprietary systems, even using a Microsoft product. I do, and so do some of my friends.
People can make programs to do a specific task to suit their needs, or they can just do their work in a program that does too much and get it done in half the time without having to worry about building a new program every time they need something done.
What is the problem with a program having too many features? Would you not rather have too many than not enough?
What is it about a post like this (self pitying, resigned to being ignored) that forces people to mod it up? Is it a general agreement with his views, that this place is a joke? That can't be true (why are you all still here??). Is it the fact that you pity him for pitying himself? It seems to me that this guy is very pathetic, and points out the problems of the system at the same time as he takes advantage of its unique advantages (of course he takes these advantages for granted).
Perhaps it is because he fits in with the rest of you: he manages to spout mostly useless information about something he considers himself to be an expert, and surrounds his ideas in a thick wall of misspelled words and grammatical errors (yup, he must be a great coder, to be able to give such extensive criticisms of the experienced people at Apache!). Someone should perhaps tell him that an ellipsis has three periods, and a dictionary is just a few clicks away.
Perhaps he is against the system by default, and that's why he came here in the first place, but when it turned out that this place is just another system, he figured nothing good could come of it, and that power is being abused to suppress his (obviously flawless) ideas.
But the most likely situation, and I have noticed this in many other discussions, is that the statements "I don't care about karma," or "Everyone will mod me down for this" automatically guarantee that the comment will be rated at least a 4. What if it actually deserves to be modded down?
What if he just took a one time opportunity to vent his bitterness at the system that is holding him down? Must we all hear him? Mod me down if you will, but I will not be ignored.
turning the contrast of your screen down to foil prying eyes and cameras
So basically, you're going back to the old days. If monitors keep getting better and better, we'll have to make the OS interface worse and worse to compensate. Then maybe monitor manufacturing companies, when they see that demand for their new products is through the floor, perhaps they will stop advancing their technology. And when that happens, we can all blame the halt in technological advancement on Microsoft's anticompetitive business practices!
Everyone use Tinfoil Hat Linux! Surely it is the key to defeating Microsoft!
They (or should I say he?) are the first to realize the next step in the dot-com/dot-bomb business strategy:
Right before you go bankrupt, sue Microsoft! They are the specific reason you failed, and you have nothing left to lose, and just look at those vast spoils waiting to be won!
While it may be better, faster, superior in every way it doesn't have 20+ years of legacy code behind it
If you are drawing a comparison between Windows and the Unices, you may find it interesting that Unix came before Windows and thus has more legacy code than Windows does. The reason for Windows' success is not all their old, crappy code, but because of their excellent marketing department and their vision of what the consumer wants.
A few hundred years ago people in Europe would have said the same thing if you mentioned the crazy idea of giving basic rights to all people in the country regardless of their wealth.
Just about a century ago in America, if you had said that giving basic rights to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, et cetera, you would have been laughed at.
People always call the idea of basic rights crazy until they are doled out, at which point said people will die for them.
Of course his work is optimistic: if it were pessimistic he would be called a sociopathic depressed old wonk and his works relegated to the National Enquirer and such things. He is optimistic because he knows that that is what people want to hear.
We don't need another stinkin proprietry OS, one is enough and users know it.
What do you mean the users know it? The users don't know anything other than the fact that they need Word to type a short note and Excel to make a list. They don't know anything other than where the Start bar is and who to call if they can't find it. The users don't care about free (beer/liberty), and they don't care about proprietary. They care about how easy it is to use and who else uses it. If the person at the cubicle next to them uses it, maybe they will switch, but only if they feel that they are more proficient with computers than said cubicle neighbor.
You know that the world doesn't need another proprietary OS, but the users don't. For the most part, the users know nothing.
I say if you want to go to another solar system, go for it. I would rather stay here and respond to slashdot articles.
But the people on the spaceship would also want to respond to the slashdot articles, so they would send in their responses as soon as they get the stories. Then, of course, you guys back at home could all laugh at their naive, century-old ideas. Not too bad.
If there is plenty of evidence to prove them guilty, why is it thus far impossible? Of course everyone knows, deep down, that they are as guilty as a killer with blood on his hands and a knife in his pocket standing over a mutilated corpse, but then why does it take so long to pin anything on them? There are problems with any judicial system that has such difficulty in the area of justice.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent to this comment was rated "Overrated." How can a comment be called overrated when the overrated rating is the first and only? Shouldn't it be impossible for the first rating to say "overrated?"
Seems somewhat ridiculous to me...
Thusly your argument is null.
Thusly is not a word. Thus, your argument is null. Oh wait, using your logic against you will work as poorly as using against me.
I was not debating the words of the law, I was arguing what the principle of the law should be, and you admit to agreeing that it should be different. I do not pretend to argue the letter of laws, but I do say that if a law is wrong, it should be changed or disobeyed. I raise a philosophical issue, not a legal one.
Philosophically, is it not wrong for Sun to get away with something for which Microsoft would get hammered? And it goes vice versa, of course, because any good philosophy is reciprocal. Just as Sun shouldn't get away with something like this, neither should Microsoft, but they should both be equally opposed in their approach.
But it's the same principle. Laws are based on the principles, not on who will currently get most/least screwed.
Infinitely faster.
.0006 seconds, whereas it takes the 110Ghz PC running Windows an indefinite amount of time to do it.*
With Jobs' 2GHz G6, Aqua in OS X can render the minimize/maximize window genie effect in
Fine print: Windows lacks the genie effect, proving the PPC's superiority over the Pentium.
Isn't that kind of like giving a wealthy person preferential treatment that a poor person would not get in a similar situation? Or letting a white guy off while you put a black guy in the slammer for the same crime? Shouldn't the same rules be applied all the time?
The agenda I'm hinting at is not Microsoft's but yours: in your calls for "freedom," you do nothing but attempt to take it away from others, rather than giving it to those who are lacking. As the underdog, people may root for you, and people may sign on to your cause, but does that make you right? Does that make success wrong? If so, to what end are you endeavoring?
If this had been converted from presentation-style to an actual webpage, it would have been deemed a big waste of time. Where is all the information? There isn't even anything new here, I already knew everything there, and I've only been using OpenBSD for a couple weeks.
The only thing there was a long list of titles with no information, old or new.
I said "imagine, for a moment" for a reason. If Office was offered on Linux for US$1000, but was free on Windows, which system would the end-users buy? That's right, they'd all buy the Windows box, even though the OS costs way too much and isn't necessarily as good.
People make their decisions based on the applications, not the OS.
Can't this be construed as anticompetitive practices? Everyone is blaming Microsoft for using their position in the OS market in order to leverage themselves into other markets. By offering their software for free only if you have their OS, and charging for it otherwise, they are doing something for which MS would be burned at the stake.
Imagine, for a moment, that MS decided to offer Office for free for Windows users, but charged several hundred dollars to use it on Mac or on Linux. What would everyone say? Would anyone say that it's a good thing for the company or for the users? Would anyone say it is fair? Obviously, they would be using their position in one market in order to gain easier access in another.
Laws, and opinions, should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of name, rank, or serial number.
So what you're saying is that no one person can do more than two things in their life? What happens if they work with people they like (thus have friends), and after work they all come over and play XBOX on your HDTV. Do you need a mirror above your TV to watch how futile your existence is when you're sitting on the couch with your three best friends at three in the morning, still playing Halo (that never gets tiring), even though you all have to go back to work in a few hours? Is that not fun? What else can you do at three in the morning? Everyone you meet at that hour is either going to attack you or assume you are attacking them.
Did people have said awareness of AOL before they started their CD campaign? (Well, disk campaign, anyway). If an organization promoting Linux were to do this, they would already be way ahead of AOL when they started, but they would run into a major problem. AOL had a huge money-making plan, involving draconian billing following a brief but intoxicating "free" period. Linux has no billing, and no way to make money (on its own), so how do you fund giving it away on discs, like AOL?
Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool.
Ummm, isn't that Visual Basic? Oh yeah, it is! You know, people can develop programs on a proprietary systems, even using a Microsoft product. I do, and so do some of my friends.
People can make programs to do a specific task to suit their needs, or they can just do their work in a program that does too much and get it done in half the time without having to worry about building a new program every time they need something done.
What is the problem with a program having too many features? Would you not rather have too many than not enough?
The purpose of the CCO is to blame Microsoft for having a Chief Competitive Officer, regardless of whether or not they actually have one.
Remember, everyone is innocent but a certain Gates; thus it matters not what one does, as long as he is else.
2 byte virus = 4.6^-10 grams (+/- .43^-10 grams)
Yep, the smallest virus would still be about twice as heavy as the cluster of antimatter atoms
Actually, that makes it about 2*10^11 times heavier, not twice. Proves your point, though.
I used to get that too. It's a hardware problem...
I know a guy who still has that problem. I'm convinced it's a software problem.
What is it about a post like this (self pitying, resigned to being ignored) that forces people to mod it up? Is it a general agreement with his views, that this place is a joke? That can't be true (why are you all still here??). Is it the fact that you pity him for pitying himself? It seems to me that this guy is very pathetic, and points out the problems of the system at the same time as he takes advantage of its unique advantages (of course he takes these advantages for granted).
Perhaps it is because he fits in with the rest of you: he manages to spout mostly useless information about something he considers himself to be an expert, and surrounds his ideas in a thick wall of misspelled words and grammatical errors (yup, he must be a great coder, to be able to give such extensive criticisms of the experienced people at Apache!). Someone should perhaps tell him that an ellipsis has three periods, and a dictionary is just a few clicks away.
Perhaps he is against the system by default, and that's why he came here in the first place, but when it turned out that this place is just another system, he figured nothing good could come of it, and that power is being abused to suppress his (obviously flawless) ideas.
But the most likely situation, and I have noticed this in many other discussions, is that the statements "I don't care about karma," or "Everyone will mod me down for this" automatically guarantee that the comment will be rated at least a 4. What if it actually deserves to be modded down?
What if he just took a one time opportunity to vent his bitterness at the system that is holding him down? Must we all hear him? Mod me down if you will, but I will not be ignored.
The US military again! Haven't you seen Contact? "Why buy only one when you could buy two for twice the price?"
Yeah, the Army will have two of these babies.
This may be a little off-topic, but...
As a teacher, I am going to have to deal with a generation of students who cannot spell "segue".
As a teacher, what do you do to handle a whole community of people who cannot spell these funny things called "words?" Just curious =)
turning the contrast of your screen down to foil prying eyes and cameras
So basically, you're going back to the old days. If monitors keep getting better and better, we'll have to make the OS interface worse and worse to compensate. Then maybe monitor manufacturing companies, when they see that demand for their new products is through the floor, perhaps they will stop advancing their technology. And when that happens, we can all blame the halt in technological advancement on Microsoft's anticompetitive business practices!
Everyone use Tinfoil Hat Linux! Surely it is the key to defeating Microsoft!
They (or should I say he?) are the first to realize the next step in the dot-com/dot-bomb business strategy:
Right before you go bankrupt, sue Microsoft! They are the specific reason you failed, and you have nothing left to lose, and just look at those vast spoils waiting to be won!
That's it!!!
While it may be better, faster, superior in every way it doesn't have 20+ years of legacy code behind it
If you are drawing a comparison between Windows and the Unices, you may find it interesting that Unix came before Windows and thus has more legacy code than Windows does. The reason for Windows' success is not all their old, crappy code, but because of their excellent marketing department and their vision of what the consumer wants.
Basic rights. Sure.
A few hundred years ago people in Europe would have said the same thing if you mentioned the crazy idea of giving basic rights to all people in the country regardless of their wealth.
Just about a century ago in America, if you had said that giving basic rights to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, et cetera, you would have been laughed at.
People always call the idea of basic rights crazy until they are doled out, at which point said people will die for them.
his work is a bit optimistic at times,
Of course his work is optimistic: if it were pessimistic he would be called a sociopathic depressed old wonk and his works relegated to the National Enquirer and such things. He is optimistic because he knows that that is what people want to hear.
This guy knows what he's doing.
We don't need another stinkin proprietry OS, one is enough and users know it.
What do you mean the users know it? The users don't know anything other than the fact that they need Word to type a short note and Excel to make a list. They don't know anything other than where the Start bar is and who to call if they can't find it. The users don't care about free (beer/liberty), and they don't care about proprietary. They care about how easy it is to use and who else uses it. If the person at the cubicle next to them uses it, maybe they will switch, but only if they feel that they are more proficient with computers than said cubicle neighbor.
You know that the world doesn't need another proprietary OS, but the users don't. For the most part, the users know nothing.
I say if you want to go to another solar system, go for it. I would rather stay here and respond to slashdot articles.
But the people on the spaceship would also want to respond to the slashdot articles, so they would send in their responses as soon as they get the stories. Then, of course, you guys back at home could all laugh at their naive, century-old ideas. Not too bad.
If there is plenty of evidence to prove them guilty, why is it thus far impossible? Of course everyone knows, deep down, that they are as guilty as a killer with blood on his hands and a knife in his pocket standing over a mutilated corpse, but then why does it take so long to pin anything on them? There are problems with any judicial system that has such difficulty in the area of justice.