"And since the GPL isn't even the "free-est" license (the BSD is), how is this freedom at all?"
So 99% more freedom than before isn't freedom at all in you mind?? Wow, you have some tough standards.
BSD is the most free license because it allows the customer to repackage the software in a proprietary, closed-source offering later. However this is entirely inappropriate for the government's use.
The government of a democratic country operates off the funds provided by the people at large and is supposed to serve the madate of the people at large. Therefore everything they buy and use actually belongs to us. The GPL would ensure that no matter what the Government does with the software, the source will ultimately be available to the people who use the software so that they can change it if need be. This is vitally important to the maintenance of our important systems and data.
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
He gave that money away. To help sick people in third world countries. What an evilbastard!:)
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
America is in a recession right now. something like 4 million jobs and counting lost and currently the skinny is they are never coming back. A whole lot of the poor working americans literally had their money stolen recently by the rich CEOs that ran the companies they worked for. This new data reflects their take.
Ever seen the destruction to lives caused by those few grams of pot? No... I didn't think so.
I have, the destruction was only caused by the illegality of the drug. Had pot been legal, the destruction would have been zero. Since it was not, there was jail time, difficulty getting work, etc etc...
Yet we can easily use Linux. Which gives you some idea how use friendly Linux can be.
You'd think they'd learn their lesson
on
Windows ATMs by 2005
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
After worms killed Bank of America's Windows-based ATMs and caused the greatest power outage in history you would think people would quit trying to use windows for secure environments. Windows is a desktop single user os for office workers. It is no good for any othe rpurpose (in fact being inferior even to Linux for even that purpose). For ATMs the banks should be using a secure RTOS of some sort, not a desktop OS.
Someone is going to have to put a stop to this nonsense. Our country's financial structure and infrastructure are threatened by Microsoft's predatory marketing practices and refusal to build stable secure software. The only answer is to ban their products in certain usage.
The real joke was when the Banks said that they wanted to use a more open operating sstem which is why they chose Microsoft. Yes, if you want a standard, open operating system rather than proprietary garbage use Windows. Hmm. Something wrong there. But then the Banks are using Windows for everythings else. So they find it easier to interface with Windows than anything else because that is what the MCSEs they hired know how to connect with.
Get the picture? Microsoft has made sure that their OS is a pain in the ass to connect to anything and that the more you knwo about their OS the less you know about computing in general or any other OS. Therefore the path of least resistance is to just install Windows for everything. Of course if it were me the path of least rsistance would be to tell the MS salesguy to get the fuck out of my office and tell the MS software to get the fuck off my machines. Then I would install something stable, secure, usable, and open source.
If everyone did that we would have less computing problems all around. Too bad we have idiots who still insist on using piece of shit software.
"Would you rather we "liberated" their country instead?"
tempting, but not the role of our military to police the world
Actually that is a commonly stated fallacy. The fact of the matter is that it is absolutely the role of our military to police the world, and that is what they have been doing. When we got involved with organizations like NATO, the UN, and previously the League of Nations we accepted this responsibility. Even had we not formalized this goal, it is the task of all good human beings to do everything within their power to make the world a better place, and to reduce the suffering of others. Doing so is good for all humanity, much less the country.
"It makes perfect sense that we do not allow ISPs who set up shop within our borders to knowlingly sell accounts to spammers. It makes perfect sense to me that when we identify ISPs as spam havens we cut them off completely."
The issue is not whether anyone likes spam or not, or by extension the spammers. Would a Federal ban of private citizens (read: not subjects) be a solution that would not through negligence or even eventual abuse be used to filter out arbitrary sites, info, or organizations simply using these very same laws and precidents? That is my concern. Personally, I would not support any ISP that directly or indirectly (knowingly) supports spammers. For that matter, I will not go with ISP's that don't use spam filters unless I first setup my own mail exchange and filtration devices.
I am just not too keen on letting the government define who spammers are and then being allowed to force everyone to accept that same governments filtration. Allow ISP's to the choice to filter out the spammers and publish who complies and who does not. This might work to curb foolish definitions of who is a spammer some ladder climbing bureaucrats. I would argue for more accountability by ISPs that knowingly harbour spammers, but not a preemptive coverall policy. Like the unrealistic dream of making the planet a gun free paradise, we don't have the monkey's paw to grant us an effective enough method for a centralized yet uncoordinated and non-collaborating group of organizations to make the decision for everyone. This is not just another liberty vs. short term security (or said another way, "feel good measure"), but rather about effectiveness and efficiency... and yes a bit of cost as well.
I agree with you that there is some danger in having the government control the blackholing. It is certain that our government has regularly overstepped its bounds as a matter of course. But this is exactly why the law should define in some detail what a spammer is before we enact it. It should be a powerful laser, not another general purpose club like the government is fond of getting hold of.
As for your talk of "giving ISPs a choice" and "filters" you just have to be kidding. Firstly, ISPs were given a choice. Their choice has been (surprise!) to give the spammers business because it is not illegal to do so and it makes them money. Filters do not work. First of all, all filtration systems we have result in at least some spam ocming through, and as the spam level rises, so does the amount that comes through. Secondly, filters do not truly address the problem. They are a band-aid over your eyes so you don't have to see the problem. When 50-80% of internet traffic is spam, it is a very big problem. It threatens the very life of the internet itself.
You keep harping on this idea of decentralized anarchies ruling the internet. But the fact of the matter is there are only 3-4 companies, total (maybe 2 now that so many have dot-bombed) that control the majority of the backbone of the net, and those companies are based in the US. Even if that were not the case, the internet does indeed consist of physical equipment in physical locations, much of it in the US. Even if that were not the case, the internet experience for America
I have been dead set against this unscrupulous practice since I first heard of it. 1GB == 1024MB. It is 1024 for a reason. Manufacturers pulling new numbers out of their ass is unconscionable and just plain wrong. These are computers, damnit, we should be precise about our measurements and not just make things up with no rhyme or reason.
No, honestly. I wouldn't bother. It's not that good. Besides... how much spam comes from the UK anyway? It's all from (search for real figures) China, etc. This will probably have little/no effect on spam counts.
Ah, but they are at least doing something about Spam. Well, my country is doing something about spam, too.. it is paying spammers money to spam people more! Ah what a country!
Does the same thing happen with the Postal Service? Is it legal? Should it not be?
Yes, junk mail comes from the post office, yes it is legal, no it should not be. The USPS has already admitted it has been charging you and I more for mail to subsidize cheap junk mail. Screw that! Telemarketing should be illegal as well.
I agree that the law has not addressed the spam problem, but consider this. If theives break into your home often and vandalize your property and threaten your life and often among the thieves are professional locksmiths, is the solution to make locksmithing illegal and ban its training? Or is the problem the thief?
Erm.. I am not punishing the locksmith here. I am punishing the thief. I am perhaps also punishing the person who knowingly harbours the thief but then that is what we do with thieves.
Since we all know how efficient and effective the government is in micromanaging things like this I guess the question is: do you want solutions or loopholes? BTW, why must it be the Federal government that does this? And since when was "its happening" mean "its constitutional?"
Only the Federal Government has the authority to do this. We are talking about interstate (and international) commerce here, which is clearly in their jurisdiction and theirs alone. We are talking about protecting our citizens from criminals and in some cases terrorists. (How much money do the Nigerian gangs funnel to Al Qaeda from their spam scams? Even if it is $0 do you have any conception of how evil these guys are? They trade in human bondage for starters...)
It makes perfect sense that we do not allow ISPs who set up shop within our borders to knowlingly sell accounts to spammers. It makes perfect sense to me that when we identify ISPs as spam havens we cut them off completely. That is the only way to deal with them and the only legal thing we can do to make them stop. Would you rather we "liberated" their country instead?
Someone listened to you clowns and actually followed through on your ideology, and guess what? Now they're sleaze.
No they didn't, unless you believe SCO's line that our ideology is to steal other people's work. This person is lying about their product which is a closed-source version of a free software product. They stand in violation of the licenses under which the code was released.
Our ideolology is diametrically opposed to such things. We believe code should be shared and that when people work hard to produce something they deserve to be paid for it. Get it straight.
The fact that you can use one program to talk to people on different services.
When you figure out how AOL can implament these two please let me know. kthxbye.
More than that. Years ago, I was using the yahoo messenger like a good little internaut on Windows 2000. But then there were all these bloody worms and viruses on Windows. So I locked down the system. Then I wondered why YahooIM was taking up 100% of my CPU and not doing anything. Eventually I put two and two together.
Unless you unlock all the internet security on Windows completely, YahooIM does this. If you knew what sites it connected to (*.yahoo.com did not work) you might presumably "trust" those sites. But no matter. It was stupid to me that the Yahoo IM, being windows only, was reliant on explorer and bad security policies. I installed gaim and all was well. Better, gaim works on all the operating systems I like to use and works with all chatting systems easily, simultaneously, and seamlessly.
Of course I quickly ditched all Microsoft systems soon after, but if employers made me use Microsoft at work I always ditched all IMs for gaim and locked down the security. Most people run windows completely unsecured, even in "secure" environments, as an administrator. The OS is just not very usable otherwise, because most apps are written with this idea in mind instead of even trying to run with least privilege. Still I insist myself, and avoid apps which are like this.
If anyone ever again says the mods here are pro-linux and anti-windows, remind me to smack them. What pro-linux sites do you know would mod up a blatant flame and troll like this, even using a word like "loonix". The microsofties have taken over! What posseses M$ fanboys to come to slashdot? Are they so zealotus that they absolutely must defend there precious product?
Microsoft pays for the ads that keep this site running. They own this site. So shut up, you ungrateful loonix terrorist!:)
Actually I think getting HalfLife to run in Lunix is asking far too much:)
Since I doubt we'll ever see a lawsuit involving children going around biting stuff and running from ghosts as a result of playing pac-man then I'll assume its not an issue of video games specifically. If that is the case then couldn't frivolous lawsuit seekers also "assist" people who've been afflicted mentally while playing Monopoly? Suppose a property owner decides to tear down a house and build a hotel. Whats it cost, a few thousand dollars? Well after tearing down the house and realizing that hotels cost more than they do in Monopoly, he decides to sue Hasbro for not instilling in him the consequences of tearing down the house?
A commonly repeated line among ravers is "If we were truly influenced by video games we played as kids we would be running around in the dark with flashing lights all around us chomping pills and listening to repetitive electronic music...":)
And and firing a gun is nothing like on the PS2 either! I mean you have to pull the trigger on the shoulder of the controller.... uhhh.
Actually I was pleased to find that Max Payne and Medal of Honor: Frontline use the right shoulder button for firing the gun. Good old trigger-pulling action!;)
I think the problem comes from the fact that McDonalds pretends it isn't. They'll do things like list nutrition information, and then go and hide it in some place you would not look.(Though, I hear that practice is changing now.)
What baloney. They listed the "nutrition information" in response to people who wanted to know how much sodium and calories they were snarfing, exactly. And if you follow it you can actually get a healthful meal at McDonald's (like a salad with no dressing, for instance). They post it on the wall by the counter in every Mcdonald's, and some Mcdonalds' have little handouts you can take home for your perusal.
McDonald's never pretended their food was anything but pure feel-good tasty decadent junk. Though they have respoded to people who wanted more healthy choices (who were thre because their kids saw the damn clown on TV and kept bawling till they got to go to playland and throw their fries all over the damn place), by providing things like salads, reduced fat items, and diet drinks.
p.s. the site search engine sucks a lot less since it got a major upgrade about a month ago, though googling with site:msdn.microsoft.com is still a good move.
Actually, I liked it a lot better before they XP-ified it and dumbed it down. They also seem to think it is a good idea to make it hard to narrow a search to one of their 5000 products instead of all 5000. Yes you can do it, but only after you have searched once under all 5000. Before you could search under only one product from the very beginning.
While the question was not directed to me, I have worked for Microsoft in the past, and have actually asked this same question of my superiors.
They said that for the amount of information they host on their page, with the diversity of content, it's actually set up in one of the most efficient manners. It may take a little while to find what you're looking for, but you will ultimately find it.
And I've found this to be true.
Actually, with respect to getting bugfixes, support and product info microsoft.com is one of the best sites in the business. And it does have a lot of information about a dizzying array of products, so it makes sense they would have trouble organizing things.
Man, I just said something good about microsoft. I can't believe I said that! Better say something bad, too...
One thing I don't like about microsoft.com is that the new search is not as easy to narrow down as the old one. You used to be able to narrow a search by product right from the beginning, but now they force you to do a search on all products first. That kind of sucks and wastes my time.
Also I do not like the tendency to making links that go nowhere and the forced obsolescence of old patches/software to the point of making it the software equivolent of an unperson. The fact Microsoft does not let anyone else keep old patches/ie versions that might be important for people running current products that just happen not to be the latest product exacerbates this but is not a criticism of microsoft.com per se.
Slashdot Mirror
It would help if I had included the link to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Now I don't think any mandated software offers you the freedom to run. What's free about it if you HAVE to run it?
Erm, mandating use of a piece of software does not deny you the freedom to run it.
Besides, I am not sure why you are so upset about this anyway. Why is it so much better when everyone is forced to run Windows without a choice, eh?
"And since the GPL isn't even the "free-est" license (the BSD is), how is this freedom at all?"
So 99% more freedom than before isn't freedom at all in you mind?? Wow, you have some tough standards.
BSD is the most free license because it allows the customer to repackage the software in a proprietary, closed-source offering later. However this is entirely inappropriate for the government's use.
The government of a democratic country operates off the funds provided by the people at large and is supposed to serve the madate of the people at large. Therefore everything they buy and use actually belongs to us. The GPL would ensure that no matter what the Government does with the software, the source will ultimately be available to the people who use the software so that they can change it if need be. This is vitally important to the maintenance of our important systems and data.
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
He gave that money away. To help sick people in third world countries. What an evilbastard! :)
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
America is in a recession right now. something like 4 million jobs and counting lost and currently the skinny is they are never coming back. A whole lot of the poor working americans literally had their money stolen recently by the rich CEOs that ran the companies they worked for. This new data reflects their take.
Ever seen the destruction to lives caused by those few grams of pot? No... I didn't think so.
I have, the destruction was only caused by the illegality of the drug. Had pot been legal, the destruction would have been zero. Since it was not, there was jail time, difficulty getting work, etc etc...
5 steps is too complex for most slashdotters...
Yet we can easily use Linux. Which gives you some idea how use friendly Linux can be.
After worms killed Bank of America's Windows-based ATMs and caused the greatest power outage in history you would think people would quit trying to use windows for secure environments. Windows is a desktop single user os for office workers. It is no good for any othe rpurpose (in fact being inferior even to Linux for even that purpose). For ATMs the banks should be using a secure RTOS of some sort, not a desktop OS.
Someone is going to have to put a stop to this nonsense. Our country's financial structure and infrastructure are threatened by Microsoft's predatory marketing practices and refusal to build stable secure software. The only answer is to ban their products in certain usage.
The real joke was when the Banks said that they wanted to use a more open operating sstem which is why they chose Microsoft. Yes, if you want a standard, open operating system rather than proprietary garbage use Windows. Hmm. Something wrong there. But then the Banks are using Windows for everythings else. So they find it easier to interface with Windows than anything else because that is what the MCSEs they hired know how to connect with.
Get the picture? Microsoft has made sure that their OS is a pain in the ass to connect to anything and that the more you knwo about their OS the less you know about computing in general or any other OS. Therefore the path of least resistance is to just install Windows for everything. Of course if it were me the path of least rsistance would be to tell the MS salesguy to get the fuck out of my office and tell the MS software to get the fuck off my machines. Then I would install something stable, secure, usable, and open source.
If everyone did that we would have less computing problems all around. Too bad we have idiots who still insist on using piece of shit software.
"Would you rather we "liberated" their country instead?"
tempting, but not the role of our military to police the world
Actually that is a commonly stated fallacy. The fact of the matter is that it is absolutely the role of our military to police the world, and that is what they have been doing. When we got involved with organizations like NATO, the UN, and previously the League of Nations we accepted this responsibility. Even had we not formalized this goal, it is the task of all good human beings to do everything within their power to make the world a better place, and to reduce the suffering of others. Doing so is good for all humanity, much less the country.
"It makes perfect sense that we do not allow ISPs who set up shop within our borders to knowlingly sell accounts to spammers. It makes perfect sense to me that when we identify ISPs as spam havens we cut them off completely."
The issue is not whether anyone likes spam or not, or by extension the spammers. Would a Federal ban of private citizens (read: not subjects) be a solution that would not through negligence or even eventual abuse be used to filter out arbitrary sites, info, or organizations simply using these very same laws and precidents? That is my concern. Personally, I would not support any ISP that directly or indirectly (knowingly) supports spammers. For that matter, I will not go with ISP's that don't use spam filters unless I first setup my own mail exchange and filtration devices.
I am just not too keen on letting the government define who spammers are and then being allowed to force everyone to accept that same governments filtration. Allow ISP's to the choice to filter out the spammers and publish who complies and who does not. This might work to curb foolish definitions of who is a spammer some ladder climbing bureaucrats. I would argue for more accountability by ISPs that knowingly harbour spammers, but not a preemptive coverall policy. Like the unrealistic dream of making the planet a gun free paradise, we don't have the monkey's paw to grant us an effective enough method for a centralized yet uncoordinated and non-collaborating group of organizations to make the decision for everyone. This is not just another liberty vs. short term security (or said another way, "feel good measure"), but rather about effectiveness and efficiency... and yes a bit of cost as well.
I agree with you that there is some danger in having the government control the blackholing. It is certain that our government has regularly overstepped its bounds as a matter of course. But this is exactly why the law should define in some detail what a spammer is before we enact it. It should be a powerful laser, not another general purpose club like the government is fond of getting hold of.
As for your talk of "giving ISPs a choice" and "filters" you just have to be kidding. Firstly, ISPs were given a choice. Their choice has been (surprise!) to give the spammers business because it is not illegal to do so and it makes them money. Filters do not work. First of all, all filtration systems we have result in at least some spam ocming through, and as the spam level rises, so does the amount that comes through. Secondly, filters do not truly address the problem. They are a band-aid over your eyes so you don't have to see the problem. When 50-80% of internet traffic is spam, it is a very big problem. It threatens the very life of the internet itself.
You keep harping on this idea of decentralized anarchies ruling the internet. But the fact of the matter is there are only 3-4 companies, total (maybe 2 now that so many have dot-bombed) that control the majority of the backbone of the net, and those companies are based in the US. Even if that were not the case, the internet does indeed consist of physical equipment in physical locations, much of it in the US. Even if that were not the case, the internet experience for America
You're vulnerable to the ptrace exploit, among others.
Not if he does not give random idiots local shell access...
IRC and /. were not exactly designed for thoughtful interaction
Yet people daily get friendly help from those places. yes even slashdot.
Capital "K" means kelvin.
And capital "X" means Xobbes. :P
I have been dead set against this unscrupulous practice since I first heard of it. 1GB == 1024MB. It is 1024 for a reason. Manufacturers pulling new numbers out of their ass is unconscionable and just plain wrong. These are computers, damnit, we should be precise about our measurements and not just make things up with no rhyme or reason.
No, honestly. I wouldn't bother. It's not that good. Besides... how much spam comes from the UK anyway? It's all from (search for real figures) China, etc. This will probably have little/no effect on spam counts.
Ah, but they are at least doing something about Spam. Well, my country is doing something about spam, too.. it is paying spammers money to spam people more! Ah what a country!
At least the Britons are implementing step 1 in my plan to eliminate spam...
Does the same thing happen with the Postal Service? Is it legal? Should it not be?
Yes, junk mail comes from the post office, yes it is legal, no it should not be. The USPS has already admitted it has been charging you and I more for mail to subsidize cheap junk mail. Screw that! Telemarketing should be illegal as well.
I agree that the law has not addressed the spam problem, but consider this. If theives break into your home often and vandalize your property and threaten your life and often among the thieves are professional locksmiths, is the solution to make locksmithing illegal and ban its training? Or is the problem the thief?
Erm.. I am not punishing the locksmith here. I am punishing the thief. I am perhaps also punishing the person who knowingly harbours the thief but then that is what we do with thieves.
Since we all know how efficient and effective the government is in micromanaging things like this I guess the question is: do you want solutions or loopholes? BTW, why must it be the Federal government that does this? And since when was "its happening" mean "its constitutional?"
Only the Federal Government has the authority to do this. We are talking about interstate (and international) commerce here, which is clearly in their jurisdiction and theirs alone. We are talking about protecting our citizens from criminals and in some cases terrorists. (How much money do the Nigerian gangs funnel to Al Qaeda from their spam scams? Even if it is $0 do you have any conception of how evil these guys are? They trade in human bondage for starters...)
It makes perfect sense that we do not allow ISPs who set up shop within our borders to knowlingly sell accounts to spammers. It makes perfect sense to me that when we identify ISPs as spam havens we cut them off completely. That is the only way to deal with them and the only legal thing we can do to make them stop. Would you rather we "liberated" their country instead?
Someone listened to you clowns and actually followed through on your ideology, and guess what? Now they're sleaze.
No they didn't, unless you believe SCO's line that our ideology is to steal other people's work. This person is lying about their product which is a closed-source version of a free software product. They stand in violation of the licenses under which the code was released.
Our ideolology is diametrically opposed to such things. We believe code should be shared and that when people work hard to produce something they deserve to be paid for it. Get it straight.
he most attractive feature in 3rd party clients?
The fact that there are no ads.
The fact that you can use one program to talk to people on different services.
When you figure out how AOL can implament these two please let me know. kthxbye.
More than that. Years ago, I was using the yahoo messenger like a good little internaut on Windows 2000. But then there were all these bloody worms and viruses on Windows. So I locked down the system. Then I wondered why YahooIM was taking up 100% of my CPU and not doing anything. Eventually I put two and two together.
Unless you unlock all the internet security on Windows completely, YahooIM does this. If you knew what sites it connected to (*.yahoo.com did not work) you might presumably "trust" those sites. But no matter. It was stupid to me that the Yahoo IM, being windows only, was reliant on explorer and bad security policies. I installed gaim and all was well. Better, gaim works on all the operating systems I like to use and works with all chatting systems easily, simultaneously, and seamlessly.
Of course I quickly ditched all Microsoft systems soon after, but if employers made me use Microsoft at work I always ditched all IMs for gaim and locked down the security. Most people run windows completely unsecured, even in "secure" environments, as an administrator. The OS is just not very usable otherwise, because most apps are written with this idea in mind instead of even trying to run with least privilege. Still I insist myself, and avoid apps which are like this.
If anyone ever again says the mods here are pro-linux and anti-windows, remind me to smack them. What pro-linux sites do you know would mod up a blatant flame and troll like this, even using a word like "loonix". The microsofties have taken over! What posseses M$ fanboys to come to slashdot? Are they so zealotus that they absolutely must defend there precious product?
Microsoft pays for the ads that keep this site running. They own this site. So shut up, you ungrateful loonix terrorist! :)
Actually I think getting HalfLife to run in Lunix is asking far too much :)
Time to move to the UK I reckon! :)
Since I doubt we'll ever see a lawsuit involving children going around biting stuff and running from ghosts as a result of playing pac-man then I'll assume its not an issue of video games specifically. If that is the case then couldn't frivolous lawsuit seekers also "assist" people who've been afflicted mentally while playing Monopoly? Suppose a property owner decides to tear down a house and build a hotel. Whats it cost, a few thousand dollars? Well after tearing down the house and realizing that hotels cost more than they do in Monopoly, he decides to sue Hasbro for not instilling in him the consequences of tearing down the house?
A commonly repeated line among ravers is "If we were truly influenced by video games we played as kids we would be running around in the dark with flashing lights all around us chomping pills and listening to repetitive electronic music..." :)
And and firing a gun is nothing like on the PS2 either! I mean you have to pull the trigger on the shoulder of the controller.... uhhh.
Actually I was pleased to find that Max Payne and Medal of Honor: Frontline use the right shoulder button for firing the gun. Good old trigger-pulling action! ;)
I think the problem comes from the fact that McDonalds pretends it isn't. They'll do things like list nutrition information, and then go and hide it in some place you would not look.(Though, I hear that practice is changing now.)
What baloney. They listed the "nutrition information" in response to people who wanted to know how much sodium and calories they were snarfing, exactly. And if you follow it you can actually get a healthful meal at McDonald's (like a salad with no dressing, for instance). They post it on the wall by the counter in every Mcdonald's, and some Mcdonalds' have little handouts you can take home for your perusal.
McDonald's never pretended their food was anything but pure feel-good tasty decadent junk. Though they have respoded to people who wanted more healthy choices (who were thre because their kids saw the damn clown on TV and kept bawling till they got to go to playland and throw their fries all over the damn place), by providing things like salads, reduced fat items, and diet drinks.
Perhaps the parents should sue themselves for buying the cosole and the game in the first place?
Or the families of the victims could sue the parents for not properly supervising and training their children.
p.s. the site search engine sucks a lot less since it got a major upgrade about a month ago, though googling with site:msdn.microsoft.com is still a good move.
Actually, I liked it a lot better before they XP-ified it and dumbed it down. They also seem to think it is a good idea to make it hard to narrow a search to one of their 5000 products instead of all 5000. Yes you can do it, but only after you have searched once under all 5000. Before you could search under only one product from the very beginning.
While the question was not directed to me, I have worked for Microsoft in the past, and have actually asked this same question of my superiors.
They said that for the amount of information they host on their page, with the diversity of content, it's actually set up in one of the most efficient manners. It may take a little while to find what you're looking for, but you will ultimately find it.
And I've found this to be true.
Actually, with respect to getting bugfixes, support and product info microsoft.com is one of the best sites in the business. And it does have a lot of information about a dizzying array of products, so it makes sense they would have trouble organizing things.
Man, I just said something good about microsoft. I can't believe I said that! Better say something bad, too...
One thing I don't like about microsoft.com is that the new search is not as easy to narrow down as the old one. You used to be able to narrow a search by product right from the beginning, but now they force you to do a search on all products first. That kind of sucks and wastes my time.
Also I do not like the tendency to making links that go nowhere and the forced obsolescence of old patches/software to the point of making it the software equivolent of an unperson. The fact Microsoft does not let anyone else keep old patches/ie versions that might be important for people running current products that just happen not to be the latest product exacerbates this but is not a criticism of microsoft.com per se.
Ah, I feel much better now :).