"Jomar Silva, a delegate from Brazil, which voted No, has now done what he said he would do and has posted what he saw and heard at the BRM. It is a deeply shocking tale of maneuvering the delegates to vote against their will by presenting a kind of Sophie's Choice of options, all designed, according to what I gather from his account, to get a positive result for Microsoft."
There is also an article on groklaw titled: A Delegate from Brazil Challenges "Law of Silence"
A delegate from Brazil is challenging the "Law of Silence," The ad-hoc restrictions on revealing details of the BRM meeting. He alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated it. It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can.
The ISO seems to make "rules" ad-hoc, according to what Microsoft dictates, then they don't even follow their own bogus rules.
The ISO has lost all credibility with me. Unless the ISO completely reforms their processes, I will consider them about credibilitily as an Enderle article.
You would have to be awfully ignorant to think that HW makers stopped supporting W2K in 2000. W2K has essentially the same kernel as XP. And XP is still the most popular desktop OS, by a wide margin.
Besides, W2K is very fast even on older hardware. I have a 1ghz/512mb box running W2K, and it's very snappy. It runs all my HW and SW, and has no problems with stability or security.
So why should I "upgrade?" It would just be a pointless expense. And why would I want to fight with all of Vistas horried DRM, and other annoyances?
People hate msft because msft is evil. People hate evil small companies as well.
A few msft scams:
1. scox-scam 2. lying to the doj 3. letters from dead people 4. fake tco studies 5. fake benchmark studies 6. Bribing and ballot-stuffing to win OOXML approval 7. Vendeta against Peter Quinn 8. Bestbuy rackteering 9. Msft customers sued because of msft patent violations 10. Msft steals Stacker technology 11. Msft rigs Windows to not work with DR-DOS
The article reads like a msft sponsored PR piece. The point is that people don't hate msft for any good reason, it's all just the public being fickle.
Like hell.
Have you followed the OOXML scam? The SCO-scam? The Acacia scam? How about msft lying to the US-DoJ in video taped testomony? What about the letters from dead people campaign? How about microsoft stealing Stacker technology? Then there are: fake TCO studies, fake benchmark studies, fake think tanks, Bestbuy rackteering, msft customers sued because of msft patent violation. How about msft saying computers where "Vista Ready" when they weren't. How about the Peter Quinn scam? And, right now, msft is lying to congress about a "tech worker shortage" in order to have congress double the number of H1-Bs, and even further hurt US tech workers.
Have Apple or Google done that sort of thing?
People don't hate msft because msft is big, people hate msft because msft really is evil.
"Want More Engineers? Provide Jobs for Them"
. . . "However, the declining number of students enrolled in technical programs has nothing to do with the quality of our schools or the natural talents and interests of our students. It has everything to do with the massive loss of domestic technology jobs to outsourcing, offshoring and the importation of foreign technology workers through the H1-B visa program. It has everything to do with vanishing opportunities, declining compensation and decreasing job security."
US religous fanatics may get in a wad about certain movies, or books, or cartoons. But US religions do not, as a group, kill, or threaten to kill, people for making, or showing the movies, books or cartoons.
No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. But were those movies censored? Did Christians or Jews go on a murderous riot? Of course not. So maybe Christians and Jews are somewhat better?
In 2007 Apple lawyers send angry letters to Fake Steve Jobs. Intimidating him by saying if he don't comply and stop making information publicly available they will sue him, and suggests he will loose his house, mortgage, car, boat and that his kids will loose their college funds. [http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/first-carrot-now-stick.html] Are you sure about that? The "Fake Steve Jobs" blog was all satire. The blog was done by notorious liar, hypocrite, and total ass-wipe, Dan Lyons (note that when Lyons wrote articles for Forbes, he was genuinely enraged at bloggers who did not identify themselves).
My guess is, Apple never sent Lyons any angry letters. Those letters where Lyons own invention.
If such sweeping generalization were made about race, gender, or the physically challenged; the public would be absolutely outraged. But to make ignorant assumptions about individuals based solely on age is ok
As to the anti-OOXML side, I would recommend you look at: http://www.noooxml.org/ this site does an excellent job at detailing numerous flaws in the OOXML standard, and numerous irregularities in the ISO OOXML acceptance process.
I have considered both viewpoints. IMO: the OOXML standard is just another msft scam. Msft is continuing to abuse its monopoloy position, and aggressively fighting to maintain and extend its monolopy position.
But, that is just my opinion. Please consider both sides of the arguement, and come to your own conclusions.
So the RIAA is claiming that they can have the right to give people immunity for copyright infringment?
Um, okay. Tell ya what. Send me $50 and I will allow you to shoplift at Walmart. Or, give me $699. and I will allow to use the illegal UNIX code that is hidden in Linux.
Would a 160gb flash drive use more, or less, power than a 160gb SATA drive? Or, is it a matter of how much you use it? A drive like that would be awsome for portable devices, if the power consumption is much lower.
As I remember, some of the negative stuff about Merkey did not have any evidence behind it, but there was a lot of negative stuff about Merkey that *did* have real evidence behind it.
Wikipedia (after accepting a donation?) white-washed everything.
BTW: you never mentioned whether wikipedia accepted a donation from Merkey - or one of Merkey's sponsors.
Note: I personally never entered anything in wikipedia about Merkey.
Slashdot Mirror
UK
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/26/bsi_vote_yes_ooxml/
USA
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/us_delegation_approve_ooxml/
Denmark
http://www.ds.dk/
Poland
http://polishlinux.org/poland/no-consensus-over-ooxml-in-poland-yet/
Germany
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2FDIN-sagt-Ja-zur-ISO-Stan
dardisierung-von-OOXML--%2Fmeldung%2F105657&langpair=de|en&hl=sv&ie=UTF8
South Korea
http://osrin.net/2008/03/28/south-korea-votes-approve-for-isoiec-dis29500/
Norway
http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article92563.ece
I think the USA and the UK are also voting yes, but I don't have any links for those.
I have never heard of a real religion that gets upset when anybody exposes the beliefs of that religion.
That is what this article seems to suggest:
http://osrin.net/2008/03/28/south-korea-votes-approve-for-isoiec-dis29500/
Also on groklaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080328090328998
"Jomar Silva, a delegate from Brazil, which voted No, has now done what he said he would do and has posted what he saw and heard at the BRM. It is a deeply shocking tale of maneuvering the delegates to vote against their will by presenting a kind of Sophie's Choice of options, all designed, according to what I gather from his account, to get a positive result for Microsoft."
There is also an article on groklaw titled: A Delegate from Brazil Challenges "Law of Silence"
A delegate from Brazil is challenging the "Law of Silence," The ad-hoc restrictions on revealing details of the BRM meeting. He alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated it. It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can.
The ISO seems to make "rules" ad-hoc, according to what Microsoft dictates, then they don't even follow their own bogus rules.
The ISO has lost all credibility with me. Unless the ISO completely reforms their processes, I will consider them about credibilitily as an Enderle article.
You would have to be awfully ignorant to think that HW makers stopped supporting W2K in 2000. W2K has essentially the same kernel as XP. And XP is still the most popular desktop OS, by a wide margin.
Besides, W2K is very fast even on older hardware. I have a 1ghz/512mb box running W2K, and it's very snappy. It runs all my HW and SW, and has no problems with stability or security.
So why should I "upgrade?" It would just be a pointless expense. And why would I want to fight with all of Vistas horried DRM, and other annoyances?
People hate msft because msft is evil. People hate evil small companies as well.
A few msft scams:
1. scox-scam
2. lying to the doj
3. letters from dead people
4. fake tco studies
5. fake benchmark studies
6. Bribing and ballot-stuffing to win OOXML approval
7. Vendeta against Peter Quinn
8. Bestbuy rackteering
9. Msft customers sued because of msft patent violations
10. Msft steals Stacker technology
11. Msft rigs Windows to not work with DR-DOS
The article reads like a msft sponsored PR piece. The point is that people don't hate msft for any good reason, it's all just the public being fickle.
Like hell.
Have you followed the OOXML scam? The SCO-scam? The Acacia scam? How about msft lying to the US-DoJ in video taped testomony? What about the letters from dead people campaign? How about microsoft stealing Stacker technology? Then there are: fake TCO studies, fake benchmark studies, fake think tanks, Bestbuy rackteering, msft customers sued because of msft patent violation. How about msft saying computers where "Vista Ready" when they weren't. How about the Peter Quinn scam? And, right now, msft is lying to congress about a "tech worker shortage" in order to have congress double the number of H1-Bs, and even further hurt US tech workers.
Have Apple or Google done that sort of thing?
People don't hate msft because msft is big, people hate msft because msft really is evil.
Wall Street Journal: March 20, 2008;
"Want More Engineers? Provide Jobs for Them"
. . .
"However, the declining number of students enrolled in technical programs has nothing to do with the quality of our schools or the natural talents and interests of our students. It has everything to do with the massive loss of domestic technology jobs to outsourcing, offshoring and the importation of foreign technology workers through the H1-B visa program. It has everything to do with vanishing opportunities, declining compensation and decreasing job security."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120598693755151313.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I think you completely missed my point.
US religous fanatics may get in a wad about certain movies, or books, or cartoons. But US religions do not, as a group, kill, or threaten to kill, people for making, or showing the movies, books or cartoons.
Can the same be said of Moslims? Obviously not.
It's absolutely accurate. Remember Salman Rushdie? Remember four days of murderous riots over a cartoon? And Islam is called the religion of peace.
And: can VBScript be implemented on non-Microsoft platforms?
> To tell you the truth, I am not loyal. Why should I be? I have no delusions that the company is loyal to me when I see how they act.
I was laid off last month because my entire department was offshored.
If such sweeping generalization were made about race, gender, or the physically challenged; the public would be absolutely outraged. But to make ignorant assumptions about individuals based solely on age is ok
As to the anti-OOXML side, I would recommend you look at: http://www.noooxml.org/ this site does an excellent job at detailing numerous flaws in the OOXML standard, and numerous irregularities in the ISO OOXML acceptance process.
But it is only fair to understand Microsoft's point of view as well: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/ChrisCapOpenLetter.mspx
I have considered both viewpoints. IMO: the OOXML standard is just another msft scam. Msft is continuing to abuse its monopoloy position, and aggressively fighting to maintain and extend its monolopy position.
But, that is just my opinion. Please consider both sides of the arguement, and come to your own conclusions.
They want to come back later to get the answer. Then they'll just leave you hanging again, and a dozen more unanswered ariticles.
So the RIAA is claiming that they can have the right to give people immunity for copyright infringment?
Um, okay. Tell ya what. Send me $50 and I will allow you to shoplift at Walmart. Or, give me $699. and I will allow to use the illegal UNIX code that is hidden in Linux.
Sure, that makes sense.
Would a 160gb flash drive use more, or less, power than a 160gb SATA drive? Or, is it a matter of how much you use it? A drive like that would be awsome for portable devices, if the power consumption is much lower.
At least for me. What does an Apple iPhone cost? $150 a month?
With an EeePC, I can go to a hotspot and get an internet connection.
> I'm curious; why wouldn't you confuse it with a religion? What is a 'modern day' religion?
It is called the "Church of Scientology" and they have applied for official government status as a religion.
The line between a religion, and a cult, can be a thin one, but there are differences:
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
> Nice of Jeff to give a donation, but stubbing down a bad biography is standard practice.
So you are saying that Jeff did give a donation? And I take it that the stubbing took place right afterwards?
Can you explain why, even the negatives about Jeff that can be well documented were removed?
> So it's really a non-story. We protect articles against people who want to write "WEE WEE WEE JACK IS GAY."
Was the stuff about Merkey really of that nature? I saw the original article, and it did not look like that to me.
As I remember, some of the negative stuff about Merkey did not have any evidence behind it, but there was a lot of negative stuff about Merkey that *did* have real evidence behind it.
Wikipedia (after accepting a donation?) white-washed everything.
BTW: you never mentioned whether wikipedia accepted a donation from Merkey - or one of Merkey's sponsors.
Note: I personally never entered anything in wikipedia about Merkey.