Ah, now we get to the truth of it: hidden agendas. The lies, distortions, religious fervor, and personal attacks are all justified by the ends. If you want to clean up the air for people's health or the beauty of the environment, why don't you just say so? Keep in mind, however, there is a big difference between a rather innocuous gas, present in low concentrations, such as CO2, and potentially harmful emissions, like sulfur. Of course, I am starting to question all of the hysteria cooked up by the media over acid rain now.
Personally I think the liberals are more interested in social change, power, and tax dollars as a result of the global warming industry/religion than they are with people's health or the beauty of the environment. Liberals are not altruistic. They just play that on TV.
More importantly, the climatologists can't demonstrate the impact of humans on the climate with any precsion. Everyone talks about all of these climatologists. There are lot more people speaking authoratatively about the climate than there are climatologists, including politicians, actors, astronomers, physicists, and evolutionary biologists. There's your "scientific consensus", besides the thousands of scientists who disagree with them.
And of course, climatology is such a precise and well understood science, right? You have a lot of nerve being arrogant in your response to that person.
I can predict the bathtub will be at room temperature. No climatologist can accurately predict what room temperature will be in a year, five years, or ten years.
is that the music execs' comments are anything but sincere. So they are calling for the elimination of DRM? The RIAA and MPAA are the litigious SOBs who insisted upon it! They are okay with just opening it up without restriction and fundamentally giving the content away, huh? Riiiiiight.
I can understand how you might infer I was saying, "they were wrong before, so they're always wrong", but that is not precisely what I meant. After growing up during a time when we were routinely warned about the coming ice age, killer bees, overpopulation, famine, plague, high voltage power lines, cell phones, and everything else that was going to kill us and result in the fall of civilization, I am just saying that I am skeptical. I am not going to leap to stark, raving fear with each new news report.
There is some evidence to support the average temp has increased 1 degree F over the past century. There is lots of evidence demonstrating the temp fluctuates naturally. There is evidence the sun is in an extremely hot phase right now. I am not persuaded that scientists have demonstrated CO2 emissions are the primary cause, or even a significant one. Methane has a greater effect than CO2. What about the increase in the number of people, cows, and other livestock resulting in increased methane emissions?
The rebuttals to my original comments amount to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Instead of being emotionally vested in this theory, you might want to take a more dispassionate look with a healthy dose of skepticism and consider the lessons of history. You all would rant about the government lying to you. What about the media? Think for yourselves! This group-think is not healthy.
Regarding your sig, how do you feel about being enslaved by terrorists?
I didn't realize NYT, Slashdot, and the Weather Channel were peer reviewed sources either. Let's get one thing straight. Tons of nonsense posted here in support of global warming is second-hand, biased reports from the likes of the BBC. I don't recall you piping up with any objections about that before. Time, which was once considered reliable, was reporting on scientific consensus at the time.
Sure, snow in Malibu and ice storms in the southern US are anecdotal. So are the occasional record highs posted to support global warming. There are new recod lows in many cities each year as well. They just don't get reported because it runs counter to global warming religious doctrine. Evidence that the earth was much warmer during periods long before human industrialization is routinely ignored here with each new report that this is the "warmest year _EVER_".
People love to say that _EVERYONE_ knows that global warming is true, but here we have a proposal to silence heretics. If _EVERYONE_ believes in global warming, why are unbelievers enough of a problem that they must be silenced?
Unlike many readers on Slashdot, I remember the 1970's. After a couple of severe winters involving blizzards, news reports extensively covered the coming of the next ice age. It was featurd in time magazine ( http://newsbusters.org/node/6546 ), where they stated, "However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." I remember being worried about it, which is why I am not worried about global warming now.
Don't tell me it never happened. By the way, it snowed in Malibu yesterday. ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id =2&objectid=10419760 )
And by "Ever" we mean since the 1860's, which is the limit of accurate records. If you try to estimate temperatures based upon other data (gases in ice core samples, tree rings, etc.), there were years warmer than this one including the medieval period and a time when the arctic circle was tropical, long before SUVs.
"Embryonic stem cells work perfectly well, and are usually considered more effective than non-embryonic cells."
That is not true. Non-embryonic stem cells have been used successfully for years to cure various conditions. No one has ever cured anything with embryonic stem cells. In fact, embryonic stem cells cause monster tumors.
The argument usually goes that scientists _hope_ embryonic stem cells will prove more effective than non-embryonic ones, and "we won't know until we try". These scientists also like to distinguish blastocysts from embryos or fetuses, which seems like a valid distinction. Then I heard one of these geniuses slip up in a Science Friday interview. He said that these stem cells were mostly harvested from pregnancies terminated for personal reasons. Nope, no concern about harvesting human lives for the benefit of the selfish there.
The notorious lack of results with embryonic stem cells causes cynics to believe some scientists are just trying to squeeze tax money out of the government to fund their unsuccessful research. After all, embryonic stem cell research was not outlawed by the Bush administration, contrary to what Slashbots pronounced. He was actually the first President to provide any government funding. He just put limits on it. If embryonic stem cell research was so successful, why aren't private investors leaping to fund it?
Sorry, just wanted to clear up your spin. Insightful? Riiiiight.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy."
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority."
"In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. "
"useless and full of bugs"
Useless? OSS provides extensive infrastructure on the Internet and private networks. It is used to provide DNS, move email, host web contenet, manage relational databases, and more. Full of bugs. It sure seems to be very reliable and highly-available. Would this expert programmer care to elaborate?
"With open source, there is no intellectual property."
This is blatantly false. Under the GPL, the "IP" belongs to the programmer who has knowingly chosen to share his work with others as long as they share their modifications.
"Anyone can use it"
So? Is this supposed to be criticism?
"and all your ideas become public domain."
False, unless you use a public domain license or no license. GPL does not equal public domain.
"If nobody can make money from it, there will be no development and open source software quickly becomes outdated..."
The old "If nobody can make money from it, it's no good." argument. Setting aside the fact there are motives other than profit motives, individuals and companies do make money from OSS. Some programmers get paid to do the development. Companies sell support services. Companies use OSS to provide services. Besides, if he is correct, why is he worried? People wil stop developing OSS, and it will become outdated and fail. Then commercial developers of closed source will step in. Besides OSS is "useless" so no one uses it now, right? Of course, OSS has been around for decades, and it shows no signs of development ending or the products becoming outdated.
"As a programmer, if I can write good code, why should I give it away?"
Then don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. Well at least not about software. Considering your recent history, someone may do so in an attempt to overthrow the fiasco you call a government.
"Thailand can do good source code without open source."
Knock yourself out.
Exit polls are not mandatory, and they are not necessarily accurate for those who do participate. They are not scientific. If I am some liberal, Michael Moore opertaive with an axe to grind, I might be more inclined to participate than if I am a sane person with a job and a family. Personally, I question why various MSM channels were pushing these alleged results early in the day, as if to influence voters. Remember how Florida was called for Gore and Florida residents were told the polls were closed an hour before the polls closed in Florida? Exhaustive recounts ad nauseum went to Bush. (By the way, Gore had lawyers in Jacksonville trying to deny absentee ballots from overseas servicemen.) Liberal reporters see what they want to see, and they report what they want to report.
Could it be the MSM is trying to influence elections with bogus numbers? You assume the exit polls were accurate and the actual numbers were reported, based upon your faith in liberal conspiracy theories. You worry about voter fraud using Diebold machines. (I oppose those machines because I work in IT.) What about fraud with sketchy exit poll numbers? Remember, the MSM was claiming a Kerry landslide in states that were obviously heavily red. Hell, they were calling most of the East Coast as a landslide for Kerry when I got home from work, based on those fabulous exit polls. I knew that sounded bogus, and it was.
When liberal socialists (like Gore, Kerry, and Obrador) lose, they whine for decades and threaten not to honor the election. Grow up, and get you head on straight, Truthers.
I know. When I saw this, I thought, "Oh, God. Again?" The election is getting close, and the Dems are in a panic. Let's trot out our conspiracy theories: Republicans steal any election they win, the draft is coming, old people on the streets, we live in a dictatorship, Bush LIHOP/MIHOP, blah, blah, blah.
Any Democrat, epecially a Kennedy, complaining about voter fraud is beyond the pale. Voter fraud? Try Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, JFK. Democrats have a real problem with projecting their sins on others. In their minds, it is okay for them to do it since they are the good guys.
I almost didn't read this nonsense posting, knowing the source (RFK Jr. in Rolling Stone) and the audience (Slashdot teenagers with issues). I couldn't resist, hoping some people would be reasonable and sensible. Some have been.
Let's assume such a temperature increase would have the impact predicted. That does not mean such an increase is imminent. Some scientists are speaking out that data shows these temperature fluctuations are normal, periodic, and precede modern industrialization. The data also shows that the current upswing in temperature may be about to reverse, since temperatures have leveled off since 1998. This data is being supressed by hysterical, global-warming cultists, like those found frequenting Slashdot.
During the 1970's, scientists were warning that we were entering the next ice age. I am old enough to remember that, so excuse me if I am skeptical about the latest, faddish claims. No one has proven a link between "greenhouse gas" emissions and any periods of climatic change. It is simply a theory that seems plausible on the surface. I hope this does not cause too much cognitive dissonance for those with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) or those eager for the end of the world as we know it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have absolutely zero interest in Microsoft's VM products. Xen, on the other hand, does intrigue me. Nothing compares to VMware today, though.
"as you can tell, i have an issue with EJB or any crap technology 'standard' that is delivered to the general public as the right thing to do."
Then you must have an issue with the Windows family of OS, Internet Explorer, ActiveX,.Net, Visual Basic, and many other crap technologies.
Your post does not explain why EJB is crap. It only states that you think so and that you claim some IBM and Sun employees have admitted it was a mistake. I honestly have no experience or opinion either way, but your "Score:4, Insightful" post does not help me form one.
I believe it. I have been using Linux as a desktop since 1996 (server since 1994), and it was my primary desktop from at least 1998 until earlier this year when I got a PowerMac with a 23" HD monitor. I love OS X, but I fully expect to use Linux as a desktop again in the future, especially after Apple releases systems with Intel processors supporting VT. Short of that, I will need a DVI KVM switch so I can share my new monitor with my old x86 system.
OS X on my PowerBook is the most pleasant computing experience I have ever had, but I still believe Linux has more power, flexibility, and freedom. My PowerMac is an absolute joy, but there are things I can no longer do. Being able to run Linux and OS X side-by-side will be the ultimate.
And yet, people flock to live in the US. I've travelled to several socialist paradises in Europe. The infrastructure and "standard of living" reminded me of third world countries. You can bankrupt yourself using a public phone, and one packet of ketchup cost me 20 pence in a KFC in the UK fifteen years ago. Long for rude behavior? Ask for ice in your drink or some napkins. Air conditioning is as rare as good dentistry. I like visiting those places, but there is no way I would rather live there than in the US.
All I see from them is big talk and threats. That's the easy part. Next you have to deliver on those threats. So far their track record for delivering products on time with promised features is not stellar.
Most things Microsoft produces look tasteless, garish, and gaudy to me. They remind me of a fat Anna Nicole Smith with bright, Mimi makeup caked on. The default XP look reminds me of Sesame Street or Teletubbies. Apple's stuff looks much more refined and elegant in comparison. That's my subjective opinion. Some people like Ferraris. I prefer Porsche.
I can't get to the article, but I doubt Microsoft will left me down by elevating their "style" above the lowest common denominator. Besides, in a Media Player, I spend much more time looking at the media than the player.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, now we get to the truth of it: hidden agendas. The lies, distortions, religious fervor, and personal attacks are all justified by the ends. If you want to clean up the air for people's health or the beauty of the environment, why don't you just say so? Keep in mind, however, there is a big difference between a rather innocuous gas, present in low concentrations, such as CO2, and potentially harmful emissions, like sulfur. Of course, I am starting to question all of the hysteria cooked up by the media over acid rain now.
Personally I think the liberals are more interested in social change, power, and tax dollars as a result of the global warming industry/religion than they are with people's health or the beauty of the environment. Liberals are not altruistic. They just play that on TV.
More importantly, the climatologists can't demonstrate the impact of humans on the climate with any precsion. Everyone talks about all of these climatologists. There are lot more people speaking authoratatively about the climate than there are climatologists, including politicians, actors, astronomers, physicists, and evolutionary biologists. There's your "scientific consensus", besides the thousands of scientists who disagree with them.
And of course, climatology is such a precise and well understood science, right? You have a lot of nerve being arrogant in your response to that person.
I can predict the bathtub will be at room temperature. No climatologist can accurately predict what room temperature will be in a year, five years, or ten years.
is that the music execs' comments are anything but sincere. So they are calling for the elimination of DRM? The RIAA and MPAA are the litigious SOBs who insisted upon it! They are okay with just opening it up without restriction and fundamentally giving the content away, huh? Riiiiiight.
I can understand how you might infer I was saying, "they were wrong before, so they're always wrong", but that is not precisely what I meant. After growing up during a time when we were routinely warned about the coming ice age, killer bees, overpopulation, famine, plague, high voltage power lines, cell phones, and everything else that was going to kill us and result in the fall of civilization, I am just saying that I am skeptical. I am not going to leap to stark, raving fear with each new news report.
There is some evidence to support the average temp has increased 1 degree F over the past century. There is lots of evidence demonstrating the temp fluctuates naturally. There is evidence the sun is in an extremely hot phase right now. I am not persuaded that scientists have demonstrated CO2 emissions are the primary cause, or even a significant one. Methane has a greater effect than CO2. What about the increase in the number of people, cows, and other livestock resulting in increased methane emissions?
The rebuttals to my original comments amount to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Instead of being emotionally vested in this theory, you might want to take a more dispassionate look with a healthy dose of skepticism and consider the lessons of history. You all would rant about the government lying to you. What about the media? Think for yourselves! This group-think is not healthy.
Regarding your sig, how do you feel about being enslaved by terrorists?
I didn't realize NYT, Slashdot, and the Weather Channel were peer reviewed sources either. Let's get one thing straight. Tons of nonsense posted here in support of global warming is second-hand, biased reports from the likes of the BBC. I don't recall you piping up with any objections about that before. Time, which was once considered reliable, was reporting on scientific consensus at the time.
Sure, snow in Malibu and ice storms in the southern US are anecdotal. So are the occasional record highs posted to support global warming. There are new recod lows in many cities each year as well. They just don't get reported because it runs counter to global warming religious doctrine. Evidence that the earth was much warmer during periods long before human industrialization is routinely ignored here with each new report that this is the "warmest year _EVER_".
People love to say that _EVERYONE_ knows that global warming is true, but here we have a proposal to silence heretics. If _EVERYONE_ believes in global warming, why are unbelievers enough of a problem that they must be silenced?
Unlike many readers on Slashdot, I remember the 1970's. After a couple of severe winters involving blizzards, news reports extensively covered the coming of the next ice age. It was featurd in time magazine ( http://newsbusters.org/node/6546 ), where they stated, "However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." I remember being worried about it, which is why I am not worried about global warming now. Don't tell me it never happened. By the way, it snowed in Malibu yesterday. ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id =2&objectid=10419760 )
And by "Ever" we mean since the 1860's, which is the limit of accurate records. If you try to estimate temperatures based upon other data (gases in ice core samples, tree rings, etc.), there were years warmer than this one including the medieval period and a time when the arctic circle was tropical, long before SUVs.
"Embryonic stem cells work perfectly well, and are usually considered more effective than non-embryonic cells."
That is not true. Non-embryonic stem cells have been used successfully for years to cure various conditions. No one has ever cured anything with embryonic stem cells. In fact, embryonic stem cells cause monster tumors.
The argument usually goes that scientists _hope_ embryonic stem cells will prove more effective than non-embryonic ones, and "we won't know until we try". These scientists also like to distinguish blastocysts from embryos or fetuses, which seems like a valid distinction. Then I heard one of these geniuses slip up in a Science Friday interview. He said that these stem cells were mostly harvested from pregnancies terminated for personal reasons. Nope, no concern about harvesting human lives for the benefit of the selfish there.
The notorious lack of results with embryonic stem cells causes cynics to believe some scientists are just trying to squeeze tax money out of the government to fund their unsuccessful research. After all, embryonic stem cell research was not outlawed by the Bush administration, contrary to what Slashbots pronounced. He was actually the first President to provide any government funding. He just put limits on it. If embryonic stem cell research was so successful, why aren't private investors leaping to fund it?
Sorry, just wanted to clear up your spin. Insightful? Riiiiight.
Someone actually bought the brown one?
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy."
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
"useless and full of bugs"
Useless? OSS provides extensive infrastructure on the Internet and private networks. It is used to provide DNS, move email, host web contenet, manage relational databases, and more. Full of bugs. It sure seems to be very reliable and highly-available. Would this expert programmer care to elaborate?
"With open source, there is no intellectual property."
This is blatantly false. Under the GPL, the "IP" belongs to the programmer who has knowingly chosen to share his work with others as long as they share their modifications.
"Anyone can use it"
So? Is this supposed to be criticism?
"and all your ideas become public domain."
False, unless you use a public domain license or no license. GPL does not equal public domain.
"If nobody can make money from it, there will be no development and open source software quickly becomes outdated..."
The old "If nobody can make money from it, it's no good." argument. Setting aside the fact there are motives other than profit motives, individuals and companies do make money from OSS. Some programmers get paid to do the development. Companies sell support services. Companies use OSS to provide services. Besides, if he is correct, why is he worried? People wil stop developing OSS, and it will become outdated and fail. Then commercial developers of closed source will step in. Besides OSS is "useless" so no one uses it now, right? Of course, OSS has been around for decades, and it shows no signs of development ending or the products becoming outdated.
"As a programmer, if I can write good code, why should I give it away?"
Then don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. Well at least not about software. Considering your recent history, someone may do so in an attempt to overthrow the fiasco you call a government.
"Thailand can do good source code without open source."
Knock yourself out.
Correct me, if I am wrong, but...
Exit polls are not mandatory, and they are not necessarily accurate for those who do participate. They are not scientific. If I am some liberal, Michael Moore opertaive with an axe to grind, I might be more inclined to participate than if I am a sane person with a job and a family. Personally, I question why various MSM channels were pushing these alleged results early in the day, as if to influence voters. Remember how Florida was called for Gore and Florida residents were told the polls were closed an hour before the polls closed in Florida? Exhaustive recounts ad nauseum went to Bush. (By the way, Gore had lawyers in Jacksonville trying to deny absentee ballots from overseas servicemen.) Liberal reporters see what they want to see, and they report what they want to report.
Could it be the MSM is trying to influence elections with bogus numbers? You assume the exit polls were accurate and the actual numbers were reported, based upon your faith in liberal conspiracy theories. You worry about voter fraud using Diebold machines. (I oppose those machines because I work in IT.) What about fraud with sketchy exit poll numbers? Remember, the MSM was claiming a Kerry landslide in states that were obviously heavily red. Hell, they were calling most of the East Coast as a landslide for Kerry when I got home from work, based on those fabulous exit polls. I knew that sounded bogus, and it was.
When liberal socialists (like Gore, Kerry, and Obrador) lose, they whine for decades and threaten not to honor the election. Grow up, and get you head on straight, Truthers.
I know. When I saw this, I thought, "Oh, God. Again?" The election is getting close, and the Dems are in a panic. Let's trot out our conspiracy theories: Republicans steal any election they win, the draft is coming, old people on the streets, we live in a dictatorship, Bush LIHOP/MIHOP, blah, blah, blah.
Any Democrat, epecially a Kennedy, complaining about voter fraud is beyond the pale. Voter fraud? Try Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, JFK. Democrats have a real problem with projecting their sins on others. In their minds, it is okay for them to do it since they are the good guys.
I almost didn't read this nonsense posting, knowing the source (RFK Jr. in Rolling Stone) and the audience (Slashdot teenagers with issues). I couldn't resist, hoping some people would be reasonable and sensible. Some have been.
Strike one. Laura DiDio: Strikes two and three. Not going to waste any more time on this.
Let's assume such a temperature increase would have the impact predicted. That does not mean such an increase is imminent. Some scientists are speaking out that data shows these temperature fluctuations are normal, periodic, and precede modern industrialization. The data also shows that the current upswing in temperature may be about to reverse, since temperatures have leveled off since 1998. This data is being supressed by hysterical, global-warming cultists, like those found frequenting Slashdot.
During the 1970's, scientists were warning that we were entering the next ice age. I am old enough to remember that, so excuse me if I am skeptical about the latest, faddish claims. No one has proven a link between "greenhouse gas" emissions and any periods of climatic change. It is simply a theory that seems plausible on the surface. I hope this does not cause too much cognitive dissonance for those with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) or those eager for the end of the world as we know it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have absolutely zero interest in Microsoft's VM products. Xen, on the other hand, does intrigue me. Nothing compares to VMware today, though.
"as you can tell, i have an issue with EJB or any crap technology 'standard' that is delivered to the general public as the right thing to do."
.Net, Visual Basic, and many other crap technologies.
Then you must have an issue with the Windows family of OS, Internet Explorer, ActiveX,
Your post does not explain why EJB is crap. It only states that you think so and that you claim some IBM and Sun employees have admitted it was a mistake. I honestly have no experience or opinion either way, but your "Score:4, Insightful" post does not help me form one.
I believe it. I have been using Linux as a desktop since 1996 (server since 1994), and it was my primary desktop from at least 1998 until earlier this year when I got a PowerMac with a 23" HD monitor. I love OS X, but I fully expect to use Linux as a desktop again in the future, especially after Apple releases systems with Intel processors supporting VT. Short of that, I will need a DVI KVM switch so I can share my new monitor with my old x86 system.
OS X on my PowerBook is the most pleasant computing experience I have ever had, but I still believe Linux has more power, flexibility, and freedom. My PowerMac is an absolute joy, but there are things I can no longer do. Being able to run Linux and OS X side-by-side will be the ultimate.
And yet, people flock to live in the US. I've travelled to several socialist paradises in Europe. The infrastructure and "standard of living" reminded me of third world countries. You can bankrupt yourself using a public phone, and one packet of ketchup cost me 20 pence in a KFC in the UK fifteen years ago. Long for rude behavior? Ask for ice in your drink or some napkins. Air conditioning is as rare as good dentistry. I like visiting those places, but there is no way I would rather live there than in the US.
It took it that long to get a foothold in the wild. It must have probed a lot of systems on port 80 before discovering that specific configuration.
You mean like start.com was like Excite?
All I see from them is big talk and threats. That's the easy part. Next you have to deliver on those threats. So far their track record for delivering products on time with promised features is not stellar.
"...is Ballmer hoeing fish eggs???"
I think he is huffing paint.
Most things Microsoft produces look tasteless, garish, and gaudy to me. They remind me of a fat Anna Nicole Smith with bright, Mimi makeup caked on. The default XP look reminds me of Sesame Street or Teletubbies. Apple's stuff looks much more refined and elegant in comparison. That's my subjective opinion. Some people like Ferraris. I prefer Porsche.
I can't get to the article, but I doubt Microsoft will left me down by elevating their "style" above the lowest common denominator. Besides, in a Media Player, I spend much more time looking at the media than the player.