> The questions I have are, "if Microsoft invests in developing a stable, secure, modular version of Windows (that you would only need to buy once and never replace), can it generate an attractive return on that investment for shareholders?"
If I'm correctly informed that they don't pay out dividends on their stock, it's not clear that they're doing a heck of a lot for their shareholders anyway.
Except of course a certain handful of big-hand holders, for whose benfit the company has always operated.
> I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS; not that it isn't possible. They apparently think integration is their only key to stability.
No, they think integration is their only key to keeping other vendors off the playing field.
Which is of course why they're in court to begin with.
D00D, this is Slashdot. It goes without saying that you've been trolled, or will be trolled soon, or perhaps are in the process of being trolled at this very moment.
> For chrissakes the original BF quote is posted on every friggin' thread that has even the remotest connection to privacy issues. Usually with a few bastardized variations, which inevitably provokes someone to haul out the "actual" BF quote, which is then inevitably modded "informative." ACK. Can we get some original thought in here please?
Those who would give up their original thought for karma are deserve neither original thought nor karma?
> I really don't like what they did with Dmitry, but I need a solution to express my disgruntlement with them that doesn't involve crippling my productivity.
Those who wouldn't give up their productivity to preserve their freedoms deserve neither freedom nor productivity.
> But what if we stay away in droves and EII is actually a good movie? What kind of message does that send?
That's why we need to make sure the media (and thus Lucas) known in advance what we're going to do and why we're going to do it. There must be no doubt in his mind about that.
I'm not sure what to make of SPR. It was stunning, but a bit bizarre in other ways. When I got home and tried to decide what it was "about", the best answer I could come up with is that it's a kind of pornography -- complete with a waving flag at the start and end of the tape.
A troubling movie, because of all the violence, but unfortunately not a thought-provoking movie. I haven't felt the faintest twinge of an urge to see it again, despite the superb craftsmanship.
Remind us again why we should have to get past annoying antics before we can enjoy a movie?
The goal isn't to learn to love a movie despite its faults. The goal is to go see movies that have minimal faults to begin with.
Lucas is making that progressively more difficult. Does that mean we need to grind our teeth harder so we can 'enjoy' it? Or does that mean we need to go see some other movie instead?
The thread re GeekPAC is relevant here. We should stay away from EII in droves, and make it known in advance that we're going to. That would get Lucas' attention.
...are they cutting back on the marketing because it turns the traditional SW fans off, or because they didn't sell as much as they expected to last time?
Sounds like he's trying to spin a marketing problem as if it were a nod to his critics. We could get that pap from Bill Gates if we wanted it.
> The increase from 7.3 to 8.0 is due to the inclusion of KDE 3.0, a SuSE-modified kernel version 2.4.18...among other packages that have been upgraded or added.
7.3 + 3.0 + 2.4.18 = 8.0 ???
Maybe some of those other packages had negative version numbers.
Check out this lamer's post to talk.origins a while back. Apparently the guy was in a debate with someone else and tried to get some creationist "heavies" to support him, and they sent him back with that excuse to terminate the discussion. (See this post by his adversary.)
You'd be amazed at the claims you hear from fundies if you skim talk.origins now and then.
> You're the one who has it exactly backwards. Slashdot isn't selling comments, they are selling advertisements and subscriptions.... If people think that they provide such great value here and are taken for granted, by all means, they should go to a place where they can be paid for good writing. I can provide a list of such places, if you're interested.
I'm not under any illusion that anyone here is a great writer, but I do think it's the user comments that draws the crowd. I can't remember the last time I saw an interesting story on Slashdot that I hadn't already seen on some other news site -- sans the repeats, errors, misspellings, and missed-the-point commentary from the editors. Sad to say, neither the news stories nor the editors are doing much value-adding for Slashdot; the discussion is everything.
Without the user comments I wouldn't bother with Slashdot at all -- not even as a portal. It's too easy to keep all the real news sites permanently open in a tabbed browser, and get an ungarbled version of the story usually a day or two earlier.
> That's like saying the value to the coffee shop is a bunch of old pots, some cups and some tables.
No, you have me exactly backwards. I'm saying that coffee shops are in the business of selling coffee, and if they think otherwise they should discontinue the coffee and see whether their business is worth anything more than the pots and pans that are left over.
> Why do the people who criticize the subscription system insist on misrepresenting the position of those who defend it? Note that he didn't say "all the worthless content", he said that it's cheap.
Because I wanted to point out that without all that "cheap" content, Slashdot is worth exactly what its owners can get for some second-hand network gear.
> This is such a fallacious argument. It is based on the assumption that your opinion is more valuable than the network services that distribute it.... The content (mostly the opinions of the uninformed) here is cheap, but bandwidth and employees are not.
The obvious strategy for the owners, then, is to eliminate all that worthless content, which will then cut back on the bandwith requirements, which in turn will let them reduce their headcount.
Do you recomment Slashdot put it to the experiment, to see how well it pays off?
> I'm also going to join in and state that this was the stupidest thing/. has done in awhile. X Files isn't airing for another goddamn half an hour and you blow it right there in the headline.
Damn! I just finished my placard announcing the end of the world coming up this Wednesday, and was going to wear it down by the overpass all day tomorrow. Now I'm going to have to repaint it in smaller text, to make room to write "SPOILER" across the top.
> Anakin's flitting slave-owner is supposed to be vaguely eastern European / Jewish, near as I can tell (accented, haggles over money, big nose -- I mean, Jesus Christ!).
Yeah, but Jesus Christ is rarely portrayed with a big nose, despite the stereotypes.
Slashdot Mirror
> It is enough to buy 23 space shuttles
If Bill's a sci-fi fan he may end up buying two or three anyway, if the sci-fi tax is put into effect.
> The questions I have are, "if Microsoft invests in developing a stable, secure, modular version of Windows (that you would only need to buy once and never replace), can it generate an attractive return on that investment for shareholders?"
If I'm correctly informed that they don't pay out dividends on their stock, it's not clear that they're doing a heck of a lot for their shareholders anyway.
Except of course a certain handful of big-hand holders, for whose benfit the company has always operated.
> I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS; not that it isn't possible. They apparently think integration is their only key to stability.
No, they think integration is their only key to keeping other vendors off the playing field.
Which is of course why they're in court to begin with.
After putting all Redmond on a month-long deathmarch to correct their security problems, the result is a stripped-down Windows?
Let's tax NASA and use the money to buy SciFi products for geeks instead.
> Or have I been trolled?
D00D, this is Slashdot. It goes without saying that you've been trolled, or will be trolled soon, or perhaps are in the process of being trolled at this very moment.
> For chrissakes the original BF quote is posted on every friggin' thread that has even the remotest connection to privacy issues. Usually with a few bastardized variations, which inevitably provokes someone to haul out the "actual" BF quote, which is then inevitably modded "informative." ACK. Can we get some original thought in here please?
Or something like that.> I really don't like what they did with Dmitry, but I need a solution to express my disgruntlement with them that doesn't involve crippling my productivity.
> But what if we stay away in droves and EII is actually a good movie? What kind of message does that send?
That's why we need to make sure the media (and thus Lucas) known in advance what we're going to do and why we're going to do it. There must be no doubt in his mind about that.
> I dont think saving private ryan was nearly as good as movies like apocalypse now or full metal jacket.
Or Cross of Iron.
I'm not sure what to make of SPR. It was stunning, but a bit bizarre in other ways. When I got home and tried to decide what it was "about", the best answer I could come up with is that it's a kind of pornography -- complete with a waving flag at the start and end of the tape.
A troubling movie, because of all the violence, but unfortunately not a thought-provoking movie. I haven't felt the faintest twinge of an urge to see it again, despite the superb craftsmanship.
> Once I got past his annoying antics
Remind us again why we should have to get past annoying antics before we can enjoy a movie?
The goal isn't to learn to love a movie despite its faults. The goal is to go see movies that have minimal faults to begin with.
Lucas is making that progressively more difficult. Does that mean we need to grind our teeth harder so we can 'enjoy' it? Or does that mean we need to go see some other movie instead?
The thread re GeekPAC is relevant here. We should stay away from EII in droves, and make it known in advance that we're going to. That would get Lucas' attention.
> There's even a Darth Vader Beer Stein for cryin' out loud!
Real vaders quaff their brew out of their helmets.
> 'm just wondering if anyone else is doing this and/or what you all think about this.
I'm not even going to go see it until I hear what my friends have to say about it. I have a low tolerance for crappy movies.
...are they cutting back on the marketing because it turns the traditional SW fans off, or because they didn't sell as much as they expected to last time?
Sounds like he's trying to spin a marketing problem as if it were a nod to his critics. We could get that pap from Bill Gates if we wanted it.
> The increase from 7.3 to 8.0 is due to the inclusion of KDE 3.0, a SuSE-modified kernel version 2.4.18...among other packages that have been upgraded or added.
7.3 + 3.0 + 2.4.18 = 8.0 ???
Maybe some of those other packages had negative version numbers.
> I had a neighbor like this.
Check out this lamer's post to talk.origins a while back. Apparently the guy was in a debate with someone else and tried to get some creationist "heavies" to support him, and they sent him back with that excuse to terminate the discussion. (See this post by his adversary.)
You'd be amazed at the claims you hear from fundies if you skim talk.origins now and then.
> You're the one who has it exactly backwards. Slashdot isn't selling comments, they are selling advertisements and subscriptions.
I'm not under any illusion that anyone here is a great writer, but I do think it's the user comments that draws the crowd. I can't remember the last time I saw an interesting story on Slashdot that I hadn't already seen on some other news site -- sans the repeats, errors, misspellings, and missed-the-point commentary from the editors. Sad to say, neither the news stories nor the editors are doing much value-adding for Slashdot; the discussion is everything.
Without the user comments I wouldn't bother with Slashdot at all -- not even as a portal. It's too easy to keep all the real news sites permanently open in a tabbed browser, and get an ungarbled version of the story usually a day or two earlier.
> That's like saying the value to the coffee shop is a bunch of old pots, some cups and some tables.
No, you have me exactly backwards. I'm saying that coffee shops are in the business of selling coffee, and if they think otherwise they should discontinue the coffee and see whether their business is worth anything more than the pots and pans that are left over.
> Why do the people who criticize the subscription system insist on misrepresenting the position of those who defend it? Note that he didn't say "all the worthless content", he said that it's cheap.
Because I wanted to point out that without all that "cheap" content, Slashdot is worth exactly what its owners can get for some second-hand network gear.
User-supplied content is everything to Slashdot.
> This is such a fallacious argument. It is based on the assumption that your opinion is more valuable than the network services that distribute it.
The obvious strategy for the owners, then, is to eliminate all that worthless content, which will then cut back on the bandwith requirements, which in turn will let them reduce their headcount.
Do you recomment Slashdot put it to the experiment, to see how well it pays off?
> I hate Chris Carter. I hope the feds catch him typing "ALLAH BOMB PRESIDENT" to someone on Instant Messenger.
Oops. I think you just slashdotted the NSA's computer system.
> I'm also going to join in and state that this was the stupidest thing
Damn! I just finished my placard announcing the end of the world coming up this Wednesday, and was going to wear it down by the overpass all day tomorrow. Now I'm going to have to repaint it in smaller text, to make room to write "SPOILER" across the top.
> However, you are correct that changing the name of The Two Towers would be about as absurd as you can get. How is all this related to Jar Jar?
Obviously, you haven't seen the anatomically correct Jar-Jar action figure.
> Anakin's flitting slave-owner is supposed to be vaguely eastern European / Jewish, near as I can tell (accented, haggles over money, big nose -- I mean, Jesus Christ!).
Yeah, but Jesus Christ is rarely portrayed with a big nose, despite the stereotypes.
Yes, I always consult a particle physicist whenever I need healthcare advice.