I am a non-programmer so maybe someone could enlighten me, but it seems that an office suite that is updated every year or so should require fewer man-hours to make than any game.
You haven't seen the code.
A game is overall much less complex, and has a clean separation between graphics/physics engine and game logic. Furthermore, the game doesn't have last decade's code that mustn't be changed because it already works.
Read the saga of the X-box (which no one thought could ever touch the Playstation) for a reminder of some history that is going to repeat itself.
You mean with the table? Because it won't be the Zune.
They could sue it in to oblivion or just get the fucking laws changed.
Or just make vague threats since attacking IBM went so well.
Then start coding...
I did. I started to learn earlier this year, at age 33, because I want change. Being a musician, I am taking on the music industry first, but I will help end the MS monopoly. What are you doing about it?
I quit my SDE position at Microsoft and joined one of their competitors. Any other questions?
This is truer than you may know. One of their catchphrases is "We're not artists, we're engineers", used as an excuse for not refactoring their code (or writing something decent in the first place). But the programmers are often treated more like laborers than engineers (in that those who would like to improve the code aren't given the chance -- gotta pack in those features, fix all the bugs, throw in some security review, and ship -- no time for stuff the customer can't see anyway), and in some products, it's a game to make the code especially clever so that only elite code wizards such as oneself can hack it (the learning of which naturally excels as a hazing ritual).
The engineers who loathe this culture leave it; those who revel in it stay, get promoted, and keep it in place.
Do you think MS will go down without a fight? Do you think that a company with almost limitless cash is going to be threatened by anything less than all-out war from the FOSS community?
Microsoft is clearly very much threatened, and already fighting. Or hadn't you noticed the SCO lawsuit and the patent infringement hand-waving?
I defy anyone to disprove any of my facts.
I defy you to actually state facts. Each of your points is a supposition.
For example,
- No one is going to do anything about MS's monopoly.
- The only people who have a chance to break it are the geeks.
I'm going to assume you mean only the open source geeks and not the ones working at Microsoft, in which case those at Apple and Google are also excluded. Clearly packages like Samba and OpenOffice are of critical importance, but don't underestimate the contributions of Apple and Google in eventually handing Microsoft its ass on a platter.
Granted, we run the risk of Apple or Google (or both) replacing Microsoft as Evil Empire, but that's another chapter.
- Even then it would take a united effort from all of us.
How many generic "Is Google Evil?" articles are we going to get on Slashdot?
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some Slashdot articles very similar to the ones already posted. If you like, you can repeat the search with the dupes included.
just like Microsoft has/had most of the market share because they are quite simply the best at offering OS users the compatibility and efficiency and reduced learning curve that they desire
Reality distortion field detected...
What, from Microsoft? Damn, is there anything they won't steal from Apple?
Because going on (and on, and on) about your deepest fanboy wishes on/. & like sites doesn't seem to be impressing the folks at Apple.
I hate to admit it, but you're right. They still think Mac OS 9 is "dead".
So, instead of telling the rest of us this again & again how you think Apple should do things how about putting together a nice presentation for them and see how far you get.
Ooh, good idea. I'll fire up HyperCard as soon as my desktop finishes rebuilding.
Maybe we should just start taking a supremely draconian stance on this. Someone comes down to the police station saying that all their money is gone because some email scammer stole it? Shoot them in the head. Then use their bank records to track down the scammer, and shoot them in the head, too. If you can't find the scammer, that's okay. Soon enough their pool of victims will dry up due to head/bullet related activities.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (X) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I received one of these, except instead of a stock spam, it was some annoying woman repeating over and over, "What the fuck do you think you're doing?"
Why the hell is my ex-girlfriend sending you MP3 spam?
Your social security number was leaked because of the government? The government changes your social security number, fixes their data, and the old one remains as a trap waiting for some fraudster wanna be try and use it.
Sounds good, but as with credit cards and bank account numbers it still ignores the unfathomable stupidity of requiring you to trust arbitrary third parties (e.g. merchants with whom you conduct business) with information that carries privileges only some of which you'd like to grant.
The social security number is a unique identifier. It should be used to refer to you, to unambiguously distinguish your identity from someone else's, not be construed as any kind of authentication token. Having power over someone because you know his name belongs in a fairy tale, not a purported security scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, 'shipped'.
...have a sudden notion sensor?
A game is overall much less complex, and has a clean separation between graphics/physics engine and game logic. Furthermore, the game doesn't have last decade's code that mustn't be changed because it already works.
The engineers who loathe this culture leave it; those who revel in it stay, get promoted, and keep it in place.
For example,Like making competing operating systems, Web browsers, or Web services?How, by users switching to Windows and Office, or by Microsoft entering and dominating new markets?I'm going to assume you mean only the open source geeks and not the ones working at Microsoft, in which case those at Apple and Google are also excluded. Clearly packages like Samba and OpenOffice are of critical importance, but don't underestimate the contributions of Apple and Google in eventually handing Microsoft its ass on a platter.
Granted, we run the risk of Apple or Google (or both) replacing Microsoft as Evil Empire, but that's another chapter.Then start coding...
My remark was tongue-in-cheek.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the dupes included.
Wasn't this posted already? Or have I been fooled?
Actually, I heard it's going away.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
The social security number is a unique identifier. It should be used to refer to you, to unambiguously distinguish your identity from someone else's, not be construed as any kind of authentication token. Having power over someone because you know his name belongs in a fairy tale, not a purported security scheme.
shit piss cunt fuck cocksucker motherfucker tits