When will the Christians of the world wake up and realize that their "moral standards" are seriously fucked up?
w00t *bling* *bling* w00t
Flamebait alert! Flamebait alert!
Feeding a troll, feh, howzabout becoming a troll! Seriously, exactly what do you expect out of a discussion with that phrase...constructive dialog? Man, I wish I had mod points...
Although your explanation was much, much funnier, I think that "Wheels of Zeus" was probably chunked out because it's acronym spells...you guessed it..."Woz." Maybe The Woz is going through a bit of a mid-life crisis and is looking to spice up his image?:)
Maybe I'm feeding a troll, but here's a list of sequels that didn't suck:
Ahem [imdb.com] -> link to "Godfather II"
Cripes, you're right! There's also a metric buttload of other great sequels that I left out -> every Kevin Smith movie made after "Clerks" (unless you don't like "Mallrats", in which case, bite me again:), the aforementioned "Godfather" series, and a whole shload of other flicks that I'm forgetting about. So anyways, sequels don't necesarily suck, unless it's "House Party 2" in which case, you should review your movie-choosing policy.:)
Maybe I'm feeding a troll, but here's a list of sequels that didn't suck:
The Empire Strikes Back
Army of Darkness (subjective, okay...)
Star Trek(s) II, IV, VI (maybe more?)
Indy and the Last Crusade (okay, bite me:)
howzabout LOTR:Fellowship? Sequel to the Hobbit!:)
Besides, the reason you have Spielberg with good actors, cash, etc. etc. is because it's an Indy sequel...you can't get that kind of horsepower without some kind of guarantee that the movie will absolutely rake in the dough...which an Indiana Jones flick will do, regardless of whether or not it sucks. Heck, even "Temple of Doom" made money eventually, and the coolest part of that movie was the part when Indy, facing legions of sword-bearing Thugees on the bridge, weaponless, looks left, right, then says, simply, "Shit.":)
Okay, but we do. Again, you're posting in the wrong thread.
I just thought you'd made a very good point and I wanted to state my opinion in regard to it.
Well thanks, I hope I'm not coming across as being flamey.:) I do appreciate your comments, but I was hoping to get more of a response than just the tired old "M$ monopoly is evil" argument. I guess I should give up on the idea that I can get more out of/. by attempting to be anything but pro- or anti-Microsoft in a thread. *sigh* Back to the humorous posts and k-whoring. Oh well!
Thanks for the comments, I did appreciate them - it's why I post.:)
uhh...yup. That's all correct. And a nice parrot of the KMFMS webpage, from what I can tell.:)
But IIRC correctly, this thread is about what AOL/TW is suing MS over - all the article said is "justice" which is rarely manifested in the form of cash payouts.:) Parent post stated the suit was about lost revenue, which he mistakenly assumed was zero, and I pointed out that nobody's looking at "lost profits" in this lawsuit - AOL/TW is digging in for some cash "justice" after MS lost their federal case.
Then you hop in, and it's all about why MS's particular smell of monopoly is bad. It's like you just figured that out, and wanted to tell all of us about it.:) Thanks for the refresh, but That's Not The Topic Of Conversation right now. There's plenty of places to start a flamewar about [MS == good | MS == bad] but please oh please don't do it on this thread. I want to hear what people think about what AOL/TW is suing over - not just the "justice" marketspeak.
And please don't sell me that same old "monopoly bad" argument - I believe in it, but what happens when one evil monopoly sues another evil monopoly over unfair practices? Can you believe either side? Do you sit back and hope that one company annihilates the other, and then crumples up and dies from the exhaustive effort? (hint: yes:) In short, WTF does AOL/TW want - if it were "lost profits", don't you think they'd come out and say it? And WTF does "justice" mean in this context?
Normally, a company to company lawsuit over unfair competition will ask for damages due to lost sales. Just what are those damages when the price was $0.00?
OK, but in this case they're not asking for damages due to lost sales. What's your point?
Besides, I remember a time when Netscape wasn't free - the license allowed free use only for academic and other sundry use as defined in the EULA - everybody else had to pay (IIRC, YMMV, ROLLIN HAND:) Like the article says, AOL/TW wants "justice" for IE being given away, and driving away the ability for Netscape to charge for its product. Whether or not you think that's a good idea is another topic entirely...:)
Wouldn't any reasonable educational facility let him test out of classes like that? I mean, jeez, it's not like he doesn't know his stuff.
What, and not get tuition for the semester's worth of classes the student's tested out of? Surely you jest.:) And besides, even if one is so competent that they can already take the class, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't learn anything from taking the class again - provided they take the class with the right attitude. Besides, it's an easy "A", right?:)
In related news, NVidia announced today it's providing binary-only driver support for its line of GeForce video cards used in wooden abacuses. When asked about this, a company spokesperson replied "Well, we know there's virtually no market for putting a 3-D accelerated device driver for an analog computer without a display, but what the hell, it's a slow newsday on Slashdot, so why not get the geeks drooling?"
They want fences. They want their OS to ask 3 times if they really want to send that file to the Recycle Bin. Microsoft could put a big button in the middle of the Windows desktop that says "Click here to _permamently_ destroy your computer" and they would get hundreds of tech support calls a day from users asking how to restore their computers after they clicked the button.
Heh heh...you said:
1.) People want their OS to set up limits for them
2.) People want to completely ignore those limits and fuck stuff up anyways.
Since the beginning of your argument went something like "people don't want something they can fuck up" and then you concocted a situation where people do just that, I'm confused. Either people are monumentally stupid, cow-like creatures, or you misspoke. Which is it?:)
The lie the hard-core X-Files fans all sucked up was that there was some overarching story line that was being revealed over time, a la Lord Of The Rings.
The only lie there is that anything gets revealed at all. It sounded like you were saying that the mytharc doesn't exist...I'd disagree with that. Say instead that the mytharc has no [plot | point | end in sight] and I'd agree completely.:)
Call me a heretic, but the episodes I enjoyed the most were the freestanding ones.
Anyone care to speculate when it "Jumped the Shark"?
"Je Souhaite" (7x21) was about the last "pure" X-Files episode. It was the last episode before Mulder got kidnapped by the aliens, and right before Scully announced she was pregnant. Season 7 was supposed to be the last season, IIRC (except for Gillian Anderson's contract) and it would have been a great way to end the series, I think. Instead, the focus has shifted away from the two great dramatic elements of a fanatical believer and a level-headed analyst along for the thrill-ride, and has become bogged down in endless hoo-hah over the bloated mytharc. Scully's baby can rotate stuff with its mind. Yaay. Don't get me wrong, I like Doggett and Reyes but it just doesn't feel like the X-Files anymore.
But I'll never say "good riddance" to a show that honestly expanded boundaries laid down by the Twilight Zone and others - compared to the drivel that is Must See TV, the X-Files is still the best show on TV, period. Good luck to all involved with the X-Files over the years, and thanks for the great time!
Woops, the smiley face didn't come out after my "No shit, Sherlock" statement. There's one there, but he's hiding. Really makes it sound meaner without it...yowch. Came out on the "Preview" so it must have been something else I did...hehehehehe
PalmOS had nothing to do with your Visor surviving your "crash". It was the hardware.
No shit, Sherlock. Read the post. I said:
"Chalk it up to a good Rhino-Skin case and a durable, space-filled design on the Visor."
Microsoft doesn't build the hardware for PocketPCs, so what exactly is your point with respect to PalmOS vs. PocketPC OS?
The gist of the post was this: Palm-alikes are a simpler hardware design than the "miniature-laptop" design that most PocketPCs seem to be going for. Nowhere did I mention the respective OSs of each device. But since you missed it the first time, here's my point: Palm-alikes are simpler and cheaper, and in my experience, more reliable (in a HARDWARE fashion) than PocketPCs. Clear now?
PocketPC PDAs with 206Mhz Strongarm processors with 32MB of RAM have >25x more processing power, and 64x the memory of my old Atari 512ST: At the time I was sure that my ST was faster than anyone ever needed, and was more than adequate computing power.
Sure, but they also have those teeny-tiny little screens. I'll give you an example, so you know where I'm coming from: in the spring months, I enjoy chasing severe weather. It kind of goes along with my field of study, and it's an interesting hobby. But it's one of those hobbies that you can bring a variable amount of gear along - some gadget geeks like to pretend they're in the movie "Twister" and go hog-wild getting portable radars, multiple radio connections, portable TV dishes, the whole works. Other, more hardcore, chasers will sometimes head out in the field with nothing more than a camera and the grey stuff between their ears. I take a middle ground - I'd like to start viewing radar data while on the road, using my cell-phone to connect. I don't need blistering speed or power - just the ability to d'l.jpg files at about 9600baud or so. That's fine - it tells me where the weather is relative to where I am (and therefore, where I need to be.) Theoretically, one could use a PocketPC to perform this task, but like I mentioned earlier, I can get an old PC-laptop to do the job for half the price, plus I get better screen resolution. Anything less computationally intense than that is do-able on my Visor. So for me, the PocketPC fills a hole I don't need filled: PC ability in a PDA-sized package. My car doesn't care that the laptop weighs more than the PDA, and I'd rather have the 14" screen. And being a student, that extra $200 makes a big difference.
So you see? I don't need a faster machine - I can solve my problems with the ones I have. The PDA is useful for note-taking, organizing, and the occasional game of DopeWars and Traffic - and I don't need more processing power for that. So it's not like I'm living in an "alter reality" as you suggest - I think I'm just being realistic. And quite frankly, who needs faster? YMMV, of course, but maybe you should consider that my mileage need not be the same as yours.
The GEEK wants features, speed, colour screens, all sorts of applications, etc.
Say instead the gadget geek wants features, etc. and I'll agree with you. The productive geek who wants to Get Stuff Done with a minimum of hassle, BS, and chrome gets the simplest tool that reliably does the job. For me, and the legions of geeks that I know, that means a Palm. If it's features, speed, color, yadda yadda we're looking for, we buy a Real Computer. PDAs aren't there yet, and I doubt seriously that MS can take us there. I can get a used PII laptop that'll blow a PocketPC away in terms of speed, utility, color, etc. for about half the price of a new PocketPC. Why spend more for less function?
Sorry, but Palm is most definitely not the choice of the tech savvy user.
Oops, looks like we disagree about the definition of "tech-savvy." For you it might mean "PDA == miniature laptop" while for me it means "PDA == simple, elegant, crash-proof." And when I say crash-proof, I mean it. My Visor went with me on a mountaintop research trip last winter, and after I beefed it on my skis, and landed literally, right on top of my Visor, it wasn't even scratched. Chalk it up to a good Rhino-Skin case and a durable, space-filled design on the Visor.
So for a gadget-weenie, you'd be right, and Palm-alikes are feeble. But for somebody who values utility over chrome, I still go with the Palm.
And the funny thing is that they are being killed by a better product.
...or the market for PDAs has shifted from tech-savvy geeks (all of whom I know own a Palm-alike PDA) to marketdroids who know only Windows software. Think about it - with tech employees getting laid off left and right, who's got the cash to buy a new PDA? You got it: PHB does, and he Doesn't Understand Anything But Windows.
Personally, when I bought my PDA, I tried the iPaq and a Visor, and the Visor was the better product, hands-down. And it cost $200 less. So I bought it. Don't delude yourself into thinking that because a market shifted, PocketPCs are necessarily better products. The market's different, that's all. What you should be worried about is why the market's different, and what role (if any) Microsoft plays in that market.:)
Unless the party you were selling the car to had a well known history (that you were fully aware of) of running down little old ladies with newly purchased cars.
Ouch, you're right. I'm trying really hard to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, though, as I'm sure SGI was. Reality though? Grandma better watch out.:)
If SGI sold those rights to Microsoft, with full knowledge of what MS may do with them, then SGI is no better than MS.
You could be right - assuming that SGI knows what MS is going to do with the OpenGL patents. Let's put it this way - if I sold somebody my car, knowing that they're only buying my car to run down little old ladies at the Senior Center, then yes, I'm no better than the low-life I sold my car to. But generally people with plans like that tend not to make public those plans. Am I then still culpable for selling that car? Sure, I knew darn well that it was a possibility that the buyer could run people over with the car. They might also be buying it to haul groceries. Unless I know beforehand, it would be hard to say that I was responsible to the little old ladies for selling that car.
I doubt very much that Microsoft would go to SGI, say "We'd like to buy OpenGL to destroy it, how much do you want for it?" Does that seem unlikely to you as well?
They wanted money, the just let MS do the dirty work in exchange for the money.:)
Man, I'm as much of a conspiracy theorist as anybody else, but why would SGI, after years of development and support of GL, decide to cash in on its demise? There's many more uses for GL than just games, you know, and DirectX doesn't seem to be the choice of those non-gaming uses. Seems more likely that Microsoft made an offer that SGI couldn't refuse - happens all the time. It's just too bad SGI threw out the baby with the bathwater.
It's not so much that Microsoft has the right to purchase these patents as to what Microsoft intends to do with them, now that they own them. It's still too early to tell, of course - even putting aside my own perspective as a "Linux Zealot (TM)" it wouldn't be fair to assume that Microsoft will necessarily Do The Wrong Thing. What worries people (and me) is Microsoft's track record.
You're absolutely right - SGI had the same power to lord OpenGL over the masses, and they have sold that power. What is troublesome is the fact that SGI let OpenGL live, and Microsoft may not.
Slashdot Mirror
When will the Christians of the world wake up and realize that their "moral standards" are seriously fucked up?
w00t *bling* *bling* w00t
Flamebait alert! Flamebait alert!
Feeding a troll, feh, howzabout becoming a troll! Seriously, exactly what do you expect out of a discussion with that phrase...constructive dialog? Man, I wish I had mod points...
You do its called 127.0.0.1
Cheest. These morons. Lemme try again:
"Man, if I only had a fixed IP number excluding my loopback IP, and my local LAN IPs, or any other IP not connected to the frickin' Internet.
Lessee...checking .tv corporation website...
.tv TLD that got in trouble over the name?
:)
Yes! domain name blow-up-your.tv is available! $50/year!
Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't there already a
Man, if I only had a fixed IP address...
Hmm... Why Wheels Of Zeus?
:)
Although your explanation was much, much funnier, I think that "Wheels of Zeus" was probably chunked out because it's acronym spells...you guessed it..."Woz." Maybe The Woz is going through a bit of a mid-life crisis and is looking to spice up his image?
Besides, wouldn't they be ok if they wore the static guards used for working on computer equipment?
:)
Static guards, feh. These guys need the Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies to solve their real problem - being brainwashed hypochondriacs.
Maybe I'm feeding a troll, but here's a list of sequels that didn't suck:
:), the aforementioned "Godfather" series, and a whole shload of other flicks that I'm forgetting about. So anyways, sequels don't necesarily suck, unless it's "House Party 2" in which case, you should review your movie-choosing policy. :)
Ahem [imdb.com] -> link to "Godfather II"
Cripes, you're right! There's also a metric buttload of other great sequels that I left out -> every Kevin Smith movie made after "Clerks" (unless you don't like "Mallrats", in which case, bite me again
Besides, the reason you have Spielberg with good actors, cash, etc. etc. is because it's an Indy sequel...you can't get that kind of horsepower without some kind of guarantee that the movie will absolutely rake in the dough...which an Indiana Jones flick will do, regardless of whether or not it sucks. Heck, even "Temple of Doom" made money eventually, and the coolest part of that movie was the part when Indy, facing legions of sword-bearing Thugees on the bridge, weaponless, looks left, right, then says, simply, "Shit."
Frankly, I don't care why AOL/TW is suing M$.
:) I do appreciate your comments, but I was hoping to get more of a response than just the tired old "M$ monopoly is evil" argument. I guess I should give up on the idea that I can get more out of /. by attempting to be anything but pro- or anti-Microsoft in a thread. *sigh* Back to the humorous posts and k-whoring. Oh well!
:)
Okay, but we do. Again, you're posting in the wrong thread.
I just thought you'd made a very good point and I wanted to state my opinion in regard to it.
Well thanks, I hope I'm not coming across as being flamey.
Thanks for the comments, I did appreciate them - it's why I post.
uhh...yup. That's all correct. And a nice parrot of the KMFMS webpage, from what I can tell. :)
:) Parent post stated the suit was about lost revenue, which he mistakenly assumed was zero, and I pointed out that nobody's looking at "lost profits" in this lawsuit - AOL/TW is digging in for some cash "justice" after MS lost their federal case.
:) Thanks for the refresh, but That's Not The Topic Of Conversation right now. There's plenty of places to start a flamewar about [MS == good | MS == bad] but please oh please don't do it on this thread. I want to hear what people think about what AOL/TW is suing over - not just the "justice" marketspeak.
:) In short, WTF does AOL/TW want - if it were "lost profits", don't you think they'd come out and say it? And WTF does "justice" mean in this context?
But IIRC correctly, this thread is about what AOL/TW is suing MS over - all the article said is "justice" which is rarely manifested in the form of cash payouts.
Then you hop in, and it's all about why MS's particular smell of monopoly is bad. It's like you just figured that out, and wanted to tell all of us about it.
And please don't sell me that same old "monopoly bad" argument - I believe in it, but what happens when one evil monopoly sues another evil monopoly over unfair practices? Can you believe either side? Do you sit back and hope that one company annihilates the other, and then crumples up and dies from the exhaustive effort? (hint: yes
Normally, a company to company lawsuit over unfair competition will ask for damages due to lost sales. Just what are those damages when the price was $0.00?
:) Like the article says, AOL/TW wants "justice" for IE being given away, and driving away the ability for Netscape to charge for its product. Whether or not you think that's a good idea is another topic entirely... :)
OK, but in this case they're not asking for damages due to lost sales. What's your point?
Besides, I remember a time when Netscape wasn't free - the license allowed free use only for academic and other sundry use as defined in the EULA - everybody else had to pay (IIRC, YMMV, ROLLIN HAND
Wouldn't any reasonable educational facility let him test out of classes like that? I mean, jeez, it's not like he doesn't know his stuff.
:) And besides, even if one is so competent that they can already take the class, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't learn anything from taking the class again - provided they take the class with the right attitude. Besides, it's an easy "A", right? :)
What, and not get tuition for the semester's worth of classes the student's tested out of? Surely you jest.
In related news, NVidia announced today it's providing binary-only driver support for its line of GeForce video cards used in wooden abacuses. When asked about this, a company spokesperson replied "Well, we know there's virtually no market for putting a 3-D accelerated device driver for an analog computer without a display, but what the hell, it's a slow newsday on Slashdot, so why not get the geeks drooling?"
...and the first post to ask the question got modded out of existence. It's redundant to...a post that nobody can see. Gotta love it. :)
They want fences. They want their OS to ask 3 times if they really want to send that file to the Recycle Bin. Microsoft could put a big button in the middle of the Windows desktop that says "Click here to _permamently_ destroy your computer" and they would get hundreds of tech support calls a day from users asking how to restore their computers after they clicked the button.
:)
Heh heh...you said:
1.) People want their OS to set up limits for them
2.) People want to completely ignore those limits and fuck stuff up anyways.
Since the beginning of your argument went something like "people don't want something they can fuck up" and then you concocted a situation where people do just that, I'm confused. Either people are monumentally stupid, cow-like creatures, or you misspoke. Which is it?
The lie the hard-core X-Files fans all sucked up was that there was some overarching story line that was being revealed over time, a la Lord Of The Rings.
:)
:)
The only lie there is that anything gets revealed at all. It sounded like you were saying that the mytharc doesn't exist...I'd disagree with that. Say instead that the mytharc has no [plot | point | end in sight] and I'd agree completely.
Call me a heretic, but the episodes I enjoyed the most were the freestanding ones.
Nothing heretical there, dude, they're better stories, IMNSHO.
Anyone care to speculate when it "Jumped the Shark"?
"Je Souhaite" (7x21) was about the last "pure" X-Files episode. It was the last episode before Mulder got kidnapped by the aliens, and right before Scully announced she was pregnant. Season 7 was supposed to be the last season, IIRC (except for Gillian Anderson's contract) and it would have been a great way to end the series, I think. Instead, the focus has shifted away from the two great dramatic elements of a fanatical believer and a level-headed analyst along for the thrill-ride, and has become bogged down in endless hoo-hah over the bloated mytharc. Scully's baby can rotate stuff with its mind. Yaay. Don't get me wrong, I like Doggett and Reyes but it just doesn't feel like the X-Files anymore.
But I'll never say "good riddance" to a show that honestly expanded boundaries laid down by the Twilight Zone and others - compared to the drivel that is Must See TV, the X-Files is still the best show on TV, period. Good luck to all involved with the X-Files over the years, and thanks for the great time!
Woops, the smiley face didn't come out after my "No shit, Sherlock" statement. There's one there, but he's hiding. Really makes it sound meaner without it...yowch. Came out on the "Preview" so it must have been something else I did...hehehehehe
PalmOS had nothing to do with your Visor surviving your "crash". It was the hardware.
No shit, Sherlock. Read the post. I said:
"Chalk it up to a good Rhino-Skin case and a durable, space-filled design on the Visor."
Microsoft doesn't build the hardware for PocketPCs, so what exactly is your point with respect to PalmOS vs. PocketPC OS?
The gist of the post was this: Palm-alikes are a simpler hardware design than the "miniature-laptop" design that most PocketPCs seem to be going for. Nowhere did I mention the respective OSs of each device. But since you missed it the first time, here's my point: Palm-alikes are simpler and cheaper, and in my experience, more reliable (in a HARDWARE fashion) than PocketPCs. Clear now?
PocketPC PDAs with 206Mhz Strongarm processors with 32MB of RAM have >25x more processing power, and 64x the memory of my old Atari 512ST: At the time I was sure that my ST was faster than anyone ever needed, and was more than adequate computing power.
.jpg files at about 9600baud or so. That's fine - it tells me where the weather is relative to where I am (and therefore, where I need to be.) Theoretically, one could use a PocketPC to perform this task, but like I mentioned earlier, I can get an old PC-laptop to do the job for half the price, plus I get better screen resolution. Anything less computationally intense than that is do-able on my Visor. So for me, the PocketPC fills a hole I don't need filled: PC ability in a PDA-sized package. My car doesn't care that the laptop weighs more than the PDA, and I'd rather have the 14" screen. And being a student, that extra $200 makes a big difference.
Sure, but they also have those teeny-tiny little screens. I'll give you an example, so you know where I'm coming from: in the spring months, I enjoy chasing severe weather. It kind of goes along with my field of study, and it's an interesting hobby. But it's one of those hobbies that you can bring a variable amount of gear along - some gadget geeks like to pretend they're in the movie "Twister" and go hog-wild getting portable radars, multiple radio connections, portable TV dishes, the whole works. Other, more hardcore, chasers will sometimes head out in the field with nothing more than a camera and the grey stuff between their ears. I take a middle ground - I'd like to start viewing radar data while on the road, using my cell-phone to connect. I don't need blistering speed or power - just the ability to d'l
So you see? I don't need a faster machine - I can solve my problems with the ones I have. The PDA is useful for note-taking, organizing, and the occasional game of DopeWars and Traffic - and I don't need more processing power for that. So it's not like I'm living in an "alter reality" as you suggest - I think I'm just being realistic. And quite frankly, who needs faster? YMMV, of course, but maybe you should consider that my mileage need not be the same as yours.
The GEEK wants features, speed, colour screens, all sorts of applications, etc.
Say instead the gadget geek wants features, etc. and I'll agree with you. The productive geek who wants to Get Stuff Done with a minimum of hassle, BS, and chrome gets the simplest tool that reliably does the job. For me, and the legions of geeks that I know, that means a Palm. If it's features, speed, color, yadda yadda we're looking for, we buy a Real Computer. PDAs aren't there yet, and I doubt seriously that MS can take us there. I can get a used PII laptop that'll blow a PocketPC away in terms of speed, utility, color, etc. for about half the price of a new PocketPC. Why spend more for less function?
Sorry, but Palm is most definitely not the choice of the tech savvy user.
Oops, looks like we disagree about the definition of "tech-savvy." For you it might mean "PDA == miniature laptop" while for me it means "PDA == simple, elegant, crash-proof." And when I say crash-proof, I mean it. My Visor went with me on a mountaintop research trip last winter, and after I beefed it on my skis, and landed literally, right on top of my Visor, it wasn't even scratched. Chalk it up to a good Rhino-Skin case and a durable, space-filled design on the Visor.
So for a gadget-weenie, you'd be right, and Palm-alikes are feeble. But for somebody who values utility over chrome, I still go with the Palm.
And the funny thing is that they are being killed by a better product.
:)
...or the market for PDAs has shifted from tech-savvy geeks (all of whom I know own a Palm-alike PDA) to marketdroids who know only Windows software. Think about it - with tech employees getting laid off left and right, who's got the cash to buy a new PDA? You got it: PHB does, and he Doesn't Understand Anything But Windows.
Personally, when I bought my PDA, I tried the iPaq and a Visor, and the Visor was the better product, hands-down. And it cost $200 less. So I bought it. Don't delude yourself into thinking that because a market shifted, PocketPCs are necessarily better products. The market's different, that's all. What you should be worried about is why the market's different, and what role (if any) Microsoft plays in that market.
Unless the party you were selling the car to had a well known history (that you were fully aware of) of running down little old ladies with newly purchased cars.
:)
Ouch, you're right. I'm trying really hard to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, though, as I'm sure SGI was. Reality though? Grandma better watch out.
If SGI sold those rights to Microsoft, with full knowledge of what MS may do with them, then SGI is no better than MS.
:)
You could be right - assuming that SGI knows what MS is going to do with the OpenGL patents. Let's put it this way - if I sold somebody my car, knowing that they're only buying my car to run down little old ladies at the Senior Center, then yes, I'm no better than the low-life I sold my car to. But generally people with plans like that tend not to make public those plans. Am I then still culpable for selling that car? Sure, I knew darn well that it was a possibility that the buyer could run people over with the car. They might also be buying it to haul groceries. Unless I know beforehand, it would be hard to say that I was responsible to the little old ladies for selling that car.
I doubt very much that Microsoft would go to SGI, say "We'd like to buy OpenGL to destroy it, how much do you want for it?" Does that seem unlikely to you as well?
They wanted money, the just let MS do the dirty work in exchange for the money.
Man, I'm as much of a conspiracy theorist as anybody else, but why would SGI, after years of development and support of GL, decide to cash in on its demise? There's many more uses for GL than just games, you know, and DirectX doesn't seem to be the choice of those non-gaming uses. Seems more likely that Microsoft made an offer that SGI couldn't refuse - happens all the time. It's just too bad SGI threw out the baby with the bathwater.
It's not so much that Microsoft has the right to purchase these patents as to what Microsoft intends to do with them, now that they own them. It's still too early to tell, of course - even putting aside my own perspective as a "Linux Zealot (TM)" it wouldn't be fair to assume that Microsoft will necessarily Do The Wrong Thing. What worries people (and me) is Microsoft's track record.
You're absolutely right - SGI had the same power to lord OpenGL over the masses, and they have sold that power. What is troublesome is the fact that SGI let OpenGL live, and Microsoft may not.