This wasn't a ruling, they have not upheld the findings of fact. They've done nothing.
All they've said right now is that they're not going to hear the case at this time, instead they are defering the judgement to the current ongoing appeals court process and won't interfer at this time.
Later on they still have the right to throw the whole thing out, if they feel that it has been that badly bungled. It's possible, even if it's not probable.
"It means that the last door on this ruling has now closed for good"
No it doesn't. It means the Supreme Court feels at this time that the Appeals court is properly handling the case and they are going to let them continue.
If the situation changes, if the Appeals court comes down with some ruling, whatever. Microsoft can appeal to the Supreme Court again.
This isn't a ruling at all, it's simply a refusal to hear a case.
It was expected that this would be the case. But, again, nothing was upheld by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is simply stating, "Look, the appeals court appears to be dealing with this and we would rather let them do so for now. If that doesn't work out, then come talk to us again and we'll think about it some more."
You are reading way too much into it. It's pretty much a non issue, and the most important thing happening is the negotiations at the appeals level.
But I don't feel the web really started becoming popular until Windows 95 was released. I use that as a point in time because it also coincideds similarly with the release of IIS, and Frontpage came out not too long afterwards, etc.
But even though the new OS supported long filenames, many people were still conditioned to use the 8.3 naming scheme just out of habit.
Because index.html was a stupid name for a default page.
You are also wrong about Windows XP crippling mp3s. Windows XP does no more to cripple MP3 than does Windows 95, Windows 3.1 or Linux.
I guess that's my point on multimedia. I'm in no way limited in what I can do, I just have more options. Some people don't like giving the user options because it means they might choose not to use their pet software project.
I think it's absolutely critical that people educate themselves about details before criticizing them. You would do well to study up on that MP3 issue, because you clearly do not have any understanding of it.
The only thing Windows XP does not do out of the box is rip MP3 files from a CD. It does rip to WMA out of the box.
Do you know why?
Because MP3 is a proprietary format and in order to provide this functionality, Microsoft would have to license it. They choose not to spend that money because it would amount to a few dollars per OS sale, and that cuts into the bottom line.
If you want to use Windows Media to rip to the MP3 format, you may do so with a $10 add-on from many third party companies.
Or you can use other third party software such as Musicmatch, AudioCatalyst, etc.
Well he's right from one point of view..Net as an overall strategy is somewhat Vapor. That actually is the marketing goal, to label whatever new and cool comes along as.Net.
And you see this with the recent renaming of a lot of old server products as.Net, blah blah.
But he's clearly in denial if he doesn't understand the importance of the.Net development environment, which is not Vaporware. I just saw an announcement that it RTM's in November and will ship in February.
I sometimes wonder if it wasn't Microsoft's goal to confuse their competition so that they didn't know how to respond. It seems to be working, everybody is focusing on Passport and Hailstorm which were clearly not the signifigant pieces.
Those aren't the facts or reality that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the corruption of one particular political party, who used their power irresponsibly to circumvent the Rule of Law.
The 2000 election and the SCOTUS decision was a fatal blow against democracy.
The process of counting ballots should have been allowed to continue as defined by the Florida Law. The fact that it was not, but was rather subverted is a travesty.
Thankfully our founding fathers were wise, and the damage is limited to only 4 years, so that wrongs can be righted.
Regardless of what we do, we support the Northern Alliance.
The only other alternative is to attack them as well, and they have not done anything which justifies such an action.
We aren't providing them with weapons that I have heard. The only aid they are receiving from us is that we are currently wiping out their enemies for them.
CNN's purpose was to inform, Foxnews purpose was to incite outrage.
As we live in a free country with a free media, I think it's important that we not hide news from the people. So I have to agree with CNN's stance who only showed it occasionally. But FoxNews showed it over and over again for hours and had a different motive which cannot be justified.
Americans face the same problem, what other countries see of us is our movies. They think we are all Bruce Willis.
Actually this past January I sent an email to both of my state's Senators, and one of them actually responded.
It took a while for Senator Wellstone to respond, but sometime in March I received a response that was somewhat canned, but did have to deal with the topic of my original email.
I agree that real mail is taken more seriously. Admittedly, shouldn't it be? It takes far more effort to send a letter than to send email, thus you can judge by that fact alone that someone is clearly committed to their opinion.
Which may be impossible, I know, but there are a lot of people in this country who go around pushing interesting conspiracy theories. Chicken Little can't always be believed.
"If you believe (as I do) that it is wrong for these people to kill innocent civilians, than surely you must believe it is wrong for US to do the same to people of other countries. "
You keep confusing the targetted retaliation of the guilty with the killing of innocents. This has been your consistent stance since you entered this thread, and it is logically flawed.
You now try to bring up arguments of pacifism on the part of Amish or Mennonites, but that's not what you were arguing before. You were claiming before that the civilians at the WTC were not innocent and that these people who perpetrated the attacks were justified because of revenge.
If you want to be a pacifist then be so, but then you most certainly must condemn the terrorists instead of defending their actions. But so far you've yet to show a logically consistent thought in this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
You are still reading way to much into this.
This wasn't a ruling, they have not upheld the findings of fact. They've done nothing.
All they've said right now is that they're not going to hear the case at this time, instead they are defering the judgement to the current ongoing appeals court process and won't interfer at this time.
Later on they still have the right to throw the whole thing out, if they feel that it has been that badly bungled. It's possible, even if it's not probable.
"It means that the last door on this ruling has now closed for good"
No it doesn't. It means the Supreme Court feels at this time that the Appeals court is properly handling the case and they are going to let them continue.
If the situation changes, if the Appeals court comes down with some ruling, whatever. Microsoft can appeal to the Supreme Court again.
This isn't a ruling at all, it's simply a refusal to hear a case.
It was expected that this would be the case. But, again, nothing was upheld by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is simply stating, "Look, the appeals court appears to be dealing with this and we would rather let them do so for now. If that doesn't work out, then come talk to us again and we'll think about it some more."
You are reading way too much into it. It's pretty much a non issue, and the most important thing happening is the negotiations at the appeals level.
Bush won by using the power of corrupt officials.
deal with it, or face the later consequences. You can't pull off a coup like that twice in a century.
No. IIS goes looking for default.htm, default.html or default.asp.
Which makes more sense than the stupid index.html which is a holdover from the early days of WWW before it's potential was understood.
Bravo Microsoft on that decision!
The Democrats tried to use a legal strategy.
The Republicans used a strategy of abusing their political positions of power.
One of the two strategies is referred to as Corruption.
The fact that you don't understand the difference saddens me.
Exactly.
But I don't feel the web really started becoming popular until Windows 95 was released. I use that as a point in time because it also coincideds similarly with the release of IIS, and Frontpage came out not too long afterwards, etc.
But even though the new OS supported long filenames, many people were still conditioned to use the 8.3 naming scheme just out of habit.
Because index.html was a stupid name for a default page.
You are also wrong about Windows XP crippling mp3s. Windows XP does no more to cripple MP3 than does Windows 95, Windows 3.1 or Linux.
I guess that's my point on multimedia. I'm in no way limited in what I can do, I just have more options. Some people don't like giving the user options because it means they might choose not to use their pet software project.
I think it's absolutely critical that people educate themselves about details before criticizing them. You would do well to study up on that MP3 issue, because you clearly do not have any understanding of it.
The only thing Windows XP does not do out of the box is rip MP3 files from a CD. It does rip to WMA out of the box.
Do you know why?
Because MP3 is a proprietary format and in order to provide this functionality, Microsoft would have to license it. They choose not to spend that money because it would amount to a few dollars per OS sale, and that cuts into the bottom line.
If you want to use Windows Media to rip to the MP3 format, you may do so with a $10 add-on from many third party companies.
Or you can use other third party software such as Musicmatch, AudioCatalyst, etc.
The same is true of Windows 95, Linux, etc.
Well he's right from one point of view. .Net as an overall strategy is somewhat Vapor. That actually is the marketing goal, to label whatever new and cool comes along as .Net.
.Net, blah blah.
.Net development environment, which is not Vaporware. I just saw an announcement that it RTM's in November and will ship in February.
And you see this with the recent renaming of a lot of old server products as
But he's clearly in denial if he doesn't understand the importance of the
I sometimes wonder if it wasn't Microsoft's goal to confuse their competition so that they didn't know how to respond. It seems to be working, everybody is focusing on Passport and Hailstorm which were clearly not the signifigant pieces.
What it looks like to you, and what is reality are two different things.
.htm becamse popular for two reasons, and those reasons only:
- It was what the userbase expected
- It was consistent with the other 3 character extensions
No conspiracy, no ulterior motives... it just happened.
And I could care less about multimedia.
Sigh. You obviously do not get it.
Those aren't the facts or reality that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the corruption of one particular political party, who used their power irresponsibly to circumvent the Rule of Law.
Wow, such harsh language from someone who is wrong.
That story was already debunked weeks ago, along with the story that it was stock footage from the Gulf War.
I'm sorry that you are delusional, but it's time to start accepting reality.
Exactly.
Whether Bush or Gore won was never the issue, it was the impression that the election was stolen from the people that was the injustice.
Agreed.
The 2000 election and the SCOTUS decision was a fatal blow against democracy.
The process of counting ballots should have been allowed to continue as defined by the Florida Law. The fact that it was not, but was rather subverted is a travesty.
Thankfully our founding fathers were wise, and the damage is limited to only 4 years, so that wrongs can be righted.
Regardless of what we do, we support the Northern Alliance.
The only other alternative is to attack them as well, and they have not done anything which justifies such an action.
We aren't providing them with weapons that I have heard. The only aid they are receiving from us is that we are currently wiping out their enemies for them.
You mean like the Chinese?
How about Koreans?
What if we ask someone from Taiwan?
Malaysians?
Filipinos?
Australians?
Why should I give your opinion more credence then those of people who lived in the region and were actually victimized by the Japanese?
CNN's purpose was to inform, Foxnews purpose was to incite outrage.
As we live in a free country with a free media, I think it's important that we not hide news from the people. So I have to agree with CNN's stance who only showed it occasionally. But FoxNews showed it over and over again for hours and had a different motive which cannot be justified.
Americans face the same problem, what other countries see of us is our movies. They think we are all Bruce Willis.
Actually this past January I sent an email to both of my state's Senators, and one of them actually responded.
It took a while for Senator Wellstone to respond, but sometime in March I received a response that was somewhat canned, but did have to deal with the topic of my original email.
I agree that real mail is taken more seriously. Admittedly, shouldn't it be? It takes far more effort to send a letter than to send email, thus you can judge by that fact alone that someone is clearly committed to their opinion.
Well said.
I'd like to see that story confirmed.
Which may be impossible, I know, but there are a lot of people in this country who go around pushing interesting conspiracy theories. Chicken Little can't always be believed.
You never said 'past' actions, you said 'its' actions, in reference to the actions of today.
It's good to see you rethink your position and back down from your original stance. That's surely a sign of intelligent thought.
Here, perhaps this link will help a bit:
m
:(
http://www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1967.ht
A lot of Americans seem to not know the history of Israel over the past century.
There are other places out there in which you can read the history of the region. It's something Americans are woefully ignorant about.
"If you believe (as I do) that it is wrong for these people to kill innocent civilians, than surely you must believe it is wrong for US to do the same to people of other countries. "
You keep confusing the targetted retaliation of the guilty with the killing of innocents. This has been your consistent stance since you entered this thread, and it is logically flawed.
You now try to bring up arguments of pacifism on the part of Amish or Mennonites, but that's not what you were arguing before. You were claiming before that the civilians at the WTC were not innocent and that these people who perpetrated the attacks were justified because of revenge.
If you want to be a pacifist then be so, but then you most certainly must condemn the terrorists instead of defending their actions. But so far you've yet to show a logically consistent thought in this thread.
I'm an avid reader of history.
Do you want to talk specifics, or do you need to first read some books so you can speak from an informed position?