I gave up on Evolution when I tried the version that shipped with Red Hat 7.3. I also took one look at Kmail at the time and decided to pass.
Mozilla Mail was overall faster, easier to configure, far less bulky, and part of the browser (lighter). It's spam filtering capability is also a must - as is it's security and presentation options.
The only thing I liked about Evolution was the little configurable main page, where you could put in your favorate news-feeds or weather forecasts and what not. It also crashed harder then Outlook on a p133 with 16MB of RAM and Windows 98 First Edition.
I'd have no idea what Outlook was like if I wasn't forced to use it at work. The only thing I like about Outlook is the calendar portion of it. The rest is crap.
At home I use pine. Yeah, that pine. I have tried the following email clients: Kmail, Moz, Opera - yet I always come back to pine. While on vacation in Paris, I was able to pay a couple Euros at an internet cafe, download PuTTY, and check my email over ssh, all in about 2 minutes. No downloading of messages, and more importantly attachments. No worries about viruses or flashy garbage html. I do get some spam, but it is quick to delete and add to my own ruleset if I see a pattern. I use fetchmail to pull all of my various accounts into one place. I can even check it over a 56k when visiting my parents, and it isn't too slow.
The one drawback may be attachments, but if I am at home, I have applications set up to view those. If I am remote, I can always save them off and download them if I really need to via ftp or http.
For me, simplicity rules. For work, I can see why you would need some of the features - but for the most part, it is just fluffy packaging.
even if all of the crap installed as IE plugins doesn't get started, all of the other stuff would have still gotten loaded into memory. just because bullshit aps aren't doing anything doesn't mean they're not sitting there taking up resources.
That makes sense, but I suppose that assumes that the systems were slow because of this. Was the system slow, or was IE slow? I guess it doesn't matter, and we'll never really know. I still think it was a missed opportunity to introduce people to Mozilla.
... I'm working my holiday away at a computer store. You know what? 90% of those who bring in their computers complain that their PCs are lagging.
I ask, "Do you use IE?" They all reply, "Yes!"
I install Ad-aware and 198 items removed later: "Wow! Thats fast!"
Using IE is like walking into a battlefield with a big bullseye painted on you.
I can't believe you missed this opportunity. Why didn't you just install Mozilla, make it their default browser, and say "See how much faster this is compared to IE?". Leave their crippled IE intact.
We need THOROUGH research into ideas and solutions and then we can practice them. And believe me, when the solution which is right and true (as well as easy and quick) DOES come out, it will be accepted and adopted by all (references: Napster, KaZaa, et. al.)
I agree with what you are saying, but I also realize that there needs to be some kind of "guerilla resistence" out there. Lobbying against the RIAA wouldn't have gotten anywhere. (and probably still won't). But unleashing P2P on the world sure as hell got their attention. Nobody in the music industry would even be considering an online service if Napster, or its eventual equivalent, hadn't have come along. The RIAA has been sitting on a gold mine of music for years, but they refuse to share it unless it is under their terms. They have a proven demand for digital music. Instead of embracing it, using their brains and power to offer digital music, they are using their lawyers to fight it.
On the surface, I say we need to work with them to come to a mutual understanding so that the world can be made a better place with RIAA approved digital music.
On the inside, I say they have fucked over artists for years, growing fat off the work of others. They have ruined just as many careers as they have created. Their arrogance and greed has blinded them to the world of digital music. They created a music culture where people have been trained to consume consume consume. Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.
At work, I heard they were cracking down on people listening to MP3s. I figured they might be searching people's machines. So I renamed all my MP3s on my work machine, changing the mp3 to mw. (i.e. foo.mp3 became foo.mw)
I added a file association so that mw files were opened with winamp. Done.
I think that this is similar to what was suggested here. The files aren't actually converted to another format, just renamed.
I seem to remember non-Americans stating right here on Slashdot that the DMCA was a US problem, because nothing like that would ever pass on their shores. They would never stand for it!
And if its JUST for use for video/dvd.. why bother with building something that sticks out like a sore thumb anyway
Of course, if you want a small form factor device that plays DVDs, you could always just get, oh, say a DVD player? There are many out there for under $100, and most of them play VCD and MP3s too. Now I know it isn't as flexible as a networked PC, but for half the price, which is more sensible?
Sure, regular TF was OK, but MegaTF was an improvment! Ahh, I miss the days when people used to play straight-up in Quake. I still play MegaTF, it is still the best gameplay of the FPS games. The different classes, weapons, and maps! Oh the maps. Where I used to work we had one of the floor of our building, and the server would run every day from noon to 12:30. I even created my own map. Fun fun stuff. And it still is, if you like gameplay and not oooooh pretty graphics.
And bunny-hopping is for pansies, just like AA and all the other cheats people use. Yeah, I called them cheats!
So you're a lazy S.O.B., is what you're saying? Try typing "anticipatory scheduler" into google, and see what you find.
I see. So I should do a google search on every single change in the kernel, and piece together the information into something coherent? That is pretty stupid, when the person who handles the kernel could write up a paragraph or two in 5 minutes. It isn't like Linus isn't capable of doing this.
As long as this attitude prevails, Linux will have a harder time gaining any respect by the larger community. Not that I care much, because I will keep using it. But even though I have been using it since the late 90's, I am still amazed at the attitudes of some of the people in this "community".
How often doesn microsoft tell you what's changed in their kernels, except that "it should be 20% faster now" or whatever. And that's what the scheduler change means.
So the Linux community should follow Microsoft's lead on this one? WTF kind of logic is that?
If you want it dumbed down, the new kernel offers better speed, better stability, and better support of new hardware and software architectures (i.e. ACPI and ALSA).
No, I don't want it dumbed down - I would just like it in basic sentences so I can decide to upgrade it or not. Admit it, you don't know what is in the new kernel either, at least not from looking at the release notes. You are just willing to blindly upgrade it, pretending you are all cutting edge and cool.
And I hope even more they're not pulling the lead engineer out of the BMW plant to come tell me about it, either. He should be spending his time working on engines.
I'll guarantee you that the lead engineer at the BMW plant will be able to tell you in a nutshell what the improvements of a new engine are without using obscure terminology and engineering-speak that only an engine guru would know. BTW, Paul Rosche is my hero.
I'd rather work for a company that's in business two years down the road, than work for a company that got lost in the dust.
Who wouldn't? But what, in the long run, is better for the business? What is going to ensure that the company *is* there in two years?
Yesterday I completed a 3 day class on the CMM (Capability Maturity Model) because my company is trying to get to level 2. Some interesting points - back in 1991, there was one company that was at CMM level 5 - IBM Houston, who was doing the Space Shuttle software. Now there are over 75 companies worldwide.
Now, CMM level doesn't tell you how good your software is, but it tells you how mature an organization is. One very good point that the instructor brought up was that how mature an organization is really shows itself during stressful times. He also said that process improvement isn't the first priority of a business - the number one priority is taking care of business and the customer. I thought that was a very realistic way to look at things.
But think of this: The poster wouldn't be asking this question if the quick-and-dirty solution was used only occasionally. If it becomes an SOP, then you and your company are in trouble.
I tried to relate all the CMM info to Open Source projects. CMM isn't an engineering model, it is a management model. We know that OSS can be very well engineered, but the projects for the most part aren't very well managed. If you have a managed, repeatable process, you can project and plan things very accurately. That gives you credibility with your customers. Over lunch one guy pondered what CMM level Microsoft was at. I said they had no reason to get rated, because they don't have to answer to anyone. They don't need to have schedule credibility with their customers.
The CMM was born out of the SEI and was mainly used by government contractors for years. The government put out an edict that they wouldn't consider anyone for a new contract unless they were at CMM level 2. So companies started getting evaluated. If you have ever been in a CMM level 2 or higher company, you know that things are pretty well-oiled. A lot of people think it is just red tape and management BS, but it can actually help you do your job if you let it.
Hey, I guess I was listening in that class!:-) I know that CMM rating isn't a panacea, but a lot of people are complaining about the software jobs that are going to overseas companies. Most of those software shops are CMM level 2 or higher. If you have two companies that are pretty equal, and one has a CMM level rating and one doesn't, who do you think will get the project? It kind of reminds me of the car industry in the 70's/80's. Japan kicked our asses because we were sitting on them.
[snip] More information can be found in Dave Jones' list of things to expect in 2.6. Personally, I think it's great to see features that benefit both big and small systems.
Thanks for the information. I find it kind of disheartening that this type of info doesn't come directly from the kernel maintainer himself. It seems like every time a kernel is released, I think "maybe I'll upgrade me kernel this time". But when I go out to see what is in the new version, I get essentially zero information. Oh, I see statements of what went in, but they don't tell me anything. What the hell is "anticipatory scheduler"? Why do I care? I shouldn't have to figure these things out, or diff the code, or any of that BS. Is it so hard to just state in plain and simple terms what the changes are? I am glad someone did it, but it would be nice if it came from the maintainer.
I suppose I'll get modded down for critisizing Linus now. Oh well.
Now here is an exercise for you: Load up the slashdot homepage in another browser tab. Now go over the homepage word by word. Would your mother understand each of these words? What percentage of sentences would your mother not understand?
Umm, all of the ones riddled with misspellings and/or grammatical mistakes?
One of the key skills that people should have is the ability to describe something that they understand very well to someone who knows nothing about it. This is not a trivial task, I know. But being able to put complex, tech things into common language is something very valuable. Sure, among those "in the know" you use acronyms, slang, and technical terms, but you should have the ability to condense it and convey a reasonable synopsis to someone who knows nothing about that topic.
Facilitator: Hi, and welcome to the Slashdot addicts group meeting. I see we have someone new in the group today. Would you like to stand up and tell us your name and a little bit about yourself?
new guy: Hi, my name is Dave. I am a Slashdot addict too. But I just visit because everyone there is obsessed with me.
Facilitator: What do you mean?
Dave: Let me show you... [Dave gets up, drops pants, turns around, bends over, and grabs two handfuls]
[The facilitator vomits while the rest of the group cheers]
Never claim anything is hack-proof if you don't want to get hacked.
Especially do not claim that safety-critical systems are hack-proof, since even people who wouldn't normally try to hack them will try.
It's like security through obscurity- in this case more like security through non-boasting. The same thing applies- it doesn't really make you more secure, but it stops a lot of people from trying.
Normally, I would agree. But not in this case. Here's why:
They are trying to get funding for the project. Saying it is not hackable may help their case. If anything, it makes people take notice of it.
At this stage, thinking of ways to hack it are good. It doesn't really exist yet, and now is the time to try to hack it.
That being said, I think that this system shows promise. It is a "software only" solution, whereas others require plane modifications. If anything, it is a good attempt at a solution. But it does seem kind of single-purpose, stopping in-flight terrorism attacks by running planes into cities. There are still many other kinds of attacks that this system doesn't address.
Manufacturers often sell the printer itself at below cost, expecting to make profits on the consumables. Consumables don't have to be just ink and toner. They can also be rollers, fusers, and other parts that are expected to wear out.
This assumes, of course, that people will get their printer repaired. Where do you take it? To some local hack shop, and get charged $75 + parts? Do it yourself? Not most people. People don't repair things today, they replace them. Provided of course that it is more affordable to do, as it is with printers.
The industry itself would benifit from reform in this area. However, to make it happen, all manufacturers will have to charge more for printers and less for cartridges. If even one player sticks with the old model, that player will see all the gains.
Why do they need to charge more for their printers? I doubt that $50 printers are selling for much of a loss. They are pretty simple and tried-and-true devices these days. And those $50 printers are very cheaply made too. 10 years ago, it was expensive to build one of these things, today it isn't. So I don't think they are selling printers at a loss. Maybe their margins are thin, but I'll bet they are still making money on them. But if you saturate the market, you have to improve your product, you don't go around trying to figure out ways to screw your customers out of more money.
Sure, he gets to blow stuff up
But imagine the extensive safety reports he must have to write, combined with the countless testing/retesting of products...
I'd imagine it would get tedious, like just about any job
Yeah, like porn star. Man, I would hate to have either of those jobs! Yep - tedious, just like sitting in this cubicle.... Poor saps.
you mean the enemy combatants, who if released would make bombs and attack the US?
Show me one single shred of proof that they are enemy combatants. One. "Because Bush said so" is not proof. Here's a hint, there isn't any. If there was any evidence, they would be tried in court. They have done this with other, legitimate threats to the US. I am all for that.
Typical ignorant American, swallow the garbage that Fox News feeds you, put your red-white-and-blue blinders on, and be more concerned about who is dating who in Hollywood than atrocities that your government is perpetrating. And yes, I am an American, just not a blind one.
The makers of Underwood Devilled Ham has today leveled a lawsuit at the Devil over concern that the public might become confused or think that Underwood endorses the Devil and His products.
Spokesdemons for the Devil scoffed at the allegations, saying "Good luck finding an attorney who isn't already on the Dark Lord's retainer."
In a bizarre twist, the spokesdemon then started dancing around screaming "ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES! WHOOO! ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES!"
I just used the DMCA to get back control of my personal website from the ISP that was holding it hostage. Without the DMCA, I would have had to fight in district courts over copyrights, it would have taken me months and many bucks spent on shyster lawyers. But a single DMCA affadavit and bam, my personal work is back under my control.
Pardon my insensitivity, but whooptie friggin doo. A man was put into JAIL for months under the name of the DMCA, and was later released without being charged. That is like saying the Patriot Act is a good law because they may have caught someone who could possibly have been a suspected terrorist, while there are hundreds of people being held in outdoor cells in Guantanamo with no trial or legal representation. Gee, slavery wasn't that bad, because some people made some money on it, and black people might not even be in this great land without it.
Hey, I am all for the little guy using the DMCA if it helps him out, but there is absolutely no reason for you to say it is a good law because of that. Say that it helped you, so it can aid the little guy too, but DON'T say it is a good law.
Re:Who was the interviewer? I smell a rat.
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
If you look off to the side, you'll see links to the other parts of this interview. There were a few questions on each of ten subjects. I was acutally thinking they'd scored a pretty long interview.
Yeah. Totally missed that. Talk about a crappy website! Usually when you get to the end of an article, there are links to the next set of questions or something. There were so many other "garbage" boxes on the screen that I missed the other parts of the interview. Way to go USA Today, make me look like jerk!:-)
So it was a long interview. And some of the questions did sound like someone was actually talking to him, because they got interrupted.
So somebody with mod points mod my post down. In some crazy turn of events, it is @ +5. (still nothing interesting in the interview, just that Bill is just as smart as he ever was. You can read into that what you will.)
Re:Who was the interviewer? I smell a rat.
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Thank you for further proving my point. I know that wasn't your intention, but obviously your reasoning skills are very limited.
Since it was a short, horribly done interview, it *must* be that the horrible evil corporation fixed this up and sent it off, right?
Let's make it clear then, a short, horribly done interview with the richest man in the world, printed in a newspaper with world-wide distribution. Let's move on...
It couldn't be that the interviewer just didn't know his a** from a hole in the ground?
For the above mentioned newspaper? Not likely. What kind of newspaper would take an opportunity like that and blow it? Who would assign such an interview to someone who knew nothing about technology?
It couldn't actually be someone elses fault that something is messed up could it? Nope, must be Microsofts fault. Come on man.
Whose exactly? I have given good reasons why I think what I think, what are your reasons?
In response to your second question, if I had interviewed the richest man in the world in such a poor fashion, I wouldn't want my name on it either.
This is an argument? You are a reporter for the USA Today, and you have the chance to interview Bill Gates. You then decide, "ahh, that interview wasn't very good, I think I'll take my name off of it." Have you ever even heard of journalism? Thank you for supporting my point of view through your childish and poorly thought out ideas. Just because I pointed a critical eye at this interview doesn't mean I am out to get Microsoft. The only thing worse that zealots are people who try to classify everyone as a zealot.
Slashdot Mirror
You're welcome.
I'd have no idea what Outlook was like if I wasn't forced to use it at work. The only thing I like about Outlook is the calendar portion of it. The rest is crap.
At home I use pine. Yeah, that pine. I have tried the following email clients: Kmail, Moz, Opera - yet I always come back to pine. While on vacation in Paris, I was able to pay a couple Euros at an internet cafe, download PuTTY, and check my email over ssh, all in about 2 minutes. No downloading of messages, and more importantly attachments. No worries about viruses or flashy garbage html. I do get some spam, but it is quick to delete and add to my own ruleset if I see a pattern. I use fetchmail to pull all of my various accounts into one place. I can even check it over a 56k when visiting my parents, and it isn't too slow.
The one drawback may be attachments, but if I am at home, I have applications set up to view those. If I am remote, I can always save them off and download them if I really need to via ftp or http.
For me, simplicity rules. For work, I can see why you would need some of the features - but for the most part, it is just fluffy packaging.
That makes sense, but I suppose that assumes that the systems were slow because of this. Was the system slow, or was IE slow? I guess it doesn't matter, and we'll never really know. I still think it was a missed opportunity to introduce people to Mozilla.
Please elaborate.
(they could have still installed Moz and shown the user tabs and pop-up blocking.)
I can't believe you missed this opportunity. Why didn't you just install Mozilla, make it their default browser, and say "See how much faster this is compared to IE?". Leave their crippled IE intact.
I agree with what you are saying, but I also realize that there needs to be some kind of "guerilla resistence" out there. Lobbying against the RIAA wouldn't have gotten anywhere. (and probably still won't). But unleashing P2P on the world sure as hell got their attention. Nobody in the music industry would even be considering an online service if Napster, or its eventual equivalent, hadn't have come along. The RIAA has been sitting on a gold mine of music for years, but they refuse to share it unless it is under their terms. They have a proven demand for digital music. Instead of embracing it, using their brains and power to offer digital music, they are using their lawyers to fight it.
On the surface, I say we need to work with them to come to a mutual understanding so that the world can be made a better place with RIAA approved digital music.
On the inside, I say they have fucked over artists for years, growing fat off the work of others. They have ruined just as many careers as they have created. Their arrogance and greed has blinded them to the world of digital music. They created a music culture where people have been trained to consume consume consume. Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.
I added a file association so that mw files were opened with winamp. Done.
I think that this is similar to what was suggested here. The files aren't actually converted to another format, just renamed.
Well, let's see it Europeans.
I was really hoping you were right.
Of course, if you want a small form factor device that plays DVDs, you could always just get, oh, say a DVD player? There are many out there for under $100, and most of them play VCD and MP3s too. Now I know it isn't as flexible as a networked PC, but for half the price, which is more sensible?
And bunny-hopping is for pansies, just like AA and all the other cheats people use. Yeah, I called them cheats!
I see. So I should do a google search on every single change in the kernel, and piece together the information into something coherent? That is pretty stupid, when the person who handles the kernel could write up a paragraph or two in 5 minutes. It isn't like Linus isn't capable of doing this.
As long as this attitude prevails, Linux will have a harder time gaining any respect by the larger community. Not that I care much, because I will keep using it. But even though I have been using it since the late 90's, I am still amazed at the attitudes of some of the people in this "community".
How often doesn microsoft tell you what's changed in their kernels, except that "it should be 20% faster now" or whatever. And that's what the scheduler change means.
So the Linux community should follow Microsoft's lead on this one? WTF kind of logic is that?
If you want it dumbed down, the new kernel offers better speed, better stability, and better support of new hardware and software architectures (i.e. ACPI and ALSA).
No, I don't want it dumbed down - I would just like it in basic sentences so I can decide to upgrade it or not. Admit it, you don't know what is in the new kernel either, at least not from looking at the release notes. You are just willing to blindly upgrade it, pretending you are all cutting edge and cool.
And I hope even more they're not pulling the lead engineer out of the BMW plant to come tell me about it, either. He should be spending his time working on engines.
I'll guarantee you that the lead engineer at the BMW plant will be able to tell you in a nutshell what the improvements of a new engine are without using obscure terminology and engineering-speak that only an engine guru would know. BTW, Paul Rosche is my hero.
Who wouldn't? But what, in the long run, is better for the business? What is going to ensure that the company *is* there in two years?
Yesterday I completed a 3 day class on the CMM (Capability Maturity Model) because my company is trying to get to level 2. Some interesting points - back in 1991, there was one company that was at CMM level 5 - IBM Houston, who was doing the Space Shuttle software. Now there are over 75 companies worldwide.
Now, CMM level doesn't tell you how good your software is, but it tells you how mature an organization is. One very good point that the instructor brought up was that how mature an organization is really shows itself during stressful times. He also said that process improvement isn't the first priority of a business - the number one priority is taking care of business and the customer. I thought that was a very realistic way to look at things.
But think of this: The poster wouldn't be asking this question if the quick-and-dirty solution was used only occasionally. If it becomes an SOP, then you and your company are in trouble.
I tried to relate all the CMM info to Open Source projects. CMM isn't an engineering model, it is a management model. We know that OSS can be very well engineered, but the projects for the most part aren't very well managed. If you have a managed, repeatable process, you can project and plan things very accurately. That gives you credibility with your customers. Over lunch one guy pondered what CMM level Microsoft was at. I said they had no reason to get rated, because they don't have to answer to anyone. They don't need to have schedule credibility with their customers.
The CMM was born out of the SEI and was mainly used by government contractors for years. The government put out an edict that they wouldn't consider anyone for a new contract unless they were at CMM level 2. So companies started getting evaluated. If you have ever been in a CMM level 2 or higher company, you know that things are pretty well-oiled. A lot of people think it is just red tape and management BS, but it can actually help you do your job if you let it.
Hey, I guess I was listening in that class! :-) I know that CMM rating isn't a panacea, but a lot of people are complaining about the software jobs that are going to overseas companies. Most of those software shops are CMM level 2 or higher. If you have two companies that are pretty equal, and one has a CMM level rating and one doesn't, who do you think will get the project? It kind of reminds me of the car industry in the 70's/80's. Japan kicked our asses because we were sitting on them.
More information can be found in Dave Jones' list of things to expect in 2.6. Personally, I think it's great to see features that benefit both big and small systems.
Thanks for the information. I find it kind of disheartening that this type of info doesn't come directly from the kernel maintainer himself. It seems like every time a kernel is released, I think "maybe I'll upgrade me kernel this time". But when I go out to see what is in the new version, I get essentially zero information. Oh, I see statements of what went in, but they don't tell me anything. What the hell is "anticipatory scheduler"? Why do I care? I shouldn't have to figure these things out, or diff the code, or any of that BS. Is it so hard to just state in plain and simple terms what the changes are? I am glad someone did it, but it would be nice if it came from the maintainer.
I suppose I'll get modded down for critisizing Linus now. Oh well.
Umm, all of the ones riddled with misspellings and/or grammatical mistakes?
One of the key skills that people should have is the ability to describe something that they understand very well to someone who knows nothing about it. This is not a trivial task, I know. But being able to put complex, tech things into common language is something very valuable. Sure, among those "in the know" you use acronyms, slang, and technical terms, but you should have the ability to condense it and convey a reasonable synopsis to someone who knows nothing about that topic.
[a few beeps emit from the device]
Geek: So, I see you're not wearing any panties.
new guy: Hi, my name is Dave. I am a Slashdot addict too. But I just visit because everyone there is obsessed with me.
Facilitator: What do you mean?
Dave: Let me show you... [Dave gets up, drops pants, turns around, bends over, and grabs two handfuls]
[The facilitator vomits while the rest of the group cheers]
Normally, I would agree. But not in this case. Here's why:
They are trying to get funding for the project. Saying it is not hackable may help their case. If anything, it makes people take notice of it.
At this stage, thinking of ways to hack it are good. It doesn't really exist yet, and now is the time to try to hack it.
That being said, I think that this system shows promise. It is a "software only" solution, whereas others require plane modifications. If anything, it is a good attempt at a solution. But it does seem kind of single-purpose, stopping in-flight terrorism attacks by running planes into cities. There are still many other kinds of attacks that this system doesn't address.
This assumes, of course, that people will get their printer repaired. Where do you take it? To some local hack shop, and get charged $75 + parts? Do it yourself? Not most people. People don't repair things today, they replace them. Provided of course that it is more affordable to do, as it is with printers.
The industry itself would benifit from reform in this area. However, to make it happen, all manufacturers will have to charge more for printers and less for cartridges. If even one player sticks with the old model, that player will see all the gains.
Why do they need to charge more for their printers? I doubt that $50 printers are selling for much of a loss. They are pretty simple and tried-and-true devices these days. And those $50 printers are very cheaply made too. 10 years ago, it was expensive to build one of these things, today it isn't. So I don't think they are selling printers at a loss. Maybe their margins are thin, but I'll bet they are still making money on them. But if you saturate the market, you have to improve your product, you don't go around trying to figure out ways to screw your customers out of more money.
I guess you could also just sell your artwork on eBay. Damn.
Yeah, like porn star. Man, I would hate to have either of those jobs! Yep - tedious, just like sitting in this cubicle.... Poor saps.
*SOB*
Show me one single shred of proof that they are enemy combatants. One. "Because Bush said so" is not proof. Here's a hint, there isn't any. If there was any evidence, they would be tried in court. They have done this with other, legitimate threats to the US. I am all for that.
Typical ignorant American, swallow the garbage that Fox News feeds you, put your red-white-and-blue blinders on, and be more concerned about who is dating who in Hollywood than atrocities that your government is perpetrating. And yes, I am an American, just not a blind one.
In a bizarre twist, the spokesdemon then started dancing around screaming "ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES! WHOOO! ATTORNIES! ATTORNIES!"
Pardon my insensitivity, but whooptie friggin doo. A man was put into JAIL for months under the name of the DMCA, and was later released without being charged. That is like saying the Patriot Act is a good law because they may have caught someone who could possibly have been a suspected terrorist, while there are hundreds of people being held in outdoor cells in Guantanamo with no trial or legal representation. Gee, slavery wasn't that bad, because some people made some money on it, and black people might not even be in this great land without it.
Hey, I am all for the little guy using the DMCA if it helps him out, but there is absolutely no reason for you to say it is a good law because of that. Say that it helped you, so it can aid the little guy too, but DON'T say it is a good law.
Yeah. Totally missed that. Talk about a crappy website! Usually when you get to the end of an article, there are links to the next set of questions or something. There were so many other "garbage" boxes on the screen that I missed the other parts of the interview. Way to go USA Today, make me look like jerk! :-)
So it was a long interview. And some of the questions did sound like someone was actually talking to him, because they got interrupted.
So somebody with mod points mod my post down. In some crazy turn of events, it is @ +5. (still nothing interesting in the interview, just that Bill is just as smart as he ever was. You can read into that what you will.)
Since it was a short, horribly done interview, it *must* be that the horrible evil corporation fixed this up and sent it off, right?
Let's make it clear then, a short, horribly done interview with the richest man in the world, printed in a newspaper with world-wide distribution. Let's move on...
It couldn't be that the interviewer just didn't know his a** from a hole in the ground?
For the above mentioned newspaper? Not likely. What kind of newspaper would take an opportunity like that and blow it? Who would assign such an interview to someone who knew nothing about technology?
It couldn't actually be someone elses fault that something is messed up could it? Nope, must be Microsofts fault. Come on man.
Whose exactly? I have given good reasons why I think what I think, what are your reasons?
In response to your second question, if I had interviewed the richest man in the world in such a poor fashion, I wouldn't want my name on it either.
This is an argument? You are a reporter for the USA Today, and you have the chance to interview Bill Gates. You then decide, "ahh, that interview wasn't very good, I think I'll take my name off of it." Have you ever even heard of journalism? Thank you for supporting my point of view through your childish and poorly thought out ideas. Just because I pointed a critical eye at this interview doesn't mean I am out to get Microsoft. The only thing worse that zealots are people who try to classify everyone as a zealot.