I don't think it's any less ridiculous than claiming he's some kind of technical genius. If he actually did know something about technology, then maybe at least one of his huge claims about technology in the past decade might have been correct.
I have no doubts that billg is a shrewd and ruthless businessman, but I have plenty of doubts that he's done anything technical since Microsoft Basic 1.0.
Fortunately, Microsoft is doing just that, what with the Zune not being PlaysForSure compliant.
Well you don't have to worry since it work with your brand spankin' new Vista machine anyway.
Zune, like Vista, is one of those products that forgoes all the potential benefits it could provide and offers a product with no advantage over what's already out there.
Of course, MS can afford let Zune flounder for 5 years until they hit the critical mass of features and it suddenly takes off, but that doesn't mean they will. It's been so long since Microsoft has had to take customer wants or needs into account they may have forgotten how to do it.
No, you're thinking about Global Nuclear War and politics. The only winning move in Tic-Tac-Toe is to play a 6-year-old who's never seen the game before.
OSX users tend to upgrade when told to. Windows users just tend to sit back and bitch about being told to upgrade.
That's because Windows users (end users, especially) have learned that upgrading Windows rarely gives you anything you care about.
Unless you are upgrading hardware to something not supported, I have yet to see a compelling reason to stop using Windows 2000. In fact, the only compelling reason possible is that MS will simply stop supporting it, leaving you vulnerable to whatever new vulnerability comes down the road that week. Of course, for a properly protected machine, even that won't be an issue. MS's biggest problem is that they really got it right with Windows 2000 and haven't done anything since (besides fixing bugs) that 99% of their users care about.
Microsoft could take it's massive resources and focus on making IE produce web-pages that are more attractive, useable, secure and readable and dominate the market through having a better product
Why should Microsoft do that? The whole point of having a monopoly is so you don't have to compete. Why would they want to compete with other companies on quality... if their "massive resources" could make a better product, don't you think they would have done that already? Microsoft is a marketing company, not a technology company. Their product has moved from being Windows and Office to the monopoly they maintain in the OS and Office applications area. While I think Windows is actually pretty decent, it's biggest competition right now is older versions of itself, because its advances in the last 7 years or so have been marginal. And I'm sorry, no one can convince me that Microsoft Word competes with anything based on quality. That that product still even exists is a testament to how much Microsoft dominates the market.
The whole point of Microsoft is to bully, trick and otherwise scheme to maintain their enormous market-share by _not_ allowing other companies or open source to compete based on quality, because if they could, Microsoft would lose in a heartbeat.
Because if they were to blame the true culprit... people who have so little of a life that they would go through all these outrageous things just to get a console, that many in/. would be be indicting themselves.
Honestly, I love gaming, but I just can't get excited about a console that costs as much as a low-end PC. I'm sure the graphics are mind-blowing and I know if I had a chance to play one I'd be really impressed, but what I would really care about is the games. Tell me what games are coming out for the PS3 and what they have to offer (in terms of _gaming_ not graphics) that is new and unique and maybe I'll have an interest.
Unless you are into FPS's or driving games, I just don't see what the consoles have to offer that is all that great, in pure gaming terms.
Don't worry, the Democrats are back in power. They'll be OK.
Seriously, though. I've never been able to understand that. I'm as much of fanboy of some things (though not consoles) as you can find, but I cannot imagine standing in line for a week to do anything. If that isn't a sign of mental illness I don't know what is.
I look forward with great anticipation to many movies, musical releases and software releases, but you know what? I've got so many other things going on in my life that I don't need to sit around and wait. There's always something else I need to do or want to do (like posting on/.). Really, the words "Get A Life" have never been more appropriate.
And that Xenna is the most important point. Everybody is different. My first child was a fussy baby who didn't sleep much, but we managed. My second baby was a powersnoozer who was always happy. My third baby was even fussier until we figured out she was lactose intolerant and Mommy stopped eating dairy (she outgrew it after about a year... now she's the Ice Cream Girl). My 4th child was the easiest, but of course you had to watch out for the two-year-old sitting on him for fun.
Every child is different, and every parent is different. There are many different ways to deal with your children that are good and healthy. The most important thing to remember is that when it comes to kids, everyone has an opinion, especially those who have little or no experience. Listen to advice, but don't let people push you around. You'll figure out what's right for you and your child.
During the day, the babies went in their cribs or Pack-n-plays. It usually worked out well, except for our first child who really didn't sleep like regular babies. Sometimes it seemed like he really did only sleep 8 hours a day. Of course, he's 12 now, and he seldom stays up late, even given the chance, and _always_ sleeps in until dragged out of bed.:-)
It's a bother that my daughter will come in our room, but it only happens maybe once a week or less, and she usually just curls up at the bottom of the bed often without us even realizing. As with everything, there is plenty of leeway within "healthy and normal" but anything can be taken (or allowed to go) too far.
Agreed. Attachment parenting has a lot going for it. It astounds me what some people think you should be doing to a newborn infant, who for all of her experience except the very present, has been in intimately close proximity with her parents.
I have 4 kids, each of whom slept with us until they were about 2. In fact, occasionally the littler ones still join us at night. Our kids are bright, independent and creative, and the idea that someone not impaired with drugs or alcohol or with a serious sleep condition is likely to harm a baby in his or her bed is absurd. First off, babies are a heck of a lot more sturdy than many people realize, and second, like another poster said, the same thing that keeps you from falling off your bed or smacking your spouse in the face when you turn over will keep you from hurting your child.
There's a difference between being careful and safe, and effectively sealing your child up in a plastic bubble of safety like John Travolta in some goofy made for TV movie.
I agree, except for the Star Wars Lego, because the Star Wars Lego, unlike pretty much everything else they sell except the really generic stuff is well-designed to utilize very generic pieces as much as possible. My kids have several Lego Star Wars sets, and usually the Star Wars models, which are very cool, BTW, are built once and then the pieces are put into the general population to become part of home-grown spaceship designs, etc, that are just as cool because the design of the Star Wars sets maximizes the usability of the Lego pieces themselves... something that is rare with other licensed Lego toys.
Being someone who played with Lego almost 40 years ago, many of their newer products make me cringe (Bionicles are just barely Lego in my opinion), but the "real" Lego can still be found, and my kids have a lot of fun with Lego just the way I did, by building their own ideas and literally making their toys out it.
BTW, I've bought some Bionicles here and there. The kids do like them, but they don't play with them as much as the "real" Lego.
Well, he'd be a bit on the conservative side, but yeah, I'd give that a go.
Re:my scariest video game moment
on
Games and Fear
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Pshaw! Now this is scary:..........D.....@D.....DD..........
Now I have to add a whole bunch of text to get around the lameness filter. Of course, if it were truly a lameness filter it would, in fact, filter itself.
I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution
The NK people are already suffering more than just about any nation in the world.
If they haven't done this already, then I think it's fair to say they can't.
I don't have an answer either, but penalizing starving peasants is never the right thing.
But wait, if you are arguing that sanctions won't work against North Korea, you'd have to conclude they wouldn't have worked against places like Iraq or Cuba.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, *most* people are terrible at critical thinking.
I don't think it's any less ridiculous than claiming he's some kind of technical genius. If he actually did know something about technology, then maybe at least one of his huge claims about technology in the past decade might have been correct.
I have no doubts that billg is a shrewd and ruthless businessman, but I have plenty of doubts that he's done anything technical since Microsoft Basic 1.0.
Fortunately, Microsoft is doing just that, what with the Zune not being PlaysForSure compliant.
Well you don't have to worry since it work with your brand spankin' new Vista machine anyway.
Zune, like Vista, is one of those products that forgoes all the potential benefits it could provide and offers a product with no advantage over what's already out there.
Of course, MS can afford let Zune flounder for 5 years until they hit the critical mass of features and it suddenly takes off, but that doesn't mean they will. It's been so long since Microsoft has had to take customer wants or needs into account they may have forgotten how to do it.
No, you're thinking about Global Nuclear War and politics. The only winning move in Tic-Tac-Toe is to play a 6-year-old who's never seen the game before.
OSX users tend to upgrade when told to. Windows users just tend to sit back and bitch about being told to upgrade.
That's because Windows users (end users, especially) have learned that upgrading Windows rarely gives you anything you care about.
Unless you are upgrading hardware to something not supported, I have yet to see a compelling reason to stop using Windows 2000. In fact, the only compelling reason possible is that MS will simply stop supporting it, leaving you vulnerable to whatever new vulnerability comes down the road that week. Of course, for a properly protected machine, even that won't be an issue. MS's biggest problem is that they really got it right with Windows 2000 and haven't done anything since (besides fixing bugs) that 99% of their users care about.
Microsoft could take it's massive resources and focus on making IE produce web-pages that are more attractive, useable, secure and readable and dominate the market through having a better product
Why should Microsoft do that? The whole point of having a monopoly is so you don't have to compete. Why would they want to compete with other companies on quality... if their "massive resources" could make a better product, don't you think they would have done that already? Microsoft is a marketing company, not a technology company. Their product has moved from being Windows and Office to the monopoly they maintain in the OS and Office applications area. While I think Windows is actually pretty decent, it's biggest competition right now is older versions of itself, because its advances in the last 7 years or so have been marginal. And I'm sorry, no one can convince me that Microsoft Word competes with anything based on quality. That that product still even exists is a testament to how much Microsoft dominates the market.
The whole point of Microsoft is to bully, trick and otherwise scheme to maintain their enormous market-share by _not_ allowing other companies or open source to compete based on quality, because if they could, Microsoft would lose in a heartbeat.
Because if they were to blame the true culprit... people who have so little of a life that they would go through all these outrageous things just to get a console, that many in /. would be be indicting themselves.
Honestly, I love gaming, but I just can't get excited about a console that costs as much as a low-end PC. I'm sure the graphics are mind-blowing and I know if I had a chance to play one I'd be really impressed, but what I would really care about is the games. Tell me what games are coming out for the PS3 and what they have to offer (in terms of _gaming_ not graphics) that is new and unique and maybe I'll have an interest.
Unless you are into FPS's or driving games, I just don't see what the consoles have to offer that is all that great, in pure gaming terms.
Don't worry, the Democrats are back in power. They'll be OK.
/.). Really, the words "Get A Life" have never been more appropriate.
Seriously, though. I've never been able to understand that. I'm as much of fanboy of some things (though not consoles) as you can find, but I cannot imagine standing in line for a week to do anything. If that isn't a sign of mental illness I don't know what is.
I look forward with great anticipation to many movies, musical releases and software releases, but you know what? I've got so many other things going on in my life that I don't need to sit around and wait. There's always something else I need to do or want to do (like posting on
If the title of a news article was "UN institutes Cracker profiling" the non-slashdot crowd would interpret it as "UN is racist against white people"
Either that or they are comparing things like Ritz, Club and Saltines.
The Empire from Star Wars?
And that Xenna is the most important point. Everybody is different. My first child was a fussy baby who didn't sleep much, but we managed. My second baby was a powersnoozer who was always happy. My third baby was even fussier until we figured out she was lactose intolerant and Mommy stopped eating dairy (she outgrew it after about a year... now she's the Ice Cream Girl). My 4th child was the easiest, but of course you had to watch out for the two-year-old sitting on him for fun.
Every child is different, and every parent is different. There are many different ways to deal with your children that are good and healthy. The most important thing to remember is that when it comes to kids, everyone has an opinion, especially those who have little or no experience. Listen to advice, but don't let people push you around. You'll figure out what's right for you and your child.
During the day, the babies went in their cribs or Pack-n-plays. It usually worked out well, except for our first child who really didn't sleep like regular babies. Sometimes it seemed like he really did only sleep 8 hours a day. Of course, he's 12 now, and he seldom stays up late, even given the chance, and _always_ sleeps in until dragged out of bed. :-)
It's a bother that my daughter will come in our room, but it only happens maybe once a week or less, and she usually just curls up at the bottom of the bed often without us even realizing. As with everything, there is plenty of leeway within "healthy and normal" but anything can be taken (or allowed to go) too far.
Agreed. Attachment parenting has a lot going for it. It astounds me what some people think you should be doing to a newborn infant, who for all of her experience except the very present, has been in intimately close proximity with her parents.
I have 4 kids, each of whom slept with us until they were about 2. In fact, occasionally the littler ones still join us at night. Our kids are bright, independent and creative, and the idea that someone not impaired with drugs or alcohol or with a serious sleep condition is likely to harm a baby in his or her bed is absurd. First off, babies are a heck of a lot more sturdy than many people realize, and second, like another poster said, the same thing that keeps you from falling off your bed or smacking your spouse in the face when you turn over will keep you from hurting your child.
There's a difference between being careful and safe, and effectively sealing your child up in a plastic bubble of safety like John Travolta in some goofy made for TV movie.
I agree, except for the Star Wars Lego, because the Star Wars Lego, unlike pretty much everything else they sell except the really generic stuff is well-designed to utilize very generic pieces as much as possible. My kids have several Lego Star Wars sets, and usually the Star Wars models, which are very cool, BTW, are built once and then the pieces are put into the general population to become part of home-grown spaceship designs, etc, that are just as cool because the design of the Star Wars sets maximizes the usability of the Lego pieces themselves... something that is rare with other licensed Lego toys.
Being someone who played with Lego almost 40 years ago, many of their newer products make me cringe (Bionicles are just barely Lego in my opinion), but the "real" Lego can still be found, and my kids have a lot of fun with Lego just the way I did, by building their own ideas and literally making their toys out it.
BTW, I've bought some Bionicles here and there. The kids do like them, but they don't play with them as much as the "real" Lego.
Not even if he really, really promises not to use the nuclear power plant to make weapons-grade fissionables?
Well, he'd be a bit on the conservative side, but yeah, I'd give that a go.
Pshaw! Now this is scary: ....... ...D... ..@D... ..DD... .......
Now I have to add a whole bunch of text to get around the lameness filter. Of course, if it were truly a lameness filter it would, in fact, filter itself.
I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution
The NK people are already suffering more than just about any nation in the world.
If they haven't done this already, then I think it's fair to say they can't.
I don't have an answer either, but penalizing starving peasants is never the right thing.
Will someone explain why am I reading this on /. ?
/. has had a Politics section for over 2 years now?
Because it's "Stuff that Matters"?
Because even nerds care about geopolitics?
Because
But wait, if you are arguing that sanctions won't work against North Korea, you'd have to conclude they wouldn't have worked against places like Iraq or Cuba.
Oh, wait, they didn't...
I block DOS attacks with Bigby's Interposing Hand.
So why are there still commercials at all?
1. So your bill isn't $30 a month higher.
2. So they subsidize all the crap no one watches, but cable companies think you should have.
I took out a wireless network card, reinstalled XP and had to call to reactivate.
Pretty bizarre if you ask me, but the process was quick enough...
You said it, SoapDish.
Add to that the fact the most of what I buy on CD isn't sold electronically.
Because the teacher's unions don't want to have to compete with anyone.
I have yet to hear an argument against vouchers that isn't just a thinly-veiled version of what I said above.