I have to laugh... because you linux people are so retardedly hard-headed.
*** If you want more people to use linux, make it easier to use. *** After someone works all day 5-6 days a week, they are disinclined to come home and WORK MORE. Why am I going to take the time to learn how to work linux when Windows is easier and gets the same job done?
Cuz it's free? Time == money. Waste of time, waste of time.
PS I know how to administer linux, so don't tell me I'm ignorant, you need a better argument than that.
Caller ID is not free, it is an optional pay service on most carriers, and not everyone has it, so not everyone can just sit there and screen the calls.
That aside, if someone doesn't answer the call (because they know who is calling via Caller ID), what is to stop that person from calling 300 times consecutively in an attempt to annoy/harass them?
I guess you could block the caller... but that too incurs a fee.
"As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity."
I don't think it's out of line for the government to outlaw harassment. You could certainly argue that this law in particular perhaps goes too far, but you're almost saying it's OK to harass people, until some company invents technology that you can purchase to stop harassment. That is just plain silly.
I've heard of many anecdotes from people, with non-life threatening problems who were refused treatment. Because they didn't have insurance, and couldn't front the money.
Sometimes when people make movies from books or TV, they take a good concept and go in a different, more movie-friendly direction with it.
For example, if there was a cartoon on MTV where the characters and basic plot were really good, but each episode was consistently strange, stupid, and always left you thinking "why the hell did I just watch this crap", then they might want to go somewhere different with the story.
Anyone in an emergency situation can get treatment at any hospital in the USA, regardless of whether or not they can afford it.
Hospitals give away billions in free health care to people that can't afford it every year. That's why going to the hospital costs a lot for people that can afford it, because between subsidies and the regular revenue, they have to make up the lost revenue for the pro bono health care by charging more to customers that can afford it. So, the system is already KIND OF socialist.
"I don't think that people's lives are something that should be a saleable item for profit."
OK, you obviously don't understand how the world works: Doctors, nurses, administrators, cleaning staff, lab technicians, etc. etc... they all need a place to live, food to eat, health insurance. Some have families to raise, car payments, rent or mortgage payments, etc. PEOPLE DON'T WORK FOR FREE. If they're not getting paid, then they can't afford things, so their time is better spent somewhere where they can earn money. Therefore, some kind of revenue has to be generated in order to pay those people, so that they work for the hospital...
1. First and foremost, advertising fees are entirely market-driven. If AdWords simply didn't work, the service would either cost far less, or cease to exist entirely. That Google's AdWords revenue consistently improves quarter over quarter over quarter is testament to the notion that this system is fundamentally perceived to be a valuable service by the marketplace.
Everyone knows what Google is, everyone knows that Google is *the* search engine. There's more people every year trying to make money on the Internet, so they put 2+2 together... it doesn't necessarily mean that AdWords works very well, it just means everyone knows what it is and assumes it's what you're supposed to use.
am sick of the number of people who use MSN - because it came with windows is invariably the response ditto for WMP (but the use of WMP by people who I want to IM does not affect me, so I care a little less about this) this means that if I want to IM these people and cannot convince them to use a better/different protocol - I too have to use a MSN compatible program etal (sometimes the protocols change and I end up lagging behind, although this has not happened for quite some time).
"Better" is an opinion, not a fact. Just because you don't like MSN doesn't mean it's worse than whatever you use. I mean... feel free to provide examples of why MSN sucks or whatever.
Forcing Microsoft to link to alternatives (for the version that has WMP and MSNIM installed) is certainly not rediculous, the consumer is purchasing an OPERATING SYSTEM not the associated tat that helps microsoft make even more money and build a nice little database about your uses and habits with your computer.
Hahahaha... OK, tin foil hat man, please show me where Microsoft is building a database about my uses and habits with the computer when I purchased Windows. Seriously.
I never got why people get so pissed if Microsoft throws in USEFUL programs with their operating system. It makes life easier for the user. Why should I have to download 300 programs? Why shouldn't I just install the operating system and have everything work?
Are you telling me that Microsoft not be allowed to have a spell-checker in Word, because other people write spell-checking software, and strictly speaking, I purchased a program to type and print, not check my spelling? Should Word have advertising links to other company's spell-checking software, since theirs is "spoon fed baby food that Microsoft is shoving down their throat"?? Please, explain to me the difference between this argument and the operating system argument.
I mean, we can extend your logic this way -- when I purchase a car from a car company, they have an unfair advantage installing their stereo and speakers in the car. That's just terrible, they should have to advertise for Sony, Blaupunkt, JVC, and all of the other car stereo manufacturers to me when I buy the car.
Does anyone else see how fucking retarded that sounds?
Comparing a distro like Ubuntu to Microsoft in light of this ruling is just silly. Distro's are not operating systems that you are paying for per-se, they are bundles of software packages that can be found all over the net
So why couldn't Windows be called a distro? It's a software package of Microsoft's operating system and useful utilities. What is the fucking difference? GASP because I spent money on it? How does that make *any* difference whatsoever?
With Microsoft there is no re-packaging available to other companies
NO FUCKING SHIT! Because it's MICROSOFT'S PRODUCT! They shouldn't HAVE to make repackaging available to other companies! Johnson and Johnson is not going to let Proctor & Gamble include a sample of THEIR shampoo in "No More Tears", that would be fucking asinine.
A single person could never create, or pay for, every single piece of software they might need to use in this day and age.
Excuse me? I need: * An operating system (Microsoft Windows XP) * DigiDesign Pro Tools * Microsoft Office * Adobe Photoshop * Textpad * Quicken
To get my work done. I paid for all of those. Maybe a no-job-having 12 year old can't afford all of the software they "need", but it is ridiculously farfetched to say that no one can.
Second of all, sure, maybe no single person could create all of that software. That's why there are software companies that hire developers to create the software and sell it to you -- because there is a market for it!
What you can't do is continue to sell crap. Crap can be defined as software that doesn't work, can't be made to work, and can't be returned. THAT is exactly what the commercial software industry is. You buy a program and half the time it doesn't work well enough to acomplish the things the box claimed it could do. So.. return it and try something else.. oops that's right. They won't take software returns. You can't see the source code so you can't fix it. You're just fucked.
OK. Following your definition... none of the software that I listed is crap. It all works as advertised. My computer never crashes. I never have problems rendering artwork, recording music, typing things up and printing, or managing my finances. If you are one of those people that is stuck in the 90's pointing out how terrible Windows 95 is, you need to take a good long look at Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. They work as advertised, they are reliable, stable, and easy to use.
Sounds like a lot more work for the buck until you consider that the customer will help improve, document, and support your product.
The problem here is that you assume all of your customers want to help improve, document, and support your product. Most people do not want to buy software, and then fix bugs themselves and report them back to you. They view it as the developers job to fix any bugs that are found, not offer solutions themselves. If my car has a faulty exhaust system, it isn't my responsibility to implement a fix, document it, and send it off to the car company -- that's their job! My job is to drive the car!
I REALLY say this to hardware companies. Make your product with good, open source, drivers (or well documented specifications) and I'll buy your products...
Most other people say "make it work easily". That is why most people use Windows, where they can plug in their printer, mouse, video card, etc. and it usually works. If it doesn't, they pop in a disc, click "Next", and the drivers install.
Don't get me wrong, I see the advantages of open source, but you are crazy if you think that just because that's what you want, that's what everyone wants. "Open source" doesn't even have an easy-to-use windowing system, yet Open Source advocates keep screaming about how much better it is. Until regular people can use it, it's just not good enough.
Why do people like you insist that there's some kind of a major difference in professionalism between rank-and-file Microsoft programmers who write their software and between those programmers who choose to work on open source projects?... Why is it some kind of a pro-open source argument to say that Firefox is on par with a program developed by an "evil corporation"?
Because a lot of pro-Open-Source people are uninformed and brainwashed by the drivel that gets posted here and elsewhere, and they think that any time you try to make some money by writing software you are somehow running a scam because you aren't donating everything you do to everybody else.
Go ahead and mod me down as Flamebait, but honestly what other explanation is there?
Sorry, but even though I would get a great deal of satisfaction out of it you are clearly incapable of actually learning anything from it. You can't string 2 sentences together without creating a contradiction which you refuse to recognize even when your nose is rubbed in it. So since the only possible benefit is some instant gratification, and I have no interest in going to prison over your dumb, ignorant ass, I'll have to pass on that one.
I knew that skipping your post to get to the last paragraph would be totally worth it! Not only do you back down from your empty threat when I call you on it, but then you try to use as many "big words" as possible as some sort of redemption. Priceless.
Have fun hiding behind your computer for the rest of your life!
"The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
It was an anti-American comment, not an anti-corporate-greed comment. If it was to be taken as anti-corporate-greed, there would be no reason for him to throw the word "American" in there.
I don't even get why you're exploding about this. Maybe because you can't handle the fact that you're wrong? It's in black and white, moron. Read it again. Why is the word American in there? Out of nowhere?
I probably would end up just beating your dumb ass if I had to listen to you blather on about it in person.
OK, tough guy, I'm calling your bluff. What's your address? I'll drive right out there, I dare you to take a swing at me.
Your sarcastic reply fails to account for the simple fact that most people never have their keys run over by another vehicle, because most people aren't stupid enough to drop their keys somewhere where someone else is going to run them over. How many people do you personally know that have ever had their keys run over? I bet you can't even find statistics on this sort of thing because it almost never happens.
I think it's obvious that the five people EVER that have had their keys run over are just going to have to suck it up and deal with the whole USB car key thing.
"Almost irrationally so" == the amount of my anger was almost irrational, but not quite. There is nothing wrong with the grammar or the idea presented there.
Try taking some classes at the Grammar Police Academy before you try issuing tickets, genius.
"Which is exaggerated and slanderous, but not entirely without truth."
It is entirely without truth that anything Bush did caused more hurricanes, or the tsunami. End of story. So you either phrased what you were saying VERY poorly, or you meant to imply that Bush was somehow to blame and are now trying to recover because you realize how utterly asinine that argument is.
"I am saying I believe that recent floods and hurricanes can be the result of global warming."
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. You are working on assumptions made with 30 years' worth of data -- assumptions which doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions of years of environmental data that we don't have.
Did you know that one volcanic eruption produces more pollution than all the cars on this planet ever have?
But the humans are to blame, of course, especially George W. Bush, because everything is his fault.
"If you accept that human activity is to blame for the climate changes (of which I'm not convinced), then Bush's america certainly does increase the likelihood of floods (as seen in central Europe), storms, and hurricanes. "
Working with a shitty argument, using shitty logic, you can certainly come to that shitty conclusion. Have a nice day!
Why are you running over your keys? Are you stupid? Or are you just making a stupid argument for argument's sake?
Who has ever run over their keys, incidentally? Seems like the keys need to be IN THE CAR IN THE FIRST PLACE for the thing to even be running to run something over.
Your post angered me. Almost irrationally so. But I think I'm right.
Slashdot Mirror
::drum roll::
"Hot on the heals"?
LOL
I guess we know what they're NOT teaching in schools.
I have to laugh... because you linux people are so retardedly hard-headed.
*** If you want more people to use linux, make it easier to use. *** After someone works all day 5-6 days a week, they are disinclined to come home and WORK MORE. Why am I going to take the time to learn how to work linux when Windows is easier and gets the same job done?
Cuz it's free? Time == money. Waste of time, waste of time.
PS I know how to administer linux, so don't tell me I'm ignorant, you need a better argument than that.
Caller ID is not free, it is an optional pay service on most carriers, and not everyone has it, so not everyone can just sit there and screen the calls.
That aside, if someone doesn't answer the call (because they know who is calling via Caller ID), what is to stop that person from calling 300 times consecutively in an attempt to annoy/harass them?
I guess you could block the caller... but that too incurs a fee.
"As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity."
I don't think it's out of line for the government to outlaw harassment. You could certainly argue that this law in particular perhaps goes too far, but you're almost saying it's OK to harass people, until some company invents technology that you can purchase to stop harassment. That is just plain silly.
I've heard of many anecdotes from people, with non-life threatening problems who were refused treatment. Because they didn't have insurance, and couldn't front the money.
Friend's neighbor's cousin's former roommate?
It's just this kind of superiority BS by gamers that will get them killed in a car.
:-)
If there wasn't a chance that they'd take other people out with their stupidity, I'd say this was a good thing.
Sometimes when people make movies from books or TV, they take a good concept and go in a different, more movie-friendly direction with it.
For example, if there was a cartoon on MTV where the characters and basic plot were really good, but each episode was consistently strange, stupid, and always left you thinking "why the hell did I just watch this crap", then they might want to go somewhere different with the story.
You know what I'm saying?
You are incorrect.
Anyone in an emergency situation can get treatment at any hospital in the USA, regardless of whether or not they can afford it.
Hospitals give away billions in free health care to people that can't afford it every year. That's why going to the hospital costs a lot for people that can afford it, because between subsidies and the regular revenue, they have to make up the lost revenue for the pro bono health care by charging more to customers that can afford it. So, the system is already KIND OF socialist.
"I don't think that people's lives are something that should be a saleable item for profit."
OK, you obviously don't understand how the world works: Doctors, nurses, administrators, cleaning staff, lab technicians, etc. etc... they all need a place to live, food to eat, health insurance. Some have families to raise, car payments, rent or mortgage payments, etc. PEOPLE DON'T WORK FOR FREE. If they're not getting paid, then they can't afford things, so their time is better spent somewhere where they can earn money. Therefore, some kind of revenue has to be generated in order to pay those people, so that they work for the hospital...
1. First and foremost, advertising fees are entirely market-driven. If AdWords simply didn't work, the service would either cost far less, or cease to exist entirely. That Google's AdWords revenue consistently improves quarter over quarter over quarter is testament to the notion that this system is fundamentally perceived to be a valuable service by the marketplace.
Everyone knows what Google is, everyone knows that Google is *the* search engine. There's more people every year trying to make money on the Internet, so they put 2+2 together... it doesn't necessarily mean that AdWords works very well, it just means everyone knows what it is and assumes it's what you're supposed to use.
am sick of the number of people who use MSN - because it came with windows is invariably the response ditto for WMP (but the use of WMP by people who I want to IM does not affect me, so I care a little less about this) this means that if I want to IM these people and cannot convince them to use a better/different protocol - I too have to use a MSN compatible program etal (sometimes the protocols change and I end up lagging behind, although this has not happened for quite some time).
"Better" is an opinion, not a fact. Just because you don't like MSN doesn't mean it's worse than whatever you use. I mean... feel free to provide examples of why MSN sucks or whatever.
Forcing Microsoft to link to alternatives (for the version that has WMP and MSNIM installed) is certainly not rediculous, the consumer is purchasing an OPERATING SYSTEM not the associated tat that helps microsoft make even more money and build a nice little database about your uses and habits with your computer.
Hahahaha... OK, tin foil hat man, please show me where Microsoft is building a database about my uses and habits with the computer when I purchased Windows. Seriously.
I never got why people get so pissed if Microsoft throws in USEFUL programs with their operating system. It makes life easier for the user. Why should I have to download 300 programs? Why shouldn't I just install the operating system and have everything work?
Are you telling me that Microsoft not be allowed to have a spell-checker in Word, because other people write spell-checking software, and strictly speaking, I purchased a program to type and print, not check my spelling? Should Word have advertising links to other company's spell-checking software, since theirs is "spoon fed baby food that Microsoft is shoving down their throat"?? Please, explain to me the difference between this argument and the operating system argument.
I mean, we can extend your logic this way -- when I purchase a car from a car company, they have an unfair advantage installing their stereo and speakers in the car. That's just terrible, they should have to advertise for Sony, Blaupunkt, JVC, and all of the other car stereo manufacturers to me when I buy the car.
Does anyone else see how fucking retarded that sounds?
Comparing a distro like Ubuntu to Microsoft in light of this ruling is just silly. Distro's are not operating systems that you are paying for per-se, they are bundles of software packages that can be found all over the net
So why couldn't Windows be called a distro? It's a software package of Microsoft's operating system and useful utilities. What is the fucking difference? GASP because I spent money on it? How does that make *any* difference whatsoever?
With Microsoft there is no re-packaging available to other companies
NO FUCKING SHIT! Because it's MICROSOFT'S PRODUCT! They shouldn't HAVE to make repackaging available to other companies! Johnson and Johnson is not going to let Proctor & Gamble include a sample of THEIR shampoo in "No More Tears", that would be fucking asinine.
A single person could never create, or pay for, every single piece of software they might need to use in this day and age.
Excuse me? I need:
* An operating system (Microsoft Windows XP)
* DigiDesign Pro Tools
* Microsoft Office
* Adobe Photoshop
* Textpad
* Quicken
To get my work done. I paid for all of those. Maybe a no-job-having 12 year old can't afford all of the software they "need", but it is ridiculously farfetched to say that no one can.
Second of all, sure, maybe no single person could create all of that software. That's why there are software companies that hire developers to create the software and sell it to you -- because there is a market for it!
What you can't do is continue to sell crap. Crap can be defined as software that doesn't work, can't be made to work, and can't be returned. THAT is exactly what the commercial software industry is. You buy a program and half the time it doesn't work well enough to acomplish the things the box claimed it could do. So.. return it and try something else.. oops that's right. They won't take software returns. You can't see the source code so you can't fix it. You're just fucked.
OK. Following your definition... none of the software that I listed is crap. It all works as advertised. My computer never crashes. I never have problems rendering artwork, recording music, typing things up and printing, or managing my finances. If you are one of those people that is stuck in the 90's pointing out how terrible Windows 95 is, you need to take a good long look at Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. They work as advertised, they are reliable, stable, and easy to use.
Sounds like a lot more work for the buck until you consider that the customer will help improve, document, and support your product.
The problem here is that you assume all of your customers want to help improve, document, and support your product. Most people do not want to buy software, and then fix bugs themselves and report them back to you. They view it as the developers job to fix any bugs that are found, not offer solutions themselves. If my car has a faulty exhaust system, it isn't my responsibility to implement a fix, document it, and send it off to the car company -- that's their job! My job is to drive the car!
I REALLY say this to hardware companies. Make your product with good, open source, drivers (or well documented specifications) and I'll buy your products...
Most other people say "make it work easily". That is why most people use Windows, where they can plug in their printer, mouse, video card, etc. and it usually works. If it doesn't, they pop in a disc, click "Next", and the drivers install.
Don't get me wrong, I see the advantages of open source, but you are crazy if you think that just because that's what you want, that's what everyone wants. "Open source" doesn't even have an easy-to-use windowing system, yet Open Source advocates keep screaming about how much better it is. Until regular people can use it, it's just not good enough.
Why do people like you insist that there's some kind of a major difference in professionalism between rank-and-file Microsoft programmers who write their software and between those programmers who choose to work on open source projects? ... Why is it some kind of a pro-open source argument to say that Firefox is on par with a program developed by an "evil corporation"?
Because a lot of pro-Open-Source people are uninformed and brainwashed by the drivel that gets posted here and elsewhere, and they think that any time you try to make some money by writing software you are somehow running a scam because you aren't donating everything you do to everybody else.
Go ahead and mod me down as Flamebait, but honestly what other explanation is there?
Define "very often".
I think you are stuck in the 1990's. It's very rare anymore that anything essential breaks on Windows-based servers.
Sorry, but even though I would get a great deal of satisfaction out of it you are clearly incapable of actually learning anything from it. You can't string 2 sentences together without creating a contradiction which you refuse to recognize even when your nose is rubbed in it. So since the only possible benefit is some instant gratification, and I have no interest in going to prison over your dumb, ignorant ass, I'll have to pass on that one.
I knew that skipping your post to get to the last paragraph would be totally worth it! Not only do you back down from your empty threat when I call you on it, but then you try to use as many "big words" as possible as some sort of redemption. Priceless.
Have fun hiding behind your computer for the rest of your life!
Why? Because he wrote:
"The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
It was an anti-American comment, not an anti-corporate-greed comment. If it was to be taken as anti-corporate-greed, there would be no reason for him to throw the word "American" in there.
I don't even get why you're exploding about this. Maybe because you can't handle the fact that you're wrong? It's in black and white, moron. Read it again. Why is the word American in there? Out of nowhere?
I probably would end up just beating your dumb ass if I had to listen to you blather on about it in person.
OK, tough guy, I'm calling your bluff. What's your address? I'll drive right out there, I dare you to take a swing at me.
What the fuck did ANYTHING you just typed have to do with what I said?
Corporate greed is not an American value. He just tossed his comment in there to be an asshole, kind of like you're being right now.
You wanna meet up somewhere and discuss this with me? I'd love for you to talk to me like this in person.
I am so way off base that you feel the need to resort into an attack on the person? Please keep the discussion on the *arguments* not on the *people*.
Oh really?
Then why would you say something like this: "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
It's not OK to attack you, but it's totally OK to make an anti-American comment, even though it's completely irrelevant to your argument.
Oh, by the way -- Nestle is a Swiss company.
So, pardon the personal attack, but get your facts straight before you act like an asshole.
GROAN
So obvious. So dumb.
Touche!
Too bad he's wrong.
Your sarcastic reply fails to account for the simple fact that most people never have their keys run over by another vehicle, because most people aren't stupid enough to drop their keys somewhere where someone else is going to run them over. How many people do you personally know that have ever had their keys run over? I bet you can't even find statistics on this sort of thing because it almost never happens.
I think it's obvious that the five people EVER that have had their keys run over are just going to have to suck it up and deal with the whole USB car key thing.
"Almost irrationally so" == the amount of my anger was almost irrational, but not quite. There is nothing wrong with the grammar or the idea presented there.
Try taking some classes at the Grammar Police Academy before you try issuing tickets, genius.
"Which is exaggerated and slanderous, but not entirely without truth."
It is entirely without truth that anything Bush did caused more hurricanes, or the tsunami. End of story. So you either phrased what you were saying VERY poorly, or you meant to imply that Bush was somehow to blame and are now trying to recover because you realize how utterly asinine that argument is.
"I am saying I believe that recent floods and hurricanes can be the result of global warming."
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. You are working on assumptions made with 30 years' worth of data -- assumptions which doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions of years of environmental data that we don't have.
Did you know that one volcanic eruption produces more pollution than all the cars on this planet ever have?
But the humans are to blame, of course, especially George W. Bush, because everything is his fault.
"If you accept that human activity is to blame for the climate changes (of which I'm not convinced), then Bush's america certainly does increase the likelihood of floods (as seen in central Europe), storms, and hurricanes. "
Working with a shitty argument, using shitty logic, you can certainly come to that shitty conclusion. Have a nice day!
Why are you running over your keys? Are you stupid? Or are you just making a stupid argument for argument's sake?
Who has ever run over their keys, incidentally? Seems like the keys need to be IN THE CAR IN THE FIRST PLACE for the thing to even be running to run something over.
Your post angered me. Almost irrationally so. But I think I'm right.
You're serious.
All of the floods, storms, and hurricanes...aAll of this is the result of the last 5 years of policy?
Are you fucking retarded?
Somebody call the spelling police, homicide division. This post is a massacre.