Well, I believe that part of watching the shows is allowing the commercials in as well. You aren't really allowed to edit them out, as far as I know, that is after all how broadcasters make money.
I wish it was the same in the US as it is in England; everyone pays for a TV license, and they get no commercials. Easy to enforce (TV detector van!) and no commercials.
Well, the industry makes money off of computers, that is how they stay in business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company wanting to make money, that is the whole POINT of a company being in business in the first place. Companies don't survive if they don't make money. So, a big fat "duh" to you sir.
Oh, and that "$" instead of an "S" in Microsoft is really mature.
The information on building incendiary devices (that's "bombs" for any morons that may be reading this) is open to a wide public on the internet, too, but we don't see explosions all over the place... so most likely, no.
Reread my post... it's easier to just take it back to the store and try a different one than it is to reload your browser 300 times waiting for Slashdot opinions that, honestly, aren't going to help much.
Doubtful. How many CD's did his father *get* for Christmas, anyway? I don't think he had nearly enough new CD's to test that would bring someone to, in any scientific sense, conclude "DRM!"
It would have been much easier for the poster of this "article" to just have taken the CD player back to where it came from -- to find out for sure -- than to post to Slashdot and sit there like a goddamned dork clicking his reload button for three worthless hours waiting for a bunch of idiots to answer...
OK... so why didn't the dumbass go down to the Brookstone store and return it? It would have taken less time for him to do that than to submit an "article" on Slashdot and hit reload for the next three hours waiting for a reply...
Lots of programs -- EVEN LINUX, for christ's sake -- have security holes, and they get patched! The only reason the Linux ones aren't so publicized is because of the anti-Microsoft rhetoric that runs rampant on the internet. I mean, how many times has BIND had a fucking security problem?? Oh, but it's not MS, so it's not an issue.
What you are failing to take into account is that the consumer with money works for a company, which pays him or her a salary, so the money is recycled. So how is it zero sum?
Ditto for me. In fact, Tom Hudson, I upgraded from 2000 to XP to see what the new features were, not 'cause 2000 was [broke | corrupted | virused | bsod].
So, I took the liberty of searching Google, and saw that this is supposed to cause a buffer underrun. But, this has been fixed in SP1, so it is a non-issue.
I guess the point you were getting at is, "OH MY GOD, THERE WAS A BUG!!!"
They fixed it. Just like they do with other bugs they come across.
Just like every other software company or individual does, with every other piece of software in existence that is still being developed.
Bugs happen. It is part of development. That does not make XP, or Microsoft, horrible.
That is, absolutely, one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard in my life. "Making money necessarily means fucking the customer out of money"? What the hell are you talking about??
Do you feel ripped off when you buy a 25 cent pack of Wrigley's gum? Is that price totally fucking you over, at 5 cents a stick? What about when you pay less than 5 cents a stick when you buy a Plen-T-Pak? Is that a shitty value?
Second of all, nobody fucks the consumer over. Operating systems are not food. Nobody *has* to buy an operating system, people *choose* to buy the operating system. The consumers know what they are buying, if they pay too much for too little, they are fucking themselves over.
And finally, what evidence do you have that Microsoft will do what you say they will do? And no, your blindly anti-Microsoft rhetoric and irrational viewpoint does not count as evidence.
Wow, wrong again! I compile things with the command line, and write all my source code in Textpad or, if I'm using UNIX, vi! But, once again, it's because I like Windows XP that I suddenly know nothing.
You "old-school" programmers are ridiculous; you think that you're the only ones that know how to do things, your way is the only way, and you're bitter that they've made things easier since you started.
All your superior attitude does is convey how out of touch you are with the way things REALLY are. Go get some aspercreme, take care of that carpal tunnel, and start engaging your brain before you open your mouth.
Look, I think that the price they charge for a copy of XP is high, and they have engaged in some shady business practices. But just because they charge money for a product, or keep the source to their OS closed, does not make XP horrible.
If we were talking about 95 or 98, those OS's crashed all the time, they were unstable, and while not quite horrible, they were certainly far from ideal. XP, and even 2000, are very far removed from that, and are actually quite good operating systems.
And Linux is a good OS, too.
But I am sick of people thinking that either Windows or Linux is the cure-all. They both have uses. Linux is nice for networking stuff, for techy people that like command prompts, etc. etc. It is a powerful OS, no doubt.
XP is good for people that aren't so technically inclined. It is also good for technically inclined people. It is good for gaming, it has a ton of driver support, and is stable. What is the big deal? It works, it lets you do what you want to do, HOW IS IT HORRIBLE?
1. is a matter of taste 2. breaking older software is indeed bad. but some older software does work, and most newer software does work, so i fail to see how this qualifies as "horrible" 3. newer stuff requires more RAM, it is the nature of the beast. same goes for Mac OS, does that mean Mac OS is also horrible? 4. you paid for your copy of Win95, so i fail to see your point. 5. please elaborate 6. if you didn't pirate it, don't read that section.
Amazingly, like a lot of other people, I have a job developing software, and go to school at the same time. It's not unheard of, at all. In fact, I have managed software projects and coded them, all while taking a full-time course load. So you're not being mean, you're just being ignorant.
And as far as "real work" in Windows XP goes, I coded a real-time video rendering application. Is that "hard enough"? And no, I didn't write it in VB.
Why don't you try building a logical argument about *why* XP sucks, instead of trying to humiliate me? Your age and experience don't impress me, or anybody else, when the best you can do to show that Windows XP sucks is to try to make fun of me when you very obviously know nothing about me, and just say "you haven't been trying hard enough."
It seems to me, whether it's XP, or whether it's me, you are talking about something about with you know absolutely nothing.
Everyone likes to say that XP is so horrible, but no one ever offers any REASONS WHY.
So I challenge the readers to actually give factual evidence of the horrible-ness of XP ("because I have posters of Linus Torvalds above my bed" is not a valid reason.)
Wow, really? I'm a developer at a software company, and a college student, and I do my development for both on the XP platform, and I haven't had any problems.
So how is it "impossible to do real work with"?
And if you don't like the interface, you can set it back to the Windows 2000 interface...
One of the answers to that is that Microsoft treats its employees very, very well, so there isn't really a reason for someone that works there to want to screw the company over.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I believe that part of watching the shows is allowing the commercials in as well. You aren't really allowed to edit them out, as far as I know, that is after all how broadcasters make money.
I wish it was the same in the US as it is in England; everyone pays for a TV license, and they get no commercials. Easy to enforce (TV detector van!) and no commercials.
That's great, really, but what is there to discuss? Now we can run apps from OS X on OS Y (my apologies), happy day. Next topic!
Well, the industry makes money off of computers, that is how they stay in business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company wanting to make money, that is the whole POINT of a company being in business in the first place. Companies don't survive if they don't make money. So, a big fat "duh" to you sir.
Oh, and that "$" instead of an "S" in Microsoft is really mature.
Prove that they have been inflating their product numbers. Stop talking out of your ass.
The information on building incendiary devices (that's "bombs" for any morons that may be reading this) is open to a wide public on the internet, too, but we don't see explosions all over the place... so most likely, no.
Reread my post... it's easier to just take it back to the store and try a different one than it is to reload your browser 300 times waiting for Slashdot opinions that, honestly, aren't going to help much.
Doubtful. How many CD's did his father *get* for Christmas, anyway? I don't think he had nearly enough new CD's to test that would bring someone to, in any scientific sense, conclude "DRM!"
MAYBE THERE IS A PIECE OF DIRT ON THE LASER LENS.
It would have been much easier for the poster of this "article" to just have taken the CD player back to where it came from -- to find out for sure -- than to post to Slashdot and sit there like a goddamned dork clicking his reload button for three worthless hours waiting for a bunch of idiots to answer...
OK... so why didn't the dumbass go down to the Brookstone store and return it? It would have taken less time for him to do that than to submit an "article" on Slashdot and hit reload for the next three hours waiting for a reply...
But sometimes one person is moaning, and the other is being gagged by dangly parts...?
Lots of programs -- EVEN LINUX, for christ's sake -- have security holes, and they get patched! The only reason the Linux ones aren't so publicized is because of the anti-Microsoft rhetoric that runs rampant on the internet. I mean, how many times has BIND had a fucking security problem?? Oh, but it's not MS, so it's not an issue.
What you are failing to take into account is that the consumer with money works for a company, which pays him or her a salary, so the money is recycled. So how is it zero sum?
Ditto for me. In fact, Tom Hudson, I upgraded from 2000 to XP to see what the new features were, not 'cause 2000 was [broke | corrupted | virused | bsod].
OK, nothing happened.
So, I took the liberty of searching Google, and saw that this is supposed to cause a buffer underrun. But, this has been fixed in SP1, so it is a non-issue.
I guess the point you were getting at is, "OH MY GOD, THERE WAS A BUG!!!"
They fixed it. Just like they do with other bugs they come across.
Just like every other software company or individual does, with every other piece of software in existence that is still being developed.
Bugs happen. It is part of development. That does not make XP, or Microsoft, horrible.
That is, absolutely, one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard in my life. "Making money necessarily means fucking the customer out of money"? What the hell are you talking about??
Do you feel ripped off when you buy a 25 cent pack of Wrigley's gum? Is that price totally fucking you over, at 5 cents a stick? What about when you pay less than 5 cents a stick when you buy a Plen-T-Pak? Is that a shitty value?
Second of all, nobody fucks the consumer over. Operating systems are not food. Nobody *has* to buy an operating system, people *choose* to buy the operating system. The consumers know what they are buying, if they pay too much for too little, they are fucking themselves over.
And finally, what evidence do you have that Microsoft will do what you say they will do? And no, your blindly anti-Microsoft rhetoric and irrational viewpoint does not count as evidence.
Wow, wrong again! I compile things with the command line, and write all my source code in Textpad or, if I'm using UNIX, vi! But, once again, it's because I like Windows XP that I suddenly know nothing.
You "old-school" programmers are ridiculous; you think that you're the only ones that know how to do things, your way is the only way, and you're bitter that they've made things easier since you started.
All your superior attitude does is convey how out of touch you are with the way things REALLY are. Go get some aspercreme, take care of that carpal tunnel, and start engaging your brain before you open your mouth.
So funny! But no. I don't work for MS.
Look, I think that the price they charge for a copy of XP is high, and they have engaged in some shady business practices. But just because they charge money for a product, or keep the source to their OS closed, does not make XP horrible.
If we were talking about 95 or 98, those OS's crashed all the time, they were unstable, and while not quite horrible, they were certainly far from ideal. XP, and even 2000, are very far removed from that, and are actually quite good operating systems.
And Linux is a good OS, too.
But I am sick of people thinking that either Windows or Linux is the cure-all. They both have uses. Linux is nice for networking stuff, for techy people that like command prompts, etc. etc. It is a powerful OS, no doubt.
XP is good for people that aren't so technically inclined. It is also good for technically inclined people. It is good for gaming, it has a ton of driver support, and is stable. What is the big deal? It works, it lets you do what you want to do, HOW IS IT HORRIBLE?
1. is a matter of taste
2. breaking older software is indeed bad. but some older software does work, and most newer software does work, so i fail to see how this qualifies as "horrible"
3. newer stuff requires more RAM, it is the nature of the beast. same goes for Mac OS, does that mean Mac OS is also horrible?
4. you paid for your copy of Win95, so i fail to see your point.
5. please elaborate
6. if you didn't pirate it, don't read that section.
Amazingly, like a lot of other people, I have a job developing software, and go to school at the same time. It's not unheard of, at all. In fact, I have managed software projects and coded them, all while taking a full-time course load. So you're not being mean, you're just being ignorant.
And as far as "real work" in Windows XP goes, I coded a real-time video rendering application. Is that "hard enough"? And no, I didn't write it in VB.
Why don't you try building a logical argument about *why* XP sucks, instead of trying to humiliate me? Your age and experience don't impress me, or anybody else, when the best you can do to show that Windows XP sucks is to try to make fun of me when you very obviously know nothing about me, and just say "you haven't been trying hard enough."
It seems to me, whether it's XP, or whether it's me, you are talking about something about with you know absolutely nothing.
Everyone likes to say that XP is so horrible, but no one ever offers any REASONS WHY.
So I challenge the readers to actually give factual evidence of the horrible-ness of XP ("because I have posters of Linus Torvalds above my bed" is not a valid reason.)
Wow, really? I'm a developer at a software company, and a college student, and I do my development for both on the XP platform, and I haven't had any problems.
So how is it "impossible to do real work with"?
And if you don't like the interface, you can set it back to the Windows 2000 interface...
One of the answers to that is that Microsoft treats its employees very, very well, so there isn't really a reason for someone that works there to want to screw the company over.
Wow, and this is based on what fact? Or are you just so happy masturbating to your Linux conf files that you gleefully bash anything Microsoft does?
I'm sure the Indian government is so stupid that they wouldn't catch any loopholes like that in a contract!
Good post.
Have you even used XP, or are you talking out of your ass? It is far from horrible.
Unsupported? Patenting a single click for a purchase and patenting coordination of gift delivery sure as fuck looks like patent abuse to me.