Hey, I'm usually the first to jump on ole M$. But this article is floating in it's own little world, as if every other program on the planet doesn't get the same treatment.
Microsoft has begun their (half-assed) security push, but they haven't claimed this sort of thing is paramount at all. So why jump on one company for the most common hack on the Net? Even if it is Microsoft.;p
Raspberries to the Register! Booo! My God! I'm on Bill's side!?! Someone check Hell for the weather...
Am I wrong or is there something better than WPA? Thought so.
Originally, the Internet was the medium that made science available to anyone in the world. That's what bulliten boards and web 'docs' were all about. Then Billy Gates came along and said:" you're all fools! You should be making money! That's what software is for. "
Too much Kathleen in my system... Song by Cool Blue Halo Love that song. If ya want it Cmdr, just e me and I'll shot the MPG to ya. Great tune. Romantic but not sugary. Could be your song!:)
Always willing to further the love bug. It's the only virus the Net needs! Wow, I'm am high...
It's not fair. This is the entire point. Any lawyer or ethics student will tell you, it's a mote point except in the good ole USA. The only reason the USA DOESN'T have campaign caps (like all the other civilized countries) is Nixen... basically. Long story.
Having a webpage for your candidate is a good question! DOES it come under soft money? This deserves an entire thread on it's own.
Let's set aside how the Internet fits into this mess.
Leting someone buy more TV time would be unfair. Why have Bush adverts and no Gore ones? What if the Bush ad had great special effects! Bombs exploding in the air! Yea, it would skew things, don't ya think?
No one is saying you cannot contribute, no one is saying you can't use any public forum to express your opinion or political views. But an election must be fair! Hey, you want to buy ten ads for Bush right now... no one would care. The election is over.
People keep going on (posting here that is) as if this is some sort of sensationalization of Microsoft security issues. As if other media outlets jump on Microsoft like vultures. Well, wake up, they don't (imho). The 'straight' media tends to avoid bad business news, especially given the danger of being sued by the most politically powerful, media powerful, and just plain rich powerful, software company around. Hmmm, AOL/Time don't count right?
Just because it's the latest #@#k up from Microsoft doesn't deminish it's importance as news.
How many times have I shocked an Internet user (years of tech support, I'm so bitter!) by exploiting IExploder sillyness and effectively crack the lusers OS? They were none to pleased, I have to say. It's not like I can even code really, I'm a moron with programming. But if I can do it...
And it's better to find out about these things in the news, not the hard way!
Re:BBCTech article - Rivals queue up to take on M$
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
The concerns that many people bring up have to do with paranoia that Microsoft is going to lock out 'undesireable' software vendors. That's seriously old news, e.g. DR-DOS.
It's linked from the BBC Sci/Tech front page. Guess someone thinks it's relevant. Dated Nov 9th, 2001.
As for the industry's reaction to.NET, it is obvious from the article that some people like it and are interested in implementing it, IBM being one that coughed up a large sum to get.NET on Linux.
Not correct. The word 'Linux' doesn't even appear in the article at all. "The open source attempts to rival.Net won significant backing early this month when IBM handed over $40m of software to a community of companies called Eclipse who are developing alternatives to Microsoft technologies. "
As far as Hailstorm goes, apparently Sun and its consortium is coming up with a more sweeping identification system based on Java. Surprise!
You have psychic powers eh? Good for you. Pal, no one knows a thing about those projects yet.
In all, the article was a mish mash of tired topics that just don't seem to go away.
You are full of...
Re:BBCTech article - Rivals queue up to take on M$
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
Yea... pretty straight forward... like a dogs hind leg. If you had read the article at the BBC you might have clued into the concerns many people have about how useless this is and detrimental to the industry as a whole.
Thanks for just brushing that off Coward.
BBCTech article - Rivals queue up to take on M$
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This article, rejected by Slashdot for this one I might suppose, has some thoughts regarding what other companies and groups think about.NET (Not exactly favourable) and mentions how other companies will be rolling out there own networks.
I'm not sure how I feel about this statement.
Microsoft is developing its own Java-like language, called C#, and it has developed a tool that lets those familiar with Java use their knowledge to create Java-like programs for.Net servers.
So what are you saying, that I can't spend any money in the exercise of speech? If that's true, then *anything* that you say on the Internet can't be considered speech if you pay for an ISP! That seems ridiculous to me.
It's not that you cannot contribute, it's that someone richer that you can contribute more. Is that fair to you or your candidate? Why should Bush get more that Gore just because Bush has a really rich friend (likely an Enron CEO!)?
It's not paying for the computer or the pen, it's simply the political contribution $$. Your talking apples and... rocks. This is politics, not consumerism (I know how greedy tech guys get confused). Kidding!:)
Now the kicker, are you aware that a corporation can donate without restriction? Why should a corporation have more say than any one individual... at all? Which is the point of the article.
You realize U.S. campaign law is considered a joke abroad? Yea, this is America pal, just 'cause you get the most votes, doesn't mean you get to be President. Sorry, I'm getting bitter, this issue is rather easy for anyone with even a single Ethics course from Law school.
Yes you did. Good for you. Let me clarify... the Prospect.org article is sophisty. You're are mearly the messenger.
Prospect is a well known polemic rag. The American Prospect was launched in 1990 by Paul Starr, Robert Kuttner, and Robert B. Reich.
I love how this article referes to campaign scandals. And I quote: After a series of campaign scandals in the 1972 election, Congress took decisive action. It's called Watergate. The article makes ONE mention of "soft money", thus, it takes away from the central "soft money" subject of the article Slashsdot posted. Perhaps it's imho, but it seems slightly ot to me.
I loved this paragraph:
The Court then turned to a discussion of the $1,000 limit on expenditures by individuals, which it found prevented almost all independent communications. (An independent expenditure, it should be made clear, is money spent by a group or individual to support--or defeat--a candidate, but not in concert with either the candidate or any supporting political party; a contribution, in contrast, is money given to the candidate or to a party to be spent as part of an election campaign, or, in the case of a "soft-money" contribution, to be spent on a party's nonelection activities.)
And this:
To achieve the broad reversal of Buckley that many reformers seek, the Court would have to conclude either that using money to amplify speech is not entitled to full First Amendment protection or that the government has the right to decide how much speech is too much in contested races for political office.
This isn't really a question, except in politics. This is classic sophist sillyness. Hope I'm not too ahead of you here.
It takes a court order to get "closed" code read by an outsider eh? Hmm. I wonder, suppose I were a programmer trying to figure out what software or OS is best for my needs. Shouldn't I have the opportunity to "read" the source code to make an informed decision? After all, if the code is copywrite, stealing it for my own product/software would be illegal. What's the big deal? Why hide code?
I realize this is massively academic to some of you.;p
Interesting. I've always suspected an open Internet, as it truly is for now more or less, would be the greatest benefit to all. A virtual democracy. But the minute you use networks to exchange money, this goes out the windows. So to speak. This is why I believe a.NET setup isn't in the interests of that democratic Internet many dream about. Hey,.NET is great if you WANT a $ network. What about connecting to the Internet itself?
But why does that mean I have to use only Microsoft servers, workstations, software, standards, etc. to connect to this $ network? Isn't this a monopoly?
I think people need to define what sort of network they want, where they want it, and whether everyone should be allowed to play.
Do you prefer a world with an AOL Network, then a.NET one, a Unix/Internet one, and some others (the Sun network, the Sony one, etc.)? What if, since you pay all your money to be on one network, you can't connect to another $ network?
It's a law. That's why Microsoft is qobbleing them up. That's why it's brought up in court. How true and how relevent this is to the case is up to the court to determine.
Buying a result isn't exactly an ethical act. Microsoft's ethical practices are what's on trial. Anti-trust is the term.
I use Windows2000 actually. You know, I've my problems with Microsoft, their business practices, and their software, but I do use it for work, etc. and there are good things about it. But as a Microsoft customer of some years, I can tell you, it's been an education. And I'm NOT happy.
I'm not a Linux zealot, I'm a disgruntled customer. Since I gave M$ my hard earned money, I get to complain. Get it?
Do you know what a sophist is?
From Plato's Sophist. STRANGER: And when a man says that he knows all things, and can teach them to another at a small cost, and in a short time, is not that a jest?
I believe the point of the article is how Microsoft gained influence with it's contributions in so short a time, with so much money. Certainly IBM, Oracle, AOL, and the rest do this too. The article points out Microsoft's warp speed evolution into a political power to show the flaws regarding campaign contribution law in the USA.
imho if one caps the political contributions it will cancel the influence business has on political parties. And then, at least to some degree, the polititians might be running things again. You know, the people we get to vote for. Hey, it's not perfect... but it's better than having trade law dictated by some salesman.
That is rather backwards. The people elect politicians - the politicians are answerable to the people. These days, without contribution caps, the rich (read: business) contribute millions... and expect compliance from the politician. The rich are not answerable to anyone.
More law? There is far less law regarding business, trade, and politics these days than 20 year ago.
Laws are written by the people (lawmakers who are elected or by precedent) and politicians. As business can influence political law making, it's law that might be great for business, but it's not necessarily good for the people.
There are lots. I've complained and I seriously believe that those running this site are at a loss to deal with it. For whatever reasons. Let me merely say, as a longtime reader, Slashdot has taken on a definite fascist slant in the past year or so.
seriously!?! That's the same trick Rockefeller pulled on his Texas oil competitors. He would buy up all the wooden barrels in the region. He even had an exclusive (and secret) deal with the train line so he could transport his product cheaper than those poor ole competitors.
Hmm, d'ya think Bill is using Rockefeller as a model?;p
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I'm usually the first to jump on ole M$. But this article is floating in it's own little world, as if every other program on the planet doesn't get the same treatment.
;p
Microsoft has begun their (half-assed) security push, but they haven't claimed this sort of thing is paramount at all. So why jump on one company for the most common hack on the Net? Even if it is Microsoft.
Raspberries to the Register! Booo! My God! I'm on Bill's side!?! Someone check Hell for the weather...
Am I wrong or is there something better than WPA? Thought so.
I'd laugh if it didn't hurt so much. :(
Originally, the Internet was the medium that made science available to anyone in the world. That's what bulliten boards and web 'docs' were all about. Then Billy Gates came along and said:" you're all fools! You should be making money! That's what software is for. "
Thanks Bill.
Too much Kathleen in my system... Song by Cool Blue Halo :)
Love that song. If ya want it Cmdr, just e me and I'll shot the MPG to ya. Great tune. Romantic but not sugary. Could be your song!
Always willing to further the love bug. It's the only virus the Net needs! Wow, I'm am high...
Hope she doesn't get moded down. Hahaha
You prolly won't see this. Anyho... me sick boy ;p
It's not fair. This is the entire point. Any lawyer or ethics student will tell you, it's a mote point except in the good ole USA. The only reason the USA DOESN'T have campaign caps (like all the other civilized countries) is Nixen... basically. Long story.
Having a webpage for your candidate is a good question! DOES it come under soft money? This deserves an entire thread on it's own.
Let's set aside how the Internet fits into this mess.
Leting someone buy more TV time would be unfair. Why have Bush adverts and no Gore ones? What if the Bush ad had great special effects! Bombs exploding in the air! Yea, it would skew things, don't ya think?
No one is saying you cannot contribute, no one is saying you can't use any public forum to express your opinion or political views. But an election must be fair! Hey, you want to buy ten ads for Bush right now... no one would care. The election is over.
People keep going on (posting here that is) as if this is some sort of sensationalization of Microsoft security issues. As if other media outlets jump on Microsoft like vultures. Well, wake up, they don't (imho). The 'straight' media tends to avoid bad business news, especially given the danger of being sued by the most politically powerful, media powerful, and just plain rich powerful, software company around. Hmmm, AOL/Time don't count right?
Just because it's the latest #@#k up from Microsoft doesn't deminish it's importance as news.
How many times have I shocked an Internet user (years of tech support, I'm so bitter!) by exploiting IExploder sillyness and effectively crack the lusers OS? They were none to pleased, I have to say. It's not like I can even code really, I'm a moron with programming. But if I can do it...
And it's better to find out about these things in the news, not the hard way!
The concerns that many people bring up have to do with paranoia that Microsoft is going to lock out 'undesireable' software vendors. That's seriously old news, e.g. DR-DOS.
.NET, it is obvious from the article that some people like it and are interested in implementing it, IBM being one that coughed up a large sum to get .NET on Linux.
.Net won significant backing early this month when IBM handed over $40m of software to a community of companies called Eclipse who are developing alternatives to Microsoft technologies. "
It's linked from the BBC Sci/Tech front page. Guess someone thinks it's relevant. Dated Nov 9th, 2001.
As for the industry's reaction to
Not correct. The word 'Linux' doesn't even appear in the article at all.
"The open source attempts to rival
As far as Hailstorm goes, apparently Sun and its consortium is coming up with a more sweeping identification system based on Java. Surprise!
You have psychic powers eh? Good for you. Pal, no one knows a thing about those projects yet.
In all, the article was a mish mash of tired topics that just don't seem to go away.
You are full of...
Yea... pretty straight forward... like a dogs hind leg. If you had read the article at the BBC you might have clued into the concerns many people have about how useless this is and detrimental to the industry as a whole.
Thanks for just brushing that off Coward.
This article, rejected by Slashdot for this one I might suppose, has some thoughts regarding what other companies and groups think about .NET (Not exactly favourable) and mentions how other companies will be rolling out there own networks.
.Net servers.
I'm not sure how I feel about this statement.
Microsoft is developing its own Java-like language, called C#, and it has developed a tool that lets those familiar with Java use their knowledge to create Java-like programs for
So what are you saying, that I can't spend any money in the exercise of speech? If that's true, then *anything* that you say on the Internet can't be considered speech if you pay for an ISP! That seems ridiculous to me.
:)
It's not that you cannot contribute, it's that someone richer that you can contribute more. Is that fair to you or your candidate? Why should Bush get more that Gore just because Bush has a really rich friend (likely an Enron CEO!)?
It's not paying for the computer or the pen, it's simply the political contribution $$. Your talking apples and... rocks. This is politics, not consumerism (I know how greedy tech guys get confused). Kidding!
Now the kicker, are you aware that a corporation can donate without restriction? Why should a corporation have more say than any one individual... at all? Which is the point of the article.
You realize U.S. campaign law is considered a joke abroad? Yea, this is America pal, just 'cause you get the most votes, doesn't mean you get to be President. Sorry, I'm getting bitter, this issue is rather easy for anyone with even a single Ethics course from Law school.
Yes you did. Good for you. Let me clarify... the Prospect.org article is sophisty. You're are mearly the messenger.
Prospect is a well known polemic rag.
The American Prospect was launched in 1990 by Paul Starr, Robert Kuttner, and Robert B. Reich.
I love how this article referes to campaign scandals. And I quote: After a series of campaign scandals in the 1972 election, Congress took decisive action. It's called Watergate. The article makes ONE mention of "soft money", thus, it takes away from the central "soft money" subject of the article Slashsdot posted. Perhaps it's imho, but it seems slightly ot to me.
I loved this paragraph:
The Court then turned to a discussion of the $1,000 limit on expenditures by individuals, which it found prevented almost all independent communications. (An independent expenditure, it should be made clear, is money spent by a group or individual to support--or defeat--a candidate, but not in concert with either the candidate or any supporting political party; a contribution, in contrast, is money given to the candidate or to a party to be spent as part of an election campaign, or, in the case of a "soft-money" contribution, to be spent on a party's nonelection activities.)
And this:
To achieve the broad reversal of Buckley that many reformers seek, the Court would have to conclude either that using money to amplify speech is not entitled to full First Amendment protection or that the government has the right to decide how much speech is too much in contested races for political office.
This isn't really a question, except in politics. This is classic sophist sillyness. Hope I'm not too ahead of you here.
It takes a court order to get "closed" code read by an outsider eh? Hmm. I wonder, suppose I were a programmer trying to figure out what software or OS is best for my needs. Shouldn't I have the opportunity to "read" the source code to make an informed decision? After all, if the code is copywrite, stealing it for my own product/software would be illegal. What's the big deal? Why hide code?
;p
I realize this is massively academic to some of you.
Interesting. I've always suspected an open Internet, as it truly is for now more or less, would be the greatest benefit to all. A virtual democracy. But the minute you use networks to exchange money, this goes out the windows. So to speak. This is why I believe a .NET setup isn't in the interests of that democratic Internet many dream about. Hey, .NET is great if you WANT a $ network. What about connecting to the Internet itself?
.NET one, a Unix/Internet one, and some others (the Sun network, the Sony one, etc.)? What if, since you pay all your money to be on one network, you can't connect to another $ network?
;p
But why does that mean I have to use only Microsoft servers, workstations, software, standards, etc. to connect to this $ network? Isn't this a monopoly?
I think people need to define what sort of network they want, where they want it, and whether everyone should be allowed to play.
Do you prefer a world with an AOL Network, then a
Ok wow, OT or what? MOD down!
It's a law. That's why Microsoft is qobbleing them up. That's why it's brought up in court. How true and how relevent this is to the case is up to the court to determine.
Buying a result isn't exactly an ethical act. Microsoft's ethical practices are what's on trial. Anti-trust is the term.
I use Windows2000 actually. You know, I've my problems with Microsoft, their business practices, and their software, but I do use it for work, etc. and there are good things about it. But as a Microsoft customer of some years, I can tell you, it's been an education. And I'm NOT happy.
I'm not a Linux zealot, I'm a disgruntled customer. Since I gave M$ my hard earned money, I get to complain. Get it?
No. He never said that ya coward!
Abe Lincoln?
Do you know what a sophist is?
From Plato's Sophist.
STRANGER: And when a man says that he knows all things, and can teach them to another at a small cost, and in a short time, is not that a jest?
I believe the point of the article is how Microsoft gained influence with it's contributions in so short a time, with so much money. Certainly IBM, Oracle, AOL, and the rest do this too. The article points out Microsoft's warp speed evolution into a political power to show the flaws regarding campaign contribution law in the USA.
imho if one caps the political contributions it will cancel the influence business has on political parties. And then, at least to some degree, the polititians might be running things again. You know, the people we get to vote for. Hey, it's not perfect... but it's better than having trade law dictated by some salesman.
That is rather backwards. The people elect politicians - the politicians are answerable to the people. These days, without contribution caps, the rich (read: business) contribute millions... and expect compliance from the politician. The rich are not answerable to anyone.
More law? There is far less law regarding business, trade, and politics these days than 20 year ago.
Laws are written by the people (lawmakers who are elected or by precedent) and politicians. As business can influence political law making, it's law that might be great for business, but it's not necessarily good for the people.
Quote from article in ZDnet
;-D
Roeder's report was submitted to Judge Kollar-Kotelly at the end of January. Microsoft has been unable to comment.
ROTFL, Exchange server down? Email got a virus? Heh heh.
You realize most American presidents of the past wouldn't have been under this line of... thinking.
There are lots. I've complained and I seriously believe that those running this site are at a loss to deal with it. For whatever reasons. Let me merely say, as a longtime reader, Slashdot has taken on a definite fascist slant in the past year or so.
seriously!?! That's the same trick Rockefeller pulled on his Texas oil competitors. He would buy up all the wooden barrels in the region. He even had an exclusive (and secret) deal with the train line so he could transport his product cheaper than those poor ole competitors.
;p
Hmm, d'ya think Bill is using Rockefeller as a model?
Deepthroat: "Follow the money".