Even though every layman and constitutional expert will find many examples of unconstitutional behavior by the Bush administration, Cheney and his ilk will insist that even in cases where the war isn't even remotely involved, Bush is Commander in Chief. Therefore, they say, if he (as in the White House) doesn't like what someone says for any reason, he is free to ignore them and do his own thing-- he'll ignore Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the UN if they don't behave like White House yes-men.
And when it works out Apple might just start an Mac App Store. No executable program launchable if it doesn't originate from the App Store. Or only in some considered insecure sandboxed VM. That could even work, but is that really what users want?
Given that they really need developers targeting OS X, I highly doubt they would encourage Mac users to play the same game of chicken they've been playing with iPhone unlockers.
[] make all pirates come to you so they can pay...
There. As originally written, it would've been less of a false dichotomy (two casual pirates giving in and buying a copy would've invalidated the point on an admittedly nitpicky technicality).
Personally I wish MS would grow a pair like Apple has over the years and build a new OS from scratch and not worry about backward compatibility.
The first really successful new OS since 1984 actually included a VM or at least another environment for OS 9, so there's a bit of wisdom in giving developers time to target the new environment while users go ooh and ahh.
Of course, had Microsoft tried to do that in Vista's release (kick-ass new environment, with maybe a hypervisor for old NT/9x series apps), we'd be complaining that they ripped off Apple "again".
I'll see your tinfoil hat and raise you a Faraday cage...
Note that Microsoft was spared a break-up by not just an overzealous judge, but also a very corporation-friendly administration coming into office and remaking the DoJ in its unitary executive image. That's probably why the initial 'punishment' from the Bush DoJ was effectively a nerf bat on the wrist. That, and MSFT got a nice tax cut as well.
What concerns me is that this corporate friend is now examining the new product from Microsoft. Why do I get the feeling that there's going to be much quid pro quo exchanged in the next few weeks? I mean, surely 8 years is enough time to ensure a few of the technical committee being bought or intimidated*?
"Sure, you can make GPL software an absolutely royal pain to install on international builds. The EU? Eh, the users will move heaven and earth to get the US version. I do get the corner office after January next year, right?"
Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
You know, that's a really dishonest leap of logic. Did Obama ask for this blogger to pull this stunt? Did Obama know and give his approval? Prove that first, then make accusations.
Theres's a bully and evil lawyering mentality to the Bush administration. I guarantee that the telcos initially refused because of the huge liability, but were then threatened indirectly.
There was a discussion elsewhere wherein a commenter complained that the Democrats don't have the nuts to stop funding for Bush's war. I replied that it wouldn't be unlike the Bush administration to allow a bloodbath to happen in Iraq, then blame the oh-so-convenient Democrats for blocking funding. I suspect something similar happened here. "Mr. CEO, either you let us tap into your systems, or people will die. And you're going to be responsible." (For full effect, read that with your best Bush impression.)
I'm sure you were looking for the word "quash", or, more likely, "dismiss".
But it would be well within the administration's contempt for the law, if one of their lawyers pureed the complaint document in a blender and quaffed it.
Too many self-described "nice guys" seem to believe that a woman should be put on a pedestal and treated like a delicate flower. The man in her life should hold doors for her, give her gifts, and obey her every whim. He should listen to her, support her no matter what, and never let slip the slightest criticism or contrary opinion.
The problem is... a lot of us don't actually want to be treated like that -- to be quite frank, it's annoying as hell. Yes, we want a man who's nice, helpful, respectful, etc., but we'd rather have someone who pays attention to what we really want than some guy who thinks that acting like a puppy dog will get him laid.
(Without the "too many" at the beginning, this would've been a nice straw man.) I doubt that this is the majority opinion among Slashdot readers, although it certainly is commonplace. It may be a question of exposure (i.e. knowing what women are like because he didn't spend his youth avoiding them), although you can probably find me a hundred such "nice guys" who were the only male in their families.
I think it's more of an ego exercise. Guys like to figure things out, and well, women is one of those things that is borderline impossible for them. If the typical "nice guy" really thinks the way you've got them pegged, it's him thinking "I've got women figured out."
The other possibility is that their experience with women is nil, or 0 for 30 because they asked someone in high school and not only got turned down, but also got socially hammered. Then a viable chance for a partner comes along after years of failure and they try waaaay too hard.
The real jerks who mess with women? They don't give a rat's ass, they just want to go and have their "winky wacked". So they learn what, statistically, will bend a woman to their will. You probably won't go for that, and I applaud you; few can see a true "player" until it's too late.
My rather convolutedly derived point is: As you know that the "nice guys" in your life didn't understand you, perhaps you don't understand all "nice guys". I wouldn't write them all off based solely on the woman's point of view (as insightful as it may be).
Someone could make the case that the Bush administration knowingly violated their 4th amendment rights (proving this would be another huge can of worms). There have been critics of even the old FISA law based on the 4th amendment IIRC.
Needless to say, my girlfriend would never suffer the likes of me if she weren't madly in love. So his advances were unsuccessful; even more so because I do not act jealous, especially when there is a possibility that I am simply being provoked. She saw through his plan, too (his previous actions with other couples were a dead giveaway), and outright rejected him.
Friend, that kind of woman is rare indeed. Of course, hopefully the wannabe Casanova won't try to make Zapp Brannigan a goal.
34 felony counts of awesomeness 11 felony counts of 1337 5ki11z. 7 felony counts of pwning n00bs. 6 felony counts of acting as an electronics deity. 4 felony counts of extreme overclocking. 3 felony counts of proving the Goldbach conjecture. 2 felony counts of saving the world from the Covenant. 1 felony count of conspiracy to pwn.
And, I have yet to be convinced that 'sharing' is wrong, in my mind, it would only be real copyright infringement if the works were actually sold to some one.
That is what copyright law was originally meant to protect, SALE of some ones work without authorization, not letting some one read, see, listen to it.
It has to do with "lost sales", i.e. lost opportunities to have you give them money for the privilege of owning a copy of media. The thing is, they forgot the operative words, OWN a copy. For every manager and exec that says "Let them share it with their friends! They'll come and get copies of their own!" there are 40 more in the RIAA/MPAA that say "Horse hockey! They'll just copy it and we won't get the cash we deserve!" Like retail store managers, only far more paranoid.
This is my 4th or 5th time posting this, but oh, what the hey.
Bob is not a software interface. Bob is an insurance salesman, from Topeka, Kansas. You meet Bob in an airport cocktail lounge when you're stuck at the terminal-- because they've been using Windows Me-- and Bob buys you a couple of drinks, and shows you pictures of the family, and you think "Hey, Bob's not a bad guy." Then Bob tries to sell you Vista licenses...
Then you could argue that their three flagship PC products are, or recently were, monopolies. That, or your memory has a 10-year hole in it.
genuinely stagnates...
Microsoft, after crushing Netscape, made IE5 essentially as a slightly more feature-rich clone of IE4, and repeated with IE6; it would take Firefox storming the web mindshare for Microsoft to get off its duff and start innovating there again. Office 2007 is massively innovative, sure, but the previous 3 versions (2000, XP, 2003) are virtually indistinguishable unless you use all of the bells and whistles. After assuring market domination post-DoJ with Windows XP (which could have been called Windows 2000 SP5 but they wanted a new consumer OS rather than let customers get OEM licenses), it would take 5 years for them to come up with a new OS, which, when released, was panned by critics (notice that 2000's criticism tended to be minimal).
stifles innovation and change...
Because Microsoft had no incentive to make IE4-6 standards compliant, it would encourage websites to use Microsoft's "standard" HTML, because web pages written in W3 standard HTML would look absolutely mangled. Until the re-emergence of Mozilla and the arrival of Webkit-based browsers, the Internet was IE. Where is Lotus Smartsuite? Gone. Where is Wordperfect, Quattro Pro, and other once-well-known Office competitors? Marginalized. Well, what about Google Docs, iWork, and Star/OpenOffice? They're always picking the features that are in Microsoft Office (with the possible exception of Keynote and others). That isn't innovation, that's "follow-the-leader". Someone pointed out elsewhere that UNIX already did preemptive multitasking well before Windows really got off the ground. Oh, sure, Win9x and the NT series did multitasking, but BeOS ate their lunch when it came to stuff like that. Imagine if Microsoft actually had to compete against them on their products' merits, rather than bully OEMs into exclusivity and marginalize every competitor. I would guess that Windows today would've blown Vista clear out of the sky.
whose only merit is size...
I guess you tuned out the DoJ trial, not to mention the EU investigations and ISO brouhaha. Guess what, being the largest player on the market doesn't mean that you get to: (1) Block the entry of competitors (see above), (2) Use your position to make sure that competitors don't even get a chance of getting mindshare (IE, media player...), or (3) manipulate standards bodies with "partner" companies to get a part of your proprietary formula standardized.
Finally, indirectly accusing anyone who recounts Microsoft's sordid history of being jealous or spiteful is just as disingenuous as Gates saying Microsoft's success is primarily because his competitors sucked.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though every layman and constitutional expert will find many examples of unconstitutional behavior by the Bush administration, Cheney and his ilk will insist that even in cases where the war isn't even remotely involved, Bush is Commander in Chief. Therefore, they say, if he (as in the White House) doesn't like what someone says for any reason, he is free to ignore them and do his own thing-- he'll ignore Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the UN if they don't behave like White House yes-men.
He's more like a very shrewd, aggressive businessman who understand technology enough to exploit it.
Argh. More of a false dichotomy, not less! Stupid brain.
[] make all pirates come to you so they can pay...
There. As originally written, it would've been less of a false dichotomy (two casual pirates giving in and buying a copy would've invalidated the point on an admittedly nitpicky technicality).
That style of authentication died last decade, when game companies decided to separate storytelling from gameplay.
Of course, had Microsoft tried to do that in Vista's release (kick-ass new environment, with maybe a hypervisor for old NT/9x series apps), we'd be complaining that they ripped off Apple "again".
Yes, insensitive clods, the lot of 'em.
I'll see your tinfoil hat and raise you a Faraday cage...
Note that Microsoft was spared a break-up by not just an overzealous judge, but also a very corporation-friendly administration coming into office and remaking the DoJ in its unitary executive image. That's probably why the initial 'punishment' from the Bush DoJ was effectively a nerf bat on the wrist. That, and MSFT got a nice tax cut as well.
What concerns me is that this corporate friend is now examining the new product from Microsoft. Why do I get the feeling that there's going to be much quid pro quo exchanged in the next few weeks? I mean, surely 8 years is enough time to ensure a few of the technical committee being bought or intimidated*?
"Sure, you can make GPL software an absolutely royal pain to install on international builds. The EU? Eh, the users will move heaven and earth to get the US version. I do get the corner office after January next year, right?"
"Collectively", as in "sum of wealth", not "working collaboratively". Sometimes it helps not to read between the lines.
I think it's also well worth noting that fearing the unknown is no excuse for dismissing the unknown.
Theres's a bully and evil lawyering mentality to the Bush administration. I guarantee that the telcos initially refused because of the huge liability, but were then threatened indirectly.
There was a discussion elsewhere wherein a commenter complained that the Democrats don't have the nuts to stop funding for Bush's war. I replied that it wouldn't be unlike the Bush administration to allow a bloodbath to happen in Iraq, then blame the oh-so-convenient Democrats for blocking funding. I suspect something similar happened here. "Mr. CEO, either you let us tap into your systems, or people will die. And you're going to be responsible." (For full effect, read that with your best Bush impression.)
It isn't. Apparently the Bush White House began the wiretapping initiative from the very beginning.
I'm sure you were looking for the word "quash", or, more likely, "dismiss".
But it would be well within the administration's contempt for the law, if one of their lawyers pureed the complaint document in a blender and quaffed it.
I think it's more of an ego exercise. Guys like to figure things out, and well, women is one of those things that is borderline impossible for them. If the typical "nice guy" really thinks the way you've got them pegged, it's him thinking "I've got women figured out."
The other possibility is that their experience with women is nil, or 0 for 30 because they asked someone in high school and not only got turned down, but also got socially hammered. Then a viable chance for a partner comes along after years of failure and they try waaaay too hard.
The real jerks who mess with women? They don't give a rat's ass, they just want to go and have their "winky wacked". So they learn what, statistically, will bend a woman to their will. You probably won't go for that, and I applaud you; few can see a true "player" until it's too late.
My rather convolutedly derived point is: As you know that the "nice guys" in your life didn't understand you, perhaps you don't understand all "nice guys". I wouldn't write them all off based solely on the woman's point of view (as insightful as it may be).
Someone could make the case that the Bush administration knowingly violated their 4th amendment rights (proving this would be another huge can of worms). There have been critics of even the old FISA law based on the 4th amendment IIRC.
I'm thinking you're confusing entering a relationship with staying in one.
Out of season, but...
1 felony count of a partridge in a pear tree.
That's what hydraulics are for.
Or, if he's into dancing, pneumatics.
Like retail store managers, only far more paranoid.
This is my 4th or 5th time posting this, but oh, what the hey.
Bob is not a software interface. Bob is an insurance salesman, from Topeka, Kansas. You meet Bob in an airport cocktail lounge when you're stuck at the terminal-- because they've been using Windows Me-- and Bob buys you a couple of drinks, and shows you pictures of the family, and you think "Hey, Bob's not a bad guy." Then Bob tries to sell you Vista licenses...
Then you could argue that their three flagship PC products are, or recently were, monopolies. That, or your memory has a 10-year hole in it.
Microsoft, after crushing Netscape, made IE5 essentially as a slightly more feature-rich clone of IE4, and repeated with IE6; it would take Firefox storming the web mindshare for Microsoft to get off its duff and start innovating there again.Office 2007 is massively innovative, sure, but the previous 3 versions (2000, XP, 2003) are virtually indistinguishable unless you use all of the bells and whistles.
After assuring market domination post-DoJ with Windows XP (which could have been called Windows 2000 SP5 but they wanted a new consumer OS rather than let customers get OEM licenses), it would take 5 years for them to come up with a new OS, which, when released, was panned by critics (notice that 2000's criticism tended to be minimal).Because Microsoft had no incentive to make IE4-6 standards compliant, it would encourage websites to use Microsoft's "standard" HTML, because web pages written in W3 standard HTML would look absolutely mangled. Until the re-emergence of Mozilla and the arrival of Webkit-based browsers, the Internet was IE.
Where is Lotus Smartsuite? Gone. Where is Wordperfect, Quattro Pro, and other once-well-known Office competitors? Marginalized. Well, what about Google Docs, iWork, and Star/OpenOffice? They're always picking the features that are in Microsoft Office (with the possible exception of Keynote and others). That isn't innovation, that's "follow-the-leader".
Someone pointed out elsewhere that UNIX already did preemptive multitasking well before Windows really got off the ground. Oh, sure, Win9x and the NT series did multitasking, but BeOS ate their lunch when it came to stuff like that. Imagine if Microsoft actually had to compete against them on their products' merits, rather than bully OEMs into exclusivity and marginalize every competitor. I would guess that Windows today would've blown Vista clear out of the sky.I guess you tuned out the DoJ trial, not to mention the EU investigations and ISO brouhaha. Guess what, being the largest player on the market doesn't mean that you get to: (1) Block the entry of competitors (see above), (2) Use your position to make sure that competitors don't even get a chance of getting mindshare (IE, media player...), or (3) manipulate standards bodies with "partner" companies to get a part of your proprietary formula standardized.
Finally, indirectly accusing anyone who recounts Microsoft's sordid history of being jealous or spiteful is just as disingenuous as Gates saying Microsoft's success is primarily because his competitors sucked.