I appreciate this was Barry's comment, but it irks me when people confuse ease of use with the most widely adopted interface.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the article to which you were replying. Dave Barry (as paraphrased by nougatmachine) said the Mac had the easy interface, but that real men didn't want easy.
You have responded to an imagined slight against Macs.
Really, who gives a shit! I mean, why not just say:
"Wow, that's really a nice thing to do for kids who would otherwise probably not get a chance to use a
computer."
I suppose it's not such a "nice" (meaning well-intentioned) thing if one's goal is to avoid civil penalties. Not, I think, that this arrangement was suggested by MS, but this is not a charity act in any case.
Getting back on topic, I think it's great that Microsoft is doing this, as it will give a chance to kids who
wouldn't otherwise have one.
Again, even if the outcome is positive, this need not reflect positively on MS. Lots of selfish acts have positive outcomes, but are not positive in themselves (no matter what the little objectivists say).
As an aside, it sure is a shame that 9 out of 10 folks here have failed to distinguish between the class action civil suit described here and the DOJ antitrust suit. These are different matters. It would be peachy if we can keep them straight.
"IANAL but it seems like fraud to me. They are claiming that Mrs. Johnson or John Doe believes that 'X is the right thing to do' when in reality it is just Microsoft propaganda."
The letters were apparently written by MS lackeys, but they were voluntarily signed by the folks whose names were on the return address (except those two signed by relatives of the deceased, but even then they made this clear by crossing the deceased's name out).
I don't think that if a person proclaims publicly that he believes X, we could consider MS guilty of fraud, even if they gave him a script. Of course, I do think that the term "astroturfing" applies here. I'm not trying to absolve MS of their ethical responsibility (nor do I think that they've noticed they have any).
I don't know what to think about the letter(s?) with invalid return addresses. It's not clear how that happened.
"A growing number of internet users are setting up lans based entirely on wireless networks, using wireless protocols. Other users are setting up infrared shots. IR shots were very popular in a dorm I visited once that 'prohbited' unauthorized computer LANS. If the RA couldn't see cable, there was no LAN, despite the fact that a massive amount of file-sharing and gaming was going on behind his back."
I was not aware that some schools don't allow LANs in the dorms. What is the reasoning behind this rule? I assume that the computers are owned by the students, not the school. Since a LAN is not using any school resources (aside from electricity), I'm perplexed at how they justify such a rule.
It's all well and good to declare that persons should have a right to express their opinions anonymously, but much of what comes out of cotse.com is an explicit attack on newsgroups themselves. I don't regard cascades, intended to swamp a newsgroup with so much crap that it is nearly unreadable, as "speech" that I care to see protected. Usenet should be free, but cascades and the like are attempts to prevent the speech of others.
In this context, I find cotse.com's claim that they can't distinguish between signal and noise a bit disingenuous. While there is plenty of grey between the black and white, there are also plenty of unambiguous cases of abuse of Usenet. Their position on these cases ("Golly, who are we to judge?") is no service to Usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the article to which you were replying. Dave Barry (as paraphrased by nougatmachine) said the Mac had the easy interface, but that real men didn't want easy.
You have responded to an imagined slight against Macs.
Really, who gives a shit! I mean, why not just say:
"Wow, that's really a nice thing to do for kids who would otherwise probably not get a chance to use a computer."
I suppose it's not such a "nice" (meaning well-intentioned) thing if one's goal is to avoid civil penalties. Not, I think, that this arrangement was suggested by MS, but this is not a charity act in any case.
Getting back on topic, I think it's great that Microsoft is doing this, as it will give a chance to kids who wouldn't otherwise have one.
Again, even if the outcome is positive, this need not reflect positively on MS. Lots of selfish acts have positive outcomes, but are not positive in themselves (no matter what the little objectivists say).
As an aside, it sure is a shame that 9 out of 10 folks here have failed to distinguish between the class action civil suit described here and the DOJ antitrust suit. These are different matters. It would be peachy if we can keep them straight.
"IANAL but it seems like fraud to me. They are claiming that Mrs. Johnson or John Doe believes that 'X is the right thing to do' when in reality it is just Microsoft propaganda."
The letters were apparently written by MS lackeys, but they were voluntarily signed by the folks whose names were on the return address (except those two signed by relatives of the deceased, but even then they made this clear by crossing the deceased's name out).
I don't think that if a person proclaims publicly that he believes X, we could consider MS guilty of fraud, even if they gave him a script. Of course, I do think that the term "astroturfing" applies here. I'm not trying to absolve MS of their ethical responsibility (nor do I think that they've noticed they have any).
I don't know what to think about the letter(s?) with invalid return addresses. It's not clear how that happened.
"A growing number of internet users are setting up lans based entirely on wireless networks, using wireless protocols. Other users are setting up infrared shots. IR shots were very popular in a dorm I visited once that 'prohbited' unauthorized computer LANS. If the RA couldn't see cable, there was no LAN, despite the fact that a massive amount of file-sharing and gaming was going on behind his back." I was not aware that some schools don't allow LANs in the dorms. What is the reasoning behind this rule? I assume that the computers are owned by the students, not the school. Since a LAN is not using any school resources (aside from electricity), I'm perplexed at how they justify such a rule.
"I can't imagine Microsoft forcing the the established DSL customers to buy new equipment." Oh, no, me either!!! How unusual that would be.
It's all well and good to declare that persons should have a right to express their opinions anonymously, but much of what comes out of cotse.com is an explicit attack on newsgroups themselves. I don't regard cascades, intended to swamp a newsgroup with so much crap that it is nearly unreadable, as "speech" that I care to see protected. Usenet should be free, but cascades and the like are attempts to prevent the speech of others.
In this context, I find cotse.com's claim that they can't distinguish between signal and noise a bit disingenuous. While there is plenty of grey between the black and white, there are also plenty of unambiguous cases of abuse of Usenet. Their position on these cases ("Golly, who are we to judge?") is no service to Usenet.