What the hell happened in their childhood that promotes these people to ignore their conscience and annoy millions of people for the name of $?
Same thing that causes people to steal music to save themselves $. Greed.
Greed is that thing that happened in their childhood that promotes these people to ignore their conscience? Please explain.
If you're gonna make an offtopic response to make a remote analogy, in order to push your opinion about music sharing, atleast make the analogy work right.
If you want to go offtopic, you picked the wrong guy to start a debate. Greed is what causes executives in the music industry to blame music sharing as the ill of their demise, instead of the profit making crime organizations that burn CDs and sell on the blackmarket that actually steal potential sales, as this article points out. Since the evil music sharers are much easier to serve court papers than a rogue black market businessman, they can point the finger at these students that wreck so much havoc, and save their jobs when the board of directors ask why their revenues have slumped in this wonderful economy, inlight of such a great outlook for their industry.
Representatives such as RIAA and MPAA like to use the term "steal" and "theft" to promote the scarlet letter labeling of "criminals" like the students they've prosecuted. They are masters of advertising afterall, they know how to make an impression on the less informed public.
This is one of the reasons why we need some decent laws on the books so we can either force spammers to cease or prosecute the bastards.
This is one of the reasons why we need to get to the root of the problem so we can neuter parents to preclude them from having these children.
Seriously, there's a problem with attitudes. What the hell happened in their childhood that promotes these people to ignore their conscience and annoy millions of people for the name of $? Once they're in their adulthood, no laws or technology will fix their behavior. Gotta fix it while its fresh in their impressionable minds.
Many people here seem to assume that everyone has used Linux and that Unix is a fact of life for everyone...sorry to tell you this, but neither assumption is true. Sometimes a math major is handed a visual basic-like testing tool and let loose to figure out how to test something like Event Viewer.
Well said. Many do assume that everyone used unix. Quite true its untrue.
I do expect those that are designing and testing a TCP/IP stack to know standards about them. Gives me relief that people like you point them in the right direction. It doesn't sit well with me that this happens.
That said... IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! Im not talking about Microsofts anticompetitive behavours... or nasty business processes, or buggy software... none of that! Im talking about this article, and nothing more! In this article, I dont see what Microsoft has said that would solicite a negative response from the anti-microsoft camp. Im not asking why there is an anti-microsoft camp... and in this context, I really dont give a damn... Im trying to discuss this article itself, from a neutral perspective... and how, infact the comments made could be viewed as good in the open source commun ity!
No need to get excited.:) I'm in all agreement.
Companies study their competition all the time, I would have to agree, there's nothing wrong with it. If we were to replace "MS" with another corporation name that doesn't have such a remarkably notorious history, this forum post would go unnoticed by most. The context of MS practices is exactly that which gives this topic 578 posts, many of them being anti-MS camp objections.
Let me get this straight. You know all too well MS behavior and practices. You want to discuss the article without talking about MS anticompetitive behaviors (lets not forget that the article is about MS creating a lab to study their competition). And then you don't see what MS has said that would solicit a negative response from the anti-MS camp?
LOL. I'd like to discuss this further. Really I would. I'm extremely curious to follow your thought process in this. It baffles me and I must know!
Win any points? Straddle my arguments? Im not following here? Im unbiased as much as one man can be. I use Microsoft products, I use linux products, I use what I need to do my job and get paid. I see downsides to both camps, and upsides as well. So, are you saying that in order to be posting on/. you need to be a pro-linux or pro-microsoft zealot?!?! That seems a bit daft to me!
Likewise I use both Windows and various *nix. No I am not saying that you need to be pro-linux or pro-microsoft to post on slashdot? You stated that "I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps". Providing an introduction that is unbiased, you proceeded to provide your explanation of why you feel pro-linux people have over-reacted.
You got me here... my wording was poor. What I was trying to say ( and obviously failed is ), in regards to the creation of this lab... You dont believe that microsoft doesnt already look at EVERY competing product and "borrow" the best aspects of each? Do you think for one second, they are going to, as a result of creating this lab, suddenly say... "damn... Linux is so much more stable/secure/etc... then Windows XP/2K3... we should copy that feature!". I meant to say it is far fetched that this is the purpose behind the lap, not that this is what Microsoft is or isnt doing.
I can't make out a single sentence that you posted in the paragraph above. However, I will simply quote the article to address what the purpose of the lab is: "The project was started in May with an initial goal of determining the effort involved in building the kind of open-source platform that might be found in a typical business environment."
I would love to know how you twisted what I said to form that response! No, I know damned straight that microsoft did not invent the windowing environment... So far as history claims, it was Xerox. Not that I dont imagine it was done far before that. By your response, im assuming once again you are taking my comments out of context. I am talking in context to the article that was posted! Specifically, im talking about how Microsoft forming a lab to study linux, is not in and of itself a bad thing! Im not saying that Microsoft is an innocent little choir boy... or has never practiced unethical business practices... they have... hell, I would be hard pressed to find a business there size, that hasnt! To veer a bit off topic... I think that Microsoft's actions have been absolutely innocent, when you compare it against so of what Larry Elison has tried to pull at Oracle! However... as far as interfaces go... once you find one that works, and works well... its pretty stupid not to adopt it! Kinda like Satelitte TV/TV Guide/Digital Cable... they all have minor variances, but from copying each other, they have basically come up with a very efficent standard UI. Why not borrow from your competitors... in the end, as a user... I would rather user something well design... as opposed to using something just because X company made it!
I will re-iterate the point. "Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux" is what you said. "Who said people are annoyed for that reason?" is what I said. So the question still stands. Who said people are annoyed that Microsoft is lifting ideas from Linux? I certainly am not. There's nothing wrong with lifting. It's an efficient method of re-using successful products, features and processes. I think the problem is what MS does after they lift it, as shown by their track record.
Um... once again... I never said that. Basically, all I said is... why would you not what Microsoft software, Windows in particular, become better? NOWHERE, did I ask you not to use windows. If I did... I would love to see the exact quote where?!?!
The reason I don't want Microsoft Software to become better is because I want the Microsoft business to not get any bigger than it already
Quite true. I just wish I had hope that MS would make these weaker points available to the public (so they can fix them), not just the business executives that they are pitching their sales to.
"Sure we'll let you guys know the details of that vulnerability. Let me get this Windows feature out and a press release on how we cover it, first. No, we don't have a fix for it, but our partner company in the Antivirus business sells one, let me pass you onto them. Be sure to mention we sent you over to them. They'll give you a discount. It's just a small thanks and appreciation to ou... I mean their customers for choosing them."
Click, drag, let go. OK. Great! Alright... wait a minute, now my applications windows aren't lining up. Alright, I'll autohide the bar. No. That's not right, why did they shift. Great now the menus are hidden. I know I'll just... HOLD ON! WHY AM I HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME WITH A START BUTTON! ITS A FRIGGIN START BUTTON!
I could be totally offbase here, but I think the reasoning behind the design of the START button was to differentiate it from other windowing environments and to cater to those who are familiar with the ON button. See, it's just as easy as turning on your TV.
I know SlashDot is an avidly anti Microsoft crowd, and that I suppose I can understand... but, I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps.
Quite true./. is very avidly anti-MS. However, let's get one thing straight here. It's a bad thing for anti-MS camps. All the pro-MS camps can go on with lives as far as I'm concerned. Trying to straddle the argument by wording your comment to both sides will not win any points.
Really, lets go with the far fetched theory that Microsoft is moving Unix to an in-house lab to identify its strengths and weakness's and to act accordingly? This is bad how? I was under the impression that the majority of people wished Windows was a better product... them looking at the weak points of Windows as compared to Linux, and in so far fetched world, copying the better parts of Linux, sounds like exactly what you've wanted all along?
Far fetched?. Why is it far fetched? Then what do you propose is the reason that MS is moving it's primary competitor into a lab? Do you play sports at all? Do you ever study your opponent?
Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux, well even yourselves have to realise how hypocritical that is! KDE, Konquer, Kdevelop etc... are all cloned or at the minimum, heavily inspired by their windows based counterparts.
I suppose you think MS invented the windowing environment? They must have, MS tried to trademark/copyright "Windows". Right? Who said people are annoyed for that reason? If that's the reason you believe people are upset about, then I suggest you think more long term. This is not about jelousy. It's about having a superior product under anyone's control. The operative word being one. Ever heard of the term power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the unix variants, some under corporate exclusive control and others under public contribution, but with all of them sharing and interoperating peices, distributes power. The fact that windows will be a better OS is great! I'm all for it! The fact that one corporation whose method of business has been to illegally and unethically shutout competition being the sole provider is not. Let me elucidate this point with an example. If you and another are the only ones selling cars, making improvements to your car to make it more attractive is fine. Slashing the other guys tires to make his less attractive is not. Now that he can't sell his car, you can charge whatever you want since nobody else is selling cars. You can even install a camera in it to watch the new owners.
Would it really be such a bad thing, if ( and MS has been doing this more and more ) Microsoft improved Windows, and made it more Linux like? Isnt that exactly what half of you have been asking for???
We've been asking for a better windows only because some of us are stuck with it. If you make the argument (*sigh*... again) to not use windows if you don't want to, you've missed the boat on that argument. And that argument is the basis for why people are "oh-no"ing this move.
As far as calling this a FUD tactic, I think you are jumping the gun ALOT here... As of this point, Microsoft has said nothing negative about linux, or their intentions. In fact, if you read between the lines of this argument... they are giving a silent nod to linux and its legitmacy in the marketplace.
Excuse me? Microsoft has said nothing negative about Linux? Can someone please recall those links and quotes. You've missed alot while you were out to lunch. Intentions? *cough*SCO*cough*. I see you can read between the lines of the benevolent MS, but you can't read between the lines of MS marketshare agenda. Now why on earth would anyone want MS's silent nod on Linux?
Very impressive list of testing. Tell me, does the person in charge of directing and prioritizing these tests at MS careful omit certain ones that they'd rather not have their engineers spend precious time on? Certainly TCP/IP standards are not all that important, so we don't need engineers and programmers to follow every nuance of handshaking and protocol design, eventhough it's written in some negligible document like RFPs and standards committee or if it was used by every other system out at the time to ensure proper communication, right?
Please forgive me for the fact that this may belong in the discussion forum, however, since I do not have permission to post, I present to you here some support and counterpoint insights. This is in response to "chick gamer".
Let me start by saying that the fact that society teaches girls to play with barbies and boys to play with hotwheels, is in my humble opinion, two halves of a full glass, in which the glass can not be filled unless both are present.
While its true indeed that "society" teaches us from an early age that boys play with hotwheels and girls play with barbies, nobody seems to want to dig deep enough and uncover the importance of why this is. Thinking simply in this case helps to elucidate my point. Toy cars are as inanimate an object in real life as they are in their representation in toy form, while Barbies are inanimate representations of walking, talking, emotional people in real life. The point is males suffer from social skills by playing with hotwheels since their target of attention is on possessions of property, not people and interactivity. I propose to you that playing with Ken and Barbie dolls for ten years, and especially with others that play with them, will forge better understanding of human emotions and personalities, than Tonka trucks.
However, this is not a one sided coin. Playing with barbie dolls necessitates events, conditions, active content, without which there is nothing interesting about Ken or Barbie. Planes and trains, while missing the emotional content, have all the ingredients of action. They were designed and manufactured to move, fly, crash, chase and honk.
Is it any wonder that the stereotype married couple consists of the "bored housewife" and the "emotionless husband"? Is it any wonder that traditionally for centuries, women have been excluded from the affairs of business (most notably manufacturing, engineering, finance, property) and we've expected men to work in industries, write laws, and serve the government and it's extension the military. In addition to the ethical and moral reasons that have usually been the focus of equality rights, from an effectiveness standpoint, this is very flawed. The key pivot for business has always been about relationships. The key pivot for government is how we treat one another. The cascading effects of all this and why it's in shambles is for another discussion and I digress.
Videogames, although originate from the same vain as toy cars, have been progressing rapidly toward an endstate that supports both models (toy cars and Barbies). More importantly, it can support both together. With the introduction of multiplayer, in many of its forms, such as consoles with multiple controllers, online, and converging technologies for handhelds, it won't take a brain surgeon or prophet to see that the digital games industry may bridge the gap between the sexes, for so many reasons. Many examples exist today that break the barriers. These examples, I will point out, allow anonymous participation where girls stomp through boy's territories and boys skirt through the girl's fields. Better still, is the fact that in light of these conditions, many take their traditional "roles" and enjoy it. It's entirely up to the person.
As far as dating is concerned, to promote girl's to play videogames as a method to closer understanding boys is probably on the right track, but similarly, I would recommend to boys to take an interest in and practice the art and process of what girls do. However I must stress to you the fact that since videogames are more accessible to girls now, and will be more in the future, it behooves the girl to atleast look into it as you state, especially for online. The bottom line being that [1] most geek guys are starved for female attention, [2] furthermore female _geek_ attention, [3] quantity and quality of emotion, time, other resources invested is at the discretion of the player. However, to force one's self to like something because someone else does,
I am interested about the quality of the writing since I had the same views. I was wondering if anyone else noticed this too. So it's quite relevant. Could it be that there are people that share the same opinion, but not yours?
I might accuse you of the same ego-boosting by being her champion and defending her poor writing. Or perhaps you feel righteous in displaying your compassion in print.
The importance in poor writing style actually has impacted my evaluation of whether the the website is worth my time to ever visit again. Had I seen his critique, I might have avoided the frustration of trying to muddle through her arguments.
Quite frankly, I find her excuses for her arguments (content) just as poor as her writing style. I suggest anyone who thinks of clicking on the link to avoid it.
BTW, anyone using the acronym STFU and having to resort to profanity in general, is usually regarded by most readers, especially on slashdot, as having weak arguments. Not that I think that about you. Just a general perception. I might suggest you pick better words. Just trying to be helpful:)
TephX has every right to critique it. If you put it out on print, expect it to be critiqued.
Spelling and grammar checkers may be horrible, but what does it cost you to run them? 2 minutes of your time? Afterwhich you can choose to correct your mistake or dismiss it.
If you publish an article, especially a feature on a website, your intention is to convey a message to an audience. In addition, most writers have the desire to establish themselves as representatives, and generate interest in their views and opinions. Usually, people expect the writer with such responsibilities to have writing skills.
Otherwise, we have propogation of poor writing by example. Why do that when you can have propogation of better writing to improve everyone's skills.
Conventions about posts and comments on a forum are different. Just as they are for personal letters, IM messages, personal e-mails and corporate e-mails corporate. If you don't understand this then the point is lost.
If you play video games and he plays video games then you have something to talk about. Not to mention something to do together that you both enjoy.
so why not just play and make better grades.
and my favorite
Your boss goes in there when he gets really stressed about something to play a good game of Halo. You go in there and ask if you can join him. You play a round of Halo with his and voila! Instant respect.
Makes you kinda wonder if Dot is really a girl, doesn't it?
Imagine for a moment Dot is a girl saying these things. Now imagine Dot is really a guy saying these things. Draw your own suspicions.
IANAL, but wouldn't it be easier for others to make their case if someone could, or Steve Oualline himself could, post somewhere the court order or transcript or whatever its called? That way we could all go into court with this ruling IN ADDITION TO (please, no boneheads going to court with no evidence and a copy of the transcript) the evidence of their particular case.
Sorry, but that's like saying we eat meat because we have canine teeth. Which is just plain wrong.
Being right or wrong requires a perspective to be right or wrong from. Tell it to the lions. Declaring to be right or wrong is just like declaring to be good or evil. BTW we have molars in addition to canines. This implies that we were designed to eat both.
We have canines, sure, but we also have brains, we understand that animals suffer when we kill them for meat, and we can feed ourselves without inflicting pain, so why do we do so?
We have canines, sure, but we also have hearts. Your argument is about compassion. Not about truth or lies, right or wrong, smart or stupid.
Because the human race is arrogant, and doesn't care.
I would have to agree about that, we are arrogrant. Are you suggesting that the reason we eat meat is because we are arrogrant? Please explain how the emotions of arrogrance causes a carnivirous diet. I suggest a different theory. Most people eat meat because it tastes better to most people.
That's something that perpetuates itself from generation to generation, it's not genetic. We have every capability to override the stupidity of humanity, we just choose to ignore it.
If it is as you suggest, something that perpetuates itself, how does it do that from generation to generation? Yes, we may have the capability to override it, but what behavior are we overriding? Where does this stupidity come from? Are you sure its not genetic, as you state?
While I can support your opinion about diets (going vegan is far more healthier, etc.), it is an opinion. Others may not share that opinion. The difference between you and I is I will not declare these other opinions to be "wrong" in light of my "right" one. To declare something to be right (and thereby holding in contempt others that are wrong) is the first step toward righteous war.
Remember. I hold discrimination and prejudice to be neither right nor wrong. Sad, woeful, and disheartening. But never right nor wrong. I will carry no flag, no banner, no protest against, or for it. I may assist people who are hurt by it. I may try to persuade away those that wish to hurt others by it. But I know that feeding the flames of conflict never lead to a solution. Only a bigger fire.
Us. We. Here's where vanity finds its end. The humanity--the us, we--that strode out of Africa and braved the Pacific Ocean in outrigger canoes and the Arctic in longboats cannot and never will be able to make that final journey. We're too delicate and too dumb. But new forms of being might be able to stake out an interstellar future. They could view us as kin, carrying some essence of our ideals, a memory of Shakespeare secure in their vast webs of intelligence. Transhumanists are asking whether we'll embrace the kinds of life that come next as a necessary extension of ourselves or shun them as monstrosities.
So we can spread the love and make new victims^h^h^h^ friends all over the universe? Nice.
So if I made a business hiring kids to allow others to deficate/urinate on them (I wouldn't be surprised if there's a market for this), and when a special interest groups tries to shut me down, I can cry fowl?
What I don't understand is how a person goes to a telemarketing company and agrees to do this. There are, if not far more profitable, then just as profitable, jobs that are just as shitty.
Isn't there a law against offering jobs that are demoralizing and demeaning?
First, the black thing is no longer about slavery, but because mom and dad were prejudice, and that has rubbed off on the kids (although should be worn down over time or even eradicated). there hasn't been a slave for a long time now...
It's not about slavery. It's not about baggage. It's not about rubbing off.
Thousands of years from now, if and when humanity survives, forgotten are the ways of slavery and war, which IMHO will never happen, still prejudice will continue. It is unfortunately an innate part of living creatures, not just humans, on this planet. As microcosmic as it is macrocosmic, the reason that gives diversity its many flavors to genetic pools, across different species as it does for races within species, is also the reason that binds smaller groups of them together and ironically splits them apart.
Watch the behavior of all other species on this planet. Do these rules not apply to humans? Can we sever the origins of creation, the very thing within that makes us who we are, the substance that makes us act the way we do? Then I'll ask that you look at all the evidence that we have today, all that lies in the wake of humanity's past, the methods we have employed to get here.
Prejudice is no more good or evil than two birds competing for a mate. No more good or evil than a dog pissing on a tree. No more good or evil than a lion hunting a deer. Good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You ask to have diversity, but not the prejudice. That's like asking for the beauty that comes from a collage, but without the discord. Like asking for beauty, in a world without ugliness.
Michael was truly an under-rated writer. I think I'll go re-read his eternal champions tonight.
Slashdot Mirror
Greed is that thing that happened in their childhood that promotes these people to ignore their conscience? Please explain.
If you're gonna make an offtopic response to make a remote analogy, in order to push your opinion about music sharing, atleast make the analogy work right.
If you want to go offtopic, you picked the wrong guy to start a debate. Greed is what causes executives in the music industry to blame music sharing as the ill of their demise, instead of the profit making crime organizations that burn CDs and sell on the blackmarket that actually steal potential sales, as this article points out. Since the evil music sharers are much easier to serve court papers than a rogue black market businessman, they can point the finger at these students that wreck so much havoc, and save their jobs when the board of directors ask why their revenues have slumped in this wonderful economy, inlight of such a great outlook for their industry.
Representatives such as RIAA and MPAA like to use the term "steal" and "theft" to promote the scarlet letter labeling of "criminals" like the students they've prosecuted. They are masters of advertising afterall, they know how to make an impression on the less informed public.
This is one of the reasons why we need some decent laws on the books so we can either force spammers to cease or prosecute the bastards.
This is one of the reasons why we need to get to the root of the problem so we can neuter parents to preclude them from having these children.
Seriously, there's a problem with attitudes. What the hell happened in their childhood that promotes these people to ignore their conscience and annoy millions of people for the name of $? Once they're in their adulthood, no laws or technology will fix their behavior. Gotta fix it while its fresh in their impressionable minds.
Many people here seem to assume that everyone has used Linux and that Unix is a fact of life for everyone...sorry to tell you this, but neither assumption is true. Sometimes a math major is handed a visual basic-like testing tool and let loose to figure out how to test something like Event Viewer.
Well said. Many do assume that everyone used unix. Quite true its untrue.
I do expect those that are designing and testing a TCP/IP stack to know standards about them. Gives me relief that people like you point them in the right direction. It doesn't sit well with me that this happens.
That said... IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! Im not talking about Microsofts anticompetitive behavours... or nasty business processes, or buggy software... none of that! Im talking about this article, and nothing more! In this article, I dont see what Microsoft has said that would solicite a negative response from the anti-microsoft camp. Im not asking why there is an anti-microsoft camp... and in this context, I really dont give a damn... Im trying to discuss this article itself, from a neutral perspective... and how, infact the comments made could be viewed as good in the open source commun ity!
:) I'm in all agreement.
No need to get excited.
Companies study their competition all the time, I would have to agree, there's nothing wrong with it. If we were to replace "MS" with another corporation name that doesn't have such a remarkably notorious history, this forum post would go unnoticed by most. The context of MS practices is exactly that which gives this topic 578 posts, many of them being anti-MS camp objections.
Let me get this straight. You know all too well MS behavior and practices. You want to discuss the article without talking about MS anticompetitive behaviors (lets not forget that the article is about MS creating a lab to study their competition). And then you don't see what MS has said that would solicit a negative response from the anti-MS camp?
LOL. I'd like to discuss this further. Really I would. I'm extremely curious to follow your thought process in this. It baffles me and I must know!
Win any points? Straddle my arguments? Im not following here? Im unbiased as much as one man can be. I use Microsoft products, I use linux products, I use what I need to do my job and get paid. I see downsides to both camps, and upsides as well. So, are you saying that in order to be posting on /. you need to be a pro-linux or pro-microsoft zealot?!?! That seems a bit daft to me!
Likewise I use both Windows and various *nix. No I am not saying that you need to be pro-linux or pro-microsoft to post on slashdot? You stated that "I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps". Providing an introduction that is unbiased, you proceeded to provide your explanation of why you feel pro-linux people have over-reacted.
You got me here... my wording was poor. What I was trying to say ( and obviously failed is ), in regards to the creation of this lab... You dont believe that microsoft doesnt already look at EVERY competing product and "borrow" the best aspects of each? Do you think for one second, they are going to, as a result of creating this lab, suddenly say... "damn... Linux is so much more stable/secure/etc... then Windows XP/2K3... we should copy that feature!". I meant to say it is far fetched that this is the purpose behind the lap, not that this is what Microsoft is or isnt doing.
I can't make out a single sentence that you posted in the paragraph above. However, I will simply quote the article to address what the purpose of the lab is: "The project was started in May with an initial goal of determining the effort involved in building the kind of open-source platform that might be found in a typical business environment."
I would love to know how you twisted what I said to form that response! No, I know damned straight that microsoft did not invent the windowing environment... So far as history claims, it was Xerox. Not that I dont imagine it was done far before that. By your response, im assuming once again you are taking my comments out of context. I am talking in context to the article that was posted! Specifically, im talking about how Microsoft forming a lab to study linux, is not in and of itself a bad thing! Im not saying that Microsoft is an innocent little choir boy... or has never practiced unethical business practices... they have... hell, I would be hard pressed to find a business there size, that hasnt! To veer a bit off topic... I think that Microsoft's actions have been absolutely innocent, when you compare it against so of what Larry Elison has tried to pull at Oracle! However... as far as interfaces go... once you find one that works, and works well... its pretty stupid not to adopt it! Kinda like Satelitte TV/TV Guide/Digital Cable... they all have minor variances, but from copying each other, they have basically come up with a very efficent standard UI. Why not borrow from your competitors... in the end, as a user... I would rather user something well design... as opposed to using something just because X company made it!
I will re-iterate the point. "Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux" is what you said. "Who said people are annoyed for that reason?" is what I said. So the question still stands. Who said people are annoyed that Microsoft is lifting ideas from Linux? I certainly am not. There's nothing wrong with lifting. It's an efficient method of re-using successful products, features and processes. I think the problem is what MS does after they lift it, as shown by their track record.
Um... once again... I never said that. Basically, all I said is... why would you not what Microsoft software, Windows in particular, become better? NOWHERE, did I ask you not to use windows. If I did... I would love to see the exact quote where?!?!
The reason I don't want Microsoft Software to become better is because I want the Microsoft business to not get any bigger than it already
A product, a process, a community, a method, a team, a concept, an idea, and most importantly, many alternatives.
Quite true. I just wish I had hope that MS would make these weaker points available to the public (so they can fix them), not just the business executives that they are pitching their sales to.
"Sure we'll let you guys know the details of that vulnerability. Let me get this Windows feature out and a press release on how we cover it, first. No, we don't have a fix for it, but our partner company in the Antivirus business sells one, let me pass you onto them. Be sure to mention we sent you over to them. They'll give you a discount. It's just a small thanks and appreciation to ou... I mean their customers for choosing them."
"fighting" Linux? Do you mean competing in the marketplace? ;-)
;-)
Ya know Tonya Harding was "competing" too
I run both. Linux for server. Windows for games and pr0n. Each has its place.
Hummingbird Software does this that and the other.
Click, drag, let go. OK. Great! Alright... wait a minute, now my applications windows aren't lining up. Alright, I'll autohide the bar. No. That's not right, why did they shift. Great now the menus are hidden. I know I'll just... HOLD ON! WHY AM I HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME WITH A START BUTTON! ITS A FRIGGIN START BUTTON!
I could be totally offbase here, but I think the reasoning behind the design of the START button was to differentiate it from other windowing environments and to cater to those who are familiar with the ON button. See, it's just as easy as turning on your TV.
Quite true. /. is very avidly anti-MS. However, let's get one thing straight here. It's a bad thing for anti-MS camps. All the pro-MS camps can go on with lives as far as I'm concerned. Trying to straddle the argument by wording your comment to both sides will not win any points.
Far fetched?. Why is it far fetched? Then what do you propose is the reason that MS is moving it's primary competitor into a lab? Do you play sports at all? Do you ever study your opponent?
I suppose you think MS invented the windowing environment? They must have, MS tried to trademark/copyright "Windows". Right? Who said people are annoyed for that reason? If that's the reason you believe people are upset about, then I suggest you think more long term. This is not about jelousy. It's about having a superior product under anyone's control. The operative word being one. Ever heard of the term power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the unix variants, some under corporate exclusive control and others under public contribution, but with all of them sharing and interoperating peices, distributes power. The fact that windows will be a better OS is great! I'm all for it! The fact that one corporation whose method of business has been to illegally and unethically shutout competition being the sole provider is not. Let me elucidate this point with an example. If you and another are the only ones selling cars, making improvements to your car to make it more attractive is fine. Slashing the other guys tires to make his less attractive is not. Now that he can't sell his car, you can charge whatever you want since nobody else is selling cars. You can even install a camera in it to watch the new owners.
We've been asking for a better windows only because some of us are stuck with it. If you make the argument (*sigh*... again) to not use windows if you don't want to, you've missed the boat on that argument. And that argument is the basis for why people are "oh-no"ing this move.
Excuse me? Microsoft has said nothing negative about Linux? Can someone please recall those links and quotes. You've missed alot while you were out to lunch. Intentions? *cough*SCO*cough*. I see you can read between the lines of the benevolent MS, but you can't read between the lines of MS marketshare agenda. Now why on earth would anyone want MS's silent nod on Linux?
Very impressive list of testing. Tell me, does the person in charge of directing and prioritizing these tests at MS careful omit certain ones that they'd rather not have their engineers spend precious time on? Certainly TCP/IP standards are not all that important, so we don't need engineers and programmers to follow every nuance of handshaking and protocol design, eventhough it's written in some negligible document like RFPs and standards committee or if it was used by every other system out at the time to ensure proper communication, right?
Dear Snowcone and Dot,
Please forgive me for the fact that this may belong in the discussion forum, however, since I do not have permission to post, I present to you here some support and counterpoint insights. This is in response to "chick gamer".
Let me start by saying that the fact that society teaches girls to play with barbies and boys to play with hotwheels, is in my humble opinion, two halves of a full glass, in which the glass can not be filled unless both are present.
While its true indeed that "society" teaches us from an early age that boys play with hotwheels and girls play with barbies, nobody seems to want to dig deep enough and uncover the importance of why this is. Thinking simply in this case helps to elucidate my point. Toy cars are as inanimate an object in real life as they are in their representation in toy form, while Barbies are inanimate representations of walking, talking, emotional people in real life. The point is males suffer from social skills by playing with hotwheels since their target of attention is on possessions of property, not people and interactivity. I propose to you that playing with Ken and Barbie dolls for ten years, and especially with others that play with them, will forge better understanding of human emotions and personalities, than Tonka trucks.
However, this is not a one sided coin. Playing with barbie dolls necessitates events, conditions, active content, without which there is nothing interesting about Ken or Barbie. Planes and trains, while missing the emotional content, have all the ingredients of action. They were designed and manufactured to move, fly, crash, chase and honk.
Is it any wonder that the stereotype married couple consists of the "bored housewife" and the "emotionless husband"? Is it any wonder that traditionally for centuries, women have been excluded from the affairs of business (most notably manufacturing, engineering, finance, property) and we've expected men to work in industries, write laws, and serve the government and it's extension the military. In addition to the ethical and moral reasons that have usually been the focus of equality rights, from an effectiveness standpoint, this is very flawed. The key pivot for business has always been about relationships. The key pivot for government is how we treat one another. The cascading effects of all this and why it's in shambles is for another discussion and I digress.
Videogames, although originate from the same vain as toy cars, have been progressing rapidly toward an endstate that supports both models (toy cars and Barbies). More importantly, it can support both together. With the introduction of multiplayer, in many of its forms, such as consoles with multiple controllers, online, and converging technologies for handhelds, it won't take a brain surgeon or prophet to see that the digital games industry may bridge the gap between the sexes, for so many reasons. Many examples exist today that break the barriers. These examples, I will point out, allow anonymous participation where girls stomp through boy's territories and boys skirt through the girl's fields. Better still, is the fact that in light of these conditions, many take their traditional "roles" and enjoy it. It's entirely up to the person.
As far as dating is concerned, to promote girl's to play videogames as a method to closer understanding boys is probably on the right track, but similarly, I would recommend to boys to take an interest in and practice the art and process of what girls do. However I must stress to you the fact that since videogames are more accessible to girls now, and will be more in the future, it behooves the girl to atleast look into it as you state, especially for online. The bottom line being that [1] most geek guys are starved for female attention, [2] furthermore female _geek_ attention, [3] quantity and quality of emotion, time, other resources invested is at the discretion of the player. However, to force one's self to like something because someone else does,
Why are you flaming him for his criticism at all?
:)
I am interested about the quality of the writing since I had the same views. I was wondering if anyone else noticed this too. So it's quite relevant. Could it be that there are people that share the same opinion, but not yours?
I might accuse you of the same ego-boosting by being her champion and defending her poor writing. Or perhaps you feel righteous in displaying your compassion in print.
The importance in poor writing style actually has impacted my evaluation of whether the the website is worth my time to ever visit again. Had I seen his critique, I might have avoided the frustration of trying to muddle through her arguments.
Quite frankly, I find her excuses for her arguments (content) just as poor as her writing style. I suggest anyone who thinks of clicking on the link to avoid it.
BTW, anyone using the acronym STFU and having to resort to profanity in general, is usually regarded by most readers, especially on slashdot, as having weak arguments. Not that I think that about you. Just a general perception. I might suggest you pick better words. Just trying to be helpful
TephX has every right to critique it. If you put it out on print, expect it to be critiqued.
Spelling and grammar checkers may be horrible, but what does it cost you to run them? 2 minutes of your time? Afterwhich you can choose to correct your mistake or dismiss it.
If you publish an article, especially a feature on a website, your intention is to convey a message to an audience. In addition, most writers have the desire to establish themselves as representatives, and generate interest in their views and opinions. Usually, people expect the writer with such responsibilities to have writing skills.
Otherwise, we have propogation of poor writing by example. Why do that when you can have propogation of better writing to improve everyone's skills.
Conventions about posts and comments on a forum are different. Just as they are for personal letters, IM messages, personal e-mails and corporate e-mails corporate. If you don't understand this then the point is lost.
There's no need to post these trials. Try using the preview button instead. Remember that button? The one next to submit?
If you play video games and he plays video games then you have something to talk about. Not to mention something to do together that you both enjoy.
so why not just play and make better grades.
and my favorite
Your boss goes in there when he gets really stressed about something to play a good game of Halo. You go in there and ask if you can join him. You play a round of Halo with his and voila! Instant respect.
Makes you kinda wonder if Dot is really a girl, doesn't it?
Imagine for a moment Dot is a girl saying these things. Now imagine Dot is really a guy saying these things. Draw your own suspicions.
IANAL, but wouldn't it be easier for others to make their case if someone could, or Steve Oualline himself could, post somewhere the court order or transcript or whatever its called? That way we could all go into court with this ruling IN ADDITION TO (please, no boneheads going to court with no evidence and a copy of the transcript) the evidence of their particular case.
Actually you are going down the same road. The article eludes to it.
Sorry, but that's like saying we eat meat because we have canine teeth. Which is just plain wrong.
Being right or wrong requires a perspective to be right or wrong from. Tell it to the lions. Declaring to be right or wrong is just like declaring to be good or evil. BTW we have molars in addition to canines. This implies that we were designed to eat both.
We have canines, sure, but we also have brains, we understand that animals suffer when we kill them for meat, and we can feed ourselves without inflicting pain, so why do we do so?
We have canines, sure, but we also have hearts. Your argument is about compassion. Not about truth or lies, right or wrong, smart or stupid.
Because the human race is arrogant, and doesn't care.
I would have to agree about that, we are arrogrant. Are you suggesting that the reason we eat meat is because we are arrogrant? Please explain how the emotions of arrogrance causes a carnivirous diet. I suggest a different theory. Most people eat meat because it tastes better to most people.
That's something that perpetuates itself from generation to generation, it's not genetic. We have every capability to override the stupidity of humanity, we just choose to ignore it.
If it is as you suggest, something that perpetuates itself, how does it do that from generation to generation? Yes, we may have the capability to override it, but what behavior are we overriding? Where does this stupidity come from? Are you sure its not genetic, as you state?
While I can support your opinion about diets (going vegan is far more healthier, etc.), it is an opinion. Others may not share that opinion. The difference between you and I is I will not declare these other opinions to be "wrong" in light of my "right" one. To declare something to be right (and thereby holding in contempt others that are wrong) is the first step toward righteous war.
Remember. I hold discrimination and prejudice to be neither right nor wrong. Sad, woeful, and disheartening. But never right nor wrong. I will carry no flag, no banner, no protest against, or for it. I may assist people who are hurt by it. I may try to persuade away those that wish to hurt others by it. But I know that feeding the flames of conflict never lead to a solution. Only a bigger fire.
Us. We. Here's where vanity finds its end. The humanity--the us, we--that strode out of Africa and braved the Pacific Ocean in outrigger canoes and the Arctic in longboats cannot and never will be able to make that final journey. We're too delicate and too dumb. But new forms of being might be able to stake out an interstellar future. They could view us as kin, carrying some essence of our ideals, a memory of Shakespeare secure in their vast webs of intelligence. Transhumanists are asking whether we'll embrace the kinds of life that come next as a necessary extension of ourselves or shun them as monstrosities.
So we can spread the love and make new victims^h^h^h^ friends all over the universe? Nice.
If you're gonna troll, atleast do it well. Or just don't.
We already know the true side of telemarketters.
So if I made a business hiring kids to allow others to deficate/urinate on them (I wouldn't be surprised if there's a market for this), and when a special interest groups tries to shut me down, I can cry fowl?
What I don't understand is how a person goes to a telemarketing company and agrees to do this. There are, if not far more profitable, then just as profitable, jobs that are just as shitty.
Isn't there a law against offering jobs that are demoralizing and demeaning?
First, the black thing is no longer about slavery, but because mom and dad were prejudice, and that has rubbed off on the kids (although should be worn down over time or even eradicated). there hasn't been a slave for a long time now...
It's not about slavery. It's not about baggage. It's not about rubbing off.
Thousands of years from now, if and when humanity survives, forgotten are the ways of slavery and war, which IMHO will never happen, still prejudice will continue. It is unfortunately an innate part of living creatures, not just humans, on this planet. As microcosmic as it is macrocosmic, the reason that gives diversity its many flavors to genetic pools, across different species as it does for races within species, is also the reason that binds smaller groups of them together and ironically splits them apart.
Watch the behavior of all other species on this planet. Do these rules not apply to humans? Can we sever the origins of creation, the very thing within that makes us who we are, the substance that makes us act the way we do? Then I'll ask that you look at all the evidence that we have today, all that lies in the wake of humanity's past, the methods we have employed to get here.
Prejudice is no more good or evil than two birds competing for a mate. No more good or evil than a dog pissing on a tree. No more good or evil than a lion hunting a deer. Good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You ask to have diversity, but not the prejudice. That's like asking for the beauty that comes from a collage, but without the discord. Like asking for beauty, in a world without ugliness.
Michael was truly an under-rated writer. I think I'll go re-read his eternal champions tonight.