"If anything, Slashdot is helping the NYT by sending them more visitors."...and making money through ad-revenue. NYT does the work, Slashdot benefits from it, and everybody bitches about following NYT's terms.
"I would settle for a phone that has excellent clarity and doesnt drop out. Now that's the phone I want."
Do you have any idea how tall the order is you're asking? I mean, I understand your frusrtration, afterall I can only use my cell phone in one corner of my apartment. (Good thing the couch is there, ouch.) But, come on man, how do you think they're supposed to accomplish this over an area as large as the United States?
I'm not trying to shoot you down here, rather I'm trying to help you understand exactly what a challenge this is. It's worth noting that cell phone reception has dramatically improved in the last 10 years, as has the price of service. It'll get there. As a matter of fact, right now there are companies out there working to improve that. A company related to the one I work for right now is making cell phone towards that aren't such an eye sore. They've come up with a number of facades that make the tower look like a part of the natural surrounding. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your complaints are addressed one day, but you can't find that bloody tower that's making it possible.;)
"From the pictures, this looks suspiciously like the old one. I am going to stick with my brand new Verizon Wireless Treo. With a VGA camera, keyboard, Palm OS 5, and 144Kbps download speed, an added 512MB SD card from Kingston, it's got everything I need."
When I can get all that plus 802.11, I'm sold.
(Please don't read that as a 'shoot-you-down' post, but rather I'm secretly hoping somebody who reads this post works for them. My cell phone recpetion, including wireless net, is nil in my apartment.)
" We have come to an age where people can share information without being harassed about their physical mishaps, however the people who deliver this very information still find a way to make fun of others disablities."
Hmm..
I can't decide whether to nod my head approvingly or just arrive at the conclusion that some people need thicker skins.
I'm leaning towards "The words only hurt if you let them" right now. The net-effect of Political Correctness would appear to be over-sensitivity.
"I once asked the Slashdot editors why they didn't replace reg-required NYT links with reg-free links. They pointed out that there is a chance that the NYT could get its panties in a wad, and do something stupid. Lawsuits, goatse redirects, the works. Lawsuits... that would just be wrong!"/I.
Seeing as how Slashdot is shamelessly leeching off of NYT's hard work, I don't see why ANYBODY feels they have the right to complain that Slashdot posts registration-req links.
"Having struggled with the DirectX interface occasionally, I'd have to say that the good games that are available for the Windows platform isn't because Windows is a good gaming OS - it's because Windows has so much market share, that the PC game manufacturers are willing to go through almost any kind of coding contortions to make games work for their customers."
Yes, you are correct. Given the opportunity to rewrite that statement, I'd say:
"Windows is a good gaming OS, for the customers."
Specified a bit. The customers don't care what the developers have to do. What they do care about is if they're running Windows, game support is a cinch. Install game, play. Install video card, install driver, reboot, play. Etc. It used to be a LOT harder a few years ago. Now you can be virtually care free. Pity most of the Slashdot crowd isn't up to date on what PC gaming with XP is like.
"I cannot believe I'm getting schooled on RTFA by someone with that kind of spelling and grammar. Pardon me while I ignore you completely."
Why is it that the people who claim to have such a strong grasp of proper grammar also claim to not have the mental resources to decode such a simple message?
"Where would you like to stifle innovation today?"
Hehehe.:)
Whenever there's a story about MS earning a patent, lots of jokes to the tune of "M$ patents something ridiculous". Now that MS isn't the bad guy (seeing as how they're on the same side as Apple, here...) can people finally see what the real problem is? It's not that MS can forcefully patent whatever they want. It's something you apply for, not demand. It's that the Patent Office is in desperate need of policy changes. Hopefully soon it'll be broadly realized that the pitchforks are generally aimed in the wrong direction.
"... I can tie it into a cellphone JAMMER on my car, so I can detect moron drivers on phones as they come close, and jam them when they become a danger."
Are you going to jam their music system so they don't fiddle with the controls? How about jamming people eating while driving? If not, you're not improving your safety all that much. You've basically accomplished being an asshole with the side-benefit of jamming the phone conversations of people nearby who are not your intended target. (i.e. pedestrians.)
"I can see police cars equipted with this kinda stuff in places where Yack and Drive is illegal."
Jamming is illegal, and you can't jam one phone specifically.
I don't mind paying Intel a little more for dual core machines. I don't mind paying Microstar extra for a motherboard that supports that processor. I don't mind paying Microsoft extra for using dual core processors. But... on a per app basis? So.. I'm paying for 2x the performance, right? What if I buy a machine with ~twice the megahertz?
Maybe I'm just knee-jerk reacting here. I'm just not all that impressed with this new scheme to wring money out of people, even if they are big corps etc. I mean, if the software did something special with more processors, that'd be a little different. I just don't want the double-dipping to happen. Hardware makes the speed.
Okay, I'm done redundantly ranting. I'm just annoyed with the prospect in a year or two of adding new machines to the render farm and then having to 'upgrade' the software.
"Flash is very cool technology. It simply does not belong on the web."
Wrong. Flash belongs on the web, but is often misused. Your problems with Flash have nothing to do with the technology, but rather the way content authors have used it. It's like wanting to ban all music stations because Britney Spears is overplayed.
" Have you considered that they've strong-armed OEMs for years to include nothing but Windows?"
They didn't strong-arm enough OEMs to make a monopoly out of it. Hence the ruling that they were guilty of trying to maintain the monopoly, but not in initally creating it. I guess few people remember the massive explosion of computers sold back in 95 shortly after the Windows 95 hype reached its climax.
". Unfortunately, being good at making money doesn't necessarily mean they have to be good at making software"
Office isn't a good productivity Suite? Windows isn't a decent gaming OS with an awesome selection of games? Windows 2003 Server isn't a good server OS?
"No, it was found that Microsoft had become a monopoly by engaging in specific illegal acts that hurt their competitors."
Wrong. MS was found guilty of trying to keep the monopoly, not create it. Simply put: MS did not have the capability to become a monopoly so fast without people wanting it first. Don't remember the wave of hype surrounding Windows 95?
Or were you wrong to blame them in the first place?"
I'd say IBM was half at fault, but I had no fault to call mine. I had never touched that machine before, all I did was resolve the issue. I say 'half-fault' because it's possible my coworker might have contributed to it. Having never seen the machine before, I could not determine that.
My memory is fuzzy on what happened with it. I think what happened was he killed XP on it, installed Linux, installed VMWare, and then installed the rescue disc which put XP right back on VM-Ware. On the IBM disc provided, it included either a virus scan or an automatic backup thing. My memory is fuzzy on it, but it took a long time to run through and VM-Ware multiplied that. So, I'd point the finger at IBM for pre-installing that on their rescue disc as opposed to just shipping an XP disc. I wouldn't say it was their fault, though, that VM-Ware made it worse.
Probably more info than you wanted, but as long as it supports why (at the time) I was annoyed with IBM...
"There was never any claim of bit-for-bit copying between SCO and Linux, even in their FUDdiest days.... They originally claimed it was line-for-line source code copying."
Though I don't see there being that much difference, I stand corrected. (Although I thought they detected the 'copying' by comparing the bits of copied code...)
"Only now is it being reduced to "just a contract dispute - it was never about code copying"."
In other words, despite having access to the code, they still had no case. MS would not enjoy better luck here.
"As for your comment about Windows and Linux - Microsoft freely admits that there's BSD code in Windows, just as there is BSD code in Linux."
Could you elaborate more here, please? No, I'm not trying to shoot you down here or set a trap for you or anything like that, I am just curious what you meant here. I'm not just blindly reading what you're saying and poo-pooing it here.
No, Microsoft DRM'd the text file containing the code so that it won't compile. It took a while for the engineers to figure out why they shipped it on an XBOX disc.
" If I write something and they can't prove that I had access to their code, I'm in the clear."
No you're not. If you magically cook up something and it's similar enough to their stuff that they can actually take you to court (geez this is a ridiculous situation, I have NFI why I'm even entertaining it) they won't need to prove you had access to it. The proof would be your code. At least after having seen it, if you really wanted to, you'd know what to do to NOT look similar to it.
Don't mistake my post here as saying you should go see it. I'm not saying that at all. I just don't think the argument that MS will sue you for copying it is bunk.
"If Torvalds had seen Windows source code, can you imagine the mess we'd be in today. Just look at the BS with SCO, and the "studies" by the Alex de Toqville Institute for MicroFUD, to see the amount of grief even the suggestion of a hint of contamination can bring, even based on lies."
What? There's code in Linux that resembles code in Windows? Then MS would be able to sue anyway, even without Linus having seen the code. Copyright does not protect against accidental similarities. As for the BS with SCO, I'm not quite certain that applies here. If there is any meat to SCO's claims, then actual bit-for-bit copying took place. If the code wasn't made widely available, but it was still bit-for-bit identical, there would still be a case there. (Ugh I hate the way I phrased that. I'm not saying SCO has a case right now, please don't misinterpret.)
"Besides, why would I want to see Windows source? I weened myself off that platform ages ago."
Not saying you should go see it. However, you did hint at it by referring to it as 'selling your soul', thus implying it would benefit you in some way. Or maybe it was just a karma magnet. Kinda funny how many posts get modded up for using the phrase 'selling your soul' when talking about MS.
Slashdot Mirror
"If anything, Slashdot is helping the NYT by sending them more visitors." ...and making money through ad-revenue. NYT does the work, Slashdot benefits from it, and everybody bitches about following NYT's terms.
"I would settle for a phone that has excellent clarity and doesnt drop out. Now that's the phone I want."
;)
Do you have any idea how tall the order is you're asking? I mean, I understand your frusrtration, afterall I can only use my cell phone in one corner of my apartment. (Good thing the couch is there, ouch.) But, come on man, how do you think they're supposed to accomplish this over an area as large as the United States?
I'm not trying to shoot you down here, rather I'm trying to help you understand exactly what a challenge this is. It's worth noting that cell phone reception has dramatically improved in the last 10 years, as has the price of service. It'll get there. As a matter of fact, right now there are companies out there working to improve that. A company related to the one I work for right now is making cell phone towards that aren't such an eye sore. They've come up with a number of facades that make the tower look like a part of the natural surrounding. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your complaints are addressed one day, but you can't find that bloody tower that's making it possible.
"From the pictures, this looks suspiciously like the old one. I am going to stick with my brand new Verizon Wireless Treo. With a VGA camera, keyboard, Palm OS 5, and 144Kbps download speed, an added 512MB SD card from Kingston, it's got everything I need."
When I can get all that plus 802.11, I'm sold.
(Please don't read that as a 'shoot-you-down' post, but rather I'm secretly hoping somebody who reads this post works for them. My cell phone recpetion, including wireless net, is nil in my apartment.)
" We have come to an age where people can share information without being harassed about their physical mishaps, however the people who deliver this very information still find a way to make fun of others disablities."
Hmm..
I can't decide whether to nod my head approvingly or just arrive at the conclusion that some people need thicker skins.
I'm leaning towards "The words only hurt if you let them" right now. The net-effect of Political Correctness would appear to be over-sensitivity.
"I once asked the Slashdot editors why they didn't replace reg-required NYT links with reg-free links. They pointed out that there is a chance that the NYT could get its panties in a wad, and do something stupid. Lawsuits, goatse redirects, the works. Lawsuits... that would just be wrong!"/I.
Seeing as how Slashdot is shamelessly leeching off of NYT's hard work, I don't see why ANYBODY feels they have the right to complain that Slashdot posts registration-req links.
"Does that mean that you outlaw knifes because they not only cut meat, but they can kill?"
I really wish the courts would outlaw the forumulaic "taken to ridiculous extremes!" analogies.
... would my dog eating my homework be prior art? If so, I wish that had really happened.
"Having struggled with the DirectX interface occasionally, I'd have to say that the good games that are available for the Windows platform isn't because Windows is a good gaming OS - it's because Windows has so much market share, that the PC game manufacturers are willing to go through almost any kind of coding contortions to make games work for their customers."
Yes, you are correct. Given the opportunity to rewrite that statement, I'd say:
"Windows is a good gaming OS, for the customers."
Specified a bit. The customers don't care what the developers have to do. What they do care about is if they're running Windows, game support is a cinch. Install game, play. Install video card, install driver, reboot, play. Etc. It used to be a LOT harder a few years ago. Now you can be virtually care free. Pity most of the Slashdot crowd isn't up to date on what PC gaming with XP is like.
"Probably neither, I wouldn't come to slashdot looking for facts."
;)
I would if Slashdot supported my particular biases.
"I cannot believe I'm getting schooled on RTFA by someone with that kind of spelling and grammar. Pardon me while I ignore you completely."
Why is it that the people who claim to have such a strong grasp of proper grammar also claim to not have the mental resources to decode such a simple message?
"Where would you like to stifle innovation today?"
:)
Hehehe.
Whenever there's a story about MS earning a patent, lots of jokes to the tune of "M$ patents something ridiculous". Now that MS isn't the bad guy (seeing as how they're on the same side as Apple, here...) can people finally see what the real problem is? It's not that MS can forcefully patent whatever they want. It's something you apply for, not demand. It's that the Patent Office is in desperate need of policy changes. Hopefully soon it'll be broadly realized that the pitchforks are generally aimed in the wrong direction.
"Aren't they already royally f*cked for using Windows?"
Gamers wouldn't agree, no.
"... I can tie it into a cellphone JAMMER on my car, so I can detect moron drivers on phones as they come close, and jam them when they become a danger."
Are you going to jam their music system so they don't fiddle with the controls? How about jamming people eating while driving? If not, you're not improving your safety all that much. You've basically accomplished being an asshole with the side-benefit of jamming the phone conversations of people nearby who are not your intended target. (i.e. pedestrians.)
"I can see police cars equipted with this kinda stuff in places where Yack and Drive is illegal."
Jamming is illegal, and you can't jam one phone specifically.
"Double the MHz does not equal double the speed."
;)
Yeah, that's why I put the tilde in there.
I don't mind paying Intel a little more for dual core machines. I don't mind paying Microstar extra for a motherboard that supports that processor. I don't mind paying Microsoft extra for using dual core processors. But... on a per app basis? So.. I'm paying for 2x the performance, right? What if I buy a machine with ~twice the megahertz?
Maybe I'm just knee-jerk reacting here. I'm just not all that impressed with this new scheme to wring money out of people, even if they are big corps etc. I mean, if the software did something special with more processors, that'd be a little different. I just don't want the double-dipping to happen. Hardware makes the speed.
Okay, I'm done redundantly ranting. I'm just annoyed with the prospect in a year or two of adding new machines to the render farm and then having to 'upgrade' the software.
"Flash is very cool technology. It simply does not belong on the web."
Wrong. Flash belongs on the web, but is often misused. Your problems with Flash have nothing to do with the technology, but rather the way content authors have used it. It's like wanting to ban all music stations because Britney Spears is overplayed.
" Have you considered that they've strong-armed OEMs for years to include nothing but Windows?"
They didn't strong-arm enough OEMs to make a monopoly out of it. Hence the ruling that they were guilty of trying to maintain the monopoly, but not in initally creating it. I guess few people remember the massive explosion of computers sold back in 95 shortly after the Windows 95 hype reached its climax.
". Unfortunately, being good at making money doesn't necessarily mean they have to be good at making software"
Office isn't a good productivity Suite? Windows isn't a decent gaming OS with an awesome selection of games? Windows 2003 Server isn't a good server OS?
Note: NotGood != SomethingBetterExists
"No, it was found that Microsoft had become a monopoly by engaging in specific illegal acts that hurt their competitors."
Wrong. MS was found guilty of trying to keep the monopoly, not create it. Simply put: MS did not have the capability to become a monopoly so fast without people wanting it first. Don't remember the wave of hype surrounding Windows 95?
"So was IBM at fault?
Or were you wrong to blame them in the first place?"
I'd say IBM was half at fault, but I had no fault to call mine. I had never touched that machine before, all I did was resolve the issue. I say 'half-fault' because it's possible my coworker might have contributed to it. Having never seen the machine before, I could not determine that.
My memory is fuzzy on what happened with it. I think what happened was he killed XP on it, installed Linux, installed VMWare, and then installed the rescue disc which put XP right back on VM-Ware. On the IBM disc provided, it included either a virus scan or an automatic backup thing. My memory is fuzzy on it, but it took a long time to run through and VM-Ware multiplied that. So, I'd point the finger at IBM for pre-installing that on their rescue disc as opposed to just shipping an XP disc. I wouldn't say it was their fault, though, that VM-Ware made it worse.
Probably more info than you wanted, but as long as it supports why (at the time) I was annoyed with IBM...
"Or did I completely misread your comment and you were actually just asking how this information is relevant?"
;)
Bingo.
"There was never any claim of bit-for-bit copying between SCO and Linux, even in their FUDdiest days. ... They originally claimed it was line-for-line source code copying."
Though I don't see there being that much difference, I stand corrected. (Although I thought they detected the 'copying' by comparing the bits of copied code...)
"Only now is it being reduced to "just a contract dispute - it was never about code copying"."
In other words, despite having access to the code, they still had no case. MS would not enjoy better luck here.
"As for your comment about Windows and Linux - Microsoft freely admits that there's BSD code in Windows, just as there is BSD code in Linux."
Could you elaborate more here, please? No, I'm not trying to shoot you down here or set a trap for you or anything like that, I am just curious what you meant here. I'm not just blindly reading what you're saying and poo-pooing it here.
"Do they get to compile it and run it"
No, Microsoft DRM'd the text file containing the code so that it won't compile. It took a while for the engineers to figure out why they shipped it on an XBOX disc.
Addendum:
Step 8.5. Microsoft finds your code is identical to their code, thus they have the beginnings of a case.
" If I write something and they can't prove that I had access to their code, I'm in the clear."
No you're not. If you magically cook up something and it's similar enough to their stuff that they can actually take you to court (geez this is a ridiculous situation, I have NFI why I'm even entertaining it) they won't need to prove you had access to it. The proof would be your code. At least after having seen it, if you really wanted to, you'd know what to do to NOT look similar to it.
Don't mistake my post here as saying you should go see it. I'm not saying that at all. I just don't think the argument that MS will sue you for copying it is bunk.
"If Torvalds had seen Windows source code, can you imagine the mess we'd be in today. Just look at the BS with SCO, and the "studies" by the Alex de Toqville Institute for MicroFUD, to see the amount of grief even the suggestion of a hint of contamination can bring, even based on lies."
What? There's code in Linux that resembles code in Windows? Then MS would be able to sue anyway, even without Linus having seen the code. Copyright does not protect against accidental similarities. As for the BS with SCO, I'm not quite certain that applies here. If there is any meat to SCO's claims, then actual bit-for-bit copying took place. If the code wasn't made widely available, but it was still bit-for-bit identical, there would still be a case there. (Ugh I hate the way I phrased that. I'm not saying SCO has a case right now, please don't misinterpret.)
"Besides, why would I want to see Windows source? I weened myself off that platform ages ago."
Not saying you should go see it. However, you did hint at it by referring to it as 'selling your soul', thus implying it would benefit you in some way. Or maybe it was just a karma magnet. Kinda funny how many posts get modded up for using the phrase 'selling your soul' when talking about MS.