this doesn't mean that your competitor has broken the law
Microsoft did break the law, and they were found guilty of breaking that law during their trial. Be's specific complaint -- boot-loader access -- was even mentioned in the decision.
I had problems creating symbolic links on an NFS-exported ResierFS filesystem; the symlinks tended to have random garbage in them, rather than a pointer to the file in question. It looked like the symlinks contained bits of other files. It seemed to happen more often in deeper directory structures. Had anyone else seen that behavior with Reiser and NFS? Maybe I should have used the "notail" option, or something.
"Can anyone imagine MS shipping a product with such a horribly-stupid-of-stupid-critical-lose-every-flaw as the recent iTunes 2.0 ultra-blunder?"
Yes.
My personal favorite is all the times that netlogon stopped working on an NT box, necessitating re-installation of NT. Installing and patching all the installed applications again was a lot of fun. Not.
It's Microsoft's own bias/propaganda in the news story, then: they are the only ones claiming that IE is an integral part of WIndows. So they announce a security hole in IE, which is an integral part of Windows, therefore there's a new hole on Windows. It's all very simple. Why should the public let MSFT or its apologists claim that, on the one hand, IE is an integral part of Windows, and on the other, that it's not? It has to be one or ther other. Pick.
If a law cannot be read and understood by a jury of citizens without explanation from a lawyer, the law is declared null and void. Maybe we can front-load a jury in the legislative process; before a bill becomes a law, it must be certified as understandable by a jury of average (non-lawyer) citizens.
I thought the U.S. had decided a few centuries ago to do without European legislation. I suppose I was wrong, as it appears that the U.S. Federal Government is now using the European federal legislative body to create law here in the U.S., via treaty.
We don't have to help. I'm not clear on why we should give a fried fart what Hilary wants.
She did have a good point or two, as you said -- rolling around in money, and rolling around in money naked, are both pretty rewarding leisure-time activities.
Yeah, Taco, or whoever, why did you remove the "piles of money" part of his submission? Did that bitch Hilary have her evil winged lawyers call you? Or what?
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
What's wrong with saying that? Even on the front page of Slashdot? Coneptually, it's true. It's funny. Why was it removed?
This reminds me of "The New Jersey Method versus the MIT method."
The MIT Method is to take as long as needed to get a task done "right," regardless of cost and schedules.
The New Jersey method calls for solving 80% of the problem, and putting off 20% until later.
The MIT method results in more project failures than the New Jersey method. Microsoft epitomizes the New Jersey method, as does open source. Multics followed the MIT method, and was never actually finished, just killed off years later...
If anyone has a reference for the "MIT vs NJ" in its original form, please post it.
The only feature I'd like from XP in Windows 2000 (which I use at work) is cleartype. Maybe Microsft will "plus-pack" Win2k, or include it in a service pack...
They are calling their "anti-freedom" claptrap "The Online Cooperative Publishing Act", subtitled, "SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship".
Except that it is not only not without censorship, but also would legislate fealty to them.
I have a more accurate, but not catchy, title for their Proposed Law:
The "We would like to legislate a healthy bottom line for ourselves, and maybe put you in jail for using your First Amdnedment free speech and press rights, because we're a bunch of greedy assholes, so will you please cooperate, Act."
My children would be harmed by reading this act. "Why are some people so mean, daddy?"... "I don't know, honey, but I'll sue their asses off for expressing those ideas! You wait and see!"... "Daddy, you're scaring me."
What about us folks that are already registrars for.US domains?
It was understood in the past that delegations were to be free. How about now? I don't intend to charge for them in my "teeming metropolis" (cough), but what about others? What's the policy? Will I have my domain revoked? Will I be charged for it? Can I get myname.us?
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't you know there's a war on?"
Maybe if congress had declared one...
This must be one of those fun "police actions."
this doesn't mean that your competitor has broken the law
Microsoft did break the law, and they were found guilty of breaking that law during their trial. Be's specific complaint -- boot-loader access -- was even mentioned in the decision.
I had problems creating symbolic links on an NFS-exported ResierFS filesystem; the symlinks tended to have random garbage in them, rather than a pointer to the file in question. It looked like the symlinks contained bits of other files. It seemed to happen more often in deeper directory structures. Had anyone else seen that behavior with Reiser and NFS? Maybe I should have used the "notail" option, or something.
Anyway, I converted the filesystem to Ext3.
I thought Intel had discontinued the Rex.
Dunno, but Heinlein was cool like that. Do you mean "Expanded Reality?" My wife has that book... I've not seen "Alternate Reality"...
"Can anyone imagine MS shipping a product with such a horribly-stupid-of-stupid-critical-lose-every-flaw as the recent iTunes 2.0 ultra-blunder?"
Yes.
My personal favorite is all the times that netlogon stopped working on an NT box, necessitating re-installation of NT. Installing and patching all the installed applications again was a lot of fun. Not.
It's Microsoft's own bias/propaganda in the news story, then: they are the only ones claiming that IE is an integral part of WIndows. So they announce a security hole in IE, which is an integral part of Windows, therefore there's a new hole on Windows. It's all very simple. Why should the public let MSFT or its apologists claim that, on the one hand, IE is an integral part of Windows, and on the other, that it's not? It has to be one or ther other. Pick.
I'll jump in, too:
Microsoft has stated under oath that IE is a necessary component of Windows. They want us to buy into that reality.
So, a bug in IE is a bug in Windows. Or Bill Gates is a liar and a purjurer. Which is it?
Here's an idea: don't let lawyers make law.
If a law cannot be read and understood by a jury of citizens without explanation from a lawyer, the law is declared null and void. Maybe we can front-load a jury in the legislative process; before a bill becomes a law, it must be certified as understandable by a jury of average (non-lawyer) citizens.
"Install IIS" is on by default in the Windows NT Server 4.0 installer.
So, there's apparently a huge market for poorly designed, poorly implemented, but "feature-rich" and "easy to use" software.
Okay.
I thought the U.S. had decided a few centuries ago to do without European legislation. I suppose I was wrong, as it appears that the U.S. Federal Government is now using the European federal legislative body to create law here in the U.S., via treaty.
My favorite thing about ATMs is the braille all over the console and the buttons, with a CRT giving the instructions. It's a hoot!
Yeah! It worked for the Soviets! And Mao! Let's go!
Ri-yot! Ri-yot! Ri-yot!
reduce the competitive nature of modern society and consequently the technological encryption/decryption competitive paradigm
Not to mention the free society paradigm, the able to feed oneself paradigm, and the use-the-forebrain paradigm. Rubbish!
What an unholy load of crap. I have never seen suck a bitchy, needy, clingy installer. What the world needs is a RealMedia to MPEG converter.
they just want to protect their monopoly.
We don't have to help. I'm not clear on why we should give a fried fart what Hilary wants.
She did have a good point or two, as you said -- rolling around in money, and rolling around in money naked, are both pretty rewarding leisure-time activities.
Here it is, in its original form:
From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Yeah, Taco, or whoever, why did you remove the "piles of money" part of his submission? Did that bitch Hilary have her evil winged lawyers call you? Or what?
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
What's wrong with saying that? Even on the front page of Slashdot? Coneptually, it's true. It's funny. Why was it removed?
Here is the original "New Jersey versus MIT" text.
This reminds me of "The New Jersey Method versus the MIT method."
The MIT Method is to take as long as needed to get a task done "right," regardless of cost and schedules.
The New Jersey method calls for solving 80% of the problem, and putting off 20% until later.
The MIT method results in more project failures than the New Jersey method. Microsoft epitomizes the New Jersey method, as does open source. Multics followed the MIT method, and was never actually finished, just killed off years later...
If anyone has a reference for the "MIT vs NJ" in its original form, please post it.
The only feature I'd like from XP in Windows 2000 (which I use at work) is cleartype. Maybe Microsft will "plus-pack" Win2k, or include it in a service pack...
Who are you, Spootnik?
4 DA.3770466%40newshog.newsread.com&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Yobt2.2582%2
I'm not actually happy that something bad, such as this, can be so easily and accurately predicted.
My mirror of their Proposed Act, with a brand new subtitle!
t yrrany-and-profit.html
... "I don't know, honey, but I'll sue their asses off for expressing those ideas! You wait and see!" ... "Daddy, you're scaring me."
http://nc.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/safesurf-
They are calling their "anti-freedom" claptrap "The Online Cooperative Publishing Act", subtitled, "SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship".
Except that it is not only not without censorship, but also would legislate fealty to them.
I have a more accurate, but not catchy, title for their Proposed Law:
The "We would like to legislate a healthy bottom line for ourselves, and maybe put you in jail for using your First Amdnedment free speech and press rights, because we're a bunch of greedy assholes, so will you please cooperate, Act."
My children would be harmed by reading this act. "Why are some people so mean, daddy?"
What about us folks that are already registrars for .US domains?
It was understood in the past that delegations were to be free. How about now? I don't intend to charge for them in my "teeming metropolis" (cough), but what about others? What's the policy? Will I have my domain revoked? Will I be charged for it? Can I get myname.us?