The trick is to get the keyboard upside down as soon as possible, so that the liquid drips off of the circuitboard and into the 'cup' created by each upside down key. If it's pop, it will dry in there.
As another poster said, many people have popped them into dishwashers after taking out the electronics. I haven't done that though...
--- when mcdo will open a "restaurant" on the artic continent? or on the moon? ---
When there are enough people in those places who want their product.
And when/if that happens, who are you or I to say to those people that our wishes override theirs?
If you don't like it, don't buy it. If the opening of McDonalds in a certain place isn't wanted by enough people, they'll close up shop. If not, you'll just have to live. The few cannot and should not override the many.
Feel free to look to us for a way to structure a government, but please do better in actually implementing it. We're moving to a nanny-government type system as well these days...
--- Wake up you obsessively capitalist fool. Most people don't make moral purchasing decisions, and many of those who do follow mass media whims. ---
Are you suggesting that a small elite should be able to decide on their behalf, then?
--- Now fuck off back to your middle-class, well educated chums and talk shit to them instead of spreading it here. ---
Oooh, class warfare. How cute. Perhaps you should look around, though - what are you reading this on? A computer, most likely. Middle-class and well educated? I'm sorry if you are neither of those, but that is pretty much the target audience for Slashdot. So don't tell us that our beliefs don't belong here (I'm not sure why Katz keeps putting this Marxist crap on Slashdot, but it seems to be at the opposition of most of his audience).
Instead of merely insulting people, perhaps you should stand back and remember that people are responsible for their own station in life. There are many more lower and middle class people than those in the upper classes. If you feel that you have some sort of god given right to have their cash, then by all means change the laws to that effect. Those of us who feel that it's all just sour grapes will oppose you. Either way, both of our beliefs belong on Slashdot, so don't tell people what views they can and can't have here.
--- No, health quality and economic wealth are opposite interests. If a paysant destroys property, he`s simply a criminal, and should be punished ? Yes! Arguing that europe should therefore just buy american to prevent thier citizens from protesting against american multinationals ? No! damnit. ---
That's the thing, though. McDonalds isn't forcing anyone to eat there. But they obviously are. You said yourself that McDonalds franchises are springing up all over the place - why is that? I'm assuming that someone is eating there. I see two possibilities:
A) American tourists, feeling homesick for American food.
B) French nationals, who don't seem to be all that worried that American food sucks.
Either way, there is obviously a market supporting these franchises.
What it seems to me is that this is a case of a very small minority trying to force either a majority or another minority not to eat somewhere that they want, while trying to make it look like McDonalds kidnaps people on the street and forces them to eat their food.
Contrary to popular belief, Americans don't only eat at McDonalds. I have one down the road, and the only time I eat there (maybe once a month, usually less) is when I don't have time for something better. Why can't France be the same way, or just not eat there at all if they don't like it? McDonalds will either stop multiplying, or even pull out of their French operations and stay where they are wanted. Problem solved.
It certainly does work. Prices are lowered, which consumers prefer.
Then, if Wal-Mart does a 'bait and switch' and raises their prices back up again, there is an ample opportunity for a new competitor to move into town and for Wal-Mart to get its ass kicked.
We have a Wal-Mart here in the town I live, and it is hardly the only similar store around. There are several just like it.
Like any other company in a Capitalist society, Wal-Mart isn't safe from the threat of getting smushed by a large competitor. I don't know about where you live, but 7-11 has been more or less crushed by its competitors when they used to be all over the place. In new markets, often the little guy is more adept at breaking in than the old guys, and sometimes even survives long enough to become one of the old guys.
It's a self regulating system, and seems to work pretty well from what I've seen. Unemployment in one of the most capitalistic countries in the world is at an all time low, so that kind of takes the wind out of the 'sending the little guy out onto the street' argument some people are putting out...
Oh, I see. There's a certain minimum yearly income for being a target for protest?
If your government allows 12 year olds to work for 50 cents a day, then you should take it up with them. That's what they are there for.
Big corporations are forcing nothing. At worst, various 3rd world countries are begging for it. If you want this problem fixed, A) get your government to ban such young labor, and B) if you are young, refuse to work for them.
Then don't buy American imports. Don't go to McDonalds. The inferior food will eventually go away, and your farmers will be perfectly fine.
And if Americans don't like such fine food, they won't buy it from you.
<sarcasm> Of course, Americans are so stupid and inferior that they would never understand the obvious superiority of anything non-American. </sarcasm>
I agree with one thing - it seems kind of pointless to take a trip to a country you've never been to and eat of all things McDonalds (whose quality sucks compared to even most chains here in the USA).
However, it is their choice. For someone to vandalize a McDonalds establishment, they are saying that they should be able to judge food quality on the behalf of those tourists. That is wrong.
If their food is so much better, and they can market it, they won't have to deal with it. It's up to the local food providers to reverse the American need for familiar food, not the American's requirement to be forced to apply their hunger needs equally.
So, let me get this straight - you're basing the perceived merits or lack thereof of an OS on the work of a single 3rd party application by a single company?
If the net result is that it's safer on the road, and fewer people die, then wouldn't it stand that it's a Good Thing?
Frankly, for Apple's intended market, far more time is gained in having a halfway usable GUI than in the occasional crash takes away.
Your argument seems to be based on some theoretical idea of perfection ("An OS should never crash! Ever!") rather than practicality ("If the OS occasionally crashes, but I'm much more productive on it, then I would rather use it instead."). You can't get over this perceived flaw that, apparently, isn't hurting the average person.
[not to say that stability isn't important, or that the MacOS could use some work in that regard - but it just seems that stability is your only criteria for judging the OS, when Apple's market has a much different idea in what they want.]
Um, it's not informative to tell the Slashdot community that there is a bug in the system, and that their accounts may be spoofed next?
Seems to me that some people like to rail against certain users, no matter how good the post may be. 'Karma Whore' is turning into another 'FUD' - a term so overused that it loses its intended meaning.
- A company belongs to stockholders, or is privately held. Either way, there are people who own it - much as someone owns a house. Quite likely this is not you, otherwise you could probably choose your own tools.
- As an employee, you choose to work at the employ of said company - basically doing their work on their terms for a certain degree of compensation.
- Obviously, there are limits: said company cannot ask you to do anything illegal, as you (and they) would be breaking the law. Last I checked, lame-ass proprietary software isn't against the law any more than your average substandard piece of office equipment.
- If you have a problem with what they ask you to do, or the tools they provide you with to do your job, that's your problem - not theirs. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. Unless you own a significant chunk of the company, you have no say. Period.
This is as much 'coercion' as someone threatening not to pay you if you don't hold up to your part of a contract, which is *exactly* what this is. The only difference is that you keep the cash you've already earned at the company. You only get paid when you are of value - that's how it works.
Get it? It's not your company. You don't have the right to use your favorite tools. The company has the right to choose what it feels will maximize its value, not you. If you are lucky, you may have the privilege, but it's not a given. Unless it says otherwise in the employment contract, of course. Did it? Didn't think so.
And really, is being asked to use company standard software and such anything like having a gun put to your head? Having your house burnt down? Probably not, even for the most rabid GNU zealot. It ranks somewhere between having your toe stepped on and someone farting in an adjacent cubicle. In other words, you're making this into a giant issue when it's not an issue at all. This bitching makes about as much sense as someone complaining that their company requires them to wear a certain attire or requires them to fill out the occasional form. Yeah, you have the right not to work there if that kind of stuff is important to you, but you do not have the right to make demands.
People in this country seem to have a real problem distinguishing between 'rights' and 'privileges'. These people assume they deserve something that, if anything, is a bonus of sorts. Life isn't about getting everything you want - don't sign into an employment contract with someone unless you are willing to play by their rules.
--- This person is talking about a situation in which everyone must choose between a non-functional computer and a computer running Windows. That is not choice. ---
Sure it is. You can choose to work elsewhere.
It all comes down to that. Unless the employment contract specifically states that his choice of software will forever be supported, it is strictly their decision as to what will and will not be supported.
This exact sort of thing was a factor in me leaving my last job and moving to my current one. I have the right to be employed elsewhere, and I exercised that right. It's up to the employee to weigh the benefits of choosing his own tools with the problems of switching to another job.
As I said, no gun is pointed to his head. It's a trade-off, sure, but unless someone promised him that his home computer would be usable with his company's systems, it's not their problem. It's his.
--- anyway, when you control the medium, you control the content. ---
Yes, but the question is not who controls the medium, but who put them there? If the vast majority of the population using computers chooses a specific standard, then who are you or I to say that they should change? We can come out with competing (and open) standards that will succeed, and in cases (HTTP, POP3, etc) that has been done.
My point is that this is not a choice or ethics or morals like some people try to make it. It's a market decision. What you are doing is complaining in the same way a person who voted for the losing candidate in an election might.
--- Or if your Honda (you seem like a honda owner, dunno why) had proprietary rims, such that you could only go to the honda dealer for tires. standards again. ---
If this were an issue, I wouldn't buy Honda (and didn't, but not for that specific reason). Simple.
What if I don't like some sort of proprietary standard in each and every automobile out there? Then I can build my own. If I can't do it, too bad for me. Obviously the market - of which I am a part of - did not decide that the same features I require are necessary.
--- And what of philosophy? We're stronger together than apart. ---
True.
I'm not debating about open standards. I agree that open standards are usually inherantly superior to the same standard if it were closed.
My point isn't about open vs. closed, my point is that it is not our right to expect anything to be open or closed (unless we enter into a contract or something). That's a decision for the vendor, and it's up to you whether you wish to support that vendor with your pocket book.
--- You must have been too busy calling me names to think about any of this. ---
Where did I call you a name? Please provide quotes. I'll wait.
--- It's not a physical gun, but it is a virtual one -- if you don't use microsoft at home, you can't take advantage of the work-at-home program I mentioned. ---
Then either live with it, or work elsewhere. That's your choice. Remember, you work for your company - not the other way around. If you can't use their software, then politely talk to your management. If you still can't, either grin and bear it or get a different job. I'm assuming that nowhere in your contract does it say that your employer promises to support each and every tool that its employees wish to use. If it's that big of a deal, get another job.
And yes, there are companies out there that support multiple platforms pretty well. My company has users running Windows, MacOS, Linux and BeOS as primary operating systems. If they switched to Windows-only for some god forsaken reason, I could either live with it or quit. It's not my company.
And yes, the 'open' nature of the company was part of my reason for deciding to join it, as I like to choose my tools. But you don't see me telling other companies that they should be forced to be like my employer, either.
--- Hmmm...I've dealt with your type before. When a gang of thugs starts breaking down your door to get at your wife and daughters, guess who will be calling the 911 line ---
This is where your argument falls off of a cliff. You talk like using a proprietary standard is akin to rape, which is complete bullshit. If anything, this is more akin to the 'Honda hub cap' theory you came up with. I don't have to buy a Honda, I can go elsewhere, or build my own car if it comes to that. Millions of people have bought Hondas, so it's obviously not that big of a deal to most people.
--- How can you be so ignorant. ---
*sigh*
--- I'm not saying companies can't innovate, or that they all have to write the same OS, all I'm saying is they make protocols using the existing RFC mechanism or something like it. ---
Go for it, then. Ask! Ask all you want. That's your right. Tell them that they won't get your cash until they change. If they tell you that only.001% of their potential clientelle agree with you, then you can go elsewhere.
But it's not your right to force anyone to bow to your 'needs'. We aren't talking about some sort of crime against humanity here, we're talking about fucking software - software with alternatives.
In such a case, it would seem to me that 'overrated' would be a better classification.
Either way, if someone truly is karma whoring, then what exactly is being accomplished by telling them?
You can't tell someone's intentions by the content of their post. Maybe they really are unfunny and mistaken? Those are observations that can be made without the 'karma whore' label (which seems to be attached to just about anyone but the people who use the label itself).
So is anything posted that is at the least funny or informative considered a 'karma whore'?
Who fucking cares, if the content is good?
I'd much rather deal with people trying to get good karma rather than a bunch of boring, unfunny, and uninformative posts - or a bunch of people going around with the sole purpose of telling them that they're karma whoring.
Yes, but doesn't that require that you own the Latest And Greatest (*cough*) version of Word?
I think the point is that you have to pay Microsoft the full price of the office suite for the 'privelege' of using newer document formats. That effectively limits the life of your software purchase so that you have to buy a completely new copy whenever there is a document format change - at that point, why not just use it as your primary version?
THAT is where the rub lies - at that point, you start sending out copies that can only be read in the newer version, and your colleagues begin upgrading as well. It's an endless cycle.
People want to break that cycle so that they can either use a competing Office program based only on its merits or stick with a previous version which they feel was better than the next version (ie. Mac users who upgraded to Word 6, but wish they had stuck with the previous version) .
--- I'm a firm believer that legislation should be enacted to force all inter-machine communication protocols to be open and documented. ---
Do you support mandatory diapers for everyone to prevent accidental leakage?
Nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to use any given product or standard. The market has decided, and no matter how inferior the choice may be, it's not the government's place to decide. Let the people do that.
Obviously if a company does something terribly immoral to hurt consumers, that's one thing. But a closed standard isn't immoral - it's just not optimal. There's a difference.
Jesus, no wonder we have such an overactive nanny culture in this country. People don't want to take responsibility for their own choices...
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is to get the keyboard upside down as soon as possible, so that the liquid drips off of the circuitboard and into the 'cup' created by each upside down key. If it's pop, it will dry in there.
As another poster said, many people have popped them into dishwashers after taking out the electronics. I haven't done that though...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
when mcdo will open a "restaurant" on the artic continent? or on the moon?
---
When there are enough people in those places who want their product.
And when/if that happens, who are you or I to say to those people that our wishes override theirs?
If you don't like it, don't buy it. If the opening of McDonalds in a certain place isn't wanted by enough people, they'll close up shop. If not, you'll just have to live. The few cannot and should not override the many.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
This was sarcasm, in case you don't understood it. You sing the corpo's advertising like all well-reeducated mooing mass member.
---
What's funny is that in your zealotry you fail to notice that the post you reply to was intended as sarcasm as well. He's on your side.
"Moo", indeed.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Feel free to look to us for a way to structure a government, but please do better in actually implementing it. We're moving to a nanny-government type system as well these days...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, if I recall McDonalds is a franchise. They don't stay anywhere for tax reasons if the franchise goes broke. They go out of business.
(there's a post just a couple up from yours stating that McD's went out of business in his country because nobody wanted to eat there)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Wake up you obsessively capitalist fool. Most people don't make moral purchasing decisions, and many of those who do follow mass media whims.
---
Are you suggesting that a small elite should be able to decide on their behalf, then?
---
Now fuck off back to your middle-class, well educated chums and talk shit to them instead of spreading it here.
---
Oooh, class warfare. How cute. Perhaps you should look around, though - what are you reading this on? A computer, most likely. Middle-class and well educated? I'm sorry if you are neither of those, but that is pretty much the target audience for Slashdot. So don't tell us that our beliefs don't belong here (I'm not sure why Katz keeps putting this Marxist crap on Slashdot, but it seems to be at the opposition of most of his audience).
Instead of merely insulting people, perhaps you should stand back and remember that people are responsible for their own station in life. There are many more lower and middle class people than those in the upper classes. If you feel that you have some sort of god given right to have their cash, then by all means change the laws to that effect. Those of us who feel that it's all just sour grapes will oppose you. Either way, both of our beliefs belong on Slashdot, so don't tell people what views they can and can't have here.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
No, health quality and economic wealth are opposite interests. If a paysant destroys property, he`s simply a criminal, and should be punished ? Yes! Arguing that europe should therefore just buy american to prevent thier citizens from protesting against american multinationals ? No! damnit.
---
That's the thing, though. McDonalds isn't forcing anyone to eat there. But they obviously are. You said yourself that McDonalds franchises are springing up all over the place - why is that? I'm assuming that someone is eating there. I see two possibilities:
A) American tourists, feeling homesick for American food.
B) French nationals, who don't seem to be all that worried that American food sucks.
Either way, there is obviously a market supporting these franchises.
What it seems to me is that this is a case of a very small minority trying to force either a majority or another minority not to eat somewhere that they want, while trying to make it look like McDonalds kidnaps people on the street and forces them to eat their food.
Contrary to popular belief, Americans don't only eat at McDonalds. I have one down the road, and the only time I eat there (maybe once a month, usually less) is when I don't have time for something better. Why can't France be the same way, or just not eat there at all if they don't like it? McDonalds will either stop multiplying, or even pull out of their French operations and stay where they are wanted. Problem solved.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
It certainly does work. Prices are lowered, which consumers prefer.
Then, if Wal-Mart does a 'bait and switch' and raises their prices back up again, there is an ample opportunity for a new competitor to move into town and for Wal-Mart to get its ass kicked.
We have a Wal-Mart here in the town I live, and it is hardly the only similar store around. There are several just like it.
Like any other company in a Capitalist society, Wal-Mart isn't safe from the threat of getting smushed by a large competitor. I don't know about where you live, but 7-11 has been more or less crushed by its competitors when they used to be all over the place. In new markets, often the little guy is more adept at breaking in than the old guys, and sometimes even survives long enough to become one of the old guys.
It's a self regulating system, and seems to work pretty well from what I've seen. Unemployment in one of the most capitalistic countries in the world is at an all time low, so that kind of takes the wind out of the 'sending the little guy out onto the street' argument some people are putting out...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Oh, I see. There's a certain minimum yearly income for being a target for protest?
If your government allows 12 year olds to work for 50 cents a day, then you should take it up with them. That's what they are there for.
Big corporations are forcing nothing. At worst, various 3rd world countries are begging for it. If you want this problem fixed, A) get your government to ban such young labor, and B) if you are young, refuse to work for them.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Then don't buy American imports. Don't go to McDonalds. The inferior food will eventually go away, and your farmers will be perfectly fine.
And if Americans don't like such fine food, they won't buy it from you.
<sarcasm>
Of course, Americans are so stupid and inferior that they would never understand the obvious superiority of anything non-American.
</sarcasm>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I agree with one thing - it seems kind of pointless to take a trip to a country you've never been to and eat of all things McDonalds (whose quality sucks compared to even most chains here in the USA).
However, it is their choice. For someone to vandalize a McDonalds establishment, they are saying that they should be able to judge food quality on the behalf of those tourists. That is wrong.
If their food is so much better, and they can market it, they won't have to deal with it. It's up to the local food providers to reverse the American need for familiar food, not the American's requirement to be forced to apply their hunger needs equally.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Hrm, okay. Just checking.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
So, let me get this straight - you're basing the perceived merits or lack thereof of an OS on the work of a single 3rd party application by a single company?
And this company is, of all people, Netscape?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
If the net result is that it's safer on the road, and fewer people die, then wouldn't it stand that it's a Good Thing?
Frankly, for Apple's intended market, far more time is gained in having a halfway usable GUI than in the occasional crash takes away.
Your argument seems to be based on some theoretical idea of perfection ("An OS should never crash! Ever!") rather than practicality ("If the OS occasionally crashes, but I'm much more productive on it, then I would rather use it instead."). You can't get over this perceived flaw that, apparently, isn't hurting the average person.
[not to say that stability isn't important, or that the MacOS could use some work in that regard - but it just seems that stability is your only criteria for judging the OS, when Apple's market has a much different idea in what they want.]
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, it's not informative to tell the Slashdot community that there is a bug in the system, and that their accounts may be spoofed next?
Seems to me that some people like to rail against certain users, no matter how good the post may be. 'Karma Whore' is turning into another 'FUD' - a term so overused that it loses its intended meaning.
Then again, I'm pry just karma whoring, right?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
You're dodging the real issue here.
- A company belongs to stockholders, or is privately held. Either way, there are people who own it - much as someone owns a house. Quite likely this is not you, otherwise you could probably choose your own tools.
- As an employee, you choose to work at the employ of said company - basically doing their work on their terms for a certain degree of compensation.
- Obviously, there are limits: said company cannot ask you to do anything illegal, as you (and they) would be breaking the law. Last I checked, lame-ass proprietary software isn't against the law any more than your average substandard piece of office equipment.
- If you have a problem with what they ask you to do, or the tools they provide you with to do your job, that's your problem - not theirs. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. Unless you own a significant chunk of the company, you have no say. Period.
This is as much 'coercion' as someone threatening not to pay you if you don't hold up to your part of a contract, which is *exactly* what this is. The only difference is that you keep the cash you've already earned at the company. You only get paid when you are of value - that's how it works.
Get it? It's not your company. You don't have the right to use your favorite tools. The company has the right to choose what it feels will maximize its value, not you. If you are lucky, you may have the privilege, but it's not a given. Unless it says otherwise in the employment contract, of course. Did it? Didn't think so.
And really, is being asked to use company standard software and such anything like having a gun put to your head? Having your house burnt down? Probably not, even for the most rabid GNU zealot. It ranks somewhere between having your toe stepped on and someone farting in an adjacent cubicle. In other words, you're making this into a giant issue when it's not an issue at all. This bitching makes about as much sense as someone complaining that their company requires them to wear a certain attire or requires them to fill out the occasional form. Yeah, you have the right not to work there if that kind of stuff is important to you, but you do not have the right to make demands.
People in this country seem to have a real problem distinguishing between 'rights' and 'privileges'. These people assume they deserve something that, if anything, is a bonus of sorts. Life isn't about getting everything you want - don't sign into an employment contract with someone unless you are willing to play by their rules.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
This person is talking about a situation in which everyone must choose between a non-functional computer and a computer running Windows. That is not choice.
---
Sure it is. You can choose to work elsewhere.
It all comes down to that. Unless the employment contract specifically states that his choice of software will forever be supported, it is strictly their decision as to what will and will not be supported.
This exact sort of thing was a factor in me leaving my last job and moving to my current one. I have the right to be employed elsewhere, and I exercised that right. It's up to the employee to weigh the benefits of choosing his own tools with the problems of switching to another job.
As I said, no gun is pointed to his head. It's a trade-off, sure, but unless someone promised him that his home computer would be usable with his company's systems, it's not their problem. It's his.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
.001% of their potential clientelle agree with you, then you can go elsewhere.
anyway, when you control the medium, you control the content.
---
Yes, but the question is not who controls the medium, but who put them there? If the vast majority of the population using computers chooses a specific standard, then who are you or I to say that they should change? We can come out with competing (and open) standards that will succeed, and in cases (HTTP, POP3, etc) that has been done.
My point is that this is not a choice or ethics or morals like some people try to make it. It's a market decision. What you are doing is complaining in the same way a person who voted for the losing candidate in an election might.
---
Or if your Honda (you seem like a honda owner, dunno why) had proprietary rims, such that you could only go to the honda dealer for tires. standards again.
---
If this were an issue, I wouldn't buy Honda (and didn't, but not for that specific reason). Simple.
What if I don't like some sort of proprietary standard in each and every automobile out there? Then I can build my own. If I can't do it, too bad for me. Obviously the market - of which I am a part of - did not decide that the same features I require are necessary.
---
And what of philosophy? We're stronger together than apart.
---
True.
I'm not debating about open standards. I agree that open standards are usually inherantly superior to the same standard if it were closed.
My point isn't about open vs. closed, my point is that it is not our right to expect anything to be open or closed (unless we enter into a contract or something). That's a decision for the vendor, and it's up to you whether you wish to support that vendor with your pocket book.
---
You must have been too busy calling me names to think about any of this.
---
Where did I call you a name? Please provide quotes. I'll wait.
---
It's not a physical gun, but it is a virtual one -- if you don't use microsoft at home, you can't take advantage of the work-at-home program I mentioned.
---
Then either live with it, or work elsewhere. That's your choice. Remember, you work for your company - not the other way around. If you can't use their software, then politely talk to your management. If you still can't, either grin and bear it or get a different job. I'm assuming that nowhere in your contract does it say that your employer promises to support each and every tool that its employees wish to use. If it's that big of a deal, get another job.
And yes, there are companies out there that support multiple platforms pretty well. My company has users running Windows, MacOS, Linux and BeOS as primary operating systems. If they switched to Windows-only for some god forsaken reason, I could either live with it or quit. It's not my company.
And yes, the 'open' nature of the company was part of my reason for deciding to join it, as I like to choose my tools. But you don't see me telling other companies that they should be forced to be like my employer, either.
---
Hmmm...I've dealt with your type before. When a gang of thugs starts breaking down your door to get at your wife and daughters, guess who will be calling the 911 line
---
This is where your argument falls off of a cliff. You talk like using a proprietary standard is akin to rape, which is complete bullshit. If anything, this is more akin to the 'Honda hub cap' theory you came up with. I don't have to buy a Honda, I can go elsewhere, or build my own car if it comes to that. Millions of people have bought Hondas, so it's obviously not that big of a deal to most people.
---
How can you be so ignorant.
---
*sigh*
---
I'm not saying companies can't innovate, or that they all have to write the same OS, all I'm saying is they make protocols using the existing RFC mechanism or something like it.
---
Go for it, then. Ask! Ask all you want. That's your right. Tell them that they won't get your cash until they change. If they tell you that only
But it's not your right to force anyone to bow to your 'needs'. We aren't talking about some sort of crime against humanity here, we're talking about fucking software - software with alternatives.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
In such a case, it would seem to me that 'overrated' would be a better classification.
Either way, if someone truly is karma whoring, then what exactly is being accomplished by telling them?
You can't tell someone's intentions by the content of their post. Maybe they really are unfunny and mistaken? Those are observations that can be made without the 'karma whore' label (which seems to be attached to just about anyone but the people who use the label itself).
Just my $.02
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Perhaps you can ask for your money back?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Why not? Just relabel the white noise as, say, a Metallica MP3 and nobody could tell the difference.
Then again, you might just open up another can of worms entirely...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
So is anything posted that is at the least funny or informative considered a 'karma whore'?
Who fucking cares, if the content is good?
I'd much rather deal with people trying to get good karma rather than a bunch of boring, unfunny, and uninformative posts - or a bunch of people going around with the sole purpose of telling them that they're karma whoring.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Re: XFree - Perhaps you should ask for your money back, then? How much was it that you paid?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Yes, but doesn't that require that you own the Latest And Greatest (*cough*) version of Word?
I think the point is that you have to pay Microsoft the full price of the office suite for the 'privelege' of using newer document formats. That effectively limits the life of your software purchase so that you have to buy a completely new copy whenever there is a document format change - at that point, why not just use it as your primary version?
THAT is where the rub lies - at that point, you start sending out copies that can only be read in the newer version, and your colleagues begin upgrading as well. It's an endless cycle.
People want to break that cycle so that they can either use a competing Office program based only on its merits or stick with a previous version which they feel was better than the next version (ie. Mac users who upgraded to Word 6, but wish they had stuck with the previous version) .
I believe this is a worthy goal.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
I'm a firm believer that legislation should be enacted to force all inter-machine communication protocols to be open and documented.
---
Do you support mandatory diapers for everyone to prevent accidental leakage?
Nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to use any given product or standard. The market has decided, and no matter how inferior the choice may be, it's not the government's place to decide. Let the people do that.
Obviously if a company does something terribly immoral to hurt consumers, that's one thing. But a closed standard isn't immoral - it's just not optimal. There's a difference.
Jesus, no wonder we have such an overactive nanny culture in this country. People don't want to take responsibility for their own choices...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)