not how PJ truly intended the movies to be watched...
You haven't read many interviews. Peter Jackson has called the extended editions curiousities for the die hard fans. He has also said that he dislikes them, and consideres every addition to detract from the quality of the movie.
I find this confusing, since the only thing that isn't better about the EEs is that they are too long for a theatrical release.
If people would set aside their biases, I think they'd be surprised at how good a lot of MS software is. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of it is bad, and that their approach to customers and business interaction is immoral at best.
Too bad they have to use anti-trust to achieve the good result of stopping MS illegality.
Either I'm not understanding that sentance, or you don't make much sense. You seem to be saying that while anti-trust is bad, monopolies are also bad. Somewhat of a contradiction.
I have to second Junks Jerzeys comment. I work on Win xp, and I haven't had to re-install since I got my machine. My gaming system that ran 200 lasted over a year, and was only changed because I upgraded to 2000. Are you crashing your machine often? I could imagine that leading to you needing to re-install, but it's hard to immagine what you could be doing to crash an XP box regularly.
But then again, re-installing is much less of a problem for me, since I have access to ghost.
Has anyone patented the technology? Can it be patented by anyone right now? How about copyright, any issues to work out there?
Basically, is there anything stoping it from being made into a consumer product? I think it's safe to assume that the big players in the industry don't want to see this thing reach the public very soon. It would be bad for business. So it is possible that someone else will make it?
I think this suck. I'd like Marvel to actually realise how much I think it sucks. I'd also like to do so without hurting all the people who do good work on a thing like this and without denying myself the chance to see the sequel.
So how about we all wait a day to see the sequel? If the sequel opens up to very small opening day or weekend, maybe that would be enough of a wakeup call that someone would care. At least it's a way to be heard that the corporate droans would here.
If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions.
Or they could just ignore the patent and assume that he won't be any threat to them, even if he has a valid patent and they infringe on it. I'm afraid they'd probably be right in this.
On the technical front we acknowledged that nine months ago, and I wouldn't say we've done a bad job, but customer expectations for what they expect for reliability, for security, customer expectations were beyond our performance.
On the technical front, I have to agree. With what they have to work with, they've done a decent job. Unfortunately, what they have to work with isn't good enough. It's going to be a fairly long process getting MS products to be trustworthy.
And then there are the non-technical angles. I don't think anyone here needs me to get into that, but that is the area where I really have problems with MS. And that is the area that, from the outside at least, no progress is being made in.
So the movie industry isn't making money off of all those DVD sales? If they aren't, they are doing something really wrong. If they are, well, it shouldn't be the end of the movie industry then. Perhaps just a rearanging of priorities.
Ok, this looks to me to be the same as any other patch documentation. My impression is that the reasons it's illegal are the same sections and logic used to indight Skylarov. If I'm not mistaken in those two things, isn't all patch documentation illegal under the DMCA?
Quick word of commentary, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this were true by the letter of the law. This is exactly why we have been complaining for so long, because the law is overly broad, and restricts things that it obviously shouldn't. On the other hand, I didn't think it was so broad as to cover all security documentation.
Just because it ceases to be the #1 ISP out there doesn't mean it should die. Perhaps scale back some of the overly wasteful advertising methods and you'll end up with a successful, if not overwhelmingly so, business. Not that I like AOL, but it's just rediculous to think that it has to be top dog or dead. Scale it back, let it stick around as just another ISP, it'll stay in profitable by name recognition alone.
but the Australian branch, which from prior experience I know shouldn't be trusted:0)
As opposed to the US one, right?;)
betcha they sell a whole pile more PS2 chips than they do X-Box ones
I think they know better than this. MS is in the market share industry. They know, better than anyone else, that it's not so important that people buy your stuff, as long as they have it. I seriously doubt that MS wants PS2 games to be easier to pirate than X-box games. I could be wrong, but they didn't get into the console market to make a few bucks. I'm not entirely sure why they are in the console market, but so far it doesn't look like making money is the primary reason. (If it is then they aren't doing so well so far.)
It is not in and of itself, a disappointing use of the Internet.
Not to you. To a person who considers porn immoral, and wants to see other people act morally, it is very disapointing. I don't know his stance on such things, but the question was what was disapointing to him. Your ability to effectively argue that he shouldn't be disapointed by it has nothing to do with wether he is or not.
The wording wasn't the best, but they were talking about servers, not workstations. I'd have to say that sounds fairly acurate. I don't think Linux is three times easier to administer, but from what I've seen those numbers are accurate. Of course, I've seen exceptions too. I'd guess it's a mix of the best admins prefering to use something better than Windows for their servers and the Windows admins often being in charge of the workstations as well as the server.
ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive
How cool would that be. The fitting and ironic result, of course, being that after his BS here people could freely slander him and he could do nothing about it. Not my style, but man would I enjoy seeing someone else do it.
That's a little bit more confrontational than necessary. Perhaps if we were to ask in more civil terms we might get a reasonable response? Perhaps something like this.
ICANN is seen from the outside as a self-serving and counterproductive entity. Given your support of it, I assume you disagree. Can you give us some reasons to see differently? Perhaps explain why ICANN has such a bad public image, and why the public is wrong on these things. Why has the increasingly unanimous need for reform been ignored? How can the public come to trust ICANN if ICANN won't trust the public with information about their business?
I think the meat of their argument is that it's an obviously bad law, and they would have the best chance if they could get it overturned on those grounds. Unfortunately I don't think the semantics of our legal system will allow them to get at the heart of the matter. Instead they have to argue that congress is not constitutionally allowed to make such a law. I'm not familiar enough with the law to predict the outcome of that, but it seems a lot less likely to go in their favor.
I think the reason they don't make the high quality software we want them to is because it's too late. They have huge amounts of work in Windows, and a number of the problems are architectural rather than just bugs. To entirely fix windows, to the point where most/. users trust it, would require going back to square one. There is no way to justify that in a business like MS.
Is it possible for a person to get into console programming without a company or large amounts of money? I assume there are necessary devolopment packages, and maybe hardware. Basically, I'm interested in getting my hands on such things, and want to know if it's realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
not how PJ truly intended the movies to be watched...
You haven't read many interviews. Peter Jackson has called the extended editions curiousities for the die hard fans. He has also said that he dislikes them, and consideres every addition to detract from the quality of the movie.
I find this confusing, since the only thing that isn't better about the EEs is that they are too long for a theatrical release.
If people would set aside their biases, I think they'd be surprised at how good a lot of MS software is. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of it is bad, and that their approach to customers and business interaction is immoral at best.
Too bad they have to use anti-trust to achieve the good result of stopping MS illegality.
Either I'm not understanding that sentance, or you don't make much sense. You seem to be saying that while anti-trust is bad, monopolies are also bad. Somewhat of a contradiction.
I don't know, while engaging in marital recreation you don't need to worry about falling out of the hobbit hole.
Hit men like what they do as well. As do theives and drug pushers. Doesn't make it right.
I have to second Junks Jerzeys comment. I work on Win xp, and I haven't had to re-install since I got my machine. My gaming system that ran 200 lasted over a year, and was only changed because I upgraded to 2000. Are you crashing your machine often? I could imagine that leading to you needing to re-install, but it's hard to immagine what you could be doing to crash an XP box regularly.
But then again, re-installing is much less of a problem for me, since I have access to ghost.
Has anyone patented the technology? Can it be patented by anyone right now? How about copyright, any issues to work out there?
Basically, is there anything stoping it from being made into a consumer product? I think it's safe to assume that the big players in the industry don't want to see this thing reach the public very soon. It would be bad for business. So it is possible that someone else will make it?
I think this suck. I'd like Marvel to actually realise how much I think it sucks. I'd also like to do so without hurting all the people who do good work on a thing like this and without denying myself the chance to see the sequel.
So how about we all wait a day to see the sequel? If the sequel opens up to very small opening day or weekend, maybe that would be enough of a wakeup call that someone would care. At least it's a way to be heard that the corporate droans would here.
A lie repeated 1000 times can become mistaken for the truth. It doesn't cease to be a lie just because it's believed.
it can cause a lot of tension and problems in a relationship
Or you could try being understanding. I'm no psycologist, but it sounds to me like the noise the computer made wasn't exactly the primary issue.
Being controlling and demanding are much larger problems in relationships than computer noise.
If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions.
Or they could just ignore the patent and assume that he won't be any threat to them, even if he has a valid patent and they infringe on it. I'm afraid they'd probably be right in this.
On the technical front we acknowledged that nine months ago, and I wouldn't say we've done a bad job, but customer expectations for what they expect for reliability, for security, customer expectations were beyond our performance.
On the technical front, I have to agree. With what they have to work with, they've done a decent job. Unfortunately, what they have to work with isn't good enough. It's going to be a fairly long process getting MS products to be trustworthy.
And then there are the non-technical angles. I don't think anyone here needs me to get into that, but that is the area where I really have problems with MS. And that is the area that, from the outside at least, no progress is being made in.
So the movie industry isn't making money off of all those DVD sales? If they aren't, they are doing something really wrong. If they are, well, it shouldn't be the end of the movie industry then. Perhaps just a rearanging of priorities.
Spokespeople for the big three cite disproportionate costs of in-warranty service vs. rate of failure
"they're so reliable and cheap, you won't need a warranty anyway"
Aren't those mutually exclusive?
Ok, this looks to me to be the same as any other patch documentation. My impression is that the reasons it's illegal are the same sections and logic used to indight Skylarov. If I'm not mistaken in those two things, isn't all patch documentation illegal under the DMCA?
Quick word of commentary, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this were true by the letter of the law. This is exactly why we have been complaining for so long, because the law is overly broad, and restricts things that it obviously shouldn't. On the other hand, I didn't think it was so broad as to cover all security documentation.
Just because it ceases to be the #1 ISP out there doesn't mean it should die. Perhaps scale back some of the overly wasteful advertising methods and you'll end up with a successful, if not overwhelmingly so, business. Not that I like AOL, but it's just rediculous to think that it has to be top dog or dead. Scale it back, let it stick around as just another ISP, it'll stay in profitable by name recognition alone.
but the Australian branch, which from prior experience I know shouldn't be trusted :0)
;)
As opposed to the US one, right?
betcha they sell a whole pile more PS2 chips than they do X-Box ones
I think they know better than this. MS is in the market share industry. They know, better than anyone else, that it's not so important that people buy your stuff, as long as they have it. I seriously doubt that MS wants PS2 games to be easier to pirate than X-box games. I could be wrong, but they didn't get into the console market to make a few bucks. I'm not entirely sure why they are in the console market, but so far it doesn't look like making money is the primary reason. (If it is then they aren't doing so well so far.)
Microsoft did something in the best interests of the consumer. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?
(relax, it's a joke)
It is not in and of itself, a disappointing use of the Internet.
Not to you. To a person who considers porn immoral, and wants to see other people act morally, it is very disapointing. I don't know his stance on such things, but the question was what was disapointing to him. Your ability to effectively argue that he shouldn't be disapointed by it has nothing to do with wether he is or not.
The wording wasn't the best, but they were talking about servers, not workstations. I'd have to say that sounds fairly acurate. I don't think Linux is three times easier to administer, but from what I've seen those numbers are accurate. Of course, I've seen exceptions too. I'd guess it's a mix of the best admins prefering to use something better than Windows for their servers and the Windows admins often being in charge of the workstations as well as the server.
ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive
How cool would that be. The fitting and ironic result, of course, being that after his BS here people could freely slander him and he could do nothing about it. Not my style, but man would I enjoy seeing someone else do it.
That's a little bit more confrontational than necessary. Perhaps if we were to ask in more civil terms we might get a reasonable response? Perhaps something like this.
ICANN is seen from the outside as a self-serving and counterproductive entity. Given your support of it, I assume you disagree. Can you give us some reasons to see differently? Perhaps explain why ICANN has such a bad public image, and why the public is wrong on these things. Why has the increasingly unanimous need for reform been ignored? How can the public come to trust ICANN if ICANN won't trust the public with information about their business?
I think the meat of their argument is that it's an obviously bad law, and they would have the best chance if they could get it overturned on those grounds. Unfortunately I don't think the semantics of our legal system will allow them to get at the heart of the matter. Instead they have to argue that congress is not constitutionally allowed to make such a law. I'm not familiar enough with the law to predict the outcome of that, but it seems a lot less likely to go in their favor.
I think the reason they don't make the high quality software we want them to is because it's too late. They have huge amounts of work in Windows, and a number of the problems are architectural rather than just bugs. To entirely fix windows, to the point where most /. users trust it, would require going back to square one. There is no way to justify that in a business like MS.
Is it possible for a person to get into console programming without a company or large amounts of money? I assume there are necessary devolopment packages, and maybe hardware. Basically, I'm interested in getting my hands on such things, and want to know if it's realistic.