That link in the parent re-directs to a fake newspaper made by Microsoft that says Microsoft software is better: The Highly Reliable Times.
Quote: "With the Linux-based platform we would have a system crash at least once a week. Migrating to a Microsoft-based system has virtually eliminated server crashes..."
It's really disgusting when marketing people with no technical experience write advertisements.
I've observed that often Linux is as bad with documentation as Microsoft software, but I've never known Linux to be prone to crashes unless the hardware was unstable.
"People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve
better than that."
"Odious ideas are not entitled to hide from criticism behind the
human shield of their believers' feelings."
"Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have
choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply
ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral." (Slashdot
interview, 1 May 2000)
Richard Matthew Stallman designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.
Yes, a software package that was already written and finished and made public would of course continue to exist. But there were literally thousands of companies and people who would take advantage of someone else's work and give nothing in return.
Quote: "Microsoft software has a much higher TCO than best-of-breed free software."
The cost of owning a Microsoft product is very high, in my experience, because of the extreme sloppiness that Microsoft allows. Microsoft makes more money when users pay to buy new versions because they have discovered problems with the original versions.
It's amazing how many people are pretending to be charitable. It's amazing how well that works with the public. Basically, someone who made billions of dollars with tricky, sneaky, unethical business methods can gain a positive image by spending a little of that money on public relations.
Re-worded quote: "Microsoft drains money from the economy of every country in the world. Free software allows that money to be put to better use."
Old stuff. Those are Mozilla developer excuses numbers 8 and 10.
Eventually, years from now, I won't need to post the list. I'll just answer such comments with the excuse numbers.
Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses
for Not Fixing the Firefox CPU Hogging bug
These are actual excuses given at one time or
another.
Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU
hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of seven
years.]
Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug
eventually takes 100% of CPU power, and makes Windows XP unusable, even after
Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox.]
Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users
have reported the bug. See the links.]
Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did
a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]
No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report,
they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes
TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not
generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a
report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]
If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They
didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information
provided.]
This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is
invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]
You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the
same use does not crash any version of Opera.]
I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or
think about it.]
You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
[Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem,
and we may fix it.]
Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.
If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be
trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is
beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to
magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common
use.]
Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions
advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]
Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has
been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports
discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely
clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU
hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]
If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or
days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox.
[Firefox has "Standard Diagnostics". It has become accepted that some users
will have severe problems. !!! ]
I won't actually read the (many) bug reports, but I will give you some
complicated technical speculation. [This pretends to be helpful but, on
investigation, is shown to have nothing to do with the bugs.]
It's understandable that Firefox developers become defensive when users
report so many problems.
To spend smart developers' time going over reports of bugs generated by
analysis tools would be a waste. [There have been 3 analysis tools recently
used to find Firefox bugs, and many have been found: 1) A special tool
designed by a Firefox developer. 2) Software by Coverity. 3) Klocwork's
K7.]
Your bug report was not specific enough. [Numerous conditions were listed
which provide reliable ways to reproduce the problem.]
Quote: "I don't understand why there is a problem here."
That's right. You don't understand.
The Firefox session manager doesn't always work. If it has some
problem reaching a web page in a very short time, it puts a blank space
instead of the address in the address bar. It's "I couldn't get there in two
seconds, so I suppose you don't want to go there".
Also, exiting Firefox and re-starting often doesn't work. It may
improve the CPU hogging, but it is only an improvement, not a fix.
Another quote: "... why keep any software running for hours in an
idle mode when you aren't using it?"
I think I can re-phrase that question into what seems to be your
statement: "Your use of a browser cannot possibly be different than mine."
There are people, such as computer software and hardware buyers, who need to
keep tabs open for several days, until they get an email from a seller, for
example.
Yes, Firefox 3 does seem improved. But it still becomes a CPU hog (not
crashes) when there have been a lot of windows and tabs open for several days,
especially when Windows XP has been put into and out of hibernation several
times.
I just re-started Firefox because of that problem. I was already using
NoScript and Adblock Plus, and now, since the re-start, I'm using Flashblock
again, also.
As I mentioned, I went to Tools/ Options/ Applications/ and selected
"Always ask" or "Save File" for every application. I will try that over the
next few days.
In another discussion on Slashdot about the CPU hogging bug, it seemed
plausible to us that the bug is due to the way Firefox hooks and unhooks the
keyboard driver. Something gets out of control. With Firefox 2, it was
necessary to re-start Windows XP to recover, not just Firefox. I haven't
tested Firefox 3 enough to know if it corrupts the operating system.
No one who says the problem doesn't happen to them seems to have
duplicated the factors that cause the CPU bug. It is necessary, not just to
have a lot of tabs open, but to open and close a lot of tabs, as when someone
is doing research over several days.
Conditions for the CPU bug to appear:
1) Open lots of windows and tabs.
2) Close many windows and tabs, and open new ones.
3) Over several days.
4) With several hibernations or standby periods.
Since Firefox corrupts not just itself, but the Windows XP operating
system, I suppose that there is a Firefox bug that interacts with a Windows XP
bug. That causes me to suspect keyboard handling.
In tests of previous versions of Firefox with Linux, I was able to get
Firefox to show the CPU hogging bug, but I was never able to get Firefox to
corrupt Linux, which was always very robust.
Yes, I reported all this on Bugzilla, but all I got was the 22
standard excuses for not fixing the bug, which I won't post again in this
comment.
Fifty million dollars a year from Google doesn't buy much if Firefox
can't become stable, in my opinion. Howewver, I get the impression that
Mozilla Foundation is managed better now that the technology-shy lawyer is no
longer the chief, so maybe the next several years will be better than the last
seven.
I went to Tools/ Options/ Applications/ and selected "Always ask" or "Save File". I will try that. It's necessary to do that carefully, because the selection box is buggy.
I was already using the latest Adblock Plus and NoScript versions.
I don't think Google is getting much software development for the $50,000,000 each year it is paying.
I dream of a Firefox that doesn't have CPU hogging problems. Firefox 3 seems to be a little worse than the previous version.
For those of us who open a lot of windows and tabs and leave them open a long time, as when doing research, Firefox is a hassle. It slows the entire computer until all windows and tabs are closed.
Even more: It is easy to imagine that Mr. Ballmer's competition with Google is partly in offering top developers extremely sweet deals. So, to do the best for themselves, they need to go from Microsoft to Google and back every few years.
"It's sobering to realize that during Ballmer's term as CEO, MSFT has underperformed almost all of its top tech peers (including AAPL, IBM, HPQ, SAP, INTC, CSCO, SYMC, NOK, ORCL, ADBE, RIMM, QCOM, Ebay, and AMZN), and badly lagged the major averages. We may even see our third plunge to test the 2000 lows during his watch. Unbelievable. There may be another major technology CEO with an equivalent or worse track record who is still in power, but a name doesn't come readily to mind."
In my opinion, Microsoft depends for much of its profit on adversarial behavior.
From Dare Obasanjo's excerpts of Sergey Solyanik's blog, about Google:
"Everything is pretty much run by the engineering - PMs and testers are
conspicuously absent from the process. While they do exist in theory, there
are too few of them to matter."
To me, the story lacks sufficient deep analysis to be sure we
understand Mr. Solyanik's experiences.
I doubt that very many people are moving from "Do no evil" to
"Doing a lot of evil is the only way we know to make a living".
What is Windows Vista but a rather unimportant update to Windows XP,
that failed? Microsoft Word has new menus, but changing the menus also means
that Microsoft now has two menu arrangement standards in use at the same time,
and users must master them both. Internet Explorer version 7 has a third menu
arrangement, further breaking the standard with which those who just want to
use their computers are so familiar. TrueCrypt developers are talking
about suing Microsoft in European court because of anti-trust violations.
Is that the direction successful people want to go?
To understand this story, it's good to know more about Dare Obasanjo,
in my opinion. He's intelligent, he's a good communicator, and he has a
history of being very effective at promoting himself. To me, his story is just
him being himself, and promoting himself to Microsoft. Maybe it is not very
indicative of what is happening at Microsoft.
Dare Obasanjo's excerpts of Sergey Solyanik's blog start with,
"Last week I left Google to go back to Microsoft".
In contrast, Sergey Solyanik says "There are many things that
Google does really well, and I plan to advocate that some of these things be
adopted at Microsoft."
Mr. Solyanik went back to Microsoft because he didn't like the
openness and lack of structure at Google. He wants more structure. He doesn't
want to be a manager, and he doesn't want to decide himself the direction of
what he is doing.
Dare Obasanjo's excerpts are misleading, in my opinion. As I said, he
seems to me to be promoting himself to Microsoft, rather than understanding
anything about why a particular person would quit Google after only a year
there and go back to Microsoft. Also, Mr. Solyanik may have been given a very
sweet deal; that is not discussed.
Proof that it isn't partly an ad for PGP, when GPG is available.
Do people who don't agree with the policies of the U.S. government really buy their encryption software online, using their credit cards? From a company in Menlo Park, California?
Shouldn't all encryption software be open source? Otherwise, how do you know it is secure? Maybe an unhappy employee built in a back door.
Oh, and TrueCrypt encrypts entire hard drives, including the boot partition.
The mention of political enemies of the U.S. government using closed-source software from a U.S. company makes me wonder about the entire article. Quote from the article: "Files are protected using PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy, a virtually unbreakable form of encryption software that is also used by intelligence agencies around the world."
I'm VERY doubtful about that. The U.S. government, under the present administration, has established that it can require companies to cooperate, and to keep the cooperation secret. That means that any U.S.-made product could be suspect. That's one of the unintended consequences of being sneaky.
GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of a negative stories. In my
opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services
they don't need that are presented as valuable.
Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo? No way!!
From the article: "... the only mammoth remaining is Ballmer."
You can certainly tell the mindset of the article author, Paula
Rooney, and the person who was quoted, Rafael Laguna. Their idea is that it is
entirely acceptable and useful to call Ballmer a "mammoth". As in "woolly
mammoth" who will go extinct soon, I suppose.
It makes a far better contribution toward showing why Microsoft's
management policies should be disrespected if there is some logical substance
to what is said.
In my opinion, both Gates and Ballmer make money by being aggressive.
That's what they know. That's how Microsoft has made most of its money, by
taking advantage of the fact that most of the customers 13 years ago had
little understanding of the computer systems they used. They established
closed file formats. The managed using the policy of "embrace, extend,
extinguish".
Their business management emphasis is away from making money by
contributing something positive. For example, Windows Vista is little more
than another version of Windows XP that has been modified to require more CPU
power so that Microsoft's principal customers, the manufacturers, will be able
to sell more powerful computers.
Quote from the parent: "Oh right, after rigging the ISO process
with OOXML and their triumph over open standards they're going to go open
source?"
Look who submitted this story, it was apparently
someone at the Wall Street Journal: "WSJdpatton". I copied the link from the Slashdot story.
I wish Slashdot would post a notice that a story is either influenced/paid, or
a real reader-written story.
I agree, it's flawed, and the results are vastly exaggerated: ' "The idea
that conscious deliberation before making a decision is always good is simply
one of those illusions consciousness creates for us," Dr. Dijksterhuis
said.'
In my opinion, no scientist would attach any importance to what they say there. It is advertising directed toward those who are ignorant about science, and it is meaningless otherwise, in my opinion.
If you understand the science, you will see that there is a lot of hype, and very little reason for the hype. The science is not nearly as advanced as they imply it is.
There is a lot of what appears to be deliberately taking advantage of the ignorance of science of most people, especially those who feel desperate. It's far, far more tricky than it appears in the beginning.
Two years ago, I did some research of the literature when I was helping a medical doctor write a talk she gave. After many, many hours of work, over two months, I was unable to find anyone talking about anti-aging who was honest, except for web pages of two universities that did not have profit-making organizations in the field. There is a huge amount of money to be made, and those for whom making money is the most important thing dominate the field.
A typical tactic is asking for donations from a wife or husband who has just had a spouse die of cancer or heart disease. In cases I've investigated, the money goes into the pockets of doctors, only that.
The fraud is much, much worse than I am saying here. But this is all my opinions. Do your own research.
Slashdot Mirror
That link in the parent re-directs to a fake newspaper made by Microsoft that says Microsoft software is better: The Highly Reliable Times.
Quote: "With the Linux-based platform we would have a system crash at least once a week. Migrating to a Microsoft-based system has virtually eliminated server crashes..."
It's really disgusting when marketing people with no technical experience write advertisements.
I've observed that often Linux is as bad with documentation as Microsoft software, but I've never known Linux to be prone to crashes unless the hardware was unstable.
More:
Quotes from Richard Matthew Stallman:
"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, that you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone."
"Fighting software patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria."
"Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
More quotes:
"People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that."
"Odious ideas are not entitled to hide from criticism behind the human shield of their believers' feelings."
"Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral." (Slashdot interview, 1 May 2000)
Richard Matthew Stallman designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.
"Free software existed fine without RMS."
No, it didn't.
Yes, a software package that was already written and finished and made public would of course continue to exist. But there were literally thousands of companies and people who would take advantage of someone else's work and give nothing in return.
MOD PARENT UP!
Quote: "Microsoft software has a much higher TCO than best-of-breed free software."
The cost of owning a Microsoft product is very high, in my experience, because of the extreme sloppiness that Microsoft allows. Microsoft makes more money when users pay to buy new versions because they have discovered problems with the original versions.
It's amazing how many people are pretending to be charitable. It's amazing how well that works with the public. Basically, someone who made billions of dollars with tricky, sneaky, unethical business methods can gain a positive image by spending a little of that money on public relations.
Re-worded quote: "Microsoft drains money from the economy of every country in the world. Free software allows that money to be put to better use."
Eventually, years from now, I won't need to post the list. I'll just answer such comments with the excuse numbers.
Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses
for Not Fixing the Firefox CPU Hogging bug
These are actual excuses given at one time or another.
Quote: "I don't understand why there is a problem here."
That's right. You don't understand.
The Firefox session manager doesn't always work. If it has some problem reaching a web page in a very short time, it puts a blank space instead of the address in the address bar. It's "I couldn't get there in two seconds, so I suppose you don't want to go there".
Also, exiting Firefox and re-starting often doesn't work. It may improve the CPU hogging, but it is only an improvement, not a fix.
Another quote: "... why keep any software running for hours in an idle mode when you aren't using it?"
I think I can re-phrase that question into what seems to be your statement: "Your use of a browser cannot possibly be different than mine." There are people, such as computer software and hardware buyers, who need to keep tabs open for several days, until they get an email from a seller, for example.
Yes, Firefox 3 does seem improved. But it still becomes a CPU hog (not crashes) when there have been a lot of windows and tabs open for several days, especially when Windows XP has been put into and out of hibernation several times.
I just re-started Firefox because of that problem. I was already using NoScript and Adblock Plus, and now, since the re-start, I'm using Flashblock again, also.
As I mentioned, I went to Tools/ Options/ Applications/ and selected "Always ask" or "Save File" for every application. I will try that over the next few days.
In another discussion on Slashdot about the CPU hogging bug, it seemed plausible to us that the bug is due to the way Firefox hooks and unhooks the keyboard driver. Something gets out of control. With Firefox 2, it was necessary to re-start Windows XP to recover, not just Firefox. I haven't tested Firefox 3 enough to know if it corrupts the operating system.
No one who says the problem doesn't happen to them seems to have duplicated the factors that cause the CPU bug. It is necessary, not just to have a lot of tabs open, but to open and close a lot of tabs, as when someone is doing research over several days.
Conditions for the CPU bug to appear:
1) Open lots of windows and tabs.
2) Close many windows and tabs, and open new ones.
3) Over several days.
4) With several hibernations or standby periods.
Since Firefox corrupts not just itself, but the Windows XP operating system, I suppose that there is a Firefox bug that interacts with a Windows XP bug. That causes me to suspect keyboard handling.
In tests of previous versions of Firefox with Linux, I was able to get Firefox to show the CPU hogging bug, but I was never able to get Firefox to corrupt Linux, which was always very robust.
Yes, I reported all this on Bugzilla, but all I got was the 22 standard excuses for not fixing the bug, which I won't post again in this comment.
Fifty million dollars a year from Google doesn't buy much if Firefox can't become stable, in my opinion. Howewver, I get the impression that Mozilla Foundation is managed better now that the technology-shy lawyer is no longer the chief, so maybe the next several years will be better than the last seven.
I went to Tools/ Options/ Applications/ and selected "Always ask" or "Save File". I will try that. It's necessary to do that carefully, because the selection box is buggy.
I was already using the latest Adblock Plus and NoScript versions.
I don't think Google is getting much software development for the $50,000,000 each year it is paying.
It's faster, yes. But it still has the CPU hogging bug. Eventually, that makes everything slower.
"Well, I can dream, can't I?"
I dream of a Firefox that doesn't have CPU hogging problems. Firefox 3 seems to be a little worse than the previous version.
For those of us who open a lot of windows and tabs and leave them open a long time, as when doing research, Firefox is a hassle. It slows the entire computer until all windows and tabs are closed.
I should have said that he wants someone to manage him, closely.
Even more: It is easy to imagine that Mr. Ballmer's competition with Google is partly in offering top developers extremely sweet deals. So, to do the best for themselves, they need to go from Microsoft to Google and back every few years.
You're correct, of course.
More: Note that Mr. Solyanik's profile has a link to MSFT needs an extreme makeover.
Quote:
"It's sobering to realize that during Ballmer's term as CEO, MSFT has underperformed almost all of its top tech peers (including AAPL, IBM, HPQ, SAP, INTC, CSCO, SYMC, NOK, ORCL, ADBE, RIMM, QCOM, Ebay, and AMZN), and badly lagged the major averages. We may even see our third plunge to test the 2000 lows during his watch. Unbelievable. There may be another major technology CEO with an equivalent or worse track record who is still in power, but a name doesn't come readily to mind."
In my opinion, Microsoft depends for much of its profit on adversarial behavior.
From Dare Obasanjo's excerpts of Sergey Solyanik's blog, about Google: "Everything is pretty much run by the engineering - PMs and testers are conspicuously absent from the process. While they do exist in theory, there are too few of them to matter."
To me, the story lacks sufficient deep analysis to be sure we understand Mr. Solyanik's experiences.
I doubt that very many people are moving from "Do no evil" to "Doing a lot of evil is the only way we know to make a living".
What is Windows Vista but a rather unimportant update to Windows XP, that failed? Microsoft Word has new menus, but changing the menus also means that Microsoft now has two menu arrangement standards in use at the same time, and users must master them both. Internet Explorer version 7 has a third menu arrangement, further breaking the standard with which those who just want to use their computers are so familiar. TrueCrypt developers are talking about suing Microsoft in European court because of anti-trust violations.
Is that the direction successful people want to go?
To understand this story, it's good to know more about Dare Obasanjo, in my opinion. He's intelligent, he's a good communicator, and he has a history of being very effective at promoting himself. To me, his story is just him being himself, and promoting himself to Microsoft. Maybe it is not very indicative of what is happening at Microsoft.
Dare Obasanjo's excerpts of Sergey Solyanik's blog start with, "Last week I left Google to go back to Microsoft".
In contrast, Sergey Solyanik says "There are many things that Google does really well, and I plan to advocate that some of these things be adopted at Microsoft."
Mr. Solyanik went back to Microsoft because he didn't like the openness and lack of structure at Google. He wants more structure. He doesn't want to be a manager, and he doesn't want to decide himself the direction of what he is doing.
Dare Obasanjo's excerpts are misleading, in my opinion. As I said, he seems to me to be promoting himself to Microsoft, rather than understanding anything about why a particular person would quit Google after only a year there and go back to Microsoft. Also, Mr. Solyanik may have been given a very sweet deal; that is not discussed.
For those using Windows, don't forget AutoHotkey, and the ReMapKey.exe program that comes with Windows XP.
"They got close enough to know which laptops those guys use..."
Something like, "I live in Virginia and I don't speak Arabic, but I hang around with top terrorists all the time, heh, heh."
Proof that it isn't partly an ad for PGP, when GPG is available.
Do people who don't agree with the policies of the U.S. government really buy their encryption software online, using their credit cards? From a company in Menlo Park, California?
Shouldn't all encryption software be open source? Otherwise, how do you know it is secure? Maybe an unhappy employee built in a back door.
Oh, and TrueCrypt encrypts entire hard drives, including the boot partition.
The mention of political enemies of the U.S. government using closed-source software from a U.S. company makes me wonder about the entire article. Quote from the article: "Files are protected using PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy, a virtually unbreakable form of encryption software that is also used by intelligence agencies around the world."
I'm VERY doubtful about that. The U.S. government, under the present administration, has established that it can require companies to cooperate, and to keep the cooperation secret. That means that any U.S.-made product could be suspect. That's one of the unintended consequences of being sneaky.
ICANN is a TERRIBLY badly managed organization, in my opinion.
I'm keeping a list of stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by date:
Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions (2005-05-04)
GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera (2005-12-08)
GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft (2006-03-23)
GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage (2006-06-17)
GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat (2006-09-16)
MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site (2007-01-26)
That incident prompted this web site:
Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names. According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com. See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? (2007-02-03)
GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? (2007-03-11)
850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy (2007-05-29)
GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com (2008-03-12)
ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns (2008-04-08)
GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers (2008-06-29)
Any error or stories not included?
GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of a negative stories. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need that are presented as valuable.
Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo? No way!!
From the article: "... the only mammoth remaining is Ballmer."
You can certainly tell the mindset of the article author, Paula Rooney, and the person who was quoted, Rafael Laguna. Their idea is that it is entirely acceptable and useful to call Ballmer a "mammoth". As in "woolly mammoth" who will go extinct soon, I suppose.
It makes a far better contribution toward showing why Microsoft's management policies should be disrespected if there is some logical substance to what is said.
In my opinion, both Gates and Ballmer make money by being aggressive. That's what they know. That's how Microsoft has made most of its money, by taking advantage of the fact that most of the customers 13 years ago had little understanding of the computer systems they used. They established closed file formats. The managed using the policy of "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Their business management emphasis is away from making money by contributing something positive. For example, Windows Vista is little more than another version of Windows XP that has been modified to require more CPU power so that Microsoft's principal customers, the manufacturers, will be able to sell more powerful computers.
Quote from the parent: "Oh right, after rigging the ISO process with OOXML and their triumph over open standards they're going to go open source?"
MOD PARENT UP!
Look who submitted this story, it was apparently someone at the Wall Street Journal: "WSJdpatton". I copied the link from the Slashdot story. I wish Slashdot would post a notice that a story is either influenced/paid, or a real reader-written story.
I agree, it's flawed, and the results are vastly exaggerated: ' "The idea that conscious deliberation before making a decision is always good is simply one of those illusions consciousness creates for us," Dr. Dijksterhuis said.'
Revlon Age Defying Precise Wrinkle Eraser with Botafirm®
You gave this link:
http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=reversal
In my opinion, no scientist would attach any importance to what they say there. It is advertising directed toward those who are ignorant about science, and it is meaningless otherwise, in my opinion.
If you understand the science, you will see that there is a lot of hype, and very little reason for the hype. The science is not nearly as advanced as they imply it is.
There is a lot of what appears to be deliberately taking advantage of the ignorance of science of most people, especially those who feel desperate. It's far, far more tricky than it appears in the beginning.
Two years ago, I did some research of the literature when I was helping a medical doctor write a talk she gave. After many, many hours of work, over two months, I was unable to find anyone talking about anti-aging who was honest, except for web pages of two universities that did not have profit-making organizations in the field. There is a huge amount of money to be made, and those for whom making money is the most important thing dominate the field.
A typical tactic is asking for donations from a wife or husband who has just had a spouse die of cancer or heart disease. In cases I've investigated, the money goes into the pockets of doctors, only that.
The fraud is much, much worse than I am saying here. But this is all my opinions. Do your own research.