Except that the discussion has nothing to do with Windows from 20 years ago. It's about the various editions of today's Windows. Any discussion of Windows 3 or earlier is irrelevant, because nobody actually uses those.
When Gates was talking about "multiple versions" he was specifically referring to how the District of Columbia was debating whether to "compel Microsoft to offer PC makers a customizable version of Windows" and was not referring to the offering by Microsoft of different SKU's such as Home, Premium and Ultimate.
However, it is certainly ironic given that Aero is disabled on some version of Vista essentially changing the interface and some applications require Ultimate for the Dreamscene and Bitlocker support, causing exactly the situation his arguments were against.
In all fairness, it's also somewhat ironic that the reason he said that in the first place is because those who oppose Microsoft suggested Windows should be fragmented into multiple versions, and now that Microsoft have actually done that, those who oppose Microsoft are complaining about how confusing it is.
There is only one Linux kernel. The different distributions, to oversimplify, are like software bundles. Different window managers etc. And for telling the difference, there's always distrowatch. It even highlights beta components in red.
There is only one Windows kernel. The different editions, to oversimplify, are like software bundles. Home Premium and Ultimate include Media Centre, but Home Basic and Business don't, etc. And for telling the difference, there's always Microsoft's website.
For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world.
Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."
The Highlander sequels did nothing to ruin the original classic for me, because I never saw them, and never will.
So, here's my advice. When/If the movie comes out, wait until everyone else has seen it so you can get some reviews, then decide whether or not you will go see it based on those reviews. If everyone says it sucks and "taints the world" of the original, then stay away from the theatre.
The grandparent is also right that there is a real problem with signal to noise. There is so much data, and so much of it really random crap, that one of the major challenges future historians are likely to face is to sort through it to find the useful shit.
Imagine the picture future historians would draw of this era if all they had to go on was YouTube.
The Zune is brown. It's like they hired product designers from Canonical.
I think this represents (or at least parodies) the epitome of current Slashdot doublethink: brown.
When a Microsoft product comes in brown, it's met with nothing but ridicule and scorn.
When a Linux distro comes in brown, it's hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Now is it just me, or does that seem ludicrous to you too?
Actually, it's more an example of how behind the times Slashdot is when it comes to Microsoft products. I mean, the Zune has been available in a variety of colours for a long time now (my girlfriend's Zune is as black as my iPod).
Not only that, but (dare I say it on Slashdot) the Zune is actually really good. If I didn't already have an iPod, I'd buy myself a Zune.
But if I already do it somewhere where I get paid (which I do), and it's something I enjoy doing, and the charity can use my actual skills (I'm a developer, not an SAP consultant), then it makes much more sense for me to keep my money and donate my time. The charity gets expensive skills for free, and can therefore use their funds elsewhere, and I get additional opportunities to do what I enjoy, and I can spend my paycheque on myself.
Which is not to say I can't also donate some of my pay to charity, which I do.
Seriously. If I'm good at something, it's likely because I've put a lot of time and effort into perfecting it. If I've put a lot of time and effort into perfecting it, it's likely because I enjoy doing it. If I enjoy doing it, then I will do it every chance I can get.
I'm a software developer because I love doing it. I get paid to do it, but I also do it in some of my spare time for free, and I'll happily do it for others who want me to do it for them.
I also play guitar for free, fly planes for free, and have sex for free.
I brought up a similar point in a thread a while back where the article and summary said something to the effect of "Study Shows Correlation Between Foo and Bar". I thought it pretty ridiculous that the article, summary, and headline all explicitly mentioned correlation, and none mentioned any claims of causation, and still the story was tagged with the standard "correlationisnotcausation" tag.
Seriously...I just have to believe salary is for suckers. They expect you to work over if 'needed'...but, do they happily let you leave early when your work is done? Hmm....I didn't think so.
It depends on your employer. I know lots of people in my company who leave early more frequently than they stay late. In fact, overtime is generally frowned upon in this company. I think they see it the way I do, which is that overtime is a sign of poor management.
Salary is great if you have an employer who respects you and your skills. I mean, here I am surfing Slashdot at work, but I don't feel guilty, because I don't get paid for my time, I get paid for the work I do, and I will deliver my project on time and to the standard of quality that is expected of me. The occasional Slashdot break isn't going to prevent that.
First, no one in the story is actually blaming the game. The kid was successful in driving for 6 miles before hitting the pole, and when asked where he learned to drive, he said "GTA". He didn't say "the game made me do it", he simply said "playing the game is how I learned to drive".
Second, he and his younger brother have been put into foster care. Somebody is definitely blaming the parents in this situation.
A luxury car is also a status symbol, for those who can't quite afford it but would like others to think they can.
Which is exactly why Toyota would not want to mark the price down for those people.
It is a status symbol because not everyone can afford it. If they make it affordable, it stops being a status symbol.
Toyota will not do anything that diminishes their brand, nor anything that would improve the image of their competitors (ie. Lexus is for people who want to appear rich, while BMW is for people who actually are rich).
I predict the system will be used to knock off a few thousand from the price of the car. Can't quite afford $30,000? well, take it for $25,000 and listen to messages.
Extremely unlikely.
Toyota makes lots of cars at lots of different prices. Lexus is marketed as a luxury vehicle -- competing with the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz. This is intended to "enhance the experience" for Lexus owners, not create a Lexus Lite for the wallet-impaired.
I spend $60,000 for an automobile and now it will spam me while driving it?
First of all, it's technically not spam, since you have to sign up to receive it (it's basically an audio newsletter). Second, it arrives in your inbox before you start driving, not while you're driving.
I would never sign up for it, but it's not quite what TFS suggests it is (surprise, surprise).
The system will be optional (not sure if that means opt-in or opt-out, though).
It's opt-in. This is being marketed as a service specifically for people who want to hear from the manufacturer. It's like subscribing to a newsletter -- don't worry, they assure us the subscription will be free:P -- only it's delivered in your car in audio format.
Basically, I have no complaint about this system, but would never use it. I also can't imagine who would.
I just realized that I misread your post. I thought you were saying that the lawyer believed your client was innocent, but in fact you said the opposite. My bad.
Feel free to ignore my comments, although I still say they're very different kinds of attorneys (and people).
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
For the most part, criminal defense attorneys are a different breed than corporate attack attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients, while corporate attack attorneys simply need to believe in the pay cheque.
I would add one more point to this which everyone seems to have forgotten -- even if his Zune is dead now, and regardless of what he does or doesn't buy to replace it, he still got something for that $50. Specifically, he got to use the Zune for the period between when he bought it and when it died. That is worth something.
Obligatory car analogy: imagine that somebody offered me the amazing chance to buy a brand new Ferrari for $100, and I bought it and drove it for 20 years, then one day it just vanished into thin air. Using the logic of some of the people in this thread, I would have been screwed out of $100 -- even more if you factor in what I would have to spend on a replacement vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the discussion has nothing to do with Windows from 20 years ago. It's about the various editions of today's Windows. Any discussion of Windows 3 or earlier is irrelevant, because nobody actually uses those.
You can't KNOW that it'll be awful until you see it (though you can have a pretty good gut feeling).
Then you have no one to blame but yourself for not listening to your gut.
Honestly, if you're so enamoured with a movie that another movie can impact your enjoyment of that first movie, then don't take the chance.
When Gates was talking about "multiple versions" he was specifically referring to how the District of Columbia was debating whether to "compel Microsoft to offer PC makers a customizable version of Windows" and was not referring to the offering by Microsoft of different SKU's such as Home, Premium and Ultimate.
However, it is certainly ironic given that Aero is disabled on some version of Vista essentially changing the interface and some applications require Ultimate for the Dreamscene and Bitlocker support, causing exactly the situation his arguments were against.
In all fairness, it's also somewhat ironic that the reason he said that in the first place is because those who oppose Microsoft suggested Windows should be fragmented into multiple versions, and now that Microsoft have actually done that, those who oppose Microsoft are complaining about how confusing it is.
Essentially, Bill was kind of right.
Just remember, if you're buying Windows and you're at all, just go for anything that has "Ultimate" in it and you'll probably come out OK.
Sure, but should I go for Ultimate, Ultimate Basic, Ultimate Home, Ultimate Business, Ultimate Premium, or Ultimate for Workgroups?
Considering the fact that only one of those actually exists, I guess the answer is obvious.
There is only one Linux kernel. The different distributions, to oversimplify, are like software bundles. Different window managers etc. And for telling the difference, there's always distrowatch. It even highlights beta components in red.
There is only one Windows kernel. The different editions, to oversimplify, are like software bundles. Home Premium and Ultimate include Media Centre, but Home Basic and Business don't, etc. And for telling the difference, there's always Microsoft's website.
For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world.
Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."
The Highlander sequels did nothing to ruin the original classic for me, because I never saw them, and never will.
So, here's my advice. When/If the movie comes out, wait until everyone else has seen it so you can get some reviews, then decide whether or not you will go see it based on those reviews. If everyone says it sucks and "taints the world" of the original, then stay away from the theatre.
The grandparent is also right that there is a real problem with signal to noise. There is so much data, and so much of it really random crap, that one of the major challenges future historians are likely to face is to sort through it to find the useful shit.
Imagine the picture future historians would draw of this era if all they had to go on was YouTube.
I think this represents (or at least parodies) the epitome of current Slashdot doublethink: brown.
When a Microsoft product comes in brown, it's met with nothing but ridicule and scorn. When a Linux distro comes in brown, it's hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Now is it just me, or does that seem ludicrous to you too?
Actually, it's more an example of how behind the times Slashdot is when it comes to Microsoft products. I mean, the Zune has been available in a variety of colours for a long time now (my girlfriend's Zune is as black as my iPod).
Not only that, but (dare I say it on Slashdot) the Zune is actually really good. If I didn't already have an iPod, I'd buy myself a Zune.
But if I already do it somewhere where I get paid (which I do), and it's something I enjoy doing, and the charity can use my actual skills (I'm a developer, not an SAP consultant), then it makes much more sense for me to keep my money and donate my time. The charity gets expensive skills for free, and can therefore use their funds elsewhere, and I get additional opportunities to do what I enjoy, and I can spend my paycheque on myself.
Which is not to say I can't also donate some of my pay to charity, which I do.
If your good at something never do it for free.
I can't even begin to comprehend that idea.
Seriously. If I'm good at something, it's likely because I've put a lot of time and effort into perfecting it. If I've put a lot of time and effort into perfecting it, it's likely because I enjoy doing it. If I enjoy doing it, then I will do it every chance I can get.
I'm a software developer because I love doing it. I get paid to do it, but I also do it in some of my spare time for free, and I'll happily do it for others who want me to do it for them.
I also play guitar for free, fly planes for free, and have sex for free.
Actually, if you're in another country, why not put your time into organizing something similar to MatchIT and IT4Communities.
If you're in Canada, check out MatchIT. If you're in the UK, try IT4Communities.
I don't know if there are similar sites for other countries.
I brought up a similar point in a thread a while back where the article and summary said something to the effect of "Study Shows Correlation Between Foo and Bar". I thought it pretty ridiculous that the article, summary, and headline all explicitly mentioned correlation, and none mentioned any claims of causation, and still the story was tagged with the standard "correlationisnotcausation" tag.
Seriously...I just have to believe salary is for suckers. They expect you to work over if 'needed'...but, do they happily let you leave early when your work is done? Hmm....I didn't think so.
It depends on your employer. I know lots of people in my company who leave early more frequently than they stay late. In fact, overtime is generally frowned upon in this company. I think they see it the way I do, which is that overtime is a sign of poor management.
Salary is great if you have an employer who respects you and your skills. I mean, here I am surfing Slashdot at work, but I don't feel guilty, because I don't get paid for my time, I get paid for the work I do, and I will deliver my project on time and to the standard of quality that is expected of me. The occasional Slashdot break isn't going to prevent that.
It's like a philosopher and a politician.
Theorists don't actually do anything. they just sit around and make up stuff. The Experimentalists actually try to make it work for their benefit.
So.... in your philosopher/politician analogy, which one is the one that actually does something?
Just a couple notes.
First, no one in the story is actually blaming the game. The kid was successful in driving for 6 miles before hitting the pole, and when asked where he learned to drive, he said "GTA". He didn't say "the game made me do it", he simply said "playing the game is how I learned to drive".
Second, he and his younger brother have been put into foster care. Somebody is definitely blaming the parents in this situation.
A luxury car is also a status symbol, for those who can't quite afford it but would like others to think they can.
Which is exactly why Toyota would not want to mark the price down for those people.
It is a status symbol because not everyone can afford it. If they make it affordable, it stops being a status symbol.
Toyota will not do anything that diminishes their brand, nor anything that would improve the image of their competitors (ie. Lexus is for people who want to appear rich, while BMW is for people who actually are rich).
I predict the system will be used to knock off a few thousand from the price of the car. Can't quite afford $30,000? well, take it for $25,000 and listen to messages.
Extremely unlikely.
Toyota makes lots of cars at lots of different prices. Lexus is marketed as a luxury vehicle -- competing with the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz. This is intended to "enhance the experience" for Lexus owners, not create a Lexus Lite for the wallet-impaired.
I spend $60,000 for an automobile and now it will spam me while driving it?
First of all, it's technically not spam, since you have to sign up to receive it (it's basically an audio newsletter). Second, it arrives in your inbox before you start driving, not while you're driving.
I would never sign up for it, but it's not quite what TFS suggests it is (surprise, surprise).
The system will be optional (not sure if that means opt-in or opt-out, though).
It's opt-in. This is being marketed as a service specifically for people who want to hear from the manufacturer. It's like subscribing to a newsletter -- don't worry, they assure us the subscription will be free :P -- only it's delivered in your car in audio format.
Basically, I have no complaint about this system, but would never use it. I also can't imagine who would.
I just realized that I misread your post. I thought you were saying that the lawyer believed your client was innocent, but in fact you said the opposite. My bad.
Feel free to ignore my comments, although I still say they're very different kinds of attorneys (and people).
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
For the most part, criminal defense attorneys are a different breed than corporate attack attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients, while corporate attack attorneys simply need to believe in the pay cheque.
I'm betting it goes pretty easy on the Apple fans. It is premiering at MacWorld, after all.
I would add one more point to this which everyone seems to have forgotten -- even if his Zune is dead now, and regardless of what he does or doesn't buy to replace it, he still got something for that $50. Specifically, he got to use the Zune for the period between when he bought it and when it died. That is worth something.
Obligatory car analogy: imagine that somebody offered me the amazing chance to buy a brand new Ferrari for $100, and I bought it and drove it for 20 years, then one day it just vanished into thin air. Using the logic of some of the people in this thread, I would have been screwed out of $100 -- even more if you factor in what I would have to spend on a replacement vehicle.
Fair enough. "A few" may actually turn out to be "a lot", or even "most/all owners of 30GB Zunes". The summary is still childish garbage.
On a separate note, what's with modding my post as troll? Does anyone with mod points actually know what that word means?