When so much of what has been said and left unsaid in the pages of this supposed paper of record why take their skewed view as valid? For example, admitting their missteps in publishing unsubstantiated claims on the WMD in Iraq and even posting statements of partial retraction yet not naming their marque reporter on most of these erroneous reports. Nonetheless, the paper's leadership has taken an aggressively defensive stance regarding this same in-house perpetrator as a defender of the First Amendment.
Why give them credence when in so many other areas they play favorites not on the basis of being the best, but best liked (connected)?
Finally! Someone with a real sense of humor, so unlike that base heavy metal guy. I hate rock-&-roll! (Quick: "Off Topic!!")
Regarding the drug adiction, I could give a damn less about Rush's habit if he did it in private and did not pontificate about throwing away the key for those less exalted than himself. Just like Bushie Jr. that implicitly admits to using the hard stuff (years ago), but thinks nothing of sending the poor, uneducated (and certainly those lacking connections) to long jail terms in those plush Texas jails.
And I am the one that's always accused of having no working sense of humor. THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!
So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged?
on
Google Reacts to Splogs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Upon reading some of his comments verbatim it is shocking how inarticulate and rambling he is. Seems reasonable to me to label him as radio SPAM - he certainly has the figure for it.
When I read it prior to reading the "article" (just slightly larger than the summary and containing much less information than expected). I thought this would parallel their release (cycle) of the next and greatest software. First push it out the door flawed, then patch and then down the road somewhere attempt to get it right.
However, reading the "article" it seems to reverse the order. That is, the better version (with the hd) is released first to rake in the major portion of the available cash. Then afterward, for the price sensitive and to meet the expectation of lowered pricing spew out an inherently cheaper product. In a business (marketing) sense - nothing short of brilliant, however, the first wave of purchasers mostly bought these machines on the basis of much higher performance characteristics that in the main will be negated by the software being built to run a less robust system. Hence, the inherent promises made in the initial marketing buildup for the new machine most likely will prove to be ephemeral. If that is true, some fraction will forever hold it against MS and will not be purchasers on the next cycle.
But we should remember the wisdom of P.T. Barnum: something like a sucker is born every minute. Considering the trash the public has bought in products/politics/mysticism the honchos at MS have not made a bad bet. Moreover, the top rung appears to be tiring and may move on to more fulfilling tasks and those inheriting the colossus will take the blame in its slow spiral to a less lofty level of business prominence.
It is here where real money and effort is being spent on the perceived usage statistics of Firefox. That is, "... Though its market share slipped slightly last month, researchers estimate that between 8 and 9 percent of the Internet population use the open-source browser". Though they accept the supposed drop in Firefox usage, they quote the usage rate at the full percentage point level. Most likely that is the best we can do, however, I suspect the error level is more than a full percentage point (plus or minus).
But what do I know? Since I routinely throw away so much that is patently bogus, having spoofed or non-existent data, etc. before even attempting a simple count!
Did you find my name or even my registration number associated with a praise filled comment regarding the June study? I happen to know how difficult it is to interpret raw usage data, since I have more questions on how to attempt it properly than certainty the numbers I generate are really correct. What have you ever done in this regard?
I suspect too that when it comes to clownery you greatly surpass me in my tepid attempt to match the crowning glory of your spineless posturing.
RE "... as Bogus and Firefox flaunting 80 million downloads"
No, the count is correct: they downloaded 80M copies, what is made of the figure is in dispute.
Next I was just hearing via my son that there is supposed to be one count per IP address, though we updated and downloaded multiple times for several machines we represent only one download. If that is correct then we have been under counted. Previously I had heard that a Window's machine that updates was not counted as a download, but a fresh install was.
Now if you really have a critical mind, you might recognize the ambiguity of the download count. If you had ANY scientific experience you would recognize that even precise, physical measurements have surprising few significant figures (a measure accuracy). Assuming you have such knowledge you would address my point about the overblown claim of precise measurement from a very imprecise data set.
the measurements have that degree of significant of digits to support such claims of accuracy!
Prima facie, these numbers are bogus. Why bother to add credence to a "study" that demonstrates a one-to-correlation at such "precision" missed by many other publized sets of numbers.
Resent as two messages: the first simply giving the subject line to look for and the second with the original message and a few minimal comments.
Regarding SPAM, I understand too well! The messages informing about my eBay and PayPal accounts do not even go into my junk folder. Those are immediately forwarded to my ISP and eBay.
If you ever change your email address and want to keep it public, why not use text for symbols and intersperse junk text to at very least increase the email harvesters costs.
florian.mueller@nosoftwarepatents.com is that a real email address that you check? If not is there a way we could exchange messages with out showing them publicly.
Are you on LXer? If so I could paste a copy there without email addresses being needed.
Have any suggestions? So far I have not yet had my message returned as undeliverable.
I have seen statistics on several sites where Firefox usage is quite significant, in at least on site unrelated to programming/web development/computers/etc or obvious trend setting users the Firefox usage was unexpectedly high. That is, 39% with Mozilla ahowing only 2% and the Mac adding another 8%! That left all IE versions only in the high 40's!
Being skeptical I looked at the OS distribution with Linux showing only 2% and the Mac 15%. Here all versions of Windows dominated.
Before being overjoyed or defensively hostile - I know something about attempting to calculate site usage statistics and it is NOT that straight forward. So give or take some percentage points the changes are exhibiting a trend, but how accurate the numbers are will take more time and secondary measurements to validate.
Hey A.C. you sound like an original BushWhacker if there ever was one. Wear the badge of courage proudly that you alone dare to enunciating such profound truths.
I have found the the/. reply to message system fails for me on the second level. confirmed it in a test, hence, I wrote a response to you directly. Please check your email - I hope it was not an imposition doing so.
Also hoping this message appears properly so that you will see it even though I am not using the built-in message system. Could not locate my original message thread despite scanning what should have been all the message 0 and above!
You might be surprised to say I agree with your logic. However, when the future is so murky on the course of actual events might be, can the option of doing nothing be the best? The problem is many people expect to be told the "answer", when one simple answer more probably does not exist. [If you have a subscription look at the first item on the front page of linux weekly news for the past week, http://lwn.net/Articles/146412/ "Interview: Eben Moglen", which I have not yet read fully, however, seems so far to be a cogent argument for pursuing the path of patents.]
In my view, doing nothing is not an option. Whether this will suffice or even be effective counter force is still an open question.
Sounds as if you didn't bother to read the article. Most of the issues you insinuate about are covered. Yes it's a trade off, but still to our advantage. [Everything but the battery replacement is discussed and this is not big an issue.]
The options are very much higher gasoline prices, and more wars. The next ones will require more bodies and cash from somewhere. Hence, are you of draft age? Are you ready to be part of our next noble adventures? Or do you have better things to do like talk politics, drive extravagent cars and chase the "good" life? Sounds nice, but there will be hell to pay for those outrageous indulgences.
Remember Perens was co-founder of the Open Source (Foundation/whatever), whose goal was to entice commercial interests to open source. Perhaps a bit too successful, but the point is afterwards he belatedly recognized "Open Source" effort was at least partially misdirected.
read the comment under the name of syntaxis, which has a quote from back in March but "... Sarge has been out for ages now and UserLinux still hasn't released...". In a link in the comment Perens says he is awaiting only release of Sarge.
[Regarding this portion of lwn.net - guests even posted here, you need not be a subscriber to read the comments.]
Sorry removal of the offending code usually suffices. You are repeating a false premise that MS and others try to spread to create fear, uncertainty and doubt (about GPL'ed software), i.e. a.k.a.: FUD.
I wonder, was that your intention or were you trying to be funny?
Whatever the case, check your facts before making assertions on a very sensitive topic that can further re-enforce misinformation.
However, if some of the programmers that were associated with Loki could be located, you could be assured that they had the experience and the potential to turn out a quality product. Moreover, at the time they were active they spent a large fraction of their efforts on correcting the Window's versions errors.
I am reading at 0 and above and the prior comment was the first assertion that server processing has nothing to do with compatibility issues that I read.
People were sent away for 20 years in Chicago for extremely modest amounts in the early 70's.
Moreover, why is Grand Theft... (version 2) so much worse with its gratutous, ultra violence due to a few sex scenes? Where is the proportionality of the guardians of the publics outrage?
Slashdot Mirror
When so much of what has been said and left unsaid in the pages of this supposed paper of record why take their skewed view as valid? For example, admitting their missteps in publishing unsubstantiated claims on the WMD in Iraq and even posting statements of partial retraction yet not naming their marque reporter on most of these erroneous reports. Nonetheless, the paper's leadership has taken an aggressively defensive stance regarding this same in-house perpetrator as a defender of the First Amendment.
Why give them credence when in so many other areas they play favorites not on the basis of being the best, but best liked (connected)?
Finally! Someone with a real sense of humor, so unlike that base heavy metal guy. I hate rock-&-roll! (Quick: "Off Topic!!")
Regarding the drug adiction, I could give a damn less about Rush's habit if he did it in private and did not pontificate about throwing away the key for those less exalted than himself. Just like Bushie Jr. that implicitly admits to using the hard stuff (years ago), but thinks nothing of sending the poor, uneducated (and certainly those lacking connections) to long jail terms in those plush Texas jails.
"I guess I just have a knack for using the wrong word."
Would you say you share his trait to bumble your words like Rush does?
And I am the one that's always accused of having no working sense of humor. THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!
Upon reading some of his comments verbatim it is shocking how inarticulate and rambling he is. Seems reasonable to me to label him as radio SPAM - he certainly has the figure for it.
When I read it prior to reading the "article" (just slightly larger than the summary and containing much less information than expected). I thought this would parallel their release (cycle) of the next and greatest software. First push it out the door flawed, then patch and then down the road somewhere attempt to get it right.
However, reading the "article" it seems to reverse the order. That is, the better version (with the hd) is released first to rake in the major portion of the available cash. Then afterward, for the price sensitive and to meet the expectation of lowered pricing spew out an inherently cheaper product. In a business (marketing) sense - nothing short of brilliant, however, the first wave of purchasers mostly bought these machines on the basis of much higher performance characteristics that in the main will be negated by the software being built to run a less robust system. Hence, the inherent promises made in the initial marketing buildup for the new machine most likely will prove to be ephemeral. If that is true, some fraction will forever hold it against MS and will not be purchasers on the next cycle.
But we should remember the wisdom of P.T. Barnum: something like a sucker is born every minute. Considering the trash the public has bought in products/politics/mysticism the honchos at MS have not made a bad bet. Moreover, the top rung appears to be tiring and may move on to more fulfilling tasks and those inheriting the colossus will take the blame in its slow spiral to a less lofty level of business prominence.
Not sure anyone will notice, but it belongs here.
Look at this short note: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5833861.html
It is here where real money and effort is being spent on the perceived usage statistics of Firefox. That is, "... Though its market share slipped slightly last month, researchers estimate that between 8 and 9 percent of the Internet population use the open-source browser". Though they accept the supposed drop in Firefox usage, they quote the usage rate at the full percentage point level. Most likely that is the best we can do, however, I suspect the error level is more than a full percentage point (plus or minus).
But what do I know? Since I routinely throw away so much that is patently bogus, having spoofed or non-existent data, etc. before even attempting a simple count!
Hey Coward, just hope you keep your first name.
Did you find my name or even my registration number associated with a praise filled comment regarding the June study? I happen to know how difficult it is to interpret raw usage data, since I have more questions on how to attempt it properly than certainty the numbers I generate are really correct. What have you ever done in this regard?
I suspect too that when it comes to clownery you greatly surpass me in my tepid attempt to match the crowning glory of your spineless posturing.
RE "... as Bogus and Firefox flaunting 80 million downloads"
No, the count is correct: they downloaded 80M copies, what is made of the figure is in dispute.
Next I was just hearing via my son that there is supposed to be one count per IP address, though we updated and downloaded multiple times for several machines we represent only one download. If that is correct then we have been under counted. Previously I had heard that a Window's machine that updates was not counted as a download, but a fresh install was.
Now if you really have a critical mind, you might recognize the ambiguity of the download count. If you had ANY scientific experience you would recognize that even precise, physical measurements have surprising few significant figures (a measure accuracy). Assuming you have such knowledge you would address my point about the overblown claim of precise measurement from a very imprecise data set.
Address that issue if you can.
the measurements have that degree of significant of digits to support such claims of accuracy!
Prima facie, these numbers are bogus. Why bother to add credence to a "study" that demonstrates a one-to-correlation at such "precision" missed by many other publized sets of numbers.
Resent as two messages: the first simply giving the subject line to look for and the second with the original message and a few minimal comments.
Regarding SPAM, I understand too well! The messages informing about my eBay and PayPal accounts do not even go into my junk folder. Those are immediately forwarded to my ISP and eBay.
If you ever change your email address and want to keep it public, why not use text for symbols and intersperse junk text to at very least increase the email harvesters costs.
florian.mueller@nosoftwarepatents.com is that a real email address that you check? If not is there a way we could exchange messages with out showing them publicly.
Are you on LXer? If so I could paste a copy there without email addresses being needed.
Have any suggestions? So far I have not yet had my message returned as undeliverable.
I have seen statistics on several sites where Firefox usage is quite significant, in at least on site unrelated to programming/web development/computers/etc or obvious trend setting users the Firefox usage was unexpectedly high. That is, 39% with Mozilla ahowing only 2% and the Mac adding another 8%! That left all IE versions only in the high 40's!
Being skeptical I looked at the OS distribution with Linux showing only 2% and the Mac 15%. Here all versions of Windows dominated.
Before being overjoyed or defensively hostile - I know something about attempting to calculate site usage statistics and it is NOT that straight forward. So give or take some percentage points the changes are exhibiting a trend, but how accurate the numbers are will take more time and secondary measurements to validate.
Hey A.C. you sound like an original BushWhacker if there ever was one. Wear the badge of courage proudly that you alone dare to enunciating such profound truths.
I have found the the /. reply to message system fails for me on the second level. confirmed it in a test, hence, I wrote a response to you directly. Please check your email - I hope it was not an imposition doing so.
Also hoping this message appears properly so that you will see it even though I am not using the built-in message system. Could not locate my original message thread despite scanning what should have been all the message 0 and above!
You might be surprised to say I agree with your logic. However, when the future is so murky on the course of actual events might be, can the option of doing nothing be the best? The problem is many people expect to be told the "answer", when one simple answer more probably does not exist. [If you have a subscription look at the first item on the front page of linux weekly news for the past week, http://lwn.net/Articles/146412/ "Interview: Eben Moglen", which I have not yet read fully, however, seems so far to be a cogent argument for pursuing the path of patents.]
In my view, doing nothing is not an option. Whether this will suffice or even be effective counter force is still an open question.
Sounds as if you didn't bother to read the article. Most of the issues you insinuate about are covered. Yes it's a trade off, but still to our advantage. [Everything but the battery replacement is discussed and this is not big an issue.]
The options are very much higher gasoline prices, and more wars. The next ones will require more bodies and cash from somewhere. Hence, are you of draft age? Are you ready to be part of our next noble adventures? Or do you have better things to do like talk politics, drive extravagent cars and chase the "good" life? Sounds nice, but there will be hell to pay for those outrageous indulgences.
Pay now or pay even more later.
In my opinion Linus.
...". In a link in the comment Perens says he is awaiting only release of Sarge.
Remember Perens was co-founder of the Open Source (Foundation/whatever), whose goal was to entice commercial interests to open source. Perhaps a bit too successful, but the point is afterwards he belatedly recognized "Open Source" effort was at least partially misdirected.
While I know too little about UserLinux, there is a critique of Perens' role: http://lwn.net/Articles/146959/#Comments
read the comment under the name of syntaxis, which has a quote from back in March but "... Sarge has been out for ages now and UserLinux still hasn't released
[Regarding this portion of lwn.net - guests even posted here, you need not be a subscriber to read the comments.]
Sorry removal of the offending code usually suffices. You are repeating a false premise that MS and others try to spread to create fear, uncertainty and doubt (about GPL'ed software), i.e. a.k.a.: FUD.
I wonder, was that your intention or were you trying to be funny?
Whatever the case, check your facts before making assertions on a very sensitive topic that can further re-enforce misinformation.
Redundant: means restated, point made previously, etc. However, even at the setting of -1 the sentiment expressed was NOT duplicated.
*Some Moderators* - if you really do not like it, try "overrated"; if it were I it would have been ignored.
However, if some of the programmers that were associated with Loki could be located, you could be assured that they had the experience and the potential to turn out a quality product. Moreover, at the time they were active they spent a large fraction of their efforts on correcting the Window's versions errors.
Look at the last link and a response in the comments section: "My new engine uses OpenGL, SDL, and OpenAL"
Moderator: where was this posted previously?
I am reading at 0 and above and the prior comment was the first assertion that server processing has nothing to do with compatibility issues that I read.
There are holes in everything Microsoft does.
People were sent away for 20 years in Chicago for extremely modest amounts in the early 70's.
... (version 2) so much worse with its gratutous, ultra violence due to a few sex scenes? Where is the proportionality of the guardians of the publics outrage?
Moreover, why is Grand Theft