I didn't say don't believe it, just comprehend it. Just because a stock is "struggling" doesn't mean the company is. You extrapolated that little bit yourself.
Look, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just some lowly techie-type with absolutely no concept of what a "burgeoning financial market is" but...
The price of stock is driven up because there is a great demand for it because investors feel they can make money from it. Conversely, if the stock price drops (i.e. "struggles") then that's because a lot of it is being sold as investors consider that company to be a risk.
So, yes, on that dedcution, Dr Watson, I would say that if the stock is struggling then the company itself is struggling.
Or am I missing something in the obviously God-like charisma of Steve Jobs that causes share prices to fall while his company makes record profits?
So surely the error is yours for mistakenly using quotes around words that I did not myself actually use.
And actually, if you'd care to read the link I put in my post, I did write "struggling" in there - so whilst it is not my quote per se, rather a quote from the article, I was kind enough to let you get away with using quotes around that one.
Weak and sad. Your continual casting of debate into "zealots versus me" will ensure you bring out only zealots.
Bring 'em on! I'll kill a few, hang them to dry in the garage for a few months, then crumble them over my breakfast cereal of chocolate-covered man-made global warming supporters.
You might be having fun, but clearly you're a zealot in your own way, and can't accept any error or fault on your part.
I can accept error or fault. But only when I'm wrong. And I'm not in this case.
You're every bit as blind as the most deluded Apple fan that you deride, and you use crudity where none is needed, weakening your post.
No, I actually have the strength of character to say what I believe and am not so "scared" of standing out from a crowd that I have to conceal myself behind a corporate logo to fulfill my need to belong to an elitist little club.
Still, thanks for playing. I note you can't disagree with any points, and you really are a troll.
And what points are you making in this post? You are just attacking me here, therefore you are doing nothing different to what you are deriding me for doing. So does that make you a "trolling fanboi" or "fanboi troll"?
In your case I meant "overly smug Apple fanbois with an overly large piece of Steve Jobs' doodoo stuck to the end of his nose and this partially obscuring his vision".
Keep them coming, by the way. I'm having fun and have plenty of good karma to burn.
I really must get myself an MRI scan. I must be suffering from some kind of blackouts because whilst I distinctly remember using the word "struggling", I have no recollection of using the word "bankrupt".
You're obviously an anti-Apple fanboy looking for an excuse to jerk that knee.
Yep, you've sussed me out. I was unfortunately born with a very small coffee table that does not permit me to artistically arrange even the smallest Apple product on it to display proudly to my wine-bar four-by-four owning friends.
Just because the an article says something doesn't mean it's true.
Oh, I see. I'm not supposed to believe an article from a fairly respectable technology news site but I am expected to believe the religious spoutings of some fervent, frothing-at-the-mouth Apple acolyte, am I?
So please define "fairly simple DRM" then! Those were the words you used in connection with iTunes/iPod.
And sorry, but define "flakey as Microsoft's DRM"? Do you mean "easy to break"? In which case isn't that a **GOOD** thing for someone like you who claims to not like DRM? But presumably you own an iPod, and subscribe to iTunes incorporating Apple's DRM?
Which is, in your own words again, "fairly simple DRM"?
Actually, all that the Microsoft infrastructure says is that they have put together a pretty good & scaleable server farm/cluster solution, nothing more. The same can be done using Linux servers and clusters in theory - has it been done with Linux on the same scale as Microsoft.com? I don't know.
And if you're referring to Linux versioning, please remember that with OSS products there is no remit to get a "finished" product into a box onto the shelves - just because it happens to be "Random Linux App v0.3" does not mean it is "not quite done".
Those three words clearly illustrate the depths to which an Apple fanboi will go to by using two innocuous adjectives to lessen the blow of the highly evil third word - on the basis that if Apple do it, it must be good.
Seriously, are MS intending to hand Apple a computer media format monopoly on a silver platter?
Believe me, I'm no MS supporter - but you overly smug Apple fanbois seem to forget that MS pumped in a whole heap of money into Apple at one point to basically keep them solvent. I didn't hear many of you fanbois moaning at MS then!
Very dangerous too for the OOS movement is also the fact that all the managers seem to think now that OOS will be the solution to their company and IT problems. Those who saw the.dot rise and fall will understand me.
For your information, it's "OSS" not "OOS". And if you knew ***ANYTHING*** about Open Source Software, you would understand that the operating system is pretty much irrelevant - OpenOffice, The GIMP, Mozilla Firefox and many other applications are OSS that can run on Windows just as they do on Linux.
To be honest, you don't sound like someone with 12 years' Linux experience - are you sure you weren't just gluing together the disk boxes at the Red Hat Linux packing factory or something?
And lastly... many here praise on Linux. Yeah its free and it has some legacy from UNIX (the holygrail of modern OS). But for the well built enterprise one (which I use in large PABX servers).. still not for free!
I am a senior telecoms security consultant for a company who's core product is a Linux-based PABX, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux actually.
And you are correct - in the case of the telephone servers, we install a licensed copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the servers because, in the case of OS problems, we need to rely upon Red Hat for support to issue appropriately tested RPM updates. However, the cost of that license is factored into the cost of the server which is currently treated as an appliance - the customer has no need to touch the Linux OS as all updates are applied through our own software updates.
But what you are paying for here is the support from Red Hat, not for Linux itself. Ultimately, just about all of the software in Red Hat Linux (or any commercial Linux) is available freely on its own or within the myriad of other free Linux distros out there.
In other words, you, sir, are talking UTTER BOLLOCKS!
I object to DRM because it prevents me from using the product I've purchased
I always find it amusing when people like yourself make this statement - no, you're by no means not the only one.
But why would you buy such a product in the first place? I like movies and I love my music but absolutely ***NONE*** of it is stuff I wouldn't do without if it was too highly priced or too encumbered by DRM. I don't understand these people who need a movie or a piece of music ***SO BADLY*** that they're prepared to put up with being treated like shit by the manufacturer.
We consumers need to start maturing in the way that we do things. We need to stop blindly falling for hype and advertising, we need to research our purchases more and we need to only buy things when we are happy that we're getting value for money. Once we start doing that, then we demonstrate to the record & movie companies that if they want our money then they have to give us value for money and what we want.
It's the mindless sheeple buying everything they're told to buy in a glossy magazine that make it bad for everyone else.
Anyway, if you've only seen 3 Macs, ever and they make up 7% of computers in Europe, maybe you're in a specialized field or simply don't get out much? Or maybe you live in part of Europe that is impoverished and a bit backwards technologically?
Nope, sorry, please try again.
I'm in the South of England, living in what is called the "M4 Corridor" about 40 miles from London where most of the technology companies are based. I get out to see customers several times a month, mainly in London. I see vast numbers of laptops being used by people in offices, at airports and on trains. I'm pretty observant and can once again confirm the amount of Macs I have seen as being a total of 3.
It would be interesting to know the percentage of Macs in the UK as I suspect that will be much lower than in the rest of Europe, as I suspect is probably the case with Linux also.
The problem is, that as a Linux user, I have no need to run anti-virus software or a firewall.
Whilst, as a mainly Linux user myself, I get part of what you are saying, I think the statement above is a little too self-assured.
You do not ***CURRENTLY*** need to run Linux anti-virus because there are no Linux viruses to speak of. And whilst a virus depends on some piece of common software (like Outlook Express) running on a huge population of PCs in order to spread, it's unlikely to find a common piece of software amongst the myriad of Linux distros out there. But please remember that viruses spread through applications having high access levels to the OS - the same people running apps at adminstrator level on Windows are probably stupid enough to do so at root on Linux also.
As for not needing to run a firewall, be careful what you say there. Sure, a hardware router running NAT on your Internet connection does block any incoming traffic provided that you're not running services out to the Internet, thus making most of what a firewall does redundant in that situation. But if you are running services through, say DynDNS, then a firewall on the PC running those services does give you much greater degree of fine tuning just who can and cannot connect to that service whereas on the router you probably just open or close the port and that's it.
I also work as a security consultant and I always recommend to anyone that they should always deploy multiple layers of security where it is economical to do so. It is not just about keeping crackers out of a system, but also putting so many layers of security in their way that they eventually give up and lose interest.
...the non-scientists in the rest of the world have responded by saying that scientists at Columbia University probably need to go and get laid occasionally.
As far as I am concerned, pirates are ***AS BAD AS*** the MPAA/RIAA because it's the activities of the former that give the latter the justification they need to penalise normal & honest users like me.
The fact is that piracy is not a justification for media that is either too expensive or of poor quality - what is the justification is to ***JUST NOT BUY IT OR COPY IT*** because nothing will send a better message to fat bastard record company execs or fat bastard media moguls than not being able to afford to buy their new Learjets every year.
By being a pirate, you are just furthering the cause of DRM because you give them the reasons that they need.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just some lowly techie-type with absolutely no concept of what a "burgeoning financial market is" but...
The price of stock is driven up because there is a great demand for it because investors feel they can make money from it. Conversely, if the stock price drops (i.e. "struggles") then that's because a lot of it is being sold as investors consider that company to be a risk.
So, yes, on that dedcution, Dr Watson, I would say that if the stock is struggling then the company itself is struggling.
Or am I missing something in the obviously God-like charisma of Steve Jobs that causes share prices to fall while his company makes record profits?
And actually, if you'd care to read the link I put in my post, I did write "struggling" in there - so whilst it is not my quote per se, rather a quote from the article, I was kind enough to let you get away with using quotes around that one.
Bring 'em on! I'll kill a few, hang them to dry in the garage for a few months, then crumble them over my breakfast cereal of chocolate-covered man-made global warming supporters.
You might be having fun, but clearly you're a zealot in your own way, and can't accept any error or fault on your part.
I can accept error or fault. But only when I'm wrong. And I'm not in this case.
You're every bit as blind as the most deluded Apple fan that you deride, and you use crudity where none is needed, weakening your post.
No, I actually have the strength of character to say what I believe and am not so "scared" of standing out from a crowd that I have to conceal myself behind a corporate logo to fulfill my need to belong to an elitist little club.
Still, thanks for playing. I note you can't disagree with any points, and you really are a troll.
And what points are you making in this post? You are just attacking me here, therefore you are doing nothing different to what you are deriding me for doing. So does that make you a "trolling fanboi" or "fanboi troll"?
In your case I meant "overly smug Apple fanbois with an overly large piece of Steve Jobs' doodoo stuck to the end of his nose and this partially obscuring his vision".
Keep them coming, by the way. I'm having fun and have plenty of good karma to burn.
I really must get myself an MRI scan. I must be suffering from some kind of blackouts because whilst I distinctly remember using the word "struggling", I have no recollection of using the word "bankrupt".
Yep, you've sussed me out. I was unfortunately born with a very small coffee table that does not permit me to artistically arrange even the smallest Apple product on it to display proudly to my wine-bar four-by-four owning friends.
Oh, I see. I'm not supposed to believe an article from a fairly respectable technology news site but I am expected to believe the religious spoutings of some fervent, frothing-at-the-mouth Apple acolyte, am I?
Get a life, fanboi.
And sorry, but define "flakey as Microsoft's DRM"? Do you mean "easy to break"? In which case isn't that a **GOOD** thing for someone like you who claims to not like DRM? But presumably you own an iPod, and subscribe to iTunes incorporating Apple's DRM?
Which is, in your own words again, "fairly simple DRM"?
And if you're referring to Linux versioning, please remember that with OSS products there is no remit to get a "finished" product into a box onto the shelves - just because it happens to be "Random Linux App v0.3" does not mean it is "not quite done".
Congratulations! You have won the star prize. Please accept this small, white & crippled music player with our thanks!
Please see my response to the other poster - I believe the adjective applied to Apple in the article is "struggling".
Microsoft plans to buy $150 million in struggling Apple Computer stock...
PlaysForSure doesn't come free with the little dollop of Steve Job's shit to stick on the end of your nose.
Those three words clearly illustrate the depths to which an Apple fanboi will go to by using two innocuous adjectives to lessen the blow of the highly evil third word - on the basis that if Apple do it, it must be good.
sed -e 's/MS/Apple/g' -e 's/Vista/iTunes/g'
Here's to my $30 2GB Hong Kong-made MP3 player that mounts under "/mnt/player"!
Believe me, I'm no MS supporter - but you overly smug Apple fanbois seem to forget that MS pumped in a whole heap of money into Apple at one point to basically keep them solvent. I didn't hear many of you fanbois moaning at MS then!
For your information, it's "OSS" not "OOS". And if you knew ***ANYTHING*** about Open Source Software, you would understand that the operating system is pretty much irrelevant - OpenOffice, The GIMP, Mozilla Firefox and many other applications are OSS that can run on Windows just as they do on Linux.
To be honest, you don't sound like someone with 12 years' Linux experience - are you sure you weren't just gluing together the disk boxes at the Red Hat Linux packing factory or something?
I am a senior telecoms security consultant for a company who's core product is a Linux-based PABX, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux actually.
And you are correct - in the case of the telephone servers, we install a licensed copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the servers because, in the case of OS problems, we need to rely upon Red Hat for support to issue appropriately tested RPM updates. However, the cost of that license is factored into the cost of the server which is currently treated as an appliance - the customer has no need to touch the Linux OS as all updates are applied through our own software updates.
But what you are paying for here is the support from Red Hat, not for Linux itself. Ultimately, just about all of the software in Red Hat Linux (or any commercial Linux) is available freely on its own or within the myriad of other free Linux distros out there.
In other words, you, sir, are talking UTTER BOLLOCKS!
With a name like Anonymous Coward, you definitely have a tiny penis. Am I right?
I always find it amusing when people like yourself make this statement - no, you're by no means not the only one.
But why would you buy such a product in the first place? I like movies and I love my music but absolutely ***NONE*** of it is stuff I wouldn't do without if it was too highly priced or too encumbered by DRM. I don't understand these people who need a movie or a piece of music ***SO BADLY*** that they're prepared to put up with being treated like shit by the manufacturer.
We consumers need to start maturing in the way that we do things. We need to stop blindly falling for hype and advertising, we need to research our purchases more and we need to only buy things when we are happy that we're getting value for money. Once we start doing that, then we demonstrate to the record & movie companies that if they want our money then they have to give us value for money and what we want.
It's the mindless sheeple buying everything they're told to buy in a glossy magazine that make it bad for everyone else.
Nope, sorry, please try again.
I'm in the South of England, living in what is called the "M4 Corridor" about 40 miles from London where most of the technology companies are based. I get out to see customers several times a month, mainly in London. I see vast numbers of laptops being used by people in offices, at airports and on trains. I'm pretty observant and can once again confirm the amount of Macs I have seen as being a total of 3.
It would be interesting to know the percentage of Macs in the UK as I suspect that will be much lower than in the rest of Europe, as I suspect is probably the case with Linux also.
Whilst, as a mainly Linux user myself, I get part of what you are saying, I think the statement above is a little too self-assured.
You do not ***CURRENTLY*** need to run Linux anti-virus because there are no Linux viruses to speak of. And whilst a virus depends on some piece of common software (like Outlook Express) running on a huge population of PCs in order to spread, it's unlikely to find a common piece of software amongst the myriad of Linux distros out there. But please remember that viruses spread through applications having high access levels to the OS - the same people running apps at adminstrator level on Windows are probably stupid enough to do so at root on Linux also.
As for not needing to run a firewall, be careful what you say there. Sure, a hardware router running NAT on your Internet connection does block any incoming traffic provided that you're not running services out to the Internet, thus making most of what a firewall does redundant in that situation. But if you are running services through, say DynDNS, then a firewall on the PC running those services does give you much greater degree of fine tuning just who can and cannot connect to that service whereas on the router you probably just open or close the port and that's it.
I also work as a security consultant and I always recommend to anyone that they should always deploy multiple layers of security where it is economical to do so. It is not just about keeping crackers out of a system, but also putting so many layers of security in their way that they eventually give up and lose interest.
...the non-scientists in the rest of the world have responded by saying that scientists at Columbia University probably need to go and get laid occasionally.
As far as I am concerned, pirates are ***AS BAD AS*** the MPAA/RIAA because it's the activities of the former that give the latter the justification they need to penalise normal & honest users like me.
The fact is that piracy is not a justification for media that is either too expensive or of poor quality - what is the justification is to ***JUST NOT BUY IT OR COPY IT*** because nothing will send a better message to fat bastard record company execs or fat bastard media moguls than not being able to afford to buy their new Learjets every year.
By being a pirate, you are just furthering the cause of DRM because you give them the reasons that they need.
I wish Steve Ballmer was a balancing robot.