Then again this is what happens when people limit themselves to voting for the corporatist party (Republicans) versus the socialist party (Democrats). *Cue some leftist to come tell me how socialism works, how no American understands Real Socialism(tm)
Tell you how it works? (*) Nah... though I'll laugh at you if you genuinely believe that the American Democrat party are "socialist". (Who was it said that Clinton was the best Republican president America had had for a long time?)
Anyhow, people take political concepts like "democracy" on their own, expecting to get a whole load of other stuff with them. Capitalism isn't democracy. Democracy isn't liberty (though it's pretty much the best prerequisite to it I can think of right now).
Capitalism isn't fascism per se, but it can fit into a fascist-style system quite comfortably if that's the way the country's being run (a la China; not that they were any better under "communism", and please don't tell me that they're *still* a "communist" society because they're totalitarian; see "political concepts" above). On the other hand it can fit into a democratic society fine, so long as corporate interests aren't allowed to gain disproportionate influence.
(*) I don't consider myself a socialist, though you probably would. Since right-wing Americans consider anyone whose views are to the left of your Democratic party to be a foaming-at-the-mouth commie/terrorist/whatever, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to convince them otherwise.
Hey, our laws in these situations aren't as bad as you seem to think! It's not all bad over here!
I *know*; I live in the UK as well, hence my knowledge of the EU consumer law which applies to me. As I said, UK/EU consumer law is generally better than the US, and anyway, speaking personally, I'd much rather live under Scottish/British/EU law than the US (*); though that, to some extent, probably reflects my political beliefs.
(*) Which isn't to say that there aren't good things about the US- granted a lot of them are in theory rather than practice, but the idea of a written constitution (for example) is something that Britain should do (but probably won't).
On the first - there's an EULA tied to a custom music player included on the CD which Sony are trying to use as a catch-all.
I'm still not convinced that this contains anything like sufficient explanation of what Sony's rootkit will do to someone's machine.
In fact, there's *nothing* in there that suggests on any reasonable reading that a damn *rootkit* will be installed on the user's machine. As I said, IANAL, but if that stands up in court, it doesn't say much about the court system in that country.
Where is the EULA listed on the CD; or where is it referenced?
If it isn't actually listed on the CD, but merely referenced via a small URL on the package, has the person actually agreed to it?
Would they get away with this in the US? Even though your consumer laws are generally weaker than the EU's (*), I'm still not convinced that there is enough there for the person to "agree" to.
(*) A la "90 day warranties" on computers or consoles; the standard EU warranty is 1 year. AFAIK there isn't a "statutory" warranty period, but if it came to court, it would almost certainly be ruled that a computer should last that long. Actually, if it came to court, they'd probably expect it to last *longer* than a year, although the consumer might not be entitled to the full value of the computer. OTOH, the US has some "fair use" laws whereas the UK doesn't really, and item (9) would apply by default; which is probably why I thought "what's new?" when I first saw it.
t's important to make sure that the major labels realise that while DRM is legal, there are limits to what people will tolerate - and damaging peoples machines is not something that people are going to tolerate.
It's not simply a question of tolerance or not; some DRM may be "legal", but (IANAL) installing a root-kit on someone's machine without notification or permission almost certainly isn't. If they get away with this, it'll be because they have better lawyers, not because by any reasonable judgement it is "legal".
Of course, I hope it kicks up a stink for Sony too, but that's beside the point.
Can you imagine that not too long ago it was MS that was the new upstart fighting the monopolist IBM?
That as may be, they were *never* loved in the way that Apple are. Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" early in 1976 probably didn't help in the hacker community, and if IBM was a bigger "baddie" back then, it's probably because MS didn't have the same level of power until the late 1980s.
That having been said, you make some good points. Speaking as someone who's tempted to buy a Mac Mini when I have the money (nice interface *plus* BSD OS, sounds fine to me), I still reckon your modding down was undeserved... but entirely predictable given the rabid Apple-can-do-no-wrong fanboy tendency to jump on anything perceived as being remotely critical of Apple.
But I still think all of the xbox designs are missing a certain amount of aesthetics. Not to troll here, but I think Apple got it right, as well as NAD
They're selling them in Australia too. Not common, but you do see them in sydney shops from time to time.
There would have been more sold in Australia, but there was a hold up; Sony have to modify the Japanese PSXs to meet local standards, and they can't find enough people with the necessary skills to turn things upside-down.
I get the feeling that this is where the misuse has become accepted as use. Personally, I think (correct or not) that it's pretty stupid and that the phrase "in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary" was pretty spot-on with respect to the XBox situation...
That as may be, they didn't "literally" give the X-Box away. Didn't you get the point of (or even bother reading) what I said in my post? I thought it was pretty clear.
Saying that "Microsoft were/are giving the XBox away" is justified as artistic license. Saying that they were "literally" doing that is just wrong. (Bangs head against wall)
> > TV on mobiles have been 'there' in Japan for awhile now.
> > Whether people actually watch TV on their phones is another question...
> In Japan, they have Giant Pink Robots to watch TV for you.
If the Japanese weren't so resistant to immigration, perhaps they could hire lots of old Korean people instead, and retrain them to watch TV instead of read email (-_^)
Which is why asking "customers" what they want via focus groups will *never* come up with a disruptive technology, or even one that is moderately different to what they already have. A really smart person might be able to look at the pattern of responses and read a gap in the market (that the consumers themselves don't know exists) into it, but it's unlikely.
Nor are they necessarily going to give an accurate response, even if presented with the (potential) new technology; asking people what they want and/or what they think of something doesn't necessarily reflect their real-life behaviour and thinking. Otherwise New Coke would have been a massive success.
In America we have been experimenting with materials that are inflammable for this very reason. What a country!
Are you saying that the expression "flammable" isn't used in the US? In Britain "inflammable" is the "traditionally correct" expression, but "flammable" seems to be a lot more common than it used to be. I haven't done a spot check, but let me say this...
I'd rather people used the "incorrect" but clear-in-meaning "flammable" than use the "correct" word if there's a notable risk of misunderstanding (which I believe there is with "inflammable").
You are full of crap.... but not "literally" (^_^)
on
XBOX 360=Dreamcast 2.0?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft literally gave the Xbox away.
Microsoft did not literally give the Xbox away. When we say stuff like "Microsoft gave the Xbox away", we accept some slight exaggeration being used to make a point.
I can't see any justification for throwing "literally" in there, unless you actually meant "literally". Or perhaps you didn't mean "literally" literally. But I doubt it...
Please don't tell me you were actually referring to Microsoft giving a few of the things away in promotions; we know that's not what you meant:)
Assuming that this isn't a hoax, and you really do work for Sony, why should we trust you? Or the person who gave you the information, for that matter?
I'm not entirely surprised, but slightly disappointed that this got modded up to +5 without a questioning voice responding.
It's a **** rootkit for ****'s sake! If Sony have the audacity to pull off something like this, I wouldn't trust them straight off to give me the truth either.
3D shiny glossy bubbles are on the way out. I look at them and I squirm already. I cringe. Soon will look back on them and everyone will disown this fad.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I knew there was a point I'd forgotten to include in my earlier post... in a few years time, people will be able to point to this logo and guess it was created circa 2003-2006 ("Apple knock-off").
It'll be as recognisable and dated as (say) 1980s graphic design was by the late 1990s ("Dynamic handwriting? Check. Pastel colours? Check. Triangle resting on some semi-randomly scattered speckles in the background? Check. Parallel lines in there? Check.")
The fact that the shadows around her legs make them (at a brief glance) look smaller, and hence her backside and hips proportionately fatter doesn't help either.
Whole thing reminds me of a photograph of a girl taken at a trade show; she was being totally ripped to shreds here, but anyone with the remotest shred of photographic knowledge could see that there were several problems with the way the photograph was set up (most notably harsh overhead lighting; never does anyone's face much good).
This is the same reason I don't use a webcam. *Everybody* looks bad on a webcam; bad focus... but mainly bad lighting and the exaggerated perspective caused by sitting close to a wide angle lens. ******* awful....:(
So, out of curiosity, are you more into the NetBSD logo then? I didn't like it much at all at first, but on the other hand it might look better in 10 years than most.
As I first said when that logo came out a year or so back... it looked pretty bland and dated even then. Like something from the turn of the 80s/90s when the "lots of curved lines" look came in for corporate logos and so on (in the UK at least); or a logo for a bland political party. There's also something very subtley dated and dowdy about the typeface; something a mail-order company advertising in a middle-of-the-road newspaper during the late 1980s would have used.
Actually it looks more like the sort of logo you'd find on an IM or P2P app (they all seem to be using that style of logo). It just looks amateurish.
Actually, it looks very slick and professionally designed. A geek in their bedroom with a ray-tracing package and a copy of GIMP could have produced something similar that would nevertheless have lacked the important 'professional' touch.
Perhaps what you were thinking was that it doesn't project *quite* the right image for FreeBSD?
To me, it's really bit too polished (a la IM/P2P app logo), and lacking a defined personality. It definitely looks better against a white background (more Apple-ish than ray-tracy in that context) though.
Then again, Linux was taken seriously in spite of the goofy penguin.
In spite of the fact that the canonical image of Tux is a professional-looking *picture*, it comes across as incredibly amateurish when used as a logo. Personally, I can't stand the damn thing; perhaps it reminds me of Orville the Duck, though.
Best open-source artwork by far are the Firefox and Thunderbird logos. Beautifully designed pieces that are neither overly glossy nor bland.
You know, the first time you posted the comment I thought to myself, "hmmm...interesting.."
But the second time you posted it, I thought, "Wow, this guy is really onto something! I like what he says, and I want to read more!"
More information? Okay then... Portland School *really* is GAY, and it's going out with the Oregon College of Performing Arts. I appreciate that this is going to shock all the homophobic 14-year olds who've spent the previous 3 years of their life inside a building that happens to be GAY, but it's true. However, Portland School would like me to point out that it considers its sexuality to be irrelevant, and would prefer people to focus on its good work providing classrooms and amenities to the students of Portland.
In fact, it's a little-known fact that 93% of buildings and houses are in fact homosexual, and the other 7% are known to be bi-curious. If this disturbs you, or anyone reading this, the solution is obvious; stay outside at all times.
Enough garbage; first off, I was damn sure I'd not posted that message the first time, and even checked that this was the case. But obviously not hard enough...
I'm trying to figure out if the "troll" moderation was because I'd posted it twice (and it was assumed I was trolling), or if the person moderating had simply never read Wikipedia and didn't recognise a parody of vandalism when they saw it.
I mean, it wasn't an all-time classic, but it was worth at least a +1, Funny...
Great, so now people in developing countries will learn the truth... or just read lots of entires which have been "vandalized" with the word "boobies!"
Don't be so cynical. I believe that Slashdot would be vastly improved if it were possible for anyone to edit and improve stories POO!!!!!!!!! PORTLAND SCHOOL ARE GAY LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO and other users' comments.
Great, so now people in developing countries will learn the truth... or just read lots of entires which have been "vandalized" with the word "boobies!"
Stop being so damn cynical. I personally think Slashdot would be much improved if it were possibly to edit and improve any material on the site, including comments. This would allow POOOP!!!!! HA HA PORTLAND SCHOOL IS GAY insertion of constructive criticism.
This is the natural progression of evolution tho, those who have this gene are a step above the rest of us in the evolutionary scale.
I agree with the AC who also replied to this saying "There is no 'above' in the evolutionary scale. There is only the dead and the living (-and reproducing)."
It might be beneficial against HIV, but what if it has side-effects?
For example, the gene that helps defend against malaria (and is prevelant amongst many of African origin) is the same gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia. The benefit probably outweighs the problem, but it shouldn't be assumed that there is "better", "worse", "above" and so on.
People tend to view these things in a very short-term manner, when evolution is a long-term game.
I have to wonder, is Microsoft's future sales of Windows starting to look so bleak that Microsoft needs to play poker with their customers?
Steve Ballmer is reported to have said "Fucking South Koreans are fucking pussies. I'm going to fucking bury that country, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking destroy South Korea."....
In other news, Microsoft are reported to be engaged in talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il regarding what Ballmer calls a "synergistic exchange of resources; in exchange for free Windows XP Home licenses, Microsoft will receive the use of North Korea's dedicated military personnel and hardware, including 'cutting edge nuclear technology'".
It was noted by analysts that Ballmer was "unusually serene and satisfied looking" during this announcement. The reason for this is as yet unclear.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again this is what happens when people limit themselves to voting for the corporatist party (Republicans) versus the socialist party (Democrats). *Cue some leftist to come tell me how socialism works, how no American understands Real Socialism(tm)
Tell you how it works? (*) Nah... though I'll laugh at you if you genuinely believe that the American Democrat party are "socialist". (Who was it said that Clinton was the best Republican president America had had for a long time?)
Anyhow, people take political concepts like "democracy" on their own, expecting to get a whole load of other stuff with them. Capitalism isn't democracy. Democracy isn't liberty (though it's pretty much the best prerequisite to it I can think of right now).
Capitalism isn't fascism per se, but it can fit into a fascist-style system quite comfortably if that's the way the country's being run (a la China; not that they were any better under "communism", and please don't tell me that they're *still* a "communist" society because they're totalitarian; see "political concepts" above). On the other hand it can fit into a democratic society fine, so long as corporate interests aren't allowed to gain disproportionate influence.
(*) I don't consider myself a socialist, though you probably would. Since right-wing Americans consider anyone whose views are to the left of your Democratic party to be a foaming-at-the-mouth commie/terrorist/whatever, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to convince them otherwise.
Hey, our laws in these situations aren't as bad as you seem to think! It's not all bad over here!
I *know*; I live in the UK as well, hence my knowledge of the EU consumer law which applies to me. As I said, UK/EU consumer law is generally better than the US, and anyway, speaking personally, I'd much rather live under Scottish/British/EU law than the US (*); though that, to some extent, probably reflects my political beliefs.
(*) Which isn't to say that there aren't good things about the US- granted a lot of them are in theory rather than practice, but the idea of a written constitution (for example) is something that Britain should do (but probably won't).
On the first - there's an EULA tied to a custom music player included on the CD which Sony are trying to use as a catch-all.
I'm still not convinced that this contains anything like sufficient explanation of what Sony's rootkit will do to someone's machine.
In fact, there's *nothing* in there that suggests on any reasonable reading that a damn *rootkit* will be installed on the user's machine. As I said, IANAL, but if that stands up in court, it doesn't say much about the court system in that country.
Is the user actually presented with an EULA to agree to first? (Perhaps I didn't read the articles as closely as I should have).
Are these CDs actually available in the UK?
Where is the EULA listed on the CD; or where is it referenced?
If it isn't actually listed on the CD, but merely referenced via a small URL on the package, has the person actually agreed to it?
Would they get away with this in the US? Even though your consumer laws are generally weaker than the EU's (*), I'm still not convinced that there is enough there for the person to "agree" to.
(*) A la "90 day warranties" on computers or consoles; the standard EU warranty is 1 year. AFAIK there isn't a "statutory" warranty period, but if it came to court, it would almost certainly be ruled that a computer should last that long. Actually, if it came to court, they'd probably expect it to last *longer* than a year, although the consumer might not be entitled to the full value of the computer. OTOH, the US has some "fair use" laws whereas the UK doesn't really, and item (9) would apply by default; which is probably why I thought "what's new?" when I first saw it.
t's important to make sure that the major labels realise that while DRM is legal, there are limits to what people will tolerate - and damaging peoples machines is not something that people are going to tolerate.
It's not simply a question of tolerance or not; some DRM may be "legal", but (IANAL) installing a root-kit on someone's machine without notification or permission almost certainly isn't. If they get away with this, it'll be because they have better lawyers, not because by any reasonable judgement it is "legal".
Of course, I hope it kicks up a stink for Sony too, but that's beside the point.
Can you imagine that not too long ago it was MS that was the new upstart fighting the monopolist IBM?
That as may be, they were *never* loved in the way that Apple are. Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" early in 1976 probably didn't help in the hacker community, and if IBM was a bigger "baddie" back then, it's probably because MS didn't have the same level of power until the late 1980s.
That having been said, you make some good points. Speaking as someone who's tempted to buy a Mac Mini when I have the money (nice interface *plus* BSD OS, sounds fine to me), I still reckon your modding down was undeserved... but entirely predictable given the rabid Apple-can-do-no-wrong fanboy tendency to jump on anything perceived as being remotely critical of Apple.
But I still think all of the xbox designs are missing a certain amount of aesthetics. Not to troll here, but I think Apple got it right, as well as NAD
So you'd like an XBox that matches your NADs?
I always wanted that too...
They're selling them in Australia too. Not common, but you do see them in sydney shops from time to time.
There would have been more sold in Australia, but there was a hold up; Sony have to modify the Japanese PSXs to meet local standards, and they can't find enough people with the necessary skills to turn things upside-down.
I get the feeling that this is where the misuse has become accepted as use. Personally, I think (correct or not) that it's pretty stupid and that the phrase "in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary" was pretty spot-on with respect to the XBox situation...
That as may be, they didn't "literally" give the X-Box away. Didn't you get the point of (or even bother reading) what I said in my post? I thought it was pretty clear.
Saying that "Microsoft were/are giving the XBox away" is justified as artistic license. Saying that they were "literally" doing that is just wrong. (Bangs head against wall)
> > TV on mobiles have been 'there' in Japan for awhile now.
> > Whether people actually watch TV on their phones is another question...
> In Japan, they have Giant Pink Robots to watch TV for you.
If the Japanese weren't so resistant to immigration, perhaps they could hire lots of old Korean people instead, and retrain them to watch TV instead of read email (-_^)
Which is why asking "customers" what they want via focus groups will *never* come up with a disruptive technology, or even one that is moderately different to what they already have. A really smart person might be able to look at the pattern of responses and read a gap in the market (that the consumers themselves don't know exists) into it, but it's unlikely.
Nor are they necessarily going to give an accurate response, even if presented with the (potential) new technology; asking people what they want and/or what they think of something doesn't necessarily reflect their real-life behaviour and thinking. Otherwise New Coke would have been a massive success.
In America we have been experimenting with materials that are inflammable for this very reason. What a country!
Are you saying that the expression "flammable" isn't used in the US? In Britain "inflammable" is the "traditionally correct" expression, but "flammable" seems to be a lot more common than it used to be. I haven't done a spot check, but let me say this...
I'd rather people used the "incorrect" but clear-in-meaning "flammable" than use the "correct" word if there's a notable risk of misunderstanding (which I believe there is with "inflammable").
Microsoft literally gave the Xbox away.
:)
Microsoft did not literally give the Xbox away. When we say stuff like "Microsoft gave the Xbox away", we accept some slight exaggeration being used to make a point.
I can't see any justification for throwing "literally" in there, unless you actually meant "literally". Or perhaps you didn't mean "literally" literally. But I doubt it...
Please don't tell me you were actually referring to Microsoft giving a few of the things away in promotions; we know that's not what you meant
Assuming that this isn't a hoax, and you really do work for Sony, why should we trust you? Or the person who gave you the information, for that matter?
I'm not entirely surprised, but slightly disappointed that this got modded up to +5 without a questioning voice responding.
It's a **** rootkit for ****'s sake! If Sony have the audacity to pull off something like this, I wouldn't trust them straight off to give me the truth either.
3D shiny glossy bubbles are on the way out. I look at them and I squirm already. I cringe. Soon will look back on them and everyone will disown this fad.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I knew there was a point I'd forgotten to include in my earlier post... in a few years time, people will be able to point to this logo and guess it was created circa 2003-2006 ("Apple knock-off").
It'll be as recognisable and dated as (say) 1980s graphic design was by the late 1990s ("Dynamic handwriting? Check. Pastel colours? Check. Triangle resting on some semi-randomly scattered speckles in the background? Check. Parallel lines in there? Check.")
The fact that the shadows around her legs make them (at a brief glance) look smaller, and hence her backside and hips proportionately fatter doesn't help either.
:(
Whole thing reminds me of a photograph of a girl taken at a trade show; she was being totally ripped to shreds here, but anyone with the remotest shred of photographic knowledge could see that there were several problems with the way the photograph was set up (most notably harsh overhead lighting; never does anyone's face much good).
This is the same reason I don't use a webcam. *Everybody* looks bad on a webcam; bad focus... but mainly bad lighting and the exaggerated perspective caused by sitting close to a wide angle lens. ******* awful....
So, out of curiosity, are you more into the NetBSD logo then? I didn't like it much at all at first, but on the other hand it might look better in 10 years than most.
As I first said when that logo came out a year or so back... it looked pretty bland and dated even then. Like something from the turn of the 80s/90s when the "lots of curved lines" look came in for corporate logos and so on (in the UK at least); or a logo for a bland political party. There's also something very subtley dated and dowdy about the typeface; something a mail-order company advertising in a middle-of-the-road newspaper during the late 1980s would have used.
OTOH, I'm definitely being picky here.
Actually it looks more like the sort of logo you'd find on an IM or P2P app (they all seem to be using that style of logo). It just looks amateurish.
Actually, it looks very slick and professionally designed. A geek in their bedroom with a ray-tracing package and a copy of GIMP could have produced something similar that would nevertheless have lacked the important 'professional' touch.
Perhaps what you were thinking was that it doesn't project *quite* the right image for FreeBSD?
To me, it's really bit too polished (a la IM/P2P app logo), and lacking a defined personality. It definitely looks better against a white background (more Apple-ish than ray-tracy in that context) though.
Then again, Linux was taken seriously in spite of the goofy penguin.
In spite of the fact that the canonical image of Tux is a professional-looking *picture*, it comes across as incredibly amateurish when used as a logo. Personally, I can't stand the damn thing; perhaps it reminds me of Orville the Duck, though.
Best open-source artwork by far are the Firefox and Thunderbird logos. Beautifully designed pieces that are neither overly glossy nor bland.
You know, the first time you posted the comment I thought to myself, "hmmm...interesting.." But the second time you posted it, I thought, "Wow, this guy is really onto something! I like what he says, and I want to read more!"
More information? Okay then... Portland School *really* is GAY, and it's going out with the Oregon College of Performing Arts. I appreciate that this is going to shock all the homophobic 14-year olds who've spent the previous 3 years of their life inside a building that happens to be GAY, but it's true. However, Portland School would like me to point out that it considers its sexuality to be irrelevant, and would prefer people to focus on its good work providing classrooms and amenities to the students of Portland.
In fact, it's a little-known fact that 93% of buildings and houses are in fact homosexual, and the other 7% are known to be bi-curious. If this disturbs you, or anyone reading this, the solution is obvious; stay outside at all times.
Enough garbage; first off, I was damn sure I'd not posted that message the first time, and even checked that this was the case. But obviously not hard enough...
I'm trying to figure out if the "troll" moderation was because I'd posted it twice (and it was assumed I was trolling), or if the person moderating had simply never read Wikipedia and didn't recognise a parody of vandalism when they saw it.
I mean, it wasn't an all-time classic, but it was worth at least a +1, Funny...
Great, so now people in developing countries will learn the truth... or just read lots of entires which have been "vandalized" with the word "boobies!"
Don't be so cynical. I believe that Slashdot would be vastly improved if it were possible for anyone to edit and improve stories POO!!!!!!!!! PORTLAND SCHOOL ARE GAY LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO and other users' comments.
Great, so now people in developing countries will learn the truth... or just read lots of entires which have been "vandalized" with the word "boobies!"
Stop being so damn cynical. I personally think Slashdot would be much improved if it were possibly to edit and improve any material on the site, including comments. This would allow POOOP!!!!! HA HA PORTLAND SCHOOL IS GAY insertion of constructive criticism.
This is the natural progression of evolution tho, those who have this gene are a step above the rest of us in the evolutionary scale.
I agree with the AC who also replied to this saying "There is no 'above' in the evolutionary scale. There is only the dead and the living (-and reproducing)."
It might be beneficial against HIV, but what if it has side-effects?
For example, the gene that helps defend against malaria (and is prevelant amongst many of African origin) is the same gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia. The benefit probably outweighs the problem, but it shouldn't be assumed that there is "better", "worse", "above" and so on.
People tend to view these things in a very short-term manner, when evolution is a long-term game.
I have to wonder, is Microsoft's future sales of Windows starting to look so bleak that Microsoft needs to play poker with their customers?
....
Steve Ballmer is reported to have said "Fucking South Koreans are fucking pussies. I'm going to fucking bury that country, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking destroy South Korea."
In other news, Microsoft are reported to be engaged in talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il regarding what Ballmer calls a "synergistic exchange of resources; in exchange for free Windows XP Home licenses, Microsoft will receive the use of North Korea's dedicated military personnel and hardware, including 'cutting edge nuclear technology'".
It was noted by analysts that Ballmer was "unusually serene and satisfied looking" during this announcement. The reason for this is as yet unclear.