Flamebait? If I had said "THATS NOT NEWS!!!" I'd understand a flamebait moderation, but "how about a little backstory for the uninitiated?" request is not exactly the type of thing that'll have people out for my blood.
Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it..
on
Spielberg's Taken
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"well given that its a miniseries, it'll be off the air due to natural causes soon enough."
Well I'm glad you were around to clear that up. I apologize to everybody who thought my joke was funny.
Oh great, Slashdot likes it..
on
Spielberg's Taken
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"Since the story didn't mention it, the only difference between 1.2 and 1.2.1 is the fix for the DHTML bug (#182500)."
Good thing this made front page news, eh? Heh. You know how version 1.2.1 of any piece of software is sooOOOoo highly anticipated.
Piece of advice for story submitters out there: Not every single person on Slashdot gives a rootin toot about Mozilla. Consider putting a little background in your posts. A little blurb like "This is significant because 1.2 was pulled due to a bug that 1.2.1 now fixes." would prevent people like me from making sarcastic comments (like the one above) about the importance of the news.
"So if they break up MS, it would be replaced with what...? OSS alternatives generating $0 tax revenue, and 0 jobs?"
Or what happens if they heavily fine MS? Besides making their stock price plummit (bad for economy as other companies would suffer from that as well), what would it really do? I'm hard pressed to imagine that a fine would make them say "well we better prevent that from happening again". At best it'll make them say "huh. We can act like this, and it only costs this much. Let's figure out how efficient we can be!"
"The lawsuit was just abuot a lot of pissed off competitors that couldn't keep up. MS won the PC market fair and square."
Though I agree with the 'competitors that couldnt keep up' bit, it has been proven MS has done some illegal stuff.
However, what's never really talked about is that MS needed cooperation from outside sources to pull their stunts. Just as an example, it's in Gateway's best interests to have only 1 (one) O.S. to support. Extra OS's = extra support staff = extra QA testing = extra $$$, passed on to the consumer. You'll notice that the retailers weren't crying foul until long after the charges were filed against MS. You'd think they'd be complaining before Netscape did, afterall they do have demand to fulfill.
Heh. The point I'm making is that if MS gets punished, why not punish the companies that went along with it? The answer is simple: You don't. If you punish everybody that went along with MS's monopoly, you basically punish everybody that's keeping this economy alive. The truth of the matter is that the majority of the market wanted MS to be the standard.
"So how did MS do this? What part of this new market do you see MS as responsible for, and how? They were a part of it, there is no denying that... a HUGE part of it.. but to imply they are responsible for it is another matter entirely."
The right product at the right time. Windows 95 came out at the dawn of the internet explosion. The only comparable product out there was Macintosh, and people didn't want Macs.
No Windows 95 = much smaller PC explosion in the mid-90's.
"This has got to stop. The anti-Microsoft propaganda and complete disregard for any kind of SOCIAL regularity is pissing me off."
Parent poster has a point. Slashdot's turning into an Anti-MS tabloid. Though this story is legit, some of the recent stories like "Apple Users Hate Microsoft" illustrate how ridiculously low this site can reach.
Remember the good old days when Slashdot was about posting cool geek stuff? I can't believe a site that's so pro-Linux can't help but watch MS's every move.
"Grandma and grampa checking their email won't need something that fast and even the normal computer user will never experience such CPU intensive work to need a larger word size."
That's a bit of a narrow minded view, don'tcha think? Consider this: We don't know what we'll be doing with computers 2-3 years from now. If it turns out that PVRs are a killer App, for example, then suddenly 64-bit processors are interesting.
The "who really needs it for the most basic stuff?" argument is extremely tired. Lots of people buy their machines based on their potential, not what they can do with them today. Don't believe me? Then look at all the people who bought an XBOX solely because of it's chipset and hard drive. They were (and are today) expecting to eventually buy games that blow them away.
If computers were strictly used for their most basic features (internet browsing, email, etc...) then 'internet appliances' would have been some sort of hit as opposed to the flop that they are. So please, put this 'how do I get my grandma to buy one?' argument to rest. The answer is she won't. But there is still a large market of people who do want/need 64-bit processing. You don't need for grandma to want one in order for the product to be a success.
"Who says you have to sign up for Hotmail to access Microsoft's IM service?"
I didn't, although it's more or less true. When you sign up for Hotmail, you're signing up for Passport. Sign up for Messenger, and you're signing up for Passport.
"Any time you use any Microsoft technology, you HAVE to sign-up for a passport license."
Not true. I've got people in my office today who have laptops running Windows XP. They are *not* forced to sign up for Passport. Let me repeat: They are not forced to sign up for Passport.
When you do need (note: I didn't say forced) to sign up for Passport is when you use their IM stuff. That is a choice you can make. It's a choice you make when you sign up for Hotmail. There's no forcing going on.
And no, Paypal doesn't require a Passport to sign up. I have no idea where you conjured up that idea.
...stories like these were properly labeled as "MS Troll" instead of "Technology", that way I could filter them out.
The article basically says "We can't get into Passport's market share because MS forced people to sign up." That's a fair statement except for one minor detail: Massive numbers of people aren't running around saying "I need a single log-in point across multiple domains!".
If the demand's not there, bleating about MS beating you isn't going to make it better. Frankly, I think the only reason this article made it to Slashdot is that juicy little line about MS "forcing" people to sign up with Passport.
I can't be the only one who'd like to filter these stupid articles.
"can we justify the dramatic increase in development time to reach a minority that would be better served by text-only content?"
a.) Who says it'd be a 'dramatic' increase in time? How long do you think it takes?
b.) If they're better served by text, then go with text. Nobody's saying "use sound in every possible case in every possible situation", I don't live in a world of absolutes. However, nobody would be 'better served' by using text only in a game like Quake.
There is no single solution. There's no such thing as 'one size fits all'. You don't try to solve problems that way.
"For sites that have constantly changing data (stock charts for example), what solutions/tools are there to make their graphics accessible?"
Flash? If somebody's blind, for example, you can make a Flash interface that's all sound. I doubt it'd be all that hard to say "Intel: Up FOUR point thREE" or something like that.
It's not that the problem's unsolvable, it's that nobody (that I'm aware of anyway...) has put a lot of effort into catering to that demographic. I saw a site once that used Flash to cater to the visually impaired, and I was quite surprised with the results. I think the guy made his point tha it's possible. However, there is a huge hurdle: How does my site identify somebody with a disability?
Too bad my website can't ask the user's browser: "Is this person blind?"
"However, can we realistically try to turn any mutlimedia feature into its accessible equivalent? Is it even feasible other than providing a text-only equivalent?"
A few months ago, Slashdot ran a story about a Quake mod that was all sound. The intent was to allow blind people to play.
Somebody in that article posted a link to a site that was made for the vision impaired using Flash. It not only gave you sound cues when to click, but it also let you know if you were close to something clickable.
Can every feature be implemented? Nobody's claiming that. Who says that's necessary though?
...the real reason a story like this was posted was the Anti-MS FUD Campaign has run out of ammo. Apparently, MS didn't make the news yesterday so they had nothing to attack them with. Relax though, you'll find more Jerry Springer'esque drama as soon as MS makes any type of move.
"So, while it's impressive to build from scratch, it still is a derivative model in the same way any other one you can buy is."
Nothing wrong with that. Part of making good art is enjoying what you do. If recreating the Enterprise suits your fancy, by all means go do it. It's really not an issue until you try to sell it.
Re:why waste money...
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
..."2" is not a phonetic symbol, it's a number. Same goes for "4"...
Say '2' out loud...
Say '4' out loud...
Number of letters in '2': 1 Number of letters in 'two': 3 Number of letters in '4': 1 Number of letters in 'four': 4
4 is shorter than four, and 2 is shorter than two.
So.. 2 sounds like two or to, and 4 sounds like for.
This rings a lot like phonetic shorthand to me. Who cares if it's not an offical 'University Approved' symbol, it's still quite understandable. Argue all you want, that type of dialect is not going to disappear off the net anytime soon. If you want to waste time making useless points about it, then I'd suggest you start a campaign to convince altavista to provide a translator for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait? If I had said "THATS NOT NEWS!!!" I'd understand a flamebait moderation, but "how about a little backstory for the uninitiated?" request is not exactly the type of thing that'll have people out for my blood.
"well given that its a miniseries, it'll be off the air due to natural causes soon enough."
Well I'm glad you were around to clear that up. I apologize to everybody who thought my joke was funny.
... that means it'll be cancelled soon.
"Since the story didn't mention it, the only difference between 1.2 and 1.2.1 is the fix for the DHTML bug (#182500)."
Good thing this made front page news, eh? Heh. You know how version 1.2.1 of any piece of software is sooOOOoo highly anticipated.
Piece of advice for story submitters out there: Not every single person on Slashdot gives a rootin toot about Mozilla. Consider putting a little background in your posts. A little blurb like "This is significant because 1.2 was pulled due to a bug that 1.2.1 now fixes." would prevent people like me from making sarcastic comments (like the one above) about the importance of the news.
"This is pure BS, XP nags to register for an MS-Passport and stops functioning if you do not."
100% untrue. I *maintain* XP machines here, nobody's been nagged to register with Passport.
Heh, I'm the troll?
Whatever.
You may resume goosestepping around chanting "Down with Microsoft". You wouldn't want to waste any brainpower actually thinking about the situation.
"So if they break up MS, it would be replaced with what...? OSS alternatives generating $0 tax revenue, and 0 jobs?"
Or what happens if they heavily fine MS? Besides making their stock price plummit (bad for economy as other companies would suffer from that as well), what would it really do? I'm hard pressed to imagine that a fine would make them say "well we better prevent that from happening again". At best it'll make them say "huh. We can act like this, and it only costs this much. Let's figure out how efficient we can be!"
Heh.
"The lawsuit was just abuot a lot of pissed off competitors that couldn't keep up. MS won the PC market fair and square."
Though I agree with the 'competitors that couldnt keep up' bit, it has been proven MS has done some illegal stuff.
However, what's never really talked about is that MS needed cooperation from outside sources to pull their stunts. Just as an example, it's in Gateway's best interests to have only 1 (one) O.S. to support. Extra OS's = extra support staff = extra QA testing = extra $$$, passed on to the consumer. You'll notice that the retailers weren't crying foul until long after the charges were filed against MS. You'd think they'd be complaining before Netscape did, afterall they do have demand to fulfill.
Heh. The point I'm making is that if MS gets punished, why not punish the companies that went along with it? The answer is simple: You don't. If you punish everybody that went along with MS's monopoly, you basically punish everybody that's keeping this economy alive. The truth of the matter is that the majority of the market wanted MS to be the standard.
"So how did MS do this? What part of this new market do you see MS as responsible for, and how?
They were a part of it, there is no denying that... a HUGE part of it.. but to imply they are responsible for it is another matter entirely."
The right product at the right time. Windows 95 came out at the dawn of the internet explosion. The only comparable product out there was Macintosh, and people didn't want Macs.
No Windows 95 = much smaller PC explosion in the mid-90's.
"This has got to stop. The anti-Microsoft propaganda and complete disregard for any kind of SOCIAL regularity is pissing me off."
Parent poster has a point. Slashdot's turning into an Anti-MS tabloid. Though this story is legit, some of the recent stories like "Apple Users Hate Microsoft" illustrate how ridiculously low this site can reach.
Remember the good old days when Slashdot was about posting cool geek stuff? I can't believe a site that's so pro-Linux can't help but watch MS's every move.
"Grandma and grampa checking their email won't need something that fast and even the normal computer user will never experience such CPU intensive work to need a larger word size."
That's a bit of a narrow minded view, don'tcha think? Consider this: We don't know what we'll be doing with computers 2-3 years from now. If it turns out that PVRs are a killer App, for example, then suddenly 64-bit processors are interesting.
The "who really needs it for the most basic stuff?" argument is extremely tired. Lots of people buy their machines based on their potential, not what they can do with them today. Don't believe me? Then look at all the people who bought an XBOX solely because of it's chipset and hard drive. They were (and are today) expecting to eventually buy games that blow them away.
If computers were strictly used for their most basic features (internet browsing, email, etc...) then 'internet appliances' would have been some sort of hit as opposed to the flop that they are. So please, put this 'how do I get my grandma to buy one?' argument to rest. The answer is she won't. But there is still a large market of people who do want/need 64-bit processing. You don't need for grandma to want one in order for the product to be a success.
"Who says you have to sign up for Hotmail to access Microsoft's IM service?"
I didn't, although it's more or less true. When you sign up for Hotmail, you're signing up for Passport. Sign up for Messenger, and you're signing up for Passport.
"I don't know about that. Sombody thought it was a good idea [mr.net]."
:P
Um, not to be a wet blanket or anything, but a blind person couldn't play that.
"Any time you use any Microsoft technology, you HAVE to sign-up for a passport license."
Not true. I've got people in my office today who have laptops running Windows XP. They are *not* forced to sign up for Passport. Let me repeat: They are not forced to sign up for Passport.
When you do need (note: I didn't say forced) to sign up for Passport is when you use their IM stuff. That is a choice you can make. It's a choice you make when you sign up for Hotmail. There's no forcing going on.
And no, Paypal doesn't require a Passport to sign up. I have no idea where you conjured up that idea.
...stories like these were properly labeled as "MS Troll" instead of "Technology", that way I could filter them out.
The article basically says "We can't get into Passport's market share because MS forced people to sign up." That's a fair statement except for one minor detail: Massive numbers of people aren't running around saying "I need a single log-in point across multiple domains!".
If the demand's not there, bleating about MS beating you isn't going to make it better. Frankly, I think the only reason this article made it to Slashdot is that juicy little line about MS "forcing" people to sign up with Passport.
I can't be the only one who'd like to filter these stupid articles.
"can we justify the dramatic increase in development time to reach a minority that would be better served by text-only content?"
a.) Who says it'd be a 'dramatic' increase in time? How long do you think it takes?
b.) If they're better served by text, then go with text. Nobody's saying "use sound in every possible case in every possible situation", I don't live in a world of absolutes. However, nobody would be 'better served' by using text only in a game like Quake.
There is no single solution. There's no such thing as 'one size fits all'. You don't try to solve problems that way.
"For sites that have constantly changing data (stock charts for example), what solutions/tools are there to make their graphics accessible?"
Flash? If somebody's blind, for example, you can make a Flash interface that's all sound. I doubt it'd be all that hard to say "Intel: Up FOUR point thREE" or something like that.
It's not that the problem's unsolvable, it's that nobody (that I'm aware of anyway...) has put a lot of effort into catering to that demographic. I saw a site once that used Flash to cater to the visually impaired, and I was quite surprised with the results. I think the guy made his point tha it's possible. However, there is a huge hurdle: How does my site identify somebody with a disability?
Too bad my website can't ask the user's browser: "Is this person blind?"
"However, can we realistically try to turn any mutlimedia feature into its accessible equivalent? Is it even feasible other than providing a text-only equivalent?"
A few months ago, Slashdot ran a story about a Quake mod that was all sound. The intent was to allow blind people to play.
Somebody in that article posted a link to a site that was made for the vision impaired using Flash. It not only gave you sound cues when to click, but it also let you know if you were close to something clickable.
Can every feature be implemented? Nobody's claiming that. Who says that's necessary though?
...the real reason a story like this was posted was the Anti-MS FUD Campaign has run out of ammo. Apparently, MS didn't make the news yesterday so they had nothing to attack them with. Relax though, you'll find more Jerry Springer'esque drama as soon as MS makes any type of move.
Thanks for pointing me there!
"What's the matter, someone shit in your coffee? Maybe you need more sugar..."
/BritshAccent
It's a bit nutty.
Wanker. :P
"*shrug*, use them if you like, just don't expect me to read your comments, or reply to your mail, or mod you up, or take you seriously."
I typed 1(one) word that way. If you're not going to reply to my mail, mod me up, or take me seriously for that, then the problem is 100% yours.
Intolerance is not a virtue.
"So, while it's impressive to build from scratch, it still is a derivative model in the same way any other one you can buy is."
Nothing wrong with that. Part of making good art is enjoying what you do. If recreating the Enterprise suits your fancy, by all means go do it. It's really not an issue until you try to sell it.
..."2" is not a phonetic symbol, it's a number. Same goes for "4"...
Say '2' out loud...
Say '4' out loud...
Number of letters in '2': 1
Number of letters in 'two': 3
Number of letters in '4': 1
Number of letters in 'four': 4
4 is shorter than four, and 2 is shorter than two.
So.. 2 sounds like two or to, and 4 sounds like for.
This rings a lot like phonetic shorthand to me. Who cares if it's not an offical 'University Approved' symbol, it's still quite understandable. Argue all you want, that type of dialect is not going to disappear off the net anytime soon. If you want to waste time making useless points about it, then I'd suggest you start a campaign to convince altavista to provide a translator for you.