"So what happens...... when they fire one of these at a disco ball? heh."
I'm curious why some moderator thought my post was 'off-topic'. The post was about lasers, the article was about lasers, and it was meant to be funny. I direct you towards this section of Slashdot's FAQ:
"If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome."
I don't care about losing karma or that my post dropped a point (fortunately other moderators had a little more sense), I just wanted to point out to some of you newbs that got moderator points that you can't be so literal with the 'off-topic' button. You risk being meta-moderated. Now, if you thought my little joke wasn't as funny as the moderations hinted at, then use the 'overrated' moderation. (Although I wish there was a "it's really not that funny" moderation...)
"When MS eventually decides to go with Intel's low-power processor Transmetta will die."
MS doesn't actually make the machines. It's the choice of the companies (like Toshiba) who make the TabletPC's. What they need MS for is to make sure that TabletPC's in general are worthwhile to have.
"They exist because MS lets them exist."
MS lets Transmeta exist? Where'd you conjure up that kind of bizarre logic?
"It wasn't until this very column, titled Mac OS X with Active Desktop, until I realized how very stupid the humans at slashdot are...Active Desktop when the text clearly says Active Directory. Jeez, where does slashdot find them?"
All humans at/. are very stupid because they made a textual mistake between two like-sounding MS buzzwords? Are you saying that one has to follow MS's fads religiously to not be an idiot? heh.
"Well, you may say that is a good reason. But if you really think that, then you probably have to mean that every other non-microsoft software should make a similar message appear when running a microsoft product"
Nope, that's flawed logic. Windows doesn't run on Winzip, Winzip runs on Windows. However, when Windows 2000 has a driver that isn't certified, you do get a warning that says "sure you wanna do this?". The reason they do that is, quite simply, the machine could stop running.
So yes, they're already doing that. And nobody's boo-hooing over it.
1. establish monopoly. 2. Target competitor. 3. Devise MS version of competitor's product - similar but incompatible. 4. Integrate into Windows and distribute for free. 5. Prevent computer manufacturers from including competitor's product. 6. Watch company die. 7. Get sued. 8. String out suit until you win or until suit is no longer relevant. 9. 2 days later...GOTO 2. "
You forgot:
-???? -Profit!
I'm not just making a stale joke here, you've missed the step where MS actually makes large sums of money.
"Except DR-DOS didn't work with WfW 3.11 (If I remember correctly. Of course, this was because Microsoft deliberately crippled WfW, not because of technical reasons)."
The story I heard was that the beta version of WfW threw up a message that said "you are running Dr Dos". It was just a message, it didn't crash. It was confusing to people, though.
If that's true then MS had every reason to do that. They had no idea how compatible DrDos was with Windows, and they weren't going to fix it for somebody else's product. They can go fix their own.
I caught that on CNN one day many years ago, but never followed up with it so who knows what's really true. It is a more believable story, though.
" People have seen through their shenanigans for years, have even demonstrated some of them (though perhaps the least noxious of them) in open court, and yet when they say jump the only thing we can say is how high? It's pathetic."
Why's it so pathetic? There are a number of glaring annoyances with both the PDF format and the PDF viewer. MS is quite up to the task of creating something that the end user will prefer. They'd easily kick Adobe's butt.
I can't remember the name of the company, but somebody is fishing the idea around Hollywood of 48 fps film. Saw it on Ebert about a year ago.
I predict that soon after theaters are equipped with digital projectors we'll start seeing >24fps movies. There's technology you can get today that uses morphing algorithms to expand 24fps all the way up to 60 fairly convincingly. As a matter of fact, Lost in Space used that technology quite a bit to slow some scenes down. I bet one day they'll take movies and re-process them up to 60fps.
"Dude, you are right, it's a fake story! It's Satire! THEY ARE NOT REALLY DOING THIS SO CALM DOWN! Dind't the foot as the Icon give you Clue #2?:x:q or was that ^q? Damn Vimacs!"
I think the real comedy here isn't the satirical write-up, but the responses to it.
'This is probably true in the short term; longer term, we'd be better off.'
No argument there. On the plus side, MS has made attempts to tighten it's grip. (Palladium anyone? DRM?) When they start limiting what one can do, it drives the need for somebody to swoop in and say "We don't do that crap." (Linux)
Whatever the DoJ does, they need to make sure that MS doesn't lose its incentive to develop stuff like the TabletPC.
"My local congresscritter (Washington State -- I wont call it a person -- she is just too stupid for words) claims that the dot-com bust was the result of the antitrust suit and if we would just 'leave microsoft alone' then everything would be ok.. we will all live in the land of milk and honey the sun will always shine in proper measure....."
Don't lump me in with that idiot. That's not even close to what I was saying.
I don't think there's any point to my continuing this discussion if everybody's going to make illogically extreme assumptions about what I'm either saying or not saying.
"Monopolies are not good for anything, expect for Microsoft..."
If we were talking about phone companies or power companies, I'd agree with you. In MS's case, I would disagree. MS's scenario is unique because it provides a standard (de facto that is) for developers to make their apps run. For example: If a game company wants to make their game for the PC, they only have to worry about Windows. If Linux were a strong competitor to Windows (in terms of users) then it would spread the game company thin. This has been observed in the console market.
"Now, if Microsoft is able to convince you that it is in your interest for them to continue as a monopoly, then the problem is you beeing so impressible."
I came to that observation on my own. I have no particular love for MS, but when I think about IBM giving up on providing Linux with their systems I can't help but think it was because they were happy to only worry about one OS. MS has done a lot of shitty things, no doubt about that, but you cannot argue that when PC's are less confusing they're more attractive for customers to buy.
It's not just that, I don't think the retailers are interested in messing with MS's momentum. MS's success is IBM's success which is Dell's success which is Gateway's success which is Best Buy's success which is...
I mean seriously, when the economy's in a slump, disrupting PC's biggest moneymaker isn't in anybody's interests except those getting squashed by MS.
"The fact that you A) have some kind of email notification of moderation turned on; B) actually watch it; C) give a damn about moderation; D) took the time to come back to the site and whine, is frankly pretty discouraging. If I had any faith left that most human beings didn't unduly burden themselves with concerns over the most pointless worthless ignorant bullshit you have eroded it completely."
So let me get this straight: My post made you lose all your faith that humans don't unduly burden themselves with concerns over the most pointless worthless ignorant bullshit. Is the reason that you feel that people burden themselves with pointless worthless igorant bullshit is because you're making a big stink over pointless worthless ignorant bullshit?
You illustrated your point well, pity you look like an overreactive idiot. I mean I could understand somebody being annoyed that I screwed up the italics tag, but to be annoyed so much over my complaint is really quite hilarious! Heh thanks for the laugh, buddy!
"A user has given a Offtopic (-1) moderation to your comment, Re:No registration, attached to Computerized Betting System Proves Vulnerable. Your comment is currently scored (0)."
Ah, over-zealous moderation of my parent post here.
Know what bugs me? I turned off the +1 bonus to let that guy know that the programmer's cheat sheet link in his sig was helpful. I have no doubt that it was off-topic, but modding me down over being polite (and turning off the bonus) was shitty.
I wasn't expecting to get modded up for it, but modding me down for it was a waste of moderation points.
I don't care if this +2 followup gets me modded down or not. Frivolously modding me down forced me to to defend myself.
"So if I like crash my laptop looking at a pr0n site, reboot, when X starts, I will see what I saw till X redraws the screen... normally about half a second...."
Heh. Tyler Durden's gotten a lot of people with that prank.
Slashdot Mirror
"So what happens... ... when they fire one of these at a disco ball? heh."
:)
I'm curious why some moderator thought my post was 'off-topic'. The post was about lasers, the article was about lasers, and it was meant to be funny. I direct you towards this section of Slashdot's FAQ:
"If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome."
I don't care about losing karma or that my post dropped a point (fortunately other moderators had a little more sense), I just wanted to point out to some of you newbs that got moderator points that you can't be so literal with the 'off-topic' button. You risk being meta-moderated. Now, if you thought my little joke wasn't as funny as the moderations hinted at, then use the 'overrated' moderation. (Although I wish there was a "it's really not that funny" moderation...)
Okay, I've said my bit, carry on.
Evidentally, asking a 'what if' question about shooting a disco ball with a high powered laser marked me as a troll. So... who did I piss off? heh.
... when they fire one of these at a disco ball? heh.
"When MS eventually decides to go with Intel's low-power processor Transmetta will die."
MS doesn't actually make the machines. It's the choice of the companies (like Toshiba) who make the TabletPC's. What they need MS for is to make sure that TabletPC's in general are worthwhile to have.
"They exist because MS lets them exist."
MS lets Transmeta exist? Where'd you conjure up that kind of bizarre logic?
"If your business model needs MS, then you're already done."
Tell that to Gateway and Dell.
"It wasn't until this very column, titled Mac OS X with Active Desktop, until I realized how very stupid the humans at slashdot are...Active Desktop when the text clearly says Active Directory. Jeez, where does slashdot find them?"
/. are very stupid because they made a textual mistake between two like-sounding MS buzzwords? Are you saying that one has to follow MS's fads religiously to not be an idiot? heh.
All humans at
Now that's funny. Where did Slashdot find you?
"Well, you may say that is a good reason. But if you really think that, then you probably have to mean that every other non-microsoft software should make a similar message appear when running a microsoft product"
Nope, that's flawed logic. Windows doesn't run on Winzip, Winzip runs on Windows. However, when Windows 2000 has a driver that isn't certified, you do get a warning that says "sure you wanna do this?". The reason they do that is, quite simply, the machine could stop running.
So yes, they're already doing that. And nobody's boo-hooing over it.
You forgot:
-????
-Profit!
I'm not just making a stale joke here, you've missed the step where MS actually makes large sums of money.
"Except DR-DOS didn't work with WfW 3.11 (If I remember correctly. Of course, this was because Microsoft deliberately crippled WfW, not because of technical reasons)."
The story I heard was that the beta version of WfW threw up a message that said "you are running Dr Dos". It was just a message, it didn't crash. It was confusing to people, though.
If that's true then MS had every reason to do that. They had no idea how compatible DrDos was with Windows, and they weren't going to fix it for somebody else's product. They can go fix their own.
I caught that on CNN one day many years ago, but never followed up with it so who knows what's really true. It is a more believable story, though.
" People have seen through their shenanigans for years, have even demonstrated some of them (though perhaps the least noxious of them) in open court, and yet when they say jump the only thing we can say is how high? It's pathetic."
Why's it so pathetic? There are a number of glaring annoyances with both the PDF format and the PDF viewer. MS is quite up to the task of creating something that the end user will prefer. They'd easily kick Adobe's butt.
Yeah I know what you mean. I did some frame expanding on an explosion once, the result was.. uh.. interesting but not realistic. :)
Ever hear of 'Icarus'? It's a camera tracking package. Part of me wonders if the technology there would help. Although it's not perfect either.
Oh well. Maybe they'll rerender Toy Story for us. =)
"Will we ever see > 24fps in the movie theater? "
I can't remember the name of the company, but somebody is fishing the idea around Hollywood of 48 fps film. Saw it on Ebert about a year ago.
I predict that soon after theaters are equipped with digital projectors we'll start seeing >24fps movies. There's technology you can get today that uses morphing algorithms to expand 24fps all the way up to 60 fairly convincingly. As a matter of fact, Lost in Space used that technology quite a bit to slow some scenes down. I bet one day they'll take movies and re-process them up to 60fps.
"Dude, you are right, it's a fake story! It's Satire! THEY ARE NOT REALLY DOING THIS SO CALM DOWN! Dind't the foot as the Icon give you Clue #2? :x:q or was that ^q? Damn Vimacs!"
I think the real comedy here isn't the satirical write-up, but the responses to it.
"You don't need a monopoly to establish standards."
Never said that.... What I did say was that MS's position was unique.
'This is probably true in the short term; longer term, we'd be better off.'
No argument there. On the plus side, MS has made attempts to tighten it's grip. (Palladium anyone? DRM?) When they start limiting what one can do, it drives the need for somebody to swoop in and say "We don't do that crap." (Linux)
Whatever the DoJ does, they need to make sure that MS doesn't lose its incentive to develop stuff like the TabletPC.
"My local congresscritter (Washington State -- I wont call it a person -- she is just too stupid for words) claims that the dot-com bust was the result of the antitrust suit and if we would just 'leave microsoft alone' then everything would be ok.. we will all live in the land of milk and honey the sun will always shine in proper measure....."
Don't lump me in with that idiot. That's not even close to what I was saying.
I don't think there's any point to my continuing this discussion if everybody's going to make illogically extreme assumptions about what I'm either saying or not saying.
My cat loves laser pointers. And now there's a mouse built in? Whoah... I wonder if I can torpedo her into a wall again.
"I read about a study recently where eye cancer patients had a laser pointer shone into their eyes for 15 minutes, with no ill effects."
Well yeah, if they already had eye cancer what harm could a pointer do?
"Monopolies are not good for anything, expect
for Microsoft..."
If we were talking about phone companies or power companies, I'd agree with you. In MS's case, I would disagree. MS's scenario is unique because it provides a standard (de facto that is) for developers to make their apps run. For example: If a game company wants to make their game for the PC, they only have to worry about Windows. If Linux were a strong competitor to Windows (in terms of users) then it would spread the game company thin. This has been observed in the console market.
"Now, if Microsoft is able to
convince you that it is in your interest for
them to continue as a monopoly, then the problem
is you beeing so impressible."
I came to that observation on my own. I have no particular love for MS, but when I think about IBM giving up on providing Linux with their systems I can't help but think it was because they were happy to only worry about one OS. MS has done a lot of shitty things, no doubt about that, but you cannot argue that when PC's are less confusing they're more attractive for customers to buy.
'MS has too much power where it counts...'
It's not just that, I don't think the retailers are interested in messing with MS's momentum. MS's success is IBM's success which is Dell's success which is Gateway's success which is Best Buy's success which is...
I mean seriously, when the economy's in a slump, disrupting PC's biggest moneymaker isn't in anybody's interests except those getting squashed by MS.
Wow, you're full of insightful comments. *Not* heh.
Jackass.
"The fact that you A) have some kind of email notification of moderation turned on; B) actually watch it; C) give a damn about moderation; D) took the time to come back to the site and whine, is frankly pretty discouraging. If I had any faith left that most human beings didn't unduly burden themselves with concerns over the most pointless worthless ignorant bullshit you have eroded it completely."
So let me get this straight: My post made you lose all your faith that humans don't unduly burden themselves with concerns over the most pointless worthless ignorant bullshit. Is the reason that you feel that people burden themselves with pointless worthless igorant bullshit is because you're making a big stink over pointless worthless ignorant bullshit?
You illustrated your point well, pity you look like an overreactive idiot. I mean I could understand somebody being annoyed that I screwed up the italics tag, but to be annoyed so much over my complaint is really quite hilarious! Heh thanks for the laugh, buddy!
"A user has given a Offtopic (-1) moderation to your comment, Re:No registration, attached to Computerized Betting System Proves Vulnerable. Your comment is currently scored (0)."
Ah, over-zealous moderation of my parent post here.
Know what bugs me? I turned off the +1 bonus to let that guy know that the programmer's cheat sheet link in his sig was helpful. I have no doubt that it was off-topic, but modding me down over being polite (and turning off the bonus) was shitty.
I wasn't expecting to get modded up for it, but modding me down for it was a waste of moderation points.
I don't care if this +2 followup gets me modded down or not. Frivolously modding me down forced me to to defend myself.
Just wanted to say that I found the link in your sig to be useful. Thank you. :)
"So if I like crash my laptop looking at a pr0n site, reboot, when X starts, I will see what I saw till X redraws the screen... normally about half a second...."
Heh. Tyler Durden's gotten a lot of people with that prank.