Is it so hard to believe that he'd frown upon piracy? Just because freeloading is part of the "open source" ethic doesn't mean that all other creators must live by that ethic.
Even shows the code loaded into Visual Studio. He's not talking to "consumers". And since when did Microsoft ever claim, even to consumers, that all there OSes were the same on all devices? Consumers couldn't care less about whether a phone OS is the same as a PC OS.
Simply assign each browser a random number, then sort them by each corresponding number. The current solution is over-engineered. It's till random, but lacks an even distribution of probability. They should make the very simple change to "fix" that, if for no other reason than just to be beyond reproach.
such as eschewing a menubar and consolidating the commands in Page and Tool dropdown buttons.
Incidentally, Slashdotters bashed MS for doing this in IE7, but were silent about Google doing the same thing in Chrome. Which reminds me that slashdotters also bashed Microsoft for merging the Back/Forward navigation stack into a single dropdown control in IE7, but said nothing when Firefox 3 copied that idea. I only point out these things to show that slashdotters aren't the most objective analysts when it comes to judging UI.
That said, I agree with you that Chrome's UI is better than IE's, and I think Chrome's UI is the best of all browsers.
Looks to me like the Pirate Party has a horrible vote vs party membership ratio. It's shockingly pathetic. So what will 5000 more members mean? 10000 more votes? Big deal.
BTW, yes the Pirate Party is utterly insignificant politically. Or do you think that zero seats is significant?
A business model that relies on "support" for revenue actually creates a disincentive to produce the "ideal" piece of software (i.e. powerful, intuitive, easy to use, stable).
LOL Obama doesn't support the "fairness doctrine", that's a srawman you right-wingers have created. I keep seeing you guys talking of how Obama and Pelosi want to bring back the "fairness doctrine" but there's zero evidence of that.
Biden's "gaffes" were boring. And Biden himself was relatively boring, compared to Palin, who was a fresh face. EVERYTHING Palin did got more coverage than whatever Biden did, both the good and the bad.
Secondly, the press absolutely swooned and fawned over Palin until she made a complete fool of herself in her Katie Couric interview (so much so that SNL didn't even have to "parodize" her statements; Tina Fey was able to just say what Palin herself had said, which was parody in itself).
Even so, the press still declared her the overwhelming winner in her debate with Biden, before the polls showed that the public felt the exact opposite. So they were still biased *for* her even at that point. They didn't really turn on her until polls showed that she was a drag on the ticket, her approval rating kept dropping, she was spouting mean-spirited rhetoric ("real America" vs "unreal America" blathering), and McCain's own staffers started leaking bad stories about her.
At the end of the day, most people don't think she's qualified for the job she was seeking. Live with it.
"I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential race"
That sound you hear is that of your credibility being flushed down that toilet. You vote for a wacko and then expect us to take you seriously? Please...
Anyway, as shown above, the Democratic candidate ALWAYS loses among white voters, even when they win (i.e. Clinton, Carter, Obama, or Gore (won popular vote)). Just as the Republican candidate ALWAYS loses Blacks and Latinos, regardless of whether they win or lose. The fact is, Obama performed better in all of those categories than previous Democrats since LBJ, and his overall percentage of the vote 53% is the highest of any Democrat since LBJ. You think that was done simply on the backs of black votes? Get real.
It was reported, you ignoramus (that's not an insult, but the literal truth). Hillary's campaign brought it up in Dec 2007, right before the Iowa caucus, and the media spent a whole week on it.
Obama himself not only wrote about it in the 90's in his first book (which diffuses the issue anyway), he spoke about it a couple of weeks before Hillary tried to run with it.
Romney and Guiliani also brought it up around the same time.
You're not stating the whole of what Obama said regarding public funding, but let's grant your point for argument's sake. My response is: So what? Once he saw he could raise more money directly from the public (rather than indirectly from the public via the government) while still not taking lobbyist money, he changed his mind. There was nothing stopping McCain from doing the same.
That you're advocating a pirate site as a "better competitor" to netflix would seem to justify the use of DRM. It's interesting to see pirates like yourself complain about DRM. It's like burglars complaining about people feeling the need to lock their doors.
The whole issue is stupid anyway. First, if you're claiming that Gates did say that 640KB should be enough for everyone, it's up to you to prove it by providing an actual citation. You can't expect someone to prove that he didn't say it (as they say, "you can't prove a negative").
Second, if someone did say "640KB should be enough for everyone", it was true at the time it was allegedly said. The quote doesn't say, "for all time", does it? I read the quote as "640KB should be enough for everyone at this time and for the next few years". So this whole thing is silly.
Microsoft was never "convicted" of the felony portion of the Sherman act, because they were never charged with criminal activity, period. Learn the difference between criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits before speaking on this again.
"Obviously it is a gray area, but IMO for the code just being available generally the term "public source" would be much more precise..."
"public source" isn't "precise" at all, because it implies "public domain".
For that matter "General Public License" also implies "public domain". I only bring that up because OSI made Microsoft change the names of MS-PL and MS-RL because OSI claimed that their original names were misleading, yet had no problems with the extremely misleading "General Public License" name, thus showing OSI's hypocrisy on these sorts of matters.
"This is definitely against the spirit of Open Source, even if not the letter."
I note that you capitalized "Open Source", which indicates that you are referring to a specific definition of the term (I assume the OSI definition). But the CodePlex site says, "CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site", where "open source" is not capitalized. So they're using the term "open source" colloquially, rather than going by some official definition. Does OSI or slashdot or Bruce Perens or ESR or Miguel de Icaza, or jimicus or whoever else now presume to have the power to restrict the use of the term "open source" even when not capitalized? Who the hell gave any of them that power?
Even if that were true (which I doubt), CodePlex allows many many licenses, OSI approved and non-OSI approved. And I know that there are GPL2 projects there.
I can understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host GPL3 projects, considering that GPL3 contains clauses that were written specifically to attack Microsoft and Novell (it also contains clauses meant to attack Tivo). Why would Microsoft want to host projects under anti-Microsoft licenses? Anyway, I see no proof that CodePlex doesn't allow GPL3.
No, in the EU case Microsoft offered the source code to the protocols in question, and the EC (and slashdot, ironically) declared that source code wasn't good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it so hard to believe that he'd frown upon piracy?
Just because freeloading is part of the "open source" ethic doesn't mean that all other creators must live by that ethic.
Three jokes that have one thing in common: they are totally and utterly unelectable. Thank God.
Even shows the code loaded into Visual Studio. He's not talking to "consumers". And since when did Microsoft ever claim, even to consumers, that all there OSes were the same on all devices? Consumers couldn't care less about whether a phone OS is the same as a PC OS.
C#/XNA will do just fine to create top-end mobile games, as evidenced by the ZuneHD's Project Gotham Racing game, and other 3-D games.
"Zune HD - 3D Games Demo"
I wonder how many javascripts on the web are using this same flawed random sort implementation? Probably lots.
Simply assign each browser a random number, then sort them by each corresponding number. The current solution is over-engineered. It's till random, but lacks an even distribution of probability. They should make the very simple change to "fix" that, if for no other reason than just to be beyond reproach.
such as eschewing a menubar and consolidating the commands in Page and Tool dropdown buttons.
Incidentally, Slashdotters bashed MS for doing this in IE7, but were silent about Google doing the same thing in Chrome. Which reminds me that slashdotters also bashed Microsoft for merging the Back/Forward navigation stack into a single dropdown control in IE7, but said nothing when Firefox 3 copied that idea. I only point out these things to show that slashdotters aren't the most objective analysts when it comes to judging UI.
That said, I agree with you that Chrome's UI is better than IE's, and I think Chrome's UI is the best of all browsers.
OEMs with discounts for not bundling competing software. So the "power isn't left with them".
bundle competing browsers. They didn't "pull" Windows from OEMs that did bundle them.
Looks to me like the Pirate Party has a horrible vote vs party membership ratio. It's shockingly pathetic. So what will 5000 more members mean? 10000 more votes? Big deal.
BTW, yes the Pirate Party is utterly insignificant politically. Or do you think that zero seats is significant?
A business model that relies on "support" for revenue actually creates a disincentive to produce the "ideal" piece of software (i.e. powerful, intuitive, easy to use, stable).
"You only have to look at Sun and IBM to see that they are on track with the need to change."
I don't know about IBM, but Sun's version of "being on track with change" includes massive layoffs and near bankruptcy.
Sun announces 6000 layoffs, 15% of its workforce (Nov 2008)
Microsoft, for all its "problems" and outdated/maligned business model, is hiring lots of people while its competitors are doing the opposite.
LOL
Obama doesn't support the "fairness doctrine", that's a srawman you right-wingers have created. I keep seeing you guys talking of how Obama and Pelosi want to bring back the "fairness doctrine" but there's zero evidence of that.
Biden's "gaffes" were boring. And Biden himself was relatively boring, compared to Palin, who was a fresh face. EVERYTHING Palin did got more coverage than whatever Biden did, both the good and the bad.
Secondly, the press absolutely swooned and fawned over Palin until she made a complete fool of herself in her Katie Couric interview (so much so that SNL didn't even have to "parodize" her statements; Tina Fey was able to just say what Palin herself had said, which was parody in itself).
Even so, the press still declared her the overwhelming winner in her debate with Biden, before the polls showed that the public felt the exact opposite. So they were still biased *for* her even at that point. They didn't really turn on her until polls showed that she was a drag on the ticket, her approval rating kept dropping, she was spouting mean-spirited rhetoric ("real America" vs "unreal America" blathering), and McCain's own staffers started leaking bad stories about her.
At the end of the day, most people don't think she's qualified for the job she was seeking. Live with it.
"I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential race"
That sound you hear is that of your credibility being flushed down that toilet. You vote for a wacko and then expect us to take you seriously? Please...
Anyway, as shown above, the Democratic candidate ALWAYS loses among white voters, even when they win (i.e. Clinton, Carter, Obama, or Gore (won popular vote)). Just as the Republican candidate ALWAYS loses Blacks and Latinos, regardless of whether they win or lose. The fact is, Obama performed better in all of those categories than previous Democrats since LBJ, and his overall percentage of the vote 53% is the highest of any Democrat since LBJ. You think that was done simply on the backs of black votes? Get real.
It was reported, you ignoramus (that's not an insult, but the literal truth).
Hillary's campaign brought it up in Dec 2007, right before the Iowa caucus, and the media spent a whole week on it.
Obama himself not only wrote about it in the 90's in his first book (which diffuses the issue anyway), he spoke about it a couple of weeks before Hillary tried to run with it.
Romney and Guiliani also brought it up around the same time.
The media covered all of this.
Then NY Times did an extensive article on it in February.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html
It was reported.
If McCain thought it would help him, he would've brought it up himself or run ads on it. He didn't waste time because even he knew nobody cared.
You're not stating the whole of what Obama said regarding public funding, but let's grant your point for argument's sake. My response is: So what? Once he saw he could raise more money directly from the public (rather than indirectly from the public via the government) while still not taking lobbyist money, he changed his mind. There was nothing stopping McCain from doing the same.
That you're advocating a pirate site as a "better competitor" to netflix would seem to justify the use of DRM. It's interesting to see pirates like yourself complain about DRM. It's like burglars complaining about people feeling the need to lock their doors.
The whole issue is stupid anyway.
First, if you're claiming that Gates did say that 640KB should be enough for everyone, it's up to you to prove it by providing an actual citation. You can't expect someone to prove that he didn't say it (as they say, "you can't prove a negative").
Second, if someone did say "640KB should be enough for everyone", it was true at the time it was allegedly said. The quote doesn't say, "for all time", does it? I read the quote as "640KB should be enough for everyone at this time and for the next few years". So this whole thing is silly.
Microsoft was never "convicted" of the felony portion of the Sherman act, because they were never charged with criminal activity, period. Learn the difference between criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits before speaking on this again.
http://nbcolympics.com/ , which uses Silverlight for its videos, is still running as well.
And there are some very cool Silverlight Deep Zoom sites like http://www.deepzoomobama.com/ , that Flash has no answer for at all.
"Obviously it is a gray area, but IMO for the code just being available generally the term "public source" would be much more precise..."
"public source" isn't "precise" at all, because it implies "public domain".
For that matter "General Public License" also implies "public domain". I only bring that up because OSI made Microsoft change the names of MS-PL and MS-RL because OSI claimed that their original names were misleading, yet had no problems with the extremely misleading "General Public License" name, thus showing OSI's hypocrisy on these sorts of matters.
"This is definitely against the spirit of Open Source, even if not the letter."
I note that you capitalized "Open Source", which indicates that you are referring to a specific definition of the term (I assume the OSI definition). But the CodePlex site says, "CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site", where "open source" is not capitalized. So they're using the term "open source" colloquially, rather than going by some official definition. Does OSI or slashdot or Bruce Perens or ESR or Miguel de Icaza, or jimicus or whoever else now presume to have the power to restrict the use of the term "open source" even when not capitalized? Who the hell gave any of them that power?
Even if that were true (which I doubt), CodePlex allows many many licenses, OSI approved and non-OSI approved. And I know that there are GPL2 projects there.
I can understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host GPL3 projects, considering that GPL3 contains clauses that were written specifically to attack Microsoft and Novell (it also contains clauses meant to attack Tivo). Why would Microsoft want to host projects under anti-Microsoft licenses? Anyway, I see no proof that CodePlex doesn't allow GPL3.
No, in the EU case Microsoft offered the source code to the protocols in question, and the EC (and slashdot, ironically) declared that source code wasn't good enough.