Bull crap. You have choice. There are laptop makers out there that sell OS-less laptops. Just because the laptop you want to buy is bundled with Windows and you don't want Windows does not mean that you don't have a choice. And this has nothing to do with "freedom as in speech" -- its just computer makers offering the product that will make them the most money.
For the most part, manufacturers refuse to offer a computer with Windows because their MS license forbids them from doing so. This is horribly, horribly wrong.
No, they offer Windows because thats what 90+% of all users want on their computer. If you recall, part of the Microsoft settlement with the government was that they cannot adjust prices based on other products that an OEM sells.
The point is, no one company should be able to dictate what manufacturers can and can't sell on their computers
I guess this is the point that you just don't get. Microsoft does nothing to dictate what PC manufacturers can and can't sell on Computers. Its the 95% of the market that chooses Windows that dictate what PC manufacturers sell. Why would any cost minded company in an industry with such tiny margins offer a product that only 1-2% (if that) of their customers may be interested in?
The whole point of Windows Refund Day is that Dell AND Gateway AND Compaq/HP AND IBM (well, less so for them) will get so annoyed by giving out these refunds that they will unite against Microsoft's restrictive licenses
Um. Yeah. Just like they did last time? (Employee: "Boss, there are a half dozen greasy, pasty white geeks pounding on the door demanding a refund" Boss: "Just ignore them like we did last time. They will eventually crawl back into their basements")
You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman [house.gov] [house.gov] or senator [senate.gov] [senate.gov]. Tell them that choice is important to you, and that it's important that the base of open, free, software available with source is constantly kept up to date, viable, and relevent to today's needs.
Good Hell. What business does the government have with keeping the "base of open, free software available". Are you basically saying that because open source software has lost we have to go to the government and legislate a requirement for open software? Give me a break.
once you have your eye on a certain laptop, say a Sony Viao or IBM Thinkpad, that's what you want.
Bull crap. If you choose a Sony Vaio or IBM Thinkpad, you have to realize that those products come WITH Windows installed. You are demanding something that those laptops do not offer.
Now if you were smart, you would not sit around and complain that IBM and Sony bundle Windows with their laptops, but the intelligent, enterprising businessperson would recognize the demand (if there is in fact one) and start a company that offers OS free laptops. If there is truly as big of a demand as you slashdotters claim (I doubt it), somebody can make a ton of money.
I hesitate to ask this because I realize that most responses will be devoid of any reason, but why is this a big deal? Did you actually think that people/companies donate money just to be nice people? Of course not! The only reason anybody would donate any money to a political candidate or party is to support something they agree with or think would be beneficial to them. Why should it be any different?
If I believe that candidate X is more closely aligned with something I agree with or want done, my first amendment rights allow me to support that candidate. This is exactly what Microsoft and every other company out there has done.
The campaign finance debate is probably the most important political issue in the U.S. right now. Besides the terrorists who are willing to smuggle box cutters onto airliners and crash them into heavly populated buildings. Oh, and besides the leader of Iraq who has sworn the US as his enemy and is developing nuclear and biological weapons to use against us. But I guess those things are not really that important compared to how much money Microsoft donated to a particular candidate.
If you really want to help the kids, turn them around and take them outside. Give them a ball to play with and invite some girls over. Any 8 year old that spends time thinking about the Linux kernal is destined to be a lifelong virgin.
I run a Deals Website. Does this basically mean that a retailer can sue me if they don't like the kind of business I'm sending them? I don't see very many independent web sites (like mine) fighting big corporate lawyers from the likes of Wal-Mart. Something has got to change.
Depends on the application. My website runs Apache on FreeBSD. I wouldn't consider a different platform. I also run a Linux server at home for FTP/Backup purposes. I use Solaris and HP-UX at work for scripting and test software (for Teradyne and HP VLSI testers). But my #1 choice for a desktop OS is Windows all the way. When I found out about Linux years ago I got excited about the prospects of using it at home, so I installed it and configured away. I was as much of a Linux proponent as anybody on these boards, bashing Microsoft every chance I got. The only problem was that I wound up discovering all kinds of applications that I wished I could use in Linux. I also could not convince my family to leave windows behind and use it too, so I set up a dual-boot machine. Then I realized that I was booted into Windows 99% of the time, and the 1% that I was in Linux all I was doing was messing around, so I wiped Linux off completely.
Since Win2k, Windows has been as rock solid as any Unix that I have used. The "blue screen of death" is a thing of the past. I actually prefer the windows feel, and like all of the bells and whistles. So, the long end to your question is YES! I think Windows is definitly a better desktop OS.
Actually, after watching the computer industry for twenty years now, I don't see this. You must not understand all of the issues if this is really what you believe.
Are you saying that Microsoft gained over 90% of the home OS market share by making a product that everybody hates?
Many people would love to have an alternative to Microsoft based products, but since many companies are afraid of moving into a product category that Microsoft dominates, that product does not get produced for alternative platforms or market categories.
Here is what you will find at CompUSA if you are looking for an Operating System. Here is what you see if you are looking for an Office Suit. There are alternatives, and if these alternatives start looking more attractive that what Microsoft is selling, they will take market share away from Microsoft. That isn't happening because people are still choosing Microsoft.
I still maintain that this is not a monopoly rent. Once the cost outweighs the benefit of choosing a Microsoft product, I can guarantee you that people will not buy from them anymore.
Nice try at a lame ass analogy. Unfortunately it really has no bearing of what is happening today with Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the only "farmer" in town. Head down to your local CompUSA and browse the Office Software section. I can see Office software from IBM, Corel, Apple, Alladin, and others. Some are priced just as high as Microsoft Office. If Microsoft were suddenly able to put all of these other software companies out of business and then decided to charge $5000 for Office, I can guarantee you that dozens of new software companies would appear and start selling Office software cheaper than $5000, and because nobody wants to pay $5000 for office software, these new companies would have alot of success.
So if Mr. Joe Corn Farmer decided he could charge whatever he wanted for crappy food, you can bet that some enterprising businessman would jump in and sell better food at a more reasonable price, and Mr. Joe Corn Farmer would have a short stay at the top. Thats how capitalism works.
When any one company can afford to loose billions of dollars running other companies out of business while creating inferior products
Its funny how the typical slashdotter throws all reason out the window when it comes to Microsoft.
First point, they are not loosing billions and billions of dollars. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies out there. The fact of the matter is that every company out there has a cash cow product that funds the research and development of other products. If it were a requirement that everything that every company made was profitable from the first day they started making it, we would still be riding in horse and buggy carriages.
Why can't you see that the reason that Microsoft has such a dominant market presence today is because they make software that people want. When you sit and complain that the consumer does not have a choice you are only saying that the alternatives that you champion so much are the inferior products. There are Microsoft alternatives with every product they sell, and the reason they are successful is because 95% of all consumers choose Microsoft over the alternatives. This is no "monopoly rent". I guarantee that if they were charging more than people were willing to pay, they would no longer be the most popular software company out there.
The whole problem with monopolies is that the consumer *does not* have a choice whether or not to buy, and hence does not set the price.
What about Linux? What about MacOS? What about FreeBSD? What about OS/2? What about Solaris? What about the dozens and dozens of other Operating Systems that are out there?
Don't give me the same "Consumers don't have a choice" bull crap, there are plenty of choices. All you are admitting with that statement is that windows is the BEST choice.
Its obvious that you do not have kids yourself. Parents need to realize that the Internet is not some evil place trying to take their children away.
If you think that your only concern as a parent is preventing your children from being kidnapped, you are going to be a lousy parent. Parents are responsible for everything a child learns, and ultimately what kind of adult that child grows up to be. Its a humbling thought when you realize that your 2 year old is learning and repeating almost everything they see or experience.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into that kind of moral relativism. Just because somebody out there thinks that kids should be able to look at as much pr0n as they want doesn't make it "subjective" or right. Besides, how is this censorship? This is only a moderated lists of websites that have been approved as kid-friendly. Nobody is trying to shut down adult web sites -- this is a simple initiative to provide a list of sites that parents can trust as "kid friendly". I also take issue with your position that censorship does more harm than good, but that is an altogether different discussion.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If "bad" means "pr0n", then I'm very sorry you feel this way. You won't have a hard time finding people (myself included) that "function in our world" without indluging in filth or smut, and the idea you need this kind of influence in order to not be "gullible" is laughable. If "bad" means something else, then I'm not sure why you brought this up.
You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
I agree. However, I also appreciate all the help I can get. If I can let my kids surf.kids.us sites because I know they will be safer and a more positive influence, what do you have against that?
the prosecution asserts one thing, the defense asserts something else
Or C) A liberal president sics his justice department dogs on a successful company that just so happens to not contribute very much money to his party, forcing the prosecution to take up a case that they had no chance of winning.
By the way, you look like a complete moron when your only argument when you get backed into a wall is "Uhh, you must work for Microsoft!!!".
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public
The only "rights" that you will be loosing are the "rights" to steal copywrited digital content that you never had the "rights" to in the first place.
The fact is Palladium (for all practical purposes) _is_ DRM. It provides the means _and_ they created it specifically for DRM. Brian admitted this. Others (when pressed) have admitted it
Why are you acting like they are trying to lie about this? Microsoft clearly states that Palladium "enables DRM-style policy enforcement". There is no smoke and mirrors here -- they are very clear about the design and intents of Palladium.
The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire
This has never been "white washed" as something analogous to encryption. The simple fact is that copywrite owners are reluctant to pursue the digital medium because it is impossible to completely secure the copywrited data without hardware help. Palladium is simply a method to utilize those hardware security features. The only FUD that I see are the likes of RMS, who seem to think that every single bit of binary data should be "free as in beer".
I guess I need to clarify what I ment by "successful". I don't think that any slashdot reader is going to disagree with you that those projects are important have been met with great success within the open source community. But if you look at the OSS projects that have really garnered widespread recognition, development, and support, the list is relatively short. I mean, the only open source project that you ever really read about outside slashdot is Linux, maybe Perl, and maybe Apache.
You can do a search on freshmeat and find an open source application for just about anything. The problem is that 99% of those projects have either A) Never gotton past Alpha before the (sole) developer bugged out and moved on or B) Users started arguing or complaining about meaningless things, leading to dozens of "splinter" applications with a fraction of the attention they should be getting. The result is that most fall away into outdated nothingness. Postnuke is one such project that seems like its heading down this path. We've all been there -- you download a cool looking OS app, but when you try to compile it you discover that it never really made it past Alpha, it has all kinds of outdated library depedencies, and there is absolutely no development support on it any more. What good does it do?
I was simply trying to debunk the arguement that a company is better off using OSS simply becuase they can use the code if the project goes away. My point was that Open Source projects seem to go away more often than commercial projects, and a company is no better off because the source is available. They still need to pay somebody to update and support the program. I guess because I didn't praise linux in my post it got modded down as "flaimbait". Oh well.
1) Microsoft is the worlds largest software company, worth billions and billions of dollars and with over 90% of the market share. Lets just avoid the whole "if Microsoft folds" theme. Its not going to happen.
2) If you want to talk about things that are likely to fold, look at the thousands upon thousands of OSS projects that fall away into endless bickering and non support by the developers. In fact, you can probably count the amount of "successful" OSS projects on 1 hand. I've seen far more OSS projecs end up in fighting, rifts, and splinters than I have major software companies suddenly stop supporting popular products. If your a business end user and your open source software that you were using suddenly forks into 3 projects because pig-headed developers couldn't agree on what color the penguin icon should be, your stuck with a dead project. Then you either wait for somebody else to pick the project up, or you hire your own programmers to continue. Still sound cheap?
Re:Are you kidding?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I think its funny how anybody who says anything pro microsoft is a "troll". I also think its funny how you have to keep fabricating microsoft documents to prove to yourselves that Microsoft is "scared" about linux.
I have news for you. Microsoft doesn't give a crap about Linux or OS software and whatever insignificant market share they have. Why would they? You mention that "lots of big companies" are starting to deply Linux to the business desktop. Name a few. The fact of the matter is that Linux has no place on a business desktop, and so Microsoft is NOT scared.
You mention the total cost of the software. Even using your inflated prices (our IT dept spends 1/3 of what you listed for licenses), a switch to Linux would easily cost more if you factor in education for new users, downtime and lost productivity while they are on the "learning curve", the enormous expense of converting all existing files and documents to a compatible system, added IT support costs (can't hire any ole MCSE to do the support), and the loss of the ability to easly share and transfer files in an accepted business standard. Its not cheaper. It would be a nightmare.
Go ahead and mod this one down as a troll, your only proving your ignorance.
Re:And Jeb wins in Florida
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ok, here are the facts behind your supposed Florida election scandal.
It was found in the 1998 election that a large number of convicted felons voted, which is against Florida state law.
As a result, Florida hired the services of ChoicePointe to compile a list of possible felons to prevent this in the 2000 election. The list included about 100,000 names.
Every one of those 100,000 people were notified by mail that they were included on the list and they were given a proceedure to dispute the listing (it was simply to go to you local police station with a photo-id and provide a finger print).
These names were given to local county election officials, who had the option of using the list to bar people from voting. Not every county used the list.
It is not known how many people were incorrectly banned from voting.
A total of 5 people claimed they were incorrectly not allowed to vote because they didn't follow the proceedure to remove their names. There could have been more, but only 5 people formally complained.
Here is the official settlement agreement from the NAACP. Read on the bottom of page 1:
Defendants have taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Florida... Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group
It clearly states that nobody was accusing Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush or anybody else in Florida of any wrongdoing or fraud. So, your (and this Greg Palast fool) entire claim is the following: In 2000, Florida compiled a list of 100,000 convicted felons to prevent them from breaking state law and voting. Of that list of 100,000 people, an unknown number were legitimate voters. Of that unknown number of legitimate voters, an unknown number did not follow the proceedure to dispute their name being included on the list. Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that did not use the list in the election. Of that unknown number, an unknown number would have even bothered to show up to vote (expect about 40% for voter turnout averages). And, the official legal settlement as shown on the plaintiffs web site makes no accusation of fraud or wrong doing.
Is this seriously the best election scandal you can come up with?
Re:International observers in Florida
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
Question: Have you seen ANY of the recounts that were done by the media and independent parties in Florida result in a different outcome?
There's not a whole lotta difference between "mobile" and desktop processors other than packaging.
This is just plain wrong. Package type has no bearing on power consumption. The Mobile processors are designed to run at a reduced core voltage, have additional "SpeedStep" circuitry, a more advanced power management module, and are tested to tighter current specifications. The result is a chip that consumes around 20 Watts, or 1/3 what a desktop Pentium 4 consumes.
Head on down to your local CompUSA and browse the Office software section. You will find Office suites from Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, ThinkFree, Corel, and others. Most cost less than Microsoft Office. Are you telling me that the only reason that 90% of all users choose Microsoft Office is because they are too stupid to find anything else, or they are too "entrenched" in the Microsoft Office way? Do you honestly think that 90% of all users are willing to pay nearly 5 times as much for Microsoft Office because the "won't change from thier norm if they can help it"?
Slashdot Mirror
Bull crap. You have choice. There are laptop makers out there that sell OS-less laptops. Just because the laptop you want to buy is bundled with Windows and you don't want Windows does not mean that you don't have a choice. And this has nothing to do with "freedom as in speech" -- its just computer makers offering the product that will make them the most money.
For the most part, manufacturers refuse to offer a computer with Windows because their MS license forbids them from doing so. This is horribly, horribly wrong.
No, they offer Windows because thats what 90+% of all users want on their computer. If you recall, part of the Microsoft settlement with the government was that they cannot adjust prices based on other products that an OEM sells.
The point is, no one company should be able to dictate what manufacturers can and can't sell on their computers
I guess this is the point that you just don't get. Microsoft does nothing to dictate what PC manufacturers can and can't sell on Computers. Its the 95% of the market that chooses Windows that dictate what PC manufacturers sell. Why would any cost minded company in an industry with such tiny margins offer a product that only 1-2% (if that) of their customers may be interested in?
The whole point of Windows Refund Day is that Dell AND Gateway AND Compaq/HP AND IBM (well, less so for them) will get so annoyed by giving out these refunds that they will unite against Microsoft's restrictive licenses
Um. Yeah. Just like they did last time? (Employee: "Boss, there are a half dozen greasy, pasty white geeks pounding on the door demanding a refund" Boss: "Just ignore them like we did last time. They will eventually crawl back into their basements")
You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman [house.gov] [house.gov] or senator [senate.gov] [senate.gov]. Tell them that choice is important to you, and that it's important that the base of open, free, software available with source is constantly kept up to date, viable, and relevent to today's needs.
Good Hell. What business does the government have with keeping the "base of open, free software available". Are you basically saying that because open source software has lost we have to go to the government and legislate a requirement for open software? Give me a break.
once you have your eye on a certain laptop, say a Sony Viao or IBM Thinkpad, that's what you want.
Bull crap. If you choose a Sony Vaio or IBM Thinkpad, you have to realize that those products come WITH Windows installed. You are demanding something that those laptops do not offer.
Now if you were smart, you would not sit around and complain that IBM and Sony bundle Windows with their laptops, but the intelligent, enterprising businessperson would recognize the demand (if there is in fact one) and start a company that offers OS free laptops. If there is truly as big of a demand as you slashdotters claim (I doubt it), somebody can make a ton of money.
I hesitate to ask this because I realize that most responses will be devoid of any reason, but why is this a big deal? Did you actually think that people/companies donate money just to be nice people? Of course not! The only reason anybody would donate any money to a political candidate or party is to support something they agree with or think would be beneficial to them. Why should it be any different?
If I believe that candidate X is more closely aligned with something I agree with or want done, my first amendment rights allow me to support that candidate. This is exactly what Microsoft and every other company out there has done.
The campaign finance debate is probably the most important political issue in the U.S. right now.
Besides the terrorists who are willing to smuggle box cutters onto airliners and crash them into heavly populated buildings. Oh, and besides the leader of Iraq who has sworn the US as his enemy and is developing nuclear and biological weapons to use against us. But I guess those things are not really that important compared to how much money Microsoft donated to a particular candidate.
If you really want to help the kids, turn them around and take them outside. Give them a ball to play with and invite some girls over. Any 8 year old that spends time thinking about the Linux kernal is destined to be a lifelong virgin.
I can understand why Bush ended up president.
At least the "immoral nutcases" in this instance never made it to the Whitehouse.
How about Boulder, Colorado?
What about all of the Open Source exploits? They outnumber Micrsoft exploits now.
I run a Deals Website. Does this basically mean that a retailer can sue me if they don't like the kind of business I'm sending them? I don't see very many independent web sites (like mine) fighting big corporate lawyers from the likes of Wal-Mart. Something has got to change.
Depends on the application. My website runs Apache on FreeBSD. I wouldn't consider a different platform. I also run a Linux server at home for FTP/Backup purposes. I use Solaris and HP-UX at work for scripting and test software (for Teradyne and HP VLSI testers). But my #1 choice for a desktop OS is Windows all the way. When I found out about Linux years ago I got excited about the prospects of using it at home, so I installed it and configured away. I was as much of a Linux proponent as anybody on these boards, bashing Microsoft every chance I got. The only problem was that I wound up discovering all kinds of applications that I wished I could use in Linux. I also could not convince my family to leave windows behind and use it too, so I set up a dual-boot machine. Then I realized that I was booted into Windows 99% of the time, and the 1% that I was in Linux all I was doing was messing around, so I wiped Linux off completely.
Since Win2k, Windows has been as rock solid as any Unix that I have used. The "blue screen of death" is a thing of the past. I actually prefer the windows feel, and like all of the bells and whistles. So, the long end to your question is YES! I think Windows is definitly a better desktop OS.
Actually, after watching the computer industry for twenty years now, I don't see this. You must not understand all of the issues if this is really what you believe.
Are you saying that Microsoft gained over 90% of the home OS market share by making a product that everybody hates?
Many people would love to have an alternative to Microsoft based products, but since many companies are afraid of moving into a product category that Microsoft dominates, that product does not get produced for alternative platforms or market categories.
Here is what you will find at CompUSA if you are looking for an Operating System. Here is what you see if you are looking for an Office Suit. There are alternatives, and if these alternatives start looking more attractive that what Microsoft is selling, they will take market share away from Microsoft. That isn't happening because people are still choosing Microsoft.
I still maintain that this is not a monopoly rent. Once the cost outweighs the benefit of choosing a Microsoft product, I can guarantee you that people will not buy from them anymore.
Nice try at a lame ass analogy. Unfortunately it really has no bearing of what is happening today with Microsoft.
Microsoft is not the only "farmer" in town. Head down to your local CompUSA and browse the Office Software section. I can see Office software from IBM, Corel, Apple, Alladin, and others. Some are priced just as high as Microsoft Office. If Microsoft were suddenly able to put all of these other software companies out of business and then decided to charge $5000 for Office, I can guarantee you that dozens of new software companies would appear and start selling Office software cheaper than $5000, and because nobody wants to pay $5000 for office software, these new companies would have alot of success.
So if Mr. Joe Corn Farmer decided he could charge whatever he wanted for crappy food, you can bet that some enterprising businessman would jump in and sell better food at a more reasonable price, and Mr. Joe Corn Farmer would have a short stay at the top. Thats how capitalism works.
When any one company can afford to loose billions of dollars running other companies out of business while creating inferior products
Its funny how the typical slashdotter throws all reason out the window when it comes to Microsoft.
First point, they are not loosing billions and billions of dollars. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies out there. The fact of the matter is that every company out there has a cash cow product that funds the research and development of other products. If it were a requirement that everything that every company made was profitable from the first day they started making it, we would still be riding in horse and buggy carriages.
Why can't you see that the reason that Microsoft has such a dominant market presence today is because they make software that people want. When you sit and complain that the consumer does not have a choice you are only saying that the alternatives that you champion so much are the inferior products. There are Microsoft alternatives with every product they sell, and the reason they are successful is because 95% of all consumers choose Microsoft over the alternatives. This is no "monopoly rent". I guarantee that if they were charging more than people were willing to pay, they would no longer be the most popular software company out there.
The whole problem with monopolies is that the consumer *does not* have a choice whether or not to buy, and hence does not set the price.
What about Linux? What about MacOS? What about FreeBSD? What about OS/2? What about Solaris? What about the dozens and dozens of other Operating Systems that are out there?
Don't give me the same "Consumers don't have a choice" bull crap, there are plenty of choices. All you are admitting with that statement is that windows is the BEST choice.
Its obvious that you do not have kids yourself.
.kids.us sites because I know they will be safer and a more positive influence, what do you have against that?
Parents need to realize that the Internet is not some evil place trying to take their children away.
If you think that your only concern as a parent is preventing your children from being kidnapped, you are going to be a lousy parent. Parents are responsible for everything a child learns, and ultimately what kind of adult that child grows up to be. Its a humbling thought when you realize that your 2 year old is learning and repeating almost everything they see or experience.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into that kind of moral relativism. Just because somebody out there thinks that kids should be able to look at as much pr0n as they want doesn't make it "subjective" or right. Besides, how is this censorship? This is only a moderated lists of websites that have been approved as kid-friendly. Nobody is trying to shut down adult web sites -- this is a simple initiative to provide a list of sites that parents can trust as "kid friendly". I also take issue with your position that censorship does more harm than good, but that is an altogether different discussion.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If "bad" means "pr0n", then I'm very sorry you feel this way. You won't have a hard time finding people (myself included) that "function in our world" without indluging in filth or smut, and the idea you need this kind of influence in order to not be "gullible" is laughable. If "bad" means something else, then I'm not sure why you brought this up.
You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
I agree. However, I also appreciate all the help I can get. If I can let my kids surf
the prosecution asserts one thing, the defense asserts something else
Or C) A liberal president sics his justice department dogs on a successful company that just so happens to not contribute very much money to his party, forcing the prosecution to take up a case that they had no chance of winning.
By the way, you look like a complete moron when your only argument when you get backed into a wall is "Uhh, you must work for Microsoft!!!".
was it that the prosecution failed to make its case, or that the judge failed to decide based on the case
Or C) The prosecution had no case to make in the first place.
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public
The only "rights" that you will be loosing are the "rights" to steal copywrited digital content that you never had the "rights" to in the first place.
The fact is Palladium (for all practical purposes) _is_ DRM. It provides the means _and_ they created it specifically for DRM. Brian admitted this. Others (when pressed) have admitted it
Why are you acting like they are trying to lie about this? Microsoft clearly states that Palladium "enables DRM-style policy enforcement". There is no smoke and mirrors here -- they are very clear about the design and intents of Palladium.
The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire
This has never been "white washed" as something analogous to encryption. The simple fact is that copywrite owners are reluctant to pursue the digital medium because it is impossible to completely secure the copywrited data without hardware help. Palladium is simply a method to utilize those hardware security features. The only FUD that I see are the likes of RMS, who seem to think that every single bit of binary data should be "free as in beer".
I guess I need to clarify what I ment by "successful". I don't think that any slashdot reader is going to disagree with you that those projects are important have been met with great success within the open source community. But if you look at the OSS projects that have really garnered widespread recognition, development, and support, the list is relatively short. I mean, the only open source project that you ever really read about outside slashdot is Linux, maybe Perl, and maybe Apache.
You can do a search on freshmeat and find an open source application for just about anything. The problem is that 99% of those projects have either A) Never gotton past Alpha before the (sole) developer bugged out and moved on or B) Users started arguing or complaining about meaningless things, leading to dozens of "splinter" applications with a fraction of the attention they should be getting. The result is that most fall away into outdated nothingness. Postnuke is one such project that seems like its heading down this path. We've all been there -- you download a cool looking OS app, but when you try to compile it you discover that it never really made it past Alpha, it has all kinds of outdated library depedencies, and there is absolutely no development support on it any more. What good does it do?
I was simply trying to debunk the arguement that a company is better off using OSS simply becuase they can use the code if the project goes away. My point was that Open Source projects seem to go away more often than commercial projects, and a company is no better off because the source is available. They still need to pay somebody to update and support the program. I guess because I didn't praise linux in my post it got modded down as "flaimbait". Oh well.
2 points of argument:
1) Microsoft is the worlds largest software company, worth billions and billions of dollars and with over 90% of the market share. Lets just avoid the whole "if Microsoft folds" theme. Its not going to happen.
2) If you want to talk about things that are likely to fold, look at the thousands upon thousands of OSS projects that fall away into endless bickering and non support by the developers. In fact, you can probably count the amount of "successful" OSS projects on 1 hand. I've seen far more OSS projecs end up in fighting, rifts, and splinters than I have major software companies suddenly stop supporting popular products. If your a business end user and your open source software that you were using suddenly forks into 3 projects because pig-headed developers couldn't agree on what color the penguin icon should be, your stuck with a dead project. Then you either wait for somebody else to pick the project up, or you hire your own programmers to continue. Still sound cheap?
I think its funny how anybody who says anything pro microsoft is a "troll". I also think its funny how you have to keep fabricating microsoft documents to prove to yourselves that Microsoft is "scared" about linux.
I have news for you. Microsoft doesn't give a crap about Linux or OS software and whatever insignificant market share they have. Why would they? You mention that "lots of big companies" are starting to deply Linux to the business desktop. Name a few. The fact of the matter is that Linux has no place on a business desktop, and so Microsoft is NOT scared.
You mention the total cost of the software. Even using your inflated prices (our IT dept spends 1/3 of what you listed for licenses), a switch to Linux would easily cost more if you factor in education for new users, downtime and lost productivity while they are on the "learning curve", the enormous expense of converting all existing files and documents to a compatible system, added IT support costs (can't hire any ole MCSE to do the support), and the loss of the ability to easly share and transfer files in an accepted business standard. Its not cheaper. It would be a nightmare.
Go ahead and mod this one down as a troll, your only proving your ignorance.
It was found in the 1998 election that a large number of convicted felons voted, which is against Florida state law.
As a result, Florida hired the services of ChoicePointe to compile a list of possible felons to prevent this in the 2000 election. The list included about 100,000 names.
Every one of those 100,000 people were notified by mail that they were included on the list and they were given a proceedure to dispute the listing (it was simply to go to you local police station with a photo-id and provide a finger print).
These names were given to local county election officials, who had the option of using the list to bar people from voting. Not every county used the list.
It is not known how many people were incorrectly banned from voting.
A total of 5 people claimed they were incorrectly not allowed to vote because they didn't follow the proceedure to remove their names. There could have been more, but only 5 people formally complained.
Here is the official settlement agreement from the NAACP. Read on the bottom of page 1:
Defendants have taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Florida... Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group
It clearly states that nobody was accusing Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush or anybody else in Florida of any wrongdoing or fraud. So, your (and this Greg Palast fool) entire claim is the following: In 2000, Florida compiled a list of 100,000 convicted felons to prevent them from breaking state law and voting. Of that list of 100,000 people, an unknown number were legitimate voters. Of that unknown number of legitimate voters, an unknown number did not follow the proceedure to dispute their name being included on the list. Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that did not use the list in the election. Of that unknown number, an unknown number would have even bothered to show up to vote (expect about 40% for voter turnout averages). And, the official legal settlement as shown on the plaintiffs web site makes no accusation of fraud or wrong doing.
Is this seriously the best election scandal you can come up with?
Question: Have you seen ANY of the recounts that were done by the media and independent parties in Florida result in a different outcome?
There's not a whole lotta difference between "mobile" and desktop processors other than packaging.
This is just plain wrong. Package type has no bearing on power consumption. The Mobile processors are designed to run at a reduced core voltage, have additional "SpeedStep" circuitry, a more advanced power management module, and are tested to tighter current specifications. The result is a chip that consumes around 20 Watts, or 1/3 what a desktop Pentium 4 consumes.
Head on down to your local CompUSA and browse the Office software section. You will find Office suites from Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, ThinkFree, Corel, and others. Most cost less than Microsoft Office. Are you telling me that the only reason that 90% of all users choose Microsoft Office is because they are too stupid to find anything else, or they are too "entrenched" in the Microsoft Office way? Do you honestly think that 90% of all users are willing to pay nearly 5 times as much for Microsoft Office because the "won't change from thier norm if they can help it"?