I unilaterally claim a
comprehensive right to unlimited use of this
material in my home, where, by the way,
I have the right to privacy and what I do
is none of your flipping business.
Unfortunately, just because you claim that it's your right doesn't mean that's true.
If you think the laws are broken, it's up to you to lobby and support efforts to get them changed. Otherwise, you can't complain when what you do continues to be illegal.
And dont talk to me about standards. Standards on paper with a rubber stamp from W3C are fine and good, but, in the real world, though, 'standard' means 'what everyone else does', and thats just a fact of life.
This is unbelievably silly.
Everyone has their own standards. Nobody is arguing that we should take away the right to choose which standards to support. The argument is that if we do not embrace open standards, and instead either through apathy or indignance embrace proprietary ones just because they are the most prevalent, we will find ourselves locked into serving the whims of whoever developed that particular proprietary standard.
If you don't buy it, well, nobody's stopping you from embracing MSHTML. Just don't claim that supporting it is for the best of the whole community, and especially don't whine when MS locks you out with some proprietary upgrade or license change.
There are other methods to funding research besides granting government entitlements to 20-year monopolies, and almost all of them are vastly better than the patent system we are employing today.
Do you have any links or information regarding alternative methods of research funding and their effectiveness across different fields? That was the only thing missing from your post that I could see.
Funny, rereading YOUR own comments I see that you provide absolutely no supporting evidence. SMB sucks. MS sucks Windows sucks. Hmm.. gosh, that just about convinces me! NOT.
Haha. Trolling, or just having problems with reading comprehension?
Let me summarize my post:
The fact that millions of people use Windows implies nothing about its quality. They can just as easily have been deceived about its quality. This is a propaganda technique called "appeal to numbers", or "bandwagon".
You provided no details about your anecdotal evidence that you presented. Without enough details to reproduce your results in our own experience, we can only assume that you are full of shit and/or trolling.
Note that I said nothing even remotely like the brainless flame that you attributed to me.
He's saying that it's nothing more than the structures in memory being saved to disk in binary form. This is not nearly as useful as XML, because it requires either having the source code or performing some extensive guessing to figure out what the structures actually represent when the program has loaded them into its process space.
Until I see Medal of Honor and Battlefield 1942, I have little choice in the matter.:(
You have plenty of choice. You can go to TransGaming's website, pay $15 for a 3 month membership, and vote Medal of Honor and Battlefield 1942 up as the next games to support.
That is, if you actually *did* want to do something besides evoke pity with your comment....
Uh, no. Microsoft took the code and made it into Windows 1.0.
Riiight. When Windows 1.0 came out in 1985, OS/2 was a baby not yet born.
Windows NT was a fresh code base developed by a team lead by one of the guiding lights behind the DEC VMS operating system.
Dave Cutler of VMS fame designed the kernel of Windows NT, but much of the middleware (including the bootloader and filesystem, as well as the design of the Win32 API) was taken away from OS/2. The desktop was a completely new design that was shared with Windows 3.1 at first, and then Windows 95 later.
Trying to track down someone like this in the *nix world is next to impossible. At MS, it's a phone call away.
Um yeah, and they'll charge you just as much if not more as if you had called Sun for advice on your Solaris problem. Even better, you might get an answer that completely avoids your question, but still get charged for it. At least Sun provides a guarantee of resolution of the problem.
Don't let me disturb your bad reasoning though. Troll on, brother.
XP is both stable and fast. This is an obvious fact that can be shown to be true by millions using it daily who can tell the truth.
LOL. Some logic just escapes me. Are McDonalds fries really the Best Fries In America? Are Dodge Neons really quality cars? Millions of people consume and own both just as millions of people use Windows. That implies nothing about its performance, only that Microsoft has a good marketing department.
while there are some NFS addons to Windows that suck; the one in MS's Unix Services for Windows is faster than some native NFS we've run against. Hows that for ironic.
It's not ironic at all if you're unspecific about the hardware involved. Benching a 1.2Ghz Athlon against that 50Mhz Sparc pizza box in the corner isn't a fair comparison, but for all we know, that's the test that was run. If you do not give us enough information to reproduce your results, don't be disappointed when nobody takes your claims at face value.
Wow, way to troll. Ever considered that the effort of installing a different browser just isn't worth it to most computer users? Especially those who don't realize or don't care that they are being commercially exploited through the browser that was preinstalled on their operating system?
This is why having OEMs locked up was so advantageous to Microsoft in the first place. They were able to leverage the desktop monopoly they already had to place a clearly inferior product (at the time) onto users' desktops, at the expense of companies who were already in that market.
Maybe you might claim that IE6 is a superior browser now and they deserve the monopoly (for whatever reason), but they gained it through illegitimate means, regardless of how people like yourself twist the facts.
They don't have to keep them banned. In fact, if they only banned them when a chip was detected and not otherwise, this would hose the people who bought chipped boxes to begin with (who MS should be focusing their efforts against anyway), because they wouldn't know how to remove their chips.
MS is permanently screwing over everyone with a chip just because they can. They don't have to. This is going to have some seriously whacked repercussions in the secondhand market, as you won't know if a box you buy has already been banned or not.
You must be one of those people who think that there are three operating systems in the world, four if you count BeOs.
How many are there? I count at least in the hundreds, at least if advanced research projects are included.
My post was a bit flamebait, but OS pundits have run around for years claiming that "the next big thing in OS design is XXX", and been wrong nearly 100% of the time when their claims don't reflect computer science research.
UNIX is still a modern system because its design is not impeding new developments within it in any way. (At least that I have been made aware of.)
Vote with your wallet and otherwise don't just flap your lips.
I sincerely hope that wasn't actually addressed to me. I can do much more for open software through contributing to open projects than I would ever be able to by dumping what little money I have into a megacorporation's coffers.
Aside from that, voting with one's wallet won't matter when you only have DRM products on the shelf to choose from, thanks to nutty pro-business legislation. I'd rather vote at the poll booths, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for posting the links. Alternative views are rarely appreciated by the ravaging masses here at /. and the mods are no exception.
If you think the laws are broken, it's up to you to lobby and support efforts to get them changed. Otherwise, you can't complain when what you do continues to be illegal.
Too much to ask for an AC, I presume.
Everyone has their own standards. Nobody is arguing that we should take away the right to choose which standards to support. The argument is that if we do not embrace open standards, and instead either through apathy or indignance embrace proprietary ones just because they are the most prevalent, we will find ourselves locked into serving the whims of whoever developed that particular proprietary standard.
If you don't buy it, well, nobody's stopping you from embracing MSHTML. Just don't claim that supporting it is for the best of the whole community, and especially don't whine when MS locks you out with some proprietary upgrade or license change.
I think entitlement is the word of the day (week, year?) here. Pretty sad.
The disc does not spin the opposite way. It is read the opposite way. (Outside-in as opposed to inside-out).
Um, I doubt his son is a customer of his. If he is, that's just sad. Unless his son is 30, that is.
Do you have any links or information regarding alternative methods of research funding and their effectiveness across different fields? That was the only thing missing from your post that I could see.
Let me summarize my post:
- The fact that millions of people use Windows implies nothing about its quality. They can just as easily have been deceived about its quality. This is a propaganda technique called "appeal to numbers", or "bandwagon".
- You provided no details about your anecdotal evidence that you presented. Without enough details to reproduce your results in our own experience, we can only assume that you are full of shit and/or trolling.
Note that I said nothing even remotely like the brainless flame that you attributed to me.Thank you.
Hehe, I really doubt it. If he is serious, nobody's taking him seriously, that's for sure. :)
Funny how the mods mod up the incomplete post as +5 Funny, but ignore the complete one.
He's saying that it's nothing more than the structures in memory being saved to disk in binary form. This is not nearly as useful as XML, because it requires either having the source code or performing some extensive guessing to figure out what the structures actually represent when the program has loaded them into its process space.
That is, if you actually *did* want to do something besides evoke pity with your comment....
You wasted that much effort replying to a post that was either sarcastic or a blatant troll? I'm disappointed, sonny.
Dave Cutler of VMS fame designed the kernel of Windows NT, but much of the middleware (including the bootloader and filesystem, as well as the design of the Win32 API) was taken away from OS/2. The desktop was a completely new design that was shared with Windows 3.1 at first, and then Windows 95 later.
Don't let me disturb your bad reasoning though. Troll on, brother.
This is why having OEMs locked up was so advantageous to Microsoft in the first place. They were able to leverage the desktop monopoly they already had to place a clearly inferior product (at the time) onto users' desktops, at the expense of companies who were already in that market.
Maybe you might claim that IE6 is a superior browser now and they deserve the monopoly (for whatever reason), but they gained it through illegitimate means, regardless of how people like yourself twist the facts.
MS is permanently screwing over everyone with a chip just because they can. They don't have to. This is going to have some seriously whacked repercussions in the secondhand market, as you won't know if a box you buy has already been banned or not.
According to the posts on xbox.com, any modded Xbox is still banned even if the mod is subsequently removed. That is the real issue.
My post was a bit flamebait, but OS pundits have run around for years claiming that "the next big thing in OS design is XXX", and been wrong nearly 100% of the time when their claims don't reflect computer science research.
UNIX is still a modern system because its design is not impeding new developments within it in any way. (At least that I have been made aware of.)
Aside from that, voting with one's wallet won't matter when you only have DRM products on the shelf to choose from, thanks to nutty pro-business legislation. I'd rather vote at the poll booths, thank you very much.