most of them home computers running Windows with high-speed connections.
WHY wasn't ICF turned on by default in XP Home? WHY aren't there pamphlets included with new computers about keeping AV up to date and not opening unknown e-mail attachments? WHY are so many ports in Windows open by default on Home installations? WHY is Microsoft still clinging to the broken "identify executables by extension" mechanism?
We include pamphlets about how not to hurt yourself while you're using your pretty new Gateway PC, but we can't even drop in a fucking 2 page paper about keeping A/V up to date and the danger of executable attachments? Not only that, Microsoft runs on almost all of the Home PCs out there but almost nobody (sorry geeks, we're all still nobodies when we're not on Slashdot) demands any accountability or quality or security from Microsoft?
I dont have an key. I dont understand whats up with people on Slashdot always griping about my typing and grammar. Its perfectly acceptable. Theres nothing wrong with it. Whatever, I just dont get it.
Anyway, the quote, and poem, are too famous to say that you stripped the holocaust material away from it. That's like saying I stripped the American Revolution out of "Give my liberty or give me death."
Why? Because you can't imagine that a quotation can apply on more than one level?
Using a quote that is traditionally associated with the Holocaust is NOT the same as comparing an irritating problem with patent law to that aforementioned holocaust. Nowhere in my original statement can you point out one comparison that I draw between the Holocaust and software companies OR patents. Therefore, your Holocaust conclusion must be one that you inferred from the context of the quote. Therefore, you either misinterpreted the spirit of the quote in the context of the post, or, as I'm more inclined to believe, you're one of those annoyingly literalist people (at least about quotes) who can't imagine that anything can apply on more than one level or in a different context than the original intent.
Your inference does not translate directly to the truth, do not assume that it does. Since no direct conclusion is drawn, there is no way that you can reasonably argue that I drew any such conclusion unless you can convince me and others who read this thread to accept your conclusion.
Good luck with that. I know in what context I posted the quote and apparently everyone else in the thread got it.
Yes, by stripping all Holocaust-related material out of the entire, rambling quote and only posting an altered version of it that focuses on a single, generalized concept rather than a specific political statement, I have compared computer companies to the Holocaust.
Speaking of people who are "out of touch", you might want to look into not drawing baseless conclusions from harmless, non-topical, incomplete quotations that you misunderstood the context of.
This is probably one of the very few times we'd want to see Microsoft win a case like this. Eolas claims that they're just going after Microsoft, but who's next? They can clobber the living daylights out of all sorts of other people now in a misguided bid to make money on litigation (the New Gold Rush, anyone?).
The door swings both ways: if Microsoft is abusing companies (ok, bad choice - IBM or Amazon might be better) with a ridiculous set of patents, we should be yelling. However, if Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, etc. is being abused by a ridiculous set of patents, we need to yell just as loud.
How does that go... oh yes:
"And when they came for me, there was noone left to speak out for me."
When you pick up the phone to call ATA, what you are doing is harassment.
Only if you're harassing them. If you call them up and give them perfectly valid feedback, what are they going to do? "Uhhh.. yes, your honor. The defendant called us to let us know how much he hates it when he gets calls from us that he didn't ask for and has asked to have stopped on several occasions. He's a criminal!".
In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
THAT is probably one of the biggest loads of horseshit I've seen posted on Slashdot in awhile. Part of selling cold is overcoming people's objections to something they hadn't actively sought before. They know that the overwhelming majority of people want nothing to do with the product - it's why they didn't seek it out to begin with. If they knew ahead of time who did and who didn't want the product, the only thing they would do is start ranking people by the likelihood of a purchase so they could target the victims better.
Don't give me shit about them just doing their jobs. My grandmother is 86 years old and she's always yelling at these bastards because they keep calling and trying to sell her shit and she keeps telling them to leave her alone. She just wants to be left alone, she doesn't need her windows replaced because she doesn't own a house. She doesn't need a new vaccuum cleaner. I don't care if they're "just doing their jobs" - they're doing it at her and my great inconvenience, and that's NOT acceptable.
I don't CARE if 2 million telemarketers get booted to the street. They almost all get paid shit anyway and are shoveled pretty much the same benefits as McDonalds' burger-flippers. They'll just fill other service positions that pay the same paltry amount but don't irritate people. If 2 million telemarketers lose their jobs, it's BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY DOESN'T HAVE A CUSTOMER BASE. Imagine that... an industry being allowed to die off because nobody wants to patronize it. What a novel idea in this country - fair competition. The only reason telemarketers have been allowed to survive this long is because they don't NEED to establish a customer base by providing a quality product or service, they just need to keep beating random people over the head and forcing almost everyone to be the customer base.
Long live the DNC list! The only complaints I have are that I can't sign up to avoid slimy politicians, guilt-inducing "charities", and religious nutjobs.
What? You mean the number for my dial up connection ISN'T 317-816-9336? Wellll... I better let it keep trying for little while longer... like a few years.
Your assertion that VS sucks because you don't get the code is ridiculous,/p>
Are you an idiot? Oh wait.. that's not even in question here - you're posting anonymous coward without posting anything that would be necessary to keep your identity secret - you most obviously are either an idiot or a troll. Where did I assert that Visual Studio sucks because I don't get the code? Visual Studio sucks because it's a lousy toolset surrounding a bunch of shitty languages that are built on a half-assed API to a system that only runs right a quarter of the time.
since the install works 99.99% of the time for 99.99% of people who install it
And you got those statistics where? Your ass? The 100 homogenous machines you installed a single version of VS on? Glad to know that in your make-believe statistics I get to be the.01%.
And, I figured out how to make Windows work just fine. You use these tools called fdisk and format, then you go get a real operating system that actually runs right and install it. Like DOS.
As far as your assertion as to the problem between my keyboard and chair, I must say that the words of an anonymous coward who apparently works as a Help Desk technician - the lowest common denominator of IT jobs - installing half-assed tools on half-assed systems cut me so deeply that I simply can't express my anguish.
Give me an address and I'll mail you a quarter, kid. Come back and talk to me after you've purchased a decent system and gotten a real job.
By the way - I respond to anonymous cowards once and once only if they have no reason to post AC. Don't expect a response no matter what sort of troll you post next.
Re:Here we go again...
on
Mplayer Revisited
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Windows software installs without a manual
It also isn't being installed from source, rarely has anything close to the option flexibility of source-installed software, and is usually completely useless in the event that something fails in the process. I have a copy of VS6 here that bombs near the end of the installer and there's not a damn thing I can do about it, for example. I have shit installed here that won't uninstall properly and, short of removing it manually and hunting down and undoing every little registry key and config change, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Why does everything have to be "the way Windows does it"? Windows sucks, that's why I use Linux and BSD. I don't WANT it to act like Windows. That's the POINT. It's NOT Windows and it WORKS, that's why I LIKE it. It's not hard to type "apt-get something". I'm sick of people apologizing for users who are too coddled and/or stupid and/or lazy to even do that - it's how you wind up with people with busted-ass systems who call you up and whine all the time that the "computer is broken". Gee - that's because you installed every damn thing you came across by double-clicking randomly...
It's okay to make things easier to a point, but you have to put some responsibility on people for what they install. Windows doesn't, and, as a result (aong with some other issues), most Windows systems out there are hideously broken beyond repair.
Besides, if you're going to immitate ease-of-use, immitate Macs, not Wintels.
We're "better than them" not because we're "1337 d00dz", but because we actually make people stop and think about what they're about to do before they do it...
The problem isn't "scumbag's" swapping copyrighted material. Well.. wait, yes it is. Quick! Without looking it up, tell me if Drowning Pool's "Tearing Away" can or cannot be legally traded. Never mind - go ahead and try looking it up, I'm sure you still can't tell me with any certainty. I honestly don't know either: I found a full-quality copy of it offered up as a mp3 sample from the album on a highly visible review on a commercial music site that's been around for awhile. Yet, the album says that copies cannot be made and distributed. No terms were attached anywhere that I could find on the site, and I couldn't find any agreement or information that says that the site is legally distributing the files. Can I, or can I not legally own that without buying the CD?
If it were clear to the masses what is and is not "protected" under copyright law, the "scumbag file swapper" argument wouldn't be so laughable - if it's clearly illegal, even if it's not necessarily wrong - DON'T DO IT (just whine about it on Slashdot...). But, if the waters are muddy, who's responsibility is it to clear them? Should the individual be responsible for trying to beat the information out of somebody who knows it, or should the people who know it be making some attempt to deter this sort of behavior by making it clear what is and isn't an acceptable use of their material?
Beyond that, I might point out that, unless you've got a lot of money to burn, you can't afford to fight the RIAA by yourself even if you're innocent (which I realize you mentioned). The RIAA will lose money fighting you, but get a big payoff if they win, whereas you can only lose large amounts of cash by fighting no matter your innocence or guilt. Even if they lose, they can afford it. If their scatter-brained approach is going to hit any innocent people, they shouldn't be doing it - especially given their massive abuses of the legal system (courtesy of our idiot lawmakers) and the fact that they let the whole thing run rampant for so long. Then, there's the fact that they have no evidence that it's even hurting them, much less that it's hurting them as much as they claim. It's kind of hard to go to court in civil litigation and not look like a total jackass when you stand up and say "Well, your honor, we say that this person caused us $750,000 in damages even though file swapping has been loosely correlated to increased sales in recent history, our industry's downturn matches up to what should be expected as a result of the economy, and we have nothing to refute even this weak, merely circumstantial evidence".
Let me introduce you to this little letter I got from Verizon. See, Verizon is the only local service game around because they have a monopoly on the service in the area. Others have tried, Verizon has cheated, bought, and legislated them right out of the area.
So, I use Verizon for my Internet access. Apparently, I wasn't paying them enough on my local-only $21.00 a month plan for unlimited calling. So, they sent me a letter informing me of a "great new benefit!" The great new "benefit" was an extra $3 charge on my phone bill each month for 30 minutes of regional long distance. I get extorted out of this money whether or not I use my 30 minutes each month - which I don't.
And, guess what? I'm STILL using Verizon because I'm totally fucked. They've also pissed around on broadband - they're the only game in town, so they see no rush to roll it out to those of us who happen to be a mere 1/4 of a mile outside of their range.
So, I pay an extra $3 a month for long distance service that I specifically didn't want when I signed up, and there's not a goddamn thing I can do about it. Can I just not pay it and get away with it? Yea - I don't HAVE to pay the $3 bill and they can't disconnect my local service - but it won't look good on my part if anyone looks up my bill-paying habits and sees that I have $150 in delinquent, unpaid billing from Verizon (buying a house, anyone).
People hate telcos because they suck and they're not now and never have been interested in providing quality service at a good price in a manner consistent with your needs. Like most other big corps, they're interested in maximizing their profits in any way possible, which is usually accomplished in the easiest way by stomping on (willing or unwilling, as the case may be) customers' faces and stealing their wallets.
Sooo... you're theory is that Google is retarded because retarded people don't know how to use Google?
Are cars incapable of being driven properly because incapable people drive cars then?
Or, are guns incapable of hitting a target because people with no aim use guns?
Seriously... get a grip. If you're not smart enough to realize that the word 'in' could appear in 32 bazillion pages, maybe you aren't smart enough to be using a search engine yet... smarter technology is not a good subsitute for intelligence in the user.
A lot of schools these days take money from venduhs (Microsoft is the big one here) and, in return, teach their products rather than theory and solid practice with multiple products. The worst part is, they try to make it look like theory to look good. For example, I got duped bad on the "Intermediate Database Management" course - they market it as a class about RDBMS management, but it's "Access For Dummies" through and through and the teacher knows about as much as RDBMSs as I do about brain surgery. I'm a follower of the writings of Fabian Pascal, C.J. Date (I had actually just wrapped up a rather intensive study of "Database Design" before this miserable class started), and, of course, Codd, so you can imagine how painful that class is.... that's pretty much been the standard tech class at this technological dung heap (the gen ed courses are ok though, so it makes a good jump start to a 4 year to save you money - just avoid program-specific courses like the plague if you care to actually learn anything).
Unfortunately, from what I've seen, that's the way it works at a lot of schools these days - they teach a product instead of a theory. There are exceptions, of course, but after looking around, I've resigned myself to the fact that unless I come across baskets of cash (and pull my grades up...) I'm not going to get an overall quality tech education anywhere. I can get "bad" for cheap where I am now (temporarily, albeit) or "average" for "somewhat expensive" where I'm planning to go shortly, but anything approaching "good" costs bundles.
...and it's great! I'm stuck in a shitty little comm. coll. here where everything is "learn how to use vendor x's program y" and it stinks. I told several profs to their faces now that I'm not coming to any classes when we're not taking a test because there's nothing that I can learn there that I care about or that matters.
With the Open CourseWare site though, I've started plugging my way through an almost complete cirriculum! I finally got the motivation to learn Java so I could use it in the 6-170 course. The content, organization, and overall structure of the course is incredible (6-170 is by far one of the best classes I've ever had in any subject at any school with any professor ever)! I'm looking forward to following it into the next class I work through on OCW.
There's no way I can afford to go to MIT - as much as I would love to - but with OCW, at least I can benefit from a great deal of their wisdom with some elbow grease, even without the cash.
The point is that Lindows is stepping into this thing and leveraging consumer ignorance. Sound familiar?
If there was a decision made whereby Red Hat had to pay out claims to individual consumers and Microsoft stepped into this and did the same thing, everyone would scream bloody murder about them taking advantage of the courts to stomp on competition a little bit more. That would be fair, because that's what they'd be doing. But, just because a half-assed wannabe Linux company with a pretty unscrupulous leader is doing this, we're supposed to say it's good for the consumers? Nope, sorry.
Lindows saw a business opportunity in a court decision and jumped on it. However, if they're really violating the terms of the decision like MSFT says they are, then they're no better than any other dirty corporate trying to capitalize on court cases rather than innovate, in-demand products. It's never a good thing for consumers when companies leverage half-truths and dirty tactics to make money, no matter who's side the company is on.
As far as the school-children, I'm well aware that MSFT is full of shit on that one. It's a PR move that will sit well with ignorant people, but, of course, the rest of us know that when Microsoft "gives" to the community (MSFT mind you - not Bill and Melinda's personal donations) they make damn sure that they'll get back more than they gave to begin with.
It's not REALLY Linux in the sense that we know it.
It's run by as big of a sleazebag as the turds that run Microsoft.
I don't think it's good for ANYONE in the long run. What good does it do to force people to look at Linux? I could just go fdisk my parents' hard drive and install SuSe or RH9 or something, but that's not choice. Not only that, Lindows' CEO appears to just be trying to capitalize off of the ignorance of the consumers - exactly the same way that Microsoft does. Actually, it's probably even worse than that because, if Microsoft's claims are true, the msfreepc.com site is interfering directly with the courts and the proper procedures for filing claims. What happens when Lindows' proxy claims are denied (assuming noone shuts their little scam down beforehand)? Are they going to go back to the consumers and try to blame them and send bills to them for the unfullfilled claims?
No... I don't think this, or Lindows for that matter, is good for anyone. I don't like Microsoft, and I'd like to see Linux, Windows, MacOS, BSD, etc. competing fairly on a level playing field in the areas they're good at.. but if it's left up to Lindows they'll just be Windows with an L right down to a T.
You're probably right about that, but on the other side of the fence, Lindows is effectively pulling a Microsoft inspired tactic to undermine another company at the cost of innocent consumers who really just want to get a good deal without worrying about a bunch of legal wrangling and buearocratic red tape.
I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft is "looking out for the little guy" here (why start now?), but I don't think Lindows et. al. are showering themselves in glory by rolling around in the same shallow mud pit that Microsoft has for the last decade.
I have to start wondering if the consumer is ever again going to be treated anything close to "fair" the way this is going. We boo Microsoft, then one of our own guys (granted - a fringe member who's just barely a part of the whole thing) starts acting just like them.. ugh.
Uh... right. Excellent response right down to the fact that you didn't respond to the actual issue... AGAIN... AND you launched a baseless ad hominem.
In case you didn't notice, this has NOTHING to do with MY personal preference. I already told you: I'm on the list. I hate telemarketers with a passion (I have to work with some and I hate that too.. they really are as obnoxious as there calls make them out to be) and I let everyone know about the list so they can sign up IF THEY WANT TO.
That doesn't mean I'm so arrogant that I'd claim that EVERYONE wants to be on the list, so everyone should just be forced to be on it. In fact, I know several people who didn't sign up for it because they say they don't mind telemarketing calls. They just politely decline and hang up.
Sorry I had to remind you that the world doesn't fall into line with all of your personal preconceptions of it. You and I hate telemarketers - not everyone does. Let them decide what they want to do with there phone lines rather than pushing on extreme or the other. Which is another good point... why the fuck are political and "charitable" organizations still allowed to call if I'm on the list....
SHOW ME *1* PERSON THAT *WANTS* TO BE INTERRUPTED DURING DINNER TO GET RIPPED OFF ON SOME SCAM AND YOU WIN.
THAT, students, is known as a red herring. Since it's almost certain noone wants to be ripped off on a scam, it's probably impossible to show someone that satisfies this condition.
Of course, he completely disregarded the fact that not all telemarketing calls, and, indeed, most telemarketing calls, are not scams - merely irritating sales pitches.
Had I been posed the question that fit the topic, rather than this almost completely unrelated rubbish (indeed - arguably COMPLETELY unrelated as scamming people on the phone is already illegal), I would point to myself as an example of someone who once willingly and knowingly opted in to a sales pitch via the phone. It was for windows, none-the-less.
While I don't win your make-believe argument about phone scams, I do win the argument about annoying telemarketers.
I'll get you started. I knew a guy named "Doug" in high school (who we'll call "Joe" to protect his identity) who tried, in a "persuasive speech" assignment, to prove that the earth is 6000 years old.
"Joe's" "proof" was that because language has gotten simpler since Shakespeare's time (which is totally the opposite of what's happened in reality, presuming he's talking about English since he never specified), the Earth is only 6000 years old.
As you can tell, Doug - er "Joe" - was, pretty much, an idiot.
So, it's not good enough for you that you have the choice, you want to force it on other people to? Like the telemarketers were previously doing by making unwanted calls? So, what you're saying is, the method of forced decision-making is okay as long the decision being made is the one YOU personally want?
Do me a favor and don't speak for me ever again, even though you happened to be right this time (I'm on the list). You don't know what ALL of the people want.
Slashdot Mirror
most of them home computers running Windows with high-speed connections.
WHY wasn't ICF turned on by default in XP Home? WHY aren't there pamphlets included with new computers about keeping AV up to date and not opening unknown e-mail attachments? WHY are so many ports in Windows open by default on Home installations? WHY is Microsoft still clinging to the broken "identify executables by extension" mechanism?
We include pamphlets about how not to hurt yourself while you're using your pretty new Gateway PC, but we can't even drop in a fucking 2 page paper about keeping A/V up to date and the danger of executable attachments? Not only that, Microsoft runs on almost all of the Home PCs out there but almost nobody (sorry geeks, we're all still nobodies when we're not on Slashdot) demands any accountability or quality or security from Microsoft?
Fuck it... I'm going to become a goddamn mime.
I dont have an key. I dont understand whats up with people on Slashdot always griping about my typing and grammar. Its perfectly acceptable. Theres nothing wrong with it. Whatever, I just dont get it.
Anyway, the quote, and poem, are too famous to say that you stripped the holocaust material away from it. That's like saying I stripped the American Revolution out of "Give my liberty or give me death."
Why? Because you can't imagine that a quotation can apply on more than one level?
Using a quote that is traditionally associated with the Holocaust is NOT the same as comparing an irritating problem with patent law to that aforementioned holocaust. Nowhere in my original statement can you point out one comparison that I draw between the Holocaust and software companies OR patents. Therefore, your Holocaust conclusion must be one that you inferred from the context of the quote. Therefore, you either misinterpreted the spirit of the quote in the context of the post, or, as I'm more inclined to believe, you're one of those annoyingly literalist people (at least about quotes) who can't imagine that anything can apply on more than one level or in a different context than the original intent.
Your inference does not translate directly to the truth, do not assume that it does. Since no direct conclusion is drawn, there is no way that you can reasonably argue that I drew any such conclusion unless you can convince me and others who read this thread to accept your conclusion.
Good luck with that. I know in what context I posted the quote and apparently everyone else in the thread got it.
Yes, by stripping all Holocaust-related material out of the entire, rambling quote and only posting an altered version of it that focuses on a single, generalized concept rather than a specific political statement, I have compared computer companies to the Holocaust.
Speaking of people who are "out of touch", you might want to look into not drawing baseless conclusions from harmless, non-topical, incomplete quotations that you misunderstood the context of.
This is a very good point.
This is probably one of the very few times we'd want to see Microsoft win a case like this. Eolas claims that they're just going after Microsoft, but who's next? They can clobber the living daylights out of all sorts of other people now in a misguided bid to make money on litigation (the New Gold Rush, anyone?).
The door swings both ways: if Microsoft is abusing companies (ok, bad choice - IBM or Amazon might be better) with a ridiculous set of patents, we should be yelling. However, if Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, etc. is being abused by a ridiculous set of patents, we need to yell just as loud.
How does that go... oh yes:
"And when they came for me, there was noone left to speak out for me."
When you pick up the phone to call ATA, what you are doing is harassment.
Only if you're harassing them. If you call them up and give them perfectly valid feedback, what are they going to do? "Uhhh.. yes, your honor. The defendant called us to let us know how much he hates it when he gets calls from us that he didn't ask for and has asked to have stopped on several occasions. He's a criminal!".
In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
THAT is probably one of the biggest loads of horseshit I've seen posted on Slashdot in awhile. Part of selling cold is overcoming people's objections to something they hadn't actively sought before. They know that the overwhelming majority of people want nothing to do with the product - it's why they didn't seek it out to begin with. If they knew ahead of time who did and who didn't want the product, the only thing they would do is start ranking people by the likelihood of a purchase so they could target the victims better.
Don't give me shit about them just doing their jobs. My grandmother is 86 years old and she's always yelling at these bastards because they keep calling and trying to sell her shit and she keeps telling them to leave her alone. She just wants to be left alone, she doesn't need her windows replaced because she doesn't own a house. She doesn't need a new vaccuum cleaner. I don't care if they're "just doing their jobs" - they're doing it at her and my great inconvenience, and that's NOT acceptable.
I don't CARE if 2 million telemarketers get booted to the street. They almost all get paid shit anyway and are shoveled pretty much the same benefits as McDonalds' burger-flippers. They'll just fill other service positions that pay the same paltry amount but don't irritate people. If 2 million telemarketers lose their jobs, it's BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY DOESN'T HAVE A CUSTOMER BASE. Imagine that... an industry being allowed to die off because nobody wants to patronize it. What a novel idea in this country - fair competition. The only reason telemarketers have been allowed to survive this long is because they don't NEED to establish a customer base by providing a quality product or service, they just need to keep beating random people over the head and forcing almost everyone to be the customer base.
Long live the DNC list! The only complaints I have are that I can't sign up to avoid slimy politicians, guilt-inducing "charities", and religious nutjobs.
What? You mean the number for my dial up connection ISN'T 317-816-9336? Wellll... I better let it keep trying for little while longer... like a few years.
Your assertion that VS sucks because you don't get the code is ridiculous,/p>
Are you an idiot? Oh wait.. that's not even in question here - you're posting anonymous coward without posting anything that would be necessary to keep your identity secret - you most obviously are either an idiot or a troll. Where did I assert that Visual Studio sucks because I don't get the code? Visual Studio sucks because it's a lousy toolset surrounding a bunch of shitty languages that are built on a half-assed API to a system that only runs right a quarter of the time.
since the install works 99.99% of the time for 99.99% of people who install it
And you got those statistics where? Your ass? The 100 homogenous machines you installed a single version of VS on? Glad to know that in your make-believe statistics I get to be the .01%.
And, I figured out how to make Windows work just fine. You use these tools called fdisk and format, then you go get a real operating system that actually runs right and install it. Like DOS.
As far as your assertion as to the problem between my keyboard and chair, I must say that the words of an anonymous coward who apparently works as a Help Desk technician - the lowest common denominator of IT jobs - installing half-assed tools on half-assed systems cut me so deeply that I simply can't express my anguish.
Give me an address and I'll mail you a quarter, kid. Come back and talk to me after you've purchased a decent system and gotten a real job.
By the way - I respond to anonymous cowards once and once only if they have no reason to post AC. Don't expect a response no matter what sort of troll you post next.
Windows software installs without a manual
It also isn't being installed from source, rarely has anything close to the option flexibility of source-installed software, and is usually completely useless in the event that something fails in the process. I have a copy of VS6 here that bombs near the end of the installer and there's not a damn thing I can do about it, for example. I have shit installed here that won't uninstall properly and, short of removing it manually and hunting down and undoing every little registry key and config change, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Why does everything have to be "the way Windows does it"? Windows sucks, that's why I use Linux and BSD. I don't WANT it to act like Windows. That's the POINT. It's NOT Windows and it WORKS, that's why I LIKE it. It's not hard to type "apt-get something". I'm sick of people apologizing for users who are too coddled and/or stupid and/or lazy to even do that - it's how you wind up with people with busted-ass systems who call you up and whine all the time that the "computer is broken". Gee - that's because you installed every damn thing you came across by double-clicking randomly...
It's okay to make things easier to a point, but you have to put some responsibility on people for what they install. Windows doesn't, and, as a result (aong with some other issues), most Windows systems out there are hideously broken beyond repair.
Besides, if you're going to immitate ease-of-use, immitate Macs, not Wintels.
We're "better than them" not because we're "1337 d00dz", but because we actually make people stop and think about what they're about to do before they do it...
The problem isn't "scumbag's" swapping copyrighted material. Well.. wait, yes it is. Quick! Without looking it up, tell me if Drowning Pool's "Tearing Away" can or cannot be legally traded. Never mind - go ahead and try looking it up, I'm sure you still can't tell me with any certainty. I honestly don't know either: I found a full-quality copy of it offered up as a mp3 sample from the album on a highly visible review on a commercial music site that's been around for awhile. Yet, the album says that copies cannot be made and distributed. No terms were attached anywhere that I could find on the site, and I couldn't find any agreement or information that says that the site is legally distributing the files. Can I, or can I not legally own that without buying the CD?
If it were clear to the masses what is and is not "protected" under copyright law, the "scumbag file swapper" argument wouldn't be so laughable - if it's clearly illegal, even if it's not necessarily wrong - DON'T DO IT (just whine about it on Slashdot...). But, if the waters are muddy, who's responsibility is it to clear them? Should the individual be responsible for trying to beat the information out of somebody who knows it, or should the people who know it be making some attempt to deter this sort of behavior by making it clear what is and isn't an acceptable use of their material?
Beyond that, I might point out that, unless you've got a lot of money to burn, you can't afford to fight the RIAA by yourself even if you're innocent (which I realize you mentioned). The RIAA will lose money fighting you, but get a big payoff if they win, whereas you can only lose large amounts of cash by fighting no matter your innocence or guilt. Even if they lose, they can afford it. If their scatter-brained approach is going to hit any innocent people, they shouldn't be doing it - especially given their massive abuses of the legal system (courtesy of our idiot lawmakers) and the fact that they let the whole thing run rampant for so long. Then, there's the fact that they have no evidence that it's even hurting them, much less that it's hurting them as much as they claim. It's kind of hard to go to court in civil litigation and not look like a total jackass when you stand up and say "Well, your honor, we say that this person caused us $750,000 in damages even though file swapping has been loosely correlated to increased sales in recent history, our industry's downturn matches up to what should be expected as a result of the economy, and we have nothing to refute even this weak, merely circumstantial evidence".
Let me introduce you to this little letter I got from Verizon. See, Verizon is the only local service game around because they have a monopoly on the service in the area. Others have tried, Verizon has cheated, bought, and legislated them right out of the area.
So, I use Verizon for my Internet access. Apparently, I wasn't paying them enough on my local-only $21.00 a month plan for unlimited calling. So, they sent me a letter informing me of a "great new benefit!" The great new "benefit" was an extra $3 charge on my phone bill each month for 30 minutes of regional long distance. I get extorted out of this money whether or not I use my 30 minutes each month - which I don't.
And, guess what? I'm STILL using Verizon because I'm totally fucked. They've also pissed around on broadband - they're the only game in town, so they see no rush to roll it out to those of us who happen to be a mere 1/4 of a mile outside of their range.
So, I pay an extra $3 a month for long distance service that I specifically didn't want when I signed up, and there's not a goddamn thing I can do about it. Can I just not pay it and get away with it? Yea - I don't HAVE to pay the $3 bill and they can't disconnect my local service - but it won't look good on my part if anyone looks up my bill-paying habits and sees that I have $150 in delinquent, unpaid billing from Verizon (buying a house, anyone).
People hate telcos because they suck and they're not now and never have been interested in providing quality service at a good price in a manner consistent with your needs. Like most other big corps, they're interested in maximizing their profits in any way possible, which is usually accomplished in the easiest way by stomping on (willing or unwilling, as the case may be) customers' faces and stealing their wallets.
Sooo... you're theory is that Google is retarded because retarded people don't know how to use Google?
Are cars incapable of being driven properly because incapable people drive cars then?
Or, are guns incapable of hitting a target because people with no aim use guns?
Seriously... get a grip. If you're not smart enough to realize that the word 'in' could appear in 32 bazillion pages, maybe you aren't smart enough to be using a search engine yet... smarter technology is not a good subsitute for intelligence in the user.
Have fun
Yea, MIT and Berkely :)
A lot of schools these days take money from venduhs (Microsoft is the big one here) and, in return, teach their products rather than theory and solid practice with multiple products. The worst part is, they try to make it look like theory to look good. For example, I got duped bad on the "Intermediate Database Management" course - they market it as a class about RDBMS management, but it's "Access For Dummies" through and through and the teacher knows about as much as RDBMSs as I do about brain surgery. I'm a follower of the writings of Fabian Pascal, C.J. Date (I had actually just wrapped up a rather intensive study of "Database Design" before this miserable class started), and, of course, Codd, so you can imagine how painful that class is.... that's pretty much been the standard tech class at this technological dung heap (the gen ed courses are ok though, so it makes a good jump start to a 4 year to save you money - just avoid program-specific courses like the plague if you care to actually learn anything).
Unfortunately, from what I've seen, that's the way it works at a lot of schools these days - they teach a product instead of a theory. There are exceptions, of course, but after looking around, I've resigned myself to the fact that unless I come across baskets of cash (and pull my grades up...) I'm not going to get an overall quality tech education anywhere. I can get "bad" for cheap where I am now (temporarily, albeit) or "average" for "somewhat expensive" where I'm planning to go shortly, but anything approaching "good" costs bundles.
...and it's great! I'm stuck in a shitty little comm. coll. here where everything is "learn how to use vendor x's program y" and it stinks. I told several profs to their faces now that I'm not coming to any classes when we're not taking a test because there's nothing that I can learn there that I care about or that matters.
With the Open CourseWare site though, I've started plugging my way through an almost complete cirriculum! I finally got the motivation to learn Java so I could use it in the 6-170 course. The content, organization, and overall structure of the course is incredible (6-170 is by far one of the best classes I've ever had in any subject at any school with any professor ever)! I'm looking forward to following it into the next class I work through on OCW.
There's no way I can afford to go to MIT - as much as I would love to - but with OCW, at least I can benefit from a great deal of their wisdom with some elbow grease, even without the cash.
Thoughts?
Sorry, this is Slashdot - you must be confusing us with someone else.
And everyone probably laughed because they didn't get the punchline:
That it wasn't a joke.
Sigh.... scary times a-comin'... mind the helicopters, son....
The point is that Lindows is stepping into this thing and leveraging consumer ignorance. Sound familiar?
If there was a decision made whereby Red Hat had to pay out claims to individual consumers and Microsoft stepped into this and did the same thing, everyone would scream bloody murder about them taking advantage of the courts to stomp on competition a little bit more. That would be fair, because that's what they'd be doing. But, just because a half-assed wannabe Linux company with a pretty unscrupulous leader is doing this, we're supposed to say it's good for the consumers? Nope, sorry.
Lindows saw a business opportunity in a court decision and jumped on it. However, if they're really violating the terms of the decision like MSFT says they are, then they're no better than any other dirty corporate trying to capitalize on court cases rather than innovate, in-demand products. It's never a good thing for consumers when companies leverage half-truths and dirty tactics to make money, no matter who's side the company is on.
As far as the school-children, I'm well aware that MSFT is full of shit on that one. It's a PR move that will sit well with ignorant people, but, of course, the rest of us know that when Microsoft "gives" to the community (MSFT mind you - not Bill and Melinda's personal donations) they make damn sure that they'll get back more than they gave to begin with.
The problem with Lindows is that:
- It's not REALLY Linux in the sense that we know it.
- It's run by as big of a sleazebag as the turds that run Microsoft.
I don't think it's good for ANYONE in the long run. What good does it do to force people to look at Linux? I could just go fdisk my parents' hard drive and install SuSe or RH9 or something, but that's not choice. Not only that, Lindows' CEO appears to just be trying to capitalize off of the ignorance of the consumers - exactly the same way that Microsoft does. Actually, it's probably even worse than that because, if Microsoft's claims are true, the msfreepc.com site is interfering directly with the courts and the proper procedures for filing claims. What happens when Lindows' proxy claims are denied (assuming noone shuts their little scam down beforehand)? Are they going to go back to the consumers and try to blame them and send bills to them for the unfullfilled claims?No... I don't think this, or Lindows for that matter, is good for anyone. I don't like Microsoft, and I'd like to see Linux, Windows, MacOS, BSD, etc. competing fairly on a level playing field in the areas they're good at.. but if it's left up to Lindows they'll just be Windows with an L right down to a T.
You're probably right about that, but on the other side of the fence, Lindows is effectively pulling a Microsoft inspired tactic to undermine another company at the cost of innocent consumers who really just want to get a good deal without worrying about a bunch of legal wrangling and buearocratic red tape.
I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft is "looking out for the little guy" here (why start now?), but I don't think Lindows et. al. are showering themselves in glory by rolling around in the same shallow mud pit that Microsoft has for the last decade.
I have to start wondering if the consumer is ever again going to be treated anything close to "fair" the way this is going. We boo Microsoft, then one of our own guys (granted - a fringe member who's just barely a part of the whole thing) starts acting just like them.. ugh.
Uh... right. Excellent response right down to the fact that you didn't respond to the actual issue... AGAIN... AND you launched a baseless ad hominem.
In case you didn't notice, this has NOTHING to do with MY personal preference. I already told you: I'm on the list. I hate telemarketers with a passion (I have to work with some and I hate that too.. they really are as obnoxious as there calls make them out to be) and I let everyone know about the list so they can sign up IF THEY WANT TO.
That doesn't mean I'm so arrogant that I'd claim that EVERYONE wants to be on the list, so everyone should just be forced to be on it. In fact, I know several people who didn't sign up for it because they say they don't mind telemarketing calls. They just politely decline and hang up.
Sorry I had to remind you that the world doesn't fall into line with all of your personal preconceptions of it. You and I hate telemarketers - not everyone does. Let them decide what they want to do with there phone lines rather than pushing on extreme or the other. Which is another good point... why the fuck are political and "charitable" organizations still allowed to call if I'm on the list....
And, I quote:
we ALL want to be on it.
Intend to or not, you did.
SHOW ME *1* PERSON THAT *WANTS* TO BE INTERRUPTED DURING DINNER TO GET RIPPED OFF ON SOME SCAM AND YOU WIN.
THAT, students, is known as a red herring. Since it's almost certain noone wants to be ripped off on a scam, it's probably impossible to show someone that satisfies this condition.
Of course, he completely disregarded the fact that not all telemarketing calls, and, indeed, most telemarketing calls, are not scams - merely irritating sales pitches.
Had I been posed the question that fit the topic, rather than this almost completely unrelated rubbish (indeed - arguably COMPLETELY unrelated as scamming people on the phone is already illegal), I would point to myself as an example of someone who once willingly and knowingly opted in to a sales pitch via the phone. It was for windows, none-the-less.
While I don't win your make-believe argument about phone scams, I do win the argument about annoying telemarketers.
I'll get you started. I knew a guy named "Doug" in high school (who we'll call "Joe" to protect his identity) who tried, in a "persuasive speech" assignment, to prove that the earth is 6000 years old.
"Joe's" "proof" was that because language has gotten simpler since Shakespeare's time (which is totally the opposite of what's happened in reality, presuming he's talking about English since he never specified), the Earth is only 6000 years old.
As you can tell, Doug - er "Joe" - was, pretty much, an idiot.
So, it's not good enough for you that you have the choice, you want to force it on other people to? Like the telemarketers were previously doing by making unwanted calls? So, what you're saying is, the method of forced decision-making is okay as long the decision being made is the one YOU personally want?
Do me a favor and don't speak for me ever again, even though you happened to be right this time (I'm on the list). You don't know what ALL of the people want.
I keep him in a little coffee can beside my bed.
When I get really ticked off, I put a lid on it and kick him down the stairs.