Microsoft has given advance notice that on February 8th, they will NOT be releasing patches for dozens and dozens of yet-undiscovered vunerabilities. Unhappily a day later they'll have a nice little webcast to answer questions about the vunerabilities they know, but not about the ones that have no clue about yet. Windows users, don't forget to dump Windows first thing Monday morning."
You seem to be assuming that all use of bit torrent is illegal, when that is just not true. So allow me to adjust your analogy:
I used to walk into Safeway. Some people walk into Safeway to browse, and some to shop, and some to steal. Because of those who steal, they installed alarms. They closed Safeway down, so now I shop at Albertson's and I get much better groceries. I understand that some people rob Albertson's as well. It just goes to show the COPS/PIGS that when they stop me shopping in one store, I shop in another and probably get better stuff. This is the same as Vons was to Stater Brothers.
The reason Google got rich was by putting the needs of the user first. That got them lots of eyeballs, and thus lots of revenue. So I'm sure the last thing Google shareholders want is for Google to follow the Microsoft model of deception. That will lead to fewer users, fewer eyeballs, less revenue.
Anybody who is confused and completely taken in by a sponsored site is probably not in a position to make a decision about migrating a company to linux, nor is it likely that they're technically able to use linux. Therefore, I'm not sure that the fact that this ad is front and center really matters all that much.
My point wasn't specific to Linux. My point is that if they are willing to be deceptive about Linux, they'll potentially be deceptive about any subject, including those of interest to newbies. Why trust a company that has proven to be deceptive over the years?
I agree. I regularly use free shipping, and sometimes it delays it from going out the door as fast as it otherwise would, but a lot of the time I seem to get it just about as fast as if I said to rush things.
Heh, they adjusted it since I wrote what I did. It's now the second link, and the summary line reads, "Windows outperforms Linux: Industry case studies and test lab results provide insight into the advantages of the Microsoft(r)..."
As has been discussed ad naseum on/. over the years, Windows absolutely does not outperform Linux except in the most narrow of definitions. For a newbie using MSN Search (why would a Web veteran switch from Google?) to find Linux information, to have that sentence show up before anything else (now in second place), front and center, is misleading and self-serving. Remember those studies that talked about newbies not noticing some results were ads? On Google they make it so obvious what is an ad. On MSN they make it more subtle.
Did I write in an inflammatory way? Yes. But what I said is true, even though almost every person who responded to me misread what I wrote ("almost" - some responses were informative and cool). It used to be that if you pointed out Microsoft was capable of dirty deeds and not to be trusted, everyone knew what you were talking about. Now you get shouted down and modded "Off topic" and "Flame bait."
Microsoft PR has really overrun/. I can smell the fresh mowed astroturf...
Well, as I said to the other person of objected, I do know that and actually said in my original post that it was a sponsored ad. But MSN is doing it the old-fashioned way: Putting the ads front and center in a way that could deceive a new user who doesn't realize ads are mixed in with the results. Google showed a better way, a way that makes it extremely clear what is a result and what is an ad.
Microsoft copied just about everything else from Google, you'd think they would copy this better method of displaying ads. But no, they chose to put deception and ad revenue ahead of user convenience. That's the big difference.
Notice the big difference on Google? Right, the sponsored links are off to the side, and not the first thing you see, and blatantly obvious as an ad. On MSN, it's the first thing you see, front and center. Money and deception come first at Microsoft, whereas at Google it's the information that comes first.
Fascinating. I called it a "sponsored link" and I get lots of responses telling me I'm an idiot for not noticing it's a sponsored link. I wonder who the idiots are here.
I can't speak to the studies, so I'll defer to you on that, although I did use the word "approximately." I know for myself that it's about the same level of distraction, that is, not much. I always put the road as my main priority and scale back on conversation immediately if needed. Not everyone is like that, of course, and it's the problem folks who cause new laws to be passed.
But my main point, on which we agree, is that there are already laws on the books that cover all of these scenarios and anything else that comes along in future.
No one cares. It's from Microsoft, and thus cannot be trusted. Do a search for "Linux," for crying out loud, and take a gander at the first thing that shows up for display: Right, a sponsored link from Microsoft that lies about Linux.
Has nothing about this company's past and recent history meant anything to us? Do you really think they intend to play fair? Do you really feel you will be able to trust their search results no matter what promises they make? Maybe you do, but I can't imagine ever trusting Microsoft for anything. Live and learn, eh?
The only reason laws are created against cell phones is because it is new technology. All those other things drivers do that distract them just as much get a firm scolding and late-nite talk show host jokes made about them.
As others in this discussion noted, talking on the phone is approximately as distracting as talking to someone in your back seat. If you're the kind of idiot that feels the need to turn your head to face that person in the back seat while you drive, you're also the kind of idiot that gets distracted with a cell phone. If you're the kind of person who can talk to the person in the back seat without turning your head, you can handle a cell phone conversation too.
Are there specific laws against eating while driving? No. Putting on makeup? No. Shaving? No. Those all get put under the omnibus "Don't violate traffic laws" concept. If you weave in and out of a lane while shaving, you'll get pulled over for weaving in and out of a lane. If you wind up speeding because you are eating a Chalupa from Taco Bell and the sauce spills on your pants, you'll get pulled over for speeding. In other words, there are already laws in place to handle dangerous driving -- regardless of the reason for that dangerous driving.
But because cell phones are relatively new technology, oooh, we'd better pass a new (and redundant) law against it (while at the same time ignoring everything else that distracts the driver to an equal or greater amount).
The mistake you are making is assuming that the personal views of the reporters survive the final stories that make it on the air. Yes, most reporters are liberal in their viewpoint, but most stories that get past corporate editorial control involve the propping up of the status quo, not the calling for major change. Thus conservative. That's what all those studies carefully overlook to make their point.
The idea comes from this: Forget about conservative in terms of picking sides politically. Instead think of the word in general. Sticking with the status quo, preserving what is, keeping things going. That is more what is meant, not causing waves. Keeping people happy.
A mega-corp has to appeal to a wide spectrum of consumers. That, by its very nature, makes them conservative in the sense of trying not to offend people. Keeping advertisers happy. Keeping shareholders happy. Keeping the bottom line healthy. Not rocking the boat.
Making donations to either Republicans or Democrats is merely a reflection of personal donations. When the corporation is steered, however, it is steered in an economically conservative manner. And thus the mainstream news organizations get slowly neutered in an effort to avoid offending anyone. No sense in making the advertisers uncomfortable. In such a fiscal environment, how much can they rock the boat? Not very much. Thus conservative.
Any continuous repetitive motion involving the pressing of fingers or thumbs to electronic buttons of any kind on any device can lead to medical injury if done too often.
There. That just saved us years of research and tens of millions of dollars. Please remit 10% of that to me for my valuable input.
"The concept is really simple actually: the cost of the software is less than the increase in productivity that you get by using the software. Don't believe me? Then throw away your software and tell me how much money you "saved" by doing everything by hand."
I don't think it's an either-or proposition like that. Instead the choice is to throw away your Microsoft software and use open source software for free. No need to do anything by hand, but you do save on the license costs. Same functionality, less problems with spyware and viruses, save money. Sounds like a plan.
"We have to come to terms with the fact that the media is not biased towards the left, or biased towards the right. It is biased towards power."
That is very well said, and it cuts to the truth. If liberals were in power, the media would appear more liberal. Now that conservatives are in power, the media appears more conservative. It's all about money to the media, and whatever it takes to curry favor with those in power so that they can get favorable deals and increase their bottom line.
That's why you cannot get the whole story out of the mainstream media. You see it more clearly in countries that are not used to the American level of freedom. Old-style Soviet reporting, for instance, which was overtly propagandistic. Or in Ukraine which, during the original presidential election period, saw the state-run TV stations all but ignore Yuschenko's candidacy. When we see that, we call it propaganda easily, for we can so easily see the ties between state and corporations.
Those same ties exist in America, but instead of being held in place militarily, it is done economically, and in much more subtle ways. Ask awkward questions of President Bush? You'll find yourself being cut out of the loop in the future. Report something negative about the White House? You find your advertisers under siege from protest groups, and the economic push to conform to the White House view. It's a constant push against dissent of any kind, and it has an effect.
phyruxus,
Thanks for the kind words. I try, not always successfully, to attack the argument not the person. And to try to stay on the topic even when emotions start flying. Rationality beats emotional appeals in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has given advance notice that on February 8th, they will NOT be releasing patches for dozens and dozens of yet-undiscovered vunerabilities. Unhappily a day later they'll have a nice little webcast to answer questions about the vunerabilities they know, but not about the ones that have no clue about yet. Windows users, don't forget to dump Windows first thing Monday morning."
I used to walk into Safeway. Some people walk into Safeway to browse, and some to shop, and some to steal. Because of those who steal, they installed alarms. They closed Safeway down, so now I shop at Albertson's and I get much better groceries. I understand that some people rob Albertson's as well. It just goes to show the COPS/PIGS that when they stop me shopping in one store, I shop in another and probably get better stuff. This is the same as Vons was to Stater Brothers.
Is that the same productivity cost they use when estimated how much money a "hacker" cost them when he looked at their files?
The reason Google got rich was by putting the needs of the user first. That got them lots of eyeballs, and thus lots of revenue. So I'm sure the last thing Google shareholders want is for Google to follow the Microsoft model of deception. That will lead to fewer users, fewer eyeballs, less revenue.
My point wasn't specific to Linux. My point is that if they are willing to be deceptive about Linux, they'll potentially be deceptive about any subject, including those of interest to newbies. Why trust a company that has proven to be deceptive over the years?
I have never seen that. If that's so, it seriously undercuts my argument, I will admit.
ROFL! Whatever happened to the application of logic?
It's my third user ID over the years, oh ye of wrong assumptions. I started reading /. in, um, lessee, 1998 or 1999 or so.
I agree. I regularly use free shipping, and sometimes it delays it from going out the door as fast as it otherwise would, but a lot of the time I seem to get it just about as fast as if I said to rush things.
As has been discussed ad naseum on /. over the years, Windows absolutely does not outperform Linux except in the most narrow of definitions. For a newbie using MSN Search (why would a Web veteran switch from Google?) to find Linux information, to have that sentence show up before anything else (now in second place), front and center, is misleading and self-serving. Remember those studies that talked about newbies not noticing some results were ads? On Google they make it so obvious what is an ad. On MSN they make it more subtle.
Microsoft PR has really overrun /. I can smell the fresh mowed astroturf...
Microsoft copied just about everything else from Google, you'd think they would copy this better method of displaying ads. But no, they chose to put deception and ad revenue ahead of user convenience. That's the big difference.
Notice the big difference on Google? Right, the sponsored links are off to the side, and not the first thing you see, and blatantly obvious as an ad. On MSN, it's the first thing you see, front and center. Money and deception come first at Microsoft, whereas at Google it's the information that comes first.
Since I'm not a Linux user, so you'll have to ask someone else. So much for your assumption.
Odd, I never said that, nor do I know of a search site "from Linux." I'm certainly getting emotional responses to my post.
Fascinating. I called it a "sponsored link" and I get lots of responses telling me I'm an idiot for not noticing it's a sponsored link. I wonder who the idiots are here.
But my main point, on which we agree, is that there are already laws on the books that cover all of these scenarios and anything else that comes along in future.
Has nothing about this company's past and recent history meant anything to us? Do you really think they intend to play fair? Do you really feel you will be able to trust their search results no matter what promises they make? Maybe you do, but I can't imagine ever trusting Microsoft for anything. Live and learn, eh?
As others in this discussion noted, talking on the phone is approximately as distracting as talking to someone in your back seat. If you're the kind of idiot that feels the need to turn your head to face that person in the back seat while you drive, you're also the kind of idiot that gets distracted with a cell phone. If you're the kind of person who can talk to the person in the back seat without turning your head, you can handle a cell phone conversation too.
Are there specific laws against eating while driving? No. Putting on makeup? No. Shaving? No. Those all get put under the omnibus "Don't violate traffic laws" concept. If you weave in and out of a lane while shaving, you'll get pulled over for weaving in and out of a lane. If you wind up speeding because you are eating a Chalupa from Taco Bell and the sauce spills on your pants, you'll get pulled over for speeding. In other words, there are already laws in place to handle dangerous driving -- regardless of the reason for that dangerous driving.
But because cell phones are relatively new technology, oooh, we'd better pass a new (and redundant) law against it (while at the same time ignoring everything else that distracts the driver to an equal or greater amount).
The mistake you are making is assuming that the personal views of the reporters survive the final stories that make it on the air. Yes, most reporters are liberal in their viewpoint, but most stories that get past corporate editorial control involve the propping up of the status quo, not the calling for major change. Thus conservative. That's what all those studies carefully overlook to make their point.
A mega-corp has to appeal to a wide spectrum of consumers. That, by its very nature, makes them conservative in the sense of trying not to offend people. Keeping advertisers happy. Keeping shareholders happy. Keeping the bottom line healthy. Not rocking the boat.
Making donations to either Republicans or Democrats is merely a reflection of personal donations. When the corporation is steered, however, it is steered in an economically conservative manner. And thus the mainstream news organizations get slowly neutered in an effort to avoid offending anyone. No sense in making the advertisers uncomfortable. In such a fiscal environment, how much can they rock the boat? Not very much. Thus conservative.
There. That just saved us years of research and tens of millions of dollars. Please remit 10% of that to me for my valuable input.
I don't think it's an either-or proposition like that. Instead the choice is to throw away your Microsoft software and use open source software for free. No need to do anything by hand, but you do save on the license costs. Same functionality, less problems with spyware and viruses, save money. Sounds like a plan.
That is very well said, and it cuts to the truth. If liberals were in power, the media would appear more liberal. Now that conservatives are in power, the media appears more conservative. It's all about money to the media, and whatever it takes to curry favor with those in power so that they can get favorable deals and increase their bottom line.
That's why you cannot get the whole story out of the mainstream media. You see it more clearly in countries that are not used to the American level of freedom. Old-style Soviet reporting, for instance, which was overtly propagandistic. Or in Ukraine which, during the original presidential election period, saw the state-run TV stations all but ignore Yuschenko's candidacy. When we see that, we call it propaganda easily, for we can so easily see the ties between state and corporations.
Those same ties exist in America, but instead of being held in place militarily, it is done economically, and in much more subtle ways. Ask awkward questions of President Bush? You'll find yourself being cut out of the loop in the future. Report something negative about the White House? You find your advertisers under siege from protest groups, and the economic push to conform to the White House view. It's a constant push against dissent of any kind, and it has an effect.
phyruxus, Thanks for the kind words. I try, not always successfully, to attack the argument not the person. And to try to stay on the topic even when emotions start flying. Rationality beats emotional appeals in my book.