"But do share, if you obviously know so much about how Microsoft works on the inside. You must be a fountain of knowledge waiting to spring on the unsuspecting and undeserving Slashdot crowd. Tell us 'how it is'."
I never claimed to have ANY information about how Microsoft works on the inside! I also never said, "m$ is evil and the people who work there are ignorant whores" or "everything m$ does is stolen from someone else!!!"
Can you even read?! Do you always make up quotes to support your utterly unsupported posts?!
I asked a question. Someone responded back without supporting their position. So I responded back. You're response has nothing to do with that, whatsoever. If you cannot simply respond to what's posted, (which appears to be pretty simple to do), do us all a favor and DON'T post.
If I'm ignorant, please enlighten me with your vast knowledge! Explain to me how software from MS is rock solid and filled with imaginative features, there were not stolen from someone else. Please, I await your answer.
If Microsoft hires the "best and brightest" college graduates, then why does so much of their software suck and why is all of it utterly devoid of any imagination?!
That's what I thought. I'll never forget the first time I had to use a Mac. I tried and tried to get the floppy out but couldn't. I finally had to call up a mac friend and ask. The answer is so utterly counter-intuitive that I was shocked. I had been so brainwashed into thinking that Mac were designed for ease of use I couldn't believe that they'd do something so stupid. But they did!
In the old days artists would record a bunch of songs and put the very best 10 or 12 songs on to one LP. Albums such as Elvis Costello's "Imperial Bedroom" or nearly everything by the Beatles come to mind. These were generally cohesive works of art in that even the weak songs supported the entire album.
Unfortunately, with the advent of CDs and all the extra space on them, artists started filling them up with any junk they had lying around. So instead of getting a concise view of the artist's work, you'd get a hodgepodge collection of songs recorded over a period of several years and usually done by different producers and engineers. There would be no cohesiveness in these modern CDs. They were just hits with way too much filler tacked on.
Instead of comparing single songs off a CD to separate scenes from a movie, compare single songs off a CD to separate scenes from a variety/skit show, e.g., SNL.
Some might argue that if Johansen had been tried in the US and won, the prosecution could not have brought an appeal to try him again.
True, however, in the US, with the use of the DMCA, he NEVER would have been found not guilty. Under the DMCA, you cannot argue fair use. It's a strict liability statute. If you break encryption to make a copy you're guilty. It doesn't matter if you were making a copy of your own DVD. You'd be guilty.
The US system might be more fair procedurally, but at least he had a chance to be found not guilty in Norway, which he NEVER had here!
First, the feds cannot appeal a case where a defendant was found not guilty. Once a defendant is found not guilty, he can never be tried on that charge again. Show me one case to support your opinion. Just one.
Second, of course the feds can change charges mid stream. It's called amending the complaint. It's done all the time in both criminal and civil cases. No one knows for certain what will come out in the facts, thus leave to amend is freely given.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post.
In the US, if the defendant wins the prosecutor CANNOT appeal its loss. Never. Nada. Zip. Once a defendant is found "not guilty" he is not guilty of that charge forever.
The cops in the Rodney King case were found innocent by a jury in California. That was never and could never have been appealed.
They were charged under a different jurisdiction, by the feds, which means double jeopardy didn't apply.
I can't believe that Gates is SO desperate to stop Linux that he's going to give away the source code to China. They have NO respect for intellectual property rights there. Not only will the government steal it, but the source will be freely sold on the streets. This COULD be the downfall of MS we've all wanted!
Yeah, who could ever take a multibillion dollar industry serious?! Especially when one considers that the gaming industry is actually profitable and is GROWING when other tech sectors are failing.
Heck, Sony only, yes ONLY, makes 40% of its profits from Playstation. It's a drop in the bucket!
And the fact that GTA: Vice City sold twice as many copies in the last 3 Months than the best selling CD sold last year! Who cares?! It's still JUST gaming! And because it's merely gaming, and utterly profitable, and successful, it's not worthy of anyone's time!
Yep, the gaming industry is a joke. Anyone associated with it is a loser. Slashdot should stick to industries that lose money, have shrinking markets, and no future!
Imagine using it back in the 80s with all of the hair bands. In the early 90s you feed Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" into it, and it'd easly reject it as a hit. But, it became a HUGE hit and all of those hair bands became (even bigger) jokes over night.
Even though I only see it working at destroying music as we know it, I'm sure it'll be widely used.
Wow, does anyone here understand trademarks? Or maybe a better question to ask, if you do not understand trademarks, why do you post as if you do?
The mere fact that there are other meanings to a word does not stop it from being a valid trade name. Apple is a fruit, but that does not invalidate Apple's trade name.
If you tried to start a company that sold underwear and named it Apple, you could. There would likely be no confusion between Apple Computers and Apple Underwear as they cover different markets.
I could also open up a record store and call it McDonalds. Once again, different markets, same word.
Google took a part of a word and used it to name their internet search business. There is nothing wrong with doing that, it happens all the time. Look at Microsoft. Gates took the words "micro" from microcomputer and "soft" from software, combined them into something new, and viola, a valid trade name!
You're wrong. Microsoft could not sue an indvidual for using the term "microsofting." The purpose of trademarks is to protect consumers. If I use the word "microsofting" (whatever that would mean) at work, no one would confuse me of BEING Microsoft. If there is no confusion, there could be no valid cease-and-deist.
You don't understand trademark law. If everyone started using the word google as a verb, then it would become generic. When that happens Google.com would lose its right in the name.
For example, Aspirin used to be a trade name, but over time people started calling all acetylsalicylic acid tablets aspirin. Because the word eventually became generic, Beyer lost the right to the word and then everyone can use it. Now it's quite common to see rows and rows of aspirin at drug stores.
Companies can protect the loss of the trademarks by bringing suits against those who misuse them. However, Google.com has no basis to sue a dictionary for using the verb "to google." A dictionary has the right to publish how we use the language, regardless of trademarks.
Because copyright holders have MUCH more money with you. They use that money to get bills passed into laws. In this once instance, they failed. But, they still have the DMCA and the Eldred decision.
While Hollywood is utterly liberal and constantly bashing the convervative point of view, there is one thing you must remember: There are some VERY rich people in Hollywood. And if there is one thing that conservatives will protect more than anything else, it's the rich.
The G4 is a 32-bit CPU and a 32-bit OS runs on top of it. Apple merely does some of its calculations on a 128-bit chip. That's not really impressive, since ATI has released a 256-bit graphics chip with their Radeon 9800 Pro.
Actually, Apple's claim is even less than impressive, it's downright deceiving. But I shouldn't be surprised. I recently added up the cost of my home built computer and compared it to similar system from Apple. Mine cost 1/3 less. Yes, for the price of an Apple I could buy three very powerful PCs (or one awesome mega-PC!).
Apple users are used to being deceived. Apple removes the floppy, i.e., takes away a storage option, and tells the devoted that it's a good thing. They believe it in droves. Apple uses slow CPUs, that are beating again and again in tests against AMD and Intel based machines, but calls them supercomputers anyways. Apple is all about keeping the devoted in a self-imposed denial.
I have two friends who recently left the cult. Now that they are free, they are amazed at how much more software AND hardware choices they have... at MUCH better prices! It's like a fog was lifted from their eyes. Freedom is such a great thing!
As we all know, AMD's new 64-bit processor is backwards compatible with 32-bit programs. Intel's is not. Once Microsoft releases its new 64-bit version of XP, AMD's will be ready for the desktop. Intel's will not.
Is anyone surprised that Intel is claiming that we don't need 64-bit desktop computing?!
Actually, AMD's new 64-bit chip combined with Microsoft's upcoming OS will allow you to use your old software AND have it run faster.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20021226. html
Did you read my post? We have a well, which means we get hour water from the ground. If there IS floride in that water I'm scared, since floride is a by-product from nuclear power plants!
Thanks for the tip on getting high quality MP3s. In all honestly I have not really downloaded any songs in serious quanity in quite a while. It appears the follow-up posts that the overall quality in MP3s has changed for the better since the "old" days.
Slashdot Mirror
"But do share, if you obviously know so much about how Microsoft works on the inside. You must be a fountain of knowledge waiting to spring on the unsuspecting and undeserving Slashdot crowd. Tell us 'how it is'."
I never claimed to have ANY information about how Microsoft works on the inside! I also never said, "m$ is evil and the people who work there are ignorant whores" or "everything m$ does is stolen from someone else!!!"
Can you even read?! Do you always make up quotes to support your utterly unsupported posts?!
I asked a question. Someone responded back without supporting their position. So I responded back. You're response has nothing to do with that, whatsoever. If you cannot simply respond to what's posted, (which appears to be pretty simple to do), do us all a favor and DON'T post.
If I'm ignorant, please enlighten me with your vast knowledge! Explain to me how software from MS is rock solid and filled with imaginative features, there were not stolen from someone else. Please, I await your answer.
Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but I'm actually starting to like Bill!!!
If Microsoft hires the "best and brightest" college graduates, then why does so much of their software suck and why is all of it utterly devoid of any imagination?!
Which one?!
That's what I thought. I'll never forget the first time I had to use a Mac. I tried and tried to get the floppy out but couldn't. I finally had to call up a mac friend and ask. The answer is so utterly counter-intuitive that I was shocked. I had been so brainwashed into thinking that Mac were designed for ease of use I couldn't believe that they'd do something so stupid. But they did!
In the old days artists would record a bunch of songs and put the very best 10 or 12 songs on to one LP. Albums such as Elvis Costello's "Imperial Bedroom" or nearly everything by the Beatles come to mind. These were generally cohesive works of art in that even the weak songs supported the entire album.
Unfortunately, with the advent of CDs and all the extra space on them, artists started filling them up with any junk they had lying around. So instead of getting a concise view of the artist's work, you'd get a hodgepodge collection of songs recorded over a period of several years and usually done by different producers and engineers. There would be no cohesiveness in these modern CDs. They were just hits with way too much filler tacked on.
Instead of comparing single songs off a CD to separate scenes from a movie, compare single songs off a CD to separate scenes from a variety/skit show, e.g., SNL.
Some might argue that if Johansen had been tried in the US and won, the prosecution could not have brought an appeal to try him again.
True, however, in the US, with the use of the DMCA, he NEVER would have been found not guilty. Under the DMCA, you cannot argue fair use. It's a strict liability statute. If you break encryption to make a copy you're guilty. It doesn't matter if you were making a copy of your own DVD. You'd be guilty.
The US system might be more fair procedurally, but at least he had a chance to be found not guilty in Norway, which he NEVER had here!
First, the feds cannot appeal a case where a defendant was found not guilty. Once a defendant is found not guilty, he can never be tried on that charge again. Show me one case to support your opinion. Just one.
Second, of course the feds can change charges mid stream. It's called amending the complaint. It's done all the time in both criminal and civil cases. No one knows for certain what will come out in the facts, thus leave to amend is freely given.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. In the US, if the defendant wins the prosecutor CANNOT appeal its loss. Never. Nada. Zip. Once a defendant is found "not guilty" he is not guilty of that charge forever. The cops in the Rodney King case were found innocent by a jury in California. That was never and could never have been appealed. They were charged under a different jurisdiction, by the feds, which means double jeopardy didn't apply.
I can't believe that Gates is SO desperate to stop Linux that he's going to give away the source code to China. They have NO respect for intellectual property rights there. Not only will the government steal it, but the source will be freely sold on the streets. This COULD be the downfall of MS we've all wanted!
"Half Staff" sounds like midget porn to me.
Yeah, who could ever take a multibillion dollar industry serious?! Especially when one considers that the gaming industry is actually profitable and is GROWING when other tech sectors are failing.
Heck, Sony only, yes ONLY, makes 40% of its profits from Playstation. It's a drop in the bucket!
And the fact that GTA: Vice City sold twice as many copies in the last 3 Months than the best selling CD sold last year! Who cares?! It's still JUST gaming! And because it's merely gaming, and utterly profitable, and successful, it's not worthy of anyone's time!
Yep, the gaming industry is a joke. Anyone associated with it is a loser. Slashdot should stick to industries that lose money, have shrinking markets, and no future!
Imagine using it back in the 80s with all of the hair bands. In the early 90s you feed Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" into it, and it'd easly reject it as a hit. But, it became a HUGE hit and all of those hair bands became (even bigger) jokes over night. Even though I only see it working at destroying music as we know it, I'm sure it'll be widely used.
No one is arguing that Sun should provide free software. The complaint is that Sun is raising its prices without adding any new value.
Wow, does anyone here understand trademarks? Or maybe a better question to ask, if you do not understand trademarks, why do you post as if you do?
The mere fact that there are other meanings to a word does not stop it from being a valid trade name. Apple is a fruit, but that does not invalidate Apple's trade name.
If you tried to start a company that sold underwear and named it Apple, you could. There would likely be no confusion between Apple Computers and Apple Underwear as they cover different markets.
I could also open up a record store and call it McDonalds. Once again, different markets, same word.
Google took a part of a word and used it to name their internet search business. There is nothing wrong with doing that, it happens all the time. Look at Microsoft. Gates took the words "micro" from microcomputer and "soft" from software, combined them into something new, and viola, a valid trade name!
You're wrong. Microsoft could not sue an indvidual for using the term "microsofting." The purpose of trademarks is to protect consumers. If I use the word "microsofting" (whatever that would mean) at work, no one would confuse me of BEING Microsoft. If there is no confusion, there could be no valid cease-and-deist.
You don't understand trademark law. If everyone started using the word google as a verb, then it would become generic. When that happens Google.com would lose its right in the name. For example, Aspirin used to be a trade name, but over time people started calling all acetylsalicylic acid tablets aspirin. Because the word eventually became generic, Beyer lost the right to the word and then everyone can use it. Now it's quite common to see rows and rows of aspirin at drug stores. Companies can protect the loss of the trademarks by bringing suits against those who misuse them. However, Google.com has no basis to sue a dictionary for using the verb "to google." A dictionary has the right to publish how we use the language, regardless of trademarks.
Because copyright holders have MUCH more money with you. They use that money to get bills passed into laws. In this once instance, they failed. But, they still have the DMCA and the Eldred decision.
While Hollywood is utterly liberal and constantly bashing the convervative point of view, there is one thing you must remember: There are some VERY rich people in Hollywood. And if there is one thing that conservatives will protect more than anything else, it's the rich.
The G4 is a 32-bit CPU and a 32-bit OS runs on top of it. Apple merely does some of its calculations on a 128-bit chip. That's not really impressive, since ATI has released a 256-bit graphics chip with their Radeon 9800 Pro.
Actually, Apple's claim is even less than impressive, it's downright deceiving. But I shouldn't be surprised. I recently added up the cost of my home built computer and compared it to similar system from Apple. Mine cost 1/3 less. Yes, for the price of an Apple I could buy three very powerful PCs (or one awesome mega-PC!).
Apple users are used to being deceived. Apple removes the floppy, i.e., takes away a storage option, and tells the devoted that it's a good thing. They believe it in droves. Apple uses slow CPUs, that are beating again and again in tests against AMD and Intel based machines, but calls them supercomputers anyways. Apple is all about keeping the devoted in a self-imposed denial.
I have two friends who recently left the cult. Now that they are free, they are amazed at how much more software AND hardware choices they have... at MUCH better prices! It's like a fog was lifted from their eyes. Freedom is such a great thing!
As we all know, AMD's new 64-bit processor is backwards compatible with 32-bit programs. Intel's is not. Once Microsoft releases its new 64-bit version of XP, AMD's will be ready for the desktop. Intel's will not.
Is anyone surprised that Intel is claiming that we don't need 64-bit desktop computing?!
Actually, AMD's new 64-bit chip combined with Microsoft's upcoming OS will allow you to use your old software AND have it run faster. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20021226. html
Did you read my post? We have a well, which means we get hour water from the ground. If there IS floride in that water I'm scared, since floride is a by-product from nuclear power plants!
Thanks for the tip on getting high quality MP3s. In all honestly I have not really downloaded any songs in serious quanity in quite a while. It appears the follow-up posts that the overall quality in MP3s has changed for the better since the "old" days.
I decided to do an experiment. I just added up the cost of my computer in today's dollars: $1105 (US)
I then went to Apple.com to find out how much the same system would cost: $3440
For the price of an Apple I could have built THREE of my systems!!!!
I don't think there's a sucker born every second, because they appear to make up only 3% of the computer buying population!