Yes. Those insects are morally reprehensible and should not be allowed to mate, ever. Think of the praying mantis children that are going to grow up without fathers because their cannibalistic mothers ate them right after mating...
Am I the only one that sees a large gap between the comedic deaths on Monty Python and websites that talk about FUCKING AND/OR EATING CORPSES? I'm sure I can't be, but I seem to be alone around here...
YES, free speech is limited. Libel and slander keep me from saying shit like "Wal-Mart employees all like to molest dead babies." Seriously, how the hell can you argue that websites devoted to people FUCKING AND/OR EATING CORPSES is protected speech?
Such are necessary to protect society from the misinterpretations of simpletons who aren't sophisticated enough to understand that a right is only one so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another.
That's the most intelligent thing I've read on this website in quite a long time. I fail to see how ANYONE can think that having a website that talks about fucking and/or eating corpses is protected speech. Last I checked, both cannibalism and necrophilia were sort of ILLEGAL. Does anyone want to stand up and defend other websites that propagate illegal content, such as child porn?
RTFUSC (US Constitution). Bill of Rights, Ninth Amendment. If you're going to be jingoistic, have the dencency to not sound like a fucking retard when you're doing it. Thank you, come again.
I can tell you right now that the reason they did that was to get you to buy the more expensive option. It's quite obvious, and it's a good marketing move on their part.
"Who has?"
Anyone that thinks software has a damn thing to do with morals. Hardcore Free Software pedants who still pine for the days of ITS. Those kinds of guys.;)
"Of course they are. So's Red-Hat, and everyone else."
True, but too many people around here act like a company trying to make money on software is illogical, immoral, reprehensible, and something akin to child molestation. I submit this question...
Which is more wrong?
Writing your own operating system and applications and selling copies for a tidy profit... ...Or taking the hard work of a few hundred thousand developers that gave their time and energy to develop free programs, boxing them all up, and selling them as your own?
Please note a tinge of sarcasm in the above question.;)
Because most end users never have to install their OS. When they do, they usually get a techie friend to help (that's always me, BTW *SHUDDER*).
As for the Exchange Server, that's just MS's price structure. If you don't like it, use something else. Nobody is forcing anyone to use MS's products, and complaining about their price is just stupid.
"Why buy that Ferrari when a Yugo will take you where you want to go just as well!"
Not saying MS is a Ferrari, just that you TEND TO get what you pay for.
Also not saying MS is worth what you pay for. I use Fedora.;)
In terms of this article IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER if Linux is a kernel. He is referring specifically to available ENTERPRISE LEVEL DISTRIBUTIONS of Linux. He's ignoring it because, as far as this question and answer session goes, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Not everyone is a pedantic little cunt that insists GNU/Redhat/Debian/Slack/Whatever be pasted onto the front of 'Linux'.
Which implies, to me at least, that he thinks and/or wants other to think that RedHat, Inc.
Which is still ignoring that he mentions other distributions of Linux, and in this case is talking SPECIFICALLY about Redhat's distribution of Linux.
Not only that but compare the number of people MS has to pay to the number of people Redhat has to pay. I'm sorry, I'm just weird. Maybe it's because I haven't been sheltered in an open source-oriented enviroment my entire computing life, but MS's products just don't seem that expensive compared to some of the other stuff out there. They're in BUSINESS to make money.
Also, it depends on the software what kind of support you get. With Windows XP you get (as stated on the support website) 2 'incident' calls and unlimited installation support. Take that as you will.
RTFA, dipshit. He mentions Redhat Linux and SuSE Linux MULTIPLE TIMES. He's comparing and contrasting different ENTERPRISE LEVEL SERVERS that are available. Pull your head out, THEN post.
- He doesn't mention the SCO lawsuit. It was never brought up. There was no reason to.
- He seems to think that Red Hat is Linux "It's not so much Linux monolithic vs. Microsoft. But it's Novell SUSE with one price point, one set of functionality; Red Hat enterprise server with one price point, one set of functionality; and Windows server." Thanks for reading the whole article.
- He compares his product to fast food It's an analogy. They're not meant to be directly correlated to what's being said.
What he's saying is that they try to set Windows up as the 900-lb gorilla of software solutions, capable of covering everything. Not everyone needs that. Sometimes customers need less than what MS offers, and he's basically saying that in those circumstances there may be better choices.
Plus, you are confusing YOUR PERSONAL SERVERS with BUSINESS servers. In a business enviroment you want to have support from the software company. You can't get that for free from Debian or Redhat or anyone else.
Something too many people here fail to comprehend is that quite a lot of the cost of MS's products goes towards customer service. Try calling up Debian and getting them to answer some questions.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing to make the front page of Slashdot in a while. So because Intel didn't lick AMD's balls in a PRESS RELEASE, it's newsworthy? Hey, here's some news...
AMD IS SIMPLY COPYING AND FOLLOWING INTEL by releasing x86 compatible chips. Get that? AMD IS JUST COPYING INTEL!
Too bad you can't moderate the stories. This would would get a "-1 Completely Pointless" from me.
Which part of "made their own implementation" do you find unparseable? It means THEY WROTE THEIR OWN CODE, based on the standard. Which means IT WASN'T GPL.
This seems to be a new trend on Slashdot. Not even bothering to read the post you're replying to.
Not everyone that directs music videos is a dumbass like Rob Zombie. Check out what Spike Jonze did with Being John Malkovich. Not very music video-inspired.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Those insects are morally reprehensible and should not be allowed to mate, ever. Think of the praying mantis children that are going to grow up without fathers because their cannibalistic mothers ate them right after mating...
So you're not sure if pictures of people fucking children should be illegal? So, exactly how retarded on you? Like... Rainman level? Or Timmy level?
Yes, I know Dustin Hoffman's character in Rainman was autistic. That's not the point.
Am I the only one that sees a large gap between the comedic deaths on Monty Python and websites that talk about FUCKING AND/OR EATING CORPSES? I'm sure I can't be, but I seem to be alone around here...
YES, free speech is limited. Libel and slander keep me from saying shit like "Wal-Mart employees all like to molest dead babies." Seriously, how the hell can you argue that websites devoted to people FUCKING AND/OR EATING CORPSES is protected speech?
A-FUCKING-MEN!
Such are necessary to protect society from the misinterpretations of simpletons who aren't sophisticated enough to understand that a right is only one so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another.
That's the most intelligent thing I've read on this website in quite a long time. I fail to see how ANYONE can think that having a website that talks about fucking and/or eating corpses is protected speech. Last I checked, both cannibalism and necrophilia were sort of ILLEGAL. Does anyone want to stand up and defend other websites that propagate illegal content, such as child porn?
RTFUSC (US Constitution). Bill of Rights, Ninth Amendment. If you're going to be jingoistic, have the dencency to not sound like a fucking retard when you're doing it. Thank you, come again.
I can tell you right now that the reason they did that was to get you to buy the more expensive option. It's quite obvious, and it's a good marketing move on their part.
"Who has?" ;)
...Or taking the hard work of a few hundred thousand developers that gave their time and energy to develop free programs, boxing them all up, and selling them as your own?
;)
Anyone that thinks software has a damn thing to do with morals. Hardcore Free Software pedants who still pine for the days of ITS. Those kinds of guys.
"Of course they are. So's Red-Hat, and everyone else."
True, but too many people around here act like a company trying to make money on software is illogical, immoral, reprehensible, and something akin to child molestation. I submit this question...
Which is more wrong?
Writing your own operating system and applications and selling copies for a tidy profit...
Please note a tinge of sarcasm in the above question.
Because most end users never have to install their OS. When they do, they usually get a techie friend to help (that's always me, BTW *SHUDDER*).
;)
As for the Exchange Server, that's just MS's price structure. If you don't like it, use something else. Nobody is forcing anyone to use MS's products, and complaining about their price is just stupid.
"Why buy that Ferrari when a Yugo will take you where you want to go just as well!"
Not saying MS is a Ferrari, just that you TEND TO get what you pay for.
Also not saying MS is worth what you pay for. I use Fedora.
In terms of this article IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER if Linux is a kernel. He is referring specifically to available ENTERPRISE LEVEL DISTRIBUTIONS of Linux. He's ignoring it because, as far as this question and answer session goes, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Not everyone is a pedantic little cunt that insists GNU/Redhat/Debian/Slack/Whatever be pasted onto the front of 'Linux'.
Which implies, to me at least, that he thinks and/or wants other to think that RedHat, Inc.
Which is still ignoring that he mentions other distributions of Linux, and in this case is talking SPECIFICALLY about Redhat's distribution of Linux.
Not only that but compare the number of people MS has to pay to the number of people Redhat has to pay. I'm sorry, I'm just weird. Maybe it's because I haven't been sheltered in an open source-oriented enviroment my entire computing life, but MS's products just don't seem that expensive compared to some of the other stuff out there. They're in BUSINESS to make money.
Also, it depends on the software what kind of support you get. With Windows XP you get (as stated on the support website) 2 'incident' calls and unlimited installation support. Take that as you will.
I refuse to take seriously anything that has the term "Orwellian" in the headline. Which is why I pretty much quit reading YRO.
It should be blindingly, agonizingly, groin-grabbingly transcendently clear by now that MS does NOT make products for the KNOWLEGEABLE user.
RTFA, dipshit. He mentions Redhat Linux and SuSE Linux MULTIPLE TIMES. He's comparing and contrasting different ENTERPRISE LEVEL SERVERS that are available. Pull your head out, THEN post.
- He doesn't mention the SCO lawsuit.
It was never brought up. There was no reason to.
- He seems to think that Red Hat is Linux
"It's not so much Linux monolithic vs. Microsoft. But it's Novell SUSE with one price point, one set of functionality; Red Hat enterprise server with one price point, one set of functionality; and Windows server."
Thanks for reading the whole article.
- He compares his product to fast food
It's an analogy. They're not meant to be directly correlated to what's being said.
I decide you're a fucking moron who's reading too much into it.
Insightful my ass.
What he's saying is that they try to set Windows up as the 900-lb gorilla of software solutions, capable of covering everything. Not everyone needs that. Sometimes customers need less than what MS offers, and he's basically saying that in those circumstances there may be better choices.
Plus, you are confusing YOUR PERSONAL SERVERS with BUSINESS servers. In a business enviroment you want to have support from the software company. You can't get that for free from Debian or Redhat or anyone else.
Something too many people here fail to comprehend is that quite a lot of the cost of MS's products goes towards customer service. Try calling up Debian and getting them to answer some questions.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing to make the front page of Slashdot in a while. So because Intel didn't lick AMD's balls in a PRESS RELEASE, it's newsworthy? Hey, here's some news...
AMD IS SIMPLY COPYING AND FOLLOWING INTEL by releasing x86 compatible chips. Get that? AMD IS JUST COPYING INTEL!
Too bad you can't moderate the stories. This would would get a "-1 Completely Pointless" from me.
Which part of "made their own implementation" do you find unparseable? It means THEY WROTE THEIR OWN CODE, based on the standard. Which means IT WASN'T GPL.
This seems to be a new trend on Slashdot. Not even bothering to read the post you're replying to.
But... but... THEY could know what your thumb looks like! *SHOCK* *DISBELIEF* ;)
So because you don't use all the moderation options available, nobody else can? Uh-huh. How about YOU learn to mod properly?
It isn't. I don't think anyone's SERIOUS when they call the metric system 'fancy'.
I never read Zaphod as having a British accent. He always seemed like the typical Californian surfer dude to me.
Not everyone that directs music videos is a dumbass like Rob Zombie. Check out what Spike Jonze did with Being John Malkovich. Not very music video-inspired.