Fucking RIAA. Looks like they've figured out that bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business.
I'm sorry, but people like you sound so moronic.
"Fucking RIAA! They're going after the people who are pirating their music!"
Uh, yeah. Of course they will. They're PROTECTING their business. If you ran a company that produced product, and you discovered applications devoted to trading that product freely all over the net, wouldn't you do things to stop that?
I don't see how anybody can possibly defend the copyright infringers who are freely trading the music those bands made. Especially when we have iTunes now, and people are raving about it. $0.99 a song, and $9.99 an album.
Get your asses of Kazaa already and buy music. Those artists aren't making it for you to freely trade all over the net. They make a living on this. You guys were all whiny when Valve got hacked and their source code and game content was leaked. Why is this different? Because Valve was a game company, but this is the RIAA? People love to forget the bands that are making this music you're pirating. They don't get money and they don't see sales stats when you don't purchase their album.
Michael will post an article about the RIAA going after copyright-infringers--EXACTLY what Slashdotters were saying the RIAA should do when they were targetting p2p not long ago--and call them "Music-Lovers."
Could he spin it any further? Can michael justify the copyright infringement going on and his implication that the RIAA should shrug it off?
It's amusing since I remember Jamie mentioning that the infamous Slashdot daily summary website that used to be up (may still be) was an infringement.
You can even go later in this thread and see people trying to justify it all. "But that's why we're angry, we copyright-infringers ARE music lovers! That means the RIAA should ignore illegal copyright infringement!"
I don't get someone who thinks so irrationally, but at the least Slashdot could stop stooping so low as to spin it as "RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers." It's a loaded headline reminscent of propaganda techniques Nazis and other groups use (note: I'm not comparing Slashdot to Nazis, merely pointing out that this strategy is typical of a weak position that needs to stoop to spinning facts to make a point).
You can dance around the issue all you want with sarcastic rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that Slashdot is biased. Do you think they ever report the myraid of holes reported in my sig? No. But they'll make an entire article out of a speculative article that doesn't actually prove anything.
Again, everything you wrote was just hopeful speculation. It "seems" like something Microsoft would do. Meanwhile, BayStar did it, and they just happen to have dealings with Microsoft.
But that translates to a "Microsoft Behind SCO Cash Investment?" headline on Slashdot. The bias that people refuse to see here sickens me.
Isn't it funny that the Microsoft bootlick- sorry advocates have that extreme double standard going on?
How am I a Microsoft bootlicker? Because I correctly point out that people already speculated this in the last article, and the link in the summary is also more speculation? It's a completely pointless article.
They have no trouble pretending to believe that SCO's claims are true, even though every single bit of "evidence" turned out to be just hot air.
Who is "they?" I think SCO is full of shit. Yes, kid, the world is not black and white. I call them like I see it.
But on the other hand they demand evidence of everything Microsoft does but refuses to admit.
Heaven forbid I demand evidence of a claim. Right.
Microsoft has already given SCO money publicly (for their "Unix"-license), then "an anonymous company" gave SCO money for their "Linux-antidote" license, wonder what company that was...
Everyone on Slashdot pointed to HP.
- and now again an anonymous company pays SCO money through a fund in which Microsoft and Microsoft-related Vulcan are big players.
Among many. It wasn't an anonymous company, it was BayStar. They just happen to have dealings with Microsoft. The jump from that to "M$ IS FUNDING SCO!" is pretty vague.
Why all this secrecy? Why doesn't SCO show their evidence? Why does every investor in SCO want to remain anonymous?
Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the topic of this thread, but it's because SCO's revenue is based on litigation. They won't show their evidence because it is weak and baseless. This has been shown to be the case time after time.
This article is completely pointless. All it says is that the people investing in SCO have dealings with other companies, "including Microsoft." And then the guy from BayStar disputes the claim anyway.
People already postulated this in the last article. It's pure conjecture and is denied by them anyway. Was Slashdot just clamoring for more Microsoft flamebait?
This article is old news
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
We knew WinFS wasn't a replacement for NTFS over half a year ago. Of course, Slashdot is just now getting around to pointing it out (after previously posting about NTFS being "replaced"), but still.
Yes, put on the tinfoil hats, boys. Microsoft is the conspiracy ringleader, and SCO is a "foot soldier" in their "war."
It seems that the strategy most Slashbots take is to cover their ears and eyes and dismiss anything critical as "FUD." Meanwhile, they need to actually be paying attention because it could come up and bite them in the ass.
Incidentally, Linux will not be the dominant operating system for the next century, SCO lawsuit or not. For people who are so passionately anti-monopoly, it surprises me that you would want any dominant operating system.
It won't go down in history because he's talking about the current state of things. Currently, there aren't any desktop applications needing over 4 gigabytes of physical memory.
It's really silly to harp on these statements. Is that all people have got?
Not that it matters, since the statement wasn't false, and wasn't meant to apply until the end of time (neither does the alleged "640k" quote).
Can you think of a desktop application that needs more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory? Did Bill Gates say "nobody will ever need more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory" or did he just say he couldn't think of one right now? I'll give you a hint, it's the one that's not a Slashbot-favored flamebait.
Is he new? In 10 years there will be applications SCREAMING for it because...
Are you an idiot? He didn't say "in 10 years" in that sentence. He was talking about now. Can you think of a desktop application right now that needs more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory?
Slashbots will search for *anything* to latch onto as flamebait. In this case, they'll take a quote out of context and pretend Bill Gates meant it to apply until the end of time.
"I can't think of desktop applications where you would need more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory"
He's right. Can you think of a desktop application that needs more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory?
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
He never said that, and it's been proven countless times. Even if he did say it, in 1980, 640K *was* enough for anybody. What's the problem?
I don't get why people troll that Microsoft requires so much patching, when a simple look at the link in my sig will show you that Linux distros have several patches released WEEKLY.
But you never see any of it reported on Slashdot except when it's something really, really bad like a filesystem-corrupting kernel release or an exploitable sendmail/ssh/whatever that they can't easily ignore. That's right, kiddies--Linux and its userland is just as hole-ridden as any other operating system, if not more so (Slashdot posted an article entitled "Linux Most Attacked Server?" that linked to a study showing Linux as the most breached server on the net).
This is an entire article based on a throwaway comment Bill Gates made buried somewhere in a speech he was giving. It is purely here to let everyone give their knee-jerk reactions to the fact that--surprise of surprises--Bill Gates believes Microsoft patches better than Linux.
Isn't it time for RobLimo to write another ridiculous "Week with Windows XP" in which he only writes about the first day and can't manipulate a Quick Launch toolbar?
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking RIAA. Looks like they've figured out that bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business.
I'm sorry, but people like you sound so moronic.
"Fucking RIAA! They're going after the people who are pirating their music!"
Uh, yeah. Of course they will. They're PROTECTING their business. If you ran a company that produced product, and you discovered applications devoted to trading that product freely all over the net, wouldn't you do things to stop that?
I don't see how anybody can possibly defend the copyright infringers who are freely trading the music those bands made. Especially when we have iTunes now, and people are raving about it. $0.99 a song, and $9.99 an album.
Get your asses of Kazaa already and buy music. Those artists aren't making it for you to freely trade all over the net. They make a living on this. You guys were all whiny when Valve got hacked and their source code and game content was leaked. Why is this different? Because Valve was a game company, but this is the RIAA? People love to forget the bands that are making this music you're pirating. They don't get money and they don't see sales stats when you don't purchase their album.
Nobody owns "Happy Birthday." It's public domain.
Even so, you can sing copyrighted tunes. You can even play them as a cover band. As many cover bands do.
What the heck was your point, and who were the crackheads who modded you up?
Michael will post an article about the RIAA going after copyright-infringers--EXACTLY what Slashdotters were saying the RIAA should do when they were targetting p2p not long ago--and call them "Music-Lovers."
Could he spin it any further? Can michael justify the copyright infringement going on and his implication that the RIAA should shrug it off?
It's amusing since I remember Jamie mentioning that the infamous Slashdot daily summary website that used to be up (may still be) was an infringement.
You can even go later in this thread and see people trying to justify it all. "But that's why we're angry, we copyright-infringers ARE music lovers! That means the RIAA should ignore illegal copyright infringement!"
I don't get someone who thinks so irrationally, but at the least Slashdot could stop stooping so low as to spin it as "RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers." It's a loaded headline reminscent of propaganda techniques Nazis and other groups use (note: I'm not comparing Slashdot to Nazis, merely pointing out that this strategy is typical of a weak position that needs to stoop to spinning facts to make a point).
Okay, troll, explain how Microsoft doesn't give users a choice? Are they holding you at gunpoint or something?
Don't you mean the installer programs themselves?
We wouldn't want to blame the OS for app faults, right Linux users?
Yeah, because SCO $699 jokes in every article involving Linux never stop being funny.
How long will it take until the requisite $699 post?
You can dance around the issue all you want with sarcastic rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that Slashdot is biased. Do you think they ever report the myraid of holes reported in my sig? No. But they'll make an entire article out of a speculative article that doesn't actually prove anything.
"BayView?"
Again, everything you wrote was just hopeful speculation. It "seems" like something Microsoft would do. Meanwhile, BayStar did it, and they just happen to have dealings with Microsoft.
But that translates to a "Microsoft Behind SCO Cash Investment?" headline on Slashdot. The bias that people refuse to see here sickens me.
Isn't it funny that the Microsoft bootlick- sorry advocates have that extreme double standard going on?
How am I a Microsoft bootlicker? Because I correctly point out that people already speculated this in the last article, and the link in the summary is also more speculation? It's a completely pointless article.
They have no trouble pretending to believe that SCO's claims are true, even though every single bit of "evidence" turned out to be just hot air.
Who is "they?" I think SCO is full of shit. Yes, kid, the world is not black and white. I call them like I see it.
But on the other hand they demand evidence of everything Microsoft does but refuses to admit.
Heaven forbid I demand evidence of a claim. Right.
Microsoft has already given SCO money publicly (for their "Unix"-license), then "an anonymous company" gave SCO money for their "Linux-antidote" license, wonder what company that was...
Everyone on Slashdot pointed to HP.
- and now again an anonymous company pays SCO money through a fund in which Microsoft and Microsoft-related Vulcan are big players.
Among many. It wasn't an anonymous company, it was BayStar. They just happen to have dealings with Microsoft. The jump from that to "M$ IS FUNDING SCO!" is pretty vague.
Why all this secrecy? Why doesn't SCO show their evidence? Why does every investor in SCO want to remain anonymous?
Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the topic of this thread, but it's because SCO's revenue is based on litigation. They won't show their evidence because it is weak and baseless. This has been shown to be the case time after time.
Questions "Overly Critical Guy" surely can't answer.
I'm very pleased to have proven you flat wrong.
Oh, please. Of course Microsoft was going to buy a license. This is SCO versus IBM, one of Microsoft's old enemies.
That doesn't mean they've just invested $50 million. You're making connections where you want connections to be.
This article is completely pointless. All it says is that the people investing in SCO have dealings with other companies, "including Microsoft." And then the guy from BayStar disputes the claim anyway.
People already postulated this in the last article. It's pure conjecture and is denied by them anyway. Was Slashdot just clamoring for more Microsoft flamebait?
We knew WinFS wasn't a replacement for NTFS over half a year ago. Of course, Slashdot is just now getting around to pointing it out (after previously posting about NTFS being "replaced"), but still.
Good lord. 3D Studio Max is up to version 4.2 now and has changed radically since 2...
Hello, they do. Pro Tools LE is the free, limited-edition version of Pro Tools.
And, of course, Cakewalk has its various limited versions of its products like Sonar.
Only on Slashdot can a company give away a free shareware version of their product and have it be called "crippleware" by some ignoramus.
Yes, put on the tinfoil hats, boys. Microsoft is the conspiracy ringleader, and SCO is a "foot soldier" in their "war."
It seems that the strategy most Slashbots take is to cover their ears and eyes and dismiss anything critical as "FUD." Meanwhile, they need to actually be paying attention because it could come up and bite them in the ass.
Incidentally, Linux will not be the dominant operating system for the next century, SCO lawsuit or not. For people who are so passionately anti-monopoly, it surprises me that you would want any dominant operating system.
It won't go down in history because he's talking about the current state of things. Currently, there aren't any desktop applications needing over 4 gigabytes of physical memory.
It's really silly to harp on these statements. Is that all people have got?
Not that it matters, since the statement wasn't false, and wasn't meant to apply until the end of time (neither does the alleged "640k" quote).
Can you think of a desktop application that needs more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory? Did Bill Gates say "nobody will ever need more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory" or did he just say he couldn't think of one right now? I'll give you a hint, it's the one that's not a Slashbot-favored flamebait.
Next.
Is he new? In 10 years there will be applications SCREAMING for it because...
Are you an idiot? He didn't say "in 10 years" in that sentence. He was talking about now. Can you think of a desktop application right now that needs more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory?
Next.
Slashbots will search for *anything* to latch onto as flamebait. In this case, they'll take a quote out of context and pretend Bill Gates meant it to apply until the end of time.
"I can't think of desktop applications where you would need more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory"
He's right. Can you think of a desktop application that needs more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory?
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
He never said that, and it's been proven countless times. Even if he did say it, in 1980, 640K *was* enough for anybody. What's the problem?
Next.
Well it's easy to use until something goes wrong.
Welcome to true-for-everything land.
I don't get why people troll that Microsoft requires so much patching, when a simple look at the link in my sig will show you that Linux distros have several patches released WEEKLY.
But you never see any of it reported on Slashdot except when it's something really, really bad like a filesystem-corrupting kernel release or an exploitable sendmail/ssh/whatever that they can't easily ignore. That's right, kiddies--Linux and its userland is just as hole-ridden as any other operating system, if not more so (Slashdot posted an article entitled "Linux Most Attacked Server?" that linked to a study showing Linux as the most breached server on the net).
This is an entire article based on a throwaway comment Bill Gates made buried somewhere in a speech he was giving. It is purely here to let everyone give their knee-jerk reactions to the fact that--surprise of surprises--Bill Gates believes Microsoft patches better than Linux.
Isn't it time for RobLimo to write another ridiculous "Week with Windows XP" in which he only writes about the first day and can't manipulate a Quick Launch toolbar?
Well, that would be Linux and its apps, according to my sig.
XP really isn't that simple to use, at least compared to MacOS, yet Windows still has the majority of the market share.
Slashbots LOVE to say Windows isn't easy to use, and then they never explain why.
Sorry, it really is easy to use.