Well, if you took the joke as not being a joke, then there was no other way to look at it. If you look, then you'll notice a bunch of other Slashdot crowd on the other end (not my opinion orginially posted when I mistook the meaning of the post) even modded it Insightful.
Hmm. Well, I didn't read it as a joke and I took it more as an extreme perspective that lends itself to Slashdot's crowd of anti-American sentiment.
Basically, I read it as an extremely ignorant insult (everyone in the US is rich without effort) and I wanted to make it clear that I disagreed. My CAPS use is rarely used to "scream," rather simply to draw attention to specific words.
Oh well, Karma 1, Picky 0 for today. My bad. I still don't think the joke lends itself very well to your explanation, but that's just me.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? That the guy has never had to work for anything?
If it's just a face value slap in the face ("Everyone in America drives everywhere!"), then you're just an ignorant ass that is flat out wrong. Not to mention people like me that RUN 3 miles a DAY and WALK almost everywhere.
Get off your high horse and realize you are DEFENDING CRIMINALS just because they MAY or MAY NOT have a fucking car, or a perfect life?! It's like saying a kid that grows up in the Bronx deserves to steal that BMW because he had a tough life growing up! You're an IDIOT.
Not to mention that they gave them the opportunity to have something to copy. Half the features in OpenOffice wouldn't exist if it weren't for Office, after all.
Powerpoint? Thank you Microsoft. While some presentations can suck on Powerpoint, so can transparencies. I could have lived without ever knowing Access, but it does what it does fairly well.
Just because it is on the OS, doesn't mean that every flaw opens the door to the OS. It's poor design, albeit effective marketing, but it's not a show stopper for the software itself. A bug is a bug anyway you look at it, but the attachment of IE to Windows is just a design decision, which also benefits the OS because it gets to use many explorer features.
So FF can't be bitched at because the people are unpaid, and IE can be bitched at because a rich company is paying people.
But how much of that revenue do they keep in terms of profit in both cases.
Manufacturing costs a certain amount, and the downloading means Apple gets a cut and the credit card companies get a cut. How much goes to the studio is a big deal with your math.
That's total bull. I run Microsoft Vista on a machine with 1 GB of ram and it runs PERFECTLY fine, with all the bells and whistles.
Microsoft cannot help it if their users install crap that steals the CPU.
while ( true ) string = "retarded";
Re:July-2008, M$ revenue falls 25%, Profits down 4
on
No Office Suite Google
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes, they did this because of awesome foresight, not simply because at over $300 per share they have a lot to lose from any similar case? They're doing it because they NEED to for the exact SAME reasons as MS did.
My only problem with Google is how will people find that very creative, yet extremely retarded way of putting the $ in M$ into Google? After all, god forbid, a company out to make a profit. Google is trying the EXACT same things as MS. Buying out companies for their products/ideas? Ya. Stealing away employees the same way people bitched about MS for doing? Ya.
Google lucked out and got a ton of people hooked early, and what now (just like MS)? They aren't light years ahead of anyone (just like MS, with the exception of Office, coincidentally). Yahoo has just as many good results as I find using Google (even though I use Google out of habit), and even MSN Search has just as many good results. In fact, I haven't seen any "MSN bombing" or "Yahoo bombing." Google has been a miserable failure in fixing this though.
"...Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don't affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission."
I really do not understand how they feel it does not affect the overall quality of their search service? A group of smart users can knowingly change the meaning of ANY search result they see fit and Google is willing to knowingly ignore this? That seems like quite a weakness in their algorithm to me. Admittedly, I do not know how they might go about fixing that issue, but at the same time I am not being paid too, nor am I interested in being paid to do it.
I use GMail, but only because I needed an email account with an email username that I wanted (unlike PICKY432412312321 that you see on older services), outside of my personal email account (business, and personal). As an early adopter, I got the perk of getting the one I wanted, and convienently a huge mailbox (~2.7 GB now). I don't even use 2 MBs of it though and I regularly "delete" messages from the service, and I am fearful about the rumours that nothing is actually deleted, so I only use it as an account I accept can be spammed (use the account on questionable websites as my contact address, expecting them to spam it). It's also annoying that I cannot send files over 10 MB to my GMail account, which is one of the other reasons I originally signed up for it (beats using MY FTP space!).
I love the logic there. Also, thanks for posting anonymously, puss. I was looking for a reason to be encouraged by the news. Your reply exemplifies that of a Google fanboy/anti-MS zealot. Thanks for playing.
Not many work offices will agree with that open access to the work documents anywhere.
Also, the internet is fine and all for a bunch of things, but what if the internet goes down (on either end: yours or theirs)? Do you just stop working? You cannot work on those documents.
I really cannot imagine that Google needs assistance with super computing? The distributed computing they perform alone shows their own expertise in the area. I also would assume that distributed computing serves their purposes better than a single super computer (or even a few).
Really, what I am saying is, why is Google doing this, or more over, being allowed to do this? Seems to me to be a bunch of PR. When I first read it, I thought, "that's cool, good of them," but now I seem to find myself questioning what Google has to gain. It's not like they can make the data streaming from the satellites and other inputs available to the public.
The actual summary went more along the lines of: above average high school student attends Engineering school where the teachers cannot, and often do not, teach. Important material is covered infrequently and as quickly as possible by the teachers (beit a TA or not). Desires a learning environment where students are both encouraged to learn topics and where they are actually TAUGHT the topics. Also would like a place that does not put all of the burden on students.
It's idiots, and more specifically, professors like you that are causing the problems that this person talked about. "Weeding out" is exactly as he put it, the process of having students accept failures simply because of the inability of teachers to teach. For one thing, he never even said the math was particularly hard, but the teacher and the TA never TAUGHT it. No, instead, they forced students to read the book and go with it from there. I could only imagine what in the hell I would have thought as I looked at Discrete Math symbols used in lower level math books (MVC as he mentioned) that usually carry some sort of teachers explanation; I am very good at math, but I would be lying if I said I could read straight through a new level of math and understand it completely, especially before taking Discrete Math.
I am an engineer/programmer that is not failing his courses, but only out of my own abilities. My level of care for my courses is near the, "I could drop out tomorrow and not give a damn" level.
"What I had at the time I was fired and sued was an idea," Brown says in an interview.
I am guessing that he said something to someone in the company, and obviously he should not have told that person. Maybe they even wrote it down. It's his idea, but at that point it's on company time. An unspoken idea is quite different from a spoken one and apparently he made the mistake of speaking.
I kind of find it questionable of the company to do this, but I am also kind of hesitating to say that they totally screwed him. They obviously fired him for a reason. Maybe he was "thinking" about this idea instead of working.
Ah, yes, the US is terrible for having a government entity [DEFENSE] wanting to protect us. Now, NASA on the other hand may be at fault for not coming up with this idea, but the two have NOTHING to do with each other.
Not to mention, I am currently more worried about missiles than I am asteroids. An asteroid is going to hit us? We're dead anyway. As numerous posts have questioned before this one, how can the ESA be so sure that we will not knock this INTO us?
I'd have to be retarded to consider it as stealing?
Let's look at what you are doing in a P2P sense:
Start: Searching for a song/movie/game on someone elses computer
Found: Downloading (taking) that song/movie/song.
Finish: Listening/watching/playing to it freely, and as often as you want.
Let's look at what you are doing in a pirated copy sense:
Start: Find a guy selling whatever.
Found: Pay the "pirate" for the material... probably on CD/DVD.
Finish: Same as above.
Let's look at what you are doing in a direct stealing sense:
Start: Find store with stuff.
Found: Take the item you want.
Finish: Same as above.
In each example, the main dealer/producer never gets money, yet you are receiving their product. You are stealing their product from them. I think a lot of people have trouble understanding this because if you had, say, a toilet from the manufacturer and copied it exactly, then you are not stealing from them. The difference? You (or someone else that I assume you'd pay) bought the materials and produced the toilet and it could never truly be exact. With something digital, if you make an exact copy it is STILL their product. Now, if you re-sing their song, then I would not consider that stealing. Once you change that song and then reproduce it, then I agree all you are doing is copyright infringement, but to digitally dupe the song for piracy purposes is stealing in my mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you took the joke as not being a joke, then there was no other way to look at it. If you look, then you'll notice a bunch of other Slashdot crowd on the other end (not my opinion orginially posted when I mistook the meaning of the post) even modded it Insightful.
Basically, I read it as an extremely ignorant insult (everyone in the US is rich without effort) and I wanted to make it clear that I disagreed. My CAPS use is rarely used to "scream," rather simply to draw attention to specific words.
Oh well, Karma 1, Picky 0 for today. My bad. I still don't think the joke lends itself very well to your explanation, but that's just me.
If it's just a face value slap in the face ("Everyone in America drives everywhere!"), then you're just an ignorant ass that is flat out wrong. Not to mention people like me that RUN 3 miles a DAY and WALK almost everywhere.
Get off your high horse and realize you are DEFENDING CRIMINALS just because they MAY or MAY NOT have a fucking car, or a perfect life?! It's like saying a kid that grows up in the Bronx deserves to steal that BMW because he had a tough life growing up! You're an IDIOT.
Not blue hats.
If you're going to lie, then learn to handle the heat. My machine runs Vista FLAWLESSLY.
Powerpoint? Thank you Microsoft. While some presentations can suck on Powerpoint, so can transparencies. I could have lived without ever knowing Access, but it does what it does fairly well.
So FF can't be bitched at because the people are unpaid, and IE can be bitched at because a rich company is paying people.
You think he can handle life outside his parent's basement?
Manufacturing costs a certain amount, and the downloading means Apple gets a cut and the credit card companies get a cut. How much goes to the studio is a big deal with your math.
Microsoft cannot help it if their users install crap that steals the CPU.
My only problem with Google is how will people find that very creative, yet extremely retarded way of putting the $ in M$ into Google? After all, god forbid, a company out to make a profit. Google is trying the EXACT same things as MS. Buying out companies for their products/ideas? Ya. Stealing away employees the same way people bitched about MS for doing? Ya.
Google lucked out and got a ton of people hooked early, and what now (just like MS)? They aren't light years ahead of anyone (just like MS, with the exception of Office, coincidentally). Yahoo has just as many good results as I find using Google (even though I use Google out of habit), and even MSN Search has just as many good results. In fact, I haven't seen any "MSN bombing" or "Yahoo bombing." Google has been a miserable failure in fixing this though.
Note the "ad" on the right of those search results: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombi ng-failure.html .
I really do not understand how they feel it does not affect the overall quality of their search service? A group of smart users can knowingly change the meaning of ANY search result they see fit and Google is willing to knowingly ignore this? That seems like quite a weakness in their algorithm to me. Admittedly, I do not know how they might go about fixing that issue, but at the same time I am not being paid too, nor am I interested in being paid to do it.I use GMail, but only because I needed an email account with an email username that I wanted (unlike PICKY432412312321 that you see on older services), outside of my personal email account (business, and personal). As an early adopter, I got the perk of getting the one I wanted, and convienently a huge mailbox (~2.7 GB now). I don't even use 2 MBs of it though and I regularly "delete" messages from the service, and I am fearful about the rumours that nothing is actually deleted, so I only use it as an account I accept can be spammed (use the account on questionable websites as my contact address, expecting them to spam it). It's also annoying that I cannot send files over 10 MB to my GMail account, which is one of the other reasons I originally signed up for it (beats using MY FTP space!).
Even if they changed the license, then they would still be able to blame the GPL for the same reason.
165 messages blocks the network, not a phone.
Not when the server room is an after-thought room. Giggs' room is largely dust free by luck, not dust planning.
I love the logic there. Also, thanks for posting anonymously, puss. I was looking for a reason to be encouraged by the news. Your reply exemplifies that of a Google fanboy/anti-MS zealot. Thanks for playing.
Also, the internet is fine and all for a bunch of things, but what if the internet goes down (on either end: yours or theirs)? Do you just stop working? You cannot work on those documents.
Really, what I am saying is, why is Google doing this, or more over, being allowed to do this? Seems to me to be a bunch of PR. When I first read it, I thought, "that's cool, good of them," but now I seem to find myself questioning what Google has to gain. It's not like they can make the data streaming from the satellites and other inputs available to the public.
I don't think it will advance at nearly that pace. Maybe if you double each of those estimates I might agree more.
Was this OSU?
The actual summary went more along the lines of: above average high school student attends Engineering school where the teachers cannot, and often do not, teach. Important material is covered infrequently and as quickly as possible by the teachers (beit a TA or not). Desires a learning environment where students are both encouraged to learn topics and where they are actually TAUGHT the topics. Also would like a place that does not put all of the burden on students.
It's idiots, and more specifically, professors like you that are causing the problems that this person talked about. "Weeding out" is exactly as he put it, the process of having students accept failures simply because of the inability of teachers to teach. For one thing, he never even said the math was particularly hard, but the teacher and the TA never TAUGHT it. No, instead, they forced students to read the book and go with it from there. I could only imagine what in the hell I would have thought as I looked at Discrete Math symbols used in lower level math books (MVC as he mentioned) that usually carry some sort of teachers explanation; I am very good at math, but I would be lying if I said I could read straight through a new level of math and understand it completely, especially before taking Discrete Math.
I am an engineer/programmer that is not failing his courses, but only out of my own abilities. My level of care for my courses is near the, "I could drop out tomorrow and not give a damn" level.
I kind of find it questionable of the company to do this, but I am also kind of hesitating to say that they totally screwed him. They obviously fired him for a reason. Maybe he was "thinking" about this idea instead of working.
I'm also guessing that during its idle time it could be used as a weapon, too. Might be a good enough reason to NOT build it unless definitely needed.
Not to mention, I am currently more worried about missiles than I am asteroids. An asteroid is going to hit us? We're dead anyway. As numerous posts have questioned before this one, how can the ESA be so sure that we will not knock this INTO us?
Let's look at what you are doing in a P2P sense:
Start: Searching for a song/movie/game on someone elses computer
Found: Downloading (taking) that song/movie/song.
Finish: Listening/watching/playing to it freely, and as often as you want.
Let's look at what you are doing in a pirated copy sense:
Start: Find a guy selling whatever.
Found: Pay the "pirate" for the material... probably on CD/DVD.
Finish: Same as above.
Let's look at what you are doing in a direct stealing sense:
Start: Find store with stuff.
Found: Take the item you want.
Finish: Same as above.
In each example, the main dealer/producer never gets money, yet you are receiving their product. You are stealing their product from them. I think a lot of people have trouble understanding this because if you had, say, a toilet from the manufacturer and copied it exactly, then you are not stealing from them. The difference? You (or someone else that I assume you'd pay) bought the materials and produced the toilet and it could never truly be exact. With something digital, if you make an exact copy it is STILL their product. Now, if you re-sing their song, then I would not consider that stealing. Once you change that song and then reproduce it, then I agree all you are doing is copyright infringement, but to digitally dupe the song for piracy purposes is stealing in my mind.