It seems like you don't remember the capabilities of the machines that DOS and Windows originally targeted. Networking wasn't ubiquitous. Memory protection didn't exist in the hardware. Processing power and memory were extremely limited. Storage was ridiculously expensive. The home market couldn't take advantage of these 'advanced technologies' because the power to do so simply wasn't there.
Things evolved forward from that point, complete with some shady business dealings that crossed the line of legality, but the picture you paint is so revisionist it should be discarded. It's not like Microsoft was incorporated with a business goal of keeping computing from its potential.
Truth be told, Bill Gates brought computing to the masses. Instead of setting things back, he pushed them forward more than anyone else in history. Maybe someone else would have done it in his absence, and maybe it would have been done better, but that's purely idle speculation. It can't be backed up one way or another.
The reality is, you've bought into the "M$ EVIL" mindset, so you have to swallow it whole now. Willingly donning blinders like that aren't going to help you out any.
Somebody just went and made that up. It's not authoritative. Web 2.0 is a stupid marketing term with no clear definition, and anyone that uses it demonstrates their utter lack of tech cred.
So the fact that you were a dirtbag with no morals gives you cause to restrict normal adults in their choices in the name of preventing your kids from going down the road you traveled? Not only are you a moron, you're a hypocrite, too.
Keep your spawn under your control. They aren't my problem in any way, your views on villages notwithstanding.
I know I already replied, but you struck a chord (ha!) and I have more to say about this:
Just because you don't have the necessary tools to appreciate something, that doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by others who understand what makes it good.
Take your own advice and speak for yourself. Your solutions require compulsory acceptance of conditions I don't want, so why do you presume you can impose them upon me?
The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market.
The OP said no such thing. It was a rant about things Intel has done (considered evil) that AMD has mirrored (considered... I don't know. Acceptable?). Apparently you fall in the 99% of/.ers who see and hear exactly what they want, real world be damned.
I gotta tell you, objectively, Jay Z has you beat big time. The objective part comes in due to the fact that your lines have no consistent meter, which is an important part of rhyming.
What sort of perfection would meet your requirements? Do you require that it sound like the person is next to you? Are you expecting psychic inference of the numbers you wish to dial? Do you feel the phone should magically hold itself next to your face? What is lacking, exactly?
Maybe I've just been lucky, but every phone I've had has been great for making calls.
Well actually, no one will 'see' the twenty grand. It's like buying a TV that's $1,000 off the normal price. No one actually gets that money.
Of course, you're just making the slashbot karmawhore comment that's been approved for this thread. I just figured since it was the fifth time I saw it I'd reply.
I have been told by cell phone companies that if I bought a new phone I would have to a) pay to get out of my current contract with them, and b) sign up for a new 2 year contract.
I've only seen that be the case when the phone price is subsidized. If you're willing to pay full price there are a number of retailers willing to sell you phones with no contract implications.
It seems the problem is you went for the cheaper upfront price with the longer term contract. You made a poor decision, mathematically speaking.
No contract only prices in ads. Consumers must be able to get a month to month contract from the start. If there is any preferential pricing when you sign up for two years, it must be VERY CLEAR that the price is attached to the two year contract, and you must specify in the same print size what the cost would be for the same plan without a contract or a different length contract (1 year, for example)
All of the ads I've seen were very clear. Consumer stupidity (like ignoring all the writing in an ad) is the fault of the consumer. It's not like they trick you into anything. They happen to subsidize phone prices as an inducement. It is a money loser in the long term, but people don't think that way, so they pay. It's just good business all around, in my eyes.
Black and white itt is not
on
Public Patents?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Everything is obvious and non-patentable. In retrospect.
You must be an astroturfing shill. There's no way you can honestly believe that it's even possible for anything good to come out of Redmond. They're evil. Pure evil. They make money! They must be destroyed! Support choice! Destroy the most popular alternative!
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like you don't remember the capabilities of the machines that DOS and Windows originally targeted. Networking wasn't ubiquitous. Memory protection didn't exist in the hardware. Processing power and memory were extremely limited. Storage was ridiculously expensive. The home market couldn't take advantage of these 'advanced technologies' because the power to do so simply wasn't there.
Things evolved forward from that point, complete with some shady business dealings that crossed the line of legality, but the picture you paint is so revisionist it should be discarded. It's not like Microsoft was incorporated with a business goal of keeping computing from its potential.
Truth be told, Bill Gates brought computing to the masses. Instead of setting things back, he pushed them forward more than anyone else in history. Maybe someone else would have done it in his absence, and maybe it would have been done better, but that's purely idle speculation. It can't be backed up one way or another.
The reality is, you've bought into the "M$ EVIL" mindset, so you have to swallow it whole now. Willingly donning blinders like that aren't going to help you out any.
I have no discussion, simply some advice: Learn about abstraction before you code again.
Somebody just went and made that up. It's not authoritative. Web 2.0 is a stupid marketing term with no clear definition, and anyone that uses it demonstrates their utter lack of tech cred.
Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the truth.
Yeah, we should join the rest of world in clamoring for driving and soccer. That'll make a lot more sense.
Please explain one thing, as I suspect it to be rampant hyperbole.
How did Bill Gates "[set] the computing industry back by decades" ?
Do people still use Hungarian notation? I thought that abomination would have died off by now.
I live in DC, you insensitive clod.
It is possible to make money yet not be a very good company.
Only by subjective definitions that apply things like morality. Taken strictly in business terms, making money is the only measure that counts.
Even though you're kind of mean, you're right. I was going to be a teacher until I realized that I could make more money delivering pizza.
We agree under a veneer of disagreement. Nothing in your posts or mine is in conflict.
So the fact that you were a dirtbag with no morals gives you cause to restrict normal adults in their choices in the name of preventing your kids from going down the road you traveled? Not only are you a moron, you're a hypocrite, too.
Keep your spawn under your control. They aren't my problem in any way, your views on villages notwithstanding.
Where is the magical source of infinite competence that produces all these people? Quality people cost money because they are in short supply.
I know I already replied, but you struck a chord (ha!) and I have more to say about this:
Just because you don't have the necessary tools to appreciate something, that doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by others who understand what makes it good.
Take your own advice and speak for yourself. Your solutions require compulsory acceptance of conditions I don't want, so why do you presume you can impose them upon me?
The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market.
/.ers who see and hear exactly what they want, real world be damned.
The OP said no such thing. It was a rant about things Intel has done (considered evil) that AMD has mirrored (considered... I don't know. Acceptable?). Apparently you fall in the 99% of
I'm intensely curious - why would you automatically go for an underdog? It is a romantic thing?
Entertainment wants to be free (of cost)
I gotta tell you, objectively, Jay Z has you beat big time. The objective part comes in due to the fact that your lines have no consistent meter, which is an important part of rhyming.
What sort of perfection would meet your requirements? Do you require that it sound like the person is next to you? Are you expecting psychic inference of the numbers you wish to dial? Do you feel the phone should magically hold itself next to your face? What is lacking, exactly?
Maybe I've just been lucky, but every phone I've had has been great for making calls.
There's no sense in a wireless keyboard
My mini is across the room, hooked up to my TV. There is no sense in a wired keyboard for me.
Just demonstrating that one man's trash is another man's treasure.
Yeah, but it probably leaves the ladies feeling less fresh than when they started.
Well actually, no one will 'see' the twenty grand. It's like buying a TV that's $1,000 off the normal price. No one actually gets that money.
Of course, you're just making the slashbot karmawhore comment that's been approved for this thread. I just figured since it was the fifth time I saw it I'd reply.
I have been told by cell phone companies that if I bought a new phone I would have to a) pay to get out of my current contract with them, and b) sign up for a new 2 year contract.
I've only seen that be the case when the phone price is subsidized. If you're willing to pay full price there are a number of retailers willing to sell you phones with no contract implications.
It seems the problem is you went for the cheaper upfront price with the longer term contract. You made a poor decision, mathematically speaking.
No contract only prices in ads. Consumers must be able to get a month to month contract from the start. If there is any preferential pricing when you sign up for two years, it must be VERY CLEAR that the price is attached to the two year contract, and you must specify in the same print size what the cost would be for the same plan without a contract or a different length contract (1 year, for example)
All of the ads I've seen were very clear. Consumer stupidity (like ignoring all the writing in an ad) is the fault of the consumer. It's not like they trick you into anything. They happen to subsidize phone prices as an inducement. It is a money loser in the long term, but people don't think that way, so they pay. It's just good business all around, in my eyes.
Everything is obvious and non-patentable. In retrospect.
You must be an astroturfing shill. There's no way you can honestly believe that it's even possible for anything good to come out of Redmond. They're evil. Pure evil. They make money! They must be destroyed! Support choice! Destroy the most popular alternative!