"You must have been born after Enron phucked over a large part of the country..." blah blah.
Once again you confuse people with a company. I'm certain there were many ethical, upstanding people who worked at Enron. They just happened to be outranked (or outsmarted) by less ethical people.
I'm not propping up anyone, in fact YOU are the one insisting MS in necessary. Who's sucking MS off NOW?
As for the rest of your post, you gave NO examples of ANY company that needs MS. Not ONE. You simply gave the standard "MS sucks because it's a monoploy and I'm too stupid to think for myself" answer. Too bad about that. But if someone is locked into software, that THEIR fault, not MS's. Similarly, bargaining power (relating to your idiotic IBM, Dell, HP etc. references) is not that same as no alternative. You're attempting to make the point that there are people out there who cannot change, which is STILL a lie. The fact that consequences exist that make changing too difficult does not mean that it can't be done.
You were wrong. Again. Just apologize for being born (then smack your idiot mom for her part in it) and never post again. We'd all appreciate it.
"They love all the big profit they are making, and would never jeapordize that"
Ok, so you're saying that they're in business to make money, but since this will presumably make lots of money and solve many power supply problems, they won't do it?
Explain how that makes sense.
Oil companies are businesses, not evil entities like you suggest. They are governed by boards of directors, who are (generally) LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the shareholder's best interests (usually meaning make money). Yet you surmise we'll never get this technology because...why? If it can make money, we'll see it. Period. Because regardless, someone somewhere WILL develop it if it has potential, if it will make money.
"No, you aren't. Your SERVICES are part of the company, not YOU."
No, this is too simplistic. If you're at work, they own your TIME, which is equivalent to owning you. Do something unapproved on THEIR time, and you get fired. It's not the same as slavery because you can leave whenever you want (you do see the difference now right?)
Of course, why let facts and reason spoil a good rant, especially when you can use "SLAVERY!!!!!" without sounding like an idiot (but you did anyway)
"and nobody has any alternative (small users partially excepted). " also true(in a practical sense).
No, that's a lie too. There's nothing MS does that isn't also done by someone else. Why lie about something that is EASILY proven false? Why get so bent out of shape when someone points out your lie?
"you may love Microsoft"
I could't care less about them. In fact, ny primary desktop in FC2, and I only use MS when at work. In addition, the context only makes the post seem that much worse. They speak lucidly about MS failings, then out of nowhere make a false statement. How would keeping the context have changed the stupidly false statement, which was the ONLY thing I addressed?
I never said I liked MS, I never said anything else the guy said was untrue, but if you make shit up you deserve to get pounded for it.
So, a private entity shouldn't be able to monitor it's property? If I'm company A, and you're sending e-mails when you should be working for me, it is absolutely my right to know that, and to fire your ass for it.
If you came in my house and sent e-mail on my computer, I'm entitled to read it. It's not your computer it's MINE. Explain how this is different (keep in mind I'm referring ONLY to this case and the emails)
And your friend didn't sue? Your friends an idiot.
More importantly, you've left something out, or more accurately, your friend did. He has an actionable case, but most likely, he did something else, and is passing this story off to his acquaintances. I seriously doubt it went down they way you claim.
So a company shouldn't be allowed to monitor their resource usage? A company can't monitor what employees do with their time at work? A company can't monitor ITS OWN computers?
Of course they can. Like it or not, when you are at work (getting paid) you are part of the company, and the company can't invade it's own privacy. So no ones privacy is being invaded, regardless of your incorrect assertion to the contrary.
I don't own any EA games, and those I have played were mediocre at best. Interesting that you can tell me how I feel about them.
"EA is true evil and you don't want to see it"
Um, I know it's early, but god damn what a stupid thing to say. True evil? Like baby raping, genitalia mutilating, human flesh eating evil? Of course not.
Have you considered never posting (or sharing your opinion) again? You should.
You had it going till you got here. This is, quite simply, false and you know it. You may not like MS, but you don't have to lie to justify how you feel.
We weren't talking about the article asshole. We were having a discussion about GOD (which is mentioned in the article) and mentioned Occam's razor in a related post. I wasn't in any way referencing the artcle.
But you didn't bother to read the thread, you just assumed I was referring to the article.
Now, if you're too stupid to read ALL of a thread, what the fuck are you doing on a web board?
before the fact that something runs a version of Linux is no longer newsworthy. I like this product, and it's worthy of being posted.
But I also think there's something a little sad about making a fuss over that fact. That mentality seems a little backward anymore.
Now, here's the important part, we don't care. I said it, and you and any others can try to change it, but you won't. The truth is most of the other countries in the world don't matter anyway, and the others toe the line because we're partners. We're partners with everybody, and they know it, so they pipe up a little, but when it comes time to get their handouts, they STFU.
I'll give a crap about what they think when they get off our teat and exercise some self determination.
why so many people seem to be happy that EA may not get Ubisoft. If it's because you think EA makes crappy games, and will make Ubisoft make crappy games, then ok I get it.
But there are you others. You seem to be assigning a sense of romanticism here, as though EA were attempting to defile the virtue of Ubisoft. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Hey ass, I never said the other choice was correct, only that
"when one is invalid, the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one"
Nowhere did I say it was a correct choice.
Maybe you should learn how to read, and stop making shit up.
While I can appreciate that you do not see them as the same, that doesn't change the fact that they are. Simply referring to god as "our father" proves it.
Unless you take the bible as a literal document, in which case you're an idiot and I'm done talking to you.
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct. I attribute some business accumen to oil executives, so I'm presuming they would look long term.
"You must have been born after Enron phucked over a large part of the country..." blah blah. Once again you confuse people with a company. I'm certain there were many ethical, upstanding people who worked at Enron. They just happened to be outranked (or outsmarted) by less ethical people.
I'm not propping up anyone, in fact YOU are the one insisting MS in necessary. Who's sucking MS off NOW?
As for the rest of your post, you gave NO examples of ANY company that needs MS. Not ONE. You simply gave the standard "MS sucks because it's a monoploy and I'm too stupid to think for myself" answer. Too bad about that. But if someone is locked into software, that THEIR fault, not MS's. Similarly, bargaining power (relating to your idiotic IBM, Dell, HP etc. references) is not that same as no alternative. You're attempting to make the point that there are people out there who cannot change, which is STILL a lie. The fact that consequences exist that make changing too difficult does not mean that it can't be done.
You were wrong. Again. Just apologize for being born (then smack your idiot mom for her part in it) and never post again. We'd all appreciate it.
"and then maybe you'll realise why you're a fuckwit"
Because I'm wasting time responding to a moron? Ok, you're right, I'll stop doing that.
"They love all the big profit they are making, and would never jeapordize that"
Ok, so you're saying that they're in business to make money, but since this will presumably make lots of money and solve many power supply problems, they won't do it?
Explain how that makes sense.
Oil companies are businesses, not evil entities like you suggest. They are governed by boards of directors, who are (generally) LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the shareholder's best interests (usually meaning make money). Yet you surmise we'll never get this technology because...why? If it can make money, we'll see it. Period. Because regardless, someone somewhere WILL develop it if it has potential, if it will make money.
"No, you aren't. Your SERVICES are part of the company, not YOU."
No, this is too simplistic. If you're at work, they own your TIME, which is equivalent to owning you. Do something unapproved on THEIR time, and you get fired. It's not the same as slavery because you can leave whenever you want (you do see the difference now right?)
Of course, why let facts and reason spoil a good rant, especially when you can use "SLAVERY!!!!!" without sounding like an idiot (but you did anyway)
"and nobody has any alternative (small users partially excepted). "
also true(in a practical sense).
No, that's a lie too. There's nothing MS does that isn't also done by someone else. Why lie about something that is EASILY proven false? Why get so bent out of shape when someone points out your lie?
"you may love Microsoft"
I could't care less about them. In fact, ny primary desktop in FC2, and I only use MS when at work. In addition, the context only makes the post seem that much worse. They speak lucidly about MS failings, then out of nowhere make a false statement. How would keeping the context have changed the stupidly false statement, which was the ONLY thing I addressed?
I never said I liked MS, I never said anything else the guy said was untrue, but if you make shit up you deserve to get pounded for it.
So, a private entity shouldn't be able to monitor it's property? If I'm company A, and you're sending e-mails when you should be working for me, it is absolutely my right to know that, and to fire your ass for it.
If you came in my house and sent e-mail on my computer, I'm entitled to read it. It's not your computer it's MINE. Explain how this is different (keep in mind I'm referring ONLY to this case and the emails)
And your friend didn't sue? Your friends an idiot.
More importantly, you've left something out, or more accurately, your friend did. He has an actionable case, but most likely, he did something else, and is passing this story off to his acquaintances. I seriously doubt it went down they way you claim.
So a company shouldn't be allowed to monitor their resource usage? A company can't monitor what employees do with their time at work? A company can't monitor ITS OWN computers?
Of course they can. Like it or not, when you are at work (getting paid) you are part of the company, and the company can't invade it's own privacy. So no ones privacy is being invaded, regardless of your incorrect assertion to the contrary.
"You are happy with their games..."
I don't own any EA games, and those I have played were mediocre at best. Interesting that you can tell me how I feel about them.
"EA is true evil and you don't want to see it"
Um, I know it's early, but god damn what a stupid thing to say. True evil? Like baby raping, genitalia mutilating, human flesh eating evil? Of course not.
Have you considered never posting (or sharing your opinion) again? You should.
"and nobody has any alternative"
You had it going till you got here. This is, quite simply, false and you know it. You may not like MS, but you don't have to lie to justify how you feel.
We weren't talking about the article asshole. We were having a discussion about GOD (which is mentioned in the article) and mentioned Occam's razor in a related post. I wasn't in any way referencing the artcle.
But you didn't bother to read the thread, you just assumed I was referring to the article.
Now, if you're too stupid to read ALL of a thread, what the fuck are you doing on a web board?
No, actually, I was referring to the many studies that show benefits related to mental health.
And what pissant insignificant country do you hail from?
Oh, right it doesn't matter anyway.
before the fact that something runs a version of Linux is no longer newsworthy. I like this product, and it's worthy of being posted. But I also think there's something a little sad about making a fuss over that fact. That mentality seems a little backward anymore.
You should change your nick to Exhibit A.
Now, here's the important part, we don't care. I said it, and you and any others can try to change it, but you won't. The truth is most of the other countries in the world don't matter anyway, and the others toe the line because we're partners. We're partners with everybody, and they know it, so they pipe up a little, but when it comes time to get their handouts, they STFU.
I'll give a crap about what they think when they get off our teat and exercise some self determination.
why so many people seem to be happy that EA may not get Ubisoft. If it's because you think EA makes crappy games, and will make Ubisoft make crappy games, then ok I get it.
But there are you others. You seem to be assigning a sense of romanticism here, as though EA were attempting to defile the virtue of Ubisoft. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Hey ass, I never said the other choice was correct, only that "when one is invalid, the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one" Nowhere did I say it was a correct choice. Maybe you should learn how to read, and stop making shit up.
No, because in that case BOTH answers are wrong.
While I can appreciate that you do not see them as the same, that doesn't change the fact that they are. Simply referring to god as "our father" proves it.
Unless you take the bible as a literal document, in which case you're an idiot and I'm done talking to you.
No, that is what Occam's razor means
"When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is usually preferred"
Sounds exactly like what I said.
(My quote) "As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best"
Read your own link next time.
You (conveniently) left out the EVIDENCE part. God loses.
"The correct way to deal with it is not answer at all, too bad you couldn't do that."
So, you're not smart enough to spell or write coherently, but you're wise enough to decide "the correct" way for people to act.
Riiiight.