Or, maybe that Word was a better word processor than Word Perfect? Ever think of that? Maybe, and this might not apply to you, that most people PREFERRED the MS product over the competitor?
Remember - Microsoft was a tiny company once. They couldn't price people out of the market or use their weight when they only had 30 employees. They are the most popular, as they offer the best balance of price, functionality, and effectiveness. Of course, you can bitch/moan/whine about how bad MS is, but they're still producing everything the OSS community is trying to emulate. If the OSS community is so much more inspired than Microsoft, how come linux is constantly playing catch-up to windows? I don't get it. You can't have it both ways.
Corporations don't need to vote. That's the thing. They're not apolitical, they ARE politics. We're not. The FCC is looking to allow its "friends" to make money. That's what they do. They aren't there to help people - just look at that Janet Jackson bullshit to see. They're there to push ideology. Continue to tell yourself your democratic process is working fine - you'll still be writing letters to your congressman when he's dragging you down your street in a tank.
Isn't that what you're paying for? No. Not even close.
You're equating getting the signal in your house and being allowed to do whatever you want with it. That's not the case. If you read your HDTV contract, you'd notice that there are many, many provisions in it. They state that the signal (and copyrighted material it contains) ISN'T yours, and that you are only allowed to display it on agreed hardware, and use it in ways they see fit. Just because you have the cable running into your house doesn't mean you can then burn it to CDs and pass out to friends, or even burn to CDs and keep for yourself.
You see, copyright is a weird thing. You are getting a copy of the media, not the rights to copy it yourself. You can get those rights if you want, they are available - you just have to buy the copyright holder's permission for whatever it is you want to copy. Simple.
By your logic, if I come over to your house, you can take my wallet. "Heck - he was in my house! my wallet!". It could be argued that your stance is pure greed (as in you want to have the rights to copy something, but not pay for them).
"low quality". right. Tell me that when you're playing Half Life 2.
Come on, folks! We're all grown ups. Don't bash other operating systems because you don't agree with the ideology behind it.
Windows is a perfectly adequate operating system. It does everything most of its users want, just as linux does for its users. You really make linux/OSS users look like a bunch of primadonna assholes saying stuff like that. There are tons of perfectly capable computer programmers/operators (some most likely better than you, I'd wager) using Windows.
For all the security leaks in Windows, I've been using it since version 2, and I've never been compromised. No trojans, no leaky firewalls, no buggy software. Maybe I had good luck? Maybe. Either way, from where I'm sitting, your opinion is highly flawed.
You MUST be joking. He has the same amount of grace, dignity, honour and intelligence. Yes, Colin resigned, but he was still there for 4 years. 4 years in the deeply racist Republican party, waging wars using shitty intelligence. Fuck. I remember that jackass talking about the mobile weapons labs, and how dangerous Iraq was. He was lying out of his ass. If that makes a good person, then fine. Your parties must suck;) "Hey Idi Amin - pass the potato salad!"
How would removing the IE department from the Windows department raise competition? I don't think two subsidiary Microsoft companies which specialise in seperate technologies would compete. That's just ridiculous.
Anyway, Microsoft isn't where it is because it produces crap software, it's successful because people can do lots of stuff with that crap software, more than the competition. Don't blame microsoft for them running unchallenged.
You're confusing what IS and what SHOULD BE. There are huge differences. An election should count every vote - that doesn't mean to say all the votes in the last election will be counted. Government does what Government wants.
Right. Of course. You email your representatives and the FCC will change its tune. (sarcasm over;)) Well, unless you have millions of dollars to bung someone, nothin's gonna happen. Squat. Nada. Seriously - posting stuff here has just as much effect as a one-on-one with your congressperson.
Well, now we're just guessing Microsoft's motives here. There's no evidence to support any of that. What we do know, however, is that the firewall does not automatically allow everything to use the internet. They already had a firewall that did that in every version - this one is specifically there to secure the box.
If they put iptables in there, it would be very configurable and not at all useful to any usual windows user. It's about balance. Most windows users don't want to host anything on their boxes. They are passive participants on the internet. Those users who DO want to host something on their windows boxes will know how to install a firewall that allows them to do what they want to, be it software or hardware.
They're pretty silly if they thought security was better on a 2K box than on an XP box... We had a worm infection at work, and all our 2000 boxes were hit. All our XP/2003 boxes were untouched. I think you'll find your swiss friends don't want to shell out the tens of thousands for new licenses;)
Well, if you would install a service pack onto a faulty installation, you're asking for problems. I installed the beta at work (yes, I like danger), and it's worked fine. I even upgraded it to the release of SP2, and it's just as fine. In fact, I've yet to see a single SP2-related issue in ANY of the SP2 machines I've built/upgraded. The improvements to IE are great, and really help with security.
Sounds more like your audio drivers than the operating system. The audio subsystem in windows is rock-solid on good hardware with good drivers. If it was a problem with XP itself, we would have heard a LOT more about it, and starting with Windows 2000.
Due to the fact they're written by people, you can't stop them beforehand.
The best way to stop the current ones, is to analyse their network usage, and block it. I did it last week, and our network is stable and not spewing filth everywhere.:)
Seeing as every corporate entity would try to stick an advert on the Pope's ass if they could, having a go at people for advertising where their adverts will reach people is abject hypocrisy. Sore losers, the lot of 'em.
I accept that people on both sides will be wrong about certain things. That's because we're people. The main difference is, the President of the US and his team actively spread those lies to ensure their re-election. Any incorrect details believed by Kerry supporters weren't learned through Kerry or his campaign.
Also, Saddam wasn't a massive supporter of international terrorism. Paying $1,000 to families of palestinian suicide bombers isn't a great deal compared to the $1bn given to Israel by the US. Zarqawi was protected by the Kurds in the north, not by Saddam. Anyway - those two facts are NOT enough for a UN member-state to invade and depose the regime. Sure, Iraq and Saddam did some bad things, but they don't warrant invasion.
The ISG released its report on the state of WMDs in Iraq. They showed that Saddam not only didn't have WMDs, but that he hadn't had them for ages. It also showed the UN sanctions were working, and that Saddam couldn't re-start his programs even if he wanted to. Lots of Bush supporters think Saddam actually used WMDs on invading US troops. The Bush regime changed from saying Saddam had WMDs, to "WMD-related programs", which under their loose definition included any school science lab. That's not "closer to the truth" - that's complete nonsense.
The invasion was unilateral. Does a dog and its fleas act multilaterally when it licks its balls? No. The fleas go and do what the dog does. They're too small to object. That's what the coalition was. Small nations looking for favor from the US administration. Most people supported the effort with non-combat troops, equipment and money. Why did you mention the UN when trying to defend Bush's unilateral position? He went to the UN, then ignored them. If I ask a policeman if I can shoot someone and he says "no", I'm not allowed to go out and shoot someone. That's ridiculous logic. The whole point of this war was because Saddam didn't obey international will and the UN, then Bush goes and defies international will and the UN to get rid of him. Mixed messages?
The surveys are extensive. Some Kerry supporters get the wrong end of the right stick - Most Bush supporters get the wrong end of the wrong stick.
But then the exit polls were off by tens of percentage points in some areas. Either their decades-old, predictable polling methods were vastly innacurate for some areas, or the result is screwy... either way, this is all complete speculation with no root in reality:)
But you're copying something someone spent millions of dollars on, for free. Just like if you buy a Britney Spears album, you can't copy it and sell it to your friends, as you only bought a copy of it, not the right to reproduce it.
Sure - you can think that way, the market does indeed allow for people to have the same beliefs as you do, but it costs. You'll have to buy the IP, which will cost hundreds of millions. Then you truly will have the right to do whatever you want with it.
Just because you have something in your hand doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. When you get a hotel room, you can't knock down a wall and put a jacuzzi in - you may have the use of the room, but it's not yours.
If you own the seed, you don't own the intellectual property. You have a license to use it, at the IP owner's discretion. Just how you can own a CD, but not the rights to reproduce the music on it.
It's most likely not anti-bush, as there are a lot worse things happening in Iraq than this (not to say this isn't ridiculous).
What do you mean? You're talking as if the leaders of Iraq and the Bush administration are different people. They're not. One appointed the other, and appointed ass-kissing old employees for the job. The Iraqi government is just a puppet. All this "Iraqi leader says 'no' to Bush" stuff is PR for the media. They let the US press say "Look! Iraq's free!", while not actually letting Iraq be free.
Oh, and how is it liberated? More people are dying now than under Saddam, less people have healthcare, there is less food, less electricity and less security. Liberated? Wow.
"flamebait" - whatever. You hit the nail on the head with that one. How can the US say it's helping Iraq, when it's trying very clearly to instill its own laws? Madness. It ceased to be a liberating force when it decided to not give a shit about Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
The only lan setting I can remember that enables file/printer sharing on an adapter is checking the "file/printer sharing" in the settings... ;)
Remember - Microsoft was a tiny company once. They couldn't price people out of the market or use their weight when they only had 30 employees. They are the most popular, as they offer the best balance of price, functionality, and effectiveness. Of course, you can bitch/moan/whine about how bad MS is, but they're still producing everything the OSS community is trying to emulate. If the OSS community is so much more inspired than Microsoft, how come linux is constantly playing catch-up to windows? I don't get it. You can't have it both ways.
Corporations don't need to vote. That's the thing. They're not apolitical, they ARE politics. We're not. The FCC is looking to allow its "friends" to make money. That's what they do. They aren't there to help people - just look at that Janet Jackson bullshit to see. They're there to push ideology. Continue to tell yourself your democratic process is working fine - you'll still be writing letters to your congressman when he's dragging you down your street in a tank.
You're equating getting the signal in your house and being allowed to do whatever you want with it. That's not the case. If you read your HDTV contract, you'd notice that there are many, many provisions in it. They state that the signal (and copyrighted material it contains) ISN'T yours, and that you are only allowed to display it on agreed hardware, and use it in ways they see fit. Just because you have the cable running into your house doesn't mean you can then burn it to CDs and pass out to friends, or even burn to CDs and keep for yourself.
You see, copyright is a weird thing. You are getting a copy of the media, not the rights to copy it yourself. You can get those rights if you want, they are available - you just have to buy the copyright holder's permission for whatever it is you want to copy. Simple.
By your logic, if I come over to your house, you can take my wallet. "Heck - he was in my house! my wallet!". It could be argued that your stance is pure greed (as in you want to have the rights to copy something, but not pay for them).
Come on, folks! We're all grown ups. Don't bash other operating systems because you don't agree with the ideology behind it.
Windows is a perfectly adequate operating system. It does everything most of its users want, just as linux does for its users. You really make linux/OSS users look like a bunch of primadonna assholes saying stuff like that. There are tons of perfectly capable computer programmers/operators (some most likely better than you, I'd wager) using Windows.
For all the security leaks in Windows, I've been using it since version 2, and I've never been compromised. No trojans, no leaky firewalls, no buggy software. Maybe I had good luck? Maybe. Either way, from where I'm sitting, your opinion is highly flawed.
You MUST be joking. He has the same amount of grace, dignity, honour and intelligence. Yes, Colin resigned, but he was still there for 4 years. 4 years in the deeply racist Republican party, waging wars using shitty intelligence. Fuck. I remember that jackass talking about the mobile weapons labs, and how dangerous Iraq was. He was lying out of his ass. If that makes a good person, then fine. Your parties must suck ;) "Hey Idi Amin - pass the potato salad!"
Anyway, Microsoft isn't where it is because it produces crap software, it's successful because people can do lots of stuff with that crap software, more than the competition. Don't blame microsoft for them running unchallenged.
You're confusing what IS and what SHOULD BE. There are huge differences. An election should count every vote - that doesn't mean to say all the votes in the last election will be counted. Government does what Government wants.
Right. Of course. You email your representatives and the FCC will change its tune. (sarcasm over ;)) Well, unless you have millions of dollars to bung someone, nothin's gonna happen. Squat. Nada. Seriously - posting stuff here has just as much effect as a one-on-one with your congressperson.
Well, now we're just guessing Microsoft's motives here. There's no evidence to support any of that. What we do know, however, is that the firewall does not automatically allow everything to use the internet. They already had a firewall that did that in every version - this one is specifically there to secure the box.
If they put iptables in there, it would be very configurable and not at all useful to any usual windows user. It's about balance. Most windows users don't want to host anything on their boxes. They are passive participants on the internet. Those users who DO want to host something on their windows boxes will know how to install a firewall that allows them to do what they want to, be it software or hardware.
They're pretty silly if they thought security was better on a 2K box than on an XP box... We had a worm infection at work, and all our 2000 boxes were hit. All our XP/2003 boxes were untouched. I think you'll find your swiss friends don't want to shell out the tens of thousands for new licenses ;)
Well, if you would install a service pack onto a faulty installation, you're asking for problems. I installed the beta at work (yes, I like danger), and it's worked fine. I even upgraded it to the release of SP2, and it's just as fine. In fact, I've yet to see a single SP2-related issue in ANY of the SP2 machines I've built/upgraded. The improvements to IE are great, and really help with security.
Sounds more like your audio drivers than the operating system. The audio subsystem in windows is rock-solid on good hardware with good drivers. If it was a problem with XP itself, we would have heard a LOT more about it, and starting with Windows 2000.
The best way to stop the current ones, is to analyse their network usage, and block it. I did it last week, and our network is stable and not spewing filth everywhere. :)
Seeing as every corporate entity would try to stick an advert on the Pope's ass if they could, having a go at people for advertising where their adverts will reach people is abject hypocrisy. Sore losers, the lot of 'em.
Cyprus, dudes. Cyprus. Are you both American? :)
2. Because someone they love might have kids, and they care for them.
3. Because someone they love might be retiring sometime soon, and they care for them.
It's not all about "me, me, me!", you know. I wonder how you voted... ;)
I accept that people on both sides will be wrong about certain things. That's because we're people. The main difference is, the President of the US and his team actively spread those lies to ensure their re-election. Any incorrect details believed by Kerry supporters weren't learned through Kerry or his campaign.
Also, Saddam wasn't a massive supporter of international terrorism. Paying $1,000 to families of palestinian suicide bombers isn't a great deal compared to the $1bn given to Israel by the US. Zarqawi was protected by the Kurds in the north, not by Saddam. Anyway - those two facts are NOT enough for a UN member-state to invade and depose the regime. Sure, Iraq and Saddam did some bad things, but they don't warrant invasion.
The ISG released its report on the state of WMDs in Iraq. They showed that Saddam not only didn't have WMDs, but that he hadn't had them for ages. It also showed the UN sanctions were working, and that Saddam couldn't re-start his programs even if he wanted to. Lots of Bush supporters think Saddam actually used WMDs on invading US troops. The Bush regime changed from saying Saddam had WMDs, to "WMD-related programs", which under their loose definition included any school science lab. That's not "closer to the truth" - that's complete nonsense.
The invasion was unilateral. Does a dog and its fleas act multilaterally when it licks its balls? No. The fleas go and do what the dog does. They're too small to object. That's what the coalition was. Small nations looking for favor from the US administration. Most people supported the effort with non-combat troops, equipment and money. Why did you mention the UN when trying to defend Bush's unilateral position? He went to the UN, then ignored them. If I ask a policeman if I can shoot someone and he says "no", I'm not allowed to go out and shoot someone. That's ridiculous logic. The whole point of this war was because Saddam didn't obey international will and the UN, then Bush goes and defies international will and the UN to get rid of him. Mixed messages?
The surveys are extensive. Some Kerry supporters get the wrong end of the right stick - Most Bush supporters get the wrong end of the wrong stick.
But then the exit polls were off by tens of percentage points in some areas. Either their decades-old, predictable polling methods were vastly innacurate for some areas, or the result is screwy... either way, this is all complete speculation with no root in reality :)
Sure - you can think that way, the market does indeed allow for people to have the same beliefs as you do, but it costs. You'll have to buy the IP, which will cost hundreds of millions. Then you truly will have the right to do whatever you want with it.
Just because you have something in your hand doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. When you get a hotel room, you can't knock down a wall and put a jacuzzi in - you may have the use of the room, but it's not yours.
It's most likely not anti-bush, as there are a lot worse things happening in Iraq than this (not to say this isn't ridiculous).
Oh, and how is it liberated? More people are dying now than under Saddam, less people have healthcare, there is less food, less electricity and less security. Liberated? Wow.
"flamebait" - whatever. You hit the nail on the head with that one. How can the US say it's helping Iraq, when it's trying very clearly to instill its own laws? Madness. It ceased to be a liberating force when it decided to not give a shit about Iraq.
"typical bias" - which "typical" bias is this? Internet, TV, radio, newspaper, FOX? I get lost with all these liberal conspiracies everywhere...