That's a very naive look at file types, seriously. A lot of work goes into creating a new file type, especially one with commercial applications. Just look at mp3 and gif... surely some of the most famous file types, and to create either one requires a license of some sort (to do things legally, that is;)).
Because Microsoft coined the term "Windows" to describe the little drag-and-droppy boxes on the screen, hence the name. Your logic doesn't make much sense... It's like them not being able to call the last Arnie film Terminator 3 because it has a terminator in it...
No - you have it completely wrong. If microsoft failed to defend their trademark (which Lindows is clearly in violation of), they risk the name "windows" falling into the public domain. Once that happens, they have no control over it, and every distro could technically call itself "Windows" and microsoft couldn't do a thing.
It's not about market share as-is, but about their whole business strategy. Yes, it is just some shoddy linux windows-wannabe product and no threat in itself, but if it were to keep the name, it would jeopardise the entire windows range, from here to eternity.
They would have been incredibly stupid NOT to have done it.
Not all publicity is good publicity. Not many linux n00bs want to get involved with a product that might be removed from the shelves in 6 months, even if it's just the name.
It doesn't matter what sells better - if you advertise something as being different then it actually is, you are liable for the difference. Intentionally misrepresenting services to prospective clients is never a good idea, and never morally sound. Ever.
ComCast, by using the term "unlimited" in their marketing, asked for this. Their complaint just highlights their double-standards.
It's OK to pick on people like Bush if they're in a very important job, where his linguistic and logical shortcomings can have a serious impact on the rest of the world.
He's President. Surely he should be able to pronounce "nuclear", eat pretzels without choking, and not make up words on the spot.
How can anyone defend such a poor excuse for a politician? Every time he steps up to the podium it looks like an episode of Days of Our Lives gone bad. He can't even read what everyone else has written for him without getting in a state. Pausing every. Two. Seconds. Trying to. Add. Emphasis. Incorrect. ly.
It doesn't take a genius to realise when someone shouldn't be in office. Even Bush himself admitted he shouldn't be there.
Try reading the article next time. This was the first year that each screener was marked invisibly, so it could be traced even when the other marks were wiped off.
Word. I totally agree. People need to put others first. All those people you see on the street? They mean as much to someone as your mother does to you. Would you like someone being mean to your mother? I didn't think so. If we treat everyone around us like we'd like to be treated ourselves, we'd all be so much happier.
How the fuck does 40% off a HumVee help homeless people again, Mr. Bush?
I wasn't trying to prove my point (it's so freakin' obvious), but to highlight something most people (americans) seem to have missed. He is the biggest threat to democracy since Hitler. He took the presidency by fraud, and has his hand in the whole diebold thing. Coupled with his brother's unscrupulous tinkering with the floridian felons register, democracy didn't even come in to his election. He's adopted an isolationist foreign policy, further pushing foreign countries away from the US. He's acted with violence against a country without the support of the international community. He's even expressed his interest in dictatorships. He has no regard for international law or the geneva convention. He doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty". He treats non-Americans as lesser people, flatly refusing to extend to them rights he demands for his own people (well, the rich ones, anyway). Seeing as he touts his country as the "leader of the free world", the hypocrisy adds a unique flavour to his bullshit.
I'd say he's running for Hitler mk. 2:-P
Was your first post humourous? Really? I must have missed that.
Well, seeing as you're still reading this, you have more sense than most of the people who hide behind godwin's "law".
It doesn't change the fact that people like you scream "godwin's law!" then put their fingers in their ears while shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA". Mentioning Hitler, or any specific person/place/object/emotion/colour/smell/whatever doesn't nullify an argument. The very idea that it could is absurd. People use it as a device to dodge arguments. I've seen about a hundred people cite that, and in each and every time, they were the ones that lost the argument. They, however, had it in their minds that citing an absurd pseudo-logical argument made them the victors, when in fact the act of them citing it, in a serious context, is enough to blow their whole argument clean out of the water.
This isn't a go at you, but to everyone who hides behind that stupid "godwin's law" bullshit.
They're undercutting the national institution's prices. The british courts can decide that someone needs to charge more for goods to make it fairer on the existing institution, or disallow them to import things to the UK. The british courts don't mind if the HK seller sells CDs for.29, as long as they're not for import in the UK. A sort of corn law type of thing, if you will.
No, because all godwin's law does is serve as a tool for people with weak arguments to call "game over!" when they face an opponent who utters the H-word. By your freakish logic, if there was a brutal dictator rising to cruel overseer somewhere, you couldn't liken him to hitler for fear of people like you screaming "godwin's law! godwin's law!" like a stuck, republican record.
You have to be American. Did you know nations also act altruistically? It's not uncommon for one nation to do something with no benefits for itself (or even potentially hazardous to itself) for another country. Just because it doesn't happen in the US don't assume it happens everywhere else. Not all countries have the stupendous hypocrisy the US does.
Shareaza - bittorrent/edonkey/gnutella1&2. Super fast. I was downloading a couple of films just now at over 250KB/s. They downloaded within a couple of hours of clicking the links on suprnova.
I've used a lot of P2P stuff, and this is the hands-down winner.
Illegal immigrants, especially in the US (with such rampant institutionalised racism), have a very difficult time just staying alive. If the US really does see itself as the "Leader of the Free World", then act like it - and do the decent thing.
America has already proved itself to be especially harsh to immigrants (illegal or not). In fact, the LAPD had to draft a "special order" to prohibit officers from enquiring about a person's alien status, or country of origin. That was because the LAPD had great fun threatening people with deportation.
"Land of the free" my ass. "Land of the free rich white guys" more like.
Stop trying to defend America's shitty foreign policy.
True, Palestine has nothing to do with oil, but by the same logic America should have nothing to do with Israel, and look how that's going.
The US is in Iraq partly for the oil, and partly because one of America's old friends got a bit too big for his boots. There was no humanitarian reason. America only cares about Americans - everyone knows that.
We know everyone's shafted when the oil runs out. However, not all nations on earth insist on wasting so much of it every day. Stupid gas-guzzing SUVs clogging up US streets doing 1mpg. Wow. Way to go.
America is doing nothing to solve the problem. As usual, the american principle of superficiality comes in to its own. The stop-gap solution is the best for the US government, as they're only going to be in power for a short time. Instead of working on a solution to decrease everyone's dependence on oil, they just want to secure more. That helps no-one in the long run.
There is absolutely, positively no way on earth anyone can justify the US government's foreign policy. Seriously. It's a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very naive look at file types, seriously. A lot of work goes into creating a new file type, especially one with commercial applications. Just look at mp3 and gif... surely some of the most famous file types, and to create either one requires a license of some sort (to do things legally, that is ;)).
Because Microsoft coined the term "Windows" to describe the little drag-and-droppy boxes on the screen, hence the name. Your logic doesn't make much sense... It's like them not being able to call the last Arnie film Terminator 3 because it has a terminator in it...
It's not about market share as-is, but about their whole business strategy. Yes, it is just some shoddy linux windows-wannabe product and no threat in itself, but if it were to keep the name, it would jeopardise the entire windows range, from here to eternity.
They would have been incredibly stupid NOT to have done it.
Not all publicity is good publicity. Not many linux n00bs want to get involved with a product that might be removed from the shelves in 6 months, even if it's just the name.
ComCast, by using the term "unlimited" in their marketing, asked for this. Their complaint just highlights their double-standards.
And you'd be moaning if there weren't any security updates. When it comes to zealots, you just can't win.
I mean, really. If that's all you have on Bill Gates, give up now. It sounds like a stuck record. Sour grapes, more like.
He's President. Surely he should be able to pronounce "nuclear", eat pretzels without choking, and not make up words on the spot.
How can anyone defend such a poor excuse for a politician? Every time he steps up to the podium it looks like an episode of Days of Our Lives gone bad. He can't even read what everyone else has written for him without getting in a state. Pausing every. Two. Seconds. Trying to. Add. Emphasis. Incorrect. ly.
It doesn't take a genius to realise when someone shouldn't be in office. Even Bush himself admitted he shouldn't be there.
Try reading the article next time. This was the first year that each screener was marked invisibly, so it could be traced even when the other marks were wiped off.
How the fuck does 40% off a HumVee help homeless people again, Mr. Bush?
I'd say he's running for Hitler mk. 2 :-P
Was your first post humourous? Really? I must have missed that.
Well, seeing as you're still reading this, you have more sense than most of the people who hide behind godwin's "law".
This isn't a go at you, but to everyone who hides behind that stupid "godwin's law" bullshit.
They already had a go at play.com for doing exactly that.
I can understand why they're doing it, but the fact that it's come to this is still incredible.
They have jurisdiction, as that company is importing to the UK. That's the connection.
They're undercutting the national institution's prices. The british courts can decide that someone needs to charge more for goods to make it fairer on the existing institution, or disallow them to import things to the UK. The british courts don't mind if the HK seller sells CDs for .29, as long as they're not for import in the UK. A sort of corn law type of thing, if you will.
No, because all godwin's law does is serve as a tool for people with weak arguments to call "game over!" when they face an opponent who utters the H-word. By your freakish logic, if there was a brutal dictator rising to cruel overseer somewhere, you couldn't liken him to hitler for fear of people like you screaming "godwin's law! godwin's law!" like a stuck, republican record.
That doesn't even make sense :-P
You have to be American. Did you know nations also act altruistically? It's not uncommon for one nation to do something with no benefits for itself (or even potentially hazardous to itself) for another country. Just because it doesn't happen in the US don't assume it happens everywhere else. Not all countries have the stupendous hypocrisy the US does.
I should state they were copyright-free films. Of course. :)
I've used a lot of P2P stuff, and this is the hands-down winner.
But that's it. At least Shareaza handles bittorrents, edonkey and gnutella 1 & 2 networks all at once... and it's muy fast :)
Illegal immigrants, especially in the US (with such rampant institutionalised racism), have a very difficult time just staying alive. If the US really does see itself as the "Leader of the Free World", then act like it - and do the decent thing.
America has already proved itself to be especially harsh to immigrants (illegal or not). In fact, the LAPD had to draft a "special order" to prohibit officers from enquiring about a person's alien status, or country of origin. That was because the LAPD had great fun threatening people with deportation.
"Land of the free" my ass. "Land of the free rich white guys" more like.
I did kinda mean it - if Bush really loves democracy so much, he could do a much better job of letting it be known.
I'd love to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but I know I'd just be misunderestimating him. ;)
True, Palestine has nothing to do with oil, but by the same logic America should have nothing to do with Israel, and look how that's going.
The US is in Iraq partly for the oil, and partly because one of America's old friends got a bit too big for his boots. There was no humanitarian reason. America only cares about Americans - everyone knows that.
We know everyone's shafted when the oil runs out. However, not all nations on earth insist on wasting so much of it every day. Stupid gas-guzzing SUVs clogging up US streets doing 1mpg. Wow. Way to go.
America is doing nothing to solve the problem. As usual, the american principle of superficiality comes in to its own. The stop-gap solution is the best for the US government, as they're only going to be in power for a short time. Instead of working on a solution to decrease everyone's dependence on oil, they just want to secure more. That helps no-one in the long run.
There is absolutely, positively no way on earth anyone can justify the US government's foreign policy. Seriously. It's a joke.
Allowing illegal immigrants to vote is a good idea. They're covered by the constitution, yet have no voice when it comes to the law.
If all men are truly created equal, they must have the vote.