Second, force all of Microsoft's web development tools to be 100% standards compliant.
Do you mean 'web development tools' or 'browsers'? I think the majority of people would instead benefit from the latter. In either case, I would argue that there is no 100% standards compliant browser or web development system, so forcing MS in either scenario would be a touch extreme.
Microsoft never said "it's a 10 year plan". Sure, I'm picking nits here...but the crux of the quote is that there is no quick fix in, say, 2 to 3 years..."it's more of a 10-year timeline". In otherwords, less than a sprint and more like a marathon. Is that a 5 year marathon? Ten years? Fifteen years? Who knows? Microsoft might know for certain, but they're only throwing out generalizations here.
But this quote does NOT read "it's a 10 year plan". Read into it what you will; embrace self-delusion.
What kind of pathetic headline is that? When did MS say "MS not expected secure until 2011"?!?! This is called sensationalist GARBAGE, people! Stop putting this swill up as headline material.
Having someone say "it's more of a 10-year timeline" does not equate to "MS not expected secure until 2011"...much less "MS says" 2011. The phrase "more of a..." connotes a generality. The headline is pure, conjured specificity.
Crap like this makes me become seriously disenchanted with Slashdot.
The quote from the article: Due to the nature of WMI, the WSC could potentially allow attackers to spoof the state of security on a user's system while accessing data, infecting the system, or turning the PC into a zombie for spam or other purposes.
This isn't an exploit...it could...potentially...be an exploit. In fact, the term "could potentially" shows up several times in one of the articles. Read it how you'd like ("could potentially" ranging from "if someone got around to doing it" to "well, it sure looks like it could be done if we knew enough to test it"), but Slashdot headlines have been teetering on the tabloid-edge by subtly twisting article content for the sake of sensationalism. Tsk tsk!
The original quote: "It takes a lot to raise a laugh at an IT press gig, but this news tickled the spot for the journalists at today's press conference in London."
The Slashdot version: "Their decision even had the journalists at the press conference laughing."
Not to pick nits, but if you read the original quote carefully, there is only the implication of laughing...from journalists or anyone else for that matter. The journalist's "spot was tickled". Which, aside from bordering on the pornographic, still doesn't indicate that ANYONE laughed.
Though Slashdot isn't exactly a newssource, it can still undermine its own credibility in general with sloppiness like this.
She just posted how to get the $79 dollars...this after I spend 30 minutes chewing on someone at DirecTV with no luck. Jerk told me "Since it has a hard drive in it, it breaks often...you should throw it away" and "You can't believe what you read on the Internet -- there was that town with the styrofoam, you know? That town?" (he had no idea what the story was about...though I did) and repeatedly "There are 13 million people with DirecTivos" (He didn't believe me when I told him that his stat was out of whack).
The guy made me so mad that I refused to hang up at the end of the conversation...keeping the jerk on the phone. Not my style, but I was ticked off!
Sir, if I don't have a response in 30 seconds I'll have to disconnect
Hi.
Sir, if I don't have a response in 30 seconds I'll have to disconnect
Hi.
Wow, I can't remember ever being so uncool! Heck, toward the end of the conversation I believe I was indeed the jerk.
Can't these people simply disable the ActiveX functionality in IE in the Security settings? Is this REALLY that much harder than downloading and installing a new browser?!
How about just a few "twists" of the truth to start?
President Bush's reaction to news of the Sept. 11 attacks
Moore uses video of the president as Bush learned that a second jet had hit the World Trade Center the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The president was in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., listening to second-graders read.
Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after learning of the news from his chief of staff, Andrew Card. Moore superimposes a timer on the screen to document the passage of time, then asks what was going through the president's mind. Was he, Moore wonders, regretting spending 42% of his first eight months in office on "vacation?"
Moore bases his quip on an Aug. 6, 2001, story in the Washington Post that said by the end of that month Bush would have spent 42% of his first seven months in office "at vacation spots or en route." The calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., and a month-long "working vacation" at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the "vacation" days included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The other message Moore sends is that Bush was frozen, unable to do anything until he was told what to do by his aides. The independent 9/11 commission reported that Bush told its members he felt it was important to remain calm when not much was known about the attacks. Andrew Card told ABC's Good Morning America this week that Bush showed "a moment of shock, and he did stare off maybe for just a second." The decision to let some Saudis leave the USA shortly after 9/11 and alleged connections among the Bush family, Saudi royalty and Osama bin Laden's family
Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of bin Laden's family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens -- even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis.
The implication: Saudis who might have had information about the attacks -- or even been involved -- slipped through the president's fingers.
But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure." An alleged connection between Bush and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan
In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.
In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.
My wife and I worked at a tax software company at the same time. I was a member of the development team...she was a member of the quality assurance team. The relationship between a developer and a tester can get chippy at times since the relationship is somewhat adversarial. However, having your wife write up defects in your code can be VERY stressful!!
We had quite a few lovely exchanges, let me tell you! We are still together. And though we no longer work at the same firm, we have started a software company together. I'm the developer...she's the tester. I must be a glutton for punishment. Maybe this is some strange sort of S&M relationship, eh?
Biomass technology (energy produced from waste) has been around since the 70's. Though more specific and more refined than its predecessors, there's nothing revolutionary about this.
You can't include your own product (Windows Media Player) but you MUST include your competitions players (Real, QuickTime). That's a level playing field?
Or than assuming that a freelance web designer named Mike Rowe is going to be confused with MS...
Or that assuming that much of the Slashdot community will embrace anything but biased negativity and contempt with regards to anything Microsoft.
The article itself reads like a tabloid: And search terms like 'Linux', 'AOL' and 'Macintosh' are allowed, so at least MSN hasn't simply blacklisted all competitors' keywords as 'porn'
Ah, yes, so it is a given that MSN as blacklisted competitor keywords as 'porn'. Blacklisted, eh? I can see the CNN headline now: Microsoft Blacklists Competitors as Porn.
Heck, at this point I pratically believe that Microsoft did indeed do this intentionally. But only so that they can watch the ever-predictable Slashdot community scurry around like ants in a fire screaming "Conspiracy!!".
I truly believe that Slashdot is turning into something more anti-Microsoft than it is pro-Linux or pro-OpenSource. How sad.
I may be blind, but after reading many posts here I think there is just a little too much Microsoft conspiracy paranoia running amok on this site. I would imagine that this is as deliberate as when Microsoft included the swastikas as a character in one of their fonts.
Microsoft must be supporting white supremacists!
A silly statement, but arguably not much more of a logical leap than assuming a plot to derail XFree86.
1) Fine. Control == Profits. But then, Profits == Control. You can't be in the position to take control without profits in the first place. Sure, Microsoft offered a free browser. A product of umpteen programmer hours. This is something that most companies would not be in a position to do...primarily because they don't have the finances to produce such a product for nothing in the first place!
I maintain my original assertion. I fail to see anything that would indicate that CONTROL has always been more important than MONEY in the Microsoft/Bill Gates mind. Keep in mind that you are defending the ridiculous original assertion of "Microsoft's objective hasn't changed since day 1: control." Please.... You must be right...money NEVER came first, not even day one.
2) Open you ears. Or better yet, your dictionary for that matter. Since when did "squash" equate to "seeking to destroy through any means possible"? When did "squash" connote "to bypass the common rules of decency"? You people certainly read a lot into one word.
So, your assertion is that Red Hat doesn't care how their direct competitors fare? I would imagine that if all Red Hat's direct competitors suddenly fell off the face of the planet, that Red Hat would enjoy and welcome the breathing room. Monopoly!! Unfettered economic landscape!! What human being, much less company, wouldn't want these things?
No, wait. You must be right. Red Hat would likely be so overcome by depression that they'd willingly pull their products from the marketplace and fold.
1) Don't kid yourself. If you think you can derive notable control in a market without having the money first, you're delusional. And if you review a little Micro-Soft history, you'll see that money has always been an underlying factor in their decisions and actions.
2) Who cares if they support open standards and play by the rules? That isn't the point. Aggressive? That isn't the point either.
Would Intel like to squash the competition? Yes. Red Hat? Yes. Again, I dare anyone to point me to a business that wouldn't want to squash the competition.
1) I'm sure that day 1, from the basement, Bill said "It's not about the money; it is about control!"
2) Name one company that wouldn't rather squash or buy out its competitors!
I'm all for open source, but don't blind yourself with exaggeration and tunnel vision.
Is to take a look at the people who have bid on the jet to see what other auctions they have won. I'll never have this much money to blow, but it sure is fun being a voyeur to observe their Ebay spending habits. I suppose if you're buying a jet on Ebay, a Porshe or an existing brick and mortar business through Ebay is no big deal.
I think I'm slowly slipping into this category. I get a pain (actually, I've got a few right now) and I feel the need to do something diagnostic about it...right then. So, I research what ills me via Google or WebMD. To me, this is no different than researching that funny noise my hard drive is making or the source of a system error of some sort. Have a problem? Research it online.
And the truth is, after reading this stuff over and over and applying amateur diagnostic methods I can come up with the most hideous of diseases. Sad thing is, I can't simply run some system util to fix things. So, I slowly become more and more worried. Obsessive even.
It seems quite logical to research this stuff. But I can't suppress the urge to keep reading. And I have difficulties suppressing the worries this process induces.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, force all of Microsoft's web development tools to be 100% standards compliant.
Do you mean 'web development tools' or 'browsers'? I think the majority of people would instead benefit from the latter. In either case, I would argue that there is no 100% standards compliant browser or web development system, so forcing MS in either scenario would be a touch extreme.
Complacency != Apathy
Microsoft never said "it's a 10 year plan". Sure, I'm picking nits here...but the crux of the quote is that there is no quick fix in, say, 2 to 3 years..."it's more of a 10-year timeline". In otherwords, less than a sprint and more like a marathon. Is that a 5 year marathon? Ten years? Fifteen years? Who knows? Microsoft might know for certain, but they're only throwing out generalizations here.
But this quote does NOT read "it's a 10 year plan". Read into it what you will; embrace self-delusion.
What kind of pathetic headline is that? When did MS say "MS not expected secure until 2011"?!?! This is called sensationalist GARBAGE, people! Stop putting this swill up as headline material.
Having someone say "it's more of a 10-year timeline" does not equate to "MS not expected secure until 2011"...much less "MS says" 2011. The phrase "more of a..." connotes a generality. The headline is pure, conjured specificity.
Crap like this makes me become seriously disenchanted with Slashdot.
The quote from the article: Due to the nature of WMI, the WSC could potentially allow attackers to spoof the state of security on a user's system while accessing data, infecting the system, or turning the PC into a zombie for spam or other purposes.
This isn't an exploit...it could...potentially...be an exploit. In fact, the term "could potentially" shows up several times in one of the articles. Read it how you'd like ("could potentially" ranging from "if someone got around to doing it" to "well, it sure looks like it could be done if we knew enough to test it"), but Slashdot headlines have been teetering on the tabloid-edge by subtly twisting article content for the sake of sensationalism. Tsk tsk!
The original quote: "It takes a lot to raise a laugh at an IT press gig, but this news tickled the spot for the journalists at today's press conference in London."
The Slashdot version: "Their decision even had the journalists at the press conference laughing."
Not to pick nits, but if you read the original quote carefully, there is only the implication of laughing...from journalists or anyone else for that matter. The journalist's "spot was tickled". Which, aside from bordering on the pornographic, still doesn't indicate that ANYONE laughed.
Though Slashdot isn't exactly a newssource, it can still undermine its own credibility in general with sloppiness like this.
Why the heck does news like this come out 2 days after I drop a load on my new 60 inch HDTV?! :|
When will someone pass Sony the cluestick?
Sony has probably received many cluesticks...but they haven't been proprietary like the Sony memorystick, so Sony can read 'em.
My significant other rocks!
She just posted how to get the $79 dollars...this after I spend 30 minutes chewing on someone at DirecTV with no luck. Jerk told me "Since it has a hard drive in it, it breaks often...you should throw it away" and "You can't believe what you read on the Internet -- there was that town with the styrofoam, you know? That town?" (he had no idea what the story was about...though I did) and repeatedly "There are 13 million people with DirecTivos" (He didn't believe me when I told him that his stat was out of whack).
The guy made me so mad that I refused to hang up at the end of the conversation...keeping the jerk on the phone. Not my style, but I was ticked off!
Sir, if I don't have a response in 30 seconds I'll have to disconnect
Hi.
Sir, if I don't have a response in 30 seconds I'll have to disconnect
Hi.
Wow, I can't remember ever being so uncool! Heck, toward the end of the conversation I believe I was indeed the jerk.
Can't these people simply disable the ActiveX functionality in IE in the Security settings? Is this REALLY that much harder than downloading and installing a new browser?!
That would be "coincidental" and not "ironic". There is no irony involved.
How about just a few "twists" of the truth to start?
President Bush's reaction to news of the Sept. 11 attacks
Moore uses video of the president as Bush learned that a second jet had hit the World Trade Center the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The president was in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., listening to second-graders read.
Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after learning of the news from his chief of staff, Andrew Card. Moore superimposes a timer on the screen to document the passage of time, then asks what was going through the president's mind. Was he, Moore wonders, regretting spending 42% of his first eight months in office on "vacation?"
Moore bases his quip on an Aug. 6, 2001, story in the Washington Post that said by the end of that month Bush would have spent 42% of his first seven months in office "at vacation spots or en route." The calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., and a month-long "working vacation" at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the "vacation" days included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The other message Moore sends is that Bush was frozen, unable to do anything until he was told what to do by his aides. The independent 9/11 commission reported that Bush told its members he felt it was important to remain calm when not much was known about the attacks. Andrew Card told ABC's Good Morning America this week that Bush showed "a moment of shock, and he did stare off maybe for just a second."
The decision to let some Saudis leave the USA shortly after 9/11 and alleged connections among the Bush family, Saudi royalty and Osama bin Laden's family
Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of bin Laden's family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens -- even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis.
The implication: Saudis who might have had information about the attacks -- or even been involved -- slipped through the president's fingers.
But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
An alleged connection between Bush and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan
In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.
In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.
Don't worry. It won't be long before you have to suffer through a 30 minute streaming infomercial before getting to your desired bloated web page.
This can certainly be a challenging situation.
My wife and I worked at a tax software company at the same time. I was a member of the development team...she was a member of the quality assurance team. The relationship between a developer and a tester can get chippy at times since the relationship is somewhat adversarial. However, having your wife write up defects in your code can be VERY stressful!!
We had quite a few lovely exchanges, let me tell you! We are still together. And though we no longer work at the same firm, we have started a software company together. I'm the developer...she's the tester. I must be a glutton for punishment. Maybe this is some strange sort of S&M relationship, eh?
Biomass technology (energy produced from waste) has been around since the 70's. Though more specific and more refined than its predecessors, there's nothing revolutionary about this.
Level playing field?
You can't include your own product (Windows Media Player) but you MUST include your competitions players (Real, QuickTime). That's a level playing field?
Put down the crackpipe and step slowly away!
Or than assuming that a freelance web designer named Mike Rowe is going to be confused with MS...
Or that assuming that much of the Slashdot community will embrace anything but biased negativity and contempt with regards to anything Microsoft.
The article itself reads like a tabloid: And search terms like 'Linux', 'AOL' and 'Macintosh' are allowed, so at least MSN hasn't simply blacklisted all competitors' keywords as 'porn'
Ah, yes, so it is a given that MSN as blacklisted competitor keywords as 'porn'. Blacklisted, eh? I can see the CNN headline now: Microsoft Blacklists Competitors as Porn.
Heck, at this point I pratically believe that Microsoft did indeed do this intentionally. But only so that they can watch the ever-predictable Slashdot community scurry around like ants in a fire screaming "Conspiracy!!".
I truly believe that Slashdot is turning into something more anti-Microsoft than it is pro-Linux or pro-OpenSource. How sad.
I may be blind, but after reading many posts here I think there is just a little too much Microsoft conspiracy paranoia running amok on this site. I would imagine that this is as deliberate as when Microsoft included the swastikas as a character in one of their fonts.
Microsoft must be supporting white supremacists!
A silly statement, but arguably not much more of a logical leap than assuming a plot to derail XFree86.
Oh yes. I understand: The Slashbot Factor.
There's actually a sniglet for the act of pressing an elevator button more than once: electrodigitation.
1) Fine. Control == Profits. But then, Profits == Control. You can't be in the position to take control without profits in the first place. Sure, Microsoft offered a free browser. A product of umpteen programmer hours. This is something that most companies would not be in a position to do...primarily because they don't have the finances to produce such a product for nothing in the first place!
I maintain my original assertion. I fail to see anything that would indicate that CONTROL has always been more important than MONEY in the Microsoft/Bill Gates mind. Keep in mind that you are defending the ridiculous original assertion of "Microsoft's objective hasn't changed since day 1: control." Please.... You must be right...money NEVER came first, not even day one.
2) Open you ears. Or better yet, your dictionary for that matter. Since when did "squash" equate to "seeking to destroy through any means possible"? When did "squash" connote "to bypass the common rules of decency"? You people certainly read a lot into one word.
So, your assertion is that Red Hat doesn't care how their direct competitors fare? I would imagine that if all Red Hat's direct competitors suddenly fell off the face of the planet, that Red Hat would enjoy and welcome the breathing room. Monopoly!! Unfettered economic landscape!! What human being, much less company, wouldn't want these things?
No, wait. You must be right. Red Hat would likely be so overcome by depression that they'd willingly pull their products from the marketplace and fold.
1) Don't kid yourself. If you think you can derive notable control in a market without having the money first, you're delusional. And if you review a little Micro-Soft history, you'll see that money has always been an underlying factor in their decisions and actions.
2) Who cares if they support open standards and play by the rules? That isn't the point. Aggressive? That isn't the point either.
Would Intel like to squash the competition? Yes. Red Hat? Yes. Again, I dare anyone to point me to a business that wouldn't want to squash the competition.
1) I'm sure that day 1, from the basement, Bill said "It's not about the money; it is about control!" 2) Name one company that wouldn't rather squash or buy out its competitors! I'm all for open source, but don't blind yourself with exaggeration and tunnel vision.
Is to take a look at the people who have bid on the jet to see what other auctions they have won. I'll never have this much money to blow, but it sure is fun being a voyeur to observe their Ebay spending habits. I suppose if you're buying a jet on Ebay, a Porshe or an existing brick and mortar business through Ebay is no big deal.
I think I'm slowly slipping into this category. I get a pain (actually, I've got a few right now) and I feel the need to do something diagnostic about it...right then. So, I research what ills me via Google or WebMD. To me, this is no different than researching that funny noise my hard drive is making or the source of a system error of some sort. Have a problem? Research it online.
And the truth is, after reading this stuff over and over and applying amateur diagnostic methods I can come up with the most hideous of diseases. Sad thing is, I can't simply run some system util to fix things. So, I slowly become more and more worried. Obsessive even.
It seems quite logical to research this stuff. But I can't suppress the urge to keep reading. And I have difficulties suppressing the worries this process induces.