Even better, make this into a virus that spreads from computer to computer, detects if the person is behind the chinese firewall and then tries to circumvent it by sending people through the other systems....hmm talk about a virus that could be legitmately downloaded on download.com:)
Well you do realize the Chinese are just trying to come to modern times. Before they had the Great Wall of China (still around, but largely ineffectual) and now they have the Great Firewall of China...given enough time and a determined hacker it will also be largely ineffectual:)
I agree that on the back-end of things the gov't will be slow to respond to upgrades of any sort. This issue has been publicized and made into a big hooplah - that will give political pressure to speed things up - and when the pressure is there things happen. While I do not see this rolling out very quickly, it will happen in the near future, assuming companies like Comcast and Verizon don't manage to shoot it down.
I was trying to make a joke - being that Doom 3 is so dark that while the game play rocks, the lighting (or lack there-of) really takes away from my enjoyment.
Because you and the poster before you are at a high enough level that you can say this will or will not work, or if this is a stunt?
You worked in a building, in a server room - does that say the entire philly gov't is modeled after that building/room?
The gov't is pretty spread out, and there are many offices that have fairly high tech gear. Maybe not the LATEST tech - but tech that is still of decent quality, managed by competant staff members.
Before we start saying that it is going to come to a crash in 6-8 weeks after it goes live, lets give them a chance.
LOL hahaha...no really. Since when is gov't hiring out private companies the best? Or is that $100.00 hammer such a great deal? Or the outrageous bills that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin give to NASA?
The benefit of a program like this, run by the gov't, is that it can pool everyones money. 10 million start up for a population of 1.5 million comes to about $6.67 per person, and the maintenance fee of $1.5 million, divided by 1.5 million people comes to $1.00 per year...sure beats StarBucks prices.
Lets not make Street to be such a hero...he is still a slimeball, and while i have grown up in Philly and love it, the city gov't is corrupt. He is just trying to garner votes since the election here struck an uprising.
I think this is a great idea, and hope to see it happen...I might actually take my laptop to Rittenhouse square and chill out staring at the chicks and playing doom 3 (hey i need all the light i can get to see in that game).
What do you mean this site is not populated only with Linux users...dammit! Wait what the hell am I running on my laptop...DOH its not Linux...Hateful Tricksey Microsoft told me it was LINUX in here...DAMN YOU I SAY, DAMN YOU!!!!!!!!!
P.S. this was a joke, if you cannot take it as a joke, go drown yourself:)
You know, whenever I call a company that I have a paid subscription to and I am on hold hearing their advertisements it really pisses me off. You know why? Because I already paid for their product - I am a customer - I do not need to be inundated with more sales from them for something that I am already paying for. Do I really need to pay my cable TV company two membership fees per month for the same service? The words "Preaching to the choir" comes to mind
So advertising on a Linux site where you have less customer loyalty is not a bad place to advertise on.
As for the original reply - just because Bill Gates makes a press release does not mean he is trying to get free press. He is the richest man alive, he can buy the press (he actually did). The press wants to hear from Bill Gates, they TRY and hear from him. If this was any other company (almost any) making a press release, you would have been praising them for being forthcoming and letting the public know whats up...so lets not down the man because he is keeping the public informed.
Ok which one of you/.'ers sabotaged the MSNBC article. You know it really read "H-P's first Linux laptop a LO$ER"...
Hmmm "H-P" I do not think they were talking about the HP that I am aware of.
Is it "always" however? I do not think we can say that a judge makes a decision, always, based on some pre-existing law. We do have precedents, and in the case of the Internet - which is still fairly young - we may not have many precedent cases.
Judges have been known to go against pre-existing common laws and law based on differing circumstances, though this can be related to my first point.
And because hiring someone to fill a quota is the right thing to do?
I knew a person who owned/managed a farm. It was worked primarily by minorities. There were no females there. This person got sued, and had to compensate a female because she said he discriminated against females. Do you think it might have been because the owner felt that the physical requirement did not suit that particular female applicant?
I think AA is totally misguided, it removes opportunities from other people who are more deserving (based on their relevant qualifications).
It also serves to make people wonder "How did that person get the job, they scored lower then so-so on the test." Or even worse, the person who was the beneficiary of the AA either is not qualified (can be dangerous in many industries), knows that they got in due to non-relevant qualities, or doubts themselves because they are not sure if they are really qualified for the job, or got in due to a statistic.
Those laws are nice, however, I am sure there are a lot of loopholes.
Scenario
Soda Company: "We are the best soda company"
Gov't: "Says who?"
Company: "Ok, this independent study shows that we are best at customer service. So we say are the best. Plus the CEO says we are the best. Being the "best" is subjective."
But if the Norwegian gov't is better at it, kudos - though I think the fine should match the offense and the company. 80,000 will kill a small company, but 80,000 to a company like MS is a joke.
Because lawyers are not perfect and they do make mistakes. Lawyers are also not the judges, and while one lawyer may think that his answer is correct - the judge may disagree (or the opposing lawyer may have found a flaw in the logic).
The law is subjective.
Does that answer your question?
Come on now, its open source - you would think amongst all of their developers they could optimize it. So yes I am.
Oh and the "hobbyist app" can run you over mint after getting all the extras.
Anyway you're trying to argue the same point that I have, just through a different means.
Isn't it always the case? I do agree with you, it would be nice to see these companies do the "right" thing. The problem is that the information is so subjective - it all depends how you view it. That is why I make fun of advertisements, and I don't believe half of what they say - no matter how benign it seems.
If they want to stick a coke can in my game, pizza hut logo, etc. I could care less. If it is part of the game (find the coke can for bonus points), I could care less. Actually if it reduces the cost of the game or helps keep the game maker in business - even better!
Now if it tracks me - which means it is using my bandwidth, and sending information about me - I DO care and would not buy the game for that reason. Though, I could see it being in every game (eventually) making it that you have no choice....
Moral obligation? What is that? Where does it state that a company has to be nice to you? They just have to follow the law. Realize this, 'moral obligation' does not drive the bottom line for industries. To expect companies to behave in a moral and courteous manner is naive. They are not going to - this is not limited to MS.
Advertising to mislead is actually against the law, however, companies tread a very fine line. They do plenty of research (this is one of the reasons why marketing is so expensive) into their advertisements. They will exaggerate, lie, mislead and do whatever it takes to get you to buy their product, however, they will do it in such a method that when you try and sue them they will be able to put a lot of spin on it to make them seem innocent.
When you hear statements like "9 out of 10 doctors recommend our product", you gotta wonder, which group of 10 did they utilize? They might have had 20 groups of 10, and when 9 members in a group agreed that the product worked well you get things like "9 out of 10". Forget the fact that they other 190 doctors hated the product...
You don't have to like it, I sure don't, but you have to accept that it is reality and you have to do your research when buying your product. The alternative is to be a politician and come up with a solution that others have not found.
They don't have to blatently state it in big bold letters. It is part of the underlying document that is attached to the *. It is up to the viewer to verify the research.
This is not uncommon to say the least - companies do this all the time. Notice that every movie is given awesome reviews by someone, that almost every book is on some best seller list, and that every brand is the "best" brand out there.
Marketers know what they are doing, and after they are done it goes through the legal department for checks and balances.
Also, since words like "best", "most effective", etc are vague, they can and do utilize these statements. So when Microsoft says "We have the BEST OS on the market" they are not wrong, they just didn't state who thinks they are the "BEST", and they do not have to.
To help give a real example, years ago Bayer got sued for slanderous advertising. They were accused of stating that other companies dilute their headache medicine with water in their advertisements. Bayer turned around and said - no we did not say that, we just said that we do not use water to dilute our headache medicine. - (paraphrase obviously). Their statement has a blatent hidden meaning, but it doesn't break the literal meaning.
Its marketing - kill the marketers.
Slashdot Mirror
Give a logical explanation and i am sure I will understand. And I mean explain the Apple iTunes portion, not the MS portion.
french is banned in China also...wait thats a good thing...isn't it?
Even better, make this into a virus that spreads from computer to computer, detects if the person is behind the chinese firewall and then tries to circumvent it by sending people through the other systems....hmm talk about a virus that could be legitmately downloaded on download.com :)
hari-kari (sp?)
Well you do realize the Chinese are just trying to come to modern times. Before they had the Great Wall of China (still around, but largely ineffectual) and now they have the Great Firewall of China...given enough time and a determined hacker it will also be largely ineffectual :)
I agree that on the back-end of things the gov't will be slow to respond to upgrades of any sort. This issue has been publicized and made into a big hooplah - that will give political pressure to speed things up - and when the pressure is there things happen. While I do not see this rolling out very quickly, it will happen in the near future, assuming companies like Comcast and Verizon don't manage to shoot it down.
I was trying to make a joke - being that Doom 3 is so dark that while the game play rocks, the lighting (or lack there-of) really takes away from my enjoyment.
Because you and the poster before you are at a high enough level that you can say this will or will not work, or if this is a stunt?
You worked in a building, in a server room - does that say the entire philly gov't is modeled after that building/room?
The gov't is pretty spread out, and there are many offices that have fairly high tech gear. Maybe not the LATEST tech - but tech that is still of decent quality, managed by competant staff members.
Before we start saying that it is going to come to a crash in 6-8 weeks after it goes live, lets give them a chance.
LOL hahaha...no really. Since when is gov't hiring out private companies the best? Or is that $100.00 hammer such a great deal? Or the outrageous bills that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin give to NASA?
The benefit of a program like this, run by the gov't, is that it can pool everyones money. 10 million start up for a population of 1.5 million comes to about $6.67 per person, and the maintenance fee of $1.5 million, divided by 1.5 million people comes to $1.00 per year...sure beats StarBucks prices.
Lets not make Street to be such a hero...he is still a slimeball, and while i have grown up in Philly and love it, the city gov't is corrupt.
He is just trying to garner votes since the election here struck an uprising.
I think this is a great idea, and hope to see it happen...I might actually take my laptop to Rittenhouse square and chill out staring at the chicks and playing doom 3 (hey i need all the light i can get to see in that game).
He has my business card - its going to be a sweet site. ;)
This person uses a lot of (paraphrase) "I haven't seen it myself, but I am sure real numbers are there."
Unless this person can site a real case then all he did was show us test files (as he claims he has seen)
What do you mean this site is not populated only with Linux users...dammit! Wait what the hell am I running on my laptop...DOH its not Linux...Hateful Tricksey Microsoft told me it was LINUX in here...DAMN YOU I SAY, DAMN YOU!!!!!!!!!
:)
P.S. this was a joke, if you cannot take it as a joke, go drown yourself
You know, whenever I call a company that I have a paid subscription to and I am on hold hearing their advertisements it really pisses me off. You know why? Because I already paid for their product - I am a customer - I do not need to be inundated with more sales from them for something that I am already paying for. Do I really need to pay my cable TV company two membership fees per month for the same service? The words "Preaching to the choir" comes to mind
So advertising on a Linux site where you have less customer loyalty is not a bad place to advertise on.
As for the original reply - just because Bill Gates makes a press release does not mean he is trying to get free press. He is the richest man alive, he can buy the press (he actually did). The press wants to hear from Bill Gates, they TRY and hear from him. If this was any other company (almost any) making a press release, you would have been praising them for being forthcoming and letting the public know whats up...so lets not down the man because he is keeping the public informed.
Ok which one of you /.'ers sabotaged the MSNBC article. You know it really read "H-P's first Linux laptop a LO$ER"...
Hmmm "H-P" I do not think they were talking about the HP that I am aware of.
Is it "always" however? I do not think we can say that a judge makes a decision, always, based on some pre-existing law. We do have precedents, and in the case of the Internet - which is still fairly young - we may not have many precedent cases.
Judges have been known to go against pre-existing common laws and law based on differing circumstances, though this can be related to my first point.
And because hiring someone to fill a quota is the right thing to do?
I knew a person who owned/managed a farm. It was worked primarily by minorities. There were no females there. This person got sued, and had to compensate a female because she said he discriminated against females. Do you think it might have been because the owner felt that the physical requirement did not suit that particular female applicant?
I think AA is totally misguided, it removes opportunities from other people who are more deserving (based on their relevant qualifications).
It also serves to make people wonder "How did that person get the job, they scored lower then so-so on the test." Or even worse, the person who was the beneficiary of the AA either is not qualified (can be dangerous in many industries), knows that they got in due to non-relevant qualities, or doubts themselves because they are not sure if they are really qualified for the job, or got in due to a statistic.
According to that nice graph, soon we will be able to say that SCO doesn't exist... Oh great computer gods of the processor - please make it so.
Those laws are nice, however, I am sure there are a lot of loopholes.
Scenario
Soda Company: "We are the best soda company"
Gov't: "Says who?"
Company: "Ok, this independent study shows that we are best at customer service. So we say are the best. Plus the CEO says we are the best. Being the "best" is subjective."
But if the Norwegian gov't is better at it, kudos - though I think the fine should match the offense and the company. 80,000 will kill a small company, but 80,000 to a company like MS is a joke.
Because lawyers are not perfect and they do make mistakes. Lawyers are also not the judges, and while one lawyer may think that his answer is correct - the judge may disagree (or the opposing lawyer may have found a flaw in the logic).
The law is subjective.
Does that answer your question?
Come on now, its open source - you would think amongst all of their developers they could optimize it. So yes I am.
Oh and the "hobbyist app" can run you over mint after getting all the extras.
Anyway you're trying to argue the same point that I have, just through a different means.
Isn't it always the case? I do agree with you, it would be nice to see these companies do the "right" thing. The problem is that the information is so subjective - it all depends how you view it. That is why I make fun of advertisements, and I don't believe half of what they say - no matter how benign it seems.
If they want to stick a coke can in my game, pizza hut logo, etc. I could care less. If it is part of the game (find the coke can for bonus points), I could care less. Actually if it reduces the cost of the game or helps keep the game maker in business - even better!
Now if it tracks me - which means it is using my bandwidth, and sending information about me - I DO care and would not buy the game for that reason. Though, I could see it being in every game (eventually) making it that you have no choice....
Moral obligation? What is that? Where does it state that a company has to be nice to you? They just have to follow the law. Realize this, 'moral obligation' does not drive the bottom line for industries. To expect companies to behave in a moral and courteous manner is naive. They are not going to - this is not limited to MS.
Advertising to mislead is actually against the law, however, companies tread a very fine line. They do plenty of research (this is one of the reasons why marketing is so expensive) into their advertisements. They will exaggerate, lie, mislead and do whatever it takes to get you to buy their product, however, they will do it in such a method that when you try and sue them they will be able to put a lot of spin on it to make them seem innocent.
When you hear statements like "9 out of 10 doctors recommend our product", you gotta wonder, which group of 10 did they utilize? They might have had 20 groups of 10, and when 9 members in a group agreed that the product worked well you get things like "9 out of 10". Forget the fact that they other 190 doctors hated the product...
You don't have to like it, I sure don't, but you have to accept that it is reality and you have to do your research when buying your product. The alternative is to be a politician and come up with a solution that others have not found.
They don't have to blatently state it in big bold letters. It is part of the underlying document that is attached to the *. It is up to the viewer to verify the research.
This is not uncommon to say the least - companies do this all the time. Notice that every movie is given awesome reviews by someone, that almost every book is on some best seller list, and that every brand is the "best" brand out there.
Marketers know what they are doing, and after they are done it goes through the legal department for checks and balances.
Also, since words like "best", "most effective", etc are vague, they can and do utilize these statements. So when Microsoft says "We have the BEST OS on the market" they are not wrong, they just didn't state who thinks they are the "BEST", and they do not have to.
To help give a real example, years ago Bayer got sued for slanderous advertising. They were accused of stating that other companies dilute their headache medicine with water in their advertisements. Bayer turned around and said - no we did not say that, we just said that we do not use water to dilute our headache medicine. - (paraphrase obviously). Their statement has a blatent hidden meaning, but it doesn't break the literal meaning.
Its marketing - kill the marketers.