For a corporation that has a $280B market cap and generates $36B in revenue, they better come up with good ideas to grow their business. Especially, considering some of their market share in other markets has been rotting away to open source and consumers and businesses not wanting to migrate what they already have. So, why not create an environment where SNMP servers have to pay a royalty for patented technology? The problem is that someone hosting an F/OSS SNMP server, then it is likely those someone's won't be looking to spend money on a solution now. Please. This only increase operating costs for entities that host SNMP servers. And I doubt that any royalties they collect will be more than a blip to a $280B company.
Imagine how far we would be behind the real hackers today if the hackers for fun didn't exploit the weaknesses of yesteryear. We would be stuck with our thumbs up our asses today.
They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy.
I think the real threat is because there are hackers that do it for money. Geez, haven't you been seing the news lately. This excuse is so passe.
Innovation is fine without it. Do you buy games that implement yesterday's RTS or FPS paradigm? I don't, but some might. I usually buy the latest game that pushes the envelope in a genre that I enjoy. Too bad there is no good competition for Civilization as there are some things in its gameplay that stink like the AI sucks. BTW, how would someone patent AI?
In addition, no patents may help fledgling software houses get up and running. They can utilize the revenue generated by selling a generic RTS/FPS to invest in a game that is a not a generic. Or they can develop a business plan that only produces generics. Either way, I see that this activity does not impact negatively on the market and has the potential to grow the market. The key for the big players is to be first to market because that is the big payday. I don't think they really care if others cleanup by scavenging for crumbs.
What evidence leads you to suspect this?
Did you ever play RTS in the beginning like Warcraft or C&C? Those were very fun games, but pretty clunky in terms of today's RTS. Do you think innovation in RTS would have occured as dynamically if only 2 compaines controlled the monopoly on RTS? What about first person shooters? Without the push of small software houses that produce generic games, the FPS might not be further than the implementation of castle wolfenstein. But thank gawd Epic was there to compete and push the FPS.
So, I think the point that monopoly fosters innovation may be a moot point. The big boys that are first to market get the big pay day. So, there is plenty of incentive for innovation without patents.
Should the hacker put the onus on the person trying to recover their system to figure out how to get money to the hacker safely? If the person could not figure out a reasonable way of getting the money to you, then you trash their system. Eventually, a pseudo-anonymous means of exchanging money would be created like finding pennies on the sidewalk.
Maybe bit torrent the money to you in pieces.
"3 - It's a chance to share knowledge and demonstrate how to protect your system against hack attempts. Coming in our July issue, we'll publish an article "How to Set Up a Hackproof IIS" featuring Roger Grimes' recap of the contest, and sharing the secrets of how he created an impenetrable IIS environment.
You can't draw conclusions from non-events. Otherwise, my penis is 24 inches long. You have one month to disprove this assertion. If in one month no one disproves my penis is 24 inches, it must be true.
Besides, shouldn't the contest offer up several thousand peoples personal info with SSN and credit card numbers? This might bring the serious hacks out, but conclusions still couldn't be drawn.
Is the Wikipedia nothing more than a place for arrogant and narcissistic people to congregate and write about themselves? I thought the Wikipedia is supposed to be an authority on information that matters; Dave Hyatt and his carreer don't matter.
Isn't the information vetted by the community? It is no wonder I don't use the Wikipedia; it is full of itself. I read every now and then how the Wikipedia wants to overtake the Brittanica in entries. Well, Dave Hyatt entries are bloating that claim without any real value being added to the Wikipedia.
If blogs can he had quite easily, than why do people need to resort to inserting themselves in the Wikipedia? Is Dave attempting to boost his Google ranking vs other Dave Hyatts in the world with legitimate links to his blog?
BTW, I don't have anything personal against Dave. I am merely astonished that he has an entry.
It is a shame that people interpret that a license defines not only a minimal committment, but it defines the only committment. Why isn't the relationship instead judged by people's sense of whether Apple is taking advantage of open-source for their own corporate greed? Sure, Apple doesn't have a legal obligation, but maybe we should all believe they have a social obligation. Because when we benefit from the hard work of others, we should return the karma.
C'mon Apple, you can do better. Otherwise, you look just like an MS clone. But even then, MS has the decency to invest in their own browser, instead of poaching on open-source for one. What was the last positive contribution you have made to the community?
It's quite likely that KHTML developers will have to write their own code to pass the acid2 test.
Well, yes. Should Apple engineers be expected to maintain the KHTML engine also? Apple's engineers are probably focused on their code base exclusively. The KHTML engineers are the right people to modify their own code base. Does anyone expect Apple engineers to be responsible for maintaining compatibility between Safari and KHTML? Apple makes changes, and they provide the changes files to the KHTML team. The rest is up to the KHTML folks if they want to extract the Apple code they want to use and put it into their code.
Maybe Apple engineers don't have to maintain the codebase per a the lGRPL, but it might be short-sighted on Apple's behalf. I would think one of the attractions of Safari is that it can use Khtml plug-ins. If Apple wants to leverage free software, then they may not want to piss of the Kommunity because then plug-ins start to break. Plug-ins are a value add to Apple software; essentially free developers to modify the usability of Safari/Khtml.
However, I am completely talkin out my ass, so smell my stinky breath. I don't use either Khtml or Safari.
It's quite likely that KHTML developers will have to write their own code to pass the acid2 test.
Well, yes. Should Apple engineers be expected to maintain the KHTML engine also? Apple's engineers are probably focused on their code base exclusively. The KHTML engineers are the right people to modify their own code base. Does anyone expect Apple engineers to be responsible for maintaining compatibility between Safari and KHTML? Apple makes changes, and they provide the changes files to the KHTML team. The rest is up to the KHTML folks if they want to extract the Apple code they want to use and put it into their code.
Maybe Apple engineers don't have to maintain the codebase per a the lGRPL, but it might be short-sighted on Apple's behalf. I would think one of the attractions of Safari is that it can use Khtml plug-ins. If Apple wants to leverage free software, then they may not want to piss of the Kommunity because then plug-ins start to break. Plug-ins are a value add to Apple software; essentially free developers to modify the usability of Safari/Khtml.
However, I am completely talkin out my ass, so smell my stinky breath. I don't use either Khtml or Safari.
Speaking about David Hyatt, why does he have a Wikipedia entry? Looking at the entry, he hasn't done anything special that warrants an entry into the Wikipedia. So what if he has worked on some protocols, there are thousands that have come and gone? Do all those people merit an entry into the Wikipedia? Besides, lots of protocols are marketting magic rather than technical prowess. So what if he worked on the original Netscape or works for Apple now. Is he maintaining his resume of the Wikipedia?
I'd be interested in finding the guy that worked on DRM. But I suppose the wikipedia doesn't record villans.
Where is my average guy wikpedia entry? I may not be arrogant or narcissistic enough to put one in, but I guess that is why the average guy is so special; he doesn't think he is special.
Unit tests will show how a method is used. This should be enough documentation on the use of a method. In addition, the unit test will tell you when you have broken your code with a bug fix(a regression).
I supplement the above with class diagrams and most importantly sequence diagrams. The value in a class diagram is kind of obvious. But what comments lack, and to a degree unit tests, is showing the overall sequence that occurs. This should diagram the interaction of events. The digram illustrates when certain methods are called, what methods they call and what returns the caller receives. There are a number of other useful diagrams like the collaboration/deployment, state, activity, and last, but not least, Use Case diagrams. Without the code being associated with a Use Case, it can be argued you are writing code that adds no value to the code; in other words, you are just wasting resources.
You are more than welcome to extrapolate a brainwashing statement out of my comment, but I have not indicated anything insiduous on MS's behalf. This is a nurture argument if you haven't achieved the intellect to go to college and take Psych 101.
Really!?
What hardware are you using? Has your hard drive been defragmented? Is this machine comparable to your home machine? How many widgets are loaded up at boot time? Do you have lots of viruses, spyware, etc that are taking up performance? There are so many variables to consider into why one machine performs better than another one, that comparing their experiences is like comparing apples to oranges. Besides, what happens in 1 year when their home machines are obsolete? They have no argument. So, this is retarded.
Plus, how many executives do you really know and how many do you know how they think? I don't think too many. If I was spending a half million dollars in license fees as an executive, I better get a blow job from MS:) So, as an executive, I am going to make sure MS knows I have the money to spend and then I am going to contact all their competitors because I want to ink the best deal possible. And you think it is about employees experience with home machines? Please.
In addition, saving a half million dollars because the work can be done the same with free software, is a sign of better productivity; we are doing the same amount of work for less money. Investors like this scenario and this can have a positive effect on stock price, as well as free up half a million dollars to be spent somewhere else, like my bonus. So, you can be sure executives do not willy-nilly sign expensive contracts at the behest of grumpy employees. They are going to have a damn good reason. Most of the time, I think the reason is because MS is a perceived as a good business ally. Especially, when MS has the room to wiggle and lower the price to a point you are satisfied and you still get your bonus.
It might be a big percentage (I don't know where you get your numbers as those are the numbers for Windows on desktops not Office on desktops), but it is not a standard. I think of standards coming from an organization like the IEEE, W3C, ECMA, etc. Where is there a group like this that says that Office is the standard for word documents, spreadsheets, databases, etc? There is none.
Therefore, I say it is smart to be able to exchange documents with your customers without a headache, but that does not make a standard.
If everyone screwed from the top position, would that be a standard? And so if you screwed from the bottom position or the many other alternatives, would you then be screwed because you don't support the standard? Just because something is widely accepted doesn't make it a standard.
I have yet to get a job because I had MS Office on my resume or have I ever had a conversation above. Who believes this crap? But then again, I am not an administrative assistant as I am surely you must be if you had the above conversation.
"Why should teachers be motivated to switch? Because it is a moral obligation for non-profit organizations to use product that are more suitable for the common good and not just profitable for a monopoly."
This is the best point yet. Not only are you deciding for your education district, but you are obligating parents to have Office. If you haven't been to the store lately, Office is not cheap.
The only time I think I have known anyone to acquire Office is when they purchased a retail PC. So, I imagine there are many people that bought Dells with Office 98. Do you really think they ran out and purchased Office 2003 when it came out? Yeah, right, they are still at the old version. In addition, if MS could not talk those people into upgrading, then why should you be the one to do their dirty work?
Mandating Office 2003 definitely requires parents to purchase and support a confirmed monopolist when they could instead download OO and have perfectly usable software.
What do you think the responsible choice is?
Let's weigh "free" and bad load time on one hand and pay big bucks with restricted license agreements, jerked around by future office upgrades not being compatible with old versions, tied to the OS, security risk(Macros and ActiveX) on the other hand. I think it is clear to me which way I go. Who cares about load up time? At one time, 1 year ago, performance was dismally slow compared to today's machines. Did you care when you didn't know to care? Probably not. In other words, if you don't know it is slow, is it really slow. I would argue no because you don't know any better.
"There are benefite to using industry standard programs."
Really, what are they? If you have a standard, it is because your company standardized. This makes sense, especially when you are investing capital in building applications with Excel, Access and Word docs. But it is by no means an industry standard. Is there an industry group that made this the standard? If so, it is backed by MS. You must be referring to a standard as being the most widely accepted. But this does not make a standard, it just means you are smart to be interoperable with most people.
Know what?
Know that your "feeling" of a GUI is driven from the fact that MS has 20 yrs to mold it. Where else would you have developed a compass for what is right and wrong with a GUI? Only from use of MS technology for so long. Essentially, you are saying that the MS-create-a-lemming program was a success. So much so, that you judge other works by MS culture and don't even realize whose glasses you see the world through.
I don't know what dumb ass pays what MS Office costs to get a email reader. Whoopee! Mozilla has an email client too that is free; it is called Thunderbird. I use Outlook all day long at work and Thunderbird for home use, and I have never had an experience with Thunderbird that left me feeling like I wished I could afford Outlook. Not even Outlook Express will touch my windows machine. The only reason I need Windows is to support PC games.
Graphic apps! I am suprised the Mac elites haven't attacked you yet.
A PC with MS Windows on it is no longer a PC; it is an appliance or consumer electronics. If you want a computer out of your PC, than I think you should take a look at linux.
Here is a quote from the BBC, "The US, the world's largest polluter, withdrew from the treaty in 2001, citing economic concerns."
Economics can be a real reason for inaction.
Why would I have to shoulder more burden of proof than yourself? After all, you are the one that suggests economics may be the reason US-only maps were made.
I have an idea. I will repost your reply to me as a reply to yourself, dumbass.
What in god's name are you talking about? You haven't logically demonstrated anything. All you've said is that economics itself is simple because US-only maps can be explained in economic terms.
Who makes ascertions that they contradict with statements later on? Sounds like a fool to me.
I concede that economics is not a "real" reason. But, if economics is just teminology, then how can that be a reason for why US-only maps were made as you originally asserted?
Yes, I'm sure the maps are US-only for awful, vindictive reasons, and not because of simple economics.
Here is a revised statement:
Yes, I'm sure that food is kept from people for horrible, vindictive reasons, and not because of simple economics.
Essentially, to quote you,
You haven't logically demonstrated anything.
Wow, it looks like you defeated your own assertion that the MODERATORS thought was so clever.
Who is the retard now? No wait, you must be a crack monkey. You make an assertion and then contradict it later. Good job, crack monkey. Here's your crack.
Slashdot Mirror
For a corporation that has a $280B market cap and generates $36B in revenue, they better come up with good ideas to grow their business. Especially, considering some of their market share in other markets has been rotting away to open source and consumers and businesses not wanting to migrate what they already have. So, why not create an environment where SNMP servers have to pay a royalty for patented technology? The problem is that someone hosting an F/OSS SNMP server, then it is likely those someone's won't be looking to spend money on a solution now. Please. This only increase operating costs for entities that host SNMP servers. And I doubt that any royalties they collect will be more than a blip to a $280B company.
Imagine how far we would be behind the real hackers today if the hackers for fun didn't exploit the weaknesses of yesteryear. We would be stuck with our thumbs up our asses today.
Privacy!? Have you heard of the Patriot Act?
They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy.
I think the real threat is because there are hackers that do it for money. Geez, haven't you been seing the news lately. This excuse is so passe.
Innovation is fine without it. Do you buy games that implement yesterday's RTS or FPS paradigm? I don't, but some might. I usually buy the latest game that pushes the envelope in a genre that I enjoy. Too bad there is no good competition for Civilization as there are some things in its gameplay that stink like the AI sucks. BTW, how would someone patent AI?
In addition, no patents may help fledgling software houses get up and running. They can utilize the revenue generated by selling a generic RTS/FPS to invest in a game that is a not a generic. Or they can develop a business plan that only produces generics. Either way, I see that this activity does not impact negatively on the market and has the potential to grow the market. The key for the big players is to be first to market because that is the big payday. I don't think they really care if others cleanup by scavenging for crumbs.
What evidence leads you to suspect this?
Did you ever play RTS in the beginning like Warcraft or C&C? Those were very fun games, but pretty clunky in terms of today's RTS. Do you think innovation in RTS would have occured as dynamically if only 2 compaines controlled the monopoly on RTS? What about first person shooters? Without the push of small software houses that produce generic games, the FPS might not be further than the implementation of castle wolfenstein. But thank gawd Epic was there to compete and push the FPS.
So, I think the point that monopoly fosters innovation may be a moot point. The big boys that are first to market get the big pay day. So, there is plenty of incentive for innovation without patents.
Should the hacker put the onus on the person trying to recover their system to figure out how to get money to the hacker safely? If the person could not figure out a reasonable way of getting the money to you, then you trash their system. Eventually, a pseudo-anonymous means of exchanging money would be created like finding pennies on the sidewalk. Maybe bit torrent the money to you in pieces.
"3 - It's a chance to share knowledge and demonstrate how to protect your system against hack attempts. Coming in our July issue, we'll publish an article "How to Set Up a Hackproof IIS" featuring Roger Grimes' recap of the contest, and sharing the secrets of how he created an impenetrable IIS environment.
You can't draw conclusions from non-events. Otherwise, my penis is 24 inches long. You have one month to disprove this assertion. If in one month no one disproves my penis is 24 inches, it must be true.
Besides, shouldn't the contest offer up several thousand peoples personal info with SSN and credit card numbers? This might bring the serious hacks out, but conclusions still couldn't be drawn.
I guess that was supposed to be funny.
Is the Wikipedia nothing more than a place for arrogant and narcissistic people to congregate and write about themselves? I thought the Wikipedia is supposed to be an authority on information that matters; Dave Hyatt and his carreer don't matter.
Isn't the information vetted by the community? It is no wonder I don't use the Wikipedia; it is full of itself. I read every now and then how the Wikipedia wants to overtake the Brittanica in entries. Well, Dave Hyatt entries are bloating that claim without any real value being added to the Wikipedia.
If blogs can he had quite easily, than why do people need to resort to inserting themselves in the Wikipedia? Is Dave attempting to boost his Google ranking vs other Dave Hyatts in the world with legitimate links to his blog?
BTW, I don't have anything personal against Dave. I am merely astonished that he has an entry.
It is a shame that people interpret that a license defines not only a minimal committment, but it defines the only committment. Why isn't the relationship instead judged by people's sense of whether Apple is taking advantage of open-source for their own corporate greed? Sure, Apple doesn't have a legal obligation, but maybe we should all believe they have a social obligation. Because when we benefit from the hard work of others, we should return the karma.
C'mon Apple, you can do better. Otherwise, you look just like an MS clone. But even then, MS has the decency to invest in their own browser, instead of poaching on open-source for one. What was the last positive contribution you have made to the community?
Well, yes. Should Apple engineers be expected to maintain the KHTML engine also? Apple's engineers are probably focused on their code base exclusively. The KHTML engineers are the right people to modify their own code base. Does anyone expect Apple engineers to be responsible for maintaining compatibility between Safari and KHTML? Apple makes changes, and they provide the changes files to the KHTML team. The rest is up to the KHTML folks if they want to extract the Apple code they want to use and put it into their code.
Maybe Apple engineers don't have to maintain the codebase per a the lGRPL, but it might be short-sighted on Apple's behalf. I would think one of the attractions of Safari is that it can use Khtml plug-ins. If Apple wants to leverage free software, then they may not want to piss of the Kommunity because then plug-ins start to break. Plug-ins are a value add to Apple software; essentially free developers to modify the usability of Safari/Khtml.
However, I am completely talkin out my ass, so smell my stinky breath. I don't use either Khtml or Safari.
Well, yes. Should Apple engineers be expected to maintain the KHTML engine also? Apple's engineers are probably focused on their code base exclusively. The KHTML engineers are the right people to modify their own code base. Does anyone expect Apple engineers to be responsible for maintaining compatibility between Safari and KHTML? Apple makes changes, and they provide the changes files to the KHTML team. The rest is up to the KHTML folks if they want to extract the Apple code they want to use and put it into their code.
Maybe Apple engineers don't have to maintain the codebase per a the lGRPL, but it might be short-sighted on Apple's behalf. I would think one of the attractions of Safari is that it can use Khtml plug-ins. If Apple wants to leverage free software, then they may not want to piss of the Kommunity because then plug-ins start to break. Plug-ins are a value add to Apple software; essentially free developers to modify the usability of Safari/Khtml.
However, I am completely talkin out my ass, so smell my stinky breath. I don't use either Khtml or Safari.
Speaking about David Hyatt, why does he have a Wikipedia entry? Looking at the entry, he hasn't done anything special that warrants an entry into the Wikipedia. So what if he has worked on some protocols, there are thousands that have come and gone? Do all those people merit an entry into the Wikipedia? Besides, lots of protocols are marketting magic rather than technical prowess. So what if he worked on the original Netscape or works for Apple now. Is he maintaining his resume of the Wikipedia?
I'd be interested in finding the guy that worked on DRM. But I suppose the wikipedia doesn't record villans.
Where is my average guy wikpedia entry? I may not be arrogant or narcissistic enough to put one in, but I guess that is why the average guy is so special; he doesn't think he is special.
Unit tests will show how a method is used. This should be enough documentation on the use of a method. In addition, the unit test will tell you when you have broken your code with a bug fix(a regression).
I supplement the above with class diagrams and most importantly sequence diagrams. The value in a class diagram is kind of obvious. But what comments lack, and to a degree unit tests, is showing the overall sequence that occurs. This should diagram the interaction of events. The digram illustrates when certain methods are called, what methods they call and what returns the caller receives. There are a number of other useful diagrams like the collaboration/deployment, state, activity, and last, but not least, Use Case diagrams. Without the code being associated with a Use Case, it can be argued you are writing code that adds no value to the code; in other words, you are just wasting resources.
And this is why Office is needed in schools? So kids can schedule play time with Outlook. Bullshit. You are a MS lemming too.
You are more than welcome to extrapolate a brainwashing statement out of my comment, but I have not indicated anything insiduous on MS's behalf. This is a nurture argument if you haven't achieved the intellect to go to college and take Psych 101.
Really!? What hardware are you using? Has your hard drive been defragmented? Is this machine comparable to your home machine? How many widgets are loaded up at boot time? Do you have lots of viruses, spyware, etc that are taking up performance? There are so many variables to consider into why one machine performs better than another one, that comparing their experiences is like comparing apples to oranges. Besides, what happens in 1 year when their home machines are obsolete? They have no argument. So, this is retarded. Plus, how many executives do you really know and how many do you know how they think? I don't think too many. If I was spending a half million dollars in license fees as an executive, I better get a blow job from MS:) So, as an executive, I am going to make sure MS knows I have the money to spend and then I am going to contact all their competitors because I want to ink the best deal possible. And you think it is about employees experience with home machines? Please. In addition, saving a half million dollars because the work can be done the same with free software, is a sign of better productivity; we are doing the same amount of work for less money. Investors like this scenario and this can have a positive effect on stock price, as well as free up half a million dollars to be spent somewhere else, like my bonus. So, you can be sure executives do not willy-nilly sign expensive contracts at the behest of grumpy employees. They are going to have a damn good reason. Most of the time, I think the reason is because MS is a perceived as a good business ally. Especially, when MS has the room to wiggle and lower the price to a point you are satisfied and you still get your bonus.
It might be a big percentage (I don't know where you get your numbers as those are the numbers for Windows on desktops not Office on desktops), but it is not a standard. I think of standards coming from an organization like the IEEE, W3C, ECMA, etc. Where is there a group like this that says that Office is the standard for word documents, spreadsheets, databases, etc? There is none. Therefore, I say it is smart to be able to exchange documents with your customers without a headache, but that does not make a standard. If everyone screwed from the top position, would that be a standard? And so if you screwed from the bottom position or the many other alternatives, would you then be screwed because you don't support the standard? Just because something is widely accepted doesn't make it a standard.
I have yet to get a job because I had MS Office on my resume or have I ever had a conversation above. Who believes this crap? But then again, I am not an administrative assistant as I am surely you must be if you had the above conversation.
"Why should teachers be motivated to switch? Because it is a moral obligation for non-profit organizations to use product that are more suitable for the common good and not just profitable for a monopoly." This is the best point yet. Not only are you deciding for your education district, but you are obligating parents to have Office. If you haven't been to the store lately, Office is not cheap. The only time I think I have known anyone to acquire Office is when they purchased a retail PC. So, I imagine there are many people that bought Dells with Office 98. Do you really think they ran out and purchased Office 2003 when it came out? Yeah, right, they are still at the old version. In addition, if MS could not talk those people into upgrading, then why should you be the one to do their dirty work? Mandating Office 2003 definitely requires parents to purchase and support a confirmed monopolist when they could instead download OO and have perfectly usable software. What do you think the responsible choice is?
Let's weigh "free" and bad load time on one hand and pay big bucks with restricted license agreements, jerked around by future office upgrades not being compatible with old versions, tied to the OS, security risk(Macros and ActiveX) on the other hand. I think it is clear to me which way I go. Who cares about load up time? At one time, 1 year ago, performance was dismally slow compared to today's machines. Did you care when you didn't know to care? Probably not. In other words, if you don't know it is slow, is it really slow. I would argue no because you don't know any better.
"There are benefite to using industry standard programs." Really, what are they? If you have a standard, it is because your company standardized. This makes sense, especially when you are investing capital in building applications with Excel, Access and Word docs. But it is by no means an industry standard. Is there an industry group that made this the standard? If so, it is backed by MS. You must be referring to a standard as being the most widely accepted. But this does not make a standard, it just means you are smart to be interoperable with most people.
Know what? Know that your "feeling" of a GUI is driven from the fact that MS has 20 yrs to mold it. Where else would you have developed a compass for what is right and wrong with a GUI? Only from use of MS technology for so long. Essentially, you are saying that the MS-create-a-lemming program was a success. So much so, that you judge other works by MS culture and don't even realize whose glasses you see the world through.
I don't know what dumb ass pays what MS Office costs to get a email reader. Whoopee! Mozilla has an email client too that is free; it is called Thunderbird. I use Outlook all day long at work and Thunderbird for home use, and I have never had an experience with Thunderbird that left me feeling like I wished I could afford Outlook. Not even Outlook Express will touch my windows machine. The only reason I need Windows is to support PC games. Graphic apps! I am suprised the Mac elites haven't attacked you yet. A PC with MS Windows on it is no longer a PC; it is an appliance or consumer electronics. If you want a computer out of your PC, than I think you should take a look at linux.
Here is a quote from the BBC, "The US, the world's largest polluter, withdrew from the treaty in 2001, citing economic concerns."
Economics can be a real reason for inaction.
Why would I have to shoulder more burden of proof than yourself? After all, you are the one that suggests economics may be the reason US-only maps were made.
I have an idea. I will repost your reply to me as a reply to yourself, dumbass.
What in god's name are you talking about? You haven't logically demonstrated anything. All you've said is that economics itself is simple because US-only maps can be explained in economic terms.
Who makes ascertions that they contradict with statements later on? Sounds like a fool to me.
I concede that economics is not a "real" reason. But, if economics is just teminology, then how can that be a reason for why US-only maps were made as you originally asserted? Yes, I'm sure the maps are US-only for awful, vindictive reasons, and not because of simple economics. Here is a revised statement: Yes, I'm sure that food is kept from people for horrible, vindictive reasons, and not because of simple economics. Essentially, to quote you, You haven't logically demonstrated anything. Wow, it looks like you defeated your own assertion that the MODERATORS thought was so clever. Who is the retard now? No wait, you must be a crack monkey. You make an assertion and then contradict it later. Good job, crack monkey. Here's your crack.