> I'd personally love to see the Apache Project coordinate and release a mail server.
They have. It's called James, it's written in Java, and no doubt it works well with Tomcat. SpamAssassin is also an Apache project -- no idea whether it works with James or not. Apache is a family of OSS products that includes apache httpd, not one single group of developers.
Spam is a systemic network usage policy and security problem, and not something one single product can overcome. Apache is ill-suited to combat spam by itself, but they were largely behind MARID at the IETF (either in membership or moral support, I'm not sure which).
McDonalds is hardly giving SCO moral support. They were a customer before, it would cost them scads of cash to migrate, and they can probably bend SCO over a barrel to get whatever they want. I mean, they're not exactly going to bleed SCO for cash, but I don't think McD's is as big a cash cow for SCO as they'd like it to be.
That said, I'll continue getting burritos at Chipotle (owned by McDonalds). I haven't been able to stomach the godawful crap served up at the golden arches for more than 10 years now.
> Those who don't think we even NEED a military, much less respect those that serve
Of course I think we need a military. We're losing the one we have thanks to the lies told to prop the megalomaniacal ambitions of these people. This is not a bunch of idle crackpots -- these are people from past administrations and the present. These people, not Saudi and Egyptian terrorists, are the reason you and your friends are dying over there.
The "selective" in "selective service" refers to the government's ability to select people for conscripted service. By having a broader pool to choose from, they can select particular age groups, and canvas demographics for professionals. It has nothing to do with anyone's choice of whether to serve.
> They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.
The fake diploma thing is downright dishonest, but I've had employers tell me before a drug test "just drink a whole lot of gatorade a few days before and take a b12 tablet the day of the test". It's not like the kid was a crackhead, and these folks figured, probably rightly, that the army might clean him up.
Before shipping him off to get him killed for the commander-in-chief's personal vendetta of course.
By the way, it'd lead to less stories. They'll be able to screen out those pesky journalists. Word to the wise student: take journalism.
It's still stylistically incorrect even with the comma. Think of the "and" as binding more tightly with the phrase that immediately preceded it. It becomes really obvious if you pronounce it out loud. Some copy editor should have his knuckles slapped with a ruler.
Seriously, I have it on my Nokia (which has the good sense to not clutter its keypad with a single-application button). It's okay, but hey, it's still just a web browser on a tiny screen. And most phones still surf through a WAP gateway like T-Zones... which is just plain S...L...O...W. I pay $5 a month for this service that I never ever use because websurfing on a phone is so cumbersome.
Well, perhaps you are only interested in a "browser that doesn't suck", but other people (i.e. me) may be interested in how well a browser supports web standards, whether it is open source, and how many platforms it runs on. This is on top of "does it suck?
No, this is about not sucking. The standards are out there, and do not require comparisons to other browsers. I know browsers are important software, but they still don't justify continuing this idiotic "browser war" nonsense. I'm sick of war, I'm sick of war metaphors, and "silly" was the kindest euphimism I could use to describe the negative reaction I'm having to all the god damned posturing.
I use a web browser that doesn't suck, and it happens to be Firefox, but I will not join your damn crusades.
> If the devs didn't want people to get there, why the heck did they leave it as a solid surface?
Or for that matter, why'd they leave avatars as solid surfaces? Try jumping onto a friend's shoulders at a full run. Chances are you're going to knock them down.
Hey Sun Tzu, I'd just like a browser that doesn't suck. If Mozilla chases Microsoft into making a browser that doesn't suck, I'll be fine with it. I'd really like, however, to be spared the posturing, politics, and ideology that comes with a war mentality. Especially for something as silly as a damn web browser.
Governance has to be conducted with the assent of the people, not under fear of imprisonment by an authority claiming to represent the people. We keep electing mental midgets who blather and wag their jowls in moral furor, passing law after law that must be struck down time and again by the judiciary, but we got the government we deserve. Unfortunately, I also got the government we deserve, as did all the kids in Iraq.
I personally have wished for worse penalties for contempt of the constitution and the people than simply losing an election and moving on to some cushy thinktank or board job. But on further reflection, I think that punishment for exercising the power freely given to them is still best reserved for the worst cases like outright malfeasance. Yes, I believe there are a few in power now that deserve such a penalty, but it's a small number. The alternative is the possibility of the judiciary wielding its power capriciously in the name of its own ideology, against the elected government. See Iran for an example of that.
> Senators don't have free thought. They are paid by corporations to think/act like the corporations tell them to.
I would say most of them are simply just highly attached to their own prejudices, many of which are ignorant, superstitious, and bigoted, while the rest are idealistic without the benefit of either pragmatism or human empathy. And without exception, they hunger for more power. Most corporations prey on these attributes first before falling back to naked avarice.
> No, sir. They are illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva convention you're always whining about.
Search the convention. You'll find it nowhere.
I would just write you off as a troll, but dumbfuck trolls like you are responsible for murdering thousands and enraging the rest of the world, who will no doubt cheer all the louder when the next plane hits.
Might be a joke, but you wouldn't be the first to compare IBM and Microsoft. They're just way too different even for serious comparisons, except perhaps to point out the important differences. I should have picked up on it when you mentioned how IBM focused on its hardware:P
> Exactly. When IBM's consumer software market dried up, they simply moved more focus onto their hardware.
And now they've moved into services, and create basically nothing tangible. Well, at least for a majority of their revenue. "What's left" on the hardware side is still pretty massive, this being IBM and all, but it's not their bread and butter.
Anyway, IBM never had the penetration of the consumer market that MS has and is spending billions attempting to expand (xbox anyone?), so I don't think you can draw too many parallels. They're simply different companies with different markets. I can tell you that MS is not likely to become a logitech reseller anytime soon.
> They are illegal combatants. Do you understand what this means?
Yes, anyone the president says is. The whole notion of "illegal combatant" has zero basis in law.
> These people are the lowest of all scum, and Gitmo is much better than they deserve.
Because they're all guilty, right? Who says so? Here's a clue for ya: camp x-ray is considered a HOLDING facility. Not a prison. See if a thought begins to percolate in your brain regarding that fact.
But hey, I guess all the other jihadists are going to say "oh dear, we better not try anything, they're holding a couple hundred folks in that awful place". So we're all safe. Go ahead and take your fucking blue pill now.
What AOL ought to do is start distributing the latest version of Mozilla and Open Office on all the CDs, right alongside of their own ISP software. Then people would actually keep the CDs around instead of pitching them.
Yes, not only would they keep the CD's, they would call AOL for tech support on every OpenOffice question or issue they have. As for the PR coup, it might score with geeks, but guess who their market is not?
Have to disagree with you about the AC bit. I have most AC's filtered out. Since creating an account is so easy, I'd have to have all new users filtered out as well. At least trolls get it out of their system by posting AC.
Slashdot is still fairly readable at +3 and up -- for the articles I can actually muster any care about these days. For the most part, it's largely just idle chatter, but even that remains more or less civil at +3.
I'd like universal moderation with trust metrics myself, but advogato showed that that doesn't necessarily scale either. I don't think there are any general solutions to the tragedy of the commons. Part of the tragedy, I guess.
Google sells google appliances, but yes, the bulk of their revenue comes in the form of banner ads.
Yahoo has a decent number of subscription and premium offerings such as Yahoo Stores. Still, I'd say most of their revenue still comes in the form of banner ads. It's not really so much of a bubble -- advertisers aren't going away, and if there's two places that companies want to want to keep advertising on, it's yahoo and google.
I often wonder how slashdot survives... good sales channel for thinkgeek perhaps? Hard to tell from VA's 10Q filings, but it seems to make some decent revenue on the cheap if the "online media" portion refers to slashdot and newsforge.
> Most software isn't spouted off as the best thing since sliced bread when it's at this stage
Who's the one who spouted off? This was a paper on the MS research website, not an ad on prime-time TV. It's loudmouths like the ones ACTUALLY doing the spouting that will cause MS to just replace that page with a static placeholder and reveal NOTHING to the outside. It's already gutted, it really won't take much more to turn it into a complete facade. Thanks a lot.
> "Either they just heard 'tit-for-tat' and just made this up, or they for some odd reason dredged up BitTorrent 1.0 and read the source of that."
Considering that the only up-to-date documentation of the protocol IS the source, one is not surprised. The only paper of Bram's that really details the protocol refers to version 1.0.
Still, you'd imagine Microsoft would have a fellow or two who can read C or python (is the reference implementation still in python?) Contamination might be an issue, but you'd also imagine they could just cleanroom another implementation of their own prototype if they were serious about productizing it.
Nope... see this is why corporations HAVE corporate communications departments, to keep people from jumping the gun with embarrassing announcements like this. Though, did MS announce it, or did some random doofus just dig it up from MS research and start screaming like a nutter about it?
Slashdot Mirror
> I'd personally love to see the Apache Project coordinate and release a mail server.
They have. It's called James, it's written in Java, and no doubt it works well with Tomcat. SpamAssassin is also an Apache project -- no idea whether it works with James or not. Apache is a family of OSS products that includes apache httpd, not one single group of developers.
Spam is a systemic network usage policy and security problem, and not something one single product can overcome. Apache is ill-suited to combat spam by itself, but they were largely behind MARID at the IETF (either in membership or moral support, I'm not sure which).
McDonalds is hardly giving SCO moral support. They were a customer before, it would cost them scads of cash to migrate, and they can probably bend SCO over a barrel to get whatever they want. I mean, they're not exactly going to bleed SCO for cash, but I don't think McD's is as big a cash cow for SCO as they'd like it to be.
That said, I'll continue getting burritos at Chipotle (owned by McDonalds). I haven't been able to stomach the godawful crap served up at the golden arches for more than 10 years now.
> Those who don't think we even NEED a military, much less respect those that serve
Of course I think we need a military. We're losing the one we have thanks to the lies told to prop the megalomaniacal ambitions of these people. This is not a bunch of idle crackpots -- these are people from past administrations and the present. These people, not Saudi and Egyptian terrorists, are the reason you and your friends are dying over there.
> As if clicking "Start" makes any more sense when you need to shut your computer down.
...
This is still the best dig you have?
1995 called
> it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.
Protected how? They're almost all in Iraq. Is every war based on lies fought to protect our freedoms? Do you really believe that?
The "selective" in "selective service" refers to the government's ability to select people for conscripted service. By having a broader pool to choose from, they can select particular age groups, and canvas demographics for professionals. It has nothing to do with anyone's choice of whether to serve.
> They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.
The fake diploma thing is downright dishonest, but I've had employers tell me before a drug test "just drink a whole lot of gatorade a few days before and take a b12 tablet the day of the test". It's not like the kid was a crackhead, and these folks figured, probably rightly, that the army might clean him up.
Before shipping him off to get him killed for the commander-in-chief's personal vendetta of course.
By the way, it'd lead to less stories. They'll be able to screen out those pesky journalists. Word to the wise student: take journalism.
It's still stylistically incorrect even with the comma. Think of the "and" as binding more tightly with the phrase that immediately preceded it. It becomes really obvious if you pronounce it out loud. Some copy editor should have his knuckles slapped with a ruler.
> Alot of a phones now even have a "O" button
;)
... which is just plain S...L...O...W. I pay $5 a month for this service that I never ever use because websurfing on a phone is so cumbersome.
Sorry to break it to ya, but that's a zero
Seriously, I have it on my Nokia (which has the good sense to not clutter its keypad with a single-application button). It's okay, but hey, it's still just a web browser on a tiny screen. And most phones still surf through a WAP gateway like T-Zones
Well, perhaps you are only interested in a "browser that doesn't suck", but other people (i.e. me) may be interested in how well a browser supports web standards, whether it is open source, and how many platforms it runs on. This is on top of "does it suck?
No, this is about not sucking. The standards are out there, and do not require comparisons to other browsers. I know browsers are important software, but they still don't justify continuing this idiotic "browser war" nonsense. I'm sick of war, I'm sick of war metaphors, and "silly" was the kindest euphimism I could use to describe the negative reaction I'm having to all the god damned posturing.
I use a web browser that doesn't suck, and it happens to be Firefox, but I will not join your damn crusades.
> If the devs didn't want people to get there, why the heck did they leave it as a solid surface?
Or for that matter, why'd they leave avatars as solid surfaces? Try jumping onto a friend's shoulders at a full run. Chances are you're going to knock them down.
Hey Sun Tzu, I'd just like a browser that doesn't suck. If Mozilla chases Microsoft into making a browser that doesn't suck, I'll be fine with it. I'd really like, however, to be spared the posturing, politics, and ideology that comes with a war mentality. Especially for something as silly as a damn web browser.
The word "GNU" doesn't appear anywhere in the linked article. So why'd you have to go and change even the damned acronym? Criminy.
Governance has to be conducted with the assent of the people, not under fear of imprisonment by an authority claiming to represent the people. We keep electing mental midgets who blather and wag their jowls in moral furor, passing law after law that must be struck down time and again by the judiciary, but we got the government we deserve. Unfortunately, I also got the government we deserve, as did all the kids in Iraq.
I personally have wished for worse penalties for contempt of the constitution and the people than simply losing an election and moving on to some cushy thinktank or board job. But on further reflection, I think that punishment for exercising the power freely given to them is still best reserved for the worst cases like outright malfeasance. Yes, I believe there are a few in power now that deserve such a penalty, but it's a small number. The alternative is the possibility of the judiciary wielding its power capriciously in the name of its own ideology, against the elected government. See Iran for an example of that.
> Senators don't have free thought. They are paid by corporations to think/act like the corporations tell them to.
I would say most of them are simply just highly attached to their own prejudices, many of which are ignorant, superstitious, and bigoted, while the rest are idealistic without the benefit of either pragmatism or human empathy. And without exception, they hunger for more power. Most corporations prey on these attributes first before falling back to naked avarice.
> No, sir. They are illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva convention you're always whining about.
Search the convention. You'll find it nowhere.
I would just write you off as a troll, but dumbfuck trolls like you are responsible for murdering thousands and enraging the rest of the world, who will no doubt cheer all the louder when the next plane hits.
Might be a joke, but you wouldn't be the first to compare IBM and Microsoft. They're just way too different even for serious comparisons, except perhaps to point out the important differences. I should have picked up on it when you mentioned how IBM focused on its hardware :P
> Exactly. When IBM's consumer software market dried up, they simply moved more focus onto their hardware.
And now they've moved into services, and create basically nothing tangible. Well, at least for a majority of their revenue. "What's left" on the hardware side is still pretty massive, this being IBM and all, but it's not their bread and butter.
Anyway, IBM never had the penetration of the consumer market that MS has and is spending billions attempting to expand (xbox anyone?), so I don't think you can draw too many parallels. They're simply different companies with different markets. I can tell you that MS is not likely to become a logitech reseller anytime soon.
And that makes napalming villages ALL WELL AND FUCKING GOOD, DOES IT NOT?
Jesus. You people are morons.
> They are illegal combatants. Do you understand what this means?
Yes, anyone the president says is. The whole notion of "illegal combatant" has zero basis in law.
> These people are the lowest of all scum, and Gitmo is much better than they deserve.
Because they're all guilty, right? Who says so? Here's a clue for ya: camp x-ray is considered a HOLDING facility. Not a prison. See if a thought begins to percolate in your brain regarding that fact.
But hey, I guess all the other jihadists are going to say "oh dear, we better not try anything, they're holding a couple hundred folks in that awful place". So we're all safe. Go ahead and take your fucking blue pill now.
What AOL ought to do is start distributing the latest version of Mozilla and Open Office on all the CDs, right alongside of their own ISP software. Then people would actually keep the CDs around instead of pitching them.
Yes, not only would they keep the CD's, they would call AOL for tech support on every OpenOffice question or issue they have. As for the PR coup, it might score with geeks, but guess who their market is not?
Have to disagree with you about the AC bit. I have most AC's filtered out. Since creating an account is so easy, I'd have to have all new users filtered out as well. At least trolls get it out of their system by posting AC.
Slashdot is still fairly readable at +3 and up -- for the articles I can actually muster any care about these days. For the most part, it's largely just idle chatter, but even that remains more or less civil at +3.
I'd like universal moderation with trust metrics myself, but advogato showed that that doesn't necessarily scale either. I don't think there are any general solutions to the tragedy of the commons. Part of the tragedy, I guess.
Google sells google appliances, but yes, the bulk of their revenue comes in the form of banner ads.
... good sales channel for thinkgeek perhaps? Hard to tell from VA's 10Q filings, but it seems to make some decent revenue on the cheap if the "online media" portion refers to slashdot and newsforge.
Yahoo has a decent number of subscription and premium offerings such as Yahoo Stores. Still, I'd say most of their revenue still comes in the form of banner ads. It's not really so much of a bubble -- advertisers aren't going away, and if there's two places that companies want to want to keep advertising on, it's yahoo and google.
I often wonder how slashdot survives
> Most software isn't spouted off as the best thing since sliced bread when it's at this stage
Who's the one who spouted off? This was a paper on the MS research website, not an ad on prime-time TV. It's loudmouths like the ones ACTUALLY doing the spouting that will cause MS to just replace that page with a static placeholder and reveal NOTHING to the outside. It's already gutted, it really won't take much more to turn it into a complete facade. Thanks a lot.
> "Either they just heard 'tit-for-tat' and just made this up, or they for some odd reason dredged up BitTorrent 1.0 and read the source of that."
... see this is why corporations HAVE corporate communications departments, to keep people from jumping the gun with embarrassing announcements like this. Though, did MS announce it, or did some random doofus just dig it up from MS research and start screaming like a nutter about it?
Considering that the only up-to-date documentation of the protocol IS the source, one is not surprised. The only paper of Bram's that really details the protocol refers to version 1.0.
Still, you'd imagine Microsoft would have a fellow or two who can read C or python (is the reference implementation still in python?) Contamination might be an issue, but you'd also imagine they could just cleanroom another implementation of their own prototype if they were serious about productizing it.
Nope