Windows 95 makes it (better looking than MacOS? Give me a break...) but not WindowsNT/OS3warp? What the hell kind of crap is that? That kind of ignorant oversight taints the entire list.
I am only insulting you because you are clearly an idiot.
The timeline was sort of interesting. The good merits you bring into the discussion are completely soiled by the grade-school personal insults, and you single-handedly lower the caliber of the entire thread.
f you can't read, which seems rather plausible at this point
By graduating to personal insults, you actually detract from any credibility you might have recovered, since the substance of your argument is now entirely comprised of "I'm right not because of logic or fact, but because my 'opponent' is stupid."
Why would the idea of an original in the software development scene of the 80's being a decent programmer be seriously disputed? When he used to write articles for BYTE, it was pretty clear he had an in-depth knowledge of what he was talking about. I believe Ballmer was the business man.
Do you have any pointers to those articles - I'd really be interested in checking them out.
Just because you don't like Microsoft doesn't mean it wasn't started by programmers.
I've checked various windows types, from wire-mesh safety glass to double-pane coated at various distances. 802.11 goes through them much better than brick walls.
Honestly, this kind of thing will just convince PHBs they don't need wireless/network infrastructure security.
>If you want to take the "you don't know unless you've experienced it" approach, then I challenge you to prove to me, personally, that the Earth is round. Good luck, enjoy your journey.
Actually, I wanted to see something more than a rumor as a claim to credibility, particularly in the case of bg, someone for whom rumors of programming prowess seem at times strained. However, if you want to take the "I think your method might not work regarding one straw man example, so you're wrong about everything forever and ever infinity and so don't ever ask for substance", you can go right on believing the earth is flat.
I believe in linux, it adjusts your system's clock. Your operating system consults your timezone file before reporting/returning the time to you. I think the timezone files contain the DST info.
All this work so kids can trick-or-treat longer.
The funnest part of this whole thing is that in a couple of years, if things don't work out, DST goes back to the old dates.
Wasn't there an experiment demonstrating changing quantum states of 'sister' particles such that the two particles changed quantum states at the same time over a large distance with a propagation delay faster than the speed of light?
You can tell they're unbalanced - just look at how much flash is on their home page. Next they'll declare eyes the portal to porn, and have talks with their kids about removing their eyes...
"how did you feel when you saw it?"
"bad..."
"and if you were blind and looking at it, how do you think you'd feel then?"
"Not so bad, i guess..."
When a microbe develops a new ability, its a result of the process of evolution. While it is more specific to discuss the exact type of change to its genome, its still evolution. Avoiding the word only serve to spread misconceptions.
Software is an amazing thing, really. These routers could just be programmed to, in the presence of default settings, not to route to the outside world and only pop up a web page that tells users that they have to set up a userid and password in order to use the router.
Then all people need is a 3.5 postcard(s) in the box telling them to plug their computer into the router and go to http://192.168.1.1/ and follow the instruction.
I know, its not perfect, but its better - way better - than what's there now, and reasonably easy on the consumer, if done in a sensible way.
Of course, then what will happen then will be malicious web sites will just push down an applet that directly changes the DNS settings in the computer itself, bypassing the need to mess with the routers. No real defense against that one, outside of blocking all scripts. Something few users will likely do.
Who, these hacks? They (and you) are the only ones banging the drum and imploring people to think about the poor suffering children here.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but ad hominems will only soil and taint all the good points and information you bring out. And, I believe you meant to just insult pressesc.com, not claim I accused them to driving site hits with suffering. And yes, sadly, it does look as though they and I are the only ones trying to get people to think of those suffering.
Does this put the charity ahead of where it would be in net terms if Microsoft had elected to market its search product in some different way? Yes, absolutely. They're getting direct cash and broad exposure they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So what's the problem?
The ends don't justify the means.
You've said that no profit should ever be made by using a charity, because of some notion of conflict of interest- that if it's profitable to give to charity, MS will have an interest in creating or perpetuating the conditions that make the charity necessary- but that's put-on-your-tinfoil-hat illogical.
Hacks and tinfoil. Very persuading. And no, I didn't mention a specific conflict of interest, as if MS was directly causing the suffering being addressed by the charity. I said that tying what they give somehow to the success of a search engine wasn't as helpful as just giving period. And it isn't.
If it's profitable to work with charities, MS will continue to do so- and there's an inexhaustible supply of worthy causes to give to- meaning that your theory (that MS will be profit-motivated to cause more children to suffer) is implausible at best. Even if 9Million.org's mission is fulfilled, there will be no want of other worthy charities to partner with.
Not really my theory, just a pointless straw man you've set up to conveniently knock down.
You assume that the profit motive will subvert the intention of working with the charity itself<br><br>
Again something I didn't really say, or assume.
If you have a problem with that, you might consider asking yourself why you're more interested in MS showing no profit than you are in the UNHCR receiving what it otherwise would not- not only money, but visibility with which to raise even more. Perhaps you just think that MS should give all of their profits to the charity. You're welcome to think that, but your argument that they're somehow morally obliged to do so (or else they're exploiting the children!) is weak.
At least I made some arguments - most of what you did was trot out ad hominems and straw men (a straw man is when you isolate part of what I say to create an impression I said something unreasonable I didn't really say, which is easily argued against - like implying I hate all profit or that I think that MS should give all their profits to charity.).
The 'something is better than nothing' argument, while practical, still relegates help to the domain of "fine, I'll help but what's in it for me?". The ends don't actually justify the means. If they really wanted to help, they just would. By tying the additional money to the success of their live search engine, one could just as easily point out that while they could have chosen to give much much more, they capreciously decided not to because they're not happy with the success of some product unrelated to helping those in need. Every penny less than $250,000 could just have easily been characterized as something that could have been given, but was held back for reasons that had nothing to do with any given charity.
Perhaps someone could explain to those in suffering, "yes we could have doubled our help, but our search engine didn't do too well". That's sure to assuage their hunger and pain. They'll understand completely.
The problem with the AUI clasps was that they didn't actually keep the AUI connector attached any better than nothing at all, and usually just interfered with plugging in an AUI connector. I was hoping someone had a ref to the guy's apology.
Ridiculous, on two counts:
1) What MS is cashing in on in this case is their search ad system, not on the suffering of anybody. They can cash in on this product regardless of whether or not they donate part of the proceeds to charity.
Read the article. They are driving site hits with human suffering. The goal is profit. That's the actual problem. And, yes, its worth criticizing.
2) No vested interest in "the perpetuation of human suffering" applies- what MS has a vested interest in is potential customers knowing about their product and considering paying MS for its use.
They are agreeing to help children in suffering only on the condition that people use their live search. They are using the suffering of children as a way to promote their business. That's the vested interest. Unless, of course, you would argue that they have no interest, financial or otherwise, in their live search product.
They could hire people to walk around with sandwich boards on street intersections to get the word out, they could buy newsprint ads, they could do a number of similar things to acccomplish this end. This doesn't mean they have a vested interest in having people carry sandwich boards around, or in the continued readership of newspapers- it means they're buying visibility in whatever way made sense to their marketing wonks. In this case, they gave to a charity. To try to twist that into "profiting from human suffering" not only defies logic, it is bizarre.
Using conventional advertising methods is one thing. Using children suffering is another. By using conventional advertising methods, they would create demand for those methods, and those methods are more in line with with the goal of profiting from livesearch, and make a certain amount of sense in that context. Saying "we'll help kids only if you'll help us" ties helping kids with benefiting them. Its not necessarily wrong on the face of it. But, it worth calling it out for what it is. Exploitation.
I remember hearing about the inventor/designer of those unbelievably annoying ethernet AUI connector slider clasps apologizing on a forum/list. Anyone remember that?
Slashdot Mirror
An unbiased observer might wonder
might...?
Judges must hate being trapped. Maybe its not wise to upset them.
Try waking up now, mr. head injury.
The top ten "short list" can be seen here.
Less annoying, and you can vote there as well.
Windows 95 makes it (better looking than MacOS? Give me a break...) but not WindowsNT/OS3warp? What the hell kind of crap is that? That kind of ignorant oversight taints the entire list.
How do I get the highly annoying "slashdotit"/slashrating i-wanna-be-just-like-digg box to NOT appear on the front page? Is everyone cursed.
Offtopic, I know. Mod me if you can't answer me.
I am only insulting you because you are clearly an idiot.
The timeline was sort of interesting. The good merits you bring into the discussion are completely soiled by the grade-school personal insults, and you single-handedly lower the caliber of the entire thread.
f you can't read, which seems rather plausible at this point
By graduating to personal insults, you actually detract from any credibility you might have recovered, since the substance of your argument is now entirely comprised of "I'm right not because of logic or fact, but because my 'opponent' is stupid."
Why would the idea of an original in the software development scene of the 80's being a decent programmer be seriously disputed? When he used to write articles for BYTE, it was pretty clear he had an in-depth knowledge of what he was talking about. I believe Ballmer was the business man.
Do you have any pointers to those articles - I'd really be interested in checking them out.
Just because you don't like Microsoft doesn't mean it wasn't started by programmers.
That's a fairly obvious straw man.
I've checked various windows types, from wire-mesh safety glass to double-pane coated at various distances. 802.11 goes through them much better than brick walls.
Honestly, this kind of thing will just convince PHBs they don't need wireless/network infrastructure security.
>If you want to take the "you don't know unless you've experienced it" approach, then I challenge you to prove to me, personally, that the Earth is round. Good luck, enjoy your journey. Actually, I wanted to see something more than a rumor as a claim to credibility, particularly in the case of bg, someone for whom rumors of programming prowess seem at times strained. However, if you want to take the "I think your method might not work regarding one straw man example, so you're wrong about everything forever and ever infinity and so don't ever ask for substance", you can go right on believing the earth is flat.
Bill Gates used to write compilers.
Which ones?
I'm sure he's an above average coder
From which projects you've worked closely with him on?
Umm... I'm a fool with some money - what do I owe you?
I believe in linux, it adjusts your system's clock. Your operating system consults your timezone file before reporting/returning the time to you. I think the timezone files contain the DST info.
All this work so kids can trick-or-treat longer.
The funnest part of this whole thing is that in a couple of years, if things don't work out, DST goes back to the old dates.
Wasn't there an experiment demonstrating changing quantum states of 'sister' particles such that the two particles changed quantum states at the same time over a large distance with a propagation delay faster than the speed of light?
You can tell they're unbalanced - just look at how much flash is on their home page. Next they'll declare eyes the portal to porn, and have talks with their kids about removing their eyes...
"how did you feel when you saw it?"
"bad..."
"and if you were blind and looking at it, how do you think you'd feel then?"
"Not so bad, i guess..."
When a microbe develops a new ability, its a result of the process of evolution. While it is more specific to discuss the exact type of change to its genome, its still evolution. Avoiding the word only serve to spread misconceptions.
Fire the giant space laser!
Software is an amazing thing, really. These routers could just be programmed to, in the presence of default settings, not to route to the outside world and only pop up a web page that tells users that they have to set up a userid and password in order to use the router.
Then all people need is a 3.5 postcard(s) in the box telling them to plug their computer into the router and go to http://192.168.1.1/ and follow the instruction.
I know, its not perfect, but its better - way better - than what's there now, and reasonably easy on the consumer, if done in a sensible way.
Of course, then what will happen then will be malicious web sites will just push down an applet that directly changes the DNS settings in the computer itself, bypassing the need to mess with the routers. No real defense against that one, outside of blocking all scripts. Something few users will likely do.
The 'something is better than nothing' argument, while practical, still relegates help to the domain of "fine, I'll help but what's in it for me?". The ends don't actually justify the means. If they really wanted to help, they just would. By tying the additional money to the success of their live search engine, one could just as easily point out that while they could have chosen to give much much more, they capreciously decided not to because they're not happy with the success of some product unrelated to helping those in need. Every penny less than $250,000 could just have easily been characterized as something that could have been given, but was held back for reasons that had nothing to do with any given charity.
Perhaps someone could explain to those in suffering, "yes we could have doubled our help, but our search engine didn't do too well". That's sure to assuage their hunger and pain. They'll understand completely.
but in this case, I can't see they've done anything *wrong*
Haven't done anything illegal
wrong and illegal are often two different things.
For the google/internet challenged among us, here's a non-wikipedia link.
Warning to AC parent: no flashy games, videos, or porn ads. Just good information. AC's may want to avoid it, as it contains intellectual content.
The problem with the AUI clasps was that they didn't actually keep the AUI connector attached any better than nothing at all, and usually just interfered with plugging in an AUI connector. I was hoping someone had a ref to the guy's apology.
Ridiculous, on two counts: 1) What MS is cashing in on in this case is their search ad system, not on the suffering of anybody. They can cash in on this product regardless of whether or not they donate part of the proceeds to charity.
Read the article. They are driving site hits with human suffering. The goal is profit. That's the actual problem. And, yes, its worth criticizing.
2) No vested interest in "the perpetuation of human suffering" applies- what MS has a vested interest in is potential customers knowing about their product and considering paying MS for its use.
They are agreeing to help children in suffering only on the condition that people use their live search. They are using the suffering of children as a way to promote their business. That's the vested interest. Unless, of course, you would argue that they have no interest, financial or otherwise, in their live search product.
They could hire people to walk around with sandwich boards on street intersections to get the word out, they could buy newsprint ads, they could do a number of similar things to acccomplish this end. This doesn't mean they have a vested interest in having people carry sandwich boards around, or in the continued readership of newspapers- it means they're buying visibility in whatever way made sense to their marketing wonks. In this case, they gave to a charity. To try to twist that into "profiting from human suffering" not only defies logic, it is bizarre.
Using conventional advertising methods is one thing. Using children suffering is another. By using conventional advertising methods, they would create demand for those methods, and those methods are more in line with with the goal of profiting from livesearch, and make a certain amount of sense in that context. Saying "we'll help kids only if you'll help us" ties helping kids with benefiting them. Its not necessarily wrong on the face of it. But, it worth calling it out for what it is. Exploitation.
I remember hearing about the inventor/designer of those unbelievably annoying ethernet AUI connector slider clasps apologizing on a forum/list. Anyone remember that?