You know, if you just want people doing pointless busy work we can start paying unemployed people to dig holes and then fill them back in... It'd be boring, mundane and pointless, but it's a job, right!?!
Sorry, I had no choice. I have no say in the make, model, much less components or software packages of the PC I receive for work. If you have never worked for a 5000+ employee company or institution you wouldn't know that this is fairly standard. I have worked for several and this was always my experience.
What is it about working at a big, inefficient corporation makes people be so condescending about it? "Haha! My company's so big we just spend money like idiots!"
In any case, that doesn't change my point. Your company didn't have to pay the "MS tax". They could have asked for empty PCs or bought them with Linux pre-installed in the first place. It's their own fault for not doing so.
Note that the option of putting Linux on the machine afterwards is approved by administration. They even make it very easy and give you a disk image. They still pay for the two Microsoft license that you are not going to use anyway.
Has anybody tried explaining to the "administration" exactly what's happening? I'm skeptical that any tight ass business people would knowingly pay (twice) for something thats not being used if they don't have to. Either they're just flat out stupid, or somebody's keeping them in the dark.
This is in fact evidence that the market is still completely overwhelmed by Microsoft, since this sort of option is not yet a bargaining point. In fact now PCs for companies should come with no software installed whatsoever, but this is by and large not the case at all.
No, it's evidence you work with a bunch of idiots. I'm pretty sure even Dell will sell you PCs without software if you ask them.
I guess it is a nice break from the monotony of "OMG Copyright is Evil" and "LOL! Windows has Viruses" articles, but there *are* entire sites dedicated to talking about this crap.
They could at least try to look at the technical side of it. I have no idea what "Slumdog Millionaire" is, but maybe it has neat CGI or something that they could have focused on?
Yes, everyone going bankrupt and the banks all going bust would be incredible for the economy.
Funny you should say that, because it was the government buying and "securing" sub-prime loans that caused the current "crisis" we're in. By buying up and "securing" sub-prime loans, they created a demand for them. It was the government's bright idea to encourage banks to give mortgages to "low income borrowers".
The banks knew all along those loans would never be paid back. That's why they never made them before. But, if the government (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was securing the loans, it no longer mattered whether the borrowers would pay, because the government would cover for them.
Seriously though, how do people still think like this?
What amazes me is that people can sit back and watch the government screw them over, yet remain ignorant enough to suggest more government as the answer to their problems.
Just about the only people without Flash are the people running obscure platforms who *know* they're missing stuff like Flash; people browsing on crap cell phones, who also know they're missing out; and a third group of want-to-be-self-righteous people missing out on purpose so they can troll.
The silly "What about grandmas running Windows 3.1 who don't know how to install plug-ins?" arguments are pointless because people like that are going to have bigger problems than Flash anyway. Hell, if you're still running Windows 98, I wouldn't be surprised if the malware on your machine will install Flash for you.
So, what you're trying to say is, "My argument is shit, you must be an moron."
You still haven't given a reason why you think foreign countries are relevant to the discussion. Or any other valid argument to support what you're saying, for that matter.
That would never work. You might as well suggest "fairy dust" for the solution. The instant a single online retailer realizes they can sell to NY competition free, the whole pact would break down.
It seems to me that NY has just as much right right to tax downloads as they do to tax anything else (i.e. none), so why the whining about this specific case? Where's the whining against income tax and regular sales taxes? Seems people are missing the big picture.
The opening of China's market and industrialization is the first step, but as has been demonstrated before, the social structures that promote worker rights won't change quickly without war.
A war might accelerate economic and social change, but I hardly think it's worth going to war just for that. Given that they've already made a lot of progress, and that they continue to get better, I think it's best to just wait it out at this point.
How do you figure the massive destruction of war "helped" them do anything? Seems to me they had to waste a lot of resources just to get back to where they started in the first place.
China should, theoretically, be able to pull themselves up even faster than Korea or Japan, if they wanted to, because they're not starting from scratch.
If so, then she's an idiot for not shopping around.
No, I think she's an idiot for buying something she didn't want. She knew when she bought the computer that she'd have to pay extra to get XP. She decided to go ahead and do that. It's nobody's fault but her own.
When did it become cool to make yourself out to be a victim all the time? WTF happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?
Actually, it's called "being on topic". The availability of PCs running XP in foreign countries is completely irrelevant because the idiot in the article clearly lives in the United States. From the first line of the fucking summary: "Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch."
It should be my RIGHT to choose - ie. not to pay for Vista if I'm not going to use it.
It IS your right to choose. And when Lenovo tells you that they're selling a machine with Vista on it, and you choose to buy it, you're making your decision. I know it may sound crazy, but if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shouldn't buy a PC with Vista.
I'd be a bit more sympathetic if they didn't tell her it came with Vista, but that doesn't seem very likely. All of the machines on lenovo.com make it very clear which operating system they have installed. And when you buy a machine in a store, there's almost always a sticker on the box listing the OS, amount of memory, hard drive storage, etc.. She knew what they were selling, and she chose to buy it.
That's just silly. When a giant corporation like Apple makes a decision, the underlying motive is profit. Always. Hell, even when they do stuff like donate money to charity, they do it because they expect the good will they'll get from doing it to be worth more than they're donating. That's just how big companies operate.
I don't know why they're doing this, but I'm 100% certain they're doing it because they think it'll help them make more money.
Yeah, but most people are stuck coding for the brain dead broken implementation anyway. The only difference is that now instead of just coding to the brain dead stupid implementation, everybody has to do twice as much work, first getting their pages to work in "standard" browsers, and then in IE. Except for getting to charge twice as many hours, where's the benefit?
It's kind of hard to take the whining about Microsoft's standards compliance seriously when it seems most of the problems people are having are self imposed. Did anybody really expect Microsoft to play along with standardization? Anybody with a half a brain should have seen all of this coming.
Just for the sake of argument, maybe the real complaint should be that the W3C did a poor job "standardizing" on the rest of IE5? I don't like Microsoft, but considering it had the largest user base and its developers are least interested in listening to the W3C, it sure would have made things easier.
No, I'm telling you that other people should be free to ignore you. You've been saying the government should make it illegal for people to do that.
Of course it does, its called fredom of speech.
No, saying "I think that's wrong" is freedom of speech. But what you've been arguing for is using the government to force people to do what you say, which is very different.
Either you are an idiot, a troll, a teenager or all 3 - and I'm going to ignore you now.
Oh no! Don't ignore me! If you do that there won't be anybody to purposely misunderstand what I say and make ad hominem attacks against me!
If I drive a cab, do I get to tell you were we go?
I think that's a poor comparison. The purpose of a cab is to take somebody where they want to go. I think a better comparison would be a bus. A bus has a set route, and if it doesn't go where you want, you don't take that bus. Google has a set of products they make, and if those products don't do what you want, you don't tell them to make something else - you just don't use the products. There are plenty of companies that will develop any software you want (like a cab will take you wherever), but Google isn't one of those companies.
Exactly, they are doing it for money, and pissing on people doesn't generated that.
Bla bla. They are doing this for money, not to waste time. And users are money, if I (or someone) can organize enough people to protest they will have to change.
And how does any of that make it so that you get to tell them what to do? If you don't like what they're doing, don't interact with them - in other words, don't use their products. That's really the only part of the deal you get to control. "I don't like what you're doing, so I get to tell you what to do," just isn't the way it works. Hate to break it to you, but you're not boss of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, if you just want people doing pointless busy work we can start paying unemployed people to dig holes and then fill them back in... It'd be boring, mundane and pointless, but it's a job, right!?!
What is it about working at a big, inefficient corporation makes people be so condescending about it? "Haha! My company's so big we just spend money like idiots!"
In any case, that doesn't change my point. Your company didn't have to pay the "MS tax". They could have asked for empty PCs or bought them with Linux pre-installed in the first place. It's their own fault for not doing so.
Has anybody tried explaining to the "administration" exactly what's happening? I'm skeptical that any tight ass business people would knowingly pay (twice) for something thats not being used if they don't have to. Either they're just flat out stupid, or somebody's keeping them in the dark.
No, it's evidence you work with a bunch of idiots. I'm pretty sure even Dell will sell you PCs without software if you ask them.
Oh? And where do you think the government gets the money for this shit if not from taxes?
I'm sorry, I didn't know I needed permission on how I spent my money.
If you really want to know, I'd rather the money went to paying my rent. That would be a better use of the money.
I guess it is a nice break from the monotony of "OMG Copyright is Evil" and "LOL! Windows has Viruses" articles, but there *are* entire sites dedicated to talking about this crap.
They could at least try to look at the technical side of it. I have no idea what "Slumdog Millionaire" is, but maybe it has neat CGI or something that they could have focused on?
Funny you should say that, because it was the government buying and "securing" sub-prime loans that caused the current "crisis" we're in. By buying up and "securing" sub-prime loans, they created a demand for them. It was the government's bright idea to encourage banks to give mortgages to "low income borrowers".
The banks knew all along those loans would never be paid back. That's why they never made them before. But, if the government (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was securing the loans, it no longer mattered whether the borrowers would pay, because the government would cover for them.
What amazes me is that people can sit back and watch the government screw them over, yet remain ignorant enough to suggest more government as the answer to their problems.
Yeah, but I can think of a lot of better things to spend money on, too.
I'm tempted to say "Who cares?" at this point.
Just about the only people without Flash are the people running obscure platforms who *know* they're missing stuff like Flash; people browsing on crap cell phones, who also know they're missing out; and a third group of want-to-be-self-righteous people missing out on purpose so they can troll.
The silly "What about grandmas running Windows 3.1 who don't know how to install plug-ins?" arguments are pointless because people like that are going to have bigger problems than Flash anyway. Hell, if you're still running Windows 98, I wouldn't be surprised if the malware on your machine will install Flash for you.
There are plenty of PC manufacturers who would be happy to sell you a PC without Windows and without the "MS tax".
You chose to pay the MS tax when you chose not to buy from one of those manufacturers.
Your poor decision making doesn't mean MS has a monopoly.
Actually, Radiohead didn't do so well with their internet release. They actually stopped doing it and now only sell it on iTunes and CD.
If a huge band like Radiohead couldn't make it work with tons of media coverage and massive internet buzz, most smaller bands don't stand a chance.
So, what you're trying to say is, "My argument is shit, you must be an moron."
You still haven't given a reason why you think foreign countries are relevant to the discussion. Or any other valid argument to support what you're saying, for that matter.
That would never work. You might as well suggest "fairy dust" for the solution. The instant a single online retailer realizes they can sell to NY competition free, the whole pact would break down.
It seems to me that NY has just as much right right to tax downloads as they do to tax anything else (i.e. none), so why the whining about this specific case? Where's the whining against income tax and regular sales taxes? Seems people are missing the big picture.
A war might accelerate economic and social change, but I hardly think it's worth going to war just for that. Given that they've already made a lot of progress, and that they continue to get better, I think it's best to just wait it out at this point.
How do you figure the massive destruction of war "helped" them do anything? Seems to me they had to waste a lot of resources just to get back to where they started in the first place.
China should, theoretically, be able to pull themselves up even faster than Korea or Japan, if they wanted to, because they're not starting from scratch.
I agree. We need more people bringing up irrelevant information and then throwing tantrums and using ad hominem attacks when they're called on it.
No, I think she's an idiot for buying something she didn't want. She knew when she bought the computer that she'd have to pay extra to get XP. She decided to go ahead and do that. It's nobody's fault but her own.
When did it become cool to make yourself out to be a victim all the time? WTF happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?
Actually, it's called "being on topic". The availability of PCs running XP in foreign countries is completely irrelevant because the idiot in the article clearly lives in the United States. From the first line of the fucking summary: "Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch."
Wow, guess that means that in someplaces, if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shop on the internet.
It IS your right to choose. And when Lenovo tells you that they're selling a machine with Vista on it, and you choose to buy it, you're making your decision. I know it may sound crazy, but if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shouldn't buy a PC with Vista.
I'd be a bit more sympathetic if they didn't tell her it came with Vista, but that doesn't seem very likely. All of the machines on lenovo.com make it very clear which operating system they have installed. And when you buy a machine in a store, there's almost always a sticker on the box listing the OS, amount of memory, hard drive storage, etc.. She knew what they were selling, and she chose to buy it.
That's just silly. When a giant corporation like Apple makes a decision, the underlying motive is profit. Always. Hell, even when they do stuff like donate money to charity, they do it because they expect the good will they'll get from doing it to be worth more than they're donating. That's just how big companies operate.
I don't know why they're doing this, but I'm 100% certain they're doing it because they think it'll help them make more money.
Yeah, but most people are stuck coding for the brain dead broken implementation anyway. The only difference is that now instead of just coding to the brain dead stupid implementation, everybody has to do twice as much work, first getting their pages to work in "standard" browsers, and then in IE. Except for getting to charge twice as many hours, where's the benefit?
It's kind of hard to take the whining about Microsoft's standards compliance seriously when it seems most of the problems people are having are self imposed. Did anybody really expect Microsoft to play along with standardization? Anybody with a half a brain should have seen all of this coming.
Just for the sake of argument, maybe the real complaint should be that the W3C did a poor job "standardizing" on the rest of IE5? I don't like Microsoft, but considering it had the largest user base and its developers are least interested in listening to the W3C, it sure would have made things easier.
XmlHttpRequest, the 'X' in AJAX, started life as a Microsoft only, proprietary ActiveX object back in IE5.
Given that, your post doesn't really make sense.
No, I'm telling you that other people should be free to ignore you. You've been saying the government should make it illegal for people to do that.
No, saying "I think that's wrong" is freedom of speech. But what you've been arguing for is using the government to force people to do what you say, which is very different.
Oh no! Don't ignore me! If you do that there won't be anybody to purposely misunderstand what I say and make ad hominem attacks against me!
I think that's a poor comparison. The purpose of a cab is to take somebody where they want to go. I think a better comparison would be a bus. A bus has a set route, and if it doesn't go where you want, you don't take that bus. Google has a set of products they make, and if those products don't do what you want, you don't tell them to make something else - you just don't use the products. There are plenty of companies that will develop any software you want (like a cab will take you wherever), but Google isn't one of those companies.
And how does any of that make it so that you get to tell them what to do? If you don't like what they're doing, don't interact with them - in other words, don't use their products. That's really the only part of the deal you get to control. "I don't like what you're doing, so I get to tell you what to do," just isn't the way it works. Hate to break it to you, but you're not boss of the world.