So you're saying the problem is solved then, right? As OEMs can already bundle whatever browsers they want with Windows. So I'm not clear what exactly you're even talking about?
I know, all those much better performing than Nehalem/Opteron chips are really crushing x86.
Wait, there are barely any of those. Sorry, I didn't realize quite how full of shit you were.
Wow. Been away in a cave for a few years? x86 dominates in the high end server market, for most values of "high end".
The demand for anything _but_ x86 server chips is tiny (bordering on minuscule) in comparison.
You simply couldn't have posted more bad information if you'd tried.
Japan is so far past the level of technology required for nuclear weapons they could probably build one without testing and be 99.9% sure it would work, but as others have said simulations are for _after_ you've built one that works.
You're right, of course. People like to come up with all kinds of crazy reasons why e.g. Java is "faster than C", when of course it's not. They come up with magic explanations like optimizations and memory management but of course they never quite understand if you wanted to you could make those SAME DAMN optimizations in C.
That said - in most application domains it doesn't make enough of a difference to make up for the other advantages of a language like Java or C#/.NET.
Second, an OS without a browser is a laughable concept.
Third, Microsoft included the browser long ago with the OS, applications depend on it. No IE means broken Windows applications.
Fourth, removing the browser from the OS does not help consumers. Sure, you can make some laughable argument that "competition helps consumers!" but the fact is this is an abstract, conceptual "good" which doesn't exist in this case. There are already plenty of high quality alternative free and commercial browsers. Applications breaking left and right is a demonstrable harm.
Really all you can do to cheerlead this case is say "durr, me hate Microsoft! Me _real_ free market champion, because me think government should dictate product design! Me HATE MICROSOFT!".
That's because the finding of fact is wrong. It amuses me you nerds will question all sorts of crazy judicial findings but when it comes to Microsoft a laughable declaration that MS is a monopoly in the face of, well, "fact", is taken as coming from on high.
Yeah, because an "extra" browser that is standardized and all Windows apps can depend on for basic rendering functionality is CRAZY! What a massive heartache!
I'm saying, sarcastically, that your argument is stupid. IE was on Windows long ago to provide a baseline HTML rendering engine and browser for users of Windows OS's. Windows applications now depend on that browser being present to function. Microsoft can (and has) allow you to remove the IE browser icon, but the browser is part of the OS for a sound technical reason.
I tell you what, how about the crime you're charged with is "driving too fast" or "behaving badly"? How would you like that, skippy? That's what Microsoft has been charged with. A bunch of bureaucrats decided they were going to subjectively interpret some general "laws" and find Microsoft guilty. They then had a kangaroo court to reach this foregone conclusion.
Laws should say things like "thou shalt not do actions X, Y and Z in circumstances ABC". The "law" Microsoft was fined for was basically "don't behave badly when you have a so-called 'monopoly'".
Ahh. You think the law and the world is absolutist. In your scenario, the person would be charged with a crime and convicted of one. Prosecutors and jurors have some discretion.
The "proportion", huh? That's a rather transparent and silly attempt at sophistry, isn't it? If some guy goes and murders a guy named Sanparthaman and there are 5 people with that name in the world, did he just kill a huge "proportion" of people?
I don't even know what you're talking about, Germans under Hitler? Hitler tried to genocide a people and his actions led to tens of millions of deaths.
On very careful examination, nobody but exiled Cubans and some neo-cons thinks Che was anywhere near the same level of evil as Hitler.
Based on motivation, goals, and results it's not even close.
It was douchy of him to blame America, but we were involving ourselves in Latin American affairs quite a bit at the time, and being a communist he also saw us as economically abusing LA.
Like I said, he was a hard man, in many ways a bad man, and a misguided man but he did have an interesting life.
How is "look at me, I'm picky, I think Jolie is ugly! Look at me!" interesting?
Any heterosexual man with even near normal (societal) taste in women finds Jolie beautiful on some level. Saying she's not the most beautiful woman on the planet or that you see more beautiful women walking in the mall sometimes is fine.
Saying she's ugly, however, or you'd prefer a rotten turnip marks you as a deviant or an attention whore. I'm going with the latter.
You're a dumb person, that's all. Nobody thinks he's a saint. I think some falsely infer that people with Che shirts/tattooos/whatever know much about Che at all. Most common people don't associate him with communism, they associate him with being a rebel. And he was.
He was a hard man, as are most rebels. He killed people unjustly. His ideology was fundamentally flawed. You could make an argument he was a bad man, though comparing him to Hitler is laughable.
But above all, he led an interesting life and died an interesting death. He had an impact on the world. HE fought for what he believed, abeit however misguided his beliefs. That's why some people find him fascinating and a symbol of something they would like to identify with.
Your point? People buying new software will of course buy Office 2010. It may not be compelling to upgrade from 2007. Microsoft still has to move forward and provide newer versions that are more consistent with their other software, easier to support, and provide features some of their customers _do_ want.
I don't get the "who needs this" mentality. Is Microsoft supposed to just say "OK, we're done with Office it's good enough, we'll release no new versions."?
I get it. If you make it out such that nobody cares about Windows, then you think that's somehow insulting to Microsoft or that Windows is on the downward spiral.
Alas, people do care. I'm sure you and your dweeb buddies living in their parents' basements feel better pretending not to care and that normal people don't care, but they most assuredly do care.
Wrong. It would be memcpy_s(dst, dstlen, src, tocopy). I don't see your point either way. The final parameter is not a buffer size. It is the number of bytes to copy. There is exactly one specification of a buffer size, and that is for the destination.
All of your arguments are stupid. The basic fact is that we, society, are stronger than the pro-child porn people. We, society, have decided to use that superior force and have decided child porn is an abomination.
You're tilting at windmills and arguing like an automaton. Life isn't about A leading to B sometimes. As humans, we should be able to decide nuances between levels of behavior.
If there are problems with child pornography enforcement, it's that stupid people are incapable of realizing they have a brain. I as a prosecutor or juror can look at 2 15 year olds mailing eachother nekkid pictures and decide I'm not going to prosecute or find guilty. I can look at an 18 year old man and a 16 year old girl and decide "shit, that's not so bad".
Conversely, we can decide some piece of shit raping a 9 year old girl is not only illegal to do or film, but illegal to possess or distribute. Know why we can do that? Because we are in power.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying the problem is solved then, right? As OEMs can already bundle whatever browsers they want with Windows. So I'm not clear what exactly you're even talking about?
You people seriously need to get a life.
I know, all those much better performing than Nehalem/Opteron chips are really crushing x86. Wait, there are barely any of those. Sorry, I didn't realize quite how full of shit you were.
Wow. Been away in a cave for a few years? x86 dominates in the high end server market, for most values of "high end". The demand for anything _but_ x86 server chips is tiny (bordering on minuscule) in comparison. You simply couldn't have posted more bad information if you'd tried.
Japan is so far past the level of technology required for nuclear weapons they could probably build one without testing and be 99.9% sure it would work, but as others have said simulations are for _after_ you've built one that works.
You're right, of course. People like to come up with all kinds of crazy reasons why e.g. Java is "faster than C", when of course it's not. They come up with magic explanations like optimizations and memory management but of course they never quite understand if you wanted to you could make those SAME DAMN optimizations in C.
That said - in most application domains it doesn't make enough of a difference to make up for the other advantages of a language like Java or C#/.NET.
Why would Microsoft attend a kangaroo court with a bunch of bureaucrats when the conclusion is foregone?
First, there is no browser market.
Second, an OS without a browser is a laughable concept.
Third, Microsoft included the browser long ago with the OS, applications depend on it. No IE means broken Windows applications.
Fourth, removing the browser from the OS does not help consumers. Sure, you can make some laughable argument that "competition helps consumers!" but the fact is this is an abstract, conceptual "good" which doesn't exist in this case. There are already plenty of high quality alternative free and commercial browsers. Applications breaking left and right is a demonstrable harm.
Really all you can do to cheerlead this case is say "durr, me hate Microsoft! Me _real_ free market champion, because me think government should dictate product design! Me HATE MICROSOFT!".
That's because the finding of fact is wrong. It amuses me you nerds will question all sorts of crazy judicial findings but when it comes to Microsoft a laughable declaration that MS is a monopoly in the face of, well, "fact", is taken as coming from on high.
You're lying. This is not true. An OEM can install anything they want.
Yeah, because an "extra" browser that is standardized and all Windows apps can depend on for basic rendering functionality is CRAZY! What a massive heartache!
I'm saying, sarcastically, that your argument is stupid. IE was on Windows long ago to provide a baseline HTML rendering engine and browser for users of Windows OS's. Windows applications now depend on that browser being present to function. Microsoft can (and has) allow you to remove the IE browser icon, but the browser is part of the OS for a sound technical reason.
My, you're an angry little dweeb aren't you?
I tell you what, how about the crime you're charged with is "driving too fast" or "behaving badly"? How would you like that, skippy? That's what Microsoft has been charged with. A bunch of bureaucrats decided they were going to subjectively interpret some general "laws" and find Microsoft guilty. They then had a kangaroo court to reach this foregone conclusion.
Laws should say things like "thou shalt not do actions X, Y and Z in circumstances ABC". The "law" Microsoft was fined for was basically "don't behave badly when you have a so-called 'monopoly'".
Exactly. It's really not that complicated.
Haha, yeah. It's much worse to have some guys search your house illegally than to die. Death before dishonor and whatnot, right! Ahahaha.
Ahh. You think the law and the world is absolutist. In your scenario, the person would be charged with a crime and convicted of one. Prosecutors and jurors have some discretion.
No. You're mostly right, except for the "modern" part. What's modern about this "new" proposal at all?
First, it isn't BIOS. BIOS has a specific meaning. This would basically be an OS built into the machine via firmware. This =/= BIOS.
This is just the same old thin client idea that's been kicking around for ages.
I don't see why you were modded down.
Wow, you mean he's talking about a thin client!?! Wow that's, like, totally new! Who ever thought of that!?
I don't see how this is even vaguely a new idea.
The "proportion", huh? That's a rather transparent and silly attempt at sophistry, isn't it? If some guy goes and murders a guy named Sanparthaman and there are 5 people with that name in the world, did he just kill a huge "proportion" of people?
I don't even know what you're talking about, Germans under Hitler? Hitler tried to genocide a people and his actions led to tens of millions of deaths.
On very careful examination, nobody but exiled Cubans and some neo-cons thinks Che was anywhere near the same level of evil as Hitler.
Based on motivation, goals, and results it's not even close.
It was douchy of him to blame America, but we were involving ourselves in Latin American affairs quite a bit at the time, and being a communist he also saw us as economically abusing LA.
Like I said, he was a hard man, in many ways a bad man, and a misguided man but he did have an interesting life.
How is "look at me, I'm picky, I think Jolie is ugly! Look at me!" interesting?
Any heterosexual man with even near normal (societal) taste in women finds Jolie beautiful on some level. Saying she's not the most beautiful woman on the planet or that you see more beautiful women walking in the mall sometimes is fine.
Saying she's ugly, however, or you'd prefer a rotten turnip marks you as a deviant or an attention whore. I'm going with the latter.
You're a dumb person, that's all. Nobody thinks he's a saint. I think some falsely infer that people with Che shirts/tattooos/whatever know much about Che at all. Most common people don't associate him with communism, they associate him with being a rebel. And he was.
He was a hard man, as are most rebels. He killed people unjustly. His ideology was fundamentally flawed. You could make an argument he was a bad man, though comparing him to Hitler is laughable.
But above all, he led an interesting life and died an interesting death. He had an impact on the world. HE fought for what he believed, abeit however misguided his beliefs. That's why some people find him fascinating and a symbol of something they would like to identify with.
Your point? People buying new software will of course buy Office 2010. It may not be compelling to upgrade from 2007. Microsoft still has to move forward and provide newer versions that are more consistent with their other software, easier to support, and provide features some of their customers _do_ want.
I don't get the "who needs this" mentality. Is Microsoft supposed to just say "OK, we're done with Office it's good enough, we'll release no new versions."?
Lol. Yeah, because prior interfaces for word processors and office suites were in no way modal.
I get it. If you make it out such that nobody cares about Windows, then you think that's somehow insulting to Microsoft or that Windows is on the downward spiral.
Alas, people do care. I'm sure you and your dweeb buddies living in their parents' basements feel better pretending not to care and that normal people don't care, but they most assuredly do care.
Wrong. It would be memcpy_s(dst, dstlen, src, tocopy). I don't see your point either way. The final parameter is not a buffer size. It is the number of bytes to copy. There is exactly one specification of a buffer size, and that is for the destination.
All of your arguments are stupid. The basic fact is that we, society, are stronger than the pro-child porn people. We, society, have decided to use that superior force and have decided child porn is an abomination.
You're tilting at windmills and arguing like an automaton. Life isn't about A leading to B sometimes. As humans, we should be able to decide nuances between levels of behavior.
If there are problems with child pornography enforcement, it's that stupid people are incapable of realizing they have a brain. I as a prosecutor or juror can look at 2 15 year olds mailing eachother nekkid pictures and decide I'm not going to prosecute or find guilty. I can look at an 18 year old man and a 16 year old girl and decide "shit, that's not so bad".
Conversely, we can decide some piece of shit raping a 9 year old girl is not only illegal to do or film, but illegal to possess or distribute. Know why we can do that? Because we are in power.