What a jackass you are. You're like one of those idiots who think paying a mortgage on a house is smart because of the "tax advantage". Hey - dipshit - you're still paying interest, just 25-35% less interest than you would without the tax benefit.
Bill Gates has already given away a huge chunk of his money, and will have given away the vast majority of it by the time he dies. Your idiocy in claiming he's somehow "making money" off the tax benefits is laughable and only your fellow irrationally MS hating dweebs will be stupid enough to fall for it.
Secondly, it's his wealth. He wants to see it go where it will do what he wants.
Thirdly - whatever douchebag. He's never been convicted of any kind of felony, and neither has Microsoft.
Yeah... that old rehash of the "teehee, they won't do nuttin'" doesn't really make a lot of sense. I mean, I get it - you're angry! Hulk Smash! Nobody has gone in and beat up that bully who picked on you in high scho... I mean Microsoft!
The only problem with your funny but serious joke is the EU did steal a bunch of money from MS already, and will probably steal more. Maybe the DOJ will have a another competitor-driven witch-hunt and you can use this jokey joke again.
They haven't been a monopoly for a long time. Defining a monopoly by what people choose to purchase instead of what's available is stupid. There have been highly viable alternatives to Microsoft for a long time. The John T Trustbusters of this new socialist age, though, like to attach ridiculous market definitions and silly criteria (but, umm, what other OS's run Windows applications!?). Largely they're motivated by psychological issues common to your dweeby underdog who was picked on in school and they hate MS beyond all rational capacity.
Maybe some day they'll realize Microsoft wasn't the hot chick in high school who didn't look twice at them, and they're also not the "popular kids" dudes who laughed as they crammed them in their lockers and gave them wedgies/swirlies.
Anti-trust law should be applied to companies who collude to price-fix or who have government granted monopolies over physically limited resources.
OK. And...what is this bad, again? Joe Sixpack gets what he wants, why does he care?
Don't worry, I know what your boringly cliche answer will be. For the record, standards are picked by the market, not little committee's made up of one's commercial enemies.
Sorry, the GPL has nothing to do with Linux's success. Linux was successful because it had less of a strict central-planning theme. People like the "some dude out there in a basement" idea and jumped on it because it was easy to tweak and modify.
Apache httpd is of course ridiculously successful - it's not GPL'd.
Uhhh, I don't like this car, it gets less than 1000 miles per gallon!
That's effectively what the original poster said. He pointed out having to "replace them every 5 years". Considering these drives have as good or better reliability compared to traditional enterprise drives - what's his point?
Haha. Wow, you really take this stuff seriously dude. Do you wear a red beret and take a "moral" stance on letting yourself touch a keyboard attached to a Microsoft OS? Ahahaha.
And this is bad because... they don't like seeing other people make money? It amuses me the same people who hate DRM get all uppity when someone may be using GPL'd work to make money.
Let me get this straight. Is it possible to do any kind of article on a commercial product without it being "astroturfing" of some form or another? Or is it only the negative articles that can be done? I just want to know the SlashDweeb rules.
Hint: You should learn that people tend to compare things using some "measure". In the disk world, that's MTBF. 2 million hours MTBF is comparable or better than other enterprise drives. Hence original poster is, indeed, clueless.
Well, John T Trustbuster, I'm confused then. Apple has a huge percent, surely monopoly-level, of the DAP market. And they're using it to leverage their online music shop. Hell, they're even tying their cell phones to the itunes store. What if I want to start a new online music store?! By god, it's a terrible monopoly, someone step in and crusade for True Free Markets and tell those ne'er do wells at Apple to stop leveraging their ipod monopoly in the online music store and cell phone markets! By GOSH!
I believe he's referring to the tying of the itunes software service, Apple's "FairPlay" DRM, and the iPod. Fairly clear-cut if you're a new-age "trust buster" who thinks everything is a monopoly, no? I mean, people _really like_ Apple and have decided to make the iPod the defacto DAP, so it's a monopoly even with countless ("not iPod though!") alternatives, no?
What ad? Capable of running Windows Vista means "it will install Windows Vista and you can run whatever programs your computer has the resources for". That's it.
What ever happened to doing research, as a consumer, before making a purchase?
What, you mean if I buy a Honda Civic at the cheapest price I can it won't look like the tricked out one in the ad?! Crazy!
What, you mean if I drive like I normally drive my cars this new car I buy will get 3-5 fewer mpg than advertised! I'm suing!
What, you mean this low-end laptop I bought won't run Office, Internet Explorer with 10 tabs open, and Microsoft Excel in Vista with all the useless user interface candy with 512M of memory?! That's crazy talk, I'm going to sue!
Yeah, it's the marketer's duty to make sure uninformed buyers are informed of every single possible detail of their purchase. I mean, I can go buy any "HDTV" and play my XBOX 360 or PS3 at full 1080p60 resolution, right? Oh... you mean I can't necessarily?
The product they bought says "vista capable" and it is capable of running Vista. End of story.
Your point? We also came here and brutally took the land from the indigenous population, should we just go shoo the Canadians out of Canada and take their natural resources and force them onto reservations?
Only history teachers and romantics think that the past, out of inertia, should dictate our actions in the present. Learn from the past - sure. Use it as some kind of barometer to dictate our actions out of some ridiculous concept of historical consistency - umm...no.
Ahahaha. Wow, you mean the US, the 3rd most populous country in the world, has a higher population of homeless veterans than most countries? That's fucking _crazy_ dude!
Obama has just implemented more quadruple taxation on corporations, raising corporate income tax to 65%. Corporations and stockholders upset.
Uhh, durr, if thems don't likes it, thems can get rid of limited liability!!! Teehee, see how clevers I am? What I did dar was I pulled the old tit for a tatty!
Really. You sound that stupid when you keep bringing this up over and over. It's not the slam dunk you seem to think it is. OK, government removes limited liability. Corporations dissolve. Yeah - that won't lead to a complete breakdown of western civilization.
So clearly it's not a threat, you're using it for some sort of doltish justification for government intrusion. The problem is that in your hypothetical world where you trade tit for tat, corporations would be pretty happy. OK - we can trade limited liability for ridiculous taxation laws on unrealized income?! We can get rid of all this bullshit regulation and in exchange we trade limited liability? Deal!
Slashdot Mirror
What a jackass you are. You're like one of those idiots who think paying a mortgage on a house is smart because of the "tax advantage". Hey - dipshit - you're still paying interest, just 25-35% less interest than you would without the tax benefit.
Bill Gates has already given away a huge chunk of his money, and will have given away the vast majority of it by the time he dies. Your idiocy in claiming he's somehow "making money" off the tax benefits is laughable and only your fellow irrationally MS hating dweebs will be stupid enough to fall for it.
Secondly, it's his wealth. He wants to see it go where it will do what he wants.
Thirdly - whatever douchebag. He's never been convicted of any kind of felony, and neither has Microsoft.
Good god. Quit lying you drama queen. They have not been convicted of "criminality".
Wow, you are truly a ridiculous human being. Everything you've said in this thread is just patently idiotic.
OK, Captain Open Standards. I'm sure you can refer MS to the open standards dealing with ClickOnce installs of .NET apps?
Oh. OK, I guess you can't.
I'll give you a 10 for zealotry.
Unfortunately you get a 1 for reading comprehension. You do know the dates for that crap are, like, turn of the century?
Unless... maybe you think "all of a sudden" means 7-8 years.
Yeah... that old rehash of the "teehee, they won't do nuttin'" doesn't really make a lot of sense. I mean, I get it - you're angry! Hulk Smash! Nobody has gone in and beat up that bully who picked on you in high scho... I mean Microsoft!
The only problem with your funny but serious joke is the EU did steal a bunch of money from MS already, and will probably steal more. Maybe the DOJ will have a another competitor-driven witch-hunt and you can use this jokey joke again.
They haven't been a monopoly for a long time. Defining a monopoly by what people choose to purchase instead of what's available is stupid. There have been highly viable alternatives to Microsoft for a long time. The John T Trustbusters of this new socialist age, though, like to attach ridiculous market definitions and silly criteria (but, umm, what other OS's run Windows applications!?). Largely they're motivated by psychological issues common to your dweeby underdog who was picked on in school and they hate MS beyond all rational capacity.
Maybe some day they'll realize Microsoft wasn't the hot chick in high school who didn't look twice at them, and they're also not the "popular kids" dudes who laughed as they crammed them in their lockers and gave them wedgies/swirlies.
Anti-trust law should be applied to companies who collude to price-fix or who have government granted monopolies over physically limited resources.
OK. And...what is this bad, again? Joe Sixpack gets what he wants, why does he care?
Don't worry, I know what your boringly cliche answer will be. For the record, standards are picked by the market, not little committee's made up of one's commercial enemies.
Sorry, the GPL has nothing to do with Linux's success. Linux was successful because it had less of a strict central-planning theme. People like the "some dude out there in a basement" idea and jumped on it because it was easy to tweak and modify.
Apache httpd is of course ridiculously successful - it's not GPL'd.
Uhhh, I don't like this car, it gets less than 1000 miles per gallon!
That's effectively what the original poster said. He pointed out having to "replace them every 5 years". Considering these drives have as good or better reliability compared to traditional enterprise drives - what's his point?
Haha. Wow, you really take this stuff seriously dude. Do you wear a red beret and take a "moral" stance on letting yourself touch a keyboard attached to a Microsoft OS? Ahahaha.
And this is bad because... they don't like seeing other people make money? It amuses me the same people who hate DRM get all uppity when someone may be using GPL'd work to make money.
Let me get this straight. Is it possible to do any kind of article on a commercial product without it being "astroturfing" of some form or another? Or is it only the negative articles that can be done? I just want to know the SlashDweeb rules.
Note he didn't say you get the same performance. He said about the same IOPS/$.
Your point? It's a highly inaccurate way used on _all_ drives. The point is that these drives are as reliable or more than other enterprise drives.
Hint: You should learn that people tend to compare things using some "measure". In the disk world, that's MTBF. 2 million hours MTBF is comparable or better than other enterprise drives. Hence original poster is, indeed, clueless.
Well, John T Trustbuster, I'm confused then. Apple has a huge percent, surely monopoly-level, of the DAP market. And they're using it to leverage their online music shop. Hell, they're even tying their cell phones to the itunes store. What if I want to start a new online music store?! By god, it's a terrible monopoly, someone step in and crusade for True Free Markets and tell those ne'er do wells at Apple to stop leveraging their ipod monopoly in the online music store and cell phone markets! By GOSH!
I believe he's referring to the tying of the itunes software service, Apple's "FairPlay" DRM, and the iPod. Fairly clear-cut if you're a new-age "trust buster" who thinks everything is a monopoly, no? I mean, people _really like_ Apple and have decided to make the iPod the defacto DAP, so it's a monopoly even with countless ("not iPod though!") alternatives, no?
What ad? Capable of running Windows Vista means "it will install Windows Vista and you can run whatever programs your computer has the resources for". That's it.
What ever happened to doing research, as a consumer, before making a purchase?
What, you mean if I buy a Honda Civic at the cheapest price I can it won't look like the tricked out one in the ad?! Crazy!
What, you mean if I drive like I normally drive my cars this new car I buy will get 3-5 fewer mpg than advertised! I'm suing!
What, you mean this low-end laptop I bought won't run Office, Internet Explorer with 10 tabs open, and Microsoft Excel in Vista with all the useless user interface candy with 512M of memory?! That's crazy talk, I'm going to sue!
Yeah, it's the marketer's duty to make sure uninformed buyers are informed of every single possible detail of their purchase. I mean, I can go buy any "HDTV" and play my XBOX 360 or PS3 at full 1080p60 resolution, right? Oh... you mean I can't necessarily?
The product they bought says "vista capable" and it is capable of running Vista. End of story.
I really would like for my $12,000 car to get 55mpg and have 320 HP. It ain't gonna happen, though.
These machines do indeed run Vista. So.. what are we arguing about, again?
Your point? We also came here and brutally took the land from the indigenous population, should we just go shoo the Canadians out of Canada and take their natural resources and force them onto reservations?
Only history teachers and romantics think that the past, out of inertia, should dictate our actions in the present. Learn from the past - sure. Use it as some kind of barometer to dictate our actions out of some ridiculous concept of historical consistency - umm...no.
Ahahaha. Wow, you mean the US, the 3rd most populous country in the world, has a higher population of homeless veterans than most countries? That's fucking _crazy_ dude!
Yeah. I'm laughing at you, not with you.
Snooze-fest. Yeah, we get it.
Obama has just implemented more quadruple taxation on corporations, raising corporate income tax to 65%. Corporations and stockholders upset.
Uhh, durr, if thems don't likes it, thems can get rid of limited liability!!! Teehee, see how clevers I am? What I did dar was I pulled the old tit for a tatty!
Really. You sound that stupid when you keep bringing this up over and over. It's not the slam dunk you seem to think it is. OK, government removes limited liability. Corporations dissolve. Yeah - that won't lead to a complete breakdown of western civilization.
So clearly it's not a threat, you're using it for some sort of doltish justification for government intrusion. The problem is that in your hypothetical world where you trade tit for tat, corporations would be pretty happy. OK - we can trade limited liability for ridiculous taxation laws on unrealized income?! We can get rid of all this bullshit regulation and in exchange we trade limited liability? Deal!