Wow, you take the stupid asshole of the day award for sure! What the hell are you gibbering about? Clearly killing is not, in every case, wrong. Jesus, but you're a dumb bastard.
I'll tell you what motivates me - I find the SlashDweeb crowd to be intellectually disgusting. Most of them know absolutely nothing about the Microsoft side of the fence but they claim Microsoft is "technologically backward". In fact, if you want to know backwards, try to develop an enterprise application using open source tools on Linux. Talk about a joke, _that's_ backwards. As a developer, I find Java on Linux mildly tolerable, but still ages behind.NET in just about every aspect of productivity. Most of you fucking morons think Perl and PHP is hot shit, and Ruby on Rails is cutting edge.
My problem with all of you is you don't know shit - I know more about Linux than most of the Johnny Come Lately FOSS filthy dweebs who post around here, and I get tired of the same old boring, righteous bullshit you all spew day in day out. Ultimately, it amuses me to come refute your utter garbage arguments.
I like your strawmen, by the way. They are outrageously unrelated to anything. MS providing DRM functionality you can use or not use is somehow similar to installing a rootkit without people knowing or consenting? Give me a break. And who's bitched about Itunes? Nobody. You just made that up, or they only bring that up when the "but MS is a monopoly" dweebs crawl out of the woodwork.
Haha. This, the SlashDweeb day to day line, is Insightful? Give me a break. Microsoft controls 90% of the desktops worldwide because people have made a conscious choice that Microsoft shall control 90% of the market. Microsoft has no pricing power in the desktop OS market at large, of course, since many of the choices are _free_. Strike one against monopoly. There are literally dozens of very strong alternatives to Windows, most of which cost very little - stike two. Strike three is the fact that it's idiotic to claim someone has a monopoly on a piece of intellectual property. Monopoly law only makes sense when dealing with physically limited resources.
Now go back to your mother's basement, you dirty, smelly UNIX dweeb.
I'm not libertarian per se, though I agree with them on about 70% of the issues. Regardless, you have no ideas of the details of what happened behind the scenes. You just blindly assume some non-decision making company was "bribed" to do something, with no real details in the publicly released information to support this. Maybe one hand of the government agreed to the deal, and another hand didn't know anything about it. Maybe the government agreed behind the scenes, then changed their mind over public outcry for no reason. The heart of the matter is you have absolutely no idea what the real details behind all this is, yet you all keep chanting "bribery" and making all kinds of baseless accusations.
Dog shit dealer? Did nothing wrong. Toothpaste company is guilty of breach of contract. In the end, none of you have any idea of the details behind any of this, but even in its worst reading the company doing the installs is the guilty party.
And you have..evidence they gave a Nigerian official gifts or rebates? Of course not. You just used a strawman. "In all cases, including self defense, killing is wrong. Take for example Ted Bundy who murdered many innocent young women. This, indeed, proves that in all cases killing another human being is wrong."
Nonsense. There's absolutely nothing unethical about using marketshare power unless you have government granted control over a physically limited resource. Business ethics say nothing about being "fair" to your opponents. Only "fair" to your customers. If you give them what they paid for and both parties are happy, there's nothing wrong with it. The whole ridiculous, and easily proved false idea that MS has a monopoly was dreamed up by their competitors and lapped up by corrupt politicians with distinct geographical associations to said competitors.
Why is the system screwy? Microsoft saw a business value in those machines running Windows XP. They made an offer to the end-user which was obviously, at first glance, beneficial enough to be accepted. In the end, the government didn't agree and the deal was refused. Who exactly, again, did anything wrong here?
You can call it what you like, you're simply wrong is all. There is no such thing as a "dirty deal" unless it involves fraud or coersion. A business offering incentives to use its products is not wrong.
As for your "contract" - was Du Pont paid? If so, and nothing in the contract states that the widgets can't be _repainted_, then it's perfectly fine. You seem to have some kind of issue with consenting business entities doing business. If Microsoft is willing to cut them a deal or even give them money because they have some business interest in MS Windows being on those machines, then that's their problem. The whole outrage over this is just completely ridiculous and makes no rational sense. In the end, the government said "no" to the deal and it's over with.
Bribery?? What exactly does that even mean in a business context? If I sell auto-windows and I offer you a free dinner at some restaurant if you use my service, is that "bribery"? When Coke offers a company advertising dollars and a discount to carry only Coca Cola products, is that "bribery"? The idea is ridiculous. Unless MS broker Nigerian law, it's not bribery.
In what way? Apparently now it's bad for someone to enter into a cross marketing deal? It amazes me when deals made between consenting entities are "dirty".
Oh no, you have to disable the onboard audio! That's pure craziness!! Seriously, the days of add-on soundcards are coming to an end. People are generally just mistaken when they think their peripheral sound card is so much better than the onboard. If you're using SP/DIF, it doesn't matter of course. If you're going straight to speaker, it matters less now because Vista and hardware audio acceleration via newer EAX "standards" is broken anyway. I gave up my Audigy 2 ZS a few months ago when Vista's support for it sucked, and haven't regretted it at all.
Ahahaha. Dude, you crack me up. I'm sure the Nigerian government using Windows over some other OS is really in the top 3 list of "problems Nigerians face". Seriously, you guys are a laugh riot.
And this is bad because? You all seem to take it on faith that people should be outraged. Let's say it's your worse-case scenario - MS paid them and said "use Windows". Why, exactly, is this wrong? Simple answer is it isn't - it's MS's dime, if they want to waste money more power to them.
"they don't care what's best for the user ". Haha. Are you being serious right now? For real - did you just say that and mean it? That's retarded. Of course they don't care what's best for the user, only an idiot would think they did. It's called "business" - look it up. You try to sell your product whether it's the best or not. Good god. Does McDonald's, Coke, Google, Yahoo, Redhat, or any company care what's "best for the user"? Is Redhat going to come in and say "gee, you know, I think you should use Solaris!". Give me an f'ing break.
Yeah, design by commitee always works out so well! Seriously, third party standards bodies are only good at post-facto. Don't rely on them to innovate. I say IE and Mozilla battle it out, release the product, and may the best man win. Once a winner is reasonably clear, then the standards bodies can get in and write it in stone.
Is there anyone who doesn't know this by now? I think we all figured this out back in the P4 days. The point is the C2D has a high IPC as well as a high MHz.
Hate to break this to you, but MS is the majority. To the victor go the spoils. Microsoft will have no real reason to implement a standard developed by some arbitrary group of its competitors unless/until many large governments and corporations force them to. Personally, I don't think it will happen. Most people don't really give a shit one way or the other.
It's not $300. It's $259 even at Newegg, the biggest bunch of price gougers around. It'll drop to $250 within a week, and it's considerably faster and cooler running than the 320.
Of course it's not overkill for some people. TF2 isn't exactly demanding compared to other games. If you're buying a new video card and your budget is $200-$400, this is now the card that you would buy. If you're playing at higher resolutions with eye candy, you need this card for newer and more demanding games.
The news is that this is a leap forward in price/performance. There have only been a few comparable video card releases in history. Typically, it goes "you pay $500 for a high end card, then it goes to $450, then $400, etc...". This is a card that costs $250 (or less) that is almost as fast as a card that costs $400 or more.
In other words, if you play PC games at 1600x1200 or above, this is the only choice that you really have now - nothing else makes sense unless you're playing on a 30" monitor or want to throw away money.
I don't see your point. That's like asking who's buying $25,000 cars when you can buy a $18,000 car. $250 is the price you pay to play games on a PC at 1600x1200 or above. Actually, prior to that it was $300 or even higher if you have a 30" monitor. The Wii is a different product, not sure why you would compare the two. The comparison is meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, American companies need to pay the EU's extortion to to business in the EU.
Wow, you take the stupid asshole of the day award for sure! What the hell are you gibbering about? Clearly killing is not, in every case, wrong. Jesus, but you're a dumb bastard.
My problem with all of you is you don't know shit - I know more about Linux than most of the Johnny Come Lately FOSS filthy dweebs who post around here, and I get tired of the same old boring, righteous bullshit you all spew day in day out. Ultimately, it amuses me to come refute your utter garbage arguments.
I like your strawmen, by the way. They are outrageously unrelated to anything. MS providing DRM functionality you can use or not use is somehow similar to installing a rootkit without people knowing or consenting? Give me a break. And who's bitched about Itunes? Nobody. You just made that up, or they only bring that up when the "but MS is a monopoly" dweebs crawl out of the woodwork.
Now go back to your mother's basement, you dirty, smelly UNIX dweeb.
I'm not libertarian per se, though I agree with them on about 70% of the issues. Regardless, you have no ideas of the details of what happened behind the scenes. You just blindly assume some non-decision making company was "bribed" to do something, with no real details in the publicly released information to support this. Maybe one hand of the government agreed to the deal, and another hand didn't know anything about it. Maybe the government agreed behind the scenes, then changed their mind over public outcry for no reason. The heart of the matter is you have absolutely no idea what the real details behind all this is, yet you all keep chanting "bribery" and making all kinds of baseless accusations.
Dog shit dealer? Did nothing wrong. Toothpaste company is guilty of breach of contract. In the end, none of you have any idea of the details behind any of this, but even in its worst reading the company doing the installs is the guilty party.
And you have..evidence they gave a Nigerian official gifts or rebates? Of course not. You just used a strawman. "In all cases, including self defense, killing is wrong. Take for example Ted Bundy who murdered many innocent young women. This, indeed, proves that in all cases killing another human being is wrong."
Nonsense. There's absolutely nothing unethical about using marketshare power unless you have government granted control over a physically limited resource. Business ethics say nothing about being "fair" to your opponents. Only "fair" to your customers. If you give them what they paid for and both parties are happy, there's nothing wrong with it. The whole ridiculous, and easily proved false idea that MS has a monopoly was dreamed up by their competitors and lapped up by corrupt politicians with distinct geographical associations to said competitors.
Why is the system screwy? Microsoft saw a business value in those machines running Windows XP. They made an offer to the end-user which was obviously, at first glance, beneficial enough to be accepted. In the end, the government didn't agree and the deal was refused. Who exactly, again, did anything wrong here?
As for your "contract" - was Du Pont paid? If so, and nothing in the contract states that the widgets can't be _repainted_, then it's perfectly fine. You seem to have some kind of issue with consenting business entities doing business. If Microsoft is willing to cut them a deal or even give them money because they have some business interest in MS Windows being on those machines, then that's their problem. The whole outrage over this is just completely ridiculous and makes no rational sense. In the end, the government said "no" to the deal and it's over with.
Bribery?? What exactly does that even mean in a business context? If I sell auto-windows and I offer you a free dinner at some restaurant if you use my service, is that "bribery"? When Coke offers a company advertising dollars and a discount to carry only Coca Cola products, is that "bribery"? The idea is ridiculous. Unless MS broker Nigerian law, it's not bribery.
In what way? Apparently now it's bad for someone to enter into a cross marketing deal? It amazes me when deals made between consenting entities are "dirty".
Oh no, you have to disable the onboard audio! That's pure craziness!! Seriously, the days of add-on soundcards are coming to an end. People are generally just mistaken when they think their peripheral sound card is so much better than the onboard. If you're using SP/DIF, it doesn't matter of course. If you're going straight to speaker, it matters less now because Vista and hardware audio acceleration via newer EAX "standards" is broken anyway. I gave up my Audigy 2 ZS a few months ago when Vista's support for it sucked, and haven't regretted it at all.
Oh dear. It amuses me when stupid people think NetBUI was intended to be a competitor to TCP/IP. Hilarious.
Ahahaha. Dude, you crack me up. I'm sure the Nigerian government using Windows over some other OS is really in the top 3 list of "problems Nigerians face". Seriously, you guys are a laugh riot.
And this is bad because? You all seem to take it on faith that people should be outraged. Let's say it's your worse-case scenario - MS paid them and said "use Windows". Why, exactly, is this wrong? Simple answer is it isn't - it's MS's dime, if they want to waste money more power to them.
"they don't care what's best for the user ". Haha. Are you being serious right now? For real - did you just say that and mean it? That's retarded. Of course they don't care what's best for the user, only an idiot would think they did. It's called "business" - look it up. You try to sell your product whether it's the best or not. Good god. Does McDonald's, Coke, Google, Yahoo, Redhat, or any company care what's "best for the user"? Is Redhat going to come in and say "gee, you know, I think you should use Solaris!". Give me an f'ing break.
Yeah, design by commitee always works out so well! Seriously, third party standards bodies are only good at post-facto. Don't rely on them to innovate. I say IE and Mozilla battle it out, release the product, and may the best man win. Once a winner is reasonably clear, then the standards bodies can get in and write it in stone.
Is there anyone who doesn't know this by now? I think we all figured this out back in the P4 days. The point is the C2D has a high IPC as well as a high MHz.
Hate to break this to you, but MS is the majority. To the victor go the spoils. Microsoft will have no real reason to implement a standard developed by some arbitrary group of its competitors unless/until many large governments and corporations force them to. Personally, I don't think it will happen. Most people don't really give a shit one way or the other.
Correction - it _was_ $259. Some of them disappeared tonight. Regardless - it'll be $250 when it's in wide distribution, which is shortly.
It's not $300. It's $259 even at Newegg, the biggest bunch of price gougers around. It'll drop to $250 within a week, and it's considerably faster and cooler running than the 320.
Of course it's not overkill for some people. TF2 isn't exactly demanding compared to other games. If you're buying a new video card and your budget is $200-$400, this is now the card that you would buy. If you're playing at higher resolutions with eye candy, you need this card for newer and more demanding games.
In other words, if you play PC games at 1600x1200 or above, this is the only choice that you really have now - nothing else makes sense unless you're playing on a 30" monitor or want to throw away money.
I don't see your point. That's like asking who's buying $25,000 cars when you can buy a $18,000 car. $250 is the price you pay to play games on a PC at 1600x1200 or above. Actually, prior to that it was $300 or even higher if you have a 30" monitor. The Wii is a different product, not sure why you would compare the two. The comparison is meaningless.