I mean no disrespect but what you or your friend in the former Soviet army believed, thought, were told to believe or think, or were told the top brass was thinking had little to do with what they were actually thinking. The only thing that got out, of course, was what they wanted you to believe.
The Soviets would have indulged in a Napoleanesque annexation of the whole of Europe just as much as the NATO would have of Russia if they believed it would have been as easy as a Napoleonesque annexation. What kept each side from doing it was the deterrence and the threat of resistance on each side. While it caused a lot of fear on each side and still worries me what would happen if any of it fell into the wrong hands or if the hands it is in got deranged for any reason, ultimately it is the massive arsenal of weaponry on either side that eventually saved the world.
No, the fact of the matter is in fact that the government has to do these things because regardless of what it does there is always some whackjob claiming there's a sinister conspiracy - and that includes the crap about "corporate powers" - the same nutcases who refused to let the WTO, an organization of COUNTRIES to meet. People, it seems, are always willing to scream sinister conspiracy when the government does something that they don't like. People need to get used to the fact that what is in their personal best interests is not always in the greater interests of the nation or the world.
So can anyone explain exactly why he thought removing the moon would make things better? I went to the pages you pointed to but couldn't find an explanation I could understand.
I was having this discussion with some friends the other day and the conclusion I arrived at was that my body was built for like a 26 or 27-hour clock. I try to keep a steady schedule so I don't get to work at too ridiculous hours and find that I have a hard time going to bed at night because my body wants to stay up and an equally hard time waking up in the morning. 26 hours or so would be perfect!
I'm sorry your post was moderated down. It seems some kids can't stand to hear views contrary to theirs. I was disappointed by robs and emmits articles. However, I have a lot of faith in the slashdot community at large and encourage you to have it too.
I'm proud to read a balanced and intelligent comment here and to note that it has been moderated up to 5. My faith is restored.
I was ashamed to read the vast majority of the posts on the two similar threads yesterday and today and more so by the authors of the features. It is interesting to note how the writers screamed about freedom of speech and Microsoft trying to take down posts that disagree with them while that was patently not the case. Note that there was no demand to take down any of the posts that are and have been critical of Microsoft. The demand was simply to take down posts which were a regurgitation of copyrighted material - NOT original thoughts or ideas. It's a SHAME you failed to note that.
This has nothing to do with the expression of ideas or thoughts. The posts being objected to are nothing but a regurgitation of copyrighted material or links to copyrighted material. Asking for them to be removed is not censorship.
Notice that there was no request to remove the "Bill Gate$ $uck$ a$$!" posts.
Censorship is restriction of the freedom of expression of peoples opinions, thoughts and ideas.
The posts Microsoft is objecting to do not contain any original opinions, thoughts or ideas, but rather a regurgitation of copyrighted material. It might suit your purpose of demonizing Microsoft to pretend this is an issue of Microsoft attempting to censor comments but when you get your head out of your ass you will realize that the only people you have fooled are the others who have their heads similarly up their asses.
The analogy you are looking for is more like automatic rifles. The other clients require you to manually stuff the gunpowder into them, while outlook makes it easy.
The difference is simply that Outlook will allow you to execute the attachment easily while the other clients make it a pain-in-the-ass to do so. (not that I've used any - this is simple from my reading on the subject). That is a feature IMHO.
Outlook's file extension hiding means that the attachment showed as.TXT, not.vbs
That's a valid point. However, you must remember that if you have extensions turned off, you don't see any extensions and the.txt should tip you off. Further, the icon used for the VB Script is quite different from the icon used for text documents. This should tip you off too.
It's a truly bizarre world where viewing a document executes that document.
That's a feature, not a bug. I want my selecting to open a document (double-clicking) to view the document or execute it depending on the type of the document
That was just this time. Bubbleboy proved that you can make the code launch as soon as the message comes up.
Note that this HTML code runs inside a sandbox and can't do any harm. The attachment in question was an external attachment and you had to select to execute it. Simply viewing the mail is not enough
It doesn't take rocket science. HTML formatted messages render IMG= objects quite promiscuously; VBS is one of the options.
See above point. In the future, please check your facts before you post
The HTML in the preview pane runs inside a sandbox and can't do any damage. The ILOVEYOU virus was an external attachment and you have to specifically select to execute it.
No, I'm not being funny or sarcastic. I WANT to be able to run attachments from people I trust.
Unix mail-readers typically don't make this as easy. And THAT is not a feature, but a bug. It is not hard to run email attachments because of some deep security insight, but merely because no one bothered to code it in.
I was going to write for you stop lying because it does NOT run in the preview pane. Then I read this:
The fact is, micros~1 used their monopoly position in operating systems to bundle explosive tools
I guess you're a) a troll or b) a 13-year old IDIOT.
Sheesh. Can you think of anything creative besides form-letter bashing? "The fact is, micros~1 used the monopoly position in operating systems to _____ and they should be held accountable"
Tapes died compared to disks. (My first ZX Spectrum used audio tape to store data). So will this. It's THAT much slower. You can't jump around in tapes and you have to rewind. Arguably, you don't want to do that as much with movies as you want to with data, but you still want to be able to jump to an arbitrary point in the movie and unless this is much cheaper, I'm not rushing to stores to buy one.
So you can record digital quality on tape. Well, so what? I watched my last VHS tape about 3 months ago when my roommate bought a DVD player. I don't think I can watch VHS anymore. Now this is mainly because of the digital picture and 5.1 sound, but there is more.
There is a reason CDs won out over tape for use with computers. Seek time! With a DVD (or any digital Video disk format that comes out in the future) you get the great ability to jump to any point in the movie, jump to the special sections, not have to rewind, etc.
Now unless these tapes are CONSIDERABLY cheaper, there is no way I'm going to consider them over DVDs. (I expect recordable digital video disks soon)
If you want to add new features and the existing file formats don't support this, you have two choices: Don't add the new feature or change file formats.
The peer-pressure argument works both ways. If your file formats are not compatible, that is as much a deterrent for the first customers to upgrade as it is an incentive for the last ones to do so.
Whenever a product changes its file formats in a way that makes it incompatible with existing products or versions of itself, it is because someone somewhere along the way made the decision that the new features were worth sacrificing format compatibility for. The success (or otherwise) of that new product is a testimony (or otherwise) of customers agreeing with that decision.
I'm defensive about this because I work on a product where we have recently had to change our database formats between versions. Luckily, our customers constitute a very small niche market so it was possible for us to individually educate them on why we had to do it, but we still did our damndest best to work with what we had before we ultimately made the decision to change formats.
An argument can be made, of course, about why the formats were incompatible in the first place. But often, it's only possible to see so far into the future.
The post I was replying to said he wanted to split Windows into three. i.e. three companies that sell Windows. That is different from what you're proposing.
However, it *doesn't* solve the windows monopoly. It takes away some of the things ms has abused to create the monopoly, but not all of them. Windows should be split into at least three pieces, either formed from microsoft, or by auction of source code rights to other parties. This creates three different entities that can sell windows.
Do you think you can break up Windows into three distinct pieces, mutually exclusive from each other? I'd be interested to hear how, if you think so.
If, on the other hand, you mean breaking it up into three companies with identical products, you are making a big mistake. There is one crucial difference between MS's assets and those of Standard Oil and AT&T. When you break Standard Oil and AT&T into pieces, each of the individual pieces is worth something. The sum of the value of the individual assets was roughly the same as the value of the assets of the original company. Those oil wells could pump oil and make money.
Having Multiple companies own the Windows code means that each company has the same product which it has zero or no marginal cost to sell. When the marginal cost is zero, so is the price. The three companies will drive each others prices down until you achieve a point where none of them can sustain themselves and they will collapse. Unless you're a rabid Windows-hater, you can't believe this will be good for society at large.
Slashdot Mirror
We wouldn't have had them sing that we put a man on the moon if we hadn't.
I mean no disrespect but what you or your friend in the former Soviet army believed, thought, were told to believe or think, or were told the top brass was thinking had little to do with what they were actually thinking. The only thing that got out, of course, was what they wanted you to believe.
The Soviets would have indulged in a Napoleanesque annexation of the whole of Europe just as much as the NATO would have of Russia if they believed it would have been as easy as a Napoleonesque annexation. What kept each side from doing it was the deterrence and the threat of resistance on each side. While it caused a lot of fear on each side and still worries me what would happen if any of it fell into the wrong hands or if the hands it is in got deranged for any reason, ultimately it is the massive arsenal of weaponry on either side that eventually saved the world.
This is all IMHO, of course.
No, the fact of the matter is in fact that the government has to do these things because regardless of what it does there is always some whackjob claiming there's a sinister conspiracy - and that includes the crap about "corporate powers" - the same nutcases who refused to let the WTO, an organization of COUNTRIES to meet. People, it seems, are always willing to scream sinister conspiracy when the government does something that they don't like. People need to get used to the fact that what is in their personal best interests is not always in the greater interests of the nation or the world.
So can anyone explain exactly why he thought removing the moon would make things better? I went to the pages you pointed to but couldn't find an explanation I could understand.
I was having this discussion with some friends the other day and the conclusion I arrived at was that my body was built for like a 26 or 27-hour clock. I try to keep a steady schedule so I don't get to work at too ridiculous hours and find that I have a hard time going to bed at night because my body wants to stay up and an equally hard time waking up in the morning. 26 hours or so would be perfect!
Vote to push the moon farther!
I don't think the above poster was trolling. I completely disagree with everything he's saying and believe he's wrong.
But I wouldn't moderate him down for having a radically different opinion from mine.
I'm sorry your post was moderated down. It seems some kids can't stand to hear views contrary to theirs. I was disappointed by robs and emmits articles. However, I have a lot of faith in the slashdot community at large and encourage you to have it too.
I'm proud to read a balanced and intelligent comment here and to note that it has been moderated up to 5. My faith is restored.
I was ashamed to read the vast majority of the posts on the two similar threads yesterday and today and more so by the authors of the features. It is interesting to note how the writers screamed about freedom of speech and Microsoft trying to take down posts that disagree with them while that was patently not the case. Note that there was no demand to take down any of the posts that are and have been critical of Microsoft. The demand was simply to take down posts which were a regurgitation of copyrighted material - NOT original thoughts or ideas. It's a SHAME you failed to note that.
This has nothing to do with the expression of ideas or thoughts. The posts being objected to are nothing but a regurgitation of copyrighted material or links to copyrighted material. Asking for them to be removed is not censorship.
Notice that there was no request to remove the "Bill Gate$ $uck$ a$$!" posts.
Slashdot attempts to demonize Bill Gates by showing pictures of him as a Borg. If the Washington Post mentions that it makes you sick?!
I'll shut up while the irony sinks in.
Censorship is restriction of the freedom of expression of peoples opinions, thoughts and ideas.
The posts Microsoft is objecting to do not contain any original opinions, thoughts or ideas , but rather a regurgitation of copyrighted material. It might suit your purpose of demonizing Microsoft to pretend this is an issue of Microsoft attempting to censor comments but when you get your head out of your ass you will realize that the only people you have fooled are the others who have their heads similarly up their asses.
The analogy you are looking for is more like automatic rifles. The other clients require you to manually stuff the gunpowder into them, while outlook makes it easy.
The other clients just make it a pain-in-the-ass to execute attachments i.e. save and then execute. That is not a security feature.
The difference is simply that Outlook will allow you to execute the attachment easily while the other clients make it a pain-in-the-ass to do so. (not that I've used any - this is simple from my reading on the subject). That is a feature IMHO.
Outlook's file extension hiding means that the attachment showed as .TXT, not .vbs
That's a valid point. However, you must remember that if you have extensions turned off, you don't see any extensions and the .txt should tip you off. Further, the icon used for the VB Script is quite different from the icon used for text documents. This should tip you off too.
It's a truly bizarre world where viewing a document executes that document.
That's a feature, not a bug. I want my selecting to open a document (double-clicking) to view the document or execute it depending on the type of the document
That was just this time. Bubbleboy proved that you can make the code launch as soon as the message comes up.
Note that this HTML code runs inside a sandbox and can't do any harm. The attachment in question was an external attachment and you had to select to execute it. Simply viewing the mail is not enough
It doesn't take rocket science. HTML formatted messages render IMG= objects quite promiscuously; VBS is one of the options.
See above point. In the future, please check your facts before you post
The HTML in the preview pane runs inside a sandbox and can't do any damage. The ILOVEYOU virus was an external attachment and you have to specifically select to execute it.
Please get your facts right.
No, I'm not being funny or sarcastic. I WANT to be able to run attachments from people I trust.
Unix mail-readers typically don't make this as easy. And THAT is not a feature, but a bug. It is not hard to run email attachments because of some deep security insight, but merely because no one bothered to code it in.
I was going to write for you stop lying because it does NOT run in the preview pane. Then I read this:
The fact is, micros~1 used their monopoly position in operating systems to bundle explosive tools
I guess you're a) a troll or b) a 13-year old IDIOT.
Sheesh. Can you think of anything creative besides form-letter bashing? "The fact is, micros~1 used the monopoly position in operating systems to _____ and they should be held accountable"
Please stop lying. It does not run in the preview pane. You have to select to run it.
Tapes died compared to disks. (My first ZX Spectrum used audio tape to store data). So will this. It's THAT much slower. You can't jump around in tapes and you have to rewind. Arguably, you don't want to do that as much with movies as you want to with data, but you still want to be able to jump to an arbitrary point in the movie and unless this is much cheaper, I'm not rushing to stores to buy one.
So you can record digital quality on tape. Well, so what? I watched my last VHS tape about 3 months ago when my roommate bought a DVD player. I don't think I can watch VHS anymore. Now this is mainly because of the digital picture and 5.1 sound, but there is more.
There is a reason CDs won out over tape for use with computers. Seek time! With a DVD (or any digital Video disk format that comes out in the future) you get the great ability to jump to any point in the movie, jump to the special sections, not have to rewind, etc.
Now unless these tapes are CONSIDERABLY cheaper, there is no way I'm going to consider them over DVDs. (I expect recordable digital video disks soon)
Go to Tools->Options and select the Security tab.
Click on Zone Settings and Attachment Security to choose when scripts are run
If you want to add new features and the existing file formats don't support this, you have two choices: Don't add the new feature or change file formats.
The peer-pressure argument works both ways. If your file formats are not compatible, that is as much a deterrent for the first customers to upgrade as it is an incentive for the last ones to do so.
Whenever a product changes its file formats in a way that makes it incompatible with existing products or versions of itself, it is because someone somewhere along the way made the decision that the new features were worth sacrificing format compatibility for. The success (or otherwise) of that new product is a testimony (or otherwise) of customers agreeing with that decision.
I'm defensive about this because I work on a product where we have recently had to change our database formats between versions. Luckily, our customers constitute a very small niche market so it was possible for us to individually educate them on why we had to do it, but we still did our damndest best to work with what we had before we ultimately made the decision to change formats.
An argument can be made, of course, about why the formats were incompatible in the first place. But often, it's only possible to see so far into the future.
The post I was replying to said he wanted to split Windows into three. i.e. three companies that sell Windows. That is different from what you're proposing.
However, it *doesn't* solve the windows monopoly. It takes away some of the things ms has abused to create the monopoly, but not all of them. Windows should be split into at least three pieces, either formed from microsoft, or by auction of source code rights to other parties. This creates three different entities that can sell windows.
Do you think you can break up Windows into three distinct pieces, mutually exclusive from each other? I'd be interested to hear how, if you think so.
If, on the other hand, you mean breaking it up into three companies with identical products, you are making a big mistake. There is one crucial difference between MS's assets and those of Standard Oil and AT&T. When you break Standard Oil and AT&T into pieces, each of the individual pieces is worth something. The sum of the value of the individual assets was roughly the same as the value of the assets of the original company. Those oil wells could pump oil and make money.
Having Multiple companies own the Windows code means that each company has the same product which it has zero or no marginal cost to sell. When the marginal cost is zero, so is the price. The three companies will drive each others prices down until you achieve a point where none of them can sustain themselves and they will collapse. Unless you're a rabid Windows-hater, you can't believe this will be good for society at large.