From what I understand, Microsoft also offers "rebates" to hardware computer vendors that are primarily or entirely Windows only. It's the loophole in their consent decree (rebates instead of discounts).
This is blatant monopolistic malpractice, and whoever thinks it should continue is plain wrong. Either the laws aren't working right, or they're not there in the first place, in which case they should be. Laissez Faire does not work.
Comparing virus rates on Windows and Linux is useless... There are millions of clueless windows users out there who will install whatever pops up on their screen. Linux users are generally more savvy. I've personally run Windows (2k and Vista) for over 10 years, with no AV, and I have been pretty careless in terms of updates (I generally never touch updates unless it fixes an issue I need fixing). I do however run more reliable 3rd party software (Firefox, Foxit, etc). I had one virus scare about 5 years ago, when one of the popular viruses of the day managed to find its way onto my system somehow - I know my system relatively well, and knew something was wrong... It took all of 1 hour to remove, with no corrupted files.
I buy all my software OEM with hardware - much of what is wrong with windows installs is not windows itself, it's the crap that comes with it. The biggest problem with the PC market is shitty retailers throwing out "high spec" computers which are far from... It makes ignorant users assume you have to get a new computer every year. Dell is far from the worst in this, though they are culpable to some degree. However, Dell is one of the leading villains in terms of AV kickbacks... their systems are loaded with so much bloat it's suprising they boot.
For why I still run Windows : Ubuntu does not play the games I want to play. I know it's a chicken and egg problem, but sorry, it just doesn't. Secondly, when I installed my OS last (a few years ago admittedly) Ubuntu did not support fakeraid - it was apparently possible to get it working, technically, but it was requiring proper in depth knowledge - not first time installers knowledge, especially on a stripe that already had something on.
Apart from early installation problems (original Vista64 would not install (BSOD) with nVidia chipset motherboards with over 4gb of RAM - try to diagnose that bastard:P) I've had few problems... my system restore has gone tits up, which I have to fix sometime soon though... meh maybe you're right:P.
Can I get more performance out of mouse/keyboard? Sure. But I have less fun when I do so!
Why on earth do you have more fun when you're able to control your game less well? I really don't understand where you're coming from with this - I personally just get a little frustrated when on my new console I can't control my character as well as I did back in PC DOOM days (though I have enjoyed some FPS's on consoles). How is an inferior interface adding to the experience?
If your 'normal' life is such that you don't prefer it over drug and alcohol binges, then you are missing out.
In my post I explicitly said "the two lives are not mutually exclusive". I'm separating here for simplicity - obviously there's overlap... however, I don't do drugs and use alcohol because my "normal" life is crap. I do drugs and use alcohol because it's a lot of fun every once in a while. It's not exclusively an escape (though it can be used that way), it is a great experience in itself. Blanket statements about uses of substances are wrong, and just about all commonly made statements about loads of substances are demonstrably wrong too.
Just because I value experiences given to me by certain substances does not mean that I do not value the other experiences that those without the drug induced experiences have too.
I think part of it might be the change from looking inward to looking outward; the change from being self-centered to suddenly caring about people around you.
This is part of what gets some atheists so irate. You should have been doing this in the first place - religion or no. If it takes religion for someone to start caring for people around them, there's something wrong with that person.
I'm an atheist, though not a fanatic. I don't mind people believing in other things though I do perhaps think somewhat less of those that do. I believe in wonder, beauty, humanity, awe and hope, and these things are far from purely religious. YMMV
surely a drug injection (such as heroin) is in no way satisfying: as soon as the rush is over, you need to find more to keep yourself up.
You don't understand drugs. You can be very satisfied from a weekend in which you used drugs, and have no desire to use them currently. The perpetual myth is that once you pop you can't stop - it's just not true. Most people who end up properly addicted have serious problems beforehand. There are an estimated 1 million cocaine users in the UK... these are not the down and outs - cocaine is expensive, these are generally people with decent jobs.
That being said, I'd never touch heroin - downers just don't do it for me.
Life is so much more exciting when you are doing things. Even if it is just planting a seed and watching it grow.
Don't judge one until you've tried it. Planting a seed and watching it grow is about as exciting as painting a fence and watching it dry for some people. I get by on a full and active productive life interspersed with big fun drug and alcohol binges - the two lives are not mutually exclusive. When the latter begins to have a major effect on the former, you might have a problem.
Mods - parent is possibly not a troll (scarily)... it's just an opinion
I'm a (generally) innocent person. I do not want my taxes spent on watching me. That's one thing to understand - you are proposing that you pay for the government to keep tabs on _you_.
You are advocating a society in which everyone is watched, and pays through the nose for it. The worst thing about these kind of societies is that those with money and influence can often bypass the checks - it is only the unwashed masses who get screwed by them, and pay for them.
There is a reason "innocent until proven guilty" has a firm basis in law - it's to prevent the kind of things you are proposing.
Watching innocent people is a hugely ineffective way of detecting and preventing crime. The only people you should be watching are those with proven track records, or those you have actual information on. Watching everybody costs a huge amount, and produces insignificant results.
Watching everybody also takes away resources that could be better placed elsewhere - response to crimes would be quicker if we were not watching everyone.
I'm not going to live in a society in which I'm always watched - I'll move. Criminals probably will too, and then come back and commit crimes without the authorities knowing anything about them.
Why do you think it would not fly with the public?
Ok... to take your argument to the extreme, companies should charge an excess for food for short physical labourers, since they have inherently a higher surface to mass ratio and are therefore expending more energy working for the same result.
Do you see why that's a stupid argument?
People with disabilities can't be charged more for their inherent inconvenience because they're protected by the government.
So you're saying the only difference between tall people and those with disabilities is that the government says so. If the government said it was ok to charge more for those with disabilities, you'd be ok with that too, right? You and everyone else get a couple of dollars off of a plane ticket, and the one who requires something else ends up paying through the nose.
The grandparent is absolutely right, you're buying an exertion of energy to move mass (your own) to a desired location and buying filled capacity on the plane.
No... I'm buying a ticket to get _me_ from A to B. I don't want to have to weigh myself every time I book a plane ticket.
As I said in a previous post - I use mobile broadband, and have no land line, and it is acceptable. The 15Gb a month I get is more than many landline "fair use" policies. I pay total £30 a month for my phone and broadband.
I'm spending £15 a month on my mobile phone (300 minutes), and £15 a month on my mobile broadband (15Gb limit per month). I don't have a land line. I don't usually go much over the phone minutes, if at all, and have only been over the broadband limit once. The broadband is variable, but is generally ok. It usually runs at about 1.5Mb/s, rarely below that, and I've actually had it at 4Mb/s, which is as good as landline broadband here. The latency I've not tested recently, but was pretty crap when I first started using it (it has seemed to get better since). I also don't have a TV license, which is where loads of my 15Gb goes - BBC iPlayer (not live).
GP was playing devil's advocate with that analogy, and went on to make that a little more clear. The point being made, which I agree with, was that a lot of public infrastructure spending affects us indirectly, so just complaining about one thing that does not affect yourself directly is a little shortsighted. That's not to say I agree with all big infrastructure projects - some are horrendously misguided and offer crap value for money. 2Mb broadband in all homes may be one of these... if we were talking fibre, that may be worthwhile.
It is entirely discriminatory. People with disabilities cost airlines a lot more per person than tall people, but charging extra for them is rightly illegal. Would you also argue that people of some ethnic backgrounds cost airlines more in security, thus their fares should be raised?
Just to confirm - I'm 2 metres exactly - 6'6", and weigh 115 kilos or so (getting on for 250lbs). I could probably lose about 5 kilos of fat, but after that, I'd be losing muscle - I'm not huge, but have done a relatively physical job for a few years, and have broadened out. I was about 100 kilos when I was younger, and I was thin as a rake.
In response to the GGP - I should not be discriminated against because of my height just as people should not be discriminated against for any kind of physical attribute not in their control (disabilities spring to mind, which cost airlines to accomodate, yet are not charged more). That is unless there are legitimate concerns - I went to Thorpe Park on friday, and one of their rides has a maximum height of 1.96m. However, I fit in the seats fine, and my head was against the headrest, so no one even noticed I was over the maximum height. I have been refused entry to a ride in France due to my height though.
This is another term that has entered the popular lexicon and got warped. If a device is bricked, _no one_ can reactivate it - it is dead. If someone can revive the device for a fee, it's not bricked.... it's just something you probably should not have bought in the first place. Bricked means bricked - and I've had a few devices go that way on me because of mistakes.
Just about all turtles are endangered - there are a hell of a lot less of them now than there were a few hundred years ago. We've already fucked up the ecosystem by killing most of the turtles.... What most turtles eat (jellyfish) don't seem to be endangered at all - the lack of turtles and other predators seems to be increasing jellyfish numbers. Too many turtles is not going to wreck the ocean biosphere any time soon.
Who modded this "informative"? XP was a crap consumer upgrade to win2k (with features removed), and Vista (and now 7) runs wells on decent hardware. I've run Windows as one of my operating systems for the last 10 years or so, and XP was always crap IMO. YMMV:P
Being a dick isn't illegal.... and taking pictures to test whether an authoritarian police system is overeaching its powers is not being a dick. It's not making a stand, but it is questioning the powers that police assume they have, and it is a _good_ thing. It is far from petty.
GP did not say anything illegal, nor say he was planning anything illegal. They wouldn't be able to pin anything on him for it.
Besides, if I started shouting my previous comment to this discussion, I'd probably be carted off to the asylum. The internet and a crowded street are different places, with different rules.
There has been a lot of talk recently in the UK about introducing a small transaction fee every time stocks are bought or sold. This would not affect the long term investors hardly at all, because the fee is so small, but would hit those who buy and sell constantly.
But with results like 2-1 it's pretty much down to $random circumstance of the day.
The odds on professional football matches are about as wide as the odds on most other professional team sports. The World Cup is notoriusly difficult to predict individual matches in, because in many cases the teams have never played each other, or have not for a very long time, so odds are generally closer than usual, and upsets happen a lot. Some teams we know very very little about, eg. North Korea. Within a football league, you get to know teams a lot better and can more accurately predict the outcome.
Who would ever assume that it is possible to predict any game of Association Football? When two teams have even slightly comparable skill levels, luck is the largest determining factor of any one game. The better team will probably win best out of 7, but the results of any one game are meaningless when determining who is the superior team.
Any game with such low scoring is the same way. In professional basketball it is possible to have 10-1 favorites because being superior is a far better indicator of who will win. But even in a game like baseball (with far more scoring than assoc. football on average) you usually only see odds of 4-1 at the extreme. And because of the lack of salary caps there is a far bigger discrepency between the skill levels of the best and worse teams in baseball.
I'm afraid you're wrong - in professional football it is common to have similar odds to that too : Chelsea vs West Brom - home win 1/7, draw 11/2, away win 14/1 (I found it pretty hard to find odds since the season is quite a way away). Note that the possibility of a draw significantly lengthens the odds of a home win - without that possibility, I'm guessing home win would be at least 1/10. These are both premiership teams, West Brom are admittedly not the most fancied, but are far from minnows. I'm also guessing that you only get odds of 10/1 in basketball when one team is superior too, otherwise it would make betting on the underdog pretty profitable for the punters. It looks pretty similar to basketball if you ask me, and since we have over 100 professional teams in England alone, there's probably a little more depth to the quality. If luck were the prime determining factor, odds like this would not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, Microsoft also offers "rebates" to hardware computer vendors that are primarily or entirely Windows only. It's the loophole in their consent decree (rebates instead of discounts).
This is blatant monopolistic malpractice, and whoever thinks it should continue is plain wrong. Either the laws aren't working right, or they're not there in the first place, in which case they should be. Laissez Faire does not work.
Comparing virus rates on Windows and Linux is useless... There are millions of clueless windows users out there who will install whatever pops up on their screen. Linux users are generally more savvy. I've personally run Windows (2k and Vista) for over 10 years, with no AV, and I have been pretty careless in terms of updates (I generally never touch updates unless it fixes an issue I need fixing). I do however run more reliable 3rd party software (Firefox, Foxit, etc). I had one virus scare about 5 years ago, when one of the popular viruses of the day managed to find its way onto my system somehow - I know my system relatively well, and knew something was wrong... It took all of 1 hour to remove, with no corrupted files.
I buy all my software OEM with hardware - much of what is wrong with windows installs is not windows itself, it's the crap that comes with it. The biggest problem with the PC market is shitty retailers throwing out "high spec" computers which are far from... It makes ignorant users assume you have to get a new computer every year. Dell is far from the worst in this, though they are culpable to some degree. However, Dell is one of the leading villains in terms of AV kickbacks... their systems are loaded with so much bloat it's suprising they boot.
For why I still run Windows : Ubuntu does not play the games I want to play. I know it's a chicken and egg problem, but sorry, it just doesn't. Secondly, when I installed my OS last (a few years ago admittedly) Ubuntu did not support fakeraid - it was apparently possible to get it working, technically, but it was requiring proper in depth knowledge - not first time installers knowledge, especially on a stripe that already had something on.
Apart from early installation problems (original Vista64 would not install (BSOD) with nVidia chipset motherboards with over 4gb of RAM - try to diagnose that bastard :P) I've had few problems... my system restore has gone tits up, which I have to fix sometime soon though... meh maybe you're right :P.
Can I get more performance out of mouse/keyboard? Sure. But I have less fun when I do so!
Why on earth do you have more fun when you're able to control your game less well? I really don't understand where you're coming from with this - I personally just get a little frustrated when on my new console I can't control my character as well as I did back in PC DOOM days (though I have enjoyed some FPS's on consoles). How is an inferior interface adding to the experience?
If your 'normal' life is such that you don't prefer it over drug and alcohol binges, then you are missing out.
In my post I explicitly said "the two lives are not mutually exclusive". I'm separating here for simplicity - obviously there's overlap... however, I don't do drugs and use alcohol because my "normal" life is crap. I do drugs and use alcohol because it's a lot of fun every once in a while. It's not exclusively an escape (though it can be used that way), it is a great experience in itself. Blanket statements about uses of substances are wrong, and just about all commonly made statements about loads of substances are demonstrably wrong too.
Just because I value experiences given to me by certain substances does not mean that I do not value the other experiences that those without the drug induced experiences have too.
I think part of it might be the change from looking inward to looking outward; the change from being self-centered to suddenly caring about people around you.
This is part of what gets some atheists so irate. You should have been doing this in the first place - religion or no. If it takes religion for someone to start caring for people around them, there's something wrong with that person.
I'm an atheist, though not a fanatic. I don't mind people believing in other things though I do perhaps think somewhat less of those that do. I believe in wonder, beauty, humanity, awe and hope, and these things are far from purely religious. YMMV
A drug can be fun once.... you don't need to keep coming back for more. They are not traps unless you allow them to become traps.
surely a drug injection (such as heroin) is in no way satisfying: as soon as the rush is over, you need to find more to keep yourself up.
You don't understand drugs. You can be very satisfied from a weekend in which you used drugs, and have no desire to use them currently. The perpetual myth is that once you pop you can't stop - it's just not true. Most people who end up properly addicted have serious problems beforehand. There are an estimated 1 million cocaine users in the UK... these are not the down and outs - cocaine is expensive, these are generally people with decent jobs.
That being said, I'd never touch heroin - downers just don't do it for me.
Life is so much more exciting when you are doing things. Even if it is just planting a seed and watching it grow.
Don't judge one until you've tried it. Planting a seed and watching it grow is about as exciting as painting a fence and watching it dry for some people. I get by on a full and active productive life interspersed with big fun drug and alcohol binges - the two lives are not mutually exclusive. When the latter begins to have a major effect on the former, you might have a problem.
Mods - parent is possibly not a troll (scarily)... it's just an opinion
I'm a (generally) innocent person. I do not want my taxes spent on watching me. That's one thing to understand - you are proposing that you pay for the government to keep tabs on _you_.
You are advocating a society in which everyone is watched, and pays through the nose for it. The worst thing about these kind of societies is that those with money and influence can often bypass the checks - it is only the unwashed masses who get screwed by them, and pay for them.
There is a reason "innocent until proven guilty" has a firm basis in law - it's to prevent the kind of things you are proposing.
Watching innocent people is a hugely ineffective way of detecting and preventing crime. The only people you should be watching are those with proven track records, or those you have actual information on. Watching everybody costs a huge amount, and produces insignificant results.
Watching everybody also takes away resources that could be better placed elsewhere - response to crimes would be quicker if we were not watching everyone.
I'm not going to live in a society in which I'm always watched - I'll move. Criminals probably will too, and then come back and commit crimes without the authorities knowing anything about them.
Why do you think it would not fly with the public?
Ok... to take your argument to the extreme, companies should charge an excess for food for short physical labourers, since they have inherently a higher surface to mass ratio and are therefore expending more energy working for the same result.
Do you see why that's a stupid argument?
People with disabilities can't be charged more for their inherent inconvenience because they're protected by the government.
So you're saying the only difference between tall people and those with disabilities is that the government says so. If the government said it was ok to charge more for those with disabilities, you'd be ok with that too, right? You and everyone else get a couple of dollars off of a plane ticket, and the one who requires something else ends up paying through the nose.
The grandparent is absolutely right, you're buying an exertion of energy to move mass (your own) to a desired location and buying filled capacity on the plane.
No... I'm buying a ticket to get _me_ from A to B. I don't want to have to weigh myself every time I book a plane ticket.
I don't want to live in your world.
As I said in a previous post - I use mobile broadband, and have no land line, and it is acceptable. The 15Gb a month I get is more than many landline "fair use" policies. I pay total £30 a month for my phone and broadband.
I'm spending £15 a month on my mobile phone (300 minutes), and £15 a month on my mobile broadband (15Gb limit per month). I don't have a land line. I don't usually go much over the phone minutes, if at all, and have only been over the broadband limit once. The broadband is variable, but is generally ok. It usually runs at about 1.5Mb/s, rarely below that, and I've actually had it at 4Mb/s, which is as good as landline broadband here. The latency I've not tested recently, but was pretty crap when I first started using it (it has seemed to get better since). I also don't have a TV license, which is where loads of my 15Gb goes - BBC iPlayer (not live).
GP was playing devil's advocate with that analogy, and went on to make that a little more clear. The point being made, which I agree with, was that a lot of public infrastructure spending affects us indirectly, so just complaining about one thing that does not affect yourself directly is a little shortsighted. That's not to say I agree with all big infrastructure projects - some are horrendously misguided and offer crap value for money. 2Mb broadband in all homes may be one of these... if we were talking fibre, that may be worthwhile.
It is entirely discriminatory. People with disabilities cost airlines a lot more per person than tall people, but charging extra for them is rightly illegal. Would you also argue that people of some ethnic backgrounds cost airlines more in security, thus their fares should be raised?
Just to confirm - I'm 2 metres exactly - 6'6", and weigh 115 kilos or so (getting on for 250lbs). I could probably lose about 5 kilos of fat, but after that, I'd be losing muscle - I'm not huge, but have done a relatively physical job for a few years, and have broadened out. I was about 100 kilos when I was younger, and I was thin as a rake.
In response to the GGP - I should not be discriminated against because of my height just as people should not be discriminated against for any kind of physical attribute not in their control (disabilities spring to mind, which cost airlines to accomodate, yet are not charged more). That is unless there are legitimate concerns - I went to Thorpe Park on friday, and one of their rides has a maximum height of 1.96m. However, I fit in the seats fine, and my head was against the headrest, so no one even noticed I was over the maximum height. I have been refused entry to a ride in France due to my height though.
This is another term that has entered the popular lexicon and got warped. If a device is bricked, _no one_ can reactivate it - it is dead. If someone can revive the device for a fee, it's not bricked.... it's just something you probably should not have bought in the first place. Bricked means bricked - and I've had a few devices go that way on me because of mistakes.
Just about all turtles are endangered - there are a hell of a lot less of them now than there were a few hundred years ago. We've already fucked up the ecosystem by killing most of the turtles.... What most turtles eat (jellyfish) don't seem to be endangered at all - the lack of turtles and other predators seems to be increasing jellyfish numbers. Too many turtles is not going to wreck the ocean biosphere any time soon.
Who modded this "informative"? XP was a crap consumer upgrade to win2k (with features removed), and Vista (and now 7) runs wells on decent hardware. I've run Windows as one of my operating systems for the last 10 years or so, and XP was always crap IMO. YMMV :P
Being a dick isn't illegal.... and taking pictures to test whether an authoritarian police system is overeaching its powers is not being a dick. It's not making a stand, but it is questioning the powers that police assume they have, and it is a _good_ thing. It is far from petty.
I'm not the OP, btw.
GP did not say anything illegal, nor say he was planning anything illegal. They wouldn't be able to pin anything on him for it.
Besides, if I started shouting my previous comment to this discussion, I'd probably be carted off to the asylum. The internet and a crowded street are different places, with different rules.
It's the DA's job to tell the police "FTW!? Let them go!"
Fuck The What does that stand for? Fare Thee Well?
Well, I'm going to be very rich in 400002006AD* :).
*I'm also predicting the world cup in 24565426AD** will be cancelled due to alien invasion.
**Because this is /. I did actually calculate whether this was a world cup year.
There has been a lot of talk recently in the UK about introducing a small transaction fee every time stocks are bought or sold. This would not affect the long term investors hardly at all, because the fee is so small, but would hit those who buy and sell constantly.
But with results like 2-1 it's pretty much down to $random circumstance of the day.
The odds on professional football matches are about as wide as the odds on most other professional team sports. The World Cup is notoriusly difficult to predict individual matches in, because in many cases the teams have never played each other, or have not for a very long time, so odds are generally closer than usual, and upsets happen a lot. Some teams we know very very little about, eg. North Korea. Within a football league, you get to know teams a lot better and can more accurately predict the outcome.
Who would ever assume that it is possible to predict any game of Association Football? When two teams have even slightly comparable skill levels, luck is the largest determining factor of any one game. The better team will probably win best out of 7, but the results of any one game are meaningless when determining who is the superior team.
Any game with such low scoring is the same way. In professional basketball it is possible to have 10-1 favorites because being superior is a far better indicator of who will win. But even in a game like baseball (with far more scoring than assoc. football on average) you usually only see odds of 4-1 at the extreme. And because of the lack of salary caps there is a far bigger discrepency between the skill levels of the best and worse teams in baseball.
I'm afraid you're wrong - in professional football it is common to have similar odds to that too : Chelsea vs West Brom - home win 1/7, draw 11/2, away win 14/1 (I found it pretty hard to find odds since the season is quite a way away). Note that the possibility of a draw significantly lengthens the odds of a home win - without that possibility, I'm guessing home win would be at least 1/10. These are both premiership teams, West Brom are admittedly not the most fancied, but are far from minnows. I'm also guessing that you only get odds of 10/1 in basketball when one team is superior too, otherwise it would make betting on the underdog pretty profitable for the punters. It looks pretty similar to basketball if you ask me, and since we have over 100 professional teams in England alone, there's probably a little more depth to the quality. If luck were the prime determining factor, odds like this would not happen.