Nope, there are plenty of people who are clueless or who have been fooled by their constant PR campaign of misinformation.
That's an unnecessary insult. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm stupid. I've presented valid points that are both pro- and anti-Microsoft.
When was the last time you bought a computer from Microsoft?
When did I say anything about Microsoft selling computers? I said Microsoft sells Windows, a program for computers. This is either an attempt at a 'straw man' argument, or you can't read.
This in about whether Dell or Gateway or Lenovo can sell you a computer pre-loaded with Windows and IE and WMP. This is about whether Microsoft can force Dell and Gateway and Lenovo to sell you a computer pre-loaded with Windows and IE and WMP instead of their choice of browser and media player. This is whether Dell can not install IE and instead ship Firefox.
And that's a valid point. I said that Microsoft has used underhanded, and possibly illegal business practices to push their software. But that should be dealt with in court, IE and WMA being pre-installed shouldn't be an issue - the extortion should be an issue. This is another 'straw man' argument, you're setting up an opposing view that no one supports to attempt to gain credibility.
Not at all. Microsoft has used terrible methods to force people to use them despite them obviously not being the best or the cheapest or the most reliable. It is about consumers using sub-par products because the free market is bypassed by MS's illegal abuse of their monopoly.
Yeah. I know. That's what I said. Right after what you quoted, I said "They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor." You keep taking what I said out of context, or completely misunderstand what I'm saying.
Microsoft is not on trial. They lost their trial and were judged guilty. Microsoft is arguing that they don't have to obey the court's punishments or that they really did obey when they didn't.
Yeah, that what an "appeal" is. It happens all the time. It's part of the judicial system. (sarcasm) Though we should get rid of that, because courts are never wrong (/sarcasm).
Second, Microsoft was judged guilty of abusing their monopoly. None of the other companies have a monopoly, thus they can't possibly be "doing the same thing."
Sigh, and I didn't say any other company had a monopoly. I said that other companies bundle their own software together. Doesn't OSX come with Safari and Quicktime? And iChat? And there's no court ruling baring them from doing that. That's an abuse of judicial powers.
You seem to be very, very misinformed.
And you seem to be a few cans short of a six-pack (see, I can be insulting too).
You seem to completely miss the point. Forcing Microsoft to sell Windows and IE and WMA separately is like forcing Ford (imagine Ford sells 90% of all cars) not to put in a stereo. You'd have to go out and get your own stereo, or buy the stock stereo separately. It's completely asinine.
I didn't say that a computer needs IE and WMA, I said every pc needs to go online and play media files... let's look at the quote:
"Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files"
Not that every computer needs Microsoft software, but every computer needs something, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be Microsoft.
I also said "they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor". Specifically, they tell retailers that they'll pull all their products if they put competitor's software on it. That is a bad thing. There should be legal injunctions about that, to protect the retailers if they decided to pre-load other software - that would be a good solution, having choice. But the EU regulations are not just giving consumers choice, they're forcing them to get these programs themselves.
These regulations seem to have no benefit for the average consumer. The average consumer doesn't care if they use IE or FF, they just want to go online. Why should the average consumer should be burdened with doing this work themselves? Why is it a bad thing to have easily accessible programs installed by default?
> The average user doesn't care about any of this. They want everything to work 'out of the box'.
> Advanced users care, but are smart enough to fix any 'software problem' themselves.
> While Microsoft's business practices may be seen as unscrupulous, and possibly > illegal - their products are not.
I'm still unclear about why Microsoft is in court over these petty issues. Why aren't they in court about how they steal hardware and software designs? Or about their attempts at superfluous patents, like 'double-clicking'? Why is it illegal for Microsoft to have closed-source software? Why should they be forced to share their coding secrets with others? Why is it Microsoft's fault that they're the most popular?
Specifically, this story is about the EU's attempt to get Microsoft to "share information, so-called protocols, so that other software makers could compete." Why? Are they doing this with every operating system? Is it the law in Europe to help out business rivals? Am I the only one who thinks this is retarded? Why is Microsoft being targeted? How much help does Apple give their competitors?
I don't claim to know all the answers, but I'm sure the EU doesn't either.
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually hates the anti-trust suits against Microsoft.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
Now, I don't use IE or WMA; but I used to. I'm smart enough to figure out how to find better programs online. But if I didn't have IE to begin with - how would I get new programs? What if I didn't know how to get other programs? What If I just wanted to use WMA and IE?
Now, Microsoft has used terrible methods of making themselves the best. They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor. But there are two things to remember here: Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing, Microsoft's just better at it; and Microsoft is rarely on trial for being unscrupulous (most of it is illegal, but not all).
"CO2 and N2O both stay in the atmosphere for 100+ years"? Where does it go? Where'd that number come from? It stays 'in the air' until something uses it. Like a tree or something.
It's not that I doubt we've done damage to the planet's ecosystem, it's just that I doubt we've done that much.
1. The same people, and the same "evidence" that said we were headed toward another ice age now says we're headed toward 'global warming'. CO2 emissions, Ozone depletion, etc, these are the exact same things used to say we were cooling the Earth off too quickly. I'm just not impressed with the 'research'.
2. "By proxy" data is not really good data. It can be misused, and misinterpeted easily. We don't have reliable data for surface temperatures past a couple hundred years. It's foolish to think that a couple hundred years of data can be used to extrapolate thousands of years.
3. There's very little consideration given to 'natural' causes for global warming. CO2 emissions (Volcanoes, animal 'emissions'), remember how the Earth is actually spiraling into the Sun?. Has anyone thought about the Moon? It's floating away from us, no one mentions how the tide changes affect the climate.
4. Most information is based on statistical evidence. 'How warm is it this year', how hot is it the next'. That kind of research is difficult. Really difficult. The number of confounding factors is staggering. And I hate to quote Rumsfeld, but "There are unknown unknowns. Things that we do not know we don't know." What other factors could have contributed to this data? Do we know? Can we know?
I'm not saying there's no way that 'global warming' exists, I'm just saying we don't have enough information yet.
All I'm saying is that we've created more pollution and done more damage to the Earth than we could ever do again, and the result was so small as to be neglidgeable. Especcially when you consider natural causes of "global warming".
Remember, the planet continuously goes through cycles of climate change. Eventually we will have another ice age. I'm not guessing - we WILL have another ice age. That's what the planet does, get's really cold and then get's warmer again, lather, rinse, repeat.
The worst thing I've ever heard is because of the greatest technological advancements in Human history, the last couple hundred years have seen an increase in the overall surface temperature of the Earth.
An increase of 2 freaking degrees - FAHRENHEIT!!
Two degrees? On the surface? That's the best scare you can give us? Two degrees is nothing! Industrial revolution, mass globalization, nuclear weapon testing - and two degrees?!
Saying people are causing global warming is like saying we're causing the Earth to spiral into the sun (it's happening, very slowly, but we're not to blame).
That's a terrible analogy - they didn't make him act like a fool - he did it himself. If a woman taped herself having sex, and then left the tape where others were sure to find it - then she IS NOT A VICTIM. You're probably one of those people who feel bad for Paris Hilton.
He had to drop out of school due to harassment.
Kids teased him at school? Him? A fat Star Wars nerd? I don't believe it.
He still gets approached by people on the streets about it.
Oh the horror! People... on the... STREET! He might have to talk to them, or worse yet IGNORE THEM!
His parents had to hire a private tutor for him.
Well, he DID drop out of school.
He ended up on anti-depression medication.
Well that's a terrible problem that probably has more to do with him being a pussy than being the 'Star Wars kid'.
If Nintendo's making that much on the new DS, think about the Japanese vendors - DS-lites are so rare in Japan they're selling DS-lites at three to four times MSRP. They're even importing DS's from Europe and America to sell in Japan (at even higher costs).
In the case of the age of the earth, there are far more problems with it being billions of years old than being a few thousand years old. You can't truely disrespect this belief because the balance of information is fairly solid on both sides.
Are you flippin' kidding me? The Earth cannot, repeat cannot, be only a few thousand years old. It is impossible. There's geological, archaeological, astronomical, and genetic proof that the Earth cannot be less than a few billion years old.
My own rule of thumb is "if the person believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old - they've lost the argument".
There's a simple logical argument here; the accumulation of a positive effect the first time, and no effect the second time means a net positive effect.
Where the hell did you think that up? I could say "the Earth is flat" a thousand times and say "the Earth is round" once - guess which one is correct?
The more I have thought about it, the more they look similar too me. In mathematics, I have been made to believe the wildest things, but not without a reason. Yeah, kinda similar.
NO! Not similar at all. If you have 'faith' in the Bible, then you believe it without question - if you were to question religion, you are a heretic. If you question a science you are looked upon with joy, if you fail to question science you are seen as a fool. "Kinda similar", but the exact opposite.
But it is important to 'disrespect' a belief if that belief is false.
If someone said that they believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old I couldn't disagree with them without 'disrespecting' their beliefs.
We shouldn't let people be stupid just so they don't feel bad about themselves.
If someone says "praying helps" then they are wrong. I'm sorry they're wrong, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's not true.
"I am unreligious...but what harm is praying?"
I am un-racist, but what harm is telling people about White Supremacy?
I am un-educated, but what harm is being ignorant?
"D&D is boring, though, and frankly, it can really only be played with people I don't wanna be around"
You didn't say "I find D&D boring because I'm rather anti-social and refuse to try new things." That would've been alright. You could've said "I have no one to play with, so my interest in D&D has wained." That would've garnered our support and sympathy. Saying something like those would have shown your statement was 'opinion' and thus cannot be disagreed with.
But you said "D&D is boring, though, and frankly, it can really only be played with people I don't wanna be around". You stated "D&D is boring" like it was 'fact' - not 'opinion', 'fact'. Stating false facts are tantamount to treason with the 'unpopular'.
For something to be 'fact' you must state it and back it up with reasoning. Then that reasoning can be evaluated and discussed. The point is to create a "nonstop feedback loop" that doesn't "merely reinforces previously held ideas" but instead looks the truth.
You do not understand the basic principles of the English language. Ignorant and stupid people do not understand things. You said things to obviously incite hostility. Hoodlums try to incite hostility.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, there are plenty of people who are clueless or who have been fooled by their constant PR campaign of misinformation.
That's an unnecessary insult. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm stupid. I've presented valid points that are both pro- and anti-Microsoft.
When was the last time you bought a computer from Microsoft?
When did I say anything about Microsoft selling computers? I said Microsoft sells Windows, a program for computers. This is either an attempt at a 'straw man' argument, or you can't read.
This in about whether Dell or Gateway or Lenovo can sell you a computer pre-loaded with Windows and IE and WMP. This is about whether Microsoft can force Dell and Gateway and Lenovo to sell you a computer pre-loaded with Windows and IE and WMP instead of their choice of browser and media player. This is whether Dell can not install IE and instead ship Firefox.
And that's a valid point. I said that Microsoft has used underhanded, and possibly illegal business practices to push their software. But that should be dealt with in court, IE and WMA being pre-installed shouldn't be an issue - the extortion should be an issue. This is another 'straw man' argument, you're setting up an opposing view that no one supports to attempt to gain credibility.
Not at all. Microsoft has used terrible methods to force people to use them despite them obviously not being the best or the cheapest or the most reliable. It is about consumers using sub-par products because the free market is bypassed by MS's illegal abuse of their monopoly.
Yeah. I know. That's what I said. Right after what you quoted, I said "They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor." You keep taking what I said out of context, or completely misunderstand what I'm saying.
Microsoft is not on trial. They lost their trial and were judged guilty. Microsoft is arguing that they don't have to obey the court's punishments or that they really did obey when they didn't.
Yeah, that what an "appeal" is. It happens all the time. It's part of the judicial system. (sarcasm) Though we should get rid of that, because courts are never wrong (/sarcasm).
Second, Microsoft was judged guilty of abusing their monopoly. None of the other companies have a monopoly, thus they can't possibly be "doing the same thing."
Sigh, and I didn't say any other company had a monopoly. I said that other companies bundle their own software together. Doesn't OSX come with Safari and Quicktime? And iChat? And there's no court ruling baring them from doing that. That's an abuse of judicial powers.
You seem to be very, very misinformed.
And you seem to be a few cans short of a six-pack (see, I can be insulting too).
You seem to completely miss the point. Forcing Microsoft to sell Windows and IE and WMA separately is like forcing Ford (imagine Ford sells 90% of all cars) not to put in a stereo. You'd have to go out and get your own stereo, or buy the stock stereo separately. It's completely asinine.
I didn't say that a computer needs IE and WMA, I said every pc needs to go online and play media files... let's look at the quote:
"Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files"
Not that every computer needs Microsoft software, but every computer needs something, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be Microsoft.
I also said "they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor". Specifically, they tell retailers that they'll pull all their products if they put competitor's software on it. That is a bad thing. There should be legal injunctions about that, to protect the retailers if they decided to pre-load other software - that would be a good solution, having choice. But the EU regulations are not just giving consumers choice, they're forcing them to get these programs themselves.
These regulations seem to have no benefit for the average consumer. The average consumer doesn't care if they use IE or FF, they just want to go online. Why should the average consumer should be burdened with doing this work themselves? Why is it a bad thing to have easily accessible programs installed by default?
> The average user doesn't care about any of this. They want everything to work 'out of the box'.
> Advanced users care, but are smart enough to fix any 'software problem' themselves.
> While Microsoft's business practices may be seen as unscrupulous, and possibly > illegal - their products are not.
I'm still unclear about why Microsoft is in court over these petty issues. Why aren't they in court about how they steal hardware and software designs? Or about their attempts at superfluous patents, like 'double-clicking'? Why is it illegal for Microsoft to have closed-source software? Why should they be forced to share their coding secrets with others? Why is it Microsoft's fault that they're the most popular?
Specifically, this story is about the EU's attempt to get Microsoft to "share information, so-called protocols, so that other software makers could compete." Why? Are they doing this with every operating system? Is it the law in Europe to help out business rivals? Am I the only one who thinks this is retarded? Why is Microsoft being targeted? How much help does Apple give their competitors?
I don't claim to know all the answers, but I'm sure the EU doesn't either.
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually hates the anti-trust suits against Microsoft.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
Now, I don't use IE or WMA; but I used to. I'm smart enough to figure out how to find better programs online. But if I didn't have IE to begin with - how would I get new programs? What if I didn't know how to get other programs? What If I just wanted to use WMA and IE?
Now, Microsoft has used terrible methods of making themselves the best. They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor. But there are two things to remember here: Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing, Microsoft's just better at it; and Microsoft is rarely on trial for being unscrupulous (most of it is illegal, but not all).
Soon enough some kid will start hookin' and blame it on this - and Jack Thompson will rear his ugly head.
"CO2 and N2O both stay in the atmosphere for 100+ years"? Where does it go? Where'd that number come from? It stays 'in the air' until something uses it. Like a tree or something.
It's not that I doubt we've done damage to the planet's ecosystem, it's just that I doubt we've done that much.
1. The same people, and the same "evidence" that said we were headed toward another ice age now says we're headed toward 'global warming'. CO2 emissions, Ozone depletion, etc, these are the exact same things used to say we were cooling the Earth off too quickly. I'm just not impressed with the 'research'.
2. "By proxy" data is not really good data. It can be misused, and misinterpeted easily. We don't have reliable data for surface temperatures past a couple hundred years. It's foolish to think that a couple hundred years of data can be used to extrapolate thousands of years.
3. There's very little consideration given to 'natural' causes for global warming. CO2 emissions (Volcanoes, animal 'emissions'), remember how the Earth is actually spiraling into the Sun?. Has anyone thought about the Moon? It's floating away from us, no one mentions how the tide changes affect the climate.
4. Most information is based on statistical evidence. 'How warm is it this year', how hot is it the next'. That kind of research is difficult. Really difficult. The number of confounding factors is staggering. And I hate to quote Rumsfeld, but "There are unknown unknowns. Things that we do not know we don't know." What other factors could have contributed to this data? Do we know? Can we know?
I'm not saying there's no way that 'global warming' exists, I'm just saying we don't have enough information yet.
All I'm saying is that we've created more pollution and done more damage to the Earth than we could ever do again, and the result was so small as to be neglidgeable. Especcially when you consider natural causes of "global warming".
Remember, the planet continuously goes through cycles of climate change. Eventually we will have another ice age. I'm not guessing - we WILL have another ice age. That's what the planet does, get's really cold and then get's warmer again, lather, rinse, repeat.
The worst thing I've ever heard is because of the greatest technological advancements in Human history, the last couple hundred years have seen an increase in the overall surface temperature of the Earth.
An increase of 2 freaking degrees - FAHRENHEIT!!
Two degrees? On the surface? That's the best scare you can give us? Two degrees is nothing! Industrial revolution, mass globalization, nuclear weapon testing - and two degrees?!
Saying people are causing global warming is like saying we're causing the Earth to spiral into the sun (it's happening, very slowly, but we're not to blame).
That's a terrible analogy - they didn't make him act like a fool - he did it himself. If a woman taped herself having sex, and then left the tape where others were sure to find it - then she IS NOT A VICTIM. You're probably one of those people who feel bad for Paris Hilton.
You do know he taped the film himself, right? And left it in a public place?
If you don't want to be embarrassed, don't VIDEO TAPE yourself - or at least don't leave the tape laying around.
He had to drop out of school due to harassment.
Kids teased him at school? Him? A fat Star Wars nerd? I don't believe it.
He still gets approached by people on the streets about it.
Oh the horror! People... on the... STREET! He might have to talk to them, or worse yet IGNORE THEM!
His parents had to hire a private tutor for him.
Well, he DID drop out of school.
He ended up on anti-depression medication.
Well that's a terrible problem that probably has more to do with him being a pussy than being the 'Star Wars kid'.
Trying to teach IDers evolution isn't like teaching retarded children calculus, it's like trying to teach Nazis Hebrew.
The first group might want to learn, the other group doesn't.
I spent my vacation in "national pound-me-in-the-ass park". Not as nice as they promised it would be.
If Nintendo's making that much on the new DS, think about the Japanese vendors - DS-lites are so rare in Japan they're selling DS-lites at three to four times MSRP. They're even importing DS's from Europe and America to sell in Japan (at even higher costs).
Yeah, but that pony's armor will cost you extra.
Oh what?! Fuck. I'm totally buying video games for underage kids now.
Thank God this shit isn't happening in Canada :)
In the case of the age of the earth, there are far more problems with it being billions of years old than being a few thousand years old. You can't truely disrespect this belief because the balance of information is fairly solid on both sides.
Are you flippin' kidding me? The Earth cannot, repeat cannot, be only a few thousand years old. It is impossible. There's geological, archaeological, astronomical, and genetic proof that the Earth cannot be less than a few billion years old.
My own rule of thumb is "if the person believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old - they've lost the argument".
There's a simple logical argument here; the accumulation of a positive effect the first time, and no effect the second time means a net positive effect.
Where the hell did you think that up? I could say "the Earth is flat" a thousand times and say "the Earth is round" once - guess which one is correct?
The more I have thought about it, the more they look similar too me. In mathematics, I have been made to believe the wildest things, but not without a reason. Yeah, kinda similar.
NO! Not similar at all. If you have 'faith' in the Bible, then you believe it without question - if you were to question religion, you are a heretic. If you question a science you are looked upon with joy, if you fail to question science you are seen as a fool. "Kinda similar", but the exact opposite.
To think that you are completely right, ignoring the possibility that you could be wrong, that is the only real ignorance.
Which is exactly what people, who believe prayer does anything, believe.
But we can PROVE that 2+2=4, you can't PROVE God exists.
Unless you can. And if you can, please do... I'll be waiting.
But it is important to 'disrespect' a belief if that belief is false.
If someone said that they believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old I couldn't disagree with them without 'disrespecting' their beliefs.
We shouldn't let people be stupid just so they don't feel bad about themselves.
If someone says "praying helps" then they are wrong. I'm sorry they're wrong, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's not true.
"I am unreligious...but what harm is praying?"
I am un-racist, but what harm is telling people about White Supremacy?
I am un-educated, but what harm is being ignorant?
"Prayer Does Not Help Heart Patients"
Well 'Duh'!
Yes it is. There's too much "queer positive" stuff nowadays.No one's alowwed to say anything's 'gay'.
Homosexuals aren't more special than me - I get to make fun of them just as much as I make fun of cripples and the ugly.
"Don't the slashdot guys know this?"
Not the Slashdot guys who go "OMG!!! PONIES!!!"
The problem isn't with us - it's with you.
"D&D is boring, though, and frankly, it can really only be played with people I don't wanna be around"
You didn't say "I find D&D boring because I'm rather anti-social and refuse to try new things." That would've been alright. You could've said "I have no one to play with, so my interest in D&D has wained." That would've garnered our support and sympathy. Saying something like those would have shown your statement was 'opinion' and thus cannot be disagreed with.
But you said "D&D is boring, though, and frankly, it can really only be played with people I don't wanna be around". You stated "D&D is boring" like it was 'fact' - not 'opinion', 'fact'. Stating false facts are tantamount to treason with the 'unpopular'.
For something to be 'fact' you must state it and back it up with reasoning. Then that reasoning can be evaluated and discussed. The point is to create a "nonstop feedback loop" that doesn't "merely reinforces previously held ideas" but instead looks the truth.
You do not understand the basic principles of the English language. Ignorant and stupid people do not understand things. You said things to obviously incite hostility. Hoodlums try to incite hostility.
You are and ignorant, stupid hoodlum.