Operating systems are Microsoft's core competency. You would think that by now Microsoft would know how to estimate the scope of the project required to write an upgrade for an existing operating system.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! WRONG!
From day one, ever since the deal with Seattle Computer Products, MARKETING has been Microsoft's core competency.
Microsoft has not, nor has it ever been, primarily a technology company. It has always been a marketing company.
Bill Gates has not, nor has he ever been, a techie OR a nerd - but what he is, is a brilliant marketeer
Lest those of you who wrote 5,000 lines of code last weekend pass a kidney stone at the thought of Windows developers writing only a thousand lines of code a year, realize that the average software developer in the US only produces around (brace yourself) 6200 lines a year. So Windows is in bad shape - but only by a constant, not by an order of magnitude.
So - windows programmers write 1/6th of the code that other programmers do, and they wonder why they're behind? D'oh!
Also from TFA:
Vista is said to have over 50 million lines of code, whereas XP was said to have around 40 million.
It's a frigging operatiing system, for god's sake. Just for comparison purposes, does anybody have any (reasonable) numbers for LOC in both Linux and X Windows? Mac OS/X? I'm guessing there there's just a wee bit of bloat in there.
And worst of all, there's the 50 dependency levels that were mentioned. WTF are they doing - writing the bloody thing in GWBASIC, line numbers and everything?
No, at this point it's eminently clear that Iraq was invaded because we knew they didn't have WMD's. If they'd had nukes (not sure if chemicals or biologicals would have stopped us, although they sure could have made things rough) we'd still be saber-rattling.
If that's the case, why isn't Canada a state yet?
We don't have nukes.
We have a shitload of oil
We have less of a military than Granada, albiet worse weather, so an invasion wouldn't be costly
And you'd finally be able to field a half-decent hockey team
Considering all the islam artifacts there, I doubt that Iran would do that. But of course, the other issue is that it is highly doubtful that Iran would have suitcase size bomb.
ummmmm..... refresh my memory... who was it that attacked that mosque in Iraqu? Oh, yeah - a bunch of muslim terrorists.
THe difference is that Bush is the elected official in charge of the farm. It may be a stupid thing to say (I think it was), but becuase he has the ultimate responsibility for making politial policy decisions, he also has the right - and indeed, the OBLIGATION - to make that policy. Therefor, he DOES have the right to say that.
The staffer has didn't have the responsibility, and therefore no right.
WHen the staffer speaks, he is not just "a person" - he is a government official. If he tells his friends what he thinks at a dinner party, he is an individual excersizing his personal right.
When he says it in front of the national press corps, he is a government offical, NOT a private individual - and he does not that the right.
Even in the USA, your right to swing your fist (however self-evident it is) end at the tip of my nose. THAT is the sence I meant it in.
When he is a high official as he was, what he says can affect peoples jobs & livelyhood. It can affect relations between two soverign countries. He is also not ELECTED by the population tomake political decisions.
CIRA tends not to do anything unless requested to by the registrar for that domain. ANd for all I (or you) know, the phone number in question wasn't in service...... or they found out that there really *isn't* a place named buttfuck, sask. I don't know - and neither, apparently, does anybody else here.
It was in one of the links contained in the main story. CIRA said that the domain was removed after receipt of a standard automated request from the registrar, and that they process many requests like that every day, as a matter of course.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific - it's 5:31AM now, and I'm a wee bit too crosseyed to wade through it again
And not calling members of the other government fucking morons doesn't mean you are "pliable"...... it means you're not an ignorant jerk.
The speed with which the Tories knelt before the US is noteworthy indeed. It is too bad that they didn't care enough about our country to get us a good or even a sensible resolution though. Then again, we shouldn't have expected much, the Conservatives were elected because they were not Liberals (most of them, anyhow), not for their skills or policies.
*knelt*? if the bloody Liberals had spent less time feeling superiour to the Americans and more time GOVERNING THE COUNTRY AND DOING THEIR DAMNED JOBS, thre wouldn't have been as much of a NEED for the Tories to get an agreement. But no - the Libs decided that the country was better served letting producers & sawmills go under and pay ruinous import levies, because it meant they could sniff and look down their noses.
And if you think the Tories won the election only because of people pissy with the Liberals, you're obviously (still) in left-field.
The Tories only increased their share of the popular vote from the next election by about 10%. That 10% may be been more turf-the-Libs than Tory, but the reality is that the vast majority of those that voted Tory voted FOR Tories, not AGAINST Liberals.
IIRC, all three methods have to work. I haven't seen anything from the registrar, so I can't say if they tried to verify them or not. But CIRA certainly seems to be blameless from what I've seen. Other citations also point to the fact that it was an automated, routine request, of the type that's handled daily, received from the registrar.
Directly'? Really? Oh, right, because the mighty US Department of Commerce takes actions like imposing improper tariffs on common trade goods because some foreign wanker bad-mouthed the US president. And they started on that path before the guy even made the comment!
Yes, they did.... and Canada had many, many decisions from the FTA tribunals supporting our position.
Actually, in the case of the softwood lumber issue, I heard a rumour that there were some different wankers, ones with vested interests in the softwood market in the US, who made political donations and lobbied hard for those anti-free-trade actions on the part of the US government. That kind of thing sounds a bit more direct to me.
Yes, it was very direct.
And now, think about it.... you've got political contributers on the one side, and a highly-insulting international partner on the other side, who just happens to have a binding treaty on his side.
How much incentive are YOU going to have to to live up to your international obligations?
It's also worth noting that Frank McKenna, the Canadian ambasador to the US, commented publically that the attitude and statements of the last Liberal governement greatly affected his ability to get *anything* done in Washington - and the single most important file on his desk at the time WAS softwood lumber.
It's also even MORE worth noting how quicly the Tories were able to reach an agreement to end the dispute once the Liberals were turfed.
first - accepted by WHO? Would you still say that if you didn't agree with him?
*I* don't agree with it. I may or may not agree with some of the things Bush has done, but he is not a moron by any stretch of the imagination. He may be no genious, but not being able to speak pubically very well is not a sign of intelligence. Stepehen Hawking, anybody?
2nd - whether I agree with the characterisation or not, the fact remains that it is highly insulting and personal remark against the leader of what is by far and away our biggest trading partner - I posted the stats here elswhere to show just HOW big.
The only fortunate thing about the incident is that Canada/US relations have been so poisioned by successive anti-american Liberal governments that I serously doubt anybody down there *noticed* the remark.
He's the head honcho - presumably, he said that after deliberation, discussion with adviors, etc, and did it for a specific political purpose. Even if he did it on his own, because he IS the head honcho, he has the responsibility for the statement, and should be blamed/praised based on it's effect. Regan did the same (evil empire) and he WON the cold war, remember?
THe staffer in question here was some wanker in the PM's office who becuase of pride and arrogance presumed to make a political statement that he had no right or authority to make. What he said was an insult directly to the leader of our most important trading partner, and an indirect insult to all those americans who voted for him.
And yes, it DID have direct political impact, and directly harmed the Canadian Economy. That, and other comments by well-placed Liberals here in Canada, have directly resulted in some disputes between Canada and the US to become long-festering sores that have affected the economies of BOTH countries.
To quote from http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusac anada.html:
The Canada-U.S. trade relationship is the largest ever to exist between two nations. Two-way trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States during 2000 was estimated at approximately C$700 billion, or almost C$2.0 billion per day. Of Canada's 2000 imports, 74 percent came from the U.S., while 86 percent of Canada's total exports were shipped to the United States. The volume of Canada-U.S. trade last year was far greater than the total amount of Canada's trade with all of its other trading partners combined.
By comparison, Japan/USA trade for the year 2005 was approx US$700 billion. Kind of puts it in perspective, don't you think?
So yeah, some yahoo in the PMs office spouting off like that IS a big thing, and the wanker should have been sacked on the spot.
Hold up! So if you accept a government job, are you forced to sign away your right to free speech? Of course he has the right to say it. There may be a political price to pay, but at least it wasn't libel where there could be a criminal offense. He just stated a fact.
First - "George Bush is a f..king moron" is an opinion, not a fact.
And yes, as a matter of fact, when you accept certain jobs, you DO loose your right to express your opinion (but not to HAVE it).
The Official Secrets Act here in Canada as an example - I'm sure there's an equiv in the States and most other places. I may know something aobut what's going on in the world because of my access to classified information, and my opinion may be better formed than yours because of it, given that I know more aobut the situation. But you can be sure that my ass will be thrown in jail if I give it.
If part of your job is in a higher level of government where you are concerned with the political ramifications of statements you make - where you can affect the political, economic, and physical safety of your country when your job is to ENHANCE it - you bet you ASS you give up the right to say anything except government policy.
It is Liberal bullshit, arrogance, and blatant anti-americanism that has been responsible for things like the Softwood Lumber dispute to drag on for years and years.
You're absolutly right. Unfortunatly for you, even scanning back, I don't see a single instance of anybody claiming nobody has ever killed for their relegion.
p.s. Thanks for bringing up the Nazis. They were also strongly supported by non-catholic religious groups such as the ones that have been claimed to have "never" killed people based on religion. Sure, there may have been religious groups that opposed them (especially ones they attacked), but once again, you only need one example to break a "never".
Straw-man arguement. Whether relegious groups supported them or not, THe Nazi scientists in question did what they did in the name of SCIENCE, not RELEGION.
Slashdot Mirror
suppose you wanted to stay on the forefront of Java based web development, what would you do?"
I'd find a sword and fall on it.
Operating systems are Microsoft's core competency. You would think that by now Microsoft would know how to estimate the scope of the project required to write an upgrade for an existing operating system.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! WRONG!
From day one, ever since the deal with Seattle Computer Products, MARKETING has been Microsoft's core competency.
Microsoft has not, nor has it ever been, primarily a technology company. It has always been a marketing company.
Bill Gates has not, nor has he ever been, a techie OR a nerd - but what he is, is a brilliant marketeer
From TFA:
Lest those of you who wrote 5,000 lines of code last weekend pass a kidney stone at the thought of Windows developers writing only a thousand lines of code a year, realize that the average software developer in the US only produces around (brace yourself) 6200 lines a year. So Windows is in bad shape - but only by a constant, not by an order of magnitude.
So - windows programmers write 1/6th of the code that other programmers do, and they wonder why they're behind? D'oh!
Also from TFA:
Vista is said to have over 50 million lines of code, whereas XP was said to have around 40 million.
It's a frigging operatiing system, for god's sake. Just for comparison purposes, does anybody have any (reasonable) numbers for LOC in both Linux and X Windows? Mac OS/X? I'm guessing there there's just a wee bit of bloat in there.
And worst of all, there's the 50 dependency levels that were mentioned. WTF are they doing - writing the bloody thing in GWBASIC, line numbers and everything?
No, at this point it's eminently clear that Iraq was invaded because we knew they didn't have WMD's. If they'd had nukes (not sure if chemicals or biologicals would have stopped us, although they sure could have made things rough) we'd still be saber-rattling.
If that's the case, why isn't Canada a state yet?
We don't have nukes.
We have a shitload of oil
We have less of a military than Granada, albiet worse weather, so an invasion wouldn't be costly
And you'd finally be able to field a half-decent hockey team
Considering all the islam artifacts there, I doubt that Iran would do that. But of course, the other issue is that it is highly doubtful that Iran would have suitcase size bomb.
..... refresh my memory ... who was it that attacked that mosque in Iraqu? Oh, yeah - a bunch of muslim terrorists.
ummmmm
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Perverted is when you eat the chicken afterwards.
Are you suggesting that the fact W. is a moron was supposed to be a secret held by the Canadian Govenment?
Ok - I give - you lot win.
You'd think that by now I'd know better than to try to have any sort of serious discussion about *anything* here
except none of the examples you cited were members of the relegions he referred to.
Claiming that nobody has ever killed for CERTAIN relegions is not the same as claiming that nobody has ever killed for ANY relegion.
uh-uoh .... believe me, THAT discussion is a whole thread in and of itself.
But popularity isn't one of the measures. Do you mind if we leave it at that, so we don't get TOO sidetracked?
THe difference is that Bush is the elected official in charge of the farm. It may be a stupid thing to say (I think it was), but becuase he has the ultimate responsibility for making politial policy decisions, he also has the right - and indeed, the OBLIGATION - to make that policy. Therefor, he DOES have the right to say that.
The staffer has didn't have the responsibility, and therefore no right.
WHen the staffer speaks, he is not just "a person" - he is a government official. If he tells his friends what he thinks at a dinner party, he is an individual excersizing his personal right.
When he says it in front of the national press corps, he is a government offical, NOT a private individual - and he does not that the right.
I'm pretty sure you can make a damned good case against the invasion of Iraq without having to resort to calling Bush a f..king moron.
I am not confusing social, legal, OR moral obligations - I just happened to give a legal obligation as an example because it was more concrete.
He had no right to say it (socially)
He had no right to say it (morally)
Legally, he's free and clear.
Even in the USA, your right to swing your fist (however self-evident it is) end at the tip of my nose. THAT is the sence I meant it in.
When he is a high official as he was, what he says can affect peoples jobs & livelyhood. It can affect relations between two soverign countries. He is also not ELECTED by the population tomake political decisions.
Therefore - he has no RIGHT to say what he did.
Nope. The answer, I think, is to assume that CIRA's done nothing wrong until there's any evidence to believe otherwise.
CIRA tends not to do anything unless requested to by the registrar for that domain. ANd for all I (or you) know, the phone number in question wasn't in service ...... or they found out that there really *isn't* a place named buttfuck, sask. I don't know - and neither, apparently, does anybody else here.
It was in one of the links contained in the main story. CIRA said that the domain was removed after receipt of a standard automated request from the registrar, and that they process many requests like that every day, as a matter of course.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific - it's 5:31AM now, and I'm a wee bit too crosseyed to wade through it again
"shouldn't" is not the same as "doesn't"
...... it means you're not an ignorant jerk.
And not calling members of the other government fucking morons doesn't mean you are "pliable"
The speed with which the Tories knelt before the US is noteworthy indeed. It is too bad that they didn't care enough about our country to get us a good or even a sensible resolution though. Then again, we shouldn't have expected much, the Conservatives were elected because they were not Liberals (most of them, anyhow), not for their skills or policies.
*knelt*? if the bloody Liberals had spent less time feeling superiour to the Americans and more time GOVERNING THE COUNTRY AND DOING THEIR DAMNED JOBS, thre wouldn't have been as much of a NEED for the Tories to get an agreement. But no - the Libs decided that the country was better served letting producers & sawmills go under and pay ruinous import levies, because it meant they could sniff and look down their noses.
And if you think the Tories won the election only because of people pissy with the Liberals, you're obviously (still) in left-field.
The Tories only increased their share of the popular vote from the next election by about 10%. That 10% may be been more turf-the-Libs than Tory, but the reality is that the vast majority of those that voted Tory voted FOR Tories, not AGAINST Liberals.
WOW .... you are wrong on soooooooo many levels, I don't know where to begin - so I won't.
IIRC, all three methods have to work. I haven't seen anything from the registrar, so I can't say if they tried to verify them or not. But CIRA certainly seems to be blameless from what I've seen. Other citations also point to the fact that it was an automated, routine request, of the type that's handled daily, received from the registrar.
Directly'? Really? Oh, right, because the mighty US Department of Commerce takes actions like imposing improper tariffs on common trade goods because some foreign wanker bad-mouthed the US president. And they started on that path before the guy even made the comment!
.... and Canada had many, many decisions from the FTA tribunals supporting our position.
.... you've got political contributers on the one side, and a highly-insulting international partner on the other side, who just happens to have a binding treaty on his side.
Yes, they did
Actually, in the case of the softwood lumber issue, I heard a rumour that there were some different wankers, ones with vested interests in the softwood market in the US, who made political donations and lobbied hard for those anti-free-trade actions on the part of the US government. That kind of thing sounds a bit more direct to me.
Yes, it was very direct.
And now, think about it
How much incentive are YOU going to have to to live up to your international obligations?
It's also worth noting that Frank McKenna, the Canadian ambasador to the US, commented publically that the attitude and statements of the last Liberal governement greatly affected his ability to get *anything* done in Washington - and the single most important file on his desk at the time WAS softwood lumber.
It's also even MORE worth noting how quicly the Tories were able to reach an agreement to end the dispute once the Liberals were turfed.
first - accepted by WHO? Would you still say that if you didn't agree with him?
*I* don't agree with it. I may or may not agree with some of the things Bush has done, but he is not a moron by any stretch of the imagination. He may be no genious, but not being able to speak pubically very well is not a sign of intelligence. Stepehen Hawking, anybody?
2nd - whether I agree with the characterisation or not, the fact remains that it is highly insulting and personal remark against the leader of what is by far and away our biggest trading partner - I posted the stats here elswhere to show just HOW big.
The only fortunate thing about the incident is that Canada/US relations have been so poisioned by successive anti-american Liberal governments that I serously doubt anybody down there *noticed* the remark.
Mea Culpa, I believe, is the phrase.
THe staffer in question here was some wanker in the PM's office who becuase of pride and arrogance presumed to make a political statement that he had no right or authority to make. What he said was an insult directly to the leader of our most important trading partner, and an indirect insult to all those americans who voted for him.
And yes, it DID have direct political impact, and directly harmed the Canadian Economy. That, and other comments by well-placed Liberals here in Canada, have directly resulted in some disputes between Canada and the US to become long-festering sores that have affected the economies of BOTH countries.
To quote from http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusa
By comparison, Japan/USA trade for the year 2005 was approx US$700 billion. Kind of puts it in perspective, don't you think?
So yeah, some yahoo in the PMs office spouting off like that IS a big thing, and the wanker should have been sacked on the spot.
Hold up! So if you accept a government job, are you forced to sign away your right to free speech? Of course he has the right to say it. There may be a political price to pay, but at least it wasn't libel where there could be a criminal offense. He just stated a fact.
First - "George Bush is a f..king moron" is an opinion, not a fact.
And yes, as a matter of fact, when you accept certain jobs, you DO loose your right to express your opinion (but not to HAVE it).
The Official Secrets Act here in Canada as an example - I'm sure there's an equiv in the States and most other places. I may know something aobut what's going on in the world because of my access to classified information, and my opinion may be better formed than yours because of it, given that I know more aobut the situation. But you can be sure that my ass will be thrown in jail if I give it.
If part of your job is in a higher level of government where you are concerned with the political ramifications of statements you make - where you can affect the political, economic, and physical safety of your country when your job is to ENHANCE it - you bet you ASS you give up the right to say anything except government policy.
It is Liberal bullshit, arrogance, and blatant anti-americanism that has been responsible for things like the Softwood Lumber dispute to drag on for years and years.
You're absolutly right. Unfortunatly for you, even scanning back, I don't see a single instance of anybody claiming nobody has ever killed for their relegion.
p.s. Thanks for bringing up the Nazis. They were also strongly supported by non-catholic religious groups such as the ones that have been claimed to have "never" killed people based on religion. Sure, there may have been religious groups that opposed them (especially ones they attacked), but once again, you only need one example to break a "never".
Straw-man arguement. Whether relegious groups supported them or not, THe Nazi scientists in question did what they did in the name of SCIENCE, not RELEGION.