I also knew one who had the deepest voice of anyone (male or female) that I've ever known who was very pretty (and quite petite surprisingly, and she somehow still sounded feminine).
For instance, in the county of Charters HQ (St. Louis, County, Missouri) the average cost per foot (inclusive) to lay fiber is about $8/foot. (Okay, this was the cost in 2002, but it will suffice for this discussion.) However, if you across the river from St. Louis, into Southern Illinois (also Charter territory) the cost per foot averages about $2 per foot. (also 2002 figures).
Any idea on why it's so much cheaper?
Not necessarily a bad business plan, just one they screwed up with some unrelated decisions much later.
So what decisions where these? Why is Charter so unprofitable?
Hmm, I actually can't tell if that's off the screen or not. It looks fake either way, so if it isn't part of the picture, I'd guess it was added by marketing. By the way, I'm not saying that the screens aren't glossy or annoying (I have no personal experience), but the glare in those pictures look artificial.
No life is worth more or less then that of something else. That is a slippery slope slide to Concentration Camps.
I have this built-in immune system that doesn't agree with that. Even if you are a vegetarian you eat plant life to survive. How many bugs do you think died in the construction of your habitat?
That glare you are talking about is part of the picture the monitor is displaying, not coming off the monitor itself. Apple can't get enough "Ooh, shiny" into their products, to the point where they simulate glare.
The existing cases are less than entirely germane. The one on which you base your argument, for example, is about software that connects in a different way than dynamic linking, and only applies in one circuit.
It cites many other cases as precedent. The principle is the same -- interfaces are not copyrightable, and writing to an interface is not a derivative work. You are claiming a special privilege for dynamic linking without any supporting argument.
I'm out to protect the developers.
That's "the end justifies the means". I don't like it when some company tries to make add-on products illegal. I don't like it when the FSF takes the same stand, just because it helps their causes. You seek to corrupt a good principle for your cause.
When I have my tools used to facilitate proprietary software, I like to be paid (or have the company that supported my work paid) for that.
Ok, but of course not everybody shares that opinion, and gcc was licensed to compile code for all projects, not just open source ones. The FSF also shied away from EULAs, which is what this new library exception amounts to. There are limits as to how much the FSF can legislate in the name of software freedom before people move elsewhere.
Um, doesn't your argument about my principles sound just the least bit ad-hominem to you?
Let's just say I vehemently disagree:) I haven't attacked you personally, just your position.
The courts have definitely not said the last word (or even many first words) on dynamic linking, and thus it's more than a bit soon for you to attack me on principle for my stance on it.
No, there's no "last" word yet. However, the principles and cases cited in the PDF clearly support the idea of that interfaces are not copyrightable and should not be copyrightable. Why have you have taken the position that writing to an interface via dynamic linking is derivative? Where's the case law in favor of your position? On what moral basis do you rest your argument?
Before you recommend that folks move to the LLVM code chain, remember that the work on it so far has gone to support such things as the proprietary Flash VM environment
This is probably because they didn't want it to go to the Supreme court and have the Supes confirm the finding of the 6th circuit and have it apply across the entire U.S. Such is not unusual, leaving us deliberately with half-baked case law.
Perhaps, but if you read all the arguments it's pretty clear that copyright isn't designed to protect computer interfaces, so I really object to statements like "what is most likely a derivative work". Most likely it is not a derivative work, and I wish the claims that it is would stop. Principled freedom is important even when it works against the GPL.
To use the run-time you need a GPL-compatible code generation chain, and it doesn't matter how the pieces connect together.
Which is totally moving in the wrong direction. This is dictacting to the user how he may use the toolchain, something which FSF has generally stayed away from. Really, at this point the suggestion to move to something like LLVM is sounding better and better.
The particular plugin situation we're discussing is not "locking out competitors", anyway, it's simply asking for a particular rights set in what is most likely a derivative work
Really, it's a disgusting idea that writing code that interoperates with other code is somehow a copyright violation. If you read the PDF, the idea that plugins are derivatives works is argued against quite thoroughly. Start on page 7 of the PDF. Some quotes:
"If specific words are essential to operating something, then they are part of a `method of operation' and, as such, are unprotectable."
"In the computer-software context, the doctrine means that the elements of a program dictated by practical realities--e.g., by hardware standards and mechanical specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, target industry practices, and standard computer programming practices--may not obtain protection."
"When specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."
Yes you responded with nothing but conclusions and opinions and argument, but with zero facts or legal authority.
I am not a lawyer nor arguing in a court of law. I gave honest and meaningful answers, at the level you'd typically find from meaningful posts on Slashdot that don't involve file sharing. I gave an example of the typical +5 emotional rants I was sick of reading in these stories. I cited the example of the demonizing of Metallica for suing Napster, to show this issue isn't just about evil lawsuits against users. I pointed out that what you take as evidence of bad faith lawsuits, such as "making available", are issues in the courts.
You have still haven't backed up your statement: "My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing." That's quite a damning statement. Why won't you defend it? I'd expect you'd have your analysis written up on your blog so that you can link to it.
Do you work for the RIAA's law firm?
More of that Talmudic discussion you claim to be looking for.
a substantial majority of the visitors from Slashdot actually do read the litigation documents, and spend time doing so.
But the vast majority of the comments don't reflect that at all. It's simply RIAA bashing. I would hope, as a lawyer with a desire for "Talmudic" discussion, you'd recognize that for what it was. If this was law school and you were looking for somebody to take the other side, do you think the comments here are worthy?
And most Slashdotters, when pressed, are able to back up their arguments with substantiation, unlike yourself.
Hmm, interesting. I responded to everything you put to me. Yet you threw out a stat that over 50% of the people being sued are innocent, and ignored a request for your evidence.
Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing.
How did you arrive at this estimate?
(b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.
I assume this is the "making available" argument. Wasn't this something to be determined by the courts?
You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.
What kind of examples are you talking about? For example, I don't assume file sharing of freely licensed material is infringement.
You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.
Well, let's see. After Napster was shut down, and places like iTunes went up, I think it's a reasonable position that there needed to be some crackdown on filesharers. There was a climate of "everybody is doing it" and "no consequences".
You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.
It's hard for me to say what's appropriate. Peer-to-peer networks essentially turn ordinary users into massive distributors. The damages, as I understand, were based on the same formulas that would be used for some guy selling CDs out of a warehouse.
Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments.
On Slashdot? Hardly anybody reads the legal documents. The vast majority of comments are mob mentality hatred of the RIAA, not "Talmudic" arguments. Their main driving force is the desire to illegally file share without consequences.
When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.
Indeed. That's exactly what ends up missing from these discussions.
Shows how little you know. The RIAA doesn't hold copyright: the media companies that fund the RIAA's activities do.
I was aware of it, and I was even aware of it as I was writing my post, but the RIAA is the face of these lawsuits, and are acting on behalf of the copyright holders. It's not a very interesting point to pick out of my post.
Don't try to make them into some kind of unsung heroes... because they're not.
Who said I was? The copyright holders, or the RIAA as their proxy, yes they are bastards and I said as much.
Seriously, why don't you study this issue for a while, examine some of what the RIAA has done to "protect the bloody artists", check out the damage done to our legal system.
Why don't I just read the +5 Slashdot posts like the one I quoted in my comment? Where it is claimed perfectly legal things are going on, and people are being attacked by thugs for it?
The reality is very different: they're screwing us ALL over, bigtime, in order to protect their masters revenue streams.
The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?
Honestly, if you're a troll you're a fairly subtle one.
This is the Slashdot mentality that I was referring to. If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.
Look, if the RIAA had stuck to suing people that had provably committed copyright infringement, using accepted and legal methods of investigation and had only asked for reasonable damages, nobody here would bother discussing the matter.
Like when Metallica was demonized for going after Napster? And how do you "provably" go after people that committed copyright infrigement? As far as I know, they went with IP logs and files that were available on the net. What else can they do?
As for "reasonable" damages, what is reasonable when one person can distribute to 1,000s of others? I don't think these issues are black and white, and that's why they are in the courts.
I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers.
Really? I don't see much intelligent discussion going on about the facts. What I see is a bunch of groupthink and emotional hatred against the RIAA, where screechy arguments rule the day. So what passes for +5 around Slashdot?
by HungryHobo (1314109) "Stop this (perfectly legal thing) or our teams of lawyers will fuck up your life" seems to be the new iteration of having thugs beat up a family member or sending pictures of your kids playing outside.
Is putting copyrighted music on a peer-to-peer network perfectly legal? What should the RIAA do instead, if not sue for damages? Are they wrong to sue for damages when they are trying to enforce their rights under the law?
The fact is the RIAA may be a bunch of cruel bastards, but at the end of the day they are just protecting their copyright. Early on Metallica was demonized in the Napster days, and as I recall they weren't even going after users, just Napster. Really this is just about people that want to share music online for free.
Spend a lot of time on Slashdot.
Preach to the choir. Enjoy the backslapping. Call everybody else trolls and mod them down to oblivion.
And to repeat my argument, people ignore it, - it is not your created work you do not hold any rights to it. When you pay a company for the CD/DVD to use it you also enter an agreement - no signature is requried (again refer to Don Shekely attorney).
Please provide a link for this "Shekely" or "Shekley", as you've spelled this name differently in two different postings. I've searched on both and could find nothing relevant. All you've done so far is provide unverifiable references and insisted that your point of view is correct. In particular, you have claimed that buy merely purchasing a DVD you have entered into an agreement on how you may personally use it, which I find absurd.
however, nor am I sure that the lack of SVG support has anything to do with Silverlight.
Scriptable vector graphics is one of the main benefits of Flash, and one of the pillars that Silverlight rests on. Fixed resolution, raster graphics is the last major piece of legacy junk from the early web days. Microsoft is scared to death that even more applications move to an open platform like the web, hence their immense push for Silverlight.
they're working with a legacy codebase that doesn't support SVG, so they would have to create an implementation from scratch, or buy one.
I'm sure there are BSD-style open source solutions they could start from. Anyways, resources to implement something like SVG isn't really a major stumbling block for Microsoft. A poor commitment to open and consensus-based standards is.
Second, the reason why SVG support isn't a high priority is a chicken-and-egg problem: very few sites currently use SVG, which of course is because IE doesn't support it.
Every other major browser supports it. It's put to good use on Wikipedia. Those alone should be reason enough.
Go back, read what I actually wrote, and try again.
I'll quote the relevant bit myself, since you're looking at half of your post, and I'm looking at the other half:
"How about just appreciating the fact that some MS employees work hard to support a platform that competes directly with their own?"
Why the fuck should I appreciate that Microsoft is working hard to take over the web again? The point of my post was that early support for Linux is meaningless and self-serving.
"The proper response for any Microsoft web initiative is to tell them to fuck themselves"
Let me clarify. If Microsoft were to actually commit to open, consensus based standards and follow through, I'd be the first to cheer them. They could start by implementing SVG. Instead they are pushing hard for their own proprietary standards.
How about, Microsoft isn't the evil machine any more. They used to be, but they've turned around. They're still encumbered by a legacy code base and compatibility requirements, but they're trying to do the right thing as best they can, which they certainly weren't a decade ago.
That's naive. Silverlight is their latest attempt to take over the web. IE is the only major browser that won't support SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), because they want to push proprietary solutions like Silverlight.
Slashdot Mirror
No thanks, I've already pre-ordered this one.
I also knew one who had the deepest voice of anyone (male or female) that I've ever known who was very pretty (and quite petite surprisingly, and she somehow still sounded feminine).
Dr. Girlfriend?
For instance, in the county of Charters HQ (St. Louis, County, Missouri) the average cost per foot (inclusive) to lay fiber is about $8/foot. (Okay, this was the cost in 2002, but it will suffice for this discussion.) However, if you across the river from St. Louis, into Southern Illinois (also Charter territory) the cost per foot averages about $2 per foot. (also 2002 figures).
Any idea on why it's so much cheaper?
Not necessarily a bad business plan, just one they screwed up with some unrelated decisions much later.
So what decisions where these? Why is Charter so unprofitable?
Hmm, I actually can't tell if that's off the screen or not. It looks fake either way, so if it isn't part of the picture, I'd guess it was added by marketing. By the way, I'm not saying that the screens aren't glossy or annoying (I have no personal experience), but the glare in those pictures look artificial.
No life is worth more or less then that of something else. That is a slippery slope slide to Concentration Camps.
I have this built-in immune system that doesn't agree with that. Even if you are a vegetarian you eat plant life to survive. How many bugs do you think died in the construction of your habitat?
The guy is clearly into digital photography and clearly knows a thing or two about graphic design and web design.
It's a pretty bog standard web design, and has the same crap issues that most sites have. It's a standard 3-column layout. What's crap about it:
The only thing nice I can say about it is that it works without Javascript enabled.
That glare you are talking about is part of the picture the monitor is displaying, not coming off the monitor itself. Apple can't get enough "Ooh, shiny" into their products, to the point where they simulate glare.
The existing cases are less than entirely germane. The one on which you base your argument, for example, is about software that connects in a different way than dynamic linking, and only applies in one circuit.
It cites many other cases as precedent. The principle is the same -- interfaces are not copyrightable, and writing to an interface is not a derivative work. You are claiming a special privilege for dynamic linking without any supporting argument.
I'm out to protect the developers.
That's "the end justifies the means". I don't like it when some company tries to make add-on products illegal. I don't like it when the FSF takes the same stand, just because it helps their causes. You seek to corrupt a good principle for your cause.
When I have my tools used to facilitate proprietary software, I like to be paid (or have the company that supported my work paid) for that.
Ok, but of course not everybody shares that opinion, and gcc was licensed to compile code for all projects, not just open source ones. The FSF also shied away from EULAs, which is what this new library exception amounts to. There are limits as to how much the FSF can legislate in the name of software freedom before people move elsewhere.
Um, doesn't your argument about my principles sound just the least bit ad-hominem to you?
Let's just say I vehemently disagree :) I haven't attacked you personally, just your position.
The courts have definitely not said the last word (or even many first words) on dynamic linking, and thus it's more than a bit soon for you to attack me on principle for my stance on it.
No, there's no "last" word yet. However, the principles and cases cited in the PDF clearly support the idea of that interfaces are not copyrightable and should not be copyrightable. Why have you have taken the position that writing to an interface via dynamic linking is derivative? Where's the case law in favor of your position? On what moral basis do you rest your argument?
Before you recommend that folks move to the LLVM code chain, remember that the work on it so far has gone to support such things as the proprietary Flash VM environment
Tools can be used for good and bad.
This is probably because they didn't want it to go to the Supreme court and have the Supes confirm the finding of the 6th circuit and have it apply across the entire U.S. Such is not unusual, leaving us deliberately with half-baked case law.
Perhaps, but if you read all the arguments it's pretty clear that copyright isn't designed to protect computer interfaces, so I really object to statements like "what is most likely a derivative work". Most likely it is not a derivative work, and I wish the claims that it is would stop. Principled freedom is important even when it works against the GPL.
To use the run-time you need a GPL-compatible code generation chain, and it doesn't matter how the pieces connect together.
Which is totally moving in the wrong direction. This is dictacting to the user how he may use the toolchain, something which FSF has generally stayed away from. Really, at this point the suggestion to move to something like LLVM is sounding better and better.
The particular plugin situation we're discussing is not "locking out competitors", anyway, it's simply asking for a particular rights set in what is most likely a derivative work
Really, it's a disgusting idea that writing code that interoperates with other code is somehow a copyright violation. If you read the PDF, the idea that plugins are derivatives works is argued against quite thoroughly. Start on page 7 of the PDF. Some quotes:
It's been a pleasure having this Talmudic discussion with you.
Yes you responded with nothing but conclusions and opinions and argument, but with zero facts or legal authority.
I am not a lawyer nor arguing in a court of law. I gave honest and meaningful answers, at the level you'd typically find from meaningful posts on Slashdot that don't involve file sharing. I gave an example of the typical +5 emotional rants I was sick of reading in these stories. I cited the example of the demonizing of Metallica for suing Napster, to show this issue isn't just about evil lawsuits against users. I pointed out that what you take as evidence of bad faith lawsuits, such as "making available", are issues in the courts.
You have still haven't backed up your statement: "My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing." That's quite a damning statement. Why won't you defend it? I'd expect you'd have your analysis written up on your blog so that you can link to it.
Do you work for the RIAA's law firm?
More of that Talmudic discussion you claim to be looking for.
a substantial majority of the visitors from Slashdot actually do read the litigation documents, and spend time doing so.
But the vast majority of the comments don't reflect that at all. It's simply RIAA bashing. I would hope, as a lawyer with a desire for "Talmudic" discussion, you'd recognize that for what it was. If this was law school and you were looking for somebody to take the other side, do you think the comments here are worthy?
And most Slashdotters, when pressed, are able to back up their arguments with substantiation, unlike yourself.
Hmm, interesting. I responded to everything you put to me. Yet you threw out a stat that over 50% of the people being sued are innocent, and ignored a request for your evidence.
Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing.
How did you arrive at this estimate?
(b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.
I assume this is the "making available" argument. Wasn't this something to be determined by the courts?
You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.
What kind of examples are you talking about? For example, I don't assume file sharing of freely licensed material is infringement.
You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.
Well, let's see. After Napster was shut down, and places like iTunes went up, I think it's a reasonable position that there needed to be some crackdown on filesharers. There was a climate of "everybody is doing it" and "no consequences".
You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.
It's hard for me to say what's appropriate. Peer-to-peer networks essentially turn ordinary users into massive distributors. The damages, as I understand, were based on the same formulas that would be used for some guy selling CDs out of a warehouse.
Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments.
On Slashdot? Hardly anybody reads the legal documents. The vast majority of comments are mob mentality hatred of the RIAA, not "Talmudic" arguments. Their main driving force is the desire to illegally file share without consequences.
When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.
Indeed. That's exactly what ends up missing from these discussions.
Shows how little you know. The RIAA doesn't hold copyright: the media companies that fund the RIAA's activities do.
I was aware of it, and I was even aware of it as I was writing my post, but the RIAA is the face of these lawsuits, and are acting on behalf of the copyright holders. It's not a very interesting point to pick out of my post.
Don't try to make them into some kind of unsung heroes ... because they're not.
Who said I was? The copyright holders, or the RIAA as their proxy, yes they are bastards and I said as much.
Seriously, why don't you study this issue for a while, examine some of what the RIAA has done to "protect the bloody artists", check out the damage done to our legal system.
Why don't I just read the +5 Slashdot posts like the one I quoted in my comment? Where it is claimed perfectly legal things are going on, and people are being attacked by thugs for it?
The reality is very different: they're screwing us ALL over, bigtime, in order to protect their masters revenue streams.
The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?
Honestly, if you're a troll you're a fairly subtle one.
This is the Slashdot mentality that I was referring to. If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.
Look, if the RIAA had stuck to suing people that had provably committed copyright infringement, using accepted and legal methods of investigation and had only asked for reasonable damages, nobody here would bother discussing the matter.
Like when Metallica was demonized for going after Napster? And how do you "provably" go after people that committed copyright infrigement? As far as I know, they went with IP logs and files that were available on the net. What else can they do?
As for "reasonable" damages, what is reasonable when one person can distribute to 1,000s of others? I don't think these issues are black and white, and that's why they are in the courts.
How did the animals learn? Check out these parrots that eat clay so they can eat poisonous nuts and seeds:
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/SS1201_parrotseatDirt.asp
I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers.
Really? I don't see much intelligent discussion going on about the facts. What I see is a bunch of groupthink and emotional hatred against the RIAA, where screechy arguments rule the day. So what passes for +5 around Slashdot?
by HungryHobo (1314109) "Stop this (perfectly legal thing) or our teams of lawyers will fuck up your life" seems to be the new iteration of having thugs beat up a family member or sending pictures of your kids playing outside.
Is putting copyrighted music on a peer-to-peer network perfectly legal? What should the RIAA do instead, if not sue for damages? Are they wrong to sue for damages when they are trying to enforce their rights under the law?
The fact is the RIAA may be a bunch of cruel bastards, but at the end of the day they are just protecting their copyright. Early on Metallica was demonized in the Napster days, and as I recall they weren't even going after users, just Napster. Really this is just about people that want to share music online for free.
Spend a lot of time on Slashdot.
Preach to the choir. Enjoy the backslapping. Call everybody else trolls and mod them down to oblivion.
I thought Celebrity Skin was a good song.
And to repeat my argument, people ignore it, - it is not your created work you do not hold any rights to it. When you pay a company for the CD/DVD to use it you also enter an agreement - no signature is requried (again refer to Don Shekely attorney).
Please provide a link for this "Shekely" or "Shekley", as you've spelled this name differently in two different postings. I've searched on both and could find nothing relevant. All you've done so far is provide unverifiable references and insisted that your point of view is correct. In particular, you have claimed that buy merely purchasing a DVD you have entered into an agreement on how you may personally use it, which I find absurd.
however, nor am I sure that the lack of SVG support has anything to do with Silverlight.
Scriptable vector graphics is one of the main benefits of Flash, and one of the pillars that Silverlight rests on. Fixed resolution, raster graphics is the last major piece of legacy junk from the early web days. Microsoft is scared to death that even more applications move to an open platform like the web, hence their immense push for Silverlight.
they're working with a legacy codebase that doesn't support SVG, so they would have to create an implementation from scratch, or buy one.
I'm sure there are BSD-style open source solutions they could start from. Anyways, resources to implement something like SVG isn't really a major stumbling block for Microsoft. A poor commitment to open and consensus-based standards is.
Second, the reason why SVG support isn't a high priority is a chicken-and-egg problem: very few sites currently use SVG, which of course is because IE doesn't support it.
Every other major browser supports it. It's put to good use on Wikipedia. Those alone should be reason enough.
Go back, read what I actually wrote, and try again.
I'll quote the relevant bit myself, since you're looking at half of your post, and I'm looking at the other half:
"How about just appreciating the fact that some MS employees work hard to support a platform that competes directly with their own?"
Why the fuck should I appreciate that Microsoft is working hard to take over the web again? The point of my post was that early support for Linux is meaningless and self-serving.
"The proper response for any Microsoft web initiative is to tell them to fuck themselves"
Let me clarify. If Microsoft were to actually commit to open, consensus based standards and follow through, I'd be the first to cheer them. They could start by implementing SVG. Instead they are pushing hard for their own proprietary standards.
How about, Microsoft isn't the evil machine any more. They used to be, but they've turned around. They're still encumbered by a legacy code base and compatibility requirements, but they're trying to do the right thing as best they can, which they certainly weren't a decade ago.
That's naive. Silverlight is their latest attempt to take over the web. IE is the only major browser that won't support SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), because they want to push proprietary solutions like Silverlight.
Bank of America has them, it's called 'Shopsafe' and it's a free feature if you have a card with them.
By the way, it only works on their credit cards, so if you just have a debit card you're out of luck.
Your original point was a big "hooray for Microsoft". I don't think I supported that.