Oh, to be young and pedantic:) Think of it in terms of "going off on a tangent". In this case, the tangent is in fact perpendicular to the original line of thought. Simple!
I might be a complete idiot, but I'm a complete idiot with sources that agree with me. What do you have, other than rants, self-contradiction and fabricated nonsense?
Don't answer that, I almost certainly won't read it.
I'll take that contentless, ad hominem rant to mean you don't actually have a point of view that bears up to discussion. I will gladly sod off on that basis with a broad smile on my face.
You're not really fixing anything, are you? What you wrote is at best orthoganal to the real point and adds nothing more than a bad attempt at trolling to the discussion.
Grade: D- Notes: See me after class
(The sooner this fucking stupid 'LOL FIXED THAT FOR YOU' meme ends the better, sorry)
Yes, developed by Accenture with heavy MS support. Heck, even MS' case study mentions that.
So, you've just completely contradicted your original assertion (developed almost exclusively by Microsoft), and you still didn't provide any source. Still, making steps towards telling the truth, so we're progressing.
And dropping TradElect for a different system means that it is worse than the other system, otherwise it would not make business sense. Cheaper is only interesting if the system is at least as good as TradElect. So, at least as good, plus cheaper, equals a better system.
Well done, you can read what I wrote. What you haven't pointed out is why dropping TradElect, a system that you now admit was not written by Microsoft, is in anyway damning of the.NET platform or Microsoft in any fashion.
If you had read the earlier articles on the TradElect fiasco, you would have known that it was basically written and designed by Microsoft itself. Accenture had a very heavy involvement in the project straight from Redmond.
I'd like to see your source for that - all the articles I've read have described the project as in-house, or developed by Accenture with support from Microsoft on the.NET platform.
So yes, this is an outright condemnation of the quality of Microsoft's products.
Except that the CIO of the LSE has gone on record as saying that TradElect saved them from a series of hostile takeovers. Further to that:
The new platform will be based on Linux and Solaris, while TradElect is based on Microsoft's.Net technology. The choice of the latter, which has raised quite a few eyebrows in the market, is defended by Lester. He claims that LSE is coming off TradElect not because of the.Net technology itself (although its trading speed is 2.7 milliseconds compared to Linux-based Chi-X's 0.4 milliseconds), but 'for more control, less costs, and the ability to build and innovate'. Furthermore, he describes LSE's experience with.Net as 'very positive'.
So no, it's not an outright condemnation of the quality of Microsoft's products. It's about switching to a cheaper product that operates more quickly and is more flexible.
I don't know about the GP, but I put up with that 'crap' because I've spent more time trying to get various Linux distributions to actually work properly* on my computer than I have sorting out activation issues since WGA was introduced. As always, of course, YMMV.
*I count 'works properly' to include things like "detects my keyboard" and "doesn't run like treacle".
You don't file 6 months worth of exemptions to deny liability. You do that to suppress information. However, I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you, because it's pointless.
What I will say is - you need to calm down. Seriously. It's just a phone.
When will they learn that Firefox is kicking their ass just by virtue of being open source?
I'm going to be honest with you - I think that sentence is bullshit. Firefox is winning because it's the best-marketed alternative to IE, nothing more and nothing less. Whether it's actually better than Opera or not is a matter of taste.
I would be very surprised if the majority of Firefox users gave two shits whether it was open source or not.
Let's snip out the important bits of that article, which document events you seem to be unaware of:
Apple sent a letter to Mr Stanborough denying liability but offering a refund.
The letter also stated that, in accepting the money, Mr Stanborough was to "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential", and that any breach of confidentiality "may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties".
Last week it emerged that Apple had tried to keep a number of cases where its iPod digital music players had started to smoke, burst into flames and even burned their owners, out of the public eye.
An American reporter obtained 800 pages of documentation on the cases from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) following a Freedom of Information Act request in that country. However, she was unable to get hold of the documents for months after "Apple's lawyers filed exemption after exemption".
Can you still claim they're not covering anything up?
Except that isn't what this is. What it is, is a link to a story which links to a review.
It's 2 orders of stupidity away from actually reviewing a book - if you spoke to a friend of yours, and they said "Oh yeah, I know this guy who knows this other guy who's read the book and he totally says it's boring and stuff", you'd laugh at them and possibly break their ankles for wasting your time.
I think it's more pertinent to point out that one person has said that he didn't find it funny. Now, call me old-fashioned, but since when did it warrant an entire Slashdot story based on one person's opinion of a book that hasn't even been released yet? Maybe I'm not with the times.
So, in a bit of an experiment, I did try and tell the BBC that I watched a pre-release version of 'Avatar' and I thought it was average, but oddly enough they didn't want to screen my interview...
That's a good suggestion, and don't get me wrong, I love Wipeout. I just wouldn't buy a whole console for it.
Back when it was Squaresoft, Metal Gear and things like Tekken, I would have half considered it, but the number of games that are going cross-platform removes the need for me to own two.
Slashdot Mirror
That, or large handcannon-style guns. "Let me introduce you... to the Lawmaker." *BOOM*
Actually, if it's not hooked up to an antenna, they tend to be fine with it.
Oh, to be young and pedantic :) Think of it in terms of "going off on a tangent". In this case, the tangent is in fact perpendicular to the original line of thought. Simple!
I might be a complete idiot, but I'm a complete idiot with sources that agree with me. What do you have, other than rants, self-contradiction and fabricated nonsense?
Don't answer that, I almost certainly won't read it.
I'll take that contentless, ad hominem rant to mean you don't actually have a point of view that bears up to discussion. I will gladly sod off on that basis with a broad smile on my face.
You're not really fixing anything, are you? What you wrote is at best orthoganal to the real point and adds nothing more than a bad attempt at trolling to the discussion.
Grade: D-
Notes: See me after class
(The sooner this fucking stupid 'LOL FIXED THAT FOR YOU' meme ends the better, sorry)
Sell it as new and put the money towards something that's built for the purpose you want it for. Bit easier than spending hours messing about with it.
Yes, developed by Accenture with heavy MS support. Heck, even MS' case study mentions that.
So, you've just completely contradicted your original assertion (developed almost exclusively by Microsoft), and you still didn't provide any source. Still, making steps towards telling the truth, so we're progressing.
And dropping TradElect for a different system means that it is worse than the other system, otherwise it would not make business sense. Cheaper is only interesting if the system is at least as good as TradElect. So, at least as good, plus cheaper, equals a better system.
Well done, you can read what I wrote. What you haven't pointed out is why dropping TradElect, a system that you now admit was not written by Microsoft, is in anyway damning of the .NET platform or Microsoft in any fashion.
Nnnno.
If you had read the earlier articles on the TradElect fiasco, you would have known that it was basically written and designed by Microsoft itself. Accenture had a very heavy involvement in the project straight from Redmond.
I'd like to see your source for that - all the articles I've read have described the project as in-house, or developed by Accenture with support from Microsoft on the .NET platform.
So yes, this is an outright condemnation of the quality of Microsoft's products.
Except that the CIO of the LSE has gone on record as saying that TradElect saved them from a series of hostile takeovers. Further to that:
The new platform will be based on Linux and Solaris, while TradElect is based on Microsoft's .Net technology. The choice of the latter, which has raised quite a few eyebrows in the market, is defended by Lester. He claims that LSE is coming off TradElect not because of the .Net technology itself (although its trading speed is 2.7 milliseconds compared to Linux-based Chi-X's 0.4 milliseconds), but 'for more control, less costs, and the ability to build and innovate'. Furthermore, he describes LSE's experience with .Net as 'very positive'.
So no, it's not an outright condemnation of the quality of Microsoft's products. It's about switching to a cheaper product that operates more quickly and is more flexible.
Sources: Computer Weekly, IBS Publishing.
FCC =/= FTC.
Yes, and I tried turning it off and back on again ;)
Just re-read GP and my comment isn't as relevant as first thought. Someone should probably mod me into oblivion now (for both this and the above).
I don't know about the GP, but I put up with that 'crap' because I've spent more time trying to get various Linux distributions to actually work properly* on my computer than I have sorting out activation issues since WGA was introduced. As always, of course, YMMV.
*I count 'works properly' to include things like "detects my keyboard" and "doesn't run like treacle".
You don't file 6 months worth of exemptions to deny liability. You do that to suppress information. However, I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you, because it's pointless.
What I will say is - you need to calm down. Seriously. It's just a phone.
When will they learn that Firefox is kicking their ass just by virtue of being open source?
I'm going to be honest with you - I think that sentence is bullshit. Firefox is winning because it's the best-marketed alternative to IE, nothing more and nothing less. Whether it's actually better than Opera or not is a matter of taste.
I would be very surprised if the majority of Firefox users gave two shits whether it was open source or not.
How would you define a cover-up? Would it be something along the lines of paying off a family never to mention their iPod Touch exploded?
Let's snip out the important bits of that article, which document events you seem to be unaware of:
Apple sent a letter to Mr Stanborough denying liability but offering a refund.
The letter also stated that, in accepting the money, Mr Stanborough was to "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential", and that any breach of confidentiality "may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties".
Last week it emerged that Apple had tried to keep a number of cases where its iPod digital music players had started to smoke, burst into flames and even burned their owners, out of the public eye.
An American reporter obtained 800 pages of documentation on the cases from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) following a Freedom of Information Act request in that country. However, she was unable to get hold of the documents for months after "Apple's lawyers filed exemption after exemption".
Can you still claim they're not covering anything up?
How about 7? I didn't even have to leave this story to find the link.
A tip for the future - try not to get so worked up that someone may be attacking your precious Linux that you can't even spell 'for'.
Except that isn't what this is. What it is, is a link to a story which links to a review.
It's 2 orders of stupidity away from actually reviewing a book - if you spoke to a friend of yours, and they said "Oh yeah, I know this guy who knows this other guy who's read the book and he totally says it's boring and stuff", you'd laugh at them and possibly break their ankles for wasting your time.
I think it's more pertinent to point out that one person has said that he didn't find it funny. Now, call me old-fashioned, but since when did it warrant an entire Slashdot story based on one person's opinion of a book that hasn't even been released yet? Maybe I'm not with the times.
So, in a bit of an experiment, I did try and tell the BBC that I watched a pre-release version of 'Avatar' and I thought it was average, but oddly enough they didn't want to screen my interview...
Actually, it's the S.
Fuckin' S.
He may be getting confused between MGS4 and Metal Gear Rising, which is what I'm talking about.
That's a good suggestion, and don't get me wrong, I love Wipeout. I just wouldn't buy a whole console for it.
Back when it was Squaresoft, Metal Gear and things like Tekken, I would have half considered it, but the number of games that are going cross-platform removes the need for me to own two.
The difference I see is - I can buy a 360 without the additional attachments. With the PS3 I have no choice.
Not sure why my original post is a troll though - I guess that it could offend someone, though I'm not sure who.
Unless the price comes down to 360 levels. It's not like the PS3 has an exclusive I particularly want anyway.