MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX MSTAX Are you actually a 12 year-old, or do you just play one on Slashdot?
And for your information (though I have no idea why I'm helping such an immature little troll), here's a nice list of companies who sell laptops and desktops without Windows installed.
So, in order to get your required no answer you've had to specify:
1) The company cannot be Apple 2) Must be nationally advertised 3) Must be for home use 4) Must be a workstation 5) Must be certified to run Linux or an alternative operating system
Can you explain, specifically for number 2), why those conditions are necessary in order for you to buy this fictional computer?
Have a link. Specifically from the page:
Availabile with: No Operating System Installed --- £445.32 inc vat --- Currently In Production, Stock due today Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium --- £509.95 inc vat --- 1 in stock Microsoft Windows Vista Business --- £527.58 inc vat --- Built within 3-4 working days Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate --- £562.83 inc vat --- 3 in stock The 'Microsoft Tax' complaint hasn't been true in about 10 years. My local computer store has always been happy to supply a computer with nothing installed.
Can Slashdot, as an entity, please move on and complain about something real?
I only bother posting to a twitter if it's painfully obvious he's doing his usual. Sometimes, when it comes to privacy issues and other things, he usually speaks a very candid and pragmatic line - it's just a lot of the time he drifts off into closed-source paranoia and quite often makes everything up.
As for your comment, yes, I understand Windows is less secure (for one reason or another) than other options, but to blame application-related holes on them is completely wide of the mark and he's aware of it - he just wants to use any excuse to push people off the platform... not that I'm under any illusions that the Ones Who Make The Decisions (much honour be upon them) listen to him.
Newsflash - thanks to your own stupidity, there are few people on Slashdot who don't know that Erris and Twitter are the same person. Or is it just a coincidence that you both submit the same journals to the Firehose, both come from Baton Rouge, and both have the same "fuck shit" style of posting, down to the phrasing and the choice of external links you use to emphasise your failing, irrelevant point of view?
I submit it is not - the quicker you stop gaming Slashdot the better for everyone.
It's hard to tell if Slashdot emails are being blocked or not... The only way to prevent abuse... The right to use bandwith as you please... Restrictions for harmless activity... unAmerican Can you cut the rhetoric out and make your point? Which is, I assume, that you would rather filter your mail yourself than have your provider do it for you?
Plenty of services do that (Gmail for example), and you're perfectly free to join those instead, but don't be surprised when notoriously well-spammed sites like Hotmail start to be a bit more proactive with preventing spam from inconveniencing their users.
Did you really post this exact same comment to 2 completely unrelated stories?
Wow. Maybe I should post my rebuttal twice as well!
They fact that they've been blocked by five major mail vendors (AOL, Hotmail, MSN, WebTV and Yahoo) doesn't suggest 'news suppression', it suggests an over-zealous spam filter. They say they send out a lot of emails, and someone else pointed out that if a lot of those addresses have been closed down, they will get added to the spam filter.
It's only in your head (and, it seems, theirs) that this appears malicious. If this was really happening, don't you think that Slashdot emails to MSN addresses would be blocked too? Or does that not fit in with this tantrum you want to have?
They fact that they've been blocked by five major mail vendors (AOL, Hotmail, MSN, WebTV and Yahoo) doesn't suggest 'news suppression', it suggests an over-zealous spam filter. They say they send out a lot of emails, and someone else pointed out that if a lot of those addresses have been closed down, they will get added to the spam filter.
It's only in your head (and, it seems, theirs) that this appears malicious. If this was really happening, don't you think that Slashdot emails to MSN addresses would be blocked too? Or does that not fit in with this tantrum you want to have?
If you're going to make us click through two pages to get to your supposed debunking, can you at least make sure it's not a completely lame "He's done some work for a Microsoft magazine! WHAT A CUNT" ad hominem?
Because the only purpose of other people using transitions and effects is to show it to me afterwards. Bullcrap. Even a simple fade is better than a sharp change of picture, especially on the eyes.
It's not 'monkeying around' with the operating system to provide a feature which only comes on when you play that content. Consider it an application that you need to run one particular file type, like OO.o. That application only loads, is used, and performs it's allotted tasks when you play this one filetype. It does nothing the rest of the time, doesn't even load. Unlike what people would like you to believe, shockingly there are no effects on your system when you don't play the HD content. It also doesn't activate if you use anything other than Windows Media Player.
Again, Microsoft had a choice - support it or don't. They're supporting it, thus giving their users the option of actually loading those movies, which Linux will not be able to do unless they provide the same level of protection. Trying to throw that around as a bad thing that Microsoft are doing is, in your own words, 'remarkably disengenous'. You know who you should be complaining to, but you won't because it's easier to blame it on someone you already dislike.
Slashdot Mirror
And for your information (though I have no idea why I'm helping such an immature little troll), here's a nice list of companies who sell laptops and desktops without Windows installed.
So, in order to get your required no answer you've had to specify:
1) The company cannot be Apple
2) Must be nationally advertised
3) Must be for home use
4) Must be a workstation
5) Must be certified to run Linux or an alternative operating system
Can you explain, specifically for number 2), why those conditions are necessary in order for you to buy this fictional computer?
Thanks for bothering to click the link.
Do you want to do that and try commenting again?
No Operating System Installed --- £445.32 inc vat --- Currently In Production, Stock due today
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium --- £509.95 inc vat --- 1 in stock
Microsoft Windows Vista Business --- £527.58 inc vat --- Built within 3-4 working days
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate --- £562.83 inc vat --- 3 in stock The 'Microsoft Tax' complaint hasn't been true in about 10 years. My local computer store has always been happy to supply a computer with nothing installed.
Can Slashdot, as an entity, please move on and complain about something real?
I did check this out - you can buy each part of the box seperately on Steam for $19.99.
Why does it have to be astroturfing? Why can't he just be wrong?
You'd better watch out, if your knee keeps jerking that high you might catch yourself on the chin.
The trolling has really dropped in quality recently...
I only bother posting to a twitter if it's painfully obvious he's doing his usual. Sometimes, when it comes to privacy issues and other things, he usually speaks a very candid and pragmatic line - it's just a lot of the time he drifts off into closed-source paranoia and quite often makes everything up.
As for your comment, yes, I understand Windows is less secure (for one reason or another) than other options, but to blame application-related holes on them is completely wide of the mark and he's aware of it - he just wants to use any excuse to push people off the platform... not that I'm under any illusions that the Ones Who Make The Decisions (much honour be upon them) listen to him.
Newsflash - thanks to your own stupidity, there are few people on Slashdot who don't know that Erris and Twitter are the same person. Or is it just a coincidence that you both submit the same journals to the Firehose, both come from Baton Rouge, and both have the same "fuck shit" style of posting, down to the phrasing and the choice of external links you use to emphasise your failing, irrelevant point of view?
I submit it is not - the quicker you stop gaming Slashdot the better for everyone.
Of course, exploitable programs are all Microsoft's fault - which must be why the remote root exploits for Quake 1 and 2 for Linux must be all Linus' fault!
Let's be honest, exploitable applications are OS independent. Though I guess honesty never really comes into it with you, hmm?
I wasn't actually trolling... but I figured it would be such an incredibly unpopular thing to say that I'd suffer anyway.
How wrong I was!
(I have karma to burn, apparently)
I wouldn't get into that battle, either ;)
I tell you what, when you want to contribute, I'll be over here talking with the adults.
Apologies, then :)
Anger issues much?
Plenty of services do that (Gmail for example), and you're perfectly free to join those instead, but don't be surprised when notoriously well-spammed sites like Hotmail start to be a bit more proactive with preventing spam from inconveniencing their users.
Wow. Maybe I should post my rebuttal twice as well! They fact that they've been blocked by five major mail vendors (AOL, Hotmail, MSN, WebTV and Yahoo) doesn't suggest 'news suppression', it suggests an over-zealous spam filter. They say they send out a lot of emails, and someone else pointed out that if a lot of those addresses have been closed down, they will get added to the spam filter.
It's only in your head (and, it seems, theirs) that this appears malicious. If this was really happening, don't you think that Slashdot emails to MSN addresses would be blocked too? Or does that not fit in with this tantrum you want to have?
I bet Microsoft are completely heart-broken at losing the lucrative Tonga market... if what you said is true, which I doubt.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Vista means 'a panoramic view', and I find that to be much more pleasant than an overly tenacious ape.
They fact that they've been blocked by five major mail vendors (AOL, Hotmail, MSN, WebTV and Yahoo) doesn't suggest 'news suppression', it suggests an over-zealous spam filter. They say they send out a lot of emails, and someone else pointed out that if a lot of those addresses have been closed down, they will get added to the spam filter.
It's only in your head (and, it seems, theirs) that this appears malicious. If this was really happening, don't you think that Slashdot emails to MSN addresses would be blocked too? Or does that not fit in with this tantrum you want to have?
If you're going to make us click through two pages to get to your supposed debunking, can you at least make sure it's not a completely lame "He's done some work for a Microsoft magazine! WHAT A CUNT" ad hominem?
Because the only purpose of other people using transitions and effects is to show it to me afterwards. Bullcrap. Even a simple fade is better than a sharp change of picture, especially on the eyes.
It's not 'monkeying around' with the operating system to provide a feature which only comes on when you play that content. Consider it an application that you need to run one particular file type, like OO.o. That application only loads, is used, and performs it's allotted tasks when you play this one filetype. It does nothing the rest of the time, doesn't even load. Unlike what people would like you to believe, shockingly there are no effects on your system when you don't play the HD content. It also doesn't activate if you use anything other than Windows Media Player.
Again, Microsoft had a choice - support it or don't. They're supporting it, thus giving their users the option of actually loading those movies, which Linux will not be able to do unless they provide the same level of protection. Trying to throw that around as a bad thing that Microsoft are doing is, in your own words, 'remarkably disengenous'. You know who you should be complaining to, but you won't because it's easier to blame it on someone you already dislike.