I'm thinking that standards compliance to help developers is probably not on the list of reasons the EU is deciding to go after Microsoft. The major reason they are doing this on behalf of Opera (as opposed to Firefox or Chrome) is that Opera is an EU corporation.

Microsoft didn't destry Netscape. Netscape destroyed Netscape. The gap between Netscape 4.0 and Netscape 6.0 (and there wasn't a 5.0) was about four years. That's what killed Netscape. Microsoft may have taken advantage of the situation but Netscape's demise was self-inflicted.

I think you're confusing Microsoft with Google.

How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.

You could try raising them properly, instilling proper values, ensuring there are open lines of communication; you know, try parenting. As for specifically how to stop them from surfing porn on the internet, take the computer out of their room and put it in the living room (or whatever room you habitually hang out in). And make sure the screen is facing out into the room. That way if the little bugger is surfing porn, you can enjoy it too ;)

The algorithm for Google PageRank is based on the concept of citations from academia. If I remember correctly, the software was originally meant only to index academic papers and eventually grew to index the whole internet. So its not surprising that it predicts winners so well (depending on how much the Nobel committee weights citations in their decisions).

Just because you don't use a feature directly does not mean that you don't need the feature. If, as you say, the software that you run needs a specific feature then you need that feature.

So other than the keybords it cost almost $10,000 to take down a few pieces of paper with nasty messages on them? Does the price go up just because they use a few four-letter words?

Because that superstar gay propgrammer who currently lives somewhere where gay marriage is legal might not want to move to California. Heck I'm straight (as much as that matters for someone who hangs out on Slashdot) and I'm not sure I'd want to move to some backwater that was so reactionary as to not allow gay marriage.

But on Slashdot insults directed towards Microsoft are always considered insightful. It doesn't matter if they're demonstrably false. Hell it doesn't matter if they're true but a good thing (Bill Gates is the devil because he feeds starving children in Africa).

I don't think SCO will die in 2009. Perhaps a better assessment would be "finally realize they died years ago".

Because having a bunch of people buying televisions made in China, cars made in Japan and taking vacations in Mexico is going to help the American economy how?

In the mean time, Social Security payments will also have to stop. All government employees will have to take a two month unpaid leave. In fact all government spending will have to stop. That would probably have some effect on the economy but I can't figure what it would be.

The big difference is that, right or wrong, Jobs is still perceived as being the driving force behind innovation at Apple, especially at the detail level. To the public at least, Bill Gates was pulling away from that role since the mid-90s. It was a slow devolution instead of a sudden stop. Do we really believe that Jobs can continue to run Apple until 2024 when he's 69 years old? And that's assuming that he starts moving away from being a hands on micro-manager today which may be constitutionally impossible for him.

The fact that his predictions were true even though he didn't take 9/11 into account just goes to show that the security theatre we've been enduring for the past eight years really has nothing to do with security and is merely a government power grab.

Not really.

Most companies when faced with having to do layoffs offer buyouts. Those most likely to take a buyout package will be those who can easily find another job. Therefore most companies ending up culling the top 10-20%. From what I've heard (and I have no inside information on this) Microsoft is going to be doing targeted layoffs to counter the effect of the hiring binge they've been on for a few years now.

If you look at the blogs of some of the microsoft employees, Microsoft isn't just using the recession to cut unprofitable product lines, they're also using it to cut people who maybe shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Specifically, layoffs are being used as a way of culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.