Not liking someone isn't a good enough reason to put them in jail.

Usually. For now.

Exactly! One is copyright infringement and the other is fraud and, semantically, much closer to stealing.

As the photographer, I hold the copyright on my work. You must be confused.

You do realize you failed to disagree with me at all, right? I can distribute something without selling or licensing it; it's called putting up my own website.

Okay, you did disagree with me regarding the model's level of involvement in the sale or licensing of the photo. And you're wrong; as a photographer, I hold a fair hand of cards cards. The model can decide who I *can* not sell or license to, and I can decide who I *will* not; if the model had all they say, I'd have to sell or license the photo to whomever the model dictated and that is, simply, not the case.

Suppose it has a security vuln?
Suppose it depends on a certain version of a legacy DLL we need to service for other callers?
Suppose it was never localized beyond English?
Suppose admins want to enable/disable it via group policy?

(etc)

For better or for worse, it is incredibly expensive to put something in the Windows Box.

We give away VS for free, in a variety of different versions/avenues. By not putting it in the windows box, we avoid a huge # of headaches.

Your conclusion is entirely wrong.

Because Microsoft doesn't do the things YOU think Microsoft should do, you can ascertain the motivations and goals of Microsoft?

How interesting. Suppose we hire you to lead our CS education strategy. Can you promise results? Are you willing to bet your career on your prophecies coming true?

Let me tell you what IS true.

Microsoft lets me -- and many other MS employees -- volunteer to teach CS in public K-12 schools, 1 hour a day, before heading into the office for our "real jobs".

MS spends money to make this happen (volunteer matching hours), and gets less of my productive time (without docking my pay). There are full-time employees dedicated to this project. They have no other MS business function.

The program I am referring to is called TEALS (www.tealsk12.org)

It is just one of the ways that MS puts time, money, and people, into trying to build a better pipeline of students who can do CS.

I don't think stuffing GWBASIC back into windows is going to take us from where we are to where we need to be.

Relevant:

http://everythingfunny.org/wp-...

Okay and now I *am* going to natter on. Since you can't see how your approach failed, let me point it out. This is an effective response when someone admits they were wrong and this is an appropriate way to present an opposing viewpoint, what you wrote was neither of those things.

While you did "[invite me] to consider whether [my] position would change if [I] knew one of those victims"; you also, immediately before that, managed to insinuate that I didn't give this any thought, rather than accepting the possibility that I was working off of incorrect or incomplete information, as was the case, and took the liberty of making another bold assumption about me; I'll leave it to you to figure out what that assumption was and why you were wrong to do so.

Stating that you disagree with me and providing your opinion, as you did in the first paragraph of your initial reply to me, was spot-on. Everything you've wrote after that was inflammatory, and I think you know that. Stopping at the end of your first paragraph would have garnered a more positive response; simply, me stating that I had actually been presented additional information and an alternative viewpoint on the subject, and had already reconsidered my position. I would have had nothing to call out out on and, therefore, would not have done so.

At least one of us can admit they were wrong. Who's the one nattering on and behaving dickishly? Seriously, rather than politely suggest I reconsider my position, taking into consideration that I may have been coming from a position of ignorance, rather than malice, you chose to take a stab at me, and you're attempting to do so.

I've admitted everything you're trying to point out about how I was wrong in my postings on this topic. I've learned, I've grown, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. That's more than you can say.

Go ahead, have the last word. You know you want it. But if you choose to take another stab at me, don't expect me to let it stand.

It's not a matter of me being too delicate, it's a matter of me being willing and able to call it as I see it. Did I say I was hurt by the attack? Nope.

Actually, yes it is. The photographer owns the copyright to his or her work. When it comes to selling or licensing the photo, the model has some say, but distribution rights lie with the photographer in all cases.

Other comments I've posted on this topic have received much less confrontational replies, attacking my position, rather than myself personally, or the replying poster's perceived notion of how much though I've given the topic. It's probably good that I read those replies several hours before yours, as they managed to expand my view of the issue (and at least one of those received a response indicating such, also several hours before you posted this), whereas your approach only managed to make me not like you, personally.

Just sayin'... it doesn't matter how right you think you are, when you have to resort to attacking the other person, you're only showing that you can't find an attackable flaw in their position. Defensively, I would say that's quite sad, since I, personally, no longer hold that position, having seen several flaws in it, myself, by now.

Single as in not a group, not single as in not in a relationship...

And here I am with my tail between my legs. Don't bother wasting your time replying to point out my own misunderstanding of the law; I've just made myself quite aware of this (ironically, as I no longer hold that misunderstanding).

Oh, I read it. And you're correct, libel is a subset of defamation, not all defamation must be libelous, but all libel must be defamatory. The information needn't even be provided out of context or in a false light, as you say; it need only be contrary to one's generally known character. There is no argument to be had, here; instead of just reading posts on Slashdot, go read up on the actual law.