Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment I have wondered.. (Score 1) 333 333

About how much money corporations spend to cause fragmentation and put people into positions to make shit decisions (Gnome). Yup, I'm sure some of that is simply paranoia. That said, watching some of the shit that gets made on projects like Gnome.. I have no other way to explain what they do.

Paranoia out of the way, I have converted countless people to Linux. They know they are running Linux and don't care. They have KDE so a very nice Desktop, Web Browser, a stack of basic games, GIMP for photo editing, and of course Email. My Kid uses that with Libre Office for College, his professors don't know he does not write things in MS Word.

FUD stops conversions much more than fragmentation. Like GPs claim that there is no Desktop. That claim is complete bullshit, but look at how he's rated up for spinning shit like that.

Comment Re: Not lock down, "cash in!" (Score 1) 357 357

Garbage as in Microsoft? You surely can't be claiming that internal leaks are garbage, especially since they have already started their attempt to "cash in" on some of what those memos discussed.

You also can't be claiming that history is garbage. MS was found to treadmill from Win3.11-98B, that is factual. Applications like Netscape and Bordland Compilers received scarce resources and would randomly be crashed by the Kernel. Binaries with a Microsoft copyright header received favorable resource allocation.

Oh, I get it. You claim paranoia hoping that people are stupid enough to ignore reality. The NSA does not spy on US citizens, the US Defense system does not commit war crimes or torture people, and of course all of our politicians are honest, and Microsoft really has the consumer's best interests in mind. Isn't that right shill?

Comment Not lock down, "cash in!" (Score 2) 357 357

I remember reading an article several years ago which covered some internal leaked MS memos. In essence it said that MS was going to monetize every component of an OS, including hardware access. Have a high end graphics card? Want graphics acceleration in a game? Pay the subscription rate for DirectX. Want an update, pay the subscription rate for the portion of the OS you want to update. Have 2x8 core CPUs and want to use them? That is an extra fee. Have memory you want to use? Past a certain point it costs money, even if you have the hardware installed. The leaks wanted to go back to a full blown Windows95 like treadmill system, but instead of shaking down other companies for money they shake down end users (mostly due to the monopoly and lack of competition, they can't shake down Bordland and Novell any longer..)

The difference between the current trend and the leaks is that in the leaks, MS wanted to have the majority of the OS download at system boot time.

That same article may have had some influence on the Steam on Linux project, I forget now...

Comment What did you read? (Score 4, Informative) 482 482

It could not have been TFA because there are only 2 mentions of Google in the whole post. One of those is a disclaimer that the person has consulted for Google but is not doing so presently. The other is: Being careful with your data isn't just a Microsoft thing. My views of Microsoft and Google are pretty much diametrically opposed -- I have enormous faith in Google and Googlers doing the right thing with respect to protecting the data I share with them, but even in the case of Google -- with whom I share a great deal of data -- I'm selective about what I do share.

I put the parts you didn't read or didn't pay attention to in bold so that even a moron can find them.

You would have been okay if you had said she favored Google in the article, but to claim it's a shill is completely dishonest.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1173 1173

No, it was no longer the first owners property once in someone else' private property! There is a reason that we have the saying "Possession is 9/10ths of the Law."

Example: Kid hits a baseball and it goes into "that person's" yard. "That" person happens to see it and puts the ball in their house on the mantle. This is perfectly legal, even if it may be what we would call "dickish" behavior.

If the Drone remained on the original owners property, or we being flown in public property, destroying the drone might be illegal. As soon as the drone entered someone's private property the original owner lost their property. Willingly lost their property I'll add.

Comment Try again (Score 1) 1173 1173

I demonstrated that you were wrong attempting to equate to unequal objects, so you move the goal post. Not surprising, this tactic is common with irrational and/or unreasonable people.

Your move attempts to incorrectly paint a picture of a person firing a weapon in a crowded area. It is not against the law to defend your property, in fact this is a fundamental right given to us by the Constitution. Read it, understand it, and enjoy it. If you dislike the Constitution you are free to leave the country and find somewhere else to live. Start your own Utopia, but don't try to convert everyone else to a system which is impossible to achieve.

Comment Re:Duh. But correlary (Score 1) 21 21

Having a username and using the username for well over a decade is now "anonymous", or "pseudo anonymous"? Come now, if you want to attack people at least attempt to pick a valid target. You and GP are both grasping at straws trying to defend that original attack. Failing I will add.

Keep moving that goal post, it will be on solid ground one day right?

Comment Re:Duh. But correlary (Score 1) 21 21

Why is it that so many people fail to comprehend what "do not expect" means. If English is not your first language ask if you don't know. The majority of the time people attempting to attack that statement are English speakers who can't figure out their own language (or read more than 2 words).

Here is a hint: Look up the word "expect' in the dictionary.

Comment Re:Duh. But correlary (Score 1) 21 21

" figure they'll get it anyway, might as well help them along if I can get something out of it." is a self fulfilling prophesy. People only win because you have already surrendered.

I won't claim that nobody has sifted my data for a profile, but I surely don't give companies anything even for a price. The exception I can think of off the top of my head is my GM Car and On-Star. I realize that they can track me by GPS, but I don't drive very much. My car is a 2011 with 18K miles on it, and about 4,000 of that is from when I moved across the country. The bank knows where my car is parked so I don't think On-Star makes that much difference.

Games, Facebook, Apps for the phone, forget it. Even things that require email addresses can generally be done with disposable email accounts with the exception of Facebook which I have not visited in years.

I'm not knocking you, your information is yours to hand away or sell as you wish. Just don't have the expectation that we should all do like you do.

Comment Re:what? (Score 1) 129 129

What specific are you missing? Morally theft is wrong. Stealing something can be difficult or complex. The easier it is to steal something, the more likely it is to occur. That has been my assertion since the first post and every subsequent post.

I never stated that the victim is at fault, and don't agree with that position.

That comment was in regards to your assertion (sarcastically) that the victim is to blame for the crime.

You seem to have great difficulty in reading and comprehending English. What straw man has been set up or could be set up? You continue to conflate morality with the ease of an access to a crime. "Morality is not the same thing as ease of access."

You have repeated ignored my opinion and substituted your belief of what my opinion actually is. I'm sure you know everyone else' opinion way better than they do right? No, don't answer that. Go troll someone else.

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz