Re: "I thought those little silver icons were because........."
Had the award been based on the net number of upvotes after downvotes were taken into account he would have to pay El Reg in order to be able to post here let alone get any icons.
2318 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
Had the award been based on the net number of upvotes after downvotes were taken into account he would have to pay El Reg in order to be able to post here let alone get any icons.
...............how to protect Linux based systems do remind me not to call you.
"If you say to an accountant"? We have all too many examples in industry where the bean counters drive strategy - look where that's got a lot of firms. The correct question that MS should ask themselves (not their double entry bookkeeping onanists) is in fact "is there not a possible cost associated with this that we have not taken into account"? If they think long and hard the answer will come to them. "Yes there fucking is. We are on the ground floor of trying to create a big slice of what is going to be a mega-global business far larger than it is today (because it is currently in its infancy and still very dependent upon customer trust) and fuck-ups like this could cost us billions if not trilliions in lost future customers". Then they should spend whatever it takes and (if necessary) engage in cost cutting elsewhere in the business - they could start by firing all accountants at senior manager level or above.
.............that they might be that stupid. However, that "cloak" would in practice last about as long as it took the tech-pros over the whole of planet Earth and the rest of Known Space to begin to howl.
Good. This is definitely one of the occasions when it is highly advisable to avoid the standard corporate bullshitting attempts to explain away/obfuscate - they have to convince their enterprise customers that they do know what went wrong and they do know how to fix it.
...............were abuse of standards-essential patents, lack of transparency into who owns patents, and inadequate patent review processes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leading to overboard patents and frivolous litigation."
I find it hard to disagree with very much of what he is quoted as saying although hearing an example of "BigCorp" (whichever company we are talking about) saying this makes one go somewhat cross-eyed. Three useful additions to that list would be:
A. Applications for hardware patents: No working prototype, no patent. Nothing coming to market within three years of the patent being granted, patent annulled.
B. Making illegal the use of Non Disclosure Agreements where FRAND patents are involved - how can we know that the terms offered this or that company are Fair And Non Discriminatory if we do not know what the conditions are? Equally well it would prevent the use of "sweetheart" deals at the expense of others seeking to license where the patent holder has a financial involvement in the particular company seeking to license.
C. Severely time-limited copyright protection for innovative non-obvious software, not patent protection of any kind.
Oh God, if only he had.
Sexually suggestive remarks from someone you may not even like (in the platonic sense) can be very unpleasant and difficult to cope with. If he was not getting a positive response to his idea of "wooing" then he should have stopped, end of. Given that he clearly did not stop and was such an arsehole that he sometimes made these remarks in the presence of third parties then the issue of harassment was IMHO open and shut.
..............psychic saw Ballmer in a dream handing over a large bung in a plain brown envelope so it must be true.*
*I do wish El Reg would give us a satire icon - the troll will just have to do.
.........involving Redmond and describe the historical context (without attempting to "rewrite it") in a fashion that is scarcely complimentary to MS but does not involve $-signs and howling. I too have (more than) my share of grey hairs and your description of what was going on back in the day is right on the money.
..........are not shared by all right-thinking hairy chested hetero thinkers like yourself, I have to ask how did she get elected then, hmm?
....are having a serious discussion here about what is acceptable and the issues of democratic expression and freedom. They have also made it clear that they do not have a big problem with explicit porn - they are not prudes. What they appear to be talking about is porn and violent images and are trying to see if there is a way of dealing with this without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would argue that this is a wholly legitimate discussion - what they in the end decide to do is a matter for them. I would however caution against any knee-jerk "libertarian" responses. These people are not a bunch of Daily Heil prudes.
One analogy might be the preparations for keeping transport going during the Winter where I live and in the UK. My neighbours up here tend to laugh hysterically when we hear about Britain being shut down due to a couple of inches of the nasty white stuff. The point is of course that the UK in general simply does not get enough snow to justify the kind of expense that my adopted countrymen go to in order to ensure transport and comms year round.
I have to say that the way in which, amongst others, the Daily Fail reported the events in Russia was highly entertaining although also somewhat depressing. They were suitably shocked/horrified/amazed that Russian Air Defence Command sent up fighters to intercept/checkout what the fuck it was. Let me see now, they get reports of lights in the sky, loud explosions etc and they send up a few MIGs to find out what was going on - well what a surprise.
That experiment cost them a thousand thousand million pounds Eadon? I am of course not saying that it is impossible but I would really appreciate a link to that - if you can manage it, hmm?
"Be funny if this quote was misinterpreted and taken as a Ratner-esque comment on the excitement of Apple Stores."
..........that thought occurred to be just before I logged back in to check this thread and saw your posting. It is possible that that quote (as you implied) may indeed come back to haunt him. Certainly I would have thought twice (were I in his position) before I had compared the effects of my retail chain to a prescription drug give for psychological difficulties. Or perhaps the effect of their stores is indeed intended to reduce the state of depression that their prices may induce in their customers - who knows?
Well - he said it.
............possibility that the AC was being satirical - if you can manage that type of heavy lifting that is.
........unlike Mr Eadon do better than that. Microsoft do indeed deserve criticism here but not for the reason you have suggested. Their only serious experience with the manufacture and sale of hardware over an extended period of time is in fact the xbox as well as a sideline in peripherals (mice, keyboards and the like). In my opinion they were so (at least until Sinofsky departed) preoccupied with trying to do an "apple" with Win RT that they failed to focus enough on the crucial area of touch-slabs and the enterprise sector. That should have been a no-brainer for them as far as ensuring that there were sufficient Surface Pro's available when they launched. This is not an example of trying to manipulate the headlines by running out of kit, this is a production cluster-fuck in relation to what they should have been capable of expecting with regard to the sales of Win RT slabs contra Win 8 - especially since if they don't keep enterprise they are dead in the water as far as tablets are concerned. I and many others in this forum and various other places have commented that MS might get one hell of a surprise with regard to which of these two versions of their operating system would be the one they should really keep their eye on. They have fucked up certainly - just not in the way you are suggesting.
......certain types of individual or at least appears to. If it is indeed true that Apple's most senior managers would have preferred not to go down the judicial route and their former CEO in practice bounced them into it, why are they not now (as far as we can tell) trying to row back? Can it really be the case that loss of corporate face is the same (in the psychological sense) as individual loss of face? Is it that the individual managers feel (consciously or unconsciously) that it would be a personal loss of face for them now if they back away rather than there being any "corporate gestalt" involved? It is a curious phenomenon that has been observed in many companies over the years, not just Apple. Senior managers when defending the culture of the "managerati" in Western economies frequently claim that they take "necessary, cold, hard, calculated decisions for the benefit of the company and its shareholders" whereas in practice many of their decisions appear to have very individualistic not to say egoistic overtones.
I was not for one moment advocating what might be euphemistically called rationing or anything like it. I was simply pointing out that given the usage to which the bandwidth is likely to be put the system will not cope and/or prices will indeed go through the roof. You are perfectly at liberty (by definition) to disagree with what I have posted but please do not impute to me something I have not argued for explicitly or implicitly - I have little liking for "straw-man tactics".
...............communications history and what is it going to be used for? A sort of 24hr P2P youtube, endless holiday vids and an enormous amount of porn. Not only that the increase in that type of video traffic bids fair to send mobile broad-band costs back up through the roof and/or break the infrastructure given that the demand is likely to increase way faster than the increase in available bandwidth. Very occasionally I really do despair - this is the revolution in mobile communications we've been getting all enthused about?
.......................that you are letting the Linux side down. You must be an MS shill!"
Ah I see. You are proposing the "reverse FUD hypothesis" to explain his remarkable record hear at El Reg. Whilst I am not entirely unsympathetic to the suggestion I fear that the old saw "never subscribe to malice what idiocy can explain" still remains my favourite take on this kind of thing. Expressed bluntly, he has proved time and time again that he does not have the brains for anything so "advanced" as you are proposing.
......do not get it. El Reg's Vanguard of the Commentariat are a fairly mixed bunch. The largest grouping are (if such labels have any meaning) Android enthusiasts (as far as their phones are concerned at any rate) the second largest group is (as far as I can tell) those who like what Cupertino produce and the third group (rather smaller but not insignificant are our compadres of the Linux persuasion). In fact, "Softies" or MS-fanbois are almost non-existent here - where they do exist they, very wisely, keep their heads very firmly below the parapet. You are a most remarkable commentard - unique in fact. I have never seen any member here (in the last three to four years I have posted on this site) who has managed to achieve what you have. No member, in my experience, has ever made himself such a figure of derision or attracted so many down-vote hosings as you have. Now you may comfort yourself with your little delusion that anyone downvoting you is a closet Redmond-bumboi. I am fairly certain that you are very much mistaken - to get the regular hosings you have as far as down-votes are concerned you have succeeded in pissing off people from all the groups I have mentioned above. Your very special blend of idiocy and abuse directed at anyone you disagree with, regardless in fact of what they have said or how they have expressed themselves, is not having quite the effect you might have hoped for.
..................gets to blast out his version of reality".
I think that as far as that goes it is a part of society today. Look at how many celebs exploit their fame in one area to mouth off in another (a certain well known comedy actor's love for A Certain Famous Mobile Phone Manufacturer comes to mind) whether they know fuck about what they are talking about or not. As to the issue of suing I have to say that if he believes that the company is failing in its duty to its shareholders then the judicial route is not necessarily illegitimate - although I am no admirer of that approach. If we are saying that if he does not like it then the only legitimate option he has is to sell and fuck off, what sort of "ownership" is that? I make these points on general principle - I take no position on whether his complaints in this instance hold water or not.
Well he is after all a shareholder. In other words a proportion (related to the size of his shareholding) is in fact his. If he does not like the way the company is handling this he is at least entitled to say so. Now, of course he may simply be a greedy bastard who wants his now and fuck everybody else. However, he is as an owner entitled to express his opinion, hmm?
Up here you only have to register your objection to cold calling and all the telesales etc companies get three months to comply. Thereafter the local telecom watchdog can (depending on the seriousness and scale of the breaches) do everything from fining them to shutting them down. Not saying the system is perfect but it has been several years since we have been bothered by those kinds of nuisance calls.
I fear that you fail to understand that the concept "constructive self interest" does imply that the company (whoever it is) doing whatever it is can in fact be doing it for the most cynical reasons of self interest and yet still do some good. No, I am not about to shower Redmond with praise because of this but on the other hand I do not see why we have to be subjected to yet more of your obsessive and irrelevant howling. Do us all a favour and get back under your bridge.
Ah yes Eadon. You are at it yet again are you not hmm? Anyone who says something you don't like is a villain or a shill. You expose your own pathetic bigotry with everything you post.
It is plain that he knows who his most important partner is even if some of the usual suspects here are totally obsessed with Redmond's involvement. I suggest that everyone just takes a pause and waits to see how this pans out.
.............when somebody is taken out who is guilty of murder, the hitman or his employer? I say shoot the lawyers and the people who employ them for such purposes as referred to in the article.
............you take as your motto "think before you post". The subheading on the front page was "Microsoft's 'Contoso' may be more real than some users" and the article did make clear that Contoso is a known "model". This was in fact the author's point - that some of the "customers" given by vendors as references are less real the Redmond's "fake". The difference being that MS are using Contoso as a model as in "Everyone who knows anything about IT knows this" and are not attempting thereby to fool anyone, whereas some unscrupulous vendors are most certainly trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
No, and if he did he most certainly would not say it out loud. However "Commentard space" is a rough place rather like the business world it self. You will often see commentards posting on any thread that covers the Surface that SB said that they were going to sell millions. He did not. He said that he thought that they would sell "a few million" (I quote him verbatim). That however does not stop the usual suspects "misunderstanding" what he said.
Of course. I entirely agree with you. My only point was an attempt to pre-empt the howls of "Dell's been borged" etc. I was simply pointing out that although Redmond will of course have a say "at the table" both because of their stake and because they are the provider of the main os that Dell use, that there are limits on how far they can throw their weight around. In this "transfer of ownership" there are several powerful players involved, some of whom may not be exactly willing to swallow Redmond's agenda in any automatic sense. I was simply hoping to contribute to a slightly more grown-up debate than that we very often get here the moment that the "Great Satan" is mentioned.
........at least implicitly underlined? MS will have a 10% stake - that gives them a say but not any form of unilateral power over Dell. The other investors are highly unlikely to roll over just because Demon* Lord Ballmer tells them to.
*Yes, I am satirising the attitude of some round here.
..........maniacal legal assault on their main rival in the industry over the last two years? If they have to an increasing degree bet the farm on the retail small mobile device market then they would be damn near terrified of Samsung's sales figures.
No, they will just spend more time checking their FB accounts.
Yes, I had an Acer W500 with Win7 preinstalled and lived with that for about 3 months until they released the build version of Win8. The experience of Win7 on a tablet is not to be recommended (although it is of course a fine desktop os). The W500 was very painful with Win7 on board for all the reasons you might anticipate, installing Win8 made it at least usable despite the C50 cpu and the limited amount of RAM (2 Gb). If you do have a user case for installing Windows on a touch device, make it Win8.
Your postings are always attacks on MS - "what is there to discuss?".
......dried frog pill dosage.
Really Eadon? Please do give us a credible link to those sales figures - please, share this with us. Note, that I said a credible link to an independent source regarding your evidence for that assertion.
..........am not exactly a friend of the iFruit company (to put it very mildly). Even so, unless you are entirely content with preaching to your particular choir and are totally uninterested in persuading anyone else of your point of view you might make a start by dropping such epithets as "iSheep". Persuasion and insult do not make a good cocktail in debate.
What you appear to be saying is that because he has taken decisions that you don't agree with then that proves he is Redmond's trojan horse? I do not know where to begin to explain the fallacy in the logic of that argument. Apart from anything else it is based on an assumption that the man is a villain because he does not share your opinions. You must be an absolute joy to be down the pub with if you are of the view that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing it for the worst possible motives.
If he left because MS' corporate culture was not to his liking (as implied in the article) then that does rather beg the question as far as his alleged role as a "trojan horse" at Nokia is concerned, hmm? Perhaps we might even focus (when the issue comes up) on evaluating his decisions at Nokia on their own merits/demerits rather than the tin foil hat speculation that a certain number here are so fond of.
............until I remembered what "azure" literally means. I was clearly not awake at the time!
Would we be talking about a "sonic squawk" when they broke the sound-barrier?
.................as a weapon of offence rather than defence. A weapon to be used even when there does not appear to have been any legitimate grounds to deploy it. He was clearly prepared to use it in order to extort "cooperation" from other companies even when there was no genuine IP issue involved. Something to think about in the context of Apple's judicial carpet bombing of their main rival in the industry over the past two years perhaps?
.........contributing another story from film history of the same period. When a certain Mr Lucas had persuaded Alec Guinness to take on the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars film he discovered at a vital point in the project that he was running out of "cash up front" and was forced to beg Sir Alec to accept a percentage of the gross instead - to which Sir AG most unwillingly agreed (a story that he told against himself many times afterwards) . The rest is history as was Sir Alec's very comfortable retirement.
........of behaviour is (relatively) new. However, companies using those kinds of shenanigans are not anything new qualitatively (so to speak). We all remember what a huge success the first Alien movie was (total world wide takings by 2004 had hit $185,000,000 almost 17 times what the film cost to make) and certainly such luminaries as Sigourney Weaver and John Hurt were at the outset feeling pretty pleased with themselves because they were on a percentage. To their utter astonishment and considerable fury Twentieth Century Fox claimed that the film had (when all extraneous expenses had been taken into account) almost made a loss. They had unfortunately not negotiated a percentage of the gross turnover but of the profits. Hence today there is not an actor in the profession who has the clout to be on a percentage who does not insist on a percentage of the gross. Fox' fairly shameless attempt to do an end run round the IRS had ended up robbing the very actors who had contributed to much to the film's success in the first place. The sheer scale of these practices today however are a wholly different level of challenge to society.