• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 105

My comments

• Nutty Stuff ???
  ...only to clueless headline writers with an ax to grind.
  What was the point to THAT little thumb in the eye to the "reality-based" community? Just more manufactured ideology? "It's not OUR way so it must be 'nutty'".

  June 21, 2005

  0 replies

• Lock-In
  "One thing that MS can do to lure
  more hobbyists is make IIS emulate
  Apache, so an app that is written
  (poorly) to depend on Apache will
  work with IIS. This would make
  probably 90% of the LAMP apps run
  on Windows & IIS."
  
  The corporation with the doubly un-erotic name will never do this because it provides no way to lock the customer into their platform. If an application works equally well on Linux or their platform then they haven't achieved their goal. They may use the "embrace and extend" tactic they used against Java. This tactic allowed one-way porting of apps from other platforms to Windows but caused problems for Java apps written to MSJava specs if they were ported back to Sun Java platforms.

  June 15, 2005

  0 replies

• Crying Wolf
  "Don't cite some paid-for Gartner study
  or some nebulous anecdotes. PROVE IT!!"
  
  This is something corporations (and politicians, for that matter) are going to find vexing in the very near future. They've had great success by using PR and marketing to manipulate our perceptions of reality. That tactic has a limited life span, though. Once people realize they've been manipulated they will demand proof from the manipulators rather than accept their word on face value.
  Good for you! Keep demanding proof. Don't let them lie their way to more success.

  June 15, 2005

  0 replies

• Even Better...
  I'll sell you 104 specially-crafted segments of electrical tape for only $69.95!
  Act now! Quantities limited!

  May 26, 2005

  0 replies

• Ironic...
  That you would title your post "Freedom" when you include statements like,
  "Ultimately, it comes down to freedom.
  It is legal, in the US, to live an
  immoral life and to try to promote
  that lifestyle as normal, appropriate,
  even beneficial. It is likewise legal,
  and appropriate, for US citizens who
  are Christians to try to restore decency."
  
  Promoting a lifestyle is a legal activity sanctioned by the first amendment. You can promote your lifestyle if it pleases you, and your posting is your exercise of that right. When you claim the right to "restore decency", however, it implies that you want to use the power of government to impose a set of morals based on your religion. This is clearly prohibited by the first amendment which states, in part, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
  In other words, you're free to evangelize your morals just as gays are free to promote their morals. You are not allowed to force others live by your morals, though. If your morals aren't winning in the court of public opinion you can't appeal to the federal court. You just have to do a better job of promoting your views through your first amendment freedom of speech.
  If you believe the founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation, consider the fact that most of them weren't Christian, they were Deists. They believed very strongly in scientific reason and logic. And here is a Jefferson quote to show that they also sought to protect government from religious influence,
  "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

  April 27, 2005

  1 reply

• Ironic...
  That you would title your post "Freedom" when you include statements like,
  "Ultimately, it comes down to freedom.
  It is legal, in the US, to live an
  immoral life and to try to promote
  that lifestyle as normal, appropriate,
  even beneficial. It is likewise legal,
  and appropriate, for US citizens who
  are Christians to try to restore decency."
  
  Promoting a lifestyle is a legal activity sanctioned by the first amendment. You can promote your lifestyle if it pleases you, and your posting is your exercise of that right. When you claim the right to "restore decency", however, it implies that you want to use the power of government to impose a set of morals based on your religion. This is clearly prohibited by the first amendment which states, in part, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
  In other words, you're free to evangelize your morals just as gays are free to promote their morals. You are not allowed to force others live by your morals, though. If your morals aren't winning in the court of public opinion you can't appeal to the federal court. You just have to do a better job of promoting your views through your first amendment freedom of speech.
  If you believe the founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation, consider the fact that most of them weren't Christian, they were Deists. They believed very strongly in scientific reason and logic. And here is a Jefferson quote to show that they also sought to protect government from religious influence,
  "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

  April 27, 2005

  1 reply

• Yes, one might point that out...
  But then one would be quibbling about semantics rather than facing plain facts.
  Microsoft voiced support for the bill. What would make it more official for those who would skirt the facts?
  When one doesn't have facts on one's side...one must resort to obfuscation.

  April 27, 2005

  1 reply

• Yes, one might point that out...
  But then one would be quibbling about semantics rather than facing plain facts.
  Microsoft voiced support for the bill. What would make it more official for those who would skirt the facts?
  When one doesn't have facts on one's side...one must resort to obfuscation.

  April 27, 2005

  1 reply

• Revising History Again?
  "Microsoft never had any official
  position on the bill, and therefore
  couldn't withdraw support for it."
  
  That statement lacks historical accuracy. Is there some reason you want to alter perception about this issue or are you just short of the requisite knowledge to comment?
  Microsoft originally supported the bill.

  April 27, 2005

  1 reply

• Revising History Again?
  "Microsoft never had any official
  position on the bill, and therefore
  couldn't withdraw support for it."
  
  That statement lacks historical accuracy. Is there some reason you want to alter perception about this issue or are you just short of the requisite knowledge to comment?
  Microsoft originally supported the bill.

  April 27, 2005

  1 reply