| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft trains staff in Linux and Java | |
|
||
| Time: 07:17 EST/12:17 GMT | News Source: VNUNet | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Microsoft is training around 140 of its consultants in Linux and Java, acknowledging the growing threat posed by these rival technologies. Sources close to Microsoft indicated that the consultants, based around the world, would be given training in open source operating system and Sun's programming language, with which Microsoft's C sharp competes. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 230 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:23:28 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (12.219.23.70) at 5/6/2003 8:26:04 AM |
| Being that penguins are slow moving, flightless birds it amazes me thjat they were chosen to represent a "modern" os such as Linux. Might as well chosen the sloth. I have used all versions of Windows and many different versions of Linux (except Red Hat 8...haven't tried that one yet) and I can categorically tell you that Windows outperforms Linux in so many areas on the exact same hardware that it's not funny. Linux is neat and all, but has a long way to go. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 10:45:43 AM |
|
Since every OS needs a bird for a mascot...
I have chosen the Antartic Skua as the mascot for Windows 2003 Server. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 at 10:46. |
| #3 By 2459 (69.22.78.22) at 5/6/2003 11:02:41 AM |
| It's kinda funny how the penguin became Linux's mascot. Linus was once bit by a penguin and it was "love" at first site, uh, bite. :-) |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 12:03:15 PM |
| The Skua is a natural predator of the Penguin. :) |
| #5 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 12:47:28 PM |
| #1: It's funny that Fox got sued. I guess the liberals are really hot and bothered and someone is stepping up to their "Biased Media" plate. Biased media and careful editorial choice of broadcast stories is the domain of AOL/TimeWarner/CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/CNBC. How dare Fox step in and present an alternative view! |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 2:56:27 PM |
|
It's so funny watching conservatives complain about lying. LOL!
further reading... Blinded by the Right - David Brooks The Hunting of the President - Conason & Lyons Firewall - Lawrence Walsh Of course the bitterness all dates back to: All the Presidents Men - Bernstein & Woodward |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 2:57:43 PM |
|
Neb Okla - You are absolutely right.
I've always said liberals could never put out a show like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and so forth because they just aren't capable of lying while holding a straight face. I must congratulate you for your new found talents! |
| #8 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 3:21:03 PM |
|
kevinu:
I never said all liberals are liars, where did that come from? I admit, liberals lie sometimes, but so does everyone, it's not an exclusively liberal trait (though it seems more prevelant ;) ) I was just saying that liberals, so far, had had a monopoly on biased media and now they're all P.O.'d about Fox News (there are countless examples of various liberal media folks including Dan Rather and the like bashing on Fox News about one thing or another) throwing a little conservative bias into the market. So basically, liberals lecture us about how we can't bash on idiots like Dixie Chicks and Tim Robins because it somehow "limits their free speech", but when when there are conservative outlets of media like Rush Limbaugh and such, it's ok to bash them because they're conservative. Liberal free speech: Can't touch it, even to criticize Conservative free speech: Bash away! The truth is, Liberals want to spout off whatever they want, wherever they want, and want no accountability or critics. It doesn't work that way, folks. Conversatives are people too and we have a voice and we have the right to expose bias and mistakes and the lies, when they happen. Liberals just don't want anyone to point out when they're wrong. Look at Sodablue cracking on Rush and Savage while in the same breath talking about how conservatives limit the free speech of the Dixie chicks and the like. The hypocrasy is hilarious! What's even more funny/sad, is that he doesn't even understand his hypocrasy. |
| #9 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 3:35:53 PM |
|
Well, I agree that it's ignorant to say that the 'Chicks should be strapped to bombs and such. But by the same token, it's ignorant to say you're "ashamed" the President is from your own state, especially when he's a fairly moral man (yes, he's has his past). And I know these same people probably loved Clinton, even when he was gettin' hummers in the Oval office. They're not ashamed of that.
The fact is, they hate Bush because he's a conservative and he's doing things correctly and it infuriates them, and rather than addressing those issues and talking about it in a political circle, they take advantage of the stage their fans paid for, on their careers that Americans built, and bash on the President they love (a good chunk of the 'Chicks fans are conservative Southerners). That's the problem I have with them, their betrayal of trust. I'm also offended by them by the fact that they are essentially calling me unamerican and fascist by criticzing their comments! They are 1st rate hypocrites. The conservatives do have an anti-American point with some liberals out there. Perhaps not the dixie chicks (there is lots of frothing at the mouth from the Right, I know, but the majority of thinking conservatives only dislike and disagree with the chicks, they don't deny their right to speak or call them Nazis). I agree about your patriotic comment and questioning government, but the problem is, these people aren't patriots because they don't question Democrats. They are just partisan hacks and are taking advantage of their microphone to black-ball the President and it's a major cheap-shot. The President is not out there blasting Democrats, he's not out there blasting Hollywood, but Hollywood and the 'Chicks are taking cheap, below-the-belt shots If they want to get up on a podium in a political circle and aire a list of grievances (sp?) against the President's actions, I would have much respect for them. THis is what mostly honorable politicians do like Gephardt and Daschle. Have a reasonable argument, that's all I ask. Don't just spout personal insults, you're (I use 'you' generically, not specifically) just making yourself look like an idiot. |
| #10 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 4:48:11 PM |
|
#19: Whack-jobs: Indeed.
Liberals hating Bush, Conserv's having Clinton: The difference is that Bush is an upstanding guy, and the liberals disagree with his policies, and they're infuriated that they are working for the most part. The Conserv's hated clinton because he was violating laws left and right, the same laws and violations of public trust that his White House Counsel and his wife drafted in reports of application of impeachment rules against Nixon. Nixon tried to use the IRS to audit political opponents, but the IRS refused. Clinton tried it 5 times and succeeded. And that's just what came out in the testimony, who knows how many other ones. Nixon tried to use FBI files against political opponents, but failed. Clinton and Hillary herself were caught with something like 1200 files in the White House... nothing happened. Clinton violated just about every public trust from character, to legal rules, to the "enlarged and solid morals that the common expect of their governors" (from some of the original arguments for the legal concept of Impeachment in Great Britain in the 16th and 17th century, the same people Hillary Rodham quoted in her reports to the House Judiciary Committee who was drafting articles of impeachment against Nixon). As far Bush's economy and such.... how come Clinton can ride high on an economy that was booming before he took office and claim it was his, but Bush can't ride low on an economy he inherited (the Recession officially started Q4 1999) and blame it on Clinton? Bush has suffered: a poor economy from Clinton (a higher marginal tax rate than during Reagan Bush, an over-inflated economy that busted, etc), a huge terrorist attack on 9/11, 2 wars in the persuit of the people who harbored and aided the attackers, and plenty of other problems. Despite all this, the economy has managed to keep growing, albeit slowly. Bush has taken a play from the Kennedy school of Economics by passing a huge tax cut to restore public faith in government, limiting the role of government in people's economic lives, simplifying the tax code and reducing the need for people to mold their lives around tax shelters, and to stimulate private and corporate spending. Those were all key points in Kennedy's 1963 tax plan to bring the marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%. Huge growth ensued afterwards. In fact, in an address to the Democratic party council meeting in 1963 in Washington, he even said that corporations need a break from execessive taxation because it is Corporations that drive and invest in the economy. Supply-side Economics. It worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan (28% marginal tax rate, 3.2% growth compared with 2.6% during Clinton and 1.8% during Carter, double tax revenue to the treasury,e tc) and it'll work now. Unfortunately, the Democrats today have forgotten their past where they cared about American and cared about economic growth. Even some republicans forget the ideas that have worked so well in the past :( |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 5:12:57 PM |
|
daz - "Conversatives are people too and we have a voice and we have the right to expose bias and mistakes and the lies,"
There is utterly no excuse for fabricating slanderous stories, I don't care if you are liberal or conservative. But I pay more attention to conservatives right now because they are doing it far more often and attracting far more publicity. "Look at Sodablue cracking on Rush and Savage while in the same breath talking about how conservatives limit the free speech of the Dixie chicks and the like." I made absolutely no mention of the Dixie Chicks. "Have a reasonable argument, that's all I ask. Don't just spout personal insults, you're (I use 'you' generically, not specifically) just making yourself look like an idiot. " Then you(and I use it specifically, not generically), sir, look like a major idiot. I have a real problem with your attitude, because it's nasty. It's not just a little bit rude, it is downright gum off the sole of your shoe nasty. Talk about partisan hacks, sheesh, I have yet to see anything approaching critical thinking from your political comments. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 6:02:57 PM |
|
daz - "The Conserv's hated clinton because he was violating laws left and right, the same laws and violations of public trust that his White House Counsel and his wife drafted in reports of application of impeachment rules against Nixon."
No daz... those claims were all fabricated or distorted in an attempt to discredit. Every single one of them. Whitewater, FileGate, Troopergate, so on and so forth. That's not just me saying it because I have some sort of blind faith. That is me saying it because I have read the investigations, and I have read the admissions of guilt from people such as David Brock explaining how they fabricated the stories. You've just detailed what is fundamentally wrong with the GOP. An unwillingness to debate issues, but instead resort to personal attacks. And in the other messages you whined about personal attacks. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 at 18:10. |
| #13 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 6:18:12 PM |
|
No daz... those claims were all fabricated or distorted in an attempt to discredit. Every single one of them
Soda, I seriously suggest you read a few books on the subject. Both clinton aides and clinton haters have come out on most of this stuff and most of it's true. But beyond that, I'm not even talking about that stuff. I'm talking about the IRS abuse, the FBI files, the fund raising scams like the White House coffees, the Lincoln Bedroom, etc. Many of these things are things that Nixon did and got Crucified in the public and Clinton does them, and does them worse, and almost nothing happens. He barely got impeached, but was not removed from office. These things are proven facts that have come out during grand jury testimony, many of them admitted to by Bill and Hillary themselves. As to Whitewater, Vince Foster, et al, those things are pretty obvious. The Vince Foster case is progressing now as it won merit in the courts just this week. The Whitewater scam... hrm... turning $50,000 into $5 million in a few weeks. No, no law breaking there! Nevermind that this was in the height of all of the other real estate scams going on out there, surely the Clintons couldn't have been getting their piece of the pie too! You've just detailed what's fundamentally wrong with the GOP... an unwillingness to debate WHAT??!!?!?! I haven't seen you put forth ANY facts in the history of our debates on these comment forums. You constantly bash republicans, Rush, Savage, me, and others, and you NEVER provide any facts or anything to debate on. but instead resort to personal attacks HAHAHAHA... where. Please show me personal attacks. Attacking the facts that debaters put out is not personal attacking. If anyone is dishing out personal attacks, it's MOST CERTAINLY the left. How many times a day do we here how stupid or mornic or monkey-like Bush is? Or how he's a Nazi or a Fascist or that Rumsfeld wants to take over the world, or that Cheney works for the oil companies, and on and on and on. The left has a forked tongue. At least the Right, when it hated Clinton, had a FEW valid points and valid facts and evidence to support their hatred. The left has NOTHING. They hate Bush because every time they try to slam him or throw mud at him, nothing sticks. They opposed him on the war and it was a HUGE victory and now they all look like dolts. Did you watch the Democratic candadite debate the other weekend? What a joke! The left is in shambles and they can't come up with anything or any one to oppose the President. They personally attack him and make up lies about his fiscal policies while offering NOTHING in its stead to serve as a base to fix anything. Please provide me with a SINGLE plan by ANY of the candadites to fix the economy that they say is so horribly wrecked. All I hear is "no tax cut" and Gephardt's unified health care. He's the only one I've heard that's even talked about what he's GOING TO DO rather than bashing on Bush. Why would I vote for a Democrat tomorrow? What is one major issue that they have that I would vote for them over a Republican? All I hear is Bush-bashing and not a single constructive argument or idea. I would have to vote for a Democrat because I hated Bush, not because I thought the Dems would do anything to save us |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 6:25:36 PM |
|
daz - On to issues...
"Those were all key points in Kennedy's 1963 tax plan to bring the marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%. Huge growth ensued afterwards." Well, you've already admitted that it would be bad to cut the tax rate to 0%, so quite clearly the tax rate has to be somewhere between too low and too high. Why are you convinced that it is not already at equillibrium today? We have some 20 years or so of history. We cut taxes drastically... too low in fact, resulted in deficits. We raised taxes back, this resulted in a balanced budget and then small surplusses. Then we cut taxes again, and now we're back into large deficits . I'm a huge proponent for a balanced budget, always have been. If the government is running surplusses then I think that's an indication to cut taxes. If the government is running deficits, then that's an indication to cut spending. Even if the government is running surplusses, it might still be an indication to cut spending. If a program is not needed, or it doesn't work, then let's revisit it! But Bush isn't doing any of this. He's running deficits, increasing spending at rates not seen since the early 80's and he also wants to cut taxes. Can't you see this pattern is just absolutely disasterous? We have the history behind us, we know it is possible to have a balanced budget when you hold spending in check. Why implement the radical changes to throw chaos into American lives? "Unfortunately, the Democrats today have forgotten their past where they cared about American and cared about economic growth." Yet the economy has historically done better under Democratic leadership, so this is quite clearly not just an ad hominem attack but an unfair characterization. We have lost at least 2.8 Million jobs since Bush took office, this is the worst record for a President since Herbert Hoover. Some of that can be explained by 9/11, but most of it is a direct result of the Enron scandal and the unwillingness of the administration to go after that. I've heard more leadership from Warren Buffett on the economy than the Whitehouse. I'm just curious, but at what point do you admit you are wrong? Does the entire US economy have to collapse? To be quite honest, from what I see right now we are back into a period of recovery. By the end of the year, unless something bad happens, you will be seeing the growth indicators characterizing this change. My suggestion for the Federal government is to leave well enough alone, because any move Congress can make today is just going to f*ck up the economy, and that includes further tax cuts. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 6:36:26 PM |
|
daz - "Soda, I seriously suggest you read a few books on the subject."
Uh huh. I'm better educated on these issues than you are, largely because I don't rely upon Rush Limbaugh as my source of truth. Again, I'll point you to Brock's book, and you are welcome to read the congressional investigation reports which offer no evidence of any wrong doing. The stories were fabricated, it's time you just admit to that and move on. One of the more interesting examples to come out last year was when the Associated Press published a list of all the people Bush has had sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. You just brought this one up as one of your claims against Clinton. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/politics/main519030.shtml Did you hear much outrage about this one? No, because it is a non-issue. "I would have to vote for a Democrat because I hated Bush, not because I thought the Dems would do anything to save us " That is my one criticism of the Democratic party. The only thing they offer to do is save us from Bush. Essentially the Democrats offer the Status Quo, which I am not unconvinced isn't a better solution than the ones Bush has outlined. But it definately does not sell. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 6:39:55 PM |
|
BTW...
"I haven't seen you put forth ANY facts in the history of our debates on these comment forums." That's because you generally don't take the time to read. You're generally off attacking the imagined liberals you see behind every picture frame. |
| #17 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 7:06:30 PM |
|
Uh huh. I'm better educated on these issues than you are, largely because I don't rely upon Rush Limbaugh as my source of truth.
More personal attacks and more baseless accusations. So far you have not put forth any facts. Until you do so, your insults only point back to you. Again, I'll point you to Brock's book, and you are welcome to read the congressional investigation reports which offer no evidence of any wrong doing. The congressional investigations mean nothing in this regard. They found plenty of things that were suspicious, but due to political motivations were shut down. The real facts and interesting tidbits are during the grand jury testimonies of both Bill and Hillary. Large portions of them are available publicly. I challenge you to read them and still come back and tell me with a straight face that there was no wrongdoing. Anyone who suggests there wasn't even the aire of impropriety involved with Clinton is smoking crack. And anyone who suggests there was no wrongdoing with the Whitewater scandal also doesn't have a firm understanding of the facts of the matter. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9605/10/clinton.wwtranscript/index7.shtml Let me summarize: Clinton: "I don't recall" Clinton: "I don't recall" Clinton: "I have no testimony on that matter" Clinton: "I don't recall" What about Webster Hubbell in the middle of oit all? Here are the tapes where he spells it all out: http://courttv-web3.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/government/whitewater/hubbell/ What about the McDougals? One conviction, almost a second one but Clinton pardoned her at the last minute! WHOA! The stories were fabricated, it's time you just admit to that and move on. Keep dreaming. All the facts are out there except for a few that Susan McDougal kept until Clinton faithfully pardoned her to keep it all under the rug. Tell me, why would Susan McDougal sit in a prison for like 5 years on contempt charges, refusing to testify against Clinton? Why would Clinton pardon her without any explanation? Sure, there's no wrongdoing there. Nothing illegal. Sodablue: Nothing to see here, move along! ... Continued... |
| #18 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 7:06:51 PM |
|
... Continued ....
One of the more interesting examples to come out last year was when the Associated Press published a list of all the people Bush has had sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. You just brought this one up as one of your claims against Clinton. Ah, but Bush didn't charge for it. Clinton actually had a "menu" for direct contributions. For like $50,000 you got a stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. Sure, many of the people who stayed with Bush and every other President in the Whitehouse donated to that President's campaign, but the stay WAS NEVER PREDICATED on donations. Many people who stayed were personal friends and may or may not have donated. Clinton, OTOH, had many people with WHOM HE HAD NO REAL PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP stay in the whitehouse predicated on a donation. There's a big difference on pampering friends and large contributors and SELLING THE BEDROOM. "I would have to vote for a Democrat because I hated Bush, not because I thought the Dems would do anything to save us " That is my one criticism of the Democratic party. The only thing they offer to do is save us from Bush. Essentially the Democrats offer the Status Quo, which I am not unconvinced isn't a better solution than the ones Bush has outlined. But it definately does not sell. Agreed. I just wish the Democrats would stop trying to play the middle and go to their left roots. I think the country would be better if we had real Left vs Right debates rather than this B.S. of politicians trying to straddle the middle and get nothing done. That's because you generally don't take the time to read. You're generally off attacking the imagined liberals you see behind every picture frame More personal attacks. As I've said, I don't attack the people, just the concept. Where are those facts, by the way? You know what, let's wipe the slate. Posts some facts to persuade me why I should be a liberal and not a conservative. Social or fiscal, your choice. Why should I be a [social | fiscal ] liberal? No bashing, just facts. Why should you be a fiscal conservative? Because fiscal conservativism, as demonstrated by Kennedy, Reagan, and what Bush was attempting (albeit thwarted by both Republicans and Democrats in congress) have been a huge success in generating growth and revenue in the government. A fiscally conservative policy of tax reduction and spending reduction is the only way to go. Nationalization of large parts of the economy, as in Gephardt's idea, are not good for the country as they will cause destablization and less trust by the investing public in the government and the economy as a whole. Since our system is a faith or trust-based system, anything that weakens faith in it destabalizes it. |
| #19 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/6/2003 7:16:43 PM |
|
I really do have better things to do with my time than debate with someone with your depth of understanding on issues.
You can take that however you want. I intended it as an insult. |
| #20 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 5/6/2003 8:10:41 PM |
|
I cant tell you how enjoyable it was to scroll past this "debate". I was just too busy watching Limbaugh (right Soda?).
Somewhat related to the topic... check out how Linux does against Windows Server 2003... http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_netbench.pdf Not even close! But on a lighter note... soda did back down from the challenge. Post #29 says so. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 at 20:13. |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/6/2003 9:37:34 PM |
|
BTW, for those playing the home game...
This is the Vince Foster lawsuit daz is talking about. http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3864863.html That ought to give people an idea just how far off the deep end Chad has gone. |
| #22 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/6/2003 9:42:08 PM |
|
mooresa56 - Drat, have to load Acrobat.
I'm not sure what challenge you're speaking of. Like I said, take #29 however you want, but I stopped reading Chad's posts when he brought up Vince Foster. Discussing politics with someone who believes the Vince Foster conspiracy is like talking about the future of NASA with someone who believes the moon landing was faked. It's pointless. |
| #23 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 5/6/2003 10:25:06 PM |
|
No opinion on Foster. But I did see that Fox special a few years ago about the fake moon landing. I have to admit, I was intriqued.
You really need to see that pdf. Load it on a coworkers box and print it. Its very telling. |
| #24 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/6/2003 11:16:35 PM |
|
Ok, downloaded acrobat.
Very interesting. I find it especially interesting that they had to download a new version of Samba as the one that came with Redhat was unstable. heh |
| #25 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/7/2003 4:26:54 PM |
|
Soda keeps making claims that I'm wrong and I've gone off the deep end (and even uses my real name, which shows how frustrated and flustered he is in the face of overwhelming facts).
He ignores the obvious (Clinton's absolute corruption and abuse of power). Here, check this out: Clinton Body Count http://www.etherzone.com/body.html How many Presidents have had so many people mysteriously die around them? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 230 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:23:28 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
