Morons sue Microsoft because they read a $0.00002 sticker instead of doing their homework.
Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."You just "outed" yourself as an unreconstructed moron. If you paid $2,100 for a computer of recent manufacture that can't run Vista, based solely on the fact that it had a little sticker on it that said "Windows Vista capable", you're a moron who shouldn't be a "corporate vice president" of anything because you don't know your ass from a flashlight.
It's ridiculous. What this douchebag is actually upset about is that he can't run the top-end Vista Ultimate on whatever $2,100 machine he bought. (I'm guessing it's a laptop, because even in late 2006 you really would have had to work at paying $2,100 for a non-Vista capable desktop computer. I can almost see it in the case of a laptop.)
And what do the douchebags do when they realize they've made a boneheaded mistake? Why, they sue, of course. It's not their fault they did something stupid; no. And they don't go after the company which sold them the machine, either, which actually put the sticker onto the unit before shipping it.
No, they go after Microsoft. And they go after Microsoft because MS has money.
Being the kind of person I am, I don't even give a rat's ass about the fancy "advanced" features of Vista. I want my OS to quietly do its job in the background like it's supposed to, not be fancy and flashy. "Fancy and flashy" sucks down CPU bandwidth. I want as many processor cycles as possible devoted to doing actual work, not visual glitz.
(Old-timer DOS guru here.)
This so-called "corporate vice president" may need all the glitz that Vista can manage; but if so, he's a fool for not doing his homework before writing the check, expecially for a machine which was made before Vista was released.
I would have been just as happy--no, happier!--if this computer had had XP on it instead of Vista.
You've got to love the reporting in this one. Nowhere does the article mention that Chavez first seized assets belonging to multinational oil companies. No; it just says that "Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts...."
Exxon Mobil is one of several multinational oil companies which spent billions on development projects in Venezuela, only to have Chavez seize ownership of everything. End result: Chavez basically took billions from these companies by executive fiat. "Too bad, so sad: this stuff is now ours."
Exxon et al are merely trying to get back their property.
As for Chavez's threat to cut of oil to the US? Let him. It will do two things for us. First, it'll help stimulate support for drilling at ANWR, which should have started ten freaking years ago; second, it'll cut off some of Chavez's money supply. If we can't get the oil from Venezuela I am sure there are other countries which will be happy to make up the difference, and I'm sure Chavez can sell his oil elsewhere.
Another excerpt from Vox Day's book. This one's about the Spanish Inquisition. ("Nobody expects....") And it's an interesting read because it presents facts I had never known before. Particularly: "...the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children's bicycles." Whoa. Either a lot of bikes kill a lot of kids, or... Hmm: "...throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition...."
Boortz! "Hillary teared up again this past weekend at a campaign stop in Maine...." Again with the waterworks. The woman never cried in public when her husband was screwing anything in a skirt that walked near the White House; all of a sudden she's Weepy Wendy.
Right below that article is one about the Clinton campaign pimping out Chelsea. (As Editor-in-Chief of Atomic Fungus, I can say whatever the fuck I want to. Suck it, Hillary.) (On second thought, don't. I don't want that ore grinder you call a mouth anywhere near the big unit.)
ACLU sez a driver's license is a "right". Uh, no...no it's not. If it's a "right", then we have to give them to blind people and babies and the clinically insane. I don't think that's a good idea.
In any event, a driver's license is a state document, and if it decides it wants to take the document from you, it can. It may or may not have a good reason to do it--and thanks to the way our system works (even now) it had better have a damned good reason to--but it can. Driving is not a right; it's a privelege.
I hate the ACLU. I always have. If they were really all about "civil liberties" they'd be right there with the NRA on gun control.
Hillary replaced her campaign manager. She's not losing, but right now she! is! not! winning! End result: change staff.
Further proof you don't need to be a genius to get a Nobel prize outside of Medicine, Science, and economics. We should all support Hillary because Obama apparently will just get killed anyway. He is, after all, black.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, you asshat. Since we're that bigoted, what do you think we'd do to a woman?
* * *
Well, it's Monday. What do you expect?