Bill Gates assists in funding first aviation-themed public high school

[Larry Dighera]

Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
(and Outlook) on us:




-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 07b -- February 12, 2004

-------------------------------------------------------------------


AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL TO OPEN, THANK GATES
Washington State's first aviation-themed public high school,
Aviation High School, will open its doors this fall, thank$ in
part to a gift from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The
school is expected to become "a state and national model,"
according to its organizers, thanks to its focus on high standards
for student achievement. The school's goals include sending 100
percent of its graduates on to postsecondary education, preparing
them thoroughly to be competitive in aviation careers, and
encouraging parent participation, mentoring and industry support.
The school's location has not yet been selected, but it will be in
Puget Sound's Highline School District, near Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport and Boeing Field.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/199-full.html#186714

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
>(and Outlook) on us:

He's only doing it to sell more copies of MS Flight Simulator.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I find your lack of clue...disturbing" - SithAdmin Vader.

[John Harlow]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>> Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
>> (and Outlook) on us:
>
> He's only doing it to sell more copies of MS Flight Simulator.

Sheesh.

[Chuck]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
> (and Outlook) on us:
>
>

<snip>

Larry, is Bill Gates twisting your arm to use his products ?

I bet that you have really hurt his feelings now that you have come out in
public and bad mouthed his company and products.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/04

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:49:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in Message-Id: >:

>In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
>>(and Outlook) on us:
>
>He's only doing it to sell more copies of MS Flight Simulator.

Profound cynicism indeed. But it may explain why he didn't fund the
entire project.

[Cockpit Colin]

I've always suggested what I believe to be the perfect solution for people
who don't like Bill, don't like Microsoft, or don't like their products ...

.... Don't use them.

In my eyes, Bill Gates is a modern day hero, not the bad guy. A CREATOR of
values, not a destroyer as seem so many in this world (not aimed at original
poster).

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Cockpit Colin" > said:
>I've always suggested what I believe to be the perfect solution for people
>who don't like Bill, don't like Microsoft, or don't like their products ...
>
>... Don't use them.

Great. Now convince the people who use my web sites not to use IE, so I
don't have to make dozens of work-arounds for the fact that millions of
people continue to use that piece of crap in spite of the fact that it's
demonstrably the worst browser on the market today. And convince the
company I work for to stop requiring certain documents in Word, a
thoroughly horrible word processor. And stop people who subcribe to my
mailing lists from using Outlook and Outlook Express, so they don't flood
my mail servers with the viruses which they inevitably get because of it.

Microsoft wouldn't be a problem if they weren't a combination of the most
evil, dishonest and illegal monopolists on the planet, AND the worst
programmers.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Only a NAZI would try to invoke Godwin's [law] deliberately"
- Jeff Gostin in a.s.r

[Andrew Gideon]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> And stop people who subcribe to my
> mailing lists from using Outlook and Outlook Express, so they don't flood
> my mail servers with the viruses which they inevitably get because of it.

Stop people that happen to visit a web site or view a mail message with my
email address from using MSFT products. That would prevent those products
from sending out viruses forged to appear to be from me.

- Andrew

[ET]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
online.com:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> And stop people who subcribe to my
>> mailing lists from using Outlook and Outlook Express, so they don't
>> flood my mail servers with the viruses which they inevitably get
>> because of it.
>
> Stop people that happen to visit a web site or view a mail message
> with my email address from using MSFT products. That would prevent
> those products from sending out viruses forged to appear to be from
> me.
>
> - Andrew
>
>

Of course we all know that if, say Netscape was used by 90%+ of all the
users out there, all the security explotes/viruses etc would be written for
those applications....

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Andrew Gideon]

ET wrote:

> Of course we all know that if, say Netscape was used by 90%+ of all the
> users out there, all the security explotes/viruses etc would be written
> for those applications....

Presuming that Netscape (or whomever) didn't break some basic principles of
software engineering (ie. shoving a widely diverse set of features into a
single monolithic component), it's a good bet that there'd be fewer bugs
and that those would be more quickly fixed.

~200 days for the fix for the ASN.1 issue? That may be a new record.

Presuming that Netscape (or whomever) didn't bundle their product with the
monopolistic OS in a way that eliminates competition, along with contracts
that discouraged OEMs from using alternative OSes, then it wouldn't be
likely that any single product would achieve 90% reach anyway.

Monocultures are good for disease, but bad for the population.

- Andrew

[John T Lowry]

I just wish he had finished Harvard and had gotten a good education. Then
maybe his software would work better....

John.

--
John T Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics
5217 Old Spicewood Springs Rd, #312
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 231-9391

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> I've always suggested what I believe to be the perfect solution for people
> who don't like Bill, don't like Microsoft, or don't like their products
....
>
> ... Don't use them.
>
> In my eyes, Bill Gates is a modern day hero, not the bad guy. A CREATOR of
> values, not a destroyer as seem so many in this world (not aimed at
original
> poster).
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Microsoft wouldn't be a problem if they weren't a combination of the most
> evil, dishonest and illegal monopolists on the planet, AND the worst
> programmers.


Quite...their "monopoly" should be one granted by the government, like the
public utilities, not the market. How illegal can you get?

[G.R. Patterson III]

ET wrote:
>
> Of course we all know that if, say Netscape was used by 90%+ of all the
> users out there, all the security explotes/viruses etc would be written for
> those applications....

At one time, Netscape was. Didn't happen then.....

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:41:59 GMT, "John T Lowry"
> wrote in Message-Id:
t>:

>I just wish he had finished Harvard and had gotten a good education. Then
>maybe his software would work better....

From what I've heard, all he did in university was fleece his friends
by constantly insisting on playing Poker. For Mr. Gates, it appears
that money is more important than education or moral integrity.

[Bob Noel]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> ET wrote:
>
> > Of course we all know that if, say Netscape was used by 90%+ of all the
> > users out there, all the security explotes/viruses etc would be written
> > for those applications....
>
> Presuming that Netscape (or whomever) didn't break some basic principles
> of
> software engineering (ie. shoving a widely diverse set of features into a
> single monolithic component), it's a good bet that there'd be fewer bugs
> and that those would be more quickly fixed.
>
> ~200 days for the fix for the ASN.1 issue? That may be a new record.

didn't you hear? ms claims the bug isn't the problem, the
patch is the problem.

--
Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
| >Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
| >(and Outlook) on us:
|
| He's only doing it to sell more copies of MS Flight Simulator.
|

It is interesting how, once you decide that someone is evil, that it is
possible to attribute an evil motive to every single thing that person does.

[Cockpit Colin]

> Microsoft wouldn't be a problem if they weren't a combination of the most
> evil, dishonest and illegal monopolists on the planet, AND the worst
> programmers.

I think it's time for a reality check there buddy.

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> Quite...their "monopoly" should be one granted by the government, like the
> public utilities, not the market. How illegal can you get?

The problem isn't the monopoly, but the abuse of the monopoly. But I know
that this point isn't clearly made in the generic press (I doubt most
reporters grasp the distinction).

- Andrew

[CriticalMass]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>Presuming that Netscape (or whomever) didn't bundle their product with the
>monopolistic OS in a way that eliminates competition, along with contracts
>that discouraged OEMs from using alternative OSes, then it wouldn't be
>likely that any single product would achieve 90% reach anyway.
>


See, this kind of crap is what passes for "information".

OK. So you have an opinion about MS. Wonderful. An opinion is like an
asshole. We've all got 'em. But that doesn't make you special.

MS "bundles their product with the monopolistic OS"? Bull****. If
there's any obstacle out there preventing ANYONE from doing precisely
what Bill Gates has accomplished, providing THE WORLD with a PC-based
operating system THAT WORKS better than anything else out there (you
wanna' challenge the consumer usage numbers?), state what that obstacle
is NOW, before any more of your baseless charges that MS is
monopolistic. It's not a "monopoly" - he built a better mousetrap-
what's your problem with that? We can do that in this country - it's
fair, and it's legal. Get over it.

I prefer Netscape as a browser, and NOTHING in the Windows operating
system does any "eliminating", or in any other way, precludes my use of
a non-MS product.

C'mon. Get a life.

You gotta' problem with Microsoft? Fine. That's your privilege. But
lose all the diatribe about how Gates and MS are getting in your way of
doing what you want. It ain't happening. You're hallucinating.

[Andrew Gideon]

CriticalMass wrote:


> MS "bundles their product with the monopolistic OS"? Bull****.

You write like this, and accuse others of misinformation or hallucination?
Or do you claim to know better than US Federal and EU governments?

> If
> there's any obstacle out there preventing ANYONE from doing precisely
> what Bill Gates has accomplished, providing THE WORLD with a PC-based
> operating system THAT WORKS better than anything else out there (you
> wanna' challenge the consumer usage numbers?), state what that obstacle
> is NOW, before any more of your baseless charges that MS is
> monopolistic. It's not a "monopoly" - he built a better mousetrap-
> what's your problem with that? We can do that in this country - it's
> fair, and it's legal. Get over it.

Oh, please. You don't know how IBM handed MSFT a monopoly? Where've you
been?

Anyway, even if you were correct in your assertion that MSFT achieved its
monopoly through reasonable and legal means, that does nothing about the
assertion that they've abused said monopoly.

Or does this distinction still escape you?

- Andrew

[Teacherjh]

>>
If there's any obstacle out there preventing ANYONE from doing precisely
what Bill Gates has accomplished, providing THE WORLD with a PC-based
operating system THAT WORKS better than anything else out there (you
wanna' challenge the consumer usage numbers?), state what that obstacle
is NOW
<<

Standards.

This isn't a computer newsgroup, so I'll stop at pointing out:

1: Several OSs work better than Windows. Windows is just sort-of adequate.
Adequate is good enough for Americans.
2: Consumer "acceptance" has squat to do with quality. It has to do with
marketing and compatitiblity.

Why are they still making VOR airways? Why are they still using NDB
approaches? Why can I file GPS direct but always get rounted from here to
Kingdom Come? By now we should be free of airways and such... but we're not.

Why? Well, several reasons, but one big one is standards. The new stuff HAS
TO work with the existing system. You can invent any newfangled thing you
want, but it will never get adopted in this airspace if it can't coexist.

That's why Mac can read Windows disks. But like VORs, Windows doesn't have to
read Mac disks.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Teacherjh) wrote:

> 2: Consumer "acceptance" has squat to do with quality. It has to do
> with
> marketing and compatitiblity.

and compatitibility is optional.

--
Bob Noel

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> It is interesting how, once you decide that someone is evil, that it is
> possible to attribute an evil motive to every single thing that person
does.
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

Absolutely.... Gotta say, Gates and his wife (wow) have contributed more to
charities than I've seen most of our CEO's do in this country.... His only
'sin' has been to take an operating system that was not even on the 'map'
and turn it into one of the most popular O/S's,,, Seems everyone forgets
that Microsoft was once a struggling underdog (remember Windows 3.0,,,,,,
Yeech....). For some reason America loves an underdog, but when that
underdog finally succeeds, they can't wait to watch them fall/fail...
Kinda sick, IMHO.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[John Harlow]

> Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
> (and Outlook) on us:

He may win over a couple of pilots with this move, but his insistence of
offshoring jobs to India is not making him any friends with American
software developers.

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> > Billy is redeeming himself in my eyes after foisting his insecure OS
> > (and Outlook) on us:
>
> He may win over a couple of pilots with this move, but his insistence of
> offshoring jobs to India is not making him any friends with American
> software developers.

Well, all you guys have been bitchin' for years about how lousy a job those
developers have been doing. Maybe the Indians can do better.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[John Harlow]

> Well, all you guys have been bitchin' for years about how lousy a job
> those developers have been doing. Maybe the Indians can do better.

I've never bitched about Microsoft until now.

What exactly is it you do for a living, George?

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> > Well, all you guys have been bitchin' for years about how lousy a job
> > those developers have been doing. Maybe the Indians can do better.
>
> I've never bitched about Microsoft until now.
>
> What exactly is it you do for a living, George?

I'm a systems engineer. Unemployed.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[John Harlow]

>>> Well, all you guys have been bitchin' for years about how lousy a
>>> job those developers have been doing. Maybe the Indians can do
>>> better.
>>
>> I've never bitched about Microsoft until now.
>>
>> What exactly is it you do for a living, George?
>
> I'm a systems engineer. Unemployed.

I'm sorry to hear that, if it is not by choice.

Hopefully it's not because an Indian is now doing your job "better than
you", at 10% of your old salary.

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> Hopefully it's not because an Indian is now doing your job "better than
> you", at 10% of your old salary.

Nope. Fallout from the dotcom callapse.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[CriticalMass]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>Anyway, even if you were correct in your assertion that MSFT achieved its
>monopoly through reasonable and legal means, that does nothing about the
>assertion that they've abused said monopoly.
>
>Or does this distinction still escape you?
>


It does.

By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software
everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here.

The argument that "no one had any other choice", which you and others
apparently try to make, is intellectually vacant, given that there were
never any market forces preventing potential competitors from entering
the fray and providing competing OSes.

C'mon. Where does this bashing "the ones that make it" ever end? Gates
built a better mousetrap. Get over it. You don't want to use it?
That's fine with me. Load up Linux or something equally as goofy, and
see what software apps there are out there you can run. It's your
choice, big guy. Just don't try to argue that MS is junk simply because
it's the biggest dog on the block. That's not a defensible position.

In my view, MS has done nothing but what any other creative company in
similar circumstances would do - innovate.

[CriticalMass]

Teacherjh wrote:

>1: Several OSs work better than Windows. Windows is just sort-of adequate.
>Adequate is good enough for Americans.
>

Oh, yeah. Thanks a bunch for pointing that out to all of us. Of
course, that's why everyone is using them (NOT).

>2: Consumer "acceptance" has squat to do with quality. It has to do with
>marketing and compatibility.
>

In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR
makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, CriticalMass > said:
>By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software
>everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here.

Or maybe by going to every major computer maker in the world and telling
them "If you sell even ONE computer without Windows on it, we're going to
quintuple the price you pay on the ones that do have Windows on it". And
thus, they went from having a large market share to gaining a monopoly by
illegal means.

You don't believe me, read the transcripts from the anti-trust trial.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent,
one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even
vaguely resembles a circle. -- [unknown]

[Bob Noel]

In article >, CriticalMass >
wrote:

> In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR
> makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace.

complete nonsense.

marketing is the key. ms is the proof.

--
Bob Noel

[Andrew Gideon]

CriticalMass wrote:

> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>>Anyway, even if you were correct in your assertion that MSFT achieved its
>>monopoly through reasonable and legal means, that does nothing about the
>>assertion that they've abused said monopoly.
>>
>>Or does this distinction still escape you?
>>
>
>
> It does.

That's a shame. As you'd know if you actually followed any of this, how a
monopoly was achieved has nothing to do with whether or not it is abused
after having been achieved. That is, there's nothing wrong with acquiring
a monopoly (assuming nothing illegal was done en route). But *abusing* it
is a crime.

> By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software
> everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here.

You really do need to look further into this if you're going to be making
statements like this in public. It'll save you some embarassment.

There are several ways that the monopoly was achieved. My opinion is that
the most important was the first step: that IBM - having its own DOJ
problems around the same time - effectively endorsed the MSFT product while
leaving it free to compete with IBM. The endorsement from IBM - "nobody
gets fired for buying IBM", I hope you recall - went a long way towards
acceptance in the business community.

Once the relationship with IBM was established, but after the clones started
coming out, MSFT negotiated deals with the vendors that precluded their use
of any other OS (in actuality or effectively through pricing). Any company
wanting to compete with IBM in the PC market had to agree to this contract.

The vendors also had to pay for the MSFT license even if a machine was sold
w/o. Thus, there was no incentive even to sell a "naked" machine.

Most people discuss this issue, as it is illegal behavior for a monopoly
(but not for a company not a monopoly, note {8^). They discuss it because
it is what became the crime.

But I still find the original granting of the monopoly by IBM more
fascinating. I cannot imagine why IBM would make that type of
mistake...and so I wonder if this was a result of the DOJ's case against
IBM for abuse of monopoly. Was this some legal tactic on IBM's part?

> The argument that "no one had any other choice", which you and others
> apparently try to make, is intellectually vacant, given that there were
> never any market forces preventing potential competitors from entering
> the fray and providing competing OSes.

It was all about being compatible with IBM...which did preclude any choice
other than MSFT.

>
> C'mon. Where does this bashing "the ones that make it" ever end? Gates
> built a better mousetrap.

"Built"? You don't even know the genesis of PC-DOS?

> Get over it. You don't want to use it?
> That's fine with me. Load up Linux or something equally as goofy, and
> see what software apps there are out there you can run. It's your
> choice, big guy. Just don't try to argue that MS is junk simply because
> it's the biggest dog on the block. That's not a defensible position.

That's absolutely true. A monopolistic product could still be a quality
product. Any arguments that the MSFT product is poor must be made on
grounds like the lack of security, the insufficient memory protection, the
bloated kernel, etc.

> In my view, MS has done nothing but what any other creative company in
> similar circumstances would do - innovate.

My cat thinks I'm God. She's about as correct as you, for the same reasons:
insufficient information for intelligent analysis.

What innovation? The GUI comes from Xerox, the kernel didn't have 1970s
technology for safe multiprocessing until the 1990s, it's a step backwards
in engineering to bundle the UI and the kernel, ... so what innovation?

The only innovations I've seen have been on the business side...and these
have tended to end up in court.

Enron was innovative too, I suppose?

- Andrew

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
>> In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR
>> makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace.
>
>complete nonsense.
>marketing is the key. ms is the proof.

The thing with MS is that they use to make good products but they have
gotten lazy. Anyone here remember Word Perfect 5.0, Ami Pro and Word
Star? You pretty much had to either recieve special training to use them
or get one of hose quick key sheets to put over teh function keys :)
When word game out (the GUI verison) it changed everything. Same with
lotus vs. quatro pro(sp) vs. excel. MS came to be on top my making a
better product. ONCE they got on top they started to use that fact to
crush anyone/thing that even looked like a treat.
MS products are just plain buggy. winXP has thousands of know bugs (MS
lists them) and security is a joke. What they currently do is release
beta software as v1.0, then send out service packs and LOTS of updates.
So love them or hate them MS got where it is legally. But they have
also used that position do carry out illegal actions.
As for VALUE per DOLLAR, that would be linux. It's free, and sun
office is also free. But most people are not that PC savy, they want to
buy a box, plug it in an go, and you can't quite do that with linux yet
(getting really really close but still not yet). I recently helped a
small busniess setup an all linux LAN for about $75! Try doing that with
MS :)
As pointed out by others the best product doesn't always raise to the
top. Beta was a better standard than VHS but Sony was stupid. Atari made
a better PC than apple or IMB (back in the day) but again... Anyone
remember amiga... MS deserves to be on top because they fought to get
there, that doesn't mean they make the best product; nor does it mean that
they didn't use being on top to illegally pressure other companies.

[Garner Miller]

In article >, 'Vejita' S. Cousin
> wrote:

> The thing with MS is that they use to make good products but they have
> gotten lazy. Anyone here remember Word Perfect 5.0, Ami Pro and Word
> Star? You pretty much had to either recieve special training to use them
> or get one of hose quick key sheets to put over teh function keys :)
> When word game out (the GUI verison) it changed everything.

Word has *always* been a GUI word processor, and it came out as a
Macintosh application first, way back in 1984. Word for Windows wasn't
released until 3 years later.

And you're absolutely right -- they used to make really good software,
at least on the application front. Actually, most of their application
software is still terrific -- I just find their OS to be abysmal.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Manchester, CT =USA=