Boeing 747 & 777 autoland in crosswind certification video - impressive!

"Montblack" wrote

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/see-say2.htm
This is about where I got left in the dust!

Me too! I figure if all else fails, I really didn't want to see the clip,
that bad! g

All bets are off, for that RC Airbus 380, though. I would have really
missed seeing that one!

What do you figure that cost? My guess is 16 to 18 thousand. Anyone want
to write me a check for that amount? I'll teach you to fly it!

Jim (with an Airbus 380 type certification) in NC

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.

Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
standards.

[snip]
It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
experience.

They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.

Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.

now who is being ridiculous?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.


Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
standards.

As I mentioned in my reply to Stefan, the end-user doesn't give a crap about
whether standards were conformed to. They care about seeing the web page,
and they care about it being displayed correctly.

It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
experience.

They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.

Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.

This is too funny.

Matt

How in the world can this be a bad thing? The user doesn't give a crap
whether the server is providing accurate information or not.

Well, that's another way to invite trojan horses in. Say it's one thing
(to get past certain filters) and then actually =be= something else
(which the computer will figure out). The same game is played with file
extensions and (Windows) Explorer. Name an executable with a double
extension and it will show up as one thing, and =do= something else.

Not that there's much of a defense when it comes to software. :/

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.

Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
standards.

As I mentioned in my reply to Stefan, the end-user doesn't give a crap about
whether standards were conformed to. They care about seeing the web page,
and they care about it being displayed correctly.

It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
experience.

First, the fact that Microsoft has engaged in criminal conspiracies (and
actual criminal acts by the way) is a matter of record. That's
"conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural.

Second, engaging in a conspiracy and improving the user experience are
not mutually exclusive.

Third, whether Microsoft really improves the user's experience is
arguable. The customers of drug dealers probably think that they are
having a good user experience too.

(The drug-dealer metaphor is actually pretty apt. Once you start using
Microsoft products it is very hard to quit even if you want to, and it
generally involves a long and painful detoxification process.)

I don't want to get too deeply into an argument about Microsoft, but
I'll just point out one thing that is relevant to the current situation:
the only reason we even have to have content-type headers is because
Microsoft led us down a path where files as a matter of course do not
contain their own metadata. But most people are so ignorant that they
don't even know what that means, let alone understand that Microsoft is
responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
inferior.

Of course they do. Not that an apologist for Microsoft will ever accept
this truth.

rg

Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please. Microsoft has been the target
of numerous civil lawsuits including one big one with the DOJ, but none
for criminal acts that I can find on the Internet.

Confusing criminal and civil acts sort of knocks credibility out of
one's arguments.

"Ron Garret" wrote in message news:rNOSPAMon-

First, the fact that Microsoft has engaged in criminal conspiracies
(and
actual criminal acts by the way) is a matter of record. That's
"conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural.

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
snip
It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.

As I see it Microsoft and Apple/Mac are the ordinary everyday user
standards.
Each write software for their own platform.
If the user is unable to open a file with one program surely they have
the acumen to try other programs ?

And yes I also use Linux.

In article rlsbf.8816$dU6.2588@trnddc03, "sfb" wrote:

Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please.

http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+convicted

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

In article rlsbf.8816$dU6.2588@trnddc03, "sfb" wrote:

Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please.

http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+convicted

So I am not a lawyer, and I concede that I did confuse "criminal act"
and "breaking the law", which are not the same thing (though I'm still
not entirely clear on where the distinction lies). I should have said:

"The fact that Microsoft has engaged in conspiracies to break the law
(and been convicted of illegal acts) is a matter of record. That's
"conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural."

Nonetheless, Microsoft has been convicted at least once of an actual
criminal act, as the above link documents.

rg

It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
experience.

They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.

Actually they are more subtle. They ignore the standards, creating
variants of features that only work properly for those who use Microsoft
products to access them. Then most of the world creates product that
works with the Microsoft feature set, because that's what most of the
world has. Case in point: Microsoft Front Page. Once in Front Page,
always in Front Page. Only works with Front Page. Requires the server
to have Front Page. But everyone =has= Front Page already, so there you
go. Nonetheless, Front Page cannot be described politely.

They call this "improving the end-user experience".

What this has to do with the 747 I don't really know.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.