Re: What is this code doing?

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 10/27/03 

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 02:05:53 -0000

Annie wrote:
> Personally, I intensely dislike Mikro$loth: its philosophies,
> its policies, its practices and its products. I won't even
> use PIRATED copies of M$ software, because it all sux.
>
> Although Betov is a total nut-case, politically, I have to
> admire his rabid anti-Mikro$loth stance -- even if it's for
> the wrong reasons.

You see, we can agree on some things, Annie...on these points, only
"degrees and measures" separates me, you and Rene...you are "anti" and
never go near the monster...Rene, despite being "rabid", still
actually uses it and supports it indirectly...I have absolutely no
Love lost for Microsoft but, though it might seem weird, I still use
their stuff...this is not a case of "liking" them whatsoever but, as
you said, you're able to choose a different OS because of being a
"personal home user" free to do so...well, yes, I'm that here at the
moment but not always do I have the luxury of choice (and "home use"
is "practice" for situations where the option is removed...if I used
Linux all the time, then being forced to use Windows would suddenly
leave me up crap creek without a paddle...although, I also use Linux -
just not for posting - to try to prevent the opposite happening either
:)...anyway, some of the stuff - like using a Hotmail account - is
actually "anti-Microsoft" in disguise...I let it fill up with spam and
waste _their_ resources...

Which, interestingly, must be pissing them off to a degree that
Microsoft are considered sueing spammers...I mean, we all know that
there's NO WAY this could just be M$ being "friendly and useful to
their customers" as they don't even understand the concept...it must
be because the spam is costing them profits...a bit like - and call me
cynical if you want but I've seen what MS are like to know that this
isn't an unfair criticism - the decision to shut down those MSN
chatrooms was I'd bet more to do with the fact that they were a burden
on their profits...especially if they would have to hire actual people
(expensive) to monitor the conversations and add more "responsible"
measures to make it safer...as Lycos and other chatroom people
_rightly_ pointed out, shutting them down just sends kids to less
"responsible" providers (yes, MS are arseholes but compared to what
other crap they could end up being involved in, even MS seem
"responsible" in comparison)...it's not like they are going to give up
chatrooms just because MS have...and, thus, it's actually a
potentially _irresponsible_ decision of the highest order...what would
have worked better was providing actual people to monitor
conversations and that users subscribe, providing _traceable_
information to actually _catch_ people to be given to the police
should they attempt anything...but these responsible measures cost
money and it's just a pure "burden" on MS...so they actually took a
"it's nothing to do with me" approach, which is likely to actually
make things worse, not better...they are just denying their
responsibilities because there's no profit - only burden - in trying
to maintain a "safe" environment...it's merely typical MS "propoganda"
to try to turn it around to make what is an _irresponsible_ move - an
outright denial that they are implicitly responsbile for at least
basic safety in providing such a service - sound like it's "all for
the kids" and stuff...

How can this be stressed enough? Microsoft _only_ care for
profits...really...I won't overly criticise Bill's massive
contribution to AIDS research too much because whatever the
motivations, it's a great thing so even if it's only done cynically,
it doesn't much matter so long as he does it...but, well, it's
interesting that this multi-billionaire has only bothered to do this
sort of thing while MS's popularity is low and they are being accussed
repeatedly from all quarters of "greed" that he spends what is, let's
remember, merely "pocket money" to him on this...

He's been a multi-billionaire for decades...why only do it now, when
it could vastly improve the image of MS and himself, in a time when
their image is being battered beyond what it's ever suffered before
("Microsoft" is a household name now that "bad press" is immensely
damaging when millions and millions could be effected by it)? Because,
you do know, that many, many celebrities and millionaires /
billionaires often make _tons_ of charitiable contributions all the
time...they just tend to keep it quiet (a practical thing...you can
bet, for example, that now that Bill has made this contribution to
AIDS that every single charity on the face of planet Earth is sending
him requests for donations...which, in a sense, is entirely right from
the perspective of them trying to get donations to their
charities...if there is a person handing out large sums then, from
their perspective, it's entirely right - as they obviously believe in
their charity to be working for it - to try to get at least some of
that money coming their way)...

Hence, if you doubt the accusations - I could understand if someone
did because it really was a very charitiable contribution - then you
have to consider the question of "how do we know that he contributed
this money?"...yes, it was made public delibrately...and he donates
"pocket money" at a time when MS's image is at its worst for being
"greedy"...there's _plenty_ of millionaires and billionaires out there
who are also making large and regular contributions to charities...we
don't hear about these things for practical reasons (being swamped by
requests from charities, being accussed of "prejudice" or something if
you only donate to one particular charity and ignore another (someone
like the Queen, for instance, _does_ contribute not just money but her
time to various things...but regards the money contributions, they
delibrately never say how much and where to because it's a thing with
royalty that they must always appear "non-partisan" and not of any
particular political opinions or anything, etc., etc.)...

It _was_ a PR stunt...but it's a _good_ PR stunt because the AIDS
research and prevention people got lots of needed cash...whatever the
potentially greedy motivations of Mr.Gates himself, his money will do
good works Hopefully that, as I say, I won't overly push the point, if
there's any jepordy that criticising him will mean he won't decide to
do it again...in fact, in the interests of humanity, we must _KEEP_
the pressure on MS to need to _still_ recover its image with more such
charitiable PR stunts, not actually excuse them for it...

Well, one session of "reverse psychology" should be met with another
of equal measure, I think ;)...

It's difficult to explain the exact reasons for being "anti-Microsoft"
because it's not any particular thing they've done but the whole lot
of their entire "modus operandi" and methods and attitudes and
motivation...

Beth :)