I dislike the approach partly from a distaste for the tabloid savaging of the successful but mostly because it seems to lead to rather thin regurgitations of existing critiques. I believe that is the case with this article.
dcminter
|
Stop Password Masking
(useit.com)
cached 3 months ago
|
|
Venting on CSS
(geeklondon.com)
cached 4 months ago
|
|
Folding Paper in Half Twelve Times
(pomonahistorical.org)
cached 7 months ago
|
|
cached 6 months ago
Hmm. I can spot an Orlowski article from the title these days; he's made something of a career of detracting from popular organisations (Google, Wikipedia, etc.) and persons.
|
|
cached 3 months ago
If I was keen to get (or keep) VC funding, I doubt I'd be in any hurry to tell a VC that he was smoking crack whatever I actually thought.
While I'm probably a little naive, it also just wouldn't occur to me that he was deliberately looking stupid. So my assumption would have to be that he actually thought this was true for some reason. Possible reasons: 1. He misheard something or otherwise confused OS/2 with something else. DB/2 for example. 2. IBM had extracted some bit of technology derived from the OS/2 lineage and were pitching this as the latest and greatest thing. On this assumption, flat out contradicting him would make him look stupid, and at least be a little rude. So to me this says more about his character (VC who plays games - sounds unpleasant) than it does about that of the people he says it to, other than that they're prepared to dissemble a little to keep an investor happy. Me, I'd say "Really? Are you sure!?" but I'm not looking for cash. |
|
cached 6 months ago
I dislike techcrunch and I dislike his writing, but I'm full of sympathy for the man. He should take the matter to the police and with any luck the contemptible coward who spat in his face will get a criminal record for their trouble.
|
|
The Angel Problem
(msri.org)
cached 2 months ago
|
|
cached 4 months ago
To me the joy of Adams' humour was his elevation of the mundane. I think this is a perfect example; the fun of this simple little paragraph is that the reality was so parochial but the thing became an independent legend surrounded by Byzantine theories.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it though... |
|
cached 7 months ago
Reminiscent of the classic 'John, where Peter had had "had" had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval.'
|
|
cached 6 months ago
Speaking as a 36-year old in the throes of testing his app I bloody hope not! If you're sufficiently clear of responsibilities that you can do this, well, you'll always regret it if you don't.
|