×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

222 comments

A better bottom line (5, Interesting)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 9 years ago | (#9795976)

Slate itself is breaking even at this point
After a profit of $21 million last year, and some serious past cash flow problems, I'm sure Microsoft's desire to unload the online rag has less to do w/Slate's recommending Firefox than it does with a predetermined "build-it-to-flip-it" strategy. Now Slate is somewhat solvent. It's probably smart for MS to sell some of its content assets and focus more on delivery mechanisms, and Slate just happens to be one of the more controversial business units in that category.

Re:A better bottom line (5, Funny)

MesiahTaz (122415) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796052)

Let's not forget that Slate does not really fit their business model. They're only into something if they can achieve total dominance.

Re:A better bottom line (3, Insightful)

d'fim (132296) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796177)

It's probably not in Microsoft's business plan to keep a business unit that doesn't toe the party line. If the numbers had said "keep it", then I'm sure that we would be reading about a management shakeup rather than a sale.

Re:A better bottom line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796205)

I agree. (This is Shirley +5 Insightful or I'm a McCock monkey's prison bitch!)

Re:A better bottom line (5, Insightful)

OnTheMoney (800062) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796195)


Microsoft has also recently announced that they are returning some of their cash to stockholders because they don't have any good places to invest it anymore.

My suspicion is that a group at MS has been analyzing their business units for future growth as part of that cash dividend decision and one of the things they came up with was that while Slate doesn't have much growth potential (but is profitable enough to be turned into cash), after dropping it they can do more in other media stuff to help the growth of MSN.

--
Healthy Info [health-issue-books.com]

Linux looking to buy BSD Chick - BSD refuses. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9795977)

Is it any wonder people think Linux [debian.org] users are a bunch of flaming homosexuals [lemonparty.org] when its fronted by obviously gay losers [nylug.org] like these?! BSD [dragonflybsd.org] has a mascot [freebsd.org] who leaves us in no doubt that this is the OS for real men! If Linux had more hot chicks [hope-2000.org] and gorgeous babes [hope-2000.org] then maybe it would be able to compete with BSD [openbsd.org]! Hell this girl [electricrain.com] should be a model!

Linux [gentoo.org] is a joke as long as it continues to lack sexy girls like her [dis.org]! I mean just look at this girl [dis.org]! Doesn't she [dis.org] excite you? I know this little hottie [dis.org] puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox [spilth.org]. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy [spilth.org] little minx [dis.org]. Don't you wish the guy in this [wigen.net] pic was you? Are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass [dis.org]?! Wouldn't this [electricrain.com] just make your Christmas?! Yes doctor, this uber babe [electricrain.com] definitely gets my pulse racing! Oh how I envy the lucky girl in this [electricrain.com] shot! Linux [suse.com] has nothing that can possibly compete. Come on, you must admit she [imagewhore.com] is better than an overweight penguin [tamu.edu] or a gay looking goat [gnu.org]! Wouldn't this [electricrain.com] be more liklely to influence your choice of OS?

With sexy chicks [minions.com] like the lovely Ceren [dis.org] you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD [netbsd.org] if she [dis.org] told you to? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close [dis.org] to such a divine beauty [czarina.org]!

Don't be a fag [gay-sex-access.com]! Join the campaign [slashdot.org] for more cute [wigen.net] open source babes [wigen.net] today!

$Id: ceren.html,v 7.0 2004/01/01 11:32:04 ceren_rocks Exp $

OMGWTFBBQ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9795980)

fr0st p1st r0x0rs my b0x0rs

First Post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9795983)

First Post

This is good (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9795985)

FP!

Hostile takeover (1, Redundant)

WarMonkey (721558) | more than 9 years ago | (#9795986)

I'm offering a generous 67 cents and half a pack of generic menthols. I know -- more than it's worth, but...

Hah, of course... (1, Insightful)

}InFuZeD{ (52430) | more than 9 years ago | (#9795989)

If my employees were bashing my products publicly, I think I'd dump them too. Who wouldn't?

Re:Hah, of course... (4, Insightful)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796059)

Who wouldn't?

Ermm, anyone with a brain?

If an employee misbehaves to that extent, sack 'em for gross misconduct. Selling a company is difficult and expensive to do (have a look at what investment banks charge to "advise" you). You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face if you sold a company to get rid of one (probably quite junior) employee.

Learb to speak ENGLISH (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796129)

People who start an argument or discussion with "Um..." or "Ermm..." or any similar juvenile language construct immediately loose at least 50% of their credibility.

Re:Learb to speak ENGLISH (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796198)

People who use "loose" instead of "lose" lose all credibility.

Re:Learb to speak ENGLISH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796215)

Um... NO WE DON'T!!!

Oh, and:

Ermm... I'm "learbing" as fast as I can!

Hah, of course...Steel resolve. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796089)

" If my employees were bashing my products publicly, I think I'd dump them too. Who wouldn't?"

Your products, or your employees?

Re:Hah, of course... (1)

bob670 (645306) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796137)

I think that would mean Slate was protected under some kind of "whistle blower" law since they work for a company who knowingly distributes a defective and hazardous product. What's funny is that anyone who works for MS probably can't recomend IE with a straight face any longer...

Microsoft Sell Something ? (0, Flamebait)

Dozix007 (690662) | more than 9 years ago | (#9795991)

That is a bit of a shock. They are normally the hoards of the industry. Then again, you would think they would LEARN from the fact their own magazine downed IE. Possibly integration of yet another Open Source Technology. By the way, who actually reads Slate ?

Re:Microsoft Sell Something ? (4, Funny)

the unbeliever (201915) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796005)

I read Slate when it's linked from /.

That's about it thought ;(

Vanamar
Life is a harsh mistress, Fate an insatiable lover, Death an old friend.

Re:Microsoft Sell Something ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796022)

That's about it thought ;(

That was your last one? Oh, how sad...

Don't sell, pull the plug... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796001)

Slate has been going steadily downhill for several years now, both in readership numbers and quality of "journalism" **cough**rantingfarleftbias**cough. I think it's going to be a pretty tough sell and hopefully Bill will just put them out of their misery within the next year or so.

Re:Don't sell, pull the plug... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796162)

Well said. Between PMSNBC, Newsweak, Slate, and Eric Alterman [msn.com] (who works for Slate) -- Microsoft's media ventures are just flat out infested with emotionally insecure, self-righteous, leftist zealots who are completely unashamed of exploting their duties as journalists to promote their own agendas.

Microsoft! In the words of Gov. Schwarzenegger:

Clean House!

Not likely a punishment (5, Insightful)

usefool (798755) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796007)

This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer.

I don't think the above is part of the reasons for such sales, as stated on the article, the sales allows MS to "create a partnership with another media company, which could potentially help increase advertising revenue on the MSN site."

One step backward, two steps forward.

On the other hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796084)

If Michael's right about the reasons for Slate being dropped... what does this say for the Department of Homeland Security?

**dramatic music**

yes, will MS..... (2, Funny)

zogger (617870) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796216)

refuse to do business with the government any longer because homeland security and cert dissed their browser? One would HOPE SO, I mean, MS has some pride and ethics, correct?

Re:Not likely a punishment (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796166)

In months past there have been some rumors of a MS - Disney partnership. After all Mickey Mouse software would fit well with Disney ;)

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (2, Insightful)

DrSbaitso (93553) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796009)

Brilliant!

Re:Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796158)

Exactly! While it's possible there's a connection I suppose, the odds of it seem extremely low.
But that's slashdot for you.

Re:Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796168)

Gesundheit!

Post Hoc Propter, Much? (4, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796017)

Right. Because any two things that follow in chronological order are neccessarily related. Just this morning, lightning struck down the street and, a few minutes later, my bank called about a bounced check.

Damn Lightning. It always causes problems.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (2, Funny)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796031)

The surge hit the microwave tower that happened to be transferring your details between banks at the exact moment the cashier rung up your cheque, duh!

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (5, Insightful)

gmajor (514414) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796054)

The story's commentary is some of the biggest bullshit I've read on Slashdot in a while. Any attempt to cast Microsoft in a negative shadow, even through faulty arguments, is praised on the front page.

IIRC, MSNBC also reccommended Firefox over IE.

Although it is still a newsworty story, trying to link the sale of Slate with Firefox is just plain stupid, and takes away from the real content.

you really whine a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796079)

If you have a problem with the attitude towards Microsoft on Slashdot, stop reading Slashdot. It's always been that way here, and is likely to be for th forseeable future.

It's not a "legitimate" news source. It never pretends to fairness and balance, and shouldn't be held to such a standard. It's a news opinion site. Deal with it.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796113)

The story's commentary is some of the biggest bullshit I've read on Slashdot in a while.

What commentary? The submitter stated a fact: "This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

Are you suggesting the submitter should've left this important piece of information out?

IIRC, MSNBC also reccommended Firefox over IE.

MSNBC is partly owned by the enormous mega-corporation General Electric. Slate is a small web journal. The comparison between the two doesn't fit.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796306)

What commentary? The submitter stated a fact: "This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."


The mere inclusion of that sentence means the submitter was trying to link the two.

I mean, how about this: "Arnold Schwarzenegger hails from Austria, also the home of Adolph Hitler."

Factually true, but ideologically loaded.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (0)

vigilology (664683) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796127)

I can't believe you people are taking that seriously. Do you really think the submitter thinks the two are related? Lighten up. Sheesh, any excuse to have a dig at somebody.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (1)

mingot (665080) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796219)

The story's commentary is some of the biggest bullshit I've read on Slashdot in a while

"a while"? Do you mean since the last michael story?

Any attempt to cast Microsoft in a negative shadow, even through faulty arguments, is praised on the front page.

No shit, sherlock. Welcome to slashdot.

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (2, Insightful)

momogasuki (790667) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796230)

What? You expect a site that uses a Borg-Gates icon for Microsoft-related stories to be unbiased?

Wait, back up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796245)

Are you implying the slashdot blurbs are meant to be taken seriously?

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796259)

Let me guess: Microsoft employee? Astroturfer? Or just someone who isn't properly paranoid?

May you be manipulated into fellatio with a goat, sir!

No, confirmation bias (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796075)

The dazed minions of slashdot see anything about microsoft, immediately imagine some improbable nefarious end, and anoint this as true. My theory is at least half of the people reading slashdot were actually killed by the disintigrating Mir space station, and taken to morgues trying to save money on enbalming fluid by substituting worschestier sauce.

Re:No, confirmation bias (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796111)

Worshestier sauce is too expensive, so we use soysauce as a substitute instead. With the money we saved on enbalming fluid alone, I was able to buy a third carribean island mansion with hot naked bitches!

nobody thought I'd amount to shit as mortician, but I sure proved them wrong! Ever since I bought off this russian guy to alter Mirs re-entry vector... I've been living high on the hog!

Re:No, confirmation bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796170)

MIR landed in the ocean you dipshit. did you embalm some dolphins or sumthin?

Re:No, confirmation bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796183)

MIR didn't land you fscking moron, it dissintergreated in the atmosefear. he embalmed a coupld seagulls.

Prior hoc ergo propter hoc, maybe? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796112)

Could they have been given a go with articles criticizing MS in order to seem more 'objective' and thus offer more incentive to a future buyer? maybe the editors knew the sell was in the cards?

Apparent time order of events is irrelevant, as relativity shows ;)

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796184)

no kidding, I tried explaining that to my bank but they still didn't take off the charges

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (2, Interesting)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796248)

I don't even get how this could be related to the Firefox recommendation. If MS were pissed about that, why sell it off? Wouldn't it make more sense to just fire the guy who wrote it and take more control over the magazine?

Hey, I woke up with a hangover this morning. Think that could have been caused by your lightning? My stupid doctor tells me its because I was drinking last night, what does he know?

Re:Post Hoc Propter, Much? (1)

dema (103780) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796265)

Why do I always read this crap? Slashdot always posted snippets of stories with one or two sentences of the editors opinion. If you can't shut your mouth and deal with that....click here [google.com].

Coincidence? (-1, Troll)

ErnieD (19277) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796039)

I think not.

No way this isn't connected to the Firefox recommendation. No way.

Re:Coincidence? (5, Interesting)

tsaler (569835) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796071)

What difference does it make? Remember -- Microsoft basically says that Internet Explorer doesn't exist anymore. It's a part of Windows, they say. So why does it matter if an MSN online magazine recommends Firefox as a stand-alone web browser on top of Windows, when Internet Explorer is already an integral part of Windows?

It's not as if Slate recommended that users switch to Linux or something like that. They're still using Windows, which means, whether they like it or not, they're still using Internet Explorer.

It's more likely that Microsoft would try to strong-arm the editors and the writers responsible for something like that into resigning rather than selling the entire magazine. I think they just don't care about it anymore and don't care to pay for it if someone else will.

Too funny... (4, Funny)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796042)

I read the /. headline and immediately thought to myself, "I'm going to be the first to post a funny conspiracy theory about Microsoft punishing Slate for not towing the corporate line when they published that Pro-FireFox article a little while back." Then I read the /. summary blurb and see that the conspiracy theory's already there! :-)

--

Re:Too funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796065)

Heh heh, mod fp summary down (Score:-1, Troll).

Re:Too funny... (2, Funny)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796271)

Conspiracies......I'm fueling the black helicopters right now, hold on, I can only fuel on at a time.

I just wonder how long it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796044)

before Microsoft assimilates Firefox. Maybe they read the slate article, pulled their heads outta their asses and realised that soon IE isn't going to become the preferred browser.

Re:I just wonder how long it is (1)

Decaff (42676) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796133)

that soon IE isn't going to become the preferred browser.

This may be just a little optimistic as IE is pre-installed on every copy of Windows.

Somehow I doubt this is becuase of the FireFox rec (5, Insightful)

Virtual PC Guy (720945) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796060)

Hmm... Let's see - I own an online magazine. Presumably I (the comapny) actually get to have a say in what gets published or not, and who gets hired or not.

Now - someone wants to publish an article recommending a competitive product - do I:

1) Stop them from publishing the article (I can do that - remember)

2) Let them publish the article so as to maintain a fair balance in the press

So let's say I select option two - am I then going to 'vinidictively' sell them off (so that they can continue doing the same thing for a different employer)?

That does not make sense.

If I wanted to be vindictive - I would keep the magazine, stop them from publishing the article, and fire the guy who wrote it. If - however - I wanted to make a profit I would publish the article (and similar ones) so as to grow respect in my reader base - and sell it off once it had a big enough base to be profitable.

Face it guys - buisness is about making money - not being vindictive (though those two do tend to overlap at times)

Re:Somehow I doubt this is becuase of the FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796146)

...am I then going to 'vinidictively' sell them off (so that they can continue doing the same thing for a different employer)?

Sure, because when they bash your product for someone else, they're not doing it under your name.

Re:Somehow I doubt this is becuase of the FireFox (1)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796193)

That does not make sense.

Factoring in the usual attention span of the general populace it does.

1. My magazine does bad review of one of my products.
2. Wait a few weeks.
3. Sell off magazine
4. Um, what was 1. again??

I suppose I should add

5. Profit!

Re:Somehow I doubt this is becuase of the FireFox (2, Interesting)

hendridm (302246) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796298)

What if being vindictive makes you more money than being respected? Slate recommending a competing product could cost more money in losing their web monopoly than it means in higher subscription rates in Slate. I could see Microsoft saying, "Yeah, it might be true, but find a different way to increase readership or find another job." That's what I would say, anyway.

Suspicious, but... (4, Insightful)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796062)

I don't think that Microsoft would _sell the magazine_ because of a critical article. If they really cared, I'm sure they would have censored the article before it was published (went live?). M$ is evil and vindictive, but I'm not sure that they really care if people use IE or not, as long as they aren't using Linux, *BSD etc.

Bullshit (4, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796066)

"...recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."

Yeah, because they dumpbed MSNBC a long time ago for writing less than flattering articles about their products and sdervices. What's that? You mean Microsoft is still in partnership with NBC? One more Slashdot conspiracy exposed.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796085)

Even though I think the article blurb was intended as a joke, for the heck of it I'll note that MSNBC used Netscape as their browser quite a lot in the first couple years (when I watched the network).

Re:Bullshit (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796175)

Your Sig: Hey Taco, your lameness filter is broken, /. is still up and running

If /. is so lame, what are you doing here?

Could it be (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796067)

Microsoft is finally starting to realize maybe it doesn't make sense to engage in ventures with no reason to exist? ...naah, probably just freeing up resources to start up more irrelivant and money-losing business ventures. I foresee a website to deliver fruit baskets internationally in Microsoft's future.

Put it together (5, Insightful)

Fished (574624) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796068)

  1. Microsoft pays $35billion or so to shareholders in a one-time dividend.
  2. Microsoft unloads Slate
  3. Microsoft increases future dividends.
  4. ???
  5. Profit! (sorry, always wanted to do that.
This doesn't mean that MS is annoyed with Slate, it means they are changing their business strategy. I would hazard to guess that Microsoft has decided that, rather than becoming an evil empire that owns a small country and runs its own Media etc., they will go back to being just a software company.

I would look for them to off-load other products not related to their core competencies in the near future, and I expect they will divest themselves from many of the sidelines they've gotten into. The question in my mind is: what happens to MSN as a whole? Is Microsoft giving up on being a content company altogether? What about their promised search engine? The Xbox?

Re:Put it together (1)

beakburke (550627) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796189)

Actually I don't expect them to unload XBOX and MSN. XBOX /MSN is their way of trying to slip the "media center PC" into everyone's livingroom and replace webTV. It's a consumer level platform that microsoft just happens to control much more tightly than a regular PC. As long as MS can get the major apps on there (Games, MSN everything, office, and maybe PVR), people might be willing to give up their PC and use the XBOX instead. It really would be the true consumer electronics version of the PC.

Re:Put it together (1)

Zippity-Doo (587339) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796237)

You bring up a great point and one that needs to be taken into account. If you think back a couple of decades, companies that had a whole lot of excess cash lying around, the default action was to start empire-building by acquiring other companies that may or may not be considered within the arena of their core competency. However, Microsoft is actually doing (Cringe as the Troll mods come flying down) something very intelligent. Instead of going out and trying to do everything under the sun, they are beginning to consolidate their operations to do the one thing that they are really good at which is selling lots and lots of products that are mediocre at best. Furthermore, I would not be at all surprised to see that they start to really concentrate on further increasing their market share by differentiating their products, pricing models, and increasing their overall quality.
I must admit that I am very interested to see how the recent stock buyback and now divestiture plans will affect the near-ish future of Microsoft.

Re:Put it together (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796256)

I must admit that I am very interested to see how the recent stock buyback and now divestiture plans will affect the near-ish future of Microsoft.

Of course you must, you MSFT stock owning whore.

use a disclaimer next time bitch.

Re:Put it together (1)

cirisme (781889) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796250)

I would look for them to off-load other products not related to their core competencies...

Microsoft just giving up on everything? No way...

Re:Put it together (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796288)

has microsoft _EVER_ sold off something from it because it didn't fit their business plan?(employees leaving to form their own business doesn't count)

* they will go back to being just a software company.* is just too far fetched, especially when they're sittin on top of billions and everything they've done as a company goes against that.

Slate trashing IE (4, Interesting)

ZZeta (743322) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796069)

"This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer"

I don't think the fact Slate trashed IE has anything to do with the sale.

In fact, the article says Slate would still be accessible from the MSN Website, even though they would no longer hold any "property" ties with Microsoft. And what would that accomplish? Slate would be even more content-free than it already is, as it wouldn't depend on Microsoft at all, but it would still have the popularity / visibilty it enjoys being right there, in the MSN Website.

I mean, if Microsoft wanted to silence their editors, they would do anything but loose their power over the magazine. Instead, they are giving them a free ticked to say whatever they want, still enjoying the visibility they have.

I don't know why Microsoft chose to sell the magazine, but it can't be because of their trashing IE.

Just my 2c

Media companieS (3, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796072)

Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies

I think the submitter means "Microsoft is in discussions with THE five or six media companies" (thanks Michael Powel for allowing this, by the way. Shame on you...)

This is odd. (1)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796080)

The conspiracy theories are plainly pants.

Still, Slate has an excellent reputation and the money involved is just a rounding error in Microsoft's accounts. So why sell it?

Re:This is odd. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796128)

Slate has an excellent reputation

Do they? I'm just one person but I don't know anyone who regularly follows or takes seriously Slate.

The only time I ever see Slate being mentioned or referenced by anyone is when Slate does some kind of article pandering to some specific group, and then just as Slate planned that group runs around trumpeting links to that Slate article as "proof" of what they've been saying all along. Like when they recommended Firefox a few weeks back, or when they hired the guy who wrote the book about how Mother Teresa was a horrible, unethical person to do that straw-man-stuffed hack job on Michael Moore last month.

Can anyone read? (5, Informative)

peeon (743159) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796102)

MS is not unloading on Slate. They just trying to get into a partnership with another company to make more money.

MS benefits from the Firefox article... (5, Insightful)

tyroneking (258793) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796138)

... on Slate because that is the exact sort of thing that gives Slate a supposed 'reputation' for journalism. In fact, it's a pretty cheap trick to recommend something that so many others have recommended already (and is so obviously a better product), when MS's own product (IE) attracted so much trouble for MS in the first place and doesn't make a profit for MS anyway.

Now if they had gone down the road of web-based applications then maybe this would have been a different story - but right now IE is a suitable sacrificial lamb that will boost Slate's reputation just before a potential sale/partnership.

In fact, Slate appears to be part of trend at MS, what with blogs and all, to promote the idea that MS goes in for a little self-criticism... wonder why?

Maybe MS feels that self-attack is the best form of defence against their only true threat - worldwide Governments - and appearing to be self-governing is a common method used by large industries to avoid government-regulation.

Not that I'm suggesting that MS is really trying to be so underhand - but I guess they can't help but appear to be so.

MS break-up strategy (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796147)

This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer.

Now, if we can just get the folks in the Office division to start recommending other operating systems over Windows, we could finally get that part of the business sold/spun off to a separate company... just like the judge wanted.

It's normal (2, Insightful)

hurricane_sh (800031) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796176)

Microsoft has too many products, I don't think Microsoft cares about the article so much. If all articles recommend MS products only, it just blow away their readers.

the truth is out there (1)

DuctTape4Windows (796638) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796212)

hey microsoft is just lucky nobody recommened linux over windows, and besides, internet exploder is bundled with WinD'oh!s, so what do they care. but who reads "slate" anyway but i found some lies burrayed in this article: That said, be aware that getting started with Firefox isn't a one-click operation. firefox is pretty damn easy to install, i can't imagine anyone having a hard time, the only configuring you really have to do, is change a few settings like your default web browser (firefox), and change your homepage (slashdot) hahahaha, firefox is better, if firefox had a filemanager built in, i would never touch internet exploder again!

Re:the truth is out there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796260)

but who reads "slate" anyway but i found some lies burrayed in this article:

What the hell are you trying to say? "But this but that"? "burrayed"??? And what's the colon doing at the end of that statement? Have you ever heard of quotation marks?

Jesus, your grammar is atrocious. I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say. Way to get your point across.

Re:the truth is out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796286)

Maybe... just fucking maaaaaybe he's not a native English speaker... I've known spanish for around 5 years and I'm still not gramatically correct but I've yet to meet someone who doesn't know what I'm saying.

Maybe you're just ignorant.

If I worked at Slate I'd be scared! (1)

john_smith_45678 (607592) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796213)

After all, look what happened to somebody else who crossed Microsoft!

Microsoft manager died from drinking antifreeze

By The Seattle times staff

SEATTLE -- Daniel Feussner, a former Microsoft manager who died suddenly two months ago while facing federal charges for allegedly stealing $9 million in company software, had ingested ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in automobile antifreeze, the King County medical examiner has determined.

But the Medical Examiner's Office said it cannot say whether the 32-year-old, German-born computer expert committed suicide or accidentally ingested the poison.

Feussner died Feb. 7 after being rushed to a Bellevue hospital. He had been free on bail while awaiting trial on 15 counts of wire, mail and computer fraud in U.S. District Court. Prosecutors alleged Feussner financed a lavish lifestyle by obtaining software from the company and selling it. If convicted, he could have faced up to 20 years in prison.


http://www.joegrossberg.com/archives/000573.html [joegrossberg.com]

is there a -1 (Jerkoff)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796281)

if not, parent is a great example of why there should be.

Just a coincidence (2, Interesting)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796214)

Its been well known that Slate was an experiment for MS, just like Sidewalk etc a few years back. I'm not surprised they are looking to sell it. I'm surprise they waited this long.

Is a supressed Slate worth reading? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796220)

A technology magazine needs to be able to write about Microsoft objectively if they expect anyone to pay attention to their articles.

(Maybe Slashdot should also consider this.)

in other news, OSDN sells slashdot... (1)

BACbKA (534028) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796279)

...after a Microsoft banner ad was displayed in the face of an unsuspected director that decided to read the daily news :)

Slashdot's a little slow on the uptake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9796302)

Matt Drudge has had this as a headline for days now.

Using Logic ... (2, Insightful)

LanimilbusLE (793833) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796309)

Under the current ownership, Microsoft still has some control over Slates content; for instance, in the mentioned Firefox article the author states: "You've probably been told to dump Internet Explorer for a Mozilla browser before, by the same propeller-head geek who wants you to delete Windows from your hard drive and install Linux." This almost derogatory comment undermines the assertion of IEs quality by focusing on the idea that switching from Windows to Linux is a bad move. Under new leadership the author may have been more straightforward and written Youve probably heard of the benefits of open source software before, but now they are becoming even more practical. To make a long story short, this isnt about Slates content.

Same Microsoft style (1)

moankey (142715) | more than 9 years ago | (#9796310)

When I first read the Firefox boo boo and nothing from MS. I thought, wow Microsoft has got to a point that they dont mind shots at them anymore they might even be trying the self deprecating route that many actors are doing these days with success. But now seeing this I guess Microsoft hasnt changed that much at all, or should I say the heads that created the culture at MS havent changed that much at all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...