Slashdot Mirror

They changed their minds after the outcry.

Read the original, unimproved version here (it's a Google cache, not a goatse.cx redirect):

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:AfvCuUwRG54J: news.com.com/2100-7355_3-5098688.html+confirmed&hl =en&ie=UTF-8

And the new, improved one, to make it look like they had planned to update all along, and it was a "misunderstanding":
http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-5098688.html.

Note that it was confirmed by @stake, not a rumor. Nice revisionism by news.com.

I'm not so sure about that. NetWare came out after DOS, it's true. Here's an interesting history from the man who was liquidating the company before NetWare was developed. Keep in mind that Unix sourcecode was freely being shared amongst university students, not DOS. Considering that it was three BYU students who actually created NetWare, its not too far-fetched to think that Novell would license early Unix code to cover their butts, and may have even influenced their decision to buy the AT&T unit that owned the Unix sourcecode.

Another thing comes to mind. I remember a CNI instructor mentioning that NetWare had some Unix code in it.

= 9J =

Could something like this [Google HTML cache of PDF] be what you are looking for?

I'm a Vietnam Veteran, I'm just not too scared of the whole thing. TCDD is very deadly to rats, there is no question about that. If I were a rat I would be very scared (of course, I would also be long dead).

However, there is no good epidemiological evidence that it is significantly harmful to man. It is still treated in the US as a horribly deadly carcinogen, in spite of the lack of evidence. Go look closely at your own links and read the *scientific* report from the National Academies instead of all the propaganda.

To give you an idea of research on the subject, consider that there was an accident in a industrial plant in Seveso which released 5 kg of dioxin into the atmosphere. People received the highest doses ever recorded, and many developed chloracne (unlike those in Vietnam). Many small animals died. And yet, here is a quote from Medical and Toxicological Informion Review: "The Serveso 15-year update has been published. The findings, surprising many, including IARC, concluded there were no statistically significant reports of cancer for individuals exposed to Dioxin in 1976. See Epidemiology 8 (1997): 646-652"

There is an entire industry devoted to getting money for Vietnam Veterans because their health problems were "caused by Agent Orange." There are a number of cancers, which, if I get them, I can get compensation for as "Agent Orange" service connected health problem.

The communist government of Vietnam of course blames all birth defects on it.

As far as eye witnesses, that claim is utterly absurd. The ONLY known short term harm of extremely high dosages of dioxins is a non-fatal skin condition known as chloracne. Thats at HIGH DOSAGES, not the trace dosages Americans, Australians and Vietnamese got from the defoliation.

Cancer mortality among Vietnam Veterans is INVERSELY proportional to Agent Orange exposure.

If you carefully read the National Academies reports, they are able to find some associations between *pesticides* and an increased cancer risk - among farmers who use the pesticides a lot for a long time.

They have been unable to find any statistically significant evidence of Agent Orange damage to Vietnam Veterans. Go read the report.

Now, when you consider all the other things going on in Vietnam at the time, and the high level of violence, and the risk level which is so low that it has yet to be reasonably measurable after 35 years, calling AO a chemical weapon is utterly and completely absurd. That's like calling a bulldozer a weapon because it clears jungle.

Notice your own quote "TCDD's are thought to be harmful to man." If there were scientifically valid evidence, that statement would read: "TCDD's are known to be harmful humans." In fact, many of the chemicals we used in our aviation work were more dangerous that AO.

All the evidence indicates that AO was less dangerous than gasoline or oil or many of the other chemicals used by people in their daily lives. Furthermore, the evidence from those who got vastly higher doses than anyone in 'nam is that the slight risk observed is more likely due to the pesticide than the TCDD.

Furthermore, significant amounts of dioxins are produced in nature. One dioxin scare in the US was traced to the clay used in a food processing phase... clay from a many millenia old stratum.

If you have the ability to read scientific reports, try: Birth Outcomes of Women Exposed to Dioxin in Seveso Italy

The obvious conclusion is that dioxins may be slightly toxic in low doses, with possibly a very small risk of future cancers, but this has not been proven. They also have known effects, at high dosages, on sex ratios in human births.

This is hardly a chemical weapon!

As to your offensive attitude, mate, I suppose it's what to expect th

Minor nitpick: I first used a taskbar with CDE, well before 1995. CDE wasn't just a WM (the WM in CDE was MWM). Check out the CDE "taskbar". It lists applications you can start, and virtual desktops. No actively running "tasks".

oops, this is the google cache, the previous link was to the search results.

People seem to be going ape-shit with this 3-strikes thing and whether it is real or not. I'm not going to take sides here but I am going to post a google link to an LA Times article about "3 Strikes". I hope this information will help the others in this thread debate a little more rationally.

GMD

I believe #6 was referring to this article (link goes to google cache of a geocities site). That theory alleges that all the "humans" are robots/AIs.

The article I linked doesn't nearly that far, and does explain a lot of the two movies without being "needlessly" complex. (It has to be a little complex; I don't think the movies lend themselves to a simple explanation.)

Google cache of it is here

Their new season is sucking in the prime 18-49 demographic. And the networks want to implement technologies that make it more difficult for these young people to watch their shows (Tivo, taping, etc.)

These folks are scared. They're content distribution monopoly is getting taken over by the Internet.

Slashdot and other independent content mechanisms are the the future. Not flags on broadcast signals.

Yes, I know that RF heats tissue. I know that sufficiently strong RF causes cancer. I know the exposure limits set by the FCC for transmitters over 50 watts. I also know that the wavelengths involved in cellular telephony are very similar to the dimensions of the human skull, to the point where cell phones may be considered optimal for inducing standing waves in the skull. So yes, I agree that there is the possibility that there is the potential for harm. And yes, I see no harm in using Bluetooth or plastic soundwave guides to reduce the transmitted power (and/or shorten the wavelength) of the RF emitted next to my skull. I certainly won't be strapping my old Motorola banana to my head, although it did two things to minimize exposure: it cut the power from 3W to 600mW when used with the portable battery out of its car mount, and it used a rubber duckie antenna to move the signal to above the user's head, rather than next to the ear.)

But there is still no evidence for health risks associated with these very low power (no health risks associated with cell phones. (If unavailable, see this google cache.)

Feel free to keep monitioring the public's health, don't buy a cell phone, (commune via crystals :-) whatever you want to do to keep yourself feeling safe; but don't "sound alarms" to the public when there has been absolutely no evidence to even suggest trouble. If you want to hand out realistic and useful safety advice for cell phones, tell people not to drive while talking on them.

Again, I was just extremely annoyed when your argument tripped all my triggers all at once, and I flew off the handle. Sorry.

Why not use the google cache?


http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:cp3kw5nfezMJ: www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/lasdiag.shtml+&hl =en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:qJ_EgIBgA1IJ: www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/enterp.shtml+&hl= en&ie=UTF-8

Much more effective.

Why not use the google cache?


http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:cp3kw5nfezMJ: www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/lasdiag.shtml+&hl =en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:qJ_EgIBgA1IJ: www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/enterp.shtml+&hl= en&ie=UTF-8

Much more effective.

I posted this comment a few days ago on the energy poll but the poll changed before anyone had a chance to read it. Here it is again.

While googling around for information on world oil production I came across something called the Hubbert Curve.

The Hubbert Curve is a mathematical model that predicts petroleum production levels. It was developed in 1956 by M. King Hubbert, a petroleum geologist at Shell Oil.

It basically says that the rate of production of oil over the life of the reserve roughly follows a normal (ie, "bell curve") distribution. In other words, the rate of production will increase until half of the available oil has been produced, then the rate of production will begin to decline.

Here is a Hubbert curve plotted in 1996 using the latest available data at the time. The first graph shows the world output of conventional oil in millons of barrels per day over a 100 year span starting in 1950. It assumes an Ultimate Recovery (total amount of oil in the world) of 1750 Gb (gigabarrels). The plot does not include non-conventional sources such as oilsands. The full report is here

The graph predicts that global production will peak in the early 2000's and will decline steadily over the next fifty years. By 2050 production from conventional sources will have decrease by 70%. The second graph shows the Hubbert curve for conventional, non-conventional and gas liquid sources, plus the combined curve for conventional and non-conventional oil. Although production from non-conventional sources is predicted to double over the next 50 year it will not offset the predicted decline in production from conventional sources.

The graph has both its supporters and detractors. One of the inputs to calculating the curve is the Ultimate Recovery and its hard to know exactly what will be. I've found figures on the web that range from 1750 Gb to as high as 2300 Gb. However, as this article states, even if ultimate recovery is as high as 2600 Gb, the peak will only be delayed till 2019. Here is a critique of the Hubbert Curve.

What I find interesting about the curve is that oil production will not suddenly drop to zero when the oil runs out (the doomsday scenario). Rather production will steadily decline over a long period as existing sources dry up and new sources become harder and more expensive to exploit. At the same time, increasing oil prices will lead to the development of new sources of energy. As new energy production expands demand for oil will probably decrease, leading to lower oil prices. Oil production will finally stop when the cost of extracting the remaining oil exceeds market price.

I posted this comment a few days ago on the energy poll but the poll changed before anyone had a chance to read it. Here it is again.

While googling around for information on world oil production I came across something called the Hubbert Curve.

The Hubbert Curve is a mathematical model that predicts petroleum production levels. It was developed in 1956 by M. King Hubbert, a petroleum geologist at Shell Oil.

It basically says that the rate of production of oil over the life of the reserve roughly follows a normal (ie, "bell curve") distribution. In other words, the rate of production will increase until half of the available oil has been produced, then the rate of production will begin to decline.

Here is a Hubbert curve plotted in 1996 using the latest available data at the time. The first graph shows the world output of conventional oil in millons of barrels per day over a 100 year span starting in 1950. It assumes an Ultimate Recovery (total amount of oil in the world) of 1750 Gb (gigabarrels). The plot does not include non-conventional sources such as oilsands. The full report is here

The graph predicts that global production will peak in the early 2000's and will decline steadily over the next fifty years. By 2050 production from conventional sources will have decrease by 70%. The second graph shows the Hubbert curve for conventional, non-conventional and gas liquid sources, plus the combined curve for conventional and non-conventional oil. Although production from non-conventional sources is predicted to double over the next 50 year it will not offset the predicted decline in production from conventional sources.

The graph has both its supporters and detractors. One of the inputs to calculating the curve is the Ultimate Recovery and its hard to know exactly what will be. I've found figures on the web that range from 1750 Gb to as high as 2300 Gb. However, as this article states, even if ultimate recovery is as high as 2600 Gb, the peak will only be delayed till 2019. Here is a critique of the Hubbert Curve.

What I find interesting about the curve is that oil production will not suddenly drop to zero when the oil runs out (the doomsday scenario). Rather production will steadily decline over a long period as existing sources dry up and new sources become harder and more expensive to exploit. At the same time, increasing oil prices will lead to the development of new sources of energy. As new energy production expands demand for oil will probably decrease, leading to lower oil prices. Oil production will finally stop when the cost of extracting the remaining oil exceeds market price.

I posted this comment a few days ago on the energy poll but the poll changed before anyone had a chance to read it. Here it is again.

While googling around for information on world oil production I came across something called the Hubbert Curve.

The Hubbert Curve is a mathematical model that predicts petroleum production levels. It was developed in 1956 by M. King Hubbert, a petroleum geologist at Shell Oil.

It basically says that the rate of production of oil over the life of the reserve roughly follows a normal (ie, "bell curve") distribution. In other words, the rate of production will increase until half of the available oil has been produced, then the rate of production will begin to decline.

Here is a Hubbert curve plotted in 1996 using the latest available data at the time. The first graph shows the world output of conventional oil in millons of barrels per day over a 100 year span starting in 1950. It assumes an Ultimate Recovery (total amount of oil in the world) of 1750 Gb (gigabarrels). The plot does not include non-conventional sources such as oilsands. The full report is here

The graph predicts that global production will peak in the early 2000's and will decline steadily over the next fifty years. By 2050 production from conventional sources will have decrease by 70%. The second graph shows the Hubbert curve for conventional, non-conventional and gas liquid sources, plus the combined curve for conventional and non-conventional oil. Although production from non-conventional sources is predicted to double over the next 50 year it will not offset the predicted decline in production from conventional sources.

The graph has both its supporters and detractors. One of the inputs to calculating the curve is the Ultimate Recovery and its hard to know exactly what will be. I've found figures on the web that range from 1750 Gb to as high as 2300 Gb. However, as this article states, even if ultimate recovery is as high as 2600 Gb, the peak will only be delayed till 2019. Here is a critique of the Hubbert Curve.

What I find interesting about the curve is that oil production will not suddenly drop to zero when the oil runs out (the doomsday scenario). Rather production will steadily decline over a long period as existing sources dry up and new sources become harder and more expensive to exploit. At the same time, increasing oil prices will lead to the development of new sources of energy. As new energy production expands demand for oil will probably decrease, leading to lower oil prices. Oil production will finally stop when the cost of extracting the remaining oil exceeds market price.

Mine doesn't work anymore.

I miss it, but get by with my wife's HP-12C.

Some years ago, HP distributed xhpcalc, an X windows clients that provided a good facsimile of their programmer/scientific/financial calculator lines with nice buttons, RPN, LCD looking display, etc. [I wish I had a screen dump of it so you could see what it looked like.] This was on HP-UX for PA-RISC machines, like the 700 series. Looks as if it got phased out in favor of dtcalc (which I haven't used).

Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared and I've yet to see anything on freshmeat comparable to xhpcalc.

google cache (AC for non karma whorage)

It's something to do with one of the preferences, nglayout.initialpaint.delay. The main Mozilla has a different value for it, which explains why it doesn't really have this problem. I think it's worse when the user is on dialup and visiting a site with several nested tables. Type about:config in the user bar to change it. You'll probably want a higher paintdelay value. Here's a link to a discussion about it. (Mozillazine's down)

here

it's stupid, be warned :)

don't these guys a pivx know anything? I'm sure if they remove they're page. no one else will continue to post the vulnerabilities. Oh yeah. & then there's always Google's cache
Don't see the point. unless they've bowed to pressure from MS.. that or they're getting kickbacks to stay silent.

Smart people use mozilla though.

... but one of my earlier sigs was noticed.

"I hate Linux because it made me type man mount."

parent should be modded troll/flamebait, though i'm not a fan myself, it's ridiculous to refer to Mario and anime as "silly japanese shit".

a quick google search reveals that adults make up a full 40% of gamecube buyers compared to 60% for the console industry as a whole. that means that all 3 console manufacturers are targeting pretty much the same demographic; the current surge in sales of the gamecube will impact the sales of both the ps2 and the xbox.

parent should be modded troll/flamebait, though i'm not a fan myself, it's ridiculous to refer to Mario and anime as "silly japanese shit".

a quick google search reveals that adults make up a full 40% of gamecube buyers compared to 60% for the console industry as a whole. that means that all 3 console manufacturers are targeting pretty much the same demographic; the current surge in sales of the gamecube will impact the sales of both the ps2 and the xbox.

I agree, things have to be published, unfortunately, for certain companies to get off their asses. Then there's microsoft, who whines and bitches about having to fix published flaws, yet at the same time manages to ignore others. Such as 31 in IE alone.

J

Pivx was the company that had a website with a list of 31 vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer. Two days ago they pulled it with what sounds like a nice way of saying they were pressured to do so.

There was also this article....

Wow. Slashdot is really choking on something. Hope it isn't mineral oil :)

SB

PDF can be annoying

Yes, the BioTerrorism "is not a threat" angle is actualy becoming somehwhat true. It appears the BioTerrorism slant used by politicians is being used to just put more laws on the books and grasp on none other than freedom? Supporting the "theory", a google cache'd article dug from a student.augie.edu website, and quoted below;

Bioterrorism not a threat at Augustana, professor says Anthrax and smallpox: concerns of the nation since 9/11 scares
By Marcella Prokop
Mirror Assistant Editor

Since last fall's anthrax attacks, students at larger schools who study potentially harmful micro organisms have been forced to abandon their work because of new regulations. This, however, is not the case at Augustana, so students shouldn't see any changes in the way they are being taught, according to Dr. Nola Bormann. "We don't deal with any micro-organisms that are at a high risk for bioterrorism," she said. "So all of the new regulations haven't really affected the way we do research here, [but] it's causing lots of scientists in universities to destroy samples to err on the side of safety." For Bormann, who gave a presentation on bioterrorism in the Gilbert Science Center last month, the anthrax mailings presented an interesting topic - one that she felt needed to be addressed. It was for this reason that she presented her findings at the Biology Department Seminar. In her presentation, she focused on the types of micro-organisms that terrorists can use for bioterrorism and what harm they would cause were they used. Because the anthrax mailings were the only attempt at bioterrorism in recent history, Bormann also focused on why bio terrorism may become more popular. "It was the first somewhat-organized bioterrorism attack in United States modern history,"she said. "It brought the use of micro organisms as international weapons for killing to a more prominent focus - not only for microbiologists but for the general public. That moral boundary has been crossed." According to Bormann, bioterrorism is the intentional use of micro-organisms to cause harm or death not only to humans, but also to plants and animals. "Scientists are also starting to wonder about what types of plant pathogens terrorists might be able to use [on crops]," she said. "That type of use would be devastating." Scientists aren't the only group of researchers concerned about bioterrorism. The government has also launched studies of its own and is providing major funding to the study of bioterrorism. "One of the outcomes of the anthrax letters was that it caused people to look at bioterrorism as a real threat," Bormann said. "All of a sudden, [the government] is pouring more money into bioterrorism defense." Anthrax should not be thought of as a tool for terrorists in every instance, however. The most common form of anthrax, known as "cutaneous anthrax," is contracted through an abrasion in the skin. It is a typical health hazard of those who work closely with animals or animal by-products. People in the meat or leather industry face this type of anthrax. Anthrax is a bacteria, and in its natural form, can lie dormant in the soil where an infected animal has died. A person who comes in contact with this soil usually will not get the "anthrax-letter" form, which is more commonly known as "inhalation anthrax." "Anthrax can survive for long periods in the environment," Bormann said. "If you have some kind of background, some microbiology knowledge, you can grow up that bacteria and prepare it in a way that it can be distr

Ok, goatse6677...

Perhaps after you read this nice pdf, then you'll understand which of the rights have been taken away from even a good person like yourself (google HTMLized here. Take a look... maybe you'll recognize and mourn some lost rights.

Yeah, I know, IHBT and all...

Looks like the site has been slashdotted. Though at least two of the pages are cached on Google:

The Fastest Man on Earth (Overview and Index)

The Fastest Man on Earth (Part 2 of 4)

Use google's cache: Google Cache

I've never heard of this guy, so I just google'd him, and found all kinds of things, including this
interview with him from March 13, 2003, and this brief biography. He is currently vice president of Managed Security Services Operations for Symantec, and previously worked for the U.S. Department of Defense Computer Emergency Response Team (DoD/CERT).

kinda nice to see that the future "Head of Homeland Cybersecurity" at least has a formal c.s. education, and some obvious real-world experience.

why, pray tell, should such inventions not be worthy of european patent protection?

This has nothing to do with worthiness. The European patent system wasn't designed to make sure innovators are rewarded for their trouble, but to spur the progress of innovation as much as possible. As scientific studies and economists (Google cache, site seems to be down) show, patents do not help innovation in software at all, they actually hamper it.

for a small company, patents are often the ONLY tools they have to keep from being steamrolled by their larger rivals.

This has to be one of the most prevailing misconceptions that pro-swpat people spread. First of all, keep in mind we are currently in the situation where Europe does not have enforceable software patents and has lots of small software development companies, while the US has software patents and mainly huge monoliths. Also, EU software (or other) companies can get software patents in the US and enforce them there at this time without ay problem. Now:

• Situation A, no software patents in Europe (as it is now): Small Company has a great idea, creates a product, sells it. Big Company sees idea, copies it, sells it. Depending on the quality and marketing of Big Company's product and the ability of Small Company to keep innovating and possibly finding a niche market that can sustain its operatrion, Small Company may or may not go broke. No matter what, Small Company can get a software patent in the US and use that to extract money from Big Company in the US.
• Sitation B, software patents in Europe (as proposed): Small Company has a great idea, patents it, creates a product, sells it. Big Company sees idea, copies it, sells it. Small Company sues Big Company for patent infringement. Big Company looks at Small company's product, and sees it infringes on 10 software patents of theirs. The companies settle in a cross-licensing deal, with Small Company possibly paying also an undisclosed amount for usage of the patents from Big Company.

Note that Situation B is not something I just made up, that's how IBM currently behaves in the US. How does introducing software patents in Europe help small European companies defend themselves against big foreign companies, especially since those foreign companies own the majority of the already granted software patents? (75% of the 30,000 already granted ones are in hands of US and Japanese companies)

The only type of small companies that can get easily rich via software patents, are those that do not develop any products. They just patent an idea and then go to big (and possibly also small) companies asking for money, knowing that they can't infringe on any of the other party's patents. This may be an innovative way of making money, but that's not the kind of innovation that the patent system in Europe is supposed to promote.

framing the debate "against" software patents purely on the grounds that the EPO may, in error, issue invalid patents does not, in my opinion, reflect an impressive level of education on the part of EU lobbyists. it rather reflects an astonishing ignornace about today's ecomomic realitities.

Maybe you've seen only that side of the debate, but there are many other sides. When I speak to MEPs, the silly trivial examples of patents granted by the EPO are handy to have, but that's not what the discussion is about. It's mostly about how introducing software patents would not help the European economy at all, how software patents deter innovation and completely undermine the copyright protection that software has (you may think that copyr

All these comments posted claiming this kid is innocent obviously haven't run a google search yet for "teekid"... Quite a few of his antics, including defacing the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association page are still in the google cache.

I think the FBI deserves props for catching this guy, even if he's not the original author, he was still up to no good and one less script kiddie is one less script kiddie.

...Dyson was theorizing on some form of water life that can tunnel through a few kilometers of ice and extend a probiscus into near vacuum that would act as a solar collector.

Hmm, this sounds strangely familiar...

Conductive ink on bendable material including printable, disposable antennas seem to be right around the corner. Here's a pdf from Rochester with all the chemistry that goes into making the substrates. And an article from Business 2.0 on Plastic transistors (Google cache) and how they will change UPS tracking and WalMart's forever.

The most interesting aspect for me is that these sensors (or even on-chip flash) will be powered and read in the presence of an RF field, like how most RFID tags work. We might one day have tons of passive sensors 'waiting' to be read with an active energy source.

is right here

Hard to believe the parent was modded as "insightful".

Cool! Where are the numbers to support [Mac Total Cost of Ownership lower than Windows]? Probably isn't going to cut it. [More uncontrolled ranting...]

Sad, people never learned to search the internet before pressing the flame button. There are a lot of studies that support Cringley's statement etc., and you'd be hard pressed to find a single study in the reverse!

BTW, I've seen studies supporting Linux as having a good TCO vs. Windows NT. I've never seen a study comparing Linux vs Mac TCO on desktop, and there are only a few studies comparing Linux vs Mac TCO in servers (the Mac usually comes out on top, but the studies are recent and may have bias).

Cuase it's not like the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, right?

Oh wait, they are [google cache].

I found some fascinating footage of similar tests conducted by the military, with not very promising results.

[bandwidth-friendly Google cache]

Did you merrily click past the EULA that said if it destroyed your system and data it wasn't MS's fault or responsibility?

Guess what - whether you agreed to the service pack EULA or not, if Windows shits itself and you lose all your data, you're not going to get a dime from MS.

Have you ever read the EULA for Windows? It practically indemnifies itself for everything but manslaughter. Oh wait, they're clear of that too.

Telemarking created a lot of jobs...jobs which the federal do-not-call lists are jeopardizing. Not sure how I feel about it because the phone never stops ringing at my parents house because of them. Salon.com ran an article about it but the link is broken (provided here in case it gets fixed). Here's the Google cache of it.

On a side note, I use Mail.app in OS X and the Junk filter is pretty damn good. I get 20+ spams a day and it only lets 3 or so in. Sometimes legit mail got lost and I'd have to dig it out of my Junk folder, but not anymore (because it "learns" over time). The updated Mail.app in 10.3 (Panther) is supposed to be even better, too.

This reminds me of the company that attempted to patent waterbeds, but got it squashed due to it being in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". How many sci-fi movies and books before 1995 discuss holographic keyboards, etc? It doesn't exactly come across as an original idea...

"Here's a list of typical reasons:

- Convenience: If you pay $100 for an OS and the company makes sure it's available in stores and/or on a website with really good bandwidth, then you get more faster. Example? Go to Microsoft.com and download something. When my company had a 7 mbit connection, MS's site was the only one that maxed it out. That's an extreme case, though.

- Support: You can pay a support team to keep you up and running. That's been mentioned, though.

- Development: They want you to keep spending money on them, so they keep doing new things to keep you interesrted.

- Media/Packaging/Manual: Well, you don't want to download again, right? Packaging's not such a big deal, but at least you can keep track of where you can buy it should the need arise. And, face facts, Linux needs a manual. A big one."

"Fair use, when properly applied, is limited to copying by others which [p*567] does not materially impair the marketability of the work which is copied."

It's not necessarily a red herring. If the problem is that a large amount of water is evaporating, it wouldn't necessarily make it back into the watershed, but could be lost through airborne transmission.

It probably depends a lot on the air currents and geography of the region. But it's very surprising how much water can be moved through the air.

Irrigation can also move water from one watershed to another (it does not respect watershed boundaries like rivers tend to).

For a really interesting technical analysis on the Aral sea issue, check out this google cache of a paper by the Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

For example, the college I went to used to use Hummingbird HostExplorer to pick classes for the upcoming semester and to view grades. It was very fast and efficient and it only took a couple of minutes to learn how to set it up and navigate with it. Then they switched to PeopleSoft and web based naviagtion. It was slow, unreliable, and generally hated by everyone, even the non-technical people. It was just more efficient to learn how to use HostExplorer.

BTW Hummingbird HostExplorer has a commandline interface.

The proof is in the pudding:

Hummingbird HostExplorer at Uconn

http://216.239.57.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smalltime s.com%2Fdocument_display.cfm%3Fdocument_id%3D6413