Before you start calling me naive and/or stupid, I'd just like to say that I was suffering from widespread allergies and pretty major gastric problems, and I recovered. No drugs. Natural medicine.
After you've said that, can we then call you naive and stupid? 'Major allergies'? 'Major gastric problems'? So...you were sneezing and coughing, maybe with sinus problems, and you had digestive problems? And then recovered on our own? Good show. It's always best if you can get your body to heal itself without outside influence. For example, I don't take headache medicine. But, then again, I don't have migraines.
And what you did compares to recovering from cancer, or stopping heart attacks before they happen, or stroke recovery how exactly? Heck, how does it even compare to stopping a chest infection with penicillin, or getting a smallpox vaccine, both of which were invented fairly far in the past, as these things go. You can't walk off smallpox, and you can't take vitamins to stop a chest infection, much less the first things I mentioned.
The defination of 'obese' has grown larger (haha) over the past fifteen years, too. Yes, there are more truely obese kids, but not 'double'. We're just calling thinner kids obese. Medically, redefining obese is good, but, statistically, it screws everything up.
We do, in fact, have a name for the color that's in the infrared spectrum...it's 'infrared'.;) We don't need to go around inventing more names if genetic engineering gives it to us.:)
Okay, what the hell happened here? Why is my comment at 0? I'd understand if I was rated down by someone with no sense of humor for being offtopic, but it doesn't look like that. Why did I post at 0? My karma's 12 (like I really care), I should be posting at 1.
I'm not whining or anything, this is just really odd looking. What happened?
How to do this? Well, for starters, they could release it either bundled with windows (running in a vmware-like box perhaps, that couldn't be turned on and off, of course, and ran M$-approved Linux apps only --- no apache, samba, etc.) or in the event that they are forced to separate win-os and win-apps, they could tie M$-Linux to M$ Office for Linux and M$ IE for Linux to the OS like they do with windows, claiming of course that they cannot release the Linux sources because doing so would enable hackers to also access their software souces (IE and Office).
Um, just because releasing the linux source tied with IE and Office would release IE and Office source too doesn't mean that's a valid legal reason for not having to do. You don't get to avoid legal reprecussions cause they're 'bad'.
One of the great things about the GPL is that, while MS can write apps on Linux, they still have to give away all modifications to the GPL stuff. Sure, they might have a fancy custom firewall, but odd are half off it will be in the kernel and they'd have to release that. The Linux community can hack another frontend onto it and presto.
It's the same with almost everything. It would be very hard to make an MS-Linux...now, making Linux appilcations is certainly a possiblity. And I wouldn't put it past them to build a user-mode linux (Which they'd have to give the modifcations out to, but half that work's already done.) and put as a standard part of Windows 2005 or whatever. But, thanks to the GPL, theu can't create incompatible interfaces and keep them hidden. They either create new, closed libraries and give them out with their apps, which is fine, doesn't hurt anyone, or they 'extend' the standard ones...but they have to give the changes out to those! And if they want standard Linux apps to work, they can't change existing interfaces, only add ones.
The great thing about MS creating unstandard closed interfaces on linux is that no one would use them unless they were a lot better, because open source libraries for almost anything on Linux exist.
I somehow feel like I'm burning crediblity but have you ever watch Star Trek, specifically DS9? Star Terk suffers a lot by not having 'aliens' be different then humans, but, while usually defined as extreme human stereotypes, at least they aren't completely evil. I can't think of any alien race that hasn't had at least one 'good guy' come from it, no matter how evil they looked. The Klingons (Duh, now allies with the Fed), the Romunlans (helped fight the Dominion. Actually, they were tricked into it. The good guys were the bad guys for that one.:), the Ferengi (Yes, they were going to be villians. Now, while still really greedy, have done unselfish things on may ocassions.), the Cardassians (Garak from the start, and Dumar and entire Cardassian resistence), the Founders (Odo, duh), etc...
Um, dummy, you were talking about window managers. You know, this visual, in front-of-the-scenes thing? The way you see and interact with a computer?
And, by the way, I specifically said that behind the scenes had changed, but not the interface. SPECIFICALLY. I quote myself '
Windows 2.0, if I remember correctly, only could access 640k of memory and couldn't run dos programs' and then later 'If you mean, it was the same as Windows 2.0 windows-manipulationwise, I'll agreee. So is the latest Windows NT, dummy'.
You see that? You see my saying that windows 2.0 had crappy behind-the-scenes stuff? Then you see me saying the windowing manipulation of Windows NT is the same as Windows 2.0 (and is the same as WMs on Linux)?
Or did you somehow manage to respond to me without reading my comment? Or are you really just a troll?
However MS has control over the signing process, cause they control what CAs are included in Windows. What I'd be happy with is if we had like ten different CAs, all competing. Instead, I feel the same thing will happen to this as what happened to SSL certs...one company has control over the whole thing, because browser makers don't include other CA certs.
Where the heck is Pinkerton, or other detective agencies? They can tell you if someone really is someone. Or law firms? Or just some noteries who want in on the pie?
That is the stupidest rule I've ever heard of. All web pages, and indeed all written material, are copywritten automatically, at least in the US. Not allowing you to copy copywritten material competely destroys any and all usage of the internet, unless you can find some place that only has public domain stuff.
Um, no way in hell Ms would make the 'algorithm' (I suspect you mean the private key.) availible to all. That completely defeats the entire purpose of this. Virus makers will just sign their viruses.
I have no idea if this a troll, or just someone who swears every third word. A couple of points:
First of all, using GNOME/Qt/WindowMaker doesn't lock the end user into a WM at all, anymore then coding in VB means the end user has to have a visual basic only enviroment . It just means they need the right libraries.
Second...the 'lightweight' WMs are not 'windows 2.0'. Windows 2.0, if I remember correctly, only could access 640k of memory and couldn't run dos programs. If you mean, it was the same as Windows 2.0 windows-manipulationwise, I'll agreee. So is the latest Windows NT, dummy. Windows manipulation hasn't changed since Xerox standardize on it way back when. You click on part of the window to move it around, you can resize by grabbing the edge, you click somewhere else to hide it or move it out of the way in some fashion, whether to the taskbar, to an icon, or just plain invisible, and that's it. That's all the unnamed windows manager in Windows does, and all those actions can be done under any WM on Linux. Including the simpilest and most lightweight, called 'wm2'.
Actually, I take part of the back. The mac invented a new thing, called 'windowshade', that's halfway between minimizing/hide and normal sized windows. Some windows managers on Linux can do it natively, some just need to be patched, and you can get a program to do it on Windows. So, again, all equal.
I'm pretty sure you can, in fact, get a Viper with air conditioning, BTW.
think hard... speaking loosely, in order for the police to be more culpable than (notice: thAn) the criminals, the criminals need to be in the right more than half the time they face off. I was just following the thread.
Nothing at all I said can in any be considered to mean 'more then half the criminals in jail are innocent'. I said merely that a lot move evidence tampering happens by cops then criminals, and tampering with evidence by the criminal is a very good way to get caught.
And saying I'm defining evidence to mean what I want, well excuse me for using the legal defination of it. I guess you want to lock people up who wander though crime scenes without noticing before the police get there? They tampered with your defination of evidence.
Evidence is only evidence, in every legal sense of the word, after it has been dubbed evidence by some legal authority. Calling it evidence before that is just something you're doing to make cops tampering with evidence seem better.
It's not even on the same scale. The 'tampering' that criminals do is already part of a crime, which is why we don't need laws against it. People really don't see anything worse morally with someone who rapes someone and leaves a semen filled condom on the ground, or someone who rapes someone, and takes the condom with them. One of them is easier to catch, but that doesn't make them morally better.
The tampering cops do, on the other hand, is usually to arrest someone they think is guilty, but can't prove (usually because of various constitutional rights, like the 4th and 5th amendment), or even to arrest someone they know is guilty, but don't like. Both these actions are morally reprehensibly.
I personally think cops should get a minimun of 10 years plus the max amount of time the criminal would have gotten whenever evidence tampering comes out.
P.S. You correct my then=than typo at the same time you didn't capitalize most of your sentences and had a competely ungrammarical 'think hard...
speaking loosely' at the start of the sentence. Normally I don't even mention thinks like this, but get the plank out of your eye before you pick splinters out of mine. I don't care one bit about how you speak, but don't critize mine unless yours is better.
He choose not to testify because he's 'guilty' of what they said he did. He was on the phone,and he pointed. It's completely impossible for him to prove anything else. He can't prove he didn't direct those people. However, he doesn't have to. They have to prove he did. Which is just as impossible. Being unable to prove you didn't commit a crime does't make you guilty.
Okay, first of all, the jury didn't find him anyhting, this was a judge trial, for some reason.
Second, he didn't have to present evidence he wasn't doing what they said he was doing for two reason. One, he's innocent until proven guilty, and second, what they claim they saw him do isn't a crime anyway. Talking on a cell phone and pointing isn't llegal. Even if they can prove he did that, which is basically a cop's word against his, they haven't proven he's done anything in the slightest bit illegal. They also have to prove he was directing people.
Without overhearding him, or incriminating documents coming to light, they have no proof whatsoever, not even their word against his.
Hell, if I were him, and I was simply taken in and had all charges dismissed, I'd sue their ass off. Much less convicted of something. He could have just as easily been reporting on the situtation, or telling someone where someone else was, or pointing to his favorite fast food place, or a billion other things. Maybe he was waving to a friend in the crowd and it looked like a point. They arrested him because they didn't like how he looked, pure and simple. Add to that the fact that they didn't arrest people in the crowd he was 'directing', and I'd say he has a good chance of winning any lawsuit he chooses to file.
That's where the majority of those 19,000 invalid ballots came from. People realized they made a mistake and voted again, and their original ballot was made invalid.
Um, no. If you 'misvote' you don't get another ballot, because they have no way of telling whether you voted correctly or not after you turn it in. If you asked for another ballot before you turn it in, they simply throw the first one away, and it doesn't get counted at all, in any catagory.
I think it would be interesting to find out how many people did ask for another ballot, which you could do by subtracting ballots turned in from the ballots used.
Directing people to obstruct an intersection is disorderly conduct, and there was evidence he did that.
Nope. There was evidence he was on a cell phone, and evidence he pointed. That doesn't add up to 'evidence he gave directions to have an intersection blocked'.
Um, criminals don't normally tamper with or withhold 'evidence'. It's not evidence at the time they do it. If a murderer chucks the murder weapon into the ocean, and they get caught, you'll note they don't get charged with evidence tampering.
In fact, tampering with stuff after it's become evidence is a great way to get caught, both at the evidence tampering and the original crime.
And I have no idea where you came up with that 50% idea. Criminals 'evidence tamper' in maybe 2% of criminal cases. You do realize they lock up evidence deep in police stations, don't you? They don't leave it laying where they found it. Cops have a lot more access to it then criminals. It's the same when it gets 'discovered'. The criminal isn't standing there to quickly wisk away any evidence found, but the cops are there to quickly add any evidence they want.
Luckily, that doesn't happen very often, but cops still do it more then criminals.
But in this case, even if everything the cops could possibly figure out was true, it still wasn't a crime. Presumably, when you rob a bank, the cops claim you, in fact robbed a bank. They have evidence to point to the fact you robbed a bank. Here, they basically claimed he used a cell phone and pointed, and used that to guess he blocked a road. They admitted they have no idea what he was talking about. In other words, all their evidence proves is that he used a cell phone, and they admit that's all they can possible know. Without people having overheard him, or some documents coming to light, it's impossible to actually know what he was doing.
That's like the police convicting someone for speeding because he was seen in LA one day and NY two days later. Sure, maybe he was speeding, or maybe he just took a plane. You can't convict someone on that.
This was one such case, and I personally have no sympathy for this fellow, even if he was just a spectator, participant or "co-ordinating" the event.
You realize that one word pretty much invalidates anything you will ever say again, right? You honestly think people should be locked up for being spectators?
Slashdot Mirror
After you've said that, can we then call you naive and stupid? 'Major allergies'? 'Major gastric problems'? So...you were sneezing and coughing, maybe with sinus problems, and you had digestive problems? And then recovered on our own? Good show. It's always best if you can get your body to heal itself without outside influence. For example, I don't take headache medicine. But, then again, I don't have migraines.
And what you did compares to recovering from cancer, or stopping heart attacks before they happen, or stroke recovery how exactly? Heck, how does it even compare to stopping a chest infection with penicillin, or getting a smallpox vaccine, both of which were invented fairly far in the past, as these things go. You can't walk off smallpox, and you can't take vitamins to stop a chest infection, much less the first things I mentioned.
-David T. C.
The defination of 'obese' has grown larger (haha) over the past fifteen years, too. Yes, there are more truely obese kids, but not 'double'. We're just calling thinner kids obese. Medically, redefining obese is good, but, statistically, it screws everything up.
-David T. C.
We do, in fact, have a name for the color that's in the infrared spectrum...it's 'infrared'. ;) We don't need to go around inventing more names if genetic engineering gives it to us. :)
-David T. C.
I'm not whining or anything, this is just really odd looking. What happened?
-David T. C.
What? Huh? How would there be Windows code in Linux? Don't you think MS would notice? How would it get there in the first place?
-David T. C.
Um, just because releasing the linux source tied with IE and Office would release IE and Office source too doesn't mean that's a valid legal reason for not having to do. You don't get to avoid legal reprecussions cause they're 'bad'.
One of the great things about the GPL is that, while MS can write apps on Linux, they still have to give away all modifications to the GPL stuff. Sure, they might have a fancy custom firewall, but odd are half off it will be in the kernel and they'd have to release that. The Linux community can hack another frontend onto it and presto.
It's the same with almost everything. It would be very hard to make an MS-Linux...now, making Linux appilcations is certainly a possiblity. And I wouldn't put it past them to build a user-mode linux (Which they'd have to give the modifcations out to, but half that work's already done.) and put as a standard part of Windows 2005 or whatever. But, thanks to the GPL, theu can't create incompatible interfaces and keep them hidden. They either create new, closed libraries and give them out with their apps, which is fine, doesn't hurt anyone, or they 'extend' the standard ones...but they have to give the changes out to those! And if they want standard Linux apps to work, they can't change existing interfaces, only add ones.
The great thing about MS creating unstandard closed interfaces on linux is that no one would use them unless they were a lot better, because open source libraries for almost anything on Linux exist.
-David T. C.
I somehow feel like I'm burning crediblity but have you ever watch Star Trek, specifically DS9? Star Terk suffers a lot by not having 'aliens' be different then humans, but, while usually defined as extreme human stereotypes, at least they aren't completely evil. I can't think of any alien race that hasn't had at least one 'good guy' come from it, no matter how evil they looked. The Klingons (Duh, now allies with the Fed), the Romunlans (helped fight the Dominion. Actually, they were tricked into it. The good guys were the bad guys for that one.:), the Ferengi (Yes, they were going to be villians. Now, while still really greedy, have done unselfish things on may ocassions.), the Cardassians (Garak from the start, and Dumar and entire Cardassian resistence), the Founders (Odo, duh), etc...
-David T. C.
Really? Who was he in Podkayne of Mars? ;)
-David T. C.
And, by the way, I specifically said that behind the scenes had changed, but not the interface. SPECIFICALLY. I quote myself ' Windows 2.0, if I remember correctly, only could access 640k of memory and couldn't run dos programs' and then later 'If you mean, it was the same as Windows 2.0 windows-manipulationwise, I'll agreee. So is the latest Windows NT, dummy'.
You see that? You see my saying that windows 2.0 had crappy behind-the-scenes stuff? Then you see me saying the windowing manipulation of Windows NT is the same as Windows 2.0 (and is the same as WMs on Linux)?
Or did you somehow manage to respond to me without reading my comment? Or are you really just a troll?
-David T. C.
However MS has control over the signing process, cause they control what CAs are included in Windows. What I'd be happy with is if we had like ten different CAs, all competing. Instead, I feel the same thing will happen to this as what happened to SSL certs...one company has control over the whole thing, because browser makers don't include other CA certs.
Where the heck is Pinkerton, or other detective agencies? They can tell you if someone really is someone. Or law firms? Or just some noteries who want in on the pie?
-David T. C.
That is the stupidest rule I've ever heard of. All web pages, and indeed all written material, are copywritten automatically, at least in the US. Not allowing you to copy copywritten material competely destroys any and all usage of the internet, unless you can find some place that only has public domain stuff.
-David T. C.
I haven't followed it, but this link does not go to where it says it does, it goes to http://www.stl-online.net/thc/med/emer/tcer002.jpg .
-David T. C.
Um, no way in hell Ms would make the 'algorithm' (I suspect you mean the private key.) availible to all. That completely defeats the entire purpose of this. Virus makers will just sign their viruses.
-David T. C.
First of all, using GNOME/Qt/WindowMaker doesn't lock the end user into a WM at all, anymore then coding in VB means the end user has to have a visual basic only enviroment . It just means they need the right libraries.
Second...the 'lightweight' WMs are not 'windows 2.0'. Windows 2.0, if I remember correctly, only could access 640k of memory and couldn't run dos programs. If you mean, it was the same as Windows 2.0 windows-manipulationwise, I'll agreee. So is the latest Windows NT, dummy. Windows manipulation hasn't changed since Xerox standardize on it way back when. You click on part of the window to move it around, you can resize by grabbing the edge, you click somewhere else to hide it or move it out of the way in some fashion, whether to the taskbar, to an icon, or just plain invisible, and that's it. That's all the unnamed windows manager in Windows does, and all those actions can be done under any WM on Linux. Including the simpilest and most lightweight, called 'wm2'.
Actually, I take part of the back. The mac invented a new thing, called 'windowshade', that's halfway between minimizing/hide and normal sized windows. Some windows managers on Linux can do it natively, some just need to be patched, and you can get a program to do it on Windows. So, again, all equal.
I'm pretty sure you can, in fact, get a Viper with air conditioning, BTW.
-David T. C.
Um...DUH. Since when was yahoo.com in France?
-David T. C.
I used to think only a few people didn't read the article before posting. I see now it's about 50%.
-David T. C.
Nothing at all I said can in any be considered to mean 'more then half the criminals in jail are innocent'. I said merely that a lot move evidence tampering happens by cops then criminals, and tampering with evidence by the criminal is a very good way to get caught.
And saying I'm defining evidence to mean what I want, well excuse me for using the legal defination of it. I guess you want to lock people up who wander though crime scenes without noticing before the police get there? They tampered with your defination of evidence.
Evidence is only evidence, in every legal sense of the word, after it has been dubbed evidence by some legal authority. Calling it evidence before that is just something you're doing to make cops tampering with evidence seem better.
It's not even on the same scale. The 'tampering' that criminals do is already part of a crime, which is why we don't need laws against it. People really don't see anything worse morally with someone who rapes someone and leaves a semen filled condom on the ground, or someone who rapes someone, and takes the condom with them. One of them is easier to catch, but that doesn't make them morally better.
The tampering cops do, on the other hand, is usually to arrest someone they think is guilty, but can't prove (usually because of various constitutional rights, like the 4th and 5th amendment), or even to arrest someone they know is guilty, but don't like. Both these actions are morally reprehensibly.
I personally think cops should get a minimun of 10 years plus the max amount of time the criminal would have gotten whenever evidence tampering comes out.
P.S. You correct my then=than typo at the same time you didn't capitalize most of your sentences and had a competely ungrammarical 'think hard... speaking loosely' at the start of the sentence. Normally I don't even mention thinks like this, but get the plank out of your eye before you pick splinters out of mine. I don't care one bit about how you speak, but don't critize mine unless yours is better.
-David T. C.
He choose not to testify because he's 'guilty' of what they said he did. He was on the phone,and he pointed. It's completely impossible for him to prove anything else. He can't prove he didn't direct those people. However, he doesn't have to. They have to prove he did. Which is just as impossible. Being unable to prove you didn't commit a crime does't make you guilty.
-David T. C.
Why? Christmas isn't anywhere near Easter either. ;)
-David T. C.
Second, he didn't have to present evidence he wasn't doing what they said he was doing for two reason. One, he's innocent until proven guilty, and second, what they claim they saw him do isn't a crime anyway. Talking on a cell phone and pointing isn't llegal. Even if they can prove he did that, which is basically a cop's word against his, they haven't proven he's done anything in the slightest bit illegal. They also have to prove he was directing people.
Without overhearding him, or incriminating documents coming to light, they have no proof whatsoever, not even their word against his.
Hell, if I were him, and I was simply taken in and had all charges dismissed, I'd sue their ass off. Much less convicted of something. He could have just as easily been reporting on the situtation, or telling someone where someone else was, or pointing to his favorite fast food place, or a billion other things. Maybe he was waving to a friend in the crowd and it looked like a point. They arrested him because they didn't like how he looked, pure and simple. Add to that the fact that they didn't arrest people in the crowd he was 'directing', and I'd say he has a good chance of winning any lawsuit he chooses to file.
-David T. C.
Um, no. If you 'misvote' you don't get another ballot, because they have no way of telling whether you voted correctly or not after you turn it in. If you asked for another ballot before you turn it in, they simply throw the first one away, and it doesn't get counted at all, in any catagory.
I think it would be interesting to find out how many people did ask for another ballot, which you could do by subtracting ballots turned in from the ballots used.
-David T. C.
Nope. There was evidence he was on a cell phone, and evidence he pointed. That doesn't add up to 'evidence he gave directions to have an intersection blocked'.
-David T. C.
In fact, tampering with stuff after it's become evidence is a great way to get caught, both at the evidence tampering and the original crime.
And I have no idea where you came up with that 50% idea. Criminals 'evidence tamper' in maybe 2% of criminal cases. You do realize they lock up evidence deep in police stations, don't you? They don't leave it laying where they found it. Cops have a lot more access to it then criminals. It's the same when it gets 'discovered'. The criminal isn't standing there to quickly wisk away any evidence found, but the cops are there to quickly add any evidence they want.
Luckily, that doesn't happen very often, but cops still do it more then criminals.
-David T. C.
That's like the police convicting someone for speeding because he was seen in LA one day and NY two days later. Sure, maybe he was speeding, or maybe he just took a plane. You can't convict someone on that.
-David T. C.
You realize that one word pretty much invalidates anything you will ever say again, right? You honestly think people should be locked up for being spectators?
-David T. C.