Look, if the sanding block is able to touch the softer material at any point while there exists a raised area of harder material, then the softer material will be worn away 'faster' than the harder material.
If you found material raised above another it means that the block is either overpressured, not flat, not held level, etc., otherwise you would be wearing out the sanding block on the 'spikes' of harder material, making no progress in the polishing instead of creating low areas of softer material.
Thus, there is little way to tell if the material is actually harder than the polish given the result. Yeah, raised areas are certainly a clue, expecially if you have done the same thing hundreds of times before without the anomaly. However, that's why they had to go and test - it's only a clue, not proof.
If it wasn't harder than the polish, then the fact that it was raised would mean it would be worn down faster than the areas around it, so that it would quickly become level with the rest. That's how polishing works.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, based on my own experiences.
You can certainly have a material that is harder than the surrounding material be raised above surface of the softer material, even when the rouge/polisher is harder than both materials.
I sometimes sand/polish dis-similar aggregated materials (I forge knives, cast metals, do woodworking, etc.). It's a bitch to keep from oversanding the softer material while still abrading the harder material.
This will be true unless you have a hard planar or "surface shaped" grinding tool AND stay absolutely parallel to the surface AND do not press too hard on the aggregate, or the softer material will start to get worn away ahead of the harder material.
From the discussion it appears that they are using a grit which means they don't have a hard planar abrasion surface - they have a formable abrasion surface, perhaps backed by a hard surface, and the grit can be rubbing the softer material as well as the harder material.
You can try this experiment yourself. Get a finishing nail. Find a sandpaper that will sand down the nail. You now have something harder than the nail, or wood. Pound the nail flush into a 2x4 or similar. Start to hand sand spot with the sandpaper. After a point, the nail will be a bump on the surface, even though the sand paper is 'harder' that both materials.
Because more often than not, pedantry is just a way to fail to understand what is being said.
Well said! I get quite frustrated by people who seem to deliberately misunderstand the ideas represented in a communication simply to show off some bit of information they have acquired.
They might be showing off but they certainly aren't showing off their intellect...
Oh well, I guess webmasters could have always used something else, right?
It's particularly nice that web masters are giving billing information 6 years early, so the company doesn't have to do much to track down the first round of suck^H^H^H^H customers to bill them for use.
There's nothing like getting your IP embedded deeply into everyones processes (with their complete acknowledgement of that fact) and then seeking rent against the cost of changing it.
I would expect that many companies don't have migration plans in place, I don't know, not my business.
once you remove the separation of published and vanity press, you now force people to like me to wade through the various new "reviewers" to figure out which ones I might believe.
Yes, as I said, the network is not there quite yet. There is no one stop shop for book reviews. You have not found any reviewers that you trust. That is partially your own fault and partially the fault of the Publishers who you seem to trust.
There are quite a few reviewers out there. I am not just talking about (semi) anonymous reviews a la Amazon. I'm talking about people who review books and their reputation is at stake when they do so.
Why do trust a publisher over simple reviews?
It's interesting that you seem to believe that a book is "good" just because it was published by a 'reputable' firm. Or that these 'reputable' firms have never engaged in astroturf. Do you just go, Ok, that's from Random House, so it must be good? And the reviews on the back or inside jacket... If you trust those I have a moon to sell you. Cheap.
A publisher has a financial stake in the books they publish, while a reviewer does not.
So therefore, the thought process goes, one cannot trust reviewers. Of course a slightly different thought process is: so therefore, one cannot trust the people with the financial stake (because the end product is designed to sell, not to be good, and they have an incentive to make sure it sells, whether it is good or not).
However if I have a website that reviews books, I want accurate and entertaining reviews for my audience. If I don't provide this they will not come back. I will lose money and eventually fold. My reputation as a "trusted source" is at stake - that is the reason people come back. If I burn them with a fake review of a horrible book I can bet they will burn my link too.
Even if it is just a hobby and I don't even have ads my reputation is still set by the books I have reviewed and how that agrees/disagrees with a reader. This type of service is one of the things that I was talking about as part of the overall changing landscape of the publishing business.
The funny thing is, most of the books they are going to be reviewing (currently) are from established publishers! And not all of those will be good. Quite the dilemna for your POV. Here you have a Real Publisher who has Real Money on the line. And the book gets good reviews on Amazon. So the book has to be good, right? Right?
Then why do so many horrible books come out of "reputable" firms?
I have a couple hundred (maybe more) books on my bookshelves from ace and tor and some of the other large scifi/fantasy publishers, which speak a great deal about the quality of books they publish.
And what about the thousands of books they have published that are crap? Don't tell me they don't - I bought, umm, a lot of SF/fantasy in my misspent youth and believe me they aren't all good. In fact, I got tired of moving all of them and came up with about 2K paperbacks that I could part with (which is saying something - I like to keep books). However, it was over a ton less stuff to haul.:)
How would Google benefit from that? M$ benefits financially if its browser is perceived as #1.
How?
Is there some sort of exchange where MS bought shares of browser usate percenge or something?
There is certainly a kind of prestige in having the most popular $X, and I would say that this indirect benefit would be nearly equal for each company.
Grandparent was claiming that riding a bike in traffic was unsafe (as an absolute).
I have a problem with your claim that he made an "absolute" statement. "Safety" is one of those terms that in general have to be used as a comparitor. Otherwise, what does it even mean to declare "X is unsafe" in a context like this?
Certainly I hope you do not believe that he meant 100% of the time people who ride bikes in traffic are killed.
claiming that an action is unsafe where that action increases rather than decreases one's life expectancy is... more than a little disingenuous.
Not really.
You are using life expectancy as a substitute for safety, but haven't shown that they are linked.
It may very well be that riding a bike in taffic is unsafe.
It may also be that on average, the health benefits for riding outweigh the unsafe activity of riding in traffic.
Just because the benefits (on average) outweigh the safety issues doesn't mean that the safety issues cease to exist.
In fact, I bet the numbers in the study show that you could even kill and maim a bunch more bicyclists and still come out ahead in life expectancy terms. Perhaps we could call this state "more unsafe" than the current one.
Does that mean the current situation is safe? No.
Also, since one can get the same life expectancy increase out of riding a stationary bike, the case could be made that "riding a bike in traffic is unsafe" is quite true in comparison.
tl;dr
Just because something on average will increase your lifespan does not mean that activity is safe! All it means is that the benefits outweigh the probability of incident.
First, let me say that it will always be hard for an unknown artist to create something and get large numbers of people to experience it, whether or not a publishing house is used. As you stated, most submitted works go nowhere.
Publishers do more than just market a book, they filter.
And now, there are people out there who will do the same thing, for ad revenue. Lots of them. The best already have a following of sorts. Just like Oprah (used purely as an example).
The publisher wades through the 85% crap sent in to find the 1% of the remaining 15% that is worth publishing
Why is not everything "worth" publishing, these days? It was "worth" it for the individual to write. With cheap digital publishing/self published material, it seeems it can be. It still may not be "worh" reading, but who cares? Just like the majority of web pages out there, all of which are 'published'.
You still don't have to personally wade through all that crap - you just hook yourself to a gatekeeper you trust instead of trusting publishing houses, that's all. Although why you would ever trust a publisher is beyond me -- many times making a book with those guys is akin to making sausage (especially as a new author who has little power, never mind the 'selection process').
Every service that publishing houses used to provide to a writer can be done for less money and more efficiently outside the gates - oh, except that one special service - refusing to publish it. However, if your work is good enough for them to publish, it is probably good enough to go another route. Especially since you get to keep copyright that way.
It seems natural that artists should begin to choose cheaper alternatives and more effective methods to be heard. (and before anyone goes into the efficacy of the Houses, 100% of self published works/digitally distributed works get published, what's the % probability that *your* work will be published if submitted to a House?) I also think a major draw for artists is that they would still be in control of their works.
These service model for business imparied artists already exists, although many of them are a bit sketchy. Given another ten years, though and the network effect will begin to rear it's head. The ecosystem will have evolved, we will have well established review sites that review self/digitally published works in addition to traditional publishers, we'll have some reputable service providers for the business and fine tuning aspects (editors, marketers) and 'self' publishing will be more respected (as opposed to being labeled a vanity). A buy recommendation of an unknown author is likely to generate major sales, especially if reviewed positively on multiple sites./end rant on publishing...
The building of a stadium is not some government subsidy... it is a huge source of revenue for the city that does so, and nobody is getting anything for free.
Citation needed, I think.
There seem to be a number of issues with the "statements of fact" that you wrote. Perhaps the biggest issue is that the economic gains on paper do not appear to make it to reality. I know that when we were in the midst of deciding whether or not to build a new stadium one of the biggest concerns was that while it would be profitable for the team owners, there would be a high risk of a net loss for everyone else.
"Subsidies of sports facilities may actually reduce the incomes of the alleged beneficiaries... Our own research suggests that professional sports may be a drain on local economies rather than an engine of economic growth."
Feel free to dismiss Cato, but you'll have to come up with something besides your own feelings or studies paid for by teams or stadium advocates.
Surely you understand that "constructed realities", such as MMORGS or the economy don't necessarily have to use rules/physics that are directly analogous to real world physics? The economy is only partially based on our physical world - the rest of the 'rules' we made up ourselves.
For example, this statement:
Without expending new or stored labor, I can not carry the 10 gold coins into the future at their current value. This is not a statement derived from any economic theory. It is a restatement of the, yet to be repudiated, Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot just equate economics and physics in the manner you appear to be trying to do, justifying economic theory through teh 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ecomomic "value" != physical energy, at least in our current method of accounting.
On a purely physics level (since you appear to be basing your economic theory on analogies to physics) please let me know what new or stored labor I am expending after I put a gold ingot on a shelf. It appears to my that I can carry forward this state without expending more labor. Is this not true?
Then, we have the small issue that the economy is not a closed system. We call those 'externalities'. This also appears to be a problem for your model, as IIRC the 2nd law is only applicable to closed systems.
There are more issues, but these are rather large.
I fixed the problem on my Mac-mini: I installed Linux on it.
The cat is next.
I know that Linux has made quite a few strides in terms of usability, but I don't think your cat will be able to install it alone. You'll probably have to supervise.:)
So, now we know how IP War I(tm) opens on Front #1 (Patents).
There will at sometime be a situation vital to two implacably opposed large opponents, who draw other companies in to the fray for their own interests. They will use Patents to attack. Kind of like all the treaties before WW I drew into two groups, except this will probably be a star configuration, (with the additional bonus of some companies possibly suing others on *both* sides).
I wonder how Front #2 (Copyright) and Front #3 (Trademark) will fare.
My bet is Trademark will be like Switzerland. Everybody wants to own their own rep/name.
I have no idea how a copyright war would start. Perhaps cross licensing schemes? Ah, perhaps not corp vs. corp? Maybe this war will be from human beings to corporations, defining just what is reasonable. that would be truly a guerrilla war. right now file sharing and the like is at most, civil disobedience.
Linux is more difficult to mold into that schematic by its very nature. Different projects that integrate into one distribution release at different times.
I don't see why. Pick the set of component to look at the ones that are installed by default from the $distribution of your choice. Just pick what was available on the same date as the release of the Microsoft or Apple products.
That would be the comparable set of diffs you would want to look at. What happened in $version to $version+1 timeframe on linux?
This could be interesting, as each competitor would capture a different moment in time to diff.
Perhaps also, Linux could then be used as a sort of default yardstick for comparison of the strength of the others offering. hmm.
Also, actual psychonauts are generally much more careful than you might expect, and would generally be offended at being painted with the same brush as the "clubbing type" you mention (not that 'they' have anything against using neurochemical processes for pleasure, mind you).
It's not like even the Buddhists are above tweaking their base level consciousness, and I can tell you that Kundalini can be just as (if not more) damaging, if things go wrong, than any psychedelic.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's more like.
We (the royal We, as it were) want control. Of everything.
Of course, that should be obvious to everyone by now.
Regards.
Unless the block is overpressured on the surface.
Look, if the sanding block is able to touch the softer material at any point while there exists a raised area of harder material, then the softer material will be worn away 'faster' than the harder material.
If you found material raised above another it means that the block is either overpressured, not flat, not held level, etc., otherwise you would be wearing out the sanding block on the 'spikes' of harder material, making no progress in the polishing instead of creating low areas of softer material.
Thus, there is little way to tell if the material is actually harder than the polish given the result. Yeah, raised areas are certainly a clue, expecially if you have done the same thing hundreds of times before without the anomaly. However, that's why they had to go and test - it's only a clue, not proof.
Regards.
If it wasn't harder than the polish, then the fact that it was raised would mean it would be worn down faster than the areas around it, so that it would quickly become level with the rest. That's how polishing works.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, based on my own experiences.
You can certainly have a material that is harder than the surrounding material be raised above surface of the softer material, even when the rouge/polisher is harder than both materials.
I sometimes sand/polish dis-similar aggregated materials (I forge knives, cast metals, do woodworking, etc.). It's a bitch to keep from oversanding the softer material while still abrading the harder material.
This will be true unless you have a hard planar or "surface shaped" grinding tool AND stay absolutely parallel to the surface AND do not press too hard on the aggregate, or the softer material will start to get worn away ahead of the harder material.
From the discussion it appears that they are using a grit which means they don't have a hard planar abrasion surface - they have a formable abrasion surface, perhaps backed by a hard surface, and the grit can be rubbing the softer material as well as the harder material.
You can try this experiment yourself. Get a finishing nail. Find a sandpaper that will sand down the nail. You now have something harder than the nail, or wood. Pound the nail flush into a 2x4 or similar. Start to hand sand spot with the sandpaper. After a point, the nail will be a bump on the surface, even though the sand paper is 'harder' that both materials.
Regards.
Because more often than not, pedantry is just a way to fail to understand what is being said.
Well said! I get quite frustrated by people who seem to deliberately misunderstand the ideas represented in a communication simply to show off some bit of information they have acquired.
They might be showing off but they certainly aren't showing off their intellect...
What a charming business model.
Oh well, I guess webmasters could have always used something else, right?
It's particularly nice that web masters are giving billing information 6 years early, so the company doesn't have to do much to track down the first round of suck^H^H^H^H customers to bill them for use.
There's nothing like getting your IP embedded deeply into everyones processes (with their complete acknowledgement of that fact) and then seeking rent against the cost of changing it.
I would expect that many companies don't have migration plans in place, I don't know, not my business.
Regards.
Let's do a simple thought experiment. Perhaps that will help you understand the difference between longevity and safety.
I have a procedure that makes 1 in 10 people live to be 10,000 years old. However 9 in 10 people die from it.
The average lifespan for people who take this procedure is then ((9*20) + 1*10000)/10 = 1018 years.
I picked 20 for the losers just for a nice number.
By the definition given, this procedure is safe, since it increases average longevity by about 900 years, even though it has a 90% mortality rate.
Therefore I stand my statement that average longevity is not directly related to safety in the manner described.
Regards.
Well, as I see it, you have to put them in a Catch-22 bind to win.
That is a set of destructors that are complementary.
A destroys bacteria with trait X
A' destroys bacteria without trait X
Of course this works in novels, but I'm not sure how implementation in the real world would go.
You must be very ignorant of what actually goes into marketing to make blanket statements like this.
There is a reason major marketing firms hire psychologists and wire people with electrodes to correlate stimulus techniques with brainwave response.
Regards.
once you remove the separation of published and vanity press, you now force people to like me to wade through the various new "reviewers" to figure out which ones I might believe.
Yes, as I said, the network is not there quite yet. There is no one stop shop for book reviews. You have not found any reviewers that you trust. That is partially your own fault and partially the fault of the Publishers who you seem to trust.
There are quite a few reviewers out there. I am not just talking about (semi) anonymous reviews a la Amazon. I'm talking about people who review books and their reputation is at stake when they do so.
Why do trust a publisher over simple reviews?
It's interesting that you seem to believe that a book is "good" just because it was published by a 'reputable' firm. Or that these 'reputable' firms have never engaged in astroturf. Do you just go, Ok, that's from Random House, so it must be good? And the reviews on the back or inside jacket... If you trust those I have a moon to sell you. Cheap.
A publisher has a financial stake in the books they publish, while a reviewer does not.
So therefore, the thought process goes, one cannot trust reviewers. Of course a slightly different thought process is: so therefore, one cannot trust the people with the financial stake (because the end product is designed to sell, not to be good, and they have an incentive to make sure it sells, whether it is good or not).
However if I have a website that reviews books, I want accurate and entertaining reviews for my audience. If I don't provide this they will not come back. I will lose money and eventually fold. My reputation as a "trusted source" is at stake - that is the reason people come back. If I burn them with a fake review of a horrible book I can bet they will burn my link too.
Even if it is just a hobby and I don't even have ads my reputation is still set by the books I have reviewed and how that agrees/disagrees with a reader. This type of service is one of the things that I was talking about as part of the overall changing landscape of the publishing business.
The funny thing is, most of the books they are going to be reviewing (currently) are from established publishers! And not all of those will be good. Quite the dilemna for your POV. Here you have a Real Publisher who has Real Money on the line. And the book gets good reviews on Amazon. So the book has to be good, right? Right?
Then why do so many horrible books come out of "reputable" firms?
I have a couple hundred (maybe more) books on my bookshelves from ace and tor and some of the other large scifi/fantasy publishers, which speak a great deal about the quality of books they publish.
And what about the thousands of books they have published that are crap? Don't tell me they don't - I bought, umm, a lot of SF/fantasy in my misspent youth and believe me they aren't all good. In fact, I got tired of moving all of them and came up with about 2K paperbacks that I could part with (which is saying something - I like to keep books). However, it was over a ton less stuff to haul. :)
Regards.
How would Google benefit from that? M$ benefits financially if its browser is perceived as #1.
How?
Is there some sort of exchange where MS bought shares of browser usate percenge or something?
There is certainly a kind of prestige in having the most popular $X, and I would say that this indirect benefit would be nearly equal for each company.
Reagards.
Grandparent was claiming that riding a bike in traffic was unsafe (as an absolute).
I have a problem with your claim that he made an "absolute" statement. "Safety" is one of those terms that in general have to be used as a comparitor. Otherwise, what does it even mean to declare "X is unsafe" in a context like this?
Certainly I hope you do not believe that he meant 100% of the time people who ride bikes in traffic are killed.
claiming that an action is unsafe where that action increases rather than decreases one's life expectancy is... more than a little disingenuous.
Not really.
You are using life expectancy as a substitute for safety, but haven't shown that they are linked.
It may very well be that riding a bike in taffic is unsafe.
It may also be that on average, the health benefits for riding outweigh the unsafe activity of riding in traffic.
Just because the benefits (on average) outweigh the safety issues doesn't mean that the safety issues cease to exist.
In fact, I bet the numbers in the study show that you could even kill and maim a bunch more bicyclists and still come out ahead in life expectancy terms. Perhaps we could call this state "more unsafe" than the current one.
Does that mean the current situation is safe? No.
Also, since one can get the same life expectancy increase out of riding a stationary bike, the case could be made that "riding a bike in traffic is unsafe" is quite true in comparison.
tl;dr
Just because something on average will increase your lifespan does not mean that activity is safe! All it means is that the benefits outweigh the probability of incident.
Regards.
Well, don't take that sure bet! Perhaps the probability of being read is a lot less that 100%.
However, the probability of no replies, that, surely must be almost 100%... :)
Regards.
In very few cases is anyone exposed to tobacco smoke in any significant quantity these days without their consent.
Unless you are a minor and your parents smoke. Then you have no rights.
Or you work for the wrong employer in a location with minimal smoking regulations.
Perhaps these qualify as the 'very few cases', but the statement seems like hyperbole given the numbers of people who fit these criteria.
Regards.
First, let me say that it will always be hard for an unknown artist to create something and get large numbers of people to experience it, whether or not a publishing house is used. As you stated, most submitted works go nowhere.
Publishers do more than just market a book, they filter.
And now, there are people out there who will do the same thing, for ad revenue. Lots of them. The best already have a following of sorts. Just like Oprah (used purely as an example).
The publisher wades through the 85% crap sent in to find the 1% of the remaining 15% that is worth publishing
Why is not everything "worth" publishing, these days? It was "worth" it for the individual to write. With cheap digital publishing/self published material, it seeems it can be. It still may not be "worh" reading, but who cares? Just like the majority of web pages out there, all of which are 'published'.
You still don't have to personally wade through all that crap - you just hook yourself to a gatekeeper you trust instead of trusting publishing houses, that's all. Although why you would ever trust a publisher is beyond me -- many times making a book with those guys is akin to making sausage (especially as a new author who has little power, never mind the 'selection process').
Every service that publishing houses used to provide to a writer can be done for less money and more efficiently outside the gates - oh, except that one special service - refusing to publish it. However, if your work is good enough for them to publish, it is probably good enough to go another route. Especially since you get to keep copyright that way.
It seems natural that artists should begin to choose cheaper alternatives and more effective methods to be heard. (and before anyone goes into the efficacy of the Houses, 100% of self published works/digitally distributed works get published, what's the % probability that *your* work will be published if submitted to a House?) I also think a major draw for artists is that they would still be in control of their works.
These service model for business imparied artists already exists, although many of them are a bit sketchy. Given another ten years, though and the network effect will begin to rear it's head. The ecosystem will have evolved, we will have well established review sites that review self/digitally published works in addition to traditional publishers, we'll have some reputable service providers for the business and fine tuning aspects (editors, marketers) and 'self' publishing will be more respected (as opposed to being labeled a vanity). A buy recommendation of an unknown author is likely to generate major sales, especially if reviewed positively on multiple sites. /end rant on publishing...
Umm, perhaps you didn't get the message.
The working class and middle class have already been bounded back into the stone age financially.
And they aren't really the beneficiaries of the government largesse. Unless you cound food and shelter as luxuries.
Regards.
The building of a stadium is not some government subsidy... it is a huge source of revenue for the city that does so, and nobody is getting anything for free.
Citation needed, I think.
There seem to be a number of issues with the "statements of fact" that you wrote. Perhaps the biggest issue is that the economic gains on paper do not appear to make it to reality. I know that when we were in the midst of deciding whether or not to build a new stadium one of the biggest concerns was that while it would be profitable for the team owners, there would be a high risk of a net loss for everyone else.
Ah, yes. Here's a citation http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf/ that supports my recollections:
"Subsidies of sports facilities may actually reduce the incomes of the alleged beneficiaries... Our own research suggests that professional sports may be a drain on local economies rather than an engine of economic growth."
Feel free to dismiss Cato, but you'll have to come up with something besides your own feelings or studies paid for by teams or stadium advocates.
Regards.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse/
Surely you understand that "constructed realities", such as MMORGS or the economy don't necessarily have to use rules/physics that are directly analogous to real world physics? The economy is only partially based on our physical world - the rest of the 'rules' we made up ourselves.
For example, this statement:
Without expending new or stored labor, I can not carry the 10 gold coins into the future at their current value. This is not a statement derived from any economic theory. It is a restatement of the, yet to be repudiated, Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot just equate economics and physics in the manner you appear to be trying to do, justifying economic theory through teh 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ecomomic "value" != physical energy, at least in our current method of accounting.
On a purely physics level (since you appear to be basing your economic theory on analogies to physics) please let me know what new or stored labor I am expending after I put a gold ingot on a shelf. It appears to my that I can carry forward this state without expending more labor. Is this not true?
Then, we have the small issue that the economy is not a closed system. We call those 'externalities'. This also appears to be a problem for your model, as IIRC the 2nd law is only applicable to closed systems.
There are more issues, but these are rather large.
I fixed the problem on my Mac-mini: I installed Linux on it.
The cat is next.
I know that Linux has made quite a few strides in terms of usability, but I don't think your cat will be able to install it alone. You'll probably have to supervise. :)
Regards.
Well, then!
Perhaps the US Military can fund a study into other treatments for PTSD?
I know a group called MAPS that is looking for some funding for clinical PTSD trials on US War Veterans...
Perhaps some /.'ers might want to help, too!
Regards.
So, now we know how IP War I(tm) opens on Front #1 (Patents).
There will at sometime be a situation vital to two implacably opposed large opponents, who draw other companies in to the fray for their own interests. They will use Patents to attack. Kind of like all the treaties before WW I drew into two groups, except this will probably be a star configuration, (with the additional bonus of some companies possibly suing others on *both* sides).
I wonder how Front #2 (Copyright) and Front #3 (Trademark) will fare.
My bet is Trademark will be like Switzerland. Everybody wants to own their own rep/name.
I have no idea how a copyright war would start. Perhaps cross licensing schemes? Ah, perhaps not corp vs. corp? Maybe this war will be from human beings to corporations, defining just what is reasonable. that would be truly a guerrilla war. right now file sharing and the like is at most, civil disobedience.
Well, anyway, let's get some popcorn!
Linux is more difficult to mold into that schematic by its very nature. Different projects that integrate into one distribution release at different times.
I don't see why. Pick the set of component to look at the ones that are installed by default from the $distribution of your choice. Just pick what was available on the same date as the release of the Microsoft or Apple products.
That would be the comparable set of diffs you would want to look at. What happened in $version to $version+1 timeframe on linux?
This could be interesting, as each competitor would capture a different moment in time to diff.
Perhaps also, Linux could then be used as a sort of default yardstick for comparison of the strength of the others offering. hmm.
Regards.
They had all the access they needed, but couldn't mess with stuff the rest of the time.
If they wanted to retain access after you've changed the password, they could have easy enough.
Not without doing something that is probably illegal...
Your post belies your .sig.
Also, actual psychonauts are generally much more careful than you might expect, and would generally be offended at being painted with the same brush as the "clubbing type" you mention (not that 'they' have anything against using neurochemical processes for pleasure, mind you).
It's not like even the Buddhists are above tweaking their base level consciousness, and I can tell you that Kundalini can be just as (if not more) damaging, if things go wrong, than any psychedelic.
Perhaps you need to read a bit.
Regards.
Certainly.
You asked;
Why am I stuck choosing between Verizon and Comcast?
The answer is: because that's what Verizon and Comcast wanted.
Regards.