I think it's obvious that even the patients were conscious, they weren't be soon after the procedures started.
You might think that, but it's really not true. I always refuse anathetics for simple procedures, not because I'm some sort of tough guy, but because I'm the worlds biggest wuss.
It really doesn't hurt as much as you think, about 80% of pain only hurts because you think it hurts, and before the introduction of topical anasthetics before the novacaine injection the needle hurt more than the drilling.
And the pain of the drilling stops when the drilling stops. The damned novacaine goes on, and on, and on. . .
Considering that this is Pakistan, I would imagine that they had supplies of Opium nearby
Nope, sorry, but the opium poppy is an introduced species in Pakistan. Alexander gets the credit for the introduction, circa 327 BC, from "Ancient Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia".
It's a plant native to the Mediterranian basin.
The first record of opium being used medicinally in India (remember that Pakistan did not exist until the last half of the 20th century) occurs circa 1200 AD and recreational use of sufficient quantity to be notable did not begin until circa 1600, "coincident" with:
Massive cultivation of opium in India did not begin until the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch and English, began exporting it from India to China. It was the Dutch who taught the Chinese to smoke it, circa 1700.
Opium in Asia is one of the earliest byproducts of Eurpean "colonization" of the Orient. It was entirely unknown there before the Iron Age.
Thus taking plants and processing them through cows and hoping it doesn't change anything is a gamble.
Or through bison, caribou, pigeons, rabbits, voles or sloths. Animals are part of the system and I can only think of one for which there is a global oversupply.
Intensive agriculture is also a concern. . .
Now yer talkin'! The problem is not the cows, but the methods we use to feed them.
Inside the natural balance of the carbon cycle. A vast herd of domestic cattle is no different in this regard from a vast herd of wild bison. The ruminants eat the grass, the grass is broken down in the cow and exterior to the cow, releasing decomposition gasses. New grass grass grows absorbing gasses in the process.
Rinse and repeat over millenia.
And all of it simply an expression of incoming solar energy. More incoming sunlight, more plants, each absorbing more gasses. Plant a tree. Take care of it. Restore balance.
They contribute far more to global warming than cars do.
Ah, yes. The logically flawed argument that because there are uncontrollable disasters there is no harm in willfully adding another one on top of them.
And I believe it is currently estimated that half of all the increase in greenhouse effect gasses comes just from motor vehicles, whose numbers are growing with the Chinese and Indian governments adopting a pro car ownership strategy and increased mechanization of farming to promote "wealth."
Just as we've finished the first year in modern history when no new reserves of oil were discovered by anyone, anywhere, but that's another topic.
Mea Culpa. As a Gyro Gearloose pure prototyper I only work directly with EEPROMs myself and haven't actually built any custom hardware for a few years. Skills and knowledge unused are skills and knowledge lost.
I left out PROM and bungled the rest, even though I looked it up first to make sure I got it right, because I knew I wouldn't otherwise. Turns out I couldn't even get it right by using a reference. My mind is elsewhere today and I'm only posting at all to keep it a bit occupied. Not a good strategy for maintaining an air of erudition.
Well at least Apple has a new power source for the next gen iPod
Not a joke. It was only a short time ago, when discussing human usable interfaces right here on Slashdot, that I noted the basic workings of the iPod would soon be embeddable directly into the earbud.
In the first gen the main unit will look like an old fashioned, behind the ear, hearing aid, connected to a commom earbud by a single wire that can pass invisibly behind your head, under your hair. It will only hold about a half hour of nonrandom access music, but at the $100 intro price and $50 two years later will be a very attractive item for joggers and such.
For random access you will have to deal with the very issue I previously brought up, a human sized hardware interface.
Bistable OLEDs (only needing power to change their state) printed on a bit of Lexan sheet, communicating with the iPod itself by Bluetooth, or whatever technology replaces Bluetooth.
Second gen will look just like a standard pair of earbuds.
Gen 2.5 will offer wireless communication between the earbuds, and third will offer in the canal units.
There is already a mature technology for creating human sized batteries by biological means.
It's a rather fun technology too, although I advise creating batteries responsibly and only at need, as there's a serious disposal problem. Trust me on this one.
Yes, it would, but firmware is hardware; and there is firmware and then there is firmware.
It is possible to imbed the software on a permanent chip. For mass produced consumer items where the software instructions are never going to be changed (such as the codec in a DVD player) this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It eliminates a manufacturing step, thus saving time and money, but leaves you with the captial expense of setting up to make the chips, so make sure you're really going to need a lot of 'em.
My first IBM compatible PC actually had its OS on such a permanent chip. This confered all sorts of performance benefits on the computer, but. ..was nontheless a huuuuge mistake, because to upgrade the OS you had to actually physically change the chip.
So most firmware for such items is done with an EPROM or an EEPROM. You have to program an E(E)PROM, but you don't have to make the chip, you just buy 'em and zap 'em. Once you zap an EPROM, that's it, it's now a permanent chip, just as if you had manufactured it with the instruction set hard coded. For most consumer items you'd use an EPROM, because they're cheaper per unit and you never expect to change the instruction set. If you expect the instruction set to need changing at some point in the future, however, (like the BIOS chip in your computer) you'd cough up the extra pennies per chip and plop in an EEPROM, because the extra E stands for "erasable."
Of course, even if you use an EEPROM it dosn't mean you've bothered to include a means by which the user can erase and reprogram it. Say in a DVD player. In such a case the chip would have to actually be remove for erasing and reprogramming. Welcome to the $40/hr electronics shop.
So what course did MS take? Well, they're making a mass quantities consumer item that they don't want users mucking around with, so one might deduce the most likely means of embedding the software, or we can simply to the horses mouth at ATI:
"I had a brief but enlightening conversation with Bob Feldstein, Vice President of Engineering at ATI, who helped oversee the Xbox 360 GPU project. He spelled out some of the GPU's details for me, and they're definitely intriguing.
Feldstein said that ATI and Microsoft developed this chip together in the span of two years, and that they worked "from the ground up" to do a console product. He said that Microsoft was a very good partner with some good chip engineers who understood the problems of doing a non-PC system design. Also, because the part was custom created for a game console, it could be designed specifically for delivering a good gaming experience as part of the Xbox 360 system."
Custom designed, hacker resistant, if you want to upgrade buy our next product, console only chip.
Oh well.
I'll point out, however, that in their 2005 annual report MS notes that Lucent is seeking damages for patent infringement on several patents and the case is not Xbox specific but against all computers with Microsoft software preinstalled.
Pretty kettle of fish, no?
The demand for removal of the 360 from the shelves is because it is the only MS product in which the relevant technologies cannot be easily changed.
Copyright . . . law continues to help protecting innovation . ..
"There ought to be but one large art warehouse in the world, to which the artist could carry his art-works, and from which he could carry away whatever he needed. As it is, one must be half a tradesman." - Beethoven
God never intended man to travel at "breakneck speeds of 35 miles per hour".
The mxs reading on my bike computer for today is 35.5 mph.
I'm going to hell.
Anyway, since I'm going to hell I might as well play the Devil's Advocate a bit and point out that the tractor meant the development of hand planting ceased for nearly a century; and it turns out that no plow hand planting is a superior technology for small farms; and small farms owned by many create more economic and social stablility than large farms in the hands of only a few. All your eggs in one basket, as it were.
Sometimes the old ways, if not outright best are at least best in certain cases, just as Newtonian physics is still applicable and easier to work with if v is small compared to c.
A few years ago I began to divest myself of my drafting tools. "Didn't need 'em anymore," and they took up space, especially the drafting table, and created unwanted clutter.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeh! Wrong answer Sparky.
In only a few years I've noticed a lifetime's worth of mechanical drawing skills degrading; and I've noticed it because I've noticed that in many cases it's still preferable to draw.
Dooooooon't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got, 'till it's gone?
And if anyone should know better it's me, Mr. "Maintains his Neolithic technology skills because he finds they actually come in useful."
There's no such thing as a skill not worth having (well, ok, I know a guy who can play the William Tell Overture by cracking his knuckles. For every rule there's an exception), the chief problem being:
"The lyfe so short; the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer
And just to rub it in, if the craft is not maintained, it goes away. All by its frickin' self.
When I do a "yum -y update" does that mean I probably will have a broken system after a fresh distro install?
"Yum has a nice man page that explains the other options. Unfortunately on the nw-9 base image we forgot to include the "man" program for displaying man pages.
There's no accounting for this sort of incompetence.
If you're not good at getting the individual pieces to work by themselves, Linux is probably not a good thing to be using.
This is supposed to be the very role that distributors play, so you don't have to.
No, they can't make sure that every bit of software in the world works with their distribution, but the definition of a final release is that the bits included and supported in the release work and are supported.
I think you've missed the point. IBM is perfectly aware of how to compare code for potential copying.
What IBM could choose to do is have them scanned and provide the court with the alleged infringing documents to check against.
And here is IBM's point, that SCO has not, in fact, actually identified documents which they claim are infringing, leaving IBM the task of having to, essentially, do SCO's work for them by searching their entire UNIX codebase, all of it, looking for code that infringes.
And that's just not how it works. SCO, in order to make a claim, has to, well, actually make a claim. i.e. IBM did this and this here and here which infringes. IBM only has to answer to the claim and demonstrate its falsity with documents relating to the specifics of the claim; and only the specifics of the claim.
The court does not do any of this. It isn't any of the court's business. The litigants do this and their lawyers present their arguments to the judge and jury and only documents presented at trial have any relevance to actually deciding the case.
SCO is trying to play a liable until proven not liable game, making IBM do the work to produce the evidence against themselves. Against a nonspecific claim. The justice and logical problems involved in this are the very reason the founding fathers adopted the innocent until proven liable way of doing things.
SCO: Somewhere in the known universe IBM possesses an invisible pink something or other. We don't know what that something or other is though, until IBM produces it for us, but as soon as they do we'll claim it's ours. IBM: We cannot show the entire universe to the court to demonstrate our non possession of an invisible something or other.
SCO is seeking liability on the part of IBM by the above argument.
IBM is simply saying that SCO needs to say exactly what they allege IBM possesses and where they claim it is to be found, along with their evidence supporting the allegation. Then, and only then, can IBM actually defend themselves against the claim by showing the court that SCO's presented evidence is false by presenting evidence of their own.
IBM is more than willing and able to apply the methods you outline, as soon as SCO legitimately identifies what code the test is to be made against.
Certainly IBM can be compelled to produce evidence for SCO's use, that's what this is all about, but you might want to go read the Fourth Amendment for the basic rules on the legal limits of such compulsion.
Think about it. How would you defend yourself against the claim that you had murdered, someone, sometime, we don't know who or when, but you did it?
The fact is you couldn't, unless you could account for your actions over your entire lifetime to a legal certainty.
Criminal and civil rules are different, but in this case they are close enough for hand grenades, as the rules for both are based on the same legal philosophy.
To wit, the accuser must present evidence supporting the claim before the case can even go forward to trial, and the accused need only defend themselves against that evidence. It is the reponsibility of the accuser to identify any evidence that may be held by the accused. The accused need only defend themselves against the claim, not be compeled to twist their own hanging rope.
KFG
Re:Oranges vs. apples, from an orange producer
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
comparing an old, outdated, text email client to a new shiny web-based one is complete nonsense.
Did I mention I'm likely twice your age (when people ask "What's your sign?" I like to respond "Sputnik," although that's a bit of a lie. I'm older than that.)?
Anyway, don't sweat it, since nobody pays me for behaving in this manner you also likely make a lot more money than I do.
And nevermind that you have to spend it on car payments, gas and insurance so you can . ..get to work.:)
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. . .
. ..if you want to work there, you have to abide by their rules.
I am not their infant child either and I've heard of Herb Cohen.
But yes, quiting is sometimes the optimal option, although declining the job in the first place is even "more optimal." If more people had more selfrespect there would be fewer asshole employers, because they couldn't stay in business. Labor is a contractual agreement between equals, not a parent/child relationship.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's obvious that even the patients were conscious, they weren't be soon after the procedures started.
You might think that, but it's really not true. I always refuse anathetics for simple procedures, not because I'm some sort of tough guy, but because I'm the worlds biggest wuss.
It really doesn't hurt as much as you think, about 80% of pain only hurts because you think it hurts, and before the introduction of topical anasthetics before the novacaine injection the needle hurt more than the drilling.
And the pain of the drilling stops when the drilling stops. The damned novacaine goes on, and on, and on. . .
KFG
Considering that this is Pakistan, I would imagine that they had supplies of Opium nearby
Nope, sorry, but the opium poppy is an introduced species in Pakistan. Alexander gets the credit for the introduction, circa 327 BC, from "Ancient Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia".
It's a plant native to the Mediterranian basin.
The first record of opium being used medicinally in India (remember that Pakistan did not exist until the last half of the 20th century) occurs circa 1200 AD and recreational use of sufficient quantity to be notable did not begin until circa 1600, "coincident" with:
Massive cultivation of opium in India did not begin until the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch and English, began exporting it from India to China. It was the Dutch who taught the Chinese to smoke it, circa 1700.
Opium in Asia is one of the earliest byproducts of Eurpean "colonization" of the Orient. It was entirely unknown there before the Iron Age.
KFG
Not entirely true.
Of course not.
Thus taking plants and processing them through cows and hoping it doesn't change anything is a gamble.
Or through bison, caribou, pigeons, rabbits, voles or sloths. Animals are part of the system and I can only think of one for which there is a global oversupply.
Intensive agriculture is also a concern. . .
Now yer talkin'! The problem is not the cows, but the methods we use to feed them.
KFG
. . .what if all positions like this were dealt in the same way.
We'd have things as they are. You haven't been paying attention.
KFG
what about volcanoes
What about them?
cow manure
Inside the natural balance of the carbon cycle. A vast herd of domestic cattle is no different in this regard from a vast herd of wild bison. The ruminants eat the grass, the grass is broken down in the cow and exterior to the cow, releasing decomposition gasses. New grass grass grows absorbing gasses in the process.
Rinse and repeat over millenia.
And all of it simply an expression of incoming solar energy. More incoming sunlight, more plants, each absorbing more gasses. Plant a tree. Take care of it. Restore balance.
They contribute far more to global warming than cars do.
Ah, yes. The logically flawed argument that because there are uncontrollable disasters there is no harm in willfully adding another one on top of them.
And I believe it is currently estimated that half of all the increase in greenhouse effect gasses comes just from motor vehicles, whose numbers are growing with the Chinese and Indian governments adopting a pro car ownership strategy and increased mechanization of farming to promote "wealth."
Just as we've finished the first year in modern history when no new reserves of oil were discovered by anyone, anywhere, but that's another topic.
KFG
Mea Culpa. As a Gyro Gearloose pure prototyper I only work directly with EEPROMs myself and haven't actually built any custom hardware for a few years. Skills and knowledge unused are skills and knowledge lost.
I left out PROM and bungled the rest, even though I looked it up first to make sure I got it right, because I knew I wouldn't otherwise. Turns out I couldn't even get it right by using a reference. My mind is elsewhere today and I'm only posting at all to keep it a bit occupied. Not a good strategy for maintaining an air of erudition.
KFG
Well at least Apple has a new power source for the next gen iPod
Not a joke. It was only a short time ago, when discussing human usable interfaces right here on Slashdot, that I noted the basic workings of the iPod would soon be embeddable directly into the earbud.
In the first gen the main unit will look like an old fashioned, behind the ear, hearing aid, connected to a commom earbud by a single wire that can pass invisibly behind your head, under your hair. It will only hold about a half hour of nonrandom access music, but at the $100 intro price and $50 two years later will be a very attractive item for joggers and such.
For random access you will have to deal with the very issue I previously brought up, a human sized hardware interface.
Bistable OLEDs (only needing power to change their state) printed on a bit of Lexan sheet, communicating with the iPod itself by Bluetooth, or whatever technology replaces Bluetooth.
Second gen will look just like a standard pair of earbuds.
Gen 2.5 will offer wireless communication between the earbuds, and third will offer in the canal units.
Sorry about the loss of your "fashion statement."
Oh dear, I've prognosticated.
KFG
There is already a mature technology for creating human sized batteries by biological means.
It's a rather fun technology too, although I advise creating batteries responsibly and only at need, as there's a serious disposal problem. Trust me on this one.
KFG
Wouldn't it be firmware then?
.was nontheless a huuuuge mistake, because to upgrade the OS you had to actually physically change the chip.
Yes, it would, but firmware is hardware; and there is firmware and then there is firmware.
It is possible to imbed the software on a permanent chip. For mass produced consumer items where the software instructions are never going to be changed (such as the codec in a DVD player) this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It eliminates a manufacturing step, thus saving time and money, but leaves you with the captial expense of setting up to make the chips, so make sure you're really going to need a lot of 'em.
My first IBM compatible PC actually had its OS on such a permanent chip. This confered all sorts of performance benefits on the computer, but. .
So most firmware for such items is done with an EPROM or an EEPROM. You have to program an E(E)PROM, but you don't have to make the chip, you just buy 'em and zap 'em. Once you zap an EPROM, that's it, it's now a permanent chip, just as if you had manufactured it with the instruction set hard coded. For most consumer items you'd use an EPROM, because they're cheaper per unit and you never expect to change the instruction set. If you expect the instruction set to need changing at some point in the future, however, (like the BIOS chip in your computer) you'd cough up the extra pennies per chip and plop in an EEPROM, because the extra E stands for "erasable."
Of course, even if you use an EEPROM it dosn't mean you've bothered to include a means by which the user can erase and reprogram it. Say in a DVD player. In such a case the chip would have to actually be remove for erasing and reprogramming. Welcome to the $40/hr electronics shop.
So what course did MS take? Well, they're making a mass quantities consumer item that they don't want users mucking around with, so one might deduce the most likely means of embedding the software, or we can simply to the horses mouth at ATI:
"I had a brief but enlightening conversation with Bob Feldstein, Vice President of Engineering at ATI, who helped oversee the Xbox 360 GPU project. He spelled out some of the GPU's details for me, and they're definitely intriguing.
Feldstein said that ATI and Microsoft developed this chip together in the span of two years, and that they worked "from the ground up" to do a console product. He said that Microsoft was a very good partner with some good chip engineers who understood the problems of doing a non-PC system design. Also, because the part was custom created for a game console, it could be designed specifically for delivering a good gaming experience as part of the Xbox 360 system."
Custom designed, hacker resistant, if you want to upgrade buy our next product, console only chip.
Oh well.
I'll point out, however, that in their 2005 annual report MS notes that Lucent is seeking damages for patent infringement on several patents and the case is not Xbox specific but against all computers with Microsoft software preinstalled.
Pretty kettle of fish, no?
The demand for removal of the 360 from the shelves is because it is the only MS product in which the relevant technologies cannot be easily changed.
Way to go for making the Xbox hacker "proof."
KFG
Copyright . . . law continues to help protecting innovation . . .
"There ought to be but one large art warehouse in the world, to which the artist could carry his art-works, and from which he could carry away whatever he needed. As it is, one must be half a tradesman." - Beethoven
KFG
isn't MPEG2 a software thing?
MPEG is a codec. If you implement it in software it's a software thing.
If you implement it in hardware, like a DVD player, or 360, well, it's not.
KFG
With a population of only 7 million how is it that so many brilliant chip designers are in Israel?
So many of them came from Levittown, LI.
KFG
God never intended man to travel at "breakneck speeds of 35 miles per hour".
The mxs reading on my bike computer for today is 35.5 mph.
I'm going to hell.
Anyway, since I'm going to hell I might as well play the Devil's Advocate a bit and point out that the tractor meant the development of hand planting ceased for nearly a century; and it turns out that no plow hand planting is a superior technology for small farms; and small farms owned by many create more economic and social stablility than large farms in the hands of only a few. All your eggs in one basket, as it were.
Sometimes the old ways, if not outright best are at least best in certain cases, just as Newtonian physics is still applicable and easier to work with if v is small compared to c.
A few years ago I began to divest myself of my drafting tools. "Didn't need 'em anymore," and they took up space, especially the drafting table, and created unwanted clutter.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeh! Wrong answer Sparky.
In only a few years I've noticed a lifetime's worth of mechanical drawing skills degrading; and I've noticed it because I've noticed that in many cases it's still preferable to draw.
Dooooooon't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got, 'till it's gone?
And if anyone should know better it's me, Mr. "Maintains his Neolithic technology skills because he finds they actually come in useful."
There's no such thing as a skill not worth having (well, ok, I know a guy who can play the William Tell Overture by cracking his knuckles. For every rule there's an exception), the chief problem being:
"The lyfe so short; the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer
And just to rub it in, if the craft is not maintained, it goes away. All by its frickin' self.
What's wit dat?
KFG
The pdf link appears to be dead, tried from multiple sources, and a search of the APA site comes up empty, but the Google HTML cache is here:
Unskilled and Unaware of It
KFG
Stupid people hate smart people.
Taking my cue from Vonnegut, it gets worse than that.
Really stupid people are too stupid to know there's such a thing as smart, and thus think smart people are insane for "believing" in facts.
Or, alternatively:
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a paranoid schizophrenic.
KFG
When I do a "yum -y update" does that mean I probably will have a broken system after a fresh distro install?
"Yum has a nice man page that explains the other options. Unfortunately on the nw-9 base image we forgot to include the "man" program for displaying man pages.
There's no accounting for this sort of incompetence.
KFG
Actually, the 4th amendment has to do with criminal, not civil, cases, so it does not apply here.
I did not say the Fourth Amendment applies. I did say that the rules for criminal and civil cases are different.
In a civil case, you CAN be forced to provide evidence that is not in your favor
Which is something I actually said.
if the evidence you are not providing was relevant to the case and a reasonable thing to ask for.
Which is what SCO has failed to demonstrate.
KFG
If you're not good at getting the individual pieces to work by themselves, Linux is probably not a good thing to be using.
This is supposed to be the very role that distributors play, so you don't have to.
No, they can't make sure that every bit of software in the world works with their distribution, but the definition of a final release is that the bits included and supported in the release work and are supported.
KFG
I think you've missed the point. IBM is perfectly aware of how to compare code for potential copying.
What IBM could choose to do is have them scanned and provide the court with the alleged infringing documents to check against.
And here is IBM's point, that SCO has not, in fact, actually identified documents which they claim are infringing, leaving IBM the task of having to, essentially, do SCO's work for them by searching their entire UNIX codebase, all of it, looking for code that infringes.
And that's just not how it works. SCO, in order to make a claim, has to, well, actually make a claim. i.e. IBM did this and this here and here which infringes. IBM only has to answer to the claim and demonstrate its falsity with documents relating to the specifics of the claim; and only the specifics of the claim.
The court does not do any of this. It isn't any of the court's business. The litigants do this and their lawyers present their arguments to the judge and jury and only documents presented at trial have any relevance to actually deciding the case.
SCO is trying to play a liable until proven not liable game, making IBM do the work to produce the evidence against themselves. Against a nonspecific claim. The justice and logical problems involved in this are the very reason the founding fathers adopted the innocent until proven liable way of doing things.
SCO: Somewhere in the known universe IBM possesses an invisible pink something or other. We don't know what that something or other is though, until IBM produces it for us, but as soon as they do we'll claim it's ours.
IBM: We cannot show the entire universe to the court to demonstrate our non possession of an invisible something or other.
SCO is seeking liability on the part of IBM by the above argument.
IBM is simply saying that SCO needs to say exactly what they allege IBM possesses and where they claim it is to be found, along with their evidence supporting the allegation. Then, and only then, can IBM actually defend themselves against the claim by showing the court that SCO's presented evidence is false by presenting evidence of their own.
IBM is more than willing and able to apply the methods you outline, as soon as SCO legitimately identifies what code the test is to be made against.
Certainly IBM can be compelled to produce evidence for SCO's use, that's what this is all about, but you might want to go read the Fourth Amendment for the basic rules on the legal limits of such compulsion.
Think about it. How would you defend yourself against the claim that you had murdered, someone, sometime, we don't know who or when, but you did it?
The fact is you couldn't, unless you could account for your actions over your entire lifetime to a legal certainty.
Criminal and civil rules are different, but in this case they are close enough for hand grenades, as the rules for both are based on the same legal philosophy.
To wit, the accuser must present evidence supporting the claim before the case can even go forward to trial, and the accused need only defend themselves against that evidence. It is the reponsibility of the accuser to identify any evidence that may be held by the accused. The accused need only defend themselves against the claim, not be compeled to twist their own hanging rope.
KFG
comparing an old, outdated, text email client to a new shiny web-based one is complete nonsense.
Ooooooooooo, shiny!
KFG
Then fix it, dear Henry, Dear Henry... (had to look that up :-)
:)
You give evidence of being one of the ones who just might turn out OK, kid.
KFG
Did I mention I'm likely twice your age (when people ask "What's your sign?" I like to respond "Sputnik," although that's a bit of a lie. I'm older than that.)?
.get to work. :)
Anyway, don't sweat it, since nobody pays me for behaving in this manner you also likely make a lot more money than I do.
And nevermind that you have to spend it on car payments, gas and insurance so you can . .
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. . .
KFG
He does not practice abstract semantic concepts in his head while making those baskets, either.
I study Latin and physics while going on nonstop, 200 mile bicycle rides in 12 hours or less, on a bicycle I have designed and constructed myself.
Obviously your milage may vary, but about all I can say to the good doctor is:
"Way to stereotype, dude."
KFG
You got sumpin' against goils?
KFG
. . .if you want to work there, you have to abide by their rules.
I am not their infant child either and I've heard of Herb Cohen.
But yes, quiting is sometimes the optimal option, although declining the job in the first place is even "more optimal." If more people had more selfrespect there would be fewer asshole employers, because they couldn't stay in business. Labor is a contractual agreement between equals, not a parent/child relationship.
Selfrespect is the ultimate labor "union."
KFG