I can see it now, "Madam, you will please raise your hands in the air and *slowly* remove yourself from the exercise bike. Your metabolic rate is in violation of FCC regulations for unlicensed devices."
A few years ago I designed and built from scratch an infrared based automatic timing and scoring system for racing cars. The advantage over the current radio frequency transponder systems was that it required no modifications to the physical plant ( such as having to bury a cable under the track surface). You could set it up anywhere, at any time.
The limitations because of the line of sight requirement proved intractable in practice though. While I still use my system for track testing, and find it superiour to rf systems for such under "standard conditions" ( especially with an IR laser as the light source) I have had to abandon the project as impracticable for real world application in actually scoring races.
Obviously network systems based on similar technologies will face the same, or similar, limitations.
"Yeah, the network went down. Flock of pigeons again."
In his classic 1946 novel "City" Clifford Simak predicted the fall of the city as the focal point of human life and interaction. Telecomunications and globally networked computers were going allow people to live anywhere, and work from wherever that was, over the network, creating a dispersed culture with minimal "face time" in people's lives.
Independant robots with artificial intelligence were, of course, a major part of that invisioned future, taking over the tasks of housemaid and gardener, thus further reducing the overall level of interhuman interaction. ( Can you say automatic vacuum cleaner? I knew you could)
Truely visionary. In 1946 the American suburb and "planned community", as we know it, was still a gleam in the Levitt's eyes. Computers themselves were the crude and expensive dinosaurs of geek myth and networks didn't exist, let alone anything on the scale of the internet.
What makes all of this relevant to the article is that Simak predicted one of the side effects of this would be an increasing social isolation of humanity, to the point where we were actually unable to deal with each other face to face, or even leave our homes with any comfort. To an extent the evidence suggests that there is a certain truth to this and all of us here are well familiar with the stereotype of the net connected and sophisticated geek huddling in some dark hole somewhere (like his mother's basement) but essentially inept at face to face confrontation.
To illustrate this he chose to tell the story of a supremely gifted surgeon who allowed a friend to die, a friend with the answer to life, the universe and everything ( as yet unrevealed to the public), simply because his isolationist produced agoraphobia didn't allow him to travel to perform the needed surgery.
Simak's prescience in this novel is absolutely stunning in scope ( and the story is masterful as well, read it), but the one thing he did not forsee was that even *surgery* would one day be performed from our isolated aeries in the Himalayas ( well, to be fair, he did actually take this partially into account by placing the surgeon on Earth and the patient on Mars, thus net lag was a significant factor in the requirement that the surgeon actually be *present* on Mars, but we can already forsee ways around this problem).
Perhaps only our geometrically increasing numbers stand between us and his vision of an isolated future lived over the net.
One, every OO philosophy that you know of clearly isn't every OO philosophy. To the extent that OO philosophies encourage treating abstract concepts as objects, yes, that is my complaint. I've stated it more than once. Let me do so again:
"The "pure" OO philosophy treats purely abstract thoughts as actual objects. They are not. This is a weakness of the "pure" OO philosophy that makes it less practically useful."
I have nowhere said I find OO pointless or useless, I explicity said I've been programing in an Object *Oriented* ( as opposed to "required," it's labeled "oriented" for a reason) manner since before the concept was first formally codified. It is an *emensely* useful way of looking at certain things and procedures. It is *less* useful ( as distinct from "useless" or "pointless") the more and more it becomes *required* to treat everything as an object.
Computers are not good at abstract thought. Brains are. Brains are actually not very good at computation. Computers ( go figure) are. To each its strength.
I said number, not numeral. I understand the difference between a number and the symbol chosen to represent it. I am not a mathmatician, I am a physicist. As such I am often put into intimate contact with mathmaticians for hours at a time.
They often spend much of this time berating physicists for treating numbers like objects. They are not. They are pure abstractions. You cannot show me a number one.
The same goes for the rules and axioms of mathmatics. They have no existence outside of your brain.
They are thoughts and ideas. Thoughts are not objects.
When creating an object in a program, let's say a playing card for a poker game, you are *abstracting* the real object into. . . numbers, i.e., not actually an object.
Numbers are an *abstraction,* by nature. To turn them into an object turns the raison d'etre of Object Oriented Programing on its head and "deabstracts" things that are already abstractions into real objects, and then abstracts them again.
Of course this is necessary once you adopt the dogma that *everything* is an object, but as far as I've ever been able to discern this just proves reductio ad absurdum that the premise is deeply flawed.
And it is ruining an entire generation of programers for abstract and critical thought. The very existence of "Object Oriented" databases is further proof of my position. The very concept is mathmatically provable as doofey, and has no mathmatical basis of its own at all.
This has the feel to it that the programing methodology is becoming religious dogma, rather than a useful tool.
I've been getting that feel for a while now, as OOP languages start to compete on their "purity" or whether they're "real" OOP languages or not.
I've been programing "Object Oriented" since the 70's. In languages, like APL, that no one would consider "Object Oriented." Object Orientation is an abstract concept in itself that allows us to more easily abstract real world items into virtual objects and to manipulate them in a virtual world.
That's all. It is occasionally a very useful tool to have in one's bag of tricks. Sometimes it really doesn't apply at all and trying to force a fit just makes things labored and crude.
Trying to turn the entire universe of thought and logic into formal objects ( such as the number 1, which is most definately *not* an object), is putting the dogma before the cart, which then drags the poor cart anywhere the dogma wants it to go.
"Aspect" Orientation simply feels like a sect trying to break off from the Mother Church to me. This is not to say it may not be very useful, but that usefulness is needed because of doctrine in the first place.
Some things are objects. Some things are just operations or functions that have to be tortured beyond recognition if they're to be objectified. The less "pure" an OOP language the more *useful* I tend to find it, because it allows me to choose my methodology based on the problem.
Aren't there easier ways to add one and one and get two?
It might, it might not. "Motel 6" might not legitimately be in the Hotel business, although both are clearly in the "hospitality" business.
"Motel 7" would be unlikely to infringe. "Super 8 Motel" definately does not. "Mediocre Hotel 5", by extension, would be unlikely to infringe.
In this case the terms Windows may well be loaded (itself a complicating issue in this particular case, since "loading" is a valid concern. Possibly *the* valid concern).
Let's substitute another phrase for Windows and see how it changes our perception of the problem.
What if, instead of Windows, they had named it "Microsoft's Graphical User Interface."
Would they then be able to claim propriatary rights to the phrase "Graphical User Interface" as a trademark? Thus blocking the use of the trademarks "Apple's Graphical User Interface" or "Bob's Graphical User Interface"?
It doesn't seem likely.
So is a window, or an icon, just as much a generic term for a *part* of a GUI as "Graphical User Interface" is clearly a generic term? Or, to put it another way, is the term "windows" identified with Microsoft or is it indentified with a graphical user interfaces, like, say, Apple's?
Consider "Bob's Used Cars" vs. "Fred's Used Cars".
Does Bob get exclusive rights to the term "Used Cars" because he used it first?
If there's any complication to this case it's actually not in the word Windows, per se. Quite frankly I see any possibility that the name "Lindows" will confuse anybody.
That's because Lindows is overtly short for "Linux Operating System capable of running applications written for the Microsoft Windows Operating System."
AH! Now the plot thickens.
How about an auto accessories store named "Stuff that goes good with Bob's Used Cars products."
It isn't a competing product or line, in fact, it's complimentary. Is this a name likely to confuse customers, or, does it in fact, merely inform people exactly what the products are?
Now, *IF* we assume it does infringe, just for the sake of argument, do we fix it by removing "Used Cars," Yielding "Products that go good with Bob's," or by removing "Bob's", yielding "Products that go good with used cars."
Substitute Microsoft for Bob's and Windows Operating System for Used Cars.
Does it infringe on trademark to name a product "Blank for Windows"? And if so does that mean it's an infringement of trademark to label the box with the operationg system it will run on?
"Blank" runs on "I'm not allowed to tell you."
Or maybe, " I can't tell you what product this book is about For Dummies"? ( And did that infringe on a trademark?)
You can go on like this for hours, weeks, months and years, and good lawyers will, raking up fees by the barrelful, leading to little good for anyone but themselves. Trademark disputes that actually go to trial rarely lead to very good legal decisions because the field itself has no logical basis and very little in the way of "justice" involved.
Bear in mind though that Microsoft *isn't really* concerned about the *trademark* issue. This is simply the legal tool they have available to them to fight the real battle.
If it were really a trademark case Microsoft would be concerned that people would believe Lindows was a Microsoft product, and that's silly. No, what Microsoft is really afraid of is the fact that the people will know quite clearly that it is *not* a Microsoft product, but believe that it *does* do what it's name suggests. That is that they can buy an operating system that will run Microsoft apps *without using a Microsoft OS.*
It's really the very existence of Lindows MS is fighting, not the stupid name. ( And meant the word "stupid" literally).
It is Microsoft's express intent that all of their propriatary software be delivered from their servers for a rental fee.
It is also their express intent that all transfers of content are in propriatary Microsoft file formats, thus must go through their servers, and thus they get a fee.
It is *also* their express intent that people store their *data* on their servers instead of their own hard drives. For a fee.
They've said so. I'm aware of this. Read my last paragraph.
But, enough people made a stink over it that they've backed off and are feeding it to us one little vaguely palatable piece at a time, and now, the very *same* people that made a stink about it are eating it up and throwing fits if anyone dares to suggest that MS is trying to get people to use their servers, for a fee, for everything.
Look. *I* don't understand why people act this way. Go talk to them. I already get the big picture.
Others can, and already *do*, use the name Windows in the names of their products, as well as in their trademarks. What's more, even though the word "windows" may be generic the trademark "Microsoft Windows Operating System" is not, and is a legitimate trademark that no judge is going to overthrow.
Here, let me give you an example you can wrap your thinker around:
Motel is a generic term. No one can trademark the word Motel and claim propriatary rights to it.
6 is a generic symbol. Similarly no one can trademark it and claim propriatary rights to it.
"Motel 6" is very much a legitimate trademark and woe betide anyone who trespasses upon it.
Starting to hang of this? Good.
Understanding this could make your life a lot easier later on when you get that cease and desist letter from some scumbag claiming your product named "Fred" violates the trademark of "Fred's Giant Hotdog Buns, Inc.", implying that since they have a trademark on the above they have a right to the exclusive use of the name "Fred."
They don't. They probably damned well know it too. But their scumbags, what can I tell you, and they know that you probably *don't* know that.
You are creating a novel. Oh, not a real novel. One lf those virtual "for the sake of argument" novels. They suck to read, but they're sometimes necessary to assume as existing to argue about.
Otherwise we wouldn't be able to argue. And that would suck. We'd all just be posting "frist psot" or "yeah."
So, you're writing this novel (because I said so, nyeah), and you back it up to DVD because you back your system up to DVD because DVD is good medium for you to back things up to, particularly a really "big" DVD like the one in question.
Now, the reason you are writing this novel that doesn't exist ( which might well be a good thing) is *because* you are the original author and *because* the RIAA has no authority over such in the first place.
And that's why I hope they get their two bucks ( or five, or twenty, or whatever) to properly compensate the artist for the musical work not of your own making that you just unjustly made an illegal copy of.
See?
Look, it's perfectly clear and I don't know what's wrong with you. Hillary will explain it to you better than I can.
Hillary? Hillary? Oh. Shit. Looks like she got rode out of town on a rail. Well, you'll have to ask Hillary 2 then.
Don't go sticking your feet in a Schrodinger's Roach Motel.
Man, you have to tell some people *everything.*:)
( And nevermind the fact that making skin contact constitutes a measurment, and thus determines state absolutely, because that would break the whole thread of the doofey joke, and we wouldn't want *that*, now would we?)
An individual machine can be both client and server. It has nothing to do with a network, per se.
Many programs you already run on stand alone machines already work on this client/server model.
The architecture is designed to *allow* operation over the network with aspects of the program distributed across multiple machines, but does not *require* it.
I don't think there's any question though that MS would find it desirable that machines need be net connected to be allowed to boot. The benefits are fairly obvious and thus, if the clients prove willing, it seems more than likely that is what will come to pass.
Or it was proved. Like it or not, either is both common and acceptable, with proven actually being a modern upstart or "incorrect" derivation by analogy with other forms.
"Usage Note: Prove has two past participles: proved and proven. Proved is the older form. Proven is a variant. The Middle English spellings of prove included preven, a form that died out in England but survived in Scotland, and the past participle proven, a form that probably rose by analogy with verbs like weave, woven and cleave, cloven. Proven was originally used in Scottish legal contexts, such as The jury ruled that the charges were not proven. In the 20th century, proven has made inroads into the territory once dominated by proved, so that now the two forms compete on equal footing as participles. However, when used as an adjective before a noun, proven is now the more common word: a proven talent."
As a Yank I'd like to point out that the above was very funny, and if it hurts, maybe it's because it's true.
And, The highest ranking Allied fighter pilot of WWI (another fight we dragged our heels on) was a Candian, who shot down three times as many German planes as the best American.
If we helped out a bit in WWII, big deal, they've still got change coming, they can sit one out.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yeah, I did kind of intentionally leave the actual reading of the book as an exercise to the student. :)
KFG
Yeah, I left that out, didn't I?
"So long, and thanks for all the ALPO."
KFG
I can see it now, "Madam, you will please raise your hands in the air and *slowly* remove yourself from the exercise bike. Your metabolic rate is in violation of FCC regulations for unlicensed devices."
A few years ago I designed and built from scratch an infrared based automatic timing and scoring system for racing cars. The advantage over the current radio frequency transponder systems was that it required no modifications to the physical plant ( such as having to bury a cable under the track surface). You could set it up anywhere, at any time.
The limitations because of the line of sight requirement proved intractable in practice though. While I still use my system for track testing, and find it superiour to rf systems for such under "standard conditions" ( especially with an IR laser as the light source) I have had to abandon the project as impracticable for real world application in actually scoring races.
Obviously network systems based on similar technologies will face the same, or similar, limitations.
"Yeah, the network went down. Flock of pigeons again."
KFG
In his classic 1946 novel "City" Clifford Simak predicted the fall of the city as the focal point of human life and interaction. Telecomunications and globally networked computers were going allow people to live anywhere, and work from wherever that was, over the network, creating a dispersed culture with minimal "face time" in people's lives.
Independant robots with artificial intelligence were, of course, a major part of that invisioned future, taking over the tasks of housemaid and gardener, thus further reducing the overall level of interhuman interaction. ( Can you say automatic vacuum cleaner? I knew you could)
Truely visionary. In 1946 the American suburb and "planned community", as we know it, was still a gleam in the Levitt's eyes. Computers themselves were the crude and expensive dinosaurs of geek myth and networks didn't exist, let alone anything on the scale of the internet.
What makes all of this relevant to the article is that Simak predicted one of the side effects of this would be an increasing social isolation of humanity, to the point where we were actually unable to deal with each other face to face, or even leave our homes with any comfort. To an extent the evidence suggests that there is a certain truth to this and all of us here are well familiar with the stereotype of the net connected and sophisticated geek huddling in some dark hole somewhere (like his mother's basement) but essentially inept at face to face confrontation.
To illustrate this he chose to tell the story of a supremely gifted surgeon who allowed a friend to die, a friend with the answer to life, the universe and everything ( as yet unrevealed to the public), simply because his isolationist produced agoraphobia didn't allow him to travel to perform the needed surgery.
Simak's prescience in this novel is absolutely stunning in scope ( and the story is masterful as well, read it), but the one thing he did not forsee was that even *surgery* would one day be performed from our isolated aeries in the Himalayas ( well, to be fair, he did actually take this partially into account by placing the surgeon on Earth and the patient on Mars, thus net lag was a significant factor in the requirement that the surgeon actually be *present* on Mars, but we can already forsee ways around this problem).
Perhaps only our geometrically increasing numbers stand between us and his vision of an isolated future lived over the net.
KFG
One, every OO philosophy that you know of clearly isn't every OO philosophy. To the extent that OO philosophies encourage treating abstract concepts as objects, yes, that is my complaint. I've stated it more than once. Let me do so again:
"The "pure" OO philosophy treats purely abstract thoughts as actual objects. They are not. This is a weakness of the "pure" OO philosophy that makes it less practically useful."
I have nowhere said I find OO pointless or useless, I explicity said I've been programing in an Object *Oriented* ( as opposed to "required," it's labeled "oriented" for a reason) manner since before the concept was first formally codified. It is an *emensely* useful way of looking at certain things and procedures. It is *less* useful ( as distinct from "useless" or "pointless") the more and more it becomes *required* to treat everything as an object.
Computers are not good at abstract thought. Brains are. Brains are actually not very good at computation. Computers ( go figure) are. To each its strength.
KFG
I said number, not numeral. I understand the difference between a number and the symbol chosen to represent it. I am not a mathmatician, I am a physicist. As such I am often put into intimate contact with mathmaticians for hours at a time.
They often spend much of this time berating physicists for treating numbers like objects. They are not. They are pure abstractions. You cannot show me a number one.
The same goes for the rules and axioms of mathmatics. They have no existence outside of your brain.
They are thoughts and ideas. Thoughts are not objects.
When creating an object in a program, let's say a playing card for a poker game, you are *abstracting* the real object into. . . numbers, i.e., not actually an object.
Numbers are an *abstraction,* by nature. To turn them into an object turns the raison d'etre of Object Oriented Programing on its head and "deabstracts" things that are already abstractions into real objects, and then abstracts them again.
Of course this is necessary once you adopt the dogma that *everything* is an object, but as far as I've ever been able to discern this just proves reductio ad absurdum that the premise is deeply flawed.
And it is ruining an entire generation of programers for abstract and critical thought. The very existence of "Object Oriented" databases is further proof of my position. The very concept is mathmatically provable as doofey, and has no mathmatical basis of its own at all.
KFG
Hi, I knew as I was typing the above that you'd show up sooner or later. Glad to have you aboard, but. . .
". . . but how is treating *everything* like an object *inflexible*?"
I'm totally buffaloed as to how to respond to the above statement. (Emphasis obviously added by myself).
KFG
But. . .
This has the feel to it that the programing methodology is becoming religious dogma, rather than a useful tool.
I've been getting that feel for a while now, as OOP languages start to compete on their "purity" or whether they're "real" OOP languages or not.
I've been programing "Object Oriented" since the 70's. In languages, like APL, that no one would consider "Object Oriented." Object Orientation is an abstract concept in itself that allows us to more easily abstract real world items into virtual objects and to manipulate them in a virtual world.
That's all. It is occasionally a very useful tool to have in one's bag of tricks. Sometimes it really doesn't apply at all and trying to force a fit just makes things labored and crude.
Trying to turn the entire universe of thought and logic into formal objects ( such as the number 1, which is most definately *not* an object), is putting the dogma before the cart, which then drags the poor cart anywhere the dogma wants it to go.
"Aspect" Orientation simply feels like a sect trying to break off from the Mother Church to me. This is not to say it may not be very useful, but that usefulness is needed because of doctrine in the first place.
Some things are objects. Some things are just operations or functions that have to be tortured beyond recognition if they're to be objectified. The less "pure" an OOP language the more *useful* I tend to find it, because it allows me to choose my methodology based on the problem.
Aren't there easier ways to add one and one and get two?
KFG
"Blimey, this redistribution of literature is trickier than I thought."
KFG
It might, it might not. "Motel 6" might not legitimately be in the Hotel business, although both are clearly in the "hospitality" business.
"Motel 7" would be unlikely to infringe. "Super 8 Motel" definately does not. "Mediocre Hotel 5", by extension, would be unlikely to infringe.
In this case the terms Windows may well be loaded (itself a complicating issue in this particular case, since "loading" is a valid concern. Possibly *the* valid concern).
Let's substitute another phrase for Windows and see how it changes our perception of the problem.
What if, instead of Windows, they had named it "Microsoft's Graphical User Interface."
Would they then be able to claim propriatary rights to the phrase "Graphical User Interface" as a trademark? Thus blocking the use of the trademarks "Apple's Graphical User Interface" or "Bob's Graphical User Interface"?
It doesn't seem likely.
So is a window, or an icon, just as much a generic term for a *part* of a GUI as "Graphical User Interface" is clearly a generic term? Or, to put it another way, is the term "windows" identified with Microsoft or is it indentified with a graphical user interfaces, like, say, Apple's?
Consider "Bob's Used Cars" vs. "Fred's Used Cars".
Does Bob get exclusive rights to the term "Used Cars" because he used it first?
If there's any complication to this case it's actually not in the word Windows, per se. Quite frankly I see any possibility that the name "Lindows" will confuse anybody.
That's because Lindows is overtly short for "Linux Operating System capable of running applications written for the Microsoft Windows Operating System."
AH! Now the plot thickens.
How about an auto accessories store named "Stuff that goes good with Bob's Used Cars products."
It isn't a competing product or line, in fact, it's complimentary. Is this a name likely to confuse customers, or, does it in fact, merely inform people exactly what the products are?
Now, *IF* we assume it does infringe, just for the sake of argument, do we fix it by removing "Used Cars," Yielding "Products that go good with Bob's," or by removing "Bob's", yielding "Products that go good with used cars."
Substitute Microsoft for Bob's and Windows Operating System for Used Cars.
Does it infringe on trademark to name a product "Blank for Windows"? And if so does that mean it's an infringement of trademark to label the box with the operationg system it will run on?
"Blank" runs on "I'm not allowed to tell you."
Or maybe, " I can't tell you what product this book is about For Dummies"? ( And did that infringe on a trademark?)
You can go on like this for hours, weeks, months and years, and good lawyers will, raking up fees by the barrelful, leading to little good for anyone but themselves. Trademark disputes that actually go to trial rarely lead to very good legal decisions because the field itself has no logical basis and very little in the way of "justice" involved.
Bear in mind though that Microsoft *isn't really* concerned about the *trademark* issue. This is simply the legal tool they have available to them to fight the real battle.
If it were really a trademark case Microsoft would be concerned that people would believe Lindows was a Microsoft product, and that's silly. No, what Microsoft is really afraid of is the fact that the people will know quite clearly that it is *not* a Microsoft product, but believe that it *does* do what it's name suggests. That is that they can buy an operating system that will run Microsoft apps *without using a Microsoft OS.*
It's really the very existence of Lindows MS is fighting, not the stupid name. ( And meant the word "stupid" literally).
KFG
Ah, but the story is about a 20+ gig DVD, not the puny 4.7 gigs we have now.
That's ok. First time novelists have been known to go on a lot longer than that.
Or James Mitchner.
KFG
It is Microsoft's express intent that all of their propriatary software be delivered from their servers for a rental fee.
It is also their express intent that all transfers of content are in propriatary Microsoft file formats, thus must go through their servers, and thus they get a fee.
It is *also* their express intent that people store their *data* on their servers instead of their own hard drives. For a fee.
They've said so. I'm aware of this. Read my last paragraph.
But, enough people made a stink over it that they've backed off and are feeding it to us one little vaguely palatable piece at a time, and now, the very *same* people that made a stink about it are eating it up and throwing fits if anyone dares to suggest that MS is trying to get people to use their servers, for a fee, for everything.
Look. *I* don't understand why people act this way. Go talk to them. I already get the big picture.
I bought out of it years ago.
KFG
Others can, and already *do*, use the name Windows in the names of their products, as well as in their trademarks. What's more, even though the word "windows" may be generic the trademark "Microsoft Windows Operating System" is not, and is a legitimate trademark that no judge is going to overthrow.
Here, let me give you an example you can wrap your thinker around:
Motel is a generic term. No one can trademark the word Motel and claim propriatary rights to it.
6 is a generic symbol. Similarly no one can trademark it and claim propriatary rights to it.
"Motel 6" is very much a legitimate trademark and woe betide anyone who trespasses upon it.
Starting to hang of this? Good.
Understanding this could make your life a lot easier later on when you get that cease and desist letter from some scumbag claiming your product named "Fred" violates the trademark of "Fred's Giant Hotdog Buns, Inc.", implying that since they have a trademark on the above they have a right to the exclusive use of the name "Fred."
They don't. They probably damned well know it too. But their scumbags, what can I tell you, and they know that you probably *don't* know that.
Now you do.
In this case the scumbag is Microsoft.
Go figure.
KFG
You are creating a novel. Oh, not a real novel. One lf those virtual "for the sake of argument" novels. They suck to read, but they're sometimes necessary to assume as existing to argue about.
Otherwise we wouldn't be able to argue. And that would suck. We'd all just be posting "frist psot" or "yeah."
So, you're writing this novel (because I said so, nyeah), and you back it up to DVD because you back your system up to DVD because DVD is good medium for you to back things up to, particularly a really "big" DVD like the one in question.
Now, the reason you are writing this novel that doesn't exist ( which might well be a good thing) is *because* you are the original author and *because* the RIAA has no authority over such in the first place.
And that's why I hope they get their two bucks ( or five, or twenty, or whatever) to properly compensate the artist for the musical work not of your own making that you just unjustly made an illegal copy of.
See?
Look, it's perfectly clear and I don't know what's wrong with you. Hillary will explain it to you better than I can.
Hillary? Hillary? Oh. Shit. Looks like she got rode out of town on a rail. Well, you'll have to ask Hillary 2 then.
"Feed me, consumer!"
KFG
So they can give the proper support to the artists who created that novel you're working on that you used this disk to backup.
Ya damn thief.
KFG
The solution is both simple and obvious.
:)
Don't go sticking your feet in a Schrodinger's Roach Motel.
Man, you have to tell some people *everything.*
( And nevermind the fact that making skin contact constitutes a measurment, and thus determines state absolutely, because that would break the whole thread of the doofey joke, and we wouldn't want *that*, now would we?)
KFG
An individual machine can be both client and server. It has nothing to do with a network, per se.
Many programs you already run on stand alone machines already work on this client/server model.
The architecture is designed to *allow* operation over the network with aspects of the program distributed across multiple machines, but does not *require* it.
I don't think there's any question though that MS would find it desirable that machines need be net connected to be allowed to boot. The benefits are fairly obvious and thus, if the clients prove willing, it seems more than likely that is what will come to pass.
KFG
Which brings up a question I've always wondered about. Why do we have Schrodinger's Cat, when Schrodinger's cockroach would have been far more useful.
Roaches check in, and their state becomes indeterminate.
KFG
Or it was proved. Like it or not, either is both common and acceptable, with proven actually being a modern upstart or "incorrect" derivation by analogy with other forms.
"Usage Note: Prove has two past participles: proved and proven. Proved is the older form. Proven is a variant. The Middle English spellings of prove included preven, a form that died out in England but survived in Scotland, and the past participle proven, a form that probably rose by analogy with verbs like weave, woven and cleave, cloven. Proven was originally used in Scottish legal contexts, such as The jury ruled that the charges were not proven. In the 20th century, proven has made inroads into the territory once dominated by proved, so that now the two forms compete on equal footing as participles. However, when used as an adjective before a noun, proven is now the more common word: a proven talent."
Go figure.
KFG
I *told* them keeping a kitten in the lab was a bad idea, but would they listen to me? Nooooooooooooo!
"It's so cute," they said.
"It won't be any trouble," they said.
"It'll keep the mice out," they said, trying to prove it was working animal instead of the fact that they were just a bunch of softies.
Now all I want to know who's going to sit here all day and untangle this mess, 'cause it sure as hell ain't gonna be me.
Maybe I'll get lucky and the damned furry little vomit ball will go curl up in the "warm spot" in the cyclotron.
KFG
Well, looks like I can tuck that one in the box right between the Red Devil and the Rapala. :)
I guess it's your job now to explain to Canada what part they had in the CIA making a fucking mess of Iraq though.
KFG
Beats the hell out of "Herbert."
KFG
As a Yank I'd like to point out that the above was very funny, and if it hurts, maybe it's because it's true.
And, The highest ranking Allied fighter pilot of WWI (another fight we dragged our heels on) was a Candian, who shot down three times as many German planes as the best American.
If we helped out a bit in WWII, big deal, they've still got change coming, they can sit one out.
KFG
Looks like a perfectly normal day, pretty much anywhere, to me.
Yes, I'm serious. Read your own home town newspaper if you don't believe me.
KFG
We can't convince the blasted old cuss to lie down in the coffin.
KFG