No he isn't. The GP post equated size with safety. This is a lie promoted by big car manufacturers (read American). For example if you drive a SUVs your chances of dying in car accident are higher, since you are quite likely to roll over, while someone driving a Camry wouldn't.
So, Linux would have been like, say, BSD? Or even slower, like Haiku?
It couldn't have been slower than RMS's Hurd. If RMS is such a key contributor to Linux how come his kernel is such a failure? Yes, GNU helped and pushed the timeline forward and did a lot of evangelizing work early on. Credit's due where credit's due. There is quite a bit of distance from there to believing that RMS is the messiah without which OSS would have never happened.
Honestly, BSD's glacial development over its relatively long history is case in point.
Actually it says nothing about GNU's contribution to Linux. While Linux has undoubtedly benefited from having GNU tools available it equally benefited from Linus open and cooperative attitude. The Hurd project had all the same GNU tools available as Linux plus a ten year head start.
RMS made Linux possible,
RMS facilitated Linux, something like Linux would have happened no matter what, although as I said, perhaps delayed by 5-10yrs (in fact BSD is proof that something Linux-like was bound to happen).
Like it or not, without RMS, Linux would never have been anything but a 386 assembly-language pet project, the Mozilla project would never have happened,
I call BS. No one is irreplaceable. Had GNU software not been there, the development of Linux would have been slower but it would have taken place nonetheless. RMS contribution is not in doing something that no one else could, but on getting the ball rolling much earlier than others.
In the end Linux would have had to use other semi-free compilers and develop a substantial portion of Unix environment from scratch, but it would have been done, just like Gnome/KDE had to develop a lot of the UI niceties from scratch, with minimal help (comparatively speaking) from the GNU crowd.
Soon after its initial release at the height of Germany's Weimar Republic, distributors cut Lang's three-and-a-half-hour masterpiece into the shorter version since viewed by millions worldwide.
But a private collector carried an original version to Argentina in 1928, where it has stayed, Felix-Didier said.
The fact that there was once a longer version is legend among film buffs.
Any wine aficionado worth its salt has participated in blind taste comparisons. There is a general correlation between quality and price. As a group the expensive wines will get higher scores than the cheaper wines, individually some really high fliers sometimes do very poorly, some lesser known juice gets really high scores. This is usually taken as a call to back up the truck and load up on the cheaper higher-scoring wine thus creating a shortage so price unbalances tend to correct themselves over time.
I was curious about this a while back, so I showed a Pollock to some friends who had no idea who he was and (as you can infer from that) are totally not into the art scene. Result? They loved the piece. "It has rhythm", "look at the color combination", "it is far from random", "it's soothing", were some of their comments.
When people tried to copy his style one of the first surprises is how much effort it took to match it (although it has been done, there are plenty of Pollock fakes out there, as with any other famous artist).
The second thing is that if you look at Pollock's work in person you'll find yourself clearly preferring some pieces over others. If it was all snobbishness that wouldn't happen. After all they are all Pollocks.
And fix your stupid signature. For god's sake, it's E N R O L L M E N T. There's two l's in there, jackass.
You are eminently qualified to run the Linux user help line. The combination of your attitude, language and ignorance make you the ideal fanboi to man the phone lines:
American Heritage Dictionary - enrollment also enrolment (en-rol'm@nt)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of enrolling.
b. The state of being enrolled.
2. The number enrolled: The class has an enrollment of 27 students.
3. A record or an entry.
OED:
enrolment (en'rolment). [f. ENROL v. + -MENT.] The action of enrolling.
1 The action of enrolling soldiers, citizens, etc.; the process of being enrolled.
No, it is a fundamental difference in Microsoft culture and Linux culture,
You got that right. There is a culture of "blame the user" in Linux.
Linux developers make the kernel.
Back to your technical explanation. Yes, this is true. No, the user does not care. The user doesn't buy a kernel from here, a browser from there. They get "Linux" installed on their computer by Dell or Lenovo. If it works they'll order it again, if it doesn't they won't. Linux market share shows what people think of it, and you are dreaming if you think it would be the dominant OS if only it came prepackaged with every computer.
The internet is no longer the redundant, resilent network it was.
It was redundant and resilient in theory, meaning that it was designed so that it could be made resilient if enough alternate traffic links were deployed, and that it doesn't need to be 100% functional to keep working (say as opposed to token ring like topologies). In practice many places have always hung precariously from a single trunk to the backbone, and we have seen regional blackouts through the years. They never make the big news, as they are rarely national events, again by design the Internet can tolerate partial failure.
It's one of the commonly used names. But feel free to trust google as the only authority on the English language.
I actually looked it up in Webster's and the OED as well, but did not report it as common usage. However even the editors of the OED admit that Google is ahead of them in terms of *tracking* English usage.
Amazingly people manage to cope with using multiple names for the one thing.
Don't worry that the rest of the world uses common names for things.
Let's see....
Google query: cacao in english language pages Results: 4,830,000
Google query: "cocoa tree" Results: 50,700
Heck cacao tree alone, which is redundant as cacao *is* the tree and nothing else beats that:
Google query: "cacao tree" Results: 65,700
So no, cocoa is not the day to day term for cacao. In contrast human *is* the day to day term for homo sapiens, so I have no problem with IBM decoding the "human genome".
You cannot decode the "chocolate genome" nor the "cocoa genome" any more than you can decode the flour genome. Chocolate, cocoa and flour are food stuffs, not plants. What IBM wants to do is decode the cacao genome.
This is a technical answer to a real life problem which in no way addresses it. Microsoft's famed blue screen of death was mostly caused by third party drivers, yet they knew that telling the user "is not us it's the driver providers" would not in any way help.
Your excuse "well you should have bought a better system" is even lamer and fanboi-sher.
And by-the-by, most people do choose a better system which is why less than 1% of people use linux. My personal computers run Windows (much as I dislike M$), and my workstation runs Ubuntu which is the only half-tolerable version of linux in terms of usability.
It is GMs fault that they make crappy cars (funny you use this example in a day that GM stock fell to its lowest value in over 30 yrs) and it is linux developers fault that these many years after becoming widely used it can still be a pain in the neck to us even when compared to the not so high standard of Windows.
A linux system doesn't work, hence the user is frustrated. Does the linux guy say "gee we should fix this"? no. Does he say "its not my fault" which would already be bad? no. He turns around to the uer and says "its _your_ fault".
No wonder Linux is still trying to achive more than 1% market share at the desktop level.
--"You conveniently ignored that defense is provided under the same "socialist" terms."
That makes no sense.
It makes as much sense as your claim that providing health insurance to the uninsured is "socialist".
You would have to assume that I support McCain
Not at all. I don't know or care if you support McCain. The example is there to show where your simplistic relabeling of government-driven as socialism leads to.
Rather than debating universal health cares on its own weighing its pros and cons, you are taking the intellectually shortcut of labeling the proposal as socialist and dismiss it with one sleight of hand.
For the sake of showing just how deeply flawed your argument is, let's for a moment agree that Obama's proposal is socialist (which most definitely it is not): even then you would still have accomplished nothing. You see, while we agree that a socialism is not a good thing, this is no way implies that a single isolated socialist action is bad, in the same way that we all agree that being doused in a million gallons of water is a bad thing yet being doused with 10 gallons of water (otherwise called a bath or shower) is actually quite good and recommended a few times a week.
So all around your argument is of little intellectual value. It incorrectly conflates government action with socialism, it equates properties of the system as a whole with those of one of its components along the lines of "in soviet russia they play hockey, hence hockey must be bad for capitalism", and it thoroughly avoids to weight its benefits versus its costs.
As I said earlier on, I encourage you to research the issue further, using capitalist economies as guides such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?
I've had to deal with lawyers in a serious way seven times in my life (either directly engaged with them or as a third party involved in the case).
In three of them they acted very professionally. In the other four they took actions which in my opinion had as sole purpose maximizing their billings. This includes a case where the two parties were ready to settle yet the lawyers dragged on the case until the bill reached a certain key amount at which time the settlement went through as if by magic, and another one in which the parties were not ready to settle but the moment bankruptcy of one of the parties loomed (and hence loss of lawyer feels) they ably hammered out a compromise, that somehow had eluded all before.
because insurance companies provide a service, and under your system, the government would do that service instead.
You conveniently ignored that defense is provided under the same "socialist" terms. Moreover, since McCain and his ancestors have a distinguished career in the "socialist" funded armed forces that makes him the chief socialist candidate in this presidential campaign.
The money is taken by force, violating everyone's rights, rather than freely given by willing individuals.
The government is empowered by the people to tax the population, so taxing people is not a violation of anyone's rights.
"percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism",
Look, just as drinking a cold beer is not the same as being an alcoholic, having the odd program being run by the government (such as, say Defense or the IRS) does not mean in any way socialism.
Socialism is control of the means of production by the state. What Obama is suggesting is having the state act like a big insurance company to which everyone is registered, while actual delivery of the service ("means of production") can and will remain in private hands.
I encourage you to look into the private/public combination in Canada, where the majority of doctors have private practices, and the only difference is that the refund check for medical services is cut by the government rather than by an HMO.
Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.
Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.
Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it. Bloody Bronco:
Small spot of blood found near driver's outside door handle of Simpson's Ford Bronco; other blood found smeared inside on console, door, steering wheel and carpeting; DNA tests showed some of the blood apparently a mixture with genetic markers of Simpson and the victims.
Prosecution: said Simpson drove Bronco to and from crime scene.
Defense: challenged interpretation of DNA tests, particularly those suggesting a genetic match to Goldman in a mixture; noted that the genetic material of an unknown person was found in the steering wheel blood; suggested police planted some of the blood; elicited testimony that the Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized people while it sat in a police impound yard.
WILLIE FORD, police videographer: Filmed items inside Simpson's house day after the killings; saw no socks at foot of bed.
FREDRIC RIEDERS, founder of National Medical Services laboratory in Willow Grove, Pa.: Detected EDTA, chemical used by laboratories to preserve blood samples, on samples from sock and back gate. Jan. 8, 1997:
As I said before, planting of evidence is quite common in certain police forces. It makes the investigation simpler. The way it works is that the police picks evidence from the crime scene and places it in a way that connects their main suspect to the crime.
Personally, I think he is absolutely 100% guilty, but the theory and timeline proposed by police is not quite right in that he might have had help from a third person, and that he must have washed up in a place other than his home, since very little blood was found in his house, while he was supposed to be soaked on it
Name ONE piece of evidence that is "undisputed fact" that it was planted. Just one.
There's plenty: the blood on the sock that had (i) police anticoagulant on it and (ii) left the exact mark and shape of an essay tube being applied against a folded sock.
The blood on the ford bronco, which was so clearly planted the prosecutors did not even mention in the trial, and the list goes on and on.
but you seriously have to turn off your brain to think OJ was innocent
What was I saying about people divided by color refusing to listen to each other? If you read my posting again you'll see that it claims he's clearly guilty. You seem to miss the fact that it is perfectly possible to be guilty and have evidence planted on you. Lazy policemen do that all the time to shorten the investigation time. In this case they got caught, that is the only difference.
But they did themselves no favors by embracing OJ.
Oh, I agree. By the same token whites did themselves no favors by refusing to acknowledge that the LAPD is a corrupt and racist police department that got caught planting evidence on a black person, which in this particular case happened to be both famous and guilty.
In other words, black people need to take responsibility for their part in perpetuating racism.
How about you: are you willing to take responsibility for your part in tolerating racism within the LAPD, which has been repeatedly caught planting evidence and doing other racist actions?
the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson.
Blacks overlook the fact that he was clearly guilty, whites overlook the undisputed fact that a non-neglible amount of the evidence seemed planted, and so the country goes, divided by color refusing to listen to each other.
I have to laugh at other languages, especially Ruby, Python, C#, and Java as they are adding language features or libraries that emulate things that have existed in Smalltalk for 20+ years. That's rather laughable, but also an indicator of success.
Odd choice of words. I'd say its rather commendable that the designers of those languages are humble enough to incorporate things that are good and were missing from the original spec. Most language specifications are frozen way too early.
Actually it was more different than that, IIRC. We seem to remember that in the original version the good guys won. This made for a rather bland film. Good guy meets bad guy, good guy fights bad guy, good guy wins. Instead the released version has the bad guy getting away with it, which as the GGP post said really makes the movie work.
p.s. We also saw a preview of Perl Harbor but in that case the audience was explicitly asked for what changes we'd like to see. The original version spent was more focused on the historical aspects of the attack.
I saw a preview of this movie with my SO and we swear the ending was substantially different. We didn't like the original movie at all. The ending in the release version, which we only recently saw on TV, is much better and makes the whole thing passable.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell if you're joking on this one.
No he isn't. The GP post equated size with safety. This is a lie promoted by big car manufacturers (read American). For example if you drive a SUVs your chances of dying in car accident are higher, since you are quite likely to roll over, while someone driving a Camry wouldn't.
So, Linux would have been like, say, BSD? Or even slower, like Haiku?
It couldn't have been slower than RMS's Hurd. If RMS is such a key contributor to Linux how come his kernel is such a failure? Yes, GNU helped and pushed the timeline forward and did a lot of evangelizing work early on. Credit's due where credit's due. There is quite a bit of distance from there to believing that RMS is the messiah without which OSS would have never happened.
Honestly, BSD's glacial development over its relatively long history is case in point.
Actually it says nothing about GNU's contribution to Linux. While Linux has undoubtedly benefited from having GNU tools available it equally benefited from Linus open and cooperative attitude. The Hurd project had all the same GNU tools available as Linux plus a ten year head start.
RMS made Linux possible,
RMS facilitated Linux, something like Linux would have happened no matter what, although as I said, perhaps delayed by 5-10yrs (in fact BSD is proof that something Linux-like was bound to happen).
Like it or not, without RMS, Linux would never have been anything but a 386 assembly-language pet project, the Mozilla project would never have happened,
I call BS. No one is irreplaceable. Had GNU software not been there, the development of Linux would have been slower but it would have taken place nonetheless. RMS contribution is not in doing something that no one else could, but on getting the ball rolling much earlier than others.
In the end Linux would have had to use other semi-free compilers and develop a substantial portion of Unix environment from scratch, but it would have been done, just like Gnome/KDE had to develop a lot of the UI niceties from scratch, with minimal help (comparatively speaking) from the GNU crowd.
From the AP wire.
Soon after its initial release at the height of Germany's Weimar Republic, distributors cut Lang's three-and-a-half-hour masterpiece into the shorter version since viewed by millions worldwide.
But a private collector carried an original version to Argentina in 1928, where it has stayed, Felix-Didier said.
The fact that there was once a longer version is legend among film buffs.
Any wine aficionado worth its salt has participated in blind taste comparisons. There is a general correlation between quality and price. As a group the expensive wines will get higher scores than the cheaper wines, individually some really high fliers sometimes do very poorly, some lesser known juice gets really high scores. This is usually taken as a call to back up the truck and load up on the cheaper higher-scoring wine thus creating a shortage so price unbalances tend to correct themselves over time.
I was curious about this a while back, so I showed a Pollock to some friends who had no idea who he was and (as you can infer from that) are totally not into the art scene. Result? They loved the piece. "It has rhythm", "look at the color combination", "it is far from random", "it's soothing", were some of their comments.
When people tried to copy his style one of the first surprises is how much effort it took to match it (although it has been done, there are plenty of Pollock fakes out there, as with any other famous artist).
The second thing is that if you look at Pollock's work in person you'll find yourself clearly preferring some pieces over others. If it was all snobbishness that wouldn't happen. After all they are all Pollocks.
And fix your stupid signature. For god's sake, it's E N R O L L M E N T. There's two l's in there, jackass.
You are eminently qualified to run the Linux user help line. The combination of your attitude, language and ignorance make you the ideal fanboi to man the phone lines:
American Heritage Dictionary - enrollment also enrolment (en-rol'm@nt)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of enrolling.
b. The state of being enrolled.
2. The number enrolled: The class has an enrollment of 27 students.
3. A record or an entry.
OED:
enrolment (en'rolment). [f. ENROL v. + -MENT.] The action of enrolling.
1 The action of enrolling soldiers, citizens, etc.; the process of being
enrolled.
No, it is a fundamental difference in Microsoft culture and Linux culture,
You got that right. There is a culture of "blame the user" in Linux.
Linux developers make the kernel.
Back to your technical explanation. Yes, this is true. No, the user does not care. The user doesn't buy a kernel from here, a browser from there. They get "Linux" installed on their computer by Dell or Lenovo. If it works they'll order it again, if it doesn't they won't. Linux market share shows what people think of it, and you are dreaming if you think it would be the dominant OS if only it came prepackaged with every computer.
The internet is no longer the redundant, resilent network it was.
It was redundant and resilient in theory, meaning that it was designed so that it could be made resilient if enough alternate traffic links were deployed, and that it doesn't need to be 100% functional to keep working (say as opposed to token ring like topologies). In practice many places have always hung precariously from a single trunk to the backbone, and we have seen regional blackouts through the years. They never make the big news, as they are rarely national events, again by design the Internet can tolerate partial failure.
It's one of the commonly used names. But feel free to trust google as the only authority on the English language.
I actually looked it up in Webster's and the OED as well, but did not report it as common usage. However even the editors of the OED admit that Google is ahead of them in terms of *tracking* English usage.
Amazingly people manage to cope with using multiple names for the one thing.
Hint: Cocoa is a brown powder, cacao is a plant.
Don't worry that the rest of the world uses common names for things.
Let's see....
Google query: cacao in english language pages
Results: 4,830,000
Google query: "cocoa tree"
Results: 50,700
Heck cacao tree alone, which is redundant as cacao *is* the tree and nothing else beats that:
Google query: "cacao tree"
Results: 65,700
So no, cocoa is not the day to day term for cacao. In contrast human *is* the day to day term for homo sapiens, so I have no problem with IBM decoding the "human genome".
You cannot decode the "chocolate genome" nor the "cocoa genome" any more than you can decode the flour genome. Chocolate, cocoa and flour are food stuffs, not plants. What IBM wants to do is decode the cacao genome.
Wrong, asshole. It's the user's choice.
Not only you blame the user, you insult it too.
Linux is a kernel, not a complete system.
This is a technical answer to a real life problem which in no way addresses it. Microsoft's famed blue screen of death was mostly caused by third party drivers, yet they knew that telling the user "is not us it's the driver providers" would not in any way help.
Your excuse "well you should have bought a better system" is even lamer and fanboi-sher.
And by-the-by, most people do choose a better system which is why less than 1% of people use linux. My personal computers run Windows (much as I dislike M$), and my workstation runs Ubuntu which is the only half-tolerable version of linux in terms of usability.
It is GMs fault that they make crappy cars (funny you use this example in a day that GM stock fell to its lowest value in over 30 yrs) and it is linux developers fault that these many years after becoming widely used it can still be a pain in the neck to us even when compared to the not so high standard of Windows.
I.e. "its the users fault".
What else can we expect from a *nix fanboi?
A linux system doesn't work, hence the user is frustrated. Does the linux guy say "gee we should fix this"? no. Does he say "its not my fault" which would already be bad? no. He turns around to the uer and says "its _your_ fault".
No wonder Linux is still trying to achive more than 1% market share at the desktop level.
--"You conveniently ignored that defense is provided under the same "socialist" terms."
That makes no sense.
It makes as much sense as your claim that providing health insurance to the uninsured is "socialist".
You would have to assume that I support McCain
Not at all. I don't know or care if you support McCain. The example is there to show where your simplistic relabeling of government-driven as socialism leads to.
Rather than debating universal health cares on its own weighing its pros and cons, you are taking the intellectually shortcut of labeling the proposal as socialist and dismiss it with one sleight of hand.
For the sake of showing just how deeply flawed your argument is, let's for a moment agree that Obama's proposal is socialist (which most definitely it is not): even then you would still have accomplished nothing. You see, while we agree that a socialism is not a good thing, this is no way implies that a single isolated socialist action is bad, in the same way that we all agree that being doused in a million gallons of water is a bad thing yet being doused with 10 gallons of water (otherwise called a bath or shower) is actually quite good and recommended a few times a week.
So all around your argument is of little intellectual value. It incorrectly conflates government action with socialism, it equates properties of the system as a whole with those of one of its components along the lines of "in soviet russia they play hockey, hence hockey must be bad for capitalism", and it thoroughly avoids to weight its benefits versus its costs.
As I said earlier on, I encourage you to research the issue further, using capitalist economies as guides such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?
I've had to deal with lawyers in a serious way seven times in my life (either directly engaged with them or as a third party involved in the case).
In three of them they acted very professionally. In the other four they took actions which in my opinion had as sole purpose maximizing their billings. This includes a case where the two parties were ready to settle yet the lawyers dragged on the case until the bill reached a certain key amount at which time the settlement went through as if by magic, and another one in which the parties were not ready to settle but the moment bankruptcy of one of the parties loomed (and hence loss of lawyer feels) they ably hammered out a compromise, that somehow had eluded all before.
because insurance companies provide a service, and under your system, the government would do that service instead.
You conveniently ignored that defense is provided under the same "socialist" terms. Moreover, since McCain and his ancestors have a distinguished career in the "socialist" funded armed forces that makes him the chief socialist candidate in this presidential campaign.
The money is taken by force, violating everyone's rights, rather than freely given by willing individuals.
The government is empowered by the people to tax the population, so taxing people is not a violation of anyone's rights.
"percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism",
Look, just as drinking a cold beer is not the same as being an alcoholic, having the odd program being run by the government (such as, say Defense or the IRS) does not mean in any way socialism.
Socialism is control of the means of production by the state. What Obama is suggesting is having the state act like a big insurance company to which everyone is registered, while actual delivery of the service ("means of production") can and will remain in private hands.
I encourage you to look into the private/public combination in Canada, where the majority of doctors have private practices, and the only difference is that the refund check for medical services is cut by the government rather than by an HMO.
Both of my posts claim that he is guilty, that evidence was planted and more importantly that when it comes to OJ people do not listen to each other.
The fact that you and the parent post missed those "details" proves my point that people are not listening to each other.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm
Bloody socks:
Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.
Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.
Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it.
Bloody Bronco:
Small spot of blood found near driver's outside door handle of Simpson's Ford Bronco; other blood found smeared inside on console, door, steering wheel and carpeting; DNA tests showed some of the blood apparently a mixture with genetic markers of Simpson and the victims.
Prosecution: said Simpson drove Bronco to and from crime scene.
Defense: challenged interpretation of DNA tests, particularly those suggesting a genetic match to Goldman in a mixture; noted that the genetic material of an unknown person was found in the steering wheel blood; suggested police planted some of the blood; elicited testimony that the Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized people while it sat in a police impound yard.
WILLIE FORD, police videographer: Filmed items inside Simpson's house day after the killings; saw no socks at foot of bed.
FREDRIC RIEDERS, founder of National Medical Services laboratory in Willow Grove, Pa.: Detected EDTA, chemical used by laboratories to preserve blood samples, on samples from sock and back gate. Jan. 8, 1997:
As I said before, planting of evidence is quite common in certain police forces. It makes the investigation simpler. The way it works is that the police picks evidence from the crime scene and places it in a way that connects their main suspect to the crime.
Personally, I think he is absolutely 100% guilty, but the theory and timeline proposed by police is not quite right in that he might have had help from a third person, and that he must have washed up in a place other than his home, since very little blood was found in his house, while he was supposed to be soaked on it
Name ONE piece of evidence that is "undisputed fact" that it was planted. Just one.
There's plenty: the blood on the sock that had (i) police anticoagulant on it and (ii) left the exact mark and shape of an essay tube being applied against a folded sock.
The blood on the ford bronco, which was so clearly planted the prosecutors did not even mention in the trial, and the list goes on and on.
but you seriously have to turn off your brain to think OJ was innocent
What was I saying about people divided by color refusing to listen to each other? If you read my posting again you'll see that it claims he's clearly guilty. You seem to miss the fact that it is perfectly possible to be guilty and have evidence planted on you. Lazy policemen do that all the time to shorten the investigation time. In this case they got caught, that is the only difference.
But they did themselves no favors by embracing OJ.
Oh, I agree. By the same token whites did themselves no favors by refusing to acknowledge that the LAPD is a corrupt and racist police department that got caught planting evidence on a black person, which in this particular case happened to be both famous and guilty.
In other words, black people need to take responsibility for their part in perpetuating racism.
How about you: are you willing to take responsibility for your part in tolerating racism within the LAPD, which has been repeatedly caught planting evidence and doing other racist actions?
the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson.
Blacks overlook the fact that he was clearly guilty, whites overlook the undisputed fact that a non-neglible amount of the evidence seemed planted, and so the country goes, divided by color refusing to listen to each other.
I have to laugh at other languages, especially Ruby, Python, C#, and Java as they are adding language features or libraries that emulate things that have existed in Smalltalk for 20+ years. That's rather laughable, but also an indicator of success.
Odd choice of words. I'd say its rather commendable that the designers of those languages are humble enough to incorporate things that are good and were missing from the original spec. Most language specifications are frozen way too early.
SPOILER
Actually it was more different than that, IIRC. We seem to remember that in the original version the good guys won. This made for a rather bland film. Good guy meets bad guy, good guy fights bad guy, good guy wins. Instead the released version has the bad guy getting away with it, which as the GGP post said really makes the movie work.
p.s. We also saw a preview of Perl Harbor but in that case the audience was explicitly asked for what changes we'd like to see. The original version spent was more focused on the historical aspects of the attack.
I saw a preview of this movie with my SO and we swear the ending was substantially different. We didn't like the original movie at all. The ending in the release version, which we only recently saw on TV, is much better and makes the whole thing passable.