One think people keep forgetting - sarin gas doesn't age well. The gas in those shells was OLD, and probably less destructive than the flow from a busted sewer main, militarily speaking.
In 1990, IBM and Microsoft were still working together on the development of OS/2. Microsoft, however, had found that Windows 3.0 - released in May 1990 - generated more revenue for them and therefore allotted increasingly more resource to Windows and correspondingly less to OS/2.
By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."
Another rumored part of the split is that MS wanted the GUI wrapped up in the kernel, and IBM thought that was a stupid idea. *shrugs* Who knows?
> because during his campaign he said, "I will not engage in nation building."
As opposed to what he is doing now, which is setting up a government, peacekeeping operations, army/police force building & training, rebuilding a national infrastructure, brokering construction contracts, etc. That's not nation building, naw.
> And if he had intended to attack Iraq all along, given that Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers into the United States, and cover their tracks, and *is* developing nuclear weapons, well that would make him evil, and a traitor to our country. As opposed to a moron.
I'm waiting to hear how any of those things are mutually exclusive. ^_^
>Isn't Kerry the one who voted for war, then voted against paying for it?
Actually he voted against dropping that much money with so little accounting oversight and accountability. Seems to make sense to me.
>Or in his acceptence speech said he was against "unilateral" US action
Something relatively sane to say.
>but he also said that he would not allow anyone to veto any US actions? Well, which is it?
Which could also mean that he's willing to do a lot of hard diplomatic work. It is also political suicide for an elected official to say he would allow the decisions he makes to be overridden by someone outside his constituency. Doesn't seem like a flip-flop to me.
>And it's not like he doesn't have a history of epic flip flops. He volunteered to go to Vietnam (something I do respect - and something damn near all knee-jerk/. leftists don't have the balls to do....), but the second he returned from his grand total of four months in Vietnam he became a fervent anti-war activist, hanging out with Hanoi Jane et al.
Hm, Someone who is patriotic goes to war, gets shot up, decides war in general sucks, he doesn't want any more of his fellow soldiers back in Viet Nam to be shot up for a war he thinks is pointless, and acts on that? Sounds like learning from experience. Something like Bush declaring the UN irrelevant before the invasion of Iraq, and now busting his buns to do everything he can to get the UN involved in the occupation/changeover/whatever.
Which is slightly more excuseable than the multitude of reasons we kept being handed for the invasion of Iraq, almost every one being shot down as fast as it came up, when Bush had been wanting to invade Iraq all along (but couldn't say that because it would be TELLING THE TRUTH).
Especially since, as Microsoft would probably rather forget, Windows NT had its genesis in a joint collaboration with IBM. Knowing how insane MS is about backwards compatibility, it's quite probable IBM would have ammunition all the way up into Winders XP/Server 2003.
You've never had a horse step on you, I imagine, let alone been ridden down.:D
Anywho, it would be interesting, if the black box idea actually happened, to see if the very next legal fight involving them was along the same lines (though for privacy instead of bodily harm) that now mandates that cars must have an "off" switch for the airbags.
However, does that detract from my point? The "excuse" it provides to eliminate copyright expiry should be addressed directly as well, given the recent (historically speaking) actions of Congress.
Unfortunately this will also provide justification for extending copyright life ad infinitum. I can hear Eldred now (or whatever newer model Disney buys to replace him when he wears out):
"Why do copyrights need to expire? See our wonderful mechanism for moving works into the public domain? Why, 90% of the works ever created move into the public domain after 50 years? Is it fair to punish the owners of the remaining 10% who have demonstrated consistent and careful interest in stewardship of their works?"
The bill does good things, but creates this "justification" for continuing in the tradition of copyright lifetime extension.
It's happened, over a wide range of issues, all centering around the x86 architecture.
Some of the battlefields were: MS-DOS being distributed to 3rd-party PC makers (basically PC-DOS with GWBasic instead of the proprietary, hardware-dependent Basic interpreter from IBM - anyone notice that PC-DOS seven wasn't written by MS?)
- OS/2 forking out to OS/2 and Windows NT, among many things revolving around design control, especially whether the GUI would be an integral part of the kernel (there was no question that it would be a unified package as far as the user was concerned, but IIRC the IBM engineers at the time had screaming fits at the idea), and in general MS happily watching IBM's monopoly in that architecture go down, because they make just as much money selling OSes no matter where the PC came from (provided it's Windows, and that it's not pirated ^_^). Ultimately I suspect that MCA would never have happened (as it should not have) if it weren't for MS not letting their primary business partner at the time swing in the breeze.
Who knew 800 pound gorillas were so good at swinging?
It was taking the pun Open Sores a step further as a way to get permission to use sick leave.
A joke.
*sighs dramatically* I will somehow manage to live on despite this cruel slander. *wraps the shreds of his dignity about him and wanders back to tend the fragments of his shattered ego*
I like being able to do it, however. It's one of my favorite things about Konqueror (besides gg:pr0n).
Having control of the information your browser supplies to web developers who "break" the standards that badly is a nice way to temporarily get around limitations. (Not sure if you can still browse technet this way or not, I haven't had to go back there in a while. *is running Moz 1.3 on Debian (sarge)*
Think of a farmer applying bug killers to his crops. "Well gee, an ounce is about... well, about a 'glug', and if one glug is good for killing 'em, two or three must do the job right damn well!"
In the original proposal, the restriction to "professional" for this law would have opened up commentary and communication quite well. If you look at the BBC's news site the level of commentary and discussion on the articles is actually very good.
But opening up this requirement to EVERY site that puts an opinion online is pretty moronic, since the person who has money behind their opinion can have the PR staff zipping through hostile weblogs for an hour every afternoon cut-n-pasting the opposition into oblivion, while the smaller voices will have enough trouble just preserving the intended tone of their own sites.
Add this to the free speech case where Nike is suing for the right to lie in its marketing efforts, and the FUD wars coming up in Europe could make the MS vs. Linux diatribes look like sweet kisses from your first love.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that you have to jump through extra hoops AFTER installation to get to Google's entry in the IE8 search provider listing.
One think people keep forgetting - sarin gas doesn't age well. The gas in those shells was OLD, and probably less destructive than the flow from a busted sewer main, militarily speaking.
Naw, I'm just in a mood. :D
From This site
"1990 - The Schism
In 1990, IBM and Microsoft were still working together on the development of OS/2. Microsoft, however, had found that Windows 3.0 - released in May 1990 - generated more revenue for them and therefore allotted increasingly more resource to Windows and correspondingly less to OS/2.
By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."
Another rumored part of the split is that MS wanted the GUI wrapped up in the kernel, and IBM thought that was a stupid idea. *shrugs* Who knows?
Yes he did.
> because during his campaign he said, "I will not engage in nation building."
As opposed to what he is doing now, which is setting up a government, peacekeeping operations, army/police force building & training, rebuilding a national infrastructure, brokering construction contracts, etc. That's not nation building, naw.
> And if he had intended to attack Iraq all along, given that Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers into the United States, and cover their tracks, and *is* developing nuclear weapons, well that would make him evil, and a traitor to our country. As opposed to a moron.
I'm waiting to hear how any of those things are mutually exclusive. ^_^
>Isn't Kerry the one who voted for war, then voted against paying for it?
/. leftists don't have the balls to do....), but the second he returned from his grand total of four months in Vietnam he became a fervent anti-war activist, hanging out with Hanoi Jane et al.
Actually he voted against dropping that much money with so little accounting oversight and accountability. Seems to make sense to me.
>Or in his acceptence speech said he was against "unilateral" US action
Something relatively sane to say.
>but he also said that he would not allow anyone to veto any US actions? Well, which is it?
Which could also mean that he's willing to do a lot of hard diplomatic work. It is also political suicide for an elected official to say he would allow the decisions he makes to be overridden by someone outside his constituency. Doesn't seem like a flip-flop to me.
>And it's not like he doesn't have a history of epic flip flops. He volunteered to go to Vietnam (something I do respect - and something damn near all knee-jerk
Hm, Someone who is patriotic goes to war, gets shot up, decides war in general sucks, he doesn't want any more of his fellow soldiers back in Viet Nam to be shot up for a war he thinks is pointless, and acts on that? Sounds like learning from experience. Something like Bush declaring the UN irrelevant before the invasion of Iraq, and now busting his buns to do everything he can to get the UN involved in the occupation/changeover/whatever.
Which is slightly more excuseable than the multitude of reasons we kept being handed for the invasion of Iraq, almost every one being shot down as fast as it came up, when Bush had been wanting to invade Iraq all along (but couldn't say that because it would be TELLING THE TRUTH).
*COUGHS* Sorry, inside voice got out.
Especially since, as Microsoft would probably rather forget, Windows NT had its genesis in a joint collaboration with IBM. Knowing how insane MS is about backwards compatibility, it's quite probable IBM would have ammunition all the way up into Winders XP/Server 2003.
You've never had a horse step on you, I imagine, let alone been ridden down. :D
Anywho, it would be interesting, if the black box idea actually happened, to see if the very next legal fight involving them was along the same lines (though for privacy instead of bodily harm) that now mandates that cars must have an "off" switch for the airbags.
The Monty Python diner sketch with Eric Idle (?) playing the waitress.
Yes, I was thinking of the wrong senator.
I should have said Bono.
However, does that detract from my point? The "excuse" it provides to eliminate copyright expiry should be addressed directly as well, given the recent (historically speaking) actions of Congress.
Okay, so I'm a brain transplant candidate.
Unfortunately this will also provide justification for extending copyright life ad infinitum. I can hear Eldred now (or whatever newer model Disney buys to replace him when he wears out):
"Why do copyrights need to expire? See our wonderful mechanism for moving works into the public domain? Why, 90% of the works ever created move into the public domain after 50 years? Is it fair to punish the owners of the remaining 10% who have demonstrated consistent and careful interest in stewardship of their works?"
The bill does good things, but creates this "justification" for continuing in the tradition of copyright lifetime extension.
Ooops, should be "if it weren't for MS LETTING their primary business partner at the time swing in the breeze."
It's happened, over a wide range of issues, all centering around the x86 architecture.
Some of the battlefields were: MS-DOS being distributed to 3rd-party PC makers (basically PC-DOS with GWBasic instead of the proprietary, hardware-dependent Basic interpreter from IBM - anyone notice that PC-DOS seven wasn't written by MS?)
- OS/2 forking out to OS/2 and Windows NT, among many things revolving around design control, especially whether the GUI would be an integral part of the kernel (there was no question that it would be a unified package as far as the user was concerned, but IIRC the IBM engineers at the time had screaming fits at the idea), and in general MS happily watching IBM's monopoly in that architecture go down, because they make just as much money selling OSes no matter where the PC came from (provided it's Windows, and that it's not pirated ^_^). Ultimately I suspect that MCA would never have happened (as it should not have) if it weren't for MS not letting their primary business partner at the time swing in the breeze.
Who knew 800 pound gorillas were so good at swinging?
Naw. Fizzbin.
Aaaaand this is different from commercial software how?
It was taking the pun Open Sores a step further as a way to get permission to use sick leave.
A joke.
*sighs dramatically* I will somehow manage to live on despite this cruel slander. *wraps the shreds of his dignity about him and wanders back to tend the fragments of his shattered ego*
Only on Slashdot can I post a joke about Open Sores using Mozilla on a Debian box and have it modded as troll.
I dunno.
I didn't want to come into work yesterday, and just mentioning Open Sores worked pretty damn well...
I like being able to do it, however. It's one of my favorite things about Konqueror (besides gg:pr0n).
Having control of the information your browser supplies to web developers who "break" the standards that badly is a nice way to temporarily get around limitations. (Not sure if you can still browse technet this way or not, I haven't had to go back there in a while. *is running Moz 1.3 on Debian (sarge)*
Yes, I know I need to update the browser. Neener.
So when someone fact-checks them they can truthfully say the article is based on indesputible fact.
Think of a farmer applying bug killers to his crops. "Well gee, an ounce is about... well, about a 'glug', and if one glug is good for killing 'em, two or three must do the job right damn well!"
In the original proposal, the restriction to "professional" for this law would have opened up commentary and communication quite well. If you look at the BBC's news site the level of commentary and discussion on the articles is actually very good.
But opening up this requirement to EVERY site that puts an opinion online is pretty moronic, since the person who has money behind their opinion can have the PR staff zipping through hostile weblogs for an hour every afternoon cut-n-pasting the opposition into oblivion, while the smaller voices will have enough trouble just preserving the intended tone of their own sites.
Add this to the free speech case where Nike is suing for the right to lie in its marketing efforts, and the FUD wars coming up in Europe could make the MS vs. Linux diatribes look like sweet kisses from your first love.
I am here to chew bubble-gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble-gum.
Rowdy Roddy Piper, in "They Live"
PLEASE MOD THIS UP!!!! LOL
Just a question. Do you believe that Social Security is ineffective, or are you simply not noticing it because it's always been there?