And a sense of "file system disconnect" is going to occur for new users of Windows, MacOS, or Linux.
In Linux, I was originally baffled by the seemingly random placement of binaries &.SO files in RPM installation.
I think it's worse for Windows, but whatever. Still certainly black magic for someone who's used to Unix.
In MacOS, many system folders are totally invisible to the Finder. The "top level" in the Finder isn't the / directory. I don't even know what that is.
It takes a little getting to know, but there are smart people working on all three operating systems. None of them want to feel filesystem disconnect.
My liberal friends were all bragging about how Kerry looked all "regal" because during Bush's statements, he would carefully listen & take notes. Wouldn't that kindof imply that he also had paper up there?
If he had paper, wouldn't he have had to bring it up to the podium? How could he *ever* prove that the paper was blank when he brought it up there? He couldn't. Whether or not it was a cheatsheet, it certainly could have been.
So. How has this revelation changed your opinion of the candidates and their trustworthiness?
The agreement set by the debate commission barred shots of the candidates from the rear of the stage. (It also specified only hardwired podium microphones for the first debate, i.e. no lapel mics.) The networks refused to comply with the camera angle rules, broadcasting occasional shots of the candidates from behind. The images here are from the Fox video pool feed.
"Sure, Bush uses an earpiece sometimes," a top Washington editor for Reuters said to me last spring. "State of the Union -- he had an earpiece for that. Everybody knows it," he said, or assumes it. But everybody doesn't know it, I said. Why hadn't Reuters investigated? The editor shrugged and said it wasn't so different from using a teleprompter.
Except that a teleprompter isn't a secret. And Americans have the right to know if the president can't or won't speak in public without covert assistance.
Television hosts and news anchors wear earpieces, called IFBs (for internal foldback, or feedback) which fit in the ear canal and are almost invisibly small, to receive cues from their producers. (Language scientists say that "shadowing," repeating the words someone else is speaking, is not at all difficult, but it is difficult not to move your eyes when listening.) Television journalists would be likely to spot the use of an IFB or at least to suspect it. So, why haven't they raised the question? I suspect it's untouchable in part because asking the question now points up all the years they let go by without asking it.
I have no problem with GW using an earpiece for the State of the Union. I don't see why isbushwired.com implies that there's something wrong with him using an earpiece instead of a teleprompter. But before you dismiss these allegations as ludicrous, consider that Bush probably uses this device in all situations where someone else might use a teleprompter.
The State of the Union was high quality speech. If he was using the earpiece then, it could explain some of his affectations & pauses that otherwise seem a little odd. He had similar pauses in the debate. It seems like other people with practice using similar devices would figure it out & bring it to light. That's the biggest hole I can see. But it's possible.
JibJab got forwarded to me by people who I would not normally consider very political. I've seen a million crappy flash comedies that are just as funny.
And the only thing Strong Bad has over Jib Jab is a a funny accent, imho. European & Russian accents are always funny.
Maybe because it implies that they are somehow going to rig their machines?
They have rigged their machines, and that is also accepted fact. They have rigged them to remove the possibility of a legitimate audit.
That is certainly different from rigging it for a particular candidate, but the fact that they are willing to do this lesser form of fraud makes it seem completely plausible that they could do a greater form of fraud.
While it is certainly not proven that Diebold machines will be used to give an advantage to GW, it is also not irrational to suspect them. Their machines are begging for election fraud, in favor of either candidate.
She's stating fact. Diebold has publically supported GW's candidacy. They are a private company, and are permitted to do so.
I believe they've given money to both political campaigns. It's in their financial best interest to be cozy with the parties that control how elections are run. It is obviously a source of potential election fraud. If not for the Republicans in particular, than at least for Diebold. Why is that an irrational "mindset"?
(And what is the relevance of the senator's race, you idiot fuck? Flamebait is right.)
We'd use it in my company. For our web apps and our desktop apps.
The benefit isn't saving network & processing traffic, it's that you reduce the need for weird activex control downloads if you want a rich user experience for your webpage.
If I had to chose at this stage I would pick XAML. I'd rather have something that worked for 90% and not 5% (or whatever the current market share is).
Uh, no. The current market share of XUL is much higher than the current market share of XAML (which is zero). Once Longhorn ships, end user applications are not going to be written in XAML, because doing so would mean that those end user applications are only compatible with Longhorn.
It's the same thing as.NET apps. Very few shrinkwrapped applications use the.NET framework, because they want to market their software to the entire Win32 userbase. Most of the folks that get to actually use.NET are doing web apps or are in corporate IT.
He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil. Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered?
However, I'm not sure if it was a good call at calling their bluff
You haven't called their bluff. If they have a valid patent claim against you, then you will need to remove the infringing code from your product. Calling their bluff would be saying "No, your patent does not apply to our product" and that may very well put you in court. But you can't do that because you don't know what the patent is.
If you tell them, "We are terribly sorry for infringing on your patent. Tell us what it is so that we can stop," then the worst case scenario is that they will press you for damages due to your accidental infringement. When you say "at which point we only got threatened more", I'm kindof confused. How did they threaten you more? What grounds?
They gave us one of the two options - either make the product closed source and sign up for a percentage of the profits with them, or provide them with a stake in our company.
No, your only "option" would be to cease infringing on their patent. In order for you to do that, they'd have to tell you what patent you were infringing upon. Then they may have discussed your options for licensing the patent, but that would really be step number 2. Step 1 would be ceasing infringement.
Otherwise, they have failed to allow you to limit the damages you have done to their company. My understanding was that this would severely damage their patent infringement case against you. Dunno.
I wondered throughout the original trial, and later, why there were no security experts called by the DoJ to testify to the security problems inherent in this integration?
There are no security problems inherent in this integration. The security problems are due to design flaws & bugs. If they integrated a browser written in a overflow-proof language, without scripting capabilities, there would be no security problems. So it is not inherent in the integration.
Why can't gcc build multiple code paths, one for SSE machines and one for non SSE machines? Isn't that what shrinkwrapped computationally intensive programs have to do?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but you'll see it inside "Macintosh HD" or whatever, right? I'm not at a Mac right now, so I can't check.
/Mount/, and if you're used to other Unix systems, that's a little weird.
I guess it's as if the finder's top level is
On a related note, I hear that Puerto Rico wants to become a steak.
Oh. Nevermind.
And a sense of "file system disconnect" is going to occur for new users of Windows, MacOS, or Linux.
.SO files in RPM installation.
In Linux, I was originally baffled by the seemingly random placement of binaries &
I think it's worse for Windows, but whatever. Still certainly black magic for someone who's used to Unix.
In MacOS, many system folders are totally invisible to the Finder. The "top level" in the Finder isn't the / directory. I don't even know what that is.
It takes a little getting to know, but there are smart people working on all three operating systems. None of them want to feel filesystem disconnect.
Was he writing graffiti on the lectern?
My liberal friends were all bragging about how Kerry looked all "regal" because during Bush's statements, he would carefully listen & take notes. Wouldn't that kindof imply that he also had paper up there?
If he had paper, wouldn't he have had to bring it up to the podium? How could he *ever* prove that the paper was blank when he brought it up there? He couldn't. Whether or not it was a cheatsheet, it certainly could have been.
So. How has this revelation changed your opinion of the candidates and their trustworthiness?
The State of the Union was high quality speech. If he was using the earpiece then, it could explain some of his affectations & pauses that otherwise seem a little odd. He had similar pauses in the debate. It seems like other people with practice using similar devices would figure it out & bring it to light. That's the biggest hole I can see. But it's possible.
People are idiots. People like blood sausage.
JibJab got forwarded to me by people who I would not normally consider very political. I've seen a million crappy flash comedies that are just as funny.
And the only thing Strong Bad has over Jib Jab is a a funny accent, imho. European & Russian accents are always funny.
Oh.
s f?/base/news/1086687227191651.xml
You're right.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s
Maybe because it implies that they are somehow going to rig their machines?
They have rigged their machines, and that is also accepted fact. They have rigged them to remove the possibility of a legitimate audit.
That is certainly different from rigging it for a particular candidate, but the fact that they are willing to do this lesser form of fraud makes it seem completely plausible that they could do a greater form of fraud.
While it is certainly not proven that Diebold machines will be used to give an advantage to GW, it is also not irrational to suspect them. Their machines are begging for election fraud, in favor of either candidate.
She's stating fact. Diebold has publically supported GW's candidacy. They are a private company, and are permitted to do so.
I believe they've given money to both political campaigns. It's in their financial best interest to be cozy with the parties that control how elections are run. It is obviously a source of potential election fraud. If not for the Republicans in particular, than at least for Diebold . Why is that an irrational "mindset"?
(And what is the relevance of the senator's race, you idiot fuck? Flamebait is right.)
We'd use it in my company. For our web apps and our desktop apps.
The benefit isn't saving network & processing traffic, it's that you reduce the need for weird activex control downloads if you want a rich user experience for your webpage.
For both XAML and .NET, applications can install support themselves.
.NET support will require service pack upgrades.
My understanding was that with older operating systems,
If I had to chose at this stage I would pick XAML. I'd rather have something that worked for 90% and not 5% (or whatever the current market share is).
.NET apps. Very few shrinkwrapped applications use the .NET framework, because they want to market their software to the entire Win32 userbase. Most of the folks that get to actually use .NET are doing web apps or are in corporate IT.
Uh, no. The current market share of XUL is much higher than the current market share of XAML (which is zero). Once Longhorn ships, end user applications are not going to be written in XAML, because doing so would mean that those end user applications are only compatible with Longhorn.
It's the same thing as
This product is newsworthy.
/. front page... but that's not what this is.
An informative article by C|Net is linked.
I'm glad to hear about it. It's annoying to see press releases on the
The person who submitted it is doing it out of self interest, but I don't care. Quit your fockin whining.
I was joking. You aren't a troll, right?
Quit whining, you troll.
No, do it right:
"Video games aren't addictive! I used to suck
dick for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some dick for video games?"
Somehow I don't think they like him better in New Haven.
However, I'm not sure if it was a good call at calling their bluff
You haven't called their bluff. If they have a valid patent claim against you, then you will need to remove the infringing code from your product. Calling their bluff would be saying "No, your patent does not apply to our product" and that may very well put you in court. But you can't do that because you don't know what the patent is.
If you tell them, "We are terribly sorry for infringing on your patent. Tell us what it is so that we can stop," then the worst case scenario is that they will press you for damages due to your accidental infringement. When you say "at which point we only got threatened more", I'm kindof confused. How did they threaten you more? What grounds?
(Just to clear that up.)
They gave us one of the two options - either make the product closed source and sign up for a percentage of the profits with them, or provide them with a stake in our company.
No, your only "option" would be to cease infringing on their patent. In order for you to do that, they'd have to tell you what patent you were infringing upon. Then they may have discussed your options for licensing the patent, but that would really be step number 2. Step 1 would be ceasing infringement.
Otherwise, they have failed to allow you to limit the damages you have done to their company. My understanding was that this would severely damage their patent infringement case against you. Dunno.
I wondered throughout the original trial, and later, why there were no security experts called by the DoJ to testify to the security problems inherent in this integration?
There are no security problems inherent in this integration. The security problems are due to design flaws & bugs. If they integrated a browser written in a overflow-proof language, without scripting capabilities, there would be no security problems. So it is not inherent in the integration.
Has insurance (or lack thereof) come back to haunt anyone in the past?
No. Lack of insurance has never been a problem for anyone. Ever.
Why can't gcc build multiple code paths, one for SSE machines and one for non SSE machines? Isn't that what shrinkwrapped computationally intensive programs have to do?
Heh. Sorry I assumed the worst :)