But SCO is "winning" for as long as this drags on and Linux appears (to the man in the street) more and more mired in confusion and controversy. Very few of us believe SCO really intends to "win" - they just want to inflict as much damage as possible as they go down, and this gives them more time and leverage to do it.
A Dalek climbed some stairs in the Sylvester McCoy story "Remembrance of the Daleks" (1988). Sorry to be such a geek, but it was a watershed moment for those of us who had until then believed ourselves safe at night in our upstairs bedrooms...
Terror is a noun. It's not a concrete noun - you can't hold terror in your hands - but it's a noun.
Not that I think the "war on terror" is a meaningful or valid pursuit, but there are plenty of reasons to reject it without having to reject grammar into the bargain!;)
I wont release the originals because the millions of fans that want to buy them wouldn't (or so the force tells me).
That's not what he says at all. He says he won't release the originals because "I'm not going to spend the... money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn't really exist anymore. It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it."
I have to say, "half a completed film" is a rather misleading way of describing Star Wars - the film was perfectly complete as it stood, and the later additions are mostly pretty brief and insignificant. But still, he's not saying people wouldn't buy the original versions - he's saying almost the opposite. He won't release them because people would buy them in preference to his preferred versions.
As the article says, this is a survey of "as tech savvy an audience as you could have." While it's exciting to see tech savvy people getting more and more switched-on to Firefox, we could flip it around and say that more than half of even the most tech-savvy users are still using IE. And with the SP2 pop-up blocker and security improvements they have fewer reasons to change than ever.
I was severely disappointed that I had to look through two different folders for new mail.
I was disappointed too, so I set up a filter to move all my mail into a central mailbox as it arrived. *shrug*
But yeah, I agree with you on the spam filter - I've been using TB for 3+ months and it's still not as good as POPfile or SpamBayes were after a few weeks.
If you're going to call someone a liar, it's helpful to provide an example of something he's said, along with some other evidence that contradicts that. Franken does that repeatedly in his book. You have not done that in your post. Advantage Franken.
I might also add that Franken's fame - at least here in the UK - is purely as a political author. I didn't know he was a comedian, but I did know he was (is?) a Fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. So I should say he's earnt the right to talk about politics because people choose to listen to him.
Also, if you really believe Republicans are any more "honest and up-front" than Democrats then I recommend you read Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. I'm afraid Franken's glib, smart-arse tone will probably not incline you to listen to what he has to say; but it's hard to argue with the evidence he presents of systematic deceit in the media and in government.
Re:Join the Revolution
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm afraid Wal*Mart doesn't give a fuck about the revolution - it's pursuing its own agenda, and it doesn't much care if MS prospers or dies except insofar as that might affect its own bottom line.
But there is, I have to admit, something of the invisible hand about it.
Maybe this could bring down the headline cost of computers? It'd be great if, when I came to buy my next laptop, I had the option of buying it with XP Home for £899 or XP "lite" for £849. Let's face it, either way it'd actually be running XP Pro within a day.
Of course, it would be better still if I could buy the thing for £799 with no OS at all; but that's another argument...
After it harassing me left and right about programs connecting to the internet. Even after letting it run for a while, it never spotted a program connecting that wasn't supposed to be.
Maybe you didn't like it, but I imagine Zone Labs are feeling pretty nervous right now...
"In British English it is in order to use either a plural verb or a singular verb after most collective nouns, so long as attendant pronouns are made to follow suit . . . . By contrast, in American English, the choice is much more restricted. For such words, the following verb and any attendant pronouns are usually in the singular."
Fowler's Modern English Usage, ed. R.W. Burchfield (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1998) 157.
We Brits use the plural. I think the (subconscious) reasoning is that a company name is shorthand for a group of people working together. When you say "Commodore" to me, I picture a board of directors, or maybe a group of chip designers, or something like that, depending on the context. Hence, if they do something collectively, I talk about them in the plural. It's the same with football teams, committees, gaggles of geese... I wouldn't say it's wrong, it's just a cultural difference.
On Windows at least you can change the system DPI in the advanced display properties. I'm sure some badly-written UIs won't respect that (and will have e.g. tiny clickable buttons), but I've been playing around with it and a surprising number of applications work perfectly well.
You know, I think you're probably the most reasonable Bush-supporter I've come across.
In future I may not leave out the argument that Bush bypassed the UN; but I will concede that I haven't always automatically condemned leaders solely on those grounds.
Hm. If we disagree on something so fundamental then perhaps we can't have a rational debate.:-/
However, I will say this: you say "you agree with Clinton so it's OK to act unilaterally; you disagree with Bush so it's not." I don't think it's hypocritical to sit quietly by when something I can tolerate is going on, and to take to the streets when something I can't tolerate is in the offing. I believed that Clinton's unilateral action was in response to the wishes of the international community; whereas Bush was forced to act unilaterally because of opposition from the international community.
In retrospect, I must admit that it would have been more consistent of me to take a more vocal stand against Clinton's by-passing of the UN. At the time it seemed like the vote would have been a foregone conclusion, and hence unnecessary. I didn't really appreciate the dangers of allowing the primacy of international law to slip. I suppose I imagined future Presidents would only act like Clinton if they had a comparable level of international support.
I'll try to be brief, because this is getting silly.;)
I wouldn't argue that Saddam Hussein deserved to remain in power. But I don't believe that any single nation has the right to unilaterally depose a foreign regime. If Bush wanted to depose Saddam he should have made an honest case for that on its merits. Instead he made a case based on deceit and threats. You can say that Bush "never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11", but the spin was pretty clear to me, and it had the desired effect. Even if Bush did the exact same thing as Clinton, I didn't protest against Clinton because I thought he was acting from noble motives, whereas to me Bush simply reeks of bad faith.
Christ, now there's an article that smothers its good points in ad hominem rhetoric. Still, I'll try to ignore all the childish demogoguery like "war and death mean nothing to these hypocritical anti-war activists" and give a measured response.
For my part, a lot of this stuff was around 10 years ago, and I wasn't really watching international politics at that time. I can't speak for other people, but I've only taken an interest in such things as I've grown older. So no, I wasn't on the streets campaigning against Clinton when Haiti was invaded. That doesn't disbar me from protesting against other things that have happened since.
I can't tell you why other people didn't campaign against the invasion of Kosovo, but I know why I didn't. My friends could tell you that I was vocally critical of the way the campaign was conducted - but I understood that this was a well-intentioned intervention with clearly-stated altruistic aims. Though the US didn't have express UN permission to invade, it was visibly acting in selfless support of a recent UN resolution. We internationalists may have complained that the US should have sought explicit authority for military action, but on balance I didn't feel it was something to take to the streets over.
Bush, on the other hand, acted from the start as if he had no interest in supporting the aims of the UN; he wanted the UN to support his aims - the motives of which remain dubious to me. Thus he dug up a decade-old resolution, spun it with misleading information about September 11th and chemical weapons and tried to use this to coerce the UN into changing its existing Iraq strategy to a far more confrontational approach. The UN met him half-way, voting to adopt Resolution 1441; but he kept on pushing for war. Finally, when the UN made clear that it wouldn't support an invasion, he invaded anyway. In short, it looked to me like, wherease Clinton's invasion had been intended in support of the international community, Bush's invasion was intended in spite of it.
The writer of that article seems to think that acquiescing in one war and opposing another is hypocritical. In his startlingly polar world, it seems that an anti-war protestor must be against all war. Does he really think that the 750,000+ protestors who marched through London in February last year - or the 100,000+ who did so again in November - believe it was wrong to liberate France in 1944? That's a ridiculous straw man. What we were protesting against was this war being fought for these reasons at this time.
Slashdot Mirror
But SCO is "winning" for as long as this drags on and Linux appears (to the man in the street) more and more mired in confusion and controversy. Very few of us believe SCO really intends to "win" - they just want to inflict as much damage as possible as they go down, and this gives them more time and leverage to do it.
A Dalek climbed some stairs in the Sylvester McCoy story "Remembrance of the Daleks" (1988). Sorry to be such a geek, but it was a watershed moment for those of us who had until then believed ourselves safe at night in our upstairs bedrooms...
in countries like the UK, where guns are mostly illegal, lots of criminals have guns.
Gun crime accounts for less than 0.5% of UK crime.
I can picture it on his CV now.
Major accomplishments: Multiple comments in one Slashdot thread moderated to +5. Also some acting experience.
Yes, but to be fair the editor did then admit the pictures were fake and resign.
Terror is a noun. It's not a concrete noun - you can't hold terror in your hands - but it's a noun.
;)
Not that I think the "war on terror" is a meaningful or valid pursuit, but there are plenty of reasons to reject it without having to reject grammar into the bargain!
I wont release the originals because the millions of fans that want to buy them wouldn't (or so the force tells me).
... money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn't really exist anymore. It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it."
That's not what he says at all. He says he won't release the originals because "I'm not going to spend the
I have to say, "half a completed film" is a rather misleading way of describing Star Wars - the film was perfectly complete as it stood, and the later additions are mostly pretty brief and insignificant. But still, he's not saying people wouldn't buy the original versions - he's saying almost the opposite. He won't release them because people would buy them in preference to his preferred versions.
As the article says, this is a survey of "as tech savvy an audience as you could have." While it's exciting to see tech savvy people getting more and more switched-on to Firefox, we could flip it around and say that more than half of even the most tech-savvy users are still using IE. And with the SP2 pop-up blocker and security improvements they have fewer reasons to change than ever.
Just thinking obvious thoughts out loud.
I was severely disappointed that I had to look through two different folders for new mail.
I was disappointed too, so I set up a filter to move all my mail into a central mailbox as it arrived. *shrug*
But yeah, I agree with you on the spam filter - I've been using TB for 3+ months and it's still not as good as POPfile or SpamBayes were after a few weeks.
we realized that no adequate map of Springfield existed either online or in print
Now those are some geeks. Adequate for what??
I've actually been gradually upgrading my PC over the past few years until now it finally looks like Windows XP's "My Computer" icon.
... and the British think a hundred and twenty characters is a long sentence?
If you're going to call someone a liar, it's helpful to provide an example of something he's said, along with some other evidence that contradicts that. Franken does that repeatedly in his book. You have not done that in your post. Advantage Franken.
I might also add that Franken's fame - at least here in the UK - is purely as a political author. I didn't know he was a comedian, but I did know he was (is?) a Fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. So I should say he's earnt the right to talk about politics because people choose to listen to him.
His name is Richard Clarke.
Also, if you really believe Republicans are any more "honest and up-front" than Democrats then I recommend you read Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. I'm afraid Franken's glib, smart-arse tone will probably not incline you to listen to what he has to say; but it's hard to argue with the evidence he presents of systematic deceit in the media and in government.
I'm afraid Wal*Mart doesn't give a fuck about the revolution - it's pursuing its own agenda, and it doesn't much care if MS prospers or dies except insofar as that might affect its own bottom line.
But there is, I have to admit, something of the invisible hand about it.
Maybe this could bring down the headline cost of computers? It'd be great if, when I came to buy my next laptop, I had the option of buying it with XP Home for £899 or XP "lite" for £849. Let's face it, either way it'd actually be running XP Pro within a day.
Of course, it would be better still if I could buy the thing for £799 with no OS at all; but that's another argument...
After it harassing me left and right about programs connecting to the internet. Even after letting it run for a while, it never spotted a program connecting that wasn't supposed to be.
Maybe you didn't like it, but I imagine Zone Labs are feeling pretty nervous right now...
Well that's no bloody use, is it? I want to know how many people are using it NOW!
We Brits use the plural. I think the (subconscious) reasoning is that a company name is shorthand for a group of people working together. When you say "Commodore" to me, I picture a board of directors, or maybe a group of chip designers, or something like that, depending on the context. Hence, if they do something collectively, I talk about them in the plural. It's the same with football teams, committees, gaggles of geese... I wouldn't say it's wrong, it's just a cultural difference.
On Windows at least you can change the system DPI in the advanced display properties. I'm sure some badly-written UIs won't respect that (and will have e.g. tiny clickable buttons), but I've been playing around with it and a surprising number of applications work perfectly well.
You know, I think you're probably the most reasonable Bush-supporter I've come across.
In future I may not leave out the argument that Bush bypassed the UN; but I will concede that I haven't always automatically condemned leaders solely on those grounds.
There was no spin.
:-/
Hm. If we disagree on something so fundamental then perhaps we can't have a rational debate.
However, I will say this: you say "you agree with Clinton so it's OK to act unilaterally; you disagree with Bush so it's not." I don't think it's hypocritical to sit quietly by when something I can tolerate is going on, and to take to the streets when something I can't tolerate is in the offing. I believed that Clinton's unilateral action was in response to the wishes of the international community; whereas Bush was forced to act unilaterally because of opposition from the international community.
In retrospect, I must admit that it would have been more consistent of me to take a more vocal stand against Clinton's by-passing of the UN. At the time it seemed like the vote would have been a foregone conclusion, and hence unnecessary. I didn't really appreciate the dangers of allowing the primacy of international law to slip. I suppose I imagined future Presidents would only act like Clinton if they had a comparable level of international support.
I'll try to be brief, because this is getting silly. ;)
I wouldn't argue that Saddam Hussein deserved to remain in power. But I don't believe that any single nation has the right to unilaterally depose a foreign regime. If Bush wanted to depose Saddam he should have made an honest case for that on its merits. Instead he made a case based on deceit and threats. You can say that Bush "never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11", but the spin was pretty clear to me, and it had the desired effect. Even if Bush did the exact same thing as Clinton, I didn't protest against Clinton because I thought he was acting from noble motives, whereas to me Bush simply reeks of bad faith.
Christ, now there's an article that smothers its good points in ad hominem rhetoric. Still, I'll try to ignore all the childish demogoguery like "war and death mean nothing to these hypocritical anti-war activists" and give a measured response.
For my part, a lot of this stuff was around 10 years ago, and I wasn't really watching international politics at that time. I can't speak for other people, but I've only taken an interest in such things as I've grown older. So no, I wasn't on the streets campaigning against Clinton when Haiti was invaded. That doesn't disbar me from protesting against other things that have happened since.
I can't tell you why other people didn't campaign against the invasion of Kosovo, but I know why I didn't. My friends could tell you that I was vocally critical of the way the campaign was conducted - but I understood that this was a well-intentioned intervention with clearly-stated altruistic aims. Though the US didn't have express UN permission to invade, it was visibly acting in selfless support of a recent UN resolution. We internationalists may have complained that the US should have sought explicit authority for military action, but on balance I didn't feel it was something to take to the streets over.
Bush, on the other hand, acted from the start as if he had no interest in supporting the aims of the UN; he wanted the UN to support his aims - the motives of which remain dubious to me. Thus he dug up a decade-old resolution, spun it with misleading information about September 11th and chemical weapons and tried to use this to coerce the UN into changing its existing Iraq strategy to a far more confrontational approach. The UN met him half-way, voting to adopt Resolution 1441; but he kept on pushing for war. Finally, when the UN made clear that it wouldn't support an invasion, he invaded anyway. In short, it looked to me like, wherease Clinton's invasion had been intended in support of the international community, Bush's invasion was intended in spite of it.
The writer of that article seems to think that acquiescing in one war and opposing another is hypocritical. In his startlingly polar world, it seems that an anti-war protestor must be against all war. Does he really think that the 750,000+ protestors who marched through London in February last year - or the 100,000+ who did so again in November - believe it was wrong to liberate France in 1944? That's a ridiculous straw man. What we were protesting against was this war being fought for these reasons at this time.