Yeah... Damn them for making sure other companies are following the law.
The problem isn't making other companies follow the law, it's what constitutes "following the law."
Apparently, the issue is what constitutes a valid Windows license. As a result, there is significant confusion as to whether companies have valid licenses, need upgraded licenses, or how many licenses they need for a particular software installation. Microsoft seems to be in no hurry to clean up confusion, leading to people paying double for software, or outright discontinuing software installation plans when it turns out that they need some outrageously large number of licenses.
Read the article, not the summary, before posting.
You may also want to look into Perforce. We use at where I work, and it seems like a very nice system (and it's got some killer features that VSS doesn't have; for one thing, Perforce knows what code has been updated since your last fetch, and will only return that, while VSS has to scan the entire tree in order to return the code; Perforce is significantly faster as a result).
I think it is odd that people so often avoid facing up to the fact that using a gun in defence is an act of aggression. If you never question things like that then you'll never ask the question "well, is there another way?".
I guess I look at it like this.
If somebody is threatening my life, there's two outcomes: either I live, or I die. With some method of self-defense (which, yes, can be considered aggression), the odds skew in favor of "I live," because most self-respecting criminals value their lives just as much as I value mine. (This isn't to say that there's no risk of my dying, even after I defend myself, but the odds are skewed towards my survival.)
If the mugger had his knife to my throat, I'd be an idiot to try to use my firearm (or to even allow the mugger to discover that I was carrying it).
If the mugger was standing a few yards in front of me, waving his knife, I'd be in a better situation to defend myself (of course, this isn't foolproof either).
Basically, any situation in which you would actually have to draw your gun is a situation that inherently carries some risk to one's mortality.
Yes, yes, yes. Personal protection in the form of meeting aggression with aggression. You're still being aggressive (opposite of passive).
Ok, if I squint enough, I can see your point.
But I think there's a big difference between being aggressive-as-in-starting-trouble and aggressive-as-in-defending-oneself. I think aggression in defense is a very legitimate reason to carry/use a handgun. Aggression, for the point of causing trouble, is certainly not.
Which, of course, is why using handguns to commit a crime is illegal already, and why - at least for the moment - using handguns as a defense mechanism is not. The law has recognized that aggression (as you would define it) is a lawful method of self-defense, and that aggression to commit a crime is not.
I don't know if this is a troll or not, but I'll assume it isn't.
They died for freedom, not because some kid had had enough of being bullied by jocks.
Yes, they died for all freedoms, not just the ones that you support. That includes the freedom to own firearms. And you're right, they did not die for some kid who was bullied by jocks.
Now, having said that, I don't think you'll find a single right-minded gun owner or gun advocate that actually believes children should have unsupervised access to weapons, nor should use them to shoot other people, or commit any of the atrocities that have been happing the past few months/years. I don't think you'll find a single right-minded gun owner who believes that Kleibold and Harris were justified in doing what they did in Columbine, or what that kid did in Santana a few weeks ago, or what that kid did in San Diego just the other day.
Saying, "I want the right to own a firearm," and actually owning a firearm, comes with the responsibility to ensure that the firearm(s) you own do not fall into the hand of people who are not mature enough to handle them (physically, mentally, or emotionally). It comes with the responsibility to store your gun safely so that it cannot be accidentally found and/or discharged.
We don't ban cars when somebody commits murder with one, we prosecute the person who committed the murder and (sometimes) the person who supplied the car (or who gave the person the liquor, or fill-in-the-blank). Let's stop trying to ban guns, and let's start going after the people who abuse/neglect their responsibilities to safeguard their gun from children and thieves.
All things considered, only breaking even on your core business is still not very good.
All things considered, breaking even on your core business after many, many quarters of being in the red is a very good thing (or, at the minimum, a cause for celebration).
It's certainly not making megabucks in profit, but coming from where they've been, it's certainly an accomplishment.
Uh, no. The mere carrying of a gun is not enough to establish aggression, if I have said gun concealed and/or holstered. If you take me to court, and claim that you feel threatened or assaulted because of the mere fact I had a holstered pistol on my person, the judge will laugh at you.
On the other hand, if I make threats ("Why don't you give me a break here?" while pulling aside my jacket to show you the pistol) or threaten you physically with the gun, then I have committed an aggressive action and could very easily wind up in prison.
You had it correct the first time: The use of firearms regardless of whether shots are fired or not is always an aggressive action. Simply carrying a gun is not considered use, though.
Btw, I don't believe in censorship or legislation, but that doesn't mean these women (or in a some cases - men) aren't abused.
I'll grant you all that, but I certainly don't believe that the vast majority of porn stars (at least in the US) are abused. Yes, there may be a case here or there where a porn star is abused or mistreated, but the notion that somebody who participates in porn is automatically a victim of abuse by the mere fact that they participate in porn is nothing more than a crock. Abuse in the US porn industry is more the exception than the rule.
Why do you assume that the vast majority in porn couldn't get abused, when you already acknowledge that children all over the world are abused in sweat-shops just to keep us with cheap shoes? Why is the former not possible when the latter is happening?
Note: as a US citizen, I can only speak for the US porn industry.
For one thing, virtually all porn that is capable of being sold involves adults. Adults, contrary to popular belief, are capable of making informed choices, and that includes the choice of whether or not to participate in the production of pornography (yes, I know it's not quite that easy, but close). I've yet to hear about somebody in the commercial US porn industry who was forced to perform with a gun to their head.
For another thing, the general populace likes to believe that porn is wrong, and will try virtually anything to stop its production. As a result, if there was even a hint that any measurable amount of porn was being produced where the actors/actresses were being forced/coerced into performing, the government would come down on the industry like a ton of bricks. That they haven't, aside from regulating who can perform (gotta be over 18) and where the movies can be sold, tells me that there is no substantial evidence that the porn industry involves non-consenting adults.
MPL was part of NASA's "Better, Cheaper, Faster" program. Although still a bit more than your average cup of coffee, MPL came out to around $265 million USD.
MPL's twin, which is due to be launched soon, has been fitted with some additional safety measures, and as a result its price has grown to around $295 million USD.
you need like 1.5 gigs with SuSe to have a somewhat working installation, with no fancy tools.. and my win installation takes like 400 and I have all tools I need
Do you also consider it obstruction to not allow me to use your living room as a storefront?
Yes.
On the other hand, my living room is not zoned as as a commercial district, so while I won't mind I'm afraid the city council will get their pants in a bunch and probably fine the living crap out of you.
Can't see how you would consider the original post a troll, except that he dares to go against the Slashdot mob party line.
Actually, I consider the original poster a troll because he made no distinction between the copyrighted songs on Napster that have not been permitted to be distributed, and the copyrighted songs on Napster that are allowed to be distributed by the people who recorded them. Not all songs on Napster are copyright violations, you know.
And if some of those CDs that contain music that is freely distributable on Napster are in the CDDB - guess what? That music gets filtered by Napster and doesn't get distributed.
I'd like to see somebody sue on behalf of the artists that Napster - and by extension, the RIAA - have prevented from legally distributing their music.
Seriously, I think the "glowing" is the first stage, so they can track the popluation distribution of the modified bugs much easier. It also makes them readily apparent as gene-spliced organisms, so they are easy to separate from regular bollworms.
Yes, it's a temporary solution. Eventually, the bollworms will come back to the area.
What makes it a good strategy is that it's very organic. It's not intrusive, it's not damaging to the bollworms (would you rather them be irradiated?) or the crops in the region, and it is temporary - which means that, if at a later time people decide the bollworms really weren't all that bad, they just have to wait until all of the sterile bollworms die and then population can begin to grow again.
But how will a sterile anything ever produce sterile offspring?
That's the point. A sterile male can never impregnate a female, and a sterile female can never be impregnated by a male. Hence, the time that an unmodified bollworm has for breeding is wasted, which means that particular bollworm, over the course of its lifetime, produces less children. Then, multiply that by thousands or millions of bollworms, and you have a serious drop in the local bollworm population.
It's not about passing sterile genes on. It's about preventing conception in the first place by tying up all of the breedable bollworms with sterile mates.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... Damn them for making sure other companies are following the law.
The problem isn't making other companies follow the law, it's what constitutes "following the law."
Apparently, the issue is what constitutes a valid Windows license. As a result, there is significant confusion as to whether companies have valid licenses, need upgraded licenses, or how many licenses they need for a particular software installation. Microsoft seems to be in no hurry to clean up confusion, leading to people paying double for software, or outright discontinuing software installation plans when it turns out that they need some outrageously large number of licenses.
Read the article, not the summary, before posting.
--
You may also want to look into Perforce. We use at where I work, and it seems like a very nice system (and it's got some killer features that VSS doesn't have; for one thing, Perforce knows what code has been updated since your last fetch, and will only return that, while VSS has to scan the entire tree in order to return the code; Perforce is significantly faster as a result).
--
I think it is odd that people so often avoid facing up to the fact that using a gun in defence is an act of aggression. If you never question things like that then you'll never ask the question "well, is there another way?".
I guess I look at it like this.
If somebody is threatening my life, there's two outcomes: either I live, or I die. With some method of self-defense (which, yes, can be considered aggression), the odds skew in favor of "I live," because most self-respecting criminals value their lives just as much as I value mine. (This isn't to say that there's no risk of my dying, even after I defend myself, but the odds are skewed towards my survival.)
--
It depends on the scenario, really.
If the mugger had his knife to my throat, I'd be an idiot to try to use my firearm (or to even allow the mugger to discover that I was carrying it).
If the mugger was standing a few yards in front of me, waving his knife, I'd be in a better situation to defend myself (of course, this isn't foolproof either).
Basically, any situation in which you would actually have to draw your gun is a situation that inherently carries some risk to one's mortality.
--
Yes, yes, yes. Personal protection in the form of meeting aggression with aggression. You're still being aggressive (opposite of passive).
Ok, if I squint enough, I can see your point.
But I think there's a big difference between being aggressive-as-in-starting-trouble and aggressive-as-in-defending-oneself. I think aggression in defense is a very legitimate reason to carry/use a handgun. Aggression, for the point of causing trouble, is certainly not.
Which, of course, is why using handguns to commit a crime is illegal already, and why - at least for the moment - using handguns as a defense mechanism is not. The law has recognized that aggression (as you would define it) is a lawful method of self-defense, and that aggression to commit a crime is not.
--
The main argument for gun control is the people who oppose it...
;)
The main argument for the 2nd Amendment is the people who oppose it...
--
I don't know if this is a troll or not, but I'll assume it isn't.
They died for freedom, not because some kid had had enough of being bullied by jocks.
Yes, they died for all freedoms, not just the ones that you support. That includes the freedom to own firearms. And you're right, they did not die for some kid who was bullied by jocks.
Now, having said that, I don't think you'll find a single right-minded gun owner or gun advocate that actually believes children should have unsupervised access to weapons, nor should use them to shoot other people, or commit any of the atrocities that have been happing the past few months/years. I don't think you'll find a single right-minded gun owner who believes that Kleibold and Harris were justified in doing what they did in Columbine, or what that kid did in Santana a few weeks ago, or what that kid did in San Diego just the other day.
Saying, "I want the right to own a firearm," and actually owning a firearm, comes with the responsibility to ensure that the firearm(s) you own do not fall into the hand of people who are not mature enough to handle them (physically, mentally, or emotionally). It comes with the responsibility to store your gun safely so that it cannot be accidentally found and/or discharged.
We don't ban cars when somebody commits murder with one, we prosecute the person who committed the murder and (sometimes) the person who supplied the car (or who gave the person the liquor, or fill-in-the-blank). Let's stop trying to ban guns, and let's start going after the people who abuse/neglect their responsibilities to safeguard their gun from children and thieves.
--
Just think of all the people who died so that you could have the 'right' to make sarcastic comments about gun control.
--
All things considered, only breaking even on your core business is still not very good.
All things considered, breaking even on your core business after many, many quarters of being in the red is a very good thing (or, at the minimum, a cause for celebration).
It's certainly not making megabucks in profit, but coming from where they've been, it's certainly an accomplishment.
--
Move to a decent country, where carrying a pistol is properly illegal, and the violent idiots who carry them are put away for good.
See, it's only a good troll if you bring up some other topic that is only peripherally related to the original one.
Simply rephrasing the original troll statement, especially after it's been debunked, only makes you look like an amateur.
--
What? Do you polish it or something? What the hell other sort of use has a gun than aggression?
Personal protection.
Or should I let the mugger with the knife stab me, rather than defend myself?
--
Carrying a gun is aggressive
Uh, no. The mere carrying of a gun is not enough to establish aggression, if I have said gun concealed and/or holstered. If you take me to court, and claim that you feel threatened or assaulted because of the mere fact I had a holstered pistol on my person, the judge will laugh at you.
On the other hand, if I make threats ("Why don't you give me a break here?" while pulling aside my jacket to show you the pistol) or threaten you physically with the gun, then I have committed an aggressive action and could very easily wind up in prison.
You had it correct the first time: The use of firearms regardless of whether shots are fired or not is always an aggressive action. Simply carrying a gun is not considered use, though.
--
Btw, I don't believe in censorship or legislation, but that doesn't mean these women (or in a some cases - men) aren't abused.
I'll grant you all that, but I certainly don't believe that the vast majority of porn stars (at least in the US) are abused. Yes, there may be a case here or there where a porn star is abused or mistreated, but the notion that somebody who participates in porn is automatically a victim of abuse by the mere fact that they participate in porn is nothing more than a crock. Abuse in the US porn industry is more the exception than the rule.
--
Hence my reason for prefacing my comments with: Note: as a US citizen, I can only speak for the US porn industry.
--
Remember, in legal terms "effective" doesn't mean what it means in the "real world". Look at the DMCA and how its "effective" copyright controls
Actually, "effectively" as used in the DMCA does not mean, "is good at." "Effectively" in the DMCA means "has the effect of."
--
How dare you use use logic against a kneejerk reaction. You've got some nerve, buddy. ;)
--
Why do you assume that the vast majority in porn couldn't get abused, when you already acknowledge that children all over the world are abused in sweat-shops just to keep us with cheap shoes? Why is the former not possible when the latter is happening?
Note: as a US citizen, I can only speak for the US porn industry.
For one thing, virtually all porn that is capable of being sold involves adults. Adults, contrary to popular belief, are capable of making informed choices, and that includes the choice of whether or not to participate in the production of pornography (yes, I know it's not quite that easy, but close). I've yet to hear about somebody in the commercial US porn industry who was forced to perform with a gun to their head.
For another thing, the general populace likes to believe that porn is wrong, and will try virtually anything to stop its production. As a result, if there was even a hint that any measurable amount of porn was being produced where the actors/actresses were being forced/coerced into performing, the government would come down on the industry like a ton of bricks. That they haven't, aside from regulating who can perform (gotta be over 18) and where the movies can be sold, tells me that there is no substantial evidence that the porn industry involves non-consenting adults.
--
MPL was part of NASA's "Better, Cheaper, Faster" program. Although still a bit more than your average cup of coffee, MPL came out to around $265 million USD.
MPL's twin, which is due to be launched soon, has been fitted with some additional safety measures, and as a result its price has grown to around $295 million USD.
--
you need like 1.5 gigs with SuSe to have a somewhat working installation, with no fancy tools .. and my win installation takes like 400 and I have all tools I need
What do you consider the tools that you need?
--
Do you also consider it obstruction to not allow me to use your living room as a storefront?
Yes.
On the other hand, my living room is not zoned as as a commercial district, so while I won't mind I'm afraid the city council will get their pants in a bunch and probably fine the living crap out of you.
--
Can't see how you would consider the original post a troll, except that he dares to go against the Slashdot mob party line.
Actually, I consider the original poster a troll because he made no distinction between the copyrighted songs on Napster that have not been permitted to be distributed, and the copyrighted songs on Napster that are allowed to be distributed by the people who recorded them. Not all songs on Napster are copyright violations, you know.
And if some of those CDs that contain music that is freely distributable on Napster are in the CDDB - guess what? That music gets filtered by Napster and doesn't get distributed.
I'd like to see somebody sue on behalf of the artists that Napster - and by extension, the RIAA - have prevented from legally distributing their music.
--
My bad, then.
:)
Of course, either approach works.
--
Why not? :)
Seriously, I think the "glowing" is the first stage, so they can track the popluation distribution of the modified bugs much easier. It also makes them readily apparent as gene-spliced organisms, so they are easy to separate from regular bollworms.
--
Yes, it's a temporary solution. Eventually, the bollworms will come back to the area.
What makes it a good strategy is that it's very organic. It's not intrusive, it's not damaging to the bollworms (would you rather them be irradiated?) or the crops in the region, and it is temporary - which means that, if at a later time people decide the bollworms really weren't all that bad, they just have to wait until all of the sterile bollworms die and then population can begin to grow again.
--
But how will a sterile anything ever produce sterile offspring?
That's the point. A sterile male can never impregnate a female, and a sterile female can never be impregnated by a male. Hence, the time that an unmodified bollworm has for breeding is wasted, which means that particular bollworm, over the course of its lifetime, produces less children. Then, multiply that by thousands or millions of bollworms, and you have a serious drop in the local bollworm population.
It's not about passing sterile genes on. It's about preventing conception in the first place by tying up all of the breedable bollworms with sterile mates.
--