I 100% agree that PJ will accept nothing but yes-men. Anything that does not follow the groklaw party line 100% is deleted. PJ is even known to delete accounts for what people posts on other boards.
You will not find meaningful discussion on groklaw anymore, I can assure you of that.
'Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual.'
Okay, please be specific about where and how the arguement is "off base" and "weak." I don't care who considers Pertrovsky a troll. I want specific facts.
It's not a matter of whether PJ has the legal right to delete the posts she doesn't like. It's matter of groklaw being unfair and biased to the point of being worthless.
PJ doesn't just delete trolls, obscene posts, and posts that are intended to insult. PJ will delete anything that doesn't suck-up to the groklaw party line.
On groklaw, there is no real discussion. It's a big circle-jerk. And it's too bad, because groklaw used to be a really great site.
Among others were doing action/adventure movies well into their 60's. Arnold and Sly, into their late 50's. So what's the big deal?
However, I think that if they are going to use another actor for Indy, it should be during a different period in Indy's life. Like when Indy was in late teens or early 20's.
Is there a chance that IBM wants to re-invent the PC? If you remember, IBM has recently gotten together with redhat and novell, to discuss providing a more open architechture - based on the PowerPC.
Maybe IBM doesn't want to be another bit player in the wintell dual-opoly. Maybe IBM figures that the desktop game is a dead end, unless there is alternative strong enough to effectively compete against the windows/x86 desktop standard.
IBM is about the only company with the juice to possibly set another desktop standard.
Except in extreme cases, where software can not be installed, or the system won't even boot. Other than those cases, can't anybody install and run adaware, or whatever?
The parent post opitimizes the msft line of BS - to the letter. Of course it's all cr@p. I strongly expect the entire story was a work of fiction - with an agenda.
But the public won't learn about scox's activities
on
SCO.com Defaced
·
· Score: 1
The pop-media has been hugely pro-scox. Poor little scox, just trying to protect their valuable IP from big mean IBM. I have not seen one pop-media that really tells it like is, regarding scox's dozens of outright lies.
What the public *will* learn about is those filthy FOSS thieving hackers breaking into scox's site. Not bad enough that Linux users are stealing scox's valuable IP; they break into scox web-site just because poor little scox just tries to protect their code.
> If you get a high salary from a stable company and are a competent worker then you have little to fear.
Biggest load of cr@p I've ever read. Was AT&T a stable company five years ago? How about the IBM Boca Raton plant 10 years ago? Here in Denver, the General Dynamics office where I worked went from about 80 people, to about 35, because of one lost contract. I could go on and on.
No, Virgina, a big company, does not mean job security in today's job market. And the highest paid are usually the first to go.
Re:Top Five reasons - all completely wrong
on
Apollo 12 at 35
·
· Score: 1
5. The world population doubles every 40 years. Eventually, we will have to either expand across other planets or enforce population control.
Wrong. Human population growth has not been linear throughout human history. Starting around 1946, the human population grew explosively *way* more than doubling within 40 years. Before that, human population was much more stable. Anyway, traveling to the moon is one helluva long way from inhabiting another planet.
4. Every dollar invested in NASA pays off seven dollars in terms of technological development for the US economy.
This may have been true in the 1950s, I very much doubt it's true today. I would love to see some evidence to support that assertion.
3. We must expand from Earth to escape the threat of civilization-ending natural disasters, like a supervolcano, which could lower global temperatures below freezing for years. The chance of dying in a civilization-ending event is 1/455. Not to be grim, but that's 10 times more likely than dying in an commercial aircraft.
All six billion of us suddenly escape? That would be a neat trick.
2. Scientific Exploration: Learning more about the universe around us will teach us more about our own world, ourselves, and our origins.
But manned space travel is inefficent way to do that.
1. To provide the sense of progress which yields human happiness. No one likes stagnation. I can think of nothing more repulsive than the idea that in 200 years we could still be Earth-bound.
There are better ways to provide a sense of progress - how about a cure for cancer?
Apparently medical examiners all look like fashion models, and work in upscale trendy high-rise offices - filled to the brim with all sorts of super-zowie high-tech gadgetry. The M.E.'s are constantly investigate crime sceens, and interregating suspects.
I had no idea it worked like that.
But I shouldn't be surprised. According to TV and movies, all female scientists and doctors are babes. And they're all single.
> the writing in any movie is far more important than the visuals
If I could get just one message to Hollywood, that would be it. First you need a story - after that, you can add explosions, big name actors, special effects, whatever. But, if you don't have a great story - you don't have a great movie.
Look at the movie "Life is Beautiful" totally low budget, no big special effects or anything like that. But it was a great movie because it had a great story.
Hollywood needs to get a clue. Spend one tenth as much on writing as on special effects, and movies will be so much better.
But, it's usually not a patented "product" it's an idea, like double-clicking a mouse. There's a bahzillion patents for stuff like that, how do you get around them all without a full-time legal team?
I use yahoo email. It's okay, but the spam checking feature sucks.
It seems to work in almost arbitrary fashion. It never "learns" like it is supposed to. No matter how many times I indicate that certain senders are not spam, or that certain senders are spam, yahoo files emails from certain senders in "bulk mail" other in my standard inbox.
Since I have to check both my "bulk mail" and inbox anyway; there is little benefit to yahoo's spam checking. I appreciate the effort, But, it doesn't work well enough to be very helpful.
$16.6MM is nothing to msft, that wouldn't pay for half a comercial, msft makes more than that in interest everyday.
Even the $3 billion or so that msft has paid in the last year due to msft's crimminal activities are nothing to msft - just the cost of doing business. A very small price to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been reading groklaw for about 18 months.
I 100% agree that PJ will accept nothing but yes-men. Anything that does not follow the groklaw party line 100% is deleted. PJ is even known to delete accounts for what people posts on other boards.
You will not find meaningful discussion on groklaw anymore, I can assure you of that.
You said:
'Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual.'
Okay, please be specific about where and how the arguement is "off base" and "weak." I don't care who considers Pertrovsky a troll. I want specific facts.
Thank you for your reply.
It's not a matter of whether PJ has the legal right to delete the posts she doesn't like. It's matter of groklaw being unfair and biased to the point of being worthless.
PJ doesn't just delete trolls, obscene posts, and posts that are intended to insult. PJ will delete anything that doesn't suck-up to the groklaw party line.
On groklaw, there is no real discussion. It's a big circle-jerk. And it's too bad, because groklaw used to be a really great site.
I don't know if the first sequel "Temple of Doom" would fit.
-Nazis
not that I remember.
-A comicbookly evil anti-Indy archaeologist
maybe at the very beginning. I don't remember any after that.
-Snakes
not sure I remember those either.
-A famous artifact that has some ridiculously un-historic killing power
Don't know about the "famous" part.
Among others were doing action/adventure movies well into their 60's. Arnold and Sly, into their late 50's. So what's the big deal?
However, I think that if they are going to use another actor for Indy, it should be during a different period in Indy's life. Like when Indy was in late teens or early 20's.
It's not the years, it's the milage.
Is there a chance that IBM wants to re-invent the PC? If you remember, IBM has recently gotten together with redhat and novell, to discuss providing a more open architechture - based on the PowerPC.
Maybe IBM doesn't want to be another bit player in the wintell dual-opoly. Maybe IBM figures that the desktop game is a dead end, unless there is alternative strong enough to effectively compete against the windows/x86 desktop standard.
IBM is about the only company with the juice to possibly set another desktop standard.
Except in extreme cases, where software can not be installed, or the system won't even boot. Other than those cases, can't anybody install and run adaware, or whatever?
But he doesn't much about the inner workings of his computer. Is he a lazy, uniformed moron?
Certainly a hero to much of the open source community.
The parent post opitimizes the msft line of BS - to the letter. Of course it's all cr@p. I strongly expect the entire story was a work of fiction - with an agenda.
JMHO.
I forget which levels.
The pop-media has been hugely pro-scox. Poor little scox, just trying to protect their valuable IP from big mean IBM. I have not seen one pop-media that really tells it like is, regarding scox's dozens of outright lies.
What the public *will* learn about is those filthy FOSS thieving hackers breaking into scox's site. Not bad enough that Linux users are stealing scox's valuable IP; they break into scox web-site just because poor little scox just tries to protect their code.
I think that much of IBM's strategy is based on Linux. As such, IBM may step up to defend it's own interest in Linux.
I don't think msft wants as legal fight with IBM.
The company has lied to you, and offered you no security. Treat them like they treat you.
>
If you get a high salary from a stable company and are a competent worker then you have little to fear.
Biggest load of cr@p I've ever read. Was AT&T a stable company five years ago? How about the IBM Boca Raton plant 10 years ago? Here in Denver, the General Dynamics office where I worked went from about 80 people, to about 35, because of one lost contract. I could go on and on.
No, Virgina, a big company, does not mean job security in today's job market. And the highest paid are usually the first to go.
5. The world population doubles every 40 years. Eventually, we will have to either expand across other planets or enforce population control.
Wrong. Human population growth has not been linear throughout human history. Starting around 1946, the human population grew explosively *way* more than doubling within 40 years. Before that, human population was much more stable. Anyway, traveling to the moon is one helluva long way from inhabiting another planet.
4. Every dollar invested in NASA pays off seven dollars in terms of technological development for the US economy.
This may have been true in the 1950s, I very much doubt it's true today. I would love to see some evidence to support that assertion.
3. We must expand from Earth to escape the threat of civilization-ending natural disasters, like a supervolcano, which could lower global temperatures below freezing for years. The chance of dying in a civilization-ending event is 1/455. Not to be grim, but that's 10 times more likely than dying in an commercial aircraft.
All six billion of us suddenly escape? That would be a neat trick.
2. Scientific Exploration: Learning more about the universe around us will teach us more about our own world, ourselves, and our origins.
But manned space travel is inefficent way to do that.
1. To provide the sense of progress which yields human happiness. No one likes stagnation. I can think of nothing more repulsive than the idea that in 200 years we could still be Earth-bound.
There are better ways to provide a sense of progress - how about a cure for cancer?
participate?
I'm not sure that makes sense.
Apparently medical examiners all look like fashion models, and work in upscale trendy high-rise offices - filled to the brim with all sorts of super-zowie high-tech gadgetry. The M.E.'s are constantly investigate crime sceens, and interregating suspects.
I had no idea it worked like that.
But I shouldn't be surprised. According to TV and movies, all female scientists and doctors are babes. And they're all single.
eom.
> the writing in any movie is far more important than the visuals
If I could get just one message to Hollywood, that would be it. First you need a story - after that, you can add explosions, big name actors, special effects, whatever. But, if you don't have a great story - you don't have a great movie.
Look at the movie "Life is Beautiful" totally low budget, no big special effects or anything like that. But it was a great movie because it had a great story.
Hollywood needs to get a clue. Spend one tenth as much on writing as on special effects, and movies will be so much better.
But, it's usually not a patented "product" it's an idea, like double-clicking a mouse. There's a bahzillion patents for stuff like that, how do you get around them all without a full-time legal team?
I use yahoo email. It's okay, but the spam checking feature sucks.
It seems to work in almost arbitrary fashion. It never "learns" like it is supposed to. No matter how many times I indicate that certain senders are not spam, or that certain senders are spam, yahoo files emails from certain senders in "bulk mail" other in my standard inbox.
Since I have to check both my "bulk mail" and inbox anyway; there is little benefit to yahoo's spam checking. I appreciate the effort, But, it doesn't work well enough to be very helpful.
Not much SysV in AIX either. But that hasn't stopped scox from suing.
If SysV code is all that super-secret; then how is it okay for one company to open-source it, but not another?
$16.6MM is nothing to msft, that wouldn't pay for half a comercial, msft makes more than that in interest everyday.
Even the $3 billion or so that msft has paid in the last year due to msft's crimminal activities are nothing to msft - just the cost of doing business. A very small price to pay.
Caldera changed their name to scox about three years ago. The new "scox" is based in Lindon Utah, not Santa Cruz.