Yes, I suppose you're right. When you dodge the truth, you'll usually be caught once your words are scrutinized. It's rather inaccurate to call it a witchhunt since Clinton, unlike the accused girls in Salem, actually was guilty.
OK, I'll bite. I usually don't respond to people who use childish name calling, but the fact is that I am right.
In the past few months I've talked with numerous (25-30) dissenters, some who are active protesters, some who are more passive. I've found that most of them are more anti-Bush than anti-war (you also seem to fit into this category).
I haven't found a single dissenter who protested the bombing of Kosovo or Clinton's missile attacks on Iraq. Yet now they all claim to simply love peace and that war is never the answer. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
It's true that there are people who blindly support Bush (I did not vote for him). It's also true that many people supported Clinton despite the shame he brought upon the presidency. The main problem I have with the dissenters is that they don't "form a thought of their own". Yes, that is painting with broad strokes, but when you hear the same words from dozens of supposedly free-thinking people, you do start to wonder if they share a brain.
I'd say the Republican's have done a very poor job of managing the economy since they took over.
I'd say that you overestimate the government influence on the economy. The government can nudge and even push the economy at times, it can't drag it from recession to prosperity. Also, if you study the stock market, you'll notice the downward trend startied in the middle of 2000, when Clinton was still President.
I'm curious, could you name the major accomplishments of Bill Clinton? I'm not talking about events that coincided with his presidency, like the economy. Provide the top ten if possible.
That's right, a Democrat signed the DCMA. It was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, which obviously means not a single Democrat voted against it. Yet you somehow believe it's the fault of the Republicans?
As for eradicating intellectual dissenters in the US, that should be a rather easy task since I've seen so few. Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense. It's rare that they use facts to back up their arguments, instead relying on the tired "War for Oil" and "Bush = Hitler" mantra.
The proposed MA (massachusetts) one is slightly less worse
Just a nitpick: What's the point of using the abbreviation for Massachusetts immediately followed by the full name? I always though that the whole point of abbreviations was to conserve writing and reading time. Note that "MA" is never used again in the post.
If I pay Pedro's Lawn Care 50 bucks a week to spray *this* lawn, it doesn't matter if I move away. If I pay Pedro's Lawn Care 50 bucks to spray *my* lawn, then the defintion of *my* lawn comes into effect.
What if I move to a new house that's one street over? Does Pedro have to spray the old lawn, the new lawn, or is he free to keep whatever money was left on the contract without providing service?
If it states this lawn, he'd probably have to spray the old lawn.
If it states my lawn, he'd probably have to spray the new lawn. This is assuming I don't move so far away that this is impractical.
If it states my lawn at this specific address, I'm not sure what happens. I just doubt that he's free to keep the money without providing service.
A home mortgage analogy may be more appropriate, but it still doesn't hold. If I sell a house that I've paid $200K out of an original mortgage of $300K, I'll have to settle the remaining $100K. I get whatever the selling price is minus $100K.
If you apply the Microsoft license situation to a mortgage, it might happen like this:
I choose to sell my house to my brother for $1 (I'm a very nice guy, but want to avoid gift tax). As above, I've already paid $200K, so I settle the remaining $100K. The bank now decides that my brother must also pay them $300K for the house even though its been paid in full. The bank makes out like a bandit. Is this perfectly acceptable?
Actually your analogy also has serious flaws. The companies in the posted article weren't trying to terminate the contract, they were simply transferring it to new owners. In many cases it would be the same person using the computer, just under a different company name.
If John Smith changes his name to John Jones, does Sprint PCS force an "acceleration" of the original contract and then make John Jones sign a new contract? No, that would be absurd. However, if a computer that once was part of Company X is now part of Company Z, the contract must be paid in full, yet Company Z must now also purchase a new contract.
The main reason your analofy doesn't hold up is because the situation are just too different. Cell phone contracts are relatively short (1-2 years) and inexpensive ($25-50/month) compared to software licenses. There's also numerous companies who offer very similar service. Microsoft is the only company who sells Windows XP, 2003 Server, etc. You can't go "somewhere else" unless you plan on migrating away from MS entirely. This is usually far too expensive, it's not at all like switching cell service. I do agree that companies need to read the contract much more carefully, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly status.
If I sign a 4 year maintanaince contract with Pedros lawn care, I have to keep paying even if I move and the new owners dont want them running around the yard spraying pesticide.
That's a rather poor analogy. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
- Pedro demands the contract be paid in full prior to moving.
- Pedro then refuses to care for the lawn even though the new owners want the service.
- The new owners are forced to buy their own lawn care contract.
There's also the flip side to this. Last summer, the Northeast had some brutal heatwaves, it was over 90 degrees F for at least a week. The newspapers had numerous letters to the editor snidely asking "Still don't believe in global warming?". These people have been strangely silent this winter, one of the coldest on record. The point is that people on both sides of the argument make judgments based on anecdotal evidence. It's not just the "brain-dead hicks", it's also the "highly-educated liberals".
Exactly, that's where the line is drawn. No one expects the Onion's photos to depict the truth. It's very rare that a photo isn't photoshopped or used out of context in the Onion. Everyone expects that a photo in the LA Times is accurate and unaltered (unless otherwise stated).
I can understand how a journalist could forget that though, considering how easy it is to modify photos.
It's true that altering photos is not very difficult, especially for a professional. However, it's certainly not so easy that a journalist could just "forget" that he modified a photo to suit his purpose. It's not like he simply embellished the story a bit by using certain phrases. He willfully and knowingly changed a photo so that it no longer reflected the truth. That's not acceptable for a journalist and he was punished accordingly.
While I can certainly see legitimate uses of each of those things, they do seem rather questionable. Even if you're using these methods for the right reasons, I'd suspect that many people aren't. The real debate is whether a law prohibiting these activities is necessary. I believe that in virtually all cases, the answer is no.
0rrsn Hi, I'm wondering if you think there's a future for ROT13. I've heard it's pretty secure...
You can read this? Damn!
Cnhy:
Ubyl pbj! While you may have figured out my super-secret ROT13 cipher, nobody will ever crack *this* message because I switched to our ultra-secret plan B: applying a Caeser cipher 13 times:-).
An empty password will pass this check because the code uses the length of the user entry, not the length of the correct password. Other potential problems (buffer overflows, etc.) are left as an exercise for the reader. [Shameless plug: If you enjoy problems like this, have strong security experience, communicate well, and want a job at a fun (and profitable) company, visit http://www.cryptography.com/company/careers.html.]
I believe WWII should have also taught some lessons about appeasement and the consequences of ignoring problems until they become too difficult to handle alone. Peace is not defined simply by the abscence of war.
And, FYI, time may very well prove you a moron too. Ever heard of the Who? Who you say? The Who to you too. Gee, that would have made a bad website name though, can't search on that, that would never work blah blah piss off.
The Who had no knowledge of search engines or web sites when they created their name. I'm sure there were problems when people first tried to buy Who albums. Exchanges in records stores between customers and clerks probably turned into Abbott and Costello routines quite often.
"There" is completely aware of the way search engines work. Sure, Google returns There.com as the first result, but try finding a review or other info on them. They may suceed despite the name, but not because of it.
Stop being so difficult. Michael raised a valid point, there wasn't any need to lash out at him (or me).
Before you start calling people morons, consider these points:
- It's usually wise to read reviews of a product before you purchase it.
- There.com is not the ideal site to find an unbiased review.
- It's difficult to search for reviews of "There" because of the huge number of matches.
- Most reviews will not call the service "There.com" if the actual name is "There".
- Therefore, it will be difficult to locate reviews and other information on "There" using Google or other search engines.
I don't believe the original author meant that it was 100% absolutely impossible to search for "There". The point is that it's not the best name for a product and this could hurt its chances of suceeding.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I suppose you're right. When you dodge the truth, you'll usually be caught once your words are scrutinized. It's rather inaccurate to call it a witchhunt since Clinton, unlike the accused girls in Salem, actually was guilty.
OK, I'll bite. I usually don't respond to people who use childish name calling, but the fact is that I am right.
In the past few months I've talked with numerous (25-30) dissenters, some who are active protesters, some who are more passive. I've found that most of them are more anti-Bush than anti-war (you also seem to fit into this category).
I haven't found a single dissenter who protested the bombing of Kosovo or Clinton's missile attacks on Iraq. Yet now they all claim to simply love peace and that war is never the answer. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
It's true that there are people who blindly support Bush (I did not vote for him). It's also true that many people supported Clinton despite the shame he brought upon the presidency. The main problem I have with the dissenters is that they don't "form a thought of their own". Yes, that is painting with broad strokes, but when you hear the same words from dozens of supposedly free-thinking people, you do start to wonder if they share a brain.
I'd say the Republican's have done a very poor job of managing the economy since they took over.
I'd say that you overestimate the government influence on the economy. The government can nudge and even push the economy at times, it can't drag it from recession to prosperity. Also, if you study the stock market, you'll notice the downward trend startied in the middle of 2000, when Clinton was still President.
I'm curious, could you name the major accomplishments of Bill Clinton? I'm not talking about events that coincided with his presidency, like the economy. Provide the top ten if possible.
Clinton may have passed the DMCA...
That's right, a Democrat signed the DCMA. It was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, which obviously means not a single Democrat voted against it. Yet you somehow believe it's the fault of the Republicans?
As for eradicating intellectual dissenters in the US, that should be a rather easy task since I've seen so few. Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense. It's rare that they use facts to back up their arguments, instead relying on the tired "War for Oil" and "Bush = Hitler" mantra.
The proposed MA (massachusetts) one is slightly less worse
Just a nitpick: What's the point of using the abbreviation for Massachusetts immediately followed by the full name? I always though that the whole point of abbreviations was to conserve writing and reading time. Note that "MA" is never used again in the post.
Hmmm... Perhaps these new words are a million time longer?
If I pay Pedro's Lawn Care 50 bucks a week to spray *this* lawn, it doesn't matter if I move away. If I pay Pedro's Lawn Care 50 bucks to spray *my* lawn, then the defintion of *my* lawn comes into effect.
What if I move to a new house that's one street over? Does Pedro have to spray the old lawn, the new lawn, or is he free to keep whatever money was left on the contract without providing service?
If it states this lawn, he'd probably have to spray the old lawn.
If it states my lawn, he'd probably have to spray the new lawn. This is assuming I don't move so far away that this is impractical.
If it states my lawn at this specific address, I'm not sure what happens. I just doubt that he's free to keep the money without providing service.
A home mortgage analogy may be more appropriate, but it still doesn't hold. If I sell a house that I've paid $200K out of an original mortgage of $300K, I'll have to settle the remaining $100K. I get whatever the selling price is minus $100K.
If you apply the Microsoft license situation to a mortgage, it might happen like this:
I choose to sell my house to my brother for $1 (I'm a very nice guy, but want to avoid gift tax). As above, I've already paid $200K, so I settle the remaining $100K. The bank now decides that my brother must also pay them $300K for the house even though its been paid in full. The bank makes out like a bandit. Is this perfectly acceptable?
Actually your analogy also has serious flaws. The companies in the posted article weren't trying to terminate the contract, they were simply transferring it to new owners. In many cases it would be the same person using the computer, just under a different company name.
If John Smith changes his name to John Jones, does Sprint PCS force an "acceleration" of the original contract and then make John Jones sign a new contract? No, that would be absurd. However, if a computer that once was part of Company X is now part of Company Z, the contract must be paid in full, yet Company Z must now also purchase a new contract.
The main reason your analofy doesn't hold up is because the situation are just too different. Cell phone contracts are relatively short (1-2 years) and inexpensive ($25-50/month) compared to software licenses. There's also numerous companies who offer very similar service. Microsoft is the only company who sells Windows XP, 2003 Server, etc. You can't go "somewhere else" unless you plan on migrating away from MS entirely. This is usually far too expensive, it's not at all like switching cell service. I do agree that companies need to read the contract much more carefully, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly status.
If I sign a 4 year maintanaince contract with Pedros lawn care, I have to keep paying even if I move and the new owners dont want them running around the yard spraying pesticide.
That's a rather poor analogy. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
- Pedro demands the contract be paid in full prior to moving.
- Pedro then refuses to care for the lawn even though the new owners want the service.
- The new owners are forced to buy their own lawn care contract.
What self respecting Tivo owner has less than two computers?
I'm on welfare, you insensitive clod!
There's also the flip side to this. Last summer, the Northeast had some brutal heatwaves, it was over 90 degrees F for at least a week. The newspapers had numerous letters to the editor snidely asking "Still don't believe in global warming?". These people have been strangely silent this winter, one of the coldest on record. The point is that people on both sides of the argument make judgments based on anecdotal evidence. It's not just the "brain-dead hicks", it's also the "highly-educated liberals".
Exactly, that's where the line is drawn. No one expects the Onion's photos to depict the truth. It's very rare that a photo isn't photoshopped or used out of context in the Onion. Everyone expects that a photo in the LA Times is accurate and unaltered (unless otherwise stated).
I can understand how a journalist could forget that though, considering how easy it is to modify photos.
It's true that altering photos is not very difficult, especially for a professional. However, it's certainly not so easy that a journalist could just "forget" that he modified a photo to suit his purpose. It's not like he simply embellished the story a bit by using certain phrases. He willfully and knowingly changed a photo so that it no longer reflected the truth. That's not acceptable for a journalist and he was punished accordingly.
Implies? He did alter the photo, and it did change both its content and context. This is punishment for a rules violation, not a "pre-emptive strike".
While I can certainly see legitimate uses of each of those things, they do seem rather questionable. Even if you're using these methods for the right reasons, I'd suspect that many people aren't. The real debate is whether a law prohibiting these activities is necessary. I believe that in virtually all cases, the answer is no.
Or planes and helicopters could fly at altitudes over 100 feet. Very unlikely to hit a power line 10 stories high in the middle of Iraq.
Question 10:
:-).
0rrsn Hi, I'm wondering if you think there's a future for ROT13. I've heard it's pretty secure...
You can read this? Damn!
Cnhy:
Ubyl pbj! While you may have figured out my super-secret ROT13 cipher, nobody will ever crack *this* message because I switched to our ultra-secret plan B: applying a Caeser cipher 13 times
ROT13 Spoiler:
]
An empty password will pass this check because the code uses the length of the user entry, not the length of the correct password. Other potential problems (buffer overflows, etc.) are left as an exercise for the reader. [Shameless plug: If you enjoy problems like this, have strong security experience, communicate well, and want a job at a fun (and profitable) company, visit http://www.cryptography.com/company/careers.html.
Good for you.
I believe WWII should have also taught some lessons about appeasement and the consequences of ignoring problems until they become too difficult to handle alone. Peace is not defined simply by the abscence of war.
And, FYI, time may very well prove you a moron too. Ever heard of the Who? Who you say? The Who to you too. Gee, that would have made a bad website name though, can't search on that, that would never work blah blah piss off.
The Who had no knowledge of search engines or web sites when they created their name. I'm sure there were problems when people first tried to buy Who albums. Exchanges in records stores between customers and clerks probably turned into Abbott and Costello routines quite often.
"There" is completely aware of the way search engines work. Sure, Google returns There.com as the first result, but try finding a review or other info on them. They may suceed despite the name, but not because of it.
Stop being so difficult. Michael raised a valid point, there wasn't any need to lash out at him (or me).
Before you start calling people morons, consider these points:
- It's usually wise to read reviews of a product before you purchase it.
- There.com is not the ideal site to find an unbiased review.
- It's difficult to search for reviews of "There" because of the huge number of matches.
- Most reviews will not call the service "There.com" if the actual name is "There".
- Therefore, it will be difficult to locate reviews and other information on "There" using Google or other search engines.
I don't believe the original author meant that it was 100% absolutely impossible to search for "There". The point is that it's not the best name for a product and this could hurt its chances of suceeding.
I'm sorry everyone, but global warming is caused by my Nvidia FX card.
No, that's local warming.
Yeah, local to Earth.
Maybe it's just me, but I refuse to put something as noisy and hot as a jet engine in my case.