Right, following recommended partition sizes with a little more for growth. The point of the fat32 was as I said, to allow file transfer between window and linux. The home partition was to try and deal with experience in having to lose my data when upgrading on various default installs.
There was nothing fancy I did with these, as the minumum was stated and I was even presented with a list of common partition possibilities, consistant with linux installs.
I simply did not want to put it all on one partition, neither does most any admin.
Other than partition choice above it was all a default install.
If there are hardware issues that require having the perfect hardware than I must have missed something as I thought development was done world wide and very NOT likely to have the same hardware for all Devs.
Its interesting how the blame is always put first on the user or something other then where the cause really is, which only adds to the user frustration level.
All in all, I'd say the post this is a response to is more a flame than intent to try and understand so that can be improved.
The partition software is not ubuntu specific, but perhaps how ubuntu uses the information is. I only know that the partitions were not used as I defined them. Perhaps there was some assignment failure in some script.... I only know it didn't work right.
I'm now running a system that has two installations of ubuntu on it. 6.06 lts decuided it wasn't going to allow me to log on anymore, so on another drive I installed 6.10 and used the recommended partition sizes. Later it decided it wouldn't let me load xwindows so I was stuck in a shell trying to figure out what going on.
I had a fat32 partition so to move files between ubuntu and windows, a swao partition, a root partition and a home partition. But something went haywire, the system got confused as to which partition was to be used for what. I got locked out of xwindows because the root partition ran out of space, though I gave it a bit more than it said it needed. Seems it was using the root partition for home too, ignoring the much larger home partition and the fat32 partition had a problem too, I don't recall ATM exactly but it ended up having some files on it but I don't think I was able to access it or something.
I was able to get xwindows working by deleating some files
I figured some of this out using dynebolic but eventually decided to just reinstall ubuntu 6.10 and this is where I discovered the home partition wasn't being used at all. I left the fat32 partition and made the home partition and root partition just one partition for root.
I still haven't dug into trying to fix 6.06 lts, as Its still on the system, as a slave drive.
Come to think of it, I have another system that has two or three knoppix installs on it, for what ever the reason one stopped working...or maybe it was not having an upgrade from one version to the next without a wiped drive and I didn't want to lose my files... Which is why I haven't just wiped the ubuntu 6.06 lts drive.
But having two versions of ubuntu stop booting all the way in such a short time had in affect on my fandom of ubuntu.
As a matter of upgrading a linux system, it seems a clean install is the typical method. And as such there really should be a better way to insure a users files don't get sacrificed (the point of trying to use the home partition.)
Oh damn, I forgot what it is called. But it starts out:
First you are ignored Then you are laughed at Then.. etc..
We need to add the price babel to it as its obvious that as Linux gets better and better, this arguement will be an obvious line of bull too. Just like the former responces at earlier stages.
Lets face it, the nature of the development of GNU/Linux is that it is going to be hands down the best all around system.
As a product line, it'll alway be younger than MS product line.
What it is really saying is how stupid those who are promoting it really are. Or maybe they are just being deceptive, mostly to themselves.
Guess what, I just shared a file... the one this message is contained in. what method of sharing has nothing to do with any arguement.
I've recently used FTP to download, http to download, even ssh to edit my own site which is sharing files eveytime someone access it.
I have also used bittorrent recently to download dynebolic and other linux distros as well as watched and saved some videos from youtube.
I've sent some CDs (linux) to friends, etc...
So My question is when are we going to take the computers away from those who preceive them and their use to be bad? And lets niot for get about their cars too.....
It's in alot more then soda and it is even now being put into bread that you probably were buying before it was added.
cheap by-product sweetner that adds as much a 1/3" to your triglicerid count (translates into fat)
You can drop your weight by simply removing it from your diet. I lost 30 pounds in less then three months that way and others I've told have lost weight for removing it from their diet.
With the many distributions out there and the only ones really knowing about linux generically, even as a newbee, they probably already have enough info to do it themselves, given some of todays distros.
It seems the main support issue is getting a newbee aware of what support is already out there and how to productively use it.
And then there are such distros like the dynebolic distro. With this type of approach Dell or whoever selling hardware can safely lock down or narrow their scope of support (as a trade off they might better support the dev side). And they can as well make available software upgrades for free, a matter of download and perhaps CD (a trade off cost of limited support savings)
"We support the system as it is presented to you, and have as fully tested it on our hardware as is reasonable." Should you alter beyond our supported add in modules, we will not be able to provide the level of support you might expect from us. However you are of course free to communicate with distro and other available support channels outside of our support limits"
All in all, I however have had enough frustration with the computer industry in general and given to the upgrading of the masses for the next best system, there is plenty of free hardware to pick up from toss out and help the environment. I only now just make minor purchases of computer related hardware.
So sorry Dell, I won't be buying from you and I do understand the problem you face with such questionairs. As the most likely ones to respond are also the ones who are fully capable of simply getting a no-os system from you and installing whatever operating system it that they want.
So its really just a "software support" issue of pre installed software, and hey, does any hardware manufacture and system builder actually support software made by others? Ir do they just refer you to the "other"?
...I'm not likely to use it any more than I use the analog TV now. Living within the perimeter of I285 in Atlanta and the bad reception, actually getting worse I have moved to collecting used DVD's and VHS at bargan basment prices, and I mean good and popular stuff not bottom behind the rack b movies.
No commercials. and its not uncommon for me to already have what is new on over the air TV movies. Other options include the internet for news and even some unique entertainment via site like youtube.
The real hit in all this is that the Government is a tax collector of your hard earned money. The bandwidth issue is probably real but on the other hand, where is my social security that I've paid into?
And for something like this to really have a different package every day then in one years time it will have covered 365-1/4 (adverge over four years) packages.
Certainly the pages are not just going to vanish. Perhaps the side effect is to create a wiki of debian packages.
... but as it ages it becomes more difficult to so quickly find what you are searching for.
there is an upside and down side to what is proposed.
The upside is that you might get better results, the downside is that might not get any result as to what you are searching for, unless.....
It really all depends on how the programmers and users map all the possible findings. I'd imagine that some sort of thesaurus like plan of classification and tabular synopsis of categories could allow all to be found by providing refinement focus, without trying to refine the initial search text. But rather a refinement of what all is found from such search text.
But we will see.
However, the most notable down of this is that a for profit company will be getting free labor and brain work.
Anyone up for a non-profit effort.......... OR maybe Google can do it given it's resources already existing.
And....Do we really need more search engine web crawlers? (vs. better ability to sort thru what is already found.)
For profit means advertising dollars to motivate bias injection.
I mean what would happen of free TV put all commercials on a specific channel so to leave shows commercial free?
Web search engines are no different when applying ad income.
So with this in mind, it seems clear that a commercial free version will do better. TO research this AD effect, perhaps a ad based version of wikipedia needs to be created.
Really? what kind of human you are is not determined by what side of the camera you are on.
It seems to me that real terrorist would want to find suckers to set up, so to keep the public on the edge of terrorism scare, while hiding behind the guise of supporting anti-terrorism.
Why travel faster then the speed of light? A: It about information transfer. Can information be transfered faster then the speed of light? A: yes absoltutely!
Beyond all the rethoritic that doesn't really do it, do you see the object that is traveling over half the speed of light directly away from you while you are doing the same away from it? A: No, Sight is light based.
Does this mean that object traveling less then the speed of light, that you do not see, doesn't exist? Of course not.
So if light cannot travel faster then its own limits, then what has that to do with information transfer? It shows that in the media and mechanism of limited scope, you cannot do things that are outside of those limits with that media and mechanism.
Are we capable of being able to receive information faster then the speed of light? A: Yes. We do it all the time, though mostly not aware of it as its more or less second nature. Even at times knowing before you get the information in more solid, traditional manners.
Why can't I predict the lottery numbers, horse race winner, etc..? Information has to first exist before it can be transfered. Duh! But you can know it at the same time it is created. But in which mode of knowing do you prefer to know it? What would be more fun, knowing your horse came in when you were talking to a man about a horse or with your friends outside the jon?
Can future events be predicted with certainty? seems to be the real question here. But that is a schrodinger's cat thing, not a moving faster then light thing.
If you knew the future and had the ability to change it and did, then what you knew would be wrong, no verification that you are not crazy.....
(the same lack of verification is often used in deception, the natural avoidance of evidence, the not knowing the result of an alternative you have not tried against what you are doing [because you can't do both at the same time?]. This is the cause of the military paranoia and military budgets vs. spending even just a third of that on genuinely removing the real world problems that otherwise promote human friction and cause wars - sorta a self supported dependancy the military is)....To know the future, means you cannot cannot change it, you cannot benefit from it in any way that you wouldn't have anyway, that's the way it works, a matter of father physics and mother nature. Such knowing can be a curse, very depressing, especially if you can also see alternatives butr cannot make them happen. Something you'd likely decide you didn't want to know after a while of doing it.
The fall down is that the open source community generally sees it bad for a developer to subject themselves to patent information as that is a mental virus that leads to claims of "knowing" by those supporting patents against a developers work.
We are talking pre-patent granting.
Then there is the additional back and forth of patent application that is simply trying to remove open source land mines. (the same sort of land mines patents present the open source developer). This peer review is something that can only help to bias the patent system against open source.
But the real kick in the head is that software itself is not of patentable nature in ever way and shape you can honestly describe it in. It makes what currently is patents in software, act of fraud, deception against man kind.
If the patent office really wanted to reduce their work load then they would simple get honest about software. That it is not of patentable nature. Protection is found in copyright, so there is no real arguement claim that without software there is no protection...................but just a lie when you hear it.
Peer review.... more correctively, selective peer review..... Its no review at all. At best only patent holders against patent holders. A game that dictates to every one else and treates them like a forced spectator.
I say keep if software patents are not going to be banned then leave the land mine playing field fair.
If you don't know then you are not supposed to know, for if you did, then your experience here might not be quite the same. And it could be that not knowing is a choice you made for this trip.
Science has come up with explanations for the out of body experiences some have had.
All the so called miracles in the bible are explainable in terms of common sense and without breaking any laws of physics.
The catholic Church exonerated Galileo in the early 1990's, and there are many other examples of man believing something even long after evidence to the contrary is in wide use.
Do you continue on after body death? Sure you do, even physics support it in conversion of energy. Though we don't often account for consciousness, the energy of it.
Is there a one god? Just ask any religion and recognize the answer given. "there is a god and he/she is my god, not yours" should be enough evidence to say no religion has it right. But that doesn't mean there is no continuation after body death.
Here is a thought: IS there anything in your conscious existance that says existing is easy? And with the obvious answer What makes you think there is nothing after death?
many say Jesus loves you, yes he does...
I say Murphy loves you more. He keeps you guessing..
... to know that we can, to some degree, control the climate effects of variations in earths distance to the sun, via control over carbon dioxide and such in our atmosphere.
The controlling minds are of course those who put such products into use that the human population will use for what ever reason but have a side effect of dealing with the distance change.
This is not about politics or science bias. Its about air conditioning comfort, but on a planet scale, instead of just a building or car.
..support site that collects complaints and evidence for things like this and mail in rebate programs, facts of how they function and the motivations of those involved in these illegal bait and switch types of marketing.
One of the things I recognized about web css is that its easy to set up a quick change of a large site by just accessing a different ccs.
I'd more likely trust exposure of such by the hands of consumers and researchers outr to expose such than to rely on tax paid organizations such as the FTC that will send you a form letter stating they haven't received enough complaints to look into it (how many must be wronged and report it before they "look in to it?", and how many know to report it and where?).
What I mean by published is to have notification of even just the url of such a site mentioned within any such offer. You know, like how some nutrition supplements have to state "Statements have Not been evaluated by the food and Drug Administration" or perhaps in the form of "we give a 30 day money back gurantee" though by federal law they have to, but the way it is written make it sound like their idea (so not to hurt genuine offers).
The point is, any such offer that can be bait and switch needs to provide a consumer information link that will help suppress such wrongs, and required by law.
With wiki and blog as well as having the ability of a company to defend itself against false claims.
In other words, I find an offer, but I want to check it out. I can go to the site and see if there is any problems.
I've lost $40 in mail in rebates due to rethortic use in offer and delays on the fullfillment company part. No more mail in rebates for me. If you think about it, what is a mail in rebate, but a chance to get screwed, as its less expensive to just discount the product at sales time rather than go thru the additional cost of mail, processing and accounting. The only reason for the addition cost of honestly doing such is for market research (but not on product cost) and mailing list creation. In comparison, trade shows, where huge sums of money are spent are for the main purpose of create customer and potential customer list.
Why is it that these consumer unfriendly reports seem to come up annually regarding Best Buys?
It really is not, and anyone who promotes it as being such will have father physics and mother nature to answer to. Though it may not be those supporting software patents who feel the wrath of father physics and mother nature in their pathetic short lives, it will be the generations who unknowingly suffer form the stifle of advancement.
Consider the catholic church who only in the early 1990's exonerated Galileo.
Why do such idiots exist and who give them support enough to harm so many in such a easy to hide manner. When are we as a population going to simple say NO?!
And here is the honesty of software:
Abstraction physics Contents
* 1 Introduction:
* 2 Abstraction action constants:
* 3 Primary computer user interfaces:
* 4 Commonly practiced, yet to be recognized:
* 5 Economic hindsight projected forward:
* 6 References and notes:
Introduction:
The physics of abstraction is of an outside looking in perspective, where rather than creating another abstract language (inside), instead sees the underlying action machinery enabling the ability to create languages (outside looking in). Since Abstraction is a human mental characteristic, there is an inherent subjectivity to the topic. However, through the use of computers we can be more objective about abstraction physics. See: Abstraction (computer science)
Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary notation". However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that will ultimately access the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.
Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.
Abstraction action constants:
There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what actions are required and unavoidable, in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as:
0) Defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.)
1) Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence.
2) Keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another).
3) Defining and changing "input from" direction.
4) Defining and changing "output to" direction.
5) Getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values).
There are so many endless comments about open source and what ever othr label you want to call it today, be the fact of the matter is that all those involved see it in their own light, and even those not involved.
The bottom is that its source code that you can access and modify without any restriction other than not taking that same right away from others.
But those who do not like it continue to come up with distortions of that and claim that are not consistant with it in the hope that what they want will happen.
But it just doesn't work that way and it should reall say something about the party saying such things.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft makes our security software business very secure, says Semantics.
Didn't he recently talk down about debian?
Not that he wasn't right, but being the founder... doesn't that say something about what we might expect of him at SUN?
...fix the bugs.
Right, following recommended partition sizes with a little more for growth.
The point of the fat32 was as I said, to allow file transfer between window and linux.
The home partition was to try and deal with experience in having to lose my data when upgrading on various default installs.
There was nothing fancy I did with these, as the minumum was stated and I was even presented with a list of common partition possibilities, consistant with linux installs.
I simply did not want to put it all on one partition, neither does most any admin.
Other than partition choice above it was all a default install.
If there are hardware issues that require having the perfect hardware than I must have missed something as I thought development was done world wide and very NOT likely to have the same hardware for all Devs.
Its interesting how the blame is always put first on the user or something other then where the cause really is, which only adds to the user frustration level.
All in all, I'd say the post this is a response to is more a flame than intent to try and understand so that can be improved.
The partition software is not ubuntu specific, but perhaps how ubuntu uses the information is.
I only know that the partitions were not used as I defined them. Perhaps there was some assignment failure in some script.... I only know it didn't work right.
I'm now running a system that has two installations of ubuntu on it. 6.06 lts decuided it wasn't going to allow me to log on anymore, so on another drive I installed 6.10 and used the recommended partition sizes. Later it decided it wouldn't let me load xwindows so I was stuck in a shell trying to figure out what going on.
I had a fat32 partition so to move files between ubuntu and windows, a swao partition, a root partition and a home partition. But something went haywire, the system got confused as to which partition was to be used for what. I got locked out of xwindows because the root partition ran out of space, though I gave it a bit more than it said it needed. Seems it was using the root partition for home too, ignoring the much larger home partition and the fat32 partition had a problem too, I don't recall ATM exactly but it ended up having some files on it but I don't think I was able to access it or something.
I was able to get xwindows working by deleating some files
I figured some of this out using dynebolic but eventually decided to just reinstall ubuntu 6.10 and this is where I discovered the home partition wasn't being used at all. I left the fat32 partition and made the home partition and root partition just one partition for root.
I still haven't dug into trying to fix 6.06 lts, as Its still on the system, as a slave drive.
Come to think of it, I have another system that has two or three knoppix installs on it, for what ever the reason one stopped working...or maybe it was not having an upgrade from one version to the next without a wiped drive and I didn't want to lose my files... Which is why I haven't just wiped the ubuntu 6.06 lts drive.
But having two versions of ubuntu stop booting all the way in such a short time had in affect on my fandom of ubuntu.
As a matter of upgrading a linux system, it seems a clean install is the typical method. And as such there really should be a better way to insure a users files don't get sacrificed (the point of trying to use the home partition.)
Oh damn, I forgot what it is called. But it starts out:
First you are ignored
Then you are laughed at
Then..
etc..
We need to add the price babel to it as its obvious that as Linux gets better and better, this arguement will be an obvious line of bull too. Just like the former responces at earlier stages.
Lets face it, the nature of the development of GNU/Linux is that it is going to be hands down the best all around system.
As a product line, it'll alway be younger than MS product line.
...screw in a light bulb?
Can we increase that number and NOT take european length vacations, here in the states?
What it is really saying is how stupid those who are promoting it really are.
Or maybe they are just being deceptive, mostly to themselves.
Guess what, I just shared a file... the one this message is contained in.
what method of sharing has nothing to do with any arguement.
I've recently used FTP to download, http to download, even ssh to edit my own site which is sharing files eveytime someone access it.
I have also used bittorrent recently to download dynebolic and other linux distros as well as watched and saved some videos from youtube.
I've sent some CDs (linux) to friends, etc...
So My question is when are we going to take the computers away from those who preceive them and their use to be bad? And lets niot for get about their cars too.....
It's in alot more then soda and it is even now being put into bread that you probably were buying before it was added.
cheap by-product sweetner that adds as much a 1/3" to your triglicerid count (translates into fat)
You can drop your weight by simply removing it from your diet. I lost 30 pounds in less then three months that way and others I've told have lost weight for removing it from their diet.
With the many distributions out there and the only ones really knowing about linux generically, even as a newbee, they probably already have enough info to do it themselves, given some of todays distros.
It seems the main support issue is getting a newbee aware of what support is already out there and how to productively use it.
And then there are such distros like the dynebolic distro. With this type of approach Dell or whoever selling hardware can safely lock down or narrow their scope of support (as a trade off they might better support the dev side). And they can as well make available software upgrades for free, a matter of download and perhaps CD (a trade off cost of limited support savings)
"We support the system as it is presented to you, and have as fully tested it on our hardware as is reasonable." Should you alter beyond our supported add in modules, we will not be able to provide the level of support you might expect from us. However you are of course free to communicate with distro and other available support channels outside of our support limits"
All in all, I however have had enough frustration with the computer industry in general and given to the upgrading of the masses for the next best system, there is plenty of free hardware to pick up from toss out and help the environment. I only now just make minor purchases of computer related hardware.
So sorry Dell, I won't be buying from you and I do understand the problem you face with such questionairs. As the most likely ones to respond are also the ones who are fully capable of simply getting a no-os system from you and installing whatever operating system it that they want.
So its really just a "software support" issue of pre installed software, and hey, does any hardware manufacture and system builder actually support software made by others? Ir do they just refer you to the "other"?
...I'm not likely to use it any more than I use the analog TV now.
Living within the perimeter of I285 in Atlanta and the bad reception, actually getting worse I have moved to collecting used DVD's and VHS at bargan basment prices, and I mean good and popular stuff not bottom behind the rack b movies.
No commercials. and its not uncommon for me to already have what is new on over the air TV movies.
Other options include the internet for news and even some unique entertainment via site like youtube.
The real hit in all this is that the Government is a tax collector of your hard earned money. The bandwidth issue is probably real but on the other hand, where is my social security that I've paid into?
SCO helped to make Linux headline news...
And as they say, news, good bad or poor is better then none.
And for something like this to really have a different package every day then in one years time it will have covered 365-1/4 (adverge over four years) packages.
Certainly the pages are not just going to vanish. Perhaps the side effect is to create a wiki of debian packages.
... but as it ages it becomes more difficult to so quickly find what you are searching for.
there is an upside and down side to what is proposed.
The upside is that you might get better results, the downside is that might not get any result as to what you are searching for, unless.....
It really all depends on how the programmers and users map all the possible findings.
I'd imagine that some sort of thesaurus like plan of classification and tabular synopsis of categories could allow all to be found by providing refinement focus, without trying to refine the initial search text. But rather a refinement of what all is found from such search text.
But we will see.
However, the most notable down of this is that a for profit company will be getting free labor and brain work.
Anyone up for a non-profit effort.......... OR maybe Google can do it given it's resources already existing.
And....Do we really need more search engine web crawlers? (vs. better ability to sort thru what is already found.)
For profit means advertising dollars to motivate bias injection.
I mean what would happen of free TV put all commercials on a specific channel so to leave shows commercial free?
Web search engines are no different when applying ad income.
So with this in mind, it seems clear that a commercial free version will do better.
TO research this AD effect, perhaps a ad based version of wikipedia needs to be created.
Really? what kind of human you are is not determined by what side of the camera you are on.
It seems to me that real terrorist would want to find suckers to set up, so to keep the public on the edge of terrorism scare, while hiding behind the guise of supporting anti-terrorism.
the california govenor.... he'll know what to do....
Why travel faster then the speed of light? A: It about information transfer.
....
....To know the future, means you cannot cannot change it, you cannot benefit from it
........
Can information be transfered faster then the speed of light? A: yes absoltutely!
Beyond all the rethoritic that doesn't really do it, do you see the object that is traveling over half the speed of light directly away from you while you are doing the same away from it? A: No, Sight is light based.
Does this mean that object traveling less then the speed of light, that you do not see, doesn't exist? Of course not.
So if light cannot travel faster then its own limits, then what has that to do with information transfer?
It shows that in the media and mechanism of limited scope, you cannot do things that are outside of those limits with that media and mechanism.
Are we capable of being able to receive information faster then the speed of light? A: Yes.
We do it all the time, though mostly not aware of it as its more or less second nature.
Even at times knowing before you get the information in more solid, traditional manners.
Why can't I predict the lottery numbers, horse race winner, etc..?
Information has to first exist before it can be transfered. Duh!
But you can know it at the same time it is created.
But in which mode of knowing do you prefer to know it?
What would be more fun, knowing your horse came in when you
were talking to a man about a horse or with your friends outside
the jon?
Can future events be predicted with certainty? seems to be the real question here.
But that is a schrodinger's cat thing, not a moving faster then light thing.
If you knew the future and had the ability to change it and did, then what you
knew would be wrong, no verification that you are not crazy.
(the same lack of verification is often used in deception, the natural avoidance of
evidence, the not knowing the result of an alternative you have not tried against
what you are doing [because you can't do both at the same time?]. This is the cause
of the military paranoia and military budgets vs. spending even just a third of
that on genuinely removing the real world problems that otherwise promote human
friction and cause wars - sorta a self supported dependancy the military is)
in any way that you wouldn't have anyway, that's the way it works, a matter of father
physics and mother nature. Such knowing can be a curse, very depressing, especially
if you can also see alternatives butr cannot make them happen. Something you'd likely
decide you didn't want to know after a while of doing it.
SO why? Why move faster then the speed of
Did you see the movie "A beautiful mind?"
both the original article and the dupe, when I troed to go to the link I get some sort of reset and never to the page.
doing the peer review...
The fall down is that the open source community generally sees it bad for a developer to subject themselves to patent information as that is a mental virus that leads to claims of "knowing" by those supporting patents against a developers work.
We are talking pre-patent granting.
Then there is the additional back and forth of patent application that is simply trying to remove open source land mines. (the same sort of land mines patents present the open source developer). This peer review is something that can only help to bias the patent system against open source.
But the real kick in the head is that software itself is not of patentable nature in ever way and shape you can honestly describe it in. It makes what currently is patents in software, act of fraud, deception against man kind.
If the patent office really wanted to reduce their work load then they would simple get honest about software. That it is not of patentable nature. Protection is found in copyright, so there is no real arguement claim that without software there is no protection...................but just a lie when you hear it.
Peer review.... more correctively, selective peer review..... Its no review at all. At best only patent holders against patent holders. A game that dictates to every one else and treates them like a forced spectator.
I say keep if software patents are not going to be banned then leave the land mine playing field fair.
If you don't know then you are not supposed to know, for if you did, then your experience here might not be quite the same. And it could be that not knowing is a choice you made for this trip.
Science has come up with explanations for the out of body experiences some have had.
All the so called miracles in the bible are explainable in terms of common sense and without breaking any laws of physics.
The catholic Church exonerated Galileo in the early 1990's, and there are many other examples of man believing something even long after evidence to the contrary is in wide use.
Do you continue on after body death? Sure you do, even physics support it in conversion of energy. Though we don't often account for consciousness, the energy of it.
Is there a one god? Just ask any religion and recognize the answer given. "there is a god and he/she is my god, not yours" should be enough evidence to say no religion has it right. But that doesn't mean there is no continuation after body death.
Here is a thought: IS there anything in your conscious existance that says existing is easy? And with the obvious answer What makes you think there is nothing after death?
many say Jesus loves you, yes he does...
I say Murphy loves you more. He keeps you guessing..
... to know that we can, to some degree, control the climate effects of variations in earths distance to the sun, via control over carbon dioxide and such in our atmosphere.
The controlling minds are of course those who put such products into use that the human population will use for what ever reason but have a side effect of dealing with the distance change.
This is not about politics or science bias. Its about air conditioning comfort, but on a planet scale, instead of just a building or car.
..support site that collects complaints and evidence for things like this and mail in rebate programs, facts of how they function and the motivations of those involved in these illegal bait and switch types of marketing.
One of the things I recognized about web css is that its easy to set up a quick change of a large site by just accessing a different ccs.
I'd more likely trust exposure of such by the hands of consumers and researchers outr to expose such than to rely on tax paid organizations such as the FTC that will send you a form letter stating they haven't received enough complaints to look into it (how many must be wronged and report it before they "look in to it?", and how many know to report it and where?).
What I mean by published is to have notification of even just the url of such a site mentioned within any such offer. You know, like how some nutrition supplements have to state "Statements have Not been evaluated by the food and Drug Administration" or perhaps in the form of "we give a 30 day money back gurantee" though by federal law they have to, but the way it is written make it sound like their idea (so not to hurt genuine offers).
The point is, any such offer that can be bait and switch needs to provide a consumer information link that will help suppress such wrongs, and required by law.
With wiki and blog as well as having the ability of a company to defend itself against false claims.
In other words, I find an offer, but I want to check it out. I can go to the site and see if there is any problems.
I've lost $40 in mail in rebates due to rethortic use in offer and delays on the fullfillment company part.
No more mail in rebates for me. If you think about it, what is a mail in rebate, but a chance to get screwed, as its less expensive to just discount the product at sales time rather than go thru the additional cost of mail, processing and accounting. The only reason for the addition cost of honestly doing such is for market research (but not on product cost) and mailing list creation. In comparison, trade shows, where huge sums of money are spent are for the main purpose of create customer and potential customer list.
Why is it that these consumer unfriendly reports seem to come up annually regarding Best Buys?
///ly safe computer.
It's when you throw it out that it hurts the enviroment.
duh!!!
It really is not, and anyone who promotes it as being such will have father physics and mother nature to answer to. Though it may not be those supporting software patents who feel the wrath of father physics and mother nature in their pathetic short lives, it will be the generations who unknowingly suffer form the stifle of advancement.
... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as:
Consider the catholic church who only in the early 1990's exonerated Galileo.
Why do such idiots exist and who give them support enough to harm so many in such a easy to hide manner.
When are we as a population going to simple say NO?!
And here is the honesty of software:
Abstraction physics
Contents
* 1 Introduction:
* 2 Abstraction action constants:
* 3 Primary computer user interfaces:
* 4 Commonly practiced, yet to be recognized:
* 5 Economic hindsight projected forward:
* 6 References and notes:
Introduction:
The physics of abstraction is of an outside looking in perspective, where rather than creating another abstract language (inside), instead sees the underlying action machinery enabling the ability to create languages (outside looking in). Since Abstraction is a human mental characteristic, there is an inherent subjectivity to the topic. However, through the use of computers we can be more objective about abstraction physics. See: Abstraction (computer science)
Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary notation". However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that will ultimately access the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.
Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.
Abstraction action constants:
There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what actions are required and unavoidable, in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by
0) Defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.)
1) Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence.
2) Keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another).
3) Defining and changing "input from" direction.
4) Defining and changing "output to" direction.
5) Getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values).
6) Sequencially stepping thru abstraction/automation details (inh
There are so many endless comments about open source and what ever othr label you want to call it today, be the fact of the matter is that all those involved see it in their own light, and even those not involved.
The bottom is that its source code that you can access and modify without any restriction other than not taking that same right away from others.
But those who do not like it continue to come up with distortions of that and claim that are not consistant with it in the hope that what they want will happen.
But it just doesn't work that way and it should reall say something about the party saying such things.