turn the television off whenever a commercial comes on.
Just mute it. It's very effective. You still get to look at the pretty moving pictures but you can't hear the annoying pitch. It's not perfect, but TV advertising is WAY less effective without sound.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There is nothing disturbing about this. It is a ruse.
My favorite quote from SCO's CEO: "You need some comfort level other than 'We can warrant none of this...' "
That's odd, Darl. Ever read a fucking Microsoft EULA?
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use the software product or the failure to provide support services, even if microsoft has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In any case, microsoft's entire liability under any provision of this eula shall be limited to the greater of the amount actually paid by you for the software product or u.s.$5.00; provided, however, if you have entered into a microsoft support services agreement, microsoft's entire liability regarding support services shall be governed by the terms of that agreement. Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability, the above limitation may not apply to you.
It ain't just the video card market...it's a trend as old as the hills:
1. Scrape, claw, work, innovate, etc. and (hopefully) rise to affluence and power.
2. Change modus operandi: stop doing all of the above, start mitigating risk (i.e., try to remove competition from the marketplace)
3. if #2 fails, competitor who is still scraping, clawing, working, innovating, etc. rises to affluence and power...and you're put out to pasture.
That's how it works. The struggle for survival necessitates these behaviors. The poor/weak strive to become the rich/powerful and the rich/powerful strive to stop them.
As a follow-up to this, remember that the *vast* majority of software being developed is not commercial software. It is in-house proprietary software. And the planning that goes into a lot of it is dubious at best.
In most corporate settings it's like this:
PHB: "We need software X to do Y by tomorrow." Developer: "But we need time to plan and design and..." PHB: "That's why I said we need it tomorrow instead of today. Now get to work..."
I find it interesting that because it's google, some/.-ers are saying essentially "good for them!" But at the heart of it, it makes no difference who it is or what their intention is.
"I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so?... How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address-state of the budget address, whatever you call it." -George W. Bush, in an interview with the Washington Post, March 9, 2001
I'm not so sure. If every eligible voter voted at random, how does the campaign look? Campaigns are run to appeal to likely voters. If everybody votes, and a lot of them are just picking names randomly, it messes with the system.
Granted, if everybody voted and knew a thing or two also, it would be ten times better. But the first step is to get everybody to vote, even if it's just: vote against incumbents. That's a simple rule, but if a large enough mass just voted against whoever was already in office, it would send a real message: stop fucking with us or you're gone next election. I don't care how nice your ads are.
No, they most definitely do not. They most certainly should not. Without a doubt, they most emphatically cannot.
The career politician is precisely the problem. Pop quiz: What's the solution? A) Random selection of officials B) Dictatorship C) Term Limits D) Who cares? Pass me a beer... E) CowboyNeal
If you answered C you answered correctly. (Well, maybe D is okay.)
If a politician can hold no single office for more than two terms and cannot campaign for any public office while holding one, there is less opportunity for corruption. Period.
...Nah, I'm just joshing: the answer is CowboyNeal!
What part of my post gave you the impression I didn't understand?
I agree with it. I'm just saying that in those situations, while the natural inclination may be to remove the "non" team member, politics and self preservation often interfere.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading on the nmap website, I am curious to know: Do you not see the dichotomy (and IMHO hypocracy) here?
It was called Wizards. And it was good.
Dude...
Perhaps part of Microsoft's recent SCO licensing agreement was a "cross-license", allowing SCO to use the NDA-of-NDA patent without paying Microsoft.
I didn't even read beyond the first section because that quote says it all right there.
Okay, so I'm a little late to the party...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There is only one real man...
turn the television off whenever a commercial comes on.
Just mute it. It's very effective. You still get to look at the pretty moving pictures but you can't hear the annoying pitch. It's not perfect, but TV advertising is WAY less effective without sound.
My favorite quote from SCO's CEO: "You need some comfort level other than 'We can warrant none of this...' "
That's odd, Darl. Ever read a fucking Microsoft EULA?
It ain't just the video card market...it's a trend as old as the hills:
1. Scrape, claw, work, innovate, etc. and (hopefully) rise to affluence and power.
2. Change modus operandi: stop doing all of the above, start mitigating risk (i.e., try to remove competition from the marketplace)
3. if #2 fails, competitor who is still scraping, clawing, working, innovating, etc. rises to affluence and power...and you're put out to pasture.
That's how it works. The struggle for survival necessitates these behaviors. The poor/weak strive to become the rich/powerful and the rich/powerful strive to stop them.
He dies.
As a follow-up to this, remember that the *vast* majority of software being developed is not commercial software. It is in-house proprietary software. And the planning that goes into a lot of it is dubious at best.
In most corporate settings it's like this:
PHB: "We need software X to do Y by tomorrow."
Developer: "But we need time to plan and design and..."
PHB: "That's why I said we need it tomorrow instead of today. Now get to work..."
Geez, don't you people read Dilbert?!
Oh, and BTW, what's an EGOE?
Profit.
I find it interesting that because it's google, some /.-ers are saying essentially "good for them!" But at the heart of it, it makes no difference who it is or what their intention is.
Kids, software patents are bad, mm-kay...
3) Profit.
a pulse
...and what do we get from Mr. Bush?
I'm not so sure. If every eligible voter voted at random, how does the campaign look? Campaigns are run to appeal to likely voters. If everybody votes, and a lot of them are just picking names randomly, it messes with the system.
Granted, if everybody voted and knew a thing or two also, it would be ten times better. But the first step is to get everybody to vote, even if it's just: vote against incumbents. That's a simple rule, but if a large enough mass just voted against whoever was already in office, it would send a real message: stop fucking with us or you're gone next election. I don't care how nice your ads are.
The career politician is precisely the problem. Pop quiz: What's the solution?
A) Random selection of officials
B) Dictatorship
C) Term Limits
D) Who cares? Pass me a beer...
E) CowboyNeal
If you answered C you answered correctly. (Well, maybe D is okay.)
If a politician can hold no single office for more than two terms and cannot campaign for any public office while holding one, there is less opportunity for corruption. Period.
...Nah, I'm just joshing: the answer is CowboyNeal!
How's about we just blame Florida?
What part of my post gave you the impression I didn't understand?
I agree with it. I'm just saying that in those situations, while the natural inclination may be to remove the "non" team member, politics and self preservation often interfere.
What part of that don't you understand?
The most realistic portrayal of "techie" types I've ever seen is "Nick Burn's -- Your Company's Computer Guy!"
Or maybe the fat guy in Jurrasic Park...