I said "This is a war to protect the American dollar and American interests. No more and no less." and you replied "I disagree with this analysis, but I think you make a cogent point. We in the U.S. see our right to defend ourselves independent of any international body. We see the UN going the way of the League of Nations and we don't want to be caught in that tar baby."
Take a look at the currency markets from before Saddam sold for Euros until now. It becomes obvious. The Euro would probably already be a dead currency if it were not for the oil market giving value to the Euro. At the same time it has taken value away from the dollar. Graph it. You will get a surprise.
If the UN goes the way of the League of Nations, then that will be twice that the US has destroyed an international law making body for the sake of pursuing its own interests. I can understand why you don't want to get caught up in that "tar baby".
We have already made an egregious error in going after a second (actually 16th) UNSC resolution. We do not recognize international law that compromises our national interests. The President of the U.S. is obligated to protect us, not save face with the security council and embattled European politicos. (Gerhard Schroeder? You expect us to take him seriously?) I don't believe the politicians, the protesters, or the UNSC is truly concerned about war. I think they want to contain, embarrass, and weaken the U.S. Can you honestly disagree with that assessment?
Yes. I don't think most people are against the US per se. However you haven't cleaned up the last mess yet (Afghanistan) or the one before that or the one before that... The US is acting in what it thinks are its own best interests, irrespective of the effect on the rest of the world. Clean up your messes before you make another one.
Anyway, here's what I wrote about going to war. Undoubtedtly you will disagree:
War: An Intellectual Exercise.
I've been punishing myself by reading the Not in Our Name web site. There I find that such geopolitical luminaries such as Mos Def, John Edgar Wideman, Barbara Kingsolver, Ossie Davis, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, Tony Kushner, Edward Said, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker and Howard Zinn oppose the war in Iraq and have signed a "Statement of Conscience" to that effect.
To those folks, and the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks I'd like to pose a question. Would you ever, under any circumstance, support a war? What would be the litmus test for your support?
Yes, there are circumstances in which I would support a war. A litmus test is hard as it depends very much on circumstances. I think that I would support a UN "police action" given that the reasoning behind the "police action" was not flawed. Anything unilateral that is not a clear case of self defense is right out...
If Iraq attacked United States troops in Kuwait with chemical weapons would you support a war? Or would you call it self-defense?
Attacking first is not self defense. However, as of the news this morning British and American troops have entered Iraq and killed Iraqis. America has attacked first. Kuwait hasn't and I'd think that over the top, but any attack on American/British forces in Iraqi or international territory would be legitimate. It should also be considered that America has reserved the right of "premtive nuclear attack" so almost anything anyone does to America now becomes self defense. Your stated aim is that there will be no competitors and you are prepared to use your monopoly position to enforce that situation. It should also be remembered that if Saddam does use chemical weapons - he got them from the United States.
If Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia would you support a war, or would you cry "No blood for oil!"?
Depends on why and wherefore. The Iraqi attack on Kuwait was to stop them stealing oil - which they refused to do.
If Iraq gassed Kurds in the north (again) would that justify going to war? Or would you discuss the difficult Turkist/Kurdish/Iraqi dynamic and deplore the violence?
It would justify war crimes trials and those who supplied the weapons should also be prosecuted. Iraqis and Americans, both should face the international courts.
If Iraq attacked Israel with chemical or biological weapons, would you support war? Or would you talk instead about the suppression of Palestinians?
I would support a UN police action which I am sure would be rapidly forthcoming. I would then look at enforcing the law in both "Palestine" and Israel. But they would be seperate issues with differing urgencies.
If Iraq smuggled a suitcase nuclear weapon, smallpox, or a radiological bomb into the United States and used it, would you support a war in Iraq? Or would you talk about root causes? Would you talk about fundamentalism being engendered by poverty and hunger?
If America has started a war then it cannot complain. If there is no war when such a device was detonated, then it would be a crime, and yes, there should be a reaction. That reaction should not be to nuke Bahgdad (but it probably would be).
The problem with these folks at Not In our Name and A.N.S.W.E.R. is not that they oppose war. The problem is that they oppose the U.S. regardless. The would never support a war, under any circumstances. They will always blame the US first. They will never credit the U.S. with benign intentions, good will, or correct policy.
Look, I'm not anti-american, but please, tell me just when America has given examples of benign intentions, good will or correct policy? Take Australia (one of your most loyal allies) as an example... In 1975 you turned over the government (peacefully) because you didn't like the actions it was going to take. If that is not interventionist, what is? You are now proposing a "free trade" agreement that will benefit America and be a loss to Australia. Even in everyday things, Australians have to pay for internet traffic both ways to and from America. America is screwing other peoples repeatedly and continually and has a consisten history of doing so. If you are not an American you are nothing, not important, inferior, not entitled to any say or influence. Kyoto. World Courts. League of Nations, U.N., Israel, East Timor, the list is endless. You want me to believe in America's good intentions? Please demonstrate that they exist as anythng except domestic propoganda. America has been believing its own lies far too long. And yet, I tell you, I am not anti-american. I want you to get it right, that's all.
Much like Marxists who hold to their faith even after the worldwide collapse of communism, the peaceniks can never be convinced that they are wrong. No matter what happens, they can find a reason to oppose the U.S. They are unreasoning in their hatred of the U.S. and their hatred of all things American. So I don't believe anything they say. I can not give credence to someone that could never be convinced under any circumstance.
"Could never be convinced under any circumstance", that sounds more like you than them.
And here's the truth that they can't cover up with protests and rallies, awful poetry, insipid protest songs and body odor: They care nothing for human rights in Iraq. They don't care about the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, or the Iraqi Shiites. They don't care about the thousands of political prisoners, the tortured, or the hundreds of Kuwaitis still imprisoned. They have thrown in their lot with Saddam Hussein. They have shown their true colors.
And Americans do care about human rights? Don't make me laugh. Thirteen per cent of the American population endures hunger on multiple occasions each year. Don't they have rights? Guantamo. Avoidence of International courts. Unilateralism. These things indicate a respect for rights? Pull the other one...
The answer to your question is simple. The whole world profited thanks to the United States' investment. I think there *is* moral superiority when everyone profits from a single country's investment.
When you pick which charities that you support based on your own profit or interest, it is not charity and you (anyone) deserve moral condemnation not praise for such. "I'm a good boy, now pay me!" doesn't work.
I'll agreee with you wholeheartedly that not everything coming from the States is good, but its a hell of a lot better than whats coming out of most of the world.
Perhaps that is wishful thinking? Please note that, right at this minute, most of the world disagrees with you. Even mny Americans do.
That last "helluva..." seems to me to be the mistaken, arogant american thinking that everyone else hates. "Yes, we got vices - but we are still better than the rest of you!" . Right.
I doubt you would even conceede that Hussein is a smarter man than Bush, let alone the fact that they closely approximate each other in evil.
Interesting how you mention paying our dollar costs... Who paid the U.S.'s costs for the Marshall plan?
Thank you for crediting my family with one of the good things to come out of America.
I'm not saying that nothing good comes out of America. Much has. But much evil has also come from America. Far more than most americans will acknowlege. If you want the credit you have to accept the debit too.
Where is the "Marshall" plan for Afghanistan? There is not one because all you guys want is that damn pipeline. You need a semi fragmented state there. Fragmented enough not to have control of the pipeline but whole enough to protect it. The future for Afghanistan is poverty and bandit lords because that is what suits the USA best. Now, Iraq is a different case. There will be a "Marshall" plan for Iraq. To protect American interests. The benefit to the Iraqis will be incidental to its purpose.
So, I will respond by asking you a question. Who profited from the "Marshall" plan?
There is no moral superiority gained when you pick charities for your own profit.
You're all over the place here but you do have a point about Dresden & Cologne. But do you really want to start talking about war crimes in Europe that Europeans did nothing about? You want to talk about Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald & Krakow?
Not particularly. The German side of my family contained everything from Waffen SS Officers to Marxists. Jewish mostly. I've heard (and judged) their stories. I won't repeat them because I'll just get labelled a revisionist. Some how, in this argument, any search for truth is considerd a perversion - by both sides.
Maybe I will be better understood if I quote a friend of mine... I haven't asked, so no attribution...
"I came out of Auschwitz feeling that there COULD be a just war -- I left Dresden wondering how I had been so wrong."
Apply that to Iraq...
Americans seem to be able to afford so much destruction and so little construction. Please consider how countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq can be helped. Not with swords but with ploughshares.
None of this would hve happened if Hussein had not started selling oil for Euros instead of dollars to get back at the US for betraying him a decade ago.
This is a war to protect the American dollar and American interests. No more and no less.
We "dragged our heels" on WWI and WWII because they weren't our wars. Canada is a commonwealth country. We aren't.
They weren't your wars. Hmmm... So the extinction of th international law making body (League of Nations) had nothing to do with the fact that there was a war. OK.
You "dragged your heels" until you made sure that everyone else would pay your dollar costs. I think Britain will finish paying its bill about five years from now.
Your impudence is loathsome. Thirty-thousand Americans are buried in Normandy alone. To minimize that enormous sacrifice is to insult the memory of the soldiers who died to liberate Europe.
Your ignorance is loathsome. Cologne, Dresden, those war crimes mean anything to you? Probably not, they were just Europeans.
Your country has a helluva history of making incredible messes and bailing out. If you don't believe that then look at Afghanistan.
I use BSD and nothing but. BSD is dying? So what. So am I. "You are old, Father William, the young man said,". So what?
What the BSDs have given to the world cannnot be revoked. We have done enough even if we do no more. What have you given the world, other than piteous mockery?
And you know this for sure? Really? You work for Microsoft, in Office, on the DRM? Gee golly, I'm glad such an authoritative source told me about that.
No, I don't work for Microsoft (Associating with criminals is illegal here) not in Office and not on the DRM. On the net the authorativeness of a source depends on its reputation. And I don't judge my own.
But in this case it isn't necessary for me to be authorative because the very subject (or the world itself, if you prefer) is authoratative on the matter. We do not even have a method in theory where Microsoft would not be in control let alone in practise.
So, yes I do know this for sure.
The honest truth is that nothing about the implementation of Office's DRM has been released. Any broad statements like this is absolute conjecture (and in this case FUD).
On the contrary it is based on what is theoreticaly possible. But you probably know this. I can't see your argument as legitimate.
If you were right, then it would be pretty fricking stupid on Microsoft's part. What kind of corp in their right mind would buy into a cryptosystem that they didn't control? How much money would MS make on Office then?
Do you know how many managers I have had tell me that they don't care about Microsoft prices? That as long as everyone pays it the competition is equal? That it just gets passed on to the customer anyway? That it helps them make a larger $ profit because their % profit looks smaller?
I've really been told all those things repeatedly. So yes, they will buy it, or enough of them will and Microsoft knows that. They know it will knock free software back considerably and yes, they know it will make them heaps of dollars (godammit they already have heaps, and mountains - can't even find a good word nowadays).
So if you have a rational argument, make it. Irrational and emotional outpouring doesn't achieve much.
Jesus Tap-dancing Christ. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SET PERMISSIONS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU CREATE. Thats the entire point of DRM, to give content creators more control over their work. Write a paper in Word? You will have control over permissions associated with it. You are so freaking paranoid it's sickening. Maybe you should be the one posting anon. so people don't know what a paranoid, FUD spreading, dumbass you really are.
I know you are just an abusive simpleton, but I''ll try an explain as I would to any sub-normal human being.
The point of DRM has absolutelty nothing to do with the user and it is not for their benefit. If I set DRM permissions for "Microsoft do not read" do you think it would work? If you do your are living in fantasy land, not me.
With any heirarchical control system the control lies at the top of the pyramid. This is real and the way things work.
The next step will be that that DRM will not permit the document to be read by any "insecure" software - irrespective of it has any DRM restrictions or not. Which will translate as any editor not approved by Microsoft running on Microsoft approved software. Think on that.
The step after that will be that the document cannot be read on anything that is not implimented on hardware DRM.
I'm sure that won't bother you any as I doubt you have any freedom to lose as you are clearly not using your freedom of thought.
Lastly, I don't think anyone can be paranoid about Microsoft. They have a history of illegal, unethical and immoral practices that continues to this day. They seem to think that laws and contracts only apply to others, not them (see Timeline and a thousand others). Destroying companies and individuals because they have something you want is not behaviour I seek to encourage.
I don't like abuse whether delivering it or receiving it so I won't be replying to your handle again. I'll wait for intelligent comments.
You won't, eh? Well, in contrast to some uses for DRM, this is actually beneficial to the consumer. Its YOUR digital rights that Office will protect, and it is YOU that controls what those rights are.
You, sir, lie; no wonder you are anonymous.
It is Microsoft who will control those rights, not you. You will only have the control that MS thinks you should have for as long as they think you should have it. You won't even own your own documents.
News like this makes me feel glad that I sold my copy of Office XP (retail box upgrade edition) on eBay last month. I went back to running my early version of Office 2000 (which has no registration requirement- just the CD key) and it works just fine.
Fine, go ahead.
How long do you think MS will support it?
Not worried by that?
Well do you think MS will let your 'obsolete' copy read it? Sheesh.
With Office 11, you be reassured that your confidential information is still safe. Don't you get it? It's a brilliant pro-active move by Microsoft to make your machine more secure before problems like that might occur.
There is another, better, "brilliant pro-active" move.
It is possible that this is a response to warming, but not an evolutionary response. Perhaps the squirrels mate earlier due to increased temperature. Also, this would be an easily saturable effect. Plants don't bloom in response to temperature, they bloom in response to ammount of sunlight. Since the Earth's tilt is still the same, the plants will still bloom at the same time. This means the pups may be alive & toasty warm, but with little/no food in the early stages of life. This would yeild smaller (or no) adults
You are right that the change in squirrels behaviour is ulikely to be due to any genetic change. You are very wrong in your reported behaviour of plants. Plants are emerging and blooming earlier than they were.
To debunk what a couple people are saying -- yes, MAC addresses as exposed to the network can be changed, but MAC addresses as detected by custom client software may be more tricky. Whatever the driver is exposing to the network, the card itself can't usually have its MAC address written over(i.e. once power is cycled, that card's returning to original shipped condition). I'm positive there are exceptions to this, but they're probably rare.
Hmm... Well, I haven't really looked at a network card in a long time, but I remember the buying policies of fifteen years ago. In the early cards the MAC was held in EPROM and if you find and old enough card, you'll find such a chip. Those that couldn't be changed were too hard to sell and too expensive to manufacture. It was the easiest way of having a different MAC in each (mass produced) card. So, if you are right and they are rare, then things must have changed. Can't see why they would...
If, for example, he has a larger window, then when he has packet loss there will be a tremendous penalty. Instead of perhaps a number of small lost packets, he loses a number of _large_ packets.
Increasing the window size will not change the packet size. The packets requireing retransmission will retransmitted irrespective of the window size.
There are two things he could do that might improve things, increase window size which means that the sender will not require an ACK so often or increase packet size so not as many ACKs are needed in the first place. Both may help but don't confuse them.
Okay, now hand the same phrase to Joe Translator, who doesn't speak C. I seriously doubt that you'll get anything better. The problem was not that you were using an automatic translator; it was that you were using a translator, human or otherwise, that didn't know the jargon of the field you were translating.
Glad you got the point. ie. Automatic translation will be a joke for a long time to come, precisely because a machine cannot automatically understand the context and much of language is context. If you read the post, you would have seen that it wasn't an automatic translator, in fact it wasn't 'Joe Translator" but 'Scott Translator' who specialised in translating technical material. They only came to me when they were really 'puzzled'.
I once worked next door to the translation department for a major japanese computer house. The translators used to use me as a technical resource.
One particular time, a translator looked at the japanese and translated the words as "fingering the ulimate nothingness that underlies everything". This was from part of some C programming instructions. Took me nearly eight hours to figure out that the phrase was "pointer to void".
Automatic translation will be a joke for a long time to come.
You are, unfortunately, doomed to failure if you try and separate colours by their 'mathematical' colour.
The human eye does not see 'true' colours, but only what the pigments in the cones can detect.
This means that the numeric separation and the perceptible separation are not parallel if graphed.
You will need to adjust your calculations for the nature of the pigments in the human eye. And these differ somewhat (accounting for the 40+ types of 'colour blindness').
Assuming this company knows that Lindows is infringing on Microsoft's trademark, would you expect them to quietly change it, or do you think they'd just drool over the press coverage of the fight? And I'm sure they'll shoot for maximum exposure with every issues like this related to the case.
Which is why, I suspect that they were probably surrendered before the judge ordered it. It is in Lindows best interest to cause as big a stir as is possible. I'd really like to know if they gave up the emails before or after they were required to. 'Compelled' is a bit ambiguous to me.
The publicity is so much in their interest that they will most likely change their name to Winux if they lose...
You miss one thing. Slashdot provide leads not information. It is a central clearing house that containg pointers to much of the news that I am interested in.
Since it has at least that useful function, your thesis is voided.
How this got modded so far up I don't know. For a start of course it is a crime if it is "unlawful". That's virtually what it means.
Secondly, behaving like you suggest is a good way to annoy the hell out of the people who affect the size (and frequency!) of your paycheck. You do not do this.
When doing something that is not actually described as something that you should do, you email your boss (and maybe someone else in the company) saying that you are about to do X and will do so if you do not receive any contrary instructions. Make sure that a copy of all those types of emails is secure.
This provides minimum hastle for your company and adequately protects you.
Neither employers nor employees like unecessary fuss and flag waving. No one would last long acting like that. You need to cover yourself, not create a fuss for no good reason (that the employer or manager can see).
> Steven Hawkings? Albert Einstien? Scientific skills yes, social skills NO.
Theres no way you'd see Steven Hawkings or Alber Einstien at a party, if you do, I want you to show me some pictures of this.
I'm sorry, but that's not what I have read.
Balance of social skills and technical skills means you give up something, when you balance, you lose technical skill yet you are more balanced.
That is not necessarily so. People do not all have the same overall capacities. Far better to be able to turn the 'fixation' off and on at will than have it jammed on.
Corperations dont want balance they want specialists.
What they really want are good generalists. A good generalist can be any specialist they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for your politeness.
I said "This is a war to protect the American dollar and American interests. No more and no less." and you replied "I disagree with this analysis, but I think you make a cogent point. We in the U.S. see our right to defend ourselves independent of any international body. We see the UN going the way of the League of Nations and we don't want to be caught in that tar baby."
Take a look at the currency markets from before Saddam sold for Euros until now. It becomes obvious. The Euro would probably already be a dead currency if it were not for the oil market giving value to the Euro. At the same time it has taken value away from the dollar. Graph it. You will get a surprise.
If the UN goes the way of the League of Nations, then that will be twice that the US has destroyed an international law making body for the sake of pursuing its own interests. I can understand why you don't want to get caught up in that "tar baby".
We have already made an egregious error in going after a second (actually 16th) UNSC resolution. We do not recognize international law that compromises our national interests. The President of the U.S. is obligated to protect us, not save face with the security council and embattled European politicos. (Gerhard Schroeder? You expect us to take him seriously?) I don't believe the politicians, the protesters, or the UNSC is truly concerned about war. I think they want to contain, embarrass, and weaken the U.S. Can you honestly disagree with that assessment?
Yes. I don't think most people are against the US per se. However you haven't cleaned up the last mess yet (Afghanistan) or the one before that or the one before that... The US is acting in what it thinks are its own best interests, irrespective of the effect on the rest of the world. Clean up your messes before you make another one.
Anyway, here's what I wrote about going to war. Undoubtedtly you will disagree: War: An Intellectual Exercise. I've been punishing myself by reading the Not in Our Name web site. There I find that such geopolitical luminaries such as Mos Def, John Edgar Wideman, Barbara Kingsolver, Ossie Davis, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, Tony Kushner, Edward Said, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker and Howard Zinn oppose the war in Iraq and have signed a "Statement of Conscience" to that effect. To those folks, and the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks I'd like to pose a question. Would you ever, under any circumstance, support a war? What would be the litmus test for your support?
Yes, there are circumstances in which I would support a war. A litmus test is hard as it depends very much on circumstances. I think that I would support a UN "police action" given that the reasoning behind the "police action" was not flawed. Anything unilateral that is not a clear case of self defense is right out...
If Iraq attacked United States troops in Kuwait with chemical weapons would you support a war? Or would you call it self-defense?
Attacking first is not self defense. However, as of the news this morning British and American troops have entered Iraq and killed Iraqis. America has attacked first. Kuwait hasn't and I'd think that over the top, but any attack on American/British forces in Iraqi or international territory would be legitimate. It should also be considered that America has reserved the right of "premtive nuclear attack" so almost anything anyone does to America now becomes self defense. Your stated aim is that there will be no competitors and you are prepared to use your monopoly position to enforce that situation. It should also be remembered that if Saddam does use chemical weapons - he got them from the United States.
If Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia would you support a war, or would you cry "No blood for oil!"?
Depends on why and wherefore. The Iraqi attack on Kuwait was to stop them stealing oil - which they refused to do.
If Iraq gassed Kurds in the north (again) would that justify going to war? Or would you discuss the difficult Turkist/Kurdish/Iraqi dynamic and deplore the violence?
It would justify war crimes trials and those who supplied the weapons should also be prosecuted. Iraqis and Americans, both should face the international courts.
If Iraq attacked Israel with chemical or biological weapons, would you support war? Or would you talk instead about the suppression of Palestinians?
I would support a UN police action which I am sure would be rapidly forthcoming. I would then look at enforcing the law in both "Palestine" and Israel. But they would be seperate issues with differing urgencies.
If Iraq smuggled a suitcase nuclear weapon, smallpox, or a radiological bomb into the United States and used it, would you support a war in Iraq? Or would you talk about root causes? Would you talk about fundamentalism being engendered by poverty and hunger?
If America has started a war then it cannot complain. If there is no war when such a device was detonated, then it would be a crime, and yes, there should be a reaction. That reaction should not be to nuke Bahgdad (but it probably would be).
The problem with these folks at Not In our Name and A.N.S.W.E.R. is not that they oppose war. The problem is that they oppose the U.S. regardless. The would never support a war, under any circumstances. They will always blame the US first. They will never credit the U.S. with benign intentions, good will, or correct policy.
Look, I'm not anti-american, but please, tell me just when America has given examples of benign intentions, good will or correct policy? Take Australia (one of your most loyal allies) as an example... In 1975 you turned over the government (peacefully) because you didn't like the actions it was going to take. If that is not interventionist, what is? You are now proposing a "free trade" agreement that will benefit America and be a loss to Australia. Even in everyday things, Australians have to pay for internet traffic both ways to and from America. America is screwing other peoples repeatedly and continually and has a consisten history of doing so. If you are not an American you are nothing, not important, inferior, not entitled to any say or influence. Kyoto. World Courts. League of Nations, U.N., Israel, East Timor, the list is endless. You want me to believe in America's good intentions? Please demonstrate that they exist as anythng except domestic propoganda. America has been believing its own lies far too long. And yet, I tell you, I am not anti-american. I want you to get it right, that's all.
Much like Marxists who hold to their faith even after the worldwide collapse of communism, the peaceniks can never be convinced that they are wrong. No matter what happens, they can find a reason to oppose the U.S. They are unreasoning in their hatred of the U.S. and their hatred of all things American. So I don't believe anything they say. I can not give credence to someone that could never be convinced under any circumstance.
"Could never be convinced under any circumstance", that sounds more like you than them.
And here's the truth that they can't cover up with protests and rallies, awful poetry, insipid protest songs and body odor: They care nothing for human rights in Iraq. They don't care about the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, or the Iraqi Shiites. They don't care about the thousands of political prisoners, the tortured, or the hundreds of Kuwaitis still imprisoned. They have thrown in their lot with Saddam Hussein. They have shown their true colors.
And Americans do care about human rights? Don't make me laugh. Thirteen per cent of the American population endures hunger on multiple occasions each year. Don't they have rights? Guantamo. Avoidence of International courts. Unilateralism. These things indicate a respect for rights? Pull the other one...
When you pick which charities that you support based on your own profit or interest, it is not charity and you (anyone) deserve moral condemnation not praise for such. "I'm a good boy, now pay me!" doesn't work.
I'll agreee with you wholeheartedly that not everything coming from the States is good, but its a hell of a lot better than whats coming out of most of the world.
Perhaps that is wishful thinking? Please note that, right at this minute, most of the world disagrees with you. Even mny Americans do.
That last "helluva..." seems to me to be the mistaken, arogant american thinking that everyone else hates. "Yes, we got vices - but we are still better than the rest of you!" . Right.
I doubt you would even conceede that Hussein is a smarter man than Bush, let alone the fact that they closely approximate each other in evil.
Thank you for crediting my family with one of the good things to come out of America.
I'm not saying that nothing good comes out of America. Much has. But much evil has also come from America. Far more than most americans will acknowlege. If you want the credit you have to accept the debit too.
Where is the "Marshall" plan for Afghanistan? There is not one because all you guys want is that damn pipeline. You need a semi fragmented state there. Fragmented enough not to have control of the pipeline but whole enough to protect it. The future for Afghanistan is poverty and bandit lords because that is what suits the USA best. Now, Iraq is a different case. There will be a "Marshall" plan for Iraq. To protect American interests. The benefit to the Iraqis will be incidental to its purpose.
So, I will respond by asking you a question. Who profited from the "Marshall" plan?
There is no moral superiority gained when you pick charities for your own profit.
Geoffrey Charles Marshall
Waveguide?
Not particularly. The German side of my family contained everything from Waffen SS Officers to Marxists. Jewish mostly. I've heard (and judged) their stories. I won't repeat them because I'll just get labelled a revisionist. Some how, in this argument, any search for truth is considerd a perversion - by both sides.
Maybe I will be better understood if I quote a friend of mine... I haven't asked, so no attribution...
"I came out of Auschwitz feeling that there COULD be a just war -- I left Dresden wondering how I had been so wrong."
Apply that to Iraq...
Americans seem to be able to afford so much destruction and so little construction. Please consider how countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq can be helped. Not with swords but with ploughshares.
None of this would hve happened if Hussein had not started selling oil for Euros instead of dollars to get back at the US for betraying him a decade ago.
This is a war to protect the American dollar and American interests. No more and no less.
They weren't your wars. Hmmm... So the extinction of th international law making body (League of Nations) had nothing to do with the fact that there was a war. OK.
You "dragged your heels" until you made sure that everyone else would pay your dollar costs. I think Britain will finish paying its bill about five years from now.
Your impudence is loathsome. Thirty-thousand Americans are buried in Normandy alone. To minimize that enormous sacrifice is to insult the memory of the soldiers who died to liberate Europe.
Your ignorance is loathsome. Cologne, Dresden, those war crimes mean anything to you? Probably not, they were just Europeans.
Your country has a helluva history of making incredible messes and bailing out. If you don't believe that then look at Afghanistan.
Go ask a psychologist what denial means.
What the BSDs have given to the world cannnot be revoked. We have done enough even if we do no more. What have you given the world, other than piteous mockery?
No, I don't work for Microsoft (Associating with criminals is illegal here) not in Office and not on the DRM. On the net the authorativeness of a source depends on its reputation. And I don't judge my own.
But in this case it isn't necessary for me to be authorative because the very subject (or the world itself, if you prefer) is authoratative on the matter. We do not even have a method in theory where Microsoft would not be in control let alone in practise.
So, yes I do know this for sure.
The honest truth is that nothing about the implementation of Office's DRM has been released. Any broad statements like this is absolute conjecture (and in this case FUD).
On the contrary it is based on what is theoreticaly possible. But you probably know this. I can't see your argument as legitimate.
If you were right, then it would be pretty fricking stupid on Microsoft's part. What kind of corp in their right mind would buy into a cryptosystem that they didn't control? How much money would MS make on Office then?
Do you know how many managers I have had tell me that they don't care about Microsoft prices? That as long as everyone pays it the competition is equal? That it just gets passed on to the customer anyway? That it helps them make a larger $ profit because their % profit looks smaller?
I've really been told all those things repeatedly. So yes, they will buy it, or enough of them will and Microsoft knows that. They know it will knock free software back considerably and yes, they know it will make them heaps of dollars (godammit they already have heaps, and mountains - can't even find a good word nowadays).
So if you have a rational argument, make it. Irrational and emotional outpouring doesn't achieve much.
I know you are just an abusive simpleton, but I''ll try an explain as I would to any sub-normal human being.
The point of DRM has absolutelty nothing to do with the user and it is not for their benefit. If I set DRM permissions for "Microsoft do not read" do you think it would work? If you do your are living in fantasy land, not me.
With any heirarchical control system the control lies at the top of the pyramid. This is real and the way things work.
The next step will be that that DRM will not permit the document to be read by any "insecure" software - irrespective of it has any DRM restrictions or not. Which will translate as any editor not approved by Microsoft running on Microsoft approved software. Think on that.
The step after that will be that the document cannot be read on anything that is not implimented on hardware DRM.
I'm sure that won't bother you any as I doubt you have any freedom to lose as you are clearly not using your freedom of thought.
Lastly, I don't think anyone can be paranoid about Microsoft. They have a history of illegal, unethical and immoral practices that continues to this day. They seem to think that laws and contracts only apply to others, not them (see Timeline and a thousand others). Destroying companies and individuals because they have something you want is not behaviour I seek to encourage.
I don't like abuse whether delivering it or receiving it so I won't be replying to your handle again. I'll wait for intelligent comments.
You won't, eh? Well, in contrast to some uses for DRM, this is actually beneficial to the consumer. Its YOUR digital rights that Office will protect, and it is YOU that controls what those rights are.
You, sir, lie; no wonder you are anonymous.
It is Microsoft who will control those rights, not you. You will only have the control that MS thinks you should have for as long as they think you should have it. You won't even own your own documents.
Fine, go ahead.
How long do you think MS will support it?
Not worried by that?
Well do you think MS will let your 'obsolete' copy read it? Sheesh.
You might as well go OpenOffice...
There is another, better, "brilliant pro-active" move.
Don't use Microsoft Software.
You are right that the change in squirrels behaviour is ulikely to be due to any genetic change. You are very wrong in your reported behaviour of plants. Plants are emerging and blooming earlier than they were.
Hmm... Well, I haven't really looked at a network card in a long time, but I remember the buying policies of fifteen years ago. In the early cards the MAC was held in EPROM and if you find and old enough card, you'll find such a chip. Those that couldn't be changed were too hard to sell and too expensive to manufacture. It was the easiest way of having a different MAC in each (mass produced) card. So, if you are right and they are rare, then things must have changed. Can't see why they would...
Increasing the window size will not change the packet size. The packets requireing retransmission will retransmitted irrespective of the window size.
There are two things he could do that might improve things, increase window size which means that the sender will not require an ACK so often or increase packet size so not as many ACKs are needed in the first place. Both may help but don't confuse them.
FreeBSD has good Linux emulation. It runs all software that runs on the Linux kernel. As long as just that is maintained, BSD can survive.
Yes, in smaller numbers, but smaller numbers are a smaller target and, well, more geekish...
When Windows dies, how you Tuxers going to handle being the boreing mainstream?
Okay, now hand the same phrase to Joe Translator, who doesn't speak C. I seriously doubt that you'll get anything better. The problem was not that you were using an automatic translator; it was that you were using a translator, human or otherwise, that didn't know the jargon of the field you were translating.
Glad you got the point. ie. Automatic translation will be a joke for a long time to come, precisely because a machine cannot automatically understand the context and much of language is context. If you read the post, you would have seen that it wasn't an automatic translator, in fact it wasn't 'Joe Translator" but 'Scott Translator' who specialised in translating technical material. They only came to me when they were really 'puzzled'.
I once worked next door to the translation department for a major japanese computer house. The translators used to use me as a technical resource. One particular time, a translator looked at the japanese and translated the words as "fingering the ulimate nothingness that underlies everything". This was from part of some C programming instructions. Took me nearly eight hours to figure out that the phrase was "pointer to void". Automatic translation will be a joke for a long time to come.
The human eye does not see 'true' colours, but only what the pigments in the cones can detect.
This means that the numeric separation and the perceptible separation are not parallel if graphed.
You will need to adjust your calculations for the nature of the pigments in the human eye. And these differ somewhat (accounting for the 40+ types of 'colour blindness').
Which is why, I suspect that they were probably surrendered before the judge ordered it. It is in Lindows best interest to cause as big a stir as is possible. I'd really like to know if they gave up the emails before or after they were required to. 'Compelled' is a bit ambiguous to me.
The publicity is so much in their interest that they will most likely change their name to Winux if they lose...
Since it has at least that useful function, your thesis is voided.
Secondly, behaving like you suggest is a good way to annoy the hell out of the people who affect the size (and frequency!) of your paycheck. You do not do this.
When doing something that is not actually described as something that you should do, you email your boss (and maybe someone else in the company) saying that you are about to do X and will do so if you do not receive any contrary instructions. Make sure that a copy of all those types of emails is secure.
This provides minimum hastle for your company and adequately protects you.
Neither employers nor employees like unecessary fuss and flag waving. No one would last long acting like that. You need to cover yourself, not create a fuss for no good reason (that the employer or manager can see).
Isn't amiability a social skill ? (One that I lack).
I'm sorry, but that's not what I have read.
Balance of social skills and technical skills means you give up something, when you balance, you lose technical skill yet you are more balanced.
That is not necessarily so. People do not all have the same overall capacities. Far better to be able to turn the 'fixation' off and on at will than have it jammed on.
Corperations dont want balance they want specialists.
What they really want are good generalists. A good generalist can be any specialist they want.