I'm waiting for Mr. Kerry to tell me that's what he'll do. I've seen enough people screaming for immediate withdrawal without considering the consequences for this to not be an "of course he will" answer.
I seem to recall Kerry saying that he would stay the course and finish in Iraq. If I remembered where, I'd let you know.
Again, maybe. we'll never know. And again, I didn't see the Clinton administration dealing with the terrorists
The Clinton administration didn't have nearly the political capital that 9-11 gave Bush. Clinton did a fair bit to fight terrorists--but his hands were bound as much as Bush's hands were bound about Iraq until 9/11 and Afghanistan was over.
If waging a war was a simple matter of the executive saying so, Bush would have--quite legally and righteously--invaded Iraq early in 2000. (And, very likely, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.)
I believe the Iraq War was ill-advised. But I also believe that if Bush were not in office, the Taliban would still own Afganistan.
I find it hard to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have authorized the military to invade and destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan--after all, Clinton's parting words to Bush were "The terrorists are your #1 problem."
Oh, and it's not a question if Kerry will or won't stay the course in Iraq. Of course he will; if Vietnam went half as well as Iraq is going Kerry never would have even gone.
The question is "what do we do after Iraq." And, given Bush's ability to piss off a significant portion of the world (our closest allies had a significant portion of their peoples protesting), a change in leadership is not alltogether undesired.
Why should I vote for Kerry if he doesn't even have a plan?
Because a President is a person, not a plan.
If you had asked Bush in 1999 what his plan was about Al Quaeda, he probably would have said "I plan to focus on America first" or some other such vauge commentary, while Al Gore would have said someting more definitive and less vauge--what with being in office and all.
Today, in 2004, there aren't any extant foriegn problems that require a dramatic new plan. The plan Bush set forth, with Powell's and Rhumsfield's help, is actually a rather good one, provided we can get the rest of the world to help.
I'm more concerned, oddly enough, about having a President who is capable enough to know when the line has been crossed, in losses or in dollars spent--and who can politically raise taxes to pay for this massive war effort, instead of giving me the rest of my life to help pay off the debt incurred from the largest deficits in the history of this country.
we have seen many, many examples of the U.S. gov't altering published data to support political motivation.
Name one instance where a private party altered its website against its wishes due to the U.S. Gov't for political reasons.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
If you want to take that as evidence of the church being in favor of science, then I get to take the crusades as evidence of the church being in favor of genocide.
O.K. by me. The church let the whole "holy war" thing go way too far--the bastards. Though it was justified in the begining, they really should have ended the first one and began better permanent negotiations--marriage of the rulers of the Chrisitan "kingdoms" to arabs would would perfectly.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't aware I had to defend a concept like freedom of speech.
Of course you do. If we don't defend it, it goes away.
Do you claim that it's OK for those in charge to persecute people who speak against them?
In a certain limited extent--yes.
The President can fire people who badmouth him. Companies that like the president can fire people who badmouth him.
There is nothing wrong with some minor enforcement to ensure a polite society. Don't agree with me? Go to court and tell a judge to @#$! himself. See what happens.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Nice try. Galileo, even under "house arrest", wasn't under the horrors that the medieval church had at its disposal.
And--pay attention, this is important--you're neither a spiritual nor temporal figure. There's nothing wrong with forming your dialogue so as to not piss off those in charge.
I'm sure that you're comforted by being able to laugh at pre-modern Christians, those silly rubes who thought the earth was the center of the universe!
Truth is, of course, that the pre-modern Christians, secular or otherwise, didn't much care how the physical world was alinged.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Galileo's real crime was not keeping his mouth shut at a time when others used his ideas to undermine the political establishment.
Well, you're half right.
Even the slanted wikipedia article notes that the church did allow teaching of the very theory that Galileo is famous for. However, they wanted the traditional "you're saying the world is entirely different" theory--qualifiers that it was "only a theory."
So--the church is being blamed for, essentially requiring that the scientists of the time keep to what is, after all, traditional scientific principles.
(And to go off on a tangent--it IS only a "theory", and like so many others we finally got to the point where we got rid of "theory" and we just call them "models." It's no more or less correct to call the sun the center of the universe than the Earth--it just makes navigation easier.
1. Even if you live a perfect life, you deserve to go to hell. Why? Original sin.
Nope. Original Sin is just the first sin--not an enternally corrupting influence. It's conceivably possible for someone to live their entire lives without sin--Christ himself (and some say the virgin Mary) lived without sin. We'll just never hear about them, because arrogantly bragging about how sin-free you are is itself a sin.
2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.
Nope, again. Original Sin was defiance of God, not pursuit of knowledge. (Yes, the act was seeking knowledge--but maybe God just wanted A&E to spend a hundred years or so in bliss.)
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Of course the gaming community is downright disdainful of Christianity. Most gammers are [relativly] intellegent and can see through the hokum [sic]. Christianity itself is historically anti-imagination and anti-intellectual.
No. Christianity is historically anti-atheism--a distinctly different thing.
A good number of ancient, medieval, and modern scholoarly advancements and creative achievements were done by devout Christians, often with the blessing and sanctions of their churches.
Off the top of my head, both J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis--very creative persons by anyone's measure--were extremely devout christians. (C.S. Lewis is actually as lauded for his nonfiction books on religion as he was for Narnia.)
Your misunderstanding is understandable, however, thanks to the semi-humanist screed that says Galileo was tried for heresey for daring to say that the sun was the center of the universe. The truth says otherwise, of course, but "Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial" doesn't work very well as a rallying cry to toss religion out on its ear.
(Note: I'm aware I linked to a religious site. If you prefer Wikipedia, it also delves into the heresy, but with a bit more of an anti-religious slant.)
Not quite. While he did not account for S-corporations and their like, he did not that the percentage of federal tax income dollars paid for by corporations went from about 50% to less than 7%.
That alone indicates that corporations on a whole are paying less.
The G.A.O. isn't a PAC. It's job is to find out what's really happening, not what someone things is happening.
I'm willing to live with a little danger in exchange for being beholden to no man other than myself.
So if someone can watch you go about your daily life, you're "beholden" to them?
Hogwash.
Public observation by organizations tasks with public safety is entriely appropriate, and is no way an infringement upon your rights or liberties.
In fact, it's little different than the police patrolling the city streets. Does THAT infringe upon your liberties? Or how about plain-clothes police officers... those are the exact same thing as camera surveliance. Are THOSE a burdern on your liberty?
No, it's not. It is a religion built upon a recognition for the need for spiritualism and that faith is a deeply personal affair. Technically is it the merging of the Unitarian and Universalist churches, which both have their roots in very early medieval europe. Unitarians are actually one of the oldest derivatives of Christianity. Universalism followed a few hundred years later.
Do you have a scholarly study by someone unaffiliated with the Unitarians to back up that claim? If not, then the 1960s religion is a modern invention with as much historical lineage as modern wicca.
Funny, because my minister graduated from Harvard Divinity School, and UU ministers are recognized across the world and in every single state.
Scholarly acceptance or lack thereof doesn't mean that you are or are not a "religion." Neither does governmental recognition of individual ministers make UUism a religion.
A better term than religion would be "interfaith collaborative." If you don't have substantial core dogma then you aren't a religion. Every last single major religion DOES have substantial core dogma--something that answers the question "what do you believe" with a spiritual rather than political answer.
Characterizing the Principles and Purposes of the UUA as "we should all ge along" is akin to characterizing pagans as a bunch of goat-slaughtering freaks, or Catholics as a bunch of child-molesting, subservient, permanently-guilt-tripped, mindless idiots.
I'll thank you not to insult wiccans, druids, and individual "magickers" with a patently untrue slander, or the whole of the Catholic congregations with the actions of their priesthood.
As for the matter at hand, UUA's statement of principles (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html) see ms to be quite close to "we should all get along." And they don't set themselves up as a religion, but rather a house where religion can be learned and discussed in a, as I said origianlly, very good and non-confrontational way.
Incidentally, the religious freedom you enjoy today if you're in America is due almost entirely in part to the beliefs of Unitarians such as Ben Franklin;
Oh, for crying out loud.
I think I've heard everyone from agnostics to atheists to humanists to pagans claim the Founding Fathers as a member of their minority. If what you espouse is true and right and good, then you don't need an appeal to fame to justify yourself.
I respect UUism for what it is, and I think it's a good movement even if it's inherently flawed (but only by being TOO 'good'.) I do not consider it a religion, but that doesn't mean that I think that you're insulting and demeaning it with your half-thought arguments and weak allegations of historical authority.
Let's assume that your job isn't make-work (like, oh, re-coding an old VMS system to use Visual Basic just because.)
If you're writing software that can be done with OSS software--which isn't by any means everything--then you might be out of a job if the government uses the OSS instead. But you would be in the same boat if some off-the-shelf software was used instead.
(My mother works writing custom software for the gov't--and even if they went all-OSS instsead of just partly-OSS, the job that they do wouldn't go away because it's so specific.)
Let's say that your job CAN be replaced. What this means is that the money that was going to pay your salary & support expenses will go to do something else. Either the government will take on a new project, or they'll cut taxes. Let's assume a tax break, for argument's sake.
When the government cuts taxes, a good portion of the business sector finds that they have more money in their budget. They might use this money to lower their prices, but odds are that among the million-odd businesses in this country, a couple dozen will use the money to start new projects. Which means hiring new people.
The bottom line? Use of OSS might cut YOUR job, or it might cut MS's profits, or it might cut someone else's job--but the total net number and dollar value of jobs likely won't go down.
Arguing "my job will get taken away" makes as little sense now as when it was robots doing assembly work.
The Unitarian Universalist religion is nothing like esperanto, and I consider that comparison an insult to my religion.
If rather easy comparisons to your religion (both Esperanto and UUism try and be the one-for-all, though they have different methedologies) insult you, then you really should pick an affirmative religion rather than one built from compromise.
Feel free to be insulted if you wish, but if your religion doesn't share its teachings, doesn't take positions, lets democracy rather than reason and relevation determine dogma, and generally doesn't say much more than "we should all get along", then it's not a frigging religion.
UUism is a group of different religions that share one house, very much in a common-ground way that's a great and wonderous civil example to the broader mass of religions. However, it, in and of itself, is no more a religion than "paganism" is.
And I find it an insult to MY religion that you would take what is essentially a "we're all right" stance and purport to put it in the same class as a religion that has the cohones to say "this is right, that is wrong." (Even though Christianity can and has been dead wrong on a few things.)
The reason for this language is because "irreperable harm" is the standard for granting or denying an injunction, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It's a legal term of art. Nothing more than that.
I beg to differ.
While the law does have specific meanigns for words, they don't by and large have empty words. When the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", that's exactly what they mean--and there are tens of thousands of additional words to help explain what those four words mean.
"Irreperable harm" strikes me as a good standard--i.e., you'll be permanently disadvantages if you don't get this. (Things like losing your house, suffering a divorce, sudden death--that kind of thing.)
Of course, lawyers can and do say things that they can't support, just to try and force the other guy to give up. When you get a summons that says you "with great prejudice and malice, vicously decellerated and deliberately inflicted great harm to MR. JONES", just call your insurance company and tell them that you hit your brakes and Mr. Jones ran into you.
Mid 90s. MS didn't have video auto-detection until Windows 95, which was most assuredly in the latter half of the 1990s.
This is a case where'd it'd be better to rib on Linux for being so far behind Mac. Maybe a joke that Slackware took some of the technology from OS X, perhaps?
So, tell me, what was the video like on Windows 2? And why did they drop this wonderous autoconfiguration for Windows 3? (Which I have fond memories of having to choose a different driver when I wanted to change the resolution.)
Why do they all of the sudden have clothes that look like they're from babylon 5?
Because it's not a military excursion. It's the multi-national scientific research coalation that's taking one additional step to go from the outpost to the lost city itself.
You're missing the point. They're not "on demand" because there's a lag to get them. You might as well say "my collection of videos is on-demand" or "my 20 lbs. desktop has a handle, so it's a portable computer."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm waiting for Mr. Kerry to tell me that's what he'll do. I've seen enough people screaming for immediate withdrawal without considering the consequences for this to not be an "of course he will" answer.
I seem to recall Kerry saying that he would stay the course and finish in Iraq. If I remembered where, I'd let you know.
Again, maybe. we'll never know. And again, I didn't see the Clinton administration dealing with the terrorists
The Clinton administration didn't have nearly the political capital that 9-11 gave Bush. Clinton did a fair bit to fight terrorists--but his hands were bound as much as Bush's hands were bound about Iraq until 9/11 and Afghanistan was over.
If waging a war was a simple matter of the executive saying so, Bush would have--quite legally and righteously--invaded Iraq early in 2000. (And, very likely, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.)
I believe the Iraq War was ill-advised. But I also believe that if Bush were not in office, the Taliban would still own Afganistan.
I find it hard to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have authorized the military to invade and destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan--after all, Clinton's parting words to Bush were "The terrorists are your #1 problem."
Oh, and it's not a question if Kerry will or won't stay the course in Iraq. Of course he will; if Vietnam went half as well as Iraq is going Kerry never would have even gone.
The question is "what do we do after Iraq." And, given Bush's ability to piss off a significant portion of the world (our closest allies had a significant portion of their peoples protesting), a change in leadership is not alltogether undesired.
Why should I vote for Kerry if he doesn't even have a plan?
Because a President is a person, not a plan.
If you had asked Bush in 1999 what his plan was about Al Quaeda, he probably would have said "I plan to focus on America first" or some other such vauge commentary, while Al Gore would have said someting more definitive and less vauge--what with being in office and all.
Today, in 2004, there aren't any extant foriegn problems that require a dramatic new plan. The plan Bush set forth, with Powell's and Rhumsfield's help, is actually a rather good one, provided we can get the rest of the world to help.
I'm more concerned, oddly enough, about having a President who is capable enough to know when the line has been crossed, in losses or in dollars spent--and who can politically raise taxes to pay for this massive war effort, instead of giving me the rest of my life to help pay off the debt incurred from the largest deficits in the history of this country.
1: not the US.
2: Not political.
Try again.
I once heard IPv6 as being enough to give every atom on the planet its own address.
25,000 trillion trillion times IPv4 -- we won't run out of IPv6 anytime soon.
we have seen many, many examples of the U.S. gov't altering published data to support political motivation.
Name one instance where a private party altered its website against its wishes due to the U.S. Gov't for political reasons.
If you want to take that as evidence of the church being in favor of science, then I get to take the crusades as evidence of the church being in favor of genocide.
O.K. by me. The church let the whole "holy war" thing go way too far--the bastards. Though it was justified in the begining, they really should have ended the first one and began better permanent negotiations--marriage of the rulers of the Chrisitan "kingdoms" to arabs would would perfectly.
I wasn't aware I had to defend a concept like freedom of speech.
Of course you do. If we don't defend it, it goes away.
Do you claim that it's OK for those in charge to persecute people who speak against them?
In a certain limited extent--yes.
The President can fire people who badmouth him. Companies that like the president can fire people who badmouth him.
There is nothing wrong with some minor enforcement to ensure a polite society. Don't agree with me? Go to court and tell a judge to @#$! himself. See what happens.
Nice try. Galileo, even under "house arrest", wasn't under the horrors that the medieval church had at its disposal.
And--pay attention, this is important--you're neither a spiritual nor temporal figure. There's nothing wrong with forming your dialogue so as to not piss off those in charge.
I'm sure that you're comforted by being able to laugh at pre-modern Christians, those silly rubes who thought the earth was the center of the universe!
Truth is, of course, that the pre-modern Christians, secular or otherwise, didn't much care how the physical world was alinged.
Galileo's real crime was not keeping his mouth shut at a time when others used his ideas to undermine the political establishment.
Well, you're half right.
Even the slanted wikipedia article notes that the church did allow teaching of the very theory that Galileo is famous for. However, they wanted the traditional "you're saying the world is entirely different" theory--qualifiers that it was "only a theory."
So--the church is being blamed for, essentially requiring that the scientists of the time keep to what is, after all, traditional scientific principles.
(And to go off on a tangent--it IS only a "theory", and like so many others we finally got to the point where we got rid of "theory" and we just call them "models." It's no more or less correct to call the sun the center of the universe than the Earth--it just makes navigation easier.
1. Even if you live a perfect life, you deserve to go to hell. Why? Original sin.
Nope. Original Sin is just the first sin--not an enternally corrupting influence. It's conceivably possible for someone to live their entire lives without sin--Christ himself (and some say the virgin Mary) lived without sin. We'll just never hear about them, because arrogantly bragging about how sin-free you are is itself a sin.
2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.
Nope, again. Original Sin was defiance of God, not pursuit of knowledge. (Yes, the act was seeking knowledge--but maybe God just wanted A&E to spend a hundred years or so in bliss.)
Of course the gaming community is downright disdainful of Christianity. Most gammers are [relativly] intellegent and can see through the hokum [sic]. Christianity itself is historically anti-imagination and anti-intellectual.
No. Christianity is historically anti-atheism--a distinctly different thing.
A good number of ancient, medieval, and modern scholoarly advancements and creative achievements were done by devout Christians, often with the blessing and sanctions of their churches.
Off the top of my head, both J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis--very creative persons by anyone's measure--were extremely devout christians. (C.S. Lewis is actually as lauded for his nonfiction books on religion as he was for Narnia.)
Your misunderstanding is understandable, however, thanks to the semi-humanist screed that says Galileo was tried for heresey for daring to say that the sun was the center of the universe. The truth says otherwise, of course, but "Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial" doesn't work very well as a rallying cry to toss religion out on its ear.
(Note: I'm aware I linked to a religious site. If you prefer Wikipedia, it also delves into the heresy, but with a bit more of an anti-religious slant.)
The method and conclusion used here is deceptive.
Not quite. While he did not account for S-corporations and their like, he did not that the percentage of federal tax income dollars paid for by corporations went from about 50% to less than 7%.
That alone indicates that corporations on a whole are paying less.
The G.A.O. isn't a PAC. It's job is to find out what's really happening, not what someone things is happening.
You DO realize that the whole "clipboard problem" was solved, and solved in a very elegant and clever fashion?
When there are subsequent copy operations without pasting, move the buffer to a new file and display a UI to select items from it.
It's actually a great example. You don't give users what they want--you figure out their problem, and then come up with the best solution for it.
I'm willing to live with a little danger in exchange for being beholden to no man other than myself.
So if someone can watch you go about your daily life, you're "beholden" to them?
Hogwash.
Public observation by organizations tasks with public safety is entriely appropriate, and is no way an infringement upon your rights or liberties.
In fact, it's little different than the police patrolling the city streets. Does THAT infringe upon your liberties? Or how about plain-clothes police officers... those are the exact same thing as camera surveliance. Are THOSE a burdern on your liberty?
No, it's not. It is a religion built upon a recognition for the need for spiritualism and that faith is a deeply personal affair. Technically is it the merging of the Unitarian and Universalist churches, which both have their roots in very early medieval europe. Unitarians are actually one of the oldest derivatives of Christianity. Universalism followed a few hundred years later.
e ms to be quite close to "we should all get along." And they don't set themselves up as a religion, but rather a house where religion can be learned and discussed in a, as I said origianlly, very good and non-confrontational way.
Do you have a scholarly study by someone unaffiliated with the Unitarians to back up that claim? If not, then the 1960s religion is a modern invention with as much historical lineage as modern wicca.
Funny, because my minister graduated from Harvard Divinity School, and UU ministers are recognized across the world and in every single state.
Scholarly acceptance or lack thereof doesn't mean that you are or are not a "religion." Neither does governmental recognition of individual ministers make UUism a religion.
A better term than religion would be "interfaith collaborative." If you don't have substantial core dogma then you aren't a religion. Every last single major religion DOES have substantial core dogma--something that answers the question "what do you believe" with a spiritual rather than political answer.
Characterizing the Principles and Purposes of the UUA as "we should all ge along" is akin to characterizing pagans as a bunch of goat-slaughtering freaks, or Catholics as a bunch of child-molesting, subservient, permanently-guilt-tripped, mindless idiots.
I'll thank you not to insult wiccans, druids, and individual "magickers" with a patently untrue slander, or the whole of the Catholic congregations with the actions of their priesthood.
As for the matter at hand, UUA's statement of principles (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html)
se
Incidentally, the religious freedom you enjoy today if you're in America is due almost entirely in part to the beliefs of Unitarians such as Ben Franklin;
Oh, for crying out loud.
I think I've heard everyone from agnostics to atheists to humanists to pagans claim the Founding Fathers as a member of their minority. If what you espouse is true and right and good, then you don't need an appeal to fame to justify yourself.
I respect UUism for what it is, and I think it's a good movement even if it's inherently flawed (but only by being TOO 'good'.) I do not consider it a religion, but that doesn't mean that I think that you're insulting and demeaning it with your half-thought arguments and weak allegations of historical authority.
Many people cite it as a "non-sport," but synchronized swimming is incredibly difficult, both athletically and otherwise.
So is cleaning a house. Doesn't make it a sport.
It's nice that they're using OSS but pretending it's not going to result in less jobs is silly.
You're wrong. We're talking basic economics wrong.
Let's assume that your job isn't make-work (like, oh, re-coding an old VMS system to use Visual Basic just because.)
If you're writing software that can be done with OSS software--which isn't by any means everything--then you might be out of a job if the government uses the OSS instead. But you would be in the same boat if some off-the-shelf software was used instead.
(My mother works writing custom software for the gov't--and even if they went all-OSS instsead of just partly-OSS, the job that they do wouldn't go away because it's so specific.)
Let's say that your job CAN be replaced. What this means is that the money that was going to pay your salary & support expenses will go to do something else. Either the government will take on a new project, or they'll cut taxes. Let's assume a tax break, for argument's sake.
When the government cuts taxes, a good portion of the business sector finds that they have more money in their budget. They might use this money to lower their prices, but odds are that among the million-odd businesses in this country, a couple dozen will use the money to start new projects. Which means hiring new people.
The bottom line? Use of OSS might cut YOUR job, or it might cut MS's profits, or it might cut someone else's job--but the total net number and dollar value of jobs likely won't go down.
Arguing "my job will get taken away" makes as little sense now as when it was robots doing assembly work.
The Unitarian Universalist religion is nothing like esperanto, and I consider that comparison an insult to my religion.
If rather easy comparisons to your religion (both Esperanto and UUism try and be the one-for-all, though they have different methedologies) insult you, then you really should pick an affirmative religion rather than one built from compromise.
Feel free to be insulted if you wish, but if your religion doesn't share its teachings, doesn't take positions, lets democracy rather than reason and relevation determine dogma, and generally doesn't say much more than "we should all get along", then it's not a frigging religion.
UUism is a group of different religions that share one house, very much in a common-ground way that's a great and wonderous civil example to the broader mass of religions. However, it, in and of itself, is no more a religion than "paganism" is.
And I find it an insult to MY religion that you would take what is essentially a "we're all right" stance and purport to put it in the same class as a religion that has the cohones to say "this is right, that is wrong." (Even though Christianity can and has been dead wrong on a few things.)
* dedicated servers
* TCP/IP connection to dedicated servers
* server backups
* Staff.
The reason for this language is because "irreperable harm" is the standard for granting or denying an injunction, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It's a legal term of art. Nothing more than that.
I beg to differ.
While the law does have specific meanigns for words, they don't by and large have empty words. When the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", that's exactly what they mean--and there are tens of thousands of additional words to help explain what those four words mean.
"Irreperable harm" strikes me as a good standard--i.e., you'll be permanently disadvantages if you don't get this. (Things like losing your house, suffering a divorce, sudden death--that kind of thing.)
Of course, lawyers can and do say things that they can't support, just to try and force the other guy to give up. When you get a summons that says you "with great prejudice and malice, vicously decellerated and deliberately inflicted great harm to MR. JONES", just call your insurance company and tell them that you hit your brakes and Mr. Jones ran into you.
Mid 90s. MS didn't have video auto-detection until Windows 95, which was most assuredly in the latter half of the 1990s.
This is a case where'd it'd be better to rib on Linux for being so far behind Mac. Maybe a joke that Slackware took some of the technology from OS X, perhaps?
80s, eh?
So, tell me, what was the video like on Windows 2? And why did they drop this wonderous autoconfiguration for Windows 3? (Which I have fond memories of having to choose a different driver when I wanted to change the resolution.)
Why do they all of the sudden have clothes that look like they're from babylon 5?
Because it's not a military excursion. It's the multi-national scientific research coalation that's taking one additional step to go from the outpost to the lost city itself.
You're missing the point. They're not "on demand" because there's a lag to get them. You might as well say "my collection of videos is on-demand" or "my 20 lbs. desktop has a handle, so it's a portable computer."
It just goes under another name ... bittorrent. That's my video-on-demand.
BT isn't Video-on-demand. There's no on-demand part at all.
You might as well say "VHS is my video-on-demand." You'd be about as accurate.