Not to mention that the current state of Cuba is useful to the GOP for propaganda purposes. That's propaganda in the US, to drum up additional campaign funding from the displaced Cuban who expect to be returned to power once the US does take Cuba over....
Unfortunately, there really is a downside to this: The Powers That Be (PHB, and the equivalent govt entities) will likely point to this as evidence that Linux is not a serious OS, nor are its supporters capable of recognizing the requirement that English (American-style) is the only thing that the differentiates the true patriot from Al-Queda, who probably would insert English (English) into their attempts to convert the world to the One True OS... Which we all know as secure......
And the COE security guidelines recommended that the POSIX compliance be turned off....
And the POSIX compliance went away for W2K.
Not to mention that although Unix systems are required to be POSIX-compliant, there seems to be no insistence that applications be written toward POSIX-compliance.........
Re:what did she have to say besides looking good?
on
Aimee Deep Interview
·
· Score: 1
Does kinda give a new twist on the old saying "Out of the mouths of babes....."
However, not as expensive as McCracken(former CEO, ranked #25 of the "top paid execs" list), who got $3.25M in cold cash for severance, and another $2M in stock options. Ah, to pine for the good old days, when SGI gave Belluzzo (CEO before McCracken, I believe) a $3.4 million insider loan so he could cash in on the stock options he got when he left HP, netting him $600,000(he did repay the loan, BTW, unlike a lot of other execs).
Actually, Belluzzo came after McCracken. McCracken was CEO during the SGI-CRAY "merger", and was forced out partly because of HR (well, relations with young employees of the female persuasion...)
Cray had already been through the exercize with "Chainsaw" Phil, who arranged the sale, took his $27 Mil and went away. Belluzzo ran the merger into the ground, stopped promising development on Linux and workstations, and tiptoed off to MicroSoft. And yes, he's no longer there, but I doubt that he has to worry where his next meal is coming from......
It's kind of ugly for everyone involved. "window" is definitely a generic term for a windowing interface. When MS chose the term "Microsoft Windows", they sure as hell weren't thinking of trademark issues.
I rather suspect that MS was actually looking quite far ahead, expecting that eventually, when the X-gurus would speak of creating a "Window", that the non-cognescenti would automatically associate the term with Microsoft.
A spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission says the agency can't require cable operators to advertise the new option because that would violate the constitutional right to free speech.
Is this an out to escape any FTC requirement for full disclosure?
It would seem that, although a company is not required to disclose this, word-of-mouth or other publicity should get the word out fairly quickly. Then I could just go to another cable company who DOES offer this option....Oh, wait a minute...
Yep - I set up my answering machine greeting to announce something like "You have reached the marketing consultancy. By continuing this call, you agree to the following rate structure:
If this is a non-business call press 2"
Got a lot of laughs from friends who called, and may have had a brief effect on the number of telemarketers, at least some of whom sputtered a bit, then hung up...
Aha! They caught on to the CIA plot to slowly poison their youth, so that when W. decides to take the war to China, they won't have enough strength to resist.
Mod this parent up! He's the only one that understands whats going on here.
No - although he explains what the licensing actually requires, the point is that MS's statement is intended to lead someone to believe that they may only run MS on a particular box. The way they phrased it is factually incorrect, but they're counting on the probability that people will misinterpret the statement, and assume that only MS may be run on a box that was originally MS.
suppose they cut your cable channels by half and the price went up. what would you do?
Well, in the last couple o' months, ATT Cable did just that...They've started moving the interesting channels to their new "digital cable" service, and upped the price for this service.
But whoop-de-doo! If I change to the new service I can get 45 music and 38 PPV channels! Oh, my lucky stars!
But I notice that much of the spam I currently get starts out referring to "...the information you requested..." or other wording implying that I solicited it or that I actually have a business relationship. I KNOW that I don't - but we're right back their word against mine....
How does one address that issue - to prove that you didn't ask for the spam?
That was the beauty in Microsoft's original claim on the trademark - they were innovative enough to see the marketing advantage, that the X consortium ignored. After making "Windows" ubiquitous, what purchasing agent is going to assume that there may be other offerings?
The MIT group, who developed a window system "X"
.....had had the foresight to preclude MS from appropriating the term.
I've seen more than a few gov contracts which have been defaulted to MS because they required "windows", and which would have been faster, better, cheaper (yes, all three) had it not been for the fileclerk who equated "windows" with "Windows(TM)"
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that the current state of Cuba is useful to the GOP for propaganda purposes. That's propaganda in the US, to drum up additional campaign funding from the displaced Cuban who expect to be returned to power once the US does take Cuba over....
The possessive form of "it" is "its", not "it's".
Well, I've always liked to say it thus:
The possessive of it isn't its, it's its.
Unfortunately, there really is a downside to this: The Powers That Be (PHB, and the equivalent govt entities) will likely point to this as evidence that Linux is not a serious OS, nor are its supporters capable of recognizing the requirement that English
(American-style) is the only thing that the differentiates the true patriot from Al-Queda, who probably would insert English (English) into their attempts to convert the world to the One True OS...
Which we all know as secure......
Boies must have known this was coming....
How long before Darl sues Boies for malpractice?
NT is POSIX compliant.
And the COE security guidelines recommended that the POSIX compliance be turned off....
And the POSIX compliance went away for W2K.
Not to mention that although Unix systems are required to be POSIX-compliant, there seems to be no insistence that applications be written toward POSIX-compliance.........
Does kinda give a new twist on the old saying "Out of the mouths of babes....."
Been there, got caught in that in 1999, don't see a whole lotta difference.....and certainly no improvement....
However, not as expensive as McCracken(former CEO, ranked #25 of the "top paid execs" list), who got $3.25M in cold cash for severance, and another $2M in stock options. Ah, to pine for the good old days, when SGI gave Belluzzo (CEO before McCracken, I believe) a $3.4 million insider loan so he could cash in on the stock options he got when he left HP, netting him $600,000(he did repay the loan, BTW, unlike a lot of other execs).
Actually, Belluzzo came after McCracken. McCracken was CEO during the SGI-CRAY "merger", and was forced out partly because of HR (well, relations with young employees of the female persuasion...)
Cray had already been through the exercize with "Chainsaw" Phil, who arranged the sale, took his $27 Mil and went away. Belluzzo ran the merger into the ground, stopped promising development on Linux and workstations, and tiptoed off to MicroSoft. And yes, he's no longer there, but I doubt that he has to worry where his next meal is coming from......
Maybe it would be if they put the same effort into producing a worthwhile actual product that they waste on fishing trips in the courts.
Well, I've only known one lawyer who could write decent code.......
Not to mention that this administration lost a really good opportunity to bring the UN along, and help make it something useful.
Unfortunately, the old guard saw it as more advantageous to play toward its next election, and had no other way to show that they are "real 'Merkins"
I can only hope that the citizenry will throw them out for the damage they've done to the long-term viability of the US.
As it stands, it seems the noble experiment is on its way out.....
when I read that I figured that nude was just the color.
Ah, dark brown.....
I rather suspect that MS was actually looking quite far ahead, expecting that eventually, when the X-gurus would speak of creating a "Window", that the non-cognescenti would automatically associate the term with Microsoft.
Seems to have turned out that way......
Is this an out to escape any FTC requirement for full disclosure?
It would seem that, although a company is not required to disclose this, word-of-mouth or other publicity should get the word out fairly quickly.
Then I could just go to another cable company who DOES offer this option....Oh, wait a minute...
Yep - I set up my answering machine greeting to announce something like "You have reached the marketing consultancy. By continuing this call, you agree to the following rate structure:
If this is a non-business call press 2"
Got a lot of laughs from friends who called, and may have had a brief effect on the number of telemarketers, at least some of whom sputtered a bit, then hung up...
Been at sea a bit too long, have we?
From the article: If you have children...."
Now that deleterious effects on children have been introcuded, it ought to be possible to stop these harmful anti-copy problems!!!
Aha! They caught on to the CIA plot to slowly poison their youth, so that when W. decides to take the war to China, they won't have enough strength to resist.
Well, I tried to read the presentation - all that showed up was 13 pages of nothing, with an occasional yellow box. No text, no pics....
And I'm using Konqueror as my browser.
Since when is it the government's job to save their failing businesses?
Jan 20, 2000?
Mod this parent up! He's the only one that understands whats going on here.
No - although he explains what the licensing actually requires, the point is that MS's statement is intended to lead someone to believe that they may only run MS on a particular box. The way they phrased it is factually incorrect, but they're counting on the probability that people will misinterpret the statement, and assume that only MS may be run on a box that was originally MS.
...should prevent copyright purchasers ...
Another nit: you've not purchased a copyright; you've purchased copyrighted material.....
Well, in the last couple o' months, ATT Cable did just that...They've started moving the interesting channels to their new "digital cable" service, and upped the price for this service.
But whoop-de-doo! If I change to the new service I can get 45 music and 38 PPV channels! Oh, my lucky stars!
But I notice that much of the spam I currently get starts out referring to "...the information you requested..." or other wording implying that I solicited it or that I actually have a business relationship. I KNOW that I don't - but we're right back their word against mine....
How does one address that issue - to prove that you didn't ask for the spam?
That was the beauty in Microsoft's original claim on the trademark - they were innovative enough to see the marketing advantage, that the X consortium ignored. After making "Windows" ubiquitous, what purchasing agent is going to assume that there may be other offerings?
Ah, yes - if only.....
The MIT group, who developed a window system "X"
.....had had the foresight to preclude MS from appropriating the term.
I've seen more than a few gov contracts which have been defaulted to MS because they required "windows", and which would have been faster, better, cheaper (yes, all three) had it not been for the fileclerk who equated "windows" with "Windows(TM)"
Aargh!