I find it endlessly fascinating how many people fail to grasp the simple principle that corporations are associations of *people*. It is as if the limited liability needed for capital formation manages to distill evil. The alternative is a general partnership, which is unsuitable for anything much larger than Mom and Pop's five and dime. (Some) corporations have no conscience because (some) people running them have no conscience.
Oh, I understand the politics involved. I just thought the point of view expressed in the Slate article was interesting: i.e., that environmental and climate research should be NASA's #1 priority. Heck, if the funding criterion is whether there is any *direct* cost-benefit, NASA should just be disbanded entirely. As should all governmental research funding. Not that I think that would be a very smart move.
Thank goodness the folks at Slate have a better understanding of NASA's purpose than I do: I have a hard time figuring out where "environmental and climate research" is derived fomr "the National Aeuronautics and Space Administration." But then again, I've always been bad at figuring out acronyms.
Just to clarify a bit, as an attorney: it's termed "pleading in the alternative," and in this case SCO's claim is better described as "We maintain that we own the copyrights; but even *if* that were not the case, we would win anyway because Defendant was contractually obligated to transfer them to us." It is not the same thing as admitting, even conditionally, that they might not own the copyrights.
(Note: just pointing out how "pleading further and in the alternative" works, not - Heaven forbid - supporting those clowns at SCO.)
Just wondering: why don't folks like Infinium Labs send their lame press releases straight to Slashdot to further enhance their free publicity? Geez, you might as well report on the next great video card to be produced by BitBoys. Perhaps if this had a Fark-like "Unlikely" or "Dumbass" tag it would be appropriate, but otherwise don't waste our (note: not claiming "valuable") time with this sort of nonsense.
Good grief. Put it this way: I'm a lawyer, and I frankly do not expect anyone to believe that when I am espousing my client's point of view I am providing a dispassionate, objective opinion. But at least when I do this I am up front about presenting my client's point of view. Just as those representing the EFF, to use your example, are up front about the point of view they are presenting. In the present case, the opinion presented is that of a trade group that pretends to be objective, but is in fact an industry front. If they're not up-front and honest about what they're representing, why should we give any credence to their "objective" opinions? They may have a point, but I don't particularly care: they would say what they are saying whether the evidence supports them or not.
Drat. Used up my mod points yesterday. Yes, this fellow has the same right to be heard as everyone else, but it is highly relevant to point out that he is not speaking from principle but making an argument on behalf of commercial interests. To me, and to most people I think, that reduces his credibility by several orders of magnitude.
Wrong. That is "joyriding," and it's still illegal, but it is not theft. That is why the offense of "breaking and entering" is not the same thing as "burglary," because in the former case theft does not have to be proven. In the case of someone taking a vehicle, a claim that one intended to return it will be given little credence, but if it actually *was* returned that is admissible evidence. Not dispositive of the issue, though: the actual issue is whether the person took the vehicle with the *intent to depive the owner of it permanently.* Stealing something is still theft if you later repent and return it, but it's *not* theft if you never intended to keep it in the first place. In the auto case, suppose the person left a note saying "I need to borrow your car; be back in an hour," and the person actually did bring the car back in an hour. That person would not be convicted of theft.
I use a variant of Dvorak's Home Page: http://www.dvorak.org/home.htm It's all text so loads virtually instantly, and is saved on my local hard drive. It's occasionally of some use, and doesn't slow the browser down.
WordPerfect still *is* a damn good program, and is far superior to Word. The trouble is the WordPerfect for Windows 5.2 was a poor port of WP DOS 5.1, then when they finally got the features together, WPWin 6.0 was buggier than hell. By the time they (Novell) got it right with WPWin 6.1, enormous market share and credibility had been lost.
Then, of course, Microsoft leveraged its Windows OS dominance into office suite dominance: if you bundled something other than Office (instead of WP Suite or Lotus Suite) and Internet Explorer (instead of Netscape), you had to pay more for the operating system. That bundling insured Microsoft Office's ascension.
I have to use Word for one client who insists on documents in that format. Getting the formatting straight (especially with outline numbering, which we lawyers use a lot) is an absolute nightmare compared to WordPerfect: it takes me three times as long to produce a decent contract. Thank heavens we still have a choice, though it's not a popular one.
Whenever a client reports that a document failed to arrive, it is invariably because I was a doofus and forgot to attach the file. I always use straight text (no HTML), and have never experienced any problems.
No worries; I've been using it for a couple of years now (I'm an attorney who uses it for both business and personal e-mail). I have not had even one problem with reliability or stability.
Remember, it's a fork off of the Mozilla project, which has been past 1.0 for quite some time.
Let's see, referring to Heidegger, notable for extolling the "moral greatness of the Nazi party" (and refusing to recant this after WWII), plus Neitsche, who equated cruelty with moral rectitude, aren't exactly the best points to rest one's case on. Regarding "[n]obody moderately informed can believe that the war on Iraq has anything to do w/ the war on terror:" My, you must live in a cocoon. Some university, everchance?
I know a fellow who is working on Duke Nukem Forever at 3D Realms. All I can say is yes, it's still in development. And he's even more sick of all the delays than we are.
Good point. I did not see the original post, which said IBM should have done this within a month, and so read the reply by itself and handily inserted my foot into my mouth. Mea culpa. Oh well, it isn't the first time.
A brief tip: if you haven't actually paid attention to the progress of the case and know nothing about the litigation process, you'll save yourself considerable embarassment by refraining from commenting on it.
IAAL, and I'm dumbfounded that the judge has not *already* bounced SCO's entire lawsuit for refusing to comply with two consecutive discovery orders. "20 business days?" It's already been over a year.
Regarding windows in the GIMP: assuming you're using Windows, I suggest you download and install PowerPro for Windows. Among its nearly infinite features, it can control windows, and you could easily assign a hot key or mouse action to minimize or restore all the GIMP windows at once. There are too many other features to summarize here, but it replaces a number of other Windows gadgets in one utility. Freeware.
Actually, if you read the whole article, he referenced a number of actual distros *and* said what sound system he was referring to. The one in particular he worked with the longest was Xandros.
Um... "The system was based on an utterly mainstream Intel motherboard with an on-board Intel sound system."
An on-board Intel sound system seems pretty straightforward to me.
I agree with Fred Langa, frankly (which is a rarity for me). He wasn't using some oddball off brand sound card. Xandros *should* have insured its distro could work with something standard like that, as should the other commercial distros.
The fact that he was referring to commercial distros makes his commentary more than reasonable. If you pay good money for it, "write it yourself" is not going to win many more customers.
Reread my comment. I do not "dismiss a person's argument out of hand" due to bad spelling. What I said was bad spelling, like it or not, detracts from the credibility of that argument. I said it's probably an unfair reaction (the person could very well be smarter than I), but it's a reaction nevertheless. Some people think spelling and grammar are analogous to table manners.
Well, to put it a bit differently, the hassles of dealing with Windows 2000 do not yet outweigh the hassles of switching over to Linux yet. So yes, it could be called inertia. If I were only using the computer non-professionally, I certainly would, but it works pretty well in my law practice and I do not see any particular advantage at present in switching. But I think within a few years Windows will continue to get more restrictive and Linux (and apps) will continue to refine and improve, so eventually I think that's where I will end up.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it endlessly fascinating how many people fail to grasp the simple principle that corporations are associations of *people*. It is as if the limited liability needed for capital formation manages to distill evil. The alternative is a general partnership, which is unsuitable for anything much larger than Mom and Pop's five and dime. (Some) corporations have no conscience because (some) people running them have no conscience.
Oh, I understand the politics involved. I just thought the point of view expressed in the Slate article was interesting: i.e., that environmental and climate research should be NASA's #1 priority. Heck, if the funding criterion is whether there is any *direct* cost-benefit, NASA should just be disbanded entirely. As should all governmental research funding. Not that I think that would be a very smart move.
Thank goodness the folks at Slate have a better understanding of NASA's purpose than I do: I have a hard time figuring out where "environmental and climate research" is derived fomr "the National Aeuronautics and Space Administration." But then again, I've always been bad at figuring out acronyms.
Just to clarify a bit, as an attorney: it's termed "pleading in the alternative," and in this case SCO's claim is better described as "We maintain that we own the copyrights; but even *if* that were not the case, we would win anyway because Defendant was contractually obligated to transfer them to us." It is not the same thing as admitting, even conditionally, that they might not own the copyrights.
(Note: just pointing out how "pleading further and in the alternative" works, not - Heaven forbid - supporting those clowns at SCO.)
Just wondering: why don't folks like Infinium Labs send their lame press releases straight to Slashdot to further enhance their free publicity? Geez, you might as well report on the next great video card to be produced by BitBoys. Perhaps if this had a Fark-like "Unlikely" or "Dumbass" tag it would be appropriate, but otherwise don't waste our (note: not claiming "valuable") time with this sort of nonsense.
"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain
As we in the profession like to say, it's that 95% of lawyers who are dishonest scumbags who ruin it for the rest of us.
Good grief. Put it this way: I'm a lawyer, and I frankly do not expect anyone to believe that when I am espousing my client's point of view I am providing a dispassionate, objective opinion. But at least when I do this I am up front about presenting my client's point of view. Just as those representing the EFF, to use your example, are up front about the point of view they are presenting. In the present case, the opinion presented is that of a trade group that pretends to be objective, but is in fact an industry front. If they're not up-front and honest about what they're representing, why should we give any credence to their "objective" opinions? They may have a point, but I don't particularly care: they would say what they are saying whether the evidence supports them or not.
Drat. Used up my mod points yesterday. Yes, this fellow has the same right to be heard as everyone else, but it is highly relevant to point out that he is not speaking from principle but making an argument on behalf of commercial interests. To me, and to most people I think, that reduces his credibility by several orders of magnitude.
Wrong. That is "joyriding," and it's still illegal, but it is not theft. That is why the offense of "breaking and entering" is not the same thing as "burglary," because in the former case theft does not have to be proven. In the case of someone taking a vehicle, a claim that one intended to return it will be given little credence, but if it actually *was* returned that is admissible evidence. Not dispositive of the issue, though: the actual issue is whether the person took the vehicle with the *intent to depive the owner of it permanently.* Stealing something is still theft if you later repent and return it, but it's *not* theft if you never intended to keep it in the first place. In the auto case, suppose the person left a note saying "I need to borrow your car; be back in an hour," and the person actually did bring the car back in an hour. That person would not be convicted of theft.
I guess it's fairly obvious that I am a lawyer.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Quattro Pro, part of WordPerfect Office, can handle spreadsheets with up to... (cue Dr. Evil impersonation) one million lines.
I use a variant of Dvorak's Home Page:
http://www.dvorak.org/home.htm
It's all text so loads virtually instantly, and is saved on my local hard drive. It's occasionally of some use, and doesn't slow the browser down.
WordPerfect still *is* a damn good program, and is far superior to Word. The trouble is the WordPerfect for Windows 5.2 was a poor port of WP DOS 5.1, then when they finally got the features together, WPWin 6.0 was buggier than hell. By the time they (Novell) got it right with WPWin 6.1, enormous market share and credibility had been lost.
Then, of course, Microsoft leveraged its Windows OS dominance into office suite dominance: if you bundled something other than Office (instead of WP Suite or Lotus Suite) and Internet Explorer (instead of Netscape), you had to pay more for the operating system. That bundling insured Microsoft Office's ascension.
I have to use Word for one client who insists on documents in that format. Getting the formatting straight (especially with outline numbering, which we lawyers use a lot) is an absolute nightmare compared to WordPerfect: it takes me three times as long to produce a decent contract. Thank heavens we still have a choice, though it's not a popular one.
Whenever a client reports that a document failed to arrive, it is invariably because I was a doofus and forgot to attach the file. I always use straight text (no HTML), and have never experienced any problems.
No worries; I've been using it for a couple of years now (I'm an attorney who uses it for both business and personal e-mail). I have not had even one problem with reliability or stability.
Remember, it's a fork off of the Mozilla project, which has been past 1.0 for quite some time.
Let's see, referring to Heidegger, notable for extolling the "moral greatness of the Nazi party" (and refusing to recant this after WWII), plus Neitsche, who equated cruelty with moral rectitude, aren't exactly the best points to rest one's case on. Regarding "[n]obody moderately informed can believe that the war on Iraq has anything to do w/ the war on terror:" My, you must live in a cocoon. Some university, everchance?
I know a fellow who is working on Duke Nukem Forever at 3D Realms. All I can say is yes, it's still in development. And he's even more sick of all the delays than we are.
Good point. I did not see the original post, which said IBM should have done this within a month, and so read the reply by itself and handily inserted my foot into my mouth. Mea culpa. Oh well, it isn't the first time.
A brief tip: if you haven't actually paid attention to the progress of the case and know nothing about the litigation process, you'll save yourself considerable embarassment by refraining from commenting on it.
IAAL, and I'm dumbfounded that the judge has not *already* bounced SCO's entire lawsuit for refusing to comply with two consecutive discovery orders. "20 business days?" It's already been over a year.
Regarding windows in the GIMP: assuming you're using Windows, I suggest you download and install PowerPro for Windows. Among its nearly infinite features, it can control windows, and you could easily assign a hot key or mouse action to minimize or restore all the GIMP windows at once. There are too many other features to summarize here, but it replaces a number of other Windows gadgets in one utility. Freeware.
http://www.windowspowerpro.com/
Actually, if you read the whole article, he referenced a number of actual distros *and* said what sound system he was referring to. The one in particular he worked with the longest was Xandros.
Um... "The system was based on an utterly mainstream Intel motherboard with an on-board Intel sound system."
An on-board Intel sound system seems pretty straightforward to me.
I agree with Fred Langa, frankly (which is a rarity for me). He wasn't using some oddball off brand sound card. Xandros *should* have insured its distro could work with something standard like that, as should the other commercial distros.
The fact that he was referring to commercial distros makes his commentary more than reasonable. If you pay good money for it, "write it yourself" is not going to win many more customers.
Reread my comment. I do not "dismiss a person's argument out of hand" due to bad spelling. What I said was bad spelling, like it or not, detracts from the credibility of that argument. I said it's probably an unfair reaction (the person could very well be smarter than I), but it's a reaction nevertheless. Some people think spelling and grammar are analogous to table manners.
Well, to put it a bit differently, the hassles of dealing with Windows 2000 do not yet outweigh the hassles of switching over to Linux yet. So yes, it could be called inertia. If I were only using the computer non-professionally, I certainly would, but it works pretty well in my law practice and I do not see any particular advantage at present in switching. But I think within a few years Windows will continue to get more restrictive and Linux (and apps) will continue to refine and improve, so eventually I think that's where I will end up.