I used to have a real-live ant farm, and I don't recall them being too elegant or efficient. They pretty much dug deeper to make more space, or branched out, and didn't mind if their tunnels connected, but didn't seem to be too intent on ensuring it.
Microsoft didn't want to be Apple. Microsoft wanted to be IBM (at least for desktops), and succeeded, to the point that it almost killed IBM.
Apple had to be bailed out because of Microsoft's own predatory competitive practices, and because of Sculley, and Spindler and Amelio, three guys who Just Didn't Get It.
I don't think the system was as tight when Mantle was looking for braaaaaainnnn...--er, body parts.
And I'm pretty sure it doesn't let rich folks shop around.
But give John Boehner and the House GOP a few days, they'll cons up a bill that will not only allow that, but guarantee the private-plane flight is deductible.
Surprised he hasn't just packed up his doctor and his family and absconded to an island to get away from the mouth-breathers who own a few shares of a company he built, then rebuilt, who think they own him too.
Why are people so worried about their medical information going public?
First of all, you can't get most people to shut up about what happened at the doctor's office. (And the older the person, the more likely this will dominate their idea of interesting conversation.)
And if this guy can't get a few days' quiet time to himself before he dies, then just who the fuck do the rest of us think we are?
Frankly, I'm going to start posting the boroscope videos of my colonoscopies. Hopefully the karma buildup will mean -- when the time comes to hole up in the hospice eating ring-dings by the boxful and watching DVDs of Firefly in my last few days -- that nobody will even think to bother me.
If he is ever in the jurisdiction of a country with whom we have an extradition treaty, then he'll be served up to the U.S. in handcuffs.
The only reason he's being extradited from the U.K. to Sweden and not to the U.S. is that the U.S. Attorney General is still constructing an indictment against him.
We may have to wait until he's out of a Swedish prison to get him, but I don't doubt we'll end up trying him for what he's done, with or without this law.
You're assuming the only way to know that something bad happened is to know the names of all the people who are doing anything.
You don't need to know anyone's name until it's determined that something bad happened, and then you'll take them into custody and it won't matter whether they're protected or not.
The law, on its face, is a redundant attempt to point out that Assange, in the process of trying to illuminate a few illegal acts, put a lot of other people in danger who hadn't done anything we the people of the USA would consider wrong.
1. The public's need-to-know has value in political terms. Outing informants in Spin Boldak is not relevant to anyone stateside. Knowing what they're doing that is counter to your principles of war and the rule of law is. Their names don't mean a thing to anyone but the people who want to kill them. If it turns out what they did was illegal, it's up to the courts to determine their names.
2. Not sure I follow what you're saying, but the law is redundant with prior laws against espionage against the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Your anti-ant sentiment is not really patriotic, you know.
I used to have a real-live ant farm, and I don't recall them being too elegant or efficient. They pretty much dug deeper to make more space, or branched out, and didn't mind if their tunnels connected, but didn't seem to be too intent on ensuring it.
Or maybe we're just underestimating the intelligence of soap
I could do that with parts on the shelf.
But I don't know if $30 million will cover fuel and insurance.
Okay. He's spending a year dead for tax purposes. He's not running things.
Microsoft didn't want to be Apple. Microsoft wanted to be IBM (at least for desktops), and succeeded, to the point that it almost killed IBM.
Apple had to be bailed out because of Microsoft's own predatory competitive practices, and because of Sculley, and Spindler and Amelio, three guys who Just Didn't Get It.
Steve came back and the rest is history.
I don't think the system was as tight when Mantle was looking for braaaaaainnnn...--er, body parts.
And I'm pretty sure it doesn't let rich folks shop around.
But give John Boehner and the House GOP a few days, they'll cons up a bill that will not only allow that, but guarantee the private-plane flight is deductible.
The thing about those Enquirer photos is they're from 6 months ago.
So short it now. Or buy puts.
Make money both ways.
Woz was the technical genius who put the parts together to make the new product simple enough to be useful to millions.
Jobs is the one who ensured millions understood why it was useful.
History is littered with people who thought you could be Apple by skimping on either of those talents.
There's a difference between being trendy, and creating the trend.
And it's not even a little bit subtle.
I highly doubt his money helped him get a liver any faster.
It probably kept him alive long enough to reach the top of the list, though.
And anyone saying he hasn't done anything useful since they buttoned it up is not paying attention.
He resigned a couple of weeks ago.
Surprised he hasn't just packed up his doctor and his family and absconded to an island to get away from the mouth-breathers who own a few shares of a company he built, then rebuilt, who think they own him too.
Why are people so worried about their medical information going public?
First of all, you can't get most people to shut up about what happened at the doctor's office. (And the older the person, the more likely this will dominate their idea of interesting conversation.)
And if this guy can't get a few days' quiet time to himself before he dies, then just who the fuck do the rest of us think we are?
Frankly, I'm going to start posting the boroscope videos of my colonoscopies. Hopefully the karma buildup will mean -- when the time comes to hole up in the hospice eating ring-dings by the boxful and watching DVDs of Firefly in my last few days -- that nobody will even think to bother me.
Human intelligence isn't the application of algorithms. It's the development of algorithms.
They're being programmed in a scripting language.
Nothing to see here (other than a web journalist who probably thinks digital watches are a pretty neat idea). Move along.
It's wrong to betray my the good guys. It's not wrong to betray the bad guys. Doesn't matter whose country is involved.
Anyone who imagines we've found all the exploits already is a moron.
Assange doesn't fit into the category of people who end up in Gitmo, who are still listed as "enemy combatants".
That's not about our government so much as it's about the crooks we let into it.
They could.
But if they tried to do that by force, they'd start a war.
They're currently trying to do it by law, so it's merely a matter of whether the U.S. government will agree to the extradition.
You can bet that Cheney and Bush won't be setting foot in those countries of their own volition, ever.
If he is ever in the jurisdiction of a country with whom we have an extradition treaty, then he'll be served up to the U.S. in handcuffs.
The only reason he's being extradited from the U.K. to Sweden and not to the U.S. is that the U.S. Attorney General is still constructing an indictment against him.
We may have to wait until he's out of a Swedish prison to get him, but I don't doubt we'll end up trying him for what he's done, with or without this law.
You're assuming the only way to know that something bad happened is to know the names of all the people who are doing anything.
You don't need to know anyone's name until it's determined that something bad happened, and then you'll take them into custody and it won't matter whether they're protected or not.
The law, on its face, is a redundant attempt to point out that Assange, in the process of trying to illuminate a few illegal acts, put a lot of other people in danger who hadn't done anything we the people of the USA would consider wrong.
Actually, it is. Scooter Libby was convicted of it.
Unfortunately, it was an open secret that he wasn't the only one who was supposed to be tried for it.
1. The public's need-to-know has value in political terms. Outing informants in Spin Boldak is not relevant to anyone stateside. Knowing what they're doing that is counter to your principles of war and the rule of law is. Their names don't mean a thing to anyone but the people who want to kill them. If it turns out what they did was illegal, it's up to the courts to determine their names.
2. Not sure I follow what you're saying, but the law is redundant with prior laws against espionage against the U.S.
3. Who's "they" in this sentence?