If you tax petrol then those that use more pay more and if they use fuel efficient cars they can save and in doing so save the planet etc. So instead of spying on everyone just put a tax on petrol, Oh but that would raise the price of a gallon and people wouldn't like that....
How is it bias to say that there is no evidence? That is not saying that you prefer one side to the other, just that to conduct a case there is a responsibility to provide evidence.
Judges are there to earn a living as well. They do not want to shoot the golden goose so it should really be up to government to bring in the checks and balances that are needed. There is about as much chance of that happening as there is of the judges waking up en masse though.
You can keep your finger. If I do that you will know that I am going to go shopping on your account but if I take your fingerprint from a glass that you have used and build it onto a rubber glove finger I can use it and you do not find out until you get the bill.
While I was in Russia last year I did not notice any significant change. There are still rich people, poor people and a powerful army. It is us that changed. We think we won a game that they just stopped playing. Some of the satellites are now European but they cost more to keep than they were worth. It is all just propoganda.
Good troll but not enough people bit. You missed out the right to live in peace and I think that would include not getting shot in a drive by, a right they enjoy far more in China. Most Chinese think their democracy is more effective than ours. While I was there I found it surprising how much they thought that their lives were better and that was not through lack of information. Most people here would benefit from a year in China but they would have to learn respect for other peoples culture first.
I am in northern Thailand (about 1000 miles north) and it woke me up. The chains of the fan rattling against the light. I called some friends that live near to the coast and they had been to hung over from the night before to notice anything. One friend had not even heard about it until I told her and she lives very near the coast but a few floors up.
The tide rushes out and any (poor and maybe uneducated) people see lots of stranded fish waiting to be served to the family for dinner. Those that have been to anywhere that educates people about the dangers of tsunami knew to run but some local people seize the opportunity and rush out onto the sea bed. Often tourists wander out to investigate the strange event, they also die. Most wealthy places around the pacific tell the people about the fact that before a tsunami the tide will recede before the approaching tidal wave. One person in the south of Thailand (Phuket) yesterday said the sea went out a very long way and she ran inland and lived although she still had to face the flood that followed her into the shop where she sought shelter. Most of the shops etc in this area are little more than wooden sheds and offered little defence.
The English/Welsh legal system has the idea that the defendant can counter sue and claim all costs if they win. I think that if SCO takes the same course of action in the UK they will very quickly end up bankrupt. The English\Welsh courts also want evidence up front before the case is considered. The Scottish courts will be even harder for them as they have some concept of 'what the average person would understand to be the right thing to do', so it is not just case law but case law with a lot of common sense throw in and SCO logic thrown out. IANAL but I have been involved with a few cases in the UK and learnt to say 'please, sue me:)' because it is so much easier to defend than sue in the UK. In the UK you really want to be sure that you have a valid case or you will end up bankrupt. The courts often award full costs so the person suing has to pay all the defendants costs if the defendant wins, which means that they can counter sue for anything they like at your expense. And before anyone says that I have that one wrong, I have done so and because my lawyer was sure of the case he did not charge me anything because he knew he could get his fee from the costs (that was in Scotland though and England/Wales did not allow lawyers to accept no win no fee until recently, but they do now).
I think I will have to start thinking about this one as I believe it would be a good idea for the next graphics course I run, to get the students to design and create their own Linux license. Maybe a parody of SCO if they want (and know the story) or a realistic mock if they like. It would be a sound project for them and a good bit of humour. I can just imagine SCO trying to sue me but I think that would be worth worrying about as I do not believe they could succeed.
I agree because I have similar problems. I have an internet cafe and would love to have all the machines on Linux but the customers would simply go somewhere else. They are not interested and get annoyed because I have the XP machines locked down so that they cannot install their software for their camera etc. without help from the guy that works there. They think that the guy that works there is being unreasonable because he will not let them install their games etc. I make Firefox the default browser but the customers do not want it. I tell them how much better it is but they do not feel comfortable with it. It does not matter how much I tell them about how it does not load all the spyware etc. and how good tabs are, they just see it as different and therefore they do not want it. If they cannot find IE tthey will go somewhere else. I make Firefox prominent but I have to have IE on the desktop.
In the office I have Linux and many customers say things about how they have heard this and that but it is just passing interest and they do not want to try it. I intend to make the machines dual boot with XP the default soon so that I can boot to Linux to image and re-install from images as I think that will make maintainance easier and give me the option to have machines running Linux when I want (for friends and to educate those that want to learn) but I know from experience that it will not be a commercial venture. Joe/Josephine Public just want to bury their heads in the sand and continue with the devil they know.
Although I am opposed to violence and do not defend the idea that an American cannot voice an opinion however stupid, I think that if I was in New York and started banging on about how we should leave these poor muslims alone and how we had no legal right to attack Afghanistan, I would get a bad response. London did suffer a lot of bombings at the hands of American sponsored terrorism and a lot of people are unhappy. It is not right but it is easy to understand, just as it is easy to understand that New Yorkers do not want to hear people tell them how wrong it was to attack Afghanistan. The British people are even more pissed off now Bu**sh** wants to lead the 'War on terrorism' as if he has a clue what he is talking about. America has a right to be pissed but be real, they should be last one to preach. Britain has done a lot to bring terrorism to an end and the US is creating more terrorism of a worse kind (OK, with Bliar's help but that does not stop the man in the street from being pissed).
Taiwan did have a seat on the UN for a while until the rest of us bowed over and offered our souls to China. In reality China has no claim to Taiwan as Taiwan never accepted Chinese control before or after the Chinese government fled there when the mainland was overthrown by communists. China had claimed the place before the communists but the people that live there have at no time accepted that claim. If we want to get picky about who has a right to that claim, the government on Taiwan is the original government that laid claim to Taiwan (as they are the previous Chinese government that fled there) and they now have made that claim a reality. So mainland China does not even have a tenuous claim. Reality check though, all those missiles mean that right has nothing to do with it. China will attack soon and the US will be too war weary with Afghanistan, Iraq etc. to get involved in yet another even bigger fight.
They can claim all they like but I think that they are being disingenuous. I have read many independant trials of this and all found problems. I do not proffess to be an expert, but I did work with forensic experts for 5 years until recently and we never found that facial recognition worked well enough, even to use as a guide. It was far too easy to fool and even when not trying to fool it the failure rate was high.
Even though it is not supposed to matter what hair do someone has it did seem to confuse the system when someone changed their hair. A swollen face or nose, from a fight or accident can affect it (relevant if you are talking about criminals) and even worse was it gave many false positives when looking for someone.
I think it is like the polygraph, it will be used excessively and create a lot of problems that will have to be sorted out later but because it is great sounding technology suits will like it.
you mean I cannot say 'I have 5 pirate copies that I want to exchange, so does my girlfriend, brother, sister, son, daughter, father, mother, neighbour, neighbour's cat etc. and can I have my replacements quickly as the car boot sale is on Saturday' ?
The contention that Solaris can kill Linux comes from the mono-os culture and that is what is wrong with the current M$ dominated situation. The contenion seems to be 'how can Linux achieve market dominance if there is another good player in town?'. It is not the Windows OS that is the problem (although I do not like it), it is the fact that it has such a dominant market share that causes problems. If Linux could get 20% of the market, Solaris 20%, Apple 20%, M$ 20% and the variety of others taking the other 20% we would have a good, healthy market. Try writing a virus that works in that market. I think if Linux had 90% of the market we would be back at square one. I welcome more choice and think that more choice and competition will lead to more innovation and even more choice in the future. The reason I hate M$ is because they think they know better than me what I want to do, I use Linux because it lets me do what I want. Some people want M$ to make those decisions for them and that is their choice. It is not wrong for someone to make a different choice, it is wrong to try and remove those choices (as I believe M$ tries to do). Solaris will give another choice which will suit a lot of people. I do not think this is as much of a threat to Linux but more of a threat to M$.
This is the sort of thing we would have screamed about if China had done it a few years ago and now we just accept it. The East is moving West as quickly as the West is moving East. Soon they will occupy the moral high ground.
The serious side to this is that if the system is running then is what you find a result of what you are doing or what the person being investigated did. In Britain we *HAVE* to analyse dead systems as this is the only way to say we are looking at what someone else did when the system was live. You have to image the system and work with the images as it is important not to taint the evidence in any way. Any mistake will result in a lost case. One of the stupidities of Windows is that even if you mount a drive as a slave, the first thing Windows does is write to it making any work irrelevant. You have to use an OS that allows you to easily mount RO.
Neither of you have it quite right as Taiwan was not part of China until the Chinese faschists took it over. They fled there and claimed it so China mainland has not claim to it at all and the Chinese now-ex-faschists have no real claim to it. The poor people that lived there have been forgotten as it was just an inconsequential island until it became centre stage with more missiles aimed at it than Cuba. China had been a lose collection of states controlled by war lords so the concept of a united country with rights over other parts is something post revolution and not relevant at all to Taiwan.
The Guardian has its bias just like CNN, Fox News or the Washington Post. To say this is to imply that you read very few newspapers. You use 2 links to justify your arguement yet neither are to the Guardian and therefore both do not really support your arguement. One refers to postbag comments. Do the newspapers that you read censore the postbag comments? I would think that would show an extreme bias that would indicate that the Guardian is less biased than the papers that you read. The other refers to a flippant comment. I am aware that many Americans have a problem with humour but the Guardian is aimed at a British audience who respect and enjoy humour.
The Guardian is not a paper that I regularly read but it is a paper that I respect. Of course it is anti-Bush, most of the world is. So of course many readers wrote in to say that they hoped Americans would vote for Kerry and the articles say negative things about Bush. This is also true of many pro American newspapers in other parts of the world. Most of the world can see the decline in American influence globally and how Bush has caused this. Therefore being anti Bush is really pro American. The Guardian is not pro or anti American, it is objective, and therefore more anti Bush that those pro American papers.
Slashdot Mirror
If you tax petrol then those that use more pay more and if they use fuel efficient cars they can save and in doing so save the planet etc. So instead of spying on everyone just put a tax on petrol, Oh but that would raise the price of a gallon and people wouldn't like that....
displeased with the process of political decisions
Yeah, isn't democracy a drag...
Microsoft can secure their rights better in the USA.
Bu**sh**, as you said it, I concur.
How is it bias to say that there is no evidence? That is not saying that you prefer one side to the other, just that to conduct a case there is a responsibility to provide evidence.
Judges are there to earn a living as well. They do not want to shoot the golden goose so it should really be up to government to bring in the checks and balances that are needed. There is about as much chance of that happening as there is of the judges waking up en masse though.
I had to make a quick check and there it is - http://ja.openoffice.org/index.html
Looks good to me but I do not speak a word of japanese.
And if you want to find them you now know where to look :) So this course is a good thing really.
You can keep your finger. If I do that you will know that I am going to go shopping on your account but if I take your fingerprint from a glass that you have used and build it onto a rubber glove finger I can use it and you do not find out until you get the bill.
While I was in Russia last year I did not notice any significant change. There are still rich people, poor people and a powerful army. It is us that changed. We think we won a game that they just stopped playing. Some of the satellites are now European but they cost more to keep than they were worth. It is all just propoganda.
Good troll but not enough people bit. You missed out the right to live in peace and I think that would include not getting shot in a drive by, a right they enjoy far more in China. Most Chinese think their democracy is more effective than ours. While I was there I found it surprising how much they thought that their lives were better and that was not through lack of information. Most people here would benefit from a year in China but they would have to learn respect for other peoples culture first.
Maybe they will simply fix IE so that it does not accept so much rubbish onto the PC and it will appear like this 'new' product is great.
To me it seems like getting a broom to crack a nut. If you use the right tool (read Firefox) in the first place you do not need to sweep up the mess.
I am in northern Thailand (about 1000 miles north) and it woke me up. The chains of the fan rattling against the light. I called some friends that live near to the coast and they had been to hung over from the night before to notice anything. One friend had not even heard about it until I told her and she lives very near the coast but a few floors up.
The tide rushes out and any (poor and maybe uneducated) people see lots of stranded fish waiting to be served to the family for dinner. Those that have been to anywhere that educates people about the dangers of tsunami knew to run but some local people seize the opportunity and rush out onto the sea bed. Often tourists wander out to investigate the strange event, they also die. Most wealthy places around the pacific tell the people about the fact that before a tsunami the tide will recede before the approaching tidal wave. One person in the south of Thailand (Phuket) yesterday said the sea went out a very long way and she ran inland and lived although she still had to face the flood that followed her into the shop where she sought shelter. Most of the shops etc in this area are little more than wooden sheds and offered little defence.
The English/Welsh legal system has the idea that the defendant can counter sue and claim all costs if they win. I think that if SCO takes the same course of action in the UK they will very quickly end up bankrupt. The English\Welsh courts also want evidence up front before the case is considered. The Scottish courts will be even harder for them as they have some concept of 'what the average person would understand to be the right thing to do', so it is not just case law but case law with a lot of common sense throw in and SCO logic thrown out. IANAL but I have been involved with a few cases in the UK and learnt to say 'please, sue me :)' because it is so much easier to defend than sue in the UK. In the UK you really want to be sure that you have a valid case or you will end up bankrupt. The courts often award full costs so the person suing has to pay all the defendants costs if the defendant wins, which means that they can counter sue for anything they like at your expense. And before anyone says that I have that one wrong, I have done so and because my lawyer was sure of the case he did not charge me anything because he knew he could get his fee from the costs (that was in Scotland though and England/Wales did not allow lawyers to accept no win no fee until recently, but they do now).
I think I will have to start thinking about this one as I believe it would be a good idea for the next graphics course I run, to get the students to design and create their own Linux license. Maybe a parody of SCO if they want (and know the story) or a realistic mock if they like. It would be a sound project for them and a good bit of humour. I can just imagine SCO trying to sue me but I think that would be worth worrying about as I do not believe they could succeed.
I agree because I have similar problems. I have an internet cafe and would love to have all the machines on Linux but the customers would simply go somewhere else. They are not interested and get annoyed because I have the XP machines locked down so that they cannot install their software for their camera etc. without help from the guy that works there. They think that the guy that works there is being unreasonable because he will not let them install their games etc. I make Firefox the default browser but the customers do not want it. I tell them how much better it is but they do not feel comfortable with it. It does not matter how much I tell them about how it does not load all the spyware etc. and how good tabs are, they just see it as different and therefore they do not want it. If they cannot find IE tthey will go somewhere else. I make Firefox prominent but I have to have IE on the desktop.
In the office I have Linux and many customers say things about how they have heard this and that but it is just passing interest and they do not want to try it. I intend to make the machines dual boot with XP the default soon so that I can boot to Linux to image and re-install from images as I think that will make maintainance easier and give me the option to have machines running Linux when I want (for friends and to educate those that want to learn) but I know from experience that it will not be a commercial venture. Joe/Josephine Public just want to bury their heads in the sand and continue with the devil they know.
Although I am opposed to violence and do not defend the idea that an American cannot voice an opinion however stupid, I think that if I was in New York and started banging on about how we should leave these poor muslims alone and how we had no legal right to attack Afghanistan, I would get a bad response. London did suffer a lot of bombings at the hands of American sponsored terrorism and a lot of people are unhappy. It is not right but it is easy to understand, just as it is easy to understand that New Yorkers do not want to hear people tell them how wrong it was to attack Afghanistan. The British people are even more pissed off now Bu**sh** wants to lead the 'War on terrorism' as if he has a clue what he is talking about. America has a right to be pissed but be real, they should be last one to preach. Britain has done a lot to bring terrorism to an end and the US is creating more terrorism of a worse kind (OK, with Bliar's help but that does not stop the man in the street from being pissed).
Taiwan did have a seat on the UN for a while until the rest of us bowed over and offered our souls to China. In reality China has no claim to Taiwan as Taiwan never accepted Chinese control before or after the Chinese government fled there when the mainland was overthrown by communists. China had claimed the place before the communists but the people that live there have at no time accepted that claim. If we want to get picky about who has a right to that claim, the government on Taiwan is the original government that laid claim to Taiwan (as they are the previous Chinese government that fled there) and they now have made that claim a reality. So mainland China does not even have a tenuous claim. Reality check though, all those missiles mean that right has nothing to do with it. China will attack soon and the US will be too war weary with Afghanistan, Iraq etc. to get involved in yet another even bigger fight.
They can claim all they like but I think that they are being disingenuous. I have read many independant trials of this and all found problems. I do not proffess to be an expert, but I did work with forensic experts for 5 years until recently and we never found that facial recognition worked well enough, even to use as a guide. It was far too easy to fool and even when not trying to fool it the failure rate was high.
Even though it is not supposed to matter what hair do someone has it did seem to confuse the system when someone changed their hair. A swollen face or nose, from a fight or accident can affect it (relevant if you are talking about criminals) and even worse was it gave many false positives when looking for someone.
I think it is like the polygraph, it will be used excessively and create a lot of problems that will have to be sorted out later but because it is great sounding technology suits will like it.
you mean I cannot say 'I have 5 pirate copies that I want to exchange, so does my girlfriend, brother, sister, son, daughter, father, mother, neighbour, neighbour's cat etc. and can I have my replacements quickly as the car boot sale is on Saturday' ?
The contention that Solaris can kill Linux comes from the mono-os culture and that is what is wrong with the current M$ dominated situation. The contenion seems to be 'how can Linux achieve market dominance if there is another good player in town?'. It is not the Windows OS that is the problem (although I do not like it), it is the fact that it has such a dominant market share that causes problems. If Linux could get 20% of the market, Solaris 20%, Apple 20%, M$ 20% and the variety of others taking the other 20% we would have a good, healthy market. Try writing a virus that works in that market. I think if Linux had 90% of the market we would be back at square one. I welcome more choice and think that more choice and competition will lead to more innovation and even more choice in the future. The reason I hate M$ is because they think they know better than me what I want to do, I use Linux because it lets me do what I want. Some people want M$ to make those decisions for them and that is their choice. It is not wrong for someone to make a different choice, it is wrong to try and remove those choices (as I believe M$ tries to do). Solaris will give another choice which will suit a lot of people. I do not think this is as much of a threat to Linux but more of a threat to M$.
This is the sort of thing we would have screamed about if China had done it a few years ago and now we just accept it. The East is moving West as quickly as the West is moving East. Soon they will occupy the moral high ground.
The serious side to this is that if the system is running then is what you find a result of what you are doing or what the person being investigated did. In Britain we *HAVE* to analyse dead systems as this is the only way to say we are looking at what someone else did when the system was live. You have to image the system and work with the images as it is important not to taint the evidence in any way. Any mistake will result in a lost case. One of the stupidities of Windows is that even if you mount a drive as a slave, the first thing Windows does is write to it making any work irrelevant. You have to use an OS that allows you to easily mount RO.
Neither of you have it quite right as Taiwan was not part of China until the Chinese faschists took it over. They fled there and claimed it so China mainland has not claim to it at all and the Chinese now-ex-faschists have no real claim to it. The poor people that lived there have been forgotten as it was just an inconsequential island until it became centre stage with more missiles aimed at it than Cuba. China had been a lose collection of states controlled by war lords so the concept of a united country with rights over other parts is something post revolution and not relevant at all to Taiwan.
The Guardian has its bias just like CNN, Fox News or the Washington Post. To say this is to imply that you read very few newspapers. You use 2 links to justify your arguement yet neither are to the Guardian and therefore both do not really support your arguement. One refers to postbag comments. Do the newspapers that you read censore the postbag comments? I would think that would show an extreme bias that would indicate that the Guardian is less biased than the papers that you read. The other refers to a flippant comment. I am aware that many Americans have a problem with humour but the Guardian is aimed at a British audience who respect and enjoy humour.
The Guardian is not a paper that I regularly read but it is a paper that I respect. Of course it is anti-Bush, most of the world is. So of course many readers wrote in to say that they hoped Americans would vote for Kerry and the articles say negative things about Bush. This is also true of many pro American newspapers in other parts of the world. Most of the world can see the decline in American influence globally and how Bush has caused this. Therefore being anti Bush is really pro American. The Guardian is not pro or anti American, it is objective, and therefore more anti Bush that those pro American papers.
And continueing to bury our heads in the sand will save all those jobs and create more. How many people earned a fortune cleaning up in Florida?