How about a policy of honesty and if there is something that you want, then why not have your Microsoft PR department make the edits? Is that too obvious? It would certainly present other ethical dilemmas, but at least it would be more honest than hiring supposed "impartial" third parties to do your work for you.
You did read the link, right?
This isn't some random anonymous goofball being paid to insert text Microsoft gives him; he's an (apparently) recognized figure, not especially MS-friendly, being paid to provide corrections in his area of expertise, with his reputation on the line. I'd trust that more than edits made by the PR people. He certainly made his case a lot more credibly than the Slashdot submitter made his.
I mean, I can still see where there are questions to be raised, but the write-up here is completely dishonest.
In case the parent's sarcasm is missed, there's no href in the link. At any rate, given that neither Thunar nor xffm is exactly a high-profile application (I brace for another lecture from the "You must be living under a rock!" guy...), I agree with the others that a little more context would have been appropriate.
Personally, besides the fact that WindowMaker just meshes perfectly with my habits, I've never been able to overcome the aversion to a CDE look-alike.
There was a missile fired at an Israeli passenger jet in Kenya on the same day as the hotel bombing there, a few years ago. Supposedly it was deflected by an ECM system that's standard (again, supposedly) on all Israeli passenger planes.
How cost-effective this is on your JetBlue flight from Topeka to Boise is another question, of course.
My first thought was to wonder why the Dutch were the only ones freaking out over a vulnerability that probably affects every electronic voting machine on the planet. But of course, Van Eck is a local security bigshot and if he wasn't on the commission himself, his buddies probably were.
The price tag for Sealand is reported in the $1 billion range -- a bit steep for a bunch of overgrown w4r3z kiddies, even with $13,714 kicked in by a bunch of undergrown w4r3z kiddies. Particularly since the whole "Sealand" thing is just an elaborate prank in the first place.
Besides, if Donald Rumsfeld really managed to convince the whole world to buy Tamiflu for no reason, that'd be a diplomatic triumph rather out of character for the Bush administration. Maybe he should get Rice's job.
Anyway I'm reluctant to trust inside pharmaceutical news from someone who thinks the drug is made by "La Rouche pharmaceuticals" -- that's like referring to "McDonaldsoft Windows".
Actually, less important than the animal result (although I appreciate the clarification) is that this is an approved, reasonably safe drug.
OK, so this is less inane than most of the "Cure For Cancer!" stories, albeit a long, long way from an approved cancer treatment. So, how does eliminating private drug development make trials of this any easier?
If only because, if this molecule has potential...
As with every "New Miracle Cure For Cancer!" story here (this is, what, the fourth one of the year and we're barely halfway through January), this is something that kills tumors in-vitro, published in a respectable but unremarkable journal and then hyped by an overexcitable univerity PR department. There are literally dozens of results like this every week, virtually all of which go nowhere.
As for the notion that the unwillingness to develop a drug in the absence of patent protection somehow is an argument against patents -- honestly, I can't get my brain down close enough to the level of such idiocy to reason with it.
Wouldn't they then be serving 4 million redirects per day? The point is that they need to eventually break it to make people stop relying on that path.
Have some nerd take his girlfriend to a LAN for a couple hours and then ask her about what she learned from her visit... I bet you everything she learned at that game music concert is out the window and never coming back.
More likely, the girlfriend is out the window and never coming back.
And are you willing to take the stand that the world needs to legalise slavery again in order for us to be more free?
I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand about "Whether or not one agrees with that view (I don't)", but to laboriously explain-- I don't think seven-year-olds should be allowed to drive, and I don't think voluntary human sacrifice should be legal, because I don't think "in order for us to be more free" is a value that trumps everything else.
The problem for the FSF and their zombie followers is that they *do* claim to place "freedom" above everything else. They don't actually believe that, of course, so they need to continuously redefine "free" and "not free" as "whatever I like" and "whatever I don't like".
I have not read the act itself but the TFA (and summary) is worded in such a way that implies that it applies across the board regardless...
Here is the text. (Shorter than the link, BTW.) My guess is that as it's part of the copyright section, not a communications section, the idea that it applies to freely distributable content is just FUD, but IA(obviously)NAL.
If you figure there is structure at fault why not pass the raw data through a Perl script (or sed, awk, grep, etc) to try to search/parse/manipulate the file?
Or I can right-click on it, open it in Excel, figure out what's going on and start writing the SAS import script, Python analysis, database structure or whathaveyou within 10 seconds of getting the file, instead of puzzling over the man page for awk or sed. No one gives you a gold star (or at least no one gives me a gold star) for being too 1337 to use Excel.
...you pretty much invalidate it because you don't know this about Wisconsin.
There is nothing to "invalidate". The point of stating what I don't know was to clarify that I'm *not* claiming to have an authoritative legal opinion on this specific case. (I realize that caring whether or not I know what I'm talking about is contrary to all normal practice here, so your confusion is understandable.)
He is no different from a 3rd party that was hired to write code but keeps the code.
1) In most states, the presumption is that work-related inventions by a salaried worker belong to the employer, whether or not an explicit agreement has been signed. (Don't know the specifics about Wisconsin, or about how a trooper would be classified.)
2) Accepting a work computer and other considerations has *got* to seriously jeopardize his claim. For heaven's sake, do *not* accept anything like that for work which you want to own, unless you get explicit acknowledgment that your employer sees it the same way.
If you go two layers deep into the "Tools" menu, you'll see that "Auto-Astroturf" is by default enabled...
Yup, and soon the same idiot Lunix fanboys who tell people that missing features in Open Office are a non-issue because "Yuo have teh suorce code so write it yuorself!" will be complaining that no one could POSSIBLY ever figure out how to turn off a Office feature two menus deep, like they do with bulletting or auto-correct.
As for you, goober -- I realize you've never had to make a spreadsheet bigger than "Case: $48.95, Motherboard: $89.95,..." but some of us grownups use computers to do real computing.
So my point is, you either have a already researched features you like and will run with...
The ability to open large datasets in Excel, instead of having to use vim to figure out what the structure is. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the rest of the features aren't a step backwards, but it'll still be worth it the next time I have to figure out why SAS is choking on some huge text file.
I'd say that given that these "studies" (I'm not sure how they count three of them) are basically counting Nobel prizes, the trend simply reflects changes in what wins Nobels. When the awards were dominated by traditional medicine and physiology, Harvard Med School owned them, and MIT and some of the other competitors mentioned don't even have med schools.
And as I said in the prior posts, if the Gates foundation isn't making money off of the evil corporations, someone will.
And note that "evil", as defined in the original article, includes such things as providing high-paying jobs that allow workers to patronize prostitutes, and thereby contributing to teenage pregnancy.
There's arguably a sane point to be made there, but the article takes it to a ludicrous extreme.
What's up with all the anti-Brazil stuff here lately? I understand it with the YouTube thing -- Slashbots would denounce their grandmother if she somehow came into conflict with Google -- but what's the rest of it over? They're pro-Linux and they're still pretending they're buying millions of OLPCs.
If you reject instead of bouncing then legitimate mail senders will still know there is a problem.
I've been hit by the same problem (and eventually gave up on my own domain and decided to let GMail deal with it) so I sympathize, but this simply isn't true. Bounces are much more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
You did read the link, right?
This isn't some random anonymous goofball being paid to insert text Microsoft gives him; he's an (apparently) recognized figure, not especially MS-friendly, being paid to provide corrections in his area of expertise, with his reputation on the line. I'd trust that more than edits made by the PR people. He certainly made his case a lot more credibly than the Slashdot submitter made his.
I mean, I can still see where there are questions to be raised, but the write-up here is completely dishonest.
Personally, besides the fact that WindowMaker just meshes perfectly with my habits, I've never been able to overcome the aversion to a CDE look-alike.
How cost-effective this is on your JetBlue flight from Topeka to Boise is another question, of course.
My first thought was to wonder why the Dutch were the only ones freaking out over a vulnerability that probably affects every electronic voting machine on the planet. But of course, Van Eck is a local security bigshot and if he wasn't on the commission himself, his buddies probably were.
The price tag for Sealand is reported in the $1 billion range -- a bit steep for a bunch of overgrown w4r3z kiddies, even with $13,714 kicked in by a bunch of undergrown w4r3z kiddies. Particularly since the whole "Sealand" thing is just an elaborate prank in the first place.
Anyway I'm reluctant to trust inside pharmaceutical news from someone who thinks the drug is made by "La Rouche pharmaceuticals" -- that's like referring to "McDonaldsoft Windows".
OK, so this is less inane than most of the "Cure For Cancer!" stories, albeit a long, long way from an approved cancer treatment. So, how does eliminating private drug development make trials of this any easier?
As with every "New Miracle Cure For Cancer!" story here (this is, what, the fourth one of the year and we're barely halfway through January), this is something that kills tumors in-vitro, published in a respectable but unremarkable journal and then hyped by an overexcitable univerity PR department. There are literally dozens of results like this every week, virtually all of which go nowhere.
As for the notion that the unwillingness to develop a drug in the absence of patent protection somehow is an argument against patents -- honestly, I can't get my brain down close enough to the level of such idiocy to reason with it.
Wouldn't they then be serving 4 million redirects per day? The point is that they need to eventually break it to make people stop relying on that path.
It's a dupe from last week, so at worst it's tied for the biggest load of crap you've ever seen.
More likely, the girlfriend is out the window and never coming back.
I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand about "Whether or not one agrees with that view (I don't)", but to laboriously explain-- I don't think seven-year-olds should be allowed to drive, and I don't think voluntary human sacrifice should be legal, because I don't think "in order for us to be more free" is a value that trumps everything else.
The problem for the FSF and their zombie followers is that they *do* claim to place "freedom" above everything else. They don't actually believe that, of course, so they need to continuously redefine "free" and "not free" as "whatever I like" and "whatever I don't like".
all the best,
drew
Well, thank you, Drew!
Whether or not one agrees with that view (I don't), that's freedom and it's Orwellian to declare that regulating voluntary choices is "freedom".
Here is the text. (Shorter than the link, BTW.) My guess is that as it's part of the copyright section, not a communications section, the idea that it applies to freely distributable content is just FUD, but IA(obviously)NAL.
Or I can right-click on it, open it in Excel, figure out what's going on and start writing the SAS import script, Python analysis, database structure or whathaveyou within 10 seconds of getting the file, instead of puzzling over the man page for awk or sed. No one gives you a gold star (or at least no one gives me a gold star) for being too 1337 to use Excel.
There is nothing to "invalidate". The point of stating what I don't know was to clarify that I'm *not* claiming to have an authoritative legal opinion on this specific case. (I realize that caring whether or not I know what I'm talking about is contrary to all normal practice here, so your confusion is understandable.)
He is no different from a 3rd party that was hired to write code but keeps the code.
Absolutely false.
2) Accepting a work computer and other considerations has *got* to seriously jeopardize his claim. For heaven's sake, do *not* accept anything like that for work which you want to own, unless you get explicit acknowledgment that your employer sees it the same way.
Yup, and soon the same idiot Lunix fanboys who tell people that missing features in Open Office are a non-issue because "Yuo have teh suorce code so write it yuorself!" will be complaining that no one could POSSIBLY ever figure out how to turn off a Office feature two menus deep, like they do with bulletting or auto-correct.
As for you, goober -- I realize you've never had to make a spreadsheet bigger than "Case: $48.95, Motherboard: $89.95, ..." but some of us grownups use computers to do real computing.
The ability to open large datasets in Excel, instead of having to use vim to figure out what the structure is. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the rest of the features aren't a step backwards, but it'll still be worth it the next time I have to figure out why SAS is choking on some huge text file.
I'd say that given that these "studies" (I'm not sure how they count three of them) are basically counting Nobel prizes, the trend simply reflects changes in what wins Nobels. When the awards were dominated by traditional medicine and physiology, Harvard Med School owned them, and MIT and some of the other competitors mentioned don't even have med schools.
And note that "evil", as defined in the original article, includes such things as providing high-paying jobs that allow workers to patronize prostitutes, and thereby contributing to teenage pregnancy.
There's arguably a sane point to be made there, but the article takes it to a ludicrous extreme.
What's up with all the anti-Brazil stuff here lately? I understand it with the YouTube thing -- Slashbots would denounce their grandmother if she somehow came into conflict with Google -- but what's the rest of it over? They're pro-Linux and they're still pretending they're buying millions of OLPCs.
I think the point is that relative to 10 million 360's, it's close. (Or maybe it's closely behind in dollar sales, not in units.)
Ahhh, if that's what he mean by "reject", then I agree.
I've been hit by the same problem (and eventually gave up on my own domain and decided to let GMail deal with it) so I sympathize, but this simply isn't true. Bounces are much more effective.