Getting back to the issue of pr0n and the chocolate cookie challenge... p0rn sites can be named anything! (well, as long as the domain isn't already taken, and they don't get caught for trademark infringement, and...), and so once it grows pas the bondage and xxx and all those cheesy "look at me, I'm pr0n!" site names, it'll creep into (but it's probably already there, i dunno and i dont care, and no, i'm not trying to spread paranoia about pr0n) more common/obscure words that don't really relate to pr0n. Therefore, those blocking things will be obselete, as they are now, because they're not effective! How can you look for pr0n except by going and finding it and physically blocking each site. but then you've got the issue of sites continuuing with their business because
not everyone has blocking software
people can outsmart software
the webmasters can simply move/copy/mirror their sites!
so, my final take on this is: filters are a waste.. of time, energy, and the skills of the programmers who made them
and i've heard the opposite. At least, about some vitamins (vitamin c or calcium comes to mind). I've heard that eating too many vitamins causes problems. I can't remember what, but I've heard such at meals with my dad, a doctor (dentist, if you want to get picky, but no less informed and no less intelligent).
Once again, since i'm not a doctor I shouldn't know, right?
Exactly. Everything is relative to what we know. We call everything what it is because we've decided that that's what it really is. That's where language comes in. A horse in english is "horse," in spanish "caballo," in german "Pferd." So, back on topic, the universe to scientists (who speak the language of science and mathematics, the pure language of "the universe"), the universe is so big __ because that's all we've seen of it. Therefore, this is the most distant object because we can see it, and we know it's far away, and it's the farthest away thing we have seen. Once we see something that's farther away, then, hey, that'll be the "most distant object in the known universe."
So, what about the unknown universe? well, we don't know about it because it's unknown!
I wondered the same myself. When the article was first posted on/. that etoy had "won," I pointed Netscape over to their site to see how things were going. I half expected some sort of party going on. I was disappointed, however, when I found out that their site was down... what's the deal with this? Can etoy sue for something like this? I'm not advocating going off and suing everyone that is bad/gets in your way, but heck, I figure that if they're going to make a point, they need to make it.
If they want to hire someone they should do so in the proper way
They should. And they should also develop, IMHO, higher standards for getting "handouts" in the first place. Too often, people get handouts that don't need them. Welfare is like affirmative action, I believe: it's something that was started with good intent(s), but something that is so frequently and so easily abused. People need to find a job! Surely, somewhere out there is a job.. even if it's something that you wouldn't want to do.. well, wouldn't you rather have a job and dignity than no job at all? And, if it's a case of inability to have a job/work/etc., then it's time for welfar to kick in.
But, back on topic... I know a lot of people work too much. But something I found funny was this:
" If you're reading this, the odds are shockingly good that you're overworked and underpaid, or, at the very least, not compensated for anywhere near the hours you work. "
I don't work at all! Oh, wait.. I have homework... does that count?
For example that suit and tie lawyer may be a real stif but how do you know when he dosn't get home and say have a real funky time? Same goes with the internet and how you just can't categorize it.
Exactly. Just like those funky, colourful clothes (or, the simple, all-powerful "root" shirts) that "socialite" geeks wear sometimes is replaced by, say, a suit/tie/dress when they have to stand and deliver. The mirror has two faces. We're not in Euclidean space anymore.
(Just so everyone will know, I am a female.) Why be a clique, let's all just jump in the party and make the most of it.
My idea is that, if women want to get into the "geeky" fields, if they're really worth having in them all, they'll be the people who are so into it that they simply forge onward and won't be deterred because they'll be wrapped up in their work. Of course, I guess I'm wrong here, since this hasn't happened (and I'll admit, I'm not that in-the-know about stuff, but yes, I've read a good deal of this article.. it's just long). What I do wonder, though, is why we're trying to make an effort to, perhaps, change the "standards" simply to say that there are more women who are geeks. I realize that yes, the "standards" could be "wrong," but.. IF they aren't, then "re-writing" them to include others is not making things better, it will make them worse. But, in the grand scheme of things, aren't we also talking about a label here? I mean, sure, the real issue is whether or not there are women in Open source/hacking/programming/technology fields, but the main theme being played up is that there aren't enough female "geeks." Sure, it'd probably be swell and all to be a "geek," but this is a label, people! Is not some form of the open-source, wonderment of it all a sense of going against the current, doing our own thing? (I'm probably wrong, so I'm waiting to be moderated down..) I thought it was a bad thing to be stereotyped, but here we're yapping about how many females are labeled geek. Yeah, sure, it'd be wonderful to have more females doing "geeky" stuff, but if it's not meant to be, don't push it just to "make things better." And before anything "major" happens, I hope everybody stops and thinks a minute about all of the issues here.
yeah, but what about logo? Red hat has their cool little guy with the hat, so Mandrake decided, "hey! we want a hat!" so, they went and got a blue top hat! what a concept! with a magic wand.. ("do you believe in magic, and i hope you do...")
It doesn't look like it runs x86, or PPC, or any other normally supported cpu.
well, couldn't you say the same of any other PDA? If so, then what's the point of having them, eh? Why _not_ do this thing? I mean, it will never get [more] support if no one does any work with it (i.e., code for it, support, new peripherals, etc..)
like the "artificial muscle" this is being hyped as -- is that you can't exert very much force before the material starts to compress, or else you overwhelm the electrostatic forces
What I wondered when I read about it using electric forces, da dee da, is that, if you're going to try to make a muscle out of these things, and you stick a bunch of them together (and they're going to have to be close together to work properly, even though I know they're small) isn't there going to be a lot of electro-static accumulation? Wouldn't somebody outfitted with muscles made of these little things shock everyone they touched? Plus, what kind of battery life is to be considered here? I realize the muscle bit is a while away (or, I think it is), but I still think these are somewhat valid questions.. unless I'm just looking at it all wrong.
Thanks... I suddenly had the realization of what it all is.. As cheesy as this may sound, I'm taking c++ right now (just a short course in HS) and we're learning things like naming new functions, which you so kindly pointed out.. so, now I know. I feel better.
So, a quick look on Altavista lead me to this page, where I found out the (this is low-level.. only because I have no real idea what OOP really means) jist of OOP is that the objects have control over starting and killing themselves, and they communicate with each other. So, say, would that mean that a new device would load its driver only when you called on that device.. and kill it after a period of inaction? (instead of, say, the kernel loading the module at the user's/root's command?)
If so, and that's the "only" advantage to HURD/the idea that HURD is OO programmed... how is that better? Is it a more efficient way of using processor time/system resources/memory?
Or.. what's the dealio?
(Other than that, though, I'd have to say I agree with you when you say:
"This is one of the most incredibly content-free, flame-inviting statements I've seen in the main body of an article on/. for a long time.")
In the context of this article (and I do apologize if what I'm askingw was provided for in the article, and I just didn't see it), it would be nice to have someone who's [more] informed to list the requirements for getting a green card/becoming a citizen (one as opposed to the other).
I personally don't know them, and since INS seems to be having such troubles processing the requests, it'd be nice to know exactly what's bogging them down so darned much. And if they're having work force issues.. why can they not hire more workers to help? Or find a more efficient way to process applications?
Hmph. Beauracracy
violence in the UNIX lab...
on
Geeks in Suits
·
· Score: 1
is not a hot topic of today's journalists... but it should be. All of us who've ever been in a UNIX lab know that there are times when violence is necessary.. say, in the case of errant MCSE's who decide to "reboot" machines when their monitors go awry. Or, when print jobs pile up because no one decided to check for error messages. Or, when people touch the monitors and get grease spots all over them. Or...
Why should you assume the same thing wouldn't work for up and coming Indian computer geeks?
As many others have said, and as I will word (only slightly differently):
Why should you assume the same thing would work for up and coming Indian computer geeks?
What you begin with is what you will be familiar with. I, unfortunately, had my start with Windows, and I therefore seem to know more about what I'm doing while using Windows as opposed to Linux. I wish I had had a start on another OS so I could be more familiar with something more worthwhile.
It's the same with innumerable other things in life.. say, language. The language you grow up hearing/speaking/etc. will be the one you are most comfortable with (AFAIK). I grew up on English, hence, I'm better at it than I am at the foreign languages I'm studying in school now.
I conclude by saying this: You were truly thinking in the spirit of a Westerner,as referred in the article when Professor Venkatesh Hariharan said: "The existing user interface paradigm of files and folders evolved because computers were essentially designed for a western audience familiar with real-life files and folders. There is no reason to assume why the same paradigm should apply to a trader in Tamil Nadu or a farmer in Madhya Pradesh. "
when you made your statement because you were assuming that Windows would be a better transition for the Indians. The whole point of the article is that the Indians haven't had access to computers/an OS yet! Therefore, they need something that will work for them/be cheap/be configureable for them... Linux!
Does the company that wants to seal documents have to give a specific reason why each document has to be sealed? If so, then I would think that it'd be harder for Microsoft to seal so many documents (which kinda answers my own question, since they have so many sealed.. right?)
If they don't.. then how is it they get off sealing so many documents? If they seal them, who gets to see them? Only the company that owns them? If that's the case... then.. how does anything get accomplished? (Obviously, there has to be some sort of limit to this, or either the stipulations surrounding sealing documents has to be such that it's too much of a hassle unless you have as much paperwork as Microsoft.) I guess what I'm saying is that, me not being a lawyer and all (or very familiar with legalities and such), I'm just wondering about the whole "sealing" stuff.
Well, I noted that someone else said that it wasn't really a problem, but, if someone were worried enough about overhead for processing time, couldn't the JIT/VM become standard and then companies just put an extra, not so whiz-bang processor "alongside" the "main" processor to "process" and "optimize" the code? or would that create even more lag time because of slow communication between the processors/memory usage? If it wouldn't be a problem, and this could be done, then the entire capabilities of the "main" processor of said system could devote its time and cycles to executing the created/optimized code produced by the "extra" processor..
though yes, I understand you could have a point. The thing is, you're not getting the type of "manufacturing" I'm talking about. People who have children don't have much say in how the process goes, they just start it and take care of themselves to ensure that their child will be alright. Yes, they often set out consciously to have a child, and yes, sometimes they don't. Same with technologies: sometimes something new was intentional and sometimes not. What I meant was that I don't see how you can reproduce life using silicon when what you're reproducing isn't exactly "meat," as you call it. A person's consciousness.. can you hold it? Can you cut out a person's brain and honestly say and believe that you're holding them? Sure, you've taken out the mechanism by which they think, feel, interact, and are conscious, but you've also destroyed it. You immediately lose what you have gained. Are you getting my point?
If a ebrain George appeas self conscious, and answers a Turing test as well as I do, would this ebrain George have a soul? Or does it prove that there is no soul?
"Appears" is a good choice of word, because what appears and what is real are vastly different, IMHO, in this case. How so? For pete's freaking sakes, we're talking about a computer! An object built by humans, programmed in language(s) created by humans, with errors inherent in humans. Yet, some people seem to think that we humans know enough about ourselves that we'll actually be [able to] downloading a brain into a computer and just.. keep it there for fun, and be able to "run" it. I mean, do they think that the person's consciousness is going to convert to binary just like "poof"? How do you translate neurons, thoughts, feelings, patterns of thinking, values, morals, insecurities, and the like? Oh, I get it, quantum computing? No?
I think this is a crock of junk. Of course, I'll probably get moderated down for this, but, honestly, as others have mentioned, it's simply another one of those horribly assertive, poorly written pieces claiming another "technological advancement" and really just trying to play psychic and feed the public some candy. Bah humbug.
Imagine a whole line of case covers.. similar to the posts on Slashdot before about cases... wherein you had just about anything you wanted. Want Matrix code all over it? you got it. Want it to be blacklight responsive? there ya go. What about glittery and glow-in-the-dark? We've got that. Or, better yet, how about with some shiny chrome look to it? Or, Picasso? Camouflage? Iridescent?.........
I've never had one, but those things always intrigued me because I thought it was so neat how they could "grow" like they do. I never stopped to analyze the mechanism, however. It's a nifty invention, as we all know, and kudos to them for expanding (yes, a pun) this to other shapes. yee ha!
I don't understand. In what way is the merger between Warner Music and EMI vertical? I may be completely wrong, but I've always understood it as that they're both record companies, and thus competitors in the same market.
I agree. Even if they weren't competitors (I'll admit I honestly don't know), I wouldn't care if this is "vertical merging." All it is is the forming of a monolith which will churn out whatever it wants because it's so big no one can beat it up. Perhaps I'm taking the paranoic/narrow-minded view of merging, but the way merging has been going (at least, the mergers I've heard of), it's been the absorption of company into company in what seems to be an effort to have one company that offers everything. I don't like that. Some people in this world may, and I know some people in this world won't. I like having the option of having a dozen or more or more places to go to get what I want. The more competition there is, the more selection there is for the customer (as we all know) because each of those stores/companies is trying to get you to buy their product, yaddy ya.
So, what's my point? My point is, is there nothing that can be done to stop this kind of thing? Do we honestly like it? (IMHO, no) Why won't they stop being so darned greedy and settle for what they've got?
Slashdot Mirror
Getting back to the issue of pr0n and the chocolate cookie challenge... p0rn sites can be named anything! (well, as long as the domain isn't already taken, and they don't get caught for trademark infringement, and...), and so once it grows pas the bondage and xxx and all those cheesy "look at me, I'm pr0n!" site names, it'll creep into (but it's probably already there, i dunno and i dont care, and no, i'm not trying to spread paranoia about pr0n) more common/obscure words that don't really relate to pr0n. Therefore, those blocking things will be obselete, as they are now, because they're not effective! How can you look for pr0n except by going and finding it and physically blocking each site. but then you've got the issue of sites continuuing with their business because
- not everyone has blocking software
- people can outsmart software
- the webmasters can simply move/copy/mirror their sites!
so, my final take on this is: filters are a waste.. of time, energy, and the skills of the programmers who made themand i've heard the opposite. At least, about some vitamins (vitamin c or calcium comes to mind). I've heard that eating too many vitamins causes problems. I can't remember what, but I've heard such at meals with my dad, a doctor (dentist, if you want to get picky, but no less informed and no less intelligent).
Once again, since i'm not a doctor I shouldn't know, right?
;-)
Exactly. Everything is relative to what we know. We call everything what it is because we've decided that that's what it really is. That's where language comes in. A horse in english is "horse," in spanish "caballo," in german "Pferd." So, back on topic, the universe to scientists (who speak the language of science and mathematics, the pure language of "the universe"), the universe is so big __ because that's all we've seen of it. Therefore, this is the most distant object because we can see it, and we know it's far away, and it's the farthest away thing we have seen. Once we see something that's farther away, then, hey, that'll be the "most distant object in the known universe."
So, what about the unknown universe? well, we don't know about it because it's unknown!
I wondered the same myself. When the article was first posted on /. that etoy had "won," I pointed Netscape over to their site to see how things were going. I half expected some sort of party going on. I was disappointed, however, when I found out that their site was down... what's the deal with this? Can etoy sue for something like this? I'm not advocating going off and suing everyone that is bad/gets in your way, but heck, I figure that if they're going to make a point, they need to make it.
Just my $0.0000002 worth.
If they want to hire someone they should do so in the proper way
They should. And they should also develop, IMHO, higher standards for getting "handouts" in the first place. Too often, people get handouts that don't need them. Welfare is like affirmative action, I believe: it's something that was started with good intent(s), but something that is so frequently and so easily abused. People need to find a job! Surely, somewhere out there is a job.. even if it's something that you wouldn't want to do.. well, wouldn't you rather have a job and dignity than no job at all? And, if it's a case of inability to have a job/work/etc., then it's time for welfar to kick in.
But, back on topic... I know a lot of people work too much. But something I found funny was this:
"
If you're reading this, the odds are shockingly good that you're overworked and underpaid, or, at the very least, not compensated for anywhere near the hours you work. "
I don't work at all! Oh, wait.. I have homework... does that count?
For example that suit and tie lawyer may be a real stif but how do you know when he dosn't get home and say have a real funky time? Same goes with the internet and how you just can't categorize it.
Exactly. Just like those funky, colourful clothes (or, the simple, all-powerful "root" shirts) that "socialite" geeks wear sometimes is replaced by, say, a suit/tie/dress when they have to stand and deliver. The mirror has two faces. We're not in Euclidean space anymore.
(Just so everyone will know, I am a female.)
Why be a clique, let's all just jump in the party and make the most of it.
My idea is that, if women want to get into the "geeky" fields, if they're really worth having in them all, they'll be the people who are so into it that they simply forge onward and won't be deterred because they'll be wrapped up in their work. Of course, I guess I'm wrong here, since this hasn't happened (and I'll admit, I'm not that in-the-know about stuff, but yes, I've read a good deal of this article.. it's just long). What I do wonder, though, is why we're trying to make an effort to, perhaps, change the "standards" simply to say that there are more women who are geeks. I realize that yes, the "standards" could be "wrong," but.. IF they aren't, then "re-writing" them to include others is not making things better, it will make them worse. But, in the grand scheme of things, aren't we also talking about a label here? I mean, sure, the real issue is whether or not there are women in Open source/hacking/programming/technology fields, but the main theme being played up is that there aren't enough female "geeks." Sure, it'd probably be swell and all to be a "geek," but this is a label, people! Is not some form of the open-source, wonderment of it all a sense of going against the current, doing our own thing? (I'm probably wrong, so I'm waiting to be moderated down..) I thought it was a bad thing to be stereotyped, but here we're yapping about how many females are labeled geek. Yeah, sure, it'd be wonderful to have more females doing "geeky" stuff, but if it's not meant to be, don't push it just to "make things better." And before anything "major" happens, I hope everybody stops and thinks a minute about all of the issues here.
yeah, but what about logo? Red hat has their cool little guy with the hat, so Mandrake decided, "hey! we want a hat!" so, they went and got a blue top hat! what a concept! with a magic wand.. ("do you believe in magic, and i hope you do...")
It doesn't look like it runs x86, or PPC, or any other normally supported cpu.
well, couldn't you say the same of any other PDA? If so, then what's the point of having them, eh? Why _not_ do this thing? I mean, it will never get [more] support if no one does any work with it (i.e., code for it, support, new peripherals, etc..)
I say, "yay!"
like the "artificial muscle" this is being hyped as -- is that you can't exert very much force before the material starts to compress, or else you overwhelm the electrostatic forces
What I wondered when I read about it using electric forces, da dee da, is that, if you're going to try to make a muscle out of these things, and you stick a bunch of them together (and they're going to have to be close together to work properly, even though I know they're small) isn't there going to be a lot of electro-static accumulation? Wouldn't somebody outfitted with muscles made of these little things shock everyone they touched? Plus, what kind of battery life is to be considered here? I realize the muscle bit is a while away (or, I think it is), but I still think these are somewhat valid questions.. unless I'm just looking at it all wrong.
Thanks... I suddenly had the realization of what it all is..
As cheesy as this may sound, I'm taking c++ right now (just a short course in HS) and we're learning things like naming new functions, which you so kindly pointed out.. so, now I know. I feel better.
So, a quick look on Altavista lead me to this page, where I found out the (this is low-level.. only because I have no real idea what OOP really means) jist of OOP is that the objects have control over starting and killing themselves, and they communicate with each other. So, say, would that mean that a new device would load its driver only when you called on that device.. and kill it after a period of inaction? (instead of, say, the kernel loading the module at the user's/root's command?)
/. for a long time.")
If so, and that's the "only" advantage to HURD/the idea that HURD is OO programmed... how is that better? Is it a more efficient way of using processor time/system resources/memory?
Or.. what's the dealio?
(Other than that, though, I'd have to say I agree with you when you say:
"This is one of the most incredibly content-free, flame-inviting statements I've seen in the main body of an article on
In the context of this article (and I do apologize if what I'm askingw was provided for in the article, and I just didn't see it),
it would be nice to have someone who's [more] informed to list the requirements for getting a green card/becoming a citizen (one as opposed to the other).
I personally don't know them, and since INS seems to be having such troubles processing the requests, it'd be nice to know exactly what's bogging them down so darned much. And if they're having work force issues.. why can they not hire more workers to help? Or find a more efficient way to process applications?
Hmph. Beauracracy
is not a hot topic of today's journalists... but it should be. All of us who've ever been in a UNIX lab know that there are times when violence is necessary.. say, in the case of errant MCSE's who decide to "reboot" machines when their monitors go awry. Or, when print jobs pile up because no one decided to check for error messages. Or, when people touch the monitors and get grease spots all over them. Or...
Why should you assume the same thing wouldn't work for up and coming Indian computer geeks?
,as referred in the article when Professor Venkatesh Hariharan said:
As many others have said, and as I will word (only slightly differently):
Why should you assume the same thing would work for up and coming Indian computer geeks?
What you begin with is what you will be familiar with. I, unfortunately, had my start with Windows, and I therefore seem to know more about what I'm doing while using Windows as opposed to Linux. I wish I had had a start on another OS so I could be more familiar with something more worthwhile.
It's the same with innumerable other things in life.. say, language. The language you grow up hearing/speaking/etc. will be the one you are most comfortable with (AFAIK). I grew up on English, hence, I'm better at it than I am at the foreign languages I'm studying in school now.
I conclude by saying this: You were truly thinking in the spirit of a Westerner
"The existing user interface paradigm of files and folders evolved because computers were essentially designed for a western audience familiar with real-life files and folders. There is no reason to assume
why the same paradigm should apply to a trader in Tamil Nadu or a farmer in Madhya Pradesh. "
when you made your statement because you were assuming that Windows would be a better transition for the Indians. The whole point of the article is that the Indians haven't had access to computers/an OS yet! Therefore, they need something that will work for them/be cheap/be configureable for them... Linux!
Does the company that wants to seal documents have to give a specific reason why each document has to be sealed? If so, then I would think that it'd be harder for Microsoft to seal so many documents (which kinda answers my own question, since they have so many sealed.. right?)
If they don't.. then how is it they get off sealing so many documents? If they seal them, who gets to see them? Only the company that owns them? If that's the case... then.. how does anything get accomplished? (Obviously, there has to be some sort of limit to this, or either the stipulations surrounding sealing documents has to be such that it's too much of a hassle unless you have as much paperwork as Microsoft.)
I guess what I'm saying is that, me not being a lawyer and all (or very familiar with legalities and such), I'm just wondering about the whole "sealing" stuff.
Thankie.
Well, I noted that someone else said that it wasn't really a problem, but, if someone were worried enough about overhead for processing time, couldn't the JIT/VM become standard and then companies just put an extra, not so whiz-bang processor "alongside" the "main" processor to "process" and "optimize" the code? or would that create even more lag time because of slow communication between the processors/memory usage? If it wouldn't be a problem, and this could be done, then the entire capabilities of the "main" processor of said system could devote its time and cycles to executing the created/optimized code produced by the "extra" processor..
or, maybe I'm just babbling..
agh! my tag didn't close.. darn. thought i'd closed it. oops
though yes, I understand you could have a point. The thing is, you're not getting the type of "manufacturing" I'm talking about. People who have children don't have much say in how the process goes, they just start it and take care of themselves to ensure that their child will be alright. Yes, they often set out consciously to have a child, and yes, sometimes they don't. Same with technologies: sometimes something new was intentional and sometimes not. What I meant was that I don't see how you can reproduce life using silicon when what you're reproducing isn't exactly "meat," as you call it. A person's consciousness.. can you hold it? Can you cut out a person's brain and honestly say and believe that you're holding them? Sure, you've taken out the mechanism by which they think, feel, interact, and are conscious, but you've also destroyed it. You immediately lose what you have gained. Are you getting my point?
If a ebrain George appeas self conscious, and answers a Turing test as well as I do, would this ebrain George have a soul? Or does it prove that there is no
soul?
"Appears" is a good choice of word, because what appears and what is real are vastly different, IMHO, in this case. How so? For pete's freaking sakes, we're talking about a computer! An object built by humans, programmed in language(s) created by humans, with errors inherent in humans. Yet, some people seem to think that we humans know enough about ourselves that we'll actually be [able to] downloading a brain into a computer and just.. keep it there for fun, and be able to "run" it. I mean, do they think that the person's consciousness is going to convert to binary just like "poof"? How do you translate neurons, thoughts, feelings, patterns of thinking, values, morals, insecurities, and the like? Oh, I get it, quantum computing? No?
I think this is a crock of junk. Of course, I'll probably get moderated down for this, but, honestly, as others have mentioned, it's simply another one of those horribly assertive, poorly written pieces claiming another "technological advancement" and really just trying to play psychic and feed the public some candy. Bah humbug.
You mean eToys dropped the suit earlier. Probably obvious, but the subtle difference between "eToy" and "eToys" is what started the suit anyway.
Exactly. And if you ask me, that's when and where it should have been stopped. End of story.
Imagine a whole line of case covers.. similar to the posts on Slashdot before about cases... wherein you had just about anything you wanted. Want Matrix code all over it? you got it. Want it to be blacklight responsive? there ya go. What about glittery and glow-in-the-dark? We've got that. Or, better yet, how about with some shiny chrome look to it? Or, Picasso? Camouflage? Iridescent?.........
I've never had one, but those things always intrigued me because I thought it was so neat how they could "grow" like they do. I never stopped to analyze the mechanism, however. It's a nifty invention, as we all know, and kudos to them for expanding (yes, a pun) this to other shapes. yee ha!
I don't understand. In what way is the merger between Warner Music and EMI vertical? I may be completely wrong, but I've always understood it as that they're both record companies, and thus competitors in the same market.
I agree. Even if they weren't competitors (I'll admit I honestly don't know), I wouldn't care if this is "vertical merging." All it is is the forming of a monolith which will churn out whatever it wants because it's so big no one can beat it up. Perhaps I'm taking the paranoic/narrow-minded view of merging, but the way merging has been going (at least, the mergers I've heard of), it's been the absorption of company into company in what seems to be an effort to have one company that offers everything. I don't like that. Some people in this world may, and I know some people in this world won't. I like having the option of having a dozen or more or more places to go to get what I want. The more competition there is, the more selection there is for the customer (as we all know) because each of those stores/companies is trying to get you to buy their product, yaddy ya.
So, what's my point? My point is, is there nothing that can be done to stop this kind of thing? Do we honestly like it? (IMHO, no) Why won't they stop being so darned greedy and settle for what they've got?
all the way. No hold's barred. Though, I will admit, GNOME looks quite pretty. I think the foot is quite an endearment..
oh, wait.. i'm getting mushy.. no... [teary-eyed].. *sniffle*.. help me....