cos it was a troll and offtopic besides. It deserved to ged modded down. Just because you are an idiot republican it does not mean eveybody is out to get you.
Oh yea Robert Novak is unbiased and is capable of thinking rationally about these things. No wonder you posted as an AC even you know you are full of shit.
If they drop the price of office to 50 then everybody wins. Until they do maybe the lower cost and free alternative will make inroads and eat into their monopoly. Either way it's a win-win for the consumers.
Wow could you please give us a brief synopsis of your research papers which back up your theory. You must be published in science or other scientific journals if your research is that solid. I would love to read your articles and am curious to know where you got your meteorology degree and what your phd dissertation was on.
You must be a very well informed and regarded climatologists to be so absolutely sure of your facts like this I look forward to reading your articles and resume.
"Anyone can use the name as long as the product isn't a drawing program."
Not exactly true. As long as a reasonable person would not confuse the two products. In this case no reasonable person would confuse adobe illustrator with killustrator because.
1) different word
2) they don't run on the same OS
3) Adobe illustrator comes boxed with logos and shrinkwrap, killustrator has no box, does not come with a shrink. No cunsumer is likely to walk into a store and buy killustrator thinking it might be illustrator.
4) Illustrator costs lots of money killustrator is free.
Only unreasonable people would confuse these two products and even in the event of confusion if one person downloaded killustrator thinking it was illustrator it would not run on thei OS and therefore there is no harm to adobe.
No it is you who seemed to have confused my point.
Here I will try to restate them again.
1) All truths require sufficient evidence to prove. The fact that a hypothesis is deemed "extraordinary" by you or carl sagan or anybody else should never be a foundation for deciding the level of evidence required. If there is enough evidence then it's true no matter what the claim is. What you and sagan want to do is to keep shifting the ground in the debate. When proof is submitted you simply claim the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" and dismiss the evidence as being insufficient. It's not scientific. What you think of the hypothesis has nothing to with anything.
2) On the atmosphere: I am 99.999999% positive that you have not actually done any atmospheric research, that you have not actually read a majority of the research papers on global warming, and that even if you actually attempted to read one or two you would not have the required knowledge to try and understand what was being said. Not having any faculty to actually understand the subject yourself you have chosen to believe a set of people who have the same political belief as you. You delude yourself into thinking that somehow the opinions of those people are informed (even though they have no meteorology degrees) and that those opinions are based on science (even though they are not). You also pull out the "extraordinary" claims card and feel free to disregard any study or evidence which does not fit your political belief.
The only people who are qualified to make judgements on the atmosphere are the people that study it every day. A significant majority of those people believe that global warming is real and that it can do tremendous amount of damage. You can go ahead and take the opionons of talk show hosts above those of the people who actually work in the field and that's your right, but don't go pretending it's based on anything but word of mouth.
" They don't run under operating systems at all - it's an absurd comment to make. "
This is slashdot absurdity rules here. All the moderators are on crack, all the MS trolls get modded to +5, any right wing comment no matter how devoid of actual content will also get modded up the wazoo.
You were not actually expecting inteligent conversation on slashdot were you? All the adults have gone and left and the insane are running the asylum.
I don't want to speak for the guy you are arguing with but really what makes you think that Adobe owns the word illustrator and that nobody else can use the illustrator in their product names from this day on?
First of all is the word "Illustrator" a registered trademark of Adobe or the is phrase "Adobe Illustrator" the trademark. If the latter then what makes you think any body would confuse the word "killustrator" with the phrase "adobe illustrator"?
If this went to court Adobe would lose. It won't go to court because Adobe is rich and the developers are not. The rich get what they want in this country and there is nothing any of can do about it.
I have studied meteorology quite a bit and am very much aware how complex of a system it is and how difficult it is to prove anything then you have a billion variables to work with. It's not like proving that the sun is going to come up tommorow I think everybody agrees on that.
Regardless of how easy or difficult something is to prove though your contention that the level of proof needed is somehow dependent on the hypothesis is against the scientific method. I will repeat once again. The level of proof required has nothing to do with wheather or not you think the "claim" is extraordinary.
As for the atmosphere I think I will side with the meteorologists on this one. Sure there will be some disagreement and nitpicking but amongst people who have studied the weather all their lives, actuall do research etc there is remarkable agreement that something really weird is happening. They disagree about the scale, causes about specifics, long term effects etc but there is a concensus nevertheless.
These people will get paid no matter what their research shows and in fact will get paid much more if they claim there is no such thing as global warming (industry is always ready to fund research that says that and the concervative press is always ready to pay scientists who say that). They are not profiting from saying that there is global warming.
You can if you choose take the word of an industrialist or a political talking head over the word of a scientist that is your choice. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your beliefs are somehow based on science or proof. I doubt very much if you could plot a weather chart, analyze the 500 MB winds, or draw conclusions from a skew-T chart. All those tasks are pretty trivial for most amateur weather enthusiasts. Climatology on the other hand is much much more difficult egg to crack.
I know I don't have the scientific background to make predictions or conclusions on the meager press releases that are printed in most media and I doubt that you know more then me about the weather.
So it comes down to who you believe. You must judge the motives, agendas and the qualifications of the people who speak on this issue. I would never let Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly, a politician, or a CEO of a corporation do brain surgery on me and I would never take their advice on meteorological trends. They are equally ignorant in both brain surgery and meterology.
Re:Terrorism's place in Politics
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
To sabotage plants and kill people?
Another example of slashdot moderators on crack.
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
Exactly what about the parent post is insightful? exactly what is interesting or informative? This is simply the right wing rants you see from every republican on the planet from Rush Limbaugh to the cato institute.
Mr Miles adds nothing interesting or insighful to the thread he simply calls everybody who disagrees with himn a religous nut and vackos. If you think this is a display of intelligence worthy of being moderated up to +5 you are all on crack.
Slashdot ought to simply have +1 I agree or -1 I disagree and stop pretending that the moderation system somehow makes for more intelligent discussion.
The only reason idiotic posts like this which are devoid of any content whatsoever get moderated up to +5 is because there are more people who agree with him then don't.
This was the most ignorant thing Carl Sagan ever said. It is also against the very fundamental notion of what the truth means. The idea that one set of truths should require a different set of prrof then another is against the scientific method as well as as against common sense. Either something is true or it's not just because the you deem the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" does not mean jack shit.
competition is competition. Who cares where it comes from. Besides if a bunch of volunteers can code something in 6 months that took 5 man years to do it must mean the company was pretty damn incompetent in the first place.
" Troll or Flamebait -- Any comment on/. that is less than wildly enthusiastic about any Linux-related product."
your signature is the biggest lie ever told on/. Your post got moderated up to 5 because it attacks linux. The easiest way to get moderated up to 5 is either to attack linux (even if like your post it makes no sense and has no rhyme or reason) or praise Microsoft.
Post something about how great IE is or hos nice the kind folks at MS are and you'll hit 50 karma in no time. Try defending linux against astro turfers like yourself and you'll get beat down in a hurry.
He is just using the same tactics Microsoft uses to discredit the competition. Actually he is not calling them communists or anti american so he is actually not as bad. Also he is not bribing politicians and taking out advertising in major markets either so I guess he is just a pale shadow of what microsoft is. You can't fault the guy for trying though.
A clean box (one that is never patched or upgraded) is a useless piece of junk. At best it's insecure and inadequate piece fo junk. Nobody but nobody runs a unpatched OS. I guess the people who modded you up to 5 thinking you were paraising MS did not realize that you were damning them instead. MS products are only stable as long as they remain in their untouched pristine state. Wow what a damning statement.
Add to that the outragous remarks like don't use VB, don't use MS tools, don't use MFC etc. Congratulations you just described.0001% of all windows programmers. Just code to the API and forget all those tools MS offers and then you'll have a stable app that won't crash windows. It might take you 5 years to code that app because you had to hand code the FTP client bit and the http client bit and the proxy piercing bit but what the hell it won't crash. Yea right.
I guess we agree on one thing. People writing MSXML crap and the wininet.dll crap are indeed incompetent morons who are getting paid by MS to foist this crap on the VB coding fools. Pity the poor programmer who hasn't memorized the win32 API and instead is relying on crappy tools like VB to try and get his work done.
No matter what you think of intellectual property the fact remains that it's the law of the land. There are a whole host of "intangible" things like copyright etc that are coded into the law as property.
I really don't think you can actually try and argue that a port does not exist. If it does not exist why are you scanning it? what are you scanning? Even in the one in a billion chance that a judge actually bought that argument you can not argue that the bandwidth you took up didn't exist, that my CPU didn't exist, my hard drive didn't exist or that my time didn't exists. In other words the damage you caused was real no matter how ethereal or "unreal" the port was.
It seems like a shell could be made to run a particular binary in a directory to mimic this function. For example if all apps had a binary named runme in./appdir/bin/ then the when you typed./appdir the shell would know to run./appdir/bin/runme.
"instability blamed on Windows itself rarely has anything to do with code written by Microsoft."
So let me see now. There has never been a service pack released by Microsoft that didn't crash windows? There has never been a MDAC released by Microsoft that didn't crash windows? IE never crashed windows? MS-Office never crashed windows? Give me a break.
If you can't expect Microsoft themselves to be able to write software that doesn't crash windows how do you expect your average VB programmer to?
The fact of the matter is that it's awfully difficult to write an app for windows that won't take down the system occationally. If for no other reason then you are using DLLs and you have no idea what's in them. How many apps depend on wininet.dll or the vb runtime or MSVCxxx Dlls?
You know I went to install the MS soap toolkit the other day and it insisted that I install IE5.5 and some service pack or another, then the rope.dll wouldn't register properly so I had to go download a later version and register it by hand. Just to be able to work with XML I had to download over thirty megabytes of stuff. So If I write an app using this toolkit is it my fault if the app crashes or is it possible that somewhere along that 30 megabytes of crap I installed on my machine something was broken?
Slashdot Mirror
What's the sense of asking people to crack your machine if you are going to firewall it. You might as well ask them to crack the firewall.
What good is an OS which times out regularly?
cos it was a troll and offtopic besides. It deserved to ged modded down. Just because you are an idiot republican it does not mean eveybody is out to get you.
Oh yea Robert Novak is unbiased and is capable of thinking rationally about these things. No wonder you posted as an AC even you know you are full of shit.
If they drop the price of office to 50 then everybody wins. Until they do maybe the lower cost and free alternative will make inroads and eat into their monopoly. Either way it's a win-win for the consumers.
Hey are you saying brittany spears is not culture?
You would expect the vice president of the most powerful country in the world to be driven around in an escort?
Idiot.
The middle of last month (JUNE!) it snowed 14 inches bozeman montana.
Wow could you please give us a brief synopsis of your research papers which back up your theory. You must be published in science or other scientific journals if your research is that solid. I would love to read your articles and am curious to know where you got your meteorology degree and what your phd dissertation was on.
You must be a very well informed and regarded climatologists to be so absolutely sure of your facts like this I look forward to reading your articles and resume.
Thanks.
"Anyone can use the name as long as the product isn't a drawing program."
Not exactly true. As long as a reasonable person would not confuse the two products. In this case no reasonable person would confuse adobe illustrator with killustrator because.
1) different word
2) they don't run on the same OS
3) Adobe illustrator comes boxed with logos and shrinkwrap, killustrator has no box, does not come with a shrink. No cunsumer is likely to walk into a store and buy killustrator thinking it might be illustrator.
4) Illustrator costs lots of money killustrator is free.
Only unreasonable people would confuse these two products and even in the event of confusion if one person downloaded killustrator thinking it was illustrator it would not run on thei OS and therefore there is no harm to adobe.
No it is you who seemed to have confused my point.
Here I will try to restate them again.
1) All truths require sufficient evidence to prove. The fact that a hypothesis is deemed "extraordinary" by you or carl sagan or anybody else should never be a foundation for deciding the level of evidence required. If there is enough evidence then it's true no matter what the claim is. What you and sagan want to do is to keep shifting the ground in the debate. When proof is submitted you simply claim the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" and dismiss the evidence as being insufficient. It's not scientific. What you think of the hypothesis has nothing to with anything.
2) On the atmosphere: I am 99.999999% positive that you have not actually done any atmospheric research, that you have not actually read a majority of the research papers on global warming, and that even if you actually attempted to read one or two you would not have the required knowledge to try and understand what was being said. Not having any faculty to actually understand the subject yourself you have chosen to believe a set of people who have the same political belief as you. You delude yourself into thinking that somehow the opinions of those people are informed (even though they have no meteorology degrees) and that those opinions are based on science (even though they are not). You also pull out the "extraordinary" claims card and feel free to disregard any study or evidence which does not fit your political belief.
The only people who are qualified to make judgements on the atmosphere are the people that study it every day. A significant majority of those people believe that global warming is real and that it can do tremendous amount of damage. You can go ahead and take the opionons of talk show hosts above those of the people who actually work in the field and that's your right, but don't go pretending it's based on anything but word of mouth.
The weakest just like what we have today in america.
" They don't run under operating systems at all - it's an absurd comment to make. "
This is slashdot absurdity rules here. All the moderators are on crack, all the MS trolls get modded to +5, any right wing comment no matter how devoid of actual content will also get modded up the wazoo.
You were not actually expecting inteligent conversation on slashdot were you? All the adults have gone and left and the insane are running the asylum.
I don't want to speak for the guy you are arguing with but really what makes you think that Adobe owns the word illustrator and that nobody else can use the illustrator in their product names from this day on?
First of all is the word "Illustrator" a registered trademark of Adobe or the is phrase "Adobe Illustrator" the trademark. If the latter then what makes you think any body would confuse the word "killustrator" with the phrase "adobe illustrator"?
If this went to court Adobe would lose. It won't go to court because Adobe is rich and the developers are not. The rich get what they want in this country and there is nothing any of can do about it.
"In short, this isn't much of an article"
No but it does re enforce the racist stereotypes of most americans so it gets published in a major magazine and of course here on slashdot.
I wonder who they will target next maybe those damned a-rab ragheads they write with funny characters too.
You seem to be prfoundly confused.
I have studied meteorology quite a bit and am very much aware how complex of a system it is and how difficult it is to prove anything then you have a billion variables to work with. It's not like proving that the sun is going to come up tommorow I think everybody agrees on that.
Regardless of how easy or difficult something is to prove though your contention that the level of proof needed is somehow dependent on the hypothesis is against the scientific method. I will repeat once again. The level of proof required has nothing to do with wheather or not you think the "claim" is extraordinary.
As for the atmosphere I think I will side with the meteorologists on this one. Sure there will be some disagreement and nitpicking but amongst people who have studied the weather all their lives, actuall do research etc there is remarkable agreement that something really weird is happening. They disagree about the scale, causes about specifics, long term effects etc but there is a concensus nevertheless.
These people will get paid no matter what their research shows and in fact will get paid much more if they claim there is no such thing as global warming (industry is always ready to fund research that says that and the concervative press is always ready to pay scientists who say that). They are not profiting from saying that there is global warming.
You can if you choose take the word of an industrialist or a political talking head over the word of a scientist that is your choice. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your beliefs are somehow based on science or proof. I doubt very much if you could plot a weather chart, analyze the 500 MB winds, or draw conclusions from a skew-T chart. All those tasks are pretty trivial for most amateur weather enthusiasts. Climatology on the other hand is much much more difficult egg to crack.
I know I don't have the scientific background to make predictions or conclusions on the meager press releases that are printed in most media and I doubt that you know more then me about the weather.
So it comes down to who you believe. You must judge the motives, agendas and the qualifications of the people who speak on this issue. I would never let Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly, a politician, or a CEO of a corporation do brain surgery on me and I would never take their advice on meteorological trends. They are equally ignorant in both brain surgery and meterology.
To sabotage plants and kill people?
Exactly what about the parent post is insightful? exactly what is interesting or informative? This is simply the right wing rants you see from every republican on the planet from Rush Limbaugh to the cato institute.
Mr Miles adds nothing interesting or insighful to the thread he simply calls everybody who disagrees with himn a religous nut and vackos. If you think this is a display of intelligence worthy of being moderated up to +5 you are all on crack.
Slashdot ought to simply have +1 I agree or -1 I disagree and stop pretending that the moderation system somehow makes for more intelligent discussion.
The only reason idiotic posts like this which are devoid of any content whatsoever get moderated up to +5 is because there are more people who agree with him then don't.
It's disgusting really.
"Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
This was the most ignorant thing Carl Sagan ever said. It is also against the very fundamental notion of what the truth means. The idea that one set of truths should require a different set of prrof then another is against the scientific method as well as as against common sense. Either something is true or it's not just because the you deem the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" does not mean jack shit.
competition is competition. Who cares where it comes from. Besides if a bunch of volunteers can code something in 6 months that took 5 man years to do it must mean the company was pretty damn incompetent in the first place.
" Troll or Flamebait -- Any comment on /. that is less than wildly enthusiastic about any Linux-related product."
/. Your post got moderated up to 5 because it attacks linux. The easiest way to get moderated up to 5 is either to attack linux (even if like your post it makes no sense and has no rhyme or reason) or praise Microsoft.
your signature is the biggest lie ever told on
Post something about how great IE is or hos nice the kind folks at MS are and you'll hit 50 karma in no time. Try defending linux against astro turfers like yourself and you'll get beat down in a hurry.
He is just using the same tactics Microsoft uses to discredit the competition. Actually he is not calling them communists or anti american so he is actually not as bad. Also he is not bribing politicians and taking out advertising in major markets either so I guess he is just a pale shadow of what microsoft is. You can't fault the guy for trying though.
A clean box (one that is never patched or upgraded) is a useless piece of junk. At best it's insecure and inadequate piece fo junk. Nobody but nobody runs a unpatched OS. I guess the people who modded you up to 5 thinking you were paraising MS did not realize that you were damning them instead. MS products are only stable as long as they remain in their untouched pristine state. Wow what a damning statement.
.0001% of all windows programmers. Just code to the API and forget all those tools MS offers and then you'll have a stable app that won't crash windows. It might take you 5 years to code that app because you had to hand code the FTP client bit and the http client bit and the proxy piercing bit but what the hell it won't crash. Yea right.
Add to that the outragous remarks like don't use VB, don't use MS tools, don't use MFC etc. Congratulations you just described
I guess we agree on one thing. People writing MSXML crap and the wininet.dll crap are indeed incompetent morons who are getting paid by MS to foist this crap on the VB coding fools. Pity the poor programmer who hasn't memorized the win32 API and instead is relying on crappy tools like VB to try and get his work done.
No matter what you think of intellectual property the fact remains that it's the law of the land. There are a whole host of "intangible" things like copyright etc that are coded into the law as property.
I really don't think you can actually try and argue that a port does not exist. If it does not exist why are you scanning it? what are you scanning? Even in the one in a billion chance that a judge actually bought that argument you can not argue that the bandwidth you took up didn't exist, that my CPU didn't exist, my hard drive didn't exist or that my time didn't exists. In other words the damage you caused was real no matter how ethereal or "unreal" the port was.
It seems like a shell could be made to run a particular binary in a directory to mimic this function. For example if all apps had a binary named runme in ./appdir/bin/ then the when you typed ./appdir the shell would know to run ./appdir/bin/runme.
This post takes astro-turfing to new levels.
"instability blamed on Windows itself rarely has anything to do with code written by Microsoft."
So let me see now. There has never been a service pack released by Microsoft that didn't crash windows? There has never been a MDAC released by Microsoft that didn't crash windows? IE never crashed windows? MS-Office never crashed windows? Give me a break.
If you can't expect Microsoft themselves to be able to write software that doesn't crash windows how do you expect your average VB programmer to?
The fact of the matter is that it's awfully difficult to write an app for windows that won't take down the system occationally. If for no other reason then you are using DLLs and you have no idea what's in them. How many apps depend on wininet.dll or the vb runtime or MSVCxxx Dlls?
You know I went to install the MS soap toolkit the other day and it insisted that I install IE5.5 and some service pack or another, then the rope.dll wouldn't register properly so I had to go download a later version and register it by hand. Just to be able to work with XML I had to download over thirty megabytes of stuff. So If I write an app using this toolkit is it my fault if the app crashes or is it possible that somewhere along that 30 megabytes of crap I installed on my machine something was broken?