Before you wrote your rant, you should have paid attention to the fact that I was responding to the idea of "there's a cure for cancer, so I'll continue to smoke!" I have no problem with tobacco companies researching cancer treatments -- I do not think, however, that an activity is justified simply because there's a way out of its consequences. And yes, I am self-righteous for not engaging in an addiction. Why shouldn't I be? You act like smokers are victims.
I haven't read the book, but the first thing that struck me was the claim that we have entered some kind of "age" of aesthetics. I don't think that that is the case at all. Humans have certainly not been subsisting on the crudest of tools or the simplest things that would work. Take a glance at medieval weaponry and you'll see that even weapons -- objects used essentially for their utility -- portray a tremendous sense of style on the part of their owners and craftsmen. Throughout human history, objects that not only have had a functional purpose, but also appeal to the eye, have always been the mark of the elite and sophisticated. The difference is, I think, that now is the age of the pretty and useful object being available to the middle and lower socioeconomic classes.
Right now the only ogg support is in press releases. Neuros has it in beta, but they're a little ways off yet and don't seem to be progressing very quickly. As for the Rio Karma and the iRiver players, I'll believe it when I see it.
Last time I checked, teachers being far too slow with essay grading was slowing down the entire U.S. educational system. Oh, wait, nevermind -- it was school budgets being cut so low that they couldn't even afford maintenance on their buildings. I think some more software is exactly what we need here!
They're not insane at all. They're very serious -- not about believing their claims, but about pumping up their stock price and becoming such a nuisance that perhaps IBM just buys them. Other than looking like total assholes, it's a very financially lucrative plan for these executives.
Of course some code and comments are the same -- it was (effectively) in the public domain. SCO is simply trying to take something that was licensed under the GPL and claim ownership of it. The demonstrations, side-by-side comparisons, etc. are all constitute a way to get people to not think about the real issue.
There was a recent article on Salon that pointed out that the do-not-call list would destroy the industry. The author tried to make the point that people want to be advertising targets even when they sign up not to be:
The national do-not-call list, however, will destroy the industry -- everyone in the telemarketing business seems to agree with that assessment. Experts provide various theories about why this will occur, but the fundamental reason seems to be this: Americans think they don't like telemarketing calls, but they're wrong. Americans believe they want to be on a do-not-call list, but their past actions -- namely their purchases -- betray their true feelings. The FTC says that the do-not-call list is justified because it merely gives people a choice over whether they'd like to receive sales calls; according to that theory, the people who actually do buy things from telemarketers won't add their numbers to the registry, and the industry will not suffer at all. But that analysis is faulty, the industry says. In the abstract, everyone hates to be sold to -- you hate it when commercials interrupt your favorite TV show, you hate the "intrusive" ads displayed on your favorite Web site, you hate being handed pamphlets on the street, and you hate being called by a telemarketer who promises "a fantastic deal."
Farhad Manjoo, 7/15/2003,
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/15/do_no t_call/index.html
It's an interesting point, but no reason to prop up an industry that most of the public wants to see die. Manjoo also misses the point that businesses with whom you have had prior dealings are allowed to call up to a certain time period after those dealings.
I was not claiming that one should always follow the subject with a comma. The rule is that commas should be inserted to separate parenthetical phrases and to indicate natural pauses. If there is a comma after "pricing", then there must be one after "Data". However, both commas should be omitted because the proper way to express that sentence would be to recognize that "mining", not only the subject of the sentence but also a gerund, requires a possessive:
"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting," McBride said. "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
Why doesn't SCO grab the source now so that they can disclose what was copied? The fact that the Linux kernel is a free software project means that it is continually in a state of publication, so whatever is in the source code as of right now is already a matter of public record, no? Anybody can go download it. For the Linux community to try to retroactively clean out code like that would be very difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, exactly!
until they liken us to the Nazis!
Good, I'm looking for someone to sue for all those sunburns!
Before you wrote your rant, you should have paid attention to the fact that I was responding to the idea of "there's a cure for cancer, so I'll continue to smoke!" I have no problem with tobacco companies researching cancer treatments -- I do not think, however, that an activity is justified simply because there's a way out of its consequences. And yes, I am self-righteous for not engaging in an addiction. Why shouldn't I be? You act like smokers are victims.
That is an excellent point. They'd probably love having a quality of life such that something like prostate cancer was even a concern at all.
I see that there is still no cure for stupidity.
I haven't read the book, but the first thing that struck me was the claim that we have entered some kind of "age" of aesthetics. I don't think that that is the case at all. Humans have certainly not been subsisting on the crudest of tools or the simplest things that would work. Take a glance at medieval weaponry and you'll see that even weapons -- objects used essentially for their utility -- portray a tremendous sense of style on the part of their owners and craftsmen. Throughout human history, objects that not only have had a functional purpose, but also appeal to the eye, have always been the mark of the elite and sophisticated. The difference is, I think, that now is the age of the pretty and useful object being available to the middle and lower socioeconomic classes.
Right now the only ogg support is in press releases. Neuros has it in beta, but they're a little ways off yet and don't seem to be progressing very quickly. As for the Rio Karma and the iRiver players, I'll believe it when I see it.
I wouldn't, except that Diebold's CEO is a Republican who wants GWB back in the office in '04.
I don't think that their systems are faulty. I think they work as designed.
It also scans Usenet posts.
When someone becomes a politician, he trades in his ability to recognize irony and absurdity.
Read Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy to see why Palast is a real journalist and why 60 Minutes has no integrity.
Last time I checked, teachers being far too slow with essay grading was slowing down the entire U.S. educational system. Oh, wait, nevermind -- it was school budgets being cut so low that they couldn't even afford maintenance on their buildings. I think some more software is exactly what we need here!
They're not insane at all. They're very serious -- not about believing their claims, but about pumping up their stock price and becoming such a nuisance that perhaps IBM just buys them. Other than looking like total assholes, it's a very financially lucrative plan for these executives.
Of course some code and comments are the same -- it was (effectively) in the public domain. SCO is simply trying to take something that was licensed under the GPL and claim ownership of it. The demonstrations, side-by-side comparisons, etc. are all constitute a way to get people to not think about the real issue.
The national do-not-call list, however, will destroy the industry -- everyone in the telemarketing business seems to agree with that assessment. Experts provide various theories about why this will occur, but the fundamental reason seems to be this: Americans think they don't like telemarketing calls, but they're wrong. Americans believe they want to be on a do-not-call list, but their past actions -- namely their purchases -- betray their true feelings. The FTC says that the do-not-call list is justified because it merely gives people a choice over whether they'd like to receive sales calls; according to that theory, the people who actually do buy things from telemarketers won't add their numbers to the registry, and the industry will not suffer at all. But that analysis is faulty, the industry says. In the abstract, everyone hates to be sold to -- you hate it when commercials interrupt your favorite TV show, you hate the "intrusive" ads displayed on your favorite Web site, you hate being handed pamphlets on the street, and you hate being called by a telemarketer who promises "a fantastic deal."o t_call/index.html
Farhad Manjoo, 7/15/2003, http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/15/do_n
It's an interesting point, but no reason to prop up an industry that most of the public wants to see die. Manjoo also misses the point that businesses with whom you have had prior dealings are allowed to call up to a certain time period after those dealings.
Yeah. Not only is Graham's Erdos number one, but Erdos was living with Graham for quite a while, if I remember correctly. That's major geek points.
Self-destroying discs for a self-destroying industry.
Is Data's mining for product pricing illegal?
It is a far clearer sentence now.
You would then need an additional comma after "Data".
I'm a sucker for good atmosphere. Both Return to Zork and Doom had great atmosphere.
"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting," McBride said. "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
Why doesn't SCO grab the source now so that they can disclose what was copied? The fact that the Linux kernel is a free software project means that it is continually in a state of publication, so whatever is in the source code as of right now is already a matter of public record, no? Anybody can go download it. For the Linux community to try to retroactively clean out code like that would be very difficult.
$5/page? Do some research. My reply has nothing to do with scanning.
Go to Kinkos.