I always find it a height of hubris that people would believe puny human actions can change massive structures like... oh, global climate. Even Krakatoa didn't manage it for more than a couple years, and it put out orders of magnitude more atmospheric junk than all of human history combined.
One has to wonder what "global warming" data looks like after one factors out the input from our restless sun.;)
BTW, re "acid rain", I remember what a less, um, preconceived study discovered... see my reply to someone who replied to you. But yes, essentially it was the product of natural cycles, not of man's influence at all.
Acid rain: I remember about this, tho I can't give you a cite offhand, but in short: It turned out that "acid rain" as blamed on factories was bogus, and that the observed acidity at ground level was mainly the result of natural leeching from the soil, which in the Northeast contains large deposits of sulphur-bearing rock: water plus sulphur == acid. Depending on the rainfall (or lack thereof) at the time, this can build up and kill trees, most notably at the bottom end of watersheds where acid tends to accumulate (such as in small lakes).
As I recall, the question of "acid rain" validity arose when someone observed that the tree die-off happened not only "downwind" from factories, but also in isolated areas that weren't even in the same climate pattern, most especially along the shores of lakes which happened to be near surface deposits of high-sulphur coal. (See above.)
At that point, closer examination of the "factory damaged" areas showed that they too had naturally high-sulphur soil conditions, at a concentration far in excess of anything a factory and a passing cloudbank could generate... and that periodic damage had been occurring as far back as vegetation patterns could be tracked, not merely since the onset of industrialization. Furthermore, someone finally pointed out that trees absorb most of their water (with whatever chemicals it carries) through their roots, NOT through their leaves. So what falls from the sky has less negative effect than what comes up through the ground.
And after all that, the handwaving about "acid rain" rather abruptly stopped.
So, yeah, while it's not good to have assorted toxic or corrosive chemicals wafting about, in this case factories were not the primary culprit. *Sometimes* the environment itself is naturally toxic.
You're right -- the only difference is that with each generation's spasm of control freakery and overreaction, the target changes. "The Internet" is merely the latest to wear the red and white bullseye.
That covers all the cases I can think of offhand... is this the weirdest/. discussion of all time, or what?:)
Hey, remember those pole lamps with multiswitches, where you'd have one, two, or three lights on depending on how many times you pushed or turned the switch? For extra looniness, design one that takes three-way bulbs, yet still only uses one switch.:)
I grew up with a houseful of 3-way lamps. In fact in the 60s and 70s, almost any table lamp and most floor lamps were 3-way. (They seem to have become less common over the past couple decades, why I don't know.) As I recall most of the bulbs were 40w/100w -- tho come to think of it, I can't remember when I last saw any 3-way bulbs for sale! I've been using ordinary bulbs (and now fluorescents) in mine for so long, that I almost think it's normal to have to turn on any lamp "twice":)
Yep, it was pretty common for just one of the filaments (usually the dimmer one) to burn out first. And then we'd cheaply, er, thriftily continue to use it until the whole thing went dark.
Um... [thinking]... [walks over to 3way lamp and plays with it] Nope, on-off-on-off isn't quite right. They had these settings:
Off On low-only On high-only** On both**
** These two settings work for fluorescents and regular bulbs.
Did you have some that worked differently??
You know you're "old" when 3-way lamps are a subject of nostalgia:)
Oh, I think it's entirely reality. My *preferred* browser is Netscape 3.04 (images and js off), and evidence of old Deja's got-rightness is that it worked perfectly with this old browser, even on my old Win3.1 box, and was swift even on 14.4 dialup.
Say, about your archive-to-be -- how will we be notified when it's ready to use? Also, a friend has 400-some megs of rec.games.computer.doom.* archived, if you need it -- let me know. (He'd need to pilfer someone else's DSL to upload it, tho. Stuck on dialup, just like me.)
I haven't kept track; has there been another release of Darwin for x86? Last I heard, the one I messed with was the one and only. (Two solid days to download it over dialup...!!)
One thing I liked, tho, was that if I'd type in what seemed to me to be a reasonable variant of some DOS command, it would come back with "Did you mean [whatever]??" and a list of switches. This made the immediate learning curve reasonable, and that's even without a manual. I didn't have to know enough to type Q[uit] to get out of MAN. ESC generally behaved as expected. Little things like that make a world of difference.
[rant type="realworld"] Personally I don't think one should have to RTFM to run a basic desktop OS. If you're using it as a server, or for a specialised application, yeah, then you may need to RTFM and dig thru esoteric commands and switches -- but not for ordinary everyday use. As a desktop OS, ordinary everyday bumbling around should bring you in contact with whatever you need (presented in a user-friendly fashion), and should NOT dump you into anything too terribly dangerous. Something like the basic chapters in "DOS for Dummies" is the max that any desktop OS should *require* its newbies to absorb. [/rant]
[goes off, roots around BSD handbook -- thanks for the reminder!] Seems written in a very straightforward manner, not at all newbie-hostile:) Since I see there are One Big Archive versions in ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/en/books/han dbook/, I'll have to grab one for handier viewing.
BTW what would you consider the minimum *realistic* hardware for current FreeBSD, if expected to do desktoppish type work? I have Mandrake 7.2 on a P3-450/256mb, and it runs okay, but not exactly crisp. WinXP on my P3-500/768mb is a lot more nimble.:/
Heh heh, great minds think alike:) So he's using it to "pump" water through nominally-solid stuff? (Would osmosis be "prior art" ??:)
This gets me to thinking about patent licensing, tho -- it's too bad there's not some standard license that could apply to ALL patents, where a percentage of the income it generates is trickled back down the chain of patents (given that one may rely on another, as in your example). Also, that a certain percentage of the licensing royalties has to go back into R&D, or if not there, into the USPTO for purposes of investigating prior art wrt pending patents.
Suggestion emailed to pater@... There's supposedly a suggestion box at sourceforge, but last time I tried that, it wouldn't let me log in, no idea what its trip is.
My exposure to BSD was by way of Apple's Darwin for x86, and even with the download version being kinda half-baked (far as I could tell, it only ran in commandline mode), I came away with the impression that BSD as a core OS is more mature and better thought-out than linux. To an old DOS-head, BSD seemed familiar enough to be usable (a feeling I've never had with linux). If I did something wrong, it behaved sensibly, rather than giving me an urge to smack someone upside the haid. Little things seemed more polished (frex, MAN's behaviour). Next time I inflict a random pile of disties on some hapless machine, I hope to try BSD again, the real thing this time.:D
It didn't bring me a beer, but neither did it pee on my foot:)
If your project resembles the original Deja news (not the remake, but the OLD version) -- that was so much easier to use than anything since, that it was my Usenet interface of choice for reading, posting, and research, and it worked fine in ANY browser, with acceptable performance even on very slow connections.
And as you say it's been all downhill ever since.:(
I don't have any archives to contribute, but I sure do look forward to your project's completion!
While as someone else replied, this probably wouldn't scale well in single-lens format -- am I imagining tech that doesn't exist, or is there a concept involving a bazillion tiny lenses to make a composite telescopic image, kindof like a bee's eye?? no idea if such a thing would be useful or even possible.
As to the "whoa, it's COLD up here" issue someone else mentioned, I'd think solar panels etc. could be used to keep temperature constant, and an oil with a very low freezing point.
When I was a kid I had a book with his detailed biography. Quite an interesting fellow. (See also my post above, regarding his primitive lenses.)
As to telescoping lenses, I'd think a droplet lens pair and its "zoomer" could be very small, so small that surface tension would be the most powerful factor affecting the lenses, thus quite stable for applications like arthroscopy.
Well, maybe not entirely novel. The concept of a variable oil or water lens was used by microbiology pioneer Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), in his studies of the "wee beasties". His primitive microscopes used drops of liquid as lenses, and as I vaguely recall, he'd worked out a way to wobble the "lens" to change its shape, thus its magnification.
What does seem to be novel here (well, *I've* never heard of it before), and worth noting, is using voltage gadgetry to control the shape and position of the lens. ISTM this may well have other applications, perhaps even in fields not at all related to optics. Frex, it might be used as a tiny pump, perhaps medically useful (apply the concept to blood in chronically-constricted arteries).
That's exactly what I did... bought a bottle of sheep drench instead, for $30 (vs $18,000 for the same amount of pills!!) But at the time the web didn't exist, and getting Merck to provide the dosage info was like pulling hen's teeth -- the company vet wouldn't give it out at all til I informed her that if she didn't, I'd just have to guess, based on the pill-format dosage. Then she FINALLY she coughed up the info.
See, the dosage as provided in pill form is packaged in wild-assed-guess amounts -- it uses the same dose for a wide range of body weight. From that it was hard to make even an educated estimate at the proper dosage in a more biologically-available form.
I did ask Merck about making an injectable/drench available for kennel use, and they flatly refused to consider it. The pill-format market is just too lucrative (pet owners are both a larger market, and almost completely ignorant of alternatives to individual and/or vet-supplied packaging).
Things may eventually change as generic forms become widespread. But I wouldn't bet on it. Several other older parasite-control drugs, long since generic, have recently gone away (even tho they worked as well or better than newer methods) as companies discover that there's more profit in newer products, and to hell with the people who have a large number of pet animals to treat and wind up paying thru the nose. Imagine the price of beef, if farmers had to pay pet-market prices for all their drugs and vaccines!!
BTW, in my kennel I already use a number of products packaged (much more economically) for horses, pigs, and fish. What's really amusing about antibiotics packaged for fish, is that they bear the same batch numbers as the same product packaged for humans.
While I've no argument with the above posts, that's not a complete picture of Merck's behaviour:
Ivermectin is also used to prevent heartworm infections in dogs. When I did the math, here's what I found: sold in pill form, the only form available for dogs, the cost at wholesale to treat 30 medium-sized dogs for one year was $1500. The exact same quantity of drug, sold as an injectable/drench for sheep, cost $2.50 at retail (and that's about 4 times the price for the same drug as formulated for cattle). Despite numerous requests, Merck refused to make an injectable/drench formulated for dogs, even tho there is no reason not to (other than "got 'em by the balls, so squeeze hard"). The price is not so bad if you've only got one pet, but it's quite expensive if you've got a kennel.
Judging by the price for the most concentrated formulalation (for cattle), ivermectin is so cheap to produce that it might as well be free; most of the cost is evidently unavoidable overhead, like bottling and shipping. So don't get too excited about Merck giving it away to treat river blindness. It makes them look good (and it was the right thing to do) but it cost them damnear nothing.
Special situation when the poster themselves asks that a bad post be modded down... come to think of it, that might be a useful feature: let posters mod down any of their *own* posts, as a quick and easy way to submerge stupid or wrong comments they wish they'd never made. [I don't think they should be deleteable, tho, as that damages the overall integrity of a discussion.]
Having no familiarity** with Gentoo nor its children, yes, it was a serious question:) [goes off, reads supplied link] Very nice feature set, notably the --pretend switch. And the way it's organized, one can readily imagine a Handy GUI Optional Overlay that would be very easy for even novice linux users to figure out and use. I know I'd never remember all those switches, nor have the patience to RTFM to remind myself, but wrap it in something like TweakUI, and it would be effectively self-documenting on the fly.
Hmm. As to the point of that much-debated post... I wonder what the "this-is-cool" switch does? Maybe it turns on CPU cooling, or fetches beer from the fridge.;)
**Occasionally I muck about with various disties (tho Gentoo hasn't come my way yet), and keep a Mandrake box, but this is mostly a DOS/Win household.
While all that's reasonable as far as it goes, it's also a complete waste of mod points (and in my observation, "overrated" is used entirely as "punishment", never as genuine evaluation of what someone wrote): For every "overrated" or "redundant" post you mod down from its default score, you've sacrificed your ability to mod one more worthwhile post up from the depths.
Personally I think a better reaction than modding down "Emerge is cool" as overrated, would be to forego modding in favour of asking the poster to elucidate why they believe this, which might well generate worthwhile posts that you and others would not have otherwise thought of.
As it stands, we don't have a clue why said person believes that, and instead are arguing about the (de)merits of moderation methods. *sigh*
Okay, why IS Emerge cool? (And for that matter, what is it?:)
I'm wondering if, given the probability that you're right about "Linux license? What Linux license?" and given that any such accusation could be viewed as disparaging the company involved, SCO naming these customers might open up SCO to libel suits.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been reading /. WAAAAAAAAY too long...
I read "d-rwinists" and "s-x-ed" as sets of file permissions, and "relocation" as "colocation"....
I always find it a height of hubris that people would believe puny human actions can change massive structures like... oh, global climate. Even Krakatoa didn't manage it for more than a couple years, and it put out orders of magnitude more atmospheric junk than all of human history combined.
;)
One has to wonder what "global warming" data looks like after one factors out the input from our restless sun.
BTW, re "acid rain", I remember what a less, um, preconceived study discovered... see my reply to someone who replied to you. But yes, essentially it was the product of natural cycles, not of man's influence at all.
Acid rain: I remember about this, tho I can't give you a cite offhand, but in short: It turned out that "acid rain" as blamed on factories was bogus, and that the observed acidity at ground level was mainly the result of natural leeching from the soil, which in the Northeast contains large deposits of sulphur-bearing rock: water plus sulphur == acid. Depending on the rainfall (or lack thereof) at the time, this can build up and kill trees, most notably at the bottom end of watersheds where acid tends to accumulate (such as in small lakes).
As I recall, the question of "acid rain" validity arose when someone observed that the tree die-off happened not only "downwind" from factories, but also in isolated areas that weren't even in the same climate pattern, most especially along the shores of lakes which happened to be near surface deposits of high-sulphur coal. (See above.)
At that point, closer examination of the "factory damaged" areas showed that they too had naturally high-sulphur soil conditions, at a concentration far in excess of anything a factory and a passing cloudbank could generate... and that periodic damage had been occurring as far back as vegetation patterns could be tracked, not merely since the onset of industrialization. Furthermore, someone finally pointed out that trees absorb most of their water (with whatever chemicals it carries) through their roots, NOT through their leaves. So what falls from the sky has less negative effect than what comes up through the ground.
And after all that, the handwaving about "acid rain" rather abruptly stopped.
So, yeah, while it's not good to have assorted toxic or corrosive chemicals wafting about, in this case factories were not the primary culprit.
*Sometimes* the environment itself is naturally toxic.
You're right -- the only difference is that with each generation's spasm of control freakery and overreaction, the target changes. "The Internet" is merely the latest to wear the red and white bullseye.
That covers all the cases I can think of offhand... is this the weirdest /. discussion of all time, or what? :)
:)
Hey, remember those pole lamps with multiswitches, where you'd have one, two, or three lights on depending on how many times you pushed or turned the switch? For extra looniness, design one that takes three-way bulbs, yet still only uses one switch.
I grew up with a houseful of 3-way lamps. In fact in the 60s and 70s, almost any table lamp and most floor lamps were 3-way. (They seem to have become less common over the past couple decades, why I don't know.) As I recall most of the bulbs were 40w/100w -- tho come to think of it, I can't remember when I last saw any 3-way bulbs for sale! I've been using ordinary bulbs (and now fluorescents) in mine for so long, that I almost think it's normal to have to turn on any lamp "twice" :)
... [walks over to 3way lamp and plays with it] Nope, on-off-on-off isn't quite right. They had these settings:
:)
Yep, it was pretty common for just one of the filaments (usually the dimmer one) to burn out first. And then we'd cheaply, er, thriftily continue to use it until the whole thing went dark.
Um... [thinking]
Off
On low-only
On high-only**
On both**
** These two settings work for fluorescents and regular bulbs.
Did you have some that worked differently??
You know you're "old" when 3-way lamps are a subject of nostalgia
Oh, I think it's entirely reality. My *preferred* browser is Netscape 3.04 (images and js off), and evidence of old Deja's got-rightness is that it worked perfectly with this old browser, even on my old Win3.1 box, and was swift even on 14.4 dialup.
Say, about your archive-to-be -- how will we be notified when it's ready to use? Also, a friend has 400-some megs of rec.games.computer.doom.* archived, if you need it -- let me know. (He'd need to pilfer someone else's DSL to upload it, tho. Stuck on dialup, just like me.)
I haven't kept track; has there been another release of Darwin for x86? Last I heard, the one I messed with was the one and only. (Two solid days to download it over dialup...!!)
:) Since I see there are One Big Archive versions in ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/en/books/han dbook/, I'll have to grab one for handier viewing.
:/
One thing I liked, tho, was that if I'd type in what seemed to me to be a reasonable variant of some DOS command, it would come back with "Did you mean [whatever]??" and a list of switches. This made the immediate learning curve reasonable, and that's even without a manual. I didn't have to know enough to type Q[uit] to get out of MAN. ESC generally behaved as expected. Little things like that make a world of difference.
[rant type="realworld"]
Personally I don't think one should have to RTFM to run a basic desktop OS. If you're using it as a server, or for a specialised application, yeah, then you may need to RTFM and dig thru esoteric commands and switches -- but not for ordinary everyday use. As a desktop OS, ordinary everyday bumbling around should bring you in contact with whatever you need (presented in a user-friendly fashion), and should NOT dump you into anything too terribly dangerous. Something like the basic chapters in "DOS for Dummies" is the max that any desktop OS should *require* its newbies to absorb.
[/rant]
[goes off, roots around BSD handbook -- thanks for the reminder!] Seems written in a very straightforward manner, not at all newbie-hostile
BTW what would you consider the minimum *realistic* hardware for current FreeBSD, if expected to do desktoppish type work? I have Mandrake 7.2 on a P3-450/256mb, and it runs okay, but not exactly crisp. WinXP on my P3-500/768mb is a lot more nimble.
Heh heh, great minds think alike :) So he's using it to "pump" water through nominally-solid stuff? (Would osmosis be "prior art" ?? :)
This gets me to thinking about patent licensing, tho -- it's too bad there's not some standard license that could apply to ALL patents, where a percentage of the income it generates is trickled back down the chain of patents (given that one may rely on another, as in your example). Also, that a certain percentage of the licensing royalties has to go back into R&D, or if not there, into the USPTO for purposes of investigating prior art wrt pending patents.
Suggestion emailed to pater@... There's supposedly a suggestion box at sourceforge, but last time I tried that, it wouldn't let me log in, no idea what its trip is.
:D
:)
My exposure to BSD was by way of Apple's Darwin for x86, and even with the download version being kinda half-baked (far as I could tell, it only ran in commandline mode), I came away with the impression that BSD as a core OS is more mature and better thought-out than linux. To an old DOS-head, BSD seemed familiar enough to be usable (a feeling I've never had with linux). If I did something wrong, it behaved sensibly, rather than giving me an urge to smack someone upside the haid. Little things seemed more polished (frex, MAN's behaviour). Next time I inflict a random pile of disties on some hapless machine, I hope to try BSD again, the real thing this time.
It didn't bring me a beer, but neither did it pee on my foot
If your project resembles the original Deja news (not the remake, but the OLD version) -- that was so much easier to use than anything since, that it was my Usenet interface of choice for reading, posting, and research, and it worked fine in ANY browser, with acceptable performance even on very slow connections.
:(
And as you say it's been all downhill ever since.
I don't have any archives to contribute, but I sure do look forward to your project's completion!
While as someone else replied, this probably wouldn't scale well in single-lens format -- am I imagining tech that doesn't exist, or is there a concept involving a bazillion tiny lenses to make a composite telescopic image, kindof like a bee's eye?? no idea if such a thing would be useful or even possible.
As to the "whoa, it's COLD up here" issue someone else mentioned, I'd think solar panels etc. could be used to keep temperature constant, and an oil with a very low freezing point.
[laughing] Oh man, does THAT bring back memories of grade school math classes! We'd all have been embarrassed to be caught writing such a fraction.
How about from history? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723) Quick overview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/leeu wenhoek_antonie_van.shtml
When I was a kid I had a book with his detailed biography. Quite an interesting fellow. (See also my post above, regarding his primitive lenses.)
As to telescoping lenses, I'd think a droplet lens pair and its "zoomer" could be very small, so small that surface tension would be the most powerful factor affecting the lenses, thus quite stable for applications like arthroscopy.
Well, maybe not entirely novel. The concept of a variable oil or water lens was used by microbiology pioneer Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), in his studies of the "wee beasties". His primitive microscopes used drops of liquid as lenses, and as I vaguely recall, he'd worked out a way to wobble the "lens" to change its shape, thus its magnification.
What does seem to be novel here (well, *I've* never heard of it before), and worth noting, is using voltage gadgetry to control the shape and position of the lens. ISTM this may well have other applications, perhaps even in fields not at all related to optics. Frex, it might be used as a tiny pump, perhaps medically useful (apply the concept to blood in chronically-constricted arteries).
That's exactly what I did... bought a bottle of sheep drench instead, for $30 (vs $18,000 for the same amount of pills!!) But at the time the web didn't exist, and getting Merck to provide the dosage info was like pulling hen's teeth -- the company vet wouldn't give it out at all til I informed her that if she didn't, I'd just have to guess, based on the pill-format dosage. Then she FINALLY she coughed up the info.
See, the dosage as provided in pill form is packaged in wild-assed-guess amounts -- it uses the same dose for a wide range of body weight. From that it was hard to make even an educated estimate at the proper dosage in a more biologically-available form.
I did ask Merck about making an injectable/drench available for kennel use, and they flatly refused to consider it. The pill-format market is just too lucrative (pet owners are both a larger market, and almost completely ignorant of alternatives to individual and/or vet-supplied packaging).
Things may eventually change as generic forms become widespread. But I wouldn't bet on it. Several other older parasite-control drugs, long since generic, have recently gone away (even tho they worked as well or better than newer methods) as companies discover that there's more profit in newer products, and to hell with the people who have a large number of pet animals to treat and wind up paying thru the nose. Imagine the price of beef, if farmers had to pay pet-market prices for all their drugs and vaccines!!
BTW, in my kennel I already use a number of products packaged (much more economically) for horses, pigs, and fish. What's really amusing about antibiotics packaged for fish, is that they bear the same batch numbers as the same product packaged for humans.
Yep, it's okay to *give* medicine to the poor humans, and to the poor livestock too. But pets are on the "pay up or die" plan.
Which was recouped long, long ago. So there is no longer any excuse for gouging. But that's exactly what they're doing, and it continues to this day.
I recently bought a bottle of generic antibiotics. On the label, it says "Manufactured for WorldGen by Eli Lilly Italia, Firenze, Italy".
Interesting in light of the costs discussion.
While I've no argument with the above posts, that's not a complete picture of Merck's behaviour:
Ivermectin is also used to prevent heartworm infections in dogs. When I did the math, here's what I found: sold in pill form, the only form available for dogs, the cost at wholesale to treat 30 medium-sized dogs for one year was $1500. The exact same quantity of drug, sold as an injectable/drench for sheep, cost $2.50 at retail (and that's about 4 times the price for the same drug as formulated for cattle). Despite numerous requests, Merck refused to make an injectable/drench formulated for dogs, even tho there is no reason not to (other than "got 'em by the balls, so squeeze hard"). The price is not so bad if you've only got one pet, but it's quite expensive if you've got a kennel.
Judging by the price for the most concentrated formulalation (for cattle), ivermectin is so cheap to produce that it might as well be free; most of the cost is evidently unavoidable overhead, like bottling and shipping. So don't get too excited about Merck giving it away to treat river blindness. It makes them look good (and it was the right thing to do) but it cost them damnear nothing.
Special situation when the poster themselves asks that a bad post be modded down... come to think of it, that might be a useful feature: let posters mod down any of their *own* posts, as a quick and easy way to submerge stupid or wrong comments they wish they'd never made. [I don't think they should be deleteable, tho, as that damages the overall integrity of a discussion.]
:) [goes off, reads supplied link] Very nice feature set, notably the --pretend switch. And the way it's organized, one can readily imagine a Handy GUI Optional Overlay that would be very easy for even novice linux users to figure out and use. I know I'd never remember all those switches, nor have the patience to RTFM to remind myself, but wrap it in something like TweakUI, and it would be effectively self-documenting on the fly.
;)
Having no familiarity** with Gentoo nor its children, yes, it was a serious question
Hmm. As to the point of that much-debated post... I wonder what the "this-is-cool" switch does? Maybe it turns on CPU cooling, or fetches beer from the fridge.
**Occasionally I muck about with various disties (tho Gentoo hasn't come my way yet), and keep a Mandrake box, but this is mostly a DOS/Win household.
While all that's reasonable as far as it goes, it's also a complete waste of mod points (and in my observation, "overrated" is used entirely as "punishment", never as genuine evaluation of what someone wrote): For every "overrated" or "redundant" post you mod down from its default score, you've sacrificed your ability to mod one more worthwhile post up from the depths.
:)
Personally I think a better reaction than modding down "Emerge is cool" as overrated, would be to forego modding in favour of asking the poster to elucidate why they believe this, which might well generate worthwhile posts that you and others would not have otherwise thought of.
As it stands, we don't have a clue why said person believes that, and instead are arguing about the (de)merits of moderation methods. *sigh*
Okay, why IS Emerge cool? (And for that matter, what is it?
Nonsense. It's right next to my oceanfront property, which I'm offering at a very reasonable price. ;)
I'm wondering if, given the probability that you're right about "Linux license? What Linux license?" and given that any such accusation could be viewed as disparaging the company involved, SCO naming these customers might open up SCO to libel suits.
Conversely, might it open up SCO to litigation for having essentially sneakwrapped this "linux license" into their product?