Unfortunately, I don't have a background in PBXs. But I am aware of how cheaper, flawed models of PBXs will have holes to be exploited by "phreakers". They will then proceed to route many long distance calls through the PBX, leaving the company with the bill.
No, its biggest problem is its expense, followed by its physical performance limitations. Its supposed to transport payload into space, and it costs 10x more money to use the Shuttle that way. The only object it can bring back to earth is the Hubble telescope or an LEO object. And for seven days, it can allow humans to conduct LEO experiments. What a horrible waste of money.
Recyclable rockets can do the same job as the shuttle for MUCH less money, and move human asses to the ISS to do LEO experiments. Those human butts do not need a shuttle to get back to earth; just ask any Cosmonaut.
The money saved could be used to implement a space elevator or a ballistic space launcher, or a prolonged expedition on the moon. Or even a manned Mars mission. The Kuiper Express would have been done if it wasn't for the shuttle sucking up all the available dollars. Instead, we plowed all that money into a jobs program to build the least economically efficient payload delivery vehicle.
The research is getting the humans to Mars & back intact. That would be the payoff in a manned expedition to Mars. If the data on Mars is the only item of importance, then obviously probes could accomplish all that and much cheaper.
Also, probes can only do what it was designed to do. There is no flexibility with a robot. If while collecting data, there needs to be some form of followup experiment, you will need to design a new mission and send a new probe designed to do what the previous one wasn't designed to accomplish. A human, on the other hand, might be able to improvise while they're still on Mars.
I don't have a problem with spending money to send a manned expedition to Mars. I have a problem with the space delivery system we currently use. Its designed to maximize human employment and costs, and can only go half the distance it needs to go to put satellites in GEO. The dollars that get pissed away into that is money that is not being put into productive space research.
Talk about corporate shill. "Ripped off an idea"? Do you think Symantec "invented" bugtraq? Or is entitled to dictate what gets posted on bugtraq by virtue of hosting it? (I'd argue it is, but it underlies the problem the guy who bought the domains wanted to correct.) Who do you think was paying the original maintainers before SecurityFocus agreed to host bugtraq?
Man, I can't believe someone upmodded you. The question should be whether there has been enough telltale tampering by Symantec to dictate the need for an open forum to replace what bugtraq used to be. (But I have not been following the mailing list close enough to have an opinion on it.)
Re:Oh Yeah They're Dead Alright
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
Oh yeah, sun's press agent says Sun is ahead in the market by its hired shill. I'll believe there's no problems with Sun Microsystems.
And you're suggesting that Ebay and Merrill Lynch will be able to depend on those Dells for running an Oracle database for their interruption sensitive applications?
Depending on the environment, and how its implemented, it may even be cheaper to throw in the Sun 10K box. (I'm sure readers remember the IBM "The Heist" commercial.)
But the service contract is a ballbuster, SCSI is twice the expense of IDE drives, and their CPUs are so hideously underpowered compared to an Intel chip, at some point, the cheap PCs performance increases will justify their adoption over the high end. And many bosses are buying a clue, and more vendors are porting their apps over to linux. Sun should not be smug about their situation. I question whether they even can still influence their future.
Give me a break. Sun isn't dying because kids aren't developing on it, or YOU think its so yesterday's sound.
When you get out in the real world, you'll see that large companies will not buy the pricey, superior technology (unless their stupid) if it doesn't address the companies' priorities. "It runs what I need to run, with five 9's of uptime (that's 99.999% reliability), and does it the cheapest." Nor will they buy into a product because their entry-level IT workers think its the "bomb". Frankly, they think you're idiots that need another 10 years before you can give them an intelligent opinion.
Sun's dying because it has more competitors focusing in on its bread & butter, and linux is taking their low-end market (and threatens to go to the higher end).
Re:Same thing was said about Apple
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Oh come on, Apple survived because it got Jobs back and he understood the Apple product was about marketing to consumers, not technical excellence. Its a brand name, like Mercedes Benz, but face it, most people will buy their Toyota Camrys (or SUVs) and be quite happy pocketing the difference.
Sun is screwed. Marketing is important, but the bottom dollar and technical capability is more important. Much of their target server applications will be taken by linux, and if the Fortune 100 client needs handholding, they can hire IBM for the 24x7.
No, Sun is not going to disappear tomorrow, but its definitely headed towards the Niche Zone. I think its simple. If you think their projected products will draw corporate customers back to Sun, then they will prosper. If not, they're the next UNISYS.
Friend, you are evading the issue. The issue has nothing to do with the content of the lie, as despicable as it is for a married man to be a serial philanderer
No, I am not evading the issue. I'm just trying to point out that you believe its the Congress' duty and power to depose a President if they believe he is a disreputable person. That is ridiculous. The impeachment process was not put into the Constitution to remove philanderers or person who may have committed perjury in a civil suit. It was to put there to remove a President acting in a manner that abused his executive powers or presented a threat to the wellbeing of the nation.
It was also deliberately placed under the purview of the Congress, not the judicial branch. What this means is that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. Impeachment articles are not there to punish judicial misconduct. On the other hand, if the Congress deemed it necessary to remove a President for perceived judicial misconduct, or breaking a campaign promise, then Congress has the power to do so. The reason why impeachments don't occur whenever the Congress is philosophically opposite the President is because they'd never survive re-election from an electorate that saw the President they elected get deposed for not meeting Congress' moral standards, breaking an election promise, or perjury in a civil case (that the Judge eventually tossed for lack of merit before it came to trial).
If you can't understand that, then I can't help you. If you really think a President should be deposed for alleged lying in a civil case, then accept the fact that you think the Congress should depose Presidents on their judgement of his moral character -- the same vermin who appear to be of similar moral character. Think of what happens to the political process when you make the bar for impeachment that easy to attain. (Then again, don't bother.)
This post is too long to even bother attempting to explain to you why the whole impeachment issue was a political hachet job. It would have be wasted on someone of your intellectual calibre, anyway.
(oh, btw: yes, I *was* equally outraged when news of Newt's hypocrisy came to light
I don't give a flying leap about your opinion of Gingrich's character. I didn't bring up Gingrich. THAT is being irrelevant.
What Clinton did was a felony, sir.
Apparently, you did not understand the synopsis of the original poster to whom you replied. Did the Special Prosecutor, or a court try and convict Clinton of this felony? Why not? (He wasn't pardoned by GWB.)
Where were you hypocrite when Reagan's cronies were subverting the Constitution? Where was your sense of moral outrage then? Or your so-called integrity?
In the first place, this is irrelevant to the present discussion. You are attempting to divert our attention from the (off-topic) topic, which is the moral turpitude and felonious behavior of President Clinton.
No, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of your position, but that may not be the case. You may be too clueless to be a genuine hypocrite. (Someone who modifies their standard of morality based on who's side they are on.) You still insist on dismissing the point, because its not about Clinton? Fine. Then apparently you'll gladly discuss impeachment of Democrats, but not Republicans. (Look Democrats, I learned something from Kenneth Starr.)
BTW, I have no disagreement about the moral turpitude of Bill Clinton. As to whether his testimony constituted a felony, IANAL, but I'll agree he probably could have been indicted on something concerning his testimony. Do I think it was sufficient grounds to depose him. Hell no. If I made morality judgements on all Presidents, none of them could stay in office. (I'd have to stretch for Carter.)
Don't think the US suffers no consequences from this action. We lost roughly a hundred servicemen, and more patriotic soldiers lives every week.
If that's the only cost to the USA from its criminal devestation of Iraq that you've noticed then you are alseep.
Did I say it was the only cost? Do you think you demonstrate mental acuity with your spelling?
Apparently, their lives are cheaper than the quality of life of the Iraqi citizen
Setting aside the fact that I was taught that all human lives are equal, the quality of life of the average Iraqi is now much much worse than it was under the CIA's stooge Saddam.
The last paragraph I wrote was not to imply that a couple hundred American lives made the invasion of Iraq worthwhile. It was to point out we are sacrificing the lives of patriotic servicemen to the altar of capitalism. Bush says: "Invade Iraq! WMD is a threat!". There's no WMD. Now he says: "We were justified to invade Iraq to liberate Iraqis". I proceed to infer that Bush thinks its okay to murder Americans in order to improve Iraqis standard of living (liberation). Trust me, most Americans do not give a rat's ass if the Iraqis are "liberated", but they do care if their beloved relatives are dead because some dumbass wanted to make his pals rich.
Statements constructed in the manner is categorized as sarcasm or being sardonic. Its a rhetorical device designed to elicit outrage where a pedestrian statement of fact would fail do so. Apparently, it only motivated you to parse into meaninglessness the message I was trying to convey. Thank you for demonstrating that stupidity is not limited to citizens of the United State.
The pieces of work from Starr's office told the judge that Lewinsky's affair with Clinton was pertinent to the Jones deposition. It wasn't.
Do you really believe this nonsense, or are you making it up as you go along?
Do you really believe the framers of the Constitution and the Congress (1970's) created the Special Prosecutors office to go after Presidents who lie about getting blowjobs? Was it created to remove a President that did not have sufficient moral character? Should John F Kennedy be removed from office because he did not meet this standard?
Is this the threat to the country they were thinking of? Or perhaps it could have been to prevent the Executive branch being able to subvert laws passed by Congress because it was the enforcer of those laws?
Where were you hypocrite when Reagan's cronies were subverting the Constitution? Where was your sense of moral outrage then? Or your so-called integrity?
The problem with the excuse of despot removal to invade Iraq is that the invasion would have clearly have been a war crime. UN agreements by all its members disallows invasions of its members unless there is some sort of approval by the Security Council. The US pretext was that previous resolutions permitted military action upon violation of the resolution conditions. Despotism was not a condition in the resolution. But Iraq producing WMD was a resolution condition.
Also, the American public would never go to war over "liberating" Iraqis. Some dumbasses, sure. But not the majority of voters in this country. But apparently, its permissible to lie to the American public (and kill American servicemen) if they won't impeach you after the deception is exposed.
That said, currently there is no proof that members of the Executive Branch fabricated evidence or that the President was aware the evidence MAY have been forged or non-existent. All Bush and Powell did was read the CIA/DIA report's conclusions.
Don't think the US suffers no consequences from this action. We lost roughly a hundred servicemen, and more patriotic soldiers lives every week. Apparently, their lives are cheaper than the quality of life of the Iraqi citizen (or the price of a barrel of oil). Lets spill some more American blood to free North Koreans, Iranians, and Africans.
The combined Congress realized they were being asked to remove a President for getting a blowjob. Sanity broke out.
Technically, it was for alleged purjury over whether he got a blowjob. And impeachment and removal is a "political" process, not a judicial process. Senators are not required to execute judgement in the manner a court of law would be required.
Its an irrelevant point in debate camp or a court of law. Its irrelevant if you're a Republican worshipping fascist who believes its okay to subvert the US Constitution if a Republican administration deems the action to be in the Nation's (i.e. its) best interest.
Sammy "the Bull" Gravano is a murderer. That fact that he isn't a "convicted" murderer doesn't change that fact. The fact that Poindexter deliberately lied under oath to cover up Irangate means he's guilty of treason. That he wasn't "convicted" of it doesn't change that fact either.
Its this miserable spindoctor dissembling by Conservative scum that allow crap like the Patriot Act to become law and invasions of countries over WMD that never existed. (Its also the fault of people who don't call them out on it.)
But that doesn't mean Poindexter wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused of committing. (And in essence, a criminal.) After all, Sammy "The Bull" Gravano was not convicted of the many murders he committed. He specified each one to the DA, in order to gain immunity from prosecution for those crimes and, in return, testify against John Gotti.
Ah, but you fell into the trap. Just because ONE page refers to him as "Michael Bruce Sterling" doesn't necessarily mean his "real" name is "Michael Sterling". Any nut (or intellectually sloppy person) can put up a webpage, but that doesn't mean its contents is the indisputable truth.
Postulating that its likely to be the truth if the names come up on more pages, I did a search on "Bruce Sterling" & "Michael Sterling". What I got was a few pages refering to him as "Bruce Michael Sterling". Who is to say that is perhaps the complete pseudonym he presents, and is unrelated to his real name?
Why not use pseudonyms?
That's baloney. I happen to do that myself. I do have two data identities. I have my name, Bruce Sterling, which is my public name under which I write novels. I also have my other name, which is my legal name under which I own property and vote.
So what's the name of your other identity?
It would take you all of 10 seconds to figure it out on Google.
10 seconds my ass. I stick in the search terms "bruce sterling", "real name", & "fiction" (after all we need to separate BS the science fiction writer from BS the plumber), I get 390 hits. After glancing through likely pages, I get the real names to a half dozen different writers, but not Bruce! I even go to vivisimo, get some hits unique to google, but still no real name. Man, the New World Order better not depend on my lame ass skills.
Now I know I could track it down if I spent two hours going through search engines, varying search arguments, but what the hell am I doing wrong??? *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I don't have a background in PBXs. But I am aware of how cheaper, flawed models of PBXs will have holes to be exploited by "phreakers". They will then proceed to route many long distance calls through the PBX, leaving the company with the bill.
No, its biggest problem is its expense, followed by its physical performance limitations. Its supposed to transport payload into space, and it costs 10x more money to use the Shuttle that way. The only object it can bring back to earth is the Hubble telescope or an LEO object. And for seven days, it can allow humans to conduct LEO experiments. What a horrible waste of money.
Recyclable rockets can do the same job as the shuttle for MUCH less money, and move human asses to the ISS to do LEO experiments. Those human butts do not need a shuttle to get back to earth; just ask any Cosmonaut.
The money saved could be used to implement a space elevator or a ballistic space launcher, or a prolonged expedition on the moon. Or even a manned Mars mission. The Kuiper Express would have been done if it wasn't for the shuttle sucking up all the available dollars. Instead, we plowed all that money into a jobs program to build the least economically efficient payload delivery vehicle.
The research is getting the humans to Mars & back intact. That would be the payoff in a manned expedition to Mars. If the data on Mars is the only item of importance, then obviously probes could accomplish all that and much cheaper.
Also, probes can only do what it was designed to do. There is no flexibility with a robot. If while collecting data, there needs to be some form of followup experiment, you will need to design a new mission and send a new probe designed to do what the previous one wasn't designed to accomplish. A human, on the other hand, might be able to improvise while they're still on Mars.
I don't have a problem with spending money to send a manned expedition to Mars. I have a problem with the space delivery system we currently use. Its designed to maximize human employment and costs, and can only go half the distance it needs to go to put satellites in GEO. The dollars that get pissed away into that is money that is not being put into productive space research.
The new network admins are going to have to carry around a phone book just to know where all the ip addresses are in their network.
How can you be in the IT industry and not have ever evaluated the utility of a PDA?
They can be the first to supply transpacific fibre-optic cable internet connections to all the aquatic residents of their submerged kingdom...
Where else would you find a device that worked using (static) magnetic core memory? Ahh, with a paper tape reader...
If they're not total pricks and agree to it, make sure to get it in writing.
Talk about corporate shill. "Ripped off an idea"? Do you think Symantec "invented" bugtraq? Or is entitled to dictate what gets posted on bugtraq by virtue of hosting it? (I'd argue it is, but it underlies the problem the guy who bought the domains wanted to correct.) Who do you think was paying the original maintainers before SecurityFocus agreed to host bugtraq?
Man, I can't believe someone upmodded you. The question should be whether there has been enough telltale tampering by Symantec to dictate the need for an open forum to replace what bugtraq used to be. (But I have not been following the mailing list close enough to have an opinion on it.)
Oh yeah, sun's press agent says Sun is ahead in the market by its hired shill. I'll believe there's no problems with Sun Microsystems.
And you're suggesting that Ebay and Merrill Lynch will be able to depend on those Dells for running an Oracle database for their interruption sensitive applications?
I don't think so.
Depending on the environment, and how its implemented, it may even be cheaper to throw in the Sun 10K box. (I'm sure readers remember the IBM "The Heist" commercial.)
But the service contract is a ballbuster, SCSI is twice the expense of IDE drives, and their CPUs are so hideously underpowered compared to an Intel chip, at some point, the cheap PCs performance increases will justify their adoption over the high end. And many bosses are buying a clue, and more vendors are porting their apps over to linux. Sun should not be smug about their situation. I question whether they even can still influence their future.
Give me a break. Sun isn't dying because kids aren't developing on it, or YOU think its so yesterday's sound.
When you get out in the real world, you'll see that large companies will not buy the pricey, superior technology (unless their stupid) if it doesn't address the companies' priorities. "It runs what I need to run, with five 9's of uptime (that's 99.999% reliability), and does it the cheapest." Nor will they buy into a product because their entry-level IT workers think its the
"bomb". Frankly, they think you're idiots that need another 10 years before you can give them an intelligent opinion.
Sun's dying because it has more competitors focusing in on its bread & butter, and linux is taking their low-end market (and threatens to go to the higher end).
Oh come on, Apple survived because it got Jobs back and he understood the Apple product was about marketing to consumers, not technical excellence. Its a brand name, like Mercedes Benz, but face it, most people will buy their Toyota Camrys (or SUVs) and be quite happy pocketing the difference.
Sun is screwed. Marketing is important, but the bottom dollar and technical capability is more important. Much of their target server applications will be taken by linux, and if the Fortune 100 client needs handholding, they can hire IBM for the 24x7.
No, Sun is not going to disappear tomorrow, but its definitely headed towards the Niche Zone. I think its simple. If you think their projected products will draw corporate customers back to Sun, then they will prosper. If not, they're the next UNISYS.
Yeah, you try getting work done on a crummy 8 bit accumulator and 2 stinking registers. And a lousy 256 byte fixed stack.
Don't confuse complexity with elegance.
Fistfighting over an Apple II. Sad.
Mebbe my school factored that possibility in when they ordered Commodore PETs. (No fistfights over computers in my school.)
I do remember unauthorized sneaking into the computer room after school to get some hands on time with the computers. I'm not sure what was sadder...
Or are they supposed to buy Johnnie his own $1000 computer.
How about walking around the block during recycling day and picking up a P2 clunker? Sheesh, some parents are too stupid to be allowed to breed...
Friend, you are evading the issue. The issue has nothing to do with the content of the lie, as despicable as it is for a married man to be a serial philanderer
No, I am not evading the issue. I'm just trying to point out that you believe its the Congress' duty and power to depose a President if they believe he is a disreputable person. That is ridiculous. The impeachment process was not put into the Constitution to remove philanderers or person who may have committed perjury in a civil suit. It was to put there to remove a President acting in a manner that abused his executive powers or presented a threat to the wellbeing of the nation.
It was also deliberately placed under the purview of the Congress, not the judicial branch. What this means is that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. Impeachment articles are not there to punish judicial misconduct. On the other hand, if the Congress deemed it necessary to remove a President for perceived judicial misconduct, or breaking a campaign promise, then Congress has the power to do so. The reason why impeachments don't occur whenever the Congress is philosophically opposite the President is because they'd never survive re-election from an electorate that saw the President they elected get deposed for not meeting Congress' moral standards, breaking an election promise, or perjury in a civil case (that the Judge eventually tossed for lack of merit before it came to trial).
If you can't understand that, then I can't help you. If you really think a President should be deposed for alleged lying in a civil case, then accept the fact that you think the Congress should depose Presidents on their judgement of his moral character -- the same vermin who appear to be of similar moral character. Think of what happens to the political process when you make the bar for impeachment that easy to attain. (Then again, don't bother.)
This post is too long to even bother attempting to explain to you why the whole impeachment issue was a political hachet job. It would have be wasted on someone of your intellectual calibre, anyway.
(oh, btw: yes, I *was* equally outraged when news of Newt's hypocrisy came to light
I don't give a flying leap about your opinion of Gingrich's character. I didn't bring up Gingrich. THAT is being irrelevant.
What Clinton did was a felony, sir.
Apparently, you did not understand the synopsis of the original poster to whom you replied. Did the Special Prosecutor, or a court try and convict Clinton of this felony? Why not? (He wasn't pardoned by GWB.)
In the first place, this is irrelevant to the present discussion. You are attempting to divert our attention from the (off-topic) topic, which is the moral turpitude and felonious behavior of President Clinton.
No, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of your position, but that may not be the case. You may be too clueless to be a genuine hypocrite. (Someone who modifies their standard of morality based on who's side they are on.) You still insist on dismissing the point, because its not about Clinton? Fine. Then apparently you'll gladly discuss impeachment of Democrats, but not Republicans. (Look Democrats, I learned something from Kenneth Starr.)
BTW, I have no disagreement about the moral turpitude of Bill Clinton. As to whether his testimony constituted a felony, IANAL, but I'll agree he probably could have been indicted on something concerning his testimony. Do I think it was sufficient grounds to depose him. Hell no. If I made morality judgements on all Presidents, none of them could stay in office. (I'd have to stretch for Carter.)
In
If that's the only cost to the USA from its criminal devestation of Iraq that you've noticed then you are alseep.
Did I say it was the only cost? Do you think you demonstrate mental acuity with your spelling?
Setting aside the fact that I was taught that all human lives are equal, the quality of life of the average Iraqi is now much much worse than it was under the CIA's stooge Saddam.
The last paragraph I wrote was not to imply that a couple hundred American lives made the invasion of Iraq worthwhile. It was to point out we are sacrificing the lives of patriotic servicemen to the altar of capitalism. Bush says: "Invade Iraq! WMD is a threat!". There's no WMD. Now he says: "We were justified to invade Iraq to liberate Iraqis". I proceed to infer that Bush thinks its okay to murder Americans in order to improve Iraqis standard of living (liberation). Trust me, most Americans do not give a rat's ass if the Iraqis are "liberated", but they do care if their beloved relatives are dead because some dumbass wanted to make his pals rich.
Statements constructed in the manner is categorized as sarcasm or being sardonic. Its a rhetorical device designed to elicit outrage where a pedestrian statement of fact would fail do so. Apparently, it only motivated you to parse into meaninglessness the message I was trying to convey. Thank you for demonstrating that stupidity is not limited to citizens of the United State.
Do you really believe this nonsense, or are you making it up as you go along?
Do you really believe the framers of the Constitution and the Congress (1970's) created the Special Prosecutors office to go after Presidents who lie about getting blowjobs? Was it created to remove a President that did not have sufficient moral character? Should John F Kennedy be removed from office because he did not meet this standard? Is this the threat to the country they were thinking of? Or perhaps it could have been to prevent the Executive branch being able to subvert laws passed by Congress because it was the enforcer of those laws?
Where were you hypocrite when Reagan's cronies were subverting the Constitution? Where was your sense of moral outrage then? Or your so-called integrity?
The problem with the excuse of despot removal to invade Iraq is that the invasion would have clearly have been a war crime. UN agreements by all its members disallows invasions of its members unless there is some sort of approval by the Security Council. The US pretext was that previous resolutions permitted military action upon violation of the resolution conditions. Despotism was not a condition in the resolution. But Iraq producing WMD was a resolution condition.
Also, the American public would never go to war over "liberating" Iraqis. Some dumbasses, sure. But not the majority of voters in this country. But apparently, its permissible to lie to the American public (and kill American servicemen) if they won't impeach you after the deception is exposed.
That said, currently there is no proof that members of the Executive Branch fabricated evidence or that the President was aware the evidence MAY have been forged or non-existent. All Bush and Powell did was read the CIA/DIA report's conclusions.
Don't think the US suffers no consequences from this action. We lost roughly a hundred servicemen, and more patriotic soldiers lives every week. Apparently, their lives are cheaper than the quality of life of the Iraqi citizen (or the price of a barrel of oil). Lets spill some more American blood to free North Koreans, Iranians, and Africans.
Technically, it was for alleged purjury over whether he got a blowjob. And impeachment and removal is a "political" process, not a judicial process. Senators are not required to execute judgement in the manner a court of law would be required.
Its an irrelevant point in debate camp or a court of law. Its irrelevant if you're a Republican worshipping fascist who believes its okay to subvert the US Constitution if a Republican administration deems the action to be in the Nation's (i.e. its) best interest.
Sammy "the Bull" Gravano is a murderer. That fact that he isn't a "convicted" murderer doesn't change that fact. The fact that Poindexter deliberately lied under oath to cover up Irangate means he's guilty of treason. That he wasn't "convicted" of it doesn't change that fact either.
Its this miserable spindoctor dissembling by Conservative scum that allow crap like the Patriot Act to become law and invasions of countries over WMD that never existed. (Its also the fault of people who don't call them out on it.)
But that doesn't mean Poindexter wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused of committing. (And in essence, a criminal.) After all, Sammy "The Bull" Gravano was not convicted of the many murders he committed. He specified each one to the DA, in order to gain immunity from prosecution for those crimes and, in return, testify against John Gotti.
Ah, but you fell into the trap. Just because ONE page refers to him as "Michael Bruce Sterling" doesn't necessarily mean his "real" name is "Michael Sterling". Any nut (or intellectually sloppy person) can put up a webpage, but that doesn't mean its contents is the indisputable truth.
Postulating that its likely to be the truth if the names come up on more pages, I did a search on "Bruce Sterling" & "Michael Sterling". What I got was a few pages refering to him as "Bruce Michael Sterling". Who is to say that is perhaps the complete pseudonym he presents, and is unrelated to his real name?
10 seconds my ass. I stick in the search terms "bruce sterling", "real name", & "fiction" (after all we need to separate BS the science fiction writer from BS the plumber), I get 390 hits. After glancing through likely pages, I get the real names to a half dozen different writers, but not Bruce! I even go to vivisimo, get some hits unique to google, but still no real name. Man, the New World Order better not depend on my lame ass skills.
Now I know I could track it down if I spent two hours going through search engines, varying search arguments, but what the hell am I doing wrong??? *sigh*