Look at this - an anti-gun fuckwit of the first order. According to the National Center for Health, death statistics for last year (approximates):
auto accidents - 45,000 falls - 13,000 poisoning - 7,000 fires - 4,000 drowning - 3500 suffocation - 3100 medical mistakes - 2700 gun accidents - 1500 other - 12,000
please note that you're more than eight times as likely to die in a fall as to be shot accidentally (mostly down stairs) and two and a half times more likely to drown (most often during recreational activities).
Of the 27,000 murders committed last year, more than 90% of them did not involve a firearm. They were instead perpetrated with 'weapons of opportunity', the favorites being blunt objects, knives, and bare hands. Which means that if someone tries to murder you, they'll be inclined to use whatever blunt or sharp object is close at hand. Banning guns would at best eliminate 2,700 murders, although there's nothing to prevent the murderer from using some other object to achieve his end, as 90% of his compatriots do.
So therefore, we should ban ladders, stairs, swimming pools, any form of public recreation having to do with water, baseball bats, kitchen knives, and all remotely heavy objects that can be wielded as weapons. Oh, and don't forget *bare hands*.
Also according to the FBI, somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 crimes were *prevented* by the use of a firearm by the intended victim. In only 1/10 of 1% of thes cases was the firearm actually discharged, and in these few instances it was often into the air to discourage the attacker. That means at the very least that 200,000 robberies, rapes, and murders were prevented by the deterrant use of a firearm - unless, of course, you think the FBI is lying.
Provide some statistics - empirical ones like my own, taken from the National Center for Health and the FBI - which support the idea that if the citizenry was disarmed crime would decline.
Look son, no fucker is going to get my DNA and store it on a card. Ever.
And in any event, you're incredibly naive if you don't think criminals won't find a way around your protections. They've been doing it since the dawn of time, and nothing you do is going to change that.
As another poster pointed out, if the game is that addictive then *someone* has to be supporting their habit, as they have no way to earn income on their own. That being said, whoever is supporting Johnny's obsession should pull the damn plug and see how he likes having no computer access at all. Or even kick his ass out of the house and try to juggle his EQ addiction with a job, rent, bills, and so forth.
If you object then change the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The process for doing so is readily available to anyone who wants to make the attempt.
Go on, get off your fat ass and start the process. Please. Enough yammering about the evils of guns; do something about it!
Or are you afraid your call to repeal the 2nd Amendment would never pass muster?
They didn't intend for any bum to run around with a gun,
They most certainly did. Some quotes, from the folks involved:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." - Richard H. Lee
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry
"A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"...to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly antirepublican principle..." - Patrick Henry
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms." - Tench Coxe
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived of the use of them;...the weak will come prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he live precariously and at discretion. And though for a while, those, who have the sword in their power, abstain from doing him injury, yet by degrees he will be awed." - James Burgh
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for a few public officials." George Mason
There are quite a few more quotes along these lines, but I think you get the point.
I think there's a conspiracy. A conspiracy of the incredibly stupid, losers with an abnormally low brain cell count, who jealously try to punish others in any way they can because their own lives are so pitifully pathetic. They'll malicious little nothings whose sole joy is raining on everyone's - anyone's - parade.
Wouldn't happen to know any of these folks, would you? Living in the Caribbean, perhaps? Not even an American, and therefore not at all invested in a conversation concerning American I.D. systems?
Home schooling is a good answer to this situation, and one that is becoming increasingly popular across the country. With home schooling you can counter some of the crap taught in public schools, as well as expand on those topics you - as the parent, and the ultimate authority over your child's education - think are important.
It's only too bad that this option is often not available to the poor or lower middle class, or to single parents. But people are starting to form cooperatives with like-minded parents to get around this, and I think that's a good thing.
The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?
Hey, you're right. And since only criminals would object to having a tracking chip implanted in their arms, let's mandate that as well. After all, what do you have to hide? If you object you must be a criminal.
While we're at it, let's also ban any sort of privacy in communication. Only criminals want the ability to privately communicate with others, so why don't we just legalize wiretapping, opening mail, and loading surveillance software on everyone's computer?
Hell, let's go the full distance: let's put little cameras in everyone's home. After all, if we're good, law-abiding citizens we won't mind if government records what we do; only criminals would object to such measures. If anyone objects or starts spouting off about privacy - how 20th century! - then we'll know right away that those sorts are up to no good.
Yeah, this is surely the kind of world I want to live in. Definitely the kind of world I want my kids to grow up in. After all, if it lowers the crime rate by some small fraction, if it's "fooor the chiiiiiilldrenn", then honest upright folks will embrace it without question. Only criminals would object, and those who object, by definition, are criminals.
Take a DNA sample. If it means that 20 years from now, my children will be growing up in a society free of random murders, pedophilia, assault, and all the rest, I'm for it.
Provide a single empirical cite which indicates that these measures will do any of this. Just one.
I actually support a national ID card, terrorists wouldnt be able to get the card, and it would be easier to hunt them do
Criminals can get any kind of i.d. they like, and very good copies at that. National ID cards would have no effect on criminals or terrorists, only on honest citizens (e.g., tracking the movement of said citizens).
If you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't be able to get i.d. cards, I'll point out the painfully obvious and you can chew on this for a bit: criminals are barred from purchasing guns illegally, yet being criminals they don't care and have an easier time getting a gun than an honest citizen! Anyone who's been to the sleazier sections of any large city can discover fairly quickly how simple it is to purchase a handgun, and at a cheaper price than most stores.
People who currently get mp3's for free aren't buying CDs.
How odd. I do this, as does everyone I know. We 'try before we buy' to see if it's worth it to buy the entire cd. Because of this I have cds in my collection that I would never in a million years have considered prior to Napster.
Same goes for my friends and coworkers. But then we're not college kids; we actually work, pay taxes, and so forth.
People who buy CDs probably aren't going to stop.
Actually our CD purchases declined once Napster started hitting the skids. And since both of our last two cd purchases were of the crippled variety, we haven't bought a single one since then. Why buy a cd if the odds are good it's going to be broken?
And the same thing is happening to the people we know. The 'broken cd' phenomena is the real big hitter since local music stores refuse to take them back even when threatened with a lawsuit.
College kids still listen to that trash known as 'rap' even though the people who made it popular are pushing 30 and have moved on to other things. As one generation edges out of the witless music scene, another eagerly takes their place.
This is the same kind of thing that keeps, say, alternate bands alive, most of whom really suck but act as status symbols for people who have yet to get a real job (e.g., "I don't listen to that Britney Spears pop crap, I listen to alternative band X and that's *real* music....").
And I could use the same argument right back. If you want source code, then don't download Lindows.
If the Lindows folks want to use GPL'd code, they have to abide by the GPL. If they don't want to abide by the GPL, they need to write their own code.
How 'bout this instead: I do whatever the hell I want with your code, and you have no fucking clue that I did it.
Sure, you could do that so long as you weren't caught. You'd be in copyright violation, and a lazy shit-for-brains scumbag ripping off my code, but apparently ethical considerations don't bother you.
You'll find that if you don't give any leeway at all, you might end up left out of the decision process.
Since I'm not interested in whoring out my First Amendment rights simply to deny myself the source code to viruses - but not denying the criminals access (since by definition criminals don't obey the law) - then you bet I'm not interested in compromise.
This is the same sort of argument used by the anti-gun freaks. Banning guns only disarms honest citizens; it doesn't do a thing to deny guns to criminals. The same applies to virus source code.
No, you don't. Please re-read my post. I said "in Oregon....". The state assumes that if an intruder forces his way into your home then deadly intent is *already demonstrated*. The fact that you're in the midst of criminal trespass is considered to be proof that you represent immediate peril to the lawful inhabitants of that home.
This may be different in other states where pussy liberals rule the legislature, but not here.
The GPL is copyright right. There is no question about this whatsoever; it's indisputable in court.
EULAs are not copyright. They are not contracts, nor are the terms and conditions of EULAs applicable under *any* interpretation of contract law. The only attempt to enforce a EULA in the U.S. ended with a court striking it down as failing to meet the provisions of contract law.
So yes, the GPL is part of established law. EULAs most definitely are not. There's a difference here, for anyone with the brain cells to make the distinction.
Then don't use GPL'd code in your works. If I GPL *my* code, I'm specifically telling *you* - yes, you - that you have no right whatsoever to use my code unless you comply with my rules.
Thems the breaks. That's copyright. If you don't like it write your own fucking code and don't touch mine at all. But you have no right to whine about whatever restrictions I put on my copyright. It's my code and I make the rules - not you.
Not so. The 'beta testers' are *paying* for the product. In any normal sense theyr'e customers (since for actual beta testers the company generally pays *them*, not the other way around). And in any event these 'testers' aren't employees, so the source has to be distributed.
"But if you release the software to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the source code available to the users, under the GPL."
Notice that nowhere does this elaboration specify an exemption to the GPL. It doesn't say "except if it's a beta" or anything along these lines.
If you release the binaries, you have to release the source. It doesn't matter if your software is an alpha, beta, whatever - the source must be made available. You can't delay, claim you're "not ready", or use any other excuse to get around this requirement.
The Lindows folks are violating the GPL. It's that simple.
a) kids are taught in school that America is pure capitalism, and that all good things extend from capitalism. A blatant lie; America is a mix between capitalism, corporate welfare, and socialism, but nobody bothers to go into the details.
b) college kids assume that any attempt to reign in the free market means they won't have the chance to become rich and powerful. They don't realize that 99.999% of them will never be rich and powerful, or amount to much of anything at all in any materialistic sense. 'Communists', as far as they're concerned, are a group of evil people who're trying to hold them back from assuming their rightful place in the new nobility (har har!).
c) Americans are easily programmed. My countrymen *like* being unthinking zombies, pretending the world always devolves into easy-to-understand bite-sized chunks that always fall into two boxes on any issue - one 'good' and one 'bad'. So there are 'capitalists' - the good guys - and 'communists' - the bad guys, and screw any headache-causing attempt to widen the sprectrum or allow for multiple definitions. Might actually have to exercise some brain cells, and this is a bad thing, especially if it interferes with watching the latest episode of 'Friends'.
Not brilliant. The guy is no Einstein, Newton, or Hawking. Not even close.
But smart, yes. Ruthless, sure. Willing to break laws in pursuit of the almighty dollar, we know this from court convictions of his company.
But let's not forget that Bill was also born rich (into a millionaire family), got his initial monopoly via Mama (who was on the Board for IBM at the time), and also happened to be very, very lucky.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at this - an anti-gun fuckwit of the first order. According to the National Center for Health, death statistics for last year (approximates):
auto accidents - 45,000
falls - 13,000
poisoning - 7,000
fires - 4,000
drowning - 3500
suffocation - 3100
medical mistakes - 2700
gun accidents - 1500
other - 12,000
please note that you're more than eight times as likely to die in a fall as to be shot accidentally (mostly down stairs) and two and a half times more likely to drown (most often during recreational activities).
Of the 27,000 murders committed last year, more than 90% of them did not involve a firearm. They were instead perpetrated with 'weapons of opportunity', the favorites being blunt objects, knives, and bare hands. Which means that if someone tries to murder you, they'll be inclined to use whatever blunt or sharp object is close at hand. Banning guns would at best eliminate 2,700 murders, although there's nothing to prevent the murderer from using some other object to achieve his end, as 90% of his compatriots do.
So therefore, we should ban ladders, stairs, swimming pools, any form of public recreation having to do with water, baseball bats, kitchen knives, and all remotely heavy objects that can be wielded as weapons. Oh, and don't forget *bare hands*.
Also according to the FBI, somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 crimes were *prevented* by the use of a firearm by the intended victim. In only 1/10 of 1% of thes cases was the firearm actually discharged, and in these few instances it was often into the air to discourage the attacker. That means at the very least that 200,000 robberies, rapes, and murders were prevented by the deterrant use of a firearm - unless, of course, you think the FBI is lying.
Provide some statistics - empirical ones like my own, taken from the National Center for Health and the FBI - which support the idea that if the citizenry was disarmed crime would decline.
Max
Look son, no fucker is going to get my DNA and store it on a card. Ever.
And in any event, you're incredibly naive if you don't think criminals won't find a way around your protections. They've been doing it since the dawn of time, and nothing you do is going to change that.
Max
As another poster pointed out, if the game is that addictive then *someone* has to be supporting their habit, as they have no way to earn income on their own. That being said, whoever is supporting Johnny's obsession should pull the damn plug and see how he likes having no computer access at all. Or even kick his ass out of the house and try to juggle his EQ addiction with a job, rent, bills, and so forth.
Max
This is the addicts problem. It's *their* problem and *they* need to deal with it. The blame lies solely with them.
Max
Oh please. If you're so fucking stirred up over the fact that your neighbor is armed then start a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Coward.
Max
If you object then change the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The process for doing so is readily available to anyone who wants to make the attempt.
Go on, get off your fat ass and start the process. Please. Enough yammering about the evils of guns; do something about it!
Or are you afraid your call to repeal the 2nd Amendment would never pass muster?
Max
Look, guns don't solve problems and arming the general populace is never a solution. Period.
And disarming the general populace is? Please, don't make me laugh.
Max
They didn't intend for any bum to run around with a gun,
They most certainly did. Some quotes, from the folks involved:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." - Richard H. Lee
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry
"A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"...to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly antirepublican principle..." - Patrick Henry
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms." - Tench Coxe
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived of the use of them;...the weak will come prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he live precariously and at discretion. And though for a while, those, who have the sword in their power, abstain from doing him injury, yet by degrees he will be awed." - James Burgh
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason
There are quite a few more quotes along these lines, but I think you get the point.
Max
I think there's a conspiracy. A conspiracy of the incredibly stupid, losers with an abnormally low brain cell count, who jealously try to punish others in any way they can because their own lives are so pitifully pathetic. They'll malicious little nothings whose sole joy is raining on everyone's - anyone's - parade.
Wouldn't happen to know any of these folks, would you? Living in the Caribbean, perhaps? Not even an American, and therefore not at all invested in a conversation concerning American I.D. systems?
Thought not.
Max
Home schooling is a good answer to this situation, and one that is becoming increasingly popular across the country. With home schooling you can counter some of the crap taught in public schools, as well as expand on those topics you - as the parent, and the ultimate authority over your child's education - think are important.
It's only too bad that this option is often not available to the poor or lower middle class, or to single parents. But people are starting to form cooperatives with like-minded parents to get around this, and I think that's a good thing.
Max
The issue of better identification of people comes up again and again, but I always have to wonder - what criminal acts are these guys planning that they protest so loudly to being able to be identified by the authorities?
Hey, you're right. And since only criminals would object to having a tracking chip implanted in their arms, let's mandate that as well. After all, what do you have to hide? If you object you must be a criminal.
While we're at it, let's also ban any sort of privacy in communication. Only criminals want the ability to privately communicate with others, so why don't we just legalize wiretapping, opening mail, and loading surveillance software on everyone's computer?
Hell, let's go the full distance: let's put little cameras in everyone's home. After all, if we're good, law-abiding citizens we won't mind if government records what we do; only criminals would object to such measures. If anyone objects or starts spouting off about privacy - how 20th century! - then we'll know right away that those sorts are up to no good.
Yeah, this is surely the kind of world I want to live in. Definitely the kind of world I want my kids to grow up in. After all, if it lowers the crime rate by some small fraction, if it's "fooor the chiiiiiilldrenn", then honest upright folks will embrace it without question. Only criminals would object, and those who object, by definition, are criminals.
Take a DNA sample. If it means that 20 years from now, my children will be growing up in a society free of random murders, pedophilia, assault, and all the rest, I'm for it.
Provide a single empirical cite which indicates that these measures will do any of this. Just one.
Max
I actually support a national ID card, terrorists wouldnt be able to get the card, and it would be easier to hunt them do
Criminals can get any kind of i.d. they like, and very good copies at that. National ID cards would have no effect on criminals or terrorists, only on honest citizens (e.g., tracking the movement of said citizens).
If you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't be able to get i.d. cards, I'll point out the painfully obvious and you can chew on this for a bit: criminals are barred from purchasing guns illegally, yet being criminals they don't care and have an easier time getting a gun than an honest citizen! Anyone who's been to the sleazier sections of any large city can discover fairly quickly how simple it is to purchase a handgun, and at a cheaper price than most stores.
Max
People who currently get mp3's for free aren't buying CDs.
How odd. I do this, as does everyone I know. We 'try before we buy' to see if it's worth it to buy the entire cd. Because of this I have cds in my collection that I would never in a million years have considered prior to Napster.
Same goes for my friends and coworkers. But then we're not college kids; we actually work, pay taxes, and so forth.
People who buy CDs probably aren't going to stop.
Actually our CD purchases declined once Napster started hitting the skids. And since both of our last two cd purchases were of the crippled variety, we haven't bought a single one since then. Why buy a cd if the odds are good it's going to be broken?
And the same thing is happening to the people we know. The 'broken cd' phenomena is the real big hitter since local music stores refuse to take them back even when threatened with a lawsuit.
Max
College kids still listen to that trash known as 'rap' even though the people who made it popular are pushing 30 and have moved on to other things. As one generation edges out of the witless music scene, another eagerly takes their place.
This is the same kind of thing that keeps, say, alternate bands alive, most of whom really suck but act as status symbols for people who have yet to get a real job (e.g., "I don't listen to that Britney Spears pop crap, I listen to alternative band X and that's *real* music....").
Max
And I could use the same argument right back. If you want source code, then don't download Lindows.
If the Lindows folks want to use GPL'd code, they have to abide by the GPL. If they don't want to abide by the GPL, they need to write their own code.
How 'bout this instead: I do whatever the hell I want with your code, and you have no fucking clue that I did it.
Sure, you could do that so long as you weren't caught. You'd be in copyright violation, and a lazy shit-for-brains scumbag ripping off my code, but apparently ethical considerations don't bother you.
Max
You'll find that if you don't give any leeway at all, you might end up left out of the decision process.
Since I'm not interested in whoring out my First Amendment rights simply to deny myself the source code to viruses - but not denying the criminals access (since by definition criminals don't obey the law) - then you bet I'm not interested in compromise.
This is the same sort of argument used by the anti-gun freaks. Banning guns only disarms honest citizens; it doesn't do a thing to deny guns to criminals. The same applies to virus source code.
Max
No, you don't. Please re-read my post. I said "in Oregon....". The state assumes that if an intruder forces his way into your home then deadly intent is *already demonstrated*. The fact that you're in the midst of criminal trespass is considered to be proof that you represent immediate peril to the lawful inhabitants of that home.
This may be different in other states where pussy liberals rule the legislature, but not here.
Max
The GPL is copyright right. There is no question about this whatsoever; it's indisputable in court.
EULAs are not copyright. They are not contracts, nor are the terms and conditions of EULAs applicable under *any* interpretation of contract law. The only attempt to enforce a EULA in the U.S. ended with a court striking it down as failing to meet the provisions of contract law.
So yes, the GPL is part of established law. EULAs most definitely are not. There's a difference here, for anyone with the brain cells to make the distinction.
Max
--Troll? Abuse your +1? *plonk*. I love the friend/foe system.
So do I. Laughing at the people who take the 'foe/freak' thing seriously is always fun.
Max
Then don't use GPL'd code in your works. If I GPL *my* code, I'm specifically telling *you* - yes, you - that you have no right whatsoever to use my code unless you comply with my rules.
Thems the breaks. That's copyright. If you don't like it write your own fucking code and don't touch mine at all. But you have no right to whine about whatever restrictions I put on my copyright. It's my code and I make the rules - not you.
Max
Not so. The 'beta testers' are *paying* for the product. In any normal sense theyr'e customers (since for actual beta testers the company generally pays *them*, not the other way around). And in any event these 'testers' aren't employees, so the source has to be distributed.
Max
"But if you release the software to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the source code available to the users, under the GPL."
Notice that nowhere does this elaboration specify an exemption to the GPL. It doesn't say "except if it's a beta" or anything along these lines.
If you release the binaries, you have to release the source. It doesn't matter if your software is an alpha, beta, whatever - the source must be made available. You can't delay, claim you're "not ready", or use any other excuse to get around this requirement.
The Lindows folks are violating the GPL. It's that simple.
Max
There are several reasons, actually:
a) kids are taught in school that America is pure capitalism, and that all good things extend from capitalism. A blatant lie; America is a mix between capitalism, corporate welfare, and socialism, but nobody bothers to go into the details.
b) college kids assume that any attempt to reign in the free market means they won't have the chance to become rich and powerful. They don't realize that 99.999% of them will never be rich and powerful, or amount to much of anything at all in any materialistic sense. 'Communists', as far as they're concerned, are a group of evil people who're trying to hold them back from assuming their rightful place in the new nobility (har har!).
c) Americans are easily programmed. My countrymen *like* being unthinking zombies, pretending the world always devolves into easy-to-understand bite-sized chunks that always fall into two boxes on any issue - one 'good' and one 'bad'. So there are 'capitalists' - the good guys - and 'communists' - the bad guys, and screw any headache-causing attempt to widen the sprectrum or allow for multiple definitions. Might actually have to exercise some brain cells, and this is a bad thing, especially if it interferes with watching the latest episode of 'Friends'.
Max
The guy is brilliant.
Not brilliant. The guy is no Einstein, Newton, or Hawking. Not even close.
But smart, yes. Ruthless, sure. Willing to break laws in pursuit of the almighty dollar, we know this from court convictions of his company.
But let's not forget that Bill was also born rich (into a millionaire family), got his initial monopoly via Mama (who was on the Board for IBM at the time), and also happened to be very, very lucky.
But not brilliant. To say such demeans the word.
Max
nor had a fine winmodem...
There has never been any such thing as a 'fine winmodem', by definition.
Max