I think frontier justice...Re:Interesting.
on
MySQL & Nusphere
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the fact that someone got paid money should make the other person right. If someone was dumb enough to write a check without a firm contract, tough squat. Nusphere shouldn't be pittied just because of that.
I disagree with the comment though that one should register every domain name related to their trademark. If a trademark is that proprietary, those domain names shouldn't be publically available in the first place. BUT, if someone is naive enough to invest their blood, sweat, and most of all MONEY, in possibly abusing someone elses trademark, that's a risk they take. If the trespasser get's slammed, so be it. The trespasser should have known better. Business is business; emotion and pitty have no place in that arena.
At least this time, when the cease and desist orders come, and they will arrive soon, they will originate from MySQL AB, not some boob-lawyer trying to make a buck. It's one thing for a company to fight another company, but the Adobe thing seems to have been started by some mud-raker with questionable motives. I still think that one was a publicity stunt. At least this one was started by the actual concerned parties.
Now we get to have a party of our own watching the fray...how many lawyers are on each side and who's their quartback's? Maybe they should settle this on the Rugby field. Put a ball in the middle of field labelled 'MySQL' and scrum over it!!
I'm sure NASA if so afriad of a public embarassment that would lead to loss of congressional funding that they actively guage how much public exposure they need to keep there congressional support and do no more than they need to.
The way their funding model is set up, there is no advantage to being over-exposed. So, I completely agree with you.
I just don't want NASA to tell anyone that they found my secret hideout!
-Darth
Dear Hanno,
I don't think that Adobe is like HP. When I worked at HP, it seemed like the divisions in other countries acted like completely seperate companies. The size of Adobe's international presense is very small. I am not surprised that 'Adobe Germany' has difficulty responding since it's presence in Germany is small and it's charter and power is not like that of an HP or IBM-sized division...
Great chatting,
Darth
Well, by that argument, my formula is f(CO2) = X, where X is whatever the hell I want it to me. It doesn't have to conform to any physical model, it simply conforms to anything human imaginable or otherwise.
Also, the answer is no. There are still asymptotes where you cannot accurate describe the values there because they are so steep. You might be able to define a value at the limit, but you cannot do so even just a fraction from that limit. As I said opening, you might as well say your formula is 'X' where X is anything and I don't have to attempt to define a legitimate physical model for the system. Do you even know how many non-linear unknowns you are dealing with? I don't think so.
Your argument is silly, don't expect a another reply.
Myself, though I know can read minds and all that,
do remain perplexed why Adobe would give this upstart all the free press. What a scam. KIllustrator's author's hire a lawyer in Germany to issue a cease and desist and whammo, free marketting and press. Who could ask for a more effective promotion engine...world wide exposure...I've got to learn a few more dark tricks from those people...
Cheers,
Darth
It's my understanding that Adobe GoLive is written, at least in large part, by programmers in Germany. So, I think the site in Germnay is much more than a operator, a PR agent, a few marketters, and a few lawyers...Perhaps I'm wrong, but being as I work for Adobe, I'm prerry sure I read the org. chart right. I believe there is a staff of at least 20 programmers there.
The flaw is that there is a physical limit to how much of an organism can exsist in the environment. Once you reach that limit, the equations linearity is lost. It is called a boundary condition.
For example, if plankton can only exist within 2 feet of the surface, and plankton blanket the ocean from end to end (so to speak for a round planet) covering it down to 2 feet, then no more can grow. Therefore, the equation can no longer apply because the growth of the CO2 organism is at it's maximum. Then the CO2 concentration increases without bound...
Cheers,
Darth
Unfortunately, you are wrong. If the 'constant/variable' that you claim 'takes care of everything under the sun automatically' does not behave linearly, but instead has some other dampening factors that you have not accounted for, then this inverse-proportional relationship will not hold. I think you are trying to apply a linear model to a clearly non-linear system. That is very flawed.
For example, in your claim that some places have enough trees to support the population. Take into account that reduced sunlight from pollution reduces photosynthesis, plus effects the temperature and therefore efficiency of the trees, and you will quickly loose your linear-assumptions. We just don't have a model that describes it well enough yet.
If the model for Earth's CO2 level's were as simple as you claim, the debate would have ended a lond time ago and we would nullify all our smog laws and pollution controls and just go hog-wild with producing CO2. See Mars, now that is some serious CO2!!! You think we can just drop a couple of CO2 absorbing life forms there that can tolerate the environment and everything will become Earthlike!? Wrong!
Cheers,
Darth
All,
You think that bug is an accident?
It is all part of the CIA plot to leech material from our nuclear program so that they can sell it covertly around the world to fund their clandestine operations. Don't be naive! A secret has been revealed, not a bug. I'm sure they didn't write about the log file that is written describing exactly what item's have been 'lost'.
On another note, I have parcels of land for sale on the moon. Contact me and I'll tell you where to wire your money...
Omnisciently,
Darth
Dear sir,
If we introduce pollutants into the environment that inhibit plant growth, your formula's CO2 levels skyrocket exponentially. I agree in the general principle that increaed CO2 increases plant growth, but unfortunately, plants and humans have trouble co-existing right now.
Our only saving grace is that the majority of CO2 absorption happens right now in the oceans. This is done by plankton-level creatures. We just haven't founf a way to 'deforest' the oceans...yet.
Ciao,
Darth
One might note interestingly enough that the article on Global Warming points out the negative perception that people have of the U.S.
'Perception' is the key word. The U.S. could do itself a favor and work harder to change this negative perception to a more positive one. The entire issue surrounding Global Warming is currently just a propaganda war. The U.S. Government has simply chosen not to fight back: if they have, it hasn't been fighting back hard enough.
I'm not going to try to argue the USA's environmental record, though I would generically claim that we have a lot of positive things to show for our size, level of industrialization, and overall potential to do a hell of a lot more harm than we are doing now. The problem with the side opposite to the U.S., the one that keeps fanning these flames, is that the anti-US propaganda really doesn't hurt us; not yet anyway.
So, I would are that 'Perception' has far more to do with the Global Warming debate than reality. Reality will kick in when we start having to wear hip-boots.
I can just see joe beer-can looking at the CPU screen and saying f*ck this and heading back to Fry's Electronics (I'm a Bay Area boy) sweaty and pissed. I can also see some stupider-than-usual looking employees there trying to convince this guy that the software is not returnable now that he opened it...I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall next to that customer service desk. People aren't going to get on the phone, they are going to get in someone's face!
Cheers from my first post,
Darth
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with the comment though that one should register every domain name related to their trademark. If a trademark is that proprietary, those domain names shouldn't be publically available in the first place. BUT, if someone is naive enough to invest their blood, sweat, and most of all MONEY, in possibly abusing someone elses trademark, that's a risk they take. If the trespasser get's slammed, so be it. The trespasser should have known better. Business is business; emotion and pitty have no place in that arena.
Now we get to have a party of our own watching the fray...how many lawyers are on each side and who's their quartback's? Maybe they should settle this on the Rugby field. Put a ball in the middle of field labelled 'MySQL' and scrum over it!!
I'm sure NASA if so afriad of a public embarassment that would lead to loss of congressional funding that they actively guage how much public exposure they need to keep there congressional support and do no more than they need to.
The way their funding model is set up, there is no advantage to being over-exposed. So, I completely agree with you.
I just don't want NASA to tell anyone that they found my secret hideout!
-Darth
You are not worthy of the dark-side. Step off and be nice!
Disappointed,
Darth
Dear Hanno,
I don't think that Adobe is like HP. When I worked at HP, it seemed like the divisions in other countries acted like completely seperate companies. The size of Adobe's international presense is very small. I am not surprised that 'Adobe Germany' has difficulty responding since it's presence in Germany is small and it's charter and power is not like that of an HP or IBM-sized division...
Great chatting,
Darth
Well, by that argument, my formula is f(CO2) = X, where X is whatever the hell I want it to me. It doesn't have to conform to any physical model, it simply conforms to anything human imaginable or otherwise.
Also, the answer is no. There are still asymptotes where you cannot accurate describe the values there because they are so steep. You might be able to define a value at the limit, but you cannot do so even just a fraction from that limit. As I said opening, you might as well say your formula is 'X' where X is anything and I don't have to attempt to define a legitimate physical model for the system. Do you even know how many non-linear unknowns you are dealing with? I don't think so.
Your argument is silly, don't expect a another reply.
Myself, though I know can read minds and all that, do remain perplexed why Adobe would give this upstart all the free press. What a scam. KIllustrator's author's hire a lawyer in Germany to issue a cease and desist and whammo, free marketting and press. Who could ask for a more effective promotion engine...world wide exposure...I've got to learn a few more dark tricks from those people...
Cheers,
Darth
It's my understanding that Adobe GoLive is written, at least in large part, by programmers in Germany. So, I think the site in Germnay is much more than a operator, a PR agent, a few marketters, and a few lawyers...Perhaps I'm wrong, but being as I work for Adobe, I'm prerry sure I read the org. chart right. I believe there is a staff of at least 20 programmers there.
For example, if plankton can only exist within 2 feet of the surface, and plankton blanket the ocean from end to end (so to speak for a round planet) covering it down to 2 feet, then no more can grow. Therefore, the equation can no longer apply because the growth of the CO2 organism is at it's maximum. Then the CO2 concentration increases without bound...
Cheers,
Darth
For example, in your claim that some places have enough trees to support the population. Take into account that reduced sunlight from pollution reduces photosynthesis, plus effects the temperature and therefore efficiency of the trees, and you will quickly loose your linear-assumptions. We just don't have a model that describes it well enough yet.
If the model for Earth's CO2 level's were as simple as you claim, the debate would have ended a lond time ago and we would nullify all our smog laws and pollution controls and just go hog-wild with producing CO2. See Mars, now that is some serious CO2!!! You think we can just drop a couple of CO2 absorbing life forms there that can tolerate the environment and everything will become Earthlike!? Wrong!
Cheers,
Darth
You think that bug is an accident? It is all part of the CIA plot to leech material from our nuclear program so that they can sell it covertly around the world to fund their clandestine operations. Don't be naive! A secret has been revealed, not a bug. I'm sure they didn't write about the log file that is written describing exactly what item's have been 'lost'.
On another note, I have parcels of land for sale on the moon. Contact me and I'll tell you where to wire your money...
Omnisciently,
Darth
If we introduce pollutants into the environment that inhibit plant growth, your formula's CO2 levels skyrocket exponentially. I agree in the general principle that increaed CO2 increases plant growth, but unfortunately, plants and humans have trouble co-existing right now.
Our only saving grace is that the majority of CO2 absorption happens right now in the oceans. This is done by plankton-level creatures. We just haven't founf a way to 'deforest' the oceans...yet.
Ciao,
Darth
I'm not going to try to argue the USA's environmental record, though I would generically claim that we have a lot of positive things to show for our size, level of industrialization, and overall potential to do a hell of a lot more harm than we are doing now. The problem with the side opposite to the U.S., the one that keeps fanning these flames, is that the anti-US propaganda really doesn't hurt us; not yet anyway.
So, I would are that 'Perception' has far more to do with the Global Warming debate than reality. Reality will kick in when we start having to wear hip-boots.
I can just see joe beer-can looking at the CPU screen and saying f*ck this and heading back to Fry's Electronics (I'm a Bay Area boy) sweaty and pissed. I can also see some stupider-than-usual looking employees there trying to convince this guy that the software is not returnable now that he opened it...I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall next to that customer service desk. People aren't going to get on the phone, they are going to get in someone's face! Cheers from my first post, Darth