So you are saying Linux can't make it on the desktop until the interface is exactly like Windows? I.e., keystroke sequences and chording work the same in Windows as in Linux - even if the Linux way is 'better' (quoted, as I have no standard to compare against - 'better than what and for whom?')which is essentially an opensource version of Windows - not Linux.
Not a troll, I am interested in what you are saying, and I think you may be onto something, but I don't like where it takes me logically.
1) Are the lawyers paid in vouchers? If not, then why are the plaintifs they represent? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all...
2) Maybe I an dense, but this is different from the national class action suit settlement - that was rejected - exactly how? It still has the effect of forcing Microsoft into an area they want to be in - the Apple area of schools and education. "Oh please brer fox, don't throw me in the briar patch!!"
3) "...may be used on any product..." just a) get the voucher, b)buy the product, c)send the voucher and proof of purchase to us, and d) wait for payment in the mail. Yeah, sure. "The check is in the mail." and "Of course I will respect you in the morning..."
4) This is what I call real deterence, and I an sure BG&Co are shaking in their boots at the thought of paying out a max of $1.1 Billion, and a minimum of $733,333,334 (2/3 of the $1.1 B) - or, from their 10-Q fileing, between 19 and 29 days cash income. NOT! This is about what Bill et al gave to charity anyway, AND THEY STILL GET THE CHARITABLE DEDUCTION ON THEIR TAXES (corp taxes, not personal taxes, but still a deduction...)
don't you just hate it when you go to court, LOSE, and get exactly what you wanted anyway?
Sources? Links? Reasons we should take your statement as fact or truth?
The 2000 annual report has a catagory of 'Blades and Razors' - but does not give a breakdown on just the razors, so they could be selling the razors at a loss, and making up the shortage on the income from the blades - exactly what King Gillette started way back when. Where are you seeing otherwise?
No one's yet suggested that the SC's Smartek chips have copyrighted Lexmark code in them.
Following in the hallowed slashdot tradition, I see you did not RTFA.
From the article:Lexmark's complaint also alleges traditional copyright infringement, saying the Smartex chips contain "unauthorized, identical copies of Lexmark's copyrighted Toner Loading Programs."
I have counted more than 4 suits mentioned in reports of the procedings of this trial, the others were settled for amounts ranging from $27,000 to $230,000 - so you are correct, there are valid reasons for confusion when talking about "a suit against McDonalds reguarding spilled coffee".
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
So the TRANSFER was complete, she was not distracted by driving, she was not rolling up her window, she was not (that we know of) jostled, she just klutzed out and spilled it on herself through (your words) nothing but her own incompetence.
Stella Liebeck, age 79, was a passenger in the car. The car was at a full stop so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. [She was not the driver and the car was not moving.] The cup tipped and spilled over her lap.
Anyone without military training and sophisticated weapons equipment can't make a damned bit of difference in a real war against a real military. When the constitution was written, they could. I challenge you to defend yourself against an incoming cruise missile with your assault rifle. Don't think the enemy will be stupid enough to send in troops for you to whack until he's glassed your city one or twice from several thousand miles away..
I am not sure what you are smoking , but it must be good sh*t.
There are several "reasons" for war - to take what someone else has, to prevent them from takng what you have, to exert your will on another nation or people, or 'for one people to disolve the political bands which have bound them with another', etc. (I didn't say they were all GOOD reasons...) "glassing" my city from several thousand miles away using conventional nuclear devices will render the area uninhabitiable for several centuries and useless for ANYBODY; in addition, as I live in midwest USA, doing so would render hugh amounts of farmland unusable for any purpose; doing so with non-nuclear devices will destroy the infrastructure and presumably kill the people - unless you are waging war for territory for your own people to live in, and expect the entire world to allow it, you have just destroyed what you were fighting over.
In VietNam the people were able to make the price of waging war high enough that the US stopped sending troops and declared a cease fire; two years later the south was over run - we did not win that one. Note that no cities were 'glassed' - partially for political reasons, but also partly because the 'enemy' was not found only in the cities, but mainly in the boondocks, and that the US forces were generally better equipt and supplied than the opposing forces.
Also note that in Desert-Storm there were no cities 'glassed' even once, either.
I have never understood the thinking behind changing the 'fire triangle' to the 'fire tetrahedron.' A triangle has three points - coresponding to fuel, oxygen, and heat - while a tetrahedron has four points - with the fire tetrahedron points being fuel, oxygen, heat, and "chemical reaction". BUT "The chemical chain reaction know[sic] as fire occurs when fuel, oxygen and heat are present in the right conditions and amounts." (The Fire Tetrahedron) If you replace "The chemical chain reaction know[sic] as fire" with "Fire", the tetrahedron reverts back to a triangle with "fire occurs when fuel, oxygen and heat are present in the right conditions and amounts."
In other words, if you have fuel, oxygen and heat in correct amounts, AND YOU HAVE FIRE PRESENT (fourth point of the tetrahedron), you will have fire.
I thought you had it, but then you let it get away.
The movie grossed $1B, but it had expenses - INCLUDING what it paid to the movie studio. Therefore the MOVIE STUDIO made a profit (as did their shareholders) and they are happy, while the MOVIE is still not making a profit.
The movie takes in another $100 mill? Surely that is all profit, right? NO! The movie studio gets their share (and it may be all profit TO THE MOVIE STUDIO, but it is expense to the _movie_), distribution gets their share, marketing gets their share, the people who got GROSS points get their share, and the movie never catches up.
The MOVIE starts out negative profit, because the movie studio fronts the money to make the movie in the first place for a percentage of the gross. Therefore, the movie NEVER stops paying on the initial debt (and interest on the initial investment), even after paying back ALL the costs of making the movie - and the studios keep making a profit, making more films that profit the studios but never actually make a profit, and the shareholders are fat and happy.
As someone pointed out above (and probably below, as well) PROFIT = REVENUE - EXPENSE. Revenue is what the movie takes in - in this case $1B is being mentioned; I have not researched it, but it sounds reasonable. Expense includes the bills the movie has to pay - INCLUDING what it pays the movie studio and anyone with points of the gross.
An interesting thought is what would the movie use any profit to buy? What does a movie want? Is "SpiderMan" going to buy a car to go for a drive? Does "Thelma and Louise" want to have a night out with the other chic-fliks? It would seem to me to be in the best interests of the movie industry to make sure that EXPENSES = REVENUES and, contrwise, that REVENUES = EXPENSES - - leaving PROFITS = 0 in all cases. Having a film make a profit means someone screwed up.
First you catch a rabbit...
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Once you've discovered it's easy to make a universe out of an ounce of vacuum, why not make a bunch of them?" asked Dr. Craig Hogan, a cosmologist at the University of Washington.
Show me "an ounce of vacuum", and I might start taking you seriously.
Speaking of proving ignorance, congradulations for a job well done. You have just displayed your ignorance to the world.
Bill Gates IS NOT MICROSOFT. Bill Gates is a shareholder of Microsoft. In fact, he holds close to 12.5% of the stock source so, if he was able to dip into the cash of the company, he would be entitled to 12.5% of that $40 Billion - $5 billion, not the whole thing.
Therefore the poster you were ripping was closer to correct than you. Would you care to prove your ignorance further, or are we done for the evening?
Re:The pool is not a fixed size
on
ECCp-109 Solved
·
· Score: 1
There was once a lawyer in a town. That lawyer didn't have any business, and he nearly starved to death. Then one day, another lawyer moved to town and there was more than enough business for both of them.
Or the villige idiot who, being pitied by the townspeople, was hired to polish the cannon in the square. He saved all his money, bought his own cannon, and went into business for himself!!
Sorry, talking about lawyers brought idiots to mind...
It is not difficult to block windows update using network security measures. Just block access to the update site, same way you would block access to Yahoo or AOL instant messanger - which are also contrary to HIPPA and Financial regulations.
So you believe the software should never need to be updated? Based on what Microsoft experience?
NOT trolling, but Microsoft is not known - based on past history - for getting it right the first (or second, or third...) time and therefore requiring updates be downloaded and applied to squash bugs, close security holes, etc. Are you suggesting that the bugs should be accepted or the security holes not closed in order to not run the update procedure - which requires the acceptance of the EULA at some point? Your equating to Yahoo or AOL Instant Messanger is not valid, as those are not required for bug fixes or security updates.
My '84 king cab 'mpg' pickup has 'NISSAN' on the back. I remember asking when I bought it in '84 and being told it was actually DATSUN renamed. I think that was the first year of the new name.
This is from memory, and they say the memory is the second thing to go when you get old. I just wish I could remember what is the first ting!
From the article, they are paying $67.4 mil cash, and $75.7 mil in CDs (actual cash value? $174.96:}) as punishment for overcharging $480 million!
Nothing was said about returning the overcharge - at least not in the article I read. That seems to mean they get to keep almost $337 million - quick, somebody punish me like that!
Atheism (A= no, Theo=god) is the belief that there is no God.
Agnostic (A=no, Gnosis=knowledge) is a recognition that the existence - or lack thereof - of God has not been proven. It is not a belief - other than a belief that the matter has not been proven!
I will NEVER buy a lexmark, after helping 3 too many friends attempt to get theirs working and having them die shortly after.
If you were going to have them clean the heads in the bath tub you should have 1) told them NOT to get in the tub first, and 2) make sure the printer was unplugged first!
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying Linux can't make it on the desktop until the interface is exactly like Windows? I.e., keystroke sequences and chording work the same in Windows as in Linux - even if the Linux way is 'better' (quoted, as I have no standard to compare against - 'better than what and for whom?')which is essentially an opensource version of Windows - not Linux.
Not a troll, I am interested in what you are saying, and I think you may be onto something, but I don't like where it takes me logically.
...and don't play with it too much.
Good advice!
Oh wait a minute, you meant mercury? Never mind...
Laugh, it's funny...
1) Are the lawyers paid in vouchers? If not, then why are the plaintifs they represent? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all...
2) Maybe I an dense, but this is different from the national class action suit settlement - that was rejected - exactly how? It still has the effect of forcing Microsoft into an area they want to be in - the Apple area of schools and education. "Oh please brer fox, don't throw me in the briar patch!!"
3) "...may be used on any product..." just a) get the voucher, b)buy the product, c)send the voucher and proof of purchase to us, and d) wait for payment in the mail. Yeah, sure. "The check is in the mail." and "Of course I will respect you in the morning..."
4) This is what I call real deterence, and I an sure BG&Co are shaking in their boots at the thought of paying out a max of $1.1 Billion, and a minimum of $733,333,334 (2/3 of the $1.1 B) - or, from their 10-Q fileing, between 19 and 29 days cash income. NOT! This is about what Bill et al gave to charity anyway, AND THEY STILL GET THE CHARITABLE DEDUCTION ON THEIR TAXES (corp taxes, not personal taxes, but still a deduction...)
don't you just hate it when you go to court, LOSE, and get exactly what you wanted anyway?
Sources? Links? Reasons we should take your statement as fact or truth?
The 2000 annual report has a catagory of 'Blades and Razors' - but does not give a breakdown on just the razors, so they could be selling the razors at a loss, and making up the shortage on the income from the blades - exactly what King Gillette started way back when. Where are you seeing otherwise?
Or is this a troll?
No one's yet suggested that the SC's Smartek chips have copyrighted Lexmark code in them.
Following in the hallowed slashdot tradition, I see you did not RTFA.
From the article: Lexmark's complaint also alleges traditional copyright infringement, saying the Smartex chips contain "unauthorized, identical copies of Lexmark's copyrighted Toner Loading Programs."
I was unaware that there were two seperate coffee-spilling suits against McDonalds.
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
I have counted more than 4 suits mentioned in reports of the procedings of this trial, the others were settled for amounts ranging from $27,000 to $230,000 - so you are correct, there are valid reasons for confusion when talking about "a suit against McDonalds reguarding spilled coffee".
What the hell are you ranting about? Must be some other case, as the facts are pretty much agreed upon:
... ) The award was later reduced to ~480,000, and she accepted a check for less than that - but I can't find a definitive final amount. :(
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
So the TRANSFER was complete, she was not distracted by driving, she was not rolling up her window, she was not (that we know of) jostled, she just klutzed out and spilled it on herself through (your words) nothing but her own incompetence.
More stuff:
When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales
Stella Liebeck, age 79, was a passenger in the car.
The car was at a full stop so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. [She was not the driver and the car was not moving.]
The cup tipped and spilled over her lap.
I have to assume you are thinking about this case - "[The attorney]planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000." but, as it is not the case being discussed, your rant is also irrelevent to the discussion.
Anyone without military training and sophisticated weapons equipment can't make a damned bit of difference in a real war against a real military. When the constitution was written, they could. I challenge you to defend yourself against an incoming cruise missile with your assault rifle. Don't think the enemy will be stupid enough to send in troops for you to whack until he's glassed your city one or twice from several thousand miles away. .
I am not sure what you are smoking , but it must be good sh*t.
Can you say VietNam? I knew you could.
There are several "reasons" for war - to take what someone else has, to prevent them from takng what you have, to exert your will on another nation or people, or 'for one people to disolve the political bands which have bound them with another', etc. (I didn't say they were all GOOD reasons...) "glassing" my city from several thousand miles away using conventional nuclear devices will render the area uninhabitiable for several centuries and useless for ANYBODY; in addition, as I live in midwest USA, doing so would render hugh amounts of farmland unusable for any purpose; doing so with non-nuclear devices will destroy the infrastructure and presumably kill the people - unless you are waging war for territory for your own people to live in, and expect the entire world to allow it, you have just destroyed what you were fighting over.
In VietNam the people were able to make the price of waging war high enough that the US stopped sending troops and declared a cease fire; two years later the south was over run - we did not win that one. Note that no cities were 'glassed' - partially for political reasons, but also partly because the 'enemy' was not found only in the cities, but mainly in the boondocks, and that the US forces were generally better equipt and supplied than the opposing forces.
Also note that in Desert-Storm there were no cities 'glassed' even once, either.
I have never understood the thinking behind changing the 'fire triangle' to the 'fire tetrahedron.' A triangle has three points - coresponding to fuel, oxygen, and heat - while a tetrahedron has four points - with the fire tetrahedron points being fuel, oxygen, heat, and "chemical reaction". BUT "The chemical chain reaction know[sic] as fire occurs when fuel, oxygen and heat are present in the right conditions and amounts." (The Fire Tetrahedron) If you replace "The chemical chain reaction know[sic] as fire" with "Fire", the tetrahedron reverts back to a triangle with "fire occurs when fuel, oxygen and heat are present in the right conditions and amounts."
In other words, if you have fuel, oxygen and heat in correct amounts, AND YOU HAVE FIRE PRESENT (fourth point of the tetrahedron), you will have fire.
Well duh!
Sure! Sprint is hiring!
What is that? Sprint is firing ? Oh, uh.. never mind...
I thought you had it, but then you let it get away.
The movie grossed $1B, but it had expenses - INCLUDING what it paid to the movie studio. Therefore the MOVIE STUDIO made a profit (as did their shareholders) and they are happy, while the MOVIE is still not making a profit.
The movie takes in another $100 mill? Surely that is all profit, right? NO! The movie studio gets their share (and it may be all profit TO THE MOVIE STUDIO, but it is expense to the _movie_), distribution gets their share, marketing gets their share, the people who got GROSS points get their share, and the movie never catches up.
The MOVIE starts out negative profit, because the movie studio fronts the money to make the movie in the first place for a percentage of the gross. Therefore, the movie NEVER stops paying on the initial debt (and interest on the initial investment), even after paying back ALL the costs of making the movie - and the studios keep making a profit, making more films that profit the studios but never actually make a profit, and the shareholders are fat and happy.
As someone pointed out above (and probably below, as well) PROFIT = REVENUE - EXPENSE. Revenue is what the movie takes in - in this case $1B is being mentioned; I have not researched it, but it sounds reasonable. Expense includes the bills the movie has to pay - INCLUDING what it pays the movie studio and anyone with points of the gross.
An interesting thought is what would the movie use any profit to buy? What does a movie want? Is "SpiderMan" going to buy a car to go for a drive? Does "Thelma and Louise" want to have a night out with the other chic-fliks? It would seem to me to be in the best interests of the movie industry to make sure that EXPENSES = REVENUES and, contrwise, that REVENUES = EXPENSES - - leaving PROFITS = 0 in all cases. Having a film make a profit means someone screwed up.
Yea!!
Oh, wait...
"Once you've discovered it's easy to make a universe out of an ounce of vacuum, why not make a bunch of them?" asked Dr. Craig Hogan, a cosmologist at the University of Washington.
Show me "an ounce of vacuum", and I might start taking you seriously.
Speaking of proving ignorance, congradulations for a job well done. You have just displayed your ignorance to the world.
Bill Gates IS NOT MICROSOFT. Bill Gates is a shareholder of Microsoft. In fact, he holds close to 12.5% of the stock source so, if he was able to dip into the cash of the company, he would be entitled to 12.5% of that $40 Billion - $5 billion, not the whole thing.
Therefore the poster you were ripping was closer to correct than you. Would you care to prove your ignorance further, or are we done for the evening?
Macarania, Feelings, and 'Who let the dogs out?'
Bill me for the $2.97!
It's funny - laugh!
There was once a lawyer in a town. That lawyer didn't have any business, and he nearly starved to death. Then one day, another lawyer moved to town and there was more than enough business for both of them.
Or the villige idiot who, being pitied by the townspeople, was hired to polish the cannon in the square. He saved all his money, bought his own cannon, and went into business for himself!!
Sorry, talking about lawyers brought idiots to mind...
And for others, a pain in the ass means YOU got laid!
It is not difficult to block windows update using network security measures. Just block access to the update site, same way you would block access to Yahoo or AOL instant messanger - which are also contrary to HIPPA and Financial regulations.
So you believe the software should never need to be updated? Based on what Microsoft experience?
NOT trolling, but Microsoft is not known - based on past history - for getting it right the first (or second, or third...) time and therefore requiring updates be downloaded and applied to squash bugs, close security holes, etc. Are you suggesting that the bugs should be accepted or the security holes not closed in order to not run the update procedure - which requires the acceptance of the EULA at some point? Your equating to Yahoo or AOL Instant Messanger is not valid, as those are not required for bug fixes or security updates.
My '84 king cab 'mpg' pickup has 'NISSAN' on the back. I remember asking when I bought it in '84 and being told it was actually DATSUN renamed. I think that was the first year of the new name.
This is from memory, and they say the memory is the second thing to go when you get old. I just wish I could remember what is the first ting!
del /s means delete and include the subdirectories.
From the article, they are paying $67.4 mil cash, and $75.7 mil in CDs (actual cash value? $174.96 :}) as punishment for overcharging $480 million!
Nothing was said about returning the overcharge - at least not in the article I read. That seems to mean they get to keep almost $337 million - quick, somebody punish me like that!
Yes, Debbie, it does!
Laugh! it's funny!
Atheism (A= no, Theo=god) is the belief that there is no God.
Agnostic (A=no, Gnosis=knowledge) is a recognition that the existence - or lack thereof - of God has not been proven. It is not a belief - other than a belief that the matter has not been proven!
I will NEVER buy a lexmark, after helping 3 too many friends attempt to get theirs working and having them die shortly after.
If you were going to have them clean the heads in the bath tub you should have 1) told them NOT to get in the tub first, and 2) make sure the printer was unplugged first!
It's funny. Laugh.
It also has a sweet taste - which is why you should keep it from pets and small children - and is an ingredient in ice cream!