Just beautiful. I'd bequeath my mod points to you if I could. Well played, sir.
My thoughts exactly
on
IBM Opts for AMD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Except I was thinking that even if Intel chucked their whole x86 line, they still make a boatload of other chips. Like XScale, for instance. Their previous line of ARM processors (the SA-1100 family) are freaking *everywhere*.
I submit, the mugee may still be 'liberal' as before, but want more deterrants and punative measures (pole-mounted cameras, stricter sentencing, fewer paroles, harsher on repeat offenders, etc.)
True enough, and actually you're describing how I feel these days. But -
Some would say that make them 'conservative' on crime. I disagree. Tougher on crime, yes.
If it stopped right there, I'd say you were correct. But DM took it much farther. He went from this neo-hippie to a complete rewriting of his entire personality. Hosting Monday Night Football? Saying things like "George Bush has allowed us to respect the presidency again." To sum up how I feel about the guy, read The Millers Crossing.
Amen to him standing on this issue "immediately" after 9/11, you write it like it's a fault
Well, as the saying goes "Most things are ok in moderation". Too much of anything is probably bad for you. 9/11 for me? Well, I never really took being an American very seriously. And now I do. I display a flag in front of my house now. I take more of an interest in local voting issues. In short, I do my best to be an active American these days rather than a passive one. If being an American is important enough to some people to kill me for, then I better take it as seriously as they do.
But there is no way I'd let anyone scare me into changing who I am. Re-evaluation is ok, normal, healthy and good for you. But not when it comes from fear. Fearful people usually make bad decisions. Like poor Dennis.
No, not really. I was a fan of his comedy back-in-the-day. Then he became this scared little kid after 9/11. It took the punch out of the guy. I don't see that devil-may-care SNL guy anymore, and I can't respect anyone who just simply surrenders their balls like that. This guy sums it up way better than I can.
Besides, if I was going to pick someone on the right to bash for their opinions it wouldn't be him. Why pick such a low profile target when we have Ann Coulter for that?
For the record: Seeing Dennis Miller savage the left isn't really very funny most of the time either.
Miller was a leftist, right up until 9/11. Immediately afterwards he was a champion of the right.
To put it plainly, the terrorists scared him into becoming a conservative. Therefore, he's a coward and has no credibility in my eyes whatsoever. Watching that video of him learning how to play golf is one of the saddest and lamest things I've ever seen.
If you're going to be a conservative, then be one based upon the merits of the platform. Don't just jump on board because something spooked you.
Flood them with mandatory advertising through your connection client. I'm sure that lots of modem using people are going to be double-plus happy waiting all that extra time downloading megabytes of extra rich shockwave advertising content at 56k, and then wading through it all just to get their email. Freaking brilliant.
Deckard: Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Move in, stop. Pull out, track right, stop. Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back. Stop. Enhance 34 to 46. Pull back. Wait a minute, go right, stop. Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there.
Reminds me of those signs you see on the backs of trucks that say "Not Responsible for Objects Coming Off the Road". They are not necessarily true. They are (occasionally) liable. They just make the claim that they are not to bluff people who get their windshields banged up.
BTW, I really do hope that these poor people do get the help they need.
I wouldn't say that clinical trials are fantastically dangerous. In fact I would say they are fantastically important.
I'd actually say they're both.
Personally, I'd liken being a drug tester to being an astronaut. A lot of benefit, a lot of risk. And the risks are pretty up front for both occupations.
These people were promised that there would be NO serious side effects.
Well, if that's the case then I'd say take them to court. And win, big. And be sure to make a lot of media noise too, to let the world know what kind of a company they are.
And even if this isn't the case, still make as much media noise as you can. Maybe they could shame/scare the company into covering their health care. Better that than a media circus. Their risk analysis people will conclude (if the victims are noisy enough) that it's better to settle quietly than risk damaging the stock.
What part of "testing" didn't the subjects understand before they volunteered?
I'm not trying to troll, honest. But injecting something brand new into your body before anyone knows exactly what it does is fantastically dangerous. That's probably why you have to sign the waver that's longer than your arm, I'd imagine.
Still, IMHO the company should help these poor people out even though they don't legally have to. I'm sure the reason why they're not isn't greed so much as a fear of litigation. If they pay them any money, that looks like an admission of guilt.
Whole situation with liability and lawsuits in this country these days pretty much sucks. It hurts more people than it helps.
Big brother is already into my credit card records, phone call records, credit and purchase history and library records. Why would anyone think VOIP would get a break?
Just because you don't like what they do, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid fairly for fair work. Those guys were very popular among a particular group of fans and raked in millions. And haven't seen a penny of it. They were actors? So what! They worked for a company, performed a service, brought in millions in revenue. Why shouldn't they be paid for it?
Until, from the midst of this darkness, a sudden light broke in upon me -- a light so brilliant and wondrous, and yet so simple! Change the poles from plus to minus and from minus to plus! I alone succeeded in discovering the cause of generation of life. Nay, even more -- I, myself became capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter!
I don't think it's the best argument for net neutrality. I think the average person might look at that statement and think, "Well, even though different cell companies are linking different networks together - everything seems to work fine. So why not do the same thing with the internet?"
Of course, we know why. Competing companies would squeeze competitor's offerings unfairly, and that would stifle the current net's model of natural selection. Sub standard service would result.
So, while I agree with the article I don't think it should be used in arguments about net neutrality. It's possibly misleading to non-geeks.
And in a really odd way, we might owe SCO a big thank you once it's all over. Seriously. Here's why I think so:
There will be no settlement, and all avenues of appeal are being asphyxiated through a rigorous campaign of I-dotting and T-crossing.
You are absolutely correct. This entire case has taken many years, and once it's over the rigor with which it has been handled will pretty much close the door on any future attacks of this sort against Linux.
So, we have SCO to thank for bringing Linux out of legal limbo and squarely having it defined by legal people as rock-solid. You can now tell your PHB that Linux is 100% ok to use. IBM and the courts say so.
And it doesn't hurt that SCO are a bunch of idiots, too. A well financed team of people with even half a clue would have been much harder to deal with. This has been a lot like watching Pee-Wee Herman take on Mike Tyson. "I know you are but what am I?" *PUNCH*
BTW, awesome Caldera reference. I often wonder if advertising people actually know the meaning of words sometimes. I once worked on a project called "Nemesis". Don't these people even read?
You present a theory that even the original writer called "troublesome" and try to build an argument on that?
And it's not troubling that nobody can see, detect, or measure in any way the dark matter either??? We can only infer that it might probably exist. I'd say that's troublesome, too.
I'm not saying either one is correct. What I am saying is that the matter is still up for debate (pun intended). And since we're currently debating it - it is something that we obviously don't know yet. It is still an unknown - and it might be 90% of everything.
How does that prove the existence of telepathy?
It does not, nor was I trying to. It merely points out that what we don't know is larger than what we do know. So IMHO, it is incorrect logic to say simply "it can't exist". We understand only a fraction of the universe, the human mind, and consciousness. Saying it's not possible would be like saying that a certain move in chess is impossible when all you know are the pawns.
Slashdot Mirror
Throwing chairs, etc. You know the drill.
Just beautiful. I'd bequeath my mod points to you if I could. Well played, sir.
Except I was thinking that even if Intel chucked their whole x86 line, they still make a boatload of other chips. Like XScale, for instance. Their previous line of ARM processors (the SA-1100 family) are freaking *everywhere*.
I submit, the mugee may still be 'liberal' as before, but want more deterrants and punative measures (pole-mounted cameras, stricter sentencing, fewer paroles, harsher on repeat offenders, etc.)
True enough, and actually you're describing how I feel these days. But -
Some would say that make them 'conservative' on crime. I disagree. Tougher on crime, yes.
If it stopped right there, I'd say you were correct. But DM took it much farther. He went from this neo-hippie to a complete rewriting of his entire personality. Hosting Monday Night Football? Saying things like "George Bush has allowed us to respect the presidency again." To sum up how I feel about the guy, read The Millers Crossing.
Amen to him standing on this issue "immediately" after 9/11, you write it like it's a fault
Well, as the saying goes "Most things are ok in moderation". Too much of anything is probably bad for you. 9/11 for me? Well, I never really took being an American very seriously. And now I do. I display a flag in front of my house now. I take more of an interest in local voting issues. In short, I do my best to be an active American these days rather than a passive one. If being an American is important enough to some people to kill me for, then I better take it as seriously as they do.
But there is no way I'd let anyone scare me into changing who I am. Re-evaluation is ok, normal, healthy and good for you. But not when it comes from fear. Fearful people usually make bad decisions. Like poor Dennis.
No, not really. I was a fan of his comedy back-in-the-day. Then he became this scared little kid after 9/11. It took the punch out of the guy. I don't see that devil-may-care SNL guy anymore, and I can't respect anyone who just simply surrenders their balls like that. This guy sums it up way better than I can.
Besides, if I was going to pick someone on the right to bash for their opinions it wouldn't be him. Why pick such a low profile target when we have Ann Coulter for that?
Miller was a leftist, right up until 9/11. Immediately afterwards he was a champion of the right.
To put it plainly, the terrorists scared him into becoming a conservative. Therefore, he's a coward and has no credibility in my eyes whatsoever. Watching that video of him learning how to play golf is one of the saddest and lamest things I've ever seen.
If you're going to be a conservative, then be one based upon the merits of the platform. Don't just jump on board because something spooked you.
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." - Bill Gates.
Dwindling user base? Here's the cure.
Flood them with mandatory advertising through your connection client. I'm sure that lots of modem using people are going to be double-plus happy waiting all that extra time downloading megabytes of extra rich shockwave advertising content at 56k, and then wading through it all just to get their email. Freaking brilliant.
Deckard: Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Move in, stop. Pull out, track right, stop. Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back. Stop. Enhance 34 to 46. Pull back. Wait a minute, go right, stop. Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there.
Reminds me of those signs you see on the backs of trucks that say "Not Responsible for Objects Coming Off the Road". They are not necessarily true. They are (occasionally) liable. They just make the claim that they are not to bluff people who get their windshields banged up.
BTW, I really do hope that these poor people do get the help they need.
I wouldn't say that clinical trials are fantastically dangerous. In fact I would say they are fantastically important.
I'd actually say they're both.
Personally, I'd liken being a drug tester to being an astronaut. A lot of benefit, a lot of risk. And the risks are pretty up front for both occupations.
These people were promised that there would be NO serious side effects.
Well, if that's the case then I'd say take them to court. And win, big. And be sure to make a lot of media noise too, to let the world know what kind of a company they are.
And even if this isn't the case, still make as much media noise as you can. Maybe they could shame/scare the company into covering their health care. Better that than a media circus. Their risk analysis people will conclude (if the victims are noisy enough) that it's better to settle quietly than risk damaging the stock.
It's a shame, but that's how it works.
What part of "testing" didn't the subjects understand before they volunteered?
I'm not trying to troll, honest. But injecting something brand new into your body before anyone knows exactly what it does is fantastically dangerous. That's probably why you have to sign the waver that's longer than your arm, I'd imagine.
Still, IMHO the company should help these poor people out even though they don't legally have to. I'm sure the reason why they're not isn't greed so much as a fear of litigation. If they pay them any money, that looks like an admission of guilt.
Whole situation with liability and lawsuits in this country these days pretty much sucks. It hurts more people than it helps.
That's damn funny stuff - I'm still laughing here. Well played =)
Maybe now we can take time out to port Linux to the WOPR. How about a nice game of GnuChess?
Big brother is already into my credit card records, phone call records, credit and purchase history and library records. Why would anyone think VOIP would get a break?
Positively brilliant insight there. Hope you get modded up.
...but you've forced me to.
Just because you don't like what they do, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid fairly for fair work. Those guys were very popular among a particular group of fans and raked in millions. And haven't seen a penny of it. They were actors? So what! They worked for a company, performed a service, brought in millions in revenue. Why shouldn't they be paid for it?
Until, from the midst of this darkness, a sudden light broke in upon me -- a light so brilliant and wondrous, and yet so simple! Change the poles from plus to minus and from minus to plus! I alone succeeded in discovering the cause of generation of life. Nay, even more -- I, myself became capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter!
IT....COULD....WORK!!!!
Well, I wouldn't call it a secret anymore.
I don't think it's the best argument for net neutrality. I think the average person might look at that statement and think, "Well, even though different cell companies are linking different networks together - everything seems to work fine. So why not do the same thing with the internet?"
Of course, we know why. Competing companies would squeeze competitor's offerings unfairly, and that would stifle the current net's model of natural selection. Sub standard service would result.
So, while I agree with the article I don't think it should be used in arguments about net neutrality. It's possibly misleading to non-geeks.
And in a really odd way, we might owe SCO a big thank you once it's all over. Seriously. Here's why I think so:
There will be no settlement, and all avenues of appeal are being asphyxiated through a rigorous campaign of I-dotting and T-crossing.
You are absolutely correct. This entire case has taken many years, and once it's over the rigor with which it has been handled will pretty much close the door on any future attacks of this sort against Linux.
So, we have SCO to thank for bringing Linux out of legal limbo and squarely having it defined by legal people as rock-solid. You can now tell your PHB that Linux is 100% ok to use. IBM and the courts say so.
And it doesn't hurt that SCO are a bunch of idiots, too. A well financed team of people with even half a clue would have been much harder to deal with. This has been a lot like watching Pee-Wee Herman take on Mike Tyson. "I know you are but what am I?" *PUNCH*
BTW, awesome Caldera reference. I often wonder if advertising people actually know the meaning of words sometimes. I once worked on a project called "Nemesis". Don't these people even read?
Brings a whole new meaning to "switch".
allofDVD.com
It'll happen soon, I'll betcha.
You present a theory that even the original writer called "troublesome" and try to build an argument on that?
And it's not troubling that nobody can see, detect, or measure in any way the dark matter either??? We can only infer that it might probably exist. I'd say that's troublesome, too.
I'm not saying either one is correct. What I am saying is that the matter is still up for debate (pun intended). And since we're currently debating it - it is something that we obviously don't know yet. It is still an unknown - and it might be 90% of everything.
How does that prove the existence of telepathy?
It does not, nor was I trying to. It merely points out that what we don't know is larger than what we do know. So IMHO, it is incorrect logic to say simply "it can't exist". We understand only a fraction of the universe, the human mind, and consciousness. Saying it's not possible would be like saying that a certain move in chess is impossible when all you know are the pawns.