Yes, DB2 runs on Windows. Have you ever actually tried to use it? If you had, you'd have left them out of the list.
I have nothing against.Net. I have nothing against MSSQL server. I have nothing against Exchange, MS Office, or IIS 6. Administration on Windows is just a nightmare. The system makes things that are easy on UNIX based/derived/like systems are awkward and slow on Windows.
Let's be honest. All you really need to do is pay somebody else enough that you can say, "Look. I spent a lot of money on this. The vendor promised it would work. It isn't our fault."
One of those little toy alligator mouths on a stick. The ones that you pull a lever in the handle and the mouth opens and closes. I can't tell you how many times I have wished I had one of those in my server rack - for when I drop things from the ladder, or want to grab the end of a cable, or hold a few cables approximately in place while I move something, or want to tap a coworker on the shoulder because he can't hear me over the constant noise.
There are another issues as well. The US was first. The US had a phone system before anyone else. And it still works. You have some very large, very old corporations that have invested billions of dollars into their infrastructures and millions of dollars into their lobbyists and politicians. They are not going to give up their investments nor their profit margins to offer better service.
Even if they did give up investments and profit margins to provide better service, their shareholders would sue them.
"There is, however, one very important personal liberty he's firmly against and that is the right of a mother to have full control over her own reproductive system."
I will admit that parts of my faith have nothing to do with logic, and are quite illogical. However, I am still able to have logical arguments about many things, including many aspects of religion. There are many people who are unable to have any logical argument about their religion. I do not want to be lumped in with that group.
Why don't you try going into a grocery store and swearing at the cashier, or going to a job interview and cursing like a sailor, or telling your boss to go to hell. There couldn't possibly be any harmful/bad/problematic results, could there be?
To clarify, the problem isn't that the child is aware of the word, the problem is that the child hears it often enough that it becomes part of his functional vocabulary and is used without regard for the situation.
If my child hears me say "shit" about twice a year when I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer or zap myself with an ignition coil, he will possibly use the word when in a similar situation. Fine. But if he hears people throwing it around in casual conversation multiple times a day, there is going to be a problem.
That being said, I don't think broadcasters should have to worry about the occasional swear during live interviews and such. However, if they are doing an interview with somebody with a dirty mouth who has cursed 3 times in the last minute, they should stop the interview or warn the guy that they will stop the interview if he doesn't cut it out.
I don't think broadcasters should be allowed to show Pulp Fiction at 4 in the afternoon. I would also argue that they shouldn't be allowed to show content with bleeps every 15 seconds. Every 7 year old knows what they are bleeping out, and that they hear "bleep" instead of "shit" isn't going to have any less of a negative impact on their functional language.
BTW, has anybody seen the episode of Arthur with the bleeps? Hilarious.
Set up a computer in another country. Set up a site to site VPN to your network in the US. Do something to catch the FBI's eye. They think they're installing spyware on a computer in their jurisdiction, and they've got a warrant to do so. But they're actually breaking into a computer on foreign soil. Fun foreign relations.
Same problem as Digital Restrictions Management: If you can see/hear it, you can copy it and save it to another format. If somebody doesn't want to keep the original copyright notice, why would they keep the Digital Rights Marking in place?
Main-stream music is _not_ a necessity. You don't have to buy it.
People want something (free access to RIAA controlled music) that they have no inherent right to. That doesn't mean it is okay for you to (illegally) give it to them. Nor does it mean that it isn't okay for the RIAA to go after people who are illegally violating their copyrights (so long as they do it legally, which is a completely separate issue).
The RIAA has chosen their business model. If you don't like it, don't buy from them. But you don't have the right to their product in a different format, nor do they have an obligation to provide it in a different format.
It may be to their financial advantage to do so, but they don't realize it. That does not justify illegal behavior on anybody else's part.
Just boycott them. You can live without their music.
The RIAA is not in effect creating another Napster. People who are willing to break the law create another Napster. Everybody is perfectly capable of simply refusing to buy the RIAA's product. But, as you see, enough people are happy enough with their product to buy it.
I don't blame the RIAA for fighting illegal behavior that hurts their business. I blame people for their illegal behavior. If everybody refused to buy their music for even 2 years, that would be the end of the RIAA. But you'd rather continue with your illegal behavior, and buy music from them to keep them running.
"Consumers want to hear streaming music on the internet without annoying commercials."
Consumers want stuff for free. That does not justify any means of getting it.
If you want to try to stop the RIAA from silencing non-RIAA music, that is great. But once you tie it to rationalizing copyright violation, nobody will take you seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
What is wrong with the 400 disc changer? I'd much rather have a 400 disc changer than an iPod? Or are they just not keeping the order consistent?
Yes, DB2 runs on Windows. Have you ever actually tried to use it? If you had, you'd have left them out of the list.
.Net. I have nothing against MSSQL server. I have nothing against Exchange, MS Office, or IIS 6. Administration on Windows is just a nightmare. The system makes things that are easy on UNIX based/derived/like systems are awkward and slow on Windows.
I have nothing against
Yeah, but then he'd have to _use_ these products.
He never said that women can't show you naked women, just that Firefox can.
Let's be honest. All you really need to do is pay somebody else enough that you can say, "Look. I spent a lot of money on this. The vendor promised it would work. It isn't our fault."
One of those little toy alligator mouths on a stick. The ones that you pull a lever in the handle and the mouth opens and closes. I can't tell you how many times I have wished I had one of those in my server rack - for when I drop things from the ladder, or want to grab the end of a cable, or hold a few cables approximately in place while I move something, or want to tap a coworker on the shoulder because he can't hear me over the constant noise.
Conservation of energy. First law of thermodynamics. Go back to school, do not collect 200 kilowatts.
"What if I . . . purposely deleted the key?"
Obstruction of Justice. Off to jail.
Why couldn't they resell it?
There are another issues as well. The US was first. The US had a phone system before anyone else. And it still works. You have some very large, very old corporations that have invested billions of dollars into their infrastructures and millions of dollars into their lobbyists and politicians. They are not going to give up their investments nor their profit margins to offer better service.
Even if they did give up investments and profit margins to provide better service, their shareholders would sue them.
"There is, however, one very important personal liberty he's firmly against and that is the right of a mother to have full control over her own reproductive system."
Do you support allowing incest? If not, why?
Hearing is not caring.
I will admit that parts of my faith have nothing to do with logic, and are quite illogical. However, I am still able to have logical arguments about many things, including many aspects of religion. There are many people who are unable to have any logical argument about their religion. I do not want to be lumped in with that group.
Please don't lump all Christians in with the evolution-is-evil-the-bible-is-to-be-taken-literal ly wackos.
I watch my children. The problem is that they have to live in a society with a bunch of people who don't.
Why don't you try going into a grocery store and swearing at the cashier, or going to a job interview and cursing like a sailor, or telling your boss to go to hell. There couldn't possibly be any harmful/bad/problematic results, could there be?
To clarify, the problem isn't that the child is aware of the word, the problem is that the child hears it often enough that it becomes part of his functional vocabulary and is used without regard for the situation.
If my child hears me say "shit" about twice a year when I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer or zap myself with an ignition coil, he will possibly use the word when in a similar situation. Fine. But if he hears people throwing it around in casual conversation multiple times a day, there is going to be a problem.
That being said, I don't think broadcasters should have to worry about the occasional swear during live interviews and such. However, if they are doing an interview with somebody with a dirty mouth who has cursed 3 times in the last minute, they should stop the interview or warn the guy that they will stop the interview if he doesn't cut it out.
I don't think broadcasters should be allowed to show Pulp Fiction at 4 in the afternoon. I would also argue that they shouldn't be allowed to show content with bleeps every 15 seconds. Every 7 year old knows what they are bleeping out, and that they hear "bleep" instead of "shit" isn't going to have any less of a negative impact on their functional language.
BTW, has anybody seen the episode of Arthur with the bleeps? Hilarious.
I wouldn't want my 7 year old telling his teacher to go to hell either.
The president is a joke.
Most Americans are too dumb to get it.
Set up a computer in another country. Set up a site to site VPN to your network in the US. Do something to catch the FBI's eye. They think they're installing spyware on a computer in their jurisdiction, and they've got a warrant to do so. But they're actually breaking into a computer on foreign soil. Fun foreign relations.
Same problem as Digital Restrictions Management: If you can see/hear it, you can copy it and save it to another format. If somebody doesn't want to keep the original copyright notice, why would they keep the Digital Rights Marking in place?
Main-stream music is _not_ a necessity. You don't have to buy it.
People want something (free access to RIAA controlled music) that they have no inherent right to. That doesn't mean it is okay for you to (illegally) give it to them. Nor does it mean that it isn't okay for the RIAA to go after people who are illegally violating their copyrights (so long as they do it legally, which is a completely separate issue).
The RIAA has chosen their business model. If you don't like it, don't buy from them. But you don't have the right to their product in a different format, nor do they have an obligation to provide it in a different format.
It may be to their financial advantage to do so, but they don't realize it. That does not justify illegal behavior on anybody else's part.
Just boycott them. You can live without their music.
The RIAA is not in effect creating another Napster. People who are willing to break the law create another Napster. Everybody is perfectly capable of simply refusing to buy the RIAA's product. But, as you see, enough people are happy enough with their product to buy it.
I don't blame the RIAA for fighting illegal behavior that hurts their business. I blame people for their illegal behavior. If everybody refused to buy their music for even 2 years, that would be the end of the RIAA. But you'd rather continue with your illegal behavior, and buy music from them to keep them running.
"Consumers want to hear streaming music on the internet without annoying commercials."
Consumers want stuff for free. That does not justify any means of getting it.
If you want to try to stop the RIAA from silencing non-RIAA music, that is great. But once you tie it to rationalizing copyright violation, nobody will take you seriously.
1) Failed to secure nuclear facilities in Iraq.
The what?