Did you ever think of doing some critical thinking yourself before going off and writing Google? No one ever said that Other had to be different OS's. It is just a catch all for headers that didn't fall into any of their categories. I did a check on my site stats and sure enough I have some "others". Here is some samples:
You tell me what OS those are. I am sure you could have done the same thing with your site stats before approaching google.
By the way I break down 97.3% Windows, 1.9% Mac, 0.7% other, and 0% Linux (some hits but not enough to get to 0.1% and they probably are all me testing stuff from the server).
I think that was a different thread or article. This thread talked about the possibility of Real's price change being considered predatory pricing. No offsense but reading the whole thread helps sometimes.
I would be very surprised if there were pricing information in the contract because that would make some very nice evidence for price fixing. More likely the license that RIAA collects from Real is fixed and Real is welcome to charge whatever they want.
And why am I even talking about the RIAA. It is the labels that make the deals with the distributors - not the RIAA.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Robinson-Patman Act sorta address predatory pricing but it is a very subjective thing. Just selling products at a loss is not enough. You have to prove intent, feasibility to recoup losses, etc. Like most anti-trust violations it is really something that would only come up after the fact. You don't typically see companies with 5% marketshare being brought up Anti-Trust charges.
So the guy who conquered half of Europe was feeling threatened by a country with almost no army or navy thousands of miles away? Talk about revisionist history. Napoleon sold Louisiana because he needed the money badly to pay for his war.
I think your history teachers are rolling in their graves right now.
You said that it is not rational to believe that we are unique. That seems pretty black and white to me. I believe it is not rational to make a statement one way or the other. There is not greater evidence that we aren't unique than there is that we are. Zero is equal to zero. Now if you want to talk hypotheses and theories then we are talking a different story. But evidence is much more concrete.
That wasn't always clear at the time. In 1801 Napoleon threatened to retake control of Louisiana from the Spanish. Losing the Mississippi would have been devastating to the US so Jefferson sent John Adams to France to "assist" Livingston (then ambassodor to France) in convincing Napoleon to sell. If the slaves hadn't taken over Saint Domingue and he hadn't lost his brother-in-law when trying to take it back history may have been much different.
You seem to be stuck in the black and white world. I am arguing not that there isn't life but that there may not be life. Everybody else seems to think it is a slam dunk (much like WMD's) based on the size of the universe. That just isn't good math and it definitely isn't good science. I guarantee you won't find one good scientist (living or dead) who is willing to say that without a doubt there is life out there.
The possibility that there might be life means nothing. Until they find life you can't count Mars as a sample. At least not if you want to stay in the realms of good science. The fact that we haven't found life on mars may be a good argument for how fickle life really is.
You just proved my point as did the poster about Britney Spears. We don't know. We can't measure. There are too many factors. The size of the universe does not change that.
He didn't? Perhaps you never heard of Louisiana? And who dared mod me flamebait. I give examples from history in a coherent post and somebody mods that flamebait. Trolls with mod points - disgusting. See you in Meta-mod.
Man I screwed that up. I meant that 1 out of 1 x 10^500000 suns. My point seems kind silly the other way around. Spent too much time with the scientific notation.
How about looking at it this way. I have a mix cd here with 20 songs spread out over the last 60 years (big band to Korn - don't ask). Now based on the huge number of cd's that have been burned since cd-burners have become common place I believe that someone must have created the identical cd (same songs and order of songs). But based on my sample size of one I will never know until I find someone with the same mix.
First I don't believe that for a second. Second I said nothing about the ability to trademark a name so you post would have made even less sense. Don't try to backtrack and correct yourself.
And apology accepted. Most people do offend my superior intellect but few recognize it. I apologize for jumping down your throat but when you several responses all saying the same thing I think you would also get a little edgy.
But how are you determining the probability? What if I told you that 1 x 10^500000 suns have the 1 x 10^500000 possibility of supporting life. The how big would the universe have to be to find another planet? We don't know what those numbers are and we really don't have any good guess.
That's always been the theory but it is not really clear how true that is. Some would point to Napoleon or Hitler and how Europe stood together to fight the greater threat but Napoleon didn't stop the US from going to war with Britain in 1812 (and rightfully so I might add) and Japan didn't seem to have any problem with joining up with Hitler to further their purposes (conquering most of the Pacific Rim).
And there will always be people who do not believe in the threat (and they may be right). Do you agree with the threat that Iraq posed?
Those factors may mean nothing. We don't know the exact circumstances and timeframe for life to begin. What if our situation is unique or we are the first? You can't build any assumptions from a sample size of one.
Holy crap. How many times do I have to repeat the same post. You cannot copyright a company name or a product name. Please read this to understand the difference.
I am not sure what is worse. The fact that people don't know the distinction already or that I have to repeat it so many times.
Actually I pointed that out in another thread. I said that if she just registered the name now she would be fine because all she would have to do is say she was doing business in that name since 1996. Until she registers however she has cannot sue (or she could but would probably lose). And she was never really doing business under that name so it is really moot.
At the risk of getting modded down overrated again I will continue to tell you that there is no law protecting her. Based on your arguments she has a very good case against slashdot as well for posting her link. The mods seem to agree with you but you are not a lawyer and you are just way off base.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you ever think of doing some critical thinking yourself before going off and writing Google? No one ever said that Other had to be different OS's. It is just a catch all for headers that didn't fall into any of their categories. I did a check on my site stats and sure enough I have some "others". Here is some samples:
h ttp://www.spiritandsky.com)/ 1.2_(It-bot;_http://www.iltro vatore.it/bot.html;_info@iltrovatore.it)
WebRingChecker/1.71_LWP/5.64
SpiritWalker2.0_(
Iltrovatore-Setaccio
You tell me what OS those are. I am sure you could have done the same thing with your site stats before approaching google.
By the way I break down 97.3% Windows, 1.9% Mac, 0.7% other, and 0% Linux (some hits but not enough to get to 0.1% and they probably are all me testing stuff from the server).
I think that was a different thread or article. This thread talked about the possibility of Real's price change being considered predatory pricing. No offsense but reading the whole thread helps sometimes.
I would be very surprised if there were pricing information in the contract because that would make some very nice evidence for price fixing. More likely the license that RIAA collects from Real is fixed and Real is welcome to charge whatever they want.
And why am I even talking about the RIAA. It is the labels that make the deals with the distributors - not the RIAA.
I think we were talking about Real using predatory pricing not Apple.
Why would the RIAA care? Their share doesn't change based on what Real sells it for. Real is just a reseller. They will be the ones eating the loss.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Robinson-Patman Act sorta address predatory pricing but it is a very subjective thing. Just selling products at a loss is not enough. You have to prove intent, feasibility to recoup losses, etc. Like most anti-trust violations it is really something that would only come up after the fact. You don't typically see companies with 5% marketshare being brought up Anti-Trust charges.
So the guy who conquered half of Europe was feeling threatened by a country with almost no army or navy thousands of miles away? Talk about revisionist history. Napoleon sold Louisiana because he needed the money badly to pay for his war.
I think your history teachers are rolling in their graves right now.
Staples is an office store not a staple manufacturer. They may sell staples under their brand name but they are surely made by a different company.
You said that it is not rational to believe that we are unique. That seems pretty black and white to me. I believe it is not rational to make a statement one way or the other. There is not greater evidence that we aren't unique than there is that we are. Zero is equal to zero. Now if you want to talk hypotheses and theories then we are talking a different story. But evidence is much more concrete.
That wasn't always clear at the time. In 1801 Napoleon threatened to retake control of Louisiana from the Spanish. Losing the Mississippi would have been devastating to the US so Jefferson sent John Adams to France to "assist" Livingston (then ambassodor to France) in convincing Napoleon to sell. If the slaves hadn't taken over Saint Domingue and he hadn't lost his brother-in-law when trying to take it back history may have been much different.
You seem to be stuck in the black and white world. I am arguing not that there isn't life but that there may not be life. Everybody else seems to think it is a slam dunk (much like WMD's) based on the size of the universe. That just isn't good math and it definitely isn't good science. I guarantee you won't find one good scientist (living or dead) who is willing to say that without a doubt there is life out there.
The possibility that there might be life means nothing. Until they find life you can't count Mars as a sample. At least not if you want to stay in the realms of good science. The fact that we haven't found life on mars may be a good argument for how fickle life really is.
Did you get my point then? If those are the odds then that means we are the only ones out there. I'm glad somebody seems to understand.
You just proved my point as did the poster about Britney Spears. We don't know. We can't measure. There are too many factors. The size of the universe does not change that.
He didn't? Perhaps you never heard of Louisiana? And who dared mod me flamebait. I give examples from history in a coherent post and somebody mods that flamebait. Trolls with mod points - disgusting. See you in Meta-mod.
Man I screwed that up. I meant that 1 out of 1 x 10^500000 suns. My point seems kind silly the other way around. Spent too much time with the scientific notation.
How about looking at it this way. I have a mix cd here with 20 songs spread out over the last 60 years (big band to Korn - don't ask). Now based on the huge number of cd's that have been burned since cd-burners have become common place I believe that someone must have created the identical cd (same songs and order of songs). But based on my sample size of one I will never know until I find someone with the same mix.
First I don't believe that for a second. Second I said nothing about the ability to trademark a name so you post would have made even less sense. Don't try to backtrack and correct yourself.
And apology accepted. Most people do offend my superior intellect but few recognize it. I apologize for jumping down your throat but when you several responses all saying the same thing I think you would also get a little edgy.
But how are you determining the probability? What if I told you that 1 x 10^500000 suns have the 1 x 10^500000 possibility of supporting life. The how big would the universe have to be to find another planet? We don't know what those numbers are and we really don't have any good guess.
That's always been the theory but it is not really clear how true that is. Some would point to Napoleon or Hitler and how Europe stood together to fight the greater threat but Napoleon didn't stop the US from going to war with Britain in 1812 (and rightfully so I might add) and Japan didn't seem to have any problem with joining up with Hitler to further their purposes (conquering most of the Pacific Rim).
And there will always be people who do not believe in the threat (and they may be right). Do you agree with the threat that Iraq posed?
Those factors may mean nothing. We don't know the exact circumstances and timeframe for life to begin. What if our situation is unique or we are the first? You can't build any assumptions from a sample size of one.
Holy crap. How many times do I have to repeat the same post. You cannot copyright a company name or a product name. Please read this to understand the difference.
I am not sure what is worse. The fact that people don't know the distinction already or that I have to repeat it so many times.
Actually I pointed that out in another thread. I said that if she just registered the name now she would be fine because all she would have to do is say she was doing business in that name since 1996. Until she registers however she has cannot sue (or she could but would probably lose). And she was never really doing business under that name so it is really moot.
At the risk of getting modded down overrated again I will continue to tell you that there is no law protecting her. Based on your arguments she has a very good case against slashdot as well for posting her link. The mods seem to agree with you but you are not a lawyer and you are just way off base.
I don't see how it is harrassment and I still don't see what law it violates. And business means commerce in this instance.
Amazon has many trademarks I am sure. As with the poster above I refer you here to understand the difference between a trademark and copyright.