I understand your point, but here's what I meant in the original post - for there to be fossils *in* the coal, the coal must have been formed at the same time, or later than the fossils - that would seem to eliminate the possibility that the coal was formed as a byproduct of planetary formation.
Your coprolite example is a good one, except that the formation of sedimentary or volcanic layers is relatively well understood, and more importantly the coverage came from *above* - the exposed fossils are buried. These alternative theories for the formation of coal have it being formed from *below* - somehow displacing the original rock but selectively leaving fossils embedded. Unlike oil and gas, coal does not permeate existing rock, but is typically a solid "seam" of material.
I'm not a geologist, but I was under the impression that fossils are regularly found in coal, and that we've observed the intermediate steps of its formation from peat bogs.
Actually, Microsoft *has* trademarked the single word "Windows", as well as the combination "Microsoft Windows". That's what the Lindows trademark suit is all about.
If you're talking about Michael Robertson, he started MP3.com as an entrepreneur, sold it to Vivendi Universal and personally made around $100M, nowhere near a billion. It's doubtful that was in cash, so it's likely that it dropped in value as the market dropped.
Whatever else he might be, he was an entrepreneur then, and still is - no turning involved.
This makes sense if you believe that all of the economy resulting from software is generated by the developers/publishers.
However, you're forgetting about the users - many businesses rely on OSS, which they would not be able to afford to run using the equivalent Microsoft or Sun solution, at least when starting it up.
More importantly, we are in a situation where an abusive monopoly runs viable commercial alternatives out of business, which is certainly not healthy for the software ecosystem. OSS is turning out to be one of the few forces keeping some of these commercial companies in line.
So, yes, some older business models will fail, but others will replace them. I won't cry anoy more for Sun that I would for the monks who lost their jobs creating illuminated manuscripts .
The irony of this is that the bulk of prereleased movies come from insiders, not random college students.
Effectively they're avoiding dealing with the fact that they have a serious leak problem within the suite of companies with which they deal, like duplicators, advertising agencys, studio employees, etc.
Note that the only guy that gets nailed is the one who puts it in the shared folder - nobody involved in the actual leak is affected - because it's them.
Pointing out that a some other, "free", product has flaws is hardly a good defense for flaws in an expensive one.
A customer who takes this advice and removes Linux simply makes any Linux problems irrelevant - it doesn't make the past, present, and future Windows security problems magically go away.
Besides the desire to prevent Macs from being (unaffected) carriers of Windows viruses, the users have been indoctrinated by Microsoft's incompetence and the media to believe that offering virus protection is a requirement even if it isn't.
Michael Robertson's crew at Lindows.com discovered this as well - which is why LindowsOS ships with a basically unnecessary anti-virus utility. Like the Mac products, at best it prevents transmission.
I think the article is a little vague on the details.
What they *meant* to say was that the iPod flows with gusto and verve, with nuanced palpability that is suprisingly smooth and spacious, with harmonic undertones that languidly coil around your nerve endings and deliver liquid bliss combined with in-your-face bravado and euphonic outlines, providing a sonic womb with a sugar-sweet coating of midbass impedance resonance.
Actually I think the way to attack Microsoft is this way - once they were made aware of the flaw and distributed a patch they made no effort to recall the flawed unsold systems in the distribution channel. So while the initial flaw may not be found to be the result of negligence, the ongoing distribution of the known flawed system certainly is.
The court demonstration would go something like this - buy a brand new Windows XP box, plug it into a cable modem, turn it on, wait five minutes. It will be infected through a known, old, security hole. Why didn't Microsoft recall that defective product before it was sold if they knew it was flawed?
Yes! That's the suit that needs to go to court - a class action suit by all those affected by Microsoft's products that are *not* Microsoft customers. The dominant plaintiff groups would be ISPs whose bandwidth and support resources are being unfairly burdened, and Macintosh and *NIX users who are having to manage the large volume of unsuccessful attempted attacks.
Microsoft would have no defense since these users did not agree to any relevant Microsoft EULA and are being materially affected by the flaws in their product. Unlike eliminating the protections of the EULA which hurts other companies, this would not automatically extend to other software if it does not cause widespread inconvenience.
As they did with everyone else with whom they've "allied", the alliance will last exactly as long as it takes for Microsoft to get any proprietary information they want, then they'll kill the deal.
The industry is littered with the empty shells of companies formerly "allied" with Microsoft.
I strongly suspect Robertson really doesn't care if he gets any money from forwarding these claims to Microsoft. This is straightforward marketing - if Microsoft rejects the claims, all he's out is the cost of a bunch of CDs in the hands of people who *might* become Click-n-Run customers, and some computers, plus he gets the PR of Big Bad Microsoft slapping him down once again.
What he's *really* doing is once again suckering Microsoft to establish a pattern of apparent legal harassment towards his company. This will come in handy in the future.
Somebody can correct me on this, but under the GPL, they are allowed to charge people who have received the binary to get a copy of the source. As far as I know, they are *not* obligated to provide source under any circumstances to people who have *not* received the binary from them. However, anyone who *does* purchase the source from them may distribute it freely.
I agree - I doubt it's actually a spammer, but rather someone *else* who has an axe to grind against blacklists.
Having been involved with a company that was incorrectly put on a blacklist (suspected of distributing spyware, with no proof or even attempt at proof, just one individual's speculation), I can certainly understand someone getting frustrated enough to retaliate.
Next will be elimination of email to be replaced by a new store-and-forward version of Messenger ("Leave messages for people even when they're offline!").
The PR justification will be protection from spam and viruses but it will be all about turning email into a proprietary Microsoft protocol.
How many clicks did it take to get you to that page, keepin gin mind that you already knew it existed somewhere?
Hmmm....no mention on the front page.
Clicked the link on the front page for the security updates, no mention there.
Clicked the privacy policy link - no mention there.
The point is this - why would a first time user who just bought a brand new machine suddenly know that they need updates, should not open attachments on emails plausibly addressed from friends, or not trust email that purports quite plausibly to come from Microsoft?
After all, I never have to take a new car to the repair shop immediately after buying it, and the letters I subsequently get from the car dealership don't give me smallpox.
Why do we label quite reasonable new user behavior *stupidity*?
Slashdot Mirror
Your coprolite example is a good one, except that the formation of sedimentary or volcanic layers is relatively well understood, and more importantly the coverage came from *above* - the exposed fossils are buried. These alternative theories for the formation of coal have it being formed from *below* - somehow displacing the original rock but selectively leaving fossils embedded. Unlike oil and gas, coal does not permeate existing rock, but is typically a solid "seam" of material.
I'm not a geologist, but I was under the impression that fossils are regularly found in coal, and that we've observed the intermediate steps of its formation from peat bogs.
Still not totally unreasonable, but you only have about a week to pull down over 6 TB according to your math.
Actually, Microsoft *has* trademarked the single word "Windows", as well as the combination "Microsoft Windows". That's what the Lindows trademark suit is all about.
Whatever else he might be, he was an entrepreneur then, and still is - no turning involved.
Robertson's response can be found here.
Microsoft has filed legal papers on the matter, which can be found here.
...except that Woz informed HP about his project, they told him they weren't interested, and gave him permission to pursue it on his own.
However, you're forgetting about the users - many businesses rely on OSS, which they would not be able to afford to run using the equivalent Microsoft or Sun solution, at least when starting it up.
More importantly, we are in a situation where an abusive monopoly runs viable commercial alternatives out of business, which is certainly not healthy for the software ecosystem. OSS is turning out to be one of the few forces keeping some of these commercial companies in line.
So, yes, some older business models will fail, but others will replace them. I won't cry anoy more for Sun that I would for the monks who lost their jobs creating illuminated manuscripts .
Effectively they're avoiding dealing with the fact that they have a serious leak problem within the suite of companies with which they deal, like duplicators, advertising agencys, studio employees, etc.
Note that the only guy that gets nailed is the one who puts it in the shared folder - nobody involved in the actual leak is affected - because it's them.
Pointing out that a some other, "free", product has flaws is hardly a good defense for flaws in an expensive one.
A customer who takes this advice and removes Linux simply makes any Linux problems irrelevant - it doesn't make the past, present, and future Windows security problems magically go away.
Michael Robertson's crew at Lindows.com discovered this as well - which is why LindowsOS ships with a basically unnecessary anti-virus utility. Like the Mac products, at best it prevents transmission.
Yellowbeard?
Eat your hat - most of that was lifted from *actual* quotes from articles in audiophile magazines. All I did was combine them.
...which is, coincidentally, how Captain Janeway got Voyager out of a particularly nasty situation involving the Borg.
What they *meant* to say was that the iPod flows with gusto and verve, with nuanced palpability that is suprisingly smooth and spacious, with harmonic undertones that languidly coil around your nerve endings and deliver liquid bliss combined with in-your-face bravado and euphonic outlines, providing a sonic womb with a sugar-sweet coating of midbass impedance resonance.
Apparently, the new Macromedia MX 2004 suite uses SafeCast/C-Dilla.
The court demonstration would go something like this - buy a brand new Windows XP box, plug it into a cable modem, turn it on, wait five minutes. It will be infected through a known, old, security hole. Why didn't Microsoft recall that defective product before it was sold if they knew it was flawed?
Microsoft would have no defense since these users did not agree to any relevant Microsoft EULA and are being materially affected by the flaws in their product. Unlike eliminating the protections of the EULA which hurts other companies, this would not automatically extend to other software if it does not cause widespread inconvenience.
As they did with everyone else with whom they've "allied", the alliance will last exactly as long as it takes for Microsoft to get any proprietary information they want, then they'll kill the deal. The industry is littered with the empty shells of companies formerly "allied" with Microsoft.
What he's *really* doing is once again suckering Microsoft to establish a pattern of apparent legal harassment towards his company. This will come in handy in the future.
Somebody can correct me on this, but under the GPL, they are allowed to charge people who have received the binary to get a copy of the source. As far as I know, they are *not* obligated to provide source under any circumstances to people who have *not* received the binary from them. However, anyone who *does* purchase the source from them may distribute it freely.
Having been involved with a company that was incorrectly put on a blacklist (suspected of distributing spyware, with no proof or even attempt at proof, just one individual's speculation), I can certainly understand someone getting frustrated enough to retaliate.
All these moons are yours
except Luna
Attempt no landing there
The PR justification will be protection from spam and viruses but it will be all about turning email into a proprietary Microsoft protocol.
Hmmm....no mention on the front page.
Clicked the link on the front page for the security updates, no mention there.
Clicked the privacy policy link - no mention there.
The point is this - why would a first time user who just bought a brand new machine suddenly know that they need updates, should not open attachments on emails plausibly addressed from friends, or not trust email that purports quite plausibly to come from Microsoft?
After all, I never have to take a new car to the repair shop immediately after buying it, and the letters I subsequently get from the car dealership don't give me smallpox.
Why do we label quite reasonable new user behavior *stupidity*?