With a new version available soon, many organizations may decide to wait and see if they can avoid the pain of a Vista rollout altogether.
It's more like "With XP serving most of the corporate need for Windows, many organizations may decide to wait and see if they can avoid the pain of a Vista rollout altogether."
For that matter, a lot of our larger corporate customers (outfits with fifteen or twenty thousand seats company wide) are still using Win2K because it does what they need. An upgrade to Vista (not to mention thousands of new computers) wasn't even on the table, still isn't.
If you try to indoctrinate an engineer you will probably end up losing your own religion over the ordeal.
Even if you do manage to indoctrinate an engineer with some particular set of terrorist ideals, he may later decide that you're full of shit. Then he'll be the guy that figures out how to fix ALL your clocks. So yeah... better start out with somebody who's so thoroughly programmed that he has no chance of ever thinking for himself, and then see if he has any aptitude for technology.
What the fuck is an "on the spot" fine? Does that mean some RIAA heavies just come in and demand money? That sounds like a job for law enforcement and the courts, not a private corporation.
The potential damage an unhinged person could do is huge.
Not so much if everyone is armed similarly. Headcases like that only rack up the big body counts when they are opposed only by unarmed human sheep (mind you, I put overzealous law enforcement in the same category as your typical violent nutjob... the damage they have caused to society is greater than any number of unhinged individuals.)
So do I need a personal nuke? No. But if you go down the list to, say, machine gun owners, you'll find that they're the safest group of firearms owners in the country. Go ahead. Do the research, the results will surprise someone like you.
So, if that justification for the second amendment is obsoleced, then the only real justifications are hunting, protection, and for sport.
I haven't a clue where you people come up with this stuff. God, are you honestly so gullible? And of those three, why would self-protection, and protection of those closest to you, not be sufficient reason to maintain our Second Amendment rights? As it happens, the protection afforded our society goes much, much further than you understand. The Founding Fathers were, after all, some fairly intelligent people... you should listen to them more.
I understand the romantic appeal of 'retaining the right for armed rebellion'.
As Seinfeld might say, "No, I don't think you do. Because if you did, you wouldn't have said that." Read what the Founders wrote, both before and after they drafted the Constitution, to understand the protections they were trying to offer their descendants. They knew very well that if matters really came to a head, if an armed rebellion was the only solution to an errant government, the Constitution would be come meaningless, rights enshrined therein irrelevant. However, they also knew that any government intending to exert excessive authority will attempt to disarm the population first.
The reason for the Second Amendment, the reason widespread gun ownership was considered desirable (indeed, essential) is twofold:
First, to preserve the possibility of armed rebellion if such should become necessary (a population once disarmed can no longer defend itself from totalitarianism.)
Second (and perhaps more importantly) it was to keep the government from going too far. Ask yourself this simple question: how did the Founders expect us to keep ourselves safe from unreasonable search and seizure, and all that follows that? Did they really believe that the Constitution itself would hold government in check forever? Jefferson didn't think so: he warned us about legal entropy... and as usual he was right. They expected us to maintain an everpresent threat of deadly force to keep government officials duly respectful of We the People. The idea, you understand, was to stave off the need for an actual uprising for as long as possible. Some people think that we're too "civilized" or "culturally advanced" to need the Second Amendment any more. They're wrong: given the direction our government is moving now, I'd say we're more in need of the 2nd than we've ever been before.
You really need to grasp a bit more of history, world history, and understand how an armed population is often much safer from external and internal threats. That goes directly against the fictions spread by gun control advocates, I understand... but then again, they would like you to trust government to a greater degree than is wise.
I did understand this stuff already, but just wanted to make sure it really was that simple.
Honestly, I haven't seen even a Microsoft apologist do a better job portraying truly awful people in such a positive light, while simultaneously skirting the real issues. Very impressive effort... totally wasted on this crowd, I'm sure, since most of us are much better informed than you are.
They aren't the bad guys, they just have a dirty job.
They are very much are the bad guys, because this is less a matter of why, as it is a matter of how. Now, I was going to write a lengthy missive in a (probably vain) effort to enlighten you, but then I discovered the source of your disinformation:
I once hired an entertainment attorney to explain it all to me, who was very surprised that it's not self evident.
That's rather like asking a surgeon whether or not you need surgery (no offense intended to any surgeons out there, but we all have our biases.) Next time, try selecting a competent attorney specializing in copyright law who doesn't work for the very industry whose tactics and ethics are being questioned. You might gain a better understanding of what's really going on here.
But you MUST admit, they are STEALING the music. If the law provides for retribution, either change the law as Sweden does and make it legal to pirate, or don't fucking break the law. Seems cut and dry to me. And I am a lawyer.
Riiiight. A lawyer. Sure. And I'm the CEO of Sony BMG.
In any event, I NEED admit nothing of the kind. Furthermore, I seriously doubt you're a lawyer, because if you were, you'd know the difference between committing an act of copyright infringement and stealing anything. Of course, you could be an RIAA attorney, in which case I would understand how such subtleties might escape you.
For some people, willful ignorance must truly be bliss.
Since only Microsoft knows what that actually means, nobody else can implement it. Therefore it is worthless as a "standard".
Of course, but money can't buy the psychological and political leverage that such certification will give Microsoft. Well, no, I take that back. It seems money can buy you an ISO standard.
All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete. Microsoft has graphically demonstrated how easily ISO's processes can be corrupted, which means that other corporations will follow suit (assuming they didn't get there first.) Don't expect the world to have the same respect for ISO after this.
To talk about space exploration and ignore real problems is to talk like a thief and a fool. Both of which we have too many of already. Grow up already and enter the real world.
Well, it's a damned good thing the Queen of Spain didn't think like you.
The reason I came up with that sig in the first place was that I noticed a number of America-bashing remarks were being modded high by people of (presumably) similar sentiment. I don't mind legitimate criticism of our government or our society (I make them regularly myself) but as soon as I see a comment like "the fact that Bush got elected just shows that Americans are basically knuckle-draggers over there" I get irritated. Justifiably so, I might add... I assume that you're not American but I don't doubt that if I criticized your society in the same manner you'd feel the same way. Try this on for size: "all people of {insert your country here} are mentally-defective assholes that can't even read. All of them, every last one." What? You don't like gross generalizations either? Fine. I don't make them, and I appreciate it when others refrain from them as well.
That's my observation, my opinion, and I'm under no obligation to document it for you. Keep your eyes open and you'll figure it out for yourself. Unless, of course, you consider all Americans to be unworthy of your consideration. In that case... I have a sig for you.
They a bunch of the worst kind of lawyers. I get the impression that this isn't quite like the RIAA "protecting the artists", since the big software vendors seem happy to let the BSA keep the fines so long as they keep people running scared. Someone should start a site like the RIAAradar that lists software vendors that support the BSA, so we can avoid buying anything from them. That would include Microsoft, for a start.
Slashdot Mirror
With a new version available soon, many organizations may decide to wait and see if they can avoid the pain of a Vista rollout altogether.
It's more like "With XP serving most of the corporate need for Windows, many organizations may decide to wait and see if they can avoid the pain of a Vista rollout altogether."
For that matter, a lot of our larger corporate customers (outfits with fifteen or twenty thousand seats company wide) are still using Win2K because it does what they need. An upgrade to Vista (not to mention thousands of new computers) wasn't even on the table, still isn't.
but it probably should be.
If you try to indoctrinate an engineer you will probably end up losing your own religion over the ordeal.
... better start out with somebody who's so thoroughly programmed that he has no chance of ever thinking for himself, and then see if he has any aptitude for technology.
Even if you do manage to indoctrinate an engineer with some particular set of terrorist ideals, he may later decide that you're full of shit. Then he'll be the guy that figures out how to fix ALL your clocks. So yeah
passitontotheconsumer
I believe you must have meant "pissontheconsumer".
What the fuck is an "on the spot" fine? Does that mean some RIAA heavies just come in and demand money? That sounds like a job for law enforcement and the courts, not a private corporation.
The potential damage an unhinged person could do is huge.
... the damage they have caused to society is greater than any number of unhinged individuals.)
... you should listen to them more.
... and as usual he was right. They expected us to maintain an everpresent threat of deadly force to keep government officials duly respectful of We the People. The idea, you understand, was to stave off the need for an actual uprising for as long as possible. Some people think that we're too "civilized" or "culturally advanced" to need the Second Amendment any more. They're wrong: given the direction our government is moving now, I'd say we're more in need of the 2nd than we've ever been before.
... but then again, they would like you to trust government to a greater degree than is wise.
Not so much if everyone is armed similarly. Headcases like that only rack up the big body counts when they are opposed only by unarmed human sheep (mind you, I put overzealous law enforcement in the same category as your typical violent nutjob
So do I need a personal nuke? No. But if you go down the list to, say, machine gun owners, you'll find that they're the safest group of firearms owners in the country. Go ahead. Do the research, the results will surprise someone like you.
So, if that justification for the second amendment is obsoleced, then the only real justifications are hunting, protection, and for sport.
I haven't a clue where you people come up with this stuff. God, are you honestly so gullible? And of those three, why would self-protection, and protection of those closest to you, not be sufficient reason to maintain our Second Amendment rights? As it happens, the protection afforded our society goes much, much further than you understand. The Founding Fathers were, after all, some fairly intelligent people
I understand the romantic appeal of 'retaining the right for armed rebellion'.
As Seinfeld might say, "No, I don't think you do. Because if you did, you wouldn't have said that." Read what the Founders wrote, both before and after they drafted the Constitution, to understand the protections they were trying to offer their descendants. They knew very well that if matters really came to a head, if an armed rebellion was the only solution to an errant government, the Constitution would be come meaningless, rights enshrined therein irrelevant. However, they also knew that any government intending to exert excessive authority will attempt to disarm the population first.
The reason for the Second Amendment, the reason widespread gun ownership was considered desirable (indeed, essential) is twofold:
First, to preserve the possibility of armed rebellion if such should become necessary (a population once disarmed can no longer defend itself from totalitarianism.)
Second (and perhaps more importantly) it was to keep the government from going too far. Ask yourself this simple question: how did the Founders expect us to keep ourselves safe from unreasonable search and seizure, and all that follows that? Did they really believe that the Constitution itself would hold government in check forever? Jefferson didn't think so: he warned us about legal entropy
You really need to grasp a bit more of history, world history, and understand how an armed population is often much safer from external and internal threats. That goes directly against the fictions spread by gun control advocates, I understand
It is impossible for our government to actually count anything anymore?
Unbelievable.
I did understand this stuff already, but just wanted to make sure it really was that simple.
... totally wasted on this crowd, I'm sure, since most of us are much better informed than you are.
Honestly, I haven't seen even a Microsoft apologist do a better job portraying truly awful people in such a positive light, while simultaneously skirting the real issues. Very impressive effort
They aren't the bad guys, they just have a dirty job.
They are very much are the bad guys, because this is less a matter of why, as it is a matter of how. Now, I was going to write a lengthy missive in a (probably vain) effort to enlighten you, but then I discovered the source of your disinformation:
I once hired an entertainment attorney to explain it all to me, who was very surprised that it's not self evident.
That's rather like asking a surgeon whether or not you need surgery (no offense intended to any surgeons out there, but we all have our biases.) Next time, try selecting a competent attorney specializing in copyright law who doesn't work for the very industry whose tactics and ethics are being questioned. You might gain a better understanding of what's really going on here.
My friends call me "Nero".
But you MUST admit, they are STEALING the music. If the law provides for retribution, either change the law as Sweden does and make it legal to pirate, or don't fucking break the law. Seems cut and dry to me. And I am a lawyer.
Riiiight. A lawyer. Sure. And I'm the CEO of Sony BMG.
In any event, I NEED admit nothing of the kind. Furthermore, I seriously doubt you're a lawyer, because if you were, you'd know the difference between committing an act of copyright infringement and stealing anything. Of course, you could be an RIAA attorney, in which case I would understand how such subtleties might escape you.
For some people, willful ignorance must truly be bliss.
Intel's x86 ray-tracing technology
Can any game developers out there tell me if this is a good thing? What other options exist besides Intel's raytracer?
Women's Attractiveness Judged by Software
As someone who has worked on embedded systems, I'd say attractiveness is best judged by your firmware.
Since only Microsoft knows what that actually means, nobody else can implement it. Therefore it is worthless as a "standard".
Of course, but money can't buy the psychological and political leverage that such certification will give Microsoft. Well, no, I take that back. It seems money can buy you an ISO standard.
The real reason we want to explore Mars?
Because we can
So, to put this another way, the best reason we can come up with for exploring Mars is the exact same one that dogs use to lick their balls?
All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete. Microsoft has graphically demonstrated how easily ISO's processes can be corrupted, which means that other corporations will follow suit (assuming they didn't get there first.) Don't expect the world to have the same respect for ISO after this.
To talk about space exploration and ignore real problems is to talk like a thief and a fool. Both of which we have too many of already. Grow up already and enter the real world.
Well, it's a damned good thing the Queen of Spain didn't think like you.
since there don't appear to be any Martians left, I'd say they weren't worth their salt.
You disagree with my comment, or do you disagree because you believe I'm applying it to Neal Stephenson?
would this still be illegal in Germany?
Sounds like a Hari Seldon moment happened to Stephenson. The Second Foundation all over again.
Nah. We just have a new Cowboy Neal.
Neal's obviously grown and changed as a writer
Unfortunately, one can change but not not actually grow.
Can't find a single example huh?
... I assume that you're not American but I don't doubt that if I criticized your society in the same manner you'd feel the same way. Try this on for size: "all people of {insert your country here} are mentally-defective assholes that can't even read. All of them, every last one." What? You don't like gross generalizations either? Fine. I don't make them, and I appreciate it when others refrain from them as well.
... I have a sig for you.
Nope. Just don't care.
The reason I came up with that sig in the first place was that I noticed a number of America-bashing remarks were being modded high by people of (presumably) similar sentiment. I don't mind legitimate criticism of our government or our society (I make them regularly myself) but as soon as I see a comment like "the fact that Bush got elected just shows that Americans are basically knuckle-draggers over there" I get irritated. Justifiably so, I might add
That's my observation, my opinion, and I'm under no obligation to document it for you. Keep your eyes open and you'll figure it out for yourself. Unless, of course, you consider all Americans to be unworthy of your consideration. In that case
Personally, I think you're full of shit.
Personally, I think you're not very observant.
Your bill.
... it comes in compressed print with fewer pages now. Saving trees, I guess.
Actually, they did
They a bunch of the worst kind of lawyers. I get the impression that this isn't quite like the RIAA "protecting the artists", since the big software vendors seem happy to let the BSA keep the fines so long as they keep people running scared. Someone should start a site like the RIAAradar that lists software vendors that support the BSA, so we can avoid buying anything from them. That would include Microsoft, for a start.