For instance. microsfot.com redirects to linux.org. The only reason to have that domain is because it's based on a user making a typo to microsoft.com. Would microsoft have a legit suit against the owner of linux.org because it's using the Microsoft name to get hits, and users?
It might be a "legit suit" in terms of the legal interpretations of this country. But unfortunately we live in a litidigious culture, where the meaning of justice is seldom understood, and everyone else is to blame for our mistakes. Take the $3 million lawsuit agains McDonalds won by some buffoon who spilled hot coffee on herself, for example.
Let's let people use whatever domain names they want to. The public's stupidity should not be the basis for law.
And who, really, is to decide if the motivation for using a given domain name is to ride on someone else's coattails or if that was a legitimate choice? It's not always as obvious as in your micros~1 example. If we allow anyone the power to make that choice, those people would likely be influenced by those with the most money and the best lawyers.
I don't think we need to encourage further lawsuits and other governmental intervention in the internet by considering such frivolous claims as "legit suits".
Well, it WAS the case that they had no way to access the K7M info. I just checked the search engine, and now it's findable. I guess they decided they weren't fooling anyone and decided to be up-front about it.
Yeah, ASUS has released a K7 mobo, albeit somewhat surrepetitously, called the K7M. Tom's hardware does a review of it and 5 other K7 mobos HERE.
They're selling these mobos in, get this, plain white boxes with nothing identifying ASUS as the manufacturer. There's also NO info on their website on the K7M. They're officially releasing the motherboard under a dummy company called, I think, "Freeway". Their site search turns up nothing on the K7M, but Tom's has a link to a hidden place on ASUS's site that has K7M info.
I don't know who they're trying to fool with these antics, but I'm not impressed by either ASUS or Intel's strong-arm tactics. In fact, I'm calling shenannigans on this whole deal. SHENANIGANS!
With the K7 out, and multiprocessor K7 motherboards due out in 2000, there won't be any reason to buy Intel ever again! Death to Intel! Death to Microsoft!
Here is an article that Wired just posted on this, that mentions this slashdot discussion.
And here's the letter I sent to John Hoy of the DVD CCA:
To: john.hoy@lmicp.com
I've recently heard that the DVD CCA has decided to attack people with lawsuits who decide to post on their website the code used to decrypt DVDs.
I believe this is an extremely misguided action by the CCA that will not acheive any intended purpose. DeCSS is typically used by users of operating systems where DVD is not officially supported to be able to make use of DVD on those systems. If anything, the added support for those systems will increase the sales and popularity of DVD as a media.
This is not a piracy issue. DVD writeable disks are prohibitively expensive, and the 5+GB size of a typical DVD movie makes PC-based storage impractical if not impossible for most people.
Further, the use of a lawsuit to try to suppress the free exchange of information and ideas between people is ludicrous in the context of the Internet and will not work. For every site that is suppressed, many more will be created with identical info. If you don't believe me on this point, I invite you to view a discussion on this topic at slashdot.org: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/27/1942 16&mode=thread Of the ~900 people that have posted comments on this topic, a substantial portion, if not a majority, will be copying the "prohibited" code and/or posting it on other websites. Others, like myself, who have not posted comments but are following the discussion, will similarly feel compelled to oppose this wrongful action.
It is my hope that the CCA realizes the futility of this type of harassment of individuals working to provide DVD usability for alternative operating systems and instead works with us to provide DVD support, which will only benefit DVD as a whole.
It may be worthwhile to look into California's recent law against SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Too many people were being harassed by large companies in court, so this law was enacted to have these kinds of suits thrown out without a trial. I don't know if this case legally qualifies, but it's worth looking into.
The review of Mills' book on GUT is here on amazon.com
While I completely support the boycott of amazon.com, there is a rather telling customer review of the book by an Ohio State math professor at the site which shoots him down completely. Here's a couple of exerpts:
2.(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. (This is a consequence of the familiar "addition theorem" for spherical harmonics.) According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates.
5.(iii) The author claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. He claims (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help, among others, of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any of the author's "hydrino" states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states.
I say, wait till the trial is over and done with before proving what great competition Linux is.
Don't think so, man. We have a world to take over, no time to wait just so that the micros~1 has-beens get what they deserve. Just leave them in the dust...
I know that Hydrogen only has 1 electron, I just put that in to see if you were paying attention. In any case, it doesn't change what I was saying.
I don't believe that "the laws of physics/chemistry" (your words, not mine) are perfectly understood correctly. What I'm getting at is that the guy is trying to tell us that introducing potassium as a catalyst will somehow cause the electron to fall to a lower orbit level, when it's already at the lowest orbital shell. I wasn't saying "Cars need gas, everyone knows that". I was saying "I've never seen a car go anywhere without gas. If you know a way to make them go without gas, I'd like to see it". I think if he had found a way to make electrons orbit closer to the nucleus we would have heard about it since this would be as major a scientific breakthrough as anything in the 20th century. Unless of course he would be trying to keep it a secret, which I can't believe either with him selling a book of his theories on amazon.com and doing press interviews and such.
That's ok if you didn't stay awake in chem. Apparently, neither did the guy that made this stuff up. From BlackLight Power's website FAQ:
More specifically, thermal energy is released as the electrons of hydrogen atoms are induced by a catalyst to transition to lower energy levels (i.e. drop to lower base orbits around each atom's nucleus) corresponding to fractional quantum numbers.
Apparently they don't understand the concept of QUANTUM. "Fractional quantum numbers"? Gimme a break!
Hahahaha. Are "Hydrinos" anything like neutrinos? At least the article is good for a laugh. The very crux of what is being proposed by Mills is:
Under specific conditions, the potassium acts as a catalyst to collapse hydrogen's electron orbit. The energy once used to maintain the higher orbit is released as ultra-violet light, Mills says.
While I can see that IF there were electrons in an outer valence level of hydrogen AND these electrons were somehow dropped to a lower valence level by the presence of potassium (dubious, I've never heard of such a thing) THEN energy would be released and could be harnessed, sure. But hydrogen is periodic table element #1, it has only 2 electrons, and both are in the lowest possible electron shell already, so how could they be dropped any further?
Anyway, this is a mildly amusing piece of science fiction. Someone email me when BlackLight Power goes IPO so I can make some money shorting their stock.
Well, banning those games is one sure way to make them more popular. Speaking for myself, anything that is made illegal by a bunch of arrogant, spineless, and simple-minded politicians is something that I'm going to try, and definitely something that I'm going to support.
How long do you suppose it'll be before there's sites to download these games all over Brazil? If they try to shut down those sites, how hard do you suppose it will be to find a place in the US or elsewhere else to make the games freely available?
Prohibition does not work! It failed in the US against alcohol, it's failing against marijuana everywhere in the world, and it will fail against this, as well. Unfortunately, the people that run for office are rarely of a calibre that can learn from history, and almost invariably doomed (sorry for the pun) to repeat it.
I've tried many mice and trackballs, and my favourite hands-down is the Kensington Expert Mouse. The trackball is huge - the size of a cueball. It's easy to control and never tires my wrist. It's a bit pricey for a rodent-type device, about $80 or so, but considering how much of the time I'm plugged in, it's an investment I've never regretted.
Who cares about that Bill Gates character and his shares? The point of a monopoly remedy is to break the stranglehold that ms has and allow other companies to be able to compete in an open marketplace, it's not to diminish the net wealth of the jerk who runs microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, he's irrelevant.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Well, at least congress can't, according to the constitution. But since when is the FBI held accountable to congress (I mean in reality, not in theory)? Isn't the FBI part of the judicial branch, not the legislative branch? If so, how would this apply to them? I think this states fairly clearly that the FBI stepped waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds.
The FBI has no bounds. Let's be realistic here. Who can stand up to them? Who can hold them accountable? Any voice that speaks out loudly enough against them will meet with an "unfortunate accident" or be silenced in some other way. Even our representatives are relatively powerless against them. It's very unfortunate, but the most dangerous criminals in our country are the ones working for the government.
This is incorrect. Auto insurance companies, on average, pay OUT about 101% of what they receive through premiums.
I'm referring to the amortized cost. When the insurance company has my $1000 premium for a year, and then pays me back 101% ($1010) of that 1 year later when my car is damaged, I'm still in the red from the transaction since I would have otherwise put it in the stock market and had a return of 120% ($1200), as an estimate, instead of 101%.
But that's interesting that it's so close to their actual costs. I would never have guessed.
Seriously though, look at the numbers on the link "...in 1984, UPS billed its customers $99.8 million for insurance and paid out claims of about $22 million." which is a large profit margin!
I have some news for you, my friend. No insurance company is in the game for the sake of "taking care of you and your family" or any such happy, smiley-faced crap that they fill their advertisements with. They're in it for making money. Period. If an insurance company charged equal to what it really cost them to insure their customers, they wouldn't be around for very long.
Yes, it is a large profit margin. I don't know how it compares to, say, auto insurance, life insurance, or home insurance but I'm sure those folks are raking in a hefty profit, as well.
Now I don't think that in principle this amounts to insurance fraud. The plaintiffs seem to be claiming that since UPS wasn't legally able to provide insurance, that the money it collected from its customers was fradulently collected. Never mind that UPS actually did come through and pay people for broken packages (as far as how well they did so is another story altogether).
And what is the solution to this "fraud" problem? Of course! What else? Take 14 BILLION dollars (or 42 billion, even) away from UPS and give it to the plaintiffs and their greedy, scum-sucking lawyers. Never mind that it will cost you, me, and everyone else who uses UPS in terms of higher shipping rates. Who cares about that! All that matters here is that this problem of "fraud" be solved.
I say you shouldn't have to buy insurance on a package in the FIRST place.
If UPS were to insure packages themselves and without an "extra" charge, the result would be higher costs for shipping across the board and you have no say in the matter. You may not like it, but it's just a fact of business life.
I see their offering of insurance as an OPTION as being a Good Thing (TM). It gives you, me, and everyone else the freedom to decide whether we want to pay the higher rate and have it insured, or pay the lower rate and not have it insured. What you're suggesting seems to be that they take away our choice as to whether to pay for insurance, and make a decision for us that we MUST pay for insurance every time we ship with UPS. That's not what I want to happen in my dealings with UPS, and I don't think most other people do, either.
It's not as farfetched as it seems. Amazon sells hard-copies, not eBooks. A lot of people want a hard copy when they're reading a book. The only place it cuts into their revenues is where someone wants to look up something quick in a book and would be willing to pay for it only if they had to. Ever tried reading a book online? It's just not the same thing. Amazon could get some good press out of this. Market economics will determine whether the publicity is worth the lost revenue to them, unless a high-up individual in the organization is feeling particularly philanthropic and sees the value of this project for all people and looks beyond the dollar bill. Not altogether impossible. It's worth a shot, I'd say.
Of course, the title is empty of any nature of its own, so maybe I shouldn't be making corrections...:')
And is not making corrections likewise void of self-nature?
That's "Diamond *Cutter* Sutra."
Maybe, but it's usually just known as the Diamond Sutra. Is it not the case that "Vajracchedika-prajnaparamitasutra" can be translated as: Vajra diamond chedika cutter prajna wisdom paramita heart
So it actually comes out like "Diamond Cutting Heart of Wisdom Sutra"?
I hope you have been conveying your feelings to your representatives. I suspect you haven't though.
Instead of addressing the issue I raise, you're just avoiding the issue and throwing in some FUD about whether or not I communicate my feelings to my reps. In fact, I often do write/fax/email my congresspeople about issues I care about. Whether or not I write to congresspeople in no way affects the validity of my arguement.
Because you don't care to express your opinion about the "objective definition" of evil, it does not preclude me or anyone else from doing so.
In case you missed it, I very clearly DID express my opinion on the objective definiton of evil. I stated that there is no objective definition. You're free to state that you think evil is such-and-such, but don't go pretending that your word is gospel. Others see things differently.
I gather that you have a problem with The Hague trying people for war crimes then.
No, I do not, as a matter of fact. I think all people are responsible for their actions. And this opinion that you're trying to pass off as what I believe in no way follows from the statements I've made.
If you want to engage in a pedantic discourse on the semantics of greed you are more than free to do so.
I don't recall at any point discussing "the semantics of greed" or any such thing. This appears to be more FUD on your part to sidetrack this discussion so as to not have to defend your poorly reasoned arguements. If you truly feel there was a discussion of "the semantics of greed" on my part, please show me where.
Do not try to pull me into your quasi-intellectual ploy, however.
What does that mean? I have no ploy other than using facts and rational arguements to come to a valid conclusion. The ancient Greeks called this "ploy" logic.
I do and so do many people around the world, hence the Hague Court. Let me quote you: "this is nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is different, but I won't attempt to claim that I know the right way to think."
And that proves what, exactly? As I said, I agree that all people are responsible for their actions. The fact that war criminals were tried at the Hague does not in any way support your arguement that killing for prejudice is inherently worse than killing for greed or some other reason.
Like the arbitrary rules that say premeditated murder is deserving of more punishment than a spur of the moment murder? In my book, the end result of either crime is the same kind of action.
Unless I misunderstand you here, it sounds like you're making a point exactly contrary to your original point that killing and "hate" killing are not the same kind of action.
I guess sentencing Nazi's for war crimes is politically correct too, if we are to use your line of reasoning.
Please stop throwing FUD around and misrepresenting my views. That does not follow from my reasoning, and like I've stated, I think all people should be held accountable for their actions. That is a simple premise of justice and has nothing to do with "political correctness"
I find that whenever conservatives run of ammunition in their argument, they throw the pc label around, much like they did with liberal.
Maybe they do. But I'm not a conservative and all the arguements that I've made on this topic are solid. Saying that Gore made stupid statements when he really did doesn't make me a Republican. I'd rather see a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. But I'd also like to see political discussion raised to an intelligent level, rather than have as its basis corporation-funded 15-second sound-bytes of politicians who have no clue what they're talking about.
The use of the term pc, if you want to know how I feel, is tantamount to pandering.
I think you misunderstand the word "pandering". I'm not out to get any votes, so how can I be pandering? www.m-w.com defines pander as:
to provide gratification for others' desires
Also on www.m-w.com is a definition of pc:
conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated
So if you have an objection to my use of the phrase "political correctness", I'll restate my remark for your benefit:
Gore made those remarks to curry favor with the people who believe that prejudice should be eliminated.
I'm not entirely sure what your objection is to my statements, but it seems to me that because I said that Al Gore made stupid remarks that you've concluded that I'm a conservative, and because I said murder is murder, hate crime or not, that makes me anti-minority. Neither of these is the case, and please do not presume that my motivation for making either of these points is obvious to you, as you've misunderstood/misrepresented my views on both counts.
Do you have a problem with cop killers getting the dealth penalty when the majority of murderers just face jail time? I don't think so because you realize this in no way marginalizes anyone else's murder.
Well, then you think incorrectly. I do not believe that "cop killers" are any different from any other kind of killer. The only reason there is a difference in sentencing is the government's self-centered views on its employees ("he killed one of our boys, he's gotta hang!" vs. "he killed an ordinary citizen"). I don't see policemen as somehow special, or that the life of a policeman is somehow "worth" (by whatever criteria you use to measure this) more than a non-policeman.
Hate crime is an insidious evil that deserves special scrutiny.
"Evil" is whatever you think it to be. There's no objective definition of evil, so this is nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is different, but I won't attempt to claim that I know the right way to think.
The hypocritical nature of people often comes out when discussing this issue.
You've failed to demonstrate how this is so. You asked a question about cop killers and then presumed to answer your own question on behalf of everyone. Your arguement is spurious. If you have a rational means to show that the opinion that "murder is murder, whatever the motivation" is hypocritical, I would be interested in hearing your arguement. I don't see that killing out of prejudice is inherently worse than killing out of greed or jealousy. Sure, the punishment should be mitigated by the motivation for the action, but lets not go off the deep end and make up arbitrary rules saying that this is somehow a different kind of action. Or do you think that "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? Gore's statements about hate crimes was nothing more than (yet another) lame attempt at pandering to people for the sake of garnering votes, this time pandering to the political correctness crowd.
Maybe they're embarrassed. Maybe these professors don't feel that their work is of high enough quality to merit such attention, and this is their way of warning people away.
200 years ago, human property (slavery) was considered normal. Today, it is unthinkable. Perhaps in another 200 years, we'll feel the same way about intellectual property.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance. microsfot.com redirects to linux.org. The only reason to have that domain is because it's based on a user making a typo to microsoft.com. Would microsoft have a legit suit against the owner of linux.org because it's using the Microsoft name to get hits, and users?
It might be a "legit suit" in terms of the legal interpretations of this country. But unfortunately we live in a litidigious culture, where the meaning of justice is seldom understood, and everyone else is to blame for our mistakes. Take the $3 million lawsuit agains McDonalds won by some buffoon who spilled hot coffee on herself, for example.
Let's let people use whatever domain names they want to. The public's stupidity should not be the basis for law.
And who, really, is to decide if the motivation for using a given domain name is to ride on someone else's coattails or if that was a legitimate choice? It's not always as obvious as in your micros~1 example. If we allow anyone the power to make that choice, those people would likely be influenced by those with the most money and the best lawyers.
I don't think we need to encourage further lawsuits and other governmental intervention in the internet by considering such frivolous claims as "legit suits".
Well, it WAS the case that they had no way to access the K7M info. I just checked the search engine, and now it's findable. I guess they decided they weren't fooling anyone and decided to be up-front about it.
Yeah, ASUS has released a K7 mobo, albeit somewhat surrepetitously, called the K7M. Tom's hardware does a review of it and 5 other K7 mobos HERE.
They're selling these mobos in, get this, plain white boxes with nothing identifying ASUS as the manufacturer. There's also NO info on their website on the K7M. They're officially releasing the motherboard under a dummy company called, I think, "Freeway". Their site search turns up nothing on the K7M, but Tom's has a link to a hidden place on ASUS's site that has K7M info.
I don't know who they're trying to fool with these antics, but I'm not impressed by either ASUS or Intel's strong-arm tactics. In fact, I'm calling shenannigans on this whole deal. SHENANIGANS!
With the K7 out, and multiprocessor K7 motherboards due out in 2000, there won't be any reason to buy Intel ever again! Death to Intel! Death to Microsoft!
Here is an article that Wired just posted on this, that mentions this slashdot discussion.
2 16&mode=thread
And here's the letter I sent to John Hoy of the DVD CCA:
To: john.hoy@lmicp.com
I've recently heard that the DVD CCA has decided to attack people with lawsuits
who decide to post on their website the code used to decrypt DVDs.
I believe this is an extremely misguided action by the CCA that will not
acheive any intended purpose. DeCSS is typically used by users of operating
systems where DVD is not officially supported to be able to make use of DVD on
those systems. If anything, the added support for those systems will increase
the sales and popularity of DVD as a media.
This is not a piracy issue. DVD writeable disks are prohibitively expensive,
and the 5+GB size of a typical DVD movie makes PC-based storage impractical if
not impossible for most people.
Further, the use of a lawsuit to try to suppress the free exchange of
information and ideas between people is ludicrous in the context of the
Internet and will not work. For every site that is suppressed, many more will
be created with identical info. If you don't believe me on this point, I invite
you to view a discussion on this topic at slashdot.org:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/27/194
Of the ~900 people that have posted comments on this topic, a substantial
portion, if not a majority, will be copying the "prohibited" code and/or
posting it on other websites. Others, like myself, who have not posted comments
but are following the discussion, will similarly feel compelled to oppose this
wrongful action.
It is my hope that the CCA realizes the futility of this type of harassment of
individuals working to provide DVD usability for alternative operating systems
and instead works with us to provide DVD support, which will only benefit DVD
as a whole.
It may be worthwhile to look into California's recent law against SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Too many people were being harassed by large companies in court, so this law was enacted to have these kinds of suits thrown out without a trial. I don't know if this case legally qualifies, but it's worth looking into.
I think I heard someone mention that e10ks go for about 1.5 mil. But I'd think it'd depend what options you get with it.
The review of Mills' book on GUT is here on amazon.com
While I completely support the boycott of amazon.com, there is a rather telling customer review of the book by an Ohio State math professor at the site which shoots him down completely. Here's a couple of exerpts:
2.(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. (This is a consequence of the familiar "addition theorem" for spherical harmonics.) According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates.
5.(iii) The author claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. He claims (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help, among others, of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any of the author's "hydrino" states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states.
I say, wait till the trial is over and done with before proving what great competition Linux is.
Don't think so, man. We have a world to take over, no time to wait just so that the micros~1 has-beens get what they deserve. Just leave them in the dust...
The title of the slashdot article,
"UK Gov't Experts Say Linux is Secure, Windows Not"
can be made shorter:
"UK Gov't Experts Say Linux is Secure, WindowsN'T"
That's what Windows NT means, isn't it?
I know that Hydrogen only has 1 electron, I just put that in to see if you were paying attention. In any case, it doesn't change what I was saying.
I don't believe that "the laws of physics/chemistry" (your words, not mine) are perfectly understood correctly. What I'm getting at is that the guy is trying to tell us that introducing potassium as a catalyst will somehow cause the electron to fall to a lower orbit level, when it's already at the lowest orbital shell. I wasn't saying "Cars need gas, everyone knows that". I was saying "I've never seen a car go anywhere without gas. If you know a way to make them go without gas, I'd like to see it". I think if he had found a way to make electrons orbit closer to the nucleus we would have heard about it since this would be as major a scientific breakthrough as anything in the 20th century. Unless of course he would be trying to keep it a secret, which I can't believe either with him selling a book of his theories on amazon.com and doing press interviews and such.
That's ok if you didn't stay awake in chem. Apparently, neither did the guy that made this stuff up. From BlackLight Power's website FAQ:
More specifically, thermal energy is released as the electrons of hydrogen atoms are induced by a catalyst to transition to lower energy levels (i.e. drop to lower base orbits around each atom's nucleus) corresponding to fractional quantum numbers.
Apparently they don't understand the concept of QUANTUM.
"Fractional quantum numbers"? Gimme a break!
Hahahaha. Are "Hydrinos" anything like neutrinos?
At least the article is good for a laugh. The very crux of what is being proposed by Mills is:
Under specific conditions, the potassium acts as a catalyst to collapse hydrogen's electron orbit. The energy once used to maintain the higher orbit is released as ultra-violet light, Mills says.
While I can see that IF there were electrons in an outer valence level of hydrogen AND these electrons were somehow dropped to a lower valence level by the presence of potassium (dubious, I've never heard of such a thing) THEN energy would be released and could be harnessed, sure. But hydrogen is periodic table element #1, it has only 2 electrons, and both are in the lowest possible electron shell already, so how could they be dropped any further?
Anyway, this is a mildly amusing piece of science fiction. Someone email me when BlackLight Power goes IPO so I can make some money shorting their stock.
Well, banning those games is one sure way to make them more popular. Speaking for myself, anything that is made illegal by a bunch of arrogant, spineless, and simple-minded politicians is something that I'm going to try, and definitely something that I'm going to support.
How long do you suppose it'll be before there's sites to download these games all over Brazil? If they try to shut down those sites, how hard do you suppose it will be to find a place in the US or elsewhere else to make the games freely available?
Prohibition does not work! It failed in the US against alcohol, it's failing against marijuana everywhere in the world, and it will fail against this, as well. Unfortunately, the people that run for office are rarely of a calibre that can learn from history, and almost invariably doomed (sorry for the pun) to repeat it.
Well, excuuuuse me! I guess I'm not from Texas like you are.
I've tried many mice and trackballs, and my favourite hands-down is the Kensington Expert Mouse. The trackball is huge - the size of a cueball. It's easy to control and never tires my wrist. It's a bit pricey for a rodent-type device, about $80 or so, but considering how much of the time I'm plugged in, it's an investment I've never regretted.
Who cares about that Bill Gates character and his shares?
The point of a monopoly remedy is to break the stranglehold that ms has and allow other companies to be able to compete in an open marketplace, it's not to diminish the net wealth of the jerk who runs microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, he's irrelevant.
breaking up is hard to do...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Well, at least congress can't, according to the constitution. But since when is the FBI held accountable to congress (I mean in reality, not in theory)? Isn't the FBI part of the judicial branch, not the legislative branch? If so, how would this apply to them?
I think this states fairly clearly that the FBI stepped waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds.
The FBI has no bounds. Let's be realistic here. Who can stand up to them? Who can hold them accountable? Any voice that speaks out loudly enough against them will meet with an "unfortunate accident" or be silenced in some other way. Even our representatives are relatively powerless against them. It's very unfortunate, but the most dangerous criminals in our country are the ones working for the government.
This is incorrect. Auto insurance companies, on average, pay OUT about 101% of what they receive through premiums.
I'm referring to the amortized cost. When the insurance company has my $1000 premium for a year, and then pays me back 101% ($1010) of that 1 year later when my car is damaged, I'm still in the red from the transaction since I would have otherwise put it in the stock market and had a return of 120% ($1200), as an estimate, instead of 101%.
But that's interesting that it's so close to their actual costs. I would never have guessed.
Seriously though, look at the numbers on the link "...in 1984, UPS billed its customers $99.8 million for insurance and paid out claims of about $22 million." which is a large profit margin!
I have some news for you, my friend. No insurance company is in the game for the sake of "taking care of you and your family" or any such happy, smiley-faced crap that they fill their advertisements with. They're in it for making money. Period. If an insurance company charged equal to what it really cost them to insure their customers, they wouldn't be around for very long.
Yes, it is a large profit margin. I don't know how it compares to, say, auto insurance, life insurance, or home insurance but I'm sure those folks are raking in a hefty profit, as well.
Now I don't think that in principle this amounts to insurance fraud. The plaintiffs seem to be claiming that since UPS wasn't legally able to provide insurance, that the money it collected from its customers was fradulently collected. Never mind that UPS actually did come through and pay people for broken packages (as far as how well they did so is another story altogether).
And what is the solution to this "fraud" problem? Of course! What else? Take 14 BILLION dollars (or 42 billion, even) away from UPS and give it to the plaintiffs and their greedy, scum-sucking lawyers. Never mind that it will cost you, me, and everyone else who uses UPS in terms of higher shipping rates. Who cares about that! All that matters here is that this problem of "fraud" be solved.
I say you shouldn't have to buy insurance on a package in the FIRST place.
If UPS were to insure packages themselves and without an "extra" charge, the result would be higher costs for shipping across the board and you have no say in the matter. You may not like it, but it's just a fact of business life.
I see their offering of insurance as an OPTION as being a Good Thing (TM). It gives you, me, and everyone else the freedom to decide whether we want to pay the higher rate and have it insured, or pay the lower rate and not have it insured. What you're suggesting seems to be that they take away our choice as to whether to pay for insurance, and make a decision for us that we MUST pay for insurance every time we ship with UPS. That's not what I want to happen in my dealings with UPS, and I don't think most other people do, either.
It's not as farfetched as it seems. Amazon sells hard-copies, not eBooks. A lot of people want a hard copy when they're reading a book. The only place it cuts into their revenues is where someone wants to look up something quick in a book and would be willing to pay for it only if they had to. Ever tried reading a book online? It's just not the same thing. Amazon could get some good press out of this. Market economics will determine whether the publicity is worth the lost revenue to them, unless a high-up individual in the organization is feeling particularly philanthropic and sees the value of this project for all people and looks beyond the dollar bill. Not altogether impossible. It's worth a shot, I'd say.
Of course, the title is empty of any nature of its own, so maybe I shouldn't be making corrections... :')
And is not making corrections likewise void of self-nature?
That's "Diamond *Cutter* Sutra."
Maybe, but it's usually just known as the Diamond Sutra. Is it not the case that "Vajracchedika-prajnaparamitasutra" can
be translated as:
Vajra diamond
chedika cutter
prajna wisdom
paramita heart
So it actually comes out like
"Diamond Cutting Heart of Wisdom Sutra"?
Great link you posted. Thanks.
I hope you have been conveying your feelings to your representatives. I suspect you haven't though.
Instead of addressing the issue I raise, you're just avoiding the issue and throwing in some FUD about whether or not I communicate my feelings to my reps. In fact, I often do write/fax/email my congresspeople about issues I care about. Whether or not I write to congresspeople in no way affects the validity of my arguement.
Because you don't care to express your opinion about the "objective definition" of evil, it does not preclude me or anyone else from doing so.
In case you missed it, I very clearly DID express my opinion on the objective definiton of evil. I stated that there is no objective definition. You're free to state that you think evil is such-and-such, but don't go pretending that your word is gospel. Others see things differently.
I gather that you have a problem with The Hague trying people for war crimes then.
No, I do not, as a matter of fact. I think all people are responsible for their actions. And this opinion that you're trying to pass off as what I believe in no way follows from the statements I've made.
If you want to engage in a pedantic discourse on the semantics of greed you are more than free to do so.
I don't recall at any point discussing "the semantics of greed" or any such thing. This appears to be more FUD on your part to sidetrack this discussion so as to not have to defend your poorly reasoned arguements. If you truly feel there was a discussion of "the semantics of greed" on my part, please show me where.
Do not try to pull me into your quasi-intellectual ploy, however.
What does that mean? I have no ploy other than using facts and rational arguements to come to a valid conclusion. The ancient Greeks called this "ploy" logic.
I do and so do many people around the world, hence the Hague Court. Let me quote you: "this is nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is different, but I won't attempt to claim that I know the right way to think."
And that proves what, exactly? As I said, I agree that all people are responsible for their actions. The fact that war criminals were tried at the Hague does not in any way support your arguement that killing for prejudice is inherently worse than killing for greed or some other reason.
Like the arbitrary rules that say premeditated murder is deserving of more punishment than a spur of the moment murder? In my book, the end result of either crime is the same kind of action.
Unless I misunderstand you here, it sounds like you're making a point exactly contrary to your original point that killing and "hate" killing are not the same kind of action.
I guess sentencing Nazi's for war crimes is politically correct too, if we are to use your line of reasoning.
Please stop throwing FUD around and misrepresenting my views. That does not follow from my reasoning, and like I've stated, I think all people should be held accountable for their actions. That is a simple premise of justice and has nothing to do with "political correctness"
I find that whenever conservatives run of ammunition in their argument, they throw the pc label around, much like they did with liberal.
Maybe they do. But I'm not a conservative and all the arguements that I've made on this topic are solid. Saying that Gore made stupid statements when he really did doesn't make me a Republican. I'd rather see a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. But I'd also like to see political discussion raised to an intelligent level, rather than have as its basis corporation-funded 15-second sound-bytes of politicians who have no clue what they're talking about.
The use of the term pc, if you want to know how I feel, is tantamount to pandering.
I think you misunderstand the word "pandering". I'm not out to get any votes, so how can I be pandering? www.m-w.com defines pander as:
to provide gratification for others' desires
Also on www.m-w.com is a definition of pc:
conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated
So if you have an objection to my use of the phrase "political correctness", I'll restate my remark for your benefit:
Gore made those remarks to curry favor with the people who believe that prejudice should be eliminated.
I'm not entirely sure what your objection is to my statements, but it seems to me that because I said that Al Gore made stupid remarks that you've concluded that I'm a conservative, and because I said murder is murder, hate crime or not, that makes me anti-minority. Neither of these is the case, and please do not presume that my motivation for making either of these points is obvious to you, as you've misunderstood/misrepresented my views on both counts.
Do you have a problem with cop killers getting the dealth penalty when the majority of murderers just face jail time? I don't think so because you realize this in no way marginalizes anyone else's murder.
Well, then you think incorrectly. I do not believe that "cop killers" are any different from any other kind of killer. The only reason there is a difference in sentencing is the government's self-centered views on its employees ("he killed one of our boys, he's gotta hang!" vs. "he killed an ordinary citizen"). I don't see policemen as somehow special, or that the life of a policeman is somehow "worth" (by whatever criteria you use to measure this) more than a non-policeman.
Hate crime is an insidious evil that deserves special scrutiny.
"Evil" is whatever you think it to be. There's no objective definition of evil, so this is nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is different, but I won't attempt to claim that I know the right way to think.
The hypocritical nature of people often comes out when discussing this issue.
You've failed to demonstrate how this is so. You asked a question about cop killers and then presumed to answer your own question on behalf of everyone. Your arguement is spurious. If you have a rational means to show that the opinion that "murder is murder, whatever the motivation" is hypocritical, I would be interested in hearing your arguement. I don't see that killing out of prejudice is inherently worse than killing out of greed or jealousy. Sure, the punishment should be mitigated by the motivation for the action, but lets not go off the deep end and make up arbitrary rules saying that this is somehow a different kind of action. Or do you think that "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? Gore's statements about hate crimes was nothing more than (yet another) lame attempt at pandering to people for the sake of garnering votes, this time pandering to the political correctness crowd.
Maybe they're embarrassed. Maybe these professors don't feel that their work is of high enough quality to merit such attention, and this is their way of warning people away.
200 years ago, human property (slavery) was considered normal.
Today, it is unthinkable.
Perhaps in another 200 years, we'll feel the same way about intellectual property.