Having had both DSL and cable service in the same city you are speaking of, I am very much looking forward to the day when I can ditch my DSL and get back on cable. As problematic as cable was, I can't say I've been impressed with DSL. Especially since it's costing me an extra $20 a month for a MUCH slower connection. I fully understand the theoretical advantages that DSL has over cable, but real world experience tells me that, personally, I'm much happier with cable. Even on the slowest days, my cable connection was never as slow as the maximum speed I get from DSL. (And I rarely get the top speed, since I'm WAY out from the CO, and the wiring in my part of town is pretty crappy to begin with. Not to mention the wiring in my house, I ended up running Cat5 wire from the DSL modem directly to the DMARC just to get it to connect at all.)
My enthusiasm for cable would be severly dampened, however, if it meant being stuck behind a NAT. When did TCI, er, AT&T implement that? At both addresses where I had cable (I've moved around a lot this year, long story) I was definitely not behind a NAT. My current employer also uses cable for Internet access, and is perfectly accessible from outside, although that could be due to our using the "business grade" service. (As an aside: The only difference I've noticed between residential and business service is the size of the bill.:)
Now, if you really want to know which part of town gets screwed, it's the middle. The East side had good infrastructure in place years ago, for the reasons you mentioned and a few others. After that, it made marketing sense to roll out the west side next, since that's where the money is. Now, the "average" neighborhood I live in only got DSL a few months ago, and I just this week began to see trucks in the neighborhood beginning the cable upgrade. Inquiries indicate that I'm still 60 days away from digital cable, with cable-modem access following 60-90 days later.
I for one wouldn't shed a tear if DSL died a miserable death. In order for the Internet to complete the next phase in its evolution, we need serious bandwidth to the home, and cable is the only solution offering that at a reasonable price right now. Consumer priced DSL just isn't fast enough, although that has more to do with the telco's mentality than it does with any technical issues. Even then, cable is going to prove itself too slow as well. In the end, we're going to need fiber to every house. Wonder how long it will be until the financial incentive is there for someone to start digging?
Prove that time exists? Hmm... OK, consider the following.
Without time, it is impossible to describe the location of any object. Let's use my car as an example. My car is located in the third parking space from the front door of my office. That description of location is meaningless, however, without time. 12 hours ago, that same location was an empty slab of concrete. 1000 years ago, that location was most likely a patch of prairie grass. When I get ready to go home, it is not enough to know that my car is in that location, I need to know that it is in that location at 5:00pm tonight.
12 hours ago, my car was outside my girlfriend's apartment. 6 hours ago, it was parked in my driveway. 20 minutes from now it will most likely be in a McDonald's drive-thru.:) It is the existence of time that allows me to consitently find my car without having to check each of these locations every time I need to go somewhere.
Now, I like my girlfriend and enjoy spending time with her. My car makes it much easier and faster to get to where she is. I believe I've demonstrated pretty well that finding my car relies heavily on the existence of time. Therefore, if you want me to accept the idea that time does not exist, along with the resulting negative impact on my sex life, I'm going to need some VERY solid proof indeed.:)
OK, so that doesn't actually PROVE the existence of time. That's OK, I'd say that given the wide acceptance of the idea that time exists, the burden of proof in this matter falls on the shoulders of the "time doesn't exist" crowd.:)
"Time was not measured before the Earth and the Milky Way galaxy existed, so time never really existed then, and it doesn't now."
How exactly does the failure of the human race to measure and categorize something constitute proof that it doesn't exist?
By your logic, the Universe can't possibly be 12 billion years old, since we weren't around way back then to give it a name.
I also see no way to conclusively determine that time was not measured before the Earth and Milky Way existed. Certainly not measured by humans, but that does not prove, in and of itself, that it was not being measured.
"Now for time, that doesn't exist either. How do we measure time? In minutes, hours, days, months, and years."
How do we measure distance? In inches, feet, yards, and miles. Or in millimeters, centimeters, meters, kilometers. Or in light years, parsecs, astronomical units, the list goes on. These units of measurement, just like our units for time, are simply a convenient way for our human minds to think of these concepts. Whether or not we have applied labels to something has no impact whatsoever on whether or not it exists.
Although, your logic could save us a tremendous amount of time and effort on SETI and the space program in general. If we simply define anything we don't know about as not existing, we can safely abandon these programs and reclaim our rightful place as the "center of the Universe.":)
"So, your problem updating the driver came from installing NT within VMware. That's an implemtation issue with VMware, not NT."
No, it's not an implementation issue with VMware. It's an implementation issue with his firewall. When you install NT within VMware on Linux, the NT installation gets a different IP than the Linux installation. This is, IMO, neither good nor bad, it's just the way they do it. The problem, in his situation, is that his firewall allows or denies access based on IP address, and the IP used by his NT/VMware installation does not have access through the firewall.
So, this is not a Linux problem, this is not an NT problem, and this is not a VMware problem. It is simply another case of one specific configuration not working in one specific environment. Happens all the time, it does not necessarily indicate a problem with any of the components involved.
Now, the REAL problem here, again IMO, is that MS has decided that it is more "user friendly" to install patches and upgrades through a browser than it is to download a file and do it the "old fashioned" way. The old way worked fine, yet MS felt the need to screw with it.
OK, since I've said what I meant to say, and feel myself quickly sinking into rant mode, I'll just end this right here.
Well, I consider myself a pro, and I've worked in large computing facilities. My Buck utility knife is one of my most valued tools. It's not a replacement for a complete toolset, but it is certainly more convenient to carry around, and has saved me countless hours that would have otherwise been spent walking across campus to retrieve my tools.
Put one in your pocket for awhile, you'll be amazed at how many uses these things have.
Why must they necessarily be broken up by product?
In my mind, the best way to proceed would be to split them into three companies, each taking the code for ALL Microsoft products with them. Evenly divide the cash and senior executives between the new entities.
This way they are all on equal footing and must actually COMPETE with each other. Isn't competition what the whole thing was about in the first place?
"I don't think you can really look at scientists as a monolithic group who would be better off if they all focused on one problem at a time."
Absolutely not. The sharing of information between scientific disciplines is one of the main factors responsible for the rate at which our knowledge is advancing.
If all scientists were to focus in on one single issue, the solution would be found later, not sooner.
One almost has to assume that AOL's motive for this is to have a broadband channel for delivering AOL content. The content is, after all, the business that they are in. I doubt that simply becoming a broadband ISP, offering raw internet connectivity, is what they are really after.
So this brings up a lot of possibilities. Will they force AOL content down your throat if you want a cable modem? Will they start charging per hour rates as they do with dial-up access? Will they aggressively roll the service out to new areas? Will they maintain decent network capacity ? Who knows? It is certainly in their best interest to not alienate the existing non-newbie cable modem subscribers, but we all know that corporations occasionally act against their own best interest.
As far as xDSL being an option: Yes and No. Here in Des Moines, I had a cable modem that was costing me roughly $40 a month. I was seeing speeds in excess of what you would get with a T1. When I moved to a different part of town, they couldn't service my area, so I got DSL. Now I pay around $60 a month for 256kbps, and am stuck behind USWEST's firewall. That's right, no incoming connections at all. Slower access, more money, and I can't telnet to my house. Not a very appealing option. Yes, it's better than a modem, but that's about all I'll say for it.
Let's hope AOL doesn't screw up a good thing here.
OK, once I put the game idea and the projector idea together, I realized how cool it would be to play Q2 on a 9 foot screen. Problem with the fresnel box is that the image would be reversed left-to-right.
Which raises the question: Has anyone tried playing Q2 or something similar using one of the conference room style projectors, such as the ones made by In-Focus? I realize image quality would not be "outstanding", but would it be "acceptable"?
Yes, I am fully aware of how much of a geek one must be to come up with such a question. The scary part is that I'm perfectly comfortable with that.:)
Although this ideas sounds a little ridiculous for playing games and such, I once had instructions for a similar contraption that could be used as a projector in a dark room.
Just add a nice psychedelic screen saver that can be triggered by your sound card and you can turn a $2000 computer into a nice little $100 "laser light show" device.:)
The explanation of how it is possible that they both invented the same Internet independently of each other is a complex one the relies on several principles of Quantum Mechanics, a rare alignment of two distant stars and our planet, and the religious theories of a race of hyper-intelligent mice living in a space station orbiting Venus.
Nowhere in the Second Ammendment does it state that the phrase "well regulated" means "controlled by the government." There is no reason whatsoever to believe that mature, responsible, patriotic citizens are incapable of regulating their own militia with no government involvement whatsoever.
That is, in fact, what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it. Remember that at the time this was written, they had just fought a war to free themselves from a tyrannical government. The Second Ammendment was written to guarantee that common citizens could defend themselves when necessary, even (especially) against their own government.
If you have an alternative interpretation, feel free to post it.
"As for the idead that some farmer with a hunting rifle could take on the US Military, that's laughable. If the military wanted to they could rather effectively control this nation as a military state, resistance aside."
No, one farmer with a hunting rifle wouldn't stand much of a chance. I don't recall making any such claim. But the entire civilian population, armed with fully-automatic assault rifles, would. History shows quite well that common folks defending their homes are among the most difficult foes to defeat. Even when fighting against better armed and better trained forces.
"What gets me is that some people care more about their stupid gun than about the lives of people."
That's a gross over-simplification of the subject. It's not my gun, in and of itself, that I care about. It's what it represents. That being my right to defend my freedom should the need arise. That need could come about in a number of ways.
It may become necessary to defend ourselves against the U.S. government itself. This, I believe, was a primary motivation for the Second Ammendment in the first place.
It may become necessary to defend ourselves against another nation's military. There are no living Americans who remember a war being fought on our own soil. We should all be VERY thankful for that. Still, there is no guarantee that it won't happen. The U.S. military is powerful, indeed, but concern over our dwindling supply of cruise missiles during some relatively minor (in comparison to a major war) skirmishes leads one to wonder if it is actually as powerful as the public is led to believe. If foreign troops come knocking on my door hoping to get a little nookie from my wife, you'd better believe I'm gonna want to have a gun on hand.
The other country doesn't use ground troops and instead just nukes us. I'm going to need to be able to defend my family and our supplies of food and water from the looters that will surely come around. Not to mention the necessity of hunting food if our transportation infrastructure is disabled.
And if any of these events come to pass, the fact that a 9mm pistol, or an AK-47, is a more efficient killing machine than a steak knife will prove very useful, indeed.
It seems that quite a few people are standing up to defend Corel on this issue and scold those who voiced disapproval when the license was released.
I completely agree that responses to such issues should be mature and diplomatic, but I strongly disagree with those who advocate remaining silent and using a "wait and see" approach.
Sure, Corel's intentions may have been benign here. That won't always be the case. The day will come, I'm sure of it, when a not-so-benign company DOES attempt to subvert the GPL and gain some control over Linux or other GPL'd code.
When that day comes, it will be important to voice objection immediately, firmly, and, yes, diplomatically. When that day comes it will be important to be prepared to pursue legal remedies, and to make that our willingness to do so is crystal clear.
So, in a nutshell, I disagreed with those who said, when the license first came out, "Leave Corel alone, I'm sure it was an honest mistake." The folks at Corel are adults, if they violate the license terms on several thousand people's code, I think a full inbox is the bare minimum they should be prepared for. And, yes, those e-mails should be mature and diplomatic, not mindless streams of profanity. But they should be sent. And I agree with those who say "OK, they fixed it, get off their back." It turned out to be an honest mistake that was quickly fixed. That's good.
But we must be prepared to stand our ground when that's not the case. We don't want to build a reputation as a bunch of profanity-spewing, immature kids, but we also don't want to give the impression that we're unprepared to stand up for ourselves.
Actually, I can resign myself to accepting that the media will report the unusual and ignore the common, even when the common is much more important. I don't like it, but I can accept it if I must.
What makes me furious is when our politicians start passing actual laws and curtailing my freedoms based on those unusual and statistically irrelevant incidents.
Another thing that makes me furious is the way stories are selected for publishing based on political agendas. How many front page stories have you seen about a person using their legally owned handgun to protect themselves and their family from a violent intruder. It doesn't get reported, but if you think that means it doesn't happen, you are fooling yourself.
Give me a city street full of pedestrians and a big-ass truck. I bet I could take quite a few of them out.
The point, as I see it, is that the pro-gun-control crowd is focusing on eliminating symptoms instead of eliminating the problem.
The REAL problem is that people are killing other people, often without any apparent reason whatsoever. Whether they do it with a gun, knife, big truck, or ballpoint pen isn't really relevant. Those are just tools, if you eliminate one, these people will find another.
In order to understand the amendment, you must first understand the definition of the word 'militia.' A militia can take many forms. The U.S. Army is a national militia. The National Guard in your state is an example of a state level militia. And if I gather a group of my friends, hold organized training sessions, develop a commands structure, etc., that is also a militia.
That last level becomes exceedingly difficult to do if my right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon.
Also consider that the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that private citizens MUST have their own organized militia at all times, it is meant to make sure that the option is available should the situation become desparate enough to necessitate it.
Are you sure? "You have a nice car" sounds more correct to me. I could be wrong, though. After all, there's 10 good years of beer drinking between me and my last English class.:)
Break the contraction apart into it's component words, and the phrase becomes "You have got mail."
The correct grammar would be "You have mail."
Actually, "You got mail" would also be correct in the right context, but not in the context of telling someone that they have mail waiting in their inbox.
Or, "You have gotten mail" could work, but again, probably not the best choice for the context they're using it in.
Any way you slice it, "You've got mail" is just plain wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Having had both DSL and cable service in the same city you are speaking of, I am very much looking forward to the day when I can ditch my DSL and get back on cable. As problematic as cable was, I can't say I've been impressed with DSL. Especially since it's costing me an extra $20 a month for a MUCH slower connection. I fully understand the theoretical advantages that DSL has over cable, but real world experience tells me that, personally, I'm much happier with cable. Even on the slowest days, my cable connection was never as slow as the maximum speed I get from DSL. (And I rarely get the top speed, since I'm WAY out from the CO, and the wiring in my part of town is pretty crappy to begin with. Not to mention the wiring in my house, I ended up running Cat5 wire from the DSL modem directly to the DMARC just to get it to connect at all.)
:)
My enthusiasm for cable would be severly dampened, however, if it meant being stuck behind a NAT. When did TCI, er, AT&T implement that? At both addresses where I had cable (I've moved around a lot this year, long story) I was definitely not behind a NAT. My current employer also uses cable for Internet access, and is perfectly accessible from outside, although that could be due to our using the "business grade" service. (As an aside: The only difference I've noticed between residential and business service is the size of the bill.
Now, if you really want to know which part of town gets screwed, it's the middle. The East side had good infrastructure in place years ago, for the reasons you mentioned and a few others. After that, it made marketing sense to roll out the west side next, since that's where the money is. Now, the "average" neighborhood I live in only got DSL a few months ago, and I just this week began to see trucks in the neighborhood beginning the cable upgrade. Inquiries indicate that I'm still 60 days away from digital cable, with cable-modem access following 60-90 days later.
I for one wouldn't shed a tear if DSL died a miserable death. In order for the Internet to complete the next phase in its evolution, we need serious bandwidth to the home, and cable is the only solution offering that at a reasonable price right now. Consumer priced DSL just isn't fast enough, although that has more to do with the telco's mentality than it does with any technical issues. Even then, cable is going to prove itself too slow as well. In the end, we're going to need fiber to every house. Wonder how long it will be until the financial incentive is there for someone to start digging?
Prove that time exists? Hmm... OK, consider the following.
:) It is the existence of time that allows me to consitently find my car without having to check each of these locations every time I need to go somewhere.
:)
:)
Without time, it is impossible to describe the location of any object. Let's use my car as an example. My car is located in the third parking space from the front door of my office. That description of location is meaningless, however, without time. 12 hours ago, that same location was an empty slab of concrete. 1000 years ago, that location was most likely a patch of prairie grass. When I get ready to go home, it is not enough to know that my car is in that location, I need to know that it is in that location at 5:00pm tonight.
12 hours ago, my car was outside my girlfriend's apartment. 6 hours ago, it was parked in my driveway. 20 minutes from now it will most likely be in a McDonald's drive-thru.
Now, I like my girlfriend and enjoy spending time with her. My car makes it much easier and faster to get to where she is. I believe I've demonstrated pretty well that finding my car relies heavily on the existence of time. Therefore, if you want me to accept the idea that time does not exist, along with the resulting negative impact on my sex life, I'm going to need some VERY solid proof indeed.
OK, so that doesn't actually PROVE the existence of time. That's OK, I'd say that given the wide acceptance of the idea that time exists, the burden of proof in this matter falls on the shoulders of the "time doesn't exist" crowd.
He did earn a doctorate from the University of Zurich.
:)
That'll teach me to try and be a smart ass before I've had my coffee.
From which school did Einstein earn his PhD?
:)
Not saying this guy isn't a crackpot, I just think that giving him that label due to the lack of a PhD is taking the easy way out.
"Time was not measured before the Earth and the Milky Way galaxy existed, so time never really existed then, and it doesn't now."
:)
How exactly does the failure of the human race to measure and categorize something constitute proof that it doesn't exist?
By your logic, the Universe can't possibly be 12 billion years old, since we weren't around way back then to give it a name.
I also see no way to conclusively determine that time was not measured before the Earth and Milky Way existed. Certainly not measured by humans, but that does not prove, in and of itself, that it was not being measured.
"Now for time, that doesn't exist either. How do we measure time? In minutes, hours, days, months, and years."
How do we measure distance? In inches, feet, yards, and miles. Or in millimeters, centimeters, meters, kilometers. Or in light years, parsecs, astronomical units, the list goes on. These units of measurement, just like our units for time, are simply a convenient way for our human minds to think of these concepts. Whether or not we have applied labels to something has no impact whatsoever on whether or not it exists.
Although, your logic could save us a tremendous amount of time and effort on SETI and the space program in general. If we simply define anything we don't know about as not existing, we can safely abandon these programs and reclaim our rightful place as the "center of the Universe."
"If a man is alone in the forest and says something and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Let me check with my girlfriend and get back to you on that.
"So, your problem updating the driver came from installing NT within VMware. That's an implemtation issue with VMware, not NT."
No, it's not an implementation issue with VMware. It's an implementation issue with his firewall. When you install NT within VMware on Linux, the NT installation gets a different IP than the Linux installation. This is, IMO, neither good nor bad, it's just the way they do it. The problem, in his situation, is that his firewall allows or denies access based on IP address, and the IP used by his NT/VMware installation does not have access through the firewall.
So, this is not a Linux problem, this is not an NT problem, and this is not a VMware problem. It is simply another case of one specific configuration not working in one specific environment. Happens all the time, it does not necessarily indicate a problem with any of the components involved.
Now, the REAL problem here, again IMO, is that MS has decided that it is more "user friendly" to install patches and upgrades through a browser than it is to download a file and do it the "old fashioned" way. The old way worked fine, yet MS felt the need to screw with it.
OK, since I've said what I meant to say, and feel myself quickly sinking into rant mode, I'll just end this right here.
Well, I consider myself a pro, and I've worked in large computing facilities. My Buck utility knife is one of my most valued tools. It's not a replacement for a complete toolset, but it is certainly more convenient to carry around, and has saved me countless hours that would have otherwise been spent walking across campus to retrieve my tools.
Put one in your pocket for awhile, you'll be amazed at how many uses these things have.
Why must they necessarily be broken up by product?
In my mind, the best way to proceed would be to split them into three companies, each taking the code for ALL Microsoft products with them. Evenly divide the cash and senior executives between the new entities.
This way they are all on equal footing and must actually COMPETE with each other. Isn't competition what the whole thing was about in the first place?
"I don't think you can really look at scientists as a monolithic group who would be better off if they all focused on one problem at a time."
Absolutely not. The sharing of information between scientific disciplines is one of the main factors responsible for the rate at which our knowledge is advancing.
If all scientists were to focus in on one single issue, the solution would be found later, not sooner.
At least that's how it seems to me...
One almost has to assume that AOL's motive for this is to have a broadband channel for delivering AOL content. The content is, after all, the business that they are in. I doubt that simply becoming a broadband ISP, offering raw internet connectivity, is what they are really after.
So this brings up a lot of possibilities. Will they force AOL content down your throat if you want a cable modem? Will they start charging per hour rates as they do with dial-up access? Will they aggressively roll the service out to new areas? Will they maintain decent network capacity ? Who knows? It is certainly in their best interest to not alienate the existing non-newbie cable modem subscribers, but we all know that corporations occasionally act against their own best interest.
As far as xDSL being an option: Yes and No. Here in Des Moines, I had a cable modem that was costing me roughly $40 a month. I was seeing speeds in excess of what you would get with a T1. When I moved to a different part of town, they couldn't service my area, so I got DSL. Now I pay around $60 a month for 256kbps, and am stuck behind USWEST's firewall. That's right, no incoming connections at all. Slower access, more money, and I can't telnet to my house. Not a very appealing option. Yes, it's better than a modem, but that's about all I'll say for it.
Let's hope AOL doesn't screw up a good thing here.
I think we need a moderation category for "Beowulf Reference."
:)
The only thing I can't decide is if it should be +1 or -1.
OK, once I put the game idea and the projector idea together, I realized how cool it would be to play Q2 on a 9 foot screen. Problem with the fresnel box is that the image would be reversed left-to-right.
:)
Which raises the question: Has anyone tried playing Q2 or something similar using one of the conference room style projectors, such as the ones made by In-Focus? I realize image quality would not be "outstanding", but would it be "acceptable"?
Yes, I am fully aware of how much of a geek one must be to come up with such a question. The scary part is that I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
Although this ideas sounds a little ridiculous for playing games and such, I once had instructions for a similar contraption that could be used as a projector in a dark room.
:)
Just add a nice psychedelic screen saver that can be triggered by your sound card and you can turn a $2000 computer into a nice little $100 "laser light show" device.
"Of course not.. It was Al Gore. ;)"
:)
Some would claim it was Bill Gates.
Actually, it was both.
The explanation of how it is possible that they both invented the same Internet independently of each other is a complex one the relies on several principles of Quantum Mechanics, a rare alignment of two distant stars and our planet, and the religious theories of a race of hyper-intelligent mice living in a space station orbiting Venus.
But trust me, it's the truth.
here.
I will refuse with my last dying breath to EVER call a "directory" a "folder." :)
No, I'm not illiterate. Far from it.
Nowhere in the Second Ammendment does it state that the phrase "well regulated" means "controlled by the government." There is no reason whatsoever to believe that mature, responsible, patriotic citizens are incapable of regulating their own militia with no government involvement whatsoever.
That is, in fact, what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it. Remember that at the time this was written, they had just fought a war to free themselves from a tyrannical government. The Second Ammendment was written to guarantee that common citizens could defend themselves when necessary, even (especially) against their own government.
If you have an alternative interpretation, feel free to post it.
"As for the idead that some farmer with a hunting rifle could take on the US Military, that's laughable. If the military wanted to they could rather effectively control this nation as a military state, resistance aside."
No, one farmer with a hunting rifle wouldn't stand much of a chance. I don't recall making any such claim. But the entire civilian population, armed with fully-automatic assault rifles, would. History shows quite well that common folks defending their homes are among the most difficult foes to defeat. Even when fighting against better armed and better trained forces.
"What gets me is that some people care more about their stupid gun than about the lives of people."
That's a gross over-simplification of the subject. It's not my gun, in and of itself, that I care about. It's what it represents. That being my right to defend my freedom should the need arise. That need could come about in a number of ways.
It may become necessary to defend ourselves against the U.S. government itself. This, I believe, was a primary motivation for the Second Ammendment in the first place.
It may become necessary to defend ourselves against another nation's military. There are no living Americans who remember a war being fought on our own soil. We should all be VERY thankful for that. Still, there is no guarantee that it won't happen. The U.S. military is powerful, indeed, but concern over our dwindling supply of cruise missiles during some relatively minor (in comparison to a major war) skirmishes leads one to wonder if it is actually as powerful as the public is led to believe. If foreign troops come knocking on my door hoping to get a little nookie from my wife, you'd better believe I'm gonna want to have a gun on hand.
The other country doesn't use ground troops and instead just nukes us. I'm going to need to be able to defend my family and our supplies of food and water from the looters that will surely come around. Not to mention the necessity of hunting food if our transportation infrastructure is disabled.
And if any of these events come to pass, the fact that a 9mm pistol, or an AK-47, is a more efficient killing machine than a steak knife will prove very useful, indeed.
It seems that quite a few people are standing up to defend Corel on this issue and scold those who voiced disapproval when the license was released.
I completely agree that responses to such issues should be mature and diplomatic, but I strongly disagree with those who advocate remaining silent and using a "wait and see" approach.
Sure, Corel's intentions may have been benign here. That won't always be the case. The day will come, I'm sure of it, when a not-so-benign company DOES attempt to subvert the GPL and gain some control over Linux or other GPL'd code.
When that day comes, it will be important to voice objection immediately, firmly, and, yes, diplomatically. When that day comes it will be important to be prepared to pursue legal remedies, and to make that our willingness to do so is crystal clear.
So, in a nutshell, I disagreed with those who said, when the license first came out, "Leave Corel alone, I'm sure it was an honest mistake." The folks at Corel are adults, if they violate the license terms on several thousand people's code, I think a full inbox is the bare minimum they should be prepared for. And, yes, those e-mails should be mature and diplomatic, not mindless streams of profanity. But they should be sent. And I agree with those who say "OK, they fixed it, get off their back." It turned out to be an honest mistake that was quickly fixed. That's good.
But we must be prepared to stand our ground when that's not the case. We don't want to build a reputation as a bunch of profanity-spewing, immature kids, but we also don't want to give the impression that we're unprepared to stand up for ourselves.
Just one guys opinion.....
Actually, I can resign myself to accepting that the media will report the unusual and ignore the common, even when the common is much more important. I don't like it, but I can accept it if I must.
What makes me furious is when our politicians start passing actual laws and curtailing my freedoms based on those unusual and statistically irrelevant incidents.
Another thing that makes me furious is the way stories are selected for publishing based on political agendas. How many front page stories have you seen about a person using their legally owned handgun to protect themselves and their family from a violent intruder. It doesn't get reported, but if you think that means it doesn't happen, you are fooling yourself.
Give me a city street full of pedestrians and a big-ass truck. I bet I could take quite a few of them out.
The point, as I see it, is that the pro-gun-control crowd is focusing on eliminating symptoms instead of eliminating the problem.
The REAL problem is that people are killing other people, often without any apparent reason whatsoever. Whether they do it with a gun, knife, big truck, or ballpoint pen isn't really relevant. Those are just tools, if you eliminate one, these people will find another.
In order to understand the amendment, you must first understand the definition of the word 'militia.' A militia can take many forms. The U.S. Army is a national militia. The National Guard in your state is an example of a state level militia. And if I gather a group of my friends, hold organized training sessions, develop a commands structure, etc., that is also a militia.
That last level becomes exceedingly difficult to do if my right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon.
Also consider that the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that private citizens MUST have their own organized militia at all times, it is meant to make sure that the option is available should the situation become desparate enough to necessitate it.
Anyway, that would be my interpretation.
Are you sure? "You have a nice car" sounds more correct to me. I could be wrong, though. After all, there's 10 good years of beer drinking between me and my last English class. :)
IANAET
Break the contraction apart into it's component words, and the phrase becomes "You have got mail."
The correct grammar would be "You have mail."
Actually, "You got mail" would also be correct in the right context, but not in the context of telling someone that they have mail waiting in their inbox.
Or, "You have gotten mail" could work, but again, probably not the best choice for the context they're using it in.
Any way you slice it, "You've got mail" is just plain wrong.