no, healthcare is a huge problem, starvation is a huge problem, genocide is a huge problem, education is a huge problem, violence against women is a huge problem, violence in the middle east is a huge problem...
piracy is, for the most part, the concern of a super rich few. There are better things to be concerned about than wether or not Jack Valenti will be able to afford another house because some college student downloaded a movie.
I don't pirate movies or songs either and I don't condone those actions, but Jack is just a rich guy trying to get richer by manipulating laws, plain and simple. If you drop the price to a reasonable level, the black market will disappear.
A more rational reply may be to say that the initial training is a one time cost to convert all a complany's forms. You have a limited number of people in large corporations generating forms, the rest just tab from block to block and once you train your current staff to use the new icon on the desktop all the new hires are either going to get trainging anyway or are hired because they already know it. You could likely even keep a license for your form makers and then convert all their MS Office files to whatever was needed.
Where MS does have an arguement is small business. Many small business owners cannot afford to hire a competent IT staff. It is about total value, you're right about that, but don't be so short term, look down the road, past that initial change over for a large corp, what's your cost analysis then?
The one thing that incites me to "road rage" is the mf'ers in the "passing lane" who aren't passing anybody, just cruising. There is a special PLACE IN HELL for ppl who drive slow in the left lane.
Ever seen a State Trooper cruising along in the passing lane doing about 35 in a 65? THAT is what drives me insane. Are they just trying to see who has the balls to pass them or something? WTF?
I recently passed a trooper who was doing just that and 30 seconds later he hit his lights and pulled me over! Fucking asshole. No ticket though, but he did call two canine units to search my vehicle (yes, I do look like a long haired hippy and no, after 45 minutes he didn't find anything but one pissed off citizen).
I notice a break in my shoe store logic with your statement
Similarly, there wouldn't have been a question had these ads been purchased by companies that had a fair-use right to use the term, AXA. Such as an Independant Insurance Broker that sells AXA as one choice among many.
so I'm not replying to myself, only clarifying my point;^)
the point is still that we all know you are searching for insurance. Is it wrong of Google to point out competition? Suppose you had no knowledge of any insurance companies, but a friend had told you about AXA. You search with the term 'AXA' and Google gives you AXA's site along with ads for several other insurance companies. Has Google done a disservice to AXA? Or is it more helpful to the consumer for Google to list other relavent information concerning the search. If the person is looking specifically for AXA they will find it and it's not likely they will confuse the ads for XYZ Assurance with AXA Assuance. At least, in my opinion, which admittedly, doesn't count for much, even around here much less a French court.
I understand what you are saying (I think), but my rather long-winded question was "should it matter?" Should Google have to pretend they don't know what AXA's business is?
When I go to buy a pair of shoes and I want Nike and I ask the store clerk for Nike should the store then hide all other types of shoes and make no reference to any other brand for fear Nike can sue them if they do?
I think the answer is 'no' because normally what happens no matter what brand you ask for is you are also told about other brands that may be on sale. In your example of the adword "Chevrolet", it's obvious to everyone that "Chevrolet" is a car and I don't see a problem with listing other car brands. I'm sure there would be a way to get around the selling of the actual term "Chevrolet", they could just have a list of all car manufacturers and if any one of them is searched for you get the same ads you would if you just searched for 'car'.
I can see a good arguement for each side. It's not a simple question.
Google sold the non-dictionary term AXA to competitors of AXA
Did they? Here is what I see happening: Google sells advertisement and (BrandA) has a (typeofproduct) that many companies buy Google's ads for. Now, Google is well within their rights to sell ads so that when someone searches for (typeofproduct) they may find not only (BrandA)'s ad but also (BrandB - Z). If the search had been for '(BrandA) + (typeofproduct)' there would be no problem because, as has been pointed out, this happens all the time in advertising.
The problem occurs when the search is for (BrandA) and nothing else, especially if (BrandA) is a trademarked term not used in any other form. This seems to allow (BrandB - Z) to cash in on (BrandA)'s name recognition buy purchasing ads to be displayed on the search for (BrandA). Allowing someone to purchase an ad based on the search for someone else's trademark does seem like a questionable tactic, especially if (BrandA) doesn't have an ad (they may be forced to purchase an ad they otherwise would not have or lose business).
But we all know that (BrandA) sells (typeofproduct), so really, the question is can Google show ads based on (typeofproduct) that (BrandA) sells when someone does a search with the single term '(BrandA)'? It seems silly to me to ask Google to pretend they don't know (BrandA) is selling (typeofproduct) when everyone else knows this.
In my mind, all that is happening is Google see's you're looking for a particular brand of product and they provide relavent links, but also they are saying "Well, I happen to know that (BrandA) sells (typeofproduct), here is a list of other people who sell (typeofproduct)." When you walk into a store and ask for "(BrandA)'s (typeofproduct)" is the clerk supposed to ignore all knowledge of (BrandB - Z) if he doesn't have (BrandA) in stock?
opening a new tab and typing the url in manually sorta works. The site will open, but firefox seems to choke on the video's for a little bit. It does load that way, but then I get to see all the other errors, great.
That online users avatar list is going to get REAL big REAL soon. Do you think a few thousand/.'ers logging in at the same time might cause a problem? We should test it out for them.
Firefox.8, no nightly, just the last big release on winxp pro. If I right-click the Channel 9 link and choose 'open link in new tab' firefox dies. I get 'not responding' from task mgr and my only choice is to kill firefox.
I can't get far enough to figure out what's happening, but it appears to try to open another browser window, like one of those horrible full-screen flash ads, but I don't have flash installed.
I guess thinking people might actually buy that is your april fools joke?
That/. folk would buy that I did pull the joke or that the people bringing in bags were actually fooled? Either way, it's a very old joke and yes, many of the people in my office did buy it and tried to make excuses for why they did so. Whether or not you believe me is of very little concern. It's funny to me anyway.
because otherwise you're just lame. Anyway, I did a variation of this joke on my users. Here is the email I sent out yesterday 15 minutes before leaving:
Tomorrow night our network and phone system will be "cleaned". This will be done by forcing air through the wiring to blow out any debris that may be blocking the system from functioning correctly. Please help us out by brining in a small plastic sandwich bag in the morning. These bags will be placed over your headsets to prevent the dust and debris from covering your work area. Leaving the mess for the cleaning crew, as you know, may not do much good.
Thank you for your cooperation.
---
Hetairoi IT Systems Admin
As they arrived to work with their bags I asked them to come into my office. Once there I had them hold up their baggie and stand in front of a sign that read "Happy April Fools" and took a pic:)
Over half brought bags and only about 6 actually knew it was a joke. One person thought something was up and asked me about it yesterday before I left, I spat out a bunch of nonsense and protocols and his eye's just glazed over. He brought a bag. My fav was the manager, who didn't even read my email, but was told to bring a bag and did so. She has vowed revenge:)
When, not if, when SCO loses it's case against IBM and finally stops flailing around then linux (and all free software) will have moved into attack positions. How many pointy-haired bosses and small business owners watched those IBM commercials during the superbowl and began to think "if IBM is doing it..." and how many decision makers are looking at companies moving to free alternatives and saving money like AutoZone? It doesn't matter where linux came from or whether it's just a toy OS, large and small companies alike are using it successfully and they are saving money. This is reality. Right now it's just a small pebble at the top of a snow-capped mountain, picking up a bit of snow and rolling forward. Gaining momentum.
It's not about linux or copyrights. It's about information. Computer code (even the OS) is just information, it's not a product. To make it a product you must artificially control distribution. Information cannot be controlled.
For linux and free software to win, they only need to be allowed to play. If SCO wins this case they will put a major roadblock in the way of allowing the use of free software. But if SCO loses, then free software has it's foot in the door and momentum is already pressing hard to push the masses past the doorframe.
Free software, if allowed to grow, will change the business landscape. It will do what the DOJ could not, turn Microsoft into a services company. When free software becomes a major part of the business world and open source programmers are being paid to contribute their service of information to the industry, Microsoft will have no choice but to change (if they want to continue to compete). They will be forced to write software that interacts with free alternatives and more and more people will realize they have a choice in what OS their computer runs. Many may still want to run Windows for the same reason many choose AOL as an ISP, convenience. Having everything in front of you with simple wizards explaining all of it is a convenient service that many will pay for. But only if Microsoft can stay ahead of the alternative, only if they can provide some service that is not found in other software, only if they can compete with others on a level field.
Maybe one day we can look back at this case and say "this is where we turned the corner, this is where we toppled the greed of those who want to hoard information for their own benefit, this is where the river started flowing, a river where anyone can cup their hands and take a drink."
I'm I the only one that thinks it's funny that the miserable failure search has a sponsered link to a search engine optimization consultant? That is an OUTSTANDINGLY insane use of marketing.
I'd have to rate Meaning of Life first, Life of Brian second. Only because of the tiger scene. Also, the sex lesson scene was pretty good. And the scripture reading scene ("Oh Lord, please don't burn us"). I think "Every sperm is sacred" scene is pretty funny too("Couldn't you have your balls cut off?"). And now that I think about it, the death scene was funny too ("It's a Mr. Death, says he's hear about the reaping"). And how could you say the "Crimson Permanent Assurance" bit wasn't funny ("People aren't wearing enough hats")?
Ok, now that I think about it, I pretty much like every scene in every Python movie or show ever done. I AM A HUGE DORK.
This is all just my utterly pointless opinion. Except for the huge dork comment, that has been independently confirmed.
I agree that there should be a better way to fix this problem. I also agree that putting the 'spam' button next to the 'delete' button was a poor design idea. I myself have made the mistake of highlighting the wrong email and marking it as spam. Yes, I am an AOL user (have been for more than a decade, I have my reasons and will explain if asked nicely, but that's not my point here).
However, having seen the evolution of AOL mail over a long period of time I have to say it's getting much better. Each new version offers better control, better filtering and more ease of use. It's not perfect, but they are working to make it as good as possible. I am hopeful that the next version of AOL will allow the user to UNMARK spam that was mistakenly marked. I also think they could use statistics to see if the same people are marking confirmation emails as spam over and over. It should be possible to block a domain for one user, but not all. So if I deciede that I don't want any email from @whatever.com AOL blocks that for me, but not for everyone else.
AOL does have a whitelist feature, which is nice, but not helpful in this situation. AOL also has a large amount of unsavy computer users, but that's why they exist, as a convenience for people that don't want or need to learn how to setup an internet connection or install and configure an email client and browser. They provide, at a premium cost, a conventient package where everything is already setup and right in front of you. They are not perfect, they are not for everyone, but they are getting better with each new version. It really seems that they are doing much more than any other ISP to curb the spam problem they have, it's rocking the boat right now for some people, but hopefully it can be fixed. AOL is learning how to deal with large amounts of spam, it's not going to be solved all at once, but it's moving in the right direction.
The amount of AOL bashing going on here is silly and childish (not the parent post, he seems to be dealing as best he can). If you have no business with AOL, block them. But if you would like to do business with the millions of users with large amounts of disposable income AOL has, then you're just going to have to learn to deal with them somehow. I don't particularly enjoy removing spyware and virus' from the same users computer over and over, but their money spends just the same.
"If you are thinking about working in the law of free software, and gosh, I hope you are, one of the things you might want to be thinking about working on is the software conservation trusts that are going to be growing up around this economy in the next five years. I'll help you make one, or you can come to work in one of mine. We're going to need to spend a lot of time doing work which is associated with trustees. We're going to be spending a lot of time making sure that things are put together and they are built well. And we are going to be doing that on behalf of a third-party insurance industry which is going to be growing up, is growing up before our very eyes now, which is learning that it really cares how the free software is assembled."
Re:When you write a kernel the world can use...
on
Linus on Linux in 1994
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is a huge overlap between the occult interstellar sci-fi wackos who include an interplanetary cultural viewpoint in everything they do and the Springer crowd
It was a generalization, get over it.
a dot in some haze holds about as much impact as the ascii jokes posted here
Your right about that, what I took issue with was the comment 'it's just another manifestation of mathematics.' What meringuoid seems to be saying is 'if you can only prove it with math it's not real to me' which is utterly ridiculous. I hated math as much as the next guy, but to say it's insignificant seems, to me, to be an extreme view and I'm sure some of the more profound math folk around here would agree with me.
If ignoring math and science is your thing, fine, I've got no problem with that, but don't get upset when I say I disagree with you.
then it's just another manifestation of mathematics.
No, seriously, turn it your geek badge now. And take that patch off your jacket. If you can't see the significance and 'cultural impact' of taking a look at ourselves from another planet then I think you lean more to the side of our culture that watches Jerry Springer, certainly not the 'news for nerds' side.
Re:Patriot missile -- really a "failure"
on
Can Software Kill?
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
piracy is a huge problem
...
no, healthcare is a huge problem, starvation is a huge problem, genocide is a huge problem, education is a huge problem, violence against women is a huge problem, violence in the middle east is a huge problem
piracy is, for the most part, the concern of a super rich few. There are better things to be concerned about than wether or not Jack Valenti will be able to afford another house because some college student downloaded a movie.
I don't pirate movies or songs either and I don't condone those actions, but Jack is just a rich guy trying to get richer by manipulating laws, plain and simple. If you drop the price to a reasonable level, the black market will disappear.
A more rational reply may be to say that the initial training is a one time cost to convert all a complany's forms. You have a limited number of people in large corporations generating forms, the rest just tab from block to block and once you train your current staff to use the new icon on the desktop all the new hires are either going to get trainging anyway or are hired because they already know it. You could likely even keep a license for your form makers and then convert all their MS Office files to whatever was needed.
Where MS does have an arguement is small business. Many small business owners cannot afford to hire a competent IT staff. It is about total value, you're right about that, but don't be so short term, look down the road, past that initial change over for a large corp, what's your cost analysis then?
Win2k Pro only needs a Pent 133 or compatible processor and 64mb of ram, plus 650mb of drive space. See here
XP will run on a 233 with 64mb ram (see here
Granted, they will be slow, but that's minimum. Also, I'll point out that you can get refurb 450mhz 128mb ram machines for less than $100.
see The Software Patch
The one thing that incites me to "road rage" is the mf'ers in the "passing lane" who aren't passing anybody, just cruising. There is a special PLACE IN HELL for ppl who drive slow in the left lane.
Ever seen a State Trooper cruising along in the passing lane doing about 35 in a 65? THAT is what drives me insane. Are they just trying to see who has the balls to pass them or something? WTF?
I recently passed a trooper who was doing just that and 30 seconds later he hit his lights and pulled me over! Fucking asshole. No ticket though, but he did call two canine units to search my vehicle (yes, I do look like a long haired hippy and no, after 45 minutes he didn't find anything but one pissed off citizen).
Allegedly it will be in XP SP2, released in the summer.
I also understand that, allegedly, XP sp2 will make your penis larger and end world hunger.
I notice a break in my shoe store logic with your statement
;^)
Similarly, there wouldn't have been a question had these ads been purchased by companies that had a fair-use right to use the term, AXA. Such as an Independant Insurance Broker that sells AXA as one choice among many.
so I'm not replying to myself, only clarifying my point
the point is still that we all know you are searching for insurance. Is it wrong of Google to point out competition? Suppose you had no knowledge of any insurance companies, but a friend had told you about AXA. You search with the term 'AXA' and Google gives you AXA's site along with ads for several other insurance companies. Has Google done a disservice to AXA? Or is it more helpful to the consumer for Google to list other relavent information concerning the search. If the person is looking specifically for AXA they will find it and it's not likely they will confuse the ads for XYZ Assurance with AXA Assuance. At least, in my opinion, which admittedly, doesn't count for much, even around here much less a French court.
I understand what you are saying (I think), but my rather long-winded question was "should it matter?" Should Google have to pretend they don't know what AXA's business is?
When I go to buy a pair of shoes and I want Nike and I ask the store clerk for Nike should the store then hide all other types of shoes and make no reference to any other brand for fear Nike can sue them if they do?
I think the answer is 'no' because normally what happens no matter what brand you ask for is you are also told about other brands that may be on sale. In your example of the adword "Chevrolet", it's obvious to everyone that "Chevrolet" is a car and I don't see a problem with listing other car brands. I'm sure there would be a way to get around the selling of the actual term "Chevrolet", they could just have a list of all car manufacturers and if any one of them is searched for you get the same ads you would if you just searched for 'car'.
I can see a good arguement for each side. It's not a simple question.
Google sold the non-dictionary term AXA to competitors of AXA
Did they? Here is what I see happening: Google sells advertisement and (BrandA) has a (typeofproduct) that many companies buy Google's ads for. Now, Google is well within their rights to sell ads so that when someone searches for (typeofproduct) they may find not only (BrandA)'s ad but also (BrandB - Z). If the search had been for '(BrandA) + (typeofproduct)' there would be no problem because, as has been pointed out, this happens all the time in advertising.
The problem occurs when the search is for (BrandA) and nothing else, especially if (BrandA) is a trademarked term not used in any other form. This seems to allow (BrandB - Z) to cash in on (BrandA)'s name recognition buy purchasing ads to be displayed on the search for (BrandA). Allowing someone to purchase an ad based on the search for someone else's trademark does seem like a questionable tactic, especially if (BrandA) doesn't have an ad (they may be forced to purchase an ad they otherwise would not have or lose business).
But we all know that (BrandA) sells (typeofproduct), so really, the question is can Google show ads based on (typeofproduct) that (BrandA) sells when someone does a search with the single term '(BrandA)'? It seems silly to me to ask Google to pretend they don't know (BrandA) is selling (typeofproduct) when everyone else knows this.
In my mind, all that is happening is Google see's you're looking for a particular brand of product and they provide relavent links, but also they are saying "Well, I happen to know that (BrandA) sells (typeofproduct), here is a list of other people who sell (typeofproduct)." When you walk into a store and ask for "(BrandA)'s (typeofproduct)" is the clerk supposed to ignore all knowledge of (BrandB - Z) if he doesn't have (BrandA) in stock?
opening a new tab and typing the url in manually sorta works. The site will open, but firefox seems to choke on the video's for a little bit. It does load that way, but then I get to see all the other errors, great.
/.'ers logging in at the same time might cause a problem? We should test it out for them.
That online users avatar list is going to get REAL big REAL soon. Do you think a few thousand
And yes, I am talking to myself.
Firefox .8, no nightly, just the last big release on winxp pro. If I right-click the Channel 9 link and choose 'open link in new tab' firefox dies. I get 'not responding' from task mgr and my only choice is to kill firefox.
I can't get far enough to figure out what's happening, but it appears to try to open another browser window, like one of those horrible full-screen flash ads, but I don't have flash installed.
I give up, maybe it's slashdotted.
I guess thinking people might actually buy that is your april fools joke?
/. folk would buy that I did pull the joke or that the people bringing in bags were actually fooled? Either way, it's a very old joke and yes, many of the people in my office did buy it and tried to make excuses for why they did so. Whether or not you believe me is of very little concern. It's funny to me anyway.
That
As they arrived to work with their bags I asked them to come into my office. Once there I had them hold up their baggie and stand in front of a sign that read "Happy April Fools" and took a pic
Over half brought bags and only about 6 actually knew it was a joke. One person thought something was up and asked me about it yesterday before I left, I spat out a bunch of nonsense and protocols and his eye's just glazed over. He brought a bag. My fav was the manager, who didn't even read my email, but was told to bring a bag and did so. She has vowed revenge
When, not if, when SCO loses it's case against IBM and finally stops flailing around then linux (and all free software) will have moved into attack positions. How many pointy-haired bosses and small business owners watched those IBM commercials during the superbowl and began to think "if IBM is doing it ..." and how many decision makers are looking at companies moving to free alternatives and saving money like AutoZone? It doesn't matter where linux came from or whether it's just a toy OS, large and small companies alike are using it successfully and they are saving money. This is reality. Right now it's just a small pebble at the top of a snow-capped mountain, picking up a bit of snow and rolling forward. Gaining momentum.
It's not about linux or copyrights. It's about information. Computer code (even the OS) is just information, it's not a product. To make it a product you must artificially control distribution. Information cannot be controlled.
For linux and free software to win, they only need to be allowed to play. If SCO wins this case they will put a major roadblock in the way of allowing the use of free software. But if SCO loses, then free software has it's foot in the door and momentum is already pressing hard to push the masses past the doorframe.
Free software, if allowed to grow, will change the business landscape. It will do what the DOJ could not, turn Microsoft into a services company. When free software becomes a major part of the business world and open source programmers are being paid to contribute their service of information to the industry, Microsoft will have no choice but to change (if they want to continue to compete). They will be forced to write software that interacts with free alternatives and more and more people will realize they have a choice in what OS their computer runs. Many may still want to run Windows for the same reason many choose AOL as an ISP, convenience. Having everything in front of you with simple wizards explaining all of it is a convenient service that many will pay for. But only if Microsoft can stay ahead of the alternative, only if they can provide some service that is not found in other software, only if they can compete with others on a level field.
Maybe one day we can look back at this case and say "this is where we turned the corner, this is where we toppled the greed of those who want to hoard information for their own benefit, this is where the river started flowing, a river where anyone can cup their hands and take a drink."
Amber4ever
I'm I the only one that thinks it's funny that the miserable failure search has a sponsered link to a search engine optimization consultant? That is an OUTSTANDINGLY insane use of marketing.
I'd have to rate Meaning of Life first, Life of Brian second. Only because of the tiger scene. Also, the sex lesson scene was pretty good. And the scripture reading scene ("Oh Lord, please don't burn us"). I think "Every sperm is sacred" scene is pretty funny too("Couldn't you have your balls cut off?"). And now that I think about it, the death scene was funny too ("It's a Mr. Death, says he's hear about the reaping"). And how could you say the "Crimson Permanent Assurance" bit wasn't funny ("People aren't wearing enough hats")?
Ok, now that I think about it, I pretty much like every scene in every Python movie or show ever done. I AM A HUGE DORK.
This is all just my utterly pointless opinion. Except for the huge dork comment, that has been independently confirmed.
You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
Hey, YOU cued it up, don't look at me like that.
I agree that there should be a better way to fix this problem. I also agree that putting the 'spam' button next to the 'delete' button was a poor design idea. I myself have made the mistake of highlighting the wrong email and marking it as spam. Yes, I am an AOL user (have been for more than a decade, I have my reasons and will explain if asked nicely, but that's not my point here).
However, having seen the evolution of AOL mail over a long period of time I have to say it's getting much better. Each new version offers better control, better filtering and more ease of use. It's not perfect, but they are working to make it as good as possible. I am hopeful that the next version of AOL will allow the user to UNMARK spam that was mistakenly marked. I also think they could use statistics to see if the same people are marking confirmation emails as spam over and over. It should be possible to block a domain for one user, but not all. So if I deciede that I don't want any email from @whatever.com AOL blocks that for me, but not for everyone else.
AOL does have a whitelist feature, which is nice, but not helpful in this situation. AOL also has a large amount of unsavy computer users, but that's why they exist, as a convenience for people that don't want or need to learn how to setup an internet connection or install and configure an email client and browser. They provide, at a premium cost, a conventient package where everything is already setup and right in front of you. They are not perfect, they are not for everyone, but they are getting better with each new version. It really seems that they are doing much more than any other ISP to curb the spam problem they have, it's rocking the boat right now for some people, but hopefully it can be fixed. AOL is learning how to deal with large amounts of spam, it's not going to be solved all at once, but it's moving in the right direction.
The amount of AOL bashing going on here is silly and childish (not the parent post, he seems to be dealing as best he can). If you have no business with AOL, block them. But if you would like to do business with the millions of users with large amounts of disposable income AOL has, then you're just going to have to learn to deal with them somehow. I don't particularly enjoy removing spyware and virus' from the same users computer over and over, but their money spends just the same.
Oh man, I had forgotten about AllAdvantage. They had the greatest business model EVAR!
... for the consumer anyway.
Well
in his speec at Harvard awhile back.
Full text here
"If you are thinking about working in the law of free software, and gosh, I hope you are, one of the things you might want to be thinking about working on is the software conservation trusts that are going to be growing up around this economy in the next five years. I'll help you make one, or you can come to work in one of mine. We're going to need to spend a lot of time doing work which is associated with trustees. We're going to be spending a lot of time making sure that things are put together and they are built well. And we are going to be doing that on behalf of a third-party insurance industry which is going to be growing up, is growing up before our very eyes now, which is learning that it really cares how the free software is assembled."
Yeah, who would want to use an OS with source code that was laced with profanity?
There is a huge overlap between the occult interstellar sci-fi wackos who include an interplanetary cultural viewpoint in everything they do and the Springer crowd
It was a generalization, get over it.
a dot in some haze holds about as much impact as the ascii jokes posted here
Your right about that, what I took issue with was the comment 'it's just another manifestation of mathematics.' What meringuoid seems to be saying is 'if you can only prove it with math it's not real to me' which is utterly ridiculous. I hated math as much as the next guy, but to say it's insignificant seems, to me, to be an extreme view and I'm sure some of the more profound math folk around here would agree with me.
If ignoring math and science is your thing, fine, I've got no problem with that, but don't get upset when I say I disagree with you.
then it's just another manifestation of mathematics.
No, seriously, turn it your geek badge now. And take that patch off your jacket. If you can't see the significance and 'cultural impact' of taking a look at ourselves from another planet then I think you lean more to the side of our culture that watches Jerry Springer, certainly not the 'news for nerds' side.
it's the clueless software guys at Raytheon
Which was actually my point.