The most common one being "I could care less" (oh it's possible for you to care less? so you must care a great deal then...), instead of the correct "I couldn't care less".
The correct saying is "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you".
No, it's not. If you get fooled once, it the fault of the person doing the fooling. If you're fooled twice by the same person, the fault is yours for falling for it again. Your way is completely backwards.
O.J. Simpson never had to sell himself to the corporate PHBes that control the IT department. How is "OJOS" doing these days -- has it unseated Microsoft's dominant position yet?
It's coming along, but I hear they're still looking for the killer app.
Well, you could write some software which, given the starting direction, will take the mouse movements, convert them to the correct acceleration vectors, and try to plot the airplane's course on a map. With any luck, by the end of the flight you might get it within 1000 miles of where you should be landing.
Be honest: Who would you really like to be? Linus Torvalds or Bill Gates? Would you like to be like Linus, a rich man who is loved and admired by hundreds of thousands of people? Or would you like to be like Mr. Gates, a "rich" man who cannot buy the things that really matter?
Bill is rich and is loved and admired by people as well. And what exactly are the things that matter? Are you suggesting that Mr. Torvalds *is* able to buy those things? Oh, and Michael Jackson is loved and admired by *millions* of people. Does this make him *more* worthy of your praise?
Would you like to be like Linus, a man who makes jokes that are widely repeated? Or would you like to be like Mr. Gates, a man whose voice is so scratchy that it is annoying to hear him say more than one sentence, and who is boring because he never seems to say anything unless there might be money in it?
I notice that throughout you try and depersonalize Bill Gates by calling him "Mr. Gates", but you refer to Linus Torvalds as "Linus", in an attempt to further personalize him. You also attack Bill Gates' person by saying that his voice is scratchy. If Linus Torvalds' voice were also scratchy, would you hate him? I shudder to think of what your opinion must be of Stephen Hawking!! But regardless, consider this angle: on the one hand you have Bill Gates who is quoted for his business insights and philanthropic ideas. On the other hand you have Linus Torvalds who is quoted for his jokes. Would you rather be known as a business leader or a joker? Puts a different spin on things, doesn't it? Bill Gates tells jokes as well, it's just that he doesn't have groupies that dwell on his every word. Joseph Smith is widely quoted amongst Mormons just as Linus Torvalds is widely quoted amongst Linux users.
If you have a few quirky habits, do you want to be like Alan Cox, or do you want to be like Steve Ballmer, who is widely called Monkey Boy?
Do you also make fun of Stephen Hawking and call him Wheelchair Boy? What's with the personal attacks anyway? I mean, I also laughed at Steve Ballmer's stage antics and thought them a bit excessive but you at least have to admire someone who's a billionaire and doesn't have to do those things but still gets excited enough about what he's doing that he's willing to make a fool of himself and not care that there's people like you who are going to make fun of him for that. One person's quirks make him adorable; another person's quirks make him the subject of ridicule, is that it?
Suppose Linus decides he's bored with what he's doing and wants another job? Will he need to read Monster.com? Somehow the theory in the letter is not fitting some of the facts.
Your argument is hollow. You were comparing Torvalds with Gates and Ballmer. Is this somehow suggesting that Gates and Ballmer *would* need to read Monster.com? Somehow your theory is self-contradictory.
It is necessary to be a scientist 100% of the time. [...] Love creates connections between the lover and the world. The connections create opportunities. We know love works, we just don't yet completely understand how.
Speaking of being a scientist 100% of the time, I assume you therefore have data to back your assertion that love creates "connections". What are these connections you speak of? It's a nice feel-good thing, but could you provide your scientific data from which you have drawn this conclusion?
I'm not a fan of Gates, Ballmer, nor Torvalds so it doesn't matter to me either way. But your arguments are so horribly flawed that you don't make much of a case for your position.
And now your analogy: If your 'farmer' could only make a big profit by becoming an agri-business that employed illegal migrant worker, then it would be equivalent to the discussion at hand.
How is the even remotely relevant? Does Microsoft, who makes huge profits, hire illegal workers? Hardly! Their employees are generally very well paid.
The only way to get rich is to offer something people are willing to pay for. If your product (closed or open) or service (closed or open) has value and saves or makes sometime time or money then it's something worth paying for.
If me or Billy Bob Blow over there can write a perfectly servicable software package in their spare time, and they are willing to give it away, then maybe that software package has lost its value to developers. It's done. Stick a fork in it. No one else needs to reinvent the wheel unless they're adding some serious value.
They're not displacing people of a paycheck. They're getting rid of overdone, overpriced software from the market.
If Rajit over in India can write a perfectly serviceable software package for pennies on the dollar, then maybe that development has lost its value to employers. It's done. Stick a fork in it. No one else needs to pay for employees unless they're adding some serious value.
Indian developers are not displacing people of a paycheck in North America. They're getting rid of overpriced programmers from the market.
I hate to be a party pooper (okay so I lied) but given that it's all about equalization of pressure, what's the difference, whether you go from suck to blow, or blow to suck?
It has to do with what force is acting on the gas to make it go from a pressurized area into a vacuum. Does the vacuum exert some kind of attractive force on the gas to pull it out? If so, then it would suck. Or is the force caused by the atoms of the gas colliding and pushing the other atoms away? If so, then it would blow.
Just like when you blow out a candle, the low pressure of the surrounding room doesn't magically suck the air out of you -- it is you creating a higher pressure and consequently blowing which is the cause. Technically speaking, there isn't such a thing as 'sucking' in physics. When you use a straw to sip a drink, you create a low pressure area in your mouth (and, by extension, the straw) and it's the higher pressured surroundings which pushes the drink up the straw.
Yeah, I guess so. Just sounds so unbelievable. If Fedex can't find the package, their insurance would kick in and Apple should get their money back (from a lost shipment) and credit your card for it. It still doesn't sound like it's Apple's fault because, from their standpoint, they shipped a box out to you and, until they get it back, they're right not to issue a refund.
Apple didn't screw you -- MBNA did. All Apple sees is that they shipped you a box which you agreed to pay for. Fedex is also partly to blame here -- if they don't know where it is, you could make an insurance claim as the package was likely insured for the full amount.
Your story is somewhat suspicious too. How did MBNA cancel the order? Did they contact Fedex directly and, if so, how did they know what the tracking number was? MBNA doesn't have any authority to tell Fedex not to ship you something. Did MBNA contact Apple to get the shipping information? If so, then Apple should know about the request and this might also be a possible privacy violation since you didn't authorize Apple to hand out your information.
Main Entry: monopoly Pronunciation: m&-'na-p(&-)lE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -lies Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly
Microsoft doesn't have exclusivity, nor is the PC desktop controlled by only one party. Hence, according to the technical (strict) definition of a monopoly, Microsoft isn't one. That is all I meant.
And how does the ruling you mention invalidate my argument? I said they've acquired a monopoly status despite viable competition existing. I don't need a judge's opinion to tell me how I should think, thanks. Nit-picking aside, did you have a counter-argument to make?
Microsoft isn't technically a monopoly though. Among others, there's Mac and Linux which people can migrate to. In reality, however, Microsoft has acquired a certain monopoly status simply due to user inertia. People have too much invested in their old systems and the change would be much more expensive than staying with Windows and dealing with the inevitable problems.
If everyone gets sick of all the Windows viruses and mass-migrates to Linux and Linux becomes an effective monopoly, should Linux distros be prevented from including free anti-virus or anti-spam software?
It would be more like Ford, being the only maker of automobiles, including an in-dash navigation system using their own GPS satelite network in order to kill the market for aftermarket navigation systems.
Kind of like what GM does with their OnStar system? And like every manufacturer is now doing with anti-theft devices (immobilizers, etc.)? Viruses in the Windows world is an everyday reality and this is a good step to take, just as vehicle theft is an everyday reality in the automobile world and the manufacturers have taken good steps to prevent theft.
A business shouldn't be prevented from innovating simply because of the existence of third-parties which have profited from that business's lack of innovation in a certain area. If what they're doing is really so innovative, then they should get a patent and protect their innovation and license it back to the business. That's the purpose of patents.
Slashdot Mirror
There's only one way to solve this. Let's have a Google Fight!.
The most common one being "I could care less" (oh it's possible for you to care less? so you must care a great deal then...), instead of the correct "I couldn't care less".
... and did he get a patent? :)
The correct saying is "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you".
No, it's not. If you get fooled once, it the fault of the person doing the fooling. If you're fooled twice by the same person, the fault is yours for falling for it again. Your way is completely backwards.
O.J. Simpson never had to sell himself to the corporate PHBes that control the IT department. How is "OJOS" doing these days -- has it unseated Microsoft's dominant position yet?
It's coming along, but I hear they're still looking for the killer app.
Hm... must be something funny with my machine then. Doesn't work on any browser on my system. Works great on Windows though. :)
Too bad their site doesn't display the body text in Safari. If they're a Mac site, they just *might* want to fix that one.
Well, you could write some software which, given the starting direction, will take the mouse movements, convert them to the correct acceleration vectors, and try to plot the airplane's course on a map. With any luck, by the end of the flight you might get it within 1000 miles of where you should be landing.
Unless you attached it to your head and used mouse-look in a first-person shooter.
Does this mean you already have the monitor strapped to your head?
Be honest: Who would you really like to be? Linus Torvalds or Bill Gates? Would you like to be like Linus, a rich man who is loved and admired by hundreds of thousands of people? Or would you like to be like Mr. Gates, a "rich" man who cannot buy the things that really matter?
Bill is rich and is loved and admired by people as well. And what exactly are the things that matter? Are you suggesting that Mr. Torvalds *is* able to buy those things? Oh, and Michael Jackson is loved and admired by *millions* of people. Does this make him *more* worthy of your praise?
Would you like to be like Linus, a man who makes jokes that are widely repeated? Or would you like to be like Mr. Gates, a man whose voice is so scratchy that it is annoying to hear him say more than one sentence, and who is boring because he never seems to say anything unless there might be money in it?
I notice that throughout you try and depersonalize Bill Gates by calling him "Mr. Gates", but you refer to Linus Torvalds as "Linus", in an attempt to further personalize him. You also attack Bill Gates' person by saying that his voice is scratchy. If Linus Torvalds' voice were also scratchy, would you hate him? I shudder to think of what your opinion must be of Stephen Hawking!! But regardless, consider this angle: on the one hand you have Bill Gates who is quoted for his business insights and philanthropic ideas. On the other hand you have Linus Torvalds who is quoted for his jokes. Would you rather be known as a business leader or a joker? Puts a different spin on things, doesn't it? Bill Gates tells jokes as well, it's just that he doesn't have groupies that dwell on his every word. Joseph Smith is widely quoted amongst Mormons just as Linus Torvalds is widely quoted amongst Linux users.
If you have a few quirky habits, do you want to be like Alan Cox, or do you want to be like Steve Ballmer, who is widely called Monkey Boy?
Do you also make fun of Stephen Hawking and call him Wheelchair Boy? What's with the personal attacks anyway? I mean, I also laughed at Steve Ballmer's stage antics and thought them a bit excessive but you at least have to admire someone who's a billionaire and doesn't have to do those things but still gets excited enough about what he's doing that he's willing to make a fool of himself and not care that there's people like you who are going to make fun of him for that. One person's quirks make him adorable; another person's quirks make him the subject of ridicule, is that it?
Suppose Linus decides he's bored with what he's doing and wants another job? Will he need to read Monster.com? Somehow the theory in the letter is not fitting some of the facts.
Your argument is hollow. You were comparing Torvalds with Gates and Ballmer. Is this somehow suggesting that Gates and Ballmer *would* need to read Monster.com? Somehow your theory is self-contradictory.
It is necessary to be a scientist 100% of the time. [...] Love creates connections between the lover and the world. The connections create opportunities. We know love works, we just don't yet completely understand how.
Speaking of being a scientist 100% of the time, I assume you therefore have data to back your assertion that love creates "connections". What are these connections you speak of? It's a nice feel-good thing, but could you provide your scientific data from which you have drawn this conclusion?
I'm not a fan of Gates, Ballmer, nor Torvalds so it doesn't matter to me either way. But your arguments are so horribly flawed that you don't make much of a case for your position.
And now your analogy: If your 'farmer' could only make a big profit by becoming an agri-business that employed illegal migrant worker, then it would be equivalent to the discussion at hand.
How is the even remotely relevant? Does Microsoft, who makes huge profits, hire illegal workers? Hardly! Their employees are generally very well paid.
The only way to get rich is to offer something people are willing to pay for. If your product (closed or open) or service (closed or open) has value and saves or makes sometime time or money then it's something worth paying for.
If me or Billy Bob Blow over there can write a perfectly servicable software package in their spare time, and they are willing to give it away, then maybe that software package has lost its value to developers.
It's done. Stick a fork in it. No one else needs to reinvent the wheel unless they're adding some serious value.
They're not displacing people of a paycheck. They're getting rid of overdone, overpriced software from the market.
If Rajit over in India can write a perfectly serviceable software package for pennies on the dollar, then maybe that development has lost its value to employers. It's done. Stick a fork in it. No one else needs to pay for employees unless they're adding some serious value.
Indian developers are not displacing people of a paycheck in North America. They're getting rid of overpriced programmers from the market.
I hate to be a party pooper (okay so I lied) but given that it's all about equalization of pressure, what's the difference, whether you go from suck to blow, or blow to suck?
It has to do with what force is acting on the gas to make it go from a pressurized area into a vacuum. Does the vacuum exert some kind of attractive force on the gas to pull it out? If so, then it would suck. Or is the force caused by the atoms of the gas colliding and pushing the other atoms away? If so, then it would blow.
Just like when you blow out a candle, the low pressure of the surrounding room doesn't magically suck the air out of you -- it is you creating a higher pressure and consequently blowing which is the cause. Technically speaking, there isn't such a thing as 'sucking' in physics. When you use a straw to sip a drink, you create a low pressure area in your mouth (and, by extension, the straw) and it's the higher pressured surroundings which pushes the drink up the straw.
Actually, it would blow. Common misconception, sir.
Don't forget the 1 count of child porn he pleaded guilty to. It's not just the 49 counts of redirect sites he was sentenced for.
Zero weight isn't quite the same as zero inertia. You don't see the Goodyear blimp flipping around at football games.
Wouldn't something in the air be a Supermarine?
Yeah, I guess so. Just sounds so unbelievable. If Fedex can't find the package, their insurance would kick in and Apple should get their money back (from a lost shipment) and credit your card for it. It still doesn't sound like it's Apple's fault because, from their standpoint, they shipped a box out to you and, until they get it back, they're right not to issue a refund.
This is similar to LL Bean's guarantee. Here's an article which comments on their guarantee.
Apple didn't screw you -- MBNA did. All Apple sees is that they shipped you a box which you agreed to pay for. Fedex is also partly to blame here -- if they don't know where it is, you could make an insurance claim as the package was likely insured for the full amount.
Your story is somewhat suspicious too. How did MBNA cancel the order? Did they contact Fedex directly and, if so, how did they know what the tracking number was? MBNA doesn't have any authority to tell Fedex not to ship you something. Did MBNA contact Apple to get the shipping information? If so, then Apple should know about the request and this might also be a possible privacy violation since you didn't authorize Apple to hand out your information.
Your story just doesn't sound right to me.
Since you're pulling definitions:
:)
Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: m&-'na-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
Microsoft doesn't have exclusivity, nor is the PC desktop controlled by only one party. Hence, according to the technical (strict) definition of a monopoly, Microsoft isn't one. That is all I meant.
So does that end it now?
I would say that Microsoft isn't technically a monopoly, even though it was found legally to be a monopoly. :)
And how does the ruling you mention invalidate my argument? I said they've acquired a monopoly status despite viable competition existing. I don't need a judge's opinion to tell me how I should think, thanks. Nit-picking aside, did you have a counter-argument to make?
Microsoft isn't technically a monopoly though. Among others, there's Mac and Linux which people can migrate to. In reality, however, Microsoft has acquired a certain monopoly status simply due to user inertia. People have too much invested in their old systems and the change would be much more expensive than staying with Windows and dealing with the inevitable problems.
If everyone gets sick of all the Windows viruses and mass-migrates to Linux and Linux becomes an effective monopoly, should Linux distros be prevented from including free anti-virus or anti-spam software?
It would be more like Ford, being the only maker of automobiles, including an in-dash navigation system using their own GPS satelite network in order to kill the market for aftermarket navigation systems.
Kind of like what GM does with their OnStar system? And like every manufacturer is now doing with anti-theft devices (immobilizers, etc.)? Viruses in the Windows world is an everyday reality and this is a good step to take, just as vehicle theft is an everyday reality in the automobile world and the manufacturers have taken good steps to prevent theft.
A business shouldn't be prevented from innovating simply because of the existence of third-parties which have profited from that business's lack of innovation in a certain area. If what they're doing is really so innovative, then they should get a patent and protect their innovation and license it back to the business. That's the purpose of patents.