As far as the Argonauts go, I based my comments on the Afterword of Hercules, My Shipmate, by Robert Graves. He had come to the conclusion that there was a basis of fact behind the story, and wrote a fascinating book based on the idea that all the major events of the book could have happened, although not exactly in the form we know them now. (As an example, the harpies were really carrion birds, and the queen simply told her blind husband that they were supernatural creatures.) In the case of Hercules, or Herakles (I think it's spelled) to give it the Greek form, I gather that scholars now think that there were at least a dozen different men with that name who's adventures were combined. Not sure of the exact number, or of any of the details, but that's what I've heard. Just because it's called "Greek Mythology" doesn't mean that every single one of the stories is a myth; it's just a way to lump them together in one convenient group.
Well, I thought it was interesting, considering the whole "mythical" quality of the story.
If you want to be accurate, the Trojan War is a legend, not a myth. A legend starts as a true story handed down by word of mouth, and gradually gathers additional details, incidents and other accretions before finally being written down. Behind every legend is a core of truth if you can but find it. The Voyage of the Golden Fleece, as an example, probably started out as the story of a trading and raiding expedition to the Black Sea.
A myth is an invented story created to explain how things came to be, or illustrate a moral or religious point. Thus, the myth of Persephone having to spend six months out of every year in the Underworld was an attempt to explain the changing of the seasons.
Right now, they have proof that there was software back then that could have been used in the same way as the later patent claims was original. They'd like to be able to make the stronger claim that there was software back then that was used that way. At present, Trend Micro could argue that this wasn't an intended use of the software and that just because somebody could have used it that way doesn't make it prior art. Having somebody stand up and say, "I used this software that way before the patent was filed." is much more likely to sway a non-technical jury.
I use my last name as my domain, in the form name.us. The equivalent name.com and.org were already taken, and neither.net nor.info were appropriate. Under your scheme, which of us gets the tld of.name?
Adding new TLDs increases the number of hits on the root servers, which makes those 14 machines a lot more critical, which is probably what ICANN is trying to do.
I doubt that there are only 14 machines handling all root server requests for the entire world. I'm almost certain that each IP address goes to a load-balancing machine that controls a farm of servers. As you say, this scheme would result in far more use of those servers, meaning that the farms would have to be expanded.
Yes, it will. And those legitimate domains can get themselves transferred to a new registrar. Of course, in order to do that, I'd hope that they'd have to provide proper contact details, which would sieve out all the spammers.
It's not so much trying to deflect criticism onto Clinton, it's more pointing out that Clinton, who you seem to love so much, was just as bad. It seems unfair to me to bash Bush for roughly the same things that you fine Just Fine in Clinton, if not hypocritical
I don't know why you think I brought up Clinton's time in England in an attempt to bash him. I was only pointing out that Bush wasn't the only president to avoid Vietnam, and that I, at least, have no quarrel with it in either case. Considering that I'm a 'Nam vet with Type II diabetes from Agent Orange and hearing loss from Naval Gunfire, I think I have more of a right to an opinion on that subject than most people. If I see nothing wrong with what either of them did, you can bet I'm speaking from experience.
Oh, I would be the last to say that President Bush is above reproach. I've never been the type to give anybody unreserved support, just as I'm always willing to admit it when somebody I don't like does something good. Of course, it helps that I'm not young enough to know everything.
Look, you made your mistake the first time voting for a dry-drunk you wanted to have a beer with, and the second time voting for him because you liked the bulge he had in his flight suit,
I didn't mention this before, but you are so "objective" in your attitude toward our President that you not only feel compelled to insult him, you go out of your way to be offensive and rude do me as well just because I don't join you in your three-minute hate. If this is what you consider rational debate, you either need to go back on your meds, or get them adjusted.
As far as the "draft dodging" goes, he served in the National Guard, and could have been sent to Vietnam, unlike President Clinton who also avoided the draft by going to England as a Rhodes Scholar. (Give credit where it's due; it's not easy getting a Rhodes Scholarship!) I, OTOH, served at that time in the US Navy, spending seven months in Tonkin Gulf doing shore bombardment and watching 6" shells landing off my ship's fantail. I assure you that if I could have avoided that, I would have, and see nothing wrong with either of them doing what was needed to stay away.
...but my description of the person himself was wholly accurate.
Considering that your description consisted of nothing but a series of insults, I find it hard to see how you consider it to be wholly accurate, or in the slightest bit objective. BTW, thanx for making me your foe. You've just proven my point that you are unable to be objective about this, or in all likelihood anything and I'd rather have you as a foe than a friend. In fact, I think the only honest thing for me to do now is to return the compliment.
Thank you for making my point so nicely: for people like you, it's OK to say anything bad about a politician you don't like, no matter what it is, but a politician you like can do no wrong. Have you ever considered trying to be objective?
Throwing the possibility of improper wire-taps from before 9/11, however, was Bush bashing, at least to me. It had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and I could see no reason to include it other than taking a swipe at the President of the United States of America.
You do realize, don't you, that your point number four is irrelevant? If President Bush was, in fact, doing domestic wire tapping before 9/11, those acts aren't covered by this bill. Leaving out the gratuitous Bush-bashing would have made your post more effective.
I did read it. To me it was an ignorant screed against Big Business and the Evils of Profit. To you it was a complaint about people putting profit above everything else. That's why there are elections and horse races: differences of opinion.
Because doing stuff "for the money" is damaging to society in the long run.
In that case, the only activities that aren't "damaging to society" are subsistence farming and bands of hunter-gatherers. Every business (except for non-profit corporations) is in business to make money. That's what business is for. Do you really think that you'd have computers, the Internet, radio, TV or movies if people weren't trying to make money? Please, don't be more of a fool than you have to be!
If I give you a plow, you can't use it for anything but making food.
Oh? I presume, then, that you consider cotton a food crop. I also presume that you consider flax a food crop even though its main use is being turned into linen.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the Argonauts go, I based my comments on the Afterword of Hercules, My Shipmate, by Robert Graves. He had come to the conclusion that there was a basis of fact behind the story, and wrote a fascinating book based on the idea that all the major events of the book could have happened, although not exactly in the form we know them now. (As an example, the harpies were really carrion birds, and the queen simply told her blind husband that they were supernatural creatures.) In the case of Hercules, or Herakles (I think it's spelled) to give it the Greek form, I gather that scholars now think that there were at least a dozen different men with that name who's adventures were combined. Not sure of the exact number, or of any of the details, but that's what I've heard. Just because it's called "Greek Mythology" doesn't mean that every single one of the stories is a myth; it's just a way to lump them together in one convenient group.
I don't know about Aeaea, but I do know that Mt. Olympus is a real mountain, and the highest one in Greece.
If you want to be accurate, the Trojan War is a legend, not a myth. A legend starts as a true story handed down by word of mouth, and gradually gathers additional details, incidents and other accretions before finally being written down. Behind every legend is a core of truth if you can but find it. The Voyage of the Golden Fleece, as an example, probably started out as the story of a trading and raiding expedition to the Black Sea.
A myth is an invented story created to explain how things came to be, or illustrate a moral or religious point. Thus, the myth of Persephone having to spend six months out of every year in the Underworld was an attempt to explain the changing of the seasons.
Yes, it would be, Mr. vonLipwig. Would you care to discuss it with my assiciate, Mr. Gryle?
Right now, they have proof that there was software back then that could have been used in the same way as the later patent claims was original. They'd like to be able to make the stronger claim that there was software back then that was used that way. At present, Trend Micro could argue that this wasn't an intended use of the software and that just because somebody could have used it that way doesn't make it prior art. Having somebody stand up and say, "I used this software that way before the patent was filed." is much more likely to sway a non-technical jury.
"Yes. In life, they were all nuns, and they all have shotguns."
I use my last name as my domain, in the form name.us. The equivalent name.com and .org were already taken, and neither .net nor .info were appropriate. Under your scheme, which of us gets the tld of .name?
Long ago I bought some pirate software, but it didn't work. For some reason, there was 12.5% missing.
I doubt that there are only 14 machines handling all root server requests for the entire world. I'm almost certain that each IP address goes to a load-balancing machine that controls a farm of servers. As you say, this scheme would result in far more use of those servers, meaning that the farms would have to be expanded.
If nothing else, a 160 character limit would make the binary groups rather pointless. Of course, I don't see that as a problem.
Yes, it will. And those legitimate domains can get themselves transferred to a new registrar. Of course, in order to do that, I'd hope that they'd have to provide proper contact details, which would sieve out all the spammers.
It's not so much trying to deflect criticism onto Clinton, it's more pointing out that Clinton, who you seem to love so much, was just as bad. It seems unfair to me to bash Bush for roughly the same things that you fine Just Fine in Clinton, if not hypocritical
I don't know why you think I brought up Clinton's time in England in an attempt to bash him. I was only pointing out that Bush wasn't the only president to avoid Vietnam, and that I, at least, have no quarrel with it in either case. Considering that I'm a 'Nam vet with Type II diabetes from Agent Orange and hearing loss from Naval Gunfire, I think I have more of a right to an opinion on that subject than most people. If I see nothing wrong with what either of them did, you can bet I'm speaking from experience.
Oh, I would be the last to say that President Bush is above reproach. I've never been the type to give anybody unreserved support, just as I'm always willing to admit it when somebody I don't like does something good. Of course, it helps that I'm not young enough to know everything.
I didn't mention this before, but you are so "objective" in your attitude toward our President that you not only feel compelled to insult him, you go out of your way to be offensive and rude do me as well just because I don't join you in your three-minute hate. If this is what you consider rational debate, you either need to go back on your meds, or get them adjusted.
As far as the "draft dodging" goes, he served in the National Guard, and could have been sent to Vietnam, unlike President Clinton who also avoided the draft by going to England as a Rhodes Scholar. (Give credit where it's due; it's not easy getting a Rhodes Scholarship!) I, OTOH, served at that time in the US Navy, spending seven months in Tonkin Gulf doing shore bombardment and watching 6" shells landing off my ship's fantail. I assure you that if I could have avoided that, I would have, and see nothing wrong with either of them doing what was needed to stay away.
Considering that your description consisted of nothing but a series of insults, I find it hard to see how you consider it to be wholly accurate, or in the slightest bit objective. BTW, thanx for making me your foe. You've just proven my point that you are unable to be objective about this, or in all likelihood anything and I'd rather have you as a foe than a friend. In fact, I think the only honest thing for me to do now is to return the compliment.
Thank you for making my point so nicely: for people like you, it's OK to say anything bad about a politician you don't like, no matter what it is, but a politician you like can do no wrong. Have you ever considered trying to be objective?
No thanks! I don't know where that cigar had been!
There: fixed it for you.
Throwing the possibility of improper wire-taps from before 9/11, however, was Bush bashing, at least to me. It had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and I could see no reason to include it other than taking a swipe at the President of the United States of America.
You do realize, don't you, that your point number four is irrelevant? If President Bush was, in fact, doing domestic wire tapping before 9/11, those acts aren't covered by this bill. Leaving out the gratuitous Bush-bashing would have made your post more effective.
I did read it. To me it was an ignorant screed against Big Business and the Evils of Profit. To you it was a complaint about people putting profit above everything else. That's why there are elections and horse races: differences of opinion.
In that case, the only activities that aren't "damaging to society" are subsistence farming and bands of hunter-gatherers. Every business (except for non-profit corporations) is in business to make money. That's what business is for. Do you really think that you'd have computers, the Internet, radio, TV or movies if people weren't trying to make money? Please, don't be more of a fool than you have to be!
If you really want to make an end to it, remember: Down, not across when it comes time to slit your wrists.
Oh? I presume, then, that you consider cotton a food crop. I also presume that you consider flax a food crop even though its main use is being turned into linen.