only portable storage formats that have ever taken off are ones that are either open or easily licensable.
Yeah, those SyQuest drives, which were neither open, licensable, nor cheap REALLY suffered in the market, didn't they... it's not like they became a standard used by advertising agencies, magazines, and television stations (some of which are still using them) or anything.... oh, wait...
Also my email address will be @aol.com so forget about geting my real name as a username. I'll end up as like JoeSmi543879879@aol.com. Hows that for professionalism? Much better than Joe.Smith@turner.com! (not my real email btw!)
But you DO get five screen names! You can be JoeSmi543879879@aol.com for internal email, thatguyjoeatturner@aol.com for external customers, momslittleangeljoe@aol.com to your mom, homerworks@aol.com for that Simpson's listserv, and teengurl69@aol.com for those chat rooms. It's the perfect corporate system!:)
For those that lack a sarcasm detector, this is humor.
Second of all, for all the second amendment proponents who believe that it exists to prevent the government from becoming too powerful- that is a sham and a lie. There is absolutely no way in hell that even incredibly well armed miltias could oppose the military and political power of the US government.
You seem to think these two concepts are mutually exclusive. I think the historical record on the meaning and use of the 2nd ammendment are rather clear. The fact that any militia attempting to fight the US Army would get it's ass handed to it (without the support of it's local national guard, that is) is immaterial.
Just because the government has usurped more and more power from the people who it obstensibly serves does not change the laws as written 200 years ago.
However, I've not yet seen the film, so I can't make a complete judgement on it. My assessment of the film, however, is that it will be another bomb. Might be entertaining, in it's own special way. *shrug*
There's not "own special way" about it--the movie sucks. But it's like The Blues Brothers in the way it sucks--the movie is so bad, it's good. It's actually a bit witty, and never, ever takes itself seriously. When we saw it on friday night, my girlfriend asked, "Do we want to leave now, or should we wait a few minutes?" during the opening Queen scene. By the end of the movie, we and the other couple we saw it with, agreed that it was actually a decent flick. (Of course, it helped that we kept the theater going with MST3K-like commentary...:)
He said: The United States and thousands of miles of coast line, most of which is totaly undefended. Substances move through our interior with virtualy no check on them
And then you said: Excuse me? No check? Have you had your vehicle taken apart lately crossing the border just because they heard a report of a vehicle similar to yours that could have possibly been trafficing drugs? Do you cross a border patrol checkpoint on a daily basis where they check every car for... guess what? Drugs! (and illegal aliens). I don't know where you live, but I live less than a half an hour away from the US/Mexican Border. I see firsthand this "virtually no check".
Perhaps if you had bothered to actually read the comment in question before firing off a kneejerk response, you'd realize that there are, in fact, no border patrol checkpoints in the INTERIOR of the US--those being at the border, of all places. If you read his comment again, perhaps you will find it to be quite insightful.
If you were to actually meet the people who have written this music, and tour the country playing just to make money to put food on their family's plates, would you fess up to doing this? Would you tell them: "No, I didn't buy I your CD. I downloaded it off Napster. I didn't even have to pay for it."
No, I wouldn't tell them that. I would almost certainly tell them one of the following:
A) "I downloaded your CD off of Napter--You guys rock, I went out and bought a copy the next day!
or
B) "I downloaded your CD off of Napster--Aside from that single you guys have that's on the radio 50,000 times a day, you guys suck. I got rid of it faster than you can say "cookie cutter boy band".
Of course, that's just me--I buy CDs--if they're actually worth it
As for MFN, I thought that was on the block but barely missed-- I had heard discussions that some in Congress were quite relieved that we left it at annual review in face of this. Got a link? Always glad to be corrected.
Read this story at Yahoo! News which references it. If you'd like, I'll dig back further and find stories from when PNTR was approved, but it seems unnneccessary. What some in congress are discussing is the reverse--suspension of PNTR, and a return to the yearly vote.
I have no desire to debate any of your points, especially those that relate to the recognition of china, but I feel it neccessary to point out the following two corrections:
(3) the fallout this will have on Favored Nations trading status for China. The Congress could still wimp out and give MFN again, but I'm hoping they'll stop kowtowing to the Great Bear here.
1. There is no "giving MFN again" anymore. Under Clinton, China was granted Permenant Normal Trading Relations. There is no more annual vote in congress.
2. The "Great Bear" is Russia, not China. China is (if you care to make such references) the Dragon.
On second thought, I couldn't sue Monsanto, unless it was their field could I. I mean, Monsanto wouldn't be responsible for contaminating my field if they just sold the seed to a neighboring farmer. I would have to sue my neighbor
Have you been following the cases where people are suing the gun industry for crimes committed by others with their legal products?
Umm, the government is paid for by the people's taxes, everyone hired there is a paid government employee, so how is it not the government?
Because, as the article made perfectly clear, it's a private school. No one there is a paid government employee.
Re:outlook is actually pretty horrible....
on
Bad News from Yahoo
·
· Score: 2
Are you sure that is 2 billion in cash, or is it 2 billion that they spent for other stocks?
According to the AP story I read on Yahoo finance (I know, I know... take it with a grain of salt if you want, but it's still an AP story) it's 2 billion in cash, which they plan on using to weather the next few years of breaking even and moderate losses (their words.)
Re:outlook is actually pretty horrible....
on
Bad News from Yahoo
·
· Score: 2
Today's poster child, Yahoo, is a great example. It was probably a completely sustainable business if built the normal way (reinvestment of revenue), but their vast debt load will likely destroy them
The only problem with this statement is Yahoo HAS no debt, and in fact has $2,000,000,000 (that's Billion) in the bank.
Not to say that the rest of your comment wasn't on target, but I think Yahoo is actually one of the few dotcoms that has been run with a real world economic mindset--let's face it, how many other dotcoms have turned a profit at ALL?
Actors and Artists are typically in the Democratic camp, while Recording and Movie Executives are typically in the Republican camp. I say typically; there are obvious exceptions, such as Actor turned President Ronald Reagan.
Your typical example does hold in the case of Ronald Reagan (as well as, for example, Charleton Heston) as they WERE democrats until the 1970s. As Reagan put it: I didn't leave the democratic party--the democratic party left me.
You do realize that Bill Clinton holds the record for the most troops deployed during his term as President - right?
Uhh, you do realize that distinction is held by FDR or Truman--right? I mean there is a slight difference between the brushfire wars Clinton has prosecuted and the largest armed conflict in human history.
Patents apply to a way of doing something, no matter how it is implimented.
This is patently (ahem) absurd. I'm amazed you were modded up as high as you were, but that statement is just plain bullshit. You cannot patent an idea merely a specific implementation of the idea. An example would be the revolving cylinder repeating firearm, invented by Sam Colt. The grant of patent most certainly did not give Colt the right to sue anyone else trying to market a gun that did not need to be reloaded after every shot. Witness the slide action (aka pump), lever action, bolt action, gatling gun, blowback action, etc.
The patent applied to the revloving cylinder. And not just ANY revolving cylinder, but Colt's specific mechanical device (you could, for example, build the better mousetrap, as long as you did not infringe on Colt's patent doing so--i.e. refining it and claming it as your own is right out.)
If I build a mechanical machine to decode LZW I've violated the LZW patent even though (to my knowlege) LZW has currently only been implimented in software
I have not read the LZW patent, but I'm tempted to believe the patented piece of technology is the LZW algorythm, which it would be neccessary to duplicate in order to decode the data. There's just no getting around that.
For the record, I live in Canada. I don't have to prove my point; Janet Reno has already pointed out that Chicago and Toronto, two very similar (in population, area, and climate) cities, have very disproportionate homicide rates: Toronto in a bad year might have 75... Chicago has 1000.
It's interesting to note that Chicago, IL, has some of the STRONGEST gun control laws in the entire united states of america (being surpassed only by Washington D.C., another high crime area) and, in fact, handguns are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL inside the city limits. One could therefore reasonably conclude that the law has little, if nothing, to do with the rate of homicides in Chicago. This truly begs the question: if the laws do no good, why did you pass them? Why would you not repeal them? Why should law abiding citizens lose their right to self-defense, when the criminals can carry any weapon they choose to? The very phrase has become cliche, and is oft derided, but the simple logic is hard to escape: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
As for the part about the guns, you bloody well know what I meant
Yes, I did, and I am sorry for the heavily sarcastic response. It just pushes my buttons to demonize an inaminate object (despite what some folks would have you believe, guns do not possess the force of will) that over 80,000,000 people in the US use legally, without harming anyone. I'm sorry to have vented on you.
Knowingly distributing software to do that is like owning a gun shop; a customer comes in and asks which gun and which bullet type go through flesh the best and cause the most damage. Selling the gun to them is illegal because you know they're going to use it to commit a crime.
Yeah, it's not like people lawfully use guns for self-defense, and want the most effective weapon they can get for the money. Perish THAT thought, anyone who cares about ballistics, velocity, energy transfer, or anything else "technical" about the round MUST be a criminal, right?
Re:Obvious Question: Who read the EULA?
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 2
"Here is where you sign your life away, just scroll down and click "I accept""
Mine is generally (when doing NT installs) "Hit F8 to give your firstborn to Uncle Bill.":)
{soapbox mode on}If we would pay more attention to what the document actually says, the feds would not own us to the extent that they do. I could go on and on about this, but Washington has no business doing most of the things that it now does, and the Fouding Fathers of this nation never intended that the present abuses of power that are the norm these days would never occur.
Correction. The founders CERTAINLY foresaw the current abuses, and the Constitution was an effort to mitigate them. Jefferson, Franklin, and others had some choice quotes on the subject. It is ironic that the courts pervert the Constitution to reach the ends of the people that appointed them. (Honestly, who could EVER construe the 2nd ammendment as being a right reserved to the STATES?)
Well, the United States Supreme Court has issued their unanimous ruling. They've ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, meaning that Bush is the winner. What's interesting here is that inadverently, GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government.
I know it's en vogue on slashdot not to actually READ the linked story before commenting, but I'd have hoped the slashdot staff was above that. Apparently not. All this opinion says is, in essence, "We don't know why you did what you did. Please explain."
This is HARDLY a "transfer of power" from the states to the Federal government.
um, that weapon does not look loaded to me - so to a person who is somewhat clueful about guns, this picture is not nearly as comical as a clueless person would guess -
Rule 1: ALL weapons are loaded. Even if you just checked. Even if the mag well is empty. Even if you're holding the firing pin in your HAND. ALL weapons are presumed loaded and ready to fire. Personally, I go out of the way to make sure I never point any of my firearms at my head. Don't you?
Let's think about that for a minute. $70k for 70 hours per week, that would be $40k for for a 40 hour per week job
Actually, your math is a little on the LOW side. The 40k/yr job, if appropriately compensated (i.e. overtime) would pay $85k, not 70. In other words, it's even worse than you're saying.
Hmmmmm, and where is freedom from religion spelled out in our country's constitution or laws? Or did you just make that one up.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, those SyQuest drives, which were neither open, licensable, nor cheap REALLY suffered in the market, didn't they... it's not like they became a standard used by advertising agencies, magazines, and television stations (some of which are still using them) or anything.... oh, wait...
But you DO get five screen names! You can be JoeSmi543879879@aol.com for internal email, thatguyjoeatturner@aol.com for external customers, momslittleangeljoe@aol.com to your mom, homerworks@aol.com for that Simpson's listserv, and teengurl69@aol.com for those chat rooms. It's the perfect corporate system! :)
For those that lack a sarcasm detector, this is humor.
You seem to think these two concepts are mutually exclusive. I think the historical record on the meaning and use of the 2nd ammendment are rather clear. The fact that any militia attempting to fight the US Army would get it's ass handed to it (without the support of it's local national guard, that is) is immaterial.
Just because the government has usurped more and more power from the people who it obstensibly serves does not change the laws as written 200 years ago.
There's not "own special way" about it--the movie sucks. But it's like The Blues Brothers in the way it sucks--the movie is so bad, it's good. It's actually a bit witty, and never, ever takes itself seriously. When we saw it on friday night, my girlfriend asked, "Do we want to leave now, or should we wait a few minutes?" during the opening Queen scene. By the end of the movie, we and the other couple we saw it with, agreed that it was actually a decent flick. (Of course, it helped that we kept the theater going with MST3K-like commentary... :)
YMMV
And then you said: Excuse me? No check? Have you had your vehicle taken apart lately crossing the border just because they heard a report of a vehicle similar to yours that could have possibly been trafficing drugs? Do you cross a border patrol checkpoint on a daily basis where they check every car for... guess what? Drugs! (and illegal aliens). I don't know where you live, but I live less than a half an hour away from the US/Mexican Border. I see firsthand this "virtually no check".
Perhaps if you had bothered to actually read the comment in question before firing off a kneejerk response, you'd realize that there are, in fact, no border patrol checkpoints in the INTERIOR of the US--those being at the border, of all places. If you read his comment again, perhaps you will find it to be quite insightful.
No, I wouldn't tell them that. I would almost certainly tell them one of the following:
A) "I downloaded your CD off of Napter--You guys rock, I went out and bought a copy the next day!
or
B) "I downloaded your CD off of Napster--Aside from that single you guys have that's on the radio 50,000 times a day, you guys suck. I got rid of it faster than you can say "cookie cutter boy band".
Of course, that's just me--I buy CDs--if they're actually worth it
Read this story at Yahoo! News which references it. If you'd like, I'll dig back further and find stories from when PNTR was approved, but it seems unnneccessary. What some in congress are discussing is the reverse--suspension of PNTR, and a return to the yearly vote.
(3) the fallout this will have on Favored Nations trading status for China. The Congress could still wimp out and give MFN again, but I'm hoping they'll stop kowtowing to the Great Bear here.
1. There is no "giving MFN again" anymore. Under Clinton, China was granted Permenant Normal Trading Relations. There is no more annual vote in congress.
2. The "Great Bear" is Russia, not China. China is (if you care to make such references) the Dragon.
Have you been following the cases where people are suing the gun industry for crimes committed by others with their legal products?
Because, as the article made perfectly clear, it's a private school. No one there is a paid government employee.
According to the AP story I read on Yahoo finance (I know, I know... take it with a grain of salt if you want, but it's still an AP story) it's 2 billion in cash, which they plan on using to weather the next few years of breaking even and moderate losses (their words.)
The only problem with this statement is Yahoo HAS no debt, and in fact has $2,000,000,000 (that's Billion) in the bank.
Not to say that the rest of your comment wasn't on target, but I think Yahoo is actually one of the few dotcoms that has been run with a real world economic mindset--let's face it, how many other dotcoms have turned a profit at ALL?
Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
What's your point? Redhat and VA Linux are both inherently non-profit making. :)
Your typical example does hold in the case of Ronald Reagan (as well as, for example, Charleton Heston) as they WERE democrats until the 1970s. As Reagan put it: I didn't leave the democratic party--the democratic party left me.
Food for through, neh?
Uhh, you do realize that distinction is held by FDR or Truman--right? I mean there is a slight difference between the brushfire wars Clinton has prosecuted and the largest armed conflict in human history.
This is patently (ahem) absurd. I'm amazed you were modded up as high as you were, but that statement is just plain bullshit. You cannot patent an idea merely a specific implementation of the idea. An example would be the revolving cylinder repeating firearm, invented by Sam Colt. The grant of patent most certainly did not give Colt the right to sue anyone else trying to market a gun that did not need to be reloaded after every shot. Witness the slide action (aka pump), lever action, bolt action, gatling gun, blowback action, etc.
The patent applied to the revloving cylinder. And not just ANY revolving cylinder, but Colt's specific mechanical device (you could, for example, build the better mousetrap, as long as you did not infringe on Colt's patent doing so--i.e. refining it and claming it as your own is right out.)
If I build a mechanical machine to decode LZW I've violated the LZW patent even though (to my knowlege) LZW has currently only been implimented in software
I have not read the LZW patent, but I'm tempted to believe the patented piece of technology is the LZW algorythm, which it would be neccessary to duplicate in order to decode the data. There's just no getting around that.
It's interesting to note that Chicago, IL, has some of the STRONGEST gun control laws in the entire united states of america (being surpassed only by Washington D.C., another high crime area) and, in fact, handguns are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL inside the city limits. One could therefore reasonably conclude that the law has little, if nothing, to do with the rate of homicides in Chicago. This truly begs the question: if the laws do no good, why did you pass them? Why would you not repeal them? Why should law abiding citizens lose their right to self-defense, when the criminals can carry any weapon they choose to? The very phrase has become cliche, and is oft derided, but the simple logic is hard to escape: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
As for the part about the guns, you bloody well know what I meant
Yes, I did, and I am sorry for the heavily sarcastic response. It just pushes my buttons to demonize an inaminate object (despite what some folks would have you believe, guns do not possess the force of will) that over 80,000,000 people in the US use legally, without harming anyone. I'm sorry to have vented on you.
Yeah, it's not like people lawfully use guns for self-defense, and want the most effective weapon they can get for the money. Perish THAT thought, anyone who cares about ballistics, velocity, energy transfer, or anything else "technical" about the round MUST be a criminal, right?
Mine is generally (when doing NT installs) "Hit F8 to give your firstborn to Uncle Bill." :)
Correction. The founders CERTAINLY foresaw the current abuses, and the Constitution was an effort to mitigate them. Jefferson, Franklin, and others had some choice quotes on the subject. It is ironic that the courts pervert the Constitution to reach the ends of the people that appointed them. (Honestly, who could EVER construe the 2nd ammendment as being a right reserved to the STATES?)
I know it's en vogue on slashdot not to actually READ the linked story before commenting, but I'd have hoped the slashdot staff was above that. Apparently not. All this opinion says is, in essence, "We don't know why you did what you did. Please explain." This is HARDLY a "transfer of power" from the states to the Federal government.
Rule 1: ALL weapons are loaded. Even if you just checked. Even if the mag well is empty. Even if you're holding the firing pin in your HAND. ALL weapons are presumed loaded and ready to fire. Personally, I go out of the way to make sure I never point any of my firearms at my head. Don't you?
Actually, your math is a little on the LOW side. The 40k/yr job, if appropriately compensated (i.e. overtime) would pay $85k, not 70. In other words, it's even worse than you're saying.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Not clear enough for you?
Actually, the one that got me was something along the lines of "Dude, that musta been some like major magical experiment gone wrong or something!"
*sigh*