I guess its too hard to look at the menu... pretty much every restraunt I've been at advertises that they sell Coke or Pepsi products. If it isn't explictly speeled out, you could always look to see if they have Sprit or 7up, which will tell you as well. Failing that you could, you know, ask politely if they serve Coke or Pepsi.
FWIW, I've never gotten a Dr. Pepper asking for a coke...
For instance, many times somebody will say, "Do you wnt a coke?" when they mean, "do you want a soda."
I've never, ever heard anyone say that and mean soda. At most, its a coke flavored soda, which brings it down to Pepsi vs. Coke. I've heard pop used before, but only in Rochester NY. Jeep to most people I know refers to an actual Jeep (either modern or the army brand from Vietnam). So a 4x4 pickup truck or SUV doesn't fit the bill there.
You obviously aren't from the North East US.
As far as your advertisement theory goes, it doesn't work like that. If google loses its meaning and comes to mean 'search on the internet' that in no way means that people WILL use google to search; they could use anything else.
I haven't heard of anyone using the term 'Xerox' to refer to making a copy. I know it used to be, but certainly in my lifetime I've heard everyone say copier / make a copy.
Don't the restraunts in the south post what brand they have? Usually you can also tell; if they have sprirt, they have coke.. if they have 7up, its pepsi.
Its not as much of a moot point as you think; if the waiters are always hearing people want Pepsi, they may tell management that people are asking for Pepsi specifically. They may even change... which is probably the reason Pepsi doesn't want Coke to lose thier TM.
I think they only have to actively defend it... which means that anyone getting such a letter could likely be sued if they continue to treat google as a generic term.
Kleenex and Jello still have their names... but that's why you start seeing 'Jello brand gelleten' on the box... to remind you its a brand name.
Or, option three, outsouce the job completely to a country that wouldn't even consider using a safer saw.
Although I think your first two are options as well, you forget that not only do employers pay higher cost, if someone does get injured, they pay for the medical expenses related to the injury, likely for the life of the employee.
Because it will be forced to be implemented in all American manufacturing companies, which will raise prices of American goods even more, and push yet more jobs off-shore where they won't implement these measures.
Just to make it clear, I'm all for making things safer where theres a way. I think 'fair trade' should include provisions to make products more expensive if they are made in countries that do not have similar safety and workers rights law. Unfortunately we'll likely have to end up giving everything we worked for in regards to workers rights and safe work places to continue to compete in the 'global marketplace.'
From my understanding, this isn't something Linux does either (drivers aka kernel modules) run in Kernel space too.
Which '2 modes' are you refering to? As far as backward compatibility goes, making it so that every piece of software needs to be rewritten (and many companies are using older software where the vendor doesn't exist) is simply not reasonable. Linux never did this either; they moved to ELF, but to this day it can support A.out binaries as well..
I completely agree that a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. But the moment that a person increases the likelyhood that they may kill another person (drunk driving, etc.), then it's no longer an individual right, is it?
No one said it should be legal to drive under the influence of any drug, did they? Its also questionable violating someones rights because you feel it may increase the likely hood that someone is killed. People should be punished for actual harm caused, not harm that may never come to pass.
Acutally, yes, alcohol does bother me in this sense. I consider alcohol and drugs to be exactly equivalent in this issue.
I see, so when you say ban drugs, you include alcohol. Nevermind the problems it would cause, and nevermind it wouldn't solve the original problem to begin with.
In what way did I describe the victim's appearance, demeanor, or background in this hypothetical situation? I did not describe any such thing. What you imagined was merely an emotional reaction to my question that you simply didn't have the wherewithal to ignore, or even recognize. The only modifier I used to describe the victim was "innocent", and that was only done to indicate that this person had no involvement with the consumption of the intoxicating substance.
Please, that's what you're aiming for. There's no logic to your statement, since you're trying to use fear to get others to agree with you; the fear the "OMG someone might get hurt!" Let me make this clear: there's no reason to use a hypothetical situtation at all when trying to make your case. The reason is that you cannot know the future, you cannot say for certain that action A will cause B.
You claim to care about innocent people; yet your bans cause more innocent people to die (because legislating behavioral bans leads to black markets) than would be if it were legalized. You never attempt to explain the logic behind that, because there is none. With bans, you have people still driving under the influence of drugs, and you have many more innocent people shot because the market the provides drugs is illegal (but never stops existing).
That's certainly a convincing argument for the legalization of drugs. I bet you just got a lot more people behind you.
It wasn't an argument for the legalizatin of drug use, nor an attempt to get anyone on my side. It was my plea to remove yourself from this world, so that we don't have to deal with the consequences of your 'logic.' You see a problem (which is likely not even a very large one), want to deal with it by stripping people of their rights even when its evident your 'solution' doesn't do anything to solve the original problem and causes other problems which are magnitudes worse.
Try this, For example: alcohol --> intoxication --> accident --> death of innocent bystander.
Trying to ban alcohol too? No? Drop dead.
The fact that someone might be hurt by your actions does not mean those actions can reasonably be taken away. Drug use (just like alcohol use) does not mean people will start being slaughtered in the street by people who are doped up, anymore than alcohol. Might as well ban hammers too, since they COULD hurt someone.
1) Rewrite your kernel structure - nothing but absolutely necessary modules and drivers get access, everything else should run separately. No unecessary hooks, APIs and other nonsense. If this breaks the way certain applications function, too bad. Programmers and devs can learn to deal just like they deal with other crap, and maybe this will encourage them to stop being so damned lazy when it comes to their code.
This sounds like what they are doing...
2) Get rid of that stupid Registry, which is nothing but a tangled mess of exploits, vulnerabilities, insecurity and the cause of numerous BSODs. Not to mention confusion, because you need a freaking college degree to even understand what it does. Hell, even seasoned programmers seem to have trouble dealing with that thing! Even by your OWN programmers, MS; witness the unecessary garbage left behind by your own application installers!
Huh? There's only one part of the registry that will launch applications.. mostly its just a configuration store. As far as leaving garbage behind, that's the fault of the software vendors; they write the installers.
3) Rewrite your file system, and the way your file/folder structure is laid out. Programs should not have writable access to the Program Files, Windows, etc folders outside of installation and patching. Operating System files should be checked during boot, during access, and during shutdown to determine if they were modified. Compare them to a valid (encrypted) checksum of what they should be compared to what they actually are. Refuse to let them run if invalid. All other data, etc should be contained within some sort of userland directory structure, that is walled off from the core OS structure. Programs should not require Administrator level access to install or run. The OS should be a platform to make a computer and its hardware function, not serve as an easy way for lazy or malicious programmers to make 3rd-Party Program X do whatever it feels like doing (3rd-party programs installed to userland should not be able to install any modified OS files whatsoever). Programs that are not drivers, should not be allowed to install at the driver level. If BSD, Unix, Linux, etc can do it, why can't you?
What? You might as well claim that no one should be able to write to/bin or/usr in the unix world. Clearly admins are, as the good old 'rm -rf/' will delete everything, and without warning I might add. They don't need to rewrite the filesystem just to make PF and Windows locked down; running Windows with proper permissions will acomplish the same thing.
I don't think so; cancer, by definition, is uncontrolled cell division. So it could regrow the hand, but it wouldn't stop.. (assuming you could get it to be hand cells).
If everyone else decides to jump off a cliff, I expect you to be right there with them.
Wow, incredibly stupid. Equating something as trivial as top posting vs. bottom posting with killing yourself. You really do need a life, big time.
Because it disrupts the flow of conversation!
False. Interchanging the two is what disrupted the flow (although I must say I had no problem figuring out which statements were your responses).
Oh, a message board post is NOT the same as email. To be really really technical, there's not much of a reason to quote, since in a message board such as/. the original is always there for you to see.
I keep all my emails, yet my checkbook and marriage are not disorganized messes. I track my finances very carefully (hmm... i keep all my reciepts to do that) and my marriage is fine.
The analogy the article uses sucks too; keeping email is not the same as keeping real mail, because emails take up no physical space and are easily seached by pretty much all email clients.
Outlook 2k3 has this as well; its a feature called search folders.
I must say I actually like it, after hating it for all the previous versions. Of course when my jobs required me to use Notes and an old version of Groupwise, it could just be I've seen how bad it could get:-) Of course KMail had started to piss me off as well, with random corrupt index files and other flakyness.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I should have scrolled down just a bit more before posting.. :-)
I guess its too hard to look at the menu... pretty much every restraunt I've been at advertises that they sell Coke or Pepsi products. If it isn't explictly speeled out, you could always look to see if they have Sprit or 7up, which will tell you as well. Failing that you could, you know, ask politely if they serve Coke or Pepsi.
FWIW, I've never gotten a Dr. Pepper asking for a coke...
For instance, many times somebody will say, "Do you wnt a coke?" when they mean, "do you want a soda."
I've never, ever heard anyone say that and mean soda. At most, its a coke flavored soda, which brings it down to Pepsi vs. Coke. I've heard pop used before, but only in Rochester NY. Jeep to most people I know refers to an actual Jeep (either modern or the army brand from Vietnam). So a 4x4 pickup truck or SUV doesn't fit the bill there.
You obviously aren't from the North East US.
As far as your advertisement theory goes, it doesn't work like that. If google loses its meaning and comes to mean 'search on the internet' that in no way means that people WILL use google to search; they could use anything else.
I haven't heard of anyone using the term 'Xerox' to refer to making a copy. I know it used to be, but certainly in my lifetime I've heard everyone say copier / make a copy.
Odd, here we say 'soda' when we don't want to imply any particular brand / flavor.
Don't the restraunts in the south post what brand they have? Usually you can also tell; if they have sprirt, they have coke.. if they have 7up, its pepsi.
Its not as much of a moot point as you think; if the waiters are always hearing people want Pepsi, they may tell management that people are asking for Pepsi specifically. They may even change... which is probably the reason Pepsi doesn't want Coke to lose thier TM.
Asprin IS a generic term though.. its the generic name of the drug, and I don't think it was ever a brand name.
Indeed, my bottle of Exedrin lists Asprin as one of the ingrediants.
I think they only have to actively defend it... which means that anyone getting such a letter could likely be sued if they continue to treat google as a generic term.
Kleenex and Jello still have their names... but that's why you start seeing 'Jello brand gelleten' on the box... to remind you its a brand name.
Or, option three, outsouce the job completely to a country that wouldn't even consider using a safer saw.
Although I think your first two are options as well, you forget that not only do employers pay higher cost, if someone does get injured, they pay for the medical expenses related to the injury, likely for the life of the employee.
Because it will be forced to be implemented in all American manufacturing companies, which will raise prices of American goods even more, and push yet more jobs off-shore where they won't implement these measures.
Just to make it clear, I'm all for making things safer where theres a way. I think 'fair trade' should include provisions to make products more expensive if they are made in countries that do not have similar safety and workers rights law. Unfortunately we'll likely have to end up giving everything we worked for in regards to workers rights and safe work places to continue to compete in the 'global marketplace.'
From my understanding, this isn't something Linux does either (drivers aka kernel modules) run in Kernel space too.
Which '2 modes' are you refering to? As far as backward compatibility goes, making it so that every piece of software needs to be rewritten (and many companies are using older software where the vendor doesn't exist) is simply not reasonable. Linux never did this either; they moved to ELF, but to this day it can support A.out binaries as well..
You can't change the default, but changing the sort order to desc is as easy as clicking the column header once...
Also, if you create a search folder (Outlook 2k3), it WILL remember whatever sort you last put on the folder.
I completely agree that a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. But the moment that a person increases the likelyhood that they may kill another person (drunk driving, etc.), then it's no longer an individual right, is it?
No one said it should be legal to drive under the influence of any drug, did they? Its also questionable violating someones rights because you feel it may increase the likely hood that someone is killed. People should be punished for actual harm caused, not harm that may never come to pass.
Acutally, yes, alcohol does bother me in this sense. I consider alcohol and drugs to be exactly equivalent in this issue.
I see, so when you say ban drugs, you include alcohol. Nevermind the problems it would cause, and nevermind it wouldn't solve the original problem to begin with.
In what way did I describe the victim's appearance, demeanor, or background in this hypothetical situation? I did not describe any such thing. What you imagined was merely an emotional reaction to my question that you simply didn't have the wherewithal to ignore, or even recognize. The only modifier I used to describe the victim was "innocent", and that was only done to indicate that this person had no involvement with the consumption of the intoxicating substance.
Please, that's what you're aiming for. There's no logic to your statement, since you're trying to use fear to get others to agree with you; the fear the "OMG someone might get hurt!" Let me make this clear: there's no reason to use a hypothetical situtation at all when trying to make your case. The reason is that you cannot know the future, you cannot say for certain that action A will cause B.
You claim to care about innocent people; yet your bans cause more innocent people to die (because legislating behavioral bans leads to black markets) than would be if it were legalized. You never attempt to explain the logic behind that, because there is none. With bans, you have people still driving under the influence of drugs, and you have many more innocent people shot because the market the provides drugs is illegal (but never stops existing).
That's certainly a convincing argument for the legalization of drugs. I bet you just got a lot more people behind you.
It wasn't an argument for the legalizatin of drug use, nor an attempt to get anyone on my side. It was my plea to remove yourself from this world, so that we don't have to deal with the consequences of your 'logic.' You see a problem (which is likely not even a very large one), want to deal with it by stripping people of their rights even when its evident your 'solution' doesn't do anything to solve the original problem and causes other problems which are magnitudes worse.
Try this, For example: alcohol --> intoxication --> accident --> death of innocent bystander.
Trying to ban alcohol too? No? Drop dead.
The fact that someone might be hurt by your actions does not mean those actions can reasonably be taken away. Drug use (just like alcohol use) does not mean people will start being slaughtered in the street by people who are doped up, anymore than alcohol. Might as well ban hammers too, since they COULD hurt someone.
1) Rewrite your kernel structure - nothing but absolutely necessary modules and drivers get access, everything else should run separately. No unecessary hooks, APIs and other nonsense. If this breaks the way certain applications function, too bad. Programmers and devs can learn to deal just like they deal with other crap, and maybe this will encourage them to stop being so damned lazy when it comes to their code.
/bin or /usr in the unix world. Clearly admins are, as the good old 'rm -rf /' will delete everything, and without warning I might add. They don't need to rewrite the filesystem just to make PF and Windows locked down; running Windows with proper permissions will acomplish the same thing.
This sounds like what they are doing...
2) Get rid of that stupid Registry, which is nothing but a tangled mess of exploits, vulnerabilities, insecurity and the cause of numerous BSODs. Not to mention confusion, because you need a freaking college degree to even understand what it does. Hell, even seasoned programmers seem to have trouble dealing with that thing! Even by your OWN programmers, MS; witness the unecessary garbage left behind by your own application installers!
Huh? There's only one part of the registry that will launch applications.. mostly its just a configuration store. As far as leaving garbage behind, that's the fault of the software vendors; they write the installers.
3) Rewrite your file system, and the way your file/folder structure is laid out. Programs should not have writable access to the Program Files, Windows, etc folders outside of installation and patching. Operating System files should be checked during boot, during access, and during shutdown to determine if they were modified. Compare them to a valid (encrypted) checksum of what they should be compared to what they actually are. Refuse to let them run if invalid. All other data, etc should be contained within some sort of userland directory structure, that is walled off from the core OS structure. Programs should not require Administrator level access to install or run. The OS should be a platform to make a computer and its hardware function, not serve as an easy way for lazy or malicious programmers to make 3rd-Party Program X do whatever it feels like doing (3rd-party programs installed to userland should not be able to install any modified OS files whatsoever). Programs that are not drivers, should not be allowed to install at the driver level. If BSD, Unix, Linux, etc can do it, why can't you?
What? You might as well claim that no one should be able to write to
I don't think so; cancer, by definition, is uncontrolled cell division. So it could regrow the hand, but it wouldn't stop.. (assuming you could get it to be hand cells).
Do you think that blood cells from a black person attack blood cells from an asian person?
If everyone else decides to jump off a cliff, I expect you to be right there with them.
/. the original is always there for you to see.
Wow, incredibly stupid. Equating something as trivial as top posting vs. bottom posting with killing yourself. You really do need a life, big time.
Because it disrupts the flow of conversation!
False. Interchanging the two is what disrupted the flow (although I must say I had no problem figuring out which statements were your responses).
Oh, a message board post is NOT the same as email. To be really really technical, there's not much of a reason to quote, since in a message board such as
Why? That takes more work than doing nothing. You can always search for it later.
No, he would not. It would mean we have technology to handle the sorting for us, freeing us to do other tasks.
I agree, this is utter nonsence.
I keep all my emails, yet my checkbook and marriage are not disorganized messes. I track my finances very carefully (hmm... i keep all my reciepts to do that) and my marriage is fine.
The analogy the article uses sucks too; keeping email is not the same as keeping real mail, because emails take up no physical space and are easily seached by pretty much all email clients.
Ok, you may have other valid points about email...but how exactly does MS 'encourage' users to store things in the deleted items (or recycle bin).
Every mail client I've used has had a deleted folder, which can be emptied by the user.
You say Outlook and Outlook Express... they are different programs. Which are you takling about? OE is pure crap, but I actually like Outlook 2k3.
Outlook 2k3 has this as well; its a feature called search folders.
:-) Of course KMail had started to piss me off as well, with random corrupt index files and other flakyness.
I must say I actually like it, after hating it for all the previous versions. Of course when my jobs required me to use Notes and an old version of Groupwise, it could just be I've seen how bad it could get