The article (more accurately, the patent agency spokeswoman quoted therein) makes the same semantic mistake that many do...the 1826 patent went to the man who INVENTED the internal combustion engine, not the man who DISCOVERED it. Invention and discovery are not synonymous and only semiliterate slobs use the words interchangeably.
Per the subject, I had LASIK done 2.5 months ago. My right eye was 8.5 diopters nearsighted, the left 8.25. "Coke bottle" doesn't begin to describe the sorry state of my vision.
The procedure itself took about 5 minutes per eye, with an hour or so of pre-op work, mostly paperwork. I sat up from the table and could see a wall clock, albeit blurredly. By the next morning, my vision was nearly perfect. I had some ghosting (double image) in my left eye but it went away within 3-4 days. The focus varied in each eye for about 2 weeks, so each day was an adventure in focusing, but we're talking slight variations from perfect.
By the first month's checkup, my right eye was 20/10 and the left was 20/25. Monday I had my 2-month checkup and both eyes are now about 20/15.
There has been a downside: at night, any point source of light like a streetlamp or a headlight causes my pupils to dilate and I lose focus, with the light becoming a diffuse glow. It makes it difficult to drive. I was warned that this could happen and take 4-6 months to clear up. It has already improved but I figure I'll have to wait a couple more months for that to go.
Would I do it again? Goddamn right, and twice on Sunday. Waking up in the night and being able to read my alarm clock, or looking down in the shower and seeing my toes is just the most remarkable thing. I should have done it years ago.
PS: When in Albuquerque, visit Coleman Vision (http://www.colemanvision.com). He's outstanding.
Actually, putting the question mark after the word indicates that it's to be spoken with rising inflection, as opposed to the blandness of "Hello."
That said, the appropriate thing to say depends on where you work. On a shop floor, for example, you might opt for "Shop floor, this is Joe." In a technical office kind of environment, quickly state your organization and name, e.g., "Mergers and acquisitions, Floyd Smith." Perhaps your name is irrelevant, so you go with "Elton Electricians, how can I help you?" If you're your own boss, the name alone can suffice: "Jeff Smith."
The key thing is to answer the phone with a brief greeting that immediately lets the caller know if he's reached the place/person he was after. "Hello" with or without question mark fails to do so.
I know a lot of Slashdotters are in school, so listen up and let Unc' Jim tell you something that you'll need to know in the real world, with, like, a job and stuff:
When you are at work, in your office or cubicle or whatever, and the telephone rings, and you answer it...under NO circumstances is it appropriate for the first word out of your mouth to be "Hello?"
I have maxed it out. That's the mind-blowing thing about these screens. We have a package called MagnaView or some such name that does a pretty good job magnifying things like the text under icons but a lot of applications' dialogue boxes seem to be hard-coded and there's nothing we can do about those.
My bosses here at the Bomb Factory bought me one of them for data visualization efforts. Sadly, it's hanging off a Windows XP box and at the highest resolution dialogue boxes are utterly unreadable. Once you know what the boxes are trying to tell you, though, you can go high-res and it doth kick much ass.
I can't wait until the price comes down enough to consider one for home.
Thank you for your interest in relocating to New Mexico. Unfortunately, we are not accepting applications for residency at this time. We will keep your resume on file for the next six months and will contact you if a dwelling becomes available.
Thankfully, my college days are behind me. More thankfully, they prepared me for a job that pays well enough for me to do stupid things like slap the Buy Now! button at store.apple.com whenever a new iPod appears.
The mini I bought because I was curious about the size/weight/capacity combination. Did Apple have another smash hit on its hands or had they come up with the puck-mouse of music players? Based on the article we're yammering about, a lot of people agree with my assessment of "the former".
It's amazing how light 3.6 ounces is compared to 5.6 ounces. I carried the mini around in a shirt pocket all day last week because I forgot it was there and the weight didn't catch my attention. It's also small enough to fit very nicely into my small hands (and you know what they say about guys with small hands, right? Yeah, we buy small gloves. Thank you! I'm here all week!) so I really like it.
I take the full-size iPod in the car with me pretty much everywhere I go. I take the mini on my person pretty much everywhere I go. They're a great team. I have a playlist of my highest-rated songs that gets randomly shuffled whenever I sync the mini (every week or two) so the smaller capacity is offset by the certainty of not wasting any bytes on Soft Cell's "Sex Dwarf".
I no longer own every version. I have bought each successive model as it has come out because of the increased capacity (and I need one more generation because I've got about 7GB more than my 40 GB can hold and I still buy music).
The 5 GB I sold to a friend when my 10 GB arrived. It, then, was given to a closer friend when my 20 GB arrived. That one I traded to a co-worker in exchange for a handmade weaving when my 30 GB arrived. That went on loan to yet another pal when the 40 GB arrived. I'm sure I'll dispose of that somehow when the next-gens arrive. And now, the mini.
So I guess I misspoke -- I never had a 15 GB model. If memory serves, they were initially released when the 20 GBs were so I skipped that particular capacity.
Having had all those iPods, I feel qualified to assert that while the touchpad wheel was a great idea, the touchpad buttons arranged in a row above the wheel was categorically NOT. It's very difficult to find a button in the dark when the "by feel" method will take you off to the hinterlands depending on which button happens to feel a finger first. I absolutely worship the clicking touchwheel on the mini and I will be stunned if that doesn't adorn all future iPod models.
Oh, and I find that with each new release bringing additional features (clocks, games, contacts, etc) the iPod software is more likely to lock up and require a forced reset. Battery life is also declining more than the reduced size would indicate. I loves me some iPod but contrary to popular opinion each new model is _less_ than the one that preceded it.
I have owned every model of iPod since the original and that includes the mini. The mini is a great design. In the case of the full-size iPod, you get what you pay for: $250 buys you a pile of storage in a gadget the size of a deck of cards and not much heavier. In the case of the mini, though, you're paying for what you don't get: a couple more ounces gone and each dimension shaved down. Until you've bounced a full-size in one hand and a mini in the other I don't think you can appreciate what a difference there is.
It's important not to blow off the target market. Apple already has a competitor to things like the Archos: it's the iPod. The mini is priced and sized to compete with the solid-state players and for the price and weight of that class, you're not going to find anything near the iPod mini's 4 GB.
Plus the clicking scroll wheel kicks the hell out of that four-buttons-across-the-top abortion that the full-size has. I want to see the mini's control sitting front and center when Apple released the 60 GB model. Maybe 80. Whatever they send out next.
I may well be a grade A prick. Your doom and gloom scenario of what sorts of things we'd have to do without if not for the legions of clueless doesn't pain me too greatly, mostly because the loss of every item you listed wouldn't affect me a jot. However, that wasn't my point.
My point, such as it was, is this: The oblivious and the clueless are capable of causing (or being used to cause, same effect) great damage to the 'Net as a whole. Almost invariably, those people are using a Microsoft Windows product as the base of their computing experience.
In the US, just about everyone has a car. Even our poor people do. They are ubiquitous. That ubiquity has led to subsidies which lower the cost of vehicles, fuels, roads, and the like. And yet, we _still_ demand that people be licensed because if they get onto the public infrastructure without some basic skills they can cause enormous harm.
Granted, getting your box pwn3d because you think someone you've never heard of sent you a calculator attached to a message consisting of random nouns doesn't quite rank up there with driving an 88 Buick through a preschool playground, but it has a cost. The burden on the infrastructure thanks to Windows machine is estimated to be billions of dollars. Identity-theft stories frequently involve vulnerabilities in IE or IIS.
All I want is to see some basic skills. If you're the kind of person who clicks attachments from strangers then goddammit, you do not belong on the Internet with the rest of us. And yes, that extends even to your parents, who I am sure are delightful people and don't actually do that sort of thing because you know what you're about and they'd certainly listen to you.
If a company invented a circular saw that was so "intuitive" that no one read the user's manual, indeed no manual came with the saw, there'd be a lot of injury. And no one would applaud that company for bringing circular saws to the masses, or for leading to a price drop across the board on power tools.
Now I'm going to conclude with an admission that I've been awake for about 52 hours so if my initial message or this one are more incoherent than usual, it's not alcohol's fault.
Yes, Microsoft takes an important role in enabling joe6pack to use computers. And given that joe6pack uses them to click on malware attachments and get himself pwn3d, perhaps it would be better if Microsoft hadn't "helped" so much. Heck, even a minor hurdle like installation and configuration of Trumpet Winsock to get online would cut down the riffraff by at least two orders of magnitude.
It's not too hard to add "no onions" to your search query. After all, the kind of Infidel Defiler who'd conjure up a recipe without onions and then blaspheme the holy name of chili by applying it to that recipe would proudly put "no onions!!!" in there.
But yeah, I agree with your general point. I was overly glib in my initial post.
Whenever I'm in the mood for, say, lamb, I just hit Google and punch in "lamb" and "recipe". Poof, lots of hits. Some of them are online recipe books and some are little webpages by folks who got a few megs web space with their Internet account and couldn't think of anything else to put up.
Point being, I don't see a reason to have The Whole Internet Cookbook.
Insightful, but wrong...as with most nuclear anything-related posts on/.
The RBMK reactors have a positive void coefficient. The rod control mechanisms had been manually disabled for the turbine coast-down experiment (because they kept ramming in the rods, something which should have served as a Big Clue to the operators that what they were doing was a bad idea). When the cooling water began to boil, the reactivity jumped due to that positive void coefficient and the power level spiked 3-4 orders of magnitude in some milliseconds. That flashed the cooling water into steam, which exploded and blew the top off the roof. The 3,000+ degree graphite moderator was now exposed to open air and burst into flame and it was good night, Gracie.
It seems like so many of the problems we face today are because of the fatal assumption built into SMTP back in the day: that internet users are good, kind, and decent people with whom network sharing would be a good thing. So why not replace it?
I don't mean that we all get up one day and turn off SMTP. Let's add a new one and have MTAs do both.
Say I've added JNMP support to my MTA. I send a message to my friends Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. Bob and Carol are much smarter than Ted and Alice, so their MTAs also speak JNMP (with its authentication and unspoofability and so on) so when my message comes knocking on their JNMP port it goes right into their inboxes. No need to filter or anything, since there's no BS riding on a JNMP message.
Ted and Alice, alas, are stuck using SMTP, so their MTA gags. My MTA therefore falls back on SMTP and the message is accepted and has to be filtered and all the other nonsense. As more people (and more MTAs) switch to SMTP it would go from being the default protocol to a deprecated protocol to eventually being dumped.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a TCP/IP stud with chops you could serve a foreign king. I haven't got the first clue how this would work. But I think it _could_ work, and I'd like to see someone give it a shot. SMTP is just too flawed for the modern, highly-connected world. There _has_ to be a way to transition from SMTP to JNMP. We've seen SSH displace telnet and IPv6 is gradually going to boot IPv4 aside.
The Appellate Court's comments on Jackson were that he knew what he was doing. I thought then and think now that they were hittin' the pipe to say that he did a good job but they were going to vacate his order for relief to avoid the always-trite "appearance of impropriety". Either he did a good job, end of story, or he didn't and they should have punted the whole shootin' match.
I was out of work for much of the trial and had the opportunity to read the hundreds of pages of Jackson's findings. He demonstrated a clear awareness of Microsoft's misdeeds and what would be an appropriate level of sanction to restore competition to the marketplace. Only the most ardent Microsoft cheerleader could claim that the KK-approved settlement has done jack to restore a marketplace twisted out of recognition by the company.
What are you talking about? The DOJ and their attorneys beat Microsoft seven ways from Sunday in court. They even satisfied the most pro-business court in the land that the company was an abusive monopolist. Had Jackson kept his damn mouth shut, all would have been fine, but he didn't, and so the penalty was vacated and a new hearing ordered.
The case was assigned to a new judge, one with virtually zero antitrust experience, and she ordered settlement talks. During that time, the Administration changed over and the DOJ went from hardcore, aggressive demands for breakup to the loving kiss with tongue and extra saliva that Judge KK ultimately accepted.
"Stinking cesspool" ? Bull. The case was a slam-dunk and the new Administration threw in the towel on Microsoft when the ref's count had reached nine and three-quarters.
You do know that there's a lot more to the Net than the Web, right? And that having a website returned instead of the spec-ordered "No such domain" when you're using a different Net scheme (like email, or chat, or good ol' gopher) is fundamentally Wrong. If the Web were a distinct thing that had its own DNS then I doubt many would be grousing, save those whose profits just got diverted into VeriSlime's ShiteFinder pockets.
Except that the powers that be have already conceded that the ISS will never have more than a crew of three except at changeover time. The countries behind it are either backing out of their commitments or (like the US) essentially stating that they'll fulfill their commitment to construction and then bail. We're just going through the motions and it gets harder to defend every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Plato was absolutely a slob. Didn't you see the way he poured mustard all over himself at the toga party?
Wait.
Never mind.
The article (more accurately, the patent agency spokeswoman quoted therein) makes the same semantic mistake that many do...the 1826 patent went to the man who INVENTED the internal combustion engine, not the man who DISCOVERED it. Invention and discovery are not synonymous and only semiliterate slobs use the words interchangeably.
Thank you; that is all.
Per the subject, I had LASIK done 2.5 months ago. My right eye was 8.5 diopters nearsighted, the left 8.25. "Coke bottle" doesn't begin to describe the sorry state of my vision.
The procedure itself took about 5 minutes per eye, with an hour or so of pre-op work, mostly paperwork. I sat up from the table and could see a wall clock, albeit blurredly. By the next morning, my vision was nearly perfect. I had some ghosting (double image) in my left eye but it went away within 3-4 days. The focus varied in each eye for about 2 weeks, so each day was an adventure in focusing, but we're talking slight variations from perfect.
By the first month's checkup, my right eye was 20/10 and the left was 20/25. Monday I had my 2-month checkup and both eyes are now about 20/15.
There has been a downside: at night, any point source of light like a streetlamp or a headlight causes my pupils to dilate and I lose focus, with the light becoming a diffuse glow. It makes it difficult to drive. I was warned that this could happen and take 4-6 months to clear up. It has already improved but I figure I'll have to wait a couple more months for that to go.
Would I do it again? Goddamn right, and twice on Sunday. Waking up in the night and being able to read my alarm clock, or looking down in the shower and seeing my toes is just the most remarkable thing. I should have done it years ago.
PS: When in Albuquerque, visit Coleman Vision (http://www.colemanvision.com). He's outstanding.
Actually, putting the question mark after the word indicates that it's to be spoken with rising inflection, as opposed to the blandness of "Hello."
That said, the appropriate thing to say depends on where you work. On a shop floor, for example, you might opt for "Shop floor, this is Joe." In a technical office kind of environment, quickly state your organization and name, e.g., "Mergers and acquisitions, Floyd Smith." Perhaps your name is irrelevant, so you go with "Elton Electricians, how can I help you?" If you're your own boss, the name alone can suffice: "Jeff Smith."
The key thing is to answer the phone with a brief greeting that immediately lets the caller know if he's reached the place/person he was after. "Hello" with or without question mark fails to do so.
I know a lot of Slashdotters are in school, so listen up and let Unc' Jim tell you something that you'll need to know in the real world, with, like, a job and stuff:
When you are at work, in your office or cubicle or whatever, and the telephone rings, and you answer it...under NO circumstances is it appropriate for the first word out of your mouth to be "Hello?"
Work is not home. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
sigh
No, the extended RotK will not include the Scouring of the Shire. It wasn't even filmed.
I have maxed it out. That's the mind-blowing thing about these screens. We have a package called MagnaView or some such name that does a pretty good job magnifying things like the text under icons but a lot of applications' dialogue boxes seem to be hard-coded and there's nothing we can do about those.
My bosses here at the Bomb Factory bought me one of them for data visualization efforts. Sadly, it's hanging off a Windows XP box and at the highest resolution dialogue boxes are utterly unreadable. Once you know what the boxes are trying to tell you, though, you can go high-res and it doth kick much ass.
I can't wait until the price comes down enough to consider one for home.
Thank you for your interest in relocating to New Mexico. Unfortunately, we are not accepting applications for residency at this time. We will keep your resume on file for the next six months and will contact you if a dwelling becomes available.
What's a "floppy disk"?
"I can't think of anything more mindblowing than such things as topology, geometry and algebra."
Me, either. Of course, it's not my mind I'd like to have blown...
Thankfully, my college days are behind me. More thankfully, they prepared me for a job that pays well enough for me to do stupid things like slap the Buy Now! button at store.apple.com whenever a new iPod appears.
The mini I bought because I was curious about the size/weight/capacity combination. Did Apple have another smash hit on its hands or had they come up with the puck-mouse of music players? Based on the article we're yammering about, a lot of people agree with my assessment of "the former".
It's amazing how light 3.6 ounces is compared to 5.6 ounces. I carried the mini around in a shirt pocket all day last week because I forgot it was there and the weight didn't catch my attention. It's also small enough to fit very nicely into my small hands (and you know what they say about guys with small hands, right? Yeah, we buy small gloves. Thank you! I'm here all week!) so I really like it.
I take the full-size iPod in the car with me pretty much everywhere I go. I take the mini on my person pretty much everywhere I go. They're a great team. I have a playlist of my highest-rated songs that gets randomly shuffled whenever I sync the mini (every week or two) so the smaller capacity is offset by the certainty of not wasting any bytes on Soft Cell's "Sex Dwarf".
I no longer own every version. I have bought each successive model as it has come out because of the increased capacity (and I need one more generation because I've got about 7GB more than my 40 GB can hold and I still buy music).
The 5 GB I sold to a friend when my 10 GB arrived. It, then, was given to a closer friend when my 20 GB arrived. That one I traded to a co-worker in exchange for a handmade weaving when my 30 GB arrived. That went on loan to yet another pal when the 40 GB arrived. I'm sure I'll dispose of that somehow when the next-gens arrive. And now, the mini.
So I guess I misspoke -- I never had a 15 GB model. If memory serves, they were initially released when the 20 GBs were so I skipped that particular capacity.
Having had all those iPods, I feel qualified to assert that while the touchpad wheel was a great idea, the touchpad buttons arranged in a row above the wheel was categorically NOT. It's very difficult to find a button in the dark when the "by feel" method will take you off to the hinterlands depending on which button happens to feel a finger first. I absolutely worship the clicking touchwheel on the mini and I will be stunned if that doesn't adorn all future iPod models.
Oh, and I find that with each new release bringing additional features (clocks, games, contacts, etc) the iPod software is more likely to lock up and require a forced reset. Battery life is also declining more than the reduced size would indicate. I loves me some iPod but contrary to popular opinion each new model is _less_ than the one that preceded it.
I have owned every model of iPod since the original and that includes the mini. The mini is a great design. In the case of the full-size iPod, you get what you pay for: $250 buys you a pile of storage in a gadget the size of a deck of cards and not much heavier. In the case of the mini, though, you're paying for what you don't get: a couple more ounces gone and each dimension shaved down. Until you've bounced a full-size in one hand and a mini in the other I don't think you can appreciate what a difference there is.
It's important not to blow off the target market. Apple already has a competitor to things like the Archos: it's the iPod. The mini is priced and sized to compete with the solid-state players and for the price and weight of that class, you're not going to find anything near the iPod mini's 4 GB.
Plus the clicking scroll wheel kicks the hell out of that four-buttons-across-the-top abortion that the full-size has. I want to see the mini's control sitting front and center when Apple released the 60 GB model. Maybe 80. Whatever they send out next.
I may well be a grade A prick. Your doom and gloom scenario of what sorts of things we'd have to do without if not for the legions of clueless doesn't pain me too greatly, mostly because the loss of every item you listed wouldn't affect me a jot. However, that wasn't my point.
My point, such as it was, is this: The oblivious and the clueless are capable of causing (or being used to cause, same effect) great damage to the 'Net as a whole. Almost invariably, those people are using a Microsoft Windows product as the base of their computing experience.
In the US, just about everyone has a car. Even our poor people do. They are ubiquitous. That ubiquity has led to subsidies which lower the cost of vehicles, fuels, roads, and the like. And yet, we _still_ demand that people be licensed because if they get onto the public infrastructure without some basic skills they can cause enormous harm.
Granted, getting your box pwn3d because you think someone you've never heard of sent you a calculator attached to a message consisting of random nouns doesn't quite rank up there with driving an 88 Buick through a preschool playground, but it has a cost. The burden on the infrastructure thanks to Windows machine is estimated to be billions of dollars. Identity-theft stories frequently involve vulnerabilities in IE or IIS.
All I want is to see some basic skills. If you're the kind of person who clicks attachments from strangers then goddammit, you do not belong on the Internet with the rest of us. And yes, that extends even to your parents, who I am sure are delightful people and don't actually do that sort of thing because you know what you're about and they'd certainly listen to you.
If a company invented a circular saw that was so "intuitive" that no one read the user's manual, indeed no manual came with the saw, there'd be a lot of injury. And no one would applaud that company for bringing circular saws to the masses, or for leading to a price drop across the board on power tools.
Now I'm going to conclude with an admission that I've been awake for about 52 hours so if my initial message or this one are more incoherent than usual, it's not alcohol's fault.
Yes, Microsoft takes an important role in enabling joe6pack to use computers. And given that joe6pack uses them to click on malware attachments and get himself pwn3d, perhaps it would be better if Microsoft hadn't "helped" so much. Heck, even a minor hurdle like installation and configuration of Trumpet Winsock to get online would cut down the riffraff by at least two orders of magnitude.
It's not too hard to add "no onions" to your search query. After all, the kind of Infidel Defiler who'd conjure up a recipe without onions and then blaspheme the holy name of chili by applying it to that recipe would proudly put "no onions!!!" in there.
But yeah, I agree with your general point. I was overly glib in my initial post.
Whenever I'm in the mood for, say, lamb, I just hit Google and punch in "lamb" and "recipe". Poof, lots of hits. Some of them are online recipe books and some are little webpages by folks who got a few megs web space with their Internet account and couldn't think of anything else to put up.
Point being, I don't see a reason to have The Whole Internet Cookbook.
PS: recipedelights.com
Jim
Insightful, but wrong...as with most nuclear anything-related posts on /.
The RBMK reactors have a positive void coefficient. The rod control mechanisms had been manually disabled for the turbine coast-down experiment (because they kept ramming in the rods, something which should have served as a Big Clue to the operators that what they were doing was a bad idea). When the cooling water began to boil, the reactivity jumped due to that positive void coefficient and the power level spiked 3-4 orders of magnitude in some milliseconds. That flashed the cooling water into steam, which exploded and blew the top off the roof. The 3,000+ degree graphite moderator was now exposed to open air and burst into flame and it was good night, Gracie.
Read Medvedev's book. Hell, read _any_ book.
It seems like so many of the problems we face today are because of the fatal assumption built into SMTP back in the day: that internet users are good, kind, and decent people with whom network sharing would be a good thing. So why not replace it?
I don't mean that we all get up one day and turn off SMTP. Let's add a new one and have MTAs do both.
Say I've added JNMP support to my MTA. I send a message to my friends Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. Bob and Carol are much smarter than Ted and Alice, so their MTAs also speak JNMP (with its authentication and unspoofability and so on) so when my message comes knocking on their JNMP port it goes right into their inboxes. No need to filter or anything, since there's no BS riding on a JNMP message.
Ted and Alice, alas, are stuck using SMTP, so their MTA gags. My MTA therefore falls back on SMTP and the message is accepted and has to be filtered and all the other nonsense. As more people (and more MTAs) switch to SMTP it would go from being the default protocol to a deprecated protocol to eventually being dumped.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a TCP/IP stud with chops you could serve a foreign king. I haven't got the first clue how this would work. But I think it _could_ work, and I'd like to see someone give it a shot. SMTP is just too flawed for the modern, highly-connected world. There _has_ to be a way to transition from SMTP to JNMP. We've seen SSH displace telnet and IPv6 is gradually going to boot IPv4 aside.
Just a thought.
The Appellate Court's comments on Jackson were that he knew what he was doing. I thought then and think now that they were hittin' the pipe to say that he did a good job but they were going to vacate his order for relief to avoid the always-trite "appearance of impropriety". Either he did a good job, end of story, or he didn't and they should have punted the whole shootin' match.
I was out of work for much of the trial and had the opportunity to read the hundreds of pages of Jackson's findings. He demonstrated a clear awareness of Microsoft's misdeeds and what would be an appropriate level of sanction to restore competition to the marketplace. Only the most ardent Microsoft cheerleader could claim that the KK-approved settlement has done jack to restore a marketplace twisted out of recognition by the company.
What are you talking about? The DOJ and their attorneys beat Microsoft seven ways from Sunday in court. They even satisfied the most pro-business court in the land that the company was an abusive monopolist. Had Jackson kept his damn mouth shut, all would have been fine, but he didn't, and so the penalty was vacated and a new hearing ordered.
The case was assigned to a new judge, one with virtually zero antitrust experience, and she ordered settlement talks. During that time, the Administration changed over and the DOJ went from hardcore, aggressive demands for breakup to the loving kiss with tongue and extra saliva that Judge KK ultimately accepted.
"Stinking cesspool" ? Bull. The case was a slam-dunk and the new Administration threw in the towel on Microsoft when the ref's count had reached nine and three-quarters.
You do know that there's a lot more to the Net than the Web, right? And that having a website returned instead of the spec-ordered "No such domain" when you're using a different Net scheme (like email, or chat, or good ol' gopher) is fundamentally Wrong. If the Web were a distinct thing that had its own DNS then I doubt many would be grousing, save those whose profits just got diverted into VeriSlime's ShiteFinder pockets.
ObInsult: Ya Jughead!
No, that was _d_ Forrest. The OP wanted to know what _a_ forrest was...
Except that the powers that be have already conceded that the ISS will never have more than a crew of three except at changeover time. The countries behind it are either backing out of their commitments or (like the US) essentially stating that they'll fulfill their commitment to construction and then bail. We're just going through the motions and it gets harder to defend every day.