Reposted from elsewhere. The Kevin discussed here is Kevin McBride, Darl's brother on the "crack" legal team.
Msg: 26178 of 26422 4/4/2007 11:45:53 AM Recs: 60 Sentiment: Not Disclosed By: El Corton The voice is Darl's voice, but the hands are the hands of Kevin
The exhibits to 1018 are pretty uninteresting, once you realize that they don't support the motion -- except for #6. This is a letter from Todd Shaughnessy, addressed to Hatch and Heise and dated February 12, 2004. That was right after Darl's speech at Harvard Law School, and also right after the hearing before Wells and conference in chambers, when observers had the impression that SCO's lawyers looked uncomfortable. At about that time, Darl's public championing of SCO's case ended, and, as far as I recall, since then he has spoken in public only during earnings calls. The letter casts some light on those events.
---
Dear Brent and Mark:
This responds to Kevin McBride's letter to me dated February 11, 2004.
As I have advised Kevin, IBM is generally agreeable to an order limiting the parties' public statements regarding the litigation, as suggested by Judge Wells. Based upon SCO's statements in chambers on February 6, 2004, and Kevin's statements to me, however, it appears that SCO is not agreeable to the entry of such an order. If that is in fact SCO's position, then we would appreciate your just saying so without invoking misplaced concerns of conspiracy between IBM and third parties. Contrary to Kevin's suggestion, which is entirely unsupported, IBM is not causing any third party (including those listed in Kevin's letter), through "funding" or otherwise, to make statements on its behalf about the litigation.
We understand that SCO is concerned about the public's criticism of its case. But there is nothing we can do about that, especially since, as you know, we believe SCO's allegations are meritless and public criticism deserved. Unless SCO is prepared to withdraw its claims, the best way, in our judgment, for SCO to avoid public criticism is to cease making public statements about its case. The criticism SCO seeks to avoid directly derives, after all, from its own public relations efforts. So long as the limitation is reciprocal, IBM is prepared to limit its own statements about the case. Like Judge Wells, we see no reason for this case to be tried in the press.
As you know, the parties are not entitled to know the identity of one another's non-testifying consultants. Thus, insofar as Kevin's letter requests that IBM unilaterally disclose the identity of its non-testifying experts, it seeks improperly to invade the privilege. If, instead, SCO is proposing that the parties jointly waive the privilege and exchange the names of all of their non-testifying consultants, please let me know and we will consider the proposal. What we can tell you without waiving the privilege is that, as suggested above, IBM has neither retained nor authorized any non-testifying consultant to speak on its behalf about this litigation (again, including the persons listed in Kevin's letter).
We believe the parties should report back to Judge Wells promptly on this issue, and we would appreciate hearing back from you by noon tomorrow.
Very truly yours,
Todd M. Shaughnessy
---
This letter confirms that Wells criticized SCO's public behavior in chambers. It also supports the view that Kevin is the mastermind behind SCO's most gonzo legal stratagems: the Letter to Congress, the unconstitutionality of the GPL, and the PJ subpoena, among others.
--------------
Msg: 26294 of 26422 4/4/2007 5:59:35 PM Recs: 57 Sentiment: Strong Sell By: AllParadox Posted as a reply to msg 26178 by El Corton
Re: The voice is Darl's voice, but the hands are the hands of Kevin
re: document 1018, Exhibit #6
Once again, I am impressed by the legal team for "The SCO Group".
Just when I thought that there was nothing dumber, or more lame, that they cou
"I dont understand how the RIAA get a screenshot of your computer"
Here's an idea....
They violate the law and upload spyware that you think is merely a "song that doesn't play"
That's how.
If they truely are getting screenshots, that's how you do it. There isn't any other way than getting trojaned.
Unfortunately, for them, that's quite illegal in all of the 50 states (unauthorized use of a computer, RI General Laws 11-52-1 through 8 and similar in other states) and in the eyes of the court "unclean hands."
That's a defense that your mom's lawyer can use. Indeed, having an insecure POS computer infected with malware, a wide open wireless router, IP addresses being spoofed, etc, yadda yadda yadda, were all used to pull Dr. Jacobson's deposition into a million little pieces in this case.
In other words, there is _no way_, using the RIAA's methods, to definitively trace music files to the specific computer, not after reading Dr. Jacobson's testimony. Read it. The URL is in one of my earlier postings.
But this isn't about a crime. It's about a tort. No grand jury involved.
Please learn the difference.
One of the reasons why the RIAA isn't asking for criminal charges is that the evidence they have is so slim that even thinking about filing criminal charges, which require a _much_ higher burden of proof, is idiotic.
The RIAA is on pretty thin ice. Their "expert" claims to be a "software engineer" yet when asked if he's got a PE stamp, he says...well...no. Yet another wannabe expert.
You Fail It. I have gone on a roundabout way of describing something that you should have grokked much earlier in life, like, by the time you hit High School. The mean on a standard distribution is an infinitely thin line. It has zero width. Just because people do rounding to give people integer scores makes no difference.
What part of "infinitely thin" do you not understand?
Half of everyone is above 100. The other half are below.
"Gotcha. I agree to an extent, although you're overstating the point. Most people may be "mouth breathers", but they're certainly not convinced that science is evil. I'd say less than half a percent of the population would fall into that category, and half of those are probably the exact opposite of the stereotype you've provided. The ultra-environmentalists are just as opposed to science as the extreme-religious-fundies. However, even put together, their numbers are low enough to be immaterial."
Sigh...no, what I meant that those who get the backing of the illiterate masses behind them are the dangerous ones (please re-read what I wrote). The masses may not care whether science rots your soul or not, but they can be willing to swallow the filth that spews from the various orifices of the religious nutjobs if it's vomited forth with the right amount of syntactic sugar. I agree with you about the ultra-environmentalists, too. I have met a few and some of them are just genocides waiting to happen (all people are evil, etc). A religion in itself, that. No reasoning. None.
In this enlightened age you'd think that the battle between "how" the universe works and "why" it works would be over and that religious leaders would leave the mechanics of it to the scientists. But no, they don't. They see the explanation of the "how" as a threat to the "why" when "how" and "why" are two completely different questions.
Evolution is a fact. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus came here to save our souls (if you believe or not...I have my doubts).
The universe is as it is, and people would have a lot easier time dealing with it if they stopped trying to make it fit their preconceived notions.
Digression follows:
Actually, Jesus was a pretty cool dude at times from what I've read for myself, and being asked what I would do (by religious fundies) if he showed up on my doorstep, what I'd do.
I'd invite him in and offer a beer.
It's some of his followers that I'd have problems with.
"I don't recall statistical analysis being a part of the curriculum at my grade school"
I was taught set theory in elementary school. I didn't know it at the time. It allowed me to fly through a college course in Logic, especially when it came to symbolic logic. I am a victim of "New Math." Google it.
You mean to tell me that nobody ever taught you what averages, means, modes, and medians are in grade school? How did your teachers ever explain your grades to you?
"If the average score of all members of the population of a given age happens to land on an integer number, then many members of that class (persons of that age) are going to present test scores of that integer number and so be assigned IQ scores of exactly 100. It's only when that average score is a non-integer while the test scores are constrained to integers that exactly 100 is impossible. This does not preclude the average score of another class (people of a different chronological age) landing on an integer number."
It all depends on how small you want to break down chronological and mental age. We have this convention, in the world, where age is measured by circuits of this lump of rock around a star as whole integers. We even celebrate them (well some of have stopped). But that doesn't mean that you can't further break age down into something as small as femtoseconds. Remember that intelligence is a continuum that stretches from the vegetative state all the way through to the Brocas and Einsteins of the world. Therefore mental age divided by chronological age _never_ yeilds an integer except for very special cases (I have proof for this but I can't fit it in the margin). Also, since a mean on a standard distribution is an infinitely thin line, I would say that the likelihood of anyone having the perfect mental/physical age ratio that hits 1.0000000000 (pure 100 on the IQ scale) is nil.
" my parents taught me not to be a rude prick"
I think they failed. If being precisely accurate is being a rude prick, I have to ask...are you a thinker or are you one of "them"?
"So you're saying sex with children is ok, killing civilians is ok, and science teachers are being treated the same as terrorists and paedophiles?"
No, of course not, but in my snide way pointing out that science, in various parts of this country, is regarded as evil. As evil as terrorists and paedophiles, because science endangers your eternal soul, so if you are a thinking person, when you die, you will burn forever and ever in the Lake Of Fire(TM). The people behind that worldview take it seriously and would rather imprison/kill scientists than let them "corrupt" more souls. It's just that most of them are too chickenshit to do anything about it. Only when they get organized and have the power of the uneducated masses behind them do they have actual power. But once that happens, look out. The first aim of any decent dictatorship is to get kill off the smart people, because stupid people are never a threat to a dictator with Charaaaaasma. Just look at history. The fact is that 50 percent of the entire country (any country, btw) is comprised of mouth-breathers who will elect someone who will "Fix It All, Just Give Me The Power To Do So."
And so the lumpen mob gets what it demands, to its eventual dismay. Then you have another Cambodia. Another Turkmenistan. Another Zimbabwe, which, btw, was the breadbasket of southern Africa, but now needs to import food.
My original post was based upon reality. That's the recipe for an effective troll.
"Every time man struggles and fails He makes up some kind of fairytales After all of the misery that he has caused He denies he's descended from the dinosaurs"
"Actually, that isn't quite right either. Now if you had used "less than or equal to" it would have worked. Of course, if you are going to insult the intelligence of half of a country you shouldn't make silly errors like that."
That sentence was a deliberate troll. I admit it.
"Do you know of any science teachers who were killed, sent to prison camps, beaten or otherwise mistreated like terrorists or paedophiles?"
A few of my coworkers are Cambodian. You're telling me it can't happen? Brother #1 was interviewed last month on the BBC. He still claims it's everyone else's fault.
If you really want to nitpick, there are *no* people who have an actual 100 for IQ. That's because intelligence is a continuum, and doesn't increment or decrement in integer steps. Everyone resides on either side of the _theoretical_ line of 100, which has no width, as anyone with a background in grade school math knows.
But that's not what I was aiming for in the original post.
48 percent of people are stupid and believe that Genesis is the literal Word Of Gawd and that science is some sort of mental buggery? This is not news.
The fact is that we're *this* close (holding thumb and forefinger a millimeter apart) to burning (well, hanging and pressing, actually) witches again in this country. The code words for "witches" these days are "terrorist," "paedophile," and "science teacher."
"Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in disaster-prone areas?"
Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in areas that DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO SUPPORT THE POPULATION except through federally funded water projects?
"So? The point of a society is that the strong look after the weak."
It's funny that a lot of the "free marketers" pretend to be christian. They should read Ezekiel
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)
I'm not Christian or anything else. I just read alot. It's just the entire hypocrisy of the entire situation.
To the hypocrite above: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Of course you are, you silly sot. We all are.
-- BMO
Re:Which is why insurance needs heavy regulation
on
Life with a Lethal Gene
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There but for the grace of God go you.
No, I'm not being particularly religious, but you must be either 20 or younger, or you've never had a disease in your life. It must be so wonderful to not have a chronic disease.
Insurance's purpose is to _spread the risk_. Once you get away from that, you may as well abolish insurance altogether. The thing is before we had health insurance the situation was worse than what we've got right now. Health problems basically bankrupted you then. Either that or you died.
If you're such a free-marketer, answer me this: How could I _ever_ become involved in starting my own business? I could _never_ get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The only way for me to get it is to work for someone else. This particular fact is largely ignored by people who decry the Canadian system. However, if we had a Canadian type system (Single payor health insurance, like OHIP) I could open a business tomorrow and not worry about meds or hospital emergencies.
So you've got good health. That is only a temporary condition.
"The New York Times is running a story on young people who are choosing to get genetic tests for conditions like Huntington's Disease that develop relatively late in life."
What do you mean "relatively late"? 37 or 40 is pretty damned early if you ask me.
No, it's not like "describe our product in 25 words or less" It's about polluting blogs from here to the nether-regions to get people to stump for Microsoft, basically for free.
That's what's wrong with it. It's not about whether it's mickeysoft, it's whether mickeysoft is encourging people to act like assholes and spam the world. People who encourgage people to act like assholes are known as....assholes.
The comments that are worse than that come from students pirating software saying that they're "sticking it to The Man." No, they're not sticking it to The Man. They're doing exactly what The Man wants, because....
"As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates, about Chinese software piracy. Thing is, that quote is also applicable to students, just end the sentence with "and then we will collect after they graduate"
This "we're letting you license Office Ultimate for $25AU/year" is a price just slightly above outright software piracy, and maybe even cheaper than buying a burned set of disks from the "dorm software dealer." Hook 'em while they're young.
"The blog thing is essentially a free prize draw, to win a scooter, laptop, etc. I don't see that it's any different to the competitions where you mail in a card, finishing off a sentence (e.g. "Microsoft Office is great because...") in X words or less."
Because they encourage you to not just write an essay about how Microsoft Office is so great, but they want you to do their marketing for them. For free. If you generate a long thread that got started with the magic words, you MIGHT win a chance at a scooter.
Yeah, that's what we need, more advertising, this time by suckered students.
Slashdot Mirror
Reposted from elsewhere. The Kevin discussed here is Kevin McBride, Darl's brother on the "crack" legal team.
Msg: 26178 of 26422 4/4/2007 11:45:53 AM Recs: 60 Sentiment: Not Disclosed
By: El Corton
The voice is Darl's voice, but the hands are the hands of Kevin
The exhibits to 1018 are pretty uninteresting, once you realize that they don't support the motion -- except for #6. This is a letter from Todd Shaughnessy, addressed to Hatch and Heise and dated February 12, 2004. That was right after Darl's speech at Harvard Law School, and also right after the hearing before Wells and conference in chambers, when observers had the impression that SCO's lawyers looked uncomfortable. At about that time, Darl's public championing of SCO's case ended, and, as far as I recall, since then he has spoken in public only during earnings calls. The letter casts some light on those events.
---
Dear Brent and Mark:
This responds to Kevin McBride's letter to me dated February 11, 2004.
As I have advised Kevin, IBM is generally agreeable to an order limiting the parties' public statements regarding the litigation, as suggested by Judge Wells. Based upon SCO's statements in chambers on February 6, 2004, and Kevin's statements to me, however, it appears that SCO is not agreeable to the entry of such an order. If that is in fact SCO's position, then we would appreciate your just saying so without invoking misplaced concerns of conspiracy between IBM and third parties. Contrary to Kevin's suggestion, which is entirely unsupported, IBM is not causing any third party (including those listed in Kevin's letter), through "funding" or otherwise, to make statements on its behalf about the litigation.
We understand that SCO is concerned about the public's criticism of its case. But there is nothing we can do about that, especially since, as you know, we believe SCO's allegations are meritless and public criticism deserved. Unless SCO is prepared to withdraw its claims, the best way, in our judgment, for SCO to avoid public criticism is to cease making public statements about its case. The criticism SCO seeks to avoid directly derives, after all, from its own public relations efforts. So long as the limitation is reciprocal, IBM is prepared to limit its own statements about the case. Like Judge Wells, we see no reason for this case to be tried in the press.
As you know, the parties are not entitled to know the identity of one another's non-testifying consultants. Thus, insofar as Kevin's letter requests that IBM unilaterally disclose the identity of its non-testifying experts, it seeks improperly to invade the privilege. If, instead, SCO is proposing that the parties jointly waive the privilege and exchange the names of all of their non-testifying consultants, please let me know and we will consider the proposal. What we can tell you without waiving the privilege is that, as suggested above, IBM has neither retained nor authorized any non-testifying consultant to speak on its behalf about this litigation (again, including the persons listed in Kevin's letter).
We believe the parties should report back to Judge Wells promptly on this issue, and we would appreciate hearing back from you by noon tomorrow.
Very truly yours,
Todd M. Shaughnessy
---
This letter confirms that Wells criticized SCO's public behavior in chambers. It also supports the view that Kevin is the mastermind behind SCO's most gonzo legal stratagems: the Letter to Congress, the unconstitutionality of the GPL, and the PJ subpoena, among others.
--------------
Msg: 26294 of 26422 4/4/2007 5:59:35 PM Recs: 57 Sentiment: Strong Sell
By: AllParadox
Posted as a reply to msg 26178 by El Corton
Re: The voice is Darl's voice, but the hands are the hands of Kevin
re: document 1018, Exhibit #6
Once again, I am impressed by the legal team for "The SCO Group".
Just when I thought that there was nothing dumber, or more lame, that they cou
"I dont understand how the RIAA get a screenshot of your computer"
Here's an idea....
They violate the law and upload spyware that you think is merely a "song that doesn't play"
That's how.
If they truely are getting screenshots, that's how you do it. There isn't any other way than getting trojaned.
Unfortunately, for them, that's quite illegal in all of the 50 states (unauthorized use of a computer, RI General Laws 11-52-1 through 8 and similar in other states) and in the eyes of the court "unclean hands."
--
BMO
And ya know what?
That's a defense that your mom's lawyer can use. Indeed, having an insecure POS computer infected with malware, a wide open wireless router, IP addresses being spoofed, etc, yadda yadda yadda, were all used to pull Dr. Jacobson's deposition into a million little pieces in this case.
In other words, there is _no way_, using the RIAA's methods, to definitively trace music files to the specific computer, not after reading Dr. Jacobson's testimony. Read it. The URL is in one of my earlier postings.
--
BMO
Watch, in fascination, as the RIAA "expert" in the Lindor case is eviscerated....
0 73736822
...less than unassailable.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070302
This is why the RIAA wants to go on a fishing expedition. They have no case, and what they have is
--
BMO
"For as long as you have had "grand juries"."
But this isn't about a crime. It's about a tort. No grand jury involved.
Please learn the difference.
One of the reasons why the RIAA isn't asking for criminal charges is that the evidence they have is so slim that even thinking about filing criminal charges, which require a _much_ higher burden of proof, is idiotic.
The RIAA is on pretty thin ice. Their "expert" claims to be a "software engineer" yet when asked if he's got a PE stamp, he says...well...no. Yet another wannabe expert.
--
BMO
You Fail It. I have gone on a roundabout way of describing something that you should have grokked much earlier in life, like, by the time you hit High School. The mean on a standard distribution is an infinitely thin line. It has zero width. Just because people do rounding to give people integer scores makes no difference.
What part of "infinitely thin" do you not understand?
Half of everyone is above 100. The other half are below.
Good. Day. Sir.
--
BMO
YHBT. Another victim falls.
Read my other posts.
--
BMO
"Gotcha. I agree to an extent, although you're overstating the point. Most people may be "mouth breathers", but they're certainly not convinced that science is evil. I'd say less than half a percent of the population would fall into that category, and half of those are probably the exact opposite of the stereotype you've provided. The ultra-environmentalists are just as opposed to science as the extreme-religious-fundies. However, even put together, their numbers are low enough to be immaterial."
Sigh...no, what I meant that those who get the backing of the illiterate masses behind them are the dangerous ones (please re-read what I wrote). The masses may not care whether science rots your soul or not, but they can be willing to swallow the filth that spews from the various orifices of the religious nutjobs if it's vomited forth with the right amount of syntactic sugar. I agree with you about the ultra-environmentalists, too. I have met a few and some of them are just genocides waiting to happen (all people are evil, etc). A religion in itself, that. No reasoning. None.
In this enlightened age you'd think that the battle between "how" the universe works and "why" it works would be over and that religious leaders would leave the mechanics of it to the scientists. But no, they don't. They see the explanation of the "how" as a threat to the "why" when "how" and "why" are two completely different questions.
Evolution is a fact. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus came here to save our souls (if you believe or not...I have my doubts).
The universe is as it is, and people would have a lot easier time dealing with it if they stopped trying to make it fit their preconceived notions.
Digression follows:
Actually, Jesus was a pretty cool dude at times from what I've read for myself, and being asked what I would do (by religious fundies) if he showed up on my doorstep, what I'd do.
I'd invite him in and offer a beer.
It's some of his followers that I'd have problems with.
--
BMO
"I don't recall statistical analysis being a part of the curriculum at my grade school"
I was taught set theory in elementary school. I didn't know it at the time. It allowed me to fly through a college course in Logic, especially when it came to symbolic logic. I am a victim of "New Math." Google it.
You mean to tell me that nobody ever taught you what averages, means, modes, and medians are in grade school? How did your teachers ever explain your grades to you?
"If the average score of all members of the population of a given age happens to land on an integer number, then many members of that class (persons of that age) are going to present test scores of that integer number and so be assigned IQ scores of exactly 100. It's only when that average score is a non-integer while the test scores are constrained to integers that exactly 100 is impossible. This does not preclude the average score of another class (people of a different chronological age) landing on an integer number."
It all depends on how small you want to break down chronological and mental age. We have this convention, in the world, where age is measured by circuits of this lump of rock around a star as whole integers. We even celebrate them (well some of have stopped). But that doesn't mean that you can't further break age down into something as small as femtoseconds. Remember that intelligence is a continuum that stretches from the vegetative state all the way through to the Brocas and Einsteins of the world. Therefore mental age divided by chronological age _never_ yeilds an integer except for very special cases (I have proof for this but I can't fit it in the margin). Also, since a mean on a standard distribution is an infinitely thin line, I would say that the likelihood of anyone having the perfect mental/physical age ratio that hits 1.0000000000 (pure 100 on the IQ scale) is nil.
" my parents taught me not to be a rude prick"
I think they failed. If being precisely accurate is being a rude prick, I have to ask...are you a thinker or are you one of "them"?
--
BMO
"So you're saying sex with children is ok, killing civilians is ok, and science teachers are being treated the same as terrorists and paedophiles?"
No, of course not, but in my snide way pointing out that science, in various parts of this country, is regarded as evil. As evil as terrorists and paedophiles, because science endangers your eternal soul, so if you are a thinking person, when you die, you will burn forever and ever in the Lake Of Fire(TM). The people behind that worldview take it seriously and would rather imprison/kill scientists than let them "corrupt" more souls. It's just that most of them are too chickenshit to do anything about it. Only when they get organized and have the power of the uneducated masses behind them do they have actual power. But once that happens, look out. The first aim of any decent dictatorship is to get kill off the smart people, because stupid people are never a threat to a dictator with Charaaaaasma. Just look at history. The fact is that 50 percent of the entire country (any country, btw) is comprised of mouth-breathers who will elect someone who will "Fix It All, Just Give Me The Power To Do So."
And so the lumpen mob gets what it demands, to its eventual dismay. Then you have another Cambodia. Another Turkmenistan. Another Zimbabwe, which, btw, was the breadbasket of southern Africa, but now needs to import food.
My original post was based upon reality. That's the recipe for an effective troll.
"Every time man struggles and fails
He makes up some kind of fairytales
After all of the misery that he has caused
He denies he's descended from the dinosaurs"
-E. Costello
--
BMO
Someone mod parent up, please.
You shouldn't have posted anon.
--
BMO
A friend just pointed this out to me on gaim:
http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly#9
Freakin' scary.
--
BMO
/me bows.
:-D
Thank you kind sir or madam.
--
BMO
"Actually, that isn't quite right either. Now if you had used "less than or equal to" it would have worked. Of course, if you are going to insult the intelligence of half of a country you shouldn't make silly errors like that."
That sentence was a deliberate troll. I admit it.
"Do you know of any science teachers who were killed, sent to prison camps, beaten or otherwise mistreated like terrorists or paedophiles?"
A few of my coworkers are Cambodian. You're telling me it can't happen? Brother #1 was interviewed last month on the BBC. He still claims it's everyone else's fault.
--
BMO
If you really want to nitpick, there are *no* people who have an actual 100 for IQ. That's because intelligence is a continuum, and doesn't increment or decrement in integer steps. Everyone resides on either side of the _theoretical_ line of 100, which has no width, as anyone with a background in grade school math knows.
But that's not what I was aiming for in the original post.
Bwahahahaha....
--
BMO
I am not surprised.
Half of the US population has IQ's below 100.
48 percent of people are stupid and believe that Genesis is the literal Word Of Gawd and that science is some sort of mental buggery? This is not news.
The fact is that we're *this* close (holding thumb and forefinger a millimeter apart) to burning (well, hanging and pressing, actually) witches again in this country. The code words for "witches" these days are "terrorist," "paedophile," and "science teacher."
--
BMO
"I have chosen to live in ... Arizona" ...
u re1.html
"Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in disaster-prone areas?"
Why should my tax dollars go to people who have chosen to live in areas that DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO SUPPORT THE POPULATION except through federally funded water projects?
http://cals.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/janfeb07/feat
STFU, really.
--
BMO
The blurb in the ad says that it's upgradable to 2GB.
Sorry, but the new SD cards are 4GB. Devices that max out at 2GB don't even see that the card exists.
A coworker bought one to stuff in his smartphone. He should have read the fine print.
--
BMO
"So? The point of a society is that the strong look after the weak."
It's funny that a lot of the "free marketers" pretend to be christian. They should read Ezekiel
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)
I'm not Christian or anything else. I just read alot. It's just the entire hypocrisy of the entire situation.
To the hypocrite above: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Of course you are, you silly sot. We all are.
--
BMO
There but for the grace of God go you.
No, I'm not being particularly religious, but you must be either 20 or younger, or you've never had a disease in your life. It must be so wonderful to not have a chronic disease.
Insurance's purpose is to _spread the risk_. Once you get away from that, you may as well abolish insurance altogether. The thing is before we had health insurance the situation was worse than what we've got right now. Health problems basically bankrupted you then. Either that or you died.
If you're such a free-marketer, answer me this: How could I _ever_ become involved in starting my own business? I could _never_ get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The only way for me to get it is to work for someone else. This particular fact is largely ignored by people who decry the Canadian system. However, if we had a Canadian type system (Single payor health insurance, like OHIP) I could open a business tomorrow and not worry about meds or hospital emergencies.
So you've got good health. That is only a temporary condition.
--
BMO
"The New York Times is running a story on young people who are choosing to get genetic tests for conditions like Huntington's Disease that develop relatively late in life."
What do you mean "relatively late"? 37 or 40 is pretty damned early if you ask me.
--
BMO
"What was that movie about subliminal advertising and the guns that caused people to black out for hours?"
"Looker"
Get to see Susan Dey nakkid.
--
BMO
This is a late reply, but...
No, it's not like "describe our product in 25 words or less" It's about polluting blogs from here to the nether-regions to get people to stump for Microsoft, basically for free.
That's what's wrong with it. It's not about whether it's mickeysoft, it's whether mickeysoft is encourging people to act like assholes and spam the world. People who encourgage people to act like assholes are known as....assholes.
--
BMO
"Honestly, I hate comments like yours. "
The comments that are worse than that come from students pirating software saying that they're "sticking it to The Man." No, they're not sticking it to The Man. They're doing exactly what The Man wants, because....
"As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates, about Chinese software piracy. Thing is, that quote is also applicable to students, just end the sentence with "and then we will collect after they graduate"
This "we're letting you license Office Ultimate for $25AU/year" is a price just slightly above outright software piracy, and maybe even cheaper than buying a burned set of disks from the "dorm software dealer." Hook 'em while they're young.
--
BMO
"The blog thing is essentially a free prize draw, to win a scooter, laptop, etc. I don't see that it's any different to the competitions where you mail in a card, finishing off a sentence (e.g. "Microsoft Office is great because...") in X words or less."
Because they encourage you to not just write an essay about how Microsoft Office is so great, but they want you to do their marketing for them. For free. If you generate a long thread that got started with the magic words, you MIGHT win a chance at a scooter.
Yeah, that's what we need, more advertising, this time by suckered students.
"The only difference is it's longer and public."
You forgot: "And annoys everyone around"
--
BMO