Even if you do not like RealNames (its a free world) you have to acknowledge that ending up on the ThinkPad page at ibm.com is the right outcome.
What if you are looking to buy a used laptop? What if you want information about getting Plan9 running on your thinkpad? What if you want something *besides* the highest bidder.
The same holds true regardless of the language.
Your business was idiotic and helped nobody but you.
Remember on your blog where you said:
I hope I can make sure other entreprenuers learn the lesson of this before they repeat my mistake.
You didn't learn from the mistakes of all of the others who the same exact thing happened to. Had you done the most cursory investigation of Microsoft you would have known this would happen.
When you said this though I had to laugh:
I have a lot of respect for Microsoft in general and a good company doesn't allow things like this to go unpunished or uncorrected.
This is their SOP. If you respect that, then you are a fool.
and *in particular*, criticising its PSYCHOLOGY department without foundation. You will note that my post picked you up for the latter point, not the former: that you referred to the *psychology* department but that he had talked about the *evolutionary psychology* department.
I only had one point. You made up the "latter point". I said that I knew nothing about the quality of psychology at UCSB. This includes *any* type of psychology be it cognitive, abnormal, evolutionary or any other type. You have some real issues with jumping off the handle. You might look into some sort of psychology on the patient end. Unfortunately, as I already stated, I can't recommend anything specific to you.
Why are you calling someone a fool when you don't read their posts properly?
I did read his post properly. His ridicule was directed at UCSB as in "well *that* school is obviously bad" Maybe he meant it differently, but then it wasn't properly written to give that indication.
Well done. You're my nomination for this year's STTBA (Star Trek Technobabble Award).
The sad thing is that it isn't babble. All the words were real. The sadder thing is that I understood it. I didn't take enough complex analysis to verify that it's accurate though.
1. Where do we come from? 2. What are we doing here on earth? (What's our purpose of living?) 3. Where are we going after death?
None of the ancient "beliefs" that you listed are able to answer these questions in a manner that is relevant to where you are in life as a living-human being in this world today... except *one*!!
In point of fact all of the beliefs he listed and every other one which he didn't answered those questions with exactly the same accuracy and relevance as yours.
These questions are legitimate "scientific" questions
Actually, only #1 is a scientific question. The other two questions are purely philosophical.
Now you answer #1 and replace "we" with god. Now substitute that answer with "the universe" put back in. See how your god adds no information to the issue and merely serves to try and hide your ignorance?
Heaven is too hot anyway. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm I'll stick to hell where it's much more temperate.
Very funny link. If you had read the whole thing, you would have noticed the second article was a refutation of the first. He ignored pressure in the calculation. So hell is actually much hotter than heaven. Heaven however, in the words of the refuter, "remains deucedly hot"
Actually, UCSB is one of the best schools in the country in a number of areas: Physics, Math, Marine Biology, and several others. I don't know how their psychology department is, but to discard it out of hand marks you as a fool.
The Roman Empire qualified as an empire, hence the name "Roman Empire" Prior to Julius, or more accurately Augustus, the Roman Republic qualified as a republic.
I understand that telemarketers who call people on the do-not-call list in Minesota will get a personal visit from Gov. Ventura who will hit them with a steel folding chair.
The fact that this *might* be true is enough of a reason to like him;-)
The market, my good Captain, is for sources of light.
The competition to provide such sources has been going on for a long time. The earliest recorded providers were Sol, commonly referred to as "the Sun" and Luna AKA "the moon".
Now during the day, Sol does an amazing job. Always on time, generally plenty of light for most needs. At night, Luna takes over. Technically Luna just retransmits the power, (This would be a great place for an Enron/ California electricity comparison, but I can't even understand that whole fiasco well enough to do it right;-)
but the effect is the same.
Anyhow, due to the reduced usefullness of the moon during the night, and the increasing numbers of people inside: caves, office buildings, whatever, a demand was created for more reliable sources of light (and heat). This was met by fire initially. This was good, but had distinct disadvantages. You could burn down your house, or office. Caves were generally immune to burning down, but the disadvantages vs houses is best left for another thread lest I go offtopic. Now, there is room for safety improvement in the artificial light market. Also, candles were rather expensive, so there was room for a cheaper alternative as well. Sure the initial investment in electricity is high, but the advantages are many.
I believe the light bulb was the "killer app" for electricity. So by introducing a new product into an *existing* market and partnering it with an emerging technology (which incidently the lightbulb company was heavily involved in), Edison had a sure-fire winner here.
After installing mandrake to make the partition, i can then uninstall mandrake and install rh if i wish, and this won't affect the partition?
I haven't tried Mandrake, so I can't comment on its resizing tool, but you should be able to quit the installer after the partitions are written to disk. This is potentially risky, so you could finish the installation and then install RH. This won't affect the partitions at all, just the data on the partitions. So you wouldn't have to "uninstall" anything. Just run the RH installer and have it format all partitions (except your windows partitions. That would suck to do that accidentally). So be sure to back up everything you need on your windows partition just in case.
Note to Mandrake fans: I didn't tell him to scrap Mandrake, I merely facilitated;-)
The Founding Fathers thought that it would be acceptible to have a free press exactly because "not just anyone" could publish!
They also thought only men should vote, blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person and several other things which we the people have decided are crap. This falls into the exact same category. Things the founding fathers believed in, but really only for elite groups. We no longer believe that only elite groups should have these things.
There may need to be changes, but this is certainly *not* one of them Bucko.
I think he's right - the era of the aggressive sound collage largely vanished from popular rap music in the post-1991 era.
Rather than think about this like, "The big bad copyrights took this away", look at it another way.
The original artists made songs which they (or the record company) hold copyright to. The samplers then took the other artists work, modified it and sold it. Now they're pissed off that they couldn't take someone else's work and repackage it and *sell* it.
To put it in terms of licenses, people using these samples are assuming that the original work is under a BSD type license when they clearly are not. If they had released their derivative work for free (not in any GPL sense, the license metaphor breaks down here) then they would at least have some sort of legitimacy.
So. I would propose that an association is made up of its members, wouldn't you?
No, not really. My reasoning is that the RIAA is in business to support the labels, whereas the labels themselves are each individually in the business of making and selling music.
I think this distinction is an important one. This isn't to say that when the RIAA does something shady (again) that you should say, "Oh, poor WB, EMI, Sony etc." they're just trying to make a buck and that evil RIAA is making them look bad.
People say that the RIAA doesn't do anything and I disagree.
The labels do provide promotion and.....
You disagreeing is fine, but this is a non sequitor.
The RIAA is not the labels. What the *R**I*AA does is everything it can to make more money for the *R*ecording *I*ndustry. The artists who make music are in no way part of the recording industry. They have a relationship with the recording industry in that are recorded by them (and promoted, distributed etc.). The RIAA certainly does things, just nothing for the artist.
I heard a story about a guy who was breaking into someone's house, but fell through the glass roof/ceiling
I heard a similar story, but it was the burglar slipping on a loose rug.
roof/ceiling (depends on if you're looking form the oustside or inside - english is pretty stupid that way) In general, a roof and a ceiling are two completely different things. Not that there aren't many stupid things in english.
How did you come to the conclusion that I'm norwegian?
When you said that you were not an american, simple curiosity led me to wonder where you do live. I clicked on your homepage link on your post. On this page you mentioned going to a BLUG meeting with a link to BLUG's page which had a ".no" URL.
It also means I'm heading for bed, as it's rather late.
Aren't the purveyors and consumers of child pornography real criminals? Upon conviction, do they serve hard time for their acts? In both cases, yes. (Or at least they should be!)
Are the purveyors and consumers of drugs real criminals? Do they serve hard time for their acts? In the first case, no. In the second yes.
If you choose to debate this point, subject your reasons to this question: Are these problems the result of drugs, or the result of drugs being illegal. I have yet to hear a single justification for the war on (some) drugs that can pass this test.
Certainly child pornographers are in a completely different category, but using an extreme example doesn't make the structure of your argument any more valid.
Look at the "war on drugs" for example. This program has cost BILLIONS of dollars and what have we gained?
Oh come on, if you are in the construction business then you are making out quite nicely from all the new prisons we've had to build. There is even a private industry created to run these new prisons (Wackenhut). Can't you see that this is *good* for the economy.
A few hundred thousand people in prison that we tax payers have to support now
Actually as of the end of 1999 it is over 2 *million*. See, it's working even better than you thought.
and virtually no reduction in drug trafficking In fact it has increased. Can't you see that we need *more* people in prison to help.....help..... wait, why was it that we even have drug laws again?. When you offer suggestions, be sure to ask yourself if what you're suggesting is a problem with drugs or a problem with drugs being illegal.
but sometimes the act of proving someone to be guilty can be quite tendious without breaking these laws. This is a problem, tediousness isn't really the issue though. A large part of the issue is:
Like when lawyers can talk jugdes around, and make evidence aquired in legal ways unusable as evidence.
And similar things.
I think we agree, but look at this from to different perspectives.
Quite possibly. My perspective is one where my government has declared war on the American people (the war on *some* drugs among other more recent legislation). Anything that gives more power to the prosecutors in the court system needs to be examined very carefully and almost always rejected even at the expense of some innocents being harmed by *real* criminals going free.
Then again, I'm not american, so what do I know about american courts, except from what you learn from Ally McBeal? (-8
I dunno, maybe you can get Judge Judy in Norway;-)
But think of the following scenario: A police(wo)man beleives a group of people are drug dealers. He breaks into their warehouse, quite illegally, and finds evidence that proves he's/she's right. I know that the case is extreme
This isn't an extreme case at all. It is what I was referring to in part.
but would those evidences be illegal to present for a court, and the guilty ones will go free?
Yes. Your example is a bad one in a way since drug laws are scam by design, but that's another debate. Think of it this way: What if a cop "believes" for whatever reason that you are a kiddy humper. He has zero evidence for this otherwise he could convince a judge to give him a warrant. So he breaks into your house i.e. he has become the criminal that he is supposedly there to protect the citizens from. Now you are not a kiddy humper, so there is no evidence to be found. However you do happen to have a pipe in the house with some marijuana residue in it.So he then arrests you for this. This would entirely destroy the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty", replacing it with "You are guilty of anything I accuse you of until you prove that you are innocent of *any infraction no matter how trivial*. And almost anyone is guilty of some stupid crime.
Perhaps this is true for laptops. For servers as of a month ago anyhow there was a drop down menu that listed at least 4 choices one being RedHat and one being "No operating System".
Slashdot Mirror
What if you are looking to buy a used laptop?
What if you want information about getting Plan9 running on your thinkpad?
What if you want something *besides* the highest bidder.
The same holds true regardless of the language.
Your business was idiotic and helped nobody but you.
Remember on your blog where you said:
You didn't learn from the mistakes of all of the others who the same exact thing happened to.
Had you done the most cursory investigation of Microsoft you would have known this would happen.
When you said this though I had to laugh:
This is their SOP. If you respect that, then you are a fool.
and *in particular*, criticising its PSYCHOLOGY department without foundation. You will note that my post picked you up for the latter point, not the former: that you referred to the *psychology* department but that he had talked about the *evolutionary psychology* department.
I only had one point. You made up the "latter point".
I said that I knew nothing about the quality of psychology at UCSB. This includes *any* type of psychology be it cognitive, abnormal, evolutionary or any other type. You have some real issues with jumping off the handle. You might look into some sort of psychology on the patient end.
Unfortunately, as I already stated, I can't recommend anything specific to you.
Why are you calling someone a fool when you don't read their posts properly?
I did read his post properly.
His ridicule was directed at UCSB as in "well *that* school is obviously bad"
Maybe he meant it differently, but then it wasn't properly written to give that indication.
So I guess your post just made you look stupid?
Well done. You're my nomination for this year's STTBA (Star Trek Technobabble Award).
The sad thing is that it isn't babble. All the words were real.
The sadder thing is that I understood it.
I didn't take enough complex analysis to verify that it's accurate though.
You wanna be scientific? ok, answer this:
1. Where do we come from?
2. What are we doing here on earth? (What's our purpose of living?)
3. Where are we going after death?
None of the ancient "beliefs" that you listed are able to answer these questions in a manner that is relevant to where you are in life as a living-human being in this world today... except *one*!!
In point of fact all of the beliefs he listed and every other one which he didn't answered those questions with exactly the same accuracy and relevance as yours.
These questions are legitimate "scientific" questions
Actually, only #1 is a scientific question. The other two questions are purely philosophical.
Now you answer #1 and replace "we" with god. Now substitute that answer with "the universe" put back in.
See how your god adds no information to the issue and merely serves to try and hide your ignorance?
Heaven is too hot anyway. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm
I'll stick to hell where it's much more temperate.
Very funny link.
If you had read the whole thing, you would have noticed the second article was a refutation of the first. He ignored pressure in the calculation. So hell is actually much hotter than heaven. Heaven however, in the words of the refuter, "remains deucedly hot"
At UCSB??? Uh.... yeah. Whatever.
Actually, UCSB is one of the best schools in the country in a number of areas: Physics, Math, Marine Biology, and several others. I don't know how their psychology department is, but to discard it out of hand marks you as a fool.
or did the Roman Empire qualify, as a republic?
The Roman Empire qualified as an empire, hence the name "Roman Empire"
Prior to Julius, or more accurately Augustus, the Roman Republic qualified as a republic.
Most "malicious hackers" don't browse through source code, they just use exploits discovered by others.
This is known as a "script kiddie". A hacker who is truly malicious would own your ass so fast it would make you head spin if they were so inclined.
Most of them wouldn't even know where to begin analyzing code, let alone understand what it does.
That's why there have never been any real hacks?
Somebody has to maintain and enforce the list, and that costs money. Do you think it should be paid for by taxes instead?
Certainly not. It should be paid for by the telemarketers. They are the ones who made such a list necessary.
In the linked article, the NY law requires the telemarketers to purchase the list.
This is the only right way to do it.
I understand that telemarketers who call people on the do-not-call list in Minesota will get a personal visit from Gov. Ventura who will hit them with a steel folding chair.
;-)
The fact that this *might* be true is enough of a reason to like him
The nominee could hold to the highest levels of ethics and decency but because he is anti-abortion
This is an oxymoron. You can not have any sort of decent ethics and try to control the inside of someone else's body.
The market, my good Captain, is for sources of light.
;-)
The competition to provide such sources has been going on for a long time.
The earliest recorded providers were Sol, commonly referred to as "the Sun" and Luna AKA "the moon".
Now during the day, Sol does an amazing job. Always on time, generally plenty of light for most needs.
At night, Luna takes over. Technically Luna just retransmits the power,
(This would be a great place for an Enron/ California electricity comparison, but I can't even understand that whole fiasco well enough to do it right
but the effect is the same.
Anyhow, due to the reduced usefullness of the moon during the night, and the increasing numbers of people inside: caves, office buildings, whatever, a demand was created for more reliable sources of light (and heat). This was met by fire initially. This was good, but had distinct disadvantages. You could burn down your house, or office. Caves were generally immune to burning down, but the disadvantages vs houses is best left for another thread lest I go offtopic.
Now, there is room for safety improvement in the artificial light market. Also, candles were rather expensive, so there was room for a cheaper alternative as well. Sure the initial investment in electricity is high, but the advantages are many.
I believe the light bulb was the "killer app" for electricity. So by introducing a new product into an *existing* market and partnering it with an emerging technology (which incidently the lightbulb company was heavily involved in), Edison had a sure-fire winner here.
After installing mandrake to make the partition, i can then uninstall mandrake and install rh if i wish, and this won't affect the partition?
;-)
I haven't tried Mandrake, so I can't comment on its resizing tool, but you should be able to quit the installer after the partitions are written to disk.
This is potentially risky, so you could finish the installation and then install RH. This won't affect the partitions at all, just the data on the partitions. So you wouldn't have to "uninstall" anything. Just run the RH installer and have it format all partitions (except your windows partitions. That would suck to do that accidentally). So be sure to back up everything you need on your windows partition just in case.
Note to Mandrake fans: I didn't tell him to scrap Mandrake, I merely facilitated
The Founding Fathers thought that it would be acceptible to have a free press exactly because "not just anyone" could publish!
They also thought only men should vote, blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person and several other things which we the people have decided are crap. This falls into the exact same category. Things the founding fathers believed in, but really only for elite groups. We no longer believe that only elite groups should have these things.
There may need to be changes, but this is certainly *not* one of them Bucko.
I think he's right - the era of the aggressive sound collage largely vanished from popular rap music in the post-1991 era.
Rather than think about this like, "The big bad copyrights took this away", look at it another way.
The original artists made songs which they (or the record company) hold copyright to.
The samplers then took the other artists work, modified it and sold it. Now they're pissed off that they couldn't take someone else's work and repackage it and *sell* it.
To put it in terms of licenses, people using these samples are assuming that the original work is under a BSD type license when they clearly are not.
If they had released their derivative work for free (not in any GPL sense, the license metaphor breaks down here) then they would at least have some sort of legitimacy.
So. I would propose that an association is made up of its members, wouldn't you?
No, not really. My reasoning is that the RIAA is in business to support the labels, whereas the labels themselves are each individually in the business of making and selling music.
I think this distinction is an important one.
This isn't to say that when the RIAA does something shady (again) that you should say, "Oh, poor WB, EMI, Sony etc." they're just trying to make a buck and that evil RIAA is making them look bad.
People say that the RIAA doesn't do anything and I disagree.
.....
The labels do provide promotion and
You disagreeing is fine, but this is a non sequitor.
The RIAA is not the labels. What the *R**I*AA does is everything it can to make more money for the *R*ecording *I*ndustry.
The artists who make music are in no way part of the recording industry.
They have a relationship with the recording industry in that are recorded by them (and promoted, distributed etc.).
The RIAA certainly does things, just nothing for the artist.
I heard a story about a guy who was breaking into someone's house, but fell through the glass roof/ceiling
I heard a similar story, but it was the burglar slipping on a loose rug.
roof/ceiling (depends on if you're looking form the oustside or inside - english is pretty stupid that way)
In general, a roof and a ceiling are two completely different things. Not that there aren't many stupid things in english.
How did you come to the conclusion that I'm norwegian?
When you said that you were not an american, simple curiosity led me to wonder where you do live. I clicked on your homepage link on your post. On this page you mentioned going to a BLUG meeting with a link to BLUG's page which had a ".no" URL.
It also means I'm heading for bed, as it's rather late.
Good night;-)
Aren't the purveyors and consumers of child pornography real criminals? Upon conviction, do they serve hard time for their acts? In both cases, yes. (Or at least they should be!)
Are the purveyors and consumers of drugs real criminals? Do they serve hard time for their acts?
In the first case, no. In the second yes.
If you choose to debate this point, subject your reasons to this question:
Are these problems the result of drugs, or the result of drugs being illegal.
I have yet to hear a single justification for the war on (some) drugs that can pass this test.
Certainly child pornographers are in a completely different category, but using an extreme example doesn't make the structure of your argument any more valid.
Slight correction. The over 2 million is total prison population. The drug laws "only" account for 65% of that.
Look at the "war on drugs" for example. This program has cost BILLIONS of dollars and what have we gained?
Oh come on, if you are in the construction business then you are making out quite nicely from all the new prisons we've had to build. There is even a private industry created to run these new prisons (Wackenhut). Can't you see that this is *good* for the economy.
A few hundred thousand people in prison that we tax payers have to support now
Actually as of the end of 1999 it is over 2 *million*. See, it's working even better than you thought.
and virtually no reduction in drug trafficking
In fact it has increased. Can't you see that we need *more* people in prison to help.....help.....
wait, why was it that we even have drug laws again?. When you offer suggestions, be sure to ask yourself if what you're suggesting is a problem with drugs or a problem with drugs being illegal.
but sometimes the act of proving someone to be guilty can be quite tendious without breaking these laws.
;-)
This is a problem, tediousness isn't really the issue though. A large part of the issue is:
Like when lawyers can talk jugdes around, and make evidence aquired in legal ways unusable as evidence.
And similar things.
I think we agree, but look at this from to different perspectives.
Quite possibly. My perspective is one where my government has declared war on the American people (the war on *some* drugs among other more recent legislation). Anything that gives more power to the prosecutors in the court system needs to be examined very carefully and almost always rejected even at the expense of some innocents being harmed by *real* criminals going free.
Then again, I'm not american, so what do I know about american courts, except from what you learn from Ally McBeal? (-8
I dunno, maybe you can get Judge Judy in Norway
But think of the following scenario: A police(wo)man beleives a group of people are drug dealers. He breaks into their warehouse, quite illegally, and finds evidence that proves he's/she's right. I know that the case is extreme
This isn't an extreme case at all. It is what I was referring to in part.
but would those evidences be illegal to present for a court, and the guilty ones will go free?
Yes. Your example is a bad one in a way since drug laws are scam by design, but that's another debate. Think of it this way: What if a cop "believes" for whatever reason that you are a kiddy humper. He has zero evidence for this otherwise he could convince a judge to give him a warrant. So he breaks into your house i.e. he has become the criminal that he is supposedly there to protect the citizens from.
Now you are not a kiddy humper, so there is no evidence to be found. However you do happen to have a pipe in the house with some marijuana residue in it.So he then arrests you for this.
This would entirely destroy the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty", replacing it with "You are guilty of anything I accuse you of until you prove that you are innocent of *any infraction no matter how trivial*.
And almost anyone is guilty of some stupid crime.
They couldn't even find them. When you call Dell:
Perhaps this is true for laptops. For servers as of a month ago anyhow there was a drop down menu that listed at least 4 choices one being RedHat and one being "No operating System".