...thanks for that bit of news which made me glad I don't live in such a backward-a$$ state as WI, that wants to completely screw up the internet. Yeah, go ahead an try it! Who would participate? How would it be implemented? Who would bother doing business with anyone or anything in WI anymore? Just plain stupid.
But I don't dig this show that much. Some of the characters are neat but the main plot line of a new breed of "religious" robots just never made sense, though I suppose that's part of the point. Furthermore the implanted cyclone spies generate no sympathy. They should have *never* told you who they were. Now that you know, it's just impossible to feel anything for them or the people surrounding them. In fact, their lack of knowledge of what they are is infuriating and the protectiveness of the real humans they know is too drummed up.
Generally it's just a big soap opera just in space. I'm not sure how to fix it but I know that I like Sci-Fi that tried to underscore philosophical issues, conflicts and approached itself with a prinicpled core. This is just situational surviving, which rarely is principle centered but is often when you need it the most. Apollo is the only one who appears to follow that.
or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars.
Perhaps planets are bodies that don't have nuclear fusion going on in their cores, do not self-generate light, and are non-plasma material on their surface?
But seriously, how can one not draw a distinction?
The cost is also a lot more than $50 or $99 because you have to pay the bastards $12.99 a month (or $300 for life).
Is it any wonder they are having finacial trouble? With consumers with this kind of attitude, it should not be. TiVO provides a decent service for a relatively cheap price and they even give you the option to save money in the long haul with a lifetime subscription and for that they get called bastards. For $350 most people could put together just the hardware for a MythTV box. Then they have to spend their time building up the software; configuration, compilation, installation, more configuration. That time is a cost too. TiVO's service to you is the benifit of that time back, but of course you cannot appreciate that until you've experienced wasting it.
As long as you credit where it came from, and release the code as GPL, it is ENTIRELY ethical and a logical extension of the idea of OPEN source. It's OPEN so people can see it, understand it and reuse it, OPENLY; giving credit where it's due. That's part of the bloody point.
<flame>Sounds like this guy is being a prissy little punk.</flame>
Tell him to go check his premises. If he wants neat features closed source he should do it with a closed source project.
And then... And then... And then....
on
The Media in 2014
·
· Score: 1
Does this seem like some puerile mental mastubatory experience to anyone else but me? Googlezon Hegemony? Come on, this won't happen for at least another 30 years. And it'll be called Amazoogle.
oh, EQ2 players, don't you remember that this is SoE? They don't have adequate code control, review or testing. Why do you keep throwing money at them? If we, as MMORPG players, stop funding these mickey-mouse operations, the other MMORPGs would have to mature or die and learn to produce better games! Spent your MMORPG dollar wisely!
So her point I guess is a mental strike. Instead of fixing the rotting system from the inside by working harder and going nowhere, accelerate the rotting by doing nothing. Either they will have to give up on their socio-political HR poilicies and start basing promotion, hiring and firing on applicable indicators like skill or die by their own hand.
I'm suprised, France, that's very capitialistic of you. And here I thought you didn't swing that way.
Yes I was excited about it until I found out that I couldn't be a Jedi (a 0.002% chance is not good enough for me). And to add insult to injury, once a Jedi dies, it's dead FOREVER!
FAT CHANCE, buster! My dollars go to City of Heroes and DAoC now.
The car is rated for 24 city / 31 hwy. I've on occasion, been able to break 24 in weekly commuting, but just barely. On long highway trips I may get around 28 though. I've never seen anything over 30.
/* politcal-pseudeo-C */ int ashcroft_test() {
int error = ERROR_NONE;
char *quote = "[i]mplementing such a request risks a crash that cannot " \
"be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating";
if (isTellingTruth(quote) == TRUE)
{
if (ashcroft.budget < ashcroft.expectedBudget)
{
ashcroft.requestLargerBudget();
error = ERROR_BIG_GOVERNMENT;
}
else if (ashcroft.StaffIQ < IQ_SEA_TURTLE)
{
ashcroft.admitIncompetence();
error = ERROR_INCOMPETENT_GOVERMENT;
}
else
{/* developer note: I could never get
* this condition to activate in
* testing... oh well. */
error = ERROR_UNKNOWN;
}
}
else// less than honest answer
{
if (isTooDifficult(quote) == FALSE)
{
ashcroft.takeVacation();
error = ERROR_LAZY_GOVERNMENT;
}
else if (dislikeFOIA(ashcroft) == TRUE)
{
ashcroft.evadeFOIA();
error = ERROR_CLOSED_GOVERNMENT;
}
else
{// some sinister plot I'm sure!
crackpots.startDreaming();
error = ERROR_UNKNOWN;
}
}
return error; }
There's lots of compelling arguments in your case here, but I think you could use some edits.
1.) " Like the dog that didn't bark in the night-time, these omissions are significant, because Microsoft marketing is thorough and ruthlessly opportunistic." The first part of this statement is rather confounding. I assume that you mean that that fact that they have dropped these arguments should be indicative of the thoroughness of the marketers.
2.) "Do I even need to point out that most of the factual claims are blatant lies brought to you by the same people who got caught faking video evidence in their Federal antitrust trial?". Unless you can show that the actual forger is at work here, refrain from painting all MS employees with the brush of a criminal. This only serves to undermine your objectivity.
3.) "Hammer them without mercy -- but do it in a quiet, reasonable voice and keep control of the terms of argument. " Do it "ruthlessly" perhaps? This also serves to undermine you credibility as it shows you too are playing the word game. Ruthless is a "charged word" even though it used to mean "without emotion" it implies some bitter, hateful vengence now. You used it to describe MS Marketing before but you don't use it now, but just be consistent. The rest of the statement is good though, stick to the facts and definitions, and keep the argument in your favor.
4.) "...higher Windows TCO is forever" Please quantify "higher" with a number.
5.) "Shared source is a poison pill." Shared Source may be a misnomer but calling it a "posion" pill is just imflamitory.
6.) "Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?" Please quantify "more often". Also, attempt to separate this into 2 questions, as the answer will undoubtably be "Hackers hate Windows, hackers attack Windows" which will only be to their advantage because it implies that they are top dog. The top dog is perpetually being challenged. Saying that they are attacked often is handing them the opportunity to say that they are top dog.
Otherwise, this is good article and it's got some great questions for MS PR about the Shared Source == Open Source nonsense.
I dislike their frequent use of the word. It seems to imply that this field is somehow solid in it's knowledge of how these particles work, when in reality it's really alot of clever guesswork. It would seem to me that what they mean by contradiction is merely a seeming contradiction because our assumptions, obviously, have come into question. I know it'd be a pain to be so annoying accurate all the time but could quantum science, in general, please qualify this more often?
Be a little less quick to assume you're unraveling reason itself and start recognizing that if you have a contradiction, then it's because some premise of yours is wrong.
I'm not sure how'd they regulate that sort of thing, and I'd be dead set against it in the first place. However, if they regulated, say, proper grammar and spelling, I may consider it.
The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate messages on the Internet anyway?"
"The world population is rapidly aging -- at least in developed countries...." [Emphasis mine]
I guess developing countries can't afford the laws of physics like the rest of the world where everyone else ages at the same rate due to the steady flow of time?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because that reeks of protectionism and socialism, two things conservatives don't like.
...thanks for that bit of news which made me glad I don't live in such a backward-a$$ state as WI, that wants to completely screw up the internet. Yeah, go ahead an try it! Who would participate? How would it be implemented? Who would bother doing business with anyone or anything in WI anymore? Just plain stupid.
But I don't dig this show that much. Some of the characters are neat but the main plot line of a new breed of "religious" robots just never made sense, though I suppose that's part of the point. Furthermore the implanted cyclone spies generate no sympathy. They should have *never* told you who they were. Now that you know, it's just impossible to feel anything for them or the people surrounding them. In fact, their lack of knowledge of what they are is infuriating and the protectiveness of the real humans they know is too drummed up.
Generally it's just a big soap opera just in space. I'm not sure how to fix it but I know that I like Sci-Fi that tried to underscore philosophical issues, conflicts and approached itself with a prinicpled core. This is just situational surviving, which rarely is principle centered but is often when you need it the most. Apollo is the only one who appears to follow that.
or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars.
Perhaps planets are bodies that don't have nuclear fusion going on in their cores, do not self-generate light, and are non-plasma material on their surface?
But seriously, how can one not draw a distinction?
Is it any wonder they are having finacial trouble? With consumers with this kind of attitude, it should not be. TiVO provides a decent service for a relatively cheap price and they even give you the option to save money in the long haul with a lifetime subscription and for that they get called bastards. For $350 most people could put together just the hardware for a MythTV box. Then they have to spend their time building up the software; configuration, compilation, installation, more configuration. That time is a cost too. TiVO's service to you is the benifit of that time back, but of course you cannot appreciate that until you've experienced wasting it.
Why, because I can tell if they're enjoying themselves and work for it?
No, because you're likely to put their eye out with your calipers measuring her pupils for dilation during intercourse.
As long as you credit where it came from, and release the code as GPL, it is ENTIRELY ethical and a logical extension of the idea of OPEN source. It's OPEN so people can see it, understand it and reuse it, OPENLY; giving credit where it's due. That's part of the bloody point.
<flame>Sounds like this guy is being a prissy little punk.</flame>
Tell him to go check his premises. If he wants neat features closed source he should do it with a closed source project.
Does this seem like some puerile mental mastubatory experience to anyone else but me? Googlezon Hegemony? Come on, this won't happen for at least another 30 years. And it'll be called Amazoogle.
Googlezon,... please.
oh, EQ2 players, don't you remember that this is SoE? They don't have adequate code control, review or testing. Why do you keep throwing money at them? If we, as MMORPG players, stop funding these mickey-mouse operations, the other MMORPGs would have to mature or die and learn to produce better games! Spent your MMORPG dollar wisely!
I'm not an aficionado but at some point in this metaphor it'll be Tim love Joe, right? You know that's not legal here anymore, right?
Don't tell us about it, sumbit it as prior art!
So her point I guess is a mental strike. Instead of fixing the rotting system from the inside by working harder and going nowhere, accelerate the rotting by doing nothing. Either they will have to give up on their socio-political HR poilicies and start basing promotion, hiring and firing on applicable indicators like skill or die by their own hand.
I'm suprised, France, that's very capitialistic of you. And here I thought you didn't swing that way.
Since when was STG suppose to be the big thing?
Yes I was excited about it until I found out that I couldn't be a Jedi (a 0.002% chance is not good enough for me). And to add insult to injury, once a Jedi dies, it's dead FOREVER!
FAT CHANCE, buster! My dollars go to City of Heroes and DAoC now.
A portable data storage device.... iPod, USB watch, USB drives, oh and LAPTOPS.
Buster of an idea. Really great.
The car is rated for 24 city / 31 hwy. I've on occasion, been able to break 24 in weekly commuting, but just barely. On long highway trips I may get around 28 though. I've never seen anything over 30.
There's lots of compelling arguments in your case here, but I think you could use some edits.
1.) " Like the dog that didn't bark in the night-time, these omissions are significant, because Microsoft marketing is thorough and ruthlessly opportunistic." The first part of this statement is rather confounding. I assume that you mean that that fact that they have dropped these arguments should be indicative of the thoroughness of the marketers.
2.) "Do I even need to point out that most of the factual claims are blatant lies brought to you by the same people who got caught faking video evidence in their Federal antitrust trial?". Unless you can show that the actual forger is at work here, refrain from painting all MS employees with the brush of a criminal. This only serves to undermine your objectivity.
3.) "Hammer them without mercy -- but do it in a quiet, reasonable voice and keep control of the terms of argument. " Do it "ruthlessly" perhaps? This also serves to undermine you credibility as it shows you too are playing the word game. Ruthless is a "charged word" even though it used to mean "without emotion" it implies some bitter, hateful vengence now. You used it to describe MS Marketing before but you don't use it now, but just be consistent. The rest of the statement is good though, stick to the facts and definitions, and keep the argument in your favor.
4.) "...higher Windows TCO is forever" Please quantify "higher" with a number.
5.) "Shared source is a poison pill." Shared Source may be a misnomer but calling it a "posion" pill is just imflamitory.
6.) "Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?" Please quantify "more often". Also, attempt to separate this into 2 questions, as the answer will undoubtably be "Hackers hate Windows, hackers attack Windows" which will only be to their advantage because it implies that they are top dog. The top dog is perpetually being challenged. Saying that they are attacked often is handing them the opportunity to say that they are top dog.
Otherwise, this is good article and it's got some great questions for MS PR about the Shared Source == Open Source nonsense.
I dislike their frequent use of the word. It seems to imply that this field is somehow solid in it's knowledge of how these particles work, when in reality it's really alot of clever guesswork. It would seem to me that what they mean by contradiction is merely a seeming contradiction because our assumptions, obviously, have come into question. I know it'd be a pain to be so annoying accurate all the time but could quantum science, in general, please qualify this more often?
Be a little less quick to assume you're unraveling reason itself and start recognizing that if you have a contradiction, then it's because some premise of yours is wrong.
I'm not sure how'd they regulate that sort of thing, and I'd be dead set against it in the first place. However, if they regulated, say, proper grammar and spelling, I may consider it.
The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate messages on the Internet anyway?"
Where are the grammar police when you need them?
Well said! I almost guffawed out loud on that one.
Didn't you guys just report on that?
"...my ISP has no way to be certain if it's me.'"
But they will have no problem holding you accountable by the terms of usage agreement.
End of discussion.
And, depending on how you read the law, (for instance, with your eyes shut) it's 100% legal. (Comment mine).
Somehow I can't qualify things to be 100% if there is a caveat, at least in most cases.
"The world population is rapidly aging -- at least in developed countries. ..." [Emphasis mine]
I guess developing countries can't afford the laws of physics like the rest of the world where everyone else ages at the same rate due to the steady flow of time?
You Know I'm really starKing to get sicK of the naminK Konventions for KDE.