but don't have too much problem when the local store thinks it's my girlfriend who's loading up on beer. I'd be a little concerned about other men hitting on your girlfriend when they see her going through the checkout line with 10 cases of beer. "Hey there sweetheart, let me help you with that!" If she's also buying a pizza, that's some guys' picture of "the perfect woman"!
What am I doing with this 6-pack of Bud? I, uh... I only use it for cooking! Yeah, that's it! I'm on my way home right now to sip some Chateau Rothschild '59 while fixing up some beer-battered chicken!
If you follow Jefferson argument that "all men are created equal" to it's logical conclusion, then the banning of slavery naturally folllows, but the claiming that people that happen to be attracted to people of the same gender have LESS rights then people that are attracted to people of the opposite gender does not. Furthermore, a very small percentage of people are born true hermaphrodites... are they then denied the right to marry ANYONE, because it is not clear whether they are male or female? Or do they get more rights than everyone else, and can marry either a man or a woman? The Constitutional ammendment which are president is currently proposing with a straight face definately conflicts with the concept of "equal protection". Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. (Oh, and for the record -- I'm married to a person of the opposite sex.)
How do we know they aren't going around shooting people so they can sell more caskets?Uh, that wouldn't get them more clients... that would just get them the same clients, only sooner! In fact, if the people they shoot haven't finished reproducing, it would get them less clients in the long run.
Oh, and the drug companies love incurable diseases, since that gives them a customer for life. There is more money to be made in palliative measures then cures, so that's where they focus their research. If doctors and hospitals really valued our health so much, wouldn't they focus more on preventing disease, rather then waiting for patients to get sick? I never claimed anti-virus companies were actively writing new viruses. I just said that they have a vested interest in not preventing them from being written. Just as firewall vendor's stock doubles whenever a new worm comes out. Police and firemen get paid the same whether or not they prevent crime and fires. The more viruses there are, the more the stock of the anti-virus companies goes up... that means the officers of the AV companies have a fiduciary responsibility in their being new viruses.
Actually, I agree with you that our current government doesn't uphold the Constitution, as I understand the original intentions of our founding fathers. How would Jefferson have felt about a Constitutional Ammendment defining who can and cannot marry? The point I was trying to make is that the Constitution, like the bible, is subject to interpretation. Hell, Constitutional scholars are still arguing about the Second Ammendment, which seems pretty cut and dried to many. I stand by my original point -- the "right to privacy" is a right created by the Court, based on their interpretation of the Constitution, not a right explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. And the principle that all rights not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the people has been violated since day one. Furthermore, I'm not sure you could run an effective government based on that principle, as it is impossible to foresee all possible future circumstances and therefore reserve all possible necessary future rights.
Read the constitution. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. The "Right to Privacy" is based on an interpretation, privacy regarded as an "implied" right, i.e. useful for persuing liberty and hapiness. But the interpretation could just as go the other way. I personally beleive in "reciprocal privacy", i.e. everything the government is allowed to know about me, I should be allowed to know about everybody on the government payroll -- especially Ashcroft.
How about if we send all those damn Europeans back to Europe where they came from, and return this country to it's rightful owners, who ran things just fine until those damn foreigners started showing up about 500 years ago? And while we're on the subject... if you lazy white people could just learn to pick you're own lettuce, there wouldn't be half as many illegal immigrants, would there?
Yes, but if they release the virus themselves, they're pretty much guaranteed to be the first to offer detection of the new virus, aren't they? Aren't you even a little bit suspicious of the first firm to add a new virus to their list? They would look much more competent vis-a-vis their competitors if they wrote the virus themselves... not that I'm saying any of them actually do that.
Although everybody should have the choice of using non-free software, shouldn't it be distributed as an add-on instead of part of the base distro? Or am I missing something here?
On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. Or, on the face of it, interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows software sucks! Switching from Windows to Linux is never really free (my time is worth something). Perhaps some people perceive Linux as having greater reliability, regardless of cost? And besides which, Microsoft keeps telling us TCO is lower for Windows... they wouldn't lie to us, would they?
Something too many people here fail to comprehend is that quite a lot of the cost of MS's products goes towards customer service. Could that misperception have anything to do with them actually attempting to access Microsoft Customer Service? (Actually, I'm being unfair to M$ here, my only experience with M$ Customer Service was when I installed the latest free update to IE and it rendered my laptop unusable (never finished booting up). Friendly M$ Customer Support said "Oh yeah, that happens to a lot of people" and walked me through fixing the problem. So in that case their Customer Support for their "free" software was worth a lot more than the software itself...)
"easy-to-use Windows-based track editor" in order to "allow everyone a chance at creating tracks that might be included in a cartridge version of Indy 500 XE" Cool... it must run in WINE then, since it allows everybody a chance!
I most certainly do! What home user actually knows the price of Windows/Office and does NOT have a problem with purchasing software at that price? What?!? Are there home users out there that actually PAY for Office?!?
It's truly unfortunate that the Corporate World has forgotten how to speak in natural language. This is a natural language. This is how words naturally come out when you're talking out your ass...
Right, 'cause none of your computers have floppy drives, CD, or DVD ROMS, and you never run SSL or IPSec connections through your ISP which your ISP had damn well better NOT be able to scan for viruses... oh, and you don't have any wireless cards running unencrypted either...
No, I think it could be argued that Anti-Virus protection in best provided by those with the most intimate knowledge of the holes in the first place. Unless you expect me to beleive that all the current Anti-Virus vendors have full access to the Microsoft source tree... Providing functionality in the OS that logically SHOULD have been part of the OS to begin with doesn't sound like "Anti-Trust" to me -- and no, web browsers don't fit the same criteria.
The difference is that McAffee, Norton, et. al. have a vested interest in there being lots of new viruses, which leads me to wonder if they don't also assist in creating them. Microsoft has a vested interest in not having their software be perceived as being susceptible to viruses, so this might actually be a feature best provided by the OS vendors themselves -- much as I hate to admit it.
You're forgetting that not all medications are pre-packaged by the vendor. Some people take syrups that must actually be mixed up by the pharmacist because they are custom formulations or have a limited shelf life. I think some pharmacists still fill their own capsules too, but that practice should be going away. Nevertheless, for those prescriptions for which the pharmacist is merely counting pills out of a big bottle into a smaller bottle, complete automation of the process is definately the way to go. Kaiser Permanente already uses pill-counting machines; the next step is to get all the manufacturers to distribute medications in a standardized, easy to automate form.
I was going to say "but what about the cost!", but I guess if you're paying over $1 for every pill, the cost of including an RFID in the packaging of every pill will soon be trivial, if it isn't already. If all drugs were distributed in standardized rolls simular to those used by chip placement machines, then pill counting could be completely automated, and all those pill counters would be out of work...
Slashdot Mirror
but don't have too much problem when the local store thinks it's my girlfriend who's loading up on beer. I'd be a little concerned about other men hitting on your girlfriend when they see her going through the checkout line with 10 cases of beer. "Hey there sweetheart, let me help you with that!" If she's also buying a pizza, that's some guys' picture of "the perfect woman"!
What am I doing with this 6-pack of Bud? I, uh... I only use it for cooking! Yeah, that's it! I'm on my way home right now to sip some Chateau Rothschild '59 while fixing up some beer-battered chicken!
If you follow Jefferson argument that "all men are created equal" to it's logical conclusion, then the banning of slavery naturally folllows, but the claiming that people that happen to be attracted to people of the same gender have LESS rights then people that are attracted to people of the opposite gender does not. Furthermore, a very small percentage of people are born true hermaphrodites... are they then denied the right to marry ANYONE, because it is not clear whether they are male or female? Or do they get more rights than everyone else, and can marry either a man or a woman? The Constitutional ammendment which are president is currently proposing with a straight face definately conflicts with the concept of "equal protection". Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. (Oh, and for the record -- I'm married to a person of the opposite sex.)
Oh, and the drug companies love incurable diseases, since that gives them a customer for life. There is more money to be made in palliative measures then cures, so that's where they focus their research. If doctors and hospitals really valued our health so much, wouldn't they focus more on preventing disease, rather then waiting for patients to get sick? I never claimed anti-virus companies were actively writing new viruses. I just said that they have a vested interest in not preventing them from being written. Just as firewall vendor's stock doubles whenever a new worm comes out. Police and firemen get paid the same whether or not they prevent crime and fires. The more viruses there are, the more the stock of the anti-virus companies goes up... that means the officers of the AV companies have a fiduciary responsibility in their being new viruses.
Actually, I agree with you that our current government doesn't uphold the Constitution, as I understand the original intentions of our founding fathers. How would Jefferson have felt about a Constitutional Ammendment defining who can and cannot marry? The point I was trying to make is that the Constitution, like the bible, is subject to interpretation. Hell, Constitutional scholars are still arguing about the Second Ammendment, which seems pretty cut and dried to many. I stand by my original point -- the "right to privacy" is a right created by the Court, based on their interpretation of the Constitution, not a right explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. And the principle that all rights not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the people has been violated since day one. Furthermore, I'm not sure you could run an effective government based on that principle, as it is impossible to foresee all possible future circumstances and therefore reserve all possible necessary future rights.
Lobotomy. Yeah, you don't need one to move from Linux to Windows... but it helps.
The Constitution also doesn't grant the government the right to organize a standing army or collect income taxes... and your point is?
Perhaps because they are afraid of being thrown in jail if they do?
Read the constitution. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. The "Right to Privacy" is based on an interpretation, privacy regarded as an "implied" right, i.e. useful for persuing liberty and hapiness. But the interpretation could just as go the other way. I personally beleive in "reciprocal privacy", i.e. everything the government is allowed to know about me, I should be allowed to know about everybody on the government payroll -- especially Ashcroft.
How about if we send all those damn Europeans back to Europe where they came from, and return this country to it's rightful owners, who ran things just fine until those damn foreigners started showing up about 500 years ago? And while we're on the subject... if you lazy white people could just learn to pick you're own lettuce, there wouldn't be half as many illegal immigrants, would there?
Yes, but if they release the virus themselves, they're pretty much guaranteed to be the first to offer detection of the new virus, aren't they? Aren't you even a little bit suspicious of the first firm to add a new virus to their list? They would look much more competent vis-a-vis their competitors if they wrote the virus themselves... not that I'm saying any of them actually do that.
If you're not familiar with apt sources, you're probably running RedHat You mean it's just like rpm? ;-)
Although everybody should have the choice of using non-free software, shouldn't it be distributed as an add-on instead of part of the base distro? Or am I missing something here?
No, he's saying that somebody stupid enough to McDonalds and order a super-size meal with diet coke... is the ideal customer for Microsoft software!
On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. Or, on the face of it, interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows software sucks! Switching from Windows to Linux is never really free (my time is worth something). Perhaps some people perceive Linux as having greater reliability, regardless of cost? And besides which, Microsoft keeps telling us TCO is lower for Windows... they wouldn't lie to us, would they?
Something too many people here fail to comprehend is that quite a lot of the cost of MS's products goes towards customer service. Could that misperception have anything to do with them actually attempting to access Microsoft Customer Service? (Actually, I'm being unfair to M$ here, my only experience with M$ Customer Service was when I installed the latest free update to IE and it rendered my laptop unusable (never finished booting up). Friendly M$ Customer Support said "Oh yeah, that happens to a lot of people" and walked me through fixing the problem. So in that case their Customer Support for their "free" software was worth a lot more than the software itself...)
"easy-to-use Windows-based track editor" in order to "allow everyone a chance at creating tracks that might be included in a cartridge version of Indy 500 XE" Cool... it must run in WINE then, since it allows everybody a chance!
I most certainly do! What home user actually knows the price of Windows/Office and does NOT have a problem with purchasing software at that price? What?!? Are there home users out there that actually PAY for Office?!?
It's truly unfortunate that the Corporate World has forgotten how to speak in natural language. This is a natural language. This is how words naturally come out when you're talking out your ass...
So, hacking the DNS servers to make "versign.com" point to a different IP address, running a compromised Certificate Server, wouldn't work?
Right, 'cause none of your computers have floppy drives, CD, or DVD ROMS, and you never run SSL or IPSec connections through your ISP which your ISP had damn well better NOT be able to scan for viruses... oh, and you don't have any wireless cards running unencrypted either...
No, I think it could be argued that Anti-Virus protection in best provided by those with the most intimate knowledge of the holes in the first place. Unless you expect me to beleive that all the current Anti-Virus vendors have full access to the Microsoft source tree... Providing functionality in the OS that logically SHOULD have been part of the OS to begin with doesn't sound like "Anti-Trust" to me -- and no, web browsers don't fit the same criteria.
The difference is that McAffee, Norton, et. al. have a vested interest in there being lots of new viruses, which leads me to wonder if they don't also assist in creating them. Microsoft has a vested interest in not having their software be perceived as being susceptible to viruses, so this might actually be a feature best provided by the OS vendors themselves -- much as I hate to admit it.
You're forgetting that not all medications are pre-packaged by the vendor. Some people take syrups that must actually be mixed up by the pharmacist because they are custom formulations or have a limited shelf life. I think some pharmacists still fill their own capsules too, but that practice should be going away. Nevertheless, for those prescriptions for which the pharmacist is merely counting pills out of a big bottle into a smaller bottle, complete automation of the process is definately the way to go. Kaiser Permanente already uses pill-counting machines; the next step is to get all the manufacturers to distribute medications in a standardized, easy to automate form.
I was going to say "but what about the cost!", but I guess if you're paying over $1 for every pill, the cost of including an RFID in the packaging of every pill will soon be trivial, if it isn't already. If all drugs were distributed in standardized rolls simular to those used by chip placement machines, then pill counting could be completely automated, and all those pill counters would be out of work...