>That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. Yes you did: You:What I was getting at was the e-mail "overhyping" (is that a word?) Microsoft products' security flaws in general. Me: I didn't regard the Plug and Play vulnerability as overhyped, neither did the FBI. You: Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. *choke* Me:It adds to it. It means there is more than a bunch of Linux zealots annotating it as a security risk. You:I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Me:Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. You:That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. You: Since when have we been talking about Windows' security issues? >Again I will repeat: we are not discussing this topic at all. Actually we are, I talked about it and you responded. Thats a conversation no matter how many innane and useless protests you make about it not being a conversation. >We are talking about this specific case here, not the business practises of either company in general. Actually, you're trying to confine any digressions to whatever topic you choose. I'm trying to make the point that you were quick to condemn the Lindows folks for their "backhanded dirty marketting practices, with F.U.D. stamped all over it.", but you haven't doled out the same sentence to Microsoft for similiar tactics. Making that point required me to bring in other issues. >Presumably you would extend this to cover Office too? Yes, they couldn't trademark Office, just Microsoft Office. It was a difficult battle for Microsoft to trademark Windows. A short one line opinion can't possible cover every situation you could imagaine, but I think surnames like Janes are generally ok. C++ would not be a good trademark, but Microsoft C++ or Visual C++ would. Even Windows XP, Windows NT, and Microsoft Windows are ok. >If all trademarked "words" had to be unique non-common words (under all known languages), we would run out words fast. It's difficult to trademark a single word, irrespective of the class. I recently hired a firm to do a search on a product name (for an embedded device) containing the word 'Wizard', and in their report, they advised against it because of the word 'Wizard'. It is because of the limited nature of words and names that we have trademarks (excluding images, logos, or any other product art). >Nothing useful, except from providing proof to

>Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. It adds to it. It means there is more than a bunch of Linux zealots annotating it as a security risk. >I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Thankfully, but the potential is/was there. Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. Is Bill's email a fake? Is the 30 day moratorium on new code a sham? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I think Microsoft will fix the few problems that exist in some products and it will make those products that much better. >>And your double standards and poor attitude >Such as? Like I said, the inability to assign wrong to Microsoft and the quick assesment of "evil company" to Lindows because of a single screenshot. It's the same attitude that drives the Linux zealots. I find the attitude unproductive. >Did you look at the polls like I mentioned? Would you say they are a fair sample of people from the IT industry? No. Some polls were left re-done each week just so that the minority opinions could be double counted. No I didn't look at the polls, I already know where their readership lies. They're not the only ones who do the same thing, but I don't think a tit-for-tat on poll stuffing would reveal anything usefull. >That is hardly the practise of an unbiased news source now is it? Nope, here's your salt. >Trademarks are not given universally, they are given for specific classes of product or service. Thanks, that sure was helpful. I still feel that it's a bad idea to give out trademarks for common names; such as Windows instead of Microsoft Windows. >>Thats a funny sentiment, because [snip] >How so? The part after the because addressed how so. >Did I say or imply otherwise? No. We are talking about Lindows here [snip] Oh, you don't know what Lindows is? Got this from slashdot and its hosted on the news outlet of sourceforge (might be biased) http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/25/1811226&mode=thread >>If you say so. Is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >How many times must I say "in the same circumstances"? As many times as you feel necessary, but is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >>Are the opinions of CodeProjecters a valid source? The fine folks at MacAddict? I like to think of them as valid when salted. >Did you look at the polls li

>Do you honestly believe otherwise? No, I believe Microsoft would get bashed by that crowd for any move they make. Some of it is deserved and some of it obviously isn't. You stated that in the same situation Microsoft would recieve flak, be sued, etc.. given the same circumstances. "If you say so" refers to the fact that I've seen anti-Linux, Sun, Java, and IBM rhetoric out of Microsoft, and I can't quite recollect the law suits that you described. I have seen law suits regarding very bad corporate behaviour on the part of Microsoft, but not because of a screen shot. >purely negative over-hyped kak related to Windows. I didn't regard the Plug and Play vulnerability as overhyped, neither did the FBI. Some vulnerabilites are overhyped, but valid. Valid enough for Bill to send out a strategic email and for Microsoft as a whole to stop new coding for thirty days. Valid enough for >Given that Lindow's success rides on Windows Thats a funny sentiment, because my opinion is the success of Lindows rides on the corporate partnerships that the former MP3.com CEO can make. Even if Lindows bombs, Linux, Wine, and Samba will survive. >CW is not a credible source, anymore than I am a spokesperson for Linus Incorporated. Are the opinions of CodeProjecters a valid source? The fine folks at MacAddict? I like to think of them as valid when salted. >You can always tell when FUD is at play because the article author preeches about their product/service/etc ("mine is bigger than yours") without any references to a credible source. I only saw a picture of Linux, Wine, and Office showing some selected emails in the background. FUD to me represents deceptive behaviour (the emails were pretty obvious). I just don't see a valid computerWorld email as deceptive. >it seems very stupid to slander them in one of only two publically avaialble visualisations of your product. If you say so. Is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >It say's more about their double standards and poor attitude than those of their audience. And your double standards and poor attitude. I don't believe the name Lindows (or LindowsOS) is harmful to consumers, nor do I think it's any more disturbing than "gaim" for the Linux AIM messenger product. I know what Lindows is and I know what Microsoft Windows is and I'm not confused. I do think it's a bad idea to bend the rules and give out common names as trademarks. I find it interesting that you quickly attribute bad corporate behaviour to the Lindo

>If Microsoft tried this under those curcumstances they would be crucified. If you say so. >Also, the e-mail wasn't just "in" his inbox, it was specificaly forwarded to appear in that shot. Do you think Linux guys actually use Outlook for their daily email needs? It was obviously staged, planted, chosen, picked or whathave you for that shot. It's called advertising, every body does it. >>backhanded dirty marketting practices, with F.U.D. stamped all over it. Where's the dirty FUD? It's not like their "hinting" at something that wasn't true, or slanting some test of this or that feature, or even making some bloated claim in regards to Windows. It's an email, big whoop. They're speaking to their audience.

No I read everything, including the ComputerWorld newsletter. Some how I fail to see the grevious issue you talk about here. I fail to see how choosing to use a real ComputerWorld email in a propaganda shot on lindows own website constitutes a henious crime?

>>Anyway, as I was saying: I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt. If they have nothing to fear, why are they using FUD like that? What publicity stunt? The ability to run Office is the holy grail for anybody who wants to make inroads on the desktop. Did I miss something? I find it amazing that people think Microsoft's ten year or so fight to trandmark the common term "Windows" is fair. Lindows or LindowsOS irregardless, the legal issue is whether or not the names are so similar to "Windows" that they'll cause confusion for customers.

>>Problems with Netscape Windows?? No way - >>I refused to believe it! >>cheers, >>Chris Maunder Couldn't resist....

> it's not like we live in war zone or something. Asked with respect, but what would you call it? From the outside looking in I see checkpoints, troops on the street, random skirmishing with mortors and small arms and then vile carnage delivered by something loud and mean. >All of you saying "I'm not afraid being shot" that's because you're either stupid or never been to a situation where your life was in danger. Not true on both counts. I am afraid of living with soldiers on my streets. I'm afraid of having to show my nationalized ID card to satisfy the whim of an official while walking down the street. I'm afraid of having a stranger search my belongings every time I go shopping. I'm afraid that people will accept it as normal and move on with their lives. Most of all I'm afraid my mother, my father, my sister, my brother, and my neices and nephews will not have the ability to live in a place where they have the ability to excersise thier free will. I'm not afraid because of all those reasons I just mentioned and because I know that if I doing my job to prevent those things from happening requires me to enter harms way, I'll go back again. I'm not afraid of being shot.

>>>"A criminal is a criminal" >>OK and the logic of that statement is .... You were implying a tie between military service and the crime rate. I was trying to point out that Kinville was a dangerous place to be during Vietnam, at a time when the draft was in full swing, because you had taken criminals off the street and put them into the military. I'm not making a blanket statemnt that draftees were criminals, I'm just stating that criminals who got drafted continued to do crime elswhere and that your point about the crime rate and military inspired attitude adjustments is misleading. >>Sure our industrial capacity ( not capability - The germans had us beat there ) 3a) 1. Ability to perform or produce; capability. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capacity You should probably write Websters or somebody and explain it to them. >>Yea I tend to get that way. Unlike some who just get F&*ed over I get self righteous. I have a mental problem that prohibits me from ignoring facts or making them up. Were you addressing something I said? Kinda lost as to what your talking about here. As a part time lobbyist, I try to debate people -- not simply assert I'm right. I think I do a pretty good job of stating facts, but if I've err'd on something, please let me know. >BTW I went straight from Ft. Rucker Alabama to Nam. Thank you for your service.

>> I vote pro drink I second the vote.

Thats the common conclusion. Apparently Stan knows something everyone else doesn't

>>How did we ever win WWII ? Huh? I think a textbook is a good place to start. I believe it had something to do with guns and people shooting at each other. Most of the military history guys I've talked to will tell you it was a bunch of factors, but if they were forced to single one out it would be our manufactoring capabilities. >>Also there is a correlation between the end of the draft and the increase in the crime rate. Neatarooney. Ever look at the crime rate of servicemen in Kinville, Okinawa (last stop before Vietnam)? A criminal is a criminal. >>Military service can do wonders for an 18 or 20 year old persons attitude. Comes back to that self righteous thing...

>>With a "fair" draft you get people from all walks of life thrown together to share a common experience. The society as a whole is much better off and healthier for it. That's bullshit or college, I can't figure out which. >>because economic circumstances dictates who 'volunteers' Boo hoo, life is hard. Like you've said the military is the only option for many people (raises hand). By making it "fair" you end up taking away training and education opportunities from those people who need them. Remember, if a program is offered to one then it is offered to all. What happens when we can no longer support that program or it doesn't fit in the budget? It gets axed and your 'poor, disaffected' people loose out. >>ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. >>That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. How so? Define Long term? I'd define long term as the length this country has been around. The quickest way to social disaster is to involve the government in something. >>That is a prescription for social disaster in the long term. I think an education system that staffs itself with left wing liberal minded people that continue to brainwash our children on important issues with their viewpoints is more a recipe for social disaster than anything else. I mean, you know the type of people whos only option in life is to become a teacher don't ya? >>well trained mercenaries ultimately under the control of the wealthy elites. Those damn rich people, always taking from everybody. I'd rather have the country in the hands of rich elites than poor elites, at least rich elites can fund whatever they want. Did you know that the popular opinion for the war in Vietnam never wained? The only reason we got out of Vietnam was because the elite opinion changed....

As a 6 year Marine Corps veteran (ie: obnoxous drunk), I disagree with conscription wholeheartedly. I've never understood what problem these politicians were trying to fix. Were going to spend xxx amount of dollars on a 1 year contract? Hell, I spent a year and a half in training, excluding the 6 and half months I spent in boot camp (I was injured). Ok, so these 'conscripts' only get a cursory indoctrination and they pick the rest up in the field and their sole MOS (job) is to be a grunt, and you end up with whole units of conscripts who can't really fight, have little or no training and no way to pick up that training. Having full conscript units is a different situation from the war time draft where you have the unique opportunity to learn on the fly at the hands of experienced leadership and enemy alike. And where does the leadership to staff these units comes from, or the extra chow halls, barracks, canteens and rifles? What job do give the women? What about pregnancies? Remember the free medical and dental, does the government pay for that still too? Ya see, 18-22 year olds have this annoying habit of 'falling in love' and occaisonally one gets pregnant. It happens and its expensive, let alone that one of your 'conscripts' is now unavailable for duty during most of her conscription. I would imagine that alot of these boys and girls probably won't wanna play ball, do we proscecute them under the UCMJ and throw 'em in the brig, or do we give them a Bad Conduct Discharge and throw them out on the street? I'd like to repeat a statement that I made before, having a full unit of conscripts is a completely different situation than a war time draft. Conscription would not work in this country. Plus, I think that conscription is trying to address an underlying problem. Well, a percieved underlying problem with "the youth today". Stop trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and quit being so damn self righteous with other people's lives. Hasn't anyone figured out that the government is the last resort for societal ills? Oh wait, the framers of the constitution did..... Ritch

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/careers/index.html

>in 1998 Australia's gun-related homicide rate was just 0.28 per 100,000 people compared with four per 100,000 in the United States. Whats the overall homicide rate comparison? I'll look tomorrow, just curious (I'm sure its lower). I read the AIC document (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf) and discovered that the same kinds of things happen with you folks as do us: "On 6 December of the same year [1994], at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique, 14 women were shot dead." "On 13 March 1996, a few weeks before the Port Arthur incident, the Dunblane Primary School massacre occurred, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 children and their teacher." I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that removing guns solves the problem, I do not. I believe solving the problem (ie: reducing the number of fire arms related crimes to near zero) involves abolishing their use entireley. >The conclusion basically states that it will take five years to evaluate properly the end result of the gun buyback. Yes, governmental institutions typically state that it takes five years to spot a trend. >The correlation is an assumption. How many of these are small country towns ? Define small? They were towns with the population was in excess of 10,000. I'll find 'em as soon as I can.... > >Yeah, and all those school shootings in the US would have identical body counts if all these disturbed people could get their hands on was a knife... How about boxcutters and some airplanes? Explosives in their shoes? I want to back off from attacking your viewpoint, that is not my intent. I simply wish to point out that there may be another way and that your way may not be the best or even the right way to accomplish your goals. I think if Australia's 5/10/15 year data a indicates a very (repeat: very) successful reduction in fire arms related crimes, this country will eventually repeal the 2nd amendment.

>What don't you think should be a crime ? Just to put it in context: I am not yet convinced that creating virtual kiddie porn is or can be a crime because it doesn't involve minors, just the private actions of very disturbed adults. It's definaly not a crime to be a disturbed or mentally ill individual, provided you pose no harm to you or yourself.

Wow, I'm glad your in Australia :) > Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. I don't smoke, I hate smoking, I hate people smoking near me. However, For every study that links smoking and cancer, I can point you to one that negates that link, including a 20 year study by the world health organization. Most freedoms don't serve a usefull purpose, I like to skydive and ride motorcycles, not exactly usefull in most peoples minds, but the right to do those things should me mine. My body, my life is the ultimate form of personal propery and tolerating governmental intrusion that dictates what I can do with that property is agains t my fundamental beliefs. As far as your recitation of the 2nd Amendment is concerned, you can't be a constitutional literalist AND make any sense of the courts interpretation of the constitution. It's generally accepted that the constitution doesn't address every issue nor any issue in significant detail, the constitution is a document of intent, not fact. Although I'm sure you've seen and dismissed this, but the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) presents data that indicates crime increased drastically in the two years after the ban (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf). The NRA presents the same information in an easier to swallow pill (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html#update). There are a few towns in America where the crime rate is zero and coicidentally those towns require to the head of household to own a gun and can even carry a gun in public. I personally would like to live in a utopian world without guns, and I used to consider myself anti-gun until I started reading facts about issues instead of having reactions to them. Fundamentally it breaks down to the fact that criminals will always find a way to overpower the people and disarming the people makes that job easier. I don't know how to solve gun massacres, but if someone is mentally ill or sucidal they'll find a way to kill. > It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important You're generalizing 280 million people and trivialising deep issues, but I'm sure you know that... it's just that Australian love for Americans showing through :)

>Which goes to show that your constitution was a great document for it's time, but does not really cover the realities of the 21st century. Well, since I'm not so sure its a crime or even should be a crime, I think it better highlights the difficulty in trying to get 2 or more people to agree on anything. The beauty of the constitution is that it can be modified, no matter how difficult that modification may be. Although there are people who agree with your thinking, they claim that free speech (as American's know it) is an antiquated notion.

>I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Ever look at naked pictures of Britney Spears or Cristinia Agulera? How hard would it be to take that cute picture of a child taking a bath and mangle it into something sinister? Given the fact that technology will advance, the day will come when the average sick-o could use technology to simulate an entire movie. >To me the issue .... I'm not arguing with you about the sanity or quality of person who buys this crap. However, I'm not convinced that any law has been broken, or even if a law limiting the ability to create and view that kind of stuff could even be constitutionally upheld in this country.