Don't drag us into your peculiar world
[Sometimes these are scarier that the flames]
Loved your piece on the Firefly 'success'. I'm a bit bemused as to what they complained about though - they surely couldn't be objecting to the fact that they're employing blonde PR bunnies cos they do. Or pour drinks down hacks' throats....cos they do that as well.
What I don't understand is who these hacks are who vote for them. Most of the ones I know have a low opinion of them but never seem to be asked. I've certainly never done this survey...who does fill it in?
Still, anything that winds up the PR people's all right by me.
Read your news re Beijing COS. Best thing the West can do is ban their scientific community from any open discussion with these people, only under strict guidance from the security services. They will use any input they can for there own ends & to hell with the rest of the world. Of course they will string along culpable western scientists into believing they know what they are doing, when in reality it's mainly a game of who gets most out of what.
Like your news letters very much.
All the best
Maybe I am just paranoid! But I would be damned if I would ever let the Chinese even close electronically to any scientific info that I had. What better way to being hacked than inviting them in. They have already proved that they cannot be trusted by there actions at Los Alamos. Yea, lets just hook all of our main computers together with there machines. Why not just send them a phone book of every classified number in Great Britain. I am quite sure that they would not abuse them. Yes, call me paranoid but whether people believe it or not the Chinese are on a mission and it damn well is not for us to sell more hamburgers to them. Wake up and smell the coffee - both sides of the coin look the same to the Chinese
[This from a reader who (we think) tried to help us out with a story. Unfortunately, we haven't a clue what it all means.]
I found this in a Book Mit Acrobat ins World Wide Web by Thomas Merz (he also has a web site):
Aufruf eines anderen Dokuments oder Programms. Die n-chste Verallge-meinerung der Dokumentspr?nge ist der Aufruf eines Dokuments, das nicht im PDF-Format vorliegt bzw. von einer anderen Applikation erzeugtwurde. Acrobat startet bei solchen Verweisen das externe Programm (daher der Name des Schl?ssels /Launch) und ?bergibt diesem die angegebene Datei.
Im ersten Beispiel wird bereits das Hauptproblem solcher Konstruktionen deutlich Ð sie sind nicht mehr portierbar, das hei§t nicht auf allen Sy-stemplattformen verwendbar. Sowohl die Namen der externen Programme als auch deren Aufruf h-ngen vom Betriebssystem ab, auf dem der Benutzer die Dokumente betrachtet. Die folgenden Anweisungen definieren eine Verkn?pfung, die bei Akti-vierung das Windows-Programm Paintbrush (ohne den Namen der zu bear-beitenden Datei) startet.
I have not checked this against the official PDF-reference from Adobe. To me it seems that clicking on a pdf-link in your browser (I do not have this enabled) can lead to *any* action on your PC the web site operator decides on.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
I apologize for being the 2000th person to tell you this. Saul was a character in the Old Testament. The apostle Paul had a revelation on the road to Damascus. Paul actually wrote the majority of the New Testament (or at least it was credited to him, possibly some was written down by a scribe who heard him speak). By the way, IANAC.
[Mike Magee replies On this occasion, I beg to differ with an esteemed reader. Saul was Paul's name before alleged revelation on Road to Damascus]
Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Mr. Richard R Whitbread and his cronies, I feel it is my duty to write this. I will start this discussion by arguing that Mr. Whitbread should just quit whining about everything. Then, I will present evidence that it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of reprehensible popinjays like Mr. Whitbread can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that any one believes them.
Do satanic airheads like him actually have lives, or do they exist solely to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us? He insists that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. An armed revolt against Mr. Whitbread?
[Now, Kirk, we've warned you about this sort of thing before. We've cutting you off this time...]