...the fact that they managed to land on a moving asteroid is amazing. The fact that they were able to land on a moving asteroid, take off from that asteroid after landing, and successfully make it back to Earth is nothing short of astounding.
So, let me get this straight: you are advocating someone using the quickest legal tool, instead of the tool that focuses on the main problem?
Besides, if they can prove that information was being captured and stored (which, honestly, would take nothing more than a look at the code), I would think that would be FAR FAR more damaging to Reid than mere copyright abuse.
She didn't give a shit about her constituents...she only cared about her wacky views being heard by a wider audience.
It was that the Reid campaign created a website to look like hers and used that site to get names, emails and other information from people who believed it was her site.
And my point was, why did she complain about old info being posted? Why wasn't the cease-and-desist letter strictly focused on data collection? Look at the link posted in the summary...what you just talked about wasn't even mentioned until the bottom of the letter! Everything before it were complaints about how Reid's campaign was using an outdated version of her site.
I'm not saying what Reid's campaign was doing was right (it's despicable, actually...par for the course for a partisan politician scared of losing his glory seat), but I am saying that the letter seemed to focus primarily on the outdated site portion, with the collection of data left to the last two paragraphs of the letter.
Because of how the letter was laid out, it implies she is more worried about people seeing her old messages which could possibly hinder her election bid, rather than her constituents giving out their info.
Does slashdot have a "sees through party line BS" modifier?
It's a shame that it doesn't. You would have been able to see that I'm a registered independent whofor example, fully supports the 2nd amendment as well as socialized medicine.
But hey, I know that moderates are nothing more than legends to many people in this country, so I can understand your suspicion.
I agree with your statement but I can't help but think how your response may differ if the political parties were flipped.
It wouldn't be any different. Extremist views are extremist views, regardless of which side it comes from.
It is also very common that you swing far left/right to get the primary then come back towards the middle to win the regular election. Look at Obama's campaign. Look at McCain's campaign. I'm willing to bet a lollipop that over 75% of mainstream candidates are the same way.
Agreed, but again...if a politician doesn't want people to know that they do (or once did) support extremist views, then they shouldn't have supported them in the first place.
Guess what, lady: it was your website. If you didn't want people to see you spreading loony extremist messages, maybe you shouldn't have supported them in the first place.
If a game with Draconian DRM comes around, and is multiplatform, I'll just get it on a console. Publishers are usually the ones who dictate DRM, and I wouldn't want to punish developers due to a business decision beyond their control.
If I had the ability to move my downloaded games easily between one console and another, then I wouldn't mind download-only games. As it stands, unless a game is of OMFGMUSTPLAYNAO quality (I'm looking at you, 'Splosion Man, Shadow Complex, Cuboid, and others), I generally stay away from them.
Ironically (or not), unless there is a killer special edition, I exclusively buy PC games on Steam now.
Quite the opposite, actually. Seeing as I currently work on the technical side, and have been a geek my whole life, I have an intimate understanding of the needs of technology-focused people. I also understand their perspective on things, in addition to how they can be communicated with effectively. By getting into upper management, I can ensure that the technical group is given the respect, attention, and funding it deserves, while at the same time the technical team is more likely to trust me because I speak their language and not only understand their culture, but am actually a part of it.
My goal is to make sure tech-oriented employees are given the tools they need while providing them with a trusted voice.
As previously stated, myself and my fiancee always do that if we are cleaning, transporting, or firing our firearms. That being said, I wasn't referring to people who treat guns as always loaded for safety reasons... I'm talking about people that believe there is literally no difference, physically, between a loaded or unloaded gun.
Normally, I wouldn't have put so much weight into the oral arguments...but let's be honest here: they went balls to the wall with some of the comments during oral arguments in November of 2009.
Believe it or not, I actually know somebody who shot himself in the head while demonstrating to somebody that they had nothing to fear from the fact that he brought his gun into a house with small children, because "look, it's not even loaded."
If someone is dumb enough to use that as a way to demonstrate that a gun was unloaded, he deserved to be shot in the fucking head. Sorry.
My gun instructor told me that every gun, loaded or not, is always to be treated as if it is "just as dangerous as a loaded gun."
As I previously posted, my step father taught me the same thing, and both myself and my fiancee always treat our firearms as if they were loaded.
That's not what I was referring to in my OP, however. I'm talking about people who literally believe there is no difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon. I don't mean people who are being careful and just treat them the same, I mean they honestly believe there is literally no difference.
Even better, how about a method to prevent the common hangover:
Every three beers or three shots, drink a glass of water. Before going to sleep (assuming you don't pass out), drink a glass of water. You will wake up hangover free, I guarantee it.
Source: never once had a hangover in my entire life when following that advice.
Um...did you listen to/read the oral arguments from last November? They fucking CRUCIFIED method patents. For some reason, the link I had saved from the Supreme Court website isn't working, but Patently-O did a fine job of picking out the relevant passages:
JUSTICE BREYER: You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake.... And I could probably have reduced it to a set of steps and other teachers could have followed it. That you are going to say is patentable, too?
JUSTICE SCALIA: . . . Let's take training horses. Don't you think that -- that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So how do we limit it to something that is reasonable? Meaning, if we don't limit it to inventions or to technology, as some amici have, or to some tie or tether, borrowing the Solicitor General's phraseology, to the sciences, to the useful arts, then why not patent the method of speed dating?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can't argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information.
Personally, I'm going after a business degree primarily because I already have technical skills. I will be much more capable having an understanding of both sides, rather than only one.
It will narrow my job opportunities, but the opportunities it allows will be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
I want laptop internals to be standardized, which would help upgrades be much more bearable (and, in some cases, make them possible).
Would just plain "boo hoo" have been better? :-)
...the fact that they managed to land on a moving asteroid is amazing. The fact that they were able to land on a moving asteroid, take off from that asteroid after landing, and successfully make it back to Earth is nothing short of astounding.
So, let me get this straight: you are advocating someone using the quickest legal tool, instead of the tool that focuses on the main problem?
Besides, if they can prove that information was being captured and stored (which, honestly, would take nothing more than a look at the code), I would think that would be FAR FAR more damaging to Reid than mere copyright abuse.
She didn't give a shit about her constituents...she only cared about her wacky views being heard by a wider audience.
It was that the Reid campaign created a website to look like hers and used that site to get names, emails and other information from people who believed it was her site.
And my point was, why did she complain about old info being posted? Why wasn't the cease-and-desist letter strictly focused on data collection? Look at the link posted in the summary...what you just talked about wasn't even mentioned until the bottom of the letter! Everything before it were complaints about how Reid's campaign was using an outdated version of her site.
I'm not saying what Reid's campaign was doing was right (it's despicable, actually...par for the course for a partisan politician scared of losing his glory seat), but I am saying that the letter seemed to focus primarily on the outdated site portion, with the collection of data left to the last two paragraphs of the letter.
Because of how the letter was laid out, it implies she is more worried about people seeing her old messages which could possibly hinder her election bid, rather than her constituents giving out their info.
Does slashdot have a "sees through party line BS" modifier?
It's a shame that it doesn't. You would have been able to see that I'm a registered independent whofor example, fully supports the 2nd amendment as well as socialized medicine.
But hey, I know that moderates are nothing more than legends to many people in this country, so I can understand your suspicion.
Here's to hoping they don't implant an illegal chip into her that provides her with sentience! Politician + sentience + galaxy diva complex = fucked
I agree with your statement but I can't help but think how your response may differ if the political parties were flipped.
It wouldn't be any different. Extremist views are extremist views, regardless of which side it comes from.
It is also very common that you swing far left/right to get the primary then come back towards the middle to win the regular election. Look at Obama's campaign. Look at McCain's campaign. I'm willing to bet a lollipop that over 75% of mainstream candidates are the same way.
Agreed, but again...if a politician doesn't want people to know that they do (or once did) support extremist views, then they shouldn't have supported them in the first place.
So, according to you, Democrats are saying:
"They're slipping away! Grip tighter!"
While Republicans are saying"
"This country deserves a better class of crazy, and I'm gonna give it to 'em."
Guess what, lady: it was your website. If you didn't want people to see you spreading loony extremist messages, maybe you shouldn't have supported them in the first place.
For this to not be a +5 funny is a travesty. Holy crap.
After going back and re-reading your post...I can't believe I interpreted it that way. A very good point indeed!
If a game with Draconian DRM comes around, and is multiplatform, I'll just get it on a console. Publishers are usually the ones who dictate DRM, and I wouldn't want to punish developers due to a business decision beyond their control.
A gun loaded with blanks isn't unloaded, is it. :-)
If I had the ability to move my downloaded games easily between one console and another, then I wouldn't mind download-only games. As it stands, unless a game is of OMFGMUSTPLAYNAO quality (I'm looking at you, 'Splosion Man, Shadow Complex, Cuboid, and others), I generally stay away from them.
Ironically (or not), unless there is a killer special edition, I exclusively buy PC games on Steam now.
:-)
Quite the opposite, actually. Seeing as I currently work on the technical side, and have been a geek my whole life, I have an intimate understanding of the needs of technology-focused people. I also understand their perspective on things, in addition to how they can be communicated with effectively. By getting into upper management, I can ensure that the technical group is given the respect, attention, and funding it deserves, while at the same time the technical team is more likely to trust me because I speak their language and not only understand their culture, but am actually a part of it.
My goal is to make sure tech-oriented employees are given the tools they need while providing them with a trusted voice.
Also, on an unrelated note...it's a pleasure to speak with you, Sir. Mars Crossing is a fantastic book :-)
As previously stated, myself and my fiancee always do that if we are cleaning, transporting, or firing our firearms. That being said, I wasn't referring to people who treat guns as always loaded for safety reasons... I'm talking about people that believe there is literally no difference, physically, between a loaded or unloaded gun.
Normally, I wouldn't have put so much weight into the oral arguments...but let's be honest here: they went balls to the wall with some of the comments during oral arguments in November of 2009.
Believe it or not, I actually know somebody who shot himself in the head while demonstrating to somebody that they had nothing to fear from the fact that he brought his gun into a house with small children, because "look, it's not even loaded."
If someone is dumb enough to use that as a way to demonstrate that a gun was unloaded, he deserved to be shot in the fucking head. Sorry.
My gun instructor told me that every gun, loaded or not, is always to be treated as if it is "just as dangerous as a loaded gun."
As I previously posted, my step father taught me the same thing, and both myself and my fiancee always treat our firearms as if they were loaded.
That's not what I was referring to in my OP, however. I'm talking about people who literally believe there is no difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon. I don't mean people who are being careful and just treat them the same, I mean they honestly believe there is literally no difference.
For a second, just a second, I thought you wrote "Captain Morgan's Mickey". Time for me to lay off the sauce, jeebus.
Even better, how about a method to prevent the common hangover:
Every three beers or three shots, drink a glass of water. Before going to sleep (assuming you don't pass out), drink a glass of water. You will wake up hangover free, I guarantee it.
Source: never once had a hangover in my entire life when following that advice.
Um...did you listen to/read the oral arguments from last November? They fucking CRUCIFIED method patents. For some reason, the link I had saved from the Supreme Court website isn't working, but Patently-O did a fine job of picking out the relevant passages:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/bilski-v-kappos-supreme-court-arguments.html
Here are some samples from the oral arguments:
JUSTICE BREYER: You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. ... And I could probably have reduced it to a set of steps and other teachers could have followed it. That you are going to say is patentable, too?
JUSTICE SCALIA: . . . Let's take training horses. Don't you think that -- that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So how do we limit it to something that is reasonable? Meaning, if we don't limit it to inventions or to technology, as some amici have, or to some tie or tether, borrowing the Solicitor General's phraseology, to the sciences, to the useful arts, then why not patent the method of speed dating?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can't argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information.
Like I said. Fucking. Crucified.
The SCOTUS really screwed the pooch here. Considering how the oral arguments went, I was very surprised at the opinion they ended up releasing.
Personally, I'm going after a business degree primarily because I already have technical skills. I will be much more capable having an understanding of both sides, rather than only one.
It will narrow my job opportunities, but the opportunities it allows will be worth it.