It's possible. But that would move beyond legitamite martial law (as a response to a disaster, for instance) towards a military coop. Also, it will serve as precident for undoing actions, e.g. seizures and arrests, following the reversal of martial law.
Also, historically, martial law has been overturned, and congressional limits on declaring martial law have been established.
Of course they can claim her name as their I.P. They can also claim to be from the planet Xenu, or they can claim to be 2,000-year-old leprechauns. Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property until a court has made the decision.
In the context, claim means "legitimately make a statement of ownership". A mine claim, for instance, is ownership of a mine. In the event of contradictory claims, one is deemed to be illegitimate. Hence, not a real or valid claim.
IP rights, like a mine-rush, are first-come (or first-file) first-serve. Hence the similar terminology.
Words mean different things in different contexts.
unless the judge also happens to be an acting general, they have no ability or incentive to make that declaration, nor would they have any power to rescind the order.
Well, the judge can overrule the declaration, assuming it was made in an illegal way.
They haven't done a lot since then that makes money in the same way.
And they don't have to. If Bing keeps Google from making enough money to push ChromiumOS, and the Xbox 360 breaks even (it's profitable, but that's another story) keeping your home network Microsoft, then they are protecting their OS/Office profits.
I think this is good, it leaves more space on your already small disk to do other things. This is a net-oriented device, afterall. If you want a full-fledged computer, then get a full-fledged computer. This sounds exactly like what a NETbook should do.
Excellent argument by nomenclature.
I have a 4 gig drive, and was thinking about switching to Unbuntu netbook. Now I'm certainly not. While I often surf the web, I got a netbook because it is small and portable. Typing up documents on the train, outside of wifi access, is one of my primary reasons I bought such a pocketable computer.
I guess I never understood why all ultra-portable laptops are assumed to be net accessing devices. I like autonomy. I like portability.
And, of course, I have a full-fledged computer. But have we real slipped back in time where text-editing requires a "full-fledged computer"? I have over a Ghz of processor, 1GB of RAM, 4GB of memory. My computer can kick the ass out of decade old tech, and I remember when that decade old tech did some impressive things. Why is my machine, perfectly adequate on it's own, get relegated to a thin client. If I wanted that I'd install ChromeOS.
Yes, I fully expected someone to say something like this.
Well, that's because it's a pretty valid response to what you said. You admit so yourself later...
The problem is that the core problems with Steam have not been reformed,
If that was your issue, you should have said so the first time. Instead you posted that it was because of the quality at its introduction. The implication is that those problems have ceased to exist.
Or start operating the courts in English so that normal dictionaries are as right as any others.
"Normal" dictionaries aren't precise enough for most use inside a specialized field. Think of the issues because evolution is a (scientific usage of the word) "theory" when conflated with the common "theory". "Significant" means something different (more precise) in statistics. Both of those words are based on refining the meaning of an English word.
Some words take on an entirely different meaning, e.g. "ring" in maths.
In any case, lawyers found nuances in unclear sentences, and decided that something that "consists" of parts X, Y, and Z can have also have part U, while something that "is comprised of" parts X, Y, and Z is cannot have part U added. I believe "shall" means what "will" means coloqueally, etc.
*IANAL; I believe my example is correct, but I may have inverted the words.
I still boycott it, simply because of the horrible way it was established in the first place.
So, you're saying that you'll hold past mistakes against a company forever? If everyone felt that way, there would be no reason to ever reform. I daresay that attitude is part of the problem.
I take issue to the next phrase: "Since Mozilla has already accepted CNNIC as a trusted root CA, the burden rests with those who argue for its removal."
Are you saying "should Mozilla remove it?" Then the answer is probably no, becuase Mozillia is not an omni-beneficent entity. It probably helps them in some way to include it.
The question is, should individual users remove it? And yes, by the link that you provided indicating it's role in the distribution of malware. Why should I let Mozilla, a large group with contradictory desires and many masters, control whether I delist it as a trusted root?
Simple logic and noticing details. Woz debugged the problem. I debugged the problem. Most people just don't like to think logically and finely.
There's also a level of experience. I've found I can often tell people what part of their code is breaking, even with no exposure to the source, because I know where a lot of common traps are. It also helps that I can determine what steps the computer probably has to go through, and what the consequences of a failure in one step would mean as it trickles to the next component. But it's a skill-set that has to be learned and executed, it's not innate.
They could be claiming a trademark an a symbol that is thousands of years old and has been iconic and representative of a house of nobles, a city founded under their reign and an entire culture for several hundred years or the symbol of a major social organization or perhaps even an official state symbo
There's nothing wrong with that. Trademark applies to a symbol being used in a specific manner. Johnson and Johnson has a trademark on a cross. It's not that churches cannot use it, it's that churches cannot put a red cross on bandages and sell them. (Since J&J predates the Red Cross, they license the symbol to the non-profit for like a dollar to prevent the "must inforce" provisions from requiring them to sue.)
A symbol can have new meaning attached to it. That new meaning is protected.
Several restaurants in New Orleans have been sued for trademark infringement by the NFL over the use of the Fleur De' Lis, a symbol that some of them have been [using?] since before the NFL existed.
A party overreaching their legal rights in IP should not be an argument about that IP not existing. Guns shouldn't be outlawed just because criminals could use them. The world shouldn't be foam-coated to protect babies. The extreme should not be what the laws are based around.
Forrester: You should never start a sentence with a conjunction.
Jamal: Sure you can.
Forrester: No. It's a firm rule.
Jamal: No.
It was a firm rule. Sometimes using a conjunction at the start of a sentence makes it stand out. And that may be what the writer's trying to do.
Forrester: And what is the risk?
Jamal: Doing it too much. It's a distraction and could give your piece a run-on feeling. But the rule on using "and" or "but" at the start of a sentence is pretty shaky. Even though it's still taught by too many professors. Some of the best writers have ignored that rule for years, including you.
1. Developers are king. If you could attract one more developer, your project would stand a much higher chance of success.
I would say "Documenters are king".
Why does no one want to use F/OSS software without a thriving community? There are worries about getting new features. There are worries about compatibility, both forwards and backwards. But the major issue is getting support for whatever issue you need. A thriving community means someone else spent 17 hours figuring out your specific problem. Good documentation means that you don't need to rely on community help.
It's a thankless job, and it adds a cost in a way that is certainly more risky. More features you can certainly personally use. A well-written manual is a gamble. But I would say that's the only way to break the "community" loop.
This assumes that it's not a social-networking app. If it is, well, it'll be a long slow procession.
Sure. The number of starving/broke retirees would be a lot higher without Social Security.
SS is about to bankrupt us.
Maybe, if nothing changes (like immigration laws, retirement age, or an insane regressive taxation) by 2047 the SS system may be in the red. That's 37 years to fix it. Now, I grant, if taxation still gets capped at some ridiculously low number (100k-ish) and retirement age doesn't rise to keep up with life expectancy, then we will be in trouble. But probably not too much.
...A Ponzi scheme...
It's an old-age income assurance program. Thinking of it as a retirement account is the problem. The first people to get paid didn't put anything into the system. It's not an investment club.
urther rural electrification has been accomplished for 40 years
In large part it has. A successful program. But it also has to pay for new rural lines (new farmhouses being built) and maintence.
All the things you list (bar one) are controlled by the various local and state governments.
Most are provided at a local, state and federal level. Police forces, for example, are based around a city (Officers), a county (Sheriffs), a state(Troopers) and several federal agencies (FBI first and foremost). They overlap. And suppose they didn't, the GGP didn't make an anti-federalist arguement. He made an anti-government one. In an article about police powers, it seems foolish to expect a counterargument to be that police powers are local and therefore good. I'll note that the exception you brought up to GPP's point was in fact local, and the only one germane to the discussion.
I keep seeing this argument where one person lists massively corrupt, inefficient, and in many cases hurtful Federal programs they want scrapped and instantly others spring up and thinking that they're oh so witty turn on the sarcasm..."ohoh and roads and police and the military too!" thinking that they are ever so clever...not seeing the absolute ignorance they are displaying to the whole world about their own countries system of governance...
Since you want a federal government list, I'll go to my list of federal programs that are rousing successes: FDIC, TVA/rural electrification, USPS, interstate highway system (hey, roads!), NASA, (D)ARPA, the Peace Corps, Federal Student Loans, the FAA, the FDA, Social Security and Medicare, the EPA and Superfund. I suppose that's enough.
Your Federal Governments number one job is a common defence of the States, rather than each state having a standing army, they all pool their resources and have just one big one. It's number two job is making sure that the states play nice with each other. That is pretty much the entirety of the purpose the states created it for.
That's not true. The purpose of the federal government is to "ensure a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Common defense is job four, not job one. Playing well together is job one. And you left out all the positive things that the federal government is supposed to do, many of which fall under "promote the general Welfare."
Health Care, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Police Surveillance.... it is all the same to me.
You left out police department, fire department, EMS, contract enforcement and a standing military.
...you can't have the Government protect you from everything all the time, UNLESS...
No one has suggest that the government can protect you from everything. But it has to protect you from some things. Even the staunchest Libertarian would agree that the government sbould enforce contracts, and probably go farther than that. Therefore, the question is where the line should be drawn. I understand the emotional appeal of drawing a "nothing" line, but since you no doubt don't really believe that, please explain to me what the determining factor should, and leave the strawman at home.
It doesn't matter if it is to protect against "starvation" or "molesters"; they are both the same.
Wait, you don't think the government should protect children from molesters? Really? I must have read that wrong.
Maybe you object to certain tactics, but I think everyone has to agree with the goal.
Stravation seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to protect against in children as well. Should they have to drop out of school and work in a sweatshop?
Well, they are getting paid to get you to buy them drinks. So, you get to pay to talk to a hot girl who wasn't even interested in the drink you bought her, let alone you. To wit, she'll probably ditch it as soon as you aren't looking. Sounds good man!
Sometimes, they are out in the open and giving away free beer. I like those nights.
It's inevitable really, since Neilsen's customers are advertising execs. Neilsen don't want to tell them that fewer and fewer people are seeing their ads
You really think you are seeing fewer ads? Than the people watching on television, sure. But as DVRs and Hulu eliminate seperate ads, product placements rise. And astroturfing. And sending hot girls into bars to order specific liquors.
I would rather their limited advertising budget was spent on obvious ads, and would be willing to endure more explicit ads on Hulu if that was the case.
The lowered legal costs would also lead to more lawsuits. I don't know if that's good or bad.
But if you are talking about incentives, why should a lawyer continue to work hard on a difficult case that's already way over budget, as opposed to losing in a "doesn't expose me to malpractice" way. Such as trying, but none too hard, to find witnesses, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible. But that would move beyond legitamite martial law (as a response to a disaster, for instance) towards a military coop. Also, it will serve as precident for undoing actions, e.g. seizures and arrests, following the reversal of martial law.
Also, historically, martial law has been overturned, and congressional limits on declaring martial law have been established.
In the context, claim means "legitimately make a statement of ownership". A mine claim, for instance, is ownership of a mine. In the event of contradictory claims, one is deemed to be illegitimate. Hence, not a real or valid claim.
IP rights, like a mine-rush, are first-come (or first-file) first-serve. Hence the similar terminology.
Words mean different things in different contexts.
Well, the judge can overrule the declaration, assuming it was made in an illegal way.
And they don't have to. If Bing keeps Google from making enough money to push ChromiumOS, and the Xbox 360 breaks even (it's profitable, but that's another story) keeping your home network Microsoft, then they are protecting their OS/Office profits.
Excellent argument by nomenclature.
I have a 4 gig drive, and was thinking about switching to Unbuntu netbook. Now I'm certainly not. While I often surf the web, I got a netbook because it is small and portable. Typing up documents on the train, outside of wifi access, is one of my primary reasons I bought such a pocketable computer.
I guess I never understood why all ultra-portable laptops are assumed to be net accessing devices. I like autonomy. I like portability.
And, of course, I have a full-fledged computer. But have we real slipped back in time where text-editing requires a "full-fledged computer"? I have over a Ghz of processor, 1GB of RAM, 4GB of memory. My computer can kick the ass out of decade old tech, and I remember when that decade old tech did some impressive things. Why is my machine, perfectly adequate on it's own, get relegated to a thin client. If I wanted that I'd install ChromeOS.
Well, that's because it's a pretty valid response to what you said. You admit so yourself later...
If that was your issue, you should have said so the first time. Instead you posted that it was because of the quality at its introduction. The implication is that those problems have ceased to exist.
I assume your doing so was intentional.
"Normal" dictionaries aren't precise enough for most use inside a specialized field. Think of the issues because evolution is a (scientific usage of the word) "theory" when conflated with the common "theory". "Significant" means something different (more precise) in statistics. Both of those words are based on refining the meaning of an English word.
Some words take on an entirely different meaning, e.g. "ring" in maths.
In any case, lawyers found nuances in unclear sentences, and decided that something that "consists" of parts X, Y, and Z can have also have part U, while something that "is comprised of" parts X, Y, and Z is cannot have part U added. I believe "shall" means what "will" means coloqueally, etc.
*IANAL; I believe my example is correct, but I may have inverted the words.
You needed to raise this issue with the judge. I'm sure* an exception should have been carved out for you to continue to do your job in the evening.
* IANAL, or ever was in the same situation, but judges tend to be fairly reasonable to important issues when it's totally discresionary on their part.
So, you're saying that you'll hold past mistakes against a company forever? If everyone felt that way, there would be no reason to ever reform. I daresay that attitude is part of the problem.
I take issue to the next phrase: "Since Mozilla has already accepted CNNIC as a trusted root CA, the burden rests with those who argue for its removal."
Are you saying "should Mozilla remove it?" Then the answer is probably no, becuase Mozillia is not an omni-beneficent entity. It probably helps them in some way to include it.
The question is, should individual users remove it? And yes, by the link that you provided indicating it's role in the distribution of malware. Why should I let Mozilla, a large group with contradictory desires and many masters, control whether I delist it as a trusted root?
There's also a level of experience. I've found I can often tell people what part of their code is breaking, even with no exposure to the source, because I know where a lot of common traps are. It also helps that I can determine what steps the computer probably has to go through, and what the consequences of a failure in one step would mean as it trickles to the next component. But it's a skill-set that has to be learned and executed, it's not innate.
Good QA is a tough, demanding job.
Hear hear!
And they'll find out the same thing. My name and address.
There's nothing wrong with that. Trademark applies to a symbol being used in a specific manner. Johnson and Johnson has a trademark on a cross. It's not that churches cannot use it, it's that churches cannot put a red cross on bandages and sell them. (Since J&J predates the Red Cross, they license the symbol to the non-profit for like a dollar to prevent the "must inforce" provisions from requiring them to sue.)
A symbol can have new meaning attached to it. That new meaning is protected.
A party overreaching their legal rights in IP should not be an argument about that IP not existing. Guns shouldn't be outlawed just because criminals could use them. The world shouldn't be foam-coated to protect babies. The extreme should not be what the laws are based around.
Forrester: You should never start a sentence with a conjunction.
Jamal: Sure you can.
Forrester: No.
It's a firm rule.
Jamal: No.
It was a firm rule. Sometimes using a conjunction at the start of a sentence makes it stand out. And that may be
what the writer's trying to do.
Forrester: And what is the risk?
Jamal: Doing it too much.
It's a distraction and could give your piece a run-on feeling.
But the rule on using "and" or "but" at the start of a sentence is pretty shaky.
Even though it's still taught by too many professors.
Some of the best writers have ignored that rule for years, including you.
From "Finding Forrester"
I would say "Documenters are king".
Why does no one want to use F/OSS software without a thriving community? There are worries about getting new features. There are worries about compatibility, both forwards and backwards. But the major issue is getting support for whatever issue you need. A thriving community means someone else spent 17 hours figuring out your specific problem. Good documentation means that you don't need to rely on community help.
It's a thankless job, and it adds a cost in a way that is certainly more risky. More features you can certainly personally use. A well-written manual is a gamble. But I would say that's the only way to break the "community" loop.
This assumes that it's not a social-networking app. If it is, well, it'll be a long slow procession.
Can I borrow your petard? I seem to be hoisted upon my own.
Sure. The number of starving/broke retirees would be a lot higher without Social Security.
Maybe, if nothing changes (like immigration laws, retirement age, or an insane regressive taxation) by 2047 the SS system may be in the red. That's 37 years to fix it. Now, I grant, if taxation still gets capped at some ridiculously low number (100k-ish) and retirement age doesn't rise to keep up with life expectancy, then we will be in trouble. But probably not too much.
It's an old-age income assurance program. Thinking of it as a retirement account is the problem. The first people to get paid didn't put anything into the system. It's not an investment club.
In large part it has. A successful program. But it also has to pay for new rural lines (new farmhouses being built) and maintence.
Are you a chick?
Am I trying to fuck you?
Then I'm going to continue point out your factual errors. I'll also be point out your inferred errors. See this post for an example.
Most are provided at a local, state and federal level. Police forces, for example, are based around a city (Officers), a county (Sheriffs), a state(Troopers) and several federal agencies (FBI first and foremost). They overlap. And suppose they didn't, the GGP didn't make an anti-federalist arguement. He made an anti-government one. In an article about police powers, it seems foolish to expect a counterargument to be that police powers are local and therefore good. I'll note that the exception you brought up to GPP's point was in fact local, and the only one germane to the discussion.
Since you want a federal government list, I'll go to my list of federal programs that are rousing successes: FDIC, TVA/rural electrification, USPS, interstate highway system (hey, roads!), NASA, (D)ARPA, the Peace Corps, Federal Student Loans, the FAA, the FDA, Social Security and Medicare, the EPA and Superfund. I suppose that's enough.
That's not true. The purpose of the federal government is to "ensure a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Common defense is job four, not job one. Playing well together is job one. And you left out all the positive things that the federal government is supposed to do, many of which fall under "promote the general Welfare."
And a large shareholder of Apple.
Umm... it's a slashdot holy war? No signifcance at all.
You left out police department, fire department, EMS, contract enforcement and a standing military.
No one has suggest that the government can protect you from everything. But it has to protect you from some things. Even the staunchest Libertarian would agree that the government sbould enforce contracts, and probably go farther than that. Therefore, the question is where the line should be drawn. I understand the emotional appeal of drawing a "nothing" line, but since you no doubt don't really believe that, please explain to me what the determining factor should, and leave the strawman at home.
Wait, you don't think the government should protect children from molesters? Really? I must have read that wrong.
Maybe you object to certain tactics, but I think everyone has to agree with the goal.
Stravation seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to protect against in children as well. Should they have to drop out of school and work in a sweatshop?
Well, they are getting paid to get you to buy them drinks. So, you get to pay to talk to a hot girl who wasn't even interested in the drink you bought her, let alone you. To wit, she'll probably ditch it as soon as you aren't looking. Sounds good man!
Sometimes, they are out in the open and giving away free beer. I like those nights.
You really think you are seeing fewer ads? Than the people watching on television, sure. But as DVRs and Hulu eliminate seperate ads, product placements rise. And astroturfing. And sending hot girls into bars to order specific liquors.
I would rather their limited advertising budget was spent on obvious ads, and would be willing to endure more explicit ads on Hulu if that was the case.
The lowered legal costs would also lead to more lawsuits. I don't know if that's good or bad.
But if you are talking about incentives, why should a lawyer continue to work hard on a difficult case that's already way over budget, as opposed to losing in a "doesn't expose me to malpractice" way. Such as trying, but none too hard, to find witnesses, etc.