You shoe horses in the late morning or afternoon; you milk the cows and feed the chickens in the morning. Now got to the woodshed and pick out the switch for your father to swat you with.
I imagine the screen or the case would crack, plus a smartphone is usually expensive to replace.
Back when you were throwing that Nokia E63 at the wall, it cost as much as a smartphone does now. Once all the smartphone data is kept in the cloud so you don't have to manually recreate it, you will be able to start gratuitously ruining them again.
Ah, but they flip side is that no one else will ever be allowed to say these same inane ramblings and claim it as their own. Only Ian Bogost will ever be seen as THAT stupid (at least on that subject).
While I'd like to restore an extinct species, this sort of thing is outright irresponsible.
As irresponsible as wiping them out without thinking of the ramifications?
You won't be saying this when some big starship comes around and, not finding any passenger pigeons (yes, Star Trek IV had it wrong) starts destroying the planet.
Dodo: A flightless bird that went extinct very recently because it had evolved on an island, had no fear of people, and had it's "lek" (breeding ground) located right where the military built an airbase during a World War. Big as a domestic turkey but allegedly much more tasty,not prone to panic so easy to handle.
Which world war? The were extinct before the Seven Year's War (aka French And Indian War, in the USA), in fact probably before Queen Anne's War (best guess in supposedly in the 1690s, according to Wikipedia), well before the first airbase, even according to Jane's.
The CFTC didn't do squat to regulate the CDO/CDS markets surrounding mortgage debt.
Probably because mortgages are not commodities, and thus outside their purview (just as they would not have arrested any bankers or stockbrokers if they had robbed someone with a gun, but would have left that to the appropriate police force).
Obviously, the "Unethical" in the title is a bit of a stretch. The ethical violation was to violate their 2005 agreement, which only covered a regulatory matter.
ObCarAnalogy: It is as if they broke their agreement to no longer drive without a valid license and sufficient auto insurance. There was also evidence, yet to be fully evaluated, that they acted as wheel-men for a burglary crew, like the guy in The Transporter.
Just make a really good wax head and a fake body, like Madame Tusseau's. Seal the fake up in a thick glass coffin and who will be able to tell the difference?
Put another way, conservative brains are all like, "Well, I would never let myself get into that position. Even if I did, I'd get myself out of it. I don't see why they deserve help."
Actually, they might think that the careless fools deserve help and would help them, but do not feel that they should be compelled to help them, by someone else spending their money taken as taxation.
Well, at least the way I hear it used on the news, American conservatives are very different from Chinese and Russian conservatives.
That is because most new people are not particularly conservative, even when Republicans, and so unconsciously use it as a term of odium. Before the Wall fell, people behind it did not realize the the news media of the time called hard-line Communists conservative, and thought the Western media was filled with idiots for describing them that way.
I played Dungeons and Dragons back before it was cool.
When was that? And where -- I noticed that it was common among Army and private school veterans years before I first even heard of it (that is, once I heard of it, I examined the histories of the long-time players).
Exactly. That's the problem with this idiotic article. The "right" vs. "left" distinction applies mainly to the US and its inbred two-nearly-identical-party system
No, it refers to the seating in the Estates General early in the French Revolution, a pattern that became obsolete within months even there. Edmund Burke would have been as appalled by the Nazis (conservative in practice if socialistic in rhetoric before it achieved power) as he was by the French Revolution, to pick one conservative icon.
Jerry Pournelle got his PolySci PhD with a dissertation that pointed this out and proposed a two dimensional system of statist/individualist and rationalist/nonrationalist axes. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand makes any system advocating capitalism nonrationalist (except for Ayn Rand's) since the idea is that capitalism's superior results are an emergent behavior of economic systems, as opposed to Communism's rationalistic certainty of the model of Economic Determinism, which in practice fails for anything larger than an extended family or hunter-gatherer band. I am certain that more axes could be defined (most Libertarians that I know will fall away once drug legalization occurs, especially if pot is taxed like cigarettes, so that could be an axis, for example).
The tax breaks come because marriages are expected to handle raising young, and so need to be encouraged even before the first pregnancy or adoption occurs. There is no government interest in reducing taxes on mere roommates, or reducing taxes on Denny Crane and Alan Shore (who ended Boston Legal by marrying to reduce inheritance taxes and ease Shore taking control of Crane if Crane's Alzheimer's became too bad, while both remained wildly heterosexual). Actually, this point was made on Anger Management, too.
As to the "next of kin" matter, this can be handled by assigning powers of attorney while both are alive and by using wills to handle inheritance upon one member's death; I would be surprised if polygamous "marriages" didn't do this as a matter of course, as well.
Actually, in the 1960s and early 1970s the left was the pro-gun side. View "The President's Analyst" and watch the "peaceful" hippies on the VW Microbus pull guns out of everywhere:-)
And phobias are not affected by rational beliefs. My mother is quite convinced of the usefulness of spiders and small non-poisonous snakes, except when she actually sees one, at which point she screams and demands that someone (just me, nowadays) kill it immediately, even while agreeing with me that she is silly and inconsistent given her usual love for "God's Little Creatures" (when not in sight).
Conservatives need guns because it gives them some sense of power and control.
Um, how? Unless you are willing to spend a couple of days monitoring the beekeeper, or have access to enough lab equipment to do that, you still end up trusting some character that you probably never met before.
That people feel that it is worse for a guilty man to go free is not historically odd. The principle that a "suspect" should be legally assumed to be Innocent Until Proven Guilty was invented once, by men who had no experience with existing legal systems other than trial by combat, and so had to make it up as they went along (the appointed justicars of Henry II, who were all knights brought over from Anjou and the Aquitaine). It did not exist in Roman or Anglo-Saxon law. Also, remember that the guilty man set free can commit many more crimes until he is caught again, while the class probably implicitly assumes that the innocent man will get out on appeal or via some Innocence Project or by escaping to come back as the Count of Monte Cristo or some other magic.
The principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty is just one of those things that the judge has to make clear in his jury instructions if the defendant doesn't have Robert Redford and Debra Winger as his lawyers (those not getting the joke can watch Legal Eagles sometime).
Of course, since this is a French court, it doesn't apply in this case. Roman Law depends upon the discretion of the Prosecutor and the skill of the defendant's advocate (whatever that office is called) to avoid miscarriages of justice. In theory, Roman Law also believes that it is better to free 10 guilty men rather than convict 1 guilty one; in practice, it depends.
Sequencing is cheap and getting cheaper. In 10-15 years or so there will be no reason to use the legacy DNA tests at all. It'll be full genome sequencing, and that'll leave zero doubt -- except for how the samples were obtained, of course.
And laboratory and sample contamination, and any other problems that you (or your lawyer) can imagine. Just as the NSA was able to break a Russian 1-time pad code by taking advantage of the fact that they occasionally reused pads (the Venona Transcripts), no lab test is better than the obsessiveness at following procedures of the lab techs and any QC department that the lab may have.
Minor nitpick: Ignoring unjust laws and lawsuits based upon them is good. It's necessary to ignore laws to function in a police state. Ignoring (or even inviting) unjust judgments is a cornerstone of protesting unjust rule of law. Civil disobedience isn't always bad.
Um, we are discussing trademark laws (in countries that are usually viewed as democratic, for that matter), not some Godwin-Effect triggering law. Civil Disobedience should not apply, should not have even been brought up.
Also, when the GP wrote "Ignoring lawsuits is bad. Ignoring judgments from lawsuits is even worse." I am fairly certain that the GP meant that it is a bad idea, as the result will be a major fail, in any jurisdiction but the Heaven of an always-just and all-knowing deity.
if you happen to work on a company that uses the Python programming language
Yeah and get google involved and you wont need much more help
By that logic, Google should own the Gmail trademark in Germany rather than the company which had been using it years before (only in Germany), which it does not, as has been discussed here and on other web sites.
OTOH, if the Python language and its use, or the publication or sale of any books about the Python language, in whichever countries that the other company is trying to register, occurred before that company started using ITS Python product, then they have no right to trademark that name, probably no right to even use it, themselves. The trick is getting the evidence. Documentation trumps personal testimony, so get your old charge slips ready.
So, what would've happened if this was a policy at the University of Helsinki, in 1991?
If it was still released under the GPL, then it wouldn't matter who owned the copyright on it.
But if U. of H. owned the copyright, Linus releasing software under the GPL would be illegal (without the University's prior approval) because he would be releasing a work that he did not own, like a film editor releasing a version of a movie before the studios which produced it could.
Slashdot Mirror
You shoe horses in the late morning or afternoon; you milk the cows and feed the chickens in the morning. Now got to the woodshed and pick out the switch for your father to swat you with.
I imagine the screen or the case would crack, plus a smartphone is usually expensive to replace.
Back when you were throwing that Nokia E63 at the wall, it cost as much as a smartphone does now. Once all the smartphone data is kept in the cloud so you don't have to manually recreate it, you will be able to start gratuitously ruining them again.
Ah, but they flip side is that no one else will ever be allowed to say these same inane ramblings and claim it as their own. Only Ian Bogost will ever be seen as THAT stupid (at least on that subject).
The new passenger pigeons will destroy the mourning doves? As someone who has them monopolizing our feeder, GOOD!!!
While I'd like to restore an extinct species, this sort of thing is outright irresponsible.
As irresponsible as wiping them out without thinking of the ramifications?
You won't be saying this when some big starship comes around and, not finding any passenger pigeons (yes, Star Trek IV had it wrong) starts destroying the planet.
John Connor will teach us how to beat them.
FTFY
Dodo: A flightless bird that went extinct very recently because it had evolved on an island, had no fear of people, and had it's "lek" (breeding ground) located right where the military built an airbase during a World War. Big as a domestic turkey but allegedly much more tasty,not prone to panic so easy to handle.
Which world war? The were extinct before the Seven Year's War (aka French And Indian War, in the USA), in fact probably before Queen Anne's War (best guess in supposedly in the 1690s, according to Wikipedia), well before the first airbase, even according to Jane's.
The CFTC didn't do squat to regulate the CDO/CDS markets surrounding mortgage debt.
Probably because mortgages are not commodities, and thus outside their purview (just as they would not have arrested any bankers or stockbrokers if they had robbed someone with a gun, but would have left that to the appropriate police force).
Obviously, the "Unethical" in the title is a bit of a stretch. The ethical violation was to violate their 2005 agreement, which only covered a regulatory matter.
ObCarAnalogy: It is as if they broke their agreement to no longer drive without a valid license and sufficient auto insurance. There was also evidence, yet to be fully evaluated, that they acted as wheel-men for a burglary crew, like the guy in The Transporter.
Compared to prohibition? Be real.
Um, swoosh? DerekLyons' first sentence was fairly obviously sarcastic.
Ah but I want to to live in milkyway.org.universe.0042 They already have the answers.
Just not the Questions.
Just make a really good wax head and a fake body, like Madame Tusseau's. Seal the fake up in a thick glass coffin and who will be able to tell the difference?
One minor quibble.
Put another way, conservative brains are all like, "Well, I would never let myself get into that position. Even if I did, I'd get myself out of it. I don't see why they deserve help."
Actually, they might think that the careless fools deserve help and would help them, but do not feel that they should be compelled to help them, by someone else spending their money taken as taxation.
Well, at least the way I hear it used on the news, American conservatives are very different from Chinese and Russian conservatives.
That is because most new people are not particularly conservative, even when Republicans, and so unconsciously use it as a term of odium. Before the Wall fell, people behind it did not realize the the news media of the time called hard-line Communists conservative, and thought the Western media was filled with idiots for describing them that way.
I played Dungeons and Dragons back before it was cool.
When was that? And where -- I noticed that it was common among Army and private school veterans years before I first even heard of it (that is, once I heard of it, I examined the histories of the long-time players).
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you get ever increasing evil.
Vote Cthulhu For President, no more voting for the LESSER Evil!
Exactly. That's the problem with this idiotic article. The "right" vs. "left" distinction applies mainly to the US and its inbred two-nearly-identical-party system
No, it refers to the seating in the Estates General early in the French Revolution, a pattern that became obsolete within months even there. Edmund Burke would have been as appalled by the Nazis (conservative in practice if socialistic in rhetoric before it achieved power) as he was by the French Revolution, to pick one conservative icon.
Jerry Pournelle got his PolySci PhD with a dissertation that pointed this out and proposed a two dimensional system of statist/individualist and rationalist/nonrationalist axes. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand makes any system advocating capitalism nonrationalist (except for Ayn Rand's) since the idea is that capitalism's superior results are an emergent behavior of economic systems, as opposed to Communism's rationalistic certainty of the model of Economic Determinism, which in practice fails for anything larger than an extended family or hunter-gatherer band. I am certain that more axes could be defined (most Libertarians that I know will fall away once drug legalization occurs, especially if pot is taxed like cigarettes, so that could be an axis, for example).
The tax breaks come because marriages are expected to handle raising young, and so need to be encouraged even before the first pregnancy or adoption occurs. There is no government interest in reducing taxes on mere roommates, or reducing taxes on Denny Crane and Alan Shore (who ended Boston Legal by marrying to reduce inheritance taxes and ease Shore taking control of Crane if Crane's Alzheimer's became too bad, while both remained wildly heterosexual). Actually, this point was made on Anger Management, too.
As to the "next of kin" matter, this can be handled by assigning powers of attorney while both are alive and by using wills to handle inheritance upon one member's death; I would be surprised if polygamous "marriages" didn't do this as a matter of course, as well.
Actually, in the 1960s and early 1970s the left was the pro-gun side. View "The President's Analyst" and watch the "peaceful" hippies on the VW Microbus pull guns out of everywhere :-)
And phobias are not affected by rational beliefs. My mother is quite convinced of the usefulness of spiders and small non-poisonous snakes, except when she actually sees one, at which point she screams and demands that someone (just me, nowadays) kill it immediately, even while agreeing with me that she is silly and inconsistent given her usual love for "God's Little Creatures" (when not in sight).
Conservatives need guns because it gives them some sense of power and control.
Keep up the ad hominem, mayflies.
you will have to find an honest beekeeper
Um, how? Unless you are willing to spend a couple of days monitoring the beekeeper, or have access to enough lab equipment to do that, you still end up trusting some character that you probably never met before.
and then stick him.
I hope you meant "stick with him" :-)
Lua is 12k lines of C code, comments included. Once compiled it weights like 200KB.
How much of that is empty (at least at the start) table space?
That people feel that it is worse for a guilty man to go free is not historically odd. The principle that a "suspect" should be legally assumed to be Innocent Until Proven Guilty was invented once, by men who had no experience with existing legal systems other than trial by combat, and so had to make it up as they went along (the appointed justicars of Henry II, who were all knights brought over from Anjou and the Aquitaine). It did not exist in Roman or Anglo-Saxon law. Also, remember that the guilty man set free can commit many more crimes until he is caught again, while the class probably implicitly assumes that the innocent man will get out on appeal or via some Innocence Project or by escaping to come back as the Count of Monte Cristo or some other magic.
The principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty is just one of those things that the judge has to make clear in his jury instructions if the defendant doesn't have Robert Redford and Debra Winger as his lawyers (those not getting the joke can watch Legal Eagles sometime).
Of course, since this is a French court, it doesn't apply in this case. Roman Law depends upon the discretion of the Prosecutor and the skill of the defendant's advocate (whatever that office is called) to avoid miscarriages of justice. In theory, Roman Law also believes that it is better to free 10 guilty men rather than convict 1 guilty one; in practice, it depends.
Sequencing is cheap and getting cheaper. In 10-15 years or so there will be no reason to use the legacy DNA tests at all. It'll be full genome sequencing, and that'll leave zero doubt -- except for how the samples were obtained, of course.
And laboratory and sample contamination, and any other problems that you (or your lawyer) can imagine. Just as the NSA was able to break a Russian 1-time pad code by taking advantage of the fact that they occasionally reused pads (the Venona Transcripts), no lab test is better than the obsessiveness at following procedures of the lab techs and any QC department that the lab may have.
Minor nitpick: Ignoring unjust laws and lawsuits based upon them is good. It's necessary to ignore laws to function in a police state. Ignoring (or even inviting) unjust judgments is a cornerstone of protesting unjust rule of law. Civil disobedience isn't always bad.
Um, we are discussing trademark laws (in countries that are usually viewed as democratic, for that matter), not some Godwin-Effect triggering law. Civil Disobedience should not apply, should not have even been brought up.
Also, when the GP wrote "Ignoring lawsuits is bad. Ignoring judgments from lawsuits is even worse." I am fairly certain that the GP meant that it is a bad idea, as the result will be a major fail, in any jurisdiction but the Heaven of an always-just and all-knowing deity.
if you happen to work on a company that uses the Python programming language
Yeah and get google involved and you wont need much more help
By that logic, Google should own the Gmail trademark in Germany rather than the company which had been using it years before (only in Germany), which it does not, as has been discussed here and on other web sites.
OTOH, if the Python language and its use, or the publication or sale of any books about the Python language, in whichever countries that the other company is trying to register, occurred before that company started using ITS Python product, then they have no right to trademark that name, probably no right to even use it, themselves. The trick is getting the evidence. Documentation trumps personal testimony, so get your old charge slips ready.
So, what would've happened if this was a policy at the University of Helsinki, in 1991?
If it was still released under the GPL, then it wouldn't matter who owned the copyright on it.
But if U. of H. owned the copyright, Linus releasing software under the GPL would be illegal (without the University's prior approval) because he would be releasing a work that he did not own, like a film editor releasing a version of a movie before the studios which produced it could.