Keep bible thumping to a minimum - currently your online identity is inextricably tied to your religious evangelism. Religious evangelists don't really get hired, to be honest - no one likes them, nor wants to deal with them.
Take out your gaming achievements. If you must have them in, put them last under "Hobbies" or something. Right now your WoW achievements and starcraft whatevers are the first skill that employers see when they read your CV, when it really should be both last and optional.
A good idea is to host your own site and place all of your accomplishments there (links to software/reviews/whatever you've written, etc). A blog that is updated semi-regularly is good too, if you can ensure that you do technical or semi-technical postings.
Yes, because XML with the appropriate schema is a great replacement for typesetting!
This might come as a surprise to you, but XML is one of the worst designed structure control systems ever to come out of a committee... and considering all the other crap committee's routinely come up with, that's really saying something.
Whatever you guys do, make sure it's not yet another USA-only thing.
PaySwarm is currency agnostic and is designed to support both national currencies and alternative currencies like Bitcoin and Ven.
That doesn't address GP's point - Google Play Store supports alternative currencies and yet still remains US-and-UK-only. What GP (and myself) would like is a system that lets anyone from any country be a vendor. Unless I'm mistaken (IOW, correct me if I'm wrong) your system allows anyone to pay, but not just anyone to receive payment, just like Google Play and countless others? Merchants have to be resident in one of perhaps five countries?
If I'm correct (and I heartily agree that I may not be - perhaps I misread?), then you guys are designing yet another toy payment system only for use for western merchants, in which case you are wasting your time.
More magic hand waving.
Did you even think about that at all?
Now you moved the goalpost from biting to sex and biting. I would call you but you whined about goalpost moving earlier.
Anyways, that scenario would be pretty easy to stop.
You are emotional attached to your little pet idea. let it go.
Why are you following me around and throwing insults? Are you so insecure that you need to hurl insults? The only hand-waving being done is by people like yourself who constantly move goalposts - the original was "no way a zombie apocalypse could realistically happen". I pointed out a number of different ways that a "people-biting-each-other" apocalypse could happen. Then the morons with no biology under their belt crawl out of the woodwork to sputter (like you have) "but but but... but they're not technically zombies, even if everyone calls them that because they resemble fictional zombies in all their physical characteristics!!!"
I think you should have just stayed in church for this one.
Ignoring the fact you don't actually no much about the examples you give, lets look at the big picture.
Ok, lets do that - I don't normally argue with those who prefer to remain ignorant of biology, but what the hey - why not?
In all case, after, say 100 people get it, people become aware that something is wrong and then take action.
"Viral hallucinogenic infection: "
Too slow.
I notice that you had to snip out the part I put in about lengthy incubation periods - perhaps you should read up on biology? Learn how it works?
"Biological weapon "
too vague. You might as well say 'magic happens'
Well, bio weapons *do* exist, including hallucinatory ones. I'm sorry that you don't believe in that.
"Mutated bacteria in water supply: "
so it survives the gut, not easy, gets into the blood system, then infects the brain?
Yes, much like many of the bacterial infections that abound now - survive the gut (certainly - our guts breed bacteria after all) and affect something else. Hit up wikipedia (I'm not going to do your homework for you) for the various bacterial shit that infects our guts.
Zombies are only a threat in a magic world were infects are instantaneous, and the walking dead don't rot, and no one takes action.
Actually, yes - zombies are fiction, but there's no reason to believe (as you seem to do) that it can only be by "magic" when natural examples for posthumous animation exist. I'm guessing you also believe in intelligent design too, right? After all, the arguments you are presenting are similar to "well, there's no missing link, so evolution is false!". (Yes, you read that right - plenty of experiments show that corpses can be animated).
"and I'll have a scarily realistic scenario. "
no you wont.
Maybe you should learn how the human body works?
I know. My undergrad biology courses were wasted - dissecting frogs and so forth. Also, my medical research must have been wasted as well - I should have informed my past employer that they had no business employing me as a research scientist.
They should have listened to some random slashdotter spouting gibberish about human biology (hey, did you even cover the basics in school?)
Ok they sound plausible. However in all such cases, the zombie apocalypse would be very short lived - the infected humans simply wouldn't be able to survive very long.
There's a reason rabies didn't result in a rabies apocalypse...
Not a problem - increase incubation period to five years, make the change gradual over that time, make the blood infected (hence transmittable by sex or biting, etc)... people who are bitten won't admit to it, they gradually get more aggressive over a five year period, transmitting the infection via either sex or biting.
Just because people bite other people doesn't make them zombies. If they're not undead, they're not zombies.
You can't write a story about a world where some weird virus makes people want to bite each other's necks and drink their blood and say it's about vampires. It's about a weird virus that makes people want to bite each other's necks and drink their blood.
So, basically, whether or not they behave like zombies is irrelevant, they have to be literally be killed and then reanimated? Leaving aside the levitating goalposts, I can still work with that (off of the top of my head) in a plot involving a defib or similar. Human bodies are remarkably easy to bring back to life as long as certain constraints are adhered to... for example the countdown time limit before reanimation. So.. the viral infection -> hallucinations part of symptoms -> host infects others via biting -> symptoms only show themselves after heart stops -> heart restarted.
No more goalpost moving - that's a realistic plot; adding constraints like "if they are reanimated then they are still not undead", or "The heart must stop and stay that way" is goal-post moving.
The question isn't how to ward off the zombie apocalypse. The question is how could a zombie apocalypse realistically happen at all. Any explanation is a huge stretch.
Nope. Off of the top of my head I can come up with a few:
Viral hallucinogenic infection: causes humans to bite one another and pass it on. Long incubation period (10 days) causes mass infection before anyone realises whats happening.
Biological weapon gone wrong: causes humans to bite one another and pass it on.
Mutated bacteria in water supply: Causes humans to hallucinate, go feral and (you guessed it) bite one another and pass it on.
And that's just off of the top of my head - gimme a few days to think about it and I'll have a scarily realistic scenario. Of course, I've already written a short story about Zombies, and thus have already thought about it somewhat.
Most projects are bad ideas or don't appeal widely enough to be worth funding. The point of Kickstarter is to cut out the middle man between people who want a product or service and people willing to provide it. It isn't meant to fund things that there is no market for, it is meant to directly connect the funding for things with the existence of a market.
While I agree with most of what you say, I'd like to correct the misperception that the point of kickstarter is to connect people who want a {product/service} and the people who want to provide a {product/service}. Kickstarter is a way to connect people who want a {product/service} and who are internet savvy enough to find kickstarter in the first place and who are willing to donate upfront for the item and who are willing to lose their initial upfront donation and who will pay more for the product when it comes out and who are willing to wait for launch, with the people who are willing to provide the particular {product/service}.
If I have already completed a transaction, with cash in hand, that transaction must not be "most likely" legitimate. It must be legitimate from the very moment that I verify the currency that I received as legitimate. It must not pass verification, then "most likely" have to pass verification again.
I guess you've never deposited a check into a bank, only to have it come back on you for insufficient funds?
That's a good point you make - neither the cheque nor bitcoin are currencies. That's one more tick for the "bitcoin isn't a currency" argument. Thanks.
The forking was fixed within a few hours. Mining pools were notified of the issue and alerted to the recommendation to revert mining activity back to 0.7.x, which was a simple fix to grow a blockchain compatible with all mining pool Bitcoin versions. The majority of miners ignoring the incompatible fork (which caused a "Lock table is out of available lock entries" database error on Bitcoins compiled against certain BerkeleyDB libraries), let the new fork grow longer and all is fixed.
Almost all transactions are expected to be included in the new chain, so there is little opportunity for malfeasance. If you sent someone money for goods, your transaction sending money will likely be in both the new chain and the old.
(Emphasis mine)
"A few hours" outage fails the most basic test of a currency - ability to spend it. For a few hours, no merchant could accept bitcoins as payment.
"Incompatible fork[s]" causes bitcoin to fail yet another basic test of currency. The population should never be able to fork their currency into "new dollars", "old dollars" and "something which is most likely, in almost all cases, a mixture of both".
A technical error should not introduce "little opportunity" for malfeasance. When my bank has a glitch, the cash in my wallet does not turn worthless for "a few hours".
If I have already completed a transaction, with cash in hand, that transaction must not be "most likely" legitimate. It must be legitimate from the very moment that I verify the currency that I received as legitimate. It must not pass verification, then "most likely" have to pass verification again.
Good thing that bitcoin isn't actually a currency; if it was anything other than a mere item of barter, the consequences of people suddenly not knowing which cash is good and which is not would indeed be severe.
You need to stop buying stuff until the "currency" (and I use that term very loosely when talking about bitcoin) is valid again? Good thing it isn't used exclusively by anyone, else they'd now be starving.
The video doesn't actually show the machine in action, only has a talking head explaining what it will do. Waste of time; you can't even tell if the thing works.
Well, the scenario's in this thread is actually what I tried to examine in a sci-fi short story that I wrote, free for download from over here (leave a review - it always helps me to know what readers think).
I think, that since happiness and satisfaction is something that can be controlled both chemically and genetically, the nirvana that results might not be so bad after all. If you genetically program a creature to be happy doing $FOO (where $F)) could be anything - making boxes, watching television or fighting wars), then by definition that creature will be happy doing whatever it is they were programmed to do, much like Colin the robot from THHGTTG. If I am genetically and chemically predisposed to enjoy slaving away in a sweatshop then imposing rest and relaxation on me would be torture.
Actually, it turns out that there is a big problem.
The tools require consistency, and report an error where it's not. Then if you are a tab-only person, you can use tabs. If you are a spaces-only person, you can use spaces.
That's nice, but not everyone is a lone coder working on toy projects of no relevance which never get maintained by other devs. Here in the real world it's rare to find a single source file for even tiny (but real, not toy) projects that hasn't been touched upon by at least three different people over the course of three years.
Hell, in one system I worked on, the original comments in the source code dated from 1992 when the code was written for some 8-bit machine. When I started working on it I was building it for arm, and there had already been over 35 developers named in the comments...
It would be nice to write code that I knew for sure would never be edited by another dev. I don't think that that's ever gonna happen though.
Usually 1 stars are "Didn't receive the item. Contacted seller but got no response (it's been more than 24 hours since I ordered the product). Very disappointed."
I wish. I got a one star review on my short story for grammar errors that didn't even exist. The reviewer complained that the errors were so bad that it took over two hours to read the 8000 word story (other reviewers said it takes about half an hour to read), gave me a single star and recommended that no one else buy the book. Due to the small amount of sales and reviews I had, that single review (together with another almost unintelligible 1-star review) was enough to tank my rankings and negate any effect the various five, four and three star reviews had on my sales. Perhaps Amazon weighs the lower rankings more?
Doesn't matter now, anyhow. I'm in the middle of getting my second story (a lengthy 40k word novella) proofread and edited, and so will at least have something else up for sale soon.
Your game is crap - I followed the instructions but having "hold down the left mouse button for a description" and "hold down the left mouse button to interact" means that no matter what I do, I always get only a description.
However, the 50 year old has the option of dating a man who already has a 4,000 square foot home, is a vice president, and is at the top of his career and has a long track record.
That's not correct - a 50 yo female has to make do with what she gets because the man with the 4000sq foot home who is a vice president and at the top of his career is banging a stunningly attractive 25yo blonde bunny with tits like rocks! I've seen what 50yo (and 40yo) women have had to settle for - it's not pretty when you see what they were dating just a decade ago when they were younger.
but I also know that nothing would happen because he can control himself first of all, but also we have a history of open an honest communication so if we were having problems we'd both know and discuss them
This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but you/do/ know that the divorice rate is higher for college-educated couples - you know, the ones who buy into all the Dr Phil and Oprah soundbites, like the one I quoted above? If open and honest communication was going to work, it would have done so before now.
Yes, she is a whore. A whore with a conscience, but a whore nonetheless. You see, if she wanted the type of relationship where she had dinner with male friends (neighbour or not), then she shouldn't have gotten her whorish ass married. She could have simply dated the cuckold-to-be, not married him. And her husband, way over on the other side of the world? Well, he's also a whore if he ever gave in to temptation.
Luckily for men, there is no stigma to being promiscuous so he'll wear his whore badge with pride.
They'll give it to you, but at around 4x the price. Developer licenses tend to be expensive because companies don't hesitate to purchase $500 software for a $80000/a user. Good luck trying to purchase the developer version by yourself, if they ever develop it.
Trademark only protects against competitors creating confusion about the source of a product[...] A trademark prevents you from making a device called an iPhone, even if it looks different.
I'm not too sure that that is correct - a trademark is supposed to prevent visual knockoffs of your product; it was supposed to prevent a competitor creating lookalikes (which is what most of the legislation says). The trademark was not to protect the company, but to protect the public from knockoffs. Unfortunately, Apple argued exhaustively that their competitors product is easily confused with their own product, but they never even brought trademarks into it because the vague, nebulous and ultimately subjective "design patent" laws were used instead.
TBH, I'm not even sure how the argument for design patent laws got past even a cursory examination of existing law: what it proposes to fix was already fixed with trademark law (which prevented you from making a VCR identical to a sony one and calling it "pony", and similar things which harmed the consumer)
That is a design patent, not a utility patent. They're nothing alike, except for the word "patent". A design patent doesn't cover an innovation at all, it covers the non-functional appearance aspects of a functional object. For example, the external shape and icons of a branded product that are not critical to how it functions but are characteristic of that product. A design patent is supposed to be narrowly-defined. Its function is not to prevent competitors from making a similar product, but rather to prevent competitors from making a knock-off of your product.
It's quite sad that people think that a whole new type of patent, the design patent, was needed to prevent competitors making a knockoff. You do realise that what you are effectively saying is that some things should be covered by both trademark and patents? FWIW, trademark doesn't only cover naming and branding, but also knock-offs, even if they are named differently.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a question of being religious: he's more than that - he's an evangelist. A believer in god is okay - an evangelist is not.
Okay, I'll try to help:
Keep bible thumping to a minimum - currently your online identity is inextricably tied to your religious evangelism. Religious evangelists don't really get hired, to be honest - no one likes them, nor wants to deal with them.
Take out your gaming achievements. If you must have them in, put them last under "Hobbies" or something. Right now your WoW achievements and starcraft whatevers are the first skill that employers see when they read your CV, when it really should be both last and optional.
A good idea is to host your own site and place all of your accomplishments there (links to software/reviews/whatever you've written, etc). A blog that is updated semi-regularly is good too, if you can ensure that you do technical or semi-technical postings.
So, good luck, hth
Thank you for that informative reply - I wish your efforts with payswarm take off, if only to ensure that non-US merchants can finally get paid
Yes, because XML with the appropriate schema is a great replacement for typesetting!
This might come as a surprise to you, but XML is one of the worst designed structure control systems ever to come out of a committee ... and considering all the other crap committee's routinely come up with, that's really saying something.
Whatever you guys do, make sure it's not yet another USA-only thing.
PaySwarm is currency agnostic and is designed to support both national currencies and alternative currencies like Bitcoin and Ven.
That doesn't address GP's point - Google Play Store supports alternative currencies and yet still remains US-and-UK-only. What GP (and myself) would like is a system that lets anyone from any country be a vendor. Unless I'm mistaken (IOW, correct me if I'm wrong) your system allows anyone to pay, but not just anyone to receive payment, just like Google Play and countless others? Merchants have to be resident in one of perhaps five countries?
If I'm correct (and I heartily agree that I may not be - perhaps I misread?), then you guys are designing yet another toy payment system only for use for western merchants, in which case you are wasting your time.
More magic hand waving. Did you even think about that at all?
Now you moved the goalpost from biting to sex and biting. I would call you but you whined about goalpost moving earlier.
Anyways, that scenario would be pretty easy to stop.
You are emotional attached to your little pet idea. let it go.
Why are you following me around and throwing insults? Are you so insecure that you need to hurl insults? The only hand-waving being done is by people like yourself who constantly move goalposts - the original was "no way a zombie apocalypse could realistically happen". I pointed out a number of different ways that a "people-biting-each-other" apocalypse could happen. Then the morons with no biology under their belt crawl out of the woodwork to sputter (like you have) "but but but ... but they're not technically zombies, even if everyone calls them that because they resemble fictional zombies in all their physical characteristics!!!"
I think you should have just stayed in church for this one.
Ignoring the fact you don't actually no much about the examples you give, lets look at the big picture.
Ok, lets do that - I don't normally argue with those who prefer to remain ignorant of biology, but what the hey - why not?
In all case, after, say 100 people get it, people become aware that something is wrong and then take action.
"Viral hallucinogenic infection: " Too slow.
I notice that you had to snip out the part I put in about lengthy incubation periods - perhaps you should read up on biology? Learn how it works?
"Biological weapon " too vague. You might as well say 'magic happens'
Well, bio weapons *do* exist, including hallucinatory ones. I'm sorry that you don't believe in that.
"Mutated bacteria in water supply: " so it survives the gut, not easy, gets into the blood system, then infects the brain?
Yes, much like many of the bacterial infections that abound now - survive the gut (certainly - our guts breed bacteria after all) and affect something else. Hit up wikipedia (I'm not going to do your homework for you) for the various bacterial shit that infects our guts.
Zombies are only a threat in a magic world were infects are instantaneous, and the walking dead don't rot, and no one takes action.
Actually, yes - zombies are fiction, but there's no reason to believe (as you seem to do) that it can only be by "magic" when natural examples for posthumous animation exist. I'm guessing you also believe in intelligent design too, right? After all, the arguments you are presenting are similar to "well, there's no missing link, so evolution is false!". (Yes, you read that right - plenty of experiments show that corpses can be animated).
"and I'll have a scarily realistic scenario. " no you wont.
Maybe you should learn how the human body works?
I know. My undergrad biology courses were wasted - dissecting frogs and so forth. Also, my medical research must have been wasted as well - I should have informed my past employer that they had no business employing me as a research scientist.
They should have listened to some random slashdotter spouting gibberish about human biology (hey, did you even cover the basics in school?)
Ok they sound plausible. However in all such cases, the zombie apocalypse would be very short lived - the infected humans simply wouldn't be able to survive very long.
There's a reason rabies didn't result in a rabies apocalypse...
Not a problem - increase incubation period to five years, make the change gradual over that time, make the blood infected (hence transmittable by sex or biting, etc) ... people who are bitten won't admit to it, they gradually get more aggressive over a five year period, transmitting the infection via either sex or biting.
Just because people bite other people doesn't make them zombies. If they're not undead, they're not zombies.
You can't write a story about a world where some weird virus makes people want to bite each other's necks and drink their blood and say it's about vampires. It's about a weird virus that makes people want to bite each other's necks and drink their blood.
So, basically, whether or not they behave like zombies is irrelevant, they have to be literally be killed and then reanimated? Leaving aside the levitating goalposts, I can still work with that (off of the top of my head) in a plot involving a defib or similar. Human bodies are remarkably easy to bring back to life as long as certain constraints are adhered to ... for example the countdown time limit before reanimation. So .. the viral infection -> hallucinations part of symptoms -> host infects others via biting -> symptoms only show themselves after heart stops -> heart restarted.
No more goalpost moving - that's a realistic plot; adding constraints like "if they are reanimated then they are still not undead", or "The heart must stop and stay that way" is goal-post moving.
The question isn't how to ward off the zombie apocalypse. The question is how could a zombie apocalypse realistically happen at all. Any explanation is a huge stretch.
Nope. Off of the top of my head I can come up with a few:
Viral hallucinogenic infection: causes humans to bite one another and pass it on. Long incubation period (10 days) causes mass infection before anyone realises whats happening.
Biological weapon gone wrong: causes humans to bite one another and pass it on.
Mutated bacteria in water supply: Causes humans to hallucinate, go feral and (you guessed it) bite one another and pass it on.
And that's just off of the top of my head - gimme a few days to think about it and I'll have a scarily realistic scenario. Of course, I've already written a short story about Zombies, and thus have already thought about it somewhat.
Most projects are bad ideas or don't appeal widely enough to be worth funding. The point of Kickstarter is to cut out the middle man between people who want a product or service and people willing to provide it. It isn't meant to fund things that there is no market for, it is meant to directly connect the funding for things with the existence of a market.
While I agree with most of what you say, I'd like to correct the misperception that the point of kickstarter is to connect people who want a {product/service} and the people who want to provide a {product/service}. Kickstarter is a way to connect people who want a {product/service} and who are internet savvy enough to find kickstarter in the first place and who are willing to donate upfront for the item and who are willing to lose their initial upfront donation and who will pay more for the product when it comes out and who are willing to wait for launch, with the people who are willing to provide the particular {product/service}.
If I have already completed a transaction, with cash in hand, that transaction must not be "most likely" legitimate. It must be legitimate from the very moment that I verify the currency that I received as legitimate. It must not pass verification, then "most likely" have to pass verification again.
I guess you've never deposited a check into a bank, only to have it come back on you for insufficient funds?
That's a good point you make - neither the cheque nor bitcoin are currencies. That's one more tick for the "bitcoin isn't a currency" argument. Thanks.
The forking was fixed within a few hours. Mining pools were notified of the issue and alerted to the recommendation to revert mining activity back to 0.7.x, which was a simple fix to grow a blockchain compatible with all mining pool Bitcoin versions. The majority of miners ignoring the incompatible fork (which caused a "Lock table is out of available lock entries" database error on Bitcoins compiled against certain BerkeleyDB libraries), let the new fork grow longer and all is fixed.
Almost all transactions are expected to be included in the new chain, so there is little opportunity for malfeasance. If you sent someone money for goods, your transaction sending money will likely be in both the new chain and the old.
(Emphasis mine)
Good thing that bitcoin isn't actually a currency; if it was anything other than a mere item of barter, the consequences of people suddenly not knowing which cash is good and which is not would indeed be severe.
You need to stop buying stuff until the "currency" (and I use that term very loosely when talking about bitcoin) is valid again? Good thing it isn't used exclusively by anyone, else they'd now be starving.
The video doesn't actually show the machine in action, only has a talking head explaining what it will do. Waste of time; you can't even tell if the thing works.
Well, the scenario's in this thread is actually what I tried to examine in a sci-fi short story that I wrote, free for download from over here (leave a review - it always helps me to know what readers think).
I think, that since happiness and satisfaction is something that can be controlled both chemically and genetically, the nirvana that results might not be so bad after all. If you genetically program a creature to be happy doing $FOO (where $F)) could be anything - making boxes, watching television or fighting wars), then by definition that creature will be happy doing whatever it is they were programmed to do, much like Colin the robot from THHGTTG. If I am genetically and chemically predisposed to enjoy slaving away in a sweatshop then imposing rest and relaxation on me would be torture.
Actually, it turns out there's no problem.
Actually, it turns out that there is a big problem.
The tools require consistency, and report an error where it's not. Then if you are a tab-only person, you can use tabs. If you are a spaces-only person, you can use spaces.
That's nice, but not everyone is a lone coder working on toy projects of no relevance which never get maintained by other devs. Here in the real world it's rare to find a single source file for even tiny (but real, not toy) projects that hasn't been touched upon by at least three different people over the course of three years.
Hell, in one system I worked on, the original comments in the source code dated from 1992 when the code was written for some 8-bit machine. When I started working on it I was building it for arm, and there had already been over 35 developers named in the comments ...
It would be nice to write code that I knew for sure would never be edited by another dev. I don't think that that's ever gonna happen though.
Usually 1 stars are "Didn't receive the item. Contacted seller but got no response (it's been more than 24 hours since I ordered the product). Very disappointed."
I wish. I got a one star review on my short story for grammar errors that didn't even exist. The reviewer complained that the errors were so bad that it took over two hours to read the 8000 word story (other reviewers said it takes about half an hour to read), gave me a single star and recommended that no one else buy the book. Due to the small amount of sales and reviews I had, that single review (together with another almost unintelligible 1-star review) was enough to tank my rankings and negate any effect the various five, four and three star reviews had on my sales. Perhaps Amazon weighs the lower rankings more?
Doesn't matter now, anyhow. I'm in the middle of getting my second story (a lengthy 40k word novella) proofread and edited, and so will at least have something else up for sale soon.
Your game is crap - I followed the instructions but having "hold down the left mouse button for a description" and "hold down the left mouse button to interact" means that no matter what I do, I always get only a description.
You Idiot, did you even try plaing your own game?
However, the 50 year old has the option of dating a man who already has a 4,000 square foot home, is a vice president, and is at the top of his career and has a long track record.
That's not correct - a 50 yo female has to make do with what she gets because the man with the 4000sq foot home who is a vice president and at the top of his career is banging a stunningly attractive 25yo blonde bunny with tits like rocks! I've seen what 50yo (and 40yo) women have had to settle for - it's not pretty when you see what they were dating just a decade ago when they were younger.
but I also know that nothing would happen because he can control himself first of all, but also we have a history of open an honest communication so if we were having problems we'd both know and discuss them
This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but you /do/ know that the divorice rate is higher for college-educated couples - you know, the ones who buy into all the Dr Phil and Oprah soundbites, like the one I quoted above? If open and honest communication was going to work, it would have done so before now.
Yes, she is a whore. A whore with a conscience, but a whore nonetheless. You see, if she wanted the type of relationship where she had dinner with male friends (neighbour or not), then she shouldn't have gotten her whorish ass married. She could have simply dated the cuckold-to-be, not married him. And her husband, way over on the other side of the world? Well, he's also a whore if he ever gave in to temptation.
Luckily for men, there is no stigma to being promiscuous so he'll wear his whore badge with pride.
They'll give it to you, but at around 4x the price. Developer licenses tend to be expensive because companies don't hesitate to purchase $500 software for a $80000/a user. Good luck trying to purchase the developer version by yourself, if they ever develop it.
Trademark only protects against competitors creating confusion about the source of a product[...] A trademark prevents you from making a device called an iPhone, even if it looks different.
I'm not too sure that that is correct - a trademark is supposed to prevent visual knockoffs of your product; it was supposed to prevent a competitor creating lookalikes (which is what most of the legislation says). The trademark was not to protect the company, but to protect the public from knockoffs. Unfortunately, Apple argued exhaustively that their competitors product is easily confused with their own product, but they never even brought trademarks into it because the vague, nebulous and ultimately subjective "design patent" laws were used instead.
TBH, I'm not even sure how the argument for design patent laws got past even a cursory examination of existing law: what it proposes to fix was already fixed with trademark law (which prevented you from making a VCR identical to a sony one and calling it "pony", and similar things which harmed the consumer)
That is a design patent, not a utility patent. They're nothing alike, except for the word "patent". A design patent doesn't cover an innovation at all, it covers the non-functional appearance aspects of a functional object. For example, the external shape and icons of a branded product that are not critical to how it functions but are characteristic of that product. A design patent is supposed to be narrowly-defined. Its function is not to prevent competitors from making a similar product, but rather to prevent competitors from making a knock-off of your product.
It's quite sad that people think that a whole new type of patent, the design patent, was needed to prevent competitors making a knockoff. You do realise that what you are effectively saying is that some things should be covered by both trademark and patents? FWIW, trademark doesn't only cover naming and branding, but also knock-offs, even if they are named differently.
Oh, yeah ... emphasis mine in the quoted material