I don't understand your point. When I saw the original post, I looked a the links and checked source to see the meta headers. No mention of Nintendo. The post doesn't assume shady stuff is going on, he just makes a point about a nuance to the whole trademark/copyright discussion that is very valid. Fact is, web sites do use trademarked words in meta headers all the time to get traffic.
Certain monitors come with two input connections so that you can switch off between systems. I use kvm for mouse and keyboard and NEC MultiSync 1850E's (came out a few years ago; I'm sure there's something better by now) that allow me to switch btwn systems. It's handy because you can use both monitors on one system or one for each, depending on what your doing at the moment.
I've been addicted to dual monitors since around 1998. I'm to the point that I get claustrophobic if I'm confined to just one.
I'm always grateful for congratulations and good (if useless) advice, but I would be remiss if I accepted since the source of my mirth (and thus the reply) was not the multitude of typing and grammatical errors in your post. I simply found it amusing to make a connection between your opinion of women and your marital status. I pity you that you take yourself so seriously you felt the need to make a childish retort.
If you would allow yourself just a few moments to indulge in self-deprecation, and if you would in these moments read your original post, then I think you will agree that it contains the opinion of someone with quite a large stick up his ass. Now that I think about it, I have some advice I just received that I'd like to pass along... I think you will find it more useful than I did.
The name "Reduced Shakespeare Company" (RSC) is itself kind of a spoof on the well-known Royal Shakespeare Company (also RSC). I also saw the show in London and highly recommend it. I heard when I saw it that they had done a tour of the US the year before, so maybe they will come back across the pond sometime soon.
Just about any GRE review book or review course will tell you: a substantial portion of the questions you answer aren't actually scored. They're difficulty is being tested for future use.
It probably even says something similar at the GRE web site.
Aside from that, it's just common sense. Who needs a source? There's a basic difference between aptitude tests and proficiency tests.
And where is your source for the statistic of 99%? Have you actually done systematic research in the field of Slashdot bullshit? Didn't think so.
I thought your response was a bit rude and more than a bit arrogant. To keep the tone of the conversation consistent...
It is a relatively new thing that expectations are given the credence they deserve in the study of economics. Many models rely too heavily on the basic premise that agents are always acting in their own rational self-interest. While that would be ideal, in the economic reality is that people often don't act in their own rational self-interest (even considering the rational self-interest of the general public, or public interest) for various reasons, expectations about the future being a major reason. (With lack of perfect information being another biggie.)
It isn't merely "amusing that so many people think our economy depends on tricks of the mind to keep going." It's vital that economists understand that "tricks of the mind" do as much to influence economic decision-makers as any other variable. This is because the economic decision-makers are just we little humans, who are prone to "tricks of the mind," faulty reasoning, decisions based on imperfect information, expectations about the future, or whatever else you want to call it.
Economic reality can be found discussed in more depth with real professors at real educational institutions. If you actually go to the Austrian School of economics, I suggest you discuss this with your professors, as I fear you must have misunderstood something posted on that web site you linked. Surely they aren't actually teaching you the garbage you posted.
I choose to make a sizeable chunk of money. To do that, I must be productive in the work environment common to my chosen profession. In order to be most productive, I have to avoid offending people by what I wear or distracting people from what I'm doing by wearing something outside the norm. Since I have no ethical objection to dressing in the way that is considered the norm, I choose to do it. If I did have a real objection to it, I would choose to give up some of my income and do something else.
When I go home, I choose to wear whatever is comfortable. But I'm kinda glad that I don't work all day with a bunch of people wearing sweatsuits. Just my preference.
Your comment is funny, but I felt like I should add a counterpoint: The only way to keep our economy from going to shit is to not panic and continue to support our capital markets.
I hope you were trying to be funny and not just trying to be an asshole.
Yes, in the context of strict philosophical reasoning, the phrase "begs the question" is used to refer to a conclusion which was arrived at by intermediate steps that were themselves unproven.
But in the context of everyday English usage, to beg simply means to ask for or require as necessary and a question is simply an interrogative expression. It is PERFECTLY acceptable to combine those words and say that a particular statement begs, or leads to, a question. This can be said without implying deeper meaning and without requiring a lesson in reasoning by pretentious people like you.
The thing is, students will still have to pay through the nose for "content." It isn't at all reasonable to assume that the cost of laptops would be the only cost involved in moving toward digital texts.
Agreed. I am against copy-protected CDs because once I buy one, I want the right to listen to it on an MP3 player, rip it to my computer to add to my library, or whatever...
But we (Slashdotters) don't make our point well if we're talking about the right to download music other people ripped. That is stealing. I don't want to argue for that right. I want to protect my right to rip music from a CD to another medium (such as my hard disk).
I think the movie example is a bit different. You get charged again and again if you want to see the movie in a theatre several times. You pay to view the showing of the movie in much the same way you would pay to see a play or a concert. However, if you purchase a copy of the movie, you have the right to view it again and again at no additional cost. This is the current scheme: fixed pricing for unlimited viewings. This is as opposed to the new idea of "micropayments."
But I digress. My point is this: I agree that the Big 5 are trying to move toward copy-protection in an attempt to prevent time-shifting. Everyone has probably seen the commercials playing on VH1 or MTV (i dont remember which) about favorite records. "You bought it on vinyl, you bought it on tape, you bought it when it came out on CD, you ripped it to an MP#, and you downloaded it to an MP3 player."
The industry has so far been able to make us purchase several copies of a single album that we love in order to keep up with the latest audio technology. What is after digital? If we can make digital copies on our computers, and then transfer that copy to any new un-copy-protected media, there will never be a need for us to purchase another copy of an album we've already paid for at least once.
This brings up an interesting point. Employees of software companies give up the rights to their work as part of the condition of employment. (i.e., Microsoft owns the copyright to any intellectual property produced by a Microsoft employee.)
But these people weren't treated as employees. They were given 1099's, indicating treatment as an independent contractor. Any release signed on ownership of copyrights of work produced as an employee should be void, right?
The article states that the earnings Loki sent 1099's on were paid as cash advances. Therefore, Loki didn't withold taxes from the payments, even though the checks were for the employees' net pay. Loki can't be charged with tax evasion, because Loki technically didn't pay the salaries to their employees. But the employees still have a right of action against Loki for the additional amount of unpaid salary. (Which the employees would then have to pay as taxes.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand your point. When I saw the original post, I looked a the links and checked source to see the meta headers. No mention of Nintendo. The post doesn't assume shady stuff is going on, he just makes a point about a nuance to the whole trademark/copyright discussion that is very valid. Fact is, web sites do use trademarked words in meta headers all the time to get traffic.
This is an excellent point. Someone please mod the parent up.
Certain monitors come with two input connections so that you can switch off between systems. I use kvm for mouse and keyboard and NEC MultiSync 1850E's (came out a few years ago; I'm sure there's something better by now) that allow me to switch btwn systems. It's handy because you can use both monitors on one system or one for each, depending on what your doing at the moment.
I've been addicted to dual monitors since around 1998. I'm to the point that I get claustrophobic if I'm confined to just one.
I'm always grateful for congratulations and good (if useless) advice, but I would be remiss if I accepted since the source of my mirth (and thus the reply) was not the multitude of typing and grammatical errors in your post. I simply found it amusing to make a connection between your opinion of women and your marital status. I pity you that you take yourself so seriously you felt the need to make a childish retort.
If you would allow yourself just a few moments to indulge in self-deprecation, and if you would in these moments read your original post, then I think you will agree that it contains the opinion of someone with quite a large stick up his ass. Now that I think about it, I have some advice I just received that I'd like to pass along... I think you will find it more useful than I did.
If I were a scientist, I'd be more worried about TOSWTSUTWATUTARNP(*) and their lack of interest in how things work...
(*) That Other Sex Where They Seem Unable To Worry About Things Unless They Are Not Pink.
Given your "disposal income [sic]" and obvious respect for women, it's truly amazing that you're still not married!
The name "Reduced Shakespeare Company" (RSC) is itself kind of a spoof on the well-known Royal Shakespeare Company (also RSC). I also saw the show in London and highly recommend it. I heard when I saw it that they had done a tour of the US the year before, so maybe they will come back across the pond sometime soon.
I thought that was seasnonal affective disorder (acronym SAD). As in, one is affected by the shorter days, more darkness, etc.
Or perhaps you were you just being sarcastic.
Just about any GRE review book or review course will tell you: a substantial portion of the questions you answer aren't actually scored. They're difficulty is being tested for future use.
It probably even says something similar at the GRE web site.
Aside from that, it's just common sense. Who needs a source? There's a basic difference between aptitude tests and proficiency tests.
And where is your source for the statistic of 99%? Have you actually done systematic research in the field of Slashdot bullshit? Didn't think so.
I thought your response was a bit rude and more than a bit arrogant. To keep the tone of the conversation consistent...
It is a relatively new thing that expectations are given the credence they deserve in the study of economics. Many models rely too heavily on the basic premise that agents are always acting in their own rational self-interest. While that would be ideal, in the economic reality is that people often don't act in their own rational self-interest (even considering the rational self-interest of the general public, or public interest) for various reasons, expectations about the future being a major reason. (With lack of perfect information being another biggie.)
It isn't merely "amusing that so many people think our economy depends on tricks of the mind to keep going." It's vital that economists understand that "tricks of the mind" do as much to influence economic decision-makers as any other variable. This is because the economic decision-makers are just we little humans, who are prone to "tricks of the mind," faulty reasoning, decisions based on imperfect information, expectations about the future, or whatever else you want to call it.
Economic reality can be found discussed in more depth with real professors at real educational institutions. If you actually go to the Austrian School of economics, I suggest you discuss this with your professors, as I fear you must have misunderstood something posted on that web site you linked. Surely they aren't actually teaching you the garbage you posted.
Conforming for money IS conforming by choice.
I choose to make a sizeable chunk of money. To do that, I must be productive in the work environment common to my chosen profession. In order to be most productive, I have to avoid offending people by what I wear or distracting people from what I'm doing by wearing something outside the norm. Since I have no ethical objection to dressing in the way that is considered the norm, I choose to do it. If I did have a real objection to it, I would choose to give up some of my income and do something else.
When I go home, I choose to wear whatever is comfortable. But I'm kinda glad that I don't work all day with a bunch of people wearing sweatsuits. Just my preference.
Your comment is funny, but I felt like I should add a counterpoint: The only way to keep our economy from going to shit is to not panic and continue to support our capital markets.
My apologies, then. Cheers.
I hope you were trying to be funny and not just trying to be an asshole.
Yes, in the context of strict philosophical reasoning, the phrase "begs the question" is used to refer to a conclusion which was arrived at by intermediate steps that were themselves unproven.
But in the context of everyday English usage, to beg simply means to ask for or require as necessary and a question is simply an interrogative expression. It is PERFECTLY acceptable to combine those words and say that a particular statement begs, or leads to, a question. This can be said without implying deeper meaning and without requiring a lesson in reasoning by pretentious people like you.
The thing is, students will still have to pay through the nose for "content." It isn't at all reasonable to assume that the cost of laptops would be the only cost involved in moving toward digital texts.
Agreed. I am against copy-protected CDs because once I buy one, I want the right to listen to it on an MP3 player, rip it to my computer to add to my library, or whatever...
But we (Slashdotters) don't make our point well if we're talking about the right to download music other people ripped. That is stealing. I don't want to argue for that right. I want to protect my right to rip music from a CD to another medium (such as my hard disk).
I think the movie example is a bit different. You get charged again and again if you want to see the movie in a theatre several times. You pay to view the showing of the movie in much the same way you would pay to see a play or a concert. However, if you purchase a copy of the movie, you have the right to view it again and again at no additional cost. This is the current scheme: fixed pricing for unlimited viewings. This is as opposed to the new idea of "micropayments."
But I digress. My point is this: I agree that the Big 5 are trying to move toward copy-protection in an attempt to prevent time-shifting. Everyone has probably seen the commercials playing on VH1 or MTV (i dont remember which) about favorite records. "You bought it on vinyl, you bought it on tape, you bought it when it came out on CD, you ripped it to an MP#, and you downloaded it to an MP3 player."
The industry has so far been able to make us purchase several copies of a single album that we love in order to keep up with the latest audio technology. What is after digital? If we can make digital copies on our computers, and then transfer that copy to any new un-copy-protected media, there will never be a need for us to purchase another copy of an album we've already paid for at least once.
All 3,011 of them.
If you have a version of windows prior to ME, you may have to Shift + right click to get the open with option.
This brings up an interesting point. Employees of software companies give up the rights to their work as part of the condition of employment. (i.e., Microsoft owns the copyright to any intellectual property produced by a Microsoft employee.)
But these people weren't treated as employees. They were given 1099's, indicating treatment as an independent contractor. Any release signed on ownership of copyrights of work produced as an employee should be void, right?
The article states that the earnings Loki sent 1099's on were paid as cash advances. Therefore, Loki didn't withold taxes from the payments, even though the checks were for the employees' net pay. Loki can't be charged with tax evasion, because Loki technically didn't pay the salaries to their employees. But the employees still have a right of action against Loki for the additional amount of unpaid salary. (Which the employees would then have to pay as taxes.)