Oh, I'm sure that it is something like that. My only point is that it is very hard to 'hack' it to get the feature that the manufacturer could have put in. The systems are all related. I am sure that if you had the 'official' starter it would work correctly, because the car would know that you remote started it, thus the key fob should still let you in the car.
This is true. I got a remote starter for a Hyundai Santa Fe, and it took the installer several days to get it working 'mostly' right. And this is a very experienced car electronics guy. It involves a whole lot of things - door locks, headlights, brake lights, security system, and obviously iginition and starting systems. He finally got it to the point that it starts the engine, but once the engine is started (with the remote) you can no longer use the factory remote door key, you have to use the physical key in the lock.
No, you do not increase the capital available to the company. The only time that is true is if the company is issuing new shares, which is rare. Most of the time when you buy a stock you are buying from an existing shareholder and the company gets nothing at all from that transaction.
Are you really that stupid? Here are the glorious good old environmentally friendly days you want to return to.
Every house burning coal or wood No synthetic (oil-based) fibers, animal skins and furs are used for warmth Your reading lamp is burning whale oil Want a new ship? Cut down an entire forest to build it Streets are full of tons of horse manure and dead horses Human waste is just dumped in the street. Maybe you have one of those fancy new sewers which takes that raw waste and dumps it in the nearest waterway
Yup, oil is just SO much more environmentally unfriendly than the good old days.
Now, I am not saying that we can't do better than oil, no doubt will will. But anyone claiming that things used to be better is truely an idiot.
To have 'standing' you must have personally been harmed by the action. The students were not harmed. They have no standing.
Now, maybe a DONOR could sue the endowment if the money was used in a way other than what the donor intended. And don't say 'the students should make a donation, then sue', because they already know how the money is being used, and if they are stupid enough to give money anyway that is their own problem.
And yet yesterday there was a link to an article about an Uber driver running over a cyclist, and Uber response was 'drivers are not employees, we are not responsible, we suspended his account.'
Holy crap that is stupid. Here is what would really happen.
Creditors would be extending credit essentially risk-free. Great for creditors.
Rich people and large investors would have people constantly looking for signs of trouble (much as they already do), and would dump their ownership at the drop of a hat
Ordinary investors (retirees, 401Ks, etc) would be left not only losing the value of their investment (which happens today), but would be on the hook for all the debts of the company? What fucking sense does that make? In what world is that 'nicer'?
The owner of a website called CoastNews, S. Louis Martin, argued that Google was unfairly putting CoastNews too far down in search results, while Bing and Yahoo were turning up CoastNews in the number one spot. CoastNews claimed that violated antitrust laws. It also took issue with Google's refusal to deliver ads to its website after CoastNews posted photographs of a nudist colony in the Santa Cruz mountains.
So who gets to decide which groups are 'specifically formed to avoid moral and legal responsibility'? You?
Corporations are not 'specifically formed to avoid moral and legal responsibility'. They are formed to have limited FINANCIAL responsibility. My parents owned a pharmacy. It was a corporation. Dad was the president. Dad held most of the stock, some employees also had some. Did they do this so they could avoid moral and legal responsibility? No, they did it for the same reason everyone does - so that if something went wrong with the business we did not lose our house and everything else.
What you REALLY mean is that any group you do not like should not have rights.
DMCA does not trump free speech. However, you have no 'right' to use someone else's website to make your speech, so your free speech is not impacted by the DMCA.
Your translation does not make the original copyright invalid, which is what your highlighed phrase means. You still need permission to make the translation in the first place, and if you don't have you have committed copyright infringment. However, if you have a license from the copyright holder, then your new work can be released on whatever terms you and the original copyright holder agreed to.
A POS is most certainly NOT "software for creating and managing a desktop". A POS is a thing used to make sales transactions. A POS is not "software for use as a GUI". A POS is a thing used to make sales transactions.
Is a house 'clearly' a hammer just because a hammer was used to build it? Is a house 'clearly' a nail just because it contains nails?
This isn't a patent. Technical details like that do not matter. What matters is how the name is used when it is marketed. If they are marketing it as 'a point of sale system', the fact that the software is downloaded is immaterial, what matters is the likelyhood of a consumer thinking that the POS system has been made by the GNOME desktop people.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Was GNOME marketing Lowes POS system under the name GNOME? No. Someone just happened to use the GNOME desktop manager to make a POS system (not called GNOME).
The rich buy life insurance to pay the estate taxes so their heirs do not have to liquidate assets to pay the taxes. For instance, if most of their worth is in a family business, they may not want the heirs to be forced to sell the business to get the cash to pay the taxes. Or, if their money is in other assets they may not want the heirs to be forced to sell at what may be poor market conditions.
Genes play a significant part in susceptibility to type 2 diabetes. Having certain genes or combinations of genes may increase or decrease a person’s risk for developing the disease. The role of genes is suggested by the high rate of type 2 diabetes in families and identical twins and wide variations in diabetes prevalence by ethnicity. Type 2 diabetes occurs more frequently in African Americans, Alaska Natives, American Indians, Hispanics/Latinos, and some Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islander Americans than it does in non-Hispanic whites.
Recent studies have combined genetic data from large numbers of people, accelerating the pace of gene discovery. Though scientists have now identified many gene variants that increase susceptibility to type 2 diabetes, the majority have yet to be discovered. The known genes appear to affect insulin production rather than insulin resistance. Researchers are working to identify additional gene variants and to learn how they interact with one another and with environmental factors to cause diabetes.
Studies have shown that variants of the TCF7L2 gene increase susceptibility to type 2 diabetes. For people who inherit two copies of the variants, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is about 80 percent higher than for those who do not carry the gene variant.1 However, even in those with the variant, diet and physical activity leading to weight loss help delay diabetes, according to the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a major clinical trial involving people at high risk.
Genes can also increase the risk of diabetes by increasing a person’s tendency to become overweight or obese. One theory, known as the “thrifty gene” hypothesis, suggests certain genes increase the efficiency of metabolism to extract energy from food and store the energy for later use. This survival trait was advantageous for populations whose food supplies were scarce or unpredictable and could help keep people alive during famine. In modern times, however, when high-calorie foods are plentiful, such a trait can promote obesity and type 2 diabetes.
If your company is so poorly run that you don't have certification processes and suppliers you can trust then you deserve to go under. If you have to destroy a few chips every now and then to make sure you are getting what you paid for, then you do that. If you have to have wording in your contracts with your suppliers that they are responsible for using genuine parts, then you do that, and you hold them to it.
Every industry has counterfeiters. Responsible manufacturers know how to deal with it.
Um, you do realize that to even get in the line you have to a) prove who you are (goverment issued ID) and b) show where you are going (boarding pass). I don't think they need something obscure like a MAC address to know who is in the airport and where they are going.
Exactly where in that post do you see anything at all about 'converging mainframe architectures'? He talks about 'tabulators, time clocks, and other specialized machines', then starts talking about general purpose computers. And, in fact, that is pretty much what the division was - there were specialized machines for things, and then there were general purpose computers and the specialized machines died off. The problem with his post is not in the definition of general purpose, it is that he is about 2 decades off from when the transition happened.
And even if you want to stick with your ridiculous interpretation, the 'covergence' happened with the 360, a decade and a half before he thinks. And the 360 was successful immediately - those 2000 orders in the first 8 weeks did not go primarily to universities. The things cost $2M to buy, or rented for $20K/month in 1964. Not many universities had that kind of cash to shell out.
What does being able to efficiently perform scientific calculations have to do with something being defined as a general purpose computer? NOTHING. General purpose says NOTHING about the suitability of a processor for a given task.
The processor in your cell phone is a general purpose computer. Is it particularly good at performing high-precision scientific calculations? No. Is it particularly good at performing decimal operations? No. Does that mean it is not a general purpose computer? NO!
Many businesses had 1401s, and 360s, and CDCs, and Univacs, etc. What were they all doing? WHATEVER THE CUSTOMER WANTED. Why were they not all doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same way? Because they were GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sure that it is something like that. My only point is that it is very hard to 'hack' it to get the feature that the manufacturer could have put in. The systems are all related. I am sure that if you had the 'official' starter it would work correctly, because the car would know that you remote started it, thus the key fob should still let you in the car.
This is true. I got a remote starter for a Hyundai Santa Fe, and it took the installer several days to get it working 'mostly' right. And this is a very experienced car electronics guy. It involves a whole lot of things - door locks, headlights, brake lights, security system, and obviously iginition and starting systems. He finally got it to the point that it starts the engine, but once the engine is started (with the remote) you can no longer use the factory remote door key, you have to use the physical key in the lock.
Then the FUTURE GENERATIONS would have standing.
No, you do not increase the capital available to the company. The only time that is true is if the company is issuing new shares, which is rare. Most of the time when you buy a stock you are buying from an existing shareholder and the company gets nothing at all from that transaction.
Are you really that stupid? Here are the glorious good old environmentally friendly days you want to return to.
Every house burning coal or wood
No synthetic (oil-based) fibers, animal skins and furs are used for warmth
Your reading lamp is burning whale oil
Want a new ship? Cut down an entire forest to build it
Streets are full of tons of horse manure and dead horses
Human waste is just dumped in the street. Maybe you have one of those fancy new sewers which takes that raw waste and dumps it in the nearest waterway
Yup, oil is just SO much more environmentally unfriendly than the good old days.
Now, I am not saying that we can't do better than oil, no doubt will will. But anyone claiming that things used to be better is truely an idiot.
To have 'standing' you must have personally been harmed by the action. The students were not harmed. They have no standing.
Now, maybe a DONOR could sue the endowment if the money was used in a way other than what the donor intended. And don't say 'the students should make a donation, then sue', because they already know how the money is being used, and if they are stupid enough to give money anyway that is their own problem.
And yet yesterday there was a link to an article about an Uber driver running over a cyclist, and Uber response was 'drivers are not employees, we are not responsible, we suspended his account.'
Holy crap that is stupid. Here is what would really happen.
Creditors would be extending credit essentially risk-free. Great for creditors.
Rich people and large investors would have people constantly looking for signs of trouble (much as they already do), and would dump their ownership at the drop of a hat
Ordinary investors (retirees, 401Ks, etc) would be left not only losing the value of their investment (which happens today), but would be on the hook for all the debts of the company? What fucking sense does that make? In what world is that 'nicer'?
From TFA (emphasis mine):
The owner of a website called CoastNews, S. Louis Martin, argued that Google was unfairly putting CoastNews too far down in search results, while Bing and Yahoo were turning up CoastNews in the number one spot. CoastNews claimed that violated antitrust laws. It also took issue with Google's refusal to deliver ads to its website after CoastNews posted photographs of a nudist colony in the Santa Cruz mountains.
So who gets to decide which groups are 'specifically formed to avoid moral and legal responsibility'? You?
Corporations are not 'specifically formed to avoid moral and legal responsibility'. They are formed to have limited FINANCIAL responsibility. My parents owned a pharmacy. It was a corporation. Dad was the president. Dad held most of the stock, some employees also had some. Did they do this so they could avoid moral and legal responsibility? No, they did it for the same reason everyone does - so that if something went wrong with the business we did not lose our house and everything else.
What you REALLY mean is that any group you do not like should not have rights.
DMCA does not trump free speech. However, you have no 'right' to use someone else's website to make your speech, so your free speech is not impacted by the DMCA.
Your translation does not make the original copyright invalid, which is what your highlighed phrase means. You still need permission to make the translation in the first place, and if you don't have you have committed copyright infringment. However, if you have a license from the copyright holder, then your new work can be released on whatever terms you and the original copyright holder agreed to.
It was a lawsuit claiming Google broke a law. If there can be no law, there can be no lawsuit.
Standard Oil was already huge when ICE cars started being made. Most of the infrastructure for refining and delivering gas was already in place.
A POS is most certainly NOT "software for creating and managing a desktop". A POS is a thing used to make sales transactions.
A POS is not "software for use as a GUI". A POS is a thing used to make sales transactions.
Is a house 'clearly' a hammer just because a hammer was used to build it? Is a house 'clearly' a nail just because it contains nails?
This isn't a patent. Technical details like that do not matter. What matters is how the name is used when it is marketed. If they are marketing it as 'a point of sale system', the fact that the software is downloaded is immaterial, what matters is the likelyhood of a consumer thinking that the POS system has been made by the GNOME desktop people.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Was GNOME marketing Lowes POS system under the name GNOME? No. Someone just happened to use the GNOME desktop manager to make a POS system (not called GNOME).
The rich buy life insurance to pay the estate taxes so their heirs do not have to liquidate assets to pay the taxes. For instance, if most of their worth is in a family business, they may not want the heirs to be forced to sell the business to get the cash to pay the taxes. Or, if their money is in other assets they may not want the heirs to be forced to sell at what may be poor market conditions.
From the NIH:
Genes play a significant part in susceptibility to type 2 diabetes. Having certain genes or combinations of genes may increase or decrease a person’s risk for developing the disease. The role of genes is suggested by the high rate of type 2 diabetes in families and identical twins and wide variations in diabetes prevalence by ethnicity. Type 2 diabetes occurs more frequently in African Americans, Alaska Natives, American Indians, Hispanics/Latinos, and some Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islander Americans than it does in non-Hispanic whites.
Recent studies have combined genetic data from large numbers of people, accelerating the pace of gene discovery. Though scientists have now identified many gene variants that increase susceptibility to type 2 diabetes, the majority have yet to be discovered. The known genes appear to affect insulin production rather than insulin resistance. Researchers are working to identify additional gene variants and to learn how they interact with one another and with environmental factors to cause diabetes.
Studies have shown that variants of the TCF7L2 gene increase susceptibility to type 2 diabetes. For people who inherit two copies of the variants, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is about 80 percent higher than for those who do not carry the gene variant.1 However, even in those with the variant, diet and physical activity leading to weight loss help delay diabetes, according to the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a major clinical trial involving people at high risk.
Genes can also increase the risk of diabetes by increasing a person’s tendency to become overweight or obese. One theory, known as the “thrifty gene” hypothesis, suggests certain genes increase the efficiency of metabolism to extract energy from food and store the energy for later use. This survival trait was advantageous for populations whose food supplies were scarce or unpredictable and could help keep people alive during famine. In modern times, however, when high-calorie foods are plentiful, such a trait can promote obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Huh? Why do you want 'just a little more information' to 'randomly select' something? That makes no sense at all.
Why should it be criminal? If you don't think the surf & turf is worth an extra $20, DON'T BUY IT. Gee, that was hard to solve.
If your company is so poorly run that you don't have certification processes and suppliers you can trust then you deserve to go under. If you have to destroy a few chips every now and then to make sure you are getting what you paid for, then you do that. If you have to have wording in your contracts with your suppliers that they are responsible for using genuine parts, then you do that, and you hold them to it.
Every industry has counterfeiters. Responsible manufacturers know how to deal with it.
Um, you do realize that to even get in the line you have to a) prove who you are (goverment issued ID) and b) show where you are going (boarding pass). I don't think they need something obscure like a MAC address to know who is in the airport and where they are going.
Exactly where in that post do you see anything at all about 'converging mainframe architectures'? He talks about 'tabulators, time clocks, and other specialized machines', then starts talking about general purpose computers. And, in fact, that is pretty much what the division was - there were specialized machines for things, and then there were general purpose computers and the specialized machines died off. The problem with his post is not in the definition of general purpose, it is that he is about 2 decades off from when the transition happened.
And even if you want to stick with your ridiculous interpretation, the 'covergence' happened with the 360, a decade and a half before he thinks. And the 360 was successful immediately - those 2000 orders in the first 8 weeks did not go primarily to universities. The things cost $2M to buy, or rented for $20K/month in 1964. Not many universities had that kind of cash to shell out.
What does being able to efficiently perform scientific calculations have to do with something being defined as a general purpose computer? NOTHING. General purpose says NOTHING about the suitability of a processor for a given task.
The processor in your cell phone is a general purpose computer. Is it particularly good at performing high-precision scientific calculations? No. Is it particularly good at performing decimal operations? No. Does that mean it is not a general purpose computer? NO!
Many businesses had 1401s, and 360s, and CDCs, and Univacs, etc. What were they all doing? WHATEVER THE CUSTOMER WANTED. Why were they not all doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same way? Because they were GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS.