And how does cat piss differ from dog piss or other small animal piss?
I have no idea what it tastes like (obviously) but I do know that it’s apparently particularly pungent, to such a degree that it’s basically considered to be impossible to remove the odor once it sets. IIRC in some locations you are legally obligated to disclose if your house has cat urine odor problems when you sell it. You can’t just try to cover up the smell while you sell the house; even if you did it would just come back.
No, it’s a sad state of affairs when group A wants to implement ideas that will screw things up worse, group B wants to implement ideas that might actually improve things, and the division of power is such that the best B can accomplish is prevent A from screwing things up.
And then group A starts talking about a compromise! You can’t compromise between more and less screwed up. It’s going one way or the other.
I want you to give me $100, but I’m willing to compromise... I’d settle for $20.
Nah, I have no grand delusions about that with Congress in a stalemate and the President still wielding the veto pen. But at least everything will hopefully grind to a halt... that would be an improvement over the past 2 years.
Girls don't want to fuck nice, sensitive, shy guys, they want to be friends with them.
And (speaking as one of those guys), we want to be friends with them, too. In fact, we might almost begin to think that we could actually stand to live with them for some extended length of time. Crazy, I know.
It’s just that we can’t quite grasp the (to us, at least) mind-bogglingly stupid idea that you shouldn’t get into a relationship with someone who’s your friend. That should be the first component of a relationship!
Who do they want to marry? A stranger? An asshole? Someone they can’t stand? Their enemy? Do they want their marriage to consist of sleeping in separate beds, having a few affairs, and getting divorced? That’s what they’re setting themselves up for.
I invite people to use SysInternals Process Explorer.
I would never invite anyone to use APK ShitWare Garbage 2000+++ or whatever the hell you call it... unless perhaps they enjoy self-inflicted misery or want to try running it in a VM just to see how bad it really is.
the country pretty much started out with each black human being counted as 3/5 of a person
No. Over-simplifying that was probably fun, while it lasted, but let’s set the record straight.
It started with each black human being counted as 0 persons. They also could not vote.
Then certain slave-owning people figured out that if their slaves were counted as people but still not allowed to vote, their own votes would count for more. Their representatives in Congress would represent more people, but the slaves would have no control over the selection of their so-called “representation”.
Certain other people thought that wasn’t right or fair. Eventually the two sides compromised, and the agreement was for counting them as 0.6 persons, and not letting them vote.
So when a slaveowner who owned 100 slaves went to vote, he was casting 61 ballots with one stroke of the pen. This still wasn’t fair and it was eventually fixed. Now they count for 1 person and they can vote.
It means that you cannot simultaneously give information away and prevent people from having it, and attempting to profit by doing that is ridiculous.
It’s such a common concept, in fact, that we have numerous idioms to represent the same general theme. “Let the cat out of the bag”... “Opened a can of worms”... “No sense crying over spilled milk”... “Can’t put the genie back in the bottle”... “Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube”... etc. (Not all of them are always used to refer to information, but they can.)
This is the age of information. You let it out... it’s gone. People have it... it spreads. That’s all there is to it.
Downloading without proper authorisation is illegal. No “presumed” rights to copy something exist; if you know (or have pretty good reason to believe) it’s copyrighted, you need explicit permission to copy it (legally).
However, they (almost certainly) can’t nab you for downloading:
- If you downloaded it from the copyright holder, they gave you implied permission and/or you get into nit picking about entrapment; - if you downloaded it from someone else, the copyright holder has almost no way of finding you; - and, if you merely have the file in your possession, the burden of proof is on them to show that you didn’t obtain it legally. (“I bought the CD and ripped it. No, I don’t have it any more. It broke. No, I won’t show you any receipt, I don’t keep those.”)
About all they can get you for is offering to make a copy for someone else (the whole “making available” thing).
That doesn't even enter the equation if you consider copyright invalid.
Sure it does. Whether or not you consider the copyright valid, you’re implicitly assuming that everyone else isn’t like you. If you’re doing stuff that other people aren’t supposed to do but it’s okay when you do it, that’s hypocritical.
So he hasn't done anything yet to make us suspect he is a hypocrite or has he?
She was copying something that someone was trying to profit from, without paying them for it (implying it had no real value), and then making copies and trying to profit from them (implying it did have value). That’s hypocritical by definition.
You just think that because you do care. I honestly didn't care at all till the age of 24. Things have changed after then, I started to care, and started to act on it.
Well, I didn’t care either for a significant time but I definitely started caring before I was 24.
I was referring to the non-legal definition of "public domain"
There are two definitions of “public domain”, according to my dictionary. One is “land directly owned by the government”. The other is “the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone”.
Should have made that more clear. Apologies.
In this case, “more clear” = correct terminology; it was unclear because it was incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
And how does cat piss differ from dog piss or other small animal piss?
I have no idea what it tastes like (obviously) but I do know that it’s apparently particularly pungent, to such a degree that it’s basically considered to be impossible to remove the odor once it sets. IIRC in some locations you are legally obligated to disclose if your house has cat urine odor problems when you sell it. You can’t just try to cover up the smell while you sell the house; even if you did it would just come back.
No, it’s a sad state of affairs when group A wants to implement ideas that will screw things up worse, group B wants to implement ideas that might actually improve things, and the division of power is such that the best B can accomplish is prevent A from screwing things up.
And then group A starts talking about a compromise! You can’t compromise between more and less screwed up. It’s going one way or the other.
I want you to give me $100, but I’m willing to compromise... I’d settle for $20.
The GRAMMAR BOT 9001 has determined you have confused the words "their" and "there".
“Their” and “There” may have been confused, but the word “they’re” merely indicated amusement over the whole fiasco.
Nah, I have no grand delusions about that with Congress in a stalemate and the President still wielding the veto pen. But at least everything will hopefully grind to a halt... that would be an improvement over the past 2 years.
Girls don't want to fuck nice, sensitive, shy guys, they want to be friends with them.
And (speaking as one of those guys), we want to be friends with them, too. In fact, we might almost begin to think that we could actually stand to live with them for some extended length of time. Crazy, I know.
It’s just that we can’t quite grasp the (to us, at least) mind-bogglingly stupid idea that you shouldn’t get into a relationship with someone who’s your friend. That should be the first component of a relationship!
Who do they want to marry? A stranger? An asshole? Someone they can’t stand? Their enemy? Do they want their marriage to consist of sleeping in separate beds, having a few affairs, and getting divorced? That’s what they’re setting themselves up for.
And we wonder why the divorce rate is so high...
Cofee?
That must be some sort of coffee knock-off. Sort of like Mike shoes. No wonder you thought it tasted horrible.
Dammit, please don’t mod me into oblivion, I didn’t realise that had just been posted. This thread is much too long, I should leave now...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
You become a woman.
Everyone was trolling, or was trolled. Including me and you. /thread
Real real translation: YHBT. HTH. HAND.
(You have been trolled. Hope this helps. Have a nice day.)
I invite people to use SysInternals Process Explorer.
I would never invite anyone to use APK ShitWare Garbage 2000+++ or whatever the hell you call it... unless perhaps they enjoy self-inflicted misery or want to try running it in a VM just to see how bad it really is.
For those who aren’t already familiar with APK (sit down, have the kleenex handy... and don’t complain to me later if your face hurts from laughing so much):
APK - The “Ultimate” Collection - mandatory nighttime reading for Ars (or Slashdot) newbies
the country pretty much started out with each black human being counted as 3/5 of a person
No. Over-simplifying that was probably fun, while it lasted, but let’s set the record straight.
It started with each black human being counted as 0 persons. They also could not vote.
Then certain slave-owning people figured out that if their slaves were counted as people but still not allowed to vote, their own votes would count for more. Their representatives in Congress would represent more people, but the slaves would have no control over the selection of their so-called “representation”.
Certain other people thought that wasn’t right or fair. Eventually the two sides compromised, and the agreement was for counting them as 0.6 persons, and not letting them vote.
So when a slaveowner who owned 100 slaves went to vote, he was casting 61 ballots with one stroke of the pen. This still wasn’t fair and it was eventually fixed. Now they count for 1 person and they can vote.
It most definitely does mean something.
It means that you cannot simultaneously give information away and prevent people from having it, and attempting to profit by doing that is ridiculous.
It’s such a common concept, in fact, that we have numerous idioms to represent the same general theme. “Let the cat out of the bag”... “Opened a can of worms”... “No sense crying over spilled milk”... “Can’t put the genie back in the bottle”... “Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube”... etc. (Not all of them are always used to refer to information, but they can.)
This is the age of information. You let it out... it’s gone. People have it... it spreads. That’s all there is to it.
I once got driving directions that told me “turn left”... off an overpass. (It’s fixed now.)
The tl;dr version is:
Downloading without proper authorisation is illegal. No “presumed” rights to copy something exist; if you know (or have pretty good reason to believe) it’s copyrighted, you need explicit permission to copy it (legally).
However, they (almost certainly) can’t nab you for downloading:
- If you downloaded it from the copyright holder, they gave you implied permission and/or you get into nit picking about entrapment;
- if you downloaded it from someone else, the copyright holder has almost no way of finding you;
- and, if you merely have the file in your possession, the burden of proof is on them to show that you didn’t obtain it legally. (“I bought the CD and ripped it. No, I don’t have it any more. It broke. No, I won’t show you any receipt, I don’t keep those.”)
About all they can get you for is offering to make a copy for someone else (the whole “making available” thing).
That doesn't even enter the equation if you consider copyright invalid.
Sure it does. Whether or not you consider the copyright valid, you’re implicitly assuming that everyone else isn’t like you. If you’re doing stuff that other people aren’t supposed to do but it’s okay when you do it, that’s hypocritical.
So he hasn't done anything yet to make us suspect he is a hypocrite or has he?
She was copying something that someone was trying to profit from, without paying them for it (implying it had no real value), and then making copies and trying to profit from them (implying it did have value). That’s hypocritical by definition.
Everything.
Who the fuck is ap?
While it’s theoretically plausible and an interesting side topic, that’s not actually what they’re doing though.
You just think that because you do care.
I honestly didn't care at all till the age of 24. Things have changed after then, I started to care, and started to act on it.
Well, I didn’t care either for a significant time but I definitely started caring before I was 24.
The same law?
Unauthorized copying of something for personal use is addressed by the same law as is unauthorized copying of it for commercial use?
Are you sure of that?
Yeah, that was sort of my point.
I was referring to the non-legal definition of "public domain"
There are two definitions of “public domain”, according to my dictionary. One is “land directly owned by the government”. The other is “the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone”.
Should have made that more clear. Apologies.
In this case, “more clear” = correct terminology; it was unclear because it was incorrect.