I notice that SparkFun Electronics is a registered trademark. I'm sure they'd have no problem with my competing companies, SporkFun electronics and Sp@rkFun Electronics.
In the law, ignorance is not an excuse and hasn't been for centuries if not millennia. You are responsible for what you sell and, yes, for better or worse, colors have been trademarkable for a while now. I know of several examples like T-Mobile's magenta and Reese's orange, and I'm not even a retailer.
I have no doubt that SparkFun would exercise its trademark against infringers, so I have little sympathy for their case even if their violation was unintentional.
The thing is, allowing trademark violations to go unchallenged for no particular reason at all (in law, being kind is not a reason) will dilute the mark just as if they did nothing, or even worse. So, there is heavy incentive for them not to allow it, and they probably wouldn't.
What a great feeling it must be to pay extra for the privilege of fixing their bugs for them. Did they at least give you a discount? (Rhetorical question; I know they didn't.)
Huh? When I was a vegan, I'd have immediately said 'yes' to that question.
On the other hand, one of the primary benefits of being a vegan was that I had to reevaluate my diet and make conscious choices. I suppose if artificial animal products existed, I wouldn't have had that benefit. Nonetheless, I'd rather they did exist. I would hopefully have learned self-control some other way.
Drip brewing doesn't really scale well, since it takes time for the grounds to saturate, and a small amount of grounds will form a thin layer; both of these make the percolation happen too fast. Also, the first cup of water won't be quite hot enough for good coffee, unless you have a very good drip machine. (Most drip machines don't heat the water enough, but it's even worse for small amounts of water.)
A coffee maker intended for 4-6 cups can make a single cup, but it'll be pretty shitty. Use a press, cone, or single-serve drip machine.
It would probably be a service you subscribe to, not a barter economy. Who cares about owning a "nice new battery"? It's a consumable anyway. A guaranteed minimum quality of service is all that i would require, and this is easily enforced.
What do you expect? His handle is 'sexconker'. Whether he's a pedo or simply a horse chestnut insertion fetishist is unclear, but something is clearly awry.
That's all true, but on the other hand, Americans give a shit about cars whereas we really don't care about education. If put to direct vote, I'm fairly sure that the majority would vote to get rid of education completely and just replace it with daycare, if it would save a couple of bucks.
exactly what you mean by deduplication is kind of vague, but whatever you decide on, it could probably be done in a hundred lines of perl (using CPAN libraries of course).
except that it's more reasonable to assume that the process of losing bitcoins is a Poisson process of rate n*c, where n is the number of bitcoins currently mined and not-yet-lost, and c is the per-coin rate of loss. in this case, the number of not-lost coins will go to zero eventually.
this isn't exactly correct, since once the idiots lose their coins, the remaining ones, held by more cautious people, will be lost less often; that is, the "constant" c will actually be decreasing.
nonetheless, as long as the loss events are independent of one another and there are finitely many bitcoins, they will eventually all be lost as long as the rate doesn't go to exactly 0, though the timescale for this would be absurd. this can be shown in some generality.
anyway, if necessary the bitcoins can be subdivided to regrow the space, or even wrapped into another protocol.
They're using some kind of shitty statistical classifier, probably programmed by people who don't know what they're doing. Porn sites were probably the majority of sites which used your placeholder at some point, etc.
The thing with blockers like this is that there isn't really a whole lot of market pressure to make them good. The peons being blocked generally don't have a say, and the management doesn't really give a shit about over-blocking them either. Also, as a distant second, it's not a sexy enough field to draw the good talent; in fact, it's a repugnant field.
It's obviously referring to randomly chosen problem instances, which are then approximately-solved by both the D-wave device and a state-of-the-art classical algorithm. Don't be a fool.
And why should D-wave be involved in the study? Is Intel involved in every benchmark test of x86 hardware? That would be very suspicious indeed.
Since you brought it up, I should point out an interesting continuum I've noticed.
On one end, we have stoner fuck-ups who think everything is an amazing manifestation of Nature (or Jesus, or Buddha, or whatever the fuck) that they're constantly and uniquely (maybe along with a few of their friends) in touch with. They can't really ever describe why, or convince anyone of anything, but they know that they are in touch with something transcendent, and if other folks are wearing blinders, so what? This is perfectly fine, of course.
On the other end, we have people who've earned contact with Nature. Scientists like Feynman or Schroedinger, who have through incredible effort and ability actually achieved contact with the real thing which so many people experience only as a dim shadow on a cave wall or looking glass. Almost literally demigods; the first thing any of them would tell you, is to beware of that delusion, that cosmic banality and self-obsession, which drives the stoners on the other end of the spectrum. Not that it's bad per se. In fact, it can be an amazing and beautiful motivation, but it can also lead one to surrender and give up that natural skepticism which is as important as that thrill of exploration.
So far, so good.
Now what's interesting is, we have people in between. People like, for instance, me; people who can work and struggle and hope and dream, but will never be a Feynman, something which is all the more painful because we don't want the fame or whatever. We just know that something exists that we don't fully understand, but relish the partial understanding we do have. We just want more of that, but in the end we can't do it. Some of us give up in middle school algebra or earlier; some of us in intro to physics; some of us in E&M or differential geometry or nonlinear optics or whatever the fuck; some of us drop out of an advanced degree; some of us might even earn a doctorate, but at the end of the day, it just won't happen.
What do we do? We know how to think, but we just can't think quite broadly or deeply enough. We can see the beauty of what we can't achieve, and on the other hand we can achieve plenty, but a plenty which falls short. We could give up entirely, of course, in whatever way; sell ourselves for the most money, or raise a family and call that good enough. Another choice is to revel in what we can do; that same mind that can't even approach quantum chromodynamics can perform a complete analysis of what regular expression is necessary for some problem, or of whatever program can generate whatever regular expression is necessary, or of how to optimize a rendering routine to run on totally inadequate hardware, or any number of other things.
Perhaps the most fortunate, are the ones who never realize that Nature is a thing to be named. They simply think, unaware of a greater context, with an ignorance they are unknowingly fortunate of, solving and reveling in exactly those problems to which they are suited.
But when someone like you starts talking about the glories of Nature, and the short-sightedness of those people in the middle of the spectrum, and blah blah blah, I always ask myself: is this person a stoner fuck-up, or is this person an unrecognized Feynman?...
He's trying to communicate his neat ideas with as many people as he can, not optimize the shit out of something (in execution time, or length of code, or whatever). Python has become the standard language for communicating with a broad base of people who are not idiots, but not necessarily "real programmers" either. This is a good thing: it has basically replaced pseudocode.
Sure, but the legal system usually requires the plaintiff to show harm in order to have standing. Is there harm in a false positive review? Maybe to a competitor, or to the class of Yelp users, but it's much harder to argue for a case.
This is by design. It's a justice system, not a legislative system.
Yes, there are exceptions where standing is automatic, but they don't apply here yet and would need be legislated.
It's not just legit donors, either. One of the games these people play is to charge institutions speaking fees for a public appearance, part of which charge is the required purchase of, say, 5,000 books for their library or for "promotional purposes". The institution plays along, sending 90%+ of the books to be pulped the next day, and the speaker's sales stats get bumped. Ridiculous.
dogs are more attracted to cat poop because it contains more nutrients; cats eat a diet heavily derived from organ meat, while dogs eat comparatively more bulk muscle.
free nutrients that didn't get absorbed the first time through.
even for humans, one's own feces are safe to eat, barring mouth sores and the like. there's nothing in it that didn't come out of you in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that SparkFun Electronics is a registered trademark. I'm sure they'd have no problem with my competing companies, SporkFun electronics and Sp@rkFun Electronics.
In the law, ignorance is not an excuse and hasn't been for centuries if not millennia. You are responsible for what you sell and, yes, for better or worse, colors have been trademarkable for a while now. I know of several examples like T-Mobile's magenta and Reese's orange, and I'm not even a retailer.
I have no doubt that SparkFun would exercise its trademark against infringers, so I have little sympathy for their case even if their violation was unintentional.
The thing is, allowing trademark violations to go unchallenged for no particular reason at all (in law, being kind is not a reason) will dilute the mark just as if they did nothing, or even worse. So, there is heavy incentive for them not to allow it, and they probably wouldn't.
What a great feeling it must be to pay extra for the privilege of fixing their bugs for them. Did they at least give you a discount? (Rhetorical question; I know they didn't.)
Look at those assholes. Ordinary fucking people. I hate 'em.
Well, if he's anything like me, the 'emotion' is amusement and schadenfreude.
Huh? When I was a vegan, I'd have immediately said 'yes' to that question.
On the other hand, one of the primary benefits of being a vegan was that I had to reevaluate my diet and make conscious choices. I suppose if artificial animal products existed, I wouldn't have had that benefit. Nonetheless, I'd rather they did exist. I would hopefully have learned self-control some other way.
Drip brewing doesn't really scale well, since it takes time for the grounds to saturate, and a small amount of grounds will form a thin layer; both of these make the percolation happen too fast. Also, the first cup of water won't be quite hot enough for good coffee, unless you have a very good drip machine. (Most drip machines don't heat the water enough, but it's even worse for small amounts of water.)
A coffee maker intended for 4-6 cups can make a single cup, but it'll be pretty shitty. Use a press, cone, or single-serve drip machine.
It would probably be a service you subscribe to, not a barter economy. Who cares about owning a "nice new battery"? It's a consumable anyway. A guaranteed minimum quality of service is all that i would require, and this is easily enforced.
What do you expect? His handle is 'sexconker'. Whether he's a pedo or simply a horse chestnut insertion fetishist is unclear, but something is clearly awry.
What is this magical phone without delicate glass on the touchscreen? I want one.
what? p-values are in no way restricted to the normal distribution, although a lot of statistical theory does involve the normal distribution.
That's all true, but on the other hand, Americans give a shit about cars whereas we really don't care about education. If put to direct vote, I'm fairly sure that the majority would vote to get rid of education completely and just replace it with daycare, if it would save a couple of bucks.
exactly what you mean by deduplication is kind of vague, but whatever you decide on, it could probably be done in a hundred lines of perl (using CPAN libraries of course).
except that it's more reasonable to assume that the process of losing bitcoins is a Poisson process of rate n*c, where n is the number of bitcoins currently mined and not-yet-lost, and c is the per-coin rate of loss. in this case, the number of not-lost coins will go to zero eventually.
this isn't exactly correct, since once the idiots lose their coins, the remaining ones, held by more cautious people, will be lost less often; that is, the "constant" c will actually be decreasing.
nonetheless, as long as the loss events are independent of one another and there are finitely many bitcoins, they will eventually all be lost as long as the rate doesn't go to exactly 0, though the timescale for this would be absurd. this can be shown in some generality.
anyway, if necessary the bitcoins can be subdivided to regrow the space, or even wrapped into another protocol.
They're using some kind of shitty statistical classifier, probably programmed by people who don't know what they're doing. Porn sites were probably the majority of sites which used your placeholder at some point, etc.
The thing with blockers like this is that there isn't really a whole lot of market pressure to make them good. The peons being blocked generally don't have a say, and the management doesn't really give a shit about over-blocking them either. Also, as a distant second, it's not a sexy enough field to draw the good talent; in fact, it's a repugnant field.
It's obviously referring to randomly chosen problem instances, which are then approximately-solved by both the D-wave device and a state-of-the-art classical algorithm. Don't be a fool.
And why should D-wave be involved in the study? Is Intel involved in every benchmark test of x86 hardware? That would be very suspicious indeed.
walmart takes arbitrary 'returns' as long as it's an item they stock. maybe staples does the same?
That's fine, I'm sure someone who's less of a prima donna will be happy to take the market share.
anything beyond milk, potatoes, and a multivitamin is unnecessary luxury.
Since you brought it up, I should point out an interesting continuum I've noticed.
On one end, we have stoner fuck-ups who think everything is an amazing manifestation of Nature (or Jesus, or Buddha, or whatever the fuck) that they're constantly and uniquely (maybe along with a few of their friends) in touch with. They can't really ever describe why, or convince anyone of anything, but they know that they are in touch with something transcendent, and if other folks are wearing blinders, so what? This is perfectly fine, of course.
On the other end, we have people who've earned contact with Nature. Scientists like Feynman or Schroedinger, who have through incredible effort and ability actually achieved contact with the real thing which so many people experience only as a dim shadow on a cave wall or looking glass. Almost literally demigods; the first thing any of them would tell you, is to beware of that delusion, that cosmic banality and self-obsession, which drives the stoners on the other end of the spectrum. Not that it's bad per se. In fact, it can be an amazing and beautiful motivation, but it can also lead one to surrender and give up that natural skepticism which is as important as that thrill of exploration.
So far, so good.
Now what's interesting is, we have people in between. People like, for instance, me; people who can work and struggle and hope and dream, but will never be a Feynman, something which is all the more painful because we don't want the fame or whatever. We just know that something exists that we don't fully understand, but relish the partial understanding we do have. We just want more of that, but in the end we can't do it. Some of us give up in middle school algebra or earlier; some of us in intro to physics; some of us in E&M or differential geometry or nonlinear optics or whatever the fuck; some of us drop out of an advanced degree; some of us might even earn a doctorate, but at the end of the day, it just won't happen.
What do we do? We know how to think, but we just can't think quite broadly or deeply enough. We can see the beauty of what we can't achieve, and on the other hand we can achieve plenty, but a plenty which falls short. We could give up entirely, of course, in whatever way; sell ourselves for the most money, or raise a family and call that good enough. Another choice is to revel in what we can do; that same mind that can't even approach quantum chromodynamics can perform a complete analysis of what regular expression is necessary for some problem, or of whatever program can generate whatever regular expression is necessary, or of how to optimize a rendering routine to run on totally inadequate hardware, or any number of other things.
Perhaps the most fortunate, are the ones who never realize that Nature is a thing to be named. They simply think, unaware of a greater context, with an ignorance they are unknowingly fortunate of, solving and reveling in exactly those problems to which they are suited.
But when someone like you starts talking about the glories of Nature, and the short-sightedness of those people in the middle of the spectrum, and blah blah blah, I always ask myself: is this person a stoner fuck-up, or is this person an unrecognized Feynman? ...
Well, which one are you?
Then you're a moron.
He's trying to communicate his neat ideas with as many people as he can, not optimize the shit out of something (in execution time, or length of code, or whatever). Python has become the standard language for communicating with a broad base of people who are not idiots, but not necessarily "real programmers" either. This is a good thing: it has basically replaced pseudocode.
Sure, but the legal system usually requires the plaintiff to show harm in order to have standing. Is there harm in a false positive review? Maybe to a competitor, or to the class of Yelp users, but it's much harder to argue for a case.
This is by design. It's a justice system, not a legislative system.
Yes, there are exceptions where standing is automatic, but they don't apply here yet and would need be legislated.
It's not just legit donors, either. One of the games these people play is to charge institutions speaking fees for a public appearance, part of which charge is the required purchase of, say, 5,000 books for their library or for "promotional purposes". The institution plays along, sending 90%+ of the books to be pulped the next day, and the speaker's sales stats get bumped. Ridiculous.
some cats do eat their own poop.
dogs are more attracted to cat poop because it contains more nutrients; cats eat a diet heavily derived from organ meat, while dogs eat comparatively more bulk muscle.
free nutrients that didn't get absorbed the first time through.
even for humans, one's own feces are safe to eat, barring mouth sores and the like. there's nothing in it that didn't come out of you in the first place.