Getting added to the sexual offenders list and potentially spending time in jail or even prison and paying a not insignificant fine seems like a greater sacrifice than lying to a wife.
"Intent" matters less than you seem to think (it might if something is ambigious but then we get rants about judges ligislating from the bench and this one isn't ambigious). What is in "the minds of conservatives" is irrelevant too. What matters is what the laws they pass say.
It says that "personhood" starts at conception. The stock standard birth control pill, kills conceived eggs by interfering with implantation, depriving that tiny person of oxygen and nutrients and so murdering them - if you accept the premise (and when it comes to laws you don't get a choice).
Part if the mechanism of the pill is to prevent fertilized eggs from impanting - that's after conception has occured. It's not the only mechanism, but it's part of the package. So all those republicans are trying to outlaw the pill. Not just not pay for it.
You have a very strange interpretation of what the "if... then..." construct is used to indicate in english.
For example, take the statement: "If a person has HIV then they should not give blood to the Red Cross." This is not the same as saying "everyone should not give blood to the Red Cross".
Or: "If a food is toxic when raw but edible when cooked then it should only be eaten after cooking', this does not mean "all foods should only be eaten after cooking".
He had somewhere between $900,000 and $1,200,000 in revenue (no idea what the profit margin was).
Argument seems to be that 17 U.S.C. S 109(a) says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
And something manufactured overseas isn't "lawfully made under this title" is what the Court of Appeals ruled.
Way back when I had ADSL in australia as my internet traffic within the ISPs network didn't count to my quota. The ISP had a bunch of ftp mirrors, a bunch of game servers, and the subscribers ran a bunch of not legitimate at all P2P servers/clients that restricted to within the ISP IPs.
It had nothing to do with the ISP trying to leverage itself into having an edge over content providing competitors. That external traffic was a big part of their costs and so encouraging their users to use their mirrors and so on was good for them.
When I was at uni, AARNet traffic was cheaper than other national traffic which was cheaper than international traffic - in terms of what the university charged the department for their usage. I can't find any docs now of course, but a different university still has a slightly simpler but similar setup: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/its/quotas/internet/definition.html
Again that wasn't the university trying to get content providers to pay them or trying to give an edge to themselves. It was just a reflection of the costs.
Now the US has far lower costs to start with and maybe they are low enough that it really doesn't matter and comcast are just trying to benefit their other business arms. But without knowing some of the vague details I don't think you can just ignore the non-jerk potential reasons.
The prodution budget is not the only cost, and since you deduct costs from the gross to determine the profit your numbers are incomplete enough to be useless.
There the $200 million distribution fees, the $131 million on marketing, the $57 million in interest, the $300 million on advances, and so on.
1991. Well OK not "no one" but certainly not a large market. At that time there was no mp3, there was no WWW, heck most people didn't have email.
And of course the device shown in the drawing is almost the opposite of an iphone. Overlapping windows. No touch. It's not an iphone it's a PDA - which already existed at that time. The Psion Series 3 was being sold in 1991 - not just having vague drawings of a rectangular box being drawn. Apple was already working on the Newton.
of arguing "I did stop, but the officer's view was obstructed by another vehicle and hence he couldn't have seen whether I did or did not" and having the officer agree that his view was obstructed.
That's fine you don't have to take advice from an idiot. I also never claimed my language skills were wonderful and I certainly don't put any effort into slashdot comments.
Still I'm sure you can see that "an naive" should be "and naive" - it's called a typo greatly enhanced by my keyboard which randomly drops some keypresses*.
Of course I'm also sure you can see past my spelling and grammar ineptitude. You know that "bricked" doesn't actually mean "bricked". Just like "hacker" doesn't actually mean "hacker". That you choose to pretend it does and pick on language that apparently you did manage to comprehend even though it was so atrocious says enough all by itself.
* Though apparently a dell laptop can keep working after having a can of Sprite tipped over the keyboard and a year later a mug of coffee tipped over the keyboard - the keys seem to deteroriate faster than the rest of the machine.
Seriously you are applying your restricted definition of "bricked" to an anonymously written slashdot summary? Even though the word "bricked" is not in the linked articles themselves, instead there's actual descriptions of "blocking" the phones?
OK, so your either an idiot or incredibly trusting an naive. Either way, there's no point arguing is there...
And by the way people who break into computer systems using software they found on the internet and have no understanding of. They are called "hackers". Like "bricked" you lost that definitio fight with the general public long ago.
Because after they add it to the "do not use" list because Account Holder X reported it stolen, they'd never be able to remove it from the "do not use" list when Account Holder X reported it recovered. That would be impossible.
Now sure if Account Holder Y wants to use it then no go, until they can convince Account Holder X to report it recovered.
Because AT&T most likely sold them the phone in the first place. And the id was associated with their account. And then reported lost/stolen by that account holder who had AT&T remove access to their line from that phone.
Then someone else wanders in a week later and activates the exact phone on a different account and AT&T couldn't care less.
Now obviously there's the case in which someone gives/sells a phone to someone else and then tells AT&T that the phone was lost/stolen. That seems a rare enough situation, and one that is easily avoided - have the phone disconnected from the account before you accept it/buy it from someone and that way they can't report it stolen/lost in the first place.
All the other DOS pranks work just like reporting the phone lost/stolen now and having the line turned off, so nothing is added. OK "all" might be too strong, but I can't think of any.
There are already remedies againt this - mainly sending people to prison for fraud.
Of course I don't know if that does as far as making AT*T complicit in the theft - that seems quite a stretch.
Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???
The answer was that software is crap and UIs don't work on high DPI screens. And then he gave an optmistic "this might get fixed soonish" bit of fantasy.
The question remains, why did the common resolution go down from 1680x1050 (which is perfectly and entirely supported by even 10 year old out-of-support windows operating systems) to 1366x768?
Let's see they could try for a theft charge that the person stole 50 songs at 99c a song on itunes for under $50 wroth of theft.
Or they chould try for a copyright infringment charge that the person aided in thousands of copies being made by sharing the files. With statutory damages of $150,000 up for grabs.
But ER treatment is a tiny subset of health care. Sure probably the least effective and most expensive but that hardly counts as a good thing if you are arguing for the best place to put all you socialized health care eggs.
The US has, by a very significant margin, the best health care system in the world.
That's simply false.
What metric are you using that puts the US ahead of Switzerland by a significant margin?
Slashdot Mirror
And how does Penn and Tellers "let's do the trick with transparent cups/walls/sheets" fit with that first one?
Getting added to the sexual offenders list and potentially spending time in jail or even prison and paying a not insignificant fine seems like a greater sacrifice than lying to a wife.
He clearly doesn't have a neckbeard. Either your dictionary or you eyes need checking.
"Intent" matters less than you seem to think (it might if something is ambigious but then we get rants about judges ligislating from the bench and this one isn't ambigious). What is in "the minds of conservatives" is irrelevant too. What matters is what the laws they pass say.
It says that "personhood" starts at conception. The stock standard birth control pill, kills conceived eggs by interfering with implantation, depriving that tiny person of oxygen and nutrients and so murdering them - if you accept the premise (and when it comes to laws you don't get a choice).
You can see her tits!!!!
Wow, you are at a whole new level of stupid.
You're either uninformed or plain old lying.
Here's the bill in virginia that makes the pill illegal: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1
passed the republican controlled house and senate with ease.
And all the current candidates bar Romney have gone on record agreeing with it explicitely for religious reasons: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge
Of course Romney flip-flops back and forth but here he is saing he "absolutely" agrees too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrOt9Qposg#t=5m25s
Part if the mechanism of the pill is to prevent fertilized eggs from impanting - that's after conception has occured. It's not the only mechanism, but it's part of the package. So all those republicans are trying to outlaw the pill. Not just not pay for it.
You have a very strange interpretation of what the "if ... then ..." construct is used to indicate in english.
For example, take the statement: "If a person has HIV then they should not give blood to the Red Cross." This is not the same as saying "everyone should not give blood to the Red Cross".
Or: "If a food is toxic when raw but edible when cooked then it should only be eaten after cooking', this does not mean "all foods should only be eaten after cooking".
He had somewhere between $900,000 and $1,200,000 in revenue (no idea what the profit margin was).
Argument seems to be that 17 U.S.C. S 109(a) says:
And something manufactured overseas isn't "lawfully made under this title" is what the Court of Appeals ruled.
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/John_Wiley__Sons_v_Kirtsaeng_654_F3d_210_99_USPQ2d_1641_2d_Cir_20 has details.
Way back when I had ADSL in australia as my internet traffic within the ISPs network didn't count to my quota. The ISP had a bunch of ftp mirrors, a bunch of game servers, and the subscribers ran a bunch of not legitimate at all P2P servers/clients that restricted to within the ISP IPs.
It had nothing to do with the ISP trying to leverage itself into having an edge over content providing competitors. That external traffic was a big part of their costs and so encouraging their users to use their mirrors and so on was good for them.
When I was at uni, AARNet traffic was cheaper than other national traffic which was cheaper than international traffic - in terms of what the university charged the department for their usage. I can't find any docs now of course, but a different university still has a slightly simpler but similar setup: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/its/quotas/internet/definition.html
Again that wasn't the university trying to get content providers to pay them or trying to give an edge to themselves. It was just a reflection of the costs.
Now the US has far lower costs to start with and maybe they are low enough that it really doesn't matter and comcast are just trying to benefit their other business arms. But without knowing some of the vague details I don't think you can just ignore the non-jerk potential reasons.
The prodution budget is not the only cost, and since you deduct costs from the gross to determine the profit your numbers are incomplete enough to be useless.
There the $200 million distribution fees, the $131 million on marketing, the $57 million in interest, the $300 million on advances, and so on.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/
1991. Well OK not "no one" but certainly not a large market. At that time there was no mp3, there was no WWW, heck most people didn't have email.
And of course the device shown in the drawing is almost the opposite of an iphone. Overlapping windows. No touch. It's not an iphone it's a PDA - which already existed at that time. The Psion Series 3 was being sold in 1991 - not just having vague drawings of a rectangular box being drawn. Apple was already working on the Newton.
of arguing "I did stop, but the officer's view was obstructed by another vehicle and hence he couldn't have seen whether I did or did not" and having the officer agree that his view was obstructed.
That's fine you don't have to take advice from an idiot. I also never claimed my language skills were wonderful and I certainly don't put any effort into slashdot comments.
Still I'm sure you can see that "an naive" should be "and naive" - it's called a typo greatly enhanced by my keyboard which randomly drops some keypresses*.
Of course I'm also sure you can see past my spelling and grammar ineptitude. You know that "bricked" doesn't actually mean "bricked". Just like "hacker" doesn't actually mean "hacker". That you choose to pretend it does and pick on language that apparently you did manage to comprehend even though it was so atrocious says enough all by itself.
* Though apparently a dell laptop can keep working after having a can of Sprite tipped over the keyboard and a year later a mug of coffee tipped over the keyboard - the keys seem to deteroriate faster than the rest of the machine.
Obviously you only do it to black men.
Apparently the police just take you at your word in that case. Of course you have to make sure the media doesn't get wind of it.
Seriously you are applying your restricted definition of "bricked" to an anonymously written slashdot summary? Even though the word "bricked" is not in the linked articles themselves, instead there's actual descriptions of "blocking" the phones?
OK, so your either an idiot or incredibly trusting an naive. Either way, there's no point arguing is there...
And by the way people who break into computer systems using software they found on the internet and have no understanding of. They are called "hackers". Like "bricked" you lost that definitio fight with the general public long ago.
Because after they add it to the "do not use" list because Account Holder X reported it stolen, they'd never be able to remove it from the "do not use" list when Account Holder X reported it recovered. That would be impossible.
Now sure if Account Holder Y wants to use it then no go, until they can convince Account Holder X to report it recovered.
Because AT&T most likely sold them the phone in the first place. And the id was associated with their account. And then reported lost/stolen by that account holder who had AT&T remove access to their line from that phone.
Then someone else wanders in a week later and activates the exact phone on a different account and AT&T couldn't care less.
Now obviously there's the case in which someone gives/sells a phone to someone else and then tells AT&T that the phone was lost/stolen. That seems a rare enough situation, and one that is easily avoided - have the phone disconnected from the account before you accept it/buy it from someone and that way they can't report it stolen/lost in the first place.
All the other DOS pranks work just like reporting the phone lost/stolen now and having the line turned off, so nothing is added. OK "all" might be too strong, but I can't think of any.
There are already remedies againt this - mainly sending people to prison for fraud.
Of course I don't know if that does as far as making AT*T complicit in the theft - that seems quite a stretch.
Surely this isn't an argument Oracle wants to win?
Since they'll be on the hook for far more than they'll win if their argument becomes the legal interpretation...
No, it's a specific way of licensing your creation.
He didn't. The question was:
The answer was that software is crap and UIs don't work on high DPI screens. And then he gave an optmistic "this might get fixed soonish" bit of fantasy.
Oh I see, you've changed the question.
And you wonder why it wasn't answered?
aren't stupid enough to go for a theft charge.
Let's see they could try for a theft charge that the person stole 50 songs at 99c a song on itunes for under $50 wroth of theft.
Or they chould try for a copyright infringment charge that the person aided in thousands of copies being made by sharing the files. With statutory damages of $150,000 up for grabs.
Wow, hard choice...
On the title of the front page.
The goal is irrelevant, the actual words are what matters.
That it might do something against the goal it was created for is what "unintended consequences" means after all.
But ER treatment is a tiny subset of health care. Sure probably the least effective and most expensive but that hardly counts as a good thing if you are arguing for the best place to put all you socialized health care eggs.
That's simply false.
What metric are you using that puts the US ahead of Switzerland by a significant margin?