No that's the same as BFG going through bankruptcy.
This is BFG deciding to wind up and just expecting creditors to ignore that they are owed something. If you treat a warranty as a debt anyway - and it seems like one to me (though I would expect they had a lawyer not dumb enough to not include a "lifetime also means the lifetime of the company" or a "we can cancel this lifetime warranty anytime we damn well feel like it" clause write the warranty text).
But you would do a google search or whatever before deciding to eat nothing but tuna and salad, right?
I didn't know about mercury levels in tuna once upon a either - because I basically never ate fish anyway. I must have seen something at some point (and just ignored it) since it was one of those "I somehow already knew that" moment when I did 30 seconds of research when the wife and I decided to have a kid and hence looked up dietary recommendations.
I would have looked up the same thing if I decided to eat more that a usual amount of anything.
Not knowing something that doesn't affect you, or that you have reason to know, or that is hard to know isn't stupidity.
Not doing the tiniest bit of research into a food you are about to use as your entire diet, that has widely published and available data about mercury concerns, however is stupidity.
We aren't talking about children, who we know aren't very good at considering consequences and possibly haven't been taught the very morals we expect them to keep.
We are talking about adults making hopefully rational decisions.
If some crime will bring me $5 million in profits, and I have a 25% of chance of getting caught and the punishment is just to hand over the profits, the rational thing would be to go for those profits and hope for the 75% case.
yes people should just not do what is wrong, but people are jerks. Plus of course often the "system"'s views on what is wrong don't match the individual's views so relying on people being good and moral just doesn't cut it.
This is why corporate America does so much shit, they know the chances of getting caught aren't very high. And if they are caught the punishment is usually a public statement for the SEC saying they don't admit any wrong doing but they are paying back 10% of what they gained because they are nice.
Again, relying on the morals of other people to get them to do what is right isn't very successful. And this has been going on just fine when children were clipped around the ear at school for looking at the teacher with the wrong tone of voice.
Of course it's believable what isn't believable it that someone could be so stupid as to not know that large fish have high mercury levels. Especially if they decided to eat large amounts of it.
Assumming the quality and detail is the same why is a negative better than a digital image that can be copied without loss and stored electronically easily forever.
So why do you care so much about having some negatives, that will lose quality with time as they physically decay?
I don't know (or care) about the details and whether this the claims are a stretch.
But assuming she is guilty as claimed then the damages better be more than the $3 mil brought in. Otherwise it's not a deterent, especially considering you won't always get caught.
Obviously if you enter a competition and don't win you spend effort entering for no reward. I wouldn't think it would be possible too drool let alone develop software without knowing that.
That the prize runner benefits from non-winning entries (if the terms and conditions are as such, and you know them before you enter) is also obvious. That's part of the reason for running one, you might award your million dollar prize for the best piece of crap in a field of garbage and would have been better of hiring programmers (ignoring the promotion beneifits of a competition). Or you might get more and better software than you could have got via hiring for the same cost.
Attending a job interview, writing a cover letter, tweaking the CV to highlight relevant experience, etc, those all require effort or time - and yet they don't have to offer me the job (or offer me the pay/benefits I want). Oh noes... there's risk...
There is nothing that requires a static language to be compiled, and a dynamic language to be intepreted. Hence a "write/compile/run" cycle is orthogonal to dynamic vs static.
That Fred was arrested for a DUI would seem to be a pretty obvious conclusion to draw without having to see a mugshot on facebook if you are a juror on Fred's DUI trial. You are at the trial after all...
Just because I don't drive enough to care about saving the travel time given by going 5-10km/h faster doesn't mean I "lack experience". Maybe I just have a lot of free time?
And it seems pretty damn obvious to me that driving slower than the main traffic speed is more dangerous at the main traffic speed. Under the assumption that the main traffic speed is a safe speed for the road and conditions. You are more likely to have an idiot run into you from behind for one. Making lane changes is clearly more dangerious than not making lane changes - by driving slower than traffic there are more lane changes happening near you as other drivers go around you.
Obviously I don't think those extra dangers matter - if I did I wouldn't drive the way I do. But they clearly exist - remember all other things are equal, the only difference is you are travelling at a speed different from the main traffic flow.
The right lane is the fast lane where I am, you insenstive clod!
There is no end. I just happen to follow road rules - annoys the wife which is an added bonus and possibly an end in itself there.
I guess I don't see any point in not following them. I don't drive enough for it to make a difference if I get everywhere 5-10km/h faster. And figure (somewhat naively and foolishly probably given revenue production is a likely motivation) that the rules were made up by people more knowledgabe than me in order to make things better for everyone.
Of course in practice driving at the speed level on the freeway/highway is likely more dangerous than going 10 over and not being overtaken every few seconds. But I like relaxing in the slow lane:)
What does being a superpower have to do with anything?
Are you arguing that because the USSR was a superpower in the 1980s that their system of government was a wonder of democracy and should be emulated by all?
And lets ignore that America's super power status is left overs from the time when they were more elitist and followed scientists rather than politicians on scientific matters. Back when "meritocracy" wasn't laughable and the "American dream" was that anyone could rise to top based on their talent and work and nothing to do with owning a home/mortgage.
I have not had a speeding ticket, ever. I have speed once that I recall - in order to avoid an someone with a different approach to merging that I had been taught.
I have not driven even 1km/h too much for one second in the last year.
And yes I stop at stop signs, even when I *know* there is no need to. And yes I indicate when changing lanes even when there is not another car in sight. And yes I will drive 10 miles down the freeway and take the next exit instead of crossing the solid lines if I slightly miss my exit.
And yes the wife gets annoyed at me because I always follow the damn rules.
Then again, I'll happily watch an unauthorized video stream on the interweb...
The topic at hand wasn't 1km/h too much, it was 20km/h over. It wasn't going 5km/h over the limit to keep up with traffic flow, it was ignoring posted speed limits because you *know* better. That *knowing* is the special being referred to.
You are right that most people don't consider going a little over the limit to be a bad thing. I suspect most people do think that 20km/h over the limit in a school zone is a bad thing - even if the driver *knows* the school zone shouldn't have been in operation that day.
What are you talking about? Exactly what lessons do I need to learn? And what is the hard way?
Of course I received the same, you do know what a fight is right? It's where two people hit each other. Hence it involved me getting punched (in fact I was a scrawny nerd, it involved me getting beaten to a pulp).
In what universe does it make a difference if a person has done something "wrong" in the past in determining whether some action is "wrong" now?
I stole a transformer toy from k-mart when I was little, does that mean I can no longer say that stealing is wrong in any situtation?
I got into a fight in high school and punched someone in the face, does that mean that I'm forced to accept that it is OK for someone to punch their wife in the face because she burnt the toast?
I'm not allowed to hold ideals that I fail to live up to in all of history?
And of course it's impossible that the officials in charge of the speed limits might have decided to leave them up without informing you of the reason, because you are omniscient.
Seriously, you don't think it's remotely possible that the police did some investigating. Maybe went to the location of the alleged offense and asked around if anyone saw anything. Maybe checked any nearby traffic/security video footage.
And if they had just arrested him on the basis of an online post that maybe, just maybe, his lawyer would tell him to shut the hell up (or even to say he was lieing to show off) and not plead guilty?
Or are you saying that police shouldn't ever investigate potentially illegal activity unless they already have sufficient proof?
Or are you really dumb enough to think they got a conviction based solely on an online post?
Given the SEC ignored detailed reports from various members of the public that Madoff was running a scam, I'm sure sending them more such reports (of lower quality from people with less experience in the relevant fields) will help greatly.
The smart people who actually research things and tend to follow evidence are supposed to leave the political debate to the idiots who just care about the next election.
What a wonderful system that would be. Oh wait a minute, that'd be what America has at the moment. How is that working out?
And let me guess it is fair and balanced to hear from "John Smith PhD" on one side of the argument and "John Jones who read the data published by John Smith and has a better idea but never bothered with elitish University" on the other. Equal time!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right, because a credit card company has never got money from an estate to settle debts. Never.
No that's the same as BFG going through bankruptcy.
This is BFG deciding to wind up and just expecting creditors to ignore that they are owed something. If you treat a warranty as a debt anyway - and it seems like one to me (though I would expect they had a lawyer not dumb enough to not include a "lifetime also means the lifetime of the company" or a "we can cancel this lifetime warranty anytime we damn well feel like it" clause write the warranty text).
But you would do a google search or whatever before deciding to eat nothing but tuna and salad, right?
I didn't know about mercury levels in tuna once upon a either - because I basically never ate fish anyway. I must have seen something at some point (and just ignored it) since it was one of those "I somehow already knew that" moment when I did 30 seconds of research when the wife and I decided to have a kid and hence looked up dietary recommendations.
I would have looked up the same thing if I decided to eat more that a usual amount of anything.
Not knowing something that doesn't affect you, or that you have reason to know, or that is hard to know isn't stupidity.
Not doing the tiniest bit of research into a food you are about to use as your entire diet, that has widely published and available data about mercury concerns, however is stupidity.
We aren't talking about children, who we know aren't very good at considering consequences and possibly haven't been taught the very morals we expect them to keep.
We are talking about adults making hopefully rational decisions.
If some crime will bring me $5 million in profits, and I have a 25% of chance of getting caught and the punishment is just to hand over the profits, the rational thing would be to go for those profits and hope for the 75% case.
yes people should just not do what is wrong, but people are jerks. Plus of course often the "system"'s views on what is wrong don't match the individual's views so relying on people being good and moral just doesn't cut it.
This is why corporate America does so much shit, they know the chances of getting caught aren't very high. And if they are caught the punishment is usually a public statement for the SEC saying they don't admit any wrong doing but they are paying back 10% of what they gained because they are nice.
Again, relying on the morals of other people to get them to do what is right isn't very successful. And this has been going on just fine when children were clipped around the ear at school for looking at the teacher with the wrong tone of voice.
Of course it's believable what isn't believable it that someone could be so stupid as to not know that large fish have high mercury levels. Especially if they decided to eat large amounts of it.
Assumming the quality and detail is the same why is a negative better than a digital image that can be copied without loss and stored electronically easily forever.
So why do you care so much about having some negatives, that will lose quality with time as they physically decay?
I don't know (or care) about the details and whether this the claims are a stretch.
But assuming she is guilty as claimed then the damages better be more than the $3 mil brought in. Otherwise it's not a deterent, especially considering you won't always get caught.
What sort of idiot would take a job with an unpaid probation period???
Obviously if you enter a competition and don't win you spend effort entering for no reward. I wouldn't think it would be possible too drool let alone develop software without knowing that.
That the prize runner benefits from non-winning entries (if the terms and conditions are as such, and you know them before you enter) is also obvious. That's part of the reason for running one, you might award your million dollar prize for the best piece of crap in a field of garbage and would have been better of hiring programmers (ignoring the promotion beneifits of a competition). Or you might get more and better software than you could have got via hiring for the same cost.
Attending a job interview, writing a cover letter, tweaking the CV to highlight relevant experience, etc, those all require effort or time - and yet they don't have to offer me the job (or offer me the pay/benefits I want). Oh noes... there's risk...
There is nothing that requires a static language to be compiled, and a dynamic language to be intepreted. Hence a "write/compile/run" cycle is orthogonal to dynamic vs static.
How so?
That Fred was arrested for a DUI would seem to be a pretty obvious conclusion to draw without having to see a mugshot on facebook if you are a juror on Fred's DUI trial. You are at the trial after all...
Just because I don't drive enough to care about saving the travel time given by going 5-10km/h faster doesn't mean I "lack experience". Maybe I just have a lot of free time?
And it seems pretty damn obvious to me that driving slower than the main traffic speed is more dangerous at the main traffic speed. Under the assumption that the main traffic speed is a safe speed for the road and conditions. You are more likely to have an idiot run into you from behind for one. Making lane changes is clearly more dangerious than not making lane changes - by driving slower than traffic there are more lane changes happening near you as other drivers go around you.
Obviously I don't think those extra dangers matter - if I did I wouldn't drive the way I do. But they clearly exist - remember all other things are equal, the only difference is you are travelling at a speed different from the main traffic flow.
The right lane is the fast lane where I am, you insenstive clod!
There is no end. I just happen to follow road rules - annoys the wife which is an added bonus and possibly an end in itself there.
I guess I don't see any point in not following them. I don't drive enough for it to make a difference if I get everywhere 5-10km/h faster. And figure (somewhat naively and foolishly probably given revenue production is a likely motivation) that the rules were made up by people more knowledgabe than me in order to make things better for everyone.
Of course in practice driving at the speed level on the freeway/highway is likely more dangerous than going 10 over and not being overtaken every few seconds. But I like relaxing in the slow lane :)
What does being a superpower have to do with anything?
Are you arguing that because the USSR was a superpower in the 1980s that their system of government was a wonder of democracy and should be emulated by all?
And lets ignore that America's super power status is left overs from the time when they were more elitist and followed scientists rather than politicians on scientific matters. Back when "meritocracy" wasn't laughable and the "American dream" was that anyone could rise to top based on their talent and work and nothing to do with owning a home/mortgage.
I have not had a speeding ticket, ever. I have speed once that I recall - in order to avoid an someone with a different approach to merging that I had been taught.
I have not driven even 1km/h too much for one second in the last year.
And yes I stop at stop signs, even when I *know* there is no need to. And yes I indicate when changing lanes even when there is not another car in sight. And yes I will drive 10 miles down the freeway and take the next exit instead of crossing the solid lines if I slightly miss my exit.
And yes the wife gets annoyed at me because I always follow the damn rules.
Then again, I'll happily watch an unauthorized video stream on the interweb...
The topic at hand wasn't 1km/h too much, it was 20km/h over. It wasn't going 5km/h over the limit to keep up with traffic flow, it was ignoring posted speed limits because you *know* better. That *knowing* is the special being referred to.
You are right that most people don't consider going a little over the limit to be a bad thing. I suspect most people do think that 20km/h over the limit in a school zone is a bad thing - even if the driver *knows* the school zone shouldn't have been in operation that day.
What are you talking about? Exactly what lessons do I need to learn? And what is the hard way?
Of course I received the same, you do know what a fight is right? It's where two people hit each other. Hence it involved me getting punched (in fact I was a scrawny nerd, it involved me getting beaten to a pulp).
In what universe does it make a difference if a person has done something "wrong" in the past in determining whether some action is "wrong" now?
I stole a transformer toy from k-mart when I was little, does that mean I can no longer say that stealing is wrong in any situtation?
I got into a fight in high school and punched someone in the face, does that mean that I'm forced to accept that it is OK for someone to punch their wife in the face because she burnt the toast?
I'm not allowed to hold ideals that I fail to live up to in all of history?
And of course it's impossible that the officials in charge of the speed limits might have decided to leave them up without informing you of the reason, because you are omniscient.
Seriously, you don't think it's remotely possible that the police did some investigating. Maybe went to the location of the alleged offense and asked around if anyone saw anything. Maybe checked any nearby traffic/security video footage.
And if they had just arrested him on the basis of an online post that maybe, just maybe, his lawyer would tell him to shut the hell up (or even to say he was lieing to show off) and not plead guilty?
Or are you saying that police shouldn't ever investigate potentially illegal activity unless they already have sufficient proof?
Or are you really dumb enough to think they got a conviction based solely on an online post?
Given the SEC ignored detailed reports from various members of the public that Madoff was running a scam, I'm sure sending them more such reports (of lower quality from people with less experience in the relevant fields) will help greatly.
Yes two emails a day is exactly like a group of people shouting down a meeting.
Yes I'm sure people just hate it when they get a form letter reply to their form letter email.
And it doesn't take 28 hours to reply to 10 emails.
Today you'd get thrown in jail for making that recording.
Yeah. Well other than the fact that those virtial punches to the face, don't do any damage, don't hurt, and don't really matter at all.
That's a pretty shitty world you want to live in.
The smart people who actually research things and tend to follow evidence are supposed to leave the political debate to the idiots who just care about the next election.
What a wonderful system that would be. Oh wait a minute, that'd be what America has at the moment. How is that working out?
And let me guess it is fair and balanced to hear from "John Smith PhD" on one side of the argument and "John Jones who read the data published by John Smith and has a better idea but never bothered with elitish University" on the other. Equal time!