There was no claim of making things not patentable. All of that would still be patentable (assuming it qualifies on the usual criteria). Someone producing a radio using it would need to license the patent. However, someone developing, distributing, or running code that does any of that on a generally used computer hardware would not. Of course we have a very unspecific term there, but that's something law makers love or they could define it more precisely.
Because you are an expert in Mexican trademark law and have all the details like whether an active lawsuit would put a pause on such actions (you would put one on hold while the other case ran in any sane (and yes I realise applying sane to a legal system is crazy) setup).
So now after the click through advertisment you'll get another click through page for the damn TOS, probably followed by another click through advertisement because why the hell not, before finally getting to the page of content that ends up being useless anyway.
When you have data points both before and after the time period you are trying to estimate the values for it isn't extrapolation you idiot. It's interpolation.
Fewer people died than the people who didn't die due to not being in a car crash due to not being able to drive to work. So on the life/death front it's a win!
That's a very different claim though. The original claim was about the character of the entity being presented not about its instructions to others (though some, but not all, of them are derived from those instructions).
Your second part is also a pure addition, the original statement isn't making any claims at all about the believers or the ideals they preach.
It's no more false more than if you think the Sun orbits the Earth you are ignorant. Or if you think atoms are indivisible you are ignorant.
There's overwhelming evidence for evolution, you have to be ignorant of it in order to claim that evolution isn't the cause of the variety of life on Earth.
Sure there are details for which our understanding is wrong and incomplete, just a there is with our understandings of gravity and electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. But they are the best and most accurate understandings we have, and dismissing them as "not true at all" means you must be ignorant of them; or have some amazing new theory that fits reality even better in which case you'd have a nobel prize or at least some amazing evidence.
He's not talking about "God created everything" general creationism that doesn't exclude evolution. He's talking about Creationism that is in contradiction with evolution - the idea that there is no evolution at all, that the "kinds" were created by God and that there is no evolution that results in new species, that mankind did not evolve from any other form of life, etc). This should be obvious because he is presenting them as being in opposition.
And if you believe that type of Creationism, then yes you are ignorant of evolution.
There is plenty of non-state violence and coercion. People get assaulted and robbed every day. Something doesn't have to be a "legal right" in order to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
If you ignore the date range given in TFS, then sure go with that if it makes you feel better.
There was no claim of making things not patentable. All of that would still be patentable (assuming it qualifies on the usual criteria). Someone producing a radio using it would need to license the patent. However, someone developing, distributing, or running code that does any of that on a generally used computer hardware would not. Of course we have a very unspecific term there, but that's something law makers love or they could define it more precisely.
How did you get from that claim to your claim? You'd have to be a moron to make that jump.
Exactly what do you think the average "wait in line to buy an ipad buyer" has too offer in terms of getting back on track?
Because you are an expert in Mexican trademark law and have all the details like whether an active lawsuit would put a pause on such actions (you would put one on hold while the other case ran in any sane (and yes I realise applying sane to a legal system is crazy) setup).
If there was a settlement then clearly they didn't lose.
Except that company As are still in business - given a bunch of places did just fine. So the invisible hand seems to have done just fine.
Note these are NYC data centers if you were buying the cheaper option you weren't in one of them anyway.
So now after the click through advertisment you'll get another click through page for the damn TOS, probably followed by another click through advertisement because why the hell not, before finally getting to the page of content that ends up being useless anyway.
If the poster is nedlohs, it's sarcasm. A good default. Of course that makes this post hard to interpret :)
Which is what I said, so your need to repost it so I get it seems rather strange.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with it not being extrapolation.
Because the people doing the survelance aren't part of the executive branch of anything like that.
Good luck convincing the fire department you meet the fire codes with your five thousand gallon tank of fuel on floor 45.
When you have data points both before and after the time period you are trying to estimate the values for it isn't extrapolation you idiot. It's interpolation.
If said car manufacturer had a monopoly on cars and was attempting a monopoly on perfume then the EU would say yes.
Fewer people died than the people who didn't die due to not being in a car crash due to not being able to drive to work. So on the life/death front it's a win!
Because it's no an implementation of openGL would be the obvious conclusion if you read the claim.
That's a very different claim though. The original claim was about the character of the entity being presented not about its instructions to others (though some, but not all, of them are derived from those instructions).
Your second part is also a pure addition, the original statement isn't making any claims at all about the believers or the ideals they preach.
You have a rather low standard for "a lot".
Sure, but the "you will burn hell" part isn't the coercive aspect if you disagree with the very existence of hell.
It's no more false more than if you think the Sun orbits the Earth you are ignorant. Or if you think atoms are indivisible you are ignorant.
There's overwhelming evidence for evolution, you have to be ignorant of it in order to claim that evolution isn't the cause of the variety of life on Earth.
Sure there are details for which our understanding is wrong and incomplete, just a there is with our understandings of gravity and electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. But they are the best and most accurate understandings we have, and dismissing them as "not true at all" means you must be ignorant of them; or have some amazing new theory that fits reality even better in which case you'd have a nobel prize or at least some amazing evidence.
He's not talking about "God created everything" general creationism that doesn't exclude evolution. He's talking about Creationism that is in contradiction with evolution - the idea that there is no evolution at all, that the "kinds" were created by God and that there is no evolution that results in new species, that mankind did not evolve from any other form of life, etc). This should be obvious because he is presenting them as being in opposition.
And if you believe that type of Creationism, then yes you are ignorant of evolution.
If you consider that deliverately insulting then what is the non-insulting way make the claim?
There is plenty of non-state violence and coercion. People get assaulted and robbed every day. Something doesn't have to be a "legal right" in order to happen.
Only if you believe them. In which case you aren't disagreeing anyway.