Honestly, there might be some SLIGHT moral obligation to give him credit, but it's not even that strong. Finding/figuring out a fact first doesn't give you some right to that fact. Newspaper reporters will get information from each other all the time.
Ah, but if I were to post on one of MY posts that "quoting other people's slashdot posts is fair use and isn't copyright infringement," you wouldn't have a cause of action. That's the difference here.
What I find baffling is this scorn heaped upon Obama's supposed cult of personality, particularly when those heaping scorn were silent during the George W. Bush years, when evangelicals, literally in many cases with tears in their eyes, hailed him as chosen by God. Literally.
As for your libertarian comment, the Chicago school's policies are largely what caused the financial collapse.
Generally they do, but they are not required to. I've seen plenty of judicial opinions where it's a single sentence just letting know which side they came down on.
Well, all you YRO types who voted for Obama, this is what you get.
It was pretty obvious Obama was not going to be particularly progressive where it counted. McCain, however, after his rightward lurch during the election would probably have gone to war with Iran, would have appointed right-wing nutjobs to the EPA, Department of the Interior, etc., and would have emboldened the Republican party for generations --"look how much we screwed the country up with Bush, and we still got re-elected, we can do anything!" So he was still worth voting for.
That's like asking an ice cream man to preside over a case or cases where someone is suing an ice cream company for them being fat or something (probably not the best analogy, but as close as i could think of). In short, this is retarded, and that judge shouldn't have been allowed to have anything to do with this stuff.
Or like having a judge rule on a contract case where they once were an attorney representing someone during a breach of contract case? Or having a judge who used to be a prosecutor or defense attorney preside over a criminal case? If the judge doesn't have a personal conflict of interest, they should hear the case. Otherwise no judge would be able to hear anything.
You are literally surprised, which means you thought it far more likely than not, that the government of North Korea hasn't started a war they have no chance of winning by using "light artillery" against a nuclear plant a thousand miles away? This literally suprises you?
I don't really follow; you've moved to a level of generality that doesn't really preclude enjoyment. It's like saying you're not going to see a movie because you've already seen plenty where there's a buildup to a conflict, then a climactic moment, then some sort of resolution.
Right, so those are good reasons to avoid Apple. I feel the same way, I really like OSX but I just don't want to buy anything that it can run on (I don't think of hackintoshes as valid platforms). In fact, I would probably pay $200 for it to run on a PC. Or maybe more if they got rid of the ridiculous upgrade-every-year-or-two thing they have. But that's the thing, if they did that, or priced their hardware reasonably, or actually made itunes a decent mp3 player, I'd probably buy their stuff. I'm not going to say "ok, since Apple used to be overpriced I will never get one!" or "because OSX used to be platform-dependent I will never get one!"
I can sort-of understand boycotting a company to get them to change their behavior. Or in the case of Apple, because they're a greedy, homogenizing entity led by a narcissistic sociopath, catering to a bunch of arrogant, hipster sheeps who think by mindlessly hewing to an image that they're somehow independent and creative thinkers rather than completely dominated consumers. No, I do not own an iPad.
But to avoid a company in perpetuity just because they once did something you didn't like, that they subsequently remedied, seems beyond silly.
Unsurprisingly, all complaining students are enrolled in the Business Administration program. The four remaining CS students could not be reached for comment.
Probably embarrassed that one of their own had done such a poor job of designing the alert system interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, there might be some SLIGHT moral obligation to give him credit, but it's not even that strong. Finding/figuring out a fact first doesn't give you some right to that fact. Newspaper reporters will get information from each other all the time.
IAAL; this is ridiculous. The presentation was not taken. All this guy is complaining about are the facts.
But that's not what happened here.
Ah, but if I were to post on one of MY posts that "quoting other people's slashdot posts is fair use and isn't copyright infringement," you wouldn't have a cause of action. That's the difference here.
That's not content. It really isn't. It's a simple fact that can be ascertained from the source.
You can't copyright, trademark, or patent a fact. This guy is being ridiculous.
Pretty strong case for what?
The question which nobody seems to have posed, or answered, though, is the RIAA a party in these cases?
What I find baffling is this scorn heaped upon Obama's supposed cult of personality, particularly when those heaping scorn were silent during the George W. Bush years, when evangelicals, literally in many cases with tears in their eyes, hailed him as chosen by God. Literally.
As for your libertarian comment, the Chicago school's policies are largely what caused the financial collapse.
Generally they do, but they are not required to. I've seen plenty of judicial opinions where it's a single sentence just letting know which side they came down on.
Judging by the wikipedia article, it's a dystopia where ONLY consumers have rights. Looks kinda interesting, might have to give it a read.
Well, all you YRO types who voted for Obama, this is what you get.
It was pretty obvious Obama was not going to be particularly progressive where it counted. McCain, however, after his rightward lurch during the election would probably have gone to war with Iran, would have appointed right-wing nutjobs to the EPA, Department of the Interior, etc., and would have emboldened the Republican party for generations --"look how much we screwed the country up with Bush, and we still got re-elected, we can do anything!" So he was still worth voting for.
That's like asking an ice cream man to preside over a case or cases where someone is suing an ice cream company for them being fat or something (probably not the best analogy, but as close as i could think of). In short, this is retarded, and that judge shouldn't have been allowed to have anything to do with this stuff.
Or like having a judge rule on a contract case where they once were an attorney representing someone during a breach of contract case? Or having a judge who used to be a prosecutor or defense attorney preside over a criminal case? If the judge doesn't have a personal conflict of interest, they should hear the case. Otherwise no judge would be able to hear anything.
You are literally surprised, which means you thought it far more likely than not, that the government of North Korea hasn't started a war they have no chance of winning by using "light artillery" against a nuclear plant a thousand miles away? This literally suprises you?
In other words, U4 would still be protected even under the first copyright laws.
Please don't tell me you're arguing adverse possession here...
I don't really follow; you've moved to a level of generality that doesn't really preclude enjoyment. It's like saying you're not going to see a movie because you've already seen plenty where there's a buildup to a conflict, then a climactic moment, then some sort of resolution.
The title? Eh, I skimmed it.
She also might not like paying three times the price of a PC laptop. Just a thought.
Right, so those are good reasons to avoid Apple. I feel the same way, I really like OSX but I just don't want to buy anything that it can run on (I don't think of hackintoshes as valid platforms). In fact, I would probably pay $200 for it to run on a PC. Or maybe more if they got rid of the ridiculous upgrade-every-year-or-two thing they have. But that's the thing, if they did that, or priced their hardware reasonably, or actually made itunes a decent mp3 player, I'd probably buy their stuff. I'm not going to say "ok, since Apple used to be overpriced I will never get one!" or "because OSX used to be platform-dependent I will never get one!"
Umm, Climategate anyone?
Yes, all those Democrats in England.
I can sort-of understand boycotting a company to get them to change their behavior. Or in the case of Apple, because they're a greedy, homogenizing entity led by a narcissistic sociopath, catering to a bunch of arrogant, hipster sheeps who think by mindlessly hewing to an image that they're somehow independent and creative thinkers rather than completely dominated consumers. No, I do not own an iPad. But to avoid a company in perpetuity just because they once did something you didn't like, that they subsequently remedied, seems beyond silly.
Yeah, I know, it has an MIT/IIT/Stanford-level reputation. I was just trolling, seeing if any outraged CMU posters would say anything.
That's why Carnegie Mellon's computer science program has such a poor reputation in the field.
Unsurprisingly, all complaining students are enrolled in the Business Administration program. The four remaining CS students could not be reached for comment.
Probably embarrassed that one of their own had done such a poor job of designing the alert system interface.