No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law.
Obviously you are not "allowed" to violate the law, ever. That's the definition of a law, something which is not to be done without punishment. However, this does not mean that violating the law is not REQUIRED, from time to time.
it must apply equally to all citizens.
Go on down and violate the law along with the rest of the protestors, nobody is stopping you. Your argument is merely a diverting tactic. The law does apply equally to all, some people just choose to break it. If you try it out, you'll find that indeed the law does apply equally to everyone -- if you don't break the law you will not be punished. I don't see how this is inequitable.
Some people just believe that standing up for themselves is more important than being perfectly law-abiding. Nobody has ever said the law does not apply to them.
Oh yeah. Because a crackdown that killed 3,500 people (according to TFA) is clearly the same as throwing away a few tents.
The manner in which a government responds to a protest has no bearing on the importance of what is being protested. Whether protestors die or not is a function of the government, not the protestors.
Suppose somebody does die in OWS at some point. Will the two movements suddenly be equivalent in your mind? Are you going to perform an arithmetic comparison of the number of deaths? What's a blown-off limb worth, vs. as human life?
And despite Americans' peculiar insistence on the infinite value of human life, there are things worse than death. We may not yet be at the point, which is all the more reason to try to change the situation now instead of waiting.
The problem is not providing such components, nor get them to work like the original nor getting it into your head. The real problem I see is interfacing with the rest of the brain.
The real problem is even if we can make it work we'll still have no idea WHY it works. Copycatting nature may produce results but it does not produce understanding. I will never trust a machine controlled by circuitry that nobody can explain. The only reason I trust human brains themselves is because they're the "original." No knock-offs please, unless you can explain to me in great detail WHY they work the way they do.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, since writing new code isn't the same as just removing code.
Removing code often involves creating new code. Such as the code which makes it possible for the game to operate without a component it previously made use of.
I wouldn't call that a "replacement algorithm" any more than removing a window and closing the resulting hole in the wall is a "replacement window" even though there is new material (the stuff I used to close the hole in the wall)
That said, OP is reading a lot of detail into that tweet.
Why don't they just offer to take 10% of the transaction value whenever the media changes hands? If it's going to happen anyway, the choice between making a profit from it and not making a profit from it should be pretty obvious.
Reading words by sounding them out is like adding numbers by counting on your fingers. It's how a novice does it. If people read by sounding words, how would those who are born deaf ever learn to do it? I figured this was obvious, but apparently it isn't.
My interpretation: bombing target, made of lime or some other white powder, spread over the ground to make complicated road patterns. Designed for practicing aerial bombing or artillery in an urban street map.
Seems likely, and I wonder... do these "roads" match up with the roadways of any real city anywhere? Like target practice with a poster of your favorite enemy. That would be disconcerting.
Their punishment is not "had to spend 2 million euros." The punishment is they had to give Greenpeace 2 million euros. The money might be a small sum for them, but it's not a small sum for Greenpeace. They obviously consider them enough of a threat to make it worth breaking the law, and now they have to give this apparent enemy 2 million euros. I wonder what Greenpeace will spend that wad of cash on.
Analogy time. You own a bunch of guns. You're ordered to give one of them up. Big deal, you've got dozens more. Except the guy you have to give the gun to, wants to shoot you with it. Yes, it's a problem.
Sorry mate, but that's crap. My wife has a degree in CS and she desperately tries to find a job in the field (in Germany).
My wife also has a degree in CS. She worked at Intel for a while, then we got pregnant with our first kid, she quit, never went back to work in tech, and now works from home doing custom knit-jobs and making hand-dyed yarns.
I don't know about social networks, but here's why it would really suck for forums. Say you're a prolific poster on a programming forum. You answer, or participate in, a dozen threads a day. Your words are widely quoted throughout threads. These threads are of general benefit to the programming world at large. This forum is indexed by Google, and comes up near the top of the search results for some very common programming terms.
Somebody on the forum thinks you are cool, and uses a quote of something witty you said as their signature line.
Now, one day you wake up with a burr up your ass. You request that the forum destroy all your information. In order to do this, all your posts must be purged. All posts which quote your posts must be purged. All those valuable threads, which went far beyond just you, and developed into valuable information sources for thousands of people, must be purged. All the posts that guy made who had your quote in his signature line must be purged. It's not just YOUR words that have to go, hundreds of other people's posts are affected as well. The usefulness of the forum is at an all time low. People start wondering why the entire forum got deleted. People stop coming to the site. Google ceases indexing it. The forum is dead.
How do you know the restaurant wasn't going to sell the grease to a legitimate biofuel maker? Just because it's sitting outside in a tank doesn't make it "fair game." A friend of mine collects fryer grease, purifies it, and sells it to larger biofuels companies. He PAYS for the grease when he picks it up from the restaurants. Taking it without paying is fucking theft.
In any system of huge interactive complexity, there is virtually no way to test every possible combination of options/features/revisions. This appears to be an issue that can only be replicated by taking a complex series of steps, not just a stateless change of a setting or two.
Maybe the article writer has some beef with Apple, I don't know, but based on the ARTICLE (not the thousands of side resources which I do not have time to examine) it sounded like it was affecting a very large segment of users. If it's happening to a small set of people who have very specific configurations, then yes, I do completely understand that testing cannot cover all possible scenarios.
I interview developer candidates and I will usually ask at least one "impossible" question to see how they behave. Do they get flustered? Angry? Do they swear at me? Do they roll straight into an answer before they've even realized my question has no meaning? Do they ask for clarification? Do they up-level it and challenge the basis of my question? Admit defeat? Smirk at me?
The answer to the question is not relevant, the candidate's reaction to the question is what I'm trying to measure.
I don't understand.. how.. the.. fuck... this is even possible. The hardware is APPLE'S. The software is APPLE'S. How is it possible that a product that's probably been in development for over a year could be released with a problem like this? Maybe this is harder for non-software types to understand, but this is incomprehensible. It'd be like Ford shipping thousands of vehicles and forgetting to put steering wheels in them. WHAT THE FUCK.
There's GOT to be some kind of subtext. Something weird is going on. You don't make a mistake like this. You just don't.
"Understand crazy monkey weather" and "what do you think about this political climate" both returned weather forecast..
Not exactly what I would call "your device recognizing what you mean", to be honest.
Given that your first question is meaningless, and your second question can only be answered by a human, I wonder why you are surprised that a device has difficulty with those examples. I'm a person and *I* don't even know what sort of response you're looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my God, the cost of the Occupation is $12 million! That's, like, 3.4 cents per person! WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT!
Did somebody 'shop his head to be too small?
No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law.
Obviously you are not "allowed" to violate the law, ever. That's the definition of a law, something which is not to be done without punishment. However, this does not mean that violating the law is not REQUIRED, from time to time.
it must apply equally to all citizens.
Go on down and violate the law along with the rest of the protestors, nobody is stopping you. Your argument is merely a diverting tactic. The law does apply equally to all, some people just choose to break it. If you try it out, you'll find that indeed the law does apply equally to everyone -- if you don't break the law you will not be punished. I don't see how this is inequitable.
Some people just believe that standing up for themselves is more important than being perfectly law-abiding. Nobody has ever said the law does not apply to them.
Oh yeah. Because a crackdown that killed 3,500 people (according to TFA) is clearly the same as throwing away a few tents.
The manner in which a government responds to a protest has no bearing on the importance of what is being protested. Whether protestors die or not is a function of the government, not the protestors.
Suppose somebody does die in OWS at some point. Will the two movements suddenly be equivalent in your mind? Are you going to perform an arithmetic comparison of the number of deaths? What's a blown-off limb worth, vs. as human life?
And despite Americans' peculiar insistence on the infinite value of human life, there are things worse than death. We may not yet be at the point, which is all the more reason to try to change the situation now instead of waiting.
The problem is not providing such components, nor get them to work like the original nor getting it into your head. The real problem I see is interfacing with the rest of the brain.
The real problem is even if we can make it work we'll still have no idea WHY it works. Copycatting nature may produce results but it does not produce understanding. I will never trust a machine controlled by circuitry that nobody can explain. The only reason I trust human brains themselves is because they're the "original." No knock-offs please, unless you can explain to me in great detail WHY they work the way they do.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, since writing new code isn't the same as just removing code.
Removing code often involves creating new code. Such as the code which makes it possible for the game to operate without a component it previously made use of.
I wouldn't call that a "replacement algorithm" any more than removing a window and closing the resulting hole in the wall is a "replacement window" even though there is new material (the stuff I used to close the hole in the wall)
That said, OP is reading a lot of detail into that tweet.
Why don't they just offer to take 10% of the transaction value whenever the media changes hands? If it's going to happen anyway, the choice between making a profit from it and not making a profit from it should be pretty obvious.
Reading words by sounding them out is like adding numbers by counting on your fingers. It's how a novice does it. If people read by sounding words, how would those who are born deaf ever learn to do it? I figured this was obvious, but apparently it isn't.
My interpretation: bombing target, made of lime or some other white powder, spread over the ground to make complicated road patterns. Designed for practicing aerial bombing or artillery in an urban street map.
Seems likely, and I wonder... do these "roads" match up with the roadways of any real city anywhere? Like target practice with a poster of your favorite enemy. That would be disconcerting.
Just realized only 500,000 went to Greenpeace, the rest was a fine. Point still stands though.
Their punishment is not "had to spend 2 million euros." The punishment is they had to give Greenpeace 2 million euros. The money might be a small sum for them, but it's not a small sum for Greenpeace. They obviously consider them enough of a threat to make it worth breaking the law, and now they have to give this apparent enemy 2 million euros. I wonder what Greenpeace will spend that wad of cash on.
Analogy time. You own a bunch of guns. You're ordered to give one of them up. Big deal, you've got dozens more. Except the guy you have to give the gun to, wants to shoot you with it. Yes, it's a problem.
You're assuming you'll survive the first event. Maybe you'd die at 46, but dying at 26 is worse.
That makes about as much sense as snorting a bunch of coke to determine whether you might have latent heart problems.
Sorry mate, but that's crap. My wife has a degree in CS and she desperately tries to find a job in the field (in Germany).
My wife also has a degree in CS. She worked at Intel for a while, then we got pregnant with our first kid, she quit, never went back to work in tech, and now works from home doing custom knit-jobs and making hand-dyed yarns.
Why would it be fraud? As far as I know, it is not illegal to put superglue on one's fingertips.
What is so *hostile* for social networks?
I don't know about social networks, but here's why it would really suck for forums. Say you're a prolific poster on a programming forum. You answer, or participate in, a dozen threads a day. Your words are widely quoted throughout threads. These threads are of general benefit to the programming world at large. This forum is indexed by Google, and comes up near the top of the search results for some very common programming terms.
Somebody on the forum thinks you are cool, and uses a quote of something witty you said as their signature line.
Now, one day you wake up with a burr up your ass. You request that the forum destroy all your information. In order to do this, all your posts must be purged. All posts which quote your posts must be purged. All those valuable threads, which went far beyond just you, and developed into valuable information sources for thousands of people, must be purged. All the posts that guy made who had your quote in his signature line must be purged. It's not just YOUR words that have to go, hundreds of other people's posts are affected as well. The usefulness of the forum is at an all time low. People start wondering why the entire forum got deleted. People stop coming to the site. Google ceases indexing it. The forum is dead.
madness. He should *charge* the restaurant a small amount to take it away for recycling.
That doesn't work when there's someone in the area who is willing to pay for it. This isn't hypothetical, people do pay for it.
How do you know the restaurant wasn't going to sell the grease to a legitimate biofuel maker? Just because it's sitting outside in a tank doesn't make it "fair game." A friend of mine collects fryer grease, purifies it, and sells it to larger biofuels companies. He PAYS for the grease when he picks it up from the restaurants. Taking it without paying is fucking theft.
The last thing an ego-maniacal millionaire is going to do is give up his "hard-earned" money.
If you'll never spend your money ON anything why waste your life earning it
You're asking whether a rights holder can infringe their own rights? Are you smoking crack?
In any system of huge interactive complexity, there is virtually no way to test every possible combination of options/features/revisions. This appears to be an issue that can only be replicated by taking a complex series of steps, not just a stateless change of a setting or two.
Maybe the article writer has some beef with Apple, I don't know, but based on the ARTICLE (not the thousands of side resources which I do not have time to examine) it sounded like it was affecting a very large segment of users. If it's happening to a small set of people who have very specific configurations, then yes, I do completely understand that testing cannot cover all possible scenarios.
I interview developer candidates and I will usually ask at least one "impossible" question to see how they behave. Do they get flustered? Angry? Do they swear at me? Do they roll straight into an answer before they've even realized my question has no meaning? Do they ask for clarification? Do they up-level it and challenge the basis of my question? Admit defeat? Smirk at me?
The answer to the question is not relevant, the candidate's reaction to the question is what I'm trying to measure.
I don't understand.. how.. the.. fuck... this is even possible. The hardware is APPLE'S. The software is APPLE'S. How is it possible that a product that's probably been in development for over a year could be released with a problem like this? Maybe this is harder for non-software types to understand, but this is incomprehensible. It'd be like Ford shipping thousands of vehicles and forgetting to put steering wheels in them. WHAT THE FUCK.
There's GOT to be some kind of subtext. Something weird is going on. You don't make a mistake like this. You just don't.
"Understand crazy monkey weather" and "what do you think about this political climate" both returned weather forecast.. Not exactly what I would call "your device recognizing what you mean", to be honest.
Given that your first question is meaningless, and your second question can only be answered by a human, I wonder why you are surprised that a device has difficulty with those examples. I'm a person and *I* don't even know what sort of response you're looking for.
Sorry, a CPU does math.
No, a CPU makes electrons flow in complicated ways.