It's not a matter of dumbing down the conversation... the sentence says that it was called something... when it was not... that is what they are call*ING* it... in the present tense.
It's about using words that actually mean what they say.... and saying it was called Theia is ambiguous.
This was kind of my point.... people who give other people a ride but expect compensation for their time and gas, whether they know the person personally or not, are essentially running a taxi service. Yet, of course, it requires absolutely no special taxi license to carpool, even if one wants compensation for giving other people rides.
The problem, I think, is in the wording of the sentence... The sentence in question:
Analysis of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts shows traces of the "planet" called Theia.
Simply saying it was called Theia like that implies that somebody was actually around back when this actually happened, and gave it that name.... There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with giving it a name, however... but I would suggest that it would be less ambiguous to explicitly state that they gave the name Theia to the other planet, rather than simply that is what it was called. It may be called Theia now, but it certainly wasn't called Theia then, while how the quoted sentence from the summary is phrased heavily implies the latter.
Since it can't be recharged, it seems like it's going to be more problematic than the idea of swapping a partially depleted rechargeable battery for a fresh one. Electric cars already cost more than gasoline automobiles, and if it's more than a few hundred dollars to swap anyways, it will *always* be cheaper to just use gasoline.
Also, incidentally, dots that start out on the balloon further apart from each other will move apart faster than dots that started out closer to each other, regardless of inflation rate.
They'd only be able to force use of swift by preventing unsigned programs running and only signing swift ones.
The default settings of the latest version of OSX already do this via 'Gatekeeper'. I recall when people first heard of this new "feature" in OSX, many expressed concern that a future version of the OS might prevent it altogether. If or when that happens, I have no doubt that there will be no small number which will permanently leave the Apple culture, but knowing Apple, they probably won't care, because there will be enough that stick around anyways.
If closures are making your code harder to understand then you have tried to use them where other techniques would be more appropriate. In the right contexts, closures should greatly enhance readability, not reduce it.
What's gong to happen when 5 ton rocks fall on them in mountainous regions? With pavement you clear the road and might have at worst only very minor repair work. I someho don't see this as being quite as straightforward
That only really works when what's trademarked isn't already in widespread use. Microsoft got a trademark on Windows, for example, but that doesn't mean that glass manufactures can't use the term "Windows" in their own company name, because there's no real chance of confusion.
The symbol pi was already in widespread use long before this individual ever appropriated it for his company, and usages in that context are not infringing. Zazzle is wrong.... they've erred so far on the side of caution in this matter, however, that they are looking completely fucking retarded.
The basis of their argument is that even usage of the pi symbol by itself is "similiar enough to cause consumer confusion" (which can be the basis for a trademark infringement claim). The fact that the pi symbol in the alleged infringing works may actually be referring to a concept that is many thousands of years older than this company's trademark hasn't actually seemed to occur to anybody.
ignoring the fact that mutants like what exist in Marvel Comics are not a real thing, the key difference in the style of registration is that, with very few exceptions (none that I can think of off the top of my head, but I'll allow for them), someone in the Marvel Universe does not get to decide whether or not they are a mutant... it is just a part of who they are. If vaccinations are always opt-out, however... then not receiving a vaccination is always a choice.
But the aforementioned "mutant registration" is an allegory for things that could be real without explicit laws to prevent them, such as registration intended to track people of a particular race or sexual preference.
How could he possibly provide any real proof to the court that he didn't keep any additional copies? His lawyer documenting that he deleted them doesn't mean he didn't keep any further copies of them. Ultimately, it would depend on a statement that he makes which could very easily be a lie, and that can only be detected as such if he does something afterwards which reveals to anyone else that he still has them.
Of course, being unable to reveal to anyone that he still has them without legal repercussions would mean that about the only thing he can realistically do with them after that is use them for... uhmmm... personal recreation. I'm not sure whether prohibiting something like that is remotely legally enforceable. It treads closely to the boundary of trying to control what people are allowed to even think.
How would that ever be enforced, however? Unless he actually does something with any copies of such pictures that reveals that he still has them, how could they ever know that he had deleted them, or if he simply didn't publish them anywhere?
If jets were really the only things that used fossil fuels, there wouldn't be any danger of an impending future shortage for at least thousands of years.
WIN, which represents independent labels worldwide, claims that YouTube is approaching labels directly with a "template contract" and threatening that if they do not sign it, all their music videos will be blocked on YouTube.
So wait.... Youtube is approaching labels that represent musicians and not the musicians themselves So that means that if a musician still wants to put his own video up on Youtube, and that video is not the property of any label, then there should be no problem, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Please note, I was very explicit in using the phrase "for just cause" in the example I gave about the employer firing somebody, and not merely "alleged just cause". In order to sue your former employer for firing you for just cause, you must first dispute the allegation that there was just cause in the first place. If you do not do this, then you can't sue the employer for firing you for said cause because you are already (implicitly) admitting to being in the wrong.
Basically, in order to sue someone, you actually have to be of the mindset that you are genuinely in the right, or at the very least, there exists some dispute over how in the wrong you may be (even if you are entirely wrong about this), because the only way you could otherwise win would be to lie in court.
Actually, since cheating at a game can in many ways be said to not be taking said game very seriously, considering such a game cheat system as a derivative work might reasonably make said system a parody or satirical derivative work of their software, and thus exempt from copyright infringement.
Your rebuttal does not invalidate the underlying argument in any way... it only suggests that the most obvious mechanism for coping with the implications of the argument may be impractical. That it might be possible that no practical solution can ever exist at all while still respecting private property rights does not alleviate this fact.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of dumbing down the conversation... the sentence says that it was called something... when it was not... that is what they are call*ING* it... in the present tense.
It's about using words that actually mean what they say.... and saying it was called Theia is ambiguous.
This was kind of my point.... people who give other people a ride but expect compensation for their time and gas, whether they know the person personally or not, are essentially running a taxi service. Yet, of course, it requires absolutely no special taxi license to carpool, even if one wants compensation for giving other people rides.
Could someone explain what the difference is between taking a cab and carpooling when the driver expects to receive compensation for the ride?
Simply saying it was called Theia like that implies that somebody was actually around back when this actually happened, and gave it that name.... There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with giving it a name, however... but I would suggest that it would be less ambiguous to explicitly state that they gave the name Theia to the other planet, rather than simply that is what it was called. It may be called Theia now, but it certainly wasn't called Theia then, while how the quoted sentence from the summary is phrased heavily implies the latter.
Since it can't be recharged, it seems like it's going to be more problematic than the idea of swapping a partially depleted rechargeable battery for a fresh one. Electric cars already cost more than gasoline automobiles, and if it's more than a few hundred dollars to swap anyways, it will *always* be cheaper to just use gasoline.
Also, incidentally, dots that start out on the balloon further apart from each other will move apart faster than dots that started out closer to each other, regardless of inflation rate.
The default settings of the latest version of OSX already do this via 'Gatekeeper'. I recall when people first heard of this new "feature" in OSX, many expressed concern that a future version of the OS might prevent it altogether. If or when that happens, I have no doubt that there will be no small number which will permanently leave the Apple culture, but knowing Apple, they probably won't care, because there will be enough that stick around anyways.
You mean like C++?
.... For now.
If closures are making your code harder to understand then you have tried to use them where other techniques would be more appropriate. In the right contexts, closures should greatly enhance readability, not reduce it.
What's gong to happen when 5 ton rocks fall on them in mountainous regions? With pavement you clear the road and might have at worst only very minor repair work. I someho don't see this as being quite as straightforward
That only really works when what's trademarked isn't already in widespread use. Microsoft got a trademark on Windows, for example, but that doesn't mean that glass manufactures can't use the term "Windows" in their own company name, because there's no real chance of confusion.
The symbol pi was already in widespread use long before this individual ever appropriated it for his company, and usages in that context are not infringing. Zazzle is wrong.... they've erred so far on the side of caution in this matter, however, that they are looking completely fucking retarded.
The basis of their argument is that even usage of the pi symbol by itself is "similiar enough to cause consumer confusion" (which can be the basis for a trademark infringement claim). The fact that the pi symbol in the alleged infringing works may actually be referring to a concept that is many thousands of years older than this company's trademark hasn't actually seemed to occur to anybody.
.... then I'm not sure what the real difference is between teleporting data and simply sending it. Can somebody please explain?
ignoring the fact that mutants like what exist in Marvel Comics are not a real thing, the key difference in the style of registration is that, with very few exceptions (none that I can think of off the top of my head, but I'll allow for them), someone in the Marvel Universe does not get to decide whether or not they are a mutant... it is just a part of who they are. If vaccinations are always opt-out, however... then not receiving a vaccination is always a choice.
But the aforementioned "mutant registration" is an allegory for things that could be real without explicit laws to prevent them, such as registration intended to track people of a particular race or sexual preference.
They can't enforce it either.
How could he possibly provide any real proof to the court that he didn't keep any additional copies? His lawyer documenting that he deleted them doesn't mean he didn't keep any further copies of them. Ultimately, it would depend on a statement that he makes which could very easily be a lie, and that can only be detected as such if he does something afterwards which reveals to anyone else that he still has them.
Of course, being unable to reveal to anyone that he still has them without legal repercussions would mean that about the only thing he can realistically do with them after that is use them for ... uhmmm... personal recreation. I'm not sure whether prohibiting something like that is remotely legally enforceable. It treads closely to the boundary of trying to control what people are allowed to even think.
How would that ever be enforced, however? Unless he actually does something with any copies of such pictures that reveals that he still has them, how could they ever know that he had deleted them, or if he simply didn't publish them anywhere?
If jets were really the only things that used fossil fuels, there wouldn't be any danger of an impending future shortage for at least thousands of years.
So wait.... Youtube is approaching labels that represent musicians and not the musicians themselves So that means that if a musician still wants to put his own video up on Youtube, and that video is not the property of any label, then there should be no problem, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Please note, I was very explicit in using the phrase "for just cause" in the example I gave about the employer firing somebody, and not merely "alleged just cause". In order to sue your former employer for firing you for just cause, you must first dispute the allegation that there was just cause in the first place. If you do not do this, then you can't sue the employer for firing you for said cause because you are already (implicitly) admitting to being in the wrong.
Basically, in order to sue someone, you actually have to be of the mindset that you are genuinely in the right, or at the very least, there exists some dispute over how in the wrong you may be (even if you are entirely wrong about this), because the only way you could otherwise win would be to lie in court.
Actually, since cheating at a game can in many ways be said to not be taking said game very seriously, considering such a game cheat system as a derivative work might reasonably make said system a parody or satirical derivative work of their software, and thus exempt from copyright infringement.
You can't sue your employer for firing you if they can show just cause... (eg, caught stealing something from the company).
You must first dispute their alleged cause... and only if you win are you then able to sue them for firing you for said cause.
Your rebuttal does not invalidate the underlying argument in any way... it only suggests that the most obvious mechanism for coping with the implications of the argument may be impractical. That it might be possible that no practical solution can ever exist at all while still respecting private property rights does not alleviate this fact.