Yeah.... there'd be that. I was more wondering what the reaction from the more rationally-minded community would be.
Such a thing would hardly prove the existence of God even if God *did* exist, because God is not necessarily a part of creation, and you can't use X to prove Y when Y is not inside of the domain of X in the first place.
Flipping the question around, what if we are the first sentient species in the universe? What if the next one isn't likely to come around for billions or even trillions of years? If it were possible, somehow, for us to know this, what would that mean,,or what should that mean for us, as a species?
I was quite astonished by it.... I didn't even realize that it was any kind of issue, but all existing employees were expected to read and sign it, and any new hirees will also have to read and sign it before they can start work as well.
Not to be pedantic.... (oh,who am I kidding?) but a steering wheel is technically a handheld device.
Also, laptops aren't remotely handheld, but they are quite illegal to use while driving.
That they even feel the need to make an explicit law about handheld devices to cut down on distracted driving suggests that they would be much better off, and kill a lot of birds with one stone, if they required that except as required to operate the vehicle in a safe and proper manner (ie, changing gears, activating a turn signal, windshield wipers, etc), a driver must have both hands on the steering wheel at all times while the vehicle is not in park. Full stop.
That would, I realize, also make it illegal to brush your teeth, put on makeup, fix one's hair, read a book, eat, drink, smoke, or even adjust the radio station (unless the controls are on the steering wheel) while driving, but it would have the advantage of being very explicit about the intent.... I mean, since the laws prohibiting distracted driving are clearly not enough, why not just outlaw anything the driver might do with their hands that could be considered to contribute to it, whether that is through a handheld device or not.
In practice, the only way they'll be able to do that is first make it law, and then suspend any business's right to operate in the US until they comply. If the company goes offshore, their products will still be illegal to sell in the country, and while you could smuggle them in, there's very limited practicality to having to smuggle mere consumer electronics that are used in day to day life.
This. Exactly. The person who is liable for both the original infringement as well as the newspaper's is the person who violated the TOS. Twitter is at least obligated to shut down the original infringer's account (or they can be sued for failing to do so).
If there were no such wording in the TOS, they would ordinarily each be responsible for their own infringement.
The problem is Unicode is complex. A "character" can be composed of multiple codepoints, which is why they're named such. It's entirely possible to have a character take many kilobytes of space because someone decided to apply many decorations to it.
A sane way to properly handle that would be to reject code sequences that the system cannot cope with before attempting to display something it cannot handle, or in the case of overly long codepoint sequences, display any excess codepoints beyond what it is designed to cope with as individual glyphs that indicate which decorations could not be rendered as part of the one character. Each codepoint is, after all, only 4 bytes long at worst, so there's no reason that a system can't render each individual one as its own character as a fallback, perhaps, as I said before, for any codepoints it is not going to handle, showing a rectgangular glyph with the hex code for the codepoint inside of it. So when you have 100k worth of codepoints that is not going to be handled, all you get as an output is 100k tiny litle glyphs, showing each individual codepolnt that is not being rendered correctly.
It's far from ideal, but it does not crash, and even better, clearly communicates to the end user where the problems with the input are.
And even then, this does not preclude being able to sanely cope with codepoint sequences that are below some predetermined length, and show them appropriately.
There's nothing wrong with using either unicode or UTF8 in the 21st century, but if a particular subsystem isn't prepared to cope with input, it should reject any attempt to submit input it cannot properly handle. Even rendering unknown characters each in a small box with the unicode value written in it is an entirely reasonable coping mechanism. Rendering the wrong thing, or worse, crashing, is a result of either poor QA or lazy developers or both.
No... I'm just assuming that the parent is actually has a clue, and not so self-absorbed that they won't pay enough attention to their kid(s) to recognize the patterns that would indicate such activity.
That's peculiar.... I have an original iPad (gen 1) that still works fine.
I can't update the iOS version on it, of course... (forever stuck at version 5.1.1) nor can I install any new apps on it, but all of the apps that are currently on it work fine.
The only problem I am finding with it is that the the connector seems to be wearing out, as I think it is getting flaky with age. A bit of wiggling currently resolves it when the connection isn't solid, but I suspect there's not much more life left in it.
Truth is defense against slander, as is having cause to simply believe that something is objectively truthful. If you cannot divulge what that reason is, however, then by definition it is not objective
They don't... I think, but with the US government being outspoken about the matter, it has leaked into other organizations and companies specifically choosing to avoid their software.
They are, to the best of my knowledge, not trying to sue them for boycotting their software (which they should be allowed to do anyways), they are actually suing them for defamation.
And willful defamation is actually against the law.
And it's worth noting that while the government might be immune to civil prosecution, they aren't immune to criminal prosecution.
Nonetheless, all the US government has to do to dodge this is present whatever evidence that they had which would give them just cause to believe that Kaspersky was objectively untrustworthy. They might just say that such reasons involve national security and they can't divulge that information in court, but if a reason can't be objectively scrutinized, then by definition it can't be objective in the first place, so all of the normal penalties for defamation would still apply (which, presumably, the government is prepared to pay if they actually want to keep their reasons secret).
If the infection can be fought of, by definition it wasn't fatal.
I'm thinking that they probably meant to use the word "life threatening", or perhaps even "critical".
I suppose an infection could still be considered fatal if it kills you, but you are still successfully resuscitated afterwards. But that's really kind of reaching, if you ask me.
It's not hard for people to move away from using non-free software if they weren't using it in the first place. If Joe is a free software absolutist, and Jane is okay with using non-free software on her own system, Jane isn't using software that takes anything away from Joe when the developers of that product wouldn't have wanted to cater to Joe's market in the first place. At best, both Jane and Joe would be without the software if they had not developed the non-free software. How does Joe defend Jane by dictating to her what software she should or should not run?
It seems ironic, and certainly self-defeating, that people who one would expect to be espousing freedom and freedom of choice would in fact wish to deprive anyone who might disagree with them of theirs.
it's the network effects of people using non-free software on a free platform
What are those effects, exactly? I'm seriously trying here, but don't see any point of view that could cause a person to be upset about what software another person uses unless it was somehow affecting them, or people they are trying to defend in some way.
Then what is it? If nobody's pushing anyone's arm to use the non-free software, what difference does the non-free software make to a free OS?
Honest question.... if it doesn't impact the freeness of the OS, and doesn't affect them because they aren't using the non-free software in the first place, then what the heck is the problem?
I'm afraid I don't see how non-free software on a free OS necessarily makes the OS any less free unless any of the operations of the OS are somehow tied to the operation of that software.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah.... there'd be that. I was more wondering what the reaction from the more rationally-minded community would be.
Such a thing would hardly prove the existence of God even if God *did* exist, because God is not necessarily a part of creation, and you can't use X to prove Y when Y is not inside of the domain of X in the first place.
You're going for irony there, aren't you?
I've also worked at places in the past where I sincerely wish this sort of thing had been applied.
Flipping the question around, what if we are the first sentient species in the universe? What if the next one isn't likely to come around for billions or even trillions of years? If it were possible, somehow, for us to know this, what would that mean,,or what should that mean for us, as a species?
I was quite astonished by it.... I didn't even realize that it was any kind of issue, but all existing employees were expected to read and sign it, and any new hirees will also have to read and sign it before they can start work as well.
Barring having a disability for which an exemption can be claimed, such a driving style would need to be altered to be compliant with such rules.
Not to be pedantic.... (oh,who am I kidding?) but a steering wheel is technically a handheld device.
Also, laptops aren't remotely handheld, but they are quite illegal to use while driving.
That they even feel the need to make an explicit law about handheld devices to cut down on distracted driving suggests that they would be much better off, and kill a lot of birds with one stone, if they required that except as required to operate the vehicle in a safe and proper manner (ie, changing gears, activating a turn signal, windshield wipers, etc), a driver must have both hands on the steering wheel at all times while the vehicle is not in park. Full stop.
That would, I realize, also make it illegal to brush your teeth, put on makeup, fix one's hair, read a book, eat, drink, smoke, or even adjust the radio station (unless the controls are on the steering wheel) while driving, but it would have the advantage of being very explicit about the intent.... I mean, since the laws prohibiting distracted driving are clearly not enough, why not just outlaw anything the driver might do with their hands that could be considered to contribute to it, whether that is through a handheld device or not.
In practice, the only way they'll be able to do that is first make it law, and then suspend any business's right to operate in the US until they comply. If the company goes offshore, their products will still be illegal to sell in the country, and while you could smuggle them in, there's very limited practicality to having to smuggle mere consumer electronics that are used in day to day life.
This. Exactly. The person who is liable for both the original infringement as well as the newspaper's is the person who violated the TOS. Twitter is at least obligated to shut down the original infringer's account (or they can be sued for failing to do so).
If there were no such wording in the TOS, they would ordinarily each be responsible for their own infringement.
A sane way to properly handle that would be to reject code sequences that the system cannot cope with before attempting to display something it cannot handle, or in the case of overly long codepoint sequences, display any excess codepoints beyond what it is designed to cope with as individual glyphs that indicate which decorations could not be rendered as part of the one character. Each codepoint is, after all, only 4 bytes long at worst, so there's no reason that a system can't render each individual one as its own character as a fallback, perhaps, as I said before, for any codepoints it is not going to handle, showing a rectgangular glyph with the hex code for the codepoint inside of it. So when you have 100k worth of codepoints that is not going to be handled, all you get as an output is 100k tiny litle glyphs, showing each individual codepolnt that is not being rendered correctly.
It's far from ideal, but it does not crash, and even better, clearly communicates to the end user where the problems with the input are.
And even then, this does not preclude being able to sanely cope with codepoint sequences that are below some predetermined length, and show them appropriately.
There's nothing wrong with using either unicode or UTF8 in the 21st century, but if a particular subsystem isn't prepared to cope with input, it should reject any attempt to submit input it cannot properly handle. Even rendering unknown characters each in a small box with the unicode value written in it is an entirely reasonable coping mechanism. Rendering the wrong thing, or worse, crashing, is a result of either poor QA or lazy developers or both.
In general, people who want a PC primarily for gaming wouldn't be bothered by this sort of thing in the first place.
Reasonable question, but it should be opt-in (with the default being no, if it the question that asks is skipped).
http://without-systemd.org/wik...">Too many reasons.
No... I'm just assuming that the parent is actually has a clue, and not so self-absorbed that they won't pay enough attention to their kid(s) to recognize the patterns that would indicate such activity.
Perhaps that's a pretty tall assumption, however.
I guess I don't have any of those apps.
That's peculiar.... I have an original iPad (gen 1) that still works fine.
I can't update the iOS version on it, of course... (forever stuck at version 5.1.1) nor can I install any new apps on it, but all of the apps that are currently on it work fine.
The only problem I am finding with it is that the the connector seems to be wearing out, as I think it is getting flaky with age. A bit of wiggling currently resolves it when the connection isn't solid, but I suspect there's not much more life left in it.
Truth is defense against slander, as is having cause to simply believe that something is objectively truthful. If you cannot divulge what that reason is, however, then by definition it is not objective
They don't... I think, but with the US government being outspoken about the matter, it has leaked into other organizations and companies specifically choosing to avoid their software.
They are, to the best of my knowledge, not trying to sue them for boycotting their software (which they should be allowed to do anyways), they are actually suing them for defamation.
And willful defamation is actually against the law.
And it's worth noting that while the government might be immune to civil prosecution, they aren't immune to criminal prosecution.
Nonetheless, all the US government has to do to dodge this is present whatever evidence that they had which would give them just cause to believe that Kaspersky was objectively untrustworthy. They might just say that such reasons involve national security and they can't divulge that information in court, but if a reason can't be objectively scrutinized, then by definition it can't be objective in the first place, so all of the normal penalties for defamation would still apply (which, presumably, the government is prepared to pay if they actually want to keep their reasons secret).
I don't want an argument either.... but I'd like to try and at least see some kind of logic to their point of view.
I mean, Joe isn't contributing anything to the free software version either if all he does is use the software, without contributing anything back.
Or is it their opinion that everyone who is not a programmer is harmful to the free software movement?
I was wondering the same thing, actually.
If the infection can be fought of, by definition it wasn't fatal.
I'm thinking that they probably meant to use the word "life threatening", or perhaps even "critical".
I suppose an infection could still be considered fatal if it kills you, but you are still successfully resuscitated afterwards. But that's really kind of reaching, if you ask me.
It's not hard for people to move away from using non-free software if they weren't using it in the first place. If Joe is a free software absolutist, and Jane is okay with using non-free software on her own system, Jane isn't using software that takes anything away from Joe when the developers of that product wouldn't have wanted to cater to Joe's market in the first place. At best, both Jane and Joe would be without the software if they had not developed the non-free software. How does Joe defend Jane by dictating to her what software she should or should not run?
It seems ironic, and certainly self-defeating, that people who one would expect to be espousing freedom and freedom of choice would in fact wish to deprive anyone who might disagree with them of theirs.
What are those effects, exactly? I'm seriously trying here, but don't see any point of view that could cause a person to be upset about what software another person uses unless it was somehow affecting them, or people they are trying to defend in some way.
Then what is it? If nobody's pushing anyone's arm to use the non-free software, what difference does the non-free software make to a free OS?
Honest question.... if it doesn't impact the freeness of the OS, and doesn't affect them because they aren't using the non-free software in the first place, then what the heck is the problem?
I'm afraid I don't see how non-free software on a free OS necessarily makes the OS any less free unless any of the operations of the OS are somehow tied to the operation of that software.
I'm afraid I still don't see how that would be a problem.