Absolutely. The ones arranging the marriages are the ones who voluntarily signed up for this, voluntarily paid their 2 grand, met and liked each other, ideally dated for a while (though this is their choice), and arranged a marriage with each other. I don't think I've ever attended a marriage that wasn't arranged. I wouldn't know where to show up, for starters. Heck, at least both people being married need to arrange to meet somewhere that a JP would be available and get a license beforehand.
Oh, wait, you mean the generally-accepted definition of an "arranged marriage" where people other than the couple decide which person they are to marry? Like the parents, or their cult leader? Sometimes backing up the decision with the threat of disownment or excommunication, or worse?
In that case, umm, no. This isn't an arranged marriage. This is an arranged FIRST DATE where both people ASKED for the date to be arranged.
This is another snippet of data (of severely dubious value, but then a lot of them are) in dating services.
The arrangement of the first date may LEAD to marriage, in fact for some clients marriage is the desired eventual outcome.
Yes, it is rather humorous to see all the responses to a typo-filled brain dump (as in the kind of dump I take when I've just finished a nice plate of Vindaloo) on a blog.
He's not doing this, he's not proposing this, he's going through scenarios as to how one might approach it if one were stupid enough to..
oh, wait, stupid enough to...... maybe this IS his business plan...
The reason he makes an offer like this is that he can rest secure in the knowledge that NO ONE will ever take him up on it. It's a publicity stunt.
He thinks he's thrown down a gauntlet to Google and presented them with a threat which they must now look at Very Seriously. Meanwhile, Google board members are suffering from minor asphyxiation because they are laughing so hard.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that Google just finished a mock castle wall on their campus, with a cardboard cutout of Cuban standing below in full Arthurian regalia. Google employees would be encouraged to spend their breaks sitting at the top of the castle wall and blowing raspberries and making odd reference to hamsters and elderberries.
"Now go, or I shall taunt you a second time!"
In the interests of property damage and humane treatment of animals, their trebuchet will probably be limited to throwing hamburgers rather than whole cows.
You don't qualify: "I'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again."
By your own admission, you don't eat bread. Therefore, you cannot be one of the top 1000 folks on Slashdot who eat bread.
And, no, 31137 is not, in fact t3h r0x05 ne mor3. Hasn't been for some time. But even most of us old codgers who remember when the kids started it. Most of us can even read it, since we've seen it on job applications, and you have to figure out what claims the person is making about themselves other than they are obviously attention-starved and probably illiterate. So you have to learn how to speak it so when you send a rejection letter they don't call asking for help reading it.:)
The important thing that a comment gives you is not the how. You can get the how by reading the code.
What an appropriate comment will give you is the WHY.
Unimportant for a lot of web development, I suppose, when you are pretty much dealing with the data on a form and bouncing bits of it against a database. But for transactional processing, the why can be easily non-obvious in the code, and important to know.
I spent an hour indenting a fairly large program so I could read it once. Too bad it was my first introduction to RPG II on a S/36.
The compiler was NOT happy.
Re:Oh, THAT strawman
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If your CMMi consultants are pushing waterfall as official CMMi canon, you might want to find yourself a new batch of CMMi consultants. CMMi is about being able to measure and manage your work, not about using a specific methodology to do so.
But a lot of it depends on the size of the company and the average project size. If I have an estimated 2-month effort and 4 programmers (all internal), it's unlikely in the extreme I'm going to deal with the complexity of an iterative model. Plain old waterfall fits that bill pretty well. If the project is a lot larger, I'm either going to break it into phases/subprojects (waterfall's "iterations") or go with a more flexible approach.
Honestly, I run Mint and Ubuntu and I rarely drop to the CLI unless I just want to get something done faster. The GUI is capable of pretty much everything I've needed to do in the past 2-3 years.
"Where No Man has Gone Before" was in fact aired as Episode 3. You are absolutely correct.
However, the article states there was an alternate version of "Where No Man has Gone Before" which did not air, but was the version used to sell Trek to NBC execs. That version never aired, and is what is now being offered up on the DVD.
Technically, most of "The Cage" also aired as part of "The Menagerie".
Except 117(b) makes it irrelevant (emphasis added):
(b) Lease, sale, or other transfer of additional copy or adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
Psystar did not have authorization from Apple. Therefore, Section 117 does not apply. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of OSX and hackintosh it to their hearts content, and are protected under 117. However, they cannot sell, lease, or transfer that software to ANYONE unless Cupertino gives it the nod.
OSX, as delivered, is code-locked to work on Apple hardware only. Psystar replaced the bootloader and some other modules with their own version that allow OSX to run on Psystar hardware. They then sold hardware with that modified (altered derivative) work, and justified the derivative by including a paid-for license and DVD of the original OSX in the box.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think Psystar did anything MORALLY wrong. Apple gets a retail-price sale of OSX, and one that they need never expect a support call on. They lose some hardware revenue, but the money they are making on Psystar is practically found money.
However, current copyright law doesn't work that way.
You can't take a Hollywood movie, chop out the swear words and gratuitous sex scenes, and resell your altered copy even if you include a copy of the original movie that you paid retail for in the box. I think you should be able to if you have an audience for it, and the studios would gain more sales that way so it's in their interests to allow it. But copyright law says you can't do it without permission from the studio.
By the same token, you cannot take a copy of OSX, hackintosh it, and resell it without their permission - EVEN if you pay Apple a full retail OSX license cost for each sale.
How long has this been around? Probably as long as coke. So now they think it should be made illegal. Idiots.
No, sorry, the summary is really short on vital information. Rum'n'cokes are not on trial here. There is a standard called GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) that can be met, and rum'n'cokes fit this standard. And no one "thinks they should be illegal" - this is an announcement of a start of an investigation, not an announcement of a new law. That investigation MAY lead to a law, but it may not.
These are NOT rum'n'cokes they are talking about. "Sparks" (a Miller/Coors product), one of the products that is being reformulated, had as much alcohol as a can of beer but as much caffeine as a "stay awake" pill. The proportion of alcohol to caffeine is the issue. Think "rum'n'coke with a 'no-doz' pill chaser". Have a half-dozen of them and the caffeine will have you so hyped up you'll feel normal, or damned near it. A half a dozen rum'n'cokes would put you under the table - a half dozen of these little beauties would have you driving through the front door of the bar into the table while convinced that was your garage. Your coordination and function is shot to shit but you have enough energy to feel normal.
This is largely the same risk as people mixing Red Bull with alcohol, except in this case breweries are setting the proportions. You can't regulate stupid - college kids will always do stupid things like this - but at issue here is whether to ask companies to refrain from making this proportion intentionally. Faced with the evidence in the investigation, several manufacturers have voluntarily (as in, not under coercion from the Government) discontinued this class of caffeinated alcoholic beverages because of the possibility of accidental abuse due to the fact that the caffeine-to-alcohol ratio in these beverages tends to conceal the effects of the alcohol.
I'm not totally in favor of laws like this, but this isn't a law. At least not yet. It's an investigation that may or may not lead to a law. At that point, I'm still not sure about a law, but at least the risks would be identified and documented. Then manufacturers would probably just pull the product based on the information given before a law was even passed (and some of them already did!).
Ignoring the legalities of this, and focusing on the identified risk, decaf would be OK.
The problem as identified in the article, if I read it correctly, is that drinking megacaf beverages with large amounts of alcohol basically puts you in an "inebriated and energized" state. In other words, when you get completely falling-down drunk, the caffeine only mitigates the "falling down" part. It prevents you from passing out when passing out is a damned fine defense mechanism that keeps you from doing something incredibly and amazingly stupid.
The same effect can be seen by a drunk who's had WAY too many and tries to down a bunch of coffee to compensate. Their responses aren't any more accurate - they are still a danger to themselves and others, but it gives them the energy to FEEL like they are functioning somewhere near normal. At least someone on four sixpacks of Bud is pretty much incapacitated, and generally understands that. Add two pots of coffee and they start FEELING energized and alert, when in fact they are only energized.
So you can safely mix anything you want with your alcohol and avoid this effect, as long as you don't want a stimulant. And while decaf coffee does have a certain amount of caffeine, for the purposes of this discussion it's not enough to compensate for the alcohol and is therefore irrelevant.
As to "would the law follow this logical train of thought", well, look at the state of the average knee-jerk law and think about it. Though, as others have stated, if the bartender mixes it it's OK. It's really only packaged liquor they appear to be going after.
Your ISP got a letter from RIAA or MPAA asking that they tell you to stop it, or turn over your name and address. Your ISP, knowing that BitTorrent also takes a lot of bandwidth anyway, shut you down temporarily and (though they don't honestly care) asked you to delete the file and (they do care about this) never run BitTorrent again. You complied, so MPAA/RIAA and your ISP both win.
I'm not so sure about the "fire" bit, since burning Hydrogen for fuel requires recombination with Oxygen, so you're back to square one with less energy than you started with in solar energy to start with...
But it is efficient storage, so you could H2 and O2 tanks to fuel your vehicles, for example, and only have to have one mother of a huge solar array to collect the energy necessary to make it...
You can't do that! It would be UnAmerican! You're asking people to LEARN STUFF and stuff!
Oh, wait, sorry, we're talking about the EU. My bad. They'd never resort to nonsensical and impossible nanny-state rules over there.
Seriously, I think that's a decent compromise. Any web browser software sold or distributed in the EU should have cookie blocking set to "Deny" or "Ask Every Time", then the user can change it.
However, before I got my shorts in a bind over COOKIES, I'd start requiring operating system folks to include, oh, I dunno, virus and worm protection installed and enabled by default. Get the laws dealing with actual threats, rather than perceived ones.
If we're going to write invasive laws to protect people, we could at least deal with real, honest threats.
Cool, sort of a NoCookie, eh (in the spirit of NoScript)?
I'll have to check that out. Though, frankly, for the most part I don't worry too much about cookies.
The point, though, is that the EU is trying to legislate this from the server side, so somehow each company has to (a) ask for, (b) obtain, and (c) document your consent.
Ignoring (c), (a) and (b) sound like the absolute worst of all worlds - a popup for every site that wants to use third party cookies of any kind, and no way for the EU (End User) to say "um, no, I really don't give a rat's ass about this, just please allow all cookies forever, 'k thanks!"
The only hope is that making revenue might somehow be declared "necessary for site functionality" and pull all the teeth out of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. The ones arranging the marriages are the ones who voluntarily signed up for this, voluntarily paid their 2 grand, met and liked each other, ideally dated for a while (though this is their choice), and arranged a marriage with each other. I don't think I've ever attended a marriage that wasn't arranged. I wouldn't know where to show up, for starters. Heck, at least both people being married need to arrange to meet somewhere that a JP would be available and get a license beforehand.
Oh, wait, you mean the generally-accepted definition of an "arranged marriage" where people other than the couple decide which person they are to marry? Like the parents, or their cult leader? Sometimes backing up the decision with the threat of disownment or excommunication, or worse?
In that case, umm, no. This isn't an arranged marriage. This is an arranged FIRST DATE where both people ASKED for the date to be arranged.
This is another snippet of data (of severely dubious value, but then a lot of them are) in dating services.
The arrangement of the first date may LEAD to marriage, in fact for some clients marriage is the desired eventual outcome.
The rest are, of course, men.
So this would be the Streisand-Godwin Effect?
One. And it's returned the next day.
"Rated 'T' for Terrorist"
Yes, it is rather humorous to see all the responses to a typo-filled brain dump (as in the kind of dump I take when I've just finished a nice plate of Vindaloo) on a blog.
He's not doing this, he's not proposing this, he's going through scenarios as to how one might approach it if one were stupid enough to..
oh, wait, stupid enough to... ... maybe this IS his business plan...
Except Google's the one with the frikkin' sharks with the frikkin' laser beams.
A railgun? That shoots furniture?
"The Blue Sofa of Death" has such a nice ring to it.
Is there an optional attachment that allows me to shoot big, fluffy side pillows (with bowling balls in them)?
One, please.
I promise to search on Bing for all the used couches I will inevitably be in the market for VERY soon...
The reason he makes an offer like this is that he can rest secure in the knowledge that NO ONE will ever take him up on it. It's a publicity stunt.
He thinks he's thrown down a gauntlet to Google and presented them with a threat which they must now look at Very Seriously. Meanwhile, Google board members are suffering from minor asphyxiation because they are laughing so hard.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that Google just finished a mock castle wall on their campus, with a cardboard cutout of Cuban standing below in full Arthurian regalia. Google employees would be encouraged to spend their breaks sitting at the top of the castle wall and blowing raspberries and making odd reference to hamsters and elderberries.
"Now go, or I shall taunt you a second time!"
In the interests of property damage and humane treatment of animals, their trebuchet will probably be limited to throwing hamburgers rather than whole cows.
You don't qualify: "I'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again."
By your own admission, you don't eat bread. Therefore, you cannot be one of the top 1000 folks on Slashdot who eat bread.
And, no, 31137 is not, in fact t3h r0x05 ne mor3. Hasn't been for some time. But even most of us old codgers who remember when the kids started it. Most of us can even read it, since we've seen it on job applications, and you have to figure out what claims the person is making about themselves other than they are obviously attention-starved and probably illiterate. So you have to learn how to speak it so when you send a rejection letter they don't call asking for help reading it. :)
N0w g37 t3h h311 0ph m@h L@\/\/nz0rz!
The important thing that a comment gives you is not the how. You can get the how by reading the code.
What an appropriate comment will give you is the WHY.
Unimportant for a lot of web development, I suppose, when you are pretty much dealing with the data on a form and bouncing bits of it against a database. But for transactional processing, the why can be easily non-obvious in the code, and important to know.
I spent an hour indenting a fairly large program so I could read it once. Too bad it was my first introduction to RPG II on a S/36.
The compiler was NOT happy.
If your CMMi consultants are pushing waterfall as official CMMi canon, you might want to find yourself a new batch of CMMi consultants. CMMi is about being able to measure and manage your work, not about using a specific methodology to do so.
But a lot of it depends on the size of the company and the average project size. If I have an estimated 2-month effort and 4 programmers (all internal), it's unlikely in the extreme I'm going to deal with the complexity of an iterative model. Plain old waterfall fits that bill pretty well. If the project is a lot larger, I'm either going to break it into phases/subprojects (waterfall's "iterations") or go with a more flexible approach.
At least your school had principles. Mine only had principals. :)
Honestly, I run Mint and Ubuntu and I rarely drop to the CLI unless I just want to get something done faster. The GUI is capable of pretty much everything I've needed to do in the past 2-3 years.
"Where No Man has Gone Before" was in fact aired as Episode 3. You are absolutely correct.
However, the article states there was an alternate version of "Where No Man has Gone Before" which did not air, but was the version used to sell Trek to NBC execs. That version never aired, and is what is now being offered up on the DVD.
Technically, most of "The Cage" also aired as part of "The Menagerie".
Except 117(b) makes it irrelevant (emphasis added):
(b)
Lease, sale, or other transfer of additional copy or adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
Psystar did not have authorization from Apple. Therefore, Section 117 does not apply. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of OSX and hackintosh it to their hearts content, and are protected under 117. However, they cannot sell, lease, or transfer that software to ANYONE unless Cupertino gives it the nod.
Is this right? No. But "right != law"
OSX, as delivered, is code-locked to work on Apple hardware only. Psystar replaced the bootloader and some other modules with their own version that allow OSX to run on Psystar hardware. They then sold hardware with that modified (altered derivative) work, and justified the derivative by including a paid-for license and DVD of the original OSX in the box.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think Psystar did anything MORALLY wrong. Apple gets a retail-price sale of OSX, and one that they need never expect a support call on. They lose some hardware revenue, but the money they are making on Psystar is practically found money.
However, current copyright law doesn't work that way.
You can't take a Hollywood movie, chop out the swear words and gratuitous sex scenes, and resell your altered copy even if you include a copy of the original movie that you paid retail for in the box. I think you should be able to if you have an audience for it, and the studios would gain more sales that way so it's in their interests to allow it. But copyright law says you can't do it without permission from the studio.
By the same token, you cannot take a copy of OSX, hackintosh it, and resell it without their permission - EVEN if you pay Apple a full retail OSX license cost for each sale.
How long has this been around? Probably as long as coke. So now they think it should be made illegal. Idiots.
No, sorry, the summary is really short on vital information. Rum'n'cokes are not on trial here. There is a standard called GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) that can be met, and rum'n'cokes fit this standard. And no one "thinks they should be illegal" - this is an announcement of a start of an investigation, not an announcement of a new law. That investigation MAY lead to a law, but it may not.
These are NOT rum'n'cokes they are talking about. "Sparks" (a Miller/Coors product), one of the products that is being reformulated, had as much alcohol as a can of beer but as much caffeine as a "stay awake" pill. The proportion of alcohol to caffeine is the issue. Think "rum'n'coke with a 'no-doz' pill chaser". Have a half-dozen of them and the caffeine will have you so hyped up you'll feel normal, or damned near it. A half a dozen rum'n'cokes would put you under the table - a half dozen of these little beauties would have you driving through the front door of the bar into the table while convinced that was your garage. Your coordination and function is shot to shit but you have enough energy to feel normal.
This is largely the same risk as people mixing Red Bull with alcohol, except in this case breweries are setting the proportions. You can't regulate stupid - college kids will always do stupid things like this - but at issue here is whether to ask companies to refrain from making this proportion intentionally. Faced with the evidence in the investigation, several manufacturers have voluntarily (as in, not under coercion from the Government) discontinued this class of caffeinated alcoholic beverages because of the possibility of accidental abuse due to the fact that the caffeine-to-alcohol ratio in these beverages tends to conceal the effects of the alcohol.
I'm not totally in favor of laws like this, but this isn't a law. At least not yet. It's an investigation that may or may not lead to a law. At that point, I'm still not sure about a law, but at least the risks would be identified and documented. Then manufacturers would probably just pull the product based on the information given before a law was even passed (and some of them already did!).
Ignoring the legalities of this, and focusing on the identified risk, decaf would be OK.
The problem as identified in the article, if I read it correctly, is that drinking megacaf beverages with large amounts of alcohol basically puts you in an "inebriated and energized" state. In other words, when you get completely falling-down drunk, the caffeine only mitigates the "falling down" part. It prevents you from passing out when passing out is a damned fine defense mechanism that keeps you from doing something incredibly and amazingly stupid.
The same effect can be seen by a drunk who's had WAY too many and tries to down a bunch of coffee to compensate. Their responses aren't any more accurate - they are still a danger to themselves and others, but it gives them the energy to FEEL like they are functioning somewhere near normal. At least someone on four sixpacks of Bud is pretty much incapacitated, and generally understands that. Add two pots of coffee and they start FEELING energized and alert, when in fact they are only energized.
So you can safely mix anything you want with your alcohol and avoid this effect, as long as you don't want a stimulant. And while decaf coffee does have a certain amount of caffeine, for the purposes of this discussion it's not enough to compensate for the alcohol and is therefore irrelevant.
As to "would the law follow this logical train of thought", well, look at the state of the average knee-jerk law and think about it. Though, as others have stated, if the bartender mixes it it's OK. It's really only packaged liquor they appear to be going after.
I wish there was a split-mod, because I'd love to mod the first half of the post insightful or informative and the second half Troll.
Actually, your ISP shut off access.
Your ISP got a letter from RIAA or MPAA asking that they tell you to stop it, or turn over your name and address. Your ISP, knowing that BitTorrent also takes a lot of bandwidth anyway, shut you down temporarily and (though they don't honestly care) asked you to delete the file and (they do care about this) never run BitTorrent again. You complied, so MPAA/RIAA and your ISP both win.
"Managerial Staff"?
"Executives"?
"The people who are going to can my ass if they ever read this and realize it's me?"
(sorry, boss)
Good point.
I'm not so sure about the "fire" bit, since burning Hydrogen for fuel requires recombination with Oxygen, so you're back to square one with less energy than you started with in solar energy to start with...
But it is efficient storage, so you could H2 and O2 tanks to fuel your vehicles, for example, and only have to have one mother of a huge solar array to collect the energy necessary to make it...
You can't do that! It would be UnAmerican! You're asking people to LEARN STUFF and stuff!
Oh, wait, sorry, we're talking about the EU. My bad. They'd never resort to nonsensical and impossible nanny-state rules over there.
Seriously, I think that's a decent compromise. Any web browser software sold or distributed in the EU should have cookie blocking set to "Deny" or "Ask Every Time", then the user can change it.
However, before I got my shorts in a bind over COOKIES, I'd start requiring operating system folks to include, oh, I dunno, virus and worm protection installed and enabled by default. Get the laws dealing with actual threats, rather than perceived ones.
If we're going to write invasive laws to protect people, we could at least deal with real, honest threats.
Cool, sort of a NoCookie, eh (in the spirit of NoScript)?
I'll have to check that out. Though, frankly, for the most part I don't worry too much about cookies.
The point, though, is that the EU is trying to legislate this from the server side, so somehow each company has to (a) ask for, (b) obtain, and (c) document your consent.
Ignoring (c), (a) and (b) sound like the absolute worst of all worlds - a popup for every site that wants to use third party cookies of any kind, and no way for the EU (End User) to say "um, no, I really don't give a rat's ass about this, just please allow all cookies forever, 'k thanks!"
The only hope is that making revenue might somehow be declared "necessary for site functionality" and pull all the teeth out of the law.