"They need a reasonable profit." on/.? They are coming with the pitchforks now you heretic. Profits are the most vile concept on earth. Businesses should be paying you for taking the product off their hands.
Just like the local Mickey D / Culvers / gas station owners / whatever franchise owner is a leach? Dealerships are basically the same as any other franchise. You do realize that the BP station down the road is not actually owned by BP, right. Are there problem dealers? Sure. Are all dealers problematic? Nope.
In a true "equal before the law" (equal in the eyes of the government) welfare wouldn't flow in any direction at the behest of the government because redistributing wealth is not one of the enumerated powers of the US government.
Well they have given up most of everything else in the pursuit of doing everything they are technically forbidden to do so why bother keeping this one going.
Or maybe he was referring to the fact that there exist many patents which should be cancelled for much more obvious reasons than whether a word is or isn't disparaging but the USPTO has shown a reluctance to do so in the past.
And since you are so smart maybe you could understand that he used an actual 1st Amendment issue to illustrate a different situation where the only thing that changed is interpretation and then he mentioned that, likewise, the meaning of disparage (a reference to the trademark law) has also changed.
or maybe you really aren't quite as smart as you think.
Well, only if she was the victim of the very first mugger ever or that this was the very first mugging ever to have happened in said town. If said town was full of muggers in said park during the hours of midnight to sunrise, then possibly the precautions you mention might have been reasonable.
To offer a hosting company analogy to the mugging analogy... If this was the first time that a cloud provider had ever been attacked then maybe the hosting company had taken all reasonable precautions. If, however, other similar attacks had previously been committed against other cloud providers and information about such attacks and ways to reduce exposure to them had been widely available early enough for the hosting company to have known this hypothetical information and to act on it and still ignored them, then maybe the company is partially to blame (in the eyes of the hosting companies customers).
Or we try to learn from mistakes the victim made so that maybe we can all (including the victim) not make the same ones in the future. Granted, that might not be all who appear to be "blaming" the victim but I'll assume that it is a significant percentage.
We also have to remember that there were two victims: the hosting company and the customers of the hosting company. If the hosting company made representations that they had proper security and backup procedures in place and didn't, then yes their customers can blame them for any losses suffered by the customers.
Please don't tell me you work for a security firm or Brinks or anything.
Have you ever wondered why they call them "armored trucks" and don't simply deliver all that cash in a family sedan or keep the vaults locked at night in a bank? Their insurance companies require them (have placed them under an obligation) to do all they reasonably can to prevent theft (a crime in most jurisdictions).
I would also argue that all parents have two moral obligations in this area as well. First, they are morally obligated to not put their minor children in situations where they reasonably believe a crime might be perpetrated against them. Example: Don't hire the serial, self-confessed child rapist as a baby-sitter. Second, they are morally obligated to teach their children not to harm others (harming others is frequently a crime).
Again, we are saying that the rapist should go free or his sentence be lessened because the victim's provocative dress should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
We are saying that bad people exist and people should act accordingly. Dressing provocatively and walking alone in certain areas at certain times may lead to undesirable things happening, so we should council women to be consider not doing it for their own safety. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Not asking for it but intentionally putting herself into a dangerous situation.
Please answer this. If you have a teenage daughter, do you teach her about being careful about putting herself into dangerous situations or do you simply tell her to do whatever she wants because if something bad happens, the perpetrator will be punished after its over.
If the information was posted in a public forum and was accurate, then, yes we do. We may not have a real need to know nor would we particularly care to know it, but we would have the right from that point forward to know. That is the meaning of public.
Unless you are talking about guns, then the analogy of tearing out the road is a 100% accurate description of the US liberal reaction and possibly the majority of/. as well.
Slashdot Mirror
A range of 265 miles is only half of how far I can go in the two ICE cars I own and I don't have to wait 4-8 hours to fill my tank either.
"They need a reasonable profit." on /.? They are coming with the pitchforks now you heretic. Profits are the most vile concept on earth. Businesses should be paying you for taking the product off their hands.
Just like the local Mickey D / Culvers / gas station owners / whatever franchise owner is a leach? Dealerships are basically the same as any other franchise. You do realize that the BP station down the road is not actually owned by BP, right. Are there problem dealers? Sure. Are all dealers problematic? Nope.
In a true "equal before the law" (equal in the eyes of the government) welfare wouldn't flow in any direction at the behest of the government because redistributing wealth is not one of the enumerated powers of the US government.
Well they have given up most of everything else in the pursuit of doing everything they are technically forbidden to do so why bother keeping this one going.
Harry Reid doesn't know many things. Why would yet another example surprise you.
Or maybe he was referring to the fact that there exist many patents which should be cancelled for much more obvious reasons than whether a word is or isn't disparaging but the USPTO has shown a reluctance to do so in the past.
You know, shown a willingness...
And since you are so smart maybe you could understand that he used an actual 1st Amendment issue to illustrate a different situation where the only thing that changed is interpretation and then he mentioned that, likewise, the meaning of disparage (a reference to the trademark law) has also changed.
or maybe you really aren't quite as smart as you think.
Seriously... We all know that Maggots is simply a code-word for faggots because you only changed one letter.
Complete genocide? If that were true then there would be no people left to be offended. Maybe it was not quite as complete as you think.
The government is using the excuse that the tribes are offended.
The upside would be one more step up the ladder of adopting Newspeak (not necessarily Orwell's Newspeak but a variant thereof).
I thought it was very accurate summary of the lefts position.
With our current leadership, we might fail to respond to an armed invasion of DC.
Well, only if she was the victim of the very first mugger ever or that this was the very first mugging ever to have happened in said town. If said town was full of muggers in said park during the hours of midnight to sunrise, then possibly the precautions you mention might have been reasonable.
To offer a hosting company analogy to the mugging analogy... If this was the first time that a cloud provider had ever been attacked then maybe the hosting company had taken all reasonable precautions. If, however, other similar attacks had previously been committed against other cloud providers and information about such attacks and ways to reduce exposure to them had been widely available early enough for the hosting company to have known this hypothetical information and to act on it and still ignored them, then maybe the company is partially to blame (in the eyes of the hosting companies customers).
Or we try to learn from mistakes the victim made so that maybe we can all (including the victim) not make the same ones in the future. Granted, that might not be all who appear to be "blaming" the victim but I'll assume that it is a significant percentage.
We also have to remember that there were two victims: the hosting company and the customers of the hosting company. If the hosting company made representations that they had proper security and backup procedures in place and didn't, then yes their customers can blame them for any losses suffered by the customers.
Only an uncivilized society would charge a victim with a crime for defending themselves.
Please don't tell me you work for a security firm or Brinks or anything.
Have you ever wondered why they call them "armored trucks" and don't simply deliver all that cash in a family sedan or keep the vaults locked at night in a bank? Their insurance companies require them (have placed them under an obligation) to do all they reasonably can to prevent theft (a crime in most jurisdictions).
I would also argue that all parents have two moral obligations in this area as well. First, they are morally obligated to not put their minor children in situations where they reasonably believe a crime might be perpetrated against them. Example: Don't hire the serial, self-confessed child rapist as a baby-sitter. Second, they are morally obligated to teach their children not to harm others (harming others is frequently a crime).
Correction: NOT saying that the rapist should go free...
Again, we are saying that the rapist should go free or his sentence be lessened because the victim's provocative dress should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
We are saying that bad people exist and people should act accordingly. Dressing provocatively and walking alone in certain areas at certain times may lead to undesirable things happening, so we should council women to be consider not doing it for their own safety. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Not asking for it but intentionally putting herself into a dangerous situation.
Please answer this. If you have a teenage daughter, do you teach her about being careful about putting herself into dangerous situations or do you simply tell her to do whatever she wants because if something bad happens, the perpetrator will be punished after its over.
Well, even here on /. we have people yelling right-wing loonies so, yeah, they didn't have to stretch very far to win that battle.
It has been used to mean kill or seriously injure or defeat in a big way.
If the information was posted in a public forum and was accurate, then, yes we do. We may not have a real need to know nor would we particularly care to know it, but we would have the right from that point forward to know. That is the meaning of public.
Unless you are talking about guns, then the analogy of tearing out the road is a 100% accurate description of the US liberal reaction and possibly the majority of /. as well.