If you are caught stealing trade secrets from a company, you can be sued for damages in civil court. Now if you develop those secrets independently, you're fine. If the company somehow publicly discloses a secret, then it's fair game as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] Does the fact that washpost gives credence to this source, while acknowledging who they are, help?
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. In my experience "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism" means "a ruling was made with which I politically disagree". For example, many conservatives consider Roe v Wade to be legislating from the bench and many liberals consider Citizen's United v FEC to be the same. So your solution is for the most political body in the country (the US Congress) to adjudicate what judges they feel are "legislating"? That doesn't seem like a very workable solution to me.
Absolutely! And it would also pertain to ones that I do agree with politically. Both are inappropriate. And the solution is very workable because it is the check and balance spelled out in the Constitution.
Yes, there is a right to privacy, and many others that are not listed in the Constitution. But, coming back to the case at hand, the notion of "rights" can slip into what that judge just "feels is right", which I what I oppose.
They didn't have to imagine those things. That's why the Constitution can be amended and new laws made. But it also prevents people from just making up "rights" and authoritatively declaring what's right and wrong. What I would love to see is Congress step up and have some of the legislation-from-the-bench justices impeached for overstepping their bounds. If something is really that good, then it should be able to get through the system as-is.
Many people will claim noble things to justify what they should be done "at all costs". They will also try to set the conversation tone so that anyone who agrees them as "good" and anyone who disagrees as "bad". That's why the separation of powers was set in, to stop precisely this from happening. Find a way to define whatever is you want as "freedom for the public", you've got a sure-fire recipe for a dictatorship of the worst kind.
But that's not what he's talking about. It's not about whether or not there's racism. It's about whether there's a group of people who cross the line accusing other people of being racist when they actually aren't. And, this happens to include anyone tries to call them out for crossing the line.
You miss the point though. Stating the reasons in the article you mentioned (and others out there) in the context of the supposed "open" forum that Google had to discuss issues would have been the appropriate response by Google. This way everyone could have learned something, while everyone would have been honored and respected (even if they were factually wrong).
This issue isn't how flawed or un-flawed his reasoning was, it was how Google acted to such a situation.
But in my experience it was a blessing. Academia is so political now - not just to get in, but to stay in (tenure). Also they expect you to work yourself to death until you get tenure.
Otherwise, your just a permanent postdoc wondering why you spent so long and so much to get the pay you're getting.
No. Android users aren't really counterparts to Apple users. If it was Apple, Android, or some other name, I couldn't care less. All it is is cost/functionality. Brand identity, style points, and hipster trendiness doesn't factor in, one way or the other. This camp vs. that camp is the wrong way to look at it. We're even more different than Apple fanboys than you think.
Slashdot Mirror
...the biological father of invention.
Doesn't matter. Retail will still in turn raise their prices to compensate, which will effect everyone.
Fix the design of the joy-cons. The buttons/thumbsticks on those things get messed up so easily.
Very true. Amazon is full of fraudulent aftermarket car performance chips, for example.
If you are caught stealing trade secrets from a company, you can be sued for damages in civil court. Now if you develop those secrets independently, you're fine. If the company somehow publicly discloses a secret, then it's fair game as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] Does the fact that washpost gives credence to this source, while acknowledging who they are, help?
https://www.washingtonpost.com... Does the fact that washpost gives credence to this source, while acknowledging who they are, help?
https://www.mercatus.org/state...
https://www.mercatus.org/state...
Fiscally speaking, I sure hope that California is NOT leading the country...
What about bots that make bots that pretend to be people?
Just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. In my experience "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism" means "a ruling was made with which I politically disagree". For example, many conservatives consider Roe v Wade to be legislating from the bench and many liberals consider Citizen's United v FEC to be the same. So your solution is for the most political body in the country (the US Congress) to adjudicate what judges they feel are "legislating"? That doesn't seem like a very workable solution to me.
Absolutely! And it would also pertain to ones that I do agree with politically. Both are inappropriate. And the solution is very workable because it is the check and balance spelled out in the Constitution. Yes, there is a right to privacy, and many others that are not listed in the Constitution. But, coming back to the case at hand, the notion of "rights" can slip into what that judge just "feels is right", which I what I oppose.
They didn't have to imagine those things. That's why the Constitution can be amended and new laws made. But it also prevents people from just making up "rights" and authoritatively declaring what's right and wrong. What I would love to see is Congress step up and have some of the legislation-from-the-bench justices impeached for overstepping their bounds. If something is really that good, then it should be able to get through the system as-is.
Many people will claim noble things to justify what they should be done "at all costs". They will also try to set the conversation tone so that anyone who agrees them as "good" and anyone who disagrees as "bad". That's why the separation of powers was set in, to stop precisely this from happening. Find a way to define whatever is you want as "freedom for the public", you've got a sure-fire recipe for a dictatorship of the worst kind.
But that's not what he's talking about. It's not about whether or not there's racism. It's about whether there's a group of people who cross the line accusing other people of being racist when they actually aren't. And, this happens to include anyone tries to call them out for crossing the line.
...their unwillingness to invest in upgrading it, because it will affect the bottom line in the short term.
As someone who moderately leans to the right, I agree that a lot of the treatment of Obama wasn't justified.
...in a positive light?
You miss the point though. Stating the reasons in the article you mentioned (and others out there) in the context of the supposed "open" forum that Google had to discuss issues would have been the appropriate response by Google. This way everyone could have learned something, while everyone would have been honored and respected (even if they were factually wrong). This issue isn't how flawed or un-flawed his reasoning was, it was how Google acted to such a situation.
Actually you'll get AM better in remote areas. For this purpose it would make more sense to have that.
...haven't had any issues.
Indeed. Mod parent up.
But in my experience it was a blessing. Academia is so political now - not just to get in, but to stay in (tenure). Also they expect you to work yourself to death until you get tenure. Otherwise, your just a permanent postdoc wondering why you spent so long and so much to get the pay you're getting.
Just have a cpu/gpu threshold on what processes on threads can consume, both individually and in aggregate?
No. Android users aren't really counterparts to Apple users. If it was Apple, Android, or some other name, I couldn't care less. All it is is cost/functionality. Brand identity, style points, and hipster trendiness doesn't factor in, one way or the other. This camp vs. that camp is the wrong way to look at it. We're even more different than Apple fanboys than you think.