Except that it is not. I was arrested for "resisting arrest", then added a charge of being "drunk in public" to cover the act that I knew that they couldn't arrest me for resisting arrest alone. They then changed the charge to "Resisting arrest" and "Assault on a police officer" after I informed the police I was neither "drunk" nor in "public" (being sober INSIDE a private residence).
The prosecutor continued prosecution through the trial and I was acquitted in less than 1 hour. Juries take a very dim view of police trying to cover their asses. It also helps that could recall with exact detail (even to this day) the entire conversation the police officers had trying to cover the fact that they were arresting an asshole (me) who was smarter than they were.
My suggestion is, don't resist, but don't help them. They often claim the latter is the former, it is not.
Imperial units are much easier in some cases, being divisible by a whole bunch of numbers not easily divisible on metric. What happens when you have a one meter (M) whole unit, that you need to divide into 1/3? The nice thing about imperial units, is that typically they are easily divisible by 2, 3, 4 (6, 8, 12) while metric units are not. 1/3 of a meter is how much exactly? 2/3 of a liter?
Metric is nice and elegant, so don't get me wrong, but imperial has its own elegance.
If the dollar is getting weaker, then that wouldn't bode well for Obama, don't you think? Of course, when the dollar goes up, it is bad, when the dollar goes down it is bad... so...;)
Heliocentrism is just as wrong as geocentrism and for the exact same reason. The view is too myopic. The Universe is not any more heliocentric than it is geocentric. The fact is, both Geocentrism and Heliocentrism have their places, even today.People who argue that Galileo and Copernicus were right, while the geocentrists were wrong, are arguing not based on science but rather arguing based on ignorance. What matters is at what perspective is one looking at our world;)
The JUDGE was wrong, because it has ALREADY been litigated that "things that are purely functional are **NOT** Copyrightable." APIs are purely functional, and thus NOT copyrightable.
So a fictional Linux Admin, admining 10000 machines remotely... is better than... reality? Yeah, and Fairies are better than Genie in a bottle.
AND a well qualified Windows admin can maintain same level control (possibly better) as a Linux admin. Microsoft has its issues, however system administration isn't one of them. Win 2K8R2 and Win 7 are very maintainable by one guy, even in the 10000s. And we don't have to use Obfuscated Perl and Bash Scripts to do it.
If you're gonna bash Microsoft, at least do it where they deserve it (i.e. Win 8)
Compliance is only expensive if you're trying to get legal after not being legal for years and years. Compliance is easy and relatively inexpensive. It is cheaper than trying to find and keep a qualified LINUX admin to manage thousands of PC's with their concoction of Perl and Bash Scripts. And one thing you can't buy from your LINUX admin... SLA... or someone to call when the LINUX admin wakes up dead.
Yes, that last one has happened to me. No documentation means rebuilding infrastructure from scratch... not fun.
You don't understand the nature of fiat currency. Money (most currencies anyways) has a value because people want it to have a value. Bitcoin is no different.
I'm the same way in real life as I am on the "internet". I find having multiple personalities difficult to manage. I'm a nice guy, because I don't try to be an asshole. But I can be when needed.
What if, instead of him providing a personal diet based on symptoms, it was a computer program based on Checkboxes; completely automated? What then?
This is right up there with the FDA ruling that Walnuts are a "drug", but only if the people marketing them put DOCUMENTED health benefits on the packaging.
The way that I see this going is that only UNHEALTHY food stuffs will be allowed, and anything that is healthy will be illegal because it is actually good for you and thus... a drug.
You are nothing but an anti-social dickless wonder. You're the douchebag that nobody wants to play with, because you just suck the fun out of things by being an asshole. And if you can't ruin it for everyone else, you're not happy. You're the kind of guy at the beach that walks right over and knocks down the sand castle of the little kid just because "well the ocean will destroy it anyway".
Except, you're such a coward, you wouldn't dare do anything like this to me, because I'd kick your ass. You're a bully. Fuck You asshole.
Heliocentrism is just as wrong as Earth Centrism. There is no "center" all things are relative. The concept of "speed" is flawed.
Consider the concept of two ships, heading in opposite directions each traveling at the "speed" of light (C), how fast are they going relative to each other? The flaw comes not from the "speed" but from the reference point at which one measures "speed"; you change the perspective you change the equation, and that changes everything.
You cannot be a marxist without controlling everything, including information. Marxism cannot exist except under authoritarian rule, and people like Chavez make extensive use of controlling information to maintain their dictatorial control over the populace. Chavez isn't doing any favors for his people, and for people like you to think he is is just proof that you can't reason the cause and effect the nature of governance.
In other words... Chavez is Big Brother. The very thing you extol as virtuous is the very thing you fear.
My view here is that Linux needed Linus, and RMS. Linus for his practical approach and willingness to compromise to get a viable working project, and RMS to keep the focus on the ideology. Compromise is always needed, and ideologues like RMS don't always agree that a working product is better than a barely functional but ideologically pure product. That is why HURD failed, and continues to flail in obscurity. Linus' practicality is what makes Linux so great, that he is willing to compromise.. just a bit, to get something functional.
However, we do need BOTH, the practical and the ideologues, to make great FOSS products. The ideologue to keep pressure on to free up the code and the practical to just make it work. In fact, I say the tension between the two is what makes it work so well, as it provides the fulcrum on which to balance the extremes. Should either side start to have more influence the balance will be upset and we will lose the advantage.
I am not a sensible moderate. I'm a fiercely aggressive libertarian. While I may not like him, I love the quote...
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
"What's the alternative? Name a political system, now or in history, that wasn't corrupt?"
You're beginning to see the problem. Large Corrupt Organizations are worse than smaller less corrupt organizations. Which is why I despise people who count on large organizations that are notoriously corrupt at enforcing their world view on people that don't agree, be it xIAA or Government run three letter acronyms.
It isn't surprising that they ditched the archival of actual txt messages. My view is that even if one were to anonymize the data one could go back and with statistics and other informational gathering techniques end up being somewhere between 85% to 99% accurate as to who said what to who. No, the only way to make this secure is the delete the data but keep the metadata, and even that might end up problematic.
If I recall, IBM doesn't wield patents like..say.. Oracle. They don't run around suing people for the heck of it. What typically happens is IBM gets sued by random small corp for some minor patent that IBM may be infringing on, IBM then offers a cross licensing agreement that is favorable to IBM, but does not overly punish said random company. The random company then has a choice, cross license, drop the suit, or lastly go to court, at which time IBM lawyers drop the patent portfolio on the table and says "we're suing you for infringing upon $X number of our patents, and we are suing for compensation"
And guess how well that goes for the Random Company? Which is why you don't see IBM in courts much. They just want licensing agreements and do business. Granted, not all of IBM lawyers are dealing with patents, which is what the lawyers were doing regarding SCO.
Not sure quite how this applies here. The premise isn't false, it is asking for a truthiness of "have you stopped beating your wife". Most people assume that there was a start to the wife beating, but that is not the case in the actual question. If we don't make the assumption that wife beating has started, then the answer is clearly "no". The answer is also "no" if the wife beatings have started and never have stopped. The CONCLUSION of "Well you see, Bill still beats his wife" is a false conclusion based on faulty assumption. In legal terms, the defense point would be "did you ever start beating your wife" would be the rebut, to which the answer would depend on whether or not Bill was still beating his wife or never started in the first place.
"ex falso quodlibet" is about a premise that is not true, there is nothing inherently false about the premise in the question "have you stopped beating your wife" except for an assumption that one had started beating the wife. That assumption is false, not the question based on the unanswered assumption.
In legal terms, the prosecution would have to first prove the wife beatings started before anyone could answer that question. "I object. Your Honor, the prosecution hasn't established any facts about Bill beating his wife", which would eliminate any assumptions.
It is a classic mistake to assume the assumption is correct . Assumptions need to be examined before truthiness of them can be established.
On a completely different note... ex falso quodlibet kind of reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat.;)
Slashdot Mirror
bypass the idiot suggestion of "opening a browser".
Click the start button and type http://192.168.0.1/ ..... or whatever (may need to select "run" on XP)
In the future don't do tech support. You're not qualified to even support your mom(grandma).
You keep telling yourself that.
Except that it is not. I was arrested for "resisting arrest", then added a charge of being "drunk in public" to cover the act that I knew that they couldn't arrest me for resisting arrest alone. They then changed the charge to "Resisting arrest" and "Assault on a police officer" after I informed the police I was neither "drunk" nor in "public" (being sober INSIDE a private residence).
The prosecutor continued prosecution through the trial and I was acquitted in less than 1 hour. Juries take a very dim view of police trying to cover their asses. It also helps that could recall with exact detail (even to this day) the entire conversation the police officers had trying to cover the fact that they were arresting an asshole (me) who was smarter than they were.
My suggestion is, don't resist, but don't help them. They often claim the latter is the former, it is not.
Imperial units are much easier in some cases, being divisible by a whole bunch of numbers not easily divisible on metric. What happens when you have a one meter (M) whole unit, that you need to divide into 1/3? The nice thing about imperial units, is that typically they are easily divisible by 2, 3, 4 (6, 8, 12) while metric units are not. 1/3 of a meter is how much exactly? 2/3 of a liter?
Metric is nice and elegant, so don't get me wrong, but imperial has its own elegance.
You mean like how the US owns a chunk of GM?
If the dollar is getting weaker, then that wouldn't bode well for Obama, don't you think? Of course, when the dollar goes up, it is bad, when the dollar goes down it is bad ... so ... ;)
Heliocentrism is just as wrong as geocentrism and for the exact same reason. The view is too myopic. The Universe is not any more heliocentric than it is geocentric. The fact is, both Geocentrism and Heliocentrism have their places, even today.People who argue that Galileo and Copernicus were right, while the geocentrists were wrong, are arguing not based on science but rather arguing based on ignorance. What matters is at what perspective is one looking at our world ;)
The JUDGE was wrong, because it has ALREADY been litigated that "things that are purely functional are **NOT** Copyrightable." APIs are purely functional, and thus NOT copyrightable.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gardner/ruling-expressly-denies-express-logic-its-copyrighted-api-logic/2530
So a fictional Linux Admin, admining 10000 machines remotely ... is better than ... reality? Yeah, and Fairies are better than Genie in a bottle.
AND a well qualified Windows admin can maintain same level control (possibly better) as a Linux admin. Microsoft has its issues, however system administration isn't one of them. Win 2K8R2 and Win 7 are very maintainable by one guy, even in the 10000s. And we don't have to use Obfuscated Perl and Bash Scripts to do it.
If you're gonna bash Microsoft, at least do it where they deserve it (i.e. Win 8)
The Phrase "woke up dead" means he went to sleep and never woke up at all. But you knew that.
Compliance is only expensive if you're trying to get legal after not being legal for years and years. Compliance is easy and relatively inexpensive. It is cheaper than trying to find and keep a qualified LINUX admin to manage thousands of PC's with their concoction of Perl and Bash Scripts. And one thing you can't buy from your LINUX admin ... SLA ... or someone to call when the LINUX admin wakes up dead.
Yes, that last one has happened to me. No documentation means rebuilding infrastructure from scratch ... not fun.
You don't understand the nature of fiat currency. Money (most currencies anyways) has a value because people want it to have a value. Bitcoin is no different.
I'm the same way in real life as I am on the "internet". I find having multiple personalities difficult to manage. I'm a nice guy, because I don't try to be an asshole. But I can be when needed.
What if, instead of him providing a personal diet based on symptoms, it was a computer program based on Checkboxes; completely automated? What then?
This is right up there with the FDA ruling that Walnuts are a "drug", but only if the people marketing them put DOCUMENTED health benefits on the packaging.
The way that I see this going is that only UNHEALTHY food stuffs will be allowed, and anything that is healthy will be illegal because it is actually good for you and thus ... a drug.
You are nothing but an anti-social dickless wonder. You're the douchebag that nobody wants to play with, because you just suck the fun out of things by being an asshole. And if you can't ruin it for everyone else, you're not happy. You're the kind of guy at the beach that walks right over and knocks down the sand castle of the little kid just because "well the ocean will destroy it anyway".
Except, you're such a coward, you wouldn't dare do anything like this to me, because I'd kick your ass. You're a bully. Fuck You asshole.
It is Mathmatics ...
Heliocentrism is just as wrong as Earth Centrism. There is no "center" all things are relative. The concept of "speed" is flawed.
Consider the concept of two ships, heading in opposite directions each traveling at the "speed" of light (C), how fast are they going relative to each other? The flaw comes not from the "speed" but from the reference point at which one measures "speed"; you change the perspective you change the equation, and that changes everything.
Dude,
You cannot be a marxist without controlling everything, including information. Marxism cannot exist except under authoritarian rule, and people like Chavez make extensive use of controlling information to maintain their dictatorial control over the populace. Chavez isn't doing any favors for his people, and for people like you to think he is is just proof that you can't reason the cause and effect the nature of governance.
In other words ... Chavez is Big Brother. The very thing you extol as virtuous is the very thing you fear.
My view here is that Linux needed Linus, and RMS. Linus for his practical approach and willingness to compromise to get a viable working project, and RMS to keep the focus on the ideology. Compromise is always needed, and ideologues like RMS don't always agree that a working product is better than a barely functional but ideologically pure product. That is why HURD failed, and continues to flail in obscurity. Linus' practicality is what makes Linux so great, that he is willing to compromise .. just a bit, to get something functional.
However, we do need BOTH, the practical and the ideologues, to make great FOSS products. The ideologue to keep pressure on to free up the code and the practical to just make it work. In fact, I say the tension between the two is what makes it work so well, as it provides the fulcrum on which to balance the extremes. Should either side start to have more influence the balance will be upset and we will lose the advantage.
I am not a sensible moderate. I'm a fiercely aggressive libertarian. While I may not like him, I love the quote...
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
"What's the alternative? Name a political system, now or in history, that wasn't corrupt?"
You're beginning to see the problem. Large Corrupt Organizations are worse than smaller less corrupt organizations. Which is why I despise people who count on large organizations that are notoriously corrupt at enforcing their world view on people that don't agree, be it xIAA or Government run three letter acronyms.
This is why I'm a Libertarian.
It isn't surprising that they ditched the archival of actual txt messages. My view is that even if one were to anonymize the data one could go back and with statistics and other informational gathering techniques end up being somewhere between 85% to 99% accurate as to who said what to who. No, the only way to make this secure is the delete the data but keep the metadata, and even that might end up problematic.
If I recall, IBM doesn't wield patents like ..say .. Oracle. They don't run around suing people for the heck of it. What typically happens is IBM gets sued by random small corp for some minor patent that IBM may be infringing on, IBM then offers a cross licensing agreement that is favorable to IBM, but does not overly punish said random company. The random company then has a choice, cross license, drop the suit, or lastly go to court, at which time IBM lawyers drop the patent portfolio on the table and says "we're suing you for infringing upon $X number of our patents, and we are suing for compensation"
And guess how well that goes for the Random Company? Which is why you don't see IBM in courts much. They just want licensing agreements and do business. Granted, not all of IBM lawyers are dealing with patents, which is what the lawyers were doing regarding SCO.
Not sure quite how this applies here. The premise isn't false, it is asking for a truthiness of "have you stopped beating your wife". Most people assume that there was a start to the wife beating, but that is not the case in the actual question. If we don't make the assumption that wife beating has started, then the answer is clearly "no". The answer is also "no" if the wife beatings have started and never have stopped. The CONCLUSION of "Well you see, Bill still beats his wife" is a false conclusion based on faulty assumption. In legal terms, the defense point would be "did you ever start beating your wife" would be the rebut, to which the answer would depend on whether or not Bill was still beating his wife or never started in the first place.
"ex falso quodlibet" is about a premise that is not true, there is nothing inherently false about the premise in the question "have you stopped beating your wife" except for an assumption that one had started beating the wife. That assumption is false, not the question based on the unanswered assumption.
In legal terms, the prosecution would have to first prove the wife beatings started before anyone could answer that question. "I object. Your Honor, the prosecution hasn't established any facts about Bill beating his wife", which would eliminate any assumptions.
It is a classic mistake to assume the assumption is correct . Assumptions need to be examined before truthiness of them can be established.
On a completely different note ... ex falso quodlibet kind of reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. ;)
What platform do you support? Socialist / Communist? Environmentalist? Corporatist?