I was driving a car once and got pulled over. The cop wanted to search our car and I declined. He asked why; I didn't answer that question, and just repeated that I declined. He asked again. He offered to tear up my (very large) ticket if he could search. I declined, because I knew he would very quickly find weed in the car and in the pockets of everyone in the car. The four people in the car all would have gone to jail that night, but instead we drove away and I paid later the ticket.
The car belonged to one of the passengers. She told me she was stunned all during the interaction, because she did not know that she had the legal right to decline a search. She said if the cop had asked her, she would have assented.
Anything you say, even before you are charged, can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Thus, in order to keep anything you say from being used against you in the court of law, you should invoke your right to remain silent. That's the point to having a lawyer even if you haven't been charged.
I live in Madison. My wife and I saw flashes of light out the window and figured it was distant lightning. Seeing the video now is cool. I definitely saw those bold flashes of light. I wish I'd known what it was, I would have gone for a better look.
I purposely never read EULAs. I know this isn't a valid legal theory, but morally I feel a contract is only valid when there is a meeting of the minds (this is "supposed to be" the way contract law works, if I understand correctly). Thus, if I don't read it, it is not possible for me to meet my mind with theirs. If I read a EULA, I might feel a moral compunction to abide by it; but if I skip right to the software, then my actions need only be directed by my pre-existing moral compass.
Yet, because I am interested, I do sometimes read open-source licenses. Of those, I haven't yet found one that I couldn't agree to.
(Let me re-emphasize, because I'm confident that some people will ignore what I said: I know this isn't a valid legal theory. This is simply a matter of structuring my actions to comply with my moral notions.)
Well, if it's 40% then that's pretty good. But, being from California, can you disclaim the accusation that many Californians are New Age-y hippie cranks?
In any case, let's hope our numbers keep increasing. If we get to the 40% you suggest, then I think we might start seeing some Out Atheist politicians.
I live in Wisconsin, grew up in Alaska, and lived for a while in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Also to be clear, for skeptical nonbeliever I refer not only to Christianity or its similar easy-to-characterize religions, but also the Eastern sorts of religions, and the New Age sorts of religion (ghosts, "energy", pagan spirits).
Obviously, I hope you are right that we amount to greater numbers. Where do you live?
(Skepticism is a shockingly overdue prevalent worldview.)
Hey, that's interesting and insightful. I never thought of it that way before. I wonder if skeptics and nonbelievers were as common then as now. (In America I peg us at about 20% of the population, with about half of us being in the closet.)
Imagine an ancient ritual sacrafice of a virgin or something, and one fifth of the crowd is sort of rolling their eyes thinking "really? I mean, really? You guys think that stabbing a girl with a hymen is going to bring you blessings from magical beings in the sky? Get a grip, losers."
Dude, no, you just didn't read what I said correctly. You are wrong. What you are claiming doesn't even make sense. Why would I say the opposite is reasonable if I am forcefully asserting that Apple is a monopoly? Why would I phrase it with a "would be"? Why would I go on to say that the facts don't strongly support the case? I wouldn't do any of those things, if my point were the same as your mis-characterization. More to the point, which one of us better knows what I meant, you or me?
It's fine for you to have read my post wrong. You are preconditioned to come to the internet, and to Slashdot, expecting ideologues making extremist statements, which is why you interpreted my reasonable and moderate statement as an extremist ideological statement. It's fine, you made a mistake. It only becomes an issue when you were demonstrably, obviously 100% wrong and refuse to admit it.
Yeah, that's one weakness of synecdoche and human language. Programmers like you and I find solace from the vagaries of human expression in the tidy perfection of context-free computer grammars. Alas, sometimes we must put away our computing machines and try to communicate with one another. Good luck.
Perhaps you didn't read through the end of my comment. Here, I'll quote myself for you: I don't have an iPhone, and I've never seen the App Store, and I don't know what is available there; my point is only about the rhetorical overlap between "Safari" and "WebKit". Please don't read too much into what I said.
Did you get to the bottom of my comment where I say that Adobe would have a lot of difficulty showing that Apple is a monopoly? Here, I'll quote myself for you: In this case, the facts to support the second argument (the one I provide) would be difficult to show; so that will be Adobe's burden.
I think it would also be a reasonable argument that Apple can't use its monopoly in one area to force its way into another monopoly. In this case, the first monopoly would be in mobile browsers, and the other would be in user web experience.
Both of those are reasonable ways to look at the situation, and a court ruling would come down to the facts. In this case, the facts to support the second argument (the one I provide) would be difficult to show; so that will be Adobe's burden.
To me, the rendering engine is the essential part of the browser. (Others may disagree.) Thus, saying "all these different browsers use WebKit" is equivalent to saying "all these different browsers are Safari".
But, I don't have an iPhone, and I don't use Safari on my Mac, and the browser I choose doesn't use WebKit, so I don't have a strong vested interest here.
Please don't construe my comment here are being negative or hateful on your comment. It's not. I don't care. I'm just providing another point of view. Your way of seeing things is also valid and fine.
Saying "Safari" is reasonable synecdoche for "WebKit". Thus, saying there are "No other browsers than Safari" is a reasonable statement. There are fifty versions of Safari available, and none of any other browsers.
* I don't have an iPhone, and I've never seen the App Store, and I don't know what is available there; my point is only about the rhetorical overlap between "Safari" and "WebKit". Please don't read too much into what I said.
You have a variable standard of duty to know what the heck you are talking about. In this case, the duty is very small, amounting to only the importance of making a post on Slashdot. Nevertheless, in this case spending two seconds searching something like "opera iphone rejected" will turn up plenty of results. You failed even the tiny duty requisite for making a post -- and that's why we are mocking you. At the end of the day, getting mocked on Slashdot is small punishment for making a boneheaded post.
Slashdot Mirror
I was driving a car once and got pulled over. The cop wanted to search our car and I declined. He asked why; I didn't answer that question, and just repeated that I declined. He asked again. He offered to tear up my (very large) ticket if he could search. I declined, because I knew he would very quickly find weed in the car and in the pockets of everyone in the car. The four people in the car all would have gone to jail that night, but instead we drove away and I paid later the ticket.
The car belonged to one of the passengers. She told me she was stunned all during the interaction, because she did not know that she had the legal right to decline a search. She said if the cop had asked her, she would have assented.
Know your rights. It's fucking important.
You're absolutely right. Her invocation of the fifth is unnecessary to corroborate criminal guilt. Her guilt is already obvious without that.
Calling it a self-incrimination clause is synecdoche, my friend. Don't read too much into it.
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say, even before you are charged, can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Thus, in order to keep anything you say from being used against you in the court of law, you should invoke your right to remain silent. That's the point to having a lawyer even if you haven't been charged.
I live in Madison. My wife and I saw flashes of light out the window and figured it was distant lightning. Seeing the video now is cool. I definitely saw those bold flashes of light. I wish I'd known what it was, I would have gone for a better look.
I purposely never read EULAs. I know this isn't a valid legal theory, but morally I feel a contract is only valid when there is a meeting of the minds (this is "supposed to be" the way contract law works, if I understand correctly). Thus, if I don't read it, it is not possible for me to meet my mind with theirs. If I read a EULA, I might feel a moral compunction to abide by it; but if I skip right to the software, then my actions need only be directed by my pre-existing moral compass.
Yet, because I am interested, I do sometimes read open-source licenses. Of those, I haven't yet found one that I couldn't agree to.
(Let me re-emphasize, because I'm confident that some people will ignore what I said: I know this isn't a valid legal theory. This is simply a matter of structuring my actions to comply with my moral notions.)
Well, if it's 40% then that's pretty good. But, being from California, can you disclaim the accusation that many Californians are New Age-y hippie cranks?
In any case, let's hope our numbers keep increasing. If we get to the 40% you suggest, then I think we might start seeing some Out Atheist politicians.
I live in Wisconsin, grew up in Alaska, and lived for a while in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Also to be clear, for skeptical nonbeliever I refer not only to Christianity or its similar easy-to-characterize religions, but also the Eastern sorts of religions, and the New Age sorts of religion (ghosts, "energy", pagan spirits).
Obviously, I hope you are right that we amount to greater numbers. Where do you live?
(Skepticism is a shockingly overdue prevalent worldview.)
Holy shiat. Get this comment to the top of the page!
"I think the claims are ridiculous" is not a valid legal reason for denying the person of their right to seek justice under the law.
Is this true? I actually thought that was exactly what a judge could do. (I am not a lawyer, so I don't know, and this is an honest question.)
Hey, that's interesting and insightful. I never thought of it that way before. I wonder if skeptics and nonbelievers were as common then as now. (In America I peg us at about 20% of the population, with about half of us being in the closet.)
Imagine an ancient ritual sacrafice of a virgin or something, and one fifth of the crowd is sort of rolling their eyes thinking "really? I mean, really? You guys think that stabbing a girl with a hymen is going to bring you blessings from magical beings in the sky? Get a grip, losers."
Indeed I agree, especially given the overlap in the topics people tweet about, thus the words/text used in tweets.
Dude, no, you just didn't read what I said correctly. You are wrong. What you are claiming doesn't even make sense. Why would I say the opposite is reasonable if I am forcefully asserting that Apple is a monopoly? Why would I phrase it with a "would be"? Why would I go on to say that the facts don't strongly support the case? I wouldn't do any of those things, if my point were the same as your mis-characterization. More to the point, which one of us better knows what I meant, you or me?
It's fine for you to have read my post wrong. You are preconditioned to come to the internet, and to Slashdot, expecting ideologues making extremist statements, which is why you interpreted my reasonable and moderate statement as an extremist ideological statement. It's fine, you made a mistake. It only becomes an issue when you were demonstrably, obviously 100% wrong and refuse to admit it.
Fuck, why am I feeding the trolls?
Hmmm. I think you read way, way too much into my post.
Toodles!
Yeah, that's one weakness of synecdoche and human language. Programmers like you and I find solace from the vagaries of human expression in the tidy perfection of context-free computer grammars. Alas, sometimes we must put away our computing machines and try to communicate with one another. Good luck.
Perhaps you didn't read through the end of my comment. Here, I'll quote myself for you: I don't have an iPhone, and I've never seen the App Store, and I don't know what is available there; my point is only about the rhetorical overlap between "Safari" and "WebKit". Please don't read too much into what I said.
Toodles!
Did you get to the bottom of my comment where I say that Adobe would have a lot of difficulty showing that Apple is a monopoly? Here, I'll quote myself for you: In this case, the facts to support the second argument (the one I provide) would be difficult to show; so that will be Adobe's burden.
Toodles!
Egad, that is the second time today I've seen the uncommon Reverse Then Than typo! It is so rare that it is wondrous to see it twice in one day.
By the way I completely agree with you. These two companies should sue eachother into mutual bankruptcy.
Yeah, which is strange. Why would he want to attract page hits from a bunch of people using AdBlock? He just lost a LOT of money in bandwidth costs.
(Actually, probably not, since not enough people use AdBlock.)
I think that's a reasonable argument.
I think it would also be a reasonable argument that Apple can't use its monopoly in one area to force its way into another monopoly. In this case, the first monopoly would be in mobile browsers, and the other would be in user web experience.
Both of those are reasonable ways to look at the situation, and a court ruling would come down to the facts. In this case, the facts to support the second argument (the one I provide) would be difficult to show; so that will be Adobe's burden.
Awesome! You made the uncommon Reverse Then Than error, seen very rarely in the wild.
(Surely a typing error; I mean no disrespect; just making a grammar joke.)
To me, the rendering engine is the essential part of the browser. (Others may disagree.) Thus, saying "all these different browsers use WebKit" is equivalent to saying "all these different browsers are Safari".
But, I don't have an iPhone, and I don't use Safari on my Mac, and the browser I choose doesn't use WebKit, so I don't have a strong vested interest here.
Please don't construe my comment here are being negative or hateful on your comment. It's not. I don't care. I'm just providing another point of view. Your way of seeing things is also valid and fine.
Agreed. That's why I moved to another platform.
Saying "Safari" is reasonable synecdoche for "WebKit". Thus, saying there are "No other browsers than Safari" is a reasonable statement. There are fifty versions of Safari available, and none of any other browsers.
* I don't have an iPhone, and I've never seen the App Store, and I don't know what is available there; my point is only about the rhetorical overlap between "Safari" and "WebKit". Please don't read too much into what I said.
You have a variable standard of duty to know what the heck you are talking about. In this case, the duty is very small, amounting to only the importance of making a post on Slashdot. Nevertheless, in this case spending two seconds searching something like "opera iphone rejected" will turn up plenty of results. You failed even the tiny duty requisite for making a post -- and that's why we are mocking you. At the end of the day, getting mocked on Slashdot is small punishment for making a boneheaded post.