I've been known to troll trolls, yes. And you didn't "document" that. *I* did. Thumbs-up to you for managing to figure out how to copy and paste / bookmark so you can use the link to troll me in the future.
Unfortunately for you, your explanation was something that I had already discussed, and you hadn't gotten my point. In fact, you repeatedly failed to get it. *I* was not discussing the relationship between a book and its content... I was discussing the law regarding that content.
The law regarding books is different from the law specifically regarding the information contained in them. The analogy still fails.
Seizing physical objects owned by someone is not at all the same as making a copy of information that someone had made accessible to you. Specifically, in the former case you'll have to go before a judge to get authorization; in the latter case you don't.
But you just kept coming up with BS arguments that you seemed to think would make you look right anyway, which in reality just didn't meet standard. Too bad.
Actually as soon as I realized that I'd made a mistake, I acknowledged and corrected it. But keep re-writing history to make yourself seem correct - yet again - just like you re-write copyright law to make yourself seem correct.
It's a pretty simple concept, dude: if you don't like it, don't try to do it to others. Turnabout is fair play.
I replied to you in an ongoing discussion to try to explain to you the difference between a book and the information it contains. Which you never really seemed to grasp, even afterward. In fact, seemed obstinately incapable of grasping, and deliberately so, since it would make your analogy completely inappropriate.
Overall, I think that's a bit different from checking someone's posting history, finding an argument they're in, and jumping in on behalf of the other guy. Particularly when you're basically just trying to capitalize off an honest mistake they made, and which they acknowledged when they realized it.
I'm sorry if my faith in the legal system is slightly less than ideal, but the Supreme Court just ruled on a 89% count that the police can break down your door and search your house if they smelled marijuana and heard noises that might mean you were destroying evidence.
Righthaven has victimized defendants by failing to send takedown notices prior to suing, by threatening to take their website domain names when that's not provided for under the federal Copyright Act, by falsely claiming it owns the copyrights at issue and by failing to investigate jurisdictional and fair use issues before suing,... Righthaven's copyright infringement lawsuits amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices under Colorado law
That's well and good, but is it actually codified in law anywhere? Because as much as I'd love to see copyright trolls like Righthaven go away, their business model sort of hinges on being legally "right" and not breaking the law, at least not the letter of the law.
Accusing them of the opposite seems like a long shot.
They're all about finding and exploiting loopholes in copyright law, and unfortunately, finding and exploiting loopholes in the law isn't patently illegal.
IIRC the aorta helps to moderate the pulsating flow by its expansion/contraction. It's sort of like an in-line pressure tank. When the heart pumps, the aorta stretches to accommodate the surge of blood; then it contracts due to its elasticity and the blood is sent through the circulation system more gradually rather than in one big surge.
And I've unthinkingly but successfully smuggled a new, full-sized tube of toothpaste through both directions of my trip. Well, not quite as unthinkingly on the return trip, and not quite as new, but still successfully.
I've heard if you pack a gun in your luggage you are required to lock the suitcase securely and check it, and it gets treated with a higher level of security and the TSA isn't allowed to open it. You don't need to pack any ammunition, and I'm really not sure you even need to pack a gun, since they can't open the bag...
If you shoved one into the spare hard drive bay of a laptop? It's a toss-up whether or not they'd spot it in the regular old x-ray, but my guess is they wouldn't.
I've personally found FF4 to have some pretty bad memory leaks. If I leave it open for longer than a day I've found it upward of 500-700 MB, sometimes even a gigabyte of virtual memory. This on a computer running Win XP with 1 GB of RAM. Totally kills the performance of everything until I exit it and restart it.
On Win 7 with... 2 GB of RAM I think?... it still balloons pretty quickly but having twice as much RAM does at least help it not kill everything else due to the slowness of paging it all.
It's mainly just a big inconvenience having to exit and restart it daily, sometimes twice a day. But even so, it's nothing I can't put up with for a while longer, until the bugs get worked out anyway. I keep telling myself the next update will hopefully make things better.
On a related note, after I posted this I was thinking about it; I checked this [coinflation.com] out, and it turns out that the copper in a pre-1982 penny is actually worth about $0.02.
As long as we're in that vein we might as well include the pre-1965 silver coins (dime, quarter, half dollar, and dollar... and IIRC the pre-1965 nickel, while not silver, is also worth more than 5 cents).
But yes, in general it's safe to say that if coins are actually intended to be circulated as legal tender, they should be worth less than their face value to discourage melting them down for their metal content, at least at the time they are minted. And when a circulating coin's metal content exceeds its face value due to inflation, the coin generally should be retired and/or replaced, whereupon the existing coins in circulation will usually end up in private collections.
It does. Not with a high probability of accuracy, but it does.
But anytime you want to reverse that trend, feel free. I don't hold grudges. One thing I know: a person who's the most completely jack-assed stubborn and wrong on one thing might still have something perfectly valid to say about something else occasionally. Not many things seem more illogical and dumb to me than to conclude that, because someone disagreed with you on one thing, their opinion about anything and everything else doesn't matter.
I apologize. I misunderstood the initial premise. We're both correct. Ok?
No, no amount of software hocus-pocus by any malware author will magically make an un-modded floppy drive able to start writing to write-protected disks, per your point. Correct.
And neither will a write-protect notch "physically" prevent a modded floppy drive from writing to the disk, per my point, also correct.
The coins I was referring to WERE made by the U.S. Mint. The coins the other guy was discussing were NOT made by the U.S. Mint, but also did not carry the designation of any "dollar" face value.
Which coins were YOU referring to, troll, since you were neither me, nor the person with whom I was having the original discussion?
Being minted under "the authorization of the U.S. Mint" does not make them legal tender! The mint simply gave them permission to make commorative coins that look like antique legal tender.
Citation needed.
Seriously... just about anything you say, "Jane Q. Public", needs to be followed with a citation from now on. Since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about most of the time, and you follow people around trolling them.
No actually... I'LL provide the citation, since I know for a fact that you're wrong. Fuck you and your shit. Here. Straight from the U.S. Mint itself. Bullion coins from the U.S. Mint IS LEGAL TENDER. http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/mint_programs/am_eagles/AmerEagleGold.pdf Page 2, under "Easy to buy and sell":
American Eagle Gold Bullion Coins, with their unique U.S. government backing, may be sold for cash at many coin and precious metals dealers worldwide. They are also legal tender.
Chances are, _0xd0ad did not even understand what you were saying, although of course he will insist that he did.
I mistook his link for a retailer of the official American Eagle silver bullion coin produced by the U.S. Mint, which they were not.
However, when I looked at the enlarged views, I noticed that they are not the official U.S. Mint's coins and of course they do not bear the mark "ONE DOLLAR" because if they did, it would be illegal. So actually, they were an even better example than he realized, because they disprove his point, not support it.
Ok - never mind; not until I clicked the enlarged view did I notice that it's not actually the coin produced by the U.S. Mint.
Why anybody would want to buy a knock-off of a silver bullion coin is beyond me, but note that those do not say that they have any dollar value. They are only marked with the weight and purity... 1 Troy Ounce of.999 fine silver.
If they were marked with a dollar value (like the Liberty Coins were), they would be illegal.
Produced under the authorization of the U.S. Mint and intended to be sold for its bullion value, not its face value... but its face-value is fifty cents.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been known to troll trolls, yes. And you didn't "document" that. *I* did. Thumbs-up to you for managing to figure out how to copy and paste / bookmark so you can use the link to troll me in the future.
Unfortunately for you, your explanation was something that I had already discussed, and you hadn't gotten my point. In fact, you repeatedly failed to get it. *I* was not discussing the relationship between a book and its content... I was discussing the law regarding that content.
The law regarding books is different from the law specifically regarding the information contained in them. The analogy still fails.
Seizing physical objects owned by someone is not at all the same as making a copy of information that someone had made accessible to you. Specifically, in the former case you'll have to go before a judge to get authorization; in the latter case you don't.
But you just kept coming up with BS arguments that you seemed to think would make you look right anyway, which in reality just didn't meet standard. Too bad.
Actually as soon as I realized that I'd made a mistake, I acknowledged and corrected it. But keep re-writing history to make yourself seem correct - yet again - just like you re-write copyright law to make yourself seem correct.
It's a pretty simple concept, dude: if you don't like it, don't try to do it to others. Turnabout is fair play.
I replied to you in an ongoing discussion to try to explain to you the difference between a book and the information it contains. Which you never really seemed to grasp, even afterward. In fact, seemed obstinately incapable of grasping, and deliberately so, since it would make your analogy completely inappropriate.
Overall, I think that's a bit different from checking someone's posting history, finding an argument they're in, and jumping in on behalf of the other guy. Particularly when you're basically just trying to capitalize off an honest mistake they made, and which they acknowledged when they realized it.
Have a nice day.
I'm sorry if my faith in the legal system is slightly less than ideal, but the Supreme Court just ruled on a 89% count that the police can break down your door and search your house if they smelled marijuana and heard noises that might mean you were destroying evidence.
Bad faith? Bah.
material for which you do not own the copyright ... Righthaven have no more right to collect damages for this than you or I do
If you're authorized by the copyright holder, you're pretty much free to do anything they can do, if I'm not mistaken.
Righthaven has victimized defendants by failing to send takedown notices prior to suing, by threatening to take their website domain names when that's not provided for under the federal Copyright Act, by falsely claiming it owns the copyrights at issue and by failing to investigate jurisdictional and fair use issues before suing, ... Righthaven's copyright infringement lawsuits amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices under Colorado law
That's well and good, but is it actually codified in law anywhere? Because as much as I'd love to see copyright trolls like Righthaven go away, their business model sort of hinges on being legally "right" and not breaking the law, at least not the letter of the law.
Accusing them of the opposite seems like a long shot.
They're all about finding and exploiting loopholes in copyright law, and unfortunately, finding and exploiting loopholes in the law isn't patently illegal.
IIRC the aorta helps to moderate the pulsating flow by its expansion/contraction. It's sort of like an in-line pressure tank. When the heart pumps, the aorta stretches to accommodate the surge of blood; then it contracts due to its elasticity and the blood is sent through the circulation system more gradually rather than in one big surge.
And I've unthinkingly but successfully smuggled a new, full-sized tube of toothpaste through both directions of my trip. Well, not quite as unthinkingly on the return trip, and not quite as new, but still successfully.
Depends... how important is it which building it hits?
I've heard if you pack a gun in your luggage you are required to lock the suitcase securely and check it, and it gets treated with a higher level of security and the TSA isn't allowed to open it. You don't need to pack any ammunition, and I'm really not sure you even need to pack a gun, since they can't open the bag...
If you shoved one into the spare hard drive bay of a laptop? It's a toss-up whether or not they'd spot it in the regular old x-ray, but my guess is they wouldn't.
I've personally found FF4 to have some pretty bad memory leaks. If I leave it open for longer than a day I've found it upward of 500-700 MB, sometimes even a gigabyte of virtual memory. This on a computer running Win XP with 1 GB of RAM. Totally kills the performance of everything until I exit it and restart it.
On Win 7 with ... 2 GB of RAM I think? ... it still balloons pretty quickly but having twice as much RAM does at least help it not kill everything else due to the slowness of paging it all.
It's mainly just a big inconvenience having to exit and restart it daily, sometimes twice a day. But even so, it's nothing I can't put up with for a while longer, until the bugs get worked out anyway. I keep telling myself the next update will hopefully make things better.
On a related note, after I posted this I was thinking about it; I checked this [coinflation.com] out, and it turns out that the copper in a pre-1982 penny is actually worth about $0.02.
As long as we're in that vein we might as well include the pre-1965 silver coins (dime, quarter, half dollar, and dollar... and IIRC the pre-1965 nickel, while not silver, is also worth more than 5 cents).
But yes, in general it's safe to say that if coins are actually intended to be circulated as legal tender, they should be worth less than their face value to discourage melting them down for their metal content, at least at the time they are minted. And when a circulating coin's metal content exceeds its face value due to inflation, the coin generally should be retired and/or replaced, whereupon the existing coins in circulation will usually end up in private collections.
Have a nice day.
See, no. I'm the one who says that to you. Nobody invited you to this argument. Shoo.
It does. Not with a high probability of accuracy, but it does.
But anytime you want to reverse that trend, feel free. I don't hold grudges. One thing I know: a person who's the most completely jack-assed stubborn and wrong on one thing might still have something perfectly valid to say about something else occasionally. Not many things seem more illogical and dumb to me than to conclude that, because someone disagreed with you on one thing, their opinion about anything and everything else doesn't matter.
I apologize. I misunderstood the initial premise. We're both correct. Ok?
No, no amount of software hocus-pocus by any malware author will magically make an un-modded floppy drive able to start writing to write-protected disks, per your point. Correct.
And neither will a write-protect notch "physically" prevent a modded floppy drive from writing to the disk, per my point, also correct.
The coins I was referring to WERE made by the U.S. Mint. The coins the other guy was discussing were NOT made by the U.S. Mint, but also did not carry the designation of any "dollar" face value.
Which coins were YOU referring to, troll, since you were neither me, nor the person with whom I was having the original discussion?
Being minted under "the authorization of the U.S. Mint" does not make them legal tender! The mint simply gave them permission to make commorative coins that look like antique legal tender.
Citation needed.
Seriously... just about anything you say, "Jane Q. Public", needs to be followed with a citation from now on. Since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about most of the time, and you follow people around trolling them.
No actually... I'LL provide the citation, since I know for a fact that you're wrong. Fuck you and your shit. Here. Straight from the U.S. Mint itself. Bullion coins from the U.S. Mint IS LEGAL TENDER.
http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/mint_programs/am_eagles/AmerEagleGold.pdf
Page 2, under "Easy to buy and sell":
American Eagle Gold Bullion Coins, with their unique U.S. government backing, may be sold for cash at many coin and precious metals dealers worldwide. They are also legal tender.
Uh... duh. That's what he has been saying, all along.
Thank you, Mr. Echo. Now go away. Your voice isn't needed here. Never was.
Yep. Just exactly as right as you were about the other thing. I agree.
I admit when I'm wrong, unlike some people around here.
Chances are, _0xd0ad did not even understand what you were saying, although of course he will insist that he did.
I mistook his link for a retailer of the official American Eagle silver bullion coin produced by the U.S. Mint, which they were not.
However, when I looked at the enlarged views, I noticed that they are not the official U.S. Mint's coins and of course they do not bear the mark "ONE DOLLAR" because if they did, it would be illegal. So actually, they were an even better example than he realized, because they disprove his point, not support it.
And you are a troll. FOAD.
Ok - never mind; not until I clicked the enlarged view did I notice that it's not actually the coin produced by the U.S. Mint.
Why anybody would want to buy a knock-off of a silver bullion coin is beyond me, but note that those do not say that they have any dollar value. They are only marked with the weight and purity... 1 Troy Ounce of .999 fine silver.
If they were marked with a dollar value (like the Liberty Coins were), they would be illegal.
I apologize for not reading more carefully.
Don't worry about this guy. He's a troll who deliberately antagonizes people while pretending to know a lot more than he really does.
No, you. And fuck off, I'm right about this like I was right about copyright last week. Butthurt much?
The metal value in all metal coins is less than the face value of the coin.
Not the U.S. Mint's bullion coins. Have a look.
Of course, nobody would spend them by face value... the 1 oz. gold bullion coin is marked "50 dollars".
It is a half-dollar look alike.
No, it is a half-dollar.
Produced under the authorization of the U.S. Mint and intended to be sold for its bullion value, not its face value... but its face-value is fifty cents.