I don't think you can say that just being a patent holder creates a conflict of interest unless he has interests in the patents at issue. Maybe you could argue if his patents are themselves silly that he has an interest in upholding silly patents.
Why do you assert that he did not see the evidence? Perhaps the verdict is idiotic therefore he disagrees with it rather than the other way around that you suggest.
What forced? They, based on aggregate data, say that circumcision is slightly healthier than no circumcision. By their data, that appears to be true. Now you can say that other things work better or reduce the difference, and that' very well may be true. But as people behave right now, they find it to have a health benefit. Do with that data what you want.
The problem I have with the all of the pushes for net neutrality I've seen is that they do it by the wrong means. They claim that net neutrality is a right of internet users and must be enforced by the government, usually through the FCC. I think that is wrong. Internet service is a contracted service between a provider and a user. The government should not be sticking its nose in and mandating what the provisions of that contract should be. If people want net neutrality then they can pick an ISP that offers such a guarantee. If someone else doesn't care, maybe he can find a cheaper service and satisfy his needs better that way. And that's all as it should be.
But wait, you might say, there's no such ISP available to me. I pretty much only have one or two real options. I agree with you. Net neutrality regulations are needed right now. But they should be based on the idea that the providers have near monopolies, and monopolies need regulating, and the regulating should be done through the FTC rather than the FCC. That must be the basis for enforcing net neutrality since it offers users what they need now, for the reasons they actually need it. And since the justification is monopoly regulation, it preserves the rights of parties not to be interfered with unjustly.
Generally holy water isn't supposed to be "magic" or anything. It's sanctified. What does sanctification confer on the water? Not a blessed thing. It's a symbolic act meant to convey solemnity or respect for participants (as in someone being baptized) and God. Selling items that claim to be magic is not wrong because magic is evil or because the religious beliefs of people who want the items are bad. It's wrong because the item does not do the thing it claims to be able to do, which is just plain false advertising. Holy water really is sanctified and that's the only claim. If some specific item is put up claiming to be holy water and to do X, Y, and Z, which it clearly doesn't, then that would warrant a takedown. Holy water being a religious item does not.
It's no shame to be wrong and learn something new. If I had mod points I'd give you +1 "Learned something instead of defending wrong position with poorly considered arguments." I can't remember, was that one of Slashdot's categories?
That's not really the point. If Fidler made it first, and Apple copied him, and Fidler didn't care to do anything about it, then Apple is free to continue copying it. But so is everyone else. That includes, for example, oh, I don't know, how about Samsung?
Okay, let me temper that a little. Universities do offer instruction in specific languages. But that is generally introductory in nature. Learning a language is not the objective.
Universities do not and should not be teaching programming languages. They teach programming, the general practice. They teach the theory behind programming. They teach math. And they may teach "Programming Languages" as the study of the languages themselves with examples of real languages. But they don't teach "Python 101" or "Introduction to Haskell." A CS student is expected to be able to pick up whatever language needed given instruction in that general type of language (broadly imperative, function, and logical). A given professor may require a specific language because it's convenient to have everyone working in the same language and easier to grade that way, but that need not be what the text uses for the same topics. Indeed, the majority of texts use pseudocode that isn't in any "real" programming language.
Focus on trying to understand what is being said rather than distracting yourself with trying to record a summary or the highlights. If there's something you need clarified or that doesn't seem to fit to you, ask about it. You'll be solidifying your own understanding of the material and probably helping about a few other students in the same position as you. Other reference resources such as passed out notes or a textbook will be available to you that you can peruse in your own time.
"why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple," It's not because "it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers" as the author states. There were tablets on the mass market long before the iPad showed up. It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
I agree with part of what you're saying. Law and morality are not the same thing. But I don't think you have a basis for the claim that "supporting the 'law' blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions." It certainly doesn't always lead to the correct moral decisions. It's not the best "moral algorithm." But I'd bet that blindly following the law does lead to moral decisions more often than not. Definitely more than, for example, blindly disobeying the law or behaving randomly.
In any case I don't think that's at issue here. Most of the things done in the name of 'Anonymous' whether such a group exists or not are both illegal and immoral.
To be fair, he said "Please stop harboring tax evaders and money launderers." You (assuming same AC both posts) assumed he was talking to the Swiss Govt. He could just as easily be addressing banks as the Swiss government or people.
FWIW I agree with your principle. Privacy is good. Laws protecting your privacy are good. People can do bad and good things with their privacy. Doing bad things, privacy or not, is bad.
...which it doesn't in this context, for more than one reason, beginning from the Judge having previously ruled against its validity.
The judge is supposed to rule against it because its flawed. It's not flawed because a judge rules against it. So that "reason" is nonsense. Any other of these "more than one reasons?" I doubt it because I think you are simply wrong. Here's a relevant belief. The design in question is the obvious evolution of previous designs. The fact that Samsung came up with a similar design before Apple went to market is evidence of that even is Apple had the design internally first. Therefore the designs are evidence. Therefore it is not the case that "those designs were suppressed because they are not evidence."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you can say that just being a patent holder creates a conflict of interest unless he has interests in the patents at issue. Maybe you could argue if his patents are themselves silly that he has an interest in upholding silly patents.
Why do you assert that he did not see the evidence? Perhaps the verdict is idiotic therefore he disagrees with it rather than the other way around that you suggest.
Approximately the same number as the report forces people to perform.
What forced? They, based on aggregate data, say that circumcision is slightly healthier than no circumcision. By their data, that appears to be true. Now you can say that other things work better or reduce the difference, and that' very well may be true. But as people behave right now, they find it to have a health benefit. Do with that data what you want.
"Malum" is Latin both for "evil" and for "apple" through they are pronounced slightly differently.
It's the lesser known post malum ergo propter malum fallacy.
The problem I have with the all of the pushes for net neutrality I've seen is that they do it by the wrong means. They claim that net neutrality is a right of internet users and must be enforced by the government, usually through the FCC. I think that is wrong. Internet service is a contracted service between a provider and a user. The government should not be sticking its nose in and mandating what the provisions of that contract should be. If people want net neutrality then they can pick an ISP that offers such a guarantee. If someone else doesn't care, maybe he can find a cheaper service and satisfy his needs better that way. And that's all as it should be.
But wait, you might say, there's no such ISP available to me. I pretty much only have one or two real options. I agree with you. Net neutrality regulations are needed right now. But they should be based on the idea that the providers have near monopolies, and monopolies need regulating, and the regulating should be done through the FTC rather than the FCC. That must be the basis for enforcing net neutrality since it offers users what they need now, for the reasons they actually need it. And since the justification is monopoly regulation, it preserves the rights of parties not to be interfered with unjustly.
+1
Generally holy water isn't supposed to be "magic" or anything. It's sanctified. What does sanctification confer on the water? Not a blessed thing. It's a symbolic act meant to convey solemnity or respect for participants (as in someone being baptized) and God. Selling items that claim to be magic is not wrong because magic is evil or because the religious beliefs of people who want the items are bad. It's wrong because the item does not do the thing it claims to be able to do, which is just plain false advertising. Holy water really is sanctified and that's the only claim. If some specific item is put up claiming to be holy water and to do X, Y, and Z, which it clearly doesn't, then that would warrant a takedown. Holy water being a religious item does not.
Areo- is the the Martian equivalent of geo-. It would be areocache.
I prefer other Martian mountains, but you probably haven't heard of them.
It's no shame to be wrong and learn something new. If I had mod points I'd give you +1 "Learned something instead of defending wrong position with poorly considered arguments." I can't remember, was that one of Slashdot's categories?
Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
That's not really the point. If Fidler made it first, and Apple copied him, and Fidler didn't care to do anything about it, then Apple is free to continue copying it. But so is everyone else. That includes, for example, oh, I don't know, how about Samsung?
Okay, let me temper that a little. Universities do offer instruction in specific languages. But that is generally introductory in nature. Learning a language is not the objective.
Universities do not and should not be teaching programming languages. They teach programming, the general practice. They teach the theory behind programming. They teach math. And they may teach "Programming Languages" as the study of the languages themselves with examples of real languages. But they don't teach "Python 101" or "Introduction to Haskell." A CS student is expected to be able to pick up whatever language needed given instruction in that general type of language (broadly imperative, function, and logical). A given professor may require a specific language because it's convenient to have everyone working in the same language and easier to grade that way, but that need not be what the text uses for the same topics. Indeed, the majority of texts use pseudocode that isn't in any "real" programming language.
Exactly, no TRUE Scotsman would talk like that.
Focus on trying to understand what is being said rather than distracting yourself with trying to record a summary or the highlights. If there's something you need clarified or that doesn't seem to fit to you, ask about it. You'll be solidifying your own understanding of the material and probably helping about a few other students in the same position as you. Other reference resources such as passed out notes or a textbook will be available to you that you can peruse in your own time.
Sounds like someone's been compromised by the reverse vampires.
Just because one entrant in the market is a Veblen good, that doesn't imply that other entrants into the same market are as well.
"why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple," It's not because "it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers" as the author states. There were tablets on the mass market long before the iPad showed up. It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
I agree with part of what you're saying. Law and morality are not the same thing. But I don't think you have a basis for the claim that "supporting the 'law' blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions." It certainly doesn't always lead to the correct moral decisions. It's not the best "moral algorithm." But I'd bet that blindly following the law does lead to moral decisions more often than not. Definitely more than, for example, blindly disobeying the law or behaving randomly.
In any case I don't think that's at issue here. Most of the things done in the name of 'Anonymous' whether such a group exists or not are both illegal and immoral.
To be fair, he said "Please stop harboring tax evaders and money launderers." You (assuming same AC both posts) assumed he was talking to the Swiss Govt. He could just as easily be addressing banks as the Swiss government or people.
FWIW I agree with your principle. Privacy is good. Laws protecting your privacy are good. People can do bad and good things with their privacy. Doing bad things, privacy or not, is bad.
That's not "of this magnitude." It's of a similar, neighboring magnitude.
...which it doesn't in this context, for more than one reason, beginning from the Judge having previously ruled against its validity.
The judge is supposed to rule against it because its flawed. It's not flawed because a judge rules against it. So that "reason" is nonsense. Any other of these "more than one reasons?" I doubt it because I think you are simply wrong. Here's a relevant belief. The design in question is the obvious evolution of previous designs. The fact that Samsung came up with a similar design before Apple went to market is evidence of that even is Apple had the design internally first. Therefore the designs are evidence. Therefore it is not the case that "those designs were suppressed because they are not evidence."