They weren't prostitutes because they didn't ask for money. Had this happened in ancient Israel, it depends on your translation on the verse. He could be obliged to pay her father 50 shekels of silver and be obliged to marry her and may never divorce. However, Exodus 22:16-17 is a lot clearer on the matter. "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."
Clearly this happened in modern Sweden where Biblical law does not apply, but if you're going to post religious trolls at least get your facts right.
The thing is, I know that android is adequate for my needs. WP7 doesn't promise to be any better, and may be worse. Given the cost of a smartphone, I'm going to be a little conservative here.
Maybe MS could do an offer - free replacement with an Android phone if you don't like it. I'd consider taking them up on that.
They'd have been a latecomer to a saturated market. Windows may have been a risk, but at this stage, delaying entry into the android market for another year isn't going to be a huge cost.
. You want to reward debtors, which is the same thing as punishing savers.
Surely this only applies is wealth is fixed. But wealth is created. My understanding of this is that by turning a much of bits of metal and oil into a refrigerator, we create "wealth", since a fridge is worth a lot more than its raw materials.
But the economics of this require someone owes someone something at some point. Given that a borrower pays back the loan with interest, and the savers get a share of that interest, debt rewards savers and debtors.
They only have an obligation to remove material when they are made aware of it infringing under the DMCA. They're only liable for the commercial copyright infringement if the plaintiff can demonstrate that copyright infringement is deliberate.
The point is, if your business model benefits from other people's material, then you really should accept that some people are going to accuse you of profiting from other people's material.
No, guaranteed end-to-end quality is a private trunk line from point to point.
There are protocols that offer guaranteed Quality of service, without dedicating all the bandwidth. If not all of the bandwidth is used, other applications can use the spare capacity. This is something that can be provided relatively inexpensively, to varying levels.
Preventing an ISP adding jitter to force people into using this would be hard, but Net Neutrality is an absolute ban on the protocols and that seems overkill.
So, suppose an ISP wants to market itself to gamers. It provides a high speed connection to game servers, negotiates a direct connection, and offers guaranteed bandwidth and latency. Web packets as a result my be delayed by a fraction of a second.
Is this not a service that gamers might want? Is it not something that would be illegal with net neutrality?
The law is a blunt instrument. if you make something illegal, you catch a lot more than what you intend.
It's a design patent. It's closer to trademark protection than patent protection in how its used. It protects the look of an item. A particularly famous example is the design of the Coke bottle.
You can't get a design patent for basic functional details. The fact that it's made of two parts, that the front is thinner than the back, and it's hinged are purely functional. The specifics - the curves and contours that only serve an aesthetic purpose - can be protected.
Nobody I personally know uses Java, or at least nobody did until I got a job in it.
What I mean is nobody uses Haskell for any area of software development, to a substantial degree that learning it makes any sense. There's essentially no community development support for it in any field.
I do mean nobody important or worthwhile. I apologise if this offends you.
That is about the size of it. I know a bit of perl because I wanted to do some web scripts, and at the time, perl was the best language. I know a bit of Java because I wanted to write some mobile phone apps and Java's the only properly supported language for Android.
I don't know Haskell because nobody uses it so I've had no need to learn.
Google is a successful company, but this isn't so much about their testing practices. Or hiring practices, or development practices, work culture or anything like that. Simply that they cornered the search market.
Anyone can have a successful company if you have a product good enough or different enough to dominate a niche.
In practice, this is taken into account. A plaintiff who tries to raise his legal costs ridiculously to price his opponent out is likely only to receive reasonable costs
I think this is a fudge for.com being redundant. Every organisation wants to be {their name}.com whether they're a commercial organisation or not. As a result, you might as well eliminate it entirely, and make the second level the top level.
So, bank of American will take www.bankofamerica and the phishers on.bank and.finance are the same people who can register bankofamerica.bank.com or bankofamerica.finance.com already.
Actually there are quite a few commercial apps for Linux that require authentication over a network. Most Linux users don't know about it because most Linux users find the free apps that come with a good distro more than adequate for their purposes.
Passing the handling of hardware related bugs to developers is stupid. In that case videogames would support only specific system configurations and refuse to run on a different hardware. Do you want that?
But it is their responsibility whether it should be or not. You have a game. It's glitchy. Most people blame the developer.
They only need to support the popular configurations. nVidia, AMD, possibly the crappy Intel chipsets because they're so common.
If they *want* to support only specific configurations and therefore cut out a huge chunk of their customer base, just to save what is typically a pretty small amount of developer an test time, then they have that right.
Slashdot Mirror
Illustrates the problem nicely.
There are more sheep than wolves. Nevertheless, mutton's still on the menu.
Sex without a condom isn't the alleged crime. Sex without consent it, and whether consent was given is rather complex here.
Thought the goiong rate was three magic Java beans.
They weren't prostitutes because they didn't ask for money. Had this happened in ancient Israel, it depends on your translation on the verse. He could be obliged to pay her father 50 shekels of silver and be obliged to marry her and may never divorce. However, Exodus 22:16-17 is a lot clearer on the matter. "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."
Clearly this happened in modern Sweden where Biblical law does not apply, but if you're going to post religious trolls at least get your facts right.
The thing is, I know that android is adequate for my needs. WP7 doesn't promise to be any better, and may be worse. Given the cost of a smartphone, I'm going to be a little conservative here.
Maybe MS could do an offer - free replacement with an Android phone if you don't like it. I'd consider taking them up on that.
They'd have been a latecomer to a saturated market. Windows may have been a risk, but at this stage, delaying entry into the android market for another year isn't going to be a huge cost.
Well, blocking "unsupported" browsers is annoying. Sometimes a site will work adequately.
Simply not making any efforts would seem reasonable. Add a warning banner if you want to point out it's the user's fault.
I agree.
I guess there's a followup - why are the cheapies so problematic?
I'm of the opinion that that's the idea.
.com, the .com is pointless.
When every company and organisation and even most networks want a
. You want to reward debtors, which is the same thing as punishing savers.
Surely this only applies is wealth is fixed. But wealth is created. My understanding of this is that by turning a much of bits of metal and oil into a refrigerator, we create "wealth", since a fridge is worth a lot more than its raw materials.
But the economics of this require someone owes someone something at some point. Given that a borrower pays back the loan with interest, and the savers get a share of that interest, debt rewards savers and debtors.
They only have an obligation to remove material when they are made aware of it infringing under the DMCA. They're only liable for the commercial copyright infringement if the plaintiff can demonstrate that copyright infringement is deliberate.
Yeah, I guess you're right. But if they don't do that, the worst they have to put up with is someone being mean about them on the internet.
But nobody's even asking them to do that.
The point is, if your business model benefits from other people's material, then you really should accept that some people are going to accuse you of profiting from other people's material.
Slashdot tends to be pretty blasé about this sort of infringemtn. Most of us get upset when lawyers are called in.
No, guaranteed end-to-end quality is a private trunk line from point to point.
There are protocols that offer guaranteed Quality of service, without dedicating all the bandwidth. If not all of the bandwidth is used, other applications can use the spare capacity. This is something that can be provided relatively inexpensively, to varying levels.
Preventing an ISP adding jitter to force people into using this would be hard, but Net Neutrality is an absolute ban on the protocols and that seems overkill.
So, suppose an ISP wants to market itself to gamers. It provides a high speed connection to game servers, negotiates a direct connection, and offers guaranteed bandwidth and latency. Web packets as a result my be delayed by a fraction of a second.
Is this not a service that gamers might want? Is it not something that would be illegal with net neutrality?
The law is a blunt instrument. if you make something illegal, you catch a lot more than what you intend.
Vertical Video Syndrome: Just say no!
It's a design patent. It's closer to trademark protection than patent protection in how its used. It protects the look of an item. A particularly famous example is the design of the Coke bottle.
You can't get a design patent for basic functional details. The fact that it's made of two parts, that the front is thinner than the back, and it's hinged are purely functional. The specifics - the curves and contours that only serve an aesthetic purpose - can be protected.
Nobody I personally know uses Java, or at least nobody did until I got a job in it.
What I mean is nobody uses Haskell for any area of software development, to a substantial degree that learning it makes any sense. There's essentially no community development support for it in any field.
I do mean nobody important or worthwhile. I apologise if this offends you.
That is about the size of it. I know a bit of perl because I wanted to do some web scripts, and at the time, perl was the best language. I know a bit of Java because I wanted to write some mobile phone apps and Java's the only properly supported language for Android.
I don't know Haskell because nobody uses it so I've had no need to learn.
Google is a successful company, but this isn't so much about their testing practices. Or hiring practices, or development practices, work culture or anything like that. Simply that they cornered the search market.
Anyone can have a successful company if you have a product good enough or different enough to dominate a niche.
True.
In practice, this is taken into account. A plaintiff who tries to raise his legal costs ridiculously to price his opponent out is likely only to receive reasonable costs
Make everything on your local network a .com. In 5 years time, .com is going to look so 20th century that people will avoid it like the plague:)
I think this is a fudge for .com being redundant. Every organisation wants to be {their name}.com whether they're a commercial organisation or not. As a result, you might as well eliminate it entirely, and make the second level the top level.
.bank and .finance are the same people who can register bankofamerica.bank.com or bankofamerica.finance.com already.
So, bank of American will take www.bankofamerica and the phishers on
Actually there are quite a few commercial apps for Linux that require authentication over a network. Most Linux users don't know about it because most Linux users find the free apps that come with a good distro more than adequate for their purposes.
Passing the handling of hardware related bugs to developers is stupid. In that case videogames would support only specific system configurations and refuse to run on a different hardware. Do you want that?
But it is their responsibility whether it should be or not. You have a game. It's glitchy. Most people blame the developer.
They only need to support the popular configurations. nVidia, AMD, possibly the crappy Intel chipsets because they're so common.
If they *want* to support only specific configurations and therefore cut out a huge chunk of their customer base, just to save what is typically a pretty small amount of developer an test time, then they have that right.