Making an interface that actually works properly on both Mouse+keyboard and gamepad(never mind wii stick) falls into the "squaring the circle with world peace" pile.
Sigh. See, now this is exactly the nonsense that pisses me and millions of other PC owners off. You don't hear Ferrari execs saying that they will start making sensible 4-door saloons with 80bhp because 99% of the roads in the world won't even allow you to go over 120km/h.
I have no objection to some studios producing games for mainstream (afterall, we do need Kias and Volkswagens), but the problem is that nobody is making a Ferrari anymore. The last one was Crysis, released in november 2007. Game developers have the advantage over car manufacturers that they can produce a Ferrari for the same price a Volkswagen would cost, yet they keep being held back by investors that seem to be hellbent on mainstream. If there is nothing at all to be starry-eyed over, the mainstream will lose it's appeal too.
As far as games go, the performance crown is still held by Crysis, which was released almost two years ago. On the hardware front, we were just marveling at our q9400's and eagerly awaiting the new g92 cards from nVidia at that time, look how far we've progressed! Meanwhile, on the software front nothing has happened to be starry-eyed about.
We want a game that doesn't run again, like Crysis did the first time we subjected our poor socket 939 rigs to it. I don't understand that nobody is doing this at all, and i havent heard of any plans in the pipeline either, which basically means that Crysis will at least be able to celebrate its 30th month on the throne before it is replaced.
The saddest bit of gamenews for me was when i read about CryEngine 3, that isn't built to finally step forwards again, but to be able to run on Xbox and PS3.
MAJOR FAIL MONSIEUR FUNGUS.:(
BUT: Direct X 11 is coming. A grand total of 6 (six) games have announced that they will be using it. Only one of these games is PC-exclusive, and that is a BattForge, a game that's been out for a while that will receive a graphical refresh. If I understand the article correctly, this means that all the others are watered-down for consoles. Cheers.
Companies stay in business by selling games that run, not games that don't run.
Well I'm a PC gamer and PC's are the far superior platform, as any real gamer like me knows. Anyone who doesn't use a mouse and keyboard is clearly inferior to me and lacks my intelligence and superior taste in gaming. If you want to know more on the subject, just come to the videogame store where I work sometime. I regularly spend hours there snobbishly berating console game buying customers and informing them of my superiority.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play the pompous villain in an 80's teen flick. Ferrari is the ONLY car to drive, you know.
Poser, real gamers don't use PC, except as an emulator. The only system a real gamers needs is the original NES.
True, but I would argue that Ebonics is a more valid and complete language/dialect, being that it arose naturally.
For those who haven't studied linguistics, yes, every dialect has its own grammatical rules. Those who speak a dialect learn the rules by example rather than from books - the same way you know (if you're a native English speaker) that "the big red ball" is correct and "the red big ball" is incorrect. Nobody taught you that. Most of the rules of language, in fact, are embedded in your brain before you ever go to school - how else could you talk?
I suggest you go to Columbus, Ga and try to order something more complicated than "number 7 with Coke" from the drive-through.
Is this a trick question? The simple answer would be because you are interested in Star Wars trivia. Just because you are interested doesn't stop it being trivia. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I often go to Wikipedia to look up stuff on TV show myself, and I think they should have a certain level of trivia there because it is likely to be of interest to people looking at the article. Although they do have to draw a line somewhere, it would be going too far to include every last minutia of information about a work of fiction.
Sure they have to draw the line, that line occurs at copyright infringement. But if people are willing to contribute and maintain articles, they should let them stand. Its not like disk space should be an issue.
As for being acceptable sources of research material, encyclopedias stopped being accepted in middle school. So that pretty much classifies everything in them as trivia.
I think she did right. I agree that it is unfair for the targeted policemen, but she tested the invasive laws' safeguards. Policemen can exchange private data with impunity. She shows that we can't exchange public data without troubles. There is one theory that says that the privacy invasion that the police is authorized to do is balanced by the public scrutiny they are under. This event is a counter argument to this theory.
The names and addresses may be public information.
But they're daily habits and off duty activities are not. So following her around while they're minding their own business makes her nothing more than a stalker.
"the encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit", and it pretty much was until a ruling clique formed!
I think they are trying to keep it from degenerating into a blog, or a chat space, or an encyclopedia of trivial things like the Star Wars universe. Some wikis, like Wookiepedia, started out because Wikipedia kept kicking out certain stuff, like exhaustive detail of the Star Wars universe.
Preventing it from becoming a chat space or blog is fine.
But the so-called trivial elements like Star Wars universe make wikipedia a one stop shop for information. I know that I've looked up stuff and someone has flagged the article for deletion because it was supposedly trivial. If it were actually trivial, why am I as an end user looking at it?
Don't worry then. It's the same paper it always was and it's content hasn't shifted. The same people write for it, and the opinion section is full of insane jackasses. And if you think it's frothing in bias, you can take your pick of a dozen other "liberal" media outlets which are still full of insane jackasses. And still continuing to froth in bias.
Option #3:
The creator used evolution as a tool to create existence. Existence demands conflict.=
Without bad, there is no good.
With good comes desire to strive for good.
Striving for good leads to competition.
Where the fuck did you pull this one?
Competition is created because of scarce resources, not a desire for good.
A desire for good creates a desire to share your resources with those who to not less.
Without competition, existence is stale. A perfect world, free of conflict, can not exist, as it would be stale and, therefore, not perfect. Therefore, existence must be flawed; it demands imperfection. Therefore, the toolset of existence - evolution (for living creatures) - must be flawed.
If the creator used a perfect tool, existence would be null. Thus, a flawless creator must use a flawed tool.
Therefore must be evil in heaven, and conflict with evil must continue on for eternity. Because without conflict existence itself would become stale and imperfect.
This fails, please refer to a book in your bible called Genesis, where the world was created in this manner. And because the alleged creator did create perfect world, the so called "Garden of Eden", this conclusion is wrong.
This is something that I've always found hard to understand with the argument for evolution. Surely the natural selection process would strongly bias against any traits that result in the animal being killed off in the first few minutes. (And likewise a strong bias towards traits that improve birth mortality rates). Yet we see so many instances of "poor design" in the birth process. Four in this article alone.
If natural selection does such a "poor" job of refining the birthing mechanism when there is a clear correlation between some new (good or bad) trait and the likelihood of that trait being propagated to future generations, then how can we reasonably expect that it is also responsible for highly refined systems where there is a much lower correlation between the new trait and the likelihood of producing offspring. (For example, in esoteric features of the imune system, or the brain - the new trait may only even come into play in certain situations during the animals life, and therefore only has any selective power in the specific animals for which it occurs... unlike traits relating to birth which are immediately tested for all creatures)
If evolution is about compromise, then the most obvious compromises would favour succesful birth. If birth is unsuccesful than other traits don't even get a chance to be tested.
Considering the following.
Evolution is flawed, makes sense because its an ongoing process.
Creatures are flawed, through the deliberate act of the creator. That makes the creator either a dipshit, or an asshole.
The WSJ is a very high quality newspaper. One of the few and the only major paper that has had drastic cut backs in staffing and still does substantial research.
Murdoch is a jerk but the WSJ deserves respect as a great paper
Was a very high quality newspaper. I dropped my subscription shortly after Mrudoch took over; now its just another conservative rag.
If C++ had a set of GUI libraries that were part of the standard and could be counted on to be in every compiler...
Hate to bust your bubble there sonny, but the new C++ specification has ALL SORTS of crap that won't translate to a lot of platforms. For instance, multithreading will be built into the language... but what about something like DOS where there is no threads? Or something that uses bazaar threading mechanisms like protothreads/contiki?
What about the Altair 8800? We have to make sure the new C++ spec supports it too!
The world trade center was destroyed, not spraypainted.
Is still an attack on private property, where people work for ideological purposes.
Your reference to RICO and the Patriot Act are nonsensical, and it would be extremely unlikely for provisions of either act to be used to prosecute Greenpeace, even if they were killing people. In reality, you are making yourself appear to be dangerously crazed or seriously misinformed as to the nature of those Acts.
RICO can be used to go after the money; in the fact that the organization is a criminal enterprise.
The Patriot Act can be used in the fact that even an eco-terrorist, it still a terrorist.
This act was not intended to incite terror, nor was it terribly political in nature. Therefore Greenpeace cannot be labelled as terrorists of any flavor. Were there any demands issued? Ransoms? Threats? Did anyone get hurt?
The demand was simple, stop using certain chemicals; HP did not comply.
Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."
They broke in and vandalized the building because HP would not give into their demands. By doing what they did they made a point beyond just the writing on the roof; they told HP that they can do whatever they wanted to. Kind of like leaving a dead horses head for somebody.
You may not like them, and frankly you're not alone. But calling them terrorists makes you look bad, not them. This is just a clever stunt---it doesn't even rise to the level of civil disobedience.
What they did goes beyond civil disobedience. As I said earlier, if HP does't comply with their demands to stop using poisonous chemicals, what's next arson?
I really must emphasize that you are working against yourself here. Your vehemence drives reasonable people away from your position, regardless of its merit. Howard Dean was a prime example of this.
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
There is a Microsoft based solution; it just usually involves uninstalling all their products.
Killing somebody for trespassing is murder, both morally and legally. If you really are worried about your safety, you would call the police first and only confront them when directly threatened. By purposely confronting them you increase the threat to yourself and anyone with you if they happen to really be dangerous.
On top of this, you're commenting about something that has happened to commercial property, not your private residence.
The World Trade Center was commercial property.
Greenpeace and PETA are nothing more the eco-terrorists and deserve to be hit with both RICO and Patriot Act.
Firing a weapon in a pressurized cabin is serious business. If a weapon is seen, it needs to be known that it is a real threat before risking firing at the person holding it and possibly damaging the aircraft and forcing an emergency landing, which may be unsuccessful and kill everyone on board. It started with not wanting to fire a gun unless you see a gun (meet threat with equal threat), and toy guns could look quite real. So they're banned. As are even 2-dimensional pictures of guns, including on T-shirts (however futuristic Optimus Prime may be, he's got a gun). By eliminating all false positives, you greatly reduce the possibility of errors of firing on a toy or not firing on a real weapon mistaken for a toy.
But other weapons could be harmful to passengers and you want to be able to protect individuals, so drawing a gun on knives and swords become permitted. Your enforcers on aircraft are specially trained to know how to safely fire on an aircraft, so they can fire on non-guns too. So toy versions of those weapons are banned too.
If someone were stupid enough to market black leather gloves imprinted with the image of a gun such that by extending the first and second digits it would look like you're holding a real gun, black leather gloves would be banned too.
An in effective process, probably invented by an MBA who thinks that with enough processes in place everything will be better.
For the next phase, the process people will introduce "passports" for people they trust and have been pre-screened for travel. No wait...
Congratulation Trina Thompson, you have just made yourself completely unemployable.
That outstanding GPA of you're is only applicable to the first job. But your impatience in this job market and desire to sue instead of taking taking personal responsibility has just made you unemployable; perhaps for the rest of your life.
Why do Segways provoke this reaction? The reason you look like a dork riding a Segway is that you look smug. You don't seem to be working hard enough.
No, you are an idiot. Segway riders don't look smug, nobody actually cares about the expression on their face.
Have you actually looked at these people? Segway riders look like dorks because of the helmet. Slowly gliding around the mall with that safety gear poping above the crowd. They really look stupid. If the SHT riders actually need safety gear, they shouldn't be riding them through malls with the pedestrian traffic. If they don't need it, then they shouldn't be wearing it.
I would like to congratulate you for making money off of 15 year old software and keeping it alive.
You're going way beyond what is required by the GPL.
You are allowed to sell the software and make a profit and no you don't have to share any of it. If you do have a desire to share your profits, make sure you get their SSNs and report that information to the IRS.:-) I mean you wouldn't want them to be breaking the law by having unreported income would you?
Wrong, the correct answer is: "We will discontinue the sale, but we can not remove existing copies from a users' devices." Then raise a stink if the publisher tries to coerce them to do otherwise
Since they have proven that they can remove the copy from the user's device (by doing so) if they said they could not, that would not be the "correct answer", it would be a lie. And, if the failure to remove the infringing data was a "will not", not a "can not", it would seem to be trivial to prove that any further infringement (by keeping it on the device) was wilful. (if they could remove it but _chose_ not to)
Consider the legal ramifications for unauthorized deletion of data from somebody else's machine.
I would be very interesting for some state or federal prosecutor to file charges against the copyright holders/enforcers and Amazon for hacking the users machines for the unauthorized removal of the books. Think the agents and publishers getting busted for conspiracy and as accessories to various computer crime laws Amazon may have violated.
Slashdot Mirror
Making an interface that actually works properly on both Mouse+keyboard and gamepad(never mind wii stick) falls into the "squaring the circle with world peace" pile.
Sigh. See, now this is exactly the nonsense that pisses me and millions of other PC owners off. You don't hear Ferrari execs saying that they will start making sensible 4-door saloons with 80bhp because 99% of the roads in the world won't even allow you to go over 120km/h.
I have no objection to some studios producing games for mainstream (afterall, we do need Kias and Volkswagens), but the problem is that nobody is making a Ferrari anymore. The last one was Crysis, released in november 2007. Game developers have the advantage over car manufacturers that they can produce a Ferrari for the same price a Volkswagen would cost, yet they keep being held back by investors that seem to be hellbent on mainstream. If there is nothing at all to be starry-eyed over, the mainstream will lose it's appeal too.
As far as games go, the performance crown is still held by Crysis, which was released almost two years ago. On the hardware front, we were just marveling at our q9400's and eagerly awaiting the new g92 cards from nVidia at that time, look how far we've progressed! Meanwhile, on the software front nothing has happened to be starry-eyed about.
We want a game that doesn't run again, like Crysis did the first time we subjected our poor socket 939 rigs to it. I don't understand that nobody is doing this at all, and i havent heard of any plans in the pipeline either, which basically means that Crysis will at least be able to celebrate its 30th month on the throne before it is replaced. The saddest bit of gamenews for me was when i read about CryEngine 3, that isn't built to finally step forwards again, but to be able to run on Xbox and PS3.
MAJOR FAIL MONSIEUR FUNGUS. :(
BUT: Direct X 11 is coming. A grand total of 6 (six) games have announced that they will be using it. Only one of these games is PC-exclusive, and that is a BattForge, a game that's been out for a while that will receive a graphical refresh. If I understand the article correctly, this means that all the others are watered-down for consoles. Cheers.
Companies stay in business by selling games that run, not games that don't run.
Well I'm a PC gamer and PC's are the far superior platform, as any real gamer like me knows. Anyone who doesn't use a mouse and keyboard is clearly inferior to me and lacks my intelligence and superior taste in gaming. If you want to know more on the subject, just come to the videogame store where I work sometime. I regularly spend hours there snobbishly berating console game buying customers and informing them of my superiority.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play the pompous villain in an 80's teen flick. Ferrari is the ONLY car to drive, you know.
Poser, real gamers don't use PC, except as an emulator. The only system a real gamers needs is the original NES.
True, but I would argue that Ebonics is a more valid and complete language/dialect, being that it arose naturally.
For those who haven't studied linguistics, yes, every dialect has its own grammatical rules. Those who speak a dialect learn the rules by example rather than from books - the same way you know (if you're a native English speaker) that "the big red ball" is correct and "the red big ball" is incorrect. Nobody taught you that. Most of the rules of language, in fact, are embedded in your brain before you ever go to school - how else could you talk?
I suggest you go to Columbus, Ga and try to order something more complicated than "number 7 with Coke" from the drive-through.
Is this a trick question? The simple answer would be because you are interested in Star Wars trivia. Just because you are interested doesn't stop it being trivia. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I often go to Wikipedia to look up stuff on TV show myself, and I think they should have a certain level of trivia there because it is likely to be of interest to people looking at the article. Although they do have to draw a line somewhere, it would be going too far to include every last minutia of information about a work of fiction.
Sure they have to draw the line, that line occurs at copyright infringement. But if people are willing to contribute and maintain articles, they should let them stand. Its not like disk space should be an issue.
As for being acceptable sources of research material, encyclopedias stopped being accepted in middle school. So that pretty much classifies everything in them as trivia.
I think she did right. I agree that it is unfair for the targeted policemen, but she tested the invasive laws' safeguards. Policemen can exchange private data with impunity. She shows that we can't exchange public data without troubles. There is one theory that says that the privacy invasion that the police is authorized to do is balanced by the public scrutiny they are under. This event is a counter argument to this theory.
The names and addresses may be public information.
But they're daily habits and off duty activities are not. So following her around while they're minding their own business makes her nothing more than a stalker.
"the encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit", and it pretty much was until a ruling clique formed!
I think they are trying to keep it from degenerating into a blog, or a chat space, or an encyclopedia of trivial things like the Star Wars universe. Some wikis, like Wookiepedia, started out because Wikipedia kept kicking out certain stuff, like exhaustive detail of the Star Wars universe.
Preventing it from becoming a chat space or blog is fine.
But the so-called trivial elements like Star Wars universe make wikipedia a one stop shop for information. I know that I've looked up stuff and someone has flagged the article for deletion because it was supposedly trivial. If it were actually trivial, why am I as an end user looking at it?
Huh? I don't see any evidence the story quality has dropped and th editorial page has always been nuts.
It certainly feels like it shifted. Or maybe just the seemed like the number of actual news articles went down.
And I hate editorial pages in all papers, its all worthless bullshit, and both liberal and conservative sides are totally disgusting.
Don't worry then. It's the same paper it always was and it's content hasn't shifted. The same people write for it, and the opinion section is full of insane jackasses. And if you think it's frothing in bias, you can take your pick of a dozen other "liberal" media outlets which are still full of insane jackasses. And still continuing to froth in bias.
I'll stick with "The Economist".
That last part should be read that your dogma falls flat in its own context much less any actual rational analysis.
Option #3: The creator used evolution as a tool to create existence. Existence demands conflict.= Without bad, there is no good. With good comes desire to strive for good. Striving for good leads to competition.
Where the fuck did you pull this one?
Competition is created because of scarce resources, not a desire for good.
A desire for good creates a desire to share your resources with those who to not less.
Without competition, existence is stale. A perfect world, free of conflict, can not exist, as it would be stale and, therefore, not perfect. Therefore, existence must be flawed; it demands imperfection. Therefore, the toolset of existence - evolution (for living creatures) - must be flawed. If the creator used a perfect tool, existence would be null. Thus, a flawless creator must use a flawed tool.
Therefore must be evil in heaven, and conflict with evil must continue on for eternity. Because without conflict existence itself would become stale and imperfect.
This fails, please refer to a book in your bible called Genesis, where the world was created in this manner. And because the alleged creator did create perfect world, the so called "Garden of Eden", this conclusion is wrong.
This is something that I've always found hard to understand with the argument for evolution. Surely the natural selection process would strongly bias against any traits that result in the animal being killed off in the first few minutes. (And likewise a strong bias towards traits that improve birth mortality rates). Yet we see so many instances of "poor design" in the birth process. Four in this article alone.
If natural selection does such a "poor" job of refining the birthing mechanism when there is a clear correlation between some new (good or bad) trait and the likelihood of that trait being propagated to future generations, then how can we reasonably expect that it is also responsible for highly refined systems where there is a much lower correlation between the new trait and the likelihood of producing offspring. (For example, in esoteric features of the imune system, or the brain - the new trait may only even come into play in certain situations during the animals life, and therefore only has any selective power in the specific animals for which it occurs ... unlike traits relating to birth which are immediately tested for all creatures)
If evolution is about compromise, then the most obvious compromises would favour succesful birth. If birth is unsuccesful than other traits don't even get a chance to be tested.
Considering the following.
Evolution is flawed, makes sense because its an ongoing process.
Creatures are flawed, through the deliberate act of the creator. That makes the creator either a dipshit, or an asshole.
Take your choice.
Did you evern RTFA at all before you spouted your drivel!?
This is /., of course not.
The WSJ is a very high quality newspaper. One of the few and the only major paper that has had drastic cut backs in staffing and still does substantial research.
Murdoch is a jerk but the WSJ deserves respect as a great paper
Was a very high quality newspaper. I dropped my subscription shortly after Mrudoch took over; now its just another conservative rag.
If C++ had a set of GUI libraries that were part of the standard and could be counted on to be in every compiler... Hate to bust your bubble there sonny, but the new C++ specification has ALL SORTS of crap that won't translate to a lot of platforms. For instance, multithreading will be built into the language... but what about something like DOS where there is no threads? Or something that uses bazaar threading mechanisms like protothreads/contiki?
What about the Altair 8800? We have to make sure the new C++ spec supports it too!
The world trade center was destroyed, not spraypainted.
Is still an attack on private property, where people work for ideological purposes.
Your reference to RICO and the Patriot Act are nonsensical, and it would be extremely unlikely for provisions of either act to be used to prosecute Greenpeace, even if they were killing people. In reality, you are making yourself appear to be dangerously crazed or seriously misinformed as to the nature of those Acts.
RICO can be used to go after the money; in the fact that the organization is a criminal enterprise.
The Patriot Act can be used in the fact that even an eco-terrorist, it still a terrorist.
This act was not intended to incite terror, nor was it terribly political in nature. Therefore Greenpeace cannot be labelled as terrorists of any flavor. Were there any demands issued? Ransoms? Threats? Did anyone get hurt?
The demand was simple, stop using certain chemicals; HP did not comply.
Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."
They broke in and vandalized the building because HP would not give into their demands. By doing what they did they made a point beyond just the writing on the roof; they told HP that they can do whatever they wanted to. Kind of like leaving a dead horses head for somebody.
You may not like them, and frankly you're not alone. But calling them terrorists makes you look bad, not them. This is just a clever stunt---it doesn't even rise to the level of civil disobedience.
What they did goes beyond civil disobedience. As I said earlier, if HP does't comply with their demands to stop using poisonous chemicals, what's next arson?
I really must emphasize that you are working against yourself here. Your vehemence drives reasonable people away from your position, regardless of its merit. Howard Dean was a prime example of this.
Reasonable people don't tolerate this BS.
Surprised it took them this long, perhaps.
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
There is a Microsoft based solution; it just usually involves uninstalling all their products.
LOL... You gave the standard answer, even briefly mentioning Dell. Macs are still way more expensive though.
That's because Macs don't use the POS Intel graphics chips.
Killing somebody for trespassing is murder, both morally and legally. If you really are worried about your safety, you would call the police first and only confront them when directly threatened. By purposely confronting them you increase the threat to yourself and anyone with you if they happen to really be dangerous.
On top of this, you're commenting about something that has happened to commercial property, not your private residence.
The World Trade Center was commercial property.
Greenpeace and PETA are nothing more the eco-terrorists and deserve to be hit with both RICO and Patriot Act.
Hey Greenpeace, guess what, the paint thinner and sealant they're going to use to undo your vandalism is toxic!
Lusers!
Just because China has a "communist" government doesn't mean they murder children at random. The Cold War is over, you can come outside now.
They are murderers and it has nothing to do with the label they stick on it on their government; they're a totalitarian regime.
Firing a weapon in a pressurized cabin is serious business. If a weapon is seen, it needs to be known that it is a real threat before risking firing at the person holding it and possibly damaging the aircraft and forcing an emergency landing, which may be unsuccessful and kill everyone on board. It started with not wanting to fire a gun unless you see a gun (meet threat with equal threat), and toy guns could look quite real. So they're banned. As are even 2-dimensional pictures of guns, including on T-shirts (however futuristic Optimus Prime may be, he's got a gun). By eliminating all false positives, you greatly reduce the possibility of errors of firing on a toy or not firing on a real weapon mistaken for a toy.
But other weapons could be harmful to passengers and you want to be able to protect individuals, so drawing a gun on knives and swords become permitted. Your enforcers on aircraft are specially trained to know how to safely fire on an aircraft, so they can fire on non-guns too. So toy versions of those weapons are banned too.
If someone were stupid enough to market black leather gloves imprinted with the image of a gun such that by extending the first and second digits it would look like you're holding a real gun, black leather gloves would be banned too.
An in effective process, probably invented by an MBA who thinks that with enough processes in place everything will be better.
For the next phase, the process people will introduce "passports" for people they trust and have been pre-screened for travel. No wait...
Congratulation Trina Thompson, you have just made yourself completely unemployable.
That outstanding GPA of you're is only applicable to the first job. But your impatience in this job market and desire to sue instead of taking taking personal responsibility has just made you unemployable; perhaps for the rest of your life.
Why do Segways provoke this reaction? The reason you look like a dork riding a Segway is that you look smug. You don't seem to be working hard enough.
No, you are an idiot. Segway riders don't look smug, nobody actually cares about the expression on their face.
Have you actually looked at these people? Segway riders look like dorks because of the helmet. Slowly gliding around the mall with that safety gear poping above the crowd. They really look stupid. If the SHT riders actually need safety gear, they shouldn't be riding them through malls with the pedestrian traffic. If they don't need it, then they shouldn't be wearing it.
I would like to congratulate you for making money off of 15 year old software and keeping it alive.
You're going way beyond what is required by the GPL.
You are allowed to sell the software and make a profit and no you don't have to share any of it. If you do have a desire to share your profits, make sure you get their SSNs and report that information to the IRS. :-) I mean you wouldn't want them to be breaking the law by having unreported income would you?
Wrong, the correct answer is: "We will discontinue the sale, but we can not remove existing copies from a users' devices." Then raise a stink if the publisher tries to coerce them to do otherwise
Since they have proven that they can remove the copy from the user's device (by doing so) if they said they could not, that would not be the "correct answer", it would be a lie. And, if the failure to remove the infringing data was a "will not", not a "can not", it would seem to be trivial to prove that any further infringement (by keeping it on the device) was wilful. (if they could remove it but _chose_ not to)
Consider the legal ramifications for unauthorized deletion of data from somebody else's machine.
I would be very interesting for some state or federal prosecutor to file charges against the copyright holders/enforcers and Amazon for hacking the users machines for the unauthorized removal of the books. Think the agents and publishers getting busted for conspiracy and as accessories to various computer crime laws Amazon may have violated.