If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.
horrible analogy. when you go back to the doctor with the infection, regardless of whether you followed instructions, the doctor charges you for that second visit. if you don't (or your insurance doesn't) pay, they don't have to treat it.
yeah but that's only data directly relevant to the subject you're looking at. the really interesting mashups cross reference other things that put the data they present into different perspectives. like, say, fetching a list of species in zones that have high number of EIS researched, or lawsuits/complaints related to pollution or dumping waste.
or maybe they harass us because they're underpaid and trained to intimidate. and not well educated. and so many other things that have nothing to do with the number of scanners available for use.
bic. bic lighters are making a fucking fortune as a result of the TSA. more disposable and ubiquitous at airports than nail clippers. there are more people who smoke daily than people who happen to need a nail clipper that week.
i was with you until IE6. it's your duty as a developer to royally bitchslap the living fuck out of anyone still using that browser. no mercy, no excuses. IE6 is unsupported and dead. dead dead. 0xDEADDEAD, microsoft says STOP, error. 0xDEADBEEF dead. your memory of IE6 has been freed up and you may no longer reference it. fuggetaboutit. if you're being paid enough money to convince yourself otherwise, a simple IE targeted stylesheet (included via conditional comments) is enough to pixel push it back into shape.
disorderly conduct by itself, no. but if they suspect the person organized or encouraged the disorderly conduct with unprotected speech (equivalent to yelling fire in a theater) over the twitter medium, then this sounds like a normal investigation. the context here is the OWS protest. if i organize a group on facebook to do something illegal, and all the feds have on me is a charge for disturbing the peace, then the next logical step would be to get a warrant for the facebook data. it's how police use probable cause to boost a "tail light out" warning into a "2 kilos in the trunk" felony.
doctors don't know shit anymore. if your symptoms match up to a drug they've been lobbied to prescribe then there you go, take 2, call in the morning and if it's not better we'll up the dosage. does any sane or competent doctor prescribe an antidepressant whose side effects include suicidal thoughts (paroxetine)? doctors are prescribing drugs for scurvy, ffs. the AMA will not give a shit if you diagnose yourself and get your own drugs as long as there's some way for them to bill you for it.
i guess we could go around in circles with this because i don't think any layman jury is qualified to make that shortcut for the judge. trusting laymen to decide something they don't comprehend (worse, they think they do) does nothing except misinform the judge as to whether it's pertinent that he rule on the copyright. it's specious. the fact that nobody in the room knows wtf is going on should tell the judge he needs to get better information from better sources and weigh that instead of the musings of a room full of bus drivers and secretaries.
(hypothetical)
judge: jury, you say they didn't violate. now i don't have to decide the copyright issue.
jury: but we also don't know shit what we're talking about
judge: so you're basically saying i asked the equivalent of tax advice from a group of 5 year olds who can't even agree what income is, and whose education on economics boils down to a lemonade stand metaphor?
jury: basically
judge: meh. all i know is now i don't have to work. thanks for your invaluable contribution! justice is served once again!
maybe i'm missing something but this judge is going to make that broad ruling anyway. we're sitting on our hands waiting for it. the jury was instructed to make a decision based on a hypothetical situation, not a definitive one, so their decision is meaningless without the judge's broader ruling. this judge is not going to squirm his way out of making a precedent (in the US anyway), he's simply too shitty at boolean logic to even come close to being qualified to rule on the issue.
so what if the judge decides that APIs can be copyrighted? you're probably thinking, "great, instead of wasting time, the jury already spent the time debating it." that's horrible. in all this time it's taking the judge to decide whether the jury is even necessary, the court could spend its time more wisely by:
1. searching for a qualified jury pool of industry professionals who might actually know a thing or two about code and APIs. i expect this would take longer than usual to eliminate bias as much as possible.
or
2. educating the jury as much as possible (necessarily this means using up every available minute of every day on this education) until the judge decides they are necessary.
seriously, if juries can be instructed well enough to decide this in the time they've been given, then work experience is doing it wrong.
i think it was retarded. how about deciding if they CAN first? and if they CAN be copyrighted, then decide if they DID violate. but if they can't be copyrighted then don't waste a whole jury's time debating potentially useless questions that they are magnificently ill equipped to solve. if the judge decides that APIs can't be copyrighted, then he wasted everyone's fucking time with this pointless exercise (besides the fact that he's asked a bunch of laymen who will never truly understand this stuff in their lifetimes), not to mention spreading all the conjecture and rumors this potentially moot point generated. fuck this judge til he limps, he's a moron. i have no faith in his ability to consider this legal issue with what little understanding of logic he portrays.
what if they just hashed their corned beef and added salt? add some eggs and a glass of juice, that's a tasty breakfast. and more beneficial than the entire argument being had here.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah like those guys who went to the moon. what a bunch of assholes!
no, leave it there. that's where it belongs.
i submitted this same story addressing this same angle, but they ran someone else's submission instead. probably thought it was trolling.
If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.
horrible analogy. when you go back to the doctor with the infection, regardless of whether you followed instructions, the doctor charges you for that second visit. if you don't (or your insurance doesn't) pay, they don't have to treat it.
yeah but that's only data directly relevant to the subject you're looking at. the really interesting mashups cross reference other things that put the data they present into different perspectives. like, say, fetching a list of species in zones that have high number of EIS researched, or lawsuits/complaints related to pollution or dumping waste.
i got into a broken atm's maintenance area using 000000, the old BREW default
or maybe they harass us because they're underpaid and trained to intimidate. and not well educated. and so many other things that have nothing to do with the number of scanners available for use.
is someone going to make a google maps mashup of this or do i have to do it myself?
my friend's mom's fake tits are the bomb, and there's no scar there either.
yep. cuz if they would just use all that security equipment they paid for then all the groping and cancer that we pay for would be justified...
bic. bic lighters are making a fucking fortune as a result of the TSA. more disposable and ubiquitous at airports than nail clippers. there are more people who smoke daily than people who happen to need a nail clipper that week.
not all cynical irony is trolling. some people are just facetious because it makes the frustration hurt less.
i was with you until IE6. it's your duty as a developer to royally bitchslap the living fuck out of anyone still using that browser. no mercy, no excuses. IE6 is unsupported and dead. dead dead. 0xDEADDEAD, microsoft says STOP, error. 0xDEADBEEF dead. your memory of IE6 has been freed up and you may no longer reference it. fuggetaboutit. if you're being paid enough money to convince yourself otherwise, a simple IE targeted stylesheet (included via conditional comments) is enough to pixel push it back into shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe#Quantum_fluctuation
disorderly conduct by itself, no. but if they suspect the person organized or encouraged the disorderly conduct with unprotected speech (equivalent to yelling fire in a theater) over the twitter medium, then this sounds like a normal investigation. the context here is the OWS protest. if i organize a group on facebook to do something illegal, and all the feds have on me is a charge for disturbing the peace, then the next logical step would be to get a warrant for the facebook data. it's how police use probable cause to boost a "tail light out" warning into a "2 kilos in the trunk" felony.
close. it's NEVAR!!!!!!!!!!!11111eleven
doctors don't know shit anymore. if your symptoms match up to a drug they've been lobbied to prescribe then there you go, take 2, call in the morning and if it's not better we'll up the dosage. does any sane or competent doctor prescribe an antidepressant whose side effects include suicidal thoughts (paroxetine)? doctors are prescribing drugs for scurvy, ffs. the AMA will not give a shit if you diagnose yourself and get your own drugs as long as there's some way for them to bill you for it.
i guess we could go around in circles with this because i don't think any layman jury is qualified to make that shortcut for the judge. trusting laymen to decide something they don't comprehend (worse, they think they do) does nothing except misinform the judge as to whether it's pertinent that he rule on the copyright. it's specious. the fact that nobody in the room knows wtf is going on should tell the judge he needs to get better information from better sources and weigh that instead of the musings of a room full of bus drivers and secretaries.
(hypothetical)
judge: jury, you say they didn't violate. now i don't have to decide the copyright issue.
jury: but we also don't know shit what we're talking about
judge: so you're basically saying i asked the equivalent of tax advice from a group of 5 year olds who can't even agree what income is, and whose education on economics boils down to a lemonade stand metaphor?
jury: basically
judge: meh. all i know is now i don't have to work. thanks for your invaluable contribution! justice is served once again!
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/15391984.jpg
Actually, I don't see many business meeting applications
the obvious one is threatening your subordinates with violence and then disappearing at the meeting table, a la wesker, resident evil: extinction.
how ironic... at least he posted as AC...
maybe i'm missing something but this judge is going to make that broad ruling anyway. we're sitting on our hands waiting for it. the jury was instructed to make a decision based on a hypothetical situation, not a definitive one, so their decision is meaningless without the judge's broader ruling. this judge is not going to squirm his way out of making a precedent (in the US anyway), he's simply too shitty at boolean logic to even come close to being qualified to rule on the issue.
so what if the judge decides that APIs can be copyrighted? you're probably thinking, "great, instead of wasting time, the jury already spent the time debating it." that's horrible. in all this time it's taking the judge to decide whether the jury is even necessary, the court could spend its time more wisely by:
1. searching for a qualified jury pool of industry professionals who might actually know a thing or two about code and APIs. i expect this would take longer than usual to eliminate bias as much as possible.
or
2. educating the jury as much as possible (necessarily this means using up every available minute of every day on this education) until the judge decides they are necessary.
seriously, if juries can be instructed well enough to decide this in the time they've been given, then work experience is doing it wrong.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png
i think it was retarded. how about deciding if they CAN first? and if they CAN be copyrighted, then decide if they DID violate. but if they can't be copyrighted then don't waste a whole jury's time debating potentially useless questions that they are magnificently ill equipped to solve. if the judge decides that APIs can't be copyrighted, then he wasted everyone's fucking time with this pointless exercise (besides the fact that he's asked a bunch of laymen who will never truly understand this stuff in their lifetimes), not to mention spreading all the conjecture and rumors this potentially moot point generated. fuck this judge til he limps, he's a moron. i have no faith in his ability to consider this legal issue with what little understanding of logic he portrays.
what if they just hashed their corned beef and added salt? add some eggs and a glass of juice, that's a tasty breakfast. and more beneficial than the entire argument being had here.