Which is hilarious considering that bible thumpers tend to be the "kill em all and let god sort it out" type. Why else are executions so much more common in the bible belt? The more moderate religious people are the live and let live ones.
It is a bit telling when they consider themselves "skeptics" of climate change only, and take a bunch of other stuff on faith.
Well I suppose that doesn't include the people that claim to be skeptics of science itself. I don't know what confusion of ideas leads to that conclusion.
Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.
Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.
Also, in that comparison, one of the entities is pure evil and the other is at least trying to do the right thing.
Also, the GP says that the EFF opposes net neutrality. That is not the case. I think what the oppose is the current FCC's flawed attempts at implementing it with a bunch of special case provisions that completely gut the idea of it.
This goes into the "should we honor the will of a dead person" argument.
Reason dictates "yes, unless they are an asshole about it." But the law kind of says "yes, as long as the will is legal and actually enforceable." I would assume this applies to copyright. If someone had a no-copyright-copyright in effect, then upon their death, doesn't that make the thing public domain.
I am sure if there were any heirs that cared about the copyright, they would manage to get their hands on the thing before the person dies.
If you are someone capable of creating something patentable, don't sign the document and don't work for a company that insists on it. Same goes for unreasonable non-compete agreements.
Of course, they will sue you document-or-not, but its pretty much a guaranteed win without it.
Or, if you want, put a value on that part of your agreement. If they pay you enough that you don't need to worry about inventing stuff, why not go for it?
That is flatly untrue, especially jobs where the employee is not doing any knowledge work.
I got around this by simply refusing to sign the document on a job I had been working at for several years. I told my boss and we wrote up a new document that did not include that clause. You can do that when the company could not afford to lose you.
Amusingly enough, the boss must have done the same thing, as he left the company for a rival some time after that. The company we worked for sued... and lost badly.
A lot of it is due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. The cops know you did it, because they arrested you. They wouldn't have arrested you if they were not sure you were guilty. They know they never make mistakes. And then they stop investigating the crime once they have someone to pin it on.
Yes they are, and our justice system should take that into account. Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession.
Oh theydo take it into account. By using this to trump up charges and get confessions for people that may be innocent, and generally abuse the justice system.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of Dumb and Dumber:
"What if he shot me in the face?"
"That was a risk we were willing to take."
And moderated informative. Well done sir.
Even if some middle manager in some backwaters division falls on their sword, that doesn't make this ok.
Poe's Law of corporations.
Or it means the plane flies backwards.
I like the idea of using a floor drain to remove gas.
I am an underwater fire fighter, you insensitive clod?
Which is hilarious considering that bible thumpers tend to be the "kill em all and let god sort it out" type. Why else are executions so much more common in the bible belt? The more moderate religious people are the live and let live ones.
Your an idiot
No, "you are" an idiot.
Aha, I thought perhaps you were seeing something in there position that I was not. :)
It is a bit telling when they consider themselves "skeptics" of climate change only, and take a bunch of other stuff on faith.
Well I suppose that doesn't include the people that claim to be skeptics of science itself. I don't know what confusion of ideas leads to that conclusion.
And, amazingly enough, we are safer because of it.
Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.
Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.
Also, in that comparison, one of the entities is pure evil and the other is at least trying to do the right thing.
Also, the GP says that the EFF opposes net neutrality. That is not the case. I think what the oppose is the current FCC's flawed attempts at implementing it with a bunch of special case provisions that completely gut the idea of it.
This goes into the "should we honor the will of a dead person" argument.
Reason dictates "yes, unless they are an asshole about it." But the law kind of says "yes, as long as the will is legal and actually enforceable." I would assume this applies to copyright. If someone had a no-copyright-copyright in effect, then upon their death, doesn't that make the thing public domain.
I am sure if there were any heirs that cared about the copyright, they would manage to get their hands on the thing before the person dies.
If you are someone capable of creating something patentable, don't sign the document and don't work for a company that insists on it. Same goes for unreasonable non-compete agreements.
Of course, they will sue you document-or-not, but its pretty much a guaranteed win without it.
Or, if you want, put a value on that part of your agreement. If they pay you enough that you don't need to worry about inventing stuff, why not go for it?
That is flatly untrue, especially jobs where the employee is not doing any knowledge work.
I got around this by simply refusing to sign the document on a job I had been working at for several years. I told my boss and we wrote up a new document that did not include that clause. You can do that when the company could not afford to lose you.
Amusingly enough, the boss must have done the same thing, as he left the company for a rival some time after that. The company we worked for sued... and lost badly.
Well, aside from the fact that nuclear war would be bad for the health of everyone in the world.
In my case, a stopped brain is.. what were we talking about again?
Entrapment has never been legal in the USA.
This does not stop them from doing it every single day.
A lot of it is due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. The cops know you did it, because they arrested you. They wouldn't have arrested you if they were not sure you were guilty. They know they never make mistakes. And then they stop investigating the crime once they have someone to pin it on.
Reminds me of this scene.
Is a gullible idiot.
Yes they are, and our justice system should take that into account. Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession.
Oh theydo take it into account. By using this to trump up charges and get confessions for people that may be innocent, and generally abuse the justice system.
Everything you said is hilarious.
Offensive or just in disagreement?
Can religious people just disagree without being offended to the point of violence?