It will be less than 300 years to get nanotech separation technology to the point where it can eat a landfill and shit bricks of pure elements, ready for sale. People who are worried about us producing too much trash just aren't cognizant of how powerful our technology is getting.
Yeah, I read some books at home looks very impressive on the resume. On the other side, you have a reference-able, verifiable past employment experience.
By the time your employees can tell you are making the wrong decisions, your corporate infrastructure is so screwed there is little hope of recovery. They'd basically need to wipe out their entire middle and upper management teams to fix this.
That the "radioactive and hazardous material" had to be accounted for and protected? Shouldn't the statement have read that such materials, as always, were secure?
Tornadoes aren't drawn to trailer parks. Smaller, more common tornadoes are just sufficiently powerful to do substantial damage in a trailer park, because trailer parks are fragile compared to houses / business districts.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be less than 300 years to get nanotech separation technology to the point where it can eat a landfill and shit bricks of pure elements, ready for sale. People who are worried about us producing too much trash just aren't cognizant of how powerful our technology is getting.
Monster cables are priced from US $40->$150. Generic cable of same length, $5->$10. They function identically.
Just correct the part about most historians agreeing that the evidentiary standard is met.
Joel on Software hasn't been popular in half a decade by now.
Yeah, I read some books at home looks very impressive on the resume. On the other side, you have a reference-able, verifiable past employment experience.
And they don't use this, they just use the backdoor.
By the time your employees can tell you are making the wrong decisions, your corporate infrastructure is so screwed there is little hope of recovery. They'd basically need to wipe out their entire middle and upper management teams to fix this.
No, it can't.
I swallowed a battery earlier today, and I think that proves you wrong. Also, grrrkfa;dlsjdkafjsdiedjiruacvnc
Yeah, I'm talking about the phrasing. Of course they have to double-check, but their release sounds more like they fixed major problems.
That the "radioactive and hazardous material" had to be accounted for and protected? Shouldn't the statement have read that such materials, as always, were secure?
I recommend deodorant if this is a consistent solution to that problem for you.
Tornadoes aren't drawn to trailer parks. Smaller, more common tornadoes are just sufficiently powerful to do substantial damage in a trailer park, because trailer parks are fragile compared to houses / business districts.
Most companies are as morally bankrupt as Goldman, they just aren't as skilled. Evil and talent are orthogonal dimensions, unfortunately.
I guess. The world is packed full of pretty limited people.
FL-102, Reviewed November 2009
I read them, they're clearly wrong. Sorry that I take the US copyright office over random incorrect slashdotters.
Yeah, that backs up what I said actually.
You don't need that good a lawyer. There are plenty, even in the expensive SF bay area who will do this at $300/hr.
And only small portions, btw, not the whole thing, which was my claim in the first place, see:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;"
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Enjoy the part that says:
"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson."
Not the whole of a work. A small part.
For all those claiming I'm wrong, please read this first:
"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;"
Not a whole work. A small part. Who says this?
The copyright office.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Nope. Even less precise copying for purely educational purposes has been found in violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Co._v._King
That is only one of the factors, and not sufficient, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Co._v._King
BTW, if interested, look at the other mistaken AC's post in response to mine and you can read the actual law that supports my position.
I have looked it up, and the 'limited' use is precisely what he runs afoul of by making a complete copy.