Either as a user or developer, if you have enough money/influence that the patent holder cares to sue you, it won't matter much if you post anonymously: your real name in all likelihood will be discovered in due course.
What a long winded and rambling question that really tries to play up the essentially artificial distinction between a CTO and a CIO, two abstract titles that are not particularly informative with respect to what the holders actually do. Most of the distinction seams manufactured by these same people to justify their titles.
That said, it would not be surprising that I suspect it would ultimately be a hybrid CTO/CIO.
Assuming your employer allows it, why not take the time you might have spent recoding and contribute and add the features you need to some of the frameworks/toolkits you are using?
I'd actually like to set up more swap, for the times I need more RAM than I've got (only 1GB on my work LT, oy). Nevertheless, I generally do not use any swap space for two reasons: 1) windows at least seems to poorly manage memory, even when I am not using anything close to my physical RAM, it insists on swapping, slowing things down unnecessarily; and 2) I usually need the HDD space...why is it that windows and other OSes cannot dynamically allocate/deallocate swap space as needed?
Hey this is fun...I can speculate on a lot of possibilities too *cough* collusion *cough*!
But aside from randomly guesses, there is one thing I know for sure: in a competitive market, costs to the consumer are driven to down to the cost of production. We all know reading slashdot the cost to make a text message is approximately nothing. Ergo, something is seriously wrong with the market here.
Tabs running in separate processes for process isolation for fault/crash tolerance is fine, but its only one benefit. However, 1) tabs running in separate threads shouldn't bring down the entire browser, if the application was properly designed in the first place; and 2) I'm sure we'll still find plenty of ways to crash the primary process and/or cause even separately running processes to do this.
As in not too aggressive: unlike sweating a pipe joint, you need to keep the bulk of the flame off the disc to prevent it from burning or completely melting. The goal is to melt just the very surface, and then only slightly. I find having the tip of the flame just touching the surface as you sweep back and forth about right.
I've successfully recovered dozens of discs using this method, some completely unplayable/unreadable and looking like someone did a once over with sandpaper. CD-Rs and the like do not work well (though I have done it) because the organic dyes used are more sensitive to heat. The method also works great with other polycarbonate based items, like most sunglasses; success with other plastics varies.
Make a few quick, gentle passes over the recorded side(s) with a common butane blow torch, of the plumbing variety. The heat slightly melts the polycarbonate plastic, causing most scratches to get filled in, and other sharp edges to be smoothed & making reading easier. Tips: 1) don't overdo it, or the plastic might warp, 2) doesn't work well with recorded media (CD-Rs), 3) first practice a couple of times with media you don't mind losing.
The real question is will courts extend the logic set forth in cases like Amalgamated Foods to the modern day equivalent "virtual" properties, perhaps controlled by the type of activity (allowing passively posting otherwise innocuous content vs activism vs hosting vs commercial) or the site (destination sites like Yahoo or Facebook being more likely to be considered public forums than a storefront like bestbuy.com). In any event, should Amalgamated Foods be extended, private web sites that operate forums could very well be considered limited public forums with some First Amendment protection, despite being private property.
Even accepting for a moment your descriptions of Creation "Science" (and this pains me), it is essentially all disproved. Consider your two examples 1) that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC and 2) that it wiped out all humans and animals [which] couldn't fit in a really big boat. Both are clearly false. You could cite more examples all day, but it would only serve to illustrate how completely inaccurate your bible is. People and places that never existed, incompatible genealogical lineages, mathematical false statements, and many, many others. Not to mention the countless events described that contradict observable physical laws today.
Another lesson in making stuff up & statutory construction 101: all clauses must be given meaning, if at all possible.
As Stevens points out in his dissent, the majority simply ignores this inconvenient rule and announces without justification "[the first part] does not limit or expand the scope of the second part". And again the majority's "logic" also collides with the rules of grammar where the dependent clauses at issue here, by definition, modify the meaning of the terms they refer to ("militia" in this case).
Did you even read my post? Your referenced post uses the same, incorrect text. You refer to "the clause 'A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state,", which as I point out is actually two separate clauses. Similarly, you refer to the clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' which is also two clauses, not one.
I must conclude that, like the majority in Heller making up their own rules of grammar, you are simply making stuff up. It is not clear that the 2nd amendment or the framer's intent with respect to it concerned individual rights. Until Heller, it didn't. There is nothing "liberal" about my interpretation, nor grammatical analysis. Until Heller, it was the correct interpretation.
Moreover, previously considered & rejected variations of the amendment weigh against your interpretation, not in favor of it. Although, as you note, we do not necessarily know why these forms were rejected, it is reasonable to surmise they were found defective as compared to the final, accepted version. Thus, its legislative history only serve to illustrate rejection of various interpretations. The drafters (as is the normal assumption) deliberately separated the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" from "shall not be infringed" thereby breaking the logical connection you wish to continue to imply. Just because the words used are similar, does not require the meaning to be. This is statutory construction 101.
The majority in Heller are often characterized (including by themselves) as so-called "strict constructionists" who by definition hold the text itself to be the most important analytical factor in determining meaning. Yet their and your arguments continue to assert and rely on bogus grammatical and interpretive claims (e.g. "prefatory" and "objective" clauses...these are not grammatical constructs), or the the outright fraudulent omission of key punctuation to achieve the same effect.
What I don't get is why individual rights proponents don't simply argue the right to ownership for self-defense is protected by common law and the 9th amendment. It could have been used to balance via regulationthe collective right as expressed in the 2nd amendment with ab individual's interest in reasonable self-protection. I think even I could agree with this, and it would have reached the same end as the Heller majority. Instead they chose to become the worst kind of judicial activists and trash 230 years of jurisprudence in order to "find" an individual right because their ideology demands it.
Before you go about making various grammatical claimsâ¦at least first make sure to get the text of the amendment correct:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the first (originally missing) comma; it is important. It makes the phrase 'being necessary to the security of a free state' a dependent clause: a present participial phrase at that. This means it serves as an adjective modifying the noun, 'militia'. The next phrase is the same: âoethe right of the people to keep and bear armsâ is also a dependent clause acting as an adjective and modifying 'militia'.
As we all learned, a sentence is still complete even when all dependent clauses are removed. Thus, the thought described by the 2nd amendment can be considered to be simply
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.
And the meaning of militia, according to the author at least, encompasses the idea of 1) being necessary for a free people, and 2) synonymous with the right to bear arms.
Now we can argue what a militia means. And what it means to be well-regulated. I would suggest, based on the amount of power Congress has squeezed out of its other Art 1, section 8 enumerated powers, quite a lot.
It's too bad the conservative 4 and the opinion by Scalia is shamefully similar to the twisted, biased logic expressed in various forms by one Eugene Volokh (well-known libertarian/conservative individual gun-rights proponent). Especially the semantic and grammatical deconstruction of the text itself, which was afforded more weight than several experts in English, Literature, and History.
Logically extended, this should apply to all laws, not just gun laws. Since the implication is laws are useless since they will only be ignored by the ones they mean to control, let's just get rid of all laws so nobody will be hampered.
The crux of your problem is the tautological "laws only hamper law abiding citizens"(emphasis mine) as a key part of your "argument". Of course they do! This is exactly the point of laws: to control the behavior of those that abide by the law!
Anything to stop someone from expressly withholding consent to the Vista EULA, accepting the XP EULA, and then demanding (as is one's right) to a refund for Vista?
As you compare the screen to a sheet of paper, I'll note one other aspect of screen size and aspect ratio that matters, but seems to be neglected in the comments so far.
It is the convenience of the physical size of the screen. A 14.1" standard aspect ratio screen is just a little larger than a sheet of paper, making the laptop roughly the same size. It is about the same as notebooks, binders, folded newspaper, and a myriad of other common office objects. It fits easily in backpacks & briefcases. A 15" screen is a tighter fit, and can sometimes work, but the wide-screens, especially the 15" or 17" variety are just too big.
Also, an essential strategy for achieving high mileage is to burn the engine at optimum efficiency RPMs to quickly get to speed, and then use your mass combined with low aerodynamic and rolling losses to coast as long as possible (frequently almost to the point of stopping). This is why there are required average lap speeds and maximum speeds. Of course, this strategy could hardly be used in production vehicles or in public roads.
Actually, bundling (also known as tying) is illegal under certain circumstances. The guidelines (not so much rules) generally disallow bundling in monopoly situations, at least where the products being tied are not typically related or purchased together. This would seem to apply in this case: most ISPs (cable and telephone operators) operate under local monopolies, and internet service and music are not particularly strongly related.
For example, the Microsoft anti-trust case was essentially about tying their OS to the web browser; Microsoft was found to be abusing its monopoly position to advance their web browser, in a market (at the time) where they were not typically purchased or even distributed together, web browsers being relatively new and distributed freely (i.e. Netscape). And these products were quite a bit more related.
Something like this could never, ever survive in a politicized environment without be hopelessly distorted by partisan congressional staffs (aka "developers"), partisan committees (aka "testers"), partisan lobbyists (aka "customers").
Not that I haven't thought along similar lines before, but I'm way to pragmatic (aka "cynical").
Ron Paul may be crazy, but at least you are not. Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution". Now good luck convincing everyone else that an abstract organizational principle like "federalism" (at least the form Paul advocates for) is important enough to vote for, even at the expense of trashing our economy.
They probably would not claim the church is "copying", because Copyright includes a distribution right and a public performance right. (Both are violated in this case, since the church is effectively redistributing their signal to a large number of people.)
Unlocking is stealing from the service provider who is footing half the bill for the phone.
Unlocking phones is protected by law in the United States. Nor is it stealing, as 1) no contract is required to purchase the physical hardware (and once you own it, you can do pretty much whatever you want with the hardware -- but not the firmware/software), 2) apparently apple makes a fair amount of money from the sale of the hardware too, and 3) there is no difference for AT&T if you buy the hardware or just a different phone and then never activate with AT&T or even at all (all legal), in any event AT&T would get $0.
Slashdot Mirror
Either as a user or developer, if you have enough money/influence that the patent holder cares to sue you, it won't matter much if you post anonymously: your real name in all likelihood will be discovered in due course.
What a long winded and rambling question that really tries to play up the essentially artificial distinction between a CTO and a CIO, two abstract titles that are not particularly informative with respect to what the holders actually do. Most of the distinction seams manufactured by these same people to justify their titles.
That said, it would not be surprising that I suspect it would ultimately be a hybrid CTO/CIO.
Assuming your employer allows it, why not take the time you might have spent recoding and contribute and add the features you need to some of the frameworks/toolkits you are using?
I'd actually like to set up more swap, for the times I need more RAM than I've got (only 1GB on my work LT, oy). Nevertheless, I generally do not use any swap space for two reasons: 1) windows at least seems to poorly manage memory, even when I am not using anything close to my physical RAM, it insists on swapping, slowing things down unnecessarily; and 2) I usually need the HDD space...why is it that windows and other OSes cannot dynamically allocate/deallocate swap space as needed?
Hey this is fun...I can speculate on a lot of possibilities too *cough* collusion *cough*!
But aside from randomly guesses, there is one thing I know for sure: in a competitive market, costs to the consumer are driven to down to the cost of production. We all know reading slashdot the cost to make a text message is approximately nothing. Ergo, something is seriously wrong with the market here.
Tabs running in separate processes for process isolation for fault/crash tolerance is fine, but its only one benefit. However, 1) tabs running in separate threads shouldn't bring down the entire browser, if the application was properly designed in the first place; and 2) I'm sure we'll still find plenty of ways to crash the primary process and/or cause even separately running processes to do this.
As in not too aggressive: unlike sweating a pipe joint, you need to keep the bulk of the flame off the disc to prevent it from burning or completely melting. The goal is to melt just the very surface, and then only slightly. I find having the tip of the flame just touching the surface as you sweep back and forth about right.
I've successfully recovered dozens of discs using this method, some completely unplayable/unreadable and looking like someone did a once over with sandpaper. CD-Rs and the like do not work well (though I have done it) because the organic dyes used are more sensitive to heat. The method also works great with other polycarbonate based items, like most sunglasses; success with other plastics varies.
Make a few quick, gentle passes over the recorded side(s) with a common butane blow torch, of the plumbing variety. The heat slightly melts the polycarbonate plastic, causing most scratches to get filled in, and other sharp edges to be smoothed & making reading easier. Tips: 1) don't overdo it, or the plastic might warp, 2) doesn't work well with recorded media (CD-Rs), 3) first practice a couple of times with media you don't mind losing.
The real question is will courts extend the logic set forth in cases like Amalgamated Foods to the modern day equivalent "virtual" properties, perhaps controlled by the type of activity (allowing passively posting otherwise innocuous content vs activism vs hosting vs commercial) or the site (destination sites like Yahoo or Facebook being more likely to be considered public forums than a storefront like bestbuy.com). In any event, should Amalgamated Foods be extended, private web sites that operate forums could very well be considered limited public forums with some First Amendment protection, despite being private property.
PS. Before you start believing statements like this which imply Amalgamated Foods is no longer good law, read the cases referred to (Hudgens v. NLRB was looking at the applicability of the NLRA, while Pruneyard was applying California's more liberal freedom-of-speech rights).
PPS. None of this should be considered legal advice, nor have I shepardized anything.
Even accepting for a moment your descriptions of Creation "Science" (and this pains me), it is essentially all disproved. Consider your two examples 1) that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC and 2) that it wiped out all humans and animals [which] couldn't fit in a really big boat. Both are clearly false. You could cite more examples all day, but it would only serve to illustrate how completely inaccurate your bible is. People and places that never existed, incompatible genealogical lineages, mathematical false statements, and many, many others. Not to mention the countless events described that contradict observable physical laws today.
Another lesson in making stuff up & statutory construction 101: all clauses must be given meaning, if at all possible.
As Stevens points out in his dissent, the majority simply ignores this inconvenient rule and announces without justification "[the first part] does not limit or expand the scope of the second part". And again the majority's "logic" also collides with the rules of grammar where the dependent clauses at issue here, by definition, modify the meaning of the terms they refer to ("militia" in this case).
Did you even read my post? Your referenced post uses the same, incorrect text. You refer to "the clause 'A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state,", which as I point out is actually two separate clauses. Similarly, you refer to the clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' which is also two clauses, not one.
I must conclude that, like the majority in Heller making up their own rules of grammar, you are simply making stuff up. It is not clear that the 2nd amendment or the framer's intent with respect to it concerned individual rights. Until Heller, it didn't. There is nothing "liberal" about my interpretation, nor grammatical analysis. Until Heller, it was the correct interpretation.
Moreover, previously considered & rejected variations of the amendment weigh against your interpretation, not in favor of it. Although, as you note, we do not necessarily know why these forms were rejected, it is reasonable to surmise they were found defective as compared to the final, accepted version. Thus, its legislative history only serve to illustrate rejection of various interpretations. The drafters (as is the normal assumption) deliberately separated the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" from "shall not be infringed" thereby breaking the logical connection you wish to continue to imply. Just because the words used are similar, does not require the meaning to be. This is statutory construction 101.
The majority in Heller are often characterized (including by themselves) as so-called "strict constructionists" who by definition hold the text itself to be the most important analytical factor in determining meaning. Yet their and your arguments continue to assert and rely on bogus grammatical and interpretive claims (e.g. "prefatory" and "objective" clauses...these are not grammatical constructs), or the the outright fraudulent omission of key punctuation to achieve the same effect.
What I don't get is why individual rights proponents don't simply argue the right to ownership for self-defense is protected by common law and the 9th amendment. It could have been used to balance via regulationthe collective right as expressed in the 2nd amendment with ab individual's interest in reasonable self-protection. I think even I could agree with this, and it would have reached the same end as the Heller majority. Instead they chose to become the worst kind of judicial activists and trash 230 years of jurisprudence in order to "find" an individual right because their ideology demands it.
Note the first (originally missing) comma; it is important. It makes the phrase 'being necessary to the security of a free state' a dependent clause: a present participial phrase at that. This means it serves as an adjective modifying the noun, 'militia'. The next phrase is the same: âoethe right of the people to keep and bear armsâ is also a dependent clause acting as an adjective and modifying 'militia'.
As we all learned, a sentence is still complete even when all dependent clauses are removed. Thus, the thought described by the 2nd amendment can be considered to be simply
And the meaning of militia, according to the author at least, encompasses the idea of 1) being necessary for a free people, and 2) synonymous with the right to bear arms.
/. get overrun with gun nuts?
Now we can argue what a militia means. And what it means to be well-regulated. I would suggest, based on the amount of power Congress has squeezed out of its other Art 1, section 8 enumerated powers, quite a lot.
It's too bad the conservative 4 and the opinion by Scalia is shamefully similar to the twisted, biased logic expressed in various forms by one Eugene Volokh (well-known libertarian/conservative individual gun-rights proponent). Especially the semantic and grammatical deconstruction of the text itself, which was afforded more weight than several experts in English, Literature, and History.
PS. When did
Logically extended, this should apply to all laws, not just gun laws. Since the implication is laws are useless since they will only be ignored by the ones they mean to control, let's just get rid of all laws so nobody will be hampered.
The crux of your problem is the tautological "laws only hamper law abiding citizens"(emphasis mine) as a key part of your "argument". Of course they do! This is exactly the point of laws: to control the behavior of those that abide by the law!
I'll nominate "A history of Pi" by Petr Beckmann. Concise, witty, and very approachable for non-mathematicians.
Anything to stop someone from expressly withholding consent to the Vista EULA, accepting the XP EULA, and then demanding (as is one's right) to a refund for Vista?
As you compare the screen to a sheet of paper, I'll note one other aspect of screen size and aspect ratio that matters, but seems to be neglected in the comments so far. It is the convenience of the physical size of the screen. A 14.1" standard aspect ratio screen is just a little larger than a sheet of paper, making the laptop roughly the same size. It is about the same as notebooks, binders, folded newspaper, and a myriad of other common office objects. It fits easily in backpacks & briefcases. A 15" screen is a tighter fit, and can sometimes work, but the wide-screens, especially the 15" or 17" variety are just too big.
Ah yes, completely agreed. Summed up by the best three words in the letter: "...mere design patents."
Also, an essential strategy for achieving high mileage is to burn the engine at optimum efficiency RPMs to quickly get to speed, and then use your mass combined with low aerodynamic and rolling losses to coast as long as possible (frequently almost to the point of stopping). This is why there are required average lap speeds and maximum speeds. Of course, this strategy could hardly be used in production vehicles or in public roads.
Actually, bundling (also known as tying) is illegal under certain circumstances. The guidelines (not so much rules) generally disallow bundling in monopoly situations, at least where the products being tied are not typically related or purchased together. This would seem to apply in this case: most ISPs (cable and telephone operators) operate under local monopolies, and internet service and music are not particularly strongly related.
For example, the Microsoft anti-trust case was essentially about tying their OS to the web browser; Microsoft was found to be abusing its monopoly position to advance their web browser, in a market (at the time) where they were not typically purchased or even distributed together, web browsers being relatively new and distributed freely (i.e. Netscape). And these products were quite a bit more related.
Something like this could never, ever survive in a politicized environment without be hopelessly distorted by partisan congressional staffs (aka "developers"), partisan committees (aka "testers"), partisan lobbyists (aka "customers").
Not that I haven't thought along similar lines before, but I'm way to pragmatic (aka "cynical").
All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt.
Wrong
Ron Paul may be crazy, but at least you are not. Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution". Now good luck convincing everyone else that an abstract organizational principle like "federalism" (at least the form Paul advocates for) is important enough to vote for, even at the expense of trashing our economy.
They probably would not claim the church is "copying", because Copyright includes a distribution right and a public performance right. (Both are violated in this case, since the church is effectively redistributing their signal to a large number of people.)
Unlocking is stealing from the service provider who is footing half the bill for the phone. Unlocking phones is protected by law in the United States. Nor is it stealing, as 1) no contract is required to purchase the physical hardware (and once you own it, you can do pretty much whatever you want with the hardware -- but not the firmware/software), 2) apparently apple makes a fair amount of money from the sale of the hardware too, and 3) there is no difference for AT&T if you buy the hardware or just a different phone and then never activate with AT&T or even at all (all legal), in any event AT&T would get $0.