That happened with this one as well. It doesn't show the previous action which led up to the officer and the suspect being out in the middle of the grass after a traffic stop. It doesn't show where the officer and the suspect were involved in a tussle as claimed by the officer, during which the suspect reportedly took the officer's stun gun.
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
I know what the groupthink around here is, but "...now, because of videos, we are seeing just how systemic and widespread it is" is an expression of a preconceived notion, not a valid inference from data.
It is systemic and widespread, but also locally varying, not ubiquitous. That is to say, there are many departments like Ferguson where it is accepted, even promoted, by those in charge and thus systemic and widespread. And there are many many departments where it is absolutely not. Speaking as someone who's lived in a number of different areas of the country, I've lived in areas where the cops were awful, and even a white male would be wise to dread any contact with them, and I've lived in areas where they were highly professional.
When you wrote: "Paul believed no one at all should have sex, ever again." you completely lost it. First, CITE the PARAGRAPH where Paul in-context said this (Paul wrote in paragraphs, the sentence (verse) numbers were inserted later by scholars to aid in navigating the text). You cannot, of course, because he said no such thing.
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none... He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband... But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."
I leave it to you to look up the verse yourself, smartass.
By YOUR reckoning, the church would have died-out immediately with nobody able to lead a church.
Paul and his contemporaries believed that Christ would return during their lifetimes, thus that not only was there no point in further procreation, but that such things were a waste of the very limited time they had left in which to spread the message of salvation.
From what I see in this thread and from the objections to the law in the news, the intention is that a christian pastor could be forced to marry 2 people against his personal convictions...
Absolutely not. No law, nowhere, ever, has been passed (or even proposed) which would require this.
...and that a shopkeep could be forced to serve customers whose actions he disapproves of.
Absolutely. You're open to the public selling a product, you sell to everybody. Where are the gay store owners declaring that they would like to not sell to right-wing bigots? Oh, right, there are none, because normal people do not question the sexual orientation of members of the public who come into a store to purchase goods.
Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights...
Absolutely. Businesses are not actually people and do not have all the same rights as people.
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior.
Well, no shit sherlock. Disapprove all you want. But, generally, if your business is open to the public, then it's open to all the public.
And they don't need to produce anything. Leonard already owns the trademark, and they are allowed to renew it for yet another 10 year in december 2015 (so keep owning the trademark until 2025).
Highly unlikely. Not 100% sure about Swiss law, but this is absolutely not the case in the US, where you have to use a trademark for it to be valid, and I seriously doubt that US & EU law are that different on the point. Trademark law protects marks USED to distinguish products, it's not like a domain where you can squat on what you think are, or will become, useful terms.
So the guy could renew the trademark and force Apple to pay him money to take over the trademark?
No, trademarks have to actually be used to be valid.
Or just release a product that uses the trademark (even if they only make and try to sell a few copies of said product.)
Yes, likely, although it would depend on the history of the trademark, whether it was every actually used in commerce, whether it was even filed (or acquired) in good faith. But...
Candied apples with the APPLE trademark, anyone?
No. Trademarks are awarded for specific categories of products. It would have to be a watch, or at least some sort of electronic wearable.
Yes, all my comments are based on knowledge of US law. But there are treaties harmonizing the laws between basically all Western countries, so the laws are very similar.
I read the original article a few days ago, and, frankly, it struck me as a bullshit article whipped out by someone with 0 knowledge or understanding, purely to get a "ZOMG Apple will have trouble selling Apple Watch in SWITZERLAND" headline for click bait.
You could of course a popular SDK [www.qt.io] that works on desktops as well.
As for this:
And your claim about Java having the wrong colour or text position in default buttons I can not support.
I'm sure it does look fine on Android, since for that platform it essentially is the native toolkit. But it does look wrong in many ways (default button was just an obvious easy example) on OS X.
I doubt you have any clue which App is written with which tool/framework etc.
And, you're wrong about that. Java (currently) and Qt (haven't checked lately) both have tell-tale signs in the UI, things that are not correct for the platform (OS X) and that are distinctive. (Just two examples from Java: default buttons the wrong shade of blue, text in buttons positioned too low. Even after Qt switched to using native controls, there were dead giveaways in the look of Qt apps.)
Yes, it's *somewhat* popular, but the apps have always been butt-fugly and never really looked native--even after they finally saw the gross error of simulating/re-implementing controls and went to native controls.
The owner of this car would probably greatly appreciate being notified that not only did the stupid-douche consulting outfit not secure the car properly and had it stolen, they are now recklessly delaying notifying the police in a desperate attempt to avoid being found out.
If you want to do something funny on 4/1, collect the submitted attempts at humor, and choose the best one or two to post. Then it might actually be funny. But running every stream-of-lameness piece of shit that crosses your inbox is just pathetic. In other words, editors, act like editors.
I can't see how they could get any service provider to sign up for that unless they are providing more business than the provider can handle.
I was being sarcastic, referencing the 18-month practically worldwide non-compete they were forcing temporary warehouse workers to sign. (Until bad press stemming from The Verge article motivated them to drop that ridiculous requirement.)
And why I hate freedom for making Flash click to play.
Because when you do that, your browser still reports to the sites that it supports Flash, which encourages them to continue using it. If you REMOVE Flash, then it's not reported as a supported type, and the statistics skew more and more toward showing Flash being unsupported, which contributes to the ultimate demise of Flash.
So, THAT is why I say you hate freedom for making Flash click to play;-)
if it were my summary I would definitely attribute it to somebody else, because it makes absolutely no sense.
Right. It makes no sense precisely because it is NOT in any way a summary, which would take a few moments' effort to write. It's just a copy and paste of the first few sentences of the article.
"But what about when Yahoo, CNN.com, TMZ and other busy destination sites heave disaster upon visitors?" what does the rest of the summary mean?
Exactly. The article goes on to explain that. A summary would at least give some idea. The copy & paste of the first few sentences, cut off at an arbitrary point, totally leaves you hanging.
Slashdot Mirror
That happened with this one as well. It doesn't show the previous action which led up to the officer and the suspect being out in the middle of the grass after a traffic stop. It doesn't show where the officer and the suspect were involved in a tussle as claimed by the officer, during which the suspect reportedly took the officer's stun gun.
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
I know what the groupthink around here is, but "...now, because of videos, we are seeing just how systemic and widespread it is" is an expression of a preconceived notion, not a valid inference from data.
It is systemic and widespread, but also locally varying, not ubiquitous. That is to say, there are many departments like Ferguson where it is accepted, even promoted, by those in charge and thus systemic and widespread. And there are many many departments where it is absolutely not. Speaking as someone who's lived in a number of different areas of the country, I've lived in areas where the cops were awful, and even a white male would be wise to dread any contact with them, and I've lived in areas where they were highly professional.
Then we can either fuck it, eat it...
You do realize, that never in our history, have those two choices been exclusive?
Seems like Apple did invent everything before Android makers did ;)
I have no idea what you're talking about, and it seems I will remain clueless, since you didn't bother to make sure the link was correct ;-)
I do not know, I think we should try an experiment involving high pressure hoses and insertion to see if they do in fact get bigger.
Count me in. I'd be glad to be in charge of not applying lube ;-)
This is billionaire douchebags saying they could become even bigger billionaire douchebags of only they could get more cheap labor from overseas.
While I sympathize with your sentiment, you are absolutely wrong. There is simply no way for Zuckerfuck and Ballmer to become bigger doucebags.
When you wrote: "Paul believed no one at all should have sex, ever again." you completely lost it. First, CITE the PARAGRAPH where Paul in-context said this (Paul wrote in paragraphs, the sentence (verse) numbers were inserted later by scholars to aid in navigating the text). You cannot, of course, because he said no such thing.
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none... He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband... But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."
I leave it to you to look up the verse yourself, smartass.
By YOUR reckoning, the church would have died-out immediately with nobody able to lead a church.
Paul and his contemporaries believed that Christ would return during their lifetimes, thus that not only was there no point in further procreation, but that such things were a waste of the very limited time they had left in which to spread the message of salvation.
He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
Moses was not a Christian.
Jesus said nothing on this subject.
Paul believed no one at all should have sex, ever again.
From what I see in this thread and from the objections to the law in the news, the intention is that a christian pastor could be forced to marry 2 people against his personal convictions...
Absolutely not. No law, nowhere, ever, has been passed (or even proposed) which would require this.
...and that a shopkeep could be forced to serve customers whose actions he disapproves of.
Absolutely. You're open to the public selling a product, you sell to everybody. Where are the gay store owners declaring that they would like to not sell to right-wing bigots? Oh, right, there are none, because normal people do not question the sexual orientation of members of the public who come into a store to purchase goods.
Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights...
Absolutely. Businesses are not actually people and do not have all the same rights as people.
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior.
Well, no shit sherlock. Disapprove all you want. But, generally, if your business is open to the public, then it's open to all the public.
And they don't need to produce anything. Leonard already owns the trademark, and they are allowed to renew it for yet another 10 year in december 2015 (so keep owning the trademark until 2025).
Highly unlikely. Not 100% sure about Swiss law, but this is absolutely not the case in the US, where you have to use a trademark for it to be valid, and I seriously doubt that US & EU law are that different on the point. Trademark law protects marks USED to distinguish products, it's not like a domain where you can squat on what you think are, or will become, useful terms.
So the guy could renew the trademark and force Apple to pay him money to take over the trademark?
No, trademarks have to actually be used to be valid.
Or just release a product that uses the trademark (even if they only make and try to sell a few copies of said product.)
Yes, likely, although it would depend on the history of the trademark, whether it was every actually used in commerce, whether it was even filed (or acquired) in good faith. But...
Candied apples with the APPLE trademark, anyone?
No. Trademarks are awarded for specific categories of products. It would have to be a watch, or at least some sort of electronic wearable.
Yes, all my comments are based on knowledge of US law. But there are treaties harmonizing the laws between basically all Western countries, so the laws are very similar.
I read the original article a few days ago, and, frankly, it struck me as a bullshit article whipped out by someone with 0 knowledge or understanding, purely to get a "ZOMG Apple will have trouble selling Apple Watch in SWITZERLAND" headline for click bait.
Well, I don't know about the rest of your post, but 2 is just plain wrong.
We talked about mobil devices, not OS X.
The post I responded to:
You could of course a popular SDK [www.qt.io] that works on desktops as well.
As for this:
And your claim about Java having the wrong colour or text position in default buttons I can not support.
I'm sure it does look fine on Android, since for that platform it essentially is the native toolkit. But it does look wrong in many ways (default button was just an obvious easy example) on OS X.
I doubt you have any clue which App is written with which tool/framework etc.
And, you're wrong about that. Java (currently) and Qt (haven't checked lately) both have tell-tale signs in the UI, things that are not correct for the platform (OS X) and that are distinctive. (Just two examples from Java: default buttons the wrong shade of blue, text in buttons positioned too low. Even after Qt switched to using native controls, there were dead giveaways in the look of Qt apps.)
Stupidity by management at Borland/inPrize clusterfuck killed Delphi in favor of their Java products. What java products? Exactly.
Sybase. Power++. Same story. Sigh.
Yes, it's *somewhat* popular, but the apps have always been butt-fugly and never really looked native--even after they finally saw the gross error of simulating/re-implementing controls and went to native controls.
The owner of this car would probably greatly appreciate being notified that not only did the stupid-douche consulting outfit not secure the car properly and had it stolen, they are now recklessly delaying notifying the police in a desperate attempt to avoid being found out.
If you want to do something funny on 4/1, collect the submitted attempts at humor, and choose the best one or two to post. Then it might actually be funny. But running every stream-of-lameness piece of shit that crosses your inbox is just pathetic. In other words, editors, act like editors.
Oh, wait, never mind...
I can't see how they could get any service provider to sign up for that unless they are providing more business than the provider can handle.
I was being sarcastic, referencing the 18-month practically worldwide non-compete they were forcing temporary warehouse workers to sign. (Until bad press stemming from The Verge article motivated them to drop that ridiculous requirement.)
They'll require providers to sign a non-compete preventing them from taking business from any other source...
The whole thing sticks of basic programming incompetence.
Yep. I used a shorter password and had no problem at all registering.
Unfortunately, I was never again able to login after the first time.
And why I hate freedom for making Flash click to play.
Because when you do that, your browser still reports to the sites that it supports Flash, which encourages them to continue using it. If you REMOVE Flash, then it's not reported as a supported type, and the statistics skew more and more toward showing Flash being unsupported, which contributes to the ultimate demise of Flash.
So, THAT is why I say you hate freedom for making Flash click to play ;-)
if it were my summary I would definitely attribute it to somebody else, because it makes absolutely no sense.
Right. It makes no sense precisely because it is NOT in any way a summary, which would take a few moments' effort to write. It's just a copy and paste of the first few sentences of the article.
"But what about when Yahoo, CNN.com, TMZ and other busy destination sites heave disaster upon visitors?" what does the rest of the summary mean?
Exactly. The article goes on to explain that. A summary would at least give some idea. The copy & paste of the first few sentences, cut off at an arbitrary point, totally leaves you hanging.
Direct copy-and-paste from an article should be quoted, to make it clear that in fact msm1267 wrote nothing at all.
Sigh, OTOH, at least the "summary" is not a gross misrepresentation, like so many others.
Managing lots of things competing for their attention is what pilots need to be excellent at.
While true, another human being fighting for her life would be more of a problem than most.