The university, unless it uses well water, pays for its water like everyone else via the water taxes.
WTF??? That attempt at an analogy is a double miss:
1) No, there is no "water tax" that pays for water. The university pays for water, on top of which there might or might not be tax charged, depending on the locality.
2) Google pays for the food, and pays taxes on it.
By the way: $10 of water is an ENORMOUS amount of water. $10 barely gets you a nice cheeseburger or salad in many US cities. Typical US household water bill is $330/year, according to a quick search.
So? From that we can guess that an employee might use $50/year of water at work. So, why shouldn't that also be treated as a taxable benefit to the employee? Not to mention the cost of toilet paper and paper towels and (we hope) soap, which is probably much higher.
Who sets the rules as to what is a benefit and what is not???
Because tax law holds that food & drink (& entertainment) provided for employee events for morale is deductible to the company and not taxable to the employee, as long as the events are open to all employees.
Obviously google has an interpretation that they want to use, that lunch every day at google is an event to bolster morale.
On the other hand, the IRS would like to say no, if it happens more than once a week, it's not such an event. Or, no, if there's not a set time during which every body comes, it's not such an event.
Does your company ever provide donuts for meetings? Should the value of the donuts show up as a taxable benefit on your W2? Coffee? Soda?
Motion tracking video of the baton (cheap webcam view from the side, colored foam ball on the baton end, track up/down motion with some very simple image processing); convert to a usable signal (e.g. audible clicks through an earpiece when the baton reaches maximum/minimum positions and turns around).
I doubt that would help. He needs to know about the velocity change as it happens, not after the next maximum/minimum is reached earlier or later than he was anticipating.
Why not have a state-run service that produces a signature for a document (or encrypted document or document digest) that I upload?
Because it says absolutely nothing about the authenticity of the document which you provide.
You're talking about scanned documents--documents from other sources which you allegedly scan, allegedly without modifying them, before signing them. The only authentication anybody else would be interested in would be authentication by the document producer, not by you, because you could perform any amount of modification/forgery before signing the document.
This is all very different from documents which you produce yourself, where authentication by you does have value.
First, I want to be able after years to verify that the scan was not modified. Second: There are countries that do recognize electronically signed documents as legal documents (if signed with a certificate issued by state-run CA). I did not actually check with a lawyer if this fulfills the requirements, but... why not to have the option?
For your own verification, OK. But no, no state-run authority is going to give any weight whatsoever to an image from your own archive that you signed yourself.
Here is something I do know: over 5 million children in the United States will go to bed hungry tonight.
No they won't. That sound bite comes from a series of ridiculous distortions of the underlying data. In essence, 5 million children are at risk that some time during the month their parents (or other caregivers) will not provide them the meals they had planned to--and at that meal most of them will not even go hungry, they'll be fed cheaper food, and probably never even know about it.
When someone splashes alcohol in your face and lights it, the very last thing you will be thinking about is beating them up. You WILL be thinking about you face being on fire.
I think it's you that's watched too many movies--booze does not burn all that well. While splashing alcohol in 1 person's face and lighting it might, possibly, incapacitate that person, it is not any way to incapacitate the entire flight crew and all the other passengers. The end result would be an attacker struggling to not suffocate, because it is actually very hard to breathe when hog-tied, and especially with one or more knees in your back.
Oh, by the way--you do realize there's fire extinguishers on board, and the flight attendants know where they are and how to use them? Right? So what do you think they're going to do with the fire extinguisher after they empty it?;-)
This prevents civil torts, rather than criminal. People sued on the basis that they suffered harm (being shot) because of a product that the manufacturer knew was designed for that purpose. The manufacturer may be civilly liable without having broken any laws.
It is as I stated: the law blocks civil suits where the manufacturer has not acted in an illegal manner (or made a defective product, or breached a contract). Nothing you say contradicts that.
Somebody tried suing the gun manufacturers, so Congress passed a law to prevent it...
That law only prevents suits against gun manufacturers as long as the sales are legal, in other words, if the manufacturers break any laws, they can be sued for liability--exactly as it should be.
I am curious as to how the school could hold on to "Spicy With" when that's a description...
But it's really not. Ask yourself, what does it describe? Going to your example, an "iPad mini" is clearly a small iPad--from the name you know what it is, because the name described it. But you certainly can't tell what a "Spicy With" is from the name. What kind of bread, meat, condiments? No clue--we expect the sandwich will be spicy to some degree, but that's it.
That said, most of Brown's complaints are complete bullshit. There is no law, none whatsoever, against reselling food. Nor is there any law restricting one from stating exactly what it is that one is reselling.
Yes, I recognize that you are saying it is totally true, but I am pointing out that your statement is false.
The original statement was not "the only way to... is not acceptable to me", nor "the only way to... is morally reprehensible", nor "the only way to... is not practical for many"--it was "there is no way to...", which was blatantly wrong--it was a statement that was either designed to deceive, or was simply misinformed. But your statement that it was "totally true" was not misinformed; it was false, and knowingly so.
The unless part means you assume something that is not the case. Meaning you are twisting the truth using that.
This statement does not even make sense: the unless part does not mean I assume anything, I am not assuming anything, indeed it is you making an assumption (that what is not acceptable to you does not count, as though it doesn't even exist), and what you seem to mean I assume is in fact the case.
Simple logic for you: 0 != 1, "no way to..." is not the same as "only 1 way to...". I am not twisting the truth, I am pointing out the complete truth where you have twisted it by eliding that part which you don't like. Saying "there is no way to..." could be said to be twisting the truth, on the premise that it's shorthand for "there is no way acceptable to me to..." but that would be an understatement, the fact is: you were lying.
Does a gun manufacturer or dealer go to jail as co-conspirator when the killer used the gun to kill people?
The dealer can go to jail if the sale was illegal--in other words, skirted the background check, knew it was a straw purchase, and so on. It's rare because most gun dealers know better, but it does happen occasionally. That would be for breaking the laws I mentioned, now if the gun dealer actually knew that the person to whom he was selling intended to murder, and in fact actually conspired with that person to help him commit the murder, then of course he would treated as a co-conspirator.
The manufacturer could in theory. In the real world it doesn't happen because the manufacturers are far removed from the end user of any particular gun or round, and because they know full well their choice is follow the letter of the law scrupulously or be shut down (at best).
Can we just skip this April Fools shit from now on? It's just a fucking waste of time.
No really, it's gotten really old, and there's no giggle value in it anymore. I'd just like to be able to tune in like every other day, and get my usual news. This Prank-Tee-Hee-Hee thing has totally jumped the shark, and nowadays it's just a nuisance.
Every fucking geek blogger is trying to be funny to day, and most of them are failing. When I want humor, I know how to go to www.theonion.com.
Ya that too:) I don't know what russotto talking about when he/she said:
It seems that if the examiner's reasoning were to be applied to an application for "iPad", then that application would be denied. That much is true, but where russotto errs is in thinking that anything in this action could actually be applied to the existing trademark--or in thinking that this reasoning is more correct than the reasoning of the examiner who originally accepted "iPad".
I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.
A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.
I think that Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has already been registered;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Its unlikely Google pays tax on the food...
It is an absolute certainty that they pay tax on the food--sales tax, not income tax.
The university, unless it uses well water, pays for its water like everyone else via the water taxes.
WTF??? That attempt at an analogy is a double miss:
1) No, there is no "water tax" that pays for water. The university pays for water, on top of which there might or might not be tax charged, depending on the locality.
2) Google pays for the food, and pays taxes on it.
By the way: $10 of water is an ENORMOUS amount of water. $10 barely gets you a nice cheeseburger or salad in many US cities. Typical US household water bill is $330/year, according to a quick search.
So? From that we can guess that an employee might use $50/year of water at work. So, why shouldn't that also be treated as a taxable benefit to the employee? Not to mention the cost of toilet paper and paper towels and (we hope) soap, which is probably much higher.
Who sets the rules as to what is a benefit and what is not???
I can see the argument for that. Why can't you?
Because tax law holds that food & drink (& entertainment) provided for employee events for morale is deductible to the company and not taxable to the employee, as long as the events are open to all employees.
Obviously google has an interpretation that they want to use, that lunch every day at google is an event to bolster morale.
On the other hand, the IRS would like to say no, if it happens more than once a week, it's not such an event. Or, no, if there's not a set time during which every body comes, it's not such an event.
Does your company ever provide donuts for meetings? Should the value of the donuts show up as a taxable benefit on your W2? Coffee? Soda?
Motion tracking video of the baton (cheap webcam view from the side, colored foam ball on the baton end, track up/down motion with some very simple image processing); convert to a usable signal (e.g. audible clicks through an earpiece when the baton reaches maximum/minimum positions and turns around).
I doubt that would help. He needs to know about the velocity change as it happens, not after the next maximum/minimum is reached earlier or later than he was anticipating.
Why not have a state-run service that produces a signature for a document (or encrypted document or document digest) that I upload?
Because it says absolutely nothing about the authenticity of the document which you provide.
You're talking about scanned documents--documents from other sources which you allegedly scan, allegedly without modifying them, before signing them. The only authentication anybody else would be interested in would be authentication by the document producer, not by you, because you could perform any amount of modification/forgery before signing the document.
This is all very different from documents which you produce yourself, where authentication by you does have value.
First, I want to be able after years to verify that the scan was not modified. Second: There are countries that do recognize electronically signed documents as legal documents (if signed with a certificate issued by state-run CA). I did not actually check with a lawyer if this fulfills the requirements, but ... why not to have the option?
For your own verification, OK. But no, no state-run authority is going to give any weight whatsoever to an image from your own archive that you signed yourself.
2.3. After you've got a batch of stuff scanned, you move it into Unfiled and correct the names, or split the documents up as you need to.
god, no! Give it a sensible name and put it where it belongs to begin with; don't deal with the same document multiple times.
One more thing I forgot: electronic signatures.
What about them? For scanning and archiving, they're irrelevant.
Here is something I do know: over 5 million children in the United States will go to bed hungry tonight.
No they won't. That sound bite comes from a series of ridiculous distortions of the underlying data. In essence, 5 million children are at risk that some time during the month their parents (or other caregivers) will not provide them the meals they had planned to--and at that meal most of them will not even go hungry, they'll be fed cheaper food, and probably never even know about it.
You've watched too many action movies.
When someone splashes alcohol in your face and lights it, the very last
thing you will be thinking about is beating them up. You WILL be thinking
about you face being on fire.
I think it's you that's watched too many movies--booze does not burn all that well. While splashing alcohol in 1 person's face and lighting it might, possibly, incapacitate that person, it is not any way to incapacitate the entire flight crew and all the other passengers. The end result would be an attacker struggling to not suffocate, because it is actually very hard to breathe when hog-tied, and especially with one or more knees in your back.
Oh, by the way--you do realize there's fire extinguishers on board, and the flight attendants know where they are and how to use them? Right? So what do you think they're going to do with the fire extinguisher after they empty it? ;-)
Well, hey, how are they supposed to ever figure out the cause if they can't put them all back in the air and get a few more instances to analyze? ;-)
not really same pants price does not depend much on amount of materials used
That's only true through the range of "normal" sizes, once you get to "fat boy" clothes, the prices go up.
That last one went over my head.
Albuquerque?
Bugs Bunny
If they break the law, it's a criminal matter.
This prevents civil torts, rather than criminal. People sued on the basis that they suffered harm (being shot) because of a product that the manufacturer knew was designed for that purpose. The manufacturer may be civilly liable without having broken any laws.
It is as I stated: the law blocks civil suits where the manufacturer has not acted in an illegal manner (or made a defective product, or breached a contract). Nothing you say contradicts that.
Somebody tried suing the gun manufacturers, so Congress passed a law to prevent it...
That law only prevents suits against gun manufacturers as long as the sales are legal, in other words, if the manufacturers break any laws, they can be sued for liability--exactly as it should be.
I am curious as to how the school could hold on to "Spicy With" when that's a description...
But it's really not. Ask yourself, what does it describe? Going to your example, an "iPad mini" is clearly a small iPad--from the name you know what it is, because the name described it. But you certainly can't tell what a "Spicy With" is from the name. What kind of bread, meat, condiments? No clue--we expect the sandwich will be spicy to some degree, but that's it.
That said, most of Brown's complaints are complete bullshit. There is no law, none whatsoever, against reselling food. Nor is there any law restricting one from stating exactly what it is that one is reselling.
No, I am saying it is totally true.
Yes, I recognize that you are saying it is totally true, but I am pointing out that your statement is false.
The original statement was not "the only way to... is not acceptable to me", nor "the only way to... is morally reprehensible", nor "the only way to... is not practical for many"--it was "there is no way to...", which was blatantly wrong--it was a statement that was either designed to deceive, or was simply misinformed. But your statement that it was "totally true" was not misinformed; it was false, and knowingly so.
The unless part means you assume something that is not the case. Meaning you are twisting the truth using that.
This statement does not even make sense: the unless part does not mean I assume anything, I am not assuming anything, indeed it is you making an assumption (that what is not acceptable to you does not count, as though it doesn't even exist), and what you seem to mean I assume is in fact the case.
Simple logic for you: 0 != 1, "no way to..." is not the same as "only 1 way to...". I am not twisting the truth, I am pointing out the complete truth where you have twisted it by eliding that part which you don't like. Saying "there is no way to..." could be said to be twisting the truth, on the premise that it's shorthand for "there is no way acceptable to me to..." but that would be an understatement, the fact is: you were lying.
Totally true. Unless...
In other words, not true.
What a self-important twit. Why the hell should his "vision" rule what Apple wants to sell 40 fucking years later?
Kind of reminds me of Ted Nelson complaining about how lame the web is because it doesn't live up to his vision for project Xanadu ;-)
Remember the quote "Real artists ship"???
...but Jesus H. Fucking Christ that's lamer than a Thalidomide dachshund.
Jesus Fucking Christ, that comment alone packs 1,000 more humor than all of yesterday's April 1 stupidity combined...
...there's no way to install apps from your friend unless either you jailbreak your device, or your friend gets it into the App Store...
Not true.
Yup, of the thousands of NCIC denials that have happened in the past 10 years, less than 100 have been prosecuted.
A denial by itself is not grounds for prosecution.
Does a gun manufacturer or dealer go to jail as co-conspirator when the killer used the gun to kill people?
The dealer can go to jail if the sale was illegal--in other words, skirted the background check, knew it was a straw purchase, and so on. It's rare because most gun dealers know better, but it does happen occasionally. That would be for breaking the laws I mentioned, now if the gun dealer actually knew that the person to whom he was selling intended to murder, and in fact actually conspired with that person to help him commit the murder, then of course he would treated as a co-conspirator.
The manufacturer could in theory. In the real world it doesn't happen because the manufacturers are far removed from the end user of any particular gun or round, and because they know full well their choice is follow the letter of the law scrupulously or be shut down (at best).
Can we just skip this April Fools shit from now on? It's just a fucking waste of time.
No really, it's gotten really old, and there's no giggle value in it anymore. I'd just like to be able to tune in like every other day, and get my usual news. This Prank-Tee-Hee-Hee thing has totally jumped the shark, and nowadays it's just a nuisance.
Every fucking geek blogger is trying to be funny to day, and most of them are failing. When I want humor, I know how to go to www.theonion.com.
Ya that too :) I don't know what russotto talking about when he/she said:
It seems that if the examiner's reasoning were to be applied to an application for "iPad", then that application would be denied. That much is true, but where russotto errs is in thinking that anything in this action could actually be applied to the existing trademark--or in thinking that this reasoning is more correct than the reasoning of the examiner who originally accepted "iPad".
I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.
A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.
I think that Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has already been registered ;-)