I presume that price includes software, created by government contractors at high price for a specific purpose, divided amongst the few thousand computers that have it installed.
Perhaps a better example for the American audience would be "Band-Aid" to refer to any and all medical adhesive strip with gauze.
In general, I think that these companies are trying to leap off of a ruling from several years ago. It was deemed a trademark infringement to use your competitor's name in your keywords. (I believe the specific case involved Playboy and Playboy Playmates.) It seems they are trying to follow this with the argument that this is infringement by proxy. Instead of Site A using "Playboy" to draw people to itself, it is a case of Site B using "Playboy" to draw people to Site A.
However, the first is an example of deceptive practices, but I'm not sure if I'm convinced that its deceptive enough to warrant the involvement of the court. The second case, however, is (IMO) clearly OK. Google, and any other entity, when queried for items relevant to some topic, has the right to return items about that topic, items tangent to that topic, or things that have nothing to do with that product, and for any reason. Of course, it's in that entity's best interest to provide the most relevant information, but it can't be argued that a competing product is irrelevant. What's next? No product comparison websites because they expose consumers to harm by introducing the competition and rating them to each other?
Their job is over with and bumping them off would be too late, besides the fact that hits are unlikely to be communicated over prison controlled and monitored systems, and it could all be done by a middleman anyways. This type of hit would likely be prearranged anyways, and this is all assuming that Hans Reiser has become a criminal mastermind overnight.
Yes, but eventually the whales will become confused and then go insane when the buoys start in with the whalian equivalent of "Low battery! Low battery! Low battery!"
When faced with an awkward question, logical positivism asks: what would the answer tell me about the future?
Suppose you had a definitive, 100% guaranteed answer to the "discovered vs invented" question. What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before? What could you predict? What would you gain?
But you're arguing in circles. Yes, in circles: Perfect circles!
Obviously, the fact that humans can argue in perfect circles, divine geometry, is proof of God! After all God, being divine, would create a shape as perfect as a circle, and that we would follow His example is absolute evidence!
I had checked it out already, but I went back to see if there was something I missed. I'm not sure exactly what makes the site NSFW; the raciest thing I see is a small thumbnail of a perfume advertisement, and it's hardly objectionable.
So is evidence of bribery, corruption, and other underhanded tactics considered personal attacks? It looks like they've decided to go ahead and accept it as a de facto standard; I thought they hadn't finished voting yet.
This open letter assures me though - the $y$tem works.
Well, two of many reasons why this is better are: 1. Double the telescopes means double the light being captured; when you're trying to see objects that are very, very far away this is a good thing. 2. Slightly different positions means slightly different paths of light through the atmosphere. This helps reduce distortion through comparison.
The caveat being, to my understanding, that he isn't defending his property, but nearby property belonging to someone else who isn't concerned enough to monitor or enforce trespassers themselves.
Ah, so it was covered. Is it just that one judge in that one case a few months ago? I figured it would have been tested and set well before then. I hope his ruling is the one that sticks, but I just don't see that happening.
Testimony, not evidence. Consider that you can be compelled to give a blood sample for DNA evidence. They can even arrest and restrain you and forcible extract the blood. This is not considered self incrimination by the court. A password is not testimony, it's necessarily to the acquisition of evidence.
Of course, this must have been tested at some point. Are there any law scholars that can provide a more specific example?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, but I look forward to converting my money over and then cashing in on the interest!
I presume that price includes software, created by government contractors at high price for a specific purpose, divided amongst the few thousand computers that have it installed.
Perhaps a better example for the American audience would be "Band-Aid" to refer to any and all medical adhesive strip with gauze.
In general, I think that these companies are trying to leap off of a ruling from several years ago. It was deemed a trademark infringement to use your competitor's name in your keywords. (I believe the specific case involved Playboy and Playboy Playmates.) It seems they are trying to follow this with the argument that this is infringement by proxy. Instead of Site A using "Playboy" to draw people to itself, it is a case of Site B using "Playboy" to draw people to Site A.
However, the first is an example of deceptive practices, but I'm not sure if I'm convinced that its deceptive enough to warrant the involvement of the court. The second case, however, is (IMO) clearly OK. Google, and any other entity, when queried for items relevant to some topic, has the right to return items about that topic, items tangent to that topic, or things that have nothing to do with that product, and for any reason. Of course, it's in that entity's best interest to provide the most relevant information, but it can't be argued that a competing product is irrelevant. What's next? No product comparison websites because they expose consumers to harm by introducing the competition and rating them to each other?
At first, that's how I read it, but looking again I don't believe he was trying to (incorrectly) define it. I think it was just an unrelated jab.
He has to keep his fuel cells charged.
The cigars just make him look cool.
Thank you for making that work. I think too many people took me seriously :)
(Maybe I should have spelled it "langage"?)
You Brits act like you own the language.
Their job is over with and bumping them off would be too late, besides the fact that hits are unlikely to be communicated over prison controlled and monitored systems, and it could all be done by a middleman anyways. This type of hit would likely be prearranged anyways, and this is all assuming that Hans Reiser has become a criminal mastermind overnight.
Unless he grows a beard, and then everybody wins!
Yes, but eventually the whales will become confused and then go insane when the buoys start in with the whalian equivalent of "Low battery! Low battery! Low battery!"
When faced with an awkward question, logical positivism asks: what would the answer tell me about the future?
Suppose you had a definitive, 100% guaranteed answer to the "discovered vs invented" question. What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before? What could you predict? What would you gain?
Nothing, nothing and nothing.
Patents, patents and patents.Obviously, the fact that humans can argue in perfect circles, divine geometry, is proof of God! After all God, being divine, would create a shape as perfect as a circle, and that we would follow His example is absolute evidence!
</tongueincheek>
1. Fresh baked pie
2. Ecstasy
3. Roughly eight girls for every five boys
A formula for a night of irrational fun!
His name is Bubba, actually. You know, everybody makes jokes about Bubba in prison. I always wondered what he did to get there in the first place.
Now I know.
I had checked it out already, but I went back to see if there was something I missed. I'm not sure exactly what makes the site NSFW; the raciest thing I see is a small thumbnail of a perfume advertisement, and it's hardly objectionable.
Or maybe his boss hates polar bears?
So is evidence of bribery, corruption, and other underhanded tactics considered personal attacks? It looks like they've decided to go ahead and accept it as a de facto standard; I thought they hadn't finished voting yet.
This open letter assures me though - the $y$tem works.
Obligatory:
Method of Exercising a Cat
On average, 0.5e11m, or 50 million kilometers.
It's a running gag that's been going on since at least the rover missions. He hasn't done it for a long time, but it's been sorely missed.
Well, two of many reasons why this is better are:
1. Double the telescopes means double the light being captured; when you're trying to see objects that are very, very far away this is a good thing.
2. Slightly different positions means slightly different paths of light through the atmosphere. This helps reduce distortion through comparison.
The caveat being, to my understanding, that he isn't defending his property, but nearby property belonging to someone else who isn't concerned enough to monitor or enforce trespassers themselves.
Ah, so it was covered. Is it just that one judge in that one case a few months ago? I figured it would have been tested and set well before then. I hope his ruling is the one that sticks, but I just don't see that happening.
Testimony, not evidence. Consider that you can be compelled to give a blood sample for DNA evidence. They can even arrest and restrain you and forcible extract the blood. This is not considered self incrimination by the court. A password is not testimony, it's necessarily to the acquisition of evidence.
Of course, this must have been tested at some point. Are there any law scholars that can provide a more specific example?
I'm sure their data, reasoning, and conclusion are much more complex than that single sentence.
How about a hint for the rest of us?