I don't think that's a terribly large risk. Unlike your average model train hobbyist or even programmer, lawyers and judges have quite a bit of legal training.
That's the scary part; how did the SCO trial carry on for so long if that were the case? SCO was *the* most shorted stock on the exchanges for quite a long time--they never had a case--and yet the legal system let them tie things up for years and years.
> More accurately google did have a business model at that time, it was selling google stock,
You didn't say anything about the founders there. Nonetheless, all of that information is public, and you can look at the stock transactions that took place around that time, nothing looks out of the ordinary what-so-ever.
New projects going forward should all be released public domain. Bam. *All* projects can now use your code. Because of crazy liability statutes and crazy precedence, you will need to put a disclaim of liability/warranty on the code when *you* distribute it, but there isn't any need at all to make others who distribute it do so by adding a license term contingent on *their* distribution--that's the biggest downfall of the non-advertising clause BSD license, but in practice isn't that big of a deal. I am not a lawyer, but I *don't* ANAL; sorry.
"John Carmack has my dream life, and I know I can never compete, so instead I'm going to trivialize his efforts with a lame post ending in a capitalized 'bwahahahahaha'."
The funny thing is MIT actually does some research on how we can keep things more green; I'll save them some research dollars: unplug that stupid bisected burrito.
I thought a proton was a neutron mixed with a positron. In an electron/proton combination, the 'positron' part of the proton annihilates the electron, giving off massive energy, so it isn't truly 'both' of them anymore.
You mean: "but it doesn't explain why anyone is **constitutionally guaranteed the right** to own any type of non-military weapon such as a common shotgun."
The constitution doesn't often take away rights; if there isn't a law on the books disallowing shotguns, a strict interpretation of the constitution under Miller would *disallow* shotguns, it would just *allow* states/congress to disallow shotguns.
I'm pretty sure he knows that; his point is that you'll need more atoms/photons than there are in the universe for even a very tiny problem (without using quantum superposition).
Slashdot Mirror
As long as they don't have DRM, sign me up!
I don't think that's a terribly large risk. Unlike your average model train hobbyist or even programmer, lawyers and judges have quite a bit of legal training.
That's the scary part; how did the SCO trial carry on for so long if that were the case? SCO was *the* most shorted stock on the exchanges for quite a long time--they never had a case--and yet the legal system let them tie things up for years and years.
Yes, the calculator made it's appearance *this* generation; sure, whatever.
> More accurately google did have a business model at that time, it was selling google stock,
You didn't say anything about the founders there. Nonetheless, all of that information is public, and you can look at the stock transactions that took place around that time, nothing looks out of the ordinary what-so-ever.
And what Martin Luther King, Jr. thought (correctly, though he got the idea from Gandhi, not the confederates).
New projects going forward should all be released public domain. Bam. *All* projects can now use your code. Because of crazy liability statutes and crazy precedence, you will need to put a disclaim of liability/warranty on the code when *you* distribute it, but there isn't any need at all to make others who distribute it do so by adding a license term contingent on *their* distribution--that's the biggest downfall of the non-advertising clause BSD license, but in practice isn't that big of a deal. I am not a lawyer, but I *don't* ANAL; sorry.
How about for a single word or small phrase in single quotes like this 'example'.
Executive summary:
"John Carmack has my dream life, and I know I can never compete, so instead I'm going to trivialize his efforts with a lame post ending in a capitalized 'bwahahahahaha'."
During that time period Google did no further public offerings of stock, so what you said makes no sense.
The funny thing is MIT actually does some research on how we can keep things more green; I'll save them some research dollars: unplug that stupid bisected burrito.
I thought a proton was a neutron mixed with a positron. In an electron/proton combination, the 'positron' part of the proton annihilates the electron, giving off massive energy, so it isn't truly 'both' of them anymore.
Summer of code; libjingle; you know, like you say, nothing.
The difference is I didn't dub myself better than the rest of the lot.
Yeah, you're right. Yahoo! doesn't exist.
Hey you, official genius. Yeah that's right, you. It's 'ahead', not 'a head'.
I hate to inform you, but there isn't a single test that can measure up to the 180+ range.
You mean: "but it doesn't explain why anyone is **constitutionally guaranteed the right** to own any type of non-military weapon such as a common shotgun."
The constitution doesn't often take away rights; if there isn't a law on the books disallowing shotguns, a strict interpretation of the constitution under Miller would *disallow* shotguns, it would just *allow* states/congress to disallow shotguns.
Every ion breeze ever made probably hasn't produced as many ions as around 3 lightning bolts. I don't think we have to worry too much.
Often times cam releases rip the sound straight out of the booth, and are setup without audiences present, etc.
Columbia, SC is hell on earth; that temperature you mentioned was from earlier this winter.
I hope you mean all of your investment.. they won't have a claim on your house and car--it isn't a partnership for christ sakes.
Because you need water and power, you don't need high speed internet.
You were seriously appalled? If stocks couldn't be shorted, there would be major liquidity problems in the markets.
I'm pretty sure he knows that; his point is that you'll need more atoms/photons than there are in the universe for even a very tiny problem (without using quantum superposition).
That isn't true at all. What happens in the second case when x == 0.0 ?