Perhaps it is no longer enforced, but it appears to be on the books:
Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
Taken from this PDF document.
Am I misunderstanding something? That seems to be pretty close to a blasphemy law. "Any word or sound" is pretty strong language. I was surprised to see it.
My interpretation was that MS misinterpreted the intent of the contest
I think that's a pretty good guess. And presumably they are making a profit on these, so I don't see a downside, and there's a whole lot of upside. When was the last time people were excited and impressed about something new from Microsoft?
My first hard drive was $500 and had a capacity of 10MB. And I was amazed!
On the other hand, programs and data were so small that I never came close to filling it up.
Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code.
If you can't see the obvious difference between making an unauthorized copy of something and presenting someone else's work as your own then I can understand why copyright law is so screwed up.
The summary is FUD. Even if the measure had passed it certainly wouldn't have been in effect for 2010 income, so his selling this year would not have been subject to the tax anyway.
That part where he says you're totally missing the point? Well you're totally missing the point. They got your real email address when your brother searched for people in his contact list.
That border area has been under dispute for some time. I'm sure they knew exactly what they were doing.
In fact the entire Guanacaste region used to be part of Nicaragua.
What's the likelihood that between him receiving the patent in 1977 in Italy of all places and Sony pushing out the first walkman in 1979 that sony actually ever looked at that patent?
So then you think that as long as you're unaware of a patent you don't have to abide by it? What you wrote is irrelevant.
It's not exactly free to do it on your own. For a small shop it's a huge benefit to not have to deal with all that infrastructure and hiring and payment processing. A one or two person team can focus on development and not worry about the other headaches. It will bring me back to developing Mac software.
get an electric bicycle: cheaper, cleaner, healthier
It's not cheaper or healthier. It seems to be, but eventually you are going to have an accident, and then your cost skyrockets and your health plummets. Where I live those things are everywhere, and every day I see one down on the pavement, all mangled and broken, along with its owner.
With silly phrases like "Powered by Samsung's own 1GHz ARM Cortex A8-based Hummingbird processor with a four-inch Super-AMOLED capacitive touchscreen, it's no wonder Samsung has sold over 5 million Galaxy S phones" I'd say they are trying to show an advertisement.
Here's another problem that I think is rather good, though much less well known than MH:
You and I are each given an envelope. The person who hands them to us states (truthfully) that both contain money, and one has twice as much as the other.
So I might think to myself "Hmmm. If I could somehow convince him to trade I might double my money while risking only half of it." It seems like trading is profitable.
But of course you are entitled to the same reasoning. What gives?
You might be able to find a discussion of it by searching for "The Budrys Paradox," which not coincidentally is my last name, though I did not invent it (the problem I mean. Though I didn't invent my name, either.)
No, it applies to The Monty Hall Problem. It doesn't work with some variations of it. The original assumes that when Monty has a choice he chooses randomly. And when I give the problem to someone that is how I state it. The original is beautiful in its simpleness and uncluttered cleanliness. Variations are interesting for other reasons, but they are not as beautiful.
You lose. Your result is correct. Your reasonning is not.
It's funny. I actually wrote the additional sentence qualifying my statement in that it assumes the problem has been properly stated to begin with. But then I thought "there's really no need for that statement - the problem is well known here, and obviously all answers apply to whatever problem they're addressing, and not necessarily some other set of rules.
Obviously my judgement was in error. So instead of writing a simple one-liner that is clear, I should have written a whole paragraph and restated the entire problem to which my explanation applies.
OK, in the case where Monty will *always* reveal a non-winning door, as was obvious to anyone who ever watched the show, and there were no other crazy rules, then my explanation holds. Sheesh man, did you really have to bother with all that?
I've had success in getting people to accept the answer by pointing out that by trading the only time you don't get it is when you chose it in the first place, which is obviously 1/3 of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Because fear and panic is so much more foistable than rational thinking.
How in the world do you read that into what I wrote? You're wrong, but that's not the point. It's simply not present in my post.
Perhaps it is no longer enforced, but it appears to be on the books:
Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
Taken from this PDF document.
Am I misunderstanding something? That seems to be pretty close to a blasphemy law. "Any word or sound" is pretty strong language. I was surprised to see it.
I think that's a pretty good guess. And presumably they are making a profit on these, so I don't see a downside, and there's a whole lot of upside. When was the last time people were excited and impressed about something new from Microsoft?
My first hard drive was $500 and had a capacity of 10MB. And I was amazed!
On the other hand, programs and data were so small that I never came close to filling it up.
If you accept that then you also accept that it is logically impossible to contradict any aspect of any omnipotence-based religion.
None? Aren't you worried about chafing?
If you can't see the obvious difference between making an unauthorized copy of something and presenting someone else's work as your own then I can understand why copyright law is so screwed up.
I'm pretty sure one of the kids in that Power Glove commercial is the kid from The Wonder Years.
The summary is FUD. Even if the measure had passed it certainly wouldn't have been in effect for 2010 income, so his selling this year would not have been subject to the tax anyway.
That part where he says you're totally missing the point? Well you're totally missing the point. They got your real email address when your brother searched for people in his contact list.
That border area has been under dispute for some time. I'm sure they knew exactly what they were doing.
In fact the entire Guanacaste region used to be part of Nicaragua.
(mod(parent(up))))
So then you think that as long as you're unaware of a patent you don't have to abide by it? What you wrote is irrelevant.
shop | sh äp| noun
It's not exactly free to do it on your own. For a small shop it's a huge benefit to not have to deal with all that infrastructure and hiring and payment processing. A one or two person team can focus on development and not worry about the other headaches. It will bring me back to developing Mac software.
It's not cheaper or healthier. It seems to be, but eventually you are going to have an accident, and then your cost skyrockets and your health plummets. Where I live those things are everywhere, and every day I see one down on the pavement, all mangled and broken, along with its owner.
With silly phrases like "Powered by Samsung's own 1GHz ARM Cortex A8-based Hummingbird processor with a four-inch Super-AMOLED capacitive touchscreen, it's no wonder Samsung has sold over 5 million Galaxy S phones" I'd say they are trying to show an advertisement.
It's the Latency, Stupid was written way back in the dark ages (1996), but Stuart Cheshire's essay on latency vs. bandwidth is still a good read.
It comes from drinking the Zune kool-aid.
It's a rare disorder.
You and I are each given an envelope. The person who hands them to us states (truthfully) that both contain money, and one has twice as much as the other.
So I might think to myself "Hmmm. If I could somehow convince him to trade I might double my money while risking only half of it." It seems like trading is profitable.
But of course you are entitled to the same reasoning. What gives?
You might be able to find a discussion of it by searching for "The Budrys Paradox," which not coincidentally is my last name, though I did not invent it (the problem I mean. Though I didn't invent my name, either.)
No, it applies to The Monty Hall Problem. It doesn't work with some variations of it. The original assumes that when Monty has a choice he chooses randomly. And when I give the problem to someone that is how I state it. The original is beautiful in its simpleness and uncluttered cleanliness. Variations are interesting for other reasons, but they are not as beautiful.
It's funny. I actually wrote the additional sentence qualifying my statement in that it assumes the problem has been properly stated to begin with. But then I thought "there's really no need for that statement - the problem is well known here, and obviously all answers apply to whatever problem they're addressing, and not necessarily some other set of rules.
Obviously my judgement was in error. So instead of writing a simple one-liner that is clear, I should have written a whole paragraph and restated the entire problem to which my explanation applies.
OK, in the case where Monty will *always* reveal a non-winning door, as was obvious to anyone who ever watched the show, and there were no other crazy rules, then my explanation holds. Sheesh man, did you really have to bother with all that?
They used leopard twice, so there should still be one left over.
I've had success in getting people to accept the answer by pointing out that by trading the only time you don't get it is when you chose it in the first place, which is obviously 1/3 of the time.