... including the possibility that Lexus put some very strong rare-earth magnets underneath the sidewalk in the video.
I don't see why we couldn't just do that everywhere. It won't cost more than a trillion dollars, and it would pretty much solve all the problems we constantly have with sidewalks lacking strong magnetic fields.
I mean, it would create some new problems for non-hovering skateboards, bikes, carts, segways, other wheeled vehicles, people in wheelchairs, people with piercings or surgical plates, people who wear steel-toed boots, people carrying hard drives, clumsy people who drop ferrous items, people whose job it is to clean debris off sidewalks, compass-wielding explorers, and any metallic objects anywhere near street level in cities or suburbs. Small price to pay for working hoverboards everywhere!
Well shit, a little context ruins the whole soapbox experience. I really got going there...
Sadly, point still holds for even the most unreasonable Randite foffer. Write a nasty obituary, sure. But I still couldn't play bouncer at the hospital gates.
Heart attack and no insurance, oh well stay home and die if you cannot pay for it up front.
Why should the rest of us pay for you to sit there smoking and eating all day into an early grave because you did not want to pay for health insurance, but still expect to see a doctor in an emergency.
Because human decency. It's pretty easy when sitting behind a keyboard to say someone should just die, but I wonder if you'd be able to make the call yourself.
You are the Director of Who Gets the Privilege of Treatment at the local hospital. Grampa Joe is getting wheeled to the front door, clutching his chest. You're holding the mighty clipboard that tells you who has health insurance or not. You hold up a hand, "Stop right there," and nod to your clipboard. "Says here you smoked through your forties, and this whole last year you haven't had any health insurance." Grampa Joe winces in pain, struggling for breath, and his grandson tugs at your sleeve, "Please, mister, don't let Grampa Joe die."
Do we see Thaylin the Implacable stand on principal, scowl at the dying man and his family, and point silently to the Dying Ditch across the street? Will you be the bulwark against the sea of desperate people, telling them day after day to just go off and die already? Letting the ones pass that were able to sell everything they had on them to gain your admission price? And if you wouldn't want to do that job yourself, would you have the people working in the hospitals, who swore an oath to heal people, do your dirty work for you?
Maybe a decent modern society should spare some change to make sure nobody has to die in a ditch, regardless of whether we agree with all their life choices.
Flag burning and flag wearing are still constitutionally protected activities in the United States. I have a flag bandana I trot out every 4th of July. Selling and sporting flag-patterned goods is a major industry, roundly cheered by the general populace.
Most of it is made in China, but we just pretend they mean China, TX.
Exactly what I was thinking. I don't have a problem with Google not listing Confederate paraphernalia in their shopping results, just as I applaud WalMart and friends for discontinuing their sale. But Apple yanking or threatening to yank any game or app that contains a confederate flag is... knee-jerk and way overbroad.
I can see the actual enforcement being spotty and arbitrary--big studios' Civil War games will get a pass while smaller outfits either get completely ignored or killed without warning.
You imply here, and explicitly state above, that this violence is being perpetrated as some sort of false flag operation, presumably by Uber themselves.
Funny that you trust your life internet reviews. Kind of cute actually.
Preferable to trusting your life to a group that has physically assaulted over 100 people.
Protest, even a mass sit-in (park-in, really) is fine with me as long as people can still get to the hospital. But overturning vehicles and beating people up? I'd have to be out of my mind to get in a French taxi.
All the while, taxi apologists like you and Fran are bemoaning Uber not following some licensing regulations. Hey officer, I just shot that guy, would you believe he didn't have his goddammit hunting license?!
Of course I want to use a search provider that has to hijack my browser to gain any significant marketshare. Why would I want to use the search engine that works best for me, when Oracle can choose a shittier one for me?
1) Post something about Uber.
1a) No, it doesn't have to be actual news or make any sense.
2) Users will flock to the thread to wage holy war over government regulation and the legality of Uber's tactics.
2a) Yes, even when TFS says absurd stuff like "allegorithm" and "driving in real life is actually a video game myeh."
2b) Yes I'm serious, post whatever the hell you want. It can be the text from a Nigerian email scam, just be sure to insert the word "Uber" at least once.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Well yeah, I think the cops should be the first to get the memo. Private ownership of "scary" combat vehicles is, for all practical purposes, a non-issue (regardless of the headline).
The militarization of our nation's police forces, on the other hand, is one of the great crises of our time.
>"You seem to be assuming that "near miss" means "nearly miss" as opposed to, say "nearby miss". Your assumption is all well and good, but it's not a law of nature or anything...."
True. But it seems like a far more likely use than what you suggest. Near, nearly, nears, nearer, nearest are all essentially different states of the same word. Where "nearby" is tacking on a preposition such as, on, at, over, under, around, etc onto "near" which changes the meaning significantly.
The issue isn't the implied tacking of a preposition. It's the difference between a near acting as an adjective or as part of a compound noun. In order for the phrase to act as you want it to, it would have to be a compound noun acting as a single unit (which is illustrated more clearly when you properly hyphenate them together): a near-miss == an almost-miss == a hit.
That's not an absurd construction; sometimes near is used this way, e.g. a near disaster was nearly disastrous. In this usage, near doesn't describe a quality of the disaster. Because the event itself never happened, "near" is an inextricable part of the "thingness" of the noun--saying disaster by itself here would be inaccurate.
However, near as used in "near miss" is an adjective. Near describes the quality of the miss. A near miss was close, as opposed to a wide or distant miss. Saying miss by itself would still be accurate.
This is not only the universally accepted meaning for this specific phrase, but it's also not out of the ordinary for near to be used in this way. A near relative is closely related and not a distant relative. You'd never misunderstand that phrase to mean "was almost my brother-in-law, but the wedding got canceled at the last minute."
In the end, it's not that your proposed meaning is grammatically incorrect. There are two valid ways this can go, and the English speaking world has settled on one of them.
About to switch away from the iUniverse to a Samsung. Many reviewers recommend installing better keyboard software than Samsung's default; would that address this problem?
There are two separate issues: did the appropriationist infringe, and what sort of copyright does he get, if any? There is a difference between merely not infringing and getting a copyright of your own.
The defense of fair use, which worked for the artist, meant he was not guilty of infringement. That doesn't tell us much about the nature of the copyright that may subsist in his (derivative) work.
The original photographs are solidly protectable (well, not protectable from this guy, but I digress). The artist's derivative work, on the other hand, would enjoy thin copyright at best.
The original creative elements he added were.... banal comments, enlargement, and printing on canvas? Those are actually more like ideas and techniques; he really added so little that a court might find no additional copyrightable material. Andy Warhol actually did a whole lot more, compositionally, than the artist here.
To the extent a court recognized independently copyrightable material, a work would probably have to be identical (not just nearly so) to assert it against the original photographer. Note that the photographer's re-appropriation changed the comments, which are the only real "creativity" hook the artist has.
tl;dr The Suicide Girls are safe. Not windmill slam, 100% guaranteed win safe, but they're on solid legal footing.
Well the expansion of various forms of post-grant practice is coming closer to your wish. IPR in particular is booming right now.
Again, I think changing the legal standard would have much more drastic consequences than people understand. But strong post-grant processes can go a long way toward killing the ridiculous patents that we all rail against.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting someone with no skill ... on par with someone who dedicated his life to being in the top line of experts.
I see what you did there.
*golf claps*
... including the possibility that Lexus put some very strong rare-earth magnets underneath the sidewalk in the video.
I don't see why we couldn't just do that everywhere. It won't cost more than a trillion dollars, and it would pretty much solve all the problems we constantly have with sidewalks lacking strong magnetic fields.
I mean, it would create some new problems for non-hovering skateboards, bikes, carts, segways, other wheeled vehicles, people in wheelchairs, people with piercings or surgical plates, people who wear steel-toed boots, people carrying hard drives, clumsy people who drop ferrous items, people whose job it is to clean debris off sidewalks, compass-wielding explorers, and any metallic objects anywhere near street level in cities or suburbs. Small price to pay for working hoverboards everywhere!
Yes.
Take that, Betteridge!
Well shit, a little context ruins the whole soapbox experience. I really got going there...
Sadly, point still holds for even the most unreasonable Randite foffer. Write a nasty obituary, sure. But I still couldn't play bouncer at the hospital gates.
Heart attack and no insurance, oh well stay home and die if you cannot pay for it up front.
Why should the rest of us pay for you to sit there smoking and eating all day into an early grave because you did not want to pay for health insurance, but still expect to see a doctor in an emergency.
Because human decency. It's pretty easy when sitting behind a keyboard to say someone should just die, but I wonder if you'd be able to make the call yourself.
You are the Director of Who Gets the Privilege of Treatment at the local hospital. Grampa Joe is getting wheeled to the front door, clutching his chest. You're holding the mighty clipboard that tells you who has health insurance or not. You hold up a hand, "Stop right there," and nod to your clipboard. "Says here you smoked through your forties, and this whole last year you haven't had any health insurance." Grampa Joe winces in pain, struggling for breath, and his grandson tugs at your sleeve, "Please, mister, don't let Grampa Joe die."
Do we see Thaylin the Implacable stand on principal, scowl at the dying man and his family, and point silently to the Dying Ditch across the street? Will you be the bulwark against the sea of desperate people, telling them day after day to just go off and die already? Letting the ones pass that were able to sell everything they had on them to gain your admission price? And if you wouldn't want to do that job yourself, would you have the people working in the hospitals, who swore an oath to heal people, do your dirty work for you?
Maybe a decent modern society should spare some change to make sure nobody has to die in a ditch, regardless of whether we agree with all their life choices.
In England, if you want to make flag-patterned underwear and sell it, that's legal, but in the USA, forget it.
Um...
Flag burning and flag wearing are still constitutionally protected activities in the United States. I have a flag bandana I trot out every 4th of July. Selling and sporting flag-patterned goods is a major industry, roundly cheered by the general populace.
Most of it is made in China, but we just pretend they mean China, TX.
Exactly what I was thinking. I don't have a problem with Google not listing Confederate paraphernalia in their shopping results, just as I applaud WalMart and friends for discontinuing their sale. But Apple yanking or threatening to yank any game or app that contains a confederate flag is... knee-jerk and way overbroad.
I can see the actual enforcement being spotty and arbitrary--big studios' Civil War games will get a pass while smaller outfits either get completely ignored or killed without warning.
*damned...
Goddammit autocorrect!
You imply here, and explicitly state above, that this violence is being perpetrated as some sort of false flag operation, presumably by Uber themselves.
[citation needed]
Funny that you trust your life internet reviews. Kind of cute actually.
Preferable to trusting your life to a group that has physically assaulted over 100 people.
Protest, even a mass sit-in (park-in, really) is fine with me as long as people can still get to the hospital. But overturning vehicles and beating people up? I'd have to be out of my mind to get in a French taxi.
All the while, taxi apologists like you and Fran are bemoaning Uber not following some licensing regulations. Hey officer, I just shot that guy, would you believe he didn't have his goddammit hunting license?!
Of course I want to use a search provider that has to hijack my browser to gain any significant marketshare. Why would I want to use the search engine that works best for me, when Oracle can choose a shittier one for me?
Inconceivable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Your mom is a video game
Don't just rush in and downmod AC here. Given the subject matter, this is actually Insightful.
1) Post something about Uber.
1a) No, it doesn't have to be actual news or make any sense.
2) Users will flock to the thread to wage holy war over government regulation and the legality of Uber's tactics.
2a) Yes, even when TFS says absurd stuff like "allegorithm" and "driving in real life is actually a video game myeh."
2b) Yes I'm serious, post whatever the hell you want. It can be the text from a Nigerian email scam, just be sure to insert the word "Uber" at least once.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Well yeah, I think the cops should be the first to get the memo. Private ownership of "scary" combat vehicles is, for all practical purposes, a non-issue (regardless of the headline).
The militarization of our nation's police forces, on the other hand, is one of the great crises of our time.
>"You seem to be assuming that "near miss" means "nearly miss" as opposed to, say "nearby miss". Your assumption is all well and good, but it's not a law of nature or anything...."
True. But it seems like a far more likely use than what you suggest. Near, nearly, nears, nearer, nearest are all essentially different states of the same word. Where "nearby" is tacking on a preposition such as, on, at, over, under, around, etc onto "near" which changes the meaning significantly.
The issue isn't the implied tacking of a preposition. It's the difference between a near acting as an adjective or as part of a compound noun. In order for the phrase to act as you want it to, it would have to be a compound noun acting as a single unit (which is illustrated more clearly when you properly hyphenate them together): a near-miss == an almost-miss == a hit.
That's not an absurd construction; sometimes near is used this way, e.g. a near disaster was nearly disastrous. In this usage, near doesn't describe a quality of the disaster. Because the event itself never happened, "near" is an inextricable part of the "thingness" of the noun--saying disaster by itself here would be inaccurate.
However, near as used in "near miss" is an adjective. Near describes the quality of the miss. A near miss was close, as opposed to a wide or distant miss. Saying miss by itself would still be accurate.
This is not only the universally accepted meaning for this specific phrase, but it's also not out of the ordinary for near to be used in this way. A near relative is closely related and not a distant relative. You'd never misunderstand that phrase to mean "was almost my brother-in-law, but the wedding got canceled at the last minute."
In the end, it's not that your proposed meaning is grammatically incorrect. There are two valid ways this can go, and the English speaking world has settled on one of them.
I'm not responsible for other people's fear.
Well, if someone shit their pants at the sight of your 30 ton combat vehicle rolling down the street, you would in fact be responsible for their fear.
I don't think it's being pedantic to correct your statement: "I don't care about other people's fear that I caused."
About to switch away from the iUniverse to a Samsung. Many reviewers recommend installing better keyboard software than Samsung's default; would that address this problem?
I, for one, would only protest a nuclear probe if it was of the "rectal" variety.
The Turing Complete Water Computer: An infinite strip of snow, dotted here and there with yellow.
That had better be a Canadian violin, or else you are stealing.
And God help you if the sheet music isn't in French.
It's a slashvertisement, written by a brogrammer, wrapped in a handjob.
...everybody should get naked. There...I said it.
It's the logical end state of this whole open office thing. Complete transparency and no place to hide.
We could fix airport security that way, too.
There are two separate issues: did the appropriationist infringe, and what sort of copyright does he get, if any? There is a difference between merely not infringing and getting a copyright of your own.
The defense of fair use, which worked for the artist, meant he was not guilty of infringement. That doesn't tell us much about the nature of the copyright that may subsist in his (derivative) work.
The original photographs are solidly protectable (well, not protectable from this guy, but I digress). The artist's derivative work, on the other hand, would enjoy thin copyright at best.
The original creative elements he added were.... banal comments, enlargement, and printing on canvas? Those are actually more like ideas and techniques; he really added so little that a court might find no additional copyrightable material. Andy Warhol actually did a whole lot more, compositionally, than the artist here.
To the extent a court recognized independently copyrightable material, a work would probably have to be identical (not just nearly so) to assert it against the original photographer. Note that the photographer's re-appropriation changed the comments, which are the only real "creativity" hook the artist has.
tl;dr The Suicide Girls are safe. Not windmill slam, 100% guaranteed win safe, but they're on solid legal footing.
Well the expansion of various forms of post-grant practice is coming closer to your wish. IPR in particular is booming right now.
Again, I think changing the legal standard would have much more drastic consequences than people understand. But strong post-grant processes can go a long way toward killing the ridiculous patents that we all rail against.