I never understood people who say they don't get spam on gmail. I never get spam on GMail. The whole time I've had it (2.5 years), it has put about four spams in my inbox, and thousands in my spam folder.
Do you mean, you don't understand why you get spam and nobody else does?
I would have thought my meaning was fairly clear from the beginning, but let me spell it out in case you're not the only one puzzled.
The_Mystic_For_Real wrote:
This is an interesting aspect of free license law that hasn't really been delved into yet. You replied by pointing out that this has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot. However, this wasn't what TMFR was referring to, and I thought your snide tone was unfair. You undermined TMFR's point by moving the goalposts on him. That's straw-man argument #1.
This led to me to respond rather hastily and rudely that TMFR was clearly referring to the legal profession rather than Slashdot. I regret the tone of that reply, and I apologize for it. But I didn't say I agreed with TMFR; merely that your reply, however humourous, was a nonsequitur.
In reply, you called me "dumb" for believing that the the legal system has never delved into "the copyright violation of semi-free content". My calling you "dumb" was bad enough, and again I apologize for that; but I did it to point out that you had missed TMFR's point; you were using it as an unsupported ad hominem argument to undermine an opinion -- and it was an opinion that I didn't even express! That's straw-man argument #2.
When I pointed out that you were arguing against a statement I never made, you then charged me with making nothing but vacuous posts. So by my count, your entire contribution to this thread has been two straw-men, an ad-hominem argument and one vacant stare.
Well, I hope I've explained myself to your satisfaction, because I'm done with this thread. I like a good debate (or even exchange of rhetoric) as much as the next guy, but arguing with you is like playing chess against someone who doesn't know how the pieces move.
You can't seriously be dumb enough to believe that the legal system's never 'delved into' the copyright violation of semi-free content? I never said that.
2. Don't play unless the present value of this week's expected total payout after taxes is less than this week's pay-in. This is a fallacy. The entire notion of "expected payout" relies on the law of large numbers. It is not useful for decision making when you only have one shot at something.
In other words, even if the expected payout is positive, buying one lottery ticket is still a bad idea because you are going to lose. If you buy the ticket, you will be out $1; you can be as certain of that as you are of anything else you will ever encounter in your life.
Buying all the lottery tickets, on the other hand...
From listening to Dr. Tsen, it really does seem to work for free virions floating in solution - but once they unpackage themselves and infect a cell, it does nothing.
From the article:
Tsen says the technology could provide immediate benefits for clearing viruses in blood stored in blood banks. So they're not going after viruses that have already infected cells.
The virus-deactivating laser works on a principle called forced resonance. The scientists tune the laser to the same frequency the virus vibrates on. Then they crank up the volume. Like a high-pitched sound shattering glass, the laser vibrates the virus until it breaks.
we all know that games generally speaking are the most intensive software ever run on a PC Not even close. Games, after all, run in realtime. So? That's because they are tuned that way. I haven't played this sort of game in a while, but in the day, I remember you could tune the game for your system, and it would take 100% of your CPU, GPU, ALU, FPU, and any other U you wanted to throw at it. How long it runs is entirely irrelevant.
Yeah, but when did Amazon first do it? Legally? No earlier than August 23, 2003. They filed the patent on August 23, 2004, and in the US you have one year to file after inventing something.
If one in 300 people in the US and England bought the album you would have at least that many sales. Or if half of the people in New York City under the age of 18 bought the album you would have that many. Right. And if just 1% of the cells in your body bought the album, well that would be 500 billion sales right there, so 1.2 million is no big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that?
Do you mean, you don't understand why you get spam and nobody else does?
The_Mystic_For_Real wrote: This is an interesting aspect of free license law that hasn't really been delved into yet. You replied by pointing out that this has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot. However, this wasn't what TMFR was referring to, and I thought your snide tone was unfair. You undermined TMFR's point by moving the goalposts on him. That's straw-man argument #1.
This led to me to respond rather hastily and rudely that TMFR was clearly referring to the legal profession rather than Slashdot. I regret the tone of that reply, and I apologize for it. But I didn't say I agreed with TMFR; merely that your reply, however humourous, was a nonsequitur.
In reply, you called me "dumb" for believing that the the legal system has never delved into "the copyright violation of semi-free content". My calling you "dumb" was bad enough, and again I apologize for that; but I did it to point out that you had missed TMFR's point; you were using it as an unsupported ad hominem argument to undermine an opinion -- and it was an opinion that I didn't even express! That's straw-man argument #2.
When I pointed out that you were arguing against a statement I never made, you then charged me with making nothing but vacuous posts. So by my count, your entire contribution to this thread has been two straw-men, an ad-hominem argument and one vacant stare.
Well, I hope I've explained myself to your satisfaction, because I'm done with this thread. I like a good debate (or even exchange of rhetoric) as much as the next guy, but arguing with you is like playing chess against someone who doesn't know how the pieces move.
He's obviously referring to the legal system.
How do they claim damages?
I can't stop laughing.
In other words, even if the expected payout is positive, buying one lottery ticket is still a bad idea because you are going to lose. If you buy the ticket, you will be out $1; you can be as certain of that as you are of anything else you will ever encounter in your life.
Buying all the lottery tickets, on the other hand...
Yep, that's pretty hard to explain, unless they have some reason to think a lot of viruses will resonate at the same frequencies.
From listening to Dr. Tsen, it really does seem to work for free virions floating in solution - but once they unpackage themselves and infect a cell, it does nothing.
From the article: Tsen says the technology could provide immediate benefits for clearing viruses in blood stored in blood banks. So they're not going after viruses that have already infected cells.Yep, exactly what I was thinking.
I have mod points but I'm not wasting them on this. You need a lot more practice trolling.
You're right, my bad. I noticed the moment I clicked "send".
Man, you need to get your head out of our ass once in a while and read about how people live in Africa.
No, Britannica explicitly limits themselves to a certain number of volumes.
I've got one: "administrate". I can't figure out what's wrong with "administer".
According to half a dozen dictionaries, "wedded" is already an acceptable past tense for "wed", and is already in use.
...unless Canadian pennies weigh 9 pounds each.