It depends on whether there was a marriage contract or not, and also when the assets (for example, the domain names) were acquired, as well as their purpose.
Domains that were acquired as a hobby and have no pecuniary value go with the person who is listed on the whois, unless that person was listed just for conveniences' sake - then they should go to the real owner.
Domains that have a financial value that were acquired before the marriage generally stay with the person who brought them into the marriage, same as other assets generally (YMMV, of course, depending on local laws, etc).
Domains that are worth $$$ that were acquired during the marriage in the course of business stay with the business. So, it's all about how each party is compensated for their contribution to the business. Does one party buy the other out, or just get a share of the business itself if it's a multi-million-buck operation (not likely)?
WARNING: Many places have special laws concerning copyrights staying with the original author even if the material was created during a marriage (it does not become part of the "partnership" assets)! The question rarely came up in previous decades, so most divorce lawyers are totally clueless about this.
Domains - the name listed in whois is the owner of record.
Hosting - the name listed on the account. The other party should get their own hosting account (any pre-paid hosting should be pro-rated at 50% to the other party).
email -for each PAID email account, the name listed on the account is the owner. For freemail accounts, you don't "own" them anyway, so each of you just get a new account already - it's not like it costs anything - then set the auto-responder in the freemail account to give both your new email addresses, then give the account login info to someone in trust who will change the secondary contact info and login to something random. Or give it to the kids (if any).
data - you each own your own data, as per copyright. Whoever created the original data, they own the rights to the backups as well. Be nice - share anything that the other person is in, such as pictures, since they also have a right to those. Exceptions: "intimate" pictures - give them to the person who is in the picture and destroy any other copies - don't you even think of "sharing" those without permission, and you'll end up with a police record, same as Libby [last name redacted]'s ex boyfriend did when he "shared them" with her parents, grandparents, etc.
social media - why is this a problem? Social media accounts are not "property" and you do not "own" them, as per your contract with whatever provider you're using. If this is about a "family" account, each of you create an account under your own name, post a note on the family account pointing to the new accounts, then as part of the agreement the family account is either nuked, or given to a 3rd party in trust who changes the contact information and password, then deactivates it.
It's a divorce - the two biggest words are move on. None of the stuff listed above is worth fighting over 99.999% of the time.
... stop telling me how I should run my computer by trying to lock me in to their "vision."
The "vision thing" didn't work out in the dot-com bust, and it's not working out for Unity, or Chromebooks, or anything else. When it gets to the point that Apple and Microsoft are starting to look more open, "Open Source" has a problem.
These are public schools, not private. Do you really believe that a private Catholic Teacher's Union would have a button for LGBTTIQ inclusivity (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer) on their portal page? Even in Kanuckistan?
Actually, since they replace new drives that are DOA with refurbs (in other words, used drives), that's pretty much fraud. If I wanted used, I'd have bought used. Seagate pulled this stunt on me on 4 new drives... all 4 failed, as did 13 of the next 15 refurbs.
Someone along the chain swapped the RMA'd drive for one they had hanging around. They get a refurbed drive with (hopefully) more lifetime left before failure (and the ability to return it if it does die), you get a ticking time bomb and no warranty.
Doing it on the server or in the client is a dumb idea, because you get a lot more overhead on each page load, you have to transmit more bytes,...
There is no network / byte transmission overhead when you do it on the server:-)
Doing it locally during development, then loading the finished product on the server results in the same amount of data being transmitted from the server as if it were done every time on the server - but the server then doesn't have the overhead of doing the macro substitutions, includes, etc. It's the same problem as with those stupid "smarty templates" - 39 includes on every page load, just for the templating system. That's insane.
you don't get to look at the source until you run it through the server
Yes, but the C preprocessor has the same issue as with using a server-side language...
No it doesn't. The pre-processor just recursively expands macros and does includes, then outputs an ordinary text file. Instead of uploading 20 files, upload just one. BTW - It doesn't call the c compiler at any stage - think of it as a general-purpose text macro processor.
I think maybe what you are thinking is doing a "compilation stage" on Javascript, ie writing in nice separated files and then using a preprocessor to create a finalized version, maybe top it off with some minification. I can dig that.
That's IS the c pe-processor - except that the c preprocessor can also do macro expansion. Macro expansion, esp. conditional macro expansion, is handy. For example, stick a #define DEBUG in the code and then some #ifdef DEBUG// #endif, and you don't have to have any flag variables ending up in your production code.
BTW - the "minification" that's done by programs like yuicompressor sucks. Replacing only local variables is NOT the way to go. Here are the stats from my current home-made "minifier" - encoding global variable and function names gives an additional 40% off.
and you don't get nearly as much code reuse.
Hrm, I don't know about that. Choice of preprocessor isn't really going to limit your reusability.
Well, NOT having a pre-processor, and not being able to do condtional includes at development time, will tend to limit code re-use compared to not having a pre-processor. And the best part is that with a pre-processor and a bit of fancy perl-fu, you can use the same #includes for both javascript and php.
Don't knock the c preprocessor - every programming language could use the same abilities. Especially the crudfest known as java.
I hear that. It's definitely true that Javascript needs some kind of preprocessor since network transfer is so expensive given the architecture.
It's developer time that's expensive - and the way that people build up these huge pyramids of includes on the server is a real performance hit - especially since you can't do a global substitution on the functions and variables if each file is a separate piece of work.
You also end up including a lot of extra junk on every page load because "that's how it's built". What a waste.
Of course, there are people who are going to complain that encoding the function and global variable names is "wrong" because the code is a lot harder for them to steal^Wlook at - but hey, if it was hard to write, it should be hard to steal, right?:-)
Doing it on the server or in the client is a dumb idea, because you get a lot more overhead on each page load, you have to transmit more bytes, you don't get to look at the source until you run it through the server, and you don't get nearly as much code reuse.
Don't knock the c preprocessor - every programming language could use the same abilities. Especially the crudfest known as java.
Lack of a proper re-processor and lack of compile-time type checking are the two big problems.
The preprocessor can be fixed by using the c preprocessor to handle things like macro expansions, #defines, and <include>s. (gcc -E). The lack of compile-time type checking... well, that just is what it is - an inferior language.
First, if you felt it was not worth continuing, why did you?
Second, the thought experiment is invalid because it requires causality at the lowest levels - a causes b - and causality (at least as we usually experience it) is not the way it works, which is why we have all these apparent paradoxes.
If you could go back in time, you could kill your grandparents before your parents were born - the universe wouldn't see this as a paradox, because to the universe, time doesn't "flow" any more than space "flows" when you travel from point a to point b. I hate the expression "it is what it is", but in this universe (and no, there are no millions of universes branching off every instant - and that's VERY easy to prove) it really is what it is.
Well, we still carry around our appendix, our tonsils, and all sorts of other bothersome stuff, like the groupthink that keeps Popes and Princes and Politicians in Power when they're working against our best interests...
Whether it's choice or not is irrelevant to whether it should be considered a criminal act. If the same consensual sex act between two adults who are opposite sexes is legal, on what basis should it be considered illegal if they are the same sex?
Because some people find it "icky?"
And for most people, it's far from a choice - it's pretty much hard-wired. That on a planet with 7 billion there are exceptions shouldn't be surprising - it's part of life, and congratulations on finding something that works for you. So few people do.
How about you try this on for size - the thought experiment tries to prove that which it assumes, and therefore is flawed.
I could claim that a book contains every possible story, and it only collapses into the actual story I read when I open it and observe it - that doesn't make it even remotely likely.
Similarly, the failure of QM to properly explain radioactive decay renders this particular thought experiment as a special brand of rubbish.
Superpositions of states don't exist, and the cat thought experiment is thin gruel indeed. Might as well as how many angels dance on the head of a pin - it bears the same relationship to reality. QM is ultimately NOT the description of the universe we experience, because it made the mistake of applying quanta only to energy, and not time and space. Bad move.
As someone who is bisexual, I think claiming "it is not a choice" is a little demeaning. It gives weight to people calling it a psychological problem, and I simply don't think it is true. It also implies some kind of shame: you wouldn't choose this, if you had the option. I don't know about other people, but I don't think I would change if given the option.
Are you going to live your life based on what some ignorant stooge believes? If they want to think it's a head-case, that's their problem.
It used to be that they could express such opinions and the general consensus would back them up. Not any more - and they need to get over themselves and their attempts to meddle in other peoples lives to make up for what's lacking in their own.
Quicky question - if it's not a conscious choice, can we really speak of "choice"?
Not meaning to be word-picky, but for most people, the whole notion of "choice" is something that is deliberate, not unconscious. It's why we don't, for example, hold people guilty of criminal acts without the criminal mind - the intent - to go with the act.
Then again, the author (Roy Baumeister) may just be visualizing his fantasies of girl-on-girl sex.
Speaking from experience, no, being stuck with a body that's the wrong gender is not a choice. The problem is that posts like yours are part of the reason that there's still a huge stigma attached to it, and why people suffer in silence for years, even decades, before finally getting treatment... and why most of the people who so identify are posting anonymously - because they really don't want the grief that comes with it.
Me, on the other hand... I was "outed" on slashdot back in 2006 after writing a series to help others understand what another user was going through (it wasn't too hard to figure that I knew too much to be just an informed observer), so I've come to terms with discussing it in public.
This has nothing to do with sex - transsexuals can be straight, gay , bi, lesbian, asexual, whatever - the same as anyone else (just the labels are harder to keep straight - pun intended:-), so when you write:
It's high time that people stopped characterizing sexuality as something we "are". We are NOT our sexuality any more than we "are" our circumstances -- we are what we do with our sexuality.
... it kind of misses the point, don't you think?
I'm not "slagging" you - just trying to fix an all-too-common misconception and encourage a bit of constructive dialogue. The choice, of course, is yours.
The point is that unlike QM, we CAN give the exact position - if we were able to see at that fine a scale and that exact time. So it helps explain things that QM cannot explain, like spontaneous decay of atoms.
Being gay, lesbian, trans, or straight is not a choice, but even if it were, that would still be irrelevant. If it *were* a choice, then it should still be respected. Just like gays and lesbians respect the *choice* of straight people to be straight.
But try explaining that to someone with their head stuck in the dark ages (or up their equally dark rectum), and when you ask them if they "chose" to be straight, they get all upset. They say it wasn't a choice - it was natural. So it's natural for them, but not for someone who is part of the GLBTt community - they're "teh EBIL ONEZ!" Unnatural. Despite more than 400 different species with same-sex behaviour, despite gender changes occurring spontaneously in species, despite cross-gender behaviour being normal, despite the male dog humping their male leg... no... same-sex behaviour is a "choice" that cannot be respected.
The next step
Fortunately, times are changing, and this being the UK that we're talking about, there is a further appeal from this decision. Ultimately, the sovereign can issue a royal pardon, which would make a real statement. If this queen won't do it, you can be sure the next king will.
In the meantime, why not consider this - if time were flowing backwards locally, how would you be able to tell? At any one point, you'd still have only the memories and experiences up to that point, so to you as an observer, time would still seem to flow forward (and trying to get used to that can give you a big headache:-) You'd still be able to remember what happened "yesterday", but have no recollection of "tomorrow".
Which brings us to the next point - since time truly is just another dimension, to say that time "flows" is wrong. Just like saying that if you were to come and pay me a visit, saying that space "flows" as you move would be wrong.
It's also why there's no paradox if you go back in time and kill your grandparents before you're born. Causality isn't broken because causality is not accurate when there's no "before" and "after", when tomorrow exists simultaneously with yesterday. There's no God Accountant to enforce cause and effect - which is broken at the quantum level anyway, so that should have been a big smack on the head that we're "doing it wrong" at least in some respects.
But no... we still insist, because our perceptions tell us that it must be the case, that cause comes before effect, without also realizing that if this were the case, information would have to travel instantaneously at the lowest levels - something that can't be done in the conventional model.
If instead, we treat time the same as any other dimension, then there's no conflict between a and b happening simultaneously and being connected, but to speak of cause and effect is to add an extra layer of complexity that just isn't warranted.
The only apparent exception is life. A rock doesn't "experience" anything, so to speak of the "arrow of time" for a rock is meaningless. The constituent components are pretty much all that count, and whether they're currently in the form of a rock or 15 billion years ago they were fusing atoms in the center of a supernova is certain irrelevant to the rock - it just exists.
Life, on the other hand, even if we accept that there is no arrow of time per se, does experience the subjective arrow of time. It "knows" the past, but not the "future" (whereas the rock "knows" nada, nothing, zilch, rien). Whether it's an amoeba fissioning or a mother raising a child, life is experienced as cause and effect, not "it is what it is."
Why? Possibly (and here's a bit of a stretch) because life is, at some point, more than the sum of its components. The energy requirements to experience ALL of life simultaneously are simply too high, so to balance things out, we only experience it in one direction - which one is irrelevant, since to our senses, it would always seem to be forward. After all, keep in mind that the term "experience" implies that it is subjective. It's what YOU remember - and if time is flowing backwards, you would still "remember" the past, but not the future. (But again, "flowing" is a misnomer - we're just experiencing a slice, the same as someone in flatland only sees a slice of 3-d space).
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on whether there was a marriage contract or not, and also when the assets (for example, the domain names) were acquired, as well as their purpose.
Domains that were acquired as a hobby and have no pecuniary value go with the person who is listed on the whois, unless that person was listed just for conveniences' sake - then they should go to the real owner.
Domains that have a financial value that were acquired before the marriage generally stay with the person who brought them into the marriage, same as other assets generally (YMMV, of course, depending on local laws, etc).
Domains that are worth $$$ that were acquired during the marriage in the course of business stay with the business. So, it's all about how each party is compensated for their contribution to the business. Does one party buy the other out, or just get a share of the business itself if it's a multi-million-buck operation (not likely)?
WARNING: Many places have special laws concerning copyrights staying with the original author even if the material was created during a marriage (it does not become part of the "partnership" assets)! The question rarely came up in previous decades, so most divorce lawyers are totally clueless about this.
Domains - the name listed in whois is the owner of record.
Hosting - the name listed on the account. The other party should get their own hosting account (any pre-paid hosting should be pro-rated at 50% to the other party).
email -for each PAID email account, the name listed on the account is the owner. For freemail accounts, you don't "own" them anyway, so each of you just get a new account already - it's not like it costs anything - then set the auto-responder in the freemail account to give both your new email addresses, then give the account login info to someone in trust who will change the secondary contact info and login to something random. Or give it to the kids (if any).
data - you each own your own data, as per copyright. Whoever created the original data, they own the rights to the backups as well. Be nice - share anything that the other person is in, such as pictures, since they also have a right to those. Exceptions: "intimate" pictures - give them to the person who is in the picture and destroy any other copies - don't you even think of "sharing" those without permission, and you'll end up with a police record, same as Libby [last name redacted]'s ex boyfriend did when he "shared them" with her parents, grandparents, etc.
social media - why is this a problem? Social media accounts are not "property" and you do not "own" them, as per your contract with whatever provider you're using. If this is about a "family" account, each of you create an account under your own name, post a note on the family account pointing to the new accounts, then as part of the agreement the family account is either nuked, or given to a 3rd party in trust who changes the contact information and password, then deactivates it.
It's a divorce - the two biggest words are move on. None of the stuff listed above is worth fighting over 99.999% of the time.
Maybe you need something bigger than 640x480? :-)
... stop telling me how I should run my computer by trying to lock me in to their "vision."
The "vision thing" didn't work out in the dot-com bust, and it's not working out for Unity, or Chromebooks, or anything else. When it gets to the point that Apple and Microsoft are starting to look more open, "Open Source" has a problem.
These are public schools, not private. Do you really believe that a private Catholic Teacher's Union would have a button for LGBTTIQ inclusivity (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer) on their portal page? Even in Kanuckistan?
Oops - I guess I should have made it clear that I was referring to that "other tax" - the wall street bailouts. My bad!
Trickle-down doesn't work, you'd think the government would realize trickle-up doesn't either.
Steal a million, go to jail. Steal hundreds of billions ...
That's why they called the Maxtorgate ...
Actually, since they replace new drives that are DOA with refurbs (in other words, used drives), that's pretty much fraud. If I wanted used, I'd have bought used. Seagate pulled this stunt on me on 4 new drives ... all 4 failed, as did 13 of the next 15 refurbs.
Someone along the chain swapped the RMA'd drive for one they had hanging around. They get a refurbed drive with (hopefully) more lifetime left before failure (and the ability to return it if it does die), you get a ticking time bomb and no warranty.
Doing it locally during development, then loading the finished product on the server results in the same amount of data being transmitted from the server as if it were done every time on the server - but the server then doesn't have the overhead of doing the macro substitutions, includes, etc. It's the same problem as with those stupid "smarty templates" - 39 includes on every page load, just for the templating system. That's insane.
No it doesn't. The pre-processor just recursively expands macros and does includes, then outputs an ordinary text file. Instead of uploading 20 files, upload just one. BTW - It doesn't call the c compiler at any stage - think of it as a general-purpose text macro processor.
That's IS the c pe-processor - except that the c preprocessor can also do macro expansion. Macro expansion, esp. conditional macro expansion, is handy. For example, stick a #define DEBUG in the code and then some #ifdef DEBUG // #endif, and you don't have to have any flag variables ending up in your production code.
BTW - the "minification" that's done by programs like yuicompressor sucks. Replacing only local variables is NOT the way to go. Here are the stats from my current home-made "minifier" - encoding global variable and function names gives an additional 40% off.
Well, NOT having a pre-processor, and not being able to do condtional includes at development time, will tend to limit code re-use compared to not having a pre-processor. And the best part is that with a pre-processor and a bit of fancy perl-fu, you can use the same #includes for both javascript and php.
It's developer time that's expensive - and the way that people build up these huge pyramids of includes on the server is a real performance hit - especially since you can't do a global substitution on the functions and variables if each file is a separate piece of work.
You also end up including a lot of extra junk on every page load because "that's how it's built". What a waste.
Of course, there are people who are going to complain that encoding the function and global variable names is "wrong" because the code is a lot harder for them to steal^Wlook at - but hey, if it was hard to write, it should be hard to steal, right? :-)
Don't knock the c preprocessor - every programming language could use the same abilities. Especially the crudfest known as java.
The preprocessor can be fixed by using the c preprocessor to handle things like macro expansions, #defines, and <include>s. (gcc -E). The lack of compile-time type checking ... well, that just is what it is - an inferior language.
First, if you felt it was not worth continuing, why did you?
Second, the thought experiment is invalid because it requires causality at the lowest levels - a causes b - and causality (at least as we usually experience it) is not the way it works, which is why we have all these apparent paradoxes.
If you could go back in time, you could kill your grandparents before your parents were born - the universe wouldn't see this as a paradox, because to the universe, time doesn't "flow" any more than space "flows" when you travel from point a to point b. I hate the expression "it is what it is", but in this universe (and no, there are no millions of universes branching off every instant - and that's VERY easy to prove) it really is what it is.
Well, we still carry around our appendix, our tonsils, and all sorts of other bothersome stuff, like the groupthink that keeps Popes and Princes and Politicians in Power when they're working against our best interests ...
Because some people find it "icky?"
And for most people, it's far from a choice - it's pretty much hard-wired. That on a planet with 7 billion there are exceptions shouldn't be surprising - it's part of life, and congratulations on finding something that works for you. So few people do.
I could claim that a book contains every possible story, and it only collapses into the actual story I read when I open it and observe it - that doesn't make it even remotely likely.
Similarly, the failure of QM to properly explain radioactive decay renders this particular thought experiment as a special brand of rubbish.
Superpositions of states don't exist, and the cat thought experiment is thin gruel indeed. Might as well as how many angels dance on the head of a pin - it bears the same relationship to reality. QM is ultimately NOT the description of the universe we experience, because it made the mistake of applying quanta only to energy, and not time and space. Bad move.
Are you going to live your life based on what some ignorant stooge believes? If they want to think it's a head-case, that's their problem.
It used to be that they could express such opinions and the general consensus would back them up. Not any more - and they need to get over themselves and their attempts to meddle in other peoples lives to make up for what's lacking in their own.
Not meaning to be word-picky, but for most people, the whole notion of "choice" is something that is deliberate, not unconscious. It's why we don't, for example, hold people guilty of criminal acts without the criminal mind - the intent - to go with the act.
Then again, the author (Roy Baumeister) may just be visualizing his fantasies of girl-on-girl sex.
Speaking from experience, no, being stuck with a body that's the wrong gender is not a choice. The problem is that posts like yours are part of the reason that there's still a huge stigma attached to it, and why people suffer in silence for years, even decades, before finally getting treatment ... and why most of the people who so identify are posting anonymously - because they really don't want the grief that comes with it.
Me, on the other hand ... I was "outed" on slashdot back in 2006 after writing a series to help others understand what another user was going through (it wasn't too hard to figure that I knew too much to be just an informed observer), so I've come to terms with discussing it in public.
This has nothing to do with sex - transsexuals can be straight, gay , bi, lesbian, asexual, whatever - the same as anyone else (just the labels are harder to keep straight - pun intended :-), so when you write:
I'm not "slagging" you - just trying to fix an all-too-common misconception and encourage a bit of constructive dialogue. The choice, of course, is yours.
The point is that unlike QM, we CAN give the exact position - if we were able to see at that fine a scale and that exact time. So it helps explain things that QM cannot explain, like spontaneous decay of atoms.
Food for thought, don't you think?
Seriously, if they orgasm on your pant leg, it's sex.
Being gay, lesbian, trans, or straight is not a choice, but even if it were, that would still be irrelevant. If it *were* a choice, then it should still be respected. Just like gays and lesbians respect the *choice* of straight people to be straight.
But try explaining that to someone with their head stuck in the dark ages (or up their equally dark rectum), and when you ask them if they "chose" to be straight, they get all upset. They say it wasn't a choice - it was natural. So it's natural for them, but not for someone who is part of the GLBTt community - they're "teh EBIL ONEZ!" Unnatural. Despite more than 400 different species with same-sex behaviour, despite gender changes occurring spontaneously in species, despite cross-gender behaviour being normal, despite the male dog humping their male leg... no ... same-sex behaviour is a "choice" that cannot be respected.
The next step
Fortunately, times are changing, and this being the UK that we're talking about, there is a further appeal from this decision. Ultimately, the sovereign can issue a royal pardon, which would make a real statement. If this queen won't do it, you can be sure the next king will.
I'll put writing one on my to-do list ... :-p
In the meantime, why not consider this - if time were flowing backwards locally, how would you be able to tell? At any one point, you'd still have only the memories and experiences up to that point, so to you as an observer, time would still seem to flow forward (and trying to get used to that can give you a big headache :-) You'd still be able to remember what happened "yesterday", but have no recollection of "tomorrow".
Which brings us to the next point - since time truly is just another dimension, to say that time "flows" is wrong. Just like saying that if you were to come and pay me a visit, saying that space "flows" as you move would be wrong.
It's also why there's no paradox if you go back in time and kill your grandparents before you're born. Causality isn't broken because causality is not accurate when there's no "before" and "after", when tomorrow exists simultaneously with yesterday. There's no God Accountant to enforce cause and effect - which is broken at the quantum level anyway, so that should have been a big smack on the head that we're "doing it wrong" at least in some respects.
But no ... we still insist, because our perceptions tell us that it must be the case, that cause comes before effect, without also realizing that if this were the case, information would have to travel instantaneously at the lowest levels - something that can't be done in the conventional model.
If instead, we treat time the same as any other dimension, then there's no conflict between a and b happening simultaneously and being connected, but to speak of cause and effect is to add an extra layer of complexity that just isn't warranted.
The only apparent exception is life. A rock doesn't "experience" anything, so to speak of the "arrow of time" for a rock is meaningless. The constituent components are pretty much all that count, and whether they're currently in the form of a rock or 15 billion years ago they were fusing atoms in the center of a supernova is certain irrelevant to the rock - it just exists.
Life, on the other hand, even if we accept that there is no arrow of time per se, does experience the subjective arrow of time. It "knows" the past, but not the "future" (whereas the rock "knows" nada, nothing, zilch, rien). Whether it's an amoeba fissioning or a mother raising a child, life is experienced as cause and effect, not "it is what it is."
Why? Possibly (and here's a bit of a stretch) because life is, at some point, more than the sum of its components. The energy requirements to experience ALL of life simultaneously are simply too high, so to balance things out, we only experience it in one direction - which one is irrelevant, since to our senses, it would always seem to be forward. After all, keep in mind that the term "experience" implies that it is subjective. It's what YOU remember - and if time is flowing backwards, you would still "remember" the past, but not the future. (But again, "flowing" is a misnomer - we're just experiencing a slice, the same as someone in flatland only sees a slice of 3-d space).