I still don't get it. It's not like jig manufacturers are going out of business in droves. They have obviously been making money on the same business model for a very long time, or there wouldn't be any jig manufacturers. The essential nature of the jig hasn't changed, it is used for exactly the same purposes now as it was before. This is, quite simply, a way to make more money from the same process that has made them money since its inception.
As far as patentability, it costs a lot of money to patent anything. It would have to be a hugely complicated, non-obvious, and innovative jig design to warrant an enforceable patent, and even then they would have to sell a much larger number than normal just to break even. While I'm sure there are some companies who would go through this hassle, it's not going to be worth it for most.
Consider as well that licenses which are appended after the exchange of money are NOT ENFORCEABLE. Post-sale changes cannot be added by either party without the explicit consent of both parties. So if you purchase the jig without knowing about the license, it's not valid.
I am half-tempted to suggest that one purchase a jig, learn how to make one's own in that pattern, then send it back unused. This company should know better, and only a vocally dissatisfied customer base is going to teach it its lesson.
I'll say you're in deep! C'mon, is that the beast you can do? Why'd you clam up so quickly? I know I must seem a little crabby saying this, but you've left the door wide open for all the sharks here to whale on you, you clown! IMO you otter rethink your post, or else you'll have a great white bump on your head and you'll need an angel to nurse you back to health, tiger! And b/c this is/., as soon as they smell blood in the water, they'll move in for the krill and you'll be sorry, chum. Don't think your verbal skills will let you skate by; they'll seas you and you won't be able to arcticulate anything in your own defense! I think you'll agree you should've jumped ship before, as this is only the tip of the iceberg. But there may be a little ray of sunshine yet... this they may need their hip waders to get through this post, so stop blubbering and fly, sea? Tuna tail and... um... run!
My father used Flight Sim for years to help him with his ILS (instrument landing system) approaches and instrument navigation. At times he even used the instrument panel to obscure the visual field entirely to simulate instrument-only conditions. As the post suggests, FS is limited in visual usefulness, but its physics and true-to-life recreation are more than sufficient for practicing for actual situations.
Um, I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but Opera has a feature to "Open requested pop-ups only", and I'm pretty sure the latest Mozilla has something similar...
...so I can say with confidence: Pop-unders? What are those?
According to this text Linux was voted into the White House. We suspect Apache will be selected as running mate, though rumors say Samba is also a consideration.
This is just speculation from exit polling, folks! Remember Dewey vs. Truman!
Don't waste your vote on Linux - remember, independents never win!
My thoughts exactly. The fact is, MS usually waits until it is ready to release a patch before it announces the vulnerability, and whines loudly when someone decides to notify the user community before the hotfix is available.
The problem is, the bug may be discovered independently by some knowledgable crackers and taken advantage of for months while stolid MS works at its own pace to 'fix' the problem. (Which, incidentally, often a) doesn't fix the whole problem, or b) introduces other problems.)
Worse yet, when the user community doesn't have knowledge of a problem and a cracker does, the user, who may have been able to obviate the problem through another means (blocking RPC at the firewall, or whatever), is now left defenseless until MS gets around to telling them about the problem.
So if MS can keep everybody's mouth shut about the problem until it's ready to release the patch, of course they're going to have an incredible record for getting patches out quickly.
What exactly makes this /. newsworthy?
on
Praying Doesn't Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hmmm, seems that perhaps we need a moderation system for article posters? (Score -1; Troll)
This is going to be a hugely active thread here, and it's not going to do anyone any good, because those who always believed that prayer was bunk are going to say "I told you so" and the people who always believed in prayer are going to say "It doesn't prove anything". And we're going to be right back where we started.
This one would have been better left to the religious websites, not the geek ones.
/aside/ I disagree with the popular notion that violence is almost always a bad thing. Violence has a place just like everything else, though we seem to be loathe to admit it in "civilized" society. Both sex and violence have a place, in limited quantity and quality; pretending otherwise for either one is counterproductive.//aside/
Those movies warranted an 'R' rating because of their violent content, and there are a great many movies which are rated 'R' simply for their sexual content as well. My point was that we limit our children's exposure to violent content - hence the 'R' rating - and we should limit their exposure to sexual content as well, as it can be equally damaging, not more, not less.
People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.
For adults, I agree with you a thousand percent. But children are not adults! They are simply not capable of processing things the same way we are. It is irresponsible and dangerous to expose children to things they are not prepared to handle; it can severely damage their psyche.
Roberto Benini's "Life is Beautiful" is an excellent movie to introduce pre-teens to the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. OTOH, Schindler's List should be reserved for the more mature; it is far too raw for young minds. But I wouldn't trust either one to teach my 5-year-old cousin about anti-semitism. This is simply common sense.
Censorship, the limited filtering of material based on the maturity, capacity, and understanding of a given audience, is not only beneficial, it is *necessary* for the healthy growth and development of our youth. I'm not suggesting we hide the issues or try to escape the realities - far from it. We need to make sure our children learn about these things, but we need to do it in a way that is appropriate for their level of development. This is censorship in its purest and most useful form, and is what we should strive for.
Just because there's no nudity doesn't make it safe. If parents aren't watching what their kids are doing, kids will get corrupted from some form of media no matter how many laws you put in place to stop said corruption.
Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case. (For instance, we know that the average age at which young people lost their virginity was a lot higher, even in the 60's.) So obviously, there is a benefit to having laws and obligations which are properly and sanely written and enforced.
We live in a society where pervasive and inscapable media actively undermines the values that a lot of parents are trying to instill in their children, and our incompetent legislators are bumbling about with asinine pieces of legislation like COPPA. So we need whatever small protections we can get.
Do you really think that *not* restricting things like pop-ups that say "anal sluts fucking dogs live" (complete with pictures of barely covered genitilia) is a good idea because the daytime soap stars can't seem to keep their pants on? I hardly think they're in the same category, as unhealthy a role model as a soap star may be.
No, it's not that important to protect children from pr0n.
Yes, it is. But it is just as important to make sure that it is done properly, instead of letting lazy legislators make ridiculously overbroad laws.
Remember that porn is not all fluffy bunnies from Playboy; there is some very serious hardcore stuff out there that I don't want to run into, much less exposing an extremely impressionable 11-year-old to.
Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to. (Ever walked in on your parents? Try to get *that* image out of your mind!)
Children should be exposed to sexuality in healthy, positive ways and not by some random extreme bondage or scat video on the 'net. I'm not saying COPA is a fair, or even a good law; it isn't. But saying that children don't need to be protected is just as overbroad and ignorant.
I'm posting this from an internet cafe. I'm scared now.
Don't worry, everything will be fine. You're gonna be all right, trust me on this, ok? Deep breaths, that's right. Good. Ok, now tell us where you are, and we'll come and help you.... it's ok, you can trust us.
Great, that's great. We'll be right there.
*click*
/singing softly to self/ "Ba da dum, dum, dum, another one bites the dust..."
What on earth makes you think that a person's religious beliefs have anything at all to do with whether or not they are eligible for the Nobel Prize?
"Oh, I'm sorry, you believe in Thor, so we can't possible give you this honor, but we would have given it to you if you didn't... I don't suppose you could stop believing in him for a couple of weeks, could you?"
Sorry, my original post hasn't been modded (Score:5; Funny) yet so you missed the joke. Understandable. (Modders, please fix this.)
The adage is supposed to be "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." But since the original poster didn't put the second part in, I thought I'd fill it in with a popular American perversion of the quote.
This is supposed to be funny, because "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me" is unexpected (by most people who know the original quote) and slightly naughty. And of course, the new quote completely breaks the congruity of the original threader's point AND the relevance to the article.
So the essence of the overall joke was that I was pretending to be ignorant of the original adage and thinking that the threader's comment was supposed to finish the way I wrote it. And then I asked how that "new" quote was relevant to the article because the new ending broke the congruity.
Does it make sense now?
*sigh* and jokes are never as funny after you have to explain them...
RTFPost. The signature line was not blank, it was clearly marked "N/A". This means that there was no agreement, tacit or not.
But she could run the bill up on the credit card, and not be liable for it - the CC company has offered her money for which there is no agreement for recompense. If they took her to court, she could simply say that that amount was the market price of her personal information, and the company agreed to pay her that amount when they sold her information (they made money on it) and sent her a "gift card" in return.
So what? If it works, it works. Saying that something is a "marketing ploy", as if that somehow magically made it less effective because it has been done before, is bollocks. If that truly were the case, there would be no magazine ads - they've been done before. No tv ads, ditto. No radio ads. No billboards, no internet pop-ups, no telemarketers, no spam, no...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree The Family Circus is very funny!
I still don't get it. It's not like jig manufacturers are going out of business in droves. They have obviously been making money on the same business model for a very long time, or there wouldn't be any jig manufacturers. The essential nature of the jig hasn't changed, it is used for exactly the same purposes now as it was before. This is, quite simply, a way to make more money from the same process that has made them money since its inception.
As far as patentability, it costs a lot of money to patent anything. It would have to be a hugely complicated, non-obvious, and innovative jig design to warrant an enforceable patent, and even then they would have to sell a much larger number than normal just to break even. While I'm sure there are some companies who would go through this hassle, it's not going to be worth it for most.
Consider as well that licenses which are appended after the exchange of money are NOT ENFORCEABLE. Post-sale changes cannot be added by either party without the explicit consent of both parties. So if you purchase the jig without knowing about the license, it's not valid.
I am half-tempted to suggest that one purchase a jig, learn how to make one's own in that pattern, then send it back unused. This company should know better, and only a vocally dissatisfied customer base is going to teach it its lesson.
I'll say you're in deep! C'mon, is that the beast you can do? Why'd you clam up so quickly? I know I must seem a little crabby saying this, but you've left the door wide open for all the sharks here to whale on you, you clown! IMO you otter rethink your post, or else you'll have a great white bump on your head and you'll need an angel to nurse you back to health, tiger! And b/c this is /., as soon as they smell blood in the water, they'll move in for the krill and you'll be sorry, chum. Don't think your verbal skills will let you skate by; they'll seas you and you won't be able to arcticulate anything in your own defense! I think you'll agree you should've jumped ship before, as this is only the tip of the iceberg. But there may be a little ray of sunshine yet... this they may need their hip waders to get through this post, so stop blubbering and fly, sea? Tuna tail and... um... run!
Please give my condolenses to Miss Piggy. But we *all* knew that one wouldn't work out, didn't we? What were they going to have?
Tadlets?
Pigpoles?
Actually, that second one sounds sort of Hawaiian... Luau anyone?
OTOH, I seem to keep buying games in the bargain bin that I simply never get around to playing!
I actually have a closet shelf full of unopened PC games still in their cellophane wrappers.
I tried to do the math - let's see, $10 for the game divided by the hours spent playing... Dammit, it just keeps saying "undefined"!
My father used Flight Sim for years to help him with his ILS (instrument landing system) approaches and instrument navigation. At times he even used the instrument panel to obscure the visual field entirely to simulate instrument-only conditions. As the post suggests, FS is limited in visual usefulness, but its physics and true-to-life recreation are more than sufficient for practicing for actual situations.
Um, I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but Opera has a feature to "Open requested pop-ups only", and I'm pretty sure the latest Mozilla has something similar...
...so I can say with confidence: Pop-unders? What are those?
Yeah, I have a couple of X's who are pretty lame too. 'Course, I didn't find that out until I was dating them!
According to this text Linux was voted into the White House. We suspect Apache will be selected as running mate, though rumors say Samba is also a consideration.
This is just speculation from exit polling, folks! Remember Dewey vs. Truman!
Don't waste your vote on Linux - remember, independents never win!
My thoughts exactly. The fact is, MS usually waits until it is ready to release a patch before it announces the vulnerability, and whines loudly when someone decides to notify the user community before the hotfix is available.
The problem is, the bug may be discovered independently by some knowledgable crackers and taken advantage of for months while stolid MS works at its own pace to 'fix' the problem. (Which, incidentally, often a) doesn't fix the whole problem, or b) introduces other problems.)
Worse yet, when the user community doesn't have knowledge of a problem and a cracker does, the user, who may have been able to obviate the problem through another means (blocking RPC at the firewall, or whatever), is now left defenseless until MS gets around to telling them about the problem.
So if MS can keep everybody's mouth shut about the problem until it's ready to release the patch, of course they're going to have an incredible record for getting patches out quickly.
Hmmm, seems that perhaps we need a moderation system for article posters? (Score -1; Troll)
This is going to be a hugely active thread here, and it's not going to do anyone any good, because those who always believed that prayer was bunk are going to say "I told you so" and the people who always believed in prayer are going to say "It doesn't prove anything". And we're going to be right back where we started.
This one would have been better left to the religious websites, not the geek ones.
/aside/ I disagree with the popular notion that violence is almost always a bad thing. Violence has a place just like everything else, though we seem to be loathe to admit it in "civilized" society. Both sex and violence have a place, in limited quantity and quality; pretending otherwise for either one is counterproductive. //aside/
Those movies warranted an 'R' rating because of their violent content, and there are a great many movies which are rated 'R' simply for their sexual content as well. My point was that we limit our children's exposure to violent content - hence the 'R' rating - and we should limit their exposure to sexual content as well, as it can be equally damaging, not more, not less.
People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.
For adults, I agree with you a thousand percent. But children are not adults! They are simply not capable of processing things the same way we are. It is irresponsible and dangerous to expose children to things they are not prepared to handle; it can severely damage their psyche.
Roberto Benini's "Life is Beautiful" is an excellent movie to introduce pre-teens to the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. OTOH, Schindler's List should be reserved for the more mature; it is far too raw for young minds. But I wouldn't trust either one to teach my 5-year-old cousin about anti-semitism. This is simply common sense.
Censorship, the limited filtering of material based on the maturity, capacity, and understanding of a given audience, is not only beneficial, it is *necessary* for the healthy growth and development of our youth. I'm not suggesting we hide the issues or try to escape the realities - far from it. We need to make sure our children learn about these things, but we need to do it in a way that is appropriate for their level of development. This is censorship in its purest and most useful form, and is what we should strive for.
Just because there's no nudity doesn't make it safe. If parents aren't watching what their kids are doing, kids will get corrupted from some form of media no matter how many laws you put in place to stop said corruption.
Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case. (For instance, we know that the average age at which young people lost their virginity was a lot higher, even in the 60's.) So obviously, there is a benefit to having laws and obligations which are properly and sanely written and enforced.
We live in a society where pervasive and inscapable media actively undermines the values that a lot of parents are trying to instill in their children, and our incompetent legislators are bumbling about with asinine pieces of legislation like COPPA. So we need whatever small protections we can get.
Do you really think that *not* restricting things like pop-ups that say "anal sluts fucking dogs live" (complete with pictures of barely covered genitilia) is a good idea because the daytime soap stars can't seem to keep their pants on? I hardly think they're in the same category, as unhealthy a role model as a soap star may be.
No, it's not that important to protect children from pr0n.
Yes, it is. But it is just as important to make sure that it is done properly, instead of letting lazy legislators make ridiculously overbroad laws.
Remember that porn is not all fluffy bunnies from Playboy; there is some very serious hardcore stuff out there that I don't want to run into, much less exposing an extremely impressionable 11-year-old to.
Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to. (Ever walked in on your parents? Try to get *that* image out of your mind!)
Children should be exposed to sexuality in healthy, positive ways and not by some random extreme bondage or scat video on the 'net. I'm not saying COPA is a fair, or even a good law; it isn't. But saying that children don't need to be protected is just as overbroad and ignorant.
They gave one to a guy who's best friend was a figment of his imagination, didn't they?
If Watson & Crick had believed the world sat on the back of a giant turtle, they still discovered DNA, and that's still a Nobel-worthy achievement.
For pete's sake, Alfred Nobel himself believed that if he created a destructive enough weapon, it would end mankind's penchant for war!
Ergo, the Nobel Prize signifies ACHIEVEMENT, not BELIEF.
I'm posting this from an internet cafe. I'm scared now.
/singing softly to self/ "Ba da dum, dum, dum, another one bites the dust..."
Don't worry, everything will be fine. You're gonna be all right, trust me on this, ok? Deep breaths, that's right. Good. Ok, now tell us where you are, and we'll come and help you.... it's ok, you can trust us.
Great, that's great. We'll be right there.
*click*
What on earth makes you think that a person's religious beliefs have anything at all to do with whether or not they are eligible for the Nobel Prize?
"Oh, I'm sorry, you believe in Thor, so we can't possible give you this honor, but we would have given it to you if you didn't... I don't suppose you could stop believing in him for a couple of weeks, could you?"
--
Man, I can't believe I responded to a Troll.
I'm sorry, dude. I know how you feel. But you knew it had to end. It was just a matter of time before it happened.
Dreamcast users are a dying breed!
Stop snivelling, you pansy!
--
Just kidding.
Sorry, my original post hasn't been modded (Score:5; Funny) yet so you missed the joke. Understandable. (Modders, please fix this.)
The adage is supposed to be "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." But since the original poster didn't put the second part in, I thought I'd fill it in with a popular American perversion of the quote.
This is supposed to be funny, because "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me" is unexpected (by most people who know the original quote) and slightly naughty. And of course, the new quote completely breaks the congruity of the original threader's point AND the relevance to the article.
So the essence of the overall joke was that I was pretending to be ignorant of the original adage and thinking that the threader's comment was supposed to finish the way I wrote it. And then I asked how that "new" quote was relevant to the article because the new ending broke the congruity.
Does it make sense now?
*sigh* and jokes are never as funny after you have to explain them...
"...but whips and chains excite me."
What does this have to do with rejection again?
I'd like that escrowed, please.
RTFPost. The signature line was not blank, it was clearly marked "N/A". This means that there was no agreement, tacit or not.
But she could run the bill up on the credit card, and not be liable for it - the CC company has offered her money for which there is no agreement for recompense. If they took her to court, she could simply say that that amount was the market price of her personal information, and the company agreed to pay her that amount when they sold her information (they made money on it) and sent her a "gift card" in return.